Watchmen [ENDGAME]

[Tangrowth]

Spoiler: show

Where I left off, but with a few more days of info..
Some thoughts before I go too in depth over the next day:

-Elo is reading slightly civ for me right now. Whereas Day 1 was full of shenanigans and Jesus toast all around, I'm not convinced right now that she would have had a hand in Sloonei's death.
-I think several people have been on to something with the LoRab reads. I'll be looking thoroughly into her tomorrow. But she has had her blinders on GMan for a full 3 cycles and I don't particularly find GMan threatening at the moment.
-Cookie is another one that strikes me as particularly blendy and most likely bad.
-MM is still on my watch-list. His self-vote on Day 2 didn't inspire confidence, but I see he has at least added to the conversation since Day 1. Which is a welcome sight. I'm interested in breaking down the Day 2 votes between he and Golden.
-LC The NK of LC is interesting because he was HARDLY the most civ-sounding person here. Makes me wonder what strategy mafia are playing with at this juncture.

LC's last reads for reference:

LoRab
Bass_the_Clever
Cookie
MovingPictures07
espers
Russtifinko
Dragon D. Luffy
Elohcin
juliets
Ricochet
G-Man
Metalmarsh89
Long Con

Note that Bass and LoRab are not exclusively mafia-reads for LC, but for others as well, so I don't see the likelihood of a frame job. Something to think about. Going to look an see if I (we) can't find clues into what would inspire a dead LC..

I think the evidence is right here. Third night in a row someone's killed off the top civ read in a rainbow list. Could be we're looking at baddie(s) who hate rainbow lists, or someone just thinks it's hilarious and is trolling us.

Russtifinko, what motivation would a mafia team have in performing NKs in such a fashion?
I think I've pretty much beat this to death. Again, I don't think the deaths are specifically because of your rainbow lists. I think the baddies are following a strong strategy of just killing the most civvie people.

I also think full rainbow lists make that super easy, and that the top half doesn't benefit the civs at all anyway. But Scotty is probably right that very civ people would die anyway. And for the record, I have always been very pro-half rainbow lists.

Spoiler: show

Going to work now. However, I definitely will be active today. Some players I'm considering (in no particular order):

espers, Cookie, LoRab G-Man, MP <---Some of these are VERY mild suspicions,I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Players I probably would not vote toy (barring drastic changes):

Elo, MM, Bass

Russtifinko, I want explanation as to why you are considering these players only for your vote.
I'm...not? Note it says SOME players I'm considering. They're just the ones I'm leaning most toward.

Linki: I think based on the colors that I am not Elo's top baddie read, but rather the lowest suspicion she felt worth mentioning, MP. Just so we avoid overstating cases.

Thanks for the correction re: Elo's list, I was confused because she listed strongest read to weakest read. My bad.

Regarding "some players", fair enough.

Can you elaborate nonetheless on your thoughts on those players? Thanks!

[Ricochet]

Random thought:

Russ's D1 suspicion of Elo was rather intense, by D1 standards, and even by his suspicions ever since, as he hasn't committed to a strong read. He didn't end up voting for Elo on D1. Ever since the Sloonei flip and Elo's pivotal vote, he has been defending her hard.

Fast forward to recent Elo, the Elo who voted for me D3, despite consistently finding me a civilian read, because she couldn't articulate ANY suspects. Now she suddenly has a rainbow list, with Russtifinko at the bottom, and she has never expressed any read of him previously.

I could see Elo and Russtifinko being the remaining two mafia.

Discuss.

I wouldn't say Elo never articulated any suspects at all, given what I pulled on her D3 activity, but the rest is intriguing.

[Tangrowth]

Random thought:

Russ's D1 suspicion of Elo was rather intense, by D1 standards, and even by his suspicions ever since, as he hasn't committed to a strong read. He didn't end up voting for Elo on D1. Ever since the Sloonei flip and Elo's pivotal vote, he has been defending her hard.

Fast forward to recent Elo, the Elo who voted for me D3, despite consistently finding me a civilian read, because she couldn't articulate ANY suspects. Now she suddenly has a rainbow list, with Russtifinko at the bottom, and she has never expressed any read of him previously.

I could see Elo and Russtifinko being the remaining two mafia.

Discuss.

I wouldn't say Elo never articulated any suspects at all, given what I pulled on her D3 activity, but the rest is intriguing.

It's clearly a very undeveloped conspiracy theory, so I'm far from standing by it, especially since I'm ISOing Elo and haven't gotten to Day 3 just yet. Just wanted to throw it out there to see what folks think.

[Elohcin]

is ika m or f

ill tell you if you tell me

Dx

(uhm meaning m)

m here too.

how are you?

Why are you playing around? If you are civ, wouldn't you be working hard to give us your opinion on who you think is bad or at least reading through espers to help defend yourself. Or are you in so many games that you don't give a damn? If so, why replace in?

linki: sorry if I did the list backwards?

linki again. Oh MP. I was just messin' with you Day 3. Looking back I feel bad about it. But I was not in my right mind at the time (even though I don't drink).

[Russtifinko]

Hmm. Has anyone done an ISO on Russ recently? I'm vey interested to see if and how he votes tonight, seeing as he missed Day 2 and 3. He was even active Day 3 with 4 paragraph-y posts, so I'm not sure what made him miss that vote

Going to work now. However, I definitely will be active today. Some players I'm considering (in no particular order):

espers, Cookie, LoRab G-Man, MP <---Some of these are VERY mild suspicions,I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Players I probably would not vote toy (barring drastic changes):

Elo, MM, Bass

He's got some suspicions, but some of those I don't recognize as him having expressed an opinion on them, so let's see where he got those suspicions.. (I color coded for reference)

I'd have to read espers to develop an opinion there, since I don't have one as of my first thread read-through.

I'm not really buying the LoRab angle on the D1 vote. You're saying you think two baddie teammates tried to start lynch trains on two separate people to save Sloonei before she got any votes? With only 3 of them total, it seems crazy to me that they'd split up their voting power so early if they thought Sloonei might need defending.

So if anything, to me the currently most suspicious D1 vote is espers. Keep in mind, a baddie voting late in a lynch for a teammate actually has a LOWER risk than a civ doing the same thing, because they know they won't end up on Rorschach's hit list.

Linki: I dunno. I suppose Elo could be bad, but when she voted Sloonei it was tied up with Blooper. I dunno if I see a mafia Elo giving up on a teammate so early.

Hmmm, having read back on espers he seems above-board to me so far. What he's brought to the discussion has been open and well-reasoned.

Regarding espers, like I said, it definitely seems one of the safer votes on the day. However, my suspicion of espers basically rests solely on that at the moment, and without seeing anything suspicious in his posts I doubt I'd go that way yet. I'd say 30% chance I vote him, but that's mainly because I don't have another stronger case atm. If I did it'd be lower.

I honestly did not have a major suspicion going into this, which is a problem given how much has happened. I'd likely have voted espers, as I said, primarily for lack of a better case.

Geez it looks like that was intense.

Linki: I agree Cookies' and Elo's votes are quick flips. Fwiw I read Elo as genuine, and Cookie, being new to our brand of mafia, may not be aware of how strongly quick flips are frowned upon. Just think it's worth bearing in mind.

But idk who IS suspicious yet today. I feel like I'm stating back at Square One after missing yesterday - most of my reads so far are just slight gut and my "I always think _____ is ____." type stuff.

I want to know a few things from you, Russ.
1) Is espers still your top read?
It sounds like you don't have any major suspicions of anyone still, and of the person you do have a suspicion for, it's weak sauce. And you admit that. Very close to how Cookie is playing, except that Cookie has a prescribed handicap, whereas you do not (Unless you ARE new, in which case I apologize).
2) Since you would rather vote Cookie over, say, Elo, why is that? I don't see you making a lot of cases about Cookie. Mostly all I've seen from you is defending Elo. Do you feel like you have been defending Elo, at least softly?
3) The only time you mention LoRab is in the piece I highlighted, and even then you were doubting her badness. Why do you suspect her now?
4) What specifically about Elo, MM and Bass (juliets) doesn't make you lean towards voting them? And why just those 3?

linki- holy cow I missed a bunch in the past half hour. Welcome ika (cya espers)!

1) Yes. I agree with others' points about leaving being fishy, the won tie seems suspicious, and his play before seemed fairly scummy to me anyway.
2) I do feel like I had been lightly defending Elo, but I've had to be more vocal lately as more suspicions are voiced about her. Again, it's mostly gut and maybe I'll screw myself over on it, but I just can't buy that she'd be bad at this moment.
3) LoRab is one I'm having trouble placing. It's my first game with her, and I kinda had her built up in my mind as a legendary player. (She was the first one I ever saw to have her own smiley, and that was YEARS before anyone else!) So I guess I've been a little surprised lately about a lot of her posts being more on the frivolous side.
4) I've explained Elo ad naseum. MM, as I said, basically is having his own fun and only playing the game very tangentially. This leads to some heat-taking, generally. He could be bad, but I'd rather follow up on actual leads with all that's happened than lynch him today. Bass to me read a lot like Elo - pretty carefree, maybe too carefree to bother trying not to seem suspicious. A baddie's first intention is always to seem as unsuspicious as possible (at least in a one-baddie-team game), so I'm just not seeing the evil there.

As for why 3, it was just people who were on my mind and seemed to be getting some heat. I thought it worth mentioning that I do not think lynching them today is a good move.

Linki: MP, elaborating with them is what Im getting to in my next post. Just trying not to wall-o'-text people too badly.

[Scotty]

Working on Elo ISO now.

Regarding espers, I think the fact that espers chose to get a replacement, instead of attempting to complete what he started, pings me considerably. I know it's WIFOM, but I don't understand why a civilian would replace out amid such heavy suspicion, especially when other candidates became a possibility instead of him today (such as Cookie and LoRab). I think espers was hoping that it would buy him the necessary time to stay away from lynching.

Also, espers never really left my "scummiest" read, since he was at the bottom yesterday. I am trying to not tunnel "easy" reads that the thread seems to mostly suspect, because I don't want us to fall into autopilot mode, but I realize today that perhaps I'm trying to overcompensate too much in that regard and that I should continue to apply appropriate pressure if someone is truly acting scummy. espers kept promising baddie hunting, but never delivered, and his D1 vote still reeks of last minute bussing.

I see that angle, it makes sense. espers subbing in is exactly what TGG did in BoB, when the water got too hot, and he was cold blooded mafia.

However, if espers was at the bottom yesterday, MP, why didn't you vote him? You could have singlehandedly put the last vote needed on him yesterday. But you put it on Cookie.


Yo Russ, you gonna answer my questions or at least look at my ISO, or just carry on as if it doesn't exist?

[Scotty]

whoop, that didn't show up on my linki. Sorry

[Tangrowth]

Working on Elo ISO now.

Regarding espers, I think the fact that espers chose to get a replacement, instead of attempting to complete what he started, pings me considerably. I know it's WIFOM, but I don't understand why a civilian would replace out amid such heavy suspicion, especially when other candidates became a possibility instead of him today (such as Cookie and LoRab). I think espers was hoping that it would buy him the necessary time to stay away from lynching.

Also, espers never really left my "scummiest" read, since he was at the bottom yesterday. I am trying to not tunnel "easy" reads that the thread seems to mostly suspect, because I don't want us to fall into autopilot mode, but I realize today that perhaps I'm trying to overcompensate too much in that regard and that I should continue to apply appropriate pressure if someone is truly acting scummy. espers kept promising baddie hunting, but never delivered, and his D1 vote still reeks of last minute bussing.

I see that angle, it makes sense. espers subbing in is exactly what TGG did in BoB, when the water got too hot, and he was cold blooded mafia.

However, if espers was at the bottom yesterday, MP, why didn't you vote him? You could have singlehandedly put the last vote needed on him yesterday. But you put it on Cookie.


Yo Russ, you gonna answer my questions or at least look at my ISO, or just carry on as if it doesn't exist?

DDL asked me this same question, let me find the link for you.

[Tangrowth]

Scotty: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 38#p160038

[Scotty]

Scotty: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 38#p160038

Thank you, I did indeed miss that you explained that.
I'm hoping tonight you'll pay attention to the post count and being more on top of things if you do happen to be one of the last to vote, AND you have a chance to lynch one of your top 3. I understand Day 3 was lots of flurry and rushing, but come on man.

[Tangrowth]

Scotty: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 38#p160038

Thank you, I did indeed miss that you explained that.
I'm hoping tonight you'll pay attention to the post count and being more on top of things if you do happen to be one of the last to vote, AND you have a chance to lynch one of your top 3. I understand Day 3 was lots of flurry and rushing, but come on man.

I was trying to pay attention to the vote count as much as I could, but those last 10 minutes or so, a ton of votes came in, and I was trying to keep up with the discussion, and decide whether I should go with espers or not. I thought Cookie's behavior around EoD D3 was incredibly suspicious, in the moment.

Nonetheless, fair enough. I understand why people would view my EoD D1 and D3 behavior suspicious, since I have made last minute votes that were different from the one I was most likely to cast.

[Tangrowth]

Holy fuck, ISOs take forever.

[Russtifinko]

Scotty, I need to start conducting ISO's now. I've been meaning to for some time. I'll look at Russ first, since his posts earlier today had me wondering about him. I thought he said my conduct seemed "super civ" or something, so to see my name on his suspect list today puzzled me. I'll go look at him now.

Yeah, you did seem super civ to me at first. Lately I'm just wondering if it's too civ, if that makes any sense. Basically, my paranoid, "MP-might-be-baddie" self thinks thusly:

1) You FREAKED when llama started poking you on Day 1. Which to be fair is a pretty standard MP thing to do because you care so much about the game regardless of role. However, from my vantage point, it was pretty clear llama was joking around, and it's a classic baddie move to go hyper defensive. Epi pretty much runs his civ game entirely on the theory that baddies overreact when poked.

2) You pretty much allayed my fears D1 by posting a ton of content, though, and being your normal crazy-involved self.

3) I agree with others that some of the wishy-washiness around lynches is a little weird. I'm used to you being hyper confident in your reads. I get that some past experiences have changed that a bit, but it still just doesn't read like the MP I know. For me the weirdness here is less about the votes themselves and more about your willingness to believe in yourself.

4a) Again, paranoid me here: You've done a great job trying to get people involved, mainly by asking them literally dozens of questions at a time. I'm starting to wonder if the questions are a way to avoid talking too much about yourself. (I think someone said this earlier today, but I thought it first. So hmph! )
4b) You've had a super well-reasoned explanation for every. single. thing. you. have. done. in. the. game. (Not ture anymore, after yesterday's lynch.) It just was starting to seem a little too airtight.

5) I think it's really fishy that the day after I mention I'm thinking of you for a vote, I'm suddenly one of 2 remaining baddies along with Elo.

6) And maybe this one is unfair. But I know in the past, Epi has been known to choose players for certain roles. Since Sloonei is relatively new to the site, I can see him maybe putting a more experienced player on the team as well. Now for sure, you aren't the only one who would fit that bill, and it's pretty much an indefensible thought. It just is a very small factor in Paranoid Dan's mind.

All that said, I'm not sold on you being or not being bad yet. I just brought up your name because at the time I hadn't seen it mentioned much, and I thought it needed to be discussed to some degree because of my thoughts above.

I will say, though, that I think the kills being associated with your rainbow list in particular doesn't hold much water. I feel like maybe I've been misinterpreted on that point to be saying that you're somehow directing the baddies. I think I said this in an earlier post, but I don't really think that's the case. My rainbow list stance is basically, why take a chance of giving them any help at all?

I also think Rico's idea that you may be being framed (verb tenses?? help!) has some merit, and that alone makes me want to wait a good long while and evaluate carefully how I feel on you. If you're civ I'd hate to lose you.

Linki: Scotty, I think I answered your stuff. So we're good, right?

Double Linki: Yeah looking back, I can see how anyone lost it Day 3. Those were the latest votes I've ever seen.

Also, I'm pretty heavily leaning an espers vote for today. As bad as I'd feel for ika, it just looks worse and worse to me all the time.

[Ricochet]

Holy fuck, ISOs take forever.

iktf

[ika]

so im not going to read anything and going to go from here.

anything i should know offhand?

Intriguing- I took that same stance when I subbed into BoB. I was a baddie.

Defend yourself and the posts & votes of your predecessor in 500 words or less. You have three hours. Grammar counts for half of your final grade.

1)I would rather you not sub in than sub in a half-ass it.
2)And are you are in eight games? When do you have time to work, eat, or poop?
3)I like G-Man's response to ika here. I too look forward to what he/she has to say.

1) shame, its a common thing on most other sites i play on.
2) i wrok tommorwo 6-30 in more to 7 in afternoon theng o to poker and get drunk.
other times i just check during breaks or when im not busy. i poop and play at same time
3) i do too

1)Why are you playing around?
2)If you are civ, wouldn't you be working hard to give us your opinion on who you think is bad or at least reading through espers to help defend yourself.
3)Or are you in so many games that you don't give a damn? If so, why replace in?

1) im not, im interacting with players, you dont realize that i play very differently then how most do. i gain reads based on interactions.
2) theory talk: my idea of civ play is to not care about ones self image. i have no reason to defend myself over anything. especially on predictor cus i can not speak for their actions. right now im watching whats going on now and waiting. also by playing in such manner if gets people to talk to me
3) nope, 99% of the time i will not get a damn about being suspected. if you need reason i can link you to my past. and trust me its not fun

[Russtifinko]

Hmm yeah, it was Rico who brought up my Point 4a.

[Scotty]

And thanks for answering, Russ!
So just to sum up for my own sanity:

LoRab pings you because she's frivolous, espers is your strongest read right now, you're confident Elo is good, MM is behaving his normal blah self, and Bass (Tiny) is prolly good like Elo.

I don't think this exonerates you from my watchful eye, since all of your arguments sound weak and, daresay, measured.

linki- @Russ yea that answered me, thanks!
but
Double Linki: Yeah looking back, I can see how anyone lost it Day 3. Those were the latest votes I've ever seen.
How do you know how late they were? Didn't you miss Day 3? Is there a way to check a timestamp of a vote?

[Scotty]

Holy fuck, ISOs take forever.

tell me about it. I've spent hours on my posts today, when I could have been playing softball in the park

[Scotty]

I think it's still Cookie and LoRab for me today, but add ika (espers) to my list for the points MP and Russ make.

I feel like there is evidence for MP, Elo Russ, and MM to be bad as well, but I'm still very unsure about that. And I don't like being unsure. I just wish I hadn't missed the past 2 days of discussion

[Epignosis]

[Tangrowth]

ISO on Elohcin:

DAY 1

Spoiler: show

You're telling me you've never voted low posters for the sake of them being low posters?

Hello, Elo! Glad to be playing with you again. I assure you that I won't rage at you this time.

That is a very good question. Thinking back through the last 5 years of mafia games, it is difficult for me to answer that question one way or the other with absolute confidence. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any instances where I voted a player on Day 1 solely for being a low poster. It's more possible I did so as the game progressed. There may have been one or two in the last few years. I almost always find a reason for my Day 1 vote, and that alone has gotten me heat significantly in the past, since players found such reasons to be "forced" or "trying too hard". That said, I haven't come up against that accusation in the past year or so as much as I used to.

Regarding how I feel anymore about voting low or no posters on Day 1, I tend to prefer voting a no show over a low poster on Day 1, especially if that player seems unlikely to show subsequently, and has not given any reason for their absence. If instead we leave that person alive, then every day that goes by and they still do not show, they are not helping the civilians via discussion or voting, even if they are civilian, and they become an element that can never be analyzed at crucial later stages of the game (like LyLo). This is in contrast to a low poster, who has shown up in the thread, and is contributing to the game, even if very barely. I prefer to give those players at least a couple of Days until I consider lynching them for lack of content, since at least there is room to analyze their behavior. Of course, both of these depend on a case by case situation, and what the low poster says may cause me to find them suspicious in the content itself. Likewise, there may be reasons to vote someone I genuinely suspect over a no or low poster.

Does that answer your question adequately?

Nope. I don't think you elaborated enough.

WHAT HAVE YOU ALL DONE WHY ARE THERE ALREADY 7 PAGES

I'm going to bed. I'll catch up with this tomorrow

You know, I've been in bed now for 2 hours. One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was bringing my laptop with me. Good on you, ninja

I bring my laptop to bed with me just about every night. Mafia and/or tv are great activities for after I put the kids to bed.

I've got about 10 more minutes before I unplug for the night. Any questions?

Are you a member of mafia?

I am not a member of the mafia.
I am not Moloch.
My role does not pose a threat to the civvies.

Interesting phrasing. Not "I am a civvie" but "My role does not pose a threat"

You know....I thought the same thing when I read his post. I didn't say anything b/c I wanted to watch his behavior and see what I could observe.

@G-Man - Are you a civilian?


So...overall, my reads are....
I am feeling good about:
Cookie - she seems too overwhelmed to have a team.
DDL - seems too comfortable to be bad atm
MP - very friendly and helpful which seems good to me
Golden - I have a hard time reading golden often, but I *think* I am seeing a good golden

I am feeling uneasy about:
G-Man - does not claim to be civ (may be a watchman - those with the additional win condition) but possibly Mafia
Sloonei - Just something about him reads scummy to me. Can't put my finger on it.

I still have no clue who I will vote today. There are still so many quiet players. But, time to go burn some calories I will be back later.

linki niju -
MovingPictures07 wrote:
For anyone that has ANY reads whatsoever, that hasn't voiced them yet, I am literally dying to hear them. I'm incredibly intrigued.
Niju wrote:
Oh dear. You might want to get to a doctor

Elo's third post, her first regarding any suspects. She feels good about Cookie, DDL, MP, and Golden. She is feeling uneasy about G-Man and Sloonei. She does attempt to provide reasoning. Slight civilian read here, I think, despite her employing a similar "throw names out there" as an SK in Economics. It feels more organic and less forced here.

Spoiler: show

Sloonei, as I read all your posts together, I am failing to find anything that sticks out to me as scummy. I am not sure what gave me that vibe while reading the thread. I will table this gut feeling for now.

Reading through your posts did give me this though...

The two games i've played with G-man were Economics (where he was town but posted entirely in pictures for the whole game) and Bullets over Broadway (where he was scum and replaced in after Day 2 or 3.......

I hosted G-Man in Guess Who and he tried a thing where he would begin each new post with the next letter of the alphabet.

I really don't have time atm to look at his posts in Bullets over Broadway or the other games he has played in but I am wondering what posting fun he tried to have in the other games he's played. I wonder if he even tries to do something funky with his posts if he is bad or if being on a team and having people to talk to BTS is enough for him to keep a game interesting. I don't see any themes running through his posts in this game, but I could be missing it. It's something to think about.

G-Man, do you do posting themes in each game despite your alighment? If so, can you tell us what you did in BoB when you were mafia?

In her very next post, Elo backs off of her thoughts on Sloonei. She also asks G-Man a question regarding his "themes". It would be risky for a mafia teammate of Sloonei to so vocally suspect him and then back off, but perhaps she was having trouble deciding what to do about the suspicion that I, Llama, and others were throwing around. I suppose null read from this.

Spoiler: show

Okay, so I got a last minute cake order and am working tonight.I have one hour to read three pages and vote

So did anyone get anything from the day zero poll?

I did not.

Me neither.

Same here

Not I.

Did anyone else notice how Elo seemingly jumped onto a vibes-based suspicion of Sloonei (which I held)

Maye I just like you. Watch out daisy!

and then dropped it, after I dropped it? What do folks think of that? I'm not sure what to make of Elo right now.

I didn't notice you dropped it.

Elo, can you elaborate on your reads of those individuals in your most recent post? Particularly I'm interested in why you find me to be civilian this game, but in Economics, you said I seemed overly helpful.

In economics, it was like you were hyped up on caffeine. That was odd and suspicious to me. My memories of you being bad all include a bit of nuttiness. Today you seem calmly helpful, no nutty behavior.

Who else specifically would you like to hear about, I thought I elaborated already in reply to someone else.

OK, at this point I will say what I think.

I think Elo's read on DDL was genuine, and it makes me feel good about her.

DDL expressed in our chat room that he found being mafia difficult, particularly on this site, and we all essentially agreed that he was getting caught and looked bad because you could sense he wasn't as comfortable in the thread. Elo is aware of this because she was in that chat room.

From my perspective, her reading DDL as good because he seems comfortable is legit, based on how things went down in Guess Who.

That doesn't mean DDL is good, of course, but I do think Elo's read was legitimate and it made me feel good about her.

MP this is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote the post about DDL. I wasn't going to elaborate this much as I feel like it was giving too much info about the Guess Who BTSC, but since Golden spelled it out for y'all there you go.

I am not done catching up, still over 2 pages to go, but I feel I ought to post for what I have read so far.

Elo provides substantiation for why she does not suspect me in this game: She associated my baddie game with some degree of "nuttiness", in contrast to a calm demeanor, which she says is absent here. I like this. Civ read from this.

Can't really get any read on her explanation re: DDL, since Golden elaborated on her behalf, but she does at least confirm it. Null.

Spoiler: show

Elo, thanks!

How about: Where are you leaning for your vote today? Has it changed at all?

Linki with Ninja

If no one was finding me suspicious, I would most likely vote for G-man or sloonei (I know I said I would table my thoughts on sloonei). But, I am still back and forth on sloonei. He now finds me suspicious b/c I reread him and decided that I couldn't find any hard evidence against him? What?!? I wish G-Man would come in and talk.

But it looks like I may be trying to save myself :/

Elo says she would be most likely to vote for G-Man or Sloonei, if she did not have to vote in self defense. However, she states she is still "back and forth on Sloonei" and wish G-Man would grace the thread with his presence. Consistent, at least, with her prior listed reads. Null.

Spoiler: show

Elo, thanks!

How about: Where are you leaning for your vote today? Has it changed at all?

Linki with Ninja

If no one was finding me suspicious, I would most likely vote for G-man or sloonei (I know I said I would table my thoughts on sloonei). But, I am still back and forth on sloonei. He now finds me suspicious b/c I reread him and decided that I couldn't find any hard evidence against him? What?!? I wish G-Man would come in and talk.

But it looks like I may be trying to save myself :/

Why did you read him as "scummy" the first time, then? Moreover, why did you give in to a "vibe" rather than rereading him, if it would have left to the same lack of hard evidence, in theory?

I didn't give into a vibe, I just mentioned it. He challenged me to reread him and I found nothing astoundingly scummy. That was all. But his response to my response IS scummy to me.

MP your case on scotty makes a lot of sense.

Here, Elo notes that Sloonei's most response is scummy, but that previous exchanges were not, after she was challenged to re-read him. Again, WIFOM, guessing whether she is a panicking teammate or a civilian trying to figure him out. Null.

Such back and forth thoughts on Sloonei are indicative either of a civilian genuinely trying to figure out how to read Sloonei, or a mafia member who has had consistent, direct contact with Sloonei and is waffling on whether to bus or not bus him amid suspicion on him.

Spoiler: show

I voted sloonei b/c of his response to me. That was odd for a civ.

Elo votes for Sloonei because of his most recent response to her. She says it is "odd" for a civ. Consistent. Null read.

D1 overall: Slight civilian read in content alone, moderate civilian read given Sloonei's flip -- I subscribe more to the belief that a mafia Elo would have not gone out of her way to sloppily distance from Sloonei in the way she did; rather, she saw he was a large force in the thread, and was genuinely voicing her opinions regarding him. It could go either way, though, and I realize this is entirely WIFOM.

DAY 2

Spoiler: show

Good morning all! Four names on the poll sounds good to me. So Epi is seriously telling us, "Hey, there is a baddie among these four." Would he really do that? I guess he would if he felt it was a good thing to do for balance sake. Epi is all about the balance. I am going to do my daily workout and then come back and read through each person on the poll. I will then make my decision. I may not finish my read-throughs and vote until this evening however, as we have a birthday pool party to go to this afternoon. Swimming is much better than hiking

Spoiler: show

I see. I missed that somehow. What do you make of them not being in alphabetical order? Do you think that is just the way the player submitted the names to Epi?

Spoiler: show

I would say LC. They are all in alphabetical order but him.

In these posts, Elo speculates on the four name mechanic for the D2 poll. Nothing can be gleamed about these statements with regards to her alignment. Null read.

Spoiler: show

And honestly, without any reread, LC seems most fishy to me. Missed vote. But I am rereading now.

Elo notes that, out of the four options, LC seems most "fishy", before a re-read. She doesn't explain why. I wish she would have been more specific; if so, I would get civilian vibes from this. Otherwise, null read.

Spoiler: show

We just recently go home and I am catching up.

Ok, I have not been very active in this game at all and I am truly very sorry for that, guys. Like, I've been reading the thread and somewhat keeping up with it (I usually have 4 or 5 pages to catch up on). As I go to respond to someone's posts with theories or questions, someone else has already addressed the same thing. Should I post it anyway? I usually have things typed up and ready to post, and I continue reading and someone has posted the same thing. Yesterday I posted I was catching up but I didn't even post anything because all had been addressed by the time I had finished reading.

This happens to em all the time.

I originally did not find Golden to be suspicious and I still do not find him the most suspicious out of all players (not listed in the poll), however, his vote to tie the vote for Sloonei and (I don't remember who... Niju?) makes me think that his attempt was to prevent Sloonei from getting voted out. It's very weak, I know. Someone later said that Golden is a more experienced player and would not do something so inept. So I just don't know who else to vote as there is not enough information against anyone else, in my opinion.

I understand that Golden looks bad b/c of when and who he voted for. However, I have seen this situation before where it was just coincidence and the player turned out civ. So, it's hard for the to place my vote on Golden when its only his vote that makes him look like he could be bad. I see nothing wrong with his posts.

I am on the fence about LC.

I voted for LC. This game really started at an awkward time for me and the 24 hour Days isn't helping me get my footing. I am trying though and I should have some things to say in the near future.

So you really don't express a reason for voting LC. Why did you vote him?

MM's self vote makes me want to vote him too. His continuous self votes bug me.

And Russ. No suspicions there.

So, I guess my vote goes to MM today.

Elo decides to vote for MM, despite LC seeming most fishy previously. She says she is "on the fence" about LC, but she never substantiates this. She votes MM because "his continuous self votes bug me". She specifically says she has no suspicions of Russ.

D2 overall: Slight mafia read. Her contributions in D2 are very vague and unsubstantiated.

NIGHT 2

Spoiler: show

So today is Simon's birthday. He is EIGHT YEARS OLD!!! (I am so old.) I will post pictures in the birthday thread later, but he is having an awesomely epic Star Wars birhtday party And...we are excited b/c our good 'ol friend blooper is supposed to be coming. Now that she has moved we don't see her often enough. So....I am only here for a minute b/c I have just finished decorating and now I need to go workout and get ready.

I will say this regarding those of you who think I could be Sloonei's teammate. I am not Sloonei's teammate. That should be lie detectable.

Elo claims an LD-able statement in "I am not Sloonei's teammate". Null read, since there is only one player who can LD, and it's a one-time ability. However, knowing DH was the LD detector, and that he came out strong against Elo after her D3 shenanigans, I thought this was worth at least including in the ISO.

DAY 3

Spoiler: show

SO I have yet to read anything past my last post which was in reference to niju being killed. Her death saddens me. She is too cool to be killed off so early. Anyway....that said, I just want to say how much I hate these rainbow lists. Find me suspicious if you want but I haven't liked them from the beginning. MP ranks Niju as his top read of civilian and then she dies. It's like saying...."hey baddies, this is the person you should kill next." I know I have picked on you a lot this game MP. I don't mean anything by it, really. Your list the just the one I found first.

- nijuukyugou is my new top read, and I'm willing to take a strong stand. She seems consistently genuine, her hesitance to pile onto Golden today bodes well, and her vote from D1 still stands out as very strong. That said, I hope to see even more baddie hunting from her. And I still am going to continue to examine and question her intentions as much as everyone else, if not even more so, but right now I have to admit that she looks better than all the rest of you.

Okay, so I just wanted to mention that. I have to get back to school now and do a little housework and then I will catch up on everything that's been said so far today. I have a splitting headache from staying up until 2am with Epi and Niju. I am SO old! And I didn't even have one drop to drink. Epi drank beer all evening and is totally fine. I don't get it.

Elo states her hatred for rainbow lists. WIFOM. Null read.

Spoiler: show

If you'll notice, Golden did not have Blooper first on his rainbow list. In fact, I'm the only one that called her my top read, if I recall correctly (and I'm pretty sure about this).

It's possible the mafia are fucking with me by killing off my top reads (they killed llama N1 and Blooper N2, both of my top reads), but to automatically think that the mafia are blindly following the opinions of just ONE individual is not worth cancelling my rainbow reads. I want everyone to know everything that I'm thinking.

I hate to even say this b/c I really feel like you are civilian. But, it could be that you are Mafia and killing off your own top reads.

'Sticking with Elo' meant voting her for her back and forth on Sloonei, which I still found odd at that time. She even decided to go along with Sloonei with roughly 10 minutes to go, after returning for the deadline with 30 minutes to go, making it hard for me to inquire her properly in the time left.

It was actually an hour before days end and it was a sufficient amount of time to read the thread and vote. I had originally said that sloonei gave me a scummy vibe. He challenged me to reread him. I did and found nothing notably scummy in his posts when reading them separately from he thread. So, I told him I would table my thoughts on him for the day. After getting back from my day out with the family, I read his posts while I was gone and they were definitely scummy IMO. I voted him. That was it.

Eloh Thoughts:

Early on, very jokey

Civ reads on Cookie/DDL/MP/Golden

Uneasy reads on G-Man/Sloonei

Backtracks on Sloonei suspicion

Returns to it as a "save herself" option

Likes MP's Scotty case

ends up voting for Sloonei

More jokey

Theory that there MUST be a baddie among the poll of four

LC jumps out to her as most suspect/fishy

Then she is "on the fence" RE:LC

Votes for MM for his self voting

As for "very jokey", I like to have fun in Mafia. I have said this over and over again. It is like my only adult interaction. I know that is sad. I already explained my back and forth on sloonei several times. As for the "four on the poll" I thought Epi put those names on there but I was corrected that another player picked them. That made more sense. Just b/c I think LC is the most suspicious of the four doesn't mean I cannot be "on the fence" about him at the same time. Once I found out that it was possible that none of the four were bad, I wasn't comfortable voting LC. I voted MM for voting himself b/c I think voting one's self is stupid.

Elo responds to my claim about the mafia possibly killing off my top reads with the other side of the WIFOM coin. Slight civilian read from her on that.

She elaborates on her thought process regarding Sloonei. Null, but worth looking at, especially for those considering her as a suspect.

She also responds to DH regarding his ISO on her. Null.

Spoiler: show

@ Rico, I thought you were talking about the vote when we were voting one of the four. That was the night I had an hour to catch up. You are right....the night when Sloonei was lynched, I didn;t have much time at all to catch up, but it was enough to see his responses to my posts and think he was bad for it.

More elaboration on her train of thought during D1 EoD and her Sloonei vote.

Spoiler: show

I am surprised to see you say you are looking at cookie. What do you see from her? I mean, I guess she COULD be bad and her team is telling her to play dumb and ask a lot of questions. But I really don't think that is the case.

I do agree with you on DH, MP. He has not seemed very civ today at all.

Elo is surprised to see me suspect Cookie. She says she "really" doesn't think that Cookie is "playing dumb" and mafia. This is noteworthy.

She claims DH has "not seemed very civ". No reasoning provided. Slight mafia read.

Spoiler: show

My uneasiness of G-Man and LC stem from earlier on in the game and the fact that they really haven;t been present lately. I will go back and look at DH and tell you some specifics. I'm telling you though, I might as well just shut up, b/c I feel like I cannot make a post without some kind of flaw. I am misunderstanding y'all left and right, sorry.

Woah linki

Elo explains her uneasiness of G-Man and LC stem from "earlier on in the game" and that they haven't been around. She never explained LC. I know Elo can be vague regardless of alignment, but these are particularly vague suspicions. Slight mafia read.

Spoiler: show

I'm not deaf to Elohcin saying that being jokey relaxes her and stating time and again her reasoning for focusing on, off and then decisively on Sloonei, but I strongely feel her gameplay so far is very messy.

My gameplay is always messy. I am a horrible mafia player. Everyone knows this. But it is a heck of a lot of fun, so I play.

My uneasiness of G-Man and LC stem from earlier on in the game and the fact that they really haven;t been present lately. I will go back and look at DH and tell you some specifics. I'm telling you though, I might as well just shut up, b/c I feel like I cannot make a post without some kind of flaw. I am misunderstanding y'all left and right, sorry.

Woah linki

Re: the bolded and underlined... You think this makes them mafia, despite their contributions?

You should never shut up. I want to hear literally every thought you're thinking about any player.

I don't think that alone makes them mafia. I think it is one reason to look at them.

No. What I mean is that him posting ISOs hardly means anything about his alignment.

You don't think his baddie hunting is genuine?

This sums up my feelings about DH. I couldn't think of a good way to say it, but "not genuine" works well. His baddie hunting seems a bit disconnected. Does that make sense? I am so tired.

But then MP, you make some good points about cookie. I just don't know. Is she really just so new and confused? Or is she being coached and this is all an act? I hate that I am so easily persuaded. It makes being a civ VERY difficult.

Elo says she is a messy player. WIFOM. Null read.

She explains that the fact that G-Man and LC not being around is only one reason to look at them, but provides no others. Moderate mafia read.

Says that DH's baddie hunting seems "disconnected".

Note that Elo says I make some good points about Cookie.

Spoiler: show

DH went through and listed who did/said what in his posts today. It was almost like he was just throwing the info out there to see who would say what and then it would be easy for him to jump on a suspicion and not be able to be blamed for it when the lynched person turns up civ. His "ISOs" did more of stating the facts of players' gameplay than giving his own opinion. I think this could be a baddie tactic. Does that explain it any better, MP?

Elo explains what she means by disconnected wrt DH, after I asked her to explain. While I later pointed out that an ISO is often times pure analysis or mostly analysis, and her observation is thus perhaps moot re: DH's alignment, but her explanation seems fair enough. Slight civilian read.

Spoiler: show

Cookie - Why would you find me suspicious when I tied u the vote if it was in favor of the civs?

Question to Cookie. Null read.

Spoiler: show

Okay, DH. You defend yourself well. And MP, I see what you are saying about ISOs.

Backs off of DH, saying he defends himself well.

Spoiler: show

If I had to choose from the players you listed, Mp, I would choose espers. But, I don't necessarily think she is bad. I am really not sure. But I think you are pretty close minded to ONLY want to talk about those players.

Says that she would want to lynch espers based on those I had in my list, but says she is "really not sure", doesn't necessarily think espers is bad, and calls me out on being closed minded to ONLY want to discuss those players. Moderate civilian read here. A mafia Elo would not have called me out on that, I think, and it shows a civilian mindset from her in doing so. Easily her most civilian-oozing post of Day 3.

Spoiler: show

You are too fun MP My list is G-Man and any two quiet players. Pick any. I think we have some quiet baddies today.

She says her list of players to vote for Day 3 is: "G-Man and any two quiet players". She expresses that she thinks the baddies are quiet today. Slight mafia read, since her quiet observation is vague.

Spoiler: show

Why you be asking if someone wants to vote me?

Elo confronts me with regards to my inquiry as to whether Rico would consider voting for her. Null read.

Spoiler: show

I can't see DDL being bad again so quickly. What are the odds? And...he is far too comfortable in the thread for me to think he is bad.

linki. Alright. I guess you are a smart cookie.

Spoiler: show

remember he was bad in Guess Who. And you KNOW Epi does nto randomize roles. And he was very uncomfortable as a mafia player in Guess Who. Golden said it best. You would have to look at his in topic to find the exact post.

Elo theorizes that DDL's "odds" of being bad do not exist in this game. Weird theory. Null read.

Spoiler: show

Well "doesn't truly care who gets lynched" sounds very Molochian to me. If you think LoRab fits the description, I'm thinking Eloh does as well.

Elo is bouncing all over the place, isn't she?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding exactly what her rainbow list of players-with-highest-propensity-to-receive-my-vote today looks like.

Like I said. I really think we have some quiet Mafia this game.

linki: out of respect of golden I will reread DDL tomorrow.

honestly, MP, I am just so tired and everything it super hilarious right now. I really don;t know who to vote for. Many of y'all come in here drunk and post. Well, I don't drink. This is my not-enough-sleep giddiness.

Elo reiterates her claim of quiet mafia. Unsubstantiated. Slight mafia read.

Spoiler: show

A water gun? HAHA! UH...G-Man

Wow, that was a lot of linki in 2 seconds

I asked Elo who she would vote RIGHT NOW, if I held a water gun to her head. She said G-Man here.

YET she voted for me. Strong mafia read.

D3 overall: Moderate mafia read. Her contributions in D3 overall were a tough call, with some civilian and some mafia behavior, but her EoD behavior is sketchy.

NIGHT 3

Spoiler: show

B/c you held a watergun to my head.

This was her reason. It's Day freaking 3. Strong mafia read.

Spoiler: show

B/c you held a watergun to my head.

You've said multiple times in this game that you think I'm really civilian, yet you cast your vote for me.

I really do think you are civ. I won't let you gt lynched for real.

Elo says she "really" thinks I'm civilian and that she won't let me "get lynched for real". It was a CLOSE lynch. The person lynched had only TWO votes. This is so fucking sketchy I can't even. Very strong mafia read.

Spoiler: show

*sigh* okay, I am sobering up. You guys are no fun. I am not bad y'all. Look at my voting record. I really thought I could have a little fun tonight and not be looked at b/c I have such a good voting record. . I will vote for cookie with you all on Day 4 if you guys really see her as bad.

Elo says "look at my voting record" and that she thought she could have fun and not be looked at because she has such a good voting record. Strong mafia read. A civilian should NEVER throw around a vote so carelessly in a very important, up-for-grabs lynch.

Elo then says she will "vote for cookie with you all on Day 4 if you guys really see her as bad". Strong mafia read. Develop your own reads, Elo! She has been, all game, so this is really odd.

Spoiler: show

Listen, people drunk post all the time and no one gives a shit. I come in tired and giddy and I go from looking civ to definitely one of the last baddies. Shit. Ah well. Lynch me next then. Whatever.

Frustration, asking us to lynch her next. Could be civilian or mafia-based. Null read.

Spoiler: show

Listen, people drunk post all the time and no one gives a shit. I come in tired and giddy and I go from looking civ to definitely one of the last baddies. Shit. Ah well. Lynch me next then. Whatever.

What does this have to do with drunk posting?

You have no suspects, then cast a vote for me. You even panicked and indicated you might vote for Cookie after I seriously considered it, then you didn't.

It's practically Night 3. You're a lot of fun, Elo, but get your head into the game.

I'm sorry, you are right. I will do better. I just need some sleep tonight. Also, sorry DH. I feel like I might could have prevented your death had I not been so out of it. Please forgive me.

Another post from Elo, saying she could preventing DH's death. Null read.

N3 overall: Same as D3. Maybe even a strong mafia read. Where the hell are her reads from earlier in the game? Why has she still never explained her thoughts on LC adequately?

DAY 4

-- (so far)

Spoiler: show

I decided to reread Lorab to see what all the fuss is about and these particular quotes caught my eye.

I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

Do you think a scum player would voluntarily leave such an honest statement in the thread like that? It's incredibly easy for a baddie to simply say "I'm not bad", and I have a hars time believing that G-man's conscience would have gotten to him that much, if that is what you are saying in part.

Do you have your eye on anyone other than G-man?

I think a baddie would possibly do that, yes. When there is a lie detector, baddies do all sorts of things in posts in order to try to avoid outright lying while making themselves seem like they're claiming to be civ. I've seen it happen before, especially when they've been called out for phrasing things oddly.

What doesn't make sense is that saying "I am civ" might be seen as role claiming. That just doesn't make sense to me.

If you think G-man phrased his post oddly because of he was wary of the lie detector, does hos exact wording mean anything to you? He does not "pose a threat to the civvies." Does that strike you as the sort of thing scum would say to avoid being caught by a lie detector.
His rationale about not claiming civ due to role claim restrictions does seem a bit odd, i'll give you that.
And I'll also ask for more suspects again. Who besides G-man are you looking at, LoRab?

"Does not pose a threat to the civies" does seem like the sort of thing a baddie would say, yes. Especially if they don't have a power that doesn't have a direct, negative impact on others.

And, at this point, no one else is standing out to me. I'm often a 1 suspect at a time kind of gal. Also, day 1, so not much to go on.

Does this mean your mind and vote are set on G-man today?

I wouldn't say set, but if nothing else comes up and he doesn't say something to convince me, that is likely where I will vote, yes.

Also, as to another post you made (that I forgot to quote), if he was trying to attract the lie detector, then why do so with what is potentially an undetectable statement (a threat to civs can be a matter of opinion as to what that means)...unless you were trying to make sure that a teammate wasn't LD-ed?

I really think that Lorab could be one of the last two baddies.


But, then I am torn b/c she did vote G-Man Day 1 and I also think it is a possibility that G-Man is one of the last two baddies. Heck, it could be G-Man and Cookie. It would explain her sense of being lost b/c G-Man has been so busy and has to be sneaky with his Mafia mistress.

Elo has decided to re-read LoRab and declares that LoRab could be one of the last two baddies. This is notable, since LoRab has a lot of propensity to be lynched going into D4. Elo also says G-Man could be one of the last two baddies, then says it could be G-Man and Cookie. Can't tell what mindset this comes from. Null read.

Spoiler: show

So I got this confusing info PM. I know I cannot say what it said but I worked damn hard to get the info by doing a stupid maze and I didn't even understand the info.

The confusing info PM claim. Null read.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OVERALL: Elo seems like a slight to moderate mafia read to me. Her D3/N3 behavior still strikes me as WTF, even by her civilian standards. There are reasons I debate on her baddieness, however, since her Day 1 behavior and vote still seem more likely civilian and not a teammate of Sloonei. Some of her behavior also seems a bit too brazen for a member of the mafia, but who knows?

What do you all think?

[Elohcin]

so im not going to read anything and going to go from here.

anything i should know offhand?

Intriguing- I took that same stance when I subbed into BoB. I was a baddie.

Defend yourself and the posts & votes of your predecessor in 500 words or less. You have three hours. Grammar counts for half of your final grade.

1)I would rather you not sub in than sub in a half-ass it.
2)And are you are in eight games? When do you have time to work, eat, or poop?
3)I like G-Man's response to ika here. I too look forward to what he/she has to say.

1) shame, its a common thing on most other sites i play on.
2) i wrok tommorwo 6-30 in more to 7 in afternoon theng o to poker and get drunk.
other times i just check during breaks or when im not busy. i poop and play at same time
3) i do too

1)Why are you playing around?
2)If you are civ, wouldn't you be working hard to give us your opinion on who you think is bad or at least reading through espers to help defend yourself.
3)Or are you in so many games that you don't give a damn? If so, why replace in?

1) im not, im interacting with players, you dont realize that i play very differently then how most do. i gain reads based on interactions.
2) theory talk: my idea of civ play is to not care about ones self image. i have no reason to defend myself over anything. especially on predictor cus i can not speak for their actions. right now im watching whats going on now and waiting. also by playing in such manner if gets people to talk to me
3) nope, 99% of the time i will not get a damn about being suspected. if you need reason i can link you to my past. and trust me its not fun

I hope you can take this as nicely as possible. But, I don't like your style. I don't like the way you break up my post into 1), 2), and 3). Its called a quote for a reason. You really shouldn't mess with it by adding or omitting parts. It just makes it too easy to fuck with the game. Also, when I asked i you just don't give a damn, I was not talking about being suspected. That's obvious. I was talking about giving a dam about the game in general and about the players you are playing with. If you are civ, you ought to give a damn about us and work hard to help us. If you are bad, you ought to give a damn about your teammates and work hard to win with them. Why even play Mafia if this is how you are going to act?

linki: My ISO from MP which I will read in a sec.

[Russtifinko]

And thanks for answering, Russ!
So just to sum up for my own sanity:

LoRab pings you because she's frivolous, espers is your strongest read right now, you're confident Elo is good, MM is behaving his normal blah self, and Bass (Tiny) is prolly good like Elo.

I don't think this exonerates you from my watchful eye, since all of your arguments sound weak and, daresay, measured.

linki- @Russ yea that answered me, thanks!
but
Double Linki: Yeah looking back, I can see how anyone lost it Day 3. Those were the latest votes I've ever seen.
How do you know how late they were? Didn't you miss Day 3? Is there a way to check a timestamp of a vote?

Cool. You should be watching me. I just think what I think.

And yeah you can check when people bold their votes and/or panic about voting last-minute. I suppose that's not foolproof, but based on the timestamps of those posts it was intense. I think the way people talk about D3 corroborates that it all happened very quickly.

[Russtifinko]

Oh! And Scotty, you have my reads on those players correct.

Also, why is Epi posting pictures of living rooms during the daytime? I thought hosts were crepuscular!

[LoRab]

Spoiler: show

Golden's use of the "I'm a very important civ" defense may have earned him my vote. Because, in my experience, civs don't usually use that defense.

Food for thought:

You should not vote for me because I am not bad.

...

I'm civ. I don't know how to convince anyone of that, but it's true. Will do my best to try.

I may seem suspicious to some but I am not bad. I am not Indy. I am not neutral. I'm civ this game.

I'm not asking for your trust. I appreciate the suspicion. But I'm not bad.

And, since Sllnei isn't/wasn't my teammate, no, it wasn't unfortunate for me. I'm glad we lynched a baddie. I'm a civie--I'm still not sure about you.

But, eye me all you want. I have nothing to hide. I am all civ all the time this time around. If I'm not too tired later I'll twirl for you.

Keep in mind all of those are in different posts, most pulled out of larger posts.
I do get what you are saying, LoRab, and perhaps this isn't a fair post. Golden phrased his defense as "one of the most important roles we have". That's a pretty hefty statement that you did not technically make. But in your defenses over the past few days, all those little "I'm a civ" moments just stick out to me just as bad based on the overarching slightly hypocritical reasoning of your vote for Golden.

I don't think that saying you're an important civ and saying you're a civ are the same thing. Also, I tend to say I'm a civ when I'm accused--it's part of my twirly MO. I do not think it's hypocritical; I think they are 2 different statements. It was the important part that struck me, not the civ part, if that makes sense.

Spoiler: show

I read through Lorab and saw what G-man said that started that whole debate. When I read G-Man's response I immediately thought indy but in no way did I think baddie. The other thing I noted is unless I have not read the roles correctly the Nite Owl II could only detect once and the Night Owl I can only detect once. That just doesn't seem like enough of a threat for someone to be addressing the LD by putting a checkable statement out there this early. On her comment on the Golden comment, I am more surprised that Golden said he was an important civ in the the thread. I do somewhat see her reasoning why that might have made Golden bad - otherwise why would he risk making himself a target. Unlike Lorab though i cannot say that most of the time I hear people say this they are baddies. People say all kinds of things when they are desperate. I feel like I must mention though that in games I've played with her Lorab marches to her own drummer and like she says concentrates on detail. I have to decide if disagreeing with Lorab equates with suspecting her of being bad. Please tell me if you think I missed anything that would affect my vote about Lorab.

I have a very long doctors appointment today and so will not be back on until later today. I will continue reading when I get back because as I understand it we have a vote tonight. I feel like I've got Day 1 type reactions to people (not feeling sure, tentative) but give me time to get my legs under me.

Hope all goes well at the doc!!

And it's true that there is only limited LD-ing. That didn't dawn on me at the time that GMan's post initially pinged me. And I really only kept talking about it because I was questioned about it. And the important civ thing is something I've seen baddies try to use too many times to not discount it. And there was a limited pool of who to vote for. But I get seeing it differently. And no, disagreeing with you doesn't mean bad. And yes, I do twirl to my own drum.

Spoiler: show

Vote Analysis on

I decided she is another player I barely have an opinion on and I'd like to.

DAY 1

I'm of 2 minds with the GMan stuff.

On the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

That being said, the way he phrased it doesn't sound like a way a civie would describe themselves, even with phrasing it differently. What he posted earlier sounds like something that is a baddie trying to describe themselves with a true statement on a technicality (like, if they don't have a power that can be used to harm a civie, they technically aren't a threat). And his explanation doesn't ring so true to me.

There are also roles with secrets, and we don't know how those statements might have an impact on an LD role. He could have been waiting for clarification on how a statement of "I am a civie" would show up. on G Man. Leaning towards a vote in that direction.

She begins the G-Man suspicion here. She has a very good point, imo. Myself, I had my fair share of watching people try to manipulate lie detectors. That said, there is only a one-shot LD in the game, which makes it pretty minor factor, so I'm not sure if this is big enough to warrant a vote. G-Man has had bigger baddie signs, as well as bigger town signs, in this game.

There are multiple other posts about G-Man which I won't bother to quote.

Until I just read MP's list, I kind of forgot LC was playing. So I checked the who's posted thingie, and he only has 1 post (only other person with 1 post, btw, is K-nuk, who isn't playing). And here's his 1 post:

Spoiler: show

If we are going to consider a policy lynch of any sort for Day 1, why not the person with the lowest posts?

You mean the player whose posts can be read with the deepest voice or the player who writes the low-down meanest posts?

I believe the word you are looking for is fewest.

G-Man is now on my list of people that I will not vote for on Day 1.

linki- are we doing a Golden Day 1 lynch? Is that what we're doing?

Statistics tell me leaving Golden alive is always bad for town. Never played a game where he didn't destroy the fuck out of the poor civs.

If it wasn't for Golden, the civilians wouldn't have won Biblical or Roger Rabbit, so... I can provide counterexamples for practically every example.

Is anyone here seriously considering a policy lynch option for Day 1? I just don't think it's wise.

Hey- Golden had a LOT of help behind the scenes. Never forget that. He was right and I was wrong about the final baddie but my lists helped serve up at least two baddies- one of which I handed to Golden on a silver platter from beyond the grave. I'd like to think that he would have had a much harder time winning that game without my help.

I will not stand for a closed-minded town on Day 1.

Then take a seat.

For the record... I was taking it all in stride. As in, I thought that everyone was pretty much joking, but I saw the potential for any of them to make it real just for fun as well. Although Metalmarsh and Golden are survival buddies right now, so I doubt either of them are inclined to lynch unless they're pretty convinced.

Anywho, I'll vote for Rorschach's Journal, because Rorschach is my favourite part of a story made of awesome parts. This quote I quoted is where I have read up to at this point, be back later.

Ironic that his first comment is on a comment (an awesome comment, btw) about fewest posts. Which manages to comment on the matter without commenting on the matter.

As importantly, he manages to say he will not vote for G-Man without having to defend him. Given the fact that I suspect G-Man, this strikes me as suspicious.

And the bulk of his post is about another game--nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but he barely makes comment on this game. Which isn't really like him.

I am still suspicious of G Man. But LC has just moved up on my suspiciometer (I guess I have 2 suspects now, lol). And I hope he posts more. I may throw him a vote just to get him to post more.

Later in the phase, she starts suspecting LC, for a statement about not voting G-Man which she perceived as fishy. For me, LC's statement was obviously a jokey one, considering he was just quoting a post where G-Man fixes someone's grammar. So that would point LoRab as either doing some unnecessary tunneling, or a baddie trying hard to justify a suspicion.

I'm around...voting either GMan or possibly LC

Voted G-man. Because I find him suspicious.

She mantains her position and votes G-Man, keeping LC as a close second. Consistent, but completely oblivious to what is going in the phase, since nobody else had voted G-Man.

NIGHT 1 / DAY 2

She spents Night 1 defending herself against DH's suspicions, which I'm not gonna bother quoting. There is also this interaction:

Looks like you didn't throw me that vote. That's ok, it wouldn't have affected my posting volume at all, so that plan was doomed from inception.

Ah, but posting about you has gotten you to post. So yay!

She doesn't exactly says whether she still suspects LC or not, so I dunno what to think of this.

Golden's use of the "I'm a very important civ" defense may have earned him my vote. Because, in my experience, civs don't usually use that defense.

Spoiler: show

Hey hey, back from the campground. Still catching up but I'm on Page 12, where the vote deadline looms eminent. Very interesting to read through. Here are some thoughts and observations:

In my re-reading, I am also pinged by the big deal being made out of G-Man's lie detector statements. Especially considering he said "I am not a mafia" which is an equally lie detectable statement as "I am a civvie".

Of the people making a fuss about it LoRab strikes me as most suspect, I may put my vote there.

I too am curious about why my statements became such a big deal. LoRab had to reach back a long time in history to pull out the LD point from back in my early LP days. I mean way back. Same goes for MP (i think) for going way way back to the stone age of STV too. I choose my words carefully every time. Curious how they chose to think back past an awful lot of my playing history to find a possible reason that they could use to implicate me as a baddie.

Eye me all you want. But I haven't played a game with an LD (that I remember at least) since back in that time. I wasn't thinking about your playing history in general, but how I have noticed people respond to LD's in games. Those games just happen to be old ones. I notice patterns in posting and patterns of behavior. It's how I always play and always have played. If that makes me suspicious, so be it. I'm just trying to find the bad guys and point out behavior and posting that I happen to find suspicious. I'm not trying to implicate you. I suspect you. There is a difference.

This post features her first suspicion on Golden, for a sort of weird reason, though one I could agree with. It also shows more of bickering with G-Man, showing she still suspects him.

I mean that as a legitimate question to - like, is it colouring your vision.

It's a fair question and a good one (and I took it that way). And not really. I don't mind suspicion--I actually kind of like being suspected. Especially as a civ. Keeps the game more interesting and sometimes keeps me alive a little bit longer. I also expect it. For this vote, it's more that I have to vote one of you and I don't really highly suspect any of you right now and then you posted that.

I also meant to say earlier that there hasn't been a lot of discussion about LC's point earlier about it being somewhat strange that Night Owl chose this power to use so early, before knowing any information. With bringing up ideas like that he's either working for the town or he's the biggest of the bads--I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now.

This post shows some self-defense arguments, and finally something about her giving LC the benefit of doubt. Seems kind of random to me imo.

I actually think of Golden as being more careful a player as a civ than as a baddie--I love having civie golden on my side. I'm not sure I'm seeing that.

MM went along with sloonei, so that doesn't look great. Russtifinko I have no idea. LC I already said before I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for the moment because he's asking good questions and bringing things up others aren't--but I have an eye on him.

I could vote MM to create a tie, just for fun. Maybe I'll see where the vote is when we get close.

I don't like this whole choice of 4 thing. Especially not this early. Meh.

She changes her mind here, calling Golden a more likely civ, calling MM suspicious, Russ neutral, and keeping her stance of giving LC a pass. At this point I'd bet she'd vote MM.

MP--want to decide how to play this out?

Obviously Golden votes MM. One of us then can vote MM, and it's back to a tie. Which leaves the other of us to decide where the vote goes. Or we both vote for one person. Or you just descide to screw it and not vote. What's your thinking on this, mr sock?

Very fishy dialogue with MP, sho is obviously silenced. She seems highly aware of how the vote count may end.

Oh, wait, except he's sileneced and has no vote. (realized that as you were typing it. yay linkitis!)

Golden, I'm voting for you. I expect you to vote for MM. We'll let the powers that be decide what happens next. Seems like the fairest thing to do. Although scariest.

And then this. After all the suspicions about the 4 players, she ties the poll on purpose (well technically she gave Golden the chance to tie the poll, but Golden's vote was a given). She seems to think that's the most "fair" way to end the lynch. Imo, that's an epic cop-out. A good civ player should decide who she thinks is the best target for a lynch, not leave it to the RNG gods.

NIGHT 2 / DAY 3

She is not really active on D3, though I remember seeing her lurking the thread pretty much all the time.

Some more bickering with LC, where she keeps the position of giving him a pass. And a few posts defending herself. Actually, she barely does much in the phase other than defending herself. And then this:

On quickly and skimmed up. I do care who is lynched. I'm posting based on my suspicions. Day 2 I didn't really like any of the choices at that moment. I may seem suspicious to some but I am not bad. I am not Indy. I am not neutral. I'm civ this game. I'm voting gman because I still suspect him. And for those saying I was bringing up his old games that is not true. Read my posts. It's how people post with an ld in game in general. Although I still don't see how gman' statement of thinking that saying he was civie would be role outing still doesn't make sense to me and his explanations for it don't ring true. If that makes me seem suspish, so be it. I find him suspicious. That hasn't changed. Voting him. I hope to live to actually defend myself from specific posts.

More self defense, and finally votes G-Man, based on the d1 reasoning. Again, it's not necessarily a bad reason, but G-Man did more things in the game and I'd at least like her to have an opinion on them. At this point, the d1 thing seems forced.

I have a pretty strong baddie read on LoRab now, though I'm not sure if it's my biggest one. She seems overly focused on G-Man without actually doing much work on it, and her flip-flopping on day 2, as well as her intentional tie is fishy as fuck.

Going in order:
I keep going back to that main point with GMan because it keeps being brought up in the thread. Also, what others see as suspicious isn't necessarily the same as what I do. I post generally to explain my own reasons for things, not always to try and convince others. What you may have seen as signs, haven't necessarily been the same for me. And, as I said, when I initally posted, I didn't remember that the LD roles were so limited.

About LC, I really started posting about him day 1 to get him to post more--and then I started to convince myself that he actually was vaguely suspish. And while LC does jokey posts, and that certainly was, I quoted it not because it was a particularly noteworthy post, but because it was his only post. Quiet LC is not an LC I am used to and it made me squirrely--and, as I've said, when LC goes into analytical mode, it's generally a sign that he's civ. So, having only seen a jokey post, it did make me eyeball him a bit more.

And I was not oblivious to the thread at all. If I have nothing to add to a conversation, I tend to not comment. It doesn't mean I'm ignoring things or haven't noticed them. And I vote for those that I find the most suspicious--which is not necessarily the same as what others are thinking. I often vote for someone that no one else is voting for. I'm kind of opinionated and stubborn like that.

In context with the LC stuff of how I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, a lot of that (and our interaction in general) goes back to our shared mafia history. Until he totally snowed me in a recent game (can't remember which), he was on the short list of players I could generally accurately read--and I'm still used to reading him as if he still is. So I was commenting on my current thinking on him. Also, again, limited pool of people to vote for.

I did not call Golden a "more likely civ" in the post that you quote at all. I was commenting on his game play in general and how he plays as a civ as opposed to how he plays as a baddie. And if you read that post, at that point I was unsure if I should vote for MM or Golden. They were pretty equal in my mind at that moment. I clearly was wrong about my golden suspicion--perhaps I should have voted MM, though. Her recent insistence on trying to get me lynched does not make me feel good about her.

And, at that moment, I completely forgot that MP was silenced. I was really just talking out loud about what to do, and hoping that another player I knew was around (he was showing as in the thread at the time, IIRC)/was likely to vote, might help me figure things out.

And yes, normally I would agree that a civ should vote for the one they find the most suspicious, but I didn't have a clear most suspicious. Also, I wasn't sure that a coin toss would decide a tie, or that a tie wouldn't cause a potentially game changing and perhaps civ-friendly event, and I like to keep mafia interesting.

And, again, there were only 4 choices and it was day 2. It was hardly a normal vote.

Day 3, I was out most of the day, driving for much of it, and with limited access. I posted that that morning. So, yes, I was catching up when I could, but I didn't have time to read and post for most of the day. Limiting posting ability plus people suspecting me meant that I felt I needed to use the posts I made to defend. And yes, I have tunnel vision--I generally do. When I become very suspicious of someone and I haven't seen anything to change my mind, I generally go back to the initial reasons.

And I'm not sure what work you'd want me to do on my suspicions. Like I said, I don't often try to convince people to agree with my opinions unless I am positive or pretty darn sure about something. In this case, it's a suspicion, not a surety. So, yes, I'm stubborn about it. But I have commented on what I had to add (when not addressing things brought up about me/my posts/my opinions by others).

Basically, your post boils down to my style seeming suspicious to you. Or that I've said things that strike you as ping-y. This wouldn't be the first time. But it does not make me bad.

Spoiler: show

I think we should lynch LoRab tomorrow.

Metalmarsh, I read what Rico said about Lorab but I'd like to know what you've seen that makes you want to lynch her next. If you did an iso already on her just tell me.

I meant to say something yesterday, but was thwarted by unforeseen circumstances. Her votes are opportunistic.

Day 1, she voted G-Man even though she also found Long Con suspicious. That itself is not suspicious, but her case on G-man looks insincere. I think she is trying to paint him as a baddie for something that doesn't look bad. Her reason for voting G-man was that he said "his role is not harmful to civilians".

Day 2, she backed off LC for some reason. Then she said both myself and Golden look bad. In the end, she votes for Golden for saying "I am an important civ". Sound familar? Also, she played musical votes at the end of the day phase, directing and orchestrating the end of the day votes to create a situation where she could force a tie.

Day 3, she votes G-Man again, defaulting to her Day 1 suspicion. Again, I don't like the case, and there's the fact that she quickly backed off of the Long Con suspicion. Why the tunneling of G-Man?

G-Man, these are the points I made about LoRab. What are your thoughts, considering you were the one she's been voting for?

Linki: Hi Ricochet, I have good vibes about you this game.

Why does it matter that GMan is the one I've been voting for? I'm not sure why that would have an impact on his opinion of me (other than knowing whether I'm right about him or not).

And I disagree that my votes are opportunistic--my votes are based on suspcion. Yes, my suspicion is based on small details, but small details often lead to knowing who is bad and who is good. And, while you may not agree that his posts do not make him seem bad, GMan's posts do make him seem suspish to me. I found GMan far more suspicious than LC. I also don't like to vote for people who haven't offered a defense, unless I have VERY good reason to believe they are bad. So, yeah, I had a ping about LC, but it wasn't enough to vote for him without giving him the benefit of a defense. And, once he did start posting, I decided to put my ping of him on the back burner.

It wasn't a waffle with LC so much as a once he started posting I had more context.

You don't think of the game the same as I do, or read posts the same as I do. I look for details. I notice changes in post patterns. I learn people's style and try to notice when it changes. I notice slips. It's how I play. It doesn't make me bad. I'm not.

However, that you are harping on this--and trying to characterize my play in a negative light--and insisting that I am bad makes me think that you may be bad. And you may be trying to get rid of me. Because I know that you don't have info on me. Because I know that I'm civ. Right now, while my suspicion of GMan stands, I am increasingly suspicious of you.

And I'm not saying that as a Switcheroo--I really think that you are being disingenuous in your suspicion of me.

Cookie is also pinging my suspiciometer. She (he? She?) seems to be playing the newbie card just enough that it's evident, but that it's possible to go back and say that it wasn't being played.

Espers being replaced actually increases suspicion there for me, although I realize that's unfair (a baddie in trouble is often more likely replaced in order to maintain balance, but I realize that there could be a zillion reasons for needing a replacement--but that is where my mind goes). Iko not wanting to catch up on the game only increases that thinking. If not for Iko not wanting to catch up, I'd probably not have mentioned it.

linkitis: @Russ: I so don't think of myself as legendary, so thanks. Really, I've just been playing for a long time. And, at some point, someone found a twirly smiley for me because I always post the "eye me all you want" thing and I get all twirly while I'm being eyed. But, about this game, I'm not trying to be frivolous. I'm just a bit quirky and think about things differently than a lot of players. I notice small details and figure things out from that. It's really just how I play.

[Ricochet]

So LoRab asked me to go back and read her posts the other Day, with 10 minutes before deadline - which is my favourite time to do that, how did she know, having never played with me before?!. The topic being about never having brought up G-Man's past games. I can agree my wording wasn't perfect, but I still find that she referenced meta as old as the internet, including the subtext that G-Man used to play in those times, so fully aware of the implications of games with LD. Here's the fragment

n the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

I don't intend to go over the entire LD debate, but what I meant in my previous read of her is that it stuck out to me that she's making a case over this meta while another player (Golden) felt better about G-Man wording, based on the same meta.

When there is a lie detector, baddies do all sorts of things in posts in order to try to avoid outright lying while making themselves seem like they're claiming to be civ. I've seen it happen before, especially when they've been called out for phrasing things oddly.

I'm feeling better about G-Man. Not 100% better, but a fair bit better.

I sort of understood the suspicion around his curiously worded statement, until we started getting into the lie detector stuff. Then I remembered how, back in the STV days, (ah, the STV mafia days) wording statements in that kind of way was completely normal. I had actually completely forgotten how we used to draft everything in such a way that the lie detector might be able to check us out, and because they couldn't check statements like 'i am civilian', you did used to say stuff like 'i am not a threat to the civilians'.

G-Man has been on break since STV days until very recently, so when I thought that through I realised that it would be pretty logical some of his phrasing would show vestiges of the way we used to do things on STV.

DH took some heat for choosing alternative routes on D1 - criticising the LD debate and voting LoRab for it - but I'm actually inclined to believe that this was LoRab's "alternative route" to almost everything on D1 end phase, apart from, at one point, being pinged by LC (who was also hardly). I can understand her hunt for details and patterns, but this is how I feel about it, mostly.

Moving on to things I can actually not truly get past, how notable is it that she then criticised Golden for a clean civ claim (if only extremely validation-seeking one). She called G-Man bad for "convoluting" his civ claim, yet also called Golden untrustworthy for his clean civ claim. Again, not believing Golden's civ claim, in dire lynch times, isn't completely unreasonable, these kind of civvieness vouches do often get the player in more trouble than before - yet the fact that she hinged her entire Golden case, calling it a situation of not having strong suspicions from the four-player poll (except LC getting a pass for having done role speculations), reads to me as a weak grasp. Then she got absorbed by the idea of creating a tie "just for fun": first considering MM, then waiting for the scenario to be completed at the point of Golden having to vote in self-defense and force the tie.

Golden, I'm voting for you. I expect you to vote for MM. We'll let the powers that be decide what happens next. Seems like the fairest thing to do. Although scariest.

Plus further insensitivity

If it makes you feel better, it's not that I disbelieve you. In a regular lying [sic], I'd probably not have lynched you. I'm also always curious what happens with a tie.

Seems you need to vote regardless of their coming back.

Any last words in case you go?

For a player with old principles on what civvies would say or do, I am disliking how she treated this lynch quite profoundly. This D2 vote of her stinks and I can't get past it at all. This is what prompted me to say she's disinterested in the turnaround of lynches and stuff, which she then also started denying.

Thirdly (or secondly, on the things that weigh more), it has been pointed out already (Scotty, I think) that, after three Days, LoRab is making repeated civ claims, in basic form, nevertheless ironic in relation to lynching Golden for his, more evolved, similar claims. Plus the tone has changed significantly from "eye me all you want", "I don't mind suspicion" to

I'm not bad, and it would be funny that people seem so sure of their suspicion of me if it weren't so darn frustrating

[Tangrowth]

Folks, I really am starting to think Russ is mafia.

Elaboration coming.

[Ricochet]

omg that broken spoiler multi-quote. muh eyes

[Tangrowth]

Everyone, here is a post with every single post that Russ addressed to me or said anything about me until his points on me just now. Just for reference.

Spoiler: show

Sooooo the game started, and I worked all day.....

You guys do realize you averaged over a post per minute between 9:30am and 10am, right? And I haven't read the last 3 pages yet, but it's gotta be close to that for most of the evening.

MP has already demanded no less than 7 answers to questions from EVERY SINGLE PLAYER....and that was 3 pages ago.

Sheesh.


I'd have not voted Rorschach's journal. If he's all he made out to be, he'd write a shorthand or code known only to him in case it fell into the wrong hands.

Also, I have a policy of supporting policy lynches. Let it be known that I will bandwagon onto all policy lynches forthwith, henceforth.

Welcome new players! And new players who used to be old players before I was around. And regular players.

MP has demanded a lot.

Spoiler: show

Elo, thanks!

How about: Where are you leaning for your vote today? Has it changed at all?

Linki with Ninja

If no one was finding me suspicious, I would most likely vote for G-man or sloonei (I know I said I would table my thoughts on sloonei). But, I am still back and forth on sloonei. He now finds me suspicious b/c I reread him and decided that I couldn't find any hard evidence against him? What?!? I wish G-Man would come in and talk.

But it looks like I may be trying to save myself :/

Why did you read him as "scummy" the first time, then? Moreover, why did you give in to a "vibe" rather than rereading him, if it would have left to the same lack of hard evidence, in theory?

I didn't give into a vibe, I just mentioned it. He challenged me to reread him and I found nothing astoundingly scummy. That was all. But his response to my response IS scummy to me.

MP your case on scotty makes a lot of sense.

There's a case on Scotty? I think I missed it. Anyone with a reminder or link to the case?

MP, your policy of underlining names to direct things to people is super helpful, btw.

MP's policy of underlining names is super helpful.

Spoiler: show

Holy shit, good job team! Beast mode, there.

I hereby drop my suspicion of llama until further notice. :P

So at the risk of adding fuel to the engine of what may be a forming bandwagon, something Scotty said right before the lynch pinged me, but it wasn't any of the stuff MP was talking about. Here it is:

I still don't understand the "buddying". If my offhand comment about agreeing with MP's opinion on first-day lynching is to be considered "buddying" then sure, we're buddies, we're getting married next week and having 5 beautiful illegitimate children.

For the record, I'm getting strong civ read from you Bass, though you are suspicious of me

The hyperbole combined with the magnanimity just strikes me as off, somehow. Pretty defensive but also super restrained and friendly.

Russ adds another point to MP's Scotty case.

Spoiler: show

SO I have yet to read anything past my last post which was in reference to niju being killed. Her death saddens me. She is too cool to be killed off so early. Anyway....that said, I just want to say how much I hate these rainbow lists. Find me suspicious if you want but I haven't liked them from the beginning. MP ranks Niju as his top read of civilian and then she dies. It's like saying...."hey baddies, this is the person you should kill next." I know I have picked on you a lot this game MP. I don't mean anything by it, really. Your list the just the one I found first.

- nijuukyugou is my new top read, and I'm willing to take a strong stand. She seems consistently genuine, her hesitance to pile onto Golden today bodes well, and her vote from D1 still stands out as very strong. That said, I hope to see even more baddie hunting from her. And I still am going to continue to examine and question her intentions as much as everyone else, if not even more so, but right now I have to admit that she looks better than all the rest of you.

Okay, so I just wanted to mention that. I have to get back to school now and do a little housework and then I will catch up on everything that's been said so far today. I have a splitting headache from staying up until 2am with Epi and Niju. I am SO old! And I didn't even have one drop to drink. Epi drank beer all evening and is totally fine. I don't get it.

The beer preserves him, Elo!

MP, sorry man, but I have to agree with Elo on this one. I get that you need to express your thoughts, but I think posting an absolute top civ read is detrimental to our cause. You're one of the most vocal players, which gives you a lot of clout, and (assuming for the moment you're civ) you joining forces with any other strong player would terrify most baddies. It seems an easy call for them to eliminate that person because it makes them a bigger threat. I think you could do just as much good and less harm by posting a general list of civ reads without singling out one person as the most civ ever.

Agrees with Elo that MP shouldn't post full rainbow reads.

Spoiler: show

Please note that these analyses are based off looking for the Inmates only. In my short time back in action, I don't think I've played enough games with serial killers (I'm assuming that's what we're classifying Moloch as) to get back in the groove of sniffing them out. This setup is very difficult because the typical mafia team (the Inmates) only has three members. Considering we caught one of those three members on Day 1, it is going to be very difficult to track the other two. We have to look for small patterns and vote sequences that might suggest a collaborative effort between two players.

Day 1 vote data is in the spoiler tag. Please look refer to it as you read over my assessments.

What I infer from the Day 1 votes:

-I'm still not sure what to make of Timmer's self-vote. I like the warning about possibly pulling a Deborah but would he try that shtick again so soon?

-There is potential for espers to be Sloonei's teammate and he wanted to or was encouraged to throw that final vote on Sloonei for the cred. I like what espers said about feeling something was off about Sloonei. They have played elsewhere before, right? Knowing meta is a powerful item on the tool belt, so I feel compelled to respect that. This leaves me feeling only neutral on espers, unlike the other Sloonei voters.

-LoRab's vote on me came before Sloonei picked up any votes. This is important because we should look for desperate votes after the Sloonei train picks up steam. LoRab focused on the LD issue in regards to my post. I already looked suspicious before any of that because I was more aggressive, assertive, and less playful than usual. Rather than trying to use the "he's different and that's sus" angle that had been mentioned, she comes at it from an angle with a unique twist by suggesting I was trying to evade the LD power. To let my tin-foil hatted hamster out of his cage for a moment, consider this: Both Sloonei vote and LoRab's vote came before Sloonei had any votes. Sure there was discussion but could it be that the two of them are teammates and they tried to divide and conquer by voting for two potential victims that could attract more votes. Unfortunately for them, any momentum for Niju and myself died down as the momentum on Sloonei ramped up.

-Russ's vote for me was crap but not crap enough for me to shift him off of a neutral read.

-After this we have MP07 joining in on Bass's vote for Scotty. MP07 went from being cordial with Scotty, to asking a question or two, to doubting the sincerity of his contributions and the soundness of his vote for Elo. He openly agrees with Bass and then adds a few more points for other people to consider. This after his suspicion of Sloonei eroded bit by bit over the course of the day. In short, MP07 seems to have built a case on why Scotty is suspicious while also posting several points on why Sloonei probably shouldn't be suspicious. All this occurs as MP07 votes for Scotty, making it a 3-2-2 race between Sloonei, Niju, and Scotty. With Niju being NK'd by the Inmates, we know that MP07 adding Scotty to the mix wasn't an attempt to save Niju. Could it have been an attempt to save Sloonei?

Something where someone was talking about me seems like the easiest place to sink my teeth in. Here goes. (I edited the quote above for length, so only the parts I'm responding to are there):

G-Man, this vote analysis format is cool, but I'm not totally understanding your color scheme here. Maybe you could provide a key for those of us new to this?

You're slightly mischaracterizing my vote here in saying I ONLY voted for you in order to not vote Elo, with no other reasoning. I thought (and still think) it was strange that you were so circumspect with your wording.

That said, your numerous explanations have made me feel a little better about it. More to the point, this is my first game seeing you post words, and your style over the last few days definitely cements you in my mind as a very careful thinker and something of a microanalyzer. So I think now that the careful wording is probably just in character for you.

Re: your timmer explanation, what is a Deborah?

I'd have to read espers to develop an opinion there, since I don't have one as of my first thread read-through.

I'm not really buying the LoRab angle on the D1 vote. You're saying you think two baddie teammates tried to start lynch trains on two separate people to save Sloonei before she got any votes? With only 3 of them total, it seems crazy to me that they'd split up their voting power so early if they thought Sloonei might need defending.

To me, honestly Golden's vote looks the worst here, and we know Golden was civ. So I guess at this point I'm a bit skeptical about MP's "treasure trove of D1 evidence" claim. I think MP's vote looks bad at first glance, because it came in late-ish for a non-Sloonei but early enough to be a very, very long-shot save attempt. However, throwing teammates under the bus is something MP has added to his game more recently, and it would have made more sense to try that here than to go for the save IMO. Also, MP's content has felt super classic good-guy MP to me so far.

So if anything, to me the currently most suspicious D1 vote is espers. Keep in mind, a baddie voting late in a lynch for a teammate actually has a LOWER risk than a civ doing the same thing, because they know they won't end up on Rorschach's hit list.

Linki: I dunno. I suppose Elo could be bad, but when she voted Sloonei it was tied up with Blooper. I dunno if I see a mafia Elo giving up on a teammate so early.

- Thinks MP's claim that a "treasure trove of D1 evidence" in analyzing interactions between Sloonei and others is false, since Golden came back civ
- Thinks MP's vote looks bad at first glance ("very very long shot save-attempt")
- Says that MP has more recently thrown teammates under, so behavior would be against that meta
- Says MP's content has felt very "classic" civ MP

Spoiler: show

Ugh! I almost forgot the Day was ending soon, so I'm catching up now. Sorry, people!

MP, the llama thing makes more sense now. And yes, I think your suggestion on your rainbow lists is a good one.

Regarding espers, like I said, it definitely seems one of the safer votes on the day. However, my suspicion of espers basically rests solely on that at the moment, and without seeing anything suspicious in his posts I doubt I'd go that way yet. I'd say 30% chance I vote him, but that's mainly because I don't have another stronger case atm. If I did it'd be lower.

MP's Llama theory on being Comedian makes sense, thinks that half-rainbow lists is a good idea.

Spoiler: show

Going to work now. However, I definitely will be active today. Some players I'm considering (in no particular order):

espers, Cookie, LoRab G-Man, MP <---Some of these are VERY mild suspicions,I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Players I probably would not vote toy (barring drastic changes):

Elo, MM, Bass

Throws me in a list of espers, Cookie, LoRab, and G-Man, saying that they are some players he's considering today (D4).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now he came out with this post:

Spoiler: show

Scotty, I need to start conducting ISO's now. I've been meaning to for some time. I'll look at Russ first, since his posts earlier today had me wondering about him. I thought he said my conduct seemed "super civ" or something, so to see my name on his suspect list today puzzled me. I'll go look at him now.

Yeah, you did seem super civ to me at first. Lately I'm just wondering if it's too civ, if that makes any sense. Basically, my paranoid, "MP-might-be-baddie" self thinks thusly:

1) You FREAKED when llama started poking you on Day 1. Which to be fair is a pretty standard MP thing to do because you care so much about the game regardless of role. However, from my vantage point, it was pretty clear llama was joking around, and it's a classic baddie move to go hyper defensive. Epi pretty much runs his civ game entirely on the theory that baddies overreact when poked.

2) You pretty much allayed my fears D1 by posting a ton of content, though, and being your normal crazy-involved self.

3) I agree with others that some of the wishy-washiness around lynches is a little weird. I'm used to you being hyper confident in your reads. I get that some past experiences have changed that a bit, but it still just doesn't read like the MP I know. For me the weirdness here is less about the votes themselves and more about your willingness to believe in yourself.

4a) Again, paranoid me here: You've done a great job trying to get people involved, mainly by asking them literally dozens of questions at a time. I'm starting to wonder if the questions are a way to avoid talking too much about yourself. (I think someone said this earlier today, but I thought it first. So hmph! )
4b) You've had a super well-reasoned explanation for every. single. thing. you. have. done. in. the. game. (Not ture anymore, after yesterday's lynch.) It just was starting to seem a little too airtight.

5) I think it's really fishy that the day after I mention I'm thinking of you for a vote, I'm suddenly one of 2 remaining baddies along with Elo.

6) And maybe this one is unfair. But I know in the past, Epi has been known to choose players for certain roles. Since Sloonei is relatively new to the site, I can see him maybe putting a more experienced player on the team as well. Now for sure, you aren't the only one who would fit that bill, and it's pretty much an indefensible thought. It just is a very small factor in Paranoid Dan's mind.

All that said, I'm not sold on you being or not being bad yet. I just brought up your name because at the time I hadn't seen it mentioned much, and I thought it needed to be discussed to some degree because of my thoughts above.

I will say, though, that I think the kills being associated with your rainbow list in particular doesn't hold much water. I feel like maybe I've been misinterpreted on that point to be saying that you're somehow directing the baddies. I think I said this in an earlier post, but I don't really think that's the case. My rainbow list stance is basically, why take a chance of giving them any help at all?

I also think Rico's idea that you may be being framed (verb tenses?? help!) has some merit, and that alone makes me want to wait a good long while and evaluate carefully how I feel on you. If you're civ I'd hate to lose you.

Linki: Scotty, I think I answered your stuff. So we're good, right?

Double Linki: Yeah looking back, I can see how anyone lost it Day 3. Those were the latest votes I've ever seen.

Also, I'm pretty heavily leaning an espers vote for today. As bad as I'd feel for ika, it just looks worse and worse to me all the time.

which I am going to respond to, shortly. Essentially, he lists substantiated reasons for putting me in his list of possible votes today.

My problem with Russ is increasingly becoming that he is playing a VERY careful game, throwing names out there, and then coming up with reasons he suspects them later, even if those reasons came about as of posts that were made much earlier. Yet he never voiced those thoughts earlier.

Another post coming.

[LoRab]

So LoRab asked me to go back and read her posts the other Day, with 10 minutes before deadline - which is my favourite time to do that, how did she know, having never played with me before?!. The topic being about never having brought up G-Man's past games. I can agree my wording wasn't perfect, but I still find that she referenced meta as old as the internet, including the subtext that G-Man used to play in those times, so fully aware of the implications of games with LD. Here's the fragment

n the one hand, back in the day (when GMan was a regular) on LP/Piano, lie detector roles and statements became a thing and how people phrase statements and asking everyone to make "An LD Statement" became something of a controversy. In addition/as a result, in many games, "I am a civie" wasn't a detectable statement, so people would often not use it and got in the habit of not just saying that.

I don't intend to go over the entire LD debate, but what I meant in my previous read of her is that it stuck out to me that she's making a case over this meta while another player (Golden) felt better about G-Man wording, based on the same meta.

When there is a lie detector, baddies do all sorts of things in posts in order to try to avoid outright lying while making themselves seem like they're claiming to be civ. I've seen it happen before, especially when they've been called out for phrasing things oddly.

I'm feeling better about G-Man. Not 100% better, but a fair bit better.

I sort of understood the suspicion around his curiously worded statement, until we started getting into the lie detector stuff. Then I remembered how, back in the STV days, (ah, the STV mafia days) wording statements in that kind of way was completely normal. I had actually completely forgotten how we used to draft everything in such a way that the lie detector might be able to check us out, and because they couldn't check statements like 'i am civilian', you did used to say stuff like 'i am not a threat to the civilians'.

G-Man has been on break since STV days until very recently, so when I thought that through I realised that it would be pretty logical some of his phrasing would show vestiges of the way we used to do things on STV.

DH took some heat for choosing alternative routes on D1 - criticising the LD debate and voting LoRab for it - but I'm actually inclined to believe that this was LoRab's "alternative route" to almost everything on D1 end phase, apart from, at one point, being pinged by LC (who was also hardly). I can understand her hunt for details and patterns, but this is how I feel about it, mostly.

Moving on to things I can actually not truly get past, how notable is it that she then criticised Golden for a clean civ claim (if only extremely validation-seeking one). She called G-Man bad for "convoluting" his civ claim, yet also called Golden untrustworthy for his clean civ claim. Again, not believing Golden's civ claim, in dire lynch times, isn't completely unreasonable, these kind of civvieness vouches do often get the player in more trouble than before - yet the fact that she hinged her entire Golden case, calling it a situation of not having strong suspicions from the four-player poll (except LC getting a pass for having done role speculations), reads to me as a weak grasp. Then she got absorbed by the idea of creating a tie "just for fun": first considering MM, then waiting for the scenario to be completed at the point of Golden having to vote in self-defense and force the tie.

Golden, I'm voting for you. I expect you to vote for MM. We'll let the powers that be decide what happens next. Seems like the fairest thing to do. Although scariest.

Plus further insensitivity

If it makes you feel better, it's not that I disbelieve you. In a regular lying [sic], I'd probably not have lynched you. I'm also always curious what happens with a tie.

Seems you need to vote regardless of their coming back.

Any last words in case you go?

For a player with old principles on what civvies would say or do, I am disliking how she treated this lynch quite profoundly. This D2 vote of her stinks and I can't get past it at all. This is what prompted me to say she's disinterested in the turnaround of lynches and stuff, which she then also started denying.

Thirdly (or secondly, on the things that weigh more), it has been pointed out already (Scotty, I think) that, after three Days, LoRab is making repeated civ claims, in basic form, nevertheless ironic in relation to lynching Golden for his, more evolved, similar claims. Plus the tone has changed significantly from "eye me all you want", "I don't mind suspicion" to

I'm not bad, and it would be funny that people seem so sure of their suspicion of me if it weren't so darn frustrating

What I read from your post that you mention was that I was particularly bringing up G-Man's behavior in old games, which is what I never did. Yes, I post about meta. Meta is a lot of how I think in games. And that another player came to a different conclusion than I did...well, that happens. We all see things differently.

And, again, it was the powerful part that pinged me in Golden's post--not the civ part. I have no problem with civ claims--I expect civs to say that they are civs. It was

And yes, I am getting frustrated. And there's too many posts to respond to remind everyone to eye me all you want and twirl for them. I'm a serious lynch candidate at this point, and that's really frustrating, when I know that the conclusion that people are coming to about me is not accurate.

And I didn't like the lynch day 2, either. I look forward to hearing why that power was used for the day 2 lynch in end game, because I didn't like having to choose between what at the time didn't seem like a good selection to me. But, being forced to vote one of those candidates, and having only mild pings to go on, I decided to leave it to the mafia gods. It's not the first time I've been part of making a tie.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

RIP LC and welcome back, Scotty!

Welcome, TinyBubbles! See you in another game, Bass.

Spoiler: show

good question!

espers

Thanks.

Now another question. I got it that you thought DH wasn't suspicious. But espers was your number 2 suspect, and almost got voted. Don't you think you could have prevented a civ lynch if you had voted espers instead? Your late Cookie vote was unlikely to have any effect in the lynch, I think.

Dragon D. Luffy, this is a valid question. Yes, I could have prevented a civilian lynch. I didn't know the tally at the time that I voted. After seeing G-Man's and others' votes in the updated tally, I vocalized my sentiment here. On reflection, I probably would have voted espers instead, but I had doubts about espers being mafia, and Cookie's D3 EoD behavior was incredibly suspicious. I also had no idea how many votes were coming in and who was going to vote where, much like EoD D1, and decided to vote where I felt most strongly, instead of voting in a manner which perhaps would have been more likely to receive votes. After witnessing this technique at RYM in recent games, I've decided to try to avoid casting my vote on 'low-hanging fruit' or the candidate with the highest propensity to be lynched, and then just waiting for the result. Instead, I've witnessed that much information can be gleamed from EoD, and I'm trying every single thing I can to avoid tunneling any player in this game.

Does that address your concerns?

Also, on another note, I noticed your ISO/thoughts on LoRab. You said she seems pretty baddie, but not your strongest read. Who is currently on your suspicion list?

I suppose so. I just saw a pattern with how you voted on d1, with the whole suspecting a bunch of people then voting for someone who would not affect the lynch.

But I agree it was pretty close so I'm not sure how easy it would be to predict the result. Also unfortunately we don't know ika's alignment to be sure of what it means.

I'd say LoRab, espers/ika, you, Eloh, Russtifino and maybe G-man or MM.

Yeah that's pretty much most people, but it's hard not to suspect them all.

Dragon D. Luffy, so what you're implying here is similar to what I saw G-Man saying earlier. You don't think my reasons for suspecting Scotty were strong, so you suspect me for casting my vote in that direction. Are you certain you aren't finding my actions suspect merely because you disagree on my thoughts on Scotty?

The suspicion started because of the Scotty vote. But it developed further as I went to read your posts and read other things, mainly the Sloonei flip-flop and the soft support of the ninja/G-Man wagons that was eventually dropped in favor of the Scotty vote. I was meaning to make a post only on the Scotty vote, but ended up finding more gold than I went looking for.

[ika]

I hope you can take this as nicely as possible. But, I don't like your style. I don't like the way you break up my post into 1), 2), and 3). Its called a quote for a reason. You really shouldn't mess with it by adding or omitting parts. It just makes it too easy to fuck with the game. Also, when I asked i you just don't give a damn, I was not talking about being suspected. That's obvious. I was talking about giving a dam about the game in general and about the players you are playing with. If you are civ, you ought to give a damn about us and work hard to help us. If you are bad, you ought to give a damn about your teammates and work hard to win with them. Why even play Mafia if this is how you are going to act?

linki: My ISO from MP which I will read in a sec.

Ok then i will do it like this then for you but if you dont like the style there's not much i can do. I omit parts that are not relevant to me and i never adding numbers isn't changing any of the context.

i do the numebrs so someon who iso me and looks at the quotes can read what i am responding to in what order.

Its not obvious that what your talking about thats the first thing i will presume frankly when it comes to things like that.

OK lets talk then: if i am civ i should give a damn is your argument right? heres my thing, i am im just not doing it based on how you guys play to meta. I play very diffrently and frankly have gotten a lot of flak for it but i dont care. im not one to give effort to the extent you gusy do cus heres a hint: almost every time i do it i get shat on and then lynched/ignored. after so long you learn to really not care. in short: i play at how i like if you dislike it then that your preogatory

if im baddie, i tell my teammated how i play as baddie and what they need to do. i can try my darnest for them but i always give them the abloslute of bus me to hell. i gve adive to them and tell them who they need to stratiticly kill and set up long term plans and plans to back that if it fails. in short: i do but i suck at it and are a better planner

[ika]

so far i got town reads on moving sock, and ricotcht

[Tangrowth]

Russ, let me respond to this post with bolded cyan:

Scotty, I need to start conducting ISO's now. I've been meaning to for some time. I'll look at Russ first, since his posts earlier today had me wondering about him. I thought he said my conduct seemed "super civ" or something, so to see my name on his suspect list today puzzled me. I'll go look at him now.

Yeah, you did seem super civ to me at first. Lately I'm just wondering if it's too civ, if that makes any sense. Basically, my paranoid, "MP-might-be-baddie" self thinks thusly:

1) You FREAKED when llama started poking you on Day 1. Which to be fair is a pretty standard MP thing to do because you care so much about the game regardless of role. However, from my vantage point, it was pretty clear llama was joking around, and it's a classic baddie move to go hyper defensive. Epi pretty much runs his civ game entirely on the theory that baddies overreact when poked.

I don't like your response here. You NEVER mention this in your posts until just now, despite the fact that it happened 3 cycles ago, and there was discussion of it from others.

You say I FREAKED and went hyper defensive, but how so? It's not like Llama was really suspecting me. Sure, I took the discussion regarding a policy of Golden seriously, but you essentially NOW say that it's pretty clear Llama was joking around.

A few problems with that:

I) You've never said that it was clear Llama was joking before.
II) More notably, you had thoughts on me that included my D1 vote and my content (seeming super civ) around D1/N1, but you never mentioned this.

2) You pretty much allayed my fears D1 by posting a ton of content, though, and being your normal crazy-involved self.

You've also never said this before, not exactly like this. You said my content seemed "super classic civ MP".

Also, your feel here is completely off, since I've consistently posted a lot of content and been my normal crazy-involved self in EVERY period ever since.

3) I agree with others that some of the wishy-washiness around lynches is a little weird. I'm used to you being hyper confident in your reads. I get that some past experiences have changed that a bit, but it still just doesn't read like the MP I know. For me the weirdness here is less about the votes themselves and more about your willingness to believe in yourself.

I'm not always hyper confident in my reads. How does it not read like the MP you know, especially when you said "has felt super classic good-guy MP". That implies that I read EXACTLY like the MP you know, right off of a D1 lynch where I was wishy-washy as fuck.

4a) Again, paranoid me here: You've done a great job trying to get people involved, mainly by asking them literally dozens of questions at a time. I'm starting to wonder if the questions are a way to avoid talking too much about yourself. (I think someone said this earlier today, but I thought it first. So hmph! )

You've never said this before. You also didn't express this after D1, when I behaved exactly in that fashion. I don't feel that has changed at all.
4b) You've had a super well-reasoned explanation for every. single. thing. you. have. done. in. the. game. (Not ture anymore, after yesterday's lynch.) It just was starting to seem a little too airtight.
Too airtight? Again, this is the first time I'm hearing this. And again, how is my behavior any different now than it was after Day 1, when you said I seemed like classic civ MP

5) I think it's really fishy that the day after I mention I'm thinking of you for a vote, I'm suddenly one of 2 remaining baddies along with Elo.
You're CLEARLY twisting my words. I even said I was throwing out an undeveloped theory.

6) And maybe this one is unfair. But I know in the past, Epi has been known to choose players for certain roles. Since Sloonei is relatively new to the site, I can see him maybe putting a more experienced player on the team as well. Now for sure, you aren't the only one who would fit that bill, and it's pretty much an indefensible thought. It just is a very small factor in Paranoid Dan's mind.
WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM

Again, you NEVER mentioned this about me before.

All that said, I'm not sold on you being or not being bad yet. I just brought up your name because at the time I hadn't seen it mentioned much, and I thought it needed to be discussed to some degree because of my thoughts above.

I will say, though, that I think the kills being associated with your rainbow list in particular doesn't hold much water. I feel like maybe I've been misinterpreted on that point to be saying that you're somehow directing the baddies. I think I said this in an earlier post, but I don't really think that's the case. My rainbow list stance is basically, why take a chance of giving them any help at all?

I also think Rico's idea that you may be being framed (verb tenses?? help!) has some merit, and that alone makes me want to wait a good long while and evaluate carefully how I feel on you. If you're civ I'd hate to lose you.

Linki: Scotty, I think I answered your stuff. So we're good, right?

Double Linki: Yeah looking back, I can see how anyone lost it Day 3. Those were the latest votes I've ever seen.

Also, I'm pretty heavily leaning an espers vote for today. As bad as I'd feel for ika, it just looks worse and worse to me all the time.

Then you cap it all off with an incredibly noncommittal statement.

You've been noncommittal about players all game, except Elo, who you almost voted for on D1, and now are defending hard.

Your explanations aren't adding up.

[Dragon D. Luffy]

This may be contrary to what I appear to be, but I don't feel that clueless. I mean, I've played several games on another website where we relied on power roles, just did not engage in scumhunting before. That's really the only difference. I'm really impressed with the scumhunting abilities of whoever sus'd out Sloonei. Like, how did that even happen... The only other thing I am struggling with is remembering who said what. Many others in this game can refer back to how people played before, and they know peoples' personalities and what's out of place for that person. So how people are feeling about me and my behaviour and being unable to read me that well yet is exactly how I feel about every single other person in this game.

Anyway, to explain my vote for DH further, I didn't feel super confident about any of the people I suspected. When MP posted the snippets from DH's conversation, I remembered that that was DH and I have found that suspicious. I also did not intend for it to sound like I blamed DDL for DH being townie (as DDL seemed to think this?), but merely said that I was following someone who I thought seemed suspicious and who Golden thought was suspicious. It just seemed like a scummy move to myself (I found myself scummy?).

Power roles. Well I guess that makes sense. I know first-hand what too many power roles can do to the scumhunting ability of a mafia community.

(but they are so fun, I love role madness)

Either way, welcome to Syndicate. I'm rather new here, but from what I've seen, the scumhunting skills here are pretty real, and the ban on night info reveal prevents people from focusing too much on role powers.

[Tangrowth]

I'm incredibly tempted to vote for Russ right now. He's playing the low-posting, insightful additional commentary, never shaking any trees, never committing too much, type of blendy mafia game. His inconsistencies regarding me and Elo and his lack of explanations for his reads that he's been arbitrarily throwing out are also notable.

I also believe we'll gain insight on espers / ika, as well as Elo, if Russ were to flip mafia or civilian, since Russ voiced suspicion of both of those players, only to back off completely.

[LoRab]

Bolded Cyan would be a great band name.

[Tangrowth]

Updated list of the players that I'm currently considering for my D4 vote, from least to most likely:

Dragon D. Luffy
G-Man
Metalmarsh89

Elohcin

Cookie
LoRab

espers / ika
Russtifinko

I realize I only got to ISO Elo and haven't had a chance to really look at the others, besides Russ somewhat. I need to catch up properly, read LoRab's posts, and subsequent posts, but I have to go for a little bit. I'll try to come back with an open mind and NOT tunnel Russ, but I really am becoming increasingly suspicious of his behavior this game.

This list will inevitably be updated once I can do more catching up and research.

[Tangrowth]

Bolded Cyan would be a great band name.

Claiming it now.

BBL! Shouldn't be more than 15 minutes.

[Ricochet]

This may be contrary to what I appear to be, but I don't feel that clueless. I mean, I've played several games on another website where we relied on power roles, just did not engage in scumhunting before. That's really the only difference. I'm really impressed with the scumhunting abilities of whoever sus'd out Sloonei. Like, how did that even happen... The only other thing I am struggling with is remembering who said what. Many others in this game can refer back to how people played before, and they know peoples' personalities and what's out of place for that person. So how people are feeling about me and my behaviour and being unable to read me that well yet is exactly how I feel about every single other person in this game.

Anyway, to explain my vote for DH further, I didn't feel super confident about any of the people I suspected. When MP posted the snippets from DH's conversation, I remembered that that was DH and I have found that suspicious. I also did not intend for it to sound like I blamed DDL for DH being townie (as DDL seemed to think this?), but merely said that I was following someone who I thought seemed suspicious and who Golden thought was suspicious. It just seemed like a scummy move to myself (I found myself scummy?).

Power roles. Well I guess that makes sense. I know first-hand what too many power roles can do to the scumhunting ability of a mafia community.

(but they are so fun, I love role madness)

Either way, welcome to Syndicate. I'm rather new here, but from what I've seen, the scumhunting skills here are pretty real, and the ban on night info reveal prevents people from focusing too much on role powers.

How does an increased number of power roles influence hunting in your culture?

[Scotty]

Folks, I really am starting to think Russ is mafia.

Elaboration coming.

Is it his profile avatar? Because I've been glancing offhand this entire time thinking it was some weird green velociraptor with a Danny Devito haircut smoking a cigar. I mean, looking at it now, I'm not tooooo far off.


Hey Ricochet, how are you feeling now on Russ? I would support a Russ vote. I am momentarily quelled by LoRab's defense. Still not sold on Elo though, unfortunately MP. Not enough for me to vote her again. I would feel most bad if I vote for Cookie and she flips good. Because even though she's not a noob, and even said that she doesn't want to be seen as such, her play has been messy I think.

Dem m3 votes make a lot of people look guilty tho. Mothacrockas.

[Ricochet]

What I read from your post that you mention was that I was particularly bringing up G-Man's behavior in old games, which is what I never did. Yes, I post about meta. Meta is a lot of how I think in games. And that another player came to a different conclusion than I did...well, that happens. We all see things differently.

And, again, it was the powerful part that pinged me in Golden's post--not the civ part. I have no problem with civ claims--I expect civs to say that they are civs. It was

And yes, I am getting frustrated. And there's too many posts to respond to remind everyone to eye me all you want and twirl for them. I'm a serious lynch candidate at this point, and that's really frustrating, when I know that the conclusion that people are coming to about me is not accurate.

And I didn't like the lynch day 2, either. I look forward to hearing why that power was used for the day 2 lynch in end game, because I didn't like having to choose between what at the time didn't seem like a good selection to me. But, being forced to vote one of those candidates, and having only mild pings to go on, I decided to leave it to the mafia gods. It's not the first time I've been part of making a tie.

I do care who is lynched.

I decided to leave it to the mafia gods

[Tangrowth]

Well, I'm not sure what I think of LoRab's defense. What do you all think?

[Tangrowth]

The longer Cookie goes without posting again, the more apt she is to drop down to the lowest part of my list (highest propensity to receive my vote).

[Ricochet]

Planning to revisit Russ. I think the points about his non-committal reads may stick out indeed. From MP's rebuttals, I'm only at gripes with the charge that he never mentioned most of the stuff he brought up. Isn't the point of ISO'ing a player to do a analysis of past posts and point out problems? Do you need to have foreshadowed pointing those problems by having pointed them out in real time?

[LoRab]

What I read from your post that you mention was that I was particularly bringing up G-Man's behavior in old games, which is what I never did. Yes, I post about meta. Meta is a lot of how I think in games. And that another player came to a different conclusion than I did...well, that happens. We all see things differently.

And, again, it was the powerful part that pinged me in Golden's post--not the civ part. I have no problem with civ claims--I expect civs to say that they are civs. It was

And yes, I am getting frustrated. And there's too many posts to respond to remind everyone to eye me all you want and twirl for them. I'm a serious lynch candidate at this point, and that's really frustrating, when I know that the conclusion that people are coming to about me is not accurate.

And I didn't like the lynch day 2, either. I look forward to hearing why that power was used for the day 2 lynch in end game, because I didn't like having to choose between what at the time didn't seem like a good selection to me. But, being forced to vote one of those candidates, and having only mild pings to go on, I decided to leave it to the mafia gods. It's not the first time I've been part of making a tie.

I do care who is lynched.

I decided to leave it to the mafia gods

In general, I care who is lynched. When there are only 4 choices, none of whom I'm completely sure on, I'm comfortable with an aspect of chance between those choices.

No matter what, I had to make an active choice in that lynch and no matter how I voted it would have been a deciding vote. With no choices that had me convinced or even somewhat sure, I went with going for 1 of 2 choices.

And I'm not sure what that demonstrates, other than my unsurety about that vote.

[Tangrowth]

RIP LC and welcome back, Scotty!

Welcome, TinyBubbles! See you in another game, Bass.

Spoiler: show

good question!

espers

Thanks.

Now another question. I got it that you thought DH wasn't suspicious. But espers was your number 2 suspect, and almost got voted. Don't you think you could have prevented a civ lynch if you had voted espers instead? Your late Cookie vote was unlikely to have any effect in the lynch, I think.

Dragon D. Luffy, this is a valid question. Yes, I could have prevented a civilian lynch. I didn't know the tally at the time that I voted. After seeing G-Man's and others' votes in the updated tally, I vocalized my sentiment here. On reflection, I probably would have voted espers instead, but I had doubts about espers being mafia, and Cookie's D3 EoD behavior was incredibly suspicious. I also had no idea how many votes were coming in and who was going to vote where, much like EoD D1, and decided to vote where I felt most strongly, instead of voting in a manner which perhaps would have been more likely to receive votes. After witnessing this technique at RYM in recent games, I've decided to try to avoid casting my vote on 'low-hanging fruit' or the candidate with the highest propensity to be lynched, and then just waiting for the result. Instead, I've witnessed that much information can be gleamed from EoD, and I'm trying every single thing I can to avoid tunneling any player in this game.

Does that address your concerns?

Also, on another note, I noticed your ISO/thoughts on LoRab. You said she seems pretty baddie, but not your strongest read. Who is currently on your suspicion list?

I suppose so. I just saw a pattern with how you voted on d1, with the whole suspecting a bunch of people then voting for someone who would not affect the lynch.

But I agree it was pretty close so I'm not sure how easy it would be to predict the result. Also unfortunately we don't know ika's alignment to be sure of what it means.

I'd say LoRab, espers/ika, you, Eloh, Russtifino and maybe G-man or MM.

Yeah that's pretty much most people, but it's hard not to suspect them all.

Dragon D. Luffy, so what you're implying here is similar to what I saw G-Man saying earlier. You don't think my reasons for suspecting Scotty were strong, so you suspect me for casting my vote in that direction. Are you certain you aren't finding my actions suspect merely because you disagree on my thoughts on Scotty?

The suspicion started because of the Scotty vote. But it developed further as I went to read your posts and read other things, mainly the Sloonei flip-flop and the soft support of the ninja/G-Man wagons that was eventually dropped in favor of the Scotty vote. I was meaning to make a post only on the Scotty vote, but ended up finding more gold than I went looking for.

Re: your suspicions, in that order? aka LoRab most likely?

Do you think ika's alignment is important enough that he should be lynched soon/today?

Re: Scotty, I understand. However, I think you missed the point of my question. Is it possible you suspect my behavior during EoD D1 because you don't agree with my thoughts on Scotty? If it were someone else you did agree with, do you think you would you view it differently?

[Tangrowth]

I hope you can take this as nicely as possible. But, I don't like your style. I don't like the way you break up my post into 1), 2), and 3). Its called a quote for a reason. You really shouldn't mess with it by adding or omitting parts. It just makes it too easy to fuck with the game. Also, when I asked i you just don't give a damn, I was not talking about being suspected. That's obvious. I was talking about giving a dam about the game in general and about the players you are playing with. If you are civ, you ought to give a damn about us and work hard to help us. If you are bad, you ought to give a damn about your teammates and work hard to win with them. Why even play Mafia if this is how you are going to act?

linki: My ISO from MP which I will read in a sec.

Ok then i will do it like this then for you but if you dont like the style there's not much i can do. I omit parts that are not relevant to me and i never adding numbers isn't changing any of the context.

i do the numebrs so someon who iso me and looks at the quotes can read what i am responding to in what order.

Its not obvious that what your talking about thats the first thing i will presume frankly when it comes to things like that.

OK lets talk then: if i am civ i should give a damn is your argument right? heres my thing, i am im just not doing it based on how you guys play to meta. I play very diffrently and frankly have gotten a lot of flak for it but i dont care. im not one to give effort to the extent you gusy do cus heres a hint: almost every time i do it i get shat on and then lynched/ignored. after so long you learn to really not care. in short: i play at how i like if you dislike it then that your preogatory

if im baddie, i tell my teammated how i play as baddie and what they need to do. i can try my darnest for them but i always give them the abloslute of bus me to hell. i gve adive to them and tell them who they need to stratiticly kill and set up long term plans and plans to back that if it fails. in short: i do but i suck at it and are a better planner

so far i got town reads on moving sock, and ricotcht

What do you folks think of these posts by ika (espers)?

[Dragon D. Luffy]

Trying to catch up. Too many posts. Help.

This may be contrary to what I appear to be, but I don't feel that clueless. I mean, I've played several games on another website where we relied on power roles, just did not engage in scumhunting before. That's really the only difference. I'm really impressed with the scumhunting abilities of whoever sus'd out Sloonei. Like, how did that even happen... The only other thing I am struggling with is remembering who said what. Many others in this game can refer back to how people played before, and they know peoples' personalities and what's out of place for that person. So how people are feeling about me and my behaviour and being unable to read me that well yet is exactly how I feel about every single other person in this game.

Anyway, to explain my vote for DH further, I didn't feel super confident about any of the people I suspected. When MP posted the snippets from DH's conversation, I remembered that that was DH and I have found that suspicious. I also did not intend for it to sound like I blamed DDL for DH being townie (as DDL seemed to think this?), but merely said that I was following someone who I thought seemed suspicious and who Golden thought was suspicious. It just seemed like a scummy move to myself (I found myself scummy?).

Power roles. Well I guess that makes sense. I know first-hand what too many power roles can do to the scumhunting ability of a mafia community.

(but they are so fun, I love role madness)

Either way, welcome to Syndicate. I'm rather new here, but from what I've seen, the scumhunting skills here are pretty real, and the ban on night info reveal prevents people from focusing too much on role powers.

How does an increased number of power roles influence hunting in your culture?

More vigs (what you call ninjas here) = civs caring less about lynches and wanting to solve everything with vigs. The good old "X looks bad but let's lynch Y instead cuz someone can vig X"

More info-roles + info dumping = people building every suspicion on night info and ignoring real baddie hunting. However, balanced games provide the mafia means to counter those info roles, so the civs who do that almost always end up being trolled. Or set up by mafia.

More independents + civs generally not knowing what to do with independents = independents winning multiple games by themselves. Expect one cult victory a year, or maybe two.

[Tangrowth]

Folks, I really am starting to think Russ is mafia.

Elaboration coming.

Is it his profile avatar? Because I've been glancing offhand this entire time thinking it was some weird green velociraptor with a Danny Devito haircut smoking a cigar. I mean, looking at it now, I'm not tooooo far off.


Hey Ricochet, how are you feeling now on Russ? I would support a Russ vote. I am momentarily quelled by LoRab's defense. Still not sold on Elo though, unfortunately MP. Not enough for me to vote her again. I would feel most bad if I vote for Cookie and she flips good. Because even though she's not a noob, and even said that she doesn't want to be seen as such, her play has been messy I think.

Dem m3 votes make a lot of people look guilty tho. Mothacrockas.

Why are you quelled by LoRab's defense?

I wasn't trying to sell folks on Elo; an ISO is an analytical tool by which the conductor examines the player's posts in isolation, and determines what they might mean with respect to alignment, if at all possible.

I don't think Elo will receive my vote today.

Why are you supporting a Russ vote?

What changes your mind re: Cookie?