You’re forgetting the crux of the issue. He didn’t just misspeak; we’d have been much more forgiving of that.
The real issue is, he claimed he heard it from NAF. Oops! He meant Idle. No, wait! He really meant NAF after all.
That doesn’t strike you the least bit scummy?
Noooooooooooo…of course not. Never occured to me at all!
What do you think? I’ve played Mafia many times before, y’know. : p Of course I’ve thought about that. I’m known for keeping my mind open to all possibilities.
And I’ve already said time and time again…yes, he COULD be lying. He could be doing just that; what you say. He could be pretending and just saying that.
We don’t know!
It’s a hell of a lot different from what he was doing before…saying he was going to KEEP it (which is the only thing I found suspicious). At least now it’s also open to him possibly telling the truth.
And since he’s claiming he doesn’t have it anymore, he’s obviously not claiming to KEEP it anymore, which is the whole reason I found him suspicious.
Yes, he could be lying. So could YOU. So could everyone! That’s mafia.
It feels too damn easy, but peeker clearly lied to us, and there’s no possible pro-town motivation for this lie.
Vote peeker
New post, since I sometimes like unvoting and voting by itself (to take it away from other posts points)
Unvote Guiri
Vote Peeker
That was a pretty good case made, I must admit.
Heh, I use the word “crux” in post 1349 and it seems to be a popular word now.
NETA: Nevermind, I just did a search and saw others used it in this game before me. And here I thought maybe I started the crux fad. 
Here is the timeline of the ‘peeker incident’, as I see them (all times PDT, and spoilered to save your eyes):
post 1079 10/09 19:07 Day 1 ends
post 1089 10/10 07:49 NAF posts the “Book PM”. This is his first post since Dusk (and his first post in more than a full day. He says “So far I haven’t decided to do anything with the book yet.”
post 1093 10/10 08:22 peeker quotes NAF’s PM
post 1095 10/10 08:29 NAF posts “If everyone wants I am happy to put the book back on the pedestal toNight.”
post 1110 10/10 14:20 Idle posts "So someone new has the book anyway, now, right? "
post 1111 10/10 14:52 Suburban corrects Idle, telling him NAF still has the book
post 1112 10/10 14:54 Idle: “Buh? I thought it was automatically up for grabs at the start of each Day/Night cycle?”
post 1113 10/10 15:03 TexCat posts the ‘rules’ of the Book; says “I presume this means that NAF still has it.”
post 1114 10/10 15:50 peeker quotes Tex’s post and says “uh, did i just like totally hallucinate naf saying he doesn’t have it anymore.”
post 1115 10/10 15:55 ed responds to peeker “maybe you read it on the Scum board?”
post 1118 10/10 16:07 peeker says “neta: whoops i guess it was idle.”
post 1135 10/11 09:43 NAF uses the book: “I am cursing myself with the shroud of Night.”
post 1164 10/11 12:00 Night 1 ends
post 1177 10/11 12:31 NAF posts “The book was taken from me last night.”
post 1187 10/11 12:54 NAF posts the (redacted) PM he got from story
post 1229 10/11 17:48 peeker’s next post. talks about McGinty, and mentions “and now naf is pulling this nonsense with the book. just a bunch of obfuscation from my viewpoint.”
post 1264 10/11 23:46 McGinty asks about peeker’s post 1114: “Did you read something on the scumboard, perhaps?”
post 1280 10/12 04:51 ed quotes McGinty and says “I’m catching up, but I’d like an answer to this question as well.”
post 1288 10/12 05:56 Oy posts questioning the timing of peeker’s post 1114
post 1289 10/12 05:57 Drain Bead, talking about NAF says “and if he is Scum, it’s likely peeker is too, based on him knowing that NAF no longer had the book before it was mentioned in the game thread”
post 1298 10/12 07:08 peeker says “hey, look i read 1095 as naf saying he was putting the book back on the pedestal.”
post 1307 10/12 09:38 Natlaw quotes peeker’s post 1118 and asks why this hasn’t been brought up: “Although peeker has now claimed another post as the source for his believe that NAF didn’t have the Book anymore”
post 1309 10/12 09:55 McGinty quotes Natlaw and says “Sorry, I’m confused. I neither understand peeker’s post, nor why you find it significan”
post 1311 10/12 10:11 Natlaw answers, saying “Idle did someone else had the book so peeker’s not-edited-to-add makes sense. As said now he points to another, much earlier post by NAF as the source of his mistake.”
post 1353 10/12 16:21 USCDiver points out the problem with peeker’s post 1114
4 votes for peeker between post 1353 and post 1367 (17:19)
post 1373 10/12 17:32 peeker says “i swear to goodness that i don’t have the book.”
4 more votes for peeker between post 1375 (17:58) and post 1379 (18:17)
It seems that peeker’s ‘slip’ was pointed out by Mrs. McGinty last night, brought up again by ed this morning, and echoed by Oy and Drain Bead shortly thereafter. peeker’s reply comes an hour later, and 90 minutes after that Natlaw points out the inconsistency in peeker’s statements (posts 1114 and 1298). There is even a brief conversation between Natlaw and McGinty on the issue, then the subject is dropped.
Then USCDiver points it out again this afternoon, and the bandwagon gets rolling.
Part of me is wondering why it took took almost 18 hours and three attempts before this issue got traction, but I don’t see any obvious attempts to deflect the issue…
Looking at some of peeker’s posts:
Post 1114. This could be an example of PIS. But if peeker knew NAF didn’t have the book at that point, why would he make a post out of the blue to point out his ‘confusion’?
Post 1118. His “neta: whoops i guess it was idle.” post. But it comes 17 minutes after the post he is ‘not editing’, which seems like a rather large stretch of time. Also, there was discussion immediately following idle’s post discussing how idle was mistaken. There were only three posts between idle’s and peeker’s, and all of them discuss how NAF hasn’t necessarily given up possession of the book. I can’t see how peeker could have misinterpreted that.
Post 1298. He says he misinterpreted NAF’s post 1095. This seems to contradict his earlier statement that he was confused by Idle’s post 1110. But is it contradictory? Perhaps peeker thought that NAF said (in post 1095) that he had returned the book. Then when people were discussing how NAF still had the book (posts 111-113), he asks if he was mistaken is thinking NAF has returned it. After rereading, he sees that it was not NAF, but rather Idle, that says it was returned (post 1118). And when he’s called on it later, he points out the post that caused his original confusion, which is NAF’s post 1095.
Post 1373. He makes his very well thought out and totally convincing defense. He even swears to goodness.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I can completely see how the ‘inconsistency’ between which post caused his confusion may have been completely innocent. On the other hand, I can’t see how peeker could have made the mistake in the first place, since the four posts immediately preceding his post 1114 directly address the very thing he claims to be confused about. And I can’t see why, if peeker is Scum, he would volunteer that he thought NAF had dropped the book and tell us that he must have been mistaken, in the same post. But I’m so put off by his lack of defense that I’m having a hard time seeing past that right now.
I’m going to have to think on it just a bit more before I decide which way to go on this. I’d really like to here more from peeker in his own defense than he “swears to goodness”.
I get that NAF is no longer doing the thing that you found suspicious (claiming he is going to keep the book). But each time you explain it, it sounds less and less convincing. But your reason for changing your mind makes no sense. You suspected him because he said he was going to take a particular action. So he comes back and says “Oh, that thing that you thought was suspicious? I can’t do that anymore, so you don’t need to worry about me now”, and you reply with “Oh, OK then. It’s all good”. It all seems too tidy.
And you keep saying things like “At least now it’s also open to him possibly telling the truth.” Implying that there was no possibility he was telling the truth before? What was he lying about yesterday? Not the fact that he had the book; that is a fact.The fact that he planned to keep the book? No, you seemed to believe that. If anything, he is more likely to be lying now than he was before. Yet you keep pointing out how it’s suddenly possible that he’s telling the truth?
If he’s saying he can’t do it anymore, he obviously can’t say he’s keeping the book.
Since that was the only thing I was suspicious of, it’s backed off now.
Well, we know he had the book…so it’s not that out there that if the book holder is saying “I’m going to keep it”, that there’s probably a good chance they just might keep it.
This does make it look more like Peeker got confused.
Otherwise, if the book was already gone when Peeker made his ‘slip’, why didn’t NAF know the book was gone?
I guess it all comes back to “Do I believe NAF or not?”. If he’s telling the truth, then he still had the Book, and it looks like peeker is legitimately confused. But if NAF is lying, then it’s entirely possible that he and peeker are both scum and peeker slipped up and jumped the gun, thinking NAF was going to reveal the ‘theft’ after Dusk, instead of after Dawn…
At this point, I’m leaning toward believing NAF, but I’m far from convinced of anything.
Loathe as I am to assist someone who maintains a vote against me for such weak reasons, town chooses best when well-informed…
(Sorry if this has been mentioned already - if so, then I missed it.)
There is at least one other possible explanation for the present situation with Naf and peeker: Naf still has the book, but was inspired by peeker’s ill-advised comment to claim that he lost it.
Had he openly held onto the book, then Naf might well have been top of the lynch list today. But with what looks like a case of PIS against peeker, and given peeker’s ability to make himself look scummier with every post in his defence, Naf might have seen it as an opportunity to push someone else under the bus, thus keeping himself out of the firing line a little longer.
To be clear, I’m not saying I think this is what happened. And, for the moment, I’m keeping my vote where it is. But my suspicions of peeker still rest primarily on his general behaviour yesterday. Given his misreading of so many of my own posts, I find it quite plausible that his comment on the book resulted from a misreading of someone else’s comment.
I’m going to have to give up sleep for this game, or at least become nocturnal! Always so much to read in the mornings.
OK I am still suspicious of Idle, but the peeker situation looks promising. Just a simple misspeak? Maybe that would have flown if not for the revisions of what caused the mistake. Desperate back pedalling is what that looks like.
unvote Idle
vote peeker
Gah, I’m back, I’m back- real-life obligations are making it hard to find time to play, so I keep pushing catching up on the thread back. Remind me, are substitutions permitted in this game? If so I’d better sub out, it’d be much better to get someone who’s going to be in a position to contribute consistently.
I don’t think that is a fair characterization of what I was saying.
My point was that I wanted us to do more than just talk about the book and NAF.
I find it somewhat strange that in the discussion regarding a vig killing NAF >< an investigator taking a closer look at him, so maybe have said something along the line “but we can’t know if we have a vig” yet seem to assume that we have a normal working investigator in the game.
When I try to recall Evil Dead I, as far as I remember we did have investigators - but not one of them was straight forward and standard mafia-Cop.
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if it the same in this game.
I voted earlier, but did not unvote(I think).
**
Unvote Telcontar**
Vote Peeker
Wow, that was fast… here’s my current vote count, anyone got anything different?
**peekercpa **- 11 votes - Mrs McGinty (1042). USCDiver (1353), NAF1138 (1357), Astral Rejection (1358), special ed (1367), Drain Bead (1376), Cookies (1379), Rysto (1383), Idle Thoughts (1384), One and Only Wanderers (1393), Mahaloth (1397)
**NAF1138 **- 3 votes - Oy! (758), Texcat (1192), brewha (1201)
**Telcontar **- 2 votes - Normal Phase (1010), Mahaloth (1018)
Suburban Plankton – 2 vote – Natlaw (1276), Stanislaus (1299)
Mrs. McGinty - 1 vote - peekercpa (755)
One and Only Wanderers – 1 vote – Total Lost (1279)
Storyteller has oddball roles in general – witness the Hitchhiker.
I think even a traditional investigator or vig could find more information-producing targets tonight than NAF, though.
I’m unsure of what to make of Idle’s explanations and what possible scum motivation he could have. If he’d simply said that he was afraid of NAF having the book and so, since NAF apparently lost the book, he was no longer afraid, it would make perfect sense. But to say that he finds NAF less suspicious since he’s stopped threatening to keep the book to himself makes no sense to me.
Over to Peeker, a WoW (spoilered):#68 In response to a request from Oy! to “dial it back”, says “i’ll try. but then most likely ed or at least some soul will say i am playing differently so that is a scum tell.”
#72, #189, #190, #191, #208 Fluff
#216 Adds a comment on editing
#219 Another comment on editing - not really a tell but poor form (and adds a golf analogy which I’ve just understood now)
#224 Thinks conversation about editing is not going anywhere
#226 In response to Oy! who asked if he wanted to comment on Cookies’ possible slip, gives an apparently unrelated answer
#227 NETA to clarify, doubts Cookies would make that slip, sees no evidence that some players have received a full role PM
#231 Has not received full role PM, thinks no-one has, doesn’t think Story would give some players role PMs but not others
#232/#289 Fluff (re: editing), #278/#279 fluff (re: previous game), #304 fluff (re: curious george)
#361 Is in favor of a mass claim
#414 Fluff (re: handshake from previous game)
#490 Quotes my question to Romanic about number of scum
#493 Comments on previous ED game and SK competition, thinks 4 scum is plausible
#531 Votes Romanic, his comment is a lynching offense here
#550 First interaction with Mrs McGinty, who commented that Romanic’s comment is a lynching offense anywhere and therefore he’d be surprised if Romanic flips scum, asks for clarification
#578 Asks Mrs McGinty if he’s implying that Romanic doesn’t pay attention as Town
#581 Fluff (re: ass cum)
#600 “aaaaiiiiiieeeee.” (apparently) in response to Rysto’s argument that Town is better off if Romanic uses his power and leaves
#683 To Romanic, if he can, should leave asap otherwise stay around to be lynched
#688&690 To lilflower, explains Special Ed’s analogy of Romanic leaving with a cancelled Night
#698 Comments on Oredigger’s vote for a player he thinks is Town
#755 Votes Mrs McGinty for being so convinced that Romanic was Town, therefore she must be scum
#761 In response to Mrs McGinty’s “Maybe I’m actually that good” (in determining that Romanic was Town through metagame), suggests he is full of shit
#823 Comment on previous game and scum fishing
#834&835 Comments on the book and the danger of scum getting it
#915 Wonders if Oy! was asking an honest question (about VTs having differing PMs)
#944 Responds to Mrs McGinty who asked why he’s Peeker’s #1 suspect, explains that McGinty seemed really convinced that Romanic was Town and was trying to distance himself from a slip he knew to be honest
#953&966&974 Responds to Mrs McGinty who asked where he said he was convinced Romanic was Town, quotes a number of posts, bolds one comment “Assuming I’m not quite that foolish, my actions would seem more suspicious if he turns out to be innocent, since I could then be accused of PIS.” (which was made in response to Drain’s suggestion that if Romanic flipped scum, McGinty will look bad) - NETA to state that 4 of the quotes were made after Romanic flipped scum
#982&983&992 Asks NAF if he thought Oy!'s slip made her town power role or scum
#993 & #999 & #1022 Tea as a meal vs. tea as a drink with OaOW
#1001&1003 To Telcontar, explains that his case against McGinty is the one McGinty made against himself
#1024 To McGinty, who asked him to make a case, explains that he was just reading McGinty’s words and “being helpful”
#1083 To McGinty and Special Ed, who’d mentioned that Peeker’s change in playstyle was odd, had RL stuff, promises to post something incoherent
#1088 To McGinty, who thought peeker was weaseling and had not made a case, says he did make a case and accuses McGinty of attacking the messenger, not defending against the case
#1093 Comments on NAF’s PM from Story about the powers of the book
#1094 Comments that he expected the book to be dangerous only if scum(non ashers?) get a hold of it and that it would be innocuous for town
#1101 To McGinty, makes a mischaracterization of her posts and defends himself with “I just used your case against you”
#1114 Thought NAF said he didn’t have the book anymore
#1118 NETA, it was idle who said that
#1229&1230 To Suburban, who seems to agree with Peeker that McGinty was more fervent than warranted on Day 1 in his defense of Romanic, comments on NAF’s vote reasoning
#1231 Votes McGinty (again?)
#1259 fluff? (re: great minds think alike)
#1298 In response to various players questioning him about knowing that NAF had lost the book before Dawn, refers to #1095 which he understood as NAF putting the book back
#1373 In response to several votes, swears that he doesn’t have the book- His post #490 really seemed strange to me (possibly as it was addressed to me and felt like an uncharacteristic snuggle): “just posting along as i catch up. but i am glad you asked this question. i guess, i’ll find the answer further on down the thread.” Romanic replied in the post immediately following my question and, by the time Peeker commented, Romanic had gained 7 votes. Peeker commented again that he found the 4 scum plausible and then 40 posts and 8 votes later, decided to vote with this caveat “ok, i have never played with roman before so to some extent i have to lean on other folks’ perception of his play.”
I’m not convinced that he made a slip when he thought that NAF had lost the book, it can just as easily be read as a misinterpretation. I am however suspicious of the inconsistency in his story (it was Idle, no, it was NAF) and subsequent lack of defense, his pursuit of a safe and easy vote in McGinty, mischaracterization of McGinty’s posts in relation to Romanic (see #1101), and to a lesser extent his uncharactistic lack of involvement in many topics.
Vote Peeker