The Syndicate

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

Not really. To me it feels like he was putting out a vote early on Day 1 to gauge reactions and generate discussion on it. He came back and explained his reasoning for backing out and changing his vote.

I feel like I'd need more time and evidence to evaluate how I feel about LC. Because I don't have much of a read on him right now.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

Looking back on your posts I see that you did have a few comments supporting your suspicion of sig before your bea suspicion/vote came up. Why didn't you vote for sig when you were suspicious of him but you DID vote for bea, in an instant, when you were suspicious of her?

motel room wrote:

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

uh oh

There's definately history of town straw being insecure about his mafia playing ability (which isn't half as bad as he seems to think, I always like his isos) but it would look better alongside more content

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

No merit there. Zebra posted what he did on page 12; Roxy posted what she did on page 16.

Before anyone crucifies me, I could not read page 12 at work.

Hello everyone. I'm reading through the thread now. Don't expect any deep complicated thoughts out of me until at least Day 2. I only have an hour to read up on things tonight, but I'll have all tomorrow to catch up.

If Long Con hadn't said he was setting a trap for people voting for Bea, I would have said he looked good to me. His vote on Bea reads more like an indirect way of getting her to name a scumspect, and that's the kind of directed pressure that works better than non-specific aggression. Always best to let scum hang themselves rather than force anything. Otherwise, what specifically would have made voting for Bea after you (Long Con) look scummy? Just bandwagon hopping? Cuz that seems to be what you're doing to sig right now.

Sorsha wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

Looking back on your posts I see that you did have a few comments supporting your suspicion of sig before your bea suspicion/vote came up. Why didn't you vote for sig when you were suspicious of him but you DID vote for bea, in an instant, when you were suspicious of her?

Because at the time, my reaction to bea's post provoked more of anew emotional reaction than sig's. Unless something major happens later tonight, I forsee my vote going to sig.

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

I love posts like this.

"I've got no reason for it, but both the lynch candidates aren't good ones imo."

One invariably flips town...

"See I told you so. "

Please use your words.

Epignosis wrote:Before anyone crucifies me, I could not read page 12 at work.

you have posts on page 12.

Diiny wrote:

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?

This doesn't seem like a civilian defense.

MacDougall wrote:

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

I love posts like this.

"I've got no reason for it, but both the lynch candidates aren't good ones imo."

One invariably flips town...

"See I told you so. "

Please use your words.

I have things to do the rest of the evening so I have to vote now. I am going to vote along with Mac. He seems like a pretty cool dude and he made me laugh twice. **voting Dinny*

I should have paid attention to the Long Con/bea/BWT corner earlier, this one seems to be juicier than the other cases so far. Long Con's supposed "gotcha" doesn't make any sense to me, I'd really like him to explain how it was supposed to trap anyone. I could have "fallen" for that trap tbh; I agree with it, actually, mentioning townspects but not scumspects can be another way to be non-committal but look like you're playing the game.

Additionally, while BWT did use a somewhat different argument, it didn't seem so distinct as to nullify any trap value. "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, who cares" is only a step worse than "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, just some townspects nothing more". His reply to motel/aokiji is especially suspect; considering that BWT certainly has some involvement in the dealings of LC, and how he just stated at least an opinion on LC's posts, to then cap it off with "Because I don't have much of a read on him right now" is really ringing non-committal scum bells for me. The vote on sig seems convenient too.

Switching to birdwithteeth11 for my vote.

This is happening incredibly fast and I fear I have no hope of catching up fully before deadline, which I really wanted to. But it's a busy day at work, and it takes me 15 minutes a page about to read and understand everything, so it's hard for me to find more than an hour to justify to set aside for the purpose.

So... I'm just going to skim from where I am before deadline to make sure I have a vague understanding of what is going on, then do a fuller catch up tonight (when I should hopefully have enough time to have caught up completely).

motel room wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Before anyone crucifies me, I could not read page 12 at work.

you have posts on page 12.

Aw shit! You mean I missed my shift at a public school at 8:13 pm on a Sunday night?

They'll fire me for sure now.

I will say that in reading LC's further explanation of his vote for bea, I came to understand it and find the potential links between bea and rico significant. I feel even more sure of my vote for rico as things stand at the moment, I think it would be a wise way to go.

I will repeat that I do NOT think Diiny is a wise way to go and it bothers me that he has continued to be the person with the most votes. I will use my vote in defence of Diiny if necessary.

Epignosis wrote:

motel room wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Before anyone crucifies me, I could not read page 12 at work.

you have posts on page 12.

Aw shit! You mean I missed my shift at a public school at 8:13 pm on a Sunday night?

They'll fire me for sure now.

espers wrote:

espers wrote:

seaside wrote: 2. Lynch Mac for having it all worked Putin day 0 but not doing a thing to help town in ANY way but to boast. I reakon he is the rogue.

what makes you think he's the rogue? wouldn't he be more likely to be mafia if he's anti-town?

this is reminding me overwhelmingly of when osokoi/longford made a similarly inexplicable rogue read on a player in rym 87, and he was mafia.

voting seaside

To be fair, the player he was referring to in that game (JJJ) was a rogue... Although I see your point in that calling someone out for being a rogue can be another way of saying 'I read them as bad, but I know they aren't on my team, so what else can they be?'

I did want to know why MacDougall is working with Putin, though.

Epignosis wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

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.

Since you asked me to look at past games, I did. I looked at Cards against humanity, and what do you know? Both K4J and I stated there that you were not acting as we expected:

kneel4justice wrote:
Other people I am suspicious of ATM include BWT and my suspicion of Dom is growing.
I think it is very weird the way Epi is playing, yet getting no attention. Last game people said he is always very talkative, would it be suicidal to be quiet? Maybe. But I would have expected for him to get some attention by now from someone other than myself.

Also DH, you compared your style to FZ, yet you do not seem to be hunting IMO. That is very weird. I was looking forward to your style when you said she is more your type of player. [/color]

FZ. wrote:
The only game I've seen Epi play, he was so aggressive. Is the way he's acting this game common for him?


@linki: haha, on both of us commenting on Epi. And interesting point you raise on DH

FZ. wrote:Epi, what are your thoughts?

FZ. wrote:I find it very weird that Epi hasn't even come in to vote. There are 7 people, not including myself, who haven't voted.

In regard to the last quote, Epig often votes early when a civvie. Note that he hasn't voted yet (at least not while I was searching and making this post).


Then I looked at Flash, another game you were bad in and look what I found regarding my thoughts about you there?

FZ. wrote:Hey, sorry for getting here late. This is going to be a busy week for me. Hopefully, I'll be more active next week.

A lot of fluff. Day 0 always feels like a contest of who is funnier, which always makes it easier for baddies to blend in. LC seems the most helpful. I'd call him out on it , but I've been told he does that analysis every game, so that means nothing. I'd expect Epi to say a little more than crack a joke about a sidekick at this stage, about the roles, the alignments or whatever, so I'll be keeping an eye on him.

So, while you may end up with a lot of posts at the end of the game, you start off quiet, and two games you were bad in, prove that I noticed it in both times. I feel so much better about my vote

MacDougall wrote:

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

I love posts like this.

"I've got no reason for it, but both the lynch candidates aren't good ones imo."

One invariably flips town...

"See I told you so. "

Please use your words.

I already explained why I think Sig is not bad. I think the slip up is a crappy reason to find someone suspicious, and I would look much closer at those going after him for that. As for Diiny, though I see some aspects to him that seem fishy, I get a civvie vibe from him. If I was forced to vote for one of the two, it would be the latter, but I'm far from seeing him as bad at the moment, and I think we have much better options.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:If this:

Golden wrote:And I'm really beginning to be bothered by JJ - his questioning seems pointless. Certainly, I'm not seeing JJ make any points with it. It bothers me when I see someone asking a lot of questions without bothering to put anything of their own opinion into it at the same time.

stems from this:

Golden wrote:linki @jj - I believe that is my impression of you from reading through pages 7 and 8 in a relatively short timeframe. It was a lot of specifically questioning Diiny about his behaviour towards Roxy.

Then I would ask you to read that content again when you have an opportunity. I questioned Diiny thoroughly for sure, but never failed to state my own perspective. At that point I had my vote on Diiny, and I continuously explained to him exactly what my misgivings were. I was working out my suspicion of him (for which I didn't have that much conviction) to decide whether he would become a candidate for my final vote or not. I eventually decided I won't vote for him.

I did not find it genuine that you ever had a legitimate suspicion on him. Perhaps that contributed to my feeling that you were not adding your own perspective.

The long post got screwed up. Here's me trying to correct it

Epignosis wrote:

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.

Since you asked me to look at past games, I did. I looked at Cards against humanity, and what do you know? Both K4J and I stated there that you were not acting as we expected:

kneel4justice wrote:
Other people I am suspicious of ATM include BWT and my suspicion of Dom is growing.
I think it is very weird the way Epi is playing, yet getting no attention. Last game people said he is always very talkative, would it be suicidal to be quiet? Maybe. But I would have expected for him to get some attention by now from someone other than myself.

Also DH, you compared your style to FZ, yet you do not seem to be hunting IMO. That is very weird. I was looking forward to your style when you said she is more your type of player. [/color]

FZ. wrote:
The only game I've seen Epi play, he was so aggressive. Is the way he's acting this game common for him?


@linki: haha, on both of us commenting on Epi. And interesting point you raise on DH

FZ. wrote:Epi, what are your thoughts?

FZ. wrote:I find it very weird that Epi hasn't even come in to vote. There are 7 people, not including myself, who haven't voted.

In regard to the last quote, Epig often votes early when a civvie. Note that he hasn't voted yet (at least not while I was searching and making this post).


Then I looked at Flash, another game you were bad in and look what I found regarding my thoughts about you there?

FZ. wrote:Hey, sorry for getting here late. This is going to be a busy week for me. Hopefully, I'll be more active next week.

A lot of fluff. Day 0 always feels like a contest of who is funnier, which always makes it easier for baddies to blend in. LC seems the most helpful. I'd call him out on it , but I've been told he does that analysis every game, so that means nothing. I'd expect Epi to say a little more than crack a joke about a sidekick at this stage, about the roles, the alignments or whatever, so I'll be keeping an eye on him.

[/quote]

So, while you may end up with a lot of posts at the end of the game, you start off quiet, and two games you were bad in, prove that I noticed it in both times. I feel so much better about my vote[/quote]

Well hey, guess what? I'm about to be quiet again for the next hour. Gotham is on soon.

I'm about to go to sleep. I urge people to look at my case on Epi two posts up. I think it's a good case.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It wasn't a terribly substantive vote by me for you though; I tend to use votes as a way of poking people hard and encouraging direct intercourse.*

*How about that sentence, Golden and Diiny? :P

Unfortunately, there are no good colours that begin with D.

But feel free to use double entendre yellow

Catching up myself as quickly as possible.

Golden wrote:I will say that in reading LC's further explanation of his vote for bea, I came to understand it and find the potential links between bea and rico significant. I feel even more sure of my vote for rico as things stand at the moment, I think it would be a wise way to go.

I will repeat that I do NOT think Diiny is a wise way to go and it bothers me that he has continued to be the person with the most votes. I will use my vote in defence of Diiny if necessary.

I only remember LC stating one time that bea not seeing what FZ saw as suspicion of me will be a defending cue, if either of us flip bad - with which, incidentally, I don't agree; I'm not myself responsible for every (or any) players chiming in to discussion about me looking suspicious. By this angle, we'd be witch hunting every player that a flipped baddie "defended" or agreed with and get, likely, awful results.

You've addressed nothing from my rebuttal. Are you a sock as Golden or is it the real you playing, cause you're making me real curious with this attitude. I'm getting real quick tired of hearing this empty "I feel sure about my suspicion / I don't feel better about his rebuttal" type of comments, coming from several players already. Let's discuss it.

Please respect my opinions, they will be respected some day.

FZ. wrote:I'm about to go to sleep. I urge people to look at my case on Epi two posts up. I think it's a good case.

Before you do, it'd be great if you and k4j could answer the questions I asked you.

HamburgerBoy wrote:I should have paid attention to the Long Con/bea/BWT corner earlier, this one seems to be juicier than the other cases so far. Long Con's supposed "gotcha" doesn't make any sense to me, I'd really like him to explain how it was supposed to trap anyone. I could have "fallen" for that trap tbh; I agree with it, actually, mentioning townspects but not scumspects can be another way to be non-committal but look like you're playing the game.

Additionally, while BWT did use a somewhat different argument, it didn't seem so distinct as to nullify any trap value. "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, who cares" is only a step worse than "Day 1 is random, pings are mild, just some townspects nothing more". His reply to motel/aokiji is especially suspect; considering that BWT certainly has some involvement in the dealings of LC, and how he just stated at least an opinion on LC's posts, to then cap it off with "Because I don't have much of a read on him right now" is really ringing non-committal scum bells for me. The vote on sig seems convenient too.

Switching to birdwithteeth11 for my vote.

How is my vote convenient? I stated reasons why I was suspicious of him. Do you not believe my reasons or what?

I'm also on my way out and might not be able to check in before the lynch ends. I'm going to vote sig since he's my top suspect right now. Hope can leave my vote there and don't have to switch it to save myself. If I do die though, I can definitely say I enjoyed my attempt to be zany and enjoyed this game and ton!

MacDougall wrote:

Choutas wrote:Also mind you all people that this is my second game in over a year. I've grown rusty. I'm veteran league material playing with young bucks.

Distancing yourself from your play?

"It's not my fault I lynched a townie, I was rusty... RUSTY."

My first game back after three years I nailed a baddie on day one, so I definitely don't like rusty as an excuse.

MacDougall 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.

Meta is not for you to select.

Indeed. It's the second game in which brian has brought up his lack of meta. The first time around he had great reason to - he was cop and lying intentionally low but was likely to get lynched for looking like his baddie self. So good motivation for specifically fighting the perception of his meta, and to be fair in that game I was bad and intentionally trying to use it against him.

But I don't think it makes it true that brian has no meta, and I'm suspicious of why he would bring it up. He didn't bring it up as vanilla civ in 88, as far as I can recall.

Last, quick session before bed time that will probably end with me voting birdswithteeth to save myself even though I'm not sure how I feel about him. I'll make my thoughts on his case known before I sign off.

Burgy Boy, Baby, confirm for me why your vote's on birds, please.

Ricochet wrote:Catching up myself as quickly as possible.

Golden wrote:I will say that in reading LC's further explanation of his vote for bea, I came to understand it and find the potential links between bea and rico significant. I feel even more sure of my vote for rico as things stand at the moment, I think it would be a wise way to go.

I will repeat that I do NOT think Diiny is a wise way to go and it bothers me that he has continued to be the person with the most votes. I will use my vote in defence of Diiny if necessary.

I only remember LC stating one time that bea not seeing what FZ saw as suspicion of me will be a defending cue, if either of us flip bad - with which, incidentally, I don't agree; I'm not myself responsible for every (or any) players chiming in to discussion about me looking suspicious. By this angle, we'd be witch hunting every player that a flipped baddie "defended" or agreed with and get, likely, awful results.

You've addressed nothing from my rebuttal. Are you a sock as Golden or is it the real you playing, cause you're making me real curious with this attitude. I'm getting real quick tired of hearing this empty "I feel sure about my suspicion / I don't feel better about his rebuttal" type of comments, coming from several players already. Let's discuss it.

Please respect my opinions, they will be respected some day.

I haven't built a case on you for you to rebut, so I'm not sure why I would have any feelings on your rebuttal.

I have to figure out why I get bad feels from you before I can figure out whether or not your rebuttal means anything to me.

I don't have time to do that until I've caught up, but I am on page 15.

Epignosis wrote:

FZ. wrote:I'm about to go to sleep. I urge people to look at my case on Epi two posts up. I think it's a good case.

Before you do, it'd be great if you and k4j could answer the questions I asked you.

On mobile, checking in. Will try to check CAH game when I have a chance.
Referring to how you twisted FZ's words…FZ said that quiet Epi is never a good thing. She was referring to what quiet means for your alignment. Not your success rate & suspicions as a civvie, which you made it seem like she was referring to with the example of how you wrongfully suspected her when neutral but civilian allied in Death Note (I think that is the game).

birdwithteeth11 wrote:How is my vote convenient? I stated reasons why I was suspicious of him. Do you not believe my reasons or what?

I'm also on my way out and might not be able to check in before the lynch ends. I'm going to vote sig since he's my top suspect right now. Hope can leave my vote there and don't have to switch it to save myself. If I do die though, I can definitely say I enjoyed my attempt to be zany and enjoyed this game and ton!

Prior to your vote for Bea, you had two posts that I see on sig: 1) that he was using some ambiguous verbs (you barely even make this out as a case against him) and 2) vagueness about caution flags and his first suspect. You get some points because you had at least had mentioned him as a suspect prior to changing your mind on Bea, but it's not that clear what you really had against him. Could you elaborate on those? I just don't understand your case. It makes it look like you're just going for an easy target.

Also, rico, it appears I have only just now gotten to your rebuttal, so I couldn't really take it into account until I got there.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:

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.

Looking back on your posts I see that you did have a few comments supporting your suspicion of sig before your bea suspicion/vote came up. Why didn't you vote for sig when you were suspicious of him but you DID vote for bea, in an instant, when you were suspicious of her?

Because at the time, my reaction to bea's post provoked more of anew emotional reaction than sig's. Unless something major happens later tonight, I forsee my vote going to sig.

I'm not sure if LC is civ or bad based off his ploy. I don't see him changing his vote from bea to sig as back peddling as motel room said earlier. I do think you going from a sig suspicion, to a bea vote and now possibly to a sig vote as back peddling on your part.

I'm putting my vote on you for now as I go muddle through my thoughts on the link between you and LC.

Vote BWT

Is Wilgy's reason for voting BWT as bare as I'm inferring from his post history? It seems to be that he said he was gonna change up his playstyle post rolecard distribution. Whilst I agree it should raise a flag, I'm not sure it's enough to just sit on for an entire 48 hour day 1 at all

@Rico

Your rebuttal to me appears to be that I should know how intense you get when defending yourself, but then you want to be pedantic at me about how can you be both aggressive and defensive. Do you think your use of 'intense' and my use of 'aggressive' might be talking about one and the same?

Burger you can ignore my question I posted a few minuites ago I didn't click that BWT was birds, lol.

I will ask Sorsha to confirm why you're voting BWT, though, because I'm not a fan of quiet wagon hops.

b24 - he made an RVS with no roots to the actual game, then came back saying this vote served its purpose to generate content, which to me still makes not much sense (the most content it actually generated was suspicions on him voting this way; the rest of the game's content cannot be said to have been achieved by this vote of his). Next couple of posts are reading Roxy's banter ways genuine (and familiar, as a style itself) and slightly insisting on questioning a few players who suspect Diiny. He dismisses Diiny's vote on him for being inactive by saying he's one of many, at that stage, to have contributed in low amount. Switches to voting BWT for him voting bea's disbelief in Day 1 suspicions generating something consistent. Frankly, his posts so far don't read like any clear input and it doesn't make me trust him.

bea - re-reading her posts, I'm wary of her. It's not her stance on RVS'ing or low expectations to properly suspect anyone early - I've seen such meta from her before - it's more the fact that she pushed this forward from the beginning, without it necessarily being an issue about her at that point. She chimed in on Roxy's vote being random and meant to provoke reactions, but at the same time crafted the post into a MO statement; afterwards, she just seems to have wrapped her defense cloak around her and keep this "I don't believe in Day 1 suspicions, I don't believe in building impressions from any kind of weak or minor material, I need my 3-day warm up etc." stance. I think Wilgy said he dislikes reading players announce their MOs at the beginning of a game and I'd say this is the type that would bother me as well, because she made the MO stance before any actual activity. This pings me.

Diiny wrote:Last, quick session before bed time that will probably end with me voting birdswithteeth to save myself even though I'm not sure how I feel about him. I'll make my thoughts on his case known before I sign off.

Burgy Boy, Baby, confirm for me why your vote's on birds, please.

1. I see sig as town and an easy mark, so bird switching from Bea to sig as he did looked suspicious
2. Long Con claimed to set up some kind of trap for people voting for Bea; while bird's reasons for voting for Bea were a little distinct, I wouldn't say completely so
3. Bird's lack of read on Long Con raised flags of avoidance, as does Long Con quickly dismissing his trap and bird's vote; thus I think there is something to learn from a lynch of one of the two regardless
4. This/reason from bcornett24 was a really good point imo
5. Or just read this quote pyramid, I agree with pretty much everything Sorsha is saying there

Golden wrote:@Rico

Your rebuttal to me appears to be that I should know how intense you get when defending yourself, but then you want to be pedantic at me about how can you be both aggressive and defensive. Do you think your use of 'intense' and my use of 'aggressive' might be talking about one and the same?

No. "Aggressive" means (at least for me) lashing out, looking nervous or panicky, forcing rebuttals, being dismissive etc. "Intense" means keeping your guard up, not letting players post something fishy about you without any reaction, debating as best and in depth as you can. If you're implying that you're seeing the former, I'm inviting you to point where in my posts do I come off as that.

Diiny wrote:Is Wilgy's reason for voting BWT as bare as I'm inferring from his post history? It seems to be that he said he was gonna change up his playstyle post rolecard distribution. Whilst I agree it should raise a flag, I'm not sure it's enough to just sit on for an entire 48 hour day 1 at all

I looked through Wilgy's posts and it seems like that was the reason he is voting for bwt.

Diiny wrote:Burger you can ignore my question I posted a few minuites ago I didn't click that BWT was birds, lol.

I will ask Sorsha to confirm why you're voting BWT, though, because I'm not a fan of quiet wagon hops.

I gave my vote post literally three posts above this post of yours.

And then I realised I wouldn't call Sorsha's vote a quiet wagon hop, either. I'm clearly too tired for this. I'm going to vote bwt to ensure I don't die, but just in case shit gets real in the next, like, hour and a half, I've just realised that everyone on my wagon hasn't played with me before, which explains a bit.

Ricochet wrote:b24 - he made an RVS with no roots to the actual game, then came back saying this vote served its purpose to generate content, which to me still makes not much sense (the most content it actually generated was suspicions on him voting this way; the rest of the game's content cannot be said to have been achieved by this vote of his). Next couple of posts are reading Roxy's banter ways genuine (and familiar, as a style itself) and slightly insisting on questioning a few players who suspect Diiny. He dismisses Diiny's vote on him for being inactive by saying he's one of many, at that stage, to have contributed in low amount. Switches to voting BWT for him voting bea's disbelief in Day 1 suspicions generating something consistent. Frankly, his posts so far don't read like any clear input and it doesn't make me trust him.

I don't really know what bolded is supposed to indicate, could you explain what you mean by that and how it makes him look scummy? Your entire case on him there seems like assorted facts about him and what he's done, but aside from the early RVS thing (which I think is trivial at worst), I don't see how it all fits into a scum read.

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It wasn't a terribly substantive vote by me for you though; I tend to use votes as a way of poking people hard and encouraging direct intercourse.*

*How about that sentence, Golden and Diiny? :P

Unfortunately, there are no good colours that begin with D.

But feel free to use double entendre yellow

Dandelion is a color, right?

Diiny wrote:And then I realised I wouldn't call Sorsha's vote a quiet wagon hop, either. I'm clearly too tired for this. I'm going to vote bwt to ensure I don't die, but just in case shit gets real in the next, like, hour and a half, I've just realised that everyone on my wagon hasn't played with me before, which explains a bit.

I'm not sure what the wagon hopping thing is about, but in all honesty it was seeing Sorsha's arguments above that made me go back and check out the LC/BWT/Bea thing more closely, so I'm the one hopping if anyone is.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Ricochet wrote:b24 - he made an RVS with no roots to the actual game, then came back saying this vote served its purpose to generate content, which to me still makes not much sense (the most content it actually generated was suspicions on him voting this way; the rest of the game's content cannot be said to have been achieved by this vote of his). Next couple of posts are reading Roxy's banter ways genuine (and familiar, as a style itself) and slightly insisting on questioning a few players who suspect Diiny. He dismisses Diiny's vote on him for being inactive by saying he's one of many, at that stage, to have contributed in low amount. Switches to voting BWT for him voting bea's disbelief in Day 1 suspicions generating something consistent. Frankly, his posts so far don't read like any clear input and it doesn't make me trust him.

I don't really know what bolded is supposed to indicate, could you explain what you mean by that and how it makes him look scummy? Your entire case on him there seems like assorted facts about him and what he's done, but aside from the early RVS thing (which I think is trivial at worst), I don't see how it all fits into a scum read.

It's more a read than case, which is why it shows to you as "assorted facts".

I disagree that his RVS is that trivial, because of stuff I mentioned:

-- it was wildly unreasoned, by comparisong with most of the other RVS's
-- he later implied it achieved something and I have no idea what that is

Yeah, sorry about that sorsh. I also just now remembered I'd tell you how I felt about bird before I went to sleep so I'll divulge:

I do agree with Wilgy's idea that claiming to want to change up your playstyle post rolecard distribution is fishy. That combined with his timid non-stance on LC and his bea vote make him a lynch I'm certainly not regretful to be securing to save myself. I still don't feel as good about roxy as everyone else seems to, but I feel better now that people are telling me how on-meta she is. I'd like to be able to fully stow away my suspicions of her, but alas, her supposed on-meta-ness can only satiate my gut so much.

Brian's been a bit more inquisitive, and that post hboy posted out shows a bit more of a townie mindset. I also (as previously mentioned, I think) remembered a game where it took him a day phase to get his engine going and his townie brian aura glowing. Still won't be happy unless I see full townbrian soon, though. That's a warning

Ricochet wrote:It's more a read than case, which is why it shows to you as "assorted facts".

I disagree that his RVS is that trivial, because of stuff I mentioned:

-- it was wildly unreasoned, by comparisong with most of the other RVS's
-- he later implied it achieved something and I have no idea what that is

The very first vote on aokiji/motel was, but at least on RYM that would be considered an obvious joke vote. In fact, it was your questioning of that vote that he used as saying it achieved something, that being to educate Syndicaters on the dark and mysterious voting rituals of day 1 RYM. It was basically his own type of "That's how I roll".

You didn't clarify the bolded part about his vote for BWT and why that means something to you.

Can I point out that there is a player out there with this scum role.

"(Nothing But) Flowers – Can't get used to the lifestyle brought about by the new players. Its vote is worth x3 against players from the opposite forum. It cannot be harmed by night powers used by players from the same forum. If it carries out the kill, it cannot kill players from the same forum."

I would assume that the votes are going to magically appear at the end of the lynch (mod feel free to clarify). So who we think we are lynching may not end up being that person. If we can largely agree on a lynch candidate it's probably a good idea to ensure that everyone else is far enough back from them to not be able to change the lynch. I would also say it's unlikely the person is going to use this role so early unless we have a scum candidate because it'll just give us a pile of people to choose a lynch candidate from tomorrow. But if I were using this role, I'd make sure that I voted for someone on a vote that was full of townies so that the pile is diluted. I expect this will turn out to be a very dangerous role and I expect it will end up being a huge advantage to scum. Think about it, how are we going to lynch this person in particular unless they are so far ahead on the lynch tally that they can't protect themselves by voting on the second highest tally?

That actually makes me a little wary of Diiny, who pointed out that they are just voting for

I'm also starting to think we should lynch a lurker here. The two players on the top of the lynch pile are both very active, so if they are scum it's likely to become more apparent over time. Whereas if we let the likes of the below players live, we're getting into the deeper game where it's harder to remove players for low content contributions and it becomes far easier for scum to coast through doing nothing.

devin (5 posts)
elohcin (6 posts, 2 of which were buddying me)
reywaS (1 post, and all it says is hello)
Russtifinko (1 post, and all it says is that they were posting to avoid being made a non participant)
RDW (4 posts though it is always like RDW that I remember to either post nothing or a lot, but still)
Strawhenge (4 posts)
TheFloyd73 (2 post, both of no value and is apparently already someone's "HUGE TOWN READ")

I say lynch one out of reywaS and Russtifinko. If you don't have a good gut feeling about who you currently have your vote on, put it on there and either force them to post or get rid of one of them otherwise we're inviting them to do this for the rest of the game.

Voting reywaS because their 1 post had less content than Russtifinko's did.

FZ. wrote:

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?

I expect that how abrasive epi is, is not inherently linked to his affiliation. So it does not make me think he is specifically good or bad. Last time I played with Epi and he was like this, he was not bad.