GY!BE Mafia [E.N.D.]

[Golden]

Linki: Why do you say he is always like this when good? Not sure what you mean here.

Sig has a knack for making himself look terribly scummy even when he isn't, I've seen him be lynched a fair few times now when civ for similar things.

That's not to say he MUST be good, just that I think more work is needed to figure out what is going on with him.

[birdwithteeth11]

MP - several people changed votes off both A Person and Boomslang at Epi's prompting, as far as I could tell

to add a point, epi posts in a manner that suggests certainty, I'm just pointing out that what he says deserves as much scrutiny as anybody else. It wasn't even a main point of my post

Not to mention he chastised as many people as he did, was very certain, and then went and voted for a civ.

I could see a baddie Epig attempting such a maneuver.

Linki: Gotcha. Well we have a night and possibly another day phase to try and figure that one out at least!

[Marmot]

Yeah, this. I would be shocked if sig wasn't bad at this point.

Except sig is always like this when good, so how do ever know with him?

I think you need to look past face value scumminess and look for motivations.

So, here's what I've got so far...

He was ok voting for boom, despite not really seeing the case, but not if it tied the votes.

Sig - it looks like you wanted your vote to be on one of the big wagons (even if you didn't agree with the case), but not to actually risk counting. Why did you not want to tie the votes? Why were you happy voting boomslang when you only left him a vote behind?

Anyone else - what's the baddie motivation for this from sig? Just to look like his vote mattered? But even a cursory iso would tell you how it actually went down...

While we're on this train of thought. What sorts of things would sig have to do for him to get your vote?

[Golden]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

[Golden]

Yeah, this. I would be shocked if sig wasn't bad at this point.

Except sig is always like this when good, so how do ever know with him?

I think you need to look past face value scumminess and look for motivations.

So, here's what I've got so far...

He was ok voting for boom, despite not really seeing the case, but not if it tied the votes.

Sig - it looks like you wanted your vote to be on one of the big wagons (even if you didn't agree with the case), but not to actually risk counting. Why did you not want to tie the votes? Why were you happy voting boomslang when you only left him a vote behind?

Anyone else - what's the baddie motivation for this from sig? Just to look like his vote mattered? But even a cursory iso would tell you how it actually went down...

While we're on this train of thought. What sorts of things would sig have to do for him to get your vote?

I'm not saying he definitely won't get my vote for what he has already done.

I guess for me it's looking less at what sig has done, and more trying to figure out if I can see where his brain is at and what his motivations might be. So, I couldn't answer this with a single 'if he does x, he is bad' example.

[Sloonei]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I have a hard time seeing Jay faking a curse/cursing himself under any circumstances.

[Golden]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I have a hard time seeing Jay faking a curse/cursing himself under any circumstances.

So do I.

Also, btw, I knew nothing of Nine Inch Nails and had never heard of the song before I was cursed with it, and that song was really bitchy for how useless the lyrics were for me to do anything helpful with.

[birdwithteeth11]

DrWilgy

Can you quote a reason why?

Fuck this game. Seriously. I don't even care if you other townies win anymore.

MovingPictures07

HETHZBEMADWDGFLMCECRSALOKYHNENMTEKTXEJSYVQOPXMHNCKBJRIBNJHBDITEUMGUBXUMD

This curse sucks.

Indeed. Anyone have an idea what the code for it is?

What made you say this?

Curiosity. Because it's not an insanifier I recognize.

[birdwithteeth11]

What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Maybe. I feel like we need more time and evidence to confirm or deny this though.

I really don't think we do.

I spent half the first day suspecting Jay. That is not something I do with a btsc partner (at least, a civ btsc partner I guess).

But also

1) my curse was incredibly specific in its detail, and looked nothing like Jay's - therefore, whoever used their ability would have to know that two of us would be affected and come up with two completely different sets of curse terms.
2) It would be a de facto 'btsc hunter' role, which doesn't seem likely.

Fair enough. I think if you had a civ BTSC partner, you'd probably ignore them for the most part.

1) Okay. Jay's looked completely-ass-random with no discerning way to interpret it. Yours was just a posting style. But it lends credence to the fact that we probably have a civ insanifier and either the indy or a baddie also has the ability. The question becomes which is which.

2) So under that theory, it would mean that Jay is affected by something that targets his partner, but he doesn't know who his partner is yet? Because if so, then yeah, that doesn't seem like a strong possibility to me.

[LoRab]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

The benefit being so that players say exactly what you're saying now.

I have seen baddies target teammates with insanification and silencing night 1 or 2, exactly for this reason--to make it seem like a teammate is not on that team. That said, I don't particularly suspect either you or JJJ at this moment.

I'm assuming for now that there are 2 different roles that insanified (we'll know that as time progresses) and that 1 is civ and 1 is not, because balance.

[Golden]

The benefit being so that players say exactly what you're saying now.

That's fair. Although I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying now if it wasn't for the fact that others raised suspicion about it in the first place.

[Marmot]

What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Maybe. I feel like we need more time and evidence to confirm or deny this though.

I really don't think we do.

I spent half the first day suspecting Jay. That is not something I do with a btsc partner (at least, a civ btsc partner I guess).

But also

1) my curse was incredibly specific in its detail, and looked nothing like Jay's - therefore, whoever used their ability would have to know that two of us would be affected and come up with two completely different sets of curse terms.
2) It would be a de facto 'btsc hunter' role, which doesn't seem likely.

Fair enough. I think if you had a civ BTSC partner, you'd probably ignore them for the most part.

1) Okay. Jay's looked completely-ass-random with no discerning way to interpret it. Yours was just a posting style. But it lends credence to the fact that we probably have a civ insanifier and either the indy or a baddie also has the ability. The question becomes which is which.

2) So under that theory, it would mean that Jay is affected by something that targets his partner, but he doesn't know who his partner is yet? Because if so, then yeah, that doesn't seem like a strong possibility to me.

It depends. If I have a civ BTSC partner and they're taking heat, I would defend them.

I'd rather they (and I) get nightkilled than dominate the thread discussion for days. Not saying I would out myself (that's no bueno) but I'd try to redirect thread attention appropiately.

[Marmot]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I would not hesitate to do this, personally.

[Golden]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I would not hesitate to do this, personally.

I know. You wouldn't hesitate to curse your teammate Jay even if he asked you not to, either.

I was going to call you out specifically, chaos marmot.

Still, I seem to remember being on a team with you when you wanted to do this, and I still think you only started wanting to do it from around day 2.

[Marmot]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I would not hesitate to do this, personally.

I know. You wouldn't hesitate to curse your teammate Jay even if he asked you not to, either.

I was going to call you out specifically, chaos marmot.

Still, I seem to remember being on a team with you when you wanted to do this, and I still think you only started wanting to do it from around day 2.

A Gentlemen's Guide to Love and Murder is the only game I remember being a mafia teammate of yours, and we didn't have any sort of curse/silencing role.

What game are you thinking of?

[Golden]

Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

I would not hesitate to do this, personally.

I know. You wouldn't hesitate to curse your teammate Jay even if he asked you not to, either.

I was going to call you out specifically, chaos marmot.

Still, I seem to remember being on a team with you when you wanted to do this, and I still think you only started wanting to do it from around day 2.

A Gentlemen's Guide to Love and Murder is the only game I remember being a mafia teammate of yours, and we didn't have any sort of curse/silencing role.

What game are you thinking of?

Must have been that one. It might have been that you wanted to kill yourself to clear yourself

[Marmot]

Must have been that one. It might have been that you wanted to kill yourself to clear yourself

I wouldn't put it past me. I'm still the only person I know who has intentionally nightkilled a mafia teammate.

[birdwithteeth11]

Must have been that one. It might have been that you wanted to kill yourself to clear yourself

I wouldn't put it past me. I'm still the only person I know who has intentionally nightkilled a mafia teammate.

I'd beg to differ. In Electronic Mafia, our team ended up both targeting DP for a nightkill while protecting him. Plus the baddie team ALSO targeted him for a nightkill, and MP allowed the block to go through for both kill attempts. It's why my team ultimately won that game.

I was doing that same maneuver before you were in mafia diapers. :P

[Golden]

I tried to find photographic evidence of mafia diapers, but perhaps they think the subject matter is inappropriate for babies or something...

[Marmot]

Must have been that one. It might have been that you wanted to kill yourself to clear yourself

I wouldn't put it past me. I'm still the only person I know who has intentionally nightkilled a mafia teammate.

I'd beg to differ. In Electronic Mafia, our team ended up both targeting DP for a nightkill while protecting him. Plus the baddie team ALSO targeted him for a nightkill, and MP allowed the block to go through for both kill attempts. It's why my team ultimately won that game.

I was doing that same maneuver before you were in mafia diapers. :P

That's pretty neat too, except for the part where you didn't actually intend for him to die.

[Marmot]

FWIW, I've been playing mafia since 2008-09 or so. Maybe not as long as some folks around here, but I've played my fair share of games.

[Sloonei]

I still have a bit of catching up to do, but I am here currently if anyone wants to bounce things off of me or have things bounced off of them. Please.

[Sloonei]

One thing I remember being prodded about on Day 2 was my claim that Scotty was reminding me of his baddie performance in Rocky & Bullwinkle. In that game he was my first suspect and I remember him spending a good deal of energy OMGUSing me. I got similar vibes from posts like this one:

Spoiler: show

I don't really have time to do a full catch up, just enough to see that (I assume) inh was good.

I don't much like the epi votes. Except maybe trice's one.

I also really don't like scotty basically being like 'told you guys'. Calling your shot on someone being civilian is the easiest thing to do in the world since a) most people are and b) all baddies have an even higher percentage shot of being right (in this case 15/16); but

c) bragging about it afterwards is the equivalent of discrediting a load of people, even when at least half of them are town, and d) not only does it discredit, but it also puts the focus squarely on 'who voted for a civilian to die' instead of 'who is bad' which are not necessarily the same thing.

I'll be all for looking to see if any inh votes are uninspired. But when I last looked, there were four and all of them felt fair and well explained in the thread to me.

What??! How is "well there ya go" in any way "I told you guys"? How is that bragging about it? Show me where I bragged about you all being wrong.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth and manipulating this away from you and the other INH voters so you don't have to take responsibility for your votes. Yes, civs make the wrong votes all the time. Of course they do. But I already feel like you, JJJ, Sloonei and Mp have all come after me on day 1 for bullsuit reasons and I find it manipulative. Couple that with the fact that I don't trust you guys, makes me think at least 1 or a couple of you might be bad. Just because I haven't had a tennis match where I've spewed 5028 posts in the matter of 24 hours doesn't mean I can't make reads off of votes.

I didn't know INH was gonna flip good, but I definitely didn't think he would flip bad. So get off your high horse, golden.

Love, Scotty

I would not call this a definitive read and I started to feel better about Scotty from the bits of Day 2 that I was following along with.

[Marmot]

*sexy wiggle*

[Sloonei]

*sexy wiggle*

am i supposed to bounce something off this?

[birdwithteeth11]

*sexy wiggle*

am i supposed to bounce something off this?

I wouldn't mind bouncing something off that if you know what I mean.

[Sloonei]

[Marmot]

*sexy wiggle*

am i supposed to bounce something off this?

with his arms outstretched

[Marmot]

You wiggle your hips. Marmot wiggles back. What a meaningful conversation!

[Sloonei]

[Marmot]

[triceratopzeuhl]

What if, e.g., Sunshine + Gasoline's secret is that night powers targeting one will affect both of them?

Or if something in Mladic role (I believe he is probably the mafia insanifier) says "if you target one of a btsc pair it affects both of them" or something along those lines?

Maybe. I feel like we need more time and evidence to confirm or deny this though.

I really don't think we do.

I spent half the first day suspecting Jay. That is not something I do with a btsc partner (at least, a civ btsc partner I guess).

But also

1) my curse was incredibly specific in its detail, and looked nothing like Jay's - therefore, whoever used their ability would have to know that two of us would be affected and come up with two completely different sets of curse terms.
2) It would be a de facto 'btsc hunter' role, which doesn't seem likely.

Yes, agreed, somebody else (I think it was MP) raised a similar point and I ceded that it's probably not related to BTSC. I still think mladic's roles HAS to be more complicated than a simple insanifier. And I haven't ruled out a civ insanifier either, just weighing other possibilities.

[Marmot]

Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

[timmer]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

[Marmot]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

You're absolutely right! I would do that.

But that's the thing, I can and will do almost anything in a mafia game, and additionally will admit to the possibility of doing anything. Sooo, I don't see how this helps your argument.



Anyway, I've changed my mind on Boomslang for now. A vote forcer is a possibility, but that wouldn't impact my read on Boomslang.

[Sloonei]

Three players were on the wagons for each of the players lynched thus far. These same three players have the highest post counts: MovingPictures, Golden, and JaggedJimmyJay.

Discuss.

Those three players tend to have a similar approach to one another, so when they theorize about the game they come to similar conclusions and are likely to trust one another's judgment. As such, they might sometimes all vote similarly. However, they might also be wrong.

[Sloonei]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

[Sloonei]

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

[triceratopzeuhl]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

No, as far as I can tell boomslang has only ever said he thought timmer was good. Even in his own vote for timmer yesterday he didn't say he thought timmer was bad (or any reason deeper than "I think it would at least yield info on MM")

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

I think I notice both dom and epignosis doing this thing where they will throw out a claim or accusation, then ignore any replies to it. Epi has done it to me at least twice. Dom might just be having trouble keeping track because most of his posts are full of quotes.

[triceratopzeuhl]

At any rate I don't think anybody has taken a close look at dom's posts since you did on day 1

[Sloonei]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

No, as far as I can tell boomslang has only ever said he thought timmer was good. Even in his own vote for timmer yesterday he didn't say he thought timmer was bad (or any reason deeper than "I think it would at least yield info on MM")

You're right about this. But I still hesitate to believe that it was a forced vote because he attempted to rationalize it. Usually when a player is forced to vote for someone they make it clear what is going on. That said, his justification makes little to no sense.

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

I think I notice both dom and epignosis doing this thing where they will throw out a claim or accusation, then ignore any replies to it. Epi has done it to me at least twice. Dom might just be having trouble keeping track because most of his posts are full of quotes.

I like this response. I'll have a look at these two when I'm awake.

[timmer]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

Boomslang was supportive of me all game until his vote. You should reread his posts!

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Some things that came to mind yesterday:

~ The Vompatti kill choice looks like the standard untraceable/chaos type kill, and I do think there can be some insight in that. There are at least a couple players that I believe would be less likely to go for a kill of that variety than others: Golden, Sloonei, and MP. When bad, these players are all very likely to be active and vocal parts of the baddie conversation behind the scenes and thus play a significant role in the eventual kill decision. I also believe they are of a strategic mindset which is less likely to find a "chaos kill" to be the most valuable or productive usage of their Night 1. Golden and Sloonei especially were under no real pressure and had less reason to worry about how the kill might be traced. That applies less to MP, but I still don't feel inclined to assign a Vomps N1 kill to him either. Granted, it's a baddie team of three and everyone would have a say -- that's why I emphasize the influence those three would have over that conversation.

~ Scotty's efforts to communicate with Golden and facilitate his involvement in the continuing dialogue was a decent look. I was able to work with the methods they employed myself, though perhaps with less clarity. I appreciate that he provided Golden with a forum to convey his reads when at the time I believe he was not in Golden's good graces. I do have some lingering concern though primarily centered in one post:

Spoiler: show

I don't really have time to do a full catch up, just enough to see that (I assume) inh was good.

I don't much like the epi votes. Except maybe trice's one.

I also really don't like scotty basically being like 'told you guys'. Calling your shot on someone being civilian is the easiest thing to do in the world since a) most people are and b) all baddies have an even higher percentage shot of being right (in this case 15/16); but

c) bragging about it afterwards is the equivalent of discrediting a load of people, even when at least half of them are town, and d) not only does it discredit, but it also puts the focus squarely on 'who voted for a civilian to die' instead of 'who is bad' which are not necessarily the same thing.

I'll be all for looking to see if any inh votes are uninspired. But when I last looked, there were four and all of them felt fair and well explained in the thread to me.

What??! How is "well there ya go" in any way "I told you guys"? How is that bragging about it? Show me where I bragged about you all being wrong.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth and manipulating this away from you and the other INH voters so you don't have to take responsibility for your votes. Yes, civs make the wrong votes all the time. Of course they do. But I already feel like you, JJJ, Sloonei and Mp have all come after me on day 1 for bullsuit reasons and I find it manipulative. Couple that with the fact that I don't trust you guys, makes me think at least 1 or a couple of you might be bad. Just because I haven't had a tennis match where I've spewed 5028 posts in the matter of 24 hours doesn't mean I can't make reads off of votes.

I didn't know INH was gonna flip good, but I definitely didn't think he would flip bad. So get off your high horse, golden.

Love, Scotty

Yellow: hyperbolic/exaggerated language looks insincere at face value.

Orange: this is an accusation, and it implies to me that Scotty is suspicious of Golden now for two reasons: contributing to the INH lynch, and "manipulating the conversation away from INH voters". This is something Scotty didn't follow up on, and that makes me question the motive for cramming it into this response in the first place. I think the suspicion inherent in this language is pretty clear, and that he didn't proceed with it (indeed he became Golden's communicative aid in Day 2) raises doubts that it was honest. The alternative explanation is less ideal: that he turned Golden's accusation against him as a defense mechanism with intent to discredit his accuser.

I would also assert the orange bit and the second yellow bit go together awkwardly. If Golden is on a "high horse", that would imply he is overconfident about a read, not falsifying a read. The difference is important, as it relates directly to alignment.

Green: this just has its own discrediting power given its vaguely critical language.

Scotty, please talk about those things.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Some beefs with the Epignosis of Day 2:

The Golden Curse is Specific, While the Jagged Curse Would Require Wording That I Don't Believe Someone With Such a Power Would Use

What wording is this and would wouldn't someone with such a power use it? This would appear central to your assertions that I might be faking my curse, but I have no idea what it refers to.

The Golden Curse is Specific, While the Jagged Curse Would Require Wording That I Don't Believe Someone With Such a Power Would Use

What's the motivation for mafia!Jay to fake it?

Mafia-aligned players have to literally manufacture every post they make.

Well There's That

This is a reason to question whether Randomly Selected Mafia Player from the Internet might fake a curse, not specifically why JaggedJimmyJay might fake a curse. I don't get the impression the personality or style of the player is being considered, and that would seem a very important variable to consider when shading someone who cannot speak.

Epignosis -- He isn't really trying to look like anything other than a guy posting with a gimmick. I get the impression he'd be doing at least something more if he was bad.

Seriously, This Guy- Destroy Him After I'm Gone

Implying I should care about my Day 1 read when placing a Day 2 vote.

Spoiler: show

Great Job on Your Copy and Paste Skills- You Get a Golden Star

Epignosis -- He isn't really trying to look like anything other than a guy posting with a gimmick. I get the impression he'd be doing at least something more if he was bad.

Seriously, This Guy- Destroy Him After I'm Gone

The Golden Curse is Specific, While the Jagged Curse Would Require Wording That I Don't Believe Someone With Such a Power Would Use

Aw, Did I Hurt Your Wittle Feewings, You Faker?

Provactive snark with more neener neener value than reads-relevant value. Golden and I were both trying to convey arguments within the restrictions given, and Epignosis made little effort to try to understand what we were saying -- he just stuck his tongue out.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I think A Person has a greater-than-average chance of being an insanifier role given his obvious disdain for people posting at a high rate. I'll give him some credit for brazenly voicing his disdain, but I'll also state that I agree with an inference made by LoRab: that if there are two insanifying roles, they're likely to be split somehow among the alignments. That is an issue for A Person, and so is a tiny contributory clip in a fast-paced and challenging game thread environment.

That a high poster wasn't killed means very little to me in regard to A Person because I wouldn't expect him to have the loudest voice of influence in a baddie BTSC anyway. To borrow Golden's language for a different purpose: I don't think he's a slam dunk scum, but I'm not giving him any credit for that. The best I can say is that he was willing to gripe openly about the high posters and didn't appear to care.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

I am more inclined to agree with Epignosis on the matter of Boomslang. I think there's a logical problem with his timmer vote that he should talk about, but there's the rub. When I look at the Boomslang controversy, my judgment veers toward that matter of logic -- is it truly damning for a player to make a logical misstep, and which alignment is more proned to making those? I don't know that there's a reliable correlation between being bad and being illogical. If anything there may be a negative correlation.

Boomslang, at your earliest convenience please discuss your current reads on timmer and MM, and describe where your head was at when you made your last post on Day 2.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Regarding sig at the end of Day 2:

I am not bothered by his initial decision to vote for Boomslang despite having been underwhelmed by the case. At the time of sig's arrival in the thread, there were about 20 minutes left in the phase and three wagons formed -- Boomslang, DrWilgy, and A Person. If I enter the thread under the same conditions and feel underwhelmed about all three wagons, there's a good chance I'd still pick one of them.

Note: it was sig's first appearance on Day 2. He had too little time to be able to catch up with the game, which means he had too little time to be able to provide any preferable alternative to those three names. To me, the meaning of his vote is reliant more upon the alignments of the other two (and we know Wilgy was town). The best argument then, in my opinion, to criticize sig's decision is to suggest that he was trying to save A Person -- something that hinges upon an unknown alignment, and something that is inherently challenged by his next move:

actully never mind on that Boom vote just yet, I just realized that would tie them.

In the end when he did vote Boomslang, it was because he preferred that vote over a Wilgy vote (Wilgy's wagon is the one that had taken off late) -- given Wilgy's flip, I don't think that's a problem.

[Dom]

Wow, of all the days for me to be screwed by traveling.

So... two theories.

One, my Sig hunch from Day 0/1 may be true. His late actions were scummy as hell.

Two, MM is bad and we may have a vote forcer. This is a big hunch, but there is something so freaking odd about Boomslang's vote on me. It makes no sense. But we have bad guys whose role secrets are unknown. And MM introduced a VERY bizarre notion about me being bad simply because I showed up and posted when I did. I could TOTALLY see him, having introduced this nutty idea about me and Boomslang being bad because of when I posted so that he could then dick us around by forcing Boomslang to vote for me. MM would do this.

For now, I'm needing to look more into sig as I don't like how this ended. Also at the rest of the Boomslang voters, as his vote to me doesn't sound like a real baddie slip-up.

But MM? I got my on you, broth. Discuss

Boomslang's vote does not appear to be forced. He's been expressing suspicion of you going back to Day 1, I believe. You are right that his vote makes no sense though.

No, as far as I can tell boomslang has only ever said he thought timmer was good. Even in his own vote for timmer yesterday he didn't say he thought timmer was bad (or any reason deeper than "I think it would at least yield info on MM")

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

I think I notice both dom and epignosis doing this thing where they will throw out a claim or accusation, then ignore any replies to it. Epi has done it to me at least twice. Dom might just be having trouble keeping track because most of his posts are full of quotes.

I've been having trouble keeping up, period.
I'm thinking being signed up for 4 and playing 3 games was a mistake.

[Dom]

Anyone who's here or is going to stop by during the night: Tell me a player you'd like to put more focus on for Day 3, and why?

birdwithteeth
metalmarsh
nju

[JaggedJimmyJay]

How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

This doesn't look like a natural response to Scotty's vote.