Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[DeathRowKitty]

What I do know is that I've always approached vig claims with a healthy dose of criticism. I always thought it be an sk safe claim or a scum safe claim (this less than an sk claiming) and I will be weary of the next few posts of reckoner.

A google search tells me that "safe claim" probably has a standardized meaning, but it doesn't tell me what that meaning is. What exactly is a safe claim?

[My Milked Eek]

A claim that's safe to make...

[ChannelDelibird]

A claim that's safe to make...

To clarify, a safe claim is a claim given to scum by the mod so that a mass claim doesn't break the game.

[ChannelDelibird]

But

seriously

, everyone needs to leave the claimed vig alone today. Stop wondering about safe claims, SKs, et cetera. There'll be room for doubt later in the game if it is needed, but unless there is a gaping hole in his claim (which there definitely is not) we need to look elsewhere.

[xRECKONERx]

Yeah I'm with CDB, this current train of thought is getting us nowhere.

[xRECKONERx]

@Wickedestjr:

Why did you feel the need to random vote CDB, then go off and also joke/random vote CB? Was one random vote not enough?

Furthermore, if your CB vote was random/joking, then why did you see it fit to defend it? A defense for a random vote should just be that it's a random vote: it seems to me like you're overreaching.

Also, direct contradiction:
CB's revote is scummy
versus
CB's revote isn't suspicious

Let me throw your own question back at you... did you NOT find my reasonless vote on Wolf suspicious?

Time to break down this big daddy.

Okay, this I agree with.

Did that really not cross your mind?

This makes me want to vote for wolf more.

Straws: you grasp at them. Someone saying that they like the fast-paced-ness of a game or something is hardly reason for a vote. Speaking of which... why exactly DID you want to vote for wolf?

So you are saying you withheld information knowing that it would make people vote for you?

Once again, when everyone else was all over my ass about the situation, you stayed neutral and just tossed me an occasional question. Why did you try to distance yourself from me?

Huh?!? So you're saying that Reckoner seems town because of an unintelligent post. That doesn't seem right.

And yet you're not even FoSing me or voting me after you've had ample time to see just how scummy my actions were... yet you say:

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game.

Vote: Conspicuous_other

First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information.

Then CDB gave me a good reason and I agreed with him, and now reckoner is currently one of the most suspicious people of my list of suspicions.

Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

...once again, then why am I not getting an FoS or a vote from you at that point?

Speak up, son.

Vote: Wicked

[DeathRowKitty]

well i guess we're stuck until wolframnhart, qax42, or wickedestjr responds

anything productive to be done until then?

[xRECKONERx]

You could give your opinion on my previous post.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well it's kind of interesting to see you go after the only person who seemed to agree with you in that whole situation, but I definitely agree wicked's posts seem pretty bad. It seemed he was too quick to try to divert attention away from you, which is weird, since we've come to an agreement (at least for the moment) that you're not scum (unless he was trying to seem like he wasn't part of your lynch mob, but WIFOM is never particularly convincing). Overall, he does seem scummy. I think you covered the rest of the situation.

I won't vote for now, just because I'm more eager for an answer from wolfram or qax first. I don't want to vote for wolfram because (last I checked) he hasn't been that active on this site as of late and can't answer questions until he is. I don't want to vote for qax because I'm more interested in the wolfram situation right now and voting him would take away from that.

[Conspicuous_other]

unvote

Until wickedestjr or qax responds, or unless someone has a question for me, I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said already.

[qax42]

Oh, there's a lot more here that I need to respond to/comment on that I have time for right now. Bear with me, I'll get to this later today.

[stuntkeyboardist]

I was wondering what you guys meant by wicked. He didnt seem all that suspicious, but then I looked back in the thread. The last time he posted was Thursday, June 18. I dont recall that he claimed low access, so he definitely should have posted. But I agree w/ conspicuous. I have nothing more that I think needs saying that hasnt already been said. We need a few people to check in.

[DeathRowKitty]

The last time he posted

in this game

was Thursday, June 18.

Just clarifying that. He's posted 9 times on other games since then, the most recent being yesterday.

[Wickedestjr]

Sorry, I am a bit behind. I just read page 11.

I think that reckoner needs to post a good defense that will actually get us to unvote, because repeating himself over and over again is nott going to make those voting for him unvote.

The following quotes are from C_O on page eleven.

DeathRowKitty wrote:
Having looked back at suspicious posts:

FoS ChannelDeliBird

The whole thing about starting bandwagons was really looking bad to me, but your defense is solid enough I won't vote. I do have to be suspicious though.

FoS wolframnhart

I'm not so sure the whole lurker argument is that solid, especially after having gone through a similar situation with CB, but just why are you so interested in lobster's posts?

FoS canadianbovine

Maybe it's just me, but it looks like you enjoy jumping on bandwagons to divert suspicion and you've been sticking close by CDB since he stopped questioning you.


I find it kind of strange that DRK gives FOS's to the same three people for the same reasons. Does anybody else find this strange?

I see three different reasons there.

I don't. I gave CDB an FoS because he started almost all, if not all, the bandwagons in this game. DRK says the exact same thing. DRK's opinion of wolf was pretty good actually and not the same as mine. I gave an FoS to CB for

deflecting attention

while DRK did the same thing for

diverting suspicion

. I see the two bolded as pretty much the same thing. Two of the reasons are the exact same and he also gives three FoSs all to the same people.

Wow... I think you win the reward for least helpful contribution in the game. Vote: Conspicuous_other First of all I wasn't really defending him, I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information.

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

That's not defending him?

Not in my opinion. Mostly because I was curious why others found his play suspicious. Once I understood why people were suspicious of him, I was no longer as sympathetic towards reckoner.

Could you please answer the question that I asked in one of my previous posts?

Gladly. Which one would that be?

What do you think about wolf's strange vote? Do you think that CDB seems eager? What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment.

Did you say this just based on my vote for you or are their other things involved?

Well before I voted you, you were not contributing at all. I would also like to point out that you began contributing once I voted you. Does anybody else find that wierd?

I'm very suspicious of Conspicuous_other, canadianbovine. I think I've fairly clearly mentioned why, but feel free for a clarification. I'm not sure if both are scum yet—their interactions don't scream scum pair, but it might be good distancing.

I agree with this. As somebody watching this game, it would look like they were playing two different games.

[xRECKONERx]

Psst, Wicked, you've got a vote sitting on you already. Let's respond, yeah?

[qax42]

@Town

: Sorry about this, but

I'm going to be V/LA till Tuesday at the earliest

.

I have a lot to respond to and more to comment on, but it would take too long to write the post, and I only have time right to post V/LA notices in the games I am active in.

Just to put my vote on someone suspicious to me, I'll make time for:

Vote: canadianbovine

for dodging my questions and playing a very shady game. He's not really participated tremendously since the game stopped focusing on him. There's more that I've mentioned in my earlier posts, but I apologize that this is all I have time for.

[xRECKONERx]

@Wicked: Maybe you're just blind, but I've defended whatever it is that is keeping you from unvoting me already. Probably a dozen times. In fact, you've no real reason to be voting for me, aside from the fact that I made a vote without giving reasoning and thus screwed up my ill-conceived "trap".

Can you

please

respond to my most recent post? Particularly the one where I voted you.

[stuntkeyboardist]

@Town

: Sorry about this, but

I'm going to be V/LA till Tuesday at the earliest

.

I have a lot to respond to and more to comment on, but it would take too long to write the post, and I only have time right to post V/LA notices in the games I am active in.

Just to put my vote on someone suspicious to me, I'll make time for:

Vote: canadianbovine

for dodging my questions and playing a very shady game. He's not really participated tremendously since the game stopped focusing on him. There's more that I've mentioned in my earlier posts, but I apologize that this is all I have time for.

Maybe it's just me, but does this post seem like an "I being suspected/voted, so I wont be here to answer questions" sort of post? I mean, maybe you'll honestly be gone, but there were a few important points brought up regarding your game. By not answering these before you leave, it seems a bit dodgy. Plus, you said at 7:30 that you had a lot to say, and to ignore that for 7 hours, then saying you'll be gone seems VERY scummy to me.

Now, going by your "logic" of placing a vote, I think I'll just put mine on

vote:qax

right now. I'd like to hear your response to the earlier posts as well as your defense before you actually "leave."

[DeathRowKitty]

I don't. I gave CDB an FoS because he started almost all, if not all, the bandwagons in this game. DRK says the exact same thing. DRK's opinion of wolf was pretty good actually and not the same as mine. I gave an FoS to CB for deflecting attention while DRK did the same thing for diverting suspicion. I see the two bolded as pretty much the same thing. Two of the reasons are the exact same and he also gives three FoSs all to the same people.

I actually didn't notice you gave FoS's to them (well I noticed the post, but I didn't realize it when i made my post). The fact that my reason was the same as yours on two of them means I agreed with you.

[Conspicuous_other]

What do you think about wolf's strange vote?

Just to clarify, are we talking about wolframnhart or another wolf, because he's only voted once, and that was random.

I really think the case on wolf has been blown to ridiculous proportions. Looking back, he didn't vote or even FOS lobster, and didn't really even say he thought that he was suspicious for not responding to canadian. He only said that he had noticed that lobster hadn't posted since CB voted.

Do you think that CDB seems eager?

Hmm...I don't really know how I feel about CDB. I can certainly see why NHT would bring that to the table, but I feel that CDB defended himself well enough in post 208.

I'll answer your question with a very tentative no.

What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

I'm sorry, could you clarify what your case is on him exactly? I'm having trouble identifying it looking through your posts.

I don't. I gave CDB an FoS because he started almost all, if not all, the bandwagons in this game. DRK says the exact same thing. DRK's opinion of wolf was pretty good actually and not the same as mine. I gave an FoS to CB for deflecting attention while DRK did the same thing for diverting suspicion. I see the two bolded as pretty much the same thing. Two of the reasons are the exact same and he also gives three FoSs all to the same people.

This was a mistake on my part, I thought that you said kitty had FOS'ed 3 people for the same reason, I missed the part that connected it to your vote. Sorry.

Maybe it's just me, but does this post seem like an "I being suspected/voted, so I wont be here to answer questions" sort of post? I mean, maybe you'll honestly be gone, but there were a few important points brought up regarding your game. By not answering these before you leave, it seems a bit dodgy. Plus, you said at 7:30 that you had a lot to say, and to ignore that for 7 hours, then saying you'll be gone seems VERY scummy to me.

In general, I really, really don't like posts like this. You can't prove anything from cases like this unless you happen to be/know a good private investigator...

[DeathRowKitty]

@Wicked: Maybe you're just blind, but I've defended whatever it is that is keeping you from unvoting me already. Probably a dozen times. In fact, you've no real reason to be voting for me, aside from the fact that I made a vote without giving reasoning and thus screwed up my ill-conceived "trap".

To be honest, the only part of your defense that did anything to make me unvote was your vig claim.

I think that reckoner needs to post a good defense that will actually get us to unvote, because repeating himself over and over again is nott going to make those voting for him unvote.

Unless you're willing to risk losing a town vig because we didn't believe Reckoner's claim, I don't see why you wouldn't unvote him. If Reckoner is lying about his claim, we'll find out soon enough.

[CoCo]

Sorry about not being around. I haven't had internet the last few days. Took some time off to spend with my Dad for Father's day. We both live a few hundred miles apart and the only time we could get together was during the week.


Where do I start? I suppose I can elaborate on my vote for DeathRowKitty. In the post in which you addressed me about my vote and asked if I could refrain from putting words in your mouth, I apologize. I was paraphrasing and that one little word certainly does make a lot of difference.

However, you certainly did think it would be nice to put

someone

at L-1. You even got a chance to do so with Reckoner. Even after getting on another player's case about putting him at L-1. This is what I meant by contradictions. It seems you're looking to get a quicklynch while at the same time attempting not to get noticed by doing so.

Very disturbing behavior, IMO.

Had I been able to chime in during the whole Reckoner debacle, I'd have said the same thing I did about CB. Both were panicking under pressure, and it seems that is a classic pro-town emotional response. Assuming Reckoner's claim is true (and it seems iron-clad to me), I don't see why votes remain on him.

[Wickedestjr]

I just read page 12.

First off,

unvote

.

Hmm... Took you a while.

In retrospect, not much. At the time, I thought it had caused you to jump the gun. I

should

have held out a bit longer and seen who else jumped on the bandwagon, but I was too impulsive.

You were considering withholding information longer?

@DRK - You unvoted when xRx was at L-1. Why?

@xReckonerX - I think this might have already been asked, but I am not sure. Did you learn anything from your trap? Please share if you can.

As a measure of safety, an agreement was reached for all remaining Mafia members to hand over the guns that they carry on their person to be locked away in one of the buildings that have survived the explosion– after all, what good are guns to the Mafia when every single bullet in the weapon store had been cleared out? Better to try and deprive the enemies of the weapons they need.

Wait! Why did you quote this?

[Wickedestjr]

I forgot to say this. I believe xRx's claim just so you know.

[DeathRowKitty]

However, you certainly did think it would be nice to put someone at L-1. You even got a chance to do so with Reckoner. Even after getting on another player's case about putting him at L-1.

Personally, I think the Reckoner situation makes my defense even stronger. We had him at L-2 and his tone was visibly changed, but he was still missing questions. When qax put him at L-1, you could see the pressure of the votes have a dramatic effect. L-1 is clearly more dramatic than L-2. Of course I would like to put

someone

at L-1, if I happen to think that someone is scummy.

As to my getting on another player's case about L-1, I already explained this. Do you not feel that cop is an important enough role that I wouldn't want to vote until I was sure?

This is what I meant by contradictions. It seems you're looking to get a quicklynch while at the same time attempting not to get noticed by doing so.

That is not what you meant by contradictions. You can't use my posts after your accusation to justify assertions within your accusation. Personally, I don't think there was a contradiction here to begin with, as I've already explained.

If I really wanted a quicklynch on Reckoner, my best course of action would have been to "not notice" the L-1 situation and post again after the situation played out. Notice my actual actions in that situation. I read qax's L-1 vote and my first instinct was to unvote Reckoner to keep him out of L-1. Only then did I take the time to re-read the previous few posts and respond to qax.

Had I been able to chime in during the whole Reckoner debacle, I'd have said the same thing I did about CB. Both were panicking under pressure, and it seems that is a classic pro-town emotional response.

Panicking under pressure is most certainly not

pro-town

. Depending on the situation and your personal opinions, you may not find it to be scummy (and it is most certainly easier to say so in the Reckoner case with hindsight), but I would never call it pro-town.