Mafia: Not-so-simple-Simpletown

I do not trust pleo. I am least suspicious of him/her. There is a difference.

“Let’s try and keep things civil,” said the hypocrite.

You’re saying you trust grandma with the Monopoly bank while you get up and get a glass of water because if you didn’t the game wouldn’t be any fun to play.

Alright.

That’s basically correct, yes.

I was mentally scrubbing him - not scrubbing, as in, making provocative posts about him.

I didn’t like the way the willthekittensurvive pile-on thing happened. I think it would be (should be) unnatural for something like that to happen without some scummy influence. I re-read it a few times to try and figure out which way the scum could have best manipulated it, and Adrian’s name came to the top. That’s about as specific as I am going to get.

If what happened to willthekittensurvive had happened to say, pleo, my vote almost certainly would have gone to Adrian. Until something changes, my level of suspicion at Adrian is going to be inverse to my level of suspicion of willthekittensurvive.

Well, again. If the scum are taking my council on who to go after, then this is a good thing for me, and I have no need to defend my actions.

Sorry straggler. I think your behavior is weird and it doesn’t make sense to me unless you are scum. However, in no manner did you deserve to be called stupid. I’m going to take a break and enjoy this beautiful weather.

We’re cool.

Gah, my brain is hurting. You and Kitten are doing the same thing. Laying out your suspicions or lack there of is not a bad thing. Explaining what Pleo has done for you not to be suspicious does not give scum a road map how to earn your trust unless you always trust people who do X, in which case that is worse then always mistrusting people who do Y. You explaining your actions give the town a chance to judge them so they can agree or not and allows us to find inconstancies in your motivation. Which is how we catch scum.

How did Adrian manipulate the pile-on? I ask because I’m part of it and would like to know how I was manipulated so I can avoid it in the future. Just saying that someone is doing something scummy does not help the town to see it and if you don’t get people to agree with you it is impossible to build enough people for a lynch. I am assuming of course that you want to lynch the people who do scummy things.

Just for the record straggler has moved into the number 2 spot on my scummy list and is only holding because Kitten seems to have disappeared to take the heat off.

The long and the short of it is that Pleo and I had pretty much the same discussion, tho a little more heated. In retrospect all it really did was detract us from scum hunting, both of us were town, he got NK’d if I recall, and I got lynched after the town concluded my actual PM was fake.

I agree discussion is good, tho being at the pointy end of an inquisition is probably more painful than getting a vote against you.

But I’ll cede the point to Pleo and Nanook.

Unvote Straggler

WHAT?!

This might be true if we’re at least midway through the game, when everyone has left enough of a track record that any changes in behaviour are obvious.

But it’s not true now.

Why are you so determined to keep stating that I “trust” people in this game? If outright denials don’t satisfy you, what would?

It’s the first Day. I am not offering up my scum tell secrets, no matter how high up your scum list you want to elevate me.

I divide my scum tells in to two categories:

General scum tells: Tells that can be made by any scum, whether they be forced in to it, trapped in to it, etc. Pointing these out is of great benefit to the town.

Player-specific scum tells: Much like poker, individual players give off specific, sub-conscious tells. These tells are not consistent from player to player. It makes no sense to reveal these to the entire poker table, which is what you are demanding I do. And it’s this type of tell that I am currently working on with Adrian.

Nice, thanks.

What’s the proper etiquette in this game when someone unvotes you?

OK I said I’d revote today so here goes. First part’s mostly been covered by Nanook. FTR I trust any player who gives an oog reason for absence. If they say they’ve been put on double shifts then I believe them. If they say nothing more than they’ve been busy then not so much though I won’t automatically think they’re lying either. I’m only repointing this part out because sitnam brought the subject up much earlier in the game so it may or may not be relevant to his subsequent back and forth with Nanook.

Anyway, that isn’t my primary reason for voting him.

I don’t think he did manipulate the pile-on. I think there was already suspicion against kitten before she voted for a no lynch and that this post may have spooked her into it.

To which she replies

Then there are 3 votes for her in fairly quick sucession though none of them from sitnam who only says:

It’s an easy way to get a lynch started and come away with your hands clean.

There are a couple of other minor points too. Quick vote/unvote of rex by random.org followed by a vote for peeker for being peeker. Neither vote has any bearing on the game itself.

Also he totally didn’t get my sarcasm which offends me greatly on a personal level but I suppose I can’t base my vote on it.

I can, however base it on everything else so

vote Sitnam

In other news. Regarding the willthekittensurvive votes. I agree her actions are completely anti town but it just feels like we’re kicking a, well a kitten. She may be scum I suppose but it feels more like a newbie wanting everyone to play nice. Remember it takes time to reach the level of downright nastiness most of us have got to.

In this case ask them nicely to do it in the right colour so it actually counts! :smiley:

Hey, MentalGuy, please come here and defend me, I’m being attacked!
(Just kidding :slight_smile: )

straggler, I don’t think you can convince other players if you don’t explain yourself.

There was a small pile-on going on with our three votes, but in my opinion it was much more justified than the one I argued against.
I did the same thing I suspected Almost Human and pedescribe for, yes, but the respective argument deserves consideration.

Good get!

(asks nicely)

BillMC… please put it in red!

Hahahahaha.

Aaahhhh ha ha ha ha ah ha!!!

Hahahahahahaha.

Might as well make my vote count.

Sitnam is the only one on my List of Suspicion who looks to be any chance of getting lynched. As for the other 3 on my list -> tread carefully, this vote for Sitnam is yours to gain.

vote Sitnam

In a non-competitive, sit down and have some fun with my grandma game of monopoly? Yes I would. And if you don’t, I feel very sorry for you.

I note you still haven’t really answered me.

What exactly is that supposed to mean? You do realize this is a team game right? (Barring PFKs and Third Parties. If you want to admit to being one of those, feel free.)

The player who I am suggesting I have a player-specific tell on, is attempting to encourage me to spill the beans on that tell, because otherwise no one else will believe me.

On my list of players whom I am most likely to listen to on whether I should publicly announce the tell, the player whom the tell relates to is pretty close to the bottom.

At least someone was paying attention :smiley:

Unvote Straggler

And what’s a BFK/Third Party?