International Mafia

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Hindsight is a bitch to have on the other side when trying to justify being wrong.

I didn’t see Shadowfacts’ play today as adding to the case against him in sufficient amounts to overcome my (admittedly subjective) interpretation of the consensus that the case brought against him on Day 1 was weak, though the parting post of his before the close of the Day struck me as a) unnecessarily and preemptively dramatic b) disregarding/ignoring the possibility that my vote would come into play. The former seems particularly odd considering it was a tie, but by that time it was too late.

I’m not really sure how Shadow is getting ‘defensive’ or ‘nervous’ out of my play in Wellington yesterDay. As I’ve voted both Nights and I decided to claim, there is a need for me to justify my votes, and as my claim was unforced I needed to justify that as well. But again, that was not enough to overcome being gunshy about how my vote from Day 1 played out.

At first I was skeptical of Scuba for his description of my vote as useless in anything but a tie, because a visible vote would be more of a public record than just saying who I was suspicious of after the fact. But he’s right. By the time my vote is applied and made visible, the conclusion is already foregone, and there is no way (aside from publishing my PM history with the Mod) to prove whether or not my vote was placed 30 hours or 30 seconds prior to London Dusk.

So, apologies to Town and Mrs McGinty for being wrong. I’d say ‘again’ but if my vote for Shadowfacts on Day 1 was correct in faction, I’m claiming it and at Romanic for passing the buck.

[Suburban_Plankton]

I just want to clear up one lingering misconception…

I Post 527 MHaye makes his case against Romanic, and notes a post of mine

@MHaye

[post=13224773]Post 91[/post] : Suburban is “suspicious of anyone who does a lot of travelling.”

Later, in Post 547 he counts me as one of the four people who showed suspicion of travelers.

What I said in Post 91 was that a person who was in transit was effectively ‘immune from lynching’ at that point, and that fact “I suppose, is one reason to be suspicious of a person who does a lot of traveling.”

I did not say that I was ‘suspicious of travelers’, or even that I would nevessarily be suspicious of people who “travel a lot”. In fact, I have stated that I feel it’s necessary for Town (specifically Vanilla Town) to travel. I think that travel, in and of itself, is a null-tell. The motives for traveling are what we should look at, not the travel itself. In that respect, ‘traveling’ is no different that any other statement or action that someone makes.

I’m not sure if it’s really an issue at this point, but I did want to make sure that since my thoughts were on record, that they were on record correctly.

NOTE: I’m not singling out MHaye for any particular reason. I took note of his posts when they were made; I’m pretty sure someone else came to the same interpretation, but I didn’t mark it down and have neither the time nor the inclination to find it now. I’m not suggesting that MHaye’s misinterpretation of my statement is Scummy, just that it’s mistaken.

[Suburban_Plankton]

And I am getting kinda tired of **peeker **getting to be a Mason in every. single. game…

But he’s as confirmed as anyone can be who’s not already dead.

[peekercpa]

@Suburban_Plankton

And I am getting kinda tired of **peeker **getting to be a Mason in every. single. game…

But he’s as confirmed as anyone can be who’s not already dead.

hey, take that shit out into the parking lot with pleo.

seriously, i got a name and alignment and a role, and you still want to spout thit about me not being on the other side of the twins. and no counter claim. at this point i wish scum were stupid enough to counter claim because i would certainly give a one for one in what is/was a two person masonry.

vote pleo

[Suburban_Plankton]

@peekercpa

seriously, i got a name and alignment and a role, and you still want to spout thit about me not being on the other side of the twins. and no counter claim. at this point i wish scum were stupid enough to counter claim because i would certainly give a one for one in what is/was a two person masonry.

Sorry if I was unclear; I’m not doubting your claim. I didn’t really doubt it Yesterday, I was just being stubborn.

I was just acknowledging the fact that until the Mod reveals your role, anything is possible…but the probability that you are Scum, and that you were able to discover Astral’s name *and *role, and that you’ve somehow managed to silence the ‘real Peter’, is so small that it probably wasn’t worth the effort I just put in to spell it out.

[Suburban_Plankton]

NETA: And there was supposed to be a smiley at the end of the first line in my post 623…I don’t know what happened to it.

[Idle_Thoughts]

Sorry about not having made it back in time to remove my vote from Peeker, I have been having digestive problems that have been making me sick. I’m still not out of the woods yet, but I’m going to do my best to stay in the game. I might have to sub out, though, if it gets too much (like having to go to the hospital).

ToDay, Vote Suburban Plankton

I think he’s just a little scummier-looking than Pleo, in my opinion. For one, being willing to lynch a claimed mason yesterDay (and, unlike me, being willing to keep his vote on peek AFTER he saw the claim)…then, seemingly flip flopping and unvoting after he saw how much heat it got him.
Plus all that evasiveness over not mentioning if he’s going to travel again. Seems to me that would be an answer you’d give if you knew you’d probably be traveling again, eventually, for some needed reason.

It’s not too strong a case, obviously, but I’m only looking for the person I think is most suspicious.

[peekercpa]

@Suburban_Plankton

NETA: And there was supposed to be a smiley at the end of the first line in my post 623…I don’t know what happened to it.

the post i made was snarkiness directed at pleo not you.

but you know what they say about guilty conscious.

[Suburban_Plankton]

Regarding activities back in London:

I noted in Post 452 that ShadowFacts’ claim was entirely devoid of color, and wondered if that could be because he had edited it. **Natlaw **later pointed out that his own claim was also completely devoid of color.

Of course, we now know that Natlaw’s claim was devoid of color because it was fake.

[peekercpa]

@Suburban_Plankton

Of course, we now know that Natlaw’s claim was devoid of color because it was fake.

<snipped>

and we would know this how?

c’mon burb think it through.

[Mahaloth]

I think we should have done this yesterDay.

Vote Suburban Plankton

[Mahaloth]

Buckle up, folks, this post is important.

Hey, London! Wake up and read this post carefully! Don’t skim past this one when you review/read our Day! Hey!!! London!!! Hey!!!

Uh, I’ve decided to claim.

1. Yes, be pissed off at me if you like. I’m claiming early because this game is unusual and I’m not sure if I’m gonna get killed next. I don’t’ want to die with any useful information, which I have. Also, two Town players in London are on the chopping block over there. Also, I’m claiming because deaths are coming fast and furious in this game and I want to get my info. out there as soon as possible.

I know two investigation results is early for a claim, but I’m doing it anyway. Deal with it.

2. For what it is worth, the info. I have can help our London friends, but not much to help us here in Wellington.

3. My original PM had a typo in it and I asked sach for a fixed one, which he sent. If you want my original one and my correspondence between myself and sach regarding it, I’ll post it.

4. I am a cop that can investigate citizenship, but only those in London. I live in Wellington and can not travel.

5. I have investigated ShadowFacts and Drainbead/Rysto.

**- ShadowFacts is a citizen of the United Kingdom

• Rysto is also a citizen of the United Kingdom**

6. For my money, this makes Peeker(I believe his mason claim), Shadow, and Rysto 90% confirmed. And me, of course. This should confirm me pretty strongly, too. Also, a godfather can trick my investigation.

OK, here we go then. My fixed Role PM is:

[spoiler] 12-07-2010, 02:33 PM
sachertorte sachertorte is offline
Guest

Join Date: Apr 2007
International Mafia
You are a member of the London Metropolitan Police.
Citizenship: United Kingdom
Win Condition: Arrest all members of the International Crime Ring

Since you are a member of the London Metropolitan Police, your contacts in London enable you to investigate a player in London. The citizenship of your target will be the result of your investigation. True Town citizens have United Kingdom or New Zealand citizenship. However, there may be criminal elements from the UK and New Zealand as well.

You are not eligible to travel.

You begin the game in Wellington, New Zealand. [/spoiler]

**Now, you may be wondering about the last part. It says, “However, there may be criminal elements from the UK and New Zealand as well.”

Well, I wondered too, so I asked Sach.
**
Here is that PM:

[spoiler]

12-14-2010, 10:33 AM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is online now
Charter Member

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 11,995
International Mafia Question
My role PM says:

“The citizenship of your target will be the result of your investigation. True Town citizens have United Kingdom or New Zealand citizenship. However, there may be criminal elements from the UK and New Zealand as well.”

Question: I don’t get my investigation power at all, then. It seems like I learn their true citizenship, but the next sentence tells me that their true citizenship does not impact their ability to be scum. Is this right? If so, I am a weak cop, but weak beyond weak.

If not, what does “true citizenship” mean?

I hope you can answer this for me. I clearly do not understand the powerfulness(or point) of my investigation.[/spoiler]

His response indicated that it was only a godfather clause. He worte this(I took out his quoting of me):

[spoiler]
12-14-2010, 11:41 AM
sachertorte sachertorte is offline
Guest

Join Date: Apr 2007
Re: International Mafia Question

It is a standard Godfather disclaimer. I preferred laying it all out explicitly since I don’t like lying as a moderator. While the Godfather lie is a well-known and accepted lie, I saw the opportunity to lay it out as a citizenship test with the disclaimer that it is possible for a criminal to be UK or NZ too.

As a Godfather disclaimer, does it make more sense to you? Sorry for the confusion.[/spoiler]
I also asked him if would be OK for me to submit both a primary choice of investigation and a backup one, since I can not predict who they may kill at the end of their Day. He said it was fine and I have submitted a first and second choice for the first two Nights(their Day).

I can copy and paste any PM communication between me and Sach if you want me to. Let me know.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@peekercpa

<snipped>

and we would know this how?

c’mon burb think it through.

You’re right. Was I should have said was that we know Natlaw’s claim was ***edited ***because it was fake…not that it was devoid of color because it was fake. I had been referencing my earlier post where I thought that ShadowFacts post might be devoid of color because he had edited it, and I picked the wrong phrase to copy over.

@Mahaloth

I think we should have done this yesterDay.

Vote Suburban Plankton

If you thought it yesterday, then why didn’t you vote me yesterday?

[Mahaloth]

@Suburban_Plankton

If you thought it yesterday, then why didn’t you vote me yesterday?

Ah, poorly stated by me. I did have my vote on you, but moved it to a scummier player(who ended up being scum). Still, I think you are too.

Anyway, my vote is on you now that your scum partner is dead.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Well if that’s a real honest claim I feel a bit less guilty about killing McGinty.

[Suburban_Plankton]

@Mahaloth

Ah, poorly stated by me. I did have my vote on you, but moved it to a scummier player(who ended up being scum). Still, I think you are too.

Anyway, my vote is on you now that your scum partner is dead.

You didn’t exactly go out of your way yesterday to state your suspicion of me…

As far as I can tell, the following is every single time you mention my name Yesterday:

@Mahaloth

Uh, peek, this isn’t the first time, but I have no idea what you are on about. Please explain your vote on suburban and what you find so suspicious. Also, how are the scum trying to allign their assets?

I just don’t get it.

@Mahaloth

Suburban, what non-peeker issues do you feel need to be discussed?

@Mahaloth

Suburban, have you claimed? I thought you had, but I’m re-reading and I can not find an actual claim or full role PM from you. Did I imagine your claim?

@Mahaloth

Vote Suburban

He’s voting for a claimed mason…still.

@Mahaloth

Unvote

Suburban unvoted peeks, so I’m removing my vote on him. Day nearly ends, so I’ll:

Vote Natlaw

for trying to pull specific travel plans from players. I’m not sure that’s a wise move because it might help scum.

@Mahaloth

Uh, it’s a vanilla claim. Is that supposed to have some kind of powerful effect on whether I think natlaw is scum or not?

I don’t get why you think it’s a big deal. I was on Suburban for not moving his vote after peek’s claim, but peek’s claim is not a vanilla claim and could be potentially confirmed by Astral.

I just don’t get your point.

It looks like the only reason you voted for me was because I was being a stubborn ass and didn’t unvote **peeker **quickly enough…and as soon as I did you removed your vote.

Then you voted for Natlaw. I don’t recall you laying out any suspicions of Natlaw yesterday, but I’m assuming they were the same ones I used when I voted for him in this post, 29 posts before you did.

I’m not casting a vote for you at the moment because I want to consider the implications of your claim first, but you’re smelling pretty Scummy to me right now.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Just to fast-forward a bit (ok, a lot since there isn’t even a vote on him at this point), if we were to end up lynching Mahaloth and we’re wrong, we wouldn’t get a whole lot of confirmed information. Shadow and Rysto are either both town, or one of them is a Scum Godfather. At the same time, there are a lot of deaths taking place between participation cycles.

I’m conflicted about Pleo. His (arguably pedantic) choice of perspective on peeker is technically correct, but it is a similar sort of annoyance as his early un-forced claims, assuming he’s Town. A little corner for paranoia and/or scummy encouragement to pick at until people go voting for him. But when combined with his claim, and the lack of accountability for votes because he’s allegedly forced to travel, it would be a convenient gambit for scum to try. Traveling voluntarily whenever possible and blaming it on a role.

On the third had, being the holder of a role that could arguably be spun as convenient in its mechanics for a non-traveling scum to go assisting in the lynches of Townies in London in cases of a tie, I am sensitive to the appearances of convenience being a red herring.

As Pleo has already claimed, we’re not going to get much more out of him other than re-hashes of justifications and perspectives he’s already shared, and maybe some analysis on who else we should be looking at instead of him. I just have to wonder that if Pleo is an innocent, what if anything he could say to convince people not to vote for him. Please consider that a rhetorical question and don’t start listing the things that he could say to change your mind, Pleo voters.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Missing sentence : “At the same time, there are a lot of deaths taking place between participation cycles. I understand the desire to divulge what results he has before he gets killed.”

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

One thing I don’t agree with Scuba Ben on about my role is that I should disclose what I plan to do with my vote in London and then be held to that. Disclosing who I’d vote for as Day closes here and Day begins there is one thing, but holding me to that means that I couldn’t react to any new information that might come up at the transition or during the Day there.

[USCDiver]

@Mahaloth

I think we should have done this yesterDay.

Vote Suburban Plankton

Can you explain more about this vote? You seemed satisfied Yesterday when he unvoted peeker.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

One thing I don’t agree with Scuba Ben on about my role is that I should disclose what I plan to do with my vote in London and then be held to that. Disclosing who I’d vote for as Day closes here and Day begins there is one thing, but holding me to that means that I couldn’t react to any new information that might come up at the transition or during the Day there.

Yes, that is kind of a silly suggestion. The more appropriate way for them to handle your voting is to not forget it is there! They should be addressing you specifically during the day and trying to convince you to vote for a player OR alternatively, asking you not to vote at all if the situation calls for restraint.