You know, I find it “kinda suspicious” that in a post that you’ve quoted, you don’t notice the case that the player lays out in THE FIRST EIGHTY PERCENT of the post.
For comparison, here’s the sum total of your analysis of the initial votes on Freudian from your analysis/vote post:
(Actually I had to include the Hi Opal part to make the quote tag work at all.)
I don’t know what the hell to make of this. Are you just really really confused about the argument that you yourself made in a post yesterday? Did you only read the last paragraph of Guiri’s post before accusing him of being scum? And why are you so concerned about story’s well-being, anyway? In short, WTF?
Not shifting my vote from Maha because (a) I’m wary of OMGUS tendencies in myself and (b) I don’t really see a scum motive. But seriously.
@ ToeJam, as Tom has said, I think it’s clear that I find Story’s mischaracterization of the FS voters anti-town, not his conclusions or analysis. You quoted the original votes and did not alter them to suit your agenda. One thing is an interpretation of a voter’s motives to paint them in a negative light but it’s completely different to alter what the voter said and their reasoning behind their votes.
As for Zeriel, Peeker and Pedescribe first argument was about whether scum had more or equal information as Town. Right now scum know more about Zerial’s death, Town can only guess (with a very high probabilty) but scum know who killed him. Story didn’t mention the assumption he was making, he stated as fact that scum killed Zeriel and hypothesized on their reasoning - to me this looked like he had information that the rest of Town didn’t have. I would have expected a simple “assuming scum killed Zerial” somewhere in his post. This alone is a minor point but in combination with his mischaracterization of the FS voters, I find him suspicious.
On a related note, I had not considered that there may be situations in which Peeker would prefer not to admit to killing or being roleblocked such as these ones you mentioned (again, sorry for not using the quote function):
Peek killed Z, and Scum chose not to kill in hopes of exposing the RoleBlocker into saying they blocked Y, and thusly they can try the “bus a townie” tactic as well as get to kill the RB that night, or the Vig, since now the Doc would be be in WIFOM.
Also:
-Peek killed Z, and Scum were not blocked but hit the doctor, who self protected. Or scum hit the Doc’s protection target.
In both cases it could be preferable for Peeker to say nothing to avoid exposing the Doc or RB, that makes sense. But then you urge Peeker to tell us when he kills:
All of these are options to consider, bnot going to go into the backalley thoughts and just go with the simple one: Scum WANT to target someone every night. Scum WANT people dead. Dead people help scum. Ergo Z’s death helps scum- they probably wanted him dead.
(And Peeks I HOPE you would tell us first thing if you DO kill someone).
Just to let the game know, I did my Christmas traveling today, I am now set up over with my family.
I will be driving out to the Airport to pick up other family members and will be with them at their house over the weekend. [Local family members, but they are flying back from Australia on the 25th / 26th.]
I will have my Itouch with me, so I can make minimal comments on those days.
Y’know what, screw it. I KNOW (because I just checked) that you didn’t make any editorial comments whatsoever about the merits of the Freudian bandwagon on THIS board. But I think you DID post something about how crappy the case against Freudian was… somewhere else.
unvote Maha vote ToeJam
For getting a little TOO cocky when he found a Townie who had made a crappy vote.
mhaye is one of those folks that plays more town when scum than when he is town.
i kind of thought, in my twisted little mind, that maybe we caught a big dog.
but this certainty of the sk makes me go hmmm.
but even at the end he temporizes.
and guys/gals i could be totally wrong 'cause i am playing off gut right now.
vote mhaye.
and i ain’t saying dick what i have or have not been doing the last couple of Nights. but if you are a town blocker i will attempt to kill tomorrow and maybe can confirm you and me. and if scum don’t get the dick then we can have 5 confirmeds come morning.
i kind of like the idea of a scum rb targeting me and letting our dick do the work while i sit here and fuck off.
This looks like a Lot of Noise, Noise trying hard to be Signal, rare actual Signal, A lot of NETA on top of NETA and Signal that is overly generic and comes out being more constipated than a certain Jamie Lee Curtis Mafia quote.
Cookies seems to be saying a lot, inspite of saying she can’t be around.
Yet that information is anything but.
I think Cookies is trying to maintain a presence that she does not have.
We can’t edit and I make typos. Flimsy as hell justification to try and stretch into suspicion.
On the Saturday that Dawn broke, I was day into a weekend out of town and said that wouldn’t be able to post much until at least Monday, as in that day that comes after the weekend is over. Again, flimsy as hell.
The presence I’m trying to maintain is participation in a game that is anemic because we killed the SK right away and the only people dying are Vanilla Townies, one at a time. I’m here, I’m reading, I’m voting, I’m posting what observations I have.
Call it a gut call if you must, but why throw all the other bullshit in?
1 Vote Meeko (1 #708) Red Skeezix (708) ToeJam (1 #716) Tom Scud (716 723 787) Nanook of the North Shore (1 #721) Mahaloth (721) storyteller0910 (1 #770) GuiriEnEspaña (770) MHaye (1 #788) peekercpa (788)
0 Votes Mahaloth (1 #728) Tom Scud (728 787) Drain Bead USCDiver peekercpa Alka Seltzer Red Skeezix GuiriEnEspaña Mental Guy Lynch Leader
**
Not voting:* Nanook of the North Shore, USCDiver, Alka Seltzer, MHaye
Actually, I wanted simply to hear more from Guiri. I like hearing players talk, especially those I don’t have a read on. So sometimes I’ll mix up easy Qs and hard Qs and see what comes up.
What comes up is that I find it interesting that you jumped to GEE’s defense, when she’s perfectly capable of saying the very same things.
Why are YOU so eager to defend a player who’s alignment you don’t know?
Just because I asked her about Storyteller does not mean I trust storyteller. Hell, if you had bothered to ask me a question, you could have found out that in my personal opinion, **Storyteller **and **Mhaye **are two of three players that should NEVER be alive to endgame just on principle because they’re that damn good at this game. The third being myself of course, but I have an ego to stroke.
Story and Mhaye are two players who I LOVE to play with and admire greatly, but I cannot get a read on them, and the longer the game goes on, the more I wish they were dead. I consider that statement a respectful and honorable statement towards their skill and value at playing the Game- and not a grudge one Mhaye. In fact, I love to know that they are a mason or confirmed roles, but alas, in this game that’s not going to come easily (the mason thing at least).
So yeah, not sure why you assumed that GEE couldn’t defend herself, or why you jumped to the idea that I feel that Story is worth defending. I merely wanted to know what GEE’s thoughts were, and wanted to open a line of dialogue which you happened to butt yourself into. Thanks for that.
That’s all the information I want from Peeks. He said he didn’t kill Z, and I’m want to believing him. That’s all he should say- nothing more nothing less.
Now if he WAS the one who killed Z, then I’d expect him to say “My bad, I did the Z kill” and we move on from there. Because if Peeks was the one who kills the dead body in the morning, and we waste days thinking it was a SCUM kill, well that’s just stupid playing and we’ve basically been dicked around with false information for a few days- and that’s NOT cool, ya know?
Does that help clear up my statements, or do you still want to me clarify/explain my thoughts better?
Well, allow me to clarify then- what I mean is that it’s not wise for Peeker to announce to us WHO is targetting or such.
However, if there are two dead players, or a single player and **peeker **has killed them- then it is in the TOWN’s best interest to know which one **peeker **has killed. Why? Because Scum know who they targeted. So if A and B are dead- how did two players die? Scum wanted one dead for a reason and Peeker for another- so I’d hope he’d immediately speak up and let us know which one was his target and which one was the scum kill. That’s the simple case.
Now in the other case: One dead body- turning up as a townie (more likely than a single body that’s scum).
The key here is We the town should assume that’s a scum kill (as the SK is dead and it’s not in the Vig’s best interest to kill townies).
If this IS NOT the case, ie: there’s a townie (the vig) who has information here about the kill (because he killed said person)- he should speak up. That’s why I said “(And Peeks I HOPE you would tell us first thing if you DO kill someone).”
That way we know that there’s a single body here and it’s AT LEAST in part due to the Vig.
That’s all.
No involvement of doctors, RBs, or scum targeting the same player/ also no kills should be invoked (though they should all be considered obviously). But at least we should know then that perhaps that’s an option.
In those cases, I personally am not a fan of having OTHER power roles try to speak up just because they’re thinking that the person they targetted must have been the scum killer/scum target. That’s where one should consider the other possibilities (ie: a scum deliberate no kill in order to draw out the doctor or the RB). That’s when we have to be really careful about the information and such we go on for the day.
However, if there is just a single body, and peeks did NOT kill that guy- peeks should do exactly what he just did:
**
(Here’s the rest of the post, that was erroneously misposted up above)**
That’s all the information I want from Peeks. He said he didn’t kill Z, and I’m want to believing him. That’s all he should say- nothing more nothing less.
Now if he WAS the one who killed Z, then I’d expect him to say “My bad, I did the Z kill” and we move on from there. Because if Peeks was the one who kills the dead body in the morning, and we waste days thinking it was a SCUM kill, well that’s just stupid playing and we’ve basically been dicked around with false information for a few days- and that’s NOT cool, ya know?
Does that help clear up my statements, or do you still want to me clarify/explain my thoughts better?
So you think I’m scummy… for talking to GEE? You think I’m not only scum, but stupid scum to boot? :smack:
And how nice, you mentioned you didn’t want to vote me because it would look like an OMGUS earlier but then you go ahead and make the switch. Just like last time with the **Diggit **switching votes- nice setup and then you wait and switch anyways.
You need to improve upon that as a Mafia Player, regardless of what you play as: townie or scum or 3rd party, in future games. That’s just gonna lead you to hot water always.
But I accept your vote, I rather expected it actually.
I still feel confident in my arguments vs. you and your past behavior on Day 2, your actions on Day 3 not really helping to dissuade me.
Guiri, I will respond to your points later tonight; I don’t feel like I’ve mischaracterized anything, and will defend my positions. But I have to finish Christmas shopping, so it has to wait until after I’ve finished braving Quakerbridge Mall Hell.
In the meanwhile, though, and for the record, Tom Scud’s latest post reinforces my suspicion of him.
In Tom’s first reply following my triple post, he doesn’t say a word about mischaracterization or smudgery (and good God, I have learned to hate that phrase and that concept, because I think it’s been co-opted to mean something that it shouldn’t mean, but that’s a story for another post). Nope. He waits for someone else to get suspicious, and then follows-up with the above - which is a true smudge, in that it encourages the reader to be suspicious of the target without really committing one’s own opinion on the subject - and happily uses the same buzzwords Guiri used.
I am comfortable with my vote. More on the subject of Guiri’s post in a bit.
Yeah. I would love to play one HUGE mafia game, that has all of the roles I have seen listed in tutorials or on the mafia wiki.
I tried telling my parents about the game, and that it is an ongoing game… I basically had to settle for telling them it was like Magic The Gathering. But for free.
