Mini 740 - Communiqu├® Mafia 2: Game Over and the Winner is..

[hohum]

Yeah, what magicrabbit said. I misunderstood what juls was asking before. I received one message before the plan was proposed, one after. When I said I received 2 before the plan was proposed, I think I was utilising a mental shortcut to write down a mistake. I can't accurately say why I said it that way.

I don't know what to say to this besides "wow."

Vote: roffman

[Juls]

But now you are basically saying that whoever sent the cop message sent it AFTER the plan was proposed...doesn't seem like a very smart move.

[BSG]

Roffman, what's your time zone?

[Juls]

Sydney Austrailia = +16 hours from Eastern

I sent my message to Roffman:

Eastern Time: February 4, 2009 @ 9:30 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 5, 2009 @ 1:30 p.m.

Plan was proposed:

Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 1:53 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 5:53 a.m.

Roffman Objects to Plan First Time:

Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 5:05 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 9:05 a.m.

Roffman Claims to have received the cop message:

Eastern Time: February 5, 2009 @ 7:13 p.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 11:13 a.m.

(note: dahill made a post in forums @ 6:44 p.m. eastern on February 5th so it is plausible he sent messages at the time roffman claimed)

Roffman Objects to Plan Second Time w/ Cop Quoted Message:

Eastern Time: February 6, 2009 @ 1:44 a.m.
Sydney Time: February 6, 2009 @ 5:44 p.m.

This is the timeline I see....I still see a couple conflicting ideas here...one from roffman and one from the alleged cop:

1) Roffman first said that he received both messages before the plan was proposed...now he is back tracking and saying he received one before (from me), one after.
2) The cop (based on rofffman's info) would have had to send the communique after the plan was proposed. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Casey]

Thanks for the timeline, Juls.

Vote: Roffman

The timeline and the backtracking seems to make it obvious to me that the message was made up. Everything fits into place.

That puts Roffman at L-2, so I'd like to hear an explanation from him for the faked message. I find it very hard to believe that he could be a legitimate one-shot cop after all this.

[dahill1]

Vote Count

5 - roffman: (Budja, Ectomancer, Juls, hohum, Casey)
3 - hohum: (roffman, Reecer6, RossWilliam)
1 - Ectomancer: (dorvaan)

3 - Not Voting: (BSG, Braeden, magicrabbit)

12 alive means 7 to lynch

Dorvaan has 24 hours to post in this thread as he picked up his prod

[Reecer6]

unvote

I'm going to wait until I place my vote if I will.

[Ectomancer]

unvote

I'm going to wait until I place my vote if I will.

I'm going to have to 3rd the request for your replacement. Posting <> Playing. (Sorry Mod)

[dahill1]

I don't think that it's ethical to

force

a player to be replaced.
However, if Reecer is bored of this game and doesn't enjoy it then I highly recommend that he does request replacement.

[Ectomancer]

I was making the request of Reecer, though I see how you might think I was asking you to do it.

Reecer, sum up your thoughts on Roffman please.

[hohum]

I was making the request of Reecer, though I see how you might think I was asking you to do it.

Reecer, sum up your thoughts on Roffman please.

Reecer's attempts to coast through this game is earning scum points in my log book. Almost to the point that I don't really care what he has to say about Roffman. Roffman is still going to be a good choice for lynch regardless of how Reecer chimes in.

If reecer were smart he'd throw Roffman under the bus right now. He doesn't know what to say or do because his scum buddy is caught.

Let him keep busy posting if he wants to, because if roffman is scum we can afford to mislynch, and a reecer replacement might stop dropping scum tells.

[Juls]

Hohum, I find your agrument against Reecer reaching and pretty scummy. I have mentioned it before in this thread that Reecer behaves this way in all his games. In my other game he was in, he did the same thing. He was lynched as a mason. His behavior is a null tell because he is not participating at all. (

for mod to read too

) I really don't think it would be unethical to replace him because he is not participating. Just because he comes on and posts here and there does not make him any more useful than if he didn't post at all. It deserves a warning at the very least.

Unvote

. I am not through being suspicious of roffman yet but my suspicions of hohum just grew a lot. I think a re-read is in order.

[RossWilliam]

unvote

I am tempted to vote Reecer, but I think the information gained would't be worth the lynch

[dahill1]

Vote Count

4 - roffman: (Budja, Ectomancer, hohum, Casey)
2 - hohum: (roffman)
1 - Ectomancer: (dorvaan)

6 - Not Voting: (BSG, Braeden, magicrabbit, Reecer6, RossWilliam, Juls)

12 alive means 7 to lynch
Searching for Dorvaan replacement

Deadline is Feb. 23rd at 8 PM est

[hohum]

I am not through being suspicious of roffman yet but my suspicions of hohum just grew a lot. I think a re-read is in order.

I don't see anything wrong with policy lynches. They happen regularly on MS. The mod obviously isn't going to force-replace him and he's going to continue posting busy posts. There's a good reasons to lynch lurkers:

1) It discourages the behavior. If you're the victim of a policy lynch because of certain behavior, you would stop that behavior; now wouldn't you?

2) If we didn't occasionally lynch lurkers it would set a precedent that all scum needs to do to stay off the radar is not post.

3) We're going to tie ourselves up into WIFOMy knots trying to figure out whether we should lynch him or not.

These are all also reasons why lurking is a scum tell, and why the longer it goes on the bigger of a scum tell it actually is.

I'm not advocating a policy lynch in place of a roffman lynch. I think we should always opt for the better lynch targets. When we run out of possible lynch targets, then policy lynches will usually turn up scum.

[hohum]

I'm mostly saying all of this in hopes that he will see that he could potentially be a victim in absentee and start actively scum hunting.

[Braeden]

Vote: Roffman

I think that the conflicting times and messages, and your 'mistakes' and rewordings are just too curious.

I agree with Ecto about two messages being sent to the same person as perplexing and a far stretch. Same with the two scum back to back. Whats the chances of that? Its much simpler and logical that Roffman is lying.

[hohum]

shit, wrong game

Fixed it for you

[hohum]

uh, ignore that last post please.

[hohum]

thanks mod

[roffman]

Sorry for not posting for a few days, been busy enrolling for uni.

So far the case against me revolves around one mistake I made. Saying I received them both before the plan was resolved. That and the fact that people are assuming I lied are the entire foundation of the wagon against me. I'd just like to ask people to elaborate on what I stood to gain by making the message up. Their is no motivation for me to do so.

[Juls]

Now you are contradicting yourself hohum...you are saying now that you think Reecer is a policy lynch. In post 260 you were advocating his lynch based on scumminess.

[hohum]

Now you are contradicting yourself hohum...you are saying now that you think Reecer is a policy lynch. In post 260 you were advocating his lynch based on scumminess.

You don't know what you're talking about. It would be a policy lynch at this point because he's not dropping scum tells. But he's not DOING anything so it isn't like we're going to get tells out of him.

If you lynch someone for 1 reason and 1 reason only, it boils down to a policy lynch. The action of inaction is still a scum tell.

[hohum]

@Juls: How's that reread going BTW? I was expecting you to do more than simply pick apart my response over petty semantic issues. I expected some form of PBPA from you to support your statement:

my suspicions of hohum just

grew a lot

. I think a re-read is in order.

[Juls]

I will reread in a couple days...I have a test that I am studying for right now. I will get to it ASAP.