The Syndicate

Bye MP, sorry to see you go, but I hope you find some peace.

I am not really getting the case on Bubbles, so i am going to reread her today. I have a few people I have been keeping an eye on since Day One. I am still not feeling that Sorshas posts regarding the Golden/framing situation were sincere. They still feel leading to me having reread her yesterday; it fely like she was trying to push people in the direction of *me* without coming out and saying so, which feels like trying to avoid responsibility, plus has the assed bonus on being somewhat un Sorsha like, imo, and she agreed with me:

Sorsha wrote:SVS- if I suspected you I wouldn't dance around naming you. You used to be really good at reading me but your not here....

Right. If she was a civ. This is part of the reason I think she might not be civ/neutral. I mean that one post, "Who do you think might have framed Golden? Scotty made a really good post about it" At this point I visualize some wide eyed eyelash batting ha ha.

It is rather a hard thread to follow after having been afk for a while.

But I could be overreading, God knows that is just what i did with Golden.

*added* bonus

Dom wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:I think spacedaisy has played with MP more than anyone. Congrats on the wedding again, by the way.

Also, thanks guys.

My overall life satisfaction is not reflected by the rough times I've been having in mafia; that's 100% PhD stresses seeping in. Married life with Daisy is truly great. The wedding and honeymoon were absolutely amazing. I realize somehow we still haven't posted a ton of pictures here (though they are on Facebook), so that will happen -- for anyone who's interested.

Catching up some stuff that caught my attention:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:One point that I'd expand on is this: I think baddie players are more likely to post B/S in this thread than non-baddies even with two baddie teams present. They can merely baddie-hunt like the civilians/neutrals, but there's more to their situation than that. What do I mean?

They are a team. Their priorities are different.

Here are the priorities for civilians and pro-civ neutrals:

1. Lynch baddies

/end

Here are the priorities for baddies of either team:

1. Lynch players that aren't members of their team, regardless of alignment

2. Lynch baddies of the other team

~~~

Because of that top priority for baddies, they'll be more likely to gleefully join errant bandwagons (any bandwagon for a player not on their team) even if it means they have to manufacture a fake reason for doing so.

I'm not sure I would agree based on the win conditions:

Civvie group 1 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Civvie group 2 needs to defeat baddie group 1 and 2
Baddie group 1 needs to defeat civvie group 1 and baddie group 2
Baddie group 2 needs to defeat civvie group 2 and baddie group 1

Each baddie group only needs to eliminate half of the civvies and none of the neutrals, while having to eliminate all of the other baddies. Then take in account they will take over the other team's kill if they are all eliminated and it would make the most sense for them to actively go after the other baddies.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let's talk about some other players, shall we?

How about Devin, Tranq, aapje, and unfurl?

Devin, Tranq, unfurl, and BWT just jumped onto Sorsha. What do players think of their vote explanations? I'll take a look at them myself and let you all know.

aapje seems content to continue waiting on his baddie hunt, even though it's Day 4 and each team is clearly cemented now, and focus entirely on low posters. I can entirely relate with why he's fixating on them, but does anyone else find this disconcerting?

If you'd read my previous post you would know that I've simply not have had the time to do so yet.

Bullzeye wrote:Aapje's single-mindedness in his pursuit of the lowest posters is concerning to me. I'll happily lynch a low poster on day one to let active people stay on, and will even extend that willingness through to day two in a really quiet game. But on day 4 of a ridiculously talkative game? Like a third of the players have had their names thrown out at some point already. Focusing on low posters purely because they're low posters seems off to me. Is aapje usually like that? I don't think I've played with him since some of my very first games.

It would be unwise to ever underestimate how much I dislike how DP is playing this game.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Alright, I'm here. I have more to accomplish, but... I really want to be a part of this EoD.

EoD? Is there a glossary of terms used on this site since it seems there are a lot of terms that were never used on the other sites.

Less than 10 pages to go now, will probably post more along the way

*shakes fist at brutal exwcutioner*

@rico:

I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.

And it is clear that you don't understand because I've responded and explained to everything but you don't understand my responses. Not sure how to reword them differently.

And I can handle sarcasm just fine.

And yeah. That's not what a no-u means in any mafia game I've played. The definition is when someone accuses another player of being bad and they then come back and say no you're bad. Which is not what I did. What you describe as mimicking your style, yes, that's exactly what I did. And gave about as much commentary/response as you had given.

I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything about. I've tried to explain them and clarify. But you haven't understood my responses either.

As for not liking how I play, well, I can't really do anything about that. I've developed a way to play over the past 8 years and I'm not about to change it because you don't like it.

LoRab wrote:
I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.

"I don't understand or like the way I play."

You say I said that.

You think I said that.

Congratulations, you've earned 200 eye rolls. I counted these ones properly, fear not.












Your error invalidates mostly everything else you said, so I have nothing to reply to that. Except maybe to the following, equally contrived logic.

LoRab wrote:I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything to do about it."

I understood your suspicions, except when I didn't and promptly asked you to clarify them. That it has proven so hard to get clarifications out of you, and instead being called dismissive and insulting, is all on the way you chose to handle this.

You have not one, but two previous replies from me already in which I offer factual rebuttal to all your suspicions. Based on my standards, the rebuttal points that your suspicions are either erroneous (because of they're based on stuff I did not actually say or stuff I was not innacurate) or subjective (because they're based on your style of interpreting and seeing things for more that they are).

You keep evading such argumentation altogether. You were saying something about dismissiveness and insult?

aapje wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Aapje's single-mindedness in his pursuit of the lowest posters is concerning to me. I'll happily lynch a low poster on day one to let active people stay on, and will even extend that willingness through to day two in a really quiet game. But on day 4 of a ridiculously talkative game? Like a third of the players have had their names thrown out at some point already. Focusing on low posters purely because they're low posters seems off to me. Is aapje usually like that? I don't think I've played with him since some of my very first games.

It would be unwise to ever underestimate how much I dislike how DP is playing this game.

I'll move my vote to DP for you then.

Vote registered for DisgruntledPorcuface

Ricochet wrote:What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It's kinda ironic that you say here that you can't count since by my count the votes weren't tied that day (Golden 7, Boomslang 6).

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Why? And what the fuck does your list even say about this?

Overreaction?

I don't have any reason to suspect you heavily at this time; you are in the light orange section of my rainbow list, but you're the lowest of the top 5 posters. Rox asked me about high posters so that's what I told her. I can't make heads or tails of your gameplay, but I do think you're more apt to be recruited/recruiter at this time than me (duh), Jay, Rico, and DH. I don't have a strong assertion of suspicion of you by which to back that up; in fact, it's the weakest possible, but I was asked, so.

Do you have any suspicions?

Wow, I never realised MM has that many posts. None of his posts have really registered with me so far.

Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.

Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Gonna go with TinyBubbles.

Thanks for your great contribution to the game yet again

Re: the whole MP frustration extravaganza: I can see where he is coming from since I've often felt many of the same frustrations. That said, I think he took it a bit too far. On the upside, some of MM's posts have now registered with me :P

Long Con wrote:unfurl has been lynched. She was the Technohacker, and unrecruited.

Can't say I am surprised the lynch was switched but I am a bit surprised at who it was switched to. Unfurl was getting her fair bit of suspicion.

Having seen more context for EoD I feel like can safely conclude it means end of day.

Linki:

aapje wrote:

Ricochet wrote:What am I misdirecting towards? How or where did I imply that "the prior lockdown was also connected to his [err The Judge?] role"? The prior lockdown was Ubzargan's. What I implied is that, compared to Ubzargan who most likely reveled in locking the thread at a point of a two-way tie, Judge seems much more cautious. I also implied by his vigilence that he's clearly been active and responsive with his past actions, so I do not doubt he'd be ready to lockdown this Day, if he sees fit, but the fact that he hasn't yet is further implication of his cautious view on the current development.

Also, yeah, I can't count properly. Oooo, evil.

It's kinda ironic that you say here that you can't count since by my count the votes weren't tied that day (Golden 7, Boomslang 6).

The Hosts published a screenshot of the results, it was 6-6.

[img]http://s247.photobucket.com/user/jdeale ... 1.jpg.html[/quote]

Which one is your 7th Golden voter?

derp

ok what the hell



sorry for the mess

I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

Bullzeye wrote:I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

That's confusing, I didn't catch that. I treated the redo poll as an actual redo, both in my stats keeping and the results.

From what I have DH voted Golden the first day and didn't revote the second day. Is that it?

Ricochet wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

That's confusing, I didn't catch that. I treated the redo poll as an actual redo, both in my stats keeping and the results.

From what I have DH voted Golden the first day and didn't revote the second day. Is that it?

Yeah I think so.

aapje wrote:Re: the whole MP frustration extravaganza: I can see where he is coming from since I've often felt many of the same frustrations. That said, I think he took it a bit too far. On the upside, some of MM's posts have now registered with me :P

Time to slink back into the shadows.

aapje wrote:Having seen more context for EoD I feel like can safely conclude it means end of day.

Correct.

Ricochet wrote:Also, yes, that is the classic definition of a NO U that I am neither accustomed, nor comfortable with. It is a good weapon when your opponent just throws suspicions or baddie calling back at you, with no reasoning or as an emotional fit, but it turns into an, imho, appalling weapon when the opponent comes with argumented, justified redirected suspicions or baddie calling and the first player just writes it off as a NO U, simply because it technically is a NO U. That's just yuck, for a person like me who endorses debating.

I have always heard/used the term, or switcheroo (the term I actually prefer), not as a write off, but as an accusation (because it can be such a weapon). Whether it is accurate assessment of baddie behavior or not is another question.

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote:
I was going to do a point by point response but I really think there is only one relevant thing you said. That you don't understand or like the way I play.

"I don't understand or like the way I play."

You say I said that.

You think I said that.

Congratulations, you've earned 200 eye rolls. I counted these ones properly, fear not.












Your error invalidates mostly everything else you said, so I have nothing to reply to that. Except maybe to the following, equally contrived logic.

LoRab wrote:I find you suspicious. That you don't understand my suspicions, I can't do anything to do about it."

I understood your suspicions, except when I didn't and promptly asked you to clarify them. That it has proven so hard to get clarifications out of you, and instead being called dismissive and insulting, is all on the way you chose to handle this.

You have not one, but two previous replies from me already in which I offer factual rebuttal to all your suspicions. Based on my standards, the rebuttal points that your suspicions are either erroneous (because of they're based on stuff I did not actually say or stuff I was not innacurate) or subjective (because they're based on your style of interpreting and seeing things for more that they are).

You keep evading such argumentation altogether. You were saying something about dismissiveness and insult?

I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.

And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.

And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*

Bullzeye wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I think it was established that somebody voted during the first 24 hours of the poll for Golden but didn't revote when the new poll was placed. That vote still counted.

That's confusing, I didn't catch that. I treated the redo poll as an actual redo, both in my stats keeping and the results.

From what I have DH voted Golden the first day and didn't revote the second day. Is that it?

Yeah I think so.

I see it now, BR offered to redo the poll, Golden and JJJ suggested we carry on from there or count the old ones by the end of it. I still treated it as a redo mostly, on the second day, because of the voters didn't return their votes before proceeding further. A few did, but it wasn't a general trend at all.

My mistake, then.

I just reread DisgruntledPorcupine's posts and they are extremely apathetic even for him. I'm also going to put a placeholder vote on him to see if I can get him to come out an dplay.

LoRab wrote: I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.

Fine.

LoRab wrote:And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.

No you didn't answer all of my question. You did not answer my point-by-point rebuttal on your initial suspicions, you skipped them twice in fact. You did answer now for the first time, but you didn't before. It's all on record.

Can you explain how my rebuttals don't explain away the suspicions? I'm especially curious how me proving I did not offer inaccurate info about something doesn't explain away the suspicion that I have offered inaccurate info.

Lying is a convenient new suspicion to throw at me, it has nothing to do with any suspicions you've had before. You sound desperate.

LoRab wrote:And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*

Nope.

Can you explain these claims in any logical way?

But don't worry, I was 100% you'll park your vote on me instead of attempting to do anything more serious than that in this game, on this Day. It's so convenient, after all.

aapje wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:I switched my vote.

Weird post by TH, not even specifying to whom or why he switched his vote.

I voted for Jay, and I did it for science. I'll vote for him again though, I think he's been recruited.

Updated my vote graphs:
Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4

Doing my best to catch up after being out of town for a bit. This game is very difficult to keep track of. I'm midway through yesterday in my read back, and at the moment, I can say that I won't be voting for SVS, Roxy, Canuckle, or DH. All of them are either posting in ways I appreciate, or are humouring me, or both.

As to the current cases, I'm not there yet, but patience.

aapje wrote:Updated my vote graphs:
Day 1 short
Day 1 full
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4

LA = nutella, right?

Your vote graphs are beautiful aapje, thank you for posting them.

TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

This read really insincere to me. Especially when a quick glance at the role would give you the most obvious scenario almost right at the top.

TinyBubbles wrote:Im sorry, i was working overtime had no computer access! i wanted to come back before poll closed ,but didnt get time ><

and whoever saved me, you have my thanks, nutella was right the mods didnt make a mistake. i kind of dont expect to live another night though, 10 votes man... sheeeesh. and RIP unfurl, you didn't deserve to die

my biggest suspect right now is Devin,based on his voting patterns and also the vagueness of his posts, which MP made a good case on. good vibes on MP btw, nothing out of the ordinary in his posts, sounds like he's normal MP baddie hunting. feeling good about JJJ, Ricochet, Roxy, timmer, neutral about metalmarsh,. metalmarsh is hard to read though, i dont think i recall him being bad in a previous game, so cant compare. somewhat annoyed/suspicious about disgruntledporcupine, feel like his vote on me was bandwagony, his lack of posts/explanations isnt very encouraging either (i know, im one to talk). golden suspected rey was bad and for that reason, i also think so since i believe golden's usually right about his reads. as for boom, i was bandwagoning on him with the first vote , second vote was based on some points made by JJJ, his arguments against golden sounded weak and disingenuous. i havent played with him before though so its hard to tell

Something that stood out to me.

aapje wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Let's talk about some other players, shall we?

How about Devin, Tranq, aapje, and unfurl?

Devin, Tranq, unfurl, and BWT just jumped onto Sorsha. What do players think of their vote explanations? I'll take a look at them myself and let you all know.

aapje seems content to continue waiting on his baddie hunt, even though it's Day 4 and each team is clearly cemented now, and focus entirely on low posters. I can entirely relate with why he's fixating on them, but does anyone else find this disconcerting?

If you'd read my previous post you would know that I've simply not have had the time to do so yet.

Turns out this post predates my posting about not having enough time. Colour me ashamed

Still on page 93, that's all the time I have for now. I hope I will have more time later tonight.

Linki: Yes LA = Nutella. I probably should be a bit more consistent in my spreadsheet with names :P

Ricochet wrote:

LoRab wrote: I actually misread your earlier post. this is what happens when I mafia before coffee. I apologize.

However, my suspicion stands. And yes, my reasons for suspecting you have evolved. I often find people more or less suspicious based on their response to being called suspish.

Fine.

LoRab wrote:And I have answered all of your questions. Your factual rebuttals either don't explain away your suspicion and/or I think you're lying, especially about your intentions.

No you didn't answer all of my question. You did not answer my point-by-point rebuttal on your initial suspicions, you skipped them twice in fact. You did answer now for the first time, but you didn't before. It's all on record.

Can you explain how my rebuttals don't explain away the suspicions? I'm especially curious how me proving I did not offer inaccurate info about something doesn't explain away the suspicion that I have offered inaccurate info.

Lying is a convenient new suspicion to throw at me, it has nothing to do with any suspicions you've had before. You sound desperate.

LoRab wrote:And I'll be blunt. I think you tried to kill me last night, I think you tried to kill MP, I think you killed Typh night 1, and I think your role is dangerous to everyone, and I don't think that you're playing on behalf of the civ cause.

*votes rico*

Nope.

Can you explain these claims in any logical way?

But don't worry, I was 100% you'll park your vote on me instead of attempting to do anything more serious than that in this game, on this Day. It's so convenient, after all.

The idea that you were lying was kind of implied throughout. I don't think your rebuttals were honest. When I said you were intentionally misleading, that is a synonym of lying. Not sure how that is a new aspect of my suspicion at all. I'll attempt to be clear--you posted mistaken/misleading information. I think you did it intentionally. You said you did not, and that it was just a mistake. And that I was implying information that you didn't say--my whole point is that I think you posted in a way that was purposefully misleading.

will it make you feel better if I take each of your posts in the exchange and do a point by point response to them? I can do that tonight, if it will help. But it won't say anything that I haven't already said.

I would answer gut as to why I think you tried to kill me, but that wouldn't be logical. I wanted to put it out there for others to see, though--who might understand where I'm coming from in my suspicion of you. But was planning on going back through your posts to find evidence, so I will post that tonight.

And not serious? I am suspicious of you and I'm voting for you. Not sure how that is convenient or frivolous?

aapje wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

This read really insincere to me. Especially when a quick glance at the role would give you the most obvious scenario almost right at the top.

Almost everything TinyBubbles has said this game has read insincere to me.

thellama73 wrote:

aapje wrote:

TinyBubbles wrote:RIP unfurl ? and i am confused, why did unfurl get lynched and not me,according to the poll i got the most votes...?? if by some miracle im still alive i will be happy to address any questions! somewhat caught up and have time today

This read really insincere to me. Especially when a quick glance at the role would give you the most obvious scenario almost right at the top.

Almost everything TinyBubbles has said this game has read insincere to me.

Yep, me too. In my last post to her, I was intentionally trying to push her buttons (poking fun at her faux innocence, needling her about Roxy's dismissive remarks about her skills, etc) in an attempt to elicit some sort of evidence of the "emotional investment" that she has in the game. The response I got was cool as a cucumber, careful as all heck, and very much NOT what I would expect from a civ or neutral being as aggressively and nastily prodded as I was. Maybe TinyBubbles is just an incredibly laid back human, but I really believe that she is making good use of her baddie chat to vent about the shit that's being said about her in the thread (this baddie chat is where the "emotional investment" thing actually exists, I think), and then offering some (rather transparent) "Look how little I'm paying attention! I couldn't possibly be bad because I know nothing about the roles! Also notice how innocent and nice I am! Clearly I'm not bad because I'm not grumpy!" lines of defense in the regular thread.

I'm cool with voting TinyBubbles yet again.

Yeah Bubbles' response felt kinda canned. But I don't know her well enough to say if she'd normally react like that.

Rip mp.
Impressive not dying lorab!

I'm sorry I effed up yet another vote. weekends are absolutely insane for me and this one more so as I'm making the day shift to night shift switch.

I'm keeping up mostly by my phone even if I reading involved and quiet these past few days.
Many apologies to the hosts and players.

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah Bubbles' response felt kinda canned. But I don't know her well enough to say if she'd normally react like that.

Yeah, I guess my point is that her reaction is too normal...like, she's trying very hard to be "normal adorable TinyBubbles", when the reaction to the kind of shit I was saying should (I think) have pushed her to react in a more MP-like way (love you, MP!)....ya know? Like, the whole problem I'm having is that her responses seem to be playing hard on the "But TinyBubbles always gets accused for these types of posts and has never been bad" story that other players have been pushing, which just provides easy cover for Tiny to post in the same robotic cutsey way and avoid suspicion.... .so I made an attempt to make the type of accusation that she probably wouldn't have faced before (because people aren't usually so bitchy/passive aggressive in their accusations towards her ) in an attempt to draw a different kind of response out of her.....and despite the fact that the tone and substance of my most recent post were purposefully and substantially more pointed and personal, her response read to me as EXACTLY the same amount of emotionally charged as her previous posts.
So either TinyBubbles is an android/person who is very,very adept at keeping emotions out of mafia (which is obviously not entirely out of the question, but IS contrary to her own previous statements), OR TinyBubbles is working really hard to play according to her usual meta, and that sort of concerted effort to appear "normal" and not rock the boat is something I associate very much with baddies. Does that make any kind of sense??
It's a "case" with holes all over it, but it's one that I'm willing to pursue.

LoRab wrote:
The idea that you were lying was kind of implied throughout. I don't think your rebuttals were honest. When I said you were intentionally misleading, that is a synonym of lying.

Where have I said that I was intentionally misleading?! How many more times do you have to put words in my mouth until I'll finally draw the red card?

Explain how part of my rebuttals where I point out to the facts can be dishonest. Explain how the facts are inaccurate, if you think my rebuttal to them are dishonest. I get the count mistake part is subjective and you are free to treat it as dishonest all you want. But explain the part about the facts being dishonest or prove how they're inaccurate [see further ahead in this post, for clarity's sake].

LoRab wrote:Not sure how that is a new aspect of my suspicion at all. I'll attempt to be clear--you posted mistaken/misleading information. I think you did it intentionally. You said you did not, and that it was just a mistake.

If that's related to the miscount, then fine, weave it as a suspicion all you want. I also pointed out I posted pure stats, not information. I get it doesn't mean anything for you, but that's what it is.

I also pointed out (humorously, at first, but I think I'll put it seriously up here, after so many times of saying it) I theoretically pointed misleading "information" about the civ team count as well. Does that mean anything to you, since you're so keen to interpret my miscount for the bad team count as more than it is? Interpret that as well and tell me how I'm bad.

LoRab wrote:And that I was implying information that you didn't say--my whole point is that I think you posted in a way that was purposefully misleading.

How can I be suspicious for something I didn't say? What is it that you think I didn't say? I'm only compelled to ask you to clarify this one more time, as specific as possible.

LoRab wrote: will it make you feel better if I take each of your posts in the exchange and do a point by point response to them? I can do that tonight, if it will help. But it won't say anything that I haven't already said.

You can focus or start on this, if you want, since it's what you didn't answer me twice, until a third time you just threw at me that it doesn't explain anything and that I'm a liar. How does it not explain anything? How am I lying for pointing at facts?

LoRab wrote: Twice, you have posted non-accurate information in the thread in a way that seemed to sound like fact.

Ricochet wrote: By "twice", I will assume it has to do with 1) the comment on how teams are currently distributed, in numbers. 2) the comment on judge locking down (...)

As for 2), I'll have to ask you to tell me where the "non-accurate information" is. And I don't mean what you find inaccurate about it, through your own interpretation, but literally what was the inaccurate information I provided.

Was it "Time is growing important"? That was accurate, we were within the window of a lockdown being effective.
Was it "we are already within the interval in which the Judge can lockdown this place"? Same as above, accurate based on timing.
Was it "he's been vigilent before"? Accurate, he has been active and quick in moves all the game so far, since he ended D1 roughly with a full day left to go and he was sharp to end N3 immediately.
Was it "so far he's not quick to draw the curtains"? Accurate, we were within the lockdown ideal interval and he hadn't acted on it yet.

So where's the "non-accurate information" here?

LoRab wrote: I would answer gut as to why I think you tried to kill me, but that wouldn't be logical. I wanted to put it out there for others to see, though--who might understand where I'm coming from in my suspicion of you. But was planning on going back through your posts to find evidence, so I will post that tonight.

Your suspicion of me being your killer is new, based on Night results, it can't "come from" your original suspicions, if that's what you mean, so you can't point to others that your original suspicions come from me trying to kill you, you can only try to shout to the world "look! Rico wanted to shut me up by killing me". Which is a legit attempt, but will come up as a wrong result. I'm not the Executioner, I didn't attempt to kill you, I'm not recruited by a bad team, so I cannot kill you, I don't have ninja kill positions in my role, so I cannot kill you, I took the debate with you head on and still am, I don't have any meta of shutting my opponents via kill when bad, I don't have any meta weaseling my way out of debates via nefarious attempts. So good luck with presenting your case, if you're going for this angle.

LoRab wrote:And not serious? I am suspicious of you and I'm voting for you. Not sure how that is convenient or frivolous?

Since D3, you took the "I'm hunting neutrals who don't seem civvie, because 6 baddies out of 3x players is just too much for good odds and I have no idea who the baddies" approach and stick to it. You hunted Golden for it. You voted TH for it.

D4 you blame JJJ for that and park your vote on TH again. You do nothing else, except for picking up my post and starting a debate with me.

D5 you keep on debating till you declare yourself satisfied, tag me as a neutral who isn't civvie and vote for me. Are you saying you'll hunt for more suspects, throughout the next 30 hours left from this Day or so? Please do, if so. I'll be watching closely.

It's convenient. You can park votes like this for the rest of the game, for all I know. It's Day 5. We have 6 baddies out there out of 29, it's not an insane pool, it's slowly arriving at what a regular-sized full game would look like. How much longer till you'll get baddie reads? How much longer is "neutral who isn't civvish" going to be your MO?

I also find it convenient because of something else you said, which sounded like you have important goals. I'll paraphrase: "Everything posted is significant evidence. I read things and hypothesize is how I theorize."

So your saying that, for toDay, your grand theory and grand evidence for baddieness is that "I cannot count" and that I want to induce spleen into the crowd with inaccurate facts (a crowd that, apart from the one person pointing I was wrong, which you picked up on, didn't react one bit to it). That's... it.

Anything else? Anybody else? Any other evidence? Any other theories?

No? Well then it sounds mighty convenient. It sounds like a parked vote. It sounds like drumming on an MO to lynch neutrals who aren't up to your standards of civvishness for days and days.

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah Bubbles' response felt kinda canned. But I don't know her well enough to say if she'd normally react like that.

Yeah, I guess my point is that her reaction is too normal...like, she's trying very hard to be "normal adorable TinyBubbles", when the reaction to the kind of shit I was saying should (I think) have pushed her to react in a more MP-like way (love you, MP!)....ya know? Like, the whole problem I'm having is that her responses seem to be playing hard on the "But TinyBubbles always gets accused for these types of posts and has never been bad" story that other players have been pushing, which just provides easy cover for Tiny to post in the same robotic cutsey way and avoid suspicion.... .so I made an attempt to make the type of accusation that she probably wouldn't have faced before (because people aren't usually so bitchy/passive aggressive in their accusations towards her ) in an attempt to draw a different kind of response out of her.....and despite the fact that the tone and substance of my most recent post were purposefully and substantially more pointed and personal, her response read to me as EXACTLY the same amount of emotionally charged as her previous posts.
So either TinyBubbles is an android/person who is very,very adept at keeping emotions out of mafia (which is obviously not entirely out of the question, but IS contrary to her own previous statements), OR TinyBubbles is working really hard to play according to her usual meta, and that sort of concerted effort to appear "normal" and not rock the boat is something I associate very much with baddies. Does that make any kind of sense??
It's a "case" with holes all over it, but it's one that I'm willing to pursue.

ok... i read over the last post you made and this one, i am kind of shocked, if you want to accuse me of being mafia thats one thing, but why say im an android or robot person. what the fuck. i am not an android, i have nothing against anyone here, and if i seem insincere or calculated or whatever bullshit terms you want to describe its YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION because the truth is i havent lied once, not in any game yet. i dont like argumetns, and im meeting a lot of you for the first time through these games so i dont want to just start arguing for the sake of winning a game. if you dont want to be friends thats cool, i respect your decision, im not here to be liked, but if you say things that are personally offensive like im an android it makes me wonder what i am doing here, whats the point of playing, i dont have that much free time and dont want to waste it on trying to convince you or anyone or who i am as a person.

I doubt that Canuck meant to be offensive with her remarks. She is baddie hunting, and that means engaging people and commenting on their play. My advice is don't take anything personally, the game is more fun that way. Because really this is just a game where some players are liars by design, and other players are bound to think you're a liar.

The question you could ask yourself is "Why does Canuck think I'm acting like a pod person?"

Turnip Head wrote:I doubt that Canuck meant to be offensive with her remarks. She is baddie hunting, and that means engaging people and commenting on their play. My advice is don't take anything personally, the game is more fun that way. Because really this is just a game where some players are liars by design, and other players are bound to think you're a liar.

Agreed.

TinyBubbles wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Yeah Bubbles' response felt kinda canned. But I don't know her well enough to say if she'd normally react like that.

Yeah, I guess my point is that her reaction is too normal...like, she's trying very hard to be "normal adorable TinyBubbles", when the reaction to the kind of shit I was saying should (I think) have pushed her to react in a more MP-like way (love you, MP!)....ya know? Like, the whole problem I'm having is that her responses seem to be playing hard on the "But TinyBubbles always gets accused for these types of posts and has never been bad" story that other players have been pushing, which just provides easy cover for Tiny to post in the same robotic cutsey way and avoid suspicion.... .so I made an attempt to make the type of accusation that she probably wouldn't have faced before (because people aren't usually so bitchy/passive aggressive in their accusations towards her ) in an attempt to draw a different kind of response out of her.....and despite the fact that the tone and substance of my most recent post were purposefully and substantially more pointed and personal, her response read to me as EXACTLY the same amount of emotionally charged as her previous posts.
So either TinyBubbles is an android/person who is very,very adept at keeping emotions out of mafia (which is obviously not entirely out of the question, but IS contrary to her own previous statements), OR TinyBubbles is working really hard to play according to her usual meta, and that sort of concerted effort to appear "normal" and not rock the boat is something I associate very much with baddies. Does that make any kind of sense??
It's a "case" with holes all over it, but it's one that I'm willing to pursue.

ok... i read over the last post you made and this one, i am kind of shocked, if you want to accuse me of being mafia thats one thing, but why say im an android or robot person. what the fuck. i am not an android, i have nothing against anyone here, and if i seem insincere or calculated or whatever bullshit terms you want to describe its YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION because the truth is i havent lied once, not in any game yet. i dont like argumetns, and im meeting a lot of you for the first time through these games so i dont want to just start arguing for the sake of winning a game. if you dont want to be friends thats cool, i respect your decision, im not here to be liked, but if you say things that are personally offensive like im an android it makes me wonder what i am doing here, whats the point of playing, i dont have that much free time and dont want to waste it on trying to convince you or anyone or who i am as a person.

I'm sorry you've taken my comments so personally. I think that in the context of my statement, it is clear that they were not intended as such. I was in fact accusing you of being mafia, therefore my either/or statement in which the android thing appears is meant to suggest that I obviously DON'T think you are an android, but I DO think you are mafia. I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer about that. I'm also sorry that you took the term "android" offensively. I meant it as a jokey shorthand for "someone who does not respond to attempts to needle them emotionally/get them riled up", I apologize for not making that clearer.
Also, arguments and debates and back-and-forths are the meat of mafia, so I'm hesitant to apoligize for attempting to engage you in one. I'm not sure how else to play the game. But I DO apologize for making you think that the attempt was based on anything personal. It was not. It's an entirely in-game thing. I know nothing about who you are as a person outside of mafia, nor do I think who you are as a person outside of mafia is in anyway relevant to this game, and I do not see where I've made any comments that suggest otherwise. I'm attempting to comment on who you are as a PLAYER inside this individual GAME. Again, apologies if that was not clear.
I consider everyone who plays mafia a friend, in the internet-stranger-friend sense of the word. You are no different. I have no beef with you, no vendetta against you.I just think that in this game, you are mafia.

Also, just for the record, your post should probably not have been in OT green, since there is a fair bit of on topic material in there.

Here's an (unnecessary) updated list of player post links with Bass 2.0 included.



aapje - Posts
Bass_the_Clever - Posts
bea - Posts
birdwithteeth11 - Posts
Boomslang - Posts
Bullzeye - Posts
Canucklehead - Posts
Devin the Omniscient - Posts
DFaraday / Bass_the_Clever 2.0 - Posts / Posts
DharmaHelper - Posts
DisgruntledPorcupine - Posts
Dom - Posts
DrWilgy - Posts
Epignosis - Posts
Golden - Posts
G-Man - Posts
JaggedJimmyJay - Posts
LoRab - Posts
Metalmarsh89 - Posts
MovingPictures07 - Posts
nutella - Posts
reywaS - Posts
Ricochet - Posts
Roxy - Posts
Russtifinko / Synonym - Posts / Posts
Scotty - Posts
Sorsha - Posts
Spacedaisy - Posts
S~V~S - Posts
thellama73 - Posts
timmer - Posts
TinyBubbles - Posts
Tranq - Posts
Turnip Head - Posts
Typhoony - Posts
unfurl - Posts

Hosts: the poll has Russtifinko listed rather than his replacement, Synonym.

So in reality, Synonym is currently self-voting.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Hosts: the poll has Russtifinko listed rather than his replacement, Synonym.

So in reality, Synonym is currently self-voting.

Synonym has not said much, has he? I guess we will give him a little more time, given the immense amount of catch up he had to do.

Long Con wrote:If you wish to vote for Synonym, vote for Russtifinko. I ain't touchin' the poll in case I mess it up.

If you just change the name without altering the number of choices, the poll time should remain the same.

I'm not really following the Rico/Lorab ping-pong match. They've had this same back-and-forth going just between the two of them for a couple days now but it appears that everyone else is pretty much ignoring it I'm going to stay out of it until further notice/unless something sways me to one side or the other.

I'm pretty comfortable with a Bubbles vote today. I was hesitant at first because of her meta/history of being lynched as a civ, but the lynch switch would fit with being on a baddie team (both Ubzargan's and Azura's Position 2 abilities could have caused the result) -- there are other possible explanations for sure, but combining that reason with her unsatisfactory posts, I'm inclined to think she's likely bad. Placing my vote on Bubbles.

I'd also be down to lynch DP or Devin. And I'm still suspicious of DH, but he said he had a big case brewing and I am VERY much looking forward to seeing that.

I've read through Tiny's posts and they are still pretty meh. It's good enough for my vote for now.

voting for tinybubbles

:/ I woke up today, barfed, and went back to bed. I'm almost ready with my post but it might have to wait until tomorrow.

Yuck. Take dem germs and get better somewhere else!

nutella wrote:I'm not really following the Rico/Lorab ping-pong match. They've had this same back-and-forth going just between the two of them for a couple days now but it appears that everyone else is pretty much ignoring it I'm going to stay out of it until further notice/unless something sways me to one side or the other.

is there a correlation between everyone else staying out of it and you staying out of it?