Page 17 of 52
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:15 pm
by Golden
In fact, forget even scotty being a seemer, which makes it very unlikely... when is the last time you really saw anyone try to overtly save their teammate in that kind of way. It's not very common even when they guy you are saving isn't a seemer.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:22 pm
by Epignosis
Golden wrote:insertnamehere wrote:Golden wrote:@inh - if you choose who you suspect based on my 'high horse of hyperbole' instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, then you are choosing to let things influence you that shouldn't.
I'm not getting in between you and the facts. You are perfectly capable of reading the facts for yourself.
Epi asked if Jay would be summarily lynched if he was anyone else. My answer is I hope not because even if Jay was someone else Quin should be more suspicious. That is an answer, not a 'way to drag Quin through the mud'.
The fact you'd use that sentence at all is odd to me - a civilian giving their read is not 'dragging someone through the mud', so am I to take it you suspect me?
We get it, you suspect Quin. You laid out a pretty solid case against him. I just find your constant bringing him up even if he isn't relevant to the situation, plus telling Quin "not to even try to defend himself" to be weird. And you pouncing on me because I questioned
the way you are selling your case, not the case itself, doesn't lessen my feeling of strangeness.
Not saying I suspect you, or that I don't find Quin suspicious, but I think you're acting a bit too squirrelly.
I guess I've been spoiled by the mafia champs. I'm pouncing on you because taking 'how I'm selling the case' into consideration is subpar town play. It's pointless and meaningless. Either you like the case or you don't - how you feel about
me isn't relevant. Unless you think I'm mafia and suspect me, which is a different thing.
If Quin is bad, does it matter that I was arrogant about it? What are you trying to do here, win the game for the town, or make me less mean?
And I didn't bring it up when it wasn't relevant to the situation, and it's silly of you to continue making out like I did. Epi asked if Jay should be lynched today if he was anyone else. My answer is no because Quin is the correct lynch today 100% of the time. That isn't irrelevant. Quin is literally the reason for my answer. The only other possible thing I could do is ignore epignosis, because I could not have answered the question without mentioning quin.
That isn't what I asked. I didn't ask "Should Jay be lynched today if he was anyone else?" I asked, "
Would he?" Your response that "Quin is the correct lynch today 100% of the time." doesn't mean anything with respect to what I asked about 3J. If 3J were sig, would sig be getting lynched today?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:22 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:If 3J were sig, would sig be getting lynched today?
I think you just described why I shouldn't be lynched.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:25 pm
by Golden
Epignosis wrote:That isn't what I asked. I didn't ask "Should Jay be lynched today if he was anyone else?" I asked, "Would he?" Your response that "Quin is the correct lynch today 100% of the time." doesn't mean anything with respect to what I asked about 3J. If 3J were sig, would sig be getting lynched today?
And my answer was, I HOPE NOT!
I mean, I can't mind control every player and force them not to vote for sig, but I certainly wouldn't vote for sig, if sig did what Jay did.
And the fact that sig might be lynched wouldn't make it a good lynch. It would just mean that he got lynched for being sig, which as we know is usually a failure.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:25 pm
by Golden
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:If 3J were sig, would sig be getting lynched today?
I think you just described why I shouldn't be lynched.
Exactly.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:29 pm
by Golden
Really, all you are doing is pointing out why the question you asked is not quite the one I think you are really wanting to get at (or maybe it is).
But I think perhaps a more relevant question is "Is Jay's behaviour objectively suspicious, and is it only being overlooked because he is Jay."
To which my answer is "No, and no" - because 1) I don't think Jay's behaviour is indicative of a scotty teammate and 2) I don't think Jay is being overlooked, given that he has taken suspicion from nearly everyone but me this game.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:33 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
I think this reference to sig is actually a good opportunity to make a general statement:
People around here tend to respond poorly to bold play. When I say "bold play" I mean quick, emotion-driven reads, loud defenses of players, visible efforts to change the course of a lynch at EOD, early gun-to-head reads, etc... I think people see this kind of behavior, and instead of seeing "townie attempting to make waves in the thread and pursue their reads as they develop", they see "baddie trying to pull strings" or "baddie pretending to contribute" or "baddie saving team mate" or some other such thing.
It's usually wrong. It's usually worse than wrong; it's completely backwards.
This isn't to say that baddies never play boldly. Hi MacDougall. It is however not sensible to immediately distrust anyone who behaves that way -- and I think that's the reason sig and some others like him get mislynched so often. He plays boldly, and he doesn't concern himself with how his behavior reflects on him. He doesn't tend to get away with it even though it's usually honest behavior. I do many of the same things sig does.
I am not accusing any single person of this. This is a general observation that reaches well beyond the bounds of this game. Take it however you may.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:38 pm
by Golden
@inh - some quotes for you from the champs game, where I was town:
Btw, AoZ - if you are town, I do think you are now best placed to move on from responding to the specific things sorian is alleging are your scum tells and start working on other places in the game.
I would start to find it suspicious if defending yourself became the only or primary focus of your posts longer term. We all know Sorian's perspective on you now, I don't see much of a chance of you changing his perspective or contributing as a townie through defending against that perspective.
However, if you expect me to spend a lot of time defending myself, don't hope long. I don't intend to get mired in self-interest.
1) defending is a waste of towns time. As I pointed out to you yesterday. As I also talked about in the heats. I won't get caught up in my own words defending, believe me. It's my day job.
Just so that you understand this is my perspective on defending - if you are town, it's just you trying to stay alive instead of trying to help the town win, catching baddies is where you should be.
I didn't always have this perspective, but I do now.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:38 pm
by Epignosis
Golden wrote:Also inh, answer this question...
Have you EVER seen a teammate try and save a seemer?
Golden wrote:Epi, you too.
I've seen like two or three seemers get lynched, and I don't recall the circumstances. It's not a popular power.
I did see one power where the mafia could make a civilian flip bad. That has turned out to be...less popular.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:40 pm
by Golden
OK, well I will say, I have played in a couple of teams with a seemer, one with rico where rico was the seemer, and in this cases I do not even recall the possibility of trying to save the seemer entering into our conversation as an option. It was plainly not a good choice, we got far more advantage from trying to look good when they flipped town.
That doesn't mean bussing, but being prepared for their lynch and not trying to stop it.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:41 pm
by Golden
Golden wrote:this cases
Grammar fail invalidates entire argument
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:44 pm
by Marmot
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think this reference to sig is actually a good opportunity to make a general statement:
People around here tend to respond poorly to bold play. When I say "bold play" I mean quick, emotion-driven reads, loud defenses of players, visible efforts to change the course of a lynch at EOD, early gun-to-head reads, etc... I think people see this kind of behavior, and instead of seeing "townie attempting to make waves in the thread and pursue their reads as they develop", they see "baddie trying to pull strings" or "baddie pretending to contribute" or "baddie saving team mate" or some other such thing.
It's usually wrong. It's usually worse than wrong; it's completely backwards.
This isn't to say that baddies never play boldly. Hi MacDougall. It is however not sensible to immediately distrust anyone who behaves that way -- and I think that's the reason sig and some others like him get mislynched so often. He plays boldly, and he doesn't concern himself with how his behavior reflects on him. He doesn't tend to get away with it even though it's usually honest behavior. I do many of the same things sig does.
I am not accusing any single person of this. This is a general observation that reaches well beyond the bounds of this game. Take it however you may.
Touche.
Let's lynch a quiet reflexive player, like
Beck!
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:48 pm
by Marmot
Golden, who are your top 3 suspects?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:51 pm
by Golden
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden, who are your top 3 suspects?
Quin
Mp (rey or wilgy?)
Beck
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:56 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
One thing I am concerned about here is that there is the potential for a recurrence of the Turf Wars Day 2 CFD scenario -- confident reads emerge from a lynch which end up being universally wrong and numerous days of failure proceed afterword.
I think it'd be a good idea for Golden and Sloonei to consider alternative realities where Quin is town, just in case. I'll do the same after the game.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:57 pm
by Epignosis
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:I have been bad on The Syndicate a total of seventeen times, I count. I've won nine of those times. Do you know how many times I threw a teammate under the bus? Once. And I did it at the outset just because I had never done it before, wanted to try it, and my teammate was cool with it. It was planned early on. No pressure.
Why is the correct move also the easy move?
You don't play like I play. I don't think you play like anybody plays except Epignosis. I don't really bus very often either, but certain scenarios demand it. The Scotty dilemma of Day 1 had two solutions, in my opinion, for a bad JJJ -- stay on leetic and promote that counterwagon, or bus Scotty. Jumping to a less viable INH counterwagon in the final half hour is not logical or efficient. It's pointless.
Your defense here is based on my acceptance of your two solutions. That's limiting. I don't buy that you think there are only two ways to go the way Day 1 played out. Unless you are bad at being bad (and you aren't), the ways are myriad.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:And if you believe that, then why aren't you considering the people who supposedly threw Scotty under the bus?
INH voted for Scotty, and I have been talking about him as a premier suspect for most of this day phase. I have already explained why I am less inclined to suspect the others.
You were indignant that people were voting Scotty. You tried to get INH lynched instead of Scotty. You said:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Townies are more inconsistent that baddies.
And you're being consistent with INH.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:59 pm
by Marmot
Golden wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden, who are your top 3 suspects?
Quin
Mp (rey or wilgy?)
Beck
I think Wilgy replaced SVS, so... rey?
I've seen some talk of a vigilante or a serial killer. Which one is more likely? Also, what are the likely number of mafia in each scenario?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 8:59 pm
by Epignosis
Golden wrote:Really, all you are doing is pointing out why the question you asked is not quite the one I think you are really wanting to get at (or maybe it is).
But I think perhaps a more relevant question is "Is Jay's behaviour objectively suspicious, and is it only being overlooked because he is Jay."
To which my answer is "No, and no" - because 1) I don't think Jay's behaviour is indicative of a scotty teammate and 2) I don't think Jay is being overlooked, given that he has taken suspicion from nearly everyone but me this game.
I don't believe in "objectively suspicious."
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:00 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:Your defense here is based on my acceptance of your two solutions. That's limiting. I don't buy that you think there are only two ways to go the way Day 1 played out. Unless you are bad at being bad (and you aren't), the ways are myriad.
I don't particularly care whether you accept my defense. We're talking about a sequence which elapsed about 30 minutes, so no I don't believe there were a myriad of options. If you want to talk about the entirety of Day 1, then this discussion needs to expand a great deal because the variables worth considering become immensely more numerous.
Epignosis wrote:And you're being consistent with INH.
I really haven't. I have waffled as much on him as I have on anyone. I read him town early in Day 1, ended up trying to lynch him, said after the Scotty
bad flip that every vote for him looked better, then changed my mind on INH.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:02 pm
by Golden
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Golden, who are your top 3 suspects?
Quin
Mp (rey or wilgy?)
Beck
I think Wilgy replaced SVS, so... rey?
I've seen some talk of a vigilante or a serial killer. Which one is more likely? Also, what are the likely number of mafia in each scenario?
I've been running on three, because 4 would be too many with 15 people.
Don't know if vig or sk is more likely, really. Not enough information.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:07 pm
by insertnamehere
Golden wrote:Also inh, answer this question...
Have you EVER seen a teammate try and save a seemer?
As Epi said, it's not a super popular power. Maybe my memory is just crap after being AWOL for a year or so, but I honestly don't remember any specific instance of playing with a "seemer" role. I mean, I'm pretty sure that I have, but unfortunately, a lot of my old mafia experience is lost to my own subconscious.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:07 pm
by Ricochet
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:08 pm
by Golden
Well then, inh, put that aside and ask yourself a bit about what YOU would do if you were on a team with a seemer.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:10 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Ricochet wrote:*picture*
To be fair, I did the same thing last year and probably still do it. It's a memorable learning experience and it's hard not to reference the ideas you encounter playing with new groups especially in such intense competition. :P
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:12 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
*submits for Post of the Year*
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:12 pm
by Marmot
Here's a strategy
Ask yourself what you do when you are mafia. Vote somebody who is exhibiting that behavior. Good game baddies.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:13 pm
by Epignosis
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:Your defense here is based on my acceptance of your two solutions. That's limiting. I don't buy that you think there are only two ways to go the way Day 1 played out. Unless you are bad at being bad (and you aren't), the ways are myriad.
I don't particularly care whether you accept my defense. We're talking about a sequence which elapsed about 30 minutes, so no I don't believe there were a myriad of options. If you want to talk about the entirety of Day 1, then this discussion needs to expand a great deal because the variables worth considering become immensely more numerous.
Then why offer one? Just tell me to go fuck myself instead of feeding me something like, "Look man, there's only two things I would have done if I were bad." You're not a lousy mafia member. You can be manipulative. I do not believe you, as bad, would have felt limited to two choices.
And that's my vote.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:14 pm
by insertnamehere
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I trust Epi the most right now. I realize that we've had our differences, (all of Psych and The Office) but amongst this sea of WIFOM and
BOLD PLAY
everything has become a bizarre exaggeration of itself. Ain't that Mafia imitating Theme imitating Life?
I don't view BOLD PLAY as inheretly scummy, I just view it as inherently unreliable.
Big difference.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 0
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:15 pm
by Quin
3J has 6 pages of posts. Usually I'd do a back and forth evaluating what I like and what I dislike and come up with a conclusion read at the end. I don't have the patience for that, so I'm (for the most part) focusing on the bad, because I want people to vote for him. Sue me
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think you're town. Emoticon casing is town. You get a town read.
Interesting, why do you think so?
On the surface it may sound like a silly accusation -- that someone's smiley usage is indicative of their alignment. Perhaps it even is silly. That's less important to me, however, than whether it's a genuine product of your sleuthing mindset. I think townies notice smileys and other minor nuances like that; Strawhenge on RYM was one who would talk about smiley trends. Scum players are likely to be less inclined to make this accusation, particularly at a hornet's nest like Epignosis, because it just begs for someone to retort: "Uh, that's ridiculous. You're smearing me with this ridiculous thing you've said."
Perhaps Certified WIFOM Bucket Metalmarsh might be one to deviate from that trend, but I don't get that vibe here.
He's already got his defence here ready, but reading of any kind based on emoticon usage is...a horrible case. My emoticon usage has shit all to do with my alignment and everything to do with my emotions at the time.
Couple that with this discussion is ongoing with marmot who I don't feel fantastic about sets off alarm bells.
Also, this:
All town reads, or anything reads, on Day 0 are facile.
I've already got cause to suspect you, and it's Day 0.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Of course it "sounds" logical. That's why a baddie would promote it. It's the easiest, most obvious manner of shading someone else while seeming like the more reasonable party in the discussion. Here's the problem, Mr. List:
1. I think townies lie just as much as baddies, and perhaps even more than baddies (I lie more as a townie easily)
Golden used the 'just because it's easy doesn't make it bad' defence when I accused him of taking the easy route when coming up with potential teammates. I know you read it, but you didn't seem interested in that. Also, on what planet do townies lie more easily?
He has a massive back and forth with Ricochet that actually makes me feel slightly better about him, and slightly worse about Rico. Most of interest to me is that 3J makes some reference to the champs game to suggest why Rico's actions are suspicious, and Rico jumps to suggest he's being suspected for taking inspiration from a baddie in a game he didn't watch when it's got nothing to do with that.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:insertnamehere wrote:Epignosis wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Everyone else: I don't expect you to read our text walls. Once we've had our chat and I am satisfied with whatever conclusion I come to I'll summarize it.
My suspicion of you has grown, sir. Why wouldn't you expect people to read what you've posted and form their own opinions and instead rely on your summary?
Why would we go to the trouble of researching something and forming our own opinions when we can get a nice tidy, completely unbiased five word long summary from FOX News or Breitbart that tells us how to feel about things?
You've given us very little so far other than to criticize the play of someone you
have declared a town read for.
If you think my methods are unhelpful, then take a look in the freaking mirror dude. This is useless.
You don't get immunity from having your game criticised just because the person civ-read you once. Wasn't it you who said this:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My objective is to generate a game thread which promotes the highest-possible chance of facilitating strong reads. I change my mind more than anyone I know for this reason -- the only read that matters is the one that accompanies a final vote. Everything else is a part of the process of arriving at that final vote.
It seems contradictory that you'd act so aggressively to someone who's just trying to do the same thing you do.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It appears INH's shtick functions cross-alignment.
The following quote is from Psych Mafia, in which INH was bad, not this game:
insertnamehere wrote:So, it looks like the Day 1 crazies have set in, and I think that everyone's more than a little bit coo-coo right now. There seem to be weird suspicions directed from sig at Elo, Lorab, and SVS/Soneji that are based on what looks like literally nothing except minute Day 1 interactions and "Why are you defending him? Your defense is weird! You two must be teammates!" All of it seems incoherent, and none of it jives with me logically or emotionally.
So his refusal to take Day 1 accusations seriously (from me or from anyone else) is not a reason to read him as town. Good then, I won't.
This is a meta read. Curious he looked for a game in which he was bad and didn't think to back it up with a game where he was civ. For the record, here's a civ INH in Triskaedekaphobia also not taking Day 1 accusations seriously. Or are you segmenting the two because the former seems 'funnier'?
insertnamehere wrote:All of these imaginary systems that he just keeps coming up with just seem like him posturing to where he can come up with some justification to lynch just about anyone. If I wasn't already committed to voting No Lynch, he'd probably be my top candidate.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I kind of get the feeling that Scotty was caught in a kerfuffle, but not necessarily as a baddie. The down side of laying snares like Sloonei did is that townies often don't know what to do with them either.
It's not a lynch I'll staunchly oppose. I think we could do worse.
He's on both sides of the fence on a Scotty lynch.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.
Your vote has no utility where it is. Are you content with that?
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin wrote:I'm leaving my vote where it is. I'm of the opinion that Sloonei was attempting to set me up as the Day 1 lynch with baddie intentions and fell back onto Scotty when I resisted it and he became the center of attention.
Your vote has no utility where it is. Are you content with that?
Yup.
It is uncharacteristic of you to ask that, JumbledJollyJim.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin wrote:I think he is bad, hence my vote. Scotty flipping civ only makes my read stronger. It is uncharacteristic of you, because typically you are all for alternative lynches. As far as Day 1 goes, I think my case is solid and seeing you say it has 'no utility' tells me you were rejecting it as an alternative wagon.
I'm only for alternative lynches when I don't like the one in front, and the move needs to be to a player who stands a realistic chance of being lynched. I don't think there was any traction at all on a Sloonei lynch and that you were very likely to be the only one voting for him when the day ended. I was rejecting it too -- I didn't think he was suspicious then and I still don't.
I didn't like this interaction then and I don't now. 3J has always been for alternatives, and even if he suggests that he doesn't support mine because he doesn't agree with it, I think it's suspicious that he'd try and discredit my vote by saying it had no utility, even with the case I had behind it.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Well I'm going to need to reprocess everything in light of
that.
Mmhm. I feel much better about sloonei now.
I might actually feel worse.
I don't know, I'm going to try to block it all out until I have time to reassess objectively.
I'd go so far as to say Sloonei was the reason Scotty was lynched. You haven't made a single hint towards your thinking that he could have been bussed by Sloonei, so I see how you could think that Sloonei was suspicious here, whether he actually voted Scotty or not.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:My initial thoughts of the Scotty votes:
They all look better than before. Golden had no obligation to participate in the anti-Scotty thread climate given his more limited availability, but he did it anyway. If he was bad I am not sure he'd show the same enthusiasm and initiative. Epignosis had every opportunity to move his at EOD and he did not. leetic's utter failure to say a word when he placed his self-preservation vote (SPV) might actually make it better than the average SPV. If he is offing his own team mate in the process, I figure he would say something to try to cash in on some of the associated town credit. INH's vote was numerically important, as it put Scotty in the lead. MM's vote was essentially a hammer vote.
Why does marmot deserve civ cred here? I don't really get your leetic thing here but I have nothing bad to say about it.
Everything from about this point here that stands out to me is that 3J is crumbing his intention to vote for me, but he's standing back and saying 'hey, I get it! I just want to gather more information!'
Quin and Scotty interaction:
50 search results for "Scotty" in Quin's ISO.
Quin wrote:All I'm getting from this is that a significant part of why you are currently voting for me is because of Scotty's actions, and that is not ideal.
vote Sloonei
Quin wrote:1. I didn't accuse MP of being suspicious because I don't think he's suspicious. There was no crack, either. Not sure where you're looking
2. Fair enough.
linki: My reason for the voting is right there. You're basing your vote on me off of Scotty, not me. That's bad.
Quin wrote:More specifically, you are using Scotty's actions as a means to vote for me, without any insight as to whether what Scotty is doing is civvie or baddie behaviour. Had he been lynched and flipped bad, you might have a reason to look at him as inspiration to vote me, but as it is, he has not, and therefore you are bad.
Quin wrote:But yes, I'll entertain you with a read on Scotty. Give me a little bit of time.
Quin and Sloonei had a long exchange in which Quin felt Sloonei was unfairly voting for him based on Scotty's actions instead of his own. I could reach with the last post and say that he only needed time to stop and think when he was asked for a read on Scotty, which for the purpose of
this exercise would be more valuable data.
Quin provided his Scotty read a half hour later
My immediate take is that this case looks genuine. He voiced suspicion of Scotty on a conceptually similar but directionally opposite plane to what he'd said about Sloonei. His perspective that one of this is scum but not both is something he has held to through each phase of the drama -- suspecting Sloonei more than Scotty during Day 1, amping that up after Scotty flipped town, and then reversing it after Scotty re-flipped mafia.
His biggest crime here is selecting Sloonei over Scotty in this dichotomy, and that's made worse given that his vote had
no utility. He was the sole Sloonei voter and I don't think a Sloonei lynch was ever likely to develop on Day 1.
So for me this is a conflict between
looking good on the surface and
being bad in practice.
Quin wrote:Golden wrote:I could see either Epi or Scotty as bad, but probably not together.
I think an Epi/Rico team is still well possible.
I think a Scotty/Quin team is also well possible.
That's me for now.
I don't think you think either of the latter two at all.
This is distinctly accusatory of Golden. It came out of nowhere, and it has not been revisited. Not great.
~~~
Scotty wrote:Quin wrote:TED CRUZ IS THE ZODIAC KILLER
It is known.
Scotty wrote:Quin is judicial.
Scotty wrote:Quin? I have no read on Quin. But fine, if I must. GTH: Bad.
The third one, in light of present information, does look ungood. I don't think it's necessarily a problem that Scotty forced himself to take a side on Quin, it's that he specifically elected "bad". Quin wasn't one of the megalurkers that Scotty normally suspects/pretends to suspect on Day 1. So for Quin to be a "no read" is already off-kilter, and that he went to the bad side with a shrug feels a little like TMI. That's not ideal for Quin.
Scotty wrote:Sloonei wrote:Scotty wrote:Sloonei wrote:Scotty wrote:
I agree with this assessment. Though I'm not sure I "like" any particular wall better than the other. I do think Rico could be building a wall of his own though...
(thanks, be here all night. Remember to tip your waitress)
Why did you put a gun to your own head and scum read Quin?
Cuz I had no read of him, and figured I should.
so you arbitrarily put a scum read on him?
Basically. I put those reads in as I thought of them, and after the fact realized I forgot about 4 more peeps. I can't really remember Quin's content this game, hence the scum read.
What's your beef with him?
Scotty wrote:Sloonei wrote:My beef is the same as yours.
Medium rare?
Meh, ok.
vote Quin
Scotty wrote:Sloonei wrote:Scotty and Quin are scum partners.
Woah, I TOTALLY missed this.
Wtf?
Scotty wrote:I happened to agree with your assessment of JJJ and Rico, doesn't mean I trust you.
Plus, I completely missed the part where you said we were baddie brothers. If I had seen that, I probably would not have even voted for Quin. As it is, I'll probably change it just because I feel like you've been trying to goad me into voting there.
I suspect him just as much as like 4 other people I could be voting for
Scotty wrote:Sloonei, if you could vote anywhere else, where would it be? Since you have such little reason to be voting for Quin (I assume) as I do.
Scotty wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I think I like Scotty's attempt to get reads, even when he is uncertain of how to go about it. He's trying to expand his Day 1 repertoire and it appears mostly genuine to me. I also don't get the wrong vibes from Sloonei's interrogation tactic. He observed a specific thing (Scotty's read of Quin) that he found interested, and then harnessed that into a an exchange that stands a chance of producing a more complete read.
Sloonei came in saying he read Quin as bad "same as me" but then quoted examples after the fact, as if he stole cookies from the cookie jar and then replaced them with some pieces of cardboard he found in the garage so no one would know he ate the cookies preemptively.
What is your opinion of Quin, JJJ?
Scotty gets caught in the kerfuffle. His response to Sloonei's suggestion to vote Quin was quite
accomodating. Scotty is usually not so easy to convince, and I suspect he'd usually be hard to convince even as a bad guy. This almost reads like "challenge accepted", which would be a sensible mindset if Quin is his team mate. He didn't hold his vote there after all, and eventually he found ways to move the discussion away from that (turning the accusations against Sloonei for "manipulation").
~~~
I am not super sure that they're team mates, but I do see the case. I think it's more visible in Scotty's posts than it is in Quin's.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I am sitting on a Quin/INH dichotomy. I would like to see those two fight each other in a battle royale while I spectate and decide my perspective. Like Caesar.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'll allow Quin to continue doing what he wants to do before I condemn him.
And then there's this little number.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:At this point Quin, I'm not certain how far defending yourself can realistically take you. Whether you end up lynched or not, the best thing for the town faction would be for you to focus purely on hunting for baddies and leaving us with a legacy. If it's good enough shit, the votes might evaporate anyway. I say this mostly because it's what I'd most like to see; I've already seen the defenses and I can conjure them before they are shown to me. Give me the suspects.
The choice is yours obviously.
Clearly the scumhunting I have been doing isn't good enough for him. He's going on about legacies, which also raises alarms. Just because I'm dead doesn't mean my scumhunting is right. I don't trust this, I think this is a massive discredit job and a way to try and shut me up.
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:There's a single specific thing I'd be expecting from a town Quin right now and I have not seen it yet. I will wait for the promised ISOs, but this day phase has few enough waking hours left that I cannot wait forever.
And then this. It just furthers my opinion that he's preparing for me to get all my posts out so that he can fake a now-informed vote. He intended to vote for me long ago, he just wants to look good doing it.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:15 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Epignosis wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:Your defense here is based on my acceptance of your two solutions. That's limiting. I don't buy that you think there are only two ways to go the way Day 1 played out. Unless you are bad at being bad (and you aren't), the ways are myriad.
I don't particularly care whether you accept my defense. We're talking about a sequence which elapsed about 30 minutes, so no I don't believe there were a myriad of options. If you want to talk about the entirety of Day 1, then this discussion needs to expand a great deal because the variables worth considering become immensely more numerous.
Then why offer one? Just tell me to go fuck myself instead of feeding me something like, "Look man, there's only two things I would have done if I were bad." You're not a lousy mafia member. You can be manipulative. I do not believe you, as bad, would have felt limited to two choices.
And that's my vote.
I'm not you. "Go fuck yourself" is you.
You're wrong as always if you're town. Good one.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:16 pm
by insertnamehere
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Ricochet wrote:*picture*
To be fair, I did the same thing last year and probably still do it. It's a memorable learning experience and it's hard not to reference the ideas you encounter playing with new groups especially in such intense competition. :P
I also like to bring up my Champs play, but probably for much different reasons than all of youse.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Night 1
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:16 pm
by Marmot
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epignosis wrote:Your defense here is based on my acceptance of your two solutions. That's limiting. I don't buy that you think there are only two ways to go the way Day 1 played out. Unless you are bad at being bad (and you aren't), the ways are myriad.
I don't particularly care whether you accept my defense. We're talking about a sequence which elapsed about 30 minutes, so no I don't believe there were a myriad of options. If you want to talk about the entirety of Day 1, then this discussion needs to expand a great deal because the variables worth considering become immensely more numerous.
Then why offer one? Just tell me to go fuck myself instead of feeding me something like, "Look man, there's only two things I would have done if I were bad." You're not a lousy mafia member. You can be manipulative. I do not believe you, as bad, would have felt limited to two choices.
And that's my vote.
I'm not you. "Go fuck yourself" is you.
You're wrong as always if you're town. Good one.
I don't think his alignment would dictate his correctness.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:18 pm
by insertnamehere
PROPOSED STRATEGY: Lynch JaggedJimmyJay.
If he's scum, celebrate.
If he's town, lynch Quin.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:19 pm
by Marmot
Vote JaggedJimmyJay
I want to put some pressure on Jay.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:20 pm
by Golden
Are people entirely immune to all of my points about how stupid lynching Jay is?
It's like none of you want to use critical thought whatsoever, and just want me to be wrong.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:20 pm
by insertnamehere
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:21 pm
by insertnamehere
Golden wrote:
Are people entirely immune to all of my points about how stupid lynching Jay is?
It's like none of you want to use critical thought whatsoever, and just want me to be wrong.
Maybe we just disagree with your assumptions?
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:23 pm
by insertnamehere
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:23 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Nice quick wagon.
I'm not responding to that Quin. I'm in lynch range now, so I'm going legacy.
Tell me about Golden.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:23 pm
by Golden
insertnamehere wrote:
Exactly.
"Oh no, Jay would DEFINITELY try to overtly save his teammate. Even though his teammate would come back looking town. It's what ANYONE would do."
The case on Jay is devoid of rational thought.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:24 pm
by Quin
insertnamehere wrote:PROPOSED STRATEGY: Lynch JaggedJimmyJay.
If he's scum, celebrate.
If he's town, lynch Quin.
We'll see how it goes.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:24 pm
by Golden
Wait for tomorrow...
"No, lets not lynch the confirmed baddie Quin. Lets lynch epignosis, he was wrong about Jay"
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:25 pm
by Marmot
Golden wrote:
Are people entirely immune to all of my points about how stupid lynching Jay is?
It's like none of you want to use critical thought whatsoever, and just want me to be wrong.
I'm so glad we can have your approval.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:26 pm
by Quin
Golden wrote:Wait for tomorrow...
"No, lets not lynch the confirmed baddie Quin. Lets lynch epignosis, he was wrong about Jay"
I am not a confirmed baddie.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:27 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Quin: I don't want an ISO on Golden. I want a read. Right now.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:27 pm
by Golden
Quin wrote:Golden wrote:Wait for tomorrow...
"No, lets not lynch the confirmed baddie Quin. Lets lynch epignosis, he was wrong about Jay"
I am not a confirmed baddie.
I disagree. Scotty outed you.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:28 pm
by Quin
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Quin: I don't want an ISO on Golden. I want a read. Right now.
Civ, begrudgingly. Respond to my ISO, please.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:28 pm
by Quin
Golden wrote:Quin wrote:Golden wrote:Wait for tomorrow...
"No, lets not lynch the confirmed baddie Quin. Lets lynch epignosis, he was wrong about Jay"
I am not a confirmed baddie.
I disagree. Scotty outed you.
Until I see the word 'cop' or 'red peek' alongside my name I am not a confirmed baddie.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:30 pm
by JaggedJimmyJay
Quin wrote:Civ, begrudgingly.
Wrong answer. You expect me to believe that you're fine with the guy who has emerged into this phase, in which you suggest you've been smeared post-mortem by Scotty, saying he is "99% sure you're bad" and "Quin is a confirmed baddie". Bullshit. Kill this guy. If you don't kill him today, kill him next.
Quin wrote:Respond to my ISO, please.
No.
Re: RED vs. BLUE: Day 2
Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 9:30 pm
by Epignosis
Golden wrote:insertnamehere wrote:
Exactly.
"Oh no, Jay would DEFINITELY try to overtly save his teammate. Even though his teammate would come back looking town. It's what ANYONE would do."
The case on Jay is devoid of rational thought.
Why did Scotty show up as civilian and then mafia? Do you have a solid grasp on that that is role-related?
I assumed G-Man was just being a clown. His little smiley post gave me that impression. Otherwise the mechanic makes no sense.
