Idle, do you really have no clue what is going on in this game? Peeker killed Hal who was a loyalist. Peeker’s killing ability is gone. Are you intentionally trying to look clueless? Is this some tactic to appear less scummy by looking less knowledgeable? If so, I don’t think it’s working.
And I hope peeker is okay, too!
No, I have a clue…
Listen, what it is is this: I’m disabled. It’s nothing physical, though, it’s a mental disease. It’s bad enough to keep me from working. I’m on disability and have been for the last ten years (even though I’m just 31 and was 21 when I first got placed on it). On disability and unable to work at the early age of 21, how’s that for a life? But that’s how it is. My mental disability is just that bad. And one of the facets of it is my mind is sometimes a whole lot like swiss cheese. I forget things very easily sometimes. You could tell me something and I’ll register it, but then I’ll forget about it the next day. Sometimes it’s longer (like, I’ll forget it in a week) and sometimes it’s sooner (like, I’ll forget it in a few minutes). It also seems to go in phases. These times can last anywhere to a few days, to a few weeks, to even a few months.
Right now is a bad phase for me…my mental capabilities haven’t been great lately (and for about two or three months now). It will clear up soon (it always does), but I have no idea when, and it will always (eventually) return, lasting for an unknown amount of time.
Because of this, I planned to make this my last game of mafia, only hosting from now on, but not ever playing again. It’s why I dropped out of the Scooby Doo one on my boards initially (although them needing a sub very badly made me step up to fill it).
So there you have it. Vote for me if you want, I don’t care anymore. This isn’t fun for me anymore. Mafia used to be fun for me, but all it is now is stressful. Stressful to try to keep up with all the info and to actually remember it, stressful to have people voting for me for (what I believe to be) silly reasons (initially…not lately; I can fully understand why someone would want to vote for me now)
Mafia is supposed to be fun, though…so I’m not going to play any longer until it’s fun again and until I feel my mental capacity is up to it.
Again, vote for me if you want, I don’t care. I’m Town and I’m really the (loyal) Hacker…but I’m done trying to give excuses why I seem to be skimming.
Truth is: I’m not. I haven’t been skimming. I just totally am forgetting things I just read the day before. 
Oh dear, I am sorry, Idle. I had no idea. I feel like an idiot.
Don’t, it’s not like you knew.
I’m really sorry, Idle. I didn’t mean to push you like that. I withdraw my accusation.
I’ll respond to Red’s post soon but I wanted to get that out there tonight.
I’m sorry Idle - it sucks when a game stops being fun and starts being a source of aggravation. You take care of yourself and I look forward to playing in the games you host.
After reviewing both Stanislaus and glowacks. I gotta go with Stanislaus. His post in suspicion of Idle makes one unsupported remark that really gets me.
This statement doesn’t ring true to me at all. IME at least half the time when scum conclude someone is town, it’s often because they are trying backpedal away from a position that they’ve made, or they are trying to appear to be doing something. Best example I can think of: In the Cecil pond game, there was a scum who spent all their time going on about who was laying low and what it meant in terms of their alignment. Pretty much just making shit up to look like they were doing any kind of analysis, when really it was as useful as fluff.
Generally speaking, however, when scum comment on a person being of any alignment, it’s just too null to tell (Are they saying it to implicate? Are they saying it to cover up? Are they saying just because they can’t think of anything else to say?). But here you’ve come up with nice neat theory about how a scum has pointed out another scum. It’s just too damn thin.
vote Stanislaus
Yes - it might mean this and it might mean that. It could be A but we can’t rule out B.
I’ve tried waiting for clear and unambiguous proof - it hasn’t come. So there comes a point when you just have to stick your neck out, and that’s where I’ve got to. Are you going to say that it’s impossible for town to do what I’ve done? Or just that you can see a plausible scum motivation for it?
I need to make another two votes:
vote NAF - I think we’re going to need some clarity here.
vote fluiddruid - There are three reasons for this:
Hello folks,
Realistically, my work commitments on Monday mornings tend to be huge, so it’s going to be hard for me to return and acknowledge all the points here. I will try. In the meantime, before I get ready for work I wanted to get my votes in order, since this’ll probably be my final contributions to the game.
Anyway, since I had four votes (whoops):
unvote Idle Thoughts
unvote NAF1138
vote Stanislaus
I don’t really want to see NAF1138 next since I’m guessing Town’s hitting tomorrow in a lynch or lose situation and I think there are better candidates (Red Skeezix in particular).
My vote on Stanislaus is pretty much because I think his argument against me is bogus and lazy. Voting me because I agreed with his argument, and substantiated it in detail, is not jumping on a criticism bandwagon by any stretch of the imagination. I think anyone can read back through the thread and see why I had sincere concerns about Idle. Also, I really hate when things are summed up as ‘snuggling’ without any argument - if you have a issue with what I said, try being specific about what was so scummy about what I said.
And, further, if it’s a sound vote to vote for me because of my vote for Crackrat when he had a good number of votes, his vote for me qualifies just the same. Good for the goose, good for the gander, then.
Day Four Vote Count
All Votes by Voting Player
fluiddruid => [del]Idle Thoughts (674-689)[/del], Red Skeezix (675), glowacks (675), [del]NAF1138 (675-689)[/del], Stanislaus (689).
TexCat => no votes.
Idle Thoughts => Stanislaus (661), fluiddruid (661), glowacks (661).
Red Skeezix => NAF1138 (678), fluiddruid (678), Stanislaus (687).
Inner Stickler => no votes.
glowacks => TexCat (677), fluiddruid (677), Stanislaus (677).
Stanislaus => Idle Thoughts (659), NAF1138 (688), fluiddruid (688).
NAF1138 => no votes.
peekercpa => no votes.
Net Votes
Stanislaus (4) <= fluiddruid, Idle Thoughts, Red Skeezix, glowacks.
fluiddruid (4) <= Idle Thoughts, Red Skeezix, glowacks, Stanislaus.
glowacks (2) <= fluiddruid, Idle Thoughts.
NAF1138 (2) <= Red Skeezix, Stanislaus.
Red Skeezix (1) <= fluiddruid.
TexCat (1) <= glowacks.
Idle Thoughts (1) <= Stanislaus.
With 9 players eligible to vote, 5 votes are needed to space. With these votes, no one will be spaced.
About four hours until the end of the Day.
Vote Stanislaus
Vote glowacks
Vote Texcat
Examine Red Skeezix
For a while, I was thinking of changing my votes today and voting for Idle. But in the end, they remain the same as yesterday:
Vote: Fluiddruid
Vote: Stanislaus
Vote: NAF
Day Four Vote Count
All Votes by Voting Player
fluiddruid => [del]Idle Thoughts (674-689)[/del], Red Skeezix (675), glowacks (675), [del]NAF1138 (675-689)[/del], Stanislaus (689).
TexCat => fluiddruid (692), Stanislaus (692), NAF1138 (692).
Idle Thoughts => Stanislaus (661), fluiddruid (661), glowacks (661).
Red Skeezix => NAF1138 (678), fluiddruid (678), Stanislaus (687).
Inner Stickler => Stanislaus (691), glowacks (691), TexCat (691).
glowacks => TexCat (677), fluiddruid (677), Stanislaus (677).
Stanislaus => Idle Thoughts (659), NAF1138 (688), fluiddruid (688).
NAF1138 => no votes.
peekercpa => no votes.
Net Votes
Stanislaus (6) <= fluiddruid, TexCat, Idle Thoughts, Red Skeezix, Inner Stickler, glowacks.
fluiddruid (5) <= TexCat, Idle Thoughts, Red Skeezix, glowacks, Stanislaus.
glowacks (3) <= fluiddruid, Idle Thoughts, Inner Stickler.
NAF1138 (3) <= TexCat, Red Skeezix, Stanislaus.
TexCat (2) <= Inner Stickler, glowacks.
Red Skeezix (1) <= fluiddruid.
Idle Thoughts (1) <= Stanislaus.
With 9 players eligible to vote, 5 votes are needed to space. With these votes, Stanislaus will be spaced.
Standing orders: Red Skeezix will be examined.
The Day ends in about two hours.
You use adjectives like “shady” and “scummy” repeatedly during your case against me, Red, but without defining why things are what you say they are. This seems like smearing to me. Just saying something is shady doesn’t make it so.
I believe I’ve already responded to the issue of me voting for the Idle bandwagoneers, but in case I haven’t, I’ll repeat myself. It was Day One. The bandwagon against Idle seemed to be on very poor grounds and I didn’t believe he was scum. I felt that voting for a group of people which I felt included scum was my best effort. What about this exactly is scummy? There wasn’t enough information at that time to build a case on four scum players and I felt I explained myself adequately.
Idle was worth defending at that time. I didn’t think Idle did anything wrong and there is nothing wrong with defending another player. I mean, frankly, if you say it’s a scum tell to defend someone because they turn out to be Town, how does it look if they turn out to be scum? This sort of logic means you can never back up anyone, ever, even if you don’t believe they are scum – or even if you don’t know if they’re scum or not, but you think the case against them is terrible. This is stupid, just like voting someone for “cuddling” as Stanislaus did. You’re saying that what I did is X, and I’m therefore scum, without really talking about why X is scum behavior. Again, it feels like smearing to me.
This was pointed out and I admitted it was my mistake. Seems funny to bring it up now when you didn’t argue with me then. But, again, what’s scummy about this? Why would a scum player use an easily provable lie? What advantage does that have to me? It makes more sense to be what it, in fact, is – an error. I had omitted Inner, and in my haste to respond the next morning I had worked backward, went “oh yeah he claimed”. As I’ve already explained.
Again, why bring this up now? You apparently had no issue with it at that time based on the information you had, so why think that I had more information than you?
I’d have to go back through at that time to know exactly what I was thinking but I had asked the group about who we should promote/demote. I finally ended up doing something that I felt a) might be constructive and b) at least wouldn’t cause a lot of officer jostling about because, in the end, nobody else had discussed it with me. I demoted who I felt to be a scum player.
For crying out loud. You blame me for not voting for a vote leader one day, and here, shortly, will blame me for voting for someone who IS a vote leader. In fact, the same player!
**This is the sum of my problem with your case against me.**You take individual events and make a case for their scumminess but then hold the opposite view in terms of other events. No matter what I do, I’m scummy.
As I said at the time, my vibe was against Crackrat. I later came back and made a more substantial case on him (after some internal waffling). I turned out to be right.
At that time I was expecting to die and nobody would discuss the issue with me. Again, I wanted some help from the group and some accountability. But of course, that didn’t happen. Why? If you felt this was such a huge problem, why didn’t you say something? I’ve asked if I should Brig someone today, for a further example; you didn’t respond to that, either. You seem to have a lot of concerns about how I use my officer powers when you’re making a case, but at no other time. This makes me suspect your motives. (Well, that and other stuff)
I voted for Peeker long before we knew anything about his status. Can you quote me on where exactly the problem is? I didn’t vote for him after he was brigged; are you thinking of someone else? Before he was brigged, we didn’t definitively know his role. In short, WTH? This doesn’t make sense.
Please. It was implied. There was no way to confirm NAF that day unless you investigated him and we killed you.
Frankly, yes. It’s not a matter of a moratorium on killing him because I think he should live; it’s a matter of not wasting a lynch on him. I, in fact, asked him if he’d get himself modkilled because I do think he should be dead, but that his lynch was a waste of time. We’re one day away from lynch or lose now – let’s say we lynch NAF. Who goes next if he’s Town? Who goes next if he’s Scum? I’ll answer you – we have no fracking idea because he lacks the history for us to get any feasible info.
Lynching what is, essentially, a lurker at this stage of the game is as anti-town as it comes. If we waste a lynch on NAF without at least 2 more scum kills on the table then we are ASKING to lose this game, ESPECIALLY since peeker is now AWOL and a confirmed townie.
Funny that I made this point before you did but explained myself.
Let’s get you on record, then – did you not think, at that point, there wasn’t a good case against Idle? I certainly did and saying that I’m jumping on coattails is irresponsible. I held back, if anything, but it seemed to be accurate until Idle explained. Again, what is scummy about that? Letting Idle go on inaccuracies and inconsistencies to avoid being perceived as scum is miles and away worse than holding him accountable. The fact that you suggest otherwise belies your true intentions.
I’ll just leave this here. We (well, you guys) might very well need it tomorrow if I die.
arrest Red Skeezix
Oh, and one more thing – if my behavior was scummy in questioning Idle, Red Skeezix, why didn’t you hold glowacks to task for the exact same thing?
Tex, not for nothing, but could we get some defense of the votes? I’m willing to give Inner a pass to a point since he’s confirmed, but you’re not. This just dropping of votes in a row isn’t terribly helpful and it doesn’t serve Town to give so little information about what you’re thinking.
I’ve voted the same people for several days now. So no further explanation from me. Bwahaha.
Demote: Inner Stickler
Final vote count is substantially the same as posted in post 693.
Stanislaus is spaced and was Loyal Crew.
It is now Night Four.
Standing orders: Arrest warrant for Red Skeezix.
The Night will end Tuesday, Apr 12, at 12 noon PT (3pm ET).
So, toDay’s Doc results will now go to Glowacks? Wow, that kinda sucks since I’ve been mostly suspicious of him the whole game.
NOW what was your reason for taking a confirmed Town out of the doc’s position, Texcat?
How can you possibly justify either of these as a town player? 