The Syndicate

Dyslexicon wrote:Zebra, let's join forces on Golden, because I love you.

VOTE GOLDEN

I love you too, but I'm not ready to vote Golden given that as we converse here and now he's not even aware that I suspect him yet. I want to see his response to my suspicion (in addition to MM's and I guess yours) first, and if it doesn't sway me then I'll join you on that vote.

VOTE GOLDEN

Let's do this!

a2thezebra wrote:So are you confessing or are you saying that you were framed?

a2thezebra wrote:

Dyslexicon wrote:Zebra, let's join forces on Golden, because I love you.

VOTE GOLDEN

I love you too, but I'm not ready to vote Golden given that as we converse here and now he's not even aware that I suspect him yet. I want to see his response to my suspicion (in addition to MM's and I guess yours) first, and if it doesn't sway me then I'll join you on that vote.

This is amusing, being tempted to join two of my suspicions to lynch my third suspicion.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:VOTE GOLDEN

Let's do this!

a2thezebra wrote:This is amusing, being tempted to join two of my suspicions to lynch my third suspicion.

What if I told you that I'm actually not a suspicious person at all?

Linki: This is turning into the greatest game ever.

a2thezebra wrote:This is amusing, being tempted to join two of my suspicions to lynch my third suspicion.

How well do you know MM? Care to comment on the conversation I had with him at EOD where he either town slipped or fake town slipped?

What is your suspicion on me based off of? That I wanted you dead D1? You think I was kitten you with my suspicion?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Because you then added to the case, after I prompted you to do so. You were quite content to make a flawed case to begin with.

Having said that, then when you DID do the extra work, I was surprised to discover your case actually had merit. Doesn't change the fact that I do not agree that your initial case had merit. It was half-assed and flawed, and looked to me like a case that you were portraying just to get yourself off the bottom.

I don't know why you'd expect me to say "I was wrong" for forcing you to build a fuller case. I was quite satisfied with my work.

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:

Marco wrote:I'd also like to know from Golden when he exactly started scum-reading Frog. He had Frog on his town list for majority of the phase, IIRC, and I remember being confused about his EOD switch to Frog.

Whenever I made the post that I was tinfoiling him as bad. It's in my iso.

I'll be completely honest, though, and say I was probably influenced by his tone more than his content. I felt like he was trying to be a town leader while spouting echanics that could be easily defeated. Culture Clash may account for the aspects I didnt' like about him.

I do feel his style changed over the day. Early on it felt like he was explaining what he was up to clearly, so I could understand what he was putting in the thread. But, the second half of the day was more like 'x is true, you all suck and are not town unless you take my word for it', which was a complete turn around.

And you suspected him for that turn around?

Yes. It felt like his whole thing (even the drunk posting) was a tactical grab for town cred, to me. That's how I was reading him by end of day. And I feel like I may actually have had that right, that it was a tactical cred grab, and thats why I think maybe my misread was cultural.

The first time that Golden's reads felt fabricated to me was regarding his read of me, being the narcissist that I am. Like I said, my baddie read of Golden is primarily gut-based, so I don't have any elaborate theories on the motive behind any of these posts I'm going to pull up here, my only qualm with them is that they don't seem like the genuine town Golden that I have observed to have much more conviction than I'm seeing here. This was the first post that raised an eyebrow.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I'm town and I'd like to keep playing, but keeping MP alive takes the top priority right now.

VOTE A2THEZEBRA

I appreciate the confidence and that someone actually seems content in helping avoid a mislynch, but let's try and redirect this towards another individual. I'm town reading you enough to not want you lynched either.

Have you considered the possibility she is mafia goon and wants to take you out behind her tomorrow.

Ooooh that's a clever idea. I should try it sometime.

Lol. Nah, sigs right. It's a stupid idea. Oh well, I was just thinking through scenarios.

Thinking through scenarios? To me it feels more like Golden didn't want to civ read me too suddenly after voicing initial suspicion, and as a baddie his interest in making sure his reads don't seem unnatural is more of a priority than as a civ. The irony of this is that, if Golden is in fact a baddie, caring more about changing his reads of others is the greatest evidence that they are in fact fabricated reads, because I don't think civ Golden would be "thinking through scenarios" by suggesting that I'm a mafia goon that wants to take out MP tomorrow. That's too specific and at the same time too absurd of a scenario to consider and propose in-thread for a genuine read. Civ Golden, as I understand him, would either tunnel me more without feeling the need to bring up bizarre theories to justify his suspicion of me, or he would be swayed to town-read me more fluidly and less vaguely.

Golden wrote:I do feel god about zebras responses to me and I'd like to shift my vote but I won't if it leads to an mp lynch.

This could be testing me given that my self-vote was directly linked to a confident civ read of MP, or (and this is what I think) it could be baddie Golden maneuvering his way to what he perceives as a believable change of opinion regarding my alignment.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:just that I'm not automatically mafia for being quiet.

Oh, no, I never thought you were playing specifically to a mafia meta. But, I do think that a lack of reads and connections (no matter how many posts you've got) is somewhat of a mafia meta on you, at least thats how I feel.

I also find this post somewhat hard to believe given that even at my most vocal I am known for not having a very wide focus (unless I'm just shit-flinging everywhere) both as civilian and mafia, but that might just be me.

Let's go back in time a bit to look at Golden's rainbow list. Given how different it is from whichever hypothetical rainbow list he would have at the end of the first day and the beginning of the current day phase, it makes sense that a baddie Golden would feel pressured to not alter his reads without covering enough back-and-forth territory with other players to make those changes of mind feel justified and natural.

Golden wrote:Rainbow time - decided to treat it like gth and have no null reads.

Medium Town

Marco
Sloonei
Zexy

Mild Town

Frog
MovingPictures07
Silverwolf
Dyslexicon
Long Con
sig

Mild Bad

ika
Inawordyes
Psittaciform
Soneji
Metalmarsh89

Moderate Bad

a2thezebra
DrWilgy

Sure there was a lot of time left in the day, but look at his bottom two. Me, who he ended up town-reading before the lynch, and DrWilgy, who he didn't talk about that much, at least relative to other players. Then you've got Frog, his eventual vote, at the top of his Mild Town list. Mild, sure, but I don't buy the reasoning he gave today for what convinced him that Frog was bad. Trying to seem like a town leader? That was pretty obvious, but why was it alignment-indicative? Why was the comment about night-killing (that Golden claims to have swayed him to an extent) alignment-indicative? I'm just not convinced that Golden's reads in this game are legitimate, but I'd like to see his response to these suspicions first before I make any move.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This is amusing, being tempted to join two of my suspicions to lynch my third suspicion.

What if I told you that I'm actually not a suspicious person at all?

Linki: This is turning into the greatest game ever.

Oh you're not suspicious? Well never mind then, I could have sworn that you were.

Dyslexicon wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:This is amusing, being tempted to join two of my suspicions to lynch my third suspicion.

How well do you know MM? Care to comment on the conversation I had with him at EOD where he either town slipped or fake town slipped?

What is your suspicion on me based off of? That I wanted you dead D1? You think I was kitten you with my suspicion?

I'm not sure how well I know MM, because the more I know him the less confident I become about reading him. With him it could go either way regarding his town slip. He may have even fake town-slipped despite being town, I don't know. My suspicion of you is because your suspicion of me seems (seemed?) disingenuous. There's only so much misrepresentation I can take before it starts to feel like a deliberate effort to make me an even easier mislynch than I already am.

a2thezebra wrote:I didn't say anything but throughout yesterday I felt like Golden lacked the "hurricane of self-assurance" factor that he's known for as town.

Yeah - you've been in games where I've addressed this so you will probably see the wisdom in what I'm about to say - Star Wars, for instance, where bcornett was trying to paint me as bad?

The hurricane of self-assurance is a guaranteed town setting for me. You won't see it when I'm bad.

But the inverse is not true. I have many different ways of playing as town. It's just that the 'hurricane of self-assurance' is an easy read. It's a style I developed and became known for on RM when I got a few roles that were hard to NK in short order. I didn't play that way in champs either. I did in Dune... why? Because my role allowed me to figure out other players roles. I did in Turf Wars... why? Because I didn't really have time to play and wanted to have a big impact and be nked early.

I'm trying to simulate how I'll play in the champs game here, as closely as I can. I'm thinking about what I'll do stylistically etc. I certainly doubt I'll be playing hurricane of self assurance in that game. Especialyl because I want to set up a meta I can maintain in the finals if, say, I'm town in heats and mafia in finals. If I'm a town power role, I won't want to stand out. If I'm a vanilla town, I'll want to provide cover for town power roles. If I'm mafia, well, I'll want to blend in.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Because you then added to the case, after I prompted you to do so. You were quite content to make a flawed case to begin with.

Having said that, then when you DID do the extra work, I was surprised to discover your case actually had merit. Doesn't change the fact that I do not agree that your initial case had merit. It was half-assed and flawed, and looked to me like a case that you were portraying just to get yourself off the bottom.

I don't know why you'd expect me to say "I was wrong" for forcing you to build a fuller case. I was quite satisfied with my work.

See Golden, I'm sorry if I'm wrong but this whole post just seems so fake. You only vocalized the distinction between the initial case and the "extra work" after MM called you out on contradicting yourself. If he hadn't have called you out, would that distinction ever have been made?

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Haha, and this is a good example of what I was talking about when I said that Golden seems to be trying to make his reads look natural and failing.

No, it really isn't.

Marmot is being deliberately misleading. His first case was shit. I prompted him to do extra work. The extra work was both unexpected to me, and fundamentally did shift my perspective on how good his case was. It was only AFTER he added to the case that I put sloonei on my list of 'players to lynch' (hardly a concession).

I was genuinely surprised to discover Sloonei had Frog as a top baddie read before that. It was persuasive. It still is, as you'll find out soon when I fully talk about my hunch. But, I'm doing my catch up first.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:

Marco wrote:I'd also like to know from Golden when he exactly started scum-reading Frog. He had Frog on his town list for majority of the phase, IIRC, and I remember being confused about his EOD switch to Frog.

Whenever I made the post that I was tinfoiling him as bad. It's in my iso.

I'll be completely honest, though, and say I was probably influenced by his tone more than his content. I felt like he was trying to be a town leader while spouting echanics that could be easily defeated. Culture Clash may account for the aspects I didnt' like about him.

I do feel his style changed over the day. Early on it felt like he was explaining what he was up to clearly, so I could understand what he was putting in the thread. But, the second half of the day was more like 'x is true, you all suck and are not town unless you take my word for it', which was a complete turn around.

And you suspected him for that turn around?

Yes. It felt like his whole thing (even the drunk posting) was a tactical grab for town cred, to me. That's how I was reading him by end of day. And I feel like I may actually have had that right, that it was a tactical cred grab, and thats why I think maybe my misread was cultural.

I don't buy it. Maybe I'm biased since my catch-up for the end of day made it all the more clear that Frog was town to me, but I don't see how anyone could honestly perceive Frog's actions at EoD to be mafia-motivated. It's unlike you to misread others due to "cultural" reasons.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Because you then added to the case, after I prompted you to do so. You were quite content to make a flawed case to begin with.

Having said that, then when you DID do the extra work, I was surprised to discover your case actually had merit. Doesn't change the fact that I do not agree that your initial case had merit. It was half-assed and flawed, and looked to me like a case that you were portraying just to get yourself off the bottom.

I don't know why you'd expect me to say "I was wrong" for forcing you to build a fuller case. I was quite satisfied with my work.

I think you give yourself too much credit here. I don't believe you intentionally prodded me to "build up" my case.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I didn't say anything but throughout yesterday I felt like Golden lacked the "hurricane of self-assurance" factor that he's known for as town.

Yeah - you've been in games where I've addressed this so you will probably see the wisdom in what I'm about to say - Star Wars, for instance, where bcornett was trying to paint me as bad?

The hurricane of self-assurance is a guaranteed town setting for me. You won't see it when I'm bad.

But the inverse is not true. I have many different ways of playing as town. It's just that the 'hurricane of self-assurance' is an easy read. It's a style I developed and became known for on RM when I got a few roles that were hard to NK in short order. I didn't play that way in champs either. I did in Dune... why? Because my role allowed me to figure out other players roles. I did in Turf Wars... why? Because I didn't really have time to play and wanted to have a big impact and be nked early.

I'm trying to simulate how I'll play in the champs game here, as closely as I can. I'm thinking about what I'll do stylistically etc. I certainly doubt I'll be playing hurricane of self assurance in that game. Especialyl because I want to set up a meta I can maintain in the finals if, say, I'm town in heats and mafia in finals. If I'm a town power role, I won't want to stand out. If I'm a vanilla town, I'll want to provide cover for town power roles. If I'm mafia, well, I'll want to blend in.

Perhaps you're not always a hurricane of self-assurance as town, but that doesn't explain why your reads, particularly the development of your reads, feel so unnatural. You don't seem like you don't want to stand out, you don't seem like you're providing cover for town power roles, you do seem like you simply want to blend in and nothing more.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Haha, and this is a good example of what I was talking about when I said that Golden seems to be trying to make his reads look natural and failing.

No, it really isn't.

Marmot is being deliberately misleading. His first case was shit. I prompted him to do extra work. The extra work was both unexpected to me, and fundamentally did shift my perspective on how good his case was. It was only AFTER he added to the case that I put sloonei on my list of 'players to lynch' (hardly a concession).

I was genuinely surprised to discover Sloonei had Frog as a top baddie read before that. It was persuasive. It still is, as you'll find out soon when I fully talk about my hunch. But, I'm doing my catch up first.

Um...that's totally a concession. You gave him credit and everything. What???

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden: I didn't like his attitude wert me yesterday. He, like you, was very hesitant to vote for Sloonei, despite acknowledging that Sloonei was a decent candidate for Day 1. Also, responses like this just give me the shivers. An "Oh, of course I meant to do that " instead of an "Aye, good call there, I was wrong".

I wasn't wrong at all, MM. Your case on sloonei was shit, because you hadn't demonstrated any context. I don't have to do your research for you.

Bullshit.

If the case was shit, why did you concede that Sloonei was on your list of "players to lynch" as a result of the case?

Because you then added to the case, after I prompted you to do so. You were quite content to make a flawed case to begin with.

Having said that, then when you DID do the extra work, I was surprised to discover your case actually had merit. Doesn't change the fact that I do not agree that your initial case had merit. It was half-assed and flawed, and looked to me like a case that you were portraying just to get yourself off the bottom.

I don't know why you'd expect me to say "I was wrong" for forcing you to build a fuller case. I was quite satisfied with my work.

See Golden, I'm sorry if I'm wrong but this whole post just seems so fake. You only vocalized the distinction between the initial case and the "extra work" after MM called you out on contradicting yourself. If he hadn't have called you out, would that distinction ever have been made?

Thats bollocks. You were there at the time - you AGREED with me that MM's initial case was flawed. Remember this?

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote:What MM fails to account for in his case on sloonei is the extent to which sloonei already town read or trusted ika vs frog. If I came on asking people who I should vote for and a person I didn't have any reason to trust gave me one answer and a person I'm reading as town gave me another, I know I'd dismiss one and focus on the other.

This also sums up my thoughts on that particular part of MM's case on Sloonei quite nicely.

The only reason I'm having to vocalize the distinction is because MM is acting as though it isn't there. Based on simply reading the thread, it's quite obvious that it was there all along. Why would I need to vocalise it before MM implied that I had agreed with his case all along?

Just go back and read the passage of the thread - I called him on his flaw in the initial case, he did more work, and THEN after he did it I agreed with his case. The two cannot be conflated, and I shouldn't have to point out the truth of it for it to be evidently true.

ika wrote:I'm on break but anyone who thinks I wouldn't kill silver n1 is being redoicolus.

OK, well, if you say you would kill her, then I'll take that factor out of consideration when figuring you out.

I would have been interested on silvers take on this.

VOTE GOLDEN

I was thinking these responses would make me less confident about my read, but they're actually making me much more confident in it.

linki - No, I agreed with you that the ENTIRE case was flawed. MM's suspicion of Sloonei didn't sway me before or after his "extra work" brought to light that Sloonei's read of Frog was mafia. I knew that when I ISO'd Sloonei before MM elaborated on his case to begin with. You're trying to change the focus of this back-and-forth. It's not about MM's case on Sloonei, it's about your reaction to it. Mine makes sense whether you agree with it or not, but yours does not. It's inconsistent. You're not going to win me over by bullshitting me about what I did.

OK, hunch time.

I'll elaborate on this more later, but I'm about to go into a whole lot of meetings.

Silverwolf and Epi kills were undertaken to frame me. Particularly the Epi kill, see sign up thread for why. The question is, who would know me well enough to make such choices?

My answer - sloonei and marmot. I think they are on a team together, and I think marmot's case on sloonei was deliberate distancing.

Your hunch looks more like a preemptive defense (to an accusation that I don't think has been made yet) than a genuine effort to scumhunt. Beautiful. If there's any distancing going on, it's not Sloonei and Marmot. It's you and Marmot.

PS - my hunch included a full expectation that there would be a push against me this morning. That's why I referenced 'the hunch' but never said what it was before now.

Haha, okay.

a2thezebra wrote:Your hunch looks more like a preemptive defense (to an accusation that I don't think has been made yet) than a genuine effort to scumhunt. Beautiful. If there's any distancing going on, it's not Sloonei and Marmot. It's you and Marmot.

VOTE SLOONEI

I think its more likely I'm wrong about Marmot than wrong about Sloonei.

I've thought he was bad since the moment he jumped off Frog at the last moment at EoD. That vote felt full of certainty that Frog was town.

I thought that you thought that he was bad since MM put in the "extra work" on his case?

Or were you just willing to lynch him despite being a null read, SIlverwolf style?

Golden wrote:OK, hunch time.

I'll elaborate on this more later, but I'm about to go into a whole lot of meetings.

Silverwolf and Epi kills were undertaken to frame me. Particularly the Epi kill, see sign up thread for why. The question is, who would know me well enough to make such choices?

This vaguely reminds me of recruitment.

Though... I was one of the players that saw it as a frame when it actually was such. I'm not feelin it this time.

Also hi everyone.

GOLDEN

I'll be at a computer and be able to actually play this evening... I'm off work in 3 heurs! Yay me!

Oh spooky there are 3 others voting Golden currently.

Oh well.

Golden wrote:OK, hunch time.

I'll elaborate on this more later, but I'm about to go into a whole lot of meetings.

Silverwolf and Epi kills were undertaken to frame me. Particularly the Epi kill, see sign up thread for why. The question is, who would know me well enough to make such choices?

That seems exceptionally paranoid imo. Background?

Dyslexicon wrote:

Golden wrote:OK, hunch time.

I'll elaborate on this more later, but I'm about to go into a whole lot of meetings.

Silverwolf and Epi kills were undertaken to frame me. Particularly the Epi kill, see sign up thread for why. The question is, who would know me well enough to make such choices?

That seems exceptionally paranoid imo. Background?

Will do. I have a lot sitting behind this. Just hard to do all the work and show all my thinking while at work. Will when I can.

a2thezebra wrote:There's only so much misrepresentation I can take before it starts to feel like a deliberate effort to make me an even easier mislynch than I already am.

Show me where I misrepresented you, and I will show you where you misrepresented me. It will be fun.

Buuut, I should catch up on the thread and actually read stuff.

Dyslexicon wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:There's only so much misrepresentation I can take before it starts to feel like a deliberate effort to make me an even easier mislynch than I already am.

Show me where I misrepresented you, and I will show you where you misrepresented me. It will be fun.

Ewwww no.

Plus I already did during my initial responses to you so I would just be repeating myself.

DrWilgy wrote:

Golden wrote:OK, hunch time.

I'll elaborate on this more later, but I'm about to go into a whole lot of meetings.

Silverwolf and Epi kills were undertaken to frame me. Particularly the Epi kill, see sign up thread for why. The question is, who would know me well enough to make such choices?

This vaguely reminds me of recruitment.

Though... I was one of the players that saw it as a frame when it actually was such. I'm not feelin it this time.

Yeah, the epi kill was a frame of me there, although in that case I deliberately induced it.

I think this is a deliberate call back from someone who knows all about it.

From sign up thread:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:Addendum: Please lynch or NK epi as soon as possible

You can persuade the mafia to do that for you.

Golden wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Yeah, the epi kill was a frame of me there, although in that case I deliberately induced it.

I think this is a deliberate call back from someone who knows all about it.

From sign up thread:

For it to be a frame using this, wouldn't that require someone to bring it up?
I think this is such a stretch I can't even.

a2thezebra wrote:I thought that you thought that he was bad since MM put in the "extra work" on his case?

Lets look at what I actually said after MM put in his work, shall we?

Golden wrote:Would you vote for Sloonei today?

To be precise.

You have convinced me to add Sloonei to the list of people I will consider voting today.

He would not be my preferred vote, because I'd be interested to see his response to your case and I don't think we'll get that today.

But if he does end up being the lynchee, I think the reasons for it are solid.[/quote]

Trying to remove all nuance and force me to term my thoughts on sloonei across the game as either 'good' or 'bad' and not shades of grey on a sliding scale don't sit well with me.

a2thezebra wrote:Plus I already did during my initial responses to you so I would just be repeating myself.

Alright, I'll just do you then. Going to catch up on everything first.

This is an interesting development. I look forward to your explanation Golden when I get home later.

Dyslexicon wrote:

Golden wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Yeah, the epi kill was a frame of me there, although in that case I deliberately induced it.

I think this is a deliberate call back from someone who knows all about it.

From sign up thread:

For it to be a frame using this, wouldn't that require someone to bring it up?
I think this is such a stretch I can't even.

No, it wouldn't require someone to bring it up.

My Recruitment effort to get Epi NKed on night one when I wasn't mafia is well known.

Golden wrote:No, it wouldn't require someone to bring it up.

My Recruitment effort to get Epi NKed on night one when I wasn't mafia is well known.

Recruitment effort when you weren't mafia?
How would anyone frame you like this without bringing it up?

I'm not braining this. I need coffee.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought that you thought that he was bad since MM put in the "extra work" on his case?

Lets look at what I actually said after MM put in his work, shall we?

Marshmellow wrote:

Golden wrote:Would you vote for Sloonei today?

To be precise.

You have convinced me to add Sloonei to the list of people I will consider voting today.

He would not be my preferred vote, because I'd be interested to see his response to your case and I don't think we'll get that today.

But if he does end up being the lynchee, I think the reasons for it are solid.

Trying to remove all nuance and force me to term my thoughts on sloonei across the game as either 'good' or 'bad' and not shades of grey on a sliding scale don't sit well with me.

Oops, fixed by way of post.

Golden wrote: Trying to remove all nuance and force me to term my thoughts on sloonei across the game as either 'good' or 'bad' and not shades of grey on a sliding scale don't sit well with me.

I had a feeling you would use this tactic at some point. Does your read look a little bit fabricated folks? Claim it as "nuance" and make known your disapproval of such outdated terms as "good" or "bad" in regards to reading other players.

Dyslexicon wrote:

Golden wrote:No, it wouldn't require someone to bring it up.

My Recruitment effort to get Epi NKed on night one when I wasn't mafia is well known.

Recruitment effort when you weren't mafia?
How would anyone frame you like this without bringing it up?

I'm not braining this. I need coffee.

Recruitment Mafia was a game, in which I was not bad but Epi was convinced I was bad, so my by conduct in the thread I tried to induce the mafia to NK epi to frame me, just so I'd have him out of my hair. They did kill him. They also successfully framed me lol, I never really escaped from the suspicion for it.

Let's just say... you couldn't pick two more perfect people to choose to frame me then the two who died. But, otherwise, I don't see great reasons for choosing the pair of them.

a2thezebra wrote:

Golden wrote: Trying to remove all nuance and force me to term my thoughts on sloonei across the game as either 'good' or 'bad' and not shades of grey on a sliding scale don't sit well with me.

I had a feeling you would use this tactic at some point. Does your read look a little bit fabricated folks? Claim it as "nuance" and make known your disapproval of such outdated terms as "good" or "bad" in regards to reading other players.

Oh, ok.

I'll expect all of your rainbow lists to be 'confirmed town' or 'confirmed scum' from now on.