The Syndicate

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: You got me Matt. I'm scum. Go right ahead and lynch me.

Bit of an overreaction from a list of reads where you're not the only scum.

o_o

Golden wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for it Anything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3

I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.

I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?

That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.

Linki: Straw: It wasn't a serious post... Do you need sarcastic orange in order to read sarcasm?

@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

Matt F wrote:
Bullzeye/sanmateo - san mateo doesn't play. Bullz replaces, randoms MetalMarsh Day 2, avoiding Long Con lynch in the process. Votes RussT Day 3, who I personally believe to be anti-Mafia. The running theme continues with Bullz getting annoyed at the thread length lol. Defends me against Sorsha, thanks Bullz. It's important to note that he randoms MM on Day 2, but then 12 hours later, seems to know exactly what's going on in the thread. Hmmm.

You'll note I chose to ditch the catch-up, abandoning my attempts to properly read through the events I missed out on. That was what had been holding me back. I decided that the circumstances surrounding the LC lynch would be of more relevance, and as I was already reading through/familiar with it, it was easier for me to get into the swing of things. Had I not decided to give up on getting caught up, I expect I'd still be lost now.

Matt F wrote: Bullz makes a VERY curious post, saying he doesn't think Golden is bad, but "won't take his bait" by voting for him. If you think he's civvie, why not help out his cause, bullz (and don't answer because Bea a civ was killed, this happened before the lynch result)?

Because I didn't know what his cause was, had no reason to trust him to any great extent, and couldn't be 100% certain he wasn't bad. I didn't see any benefit to be gained from mindlessly following someone else. Never do.

Matt F wrote:Votes RussT (bad bullz!).

Okay seriously like a third of the things you have to say are just that I don't agree with your suspicions. I think Russti is more likely to be bad than Sorsha, yes. I also think you and Roxy are stood on opposite sides of the wrong tree, barking furiously up it. We don't seem to share many of the same opinions. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Matt F wrote: Calls Golden a civvie but says he won't go along with Golden rest of game.

I feel like I've properly explained the issue I have with Golden. If not allow me to restate: I think he willingly sacrificed a civ to further his own agenda and gain status. I do not like that style of play and I do not think that it was beneficial to anyone but Golden. If, later in the game, I think Golden makes a good point about something, I'm not going to ignore it. But as of right now in my opinion he may be a confirmed civ but I'm not going to get on my knees and worship him. If that makes me bad then so be it, I prefer to think it makes me not a sheep.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Golden wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for it Anything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3

I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.

I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?

That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.

Linki: Straw: It wasn't a serious post... Do you need sarcastic orange in order to read sarcasm?

Of course not. Sarcasm or no, it was still a bit of an overreaction.

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

Strawhenge wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Golden wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Well, I'm certainly feeling better about Golden. Sorry for the previous Day's vote. But you were asking for it Anything I can clear up for you? I see I'm in your top 3

I'm going back to voting for Sorsha. Because, reasons.

I need to look into you a bit more, Devin. But, I'm inclined to think that someone who associated behaviour with their own civ game are less likely to suddenly vote for the person showing that behaviour. It felt like a major turn around for me, that you went from saying my behaviour reminded you of yourself as a civ, to voting for me. Can you explain how your thinking process on me changed to the point that you soured on seeing the behaviour as civ?

That was just a bad move on my part. I was working my ass off outside, came in for a refreshing beverage and to do a little bit of reading to catch up. What is the first thing I see? Something regarding "lynch me" or "why isn't anyone else trying to lynch me?" It just annoyed at the time, so I decided to oblige you.

Linki: Straw: It wasn't a serious post... Do you need sarcastic orange in order to read sarcasm?

Of course not. Sarcasm or no, it was still a bit of an overreaction.

I disagree

Hey Golden, I just noticed something while looking back at posts. You said you invited people to lynch for you. Skirting nervously around infodumping, say, purely hypothetically that you're Uh-Oh. If you were inviting a lynch, does that mean you would have had suspicions of the person you seduced and you wanted an opportunity to get them killed in your place?

Just a weird little snag I just noticed.

Strawhenge wrote:Last night I typed up a big ol' case on JJJ, thought I hit Save Draft, but it turns out there's no trace of it at all.



why

why computer

Anyway, literally dang. My overall feel of JJJ was pretty townish with a couple scum pings. But said scum pings are very similar to scum pings I've gotten from him in several past games where he wound up being town. As of now I'm at ★★★½ for him.

Tease. JJJ needs big posts about him too sometimes.

jk jk we good

Devin the Omniscient wrote:I'll use yellow, as well. The yellow is what intrigued me the most in LCs post. At the time, when I had read this post, I skipped over Mac's quoted posts and just read LCs. It intrigued me because, 1). I have talked about my own role a couple of times as a baddie. And 2). If he was going to suggest stacking votes onto 1 person each day phase to avoid this role's power just seemed like a scum trying to lead the lynches.
When I went back and read Mac's posts surrounding this, I was underwhelmed and unconvinced of what LC was saying about him. Mac's posts did not sound to me like he was trying to lead lynches against the civs. It was simply a gut read. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. The fact that I didn't catch on to what LC was doing here... Just bad on my part. I blame my tunnel vision on Diiny.

Can you recall anything specific that Mac said in his posts that made you think "wait, maybe LC's case wasn't actually that strong..."?

Devin the Omniscient wrote:Linki: You got me Matt. I'm scum. Go right ahead and lynch me.

Why does thids sentence exist in my Mafia thread? I know you've claimed it was sarcasm, but the presence of sarcasm in this context does not lend confidence about your mindset.

See, there's a reasonable reaction, Devin! 'I disagree,' or listing reasons why you disagree... Those both look much better than, Well okay, Mr. Smartypants, looks like you got me! Jig's up, boys, Sherlock over here has cracked the case! Sarcasm can read as mega-defensive.

Linki: Jay, I can still do that for you, babe. Just, after I revisit Sorsha, check out Mr. Sarcasm over here (please know I'm just playing with you, Dev), and maybe take a look at one of the players I'm barely even conscious of insofar.

Like espers or Russti or Elohcin or Choutas. Who are those people anyway?

Strawhenge wrote:Linki: Jay, I can still do that for you, babe. Just, after I revisit Sorsha, check out Mr. Sarcasm over here (please know I'm just playing with you, Dev), and maybe take a look at one of the players I'm barely even conscious of insofar.

Like espers or Russti or Elohcin or Choutas. Who are those people anyway?

Don't you worry about satisfying my desire for attention, keep up with your task on everyone else. Nobody should ever have to look at my post history more than once unless it's a punishment for a misdemeanor or something.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.

True. Get busy TSers.

Strawhenge wrote:Hey Golden, I just noticed something while looking back at posts. You said you invited people to lynch for you. Skirting nervously around infodumping, say, purely hypothetically that you're Uh-Oh. If you were inviting a lynch, does that mean you would have had suspicions of the person you seduced and you wanted an opportunity to get them killed in your place?

Just a weird little snag I just noticed.

I'm not going to go into hypotheticals about a role that I may or may not have.

I will say, though, that I was pretty strongly on record that I had a theory that the baddie team was LC/bea/JJJ/rico just before bea was lynched.

Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???

Golden wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:Hey Golden, I just noticed something while looking back at posts. You said you invited people to lynch for you. Skirting nervously around infodumping, say, purely hypothetically that you're Uh-Oh. If you were inviting a lynch, does that mean you would have had suspicions of the person you seduced and you wanted an opportunity to get them killed in your place?

Just a weird little snag I just noticed.

I'm not going to go into hypotheticals about a role that I may or may not have.

I will say, though, that I was pretty strongly on record that I had a theory that the baddie team was LC/bea/JJJ/rico just before bea was lynched.

Just the tasty, buttery little morsel I needed. Thank you.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???

Will anyone else get behind my epithet Syndicat? Come on, that's adorable. Newbies, like myself, would then be Syndikittens. And oh my god kittens.

@JJJ - Nothing specific made me feel better about Mac. It was his tone and the way he laid out his plan/suggestion. 99% of the time I'm a tone/vibe reader early on in games, and that's what I based my decision to disagree with LC on.

@JJJ and Straw - That line exists in your thread because I'm feeling outnumbered and overwhelmed, atm, and I get sarcastic/zany when I start feeling that way. The zany side is staying locked up for now, though, because both work and mafia are giving me a migraine.
Your point is well received and understood, though, Straw. I am only apologizing for the sarcastic orange comment towards you, though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???

Hmm... I wonder when my 2000th post was... was it three months or more ago?

@Strawhenge, I think 'Syndikittens' is brilliant. I'm in, chief syndikitten.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Fastest Syndicateer to 2,000? Maybe? Ehhh???

I'm sad that I'm not a drug dealer anymore

Matt F wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I definitely see where you are coming from. I can get behind a Floyd vote. Is Sorsha still under your radar as well, Matt?

BTW, make haste with the laughter. Remember all work and no play makes jack a dull boy.

Yes, but not because of my initial suspicion of both you and her. I believe it's entirely possible she voted every option you did in Day 0 as a "just in case I get lynched, they can see who I voted with", her connections to Long Con, her NOU to me, her initial responses to being voted for on Day 2 (I believe?)...just a lot of stuff there.

Elohcin, old people at weddings always poke me and say "You're next". So I started doing the same to them at funerals.

You've made my day! Keep 'em coming!

FWIW, I doubt splints is bad. llama gave me no reason to question his civviness. What did you think of llama's gameplay? Does that have anything to do with why you think splints is bad?

fingersplints wrote:I need to look back and find out why Roxy voted Matt f. Looking at who is killed I am fairly confident she is a civvie. With how she is (perhaps I should say how we are lol) about new/returning players there is no way she is involved in any of those kills.

I also understand this. But...would she involve herself in killing those from RYM since even though they are new to this site, they have played mafia multiple times?

I cannot post anymore for now. I will catch up more later and post again.

bcornett24 wrote:Sorsha seems very confused especially in her most recent posting...the behavior reminds me of a lost puppy. By no means is sorsha a new player to mafia, is this behavior normal for her? Is it more akin to mafia sorsha or town sorsha? To be fair, I rather feel like this as well due to the depth of content is this thread.

I feel like a lost little puppy

Sorsha wrote:Elo why don't you just ask to be replaced?

Here you go sig and whoever else wants it:

Bad:
bea- Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t be surprised if LC got the go ahead btc from bea to use her for his ruse.

Epignosis- Completely avoided the LC/bea posts, tried to steer the lynch away from LC. Placed a vote temporarily on seaside then switched it to bcornet at the end which helped out with LC’s x3 vote.

Devin- Until today hadn’t contributed much. The rainbow list I started yesterday I had “Leaning bad on Devin. He’s keeping up with the thread and posting answers to game mechanics and various questions but little in the way of suspicions except for Diiny.” Today he has defended Epi so that doesn’t look good to me either.

Probably good:
Golden- The only thing I find sus about his is his vote for bcornet at the end of the lynch, especially paired with LC’s x3. But….. I only skimmed over the golden v jjj posts, those I see him coming from a civ pov and, like me, I don’t see him defending LC like that if they were teammates.

Good:
My two biggest civ reads are Zebra and Mac, thinking bullz is civ so far and Strawhenge. I doubt that Black Rock is bad, I don’t think that role would be on its 2nd replacement by the 3rd day if it was a btsc baddie role and I don’t think Bubbles would have dropped out if she were bad either. (she has a history of never getting a baddie role so I think she’d stick it out if she did)

bcornet- I suspected him enough to vote for him yesterday but I don’t think that LC would have voted for him/tied it/nearly gotten him lynched if he was a teammate. I don't see him being bad with the way yesterdays lynch went down.

This looks favorable to me, though in this case specifically little is provided to back up her opinions which could mean that she is piggy backing off of other's reads.

Sorsha wrote:You guys already have you mind made up about me.

I'd literally be the worst baddie ever to defend LC like I did though. But what can I really say? I can't take back the fact that I defended him

I agree with this and by no means is she a new player. I can't see her purposefully attempting to get herself lynched by defending LC and then being wrong about if she knew he was mafia, this would be rather counter intuitive.

Yes, it would. And also the TIMING of when I defended LC. Sure I voted for him to be CEO but that was before he did his bea ploy. Once he did that I was leaning bad on him until the very end (take a look at jjj’s iso it shows this more clearly) There is just no way that I'd try that being his teammate.(I wish The Piano mafia was still up so I could go find the quote (from LC himself) basically calling me an ice hearted mafia who will throw her btsc mafia mates under the bus in the blink of an eye.)

Sorsha wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Yep, it was Zebra.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:I'm back (overslept, just a reason, not an excuse), catching up right now. RIP bwt, with seven votes I'm willing to bet that at least two of them are baddies.

I think Epi singled out the seven of us to. He did make posts on a couple of us but I don't remember which ones. (and I'm getting ready for work right now so I don't have time to check myself)

I think this is the worst post due to language used "I think Epi singled out the seven of us to." but taking this as an iso might remove the context in which she was referring to. And if the context isn't removed this would then be a huge scumslip which makes even less sense for a veteran player.

There was another post in there too that went with this thread but wasn’t quoted by me:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

seaside wrote:DrWilgy (12), bcornett24 (14), Matt F (23), HamburgerBoy (25), Sorsha (27), Diiny (28), sig (31)

i reakon we got at least 2 scum here
dr wilgy and diiny?

I disagree with the first statement, and with whoever said almost these exact same words before (I think it was Zebra).

The number selected is seems arbitrary and unfounded. Picking suspects based on that is illogical in my opinion.

Why those two?

We were discussing the players who had chosen just 2 of the 7 bwt voters as suspicious. I was saying that Epi had as well.

Sorsha wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:

Epignosis wrote:k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

Sorsha wrote: No. I didn't.

I don't understand Sorsha's response to the question here, the topic was really serious while the reply was quite playful, or at least that is how it seems.

The playful response was to Strawhenge who said this between those ^ two posts:

Strawhenge wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Strawhenge wrote:

Epignosis wrote:k4j talked about me.

Save you all the trouble on that number.

So, did you kill him?

Did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

Why, did you kill him so you'd be able to come into the thread today and start off an attack on who came into the thread today to start off an attack on who k4j was suspicious of yesterday?

Something else I noticed is that much of her content end swith questions which redirects content away from herself. This could also be telling, or it could be normal for her, IDK.

If sorsha is mafia she has to be having one bad game right now and people are taking an easy vote trying to focus on her. This is why I feel that she is potentially being setup. By no means am I saying that I'm 100% right, based on the above content, it just feels off to me. You will not see me voting for her without more evidence. This will move her down to a far less suspicious place for me. I want to go back and look at her interactions with other players and see if something strikes me but, that will have to wait until after work, as will my opinions regarding diiny.

Sorsha is civvie and she’s still having a very bad game now.

Devin the Omniscient wrote:@JJJ - Nothing specific made me feel better about Mac. It was his tone and the way he laid out his plan/suggestion. 99% of the time I'm a tone/vibe reader early on in games, and that's what I based my decision to disagree with LC on.

@JJJ and Straw - That line exists in your thread because I'm feeling outnumbered and overwhelmed, atm, and I get sarcastic/zany when I start feeling that way. The zany side is staying locked up for now, though, because both work and mafia are giving me a migraine.
Your point is well received and understood, though, Straw. I am only apologizing for the sarcastic orange comment towards you, though.

Your responses are acknowledged. I'm going to pour them into my brain cauldron and swirl them around for a while with my brain ladle. Whether they'll coagulate into an acceptably solid goop or bubble up into an unappealing froth will be determined in due time.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:@JJJ - Nothing specific made me feel better about Mac. It was his tone and the way he laid out his plan/suggestion. 99% of the time I'm a tone/vibe reader early on in games, and that's what I based my decision to disagree with LC on.

@JJJ and Straw - That line exists in your thread because I'm feeling outnumbered and overwhelmed, atm, and I get sarcastic/zany when I start feeling that way. The zany side is staying locked up for now, though, because both work and mafia are giving me a migraine.
Your point is well received and understood, though, Straw. I am only apologizing for the sarcastic orange comment towards you, though.

Your responses are acknowledged. I'm going to pour them into my brain cauldron and swirl them around for a while with my brain ladle. Whether they'll coagulate into an acceptably solid goop or bubble up into an unappealing froth will be determined in due time.

Appropriate choice of words for the month of October

Hi hi hi hi hi any room left for me to squeeze in?

Ok, so my reads here will be centered on LC and a couple extra parameters. I should have worked on adding vote analysis and/or CEO vote analysis, and I still might, but right now I feel like publishing this, with the parameters that exist. They are

-- LC's interactions with players (I liked, btw, what Epig brought up on LC partly having interacted soft with teammates in a couple of games in which he was mafia; I'm less sure, although not really surprised, why he took the second route, the one in which LC used to set up teammates, and suspected bea accordingly)
-- players' interactions with LC
-- since LC switched his bullsuit case for bea with an actual case for sig during D1, and sig had a lynch wagon momentum going on, I was interested to note if any players tried to push the sig wagon further
-- on D2 the wagons were LC and B24, so I tracked which players tried to push the b24 lynch as well; in hindsight, I probably should have expanded this to include the llama wagon or other directions as well, but right now I only have notes on players bringing up or not b24

LC's interactions with players

I will basically sum up again LC's activity, but group it, according to his relation to each player, in players he had a positive feedback with (green), players he had neutral interactions with (grey...ish?), players he sent mixed signals (grouped individually, [orange) and certain players he didn't mention at all (no color). Please note that the colors are not my reads of the players, they're basically LC's. Players in each group listed alphabetically.

Positive
BWT - confirmed civ anyway
soft defense of BWT's gameplay claims
distances from him, not calling him suspicious for picking up his bea case

bea is technically a mixed interaction (from suspicion to everything about it being fake and mentioning that he doesn't find her suspicion), but she's been confirmed civ
bullsuit case
followed by fake bullsuit reveal

Epignosis
dismissal of the Dusk 0 common votes between JJJ, Epig and sig meaning anything

Roxy
soft defense of her actions (claiming the RVS is accepted as a strategy, whilst Roxy is being weirdly accused for her own)
more defending

Sorsha
approving of her voting him for assistant CEO
defending her at one point
not being suspicious of her, also calling her hard to read

I'll also make an exception here and add some neutral interaction, since LC did a lot of rebuttals with Sorsha, when she questioned his bea choice for a bullsuit case; overall, however, I find that green fits Sorsha best in this interaction.

Mixed
motel room
interaction between them regarding a vague seaside suspicion
suspicious of motel room for bringing up Flowers tactics (although this seems like self-aware fake sussing, imo, since LC was Flowers)

Rico (including myself in fairness)
linking myself with bea in his bullsuit bea case (link is also bullsuit, if you want my opinion)
qu'est-ce que c'est banter
soft defense of my gameplay choice claim
Roxy punishment banter

Russ
defending his viewpoint of pondering before posting
interaction based on talk about Sorsha

sig
(referencing him as "the other guy") dismissal of his, JJJ's and Epig's Dusk 0 common votes meaning anything
apologetic amiable post, including the let's not have distancing remark
hunting sig for crafting his posts
turning to sig in his hunt after revealing his fake bullsuit case on bea

Neutral

Diiny
quasi-defense, in talk with MacDougall? not clear

Golden
banter on agreeing with Golden's idea that he can craft cases well enough

JJJ
chat about the voting with color and bold issue
rebuttals on building bea's case properly
more rebuttals

RDW
interaction based on talking about Russ

Wilgy
interaction based on talking about Rico and BWT

Negative
Matt
finding his ping "phony" in joining sig's wording case

MacDougall
suspicious of motel room for bringing up Flowers tactics (although this seems like self-aware fake sussing, imo, since LC was Flowers)
voting MacDougall D2

Players with which LC didn't interact (apologies in advance if I'm mistaken about any and forgot some important interaction)

Bubbles / Ace
b24
sanmateo / Bullzeye
Choutas
Devin
Elohcin
espers
MM
rey / RadicalFuzz
seaside
Strawhenge
Floyd
Llama

I excluded recently killed FZ and Zebra from this entire equation. Zebra was mixed (one neutral cue, one negative one), FZ neutral (LC questioning her why quiet Epig means bad Epig for her)

Players' interactions with LC

Same grouping. Once again, please note that the colors are not my reads on the players, but their read on LC. This will also include notes on whether these players approached or not the sig (for D1) and b24 (for D2) subject.

Positive

Diiny
-- D1 questions LC for more reads on bea; criticises BWT (and votes him) for having a weak stance on LC
-- D2 plans to check LC, says he didn't stand out to him; would vote b24 over LC
====
> nothing on sig
> reads b24 bad

Epignosis
nothing on LC until D2 when he disagrees with the bandwagon on him (his lynch wagon being mainly players who don't know him)
makes meta analysis on LC and how he interacted with players in this game
him defending bea at the same time with calling off the hunt on her makes him suspicious of bea
finds Sorsha's "scolding" of LC genuine
====
> nothing on sig, except for analysis his and LC's "distancing" remark
> suspects b24 for BWT vote, with intention of voting him; doesn't return to this after D1

Roxy
-- D1 gives LC BOTD for his tricksy move, nothing committal here
-- D2 dislikes LC bandwagon, finds him a careful baddie who wouldn't make such moves
====
> finds sig genuine
> nothing on b24

Neutral

Bubbles / Ace
nothing from Ace, sig or b24; voted Russ D1
Black Rock, treated separately
replaced D2, nothing on LC, sig; questioned b24 lynch case on D2
still pretty detached from / out-of-synch with the game until D4

Bullzeye
nothing on LC unilt after his flip
suspects Golden as possible LC teammate, alongside Epig and Sorsha
disliked FZ's apologetic post-lynch post, finding it overcompensating
===
> agrees with sig on disliking Choutas' criticisms
> nothing on b24

b24
nothing on LC throughout the first two Days
only votes for him D2 to break tie (or in self-defense?)
D3 comments on Golden, JJJ being scum, hence on LC having been bussed by the both of them (although this is factually inaccurate)
====
> nothing on sig

Eloh
nothing on LC until the lynch (congratulating the thread for the lynch, commenting on LC always looking bad to her, but making her doubt herself)
agrees with Epig on points brought up on bea & LC
===
> nothing on sig
> nothing on b24

espers
nothing on LC
mirrors Wilgy's question on LC's flip changing the views on b24
====
> thinks sig would be an "easy lynch"
> nothing on b24 (except some questioning of Zebra prefering other players)

Matt
N1 analyses Sorsha's posts, including some relation to LC
D2 wary of llama lynch train, in relation to B24 and LC
====
> inquiring of sig's word use, later dismisses that it was a ping (or a phony one)

MM
...
====
> ...
> ...

RDW
nada

Floyd
...

Llama
...

Mixed

Choutas
nothing direct on LC (LC shows up only in quotes, mostly Wilgy's analysis, which Choutas happened to give a standing ovation to)
HOWEVER, he votes LC on D2 (after a number of warmup votes), very early on, in fact
====
> on sig: D1 asks something about sig being the equivalent of another player; N1 references sig's gameplay with a music sample (whatever that means); D3 suspects sig (and myself for that matter) for chatting about the SK; has sig on his scum tier in a rainbow list
> nothing on b24, but has him in the wary section of the rainbow list

Devin
D2 likes LC's suspicion on MacDougall
however, dismisses it upon checking (empty contribution?)
applauds LC lynch post-factum
D3 comments on too much WIFOM surrounding Epig defending LC, questions b24 and LC being teammates
====
> nothing on sig
> nothing on b24, except bantering on being voted by him and the B24-LC remarks above
- drumming on Diiny for the past two Days, for reasons that seem a bit flakey
- very flippy stance on Golden, ending up voting him over Sorsha
- even plans to vote Golden again!

Russ
N1 defends LC's gambit as unsurprising, not convinced by JJJ's case on him
suspects LC on waffly response to reading Sorsha
D2 doesn't like Sorsha's push to have RYMers lynch LC (??)
votes LC (for mild suspicions, but out of not risking to create a tie)
====
> questions sig on claims that he's easy lynch material
> no read on b24

Sorsha
votes LC... for CEO spot (good leadership)
D1 implies she read something into LC's bait tactic, but later questions his choice for bea; finds his replies unrealistic
doesn't find LC to have backpedalled
===
> agreed with b24 on BWT's case, voted BWT

JJJ
D1 questions LC on pointing the posts by bea that don't seem in sync with her claims (notably, LC replies back only with his "bold & color votes" question...so ???
questions LC on pointing at/questioning sig
N1 seriously disputes LC's bait claim and work process; questions bea if LC could be genuine AND bad in his bait attempt
D2 suspicion on LC wanes a bit, considers it important to challenge his method process
votes LC after all
====
> questions sig on why does he find there to be a "desperate attempt" for him to get lynched; more stuff (ugh, many posts), suspecs him D2; doesn't suspect him anymore after LC flip
> questions b24 on his RVS; suspects b24 for going with the flow and not playing his civ game

Negative

Wilgy
D2 votes LC, because he finds his interaction with bea fake
builds extensive analysis post-LC lynch (so far with crappy results)
D3 builds extensive analysis of D2 votes (idem)
====
> nothing on sig
> nothing on b24

Mac
D1 right away reads LC's bait case as tactical, mindful, fake; debates with LC over Flowers role
D2 approves of LC lynch (over seaside); wary of him and wary of TS players writing it off that he would behave like scum as a civilian
====
> nothing on sig; reads him town D3 (defends him against Choutas)
> criticises B24 for meta comments, but then elaborates that he has no real read on him otherwise

motel room
D1 (one of his first posts, in fact) calls LC's case too confident worded and bea's reply to it legit
dislikes LC's twist ("pressured and gross", backpedalling)
D2 criticses LC's seaside lynch intent; votes LC, but shortly switches to Choutas
vote back on LC
D3 suss's Epig, Sorsha right away for defending LC
====
> on sig: half-banter, half serious, but engages with sig in talk and suss, finding a lot of defense in his writing; invites sig to lynch LC; reads him genuine D3
> wary of b24, but not feeling his lynch D2; reads him town after him saving himself D2

seaside?
considers vote on B24 and/or LC in interest of survival
====
reads Sig good in GTH
finds b24 bad in GTH

sig
D1 dislikes LC's case for bea right away, also suspicious of LC distancing from him with the "other guy" expression
keeps finding LC nitpicky in regards to him wording in posts
!!!! votes, however, BWT (part self-defense, part agreeing with suspicions)
D2 keeps being suspicious of LC and his intentions
====
> intrigued by b24's RVS, but nothing more

Strawhenge
D1 feels weird about LC's bea case
D3 highlights LC's interactions and considers looking at bea the most
====
> questions HB's confidence in sig; nothing direct on sig, except chat about SK
> divided on B24's throwaway vote

Players that didn't interact with LC (apologies once more for any omissions)

MM
RDW
rey / RF
Floyd
Llama

I left out Golden out of the equation, because I don't believe he should be scrutinized anymore, after current events. It's a mixed interaction. Here it is, anyway:

--D1 disapproves of LC's vote for bea, considering the better alternative that it's RVS or fake attempt
--feelings improve after reading LC's elaboration on voting bea (also looking at his bea-Rico connection)
-- inquires JJJ on how well he knows LC, in order to question his case making depth and such
-- D2 considers LC being bad, but also believes it would be alike him to make an elaborate fake case
-- believes in LC being good and thinks JJJ is trying to kill him and fool everyone else
-- D3 calls bea, JJJ and LC scheme team
-- references a game in which LC and him were teammates and pulled a similar gambit
====
> considered sig stock lynch material on D1, saw his vote as self-defense and nothing else; D3 considers him bad?? then read him town in gth game!?!
> suspected B24 heavily (meta reminders [of a bad game]); voted him day 2 (early on, keeps it consistent, goes back to him late in the game)

Of course, I again took out of the equation any night victims.

TL;DR version is a table
Skittle reads!



Mac - this would be some major freaking 5 Michelin stars on-a-plate bussing and I don't have any pings on Mac to even begin suspecting such him performing such an in-our-face-ness; town until more flips influence any change in my perception of him

Wilgy - not the quickest of the bunch to call BS on LC's bea shenanigans, nonetheless, apart from wishing for a more clear (and possibly fine-tune, considering his worst read was not in fact bad) rendition of his post-lynch analysisisesises, I'm not reading him bad



Elohcin - silent on anything LC related until after the lynch and mirroring Epig's thoughts quite a bit, but nothing else suspicious from her for me

motel - not sure I have a real sense of his game so far, tbh; all these LC cues would have to be real top-notch bussing

Bubbles/Ace/BR - inconclusive

Matt - inconclusive, I'd say

Bullzeye - his Golden & FZ leads post-LC-lynch either didn't came up with anything or strike a bit odd; inconclusive, otherwise

Strawhenge - not sure why he reached a bea conclusion, out of analysing LC's interactions, but no major pings, otherwise

Diiny - iffy delay of assessing LC on his lynch day and prefering the b24 wagon (which he didn't went with, in the end, I think, voting Llama)

rey/RF - rey not being around to play, but sticking around for this long gave me a bad SK vibe, but no impression of RF yet

Russ - cocktail of defending and suspecting LC looks bad, picking on sig adds a bit to that; I am however receptive to the idea that his vote timing being a bussing would cut off most of LC's chances of survival

Roxy - neck-breaking defense of LC; the baddie Roxy I remember would not make such a move, if mafia; she wouldn't buss and hiss, along with the civ chorus, either, so mulling over this

espers - nothing concrete, but his non-committal on LC + distancing from any sig wagoning would make a good distancing tactic

seaside - I've said stuff about him concerning other events, this angle doesn't add much, tbh

sig - that BWT vote, on a day of intense LC suspecting, still bothers me; he has self-defense on his side, though; everything else would be pure bussing, if he's mafia, but I find it inconclusive



b24 - I'm seeing him having a surge of activity today, but haven't checked it thoroughly yet; absence of LC interaction (even on a Day in which he was main wagon against him), combined with picking Golden and JJJ as his big leads post-lynch, is kinda iffy; still don't feel good or find him trustworthy, overall

Sorsha - neck-breaking defending of LC to the point where every cue looks awful for her; I'd be lying, though, if I'm not hesitant it could be a cook up, based on her rebuttals and certain others' keeness to call this a done deal

Floyd - I've talked about him, outside this analysis

Llama - I've talked about him, outside this analysis. Didn't make an impression of FS yet.

JJJ - call me crazy, but I am quite freaked out by how neutral LC treated a player like JJJ, compared to which everything JJJ did can be tin foiled as a very perceptive, quick to act, distancing

Epignosis - another neck-breaking defense of LC that would make me doubt any experienced mafioso is this uninspired, but this is Epignosis who love to play with WIFOM; his analysis of LC looks spot on, but the tin foil voice in my head is also telling me that baddie Epig could sell us all this. His b24 suspicion disappeared completely after D1, especially staying away from this on D2. very wary of this



RDW - noy really LC related, but if paranoia would take over me regarding a baddie being among lurkers, this is my candidate

Choutas - dat early vote on LC, considering he had no stance on him ever; had both sig and b24 on his agenda, which match LC's own; tried to stiffle SK-tangential discussion. Not looking so good to me anymore.

MM - nothing? zero feedback? mum both ways? I don't like this. Mix that with not liking anything from MM and I'm officially calling bad on MM.

Devin - no talk about LC until after the lynch, picked up LC's Mac suspicion and dropped it around the corner, votes seem pure drumming and Golden insistency, at least until he finally dropped it, look like intentionally attempting a mislynch; looks very bad

I didn't get a skittle Rico, if my blood sugar gets low, it's on you.

Just placed a vote on RUNDONTWALK then decided to move it to METALMARSH89.

Both of you should treat the vote as current.

oh my god, that formatting...that text...

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.

So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.

This would make your seductee (that's not a word) susceptible to night actions directed at you also, right? And vice-versa?

Golden wrote:I didn't get a skittle Rico, if my blood sugar gets low, it's on you.

Sorsha wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.

So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.

This would make your seductee (that's not a word) susceptible to night actions directed at you also, right? And vice-versa?

I don't want to get into anything about what my role might or might not be.

But I do think it is worth others thinking about and putting in the thread the reasons why following my vote might be beneficial if you are a civ. You have correctly stated what I am suggesting people do.

Wait, I have to catch up on what Golden is trying to make us do.

Ricochet wrote:JJJ - call me crazy, but I am quite freaked out by how neutral LC treated a player like JJJ, compared to which everything JJJ did can be tin foiled as a very perceptive, quick to act, distancing

I think I've earned a better skittle than this.

I can understand why one might tinfoil my loudly anti-LC content in the wake of his claimed ruse as distancing, but it needs to be acknowledged that "tinfoiling" is by nature a mindset that reaches into the realm of the improbable. I took LC's claimed ruse and dissected it point by point -- and then again when he responded to that -- to illustrate why it was dubious. If he's my team mate, then he hates my guts right now for completely disallowing him from employing his strategy without interference.

That he seemed "neutral" in his treatment of me is likely the result of his steadfast desire to change my mind (I always give people the opportunity after all). That requires calm, logical language and he did an admirable job of that. As you noted, I was at least a little moved even though I did eventually place my vote on him anyway. If he had OMGUSed/No U'd and tried to turn the suspicion against me, I think it would have been a miserable failure and I suspect he felt the same way.

hello i'm alive. Had a three day weekend hanging out with my brother and many-a-

Generally though Rico, I greatly appreciate the work you put into that. Our conclusions aren't equivalent, but there are similarities and I like where your head is at.

Hmm, interesting. Sounds pretty good at the part of forcing scum TS to pretend they're chill, but overall your new pick could still be either a spot-on or uninspired pick - unless you have your spidey senses turned on. Plus, we'd require another day of lynching you (as in today?) in order to get a result out of that. And how would you get majority with every TS flocking the way you voted, in theory*, leaving the RYM field to unanimously kill you? So at its earliest we'd need to waste D6 lynch to get a result out of your new pick.

*I can see Epig, at least, not giving a crap about this plan, same as he ever was

So, Golden, does it have merit, weighing in the latter part as well?

Okay. This freakin' game has seen me setting myself up for big cases and I haven't delivered. For that I apologize. :C

Anyway, let's boogie.

Sorsha ★ Basement Devin the Omniscient ★★★

Hey Syndicats, I pose a question for y'all in Brilliant Point #10 of my Devin read, if you'll be so kind.

Also placing my vote on Sorsha until I find someone more suspicious.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:JJJ - call me crazy, but I am quite freaked out by how neutral LC treated a player like JJJ, compared to which everything JJJ did can be tin foiled as a very perceptive, quick to act, distancing

I think I've earned a better skittle than this.

I can understand why one might tinfoil my loudly anti-LC content in the wake of his claimed ruse as distancing, but it needs to be acknowledged that "tinfoiling" is by nature a mindset that reaches into the realm of the improbable. I took LC's claimed ruse and dissected it point by point -- and then again when he responded to that -- to illustrate why it was dubious. If he's my team mate, then he hates my guts right now for completely disallowing him from employing his strategy without interference.

That he seemed "neutral" in his treatment of me is likely the result of his steadfast desire to change my mind (I always give people the opportunity after all). That requires calm, logical language and he did an admirable job of that. As you noted, I was at least a little moved even though I did eventually place my vote on him anyway. If he had OMGUSed/No U'd and tried to turn the suspicion against me, I think it would have been a miserable failure and I suspect he felt the same way.

I told you I'm very bad at dissecting your volume of posts

The "tinfoil" for me is a bad scenario interpretation. I don't know who exactly coined this and in what way did he use it, but I've been picking it up recently (I think from G-Man in Watchmen?), with this intent.

I can see what you're saying about LC needing to be calm and measured, instead of throwing stuff in your face or buddying up to you, but it's still cold chunk of posts and evasive, whilst you seem to pick him apart at every step. Again, it's not the most sane vibe you could come up with, but it gave me the heebie jeebies when I compiled and compared this.

Hey Architecturally Problematic Version of Ancient Landmark, I think you ought to check out Sorsha's more substantive defenses of herself (sorry if you already did and I overlooked that). Tell me what you think about this sucker.

It stems directly from your original case on her and my questions about her responses to it.

Ricochet wrote:Again, it's not the most sane vibe you could come up with, but it gave me the heebie jeebies when I compiled and compared this.

I'm a scary guy.

Golden wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Golden wrote:@JJJ - your view please

What do you think about TS civvies following my vote, and forcing scum to also vote that way or be revealed (while not suggesting people keep their votes on bullz).

Do you see merit?

If following your vote without staying your follower is truly sufficient, then I don't see a reason not to. Votes are changeable, so TSers would only need to click one vote beside you and then move on to their personal suspects (presumably with a bold vote also placed). If I understand you correctly at least.

The highlighted bit is a crucial detail though.

If it was insufficient, it would do no harm.

So all TSers should place a vote for the player you have voted for, even if only temporary.

This would make your seductee (that's not a word) susceptible to night actions directed at you also, right? And vice-versa?

I don't want to get into anything about what my role might or might not be.

But I do think it is worth others thinking about and putting in the thread the reasons why following my vote might be beneficial if you are a civ. You have correctly stated what I am suggesting people do.

Well whatever. Can't hurt me more than what I've done to myself already.

Voting bullz for now.

I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Architecturally Problematic Version of Ancient Landmark, I think you ought to check out Sorsha's more substantive defenses of herself (sorry if you already did and I overlooked that). Tell me what you think about this sucker.

It stems directly from your original case on her and my questions about her responses to it.

I think they're very cogent responses, for sure. However some of the reasons she gives are based on some pretty loose conjecture. Her supposing of Floyd's innocence is based on the fact that if he were scum, he'd be replaced by now. We don't know that. (I in fact kinda think the opposite; Floyd could be chatting up a storm in scum BTSC and masterminding the whole operation, for all we know.) The other point about Mac/Seaside seems like a double-down on noncommittal. 'I was noncommittal about Seaside because I'm noncommittal about both of them because I've never played with them before.' To me that says absolutely nothing.

The tough part about Sorsha is the same tough part I had about my suss of Seaside: real-life time commitment. If she doesn't have time to play, then she doesn't have time to play, and on principle I can't fault her for that.

Additionally, Sorsha expresses that she doesn't feel like any of her defenses would be heeded anyway, and that people will just 'slap votes on.' Not that I find this suspicious in anyway, but I completely disagree. Among myself and a couple people voting for her currently, we would absolutely read defenses.

(doesn't mean we'll believe them, of course, but)

Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...

I don't get your meaning. Are you saying bea died for some other reason than what's currently believed?

Strawhenge wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...

I don't get your meaning. Are you saying bea died for some other reason than what's currently believed?

No. I'm saying that Golden asking people to follow his vote, even temporarily, gives baddies the perfect excuse to bandwagon me. They can just say they forgot to/didn't know they could move their vote off me. Then they just blame Golden when I die. Not saying it will happen, I just really don't like this plan since it involves making people vote for me.

Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...

What do you feel about Devin?

Sorsha wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I wonder how many people will 'forget' to remove their votes from me and then blame Golden for my death...

What do you feel about Devin?

I could probably be swayed into a vote for him. Have seen some decent cases put forth.