The Syndicate

insertnamehere wrote:
A baddie Rico going after Mac seems way more likely to me. Manufacturing outrage over a previous game, while starting a bus against a civ in a way that'd be hard to backfire. Purely emotional plays are hard for civilians to dispute, even when they lynch a civ.

I didn't express any "outrage" at first. I expressed a policy lynch. Of course, I had to explain context, when inquired afterwards.
And how can this so-called "outrage" be manufactured, if it's certified to stem from a past game?

Further down your phrase:
a) how would this lynch be against a civ? Do you know Mac to be a civ? Do you think that, at any point, I said lynch Mac no matter what he is?
b) how can one "bus" a civilian?
c) how would this be "hard" to backfire? Isn't it already backfiring?

insertnamehere wrote: I guess it's easier for me to buy that Rico is cannily faking a purely emotional case against Mac as a smokescreen, than it is for me to buy that Rico is purposefully being petty and irrational.

I dunno. Maybe I'm overestimating him.

You are. I would not require any canny move to deal with my "emotions", if part of mafia.

Can someone please explain the case against BWT?

Sloonei wrote: I am sorry, I did not mean to come at you at all. I hope whatever factors have been causing you stress IRL are over and done with and that something positive can be made out of it.

I was just trying to engage you a bit here in this game. I wanted to elicit more elaborate thoughts on the things you had mentioned, but by no means do you have to anything you're in no mood for. I retract
My ping and hope you are feeling better.

No worries. Sorry for exploding a bit in my reaction.

I will try to start contributing more.

birdwithteeth has not posted in this game yet. That is the entirety of the case against him. Scotty always votes a no-show or low poster on Day 1. Elohcin voted purely out of self-preservation.

Gotcha. thanks.

I have to leave for work in a half hour or so and I'm still not comfortable voting anywhere. Elohcin is probably the closest I could come, but we're still waiting on her to get caught up. Even if she was mistaken about the day's length, she has had plenty of opportunity to move her vote or address other suspicions. She was here and made a few posts an hour and a half after the time she thought the deadline had passed but apparently failed to recognize that it was still Day 1, and has stuck with the empty preservation vote. That is the closest I can come to a confident suspicion at this point.

Epi expressed suspicion of Elo earlier, which interests me because they read each other well. Would love for him to elaborate on his thoughts.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm changing my vote to Scotty.

Scotty wrote:Epi is on my radar for stringing some names along that I think could be pushing us away from the right track. May just be Epi being curt and mildly pompous with his explanation, but I see the angle where he could be bad.

I have so far voted Elohcin and Ricochet.

Scotty wrote:As for the Rico-Mac debacle, I have to take the side of Mac here, and while I understand Rico taking a stand to policy lynch for his own personal reasons, i feel like the other woman in the relationship- like, the other other woman that wants no part in sloppy 12ths. Ya know what I'm saying? I want to say only one of them is mafia, if that. In no world are they both mafia IMO. I'm currently leaning neither are.

Scotty wrote:Elo might be bad...I don't like that apparent "preservation" vote 24 hours early, and although I've done that before by mistake for not reading the deadline thoroughly, I was bad both times I did so. Though nothing else she has said is jumping out to me right now.

To which of those votes do you object?

I'm currently voting for BWT, so I'm not sure what you're up in arms about.

I think you are proficient in steering the thread if you need to be, and even though I have my reservations about similar candidates, it still doesn't mean you aren't fishy.

Your (semi) accusation against me is that I'm pushing people away from the right track. That implies that you think RIcochet and Elohcin are civilians, and that I am trying to get either of them lynched.

However, in the same post, you imply Ricochet and Elohcin are bad. How can you accuse me of pushing people in the wrong direction when you, in some capacity, agree with both of those directions?

You're talking like I'm talking in absolutes, when I'm not. I simply think both could be bad. Leaving myself an out, I know. Still voting for a no-show day 1.

You're very hard to pin down, and I have never confessed to be any good at having a rousing or level argument with you. I thought it worth noting that there is a possibility you could be leading us down the wrong track. Whether or not that is the case I have no idea.

@ Scotty, what prompted you to read Epi as potentially misdirecting the discussion onto the wrong names opposed to say, anyone else who states a case against anyone? It looks like an arbitrary suspicion from you at this point. I recall a recent example of you doing that as a bad guy.

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm changing my vote to Scotty.

Scotty wrote:Epi is on my radar for stringing some names along that I think could be pushing us away from the right track. May just be Epi being curt and mildly pompous with his explanation, but I see the angle where he could be bad.

I have so far voted Elohcin and Ricochet.

Scotty wrote:As for the Rico-Mac debacle, I have to take the side of Mac here, and while I understand Rico taking a stand to policy lynch for his own personal reasons, i feel like the other woman in the relationship- like, the other other woman that wants no part in sloppy 12ths. Ya know what I'm saying? I want to say only one of them is mafia, if that. In no world are they both mafia IMO. I'm currently leaning neither are.

Scotty wrote:Elo might be bad...I don't like that apparent "preservation" vote 24 hours early, and although I've done that before by mistake for not reading the deadline thoroughly, I was bad both times I did so. Though nothing else she has said is jumping out to me right now.

To which of those votes do you object?

I'm currently voting for BWT, so I'm not sure what you're up in arms about.

I think you are proficient in steering the thread if you need to be, and even though I have my reservations about similar candidates, it still doesn't mean you aren't fishy.

Your (semi) accusation against me is that I'm pushing people away from the right track. That implies that you think RIcochet and Elohcin are civilians, and that I am trying to get either of them lynched.

However, in the same post, you imply Ricochet and Elohcin are bad. How can you accuse me of pushing people in the wrong direction when you, in some capacity, agree with both of those directions?

You're talking like I'm talking in absolutes, when I'm not. I simply think both could be bad. Leaving myself an out, I know. Still voting for a no-show day 1.

You're very hard to pin down, and I have never confessed to be any good at having a rousing or level argument with you. I thought it worth noting that there is a possibility you could be leading us down the wrong track. Whether or not that is the case I have no idea.

Of course there's that possibility- that possibility exists for everyone who has posted. Why is it worth highlighting me over anybody else if we're just dealing with possibilities?

Having said that, I'm moving my vote back to Elohcin for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm off to work now, so I won't be posting much at all, but i'll try to glance at my phone when I can to stay loosely caught up. Don't be surprised if I cast a sudden and silent vote near the end of the day. I do that sometimes at work and people always freak out about it.

Sloonei wrote:birdwithteeth has not posted in this game yet. That is the entirety of the case against him. Scotty always votes a no-show or low poster on Day 1. Elohcin voted purely out of self-preservation.

But MacDougall had more votes than BWT when Eloh voted, yes?

I only skimmed this AM, I will read back to when I told Rico I was going to step back when I get home in about 1.5 hours.

@ JimmyNeil~ I know you read Sloonei well. What is your opinion of him so far this game?

Sloonei wrote:@ Scotty, what prompted you to read Epi as potentially misdirecting the discussion onto the wrong names opposed to say, anyone else who states a case against anyone? It looks like an arbitrary suspicion from you at this point. I recall a recent example of you doing that as a bad guy.

Dunno, tbh. I didn't like Epi's tone out of the gate, and looked to motivations as a way of justifying my pings of him.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I'm changing my vote to Scotty.

Scotty wrote:Epi is on my radar for stringing some names along that I think could be pushing us away from the right track. May just be Epi being curt and mildly pompous with his explanation, but I see the angle where he could be bad.

I have so far voted Elohcin and Ricochet.

Scotty wrote:As for the Rico-Mac debacle, I have to take the side of Mac here, and while I understand Rico taking a stand to policy lynch for his own personal reasons, i feel like the other woman in the relationship- like, the other other woman that wants no part in sloppy 12ths. Ya know what I'm saying? I want to say only one of them is mafia, if that. In no world are they both mafia IMO. I'm currently leaning neither are.

Scotty wrote:Elo might be bad...I don't like that apparent "preservation" vote 24 hours early, and although I've done that before by mistake for not reading the deadline thoroughly, I was bad both times I did so. Though nothing else she has said is jumping out to me right now.

To which of those votes do you object?

I'm currently voting for BWT, so I'm not sure what you're up in arms about.

I think you are proficient in steering the thread if you need to be, and even though I have my reservations about similar candidates, it still doesn't mean you aren't fishy.

Your (semi) accusation against me is that I'm pushing people away from the right track. That implies that you think RIcochet and Elohcin are civilians, and that I am trying to get either of them lynched.

However, in the same post, you imply Ricochet and Elohcin are bad. How can you accuse me of pushing people in the wrong direction when you, in some capacity, agree with both of those directions?

You're talking like I'm talking in absolutes, when I'm not. I simply think both could be bad. Leaving myself an out, I know. Still voting for a no-show day 1.

You're very hard to pin down, and I have never confessed to be any good at having a rousing or level argument with you. I thought it worth noting that there is a possibility you could be leading us down the wrong track. Whether or not that is the case I have no idea.

Of course there's that possibility- that possibility exists for everyone who has posted. Why is it worth highlighting me over anybody else if we're just dealing with possibilities?

Just one of my thoughts as I was reading through is all.

I also don't want this lynch to end in a tie, so if it comes down to it, I will switch to someone I have a slight ping on.

Otherwise, I don't think BWT is a bad lynch today, bucaroos

There's a possibility Scotty is bad.

Epignosis wrote:There's a possibility Scotty is bad.

Lol

Sloonei wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I already said Sloonei was bad.

Why

He pinged me. I called him bad. He ignored it.

Would it confort you to know I have no idea what you're talking about?

Any kind of human interaction comforts me.

Insertnamehere is bad. Well played Ricochet.

Epignosis wrote:There's a possibility Scotty is bad.

There is a possibility anyone is bad.

MacDougall, based on this:

MacDougall wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I already said Sloonei was bad.

Why

He pinged me. I called him bad. He ignored it.

Would it confort you to know I have no idea what you're talking about?

Any kind of human interaction comforts me.

Insertnamehere is bad. Well played Ricochet.

I am thinking YOU think Rico is bad? Am I correct there?

S~V~S wrote:@ JimmyNeil~ I know you read Sloonei well. What is your opinion of him so far this game?

It took a little longer than usual, but now Sloonei is showing the unbridled enthusiasm for a Neil Hartley night that I've always known I can count on. He's engaged, he's having a good time, and he's keeping the other members of the audience attentive to the main event. I should hire him to my crew.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:There's a possibility Scotty is bad.

There is a possibility anyone is bad.

This is where I am in my catch up, breaking it up into a few posts. I have a lot of heebie jeebies from certain people, but nothing I can quantify, so not saying until I do have something to quantify. It's day one. Heebies to the left ofme, jeebies to the right of me.

Elohcin wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Elohcin wrote:I know nothing of this show, so JJJ is confusing me a bit. I may vote him. It seems a little 'trying too hard' to come in here role play like that right off the bat. Like he is trying to win us over. What do y'all think? And this is not WIFOM talking...whatever that is. I never understood that term completely. but you all seem to use it for when you go after someone who has gone after you? I don't know.

I'll hold off on voting for now.

The "trying too hard" argument bothers me, but I'm not sure I find you suspicious for it. I just don't agree. Also, Neil Hartley has nothing to do with Mad Max.

Then I'm even more confused. Posting on my phone and have no clue how to so multiple quotes
..so posting this now and will most likely post again.

This sounds like normal Eloh to me. Default for Eloh "normal" being civ. If you still feel otherwise Epi, I would like to know why.

Also this:

Elohcin wrote:

This doesn't fee like bad Eloh to me. BUT BUT her vote... She voted BWT to self preserve but someone else already had more votes.

Sloonei wrote:I have not seen a committed and engaged MP in a long long time, so I don't know quite how to read him at this time, but a few of his posts did have me scratching my chin a little.

This one, for instance:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Oh, and I'm tentatively feeling good about zebra as well. Her willingness to throw a vote on Scotty for a perceived moment seemed natural and not forced.

Not feeling those bad vibes from anyone just yet, but I'm sure they will come.

Polar opposite response to mine. I see no reason why zebra throwing minimal-effort poo at Scotty on Day is a town-tell.

Why is agreeing/disagreeing with you an indicator of alignment? I thought the same thing Zeebs did before I read Glorfindels post about his Mom. But if all the civvies agreed, there would be no point in playing this game. Why do you think someone is bad for not agreeing with you?

Glorfindel wrote:Thank you to everyone who wished my Mum a speedy recovery - we think she's on her way to one so for now, I'm good to go with this game. I sincerely appreciate the support you gave me

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Glorfindel, how do you feel about MacDougall now that he has provided a number of posts?

Jay, I'm looking at it this way; a random lynching of any player has (by my calculations) a 21% chance of success. It is Day 1 and we have nothing concrete so far to suggest that anyone is necessarily more suspect than anyone else (in my opinion at least) - a fact borne out by the badly fragmented voting sheet we have right now. Mac is a very good player and we witnessed the damage of which he was capable as Mafia last game. I voted for him the Day phase before he NK'd me then and I'm voting for him again now. Certainly, I'm happy to (and will certainly continue to) consider other options before the end of this Day phase but for now, I'm satisfied to leave my vote where it is.

We're all good players. Lynching someone for being a good player is fairly crappy. So far he has not pinged me whatsoever. Although I don't think he is someone I read well if at all. If someone who DOES read him well gives me reason, I will take that more seriously.

Do you know his role, Glorfindel?

Ricochet wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:Or more specifically, your willingness to acknowledge that that is indeed your fringe opinion and still act like it's in any way logical.

But it's how I feel. Paranoia isn't exactly a logical act.

@SVS: Can't say that I do atm. Who should I look into?

Not even a ping?

Linki @Neil, thank you, I will say Sloonei was one of my heebie jeebies, but so far I feel OK about you, and trust your judgment on Sloonei. But I still want to keep an eye on him.
Linki @Epi, you KNOW I hate vagueness & innuendo in Mafia. Just come out & say it if you have a reason to suspect him, or why bother? xoxoxox

Scotty's responses to this recent criticism leaves me torn. On one hand, what he actually said remains unjustified: he specifically elected to cast some amount of suspicion on Epi for his proposed Elohcin/Rico/Dom/??? baddie team. Scotty himself also viewed two of the three named players with some amount of suspicion, so it's hard to understand why he'd feel that way about Epignosis.

On the other hand, he is being rather transparent at least about how it makes no sense, and he just crammed his own make-shift logic into the thread to justify a gut read. Townies are capable of that, irrational as it is.

Actually now that I think of it, this incident is rather similar to what happened in Red vs. Blue -- Scotty made a misstep on Day 1 by providing an inconsistent read relative to Epignosis (either his own votes or someone's votes for him, I can't recall exactly), and Epignosis (his partner) helped lynch him for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bus job, but rather that there's a recent precedent for a baddie Scotty to do something like this.

I'd say he's still more suspicious than not.

S~V~S: if I recall correctly, when Elohcin placed her vote for BWT, BWT had 2 votes and Mac had 2 votes. So she essentially broke that tie which also included herself. I'm not sure I feel this is an indictment against her or a positive for her, but it's a detail that seems important to you. I don't think Mac had more votes than BWT.

If anyone remembers differently by all means speak up.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Don't get what's confusing about that, S~V~S. Self-preservation goal implies to prevent something for your own good. What better way to counter the odds of Mac being bad and getting even to Night 1 and try to make his team eliminate me, because I'm one of the players he doesn't like playing against?

And that Day Zero comment of mine was by far the jokey one, due to context of G-Man calling out to those who haven't even read their PMs. I would have started Day One the same way, regardless of any Day Zero chatter or banter.

Do you have any reason to actually think he is bad?

Both you & Mac posted after me, yet neither of you addressed the "throwing each other under a bus" aspect of my post, which tbh is the thing I most expected a reaction to. The main thing that is making me think I could be seriously wrong is that everyone else is sitting back and letting me run with this wacky theory.

What do you think of MP?

Linki, I am a very nice lady

No, I don't. That's not the point of a policy lynch. That's not the point of my policy lynch. That's not the point of self-preservation.

I don't know what to say about your bussing theory. It's certainly the third perspective that can be developed. It's the third perspective that can be developed about any hissing between players. The questions here would be: Do you think I'd do something as aggressive as this on Day One (or even Zero, if you will)? Do you think I'd gain something / expect to attain a goal by doing something as aggressive as this? Do you think I'd choose a policy lynch to craft a bus? Bussing usually require more skill, time and finesse than any of this, I'd argue.

Besides, my distress is virtually townesque. I don't know what Mac is. I don't know if he's mafia. I fear he could be. And I'd like to prevent the chance of him being mafia and getting to pull again his own declared policy of nightkilling me.

GTH reaction: What do people think of this bolded/underlined set of statements?

As someone who everyone always thinks is Mafia when I am not, I hate it. Plus "virtually" townesque? Doesn't virtually mean "almost"?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:S~V~S: if I recall correctly, when Elohcin placed her vote for BWT, BWT had 2 votes and Mac had 2 votes. So she essentially broke that tie which also included herself. I'm not sure I feel this is an indictment against her or a positive for her, but it's a detail that seems important to you. I don't think Mac had more votes than BWT.

If anyone remembers differently by all means speak up.

Thank You. The trouble with changeable votes (although I still love them for the most part). It was important to me becasue if she was voting to save herself, why not vote for the person with the most votes? But apparently at the time she did vote, she did do that. The votes in the poll did not reflect that at the time I looked at it.

And @Epi, OK, I kept reading and now see that you DID put money where mouth is.

Right now I am vacillating between Rico & Scotty. I have to reread Scotty again.

sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Actually now that I think of it, this incident is rather similar to what happened in Red vs. Blue -- Scotty made a misstep on Day 1 by providing an inconsistent read relative to Epignosis (either his own votes or someone's votes for him, I can't recall exactly), and Epignosis (his partner) helped lynch him for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bus job, but rather that there's a recent precedent for a baddie Scotty to do something like this.

Expanding on this parallel:

The following post is from Red vs. Blue, not Mad Max:
Scotty goofed in that game by putting two reads together that weren't very compatible (he liked Metalmarsh, but not the votes on Epignosis, one of which was Metalmarsh). In this game he seems to have done something similar: he doesn't like Elohcin or Rico as much, but thinks Epignosis is steering the thread the wrong direction for suspecting the same two people. Incompatible.

Ricochet wrote:sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

You know what? You sound just like bad me here. Identical. Had to look out the window to make sure I am not in Nauru.

I think lynching BWT because he has no posts is a bad move. Lynching people on Day 1 purely for not being here is already generally a bad move, but it's especially bad with BWT in particular. He isn't always the most active player, but he still usually finds a way to get involved eventually. He isn't the guy that spends the entire game at 0-4 posts. Let him figure out there's a game being played. This thread hasn't gotten that big, so catching up shouldn't be that hard.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

You know what? You sound just like bad me here. Identical. Had to look out the window to make sure I am not in Nauru.

How so and for what?

I have to go to work in a bit and I don't get off until after the day is over, so I've stopped by (I been lurking earlier) to change my vote from Ricochet back to Scotty. I suspect Rico because of WIFOM but I've been wrong about him that way before. With Scotty I struggle to see a genuine justification for his Glorfindel vote in the beginning of the game as well as his recent shenanigans with Epignosis regarding another obviously manufactured suspicion. In other words at this time I'm fairly confident that Rico is bad but very confident that Scotty is bad. So he earns my final vote.

Also I think Epignosis is civ, that's the only new read I have since catching up. I'll make a more in-depth catching up post when I get back from work.

I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

S~V~S wrote: Linki @Epi, you KNOW I hate vagueness & innuendo in Mafia. Just come out & say it if you have a reason to suspect him, or why bother? xoxoxox

The was because what you said was my entire point when I said there was a possibility Scotty is bad. Of course there's a possibility, just like there's a possibility I'm leading people astray (Scotty's charge against me).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think lynching BWT because he has no posts is a bad move. Lynching people on Day 1 purely for not being here is already generally a bad move, but it's especially bad with BWT in particular. He isn't always the most active player, but he still usually finds a way to get involved eventually. He isn't the guy that spends the entire game at 0-4 posts. Let him figure out there's a game being played. This thread hasn't gotten that big, so catching up shouldn't be that hard.

I second this.

Dear everyone, please don't lynch BWT just for being absent and don't end the day with a tie either. Ok that's all I promise, be back later.

Don't wash your hands with me, town, and don't let the mafia wash their hands via lynch instead of having to kill me. The crazy one is not always the bad one. I tried something and it burst in flames, I'll refocus tomorrow (and then probably face quick nightdeath for my "good behaviour and input", as always, and get on with it). If you don't have a clear profile on how I would possibly behave like this and also hope to gain anything as a baddie, you'll be merely willing to punch that free mislunch and clear the air a bit imo. That is all I can say anymore at 1:25am.

Ricochet wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:sup

S~V~S wrote:Not even a ping?

Dunno. From my experience, mafia can punch a free lunch ticket on cray Rico; not all of them, but some could. Of my current voters, I feel better about the logic brought by INH in his questioning than with zebra's. Of the other players I'm tied (or nearly tied) with right now, not named MacDougall, I've been swamped with classes today and another online activity to follow up properly. BWT is having half a policy lynch of his own, right? Not going to flip a coin on what the inactive might prove, tbh. What's the summary on Elohcin and Scotty?

You know what? You sound just like bad me here. Identical. Had to look out the window to make sure I am not in Nauru.

How so and for what?

Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

Linki, yeah agreed re both points, w/Mac & BWT. For me it is between Rico for being irrational (IMO, against norm) or Scotty for fancy straw grasping.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Scotty's responses to this recent criticism leaves me torn. On one hand, what he actually said remains unjustified: he specifically elected to cast some amount of suspicion on Epi for his proposed Elohcin/Rico/Dom/??? baddie team. Scotty himself also viewed two of the three named players with some amount of suspicion, so it's hard to understand why he'd feel that way about Epignosis.

On the other hand, he is being rather transparent at least about how it makes no sense, and he just crammed his own make-shift logic into the thread to justify a gut read. Townies are capable of that, irrational as it is.

Actually now that I think of it, this incident is rather similar to what happened in Red vs. Blue -- Scotty made a misstep on Day 1 by providing an inconsistent read relative to Epignosis (either his own votes or someone's votes for him, I can't recall exactly), and Epignosis (his partner) helped lynch him for it. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bus job, but rather that there's a recent precedent for a baddie Scotty to do something like this.

I'd say he's still more suspicious than not.

WIFOM ALERT

I change up my baddie games. At least enough that I wouldn't make that same mistake again in back to back appearances. I think it would be a bad idea to spar with either a) my partner baddie Epi or b) a civ Epi and I as mafia on day 1. I dunno what Epi is, but at this point I have nothing to lose in calling him out when I feel, cause I be civ this game.

I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.

He isn't getting lynched today, and I'm not currently planning to vote for him [today]

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think lynching BWT because he has no posts is a bad move. Lynching people on Day 1 purely for not being here is already generally a bad move, but it's especially bad with BWT in particular. He isn't always the most active player, but he still usually finds a way to get involved eventually. He isn't the guy that spends the entire game at 0-4 posts. Let him figure out there's a game being played. This thread hasn't gotten that big, so catching up shouldn't be that hard.

How about sanmateo then? I could go either way but there was already a vote for BWT when I voted.

Don't vote for me on d1, y'all. Don't do it.

I'm here, but I need to catch up and I need to eat dinner too, so I'll be sporadic.

As much as I don't wanna die I'd even be willing to vote myself if it at least results in a not-tie. That way maybe we can learn Something from my death

Epignosis wrote:I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

Myes, if only the implication of his actions wouldn't extend beyond one game.

S~V~S wrote:
Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

You put the blame on me for not writing something substantial in a post that started with "dunno" to your earlier inquiry on whether I have leads.

The posting has all to do with having to expand on my policy. I posted exactly as many times as said work and other online activities have permitted.

I am not voting to defend, my vote was among the first in the phase. I am perfectly fine with my vote.

Scotty wrote:I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.

These sentences confuse me. Could you restate? I'm not sure why you're even thinking about the potential for Epignosis bussing you -- that requires you to be bad to even reach the first stage of thought.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.

These sentences confuse me. Could you restate? I'm not sure why you're even thinking about the potential for Epignosis bussing you -- that requires you to be bad to even reach the first stage of thought.

I'm putting it through the magical Neil perspective.

I dunno man. I kinda just talk off the cuff and sometimes I don't really defend myself with my thoughts. I've been nothing but honest this game.

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

Myes, if only the implication of his actions wouldn't extend beyond one game.

S~V~S wrote:
Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

You put the blame on me for not writing something substantial in a post that started with "dunno" to your earlier inquiry on whether I have leads.

The posting has all to do with having to expand on my policy. I posted exactly as many times as said work and other online activities have permitted.

I am not voting to defend, my vote was among the first in the phase. I am perfectly fine with my vote.

So the only person you suspect is Mac? And you have said you don't actually suspect him, iirc.

I am going to vote for you now; a friend is coming over to watch Westworld. I will pop back before deadline to see if there were any new developments.

Voting *RICO*

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.

These sentences confuse me. Could you restate? I'm not sure why you're even thinking about the potential for Epignosis bussing you -- that requires you to be bad to even reach the first stage of thought.

I'm putting it through the magical Neil perspective.

I dunno man. I kinda just talk off the cuff and sometimes I don't really defend myself with my thoughts. I've been nothing but honest this game.

Regarding your other question -- no I'm not interested in lynching sanmateo either. It'd be ideal if he were here obviously, but I'd prefer to give him more time. He hasn't played here in a while, and nothing would encourage a person to stop coming here than to lynch them before they make a post.

In Red vs. Blue you snuggled up to me and made me look like a doofus at the end of Day 1. I am cold to your warmth! I do not feel your emotion! Neil Hartley is less easily moved than his agent!

Explain yourself in a meaningful way. Not just "I don't know what I'm talking about."

Also Scotty, that, what JimmyNeil said.

S~V~S wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I just want to say that voting for MacDougall for whatever he did in a completely different game is lousy.

Myes, if only the implication of his actions wouldn't extend beyond one game.

S~V~S wrote:
Generically. You answered and at length, but you really did not say anything. You feel better about one person who had a discussion than the other, but you are not saying you suspect her, either. You have the third most posts in the thread, but are claiming "too busy" and seem to have plenty of defense time.

If you did not have to vote to defend, who would you vote for?

You put the blame on me for not writing something substantial in a post that started with "dunno" to your earlier inquiry on whether I have leads.

The posting has all to do with having to expand on my policy. I posted exactly as many times as said work and other online activities have permitted.

I am not voting to defend, my vote was among the first in the phase. I am perfectly fine with my vote.

So the only person you suspect is Mac? And you have said you don't actually suspect him, iirc.

I am going to vote for you now; a friend is coming over to watch Westworld. I will pop back before deadline to see if there were any new developments.

Voting *RICO*

Did I say suspect? Was my vote based on suspicion?

Enjoy your evening.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Scotty wrote:I would also expect that maybe a baddie Epi would steer clear from the day 1 bussing if we were both bad. I'm still not deadest that Epi is bad either, so I'd like to move on from him for now.

These sentences confuse me. Could you restate? I'm not sure why you're even thinking about the potential for Epignosis bussing you -- that requires you to be bad to even reach the first stage of thought.

I'm putting it through the magical Neil perspective.

I dunno man. I kinda just talk off the cuff and sometimes I don't really defend myself with my thoughts. I've been nothing but honest this game.

Regarding your other question -- no I'm not interested in lynching sanmateo either. It'd be ideal if he were here obviously, but I'd prefer to give him more time. He hasn't played here in a while, and nothing would encourage a person to stop coming here than to lynch them before they make a post.

In Red vs. Blue you snuggled up to me and made me look like a doofus at the end of Day 1. I am cold to your warmth! I do not feel your emotion! Neil Hartley is less easily moved than his agent!

Explain yourself in a meaningful way. Not just "I don't know what I'm talking about."

Hah, good times those were

I see your point on sanmateo, and I would hate to give off the impression that we murder newcomers or those back from a break.

But I also don't reward those that don't show up to play. My very first game on online mafia I was killed N1, and didn't take it personally. I was pretty fine with it. I might be an outlier there though.

You might also recall I tried a different day 1 strategy last time in Red v Blue that had me voting off of tone day 1 and I was ultimately bad.

I'm fine with sticking to the script if non/low-posters even if you don't agree with it

S~V~S wrote:Also Scotty, that, what JimmyNeil said.

I know what I'm talking about.

I'm just not the best person to explain it.

My union rep is indisposed

Scotty wrote:You might also recall I tried a different day 1 strategy last time in Red v Blue that had me voting off of tone day 1 and I was ultimately bad.

I'm fine with sticking to the script if non/low-posters even if you don't agree with it

I do recall. I'm not willing to give you that meta though.

"Scotty votes for lurkers as a townie. Scotty votes for other people as a baddie."

If I grant that, then you have the easiest job as a baddie in the history of planet Earth.

It appears I have to go, and I probably won't be back before the deadline.