The Syndicate

sprityo wrote:I mean, hopping off/on a wagon at best [the] last moment is always fishy

MovingPictures07 wrote:zebra, why did you go from thinking something I said was disingenuous to town reading me? Can you elaborate?

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to sanmateo, by the way.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: Zebra exhibited more confidence than I'd expect to see for a Day 1 vote.

Ricochet wrote:I see that Mac is still alive...

insertnamehere wrote:The two people who came out of Day 1 looking worse for me are Elo and Epi, those two lovebirds.

Elo's Scotty vote and "self-preservation" was weird to me. Same thing with Epi's ultimately useless last second switcheroo where he jumped off of the Scotty train mere seconds before it crashed into a wall. I'd really like to see his explanation for his vote because right now it just rings as hollowly opportunistic.

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:The two people who came out of Day 1 looking worse for me are Elo and Epi, those two lovebirds.

Elo's Scotty vote and "self-preservation" was weird to me. Same thing with Epi's ultimately useless last second switcheroo where he jumped off of the Scotty train mere seconds before it crashed into a wall. I'd really like to see his explanation for his vote because right now it just rings as hollowly opportunistic.

What's the opportunity?

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Why?

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to sanmateo, by the way.

Could you elaborate on this if there's any concrete reasoning behind it? Particularly why it was less than twenty minutes before the lynch?

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:The two people who came out of Day 1 looking worse for me are Elo and Epi, those two lovebirds.

Elo's Scotty vote and "self-preservation" was weird to me. Same thing with Epi's ultimately useless last second switcheroo where he jumped off of the Scotty train mere seconds before it crashed into a wall. I'd really like to see his explanation for his vote because right now it just rings as hollowly opportunistic.

What's the opportunity?

The opportunity would be to deny responsibility for a mislynch by not having your final vote as a contribution to it.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:You were on Scotty, right?

Correct.

a2thezebra wrote:It's also in the post you are quoting actually. Jumping off a mislynch right before it happens is suspicious. No mental gymnastics can deny that.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Why?

The answer is literally one post above the one you're quoting. You won't have to dig too deep.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's also in the post you are quoting actually. Jumping off a mislynch right before it happens is suspicious. No mental gymnastics can deny that.

So...I must have never anticipated anybody jumping on the fact that I jumped off Scotty at the last minute.

All so I can claim having no responsibility for his lynch.

Even though at the deadline I made it clear I had voted Scotty.

Got it.

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Why?

The answer is literally one post above the one you're quoting. You won't have to dig too deep.

I would be with you on this if Scotty flipped bad. I sat and kept refreshing waiting for the hammer to drop & lynch someone else after Epi switched his vote. But Scotty wasn't bad. And even with Epi switching his vote at the last minute, we're all smart folk, and would remember that Epi pushed the Scotty suspish fairly strongly. Scotty flipping civ made me feel better about Epi, not worse.

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's also in the post you are quoting actually. Jumping off a mislynch right before it happens is suspicious. No mental gymnastics can deny that.

So...I must have never anticipated anybody jumping on the fact that I jumped off Scotty at the last minute.

All so I can claim having no responsibility for his lynch.

Even though at the deadline I made it clear I had voted Scotty.

Got it.

Straight to misrepresenting my argument, classic. No, you still could and in fact would anticipate people jumping on you jumping off Scotty, and you would count on doing what you're doing now and brush it off by claiming there was nothing to gain from it, even though we all know you would be under more scrutiny for staying on the Scotty wagon because your content for the bulk of that phase pointed more towards a Rico vote. You also don't need to claim to having no responsibility for Scotty's lynch; it's just evident from your vote not being on it.

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:It's also in the post you are quoting actually. Jumping off a mislynch right before it happens is suspicious. No mental gymnastics can deny that.

So...I must have never anticipated anybody jumping on the fact that I jumped off Scotty at the last minute.

All so I can claim having no responsibility for his lynch.

Even though at the deadline I made it clear I had voted Scotty.

Got it.

Straight to misrepresenting my argument, classic. No, you still could and in fact would anticipate people jumping on you jumping off Scotty, and you would count on doing what you're doing now and brush it off by claiming there was nothing to gain from it, even though we all know you would be under more scrutiny for staying on the Scotty wagon because your content for the bulk of that phase pointed more towards a Rico vote. You also don't need to claim to having no responsibility for Scotty's lynch; it's just evident from your vote not being on it.

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

Epignosis wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

I like fish.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Why?

The answer is literally one post above the one you're quoting. You won't have to dig too deep.

I would be with you on this if Scotty flipped bad. I sat and kept refreshing waiting for the hammer to drop & lynch someone else after Epi switched his vote. But Scotty wasn't bad. And even with Epi switching his vote at the last minute, we're all smart folk, and would remember that Epi pushed the Scotty suspish fairly strongly. Scotty flipping civ made me feel better about Epi, not worse.

That's utterly bizarre to me, if Scotty flipped bad I wouldn't be nearly as suspicious of Epi if he had changed his vote last-minute.

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I thought I would have more to offer but most of that territory that I caught up with is well-covered. The only update for me as far as reads go (besides Scotty of course) is Epignosis. I don't read him as a baddie yet but removing his vote from Scotty near the end bumped him down from my civ reads.

Why?

The answer is literally one post above the one you're quoting. You won't have to dig too deep.

I would be with you on this if Scotty flipped bad. I sat and kept refreshing waiting for the hammer to drop & lynch someone else after Epi switched his vote. But Scotty wasn't bad. And even with Epi switching his vote at the last minute, we're all smart folk, and would remember that Epi pushed the Scotty suspish fairly strongly. Scotty flipping civ made me feel better about Epi, not worse.

That's utterly bizarre to me, if Scotty flipped bad I wouldn't be nearly as suspicious of Epi if he had changed his vote last-minute.

Glad to hear that my break hasn't made me lose my edge. I would be worried if you did not think me utterly bizarre

Ricochet wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

What do you mean by forced? On Day 1? With no public coercer role?

Ricochet wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

What do you mean by forced? On Day 1? With no public coercer role?

Dom wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:Epi, blink twice if your vote was forced. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to agree with Zebra that your pithy evasive non-answers are only making this one small thing into something more and more fishy.

What do you mean by forced? On Day 1? With no public coercer role?

my thoughts exactly

insertnamehere wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

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

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

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

Maybe my definition of a "policy lynch" is different than yours, but just voting Mac because "Fuck Mac" is less of a policy and more cattiness.

a) Mac has done absolutely nothing to form any impression one way or the other in my mind. To me, a Mac vote would be as productive as a BWT vote. Just throwing a dart and hoping it lands. Seeing as you started your case against Mac before you could even possibly get an actual legitimate read on him, I took that to mean that you wanted to lynch Mac just on the 4/19 chance that he's a baddie which automatically means that he'll NK you, because you know Mac well enough to predict his exact baddie game in every single instance. Apparently.
b) Maybe "bus" was the wrong term; sometimes all the insider lingo and jargon of mafia gets a bit screwy in my head. I meant starting a lynch train/wagon/party/turducken against a person you know is a civilian, but doing so in a way where it won't backfire against you once his alignment is revealed.
c) By backfire, I mean that in the scenario in which Rico = Bad, and Mac = Civ, after Rico lynches Mac, Rico can point to his personal motive for targeting him and shift the blame on other more ostensibly opportunistic parties. Making completely "personal" game moves is a good smokescreen and a nice way to avoid culpability.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I didn't care about Epi's vote at the time or after Scotty's flip. I agree though that he could be handling this criticism better.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I didn't care about Epi's vote at the time or after Scotty's flip. I agree though that he could be handling this criticism better.

I'll expand.

His responses to INH and Zebra have been focused on whether or not his vote change was suspicious. He is contesting that it was suspicious. This strikes me as useless dialogue, because there are few scenarios which would facilitate Epignosis calling his own content suspicious. A more substantive and useful response would be to explain why he changed the vote. Elohcin asked him that question directly, and his answer was that he didn't know why he changed it; it just felt good.

I'd assert that even whimsical decisions in Mafia are motivated by something tangible. Epi: did you feel sanmateo specifically was an ideal vote? Was it more about getting off the Scotty wagon? Something else? Please explain your answer.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody is an ideal vote Day 1.

Do you believe my last minute switch is an important topic going into Day 2?

insertnamehere wrote:Also, @ Rico showing up in the thread, after ignoring my criticism of his Mac-centered hurlyburly, to criticize me for not making sense.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Nobody is an ideal vote Day 1.

Do you believe my last minute switch is an important topic going into Day 2?

It's worth discussing. Scotty was the lynch, we know his alignment, and so anything relevant to Scotty is worth discussing.

You've still not answered the question. Your posts on this page have no function. You specifically elected to take your vote off of Scotty and then you placed it on sanmateo. You must have thus felt that sanmateo was "closer" to ideal than Scotty was as a voting option. Describe the thought process that took you there.

Ricochet wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:Also, @ Rico showing up in the thread, after ignoring my criticism of his Mac-centered hurlyburly, to criticize me for not making sense.

Do the two topics need to be related? Is pointing out something in real time not admissable, unless I've covered everything in the past?

As for your reply pointed out, given its lateness in my time zone, I might have very well missed it indeed. Do you still want rebuttals on it?

Ricochet wrote:That's not how you spell Ricochet.

insertnamehere wrote:Yes, I would.

insertnamehere wrote:Mac has done absolutely nothing to form any impression one way or the other in my mind. To me, a Mac vote would be as productive as a BWT vote. Just throwing a dart and hoping it lands. Seeing as you started your case against Mac before you could even possibly get an actual legitimate read on him...

insertnamehere wrote: ...I took that to mean that you wanted to lynch Mac just on the 4/19 chance that he's a baddie which automatically means that he'll NK you, because you know Mac well enough to predict his exact baddie game in every single instance. Apparently.

insertnamehere wrote:b) ...I meant starting a lynch train/wagon/party/turducken against a person you know is a civilian, but doing so in a way where it won't backfire against you once his alignment is revealed.

insertnamehere wrote:c) By backfire, I mean that in the scenario in which Rico = Bad, and Mac = Civ, after Rico lynches Mac, Rico can point to his personal motive for targeting him and shift the blame on other more ostensibly opportunistic parties. Making completely "personal" game moves is a good smokescreen and a nice way to avoid culpability.

insertnamehere wrote:Does the fact that you weren't instantly nightkilled make you slightly less gung-ho about getting Mac out?

LoRab wrote:Curious to see what Zebra and INH have to say now that Epi was killed by mafia. And highly unlikely, in a speed game, that mafia would kill one of their own night 1. So....wanting responses there.

insertnamehere wrote:Epignosis went out like he played: frustratingly. RIP, and I wish you elected to answer a single question before you left this mortal coil. Guess it doesn't particularly matter now.

S~V~S wrote:

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

This one, for instance:

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

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

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

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

LoRab wrote:You didn't explicitly accuse him, true. But you implied suspicion. And to say, yeah--i didn't really suspect him, and he was just frustrating, quite honestly, doesn't make you look all that good.