The Syndicate

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:41 pm Well, I'll object to Wilgy being lynched yes. Will you retreat now?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:44 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:40 pm Screw it all.

Even trying to quote JJJ/Wilgy gives me infinite pyramids of quote failures. I suck at ISOs. Sorry Kylemii

No need to apologize or quote anything, can you just read it and let me know what you think?

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:53 pm Who would more likely be scum: Eloh or Wilgy (if we factor in both of them were targets of Jay ISOs) speedchuck

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:01 pm I can definitely see Jay planning to lead us off trail from the moment he replaced MP. That's definitely something Jay would do. But whether he'd do it by calling you scum and building a case against you, or do it by calling you town and defending you, that's a mix and match.

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:16 pm This post happened during Day 4:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:38 pm A fresh look at DrWilgy

First substantive post

Quin's little move to generate responses re: his pledge to "vote Epi whenever" got a reply from Wilgy. It's a strategic assertion which doesn't say much of anything about either Epi or Quin. Filler potential. The negative read on Daisy is a loud one. Okay. The question he posed to Sloonei could have some utility if there's follow-up.

Another early multi-quote salad (let's make it a Thing guys)

There are numerous questions here. Questions are neat. I don't know what Wilgy is doing with them though.

Multi-quote salad again

Wilgy is inserting nuggets of chatter into numerous conversations. They don't boast much unique insight though. The sole stance I see taken here is an agreement with Quin's grievance against Kyle.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:51 pm Wilgy is highly unpredictable. Don't apply normal rules of logic. Wilgy is almost as unpredictable as Vompatti. Almost. Nothing is unlikely for Wilgy, everything is fair game. I'm just unsure what to do with this version of Wilgy...

It's funny that "normal" Wilgy scares you in such a way. Guess it's a good thing. Perhaps "normal" Wilgy is the advent of this game.

I wouldn't say this is the first time I have seen "normal Wilgy", or at least a Wilgy who involves himself in the game with words and posts. The first example that comes to mind is Talking Heads (he was bad). I don't know why Daisy's fear of his normalcy is a "good thing".

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:30 pm //Kyle what happened to your conviction? This doesn't feel the same Kyle that I met in Pirate mafia.

Is conviction something I had in pirates mafia? I would argue that the exact opposite is true. On the second to last day I didn't know who to lynch and almost died because of it, Speedchuck talked me into no lynching. We also lost partially because I didn't pursue my suspicion of Speedchuck on the final day.

I've been making a real effort to follow through in this game because of it.

Interesting. Perhaps I was confusing conviction with rapid adaption. My observance of you was from a smiley posting ding dong. I was the ding dong. You, however, were fun to watch because I felt like I was watching you grow in the short span of time I was alive. You were watched by a ding dong.

The one stance I referenced before was Wilgy's take on Kyle, via Quin. Kyle responded with a contrary description of his behavior. Wilgy's reply is a neutral observation which is no longer interrogative. The only stance taken thus dissipates, leaving this post history a bit bare to this point -- more than it appears at a glance. That's not ideal.

Jack ISO

It's nice that Wilgy's takes in this ISO are multi-directional -- he has both positive and negative things to say about Jack. The negative side wins the day, as the conclusion is a scum read on Jack. Some of the language employed here is a concern:

"Are you buddying or talking with a teammate here?" -- Loaded question

"I feel that JoH has a way of portraying things that either are forced or feel like a forced portrayal." -- Jack has a way of either portraying things that are forced or forcing a portrayal. Eh? What does that mean?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:44 pm Quick comment regarding the GTH exercise.

For everyokne that GTH'd me good. Why do you think I'm good? Under what scenarios do you find that I'm scummy? Would you say that you are mpre of a player that finds people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

@elochin I'm still curious as to why you stated my comment about being able to read Daisy stuck out to you as scummy before my further explanation. What about that comment caused a scum read? Am I not allowed to be bad at reading someone?

@JoH, I'll get back to you. I've come to a point where I'm aware of my tunneling and I need to review others before I continue to bark at you. What I find interesting outside of our back and forth is your baddie read of me. What prompted this read exactly?

Wilgy expressed concern that he might be tunneling on Jack and pledged to broaden his focus.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:13 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:09 am

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:08 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:07 am why aren't we all lynching Lasagne? For a low poster, she actually looks bad.

What's the worst thing you could say about Lasagne?

She has 24 posts, at least 20 of those say nothing but bolster her presence in the thread.

I can get behind this.

Wilgy joined the Mesk wagon at EOD3. I don't take issue with a decision being made on the fly like this in the heat of EOD nonsense. It does beg expansion now though -- Wilgy, what inspired (hi Quin) your willingness to contribute to this wagon?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:34 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:49 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:54 pm I can promise you regardless of alignment it's a time constraint. Civ Wilgy or Scum Wilgy, I frown upon lurking.

What I find interesting is that instead of gauging my reads and what I've provided, you target the quantity. Why not ask for more if that's what you want? I've provided thoughts as I've caught up. Where are your comments on those?

Also Rainbows are dumb. Players are either good or bad.

It feels like a lot of general comments and observations, throwing in some questions for good measure. It doesn't feel like someone who is taking any sort of significant stance. This far into the game, I find it hard to believe any townie wouldn't have made strong stances yet, even if one that we can recognize him for. You haven't even made good/bad player lists. Sorry Wilgy, I just don't think you're townie-centric this game. I mean, I defended you in Pirates and you didn't even say anything. But here, you've been less authentic and clear in your opinions and stances than when you were playing with emojis imo.

What? Less authentic and clear? Comparing clarity in a game where I was only using emojis (and keeping up mind you)?

What is a strong stance to you? Apparently not calling Jack bad for his play day one, nor agreeing that Jaybis a good lynch. Those are just weak stances.

Dunya, it feels like your trying to case me with "Wilgy is bad because of XYZ", when you can just say "I'm tone reading Wilgy as bad." Because of this I do feel that its disgenuine.

dunya was critical of Wilgy's lack of hard stances and Wilgy took issue. On this front, I think dunya's assertion is valid. There's really not much in the way of stances in this post history that I can see.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:43 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:38 pmI'll tell you what a strong townie stance is: it's having strong suspicions. Just clearing people off is more a scum stance-tactic. Does that make sense to you?

You were only using emojis, but those emojis actually reflected better on you. You were calling people good/bad with them. That's townie as hell.

This "not calling Jack bad for his play day one" and "not agreeing on a Jay lynch" is not necessarily townie as hell.

I hope you can see where I am coming from; I'm super genuine and super serious and extremely demanding.

So you want mor quantity from me?

no...I never complained about low post count or quantity of post. I want more genuine, hard stances. I would understand your hesitation in that you can't give me a genuine scum read without outing a scum-mate, but try.

I've already given what I had Dunya. Your shaking a tree that's out of apples. I'm just unsure if your shaking this tree on purpose or not.

The highlighted bit reads awkwardly at face value. First, there's an implied suspicion, or at least "room" for suspicion -- but the assertion of a "tree being shaken" is as applicable (if not moreso) to a civilian as a mafioso. Indeed shaking trees is often half the game.

~~~

I've stated numerous grievances here and less nice to say. Wilgy is a suspect.

Would day 4 Jay have been sure enough about his imminent death to make a post like this to distance from a Wilgy teammate?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

would you do that to your scummate?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:20 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

would you do that to your scummate?

Not without asking first.

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:20 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

would you do that to your scummate?

Not without asking first.

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:17 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:16 pm This post happened during Day 4:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:38 pm A fresh look at DrWilgy

First substantive post

Quin's little move to generate responses re: his pledge to "vote Epi whenever" got a reply from Wilgy. It's a strategic assertion which doesn't say much of anything about either Epi or Quin. Filler potential. The negative read on Daisy is a loud one. Okay. The question he posed to Sloonei could have some utility if there's follow-up.

Another early multi-quote salad (let's make it a Thing guys)

There are numerous questions here. Questions are neat. I don't know what Wilgy is doing with them though.

Multi-quote salad again

Wilgy is inserting nuggets of chatter into numerous conversations. They don't boast much unique insight though. The sole stance I see taken here is an agreement with Quin's grievance against Kyle.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:51 pm Wilgy is highly unpredictable. Don't apply normal rules of logic. Wilgy is almost as unpredictable as Vompatti. Almost. Nothing is unlikely for Wilgy, everything is fair game. I'm just unsure what to do with this version of Wilgy...

It's funny that "normal" Wilgy scares you in such a way. Guess it's a good thing. Perhaps "normal" Wilgy is the advent of this game.

I wouldn't say this is the first time I have seen "normal Wilgy", or at least a Wilgy who involves himself in the game with words and posts. The first example that comes to mind is Talking Heads (he was bad). I don't know why Daisy's fear of his normalcy is a "good thing".

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:30 pm //Kyle what happened to your conviction? This doesn't feel the same Kyle that I met in Pirate mafia.

Is conviction something I had in pirates mafia? I would argue that the exact opposite is true. On the second to last day I didn't know who to lynch and almost died because of it, Speedchuck talked me into no lynching. We also lost partially because I didn't pursue my suspicion of Speedchuck on the final day.

I've been making a real effort to follow through in this game because of it.

Interesting. Perhaps I was confusing conviction with rapid adaption. My observance of you was from a smiley posting ding dong. I was the ding dong. You, however, were fun to watch because I felt like I was watching you grow in the short span of time I was alive. You were watched by a ding dong.

The one stance I referenced before was Wilgy's take on Kyle, via Quin. Kyle responded with a contrary description of his behavior. Wilgy's reply is a neutral observation which is no longer interrogative. The only stance taken thus dissipates, leaving this post history a bit bare to this point -- more than it appears at a glance. That's not ideal.

Jack ISO

It's nice that Wilgy's takes in this ISO are multi-directional -- he has both positive and negative things to say about Jack. The negative side wins the day, as the conclusion is a scum read on Jack. Some of the language employed here is a concern:

"Are you buddying or talking with a teammate here?" -- Loaded question

"I feel that JoH has a way of portraying things that either are forced or feel like a forced portrayal." -- Jack has a way of either portraying things that are forced or forcing a portrayal. Eh? What does that mean?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:44 pm Quick comment regarding the GTH exercise.

For everyokne that GTH'd me good. Why do you think I'm good? Under what scenarios do you find that I'm scummy? Would you say that you are mpre of a player that finds people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

@elochin I'm still curious as to why you stated my comment about being able to read Daisy stuck out to you as scummy before my further explanation. What about that comment caused a scum read? Am I not allowed to be bad at reading someone?

@JoH, I'll get back to you. I've come to a point where I'm aware of my tunneling and I need to review others before I continue to bark at you. What I find interesting outside of our back and forth is your baddie read of me. What prompted this read exactly?

Wilgy expressed concern that he might be tunneling on Jack and pledged to broaden his focus.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:13 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:09 am

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:08 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:07 am why aren't we all lynching Lasagne? For a low poster, she actually looks bad.

What's the worst thing you could say about Lasagne?

She has 24 posts, at least 20 of those say nothing but bolster her presence in the thread.

I can get behind this.

Wilgy joined the Mesk wagon at EOD3. I don't take issue with a decision being made on the fly like this in the heat of EOD nonsense. It does beg expansion now though -- Wilgy, what inspired (hi Quin) your willingness to contribute to this wagon?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:34 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:49 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:54 pm I can promise you regardless of alignment it's a time constraint. Civ Wilgy or Scum Wilgy, I frown upon lurking.

What I find interesting is that instead of gauging my reads and what I've provided, you target the quantity. Why not ask for more if that's what you want? I've provided thoughts as I've caught up. Where are your comments on those?

Also Rainbows are dumb. Players are either good or bad.

It feels like a lot of general comments and observations, throwing in some questions for good measure. It doesn't feel like someone who is taking any sort of significant stance. This far into the game, I find it hard to believe any townie wouldn't have made strong stances yet, even if one that we can recognize him for. You haven't even made good/bad player lists. Sorry Wilgy, I just don't think you're townie-centric this game. I mean, I defended you in Pirates and you didn't even say anything. But here, you've been less authentic and clear in your opinions and stances than when you were playing with emojis imo.

What? Less authentic and clear? Comparing clarity in a game where I was only using emojis (and keeping up mind you)?

What is a strong stance to you? Apparently not calling Jack bad for his play day one, nor agreeing that Jaybis a good lynch. Those are just weak stances.

Dunya, it feels like your trying to case me with "Wilgy is bad because of XYZ", when you can just say "I'm tone reading Wilgy as bad." Because of this I do feel that its disgenuine.

dunya was critical of Wilgy's lack of hard stances and Wilgy took issue. On this front, I think dunya's assertion is valid. There's really not much in the way of stances in this post history that I can see.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:43 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:38 pmI'll tell you what a strong townie stance is: it's having strong suspicions. Just clearing people off is more a scum stance-tactic. Does that make sense to you?

You were only using emojis, but those emojis actually reflected better on you. You were calling people good/bad with them. That's townie as hell.

This "not calling Jack bad for his play day one" and "not agreeing on a Jay lynch" is not necessarily townie as hell.

I hope you can see where I am coming from; I'm super genuine and super serious and extremely demanding.

So you want mor quantity from me?

no...I never complained about low post count or quantity of post. I want more genuine, hard stances. I would understand your hesitation in that you can't give me a genuine scum read without outing a scum-mate, but try.

I've already given what I had Dunya. Your shaking a tree that's out of apples. I'm just unsure if your shaking this tree on purpose or not.

The highlighted bit reads awkwardly at face value. First, there's an implied suspicion, or at least "room" for suspicion -- but the assertion of a "tree being shaken" is as applicable (if not moreso) to a civilian as a mafioso. Indeed shaking trees is often half the game.

~~~

I've stated numerous grievances here and less nice to say. Wilgy is a suspect.

Would day 4 Jay have been sure enough about his imminent death to make a post like this to distance from a Wilgy teammate?

I just read that post like ten minutes ago. Let me turn the question back on you. What was the risk?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:20 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

would you do that to your scummate?

Not without asking first.

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:23 pm I find it hard to believe a scum Jay, would go to all that trouble to incriminate a scum Wilgy, when no one had been looking his way except my vote (and I remember a few people asking me why Wilgy and obv they weren't convinced). So he goes hard on Wilgy, votes for Wilgy (the only other person with a vote -- and he knew I was asleep and wouldn't be up for EoD -- all he had to do was convince 2-3 people more.

Yeah, even without my other reasons, I don't see this plausible atm.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:26 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:17 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:16 pm This post happened during Day 4:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:38 pm A fresh look at DrWilgy

First substantive post

Quin's little move to generate responses re: his pledge to "vote Epi whenever" got a reply from Wilgy. It's a strategic assertion which doesn't say much of anything about either Epi or Quin. Filler potential. The negative read on Daisy is a loud one. Okay. The question he posed to Sloonei could have some utility if there's follow-up.

Another early multi-quote salad (let's make it a Thing guys)

There are numerous questions here. Questions are neat. I don't know what Wilgy is doing with them though.

Multi-quote salad again

Wilgy is inserting nuggets of chatter into numerous conversations. They don't boast much unique insight though. The sole stance I see taken here is an agreement with Quin's grievance against Kyle.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:51 pm Wilgy is highly unpredictable. Don't apply normal rules of logic. Wilgy is almost as unpredictable as Vompatti. Almost. Nothing is unlikely for Wilgy, everything is fair game. I'm just unsure what to do with this version of Wilgy...

It's funny that "normal" Wilgy scares you in such a way. Guess it's a good thing. Perhaps "normal" Wilgy is the advent of this game.

I wouldn't say this is the first time I have seen "normal Wilgy", or at least a Wilgy who involves himself in the game with words and posts. The first example that comes to mind is Talking Heads (he was bad). I don't know why Daisy's fear of his normalcy is a "good thing".

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:30 pm //Kyle what happened to your conviction? This doesn't feel the same Kyle that I met in Pirate mafia.

Is conviction something I had in pirates mafia? I would argue that the exact opposite is true. On the second to last day I didn't know who to lynch and almost died because of it, Speedchuck talked me into no lynching. We also lost partially because I didn't pursue my suspicion of Speedchuck on the final day.

I've been making a real effort to follow through in this game because of it.

Interesting. Perhaps I was confusing conviction with rapid adaption. My observance of you was from a smiley posting ding dong. I was the ding dong. You, however, were fun to watch because I felt like I was watching you grow in the short span of time I was alive. You were watched by a ding dong.

The one stance I referenced before was Wilgy's take on Kyle, via Quin. Kyle responded with a contrary description of his behavior. Wilgy's reply is a neutral observation which is no longer interrogative. The only stance taken thus dissipates, leaving this post history a bit bare to this point -- more than it appears at a glance. That's not ideal.

Jack ISO

It's nice that Wilgy's takes in this ISO are multi-directional -- he has both positive and negative things to say about Jack. The negative side wins the day, as the conclusion is a scum read on Jack. Some of the language employed here is a concern:

"Are you buddying or talking with a teammate here?" -- Loaded question

"I feel that JoH has a way of portraying things that either are forced or feel like a forced portrayal." -- Jack has a way of either portraying things that are forced or forcing a portrayal. Eh? What does that mean?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:44 pm Quick comment regarding the GTH exercise.

For everyokne that GTH'd me good. Why do you think I'm good? Under what scenarios do you find that I'm scummy? Would you say that you are mpre of a player that finds people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

@elochin I'm still curious as to why you stated my comment about being able to read Daisy stuck out to you as scummy before my further explanation. What about that comment caused a scum read? Am I not allowed to be bad at reading someone?

@JoH, I'll get back to you. I've come to a point where I'm aware of my tunneling and I need to review others before I continue to bark at you. What I find interesting outside of our back and forth is your baddie read of me. What prompted this read exactly?

Wilgy expressed concern that he might be tunneling on Jack and pledged to broaden his focus.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:13 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:09 am

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:08 am

What's the worst thing you could say about Lasagne?

She has 24 posts, at least 20 of those say nothing but bolster her presence in the thread.

I can get behind this.

Wilgy joined the Mesk wagon at EOD3. I don't take issue with a decision being made on the fly like this in the heat of EOD nonsense. It does beg expansion now though -- Wilgy, what inspired (hi Quin) your willingness to contribute to this wagon?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:34 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:49 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:54 pm I can promise you regardless of alignment it's a time constraint. Civ Wilgy or Scum Wilgy, I frown upon lurking.

What I find interesting is that instead of gauging my reads and what I've provided, you target the quantity. Why not ask for more if that's what you want? I've provided thoughts as I've caught up. Where are your comments on those?

Also Rainbows are dumb. Players are either good or bad.

It feels like a lot of general comments and observations, throwing in some questions for good measure. It doesn't feel like someone who is taking any sort of significant stance. This far into the game, I find it hard to believe any townie wouldn't have made strong stances yet, even if one that we can recognize him for. You haven't even made good/bad player lists. Sorry Wilgy, I just don't think you're townie-centric this game. I mean, I defended you in Pirates and you didn't even say anything. But here, you've been less authentic and clear in your opinions and stances than when you were playing with emojis imo.

What? Less authentic and clear? Comparing clarity in a game where I was only using emojis (and keeping up mind you)?

What is a strong stance to you? Apparently not calling Jack bad for his play day one, nor agreeing that Jaybis a good lynch. Those are just weak stances.

Dunya, it feels like your trying to case me with "Wilgy is bad because of XYZ", when you can just say "I'm tone reading Wilgy as bad." Because of this I do feel that its disgenuine.

dunya was critical of Wilgy's lack of hard stances and Wilgy took issue. On this front, I think dunya's assertion is valid. There's really not much in the way of stances in this post history that I can see.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:45 pm

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:43 pm
So you want mor quantity from me?

no...I never complained about low post count or quantity of post. I want more genuine, hard stances. I would understand your hesitation in that you can't give me a genuine scum read without outing a scum-mate, but try.

I've already given what I had Dunya. Your shaking a tree that's out of apples. I'm just unsure if your shaking this tree on purpose or not.

The highlighted bit reads awkwardly at face value. First, there's an implied suspicion, or at least "room" for suspicion -- but the assertion of a "tree being shaken" is as applicable (if not moreso) to a civilian as a mafioso. Indeed shaking trees is often half the game.

~~~

I've stated numerous grievances here and less nice to say. Wilgy is a suspect.

Would day 4 Jay have been sure enough about his imminent death to make a post like this to distance from a Wilgy teammate?

I just read that post like ten minutes ago. Let me turn the question back on you. What was the risk?

It was a hypothetical question. I'm actually coming around to your way of thinking on this... Dr. Wilgy has been a frequent subject of suspicion but he's never been even close to being lynched. Day 4 Jay would have probably seen his death coming, it's not out of the question that he'd build a case against a teammate to benefit himself or Wilgy in the future had one of them been lynched.

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:26 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:20 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:18 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:14 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:11 pm I find it a little hard to believe Jay would have done all that scathing, and place his vote on Wilgy, and get lynched. He wanted to turn it around. He had me on Wilgy, he didn't need more than 2-3 others to be convinced and we could have lynched Wilgy.

Sounds like an opportunity to me. But I'm pretty hardcore when people are after me.

would you do that to your scummate?

Not without asking first.

I guess my question should have been more like this: have you done it to a scummate before? Like Jay / Wilgy in this scenario?

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:27 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:26 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:17 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:16 pm This post happened during Day 4:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:38 pm A fresh look at DrWilgy

First substantive post

Quin's little move to generate responses re: his pledge to "vote Epi whenever" got a reply from Wilgy. It's a strategic assertion which doesn't say much of anything about either Epi or Quin. Filler potential. The negative read on Daisy is a loud one. Okay. The question he posed to Sloonei could have some utility if there's follow-up.

Another early multi-quote salad (let's make it a Thing guys)

There are numerous questions here. Questions are neat. I don't know what Wilgy is doing with them though.

Multi-quote salad again

Wilgy is inserting nuggets of chatter into numerous conversations. They don't boast much unique insight though. The sole stance I see taken here is an agreement with Quin's grievance against Kyle.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 pm

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:51 pm Wilgy is highly unpredictable. Don't apply normal rules of logic. Wilgy is almost as unpredictable as Vompatti. Almost. Nothing is unlikely for Wilgy, everything is fair game. I'm just unsure what to do with this version of Wilgy...

It's funny that "normal" Wilgy scares you in such a way. Guess it's a good thing. Perhaps "normal" Wilgy is the advent of this game.

I wouldn't say this is the first time I have seen "normal Wilgy", or at least a Wilgy who involves himself in the game with words and posts. The first example that comes to mind is Talking Heads (he was bad). I don't know why Daisy's fear of his normalcy is a "good thing".

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:45 pm

Is conviction something I had in pirates mafia? I would argue that the exact opposite is true. On the second to last day I didn't know who to lynch and almost died because of it, Speedchuck talked me into no lynching. We also lost partially because I didn't pursue my suspicion of Speedchuck on the final day.

I've been making a real effort to follow through in this game because of it.

Interesting. Perhaps I was confusing conviction with rapid adaption. My observance of you was from a smiley posting ding dong. I was the ding dong. You, however, were fun to watch because I felt like I was watching you grow in the short span of time I was alive. You were watched by a ding dong.

The one stance I referenced before was Wilgy's take on Kyle, via Quin. Kyle responded with a contrary description of his behavior. Wilgy's reply is a neutral observation which is no longer interrogative. The only stance taken thus dissipates, leaving this post history a bit bare to this point -- more than it appears at a glance. That's not ideal.

Jack ISO

It's nice that Wilgy's takes in this ISO are multi-directional -- he has both positive and negative things to say about Jack. The negative side wins the day, as the conclusion is a scum read on Jack. Some of the language employed here is a concern:

"Are you buddying or talking with a teammate here?" -- Loaded question

"I feel that JoH has a way of portraying things that either are forced or feel like a forced portrayal." -- Jack has a way of either portraying things that are forced or forcing a portrayal. Eh? What does that mean?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:44 pm Quick comment regarding the GTH exercise.

For everyokne that GTH'd me good. Why do you think I'm good? Under what scenarios do you find that I'm scummy? Would you say that you are mpre of a player that finds people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

@elochin I'm still curious as to why you stated my comment about being able to read Daisy stuck out to you as scummy before my further explanation. What about that comment caused a scum read? Am I not allowed to be bad at reading someone?

@JoH, I'll get back to you. I've come to a point where I'm aware of my tunneling and I need to review others before I continue to bark at you. What I find interesting outside of our back and forth is your baddie read of me. What prompted this read exactly?

Wilgy expressed concern that he might be tunneling on Jack and pledged to broaden his focus.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:13 am

Quin wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:09 am

She has 24 posts, at least 20 of those say nothing but bolster her presence in the thread.

I can get behind this.

Wilgy joined the Mesk wagon at EOD3. I don't take issue with a decision being made on the fly like this in the heat of EOD nonsense. It does beg expansion now though -- Wilgy, what inspired (hi Quin) your willingness to contribute to this wagon?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:34 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:49 pm
It feels like a lot of general comments and observations, throwing in some questions for good measure. It doesn't feel like someone who is taking any sort of significant stance. This far into the game, I find it hard to believe any townie wouldn't have made strong stances yet, even if one that we can recognize him for. You haven't even made good/bad player lists. Sorry Wilgy, I just don't think you're townie-centric this game. I mean, I defended you in Pirates and you didn't even say anything. But here, you've been less authentic and clear in your opinions and stances than when you were playing with emojis imo.

What? Less authentic and clear? Comparing clarity in a game where I was only using emojis (and keeping up mind you)?

What is a strong stance to you? Apparently not calling Jack bad for his play day one, nor agreeing that Jaybis a good lynch. Those are just weak stances.

Dunya, it feels like your trying to case me with "Wilgy is bad because of XYZ", when you can just say "I'm tone reading Wilgy as bad." Because of this I do feel that its disgenuine.

dunya was critical of Wilgy's lack of hard stances and Wilgy took issue. On this front, I think dunya's assertion is valid. There's really not much in the way of stances in this post history that I can see.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:45 pm
no...I never complained about low post count or quantity of post. I want more genuine, hard stances. I would understand your hesitation in that you can't give me a genuine scum read without outing a scum-mate, but try.

I've already given what I had Dunya. Your shaking a tree that's out of apples. I'm just unsure if your shaking this tree on purpose or not.

The highlighted bit reads awkwardly at face value. First, there's an implied suspicion, or at least "room" for suspicion -- but the assertion of a "tree being shaken" is as applicable (if not moreso) to a civilian as a mafioso. Indeed shaking trees is often half the game.

~~~

I've stated numerous grievances here and less nice to say. Wilgy is a suspect.

Would day 4 Jay have been sure enough about his imminent death to make a post like this to distance from a Wilgy teammate?

I just read that post like ten minutes ago. Let me turn the question back on you. What was the risk?

It was a hypothetical question. I'm actually coming around to your way of thinking on this... Dr. Wilgy has been a frequent subject of suspicion but he's never been even close to being lynched. Day 4 Jay would have probably seen his death coming, it's not out of the question that he'd build a case against a teammate to benefit himself or Wilgy in the future had one of them been lynched.

has been, or HAD been? I'd like some posts to solidify that.

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:31 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:27 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:26 pm

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:17 pm

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:16 pm This post happened during Day 4:

Spoiler: show

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:38 pm A fresh look at DrWilgy

First substantive post

Quin's little move to generate responses re: his pledge to "vote Epi whenever" got a reply from Wilgy. It's a strategic assertion which doesn't say much of anything about either Epi or Quin. Filler potential. The negative read on Daisy is a loud one. Okay. The question he posed to Sloonei could have some utility if there's follow-up.

Another early multi-quote salad (let's make it a Thing guys)

There are numerous questions here. Questions are neat. I don't know what Wilgy is doing with them though.

Multi-quote salad again

Wilgy is inserting nuggets of chatter into numerous conversations. They don't boast much unique insight though. The sole stance I see taken here is an agreement with Quin's grievance against Kyle.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:35 pm

It's funny that "normal" Wilgy scares you in such a way. Guess it's a good thing. Perhaps "normal" Wilgy is the advent of this game.

I wouldn't say this is the first time I have seen "normal Wilgy", or at least a Wilgy who involves himself in the game with words and posts. The first example that comes to mind is Talking Heads (he was bad). I don't know why Daisy's fear of his normalcy is a "good thing".

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 7:49 pm

Interesting. Perhaps I was confusing conviction with rapid adaption. My observance of you was from a smiley posting ding dong. I was the ding dong. You, however, were fun to watch because I felt like I was watching you grow in the short span of time I was alive. You were watched by a ding dong.

The one stance I referenced before was Wilgy's take on Kyle, via Quin. Kyle responded with a contrary description of his behavior. Wilgy's reply is a neutral observation which is no longer interrogative. The only stance taken thus dissipates, leaving this post history a bit bare to this point -- more than it appears at a glance. That's not ideal.

Jack ISO

It's nice that Wilgy's takes in this ISO are multi-directional -- he has both positive and negative things to say about Jack. The negative side wins the day, as the conclusion is a scum read on Jack. Some of the language employed here is a concern:

"Are you buddying or talking with a teammate here?" -- Loaded question

"I feel that JoH has a way of portraying things that either are forced or feel like a forced portrayal." -- Jack has a way of either portraying things that are forced or forcing a portrayal. Eh? What does that mean?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:44 pm Quick comment regarding the GTH exercise.

For everyokne that GTH'd me good. Why do you think I'm good? Under what scenarios do you find that I'm scummy? Would you say that you are mpre of a player that finds people innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent?

@elochin I'm still curious as to why you stated my comment about being able to read Daisy stuck out to you as scummy before my further explanation. What about that comment caused a scum read? Am I not allowed to be bad at reading someone?

@JoH, I'll get back to you. I've come to a point where I'm aware of my tunneling and I need to review others before I continue to bark at you. What I find interesting outside of our back and forth is your baddie read of me. What prompted this read exactly?

Wilgy expressed concern that he might be tunneling on Jack and pledged to broaden his focus.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:13 am
I can get behind this.

Wilgy joined the Mesk wagon at EOD3. I don't take issue with a decision being made on the fly like this in the heat of EOD nonsense. It does beg expansion now though -- Wilgy, what inspired (hi Quin) your willingness to contribute to this wagon?

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:34 pm

What? Less authentic and clear? Comparing clarity in a game where I was only using emojis (and keeping up mind you)?

What is a strong stance to you? Apparently not calling Jack bad for his play day one, nor agreeing that Jaybis a good lynch. Those are just weak stances.

Dunya, it feels like your trying to case me with "Wilgy is bad because of XYZ", when you can just say "I'm tone reading Wilgy as bad." Because of this I do feel that its disgenuine.

dunya was critical of Wilgy's lack of hard stances and Wilgy took issue. On this front, I think dunya's assertion is valid. There's really not much in the way of stances in this post history that I can see.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:49 pm
I've already given what I had Dunya. Your shaking a tree that's out of apples. I'm just unsure if your shaking this tree on purpose or not.

The highlighted bit reads awkwardly at face value. First, there's an implied suspicion, or at least "room" for suspicion -- but the assertion of a "tree being shaken" is as applicable (if not moreso) to a civilian as a mafioso. Indeed shaking trees is often half the game.

~~~

I've stated numerous grievances here and less nice to say. Wilgy is a suspect.

Would day 4 Jay have been sure enough about his imminent death to make a post like this to distance from a Wilgy teammate?

I just read that post like ten minutes ago. Let me turn the question back on you. What was the risk?

It was a hypothetical question. I'm actually coming around to your way of thinking on this... Dr. Wilgy has been a frequent subject of suspicion but he's never been even close to being lynched. Day 4 Jay would have probably seen his death coming, it's not out of the question that he'd build a case against a teammate to benefit himself or Wilgy in the future had one of them been lynched.

has been, or HAD been? I'd like some posts to solidify that.

I don't know the difference between has been and had been in this context. Maybe "frequent" was an exaggeration. The point was that Wilgy's been a discussion topic.

gotta go get rid of some blood brb

dunya wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:30 pm speedchuck - sorry I misunderstood before what you meant, now I get it, you've never been in Jay's position. So has a teammate ever done that to you?

Kylemii wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:55 pm Mafia don't win the game by bussing their teammates and relaxing though. They also have to keep attention drawn towards civs. That's why it's worth paying attention to Jay's earlier posts.

Has anyone been mafio with Jay before? How did he treat you and your kin?

speedchuck wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:54 pm Cbob did read Sloonei as mechanically near-confirmed town before N2 was over. Hm.

DrWilgy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:28 pm Dragon D. Luffy -
Civ due to tone and reasoning. I've meta read him as civ the entire game.
Bad due to voting record. DDL had voted for Jack day 2, Bob day 3 (when J3 was a heavily discussed option), If my memory serves was a lead pusher of the Malakim wagon.

Here is how you read DDL, if you forget about him for any length of time he is blending scum

nutella wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:57 pm DDL, read this and explain to me why Sloonei is mechanically cleared

Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:29 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:25 pm Reasons I can read everyone as town:

Dragon D. Luffy - I have "mind-melded" with DDL on a couple of occasions, and he made one defensive post early on which read as highly emotional and passionate, the kind of thing I don't see being faked.
DrWilgy - Jay went after him hard.
dunya - Believable-as-heck tone, has put as much work as anyone into the thread despite numerous RL reasons not to.
Elohcin - She was Jay's top lynch priority on Day 3 when prompted to name any suspect at all. This would have to be a very aggressive bussing strategy for them to be teammates. This is also among the most involved games I've seen Elohcin play.
nijuukyugou - Finally a post from this player slot! Insertglorfblooper is town because there's no way two players fail to pick up a scum role card, right?
Kylemii - Believable tone. Has put a high volume of content into the thread without ever appearing seriously uncomfortable.
Long Con - He's a fearless scumster, but appears less involved than usual this game.
nutella - Possibly Everest. Helped kickstart the Jay bandwagon on Day 3.
Quin - I believe his tone, he aggressively defended Jay, and Jay may have been making a concerted effort to pocket Quin.
sig - Jay tried to lynch him.
Sloonei - Role card says so.
speedchuck - Similar to Long Con, though I have at times also felt like Speedchuck has presented some sincere thoughts and doubts in the thread.

I'm heading out for a few hours and I'd like for this exercise to actually lead somewhere today, so I'll explain myself and ask The Question now and hope that it helps in some area.

The purpose of this exercise is to get us all thinking about the possibility that each player is town, because that is a possibility obviously. After going through and making the list, my question for all the kind folks who participation is this: which pro-town arguments were the hardest for you to come up with, or which arguments did you find least convincing?

For me the players I struggled with/were least convinced by are: Long Con, nijuukyugou, wilgy, and speedchuck. Those are the players I'd be inclined to follow up on as a result of this for myself. But the point of gathering as many folks as possible is so that we can all compare our answers. So I'd like a response to this from everybody who participated. @dunya @DrWilgy @speedchuck @Kylemii

I'd still be happy if more people wanted to take a crack at this and I appreciate those of you who have gone through with this at my incessant begging. Thanks.

Quin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 7:18 pm Kyle is no longer a suspect.