The Syndicate

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:I've been consistent enough in my thought that he's bad that I didn't really feel the need to say it again at that point.

Perhaps a little too consistent. Your focus in recent phases has been narrowed enough that it has inhibited your engagement with the broader scope of discussion, and that's beneficial to you if you're bad.

LoRab

I tend to have tunnel vision when I latch onto a suspect. That has not inhibited my engagement. My schedule IRL, on the other hand, has limited my time. I'm going away tomorrow and have been swamped at work getting everything in place for me to be away. Plus, it's a trip that requires a bunch of prep work. But I have some time tonight to play.

I don't know how to convince you that I'm civ. But if it's just that I'm stubborn and continue to suspect INH, then I don't really know what to say. Yes, I still suspect him. But that's not indicative of anything other than my suspecting him.

As for other suspects...

I could reconsider Glorf. I hadn't been suspecting him because of his vote in the Elo lynch, but maybe he would vote for a counterwagon in the end of a lynch in hopes of saving a teammate. It seemed unlikely at the time, but maybe it was done because it was unlikely, and because it presented a chance for a save. On the other hand, I still find it unlikely (thinking back) because of the Elo confusion of who had been replaced and who hadn't--it read like an honest error; and I find it hard to believe that a baddie would forget who was on their team. So, that makes me doubt Glorf is bad. So, I'd like to hear explanations of how that could make sense for Elo to have thought Glorf was replaced if Glorf were on her team.

Wilgy, I had suspected a bit back--I need to look back at my posts to remember why. I think it was in part that he celebrated the death of a civ in the thread, which is inherently suspish to me, but I seem to remember there was something else to my eyeballing him.

Sloonei I have had a basic neutral read of for most of the game. He's been very active, so I want to assume civ. But he actively pushed for the Elo counter-wagon, so that doesn't seem great. Now, given that said wagon was against me, means that I can't help but read that personally, so I recognize that colors my reading of it, so I'm also hesitant to suspect him because of it. But maybe I shouldn't hesitate. Maybe he's the wolf that's been hiding in sheep's clothing. I'm not ready to really go down that road yet, but it's a suspicion that's been growing in the back of my mind.

Scotty has seemed civ since he started participating, but he can be wiley, so an eyeball is still there. Knowing that Indiglo took suspicion because she didn't participate much as a sub in, it's possible that a baddie subbing in would actively decide to do the opposite. He hasn't done anything to make me suspect him, but an eye is there just because he is smart enough to be careful subbing in--especially into a role that had the majority of players, IIRC, ready to lynch them.

Dom, I'm currently reading as civ, based entirely on vibe. I mention this because I had suspected him earlier. I've gone back and forth, but I'm not currently suspecting him.

I have some residual suspicion of Epi because I had some vague suspicion of zebra, but I need to look back to remember why. My brain is mushy enough at the moment that I'm not recalling why I had any suspicion there. If I recall, it was more neutral read and therefore not sure if civ than baddie read. So, I guess that's still neutral.

Everyone else is between civ and neutral.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Please point to specific examples.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Why did it take someone who is not me or Sloonei to get you to share that information?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Please point to specific examples.

Sloonei:
Asked epi who'd he'd lynch IMMEDIATELY after his biggest suspect died. Was clearly peeved he didn't get an answer. When I asked him who he'd lynch if Glorfindel died, he had no answer.

Quin: Said Mac suspected me. Mac did not.

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Why did it take someone who is not me or Sloonei to get you to share that information?

Maybe I was unclear, but I didn't intend that.

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Please point to specific examples.

Sloonei:
Asked epi who'd he'd lynch IMMEDIATELY after his biggest suspect died. Was clearly peeved he didn't get an answer. When I asked him who he'd lynch if Glorfindel died, he had no answer.

Quin: Said Mac suspected me. Mac did not.

Mac did suspect you. Then Mac didn't. I only knew about the former.

You claimed you don't suspect me based on the dialogue we had on Day 6, yet your case against me is entirely based on that dialogue. I think that you had no intention on elaborating on your suspicions until 3J pushed it, and now you've contradicted yourself.

That is literally not what I said.

You asked if there was antyhing other than the events of the last hour (meaning Day 6) that makes me suspect you. I said no. What is so hard to understand about that?

You're right Dom. I misinterpreted it the other way around.

i thought I was going crazy .

To better answer to your suspicion of me, I named you among three based entirely on GTH reads at that moment. A few pages back 3J reposted his GTH results, and I remember that you and Mac had a back and forth pretty much all game, so I made an inference. You proved me wrong, so I removed you from that pool.

Where did you remove me from that pool?

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:Quinn is a liar.

I recalled a bunch of dialogue between you two and remembered 3J's GTH thing. Your post was more recent, though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Night 3 GTH chart re-uploaded:

Spoiler: show

I still want to read you, just based on the fact that I haven't since I first subbed in.

When I made this post.

How am I supposed to see that you no longer suspect me from that?

Dom wrote:How am I supposed to see that you no longer suspect me from that?

I used the grin emoticon.

Besides, if my basis for GTH reading you as bad is based on the fact that Mac suspected you, and I'm proved otherwise, that suspicion has no business existing.

I'm unlikely to vote for you-- but I've got my on you.

Dom wrote:I'm unlikely to vote for you-- but I've got my on you.

Works for me. I'll move my vote eventually.

LoRab wrote:As for other suspects...

My concern is that after sharing all of those takes on the other players, you didn't seem willing to call anyone a suspect. There were some "eyes" here and there, but on Day 6 I'd expect a more concrete set of reads. You have a clear read on INH, but otherwise it's a pile of waffles.

Back to Epignosis.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:As for other suspects...

My concern is that after sharing all of those takes on the other players, you didn't seem willing to call anyone a suspect. There were some "eyes" here and there, but on Day 6 I'd expect a more concrete set of reads. You have a clear read on INH, but otherwise it's a pile of waffles.

That's how I play. I won't apologize for that. If you suspect me for it, so be it. I won't pretend to have greater suspicions that I actually have. I don't see any obvious baddies out there. It would be lovely if they showed themselves, but that doesn't often happen so obviously. So, we're stuck with vagueness. I'm just doing the best I can.

Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

Dom wrote:

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:Quin-- no.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind elaborating on your read, in that case.

Why?
I said what I feel is relevant. I didn't suspect you until Day 6. I didn't suspect Sloonei until Day 6. What elaborating is there to do?

Quin wrote:

Quin wrote:

Dom wrote:Quin-- no.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind elaborating on your read, in that case.

Actually, I'm voting for you until you do elaborate. This is the only game related post you've written to or about me prior to my post yesterday, and I'm not even sure about this one because I don't know which paragraph you were referring to:

Spoiler: show

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:@jjj: to answer your query about your first point, I agree. I also think it makes it highly unlikely that Elo had BTSC with glorf. Or Quin for that matter.

Do you feel there's anything to be said from that about indiglo, the other replacement?

Can you spell out what you mean here?

Elohcin said she thought a baddie would be replaced before a townie by priority, which she used against Quin since he replaced in first.

I wonder if Elohcin thought to say this because indiglo was the actual baddie replacement and she came second -- against Eloh's expectations.

Ah.

Lynch Indi/INH.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

This is non-sensical.

Why do you suspect me?

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:As for other suspects...

My concern is that after sharing all of those takes on the other players, you didn't seem willing to call anyone a suspect. There were some "eyes" here and there, but on Day 6 I'd expect a more concrete set of reads. You have a clear read on INH, but otherwise it's a pile of waffles.

That's how I play. I won't apologize for that. If you suspect me for it, so be it. I won't pretend to have greater suspicions that I actually have. I don't see any obvious baddies out there. It would be lovely if they showed themselves, but that doesn't often happen so obviously. So, we're stuck with vagueness. I'm just doing the best I can.

This isn't a point I am inclined to keep pushing, because I don't necessarily feel differently about this game right now.

Dom wrote:This is non-sensical.

What is nonsensical? That's a strong word.

@Dom:

What if you reframed people you perceive as lying as being mistaken? And things being nonsensical as being different from what you'd think?

I don't suspect you currently, but your posts seem to unfairly target folks. I think if you step back, their posts may seem more innocuous. Also, that may allow you to find more suspicious behavior.

LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes look if both Elo and Lorab were bad?

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes look if both Elo and Lorab were bad?

If you don't think it's the case, what interest is it to you?

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Please point to specific examples.

Sloonei:
Asked epi who'd he'd lynch IMMEDIATELY after his biggest suspect died. Was clearly peeved he didn't get an answer. When I asked him who he'd lynch if Glorfindel died, he had no answer.

Quin: Said Mac suspected me. Mac did not.

wait what? Is this really how you interpreted that exchange? This is nonsensical.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:This is non-sensical.

What is nonsensical? That's a strong word.

Quin admitted that he read my post wrong. Why are you taking issue with me being very confused as to why someone was arguing with me when we seemingly agreed?

LoRab wrote:@Dom:

What if you reframed people you perceive as lying as being mistaken? And things being nonsensical as being different from what you'd think?

I don't suspect you currently, but your posts seem to unfairly target folks. I think if you step back, their posts may seem more innocuous. Also, that may allow you to find more suspicious behavior.

I think it's posible Quin was just mistaken, sure. I just am watching out for Quin now. That was pretty blatant if you ask me, though.

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:What are you even talking about?
I didn't suspect either of you until Day 6

Why do you suspect them now?

Sloonei: afraid to answer questions he asks

Quin: lies.

Please point to specific examples.

Sloonei:
Asked epi who'd he'd lynch IMMEDIATELY after his biggest suspect died. Was clearly peeved he didn't get an answer. When I asked him who he'd lynch if Glorfindel died, he had no answer.

Quin: Said Mac suspected me. Mac did not.

wait what? Is this really how you interpreted that exchange? This is nonsensical.

Yes. I asked you who you suspected and you did't even answer the question. You said you'll owrry about it after Glorfindel is dead which is about as non-town of an answer as I'd expect.

This was my answer to your question, Dom. Please point out the parts of it which you object to:

Sloonei wrote:

Dom wrote:Sloonei who are you going to vote for?

if they die who are you going to vote for?

if they die who are you going to vote for?


Quinn: Citation needed that Mac didn't like me.

I am currently voting for Glorfindel until further notice. I am also considering everyone else.

And I also need to address the idea that my "Who are you gonna vote for?" question was some sort of far-fetched framing scheme of mine. Here's the original post, right at the start of Day 6:

Sloonei wrote:Epi, who you gonna vote for now that Mr Mac is dead?

Quin, who's your supposed 3 person scum team?

Note the second question addressed to Quin. This is just a light conversation-starter type of post. I'm just peppering the two players I can see in the thread with standard mafia questions. These are really the same question: "Who are your suspects?" But, as I am a player who asks a ton of questions in this game, I get bored of typing the same words over and over and over and over again, so sometimes I like to spice it up! I throw whole new, colorful sets of words at people! One way that I like to do this is to ask people "Who they're voting for" instead "who they suspect". Don't believe me? Here's some more examples from this game:

Sloonei wrote:Who are you gonna vote for, Mr Quin?

link

Sloonei wrote:

motel room wrote:righty-o

who you gonna vote for, champ?

link

Sloonei wrote:Who do you want to vote for, mac?

link (admittedly the context is a little different on this one)

Sloonei wrote:Who you gonna vote for, Dom?

link

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes look if both Elo and Lorab were bad?

If you don't think it's the case, what interest is it to you?

Simply because we can't ignore plausible options. If enough evidence appears for me to believe that Lorab may be bad it will be a good thought.

So now that I've had some time to adjust and let my skepticism grow, I can see the possibility for Dom and Epi to have coordinated an attack against me during the night. Both of them pounced on the very first thing I said today. At the time I thought Epi felt good, but he's still not delivered on the promise to read me further, so I'm growing more uneasy about the way he spun that thing against me. I can see why I'd make sense as a person to frame, too. I've pushed a couple misguided bandwagons and have no definitive townie points in this game behind vibes and feels. I don't want to get ahead of myself and and take this OMGUS to the bank, but it's a thought and it's out there.

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes look if both Elo and Lorab were bad?

If you don't think it's the case, what interest is it to you?

Simply because we can't ignore plausible options. If enough evidence appears for me to believe that Lorab may be bad it will be a good thought.

I am not sure I understand your original question here.

Sloonei wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.

-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes have looked if both Elo and Lorab were bad? Those few days ago

If you don't think it's the case, what interest is it to you?

Simply because we can't ignore plausible options. If enough evidence appears for me to believe that Lorab may be bad it will be a good thought.

I am not sure I understand your original question here.

*Fixed

I probably won't end up reading through your posts, Sloonei.

At least not today or tomorrow.

DrWilgy wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Sloonei wrote:if INH is town, Wilgy looks bad right now.

Actually, you are bad. Explain this Sloonei.

While a single sentence may be hard, the strongest cause of suspicion is in the above quote.

I feel that Sloonei was fully expecting a INH civ flip and over eagerly tried to throw fault at me for thus flip.

I was not.

Sloonei wrote:Mostly your treatment of after the deadline. I only qualified the statement because if INH flipped bad it'd be hard to argue that the guy who just hammered on a baddie is also a baddie. But, from my perspective, it looks like you genuinely just forgot that you'd dropped your suspicion of me and then had to cover your tracks.
Plus you never told us why you went from INH to indi and back to INH in the final minutes. What inspired you to move your vote to indiglo? How do you feel about Glorfindel?

This is irrelevant to the question I asked. "from my perspective" is also a fodder statement. Of course this is from your perspective, this is your thought. I get baddie vibes from fodder statements like this, as it's symptoms of a skittling player. Baddies skittle more than civs.
This is just false as I explained my vote changes in the following quotes.
[a bunch of quotes where Wilgy explains what he was doing at the end of Day 5]

Linki - Stop saying things that aren't happening Sloonei.

RE: The orange: How is that irrelevant to what you asked? You asked my explain why you looked bad. I think you look bad because you appear to have forgotten what your read on me was. That's the #1 reason I suspect you, how can you say it's irrelevant to the question of why I think you are bad. And I added the "from my perspective" thing because I don't think anyone else would be as hyper-aware of what your read on me is/was as I am. Yeah, it's a bit of a redundancy but whatever.

I admit the blue part is false. It was a chaotic end of day. I suppose I was hoping you'd give a more substantive reason to suspect either indiglo or INH, rather than just eyeballing the bandwagon participants.

But since we're on the subject, you looked a little skittish at that end of day yourself, the way you danced around with your vote. Regardless of what your reasoning was, you appeared very indecisive.

Epignosis wrote:I probably won't end up reading through your posts, Sloonei.

I got my hopes up. Will you at least read this one and the links contained therein?

Sloonei wrote:And I also need to address the idea that my "Who are you gonna vote for?" question was some sort of far-fetched framing scheme of mine. Here's the original post, right at the start of Day 6:

Sloonei wrote:Epi, who you gonna vote for now that Mr Mac is dead?

Quin, who's your supposed 3 person scum team?

Note the second question addressed to Quin. This is just a light conversation-starter type of post. I'm just peppering the two players I can see in the thread with standard mafia questions. These are really the same question: "Who are your suspects?" But, as I am a player who asks a ton of questions in this game, I get bored of typing the same words over and over and over and over again, so sometimes I like to spice it up! I throw whole new, colorful sets of words at people! One way that I like to do this is to ask people "Who they're voting for" instead "who they suspect". Don't believe me? Here's some more examples from this game:

Sloonei wrote:Who are you gonna vote for, Mr Quin?

link

Sloonei wrote:

motel room wrote:righty-o

who you gonna vote for, champ?

link

Sloonei wrote:Who do you want to vote for, mac?

link (admittedly the context is a little different on this one)

Sloonei wrote:Who you gonna vote for, Dom?

link

I didn't and don't find Sloonei's questioning to be suspicious. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if we weren't being constantly spammed with the same question over and over.

That said, who you gonna vote for, Sloonei?

Sloonei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Let's review some of Zebra's strongest stances taken in this game:

~ Ricochet is bad.

~ Elohcin is good.

~ MovingPictures07 is bad.

I have spent the whole game thinking she looked genuine in her incorrectness, and I was willing to forgive. I ask myself now though, especially in the wake of Mac dying, whether I was being too easy on her. Zebra by her very nature as a player is very assertive about her manner of conveying her reads whether they are real or fake. That assertiveness is easy to mistake for sincerity, which is her best skill as a player.

Now we have Epignosis going after Mac right before his death in a way that perfectly recalls the circumstances earlier in the game, to the point that coincidence appears less likely than intent. I think motel room was making a valid inference when he suggested this first, and it was my immediate reaction to the reveal of Mac's death. Now, consider the most likely impact of a MacDougall death -- Glorfindel gets wasted today. It's the absolute easiest means of night kill manipulation on the table, and I am not inclined to bite. I think Glorfindel is the carrot, and either Epignosis or Sloonei is dangling that carrot.

I could see this as a strategy that scum Epi would use. Given how tentative so many reads in this game feel, it probably wouldn't be too hard to tip things in any direction right now if the baddies want to do that, and if they're actively involved then that is what they want to do right now. Given this and my sudden town read on Glorf, I'm loosening up on the good vibes I got from Epi last night.

3J manufactures a reason to suspect me (as I don't believe he really does), and you "could see this as a strategy that scum Epi would use."

Super.

Tell me- when I am bad, what strategies are off the table?

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I probably won't end up reading through your posts, Sloonei.

I got my hopes up. Will you at least read this one and the links contained therein?

I read it.

I don't care that you ask questions. I didn't care for the timing of your question, as though I had a planned answer or something. A backup, as it were. You were setting me up.

Snipped for brevity

DrWilgy wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.

Honestly at this point with how little time ive had to read/contribute all my thoughts are just a gth random mess.

You think this computes over here? "Off the baddiedar" seems to strongly suggest "not a suspect".

And followed up here.

DrWilgy wrote:Nah. Baddies I'd vote for. GTH baddies I still need to think about.

Glorf why is it 5-3 then?

And that was the full conversation on the subject, unless you adressed me without a quote and I missed it.

My suspicion comes down to whether or not I believe you here, and at the moment I do not. But there's still plenty we can pull out from here to work on this some more. Let's look at these words you said:

DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.

Why would you have no impulse to vote for me if you GTH me as bad? Am I a suspect or am I not? You claim that your Day 4 vote was based on the strategy of avoiding having your vote align with mine. Ouch, that's pretty damning. Yet I'm not a player you'd vote for? This, once again, does not compute.

But this also still leaves the biggest question I have up in the air, and that is the original point I brought up. You took me off your baddiedar on Night 2 and then later, on Day/Night 4, you tried to say that I'd never been removed as a suspect. "baddiedar" to me just looks like a playful way of saying "suspect". Kinda like how I ask people who they're voting for rather than who they suspect. It's fine to change your mind every once in a while, so I'd make no objection if you removed me on Day 2 and then put me back on on Day 4. But the way you tried to, apparently, backtrack out of this, first by saying it never happened, and then by saying there's a difference between "baddiedar" and your GTH reads. I feel like you were caught in a slip up and then tried to lie about it. If I am wrong I'll make a note of it for future games. I don't think I am wrong.

@Sloon the 3 false infos you haev provided as follows:
1. Claiming I hadn't explained my voting the day I had to swap between INH and indiglo.
2. Claiming I hadn't responded to your primary suspicion of me.
3. Claiming that I'm inconsistent for quoting and responding to something directed at JJJ.

I'll need to tackle your last posts 1 at a time Sloon.

Epignosis wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Let's review some of Zebra's strongest stances taken in this game:

~ Ricochet is bad.

~ Elohcin is good.

~ MovingPictures07 is bad.

I have spent the whole game thinking she looked genuine in her incorrectness, and I was willing to forgive. I ask myself now though, especially in the wake of Mac dying, whether I was being too easy on her. Zebra by her very nature as a player is very assertive about her manner of conveying her reads whether they are real or fake. That assertiveness is easy to mistake for sincerity, which is her best skill as a player.

Now we have Epignosis going after Mac right before his death in a way that perfectly recalls the circumstances earlier in the game, to the point that coincidence appears less likely than intent. I think motel room was making a valid inference when he suggested this first, and it was my immediate reaction to the reveal of Mac's death. Now, consider the most likely impact of a MacDougall death -- Glorfindel gets wasted today. It's the absolute easiest means of night kill manipulation on the table, and I am not inclined to bite. I think Glorfindel is the carrot, and either Epignosis or Sloonei is dangling that carrot.

I could see this as a strategy that scum Epi would use. Given how tentative so many reads in this game feel, it probably wouldn't be too hard to tip things in any direction right now if the baddies want to do that, and if they're actively involved then that is what they want to do right now. Given this and my sudden town read on Glorf, I'm loosening up on the good vibes I got from Epi last night.

3J manufactures a reason to suspect me (as I don't believe he really does), and you "could see this as a strategy that scum Epi would use."

Super.

Tell me- when I am bad, what strategies are off the table?

I think he suspects you. He is currently voting for you and this looks like a genuine thought process. I can see it as something you'd do, yes. I'm not saying I'm convinced of anything. This is not a crusade. Just keeping an open mind. You've said yourself, somewhere, I think it was in Red vs. Blue that most of those numerous banners of yours have come from scum performances. You're a crafty baddie. The only strategies I'd take off the table for you are things that skirt or break the rules of the game. Take it as a compliment.

Epignosis wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I probably won't end up reading through your posts, Sloonei.

I got my hopes up. Will you at least read this one and the links contained therein?

I read it.

I don't care that you ask questions. I didn't care for the timing of your question, as though I had a planned answer or something. A backup, as it were. You were setting me up.

It was timed that way because it was the first post of the day. What was I even setting you up for? I'm asking you to name suspects. How is that a setup? That's what this game is.

DrWilgy wrote:@Sloon the 3 false infos you haev provided as follows:
1. Claiming I hadn't explained my voting the day I had to swap between INH and indiglo.
2. Claiming I hadn't responded to your primary suspicion of me.
3. Claiming that I'm inconsistent for quoting and responding to something directed at JJJ.

I'll need to tackle your last posts 1 at a time Sloon.

1. Fair, acknowledged.
2. You hadn't. You responded to my initial gripes but hadn't addressed the full blown case. But that wasn't really something I suspected you for. I was just pointing out that you'd not responded to it yet because you seemed to be making an effort to (appreciated) but hadn't gotten around to it yet.
3. That was a misunderstanding and, again, not something I found you suspicious for.

Quin wrote:

Sloonei wrote:And I also need to address the idea that my "Who are you gonna vote for?" question was some sort of far-fetched framing scheme of mine. Here's the original post, right at the start of Day 6:

Sloonei wrote:Epi, who you gonna vote for now that Mr Mac is dead?

Quin, who's your supposed 3 person scum team?

Note the second question addressed to Quin. This is just a light conversation-starter type of post. I'm just peppering the two players I can see in the thread with standard mafia questions. These are really the same question: "Who are your suspects?" But, as I am a player who asks a ton of questions in this game, I get bored of typing the same words over and over and over and over again, so sometimes I like to spice it up! I throw whole new, colorful sets of words at people! One way that I like to do this is to ask people "Who they're voting for" instead "who they suspect". Don't believe me? Here's some more examples from this game:

Sloonei wrote:Who are you gonna vote for, Mr Quin?

link

Sloonei wrote:

motel room wrote:righty-o

who you gonna vote for, champ?

link

Sloonei wrote:Who do you want to vote for, mac?

link (admittedly the context is a little different on this one)

Sloonei wrote:Who you gonna vote for, Dom?

link

I didn't and don't find Sloonei's questioning to be suspicious. Frankly, I'd be more suspicious if we weren't being constantly spammed with the same question over and over.

That said, who you gonna vote for, Sloonei?

I am not sure right now. I'm on Wilgy right now but I'm tempted to join you on Dom or Jay on Epi. Those three have got my attention today. I still owe Scotty and LoRab a good look though.

I'm gonna go watch Westworld and then most likely fall asleep. I anticipate having lots of things to respond to in the morning.