Mini 269 - Game Over

[armlx]

Sorry, been busy. I'm really not sure where to go from here. I'm torn between Poirot and Falcone. Poirot seems too jumpy (maybe not right word) and Falcone too commanding.

[BabyJesus]

Sorry, been busy. I'm really not sure where to go from here. I'm torn between Poirot and Falcone. Poirot seems too jumpy (maybe not right word) and Falcone too commanding.

voting Matjoeman is a solid compromise

[Poirot]

Sorry, been busy. I'm really not sure where to go from here. I'm torn between Poirot and Falcone. Poirot seems too jumpy (maybe not right word) and Falcone too commanding.

voting Matjoeman is a solid compromise

Right. When one person is thinking that another is babbling, it's always best to vote for the guy who doesn't say anything.

[Green Crayons]

I'm still here, but busy. Hope to have a post with content by tuesday. Wednesday at latest.

[Matjoeman]

This game is really slowing down.

[armlx]

Vote Falcone

In a re-read something huge came to me. I forgot Poirot = Xyre on MTGS. Behavior is fairly consistant with non-scumminess there, and that leaves Falcone.

[Poirot]

This game is really slowing down.

This game died long ago, MJM.

I forgot Poirot = Xyre on MTGS. Behavior is fairly consistant with non-scumminess there, and that leaves Falcone.

You're forgetting that I'm

terrible

on MTGS...

[Falcone]

Vote Falcone

In a re-read something huge came to me. I forgot Poirot = Xyre on MTGS. Behavior is fairly consistant with non-scumminess there, and that leaves Falcone.

You're representing the situation as if one of Poirot and me must be scum. What makes you think that?

[BabyJesus]

Vote Falcone

In a re-read something huge came to me. I forgot Poirot = Xyre on MTGS. Behavior is fairly consistant with non-scumminess there, and that leaves Falcone.

You're representing the situation as if one of Poirot and me must be scum. What makes you think that?

I'd like to hear some reason why armlx thinks that....

meanwhile, we can start voting for matjoeman the BG

[armlx]

I wasn't saying one of you was. I was simply not sure who to vote for. By elminiating Poirot, I decided on Falcone.

[Falcone]

Hmm, fair enough I guess. What are the reasons for your vote for me then? You said I'm too commanding... What do you mean by that?

[Adele]

Regarding the "commanding" accusation, it's worth mentioning that (from what I've seen), Falcone's not a reticent player. Speaking up and being willing to take the lead look like natural Falcone play to me, town or scum.

[BabyJesus]

why isn't Matjoeman dead yet....

[Dodgy]

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???
Wonders will never cease
I personally havn't seen any evidence for MJM being scum, although he hasn't been posting much to get a flavour.
I can see why the comment was made about Falcone being commanding but hey, thats maybe just his way of playing whatever his role, I mean, people often think I'm scum because of my Avitar, so maybe I should change it to a picture of a fluffy kitten or something.
In summing up, I don't really have a strong feeling for anyone being scum at this point in time cos the game has slowed down to the point where I'm almost asleep writing this, so if anyone comes up with a viable argument, I'm willing jump on board just to get this thing moving!

[Green Crayons]

The school library's computers have this new function that log one out of the computer their at after a certain amout of time of being inactive, so when I got off the phone with my friend from a twenty minute conversation last night, I came back to my cpu only to find my nearly finished paper to be completely erased as the computer had logged me off. Hence, I had to rewrite most of the thing which took up a considerable chunk of time, which, in turn, put me behind and I'm a day late in my post.

I didn't expect that Graken wouldn't die, because he obviously had a power role...but if he was the doc, then who did he protect?

Sort of an odd question. Leads into...

Okay...the most logical conclusion I can see for Graken's misdirection is that he was hoping that he could stop the Mafia's attack by protecting himself. So why didn't he?

A whole bunch of fluff posting that amounts to nothing, yet looks like he's adding something. Hence, suspicious.

Regardless...this could help determine if there was another power role that he decided was more important than his was.

Determining roles = mafia tactic.

FoS

.

We should start with the Speedy wagon, but I'm to busy to do it today.

Been busy since the 21st, or have you just found this line of suspicion to have become obsolete?

Does anyone have a real gut feeling about someone being scum?

Since when are "gut feelings" good to go off on Day Two? Besides, i think BJ already tossed a few out by this point.

This game is really slowing down.

Complaining about inactivity while adding no substance. Awesome.

FoS

.

meanwhile, we can start voting for matjoeman the BG

"The BG?"

wasn't saying one of you was. I was simply not sure who to vote for.

But earlier, you said "I'm torn between Poirot and Falcone." It looks like you putting the two in a ring of suspicion, and one of them absolutely had to be scum.

You said I'm too commanding... What do you mean by that?

I'd also like to know what he meant by commanding, and why specifically it was reason enough for a vote.

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???

No, their irksome and add nothing to the conversation. It's a wonderfully dull tactic of making himself look like he's active while adding nothing to the conversation. And since it seems to be his general play style, one can't directly derive guilt or innocence from it. Another

FoS

. I'll vote shortly when I get reactions.

[Dodgy]

@Green Crayons, wow, that was a good telling off and I and sure many others will also slap their own hands.
I agree, We have all be waffeling a lot and thats why this game is going no where at the moment.
By the way, were you

FOS

ing me or BabyJesus is the last part of your post?
The amusing thing is, you have pointed out all the times people have waffled, or something that makes no sense and and pointed the finger at people for not putting any real content into their posts, but you have just done EXACTLY THE SAME!
Many words Green Crayons but little substance for who you think is scum and not even the balls to vote someone.
I do so hate people that

FOS

all the time, again, its another way to post without standing out.
For these reasons I

VOTE:Green Crayons

[Falcone]

I agree with Dodgy. That was a very scummy post by GC. Three FOS'es in one post, but no vote. And why do Poirot, Matjoeman, and BJ (I think) receive a FOS, but not armlx and Dodgy? You have criticism for all five, but only three of them get a FOS. Are armlx and Dodgy your scum mates?

What's more, all you do in your post is repeating accusations that have already been made earlier by others:

- You repeat some points I made against Poirot.
- You repeat criticism of BJ made by Dodgy.
- Your point against armlx is also something I asked clarification for earlier.
- BJ is essentially voting Matjoeman for not contributing. Again, you say nothing new here.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that these are not valid points, but your post is made to look like a useful contribution, which it isn't. You can't even decide on who to vote for.

My suspicion of Poirot has not disappeared, although armlx's statement that his behaviour is consistent with earlier townie play counts in his favour.

Unvote: Poirot
Vote: GC

[Green Crayons]

By the way, were you FOSing me or BabyJesus is the last part of your post?

BJ

The amusing thing is, you have pointed out all the times people have waffled, or something that makes no sense and and pointed the finger at people for not putting any real content into their posts, but you have just done EXACTLY THE SAME!

Instead of making general statements about my posts, why don't you pull up the exact quotes where I have "waffled," put something that has made "no sense," or posted without adding any "real content." Furthermore, the quotes that I chose from my reread weren't a "Tee Hee, look at this one small indication of this guy making a mistake!" If you look at them, they amount to something, and for your benefit, I'll explain, in brief, why I chose to pull the quotes that I did.

Quotes 1-3 = Poirot partaking in scum tactics. Quote 4 = I want to know if armlx has followed through with his own suggestion and how he'll deduce who to vote for. He hasn't made mention of it since. Quote 5 = Just adding in a strange line for you to have posted. Quote 6 = This quote defines Matjoeman's participation in the game. Excuse me for pointing out lurkerdom/apathy. Quote 7 = Wanting clarification of what the BG means. Quote 8 = Pointing out an inconsistancy in armlx's vote reasoning, and wanting explanations. Quote 9 = Adding "pressure" to getting armlx to voice his reasons without adding a vote. Quote 10 = Showing my personal annoyance to BJ's play style, in that since he plays in the same style each time (and an annoying style at that, in my opinion), it's impossible to derive guilt or innocence. Kudos to him, though, for following in IS' footsteps and pretty much playing the perfect mafia persona, if that's what makes the game fun for him.

Many words Green Crayons but little substance for who you think is scum and not even the balls to vote someone.

Actually, I said at the end of my post "I'll vote shortly when I get reactions." As in, since it's Day Two and all, I think that I'll wait to see what others have to think before throwing my vote down on the table. Since, more often than not, people's reactions to my suspicions are usually more telling than my original suspicions.

And why do Poirot, Matjoeman, and BJ (I think) receive a FOS, but not armlx and Dodgy? You have criticism for all five, but only three of them get a FOS. Are armlx and Dodgy your scum mates?

The point behind a FoS is to highlight those who you believe to be the most suspicious out of the players. Dodgy's quote was just a strange inconsistency that I found to be interesting, thus no major suspicion was on him. I'm waiting for armlx to explain himself before I decide any further on his character.

What's more, all you do in your post is repeating accusations that have already been made earlier by others:

You're right, it is, and that's what happens when I reread through a thread and pick up quotations as I go through. However, all the things that I repeat

have not been addressed

, because those things that I do see answered, I delete from my response post. Repeating points that haven't been resolved simply brings them back to the forefront of conversation, and I don't see how that's detrimental.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that these are not valid points, but your post is made to look like a useful contribution, which it isn't.

Heh, asking for clarification, repeating questions that haven't been answered and possibly ignored, and putting my opinion on the table so people can see who I'm looking at, personally, to find suspicious = not a useful contribution. Awesome.

You can't even decide on who to vote for.

See, from above: Actually, I said at the end of my post "I'll vote shortly when I get reactions." As in, since it's Day Two and all, I think that I'll wait to see what others have to think before throwing my vote down on the table. Since, more often than not, people's reactions to my suspicions are usually more telling than my original suspicions.

[BabyJesus]

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???

No, their irksome and add nothing to the conversation. It's a wonderfully dull tactic of making himself look like he's active while adding nothing to the conversation. And since it seems to be his general play style, one can't directly derive guilt or innocence from it. Another

FoS

. I'll vote shortly when I get reactions.

What is the point of a "FOS" for someone thing which you claim is not an indicator of guilt....

unvote, vote Green Crayons

[Adele]

First, the general point made against Green Crayons. Some people have said that he's not contributed content. If those people would be kind enough to give an example of a good "content" post and explain the distinction between it and GC's I'd be grateful, because GC's contribution sure looks like a solid, fairly extensive, and high content post to me.

He presented quotes and explained why they seemed suspcious to them. He made his position clear. This isn't under-the-radar stuff; he's perfectly upfront about where he stands.

Now, BabyJesus.

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???

No, their irksome and add nothing to the conversation. It's a wonderfully dull tactic of making himself look like he's active while adding nothing to the conversation. And since it seems to be his general play style, one can't directly derive guilt or innocence from it. Another

FoS

. I'll vote shortly when I get reactions.

What is the point of a "FOS" for someone thing which you claim is not an indicator of guilt....

I'm starting to get tired of people behaving in a way that does not assist the town (or is even detrimental); in a way that is entirely self-serving whether town or scum but more so in the latter case, and being told: "it's not a scum tell; he's always like that". Well,

don't be

. He's FoSing you because your behaviour (while not inherently suspicious) is a good cover for scum.

I've looked through your posts again.

Vote: BabyJesus

. I'm ready to hear more content from you. You've shown you're capable, mostly just disinterested in contributing, whether it's caution or laziness.

[BabyJesus]

First, the general point made against Green Crayons. Some people have said that he's not contributed content. If those people would be kind enough to give an example of a good "content" post and explain the distinction between it and GC's I'd be grateful, because GC's contribution sure looks like a solid, fairly extensive, and high content post to me.

He presented quotes and explained why they seemed suspcious to them. He made his position clear. This isn't under-the-radar stuff; he's perfectly upfront about where he stands.

Now, BabyJesus.

LOL, your small comments about why certain people arn't dead yet BJ, do make me laugh , and now your'e asking someone else for their reasoning on why they are voting someone???

No, their irksome and add nothing to the conversation. It's a wonderfully dull tactic of making himself look like he's active while adding nothing to the conversation. And since it seems to be his general play style, one can't directly derive guilt or innocence from it. Another

FoS

. I'll vote shortly when I get reactions.

What is the point of a "FOS" for someone thing which you claim is not an indicator of guilt....

I'm starting to get tired of people behaving in a way that does not assist the town (or is even detrimental); in a way that is entirely self-serving whether town or scum but more so in the latter case, and being told: "it's not a scum tell; he's always like that". Well,

don't be

. He's FoSing you because your behaviour (while not inherently suspicious) is a good cover for scum..

So he's fos'ing me, and you're voting me because you don't like my playstyle. Not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish. If ou think I'm suddenly going to start playing how you think I should play, you got another think coming. And if you're just planning on lynching me because you don't like how I play, well, thats your perogative. Won't be the first time its happened. Won't be the last. But lynching a pro-town player for the "principle" of the thing doesn't win games. But you're welcome to try.

[BabyJesus]

Oh, and you can't seriously be voting me becuase you think I'm scum. If you don't know my role, then you either 1) completely useless to the town because you're not paying attention, or 2) are scum who doesn't care and just wants to run somebody up.

[Adele]

Refusing to contribute doesn't win games. Pressuring people (to provide content, to claim if useful etc), from what little I've seen, does. This isn't me trying to encourage you to take some ivory-tower ideal to heart. Some people only give more when folk go on at them. I think you're one of those people.

Your role? To be honest, having read your posts several times, I don't know what it is. You haven't claimed, and I'm not gonna assume you're a certain role because you imply it.

[BabyJesus]

Your role? To be honest, having read your posts several times, I don't know what it is. You haven't claimed, and I'm not gonna assume you're a certain role because you imply it.

try focusing on the end of day one. Seriously, its not like its hidden or anything.

[Dodgy]

@ BabyJesus,
I think you mean the end of day 2 as there was no day 1(officially).
I hope you are bluffing or we are all buggered!
Hinting rather loudly at a certain role is foolish and dangerous.
I'm now starting to think you have either stuck a nail in the towns coffin or you are scum.