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

[DeathRowKitty]

(Response to Wicked's response to Post 783)

Post #246 was on page ten.

Yes, it was . Sorry. Not sure how I saw it on page 11...

I don't know what you mean when you say this.

I was just wondering what was wrong with withholding information.

I REALLY shouldn't post at night. I didn't notice post 217 and was referring to post 219. I still think my point is valid though. You did ask why Reckoner should have to explain his reasoning, but in such a way that implied a strong stance to the contrary. Two posts later, you said as much.

I did not like c_o's reason for his vote either.

The following is the first sentence you gave as a reason for voting C_o:

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

Least helpful contribution in the game=voting for you for saying something you agree you shouldn't have said? Is that less helpful that voting for him for voting for you for saying something you agree you shouldn't have said? This ties in with the next part of your post very nicely:

His other targets included wolfram, me, C_o, and CDB.

So???

I'm not concerned with who you suspected in that post so much as how many people you suspected. You suspected

5

people in that post and you really felt C_o was the scummiest of the five? To reiterate an earlier point, Reckoner was one of your biggest suspicions, yet you felt that C_o's vote was enough to make him scummier? The only way I can make sense of it in my head is if it was an OMGUS.

[quote="I"Reckoner's post said he withheld information knowing it would make people vote for him, so this question was essentially useless.

I was just making sure.
[/quote]
As with the last one, you missed the focus of what I was saying, but I definitely could have said this one more explicitly (I think I did in a later post): that was the only thing you asked him. If you were suspicious of him, I would think you would have something else to say.


I'll respond to the rest later.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Honestly, I'm sort of disappointed that I'm changing my vote, but wicked was on my scumlist as well. I would have been happy with his or CoCo's lynch, but since nobody else sees CoCo how I do, I guess if you cant beat 'em, join 'em.

unvote

vote: wicked

...my first hammer...

[stuntkeyboardist]

CoCo, prove me wrong tonight. I'm not opposed to completely apologizing. But be smart.

[xRECKONERx]

That was the hammer?

Hallelujah. About time.

[canadianbovine]

Wicked didnt even know he was at L-1...

I was waiting for him to notice and hopefully claim.

-headdesk- aiyah.

good evening all!

[CoCo]

How could he not know? He posted on a page when he was at L-2 and continued posting after L-1.

NHT, barring any scum shenanigans, I'll do my best.

[canadianbovine]

I have to go to sleep. I am still about a page behind. Will catch up soon.

the L-1 didnt take place on that page.

he isn't going to wake up in a good mood.

[CoCo]

Lobster, post #815.
CDB also told him to claim in post #822.

[canadianbovine]

yes but he said he's a page behind.

he was reading things from page 32. That was a very long page and might not of been all the way through it, but that is when votes 2-5 came through.


He hadn't said anything about Ryan's superpost against him. So maybe he only thought there were 4 votes, he was at L-3?

[CoCo]

My point is I'd have think he would have noticed between his last two voted on the previous page. I know when I make several posts in a row, I scroll up to see if there's anything I missed between them.

Nothing can be done about it now though...

[CoCo]

"Voted" should read "posts" above. Its been a long day.

[canadianbovine]

of course nothing could be done for it now.

FOS: NHT

jumped the gun there with that hammer.

[DeathRowKitty]

I would have liked to have at least given him a chance to claim, but I guess it's nice to be done with Day 1. Anyway,

FoS NHT

. Town has no reason not to give someone a chance for a proper defense, at least not in this situation.

[canadianbovine]

what a coincidence, we lynch on Wolframnhart's birthday.

[PsychoSniper]

A lynch just took place! It's now Twilight (yes, there's a set time for it, but I'm not revealing for how long for game mechanics reason).

Talking can still continue, but no more votes will be registered.

Vote Count:

Wickedestjr – 7 (ChannelDelibird, DeathRowKitty, xRECKONERx, CoCo, lobstermania, ryan2754, nohandtyper)

nohandtyper – 1 (qwints)
canadianbovine – 1 (Wickedestjr)


Not voting:

Conspicuous_other, My Milked Eek, canadianbovine

[canadianbovine]

so im guessing the whole mafia gets to talk at night then, sniper?

[DeathRowKitty]

Vote: PsychoSniper

. Withholding information? Very scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

@CB
Of course we can all talk...just not necessarily to each other.

[xRECKONERx]

Hmm. Odd.

[ChannelDelibird]

Makes sense.

I'm not saying 34 pages isn't long enough for day 1, but Wicked really should have been given the chance to claim.

So Reckoner, I'll be wanting you to respond to 801 tomorrow. (or now, if you wish.)

[xRECKONERx]

Nah. I'm good.
Doesn't seem relevant.

[ChannelDelibird]

Nah. I'm good.
Doesn't seem relevant.

Humour me.

[xRECKONERx]

Eh, why not, I'm jacked up on coffee.

-Why are you concerned that he removed his random vote while actually being on someone's case? I think he should have immediately voted, yes, but I've learned from experience that that's a null tell regarding playstyle rather than a scumtell for disagreeing with me on mafia theory.

Except it wasn't just that he didn't vote, it was that the unvote seemed pointless.

-I actually think lobster's stance was reasonable, considering that at the time of his FoS it was just CB's weird unvote/revote, and since then he began to take credit for starting discussion. Increased weird behaviour -> upgrade FoS to vote. makes sense.

I don't.

-182 is an issue, however.

But let's just ignore it and sweep it under the rug, right?

-Reckoner, you miss the crucial point that in between lobster's 230 and 237 was your 234, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Seeing as you've long since admitted that your "trap" and the reasoning behind it was rubbish, it's a bit rich of you to suggest that lobster is scummy for finding your terrible case on MME (and yet the lack of vote for him despite your apparent conviction in your trap) scummy.

- I think it was rather opportunistic, in any case.

-275 might be worth looking at if at some point lobster or qax flips scum. Not now.

- It's still odd, don't you agree? She corrected lobster and he apologized.

-lobster's 408 is his first post after CoCo gets into the "I'm VERY pro-town" muddle, which WAS scummy, so it seems reasonable for lobster to then vote for him. You fail at context.

- So I guess "WIFOMy mess" is an acceptable reason to vote someone, right? ::eyeroll::

[ChannelDelibird]

-Why are you concerned that he removed his random vote while actually being on someone's case? I think he should have immediately voted, yes, but I've learned from experience that that's a null tell regarding playstyle rather than a scumtell for disagreeing with me on mafia theory.

Except it wasn't just that he didn't vote, it was that the unvote seemed pointless.

The random vote had long since stopped being useful. Would you have been suspicious of him if he'd removed it in the post previous? The post afterward?

-I actually think lobster's stance was reasonable, considering that at the time of his FoS it was just CB's weird unvote/revote, and since then he began to take credit for starting discussion. Increased weird behaviour -> upgrade FoS to vote. makes sense.

I don't.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

-182 is an issue, however.

But let's just ignore it and sweep it under the rug, right?

No, I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think there's anything else worth worrying about with lobster and on its own it is not a case. Do you think it alone warrants a vote, if we pretend that the rest of your case doesn't exist for a moment?

-Reckoner, you miss the crucial point that in between lobster's 230 and 237 was your 234, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Seeing as you've long since admitted that your "trap" and the reasoning behind it was rubbish, it's a bit rich of you to suggest that lobster is scummy for finding your terrible case on MME (and yet the lack of vote for him despite your apparent conviction in your trap) scummy.

- I think it was rather opportunistic, in any case.

I'm not seeing it. You said something scummy, he voted. That's fair enough.

-275 might be worth looking at if at some point lobster or qax flips scum. Not now.

- It's still odd, don't you agree? She corrected lobster and he apologized.

Happens all the time. As I say, it

might

be worth considering if and when one of them flips scum. But I don't think it's particularly odd. I'll apologise if corrected regardless of alignment, and I suspect I'm not the only one.

-lobster's 408 is his first post after CoCo gets into the "I'm VERY pro-town" muddle, which WAS scummy, so it seems reasonable for lobster to then vote for him. You fail at context.

- So I guess "WIFOMy mess" is an acceptable reason to vote someone, right? ::eyeroll::

It wasn't an inaccurate description of what CoCo was doing.

[ChannelDelibird]

And thank you for responding, but why didn't you do so five pages ago when I made the post originally?