While I won’t argue that the logic of the post was sound, I’d like to address the smudging point specifically. This was a charge that was leveled at me before – as a Townie I might add – and personally I think it’s a bit nonconstructive. While yes, we want to keep people voting, speaking negatively about someone isn’t always a smudge. We can only vote for so many people and there are several strong reasons to call out someone when you’re not going to vote - first and foremost, if your vote is already on a strong candidate, but also consider power roles who want to leave a trail, or to call attention to scummy behavior/backpedaling/lying even if you don’t want to switch your vote for strategic reasons. I’m not going to defend pedescribe’s logic here but I don’t want to see people failing to point out important information because they want to protect themselves from being voted for on the basis of smudging. If you can justify what you have to say and furthermore where your vote is currently, it shouldn’t be considered anti-town. Now, if someone’s doing this with a vote nowhere… I can’t really justify that.
Hey, why are you the only Game Room mod? I mean, not that you’re not doing a great job, but every other forum has at least two. Do TPTB not think this forum is ood enough to deserve a swarm of moderation? Or is just that you’re so good that you don’t need another? (I’ve always thought Giraffe was dead weight in the Pit, anyways… :))
Since you were kind enough to answer his questions, would you mind taking a stab (ha!) at mine from post 653:
Thanks!
Okay, I know I’m in no position to call out people who have real-life conflicts – heaven knows I missed a lot of the last game – but I’m going to note here that you and Darth Sensitive need to not do this again tomorrow. Sorry, but the vote rule is there for a reason, and (in my opinion) a pro-town reason; circumventing the vote requirement by voting and unvoting or voting for yourself is not acceptable.
In any case I agree that we need to evaluate Nanook’s claim before lynching. As such I am going to
unvote Nanook of the North Shore
As for the other main candidate, CIAS… after rereading the last few pages just now, I just don’t feel it. CIAS is acting a bit hostile and reactionary, but based on my past experience, I can really only assume it’s defensive townie behavior. CIAS has put him(her?)self consistently at risk today, first by the voting-for-mass-claim fiasco and then by vocal opposition to Nanook. That’s pretty gutsy scum behavior, especially as (predictably) when Nanook claimed, the Town has turned reflexively on CIAS as the next target. I have to ask, if CIAS is scum, explain to me the rationale of his (her?) plays so far?
Hehe! Well, I don’t want to hijack the thread, but to answer this, we just haven’t hired any new mod candidates since then. I could definitely use backup but there is a pretty stringent application process. It’s okay, though - I get very few reported posts from this forum. Pretty much just Feud closings.
Now back to your regularly scheduled Mafia thread.
That is an excellent question and one I had not thought of in those terms. I will reread and consider.
First of all, NAF, it seems we have different definitions of smudges. Your definition of a smudge is any negative comment on a player without an accompanying vote. My definition is any weak/unexplainible/indefensible accusation on another player, vote or no. According to your definition, I’ve smudged Pollux Oil, CatInASuit (twice), Shadow Facts, and you. According to my definition, I’ve only smudged CatInASuit once, but your post was a smudge by my definition until you backed it up.
Secondly, your accusation that my vote for Pollux Oil was “[not possibly] pro-town” and “for the worst of reasons”.
For reference, here’s my vote post.
Bolding added. You seem to think that the only reason that I’m voting for him is because he hasn’t shown up for a while, something I admit to doing. This is not true. I have two reasons. The first is his uber-freaky post:
Note that I’m not the only one bugged out. Diomedes immeadeatly voices her suspicions. Here’s my response post:
And I have been waiting. It’s been a few days, and we haven’t heard a peep from him. I’ve gotten tired of waiting, and it still lookes scummy, and these are the two reasons I’m voting for him. I hardly feel these are deserving of your hyperbole.
Third, you call my response to CatInASuit “bullshit”. Here’s what I said:
You say that, because it is a smudge, it is anti-town. But I meant what I said. You surely remember my earlier crusade against CatInASuit and his mass role-claim idea. I stop railing in this post:
See, I’ve got degrees of suspicion. In this post, I tell people that I’ve dropped CatInASuit from ‘Vote-level Suspicious’ to ‘Suspicious’. So the “I’ve got my eye on you” simply means “you’re still suspicious in my eyes”. Nothing wrong with that. Also, he was, in my opinion, acting weird regarding Nanook’s claim. This post, in particular, set off my scumdar:
Thus, my “and, you’re acting pretty strange too.”
I don’t think that me updating people on my opinion of CatInASuit is “bullshit”, and frankly I’m insulted that you said that.
Well I am sorry if you were insulted. It isn’t personal. But you have to see that you are most decidedly guilty of what you accused me of in this last post.
Also, it isn’t so much your opinion but rather how you chose to express it that caused me to vote for you. Have all the opinions you want, vote for whoever you want, but the way in which you voiced your opinion and vote, and the subsequent reaction to my vote say to me that you are…well I don’t want to say scum because that is too vague, playing for yourself maybe?
I’m not telling you how to play, I’m just telling you why I am voting for you.
NAF, to sum it up, is your current vote aligned with your theory of punishing “bad play”?
I put it in quotes because bad play, is, from an insiders perspective, subjective, by definition.
Well, yes and no. My vote is for the reasons I stated. Those reasons fall in line with what I consider bad play, but in this case it really has more to do with me thinking Pede is not town aligned.
NETA: were it later in the game, I would require a slightly higher level of proof. As it is Day One, Pede is currently the person I find to be scummiest.
<Snipped> and [bolded]
Ok screw it, I quit. Mod kill my ass or fucking ban me. I’ve seen a heck of a lot worse said in these games than what I said. I thought santo’s idea was total hooey.
At least he got it, FCS.
Philip
Quit bitching. It was total bullshit. Now get your fucking head back in the game.
Ok. At least you get it.
Okay, I’m doing a lot better without meds than I thought I would be, but I still need to catch up a bit. Just wanted to let you guys know that I’m around now.
Why can’t he reveal a townie? Not their specific role but their alignment. Cripes, information is at a premium in this game with the delayed release of death information. And I am not going to tell the town power roles how to play since every game is an individual event that linking to the past would only be casual at best.
If he is a witch and he makes it through the night what is the harm in revealing the results of the investigation regardless of alignment?
I mean, sure, if it is a town align then that person is a tasty target for the scum the following night. But, I believe that there is going to be protective roles. Let the scum have to play WIFOM. I’d rather be proactive than reactive. Let’s keep the scum on their heels, FCS.
And I’ll hold off for now because of the current situation. I would like to win but … When I found a loophole in Simpletown I really thought voilla. Then based on the other players’ reaction I felt like such a loser. It was only when sach came back post game and basically said “good catch” that it didn’t feel so cruddy. But I am not doing that again.
And this is the last I am going to comment on this but…
You are one of the best Mods on this board but this really hurt.
If you have read any of my posts you would know that there is nothing personal about anything I post. Flip look at my false claim last game. It got heated but I knew that it was just in the context of the game.
GD, santo seems like a stand up guy.
I just haven’t talked to the mothers of all the daughters that he has ravished to get a different viewpoint. 
Well, he could reveal a Townie, but what I think **Cat **was talking about was something I mentioned earlier in regard to testing Nanook’s clam, namely that if **Nanook **can name a scum, then we can lynch that person and see if **Nanook **was telling the truth (with a time delay, of course).
What will often happen with a false claim, though, is that the “investigator” will name players as Townies, knowing that the Town will not want to lynch that person to test the claim. Thus they can string out the false claim longer. So I don’t think **Cat **was suggesting that **Nanook **not reveal his investigation if it’s Town, but that such a reading is not as testable as a Scum reading.
(I should also note that, upon double-checking the rules, Witches only get Side information in their investigations, not Roles.)
I just feel, also, that “cheating” to win isn’t winning. That mod-kill thing in Simpletown? That was dirty play. Say all you want to that “Town should do ANYTHING to win” and that “The moderator makes the rules and if he makes a crap rule that’s his fault” but this is still a game. I can beat you in Monopoly by throwing the board across the room and punching you in the nose, but that is not within the spirit of the game and I wouldn’t feel I had won the game of Monopoly. (I might feel I’d won, but not won the game.) I don’t feel that cheap play is sportsmanlike, I think the mod-kill win idea in Simpletown was dirty, and I don’t care if you think that makes me look like scum. Like my mama said, cheaters never win and winners never cheat.