I wasn’t in time. So no I didn’t.
You have not yet cast a single vote. Is that correct?
No 
I voted for Chip 1 1/2 hour after Day 1 ended.
ATM I have my vote Sub P.
I seem to have found myself in a place where I can’t get anyone to react to me at all anymore.
Strange.
Let’s try this.
Can someone recap the case against Plankton for me? Give me the bullet point highlights or something?
As I said - late here (sorry).
I also voted Telcontar Day 2.
It was the fact that nearly every time anyone spoke to or about me in the thread it was to point at some non-case tied up with PIS, WIFOM, or bussing. I spent days (RL time) fighting it when peeker set it up, and I was quite prepared to go toe-to-toe with Suburban on it as well. But something in my head just snapped when Oy! started on the same thing.
Having got it out of my system now, I just feel a bit useless. It’s my own fault for overreacting like that, but I’m deep in negative credibility right now, and I don’t imagine being able to make any kind of case without it turning back onto me.
I don’t want to actually obstruct the town, though. So I figure that the best I can do at this stage is to answer whatever questions people want to ask me. And since I’ve yet to follow up on my promise to look at other suspects, I’m going to unvote: Suburban Plankton, for the time being at least.
I did have a couple of exchanges with NP, so I figured that was what she was talking about.
Yeah, I got what you were saying to me. And I’m at work too, so you may not get my reply until I get home. And I’m not sure I’ll be able to give you exactly what you ask anyway; you wanted a “brief timeline”, but I think it may end up anything but brief.
OK, but don’t feel the need to include every post where everyone might have said anything. I really want you to focus on when you made a defense and when you calimed ‘scum wouldn’t so what I’m doing’
Well, since I never claimed “Scum wouldn’t do what I’m doing”, *that *list will be pretty short.
Though I really shouldn’t need to post it again:
- I haven’t bothered thinking about how to defend myself in advance.
- Scum are bothered to think about how to defend themselves in advance.
I assume you are going to say that it isn’t a “Scum wouldn’t do what I did” argument because it’s technically a “Scum would do what I did not do argument.”
However, if we phrase it as Scum wouldn’t avoid planning a defense, and I avoided planning a defense argument, then I think we can agree on the semantics.
I know I can’t. I find the whole thing very weak.
Ah, that again. It seems to me that I’ve talked about this before, but it seems that I need to say things three times before people can hear me…
Those paragraphs were not meant as part of my defense. They were intended as a commentary on how mindsets differ between whether a person happens to be Scum or Town. I intended nothing more than a tangential relation between those statements and the events taking place in this particular game.
That being said, I did make those statements. If you wish to interpret them as me saying “Scum wouldn’t do what I did” (or words to that effect), I won’t argue with you. I was trying to make a “philosophical” point about Mafia, and screwed it up royally. It’s almost impossible for me to argue about “what I meant to say” because I did such a piss poor job of saying it. So if you want to argue that that was a “Scum wouldn’t do what I did” argument, then I’ll stipulate to that.
Because when you come right down to it, Scum wouldn’t do what I did. Scum would pick targets they knew were Town and attempt to manufacture cases against them. Scum would latch on to cases against Townies, and try, if possible, to steer away from cases against Scum. I made a legitimate effort to locate Scum. Scum wouldn’t do what I did.
And with that, I’m done talking about those three paragraphs. I made the statements, and you (the general you) have interpreted them. I’ve already told you what I meant, and we all know that “what I meant” and “what I said” don’t mesh well. My only defense for that particular screwup is “I screwed up”. Make of that what you will, but I’m done discussing that passage.
As far as the rest of it goes:
Natlaw voted for me back in Post 1276 because I said we needed to stop talking about NAF and the Book, while I kept talking about NAF and the Book. I ignored it at the time. he mentioned it again in Post 1599, and I responded in Post 1607
Mrs McGinty starts her case against me in post 1699, for providing “moral support” to peeker, to which i responded in post 1707and some more in Post 1710
Normal makes a case against my voting record (RE: Romanic and Oredigger)in Post 1784 and my question about the idea of Astral being the “Tiny Demon” in Post 1789. I answer in Posts 1801, 1803, and 1817
Normal makes his first detailed case against me in Post 1894, talking about my suspicions of NAF, my suspicions of peeker/NAF/Idle, and my curiosuty about the Night 1 events. My response starts in Post 1899, and continues in Post 1906
In Post 1926, Natlaw brings up something I said way back in Post 1219 and questions my statements about NAF. I respond to him in Post 1936
Normal finally finishes his in-depth analysis and makes a long and detailed case about how Scummy I am in Post 2088. I respond to him in Post 2098, but do not make a defense against the things he says in this post because I felt that I had already addressed the various issues in one or more of the posts I link above. Upon a close reread, there might have been an item or two in Normal’s Post 2088 that had not been covered before (he does go into more detail on my actions toward Romanic than had been covered previously, for example), but by and large this post was a summary of previous arguments.
Then Nanook makes Post 2117 where he makes reference to Normal’s last epic post, and then says “The basic lack of defense by SP doesn’t help matters any.” My response is in Post 2130, where I once again address Normal’s accusations, and then post the couple paragraphs at the end that have caused me so much consternation.
On the other hand, Stanislaus voted for me way back on Day 1 (Post 1299) because of my curiosity about the Martyr/Chip incident. I never did respond to him (but I have addressed his points since).
Sorry, Stan. Nothing personal…
So the idea that I hadn’t put up any defense is absolutely correct as it applies to Normal’s Post 2088 (and to Stan’s Post 1299), but is absolute bunk in general.
Good lord!
could you act any more like you did in Random?
[oog…sort of…]
This news just in:
That is all…
[/oog]
Ok, here’s a summary of Mahaloth’s play in Random Mafia
Day 1 - mostly spent tallying name claim list
was one of the people who pushed peeker on the wicked witch thing
Asks meeko about scum knowing about other scum
claims all that’s been happening toDay is unproductive arguments featuring peeker and meeko (428)
482 - either Chronos or Peeker are scum. Votes peeker.
(note: both Chronos and Peeker were Town)
Day 2 - comments on my “overnight thread” thing (728)
733 - “things are oddly calm”
738 - little conversation
749 - People need to chime in
753 - responds to ed on the cheerleading
786-787 - votes me [scum] for a “weak vote - only thing that’s pinged me”
815 - moves vote to OneandOnly (town) for “begging to be lynched”
Day 3
931 - puts another vote on me citing “same case as I made yesterDay”
During the day, there develops a heated 2-way race between me and Chronos (Town); Mahaloth hardly comments except to say “huh my vote on Tom looks ok to me.” And then a cheerleading post, noting that the votes are even at 4-4, and not bothering to push the case on me.
Day 4 - Actually gives a case against me besides my vote on another player on Day 2. (One that I’d written myself on the scum board, though I wish he’d used my links).
Shifts vote to Oredigger (scum) after he claims doc and is counterclaimed.
Day 5 - votes me again after not much further analysis. I get lynched after I burn out and give myself up; Maha says “I knew he was scum all along”
The rest isn’t particularly relevant to the current game I don’t think.
And… I was going to do a summary but it turned into a wall of words
Day 1
382-383 against an early mass claim; too much chance to give away power roles and distract with discussion of minutiae.
390 asks Idle about placeholder vote on Drain
406, 429 more discussion (with lilflower) on mass claim
487-8, 495 - thinks is not a constant recruiting game (4 would be a high total for one such); votes Romanic for “slip”
522, 628, 664 - thinks Romanic should claim; doesn’t believe Romanic’s claim; wants Romanic to walk early
714 - Romanic walks
743 - queries McGinty on the “Romanic wouldn’t make that mistake as scum” argument
777, 796 - discussion with NAF on fishing and scum hunting - “looking for oddities or people trying to play without stepping on any toes”; uses power role powers on players who “ping” him
874 - likes cases for both Chip and Oredigger [nb: both Town]. Votes Oredigger for “the reasons previously given”. [by other posters? Maha hasn’t mentioned anything before]
980 - sorry I’m quiet
1010 - Normal votes Telcontar, cites “a certain rigidity of behavior” in scum; also suspects Tel’s defense of McGinty is based in PIS. “more confident than you should be that Mrs. McGinty is Town”
1017, 1018 - Thinks Telcontar is scummy mcscumbag for reasons [del]NAF[/del] Normal picked up on. “Sounds like one I’ve seen him collaborate on with scum in other games.”; fixes broken vote; promises to check LOST scumboards for similar behavior by Tel.
1079 - END DAY 1 OREDIGGER IS LYNCHED
1080 fluff
1119 - queries Idle on book misapprehension
1133 - book-related semifluff
1164 - BEGIN DAY 2
1166 - asks about martyr role, asks NAF what happened.
1214 - to SP - doubts that book is a total red herring; probably has some game effect
1222 - queries brewha why he thinks there would be no way for the book to be taken
1225 - asks “whoever has the book to admit it”
1317 - Not seeing case against NAF - his moves make no sense from a scum point of view. vig-ing him might be ok.
1366;1375;1397 - on USC’s case vs. Peeker - “holy shit, that is a good case. Peeker? Thoughts?”; votes Peek for lack of defense; corrects unvote/revote
1403 - fluff
1410 - asks peeker if he’s claimed
1466 - in response to Astral’s summing-up, says his vote is because of (1) the case and (2) peeker’s lack of defense
1478, 1480, 1504 - more peeker-related posts of minor content Last at 9:39 PM Wednesday Night.
1505 - Telcontar pushes Idle again over his flipflop
1509 - Idle claims, starts pushing back hard against Tel and a few others (Guiri, One, Drain)
1566 (5:52 PM, Thursday) - more list-gathering about the book and who has or hasn’t claimed to have it
1615 - pokes peeker
1673 - Day 2 Ends, Peeker (scum) is lynched
1640, 1691, 1709 - various peeker-related fluff
1720 - rules question
— DAY 3 Begins —
1797 - Final Votes Telcontar
1928 - couldn’t find the thing he thought he remembered about Tel in the LOST game
1929 - how close are we to day’s early end?
1943 - “Seriously, folks. I don’t see that much conversation coming. Just “finalize” your vote for Tel and end the Day.”
1953 - Maha lists his games
1955 - Ed makes his case against Maha. Cites his weak and not-followed-up case on a scum, plus his “let’s end the day” posts without conversation.
1980 - Maha points back to “NAF”'s case in 1010
1983 - whoops Normal not NAF
Maha claims in 2002, and most of the rest of his posts since then have had to do with that.
Finally, my commentary:
First, I’m treating his claim as basically null; he could have scum-derived information that there are 2 hostile third parties, or he could even have made it up himself - after all, it’s not like the third parties are going to pipe up and contradict him. The PM grammar/header check has been treated adequately, I think, and haven’t turned up anything resembling a smoking gun.
On to the review:
874 is the post that first caused Ed to focus on Maha. Definitely a lazy vote, and the “if not A then B” thing mirrors his Day 1 vote in Random perfectly.
His “whoever has the book” crusade has an element of his listkeeping in Day 1 of Random - looks engaged but probably not doing anything towards finding scum.
His vote on Telcontar has some resemblance to the case made on me; however (1) when he voted me in Random he wasn’t joining someone else’s case and (2) more importantly, he kept up the tepid pursuit-sort-of for 3 or 4 days.
In the Telcontar case, he cast his vote one day; shifted to peeker for an obvious kill the second day; and on the third day Tel had SCUM written across his forehead. It just wasn’t drawn out nearly as long as his non-pursuit of me.
One point in his disfavor is that he didn’t get involved at all in the dust-up between Idle and Telcontar on Night 2; you’d think someone with serious suspicions of Tel might have gotten on his case.
However, I don’t agree with Ed’s assessment that “he bemoaned the lack of real conversation and yet provided none of his own.” In random, he had four consecutive posts asking people to provide conversation - here, he simply wanted the day over with. I don’t get the same “rah rah” vibe from his Day 3 posts here at all.
In summary, I’m not convinced. I’m going to take a look at the Plankton case tomorrow and get a look in at other people later; right now I’m pretty exhausted.
I think I act more or less the same in just about any game. Why wouldn’t I?
Oh really. Who do you find scummy, Mahaloth?
@ NAF – I don’t know what more can really be said that hasn’t already been said. It’s been gone over in exhaustive and exhausting detail, hasn’t it?
-
Serious pot-stirring against NAF on day two, but never a vote. Goes so far as to say it is more plausible that NAF is lying than that he isn’t. No vote. Reasons for “suspicion” lack logic, at that. Around midday starts backing off saying he can’t think of any scum motivation for NAF, but nevertheless opens another front of suspicion over the “just vig me please” thing, which also goes nowhere.
-
Tepid defense of peeker over the course of three or four posts. Employs the exact same smudge as Telcontar did in regards to the peeker bandwagon, that it came up suspiciously fast. (And notably, Astral covered both of them in complaining, without names attached, of those who had made that smudge.) Logic used on NAF/peeker connection implies that if NAF is town, peeker is less suspicious, which is a peeker-saving way of looking at it particularly when “I’m leaning toward NAF as town” is part of the same post. The “just claim, peeker/vote peeker” post is overdone.
-
Votes Romanic on day one despite nothing in the vote post to indicate actual suspicion (one point in Romanic’s favor, one null tell). But later, Romanic’s mistake is “egregious”. Furthermore, the initial point in Romanic’s favor no longer is one.
-
Minor pot-stirring against Oredigger, again without a vote attached. Repeatedly claims that his lack of end-day vote on day one was due to being away, but there’s really no reason he could not have voted Oredigger at some earlier point – several others had. Looks like hesitance to vote a townie without something slam-dunk to fall back on, same as with NAF.
-
Minor pot-stirring against Idle in second half of day, but no vote here either. Misrepresents his own record later on when he says he was suspicious of Idle “from the get-go” when there is no evidence of that.
-
(a bit ego-centric here) Only person to question potential presence of Watcher at Chipa’s house on night one.
NETA: I misspoke here: “the “just claim, peeker/vote peeker” post is overdone” – these were two posts actually, and I’m referring to the first.
Looking at your posts from Colorless…
Day 1
post 114, question to Mod
post 119 comment on game set up
post 153 ditto
post 154 ditto
post 159 fluffish
post 203 game setup
post 284 Happy Birthday to your daughter! will post more later
{Ed’s comment, OK, maybe Mahaloth is right. Maybe he contributes very little to games :p}
post 370 sorry for low posting. Was going to vote amrusse, but believes him now. Votes for pedescribe (turned out to be SK)
post 424 almost unvoted Pede when he claimed, but believed peeker’s counter
Pede lynched [/spoiler]
Night 1
post 488 fluff
post 506 fluff
Day 2 [spoiler]
post 571 I’m a low poster compared to normal {Ed’s comment :dubious:} Wants peek to Vig as he sees fit {Ed’s comment, in hindsight…} Votes Rintwisted for sitting back and stirring the pot
post 612 Welcomes Meeko, feels bad that he’s now voting Meeko (who replaced Rin twisted and was actually Scum)
post 618 encourages Meeko to read the setup
Night 2
post 678 fluff
post 686 fluff
post 689 fluff
post 694 fluff
Day 3
post 713 fluffish
post 721 votes Nanook for not voting
post 726 still suspicious of Meeko, prefers vote on nanook, really thought Diggit wasn’t Scum (he wasn’t)
post 729 defends self against votes. has trouble finding Scum. Is voting for those who sit back and stir the pot
post 766 wants Day to end when peeker can vote (This Day was ocurring right around Christmas). Clarifies that he isn’t lurking, but is busy
post 827 fluff
post 855. votes MHaye for not making sense (MHaye had said “As a Mafiate, I want the Vig dead…” to mean “If I were a Mafiate…” Mhaye was Town)
post 908 is tied in votes with MHaye, claims Vanilla
post 909 are we tied?
post 910 unofficial vote count
post 913 crap, I’m going to be lynched
post 915, something about Red Skeezix
post 916 is suspicious of the last minute pile-on him
post 920 looks like I’ma goner, spoil me when I’m dead
My comments
OK, he’s got a point. There’s not much different there from what I’ve seen in this game.
However, it doesn’t excuse his “I voted for Scummy Tom Scud” in random and how he was starting to make the same comments about Telcontar once he showed up with the burning mark.