Apologies for the lack of posting. What can I say. I’m very time poor. Might not be much in the way of explanation, but it’s the truth.
Sorry to hear about your loss, Visorlash.
I didn’t like this post from Ender24, it seemed way too helpful. A bit too “they wouldn’t suspect I’d go to this much effort if I was scum” helpful.
FOS Ender24
I didn’t like that Tengu made no reference to me after I voted for him on Day 1. I also think Tengu’s use of the word “we” in this post was trying too hard to sound Town
Yeah we get it, you want us to think you’re one of us. I don’t buy it.
vote Tengu
Alka’s dummy spit about the slow game, canvassing opinion on whether it’s even worth continuing, and claiming to have contacted the game mods to be subbed out.. it’s a bit too sooky la la for a bona fide townie.
I feel like a Mafia newbie. As you basically summised, I recall playing three games prior to this one. In one game, I got voted out on Day 1. In another game, I asked to be subbed out very early, Day 1 or Day 2. That makes me a noob, imho.
Finally, I am not “friends” with Mahaloth, I can’t recall ever conversing with him off the SDMB, unless he happened to be scum in the same game that I was scum, and all we would have talked about would have been that particular Mafia game, on that particular game’s offsite scum board.
So back in post 440, where you explicitly say that you’ll be voting for gnarlycharlie tomorrow (D3) if his PM isn’t the same as fubbleskag’s, why didn’t you? Wait, I know - you felt my actions way back on D1 were more scummy than anything that happened on D2 or now on D3. And can you point to the one specific post where I said something that “betrayed” me? Because I’d certainly like to give my thinking behind it. You don’t seem to be able to point to anything in D2 and D3 that have reinforced my scummyness to you, so I’m guessing I must have “given myself away” back then.
Or in post 392, where you’re troubled by the votes for Mosier. Have you gone back and looked into any of these voters? They seemed to rouse your suspicions then, but apparently not enough to bother with since.
Part of your D1 case against me (which is all we have to go on, since you haven’t revisited it) rests on my reaction to Stanislaus saying that my D1 vote timing seemed suspect, and my harping on the third vote thing. (Which I did do, admittedly). You say that my rant about the third vote was simple misdirection from the meat of Stanislaus’s case. Did you read post 236 and post 247, where Stanislaus clarified to me what he meant by timing, and my response to that? In my post 247, I do mischaracterise Stanislaus’s intentions, and that was wrong and misleading of me and I apologized (and still do apologize) for that.
You admit that your case against me is simple, and either does or does not rely on a lot of different actions by me (I’m definitely getting mixed messages here). I think you’re still cheesed off that I called your posts wishy-washy, and you’re either using a weak case to vote for me because of it or hiding. And to be honest, your latest posts haven’t really changed my opinion. But at least you’ve come back with something, which is more than we can say for gnarlycharlie or Hal.
unvote Alka, Hal I still don’t trust either of then, but I think there’s a bigger chance that Kelly is scum: Vote Kelly
Far too easy for someone like her to drop in once once day, throw a wild accusation, and disappear. I find it badly scummy. Will post more when I’m not on a phone.
If anyone has little time to play I have no problem with that at all, but it would be courteous to let us know beforehand.
I’ve agreed to play until the end of the Day, and while I’m in it I’ll play it to the hilt. It’s a team game, not a solo effort. I won’t be playing Tomorrow regardless of what happens, for a variety of reasons. If a sub can’t be found, then I will accept a mod-kill.
There is a potential sub lined up, but it’s not a certainty. I’ve been asked to play until the end of the Day. I’m not quite sure how the handover would work. If alive and not subbed, I might post during the Night or even at Dawn Tomorrow, if I have anything worthwhile to share after seeing the flips. Regardless, I won’t be voting or posting after that for the rest of the game.
So an OMGUS vote? Fair nuff.
By the way, for everyone still putting any hope in automatic mod-kills, I’d like to squash your hope right now for two reasons.
The least participatory players, **Mahaloth **and **Kelly **have now picked up the pace in the last 24 hours. Suspiciously so, I’d say. But probably enough that, were they Town, they’re not going to get Mod-killed. And if they’re Scum, they’ve probably been urged by their fellow Scum to stop drawing so much attention to themselves by hiding.
But there’s something else I’d like to examine:
Bolding/Underlining mine (ok, technically it was all bolded, so the unbolded part is me
Now, maybe this means nothing. Maybe it means exactly what it purports to mean. But here’s my interpretation of it:
Non-participatory does NOT mean they’ve stopped posting in this thread. There are two other methods of communication. 1) PMs 2) The secondary board set up.
So if **Mahaloth **and **Kelly ** are Scum they will NEVER be mod-killed because they’re still “participating” in the game. Just using a board we don’t have access to.
So I’m going to keep my vote on both of them for the time being.
Ok, I get what you’re trying to say here. Those who have been playing for awhile will remember the vote charts I used to maintain in every game. If I was town, I’d keep the chart going until the game was over, wanting town to have the info. If I was scum, I’d keep up appearances by maintaining the chart, but when I died, well…. So I understand all about the “too helpful” angle.
The trouble is, Ender wasn’t being too helpful! It was a perfectly informative post, but gathering that data probably took him all of one minute. If that’s “too helpful”, then damn…I’m glad I stopped making those charts*!
I hate hate hate when this logic is used. If you’re a townie, you have two choices – you can refer to town as “we/us”, and you get people playing the “waddaya mean ‘we’ card? Trying to sound townie much?”; or you can refer to town as “Town”, and you hear “why are you referring to town as a separate group? Aren’t you one of us??”. It always reeks as a desperate smudge attempt to me.
You’re going way out of your way to make Ender look bad, for no apparent reason that I can see.
Unvote Snickers
Vote KellyCriterion
*Which, btw, I stopped making because of my extreme hatred for the upgraded version of Excel that my office foisted on me. And the fact that man, those were some butt-ugly charts.
By the by, I’m about to hit a patch of low participation – we have family coming into town in the morning, staying through Monday, so while I’ll still be peeking in, I won’t be posting as much as I had early on (basically like the last 72 hours, which were spent getting the house guest-worthy).
Look, I am not sure what else to say. So far, I have found your reaction to Stanislaus the single scummiest event that I have noticed. And I thought the betrayment was in your response. If I got cheesed at people for calling me wishy-washy, I would be in a constant state of anger, since it seems to happen to me every game.
As far as looking at others, I will admit that I have been a bit tardy in doing that toDay, but I did finally do that promised reread. I was mainly focused on Alka Seltzer since he was getting a lot of attention and I had not really found him all that scummy. I did not like fubbleskag’s Day 1 case against him at all, but that was probably because he was accusing him of being wishy-washy, which is a charge I constantly get. The later cases were a bit more substantial, but overall, they didn’t convince me.
As I was doing the reread, though, Hal Briston and Babale started jumping out at me as suspicious (in Hal’s case, I was already suspicious since he jumped on your bandwagon without really stating a reason other than my pardoning idea). If I do change my vote from you, it will most likely be one of them. I want to go back and look closer at these two.
In regards to gnarly, I would not expect PM’s from Storyteller to match exactly. I do think, though, that he would not use a term for the scum like “Brotherhood of the Rose” that we have not seen for one player’s results and not another. Since fubbleskag said his did also use that phrase, I am not that worried about their PM’s.
Anyway, I should post again sometime this evening with my thoughts on Hal and Babale.
I’ve gone back and re-read Alka vs fubbleskag, with a conscious effort to turn confirmation bias off.
Alka is right. fubbles did initally consider no-lynch as a potential option, before going on to vote for its advocates. And fubbles has never explained this - ducking the question first time round, then ignoring it afterwards. That’s two counts of scummitude.
**
unvote Alka
unvote Babale
unvote gnarlycharlie**
**
vote fubbleskag**
Yes, I realize this. I am not sure what you are getting at here, but I will try to explain more clearly.
If gnarly’s pm had said “brotherhood of the rose” and fubbleskag’s had not, then I would have thought that gnarly’s pm was faked. Since they both say that, there are other possibilities, including that they are both scum and fubbs is covering for gnarly. I doubt that scenario, though. I certainly think it is possible that one of them is scum, but the reason I was going to change my vote was for the pm, and since they matched in regards to the key phrase, that nullified the reason I was planning on voting.
After I wrote the above, I went back to see exactly what I had said, and it was “but if his PM is not the same as gnarlycharlie’s, then gnarly will be my vote for toMorrow”. I stated that too strongly. I did not mean if they did not match word for word, just if one used the phrase “brotherhood of the rose” and the other did not.
With the amount of votes I’ve copped since my last post, maybe I should have stuck to what I was originally doing, and that’s keeping a bit more quiet.
If gnarlycharlie’s claim is genuine, and fubbleskag’s is fake, fubbleskag could have added “of the rose” when he heard the genuine claim. Therefore, the quoted argument isn’t valid.
I wouldn’t say that at all. The fact is that you didn’t participate heavily, but then when you did, your participation looked scummy. Had you jumped in and made some astute observations based on having read the entire thread, you wouldn’t have received my vote, and I’m guessing others.
