Yes, you are correct. Dunno why I thought the Oracle is immune. Hm.
Well, worries about Oracle/Apprentice recruitment are somewhat premmature at this point, I suppose.
storyteller, I know what you mean about MadTheSwine. He hasn’t posted in the past three days at all. My vote for him was tentative, so lacking further evidence I’m not quite sure what to do. I suppose I’m also waiting for zuma to respond as well. There are a few other suspicions I have, but I’m going to wait til tomorrow - then I’ll have more time to go over the thread and present a more solid case for whatever vote I plan to ultimately make.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I must go primp myself in preparation for a beer party in the next village.
It is very unlikely that I will be able to post any vote counts or answer any questions from tonight until the Day ends; in fact, my Day end post may be a little late as well. So, for that matter, I will try to get an accurate vote count and any pending queries answered tonight.
:rolleyes: What “plan” and what “backpedalling”? Actually, your finally posting something meaningful just spoke volumes to me. Did you even **mean ** to vote for NAF originally? Or was it a third-vote bandwagon bluff? I can’t believe in a post where you talk about how you’ve become a better player you forget a basic rule, which makes me think once again you’re playing very, very oddly or you were never serious with that vote in the first place. It now looks to me like you were trying to get in on the direction the wind was blowing, and now that you were called out you had your excuse to change your vote, on a strictly OMGUS reaction.
Add to that this whole “praise Nairu” stuff - it’s pretty darn close to screaming “I’m a townie” for no reason. You’re trying too hard to come off innocent.
Ok, twice now ArizonaTeach has thrown a stone and then backed off of his claim. First with me in post 294 on page 6 and then with Zeriel, actually jumping in on analysis by Captain Klutz, but then bailing out when questioned about it. This strikes me as suspicious. I think a Cultist would be afraid of taking a clear stand against someone early in the game. To do so indicates a certainty that most of don’t have about the side that person is on. If their participation leads to the dunk of a townie then the town will comb back through their posts and discover they were helping drive the lynch. Then suspicion swings their way. Cultists have itchy dunking fingers, as befits someone with information hidden from the other players. But, they can’t use them openly for fear of exposing themselves, and I think this is exactly what ArizonaTeach has done. He/She’s let his/her itchy finger get the better of him/her, but let paranoia make him/her back off when challenged.
So, Vote ArizonaTeach.
Conversely, a Cultist has little to fear from taking a strong stand against another because if either of them ends up dunked then they come off smelling like a rose. As storyteller0910 pointed out, it is fallacious for the town to consider someone who helped dunk a Cultist as “trusted,” but it’s still common and advantageous enough to use.
So, FOS Pleonast, MadTheSwine, and storyteller0910.
These three came straight out and started mixing it up with each other. Very little had happened and the reasons they gave for the votes were pretty terse. As I said above, a strong stand against a Cultist looks good, and will likely get a Cultist “trusted”. Say one of them gets dunked, and turns up scum. We’d probably trust the other two, and the trust might break down for one of them(after all, storyteller0910 was right about how we shouldn’t trust too easily) but if three Cultists mix it up in the early game, how does that work? You dunk one, then uncover the second because he/she tried to dunk the first, but the third goes completely under the radar. I’m also suspicious as to why storyteller0910 hasn’t changed his vote due to the absence of MadTheSwine. There are other people he finds suspicious, he’s openly said as much. So why keep the vote there? And why fret so much that he’s not around? I think it’s because he knows Mad is a brother Cultist and is wanting to get in a fight which ends up with one of them lynched to establish the other’s credibility. There were discussions of this exact tactic on the Mafia boards for MII.
So, there you go. No more metagaming, just plain gaming.
Just to clarify, I was well aware of the Cookies-motif I was using (I saw it in Mafia 1, repeated it it Mafia 3, joked about it in Mafia 5). It may not be “traditional” but… how are traditions measured anyway?
It’s also becoming a tradition to vote for me because of my early throwaway vote. In M3 Lightnin’ and percypercy voted for me because of it. I can understand their use of such a reason (as newbies), but, frankly, I expected better from you, Queuing. YMMV.
On my idea: I threw it out there because HazelNut prodded me. Twice. The timing was unfortunate, but, to me, it was just an idea. I see its flaws now, so I won’t defend it. Neither will I shut up about other ideas just because they aren’t popular.
Whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa whoa. In that first post from me I specifically said I wasn’t voting for or FOSing you, I just wanted some clarification. You gave it, I said ok, and that was that. Now I am taking a clear stand, and I’m geting voted on because I didn’t vote for you? I waited on my vote, as opposed to other people, and when I felt the person I accused answered the question, why the heck shouldn’t I unvote him. Then, Auto does some incredibly scummy things, several people say the same things I did, but I’m the bad guy? I don’t get it.
If you have a question about my votes, ask me. Each time I vote or unvote, I try to give specific reasons, so if you are unhappy with my reasons, tell me. But making up “scum tells” is…weird. According to NAF, I should keep my vote for a specific period of time even if the person explains his actions. According to you, I should keep my vote regardless if a person explains his actions. Meanwhile, two people voted and unvoted for no reason whatsoever, Auto casts a strictly OMGUS vote, and NAF unvoted because a player was subbed. I do not, I honestly do not, understand why I’m being smeared here when I’m the one taking time to explain my thinking.
Shrug. I think one thing I need to do is take the tack others are making, and give up posting throughout the day. Maybe just one post in the night.
Actually, I suppose I do have one more thing to say. I would like to know at what point, and I’d like everyone to keep an eye on exactly who decided, it became a bad thing to unvote someone. Seriously. I would love an answer to that. As far as I can tell, NAF made that up, and now Mtgman, who has triggered a lot of suspicion, says, “yeah!” and goes right along with him. If I’m the only one seeing this, I’ll slink away quietly.
Are we going to go around on this again? It is not *that * you unvote, it is how, why, and when you unvote. It really isn’t as black and white as you are trying to convince people it is.
And now that I look closer, I note that there are 15 of us who have garnered votes…fully half the playing field. Yeah, we’ve got a concensus going now!
On that note, I’ll have to vote Autolycus. Mostly because he got that lurking strategy going again, which, to me at least, rings all the wrong bells.
And an early FOS-list:
KyrieEleison–mostly for a comment his previous “incarnation” made about scum tells
MtgMan–his mathematical approach to the game might be a smokescreen
ArizonaTeach–seems to creep up on my scumdar, more and more. Mostly defending himself against all comers. And… I may be wrong, but his “feud” against Autolycus doesn’t exactly ring true
And a couple of players that I don’t know much about
Captain Carrot?/**Nava **(welcome to the game!)–will be hearing anything from that direction during this Day?
fluiddruid–What happened?? During Mafia3 you were a pretty prolific poster… analytical…helpful (though scummy)…where did that go?
Malacandra… haven’t seen too much, but I may have overlooked your posts
I had actually completely forgotten NAF had voted for you. I gave my reasons for voting for you and neither had anything to do with the time periods involved in your votes or suspicions. The reasons you gave for your suspicions, and the lack of backing them up when questioned were far bigger reasons. I think if you make a vote you should have a good, defensible, reason for it. The reason I can think of for why you would make a vote and then back away from it upon the first hint of a challenge would be because you can’t openly admit “I voted for him because he wasn’t on the list of fellow Cultists I got in my PM.”
This is why I hate the first day so much. There admittedly really isn’t much meat to the whole exchange anyway, so your lack of a response at the time really didn’t have much weight in my decision. The whole cricket thing was just a splash of color.
I am indeed more reserved, including being reserved in casting an admittedly weak vote. But I counter that anyone trying to pass their Day 1 votes as anything other than weak, is not in touch with reality.
I am hoping in the car for a weekend trip to my Mom’s with the wife and the pooches. I’ll do what I can to post at least once a day on Sat and Sun, but I will warn you that my Mom only has dialup and I’m very very very much looking forward to relaxing this weekend, so don’t be mad if it is only once a day, and brief when I do post.
