The Syndicate

Golden wrote:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have to go to sleep soon. The discussion has moved nicely but the tally remains particularly gross. If I get lynched that'll be two town lynches in a row for me, and that's not how JJJ plays ball.

I'm willing to shift to boomslang, but I'm not going to shift my vote if it puts you in jeopardy of a lynch.

What do you think is the most compelling thing in favor of Boomslang being scum?

FZ. wrote:I'm okay with a Boomslang vote, though it's kind of worrying that everyone is okay with a Boomslang vote

Why are you OK with a Boomslang vote?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It's always possible that contextual details are overlooked in an ISO. It's a restricted view of thread content, deliberately. From the Boomslang ISO, it looked to me like he was frequently asking people to measure their read on him against the behavior of Tranq, and I think it's reasonable for me to find that suspicious. If I did miss important context, then could you please display it here instead of just talk about it? I don't remember each of these sectors of the thread clearly enough to follow your train of thought without quotes.

You quoted part of it:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

Boomslang wrote:

Long Con wrote:*votes Boomslang*

Boomslang was the first vote I cast in the game, as I recall, because he made me suspicious back then:

Spoiler: show

Long Con wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Boomslang wrote:Tranq's slip of calling Finn McMissile mafia (the role was part of a second civ team) is too easily fact-checkable to be intentional, imo.

It wasn't a slip. It was Tranq being a nub. Hence my opening post.

What I'm seeing here is, on the surface, a possible Boomslang-Tranq baddie teamup. That's just surface though, and I don't really think that's what's going on here.

However, my ideal civ-mindset would hold back and wait to see if anyone jumps on Tranq opportunistically, rather than defuse the situation with some textbook "let's not get too finger-pointy" sanity. Short-term "obvious Civ" statements can be long-term "don't worry about me, I'm cooler than being cool" baddie groundwork.

And recently his sig vote twanged me in the twingiest of ways. So, Day 3 starts with a vote on him, foremost of my suspicions.

Never thought too much about it before, but Boomslang is a pretty kick ass handle.

Do you think Tranq is civ? Do you think his behavior over the past few nights has changed the value of that (very early) post of mine?

It's Day 3.0 and I'm still seeing this -- Boomslang asking people to read him based upon the behavior of someone else (Tranq). I do not like that.

But I think this shows fuller extent of the suspicion against him. I don't understand the purpose of an ISO if you deliberately don't try to find his apparent motive for saying the things he said.

I'll just address the most immediate problem I have with the anti-Boomslang case first:

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

Spoiler: show

Boomslang wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Boomslang is bad. Discuss.

If everyone agrees to lynch Golden, Boomslang, and Matt on Day 1, do you think the hosts will let us?

But if the "case" against me, as far I understand it, is that I "buddied up" to Tranq as a Mafia defense, why aren't you including him in this list?

MM lists three relatively arbitrary names for lynch candidacy including Boomslang, and Boom offers a somewhat curious response -- insisting that a Tranq connection should exist. This says to me that if Boomslang is mafia-aligned, Tranq is probably not on his team.

The inclusion of Boomslang was not arbitrary and the Tranq mention wasn't just pulled out of a hat. A quick review of the earliest mentions of Tranq in the game show that Long Con was the first to suggest a Boomslang-Tranq connection, and that Mac rapidly latched on (yet again). You quoted the post in your ISO, but only in your "It's Day 3.0 and I'm still seeing this", which is especially disingenuous of you when we're talking about a day 0 case, revived on day 3 by Long Con, and being surprised that Boomslang chooses to discuss Tranq/day 0 when that's what the day 0 case was about.

juliets wrote:Ham Boy who is your top pick and why wouldn't you put your vote on them?

I'd say Mac or maybe Dom (but I can go along with what Sorsha said earlier in that he hasn't been pressured enough to be confident there, and I haven't found enough material to pressure him with). I wouldn't vote for them because it would be a wasted vote for what looks like what may shape up to an interesting 3-way.

Don't have time to respond to Jimmy's Boomslang ISO in detail immediately, but I'll say right now that I actually disagree with it and that it's making me see him in a townier light.

So, re-reading llama's post history, particularly the day 3 stuff, the biggest issue I have isn't what he's saying as much as how he's staying on this one "target painting" issue, not to mention focusing just on golden rather than considering that many people were leaning town on Fuzz after the early day 0 stuff. llama is at least consistent though; he pressed the same suspicion of golden day 1 so it's not like he came up with this view only just now. I still find Dom's day 0 intention to vote for llama among the most suspicious things against the latter. I don't trust Dom in this game, and that early stuff looked like transparent distancing/soft-bussing to me. The other thing would be the word of Syndicate players that know what town llama looks like; FZ and golden both look fairly sure, I'm not too suspicious of either of them, and I also trust both quite a bit when it comes to their meta-game. llama isn't my top pick, but I feel keeping my vote here for now isn't a bad idea.

I wasn't attacking your productivity, I seem to see you posting every time I'm online, and then some. I think you've gone after plenty of people too; it's not a quantity issue I have. I don't agree that Matt's questioning was fake just because it seemed obvious. Here are some earlier-game examples prior to when he really started getting heat. Maybe it seems pointless, maybe it is pointless, but at worst you have a guy pretending to contribute while not, and imo it's more just his playful style to rib people a bit and make sure they're really certain about whatever Matt's probing them over. It's definitely not biggest-scumspect-of-day-3 material for me.

You're also operating on the assumption that there definitely is another team. If that's true then I'd expect anti-town team #1 to aim for team #2 and vice versa, yes, but then I'd also expect a bit more focus. A member of mafia team #1 obviously can't drop BTSC info both due to rule violations and outing themselves, but then I'd expect them to try and build a very detailed case against someone to convince others to join. Or, if I were in that position, maybe I'd just save it for my night kill and not risk outing myself at all. In A World Reborn I was probably a little more brazen in scum-hunting than my teammates, in part largely thanks to your help in identifying juliets as being on the other team, but iirc during a lot of the lynches they didn't want to let on too obviously that we were onto them. Vice versa was probably true too; I was nightkilled out of the blue that game, and most people had a civ read on me, but when the thread ended SVS said something happened that told them that I was Circle of Death (probably MetalMarsh's spirit animal telling him there was danger nearby when we shared BTSC). tl;dr dealing with an enemy scum team isn't always as easy as just hunting them like you would as a townie.

Sorsha, how do you feel about Dom?

About to leave work, responding to just this for now...

FZ. wrote:I'm interested in your thoughts on Mac. The one game I played with him as bad, he was the baddie that fooled me the most in that game. So what does baddie Mac look like?

Mac is pretty aggressive and flexible no matter what his role is, so it's hard to completely fit him to a simple scum meta for me, but I'd say his cases don't look genuine to me this game. For example, I just gave the examples earlier about how with my supposed defenses of juliets, sig, and Matt, Mac quickly jumped to call me a scumbuddy of them every time. He didn't seem interested in arguing with my point, just trying to test the waters and see to whom a scum accusation would hold. Additionally, the things he was lambasting them for were all usual things that had already been said; sig was attacked for being unclear and confusing, juliets was attacked for being waffly/overly-cautious, etc. Mac is an attack dog even as town, but I don't buy much of anything he's said.

juliets wrote:I though Mac and Rico had a good point but does this make her bad? It might show us a little about her mood, but not necessarily that she is bad.

Looking at this, I think this is another point against Mac too. LoRab says "So that's 2... folks who have said they were one of the roles named in the prior game", Mac acts as if he's completely certain she said "So that's 2... folks who have said they were the same role they were in a prior game" and blamed her for not being clear, which is the same kind of flak she would later take from Sorsha. I think the most cogent arguments Mac made were during day 0/1 with Zebra and Ricochet, and that's not a good look unto itself considering that if Mac is scum, it would explain them as fabricated.

Just read over the rest of the last two pages and I'm leaning against voting Jimmy now, especially in light of Dom jumping onto that. I'll vote thellama73 instead because I don't want to split things further, but I'll have more thorough reasons against at least a top 3 of suspects later. Mac is looking pretty scummy to me right now as well. I just arrived at work and don't need to get caught up in a big argument or post-search already.

MacDougall wrote:Did you read my post. He said he read my ISO to deduce something that was in a post I wrote directly to him. He also referenced that I had cooled on Lorab suspicion in the same post as asking me if I disagree with Epignosis which considering Epignosis has a mafia read on her goes without saying. He's just pushing shit around and trying to act like he's contributing. He's bad, and you are probably his teammate.

So just to be clear, your main issue is that you feel he's just saying the obvious and throwing what you already said right back at you, under the guise of making novel content?

Dom wrote:Was timmer not on our team?

Before you were recruited, birdswithteeth was on our team, but he had to leave so timmer rejoined as a replacement.

Sorry, I always neglect the linki thing, that was irt Mac a few pages up.

I was disagreeing with you on Matt because your case is on something that people seem to often use as a case against him, to detriment of town. I mentioned sig because he was the same case.

Aggression is an area I could actually agree that Matt looks different. He hasn't had quite as many theories as I saw from him during Talking Heads or A World Reborn, and does seem a little quieter. I was responding specifically to "Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that."; he asks questions more than most players, answers questions with more questions as a result, and I've seen loaded ones from him too. His loaded question to you seemed perfectly reasonable; you're mellowing out on LoRab, Epi is the biggest advocate of LoRab's lynch, when Matt asked your thoughts on Epi you responded "You first swine" (just a note, I literally laughed out loud over that response), so it sounds like he's just trying to get it out of you.

FZ. wrote:I already stated that Timmer would be a threat to baddies if he starts playing, but aren't there enough players that can pose similar threat and are actually playing now? I won't mention names. Like I said, the fact they are not dead makes me a little paranoid, LOL

Dunno, my one game with timmer wasn't really fair because he took a lot of the blame because of an unforseen item/BTSC mayhem. I remember we had about a dozen or so candidates, narrowed down to golden or timmer, Turnip wanted golden but I guilt-tripped him by mentioning a post where golden had been looking forward to the game for three years, so we ended up going timmer, so I'd guess that mean he can be a really big threat when he's on.

In my experience, going after quiet players often happens the most threatening players are hounding mafia, and they want things to fade a bit. That doesn't always happen, because in a large game there are usually so many suspects named that mafia can get away with it, and it's wifom-y business regardless, but that's something I've been keeping in mind.

MacDougall wrote:It feels like you are just disagreeing with me for the sake of it.

Nah, just disagreeing with your love to shift so readily between candidates for tone/wording reasons. You just said nearly the same thing ("You're just arguing with me for the sake of looking like you are contributing") when I disagreed about a specific post where you accused juliets of waffling as well. You were also a big advocate of the sig train and even tried to point out a fake conversation between he and I.

MacDougall wrote:Again with a segue into a question, and a loaded one at that.

This falls under the category of "X being X" again. Not going to make a list, here's just one to remind you of how Matt responds when pressured.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I have never used the appeal to emotion strategy to progress a baddie strategy even a single time in any game I've played. I think it is outright immoral to do that, or at least in very poor taste. I've made this statement in a number of games before. Mac, Burger, and/or motel room (maybe Golden or MM too) might be able to vouch for me on that.

I can basically vouch for this, although the post LC quoted didn't really register as an appeal to emotion to me (but I'm not a sports guy so I probably just don't appreciate what you're going through ). But yeah, I've never seen you try to guilt trip anybody or get pouty or anything before so if there's anything I see that looks like emotion, I'm not reading into that any way alignment-related. If you're genuinely frustrated, it doesn't really matter if it's because you're scum being threatened or town being threatened.

FZ. wrote:I too think this was a very weird choice of kills. I can see the hosts making some kind of deal with the baddies because more people wanted out or something, and they didn't have replacements, or the baddies did them a favour, though who does that just out of the goodness of their hearts. I'm not too familiar with b24's game, but know that Timmer can be an asset when he's in the game. But I can't see any reason for the baddies to target those two as a threat to them, which is what most kills are usually about. That, or trying to frame others. This is neither, so it is very strange to me.

fwiw, in A World Reborn the consensus was to kill timmer for our night 1 kill, the reasoning being that he could be very threatening once he starts getting active in a game. I had no input on that of course not being familiar with him, but I think some civ in the thread even guessed the reason behind the kill.

Ricochet wrote:I'm not sure. N1's proceedings reminded me a bit like Roxy and fingersplints hosting Syndicate, where the night results wouldn't necessarily come all at once. I don't see any reason for either zebra or DF to have had a "special" timing for their kill. Both their killers would have had to send their kills by the end of the phase.

The only oddity about zebra's kill (or killer) is zebra turning his posts into delirious swansong. If Fuzz killed her, it wouldn't reflect on that at all.

Anyway, I stick by my equation. If DF was killed by Fuzz, then who killed zebra. A teammate of zebra makes no sense. An opposite mafia makes, but in light of N2, how can we reconcile two mafia teams with third party killers?

Also, vigi mentality can or can't reflect in the vigi's activity. Fuzz simply locking on to DF doesn't imply he wouldn't have pointed his gun at zebra instead. Camouflage-y.

Do you think Turnip's post about "At least there was only one death" or whatever was just for fun then?

fwiw on RYM I've predicted my day 1 death at least once just out of a general gut feeling, and it ended up slandering the townie that I thought was going to do it, all the way up to lylo where I think scum had a flawless victory. There's also the possibility that Zebra was poisoned night 0 and had a chance (or maybe none) at curing it, if we're going to assume the foretelling is actually real and not a coincidence.

I like the idea that someone redirected a mafia nightkill, either Zebra shooting herself or some other mafia target being switched with Zebra, happening to be a very good/lucky call. Does DFaraday seem like an attractive choice for a night 1 mafia kill? I don't think there's much blackmail potential there, and if scum learned his role night 0, I wouldn't say his was particularly powerful.

Also, I don't see what night 2 has to do with it. You could have alternating kills per team as was the case in A World Reborn, you can also have a killer with a delayed-kill ability to explain the extra two deaths night 2 (assuming Fuzz did commit one of the two night 1 kills). I'm actually leaning a little towards a single typical mafia team, with maybe a smaller recruiter or other type of anti-town party as a balance. Part is just me maybe reading into mod stuff too much (Zebra simply labeled MAFIA in red; sounds like a default anti-town team as opposed to one of two teams), but also, I think two diametrically opposed mafia teams would try to hit bigger targets more. At least in A World Reborn, we generally tried to kill Witherdeath suspects until golden's super townie circle became a massive threat, and I think the more active power-player types are even more threatening when with partners. Also, I like that Mac brought up the No Compassion role from Talking Heads, because it explains lurky people being killed, but in that game it was also a supplement to a single large mafia team.

Ricochet wrote:I'm confused why some imply Fuzz killed DF specifically. Couldn't he have been the one who killed zebra, in fact? If Fuzz killed DF, it would leave the Mafia either killing their own (which is unconceivable) or kill an opposite mafioso - which is conceivable, but this triple-kill on N2 is starting to give me serious third-party/SK vibes (see below), which would turn a two-mafia team design into overkill. So I'm slightly leaning on Fuzz having vigi'd the hell out of Zebra. (Thank you for your service, if that's true.)

I think it all has to do with the order in which the night kills were announced in-thread. Zebra was the first one and seemed all official-like, as if that was the main kill. Then DFaraday came up a tiny bit later like an oopsie, which seems more like a town/third-party group. Worth noting that Faraday had been called out by Fuzz for suspecting him; in fact, Fuzz's post history contains double the references to Faraday than Zebra, and doesn't look too suspicious of Zebra (a couple brief disagreements), and considering that Zebra posted a lot more than the former, I think it definitely could have been Fuzz that placed the kill on Faraday.

MacDougall wrote:Let me interject for just one moment because I was thinking about this just a moment ago actually. I get annoyed when other people jump to the defense of people while I am frisking them but sometimes you just have to point out fallacies. What you did with the dismissal of a scumslip and saying it was normal for him falls into the category of would frustrate me. Whereas disputing with Golden that scum teams kill players for being largely civ read is disputing facts. I have killed players for being too civilian but it's not usually the only reason. Also I am a hypocrite.

There can be an offensive value to a defense as well. For example, I knew something seemed off when rundontwalk didn't put up even one peep about my defense of sig, because he has made big deals over "scumslips" that were basically non-existent. Even if I'm being obnoxious, I don't want anyone to take it as me shutting them down (unless they're bandwagoners in which case I'll whine and pester and throw out other targets and try to get something new to happen). Like, if player X is grilling player Y, I'll try to wait for Y to provide their own defense first because I don't want to sabotage X's efforts.

LoRab wrote:HB's posts, though, they feel like they're sucking up. He's being too nice about it, if that makes sense. And it's not like he knows me well enough to know how to read me. The more he defends me, the less good I feel about it. A civ, I think, wouldn't defend another civ that strongly because it would put targets on both of them. A baddie would defend a civ to gain credit. So, yeah, it makes me increasingly uneasy about him.

People call me defensive of other players as both scum and town. I defended sig and pretty heavily the previous two games I played with him, for example; A World Reborn I was scum and he was civ, the other (RYM #91) I was civ and he was scum (this was more of a brief defense admittedly, but I totally dismissed a legit scumslip he had made and told everyone it was just a mistake and normal for him).

Do you agree with llama that people shouldn't have defended/stated the towniness of Fuzz, that it put a target on him?

I have no information and am not doubtless that she is town.

Epignosis wrote:What's with the hesitation on Lorab? I suspect her because of her wording regarding Ricochet, and her response was too measured, too kind. Black Rock claims to read Lorab well and says she's bad (and I believe her, because Lorab's tone is a mystery to me and I've only played a handful of times with her). Is that not a one-two punch? What's the deal? Lynch her already and be done. Then see where we stand.

That's my position. Still.

Even her very first post regarding LoRab is actually one of suspicion built on agreeing with Rico's case on her, and as you have said yourself, Rico was spewing bullshit. BR's next post was basically (if indirectly) agreeing with your case on LoRab. She then said a couple things about wanting to see LoRab address points to her, and then ignored that LoRab actually did later. After that, she then proceeded to agree with Sorsha's post against LoRab. Sorry, not a one-two punch to me, it looks like for the better part of day 1, her only concern was agreeing with people that found LoRab suspicious.

In fact, in light of the Rico-LoRab thing I had overlooked before, what do you think of the possibility that Black Rock was bussing? I don't find BR's case on LoRab to be coming from anywhere genuine.

Golden wrote:HB, you felt that sig might have stopped a kill on night one, and said something about evidence pointing that way. Can you be more specific about what you were referring to?

It was Turnip's "At least there was only one death!" shortly followed by DFaraday's death, which seemed like a nod that the latter was for some unrelated reason. Additionally, if there's only one mafia team, it would imply that the intended mafia kill was blocked unless Zebra was forced to shoot herself or something like that.

Good point, and I just noticed the 3.0 in the title; implies there will be a 3.1 as well.

Epignosis wrote:That's not the only reason I suspect Lorab. I also suspect her because Black Rock came out early against her, which I would not expect if Black Rock were bad and trying to set Lorab up. Her suspicion of Lorab would be subtler, and as I said if you are reading the thread and paying attention to people's posts, please take the opportunity to include a number, whether spelled out or not, in your next post- I would appreciate that very much. As I said, if Black Rock is bad and setting up Lorab, I would be surprised, because I don't see her doing that if she is bad.

But her thing against LoRab seemed mostly built on your and Sorsha's cases against her, so I don't know if I'd call that early as much as a convenient, off-bandwagon pick. I don't know Black Rock's meta, but agreeing with a couple townies with a case against another townie doesn't sound outlandish for any scum to me.

285726597156.

thellama73 wrote:The RadicalFzz kill was obviously because so many people were calling him a definite civ. Today I intend to look at those who were eager to paint a target on his back.

Do me first, do me first!

Golden wrote:Bullsuit.

Voting llama

I was waiting to see who ran that argument first. I find it much more likely that RadicalFuzz would be killed by someone who wanted to run that argument. I was wondering if it might be DH. I've never been part of any mafia team that has talked about killing someone because others are reading them as civ, nor have I ever hosted a mafia team having that discussion.

In fairness on RYM that kind of stuff has definitely come up in scumchats before. It's just long-term planning; the further the game goes, the less chances you have of eliminating the townlier folk come lylo. I disagree with llama regarding painting targets since it also provides a target for protection, but in absence of role info, and without a good blackmail plan or similar, it seems pretty reasonable for scum to kill the guys that would be hardest to lynch.

I just searched and this is the only thread I can find about shadowsocks. I just want to make sure this isn't some kind of exotic role from a previous game or an in-joke or something because I feel like I'm missing something with "I don't know if the mods would use a shadowsock to modkill someone."

Long Con wrote:So Radicalfuzz was the killer of bcornett or Timmer, I assume.

Based on what? I don't understand any of this shadowsock business, but I see no reason to believe Fuzz was anti-town.

juliets wrote:HB are you talking to me? I did respond to the points you made in my BR iso.

No, just Black Rock, although I've already forgotten any points I made involving your BR ISO, so I'll check in on that to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Wait, were these modkills? I'm confused.

Oh, and for the record, just checking LoRab's post history in A World Reborn, she used "seem"/"seemed"/"seems" 6 times just in day 0/1. You could argue that Rico's posts merited use of the word less than the things discussed there, but come on, this + a couple of gut feelings isn't selling me. I mean, people voting for her by all means do so if you still feel it's the best case in the game, but I really don't want to see some mild/tie lead suddenly turn into a 9-vote lead near the deadline again just because of an undercurrent of murmuring and suspicion.

Black Rock wrote:Do you have a stake in LoRabs survival? Are you absolutely sure she won't flip bad? I'm not, in fact I think she will flip mafia. I am interested in other avenues though, like JJJ and Tranq. What avenues do you want us to explore?

linki: We did! *high five*

Definitely not certain, but I just don't find the case on her compelling. I think Epignosis has been the most thorough and to me looks the most genuine in his case on her, but it's still for tone/wording (sorry Epi in this case they're interchangeable to me ) reasons. Saying "seem" to neutralize an accusation somewhat, and an accusation against someone that flipped town, doesn't ping me super heavy. In the sense that it could show a scum distancing from an inevitable town flip, maybe, but then you could much more easily accuse me of worse, being that I actually defended Rico's early posts and said they looked useful to me. If people stay on LoRab for this, we may as well just do a tally of every player and the number of times they tried to soften an accusation.

Maybe you could update your case on her? I don't think you responded to my points about your case here, only the parts about Jimmy's suggestion of a connection between you and Zebra. Just from general experience, it never seems to be good when the popular early-game candidates just keep getting mentioned over and over, and landslide lynches are almost impossible to get meaningful information from unless it's against scum.

thellama73 wrote:Maybe the fact taht people piled on Sig means that teammates were trying to protect Lorab from her nigh inevitable lynch?

Maybe. Until LoRab or at least one of the main people against her (Epi, Sorsha, Black Rock) flips I think it's premature to talk about protective votes. Jimmy had as many votes as she did before the sig wagon started.

Epignosis wrote:If you have a problem with people showing up at the last minute, voting, and then fucking off somewhere else, you have a problem with the people showing up at the last minute, voting, and then fucking off somewhere else.

Yes, I do.

Considering LoRab was hardly even around for day 2, and that most of the case against her seems based on day 0 tone stuff, I think there are more interesting avenues to explore.

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:RIP sig, sorry to see that you were town.

Now we just need to make sure that the wave of bandwagoners doesn't stay set in their ways and go back to LoRab again.

Also, the sig flip, taken together with other things, seems to strongly imply there were two intended nightkills night 1, and that DFaraday's death may have been due to something weird/unrelated.

Back?

People have been rumbling about LoRab for a while now, and she still managed a few votes day 1. Considering how many people just showed up to pile on sig, I think there's a decent chance of that happening to LoRab tomorrow if people don't broaden their horizons a bit.

MacDougall wrote:Chose meteor/asteroid impact because it's the closest thing there to the correct answer, that our sun explodes.

This, except that we'll be dead long before the sun actually explodes (is it even predicted to go supernova? I thought it was the type of star that grows then fizzles).

RIP sig, sorry to see that you were town.

Now we just need to make sure that the wave of bandwagoners doesn't stay set in their ways and go back to LoRab again.

Also, the sig flip, taken together with other things, seems to strongly imply there were two intended nightkills night 1, and that DFaraday's death may have been due to something weird/unrelated.

sig wrote:linki: no I'm not on any team

In light of RYM #91, I'm going to hope you're anti-town indy.

Dom wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Dom wrote:I'll vote Rico or Llama. Exhausted from this catch up.

That was spoken night 0. While people were getting pretty anti-Rico by that point, I think the inclusion of Llama in there is noteworthy when you hadn't even been cursed yet, and llama hadn't really done much aside from calling sig fluffy and attacking Mac/defending Rico in the big argument. Based on my last game with Dom, I remember him actually jumping the gun a little bit after Chatzy discussion (near the end of the game trying to win over fingersplints), and him throwing llama's name out there in an either-or for two of the eventual poll leaders is a red flag for me. I'll bump him down to orange in my rainbow as well.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you clarify?

Basically, I thought you were calling things too early. It was still day 0 when you made that post, and there wasn't as much reason to vote for llama (you were doing it apparently because you thought he was giving Rico a pass and Mac not). Now we know Rico was town, and Mac I feel worse about by the hour, so I don't think that helps. I think you had planned ahead of time with others to discredit llama, or saw teammate's plans to do so, and sort of anticipated one of the smaller counter-wagons against Rico as a result.

FZ. wrote:It doesn't clear JJJ, but I don't find Sig suspicious for saying it. I find DH more suspicious for latching onto these kind of statements and using them to pain someone bad.

OK, then I think I agree, a lot of what sig has said is arguable but not necessarily scummy, except in that he could be hiding behind a meta of making comments that don't attempt to narrow down scumspects. This game I don't feel quite as compelled to defend sig, but I think the lynch has built too easily regardless for all the usual reasons. I do agree with golden that a town sig is at least a little more directed in hunting even when people disagree with his logic, so I think that's why.

Sorry golden, botched quote, I meant "Again why, barley any mentions of me before this, is this a no u from day 1? " regarding JJJ's suspicions of sig.

sig wrote:Why am I a moderate baddie? I also find it funny you have LC and Wilgy both in the same class of reads. I can't recall you voicing suspicious on any of us especially me?

He did suspect you for your Zebra interactions; you should probably go back and reply to his case there.

FZ. wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Engaging in my catch up and I have to say this post really rings my bells.

1. I don't think it clears JJJ from being on Zebra's team at all. Mafia target in-house with those types of roles early very often.
2. I disagree. I think its good form for Rico to dial it back now that he's done what he wanted to do. I also can't fault anyone for thinking that however unlikely it would have been, lynching a baddie D1 would trump lynching a civvie.
3. Rico would have been a very easy vote to make late, I agree.
4. Several instances of your post (the suspecting people who thought it would be better to lynch a mafia, calling out Lorab and Llama) already indicate you suspect Llama, But you don't say why. Seems like a vendetta to me.
4. How?
5. This is a big ping for me. A huge indication of mafia is their tendency to bring speculation into the thread.

This feels so bad. I don't agree with any of it, or at least don't think any of it are good reasons to think Sig is bad. I don't know about Sig, but DH's reasons just feel like he's trying to find a post he can use to legitimize his vote. I don't buy it.

In what way don't you agree with it? E.g. would you say that Zebra silencing JJJ clears JJJ from being on the same time?

Incomplete reply, haven't read everything past this post, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get to everything.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:Aside from potentially llama, who are your biggest suspects right now? I'm really glad you did a comprehensive ISO on Zebra, but as you said here, you don't seem to have found any confident ones right now, and llama seemed to be what you found as the best connection regardless.

My top suspect right now might be MM. I'm also suspicious of sig, Long Con, and llama. I also compiled a "maybe" list for more speculative possibilities: sorsha, dharmahelper, mac, and boomslang.

Prior to this post I don't see much from you wrt Long Con except you saying he's inaccurately describing the day 1/silencing/llama stuff (and you already know I agree with him there).

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Did you read my llama commentary in the Zebra analysis? His was special. I specifically expanded my exploration of his content beyond just Zebra to encompass my other suspicions, and I clearly stated that in the text.

The majority involved the llama-Zebra interactions, as it should have considering Zebra interactions were what you were focusing on. However, I'm not really seeing additional input beyond the not-engaging-you-day-0 thing regardless, so my point still stands.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I don't understand the point you're trying to make. llama and sig aren't my only "top suspects", they're among the four I named. How does my suspicion of those two bring you to the conclusion you're reaching -- that I'm trying not to implicate a third team mate in the hypothetical Zebra/JJJ team dynamic. More importantly, if my desire is to make it harder for townies to figure out Zebra's team mates, then the worst thing I could do is provide a substantive analysis of every player in anticipation of my own lynch. Then all of that shit I just wrote would be used against me! I have confidence in my mafia-aligned skillset, but not so much that I'd willfully feed townies reviewable data -- unless I expect to survive. This flies in the face of your assertion. If I am mafia-aligned and I expect to be lynched, I don't do that. See the Champs finale for evidence -- I was outed and I stopped posting completely.

RYM #86 is a different game, and those analyses came under different circumstances with different players who had performed differently. If there's data available to me that inspires confidence in me, then I will exude confidence. I specifically stated that Zebra did a nice job of preventing her post history from implicating anyone else in a blatant, visible way. I did find some people that I was confident were not on her team, and that counts just as much. I've at least aided process of elimination.'

The highlighted bit makes me wonder about you. What exactly are you expecting of me? A mafia-aligned role was flipped, and I provided a thorough review of every interactive dynamic in the game with that player (excluding timmer for the moment). That's not "invigorated"? Sheesh! I don't know how this can be a serious accusation. Confidence and effort are not the same thing, but this seems to be making them the same thing.

You suggested Long Con, golden, myself, bcornett, Draconus, and Epi as non-teammates, but Draconus and golden are the only ones that read as confident, and considering the curse business of the former, that one is kind of a gimme. The rest didn't seem as confident, and in past games I know you don't like caveats and less confident statements. The non-teammate call on bcornett you admitted as based on very little due to his lack of activity this game, although I tend to agree with your view on Epignosis wrt Zebra. I mean, I know you aren't so threatened as to needing to drop out of the game. My case on you is mostly based on the luck of Zebra being nightkilled night 1, which I imagine she wasn't expecting, and you basically admit as much in your frustration over the curse business. If I am right, you obviously can't give up because there are still many other people that could get lynched (looks like things are building against sig right now), but long-term that doesn't mean you'll never flip. What if you flip scum in a few days or so, and then people decide to refer back to your Zebra reads?

All of that would be OK with me had you ultimately hammered down on your suspects, but from what I can tell you hadn't really done that beyond llama. Maybe invigorated was the wrong word, but what I mean is if I tried to find who you were going to vote for today prior to this post, I wouldn't have a clue past llama and sig. That reads like opportunistic scum, no matter that you're doing your supertown Jimmy thing by posting comprehensive ISOs.

Why mild town on timmer, golden? I'm getting paranoid about him especially considering the number of times he admitted in Chatzy during A World Reborn that he was intentionally keeping a low profile to last as long as possible. Not that he's had any significant pressure yet where he might need to, but I don't see him higher than neutral (and for me I'd call anti-town for now). Also, for the day 0 poll he voted for a role you described as non-fitting/worthless for this game, and you also questioned Rico and DH for seemingly not taking the poll seriously, so I don't see timmer looking good out of that.

Alrighty, I need to go to bed, and by the time I'm next available it may be close to the deadline, so I'm going to say this now:

Jimmy's posts since my conspiracy theory post have made me feel worse about him, not better. First thing, the contrast between...

JJJ wrote:If I don't even know whether being killed would preclude me from winning, I'm not going to encourage my own demise. Typically I play loose and don't concern myself with that, but now I have no choice.

JJJ wrote:Moreover, I am under basically no pressure right now. Two votes early in the day phase are pretty much meaningless. You have no idea how I view a Mafia game if you think I'd call that Scramble Time.

I realize the former refers to JJJ's question to SVS about whether or not dead players can win, so it's not directly about him being under any pressure, but "now I have no choice" reads like that's what it's ultimately about anyways. Unless you meant that now you have no choice except to not concern yourself with hidden rules? The fact that you're talking about encouraging your own demise and etc makes me think you weren't though.

Secondly, while again I appreciate the Zebra ISOs and the high effort shown as always, that your apparent two biggest suspects out of the exercise are llama (who you've been on most of the game now) and sig (who is sig) doesn't make me feel good. It makes me feel like you're considering the possibility that you will be lynched, and that by making a bunch of mild statements about everyone and their relationship to Zebra, you remove the risk of implicating a third player on a Zebra/Jimmy team should you so flip. When you caught me RYM #86, your ISOs of my interactions had a much wider range of confidence, from people that you thought looked terrible (Turnip, who I bussed horribly) to people you thought looked great and townie as a result. You credited that to Zebra's playing and maybe that's so, but I'd expect townie Jimmy to be invigorated in light of a night 1 mafia death and on the prowl. Talking Heads, actually, I thought you looked more confident too in light of people wanting to lynch you. For someone that claimed not to be too worried about the two votes on you, you seem to be dedicating more time to that issue than would be necessary. I mean, jeez, I just got silenced twice in a row on RYM #91 and when I get silenced, there's usually a good bit of stuff I keep noted that I wanted to reply to but couldn't until night. I didn't see much of that from you either.

I know you've discussed other things as well; a defense of Draconus against implication that he could be faking a curse, a little bit of stuff with juliets, but now we actually are getting kinda close to the deadline, with hardly any votes cast yet, and you haven't given any serious candidates for lynching. In fact, you even promised this 18 hours ago...

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:In truth I am not convinced he is bad. He was my biggest suspect on Day 1, but we're onto a new day now and I don't know where my analyses will take me. If I remain suspicious of llama at the end of it all, I'll definitely voice the reasons why as clearly as I can.

Yet your only llama analysis since then has been your Zebra ISO.

So overall I'm keeping my vote where it is and not feeling too bad about it anymore.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I fon't know, maybe it's not a crack pot theory. It's just annoying to spend a day confined to emojis, see thr culprit of that curse die, and then immediately have people concoct conspiracy theories about it. It basically doubles the advantage of Zebra cursing me in the first place. Now I'm going to have to waste my time talking about this (and it's not really something I can defend myself against). I'm not in the spirits to deal with this nonsense.

But it's Mafia and I agreed to play so fine. I'm at work though so that's all I can say right now.

Aside from potentially llama, who are your biggest suspects right now? I'm really glad you did a comprehensive ISO on Zebra, but as you said here, you don't seem to have found any confident ones right now, and llama seemed to be what you found as the best connection regardless.

Golden wrote:Why the slight town read on Matt, HB? I would have him at mild anti-town right now.

I liked that he was the first to catch onto Draconus' apparent curse; I've come to expect him to point out the smaller and/or subtle things, and then make his own conspiracy theories, as he's now hinting at Draconus either faking things or there being something else at play. His thing against MM was more of a stretch since MM was pretty obviously having fun regarding the early two teams thing, but I wouldn't put that down as a negative for him. I'll admit he doesn't have a lot of content, but I feel decent about him right now. I would vote to protect him if people used either the Draconus or MM things against him to get him lynched.

I've never seen an anti-town Matt game though fwiw.

Sorsha wrote:The policy lynch thing? That wasn't based on any Matt-theory thing though. I was considering a vote for Matt at that point *if* nothing else came up that day.

I didn't think what LoRab was trying to say was unclear, it's that she was saying it in an unclear manner if that makes sense- it does to me.

I thought Mac started the policy lynch thing because he said that he thought Matt was making bad cases/theories and tunneling based on them in Talking Heads. I checked and while you employed a more joking tone than in this game, you did say it was Matt's previous tunneling that made you want to do it.

imo she was saying it in a very direct way, but it was inherently confusing because it discussed roles in this game and whether or not that included roles in previous games. The fact that it was about a day 0 poll, and not an unclear case to get someone lynched, especially makes me think you're putting too much stock into that post as being a scum indicator.

Sorsha wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:I'll just say that based on A World Reborn, I'm not seeing a different LoRab this game. Her argument with Rico seems reasonable and in line with what I've seen from others, even though I disagree (regarding rainbows and coin flips and other silliness). Epi went hard after her and started that wagon from what I can tell, but it's really based on LoRab having a safer/waffley tone. I'm ambivalent on that case. I also don't like Sorsha's post against LoRab, basically saying LoRab made a confusing post and that LoRab is usually clear. The subject matter (day 0/the poll/old roles) seemed inherently a little confusing and I don't see Sorsha's attack there as reasonable, and that pings me a bit more because during Talking Heads, Sorsha was one of the players I found myself agreeing with more strongly. During A World Reborn, Sorsha also used Matt's predilection towards wild/confusing theories against him; different target, different case, but together I think Sorsha doesn't look good.

I'll read more on LoRab in a bit, but not really liking that as an alternative to Rico.

I have to admit I'm not the greatest at reading LoRab right off the bat in a game nor do I usually get a ping from her this early, but I did, and along with what other players noticed about her I think a vote for her was justified, especially for day one. Normally I wouldn't go after Matt for his crazy theories because that's normal Matt but in a world reborn we needed to lynch civvies so I did what I had to do there. That wasn't something that happened on day one either... That was endgame. The issue I have/had with LoRab wasn't about some crazy theory she's trying to pass off either so i don't really see how these two situations relate. LoRab pinged me because it seemed like an off post from her.

But you did say that her theory wasn't clear, and used that as a reason to justify a vote, even if it wasn't wackadoodle crazy or anything. I'm not talking about the late-game lynch of Matt, but the day 1 stuff where you said you'd consider a vote on Matt at Mac's suggestion, and golden put his first vote of the game on you for it as a result iirc.

I'll update my rainbow now.

Ricochet

RadicalFuzz
golden
Draconus

LoRab
Matt
Epignosis
MetalMarsh

Elohcin/FZ
Boomslang
Long Con
juliets
thellama73
sig
nijuukyugou

DrWilgy
Tranq
bcornett24
MacDougall

DharmaHelper
timmer
Sorsha
Black Rock
Dom
JaggedJimmyJay

Bass_the_Clever/motel room
Spacedaisy

Also, worth noting regarding the Draconus/second curse thing, we still have a number of players (bcornett24, Spacedaisy, Dom, Tranq, nijuu, and possibly a couple others) that haven't posted today that could be cursed.

Black Rock wrote:I missed you mentioning me before and yet appear at the bottom of the orange list. WTF?

I did mention you briefly a couple times but I'll list my grievances more formal-style now:

1. You specifically called out LoRab wanting to see what she'd say, and then (the following day) accused her of not answering questions when she had in the time between. Also, you never went back and addressed things with her after saying you'd read them.
2. Your reason for voting seemed to mostly follow Epi and Sorsha's case, the latter I especially didn't buy.
3. Aside from Rico, who you ultimately declared yourself undecided on regardless, you haven't seemed to look anywhere outside of LoRab

Of course, all of that falls apart of it turns out LoRab is actually scum, and I only have meta from one game on her, but I feel a bit townier about her than you and Sorsha.

I'm glad you responded to a bunch of points just now, although I'm also noting that you didn't respond to Jimmy's insinuation that you and zebra could have been partners:

[quote="JaggedJimmyJay]BR's willingness to read Rico as neutral/town but still voice support for Zebra's case against him isn't ideal. She flirts with Rico as a suspect, never seems to fully latch on, but still endorses his demise and credits Zebra for much of her flexibility (perhaps allowing Zebra to take the blame for an eventual non-mafia flip). I am not sure this indicates a team mate relationship between Zebra and BR, but it is a bit suspicious on its own power.[/quote]

That kind of waffling doesn't look good to me, and since Rico was suggesting that he would know info about those who voted for him, staying off the bandwagon while still supporting it looks especially bad.