The Syndicate

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'd like to know where y'all stand on Marmot right now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Dom wrote:Why are we criticizing the approach Epi is taking to the game when MP initially took the very same approach?

I can only speak for myself, but I am not criticizing Epi for playing POE. I think POE can be a very effective method. My concern with Epi is that his conduct late in lynches and immediately after lynches don't look entirely sincere: he is doing just little enough to ensure lynches don't change, and then casting suspicion upon those who voted in those lynches. I am unconvinced he has a sincere desire to move the lynches off of the people he has defended, because if he did truly want that -- he'd be providing names to move those votes to. Epignosis knows how to influence vote movement, I've seen him do it many times. This kind of half effort is not representative of that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm putting a vote on Scotty.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The trend continues with LoRab: limited opportunities to play the game are spent in self-defense.

And if people keep accusing me, what exactly do you expect me to do?

Also, you seem to ignore that I actually said new things in my last post.

Some players view this differently so it's not the sole point I'm considering, but I do think baddies are more obsessed with answering every accusation than townies are in general. I have gotten into trouble as a bad guy myself for this before.

The new things you said were about a dead player.

I'm going to leave our dialogue here for now. Do with your time whatever you feel is best.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The trend continues with LoRab: limited opportunities to play the game are spent in self-defense.

Sloonei wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:The trend continues with LoRab: limited opportunities to play the game are spent in self-defense.

Though I've become mostly uninvolved in this game, my confidence about this LoRab case is pretty strong. But I have read nothing since my last.

Epignosis wrote:

LoRab wrote:Meh. Although I still say he wasn't playing a civ role in a particularly helpful way to the civ cause, so I'm not particularly bothered by the result as non mafia lynches go.

Then You Are Part of the Problem

Epignosis wrote:I Want to Lynch Triceratopzeuhl and Lorab in that Order

Epignosis wrote:The Minute People Stop Lynching Because Someone Isn't Being Helpful or Said Something You Didn't Agree With is the Minute Mafia Trembles

Ricochet wrote:Don't go any darker with that purple, I'm already squinting at it.

/just fwiw

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:First of all, I said I didn't necessarily judge those who voted for him, not that I didn't want to look at anyone who mentioned him. 2 diffrences there: 1 is the meaning of the word necessarily. The other is that bandwagons are often formed by baddies who do not vote for the victim of the bandwagon. So, while people that voted in one direction might not be getting my eye, those aren't necessarily the people that were doing the manipulating. Also, again, "necessarily." I haven't had time yet to read back on those posts, to see where I might find suspicion. So, yes, I don't have a complete read, but I'm leaving room for there to be more of a read in the future.

I agree that it's possible for players to manipulate the thread toward a lynch without directly participating in it. The INH lynch is something you've talked about a few times without following up on though, so I don't know that I can do much with that. You've spent a lot of time lately answering Sloonei and I, so I will recommend you simply get to your hunting task and produce whatever you produce. I'll judge from there.

If you stop giving me things to answer, lol. And yes, it's something I haven't gotten the chance to do. I've been sick all week and I've been busy at work when I've been able to be there. When I get onto mafia and I read up and there are multiple posts to answer, I then don't have time to go back and read. I will try to do that, but I'm not sure when it' going to happen. In the meantime, I'll keep playing the way I've been playing. You can judge me as you will. But I don't play the game as others recommend--I never have. I am doing the best I can--if that looks suspicious to you, I can't really do anything about that. Eye me all you want. I am civ.

LoRab wrote: As I said before, Mad Max was a different set up. So, no, I didn't have a problem naming who I thought was civ in that game. In games where there are baddies outside of the mafia, I tend not to name who I think are civ unless I have reason to do so. And yes, my retort was sharp, but Sloonei's poking had been bothering me--it felt very passive aggressive and I don't respond well to that tactic in general. And to go from poking questions to dramatic In case I die I suspect LoRab suspicion I admit annoyed me. Especially remembering that it came from a player who also nearly got me lynched day 3 in Mad Max. So, yes, I was annoyed. I admit it. But that doesn't make me bad.

What advantage do you feel the baddies enjoy in a setup like this one (with a baddie team and a rogue) when civilians provide civilian reads on one another? How does that help their cause?

It helps them by thinking through for them who the civs are. It's how I've been playing since nearly the beginning of my mafia career (I say nearly the beginning, because I was mafia my first game)--it's the set up I'm used to, with nearly always baddie teams and neutral(s)/indie(s) and/or multiple baddie teams. I have always been of the philosophy of not helping the baddies in the thread. It's just what I'm used to. I get that it's different from what you're used to. But I minimize sharing my civ reads.

LoRab wrote:I don't see it in any other way. He didn't even say he suspected me at all--then or any other time. And, it may not look like a civ responding to an unexplained vote to you, but it was exactly that. Sorry if my nonchalance bothers you.

I acknowledge that there's not much you can say in response to "that looks fake", so I don't know that this portion of our dialogue has much potential to progress.

I still don't see how it looks fake, but yeah, I can't really do anything about that. Do you really see his post, though, as "I suddenly saw reason to vote for LoRab, although I'm not going to mention her anywhere else"? and not as a forced vote? Because I really have trouble seeing it any other way as how I saw it. Also, I guess I'm in the minority in that I don't panic when one person votes for me, or even when one player suspects me. So, that may also play into how you're reading my reaction.

LoRab wrote:Sorry you don't like it. Yes, it was suspcicion. And no, it's not a silly thing, either way. Either it's a civ not acting in the interests of the town. Or it's mafia, posting about whom mafia should kill--when in fact they are killing the opposite. I don't see it coming from a civ-friendly perspective, thus I find it suspicious. That is my chief concern, as it is the most suspicious thing I have seen this game, in my personal opinion.

No need to apologize. :P

The highlighted portion is a meaningful detail which lends some substance to your read. That's a decent thing. I'm less thrilled that it's the item in this game thread which perturbs you most of all; it seems like easy pickings.

I'll try to come up with more complicated cases next time. Or maybe that should be in this color

Scotty wrote:I'm still not caught up. 5 or so more pages to read.. I see JJJ has a little case breakdown that I skimmed. Eventually I'll get around to answering it.

I never said my vote was forced. LoRab decided that. I have calmed my jets on a few people I had recently suspected. I'm actually feeling better about Golden, and Mp. I think BWT is still suspicious? Why? I forgot. But he said some stuff some some time ago that was phrased in a weird way that perked uo ym ears like Pluto. Sloon is on neutral ground. Slight mafia still on JJJ. I don't think he was faking his curse, I just think his curser was just unimaginative.

I'm way behind. Long day, may not get around to this until tomorrow at the earliest. Blech my mafia time where did it go???

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Some beefs with LoRab:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

She retroactively stated her disagreement with the INH wagon after his lynch was finalized. This on its own power isn't much of an issue, but the highlighted portion becomes more meaningful in the next quote I'll pull:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Because I didn't think he seemed bad and I nothing that was said about him made me think he was bad. I don't remember the particular points, but as I read through them, they didn't convince me that he was bad. I also read them with the eye of thinking that he was a player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched (see last game), so that probably colored my reading). But, basically, I didn't think he seemed bad, so I wouldn't have voted for him. What am I missing in your question?

The core message of both posts is that she didn't like the INH lynch. However, in the first post wasn't inclined to voice suspicion of any of the people who contributed to that lynch despite calling him an "easy false case". She builds on that in the second post by calling him a "player who was easy for players to manipulate feelings against and make seem bad to be falsely lynched". This language carries an implied accusation -- that she felt in the moment reading the INH cases that there was a chance someone was manipulating things against him. That would be cause for suspicion, but she declined to voice it before. In this post, she does voice it but without stating names. It allows this post to paint the entire INH wagon negatively without committing to a complete read.

First of all, I said I didn't necessarily judge those who voted for him, not that I didn't want to look at anyone who mentioned him. 2 diffrences there: 1 is the meaning of the word necessarily. The other is that bandwagons are often formed by baddies who do not vote for the victim of the bandwagon. So, while people that voted in one direction might not be getting my eye, those aren't necessarily the people that were doing the manipulating. Also, again, "necessarily." I haven't had time yet to read back on those posts, to see where I might find suspicion. So, yes, I don't have a complete read, but I'm leaving room for there to be more of a read in the future.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

As I said before, Mad Max was a different set up. So, no, I didn't have a problem naming who I thought was civ in that game. In games where there are baddies outside of the mafia, I tend not to name who I think are civ unless I have reason to do so. And yes, my retort was sharp, but Sloonei's poking had been bothering me--it felt very passive aggressive and I don't respond well to that tactic in general. And to go from poking questions to dramatic In case I die I suspect LoRab suspicion I admit annoyed me. Especially remembering that it came from a player who also nearly got me lynched day 3 in Mad Max. So, yes, I was annoyed. I admit it. But that doesn't make me bad.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Golden wrote:

LoRab wrote:So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

My empire of dirt

Golden wrote:You could have it all

Wow. You, uh, make it sound so compelling.

But, still...I don't really have any suspects. I don't really want to point out who I think is civ. I still need to read back on who was suspecting INH to see who in that pool seems suspish.

But that dirt....tell me more.

It was clear Golden's ability to communicate was limited, so I don't like the sarcasm here. You, uh, make it sound so compelling. As if he had any good way of being more thorough. This post also represents the first follow-up on the suspicion she only sort of voiced about the INH wagon, but still without getting somewhere. We'll see if it progressed.

I was in a goofy mood and was just having fun and being silly. Also, I was being somewhat oblivious and may not have fully realized he was insanified at the time (see later posts which verify this). Read: I was a little bit buzzed. Also, that isn't sarcasm--banter, yes--sarcasm, no.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

I've already talked about this. It just doesn't look to me like a civilian responding to an unexplained vote, even when there may be legitimate suspicion that the vote was forced. It was immediate apathetic acceptance.

I don't see it in any other way. He didn't even say he suspected me at all--then or any other time. And, it may not look like a civ responding to an unexplained vote to you, but it was exactly that. Sorry if my nonchalance bothers you.

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

A Person wrote:

Scotty wrote:Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

This may be the least civie friendly thinking I've read in mafia. Either you're a civ who is saying that vocal players who are actively discussing the game should be killed (which isn't good for the civ cause) and are telling the mafia to kill active civs. Or you're mafia and doing the same thing. Also, if you're mafia, that was a phenomenally ironic kill.

But, please, can you explain a possible civ justification for this post? Because it's not making sense to me from a civ perspective.

LoRab's take on A Person's gripe about the most active players isn't my favorite thing. She called it maybe the "least civilian friendly thinking I've read in mafia" which would seem to be an accusation (confirmed further by the final sentence of the post), but her expansion on why she doesn't like it seems to go nowhere.

Either you're a civilian doing a silly thing or you're a mafia doing a silly thing.

She eventually placed her vote for A Person, meaning this ended up being her chief concern of Day 2.

Sorry you don't like it. Yes, it was suspcicion. And no, it's not a silly thing, either way. Either it's a civ not acting in the interests of the town. Or it's mafia, posting about whom mafia should kill--when in fact they are killing the opposite. I don't see it coming from a civ-friendly perspective, thus I find it suspicious. That is my chief concern, as it is the most suspicious thing I have seen this game, in my personal opinion.

From this point, her focus has been more about self-defense and answering prompts. I haven't seen follow-up on the INH wagon suspicions.

Sloonei wrote:Moving my vote back to LoRab, for real this time, because I share all the beefs Jay outlined here. I like all of these points and want LoRab to respond to the post in full, but the point I am getting most hung up on is the difference between GY!BE LoRab and Mad Max LoRab:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

Yellow: This just pings me a bit at face value. It's a sharper sort of retort than I think Sloonei's comments warranted.

Orange: This may just be a strategic disagreement, but I don't understand the mindset behind it. I also don't recall LoRab declining to state civilian reads in her most recent civilian game (Mad Max).

That has been my thought exactly in my back-and-forths with LoRab in this game, but I have been hesitant to lean definitively one way or the other because this game is different from Mad Max. In that game, all townies could win regardless of whether or not they lived to the end we had little to no role secrets. Players could be as free and open as they wanted to be. That is not the case here.
Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

Golden wrote:LoRab's reply to my cursing was meant in fun. I don't see anything suspicious about that.

In fact, Jay, I don't think your case on LoRab has much substance that I can agree with. Most of it just feels like standard LoRab to me.

The one point that does interest me, though, was her view on giving civilian reads. This also made me think 'standard LoRab', because it was pretty much the norm on STV and RM where we grew up. But if you legitimately have a recent counter-case, that would be interesting.

Golden wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Still, what I am seeing in this game is a LoRab who is making a concerted effort to not share reads. That is not something that will ever be a town-tell in my book. I went back to Mad Max to make sure I wasn't misremembering, and I am not. I peppered her with the exact same type of question as I have here and in that game she gave me plenty of juicy substance in response. Here she's just kind of said "whatever, I have no reads and I don't care if that makes me hard to read." I'm all for townies trying to win the game by playing to their win conditions, but that means nothing if we're not also trying to catch bad guys.

OK, this is very interesting, and I want to see LoRab's response to it.

Sloonei wrote:If it's not clear, I was asking you to explain your read on INH because it was the only read you expressed in a post that otherwise claimed to be uninformed about the game. I wanted you to substantiate your claim that you disagreed with the case against INH, and simply saying that you "didn't find him suspicious" does not address my concerns.

Do you have no thoughts to offer at this time? I remember from Mad Max that you had more to say as we got later into the game, so I'm aware of your style, but anything you're able to share with us right now would be helpful in terms of both getting a more accurate read on you and furthering the general discussion.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I also think LoRab is civ (and not just because she doesn't like it when people do that).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:Because his post pretty much said that he didn't suspect me, but wanted it to be known that he was voting for me. That reads as textbook forced vote to me.

That's not how I read it, primarily because of the "but I took a step back" thing. I think that implies he felt whatever inspiration in the moment to indicate suspicion of you despite not having talked about it previously. Let's ask Montgomery himself:

Scotty, what is your current read on LoRab?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

This doesn't look like a natural response to Scotty's vote.

Sloonei wrote:I'm voting for LoRab because I wanted to put pressure on her yesterday but couldn't. I'll go figure out why now.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:LoRab, why did you think Scotty's vote for you was forced?

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

You could have just asked.

I got online. I realized I missed the vote. I read all the posts since my last post. I posted. Yes, I'm still getting into the game and I still never read those 5 pages from the other day. But I read from yesterday which had I had stuff that I had an opinion on while I was reading it and then saw the lunch result when I got to it.

I think you are trying to see my posts through a false lens. I am not bad. I just am not entirely into the game yet. I have a few opinions, but I'm still getting there.

I shared one opinion and you apparently suspect me for it. So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

Also, my other opinions are of folks who I feel are probably civ and I don't psrtocularly want to help the mafia by sharing that. I don't have any glaring suspicions st this point. I want to reread inh's suspects.

If did "just ask." I was trying to get to the bottom of what was my issue. And I have to try to see your posts through all possible lenses. That is how this game works, I think. I'm not dismissing the possibility that you're town, but I saw an angle to prod at you from and I took it. I don't find this particular line of defense totally inspiring, unfortunately. Your motivation for sharing other opinions is the same as it always is. Again, I'm not definitively stating that you are bad, just bringing to light something that interested me on Night 1.
It looked to me like you could possibly be putting distance between yourself and INH for the sake of giving a safe reason without substantiating it. I also acknowledge that the thoughts you gave could be genuine ones.

This is not a strong enough point to justify a (final) vote on you, though, so I'd like to get more reads out of you. Your Day 2 participation centered primarily around discussing the possibility/likelihood that we have 1 town insanifier and 1 scum one, and some suspicion against A Person for disliking all the noise in this thread. I'd like to know who else you read as good or bad, please & thank you.

Golden wrote:Also, replying to another point, I think it would be very unusual for a baddie to target one of their own with a curse on night one. Psychologically speaking, I think they want to nail at least one other person first - you always want to get a bit of joy out of your power first. I can't recall a time where I've seen them do it on night one.

And I'm not sure that, if Jay was bad, cursing himself offers any strategic benefit (especially since we have no guarantees the curses even came from a baddie).

triceratopzeuhl wrote:

LoRab wrote: I think that's a good guess as to who did it.

Of course, we now have the question of if they are a good insanifier or an evil insanifier. For the sake of balance, if there are 2, I'd venture a guess that there is one of each. Also possible that there's a mimicing role, that happened upon being able to mimic the insanifier.

Also, who hasn't posted yet?

seems to me insanifier is not typical for town roles, because they aren't going to want to prevent discussion

mimic might be more likely

I don't think baddies will have 2 insanifier roles since there are only 3 of them, but it's possible that the independent does, or that the baddie insanifier role gets to pick 2 targets. Or some kind of secret along the lines of "if you're the target of a night power than somebody else is also affected."

A Person wrote:

Scotty wrote:Thanks G.

As far as low posters go, A Person has only posted twice, but I must preface that I dot tag on low posters for not posting frequently, but for not posting quality posts.

A Person wrote:

Vompatti wrote:

Sloonei wrote:Over 1000 posts before Day 2. Way to go, team.

Would you believe me if I told you I wouldn't mind the mafia and/or serial killer killing all the high posters so the rest of us can keep up?

same tbh

This is his 4th of 4 posts. It was last night. It tells me he doesn't want to read the thread, and he doesn't really care what's going on. Civ behavior? I think not.

I don't have the time or energy to read all the nonsense people spew, a few well placed kills would improve the quality of the game.

Scotty wrote:I think that some low posters insanified Golden and JJJ

Golden wrote:I hurt myself today
To see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
The only thing that's real

The needle tears a hole
The old familiar sting
Try to kill it all away
But I remember everything

Scotty wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Ima take that as forced vote.

And It was Icelandic--in response to an earlier joke with I can't remember who. I originally thought it was a response to Vomp's death, but Google Translate told me the language, so I checked back. Also, only 1 post. So, not likely insanified.

Who is the third?

Are you actually serious though?

Scotty wrote:How many damned insaifiers we got in this game? If you count Epi's weird Swedish message he's done a few times, that's 3.

Too many secrets for my liking.

Also, I'm voting LoRab.

I know she hasn't been on my radar at all and I definitely haven't been talking about her, but I took a step back and want it to be known that I'm voting her.

LoRab

Golden wrote:

LoRab wrote:So, what's my motivation to tell you more opinions exactly?

My empire of dirt

Golden wrote:You could have it all

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

In case I'm about to end up dead, I want to clarify why I've been intermittently grilling LoRab tonight. The first couple sentences (underlined) suggest to me that she is not caught up or fully involved in this game, but then in the middle portion (italics) she condemns the case against INH as one she would not have supported.

By no means is it impossible for her to have enough of a footing in this game to have gathered some understanding of the reasons people gave to vote for INH, but the contrast from "I am out of the loop" to "that was a bad lynch which I would not have participated in" was something that stood out to me.

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

I didn't think it was indicitive of a baddie INH? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

You said you would not have vote for him; why not?

Sloonei wrote:

LoRab wrote:Frig. Totally thought the vote ended tomorrow. I seriously need to get my head in this game. Also frig to the result. Didn't really get the INH case, and probably woudn't have voted there (especially after being so wrong about him last game)--not a judgement necessarily against those who voted him, just my own opinion of him. He's an easy false case. So, yeah. Meh.

What did you dislike about the case?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

LoRab wrote:I'm like 5 pages behind. Trying to catch up. Just wanted to let y'all know that I'm still here.

Hi, LoRab!

Curious to hear what thoughts you have when you get caught up.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Who hasn't checked in yet? A Person, Lorab, Ninjuukyuwhatever, anybody else? (sorry if you did and I just missed your post)