1. Joe Sapphire as Mancomb Seepgood - Slightly off, possible scum, could just be Mafia Universe PTSD.

2. ZFR as Ben - Usual ZFR so far

3. Babark as Bobbin Threadbare - No meta, too early to tell really.

6. Dedoporno as Guybrush Threepwood - Nothing out of the ordinary.

7. (Lord Cephy) Dessimu as Prof. Henry Jones Sr. - Considered that Cephy might have had "newbie scum syndrome" but being replaced has kind of hit the reset button on reads.

9. RWarehall as Dash Rendar - Had a couple of bad vibes, but nothing substantial as of yet.

10. Detective_razza as Elaine Marley - Another where I have no meta, pretty neutral read.

11. HypersomniacLive as Boston Low - Seems normal, but that's what they seemed like in Captain Sapphire the Movie...

12. Ambiti0nZ as Zac McKracken - New (to me), so no meta. Seems to be having fun, so that's good.

I don't really have much in the way of reads at this point and most of that is based on meta. Oh, in case anyone new isn't sure, meta in this context just means taking into account previous games.

Not sure why you think my feeling Joe is "off" is in any way derived from your joke about bragging rights. What I said in reply to your post was that I already felt uneasy about Joe the previous RL day.

Who?

1. Thanks for clarifying that you didn't quite get the point I was making. It's hardly a smoking gun, but I guess that may or may not be relevant.
2. Bomb was a bad claim, but my post wasn't about the claimed role. That's why I said "Apart from the fact this is a policy lynch". Bomb = policy lynch. The point I was making was something different.
3. It doesn't and neither me nor anyone else claimed it did. I honestly have no idea why you would think that I would think it clears me. My point was just that someone should have picked up on the issue with the claim.

^^ in post 62 on page 4!

I see our understanding mod has given us a day's extension, which is super cool because I said I'd look through RWarehall's latest posts today, but I didn't; I spent an inordinate amount of time on RL matters, and then just didn't have a clear enough head to do so. I did, however, skim through today's posts after lunch and just finished giving them all a read, but no clear enough head to properly go through them right now and reply/question; if things go well (thanks for the wishes), I'll do it tomorrow late afternoon/evening.

For now:

@dedoporno, your post #565 is hilarious. Also, you missed one question in post #562 (last one to you); please, answer. Also also, JoeSapphire's "So there's my predicament. If I were you guys I'd be voting for me right now." gave me a strong town!adaliabooks vibe.


@detective_razza, I asked you something in post #558, yet you went straight to answer post #563. Should I assume that you didn't read the posts before that one at the time? Please go back and answer.


@̶C̶a̶t̶t̶e̶, I̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶t̶w̶o̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶y̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶ ̶P̶o̶E̶,̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶s̶c̶u̶m̶!̶J̶o̶e̶S̶a̶p̶p̶h̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶v̶i̶b̶e̶.̶ ̶P̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶,̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶o̶l̶v̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶g̶o̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶b̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶e̶a̶c̶h̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ ̶o̶n̶.

PPE: I just saw that RWarehall posted, Dessimu made a wall (he's just jealous of my posting, isn't he?), and that Catte gave what looks like a reads list. Haven't read in detail any of it, will do as my bedtime reading.


@babark, same, I think. EXpanding on dedoporno's question (post #671), please give us your reads with a few thoughts for each.


@all, could you, please, read babark's post #567, and tell me if my D1 can honestly be perceived the way babark says here? Can my D1 be summed up as "basically list out everyone, point out why they were scummy, and put the onus on them to "prove themselves""? This is a two-fold question - one is for you to check me, and second (depending on one, I guess) is to give opinion on whether babark's being honest here.


Also, @all, could you look into JoeSapphire's posts #483 and #503 and give opinions?


That's all I can get out tonight, sorry. See you all tomorrow, and @town, stay vigilant!

Caught up. Happy for my vote to stay where it is.


----------------------------


No.. This was here much earlier, in response to Micro's avatar signature.

I replied to your misrepresentation of my read on Joe. Does your lack of acknowledgement or reply mean you don't disagree with what I wrote?

Yes, I don't disagree. Fair enough.

I think the unanimous acceptance of "policy lynch" is a sign they did. I said I wasn't buying it, but yes, part of that reason was I noticed there was no spirit or other entity involved in the claim as detailed in the day 1 flavor text. But I don't want to use PMs and their wording to win this game that is supposed to be able logic and deduction and not "cheat codes"

But here you go claiming how I "don't get it".

-----------

News for you folks, especially the newer players. Do you know what one of the first things the mafia discusses on a Night one? They discuss potential role claims, share their flavor text and go over how best to make a viable false claim. Buck was lynched before a night one "training session". In fact, by discussing multiple PMs, the mafia team usually knows more about the format and setup of them than Town because they share them with each other.

Some are going to consider Catte town for "actively trying to break the game with PMs". I'm going to say it's just as likely PMs are on Catte's mind because of the night discussion. I know as Town, I know for sure about one flavor text, mine. Mafia share theirs and likely know far more about whether there is a fixed format or whether they are all unique and different. Either way, I'm here to play Mafia, not play "How to break the game taking advantage of flavor text and PMs".

There is a reason places like Mafia Universe use a fixed and terse format and it is to avoid this. But that also takes away the enjoyment of these games interlaced with flavor. If you like this sort of integrated theme, then don't abuse it. Lest such flavor goes away by necessity. Because a broken game is not a good win or bad loss for either side. Don't use flavor and PMs to turn an enjoyable game sideways.

-----------

Catte - How many times do I have to mention the day 1 flavor before YOU get it? It was obvious to me right from the start, that all players probably have other spirits either talking to us or possessing us. Can I be sure it was everyone, No. Maybe there are exceptions to the rule. Maybe Buck left out mentioning the spirit's name making him carry the bomb? I noticed it was absent, but I don't believe in flavor text discussions and nitpicking over them or their wording as a valid investigatory tactic for the reasons I outlined above. I recall having this same discussion in one of the last games I played 2 years ago.

I'm glad that no one brought it up and that no one tried to use flavor text or PM minutia to cheat the game. Leave it be!

Ok, I guess I'll consider the misrepresentation withdrawn then. Thanks.

Declaring that a bomb is a policy lynch is not "picking up on it" and is a wholly separate point from the one I was making. As for the rest I guess we'll have to call it a philosophical difference. As far as I am concerned, picking up on mafia's mistakes is part of playing the game and subjecting their claims to the proper scrutiny is part of that. We're not going to agree on this subject so let's leave it at that.

We're only talking about it because you brought it up.

ah i’m not sure what you mean in post #558? i do agree that it’s likely that mafia are leading the narrative, however what do you mean by “leading the town astray when the latter falls silent?”, that town will get lost when mafia stops talking?
^^ if so, then i believe we need to just keep encouraging all people to talk just as much as one another, to prevent such a scenario from happening. if it does happen, and we’re to assume that mafia was leading the narrative, then it would give us an idea as to who mafia could be, right??

also reading over #483 and #503:
#483 to me seems like joe was confused about RW’s stance on the D1 lynch (it seems like RW was stating that it was simply too late to get a successful lynch, but weren’t (technically) calling for a no lynch- HOWEVER, it could also be seen as RW saying that there’s no point in making a rushed lynch for D1 and that we shouldn’t jump on a wagon vote- which in term is (technically) calling for a no lynch) so i’m just confused on that one.
and #503, it could just be that joe forgot to make a prior baseless guess, but it could also be that joe knows who scum is and so didn’t make a guess- but ZFR (post #502, #509, #583), also followed up by catte- has already pointed that out already, although apparently it’s only semi-serious statement that ig could be kept in mind??

You liar! Almost your entire contribution this entire game day is trying to pass shade based on this one issue.
Lynch all liars!!!

It's truly amazing seeing you trying to take credit for spotting this AFTER all the reveals when you were a no-show. After you likely had a lengthy night chat discussion with your scum buddies about what a bad claim it was.

But keep going on about how oblivious and blind I supposedly am and how greatly observant you are while talking about how you just never are bringing this up...

I noticed it. Believe me or not, but I don't want to cheat and win games on PM or flavor nonsense. It cheapens the game. If if you don't get that doing this is not in the spirit of the rules. The entire point is to not violate the sanctity of the game over nonsense like this. To not break the game based on some flavor text secret code. I thought mentioning or asking any questions about the so-called "Terrorists" whether spirits or not or anything surrounding that line of thinking violates the spirit of these rules. But apparently you know what I was thinking better than me. Even the last part of my statement asking for a scum read list which I find useful even coming from lying scum.

I think you read too much into it.

Plus, if catte was calling you oblivious for something you were deliberately ignoring why does it matter? You know you're right. Catte wasn't even saying it was scummy. No-one else cared.

But whatever.

On catte - I see that he's not giving us very much. It is kinda normal for him though.

I'm not quite sure what to make of it really. I guess if someone told me there's a scum in RW or catte I'd say it's catte.


Nahhh I don't buy catte's interest in the flavour as being scum mindset. I think scum!catte knows the answers already so isn't interested in the question. I think scum!catte also knows that people generally don't town read that kind of talk.

It was in the past until you brought it back up.

(the following should have preceded my previous post but I messed up a quote tage and it wasn't posting so I just sent a piece to check before I discovered the error)


OH YEAH I forgot about this. When I remembered about Lord Cephy's Day 1 going for Frostburn I kinda felt Dessimu is probly just town so I'm not so interested in this as I was, but still. Would have been niceif SOMEONE answered the question.

HypersomniacLive - would you like me to explain what I was thinking or is it important other people give thier opinions?

---

if you don't want to have the discussion just don't, why'd you say all this? Catte's read on you just now was "nothing substantial" so you're not defending yourself against any accusations you're just saying you don't want to have a discussion while also having the discussion. Let's just not.


---

Do you think the way anybody reacted with Bucktooth was significant? Do you think the people who voted Bucktooth did it a way that cleared themselves?


---

hum. Is it because of Frostburn's unprompted claim? Because I don't think it's fair to attribute that to my question here. I think I asked this because zfr was pushing at Frostburn for something I saw as towny and I wanted him to think it through.

As. I. Said. Before:

I am happy to agree to disagree, if that isn't good enough for you then I don't know what to suggest. I am not going to agree with you just because you demand it.

Good questions. Nothing springs to mind without re-reading, however I am about to go to bed. Stuff to look at tomorrow.