[ENDGAME] Bullets Over Broadway Mafia

[Long Con]

Correct me.

Here is the thing. I inevitably will. I'll inevitably trawl back through my posts, stepping you through what happened piece by piece. I always do. It's what I do. Doing your work for you.

I started it before, but I just cba right now.

For someone who supposedly suspects me, you seemed pretty happy I survived the NK.

"Happy"?

Nice survival, Golden. Your post in dead red does seem consistent with the idea that you were saved by a force other than yourself. If you expected to be still alive, a very different post would have likely been going to Dom at that time.

I don't know about happiness, but I did think that you really thought that you were dead, and that your survival wasn't innate to your role. "Nice survival, Golden." Is that part the "happy times"?

[Long Con]

btw, it's pretty funny that you say it's ME doing the no u.

Ok, let's find the earliest posted suspicion of the other. That should settle this.

[Long Con]

Lol, I don't believe it. The guy who has defended you all game has a 'crew primed for an LC bandwagon'

I'm actually referring to Cobalt and Metalmarsh. And not as "your baddie teammates" crew, but as "your happy-to-lynch-LC" crew.

[Golden]

Lol, I don't believe it. The guy who has defended you all game has a 'crew primed for an LC bandwagon'

I'm actually referring to Cobalt and Metalmarsh. And not as "your baddie teammates" crew, but as "your happy-to-lynch-LC" crew.

Oh, what is it. I'm bad, or I'm misguided? Make up your mind.

As for me being G-Man's teammate, then why am I the original instigator of the G-Man suspicion?????

[Golden]

Why would the earliest suspicion be relevant, when this whole thing arose right now because you took umbrage to me placing you in a team with G-Man and bubbles?

I told you to find it yourself because I'm at work and don't have time to step you through it. I still don't. But you know what? I'll have to step others through it, primarily to show up the veneer of your post.

But I will - trust me, I will - do a big long post with all the posts, not just from me, but from multiple people, which make it very clear how the suspicion arose and why I held it, and evidence that it was clear to others. You say it's not clear to you? Well - that suits you just fine right now, but I think it's you who is being dishonest right there - especially since you somehow even managed to 'imply' it and were relying in your own post upon the ambiguity of the meaning of 'made it clear' to try and make out that it must mean 'stated it expressly'.

Let me just remind you of how this went.... underlines mine

I haven't specifically answered your most recent post, but I have set out my reasons fairly clearly before that.

It was not the truth that you had clearly laid out why you think G-Man and I are teammates. I don't want to call you a liar here, but how would you explain for the thread this discrepancy between the facts and the things you are saying? Why did you make me waste my time going through your posts for something that wasn't there?! It's frikkin' midnight here, next time I ask, give me a straight answer and don't tell me to go look for it.

Tell me how I, let alone anyone else, is supposed to look at that post and not see it as incredibly emotionally manipulative.

[Golden]

"I don't want to call you a liar here, I only want to imply it."

[timmer]

@Long Con, sorry if you didn't like going through my posts, lol? I'm a lover of reading people's posts in order using the "in topic" button, so I sometimes just assume others like doing that as well.

Your breakdown of my thoughts on you was correct but incomplete, as it is missing the first part of the Tiny Bubbles case. Like I had said, unlike some people I'm looking at Bubbles more than you rather than the other way round. The piece you missed is the way Tiny Bubbles glommed onto my earlier case against Cobalt. I had read his posts, and missed any post where he actually explained his suspicions of you. Without that post, I felt that his post history read as massively scummy and I posted and voted about it.

Here is Bubbles' reasoning for voting Cobalt:

"Anyway, what timmer said about cobalt revenge voting makes some sense, im gonna go ahead and trust his instincts, and vote for cobalt now. "

Two things. One, the insistent part of my case was actually the way I thought Cobalt had hedged against explaining his suspicion of you (which turned out to be completely wrong). Two, while I did technically mention the way Cobalt talked about revenge voting you, I never based my case on it.

So Bubbles' post and vote feel all kinds of wrong, to me. It sound alike she didn't really go and read up on what I said, but just skimmed around for something to jump onto to get a vote in.

So that bugged me. I then take that, and combine it with her vote on you after the lynch shenanigans started in the thread, and suddenly, you look like a potential teamie. You see?

But to make this clear, I believe in lynching the person with the bigger case against them over the person who might be their teammate if I'm right. So while you are on my shortlist of suspicious characters right now, I won't vote for you until I've got the ability to show that I'm right about Bubbles.

[Long Con]

Lol, I don't believe it. The guy who has defended you all game has a 'crew primed for an LC bandwagon'

I'm actually referring to Cobalt and Metalmarsh. And not as "your baddie teammates" crew, but as "your happy-to-lynch-LC" crew.

Oh, what is it. I'm bad, or I'm misguided? Make up your mind.

As for me being G-Man's teammate, then why am I the original instigator of the G-Man suspicion?????

Huh? My post never said you're not bad. Just that you have (possibly) misguided kooks that now share the same goals as you. A ready-made crew. You're reading way too much into it, I think. It was a light-hearted comment, nothing more.

You were trying to link G-Man's guilt to me (without outright saying it) because you saw the G-Man suspicion as a real lynch possibility today, and you wanted to use it to your advantage... maybe to take out one of the only people who had expressed any suspicion of you this game.

Linki: "Emotionally manipulative?" So, I'm not allowed to be upset when I go through all your posts and find nothing of you saying why you were linking TGG and I? Calling you a liar isn't emotional manipulation, it's part of the game of Mafia. Mafia members are liars, they have to be liars, and I think that you are one of them. You're not supposed to get upset at being called a liar in Mafia. "Give me a straight answer" is emotionally manipulative? "...for something that wasn't there" was emotionally manipulative?

I do not understand. I'm going to go to bed, maybe you can also go to bed, and we can continue this in the morning, because it's getting weird to me.

[timmer]

we can continue this in the morning, because it's getting weird to me.

Let's all remember that this is fun... It's fun, right?

[Long Con]

@Long Con, sorry if you didn't like going through my posts, lol? I'm a lover of reading people's posts in order using the "in topic" button, so I sometimes just assume others like doing that as well.

Your breakdown of my thoughts on you was correct but incomplete, as it is missing the first part of the Tiny Bubbles case. Like I had said, unlike some people I'm looking at Bubbles more than you rather than the other way round. The piece you missed is the way Tiny Bubbles glommed onto my earlier case against Cobalt. I had read his posts, and missed any post where he actually explained his suspicions of you. Without that post, I felt that his post history read as massively scummy and I posted and voted about it.

Here is Bubbles' reasoning for voting Cobalt:

"Anyway, what timmer said about cobalt revenge voting makes some sense, im gonna go ahead and trust his instincts, and vote for cobalt now. "

Two things. One, the insistent part of my case was actually the way I thought Cobalt had hedged against explaining his suspicion of you (which turned out to be completely wrong). Two, while I did technically mention the way Cobalt talked about revenge voting you, I never based my case on it.

So Bubbles' post and vote feel all kinds of wrong, to me. It sound alike she didn't really go and read up on what I said, but just skimmed around for something to jump onto to get a vote in.

So that bugged me. I then take that, and combine it with her vote on you after the lynch shenanigans started in the thread, and suddenly, you look like a potential teamie. You see?

But to make this clear, I believe in lynching the person with the bigger case against them over the person who might be their teammate if I'm right. So while you are on my shortlist of suspicious characters right now, I won't vote for you until I've got the ability to show that I'm right about Bubbles.

Ok, that's a fair deal. TinyBubbles is on my list too, so it does give me a heavy heart that, if she is bad, you'll think I'm bad. But I'd still vote her if that lynch comes.

Linki: It's always loads of fun to butt heads with a strong Mafia personality like Golden. Now he's going to go back and put together why I should have known why he was linking me to TGG/G-Man. Can't wait to see it, because it will mean that I missed a lot, or a lot of subtext, that I should have been aware of.

Good night!

[Long Con]

Ugh, and because I obsess...

"I don't want to call you a liar here, I only want to imply it."

Yeah, that's how I phrased calling you a liar. Maybe it sounds different in your head than it does in mine, perhaps I should have added a or some sarcastic orange.

[timmer]

To those who have played with TinyBubbles on other sites, how do you feel about her self-voting pity party? If she is a civ, and takes heat, does she do this sometimes? Is this indicative of anything in terms of her alignment?

@Bubbles, don't quit the game, please. Whatever your alignment, taking heat is a fact of life in mafia. I am being a bit of a hypocrite I guess, because I've thrown a few pity parties of my own, some of them recently tbh, but still, playing mafia means you are going to take on suspicions sometimes, it can't be avoided. Defend, please, I'd rather be convinced of your civvieness then find it out after lynching you after you threw in the towel!

[Golden]

For LC - the way he might have understood the case against him if he had taken my posts and the whole thread in context. All posts below happened in the order I have posted them. This is long, so it's under a spoiler tag.

Spoiler: show

I don't like bringing out of game stuff into a game, generally speaking, but I'm calling gamerguy as bad.

Given his posts in the hosting thread about 'only voting for games that don't allow deadies to sub back in', I think the real reason why TGG has asked to be subbed out of this one is more because of his opposition to epi subbing in, and less because of his internet issues (not saying the excuse isn't legitimate).

I'm beginning to think the reason for it is because he is annoyed that he killed epi and epi is back.

I have to admit, I'm beginning to see the bubbles could be bad. She isn't contributing as much as she did in economics by any means, and that game was actually more intense, in terms of post numbers.

Timmer's posts came overnight while I was asleep.

Long Con says this recently today. Long Con has not mentioned or interacted with TinyBubbles all game. However, he suddenly states he's seeing her as fishy, but convinces himself otherwise all in the same post.

Trimmed it, but MM's comment about Tiny and LC makes some sense. Tiny has pretty much no input into this game, but managed to defend LC AND jump on my initial Cobalt vote which had been, at the time, based on an erroneous read of his post history. And Long Con managed to pseudo-suspect Tiny without committing to it in a meaningful way. Very interesting read, MM.

Put my vote in for long con, because there are far too many votes on cobalt right now, i dont trust that thre's not a scummy reason to get him lynched (even if he is mafia). Could be a willing sacrifice, to call attention away from the others. And long can has been slightly suspicious from the start, though i dont know him fromprevious games so cant be sure its not just his usual style. He seemed an easy target last poll so i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. however now there is no point, most likely cobalt's going to get lynched.

And sorry for not posting much. some posts have seemed kind of hostile, made me reluctant to involve myself. I am still around though

I think i recall bass suspecting i'm scum? I dont know if that was just meant to provoke a reaction or if it's his real opinion. Either way it's fishy.. and yes, for the 1000th time im still civ and will be civ ALL GAME and if you think that it's scummy of me to reiterate that, you don't really know me at all or you're misdirecting.

Another note about Tiny...

This post came after Cobalt had said flat out that Long Con was going to die, and most crucially, after Long Con had started making jokes about getting his affairs in order. IMO, this post was written after Long Con already knew that he was going to survive the day, either because he is bad and his team has a lynch save, or Dom balanced Cobalt's rule breaking, or whatever it was. So getting Tiny to show up and vote for Long Con would be a nice baddie teammate move at that juncture.

So in your mind, does bad TB = bad LC? Or is there a world in which only one of the two is bad?

As I'm reading through, I'm indeed feeling like both may be bad. I'd say it is much more likely both are baddie teamies than that one is bad and glomming onto a civ.

The lynch was going to Cobalt, who was saying Long Con would die, and then Tiny shows up after not posting much content and votes for Long Con. Then Long Con posts a rainbow post listing his colour coded thoughts on players. He lists Tiny at the top of the suspect list. As of where I'm at with my reading, that seems a bit odd. Like seriously, even above Cobalt? This after Long Con clearly, I think, knew he would Not be lynched. The whole thing smells.

Also in Tiny's corner is the way she(?) glommed onto my Cobalt vote. Her post about it said she agreed with my reasoning, but as it turned out, I was completely backwards, and if Tiny had actually read any posts she'd have caught my mistake. Thus, I feel like she just jumped on a bandwagon, baddie-style.

And now I have caught up and...

Also, I'm beginning to buy the TB/LC theory, or even a TB/LC/G-Man, this is mafia 1 theory - taking into account my various thoughts around the meaning of any killing of epi on night 1. I haven't really seen LC as suspicious on his own merit, but certain things are beginning to add up for me.

At this point - I've explained why I think TGG/G-Man is suspicious. I've said it's because I think he killed epi and epi is back. Others have explained connections between LC and bubbles and I am buying in to them. Now this post. Key part underlined for emphasis

So I went back to look at timing.

Epi dies. Epi replaces in. Epi has (I think) only two posts - one where he says 'I know who killed me' and one where he says 'my suspicions haven't changed'. Then TGG asks to be subbed out.

I honestly think it's very consistent with someone who was part of a team that killed epi, that they killed them for cause, and was upset when he was able to sub back in and express the particular sentiments that he did. I think G-Man and LC are a team. I feel less sure that bubbles is, but she definitely could be.

Does it suck that someone subbing out on a matter of principle could sink a team? Yes. But this is why you should always keep your cool in mafia. I guarantee you, when people complain about things being unfair in this game, it's almost always mafia. Because they perceive it has harmed their chances. I don't think Epi's views necessarily held great weight, and I think the reaction to him subbing back in provides a whole lot more information about how important they believed killing epi to be.

I've explained I think TGG killed epi already. Now I'm adding that I think he did it for a reason, and that the reason he was upset was that epi could sub back in and express specific sentiments.

To finish up - LC said this:

Thank you for answering, it was really not nearly as clear in the thread as it was in your mind. I love you Golden, and I know that you feel the same even though I riled you up a bit. I didn't kill Epi, and Cobalt was another person on his suspect list besides S~V~S and myself, if I'm not mistaken.

OK, so, he even essentially admits that he can see how it could be more clear in my mind than it was in the thread, so...

LC, you know what would have been easy, if you were civ? Just saying 'I've read your posts back, it isn't clear to me, mind setting it out more clearly'? Yeah, that's what I think you would have done as civ. This move to discredit me is something I can only describe as bullshit.

[Golden]

To those who have played with TinyBubbles on other sites, how do you feel about her self-voting pity party? If she is a civ, and takes heat, does she do this sometimes? Is this indicative of anything in terms of her alignment?

@Bubbles, don't quit the game, please. Whatever your alignment, taking heat is a fact of life in mafia. I am being a bit of a hypocrite I guess, because I've thrown a few pity parties of my own, some of them recently tbh, but still, playing mafia means you are going to take on suspicions sometimes, it can't be avoided. Defend, please, I'd rather be convinced of your civvieness then find it out after lynching you after you threw in the towel!

She's never done it before. But she is not a fan of conflict. It has only made me feel more confident that it likely she was part of a team where some players were complaining about the fairness of the game, this is completely consistent with the person I know bubbles to be.

One thing I don't think, not even for a second, is that it is a 'pity party'. I don't think bubbles self-voted because she is bad, or because she has taken suspicion. I think it is much more likely for her to have done it - whether civ or bad - simply because she is finding the tone of much of the conflict this game to be a struggle for her.

[Golden]

And LC - take that last quote with the underlined bit there as me definitely seeing you are conflicted in your own posts as to whether I am bad or not - and the reason why I think your posts read that way is this...

You are one of very few people in a unique position to have your first confirmed civ. Because everyone on mafia 1 knows I'm not bad, now.

[Golden]

And there is certainly no way in heck you are seeing this as my baddie game.

[Golden]

Apparently all my other suspicions are my 'real' suspicions, and I've just 'jammed you in there' (you'd have to literally ignore the substance of my case on TGG to believe that suspicion was 'real' but the one on the person who he would have been defending by killing epi was 'fake' - the case on the pair of you is literally the same suspicion).

Why is my name even jammed in among your real suspicions at all?

[Golden]

You were trying to link G-Man's guilt to me (without outright saying it) because you saw the G-Man suspicion as a real lynch possibility today, and you wanted to use it to your advantage... maybe to take out one of the only people who had expressed any suspicion of you this game.

WTF???

G-Man was never a legitimate possibility for a lynch today. Why would I ever think someone who had just subbed in was a legitimate candidate for a lynch. I vote for who I think is bad regardless.

And, when did TGG or G-Man ever express suspicion of me? If they did, I certainly don't remember it. Mind you, I have to be honest, I also have no recollection of you calling me bad before the last hour either. The only person I really remember suggesting I was bad is Canuck.

[Dom]

Can I ask our host why G-Man is able to be voted for? I was off limits for the day I subbed in....

Because I am an idiot.

Have the replacements been receiving the Day 0 messages that their originals would have received?

Yes.



No votes cast for G-Man or FZ. will count.

[Long Con]

I didn't go to bed. I went to other websites and peeked back in before shutting down. And then I had to respond.

For LC - the way he might have understood the case against him if he had taken my posts and the whole thread in context. All posts below happened in the order I have posted them. This is long, so it's under a spoiler tag....

I don't know why you quoted all those posts. The suspicion that I'm on TinyBubbles' team has no connection to the reason you think I'm on G-Man's team, you just comfortably grouped in with that suspicion. Your post could have looked like this:

I honestly think it's very consistent with someone who was part of a team that killed epi, that they killed them for cause, and was upset when he was able to sub back in and express the particular sentiments that he did. I think G-Man and LC are a team. I feel less sure that bubbles is, but she definitely could be.

...and given the same level of clarification. And you said it in a completely roundabout way that stopped it from being clear, you didn't (and have never before) stated that you think I might have killed Epi. I think YOU killed Epi and are trying to fan the flames on the frame-job that isn't going where you had hoped. I've been on the lookout for "that guy" in the thread, and I think I've found him.

And LC - take that last quote with the underlined bit there as me definitely seeing you are conflicted in your own posts as to whether I am bad or not - and the reason why I think your posts read that way is this...

You are one of very few people in a unique position to have your first confirmed civ. Because everyone on mafia 1 knows I'm not bad, now.

Nuh-uh, you are not claiming Confirmed Civ off this, put that away. If you are sensing conflict about whether you are good or bad, it's because I don't know which you are. After tonight, I am heavily leaning bad for you.

And there is certainly no way in heck you are seeing this as my baddie game.

I think you're being blinded by your own ego? I think your baddie game probably looks (intentionally) a lot like your Civvie game. Can you explain further how you believe I see your baddie game? This is a bizarre comment to make, I think you should have gone to bed... when I should have.

Linki: Me, Golden. I am the person who expressed suspicion of you.

G-Man is on the poll, and there is enough suspicion of him to make me believe he's a legitimate possibility for getting lynched.

Linki2: G-Man is clearly not a legitimate possibility for today's lynch.

[Golden]

And I'll leave it there... there are many other aspects of your crock case I want to put out. Especially the inconsistencies (like all my suspicions being 'real' except for the one of you... but then suddenly G-Man is my teammate)... but there are only so many things I can post about this without wearing everyone out.

I don't want to come back to it tomorrow, all I will say is this.

I do not think it 'fun' to spend a game being called full of shit all over the place simply because people want to manipulate me into doing the work to prove my innocence instead of putting in the work themselves to prove their own innocence. You are not the first person this game who has essentially answered my suspicion against them with 'your suspicion isn't incredibly detailed and amazing, therefore you are lying about it'. BR was the first. You may even be the third.

And also, anyone who watched me being bad in economics knows this... I don't case based on lies. Even when I know everyone else is a civilian.

[timmer]

I'm tuning out mafia for the night.

I've moved my vote to Bubbles, I feel like I've got a bit more to work with there than BR/LC others I've discussed. I'll be at work for much of tomorrow but will try to sneak a peek into the thread when I can.

[nutella]

Wow guys that was an uncomfortable exchange to read. Looks like there might have been some miscommunications, hope you've gotten them sorted out and there are no hard feelings or anything. Though you both seem to legitimately suspect each other which is interesting. I really think Golden is civ and I wouldn't be surprised if LC is bad. Depending on how the rest of the discussion goes I might switch my vote to him rather than Sig.

My pm had something about protecting on odd nights, and something about checking other players.

Wow ok, sorry I totally missed this buried way back when. Wish you had brought it up again sooner!

can you expand on that? Were there any words that didn't repeat anywhere so maybe we can start deducing what role this belongs to? did it say the word police? capitalized, like the band, maybe?

It's not capitalized. The pm starts off with something like "because them's the police" which is probably a line from whatever musical the role is (maybe WSS but there are probably tons of other musicals that have police in them, and I'm not familiar with a lot of the plays on the roles list) and it talks about 1) protecting a player on odd nights and 2) a role check ability. Another word that comes up is "jobs" in quotes. I sort of wondered if that could refer to the names of the subforums (e.g. the current job, past jobs) but that seems unlikely, probably another musical reference.

[Neverwhere]

put a vote on myself... cause it's probably gonna go that way anyway and honestly i am not really enjoying this game anymore. i'm civ though, you'll discover that as soon as i'm lynched.

Should I make more of my INFJf dumb jokes? Don't go! Sorry if I've been after you two hard.

[Golden]

Wow guys that was an uncomfortable exchange to read. Looks like there might have been some miscommunications, hope you've gotten them sorted out and there are no hard feelings or anything.

I honestly don't believe there were any miscommunications at all. LC set out to achieve something, which he achieved. Well done to him. But he doesn't believe I'm bad, not a bit.

Even the 'I think you're being blinded by your own ego'. LC easily knows me well enough to know that if I was legimately being 'blinded by ego', that's my civvie game.

But I can't quite let this go, so let me put this through the ringer a little more in one more post...

[Neverwhere]

*too hard

what is grammar.

where is coffee.

[Neverwhere]

Sorry for my non contribution. I will get posting this afternoon. Just did a quick skim over cofee and wanted to post and make sure TB was ok.

[Golden]

LC's case on me is that...

1) I used the word 'clear' when in fact things were not clear (to LC). He even said himself 'I think it was clearer in your head than in the thread'.

But he himself was subject to epi's case on LC because he used the word interesting. I thought a case based on the use of a single word was misguided then but if it really was misguided and LC was civ, why would LC turn around and do the very thing he knew was wrong back then on me?

Not only that, but the theory was so unclear that... in the very post he called it unclear, he himself was able to imply why I saw him as bad. So how unclear could it be?

2) I deflected his question.

LC asked the question at 3.15 PM my time. At 3.34 PM he was saying 'you still haven't answered my question'... as if 19 minutes while I'm at work is a sufficient period of time for me to perform backflips for him.

This then leads to this:

you already had your chance to give a quick sentence of recap why. Instead, you used that post to tell me you've already made it very clear why. So I went and looked, and I can't see it. Correct me.

Well, you know, one mans chance is another mans end of financial year. 19 minutes is not a lot of time for me right now. But even putting that aside...

Why deflect? His reason why I would deflect is this...

Why is my name even jammed in among your real suspicions at all?

He is claiming my suspicion of him isn't real and that's why I would deflect.

Except, my entire suspicion of TGG - a suspicion very well documented in the thread from before the time I didn't die - is based on the view that epi was killed by TGG because epi was on to one of his teammates. Given that fact, why the heck would I deflect from saying 'I think LC is that teammate' expressly. It's literally 6 words, and it's something that I personally think is CLEAR from my posts beforehand, even though it is implied and not expressly stated. Why on earth would I deflect from that as a baddie? What is the point? It makes literally zero sense that I would do that. There is no reason under this earth for me to avoid giving LC a straight answer 'because I'm bad and my suspicion isn't real'. If I'm bad, a straight answer is exactly what makes sense, since it would still be the truth.

3) It's hard to see what the rest of his case is. Perhaps he could enlighten us. But it seems to be 'because he suspected me before I suspected him', or something...

Anyway, I'm calling bs on my bs meter because I simply don't genuinely believe anything LC posted this afternoon was honest. I don't think he posts the post where he went back and read my posts as a civ. I think he takes a very different approach. I know this can't have been comfortable to read, but I gotta stick up for myself, especially when I know that there is some fishy stuff going down with the suspicion.

[Golden]

You were trying to link G-Man's guilt to me (without outright saying it) because you saw the G-Man suspicion as a real lynch possibility today, and you wanted to use it to your advantage... maybe to take out one of the only people who had expressed any suspicion of you this game.

And, when did TGG or G-Man ever express suspicion of me? If they did, I certainly don't remember it. Mind you, I have to be honest, I also have no recollection of you calling me bad before the last hour either. The only person I really remember suggesting I was bad is Canuck.

Linki: Me, Golden. I am the person who expressed suspicion of you.

It's taken me ages to get what you even meant here, so now I just want to walk through what you are saying...

You are saying that....

I had expressed suspicion of G-man today...

Because I saw him as a 'real lynch possibility'...

G-Man is on the poll, and there is enough suspicion of him to make me believe he's a legitimate possibility for getting lynched.

But apparently, my real goal was to lynch you...

You were trying to link G-Man's guilt to me (without outright saying it) because you saw the G-Man suspicion as a real lynch possibility today, and you wanted to use it to your advantage... maybe to take out one of the only people who had expressed any suspicion of you this game.

(as noted, the person underlined you are referring to is you)

Despite saying this:

For what it's worth, I have a theory about you being bad that has nothing to do with any of your actions or things you've said in the thread. You would be quite literally collateral damage in this theory. I have no desire to vote you first or join a bandwagon on you. I'd sooner vote others who I legitimately think are bad to try and figure out if my theories could be correct, and only vote you if I think they've proven to be correct.

After the point at which you are claiming my plan was already rolling with question deflection going on.

What sense does that make? My plan was take you out by saying I have no desire to vote you?

Do you not see how, even in the things I've highlighted in this post, your case on me keeps changing? Whatever it is you think I'm up to, you can't even keep straight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, I would like to point that while LC said I 'made' him go back into the thread and 'wasted his time', this is what he had to say about it at the time...

Ok, no prob, I just went through all of Timmer's posts to get my own answers, now I'll go through yours. You just chill, I'll rejoin this conversation after.

And despite that, I STILL gave him half of what I was saying in this post...

For what it's worth, I have a theory about you being bad that has nothing to do with any of your actions or things you've said in the thread. You would be quite literally collateral damage in this theory. I have no desire to vote you first or join a bandwagon on you. I'd sooner vote others who I legitimately think are bad to try and figure out if my theories could be correct, and only vote you if I think they've proven to be correct.

Before he decided to come out with his post declaring me a liar.

Despite that, I'm apparently the one who 'made it like pulling teeth'. because that's how hard it is to go back and read a bit?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry if other people feel it's been uncomfortable to read, but I will say that when I really think I've found a mafia I'm not going to pull any punches. LC hasn't upset me at all, I just don't actually believe anything he is saying. And here are a couple of things he is doing all over the show..

Stating opinion as fact, such as:

And when Golden turns up bad, I would start casting votes right on G-Man as well.

And using emotive language - as much as he might like to deny it - that I think is deliberately designed to get others on to his side. Stuff like:

I love you Golden, and I know that you feel the same even though I riled you up a bit.

I mean of course, LC is one of the awesomest mafia players I know - but I don't feel any particular need to be acknowledging my positive feelings towards him right now. That's because I know that his feelings won't be hurt in the slightest if he is bad - he knows he's just been caught, and tough luck. Actually I think this one was aimed at getting me to back off a little.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final final thing. If we are really talking about deflecting answers to good questions, how about this one that I asked LC and he didn't respond to...

As for me being G-Man's teammate, then why am I the original instigator of the G-Man suspicion?????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like I've had it in for the family of Con Rock this game. I really don't like that I turned around on LC so fast, but - sometimes, when someone starts posting about you, you just go 'nah, this is all wrong. It's trumped up. It's not real.' LCs case on me read like a gambit, using strong attack words to get others on to his side and against me. I hope you will really read the posts I've made to see through it.

[FZ.]

I just spent a few hours trying to read day 1. I'm still only on page 11, and as someone said there, there were about 20 hours left to deadline, so I imagine the good stuff is ahead. I'm sorry it's taking so long, but as some of you may know, English is not my native language


I'm putting all the LC-Cobalt stuff aside because I think the important stuff is ahead, but I did notice a few things. Cobalt was being suspected for not really giving good reasons or any, for that matter, for suspecting LC. Call me crazy, but when I'm a a baddie that wants to look like a civ, I try my best to give some reasons (as made up as they may be), so that people don't come after me for doing that. Just makes me think that Cobalt is just being a vindictive jerk, since he said he wanted to lynch LC in revenge for the previous game, or he's actually getting baddie vibes from LC. I've seen other people mention LC, but none really give reasons for it except for Epig.

On to others:

Still feel good about MP, which is now Epi 2. Same goes for Golden and Timmer. Everything is quite jumbled in my brain right now, so I'll have to make a better list later.

The two people that really caught my eye on day 1 were Nutella and Sig. They both seem like they're right in the middle of stuff, but are saying nothing. They feel like they are totally blending in and making others do the work for them. Anyone else noticed that?

I can't stay, so I'll be back later

[G-Man]

I feel like the little kid overhears his parents arguing about him while he's supposed to be asleep.

And this game continues to confuse me. Long Con didn't die, Golden didn't die, and now I can't die. Can anybody die? Having horrible flashbacks to Secret Mafia 2. *shudders*

Since nobody answered my question about the poll, I'm going to cast a temporary vote to see how the polls work. My temporary vote is for myself and I fully intend to change it before the deadline. I'm simply trying to figure out how the poll mechanics work when I change my vote after someone else votes.

[Long Con]

Golden is descending into minutia here to try and make it looks like I have some master plan to make him look bad. I don't want to dominate the thread, but he's going to try and flood this thing with inconsequential little details in order to avoid the main, simpler arguments. Golden believes that finding "inconsistencies" in my posts are going to make you think that I'm bad, but that's illogical. If this were some plan I had, then it would probably be very consistent. As it is, I was only reacting to Golden, and figuring things out as I went along.

I have to go back and do a big response to his "so big I must be right" posts. Sorry if this dominates the thread, I truly have no desire to do so.

[Long Con]

Wow guys that was an uncomfortable exchange to read. Looks like there might have been some miscommunications, hope you've gotten them sorted out and there are no hard feelings or anything.

I honestly don't believe there were any miscommunications at all. LC set out to achieve something, which he achieved. Well done to him. But he doesn't believe I'm bad, not a bit.

I set out to achieve to achieve one thing: to figure out why you suddenly had me grouped with TGG as a baddie. I asked you why, you didn't answer or even acknowledge the question. If you were busy at work, you could have said "I'll get to that later", but although you were still posting, you didn't say anything about it. So I asked you again. You said you had made it "fairly clear", when it was anything BUT clear that you suspected that I killed Epi.

How did I "set out to achieve" what happened last night? How would I know that any of that crap would happen? If you had just given me a simple answer (ie "I think you are bad with TGG because I think you killed Epi") then there would be a lot fewer posts in this thread right now.

But you didn't. Like I said, it's YOU that made it like pulling teeth to get that information out of you. You, not me. And THAT is very clear to anyone who reads our exchange.

Even the 'I think you're being blinded by your own ego'. LC easily knows me well enough to know that if I was legitimately being 'blinded by ego', that's my civvie game.

You think that tossing off statements like that is going to win hearts and minds... and you might be right. Which is why you say things like this, that, I'm sorry, are completely ridiculous under scrutiny. How is this statement even serious? How is my view on your ego something you can even comment about? We have never discussed it. I have never mentioned your ego before, in connection to your Civvie game or baddie. AND YET you know me SO WELL that you can say that I know YOU so well that I know when your ego becomes a factor and when it doesn't.

That's malarkey.

[Marmot]

I do not know what to make of this post right now:

Spoiler: show

Long Con says this recently today. Long Con has not mentioned or interacted with TinyBubbles all game. However, he suddenly states he's seeing her as fishy, but convinces himself otherwise all in the same post.

Trimmed it, but MM's comment about Tiny and LC makes some sense. Tiny has pretty much no input into this game, but managed to defend LC AND jump on my initial Cobalt vote which had been, at the time, based on an erroneous read of his post history. And Long Con managed to pseudo-suspect Tiny without committing to it in a meaningful way. Very interesting read, MM.

What exactly is wrong with my post about Tiny? As I recall, I was posting and thinking at the same time, and my opinion shifted as I went through. It was typed as I thought, with some pauses and brb's as I was doing it, but I left it "as-is" because it represented my real thought process at the time.

Why are you (or anyone) suspicious of my post?

I am amazed at how many people have actually picked up on that case considering how well you defended it.

But voting for you is fun.

What does it mean when you say you think LC defended himself well, Metalmarsh? How does that change your theory about the Bubbles/LC partnership? And why are you still voting for LC?
I'd probably put Metalmarsh on the slightly scummy side of my rainbow right now.

I meant exactly what I said. In fact, I just don't think anyone else noticed the defense.

[Marmot]

put a vote on myself... cause it's probably gonna go that way anyway and honestly i am not really enjoying this game anymore. i'm civ though, you'll discover that as soon as i'm lynched.

I'm enjoying having you here!!!

What would I do without my morning coffee?

[Marmot]

I do not know what to make of this post right now:

Spoiler: show

Long Con says this recently today. Long Con has not mentioned or interacted with TinyBubbles all game. However, he suddenly states he's seeing her as fishy, but convinces himself otherwise all in the same post.

Trimmed it, but MM's comment about Tiny and LC makes some sense. Tiny has pretty much no input into this game, but managed to defend LC AND jump on my initial Cobalt vote which had been, at the time, based on an erroneous read of his post history. And Long Con managed to pseudo-suspect Tiny without committing to it in a meaningful way. Very interesting read, MM.

What exactly is wrong with my post about Tiny? As I recall, I was posting and thinking at the same time, and my opinion shifted as I went through. It was typed as I thought, with some pauses and brb's as I was doing it, but I left it "as-is" because it represented my real thought process at the time.

Why are you (or anyone) suspicious of my post?

I am amazed at how many people have actually picked up on that case considering how well you defended it.

But voting for you is fun.

What does it mean when you say you think LC defended himself well, Metalmarsh? How does that change your theory about the Bubbles/LC partnership? And why are you still voting for LC?
I'd probably put Metalmarsh on the slightly scummy side of my rainbow right now.

I meant exactly what I said. In fact, I just don't think anyone else noticed the defense.

I forgot to add: his defense is located over the next few posts after the one I linked.

[Long Con]

LC's case on me is that...

1) I used the word 'clear' when in fact things were not clear (to LC). He even said himself 'I think it was clearer in your head than in the thread'.

But he himself was subject to epi's case on LC because he used the word interesting. I thought a case based on the use of a single word was misguided then but if it really was misguided and LC was civ, why would LC turn around and do the very thing he knew was wrong back then on me?

Not only that, but the theory was so unclear that... in the very post he called it unclear, he himself was able to imply why I saw him as bad. So how unclear could it be?

Ok, my case isn't "he used the word 'clear' when they weren't". That's silly. That IS why I got frustrated with you last night, it is not the case on you. And it was pretty damn unclear, by the way. You are trying to focus on tiny details to discredit my case on you - trying to equate this situation with the "interesting" thing is deceptive, and poor form.

2) I deflected his question.

LC asked the question at 3.15 PM my time. At 3.34 PM he was saying 'you still haven't answered my question'... as if 19 minutes while I'm at work is a sufficient period of time for me to perform backflips for him.

This then leads to this:

you already had your chance to give a quick sentence of recap why. Instead, you used that post to tell me you've already made it very clear why. So I went and looked, and I can't see it. Correct me.

Well, you know, one mans chance is another mans end of financial year. 19 minutes is not a lot of time for me right now. But even putting that aside...

Why deflect? His reason why I would deflect is this...

You could have said you were at work and too busy to respond. But you didn't. And 19 minutes during which you were posting is plenty of time to have responded to me in some way. So quit trying to hide behind work, it's not really that valid when you were posting. If you had been too busy at work, then you wouldn't have been on The Syndicate at all, and I wouldn't have said you were ignoring/avoiding my question.

Why is my name even jammed in among your real suspicions at all?

He is claiming my suspicion of him isn't real and that's why I would deflect.

Except, my entire suspicion of TGG - a suspicion very well documented in the thread from before the time I didn't die - is based on the view that epi was killed by TGG because epi was on to one of his teammates. Given that fact, why the heck would I deflect from saying 'I think LC is that teammate' expressly. It's literally 6 words, and it's something that I personally think is CLEAR from my posts beforehand, even though it is implied and not expressly stated. Why on earth would I deflect from that as a baddie? What is the point? It makes literally zero sense that I would do that. There is no reason under this earth for me to avoid giving LC a straight answer 'because I'm bad and my suspicion isn't real'. If I'm bad, a straight answer is exactly what makes sense, since it would still be the truth.

Yup. Implied once (very weakly) and never stated.

Focusing on this "jammed in" post by me is just another example of you trying to focus people on useless minutia to make your case look like it has any meat. That post of mine was simple frustration - you wouldn't give a clear reason for why you were suddenly suspecting me, while you had been plenty clear in your other suspicions, like your suspicion of TGG. So yeah - it looks like you were jamming my name in with your other suspicions when you are totally, lengthily clear about them, and as vague as you possibly can be with my name. Stop trying to WIFOM your way out of it.

3) It's hard to see what the rest of his case is. Perhaps he could enlighten us. But it seems to be 'because he suspected me before I suspected him', or something...

Anyway, I'm calling bs on my bs meter because I simply don't genuinely believe anything LC posted this afternoon was honest. I don't think he posts the post where he went back and read my posts as a civ. I think he takes a very different approach. I know this can't have been comfortable to read, but I gotta stick up for myself, especially when I know that there is some fishy stuff going down with the suspicion.

Everything I posted today was honest. I'll take a beloved page from your book: Golden knows me well enough to know that when I get that upset in the thread, it's because I'm dealing with accusations that seem to have no basis. My baddie game doesn't include this kind of thing. Look at Flash Mafia. Or any other recent games where I was bad. Golden knows damn well this isn't my baddie game.

[Marmot]

I didn't notice epi was silenced either.

Guess his input just wasn't being missed

[Marmot]

Blooper, none of us can decode them. Providing the keywords so we can figure out if yours is the same or different is the best I think we can do right now.

That sounds like a challenge! Here I go!

[Marmot]

Lol, I don't believe it. The guy who has defended you all game has a 'crew primed for an LC bandwagon'

I'm actually referring to Cobalt and Metalmarsh. And not as "your baddie teammates" crew, but as "your happy-to-lynch-LC" crew.

Pretty sure I'm the leader of this crew.

[Marmot]

To those who have played with TinyBubbles on other sites, how do you feel about her self-voting pity party? If she is a civ, and takes heat, does she do this sometimes? Is this indicative of anything in terms of her alignment?

@Bubbles, don't quit the game, please. Whatever your alignment, taking heat is a fact of life in mafia. I am being a bit of a hypocrite I guess, because I've thrown a few pity parties of my own, some of them recently tbh, but still, playing mafia means you are going to take on suspicions sometimes, it can't be avoided. Defend, please, I'd rather be convinced of your civvieness then find it out after lynching you after you threw in the towel!

It's Day 3 isn't it? This was right about the time I started my 10-day tunneling session on you in Flash Mafia.

[Canucklehead]

In this particular gunfight, I think I have to take the unpopular position and say that if only ONE of LC/Golden is civ, I happen to think it's more likely to be LC. I think it's possible that both are civ, and possible (but less likely, I think) that both are mafia. But who knows? Both these dudes can out mafia me, but based on the tone of their posts (LC seems sincere, Golden less so) and based on my pre-existing suspicion of Golden (that he was much more background/peripheral/commenting but not leading in the early stages, and suddenly flipped a switch with the TGG/G-Man thing.....which I actually think *migh* have some merit, but could also just be opportunistic).....I'm much more likely to vote Golden at this point than I am to vote LC.

But who I'm acctually going to vote for is TB, because she wants out. Happy to oblige there.

[nutella]

The two people that really caught my eye on day 1 were Nutella and Sig. They both seem like they're right in the middle of stuff, but are saying nothing. They feel like they are totally blending in and making others do the work for them. Anyone else noticed that?

I haven't been trying to blend in, but I will admit I do "make others do the work" to some extent because I'm not really the type to form big cases on my own, it's just not my style and I'm kinda too lazy/busy to put a lot of time into it. So I read the thread, assess others' suspicions and give my opinions on those, and give my opinions on any other players I've found fishy for whatever reason while reading. And often I don't really know what to think and my views flip and flop around, because in the end I don't have much of a clue who is bad. But I've tried to be as helpful as possible, keeping up with the thread and posting whenever I can, giving my input.
My strongest conviction right now is that Bass is bad. I really really think he is. He's my strongest suspicion, followed by LC at this point and Sig.

[FZ.]

So looking at the night kill attempt I would say Golden is more likely to be clean.

Cobalt seems to be hypnotized, but even so he still voted for LC which is consistent with the previous days. Can in theory the mafia target another mafia player from the same team to get hypnotized? If we think LC is innocent but Cobalt is scum that would be the best way to push an LC lynch by the mafia.

nijuukyugou pinged me with her first post and has posted minimum after that, however she says it is her playstyle and since no other players called her out on that I will assume it is true. After finding out a tie doesn't equal a no lynch she dropped on my suspect list. I think she is my only hard civ read right know.
LC sorry to be pestering you, but why is Sloonie scum?

Can someone refresh my mind with why people find Bass suspicious?

Black Rocks slip up and general posting vibes I'm getting would be enough for me to lynch them if I can't find anyone else.

MetalMarsh89 why are you lynching LC again?

I'm sorry ahead of time, but I've been picking apart sig since Day 0, and I was giving him the benefit of the doubt with the outcome of the whole LC/Cobalt debacle depending on Cobalt's alignment. But I still am not certain Cob's alignment...anyway, I went back through sig's history, and he's made a few posts since the end of Night 2. This is one of them.

There's some stuff here that really stands out to me.
-He finds Golden likely clean, since mafia tried to kill him/her. (sorry Golden, I really need to make a cheat-sheet on gender)
But then:
"I think [nijuukyugou] is my only hard civ read right know [sic]."
What? Whereas I'm not wholly convinced njuu is civ, the closest we have to definitive is that Golden is not on Mafia team #2. which has much better odds to assume as res (or independent maaaaybe, but I doubt it)

Honestly, Cobalt looks like independent/terrible civ to me, where LC looks more suspicious of the two. sig does keep asking LC for input, while carefully never accusing him.

"Black Rocks slip up and general posting vibes I'm getting would be enough for me to lynch them if I can't find anyone else."
this reeks of scum read. I think perpetuating her syntax as a "slip-up" is not a slip-up at all. Saying "the other team" as she did made sense in context, because she was talking about another team. That's almost on the same level of picking apart the word "interesting" *cough cough Epi*.
And then her "vibe" is ENOUGH to lynch? That's a pretty big, unsubstantiated lynch vote.

sig's history has him casting suspicion on several people through Day 2, which isn't by itself suspicious. But he's not following through with his suspicions.


I'm actually REALLY curious now of LC's alignment. Because sig has been consulting LC for his opinion quite a lot, I feel.

More in a bit.

I really like this post, and I agree with you. I would like you to look at Nutella as well. Maybe I've missed her (it's her, right?) contributing something important in the pages I still haven't read, but all her posts seem so blendy and there are just enough so we don't notice she's not saying much on people.


I also agree with Golden on G-man. I want to give him the BOTD, but the case on the the gamerguy looks solid, and G-man is not doing much to change my mind. Maybe he came into the game knowing his situation, and decided to just have fun and see how it goes, not expecting much.

Back to catching up.

[FZ.]

The two people that really caught my eye on day 1 were Nutella and Sig. They both seem like they're right in the middle of stuff, but are saying nothing. They feel like they are totally blending in and making others do the work for them. Anyone else noticed that?

I haven't been trying to blend in, but I will admit I do "make others do the work" to some extent because I'm not really the type to form big cases on my own, it's just not my style and I'm kinda too lazy/busy to put a lot of time into it. So I read the thread, assess others' suspicions and give my opinions on those, and give my opinions on any other players I've found fishy for whatever reason while reading. And often I don't really know what to think and my views flip and flop around, because in the end I don't have much of a clue who is bad. But I've tried to be as helpful as possible, keeping up with the thread and posting whenever I can, giving my input.
My strongest conviction right now is that Bass is bad. I really really think he is. He's my strongest suspicion, followed by LC at this point and Sig.

I find it funny that you were annoyed at those replacing players for asking people to sum things up for them and for being too lazy to read all those pages. If I recall, you said something along the lines of "It's your responsibility to catch up and don't bother replacing if you can't be bothered to do that". It annoyed me when I read this, because I was planning on taking a long break from mafia and only did this as a big favour to Dom. But now you defend yourself by saying you're too lazy to to put time into finding baddies? I don't know whether to laugh or cry

[Long Con]

What sense does that make? My plan was take you out by saying I have no desire to vote you?

Do you not see how, even in the things I've highlighted in this post, your case on me keeps changing? Whatever it is you think I'm up to, you can't even keep straight.

Nothing in this post indicates a "changing case". You think or know that TGG was bad, and you were trying to link me to him so that I'd go down when he turned up bad. The fact that you have been so "I don't want to lynch LC until I get more info from lynching other people" is just setup for a) pushing an easy lynch on me if G-Man turns up bad, and b) wiping your hands clean after I turn up Civ.

Also, I would like to point that while LC said I 'made' him go back into the thread and 'wasted his time', this is what he had to say about it at the time...

Ok, no prob, I just went through all of Timmer's posts to get my own answers, now I'll go through yours. You just chill, I'll rejoin this conversation after.

And despite that, I STILL gave him half of what I was saying in this post...

For what it's worth, I have a theory about you being bad that has nothing to do with any of your actions or things you've said in the thread. You would be quite literally collateral damage in this theory. I have no desire to vote you first or join a bandwagon on you. I'd sooner vote others who I legitimately think are bad to try and figure out if my theories could be correct, and only vote you if I think they've proven to be correct.

Before he decided to come out with his post declaring me a liar.

Despite that, I'm apparently the one who 'made it like pulling teeth'. because that's how hard it is to go back and read a bit?

A simple answer to a simple question was the way that scenario should have played out. You made it like pulling teeth when you refused me that. It's not hard to go back and read, but when I go back and read and I STILL find no clear answers, then I think you must be lying.

Answer me this: if I DID know you had (as vaguely as possible) said why you connected me to TGG, then why would I say I thought you were lying? Was I, perhaps, hoping you wouldn't be able to find the six-word-post-portion that I secretly knew about? What's the plan there, since this is apparently all a scheme I'm hatching against you?

I'm sorry if other people feel it's been uncomfortable to read, but I will say that when I really think I've found a mafia I'm not going to pull any punches. LC hasn't upset me at all, I just don't actually believe anything he is saying. And here are a couple of things he is doing all over the show..

Stating opinion as fact, such as:

And when Golden turns up bad, I would start casting votes right on G-Man as well.

And using emotive language - as much as he might like to deny it - that I think is deliberately designed to get others on to his side. Stuff like:

I love you Golden, and I know that you feel the same even though I riled you up a bit.

I mean of course, LC is one of the awesomest mafia players I know - but I don't feel any particular need to be acknowledging my positive feelings towards him right now. That's because I know that his feelings won't be hurt in the slightest if he is bad - he knows he's just been caught, and tough luck. Actually I think this one was aimed at getting me to back off a little.

Yeah... YOU know that MY feelings aren't going to be hurt by your accusations. I posted that because I was really getting the feeling that this knowledge wasn't reciprocated. I wanted to make sure that you weren't feeling assaulted by me, because your posts seemed like you were really getting upset, you said I was making the game unfun for you, for Christ's sake! I also PMed Llama at that time to say I hoped you weren't too upset, and that I hoped I hadn't been out of line with anything I had said.

If anyone was using "emotional manipulation", it was YOU, Golden. YOU are the one that made me feel like I was going too far and actually hurting your feelings and sucking the fun out of the game for you.

Final final thing. If we are really talking about deflecting answers to good questions, how about this one that I asked LC and he didn't respond to...

As for me being G-Man's teammate, then why am I the original instigator of the G-Man suspicion?????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like I've had it in for the family of Con Rock this game. I really don't like that I turned around on LC so fast, but - sometimes, when someone starts posting about you, you just go 'nah, this is all wrong. It's trumped up. It's not real.' LCs case on me read like a gambit, using strong attack words to get others on to his side and against me. I hope you will really read the posts I've made to see through it.

I think that the idea I had that you are on G-Man's team is not the strongest. It was what I thought at the moment, because it made sense to me. Then you said how you were the originator of the suspicion, and it does seem less likely (though not impossible) that you are his baddie teammate.

I know what you mean about sensing something is wrong when someone starts posting about you. This is why I believe you are bad. You have, at length, tried to get people to focus on things that aren't all that relevant, and trying to make them seem very relevant. You want to get it out there that I'm the top suspect for Epi 1.0's murder, and yet you had done nothing but say you thought I was Civ until very recently. Epi was killed on Night 1 - if you ACTUALLY thought I was responsible, then why wouldn't you say so at some point, instead of saying I'm Civ?

It's because you didn't WANT to be the one to push the frame-job at me. You wanted to try and plant subtle seeds of connection and let someone else pick it up and run with it. You tried to avoid it until I put it right in your face and you couldn't any more. The reason for this is that YOU killed Epi 1.0 and were hoping that the frame-up would run on its own, and it wasn't. And that, more than anything, clinches it for me.

If you thought I killed Epi, then you wouldn't have said you have no suspicion of me for the last two days. Plain and simple. You would have accused me of killing Epi. You dun goofed, Golden, you hid too much from it, and now it's all over you.

[G-Man]

Thanks for voting Canuck! Now I can test these polls to see what happens when someone changes their vote to another player, for whom someone has voted more recently than the aforementioned player. I was originally vote #15 and you are vote #16, and I see Dragon voted the host option, making him #17.

NOTE: I am only temporarily changing my vote to TinyBubbles to see how the vote-changing mechanisms work with these polls! I am not up to any tricks. This is science, not shenanigans.

[FZ.]

Have the replacements been receiving the Day 0 messages that their originals would have received?

Yes. Mine resembles Scotty's and DF's. I don't know what number BWT picked though.

[nutella]

The two people that really caught my eye on day 1 were Nutella and Sig. They both seem like they're right in the middle of stuff, but are saying nothing. They feel like they are totally blending in and making others do the work for them. Anyone else noticed that?

I haven't been trying to blend in, but I will admit I do "make others do the work" to some extent because I'm not really the type to form big cases on my own, it's just not my style and I'm kinda too lazy/busy to put a lot of time into it. So I read the thread, assess others' suspicions and give my opinions on those, and give my opinions on any other players I've found fishy for whatever reason while reading. And often I don't really know what to think and my views flip and flop around, because in the end I don't have much of a clue who is bad. But I've tried to be as helpful as possible, keeping up with the thread and posting whenever I can, giving my input.
My strongest conviction right now is that Bass is bad. I really really think he is. He's my strongest suspicion, followed by LC at this point and Sig.

I find it funny that you were annoyed at those replacing players for asking people to sum things up for them and for being too lazy to read all those pages. If I recall, you said something along the lines of "It's your responsibility to catch up and don't bother replacing if you can't be bothered to do that". It annoyed me when I read this, because I was planning on taking a long break from mafia and only did this as a big favour to Dom. But now you defend yourself by saying you're too lazy to to put time into finding baddies? I don't know whether to laugh or cry

As I said, going through and making big cases really isn't my style. Look at other games where I've been civ (most recently as Jacob in Biblical). I never do it. I find baddies my own way, but I absolutely do read the thread and pay attention. And I think there is a big difference in that, and what you're saying here is drawing a false parallel, because I believe that actually reading the thread is the bare minimum that every player should do to participate.

[Marmot]

Have the replacements been receiving the Day 0 messages that their originals would have received?

Yes. Mine resembles Scotty's and DF's. I don't know what number BWT picked though.

14.

Let us team up, fellow multiple of 7. You, me, G-Man and Black Rock.