The Syndicate

I think Day 1 is much too early for Scotty to be dishing out scum-reads because they haven't stepped up to the plate, so that's mildly suspicious. Also interesting to note that he's straying from his typical 'voting an inactive on Day 1' strategy, which I find less so, because meta is meta and not evidence.

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote: Basically. I put those reads in as I thought of them, and after the fact realized I forgot about 4 more peeps. I can't really remember Quin's content this game, hence the scum read.

What's your beef with him?

My beef is the same as yours.

Medium rare?

Meh, ok. vote Quin

Why?

Same as you.

I mean you seemed to trust me enough there to follow along in a vote that you've got no substantial reason to believe in, despite claiming to believe in it. You've also got no substantial reason to trust me, just a minute ago you were complaining that I haven't been active enough, and now I'm here and I'm throwing this bullshit in your face, so why are you listening to me?

I happened to agree with your assessment of JJJ and Rico, doesn't mean I trust you.

Plus, I completely missed the part where you said we were baddie brothers. If I had seen that, I probably would not have even voted for Quin. As it is, I'll probably change it just because I feel like you've been trying to goad me into voting there.

I suspect him just as much as like 4 other people I could be voting for

I think this chain of events is suspicious. On almost the opposite spectrum for my reason to suspect Sloonei, Scotty here is taking back his vote for me based on Sloonei's actions. Most notably, when Scotty realised Sloonei had tried to establish us as teammates, he immediately withdrew his vote. What pings me hard here is that I would imagine this reaction coming from someone who themselves were pinged by Sloonei's actions. But there's an absence of that in his post history. He does have some inferred suspicion for Sloonei, but it's not in this specific context.

OMGUS to the max, but I could see one of Scotty or Sloonei being bad, but they're not teammates.

linki: As for this, see Scotty:

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I like Scotty's attempt to get reads, even when he is uncertain of how to go about it. He's trying to expand his Day 1 repertoire and it appears mostly genuine to me. I also don't get the wrong vibes from Sloonei's interrogation tactic. He observed a specific thing (Scotty's read of Quin) that he found interested, and then harnessed that into a an exchange that stands a chance of producing a more complete read.

Sloonei came in saying he read Quin as bad "same as me" but then quoted examples after the fact, as if he stole cookies from the cookie jar and then replaced them with some pieces of cardboard he found in the garage so no one would know he ate the cookies preemptively.

What is your opinion of Quin, JJJ?

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I like Scotty's attempt to get reads, even when he is uncertain of how to go about it. He's trying to expand his Day 1 repertoire and it appears mostly genuine to me. I also don't get the wrong vibes from Sloonei's interrogation tactic. He observed a specific thing (Scotty's read of Quin) that he found interested, and then harnessed that into a an exchange that stands a chance of producing a more complete read.

Sloonei came in saying he read Quin as bad "same as me" but then quoted examples after the fact, as if he stole cookies from the cookie jar and then replaced them with some pieces of cardboard he found in the garage so no one would know he ate the cookies preemptively.

What is your opinion of Quin, JJJ?

I do not get this analogy. Also you never said a word about why you might suspect Quin, just that you did. Why should it be a mark against me that I am able to substantiate this read we supposedly share?

By answering with "same as you" you are affirming that I am reading him bad because 'I can't remember what he said'. But then you come in backing it up after the fact, like you had a reason initially, you just lied about it.
It's Like me saying now that I'm suspicious of Quin because he killed my cat...I just chose not to mention that in my initial read.

Golden wrote:I could see either Epi or Scotty as bad, but probably not together.

I think an Epi/Rico team is still well possible.
I think a Scotty/Quin team is also well possible.

That's me for now.

I don't think you think either of the latter two at all.

Scotty wrote:
Then Rico went and started making pictograms of trumptweets and while they are innovative, I can't help but imagine Rico spending a superfluous amount of time to set up that trope. Is that alignment indicative? Maybe. Hiding behind a gimmick is something I thought I read in my catchup as something someone shouldn't be judged too harshly for. But why? It is a gimmick. It's a man in drag is what it is. I'm feeling less good about Rico, but not enough to vote him today.

Sloonei wrote:I've read things. This thread is like 75% jay and rico. And in that exchange I like Jay's wall better. Or, more accurately, Rico's wall lost me pretty early. They both did, but I had more trouble following Rico's line of thought. I do not know how much of that is roleplay and how much is him just not making sense.

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:Epi? He's Epi. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Epi. Yet. Why does he have 2 votes?

MM- wow this guy I actually read...as good this game. I don't know what it is honestly. He's not as zany, he's more direct in his accusations. It's just atypical Mm day 1 behavior, and I'm liking it I think. Not that I don't like silly Mm behavior, but that I also like this guy as well. Enough so that I'm not gonn vote him today.

You don't know why I have two votes. MM is one of those votes, and you say he was direct in his accusations. Can you explain why MM voted for me?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Scotty wrote:Inform me with his actions. I don't really know why he viewed you and Rick as bad, but he did, which i am thinking is more town-like than not.

Goldeen wrote:By the way rico, you seem to be disappointed that I'm 'ignoring meta', but I'm not really a meta fiend. I don't believe people catch me with meta (they are very good at mislynching me based on meta arguments, but I don't think I've seen anyone catch me as a baddie using meta for five years.) I don't believe people catch many people with meta. It can be used very well, but using it well is situational and relatively rare. The Mafiachamps only reinforced this for me, when I played two games where I had crystal clarity about what was going on because I lacked any meta-glasses to put me on the wrong path.

Goldeen wrote:I could see either Epi or Scotty as bad, but probably not together.

Hey Rico, what do you think of leetic?

I think I trust Scotty least in the Scotty/Quin/Sloonei triad. I'm not sure I suspect any of them strongly though.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Rico, what do you think of leetic?

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Hey Rico, what do you think of leetic?

My initial take on INH has been town, but I grant it's weak meta crap. "Criticize everything JJJ does while contributing nothing else" sounds like an easy meta to maintain either way.

Ricochet wrote:

I'd lean against that team mate dynamic. INH's defense of leetic struck me as being uncaring of the connective consequences.

I'll throw together a quick reads list. I haven't done it this style in a while, it'll be nostalgic.

T^M = town side of the mean
S^M = scum side of the mean

Beck -- T^M -- I appreciate his quick-fire posting style, and he seemed to be playing loosely. I haven't taken issue with what he's put in the thread yet. If there's any problem, it's that the combination of his newness and his energy can be disarming. That's rather tinfoil though.

Boomslang -- T^M -- For the moment, I think he has mindmelded with me on the matter of leetic. I am a bit wary that he might be the real opportunist in this scenario (capitalizing against leetic instead of leetic capitalizing against me), but I do get the impression he arrived at some of his perspective independent of my commentary.

DrWilgy -- S^M -- I'm not inclined to reward total non-involvement with a positive read. I have no inspiring basis for a scum read either though.

Epignosis -- S^M -- I am not alarmed by his more docile approach so far, given what happened in Triskaidekaphobia (he and I devoured an entire day phase in a futile town/town death match). I'd still like to know what I have posted that he feels lacks a genuine eagerness or otherwise presents a false eagerness. Without an answer to that query I am still unable to feel better about his early move against me.

Golden -- T^M -- There's a slight twitch in the back of my mind about him, I think perhaps given the degree to which we've been on the same page regarding Ricochet and Epignosis. However, on the latter player his voice was first not mine. I won't succumb to tinfoil on this read right now.

insertnamehere -- T^M -- While his approach to this game so far has frustrated me, it has largely mirrored what was seen in Battlestar Galactica and Triskaidekaphobia when he was town. Reminder to self: look into his play in The Office when he was bad for potential differences.

leetic -- S^M -- I've covered it already. Opportunism in the form of a bizarre accusation against me that didn't seem applicable to the post he attached it to.

Metalmarsh89 -- T^M -- He said earlier that he wants to perform better in this game after laying an egg in his previous game. I find that believable and I think his play so far is indicative of that. I appreciate the looseness with which he has played.

MovingPictures07 -- T^M -- This is probably my most tentative town read. I won't give him brownie points for being unavailable; however, I do think he'd probably be making a bit more of an effort to look the part here if he was bad. He'd be forcing reads into the thread or pretending to generate discussion or something.

Quin -- T^M -- I think his handling of the Sloonei/Scotty dialogue looked good, and I liked his explanation of the one question I had for him earlier.

Ricochet -- S^M -- The thing most giving me pause about Ricochet as a baddie read is the level of effort he is playing with, but I have to remind myself that there's very little likelihood that a baddie Ricochet would play any other way. I have already voiced my concerns.

S~V~S -- T^M -- Unlike DrWilgy, we have a valid excuse for her lack of involvement so far. I'll play the odds.

Scotty -- T^M -- I want to believe him when he says he is trying something new this Day 1. I'd be disappointed if that turned out to be smoke and mirrors. I haven't found his content suspicious at face value. I do think Sloonei put him in a position of pressure and I'll continue to follow that dialogue, but for the moment I am not inclined to vote there.

Sloonei -- T^M -- I like his tactic for interrogating Scotty, it strikes me as an organic and spontaneously generated method that can yield productive conversation. He's been a bit restrictive in his dealings with Quin, but I am inclined to attribute that to his desire to be thorough and not let up as opposed to any nefarious tunneling.

Rico, you are taking semantics to a whole new level this game.

I don't 'think' you are pulling something gimmicky. You ARE pulling something gimmicky. The questions are a) are you doing it by choice and b) if so, would it be alignment indicative.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Golden -- T^M -- There's a slight twitch in the back of my mind about him, I think perhaps given the degree to which we've been on the same page regarding Ricochet and Epignosis. However, on the latter player his voice was first not mine. I won't succumb to tinfoil on this read right now.

It appears MM was first, in fact, although I didn't realise it at the time.

The question for me is more whether or not they would have played their mafia partnership badly enough that so many people would agree about it.

Golden wrote:Rico, you are taking semantics to a whole new level this game.

I don't 'think' you are pulling something gimmicky. You ARE pulling something gimmicky. The questions are a) are you doing it by choice and b) if so, would it be alignment indicative.

If Rico's gimmick isn't dictated by his role (I doubt it is), I'll say that it isn't alignment-indicative. I think this sort of thing is within the parameters to be expected of a Ricochet (I am kind of reminded of his Undertale stuff from Talking Heads). My suspicion of him is limited solely to the textual content of his posts and not the personality being conveyed or the gimmick being employed.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:insertnamehere -- T^M -- While his approach to this game so far has frustrated me, it has largely mirrored what was seen in Battlestar Galactica and Triskaidekaphobia when he was town. Reminder to self: look into his play in The Office when he was bad for potential differences.

Disregard, this was Psych and not The Office.

It appears INH's shtick functions cross-alignment.

The following quote is from Psych Mafia, in which INH was bad, not this game:
So his refusal to take Day 1 accusations seriously (from me or from anyone else) is not a reason to read him as town. Good then, I won't.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis -- S^M -- I am not alarmed by his more docile approach so far, given what happened in Triskaidekaphobia (he and I devoured an entire day phase in a futile town/town death match). I'd still like to know what I have posted that he feels lacks a genuine eagerness or otherwise presents a false eagerness. Without an answer to that query I am still unable to feel better about his early move against me.

In what context would you ever feel good about any move against you?

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:You're leaving out what else I said about you.

I don't see the relevance of the other post you've restated here.

It's relevant because I'm trying not to do what I did the last time.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Can you name which games?

Off-hand I can name five: Trees (both town), Battlestar Galactica (both town), Triskaidekaphobia (both town), and The Office (you bad, me independent), Economics (both town). Whether you suspected me in Bullets Over Broadway (you independent, me town) is debatable.

You didn't suspect me to my memory in Talking Heads or the 2015 GOC. I think that's all the games we've played in together.

If I've suspected you every game, good or bad, why did you suggest I'm forcing myself to suspect you?

The law of averages tells me that you're bad this time and I'm right.

What did you do last time?

Will you vote anyone to save yourself today?

Is that your way of answering my question?

Lol I guess you're not gonna save yourself then?

Interesting move, Cotton. Let's see how that works out for you.

3J said what I did last time.

Scotty wrote:OH! I thought the day was over. Silly Scotty.

Since the Day isn't over, you should have time to answer my question about MM voting me.

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis -- S^M -- I am not alarmed by his more docile approach so far, given what happened in Triskaidekaphobia (he and I devoured an entire day phase in a futile town/town death match). I'd still like to know what I have posted that he feels lacks a genuine eagerness or otherwise presents a false eagerness. Without an answer to that query I am still unable to feel better about his early move against me.

In what context would you ever feel good about any move against you?

It would never "please" me, but it might make me think my accuser is town depending upon the delivery of the accusation and the circumstances.

Why aren't you just pointing to some posts? How many times do I have to ask?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis -- S^M -- I am not alarmed by his more docile approach so far, given what happened in Triskaidekaphobia (he and I devoured an entire day phase in a futile town/town death match). I'd still like to know what I have posted that he feels lacks a genuine eagerness or otherwise presents a false eagerness. Without an answer to that query I am still unable to feel better about his early move against me.

In what context would you ever feel good about any move against you?

It would never "please" me, but it might make me think my accuser is town depending upon the delivery of the accusation and the circumstances.

Why aren't you just pointing to some posts? How many times do I have to ask?

I said I wasn't going to bother with it this early. Stop pestering me. If my mind doesn't change, I'll let you know when I lead the masses against you. In the meantime, you just keep doing what you're doing.

I might lynch you first.

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:Epi? He's Epi. I don't see anything out of the ordinary with Epi. Yet. Why does he have 2 votes?

MM- wow this guy I actually read...as good this game. I don't know what it is honestly. He's not as zany, he's more direct in his accusations. It's just atypical Mm day 1 behavior, and I'm liking it I think. Not that I don't like silly Mm behavior, but that I also like this guy as well. Enough so that I'm not gonn vote him today.

You don't know why I have two votes. MM is one of those votes, and you say he was direct in his accusations. Can you explain why MM voted for me?

Well, not with reasons, no. But one of his first posts in the game:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:My first impressions.

Jay, Beck, MP are civilians.

Epignosis and Ricochet are mafia.

Inform me with his actions. I don't really know why he viewed you and Rick as bad, but he did, which i am thinking is more town-like than not.

Could you describe why you feel MM's accusatory behavior is more town-like than not?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I might lynch you first.

Knock yourself out. I'm back to work this week.

Changed my vote to Scotty. I find myself agreeing with Sloonei's take on him.

Just wanted to add that I think the discussion about Rico's gimmick is a waste of time. We have no way of knowing for sure if it's mandated or not, but we do know it's good fun and RP appropriate to the theme. He seems to have gotten his points across fine thus far, so I think it should be tolerated.

Boomslang wrote:Just wanted to add that I think the discussion about Rico's gimmick is a waste of time. We have no way of knowing for sure if it's mandated or not, but we do know it's good fun and RP appropriate to the theme. He seems to have gotten his points across fine thus far, so I think it should be tolerated.

Is that not essentially what all of the discussion about his gimmick has been saying?

Golden wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Just wanted to add that I think the discussion about Rico's gimmick is a waste of time. We have no way of knowing for sure if it's mandated or not, but we do know it's good fun and RP appropriate to the theme. He seems to have gotten his points across fine thus far, so I think it should be tolerated.

Is that not essentially what all of the discussion about his gimmick has been saying?

I felt like you were trying to make a case out of it with this post:

Golden wrote: Rico, you are taking semantics to a whole new level this game.

I don't 'think' you are pulling something gimmicky. You ARE pulling something gimmicky. The questions are a) are you doing it by choice and b) if so, would it be alignment indicative.

To me, that seemed like you were calling his gimmick suspicious. I may be incorrect in that read.

I moved my vote to Scotty. I want to know why you thought MM's vote for me made sense, but you couldn't work out why I had two votes.

Speak.

Boomslang wrote:

Golden wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Just wanted to add that I think the discussion about Rico's gimmick is a waste of time. We have no way of knowing for sure if it's mandated or not, but we do know it's good fun and RP appropriate to the theme. He seems to have gotten his points across fine thus far, so I think it should be tolerated.

Is that not essentially what all of the discussion about his gimmick has been saying?

I felt like you were trying to make a case out of it with this post:

Golden wrote: Rico, you are taking semantics to a whole new level this game.

I don't 'think' you are pulling something gimmicky. You ARE pulling something gimmicky. The questions are a) are you doing it by choice and b) if so, would it be alignment indicative.

To me, that seemed like you were calling his gimmick suspicious. I may be incorrect in that read.

Not inherently suspicious just, something to be thought through to figure out if it could hold any meaning. I came to the conclusion that we can't get any possible meaning until we know more about it.

I think where we differ is I don't think it is a waste of time having the discussion.

I'm moving my vote to Scotty as well. A few of his posts from earlier in the day have not sat well with me. I was mapping out a case to post, but then I came home to see he's already collected a couple of votes. But it's always best to share thinks with everyone, so here it goes:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote: I agree with this assessment. Though I'm not sure I "like" any particular wall better than the other. I do think Rico could be building a wall of his own though... (thanks, be here all night. Remember to tip your waitress)

Why did you put a gun to your own head and scum read Quin?

Cuz I had no read of him, and figured I should.

This was the first of the responses I felt ungood about. My original accusation was that Scotty just arbitrarily through a scum read on Quin for the sake of it. This post confirms that.
Then he agrees to vote for Quin with me here. As I said earlier, he's got no reason to distrust Quin or trust me. It was odd to be met with no resistance whatsoever on this. I was fully expecting some sort of a scuffle here.

And then these two posts came:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Scotty and Quin are scum partners.

Woah, I TOTALLY missed this.

Wtf?

Scotty wrote:Can someone else comment on my interaction with Sloonei? Am I missing something here? I'm getting the heebeejeebies right now

I believe the first post is genuine; he really had not seen my post until that moment. But I also sense a moment of panic here. I am not sure what a townie response to this would be, but Scotty admits to being a little flustered, going so far as to claim heebeejeebies. I feel like that level of shock at something like this betrays a hint of honesty in there. He felt like he'd been caught, and didn't even realize it right away. He calls to people on the outside to help pull him out of the situation.

This post is also not helping:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Scotty wrote: Basically. I put those reads in as I thought of them, and after the fact realized I forgot about 4 more peeps. I can't really remember Quin's content this game, hence the scum read.

What's your beef with him?

My beef is the same as yours.

Medium rare?

Meh, ok. vote Quin

Why?

Same as you.

I mean you seemed to trust me enough there to follow along in a vote that you've got no substantial reason to believe in, despite claiming to believe in it. You've also got no substantial reason to trust me, just a minute ago you were complaining that I haven't been active enough, and now I'm here and I'm throwing this bullshit in your face, so why are you listening to me?

I happened to agree with your assessment of JJJ and Rico, doesn't mean I trust you.

Plus, I completely missed the part where you said we were baddie brothers. If I had seen that, I probably would not have even voted for Quin. As it is, I'll probably change it just because I feel like you've been trying to goad me into voting there.

I suspect him just as much as like 4 other people I could be voting for

My assertion that Scotty " trusted me" was in response to his willingness to vote for Quin with me, not what he suggests here.

But the middle section is what's most baffling to me. His stance on Quin seems to change because my stance on him has changed, at least in his eyes. Or something. I can't know what his mindset would have been had he known from the beginning, but something in the wording of this statement suggests unpreparedness and confusion from Scotty, when a townie could have just shrugged and told me I'm wrong.

leetic has placed the self-preservation vote without a word.

Hmm... leetic, why so quiet?

I just realised I need to final vote now, because I won't wake up before the lynch.

That made me briefly consider moving to leetic, but I think back to many day ones recently where I've voted for someone who ends up getting lynched for, essentially, phoning it in a little in a way that makes them look bad, and they keep being town. It makes me hesitate from doing a reactive vote on to someone I don't have a genuine read on.

Scotty isn't phoning it in... it felt like sloonei genuinely caught him in something.

So, I'll keep my vote on scotty and revisit leetic tomorrow.

Also I think this is the first time I've ever had a scum read on scotty!

I kind of get the feeling that Scotty was caught in a kerfuffle, but not necessarily as a baddie. The down side of laying snares like Sloonei did is that townies often don't know what to do with them either.

It's not a lynch I'll staunchly oppose. I think we could do worse.

I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.

Gorillas are brown.

No, they are grey.

A kid fell down,

Now I'll not see another day.

Harambe 2016.

DrWilgy wrote:Gorillas are brown.

No, they are grey.

A kid fell down,

Now I'll not see another day.

Harambe 2016.

...are you Jill Stein? More importantly, why is your vote still on Rico?

I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.

Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.

Your vote has no utility where it is. Are you content with that?

I also note that after a long day phase of thick conversation, Ricochet still hasn't moved his vote from his joke S~V~S/Hillary thing.

Golden wrote:I just realised I need to final vote now, because I won't wake up before the lynch.

That made me briefly consider moving to leetic, but I think back to many day ones recently where I've voted for someone who ends up getting lynched for, essentially, phoning it in a little in a way that makes them look bad, and they keep being town. It makes me hesitate from doing a reactive vote on to someone I don't have a genuine read on.

Scotty isn't phoning it in... it felt like sloonei genuinely caught him in something.

So, I'll keep my vote on scotty and revisit leetic tomorrow.

Part of me agrees with this regarding leetic. The necessary apathy to vote for self-preservation without even making a post smells rather town. It's quite frustrating really, because when we get to a place where that is a town indicator, then being scum is easier than ever. We need to sit down as a group and discuss these trends.

In any event, I'm content with the two major wagons as they are. I can see a reasonable chance of a baddie flip either way and I'm always down for a close Day 1 finish.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I kind of get the feeling that Scotty was caught in a kerfuffle, but not necessarily as a baddie. The down side of laying snares like Sloonei did is that townies often don't know what to do with them either.

It's not a lynch I'll staunchly oppose. I think we could do worse.

Do you normally offer soft defenses of any player that looks lynchable on Day 1?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I kind of get the feeling that Scotty was caught in a kerfuffle, but not necessarily as a baddie. The down side of laying snares like Sloonei did is that townies often don't know what to do with them either.

It's not a lynch I'll staunchly oppose. I think we could do worse.

Do you normally offer soft defenses of any player that looks lynchable on Day 1?

I normally do everything.

I speak what's on my mind regardless of what it is.

Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.

What would be scum sloonei's motivation to do something like this?

insertnamehere wrote:I'm going to throw my vote onto the Scotty bonfire. Him and Sloonei are probably my two most suspicious people at this point, and I'm willing to give Sloonei a chance to earn my trust here. Plus I really don't like the Leetic bandwagon, so helping to derail that is a nice bonus.

So you are setting me up to be your top suspect in the event that Scotty flips town? Noted, thanks.

I am not feeling great about either of those last two votes on Scotty.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I also note that after a long day phase of thick conversation, Ricochet still hasn't moved his vote from his joke S~V~S/Hillary thing.

Ricochet wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I also note that after a long day phase of thick conversation, Ricochet still hasn't moved his vote from his joke S~V~S/Hillary thing.

It's worthless there unless the tide turns severely in the next hour and a half. What do you think of leetic and Scotty?

insertnamehere wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:"The law of averages" suggests that you're "due" to roll baddie finally. It doesn't matter, because either way the assertion is literally the gambler's fallacy. It doesn't matter, you have the same chance of being anything in this game as anyone else.

So you admit that the suspicion against Rico is built on literally nothing, but you're so far down the reaction based gameplay rabbit hole that you suspect him for it?

"The suspicion against Rico" barely even exists, which is the point. MM's accusation was not to be taken seriously, and to suggest otherwise is to imply that MM has no basic understanding of logic. If you don't think reading people based on their reactions to content is a viable method, then you need to show me what you believe is a better way to play Mafia. You make a habit of questioning my methods, but I haven't seen your superior alternative yet. Give me the goods, INH.

Looking at reactions isn't a thing I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is everyone baitin' like there's no tomorrow, and throwing intentionally false reads around in order to justify any possible case against anyone with a cheap and easy "he reacted weirdly to me acting weirdly; let's lynch 'em"

My radical style of gameplay is to always doubt myself. Yup, this is pretty much the antithesis to you, but I like to hold back and observe people's reactions and gameplay without contaminating the results by inserting myself in the process. And I'm very rarely 100% sure of anyone's alignment. Although, if I am, it's probably Epignosis. And I've been right about him for the last two games.

And then he votes for Scotty because of my antics anyway. Hm.

Sloonei wrote:And then he votes for Scotty because of my antics anyway. Hm.

Hah, good catch. The guy spends half his posts complaining about how I play, and then he places his trust in a different guy who plays a lot like me.

This should prove a revealing lynch.