The Syndicate

Actually I'm going to dive headfirst into this Ricochet/LoRab slap fight and see what feelings I develop. I think an exchange that long warrants more commentary than it's gotten from third parties so far (other than "whoa, that's a lot of arguing").

Wish me luck, it looks dangerous.

Black Rock wrote:

aapje wrote:@Hosts:
Any/how many missing PMs?
Did you take a screenshot of the N4 votes?

Position 4: Choose three players, nothing can happen at night and none can be lynched the next day

What happens if any of those 3 players receive the most votes?

Hello aapje. I do have a screenshot, we'll get it up. We were all high fiving each other and everything but we forgot that.

There were missing PM's... let me count them... oh, I only see one. One missing PM.

They won't get lynched silly.

Fixed

thellama73 wrote:

Dom wrote:Hi everyone.

RIPIYWG MP... I'm glad you're going to have some time off, though.


I'm really at a loss... MP was my top suspect.

I'll help you. Evaluate... DharmaHelper!

I think Dharmahelper is likely neutral and bored.

aapje wrote:

LoRab wrote:And I did not twist your words--you said that you might not respond if my post wasn't worthy of your thought process. Which I paraphrased. And if you are thinking that I implied anything more than you implied in the posts I paraphrased, well then, you are the one that is twisting.

Riiight, I can totally follow this
The whole Rico - LR interaction has my head spinning and I have no idea what to make of it. It mostly feels like a pissing contest.

^^Thsi.

Alright. Got through the last lynch (RIP unfurl. Sorry I was wrong about my suspicions earlier! Not sure what happened there exactly either), and almost to the end of Night 4. I'm starting to get really tired, so I might hold off on the rest of my catchup until the morning.

Looked over the Lorab-Rico thing myself, just because it seems to have been a dominant aspect of the past day. It's important to note that Lorab started it, rather abruptly and with little previous reference to Rico; I feel like she was looking to pick a fight after her previous work against TH didn't go much of anywhere. Rico's defense against the initial attack seems rather annoyed, but not dismissive, and he makes good counterarguments. What strikes me is how quickly the conversation devolves into mutual attacks on playstyle. To me, this suggests Lorab recognizes a good defense but doesn't want to let up, and that Rico doesn't really suspect Lorab but wants to stick up for himself.

On the whole, I think Lorab comes out worse from this argument, and I get generally good vibes from Rico.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:llama, I've been putting off my intent to dig into your ISO. Should I start now? Am I going to find anything troubling? You might as well just tell me now.

Knock yourself out, guy. I stand by my play.

Some thoughts on LoRab vs. Ricochet 2015. I had to rely on a scratchy, skippy illegal feed, because the Pay-per-view price was astronomical.
I don't agree with the highlighted portion. In my experience baddies actually prefer to make circumstances appear less dire than they really are -- it makes civilians relax and walk casually into an even worse position. I don't think it's a bad thing that LoRab proposed this idea though. In fact I really like that LoRab was the first player to put any kind of pressure at all on Ricochet. Prior to this he had breezed through the game so far on the strength of his analytic contributions. I don't know if there's a good reason for baddie LoRab to start poking him like this. This was never likely to develop into a larger-scale anti-Ricochet movement.


Slight eyeball twitch.


Pretty fair though. It's very hard to keep track of how many players are on each team in theory. If someone had asked me without Ricochet's work already in the thread how many people were on each team, I'd have been like , bro.

~~~

I'm not going to reference the whole argument. I've just read over it and generally I don't feel more or less suspicious of either of them. Ricochet was a little snarky at points, more so than I think was warranted by LoRab's accusations, but I don't know Ricochet's game at all. I think that can be resolved with meta by anyone who knows him better.

LoRab's accusations don't move me on my read of Ricochet, but they do positively impact my read of LoRab herself. I don't think this is an effective baddie strategy to employ the way she has done it -- and I doubt she was trying it. They were both positive reads before this and that remains the case.

Spacedaisy wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Devin the Omniscient wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Or the lynch was switched to make us lynch Bubbles again

If that's the case, why not just let her be lynched the first time?? I'm with SD on this one.

Because if you have a lynch switch power, why not use it?

I guess.

I think it's clear cut honestly -- that lynch switch gets used regardless of Bubbles' alignment. If she's bad, it delays her death. If she's not on the team responsible for the switch, then it ensures someone else dies instead AND Bubbles remains a highly likely lynch after that. Two for the price of one.

I'll repeat here that I suspect get not only because the lynch for switched but because her response to it seemed exaggerated. I would expect her to be all, "I don't know why" but now a paragraph of her going on about how she is so confused and she doesn't know what happened and she em pmed the hosts, etc. It is overkill. It don't feel like a natural civilian response. I think She knows why the lynch got switched, in fact I think it was her teammate that did it.

OBJECTION!!! I disagree with you here Daisy! Along with everyone else who thinks Bubbles is bad! A lot of players here have stated that the reaction from bubbles didn't seem genuine? Explain this to me, what words in precise do this to you? as far as I'm concerned, the way bubbles has been communicating hasn't changed.

Examples:

TinyBubbles wrote:cause i get asked the same question every game! i didn't want to declare " i'm CIV" for the 109485734th time so i made a joke about being bad.

TinyBubbles wrote:Hey all i've been reeeeeally busy and just havent had time to read all posts,sorry. i'm willing to change my vote from turniphead to either golden or bass since that's where things seem to be headed.. golden hasn't seemed totally his upfront self like from previous games, it's giving me goosebumps. what's the case against bass though?

Do please point out exactly what concerns you about bubbles exaggeration here, in the same yellow fashion as mine if you disagree with me. Also, why is Bubbles writing out a larger paragraph to defend herself bad? I personally like the fact that we are seeing more from her at this point.

Canuck, you stated that you didn't trust Bubbles based on this right?

TinyBubbles wrote:damn it, i just can't vote golden again. i don't care if he's a baddie or not, it feels like rejecting a friend. he's totally right about him and other talkative players like MP and epi getting heat just for talking, rather than for the content of their posts. it isn't right,and the game would be dead in the water without their input, i don't think anyone should be punished for posting a lot, even though it obviously makes them a bigger target.

hope you have a good trip golden! i wont vote you out though!!!
and i know my own arguments are flipping back and forth but thats what happens when you get emotionally invested in a game like this ><

voting rey on golden's testimony

Now, I would like to point out that Golden did come up as neutral. Did this affect your judgement on this statement whatsoever? If I missed it, do point it out to me. Bubbles didn't vote for a friend, believing in them, as we all should have considering we lynched a neutral.

Also, you pointed out that it was wrong for her to be emotionally invested even though she hadn't shared much? am I correct? Are you saying that emotional investment is a standard for everyone? simply reading and staying caught up seems to be difficult for many players here and you think that has no emotional affect? especially with all the emotional gameplay happening at the time of the post?

Lastly, I would like to ask this, is there a situation in which Ubzargan wouldn't use his power? Even if Azura uses her power to deflect a lynch train, Ubzargan would still redirect the lynch to someone of his choosing. To save a team mate, stall, even to kill someone he doesn't like. Because of this we shouldn't blame the use of Ubzargan's ability on Bubbles, it just happens to be a really strong ability. The question we should be asking, why did Ubzargan choose Unfurl? not why did Ubzargan choose Unfurl instead of Bubbles.

DrWilgy wrote:Also, you pointed out that it was wrong for her to be emotionally invested even though she hadn't shared much? am I correct? Are you saying that emotional investment is a standard for everyone? simply reading and staying caught up seems to be difficult for many players here and you think that has no emotional affect? especially with all the emotional gameplay happening at the time of the post?

Edit to the purple line: Are you saying that emotional investment has a minimal standard that everyone should be able to meet?

thellama73 wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:llama, I've been putting off my intent to dig into your ISO. Should I start now? Am I going to find anything troubling? You might as well just tell me now.

Knock yourself out, guy. I stand by my play.

I've just reviewed your content (all visually, I'm not quite motivated right now to type up a full analysis), and I don't see much suspicious content. I'd said before that my intuition was telling me to read you negatively, but the thread data doesn't bear that out. I'll proceed for now under the assumption that I was tinfoiling you.

My Mafia motivation in general is crummy right now. I am feeling very lazy. If someone asks me to look into a particular player, I'll do it (provided I haven't already looked into that player). Please push me into action, don't tolerate my lethargy.

Wilgy looks over at JJJ sitting aloof in his chair. Walks up to him and pushes the chair over. Wilgy held a blank expression the entire time. Before JJJ can be angry at Wilgy though, Wilgy extends a friendly hand to help JJJ back up. Wilgy's expression is still blank though...

Have you looked at either Canuck or Timmer? I'm currently researching these players, and value what you have to say.

I haven't looked at either of them terribly much. I'll check out timmer because he's been giving me the heebie-jeebies for some reason. Thanks, Doc!

JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.

My assumption is that he has played a very deliberately neutral game. It strikes me as a survivalist approach -- always stay involved, but never get involved. I believe one of the win conditions is to survive the game unrecruited, yes? I think that might be DH's most likely objective.

However, I grant that this assumes he would have applied for zero recruitments and wasn't selected for one when the game started. I'm not very comfortable making that assumption, and I also grant that his approach is not quite balanced. His performance so far is very unhelpful for any civilian cause, but not necessarily unhelpful for any baddie cause.

He has pledged to put some kind of content into this thread soon. We'll see whether he's just slow rolling us all towards another day phase of nothing or if that's a serious pledge. My read will probably become negative if it isn't.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

thellama73 wrote:JJJ, I apologize if you've answered this, but I forget. What do you make of DH this game? I am very wary of him. But he has fooled me so many times I can't tell anymore.

My assumption is that he has played a very deliberately neutral game. It strikes me as a survivalist approach -- always stay involved, but never get involved. I believe one of the win conditions is to survive the game unrecruited, yes? I think that might be DH's most likely objective.

However, I grant that this assumes he would have applied for zero recruitments and wasn't selected for one when the game started. I'm not very comfortable making that assumption, and I also grant that his approach is not quite balanced. His performance so far is very unhelpful for any civilian cause, but not necessarily unhelpful for any baddie cause.

He has pledged to put some kind of content into this thread soon. We'll see whether he's just slow rolling us all towards another day phase of nothing or if that's a serious pledge. My read will probably become negative if it isn't.

Thanks. I'm still watching him. He worries me.

Llama, I forgot about DH's recent promise to bring up something-- I look forward to reading it tbh.

This timmer ISO is getting huge.

timmer ISO

~addendum after full compilation: it started an ISO and became a case. he's suspicious.~
This is timmer's second post on Day 0. It's always important to acknowledge that content from this stage of the game can really only be called suspicious if it is compatible with a baddie recruiter. My feelings about this are mixed (hence the variety of colors!).

Yellow = This may be a minor point, but I'm going to account for it in my considerations of Day 0 content where there is precious little to work with in the first place. I think it was inherently easier for people to make "arbitrary" votes in the Day 0 poll, and I also have my doubts about the honesty of it. Everyone's choices were probably at least a little influenced by their own roles. timmer chose position 2, which was widely regarded as a scary choice, so I am willing to view this with some suspicion.

Orange = Can anyone who played in Recruitment 3 recall this incident and report on its significance? I merely want to gauge how believable timmer's innocence was when posing this question -- asking for people's unrecruited strategies and wondering aloud how he might play his own.

Blue = People took some flak for proposing an LMS structure in this game and at the time I didn't think it was that suspicious. I still don't, really. It can be noted though that timmer literally mentioned his own uncertainty about the wisdom of neutrals "thinking like civilians". We have to ask ourselves whether one of two baddie recruiters had the balls to suggest something so blatantly spooky in his second post. I'm not sure.

Green = WIFOM. I'm not sure why anyone except a recruiter would care about whether recruiters get bonuses for drafting within their own clans. I'm also not sure why an actual recruiter would ask this question publicly instead of safely PMing the hosts.

Overall I think he could be a recruiter, but I can't say that without a lot of trepidation. Thoughts, anyone?
If he is a recruiter, then he recruited right in our faces on Day 0.
What is "phonyy-chatty" and why did Golden's chatter about recruiting feel that way? timmer, you're needed at the front desk. I'm not a fan of piggy-backing Epignosis in such vague terms.
If he was a baddie on Day 1, then he was being a baddie right in our faces. "Should we really be playing like civilians???" Danger, entering an industrial WIFOM area. Hard hats required.
If he's a baddie recruiter, then he was baddie recruiting right in our faces. "Stop trying to kill me, I might pick you up later!" To accuse timmer of being a recruiter is starting to demand enormous WIFOM. I'm losing my ability to maintain any of that specific suspicion without feeling like a conspiracy theorist.
This post confuses me. I don't understand why timmer was critical of people for fulfilling their perceived civilian metas. What exactly are a pile of likely-neutrals supposed to do in a Mafia game otherwise? Play tic-tac-toe until someone recruits them? Moreover his perspective of Golden in this post -- that he was playing to his civ meta -- seems to clash some with his prior assertion that Golden seemed "phony-chatty".
What was the appeal of this thought process?
I don't like this post. I should have noticed it earlier since it was in response to my own question. timmer's effort here to explain why Golden's post about potential recruiting strategies seems quite belabored -- like he's really working hard to find a way to paint it in a bad light. That's meaningful to me because I think that is a task that really did demand hard work. The Golden post being referenced just wasn't that suspicious (granting that Epignosis genuinely felt otherwise). This is the Golden post in question for reference. timmer is criticizing Golden for discussing the "facets of how he would come to a [recruiting] decision" (which was the point of the discussion at hand) despite the factors he mentioned being "facets weighed by everyone in that position". This strikes me as an effortful reach to assert Golden is providing filler content for the sake of seeming like his civilian self -- something which is already not even a good reason to be suspicious of Golden on its own right.

Moreover, let's examine the second paragraph. timmer has expressed clear suspicion of Golden -- thrown shade all over him. Then this highlighted bit comes into existence, and I am baffled. He is both condemning and exonerating Golden based on the same point simultaneously.
I tried to goad timmer into throwing shade on me because I was doing the very thing he "accused" Golden of doing (playing to my civ meta while neutral). He wasn't willing to do so. I struggle to follow his mindset.
This post can be summarized as "I am going to play neutrally because the people claiming to play pro-civilian could easily be lying". Again, I don't understand this line of thinking. I see two problems:

1.) The notion that certain players "could" be lying shouldn't inherently affect timmer's approach. I don't understand why he'd feel the need to play neutrally just because he isn't sure he can trust people who aren't.

2.) People who claim to be playing neutrally (like timmer himself) could also "already be lying their asses off". What's the difference? What is gained? The thought process is a mystery to me. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a baddie thought process, but if I can't relate with it at all that's not a great sign.
Again, the highlighted point is applicable to more than just claims of pro-civilian thinking. It's also applicable to claims of deliberate neutrality, like timmer's own claim. I am struggling to decide whether this is just a logical discrepancy or something actually suspicious. I know I'm confused though.
Again I get some vibe that timmer is reaching for a reason to criticize Golden. He asserts Golden was "shying away from" or "not directly addressing" points made against him, which I would say is bunk. Golden addressed literally every single point against him about ten times each (that's why the discussion around him dominated the thread so thoroughly).
This vote was always a piece of cake for most of the people when Golden was lynched.
timmer is suddenly dismissive of meta as a means of reading people in this game despite his original beef with Golden being entirely based on meta (Golden "falsely fulfilling his civ meta").
He advocates lynching lurkers and acknowledges that they are unlikely recruitment choices. Thus, he is advocating the lynch of neutrals -- a pro-baddie approach.
This is nonsense, in my opinion. He acknowledges some validity in Canuckle's case against Bubbles, but doesn't actually lend any real support to it "because he might end up on Bubbles' team". He seems terrified of actually doing anything. My confusion persists.
Regarding the highlighted portion -- Golden was never evasive of anything while he was alive.

Otherwise this post continues the hyper-timid approach timmer has employed the entire game thus far. I can grant that this would be awkward baddie behavior, but I'm not inclined to give him a pass for that.
When timmer voted for Bubbles, the other two voting that way were Canuckle and thellama73. He'd stated earlier his agreement with Canuckle's case on Bubbles, so that is consistent. I believe this is the first time timmer has even indirectly mentioned llama though, at least in a long while. He should explain why he felt inclined to trust llama's lead on this matter. Both Canuckle and llama have seemed to play a pro-civilian styled game so far -- not the pile of neutrality timmer has claimed to desire.
Roxy peered straight into timmer's soul and saw the recruitment all over him. Whether she was right about that remains to be seen. His response is admittedly all it could be in the face of that statement -- WIFOM.

~~~

The early content is a mixed bag. I have reasons to suspect timmer as a recruiter and reasons to doubt him as a recruiter. Still, the full breadth of the content is troubling enough to me that I am willing to call timmer a legitimate suspect who might earn my vote this phase.

My cases have been unpopular in this game, so I encourage everyone to review this and tell me if you disagree.

That took a long time. I'm tired. I go sleep now.

Setting: A busy business street, on a hot summer day. The sound of people chattering and bus breaks squeaking fills everyone's ears. You can tell when a streetlight changes color by the sound of the cars. Wilgy is late for a very important day and is running to work with briefcase in hand.
Oh man, I compiled some voting statistics, but I'm late for my presentation... Wilgy trips and his briefcase flies open, papers are scattered throughout the street. He panics and tries to pick them up as fast as possible. Some people, interested in the sight in front of them notice what is written on the papers.
Voting stats on the confirmed unrecruited and lynched, these are the players that voted for unrecruited and the frequency of them voting for unrecruited:
Nutella 2
Boomslang 3
MP 3
Golden 1
Devin 2
Bullzeye 1
Daisy 1
G-Man 1
JJJ 1
TurnipHead 1
DrBeautiful 1
Epi 1
Rey 3
Dom 1
DH 1
SVS 2
Bass 1
TinyBubbles 1
Timmer 1
BWT 1

Voting stats on those who were not lynched, these are the players that voted for BWT and TinyBubbles and the frequency of them voting for those players:
Canuck 3
Sorsha 3
Bea 2
Llama 2
Timmer 1
Scotty 1
DH 1
DP 1
JJJ 1
Rico 1
Devin 1
LoRab 2
TurnipHead 1
DrSexxi 1
Golden 1
Typhoony 1
Tranq 1
Unfurl 2
Roxy 1

...Wilgy was fired that day

With all due respect doctor, considering all we've lynched so far are neutrals, that list looks absolutely useless :P What do you make of it?

timmer wrote:Okay, so I'm likely only going to skim the game up to this point, I just never have time for Day 0's, it seems. I arbitrarily chose Position 2 in the poll.

Something being done "arbitrarily" Is a trigger.

timmer wrote:It's actually quite unlikely. An unrecruit is most likely. Aren't about 3/4 of us neutral at this time?

Obsessing over neutrality is a trigger, this isn't the only quote where he does this.

timmer wrote:^I like Epig's thinking so far. Golden's chatter about recruiting felt a bit phoney-chatty.

Not explaining what is actually phony is a trigger (if by phoney-chatty you meant phony).

timmer wrote:Furthur to this, why does someone being a recruiter mean anything? If they are one, they might be a civ recruiter, which means eliminating them will hurt the civ cause. There are equal numbers of bad and good recruiters. And once you are eventually recruited to a team, that's your team, so why gun for a potential recruiter when that may end up your own team down the road?

This right here is also my trigger.

timmer wrote:It's more of a sense than anything, but Epig kind of nailed it with his colour coding.

Here's a trigger, I noticed an obsession with Epi before he died.

timmer wrote:All of this to say that the odds of me sussing out a baddie recruiter today, with such a mess of acting and lying going on is low. And I don't have the time to try to find minutiae that would suggest it.

So I'm going to stick to the idea of voting for someone who is not around, for today. And I will be at work later and so will not be posting too much today.

Not wanting to catch baddies is my trigger.

timmer wrote:So as I'm reading along, the endless back and forths regarding Golden and MP truck along. They haven't play out yet and I've got a lot of pages to go, but for now I will say that I don't see a problem with MP's game, I'm a fan of his thinking in this game. Golden's playing a sort of similar game, but he seems to be shying away from admitting that his stance on Epig was odd, even for this game. SVS keeps mentioning it, but he isn't directly addressing it, even as he says he is. I'm liking MP more than Golden. And SVS' game is topnotch.

JJJ pointed this out, but I would also like to address how bullshit this is.

timmer wrote:Fourth, the few people who are actually trying to make normal cases all get my thumbs up, and my appreciation, as doing as much as proven to be beyond me so far this game. I note SVS' and rye's thoughts on Golden (while I don't put as much weight on the "never seen this Golden before" stuff {see point #1}, I do appreciate her thoughts on his evasiveness, etc.), also Canuckle's point on Tiny Bubbles.

Fifth, where I'm still at a conundrum is that (and take this with whatever grain of salt you want, I recommend Kosher personally) I still have no team and thus I'm not sure which kind of case to get behind, as any of them could affect my future employer. For instance, Canuckle makes a very good point about TinyBubbles. She seems like she's recruited and unsure of how to act. But what if that's true but Tiny's team will be my team?

Still being obsessed with teams is my trigger, hopping on the TinyBubbles boat so quickly without providing anything that hasn't been said already is also my trigger (especially since I'm pretty sure TinyBubbles is neutral).
Sidenote: Timmer seems to be loving SVS during the Golden debates... Don't forget this.

timmer wrote:voted for tinybubbles.

I agree with the basic thrust of the case against tiny bubbles, her posts have been the epitome of both wishy and washy. But moreso, I'm liking the gameplay of the people voting her, so I'm willing to follow their lead on this.

Not providing anything ever, but constantly bandwagoning is my final trigger.

JJJ I agree with everything you said, you noticed some things I did. Thank you for confirming my suspicion. I won't be changing my vote from Timmer.

Not sure good Turnip, I collected the data though and thought I should share. See if anyone smarter than I noticed a pattern or something. Wilgy, staring into the eyes of TurnipHead, remembers times of old and smiles. Wilgy thinks back on his schooldays and old usernames. He remembers that he used to be a turnip as well. GoldenTurnip to be exact.

Turnip Head wrote:With all due respect doctor, considering all we've lynched so far are neutrals, that list looks absolutely useless :P What do you make of it?

#ahospitalwhatisit

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:That took a long time. I'm tired. I go sleep now.

I agree and will join you. Not in the same bed of course (I mean, unless you want to). I go dream now.

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy, staring into the eyes of TurnipHead, remembers times of old and smiles. Wilgy thinks back on his schooldays and old usernames. He remembers that he used to be a turnip as well. GoldenTurnip to be exact.

It is an honor to walk in your presence, my kinsman.

LoRab wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:With all due respect doctor, considering all we've lynched so far are neutrals, that list looks absolutely useless :P What do you make of it?

This is perfect.

My opinion of JJJ is that he's emulating his civilian game but not quite hitting his mark. That suggests guilt to me. This is based on an admittedly small sample size so I'm treating it more like a hunch than anything else. A lot of what Roxy has been saying about JJJ has been making sense to me lately, when I read their conversations I see her side more than his. I started feeling this way around Day 3ish, which makes me think he may have been recently recruited.

I've felt better about him toDay so far, but not much better.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm just going to say that "I don't think we should lynch ______ because I don't think BR/LC would have made _______ a recruiter." is a sentence I will never employ again in this game after this post. I think it's a very dangerous perspective and honestly seems contrary to the spirit of Mafia in the first place. Y'all know these hosts better than I do, but

I agree. Especially in a game where the hosts ensured us that all roles were randomized.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My Mafia motivation in general is crummy right now. I am feeling very lazy. If someone asks me to look into a particular player, I'll do it (provided I haven't already looked into that player). Please push me into action, don't tolerate my lethargy.

Inspect me please, and make me enjoy it.

Is that too much to ask?

Holy cap, host, you spent a lot of time on that. But you missed every key point about my game up to here. I stayed quite simply right from the start that I wasn't going to play like a civ until I have reason to, and I've followed through on that worth perfect consistency.

Yeah, I've jumped on bandwagons worth little to no thought, because I can't trek who is on a team flow the most part and thus if someone does it's cool with me, because I'm still neutral. Plain and simple, I remain unrecruited and no that's not a clever truth to hide the fact that I'm a team leader, I am still neutral.

So let's see what is going on in this game. People have made a bunch of bullshit cases about players who were not recruited and lynched them while those on teams day back and laughed. If you lynch me, the same thing will happen. I'll take sigbets on it right here and now.

I've attempted every single recruitment challenge and my air apparently stinks so here I am.

Those of you on teams need to decide whether you want to tale the sage route and keep targeting people who can't defend because they don't believe they've done anything but we're Just playing the neutral scene add they saw fit, or you can actually try to win by taking out your rivals. Your call, I don't plan to deviate from this party as my defence.

Host should be hoss.

I'm sorry for being away all day- I got outside and played football and frisbee in the park for 9 hours, followed by a lovely game of poker where I ;lost $40 but gained a nice buzz. I will be unable to contribute anything of merit tonight. Will check back in tomorrow with my thoughts. I will be hungover. I'm not klooking foward to it.. night all

linki what is a holy cap. sounds like it doesn't really hold the drink in. heh.

Wow my phone messed a lot of that up but I think you get my meanings.

omg. 16 hour day yesterday, 4 hours sleep, left the house at 9 today got home at midnight. Have to get up at 6 so I can check on the no power situation at my store and see if I lost all my food in the walk in and/or do all the computer work so we can open on time. i. Cant. Brain. Anymore.

I'm sorry guys this is a place holder. I tried to read the timer case and I can't keep my eyes focused on it. I need some pasta, some cake , some mindless TV and a nap. *sigh*

Turnip, what difference(s) do you observe between my civilian game as you'd expect it and what you see in this game?

timmer I'll consider what you've said. I don't have much time to play right now, but I'll let it swirl around in my brain.

I'm going to catch up backwards, starting from this page.

My thoughts on JJJ and DrWilgy v timmer:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

timmer wrote:How are people going to handle the unrecruited side of things? Last game, I rather infamously flamed out, and it all started when I admitted that I didn't give a crap who got lynched since I was neutral. There was more to it than that afterwards, but that was essentially the big issue.

Orange = Can anyone who played in Recruitment 3 recall this incident and report on its significance? I merely want to gauge how believable timmer's innocence was when posing this question -- asking for people's unrecruited strategies and wondering aloud how he might play his own.

The orange part is correct. Timmer 'flamed out' and got lynched early on as an unrecruited player. Here's the relevant post:

Quote from RM3:

Timmer » Wed Apr 16, 2014 1:21:28 am wrote:Look, I honestly didn't care about either case or who died, tbh. I still kind of don't .

We're (almost) all unrecruited, so why should I fight to take out a baddie? Why, honestly, do I care if the civs or the baddies gain an advantage? What if I baddiehunt for days snd then get recruited to the very team I was helping to decimate? I have absolutely no reason to care, yet. It's a weird game! Naturally this may lead to my demise, but if I'm out, I'm going out honest lol.

Note how this post from another game a year ago sounds almost exactly the same as the post he made here, the post that's being called out as bullshit:

DrWilgy wrote:JJJ pointed this out, but I would also like to address how bullshit this is.

timmer wrote:
Fifth, where I'm still at a conundrum is that (and take this with whatever grain of salt you want, I recommend Kosher personally) I still have no team and thus I'm not sure which kind of case to get behind, as any of them could affect my future employer. For instance, Canuckle makes a very good point about TinyBubbles. She seems like she's recruited and unsure of how to act. But what if that's true but Tiny's team will be my team?

Still being obsessed with teams is my trigger, hopping on the TinyBubbles boat so quickly without providing anything that hasn't been said already is also my trigger (especially since I'm pretty sure TinyBubbles is neutral).

This reads like timmer's neutral play to me. What's wrong with being obsessed with teams?

timmer wrote:Holy cap, host, you spent a lot of time on that. But you missed every key point about my game up to here. I stayed quite simply right from the start that I wasn't going to play like a civ until I have reason to, and I've followed through on that worth perfect consistency.

Yeah, I've jumped on bandwagons worth little to no thought, because I can't trek who is on a team flow the most part and thus if someone does it's cool with me, because I'm still neutral. Plain and simple, I remain unrecruited and no that's not a clever truth to hide the fact that I'm a team leader, I am still neutral.

Sounds consistent to me

DrWilgy wrote: Sidenote: Timmer seems to be loving SVS during the Golden debates... Don't forget this.

As everyone should, Wilgy, old boy, as everyone should

Although I fail to see why SVS love means someone is bad. You never did explain your random vote for me the other day, although you said you would.

TBH, all of these points say the same thing, basically. Timmer has a shitty attitude, especially as it applies to solving the game.

In the last game in this series, RM3 played at a different forum, Revolution Mafia, Timmer was lynched for his shitty attitude. He flamed out a bit since no one seemed to be grasping his point about how he chose to play the game. I was one of the primary pitchfork wavers in the forefront. I still feel rather guilty over this even though I was bad in the game, and any death not mine or a teammates should be cause for rejoicing.

My point is that Timmer has displayed this same "not burning any bridges" attitude the whole game. After RM3, I would find it suspicious if he behaved otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being neutral; most of us started out the game this way, and most of us still are neutral. He chooses to play as an actual neutral, thereby increasing his desirability as a recruit.

Do I think he could be capable of putting on an act and actually be bad? Oh 100%. But I am not going to vote for someone based solely on attitude. Especially an attitude that, while not one I would choose, is not unreasonable and which I have seen them have before as an unrecruited.

linki~ wow that's hardcore, pulling quotes from another forum, lol!

I am still looking at Sorsha, and have been watching Bullz the whole game. Still waiting for that baddie hunting you chided Unfurl for not doing, Bullz.

S~V~S wrote:I am still looking at Sorsha, and have been watching Bullz the whole game. Still waiting for that baddie hunting you chided Unfurl for not doing, Bullz.

I didn't 'chide' her for not baddie hunting. I said I didn't like the fact she'd expressed an unwillingness to even try and then you jumped on me for it. I have been trying. I'm also busy. I have, as of 25 minutes ago, less than a week left to finish a 15,000 word dissertation which literally determines the rest of my life. If I fail this I've wasted thousands of pounds and a year of my life, and can't get on to a PhD. The grade I get for this determines the grade I get overall and it has to be really good or I'm screwed. So, yeah, expect another week of me not being all that engaged with the game. As I get closer to finishing I'll get more involved.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Green = WIFOM. I'm not sure why anyone except a recruiter would care about whether recruiters get bonuses for drafting within their own clans. I'm also not sure why an actual recruiter would ask this question publicly instead of safely PMing the hosts.

This is the second best point in your ISO, and it's a pretty good one.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: He advocates lynching lurkers and acknowledges that they are unlikely recruitment choices. Thus, he is advocating the lynch of neutrals -- a pro-baddie approach.

This is the best point in your ISO, and it's a really good one. Advocating the lynch of likely neutrals, while claiming that we should play like neutrals is inconsistent at best. At best!

Wow, those Timer defense posts by ?SVS and Tranq have some eerily similar language in them.... and are awfully close together.

timmer wrote: I've attempted every single recruitment challenge and my air apparently stinks so here I am.

On the other hand, this rings sincere to me.

S~V~S wrote:

DrWilgy wrote: Sidenote: Timmer seems to be loving SVS during the Golden debates... Don't forget this.

As everyone should, Wilgy, old boy, as everyone should

Although I fail to see why SVS love means someone is bad. You never did explain your random vote for me the other day, although you said you would.

TBH, all of these points say the same thing, basically. Timmer has a shitty attitude, especially as it applies to solving the game.

In the last game in this series, RM3 played at a different forum, Revolution Mafia, Timmer was lynched for his shitty attitude. He flamed out a bit since no one seemed to be grasping his point about how he chose to play the game. I was one of the primary pitchfork wavers in the forefront. I still feel rather guilty over this even though I was bad in the game, and any death not mine or a teammates should be cause for rejoicing.

My point is that Timmer has displayed this same "not burning any bridges" attitude the whole game. After RM3, I would find it suspicious if he behaved otherwise. There is nothing wrong with being neutral; most of us started out the game this way, and most of us still are neutral. He chooses to play as an actual neutral, thereby increasing his desirability as a recruit.

Do I think he could be capable of putting on an act and actually be bad? Oh 100%. But I am not going to vote for someone based solely on attitude. Especially an attitude that, while not one I would choose, is not unreasonable and which I have seen them have before as an unrecruited.

Currently skim reading through RM3, I'll see you in afew years. SVS love doesn't mean someone is bad, I'm not sure why you would think my side note means that. I just pointed it out because Timmer took Epi's side earlier... and Epi died. Which SVS vote are we discussing now? I think I've voted for you several times, and I'm pretty sure I explained at least one of them. I'd figure out which one you are referencing but want to focus on finding info from RM3 first.

Alright. Whew. I'm all caught up after going through almost 20 pages of content over the course of last night and this morning. I still need time to absorb everything, but I'll post some bullet points of where I am right now.

- I don't really get how unfurl ended up dying. A lynch switch of some kind? Although I was thinking the same thing with TinyBubbles, but somehow I doubt that both of the last 2 lynches were influenced by lynch switches.

- Sorry to see you go out the way you did, MP. But yeah, I think your PhD program is really stressing you out and is seeping into your game here. So I'm glad for your sake that you're taking a mafia break. Also, only one more month until I visit wooooooo!

- Don't really get the back-and-forth between Lorab and Rico yet. It read too much like two people sitting in the corner and constantly trying to one-up each other. But again, I also might need to digest a lot of that still.

- The last lynch REALLY makes me suspicious of TinyBubbles, especially with her reaction. Seemed super-OTT with trying to explain that she didn't know what happened. Which makes me think she DID know.

- Still don't get why the Sorsha suspicion just fell off the face of the Earth after the unfurl lynch. Seems awfully suspicious to me.

- I don't really get the JJJ suspicion. Although I think this is only my second game with him so I don't have much history to go off of. Still reading him as neutral or civ. I do agree that he's a player who could go from neutral/civ to bad pretty easily without making any transition in his gameplay style so far. So something to keep in mind.

- I'm putting my vote on Tinybubbles for now. Feels too much to me like she's trying to force the same playstyle she's used to, and for the other reasons I mentioned previously. Seriously, that reaction to the last lynch? Moved her WAY up on the baddie scale for me.

Wilgy runs up to BWT and tackles him. Wilgy, with fire in his eyes, stares right into BWT's face. No one knows what to do with Wilgy anymore...
BWT, please comment on my defending of TinyBubbles.

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy runs up to BWT and tackles him. Wilgy, with fire in his eyes, stares right into BWT's face. No one knows what to do with Wilgy anymore...
BWT, please comment on my defending of TinyBubbles.

*defense