Invitational 10: 2005-2006. Game over! before 624

[bluesoul]

Happy birthday, Shea.

VOTE COUNT NUMBER ONE

MBL: 3

(Elvis Knits, PJ, Sarc

Bluesoul: 2

(MBL, ether)

chamber: 1

(DGB)

DGB: 1

(bluesoul)

sarc: 1

(OGML)

not voting: 4

(Chamber, Elias, Patrick, IH, )

[Thestatusquo]

Dear MBL and Bluesoul:

3.) All mod communication is banned from the thread. If you have a question, PM me. If you want to request a vote count: PM me. If you want to request a deadline extension: PM me. If you want to communicate with me in any way at all then you MUST PM me, and DO NOT POST IT IN THE THREAD THAT YOU HAVE DONE SO. The mod is in a game of mafia only insofar as he is necessary to run the game. I will not add "modwifom" to one of the elements of the game you have to worry about. Depending on how bad your offense, and how far into the game it is, this is a modkillable offense.

This is your first warning.

[Patrick]

I've read bluesoul's Post 28 a few times and have come to the conclusion that I don't mind it. I think it's clear his use of the word "three" was referencing the non-posters and not a likely number of mafia, and the assumption that MBL has scumbuddies did only strike me as within the context of DGB's assumption in the last post. One thing I don't like is that I don't pick up much curiosity from him, despite the relatively high number of posts he's made and the relative spotlight he's been under. Elvis gives me mildly bad vibes, not sure why.

I don't really see any particular Sarcastro/bluesoul connection.

Early town vibes from Ether and MBL for what seem like genuine attempts to kick off the game.

Unvote

.

I too noticed Ether calling out one "where are your scumbuddies" comments and leaving out others. I also think that voting someone on the basis of making a statement of that nature is legitimate, as statements like those get dropped all the time. The evidence is here in this thread, where its happened three times already in the first two pages.

Clarify this please. If that kind of statement is dropped all the time, why would that make it a legitimate reason for a vote?

MBL, I too would like to know what you like(d) about OGML. Why do you feel that OMGL's vote for Sarcastro was an appropriate vote, when all Sarcastro had done was cast an apparently arbitrary vote for Ether? Did you see something scummy in that first post?

[OhGodMyLife]

Typo. That should have said "illegitimate." Proofreading is tech.

[chamber]

sorry for the late start. I don't regularly check these boards anymore and the long delay in the start up had me forget about it till shea reminded me. Expect a normal posting frequency from here on.

vote: bluesoul

[bluesoul]

Missed you too.

[Ether]

I've read bluesoul's Post 28 a few times and have come to the conclusion that I don't mind it. I think it's clear his use of the word "three" was referencing the non-posters and not a likely number of mafia, and the assumption that MBL has scumbuddies did only strike me as within the context of DGB's assumption in the last post.

Meh. Combined with the disclaimer at the end of 36, it feels like an opportunistic way to attack DGB for doing what he himself evidently didn't believe to be damage. (No, this wasn't my original angle. Something bothers me about that post, dammit.)

Bluesoul, what's your view of DGB?

On contemplation, I'd rather hear this from OGML than from PJ:

I don't see how they're comparable at all.

Explain to me how they're comparable.

[MrBuddyLee]

Minor town vibes on OGML. Could easily be wrong, considering how little he's said, but rather than hold back on my silly gut instinct I just blabbed it. Something about his combination of pithy comments just felt right and not phony.

[petroleumjelly]

A couple comments and questions.

1.)

I also do not think there is a distinctive Bluesoul-Sarcastro connection at present. They both have explained things on behalf of each other, but that hardly constitutes very weighty evidence. [Clarification: This is not to say they "unlikely to be connected", just that nothing compels me to think they are connected to each other more than any other two random players].

2.)

I also thought (and still think) Bluesoul's meaning of "three players" was meant to imply the three "non-posters" at the time. I've read MBL's Post 29 a few times, and I think MBL must have read it the way he was claimed to read it; precisely because if

he

had read "three players" to mean "three non-posters" he would not knowingly try to twist it to mean something else. Purposefully misconstruing a post does not strike without any signs of joking or playfulness does not seem probable, even if it were under the guise of "sparking discussion".

3.)

I do, however, disagree with Bluesoul that any 'damage' was done by DGB's post. This was already alluded to in my own Post 42 (part 2).

My problem: I have a hard time in thinking that Bluesoul

seriously

thought MBL was ever in danger of being lynched in an Invitational Game on page 2, and hence how he could take DGB's post to be

serious

. Even assuming his complaint ("the non-posters will know not to connect themselves with MBL now") against DGB to hold weight in a vacuum (which I find doubtful), it would

only

hold weight

if and only if

the non-posters

also

believed that MBL was actually in some amount of peril and some sort of 'distancing' was even required.

Bluesoul's reaction and subsequent explanation (which also seems serious) does not seem to fit in to the realities of the situation, which strikes me as playful. Seeing as Bluesoul himself began the game playfully – and in fact still is doing so in a manner (see his response to chamber's vote on him) – I find it hard to think he would miss that same vibe in DGB's post, regardless of whether or not he has played with her (especially as her two posts prior to her MBL-post were also playful).

4.)

Now for the question(s) reserved for Ether:

-->

a.

Did you

actually

think E_K's post was going to result in any "discussion stifling"?
-->

b.

Separately: Do you think E_K

intended

for her post to stifle discussion?

I'm basically wanting to know if you think E_K's post was legitimately

scummy

, "bad form", or something else.

~~~~~

Unvote: MrBuddyLee, Vote: BlueSoul

.

[Sarcastro]

PJ, please stop trying to blind us with logic.

[Patrick]

Meh. Combined with the disclaimer at the end of 36, it feels like an opportunistic way to attack DGB for doing what he himself evidently didn't believe to be damage. (No, this wasn't my original angle. Something bothers me about that post, dammit.)

Meh. When I read the post, I tried to tweak my brain and imagine I'm someone else, and decide whether that post seems like it could have been written naturally. I think it probably was. At a pinch, I could see it as trying to see if anyone would bite and go after DGB, but it's minor in my opinion. I don't understand what you mean by "for what he himself evidently didn't believe to be damage". Didn't he spend a few posts explaining why he

did

think her post had done some damage?

I'd like to hear what specifically DGB dislikes about MBL.

[chamber]

unvote: bluesoul vote: patrick

[Patrick]

Fail.

[chamber]

Fail.

Your interest in finding scum doesn't feel genuine to me. Your explaining your thought process to much.

[bluesoul]

3.)

I do, however, disagree with Bluesoul that any 'damage' was done by DGB's post. This was already alluded to in my own Post 42 (part 2).

My problem: I have a hard time in thinking that Bluesoul

seriously

thought MBL was ever in danger of being lynched in an Invitational Game on page 2, and hence how he could take DGB's post to be

serious

. Even assuming his complaint ("the non-posters will know not to connect themselves with MBL now") against DGB to hold weight in a vacuum (which I find doubtful), it would

only

hold weight

if and only if

the non-posters

also

believed that MBL was actually in some amount of peril and some sort of 'distancing' was even required.

Bluesoul's reaction and subsequent explanation (which also seems serious) does not seem to fit in to the realities of the situation, which strikes me as playful. Seeing as Bluesoul himself began the game playfully – and in fact still is doing so in a manner (see his response to chamber's vote on him) – I find it hard to think he would miss that same vibe in DGB's post, regardless of whether or not he has played with her (especially as her two posts prior to her MBL-post were also playful).

This whole thing is getting blown a bit out of proportion. Yes, I did think it caused some "damage" in the town's effort to analyze players should MBL turn up scum. No, I never thought MBL was in real danger to get lynched that early (though note that he had 4 of 7 at the time, a sizable amount that early); the timing of an MBL lynch would be irrelevant in that regard. I've also added that I agree with you, on post 43, that it may even offer some help in the town's effort, but I don't think it would be as much help.

I don't see how me telling people to stop audibly looking for connections between the then vote leader and other players is scummy, i.e., worthy of voting me. Distancing is

always

important as scum, it's the little hints and tells and slips that hint to an association that we typically go about finding scum. So why is the act of stopping people from stifling those leads anti-town?

I'd also like to hear more on DGB's thoughts on MBL, and whether she has serious thoughts on him or not.

[Patrick]

Your interest in finding scum doesn't feel genuine to me. Your explaining your thought process to much.

No more than usual. What do you think of PJ?

[OhGodMyLife]

Sarc, are you

trying

to pretend there's a connection between you and bluesoul?

[bluesoul]

Starting to wonder the same thing myself. Off to work, hoping to see a post by DGB when I next check in.

[elvis_knits]

Patrick... MBL thinks you had ulterior motives to starting bandwagon on him. You have never addressed these concerns. Explain.

[Patrick]

Patrick... MBL thinks you had ulterior motives to starting bandwagon on him. You have never addressed these concerns. Explain.

I thought I'd already explained that I didn't have any strategy in voting MBL, I just did it because of last time we played together (the game was Face to Face Mafia).

Vote: elvis_knits

[elvis_knits]

And that makes you want to vote me?

[Elias_the_thief]

Ok. Sorry but I am indeed working at a summer camp during the week, but I will try to keep up with the game on weekends and whenever else I might get a chance to. I'm reading the thread as we speak but it may take a while. Though only three pages long, there look to be several complex conversations worth keeping track of. So just hang tight guys.

[Patrick]

And that makes you want to vote me?

Not in itself, you just seem to be on the sidelines a fair bit.

[Sarcastro]

Sarc, are you

trying

to pretend there's a connection between you and bluesoul?

How on earth did you get a connection to Bluesoul from a post addressing PJ?

[OhGodMyLife]

Sarc, are you

trying

to pretend there's a connection between you and bluesoul?

How on earth did you get a connection to Bluesoul from a post addressing PJ?

Here follows a short translation of what occurred.

PJ: Several paragraphs of logic indicate bluesoul is scum.
Sarc: You shut your mouth with your logic! Pfffffffffft.

How on Earth is that not another blatantly obvious connection to bluesoul?