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

[Sloonei]

What's my townie status like right now? Do we all think I'm a Good Safe & Trusted Townie because I was silenced, or do we think I was pulling a gambit by faking my own silence?

I think it's unlikely you called for/accepted a silence from a baddie team mate on the first available day phase. I think you look the part in your hunting efforts and I liked how you emerged into Night 2 with Things To Say after the tape was pulled off of your mouth. It evidenced you didn't take a vacation and were paying some attention to the proceedings.

Some attention, but not enough. Not being able to get in people's faces, I kinda lost the momentum I had built up Day/Night 1 and I still haven't got it back. But I'm working on it now.

What event from Day 2 were you most frustrated about being able to comment on in the moment?

[LoRab]

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.

Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

I'm voting for LoRab because I wanted to put pressure on her yesterday but couldn't. I'll go figure out why now.

Go for it.

LoRab, why did you think Scotty's vote for you was forced?

See above. His post read as "I don't actually want to vote this way. This will be my only post where I mention this player before or after this post [ok, the latter is retrospect] but let it be known so that no one misses it: this is where my vote is going." That was what my gut told me, so I went with it. Did you read the post differently?

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

If did "just ask." I was trying to get to the bottom of what was my issue. And I have to try to see your posts through all possible lenses. That is how this game works, I think. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're town, but I saw an angle to prod at you from and I took it. I don't find this particular line of defense totally inspiring, unfortunately. Your motivation for sharing other opinions is the same as it always is. Again, I'm not definitively stating that you are bad, just bringing to light something that interested me on Night 1.
It looked to me like you could possibly be putting distance between yourself and INH for the sake of giving a safe reason without substantiating it. I also acknowledge that the thoughts you gave could be genuine ones.

This is not a strong enough point to justify a (final) vote on you, though, so I'd like to get more reads out of you. Your Day 2 participation centered primarily around discussing the possibility/likelihood that we have 1 town insanifier and 1 scum one, and some suspicion against A Person for disliking all the noise in this thread. I'd like to know who else you read as good or bad, please & thank you.

You did then, but you poked and prodded your way there, which was just kind of annoying. I mean, I guess that's what you were getting at, but fine. If you want me to go back and read the case against him again, I'm happy to reread it, in order to find what I didn't find suspicious about it, but frankly that seems like a waste of time.

I didn't find him suspicious. I missed the vote. I wasn't that into the game yet. That's really all there is to that. And yes, many of my posts in the past day focus on mechanics--that tends to be how I play and what I often focus on. I don't talk about suspects except when I have them. At the moment, I don't really have any in particular. I often don't this early on. If that makes me suspicious, so be it. It isn't the first time you suspect me, I am guessing it won't be the last. You don't find my play to be inspiring civ thoughts in you--I'm at peace with that. I try not to seem too civ.

And I do not want to share who I think is good at this point--I do not like helping the baddies in that way in a game where there are apparently evil players who are not on the mafia team. At least not unless there is reason to, and I don't see reason to at this point in time.

[Marmot]

timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

Epignosis: I feel good about him
A Person: I like Epignosis's logic, in that AP would prefer to off a talkative player. Also, if I recall correctly, despite AP not posting much in thread, he is a pretty consistent presence in chatzy.
Boomslang: I've changed my mind about him
Dom: I like his work this game. He's not limiting himself to one-word questions and answers, but engaging with people (myself included) at length.

[Sloonei]

If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

[Marmot]

I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

[Marmot]

Vote timmer

I'll be back later.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

What's my townie status like right now? Do we all think I'm a Good Safe & Trusted Townie because I was silenced, or do we think I was pulling a gambit by faking my own silence?

I think it's unlikely you called for/accepted a silence from a baddie team mate on the first available day phase. I think you look the part in your hunting efforts and I liked how you emerged into Night 2 with Things To Say after the tape was pulled off of your mouth. It evidenced you didn't take a vacation and were paying some attention to the proceedings.

Some attention, but not enough. Not being able to get in people's faces, I kinda lost the momentum I had built up Day/Night 1 and I still haven't got it back. But I'm working on it now.

What event from Day 2 were you most frustrated about being able to comment on in the moment?

I don't know about "most" frustrated, since the entire experience was frustrating. There's really no good way to do anything with XCGSDFUREFBBDFN.

Early on Day 2 I wanted to grill Scotty about the post I discussed here. It's a bad look to me, though I did appreciate his later efforts to give Golden an avenue for communication. I was also annoyed to be unable to explain my votes for Epignosis or DrWilgy in a way that could make much sense to anyone. The latter wagon took off despite that though. I'd still like to hear from Dom regarding his decision to join that wagon.

Actually I can expand that to all of the other Wilgy voters (Golden, Epignosis, Dom, MovingPictures07): what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

[Sloonei]

timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

I do not see this as indicative of anything. By the looks of it, timmer is only able to play in short windows. That is fine. One of his windows happens to have coincided roughly with somebody prodding him. Nothing about that is alarming to me.

nijuu: her Day 2 vote. She voted Scotty because other people were talking about him, not because she read him as bad.
MP: He claimed that my accusation against timmer based on timing is historically inaccurate, but could not come up with an example (these two things don't go together)
sig: Similar to nijuu, his Day 2 vote.

I'll have to look at niju myself before I can comment. I agree with MP RE: your timmer suspicion. I don't know that I'd make the claim that it's "historically inaccurate" because I'm not prepared to substantiate such a claim, but, as I just said above, I've got no reason to buy into your reason for suspecting timmer.
I think sig looked like a player who was trying to place a meaningful vote at the end of Day 2. He was not in an ideal situation and I'd like to hear more complete thoughts out of him, but I don't think he looked terrible yesterday. I don't think he looked great either.

Epignosis: I feel good about him

Okay. Why?

A Person: I like Epignosis's logic, in that AP would prefer to off a talkative player. Also, if I recall correctly, despite AP not posting much in thread, he is a pretty consistent presence in chatzy.

What about the argument that there would be two other baddies making decisions behind the scenes? A Person does strike me as the easy lynch target in the thread, though, and I'm usually hesitant to make a big push against those types of players. That said, he needs to start saying more stuff soon.

Boomslang: I've changed my mind about him

Okay. Why?

Dom: I like his work this game. He's not limiting himself to one-word questions and answers, but engaging with people (myself included) at length.

I dig it, I haven't got any bad vibes from Dom yet (not that I've looked closely). Last game (Mad Max) he WAS doing that one-word question and answer thing, though, and he ended up being town. So I wouldn't make an alignment read based on whether or not that tendency is present.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

[Golden]

what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I was moved by epi's effort at PoE. If he is putting in that effort, the least I can do is work with it to find a consensus target. The fact Wilgy crystallised as that target, from my perspective, was probably mostly based in your quotes (which actually read like a compelling case to me).

Someone else asked why you, MP and I have ended up in the same place twice. I think part of it is a drive for a semblance of consensus as we have developed our play styles to think that way. I am rarely happy to end with my vote somewhere meaningless even if that person is my biggest suspect (the only exception I can think of is where I actively disagree with all of the viable options and don't have a preference of one over another).

[Sloonei]

I get the suspicion against Niju's votes. Both days she has cast total outlier votes off the main wagons. This is something I have seen townies do plenty of times when they don't feel comfortable contributing to any of the established wagons (not wanting to potentially eliminate a player on an uninfirmed vote is a legitimate concern), but it is also an easy way for a baddie to keep themself out of the direct line of fire by sticking their nose in the main business. So I'd like some deeper explanation to niju's strategy and some pre-EoD thoughts today.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Again regarding sig:

I discussed here why I wasn't bothered by his conduct at the end of Day 2. I am inclined to temper my own mindset here though, because this rationale is better suited as "why something is not scummy" instead of "why something looks civilian", and the difference is important. I want reads, Sigurd. Sigmurd Freud. Sig Newton.

[Golden]

Sigurd. Sigmurd Freud. Sig Newton.

Sigourney Weaver?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

sig's true identity is Zuul, Gatekeeper of Gozer.

[Sloonei]

I probably would have been on the Wilgy train, but I am also compelled by what I've seen said about Boomslang. I do not get his thought process RE: timmer, and I've still seen nothing from timmer that merits serious suspicion.

Yeah, I really want to hear more from Boomslang. Because I'm starting to wonder if we didn't see a Boom save with this lynch. Plus I would like to give him a chance to respond to what has actually happened.

RIP Wilgy.

I'd like to hear more about this, BWT.

[Sloonei]

Literally just going down the list and prodding people.

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

"and why?"

[LoRab]

If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

No, it was clear. But it was after you had poked me for a while, and I lost motivation. And, please, show me where I said I was uninformed about the game? I said at one point I skipped 5 pages, but that didn't have to do with that post. So, please, where did I say I was uninformed (other than those pages, which were not directly attached to the lynch or my post lynch post)?

I have been offering thoughts as the game has gone on. If those thoughts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem. I'm not going to change the way I play to please you. No, I don't have a lot of suspicions--I'm not going to make them up for the sake of stating suspicions. That's not how I roll.

I don't post things for the purpose of people being able to read me. If they can read me, that's fine. If they can't, then they can't. My primary purpose is figuring out the game. Not getting killed is also a goal, but honestly, it's not generally my primary focus. My primary focus is getting baddies figured out and getting them killed, and in order to do so, figuring out some of the game mechanics in order to figure out how to best make the game work.

I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

It's all good. I mean, when someone is being suspected, someone saying their thoughts is appreciated. And I don't fault people for saying I'm awesome. I mean civ. Saying I'm civ.

Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

Fair enough. I can see where you got that--but it's not like he said that when he took a step back he thought I was suspicious--just that he would vote for me. But, yeah--an answer would be nice.

[Epignosis]

Golden, let's talk about the ninja. You said she appears solvey; what are the posts she's made that have given you that impression?

I Agree the Gal Looks Good (But Not for the Same Reason)

[Epignosis]

Actually I can expand that to all of the other Wilgy voters (Golden, Epignosis, Dom, MovingPictures07): what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I Wasn't Crazy About That Wagon, But Golly I Wasn't Going to Say So at That Stage

[Golden]

Golden, let's talk about the ninja. You said she appears solvey; what are the posts she's made that have given you that impression?

I Agree the Gal Looks Good (But Not for the Same Reason)

What would your reason be?

I'm getting more and more worried about the marmot. I don't find his reasons for things genuine, even after he has moved on from chaos marmot mode. What do you think?

[Golden]

Actually I can expand that to all of the other Wilgy voters (Golden, Epignosis, Dom, MovingPictures07): what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I Wasn't Crazy About That Wagon, But Golly I Wasn't Going to Say So at That Stage

I wasn't crazy about it either, but did you feel that it was better than the other available choices that could have actually influenced the outcome?

[Epignosis]

Golden, let's talk about the ninja. You said she appears solvey; what are the posts she's made that have given you that impression?

I Agree the Gal Looks Good (But Not for the Same Reason)

What would your reason be?

That I'm Not Going to Share (And it Has Nothing to Do With Information Before Anybody Starts Assuming That)

I'm getting more and more worried about the marmot. I don't find his reasons for things genuine, even after he has moved on from chaos marmot mode. What do you think?

Lynch Him or Don't Lynch Him- I'm Fine Either Way and That's About How I'll Always Be

[Epignosis]

Actually I can expand that to all of the other Wilgy voters (Golden, Epignosis, Dom, MovingPictures07): what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I Wasn't Crazy About That Wagon, But Golly I Wasn't Going to Say So at That Stage

I wasn't crazy about it either, but did you feel that it was better than the other available choices that could have actually influenced the outcome?

What Were the Other Available Choices?

[Golden]

Actually I can expand that to all of the other Wilgy voters (Golden, Epignosis, Dom, MovingPictures07): what moved you to participate in that wagon in the end? Your own feelings on Wilgy or the quotes I pulled trying to show my own suspicions? Something else?

I Wasn't Crazy About That Wagon, But Golly I Wasn't Going to Say So at That Stage

I wasn't crazy about it either, but did you feel that it was better than the other available choices that could have actually influenced the outcome?

What Were the Other Available Choices?

I think that's probably subjective. Although obviously AP and boomslang were two.

[Dom]

Hey Dom, what moved you to make your Wilgy vote in the end?

i really struggled with my vote last phase. i softened my view on you because of how hard you were trying to communicate with what appeared to be a very difficult curse. i saw this as genuine effort ingto finding baddies. i felt so conflicted that i just voted with you bc i thought your suspicion was genuine and i understood it.

i am also sick, overworked, and haven't been reading as closely as i'd like.

Busier than I expected, my ISO analyses and further posts will have to wait for now.

Hopefully I don't get killed/silenced/insanified.

Furthermore, I'm not one to tell other players what to do with their role powers, but if a town-aligned role is the silencer or the insanifier, and that's you, I'd hesitate greatly before utilizing your power again tonight. Those powers have an overall negative utility when they are town roles.

what the hell is this post

Literally just going down the list and prodding people.

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

"and why?"

missed that

bwt - i thought it was weird that he called jay's curse a "code". that seems specific. i also have had other issues, i definitely questioned him on it, but i can't remember them off the top of my head.
mm - i feel like he has wiggled his way into and out of the spot light many times and i still don't like this whole timmer/boomslang business he's pushing. i don't trust this.
nju - i appreciate the commentary coming out of today so far, but i'd like to hear more from her. she's normally someone who i look forward to reading.

[timmer]

timmer: the timing thing. Right now, it's the scummiest thing I've seen.

It's Day 3. You're sticking with this?

[birdwithteeth11]

Well yay no death! At least we have that going for us!

I will catch up more fully tomorrow. I got home from work 20 minutes ago and am super tired right now.

[timmer]

I'm looking back through the end part of Day 2. So Sig showed up at the end of the day, posted a bunch of all-over-the-place content, and then voted for Boomslang despite not having a case against him (he had suspicions of other players, though). Meanwhile, both MP and Epig called him out for his inconsistencies. And now let's look at the timing here:

4:11 (my time zone):

So quick thing before the phase ends, MP trying to turn it over to Scotty is odd, I don't know if this was an attempt at anything or not, but I disliked it.

linki: Ah okay so off the top of my head I suspect and plan to look into MM, Dom, and Scotty. I also kind off suspect you and Epi, but that is mainly tinfoiling I think.

I don't see the case on Boom, but I think the case on Boom is better then voting wilgy since Sloonie was silenced and since he voted for Epi?

Also 4:11, directly after Sig's post:

Also moving over to boom I don't like the case on Wilgy or Mp's last minute switch

But...You Don't See the Case on Boomslang............................Your Words

what he actually said was that he didn't agree with the case on boomslang, OR the case on wilgy, OR the case on a person (if I read right)

anyway barring Piss Crowns or other poll meddling, looks like wilgy is the lynch target, have to cross our fingers and wait for host post now

Trice appears to have helped Sig defend his indefensible position simultaneous to Sig defending his own position.

(@MM, any thoughts on the timing here? No? Didn't think so, you go on with your bad self)

I read trice as directly helping Sig out in real time, as if they were chatting about it in a back room.

[timmer]

As for the Boomslang vote against me... I don't see how it is bad, necessarily. In a game full of secrets anyone making such a weird against-his-own-thoughts vote should cause hesitation, except... for baddies. When I'm bad, and I haven't put myself onto a clear vote path, I know I tend to get a bit antsy about how to vote.

Looking at the lynch poll, when Boomslang voted for me, no one had more than 1 vote. Let's say one of the baddies has been talked about, and maybe there was a suggestion that they could get lynched. So the baddies hold off on voting, unsure of whether they need to make a move or not. And then along comes Boomslang with his weird vote, and wow did some people pounce on it! It's exactly the kind of thing I would leap onto as a baddie when I left it too long to vote.

So I'm at least partially eyeing MM, Trice, BWT and Sig.

Sig was all over the place. Trice seems to have helped him defend his position. MM is pursuing a spectacularly blindered stance on the game that seems engineered to be so weird that it is hard to pick at it.

That leaves BWT for me to read, which starts now.

[triceratopzeuhl]

Trice appears to have helped Sig defend his indefensible position simultaneous to Sig defending his own position.

(@MM, any thoughts on the timing here? No? Didn't think so, you go on with your bad self)

I read trice as directly helping Sig out in real time, as if they were chatting about it in a back room.

No I just have better reading comprehension. Here is exactly what sig said:

So I don't see a good case for Boomslang or Wilgy or A person.

It seems pretty obvious but a couple people responded really obtusely, seeming to think that his sentence ended after the word boomslang

[triceratopzeuhl]

if we were "chatting about it in a back room" I would have just told him to post a correction, because I'm not an idiot

[timmer]

Reading BWT, I found some weirdness.

MM posts this at 12:12 my time:

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

just under 2 hours later, MM reiterates the thought with an added comment at the bottom:

Spoiler: show

I have to leave to take a final, but do you guys need any more than this?

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

He read timmer as town yesterday and voted for me. Then today he voted for timmer, with the hope of getting information about me.

Jay can't talk, but he can pull quotes with the best of them.

Then BWT gets into the thread and, from what I can tell, catches up from where he left off, as he's commenting on events in chronological order. He then gets to where Boomslang voted for me. He ALSO cuts and pastes the same groups of posts that JJJ had posted, just like MM, and agrees with MM in voting for Boomslang:

(This is at 2:53 my time)

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

Very interesting...very interesting indeed.

Boomslang

But then... here is our WTF moment. One lone minute later, at 2:54 he then links to MM's own cut and paste of the same quotes, and questions him on it...

Spoiler: show

Linki: Casual glance at timmer reads authentic to me as well. The "also" and "also also" construction in his post is more casual than a baddie might use when discussing the finer points of strategy.

Been out all Saturday. Alas. But the thing that pinged me most all day was MM jumping down my/timmer's throat for a timing thing that would've been way too clumsy for baddie move. Voting there.

RIP, INH. Honestly, I hadn't spent much time looking at you or your case. I apologize for not further substantiating my thoughts on MM, but JJJ's explanation is pretty much my train of thought. Using a weak, time-based rationale that would've made the most sense for a timmer vote to vote me. I'll have to look at MM more closely in the next day phase.

Arrrgh, I thought I could catch up tonight. Making a long story short, I have a surprise job interview in middle-of-nowhere North Carolina that will eat up the rest of my day/early evening. Gonna vote Timmer because I disagree with the main wagons and think it would at least yield info on MM. I know this is a drive-by, but I don't have time for more.

I'm more than happy to lynch Boomslang.

Ummmm...why?

So BWT comes in, catches up, finds Boomslang scummy enough to vote for him. but then one minute later calls MM out for doing the same thing??? This makes no sense.

[timmer]

I've got to run, but as of now, I find a lot to suspect.

[Sloonei]

Voting birdwithteeth because timmer makes an excellent point.

[Marmot]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

[Sloonei]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

What convinced you to drop it?

[Marmot]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

What convinced you to drop it?

Partially that I think Boomslang is civ.

And partially because I thought things happened differently than they did. I think I got the wrong idea because I was phone-posting.

[Sloonei]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

What convinced you to drop it?

Partially that I think Boomslang is civ.

And partially because I thought things happened differently than they did. I think I got the wrong idea because I was phone-posting.

What did you think happen?
Who are you gonna look at now?

[Marmot]

@timmer

I disagree with you about the trice/sig correction. It's something I would do myself and not indicative, imo.

But you make a good point wert BWT, even if it is a response to my post. I'm intrigued.

[Marmot]

Alright, I'll drop the timmer thing. I'm probably wrong about it.

I need a strong scumread though. Who's it?

What convinced you to drop it?

Partially that I think Boomslang is civ.

And partially because I thought things happened differently than they did. I think I got the wrong idea because I was phone-posting.

What did you think happen?
Who are you gonna look at now?

timmer started his in-thread catch-up right after Boomslang asked him a question, and finished the catch-up with an answer to said question. I saw it as a teammate setting his partner up for an interaction.

But I realize I'm probably just overthinking the situation, and timmer's offered some good content otherwise.

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Marmot, I'm still not clear on one detail from Day 1.

My first ping of the day.

Timmer hadn't posted for about 24 hours

Boomslang asks timmer a question.

Timmer posts a mere 10 minutes later.

Unvote whoever I voted (on my phone, can't remember)

Vote Boomslang for now.

What led to your initially voting Boomslang instead of timmer in this moment?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Busier than I expected, my ISO analyses and further posts will have to wait for now.

Hopefully I don't get killed/silenced/insanified.

Furthermore, I'm not one to tell other players what to do with their role powers, but if a town-aligned role is the silencer or the insanifier, and that's you, I'd hesitate greatly before utilizing your power again tonight. Those powers have an overall negative utility when they are town roles.

what the hell is this post

What is your concern with that post?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Regarding timmer's beefs with BWT:

I'm reading this similarly to the Boomslang controversy of Day 2. It looks like an inconsistency or a logical error so careless that I feel like I have to invoke WIFOM. The passage of one minute between his support of my collected quotes/his Boomslang vote and his questioning of Marmot for doing the same would represent a rather nonsense mistake for a mafioso. Did he forget his own vote or what he was doing in the space of one minute? Does anyone make that error as a baddie?

BWT, please explain your intentions when you questioned Marmot for his Boomslang vote after you'd placed your own.

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

Well, the first and third I've read as civ so far. The second I do not have a read on yet.

At the same time, I would also think if any of these 3 were bad, they would avoid latching onto the first 2 civ lynch wagons.

And I don't feel that great about you, so I'm considering the source as well.

I'll think about it.

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

I don't disagree with your notion here. But do you see how your vote for timmer makes you look scummy?

What would you say your read is on Boomslang now?

[JaggedJimmyJay]

Some beefs with LoRab:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

She retroactively stated her disagreement with the INH wagon after his lynch was finalized. This on its own power isn't much of an issue, but the highlighted portion becomes more meaningful in the next quote I'll pull:

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

The core message of both posts is that she didn't like the INH lynch. However, in the first post wasn't inclined to voice suspicion of any of the people who contributed to that lynch despite calling him an "easy false case". She builds on that in the second post by calling him a "player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched". This language carries an implied accusation -- that she felt in the moment reading the INH cases that there was a chance someone was manipulating things against him. That would be cause for suspicion, but she declined to voice it before. In this post, she does voice it but without stating names. It allows this post to paint the entire INH wagon negatively without committing to a complete read.

Spoiler: show

Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

Spoiler: show

So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

My empire of dirt

You could have it all

Wow. You, uh, make it sound so compelling.

But, still...I don't really have any suspects. I don't really want to point out who I think is civ. I still need to read back on who was suspecting INH to see who in that pool seems suspish.

But that dirt....tell me more.

It was clear Golden's ability to communicate was limited, so I don't like the sarcasm here. You, uh, make it sound so compelling. As if he had any good way of being more thorough. This post also represents the first follow-up on the suspicion she only sort of voiced about the INH wagon, but still without getting somewhere. We'll see if it progressed.

Spoiler: show

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?

I've already talked about this. It just doesn't look to me like a civilian responding to an unexplained vote, even when there may be legitimate suspicion that the vote was forced. It was immediate apathetic acceptance.

Spoiler: show

Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

LoRab's take on A Person's gripe about the most active players isn't my favorite thing. She called it maybe the "least civilian friendly thinking I've read in mafia" which would seem to be an accusation (confirmed further by the final sentence of the post), but her expansion on why she doesn't like it seems to go nowhere.

Either you're a civilian doing a silly thing or you're a mafia doing a silly thing.

She eventually placed her vote for A Person, meaning this ended up being her chief concern of Day 2.

From this point, her focus has been more about self-defense and answering prompts. I haven't seen follow-up on the INH wagon suspicions.

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

Not necessarily. A lot of forced votes require the person being forced to not divulge in any way that their vote is forced. I once saw someone slip up on that and they were modkilled, so it's a pretty serious thing in terms of the mafia culture I'm used to.

That being said, I am still reserving my final judgement on Boomslang until I see what his response is.

[birdwithteeth11]

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.

I agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an insanifer role, but I feel like we need more than him just griping about high posters to be able to tell if he is a good vs. bad/neutral insanifer.

[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.

I agree with this. I wouldn't be surprised if he is an insanifer role, but I feel like we need more than him just griping about high posters to be able to tell if he is a good vs. bad/neutral insanifer.

We need more from him in general. With only four posts there's no better alternative to a judgment call.

[birdwithteeth11]

RIP Wilgy, and what a crazy Day 2.

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.

Honestly, my vote was a logical misstep. "Where my head was at" was a place of sheer panic/preoccupation; I'd just come off a five-hour internship block, was about to head on an hour drive to an hour-plus-long job interview (that I'd just landed the day before and stayed up late preparing for), and at the time was changing into a suit. I didn't have the time or mental capacity to think clearly about my post or vote. I voted timmer out of some fuzzy train of thought relating him, MM, and me and wanting to see what happened after that vote. I seriously doubted that timmer would actually get lynched in the phase. You can believe me or not for this explanation; unlike Hillary Clinton, I can post time-stamped emails if you want them.

That being said, I think we can still gain some info from the debacle. MM immediately abandoning his timmer vote to vote me looks bad. If he truly believed in the timmer case, why would he abandon it instead of trying to recruit more people to the vote? Timmer seemed suitably confused/angry about a vote that was, as I've said, mostly illogical; he then tried to rationalize the vote after the emotional energy subsided. That reads very authentic to me. So I'll stop beating that horse for now.

For the first part, okay, a lot of that is completely understandable. In a vacuum, your timmer vote made no sense. But I do remember you supporting him earlier on, so I can buy this for now.

I do agree that we can gain some info from your vote decision too. I think it makes MM look scummier given he jumped his vote again right after your timmer vote.

MM, remind me again of your reasoning for moving this vote off timmer.