Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham

[Autolycus]

@ArizonaTeach

: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.

The ‘plan’ is your sneaky way of trying to get me killed by calling out attention to every possible negative thing about me. Now that I’ve called you on it, you’re not being nearly as aggressive towards me. That’s backpedalling in my book.

Yes, I meant to vote for NAF originally. I saw him post an inaccurate list of lurking people, which I think MtgMan verified. I changed it to you because of your actions towards me, your increasingly angry tone in your posts, and your consisent and perhaps purposeful misunderstanding of the meaning in my posts.

I have no clue what ‘third-vote bandwagon bluff’ means, except that somehow scum can vote third often? I’m not an expert like you seem to be.

My ‘praise Naru’ stick is my roleplaying, which I am staying away from for a short time as I dont have the energy, and I dont want to obscure my meaning when I’m explaining how I think you’re a scummy cultist.

[Autolycus]

@ArizonaTeach

Whoa whoa, whoa whoa whoa whoa. In that first post from me I specifically said I wasn’t voting for or FOSing [MtgMan], 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.

Who are these ‘several people,’ as IIRC the other two votes for me were because I lurked. I know for certain that Diggit Camera’s was.

Auto casts a strictly OMGUS vote, and NAF unvoted because a player was subbed.

I explained my vote for you quite clearly thanks.

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.

For me it’s because all I see is more passive-aggressive sniping at me and a continuously larger and larger escalation in your defensive posturing. As we all know, townies have nothing to fear about death.

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.

Then you wouldn’t be making useful contributions.

[Autolycus]

@DiggitCamara

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.

Yoohoo, not lurking anymore! For it is written in The Book of Nairu, Chapter 18 Verse 3: “Lurkers are the silent ones, whose impact is none but harmful and whose death no-one will mourn.”

[Autolycus]

From Post #821

@ArizonaTeach

So I need you to explain to me what was wrong with my suspicions about your strategy, WHICH YOU YOURSELF ENDED UP SAYING WAS A BAD IDEA, and what statements of mine I was meant to be backing up that you felt weren’t being addressed.

Now, I have no bones in your spat with MtGMan, but the yelling indicates to me one of three non-exclusive things: 1) You’re getting too worked up over the game. 2) You’re a stressed out scum 3) You and MtG are both scum and this is just some fake-arguing to confuse everyone.

Seeing as this is Day One, I’m willing to go with Option 1 and 2.

More thoughts from Post #807

@ArizonaTeach

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.

I thought about this again, and I find it completely disingenuous. You know more than anyone here about my role-playing, and you know it has no direct bearing on my pro-town or anti-town status. We have played for three games, and of all the times you have criticized my role-playing it has never been because "you’re talking like a pirate so you’re trying to make everything think you’re a pirate,’ or “you’re talking like a townie so you must be trying to prove you’re a townie to everyone.”

I’ve had some doubts about voting for you before, but they’re all gone now. You’re reaching for straws to get rid of me, and the writing on the wall is adding up.

[ArizonaTeach]

@Autolycus

The ‘plan’ is your sneaky way of trying to get me killed by calling out attention to every possible negative thing about me. Now that I’ve called you on it, you’re not being nearly as aggressive towards me. That’s backpedalling in my book.

Good God, of course I’m gonna call out every negative thing you do. I still am. Hey, Mtgman just said something nice to storyteller. He your next target?

Yes, I meant to vote for NAF originally. I saw him post an inaccurate list of lurking people, which I think MtgMan verified. I changed it to you because of your actions towards me, your increasingly angry tone in your posts, and your consisent and perhaps purposeful misunderstanding of the meaning in my posts.

List one misunderstanding of mine. Go ahead. One.

@Autolycs

My ‘praise Naru’ stick is my roleplaying, which I am staying away from for a short time as I dont have the energy, and I dont want to obscure my meaning when I’m explaining how I think you’re a scummy cultist.

Wow, you just went hogwild on me for allegedly changing my tack, and now this?

@Autolycus

Who are these ‘several people,’ as IIRC the other two votes for me were because I lurked. I know for certain that Diggit Camera’s was.

Talk about intentional misunderstanding. Scuba-ben said this and Hal Briston said this, which is exactly what I said. Any other deflections?

@Autolycus

For me it’s because all I see is more passive-aggressive sniping at me and a continuously larger and larger escalation in your defensive posturing. As we all know, townies have nothing to fear about death.

Except when they’re being railroaded by scum, yeah. And let’s not forget who went after the OMGUS here. That would be you. You are ignoring every bit of evidence I place in front of you, you are changing your tactics because you’ve been caught, and you’re trying to turn it around. There’s no passive here, I’ve said from the beginning exactly what I’m going to do and have done it. You’re the one twisting everything.

And I am getting angry, yes. People have actually created reasons to come after me, and I’m flummoxed. I’ve already told Blaster I’m leaving the game. I was going to stick it out until the Day ended, so someone else didn’t have to inherit this scum rockslide, but I’m done. This is my last post. Auto has actually succeeded in sucking the fun out of this for me.

Blaster, I am sorry, because I really thought I would have a good time here, and you’ve got an awesome thing going, but I’m not having fun at all. Maybe I shouldn’t have done one so soon after the previous one, but I don’t need this crap my last week of vacation. Sorry all.

[Autolycus]

@ArizonaTeach

This is my last post. Auto has actually succeeded in sucking the fun out of this for me.

Blaster, I am sorry, because I really thought I would have a good time here, and you’ve got an awesome thing going, but I’m not having fun at all. Maybe I shouldn’t have done one so soon after the previous one, but I don’t need this crap my last week of vacation. Sorry all.

I dont know what to say. Since that was your last post, there’s not much I can say really. I’m sorry I seemed to have ruined your play experience.

So ummm, enjoy your vacation.

[Kyrie_Eleison]

@Autolycus

As we all know, townies have nothing to fear about death.

That has to be the most ironic statement I’ve seen in one of these games yet, coming as it does from the gentleman who played all of his first game as a simple townie with the later admitted goal of self-preservation.

Nonetheless, this isn’t AZTeach’s first game. And this does, in fact, remind me very much of a second-day meltdown post that I was permitted to observe, but not comment upon. It’s difficult to distinguish between a choice of townie frustration and scummy desperation, and, personally, it’s more difficult still to agree with Autolycus, nonetheless, Unvote Hal Briston, Vote ArizonaTeach. I might be completely misled, but I don’t buy AZTeach’s objections here. I will be the first to admit that my vote change here is based more on gut feel than I would like, but it feels correct. I am certainly now more suspicious of AZTeach than I am of Hal Briston’s suggestion that the Apprentice try to subtly suggest his identity to the Oracle, and that’s enough for me to change my vote.

[Captain_Klutz]

#760 by Mgtman highlighted the following inconsistency from Storyteller0910, regarding the fact that Cultists are investigated the same as nonbelievers:
#712

@Storyteller0910

Whoa. **I think I missed this fact [Cultists and Non-Believers having the same result when investigated]. ** This is of enormous and fundamental importance. Depending upon the number of non-Cult non-believers included in the game, this completely eliminates (or, at least makes phenomenally unlikely) the possibility of a purely Investigator-driven victory.

(bolding added)

But in the earlier #659

@Storyteller0910

Again, assuming: (1) the Oracle isn’t night-killed along the way; (2) **we haven’t mis-identified nonbelievers as Cultists ** and killed them instead of the actual enemy; (3) the Apprentice investigations are anything like believable (and they’re not; none of them are probitive and the first few as likely to clear a Cultist or hang an innocent as the reverse).

(bolding added)

Your justification #762

@storyteller0910

I was under the impression that the Oracle was, except in the case of the Prophet, infalliable (ie, that he would identify the Cultist as a Cultist and the generic nonbeliever as a generic nonbeliever). Somehow I grasped the idea that the Apprentice would get fuzzy readings but not that the Oracle would do the same.

Sorry Storyteller, I don’t buy this explanation. I was a bit surprised when you said you had missed this fact, as it had already been raised a number of times. However, your explanation doesn’t ring true. **we haven’t mis-identified nonbelievers as Cultists ** is a highly specific mis-identification. And you say it right after mentioning the Oracle and before saying that the Apprentice is generally unreliable, so it’s difficult to see that it is referring only to general Apprentice readings. If you did mean it as such an example, it’s one heck of a coincidence that the one example you choose just happens to be the one true ambiguity (apart from Prophet/Believer).

I’ll leave my vote alone for the moment but FOS Storyteller.

[storyteller0910]

@Mtgman

It wasn’t just your attempts to discuss my ideas. It was the combination of discussing those ideas and dissing me for discussing them. That earns the reasonably mild label of “annoying.” If this bothers you to the point where you feel you can’t handle the game emotionally, I’m not sure what to do about it.

Whoa, there, sparky. I didn’t say I was huddled in a corner weeping. You called me annoying, in response to what I thought were perfectly legit criticisms of your positions, I found that frustrating, so I said I found it frustrating. You called me a name; I got a little angry and responded with incredbly mild frustration. My heart will go on. “Can’t handle the game emotionally?” What about anything I said suggested that? Do you see why I say that you seem to respond to things people didn’t say?

I will say this, if it is genuine then you may want to step back and consider the way you approach the game. There is almost certainly SDMB Mod discussions about allowing future games, and events like the dust up between Queuing and someone, whose name escapes me at the moment, towards the end of MII, and tirial’s meltdown in MIII are bad business for the board. If each of these mega threads generates bad will among posters I’m betting they’ll be disallowed. If this “I’m personally frustrated” thing is a tactic, I suggest you drop it. You may be doing more damage than you realize.

Once again, you are exaggerating both the scope of my frustration and the rancor of my response. I have not responded to you with anything remotely resembling the venom that characterized the situations to which you allude. I’m very happy with my approach to the game. Again, it’s not like I’m sitting here beating my head against the wall over this - I was annoyed, I said so, and that would have been the end of it. Except you posted something beginning with the phrase, “If you weren’t defensive,” and I never said I wasn’t defensive. I felt that required clarification.

All that having been said, I understand getting worked up over Internet-based interpersonal conflict. It’s happened to me, and it was pretty frustrating. I have no reason to trust you, but I have to live with myself and my own conscience and I don’t like having unresolved conflicts(unless you’re one of my in-laws). So here’s the olive branch. I’ll drop my FOS and wipe my side of the slate clean. From here on I won’t negatively reference anything you said in any post directed at me before your acceptance of this peace offering. I don’t require anything of you. You can keep your vote on me and defend your accusations against anyone who cares to challenge them, if anyone does. I won’t contest it. I don’t think the hamsters could stand it, and I don’t want THAT on my conscience(unless the hamsters are my in-laws).

I appreciate the gesture, but I don’t think it’s a good idea. Here’s a counter-proposal: let’s just drop the personal crap. If you think the things I’ve done are suspicious, say so, defend your position, and let the rest of the group decide on the merits of the argument. If I think the things you’ve done are suspicious (and I do), I’ll do the same. This will allow us to: (1) help the town figure out of one of us is cum; and (2) be much more productive in the long run if we do turn out to both be good guys.

OK?

[storyteller0910]

@storyteller0910

This will allow us to: (1) help the town figure out of one of us is cum; and (2) be much more productive in the long run if we do turn out to both be good guys.

Scum. Scum. This will help the town figure out if one of us is scum. Not, er, the other thing.

---

ON PREVIEW: Captain Klutz: Ummm… OK? I’ll accept your FoS, but I don’t really know how to address this. I didn’t completely understand the ruleset. Once I received clarification, I amended my approach. If you don’t believe that, it’s your right, but there’s really nothing more I can say by way of supporting it, is there?

But… I mean… if I had been lying? What’s my master plan? Why would I lie about that?

[MHaye]

It’s a hard slog, and I’m only up to post 600 after the morning. Unfortunately the players based in North America are likely to start waking up soon. I’ll keep working, but wanted to get a few thoughts out before breaking for lunch.

Captain Klutz made a good point in 572. Namely that we cannot easily distinguish between nonbelievers and Cult (who believe, but in the wrong deity). This problem will have to be solved some way, and at the moment I don’t see how. I suspect we’ll have to go by instinct and gut feeling a lot, which is not good.

FlyingCowofDoom engaged in a spot of anti-Believer behaviour. It’s very slight, and may simply be a mistake. In post 205 he misstates the Cult’s win condition, and repeats that in 218. From the rules.

The Cultists win if they equal or exceed 50% of the Town population. All Non-Cultists lose.

It is only necessary for the cult to equal the remaining population. I can’t remember seeing that corrected in my reading. If it has, my apologies. (Yes, I agree it’s very slim. Not nearly enough on its own to make me think FCoD is Cultic. Just makes me watch him a bit more closely.)

MadTheSwine - Our former Iron Pig did get in a bit of a kerfuffle earlier on Today. It’s a shame he has disappeared as I’d like to hear his defence against ArizonaTeach’s charge of inconsistency.

Malacandra’s post (546) made me wonder what he was thinking too. As far as I can see, either Mal is a vanilla townie just randomly taking a potshot at someone who may or may not be a Cultist (which tells us nothing about zuma) or both of them are cult and they’re trying to set it up so that one or the other looks good. zuma’s response was also very odd. Almost as if he knew he could chew the Lord of War out privately later.

NAF1138’s inconsistency in post 585 has already been commented on.

My dislike of random voting just to put pressure on people has already been mentioned, so it’s no surprise I find Pleonast just a bit dirty as well, I hope.

Pasta’s idea (532) of killing off all the lurkers doesn’t sit well with me. There’s bound to be a mix of people in that list, and the selection among them pretty much has to be random because you’ve got no basis for an informed selection. Thus we are back to a random vote but with a smaller field. I’m sure a skilled Cult could manipulate people into voting for lurkers in a desired order. And maybe giving up one cult member to gain trust wouldn’t be so bad a deal, especially if they get 3 nonCult lynchings out of it before the lurker-well goes dry?

That’s my observations up to and including post 600. If I had to choose from just that information, my vote would probably go to Malacandra or zuma. However, I don’t feel like voting now, as I have another 250+ posts to reread after lunch.

[Captain_Klutz]

#833

@Pasta

(Re: Captain Klutz)
I too find that non-defense a little weird. I found his lurking suspicious, I found his explanation for his lurking more suspicious, and his non-defense of being called out for it could certainly be interpreted as scum trying not to draw attention to the gross slip up.

I’m not too sure what this gross slip up was - can you enlighten me?

[Captain_Klutz]

@storyteller0910

Captain Klutz: Ummm… OK? I’ll accept your FoS, but I don’t really know how to address this. I didn’t completely understand the ruleset. Once I received clarification, I amended my approach. If you don’t believe that, it’s your right, but there’s really nothing more I can say by way of supporting it, is there?

But… I mean… if I had been lying? What’s my master plan? Why would I lie about that?

In #712 you also said

@storyteller0910

Frankly, this handicaps the investigative power roles so much that it makes me terribly suspicious of those - particularly Mtgman and sachertorte - who have proposed strategies emphasizing the utilization of those roles.

It looked to me like you were trying to find a reason to vote for Mtgman or sachertorte. Indeed, I thought you would then vote for sachertorte to make him a clear leader in the voting.

However, the fact that you eventually voted for Mtgman (and for a different reason) does allay my suspicions somewhat. But I’m not quite ready to remove the FOS.

[storyteller0910]

@Captain Klutz

In #712 you also said

It looked to me like you were trying to find a reason to vote for Mtgman or sachertorte. Indeed, I thought you would then vote for sachertorte to make him a clear leader in the voting.

However, the fact that you eventually voted for Mtgman (and for a different reason) does allay my suspicions somewhat. But I’m not quite ready to remove the FOS.

Fair enough. I have no objections to this.

For general information - I’ll be attending a wedding for which I’m leaving in about an hour; I won’t be back and able to read or post until tomorrow morning , at which point I’ll probably be able to fit in one quick read-through before the deadline. Right now my vote is on Mtgman, for the reasons discussed above, with MadtheSwine in second place.

[SnakesCatLady]

@Pasta

I forgot to mention: Since SnakesCatLady admits a desire to sit back and thus not provide information with which to ID her (a tactic I view as scummy, but just generally anti-town), I’ll place her on deck for my vote if my arguments about Idle Thoughts don’t seem to ring true to anyone else.

That is flat-out misrepresenting what I wrote. I said when I have suspicions I will post them, not that I “have a desire to sit back”. Since sachertorte has slacked off on the behavior that made him seem so scummy to me: unvote sachertorte.

And since Pasta seem so desperate to prove that he is participating ferretting out scum that he will deliberately misrepresent what a player has posted: vote Pasta.

Before anyone decides to call me out on this being a revenge vote, let me clarify my position. The first game of play we have very little to go on. I do not seek to twist what other players have said in order to come up with a justification for a vote - that ends up in getting Believers dunked. I know innocent Believers will end up getting dunked in this game but I don’t want to contribute to it. I find the motives of someone who would single out someone who has posted but not a lot and deliberately misrepresent what they have written very suspicious. This is the kind of action that results in other players thinking “yeah, Pasta said SCL was just sitting back…” and can end up in a bandwagon on a Believer. If someone wants to vote me for something I have said, fine. But twisting my words is scummy.

[Hal_Briston]

Ok, I’m taking a break from tarring the roof (oh what a fricking joy) and trying to catch up a bit. With regards to a couple of the feuds going on –

Pasta v Idle Thoughts: “I just don’t see it, Pasta”.
Autolycus v. ArizonaTeach: Nairu help me, I’m siding with Auto on this one. Whoop, hold on, just got to AZ’s meldown post. Hmm…as Kyrie notes, “It’s difficult to distinguish between a choice of townie frustration and scummy desperation”, but that one smells most like townie frustration to me. Unfortunately, I think this is town v. town. Sorry to see you leaving, AZ…

Now, since I’ll be pretty damn busy for the rest of the weekend, I suppose I should throw my vote out there.

I had found Clockwork Jackal pretty scummy, but Kyrie Eleison much less so. Could just be his ability to keep tells under wraps, but I’m just not seeing it anymore.

Zuma caught my eye early on, and keeping an exceptionally weak vote on me isn’t helping his case, but I don’t know…I think there are more likely targets out there…

MadTheSwine! Where are yooooooouuuuu?? (And in case others aren’t aware, he don’t care for being called “MtS”)

Ok, here we go…I’ve been trying to keep as close an eye as possible on the whole convoluted Mtgman/Scuba_Ben/storyteller0910 kerfuffle, and although Day One is a bitch to get a good bead on anyone, I’m going to vote Mtgman.

Unofficial Vote Count (sorry to keep posting these…I just like to stay current):

** ArizonaTeach ** (4) - NAF1138, Autolycus, Mtgman, Kyrie Eleison
** Autolycus ** (3) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach, DiggitCamara
** Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison** (3) - MadTheSwine, Zeriel, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
** Mtgman ** (3) - Scuba_Ben, storyteller0910, Hal Briston
** sachertorte ** (2) - MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid
** Zuma ** (2) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz
** Pasta ** (2) - Idle Thoughts, SnakesCatLady
** Hal Briston ** (1) - zuma
** DiggitCamara ** (1) - Queuing
** Idle Thoughts ** (1) - Pasta
** MadTheSwine ** (1) - HazelNutCoffee
** Malacandra ** (1) - Pleonast
** NAF1138 ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** Pleonast ** (1) - Hockey Monkey
** Queuing ** (1) - sachertorte

[Mtgman]

@storyteller0910

Whoa, there, sparky. I didn’t say I was huddled in a corner weeping. You called me annoying, in response to what I thought were perfectly legit criticisms of your positions, I found that frustrating, so I said I found it frustrating. You called me a name; I got a little angry and responded with incredbly mild frustration. My heart will go on. “Can’t handle the game emotionally?” What about anything I said suggested that? Do you see why I say that you seem to respond to things people didn’t say?

@storyteller0910

However - and this is important - I am getting emotionally involved. I have seen this go badly for towns in the past. I am trying to recognize that the way I have perceived the above might not be reasonable, might be colored by the fact that I’m personally annoyed.

Ok, I’m off this roller coaster. My Day 2 vote is decided. See you all next week, have a good weekend.

Enjoy,
Steven

[USCDiver]

@Hal Briston

Unofficial Vote Count (sorry to keep posting these…I just like to stay current):

** ArizonaTeach ** (4) - NAF1138, Autolycus, Mtgman, Kyrie Eleison
** Autolycus ** (3) - Fretful Porpentine, ArizonaTeach, DiggitCamara
** Clockwork Jackal / Kyrie Eleison** (3) - MadTheSwine, Zeriel, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
** Mtgman ** (3) - Scuba_Ben, storyteller0910, Hal Briston
** sachertorte ** (2) - MonkeyMensch, fluiddruid
** Zuma ** (2) - Malacandra, Captain Klutz
** Pasta ** (2) - Idle Thoughts, SnakesCatLady
** Hal Briston ** (1) - zuma
** DiggitCamara ** (1) - Queuing
** Idle Thoughts ** (1) - Pasta
** MadTheSwine ** (1) - HazelNutCoffee
** Malacandra ** (1) - Pleonast
** NAF1138 ** (1) - FlyingCowOfDoom
** Pleonast ** (1) - Hockey Monkey
** Queuing ** (1) - sachertorte

I’m one of the three players so far who hasn’t cast a vote. This is tough because my ‘cult-meter’ isn’t yet calibrated appropriately and there’s so many players here that I get some cult-vibes from just about everyone. I don’t think it’s productive to re-read through the whole thread for a Day 1 vote.

I have to go to a wedding later today and I have work tomorrow afternoon. I will try to make a vote tomorrow morning. I’m just not sure which way I’m leaning right now.

[MHaye]

@USCDiver

I’m one of the three players so far who hasn’t cast a vote.

I’m aware I haven’t cast a vote yet either. I had to stop my review at 7 or my fiancee would have skinned me alive for missing Dr. Who’s season finale.

Anyway, I’m hoping to have my vote placed before I go off to sleep. I’m getting close to post 700 now.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Pasta

I suppose that’s the whole to-do with the game: I see your actions, taken as a whole, to be consistent with scum or alternately to be consistent with a townie who I’m just reading completely wrong. I’ve just got to figure out which is right, and at the moment, I lean strongly to the former although I cannot (of course) rule out the latter.

Snipped some.

And you got it in one. That’s about the size of it and, really, just the way the game goes. Hopefully as time goes on and new things come to light, it will get easier and easier. Just for the record, it usually does.
And all of these different, separate heated disagreements and outright fights, it seems, isn’t doing much to allay my paranoia. Storyteller and Mtgman, Auto and AZteach, USCDiver and sach…even Pasta and I… I’m feeling like I’m the watcher of about four or five tennis matches all going on at once. No wonder there are some people not posting or lurking. [note: joke]

That being said, I’m sorry to see you lose your cool and say you’re leaving, AZ.

And I couldn’t help but notice this line here:

@storyteller0910

This will allow us to: (1) help the town figure out of one of us is cum;

There’s got to be a joke there somewhere.