Random Mafia

[peekercpa]

@Freudian_Slit

Peeker provided it after about waffling and posting nonsensically. It’s never clear what he says, and it would be a lot easier on all of us, including him, if he stopped posting random crap and acting like we’re morons for not getting it.

what in the world are you on about?

[special_ed]

Again, here is peeker’s initial ‘claim’ after only I had claimed:

@Zeriel

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

There is one post in between

@peekercpa

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

Does anyone else see this as a defense of peeker’s vote and not a claim? What is it that indicates it’s a claim? Are all youtube links claims?

then 21 posts and 10 claims later:

@Zeriel

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

@peekercpa

yeh, i claimed early because i am scum (not) and chose the wicked witch of the west. that sure instills a lot of town confidence i am sure. so yep claim order and a buck gets you coffee at mickey d’s.

and crud z are you really that obtuse?
two guys are in an eleveator.

one guy turns to the other and says: “ok, who farted?”

get it.

[peekercpa]

sorry guys, thought this name claim thing would be kind of simple.

oh well, it always entertaining where we get wrapped around the axle.

shoot we could have spent the last couple of rl days talking about if and the order.

now we get to talk about a you tube vidoe because folks can’t put 2 and 2 together.

fucking priceless.

[peekercpa]

ed just 'cause your rear be stinging from the last game doesn’t mean myopia

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

ed just 'cause your rear be stinging from the last game doesn’t mean myopia

This has nothing to do with the last game.

But since you’re on line, be honest with me. How was I supposed to understand that your post was a role claim? What is it in the post that indicates it’s a role claim? Explain it to me, since I seem to be nearsighted after the last game.

@peekercpa

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

[special_ed]

and how is this not a role claim then?

@peekercpa

i like elizabeth berkley better.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://starz.ru/celebrities/Elizabeth_Berkley.jpg&imgrefurl=http://starz.ru/celebrities/Elizabeth_Berkley.htm&usg=__lFG6h63JCDS2S_MTSx44KpubiT4=&h=600&w=505&sz=91&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=ZfpEdsbmV4yx5M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=114&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dchristie%2Bberkley%2Bnude%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4ADFA_enUS360US360%26tbs%3Disch:1

[TexCat]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Nope; not at all. The problem from an objective standpoint, though, is that your vote was because Tex mischaracterized your posts. If that’s the case, then more players than not are similarly mischaracterizing your posts.

I’m beginning to see more where story was coming from, though, in that it’s very hard to fault you for that when I can see the mischaracterization as well. All in all, it makes for a little bit of a charlie-foxtrot, because people get annoyed and frustrated, and I can understand why they’re annoyed and frustrated.

And then if, out of frustration, they make a vote that is also a bit unsound factually, I’m not sure that that is a great indicator of their alignment so much as an indicator of their frustration. Which is why personally, for the sake of my own quality of life, I wish people would stop getting bent out of shape across the board, and that you would stop enjoying their bentness quite so much.

mischaracterized? I don’t think so. How do you think I mischaracterized?

@peekercpa

and ed you want me to be direct.

tex is pulling the same shit that drain and sis tried to pull off with you on idle’s board. that is some serious weak cheese and he is either a lazy townie or a scum.

is that direct enough?

No that is not direct enough. If you are talking about me, I am a she. And I have no idea about whatever game drain and sis were in. Why do we always have to refer to previous games that a bunch of us did not play in?

I am not pulling any shit. I voted you, and I now I have unvoted you, but am now reconsidering. I am neither a lazy townie nor a scum, and I don’t even want to comment about weak cheese.

[Tom_Scud]

Ok, it’s been a long day at work and my brain hurts; first order of business:

I did not in fact deduce peeker’s role claim from his video, but rather from his first clarification. I looked at the video and went WTF does that have to do with his vote on Story?

[Tom_Scud]

@special_ed

I’m still talking about it because I still think there’s a valid datapoint in there.

Peeker ‘claimed’ second. Then he clarified 12th, after a few other ‘evil’ names appeared. That potentially could be the actions of a Scum who wasn’t quite sure it was safe to claim a bad name.
I’m also still talking about it because I’m still somewhat hopeful peeker will see the light and attempt to make his posts clearer for those who aren’t willing to ‘guess’ what he meant. I’m hoping he won’t try to make his posts ambiguous.

Thank you, ed, for giving a clear scum motivation for peeker’s indirect claim; maybe somebody put this some other way elsewhere but before this all I was seeing was “peeker is confusing and therefore anti-Town”.

I don’t think you’re quite right about there being “a few” other ‘evil’ names - the only other really evil one is Benedict Arnold, unless I’m overlooking something.

But just to make sure I understand, your proposed peeker-as-scum scenario is that peeker was considering claiming (let’s say) either Dorothy or the Wicked Witch, and put up that video; when TexCat came out with her Benedict Arnold claim, he decided wtf and went ahead and claimed Wicked Witch. Is that about right?

[peekercpa]

@special_ed

and how is this not a role claim then?

so you truly see no difference to a response than a stand alone?

just freaking curious.

and sorry tex for some odd reason i always get your gender messed up.

drain and sis were scum off board recently with ed. they tried to pull the weak cheese move of voting me just because i am me. i finally just called their b.s. and they both bit it. voila town cake walk.

but, now that i think about it we probably don’t have enough miles together to ascribe that action to you, yet.

and because story is making sense, as usual.

unvote

vote chronos

ed i think you are something. and i am going to make a ginormous leap that it has nothing to do with the red headed stepchild whipping that skeez and i just administered to you but is more game related.

and the fact that story is at all supportive of me makes me go SHIT

[peekercpa]

and ed the fracking video was titled a tribute to the wicked witch of the west.

do you really think i was posting that before you folks got hit with a fish (pat pend by dirx)? shoot the fact that it takes a while for you to get it doesn’t mitigate the fact that it was there all along.

do people not read? crap we already have one soul in the grease for pointing out typos. is that truly how we play this game these days?

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

so you truly see no difference to a response than a stand alone?

but the wicked witch clip was also a response, not a stand alone. A response to zeriel’s vote on you.

Again, I ask, where in that post did you indicate that you were claiming?

[peekercpa]

AAAAAAAIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE

the hartley was a response to another claim.

my post was out of the blue and is consistent with everything since then.

AAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE.

seriously, this is getting stupid at this point.

seriously, for those folks that call me out for being a little non congruent, you are not hopping on this shit?

[peekercpa]

neta: or berkley or whatever her nice boobs belong to.

[special_ed]

peeker, I’ll let this go at this point, since it’s not enough to base a vote on.

But I’m seriously concerned that either:

A. you cannot see that your initial ‘claim’ certainly appeared to be a response to Zeriel’s vote for you. (And I say this because it was in response to Zeriel’s vote, included a quote of Zeriel’s post, and the only content from you was the YouTube clip.

or

B. You do see my point, but refuse to admit that your post could in any way be misconstrued or that you failed in being clear in your intent.

[peekercpa]

hey ed i already clarified fot those who could have misconstured by initial post. i’ve even gone down the mea culpa road.

what more do you want?

[Freudian_Slit]

@peekercpa

do you really think i was posting that before you folks got hit with a fish (pat pend by dirx)? shoot the fact that it takes a while for you to get it doesn’t mitigate the fact that it was there all along.

I honestly have no idea what you’re saying here. None.

[special_ed]

@peekercpa

hey ed i already clarified fot those who could have misconstured by initial post. i’ve even gone down the mea culpa road.

what more do you want?

I want you to be more clear in the future.

I’ve seen less mea culpa and more insisting that your post was clear. Like I said, I’m concerned that you actually might think that you were clear and the problem was those of us who were unable to interpret your response to Zeriel as a claim.

[Drain_Bead]

Not to mention those of us who post frequently from our phones and can’t go clicking on Youtube links willy nilly.

I might have figured out that was a claim had I been able to see it at the time it was posted. But even then, I doubt it.

Ed has a point. peeker, to try to speak in your language, if 10 people tell you that you’re drunk, you probably shouldn’t drive home, yanno?

[special_ed]

Here’s two posts from Jimmy Chitwood with a comment and a question

@Jimmy_Chitwood

This is all in reference to previous games that I don’t know about, is that correct?

I feel like I’ve said the same thing at the same point in each of the few games I’ve played in, but damn if it doesn’t feel like town is just doing a lot of shooting itself right in the bung.

The above post pings me. I’m not sure if comments like this usually come from Town or from Scum, but Scum are the only ones who would know it’s Town on Town for sure.

But, like I said, it’s just a ping. I wanted to point it out so I didn’t forget.

@Jimmy_Chitwood

I’m curious about something else I’ve noticed.

First, though, I really don’t think, read in context, that Meeko said anything that would belie his subsequent explanations. Here’s what he said:

If you find him suspicious based on the above, it has to be entirely because of the ambiguity of his use of the plural “they” in the second point. Grammatically speaking he would have had to be talking about multiple people, although following along with the entire post it’s fairly obvious that he meant each scum individually. So OK, if you’re suspicious of that I’ll agree that there’s certainly a way to read that as suggestive, but my question is: in what way was it “ignored?” He was questioned at length and voted for it, and multiple people have commented on the possibility of a slip. Yet (despite the fact that you say you noticed it and didn’t say anything) you find it “interesting that it was ignored.” What did you want to see happen?

But so anyway, my main point here is about this “curious why OAOW got so many votes” theme that I’ve seen a few times now in addition to from Oredigger:

{Examples of such posts snipped because this silly board doesn’t do quotes within quotes.}
I’m on board with anybody who says it wasn’t very much of a big deal to begin with, but it’s strange to me that so relatively many people express such hyperbolic bemusement about it. “So many votes,” “can’t believe the heat,” “completely dumbfounded,” and all that. Kind of strange considering that one vote was for pointing out the typo, one was for a perceived attempt to fish out information about Chronos’ claim, and one was Meeko’s vote when he found out that he had also posted a typo but that had been ignored in favor of going after NAF for a typo. So one vote was actually cast for that specific reason (and three total), yet four people are bewildered by the outrage at Wanderers for merely pointing out a typo.

I’m not sure I’m entirely clear about this. What is your point about this situation? Was it just the difference in how people didn’t ignore OAOW but did ignore Meeko? Even though the accusation against OAOW was factually accurate while the questioning of Meeko was based on a misinterpretation?

I’m sorry about the post, I do wish the board included quotes within quote, but you should be able to get to the original post with the little blue arrow.