i swear he’ll throw a clot in about an hour or so.
<snipped>
bzzzzzzttttt.
over here we are accustomed to talking during the Night. sometimes it is just fluffy and stuff. sometimes it is full on strategy discussion. i know of one extreme example where the scum gf - a recruiter - was nailed by ed because of a Night post. there was another game where the scum had the power to poison libations at Night. so the first person to take an in game drink was dead (that one was a hoot by the way). so solly cholly over here once the curtain goes up we play 24/7. matter of fact it can be entertaining when people let their guards down a touch and then get torched when they least expect it.
That’s nice, but you’re claiming this is an invalid complaint. Actually that can be a valid complaint. It’s a poor analogy, but if I were to take it at face value, you *can *be served a tiny amount of mediocre food. In other words, even your analogy doesn’t show why the complaint is wrong, but since we’re not talking about food, and what my criticism actually was: You only defended against a peripheral part of the case, which didn’t invalidate any other part of the case, but still felt the case was strong enough to be defended against in the first place.
If the whole case was that crappy, why didn’t you demonstrate such immediately? You still have not, IMO.
Sure, let’s go over it line by line.
“No strong reads on this post, but it fits the category of a wolf who is trying to fit in and not make any waves or controversial statements.”
Means you haven’t taken a strong position on anything.
“See above comment.”
Means I repeat that same criticism again.
“This is a post which doesn’t do anything but adds to the post count, otherwise known as the “I’m not a lurker” strategy.”
Means essentially the same thing as the first criticism: You’re posting, but the content of your posts doesn’t do anything to catch scum or accuse anyone. The more posts which fit this category, the more I believe it is a deliberate attempt at not tickling anyone’s nose.
Votes for people do not qualify as this. Reasons why someone may be guilty do not qualify as this. Criticizing someone’s case doesn’t qualify as this. In other words, being aggressive or critical.
“It’s talking while saying nothing, which is the equivalent of lurking except that you’ll never get tagged for lurking while doing it. Scumbag’s second most common strategy right underneath claiming detective.”
Because in my experience of playing in over a hundred games, scumbags who are not doing an actual lurker strategy of not posting much, will often avoid antagonizing folks or making posts which can attract criticism. Basically, what you’ve been doing up to this point.
“I entirely disagree with this assessment, peeker sounds more townie than anyone I know at the moment.”
When folks suspect someone I don’t suspect, I look at their reasons and wonder if they’re in any way valid, and why don’t I agree with them. I didn’t find your suspicions valid, and I thought it odd that you wouldn’t back up your suspicions with a vote.
“This is the post which gave me the heebie-jeebies. Can’t explain it better than that but I’ll try.”
I did explain this in a post afterward. Now, this is the first post you made all game which has the characteristic of being critical of someone and acting like you’ll back up the criticism (with a vote). This is 750 posts into the game, though, with Night less than 3 hours away. In other words, you’re finally placing a vote, when it’s too late to even matter.
Talk about not taking a risk. Even your critical posts have no teeth whatsoever.
“+1 post count. That’s all this is.”
That means that there’s nothing new that you’re adding in this post.
So, one post so far with any real killing-the-mafia related content, and it has no chance whatsoever of killing any mafia. You said you had to read the page first and see if it changes anything, and then you didn’t follow up. Apparently reading before posting or voting didn’t affect your vote 2.5 hours before the sun went down and Krayz got lynched. Essentially what you did for round one was place a vote at the end and give an excuse for why you didn’t make any real impact on the round, and posted a bunch of fluff.
Here, it wasn’t night phase yet, so you can’t get a pass from “No strategy at night” which was your defense to my accusation. So, case is almost done, and still **everything **I’ve said has been either valid or not proven incorrect.
Now, I ding you for 2 content-less posts during the night. Retracted, mmk? 
“Sounds nervous and also gives excuses. +1 post count.”
Because that’s all you did at the time on Day 2, is react to pressure.
Then you posted this:
So, of all the comments I’ve made about you so far, you focused only on the TWO which were brief and invalid, and ignored the other comments. You focused on the 10% or so of the case which was invalid, and said I was being misleading.
Don’t you think YOU were being misleading? The bulk of the case had NOTHING to do with your night comments.
No, my other criticism, and there was a lot of it, was that you took two positions on peekercpa-
- He’s not acting like peeker, so he’s scum, but I won’t vote for him
- Now he’s acting like peeker, so he’s scum, but I won’t vote for him
I’m pretty sure you can do something about that. Like start making some gosh dang sense. And that’s not the end of my criticism, brewha.
“Your case against Sister Coyote is that you’re paranoid she might have a double-motive for her vote. But that’s nothing I can taste and eat, that’s YOUR IMAGINATION.”
In other words, you said that there could have been a scummy motive for what Sister Coyote was doing, which was following someone else’s case.
Well, unless someone is starting the wagon, someone is going to be following someone else’s case. Adding new things once the wagon begins is easy enough but not always necessary. Since the majority of votes in a round are probably going to be following someone else’s case, that doesn’t seem like a particularly valid scumtell to me. It’s sort of like finding the fact that someone has started a bandwagon on someone to be suspicious; too often, townies will do that. So how is it scummy, again?
You gave me the supposed motive, but I have not seen anywhere why Sister Coyote has done something that scumbags will typically do more than townies. All you’ve done is taken a COMMON MOVE that by definition will be done by townies more than mafia and went “oooh that’s scummy”.
That’s a lousy, lousy case. Since the only evidence for it being scummy is in your imagination, it sounds like you’re just making **** up.
That’s pretty much **whitewashing **what I said. So your defense is now to **handwave **it all away. That only works on the *weak *minded, master Brewha.
Oh, you mean the 2 night posts, not the majority of my case and the grand majority of my criticism?
How’s that for dishonest representation? You took a little thing, were correct in criticizing that, but ignored the remaining 90% of the case which had teeth.
And the point of your post WAS to defend yourself. You just couldn’t *do *it very well, as I’m seeing with this current post of yours.
It doesn’t look that way to me. It looks more like I made many valid points against you and your response was, basically, Oh I creep you out? Nothing I can do, son. So, not a real defense, just a handwave.
BTW, how does a post “sound sarcastic”? Do I need more rolleyes or something? :rolleyes:
If you **read **something, the context often gives away clues like that. You don’t need smiley faces.
It’s an interesting thing about text. You can convey emotion with it. That’s why people read novels, because they can get a rich tapestry of emotions from the written word. I sense great fear in you over my accusation, which shouldn’t be, especially since you’re in no immediate danger. Fear enough to feel the need to respond to the criticism, but unable to properly address it, so you simply handwave it away.
Not convincing at all, master Brewha. **Your defense of yourself was actually more provably dishonest, misleading, and scummy than your other contributions to the game. **All you’ve managed to do is double my suspicions on you.
MODERATOR NOTE
Peeker, please don’t make off-hand rulings like this. In point of fact, I would strongly prefer that players do not refer to night posts when building a case against someone. Night posts are not game-related. As such, they should not be considered when playing the game.
Thanks.
solly. cholly.
And in case you’re wondering, the sole reason I’m not voting for Brewha right now was already publicly stated; no one is following my case against him.
The instant that changes, my vote changes back to him.
and carp gad is wasn’t a ruling. merely an observation. jeebuz. ladies and gentlemen of the jury you are cautioned to not take anything that was said into account in rendering your verdict. the fact that the defendant admitted to the crime and has knowledge that only the perpetrator would have should in no way influence your decision whatsoever.
rofl :d
I’m up to 1500, posting what I’ve found so far.
I’m the currently leading bandwagon for my weak vote reasons Yesterday. But as peeker says in 1490, I’m normally very clueless about finding Town and Scum, even more so on Day 1.
I have to reply to Blaster Master’s case in 1424, and cross-check it with eir vote in 1109. I’ll do that at some point after I’ve caught up. AOP: My notes say it was for my flip-flop voting Yesterday, and Drain Bead voted me in 1190 for essentially the same reason.
To BlaM, Drain Bead, peeker, and me-too Weedy: Any comment on my volunteering that I get a second target Tonight? More to the point: If I were a Wolf, why would I volunteer such info?
My normal play on Day 1 has always been weak votes, weak reasoning, and scummy-seeming weak play. :fail:
But in the cases against me, Weedy’s #1452 is explicitly a “me too” vote. That’s pretty suspicious to me, and also to PizzaGuy in 1465. So I encourage people to take another look at Weedy.
Also, I saw over the weekend (mainly on Saturday) a lot of discussion about Idle Thoughts reporting in 1097 that he received a message that Dancecat is a Villager. I strongly trust his report, because I received a similar message overNight: Silver Jan is a Villager. And she was not my target last Night.
I acknowledge this presents the same issue as Inner Stickler laid out about Idle’s claimed message in 1169. I add to that discussion that because two of us are reporting similar received messages, this increases the likelihood that our reports are accurate. So should Idle or I flip Town, consider both Dancecat and Jan as cleared.
I recognize that none of this says anything about Idle’s or my alignment / affiliation.
I am curious Silver Jan: Did you target me last night? If you did not, I am not asking you to say who you did target.
Aside @ sangaman: In #1445 you kvetch that English has no gender neutral pronouns. That is why I start Mafia games using Spivak pronouns, a nonstandard add-in to English.
I’m doing my best not to in this game. I know I have a history of throwing a clot as soon as I come under the slightest suspicion, to say nothing of being the vote leader.
Still, I’m going to have to lay down a defensive vote. Official vote count please? With pie on top?
Hey.
I’ve spent far too much time trying to catch up. I don’t think I’ll be able to continue with this game. Well, truthfully, I shouldn’t continue with this game.
Sorry.
DAY TWO VOTE COUNT
Through post #1571
Scuba_Ben (6): Blaster Master [1109], Drain Bead [1190], Suburban Plankton [1449], Weedy [1452], Scuba_Ben [1499], Idle Thoughts [1507]
Giraffe (3): Normal Phase [1157], [del]peekercpa [1267][/del], [del]Askthepizzaguy [1341][/del], Astral Rejection [1547], Askthepizzaguy [1548]
Silver Jan (1): Zeriel [1126]
Blaster Master (1): sachertorte [1135], [del]septimus [1367][/del]
peekercpa (1): Giraffe [1320]
Askthepizzaguy (1): peekercrpa [1524]
Episkey (1): crackedquads [1552]
Precambrianmollusc (0): [del]Idle Thoughts [1143][/del]
Brewha (0): [del]Askthepizzaguy [1256][/del], [del]Askthepizzaguy [1472][/del]
gnarlycharlie (0): [del]Weedy [1279][/del]
Please PM me with any corrections!
Hey Scuba, can I get your reaction to my latest on Brewha?
If memory serves, you’re either the leading candidate or one of the leading candidates. I’d appreciate as much reaction from you as I can get before you’re shamelessly tossed to the wolves.
I haven’t gone over the case against you very closely, but I wasn’t that impressed with it. Let’s see if I can find it… or maybe someone has a post number I can use.
Ben, did you get a role for Silver Jan?
I half thought she might be the one that you were trying to save. But I don’t think you would have posted this when you were leading the lynch if she was.
Is this a sub request?
<snipped, sizing and bolding mine>
perhaps if you are town you might want to lay down a case on scum. not just to save your ear. i think that makes more points.
i’d give you a count but that would probably be construed as a ruling and i have been slapped about as much as i can take for now.
Moderator, your tally has Scuba voting for himself. That’s not correct. That was Scathach.
Scathath voted for Scuba Ben in post 1499, not Scuba Ben
Inner, you do realize you’re doing that Borg thing again… right?
Thanks; much appreciated.