Sorry Cat Lady. I did actually miss that one post. I am a bit overworked at the moment. (finally going home 
)
So to rephrase, SCL is pinging me hard with her faliure to take a stand on anything up until her most recent post.
You aren’t the only one guilty of this, I am sure, you are just the only one I have noticed. But a 1 to 25 content to fluff ratio is what you are working on right now and that isn’t good.
Well, I’ve re-read through the whole Mtgman voting sequence yesterDay, and no one is really sticking out to me as a bandwagoning cultist. So good job hiding yourself, scum!
I am heading to California for the rest of the week and will probably be able to read the thread sporatically, but posting substantially may be harder. I shall do my best.
Post #1043
(emphasis added)
Yes, the why is important. But knowing the who gives us more information about the why, so it is worth trying to figure out.
I think the most likely scenario is that the Crusader elected not to kill and that the scum targeted zuma. But it makes little sense for scum to target a player who was under so much suspicion. They were probably hoping for a power role that was trying to keep quiet, or failing that, a kill that gives little away.
The only other realistic possibility is that the scum’s kill was blocked (by one of several means) and the Crusader took out zuma. In this case the why is simple: he looked scummy.
Zuma was closely linked with Malacandra. And zuma’s death has not eased my suspicions of Malacandra (which may or may not be what scum were hoping for).
Also from post #1043
I saw that discussion as simply pointing out that, by alternating no kill/kill, the Crusader removes one bit of uncertainty, allowing for an easier analysis of the night killings. I thought it was useful. YMMV
Any chance you could show your work?
Personally this sort of thing bugs me. You went through the thread, you took notes (probably) and you have the vote sequence at hand, probably with things like post numbers and everything. Yet all you say is “it means nothing to me”. Well share the wealth, maybe one of us will.
I think we all should do this. If you have notes share them, if you have gone through the thread and come to some sort of conclusion show your work. We are on a team here, let us start acting as such.
I am not suggesting any sort of division of labour, or player x take player y (like I did in M2). What I am saying is; if you did some work show it. Share the wealth. None of this “well I did X and got nothing from it” If you did X and got something you would have shown it right? You did X because you hoped/expected something out of it right? Some sort of scum tell? So you have the evidence right there.
Working as a team, showing your work will benefit us in 2 ways I believe:
When you say “I got nothing” you can show you really do saving the rest of us the trouble of going back and doing the work you just did.
Provides a clear trail. If scum try to disprove something they can’t do it with innuendo. This will (hopefully) make it easier to catch scum when this thread reaches page 400.
I’m catching up with this thread, posting as I go. I often see that the points I raise are mentioned in subsequent posts, so it’s not clear that I’ve actually added anything useful. I used to read the entire thread before posting in order to avoid this, but…
And in reply (#836)
So, okay.
Oh, and I’m a guy.
Okay, so I’m the middle of re-reading the thread, and I just got to post 453, which is SCL saying
Now, I noticed at least 2 times previous to this post, SCL was accused of posting solely fluff posts, but she was also accused of this on page 22 & 23, and she came across as majorly defensive in response. Now, while the quote posted above is not a major discussion point, it’s also not what I would class as “fluff” (that would be more along the lines of a post that said
which she did post also).
I did a quick look through her posts, and she does have relevant–if not always major–discussion posts at 423, 453, 494, 619, 1017 and 1091.
The reason I noticed this was because, like I said, it seemed to me that in posts 359 and 403 she seemed to be getting awfully defensive over sachertorte’s comments about her fluffy posts, and then again in 1099 over NAF’s similar comments and it looks like their comments and her defensive responses completely overshadowed her actual game-related posts. (I probably noticed it also partially because I have a growing FoS of sachertorte that I will probably talk about tomorrow)
Does this mean anything? Probably not. But, as always, since I took the time to look it up, you’re stuck with it in your brain cells now.
Unfortunately I didn’t take notes, probably because I don’t know exactly what to look for. I will describe what I did if that helps.
I was working under the presumption that the bandwagon voting for Mtgman near the end of Day 1 may have been precipitated or at least participated in by one or more Cultists. As such I read back through the last 4-5 players posts just prior to voting for him. What I was looking for exactly I’m not sure. Something that seemed like the player had not been previously considering Mtgman and was making up spurious reasons to be voting for him, or a revenge vote, or changing a vote from someone else who may have been cultish.
Again, whatever it is I was hoping to find, I didn’t. Each player had either previously suspected Mtgman or were quoting valid reasons for switching.
I’m just here for a quick check in advance of the holiday. Thanks for the triple-simulpost correction; I got Mtgman and zuma mixed up. When I check back in, after the holiday, I’ll definitely start keeping notes.
Plus, I agree with Queueing, I’d like to see USCDiver’s reasoning. And since we’re on page 23 and only up to Day 2, we just may go to page 400.
Just read the last three pages again in depth, and at the moment I see no reason to switch my vote from Kat/ArizonaTeach. Kat hasn’t pinged my scumdar, but AT seemed to be getting way overdramatic for the nature of the argument we were having. I dont think he would sub out as a scum strategy, but I dont think that disproves his possiblity of being scum.
Until somebody can come up with a better idea, Vote Kat!
Nairu be praised! (Damnit i’m too tired to rp)
Not really. Link back to my first post toDay - all I was doing was wondering what twists and turns the convoluted logic would take, which, having been prepared to paint me as scum looking to distance myself from scum had zuma been scum, now had to address the fact of zuma being town. And lo and behold, the accusers are just lining up to conclude that I must be scum after all (although not everyone, for which I’m grateful).
There’s no evidence here that would be given a moment’s headroom by anyone but the Witch-Smeller Pursuivant, but how some people will try to spin something out of nothing! :dubious:
It’s a joke.
Oh, and sachertorte: “Spanish in France, Switzerland, Germany.”
You’re welcome.
[off topic] I just had my first SDMB Mafia dream! I dreamed we were all sitting around a table in real life, and somebody was passing around a sheet of paper on which we were supposed to write down our name, our role, and any night instructions we had. Yup, all on the same sheet of paper. We were supposed to be on our honor not to look at anybody else’s responses.
The funny part is that I actually cooperated, and then thought, “Hey, wait a minute!” and knocked somebody down trying to get the paper back so I could see who everybody was :smack:
[/off topic]
Scum tell! 
Oh, good, I was beginning to think I’d killed the thread.
I guess those of you who live in the US are all busy having a life 
(color removed, but it was red)
I don’t think your vote will count unless you use blue. This is why you should Mafia when you’re tired!
–FCOD
If it does/did, it wasn’t my intention. I was just typing an observation at the time in a stream of conciousness (or unconciousness if you will?) and combined with being bored at the time, you get the result.
In a way, I might have even, deep down, foreseen it taken somehow adverse, which also explains why I put the game /game tags.
And I’ll have to take a look back to Day One myself (as per USCDiver’s post) I could have sworn there were two people who switched their votes to Mtgman (Pleonast and someone else) who didn’t have too much of a reason or weak reasoning that hit me…
Hahaha, shouldn’t that be “shouldn’t”?
And a dream about real life mafia with us? I’ve never played in a real life game before. I’d think it’d be fun.
Wow! That is a nice attempt at covering up your mistake. It almost fell for it, but the trail led me to Pleonast who was the one who pointed out the discrepancy in the first place.
Malacandra’s post (linked above) by itself looks quite innocuous. I read the link and thought, ‘hey, what’s up with all the suspicion on Malacandra? I don’t get it.’ So I went back to look at Pleonast’s post (1004 ). What Malacandra tried (and nearly succeeded in doing, at least to me) was make me look at his post in isolation where the thought isn’t even finished. This made me think that there was some jumping to conclusions on Pleonast’s part. But I would be wrong. The problem with Malacandra’s first post of Today wasn’t the post (linked to above in Malacandra’s quote) itself, but that post in comparison to a previous post, as pointed out by Pleonast. (See Pleonast post 1004).
Previously, Malacandra stated that should zuma turn out to be scum, that would make Malacandra town. In the link Malacandra cites, Malacandra states that zuma’s scummyness would have made Malacandra seem scummy, therefore since zuma is town… (thought not finished).
Yesterday, I was willing to forget the original affair based on general blathering, but the inconsistency pointed out by Pleonast, and this latest attempt to brush aside these criticisms with a line of reasoning that is deceptive makes me very wary of Malacandra.
Vote Malacandra
Ok Happy 4th everyone, so let’s try this again before I go. Vote Kat.