The Syndicate

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Lol go away

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Lol go away

BUGLABUSH mode activated.

Hmm, interesting that Sig survived. A cursory glance at the roles finds a couple that can survive a lynch, but of course we have no idea of his alignment.

WB Timmer.

Voting for cats. I love both, but I grew up with cats and am more of a cat person.

Oh hai.

This is weird, my favourite football team is the cats, but the team I play for are called the dogs.

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

I am back from my adventure albeit briefly so I can now defend myself from your case with the respect it deserves.

That is to say I will be focusing on ignoring you repeating somethintg I already addressed and will reply to your next meagre point with equal apathy.

I am not reducing the entireity of your game play to the term batshit, just the last hour. Both days you spent the last hour screaming about someone you had not really mentioned before.

Perhaps this is more normal at RYM but to me it feels like you were trying to derail the thread. Is this what you always do? Do people pay attention to you when you do it?

I have explained my motivation on day 1 at length.

My motivation on day 2 was due to the fact that there appeared to be consensus on Sig or Nutella being lynched already and on observing juliets post and finding a gut scum read on her I thought it prudent to attempt to get her to come out of her cone of silence. As you will observe I also continued to engage others while doing it.

I don't find what I did in either way batshit. Maybe unusual though I will give you that.

Golden wrote:It's really hard to make a better case on nutella than what already exists.

I read the role card midway through that day, and saw there was a lie detector role.
I figured, hey, mafia probably have seen that and are scared of it, why don't I ask a whole lot of questions and see what I get back.
Nutella and bubbles avoided answering the question 'are you civ aligned'. I think mafia would have deliberately avoided it.

Nutella made a distancing post about bubbles
Bubbles made a distancing post before timmer's death about wanting to see more from timmer, despite there being HEAPS of very quiet people (including her)

I believe Nutella and bubbles are both bad, and are together on the team that killed timmer.

Golden, now that we know timmer was a civ does that shift bubbles off of your suspect list since you are talking about her post that seemed to be a distancing post from timmer? Or do you think her supposed avoidance of the 'are you civ aligned' question leave her on your suspect list? I'm not denying bubbles is bad I just want to know how you feel about your evidence now that timmer was revealed as good.

a2thezebra wrote:In that case, I have no regrets about the pursuing of sig's lynch and if nothing changes my mind, I will vote for him as soon as Day 3 begins.

SO your going to from the beginning of the phase waste it once again by tunneling on me? Why not listen to other players if I still seem scummy later in the game kill me then, but honestly wasting another day phase the second in a row by having almost all the discussion focused on me based around a supposed scumslip wording difference and lynch nobody else. This is what the scum wants we've wasted a whole phase since I doubt anyone will lynch who I suggest which is one of the few ways we could get a scum.
You'd rather waste another day pursuing me with the chance I can flip and when that happens and I flip civ were will that leave you? THe mafia on my wagon have already made excuses why when I flip civ they can't be blamed, if anything you'll pursue those few who defended me and lynch more civs.

I'll make my big post about yesterday later but I've already said Bulls at least is mafia.

does Zebra tunnel so as a civ?

Sorry I missed the vote. Probably would have voted for Mac.
Not particularly caught up thus far....still in the too much going on phase of the game, so nothing for me to really sink my teeth into yet. But I did find the back-and-forth with Epi and a2z quite humourous.....

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.

How did I do that?

I laid out my thoughts about this here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p190399
That was Epig's case on me.
I would disagree that I did any of those things.


Would I say my post you are referring to was a bit hasty and made some generalizations? Yes.
You also are cherry-picking evidence to make me look bad. That is far from my only response to Epig.

I am not married to the idea that you're bad. As to "cherry-picking", I'm just bringing up what catches my eye and why. You are obviously a good player, so it's not like every post you make is going to raise my brow.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.

How did I do that?

I laid out my thoughts about this here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p190399
That was Epig's case on me.
I would disagree that I did any of those things.


Would I say my post you are referring to was a bit hasty and made some generalizations? Yes.
You also are cherry-picking evidence to make me look bad. That is far from my only response to Epig.

I am not married to the idea that you're bad. As to "cherry-picking", I'm just bringing up what catches my eye and why. You are obviously a good player, so it's not like every post you make is going to raise my brow.

You're not married to the idea of me being bad, but you voted me until it became obvious I would not be lynched?

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.

How did I do that?

I laid out my thoughts about this here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p190399
That was Epig's case on me.
I would disagree that I did any of those things.


Would I say my post you are referring to was a bit hasty and made some generalizations? Yes.
You also are cherry-picking evidence to make me look bad. That is far from my only response to Epig.

I am not married to the idea that you're bad. As to "cherry-picking", I'm just bringing up what catches my eye and why. You are obviously a good player, so it's not like every post you make is going to raise my brow.

You're not married to the idea of me being bad, but you voted me until it became obvious I would not be lynched?

Yes. Yes I did.

Time to catch up

Dogs.

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:It's really hard to make a better case on nutella than what already exists.

I read the role card midway through that day, and saw there was a lie detector role.
I figured, hey, mafia probably have seen that and are scared of it, why don't I ask a whole lot of questions and see what I get back.
Nutella and bubbles avoided answering the question 'are you civ aligned'. I think mafia would have deliberately avoided it.

Nutella made a distancing post about bubbles
Bubbles made a distancing post before timmer's death about wanting to see more from timmer, despite there being HEAPS of very quiet people (including her)

I believe Nutella and bubbles are both bad, and are together on the team that killed timmer.

Golden, now that we know timmer was a civ does that shift bubbles off of your suspect list since you are talking about her post that seemed to be a distancing post from timmer? Or do you think her supposed avoidance of the 'are you civ aligned' question leave her on your suspect list? I'm not denying bubbles is bad I just want to know how you feel about your evidence now that timmer was revealed as good.

I don't think he is accusing her of being timmers teammate. I think the point was that he thinks she killed timmer, and distanced from it in the thread by saying she would like to hear more from him. I think Golden makes good points on this, and am curious what TinyBubbles reasoning is for wanting to hear more from timmer as opposed to all the other quiet players.

Yeah, obviously dogs.

Here's mine!

sig wrote:Did Splint say why she votedfor me or was it just a fly by?

linki: Nevermind Splint did you read my initial post and Bull's reasons for pursuing me? Do you find me saying the mafia is probably killing low posters to be suspicious?

The word probably was nowhere near that post. You said it was something they were doing. There was no implication of uncertainty.

sig wrote:I am
In regards to Epi's initial post not only was I not scum I was the only player who was correct and voted for the remaining scum.
Know I'll admit I can come across as scummy when I'm not but with zebras comment on scumtells. As scum I don't usually make these tells only as a civ do I do this. THis usually only happens within the first few phases when someone finds a reason to start a bandwagon and multiply people jump on it. Usually the people who push my wagon and start them are scum, such as Bull's. Quite possibly zebra as well, but I'm unsure on that.

The fact that your immediate defense is to call me bad for ever daring to suspect you is why you look so bad to me. Literally the only reason you're calling me bad is because I said it about you first.

Golden wrote: I do feel, though, like nutella is racking up the connections while literally no-one but me is coming to sig's defence. I think thats what it is mostly. It doesn't even feel like anyone is subtly leading the thread away from him. Sig had such an early and easy bandwagon, with no-one who wanted to stand up for him. It seemed very easy.

Literally nobody was defending Sig? No one at all? Ever? I must have hallucinated HB's constant pushy defense of him (which began before Sig even started to defend himself). That's one of the big reasons I suspect him, the fact that HB has been so obsessively defensive of him. I don't think you understand my case against Sig at all.

Golden wrote:What really amazes me is that noone is taking their vote OFF the sig train.

Isn't it obvious by now? It feels like it to me.

Even if I hadn't been in bed at 2am, I'd have left my vote where it was. What's so obvious?

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Golden, how sure are you?

Well, I mean, how long is a piece of string?

But I do really feel it, like, what is there to sig's case. He used the word 'currently' when describing the mafia's kill. No-one has really been sticking up for him until I started to. He was the run away early leader in the lynch. He is like the cliche easy town bandwagon.

If you think the word currently is seriously the foundation of the Sig case, you don't understand it well enough to be arguing against it.

Surviving a lynch tells us nothing about alignment. I'll most probably continue to vote Sig as he remains my top suspect.

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:

Golden wrote:It's really hard to make a better case on nutella than what already exists.

I read the role card midway through that day, and saw there was a lie detector role.
I figured, hey, mafia probably have seen that and are scared of it, why don't I ask a whole lot of questions and see what I get back.
Nutella and bubbles avoided answering the question 'are you civ aligned'. I think mafia would have deliberately avoided it.

Nutella made a distancing post about bubbles
Bubbles made a distancing post before timmer's death about wanting to see more from timmer, despite there being HEAPS of very quiet people (including her)

I believe Nutella and bubbles are both bad, and are together on the team that killed timmer.

Golden, now that we know timmer was a civ does that shift bubbles off of your suspect list since you are talking about her post that seemed to be a distancing post from timmer? Or do you think her supposed avoidance of the 'are you civ aligned' question leave her on your suspect list? I'm not denying bubbles is bad I just want to know how you feel about your evidence now that timmer was revealed as good.

I don't think he is accusing her of being timmers teammate. I think the point was that he thinks she killed timmer, and distanced from it in the thread by saying she would like to hear more from him. I think Golden makes good points on this, and am curious what TinyBubbles reasoning is for wanting to hear more from timmer as opposed to all the other quiet players.

I completely misread his post. THanks for clearing it up.

Yes, splints had the correct interpretation.

So let's ask Tiny Bubbles unless she's already been asked and I missed it: Why did you choose Timmer out of all the quiet people that you wanted to hear more from?

I prefer cats. Dogs take more effort, cats are happy to take care of themselves for the most part. Plus I've always had pet cats.

From a few days ago...

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Curious how Bubbles voting for and calling out only timmers is bad, but you calling out timmers and Canuck is acceptable. Ultimately there were still many lurkers in the game, as you acknowledged in your next post where you ask where "Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?" are.

I'd really like to see the less-lurky posters challenged more this upcoming lynch. For me that would include Mac, juliets, and golden as major suspects, but even reviving the Epi/Dom/SVS thing would be better than sig, Floyd, or Bubbles. The nutella case has a little more merit imo due to the lie detector thing mentioned, so if pursuing that prevents a mindless bandwagon on Bubbles (since it's assumed that the two are partners), I could go with that. Not that I'm against pressuring Bubbles, I think she needs to post a lot more and give some firm suspects or townspects, but I want my view out there before five other people just jump onto a Bubbles lynch 30 hours before the deadline.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'd really like to see the less-lurky posters challenged more this upcoming lynch. For me that would include Mac, juliets, and golden as major suspects, but even reviving the Epi/Dom/SVS thing would be better than sig, Floyd, or Bubbles. The nutella case has a little more merit imo due to the lie detector thing mentioned, so if pursuing that prevents a mindless bandwagon on Bubbles (since it's assumed that the two are partners), I could go with that. Not that I'm against pressuring Bubbles, I think she needs to post a lot more and give some firm suspects or townspects, but I want my view out there before five other people just jump onto a Bubbles lynch 30 hours before the deadline.

Does that include you?

@Bulls your right I didn't say probably but this once again points to what I said right before the day ended, the amount of posts and the lengths of the posts plus the amount of time I spent defending myself, the fact I'm gonna need to do it again tomorrow and just RL tiredness, it will be easy to find a small thing to pick at which you just did.

Also it was what they were doing. I already said why I think you're bad I didn't call you bad day 1 did I when you originally voted for me? I said you were bad based on your posts and the reason for your lynch vote on me. You've literally made excuses to when I flip civ how it isn't your fault that is scummy.

sig wrote:@Bulls your right I didn't say probably but this once again points to what I said right before the day ended, the amount of posts and the lengths of the posts plus the amount of time I spent defending myself, the fact I'm gonna need to do it again tomorrow and just RL tiredness, it will be easy to find a small thing to pick at which you just did.

Also it was what they were doing. I already said why I think you're bad I didn't call you bad day 1 did I when you originally voted for me? I said you were bad based on your posts and the reason for your lynch vote on me. You've literally made excuses to when I flip civ how it isn't your fault that is scummy.

Your reason for thinking I'm bad basically amounted to me being the first person to point out the suspicious nature of one of your posts. I haven't "made excuses" at all. What I said was that if you are a civ (or even if you aren't) then I alone am not responsible for your lynch because others will also have voted. That doesn't mean I'm not at all responsible, just that finding a suspicious civvie suspicious doesn't make someone a baddie. The case against you is strong because you are simply not acting in a pro-civ manner IMO. If you are a civ, this knowledge doesn't retroactively make everything you've said and done okay.

HamburgerBoy wrote:From a few days ago...

Golden wrote:I'm going to continue to vote for an absent canadian, but I feel like canuck is the better bet to timmer right now. I'd like both to turn up and contribute, though.

Curious how Bubbles voting for and calling out only timmers is bad, but you calling out timmers and Canuck is acceptable. Ultimately there were still many lurkers in the game, as you acknowledged in your next post where you ask where "Bubbles, Canuck, dfaraday, Timmer, splints, rey?" are.

It is not hypocritical for me to call out low posters. I am not one.

In addition, I was moving my vote about to try and get low posters to talk. But then, when I read the roles, I came up with a better idea, and as you say called out ALL of them... all still in the same day. Bubbles just called out one to justify her final vote.

Most importantly... Timmer died. And I know that bubbles has seen me pull that exact move on her just before I killed her, to make me seem less responsible for the kill, in a game I went on to win.

Hooray, I finally caught up.
Stray thoughts:

- Sig: From what I understand, sig is prone to accidentally making himself look as bad as possible. His "currently" post warranted discussion, but the amount of people who decided to jump on it, as well as the amount of discussion surrounding it, is odd.
I think HamburgerBoy reacts logically to Bullz' case on sig, and I tend to agree with him on it. "Baddie slips" like these happen from time to time, but mostly they're poorly worded statements from civvies. It's pressing the people who make them that can reveal their intent. With sig, his defenses aren't helping him. I am a bit surprised that Golden went "How do all these people still have their votes on sig?", since he really made himself an easy target for a vote. On that note, I also found it interesting that Golden claimed to be the only one defending sig, while HamburgerBoy really did all the legwork in the beginning. Then again, Hboy has defended a load of people from what I've seen, sometimes unneccesary. Let people do their own defending at times, you are doing their work for them .
I don't think sig is bad, but from just reading his posts, I cannot fault anyone for voting him. I hope we don't have the same endless discussion surrounding him Day 3, since all that could be said surrounding it has been said imo. Let's move on.

- nutella: I tend to think I can read nutella's tone fairly well. I am not seeing baddie nutella here. Some interesting points against her were her D1 vote where she, knowingly, avoided the tie and her initially not saying anything about her alignment when asked by Golden. She did do this later, though.

I'd like to hear more from both of them about who they suspect instead of seeing them in defense mode for another Day.

- Juliets: She always asks a lot of questions like this, but I found it interesting that she popped up immediately when attention was brought onto her. I know she can be a lurker, but I hope she too can get a bit more involved instead of staying on the sidelines.

- Zebra vs Epi: Wow. Two people who are very confident in their own style of play with just the right amount of tunnelvision clash about the English language. Please don't do that to me again.
Epi sort of backpedalling on SVS is interesting. I don't know how often he actually does that.

- Luke's vote for sig came out of nowhere. I made a note saying that I hoped he explained it better further on, but I don't think he did. He never explained what good points Bull and Zebra made on sig, and I'd still like him to do that. He is also someone I'd like to hear more from.

- Floyd. I voted him yesterday. Saying "a vague reason is always a suspicious reason" is quite hypocritical when you don't give an initial reason for your D1 vote and don't vote at all D2. And Mac is not going to be modkilled for inactivity, I don't know what that comment was about.

I'm also going to keep a closer eye on Golden and TH. Not really for any particular reason I can ask you guys about, just mini pings here and there.

Golden wrote:It is not hypocritical for me to call out low posters. I am not one.

In addition, I was moving my vote about to try and get low posters to talk. But then, when I read the roles, I came up with a better idea, and as you say called out ALL of them... all still in the same day. Bubbles just called out one to justify her final vote.

Most importantly... Timmer died. And I know that bubbles has seen me pull that exact move on her just before I killed her, to make me seem less responsible for the kill, in a game I went on to win.

I'm saying the hypocrisy is in you accusing Bubbles of looking scummy for mentioning timmers and no one else, when you mentioned timmers + Canuck and no one else for similar apparent reasons (simply asking low-posters to get in the game). You called all of them out only in the following post; initially, you focused on timmers and Canuck. If people in the past used a similar case to defend you, then I guess it's a cultural difference because to me that argument is very wifom and not something I would buy into, except maybe come lylo where a thorough re-eval is necessary.

Typhoony wrote: I don't think sig is bad, but from just reading his posts, I cannot fault anyone for voting him. I hope we don't have the same endless discussion surrounding him Day 3, since all that could be said surrounding it has been said imo. Let's move on.

I partially agree with this. I still think Sig is bad and will probably continue to vote for him, since I think he should be lynched. However I'll be looking at other suspects as well tomorrow since there's nothing new I can say about Sig - we just go around in circles and it's helping nobody. In fact it might actually be helping baddies since they have this big thing going on that they can use to be blendy and hide around.

@HB - bubbles looks scummy for calling out timmer for being a low poster when she is a low poster.

I am not a low poster. I could have called out just timer alone, and never have made the other posts (lets not forget, even you acknowledge this is just one post when I called out everyone in my VERY NEXT POST, and the reason it mentions canuck and timmer only is because the post was recording my vote change from timmer to canuck) - and even if I'd done that, comparing my post to bubbles post would still be like comparing apples to fire trucks.

Hi

Plus I had a good reason for moving my vote off timmer. I picked Canuck not because she was a low poster but specifically because, if you'd read further and quoted my explanation for the canuck vote, she looked like someone whose head was in the game, so her low posting appeared more deliberate to me than others.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Hi

Hi

Any thoughts on being in a tie for the lynch?

Golden wrote:@HB - bubbles looks scummy for calling out timmer for being a low poster when she is a low poster.

I am not a low poster. I could have called out just timer alone, and never have made the other posts (lets not forget, even you acknowledge this is just one post when I called out everyone in my VERY NEXT POST, and the reason it mentions canuck and timmer only is because the post was recording my vote change from timmer to canuck) - and even if I'd done that, comparing my post to bubbles post would still be like comparing apples to fire trucks.

I thought your case was more from the angle that Bubbles was actively distancing from a timmers nightkill, not the angle that Bubbles was being hypocritical about lurking. I haven't spent any time to see if other lurkers have asked for more content from other lurkers, but if they exist may I assume they are scummy as well by your argument?

Golden wrote:Plus I had a good reason for moving my vote off timmer. I picked Canuck not because she was a low poster but specifically because, if you'd read further and quoted my explanation for the canuck vote, she looked like someone whose head was in the game, so her low posting appeared more deliberate to me than others.

It was an explanation, but the fact remains that you cast a vote on timmers for the same reason that Bubbles did. You were in a more honest position to cast that vote, but lurker hypocrisy alone isn't a scumtell to me. I do agree with your logic that a switch to Canuck over timmers is merited if you see Canuck's low posting as deliberate. The thing that bothers me is making a deal about the Bubbles' timmers vote in the first place, AND how you were quick to rationalize her motive by saying she was copying a scum tactic you previously employed. I mean, precedent is always a good thing, but there are multiple assumptions required to get there (e.g. that Bubbles calling out timmers wasn't because he's usually less lurky, or random chance; that a scum Bubbles would stick her neck out there on a night 1 kill against a lurker; that Bubbles would even remember your particular gambit from that previous game). I'd like a link to that game to see if it's even as similar as you make it sound.

Hi Bugla. Have you been reading the thread? What are your thoughts? Give us something to work with here.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I thought your case was more from the angle that Bubbles was actively distancing from a timmers nightkill, not the angle that Bubbles was being hypocritical about lurking. I haven't spent any time to see if other lurkers have asked for more content from other lurkers, but if they exist may I assume they are scummy as well by your argument?

No. You can't translate my suspicion of bubbles onto other people, or on to me. Every person is different. I've made it very clear through multiple posts now that my suspicion of bubbles pertains to HER. It is strongly about my knowledge of her experiences as mafia and my expectations of what her behaviour would be when good or bad.

You keep trying to argue some objective standard into this, but thats not how suspicion works. You read someone's posts, and you feel like their posts are off and there is something not right about them. It's about THEM. It's not about what is objectively a scum tell.

I'm not making an 'argument' about what is scummy and what is not. I'm expressing an opinion that bubbles is bad.

But honestly, HB, I'd just as soon vote for you. Your overexuberance to defend every one of my suspects, especially one like bubbles that I feel very sure about, is looking insane to me, from someone who I've worked so well with before when we were both town, for someone who I know has trusted my instincts on multiple occasions in the past (look at the first time we ever played together and my day one ping on TH... you were the one who had my back).

I find your play in this game to be most unusual. Maybe I'm just experiencing what I know JJ has claimed before - that when you have a ping you will tunnel and tunnel and refuse to actually listen to the points made. But to me it feels far more sinister, it feels like you are trying to defend a team that I've called out from collapse.

If the circle of decay is you, bubbles, nutella and juliet I will not be remotely surprised.

Defending people you think could be town is not a bad thing. I am always surprised when people think that defending someone else is always a baddie tell.

S~V~S wrote:Defending people you think could be town is not a bad thing. I am always surprised when people think that defending someone else is always a baddie tell.

I do not think it is 'always' a baddie tell. Nor do I think defending people you think could be town is a bad thing.

But... that is not what I think HB is doing. I think HB is defending his teammates for wifom reasons.

Btw, SVS, do you think any of HB's posts indicate that he thinks bubbles is good? Because I don't.

He hasn't been fighting that fight.

The fight he has been fighting is that golden is a hypocrite. He has completely avoided the side of things which is whether or not bubbles is bad.

Personally, I think he has been playing a fairly neutral game. He seems to be looking at both sides of a story equally. HE disagrees with you quite a bit, yes.

S~V~S wrote:Personally, I think he has been playing a fairly neutral game. He seems to be looking at both sides of a story equally. HE disagrees with you quite a bit, yes.

So you think HB is town? What about Golden?

The day one ping on TH thing was different; that was RYM #86, and TH was my scumbuddy, so I very quickly jumped to side with you and cash in on those bussing points. Weird that you'd use a case where I agreed with you as enemies as evidence that I'm now disagreeing with you as enemies. Additionally, I had no Syndicate experience, so I when it came to issues of meta I naturally had to rely on the views of others. Further, reviewing your posts in that game, you never did the thing where you lament a lack of strong scumreads and abundance of town reads. I see that you also jumped on sleepystalinist quickly for making an opportunistic vote on a lynch gwilikers started; you've voiced your defense on sig clearly to the point you've ignored my own defense of him, yet I don't see you pursuing a lynch on the people on his bandwagon (except maybe juliets now; you hadn't said much about her earlier).

Now, when I contrast that with goldscum from RYM #89, I see a golden more in line with what I would expect. As you admitted earlier in this thread, you spent a lot of that game focusing on bcornett24. Looking over your cases there, it's "not getting the attentive town brian from 86, feeling the lazier scum brian from 87", pretty vague even when you repeat yourself a bunch of times. The case on Bubbles feels like that; prior to just now you didn't make it clear that Bubbles being a low-poster was suspicious to you on its own. I'd still like you to post the game with her that you are referencing.

I'll reply to the rest of your stuff in a bit, have to be in a meeting soon.

Golden wrote:Btw, SVS, do you think any of HB's posts indicate that he thinks bubbles is good? Because I don't.

He hasn't been fighting that fight.

The fight he has been fighting is that golden is a hypocrite. He has completely avoided the side of things which is whether or not bubbles is bad.

OK, I can respond to this quickly. No, I don't think she has said anything indicating she's good. She's barely saying anything period. I think your case on her is flimsy and could just as easily be applied to you; that's why I think you look bad over this thing, sticking with early day 1 lurkiness cases and overtly mentioning that you don't want to touch the SVS/Dom/Epi thing.

Bubbles being a low poster is not suspicious on its own. She is always a low poster.

The game is economics. I deliberately made a post on her as the kill was incoming, then posted it right after she died, saying 'oops, I was writing this when the post came in, I guess I may as well post it anyway'. And yes, I know for a fact she remembers it well.

I know bubbles very well. I played in her first game. I've played in nearly all of her games. Her calling out timmer was odd in the extreme. Her not saying she was civ was odd in the extreme. It all makes sense in context.

I never said I don't want to touch the SVS, Dom, Epi thing. In fact, I've made it very clear that I think they are all town, and if I knew one was bad I would lean epi, but I think the entire thing is civ civ civ. I said I wouldn't put my VOTE anywhere in that triangle, which is a very different thing indeed.