Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham

The Game Room
801

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
Nope, actually the Oracle CAN. I was under the impression that NONE of those four could…but the only two that can’t are the Priest and the Disciple.
[/QUOTE]

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.

802

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
Wow, I guess that explains it then, I guess. I do hope of seeing more from you when you can, though.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious:

803

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.

804

[QUOTE=HazelNutCoffee]
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.
[/QUOTE]

FTR, this has come to my attention as well. MadTheSwine has been poked.

805

[QUOTE=Idle Thoughts]
:dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Incoherent babbling! Scum tell!!

(I kid. It did make me giggle, though.)

806

[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
FTR, this has come to my attention as well. MadTheSwine has been poked.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a frickin “pig in a poke” joke in there somewhere, but I’m failing to find it.

807

[QUOTE=Autolycus]
You know your plan to get me has failed, and now you’re backpedalling. You had a chance to get me, but if you push any harder you fear a backlash, so you’re being nice. Typical scum faux-friendliness.

Nairu bless us!
[/QUOTE]
: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.

No, I’m very, very happy with my vote for you.

808

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.

Enjoy,
Steven

809

Damnit, farking no edit rule. In the fifth sentence of my previous post, please either strike the “of” or add an “us” after it.

Enjoy,
Steven

810

[QUOTE=Queuing]
(snip)

I do this for 2 reasons;

  • his vote for cookie and then unvote very quickly all done due to “tradition” that isn’t even a tradition (2 out of 4 does not a tradition make)

-it was he who posted the 2nd Oracle/Apprentice plan. While he has not kept on about this plan, like a couple other people, I seem to recall that this idea was thrown out there once the discussion of the other plan had seemed to die off. This cause further plan discussion, including the divide and conquer plan rearing its head again. I admit I was caught up in this discussion again, as were other people. IMO I believe it is time to STFU about great plans to solve this game once and for all. It ain’t going to happen. We have had 2 plans proposed both shown to be severely flawd, and a mammoth post or 2 from someone who also loves the idea of a cohesive plan.

(snip)
[/QUOTE]

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.

811

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
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.

Enjoy,
Steven
[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I am glad someone else (other than Auto) is seeing what I am seeing.
Makes me feel less crazy.

Still knee deep in a total re read, hopefully I will get to the end of the thread before I have to go home for the day.

812

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
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.
[/quote]
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.

813

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.

814

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

815

Updated vote count – unofficial, but presumed accurate:

sachertorte (3) - SnakesCatLady, MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid
ArizonaTeach (3) - NAF1138, Autolycus, Mtgman
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (3) - MadTheSwine, Zeriel, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
Autolycus (2) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach
Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
MadTheSwine (2) - storyteller0910, HazelNutCoffee
Zuma (2) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz
NAF1138 (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
DiggitCamara (1) - Queuing
Idle Thoughts (1) - Pasta
Malacandra (1) - Pleonast
Pasta (1) - Idle Thoughts
Pleonast (1) - Hockey Monkey
Queuing (1) - sachertorte
**Mtgman ** (1) - Scuba_Ben

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! :slight_smile:

816

[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
Updated vote count – unofficial, but presumed accurate:

sachertorte (3) - SnakesCatLady, MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid
ArizonaTeach (3) - NAF1138, Autolycus, Mtgman
Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison (3) - MadTheSwine, Zeriel, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
Autolycus (2) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach
Hal Briston (2) - Kyrie Eleison, zuma
MadTheSwine (2) - storyteller0910, HazelNutCoffee
Zuma (2) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz
NAF1138 (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
DiggitCamara (1) - Queuing
Idle Thoughts (1) - Pasta
Malacandra (1) - Pleonast
Pasta (1) - Idle Thoughts
Pleonast (1) - Hockey Monkey
Queuing (1) - sachertorte
**Mtgman ** (1) - Scuba_Ben

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! :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

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:

  1. KyrieEleison–mostly for a comment his previous “incarnation” made about scum tells

  2. MtgMan–his mathematical approach to the game might be a smokescreen

  3. 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

  4. Captain Carrot?/**Nava **(welcome to the game!)–will be hearing anything from that direction during this Day?

  5. fluiddruid–What happened?? During Mafia3 you were a pretty prolific poster… analytical…helpful (though scummy)…where did that go?

  6. Malacandra… haven’t seen too much, but I may have overlooked your posts

817

[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.”

Enjoy,
Steven

818

[QUOTE=Kyrie Eleison]
Seriously? First, let me say that I’m a little suspicious of that crickets chirping guy. He’s been lurking way too much, and his posts contain little of value.

I honestly didn’t realize that you were expecting some sort of response from me. I read your post as a clarification of your earlier statements that stood on its own. In any case, I’m not sure that I see how you think you were words were twisted. You said:
I think it’s reasonable to read a desire to avoid townie bandwagons in those words. My only point, and it was a small one, was that any bandwagon for a townie that formed around an admittedly random vote would be immensely useful. If I cast a random vote, for say, USCDiver, assuming for the moment that he’s not scum, and five or six people leap to the forefront and say, “yeah, I really like that random vote. Makes sense to me. Vote USCDiver,” then we spend the next five or six days stringing up a group that is likely largely composed of scum, at the cost of one townie. That’s a good trade.

We’ve had similar discussions in earlier games. I’m a fan of Chicago-style voting: vote early, vote often. Get those votes out there and let people know what you’re thinking. I regard my vote as a running indicator of whom I find most suspicious. I think you’re a bit more reserved.

But I’m still not seeing where I misunderstood you, or twisted your words, or for that matter, what you were looking for me to respond to.
[/QUOTE]

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.

819

[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
(snip)

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.
[/QUOTE]

…or scum…

820

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. :smiley: