Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham

The Game Room
1641

[QUOTE=MHaye]
HM, what made my antennae twinge is that you didn’t flag up that you were breaking a tie for a dunking in your favour. Not that you switched your vote, not that you voted for someone tied with you, even. Just that you didn’t discuss the ramifications upfront. Any reason why?

I’ve elected to give the question of whether to vote for you some thought (insofar as I can with my eyes wanting to close). I’m not convinced of your Cult membership yet.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I just said a little bit ago that I didn’t know it was tied. There hadn’t been a vote count for a while, and I haven’t kept a running tally this game. With Blaster Master’s sig line, it didn’t seem necessary. Now that I know I broke it, I’ll be happy to discuss the ramifications. I see it has been compared with what **Kat ** did with Mal. Only in that case she did it with only minutes left in the day and the only reason she was dunked was because Blaster Master wasn’t around to end the day and **Idle ** switched his vote. She did it with the thought that no one would be able to react to change the outcome. Uh, there is still quite a bit of time left in this Day, so not really the same thing. If I had known it was tied, I would have said that knowing I am town I need to do what I can to dunk Cultists. I don’t know anyone else’s affiliation but my own. With that information, I know that dunking me would be a mistake, so I’m going to vote for someone I think is a Cultist.

If I get led to the pond, I’ll accept my fate and you guys can comb back through my posts with the knowledge that I didn’t know anything. But I’ll do what I can to convince you otherwise while the sun still shines on this day. :stuck_out_tongue:

1642

We have less than 24 hours in this Day, and only 16 of 25 players have voted. Last-minute votes cut down on discussion and give the person voted for much less chance to defend themselves.

Please get your votes in.

1643

Wow, I come on late today and find everyone gone nuts. Votes flying all over, people unvoting and voting again, ties being made and broken. And lots of new sides, apparently like with SCL and Captain Klutz, Scuba Ben and a few others and a lot vs Hockey Monkey. Even I find the last one pretty suspicious.
However…

[QUOTE=MHaye]
HM, what made my antennae twinge is that you didn’t flag up that you were breaking a tie for a dunking in your favour. Not that you switched your vote, not that you voted for someone tied with you, even. Just that you didn’t discuss the ramifications upfront. Any reason why?

I’ve elected to give the question of whether to vote for you some thought (insofar as I can with my eyes wanting to close). I’m not convinced of your Cult membership yet.
[/QUOTE]

This made me look at Kat really hard and had her rise up on my suspected list really fast when she did it. I see that Hockey did the exact same thing earlier and a lot of people noticed it. And again, it doesn’t sit right with me for all of the same reasons…
…however..
Man, I don’t know…but the Cult would have to be pretty stupid (or AMAZINGLY BRILLIANT) to try it again. This is the only thing that makes me pause..and again, it’s that whole thing that I don’t think we should listen to (the whole “oh scum would NEVER do something that obvious” thing) hitting and niggling at me. I’m falling victim to it myself because crap, if anything is the most obvious thing to do, that would be it, breaking a tie again like that. : /

Honestly, I’m torn right now over what to think, personally.

1644

Again, apologies for my lack of presence this Day. I just spent my alotted Mafia time this evening looking over Pleonast, Scuba_Ben, and Hockey Monkey. And, damn it! I can’t find a good reason to pull the trigger on any of them. I’ll get in another session late tonight and hopefully come up with a name. Presumably the recent vote/unvote flurry will give us something to chew on toMorrow.

1645

Heee…it would seem I found cask of sacramental wine (or a bunch of beers at a Blue Claws game)…so, while posting while drunk is a bad idea, and Mafia posting while drunk is probably exponentially worse, I’ll stumble across that bridge when I cross it:

I buy Hockey Monkey’s denials. Without a large change of mob direction, she’s as good as drowned, but I’m really thinking she’ll come up clean.

1646

I gotta admit, I’m feeling some remorse over my Hockey Monkey vote, for precisely the reasons articulated by Idle Thoughts.

However, I’m not really sure that Scuba_Ben looks any more scummy. I’ll leave my vote where it is to keep it tied up, and encourage others to come and vote for whoever they think most scummy–the tie is at FOUR votes, after all, with several others at two and one. Any number of absentees to the thread could come in and dunk literally anyone.

Also, in the future, I’m personally going to avoid setting up this kind of last-minute pick-a-frontrunner thing, since really it seems to be limiting the town’s thinking unnecessarily.

To close, I plead again to my fellow townies: Don’t feel compelled to pick one of the frontrunners in a tie situation. Especially when the vote counts are so low that literally anyone could end up dunked if enough of the non-voting people suspect them.

1647

Also, get your butts in here and vote for SOMEONE. Nonvoting townies are gonna start getting looked at really hard by me, especially if you didn’t vote in Day 2 either.

1648

[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
I admit I don’t follow the reasoning of “bandwagon-starting” (re: Klutz’s vote for me, also). Basically, using this type of argument, you’re screwed no matter what:

  • If you fail to vote, you’re scum
  • If you vote a one-off, you’re scum
  • If you vote early for someone who gets votes, you’re “starting a bandwagon”
  • If you vote late, you’re piling on a bandwagon

So what ISN’T suspicious?
[/QUOTE]

Your Day 2 vote for Malacandra looked like bandwagon starting because the reason for the vote looked flimsy.
Malacandra was already under deep suspicion and was looking likely to face a very difficult Day 2. Pleonast cast the first vote and gave a plausible reason. However, your vote had a flimsy reason and so looked like it was trying to get a bandwagon started.

So regarding your list above, it is correct if you make one addition: a vote action for the wrong reasons is suspicious.

So far fluiddruid, you are my best bet. However after recent events I’m going to take a closer look at Hockey Monkey.

And I agree with SnakesCatLady and Zeriel - where the hell are all the votes?

1649

Read through the posts. I’m not convinced of the scumminess of either Scuba or Hockey. This flurry of voting at the end is one reason I advocate early voting. It’d be nice if I wasn’t the only eager to vote.

Anyway, my vote for Mal stands. He hasn’t even voted yet (or I missed it).

1650

[QUOTE=Pasta]
Again, apologies for my lack of presence this Day. I just spent my alotted Mafia time this evening looking over Pleonast, Scuba_Ben, and Hockey Monkey. And, damn it! I can’t find a good reason to pull the trigger on any of them. I’ll get in another session late tonight and hopefully come up with a name. Presumably the recent vote/unvote flurry will give us something to chew on toMorrow.
[/QUOTE]

So you looked over all 3 people (pleonast, scuba_ben and Hockey Monkey) and you didn’t find any sort of reason? And apparently nothing at all? How could you claim to have re-read looking specifically at people and NOT say anything? Except for a for-all-intents-and-puposes a useless post?

Lets show our work people!

There have been 3-4 cases laid out against people. Please don’t just say “I am not convinced” say WHY you are not convinced. Just saying “I don’t buy it” does NO good at all.

This is meant as a general sort of annoyance, not at any one person specifically as Pasta is not the only person to do this.

I reiterate: Be useful to the believers, or risk being branded a non-believer.

Yes that is a threat; I look for scum and then players not doing much to help find scum. If you are the latter I will consider you the former.

1651

Ok. I was going to let this Day end without a vote on my part (since I hadn’t had time to check up on the Day’s events very much), but this caught my eye:

In this post **HazelNutCoffee **goes out of her way to defend HockeyMonkey and she does the same thing again here .

As far as I can tell, it’s gone far beyond just “feelings”. HazelNutCoffee knows HockeyMonkey is worth defending. The question, of course is, *why does HazelNutCoffee know *HockeyMonkey ** should be defended?

I don’t know. But I want to find out.

Vote HockeyMonkey

1652

**I am not defending Hockey Monkey. I am pointing out a flaw I saw in Cookies’s logic in my own defense. It happened to include refuting a point Cookies made about Hockey. Note that I made no comment about Cookies’s other points regarding her suspicions of Hockey. If you want to accuse me of defending Hockey simply for the sake of defending her, please point out to me some flaw in my argument against Cookies.

1653

Damn not being able to edit!! I will post my vote within the hour.

1654

Wow, these last few days have been crazy.

Something I keep finding myself coming back to is Kat’s FOS post she initially made (#1020). I am almost sure that there has to be at least one scum in there somewhere, simply because I think it would be stupid for scum to post FOSs directed purely at townies.

I am waffling between all these different suspicions flying around at the moment. Hockey Monkey definitely has a lot of evidence piled up against her. Yet I find myself coming back to Pleonast. Reading over the Day 3 posts, I find it interesting how Pleonast was among the handful garnering the most suspicion, yet with the spotlight turned on to Hockey, he has mostly slipped under the radar. I also find his suspicions of Mal unconvincing. Mal’s damning statement concerning zuma doesn’t really seem to prove anything one way or the other, yet I feel that Pleonast is holding onto this supposed scum-tell rather tenaciously. He never even responds to storyteller’s post where he points out that Mal’s statement isn’t necessary a scum-tell in and of itself. His right-off-the-bat vote for Mal on Day 2 seemed a bit over-eager as well, although I also acknowledge that it could simply be the result of an aggressive playing style. He also cites his “playing style” when others have called him on his repeated vote switch. Very well, perhaps it could be, but it’s not a method that strikes me as particularly pro-town, since it muddles up a potential paper trail. All of this, combined with the fact that Pleonast was on the list of FOSs that Kat left behind (and singled out as a weak FOS compared to the others), leads me to
vote Pleonast.

Although with my voting record so far, I have a sneaking suspicion he’s going to turn up town in the end. :smack: Still, that’s my vote and I’m sticking to it.

1655

My apologies for not voting last night.

Having slept on the problems that reared up yesterday, I have decided I cannot vote for HockeyMonkey just for her slip in breaking the tie and not admitting that. In addition to the reasons I refused to vote immediately (see post [post=8779783]1635[/post]), there is the major difference that Kat tried this with a few minutes to go (or so she thought) to the end of Day. HM didn’t - she gave us a day to consider her post. That strikes me as a sign of a clear conscience, and strengthens her claim that she didn’t realise she was in a tie.

That means I slip back into not knowing who to vote for.

As for Autolycus : I still don’t know what to make of him.

So I have to leave the vote unplaced (for now) while I read the thread a bit more. Maybe I’ll do DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub]'s participation Today and see what light that sheds on the problem.

1656

Sachertorte summarised Hockey Monkey’s Day 2 posts in #1546. Here is a Day 1 summary:

#233 - Believers and Non Believers should play together against the cultists. Asks all the evil people to raise their hands
#317 - A note for the first timers: scum will vote for scum to avoid clearly distinguished voting patterns
#329 - more on scum voting scum (and unvoting scum). Mentions the Avatar
#343 - more on a Non Believers win being a non factor
#372 - general thoughts on the game
#492 - misunderstanding about Diggit’s suggestion about Oracle outing himself after 4-5 Days. FOS Diggit
#557 - how to get post counts
#628 - comments on Jackal, Pleonast, sachertorte, NAF1138, Autolycus and Malacandra. Votes Pleonast
#660 - comment on Mgtman’s strategy
#663 - fluff (re 660)
#675 - questions Scuba’s “secret attack role” comment
#676 - fluff re 675
#701 - clarifying 675
#725 - regarding ‘filtering’
#734 - defending against Hal’s claims that Hockey Monkey is grilling or ‘unmasking’ Scuba
#758 - reference to M2 game (beat cop)
#862 - asks AzTeach to reconsider his decision to leave the game. Most suspicious of Mtgman due to storyteller’s argument. Other (lower) suspicions toward Pleonast, Malacandra, AzTeach
#863 - clarifiying that 862 wasn’t a defence of AzTeach
#884 - late vote for the doomed Mtgman

My comments

317 and 329 could be construed as advice for any fellow scum, particularly 329 where she says

Other people have made similar posts that could be warnings to fellow scum - I’ve been going through Day 1 looking for this specifically, and I will post the results when I’m done.

628 is interesting. She refers to NAF1138 post #585 and says

So Hockey Monkey cannot see AzTeach’s scum tell and criticises the vote for AzTeach.

862 is also interesting. In regard to AzTeach leaving the game, she says

Looks like trying to paint him as town. Notwithstanding the additional clarifying post 863.

884 is the late vote for Mtgman. This vote looked unnecessary, due to Mtgman already being well in the lead and does not look like something scum would do.

Overall, I am now more suspicious of Hockey Monkey. I am leaning a bit more toward changing my vote to Hockey Monkey, but for now my vote stays where it is.

1657

Well it didn’t exactly take very long to review the posts of DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub]. He’s only made three. The first of these posts is solely to announce his return, the second is to state that he refuses to acknowledge or respond to any questions about his former incarnation as the self-appointed Crusader. That leaves post [post=8780728]1651[/post], in which he votes for HockeyMonkey.

I find the choice of vote a little strange.

DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub] argues that HazelNutCoffee has gone out of her way to defend HockeyMonkey and wants to know why she thinks HockeyMonkey worth defending, so he votes for the latter.

HazelNutCoffee explained the aim of her post in 1627 (that’s the second one DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub] quotes). I find it fairly convincing.

Additionally, at the time HazelNutCoffee made her posts, HockeyMonkey and Scuba_Ben were tied, with just under a day to go in the Day. I don’t see a Cultist sticking out her neck to defend another Cultist in that situation. The last thing the cult want to do is create such an association in the minds of the players. I realise it’s risky saying “the cult would never do such-and-such,” but some things carry a high downside.

If (and this is pure hypothesis) HazelNutCoffee is a Cultist, then it’s almost certain that HockeyMonkey would not be. And if HazelNutCoffee is not Cult, she’d (probably) have no certain knowledge of HockeyMonkey’s role.

I do find this vote suspicious. Enough that If I had to vote now or die, I would vote for DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub].

I’ll hold off voting for a while yet, but that’s the way I’m leaning. I’m also gong to read some more to see if anything strikes me as more worthy of votes.

1658

The game started with Day, so the scum did not have a chance to discuss any strategy. Because of this, I’ve been looking through the Day 1 posts, specifically for things that look like “fellow scum, this is how to act”.

253
[QUOTE=ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]
It is indeed possible and probable that the scum will be voting and FOSing and trying to say that such things were random.
[/QUOTE]
There was a lot more to this post. It was in response to a discussion about random voting, so this extract is a bit unfair.

317
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
Don’t think that scum won’t vote for other scum, or that the other roles won’t vote for each other either.
[/QUOTE]

323, in reference to a Hal Briston post about the Avatar
[QUOTE=HazelNutCoffee]
(Although voting for one of your own seems like a last-ditch strategy at any rate.)
[/QUOTE]
Possibly suggesting not to pile on a scum dunk. Yes, it’s a reach.

329
[QUOTE=Hockey Monkey]
scum will vote for other scum, but they do not necessarily leave their votes on their compatriots.
[/QUOTE]

331
[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
Not always. In M3, one of the identifiers was the fact that while there were still multiple scum, every single time one of them was lynched, all living scum were part of the voting block. Every scum that was lynched had every other member of team scum voting for them.Doubt you’ll see that this time around.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, this is even more of a reach than HazelNutCoffee’s post above.

369
[QUOTE=HazelNutCoffee]
Lurking is not necessarily a scum tell, but it does make you look suspicious. Either way, it’s probably not a good strategy - whether you are scum or townie, you certainly don’t want to give everyone else a cause to doubt your faith. Plus, the whole point of the game is social interaction. It’s no fun when people lurk!
[/QUOTE]

469
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
if I were scum and I were NAF, I wouldn’t be wanting to create associations so early
[/QUOTE]
and

491
[QUOTE=fluiddruid]
I maintain that it is best to stay off the radar for the first few days for Mafia
[/QUOTE]

546 Yes, that post from Malacandra (probably the most quoted post in SDMB history)

[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Not a huge point, admittedly, since scum will cheerfully vote for each other, especially when there’s small risk of the vote actually resulting in a death.
[/QUOTE]

Of these, the only ones I find even vaguely suspicious are those from Hockey Monkey and fluiddruid. I have already commented on Hockey Monkey’s posts in #1656 above. As for fluiddruid, she is advocating that scum lie low. I did a check of Day 1, to see if any newbies dropped their posting frequency after fluiddruid’s posts. I didn’t find anything.

So there we have it. I’m not sure how useful it is, but since I dug them out I thought I might as well post them.

1659

I’m really surprised at the amount of “I’ll post my vote later” we’re getting this late in the Day, especially the ones that already state I’ll probably vote for X, but I’ll do it later. Just vote! You can change it later.

1660

[QUOTE=sachertorte]
I’m really surprised at the amount of “I’ll post my vote later” we’re getting this late in the Day, especially the ones that already state I’ll probably vote for X, but I’ll do it later. Just vote! You can change it later.
[/QUOTE]
I was concerned that I would not have a chance to change votes between lunch and going out this afternoon. If I do go out, I won’t get back in time to do anything before Nightfall. I wanted to let the thought bubble away in my hindbrain a bit to see if any flaw came out.

To the business of suspects.

In post [post=8754123]1261[/post] I outlined my suspicions at the end of Day 2. These were[ul]Sachertorte
DarkCookies
Idle Thoughts
USCDiver
Storyteller0910
Malacandra[/ul]What’s happened to them?

Storyteller0910 has been definitively cleared. I think that the misunderstanding between USCDiver and I has been sorted out.

As for the other four, there really hasn’t been much movement. Sachertorte never discussed my suspicions of him; he never responded to my reminder that my case against him was not laid out in the vote post. As far as I’m concerned, he has just ignored it.

My suspicion of Malacandra was based largely on his trying to have his cake and eat it. My impression of his behaviour Today is much more positive – but it is only an impression and I’m prepared to have that overturned by evidence.

My notes on DarkCookies show that she has withdrawn her comment that made me suspicious. That’s enough for me to drop her from the list. Idle Thoughts, on the other hand, has not cleared up what raised my eyebrows (that does not mean “has not addressed” because he has, iirc – its just that I found the explanations not convincing.) On the other hand, he’s added nothing to his tally as far as pointers go.

So with the addition of those referenced in recent posts, my list now looks like this :-[ul]Sachertorte
Idle Thoughts
Malacandra
DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub][/ul]

I don’t consider HockeyMonkey has enough against her to vote for her; in fact I believe on balance that she’s probably not a Cultist. This leaves me a choice; vote for one I suspect, or vote blindly for Scuba_Ben to tie the vote in the hope that the extra time reveals something about one of the candidate.

For now I’m going to follow up what I said earlier and vote DiggitCamara[sub]2[/sub]. However, other obligations (and the thunder I can hear outside my window) permitting, I am going to do some research on Scuba_Ben.