The Syndicate

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:27 pm**

Nevermind, disregard somewhat, DF just corrected himself after that post. Bah.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:28 pm**

Is anyone else having trouble getting game threads to load?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:30 pm**

I think, of Dom, MM, and Russ, at least from what I've read thus far, I can most understand why Dom is getting attention, but I don't agree with it. It's the classic "_______ is making assertions and not backing them up or stating them in an obtrusive way, therefore ______ must have sinister intentions" combined with the phenomenon that taking strong stances and/or attracting attention with weird behavior or a posting gimmick also is more likely to have sinister intentions.

I wouldn't call Dom a remotely strong civilian read by any means at this point, but this stuff is pretty weak, guys. Especially with all of the players that are contributing bupkis.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:32 pm**

Haha, 22 votes accounted for (11 players out of 37) with less than four hours until the deadline.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:35 pm**

Another thing I've noticed about Dom, though it's purely meta-based, observational, and I can't quickly back it up with evidence, but it's something I feel confidently in asserting, especially since Dom was my first mafia rival and I've known him for my entire mafia career, and that's that: I've noticed one hallmark of Dom's meta over the years that seems to be relatively consistent. Dom tends to throw questions at people more often and emphasize other people's suspicions more so than solely contribute and emphasize his own suspicions when he's mafia versus civilian. I feel like he's doing the latter here, throwing out more bold statements than questioning and ripping apart others'. Not an airtight argument by any means, and perhaps others have had different experience with him (if so, please speak), but it provides additional pause to the fact to joining his bandwagon for me anyway.

Oh, and Scotty, as for the last game Dom was bad in... it seems like he's been bad all the time lately, but since I haven't been playing mafia for a few months it feels like I'm so out of the loop. I guess Arkham was the most recent? Maybe? Does someone else know? If you pick a random game from 2016 though chances are Dom is probably bad. :P

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:37 pm**

Wow, that last post was atrocious from a grammar perspective. Sorry guys. Stream of consciousness stuff here. Also, my brain is fried.

And Jay, yeah, the site's loading a bit more slowly than normal for me today, similarly to when it was when Epi was trying to get this game going the other day. I looked into it back then and didn't find any particular cause. I'll email Bluehost again though.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:39 pm**

MacDougall wrote:
Scotty wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Oh look a guy who I voted for on day 1 got lynched and is bad and this time I didn't actually try making a case on him. New strategy.

Wassup Glorfindel with ignoring my comment? You scared there buddy?
Mr. Big Mac, what was the result of that test you took eh?

(c) Paid for by Dom/Nju 2016.
You seem civ.
What makes him seem remotely civ to you?
I haven't seen Dom play like this before. He doesn't strike me as someone who would play this whimsically if he had a team agenda.

I agree, well said.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I didn't like Russ's recent "Congratulations on lynching Wilgy, guys!" It doesn't feel honest.

I think I'm voting for him today.

I disagree with this though. What about it doesn't feel honest, and how does it justify warranting a vote?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:41 pm**

I'm voting birdwithteeth and timmer. Random votes are just a no-no, despite how dificult this game is/seems to be.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:43 pm**

For folks who played Transistor when zebra was acting "weird", ignoring people's requests for elaborating upon her actions, and talking like a cheerleader or something, Dom is that this game. This is a BS lynch.

Who's here? Someone get a CFD going with me. I haven't finished catching up yet, but at this point I'm thinking DFaraday and timmer, the latter due to what I posted above and DF because I think he looks the most potentially opportunistic of the people who have already voted Dom, MM, and Russ to me. That said, I'd be cool with anyone who's absent or mostly absent since it seems this will be a continuing problem. Almost anyone but the three people with the most votes, frankly.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:44 pm**

Who are the no-shows still, does anyone know off hand?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:45 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:This doesn't seem forced to me FWIW. And I do think there is an inherent desire to try and find and then provide reasons for prefect votes to prevent everyone from hiding behind meaningless votes, so Russ's perspective here is one I can completely understand and I think it's not indicative. Am I missing something?

I don't think you're missing anything. We just read the post differently at face value. To me it appears rather inorganic; the strategy you assign to it looks to me more like something a baddie would design to feign investment in their votes while townies would just do whatever the hell they want on Day 0. I could be wrong, it's never inspiring to judge people by such early content.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This all seems within character for Russ (particularly the strong language, which, if memory serves has been lodged against him before with mixed success), and I'm just not seeing your distinction for the accusation response. Help me out here.

This kind of thinking is something I'm actively avoiding after recent games have shown it to be dubious (I believe). I think this is the kind of stuff that people said about Long Con in Talking Heads (bad), MacDougall in Talking Heads (bad), Epignosis in Turf Wars (bad), etc. There are exceptions I'd imagine. I think I could clarify it like this: your perspective may be valid, but I think it's more "this is why your attack on Russ isn't necessarily convincing" as opposed to "this is why I think Russ is good".

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:47 pm**

I'm here

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:48 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:For folks who played Transistor when zebra was acting "weird", ignoring people's requests for elaborating upon her actions, and talking like a cheerleader or something, Dom is that this game. This is a BS lynch.

Who's here? Someone get a CFD going with me. I haven't finished catching up yet, but at this point I'm thinking DFaraday and timmer, the latter due to what I posted above and DF because I think he looks the most potentially opportunistic of the people who have already voted Dom, MM, and Russ to me. That said, I'd be cool with anyone who's absent or mostly absent since it seems this will be a continuing problem. Almost anyone but the three people with the most votes, frankly.

I think your Dom-Three Kingdoms / zebra-Transistor comparison is a good one. I'm not thrilled with that lynch either. I don't think I'm inclined to pursue a double CFD because I do suspect the other two leaders, but I'm considering a timmer vote. I don't suspect DF. His vote is also comparable to Transistor, where he voted frequently for people who were seemingly "bizarre" on the surface (zebra/Mac/llama) in that game. That's his MO.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:48 pm**

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Expect gigantic MP catchup post some time within the next 24 hours. Probably towards the latter end of that spectrum though. It will happen.

Just realized the first day of Fall '16 isn't tomorrow, but Tuesday, so I don't have to teach my first class until Wednesday. I love teaching, but given my current time crunch, that was a pleasant surprise of extra time.
I can't wait. What are your thoughts about my game so far?

Digging the activity, glad to be playing with you again.

As to alignment, not sure yet.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:50 pm**

Sorsha wrote:I'm here

You should talk to MP about his beefs:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I think I'm going to vote for two of the prefects. Jimmy, Scotty, INH... See who's the toughest.
What is the advantage of doing this?
What's the disadvantage? Scared?
And this kind of post is why I have so much trouble reading Sorsha. I can't make sense of this response. Despite my gut screaming that this is face value suspicious, I've been fooled by Sorsha and many other players (Roxy and S~V~S come to mind) and historically read them very badly in the past because apathy and these kinds of loaded questions always read insincere to me. Anyone have a read on Sorsha yet?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:52 pm**

I don't see a question there for me.

What's up MP?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:52 pm**

I'm here, but I already voted.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:54 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:This doesn't seem forced to me FWIW. And I do think there is an inherent desire to try and find and then provide reasons for prefect votes to prevent everyone from hiding behind meaningless votes, so Russ's perspective here is one I can completely understand and I think it's not indicative. Am I missing something?
I don't think you're missing anything. We just read the post differently at face value. To me it appears rather inorganic; the strategy you assign to it looks to me more like something a baddie would design to feign investment in their votes while townies would just do whatever the hell they want on Day 0. I could be wrong, it's never inspiring to judge people by such early content.

MovingPictures07 wrote:This all seems within character for Russ (particularly the strong language, which, if memory serves has been lodged against him before with mixed success), and I'm just not seeing your distinction for the accusation response. Help me out here.
This kind of thinking is something I'm actively avoiding after recent games have shown it to be dubious (I believe). I think this is the kind of stuff that people said about Long Con in Talking Heads (bad), MacDougall in Talking Heads (bad), Epignosis in Turf Wars (bad), etc. There are exceptions I'd imagine. I think I could clarify it like this: your perspective may be valid, but I think it's more "this is why your attack on Russ isn't necessarily convincing" as opposed to "this is why I think Russ is good".

I don't know, but re: the first point, for me personally, I find myself trying to find the best reason to vote for anything as much as a civilian as I do when I'm bad, if not even more so. It's easier for baddies to hide behind meaningless or fluffy votes.

Well, I agree that defending people with meta can be really dangerous, but so can attacking people with it. I'd ideally like to remove it from my repertoire but it has shown to have some relevance. Anyway. We can agree on that. I guess I'm just confused as to what exactly makes Russ bad in the second half of your case there, specifically with respect to the 'turning' it back on you. I'm not sure that's always manipulative, since civilians can emotionally react and do that.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:55 pm**

Sorsha wrote:I'm here

Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:56 pm**

Yeah, you're right MP, I totally forgot Dom was bad in Arkham.
And I'll take your word for it.

I'd support a timmer CFD.

However, good luck getting even 5 people in here in that time. Half the population is a no-show.

While JJJ has talks about this, and I tend to not want to go there, I think there may be validity to the no-shows being a reason at least one of the teams didn't kill last night

If that's the case, I never want to hear about my Day 1 brigade against non-participants.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:57 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:For folks who played Transistor when zebra was acting "weird", ignoring people's requests for elaborating upon her actions, and talking like a cheerleader or something, Dom is that this game. This is a BS lynch.

Who's here? Someone get a CFD going with me. I haven't finished catching up yet, but at this point I'm thinking DFaraday and timmer, the latter due to what I posted above and DF because I think he looks the most potentially opportunistic of the people who have already voted Dom, MM, and Russ to me. That said, I'd be cool with anyone who's absent or mostly absent since it seems this will be a continuing problem. Almost anyone but the three people with the most votes, frankly.
I think your Dom-Three Kingdoms / zebra-Transistor comparison is a good one. I'm not thrilled with that lynch either. I don't think I'm inclined to pursue a double CFD because I do suspect the other two leaders, but I'm considering a timmer vote. I don't suspect DF. His vote is also comparable to Transistor, where he voted frequently for people who were seemingly "bizarre" on the surface (zebra/Mac/llama) in that game. That's his MO.

That's a good point regarding DFaraday. If there's one thing about his gameplay I've noted too, it's consistent as hell. I have a really hard time distinguishing civilian and baddie DF. The only player who might have him beat is juliets.

I think I might have another potential candidate though, based on what I've just read. Let me elaborate in a second here.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:58 pm**

Scotty wrote:Yeah, you're right MP, I totally forgot Dom was bad in Arkham.
And as for his meta, I'll take your word for it.

I'd support a timmer CFD.

However, good luck getting even 5 people in here in that time. Half the population is a no-show.

While JJJ has talks about this, and I tend to not want to go there, I think there may be validity to the no-shows being a reason at least one of the teams didn't kill last night

If that's the case, I never want to hear about my Day 1 brigade against non-participants.

EBWOPJIGABOOM

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:59 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm here
You should talk to MP about his beefs:

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I think I'm going to vote for two of the prefects. Jimmy, Scotty, INH... See who's the toughest.
What is the advantage of doing this?
What's the disadvantage? Scared?
And this kind of post is why I have so much trouble reading Sorsha. I can't make sense of this response. Despite my gut screaming that this is face value suspicious, I've been fooled by Sorsha and many other players (Roxy and S~V~S come to mind) and historically read them very badly in the past because apathy and these kinds of loaded questions always read insincere to me. Anyone have a read on Sorsha yet?

I was actually looking for input more from other players re: Sorsha rather than Sorsha herself, but it'd be nice to hear what she thinks about things too. I don't really understand or agree with her d1 prefect focus, but it's not like she didn't explain it.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:59 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:I guess I'm just confused as to what exactly makes Russ bad in the second half of your case there, specifically with respect to the 'turning' it back on you. I'm not sure that's always manipulative, since civilians can emotionally react and do that.

If he had actually accused me in a concrete way, I might agree. My problem isn't that he turned it against me, it's that he did so via saying negative things about me but never actually implying that I am suspicious. It's a common discredit method, a recent example was in Battlestar Galactica when Daisy (after being converted) did it to Epignosis in response to him accusing her.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:00 pm**

Scotty wrote:If that's the case, I never want to hear about my Day 1 brigade against non-participants.

You can be certain that this is not the reality you will know.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:02 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I'm here
Hi Sorsha! What's going on? Do you have any suspects? What do you think of Dom, MM, and Russ?

Have only been skimming. Looks like Dom is mostly getting votes for the trump schtick, mm for some connection to wilgy and I have no idea what Russ did to be suspicious. My own suspicion is inh but it could probably be more of an annoyance than suspicion. Lobbying for prefect and promising to be active and then bailing.

I don't really find Dom suspicious I could be ok with a mm vote, Russ I don't know yet.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:06 pm**

I want to lynch nutella.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:08 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:I want to lynch nutella.

I'm open. Whaddya got?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:11 pm**

Alright, here's another random observation I thought of: nutella is reminding me of myself when I'm bad. I appreciate her contributions, but they've been devoid of actual substance and too go-with-the-flowy. See the below post:

nutella wrote:Top candidates for my votes are MM, Dom, and maybe Russ or Bubbles. MM is looking more and more suspicious to me, I already bought JJJ's case and now all of MM's responses are rather disturbingly cavalier and many of his recent posts I have found suspicious in and of themselves. Earlier I said I didn't like either Dom's or Bubbles' votes; I'm pretty convinced that Bubbles is being her usual self but that doesn't preclude her being bad. Dom is just being incredibly annoying and not really providing sufficient content imo due to his obnoxious posting gimmick, and I am still perplexed by his voting behavior. And I'm keeping Russ on my list as well, since he hasn't given me a great impression overall, and I look forward to seeing what he has to contribute today.

Speaking of contributing, there are numerous players I would love to hear more from. INH, Niju, Bullz, Dunny, Timmer... where you at?

MM, Dom, and Russ are the 'hot button' candidates right now, and Bubbles is a semi-hot one. That's not particularly inspiring in and of itself, but then check out the orange stuff.

So what's wrong with the orange stuff?
1) Very strong, assertive language, like "pretty convinced", "incredibly annoying", "disturbingly cavalier", "more and more suspicious", especially given a lack of substantive reasons for those strong opinions.
2) The fact that she is OK voting for Dom because he is "just being incredibly annoying".
3) The fact that she is OK voting for Russ for such a vague reason.
4) The fact that she is OK voting for Bubbles for, again, essentially a non-reason.

nutella, please elaborate. I'm concerned. I don't understand what makes your views of these players any more alarming than most of the rest of the players in the game, considering that none of their behavior also fits your descriptions for voting those three candidates (like 'precludes from being bad', 'usual self', 'not really providing sufficient content', etc.

A few questions for you as well:
1) What other posters in the game have provided more sufficient content than Dom?
2) What content can you find in Dom's posts? Because I can find some, even if it isn't strongly supported. Let's compare.
3) Which posts of MM's are "suspicious in and of themselves" and why?

Oh, and that that yellow stuff? That's the kicker to what's reminding me of myself when bad. I love throwing out those lines.

Furthermore, and again we're on meta here, nutella has a VERY strong and consistent meta phenomenon. She is always incredibly unsure of herself when she's civilian. See Bullets Over Broadway. She's conducting herself with confidence and incredibly strong language and assertive statements without wavering. That's not only suspicious at face value because she provides no substantive backing for those statements and is piggybacking onto the three people with the most heat going into this phase, but additional cause for concern from a meta level.

I'd call nutella moderately suspicious and more worthy of a lynch than Dom, MM, and Russ easily. Again, feels like a pretty d1-ish case, but I think there's some real potential here even if it's far from a slam dunk. What do you folks think? What's agreeable or disagreeable in my assessment?

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:14 pm**

Oops, my brain must have short circuited. Not sure what I was saying with "none of their behavior" in that third paragraph there, but what I was trying to express is that what she described about those three candidates and why she's OK with voting them (like not providing content) could be said about many other players in the game.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:16 pm**

brb phone call

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:20 pm**

I'm feeling rather inspired, MP. On some level I've found myself wondering if nutella has been too agreeable (as in she's accepted the consensus suspects without really asking questions), and I think you've done a good job of conveying that in the form of a legible case. I hope she shows up before the day ends because I'd like to see her rebuttal if possible.

One concern I have is that you're influenced by a bias MP -- the suspects she is pursuing are the same ones you are defending. I do think you make some good observations though and I am more interested in a nutella vote than I was an hour ago.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:28 pm**

MovingPictures07 wrote:
DFaraday wrote:So far my biggest suspicions are MM and Dom. I think JJJ made a good case for connections between MM and Wilgy, and Dom is not fully addressing the points made against him and, I suspect, hiding behind a posting gimmick.

Bubbles' votes seemed random, but not unusual for Bubbles.
DF, a few questions:

1) In what way would you assert that Dom is hiding behind a posting gimmick?
I think gimmick posters offer themselves a built in defense when it comes to inconsistent behavior or doing things not easily explained. If they frequently do gimmicks, people will come to their defense and say it's just how they always are. If it's unusual for them, as with Dom, I think they hope they can skate by for longer with people remembering the gimmick more than their content. In this case the gimmick seems to be drawing suspicion though.
2) Do you agree or disagree that Dom's posting gimmick is attracting potentially negative attention that he would not have had to deal with otherwise?
I think to a degree it is attracting attention, because his gimmick seems to be causing him to strongly assert his opinions.
3) What points made against him has Dom not addressed, specifically?
He hadn't really established why a less vocal Bass would be bad, nor why he now thinks Bass is good, and didn't address the notion that he could be setting up an excuse to vote Bass later on. He also didn't explain his votes for JJJ and Scotty, beyond saying they're bad.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:32 pm**

Back from vacation, finally catching up a bit on all of this. Glad we got Dr. Wilgy, and also glad that the case against MM is developing. So far, however, what's most struck me as suspicious was Jan.

Jan wrote:I would like to see one out of Metalmarsh89 and Turnip Head gone. I think I'm voting both.

Why?

Jan wrote:They're the loudest out of everyone else. I was actually considering JJJ as well, but this message sent to the GM smells of a scumplay. Idk.

Volume itself is a pretty meaningless criterion for a vote. Sure, you can argue that high posters are trying to avoid being seen as UTR, but you can also argue that they're simply active baddie hunters. Without other factors, high activity should be seen as a mutual trait. Misreading the message as scum could just be confusion, but not checking the roles to find that night power seem more like careless play to me.

Continuing to read, will post more thoughts as they occur.

Linki w/MP: My gut read on Sorsha is bad. Suggesting ideas and then not taking them seriously seems suspicious, and I find two instances of that.

Sorsha wrote: (To JJJ asking for advantages of prefect votes) What's the disadvantage? Scared?

Sorsha wrote: I'm one person and at most can give you one vote.

Linki w/JJJ: I'm worried about your focus on tone rather than content when it comes to Russ's posts. And I'll outright say I find it suspicious, so you don't use the same argument on me :P

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:36 pm**

Boomslang wrote:Linki w/JJJ: I'm worried about your focus on tone rather than content when it comes to Russ's posts. And I'll outright say I find it suspicious, so you don't use the same argument on me :P

We're talking about posts made in Days 0 and 1. "Content" is not a thing. Tone is everything that early in the game.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:42 pm**

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm feeling rather inspired, MP. On some level I've found myself wondering if nutella has been too agreeable (as in she's accepted the consensus suspects without really asking questions), and I think you've done a good job of conveying that in the form of a legible case. I hope she shows up before the day ends because I'd like to see her rebuttal if possible.

One concern I have is that you're influenced by a bias MP -- the suspects she is pursuing are the same ones you are defending. I do think you make some good observations though and I am more interested in a nutella vote than I was an hour ago.

I fully recognize that potential influence, and I'm even willing to admit that I may be a bit overly enthusiastic now that I've sat on it for a half hour or so, especially since Dom is being accused of a similar thing that I accused nutella of (not backing up assertions for her main suspects).

However, distinctions should be made because they make all the difference:

1) Dom has occasionally provided some backup (such as when he questioned Glorfindel), and I find even less with nutella
2) More significantly, nutella's suspects are always with the general tide of the thread, which in combination with her strong language and assertions is the troubling thing, whereas Dom has been mostly going against the grain, and
3) Dom's strongly worded statements seem to be partially due to his gimmick, whereas nutella's language is plain to see ("disturbingly cavalier"), and perhaps even more strongly worded than Dom's Trumpist statements, which should be alarming in and of itself.

I still feel better about lynching nutella than just about anyone else, at least right now. timmer can take my second vote too. I'm still mulling over it though and trying to finish this last batch of post reading.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:47 pm**

Boomslang, nice catch with Jan. Jan's a new player to me and the site, so I've been probably not giving full attention and scrutiny there when reading posts in a hurry, but I should be. I'd say Jan's behavior at least strikes as illogical, but I'm not ready to proclaim it as the most suspicious thing going on right now. A lot of players are acting illogically or in a gimmicky fashion; some of them are getting attention for it (Dom + MM) and others aren't. Not entirely sure why that is.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:48 pm**

DFaraday wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
DFaraday wrote:So far my biggest suspicions are MM and Dom. I think JJJ made a good case for connections between MM and Wilgy, and Dom is not fully addressing the points made against him and, I suspect, hiding behind a posting gimmick.

Bubbles' votes seemed random, but not unusual for Bubbles.
DF, a few questions:

1) In what way would you assert that Dom is hiding behind a posting gimmick?
I think gimmick posters offer themselves a built in defense when it comes to inconsistent behavior or doing things not easily explained. If they frequently do gimmicks, people will come to their defense and say it's just how they always are. If it's unusual for them, as with Dom, I think they hope they can skate by for longer with people remembering the gimmick more than their content. In this case the gimmick seems to be drawing suspicion though.
2) Do you agree or disagree that Dom's posting gimmick is attracting potentially negative attention that he would not have had to deal with otherwise?
I think to a degree it is attracting attention, because his gimmick seems to be causing him to strongly assert his opinions.
3) What points made against him has Dom not addressed, specifically?
He hadn't really established why a less vocal Bass would be bad, nor why he now thinks Bass is good, and didn't address the notion that he could be setting up an excuse to vote Bass later on. He also didn't explain his votes for JJJ and Scotty, beyond saying they're bad.

Thanks DF!

Regarding 1) (and 2) I suppose), I agree that, over time, gimmicks can serve as a sort of meta-tinged defense. The best example I can think of is Vompatti. However, when players first introduce "weird" gimmicks or quirks into their gameplay whether intentionally or unintentionally, I would argue that the opposite is actually true, and that the players open themselves up to increased scrutiny. I think that's what we're seeing here with Dom.

I'll agree with what you said in 3) except the Bass stuff, but that could be because I've seen and made that observation of Bass in past games before. I think Dom definitely could elaborate upon what he's been saying more, but I don't think that makes him suspicious.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:50 pm**

Dom, whenever you get in here, can you name your suspects and in some kind of preference order? If you could expand upon some of your thoughts too, that'd be great.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:53 pm**

Dom wrote:To the haters who say I'm hiding behind a gimmick-- take this !

I am posting more, creating more discussion, and trying to baddie hunt more than many, many people out there. It's all out there, folks. You can see it for yourself. People who make this criticism are looking for an easy place to vote.

Damn straight, Domald! DOM/NJU 2016!

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:54 pm**

I am not in favor of a Dom or nutella lynch at this time. I also think a timmer lynch is premature, I would suspect him more if MM flips bad.

I've been mildly pinged by sig throughout the phase, he said he was casting his votes but I don't think he actually did.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:01 pm**

I'VE CAUGHT UP. :yay:

Now I need to go back to work. I'll be back in time to cast my votes and talk some more. I'd like to start a CFD on any of the following players (in order of most preferred to least):
1. nutella
2. timmer
3. Dunny / Jan
4. Inactives (rabbit8, Soneji)
5. Somewhat inactives (BWT, CapsFan DP, INH, leetic nijuu, Spacedaisy, S~V~S)

I'd rather hear back from Mac before considering him today, since the rest of his post history and content seems good, and I realize I may be coming at it from a biased viewpoint since my beef is only with his treatment of me specifically as much as I try to get away from that.

And those inactives / somewhat inactives are off my memory, I'm not sure if it's 100% accurate. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't remember any posts from inactives and remember at least one post from the somewhats, even if it lacked content.

Linki w/ Turnip Head: Can you elaborate on Dom / nutella / timmer and MM being connected / sig (case maybe?

)? Thanks!

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:05 pm**

I think that timmer's and sig's votes look like a soft defense of MM. Neither of them have defended MM but their votes certainly improve his chances of surviving today.

For Dom and nutella I'm reading their posts as civ for now and enjoying their contributions.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:07 pm**

I think Jan's failure to check the roles is more town-inclined than not, albeit with a fair helping of WIFOM. I think baddies are generally more likely to check their stuff against the role list before they put it in this thread. Carelessness isn't a trait I associate with the bad guys.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:09 pm**

What's a CFD?

The tea on me is more stupid and simpler than you think it is tbh. I kinda said in this thread anyway. I wanna see what Metalmarsh flips.

Also, I think Dom is clean. I thought Wilgy was clean too though.

Sig is giving me bad vibes. Matty (Glorfindel) is being more confrontational than he usually is. Nerolunar - idk.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:14 pm**

I might vote soon just in case this thing crashes at the wrong moment. :P

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:32 pm**

Nerolunar wrote:I'm voting birdwithteeth and timmer. Random votes are just a no-no, despite how dificult this game is/seems to be.

Um... you didn't actually mention either of them in previous posts? I agree random votes are a no-no, but you just seemed to make two.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:37 pm**

I was under the impression this game was going to be more chilled out and not impossible for me to keep up with

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:40 pm**

Bullzeye wrote:I was under the impression this game was going to be more chilled out and not impossible for me to keep up with

With 38 players?

Perspective is funny sometimes. I was just groaning about the game moving too slowly.

Posted: **Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:43 pm**

Personally I think this game has moved at the perfect pace. No crazy tangents, no back and forth bickering over something small, only a few signature MP novellas, a JJJ ISO here or there. If we just got a few more posts from the less active players I'd be in mafia heaven.

The Syndicate

Romance of the Three Kingdoms [ENDGAME]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 0]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 0]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 0]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]

Re: Romance of the Three Kingdoms [Day 2]