The Syndicate

No Batman until 10:30

Russtifinko wrote:I don't catch what you're implying with the underlined. I am very bad at hinting at things and catching hints, as others can attest. I also have a personal policy of not hinting at non-thread info in the thread. So whatever you think you see probably isn't there, sorry.

No problem, I figured not anyway. Just trying to start a civvie link fence with a few players (right now I have Elohcin and I guess Choutas as civvies, and bcornett as anti-Mafia), but it's all good.

Russtifinko wrote:I also don't love your rationale for wanting to lynch MM. It reads to me as uncomfortably close to the idea of lynching civs just to do it, which I am currently ripping motel room for. Please explain yourself.

Actually, I want to lynch motel room, 3J, Strawhenge, and Floyd (in that order until the order changes in about 5 minutes haha). However, I will explain myself. Straw came into the thread claiming some wild stuff about MetalMarsh (who I had G2H as part of a Mafia team anyway), pretty much guaranteeing a good result if lynched. I figure since I suspected Metal Marsh anyway, why not? And if it didn't take, if MM came out civvie, then that would be just one more reason why Strawhenge is bad. If anything, though, I see Metalmarsh as a neutral read leaning Mafia, definitely not a civvie read currently, so I don't see how that's the same as "just lynching civs just to do it". If you'll recall, I was very unhappy with Golden's gambit back on Day 3, I think?, when he invited everyone to waste a lynch day to lynch him and he claimed being civvie all the while.

Linki Floyd - Nice of you to make an appearance. You just moved up ahead of Strawhenge.

What does linki mean, Ive seen this all over the place, an precise definition would be appreciated. There is a ton of lingo in this game and I often check mafia wiki first, I didn't see this.

I will copy the first part of my post into my final case for DrWilgy when it is done so it is a complete post.

bcornett24 wrote:What does linki mean, Ive seen this all over the place, an precise definition would be appreciated. There is a ton of lingo in this game and I often check mafia wiki first, I didn't see this.

I will copy the first part of my post into my final case for DrWilgy when it is done so it is a complete post.

You know sometimes when you hit "submit" on a post, but it doesn't post right away, and instead it shows you other comments that have appeared since you originally started writing out your post?

Well, when that happens, typically a player will type out "Linki" and then respond to those posts you see that have suddenly appeared.

As an example. My above post I posted towards Russ, then I hit "submit", but it showed me Floyd's post voting for MM. So I replied with a "Linki" and responded to Floyd.

Wow, I think I made that way too complicated. Can someone with some teaching skillz help me out here? Haha

Russtifinko wrote:Floyd, I see you're in thread. Any thoughts on the events of recent days? You nearly got lynched but didn't; what do you think of your voters? JJJ? The last-minute seaside lynch?

Epi and Marsh's conversations with each other are fascinating to observe.
Who ever Life During Wartime and SK tried to kill, they most likely tried to attack Blind.
I originally thought that Triple J was the SK, but after reading this thread, I think he's probably Mafia scum.
I was shocked by seaside's last minute lynch, I'm still confused why he was voted for. We will probably need to investigate the people who voted for him.

I dressed up as Liam Gallagher for school. That was fun.

Linki: MattF, in what way?

I was just kiddin', Floyd.

What makes you think 3J is Mafia and why did you have him pegged as the SK before?

Linki - I'm able to linki you Bcornett! Yeaaah!

Epignosis - For a second I thought Russ might be a civvie, but now I'm back to neutral.

After reading him, I did notice that at one point he tells the thread that he's sold on Mac being town because of 3J's vouching for him. Later still, he reiterates MacD's towniness because 3J and Choutas' read of him. It kinda seemed like he was preemptively blaming 3J in case MacD ever flipped mafia? Also at one point, says he was all about a Black Rock lynch until fingersplints made him change his mind because of some argument they were having. Weird that he was gung ho about Black Rock (scum) but then changed his mind because of an argument with splints (civvie).

I dunno, it's hard for me to see him as Mafia with that Long Con vote. HOWEVER, I did notice during that Day phase, he seemed to suspect Sorsha more then Long Con, even voted Sorsha once because he was not happy that she was encouraging the LC vote (even though he suspected LC too) but then realized his mistake because Sorsha was actually discouraging a Long Con vote. Then he eventually votes Long Con (as we all know). ???

I'm neutral on Russ for now, I'd have to see more evidence of him being bad before voting for him.

Well I was gonna chill till 10:30, but now my laptop says it's going to restart by itself in like 5 minutes, so I'm out. PEACE

well I'm off to have a weekend. Russtifinko is my vote for now. If I get a chance to be back on I'll do some reassessing (wanna see what takes with this metalmarsh thing) and probably some good old defending by the looks.

bcornett24 wrote:DrWilgy Analysis

I am looking for anything that I find to be suspicious or that I may need to reply to; hopefully something juicy.
Content is snipped slightly, I will not be pulling anything out of context, DrWilgy replies in blocks to multiple people and it is very hard to make this readable without some snipping. If you have concerns about the content please ask.

Day 0

Role playing

Day 1

Comments on a few posts, apologizes for being mostly inactive.

Day 2

Diiny wrote:Out of all the BWT votes I think Wilgy's is one of the worst. Guy's a scum lean for me, now. Basing a vote on day 0 shit and sticking with it and not grappling with anything else for the rest of the day is bad stuff in my book.

DrWilgy wrote:Sounds pretty normal to me. I wasn't here. I specifically addressed how I play earlier, and those who I played recruitment with at least know a little bit about how I play. If you would like a recap of that game from my perspective I'd gladly give one.

I Think he makes a fair point here it is kind of hard to base votes on anything if you haven't been around, based on the content. or lack-there-of for days 1 and 2 I think this is fine even if not the best.

DrWilgy wrote:Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Makes a good point highlighting some points on long cons vote for bea agreeing with others assessments.

DrWilgy wrote:Now that I've gone and looked like a dummy...

ACTUAL Step 2, work on forming more coherent thoughts about players. Especially ones that appear on my baddiedar.

Long Con

So my thoughts regarding my vote (still subject to change)
Can we please compare his accusations of bea:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Long Con wrote:

bea wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have my doubts that most mafia teams would be concerned enough with a "Dusk 0" poll that they'd deliberately coordinate their votes beyond a couple people maybe on any one person.

I can testify from experience that a) its not unheard of but also b) it's really really really not a good move to make. I remember one game I played on another site where all but one of our team voted for an advantage to one of our teammates on day 0. After she flipped bad, the civs picked us off one by one. Except the one guy who didn't vote with us. He laughed at us bts. He laughed lots. I still hear his laughter.

bea agrees that the Mafia wouldn't coordinate their votes so early. So, that's the first instance of an opinion of "not-Mafia".

bea wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:My main suspicion at this point is Ricco. First of all, he seems to be saying a lot, without really saying anything. Even when he voiced some suspicion, it's done in an "intrigued" tone, as if he's trying to avoid confrontation. If you add to that what K4J said about how he voted at the end of day 0 on the syndicate, it's another reason to not trust him at the moment.

As for rico - he seems fairly rico for me atm. I don't have a good feel for his civ vs his bad game as I've only played a few with him and tbh, I don't remember where he ended on any of them. (This is my fault not his) but his meta seems to be what I'd expect from him.

I snipped the quote for clarity. Here, bea defends Rico while not defending him at the same time. (This opinion of mine is new upon this reread, actually) If either bea or Rico turn up bad, then this kind of statement would make me look at the other.

bea wrote:

Roxy wrote:

Diiny wrote:I should say that's more than an accusation of you being too quiet per se, it's an accusation of you being fundementally off-meta.

Sorsha also raised my eyebrow, chiming in to answer an easy question about polls and then leaving without sharing any views or making any real attempt to play mafia.

I'm also extremely unhappy with Roxy's off topic to mafia ratio. I won't be happy if you randomise at all. Day 1 is about MAKING concrete evidence through stirring shit and provoking reactions, not just waiting for it to happen and throwing your vote onto random people.

Seems my randomization post got a "provoking reaction"

It usually does from new peeps. Thanks for taking that bullet.

DIINY - Sorsha does that. She's got limited time too. She responds to what's most current/on topic when she catches up.

Rox and others - tend to Day 1 Day 1. We recognise that ALL arguments are based on very little. The weakest of pings. And lacking anything concrete to go on, we reserve the right to random vote.

Some of us feel that a random vote is as logical as a super weak "I got nothing else woe is me" Day 1 vote and JUST as easily manipulated by mafia as a "random" vote. I know one player that refuses to read the roles till like day 3.

I tend to not get anything near a vibe or feeling till like day 3 myself so I understand the random. I've done it. I've done it regardless of being civ or mafia. (Because even when I'm mafia, lots of our games are two mafia teams and then I still want to find baddies, just not my baddies) It's not done, at least in my part, to with hold info. It's done to find info. Some people find info differently than others. Some jump in and look and prod and question. Some sit back and watch the prodding and questioning and go from there. BOTH are needed for the civ cause.

Different styles for different folks. That's what makes this experiment awesome!

Here she defends Sorsha against Diiny's suspicion. Also defends Roxy. Continues that in her next post too... how "Rox and I" have "Civ reasons" for acting this way. How does bea know Rox has Civ reasons at all?

bea wrote:

Long Con wrote:Bea has opinions about who is Civvie, but none about who is bad. A Mafia member knows every Civvie out there, so can proclaim their trust with confidence. I think bea is Mafia, and I'm going to put my vote on her for now.

*votes bea*

Srrsly? Lamest day 1 vote ever LC. I haven't stated at all who I think is civ with confidence. My whole argument is I don't know yet who is or isn't . It's like you aren't even reading my posts....

I expect better from you tbh.

I never said "with confidence". You added that. Are you actually trying to shame me??

Anyways, gotta go out for lunch, be back in a bit.

to his reasoning (and what I feel is a cop out)?

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

FZ. wrote:LC's vote for Bea did strike me as fake...

I have to get ready and leave for work soon, so it's time to cast a real vote. The bea vote was actually fake. I thought, since votes are changeable, I'd make a fake case and see if I could catch any opportunistic baddies trying to latch on to it and follow the vote. It didn't really bear fruit; looking over BWT's reasons for voting bea, he is coming from a completely different angle. The truth is, bea's behaviour is pretty normal for her, and I don't suspect her much at all.
[...]
Sorry for using you, bea!

Long Con wrote:

Sorsha wrote:RIPIYWG guys

Long Con can you explain why you chose bea and what your ideal outcome would have been yesterday?

I chose bea because I saw the opportunity to make the case I did based on the things she had said. She's a good target for this kind of thing, because unlike Epig or Golden or Llama, she's less likely to take an accusation like that and run with it until it's a big polarized head-to-head between me and my accused. My ideal outcome would have been for someone from The Syndicate to take my points and agree with them and vote for bea, revealing themselves as someone willing to go along with a case because it looks good on the surface. Following this, a baddie lynch, led by me, as I humbly accept cheering Civvie accolades. Alternate ideal: bea actually is a baddie and scumslips in some way in response to the accusation.

More realistic: it develops some conversation where I get some pings from people and keep them in mind as the game progresses. However, despite opinions that it was a convincing argument, it ended up being too clumsy, and most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful. It could still bear fruit, as the lynches go on - when we end up lynching a baddie, I'll be checking up on their response, if any, to the situation. Maybe someone who accused me of being bad will end up being bad, which will necessitate a second look at bea.

Long Con wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Long Con wrote:1. You expect me to do a thing like this half-assed? It wasn't that hard to go through her posts and identify places where she said certain players were Civ (or at least that she was defending their usual playstyle as true to their Civvie meta, which is more what she was doing as I recall)

2. I said that BWT was potentially implicated, but a review of his reasons for voting bea were not related to my case against her, so I wasn't going to pursue him for something that wasn't there.

3. Well, that is a possibility isn't it? What do you mean by "convenient"?

1. This is the problem. I believe it wasn't that hard for you to find relevant posts by bea, because I suspect you really did see those posts on first review and perceive a reason to bring them up -- either as a genuine expression of suspicion (now doubtful given your current stance), or as a means of unjustly smearing a Day 1 target. If I follow your posts during the incident in question and try to formulate a perspective of your mindset, I find it much easier to believe that you truly did invest yourself in an anti-bea agenda for whatever reason and expanded on your misgivings when so prompted than you made it up as a gambit to expose bandwagoners.

If you find it easy to believe, then good. It was supposed to be believable. I wasn't planning on "expanding on my misgivings" so much, but I got questioned hard (by you if I recall correctly), so I shrugged and gave it the ol' college try, bringing up bea's posts and going through them one by one to find scraps that would support my "case". You both led my posts in that direction, and then followed them now. My posts weren't made in isolation; they were prompted by you yourself. Don't ask for something and then bring it up a day later that I provided what you asked for as suspicious.

2. Do you have any other thoughts at all about the people who interacted with you relative to your stated suspicion of bea? That is: anyone who expressed faith in bea, doubt in your case, or suspicion of you for your case?

I'd like to know bea's alignment before jumping to any conclusions about those people. Any pings or nods in that direction would be tenuous at best for now.

3. It appears a convenient explanation because you were drawing heat from multiple players specifically for your treamtent of bea. To suggest that the very conduct that was getting you in trouble was actually some manner of test is inherently convenient. That doesn't imply that you must be lying, but I think it's fair to think you might have been lying given the context I'm pointing to now.

I have never been afraid to draw heat. Most games, I'm more than happy to draw just the right amount of heat in order to stay alive on those cold, murderous nights.

In fact, I'm going to revisit the entire scenario and illustrate what my doubts are:

This is a specific accusation of bea which can be supported, whether it's correct or not, with content in her post history. This was the first expressed suspicion of bea to my knowledge by anyone in the thread. Given your current explanation, I am forced to observe this post through two lenses and decide which one is more believable:

1. Long Con was not suspicious of bea at all, and placed this post here with supportable assertions against her and a vote as a tactic to expose anyone who might follow his lead.

2. Long Con was genuinely suspicious of bea and stated his genuine misgivings.

3. Long Con was not suspicious of bea, but claimed to be with supportable assertions because he stood to gain from the appearance of his mafia hunting and the resulting pressure on bea.

You've taken away #2. We cannot work on that assumption anymore. When I compare #1 with #3 while looking at the post you made, #3 speaks to me more. I don't see a test. I see a real move against bea. I think the hangup here is that your initial points against bea were valid (not necessarily indicative of her alignment, but valid). I have my doubts that you brought attention to real, verifiable content in bea's posts which can validly be called suspicious independent of meta without wholly intending the resulting pressure to land on bea herself.

I am not suspicious of bea. That doesn't mean she's not a baddie. I don't think that her actions on Day 1 constitute enough evidence to conclusively say she's bad, like I did. But she might be! Maybe it will turn out that my "case" was exactly right and now we have a scum tell for bea that we can carry through the ages. I didn't make any attempts to prevent some pressure landing on bea, and I wouldn't try to prevent it in hindsight. From my perspective, that's a good side effect. You of all people should be able to appreciate some added pressure on a player.

Now, I saw that others had addressed this fact, but here are my highlights (follow the colors and underlined).
I feel that this is a good example as to why I believe this is well... unbelievable. The fact that Long Con saw the Roxy + Bea (and other players) correlation and pointed them out, but somehow isn't suspicious of bea bothers me immensely. It feels like a contradiction in logic, at least civ logic. Civ logic would've meant that upon making this statement, there was some momentum to be gained towards finding the solution, regardless if it was a "false case" or not. Plus I don't understand how you can see that create a "false case" and not walk away with any suspicion towards the person unless you knew their alignment. I'm suspicious of everyone, all civ thinking players should be. Some more than others, sure, but not suspicious at all?

This is a contridiction, unless something between these two posts convinced you that she wasn't suspicious.

This doesn't make sense either. If you were looking for a scumslip why did you let up pressure? Also, why list so many routes? why list so many goals? why look for Civvie accolades? It was simple, you were looking for day one intel (if you are civ). These goals feel forced.

This line bothers me. It feels like LC is saying, If I look scum, it's because I'm totally not scum, I just look scum because I like to. Also, doesn't this contradict the "most of the conversation was about me instead, which was less helpful" line? It continues the question why let the pressure off of bea

A proper sum of my thoughts on LC can be described in one word: "Why" There's too much senselessness in this whole charade, and I don't see what was gained out of it by the time of the "teehee it was all fake" reveal.

Now, I'm not done with LC yet, but I wanted to get this part to you so you can at least see my efforts.

Cases Long Con, which looks pretty good for Dr

Day 3

DrWilgy wrote:Wilgy scratches his head... papers are thrown everywere... "I don't get it!" he exclaims... there's too much info to process... It may be impossible...

I've been looking over the final vote tally, taking into account everyone this time. In doing so, I realized that Long Con was not put into a state of possible death UNTIL Russ's vote. I'm no longer feeling the Sorsha vote, and will post my work and change my vote as soon as it's compiled correctly.

also strictly based on my grand analysis, the most civvie players are russ and golden. The only situations where this is wrong are:

• 1. Bcornett is not Civ.
  2. Next level mind games, like 10 steps ahead mind games.

Backs off of voting for sorhsa, I am not sure if hi vote actually followed this as Dr does not highlight has vote in the forum, or has not thus far.

Bumping for complete post.

Day 3 Cont...
Day 4

Completes a vote analysis of Day three votes for myself and Long Con, this appears to be another attempt to legitimately seek answers. The effort feels sincere and so does his answer seeking.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Floyd has been going through some shit. Let him figure out the game and learn how to play before you make him regret playing dude.

So you believe I should let him be?

Oh shit, I just came out from the clouds again. Sorry bro.

Anyway, I'm out for a few hours. I may check the thread out when I get home, if not, see ya all tomorrow!

Defensive when no need to be.

He's barely played on the first four days and making votes is about the easiest thing to imitate. He might be scum, but it'd be impossible to tell. Your reasons for thinking so are based on your own meta.

We should lynch sorsha today based on the fact that sorsha got unlynched yesterday and golden (who is basically confirmed town) was the other candidate along with rico who is apparently unlynchable today.

Sorsha is my vote.

What and Why?

It is obvious that floyd has been going through stuff based on several of the comments he has made. Sorry bro, hope everything gets better. This also looks good for Dr he is already looking at Mac with suspicion for his non explained sorsha vote (he explains later, but considering he is mafia...).

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Nothing has happened to unmake her a scum but all other candidates from yesterday look town ergo I am inclined to believe she was saved by le scum making her mega scum like a megazord.

What does this even mean?

If I recall correctly, you disagreed with some of the reasons people wanted a Sorsha lynch.

Here:

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:

Matt F wrote:

MacDougall wrote:No. It was gun to head. I did the same with Matt F. I have no overwhelming thought on him. He made me tingle once. Nowhere near some others. It's not worthy of consideration and you look bad to me for trying to dwell on something so pointless.

And this is why I usually read the thread first. Still reading, btw, but since I stopped for his last post, might as well stop for this one.

If you remember what it was that made you tingle, lemme know.

Alright. The post that caught my eye first was this one.

Matt F wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Everything about the bcornett bandwagon screams easy mislynch, further cementing the civilians' loss in this game, days and days before the slow brutal end. I don't want to participate in a game that's as one-sided as that, do you? Vote JJJ, so we'll have one mislynch for one baddie lynch.

You may not be bad, but you're not pro-civilian.

wow. this. putting my vote on rbz for now.

Despite him proclaiming me def town, I don't have a read on RBZ.

However, if you agree with Epig that rbz is not bad but pro town, then why vote for rbz? You're still voting for someone you think is civvie.

Sorsha, what do you think of Eloh's vote for RBZ?

Here you made a point of reminding the thread that someone has you as a def town read. You are speaking as though it's normal that if someone has a pro town read on a player that the player returns the favour. That's not normal and it doesn't need to be said. It's weird that you would even bother qualifying the post with the aforementioned, but not a huge tell. It did catch my eye but until now I haven't had a chance to look at you in detail.

Until you started to receive some attention you appeared to be struggling to produce content and tried to force it out by discussing game mechanics. Strange, especially for someone who according to yourself is known for posting lots and lots in a game. Your entire page 2 ISO are posts of this nature. I would have thought, and this might be website differences, that a volume posting townie would be accusing all and sundry at that point rather than dwelling on game mechanics.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/search ... 1&start=40

You had a couple of people post mild suspicions of you and I sensed relief that you had an excuse to post. For someone who I can already see is a good player, struggling to scum hunt would be unusual for you as town, but would be an explanation for struggling to post if you were scum.

Matt F wrote:

Sorsha wrote:I feel like Matt is stretching with trying to find links where there are none and he's still on day 0 when everyone else is on day 2 so yeah... I can see that.

Everyone else, huh?

I suppose reywas coming in the thread to say "hello" means he's on Day 2, huh? Or TheFloyd, who has hardly said two words, if that, he must also be on Day 2?

As for me stretching it, again, I ask you, is Elohcin also stretching it by agreeing with my idea on you, or is still just me?

I don't like your reason for voting sorsha, but I particularly don't like that sorsha seems to be your big go to and your other scum hunt efforts are very low effort and not elaborated on in great detail despite you saying you would. Certainly sorsha accusing you of being the only player stuck on day 0 is disingenuous but it could just as easily be her using hyperbole as an excited townie thinking she's nabbed a scum. Her read is much the same as what I've discovered above in your ISO.

Actually on further thought when she said you were "stuck on day 0" did she not mean that your attention was on day 0? How does mentioning reywaS posting "hello" dispute the fact that your posts were all about day 0 up until that point? Hmmm... And this is your reason for starting your big tunnel job?

I think you've either misunderstood her or intentionally twisted her words. Which is it?

Most of your other major contributions occur when someone levels suspicion on you. You come out of the aethyr to respond, much like you have just now.

Discussing game mechanics early game to get post count up.
Tunneling a player who showed suspicion of you but made a faux pas in the process and despite a promise of more scum hunting...
You come out of the clouds to respond when someone mentions you in a negative light.

Pretty big scum tells.

Then there's this.

Matt F wrote:Russ looks completely anti-Mafia to me now. He might be SK (er...apologies to whoever doesn't like talking about the SK...?), but consider this...

Russ made the 8th and final vote for Long Con, and was rather late with it.

Then, Long Con was forced to use his "x3 vote" on bcornett just to TIE with bcornett. I very seriously doubt Russ would make that vote if Long Con was his teamie. He could've easily avoided it by voting bcornett or Llama.

Anywho, right now I believe Sorsha is a baddie.

Sorsha wrote: Of course he, as mafia, would try to associate with or otherwise make a civ look guilty.

^--Talkin' about Long Con and her.

What's funny about this, is when I mentioned how Sorsha maybe voted with Eloh in Day 0 all three times to make Elohcin look guilty in the case that Sorsha was lynched and flipped baddie...Sorsha said how ridiculous I was.

But now, you do believe it's possible that members of the Mafia try to associate with civs to make them look guilty?

Linki

I like Golden, heck he even voted me CEO (thanks G!), however, after seeing Russ' very late vote for Long Con, I see Golden switched his vote to bcornett before the poll ended.

Golden - What are your thoughts on Sorsha? Do you think we should lynch her today?

Also, I had a slight ping on espers, but I'll write out a new post for that one. What's everyone else think of espers?

I don't think so. If Long Con's teammates were resigned to his lynching that would be a decent vote to make. I mean, if you're town you just justified him doing so!

I will say that if sorsha is lynched and flips scum it would be extremely unlike you're bussing her.

If she is lynched and flips town... well it won't condemn you. But it will make you look like a dick at least, scum at worst.

Can you please elaborate on some of the other scum pings you've had. I'd like to see you put some effort into other players before the end of this day. After analysing you further you've got me mighty worried.

I welcome the input of others here... Especially on the bolded part.

So you think that the case is wrong? But you vote for her immediately today?

But:

Spoiler: show

MacDougall wrote:I'm split on sorsha and golden as lynch candidates. Golden has been the scummiest player today, which is why I want him lynched but sorsha has been not really better and I'm keen to see sorsha flip so I can develop more of a MattF read. To me sorsha being scum is slightly less likely mathematically due to the fact that Matt is slightly more likely than I thought and I think it's incredibly unlikely that they are on a scum team.

Does anybody else have any theories that could develop from a lynch of one of these two?

linki: I recall one time getting lynched by town because scum Equus made a post that was a flow chart of probabilities that led to me being scum in the majority of cases. We lost the game because she got me lynched. If you are genuinely telling me that "colours and probabilities" are enough for you to say that DrWilgy is a strong town read and that's the towniest post in the game. I might as well just not bother posting actual cases and just make up wifom bullshit about people I have gut scum reads on.

I wouldn't say most look good. But wifom aside, there aren't many players who have outright been suspicious to me. Evidently there are six. Being that I'm awesome it's probably the entire scum team.

I assume you mean that my town and scum games are identical? *sigh* Dude that's wifom. We need to focus on actual cases and inconsistencies like the part where MattF has actually completely misconstrued (or misrepresented) a valid point sorsha raised about him and tunneled her the entire time since. Using wifom and meta in my experience is anti-town. Either townies making cases based on nothing that fluke lynch scum but more often result in lynching townies or scum making up reason to push suspicion onto townies.

looks like a Sorsha defense to me.

Doesn't these highlights contradict each other? You say you want more information for your read of Matt F, but you previously stated that the only thing you would get out of it was a Matt F clear. Is that your goal for voting Sorsha today? A Matt F clear?

Don't make no sense, no no no...

Wilgy runs over to Fuzz. Tackles him and shows him affection of all sorts. "It's not gay if we have a good laugh." Fuzz thinks to himself. What he doesn't expect, is that Wilgy is harvesting his DNA behind his back!

Fuzz, you read me better than anyone else here. What do you think of me currently. I noticed your intrigue in Bcornett's suspicion.

Lol @ the roleplaying

Cases Mac further, this looks even better for Dr

DrWilgy wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:I'm not sure, myself. You play strangely on Syndicate, I'm only used to your JTM (and Avalon) antics.

bcornett, can you elaborate on why you put Wilgy in "probably scum"?

Thought you would say that. Regardless of your alignment, you know I play better with you pushing me. Don't let me miss those techs and punishes Fuzz.

Finally addressing some of the stuff you were previously talking about, most of this is just because I didn't catch everything when skimming I've had to skim several times and the quantity of content in this thread is difficult to deal with as you yourself have stated.

I did not notice Dr post about him having midterms and being sick which had me confused as to how he was generating reads without being present in the first two days.

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Sorsha's play being scum is well documented, you only have to look at her recent posts to get a sense of posting nervously as scum playing poorly with a lynch on them tend to do.

DrWilgy... Are you tunneling me because I said you were scum in that Jimmy's game? Oh my God, u suck brah.

Not tunneling, just asking and pointing out things of importance. Luv ya bruh <3

Ok then, lets set up a chain of events, based on Sorsha crumbs.

When Sorsha flips baddie, who would you vote the following day?

When Sorsha flips civ, who would you vote the following day?

Generating rainbow lists for both if Sorsha is bad or civ would be a good thing as well... Maybe abit much to ask for though.

Bcornett are you bad?

No I am not scum, when you linked this first time it confused me as the structuring and location was weird and I thought this was directed at Mac. Generally speaking, when I create a rainbow, they consist of two types of reads, gut reads based on content glimpse and interactions I have specifically noticed, these are my gut reads. Rainbow reads that are not gut reads tend to have a reason next to them within the rainbow. I tend to not have a preemptive vote ready, I prefer to look at all of the information collectively before I place a vote.

Night 4

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Browsing over posts right now, I have a bit to do after I complete my second job today.

Mafia to do list:

• In-depth analysis of devin the omniscient
• In-depth analysis of Mac
• Bullzeye post review
• Elo post review
• Espers post review

If I missed anything or somebody has some questions please let me know.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!


I just lost my shit. I actually screamed when I read this.

Someone cool me down! Im seeing red!!

Apparently you are rather pissed with me at this point lol...I will say I find it rather odd that you have made two cases and a huge effort on Mac and you redirect to me because I did not answer your questions. Mac was at the height of his suspicion after sorsha flipped civ not following through with your case is counter intuitive to me.

Day 5

Continues after me for not answering his questions, gives his reason for what i Just stated above, this is acceptable.

DrWilgy wrote:JJJ is probably scum. Only 55% sure though.

Arbitrary number much?

Attempts to get a bandwagon on me so that I will respond to him, perhaps a bit excessive but I honestly don't think it is scummy, I get pissed when I feel people are not reading my content or answering my questions.
I looked over this once before and didn't understand it the first time, now taking a closer look, I still don't get it, could you please explain how I am supposed to interpret the numbers in this graph?

Day 6

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:How did missing your night kill make you feel?

Mac, how sure of this are you?

Floyd, Fuzz, or Matt, did epi miss a night kill?

I these feels like a taunt by Mac, or some expression of frustration that Epi was the target of the night kill that kill was blocked.

Is still pissed that I haven't responded, and says he is going to case me.
Returns to his cases on Mac and pushes for his lynch.

DrWilgy wrote:

RadicalFuzz wrote:I think Wilgy is dirtier than Mac. My preference would be to lynch the player I am most confident in being scum. In addition, Mac is a strange individual that I am unfamiliar with, while I've known Wilgy for years. Speaking for myself, I'd rather lynch Wilgy, because he's aware of the responsibility to play correctly that all civilians have. He hasn't been contributing what he should be contributing as a townie if he is one, and that leads me to believe that he's not. The Mac lynch is more complex, both the case and the player (to me), so I'd rather take the action that I believe to be more correct with the information I have available to me.

Lol explain this responsibility Fuzz. Obviously I'm incorrect somewhere.

Also, you seem to be obsessing with me, while only looking at my interactions with you. Do you have anything to say about my interactions with, bcornett, or mac?

Who else has been obsessing you being scummy? Could you link me anything in particular I would like to take a further look at this.

Day 7

Hey I finally answered all of your questions. In fact, at this point I have spent 2.5 hours detail reading all of your content to make this huge analysis.

The rest of the day 7 content consist of Dr's gth exercise reads and an argument with me.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Below is the entire argument between myself and DrWilgy

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Let's talk about Dr. Wilgy then.

By all means, let's talk about me! Why does someone else need to lead the discussion though?

And your refusal to answer questions excuse is pucky, my question was asked 1 week ago, and you didnt answer till yesterday. I made it very clear for about 3 days that you missed it, and gave you multiple chances to go back and answer it.

When I quoted my own question, you stated something on the lines of "why are we back at sorsha?" If we are "back" at sorsha, how can catching up be relevant? It's clear you had already read through when the question was asked, yet you still blame the size and speed of this game for not responding.

Who said somebody else is leading it i already have a draft saved I am on mobile right now. I will continue when I get home in an hour or so. I can't manage the copy paste work from mobile.

Quote me a place in which I have refused to answer questions. I would love to see this.

Here is the question series I think you are referencing I quoted them along with my responses.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Hey bcornett, feel like answerin my question now?

What was your question? Remind me please.

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

MacDougall wrote:I think we really have to lynch sorsha. I feel like it's the key to breaking the game open today. She either flips scum and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail, or flips town and leaves behind a tasty breadcrumb trail. Trusting Golden again seems like a nice way to get another townie killed. We've got a scum dead inside the first four days in a large game. We can afford a tactical lynch. Sorsha is a good lynch candidate for up front scum play as well as being the best possible lynch from a tactical perspective. Short of someone saying "I am scum" my vote won't be changing today.

Sorsha's play being scum is well documented, you only have to look at her recent posts to get a sense of posting nervously as scum playing poorly with a lynch on them tend to do.

DrWilgy... Are you tunneling me because I said you were scum in that Jimmy's game? Oh my God, u suck brah.

Not tunneling, just asking and pointing out things of importance. Luv ya bruh <3

Ok then, lets set up a chain of events, based on Sorsha crumbs.

When Sorsha flips baddie, who would you vote the following day?

When Sorsha flips civ, who would you vote the following day?

Generating rainbow lists for both if Sorsha is bad or civ would be a good thing as well... Maybe abit much to ask for though.

Bcornett are you bad?

Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

bcornett24 wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

bcornett24 wrote:Why are we back to sorsha, or is this just part of the quote and you randomly asked me if i was bad after?

No I'm not bad are you?

I am not. Why did it take you so long to respond even though I was listed as a sketchy sketch on your rainbow list?

What are your thoughts on what Fuzz said about me?

Because life is exhausting and shitty at times.

Once again I am way behind ~30 pages, if you want my thoughts on specific things please include them in the question otherwise Im digging through thirty pages Im already currently trying to catch up on to read an exchange.

If you want a detailed answer ask a question that provokes a response that is more than one word, this is not a yes no questioare. When I asked you to quote your question that is the response you gave me. If there was something more pressing or another questions please ask. But don't give me shit about not answering questions when you asked me if I'm bad.

The bit about sorta appeared to be addressed to Mac unless I'm mistaken.

My orginal beef with DrWilgy was I felt his participation was lacking and his content was fluffy, after a 3 hour analysis reviewing his content I feel much better about him.

Final Comments

• Good Looks
• Case Against Long Cong
• Case for sorsha
• Case against Mac
• Good points appears to be scum hunting
  
  Neutral Looks
• Little night participation
• Little content to look at
  
  Bad Looks
• Potential lacking of content/fluff

Updated Read: Slight Town

Hi Diiny! Just hoping you will let me know how it is going!

Batman's been delayed until tomorrow, but I'm sleepy anyway, so one last post for the night.

Russtifinko wrote:I also don't love your rationale for wanting to lynch MM. It reads to me as uncomfortably close to the idea of lynching civs just to do it, which I am currently ripping motel room for. Please explain yourself.

How did I miss that? Haha!

I think Russ is looking good, Epignosis, and I don't think we should lynch him.

Let's lynch motel room

Night peeps. I won't be around much tomorrow (I can hear the cheers already) but I'm sure I'll make my way here at some point or another.

Peace

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Night 7: Mr. ?????

Night 7 has ended.

????? has survived a kill attempt by Life During Wartime AND a kill attempt by Psycho Killer.

It is now Day 8. You have 48 hours to lynch someone.

Welp. Looks like the luggages will have to stay put for at least another phase. Lemme see if I can reschedule those vacation flight tickets...

---

The mafia's tactic surprises me here. Again, they've sent Life During Wartime to do the killing and it failed. That means that, once again, they won't be able to kill on Night 8. Why would they do something so detrimental? Drugs has never performed the kill once and he would have been a better choice, considering he couldn't have used his power last Night. Maybe he's a BTSC lurker? Maybe he was killed by the SK? No attempt from No Compassion, or in fact any visible shenanigans from him, either. Maybe both Drugs and No Compassion are players suspected enough to not risk being targeted with a block or such?

Anyway, such a misstep makes me think maybe the mafia have currently lost a bit their sense of gravity a bit and risk moves that, should they backfire, would leave them optionless until the next odd Night.

---

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:What up Choutas', why the sunglasses? Hard for you to see?

He's too busy staring at the sun. He's so high he's off the poll.

Well it's guaranteed he wasn't roleblocked if his name's off the poll.

Doesn't rule him out as bad of course.

Is this a Captain Obvious moment of yours or what exactly were you trying to say with this?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Try again.

Read my posts, maybe you can figure out who I am.

Ugh, this is Watchmen all over again...

It's Day 8, you've written almost 400 posts on 10 pages of history, you catch real heat and only now do you think it's proper to leave a "guess what, I may have hinted who I am before".

---

TheFloyd73 wrote: Epi and Marsh's conversations with each other are fascinating to observe.
Who ever Life During Wartime and SK tried to kill, they most likely tried to attack Blind.

Interesting. Quite specific about who the common kill target might have been.

Why did you vote MM at this point, if you only found his exchange with Epi "fascinating to observe"?

---

Epig's and Straw's accusations on MM sound a bit too behavioural, at this point. Is MM the only viable candidate for the patterns they describe? If not, why MM and not others who might relatively fit the same description? Strawhenge is also bringing the case-making to an unfortunate halt with the "I can't fully make my case, because infodumping". Then again, speaking of behaviour, MM seems a bit testy with the rebuttals.

Also, dat "MacBaddie must have been right about Epig, despite being a MacBaddie"? Com'on, he went all the way to claim that Epig must have forgotten to send his PM or choose to do so intentionally. The last I remember that line of conversation, he [MacBaddie] was shapeshifting his arguments constantly, depending on how they were bouncing back.

@bribri
Hi, is this becoming me vs sleepy 2.0 or something?
@Floyd: I'm going to vote for you unless you find that post for me, also tell me why JJJ is bad

It's scummy when someone goes along with popular opinions without showing any reasoning of their own, and moreso when they can't actually point out the post that apparently sold then in the case because it more than likely doesn't exist.

Been thinking about choutas and the seaside thing, will post aboot that when on laptop

Floyd for starters.

Second time you've flat out ignored that, Floyd.

Wait what
Goddamn it

Oh there his name is. I was looking under F

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:What up Choutas', why the sunglasses? Hard for you to see?

He's too busy staring at the sun. He's so high he's off the poll.

Well it's guaranteed he wasn't roleblocked if his name's off the poll.

Doesn't rule him out as bad of course.

Is this a Captain Obvious moment of yours or what exactly were you trying to say with this?

At first I thought it would make Choutas look better. Then I remembered that both killers targeted the same player.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Matt F wrote:What up Choutas', why the sunglasses? Hard for you to see?

He's too busy staring at the sun. He's so high he's off the poll.

Well it's guaranteed he wasn't roleblocked if his name's off the poll.

Doesn't rule him out as bad of course.

Is this a Captain Obvious moment of yours or what exactly were you trying to say with this?

At first I thought it would make Choutas look better. Then I remembered that both killers targeted the same player.

It's not really that. Him being removed off the poll doesn't mean he can't be Wartime or PK.

All I said was he was not roleblocked. I acknowledge that he can still be one or the other.

Day 7 rainbow list

Epignosis

Ricochet
Matt F
motel room
Russtifinko
Metalmarsh89

Bullzeye
Strawhenge
Elohcin
RadicalFuzz
JJJ

bcornett24
Diiny
DrWilgy

sig
TheFloyd73

Day 8 sorry forgot to edit.

Question to all. Who do you think both the SK and the scum targeted?

@MP sorry for three mods in a row. No edit option argh.

Choutas wrote:Question to all. Who do you think both the SK and the scum targeted?

Ricochet is my primary guess.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Choutas wrote:Question to all. Who do you think both the SK and the scum targeted?

Ricochet is my primary guess.

Epi

The one town that everybody has basically agreed upon, with Epi gone, there would be no agreed upon town which is greatly beneficial to scum.

DrWilgy wrote:Bcornett, you were 1 of 2 who said BR was good in our gth. Why did you think this?

It was a gut read. Considering that is the exercise. I will need to go back and analyze BR posts.

I realize this does not include everybody bcornett, but our most recent GTH reads list six players as unanimous town reads: Elohcin, Epignosis, motel room, RadicalFuzz, Ricochet, and Strawhenge.

And I listed Epignosis as good because I doubt he is mafia.

Choutas wrote:Question to all. Who do you think both the SK and the scum targeted?

Why?

motel room wrote:well I'm off to have a weekend. Russtifinko is my vote for now. If I get a chance to be back on I'll do some reassessing (wanna see what takes with this metalmarsh thing) and probably some good old defending by the looks.

Do you currently have an opinion on this metalmarsh thing?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

I realize this does not include everybody bcornett, but our most recent GTH reads list six players as unanimous town reads: Elohcin, Epignosis, motel room, RadicalFuzz, Ricochet, and Strawhenge.

And I listed Epignosis as good because I doubt he is mafia.

Is that how GTH works? You label players bad only if you think they're part of the mafia team. Bad-aligned indy killers are projected also as "good"?

EBWOP: ...of the mafia team?

(I forget my question marks sometimes)

Dr did you take a look at the hug post or are you still catching up?

Just popping in supposed to be doing school but Mom hasn't noticed I'm not yet :P

So Roxy and BLack Rock were modkilled but somebody killed Splints?

Why are we lynching MM what is the argument for it?
I still think JJJ is the best lynch for today. He pushed Black Rock then switched off of Black.
Two days ago the mafia almost saved Mac for the day with a counterwagon yesterday they did the same with seaside.

sig wrote:Just popping in supposed to be doing school but Mom hasn't noticed I'm not yet :P

So Roxy and BLack Rock were modkilled but somebody killed Splints?

Why are we lynching MM what is the argument for it?
I still think JJJ is the best lynch for today. He pushed Black Rock then switched off of Black.
Two days ago the mafia almost saved Mac for the day with a counterwagon yesterday they did the same with seaside.

I'll ask you again: do you not see the reasons for voting seaside with the choutas thing? Did you actually look at why he was lynched?

Which choutas thing? I know in the final few moments Choutas started pushing to save Seaside, which yes could be a reason to switch your vote. But, I still find the sudden switch and the counter wagon to be scummy. I think between lynching JJJ and Seaside JJJ was still the better option.

I will admit I might not have seen all the reasoning, but I did read a good portion I can see why the lynch appealed to people, but I still dislike it and think we should be lynching JJJ today.

Since I can't vote Choutas today I will most likely be placing my vote on JJJ. Unless someone can provided good reasoning for a MM lynch.

bcornett24

Interaction with LC:
-- Votes LC, Day 2, to break the tie (in his notion that a tie would result in no lynch)
-- (post-lynch) Doesn't see either Golden or JJJ having bussed LC (together or individually)
-- (post-lynch) Doesn't read Sorsha as bad for defending LC
-- (post-lynch) Discontent, however, with Devin's rebuttals (to JJJ?) on his interactions with LC; includes it in a case to vote Devin.
-- (post-lynch) Points out Wilgy's cases on LC, finding them to look good for Wilgy

Interaction with MacBaddie
-- has MacBaddie neutral on a rainbow list D4
-- dislikes MacBaddie's call for seaside to be removed as either scum or liability
-- dislikes MacBaddie's call for Sorsha to be lynched for important info, even as a casualty
-- downgrades MacBaddie to likely scum
-- votes Mac D5 for not receiving replies from him
-- (post-lynch) believe baddie JJJ would rather distance himself from MacBaddie than uber-defend him
-- (post-lynch) rebuttal to Epig, in which he brings his initial suss on MacBaddie as a case-starter on MacBaddie
-- (post-lynch) Wilgy's casing on MacBaddies makes him feel even better about Wilgy

Interaction with Black Rock (searching "br" brings alot of "brian"...and "bread"...and "brah" godfukendammit)
-- has her neutral on a rainbow list D4
-- updated rainbow list D4 still has her neutral (based on having analysed her or having followed her activity...???)
-- reads her good on D7 GTH
-- N7 in reply to Wilgy, says GTH read of her was a gut read and that he needs to go back and analyse her (erhm...)

LC interactions with B24
Nada.

MacBaddie interactions with B24
-- disapproves of B24's claim that he has no meta (not up to him to decide)
-- in approving of LC, mentions not having a real read on B24 and not seeing himself swayed to vote there
-- D3 reads him good in GTH
-- D4 dislikes brian's case on him, desperate scum tactic by pushing alongside with others
-- D4 doesn't feel good about brian (potential lurky scum)
-- N4 flips off b24 rather than replying to his questions or demands
-- D5 GTH reads him as bad
-- N5 dreads the idea of numerous scum being on the low posters (includes B24 in this) side
-- in conversation with JJJ, mistakes LC wagon as scum-free rather than b24's

Black Rock interactions with B24
-- D2 inquires Golden on B24; comments to Matt that she saw b24 leading when the llama counterwagon formed

Votes
D1 BWT (case on him)
D2 LC (jump vote, tie breaker)
D3 Golden (for vote on Sorsha) [mentions it as subject to change, but never does]
D4 Devin (announces future full case on him, but only after a first reactionary vote based on Devin's flip to RDW's banter vote on him)
D5 Devin (full case on him)
D6 JJJ (subito scum call on him, announces future post with evidence, never posts again during that Day!!)
D7 flips on JJJ: not catching up on his posts, considers JJJ potential kill attempt during N5
D7 seaside (instabaddie read on him in GTH, 4th bottom place in rainbow read, picks up Epig's case, votes seaside)

Read: Very wary. His game overall has gone from cold to hot, from planting a BS vote to claim it was for garnering reactions to doing in-depth reads, etc, nonetheless with huge gaps in his activity sometimes. His vote record and even the vote presentation is borderline awful. The mutual lack of interaction with LC disturbs me, although it doesn't entirely speak bad of b24. His LC vote would be at best tin-foilable, considering he gave an outlandish reason for breaking the tie; meanwhile, we know the b24 wagon has almost no scum on it confirmed, and LC never touching that subject one bit is also intriguing. His Mac interaction would normally make him look good and should he have joined in on the Day 6 MacBaddie hunt, it would have weighed quite well. But OMFG that D6 is a disaster: plants a vote on JJJ without ever returning with the promised case, never shows up again. It feels like a not-even-picking-up-the-phone scenario. His seaside vote feels like a bandwagon, his GTH came out of nowhere, his attaching to Epig's case was also fairly straightforward. No solid mentions of BR, but that detail where he claims he analysed her when in fact I can't find anything is also very distraughting.

Side-note: I noticed him inquiring on Wartime's mechanics, after the N5 lynch. Could be a sign of a restless teammate who can't help himself but question what happened out in the open?

I usually like to make all the reads and compare which ones look the worse, but this won't be possible, considering I might be spending the next 12 hours doing them. Obviously I'll have to recheck how b24's case feels compared to others, but on its own, my impression is that, if he's part of the mafia, he could have made moves which to look favourable for him (LC bussing, MacBaddie distancing, reluctance to lynch some confirmed civilians), but there are also warning signs (lack of LC interaction, BR ignorance, some mislynches he's contributed to just as much as staying away from others) and alarm bells (Day 6, moodswings on JJJ and seaside). If he's civilian, his review comes unfortunately very bad for him - with some downright blunders.

---

JJJ gave him a B- for this? lyl

---

Welp, this only took an hour... On to the next one...

Rico, you implying that you disagree with my conclusion about another player is game-relevant and should not be in OT text. Why are you discrediting me in OT text?

I didn't discredit your read, I was merely amused by your rating of him, considering the charges.

But you're right about the misuse of the OT button. So here it is:

JJJ gave him a B- for this? lyl

Also, hello! First post of the day from you and you jump right on me pickin' on b24, within minutes?

I don't care what you think of Brian. I care about being discredited in OT text.

I'm still at work.

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

I realize this does not include everybody bcornett, but our most recent GTH reads list six players as unanimous town reads: Elohcin, Epignosis, motel room, RadicalFuzz, Ricochet, and Strawhenge.

And I listed Epignosis as good because I doubt he is mafia.

Is that how GTH works? You label players bad only if you think they're part of the mafia team. Bad-aligned indy killers are projected also as "good"?

They're gun-to-head reads. I had seconds to decide, and decided that bad = mafia.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't care what you think of Brian. I care about being discredited in OT text.

I'm still at work.

Ricochet wrote:I didn't discredit your read.

sig wrote:Just popping in supposed to be doing school but Mom hasn't noticed I'm not yet :P

So Roxy and BLack Rock were modkilled but somebody killed Splints?

Why are we lynching MM what is the argument for it?
I still think JJJ is the best lynch for today. He pushed Black Rock then switched off of Black.
Two days ago the mafia almost saved Mac for the day with a counterwagon yesterday they did the same with seaside.

Sig, let me bring this post up again about the Black Rock wagon, and why I think Jay was justified in moving his vote off of Black Rock.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oops, let me try that again with the spoiled post quoted.

I've reconstructed the Day 6 lynch from before the wagon on Black Rock disintegrated. Two of the voters transferred their votes to MacDougall in succession (myself and Epignosis), and Jay moved his vote to the Diiny wagon that formed later.

This is for anyone interested in what the Black Rock wagon looked like and why it fell apart. Two of the voters went on to vote another mafia member who was ultimately lynched, and the other player moved on to make his vote relevant at the end of the day phase.

I don't believe the wagon fell apart to "save" Black Rock.

Spoiler: show

Black Rock - 3

• Metalmarsh89 (1), JaggedJimmyJay (3), Epignosis (5)

MacDougall - 2

• DrWilgy (4), Ricochet (8)

Epignosis - 1

• MacDougall (2)

JaggedJimmyJay - 1

• bcornett (6)

Russtifinko - 1

• fingersplints (7)

Yes he was attempting to save a player who had read as town who flipped mafia, and that's certainly something to take into account, but my point is that Jay had his vote on Black Rock until almost the very end of the day, and then he put it back on her on Day 7.

Him taking his vote off of Black Rock on Day 6 is not incriminating imo.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Spoiler: show

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

I realize this does not include everybody bcornett, but our most recent GTH reads list six players as unanimous town reads: Elohcin, Epignosis, motel room, RadicalFuzz, Ricochet, and Strawhenge.

And I listed Epignosis as good because I doubt he is mafia.

Is that how GTH works? You label players bad only if you think they're part of the mafia team. Bad-aligned indy killers are projected also as "good"?

They're gun-to-head reads. I had seconds to decide, and decided that bad = mafia.

So SK is "good".

That is how it turned out, yes Rico.

Let me put it this way.

There are players I suspect as mafia because of their interactions with other mafia members.

There aren't players I suspect as mafia based solely on their own playing, but other players have suspects that match that category. They suspect someone because of how they are playing, and because their behavior is isolated in their read, they suspect them as either mafia or PSK.

There is a player I suspect as the PSK, but because of his behavior, he has generally acted pro-town.

And then there are players that I suspect as town because of their behavior and interactions with lynched mafia. That doesn't rule these players out as possible PSK, but I read them as town.


When we did the GTH reads, I did think Epignosis could be the PSK, but he has also acted pro-town, and so it could have gone either way. However, based on recent events, I believe he played his hand to try and get me lynched, and believe the likelihood is higher now.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:When we did the GTH reads, I did think Epignosis could be the PSK, but he has also acted pro-town, and so it could have gone either way. However, based on recent events, I believe he played his hand to try and get me lynched, and believe the likelihood is higher now.

"Played my hand."

As in, made my final masterstroke is to get you lynched? To what end on Day 8 with 50% of the population still alive?

I'd also like to mention that, unless I'm mistaken, your belief that I'm the serial killer is one you haven't revealed until this Day, when I accused you of being the serial killer first. This revelation that you secretly held the belief that I'm the serial killer even though you stamped me with a "G" is convenient revisionism.