The Syndicate

Well, that was confusing.

RIP no one, I guess.

Canucklehead wrote:JJJ: I dread re-reading him, but I agree with Rox that he's changed, and I'm suspicious of his over-abundant posting..... throw enough stuff indiscriminately out there, and you leave yourself with many, many "justifiable" options to hide in when voting time comes around. I think it's *smart* play in a recruitment game.... but I think it also could be indicative of being baddie aligned.

I'm going to need you to describe exactly what "change" you've observed in my play since the game began. Reference a specific post I made or a specific feeling you had about my content that represents a difference from what you perceived about my earlier content.

I am making this demand because this came out of nowhere from you. You've not said much about me this game, but the few examples before this all seemed more positive than not. This was your previous mention of me:

Canucklehead wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:@Boomslang voters: Does JJJ's ISO case adequately cover all the reasons why you chose to vote for Boom? Or are there other points you want to add?

JJJ seems to be stepping up admirably to take the scrutiny about the rush of Boomslang votes..... and I REALLY am very itchy about how other Boomslang bandwagoners are just letting him do so....

It looks to me like you're riding Roxy's coattail. Moreover, to cast suspicion on me for "over-abundant posting" is incredibly dubious in its own right. Even if you don't know me very well as a player (I tend to lead more games in post count than not), that observation just seems irrelevant to what you're read of me would really be. Every game has players that post at a very high rate and most of the time they're not bad. Why does this ping you right now in Recruitment Mafia IV?

Also, why assert I might be leaving myself options to "hide in" for my votes? When I've been able, I've accompanied my votes with a significant amount of explanatory content. Nobody can possibly claim to have any doubts about how I feel about any player I've voted for (in a day phase in which I've made posts) because I bear my strategy and mindset for all to see every time.

Also I voted position 3.
I've had enough of this lynch switch shenanigans. I don't like Uz's thread lock, but unlike in position 1, at least Uz can die and if the Judge is still loitering around, we can just shorten dat night again if need be. Position 2 can burn in hell.

S~V~S wrote:And I am glad I am not the only one who thought JJJs sudden case of the *mehs* and a major posting style change a bit odd.

I'm not glad that you waited for someone else to suggest there's been some kind of "change" in my posts before asserting that you already felt that way. You also picked such an easy thing to critique from my content, and criticism like this is the entire reason I post that sort of thing. When I asked the thread at large to help motivate me, I was given some recommendations for analysis and immediately proceeded to provide thick, thorough content. There was no "case of the mehs". There was a single post in which I proclaimed a moment of laziness which was followed by Mafia effort quite opposite to laziness.

You're picking at surface-level things and not trying to assess me in a deeper way. That is less than I'd expect of you because you strike me as a pretty thorough thinker.

Roxy wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Vote registered for Boomslang

Why? You haven't mentioned Boomslang in your posts since Day 5 at least.

I read his posts and I think he's on Team Uzzy.

I am quite surprised neither of you have commented on the drastic change in JJJ's game.

1.) What is the drastic change? Give me details. I'm starting to think you're making this up. If you're not then I'd like to state that you're making zero effort whatsoever to read my content through a non-baddie lens -- exactly the accusation you've [wrongly] applied to me w/r/t Boomslang and Bass.

2.) That you specifically elected to express "surprise" to these two people makes very little sense. After only you, Turnip has probably been my biggest detractor in this game so far. You literally couldn't pick a worse player to accuse of not commenting on me. Scotty and I have also engaged in quite a lot of dialogue and I don't think he has been inclined to read me positively or negatively. What was the purpose of this post Roxy?

Ugh, I'm sorry I missed the vote. Eternal dangers of writing from bed. I wasn't ready to decide where to vote, I pushed re-reading into the night and most of it didn't came into fruition when I feel into sleep mode.

So Druid switched the lynch to DH, but Terras cancelled the whole lynch?

Why would the Druid pick DH, though? Is the Druid on the bad side and wants to stir things up? Is he on the good side and believes DH is on the bad side?

S~V~S wrote:Ah now I see that JJJ has voted for me. Looking forward to hearing why.

Without the luxury (and for me, the necessity) of compiling posts into a progressive ISO analysis, my votes throughout Day 6 were mostly intuitive. Yours was no exception. The tone of your defenses against DH's vendetta struck me as rather disingenuous, and I really haven't observed content in recent phases from you that lends me confidence about your innocence. You're currently compatible with what I think I'd see from a bad-recruited S~V~S, and I find you more suspicious than I did either of the other two wagons with any traction (llama and DrWilgy).

When time permits I will check my suspicion of you against thread data as I have with others before. For now it is too late, I'll be sleeping soon.

Immediate thought about the attempted lynch of DrWilgy:

It stunk. I hated the lynch all day phase long and wished I could do something about it. Numerous people seemed to reduce the case for DrWilgy merely to WIFOM: "would a baddie defend his team mate so hard???"

I think this is inadequate because it doesn't respect what I perceive to be the most important variable: the likelihood that DrWilgy's defenses of TinyBubbles were going to motivate a lynch of someone else instead of TinyBubbles -- likelihood that I'd call infinitesimal. He didn't merely defend her hard, he did so when it was pointless. Is that how baddies behave? Maybe in some universes, but not terribly many of them in my experience. His hard-headed defense of Bubbles when she was already the clear lynch suggests to me that he really did believe in his defense of her and was stubbornly pressing it into the thread -- indicative of someone not on her team.

I could be wrong about that. I don't know. The fact that the lynch didn't actually take place is also a relevant factor that I will mull over that moving forward. For now though my stance remains that DrWilgy is not on team Ubzuccini.

Long Con wrote:All flavour. I just hadn't given Terras much time yet. Not that that post was a big scene either.

I know you keep coming in to explain yourself, but I just keep falling for it.


Ok.

Well, the other option I can see is that DH is the jilted lover with someone, assuming that the votes were somehow tampered with, and one of the vote getters tonight was the target DH picked.

I dunno. There's no real way of knowing right now. Could be either. It doesn't reflect his alignment, so

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Immediate thought about the attempted lynch of DrWilgy:

It stunk. I hated the lynch all day phase long and wished I could do something about it. Numerous people seemed to reduce the case for DrWilgy merely to WIFOM: "would a baddie defend his team mate so hard???"

I think this is inadequate because it doesn't respect what I perceive to be the most important variable: the likelihood that DrWilgy's defenses of TinyBubbles were going to motivate a lynch of someone else instead of TinyBubbles -- likelihood that I'd call infinitesimal. He didn't merely defend her hard, he did so when it was pointless. Is that how baddies behave? Maybe in some universes, but not terribly many of them in my experience. His hard-headed defense of Bubbles when she was already the clear lynch suggests to me that he really did believe in his defense of her and was stubbornly pressing it into the thread -- indicative of someone not on her team.

I could be wrong about that. I don't know. The fact that the lynch didn't actually take place is also a relevant factor that I will mull over that moving forward. For now though my stance remains that DrWilgy is not on team Ubzuccini.

I think there are several baddies in the Doc Voters.

DharmaHelper wrote:I think there are several baddies in the Doc Voters.

I have the same intuition. Maybe not "several", but some baddie presence.

Multiple, I should have said.

I had my vote on Bullzeye for a short time too. It was mostly because this:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

struck me as perhaps the least genuine post of Day 6. Pure gut. I did appreciate his efforts later though in providing reads on numerous players. He's one I need to reassess in full context.

LoRab wrote:Switched to wilgy (whose name I keep thinking is wiggly) because this post tipped the scales. You are not new to this game, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know what WIFOM is--I don't believe that is a unique term to our mafia culture. It stands for The Wine in Front of Me, a Princess Bride reference. It means that a baddie is posting something as if to say, "why would I ever do XYZ? I would never do that as a baddie!" when that's exactly what they've done.

I find it hard to believe that on page one hundred something, no one has explained that to someone who asked. If you did ask, then I missed the question. But, if you "still" don't know, then I'd think that you would have asked it again.

And yeah...the whole tone of this seems bad to me.

LoRab, I struggle to believe that you really found "I don't know what WIFOM is" to be the scale-tipping factor in your voting thought process. What exactly do you think a baddie DrWilgy would be up to by pretending not to know what WIFOM is?

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:All flavour. I just hadn't given Terras much time yet. Not that that post was a big scene either.

I know you keep coming in to explain yourself, but I just keep falling for it.


Ok.

Well, the other option I can see is that DH is the jilted lover with someone, assuming that the votes were somehow tampered with, and one of the vote getters tonight was the target DH picked.

I dunno. There's no real way of knowing right now. Could be either. It doesn't reflect his alignment, so

Jilted Lover's Pos 5 is saving his lover's life. I don't see how this variant would check out: DH being the Jilted Lover and saving himself is not possible. If his Lover was lynched, he still couldn't have traded places and die instead of him, that's his position 2.

There are some positions, such as Uzbigal's protection or Master of Shadows' deflecting all votes, that could maybe serve as a variant to Terras stopping the lynch - ...of...a Guardian. huh; dunno why I said he would be able to stop the entire lynch earlier - but I think the lynch switch is pretty clear, on the other hand.

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:

Long Con wrote:All flavour. I just hadn't given Terras much time yet. Not that that post was a big scene either.

I know you keep coming in to explain yourself, but I just keep falling for it.


Ok.

Well, the other option I can see is that DH is the jilted lover with someone, assuming that the votes were somehow tampered with, and one of the vote getters tonight was the target DH picked.

I dunno. There's no real way of knowing right now. Could be either. It doesn't reflect his alignment, so

Jilted Lover's Pos 5 is saving his lover's life. I don't see how this variant would check out: DH being the Jilted Lover and saving himself is not possible. If his Lover was lynched, he still couldn't have traded places and die instead of him, that's his position 2.

There are some positions, such as Uzbigal's protection or Master of Shadows' deflecting all votes, that could maybe serve as a variant to Terras stopping the lynch - ...of...a Guardian. huh; dunno why I said he would be able to stop the entire lynch earlier - but I think the lynch switch is pretty clear, on the other hand.

Ah yes, then disregard that. I think I misunderstood that. Was looking at the wrong position for jilted lover.

so lynch switch it looks like?

Sorsha wrote:Polls from day 4 and day 5.

Players who voted for bubbles on day 4 (when it didn't matter because her team switched the lynch) but DID NOT vote for her on day 5 when it DID matter:
llama, timmer, DH, jjj, bea

I don't think llama is on team Uzi with bubbles. I think it was tranq who put up the theory that bubbles was recruited on day 0 or 1 and I agree with that (it was always the "emotionally invested" comment from her that stuck with me, unless llama was recruited to the team on day 5.

I'll have to go back and look at the reasons that timmer, DH, jjj and bea gave for changing their vote but I'll probably vote for one of these four players.

I'd love to be able to find a player from team azura today but I'm focusing on team Uzi because one of the reasons for not choosing position 1 on the poll was so that we avoid Uzi's lynch immunity.

I liked the way Sorsha approached this phase. Her focus was probably narrower than mine would have been, but she showed at the end that she wasn't completely stuck on these four people (she voted S~V~S). What I see here is a player with a genuine interest in baddie hunting in accordance with an understandable and transparent strategy -- and I thought she was fair in her assessments of the players in question. I grant that believable baddie hunting isn't an exonerating factor with two baddie teams, but I'll still consider this a positive point for her.

Wait...what? And also, wait...what?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Switched to wilgy (whose name I keep thinking is wiggly) because this post tipped the scales. You are not new to this game, and I find it hard to believe that you don't know what WIFOM is--I don't believe that is a unique term to our mafia culture. It stands for The Wine in Front of Me, a Princess Bride reference. It means that a baddie is posting something as if to say, "why would I ever do XYZ? I would never do that as a baddie!" when that's exactly what they've done.

I find it hard to believe that on page one hundred something, no one has explained that to someone who asked. If you did ask, then I missed the question. But, if you "still" don't know, then I'd think that you would have asked it again.

And yeah...the whole tone of this seems bad to me.

Spoiler: show

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

DharmaHelper wrote:I'll take, oddly flimsy reasons to suspect someone Day 6 for 200 Alex.

LoRab, I struggle to believe that you really found "I don't know what WIFOM is" to be the scale-tipping factor in your voting thought process. What exactly do you think a baddie DrWilgy would be up to by pretending not to know what WIFOM is?

That was just one aspect of his post that pinged me--more than that, as I said, it was his overall tone. The piece you mention felt, to me, like he was putting out there a facade of not really knowing the game on this site and it didn't ring true.

Not everything a baddie does is on purpose or has a strategy behind it--there are things that baddies tend to do that are subtle and tend to show up in patterns and that are not intentional. That is how, in my experience, baddies are most often found. This felt like an experienced version of the newbie card to me.

I'll also note that others also felt that his post seemed suspicious. So I'm not entirely crazy in the way that I read posts.

Vote: 3

Because, it's a magic number.

LoRab wrote:

Ricochet wrote: 10) LoRab, you've gone back to TH, but do you have any other opinions, suspicions apart from him and me? It's D6, the bad teams are at a standard size; the field is also down to a standard full-game size. Your nod to SVS's case on Bullzeye is pretty mellow, almost as if to tell the thread that you're receptive to others, but not much more than that.

Also, as a general side-note, although this should probably be saved for post-game, I cannot express how much I dislike the "placeholding" vote tactic. Changeable votes are supposed to influence the course of a Day phase, in a way - they can be placed to influence, fish out reactions, shape discussion, make a temporary but clear stand and so on. Parking votes just because of how big the field of players is and unwillingness (or laziness?) to check (or open a separate tab with) "View results" doesn't fit into any of those categories.

I never moved my suspicion away from TH. I just started to suspect you more. And I tend to tunnel a bit in mafia, and hang on to the suspicions I have. I also like to play my cards close. So, yes, I have other thoughts. But my main suspicions have been shared.

And it was not a place holder entirely--I also suspected him. The ability to vote early without having to worry about wanting to vote a different way later is kind of a whole new world for me (and many players here). It has nothing to do with how big the field is or laziness. It's more playing with a new toy and figuring out how it works. And, in my case, I have not voted for someone I didn't want to vote for early. But, the majority of players here are figuring out how to use the early vote strategically, I think--I also wouldn't sell short the ability of said players to use this ability to their advantage. Even if seemingly "place voting."

And I didn't put that in green because it is not off topic. I don't think your green is off topic either, tbh.

*pours some whisky first*

I never said your suspicion of TH departed in any way, in fact what I pointed out was a return to it. You voted TH D3-D4, you picked on me D5, you went back to your TH D6 for previous suspicions still holding ground. "Playing my cards close" is not the type of answer to "what other suspicions do you have" I can say I appreciate, because it sounds much like keeping stuff to yourself whilst everyone is doing reads and stating suspicions out in the open, but at least you also seem to acknowledge that, on D6, you only have two main suspects (three with Wilgy, after current events).

Plus, you actually addressed more suspects in the same post you told me you're playing cards close, so I guess it's just me you don't feel like giving straight "I suspect him and her" answers. Oh well.

I acknowledge that you voted TH out of suspicion, but you also stated "And because I want to have a vote on the board so I can see the results.". The "and" makes your vote-placing for visual cue a secondary reasoning to your vote. If you would have said something like "Plus, it can help me see the results better by having a vote on the board" I wouldn't have had any problem with it, because it's a side advantage to you having voted, not a reasoning for having voted. Not to mention that I made it clear my side-note was "general", so it's not just about you, it's about others doing it as well. If players vote early strategically and such strategy is clear and just, I have no issues with it. But if they vote to "see the results", that strategy is lost on me or weak.

As for the green, I don't use OT just for totally-out-of-the-game-context comments (like how's the weather, how busy RL is or how good the whisky I'm having is). In this case, it was a general comment on a play habit I noticed, that I felt the need to address, after seeing you, at least in part, do it as well. It's not in-topic to anything else I've addressed about you (your suspicions) and it's not only about you place-voting, it's about everyone with that habit. I'd recommend not reading much into this OT use, but that's just me.

Scotty wrote:Also I voted position 3.
I've had enough of this lynch switch shenanigans. I don't like Uz's thread lock, but unlike in position 1, at least Uz can die and if the Judge is still loitering around, we can just shorten dat night again if need be. Position 2 can burn in hell.

In position 3, Azura can't die.

That's a messed up lynch result.

Ricochet wrote:

Scotty wrote:Also I voted position 3.
I've had enough of this lynch switch shenanigans. I don't like Uz's thread lock, but unlike in position 1, at least Uz can die and if the Judge is still loitering around, we can just shorten dat night again if need be. Position 2 can burn in hell.

In position 3, Azura can't die.

Yep, this is true. I think 3's still a safer bet all around to be more in control of the lynch/votes than the other positions currently being displayed. Easier to analyze that way

@Rico:

So, what kind of whiskey?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Polls from day 4 and day 5.

Players who voted for bubbles on day 4 (when it didn't matter because her team switched the lynch) but DID NOT vote for her on day 5 when it DID matter:
llama, timmer, DH, jjj, bea

I don't think llama is on team Uzi with bubbles. I think it was tranq who put up the theory that bubbles was recruited on day 0 or 1 and I agree with that (it was always the "emotionally invested" comment from her that stuck with me, unless llama was recruited to the team on day 5.

I'll have to go back and look at the reasons that timmer, DH, jjj and bea gave for changing their vote but I'll probably vote for one of these four players.

I'd love to be able to find a player from team azura today but I'm focusing on team Uzi because one of the reasons for not choosing position 1 on the poll was so that we avoid Uzi's lynch immunity.

I liked the way Sorsha approached this phase. Her focus was probably narrower than mine would have been, but she showed at the end that she wasn't completely stuck on these four people (she voted S~V~S). What I see here is a player with a genuine interest in baddie hunting in accordance with an understandable and transparent strategy -- and I thought she was fair in her assessments of the players in question. I grant that believable baddie hunting isn't an exonerating factor with two baddie teams, but I'll still consider this a positive point for her.

Thanks jjj. Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted because I'll probably be dead tonight!

Voting 3

What the hell??? Shenanigans... this doesn't help me feel any better about DrWilgy.

And once again all positions have drawbacks but I am feeling 3 tonight.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:JJJ awakens, one cheek pressed against the carpet, a pool of drool seeping into the fabric. He struggles to sit up and attempts to survey his surroundings. Everything is still blurry, and he has a pounding headache. He notes a small shard of glass nearby and another next to it -- he follows the trail to a broken bottle with what must be his own blood encrusted on the jagged edge.

WTF?

S~V~S wrote:I am SO expecting shenanigans after the drama/nobility of that last Wilgy post. And i swear on a stack of esoteric texts that I bring no shenanigans myself

What about DrWilgy's post made you suspect shenanigans would be afoot?

As I was reading it, I could hear someone whistling the Lassie theme music or perhaps a faint string quartet and distant thunder. This was the swan song of a Wilgy who did not actually expect to be dead IMO. I am shocked beyond shit though that whoever switched it switched it to DH.

I would NOT expect that of Wilgy. I was like 99.9% sure that if Wilgy brought the shenanigans, he would have brought them to me. So the fact that it was DH leads me to think while Wilgy may have had manipulations, I doubt he switched the lynch.

Going with Position 3. Seems like the option that's the most straightforward out of all the 3.

And....RIP no one I guess? That was a bit weird.

reywaS wrote:Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.

Okay so:

I'd not been around much since day 3. Look at my posts and see how many refer to me being completely out of the loop. I still hold that if I hadn't been at least trying to keep myself afloat, I'd be getting called out for being a low poster. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I got 'defensive' because as soon as I'm finally able to actually get myself back into the game I have SVS trying to make me the next big thing in easy bandwagons.

I wasn't trying to make up for anything and I wasn't doing those reads really for anyone but myself. I needed to do it to get myself get back into the game. I dunno if I've mentioned it like 50,000 times yet but I got very disengaged over time because of a casual spot of writing I had to do for no particular reason.

S~V~S wrote:I thought all the anti-Wilgy came up after he spent days defending Bubbles. Wow.

It did. My suspicion of him came up before I'd even got up to his posts and saw other people's interactions with his defense of Bubbles. Saying it's because of movement against you is just blatantly inaccurate.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Immediate thought about the attempted lynch of DrWilgy:

It stunk. I hated the lynch all day phase long and wished I could do something about it. Numerous people seemed to reduce the case for DrWilgy merely to WIFOM: "would a baddie defend his team mate so hard???"

I think this is inadequate because it doesn't respect what I perceive to be the most important variable: the likelihood that DrWilgy's defenses of TinyBubbles were going to motivate a lynch of someone else instead of TinyBubbles -- likelihood that I'd call infinitesimal. He didn't merely defend her hard, he did so when it was pointless. Is that how baddies behave? Maybe in some universes, but not terribly many of them in my experience. His hard-headed defense of Bubbles when she was already the clear lynch suggests to me that he really did believe in his defense of her and was stubbornly pressing it into the thread -- indicative of someone not on her team.

I could be wrong about that. I don't know. The fact that the lynch didn't actually take place is also a relevant factor that I will mull over that moving forward. For now though my stance remains that DrWilgy is not on team Ubzuccini.

I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I had my vote on Bullzeye for a short time too. It was mostly because this:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

struck me as perhaps the least genuine post of Day 6. Pure gut. I did appreciate his efforts later though in providing reads on numerous players. He's one I need to reassess in full context.

Nah that's genuine. It irritates me when gossip roles just act like their word is law and make posts like that with nothing to back it up. Gives people weak excuses to make throwaway votes and contributes nothing to the game. I made similar comments when one of those posts said to lynch TH.

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:JJJ awakens, one cheek pressed against the carpet, a pool of drool seeping into the fabric. He struggles to sit up and attempts to survey his surroundings. Everything is still blurry, and he has a pounding headache. He notes a small shard of glass nearby and another next to it -- he follows the trail to a broken bottle with what must be his own blood encrusted on the jagged edge.

WTF?

S~V~S wrote:I am SO expecting shenanigans after the drama/nobility of that last Wilgy post. And i swear on a stack of esoteric texts that I bring no shenanigans myself

What about DrWilgy's post made you suspect shenanigans would be afoot?

As I was reading it, I could hear someone whistling the Lassie theme music or perhaps a faint string quartet and distant thunder. This was the swan song of a Wilgy who did not actually expect to be dead IMO. I am shocked beyond shit though that whoever switched it switched it to DH.

I would NOT expect that of Wilgy. I was like 99.9% sure that if Wilgy brought the shenanigans, he would have brought them to me. So the fact that it was DH leads me to think while Wilgy may have had manipulations, I doubt he switched the lynch.

Does it have to have been a switch? Could there have been manipulation of the votes somehow instead? My view of Wilgy hasn't changed.

Bullzeye wrote:I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

Do I think it's possible that what you're saying is what really happened? Sure. Possible.

Do I think that's the most logical explanation? No. I've definitely seen baddies defend the crap out of their team mates, but that tends to happen when there's still an opportunity for the impending lynch of that team mate to be moved onto someone else. In this case, Bubbles was ahead in the vote by a total landslide and there was essentially no hope of that changing. So if DrWilgy's desire was merely to play WIFOM and hard-defend her anyway just in case someone like JJJ might make this argument in his favor, then that was clearly a terrible strategy (I assert that it's obvious it would have been a terrible strategy). By defending Bubbles he made himself a massive target for the following lynch, and my perspective was proven to be a small minority. DrWilgy was nearly a landslide lynch himself.

For me, this single sentence is a better argument against DrWilgy than the entire notion of his defense of TinyBubbles:

The game roster at large tried to lynch him and did not succeed.

Bullzeye wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I had my vote on Bullzeye for a short time too. It was mostly because this:

Bullzeye wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Caelia wrote:Bullzeye, SVS, Lorab and Scotty are enemies of peace.

What a waste of a perfectly useful night action. Caelia, please don't be that person who posts their own opinions into gossip posts presented as facts. It's just lame.

struck me as perhaps the least genuine post of Day 6. Pure gut. I did appreciate his efforts later though in providing reads on numerous players. He's one I need to reassess in full context.

Nah that's genuine. It irritates me when gossip roles just act like their word is law and make posts like that with nothing to back it up. Gives people weak excuses to make throwaway votes and contributes nothing to the game. I made similar comments when one of those posts said to lynch TH.

How are gossip roles supposed to act, in your view? I've never seen gossip roles message an actual full case, but I've seen them claim we should look into certain players. Plus, we're talking about the civ leader, not just any gossiper (such as the Speaker of Serenity, for instance). Read back to my D6 catch-up post, if you will, when I addressed Caelia's message and reactions to it. I still don't get this utter discredit tone towards a civ leader.

Bullzeye wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:JJJ awakens, one cheek pressed against the carpet, a pool of drool seeping into the fabric. He struggles to sit up and attempts to survey his surroundings. Everything is still blurry, and he has a pounding headache. He notes a small shard of glass nearby and another next to it -- he follows the trail to a broken bottle with what must be his own blood encrusted on the jagged edge.

WTF?

S~V~S wrote:I am SO expecting shenanigans after the drama/nobility of that last Wilgy post. And i swear on a stack of esoteric texts that I bring no shenanigans myself

What about DrWilgy's post made you suspect shenanigans would be afoot?

As I was reading it, I could hear someone whistling the Lassie theme music or perhaps a faint string quartet and distant thunder. This was the swan song of a Wilgy who did not actually expect to be dead IMO. I am shocked beyond shit though that whoever switched it switched it to DH.

I would NOT expect that of Wilgy. I was like 99.9% sure that if Wilgy brought the shenanigans, he would have brought them to me. So the fact that it was DH leads me to think while Wilgy may have had manipulations, I doubt he switched the lynch.

Does it have to have been a switch? Could there have been manipulation of the votes somehow instead? My view of Wilgy hasn't changed.

I doubt it was anything but a switch. What chances are there for it to have been a vote manipulation? Didn't Wilgy have a healthy lead? Furthermore, how can DH have gotten lynched through vote manipulation, since he had no votes?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:For me, this single sentence is a better argument against DrWilgy than the entire notion of his defense of TinyBubbles:

The game roster at large tried to lynch him and did not succeed.

So do you think he is bad, or....?

Scotty wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:For me, this single sentence is a better argument against DrWilgy than the entire notion of his defense of TinyBubbles:

The game roster at large tried to lynch him and did not succeed.

So do you think he is bad, or....?

If he is bad, I think he's on team Azura and not team Ubbybear.

Gun to my head, I'd predict not bad.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

Do I think it's possible that what you're saying is what really happened? Sure. Possible.

Do I think that's the most logical explanation? No. I've definitely seen baddies defend the crap out of their team mates, but that tends to happen when there's still an opportunity for the impending lynch of that team mate to be moved onto someone else. In this case, Bubbles was ahead in the vote by a total landslide and there was essentially no hope of that changing. So if DrWilgy's desire was merely to play WIFOM and hard-defend her anyway just in case someone like JJJ might make this argument in his favor, then that was clearly a terrible strategy (I assert that it's obvious it would have been a terrible strategy). By defending Bubbles he made himself a massive target for the following lynch, and my perspective was proven to be a small minority. DrWilgy was nearly a landslide lynch himself.

I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy . I stand by my belief for now: I think he defended Bubbles in hope of convincing enough people that she was probably being set up, with the expectation that he'd be able to coast by on WIFOM if he failed. It's not like he was the only person defending Bubbles' honour on day 5.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:For me, this single sentence is a better argument against DrWilgy than the entire notion of his defense of TinyBubbles:

The game roster at large tried to lynch him and did not succeed.

It's supporting evidence for the argument, yes. But you don't suspect him, do you? The last thing I remember you saying on the topic is that you still didn't think he was bad.

Ricochet wrote: How are gossip roles supposed to act, in your view? I've never seen gossip roles message an actual full case, but I've seen them claim we should look into certain players. Plus, we're talking about the civ leader, not just any gossiper (such as the Speaker of Serenity, for instance). Read back to my D6 catch-up post, if you will, when I addressed Caelia's message and reactions to it. I still don't get this utter discredit tone towards a civ leader.

I will read your post - thank you for asking me actually because there was something else in there that I'd wanted to respond to but forgot who had said it.

I wasn't expecting Caelia to post four solid cases. I would've had no issue if she'd said "I think we should look at blah blah blah" or said "X is bad because Y". But that post was phrased as if it was actual info, IMO, and I know for a fact some of it wasn't and don't believe the rest of it was either. The phrasing made it easy for someone who wanted to be blendy to simply throw out a vote for one of the four names she mentioned and then when that person doesn't flip bad, their voters can blame Caelia instead of themselves. I guess what I'm saying is, civ leader or no, I don't like the tone of posts like that and don't think they contribute much of value. The phrasing I used was a little bitchy, I know.

Ricochet wrote:I doubt it was anything but a switch. What chances are there for it to have been a vote manipulation? Didn't Wilgy have a healthy lead? Furthermore, how can DH have gotten lynched through vote manipulation, since he had no votes?

I meant could any powers that were in effect last night have influenced the lynch. I think switch is the most likely explanation but I was just trying to see if there was anything else.

Ricochet wrote: 3) Bullzeye's pause about Uzbo not switching the lynch to Sorsha (second wagon) instead of unfurl of all people (no wagon at all) and his idea that Sorsha might be also bad is valid, but he forgets that Ubza is a vicious chaos-maker. Why get rid of second wagons instead of creating an unexpected death? What's the point of questioning his actions, apart from the Sorsha link? Is there a slight chance? Sure, if Ubzargan had to derail a lynch in which his teammates were first and second wagon, his team was in pretty dire shit that day. Otherwise, I'm not sure I fully understand this line of questioning.

My point was, since Sorsha also had a high amount of votes, switching the lynch to her would've left room to argue that it may not have been a switch at all - perhaps Sorsha started the day with more votes or something. Switching it to someone like Unfurl, while it did cause some confusion, it still ended with Bubbles dead. You may note that I no longer consider this the case as per my reread of Sorsha last night.

@JJJ: It read to me like you meant it's an argument against Wilgy's innocence, so to speak. Can you clarify?

Ricochet wrote:@JJJ: It read to me like you meant it's an argument against Wilgy's innocence, so to speak. Can you clarify?

DrWilgy surviving the lynch attempt brings us back to essentially the same scenario we had before with Bubbles. Assuming it was a baddie-motivated lynch switch, we're left asking this question:

Was DrWilgy rescued by his baddie team, or was the switch generated to remove a bigger threat (DH) while maintaining the suspicion on DrWilgy -- two off-team lynches for the price of one?

In the case of Bubbles, the answer was the former. With that in mind, it's understandable to me if this is perceived as a point against DrWilgy. In this instance, I'm still not inclined to ignore the latter as a genuine possibility. It's especially noteworthy that the switch attempt targeted DH specifically given his position in this game right now. It's a number of variables we'll all have to consider moving forward in the next day phase.

Bullzeye wrote:I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy .

I think this is the core of the discussion. If you and I both agree that your proposed strategy for DrWilgy's actions was a poor strategy, then you're asserting that he made a significant mistake.

I have my doubts that he makes that mistake. I've never played with him before, but he strikes me as a capable player with a strong understanding of the game of Mafia. If he is newer than I might think having never played with him, I'd invite anyone else to pipe in and say so. How long has he been playing Mafia?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I have seen baddies blatantly defend teammates before. They're usually hoping that someone will make the same argument you're making and enough people will buy it.

Do I think it's possible that what you're saying is what really happened? Sure. Possible.

Do I think that's the most logical explanation? No. I've definitely seen baddies defend the crap out of their team mates, but that tends to happen when there's still an opportunity for the impending lynch of that team mate to be moved onto someone else. In this case, Bubbles was ahead in the vote by a total landslide and there was essentially no hope of that changing. So if DrWilgy's desire was merely to play WIFOM and hard-defend her anyway just in case someone like JJJ might make this argument in his favor, then that was clearly a terrible strategy (I assert that it's obvious it would have been a terrible strategy). By defending Bubbles he made himself a massive target for the following lynch, and my perspective was proven to be a small minority. DrWilgy was nearly a landslide lynch himself.

Wrong. I just counted the times when people say they voted. TinyBubbles had a total of 4 votes on her, only 2 above DP, before he came in with this:

DrWilgy wrote:*Wilgy twirls around in an office chair*

A Bubbles lynch sounds dumb... Still too busy to explain a better case though. In the meantime Vote registered for Timmer.

The vote hadn't run away yet. TH was the only one that was soft-defending her at the time/throwing doubt at her badness.
His full defense of her comes 3 hours later, and he said that that defense took him a while to write. So that would mean he was looking to defend her hard- with his biggest post to date, mind you- when she still had a chance to be saved. Obviously her own defense was doing her no favors. Between that time, only Synonym added onto the Tiny vote. 5 votes? Landslide? Hardly.

This was someone who was defending her before she had too much heat on the first half of Day 5 with hopes of maybe calming the waters.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Ricochet wrote:@JJJ: It read to me like you meant it's an argument against Wilgy's innocence, so to speak. Can you clarify?

DrWilgy surviving the lynch attempt brings us back to essentially the same scenario we had before with Bubbles. Assuming it was a baddie-motivated lynch switch, we're left asking this question:

Was DrWilgy rescued by his baddie team, or was the switch generated to remove a bigger threat (DH) while maintaining the suspicion on DrWilgy -- two off-team lynches for the price of one?

In the case of Bubbles, the answer was the former. With that in mind, it's understandable to me if this is perceived as a point against DrWilgy. In this instance, I'm still not inclined to ignore the latter as a genuine possibility. It's especially noteworthy that the switch attempt targeted DH specifically given his position in this game right now. It's a number of variables we'll all have to consider moving forward in the next day phase.

I think it's a slightly different scenario, given that it's not Ubzula's doing (which, with Bubbles, translated well into either chaos-making or teamie defending) and we don't know the Druid's alignment. He could be recruited civ or unrecruited (neutral) and had, at best, as you've said, the interest to target DH whom he regarded as a threat (& at worse, chaos shenanigannery), or he could be recruited bad and basically do the same thing Uzbina did (lynch fuckery and/or teamie defending). This makes it more difficult to project.

Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your analysis.

---

Bullzeye, thank you for the clarifications, I understand them way better this time.

Bullzeye wrote:

reywaS wrote:Ok, I feel like I've caught up enough.

I voted DrWilgy because I don't like the votes on S~V~S and llama. They both feel civ to me, and in fact I agree with S~V~S post on Bullzeye talking about how he's been around plenty but didn't have any solid opinions on anyone. Then bullz got kind of defensive and then maybe went a little overboard trying to make up for his previous lack of opinion. Bullz definitely came off as baddie to me in that exchange.

Okay so:

I'd not been around much since day 3. Look at my posts and see how many refer to me being completely out of the loop. I still hold that if I hadn't been at least trying to keep myself afloat, I'd be getting called out for being a low poster. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I got 'defensive' because as soon as I'm finally able to actually get myself back into the game I have SVS trying to make me the next big thing in easy bandwagons.

I wasn't trying to make up for anything and I wasn't doing those reads really for anyone but myself. I needed to do it to get myself get back into the game. I dunno if I've mentioned it like 50,000 times yet but I got very disengaged over time because of a casual spot of writing I had to do for no particular reason.

I can appreciate that. That's the impression I got yesterday as I was trying to catch up. I will go back and read your posts more carefully going into the next lynch.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy .

I think this is the core of the discussion. If you and I both agree that your proposed strategy for DrWilgy's actions was a poor strategy, then you're asserting that he made a significant mistake.

I have my doubts that he makes that mistake. I've never played with him before, but he strikes me as a capable player with a strong understanding of the game of Mafia. If he is newer than I might think having never played with him, I'd invite anyone else to pipe in and say so. How long has he been playing Mafia?

I don't know how long he has, but he is still alive...so I'm sure he can answer that.

Also, put into perspective: what were to happen if he did get Tiny out of the jam? Not only does it buy him and her more time, but it makes him look better by swaying people on a potentially escalating and bad-looking bandwagon vote.

I think he took a big gamble and put it all on red, and it was a black 6. It's always that black 6 that got away.

When I was on tour in South Korea, they had this casino that only foreigners could enter. I went straight to the Roulette table and I immediately put $100 down on red, and lost it. Whoops. So the croupier is rounding up final betting on the next run. I get this instinct to put $100 on the black 6. Premonition, if you will. I put it down. But then I start thinking "nooo what a waste of money, I should be more conservative!" so right before the croupier waved his hand, I took back the bet.

The ball stops.

Black 6.

I then left Seoul forever. Fuck that place and its Mocking Black Sixes.

Scotty wrote:Wrong. I just counted the times when people say they voted. TinyBubbles had a total of 4 votes on her, only 2 above DP, before he came in with this:

DrWilgy wrote:*Wilgy twirls around in an office chair*

A Bubbles lynch sounds dumb... Still too busy to explain a better case though. In the meantime Vote registered for Timmer.

The vote hadn't run away yet. TH was the only one that was soft-defending her at the time/throwing doubt at her badness.
His full defense of her comes 3 hours later, and he said that that defense took him a while to write. So that would mean he was looking to defend her hard- with his biggest post to date, mind you- when she still had a chance to be saved. Obviously her own defense was doing her no favors. Between that time, only Synonym added onto the Tiny vote. 5 votes? Landslide? Hardly.

This was someone who was defending her before she had too much heat on the first half of Day 5 with hopes of maybe calming the waters.

I'll verify this myself to determine whether Bubbles received votes that weren't claimed in the moment by players ITT and how her vote total compared with other players. The DrWilgy post you reference doesn't mean much to me honestly, but the larger defense is important. If it turns out that you're correct and she wasn't ahead in the tally by as much as I'd thought, that'd be an important point. I'll investigate.

My memory has been telling me that she was the clear favorite to be lynched when he came to her defense in a meaningful way (the larger post).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:I never accused him of using a brilliant strategy .

I think this is the core of the discussion. If you and I both agree that your proposed strategy for DrWilgy's actions was a poor strategy, then you're asserting that he made a significant mistake.

I have my doubts that he makes that mistake. I've never played with him before, but he strikes me as a capable player with a strong understanding of the game of Mafia. If he is newer than I might think having never played with him, I'd invite anyone else to pipe in and say so. How long has he been playing Mafia?

Some ideas are inherently bad. Sometimes you have such an idea, but you run with it anyway. Sometimes that even pays off. I'm sure we've all been in situations where we've done something as a baddie we thought for sure would get us killed but never came back to bite us at all.

I am not criticising Wilgy's capability at playing or ability to understand the game, I'd be the last person to ever do such a thing. I think he took a massive risk hoping for a big payoff and it didn't work out.

Stats-wise, I have Bubbles at 5 votes (Canuck, LA, Timmer, Devin, Spacedaisy...all of them in a row, actually when Wilgy posted and voted Timmer (he later switched to SVS).

I'm not accustomed to tracking votes like many of you folks do since we handle them so differently on RYM. This might be a good time for an aapje chart.