Random Mafia

[special ed]

I'm catching up so this may have been asked..but...was this in the rules?

Do we know the Scum know each others names?

For the record, I checked the rules (post 70 for future reference), it was not stated that the Scum would know anything about each other.

Meeko, how do you know that the Scum know each others names?

[special ed]

Additionally, Meeko, you've mentioned that you think NAF is a power role. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

[storyteller0910]

Quoth storyteller:As I recall, you were one of the proponents for a name-claim in Lost, and it turned out to have been a very good idea. Why would you have been weakly opposed here?

In Lost, we were dealing with established canon; the information gained stood at least a chance of being helpful, at least for organizational purposes. Here there are two differences:

1. There is evidently no canon. The information we've seen can't be interpreted, that I can see (at least, not yet). Also, on a meta-level:

2. sachertorte has been intimately involved in designing all of the games I've moderated so far. In every case, one of his driving motivations is reducing the number of ways that a game can be exploited or broken. Creating a game where a name claim would have any effect at all would be so out-of-character for him as to be inconceivable. The idea that he'd have given the Scum names like Dirk Dastardly and Genghis Kahn? Yeah, no. Not from sach.

So I'd have been weakly opposed, mostly because I'd have expected the discussion to take real-life days and result in a bunch of null tells that would occupy us for Days. That it worked out the way it did - barely 48 hours of discussion, and now it's behind us - is actually a pretty good outcome, but I don't think it's going to affect the game much.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Holy... crap. I can't believe the Town has discussed, agreed upon, and apparently executed a name claim, all in the space of one real-life weekend.

Well, we skipped most of the first two steps.

[peekercpa]

Well, we skipped most of the first two steps.

that did kind of strealine it a bit.

[Mahaloth]

Well, the claim is mostly over and I don't think we gathered any useful information out of it. I agree with story that sach made the game strong enough so the name-claim can't break it. Having said that, I see no harm in the final players claiming sometime on Monday or Tuesday, whenever they get a chance to check in.

I'm glad to get it out of the way, actually. Better than dealing with it later in the day.

side note: The name claim in Lost was wise due to an extremely incompetent moderator, who was a great fool and inexperienced. I assume he wouldn't make this error if he lead a game again and I am positive sach is smarter than that idiot.

[Freudian Slit]

Maha, don't be so hard on yourself. You're a great mafia moderator!

Anyway, did we all claim, and should we make a little chart? OK, I know this is where I should get off my ass and go do it myself, but I'll wait and see if some enterprising mafia player does it instead.

[Drain Bead]

Sorry about the lack of substantive posting this weekend. A friend of mine had her baby, so we've been shopping and cooking and visiting...

I'm kinda dubious at the people who, upon seeing a strange typo twice, assumed that it was someone typing out the role twice and making the same typo rather than someone copying and pasting the same typo from their role PM (or typing it once themselves and then C&Ping it again). At worst, it's a null tell to me. But voting for it isn't the worst thing to go on for Day One, either.

Of OAOW and Kelly, I'm a bit more suspicious of Kelly, because it was a bandwagon vote that didn't appear to be fully thought out, like someone jumping at the chance to find a case that wasn't spurious. But Kelly is a noob, and that's generally noobish behavior, so....hrm.

[Freudian Slit]

I thought Kelly wasn't quite as noobish as we had thought?

I thought that pointing out the typos didn't seem scummy. At worst, the typos mean nothing except a moderator who made a mistake. At best, they could be information. But why suspect the person who notices them? That's a big WTF from me.

[Mahaloth]

Anyway, did we all claim, and should we make a little chart? OK, I know this is where I should get off my ass and go do it myself, but I'll wait and see if some enterprising mafia player does it instead.

About a page back, I made a listing, not including peeker's Witch claim. I'm not sure if it was right, though.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I thought that pointing out the typos didn't seem scummy. At worst, the typos mean nothing except a moderator who made a mistake. At best, they could be information. But why suspect the person who notices them? That's a big WTF from me.

Chronos voted for Wanderers because Wanderers voted based on the typo/s he discovered. If the typos themselves aren't scummy, and somebody votes because of the typos, what's incongruous about voting for the person who casts the anti-typo vote?

[Freudian Slit]

OK, granted Wanderers did vote, but I'm just seeing the voters for him as scummier than his vote. I do hope he unvotes NAF for that Joseph thing, though.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

That seems weird. Help me out. Why, to your eye, is it less scummy to cast a vote on a person for doing something that isn't scummy than it is to cast a vote for a person for casting that vote in the first place?

It seems like it ought to follow logically that if the typo was not scummy, then a vote based on the typo must be scummier than the vote against the person casting it. Or at least the same level of scumminess, maybe; it just doesn't seem possible to me that there's a better scum motivation to lynch a player for an unjustified vote than there is to lynch a player for having a typo in his post.

[Freudian Slit]

Well, I don't think the vote was unjustified when he first made it. The fact that he hasn't rescinded the vote since we've realized that the typo is in more than one post says more to me, actually.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

His vote (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244900&postcount=179) was based on the fact that the typo is in multiple posts:

Joseph is spelled wrong in both your attempts to claim

[Freudian Slit]

Okay, I agree it could have been a mod mistake. But I'm not sure why it's such a bad reason to vote for someone on. Aren't we basically taking stabs in the dark here on day one?

[Jimmy Chitwood]

No, of course. These are all lightweight cases. Some can still be better than others.

But as it turns out, I misread your initial post (misinterpreted the context for the "worst" in "At worst, the typos mean nothing except a moderator who made a mistake."). You never actually said that the typos weren't scummy, which means the inconsistency I was confused about wasn't actually there.

For the record, even though I just confused myself while defending it, I would not have voted based on Wanderers' vote. I'm voting for him because I didn't think demanding a full copy-and-paste from someone who had already name-claimed was helpful.

[Meeko]

For the record, I checked the rules (post 70 for future reference), it was not stated that the Scum would know anything about each other.

Meeko, how do you know that the Scum know each others names?

I am Town. How am I to know what information Scum had to begin with? I mean, isn't this usually what makes scum, scum? If scum don't know their scum-mates, this game might well never end.

Or, are you saying that they don't have this information, by design?

Don't hang me me for making an assumption that has remained true for 100% of my games heretofore.

Additionally, Meeko, you've mentioned that you think NAF is a power role. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?

On the assumption that Religious people are only in this game to provide "prayer" or protection.

Okay, I agree it could have been a mod mistake. But I'm not sure why it's such a bad reason to vote for someone on. Aren't we basically taking stabs in the dark here on day one?

Because it invites people not to play their best game. If you are going to vote based on word of mod typo, we might as well not play at all.

[Meeko]

Freudian, you are coming out of nowhere on all of this. A bit off for your part, methinks.

[Freudian Slit]

But we don't know that it was a mod typo yet. It could very well have been scum making up a post.

Anyway, maybe the religious posts are doctor types. I'm wondering what fictional means. I know I wasn't given any special duties or other roles in my PM...

[Freudian Slit]

NETA: All I'm saying is that the typo thing did look a little weird, but that so far it could mean anything. It could mean that Wanderers is right, or he could be scum jumping on an easy reason to vote for a lynch.

[Chronos]

If nothing else, even if the Scum don't know each others' role-names (and everything else in each others' PMs) right now, we can be pretty well certain that they'll know toNight. Typically the first thing on the Scum board is the Scum introducing themselves to each other, and they have no reason to hold anything back at all from their teammates. When that happens, yes, they probably will be able to make better use of that information than we are, and that's regrettable. But it's part of the way the game works: We can't keep Town in the dark for the sake of keeping Scum in the dark, too.

[TexCat]

My list FWIW...
TexCat Benedict Arnold (Traitor).
Tom Scud Busby Berkeley (Choreographer).
Oredigger George Washington (President).
special ed Guy de Maupassant (Writer)
Freudian Slit Patroclus (Greek). You are Fictional.
Red Skeezix Ogden Nash (Poet).
Meeko Joan Miró (Aritst)
Mahaloth Samuel Johnson (Critic).
storyteller Baldrick (Servant). You are Fictional.
GuiriEnEspana Gustave Eiffel (Architect).
One & Only Wanderers Fu Mingxia (Olympic Gold Medalist).
KellyCriterion Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Composer).
MHaye Tim Horton (Canadian).
NAF1138 Joesph Smith (Mormon)
Jimmy Chitwood Alexander Graham Bell (Inventor)
Rysto Petr Cech (Goalkeeper).
Chonos Jesse Jackson (Reverend).
Drain Bead Eva Peron (Spiritual Leader of the Nation of Argentina).
Zeriel Lysander (Lover). You are Fictional.
peekercpa wicked witch of the west???

[special ed]

I am Town. How am I to know what information Scum had to begin with? I mean, isn't this usually what makes scum, scum? If scum don't know their scum-mates, this game might well never end.

I didn't say they didn't know who the other Scum are, I ask how you knew the Scum knew the role names of the other Scum.

You didn't imply, you directly stated that the Scum know each others' role names.

I agree that it is standard operating procedures for Scum to know who the other Scum are, but it is definitely not standard operating procedure for them to know each other's role names or roles.

Or, are you saying that they don't have this information, by design?

I'm saying that I don't know that they have this information.

Don't hang me me for making an assumption that has remained true for 100% of my games heretofore.

OK, now you're saying you just assumed it. Perhaps because you subbed in you missed the discussion of this in Colorless. It became a large point of discussion when drain was up for lynching that it would have been ballsy for a Scum goon to vote to bus a fellow Scum on Day 1. I know you were in the game at that point.



On the assumption that Religious people are only in this game to provide "prayer" or protection.

Why do you put credence in the fact that the role names imply some sort of power? Why especially when the game is called Random Mafia?

[Mahaloth]

I think TexCat's list is right, though it is not in claim order. I assume it is in the random order sach gave us early one?

Are we through it then? Did everyone claim?

[Mahaloth]

NETA:

Except peeker, I mean.

[Tom Scud]

Hi guys. It's been a busy weekend; I'll try to give things a reread, do some scum hunting, and take a look at the Wanderers vs. others case tomorrow.

[Meeko]

Why do you put credence in the fact that the role names imply some sort of power? Why especially when the game is called Random Mafia?

One day, Ed and I will have a game of Mafia where we won't knock each other around on Day 1.


This is not that game.

Why do you NOT put credence in the fact that role names imply power?
1b.Are you guessing that there are no powers in this game?
1c.If there were to be powers in this game, what names would have them?

or Do you KNOW something about powers in this game?

Why are you pushing me on this?
2b.Do you need to come back to this later and vote me because of it?

[Meeko]

NETA :

I mean, I'm guessing that there is a Priestly / Messiah type protector role in this game, and I believe I am looking in the right place for it. Combine the WEAKEST reason* for a vote I have ever seen, and you know, I think I am on to something here.

*I hence forth christen the OMGTMRAGS Vote.

Oh my god, the Moderator's roles as given sucks vote.

I have a dream, that one day, Mafia players won't be voted based on the transposition of their names, but based on the content of their character.

[special ed]

One day, Ed and I will have a game of Mafia where we won't knock each other around on Day 1.


This is not that game.

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm just curious as to how you reached your conclusions.

Why do you NOT put credence in the fact that role names imply power?
1b.Are you guessing that there are no powers in this game?
1c.If there were to be powers in this game, what names would have them?

1b. I think there are power roles in this game. I don't think sachertorte is inclined to allow us to guess that name implies power. I think he even went so far as to title the game 'Random'

1c. I think there are power roles with randomly assigned names.


or Do you KNOW something about powers in this game?

Nope, which is why I was wondering why you were claiming to know something about them, as well as knowing something about the Scum.

Why are you pushing me on this?
2b.Do you need to come back to this later and vote me because of it?

Because you have stated something as fact (that scum know each others names) while I have no idea how you would know that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to question you on that. It does tend to fall into the PIS category.


Additionally, I have a request. When anyone questions you on your comments or statements, please just answer them instead of turning it into a discussion of 'why do people pick on Meeko' This Mafia, not Mafia featuring Meeko.

[Meeko]

Additionally, I have a request. When anyone questions you on your comments or statements, please just answer them instead of turning it into a discussion of 'why do people pick on Meeko' This Mafia, not Mafia featuring Meeko.

1. You seem to be doing a majority of the picking on me, frankly. So, it would seem to me, stopping one problem would go a long way in stopping the other.

2.So, the moment I get a method to my madness, and actually start lying down facts, points [arguments], and strong opinions, you ask me to stop?


Am I actually doing something good here, that you fear for? Not in regards to my play, but the future of yours?

[special ed]

Meeko, in going back to check, I think I misunderstood you:

you stated:

5.Scum know who each other are.
5b.They know the name and [occupation / race / job ] of their role.
5d.It is a simple matter of deduction at that point, to find out the common thread.
5e.They already know more from the names than we do, simply by comparing notes, that were placed out in the open.
5f.This doesn't happen if Scum suggest we don't claim

I though 5b stated that they know the occupation of the other Scum. You didn't state that. That's what I thought was PIS. I thought you were saying that the Scum knew the other Scum's names.

However, on rereading you didn't say that.

I thought I was clear about what I was referring to when I questioned you, why didn't you just point out that you didn't say what I was accusing you of?


As to the other point, that names imply powers. I strongly strongly disagree.

Also, please stop stop calling it picking on you. It's not. When you're playing this game, you must expect to be questioned. And you have a responsibility to answer those questions. It's not picking on you. It's how we figure things out. It's no fun if you start pouting every time someone questions you.

[Meeko]

I though 5b stated that they know the occupation of the other Scum. You didn't state that. That's what I thought was PIS. I thought you were saying that the Scum knew the other Scum's names.

Well, even if it takes twice as long, at least we have a convoluted process to understand each other.

:smack: On my part. YMMV.

Scum know the Names of other Scum.


Scum players know the names of other scum players.

That is:

Cecil, you are Scummy McScumalot. You are scum with Opal and TubaDiva. You can go to X and post night strategy.

Opal, you are Mucs Mucsson. You are scum with Cecil and TubaDiva. You can go to X and post night strategy.

Tuba Diva your are Thrid Ferguson. You are a Third Party, with Wincon Y. However, you will appear to be scum to any and all detective roles. Here is a Sum role for you to use :

Tuba, you are Burt Reynolds. You are Scum with Cecil and Opal. You can go to X and post night stratgy.

---

So, I was saying that Scum know the names of other scum. By virtue of how Scum ""Works"".

Cecil Knows upon role PM that Opal and Tuba are scum. He has no idea that Opal is Mucs Mucsson, at least until the first night in the game [Note, I said the first night, not Night 1.] Hopefully, Third Ferguson won't slip.

[[Yes, I was thinking of a PFK and the Third for Turd just popped in.]]


So, I meant that Cecil Knows Opal by the name Opal. Not that Scummy knows Mucs.

Are we good so far?

The rest of the information, AFTER player name usually comes out in the scum boards. Since we had a day start, there is a disadvantage here. BUT because player names of scum are known by all scum, I am willing to bet that scum now know what "fictional character" means, or any other qualifier.

-If scum don't know what what "fictional" or any other qualifier means, we [town] probably shouldn't worry about it. Not that we will know.

OR

We could have some very powerful, or very unusual town powers. -- Then again, as was stated before, the """Random""" aspect is probably muted, as this is a noob friendly game.

[[We don't even have any true noobs in this game, do we? ]]

[Meeko]

Yep. Totally didnt answer your question.

NETA :

So, when you said Name back to me, I totally took it as a second meaning. And I think we both got confused in it.

Suffice to say I think we both took the opposite meaning of an ambiguous term, and assumed the worst.

[Mahaloth]

Scum know the Names of other Scum.


Scum players know the names of other scum players.



Snipped a lot.

How do you know that?

Were we told scum could communicate in any way before Night One? There was no Night Zero, unless I missed it. Now, if the scum can talk during the Day, then they would know who each other are. However, if they can't, then they very well may not even know who the other players are, let alone their "role names". No one can know for sure, except the scum.

You talk as if you know a lot about the scum situation in this game. Do you?

[Rysto]

Mahaloth, I've never seen a game where the scum aren't told the usernames of the other scum straight off of the bat.

[Meeko]

You get the feeling that Scum is after me this game, because I have ""changed gears"" twice in as many games.

Well, the best players are taken out in the first day, right?

[One And Only Wanderers]

Mahaloth, I've never seen a game where the scum aren't told the usernames of the other scum straight off of the bat.

I've played in one where there was a singular secret scum, but most of the team was known to each other.

Anyways it appears that spelling mistakes abound!

unvote

[Meeko]

I wonder if Maha and Ed, albeit with a quick backpedal, aren't PIS slipping on something. Perhaps powers only work in this game, if refer to players by their role name, not their user name.

[KellyCriterion]

Has anyone done any serious analysis on the names? Is there something to be had for the fiction vs non-fiction side of things?

And I can't believe the heat that Wanderers is copping for latching on to that typo :confused:

[Meeko]

Interesting fun stuff now.

Unvote One and Only

FOS One and Only. Yes, the vote was Weak, Yes it was unvoted. Yes, the fact that he voted that way, and on that reason, is still there. Can't vote him strictly on my original premise anymore. But, I have to wonder the whole story here.


Vote Mahaloth

I don't get the sudden case of amnesia. I mean I made a point on something that I figured was unmutable. I have yet to play in a Gastard set up, but I am willing to bet that scum knowing user names of other scum even shows up in that world as well.

Do not "Get" why I have heat for suggesting scum know other scum by user name. AT ALL.

Further, Maha picked up this ball after Ed. Not to sure why he did that, or why he wants to engage me.

[storyteller0910]

Has anyone done any serious analysis on the names? Is there something to be had for the fiction vs non-fiction side of things?


Again, I really doubt it, though obviously you never know. For example, it looks to me like only three players (one of them is me) have claimed fictional characters as roles. Did sachertorte make all three Scum? Strongly doubt it - talk about game breaking, and anyway I know this is not the case because I know my own alignment.

Did he make all three Town? Possibly. Certainly not game breaking if he did, simply because we could never know with sufficient certainty to confirm a player on this basis.

Did he make some of them Town and some of them Scum? Possibly.

Is there gameplay significance to the Fictional vs. Real thing? I don't know. I asked, actually, immediately upon receiving my PM. sach responded with, essentially, the dictionary definition of the word "Fictional," so either there's no connection to the game or our moderator is keeping the connection under wraps.

So basically, nearly any scenario is possible. So what value is there in banging this back and forth for Days on end? We know what we know, and maybe it will be useful later, but it's not right now, at least, not as far as I can see.

[TexCat]

I count 4 fictional. I assume the wicked witch of the west is fictional, but I am still not sure that is really peeker's claim, nor what the description in parentheses after it would be. peeker?

[Mahaloth]

Mahaloth, I've never seen a game where the scum aren't told the usernames of the other scum straight off of the bat.

Ah, I guess I'm wrong in wondering why Meeko "knew" that then. It just seemed like he stated it as fact.

Not sure I deserve a vote from him for it, though. I was just asking, which seems reasonable to me.

[storyteller0910]

I count 4 fictional. I assume the wicked witch of the west is fictional, but I am still not sure that is really peeker's claim, nor what the description in parentheses after it would be. peeker?

Yeah, I'm not sure how to count peeker right now.

Dear peeker: please claim. The cat's kind of out of the bag right now, and continuing to dance around it is just going to create a massive distraction.

[peekercpa]

well i guess if sach were kind enough to tell us how many of each and various roles are available then some enterprising sould could grab the claims and run it through some random number generator assigning roles based randomly. pemutate this a couple of million times and then we could arrive at some conclusion that, for example, 7 percent of the time a person with a religion sounding name ends up being a doc. additionally, maybe one could also come up with a statistically valid way of assuming that out of x number of fictional characters y are scum/town/3rd party.

but i am unsure whether sach would enteratain sharing this information. so any conclusion based on the above scenario would have to be based on assumptions which may or may not have any relationship to the actual game set up.

i have to agree with story, when sach says random i tend to believe him. so could a good sounding name translate into a town power role, maybe. but it would be just based on random. in a given subset of characters could some be scum, certainly. just depends on how the dice role. because if i were to believe that name = alignment i sure as heck would have picked something other than wicked witch of the west which i was assigned by our mod.

so i see little benefit in discussing how names could have any bearing on role or alignement except in the most random and indeterminate way.

[Zeriel]

Were we told scum could communicate in any way before Night One? There was no Night Zero, unless I missed it. Now, if the scum can talk during the Day, then they would know who each other are. However, if they can't, then they very well may not even know who the other players are, let alone their "role names". No one can know for sure, except the scum.

You talk as if you know a lot about the scum situation in this game. Do you?

It says flat out in the rules scum can't talk during the day. Ane Meeko's right--most games, scum get their teammates' names in the PM.

You get the feeling that Scum is after me this game, because I have ""changed gears"" twice in as many games.

No, I don't get that feeling. It's just day one banter, chill.

[Meeko]

Ah, I guess I'm wrong in wondering why Meeko "knew" that then. It just seemed like he stated it as fact.

Not sure I deserve a vote from him for it, though. I was just asking, which seems reasonable to me.

I just don't understand why people are after me because of it. Up and until now, I thought it was fact.

The vote comes not from the asking, but from the timing. It just seems ""Added on"" after Ed's. Seems not needed, seems rushed, seems designed to stick to me, for whatever reason.

Paranoia or what ever, I just don't get why ""fact"" is in question for this game.

Whatever.


Unvote Maha

[Mahaloth]

It says flat out in the rules scum can't talk during the day. Ane Meeko's right--most games, scum get their teammates' names in the PM.


Again, OK, I retract the questioning of Meeko's statement if so many people think it was weird. I've only been Scum once(in one of ped's games) and I can't remember.

Pretty sure pedescribe and I do not PM the other scums names, but rather have a Night Zero where the scum "sign-in", so to speak, for the scum to swing by their board and meet each other. I even remember in the game I was scum, we were unsure how many of us there were because one player became highly inactive early on.

Having said that, with no Night Zero, I agree it makes sense for the scum to know who each other are.

Moving on!

[Meeko]

I think I see the problem here.

Does my outline approach over explain things? Too much ammo for scum?

[ShadowFacts]

Current vote count:

2 – OAOW (voted by: Chronos [180], Jimmy Chitwood [184])

[Red Skeezix]

Has anyone done any serious analysis on the names? Is there something to be had for the fiction vs non-fiction side of things?

And I can't believe the heat that Wanderers is copping for latching on to that typo :confused:

Having just come out of a game where I was almost lynched for making a slip, where the greatest pressure after the slip came from scum players, I am almost inclined to vote for OAOW. For that and the speechifying (paraphrased) "Oh here it goes again another day 1 lynch", which doesn't match my experiences playing with OAOW.

It's a simple play for a scum player to latch onto a typo and often a good one. Since they are able to take something that in reality is not a scum tell and turn it into one. Other typos I am more suspicious of, especially cultural misspellings that a moderator would not make (an american mod would not say behaviour or neutralised, two typos which I've seen recently by british scum players).

@Peek, maybe I'm being obtuse, but are you claiming that the name of your role in this game is wicked witch of the west? You keep alluding that that is the case, but not actually saying a definite yes or no.

[peekercpa]

oh for goodness' sakes. yes i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and i win with the town.

when you folks go out with a date do you sit around and talk and stuff. "darn you look nice." "that is so interesting." "i love kittens, as well."

or do you just come out with "wanna fuck"?

subtlety is apparantly lost on this generation.

[storyteller0910]

when you folks go out with a date do you sit around and talk and stuff. "darn you look nice." "that is so interesting." "i love kittens, as well."

or do you just come out with "wanna fuck"?



Wait, is one of those the right answer?

[Mahaloth]

when you folks go out with a date do you sit around and talk and stuff. "darn you look nice." "that is so interesting." "i love kittens, as well."

or do you just come out with "wanna fuck"?


snipped

No, but we introduce ourselves. ;) :p

[Freudian Slit]

How about, "Wanna fuck kittens?"

[Drain Bead]

It appears that I am the only person in this game with a parenthetical description that's longer than one word. What does that mean? Who the fuck knows.

[Oredigger77]

I’m kind of curious why OAOW got so many votes for picking up on the spelling error but Meeko dropped what appeared to be PIS and got a pass. Personally I read his original post about the scum knowing all about each other and I thought it was a slip. Of course it's been explained now but I think it's interesting that it was ignored.

Admittedly I've only been scum once but the first thing that we did was post our PMs to insure that we all knew about each other. All that my initial PM said was the names of my teammates thought we all had the same name so I guess it was a moot point. Of course one thing that came out of the last game was that the people calling out PIS slips tend to be scum and in the Last game Rysto was almost caught that way so it might be worth looking at Special Ed overcalling out a PIS slip, even though if I’d been online I would have as well.

[Meeko]

subtlety is apparantly lost on this generation.

I think Peeker is lost among the Mafia.

I, at least am trying to swim back to the shores of sanity. Please join me.

[Meeko]

I’m kind of curious why OAOW got so many votes for picking up on the spelling error but Meeko dropped what appeared to be PIS and got a pass. Personally I read his original post about the scum knowing all about each other and I thought it was a slip. Of course it's been explained now but I think it's interesting that it was ignored.

Working backwards on Digger's Snipped quote :

I can't reconcile "it's been explained now" with "it's interesting that it was ignored'. I see no vote from you here. Should I assume that bodes well for me then?

I intended the entire "Scum know each other" to mean user name. If I do not offer clarification in that specific post, I know for a fact that one of my sub-headed reasons address it. I should point out that I made clarifications, or at least additional points on stance long before Ed started up on me. Please look at the timing, look at my responses, and note that the terms are ambiguous. I'm not trying to play both sides here, I am just saying that there is room for benefit of the doubt, if you guys are not inclined to give me anything else.

But, if you guys want to vote me for PIS, go ahead. I just hope when you mislynch me, it will help you to re-evaluate how you consider a PIS. At first blush, this may appear to help Scum, but I assure you, it helps Town. By definition a PIS can only work if it is a "correct" [perfect] slip. I don't have any PIS here, no slip to show. In as many words, I am town. ((At least this time, I don't have votes. Perhaps by my 90th game I will be where you all were in your 9th. -In one sense, I thought I was already there.))

I think a large majority of the one time held votes on One And Only came because it was an out and out vote. Not a FOS, not a laundry list of questions. It was an over eager, EARLY day 1 vote. --To say nothing of the ""Reason"" for the vote. That's been covered before.

[Chronos]

Quoth Drain Bead:It appears that I am the only person in this game with a parenthetical description that's longer than one word. What does that mean? Who the fuck knows. Not quite; One and Only Wanderers has the description "Olympic gold medalist". Still, "spiritual leader of the nation of Argentina" does seem like rather an outlier. But if you're not sure what the significance of that is, then I sure as heck don't. Assuming, of course, that you're telling the truth when you say that you don't know the significance.

As for Meeko's alleged "slip", he's had a tendency in other games to take things as certain which were merely likely, and the Scum starting the game knowing who each other are is in fact likely.* Heck, just look at this game right here: Meeko is similarly certain, on less evidence, that NAF is a power role, even though there's no plausible way he could have perfect information on that, yet. Net result is, coming from Meeko, I think this is a null tell.


* There have been games where the Scum didn't get this info in their PMs (Screamers, where I was Scum, was one), but that game Scum were allowed to talk during the Day, so we still started off by introducing ourselves.

[Red Skeezix]

oh for goodness' sakes. yes i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and i win with the town.

when you folks go out with a date do you sit around and talk and stuff. "darn you look nice." "that is so interesting." "i love kittens, as well."

or do you just come out with "wanna fuck"?

subtlety is apparantly lost on this generation.

When making claims I feel it is better to lock people into a position, and close the door on "It was just a joke", "Did you miss the subtext", that kind of thing.

And FTR, I've had better luck with the second than the first, so maybe subtlety along with chivalry is a lost art.

[NAF1138]

And I can't believe the heat that Wanderers is copping for latching on to that typo :confused:

Catching up after what was a busy weekend.

I totally get that he is catching heat. It was a lousy vote with a silly reason. He made a mistake and deserves to catch heat for it. Do I think he deserves votes, not really. I wouldn't vote for him based on that, but I do think he deserves the heat he is getting. That's how mafia works.

Speaking of how mafia works, I can't believe that you aren't catching more heat for hopping on the bandwagon and then hopping right back off again when you realized that town wasn't on board with OAOW's catch. Scummy as hell for Day 1.


vote Kelly

[TexCat]

vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

[Rysto]

He's a witch, TexCat.

[Red Skeezix]

@Texcat: How is peeker not disclosing his parenthetical scummy? Or in other words, What is the scum motivation for doing so? I don't see it, nor do I see what the point the point of creating a distraction centered around himself would be for scum. What I do see is someone latching onto a recent discussion topic (peeker's allusive claim) and trying to turn it into a legitimate vote.

vote Texcat

[sachertorte]

Hey look at that -- Vote counts! You totally weren't gonna get a vote count from me until tomorrow. You guys are so lucky to have ShadowFacts on the case.

[Freudian Slit]

He could have been a lot clearer about it. And I don't think he had any motivation for acting as he did, other than the fact that he seems to like to be weird. I don't think he's intentionally anti Town--he always is like this so it's hard to get a good read on him. It's not helpful so I have no clue WHY he does it.

[Mahaloth]

Here we go.

"peeker is just being peeker"

There. Someone said it. You knew it was coming.

[Freudian Slit]

He's being peeker, but I wouldn't say he's JUST being peeker. To clarify, I think his behavior is extremely harmful to town. I don't think he intends it that way, though. I'm torn on whether or not to vote for him. I honestly don't think I could ever tell if he was town or not. In any game. It's easy for scum to vote for him because he so consistently is anti town, so they can get in an easy vote. Then again, it's easy for a townie to vote for him because he is so anti town.

It's a terrible way he has of playing, but what are we supposed to do about it?

[peekercpa]

vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

and apparantly my subsequent participation has not transcended your sphere of comprehension. that is okay.

when i first started playing this game it was more "standard". subtle insinuations and conversations were the norm. there weren't a whole ton of power roles or confirmable alignments. you had to work to win. and work did not mean slogging through a page or two of folks claiming, etc. and then just latching on to the one that seemed to be the most believable. the game was "unsolvable" unless you were willing to really get at it.

take the old games. the winners won because they were deep thinkers not because they had powers. was it cookies who slogged through pages and pages of data to reach a correct decision in the absence of any easy answers? i know that sach advertised this game to be newb friendly. i don't think that newb friendly equates to no subtlety.

so if you believe that approach to be "distracting at best" or "scummy at worst" then i suggest you play sudoku with 78 of the 81 squares already filled in.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I’m kind of curious why OAOW got so many votes for picking up on the spelling error but Meeko dropped what appeared to be PIS and got a pass. Personally I read his original post about the scum knowing all about each other and I thought it was a slip. Of course it's been explained now but I think it's interesting that it was ignored.

I'm curious about something else I've noticed.

First, though, I really don't think, read in context, that Meeko said anything that would belie his subsequent explanations. Here's what he said:

5.Scum know who each other are.
5b.They know the name and [occupation / race / job ] of their role.
5d.It is a simple matter of deduction at that point, to find out the common thread.
5e.They already know more from the names than we do, simply by comparing notes, that were placed out in the open.
5f.This doesn't happen if Scum suggest we don't claim

If you find him suspicious based on the above, it has to be entirely because of the ambiguity of his use of the plural "they" in the second point. Grammatically speaking he would have had to be talking about multiple people, although following along with the entire post it's fairly obvious that he meant each scum individually. So OK, if you're suspicious of that I'll agree that there's certainly a way to read that as suggestive, but my question is: in what way was it "ignored?" He was questioned at length and voted for it, and multiple people have commented on the possibility of a slip. Yet (despite the fact that you say you noticed it and didn't say anything) you find it "interesting that it was ignored." What did you want to see happen?

But so anyway, my main point here is about this "curious why OAOW got so many votes" theme that I've seen a few times now in addition to from Oredigger:

And I can't believe the heat that Wanderers is copping for latching on to that typo

and I'm completely dumbfounded by people voting for OaOW for pointing it out.

But why suspect the person who notices them? That's a big WTF from me.

I'm on board with anybody who says it wasn't very much of a big deal to begin with, but it's strange to me that so relatively many people express such hyperbolic bemusement about it. "So many votes," "can't believe the heat," "completely dumbfounded," and all that. Kind of strange considering that one vote was for pointing out the typo, one was for a perceived attempt to fish out information about Chronos' claim, and one was Meeko's vote when he found out that he had also posted a typo but that had been ignored in favor of going after NAF for a typo. So one vote was actually cast for that specific reason (and three total), yet four people are bewildered by the outrage at Wanderers for merely pointing out a typo.

[peekercpa]

and i'll make this easy.

everyone claim their true alignment.

if you lie then you never get to play in a game again that the non liars participate in.

i am town.

this beast should be over by the end of the Day.

[peekercpa]

oh for goodness' sakes. yes i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and i win with the town.

vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

what part of the first do you not get?

gd, are you channelling drain?

crud it was just a little further up on the current page.

[peekercpa]

Yesterday at 10:26pm, Special Ed wrote:and good game, pede. We really stunk it up as Scum. Either that or the masons could read our minds.



It was all peek. Fucking genius that he is fcs!

First I muffed the paul accusation . Then I went after fluid , and pushed peek to do so as well .

Peek pretty much called out all the scum.


yeh, i am anti town

[One And Only Wanderers]

Yesterday at 10:26pm, Special Ed wrote:and good game, pede. We really stunk it up as Scum. Either that or the masons could read our minds.



It was all peek. Fucking genius that he is fcs!

First I muffed the paul accusation . Then I went after fluid , and pushed peek to do so as well .

Peek pretty much called out all the scum.


yeh, i am anti town

being town in that game doesn't make you town in this game. Th etryst metre pegs back to 0 and you have to start all over gaain!

For the record, I am town.

[storyteller0910]

I'm on board with anybody who says it wasn't very much of a big deal to begin with, but it's strange to me that so relatively many people express such hyperbolic bemusement about it. "So many votes," "can't believe the heat," "completely dumbfounded," and all that.

I agree with this.

[Tom Scud]

Multi-page catchup, ahoy!

Looks like the only real information to come out of the name claim is that some players are Fictional, which probably interacts in some way with a power role (either there are roles that can't target Fictional characters, or can only target Fictional characters, or there's an investigative role that can tell whether a player is Fictional or not). I tend to agree with the players (MHaye, story, peeker, probably others) arguing that there's not likely to be much if any correspondence between roles and names. The Typo Two might be more likely to be unfalsified claims, but I wouldn't hang a whole lot on that.

Meeko: I like the outline format - it makes your posts much easier to follow.

On the OaOW vs. NAF vs. others front, OaOW is feeling more like a zealous Townie than a scum; I took a hard look at Jimmy and Meeko's votes, but neither of them looks to me like an opportunistic pile-on.

Kelly's vote-unvote looks worse, as NAF pointed out; I'd be inclined to vote him, at least until a better Day 1 case came along, but (a) I still feel inclined to extend some near-noob credit and (b) I've got a better Day 1 case already, to wit:

I really don't understand why TexCat voted peeker when he voted him. To my eyes, peeker was perfectly clear about his role the second time he mentioned it (that is, after the youtube link); even for those who were confused at that point, I don't see how they possibly could have been after his exchange with red at 302-303; he explicitly mentions his profession in 303 ("i am a witch and i win with town"). Especially since TexCat earlier said (208) that he saw no particular advantage to copy-pasting.

So it looks to me like TexCat has found a controversial player who'd already been attracting some heat and decided to see if he could get a wagon to form there.

vote TexCat

[Chronos]

peeker, the problem isn't that you're being subtle, it's that you're being subtle in a way that would benefit Scum but not Town. Yeah, people have to do a lot of work to figure out who's Scum, but that doesn't justify making it harder. Take your name-claim, for instance: You didn't do anything that was recognizable as a claim until relatively late, but when you did, you tried to make it look like you'd claimed early. A Scum would love to do that: Claiming late lets you see what everyone else is saying and make sure that what you're claiming is consistent with them, or gives you time to make up something that looks consistent. But on the other hand, claiming early can give you some amount of Town cred. By doing something obfuscated like posting a YouTube video and then later trying to say that it was a claim, it looks like you're trying to get the best of both worlds.

[Oredigger77]

If you find him suspicious based on the above, it has to be entirely because of the ambiguity of his use of the plural "they" in the second point. Grammatically speaking he would have had to be talking about multiple people, although following along with the entire post it's fairly obvious that he meant each scum individually.
Well, I disagree that it is obvious that they referred to a single player but after Meeko’s explanation I now see that as what he meant. Since I don’t see the second option as the obvious read I wondered why everyone didn’t react like I did, with my eyebrows starting to climb down the back of my neck. Since I wasn’t around when the initial post was made I got to see the explanation before I posted but I do wonder about the people who saw it live.

So OK, if you're suspicious of that I'll agree that there's certainly a way to read that as suggestive, but my question is: in what way was it "ignored?" He was questioned at length and voted for it, and multiple people have commented on the possibility of a slip. Yet (despite the fact that you say you noticed it and didn't say anything) you find it "interesting that it was ignored." What did you want to see happen?
Here’s a quick summary of the posts involved that make up not ignoring it.
Meeko posted the interesting bit yesterday morning #244. Afterwards Special Ed was the first to comment on it in #249 asking if it was PIS or common knowledge and answering his own question in #251. No one else commented until Meeko in #268. Chronos comes in with his take in #272. Then Special Ed comes back #274. Meeko replies in #278 & 279 and him and Ed go back and forth until #285 when Mahaloth comes in with a comment which Rysto follows up in #286. OAOW comments about secret scum not knowing each other in #287. Mahaloth answers Rysto’s question in #294. Zeriel comments in #297. Meeko and Mahaloth both comment in #298 & #299 respectively.
So, there were 18 posts discussing it in the 64 posts between when it happened and when I commented. Most of those posts were by Special Ed and Meeko with Mahaloth being in third with 3 posts. I am surprised that no more than 6 people had a comment on it. Now that it’s explained I don’t expect anything to happen and after going through the posts I think the lack of comments was due to timing since Peeker, Story, Jimmy, Freudian, Drain, Tex, Tom, Kelly and Red were the only other people on and having 40% comment on any single issue is actually pretty good.
But so anyway, my main point here is about this "curious why OAOW got so many votes" theme that I've seen a few times now in addition to from Oredigger
Well, considering that of the two votes in place right now OAOW has both of them and has been as high as 3 out of ~8 votes cast. I’d say that’s a good definition of so many votes.

[peekercpa]

and maybe chronos we are going to have to agree to disagree. your conclusion and suppostions are wrong.

i guess the whole point is if we want to play p-k mafia that's cool but it is just not where i am at. so no blood no foul. if you want to lynch my ass for playing more nuanced than in your face, then that is your perogative.

and i am sorry if you can't be arsed to play the game. but look at the title of the video. if that is not clear enough followed with confirming posts then i really can't help you much. so i didn't claim late, i claimed early. so yeh, this is weak cheese. but it's what i would expect from scum or non thinking townie on this board. either way, it helps town.

i mean did no one else catch it? if there is not one person that didn't catch it then i will totally retract. but if even one other person caught it then chronos is full of crud and that is where my vote will go.

let's see if anyone else agrees with you chronos that my claim could not be inferred.

[peekercpa]

sorry, od. i thought it kind of interesting but certainly not indicative one way or the other. the fact you picked up on it means somewhat less since we all saw it. the fact that you caught a ration of crud for seeing it and commenting on it a little more. sorry, my friend, i am kind of embroiled in my own little imbraglio currently.

[Zeriel]

i guess the whole point is if we want to play p-k mafia that's cool but it is just not where i am at. so no blood no foul. if you want to lynch my ass for playing more nuanced than in your face, then that is your perogative.

"Nuanced" does not mean "obtuse" or "ambiguous".

and i am sorry if you can't be arsed to play the game.

"i am sorry" that you can't be arsed to make your damn thoughts clear with a minimum of clowning around.

let's see if anyone else agrees with you chronos that my claim could not be inferred.

It was sufficiently ambiguous that it might well have been a joke coming from you. You are not known for your straightforwardness.

You referred to Cookies plowing through pages of evidence to win a game early on. That's fine and good--when there IS evidence. We as town are trying to get you to be straightforward and direct so that we CAN effectively evaluate you and play the game. When you screw around with games and gambits 100% of the time you cannot be trusted to be anything but an (anti-town) distraction.

[special ed]

Yesterday at 10:26pm, Special Ed wrote:and good game, pede. We really stunk it up as Scum. Either that or the masons could read our minds.



It was all peek. Fucking genius that he is fcs!

First I muffed the paul accusation . Then I went after fluid , and pushed peek to do so as well .

Peek pretty much called out all the scum.


yeh, i am anti town

Just one word, Peek:

Colorless

[peekercpa]

Just one word, Peek:

Colorless

two words.

fuck you.

seriously, ed and anyone else, was it pretty durn clear what i was after the video link and subsequent follow up? and since we have kind of determined that it don't mean jack what up? shoot it's Day one and i kind of figured let's loosen the crowd up. i mean if someone gets impacted over it then shoot, not my prob.

[Mahaloth]

Yeesh, people. Peeker is going to be obtuse, frustrating, and annoying. It's why we love him so.

Just deal with it at this point and move on to looking for scum motivations. If you think his behavior is anti-town, then vote for him. Don't poke him. It only makes him more frustrating.

[Freudian Slit]

peeker, WTF? I don't think it was "durn clear" to ANYONE since so many of us have come up with different explanations.

[sachertorte]

Peeker.
I think you were kidding, and hopefully ed thinks you were kidding, but knock it off.

[peekercpa]

Peeker.
I think you were kidding, and hopefully ed thinks you were kidding, but knock it off.

huh?

seriously, if every time that ed and i suggested that we perform some sort of sexual act on ourselves was an actual rl feeling we would be self confirmed hermaphroditical auto erotical types of beings.

but whatever.

peace ed?

[TexCat]

Seems like more than a few people agree with me that peeker's claim was not clear. peeker seems to be saying that he intended it to be unclear, so that we would have to work for it or just cause he thinks it makes a better game to be obtuse?

As soon as I voted, Red Skeez and Tom Scud voted for me. It seems like the thing that draws the most suspicion in this town is voting. When OaOW voted, he immediately drew a bunch of votes. And when I voted, the same thing.

[peekercpa]

just to make it clear for those that can't put it together. i am the green one with a real big ass black hat.

and it is maggie, but not as in thatcher.

even though some from the other side of the pond might ascribe said role to her.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=17238988

[special ed]

seriously, ed and anyone else, was it pretty durn clear what i was after the video link and subsequent follow up? and since we have kind of determined that it don't mean jack what up? shoot it's Day one and i kind of figured let's loosen the crowd up. i mean if someone gets impacted over it then shoot, not my prob.

Peeker, honestly, it wasn't clear after the video. I usually skip links in posts, and even though I looked at that one, I thought you were just making some odd kind of joke that I didn't understand.

[special ed]

Peeker.
I think you were kidding, and hopefully ed thinks you were kidding, but knock it off.

Yes, I felt like he was kidding and took no offense.

[peekercpa]

ok. then my bad. i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and win with the town.

i am unclear how i can be more direct. i've got some pms from our mod that are not real uber helpful but will gladly post if that helps the rest of you folks understand that i am the wicked witch of the west. btw, i am a witch and win with the town.

so yeh, ed i was kidding when i said fuck you. it was not personal.

i was merely trying to convey that i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and win with the town.

so apologies to all for any offense given. remember i am merely the wicked witch of the west. and if it is at all helpful, i am a witch and win with the town.

signed.

wicked witch of the west. yep, i am the witch that wins with the town.

[GuiriEnEspaña]

Sorry for my lack of participation in the last couple of days - rl issues.

Re: Peeker and transparency: Peeker was the second player to claim and, at that time, there was no standard claim format established. I don't see his attempt at subtlety or his continued reluctance to share his PM as helping scum.

Re: Meeko and scum knowing who the other scum are: I wonder if scum only knew each other's character name and not each other's username. This could support Meeko's concern that the name claim was scum driven (to avoid accidentally lynching a fellow-scum Day1) but does not explain the general acceptance of Rysto's suggestion.

Re: random roles/characters. Always interested in analyzing the color, I find it curious that the two French characters were contemporaries and one of them (Guy de Maupassant) hated the other's (Gustave Eiffel) most famous work. Should I be worried about Special Ed? Or just a coincidence?

[peekercpa]

Seems like more than a few people agree with me that peeker's claim was not clear. peeker seems to be saying that he intended it to be unclear, so that we would have to work for it or just cause he thinks it makes a better game to be obtuse?

As soon as I voted, Red Skeez and Tom Scud voted for me. It seems like the thing that draws the most suspicion in this town is voting. When OaOW voted, he immediately drew a bunch of votes. And when I voted, the same thing.

nope, never said it was intended to be unclear. said it was to force folks to think and not be fed pablum to make their decisions. please don't mis characterize posts. or do so, but at your own peril.

woot woot.

got another live one.

vote texcat

this post has been endorsed by the committee to support posts made by the wicked witch of the west. a witch that is town aligned.

i am peek and i support the preceding announcement.

[Drain Bead]

I’m kind of curious why OAOW got so many votes for picking up on the spelling error but Meeko dropped what appeared to be PIS and got a pass. Personally I read his original post about the scum knowing all about each other and I thought it was a slip. Of course it's been explained now but I think it's interesting that it was ignored.

And I think it's interesting how many people assumed it was a slip. Honestly, has anyone here ever played in a game (especially one that purports to be "newbie friendly") where the Scum didn't know who one another were when the game started? That's all that Meeko was saying--that the Scum got the names of the other Scum in their role PM. I suppose it's not a 100% certainty, but it's as close to certain info as any random Town player is going to have at the start of the Day. I can see how maybe, MAYBE, you can misinterpret his second statement to construe that the Scum know what one another's roles are, but I think it's more likely that the plural construction was used to avoid the awkward "he or she" sort of thing. And even then, I think in a lot of cases the Scum DO know what one another's roles are at first--I am pretty sure that the only game I've ever played in where I was Scum and didn't know what roles the other Scum had until Night 1 was Colorless. So all in all, I don't think Meeko was doing anything wrong there.

Not to mention our discussions over the last few games that people who call other people out on supposed PIS slips are more frequently Scum (e.g. Rysto in Cecil Pond). I think I'm comfortable at this point voting for you, and if the last few games are any example, I'll quickly pick up a few votes for this and end up having been right about it the whole time.

vote Oredigger

what part of the first do you not get?

gd, are you channelling drain?

:confused:

[Mahaloth]

Honestly, has anyone here ever played in a game (especially one that purports to be "newbie friendly") where the Scum didn't know who one another were when the game started?

I stated that I have already.

Ped hosted the Crimson Glyph game where I was scum and we had no idea who were our partners. We waited for us to "sign-in" on the scum board during Night Zero or Night One and found each other. I had thought that we were under supplied until we found out that one of us was dropping out.

I think JoeyP and Rysto were scums with me in that game? I don't remember, actually.

Anyway, it makes sense in a game with no Night Zero and restricted scum communication for them to know, but we can't know for sure.

Anyway, moving on(again).

[NAF1138]

I stated that I have already.

Ped hosted the Crimson Glyph game where I was scum and we had no idea who were our partners. We waited for us to "sign-in" on the scum board during Night Zero or Night One and found each other. I had thought that we were under supplied until we found out that one of us was dropping out.

I think JoeyP and Rysto were scums with me in that game? I don't remember, actually.

Anyway, it makes sense in a game with no Night Zero and restricted scum communication for them to know, but we can't know for sure.

Anyway, moving on(again).

Just to add in, because I can, I think the first three games that I ran didn't tell scum who their buddies were in their PM. Of course I never waited until Night 1 to tell them, that would be silly and borderline bastardy, but I did play in at least one game (maybe two) where a member of the scum team intentionally went into Night One without checking in to the scum boards so he couldn't find out who his team mates were.

Does any of this mean anything? No. But I feel like I haven't had a reason to post in a while and that makes me sad. Also, I sort of agree with DB. I don't think that the vote on Ore is as strong a vote as my current vote though.

[Meeko]

Wow.

Apparently, I pick the worst nights to go out and do stuff.

Let me catch up gang.

OOG :: I put in a few hours on my new job today. more information there, when I get it. If anyone cares.

[Meeko]

Just one word, Peek:

Colorless

Mother Flipping

T H I S


I was gonna multi quote a few things, but this takes the cake on all of them. I will have more to say in a separate post here in a second. But let me set all of that aside.

Peeker: Believe it or not, I do not have a "confuse town" switch. I come as is. That is my problem. I own that. It is mine. It causes me and drives me to look for better ways to play. I know I will get there one day.




Yours is not mine.



I made a similar statement about the "Church of Peeker" back in Colorless, I believe [These games are starting to blend together.] At the time I made that statement, I had a good idea of how things worked. I wanted to believe that we were similar, but not identical. I wanted to believe I would be better off from separating from the "double e" cult.


Peeker. I think I am living proof that one can re-invent themselves in Mafia.

[Pond started off great for me, and here I am to re-invnent yet again. -- After I told Chronos and Pede BOTH that would probably never play Mafia ever again.]


Turn off your confuse town switch. It has gotten old, real fast. Your additional seasonings, or what ever you use to "spice" up your post, is not needed.

I would try for better words here Peeker, but I know you know what I mean.

You indirectly insult me.
You indirectly insult other people with ADHD like me. (There are different types of ADHD.)

You make it a hinderance to play with.

You ask for people not to lie in Mafia, and if that would happen, the game would be over in one day.



Did you ever consider that your additional additions to your "peeker" style of play lies for you?


Peeker, I now believe that you add confusion into an otherwise streamlined and "good" style of play.

It does nothing for you.
It probably is not doing what you want it to do.
Insanity is the act of doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.

I could be wrong here.

But, If I am not, I am asking you,

Please stop "enhancing" your game.

It's not working.

[peekercpa]

don't really have jack to add but i am going to love this new posting mechanism.

thanks freud this is like major cool.

the previous message was brought to you be the wicked witch of the west. a witch and town aligned.

i am peek and is support the previous message.

this is so fucking cool.

[peekercpa]

neta: "is support". wtf up wit dat.

this correction is funded by a grant from the folks to support the wicked witch of the west. a witch that is town aligned.

i am peek and i support the previous message. except for the typos, of course. gd, college kids they have a lot of enthusiasm but not much in the way of proof reading.

[peekercpa]

meeko take a hit and chill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1St7sRFEEE

this message is brought to you by the wicked witch of the west. a witch that is town aligned.

[Meeko]

Here is my second post that I said was coming.


Posts are snipped, and I am watching 24. All of that to say, this might get confusing and or disconnected.

Bear with me, it's not like I'm Peeker.

As always, I encourage questions, and I intend to be as clear as I can be, first time out.


A lot of seemingly Random quotes follow. I intend to address a few things and put them all in one place for convenience.

Take any or all as you need it, but don't take them all at once. Prolonged exposure to Meeko has caused nervous twitches facial tics in laboratory animals.


As for Meeko's alleged "slip", he's had a tendency in other games to take things as certain which were merely likely, and the Scum starting the game knowing who each other are is in fact likely. Heck, just look at this game right here: Meeko is similarly certain, on less evidence, that NAF is a power role, even though there's no plausible way he could have perfect information on that, yet. Net result is, coming from Meeko, I think this is a null tell.


Chronos 1. I do have such a tendency. It would suck if none of us could take anything from past games and snowball them into a better mafia player. Then again, that would explain my frustrations with thinking that I was getting better.
Chronos 1b. If we can't take certain parts of Mafia "as certain" how do we expect to get better in our play?

Chronos 2: I am glad you can use my current play as an example. I would like to think that NAF is a power role and is protection. Period. On top of that, it would be nice to have a Protection role from an arguably "fitting" role name. I am not voting NAF based on that assumption. It could change later. But, it is still day 1, and its better than par for the course in terms of day 1 rationales.

Chronos 3: I will take "All Meeko Tells are Null Tells" as a compliment. At least for now. If I could have phrased my "I have room for benefit of the doubt" post that I made earlier, I would probably have included "null tell". It is always when someone else uses the right words, that I can, in hindsight go :smack: :smack: :smack: That's what I should have said.


I'm curious about something else I've noticed.

First, though, I really don't think, read in context, that Meeko said anything that would belie his subsequent explanations. Here's what he said:


Wow. I am really glad I don't play scrabble with you guys.

:smack: Yes, "belie subsequent explanations" would have been a better phrase. Again, I :smack: in hindsight. But at least the outline mechanic is working. More on that when I get to it.


Meeko: I like the outline format - it makes your posts much easier to follow.


And it looks as if I am already here.

Tom Scud 1: It is a bit more work for me, but I think it works. If nothing else, it has an ""Address"" to refer back to things I say. Not saying that we should all play this way, but, given how I am at my baseline, and how I am with ambigious language, I think I need it. I doubt that Peeker would agree to such a straightjacket.

Tom Scud 2: That being said, this is the first game I am trying it out in. I can't really explain how I came across the idea. But again, I wasn't all too sure about how I came across my opening plays of Pond.

Tom Scud 2b: All of that to say, treat Meeko Outlines as being currently in Beta.

Tom Scub 2c: There are certain instances where an outline fits, and other instances where it doesn't. I don't see how I could outline an one "thought" answer to a single question. It's gonna be touch and go on the outlines, but I think it works [and thanks to Jim Chit and "belie"] it is working.

I think Scum will use it to hang me on minor and minorer things now, but I think it helps Town more. Hopefully I will always play in games with better town players than Scum players. Each player can only work [play in / offer ideas / out forth effort] so much in a mafia game. I think I am near my current max, until I can get more ""handles" or perspectives on Mafia.

Town will need to meet me half way on my outlines. I can't think for you guys.

Well, I disagree that it is obvious that they referred to a single player but after Meeko’s explanation I now see that as what he meant.


I hope I understand Digger here. I take this an endorsement towards my outlines?

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-

We now interupt this program to bring you some Peeker Bashing.


and i am sorry if you can't be arsed to play the game. but look at the title of the video. if that is not clear enough followed with confirming posts then i really can't help you much.

Peeker, we can be arsed to play the game.

Can you?

oh yeah, and posting a Video isn't playing the game.

I check in on the game from time to time on my Ipod Touch. I know other people play mobile as well. [IIRC, one player had issues with his blackberry in one of the more recent games.]


Re: Meeko and scum knowing who the other scum are: I wonder if scum only knew each other's character name and not each other's username. This could support Meeko's concern that the name claim was scum driven (to avoid accidentally lynching a fellow-scum Day1) but does not explain the general acceptance of Rysto's suggestion.

Re: random roles/characters. Always interested in analyzing the color, I find it curious that the two French characters were contemporaries and one of them (Guy de Maupassant) hated the other's (Gustave Eiffel) most famous work. Should I be worried about Special Ed? Or just a coincidence?

Guiri 1 : Yeah, I'm not trying to play two games here. That is, I'm not Scum trying to play Town. However, I just felt that claiming netted nothing for town. Full Stop. I don't think I made the points you are referring to after that. Some of which include :

I agree that the claim could have been scum driven. Didn't think about scum wanting to avoid a ""Scum mislynch"". Good point, and I agree in principle.

I just wonder why you bring it up. Innocnet town addition to another townie's work? Or PIS?

Guiri 2: I won't hold your "Random roles/ characters" paragraph against you, don't hold mine [NAF] against me.

But, at a certain point in time, we need to understand what ""Random"" means for our game.

That will be as easy as nailing Jello to a tree.


nope, never said it was intended to be unclear. said it was to force folks to think and not be fed pablum to make their decisions. please don't mis characterize posts. or do so, but at your own peril.

i am peek and i support the preceding announcement.

Peeker, there are ways, and then there are ways to get a point across. Try more of one way, and less of your default.

Words in Mafia are cheap. "Actions" count.

If we mischaracterize you, you do own part of it, if you knowingly chose ambigious words and / or add on to a "Standard" post with embelishments that do nothing to the case you are building. We do not need things to be sugar coated.

Youtube videos, or what ever it is you linked to would be a 5 pound bag of sugar.

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

Sorry if that took forever. But it all needed to be said.

At least you guys have the luxury of skimming it. I had to actually write it all.

Again, ask questions.

And I'm gonna risk not previewing this entire monstrosity. Not like you guys read it anyway.

If we have issues with this post, bring them up, and I will account for them then. I need to cut down on my post counts.

RSVP on understanding my post, Regrets only.

[TexCat]

Red is asking peek to clarify his claim...
[...]@Peek, maybe I'm being obtuse, but are you claiming that the name of your role in this game is wicked witch of the west? You keep alluding that that is the case, but not actually saying a definite yes or no.
peeker replies...
oh for goodness' sakes. yes i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and i win with the town.

when you folks go out with a date do you sit around and talk and stuff. "darn you look nice." "that is so interesting." "i love kittens, as well."

or do you just come out with "wanna fuck"?

subtlety is apparantly lost on this generation.
Red quotes the above reply, and then says...
When making claims I feel it is better to lock people into a position, and close the door on "It was just a joke", "Did you miss the subtext", that kind of thing.

And FTR, I've had better luck with the second than the first, so maybe subtlety along with chivalry is a lost art.

I vote peeker:
vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

and now Red, who has clearly been distracted by peeker, immediately responds with a vote:
@Texcat: How is peeker not disclosing his parenthetical scummy? Or in other words, What is the scum motivation for doing so? I don't see it, nor do I see what the point the point of creating a distraction centered around himself would be for scum. What I do see is someone latching onto a recent discussion topic (peeker's allusive claim) and trying to turn it into a legitimate vote.

vote Texcat

Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. Clearly, peeker has been a distraction. Red doesn't seem to find anything scummy in the distraction. I'm not so sure. But why does Red think that my vote is worthy of a vote? I thought my vote was not a horrible day 1 vote. Is this some kind of scummy OMGUS? I voted Red's scum partner and so Red voted me? At the risk of picking up 3 more votes because I am voting...
unvote: peeker
vote: Red Skeez

[special ed]

Here is my second post that I said was coming.

Meeko, I think this post was great.

You addressed several issues. You stayed on topic. You avoided confusing analogies.

This is a good example of how you contribute to helping us understand you.



One small comment I have is this:


As always, I encourage questions, and I intend to be as clear as I can be, first time out.

Too often when people ask you questions, you take a defensive stance. You pout and complain about being baited.

If you approach the questions asked of you in the same fashion as you approach people asking other people questions, then I think you'll find it much easier to get your point across

[special ed]

a few comments on the peeker issue/kerfluffle/debacle:

I've played 1 game with peeker as Scum (Smash Bros I). In that game , he made it a point to mention that he likes sowing confusion. Granted, I did a better job of that than he did.

I recall a game after that (NSFW) where I outed peeker as Scum because he was particularly not confusing.

I've never been a Mason with peeker, though I've now read a thread where he was. He didn't want to be confusing, I think, but, wow, his mason claim in the game thread was about as unclear as possible.


My conclusion: Peeker is often confusing. I think it makes it difficult to understand him. I think it causes unnecessary distractions. I think the confusion probably benefits Scum in the long run, but I don't think it's easy to reach a conclusion on his alignment one way or another from that.

[peekercpa]

Mother Flipping

T H I S


I was gonna multi quote a few things, but this takes the cake on all of them. I will have more to say in a separate post here in a second. But let me set all of that aside.

Peeker: Believe it or not, I do not have a "confuse town" switch. I come as is. That is my problem. I own that. It is mine. It causes me and drives me to look for better ways to play. I know I will get there one day.




Yours is not mine.



I made a similar statement about the "Church of Peeker" back in Colorless, I believe [These games are starting to blend together.] At the time I made that statement, I had a good idea of how things worked. I wanted to believe that we were similar, but not identical. I wanted to believe I would be better off from separating from the "double e" cult.


Peeker. I think I am living proof that one can re-invent themselves in Mafia.

[Pond started off great for me, and here I am to re-invnent yet again. -- After I told Chronos and Pede BOTH that would probably never play Mafia ever again.]


Turn off your confuse town switch. It has gotten old, real fast. Your additional seasonings, or what ever you use to "spice" up your post, is not needed.

I would try for better words here Peeker, but I know you know what I mean.

You indirectly insult me.
You indirectly insult other people with ADHD like me. (There are different types of ADHD.)

You make it a hinderance to play with.

You ask for people not to lie in Mafia, and if that would happen, the game would be over in one day.



Did you ever consider that your additional additions to your "peeker" style of play lies for you?


Peeker, I now believe that you add confusion into an otherwise streamlined and "good" style of play.

It does nothing for you.
It probably is not doing what you want it to do.
Insanity is the act of doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.

I could be wrong here.

But, If I am not, I am asking you,

Please stop "enhancing" your game.

It's not working.

Red is asking peek to clarify his claim...

peeker replies...

Red quotes the above reply, and then says...


I vote peeker:


and now Red, who has clearly been distracted by peeker, immediately responds with a vote:


Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. Clearly, peeker has been a distraction. Red doesn't seem to find anything scummy in the distraction. I'm not so sure. But why does Red think that my vote is worthy of a vote? I thought my vote was not a horrible day 1 vote. Is this some kind of scummy OMGUS? I voted Red's scum partner and so Red voted me? At the risk of picking up 3 more votes because I am voting...
unvote: peeker
vote: Red Skeez

yaknow this is metagame as all heck but ....

i am gonna give skeez a wee bit of lattitude at this point. feel free to jump on my ass as conditions warrant. we just got through smoking scum as masons. so he get's about a twelve hour window (sorry dude that's the way it works). i mean shit even ed was going to give me fifteen minutes.

and meek if you think i am picking on you, i am not. but i can't change the way you feel.

and i really don't get why on this board my playstyle is deemed to be anti town. i made the comment on idle's board and i will make it again. too many folks want orderly nonsense to be the play of the day. that's what scum want. predictability that can be manipulated. it's why i said what i said about power rolls (cloverleaf preferrably). town have gotten too accustomed to letting shit come to them as opposed to let's take it to the scum, fgs.

my two cents, and the soapbox is back in play.

[Chronos]

OK, back home with my notes. It's funny, just the act of taking the notes helps me pay better attention to the game.

A few points: First, a few pages back, from Freudian, post 270 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12249599&postcount=270):Anyway, maybe the religious posts are doctor types. I'm wondering what fictional means. I know I wasn't given any special duties or other roles in my PM... That looks to me like a vanilla claim, and Freudian is a good enough player that she should know better than to claim a role, even just vanilla, without reason. Care to explain?

Moving on: I'm currently voting for someone for making a weak vote. But then peeker goes and votes TexCat (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254274&postcount=346), apparently for trying to make sense of his gibberish (which it looks to me like he's saying we should all be doing), saying that in doing so TexCat mischaracterized him. Well, peeker, when you make yourself hard to understand, it's inevitable that some folks will understand you incorrectly. Nor is it just a matter that that's just the way he is: He's proven in previous games that he is able to write coherently; he just apparently chooses for some reason not to. Given that all Wanderers did was cast a weak vote, but that peeker has both cast a weak vote and is adding considerably to the noise in the thread, I think the latter is a better lynch right now.

Unvote Wanderers
Vote peeker

Moving yet further along, I'm also suspicious of Guiri. He says (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254260&postcount=345) that peeker was the second to claim, but the earliest point at which peeker could be said to have claimed was post 174 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244767&postcount=174), by which time special ed (140), Freudian Slit (154), Tom Scud (155), Oredigger (156), NAF (157), Red Skeezix (159), TexCat (160), Chronos (161), Mahaloth (162), Drain Bead (166), and Meeko (168) had all claimed. I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would defend peeker on this point, so I'm also suspicious of Guiri.

[special ed]

and i really don't get why on this board my playstyle is deemed to be anti town. i made the comment on idle's board and i will make it again. too many folks want orderly nonsense to be the play of the day. that's what scum want. predictability that can be manipulated. it's why i said what i said about power rolls (cloverleaf preferrably). town have gotten too accustomed to letting shit come to them as opposed to let's take it to the scum, fgs.


I don't think many people are complaining about your style of play.

It's your style of communicating.

If you're going to claim something, do you think it benefits the Town if it take pages of discussion to get everyone to understand what you've claimed? Do you think it benefits Town if not everyone understands what you're telling us?

Remember when you claimed Mason in the previous game. I understood you. I dare say most other players didn't understand you at the time. And I was Scum, so the Scum knew you were claiming mason, and many in the Town didn't.

The same is true in this game. Granted the name claims appear to be completely unimportant, but it still helps Town if you make it easier for us to understand you.

[peekercpa]

unbelievable cross post.

i'll give you everything you say except, that i win regardless of alignment. either scum or not i really do have a plan.

unless ......... i get taken out early.

and i assume you know that you were the one sucker that we were scared of.

[special ed]

Here's what some people consider "peeker's claim"

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

To me, it was a you tube clip from the Wizard of Oz in defense of his vote for storyteller.

No where did peeker say it was his role.

It did occur after only I had claimed.

Then, in post 164, he post a picture of Elizabeth Berkley.

then, finally, after the 11th claim comes this:

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

yeh, i claimed early because i am scum (not) and chose the wicked witch of the west. that sure instills a lot of town confidence i am sure. so yep claim order and a buck gets you coffee at mickey d's.

and crud z are you really that obtuse?


two guys are in an eleveator.

one guy turns to the other and says: "ok, who farted?"

get it.


It looks a little more suspicious when place in context. The first reference to the wicked witch really does not appear to be a claim at all.

Was peeker hesitant to claim since it looked like an 'evil' character?

[Freudian Slit]

Chronos, my bad. It pretty much is a vanilla claim. I guess I just figured that since this game is so cryptic, we might as well be up front. Plus, I figured it's not like I was giving away special info I did have--like giving a away a power role would be bad.

I also think that voting for TexCat for voting for peeker is weird. He genuinely is the most scummy person but then again he's ALWAYS the most scummy person. Not to be totally meta, but

vote red skeeviz

[peekercpa]

OK, back home with my notes. It's funny, just the act of taking the notes helps me pay better attention to the game.

A few points: First, a few pages back, from Freudian, post 270 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12249599&postcount=270):That looks to me like a vanilla claim, and Freudian is a good enough player that she should know better than to claim a role, even just vanilla, without reason. Care to explain?

Moving on: I'm currently voting for someone for making a weak vote. But then peeker goes and votes TexCat (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254274&postcount=346), apparently for trying to make sense of his gibberish (which it looks to me like he's saying we should all be doing), saying that in doing so TexCat mischaracterized him. Well, peeker, when you make yourself hard to understand, it's inevitable that some folks will understand you incorrectly. Nor is it just a matter that that's just the way he is: He's proven in previous games that he is able to write coherently; he just apparently chooses for some reason not to. Given that all Wanderers did was cast a weak vote, but that peeker has both cast a weak vote and is adding considerably to the noise in the thread, I think the latter is a better lynch right now.

Unvote Wanderers
Vote peeker

Moving yet further along, I'm also suspicious of Guiri. He says (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254260&postcount=345) that peeker was the second to claim, but the earliest point at which peeker could be said to have claimed was post 174 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244767&postcount=174), by which time special ed (140), Freudian Slit (154), Tom Scud (155), Oredigger (156), NAF (157), Red Skeezix (159), TexCat (160), Chronos (161), Mahaloth (162), Drain Bead (166), and Meeko (168) had all claimed. I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would defend peeker on this point, so I'm also suspicious of Guiri.

uh, dude 152.

that number seems to be less than the others that you reference. so are you confused or just making stuff up. or are you just kind of fabricating stuff to justify a vote?

serious question. are you just concluding something because you are wrong or are you just trying to manufacture a reason for a vote? the first is kind of maybe weakly justifiable in a crappy non town way, the second is kind of like scummy.

[special ed]

Chronos, my bad. It pretty much is a vanilla claim. I guess I just figured that since this game is so cryptic, we might as well be up front. Plus, I figured it's not like I was giving away special info I did have--like giving a away a power role would be bad.

I also think that voting for TexCat for voting for peeker is weird. He genuinely is the most scummy person but then again he's ALWAYS the most scummy person. Not to be totally meta, but

vote red skeeviz


yipee!!*

An unprovoked Day 1 Vanilla claim!!!

*This comment was intended to be sarcastic


on a completely different point: um...you give a basically neutral comment on TexCat's vote and then vote for red....um..without a reason???

[special ed]

on a completely different point: um...you give a basically neutral comment on TexCat's vote and then vote for red....um..without a reason???

oh, Freudian, never mind. You mean Skeezix's vote for Texcat was bad, and so you voted for him.

that's weak, but OK.

[peekercpa]

neta: oh that's right you don't pay attention to people's posts when reading the thread.

forgot about that data point.

[special ed]

unbelievable cross post.

i'll give you everything you say except, that i win regardless of alignment. either scum or not i really do have a plan.

unless ......... i get taken out early.

and i assume you know that you were the one sucker that we were scared of.

Who was this post directed at?

and are you claiming 3rd party?

[Freudian Slit]

OK, in my defense, what IS so horrible about an unprovoked vanilla claim? Is it that it makes it slightly easier to find out what the power roles are, or what?

[special ed]

OK, in my defense, what IS so horrible about an unprovoked vanilla claim? Is it that it makes it slightly easier to find out what the power roles are, or what?

yes. It's doubleplusungood

Unless it's a clever ruse to hide your power role from the Scum. In which case you have to claim to have lied when you reveal yourself.

And, of course, Vanilla is the easiest Scum fake claim.

[peekercpa]

Who was this post directed at?

and are you claiming 3rd party?

where in the world is that coming from? it was directed you.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

unbelievable cross post.

i'll give you everything you say except, that i win regardless of alignment. either scum or not i really do have a plan.

unless ......... i get taken out early.

and i assume you know that you were the one sucker that we were scared of.

This is all in reference to previous games that I don't know about, is that correct?

I feel like I've said the same thing at the same point in each of the few games I've played in, but damn if it doesn't feel like town is just doing a lot of shooting itself right in the bung.

[peekercpa]

shoot i was just making an observation that when i make it to end game my team wins a lot. of course, that is also a kind of stupid thing to say because if you are still around at end game then, duh, your team is still in it.

[special ed]

where in the world is that coming from? it was directed you.

Here's what you said.

I have no idea what the cross post was.

I've underlined the part that appear to be a 3rd party claim, unless you are referencing something you aren't referencing in your post.


unbelievable cross post.

i'll give you everything you say except, that i win regardless of alignment. either scum or not i really do have a plan.

unless ......... i get taken out early.

and i assume you know that you were the one sucker that we were scared of.

[Freudian Slit]

Okay. I mean, I get that it was bad--I just wanted to be as transparent about my role/character/whatever claim as possible in the interest of exposing as much info. I get that it was probably a bad idea to go that far, though.

unbelievable cross post.

i'll give you everything you say except, that i win regardless of alignment. either scum or not i really do have a plan.

unless ......... i get taken out early.

and i assume you know that you were the one sucker that we were scared of.

So are you saying you're a third party or...what?

[peekercpa]

as ed has a stroke in the corner there is still much foosball to be played.

[Chronos]

uh, dude 152.

that number seems to be less than the others that you reference. so are you confused or just making stuff up. or are you just kind of fabricating stuff to justify a vote?
First of all, 152 was a post by special ed, so I'll assume you mean 153. Yes, I did see that post, but there's no claim in it. At most, you could say that there's a breadcrumb of a claim in it. But even as a breadcrumb, it's still useless, since it's completely indistinguishable from any other piece of random peeker noise.

[peekercpa]

First of all, 152 was a post by special ed, so I'll assume you mean 153. Yes, I did see that post, but there's no claim in it. At most, you could say that there's a breadcrumb of a claim in it. But even as a breadcrumb, it's still useless, since it's completely indistinguishable from any other piece of random peeker noise.

AAAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE.

i swear to god i would go to hell's end for you folks if needed. but right now you are in danger of being written out of the will.

AAAAAAIIIIIIIEEEEEE

[peekercpa]

neta: yeh, reply 152. fuck you found it. so you know what i was talking about.

freaking don quixote.

[peekercpa]

Okay. I mean, I get that it was bad--I just wanted to be as transparent about my role/character/whatever claim as possible in the interest of exposing as much info. I get that it was probably a bad idea to go that far, though.



So are you saying you're a third party or...what?

you and ed should get a room.

[Meeko]

I would love to see a *real* Peeker breadcrumb.

As in, a breadcrumb that someone picked up from Peeker, in a game that he was a Dick.

:D Er uh. Ok, you know what I mean.

Doubt it could happen.

---

You gotta wonder How I would breadcrumb, if I were a Cop.

---

I ask that you guys ask questions so that I can explain my self better. We all seem to jump to conclusions, before enough questions have been asked. That is all I meant.

Hopefully, the outlines will work.

[Meeko]

Let's Water the Witch.

Unvote (Not sure if I had one)


Vote Peeker.

Pure and strict policy vote.

Yes. I said it.

And I said it it terms that Peeker will hopefully understand. If I get more coherent information out of him, then we can begin to talk Unvote.

FTR : Peeker, I Said you indirectly insult me. I would like to think that outside of Mafia we still understand each other.

It's just, even more so in this game, than in recent memory, I think I have lapped you bud.

It's sad. I will get over it, I don't know if you will or not.

[peekercpa]

read your history lambkins.

the game is afoot.

[Red Skeezix]

To address the votes against me:
@Freudian:

You might be misunderstanding my vote for TexCat. TexCat said peeker is being a distraction and that is anti-town at best and pro-scum at worst. I am voting for texcat because the reasoning that she has given seems arbitrary and non-existant. Peeker is scum because he is distracting/confusing, but why is distracting/confusing scummy? I'm just not seeing it.


Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me. Clearly, peeker has been a distraction. Red doesn't seem to find anything scummy in the distraction. I'm not so sure. But why does Red think that my vote is worthy of a vote? I thought my vote was not a horrible day 1 vote. Is this some kind of scummy OMGUS? I voted Red's scum partner and so Red voted me? At the risk of picking up 3 more votes because I am voting...


It's not a contradiction. I was unsure what peek was trying to say, so I asked him and he answered, pretty directly. Something which you have not deigned to do with regards to my questions. Also, you saying that I voted for you because you voted for peeker is more than a little disingenuous. I voted for you for the reasons that you gave with your vote, which I stated when I voted for you. If you don't understand them, I'll clarify.

Your vote is worthy of a vote because it does not make sense. How does any player drawing all this attention to himself benefit him or the scum team if he is scum? What's the scum motivation? If you can tell me that, then maybe your vote will make more sense to me and I'll consider rescinding mine and reconsider your points, but at this time I just don't see it.

[storyteller0910]

Must re-read from beginning. Have thoughts. Thoughts are disorganized. Will return presently.

[Oredigger77]

And I think it's interesting how many people assumed it was a slip. Honestly, has anyone here ever played in a game (especially one that purports to be "newbie friendly") where the Scum didn't know who one another were when the game started? That's all that Meeko was saying--that the Scum got the names of the other Scum in their role PM. I suppose it's not a 100% certainty, but it's as close to certain info as any random Town player is going to have at the start of the Day. I can see how maybe, MAYBE, you can misinterpret his second statement to construe that the Scum know what one another's roles are, but I think it's more likely that the plural construction was used to avoid the awkward "he or she" sort of thing. And even then, I think in a lot of cases the Scum DO know what one another's roles are at first--I am pretty sure that the only game I've ever played in where I was Scum and didn't know what roles the other Scum had until Night 1 was Colorless. So all in all, I don't think Meeko was doing anything wrong there.
Again I think this is a matter of opinion I read Meeko’s post as saying that the scum knew everything about all of their teammates. I haven’t played a game as scum where this was true, admittedly a sample of 1, and there have been other people who have mentioned exceptions. Meeko has explained that he meant that the scum know who their teammates are and possibly knew the role names going in. I think this is likely. All of this was done before I even comment but I wanted to get my thought process down.

I do like your thoughts on PIS though
Not to mention our discussions over the last few games that people who call other people out on supposed PIS slips are more frequently Scum (e.g. Rysto in Cecil Pond). I think I'm comfortable at this point voting for you, and if the last few games are any example, I'll quickly pick up a few votes for this and end up having been right about it the whole time.
Of course that might be because they are kind of familiar.
Of course one thing that came out of the last game was that the people calling out PIS slips tend to be scum and in the Last game Rysto was almost caught that way so it might be worth looking at Special Ed overcalling out a PIS slip, even though if I’d been online I would have as well.

I’m curious since you seem to be voting for me for calling Meeko on his PIS, which I guess you could read my statements that way, why you didn’t look at the person who actually called it PIS?

[sachertorte]

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (2): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (1): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (1): NAF1138 313

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, TexCat 356

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (2): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364

[TexCat]

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, TexCat 356

uh...I am not suicidal; I am NOT voting for myself. ;)

[Tom Scud]

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, TexCat 356


That can't be right. There was a third vote, from peeker, but I'm not sure which post number.

In other news, I have a lot of writing to do today; I'll try to catch up after work.

[sachertorte]

I was wondering about that. I had TexCat 346 and changed it because I saw TexCat's unvote in 356 ( thought I typed a 4 instead of a 5), but it was Peeker's vote in 346 that I had flipped.



storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (2): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (1): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (1): NAF1138 313

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, peekercpa 346

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (2): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364

[peekercpa]

and skeez scum would never do that.

my prob with tex is the same prob that i have with a lot of folks. what is anti town in stirring the pot? what is anti town in suggesting that folks think? what is anti town about getting in folks grills to see what they are really made of and where they are coming from? what is anti town (game?) in making this an entertaining excercise?

see there are folks that approach this from different angles. nook and billmc are low posters but meh. i and meeko and ed post more. i am not going to get a whole bunch of befuddled because of their inherent nature.

so i just don't get the whole angle of the way i or others play is in an of itself "scummy". annoyance is a null tell.

so does it annoy me that certain folks don't play the way i would, sure. but does that in and of itself predicate a vote - nope.

i will, however, reserve the right to lynch lurkers (which totally irks me), vote story as a policy vote and by default vote ed when nothing else comes to light.

[peekercpa]

Must re-read from beginning. Have thoughts. Thoughts are disorganized. Will return presently.

don't make me sis you.

[Meeko]

OOG, but with Relevance to the game::

My Mom called me up earlier this morning. She took half a day to go to the doctor, and wanted to know if I had time to meet. We ended up going to breakfast. Very spontaneous meeting, spur of the moment.

My Mom is a preschool teacher.
My Mom has Asthma.

Two crucial facts for the actual conversation we had in the car.

This is the exact conversation she had :

"So one of the effects of the Nebulizer is that it causes this is orange paint that I got on my pants at work."

I look at her, and I asked "Can you go back to the side effects of your nebulizer?"

Apparently, she didn't even catch that she sidetracked.

I then tell her that for this game of Mafia, I told the game about our families use of "" New Paragraph "" . I then told her that I would have to use this conversation as an example.

She agreed.


So. All of that to say, ADHD doesn't run in my family, it gallops.

[Red Skeezix]

and skeez scum would never do that.


That's not what I said. I said roughly, "doing that does not make one scum". IMO, Scum would do anything. Just because you did it does not mean that you are not scum.

[special ed]

my prob with tex is the same prob that i have with a lot of folks. what is anti town in stirring the pot? what is anti town in suggesting that folks think? what is anti town about getting in folks grills to see what they are really made of and where they are coming from? what is anti town (game?) in making this an entertaining excercise?

You weren't stirring the pot.
You weren't suggesting that folks think.
You weren't getting in folks grills to see what they are made of and where they are coming from.
I'll concede that you may have been trying to make this an entertaining exercise.


You were being obtuse, indirect, and confusing.


Now, maybe this is "your style" but history suggests that your style earns you a great deal of heat. I feel it should, because as others have stated, your style is anti-Town at best.

I feel this game is entertaining enough when Town plays it straightforward. Sure, there are ways we could make it a more intellectually challenging. For example, we could all post in anagrams. And while that might make the game more interesting for people who like anagrams, I feel it would take away from the actual game of Mafia. I must assume that most of us play because the game itself is entertaining. You should understand from the reactions you get that most people would prefer if you played the game straightforward and didn't play little games within the game. While that style might make the game more fun for you, it might not be as enjoyable for others.

[peekercpa]

You weren't stirring the pot.
You weren't suggesting that folks think.
You weren't getting in folks grills to see what they are made of and where they are coming from.
I'll concede that you may have been trying to make this an entertaining exercise.


You were being obtuse, indirect, and confusing.


Now, maybe this is "your style" but history suggests that your style earns you a great deal of heat. I feel it should, because as others have stated, your style is anti-Town at best.

I feel this game is entertaining enough when Town plays it straightforward. Sure, there are ways we could make it a more intellectually challenging. For example, we could all post in anagrams. And while that might make the game more interesting for people who like anagrams, I feel it would take away from the actual game of Mafia. I must assume that most of us play because the game itself is entertaining. You should understand from the reactions you get that most people would prefer if you played the game straightforward and didn't play little games within the game. While that style might make the game more fun for you, it might not be as enjoyable for others.

how the crud does making people think equate to anti-town?

and seriously, ed, playing the game within the game is the game.

think of poker. i don't know what you have and you don't know what i have. if the cards were all face up what challenge or fun would that be? my goal as town is to try and eliminate threats. if we merely parot "i am town, trust me" then i am unsure how that goal is achieved.

ok.

i will try to post in monosylables from here on out. i would assume that you support this position.

this mess age is en dor sed by the friends of the wick ed witch of the west. a witch that is town al ign ed.

i am peek and i sup port the pre ce ding mess age.

[Meeko]

and skeez scum would never do that.

my prob with tex is the same prob that i have with a lot of folks. what is anti town in stirring the pot? what is anti town in suggesting that folks think? what is anti town about getting in folks grills to see what they are really made of and where they are coming from? what is anti town (game?) in making this an entertaining excercise?

see there are folks that approach this from different angles. nook and billmc are low posters but meh. i and meeko and ed post more. i am not going to get a whole bunch of befuddled because of their inherent nature.

so i just don't get the whole angle of the way i or others play is in an of itself "scummy". annoyance is a null tell.

so does it annoy me that certain folks don't play the way i would, sure. but does that in and of itself predicate a vote - nope.

i will, however, reserve the right to lynch lurkers (which totally irks me), vote story as a policy vote and by default vote ed when nothing else comes to light.

This is gonna be long. Peeker, I like you man. I really do. Perhaps it is because I feel I understand you better, that I still have the patience to type this out for you.


1. I thought "Scum would never do that" was like the old me. I thought it was, In a lyric, Dead and gone, Dead and gone.

2."Stirring the pot" is anti-town because the pot does not need to be stirred. Points are hard to come by as is. When you have a face to face conversation with someone, the words only make up 7% of the overall message you are sending. If that is true, Imagine online text with out emoticons.

2b. Therefore, a message, as such is confusing to begin with. Additional stirring is not needed, and becomes detrimental at a certain point. That certain point is fading out of sight in your rear view mirror. -- That is, everything at this point is detrimental.

3."Getting in your grill" comes to me as over aggressive. Again, not needed. Town on Town happens, sure, but that is going to happen with ANY population of town players. Hence, additional grill getting, on purpose, is not needed, it is beyond excess.

3b. I wanted to make this point earlier. I am mostly "As is". I don't spend a lot of time looking at how I can confuse the game. I might add in a joke, or a pinch of flavor (see my point number 1, from this outline.) But, I don't over do it. If you can't detect a balance, I suggest you err on the side of not adding anything.

3c. I feel we are at odds here Peeker, if only because I know you can control yours better. I know I don't have that level of control. -- I don't choose to flip the switch on. That switch for me is lost in some recess of my mind. I can not, as of yet, find it. Unfortunately, it is left in the on Position. You know exactly where your switch is, and you turn it on. This switch is bad for town. Please turn it off.

4. I am all for having players think. However, they may not think as you do. [Frankly, I know you guys don't think as I do. Calling a spade a spade, I would be understood a LOT better, if we could think in simlar ways. No offense meant.]

4b. This assertaion kinda puts you on top. Peeks. You assume your methods are better. They are different.

4c. Obligatory comment "Perhaps you are the one that needs to "think" rather than getting other players to "think". Playing a Good town game requires co-operation during the day. You have to be willing to give up certain points, methods, and perspectives.

4d. Again, making these outlines sucks for me. But, I will give up posting in any other format, as I Think this works for me.

4e. Your mileage may vary, but I suggest you look at all your options here Peeker. Change would not mean total abandonment of your perspectives. Despite my apparent 180 on you Peeker, I still like you. I know we both approach the game from outside the box. Keep that. Just throttle it better. We both are hot and cold on picking up leads.

But when we are Hot, we become one of the better tools town has in a given game.

4f. All of that to say, work on being less "cold" in games. This will in turn make your "hot" feel all that more "hot".

4g. Sending a youtube video is freezing cold.

We have had enough entertainment to last us a few games Peeks. Thanks.

5.Annoyance is a null tell. It's null period. If it is collected in this game (and if something is said in a game, it is "collected") it becomes dead weight.

5a.The moment it becomes dead weight, it is no longer your "Style of play".

5aii.If only because it flat out just doesn't ""play"". It doesn't achieve what you want it to, if it achieves anything at all.

5b.Dead weight does nothing to help the game. It hurts the game, because it becomes the excrement of the game we all have to wade through to find actual
points.

6. We all want people to play their best game. I would like you to play your best game.

6b. I am still waiting for that game to happen.

7. I can't argue with lynch the lurker. It may not be the best reason for a vote, but it is the default, and it does have its place in games.

--

Back on playing the game:

My vote on you remains until I see something happen.

[peekercpa]

ok, meeko here is my deal.

first, i don't get the ahd comments. shoot if i said or posted something that offended you then i am tuly sorry.

second, i like stirring the pot. scum need orchestration i will not willingly give that up.

[peekercpa]

neta: crud went out early

[One And Only Wanderers]

OK I'm lost. Re-read required.

[Chronos]

Both Red Skeezix and peeker himself seem confused (or at least, purport to be confused) about what's Scummy about peeker's behavior. What he's doing is having the same effect as the random Wiki-quoting special ed did in a previous game, that got some mention earlier. It's cluttering up the thread and blocking actual game-related discussion. It's getting us to think, sure, but it's not getting us to think about the game, it's getting us to think "what the heck is peeker talking about" instead. Now, this strategy was only viable for special ed once he was already confirmed Scum, because he's known to be a sane, sensible player, but peeker could well be trying it anyway, hoping to skate on a defense of "Oh, that's just peeker, that's the way he always plays".

Well, I for one am not going to let him get away with that. His playstyle is anti-Town, and despite what many people say, anti-town is precisely the same thing as pro-Scum. "But he always plays this way" is not a defense; it just means that he should always get voted for it.

[NAF1138]

Peek's playstyle is absolutely anti town right now. It isn't always, and if we are going to allow metagame arguments in then that should give us pause when thinking about if we should vote for peek right now or not.

For me, I can't get behind the peeker lynch right now for the same reason I could never get behind an early lynch of Meeko when he was going his anti town shtick. There are other fish to shoot at that will net us more information than peeker. What do we learn if we lynch Peek today? If you can honestly tell me that you think a lynch of Peek will gain us any information about the people lynching him and won't just make the game a little easier for you to read, then I will support the lynch. Right now I don't see it.

I am still happy with my vote and would like someone else to take a look at the events surrounding the name claim, because right now I think that's where the best Day 1 information is living.

[One And Only Wanderers]

I agree with NAF.

peek's playstyle makes it harder for me to follow a game, but that doesn't mean no value is added. Just finished a game on Idle's board where peek nailed the scum hard, irritiating playstyle present all the way.

[storyteller0910]

Peek's playstyle is absolutely anti town right now. It isn't always, and if we are going to allow metagame arguments in then that should give us pause when thinking about if we should vote for peek right now or not.

Can you explain what, in your view, peeker is doing differently in this game (relative to any given past game) that makes his playstyle anti-Town in this game but not in others?

[Meeko]

ok, meeko here is my deal.

first, i don't get the ahd comments. shoot if i said or posted something that offended you then i am tuly sorry.

second, i like stirring the pot. scum need orchestration i will not willingly give that up.

That is kinda my point, exactly Peeker. You don't get the ADHD comment, and by extension, you don't get me. This is the crux of my recent heat on you.

When I first "met" you, I thought you would be a bridge I could use to understand and enjoy Mafia and Haggle better. I thought that other players would look at me, and know how to interact with me better, because of their experiences with you.

I thought that you were better accepted among our peers. I figured that they had "figured" you out, and that I would be accepted in a similar fashion.

I thought we were the same.

Let's go slow here:

1. I am not offended by you. I truly have no ill feelings on anything.
1b. If anything, I feel slightly better for the entire exchange, as I Think it gives me practice, and let's other players gain insight on how I work.

2. I am offended by your style.
2b. You choose to play in a manner similar to mine. I used to think you had NO control over it. Again, I am working on my control, but I have a HUGE uphill climb

3. We both know that you do have control.

4. The fact that you chose not to control it, kinda puts me off.
4b. It does no good for your play.
4c. It puts me 6 feet under every time someone incorrectly assumes meeko = peeker.

You choose to be confusing in your play. Fine.

What is not so fine, is that your confusion begins to overlap into my earnest play.

Here is one of my "Go To" arguments, I use whenever people don't understand me.:


I hope you understand that I have no control over this. If I did have control over it, don't you think I would chose NOT to do it, given that I have nothing to show for it?

But see, for what ever reason, you totally shatter that argument. For better for worse, we are joined at the hip in Mafia.

What you do, hurts me. This belief is confirmed every time someone lumps us together, either in name, or by a grouped term "double e".

I am working on my game. I get that people want me to play Mafia differently. People do not want "Meeko" to be "Meeko". I mean "Differently" as compared to my past 8 games.

You don't need to work on your game. You have everything you need already.


I don't understand why you are, in a word, masochistic here.

Changing your play immediately helps you. You won't get votes, you won't have to re-explain yourself.

Changing your play helps me. I won't be forced to go three steps forward, two steps back. [The "double e" family needs a divorce.]

Changing your play helps everyone who plays Mafia. Again, less volume. Less excrement.

That being said, I don't want you to abandon a complete tool in your tool box.

The question is control. The issue is throttling. It is not "give up X Y or Z".

-----


Can someone else please step in here? I am aware that this is doing nothing for this particular game, at this point.

[Meeko]

NETA:

1.Peeker does not need to work on his game.
1b. I believe peeker has a complete set of Mafia playing tools.
1bii. I do not have a complete set of Mafia playing tools. I am working to find a complete set.

2.He does need to use different tools.
2b.Tools he has.

3. Thus Peeker does not need to ""Work"" on his game, in the sense that I need to.

4. A change of pace, with other tools are needed by Peeker, though.

[NAF1138]

Can you explain what, in your view, peeker is doing differently in this game (relative to any given past game) that makes his playstyle anti-Town in this game but not in others?

It seems to me that peeks is trying harder to piss people off this game than he has in the past. He seems to be actively pushing buttons that he has, at least the last time I played with him, tried not to push before. I don't necessarily think that means anything this time around, every game has its own dynamic, but it does seem to me that peek is almost trying to live up to his reputation rather than just being himself this game.

It has been a little while since I have played in a serious game with him though, so I don't know if he has been trending this way anyway or not.

Either way I think he isn't a great lynch today.

[Meeko]

WAG:

Peeker has just come off a win where ""Peeker"" won the game. Perhaps he is looking for a continuation bet.

Peeker, Change Gears. This is not the same game over there.

[special ed]

think of poker. i don't know what you have and you don't know what i have. if the cards were all face up what challenge or fun would that be? my goal as town is to try and eliminate threats. if we merely parot "i am town, trust me" then i am unsure how that goal is achieved.

Think of poker, peeker, and imagine that instead of telling you how much I was betting, I described it using differential calculus. It would make the game more interesting, wouldn't it? It would be more difficult to understand.

and, I maintain, it would detract from the game of poker.

Being unclear detracts from the game of Mafia. It may be enjoyable for you to play 'try to understand peeker' but that's not the game I signed up to play.

[peekercpa]

otay, thanks for the input.

what would you have me do, my puppeteers?

continue to engage or merely remain mime like on the sideline?

because i will always endorse more participation than less. but if instead of a minumum level of participation we are to mandate a maximum level of participation then i can certainly agree to that collective directive. not that i think it makes the game better but if that is the choice then i will certainly comply.

[special ed]

otay, thanks for the input.

what would you have me do, my puppeteers?

continue to engage or merely remain mime like on the sideline?

because i will always endorse more participation than less. but if instead of a minumum level of participation we are to mandate a maximum level of participation then i can certainly agree to that collective directive. not that i think it makes the game better but if that is the choice then i will certainly comply.

you're changing the argument.

No one was complaining about the amount of your participation, but the style of your participation.

We want you to be direct.

See, when you posted the wicked witch you tube clip, you didn't say...."This is my role..." you didn't in any way indicate you were claiming.

You posted it in response to Zeriel voting you for voting for storyteller.


And you think the rest of us should have understood that you were claiming.


That's not clear. and you're fully capable of putting together sentences. I'm nmot even asking you to capitalize. Just be clear.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Here's the main problem. Whatever peeker thinks about the way he plays, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the more shit he catches for playing that way, the more town gets fucked out of playing the game.

By now, peeker should be on notice that at least very many of the people he is playing with are annoyed at his opacity. If he wants to get lynched for it, that's going to be on him. He's not stupid. In the meantime there's been precious little discussion of anything that seems at all likely to give us information down the road, and that, to me, is the greater danger than letting peeker play his game for a while. If we lynch peeker, we won't learn basically anything about anybody else; it's null tells all the way down.

If peeker continues playing the same way, we'll never learn anything from him either, and that will at some point, one imagines, be a dealbreaker. The way we're headed now, though, we're looking at not learning anything from anyone because we aren't talking about anything else.

I just did a reread and, much to my dismay, didn't find anything to comment on that I hadn't already commented on, other than the above. Hence this post.

[peekercpa]

Think of poker, peeker, and imagine that instead of telling you how much I was betting, I described it using differential calculus. It would make the game more interesting, wouldn't it? It would be more difficult to understand.

and, I maintain, it would detract from the game of poker.

Being unclear detracts from the game of Mafia. It may be enjoyable for you to play 'try to understand peeker' but that's not the game I signed up to play.

ok. i'll say this once again. if my attempt at subtlety was inferred to be confusing and anti - town then i throw myself on the altar or all that is mafia to be judged.

i am the wicked witch of the west. i am a witch and win with the town.

here's the doggone pm, fcs.

and sorry ed it's the non known that makes poker a fun game to play. matter of fact i win just as many hands with crud as i do with made hands. that's what kind of makes it interesting. 8 3 off suit can be just as powerful as pocket rockets played correctly.

You are The Wicked Witch of the West (Witch). You are Fictional. You win with the Town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wic...ch_of_the_West

sheesh.

[peekercpa]

and ed you want me to be direct.

tex is pulling the same shit that drain and sis tried to pull off with you on idle's board. that is some serious weak cheese and he is either a lazy townie or a scum.

is that direct enough?

[storyteller0910]

I just re-read the whole thing, too. I focused very carefully on peeker's contributions. I have a problem with peeker, in that I don't find him even remotely obscure or opaque, and almost never do. He writes in an unusual pattern and he's fond of figurative language, analogies, and references, but his thought process is usually pretty clear to me. Nonetheless, he is getting heat today, as usual, for his supposed opacity. Just immediately above, Jimmy says this:

By now, peeker should be on notice that at least very many of the people he is playing with are annoyed at his opacity. If he wants to get lynched for it, that's going to be on him. He's not stupid. In the meantime there's been precious little discussion of anything that seems at all likely to give us information down the road, and that, to me, is the greater danger than letting peeker play his game for a while. If we lynch peeker, we won't learn basically anything about anybody else; it's null tells all the way down.

Stuff like this; is this reasonable? That was the point of my re-read, and I have come to the following conclusion:

No, it is not.

As far as I can tell, the SINGLE weird, confusing thing that peek has done in this game was claim Wicked Witch of the West by way of a youtube clip (153 - 7:21PM on 3/19). And even this wasn't all THAT confusing, given the context. At 199, [b]Tom Scud notes: "peeker claimed Wicked Witch of the West." So evidently Tom got it. peeker responded directly to Tom and did not challenge Tom's interpretation, tacitly acknowleding it as correct.

Chronos gets annoyed at 209, saying that Peek wasn't clear at the time. But clearly, by 209 (barely 50 posts after the initial clip is posted, and less than 24 real-life hours), Chronos now understands Peek's intentions.

A couple of people push peek for a more distinct and direct claim. Texcat, in particular, says this:

I count 4 fictional. I assume the wicked witch of the west is fictional, but I am still not sure that is really peeker's claim, nor what the description in parentheses after it would be.

OK. At 303, peeker claims unambiguously, and directly.

So the entire substance of this incredible distraction that is peeker is that for a period of about 150 posts, peeker had made a name claim that was slightly less direct than everyone else's, but still direct enough that at least some players understood it completely within minutes and most others within a few clarifying posts. Since then, peeker himself has been clear, if a bit irreverent, and the distraction related to him has been entirely the result of other people continuing to magnify this one thing that he did into a perceived pattern of behavior.

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

I don't know if it's Scummy, or if it's players bringing previous experiences with peeker into this game and letting those past experiences color their present perception. In either case, I do not agree that he has been a consistent "distraction" or anything resembling consistently anti-Town.

And I am suspicious of the votes against him. I am particularly suspicious of Chronos, at the moment, because my feeling is that Chronos kind of rode peeker and rode him, waiting until the mood was right to vote, even though peeker had done nothing whatsoever new between Chronos' early admonishments and Chronos' actual vote. I think Chronos was cynically pushing peeker's buttons and waiting for the rest of the players to start to catch the lynchin' mood before commiting his own vote. I have a meeting, but I will elaborate on this in more detail either tonight or tomorrow morning.

For now, though:

[b]vote Chronos

[Freudian Slit]

Peeker, what is FCS?

[NAF1138]

FCS = For Christ's Sake

Interesting point Story. Looks like I will have to do a re-read of my own.

[peekercpa]

Peeker, what is FCS?

for christ's sake.

[peekercpa]

bollux

[Jimmy Chitwood]

As far as I can tell, the SINGLE weird, confusing thing that peek has done in this game was claim Wicked Witch of the West by way of a youtube clip (153 - 7:21PM on 3/19). And even this wasn't all THAT confusing, given the context. At 199, Tom Scud notes: "peeker claimed Wicked Witch of the West." So evidently Tom got it. peeker responded directly to Tom and did not challenge Tom's interpretation, tacitly acknowleding it as correct.

I haven't had that much trouble understanding him big picture-wise either, but I don't see why it follows that it's unreasonable to say that since very many people think he's being inscrutable, he should understand that there's a danger there, and we should move on from the point.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's done only one thing that was in any way confusing or required more work than it ought to have, and I think a little unfair to read the requests for clarity as if they were necessarily affected (and again, this from somebody who was saying, at the time, that he had already claimed). I'd suggest that maybe you're underestimating the confusion because you're rereading instead of following it along in real time, so you already know how it turns out in the end. Maybe?

[Chronos]

And I am suspicious of the votes against him. I am particularly suspicious of Chronos, at the moment, because my feeling is that Chronos kind of rode peeker and rode him, waiting until the mood was right to vote, even though peeker had done nothing whatsoever new between Chronos' early admonishments and Chronos' actual vote. I think Chronos was cynically pushing peeker's buttons and waiting for the rest of the players to start to catch the lynchin' mood before commiting his own vote.I voted when I did because in the mean time, peeker had cast what looked to me like an unjustified vote. What he was doing before that was bad, but I'm of the firm belief that actions speak louder than words, so I wasn't willing to vote him before that point. I'm not sure offhand how much time passed between peeker's vote and mine, but that delay (however long it was) was just the time it took me to get back to the thread and get caught up.

NAF, I agree that we want to gain information from a lynch, and if you can come up with a lynch that can give us more information, I'm all ears. But gaining information isn't the be-all, end-all of lynches. If absolutely everyone agrees that one particular person is Scummiest (an investigation from a now-dead detective, for instance), then there's no information at all to be gained from that lynch, but everyone would agree that it's the way to go. OK, that's the extreme case, but let's step it back a bit: Let's say there's someone that a lot of folks but not everyone thinks is the Scummiest. The lynch is relatively uncontroversial because of the scumminess, so there's less information gained, but the lack of information is precisely because that person is Scummy. The only way around that is for people to not vote for who they think is Scummiest-- Is that a good idea?

[peekercpa]

I haven't had that much trouble understanding him big picture-wise either, but I don't see why it follows that it's unreasonable to say that since very many people think he's being inscrutable, he should understand that there's a danger there, and we should move on from the point.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's done only one thing that was in any way confusing or required more work than it ought to have, and I think a little unfair to read the requests for clarity as if they were necessarily affected (and again, this from somebody who was saying, at the time, that he had already claimed). I'd suggest that maybe you're underestimating the confusion because you're rereading instead of following it along in real time, so you already know how it turns out in the end. Maybe?

so hoosier, you kind of get it. are my posts suggesting that texcat is scum really that hard to decipher?

[Mahaloth]

Long day at work, folks. Anyway, let me see where things stand and I'll try to comment more in a bit.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Nope; not at all. The problem from an objective standpoint, though, is that your vote was because Tex mischaracterized your posts. If that's the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.

I'm beginning to see more where story was coming from, though, in that it's very hard to fault you for that when I can see the mischaracterization as well. All in all, it makes for a little bit of a charlie-foxtrot, because people get annoyed and frustrated, and I can understand why they're annoyed and frustrated.

And then if, out of frustration, they make a vote that is also a bit unsound factually, I'm not sure that that is a great indicator of their alignment so much as an indicator of their frustration. Which is why personally, for the sake of my own quality of life, I wish people would stop getting bent out of shape across the board, and that you would stop enjoying their bentness quite so much.

[peekercpa]

Both Red Skeezix and peeker himself seem confused (or at least, purport to be confused) about what's Scummy about peeker's behavior. What he's doing is having the same effect as the random Wiki-quoting special ed did in a previous game, that got some mention earlier. It's cluttering up the thread and blocking actual game-related discussion. It's getting us to think, sure, but it's not getting us to think about the game, it's getting us to think "what the heck is peeker talking about" instead. Now, this strategy was only viable for special ed once he was already confirmed Scum, because he's known to be a sane, sensible player, but peeker could well be trying it anyway, hoping to skate on a defense of "Oh, that's just peeker, that's the way he always plays".

Well, I for one am not going to let him get away with that. His playstyle is anti-Town, and despite what many people say, anti-town is precisely the same thing as pro-Scum. "But he always plays this way" is not a defense; it just means that he should always get voted for it.

ok, so volume (or videos) bother you.

and you know you have created more traffic by not being arsed enough to watch a freaking you tube clip. tell me what the title was? what were the lyrics? how in the heck could you keep this up if you could answer the above?

so yeh, head in the sand, i don't like the way you play, i'll be arsed if i am expected to participate in any way that i can not self define, and darn it anyone that doesn't play my way is anti town and since they are anti town they must be scum based on my self definition so off to hades with them.

this type of closed minded attitude doesn't seem to be real accomodating to game possibilities.

[NAF1138]

NAF, I agree that we want to gain information from a lynch, and if you can come up with a lynch that can give us more information, I'm all ears. But gaining information isn't the be-all, end-all of lynches. If absolutely everyone agrees that one particular person is Scummiest (an investigation from a now-dead detective, for instance), then there's no information at all to be gained from that lynch, but everyone would agree that it's the way to go. OK, that's the extreme case, but let's step it back a bit: Let's say there's someone that a lot of folks but not everyone thinks is the Scummiest. The lynch is relatively uncontroversial because of the scumminess, so there's less information gained, but the lack of information is precisely because that person is Scummy. The only way around that is for people to not vote for who they think is Scummiest-- Is that a good idea?


The difference is you are comparing a lynch of peek on Day 1 to a lynch of a confirmed or near confirmed scum later in the game. They aren't the same thing. I know you feel that anti-town=pro-scum and you and I can debate that in future posts (I am short on time at the moment) but that might be the crux of our difference of opinion right now. Peeks might be a bit anti-town right now, he absolutely spent some time pushing buttons for his own amusement toDay which wasn't really the best choice for a townie, but I don't see there being enough of a percentage in it for me to think he is scum toDay.

If there were no other options on the table, I would maybe be ok with letting the peeker lynch play out for a while and see what happened, but the fact is other stuff HAS happened toDay. I really think that my vote for KellyC has serious merit as a Day 1 lynch, more so since Kelly hasn't gotten any attention for it even after I pointed it out. The conversation about OAOW happened also and I am fairly sure that there were some other conversations going on around the name claim, and now new conversations are cropping up and there is still time left on the Day. So, I don't see how forcing peek's behavior to be the Day 1 showpiece is any more pro-town than peek's own posting. It's a minor posting quirk that is being blown up into something larger. Anti-town? Yes. Horrifically anti-town? No. Not in my eyes.

Ok, I need to do the re read before I get more involved in this Day and I need to take care of some real life stuff before I do that. Later on we can discuss the difference between anti town and pro scum.

[Mahaloth]

I feel like the primary thing I've missed over the last 18 hours or so is more arguing between peeker, Meeko, and everyone else.

:sigh:

I have no idea if peeker or Meeko are scum or town, but I think peeker and Meeko do add value to the game. Actually, I think peeker is one of the better regular players. Now, I used to let him get on my nerves and last game, I even voted for him for his ridiculous early vote, but he brings value to.

Meeko should just post more conciely and with more in depth content. Having said that, he does do better.

Having said that, I don't find either pinging me on Day One at this point. As well, I would not be too surprised to find out a scum is egging either on.

Now, let me look at the vote situation and see what people are thinking and what I think of it.

[peekercpa]

Nope; not at all. The problem from an objective standpoint, though, is that your vote was because Tex mischaracterized your posts. If that's the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.

I'm beginning to see more where story was coming from, though, in that it's very hard to fault you for that when I can see the mischaracterization as well. All in all, it makes for a little bit of a charlie-foxtrot, because people get annoyed and frustrated, and I can understand why they're annoyed and frustrated.

And then if, out of frustration, they make a vote that is also a bit unsound factually, I'm not sure that that is a great indicator of their alignment so much as an indicator of their frustration. Which is why personally, for the sake of my own quality of life, I wish people would stop getting bent out of shape across the board, and that you would stop enjoying their bentness quite so much.

but truth is what truth is.

the fact that they can not, or potentially in this case choose not, to realize it is a different issue.

hey, i don't have a problem with someone voting me because i am me. but at least be honest about it. "i vote for peek because i don't like him". but don't try to manufacture reality to justify that position. i mean that's a lynch liar position. and last i checked that was still kind of a no no.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

In that case

vote p-

[Chronos]

and you know you have created more traffic by not being arsed enough to watch a freaking you tube clip. tell me what the title was? what were the lyrics? how in the heck could you keep this up if you could answer the above?The reason I didn't bother to watch the YouTube video was because watching YouTube videos does nothing for playing the game. Suppose I had watched it? What would have I known that I didn't know before? Absolutely nothing. And since I knew I would learn nothing from watching it, I wouldn't have bothered.

[peekercpa]

The reason I didn't bother to watch the YouTube video was because watching YouTube videos does nothing for playing the game. Suppose I had watched it? What would have I known that I didn't know before? Absolutely nothing. And since I knew I would learn nothing from watching it, I wouldn't have bothered.

kind of like reading someone's post?

the typed word is not the only method of communication in today's world.

[Freudian Slit]

Well, how are we supposed to analyze videos and pictures in the context of mafia? Especially coming from someone like you?

[storyteller0910]

Well, how are we supposed to analyze videos and pictures in the context of mafia? Especially coming from someone like you?

Interestingly, Tom Scud managed this ostensibly impossible feat of interpretation.

There's also the option of just asking for clarification. Which some people did. And which peeker provided. Why are we still talking about this again?

[Freudian Slit]

Peeker provided it after about waffling and posting nonsensically. It's never clear what he says, and it would be a lot easier on all of us, including him, if he stopped posting random crap and acting like we're morons for not getting it.

[Meeko]

Meeko should just post more conciely and with more in depth content. Having said that, he does do better.



Maha? How can I be more coherent or deep that I have been for this game? I have REALLY REALLY longs posts so far.

To quote Yogi Berra, I have "deep depth".

I've spent too much time on Peeker. In this, and in all games I've played with him. Something would have to have a neon sign over it, for me to change votes currently.

I feel played the most by him.

Take from that what you will.

[special ed]

kind of like reading someone's post?

the typed word is not the only method of communication in today's world.

no where did you say the video was your claim.

You prefaced the video as a response to Zeriel's vote on you.

When I watched the video, I thought it was a defense of your vote on storyteller.


Had you said, "Here's my claim" and then posted the video, you would have actually been communicating. As it was, it came across as a random video.

Especially since your next post to the thread was a risque picture of some woman I don't know. Was that supposed to b e another role claim?


There was no context for it. No, that's not entirely true. There was a context to it, but it wasn't about your role, it was about your vote for storyteller. That's where you failed. I can't read your mind and I doubt other people can as well.

[peekercpa]

do your typed words mean more than pictures or videos?

holy crud, most games i play in have a video component to them these days.

if you can't play the game or spend enough time on the game that seems to be more you directed than i directed. ok, i made a different choice on how to announce my name. hey, chronos doesn't want to watch a fucking two minute video. matter of fact after 10 seconds it would have been apparant. but he is too important to pull that level of effort. i guess that confirms him as town and me as scum. apparantly town don't get a movie viewer with their version of windows.

the fact that people want to hold on to that as a reason to vote me is like weak.

[Oredigger77]

I think the whole Peeker thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't find him exceedingly clear but I can normally muddle him out. That said I can't access YouTube from my computer so the link did me no good. I would appreciate it if we kept the links to a minimum or at least only linked to things that I can access if they're game relevant. For the record wiki is OK.

I think Story brings up a good point, not necessarily about Chronos, in that I need to reread the whole Peeker kerfuffle and try to figure out who's driving it since I think that will be out best lynch candidate for Day 1.

I've got my office packed up and while I'll be around for a little while I should be on the road driving home here pretty quickly. I won't have access tomorrow so I won't be back until Thursday morning.

[special ed]

Interestingly, Tom Scud managed this ostensibly impossible feat of interpretation.

There's also the option of just asking for clarification. Which some people did. And which peeker provided. Why are we still talking about this again?

Tom Scud guessed, and guessed correctly.

I'm still talking about it because I still think there's a valid datapoint in there.

Peeker 'claimed' second. Then he clarified 12th, after a few other 'evil' names appeared. That potentially could be the actions of a Scum who wasn't quite sure it was safe to claim a bad name.


I'm also still talking about it because I'm still somewhat hopeful peeker will see the light and attempt to make his posts clearer for those who aren't willing to 'guess' what he meant. I'm hoping he won't try to make his posts ambiguous.

[peekercpa]

Peeker provided it after about waffling and posting nonsensically. It's never clear what he says, and it would be a lot easier on all of us, including him, if he stopped posting random crap and acting like we're morons for not getting it.

what in the world are you on about?

[special ed]

Again, here is peeker's initial 'claim' after only I had claimed:

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

There is one post in between

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

Does anyone else see this as a defense of peeker's vote and not a claim? What is it that indicates it's a claim? Are all youtube links claims?

then 21 posts and 10 claims later:

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

yeh, i claimed early because i am scum (not) and chose the wicked witch of the west. that sure instills a lot of town confidence i am sure. so yep claim order and a buck gets you coffee at mickey d's.

and crud z are you really that obtuse?


two guys are in an eleveator.

one guy turns to the other and says: "ok, who farted?"

get it.

[peekercpa]

sorry guys, thought this name claim thing would be kind of simple.

oh well, it always entertaining where we get wrapped around the axle.

shoot we could have spent the last couple of rl days talking about if and the order.

now we get to talk about a you tube vidoe because folks can't put 2 and 2 together.

fucking priceless.

[peekercpa]

ed just 'cause your rear be stinging from the last game doesn't mean myopia

[special ed]

ed just 'cause your rear be stinging from the last game doesn't mean myopia

This has nothing to do with the last game.

But since you're on line, be honest with me. How was I supposed to understand that your post was a role claim? What is it in the post that indicates it's a role claim? Explain it to me, since I seem to be nearsighted after the last game.

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

[special ed]

and how is this not a role claim then?

i like elizabeth berkley better.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://starz.ru/celebrities/Elizabeth_Berkley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://starz.ru/celebrities/Elizabeth_Berkley.htm&usg=__lFG6h63JCDS2S_MTSx44KpubiT4=&h=600&w=505&sz=91&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=ZfpEdsbmV4yx5M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchristie%2Bberkley%2Bnude%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4ADFA_enUS360US360% 26tbs%3Disch:1

[TexCat]

Nope; not at all. The problem from an objective standpoint, though, is that your vote was because Tex mischaracterized your posts. If that's the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.

I'm beginning to see more where story was coming from, though, in that it's very hard to fault you for that when I can see the mischaracterization as well. All in all, it makes for a little bit of a charlie-foxtrot, because people get annoyed and frustrated, and I can understand why they're annoyed and frustrated.

And then if, out of frustration, they make a vote that is also a bit unsound factually, I'm not sure that that is a great indicator of their alignment so much as an indicator of their frustration. Which is why personally, for the sake of my own quality of life, I wish people would stop getting bent out of shape across the board, and that you would stop enjoying their bentness quite so much.

mischaracterized? I don't think so. How do you think I mischaracterized?

and ed you want me to be direct.

tex is pulling the same shit that drain and sis tried to pull off with you on idle's board. that is some serious weak cheese and he is either a lazy townie or a scum.

is that direct enough?

No that is not direct enough. If you are talking about me, I am a she. And I have no idea about whatever game drain and sis were in. Why do we always have to refer to previous games that a bunch of us did not play in?

I am not pulling any shit. I voted you, and I now I have unvoted you, but am now reconsidering. I am neither a lazy townie nor a scum, and I don't even want to comment about weak cheese.

[Tom Scud]

Ok, it's been a long day at work and my brain hurts; first order of business:

I did not in fact deduce peeker's role claim from his video, but rather from his first clarification. I looked at the video and went :confused: WTF does that have to do with his vote on Story?

[Tom Scud]

I'm still talking about it because I still think there's a valid datapoint in there.

Peeker 'claimed' second. Then he clarified 12th, after a few other 'evil' names appeared. That potentially could be the actions of a Scum who wasn't quite sure it was safe to claim a bad name.


I'm also still talking about it because I'm still somewhat hopeful peeker will see the light and attempt to make his posts clearer for those who aren't willing to 'guess' what he meant. I'm hoping he won't try to make his posts ambiguous.

Thank you, ed, for giving a clear scum motivation for peeker's indirect claim; maybe somebody put this some other way elsewhere but before this all I was seeing was "peeker is confusing and therefore anti-Town".

I don't think you're quite right about there being "a few" other 'evil' names - the only other really evil one is Benedict Arnold, unless I'm overlooking something.

But just to make sure I understand, your proposed peeker-as-scum scenario is that peeker was considering claiming (let's say) either Dorothy or the Wicked Witch, and put up that video; when TexCat came out with her Benedict Arnold claim, he decided wtf and went ahead and claimed Wicked Witch. Is that about right?

[peekercpa]

and how is this not a role claim then?

so you truly see no difference to a response than a stand alone?

just freaking curious.

and sorry tex for some odd reason i always get your gender messed up.

drain and sis were scum off board recently with ed. they tried to pull the weak cheese move of voting me just because i am me. i finally just called their b.s. and they both bit it. voila town cake walk.

but, now that i think about it we probably don't have enough miles together to ascribe that action to you, yet.

and because story is making sense, as usual.

unvote

vote chronos

ed i think you are something. and i am going to make a ginormous leap that it has nothing to do with the red headed stepchild whipping that skeez and i just administered to you but is more game related.

and the fact that story is at all supportive of me makes me go SHIT

[peekercpa]

and ed the fracking video was titled a tribute to the wicked witch of the west.

do you really think i was posting that before you folks got hit with a fish (pat pend by dirx)? shoot the fact that it takes a while for you to get it doesn't mitigate the fact that it was there all along.

do people not read? crap we already have one soul in the grease for pointing out typos. is that truly how we play this game these days?

[special ed]

so you truly see no difference to a response than a stand alone?

but the wicked witch clip was also a response, not a stand alone. A response to zeriel's vote on you.

Again, I ask, where in that post did you indicate that you were claiming?

[peekercpa]

AAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE

the hartley was a response to another claim.

my post was out of the blue and is consistent with everything since then.

AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE.

seriously, this is getting stupid at this point.

seriously, for those folks that call me out for being a little non congruent, you are not hopping on this shit?

[peekercpa]

neta: or berkley or whatever her nice boobs belong to.

[special ed]

peeker, I'll let this go at this point, since it's not enough to base a vote on.

But I'm seriously concerned that either:

A. you cannot see that your initial 'claim' certainly appeared to be a response to Zeriel's vote for you. (And I say this because it was in response to Zeriel's vote, included a quote of Zeriel's post, and the only content from you was the YouTube clip.

or

B. You do see my point, but refuse to admit that your post could in any way be misconstrued or that you failed in being clear in your intent.

[peekercpa]

hey ed i already clarified fot those who could have misconstured by initial post. i've even gone down the mea culpa road.

what more do you want?

[Freudian Slit]

do you really think i was posting that before you folks got hit with a fish (pat pend by dirx)? shoot the fact that it takes a while for you to get it doesn't mitigate the fact that it was there all along.


I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. None.

[special ed]

hey ed i already clarified fot those who could have misconstured by initial post. i've even gone down the mea culpa road.

what more do you want?

I want you to be more clear in the future.

I've seen less mea culpa and more insisting that your post was clear. Like I said, I'm concerned that you actually might think that you were clear and the problem was those of us who were unable to interpret your response to Zeriel as a claim.

[Drain Bead]

Not to mention those of us who post frequently from our phones and can't go clicking on Youtube links willy nilly.

I might have figured out that was a claim had I been able to see it at the time it was posted. But even then, I doubt it.

Ed has a point. peeker, to try to speak in your language, if 10 people tell you that you're drunk, you probably shouldn't drive home, yanno?

[special ed]

Here's two posts from Jimmy Chitwood with a comment and a question



This is all in reference to previous games that I don't know about, is that correct?

I feel like I've said the same thing at the same point in each of the few games I've played in, but damn if it doesn't feel like town is just doing a lot of shooting itself right in the bung.


The above post pings me. I'm not sure if comments like this usually come from Town or from Scum, but Scum are the only ones who would know it's Town on Town for sure.

But, like I said, it's just a ping. I wanted to point it out so I didn't forget.





I'm curious about something else I've noticed.

First, though, I really don't think, read in context, that Meeko said anything that would belie his subsequent explanations. Here's what he said:



If you find him suspicious based on the above, it has to be entirely because of the ambiguity of his use of the plural "they" in the second point. Grammatically speaking he would have had to be talking about multiple people, although following along with the entire post it's fairly obvious that he meant each scum individually. So OK, if you're suspicious of that I'll agree that there's certainly a way to read that as suggestive, but my question is: in what way was it "ignored?" He was questioned at length and voted for it, and multiple people have commented on the possibility of a slip. Yet (despite the fact that you say you noticed it and didn't say anything) you find it "interesting that it was ignored." What did you want to see happen?

But so anyway, my main point here is about this "curious why OAOW got so many votes" theme that I've seen a few times now in addition to from Oredigger:

{Examples of such posts snipped because this silly board doesn't do quotes within quotes.}


I'm on board with anybody who says it wasn't very much of a big deal to begin with, but it's strange to me that so relatively many people express such hyperbolic bemusement about it. "So many votes," "can't believe the heat," "completely dumbfounded," and all that. Kind of strange considering that one vote was for pointing out the typo, one was for a perceived attempt to fish out information about Chronos' claim, and one was Meeko's vote when he found out that he had also posted a typo but that had been ignored in favor of going after NAF for a typo. So one vote was actually cast for that specific reason (and three total), yet four people are bewildered by the outrage at Wanderers for merely pointing out a typo.

I'm not sure I'm entirely clear about this. What is your point about this situation? Was it just the difference in how people didn't ignore OAOW but did ignore Meeko? Even though the accusation against OAOW was factually accurate while the questioning of Meeko was based on a misinterpretation?

I'm sorry about the post, I do wish the board included quotes within quote, but you should be able to get to the original post with the little blue arrow.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

OK. There were two points there. Or there were supposed to be, at any rate. So the two halves of that post weren't supposed to fit together into any larger theme. They were:

One: I think Oredigger was wrong when he said Meeko made a slip, and wrong that it was ignored.

Two: I think it is interesting that there has been so much commentary to the effect that "Wow, I can't believe so many people are voting for Wanderers just for pointing out a spelling error," when in fact only one person really did that.

And looking at it again, it still does bug me. Just for everyone else's sake the post by Oredigger that triggered each of those two responses was:

I’m kind of curious why OAOW got so many votes for picking up on the spelling error but Meeko dropped what appeared to be PIS and got a pass.

and I still don't see how any of that holds up. OAOW didn't get so many votes for pointing out a spelling error, and Meeko does not appear to have dropped any PIS, and in any event, didn't get a pass. I suppose, in a word, the objection seemed manufactured.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

mischaracterized? I don't think so. How do you think I mischaracterized?

As I said, I have a lot of trouble finding you at fault for it, but peeker wanted to know if his posts were clear about why he thought you were scummy. And he thought you were scummy because you said he was too cagey about his role and parenthetical, which he felt was a misrepresentation because he had come out and said "I am the wicked witch of the west." I was just saying, yeah, I can see that.

Wasn't intended as a smudge, and I'm not holding it against you personally because

If that's the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.

[peekercpa]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here. None.

my bad. it was a reference to another game.

and i didn't really say anything. it was more like typed out. so please be clear, i don't have a mechanism to say (which implies vocalization that would entail sound) but merely typing which really only makes sound at my keyboard. please be clearer in the future. don't want to confuse anyone dontyaknow.

[Meeko]

I suppose, in a word, the objection seemed manufactured.

Snipped.

Jimmy, who are you saying is manufacturing objections here?

Does that person ping and or cause you to FOS and or Vote theM

[Jimmy Chitwood]

I meant Oredigger's objection -- the one in the part of his post that I quoted. But no, no vote; just a thing I noticed. Oredigger's response was good enough for me as far as my immediate attention.

[Chronos]

Quoth Tom Scud:
But just to make sure I understand, your proposed peeker-as-scum scenario is that peeker was considering claiming (let's say) either Dorothy or the Wicked Witch, and put up that video; when TexCat came out with her Benedict Arnold claim, he decided wtf and went ahead and claimed Wicked Witch. Is that about right? I'm not special ed, but the way I see it is something like this:

Scum peeker really did get the role Wicked Witch of the West, fictional
Having not talked with any other Scum yet, he doesn't know if all of the Scum are evil characters, or possibly if they're all fictional. So he doesn't want to claim Wicked Witch.
But he also doesn't want to make a false role claim, if he can avoid it. For all he knows, there's a power role out there who can determine what someone's character name is, or something.
And he also wants to try to get credibility from claiming early.

So, he digs up that YouTube video, and posts it. After other folks have claimed someone "evil" (Benedict Arnold) and someone fictional (Patrocles et al), he decides it's safe to finally claim, and points to that video as evidence. If things had fallen out differently, he would have instead just took the risk and made up a name, and ignored the video post.

And I think I said something of this sort already, though not in as great of detail.


Oh, by the way, my participation might be a bit low for a while. This game and Diablo II (which just got a new patch) are currently competing for my free time.

[GuiriEnEspaña]

I'm not special ed, but the way I see it is something like this:

Scum peeker really did get the role Wicked Witch of the West, fictional
Having not talked with any other Scum yet, he doesn't know if all of the Scum are evil characters, or possibly if they're all fictional. So he doesn't want to claim Wicked Witch.
But he also doesn't want to make a false role claim, if he can avoid it. For all he knows, there's a power role out there who can determine what someone's character name is, or something.
And he also wants to try to get credibility from claiming early.

So, he digs up that YouTube video, and posts it. After other folks have claimed someone "evil" (Benedict Arnold) and someone fictional (Patrocles et al), he decides it's safe to finally claim, and points to that video as evidence. If things had fallen out differently, he would have instead just took the risk and made up a name, and ignored the video post.
/snipped

@ Chronos, this makes sense and is actually quite plausible. The alternative could be that he attempted to subtlely breadcrumb his character in #153, got no response, and so in #174 clarified that he had claimed earlier. This is the reading I got when I first read through the events of the day and it wouldn't be the first time Peeker tried to communicate through youtube (he used a Spongebob video in Screamers to infer that he'd been blocked). I didn't see this action as particularly anti-town or pro-scum based on my interpretation of the events but I can see your interpretation too.

As an aside, while looking for the Spongebob video reference in Screamers though, I came across another video directed at me:
for our spanish friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0-um0pHTAg
(Another video from the Wizard of Oz). Now this makes me wonder if his post #153 really just was a response to Zeriel and has nothing to do with his character in this game.

[sachertorte]

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (2): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (1): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (1): NAF1138 313

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, TexCat 356

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (2): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364

Chronos (2): storyteller0910 416, peekercpa 450

[Tom Scud]

TexCat (3): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, TexCat 356


TexCat did not vote for herself

[Meeko]

I meant Oredigger's objection -- the one in the part of his post that I quoted. But no, no vote; just a thing I noticed. Oredigger's response was good enough for me as far as my immediate attention.

1.Ok I just found it a bit confusing. Thanks for clarifying.

2.I'm not sure if I should vote Digger for it.
2b.I won't.

3.I had no PIS. I guess the only way to prove this is on death confirm.
3b.Don't want my death to be premature
3c.So I won't throw a vote around this. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Gonna drop the outline for a second :

As always, I come up with better words later.

One and Only's vote on NAF::

I just figured out why I hated that vote. We play mafia to single out a player based on their actions, and interactions with other players. In effect, Mafia only "works" when a scum player shows us that he or she is worthy [if you will] of a vote.

The vote on NAF was not based on anything he did. There was no action or interaction that NAF did, that proved him worthy of the vote.

Because of that, there can be no defense.

And the kicker: As was pointed out with my claim, the "reason" to vote NAF was duplicated on to mine. I don't think it a good vote at all, when you can transfer a vote, 100%, between two different players.

Let me put it another way:

If there is no reason to vote NAF over Meeko, OR if there is no reason to vote Meeko over NAF, you should not be voting for either*.

[Obviously, you can expand this example, names were used for the convenience, as was seen earlier in this game.]

*I would bet that Scum have demonstrated a counter to this rationale in one game. Not sure if I was present in that game. I would still think it would prove to be the exception, not the rule.

Outline back on:

5.This isn't my first Rodeo. Let me address a few things because of that.
5b.Yes, unfortunately you guys are going to still think me to be scum
5c.I really can't help that, if you still think that. I won't try. Definition of insanity.

6. I'm not liking my vote on Peeker currently.
6b.Day ends Thursday evening, correct?
6c.Still have time for alternatives. Could still go with Peeker.

7.Would be lying if I said One and Only was not on my radar for Revote.

[sachertorte]

TexCat did not vote for herself

Yes. Yes she did! :smack:

[sachertorte]

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (2): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (1): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (1): NAF1138 313

TexCat (2): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, peekercpa 346 450

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (2): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364

Chronos (2): storyteller0910 416, peekercpa 450

[Freudian Slit]

When are we ending Day? Tomorrow at two?

[sachertorte]

When are we ending Day? Tomorrow at two?

Okay.

[peekercpa]

Quoth Tom Scud:I'm not special ed, but the way I see it is something like this:

Scum peeker really did get the role Wicked Witch of the West, fictional
Having not talked with any other Scum yet, he doesn't know if all of the Scum are evil characters, or possibly if they're all fictional. So he doesn't want to claim Wicked Witch.
But he also doesn't want to make a false role claim, if he can avoid it. For all he knows, there's a power role out there who can determine what someone's character name is, or something.
And he also wants to try to get credibility from claiming early.

So, he digs up that YouTube video, and posts it. After other folks have claimed someone "evil" (Benedict Arnold) and someone fictional (Patrocles et al), he decides it's safe to finally claim, and points to that video as evidence. If things had fallen out differently, he would have instead just took the risk and made up a name, and ignored the video post.

And I think I said something of this sort already, though not in as great of detail.


Oh, by the way, my participation might be a bit low for a while. This game and Diablo II (which just got a new patch) are currently competing for my free time.

see this is why.

chronos is scum or misguided townie. if you do lynch my rear, when i flip town a couple of positive things can happen. first, chronos is scum and a one for one is a town gain, yippee. secondly, and maybe this has actually the best long term benefit for this and future games. he is town and he and others realize that their approach to the game is, if not flawed, at least not the only way to play and that by pigeon holing certain folks for the way the play is really really counter productive.

i, early on, always wanted to lynch coca cola and bill because of the way they played. tg, i grew out of that because they, imho, are as contributory as the rest of the gang - unless bill's been drinking and then he gets a little prickly.

so i am actually pretty durn cool with the whole situation.

i like to be right but will always defer to educational opportunities.

[Tom Scud]

And a quick post before I start actually working: the vote receivers so far:

peekercpa (2): Chronos 360, Meeko 383

Chronos voting because he thinks peeker is a distraction, because peeker made what Chronos sees as an unsupported vote of TexCat, and because peeker could have been trying to get the benefits of both an early and a late claim.

Meeko for "policy reasons" related to peeker's unclear communication.

Thanks to ed's exposition I can kind of understand Chronos' reasoning about peeker's scum motivation - it still seems like a stretch to me. I have no idea if peeker is scum or town but I haven't seen anything that looks scummy (as opposed to anti-town) to me in his behavior thus far. I don't like Meeko's policy vote.

One And Only Wanderers (1): Jimmy Chitwood 184

For fishing for extra information from Chronos after Chronos had already given his name and profession. Also, for the typo vote.

This is a look-and-feel thing, and I don't really have the time to go back and reread, but I don't get much of a scum feel from OneAndOnly thus far.

KellyCriterion (1): NAF1138 313

For voting NAF for a typo and then promptly unvoting.

Since this vote, Kelly has not reappeared. I mentioned in the spoiled thread for Cecil Pond that I was going to keep an eye on low-participation noobs (and near-noobs); this case deserves some attention but, well, see next vote recipient.

TexCat (2): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328

Skeezix for voting peeker without explaining his scum motivation for creating a huge distraction. Tom Scud for voting peeker for obfuscating at a point when peeker had just posted his clearest post of the day (at 303); I also expressed suspicion that TexCat was trying to start a wagon on a controversial player.

I'm still comfortable with this vote; unless peeker is scum, there's a clear scum motive in stirring the pot around him, and TexCat's vote certainly had that effect. Before the vote peeker's somewhat obscure/obfuscated claim was one topic among many; afterwards it takes up most of the next 3 pages.

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

For pushing on Meeko's supposed PIS. (Or rather, for wondering why other people weren't pushing on it).

I dislike the sort of passive-aggressive way Digger phrased the original query that drew Drain's ire (and to a lesser extent, Jimmy's). If you want to express suspicion of someone, express suspicion, don't wonder out loud why other people aren't. Doesn't rise to the level of a vote for me, though.

Red Skeezix (2): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364

TexCat because she thinks creating a distraction is in and of itself enough of a scum motivation & thus she thinks Red's vote was undersupported; Freudian because she thinks peeker was acting scummy and thus TexCat's vote was justifiable & voting for her for an unjustified vote is scummy.

Obviously this rides on my analysis of TexCat's vote; I don't think Red's vote was scummy because I think TexCat's vote was scummy because I don't think peeker was scummy (as opposed to distracting/anti-Town). Thus I don't really buy either rationale, though I could see how either one of them could be honest about their own reasons.

Chronos (2): storyteller0910 416, peekercpa 450

story for riding peeker hard and then voting on him when the Town's mood seemed opportune; peeker for basically OMGUS reasons.

I'll have to reread some time when I'm not rushed, but from memories of rereads past, Chronos didn't stick out much as riding peeker; special ed and (in his own way) Meeko both stand out more in my mind, and to be honest the person most responsible for riding peeker over the past 150 posts is peeker and his "in the good old days people used to THINK about Mafia. Wake up, sheeple!" schtick.

In summary, I'm comfortable with my vote where it is.

[Tom Scud]

Also, I was hoping MHaye would manage to make his usual summing-everything-up-from-on-high appearance a bit earlier than the last day of the Day, but I guess that's not going to happen.

[Freudian Slit]

So, he digs up that YouTube video, and posts it. After other folks have claimed someone "evil" (Benedict Arnold) and someone fictional (Patrocles et al), he decides it's safe to finally claim, and points to that video as evidence. If things had fallen out differently, he would have instead just took the risk and made up a name, and ignored the video post.

And I think I said something of this sort already, though not in as great of detail.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It also explains why he was so vague. And the Elizabeth Berkeley photo--if he got the sense that other scum was NOT posting their real IDs, he could play coy and act like it was just a game, he was just playing around--see, he posted a pic of the chick in Showgirls. Why are you taking this so seriously? But since there were other "evil" roles, he could be all, "Yeah, that's my role, wtf? How is that not obvious! fsalkfjsaf!"

So. unvote red

vote peeker

see this is why.

chronos is scum or misguided townie. if you do lynch my rear, when i flip town a couple of positive things can happen. first, chronos is scum and a one for one is a town gain, yippee. secondly, and maybe this has actually the best long term benefit for this and future games. he is town and he and others realize that their approach to the game is, if not flawed, at least not the only way to play and that by pigeon holing certain folks for the way the play is really really counter productive.


You can't really say that someone is scum every time they vote for you, dude. It smacks of OMGUS. Anyway, why is it that he's flawed, and yet the fact that you get votes all the time on day one doesn't mean that you as a player are flawed?

[Meeko]

Here is the thing.

I half want to vote Peeker just to shut his smug rear end up.

After that, he wont be able to pull any of this stuff ever again.

We can't get to that point, untill we lynch him.

That's probably not how you play Mafia. But, for First day vote, I will throw it in with the rest of my reasons to vote him.

[peekercpa]

only on this board and with this group of players.

what is the goal of this game? my understanding is that it is to win. until i started playing again on this board i was running at about a 70 percent success rate (100 percent in the games that i last to the end). so i guess flawed would be open to interpretation. depending on your definition of "flawed.

yaknow if certain folks can't be arsed enough to review all of the information that is available then i really don't have a response.

seriously, the attitude that "this post is too long and therefore i won't read it" or "omg there is a video link" or "crap his/her spelling is atrocious and am therefore ignoring" is not real helpful. just my two cents, of course.

hey look, i am just trying to state my case. if you want to lynch me i won't pull the "fuck you, i am taking my ball and going home". i just think that the folks that want to lynch me because of some sort of innane, good natured attempt at claiming has created a whole shitstorm.

seriously, when i flip town those are the folks that will have egg on their face. and like i said earlier either whoopee we got some scum or even better we get some folks that will learn from their mistakes and choose to play a little better game.

[MHaye]

Also, I was hoping MHaye would manage to make his usual summing-everything-up-from-on-high appearance a bit earlier than the last day of the Day, but I guess that's not going to happen.No. No, it's not.

Midway through yesterday evening, I was wondering whether I wanted to continue playing or ask to be subbed out. That's how much the argument of the Day got to me.

Rather than rush into a decision, and also because I was whacked after getting up early, I decided to walk away from the game for the night, and see how I felt after a solid sleep.

It turns out that I feel a lot better, and will continue. Right now, though, I have to do something else. So I'll start a reread in a couple of hours.

[Mahaloth]

Man, this is a tough game. Having said that, it has had more activity for me to read and try to interpret than any other Day One I've had.

I have to say, I'm leaning toward either Chronos, Peeker, or both being scum. I tend to think it's unlikely both are scum, as they are heading toward ensuring the kill of one of them, which is a pretty foolish move so early in the game. Obviously, it's possible both are town, as well, but there is no way to tell.

Having said this, I believe Chronos made a very good argument in post #466, where he walked through the timing and motivations of Peeker.

Read it yourself:



So, he digs up that YouTube video, and posts it. After other folks have claimed someone "evil" (Benedict Arnold) and someone fictional (Patrocles et al), he decides it's safe to finally claim, and points to that video as evidence. If things had fallen out differently, he would have instead just took the risk and made up a name, and ignored the video post.


Vote Peeker

Now that I've previewed, I see that Freudian has made the same observation. I swear I started this post more than an hour ago, but have wandered away and worked on my job in the meantime. Anyway, there it is.

[peekercpa]

thanks for that post mhaye. i too need to realize that this is not personal. the folks that want to vote me for the way i play have every right to do so. that does not mean that fundamentally they are flawed in their analysis, rather that we come to this endeavor from different directions.

so, i will be very direct. freud, chronos and tex i don't agree with your conclusions. but it is still your perogative. and if you ever end up in san antone i'll be the first to buy you a libation of choice.

'course then i will probably give chronos a five star sudoku puzzle and ask him to help me out. and the ladies will definitely get "wanna fuck"?

[Jimmy Chitwood]

So, personal animosity toward another player is now openly acknowledged as a partial reason for a vote, then.

Free at last, free at last.

I respectfully submit - again - that it is probably time to shut up collectively about how dashing and insane peeker is or isn't. Talking about his claim and the timing thereof, and what might have motivated it: good things. Page upon page of whether or not it's awesome that a lot of people are confused -- and I'll just speak for myself here -- is not terribly conducive to scum finding. If you think it's scummy that peeker does things the way he does them, and you think the resultant tangle of clarification and foot-dragging and hairpulling back and forth is a scum tactic to confuse the discussion, vote him for it (as I can see now a few of you have done). More importantly, though, if that's your perspective why were you letting it work? He isn't cluttering up the thread by himself.

Personally I think it would have been a moronic scum maneuver to play the role claim that way, but hey, moronic things happen. I'm not really feeling the vote for the first day, but I'm glad that after all that at least several of us are committing to it.

By the way, thanks for the recap, Tom. It reminded me of something that I wanted to keep track of. It isn't quite right that KellyCriterion hasn't been back to the thread at all (post #290), but it is true that after that one brief spurt of activity Kelly has for all intents and purposes vanished. A few other players have done the same, but in Kelly's case that gung-ho first move followed by the immediate backpedal and disappearance looks like a calculated jump aboard a bandwagon that never materialized, as NAF said all the way back.

There's also the "I can't believe the heat" thing that has been bothering me, as well. I think it's worth backing up.

unvote
Vote KellyCriterion

[Meeko]

seriously, when i flip town those are the folks that will have egg on their face. and like i said earlier either whoopee we got some scum or even better we get some folks that will learn from their mistakes and choose to play a little better game.



Where have I heard this before?


seriously. when i flip plankton. go back and read as if the people calling for my lynch are just mis guided townies or scum looking for a reason. just do that, please. for goodness sakes.


Peeker, wouldn't it be nice to not do this AGAIN?

But, we can't make you change bud.

When you are ready, let us know, I will be more than willing to offer what I can to help you. It's not much, but, just know I am here for you.

[Meeko]

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

Strictly on the odds.

[Jimmy Chitwood]

That's great. I put together my teambuilding speech and everybody's sitting around the campfire singing to each other by the time I post it.

[peekercpa]

neta: and sorry freud i support a colony of feral cats so i am not screwing with the kittens. unless it is caging them, getting them snipped and then releasing them to their group.

they do crack me up however. when i feed them in the morning they are my best buds, kind of like coming over and being kind of affectionate and stuff. but in the afternoon when i am just smoking a squag they react like i am a t rex. it does make for some comical moments

[peekercpa]

but here is the real deal meeko. i was plankton. i am town. certain folks have taken this to a personal rather than a game based level. yaknow, i got caught up in that for a bit. not again.

so if you think i am scum because of the you tube post and subsequent endless iterations go for it. i mean, you will be wrong but for goodness sakes just fracking say it.

[One And Only Wanderers]

One and Only's vote on NAF::

I just figured out why I hated that vote. We play mafia to single out a player based on their actions, and interactions with other players. In effect, Mafia only "works" when a scum player shows us that he or she is worthy [if you will] of a vote.

The vote on NAF was not based on anything he did. There was no action or interaction that NAF did, that proved him worthy of the vote.

Because of that, there can be no defense.



No

Firstly I was voting for him because I saw the misspelling as something he had done, ie made a mistake when composing a fake claim. The number of misspellings elsewhere later made this seem much less likely.

People who have played in games on the dope with me before know I go after perceived slips aggressively, even when it draws me a lot of heat.



And the kicker: As was pointed out with my claim, the "reason" to vote NAF was duplicated on to mine. I don't think it a good vote at all, when you can transfer a vote, 100%, between two different players.

Let me put it another way:

If there is no reason to vote NAF over Meeko, OR if there is no reason to vote Meeko over NAF, you should not be voting for either*.



Again no. If I am convinced player A & player B are scum, and I am equally sure for each, then under your rationale, because I can't justify one over the otehr, I should in actuality vote player C. I don't see it that way myself.

[storyteller0910]

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

Strictly on the odds.

What do you mean by this?

[Freudian Slit]

but here is the real deal meeko. i was plankton. i am town. certain folks have taken this to a personal rather than a game based level. yaknow, i got caught up in that for a bit. not again.

Yeah, but here's the thing. We're all town. Really.

Just like everyone on death row is innocent, really. Framed, I tells ya.

[NAF1138]

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

Strictly on the odds.

Strictly on what odds? Why is she less likely to be scum when she is acting scummy than anyone else?

[NAF1138]

NETA: :dubious:

Meek, for the first time ever in the games I have played with you or watched you play you are actually pinging me.

[special ed]

see this is why.

chronos is scum or misguided townie. if you do lynch my rear, when i flip town a couple of positive things can happen. first, chronos is scum and a one for one is a town gain, yippee. secondly, and maybe this has actually the best long term benefit for this and future games. he is town and he and others realize that their approach to the game is, if not flawed, at least not the only way to play and that by pigeon holing certain folks for the way the play is really really counter productive.

This was your defense against me in Cecil Pond where I was Town. It seems every time someone votes you, you're going to call them Scum or misguided (I think lazy was your word of choice in Cecil) Townie. But then you call for their lynch ingnoring that you've just identified them as potentially Town

[special ed]

yaknow if certain folks can't be arsed enough to review all of the information that is available then i really don't have a response.

seriously, the attitude that "this post is too long and therefore i won't read it" or "omg there is a video link" or "crap his/her spelling is atrocious and am therefore ignoring" is not real helpful. just my two cents, of course.

Again, you mis-state why most people didn't like your 'claim' It wasn't that it was in a video (though that can cause problems for some players) but it's because you did NOT identify it as a claim.


I'm not sure how I can make that more clear. so stop calling it something else.

[special ed]

Here is the thing.

I half want to vote Peeker just to shut his smug rear end up.

After that, he wont be able to pull any of this stuff ever again.

We can't get to that point, untill we lynch him.

That's probably not how you play Mafia. But, for First day vote, I will throw it in with the rest of my reasons to vote him.

This is ironic coming from you, Meeko. You;'re the first to complain that almost every vote on you is for personal reasons and is therefore wrong. And now you back up your vote with personal reasons.

[special ed]

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

Strictly on the odds.

What?!?!

This is the second really odd thing you've said in a row.

Strictly on what odds? The odds that Keely got a Scum role are identical any other player got a Scum role.

[Freudian Slit]

In fact, on day one it's more than likely we hit a townie since there's just so many townies and relatively few scum. Why is Kelly more likely?

[Mahaloth]

Meeko, did you mean that the odds of Kelly not being scum are better because he was scum in the last game?