The Syndicate

Russtifinko wrote: Personally, I think we should try to lynch Dex with as big a majority as possible, especially given the manipulation that occurred yesterday. Looking through the roles, there's no civ way he could have survived that.

That's an absurd claim - the vote was almost tied, so any little detail could swing it across.

There are three roles that could be lynch-immune; one civ, one bad, one Indy.
But far more likely is that there was some vote-manipulation underway:
The little sisters have a nonstandard size vote, and there are two slicers that can change how effective someone else's vote was.
There are also hidden events that provide initial votes - I started the previous poll with +3 for example for undisclosable reasons.

None of that suggests a particular team for dex. Why do you seem so certain?

Did GOB make a post about being on vacation? I must have missed it. I'll go read him again.

Nevinera wrote:

Russtifinko wrote: Personally, I think we should try to lynch Dex with as big a majority as possible, especially given the manipulation that occurred yesterday. Looking through the roles, there's no civ way he could have survived that.

That's an absurd claim - the vote was almost tied, so any little detail could swing it across.

There are three roles that could be lynch-immune; one civ, one bad, one Indy.
But far more likely is that there was some vote-manipulation underway:
The little sisters have a nonstandard size vote, and there are two slicers that can change how effective someone else's vote was.
There are also hidden events that provide initial votes - I started the previous poll with +3 for example for undisclosable reasons.

None of that suggests a particular team for dex. Why do you seem so certain?

I don't think it is an absurd claim at all, and I think the "little detail" you referred to is called a vote manipulation in common parlance. In every mafia game I've ever played, immunity to lynching means that if you finish the poll with the most votes, nothing happens. I've never ever seen lynch immunity mean that the person with the second-most votes dies. However, MP may run his games differently, so I might as well ask:

MP, if a lynch-immune role finishes a poll with the most votes, does the second-highest vote-getter die in their place?

If we can eliminate that option, (and you yourself admitted that manipulation is far more likely), then there are 2 baddie roles with extra votes (the Little Sisters) and 2 indies that affect votes. (One adds and one subtracts from another player's vote, I believe.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen no civvie role that has any type of vote manipulation power in this game.

As for hidden events affecting the outcome, as they are hidden I had no way of knowing about them. I'll look at vote records to see where your +3 could have come from, as my first thought is that it may have been a punishment, and compare your record to bea's to see if she could have been similarly punished.

If bea was punished or otherwise got +3 yesterday then maybe it's worth looking at someone besides Dex today, but if not it seems pretty clear to me that he's not civ-aligned.

Now my question for you: why label my post an "absurd claim" when it's inherently logical based on the information I have, and then cast suspicion on me by saying I "seem certain" (the implication clearly being I know something a civ wouldn't know) when I only deduced what I could from recent events? Did I strike a little too close to home by going after Dex?

Linki: Mata, G.O.B. didn't post about being on vacation. I know him in rl and knew he was in Florida because he couldn't play in a volleyball game.

Russtifinko wrote: I don't think it is an absurd claim at all, and I think the "little detail" you referred to is called a vote manipulation in common parlance. In every mafia game I've ever played, immunity to lynching means that if you finish the poll with the most votes, nothing happens. I've never ever seen lynch immunity mean that the person with the second-most votes dies. However, MP may run his games differently, so I might as well ask:

MP, if a lynch-immune role finishes a poll with the most votes, does the second-highest vote-getter die in their place?

That was the mechanic used in Thomas I believe.
I assumed it was standard, but if not, my mistake.

Russtifinko wrote: If we can eliminate that option, (and you yourself admitted that manipulation is far more likely), then there are 2 baddie roles with extra votes (the Little Sisters) and 2 indies that affect votes. (One adds and one subtracts from another player's vote, I believe.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen no civvie role that has any type of vote manipulation power in this game.

The little sisters might have extra votes, or they might have *no* votes. If the little sisters have extra votes, and they voted for Bea instead of Dex, it does *not* imply that dex is bad, only that bea is not on that particular baddie team. Since we *know* that, I'm not sure why it would be relevant at all.

Not only do vote manipulation powers not imply that the person being not-lynched is bad, these particular ones are not easy to control.
Take a look at the houdini splicer powers, please. Note that they do not get to target some person to be voted against or not,
they pick other players, and the votes those players make are the relevant thing.
Since you can't double-target, splicer #2 can't even target his teammates every time,
which means that their impact is extremely unpredictable.
Since they are targeted the night before the vote, they can't realistically be said to be saving a teammate or anything.

Russtifinko wrote: As for hidden events affecting the outcome, as they are hidden I had no way of knowing about them. I'll look at vote records to see where your +3 could have come from, as my first thought is that it may have been a punishment, and compare your record to bea's to see if she could have been similarly punished.

Not a punishment.
It might not be obvious to you that there are specific hidden events that punish players by giving them extra votes against them..
but since every game I've participated in so far has used that mechanic, it seems a little unlikely that it would not occur to a veteran like you at all.

Russtifinko wrote: If bea was punished or otherwise got +3 yesterday then maybe it's worth looking at someone besides Dex today, but if not it seems pretty clear to me that he's not civ-aligned.

Now my question for you: why label my post an "absurd claim" when it's inherently logical based on the information I have, and then cast suspicion on me by saying I "seem certain" (the implication clearly being I know something a civ wouldn't know) when I only deduced what I could from recent events? Did I strike a little too close to home by going after Dex?

I care about logic, it's how I play the game; your post was *far* from 'inherently logical'.
The main flaw in your logic is that being saved by a non-civ does not imply that one is not a civ.
Not even a little bit, since two of those powers cannot be used defensively without precognition,
and the other two will be in play whether they want them to be or not.
Trying to make logical conclusions from only that data is pointless.

I actually think you *are* a civ for reasons that it's not safe to share, and I was trying to ask you if you had some hidden info that gives you your certainty -
there are a number of ways that you might have such information without being bad.

Now, if you want to vote for Dex based solely on your 'logic', I'm fine with that.
If I had no objective reasons to vote for anyone else, I'd probably pick him as the least useful person that I don't know is civ and vote for him too.

Russtifinko wrote: MP, if a lynch-immune role finishes a poll with the most votes, does the second-highest vote-getter die in their place?

No, no one would be lynched.

I think INH might be worth looking at today for a number of reasons. First, I think he's been a little blendy. Before Friday, he hadn't posted since day 3 when he laid out his suspicions based on the posts of other players.

insertnamehere wrote:People who I'm going to be looking at today.

thellama73: Based on Epig's post.
Lizzy/Vomps/Dex: All three seem to be intentionally drawing attention to themselves, and I'm certain that one of them is Sander Cohen.
Snow Dog: Based on Dom's posts.

While he doesn't admit to this being the case with Lizzy, Vomp, and Dex, he's by no means the first to call any of them out. He ended up voting Llama on day 3 offering no more elaboration for his reasons than the quoted post does.

On day 2 his only post was a self-vote, which couldn't have been in punishment given he voted on day one for A Person. Speaking of Day One, his only post there was his vote as well, again offering nothing to the discussion. I don't know why he disappeared for a few days but I do think that his initial tactic in this game was to play blendy and go unnoticed based on his posts from early on.

His more recent posts have a different (but still suspicious) feel to them:

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

Here he votes me claiming to be following Bea's case against me. She made no such case, I even went back to double check but no, my name came up in her analysis of voters but she said she was undecided on me. The bolded rationale for INH's vote here belongs to Dom, and the coaching comment makes no sense for me. I've actually asked twice for an explanation and he's yet to give one.

insertnamehere wrote:RIPIWG Bea, definitely looking at Bullzeye after this.

Randomly chose juliets to be rezzed.

Finally he seems to blame Bea's lynch on me when I didn't even vote for her. I said a few times I thought she might be worth a vote, but none of her voters claimed they were voting for her because of my solid logic against her (note: I admitted the case against her wasn't too great at one point). He also randomised his rezz vote, or at least claimed to, and that is something I really don't get when there's a risk your vote could go to the rezzing of a baddie. I realise JC was killed by a Big Daddy so that would probably rule out one team but there's still other non-civvie roles she could have held. I dunno, it just doesn't seem right to me that any civvie would do that.

Interesting discussion today. Looks like the main subjects of conversation today are INH and Dex. I have time to do a reread right now, since I was planning on rereading INH anyway, I'll go ahead and do that. Though it looks like Bullz has already been working on that.

Well, that didn't take long. (Formatting this post took longer than reading all INH's posts! lol) Here they are in chronological order:

insertnamehere wrote:In Bioshock, the plasmids were very awesome and badass, but also very addictive, and can drive you insane. They turned a significant part of the population into murderous druggies, who would do anything and kill anyone for another fix. The "Is it someone new?" woman was one of the "splicers".

Because of this, I'm wary of taking some of the plasmids this early, and it seems like a trap.

So, I'm going to pass.

insertnamehere wrote:

juliets wrote:

Dom wrote:YAY Game!

And Imma pass on the plasmid... I don't trust socky

Epignosis wrote:Pros and cons here.

If MP follows the story (so far he is), then the Plasmid to be gained is Telekinesis. The upshot of Telekinesis, despite the description of the Plasmid, was not throwing grenades back at grenadiers, it was bringing helpful items to yourself that were out of reach.

The downside is that I recall very vividly what went on in those dentistries (there were three in one section of the Medical Pavilion, not one), and that as soon as you picked up the shotgun you were required to use it... a LOT.

boo wrote:It's a trap.

Would you kindly tell me why you think it's a trap?

I think it's been explained that there are negative side effects to using plasmids in the game, it's a socky game and there's always negatives to every positive in a socky game, and such

Someone explained there are negative side effects to using plasmids in the game? I didnt' see that anywhere. And regarding what Epignosis said, it seems those of us who know nothing about the game are at a distinct disadvantage here. Socky please don't make this too game dependent - like we should know something based on the way the game works.

insertnamehere wrote:In Bioshock, the plasmids were very awesome and badass, but also very addictive, and can drive you insane. They turned a significant part of the population into murderous druggies, who would do anything and kill anyone for another fix. The "Is it someone new?" woman was one of the "splicers".

Because of this, I'm wary of taking some of the plasmids this early, and it seems like a trap.

So, I'm going to pass.

insertnamehere wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Bump.

Would you kindly not spam the thread?

insertnamehere wrote:Have to vote now, sorry A Person.

insertnamehere wrote:Shit. RIP A Person.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm not going to have Internet for the rest of the weekend, and I have to vote now.

I'm going to vote for myself, as I do not have enough time to read through a thread.

insertnamehere wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Knowledge galore.

DH, I don't understand this statement, could you explain please? Meaning you think people had knowledge or that we gained a lot of knowledge from David's lynch?

On a completely unrelated note, my iPad acts up periodically and starts replacing buttons with smilies or mixing the smilies up or just putting them in weird places on the forum and it stays like that until I clear my history and cookies. I may never clear them again though because as of right now all my quote post buttons have been replaced by the FEB smiley! I am highly amused by this. It took me a minute because I could not find the quote post button, then I realized why, lol.

That happens to me too sometimes, but it's much worse on RM.

insertnamehere wrote:People who I'm going to be looking at today.

thellama73: Based on Epig's post.
Lizzy/Vomps/Dex: All three seem to be intentionally drawing attention to themselves, and I'm certain that one of them is Sander Cohen.
Snow Dog: Based on Dom's posts.

insertnamehere wrote:*voting llama*

insertnamehere wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Snow Dog wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Let it be known that I will be voting for one of the llama voters.

Why is that I wonder?

Is it because we're teammates and I'm trying to save him?

There's a fine line between being intentionally vague, and just not taking it seriously.

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

insertnamehere wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:The last few days have been very hectic with moving, setting up the Internet so it freaking works, and the holiday to top it all off. I haven't been able to play, and I apologize to MP, and everyone else in this game.

After reading up, the case that makes the most sense is Bea's case on Bullzeye. Not only has she voted civ four weeks out of five, her posts seem very suspicious to me. Her posts seen very frantic and eager to shift the blame onto someone else. I can sense almost a little bit of coaching too.

Dex is acting weird yes, but Bullzeye in my opinion is acting as weird.

First off, She? That's news to me...

Second, I've been playing mafia for nearly three years now, I haven't needed coaching in a long time. If you're going to parrot Dom's thoughts I'll ask you as well what should I be doing if stating my own suspicions apparently makes me bad?

Instead of just saying "I just have bad instincts, stop focusing on me, look at these people." you could give an actual defense.

insertnamehere wrote:RIPIWG Bea, definitely looking at Bullzeye after this.

Randomly chose juliets to be rezzed.

I know Bullz posted some of them, but I thought I'd go ahead and post them all. There ain't much there. I counted 6 posts, I think? That's not even an average of 1 post per game day period! And that's with 48 hour days and 24 hour nights - so you have 3 days to get 1 post in per each period. As a matter of fact, I'm going to look at all those who have a tiny number of posts like that.

EBWOP: I mean "look to see" rather than look with an eye to being suspicious. However I will also look to see if I think there's a reason to be suspicious!

ALSO: Ok, I cannot count. INH has 13 posts, which is more than double what I counted originally. Apparently, if you scroll properly while you count, you can actually count ALL the posts someone has made. Still, that isn't very many posts considering we're on Day 7. They also contain very little content, which imo is far more important than post count.

Others with extremely low number of posts:

G.O.B. with 6
Ajira with 7
Spag. Everywhere with 13
DFaraday with 15
Spacedaisy with 18

Then it gets higher. Now, I'm not saying I want to eye every one of those people. I am saying, however, that I think it may be wise to take into consideration if they're new to mafia, what their normal play style is (some players are generally quiet, and it may or may not indicate anything) and how much content their posts have had. I do think it's nice to take into account what someone's RL is doing to them too... but without being heartless it can be easy to hide behind RL stuff.

I may choose to take a look at some of the low posters' participation along with my rereads for this vote cycle. Any thoughts on this area or the players on this list?

I agree INH is looking sketchy. I'd be up to vote for him.

nutella wrote:I agree INH is looking sketchy. I'd be up to vote for him.

Who else looks fishy to you?

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:I agree INH is looking sketchy. I'd be up to vote for him.

Who else looks fishy to you?

Bullz is still on my list but I've been trying to be more open-minded about him.
I also agree with the general sentiment re: GOB.

Also, I'm honestly a bit wary of DH. He was extremely active for a couple days, and then dropped off the radar completely -- rather conveniently after Boo named him as a suspect. I'm keeping an eye on DH for sure.

nutella wrote:

Dom wrote:

nutella wrote:I agree INH is looking sketchy. I'd be up to vote for him.

Who else looks fishy to you?

Bullz is still on my list but I've been trying to be more open-minded about him.
I also agree with the general sentiment re: GOB.

Also, I'm honestly a bit wary of DH. He was extremely active for a couple days, and then dropped off the radar completely -- rather conveniently after Boo named him as a suspect. I'm keeping an eye on DH for sure.

Just trying to remember... but didn't DH say he was going on vacation?

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm voting for Mongoose.

Dom wrote: It's not about being single minded. It's about throwing the entire pot of spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Wait... Are you saying you're doing this or someone else? Because you've been very single minded tbh, first with Snow Dog then me.

I'm saying I don't think you're being single minded, I think you're throwing everything out there hoping for something to stick...

What a coinky-dink. That's exactly what I mentioned I thought you were doing earlier.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Dom wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I'm voting for Mongoose.

Dom wrote: It's not about being single minded. It's about throwing the entire pot of spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Wait... Are you saying you're doing this or someone else? Because you've been very single minded tbh, first with Snow Dog then me.

I'm saying I don't think you're being single minded, I think you're throwing everything out there hoping for something to stick...

What a coinky-dink. That's exactly what I mentioned I thought you were doing earlier.

Please elaborate on what you're accusing me of, DP... it'd be great... I'm interested.

Also, very convenient how you ignored the part where I said I wasn't interested in looking at Bullz today....

I didn't ignore it. It just wasn't relevant to what I was saying. Also that's basically it. You seem mudslingy to me this game. Maybe it's just me, but it's what I see.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:I didn't ignore it. It just wasn't relevant to what I was saying. Also that's basically it. You seem mudslingy to me this game. Maybe it's just me, but it's what I see.

I guess what I'm asking is: what does that mean to you?

Nevinera wrote:

Russtifinko wrote: I don't think it is an absurd claim at all, and I think the "little detail" you referred to is called a vote manipulation in common parlance. In every mafia game I've ever played, immunity to lynching means that if you finish the poll with the most votes, nothing happens. I've never ever seen lynch immunity mean that the person with the second-most votes dies. However, MP may run his games differently, so I might as well ask:

MP, if a lynch-immune role finishes a poll with the most votes, does the second-highest vote-getter die in their place?

That was the mechanic used in Thomas I believe.
I assumed it was standard, but if not, my mistake.

Russtifinko wrote: If we can eliminate that option, (and you yourself admitted that manipulation is far more likely), then there are 2 baddie roles with extra votes (the Little Sisters) and 2 indies that affect votes. (One adds and one subtracts from another player's vote, I believe.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have seen no civvie role that has any type of vote manipulation power in this game.

The little sisters might have extra votes, or they might have *no* votes. If the little sisters have extra votes, and they voted for Bea instead of Dex, it does *not* imply that dex is bad, only that bea is not on that particular baddie team. Since we *know* that, I'm not sure why it would be relevant at all.

Not only do vote manipulation powers not imply that the person being not-lynched is bad, these particular ones are not easy to control.
Take a look at the houdini splicer powers, please. Note that they do not get to target some person to be voted against or not,
they pick other players, and the votes those players make are the relevant thing.
Since you can't double-target, splicer #2 can't even target his teammates every time,
which means that their impact is extremely unpredictable.
Since they are targeted the night before the vote, they can't realistically be said to be saving a teammate or anything.

Russtifinko wrote: As for hidden events affecting the outcome, as they are hidden I had no way of knowing about them. I'll look at vote records to see where your +3 could have come from, as my first thought is that it may have been a punishment, and compare your record to bea's to see if she could have been similarly punished.

Not a punishment.
It might not be obvious to you that there are specific hidden events that punish players by giving them extra votes against them..
but since every game I've participated in so far has used that mechanic, it seems a little unlikely that it would not occur to a veteran like you at all.

Russtifinko wrote: If bea was punished or otherwise got +3 yesterday then maybe it's worth looking at someone besides Dex today, but if not it seems pretty clear to me that he's not civ-aligned.

Now my question for you: why label my post an "absurd claim" when it's inherently logical based on the information I have, and then cast suspicion on me by saying I "seem certain" (the implication clearly being I know something a civ wouldn't know) when I only deduced what I could from recent events? Did I strike a little too close to home by going after Dex?

I care about logic, it's how I play the game; your post was *far* from 'inherently logical'.
The main flaw in your logic is that being saved by a non-civ does not imply that one is not a civ.
Not even a little bit, since two of those powers cannot be used defensively without precognition,
and the other two will be in play whether they want them to be or not.
Trying to make logical conclusions from only that data is pointless.

I actually think you *are* a civ for reasons that it's not safe to share, and I was trying to ask you if you had some hidden info that gives you your certainty -
there are a number of ways that you might have such information without being bad.

Now, if you want to vote for Dex based solely on your 'logic', I'm fine with that.
If I had no objective reasons to vote for anyone else, I'd probably pick him as the least useful person that I don't know is civ and vote for him too.

Well, you make some good points here. I guess we know the lynch didn't switch because Dex was an unlynchable role. I've actually never been punished by having votes added, but I'm kind of a goodie two shoes. I'm flattered to be called a veteran, by the way, so thanks. You are right that the indie Splicer powers we've been discussing could be hard to plan, as they're not in their owners' direct control, and you're also right that being saved by non-civs does not mean someone is non-civ.

I didn't have any secret knowledge about the mechanics of the previous lynch, to answer your question directly. I'm still considering a Dex vote today, because as you mentioned he's the least useful person I'm not sure is civ.

I also think that the discussion about INH is very interesting, and I want to look back at his votes the past couple of days. Thanks to indiglo for that analysis, and the one about the low posters. I'll have to read back on the rest of them because there is so little to go on.

I also hope that Spaghetti finishes his post-vacation reread soon, especially since he is one of the low posters, and that DH comes back soon. Does anyone know when his vacation ends? I would imagine today, but I'll read his posts by tomorrow and see if he said.

Dom wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:I didn't ignore it. It just wasn't relevant to what I was saying. Also that's basically it. You seem mudslingy to me this game. Maybe it's just me, but it's what I see.

I guess what I'm asking is: what does that mean to you?

You're slinging mud to see what sticks. It's self-explanitory. It's a pingy thing for me because it looks like you're trying to create this whole guise of working hard for civs when in reality you seem to me like you're throwing suspicions all over the place. Just an opinion of mine. I'll keep my eye on you.

I don't suspect you as much as I would have if bea flipped baddie though.

Right, sorry, I had forgotten that DH had been on vacation. That helps explain his quietness.

indiglo wrote:EBWOP: I mean "look to see" rather than look with an eye to being suspicious. However I will also look to see if I think there's a reason to be suspicious!

ALSO: Ok, I cannot count. INH has 13 posts, which is more than double what I counted originally. Apparently, if you scroll properly while you count, you can actually count ALL the posts someone has made. Still, that isn't very many posts considering we're on Day 7. They also contain very little content, which imo is far more important than post count.

Others with extremely low number of posts:

G.O.B. with 6
Ajira with 7
Spag. Everywhere with 13
DFaraday with 15
Spacedaisy with 18

Then it gets higher. Now, I'm not saying I want to eye every one of those people. I am saying, however, that I think it may be wise to take into consideration if they're new to mafia, what their normal play style is (some players are generally quiet, and it may or may not indicate anything) and how much content their posts have had. I do think it's nice to take into account what someone's RL is doing to them too... but without being heartless it can be easy to hide behind RL stuff.

I may choose to take a look at some of the low posters' participation along with my rereads for this vote cycle. Any thoughts on this area or the players on this list?

I missed this post the first time. I completely forgot DFaraday was playing, but knew SpaceDaisy was. I think this has something to do with content. DF has been fleety and I don't remember anything he's said. I remember Daisy dropping in every now and then, though.

i'm not sure about Ajira or Spag everywhere.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:

Dom wrote:

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:I didn't ignore it. It just wasn't relevant to what I was saying. Also that's basically it. You seem mudslingy to me this game. Maybe it's just me, but it's what I see.

I guess what I'm asking is: what does that mean to you?

You're slinging mud to see what sticks. It's self-explanitory. It's a pingy thing for me because it looks like you're trying to create this whole guise of working hard for civs when in reality you seem to me like you're throwing suspicions all over the place. Just an opinion of mine. I'll keep my eye on you.

I don't suspect you as much as I would have if bea flipped baddie though.

Thank you. This is what I was looking for.

Looks like I have some reading to do lol

Kate wrote:Looks like I have some reading to do lol

Wow, I feel for you, Kate.

All - Since MP confirmed that someone unlynchable's winning lynch vote wouldn't cause the dubious runner-up to be lynched, couldn't Dex instead have survived the last vote by using a protective plasmid? (I apologize if someone mentioned this already and I missed it in my catch-up today).

Bea 2.0 knows nothing more than bea 1.0 knew. I'm happy I kept up with things.

I look forward to hearing from kate as I suspected GOB because he only spoke when I suspected him and gave him the "noob card" out which he took - and then never came back and talked about.

I know what it's like replacing in - and I'm doing the same thing kate. But - from your re-read perspective - I'm sure you'll see why I suspected him - and anything you can give me will help me the next day forward...

Good luck with your reading Kate! You will definitely hate the posting contest. I did

Welcome back Bea? I know you just started your knew role but I have my eye on you!

Linki: I have my on Kate too

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Good luck with your reading Kate! You will definitely hate the posting contest. I did

Welcome back Bea? I know you just started your knew role but I have my eye on you!

Linki: I have my on Kate too

why would you have your on me or kate?

Kate is new - and I was a blind civ. why does that make us suspicious?

So... I am not sure at all how tomorrow is going to go because we have our company picnic about halfway through my normal work-day. Therefore, I will have to cast my vote now. I am voting Dex again for reasons previously stated. *votes Dex*

Linki: Because I have no ideas about Ajira or G.O.B. They have given us next to nothing to go on regarding their roles. This late in the game I'm still not sure who to trust.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:So... I am not sure at all how tomorrow is going to go because we have our company picnic about halfway through my normal work-day. Therefore, I will have to cast my vote now. I am voting Dex again for reasons previously stated. *votes Dex*

this feels like distancing. And throwing susphs on the new players because he can. I'm curious that he voted dex in an ot post...

I look forward to other people's thoughts...

Hello kate & bea!

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: Because I have no ideas about Ajira or G.O.B. They have given us next to nothing to go on regarding their roles. This late in the game I'm still not sure who to trust.

I do understand that my other post kinda contradicts this - but I do see where you are coming from - I railed about gob lots - I look forward to seeing a player actually play the role.I can't wait to hear what Kate has to say.... As fare as Ajira goes, I know he was civ, but not always playing the game. I hope to make up for that as quickly as I can.


I do really think that focusing on us new replacements leaves many unturned things in this game. i agree with dex in only this one thing. The baddies have been VERY good at distracting all of you from where we should go.

I wish I understood where we should go, I'm still looking for it. But I do know that the "common" thing isn't always the "best" thing.

linki- hi la = what do you think?

bea wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:So... I am not sure at all how tomorrow is going to go because we have our company picnic about halfway through my normal work-day. Therefore, I will have to cast my vote now. I am voting Dex again for reasons previously stated. *votes Dex*

this feels like distancing. And throwing susphs on the new players because he can. I'm curious that he voted dex in an ot post...

I look forward to other people's thoughts...

Really? I was mostly joking when greeting you and Kate. Again, I have nothing to go on regarding your new roles. I am very happy both of you are replacing them because I know both of you are very active players.

Regarding my vote for Dex, I stated earlier in (I believe) the most recent page that I would likely be voting for him again today and I gave my reasons. I just wanted to let everyone know in OT how my day will likely look tomorrow as I will be with my company most of the day and will not be able to vote tomorrow.

I do apologize if I offended you Bea! I didn't have any ill intentions

Linki Bea: Thank you for understanding. I look forward to seeing if you and Kate have any new insights to bring to this game!

Just visiting from pg. 5 and I want to express my appreciation for the OT button and those who use it! I love you guys

it did just a bit feel like - "well there are new players for absent ones, they must be bad" - in the first post.

I'm sorry if I miss read that. I could have been over sensitive.

I'm still not sure what to make of dex yet. It frustrates me to no end tbh.

well...you know...green is green for a reason kate.... though I'm right there with you - it made many of the earlier days easier to get through....

After everyone jumped on you for being "wishy-washy" I can completely understand that! And I also understand about Dex, too. He is the only one I feel remotely comfortable voting for at this point.

Kate wrote:Just visiting from pg. 5 and I want to express my appreciation for the OT button and those who use it! I love you guys

Welcome Kate and wb bea! How fun to have active players added into the game.

Also, I love this blast from the past post of Kate's. Yay for fresh eyes willing to read this much. Devin is right, that posting contest was a pain to read tbh, so good luck there.

As for candidates, since GOB has been replaced, and Dex's non-lynch was not due to an unlynchable role, I will keep on looking at dex. I am interested in some of the new discussion on inh and would like to hear more from him before I make any decision.

Hedgeowl wrote: I am interested in some of the new discussion on inh and would like to hear more from him before I make any decision.

You and me both! I really hope to hear from him, but I also realize it is unlikely. It sure would help in the decision making process, though.

Welcome Kate and Bea 2.0! Good luck with your catch up Kate! I do not envy you that. A fresh pair of eyes may prove helpful.

I would love to hear anything from inh. and dfaraday tbh. I'll give kate the benefit of the doubt for right now. (which yes - means I am unsure of gob at the moment...I'll give kate time to talk for sure. My cranky at gob was he wasn't talking.) I know kate will. As she is replacing in and I am as well anxiously wait to hear what she has to say.

INH especially has my eye as he said bullz was responsible for my 1.0 lynch and bullz so wasn't responsible for it. His ripiywg bea comment also has my eyes up as bea 1.0 was lynched and totally confirmed as a civ. After my 1.0 lynch - I've been nothing but suspish of INH.

It'll be where my vote goes unless someone can give me a better reason to vote somewhere else.

I thought that exchange between Devin and Bea felt odd, so I re-read it. After my second or third reread, this stuck out to me like a sore thumb:

bea wrote: I do really think that focusing on us new replacements leaves many unturned things in this game. i agree with dex in only this one thing. The baddies have been VERY good at distracting all of you from where we should go.

Previously, (when she was playing as a confirmed civ before I, and others, decided we should kill her - still sorry about that sis!!) she used "we" and "us" a lot. In this post above she switches from "we" to "you". She also made this post:

bea wrote: why would you have your on me or kate?

Kate is new - and I was a blind civ. why does that make us suspicious?

This seems to imply that she was civ before (which, clearly we all know) and since she uses the past tense "I WAS a civ" it also implies that she no longer is... and that she's using that previous civ cred to defend herself now.

Does this make sense? Did anyone else notice this?



linki

I actually also forgot DFaraday was playing, Dom. And Ajira for that matter, so glad bea is in! It makes me wonder why DFaraday wasn't replaced when others were. I'll have to check his votes, but is it possible he's been watching/playing without posting anything?

And welcome Kate! Glad to have someone in for G.O.B., and very glad it's you!

Linki: Whoa. I hadn't noticed that on first glance, but it looks very much like a baddie slip to me. I wonder if she has some kind of explanation?

indiglo wrote:I thought that exchange between Devin and Bea felt odd, so I re-read it. After my second or third reread, this stuck out to me like a sore thumb:

bea wrote: I do really think that focusing on us new replacements leaves many unturned things in this game. i agree with dex in only this one thing. The baddies have been VERY good at distracting all of you from where we should go.

Previously, (when she was playing as a confirmed civ before I, and others, decided we should kill her - still sorry about that sis!!) she used "we" and "us" a lot. In this post above she switches from "we" to "you". She also made this post:

bea wrote: why would you have your on me or kate?

Kate is new - and I was a blind civ. why does that make us suspicious?

This seems to imply that she was civ before (which, clearly we all know) and since she uses the past tense "I WAS a civ" it also implies that she no longer is... and that she's using that previous civ cred to defend herself now.

Does this make sense? Did anyone else notice this?



linki

really? really?

I was a civ is confirmed - I can only say I'm still a civ - but my civnes before WAS confirmed. And you - you who supposedly "can read me so well" as to know when I'm all "sweet bea" -DID read me wrong. I said "was" because I was referring to my old role. My new role is just as civ as ever, I just understand that I have to start from zero this time around. I'm concerned that you would so obviously miss my intentions in the posts between my old role and my new role.

It's almost like you were determined for me to be bad the first time around and now that i've a new role, you'll be damn sure positive I'm bad this time around....

I love you too sis...[/ot}

but you feel baddie to me. And have for a while now.

bea wrote: really? really?

I was a civ is confirmed - I can only say I'm still a civ - but my civnes before WAS confirmed. And you - you who supposedly "can read me so well" as to know when I'm all "sweet bea" -DID read me wrong. I said "was" because I was referring to my old role. My new role is just as civ as ever, I just understand that I have to start from zero this time around. I'm concerned that you would so obviously miss my intentions in the posts between my old role and my new role.

It's almost like you were determined for me to be bad the first time around and now that i've a new role, you'll be damn sure positive I'm bad this time around....

I love you too sis...[/ot}

but you feel baddie to me. And have for a while now.

I did mis-read you. You are right there. And I am sorry about that. I never claimed to "read you so well" once. I simply said I had seen you pull the "sweet Bea" act before. I was never certain you were bad before and I never said I was. In fact, once I read your explanations to me, I was happy to simply watch and wait. I wasn't gunning for you, nor was I determined for you to be bad.

Interesting that suddenly you think I'm baddie because I mention your name once you have a new role though. You never said that before when I asked questions about you or suspected you... when you were a civ.

This is not a defense to me. You're just trying to sling mud at me. Was I wrong before? Yes. I've said so many times. Me being wrong about you before has zero baring on the role you have this time. This defense makes me feel worse yet about you... whereas last time your defense made me feel better about you.

indiglo wrote:

bea wrote: really? really?

I was a civ is confirmed - I can only say I'm still a civ - but my civnes before WAS confirmed. And you - you who supposedly "can read me so well" as to know when I'm all "sweet bea" -DID read me wrong. I said "was" because I was referring to my old role. My new role is just as civ as ever, I just understand that I have to start from zero this time around. I'm concerned that you would so obviously miss my intentions in the posts between my old role and my new role.

It's almost like you were determined for me to be bad the first time around and now that i've a new role, you'll be damn sure positive I'm bad this time around....

I love you too sis...[/ot}

but you feel baddie to me. And have for a while now.

I did mis-read you. You are right there. And I am sorry about that. I never claimed to "read you so well" once. I simply said I had seen you pull the "sweet Bea" act before. I was never certain you were bad before and I never said I was. In fact, once I read your explanations to me, I was happy to simply watch and wait. I wasn't gunning for you, nor was I determined for you to be bad.

Interesting that suddenly you think I'm baddie because I mention your name once you have a new role though. You never said that before when I asked questions about you or suspected you... when you were a civ.

This is not a defense to me. You're just trying to sling mud at me. Was I wrong before? Yes. I've said so many times. Me being wrong about you before has zero baring on the role you have this time. This defense makes me feel worse yet about you... whereas last time your defense made me feel better about you.

Indi - I am sorry - I'm trying to shake off my old role and embrace my new one. While both are civ, When I was in the old role, it felt like you were gunning to make me bad.Talking about a game that you couldn't reference in which I was "so very manipulative" set me on my radar. I admit I could have over embellished thoughts there. And thoughts, at the time, I didn't mention because I was trying to stay cool.

I'm not trying to sling mud at you. At all. I'm trying to say - you're always thinking I'm bad in this game even when I'm not. And not once in this game have you given me a chance to be good. Forgive me for being jumpy about the fact that the person who should know me best in this game has misread me the whole way through. At some point, I'm a fool to not think that the misread is not on purpose. What would you think about me if the role's were reversed?

Welcome Kate and welcome back bea. Always good to have you two around.

First off, welcome/welcome back to the replacements!

indiglo wrote:EBWOP: I mean "look to see" rather than look with an eye to being suspicious. However I will also look to see if I think there's a reason to be suspicious!

ALSO: Ok, I cannot count. INH has 13 posts, which is more than double what I counted originally. Apparently, if you scroll properly while you count, you can actually count ALL the posts someone has made. Still, that isn't very many posts considering we're on Day 7. They also contain very little content, which imo is far more important than post count.

Others with extremely low number of posts:

G.O.B. with 6
Ajira with 7
Spag. Everywhere with 13
DFaraday with 15
Spacedaisy with 18

Then it gets higher. Now, I'm not saying I want to eye every one of those people. I am saying, however, that I think it may be wise to take into consideration if they're new to mafia, what their normal play style is (some players are generally quiet, and it may or may not indicate anything) and how much content their posts have had. I do think it's nice to take into account what someone's RL is doing to them too... but without being heartless it can be easy to hide behind RL stuff.

I may choose to take a look at some of the low posters' participation along with my rereads for this vote cycle. Any thoughts on this area or the players on this list?

I do want to make a quick point about low posters, it's one I make a lot. Obviously with G.O.B and Ajira it's no longer relevant since they've been replaced, but I think low posting alone isn't a huge issue as long as their small number of posts shows they're actively trying to play and contribute to discussion. I know you've said you're not necessarily looking to eye anyone in particular but I feel like I say some variation of that every time low posters come up in discussion so it's basically a tradition. With that said I'll discuss them individually (and I do wish that those who've not yet been replaced would come in and play with us!).

If people for some reason missed what I think of INH it's in the last post I made, go back and look. TL;DR version is that I'll probably vote for him today.

I think Spaghetti has actually made more posts in this game than he did in Video Game Mafia, which lasted 14 Days and he won, so my general opinion there is that he might just always be quiet. That said, he was a baddie in VGM but whether that's indicative of his alignment here or not I couldn't say.

Isn't Faraday usually quiet as well? The only game I remember playing with him recently is, again, VGM where he was fairly quiet as a baddie and then a civvie. I know I did rule him out as a BWT teammate due to his vote, but there are still other baddies he could be with so that isn't worth much.

Daisy I dunno, I remember her being really busy last time we played together and that might still be the case now. I don't really have a particular opinion of any of the low posters other than INH who has drawn my suspicions in a major way. Maybe I'll read through the rest to see what the actual content of their posts is like.