The Syndicate

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:25 pm**

Golden wrote:
Epignosis wrote:"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."
I concur with epi again.

Does concurring with him affect your trust of him? Do you not find it a little weird that Epi has done nothing to attract any attention so far? Is that what you expect of him in his civvie mode?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:26 pm**

Choutas wrote:I was describing rym behaviours to syndicators. Including Seaside's question to it. I have no idea what you're trying to prove tbh. Seaside is suss to you?

I'm saying that your view on Seaside's meta (which I can't validate since I didn't see/don't remember his posts in the pre-game poll) doesn't remotely match how I see Seaside. That raises suspicions on both you and Seaside, actually. Others like MacDougall have already commented that you're apparently a very meta-based/character-reading guy, and based on my experience with you in RYM #87, I would probably agree with that. I'd disagree strongly that you were the weakest player in that game, actually, since your read on aether independent to my own exactly matched mine; a lot of my case against her was simply in your read as an impartial source to validate my own.

I'd still like explanation from Seaside on what you've said he has done, as well as the "Floyd is town" thing which now MacDougall has also brought up.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:27 pm**

Dropping by on the mobile for a short bit. Any pressing issues your friendly resident mafia champion of the universe can address?

*gets put on ignore*

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:29 pm**

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.

My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".

sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?

It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.

Sorry for using you, bea!

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:39 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dropping by on the mobile for a short bit. Any pressing issues your friendly resident mafia champion of the universe can address?

*gets put on ignore*

What do you think of Epi?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:57 pm**

kneel4justice wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Dropping by on the mobile for a short bit. Any pressing issues your friendly resident mafia champion of the universe can address?

*gets put on ignore*
What do you think of Epi?

Mixed bag of surface reactions, but mostly positive. I don't agree with his interpretation of FZ's suspicion, but I like the way he expressed himself in that exchange. I think he has a recognizable attitude when defying accusations and turning them back (more substantially than a common omgus/no u) on the accuser.

He's been highly supportive of me which I didn't anticipate. That's my only misgiving, and it's too vague and self-biased for me to allow it to be a significant concern.

Generally I don't expect to solve Epignosis on Day 1. I wouldn't vote for him.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:03 pm**

I'm not sure I agree with the votes for Diiny.
If I am right in thinking that the suspicion initiated from his interaction with Roxy, I can't say that I blame him for thinking some of her posts were suspicious. If I did not have prior experience with her, I might have found them suspicious too. Especially the dismissive attitude 'get used to it'. I feel like that is her personality, and it can come off scummy to people who aren't used to it.

IDK about sig. Nothing had stuck out to me, good or bad, and I have to look back at that but I don't have time ATM.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:05 pm**

I'm content with my vote where it is. I may or may not be able to check in again before the deadline, depends on public transit and my eyelids.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:15 pm**

While I am not sure on the suspicion, my vote is going to Epi for now. I don't anticipate changing it, because I do not have anyone else that I would really consider suspicious enough.
I understand that I do not have that much experience with Epi, and maybe the lack of TS players commenting on him means FZ and I are just seeing things (I don't know how much experience she has with him), but I just feel him being quieter is weird, and his counterargument doesn't work for me because he basically twisted what FZ was saying. I honestly cannot tell if that is his personality, but to me it is suspicious because he took what she said and applied it to a completely different context.

I have to hurry up and go now.
I'll try to be back.

VOTE: EPI.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:18 pm**

I find it funny that me and K4J are the only ones thinking Epi might be suspicious. K4J looks more civvie to me, so I'm wondering if this is a case of culture thing (we both come from the same site), or what, but I can't understand how no one else is even considering Epi. All he's done so far is agree with people and make a joke about my suspicion. JJJ says he didn't do a no U. Like Epi would be caught dead doing a No U.

linki: LOL, we think alike too much

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:18 pm**

Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:22 pm**

Regarding Sig, I don't see him as much different this game from his town Frisky Dingo game. His playstyle seems kind of wish-washy on the surface of it, pointing out things that could be scummy but maybe not, adding caveats heavily, but that's not inherently a scumtell. I'd say bcornett24 actually fits that general style in his town games, discussing a lot and then being exploited by more aggressive and experienced players. Since Sig seemingly is a newer player to this place, and since I only have his one previous town game to compare to, I'm going to call him as town, and I will vote Diiny to protect him if necessary/if nothing else comes up. JJJ taking issue with "slip up" looks worse to me than anything sig has said tbh.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:23 pm**

Also, who in the hell is motel room?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:24 pm**

HamburgerBoy wrote:Also, who in the hell is motel room?

Aokiji.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:29 pm**

I'm not sure how I feel about this MacDougal character.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:37 pm**

Trying to catch up.... this is page 11 and part of page 12.....

bcornett24 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Diiny wrote:
Roxy wrote: Dii - get used to it
Your excuse for not actually really playing mafia is 'get used to it?' If you keep playing the way you're playing you're getting a vote. I want to see something solid, meaningful and accountable by day 1 standards from you. I'm not getting used to scumminess, and, if I understand you correctly, that you're asking me to is making me very uncomfortable
Well tend to have a lot more OT banter over here on Day 1. As well as some people who always randomize on Day 1. I think your views on Roxy being bad are coming more from this culture being different, and wold urge you to consider that in your vote. Because I don't see anything I wouldn't expect coming from Roxy yet.
\Acrosstheaether on rym always responds in a similar manner to roxy's response, with a whatever/i dont care tone, it kinda drives me bonkers as even in late game, it is not easy, if possible at all, to read.

Why would someone want to be easy to read? Sure if you’re civ it makes it easier for players to tell, but also vice-versa. One could hope to have the same read as a civ or a baddie.

thellama73 wrote:Question for the group:
Was Bea's reaction to one early, changeable vote an overreaction or an appropriate reaction?
Discuss.

Current track: Brian Eno - Sparrowfall (3) (1:24)

I think it was appropriate. It doesn’t usually take much to get lynched on a day one around here (with all of our random/low poster votes) so having someone make a case on you on day one can be a death sentence. Also, with they way votes tend to be spread out on day one you don’t really need to get a lot to end up lynched.

sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.

What raises my brows about this one is that you say “make me slip up” as opposed to “make me say something that could be considered a slip up.” I don’t think civvies slip up.

bcornett24 wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
bea wrote: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.
I don't know how I missed this. But now I REALLY don't feel good about you. I actually agree with JJJ in that if we're actually creating discussion and debating ideas early on in Day 1, it can lead to good leads going forward and possibly make us more likely to catch a baddie.

I know you're coming from an old-school Hedville/Piano mentality, and I can respect that, but the way you've said this really feels like you're trying to detract from a method for catching baddies.

For now, my vote is going to you.

Votes bea
Although I do agree with that there can be meaningful day 1 discussions generated by debating I also think that RVS helps to generate content especially when participation is lacking. I do recognize that day 1 content can often be wishy washy, but this is not to say that the content generated isn't useful to look back on later and in some cases useful on day one. birdwithteeth11

Now to focus on this post, I think this vote is easy, too easy. This is a convenient chance to direct attention in a very specific direction. This also feels like an attempt to buddy up to jay. Based on this post, I'm assuming that you don't care for or participate in RVS making this a very serious vote. Based on that I am not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. This feels like a combination of forced interaction as well as suspicion direction.

There have been a few questionable statements made by people thus far but none that have truly hit a cord with me, not like this post here.

Quoted this one to say I agree with bcornet.

Still catching up…..

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:40 pm**

Golden wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:Also, who in the hell is motel room?
Aokiji.

Danke.

Also, just for the record since aok motel's been asking, it does seem like sig's defensiveness is derived mostly from Zebra's initial suspicions post. And I won't deny that he is defensive; I am realizing that the Frisky Dingo game might not be a good reference since he seemed to avoid suspicion most of that game, and on the last day he didn't have a single vote on him. I still think his tone and behavior read as newer-defensive-town rather than newer-defensive-scum though. It seems kind of like the thing with Roxy again where he doesn't respond when pressured in the way a RYMer might be expected to, but he ends up looking worse because Roxy was pressured over off topic content (which is basically null) vs sig being pressured for very game-related content. That sig is willing to provide comments/reads on most of the goings-on is another towntell for me, however.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:48 pm**

Sorsha wrote:
sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.
What raises my brows about this one is that you say “make me slip up” as opposed to “make me say something that could be considered a slip up.” I don’t think civvies slip up.

Does that kind of caveat even need to be said? The latter would be the obvious read into it; actually, legitimate scumslips are very rare on RYM, and I'd imagine they are here as well. After all, the matter of who accused sig is an open record for anyone wanting to find it; it was mostly Zebra. Maybe he was afraid to admit that it wasn't really multiple people prior to motel/aokiji's pressuring? Otherwise, the only way I see even the potential for a slip would be if sig is trying to distance from Zebra, in the event that Zebra bussed him. I think that's very unlikely and pretty suicidal though; if sig was lynched and flipped scum, no one is going to go "A-ha, Zebra did bus him!" just because he made a good read on a very early game vote.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm**

Well Long Con my response about you not saying my name was meant more in a joking way, why would I draw attention to myself when in fact you didn't even remember my name? Though I still don't think this is the case.

I will admit I was being a tad over dramatic with people being desperate to get me lynched, but I don't regret phrasing it that way. Also being currently tied for first maybe not that over dramatic after all.

While Wiglys comment doesn't help or hurt me much recall he said I appeared very Siggish in a civilian way.

IF we look at the main reasoning people have for lynching me it seems off

Motel is voting for me since I was against RVS and "piggybacked" off of another player. He made it unclear if this was a real vote or not, but has yet to change it so I will assume it was.

Long Con for my general behavior, and to my response when he forgot my name, which again I drew attention to myself (why would I do this as mafia?) As I said in my thread Long Con not mentioning me by name could be that he forgot or it could be a way to later come back and use it against me to get me lynched. He is citing my post as a main reason for lynching me. So I was right about his post, it was used by someone as a reason for lynching me which I said it would be. Though it wasn't used in a way I thought it would be.

While I will admit I'm not very good with this game I do occasional pick up minor things such as that, which usually turn out to be right.

This is Jay's reasoning for voting for me.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.
I don't think it would be a silly thing to do, and I don't think it would be like building the case for your own lynch. I don't know where motel room was going when he asked you who has been suspicious of you (he should expand on that if he hasn't already), but I am underwhelmed that you didn't even consider that he might be going somewhere.

I'm struggling to read this post through townie eyes, SIG. What exactly could your potential "slip up" be in this situation, as a townie, which would progress motel room's hypothetical angle to get you lynched?

Note: going to use caps lock and large font to denote a vote now instead of colors.

He says he is underwhelmed that I didn't answer motel room, Motel never followed up on his questions or provided reasoning for why I should have answered them. This along with my one post were I said I didn't want to slip up is why he voted for me. I already addressed this, and again this is a weak reason even for a day 1 vote. While I've only been mafia twice I have enough experience with it to not say anything so obvious in the thread to get me lynched.

Linki: Sorsha said the following,

What raises my brows about this one is that you say “make me slip up” as opposed to “make me say something that could be considered a slip up.” I don’t think civvies slip up.

I as a civilian have made slip ups before or things that have been construed as slip ups. I would think the second option seems more of a scummy thing to say it would show I put more attention into appearing to be town, and as I said even a civilian can slip up, me answering LOng Con's post when he didn't even remember my name know seems like a slip up on my part since it is his main reason for lynching me. (though I still hold the theory I originally put forth) I had a minor slip up when I said "seems kinda very weak"
while neither appeared to be big deals to me others took them as such, whether the people that took them as big deals were mafia or civilians I don't know yet, but either way both seem to be slip ups on my part. Maybe the wording was bad but it seemed to be the easiest way to get my point across.

To me it seems the main lynch votes against me are based around a small portions of my posts based not around me contradicting myself or trying to get someone lynched, but wording errors. This appears to be more of something that the scum would try to lynch me on then something a civilian would do.

Long Con also seemed to flipflop on his vote for me, early in the phase I answered his points against me enough that he said he was no longer suscpicous of me, yet when I have two lynch votes he decided to lynch me tying me for the lynch.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:11 pm**

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Choutas wrote:I was describing rym behaviours to syndicators. Including Seaside's question to it. I have no idea what you're trying to prove tbh. Seaside is suss to you?
I'm saying that your view on Seaside's meta (which I can't validate since I didn't see/don't remember his posts in the pre-game poll) doesn't remotely match how I see Seaside. That raises suspicions on both you and Seaside, actually. Others like MacDougall have already commented that you're apparently a very meta-based/character-reading guy, and based on my experience with you in RYM #87, I would probably agree with that. I'd disagree strongly that you were the weakest player in that game, actually, since your read on aether independent to my own exactly matched mine; a lot of my case against her was simply in your read as an impartial source to validate my own.

I'd still like explanation from Seaside on what you've said he has done, as well as the "Floyd is town" thing which now MacDougall has also brought up.

Indeed I am having extreme trouble assessing players I have never played with. There is no natural flair in my playing, post analysis has to be my weakest trait by far. I tend to use metas I do. Seaside doesn't have a distinct playstyle I think except typing the first thing that comes to his head. He didn't both reading the rules and he didn't understand that pretty much everybody is a role in this game so "Do you have a special power" is typical opening RYM move. That's how I saw it. Everybody on rym has done it once even for the sake of it. I tend not to take these posts seriously. It's just that some players like rdw will use those moves all game long. He once asked me that question on the endgame lol.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:25 pm**

Sig, how would you feel about switching to Long Con with me?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:27 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Diiny wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:
Diiny wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:Diiny earlier said that he expected so much more out of me, after reading for everything thus far, I would like to point out that many of the players in this game have said little to nothing. Most of the content has been generated by a rather small group of participants.
True, but I don't like this. Don't draw attention away from your own lack of activity; be active! I want to see the brian I know and, if you'll q-quite forgive me, love. That said I'm only skimming so you may have shown that but this jumped out at me
Of the four games, i've played this being the 5th, I have not had the same meta in any game (although, this is open to interpretation), which makes that hardly true.
You haven't played identically, and yes you've only played 5 games, but I'm sure others will agree that you can have a certain undeniable townie aura at times, one that you've never managed to replicate as scum and that you're not showing as of yet.
Have you observed this townie aura from Brian in any game outside of his very first game? That was the game in which he screamed town to a number of people myself included, and then in his second game he did not "scream town" and ended up being mafia.

However, in each game since I think Brian's play has leveled off in such a way that he's not so readable. His performance as the cop is a good example.

Indeed I have. Granted, it took him a while to attain it, but in 87 as soon as he showed it even as scum I had to back away from trying to get him easy-buttoned because of how prominent the change was. That said, though, you have just reminded me that brian has shown that he can have that towniness deep within him, but that it sometimes takes a while to get going.

I'm going to ISO him again and see where I stand.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:32 pm**

thellama73 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MacDougal character.

Seems genuine to me so far. What about him makes you feel otherwise?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:33 pm**

motel room wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MacDougal character.
Seems genuine to me so far. What about him makes you feel otherwise?

His overall hostility requires evaluation. I'm not sure I think he's malevolent, but he's someone I definitely want to watch.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:34 pm**

Ignorant question: Is sig syndicate's sodr?

Also the spoiler tag is blinding me can you change the color of it somehow?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:38 pm**

thellama73 wrote:
motel room wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MacDougal character.
Seems genuine to me so far. What about him makes you feel otherwise?
His overall hostility requires evaluation. I'm not sure I think he's malevolent, but he's someone I definitely want to watch.

Me, hostile? Never.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:39 pm**

thellama73 wrote:
motel room wrote:
thellama73 wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this MacDougal character.
Seems genuine to me so far. What about him makes you feel otherwise?
His overall hostility requires evaluation. I'm not sure I think he's malevolent, but he's someone I definitely want to watch.

I hope a bit of friendly hostility isn't an alignment indicator over here.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:41 pm**

Choutas wrote:Indeed I am having extreme trouble assessing players I have never played with. There is no natural flair in my playing, post analysis has to be my weakest trait by far. I tend to use metas I do. Seaside doesn't have a distinct playstyle I think except typing the first thing that comes to his head. He didn't both reading the rules and he didn't understand that pretty much everybody is a role in this game so "Do you have a special power" is typical opening RYM move. That's how I saw it. Everybody on rym has done it once even for the sake of it. I tend not to take these posts seriously. It's just that some players like rdw will use those moves all game long. He once asked me that question on the endgame lol.

Sorry, I thought you were talking specifically about Seaside on not RYM in general. Fair enough, I think I get you now, but I think it makes Seaside looks bad because he's a RYMer that pretty much never does that afaik. As an rdw move, absolutely, sleepystalinist and others too, but not Seaside.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:44 pm**

motel room wrote:I hope a bit of friendly hostility isn't an alignment indicator over here.

It kinda seems to be at this point.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:45 pm**

I am loving playing Mafia with emoticons. It spares me the need to use swear words.

HamburgerBoy I will note I never said that Choutas was all about meta read etc. I inferred that he might be playing tightly to his meta. It might be true but please don't use me as a crutch for your reads when it's not true.

I have noted that Diiny hasn't responded to accusations leveled against him.

So llama makes a very vague assertion against me (hostile makes me interesting, oh please) after I put my vote on the same player he has. Seems legit. It's a nice way to set up a patsy on a town flip or get off a wagon you know is town and leave behind a player you've already thrown allegations at.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:50 pm**

MacDougall wrote: I have noted that Diiny hasn't responded to accusations leveled against him.

Still skimming through the thread, I'm focusing on who to vote for for now, and I think that the people who are going to vote for me are going to vote for me no matter what I say. Unless there's more specific allegations about something I haven't covered that I'm missing?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:51 pm**

HamburgerBoy wrote:
motel room wrote:I hope a bit of friendly hostility isn't an alignment indicator over here.
It kinda seems to be at this point.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:52 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Choutas wrote:It's never good when someone pulls the "that's how I roll" card.
Would you agree that Roxy responded in this manner to Diiny when he went after her?
I was wondering about this as well, but I know nothing of any of the syndicaters metas. Is this how roxy normally responds? (It really reminds me of a aether response, one that can't really be read), Maybe somebody that is used to her play style could speak up?
In my limited experience playing with Roxy, this is definitely typical of her as mafia and as town. I remember her saying many of the same things to me in the Economics game as mafia, and I am pretty sure she has carried the same banner as a townie elsewhere. My assumption is that Roxy genuinely does have her own methods and will be inclined to play her own way regardless of what others expect of her or even what alignment she is playing.

Agreed. I think a few players on the Syndicate have a idgaf attitude and Roxy is one of them. I know I am at times too. I don’t care for other people lecturing on how the game should be played or how one should decide their vote.

MacDougall wrote:I was just making a funny dude.

I thought I would have supported the Cowboys but during the game I found myself rooting for the Broncos more. Maybe living in Brisbane is affecting me.

Was an awesome game though, what was it like there?

At first I was like “Wow I didn’t know they watched American Football in New Zealand. Then I was like huh? The Broncos didn’t play the Cowboys this week.

Also we have an Off Topic button for shit like this, changes it to green so players catching up on hundreds of posts can skip over this.

Matt F wrote:
Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Roxy is being classic Roxy from what I can tell (she even called me rude before knowing who I was :P).
When reading this from Rbz's post last night, I was mildly pinged because I did not recall Rbz revealing who he is/was from other forums (the most he said at the time was that he used to play for the Piano), and I did not recall Roxy acknowledging it. So I looked through all of their posts and there was never any such interaction. I became wild with "omgomg slip slip they must have btsc"...however, then I decided that it might be possible Rbz PMed Roxy just to chat about old Piano days or something, so I let it go.

A few pages later...

Roxy wrote:So RBZDKSIOPWNK is Keterman?

Why not sign up for the game as Keterman? Ya know with your syndicate Keterman account?
So..."before knowing who I was"...when did she find out who you were, and why is she now playing it off like she doesn't know?

I was wondering where the Zebra=Keterman, PFO etc came from as well. Zebra did in fact say this in some OT text earlier in the game. I’d link to it but I don’t know how and the post is too huge to quote just to make the point. If you search his posts and look through some of his earlier OT you should be able to find it. Or I'll be helpful and go find it and post it shortly after I'm done with this post.

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.

I know it may not mean much after the fact but I had a feeling this is what you were doing. Going after a much loved player on a weak point as bait. But I disagree with you on bwt.

FZ. wrote:I find it funny that me and K4J are the only ones thinking Epi might be suspicious. K4J looks more civvie to me, so I'm wondering if this is a case of culture thing (we both come from the same site), or what, but I can't understand how no one else is even considering Epi. All he's done so far is agree with people and make a joke about my suspicion. JJJ says he didn't do a no U. Like Epi would be caught dead doing a No U.

linki: LOL, we think alike too much

Like jjj said above, I don’t think we can figure Epi out on day one. And jjj being the one to say that brings me back to Zebras theory linking them based on the day 0 votes. Nothing that I have read from Epi has really stood out to me as bad though.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:53 pm**

Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

We have played games in the past on the various sites he listed. That is how he knows my game. HOWEVER that does NOT make us friends.

Seems like you are trying to spin this into something bad for nefarious reasons. Like trying to say I lied or something I do not like it. It feels slippery. Makes my nose twitch - which is not good as you may well remember.

Tbf I did not know you were Mr F until an off hand comment made by my co-host a few nights ago.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:54 pm**

DrWilgy wrote:
sig wrote:@motel go ahead vote for me, as long as i'm number two it's all good. I however, will be voting for you am I being serious or is it just a random vote who knows?

Also if a point seems misguided (which in my opinion it isn't) why go after me and not the one who originally said it? I agreed with Epi I didn't piggyback off of him, using the term piggybacking is a way to make it seem like I'm scum for agreeing with him, even if he isn't scum, this seems like a very scummy thing for you to do. I'm a weaker player and easier to get lynched, multiply people have voiced suspicions against me, and making it seem that I've been budding up to a stronger player and "piggybacking" off them will justify a Day 1 lynch against me.
find it interesting that out of everything this is what you zero in on especially since I'm not the first to say this about the RVS.

linki: Wigly the Siggiest Sig post ever(I must admit I giggled at that) Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Well, considering that you are civilian almost every game we have played together, I would have to say it's a good thing.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:In order to preform my job as well as possible, I will not be voting for JJJ unless absolutely needed.
I'm not voting for JJJ either (today) but what does this even mean?

DrWilgy wrote:So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas.
Your unflinching confidence in not voting for certain people is utterly bizarre to me. Can someone (you, preferably) explain to me if this is in-character for you and if so, why?
Wilgy, being followed by a pinto bean man, approaches Zebra, introduces them to one another, hands Zebra a note, then walks away. The note reads: It's a thingy I took from MM, he's my friend. I've noticed that he marks off players that he won't vote for based on the days events. I learned that my normal trigger happy playstyle wouldn't work here (on syndicate) a few games ago, so I'm trying to adopt something similar to this. Find players I like, and keep them around until we obtain more information. Based upon what these players have said, I think they would be very good for our team if they are good. This is why I'm willing to keep them around.

Choutas wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Choutas wrote:The sheer fact that you're in Sweden and play mafia instead of enjoying life proves you're nefarious. Definitely not a guy I'd trust.
That being said don't you find DrWilgy's post too much fluff with little substance?
I'm not in Sweden yet, but I will be in a few days. When I'm there, mafia will definitely take a back seat to seeing the world. My posting rate will probably plummet to the bare minimum. I'm actually picking my friend up at the airport in London today so it might plummet even sooner.

I didn't have that impression about Wilgy's post at a glance, no. I don't entirely remember everything in it though so I'll look again. Have you already stated what about it you found fluffy?

Also, I don't think you were terrible as momokuro. You were just killed too early to make your mark.
He has only post that isn't complete roleplaying this http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 50#p181650 his posts are mostly questions or mentioning Metas, the worthwhile part imo is this "So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas." He votes someone without giving reasons or claiming it's RVS and then says his supports the abolishment of RVS and that he won't vote for some of the guys without explaining why.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it?
Good sir! re-read my post. I'm just wanting some feedback about BWT regarding Day 0. I would like to now know from you, is there something wrong with pulling up questions and meta?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Before any quotes, I'd like to point out an initial suspicion. It never sits right with me when someone claims that they will be changing and/or playing with a different style after role cards have already been distributed. This applies to Rico, and BWT. I'm not going to go back and try to quote the comment because I'm pretty sure it was Day 0. Rico stated that he'd be more zany and BWT followed suit, almost immediately after Rico. I do not recall BWT's reasoning for claiming a more zany (zanier? zaniest? are those actual words? they don't sit right with me.) and would like to hear about this. Also, someone correct me if my memory of Day 0 events are failing me.
I believe a factor of the "zaniness" is the ongoing contest with the prize going to the person who uses the most Talking Heads in their posts. Zanier and zaniest sit fine with me, as the comparative and superlative forms of 'zany'.
BWT was on the chopping block for eight consecutive days in Recruitment, but was finally lynched Day 9 and flipped as a harmless civilian. He subbed back in for another player on Day 10, and was immediately lynched on Day 11, and flipped civilian.

His intention to play zanier/est doesn't surprise me much.
I see, I didn't think about that. Normally players stating that they will be doing something different after roles have been delivered is a scum flag for me. If a player has the intention to change their style and it's not mid game yet, why not declare it in the signup page pre-role distribution?

I'd like to hear BWT's thoughts on what I have said.

linki: Ty Rico, I will also not be voting for you today. (did I liki right? can someone give me an exact definition? I've used context to figure it out up until this point)

Your mean why I said I wanted to play a more zany game? There wasn't really any particular reason other than I just felt like switching up the way I play a mafia game.

Sorry for the big multiquote. I'm on vacation trying to play from my phone which I'm not used to.

Does that answer your question?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:57 pm**

For the sake of putting the "Where did they get that Zebra=keterman" questions to rest, this is the post where Zebra acknowledges his previous names on other sites.... its down in the green text by the coffee cup emoticon:

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:The boys are making a big mess. Seven more pages?! Bring it on.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:More importantly, I already have a strong town read. Rbzmncaeaei (who I will be calling Zebra).
I must say, your defense pretty much destroyed every point I had to make. The only thing that hasn't been countered (at this point of the megapost I'm still catching up) is the spontaneous votes for you from Epi and sig, and since that only works as a point with the implication that the three of you are a team, (and yes, I know how crazy it is to suggest that on the first day, but I can't help what sticks out to me) I'm willing to let you off the hook (again) for now, but I couldn't honestly say that I reciprocate your town read yet.

As I catch up, I'm starting to get used to how often this community straight up asks out of the blue "are you bad?" to other players for little to no reason. Maybe it's a useful tactic here but in my experience it only does any good for the mafia. For example, I didn't like the look of this:

Ricochet wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote: I accidentally implied I was civilian.
But you're not, right?

How can you accidentally imply you are civilian? Isn't that like the most basic claim used in mafia history, at the beginning and throughout the games?

Here, lemme make you imply some more: Are you bad?
To me it's so obvious that mm was joking that it seems opportunistic to call him out for this, but if it's a community thing, feel free to shoot me down.

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.
Damn it 3J, I want you to be town now. Stop saying stuff like this.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
bcornett24 wrote:I would normally start off with a vote for sleepystalinist, but he is not here so instead, I'll vote for motel room because he has something to do with sleeping.
Hey bcornett24, usually even random votes are accompanied by a semi-relevant reason (hey, like this one!). What's your objective with this one, m8?
What did I just say.

...

Then again with the context that this is a lynch vote, not a goal-unknown vote, that is kind of suspicious on bcornett's part.

espers wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote: Seaside was the most active poster and asked a ton of questions.
Interesting. I don't think he posted once yet in the main game.
he's currently at the nrl grand final down in sydney, he mentioned this in the day 0 thread.

one thing that might be of note: he asked strawhenge if he had any special abilities in that thread. i asked him about it and he appeared not to know about the infodumping rules (or any of what was mentioned in the first posts of the signup thread)

choutas replied to this exchange, saying that scumslips weren't very common and that seaside's original question read to him as frivolous/banter. that seemed a bit incongruous to me, i'd like choutas to explain it. i might be misremembering the particulars though, wish i could look back over it
I don't remember this but it's definitely worth looking into.

bea wrote:Wow. RBZ! I think I got those first few letters right? Is it cool to call you that? I need nicknames to function.

That is the most well thought out day 1 case I've ever seen! Color me super impressed.
I've only played one game with JJJ and he was civ in that game. He was very vocal while he lived though so I can see where you are coming from here.

Ok -more catching up to do.....
Regarding my case, I would have to disagree with you at this point. :P Thank you though, in the past I have been unable to dedicate myself to supertowning but considering I am currently jobless, school-free, and fixing to move across the U.S. to find myself, I think I have enough time to dedicate myself to a Mafia game or two for once. As for my name, you can call me RBZ, Zebra, CinemaZebra, Keterman, vvlll, Will, Rose, Uncharted, Leech, The Phuncky Feel One (this was my name on The Piano...that's right, The Piano), it doesn't matter. Concealing my identity doesn't seem to be getting me anywhere, so #YOLO.

FZ. wrote: Why are there so few females playing?
I consider myself female on the inside for what this is worth.

thellama73 wrote:
Diiny wrote: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.
This is very true, and I'm voting for you.
thellama73 wrote:There are different types of baddies. There's Sir Belendsalot, there's Mr. "Look How Helpful I am Being, Guys!", there's Empty Statement Lass. Then there's Detective Aggressive Scumhunt von Threadleader.

I am reading Diiny as this last type.
Yeahhhh the further I catch up the more this looks like the right decision. However, my confidence took a blow after JJJ's defense so I still might end up voting for rdw assuming he still hasn't posted.

FZ. wrote:
Diiny wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Diiny wrote: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.

Are you "extremely unhappy" because you think her behavior promotes an anti-town strategy, or because you don't think it promotes a town strategy that resonates with you?
Both.

I'm unhappy with Roxy because it seems like weak faux-town play: Not actually voting based off of anything, avoiding committing to anything solid or helpful and then blaming that on a lack of evidence that it's a townie's job to extract rather than wait for. Roxy looks like scum trying to look involved but doing so in the least accountable way. But I'm also unhappy because they could well still be town promoting a strategy or playing the game in such a way that, yes, I don't think benefits town at all.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you until your recent posts, right after I asked how it would look like when you actually discussed suspicions.

As much as too much fluff distracts from the game, I am trusting Roxy more than I am Ricco exactly because she's mainly posting fluff and doesn't seem to be bothered by how she appears, while Ricco is trying to be jokey and throw some thoughts in the middle just to look contributing, but that don't look genuine to me at all. I've seen his answers and they don't make me look better.
I'm with you 100% on the bolded part. Roxy is being classic Roxy from what I can tell (she even called me rude before knowing who I was :P).

Diiny wrote: I like to go hard and fling shit on day 1, using pressure to gauge reactions not only from the person I'm putting pressure on but from other players, too. If you felt I was being needlessly condescending or aggressive I apologise as that's not my direct intention at all. It does help get the shitstorm brewing, though.

I'm not asking you to change you to convert to those holy words in the Book of Diiny, but I'm nonetheless unapologetically cracking down on behaviour I find potentially anti-town/scummy to try to better understand the motives behind it and hence get a better idea of where I stand on you, provoking reactions for everyone in the process.

And as much as I appreciate that this is your playstyle, there's only so much clemency that being on-meta can invoke from me when that playstyle really doesn't seem that pro-town to me.
I see we share the same strategy and accusations from others of being too aggressive/condescending. Although I try to back my aggression up with legitimate scumhunting.

Ricochet wrote:Oh no, FZ is in Serious Business mode. I don't know why you treat me so bad. Think of all the things we could have had.

I am not bothered with how I appear in this game, either. Not one bit. I made a statement to the other players, back in the private Syndicate thread, but it's now vanished. It's not my fault you joined the RYM camp and now you seem to be lashing at me for not seeming as consistent as you'd expect like me to be, just because you have such meta on me from previous games.

Anyway, what I said over there can summed like this: I'm immersing in the theme. Incidentally, the Host happened to also issue a contest that totally justifies my plan to have fun and be zany. TH is fun and zany music, so I plan to have fun and be zany. This will not affect my regular gameplay, only add a dimension to it. As for my regular gameplay, I repeat that you may pretend too much from me, 10 hours into Day 1. You're saying I'm talking a lot, without saying anything, but you're accusing me without bringing too much just as well. If you're clinging on the my post on b24, I literally pointed out that I actually questioned him. If my replies haven't satisfied you, it's you shutting the door, not me.

Don't like fun? Lo siento. Take it easy, take it easy.
My "too nervous for a town" alarm went off with this post.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Choutas wrote:Rico's reaction looks a bit forced and unconvincing.
Could you show me?
You needing to be shown this is not helping my potential town read for you.

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*
This came out of fuck-nowhere and with no comments on anything else that happened, so it does not look good to me. Really the only reason I'm not more confident that it's a baddie move is that I don't think a baddie would be this bold with such an accusation.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Here, lemme make you imply some more: Are you bad?
Is my milk bad?

Nope, it doesn't expire for 4 more days.
Oh god oh man oh god oh man oh god oh man oh god!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Diiny wrote:THIS IS WHY THERE ARE SARC TAGS, JAY!
Naw, there might actually be strategic value to this if people really pursue it as something meaningful. Anyone that has even played one game with me knows I was joking when I called myself a low poster.

Like you, Diiny, my protege. What do you think?
By the looks of it, you and Zebra have never played together before. Not only that, but nobody seems to remember this particular back-and-forth except for the two of you.

What if you were just trying to give Zebra an incorrect impression of your playstyle?
For anyone wondering why exactly I would go undercover and pretend to be new, looking for this kind of thing is one of the main reasons. In this particular case, however, I don't think that's what JJJ was doing.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I think the most difficult part is remaining objective. As soon as I see one or two posts that look like baddie behavior to me, I begin trying to read and interpret everything as bad. I haven't gotten the hang of it yet.
I've been playing mafia off-and-on over the course of five years (basically since I met Alex and got banned from ProgArchives) and I have never shaken off this problem. Sadly I don't think I ever will, which is why I wouldn't dare go into real-life detective work; all I see is little dots.

rundontwalk wrote:I want to lynch someone from the Syndicate or Choutas.
Looks like I'm not voting for you, at least for lurking reasons. Still catching up peoplez

Long Con wrote:
rundontwalk wrote:
Russtifinko wrote:Posting because the host tells me I will be a non-participant if I don't.

I will read up throughout today and try to say something intelligent.
Why are you going to put so much thought in what you post? Trying to hide something? Just post your gut reads whether they are intelligent or not.
I support his decision to read up before posting suspicions.
I'm with Russt/LC on this one. Reading and thinking before posting does not imply that you are bad lmao.

bcornett24 wrote:
Diiny wrote:Brian. (bcornet), you've had a weak start. From a player such as yourself that loves to quickly go toe-to-toe with anything new or challenging that may present itself and read into stuff a lot, I expected more from you than a pretty weak RVS and a lack of meaningful interaction with the thread whatsoever. What's up?
As of last night when I made that post, there was little to no content worth commenting on. Was just looking for some content. I'm reading over everything now, on page 5. There have been 4 pages since I last looked last night which is almost 200 posts.

bcornett24 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Choutas wrote:It's never good when someone pulls the "that's how I roll" card.
Would you agree that Roxy responded in this manner to Diiny when he went after her?
I was wondering about this as well, but I know nothing of any of the syndicaters metas. Is this how roxy normally responds? (It really reminds me of a aether response, one that can't really be read), Maybe somebody that is used to her play style could speak up?
I recall helping get Roxy lynched when I was bad (I think that game was the only time I've been scum on both RYM and the Syndicate, it's crazy how often I get town since I much prefer being bad or independent) before for the same reasons people are finding her suspicious in this game, so I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions about her yet.

Elohcin wrote:I have not ready anything since Day 0 but will try to catch up today. Day 1's are always pretty nuts. Some people vote for themselves. Some people vote randomly. Others vote for those who haven't checked in yet. For Day 1 I will vote along with the person who makes me laugh most?
I hope that by the time you've caught up you won't be doing this.

Long Con wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Long Con, could you please point to posts by bea that do not align with her claim that "her whole argument is she doesn't know yet who is or isn't civ"? You might not buy into her refutation of your accusation, but I need more than a blank dismissal.
...unless this was the way you indicated a vote. I thought you just coloured that to get my attention, but maybe it was intended also as a vote indicator. Too subtle.
He stated earlier that he won't be bolding his votes because it's too difficult for him to notice, so he's going to color them instead. I think I'll combine the two, Long Con.

rundontwalk wrote:
Choutas wrote:
sig wrote:@Metalmarsh and Choutas could you explain your lynch vote please?

linki: Okay Bcor thanks.
RVP. The good part is that he showed up the bad part is that he's not as active as he should be. Not as active as I remember him. Even his behaviour is different, looks more than a lurker than rdw.
Anyway I was about to move on and stir some discussion.
Macdougall what's up. Why you're so inactive brah?
because it feels weird being on a new website. the layout and everything throws me off. which is why i voted for you. for old time's sake.
I feel like I shouldn't buy this but I do.

thellama73 wrote:Question for the group:
Was Bea's reaction to one early, changeable vote an overreaction or an appropriate reaction?
Discuss.
Perfectly appropriate. That was a terrible excuse for a vote, changeable or otherwise. In comparison bcornett's first vote was perfectly reasonable, as it was earlier in the day and didn't pretend to be a result of scumhunting.

kneel4justice wrote:
reywaS' post saying 'hello' and then not adding anything to the discussion stuck me as odd, especially because I felt the moment he had came in was when the game was really starting, because Zebra brought forward the case against JJJ. So, why didn't reywaS comment on that?
Everything in this post of yours made me feel inclined to have a town read of you (which would be impressive considering I have either a neutral or baddie read on literally everyone else) with the exception of the part that I've singled out here. For one, reywaS is one of quite a few people I've seen come in and say hello while either not posting anything else since or at the least waiting to catch up before posting again, but especially it seems strange that you would call reywaS out when bcor was not only present at the exact same time, but even threw out a random vote without any comments on my suspicions towards JJJ. I'm more likely to get a town read from someone saying my case on another player is horrendous rather than someone that acts like no such case was even posted, because the latter tells me that they're afraid they might reveal too much about themselves or someone else if they make any comments about it. So it could be that I simply disagree with your singling out of reywaS here, but it could also be that I'm on to your opportunistic suggestions. Time shall tell.

kneel4justice wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
kneel4justice wrote:
Also, Elo's post struck me as odd, but I am thinking it is once again a cultural difference. Or maybe she was joking? IDK. If someone who knows her better could give me some thoughts on it, that would be appreciated.
I wasn't joking. I want you to be joking....make me laugh . Cultural difference? Where are you from?
This was actually a funny response, lmao.
I'm from K-Site, not many of our players have transitioned over here unfortunately. But some TS players have been kind enough to visit our site. We take things more seriously, because our day phases are much longer than 48 hours. Here a lot of players seem to just randomly vote on Day 1, or even in later phases. So I am kind of assuming that it is your style to do something of that nature on Day 1? Rather than actually try to scum-hunt?
Another yellow flag here. Your initial suspicions of Eloh seemed understandable to me even though I didn't share them, but your response here, particularly the final question, is seeming to imply that you're suggesting someone isn't scumhunting on the basis of a single post in which in that same post they had admitted that they hadn't even caught up yet.

Epignosis wrote:
Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Epignosis votes for sig I suppose because he voted for him as well as mutual appreciation of Kansas. But then we have another inexplicable vote for 3J that is neither explained nor noted other than the vote itself. And now, enter 3J.
I voted sig and sig's choice for his win response. I thought that much was obvious.

I read the rest of your post. I don't agree with you, but I like where your head is.
Way to address a side-note (if it weren't for my "I suppose", I have to wonder how you would've responded to this at all) while ignoring the main point. Your vote for JJJ is still as unexplained as ever.

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Oh sure, Epi's vote for me probably influenced my willingness to vote for him on some level. Still, the reason I provided was the truest inspiration. Every time I've played a game with him so far, he's either died immediately, or died right after he and I started duking it out before we could resolve the fight.
This is, as far as I can recall, true.
So you can freely address JJJ's vote for you but you still carefully ignore the reasons for your vote for JJJ? Maybe my team theory isn't as crazy as I thought.

Epignosis wrote:
bea wrote: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.
I don't like this. "All arguments [Day 1] are based on very little." All? No, no they aren't. I think I (and others) have demonstrated time after time that Days 1 are a civilian's greatest tool for setting up a winning game. To shrug it off like this in praise of randomness (and who is to prove if someone actually voted randomly) doesn't look good.

Don't validate random voters. Random votes suck, and if you're a civilian, you shouldn't make them.
I think bea's statement is relative, in that she's not implying that there's actually nothing to go on, rather in comparison to later in the game. In contrast, your claim that random votes suck without exception is a much more bold and much more disagreeable statement IMO. I myself don't recall ever voting randomly, but when votes can be changed I don't see the harm in it. You can see that it sparks discussion from this game alone, and anything that sparks discussion can't be too bad in Mafia, and it can't be too good for Mafia. Anyhoo, I agree that you being silent for a bit is no big deal.

motel room wrote:
sig wrote:I agree with Epi's random voting point, in fact this could be just as dangerous to the civilians as a no lynch for day 1.
so like if I pop a vote on sig here for piggybacking epi's point that to me seems misguided, am i all in or just having some RVS fun?
Excellent point. More often than not there isn't a fine line between a serious and RVS vote.

DrWilgy wrote:In order to preform my job as well as possible, I will not be voting for JJJ unless absolutely needed.
I'm not voting for JJJ either (today) but what does this even mean?

DrWilgy wrote:So as I'm browsing it seems there isn't much worth quoting. Disagreements in play style seem to be at large here. I find it amusing and wonder where it will take us. I'll place a vote on BWT for now, until I have further information about what was stated day 0, and why it was stated. I'm with the others on abolishing RVS, and I won't be voting for JJJ, Epi, Diiny, or Choutas.
Your unflinching confidence in not voting for certain people is utterly bizarre to me. Can someone (you, preferably) explain to me if this is in-character for you and if so, why?

motel room wrote:
sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.
well we wouldn't want you to slip up now
motel room, consider yourself my first strong town read.

seaside wrote: 5. Zebra is suss as. I'm watching you!
Do elaborate. Also if we're policy lynching lurkers, then you're a top contender. This is your first post and it consists of a bunch of short, unexplained, easily retractable just-in-case opinions.

I'm sticking with my Long Con vote for now because the combination of his overt failure to read everything combined with his unwarranted confidence with his bea vote just screams baddie to me. So I guess that's everything, took me two and a half damn hours to catch up. The power of RYM's post quantity and The Syndicate's elaborate structure is quite overwhelming, but my body is ready. I'm charged up, don't put me down!

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:00 pm**

Diiny wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
motel room wrote:I hope a bit of friendly hostility isn't an alignment indicator over here.
It kinda seems to be at this point.

well thats just jumanji

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:03 pm**

Sorsha wrote:For the sake of putting the "Where did they get that Zebra=keterman" questions to rest, this is the post where Zebra acknowledges his previous names on other sites.... its down in the green text by the coffee cup emoticon:

yeah he outright said it. No one reading these posts? Everyone just skimming for their own name?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:04 pm**

sig wrote: He says he is underwhelmed that I didn't answer motel room, Motel never followed up on his questions or provided reasoning for why I should have answered them.

Looking over some of the people I've neglected this game and this pinged me. Every time I ask a question, should I provide reasoning for the question? Should I have to ask or follow up on the question? Granted I probably would have chased you up if you ignored them, but this is more telling of your mindset than of Aokiji Room's. I don't like the way you've tried to justify your reluctance to answer the question; in the form of a very general distancer that doesn't really show a good townie reason/approach to the question

A townie has nothing to hide; he had no reason to not answer questions. Blaming it on not being pestered enough or having their necessity pointed out makes me uncomfortable.

I'm not feeling eloquent today

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:07 pm**

Thanks Sorsha I read it. Its why I asked my original question.

At least others will know wtf I am talking about now.

And you are right my idgaf attitude comes out when people tell me I am not playing a GAME correctly. lol

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:08 pm**

HamburgerBoy wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.
What raises my brows about this one is that you say “make me slip up” as opposed to “make me say something that could be considered a slip up.” I don’t think civvies slip up.
Does that kind of caveat even need to be said? The latter would be the obvious read into it; actually, legitimate scumslips are very rare on RYM, and I'd imagine they are here as well. After all, the matter of who accused sig is an open record for anyone wanting to find it; it was mostly Zebra. Maybe he was afraid to admit that it wasn't really multiple people prior to motel/aokiji's pressuring? Otherwise, the only way I see even the potential for a slip would be if sig is trying to distance from Zebra, in the event that Zebra bussed him. I think that's very unlikely and pretty suicidal though; if sig was lynched and flipped scum, no one is going to go "A-ha, Zebra did bus him!" just because he made a good read on a very early game vote.

My issue with it is the mentality of not wanting to "slip up", wording aside. Town just does shit, scum are worried how they'll look. Mostly. Anyway sig's been more verbose and I guess willing to slip up in his defences so thats a thing.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:13 pm**

motel room wrote:
HamburgerBoy wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
sig wrote:I think your trying to get me to respond in an attempt to make me slip up and get me lynched, and it really isn't my place to tell you who has been suspicious of me that would be like building the case for my own lynch a rather silly thing to do.
What raises my brows about this one is that you say “make me slip up” as opposed to “make me say something that could be considered a slip up.” I don’t think civvies slip up.
Does that kind of caveat even need to be said? The latter would be the obvious read into it; actually, legitimate scumslips are very rare on RYM, and I'd imagine they are here as well. After all, the matter of who accused sig is an open record for anyone wanting to find it; it was mostly Zebra. Maybe he was afraid to admit that it wasn't really multiple people prior to motel/aokiji's pressuring? Otherwise, the only way I see even the potential for a slip would be if sig is trying to distance from Zebra, in the event that Zebra bussed him. I think that's very unlikely and pretty suicidal though; if sig was lynched and flipped scum, no one is going to go "A-ha, Zebra did bus him!" just because he made a good read on a very early game vote.
My issue with it is the mentality of not wanting to "slip up", wording aside. Town just does shit, scum are worried how they'll look. Mostly. Anyway sig's been more verbose and I guess willing to slip up in his defences so thats a thing.

lynching someone on a "slip up" almost always ends up in a civvie lynch. Would a baddie say something so stupid? I doubt it. It's not impossible, but I would look at the ones using that slip up more closely than I would look at the person "slipping up"

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:14 pm**

Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace

Well to be fair, I did say I wanted to play a zanier game than normal. I think it's because I've had too many games in the past where I get so obsessed with trying to win at the expense of having fun. And I decided that I would rather be goofy and enjoy this game instead of getting all worked up and upset over wanting to win.

So far I've enjoyed this game and had a blast on Day/Dusk 0. If my erratic behavior getsemail lynched on Day 1, than it is what it is. I've had fun regardless.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:15 pm**

motel room wrote:
Sorsha wrote:For the sake of putting the "Where did they get that Zebra=keterman" questions to rest, this is the post where Zebra acknowledges his previous names on other sites.... its down in the green text by the coffee cup emoticon:
yeah he outright said it. No one reading these posts? Everyone just skimming for their own name?

It was a really long post so I'm assuming that players did the tl;dr or yes, just skimmed for their name or just skipped over it because it was in OT green

I just wanted to highlight the post so that we don't have hundreds of posts building suspicion on players having btsc, on an error.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:15 pm**

I'm not a fan of neither the Sig nor the Diiny lynch at this time. Just my two cents if anyone cares.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:17 pm**

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace
Well to be fair, I did say I wanted to play a zanier game than normal. I think it's because I've had too many games in the past where I get so obsessed with trying to win at the expense of having fun. And I decided that I would rather be goofy and enjoy this game instead of getting all worked up and upset over wanting to win.

So far I've enjoyed this game and had a blast on Day/Dusk 0. If my erratic behavior getsemail lynched on Day 1, than it is what it is. I've had fun regardless.

I know you didn't use LC's case as the basis for your bea vote but, knowing now that he used his "case" as bait, do you still find bea as suspicious as before?

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:20 pm**

thellama73 wrote:Question for the group:
Was Bea's reaction to one early, changeable vote an overreaction or an appropriate reaction?
Discuss.

Current track: Brian Eno - Sparrowfall (3) (1:24)

This has been arguably one of the most quoted and replied to posts, imo anyway. No one seemed to bite against Bea.

So then this

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.

My real vote today will go to sig. Despite the reasonable explanation he had for my original suspicion of him (that he was crafting his posts too much, in a baddie way), I've found a few of his reactions suspicious. His reaction that I was "distancing" from him when I forgot he was the third player involved in an earlier discussion was bizarre, as was his assertion that I (and others) are "desperate to try and get him lynched".

sig, saying we're desperate to try and get you lynched strikes me in two ways, neither of them making me feel comfortable about you. On one hand, it's overdefensive and paranoid, and on the other, it's a way to buffalo us out of voting for you... because who wants to looks "desperate" to lynch someone on Day 1?

It's not much, but it's the behaviour I found most suspicious today, and it's time for me to lock in a vote.

Sorry for using you, bea!

Feels pressured and gross. Long Con's wording on his vote for bea was so confident. This feels like backpedalling.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:23 pm**

Strawhenge wrote:What was this CEO thing? Why am I such a bad mafia player?

uh oh

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:26 pm**

Sorsha wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Matt F wrote:Have to leave for work. It's a short day, I'm off about an hour before the poll ends, but I don't know whether or not I'll be home, so voting now.

I'd still like Rbz to clarify his comment about Roxy. I'd especially like to hear his take on Roxy saying they have never been friends on any site and how that reconciles him being able to describe a "classic Roxy" to defend her...

Despite this, I'm placing my vote for BWTtoday.

Early in the Dusk 0 poll, he invited people to vote for him, and in return, he would not vote for them in any lynch for the rest of the game. That isn't townie behavior. In addition, he was the final vote for Dr Wilgy after switching his vote, despite not every player having the chance to vote yet. It doesn't feel like civvie behavior to switch your vote to declare a winner when not every player has had a chance.

If I'm home before the poll ends, I'll see if Rbz has responded and go from there.

Peace
Well to be fair, I did say I wanted to play a zanier game than normal. I think it's because I've had too many games in the past where I get so obsessed with trying to win at the expense of having fun. And I decided that I would rather be goofy and enjoy this game instead of getting all worked up and upset over wanting to win.

So far I've enjoyed this game and had a blast on Day/Dusk 0. If my erratic behavior getsemail lynched on Day 1, than it is what it is. I've had fun regardless.
I know you didn't use LC's case as the basis for your bea vote but, knowing now that he used his "case" as bait, do you still find bea as suspicious as before?

Ehhhh. Sleeping on it and having time to reflect on it, not so much. At the time I felt she was giving a cop-out reasoning for Day 1's not being productive. But I think I was nitpicking at a difference in philosophy. I will be changing my vote later tonight based on what else develops. But if I had to switch my vote right now, it would be for sig for reasons I previously stated.

Posted: **Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:32 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:On the site, and in this game specifically, there are no formal rules about swearing itself. Some players may be viewing the page at work and could have it blocked by a swearing filter (we've seen this happen before to Epi, who teaches at high school). :P

Indeed. Page 12 was unavailable to me at work, and so it felt like the context of many of the posts on pages thereafter was missing to me.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Rbzmncaeaei wrote:Epignosis votes for sig I suppose because he voted for him as well as mutual appreciation of Kansas. But then we have another inexplicable vote for 3J that is neither explained nor noted other than the vote itself. And now, enter 3J.
I voted sig and sig's choice for his win response. I thought that much was obvious.

I read the rest of your post. I don't agree with you, but I like where your head is.
Way to address a side-note (if it weren't for my "I suppose", I have to wonder how you would've responded to this at all) while ignoring the main point. Your vote for JJJ is still as unexplained as ever.

Erm, yes. I'll color the relevant part that you must have missed.

Rbzmncaeaei wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Oh sure, Epi's vote for me probably influenced my willingness to vote for him on some level. Still, the reason I provided was the truest inspiration. Every time I've played a game with him so far, he's either died immediately, or died right after he and I started duking it out before we could resolve the fight.
This is, as far as I can recall, true.
So you can freely address JJJ's vote for you but you still carefully ignore the reasons for your vote for JJJ? Maybe my team theory isn't as crazy as I thought.

I didn't ignore anything, carefully or otherwise. If you don't like my reason, that's fine, but I gave the reason I voted 3J.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
FZ. wrote:On to someone else, quiet Epi is never a good thing...
Is loud Epi always a good thing? Be careful what you wish for.

And I think...

...nope, I'm going to harp on this one comment.

"Quiet Epi is never a good thing."

Well now let's see.

Raise your hand if loud Epi ever railroaded you when you were a civilian and got your ass lynched.

Raise your hand if you wished loud Epi would have shutted up the fuck.

I thought so.

I don't see why me being quiet is "never a good thing."

*Raises 10 hands*

Still, I can only speak for myself, but never have I felt that when you were bad. In every game you got me lynched, or I wanted you to shut up, you were a civvie. In special cases, and independent role. When you're quiet it's more likely you're either bad or an indie that only wants to survive. In that sense, quiet Epi is not a good thing.

Even the posts you quoted and replied to in this post (that I cut down), you're not really bringing anything new to the table, and you're mostly replying to strategy talk and not to actual suspicions. I'm still in the middle of catching up, but this post didn't make me feel better

Can you point to an example of me being bad and quiet? If not, then, the underlined isn't true.

k4j cites Cards Against Humanity as a quiet game, but I had 129 posts while the game was live, which is triple most players' posts in that game. I believe only S~V~S was louder than me in that game. If you want to check the numbers yourself, feel free.

FZ. wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I'll give an example. In Death Note, I was loudly proclaiming FZ. was bad based on great logic and numbers. I was incorrect. I was neutral (but, in my own opinion, civilian allied). I tried so hard to burn FZ.

Yet FZ. raises my quietude as an issue for concern. Consider that.
You're twisting things. I don't like it. You know exactly what I meant.

What am I twisting? What "things?" Be specific if you're going to accuse me. What I described here, did it not happen that way? If not, how did it happen?

FZ. wrote:And it brings me back to my two top suspects: Rico and Epi. While Rico is still a suspect, I find Epi to be very out of his civvie character. He's not taking any risks, he's engaged in meaningless conversations (ones that don't require pointing fingers), and he's quiet in the sense that he's not pissing anyone off like civvie Epi tends to do early on.

Epi

What is my "civvie character" in contrast to my "baddie character" (since you imply that I have either)? I seriously have to piss people off to make people think I'm a civilian?

It's hard to take any risks when you can't even read the thread.

kneel4justice wrote:While I am not sure on the suspicion, my vote is going to Epi for now. I don't anticipate changing it, because I do not have anyone else that I would really consider suspicious enough.
I understand that I do not have that much experience with Epi, and maybe the lack of TS players commenting on him means FZ and I are just seeing things (I don't know how much experience she has with him), but I just feel him being quieter is weird, and his counterargument doesn't work for me because he basically twisted what FZ was saying. I honestly cannot tell if that is his personality, but to me it is suspicious because he took what she said and applied it to a completely different context.

I have to hurry up and go now.
I'll try to be back.

VOTE: EPI.

As long as you understand that your vote for me is based on something you said that wasn't true: That I was quiet in Cards Against Humanity. I wasn't. Click the link. Look things over before you say them.

I would also like to know how I twisted what FZ. was saying.

Does anyone else think I twisted FZ.'s words?

FZ. wrote:I find it funny that me and K4J are the only ones thinking Epi might be suspicious. K4J looks more civvie to me, so I'm wondering if this is a case of culture thing (we both come from the same site), or what, but I can't understand how no one else is even considering Epi. All he's done so far is agree with people and make a joke about my suspicion. JJJ says he didn't do a no U. Like Epi would be caught dead doing a No U.

linki: LOL, we think alike too much

That's all I've done? I don't agree. Look at my posts.

++++

These are my responses to my accusers.

I want to examine the Roxy / Zebra connection Matt F raised before I post further (after I finish reading).

The Syndicate

[END] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)

Re: [DAY 1] Talking Heads Mafia (RYM #90)