Mini 776: End of the World Zombie Survivors Mafia: Abandoned

[semioldguy]

Gun: Diamondilium

Because it was selected at random and anyone wanting to get the gun may have other motives in wanting to take it or have it for themselves. Letting it stay with the person who was randomly selected helps keep others from trying to control where it goes. Yes, I realize this falls under that too to some extent in me trying to control where it goes by saying this, but I think there is less risk of the gun going to the wrong person if we don't try to move it around. I also think that whoever gets it should agree to only use it when we vote for him to use it.

[semioldguy]

An addendum to the above, if at any time the player who has the gun becomes 100% confirmed, I would find it acceptable to go with the innocent person's judgment rather than a group vote.

[semioldguy]

Random choosing for who gets the gun from other people playing is bad for a couple reasons. (1) If everyone is going to random a number how do we choose which randomly generated person we give it to? At that point there are enough randomly generated people for one of them to likely be scum and for their side to somehow push it toward that random selection. I want to minimize that opportunity's existence. (2) None of your random numbers can actually be trusted by the rest of us. I can trust that the moderator chose at random, but since I cannot yet trust anyone else in this game, none of your posts are truly random to me just because you say they are.

[semioldguy]

I am not going to put a gun vote on myself, and it only partially has to do with integrity. I am not going to change the vote onto myself also because it would go against the reason I made my vote in the first place. Though I would not be completely opposed to the idea of the gun coming to me, I still think it is a good idea for the gun to stay where it is. For now my vote stands.

[semioldguy]

I also have another idea about the gun to throw out there. We can treat the gun as an extra lynch for Day One. What this would do is the person we decide to lynch, instead of someone hammering that person, the gun owner can just shoot them, keeping our lynch and keeping it from going to night. We can then use the now dead person's identity and the previous posts/votes in the day to look at how people acted and defended, etc. We would still have the real lynch for the day to then get more information.

What this would essentially do is skip the first night cycle, allowing us to get in two lynches before scum can start night killing. This gives us more information earlier to look back on as the game progresses. It keeps our elected power role from being night killed before using his daykill and wasting our efforts to get the gun to the right person. Also the gun owner could agree to go through with shooting the first lynchee instead of someone hammering and if that player refuses we can just lynch the person with the gun instead, ensuring that the gun isn't intentionally misused later.

What does everyone think of this as a possibility?

[semioldguy]

Voting patterns and arguments are our primary means of finding the scum, and SOG's earlier suggestion gives up that opportunity.

How has my suggestion given up the opportunity to see voting patterns and arguments? It certainly hasn't since I made the suggestion and it's barely been a page since then. If anything, it has helped cause some people to take sides of arguments. If you look you can see people giving their own opinions on things, taking sides on arguments and voting how they think they should vote; all after I made my suggestion.

[semioldguy]

I'm pretty sure Herodotus was referring to my post 11 and 12, but his argument about that still doesn't make much sense to me. Because the very thing he says I'm giving up is happening so I don't know where he gets that idea from

[semioldguy]

I knew what you were referring to.

Can't you see that even though I made that suggestion people are still going to chime in what they think about it and in essence they have been trying to "control where it goes" and that we can still get reads off of people based on their reactions to my suggestion? I've made a suggestion and given an opinion (just like anyone else might do) and people aren't going to just mindlessly follow the first thing they read. Please point out where people aren't trying to either "take it or have it for themselves" or "control where it goes" and where we can't start looking for scum or scumbuddies.

[semioldguy]

I think it's kind of narrow minded to think anything should happen right away in a mafia game on this site (with the exception of Frtitz in a game of Bad Idea Mafia ).

[semioldguy]

I'd expect we'll get some more activity after the weekend from some of those who haven't shown up yet.

[semioldguy]

That is not going to happen though and is a complete waste of an argument. Semi is clearly going to get the gun now, adding votes will speed it up so we can get to the lynching stage and start our scum hunting.

I don't agree with this. We can't be entirely sure what is going to happen,

especially

since we haven't heard from everyone yet. It is not clear who is getting the gun, and to say so I think isn't good. We also don't necessarily want to speed it up as I'd like to hear from everyone who hasn't posted yet before the gun goes into someone's hands, as that is one more opportunity to get some information on everyone that could be wasted if we went through this too quickly. Whether something is the right choice or the wrong choice I think it would be best for everyone to share their thoughts as to how we each see things.

I see where EvilEvilMatt is coming from, and I'd agree (and already shared that part of that view in post 12) that if we knew that whoever had the gun was for sure town that their sole discretion can be preferable to the group decision. Because the judgment of one town player, rather than group vote, is less likely to be manipulated by scum.

[semioldguy]

@semioldguy : are you set on using the gun as a second day one lynch?

No, I am not set on that, but I don't think I dislike the idea as strongly as you do. I think it would be bad to set that plan into stone for a few reasons, one being that it may take longer than anticipated to come up with our first lynch target and we wouldn't want to enact that plan and essentially have no time for or actual lynch, which would basically just waste a kill and potentially create confusion. I think it could be something to be kept in mind in case a situation occurs where the town could benefit from it.

[semioldguy]

Something to be careful of with the gun: Since we currently have an even number of players at the beginning of the day, if someone is shot, it lowers the number to lynch by one.

For example:
Today we have 12 people, it takes 7 to make the majority and a lynch. When someone gets shot, we then have 11 people and 6 is now enough to make the majority. If someone was already at L-1 and the now dead person was not on their wagon, then the L-1 would turn into an instant lynch.

[semioldguy]

I am in support of using it day one.

[semioldguy]

Question for Amished and Shinnen_no_Me: What do you think of all this having happened without either of you saying anything about it?

Also I would like to stress everyone to be careful about putting anyone at L-1 too early. If that person is scum they may rationalize their fate as being sealed and could self hammer to keep the town from getting an extra kill today. This would also apply to a townie if there is a scum player not on the wagon yet who wants to end the day without a gun use. Another reason to keep someone from L-1 too early is that by doing that you could limit who I can shoot without ending the day in an auto-lynch immediately after my shot. Unless something strange happens, I intend to shoot someone today.

[semioldguy]

I think we should still use real votes, just to be careful with them is all and aware of what we are doing. A real vote represents a real threat and ensures that people are serious with their votes regardless of which plan they think is best.

I will do my best to stay as active as I can so that inactivity doesn't lose our extra day kill. I should be able to check in at least once (usually more) each day.

[semioldguy]

I think people should be more concerned with finding scum rather than what to do with the gun at this point. No one else here has control over the shot and trying to influence the control over it once it's been handed out seems bad to me. I am going to do what I judge to be best. That makes me accountable for my own actions and I can't go pointing to someone else saying that so-and-so was the one who suggested I should do it that way. My best judgment may be shooting someone who is close to being lynched or some other player I personally find to be scummy. I can't say which will happen because I am going to be weighing situations as they arise rather than having a preset idea that others could plan for (and hence avoid or set someone up into).

ON with the scum hunting and OFF with the gun planning.

[semioldguy]

Rishi just finishing off "the inevitable" is a point against him as well in my book. Nothing is "inevitable" until a majority agrees. Certainly it is inevitable after giving it to you, but to just hop on at the end and saying (in my eyes) "this will stifle discussion that was rather productive" is interesting.

I don't necessarily see this as a point against Rishi. This is more true if Rishi thought that I would gunvote myself once there were six others on board. I don't think gun discussion was being particularly productive at that point and by ending the gun vote and getting to the lynch segment of our day it would get us to what I think would be more productive discussion. I might put a point against Rishi for something else though. In ending the gun phase I am wondering why he didn't have a contribution to the next part of our day knowing that we would be going into it and that he was the one taking us there.

Also I see a lot of parroting from Gateway so far and not a lot of original thought. I'll be looking at his next post to see what he has to say.

[semioldguy]

EBWOP: Didn't see Gateway's post 102 before my previous post. I don't agree with all of his reads so far, but it's good to see him giving them.

[semioldguy]

@Gateway

If I wanted to link to my Post 98 I would type in the following:

Code: Select all

[url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?userposts=&t=11252&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=98]Post 98[/url]

And that would become:

Post 98

You take the number at the end of the link "start=__" and put in the number of the post you want to link to and the link will go start a thread page with that post number. To make the link appear as your own text (i.e. "Post 98" instead of showing up as the whole link) you type whatever you want between the URL tags and put the actual link in with the opening URL tag along with an equal sign as show above. Hope this helps. I am between classes and will provide some cross analysis after I get home from class and work.

[semioldguy]

Code: Select all

evilevilmatt

Sort of a scummy vibe off you but I cannot explain why. The facts as I see them is mostly you trying to get semi the gun just as I was. I know my intentions, I have to be a little suspicious of you though. I will be watching you to make my decision more clear over the next couple of days

I don't follow this. He made his intentions clear before anyone else did in his reasons for wanting the gun to go to me.

Code: Select all

Gateway

Obviously an awesome townie.

I never really like when people include themselves in their own analysis. May just be personal opinion.

Code: Select all

Musher333

You have been clear about your thoughts and added posts with content to help out, good townie vibe from this guy.

I disagree with this. Musher hasn't added much content or brought anything to the table. I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all.

The rest I either agree with or didn't find necessary to comment on at this time. My feeling about you are currently mixed.

[semioldguy]

I think that was a loaded question by Herodotus. Neither (a) or (b) is necessarily the best answer. I don't like pseudo voting. Just use FoS if you don't feel it's safe to put the real vote on. That's what is done in lylo situations before confirming votes so that scum can't just hop on the first wrong vote and win or situations where you are unable to place a vote for whatever reasons.

[semioldguy]

It was kind of funny. Lighten up. So, are you saying that it's scummy or just that you don't like it?

I don't think it's scummy, just personal preference.

[semioldguy]

Since when does DGB care about being hasty?

I doubt OozingGolfBall is DGB's alt. Not only is OozingGolfBall listed as male, but I'd credit DGB to come up with more creative/fun alt names like she has in the past. Either way I don't think we should assume the two to be the same player just yet.

[semioldguy]

I disagree with Herodotus on several points so far this game. But I know that just because I disagree with someone doesn't make that person scum. The points I don't agree with I see as just being because the two of us look at the game differently. I'll be keeping my eye on him for that reason. I wouldn't be surprised if Herodotus said the same about me in regards to our different play styles/views (He more or less has a time or two already). I generally get a pro-town feeling from him.

Vote: Musher333

I haven't really seen anything of real substance come from him yet. His posts have either been following or agreeing with others. Also his thought process here:

... use our own voting system to decide someone to gun before we lynched someone allowing two lynches in one day.

I strongly disagree with this. I don't think we should ever rely on our own voting system. Just use normal votes because it's the best way to hold people accountable for them and doesn't assume that the gunner will automatically go with the town majority (which may or may not appear to be the best option at the time).

Also it appears to me that you are staying just active enough to get by but not really add anything to the game and I would like to see this change.

[semioldguy]

Can someone fill me in quickly on the special rules?

What do you think of your evil twin in this game... OozingGolfBall?

[semioldguy]

@Hero, If your not voting Lowell for post 116 then why exactly are you voting? Could you please list all of your reasons?

I tried to explain my reasoning in post 122. I'm not sure if a list format is the best way to handle it, but here goes. It's that:
1. He's using very poor logic to pursue a case.

Poor logic is not a tell, as I'm sure you'd agree with

2. He's opposing what I consider to be the ideal strategy for the town on the basis that it's a confusing restriction, and shortens our available time, when I've already explained why it's none of those.

I don't consider your proposed strategy to be the ideal strategy either. I think people should just vote. Only be aware of your voting. I don't like a pseudovoting system because it sets up something the players have to enforce and someone not following it creates a rift but isn't necessarily telling of their alignment, just that they disagree with the plan. There are already mechanics in the game to denote suspicion if you don't feel a vote would be appropriate. I don't think we should suggest a new system when one that is already in place would work just fine.

3. By calling it confusing to stop real-voting at L-2, he might be laying a foundation to act confused and deny SOG the opportunity to use the gun.

It is confusing in that your suggestion and way about doing it isn't even necessary as I explained in my response to number two. No one should change how they would normally vote in my opinion.

4. In post 113, he seems to suggest that I was the reason no one was voting because either my strategy, or the fact that I was discussing strategy, was "being anti-town by delaying the process of trying to get someone lynched." In fact, there was nothing about my idea that prevented voting (up to the point of 5 votes on one player,) and if he's so anxious to make a lynch, then he should support having what is effectively two lynches -- especially since the first may make the second more effective.

I essentially suggested the same thing in Post 98. Planning does keep voting from happening because people aren't taking sides with other people, they are taking sides with opinions and logic, which isn't telling of alignment. As long as you keep planning, it is prolonging the vote because no one is scum hunting they are preoccupied with coming up with the best plan and/or poking holes in it, which both sides can do. You weren't the only one doing this, which is why I pointed it out to begin with.

Before I had just seen him as having bad logic, which I still believe. Diamondilium has pointed out Herodotus has contradicted himself.

Unvote

;

Vote: Herodotus

[semioldguy]

I have a question for Amished: Do you think that I should ask for a role claim before shooting someone?

[semioldguy]

I don't think it would be wise to just point the gun all over the place asking for claims. If the first person makes a claim that can be confirmed/believed and I end up not shooting him do I still ask the next person to claim? Couldn't asking for a claim in this case be similar to fishing for power roles as it isn't a majority putting someone they all find guilty up to L-1, but just my own suspicion of someone?

[semioldguy]

(responding to the completely unrelated note: Yes I am, who are you over there?)

As far as the role claiming goes, I am a firm believer of honest claiming. If ever in a claim situation the player should claim and shouldn't lie. There can be exceptions to this, but it's best not to bring that topic up. I was originally planing to ask for a claim, but the more I thought about it I was thinking why people were forced to claim to begin with and those claim circumstances are different than they would be in this situation. I will probably ask for a claim of the first person and go from there, but I can't see myself getting a bunch of claims from different people because that could be disastrous for the town.

[semioldguy]

As far as the role claiming goes, I am a firm believer of honest claiming. If ever in a claim situation the player should claim and shouldn't lie.

There can be exceptions to this, but it's best not to bring that topic up.

I disagree. Truth is less useful than helping the town win. Vanillas, for instance, should be trying to get themselves NKed, while PR's should be avoiding it -- so every single player has a reason why they might possibly lie about their role.

I am guessing you disagree with that part of the post too?

[semioldguy]

Also, speaking of agreement, will you be answering this question from post 191?

Poor logic is not a tell, as I'm sure you'd agree with

I've disagreed with you before, and I've made an argument based in part on the fact that I believe that it can be a tell. Why were you sure I'd agree with this?

Because it looks like you already took that position here:

...

At this point, I don't know how to interpret Lowell's answer in 116. "Who cares, a lynch is a lynch" is such a

stereotypically

scummy thing to say, I would normally think it was WIFOM written by scum or a jester.

However in the context of the question I was asking, it may have been intended either as meaning the answer I called (a), or offering some third option. I wish he'd been more clear, but it's a little late for that now since later answers are less useful than first responses.

But to review, he originally non-random voted me over a suggestion that would help prevent us from losing the chance to use the gun kill constructively, and used absolutely horrible logic in doing so. (It's too confusing? Then what are you doing playing mafia? Do you vote first thing in LYLO because it's too confusing to remember not to?) Then in post 113, he has ignored my post 108, and maybe even insinuates that it's my fault that no one is voting* -- even though my suggestion only applies after a player has 5 votes on them. This made me think he might be scum.

* I'm not sure whether that was his intent, but the more I analyze post 113, the more it seems to be the case.

I generally try to avoid placing OMGUS votes in case I'm subconsciously biased, but Lowell looks scummy.

Vote: Lowell

Bolded: I'm not following you here; what makes Lowell's answer stereotypically scummy?

Also, IMO bad logic isn't necessarily scummy. In many situations, poor logic simply indicates a poor thought process. However, in some cases poor logic can be used intentionally to push forward scummy actions. I dont think that's the case here.

If, during the normal course of the game, it seemed that a player didn't care about who was lynched, or wanted to get the day over with rather than scumhunt, I would consider that person suspicious. The phrases "who cares" and "a lynch is a lynch," if taken out of context, would suggest such an attitude. If Lowell didn't seem to intend them to be some indirect answer to the question I asked, that's how I would interpret them. So in other circumstances, I would be trying to figure out why someone was intentionally attributing a scummy attitude to himself. My conclusion would probably be that it was anti-town WIFOM. In this case, though, I don't consider them a tell in that sense. My vote on him is not based on his post 116, though I still haven't decided whether it was a coherent answer to the question I asked.

To your second point, I agree.

Lowell may not be scum, but at this point he's more likely than anyone else. I'd need to see a lot more from everyone before I'd feel comfortable lynching him.
Just before posting this, I noticed Gateway's last post which sort of assumes that a lynch/vig of Lowell is necessarily going to happen. I disagree, obviously. We have 2 weeks left for (presumably) 2 kills.

It looks to me like you are agreeing with Diamondilium that poor logic does not directly connect to being scummy. That the logic itself is not a tell, but rather the way the logic is used.

[semioldguy]

As far as the role claiming goes, I am a firm believer of honest claiming. If ever in a claim situation the player should claim and shouldn't lie.

There can be exceptions to this, but it's best not to bring that topic up.

I disagree. Truth is less useful than helping the town win. Vanillas, for instance, should be trying to get themselves NKed, while PR's should be avoiding it -- so every single player has a reason why they might possibly lie about their role.

I am guessing you disagree with that part of the post too?

"X, but it's best not to bring up topic X" is pretty ironic...
But anyways, I have reasons for why I don't think people will necessarily tell the truth if you ask for a claim; I haven't posted those reasons yet, but I think it could help, so I might discuss it despite what you said there. If you disagree, then explain why.

It isn't ironic. If I didn't mention there were exceptions it could follow that someone who thinks there are exceptions comes out and starts listing the exceptions he finds (like you did anyway). Discussing the exceptions is helpful to the scum, it helps them to fake role claim as well as bordering on role fishing to begin with. Anyone who fake claims leaves themselves open to getting counterclaimed. If a townie fake claims, we end up lynching the townie because he lied and then we lose the actual claim to the night killing because a power role outed himself thinking we were getting scum. The mafia work in deception because they know who each other are, the town can't afford to work in deception in the same ways because we don't know who we all are. You suggesting that it might be okay to

openly lie to the town

and that is not okay with me. Lying is a very effective way of catching scum, if you are suggesting that the town start lying about things, or not subscribing to the truth, then you are making it easier for scum to blend in and harder for us to hunt for scum.

I also disagree with the stance that vanillas should be trying to get themselves night killed. That is not our objective. Our objective is to hunt and kill scum, not set up our own methods of death.

Many of your ideas appear to be

very

anti-town.

[semioldguy]

If we're really trying to get TWO lynches in today we need to get the first happening like, yesterday.

unvote, vote hero

now that the wagon's cool again. I'd be happy with a claim and a semioldguy gun in his face.

I'm not looking for a green light or support of an action from me on my use of the gun.

FoS: Lowell

[semioldguy]

@SOG - why was your gun question directly specifically at Amished?

He came in after the gun had been voted for and part of his first post was this:

I feel that it will just make it easier for scum to pressure somebody and get a role-claim out of them, and if it's a worthless claim in their eyes they can abandon it or reduce their heavy opponents (referring to anti-scum power roles).

so I just wanted to get a clearer idea of what he thought of role-claiming in regards to the gun.

[semioldguy]

Here... reading and catching up as well as giving some deep thought about using the gun because it needs to be used soon. Will have more to say within the next day.

[semioldguy]

@OozingGolfBall

During the early stages you supported the idea of shooting someone who got to L-1/L-2 but have done absolutely nothing to progress a game state toward that point. It no longer appears realistic that a double lynch with the gun can happen without being rushed. I would have wanted to go by the shooting someone who was built up close to lynch to get two lynches out of the day, but you are one of the players who has done nothing to help make that happen despite the fact that you agreed with the idea to begin with. You have not voted once. You have almost no unique contribution. Your posts all contain very little or often no actual content. You have been actively lurking all game.

Unvote; Vote: OozingGolfBall

**

Aims gun at OozingGolfBall

**

Your next post should contain a claim.

[semioldguy]

He had nearly two full days to respond and hasn't in a close to deadline situation.

KILL: OozingGolfBall

[semioldguy]

Unvote; Vote: Rishi

You've been laying low quite a bit this game. You also have not voted once. In fact, until Post 242 you hadn't even mentioned someone even being a little bit scummy. At this point you mention Lowell as a little bit scummy, who you had been defending prior saying his play was a null-tell on more than one occasion. The rest of us have had suspects and have put our votes on them, you have called out no suspects and I find that scummy.

[semioldguy]

hoping for a big post come this weekend.

We don't have a "this weekend" the deadline is less than 3 days away.

@Mod: Pending Musher333's replacement, depending on if or how long it takes to find someone, would it be possible to have a deadline extension?

[semioldguy]

Well that was fun...

semi, how do you feel about musher?

I feel much more strongly about Rishi at the moment and I am content with my vote there for now. I realize it is approaching deadline but if Musher333 is going to be replaced it would be nice to at least hear from the replacement first.

[semioldguy]

What is everyone's opinion of Rishi? He has promised an large update of sorts for over a week now and hasn't delivered. He isn't voting and he isn't suspicious of anyone. To me, not being suspicious of anyone at all is something that can happen to scum who have a hard time trying to make cases on people they know to be innocent.

[semioldguy]

@ Rishi
Aside from myself would you mind listing two of the other who you suspect as most likely to be scum, as well as your reasons for suspecting them? If we are going to get enough information on a kill prior to deadline how long would you have waited before taking the shot? How much time would you give for other players to be able to react to the shot before being hit by the deadline?

Why is what you previously going to say no longer relevant? It would still be helpful to know what you thought at the time.

[semioldguy]

Your attempt to be evasive and not respond to the points levied against you is noted, SOG.

You did the same thing of my points against you until I brought it up a second time. I was still waiting to hear from you before I responded to your post of me.

Did you think OMG was scum?
Or did you shoot OMG for lurking?
Did you even care what OMG's alignment was?
What information did you hope to gain from killing OMG?

And, I'm turning your question back on you: who do you think are scum? I want an actual reason why you think people are scum other than "oh, they're not posting much, so they must be scum."

Yes, I though OozingGolfBall was scum, and I gave several more reasons other than lurking for why I suspected him as such.
Yes I cared what his alignment was... after his death scene everyone can read what his alignment was. You were my next suspect after him and would have taken the shot if he had claimed and it was deemed to be believable and worth keeping him around for. I shot him when I did because I thought he had plenty of time to log in for a close to deadline situation and also wanted everyone remaining to be able to have a chance to respond to the gunning. With just under three days left, this would make it so that by the prodding requirements everyone would need to come in and make at least one post about it.
I didn't know how long it would take the mod to come in with a death scene and wasn't going to post nothing waiting around for that to happen. Waiting to present cases on anybody else in that situation seems dumb because it's just waiting around when we had very little time to be waiting around.
Information is dependent upon alignment (obviously) and looking at whether or not others suspected him or avoided him, whether they supported the shot or if they didn't prior to the reveal all are useful things. Unlike you, he actually took a couple positions and took stances on the cases against a couple different people and now we have an alignment based insight into the positions he took.

My first post regarding Musher333 was a direct response to Gateway, but I like how you omitted that part. I have not thought Musher333 to be scummy, at the time the vote was to apply pressure so that he would actually come to post and players could get a read off him.

As for Herodotus, I found him scummy for several reasons. The contradiction that Diamondilium pointed out is only one of those reasons. I didn't like the loaded question he directed at Lowell. I thought it was scummy for him to suggest lying about roles when claiming as town, for reason I already stated.

Regarding Rishi; lurking isn't the sole reason, or even the primary reason, why I suspected you to begin with. In addition to what I addressed earlier, now you have an OMGUS vote as well as several misrepresentations of me in your recent post.

There are a couple things I don't like about Lowell that I find scummy. When DrippingGoofBall voted for him earlier off Musher333 he immediately came in and would say that he would vote for Musher333 if she did. He both got a vote off of himself and diverted attention toward someone else. Also as pointed out, initially he did not want to gun to be used in a democratic way, but showed disappointment or contrary opinion to that when the gun was not used democratically.


Also you have

still

avoided some of my questions.

The game situation has changed somewhat since the last time I promised a large post. I don't recall everything I was going to say, but much of it is no longer relevant.

Does this means parts of it are still relevant? If so, would you mind sharing them? Could sharing parts that were relevant then, but not now, still help us as it could help get some insight on you from a previous game state? If not, then why not? If your opinions have changed since then, what between then and now have caused your opinions to change?

[semioldguy]

My responses in bold and purple.

Hey folks. Sorry that this got a little long. The following is just a really long argument against SOG. As for other players, I really don't like RisingPhoenix's last post, but it could be a newbie who has gotten in over his/her head. The other thing is that I still haven't responded to Hero's last post, which was somewhat directed at me, but I didn't want this to get insane.

Yes, I though OozingGolfBall was scum, and I gave several more reasons other than lurking for why I suspected him as such.

Okay, let's see what your reasons were:

During the early stages you supported the idea of shooting someone who got to L-1/L-2 but have done absolutely nothing to progress a game state toward that point. It no longer appears realistic that a double lynch with the gun can happen without being rushed. I would have wanted to go by the shooting someone who was built up close to lynch to get two lynches out of the day, but you are one of the players who has done nothing to help make that happen despite the fact that you agreed with the idea to begin with. You have not voted once. You have almost no unique contribution. Your posts all contain very little or often no actual content. You have been actively lurking all game.

Okay, your main points against OGB are:

1. Has done nothing to progress the game towards a lynch.

This was pointed out because it was a contradiction with his own opinion at the beginning of the game. If he wanted to gun someone at L-1 or L-2 and he does nothing to help anyone get to that point, then he is going against his own stated view. This is not lurking, lurkers are not the only ones who can be contradictory.

2. Has done nothing to help make that happen.

This is combined with the above point.

3. Has not voted.

This is not exclusive to lurkers. There are plenty of people who lurk but still place votes on players when they do bother to come and post. Just as there are people who post a lot but don't vote. Not voting is not the same as lurking.

4. No unique contribution.

People can lurk and still have unique contribution, though it is more unusual, this is not a case specifically applied to lurkers. There are also very active players in games that provide little to no unique contribution and it has nothing to do due with posting frequency.

5. Very little to no content in posts.

Same as previous point.

6. Actively lurking.

This is lurking, obviously.

Aren't these all basically different ways of saying that OGB was lurking?

No. If you look above, only one of the six above reasons you posted are specific to lurking. The fact that other things can exist while also lurking does not make them the same reason as lurking as those things can also apply to players who do not lurk.

And your reasons for suspecting OGB seem contradictory with your statement here:

Information is dependent upon alignment (obviously) and looking at whether or not others suspected him or avoided him, whether they supported the shot or if they didn't prior to the reveal all are useful things. Unlike you, he actually took a couple positions and took stances on the cases against a couple different people and now we have an alignment based insight into the positions he took.

Okay, so which is it? Did OGB have little to no content in his posts or was there insight in his posts that we can use for information? What information specifically can you mine from his posts? Because I'm looking at OGB's post and see almost nothing useful. So what information did you get?

What little content he has can be used. Even in such little content he did state several suspicions and give a couple opinions on cases.

Also, if you thought OGB was scum, why was the post where you threatened to kill OGB the first time you had mentioned any suspicion?

Because after my several re-reads that past day it was the first time I was significantly suspicious of him.

In fact, you had only mentioned OGB twice prior to the post where you asked for the claim. Here's one:

I doubt OozingGolfBall is DGB's alt. Not only is OozingGolfBall listed as male, but I'd credit DGB to come up with more creative/fun alt names like she has in the past. Either way I don't think we should assume the two to be the same player just yet.

If you thought OGB was scum, is this your version of scumhunting?

I didn't think OozingGolfBall was scum at this point and this was not scumhunting. I was pointing out that it was likely not the same person as DGB so the same sort of meta should not be used. It turns out that I was right and it was not a DGB alt.

The other post you mentioned OGB was a half-joking post where you had asked DGB what she thought of her "evil twin" OGB. Also, if you thought OGB was scum, why did you wait until a week before deadline to take the shot and ask for a claim from a player who, let's be honest, was unlikely to respond prior to your arbitrary two-day deadline?

I didn't think he was scum prior to that. And I had no reason to believe that he wouldn't have posted in the following two days. I expected him to come back by then and have already stated my reasons for pulling the trigger when I did.

I think you picked someone who you knew wasn't going to respond, so that you could justify your kill.

This is reaching. How can I know who will or won't respond in a two day time span? My kill is justified by the reasons I found him suspicious, not because he didn't post for two days after I pointed the gun at him. If you have issue with my suspicions please take up issue with the reasons I found him suspicious. I realize you've tried this, but all you have come up with is thinking that I thought he was suspicious for six different ways of lurking when that is horribly inaccurate, as I've pointed out.

Furthermore, I'll mention that, in the post after you killed OGB and voted me, it was very first time you mentioned me except for addressing a question that I had directed towards you early in the game.

Do you find voting for a player in the first post you mention suspicion of that player to be scummy?

My first post regarding Musher333 was a direct response to Gateway, but I like how you omitted that part. I have not thought Musher333 to be scummy, at the time the vote was to apply pressure so that he would actually come to post and players could get a read off him.

I didn't omit that part. I merely omitted the part that was a response to Gateway. Here's the full content, for those of you playing along at home:

Code: Select all

Musher333

You have been clear about your thoughts and added posts with content to help out, good townie vibe from this guy.

I disagree with this.

Musher hasn't added much content or brought anything to the table. I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all.

The exact same quote I pulled before in its full context. How does this change my point that your opinion of Musher was just wishy-washy non-committal language?

I underlined the part ou previously omitted. What's wishy-washy about "I disagree with this."? I thought I was pretty clear on my stance here in that I didn't think there was any clear townie-vibe from Musher333. The part you left out is very relevant, there is a reason I included it in my post to begin with, who are you to decide what to edit out of other people's posts when citing a case against them?

Then you voted for him two days later. If you had another post about Musher in the interim, please enlighten us.

I didn't. Is that suspicious for some reason? If so, why?

Regarding Rishi; lurking isn't the sole reason, or even the primary reason, why I suspected you to begin with. In addition to what I addressed earlier, now you have an OMGUS vote as well as several misrepresentations of me in your recent post.

There you go again with "the reasons that I stated earlier." Let's look at the post that you had on me before:

Unvote; Vote: Rishi

You've been laying low quite a bit this game. You also have not voted once. In fact, until Post 242 you hadn't even mentioned someone even being a little bit scummy. At this point you mention Lowell as a little bit scummy, who you had been defending prior saying his play was a null-tell on more than one occasion. The rest of us have had suspects and have put our votes on them, you have called out no suspects and I find that scummy.

Okay, your points are the following:

1. Laying low (i.e. lurking – no longer true)

Yes, this would be lurking

2. Not voting (i.e. lurking – no longer true)

As explained previously. Just because someone is lurking does not mean they aren't placing their vote somewhere and just because someone is actively posting does not mean they are voting. Lurking and not voting are not at all the same thing and in no way mutually inclusive.

3. Hadn't talked about anyone being scummy (i.e. lurking – no longer true)

Again, people don't have to lurk to not voice their opinions. Players can be very active and still post in a way that doesn't reveal any suspicions and just because someone is lurking doesn't mean that they aren't voicing suspicions when they do come around to post.

4. Seeming flip-flop on Lowell

I addressed the flip-flop on Lowell by saying that I find him incredibly hard to read. He plays like this in every game as both town and scum. And, frankly, I'm just not sure about him. I just don't know what his alignment is. If you want to use that as a point against me, then so be it.

So points two and three, which have been my main points against you, are NOT accusations of lurking nor are they accusations that can only apply to lurkers or do they even apply to all lurkers. What is with your focus on thinking everything means lurking?

Okay, so your new points are OMGUS and "misrepresentations of you." Just because I'm voting for you after you voted for me does not make it OMGUS. I think I put together a reasonable argument against you, which, frankly speaking, you're not taking very seriously.

Because you are claiming things like the only suspicions I have are of lurking, when that isn't the center of any of my suspicions.

Calling it OMGUS makes it seem as though I have no backup for my arguments, which is simply not true. And, as for misrepresentations, I think I showed in my post how what you claimed were misrepresentations were actually not.

I think you've failed in doing this as almost everything you brought up against me is incorrect and I will defend it as such even in the post-game.

If you want to claim any further misrepresentations, please quote my post and then quote your own posts which show reasons.

You're not actually refuting any of my arguments. You're just making general comments that aren't true without any evidence to back it up.

As for the post that I was promising earlier, I say it's no longer relevant. I'm leaving it at that. If you want to lynch me because of it, then so be it.

Earlier you said that

much

of it was no longer relevant, has that now changed to

all

of it being no longer relevant?

I think you're harping on a fairly minor point because you know you don't really have anything else against me.

You don't even correctly represent what I am presenting against you because you think it is all based on lurking and that it my my primary suspicion when it is not my primary suspicion of anyone.

Misrepresentations: You earlier said that Musher333 was one of the people I had suspicions of. I have not had suspicions of him, would you mind pointing out where I say that I do? In that same post you claim that my suspicions of you, Musher and OozingGolfBall are all for the same reasons. Musher isn't even someone I've been suspicious of while you and OozingGolfBall I have different reasons for being suspicious of as detailed earlier in this post. OozingGoldball had self-contradictory behavior. You had a lack of citing ANY suspicions. And Herodotus for different reasons than both of you. Checking people's post counts was never the basis of any of my suspicions.

What evidence do you have that I didn't care about OozingGolfBall's alignment? Is his alignment somehow relevant to my case on you?

[semioldguy]

Unvote; Vote: Lowell
HoS: Rishi

[semioldguy]

Well, not a lot of people have been weighing on the argument between me and SOG, so I'm not sure how productive it is. Let me make a few more points:

1. What I was pointing about the reasons you were voting OGB is that they all pretty much were linked to the fact that he wasn't posting much. Perhaps "lurking" is the wrong term – but let's go with "non-contributing." Everything that you pointed out – not voting or posting suspicions is linked to the same thing – that he wasn't playing.

Him merely posting more would not necessarily have made all or any of those things go away. You can't prove that one way or the other, but you saying that it is inextricably linked to lurking is ridiculous are you saying people who increase their posting frequency all of a sudden start having more content to their posts and start voting for people and are not self-contradictory? People who lurk don't all have those attributes so tell me specifically how the points I bring up against him can only be because he was lurking.

2. I didn't ask you to give another general statement. You say that the little content that OGB posted can be used. LOOK AT OGB'S POSTS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SURMISE ABOUT THE OTHER PLAYERS.

There are some players who I find as much more likely to be innocent. It is not beneficial to the town to make lists of innocents as that gives scum information on which players are going to be easier or harder to mislynch. Just because players gain information does not mean it is to the benefit of the town for them to always share that information.

3. You didn't realize that OGB wouldn't post in two days? Do you look at people's posting patterns in the thread and elsewhere on the site? OGB was not in any other games and final three posts were dated April 27, April 30 and May 4. He did post more often before that, but I think it's fairly evident that he was posting less and less often in the thread.

I don't even see how you can make these assumptions. He hadn't been taking that long in between the majority of his posts prior to the two posts you mention and two posts does not make a pattern or predict a behavior.

4. I don't necessarily find a vote on a player in the first post that you mention a player to be suspicious.

Then why did you point that out and hold it against me?

However, I do find it scummy when someone jumps on a bandwagon in the middle when they weren't suspicious of someone before – because now they aren't just voting, they are contributing to a lynch.

Are you saying I wasn't suspicious of Lowell with my most recent vote? Because that is also incorrect. Go re-read post 366, you asked me who I was suspicious of. Lowell is in my top three as most likely to be scum and there were no votes on him at the time of my stated suspicions. I am voting for a player I find suspicious because at the end of the day we want to lynch someone and I'd prefer that to be someone I find scummy. Are you saying it is suspicious that I want someone lynched today as opposed to hitting deadline without a lynch?

Your dayvig of OGB amounted to an extra lynch – it wasn't a vote, so you should provide justification for what you did

It wasn't an extra lynch. It was a dayvig. Using it as an extra lynch in the manner previously discussed no longer looked like a possibility. If you think it still was possible at that point please explain to me who you think was going to get to L-2 before then, come around to claim and still give us all enough time to organize ourselves for the second lynch.

. As Amished said early in the game:

For the L-1 gunning, I don't know if that's the right way to go. I feel that it will just make it easier for scum to pressure somebody and get a role-claim out of them, and if it's a worthless claim in their eyes they can abandon it or reduce their heavy opponents (referring to anti-scum power roles). As Semi has the gun now, I'm thinking that he should go after somebody who he thinks is scum and then force him to account for his actions and reasoning after it is done. That way we can also decide if it was truly a pro-town kill, or if there was something shady to do.

(And, yes, I find it interesting that Amished did the exact opposite of what he said – he never forced you to account for your actions, and even criticized me for questioning you after I did.)

5. As for Musher, I personally find the statement, "I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all" to be non-committal.

If I took only a part of one your your posts and told you that it was noncommittal, would that be a valid argument if that partial post in isolation showed to be noncommital? Complete posts are complete for a reason, because they contain the entire idea or thought process at the time. IF you leave out part of my post you are leaving out part of the picture and part of my view point and allowing it to be misinterpreted which is what you have done.

I can see your viewpoint too, so people can see what you said and I said on this subject and make up their own minds. (And, by the way, if you never had suspicions of Musher, why were you voting him at one point?)

Go Read post 366. The vote was to apply pressure so that he would come around and post. Heck this is even implied in the post where I am voting for him. Do you actually read my posts before making your case on me or are you just shooting in the dark?

6. As for OGB's alignment being relevant to my alignment, your points against OGB are nearly identical to your reasons for voting OGB.

Uh... are you saying that my points against a player should not be the identical to my reasons that I vote for them?

OGB flipped town – so obviously the fact that you thought he was scummy was wrong.

This is a HUGE logical fallacy. I don't even know how you come to this conclusion. Town players are perfectly capable of acting scummy, and their death doesn't automatically make their actions all of a sudden become non-scummy actions.

Do you feel that you've learned everything you can about Mafia or do you feel that your opinion on the game is constantly evolving?

Constantly changing and learning. Was this a serious question?

How many "non-contributing" townies do you have to lynch before you realize that you can't just get rid of people who aren't saying anything?

How are people who are not saying anything helping to the town win condition? How many non-contributing townies can you have and still win the game as town?

You have to make a genuine attempt to determine their alignment.

I did and I am.

[semioldguy]

By my count RisingPhoenix and Lowell are both at L-2 with four votes each.

The players not currently voting are kabenon007 and Kieraen, while RisingPhoenix still has his vote on DrippingGoofBall.

[semioldguy]

@ Rishi

You make the argument that me shooting a lurker, OozingGolfBall, who you say did not provide much information after the kill, yet now you have your vote on someone who is also a lurker and who has very little information to be discerned from his alignment in death. Do you see thins as a double standard? If you don't then what makes your vote different from the points of your own accusation?

What are your reasons or evidence for your vote on RisingPhoenix? What do you expect to be able to discern from his death/reveal? Would Lowell's provide more or better information? You say you don't have a read on Lowell, but what is your read on RisingPhoenix? If you don't have a read on either than why choose RisingPhoenix over Lowell?

[semioldguy]

I just got home to check here before going to bed myself. We haven't had a vote count in a bit and I am fairly certain we've counted right and seen everyone having unvoted who needed to. Just in case I/we missed something in vote counting:

Unvote; Vote RisingPhoenix

[semioldguy]

Even if the Mod hasn't come, I'm sure anything past the deadline would not have been counted. At least that has been my experience from other games here.

[semioldguy]

Vote: Rishi

[semioldguy]

I'd still like Rishi to address Post 384.

[semioldguy]

I'd still like Rishi to address Post 384.

That's a very long post and I have addressed some of the points. What specifically would you like me to address?

Aside from the Lowell comments... what other points have you addressed in my post since then? I want all of the points addressed, minus the point about the vote on Lowell which was already addressed.

You also never responded yesterday with what your read on RisingPhoenix was. When I asked, you just gave me more opinions of your read on Lowell and completely omitted anything regarding a read on RisingPhoenix.

[semioldguy]

The lack of activity so far today is staggeringly disappointing.

To those who were suspicious of Amished yesterday, who have your suspicions changed to today?

Who here has had their suspicions change since yesterday not involving Amished and what changes are there in your suspicions?

[semioldguy]

Sorry, but I wont be in town for the entiriety of next week.

What day do you anticipate being back?

[semioldguy]

This seems to be happening in every game I am in right now... It's already been a week and shit has happened here on day two!!!

kieraen - It's been a week since you've posted and you said that you would be having time to post. Where are you? It's understandable when life happens, but I hate it when people come in and don't post anything other then something like "sorry guys, I'll post something better in a day or two" and then that day or two passes and we don't hear from that player at all.

Diamondilium - Similar problem as kieraen; you say that you'll have more time to reply to Hero the next day and then two days later you come back only to say that you won't be here next week. Well... what about THIS week?! If you are going to be V/LA at least be helpful enough to the game to provide dates that you are leaving and coming back. Not providing that just looks like you can set up an excuse to get another day or two of lurking and non-contributions in.

Rishi - The more I think of it the more I hate your response. You essentially pick up your prod and ask if you can only address some of the problems I had with you and say nothing else. Do you seriously not see something wrong with that? If you were to ask me ten questions and I responded by asking if I could answer five of them and ignore the rest would that be in any way logical or a pro-town thing to do? You obviously have read the thread since you knew I asked you a question. Was there nothing you wanted to comment about or bring up on your own? It looks to me like you are just delaying and buying time to come up with a response. You trying to further avoid the situation after you suggested sidelining it yesterday does not look good to me.

EvilEvilMatt - You say you are going to keep poking at Lowell. Keep poking at him then, you really haven't poked him much at all today. If you find him suspicions point those things out, make him respond to some of them by asking questions or giving more details as to what you don't like to generate some discussion on/with Lowell that can either help your case, let us move on to someone else or at the very least allow others to more easily take sides and weigh in on their thoughts as well.

Lowell - I don't like some of your responses, which I'll get to in my next post before too long. Unlike others though you seem to be here most days to at least somewhat respond to questions and post thoughts in the thread.

kabenon007 - I assume he is going to get replaced. Hopefully the replacement will show more dedication to this game than most of you have been showing recently.

DrippingGoofball - You've at least been in the thread, but really haven't provided any suspicions of your own. It doesn't exactly help us a whole lot if you think Lowell is town. Who do you think the scum are? Has your scum list from yesterday changed at all? I hope you aren't depending on Lowell's suspicions to help form your own.

Herodotus - You seem to be clear on where you stand with your opinions rather than being wishy-washy or indecisive you actually take a stance. You are looking for people to respond to queries, but you aren't avoiding others either. As sad as it is, you are probably the one who has contributed the most today.

[semioldguy]

Lowell, if it didn't matter then why did you bring it up in the first place? The more it is avoided after being brought up, the more you make it matter.

You tell everybody to settle down... who is this everybody? Two people had commented on it and they didn't seem like they were in particular need of having to be settled down. It seems like YOU are the one who is helping make this more of a big deal than it is. You then come back to even say that there is a reason to saying what you said. Why did you need to say that if it doesn't matter? Why do you keep needing to bring up that it doesn't matter and to move on... why can't you just instead move on. It's win-win in your case; (1) You get away from what you think doesn't matter; and (2) you get to something that does matter. You didn't really do much to help anyone move on. Simply saying that doesn't actually move things forward on its own you need to actually have something to move forward with.

[semioldguy]

Just for you Rishi, I have removed the one part I have felt that you've already answered. Now would you mind responding to these points? You suggested waiting to pick it up again today if we were both still alive. Here we are, both of us still alive, and now you avoiding the situation. You have also said nothing of actual content today. Complaing that activity has been so low that it's hard to find current suspects is hypocritical because you have made no effort to make it so there is anything to comment on and have been one of the least active players today.

Well, not a lot of people have been weighing on the argument between me and SOG, so I'm not sure how productive it is. Let me make a few more points:

1. What I was pointing about the reasons you were voting OGB is that they all pretty much were linked to the fact that he wasn't posting much. Perhaps "lurking" is the wrong term – but let's go with "non-contributing." Everything that you pointed out – not voting or posting suspicions is linked to the same thing – that he wasn't playing.

Him merely posting more would not necessarily have made all or any of those things go away. You can't prove that one way or the other, but you saying that it is inextricably linked to lurking is ridiculous are you saying people who increase their posting frequency all of a sudden start having more content to their posts and start voting for people and are not self-contradictory? People who lurk don't all have those attributes so tell me specifically how the points I bring up against him can only be because he was lurking.

2. I didn't ask you to give another general statement. You say that the little content that OGB posted can be used. LOOK AT OGB'S POSTS AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SURMISE ABOUT THE OTHER PLAYERS.

There are some players who I find as much more likely to be innocent. It is not beneficial to the town to make lists of innocents as that gives scum information on which players are going to be easier or harder to mislynch. Just because players gain information does not mean it is to the benefit of the town for them to always share that information.

3. You didn't realize that OGB wouldn't post in two days? Do you look at people's posting patterns in the thread and elsewhere on the site? OGB was not in any other games and final three posts were dated April 27, April 30 and May 4. He did post more often before that, but I think it's fairly evident that he was posting less and less often in the thread.

I don't even see how you can make these assumptions. He hadn't been taking that long in between the majority of his posts prior to the two posts you mention and two posts does not make a pattern or predict a behavior.

4. I don't necessarily find a vote on a player in the first post that you mention a player to be suspicious.

Then why did you point that out and hold it against me?

However, I do find it scummy when someone jumps on a bandwagon in the middle when they weren't suspicious of someone before – because now they aren't just voting, they are contributing to a lynch. Your dayvig of OGB amounted to an extra lynch – it wasn't a vote, so you should provide justification for what you did

It wasn't an extra lynch. It was a dayvig. Using it as an extra lynch in the manner previously discussed no longer looked like a possibility. If you think it still was possible at that point please explain to me who you think was going to get to L-2 before then, come around to claim and still give us all enough time to organize ourselves for the second lynch.

. As Amished said early in the game:

For the L-1 gunning, I don't know if that's the right way to go. I feel that it will just make it easier for scum to pressure somebody and get a role-claim out of them, and if it's a worthless claim in their eyes they can abandon it or reduce their heavy opponents (referring to anti-scum power roles). As Semi has the gun now, I'm thinking that he should go after somebody who he thinks is scum and then force him to account for his actions and reasoning after it is done. That way we can also decide if it was truly a pro-town kill, or if there was something shady to do.

(And, yes, I find it interesting that Amished did the exact opposite of what he said – he never forced you to account for your actions, and even criticized me for questioning you after I did.)

5. As for Musher, I personally find the statement, "I don't get a scummy vibe, but not enough from Musher333 to get a townie read at all" to be non-committal.

If I took only a part of one your your posts and told you that it was noncommittal, would that be a valid argument if that partial post in isolation showed to be noncommital? Complete posts are complete for a reason, because they contain the entire idea or thought process at the time. IF you leave out part of my post you are leaving out part of the picture and part of my view point and allowing it to be misinterpreted which is what you have done.

I can see your viewpoint too, so people can see what you said and I said on this subject and make up their own minds. (And, by the way, if you never had suspicions of Musher, why were you voting him at one point?)

Go Read post 366. The vote was to apply pressure so that he would come around and post. Heck this is even implied in the post where I am voting for him. Do you actually read my posts before making your case on me or are you just shooting in the dark?

6. As for OGB's alignment being relevant to my alignment, your points against OGB are nearly identical to your reasons for voting OGB.

Uh... are you saying that my points against a player should not be the identical to my reasons that I vote for them?

OGB flipped town – so obviously the fact that you thought he was scummy was wrong.

This is a HUGE logical fallacy. I don't even know how you come to this conclusion. Town players are perfectly capable of acting scummy, and their death doesn't automatically make their actions all of a sudden become non-scummy actions.

Do you feel that you've learned everything you can about Mafia or do you feel that your opinion on the game is constantly evolving?

Constantly changing and learning. Was this a serious question?

How many "non-contributing" townies do you have to lynch before you realize that you can't just get rid of people who aren't saying anything?

How are people who are not saying anything helping to the town win condition? How many non-contributing townies can you have and still win the game as town?

You have to make a genuine attempt to determine their alignment.

I did and I am.

[semioldguy]

Mod: Can we get a vote count and prod/replacement update?

@DrippingGoofball
Where is your vote? What happened to the rattling of cages from yesterday?

[semioldguy]

As for current suspects, it's hard when the activity is so low. Still you, but not enough for a vote just yet - my theory that you and Amished could be scumbuddies has been altered.

There is still the entirety of yesterday to help form suspicions. It would be poor play to completely disregard things from then. Since there is plenty to look at from the previous day, low activity today is not a valid excuse to have no suspicions. Five of the rest of us have suspects, as evidenced by our votes (kieraen and kabenon007 are nowhere to be found and not voting) so why is it so hard for you?

[semioldguy]

Not voting or looking for suspicious people could prolong this game, and hence your retirement.

[semioldguy]

How is that an attempt to get you to unvote?

I also am sad to see DGB leaving.

[semioldguy]

You weren't voting so there was no need to unvote, and what purpose do you see you vote on Herodotus doing?

[semioldguy]

Then I am more than happy with my vote on you. I am more than convinced that your actions (or rather lack of actions), contradictory nature and misrepresentations are not protown and your refusal to explain these aspects and the conclusions you jump to are further incriminating. Your assumptions about what I will do with your replies are more jumps to conclusions and do not accurately reflect my motivation.

Also no one needs to be prodded right now. Diamondilium is V/LA this week while Kieraen and kabenon007 both need to be replaced. With the massive amount of Minis in need of replacements right now, I wouldn't count on getting them anytime real soon.

[semioldguy]

[semioldguy]

No hard feelings, as much as I do want to continue, I also have some reservations about keeping it alive because of the inactivity so far Day Two.

[semioldguy]

It's been over 60 hours, so I'm guessing this isn't going to continue then?

[semioldguy]

...I think my suspicions were pretty accurate throughout the game.

[semioldguy]

Hrmph. At least I'm "not easily guided" I guess... First abandoned game, that makes me kinda sad..

same here

And first game not vanilla too.

[semioldguy]

I had no read at all on Kieraen, but Gateway was a little suspicious to me. Rishi I was almost sure of. And Hero I had been suspicious of early, but was losing that suspicion more and more as the game went on.

I've never played as a jailer before. I thought it was easier to try to figure out who a likely night kill would be rather than which mafia member would be the one to do the kill, since when there are several scum the least likely to be suspected would normally be the one submitting it, which is why I didn't pick Rishi, since I doubt he would have been the one submitting. I don't know if this is the correct approach to the role though.

[semioldguy]

I thought my reasoning was valid, though obviously I was wrong about OozingGolfball...

[semioldguy]

I wasn't lurker hunting. I was hunting people who contradicted their stated intentions in the game. It just so happened two of you were lurkers, but that was never the cornerstone of my case, nor was it something that all lurkers possess nor something that is limited only to lurkers.

[semioldguy]

I was wondering that too... but didn't want to bring it up in thread. When I sent my night action in I asked if that affected me and all I got as response was that my selection went through.

[semioldguy]

Out of curiosity... could we get spoilers to know what those might have been?