Princess Bride Mafia - Game Over

[mlaker]

To me you were blowing smoke and mirrors Dourgrim,I also didn't see the suspiciousness of Someone after I re-read his role claim that was confirmed by 2 people.I find you now more suspicious than ever at having first FOS me and Someone(now that sounds weird ) then turn them both into vote in like 2 days or something!

mlaker

[Dourgrim]

I have to admit, I've been waiting for a reason to unvote you, Dour (although I was expecting it to be somebody else suddenly becoming suspect), but, naw. I've found a couple of your statements odd,

and now you seem to be ranting and raving about people voting for you

(would you say ranting and raving to avoid attention?). Although your resistance to a roleclaim is admirable, I don't think I'm going to unvote you without one.

The

bolded

portioin of the above quote is false.

(See?

This

is the kind of stuff that frustrates me... )

At no point have I "ranted and raved" about anyone voting for me... as a matter of fact, I never mentioned the word "vote" at all in my last post except when referencing my own votes for Someone and subsequently mlaker. Please don't twist my words for your own purposes or to justify a vote, OK? If you think I'm scum, fine, but don't hide behind semantics to make yourself feel better about a vote you yourself said you've "been waiting for a reason to" undo.

I find you now more suspicious than ever at having first FOS me and Someone(now that sounds weird ) then turn them both into vote in like 2 days or something!

This is absolutely absurd. I flat-out

told

you I was going to turn those FoS's into a vote when I first put the FoS out there, and now suddenly I'm suspicious because I followed through on a promise? You're making less and less sense every time you post, mlaker... maybe you

should

try lurking for awhile and see if that helps any.

[mlaker]

I'm saying that you came through and voted for Someone then me very quickly it was as you said trying to get suspicion off yourself.Very wishy washy.

mlaker

[MeMe]

Current Count:

Dourgrim

(6):

Someone, JereIC, jadesmar, mlaker, Leonidas, Werebear

mlaker

(5):

Dragon Phoenix, mikehart, Sugar, rite, Dourgrim

Not voting (5):

CRiX, Darkblade, massive, mathcam, mole

Nine votes will end the day.

[rite]

I'm saying that you came through and voted for Someone then me very quickly it was as you said trying to get suspicion off yourself.Very wishy washy.

mlaker

Wow, you haven't said anything inventive with this post, you are just repeating what several other people have said. I've yet to see you think for yourself this game, mlaker, and the fact that you managed to use the phrase

blow smoke and mirrors

makes me respect you about as much as Someone in this game. I'm an English nazi, sue me. However, I'm not as convinced of Someone's scumminess as I am growing to be of you.

Just reiterating my

vote: mlaker

[rite]

Forgot quotation marks around "mlaker." Oh well, doesn't interrupt post flow at all.

[mlaker]

And right now I respect your playing about as much as I do Dourgrim's! If I weren't 99% sure Dourgrim was scum I'd vote you! What have you said that was your own thinking! All I've seen from you is going along with Dourgrim's ideas and acting like your summing the whole situation up by saying only what has already happened and then take what Dourgrim says and change it around in your own words! Serious

FOS rite

mlaker

[JereIC]

I have to admit, I've been waiting for a reason to unvote you, Dour (although I was expecting it to be somebody else suddenly becoming suspect), but, naw. I've found a couple of your statements odd,

and now you seem to be ranting and raving about people voting for you

(would you say ranting and raving to avoid attention?). Although your resistance to a roleclaim is admirable, I don't think I'm going to unvote you without one.

The

bolded

portioin of the above quote is false.

(See?

This

is the kind of stuff that frustrates me... )

At no point have I "ranted and raved" about anyone voting for me... as a matter of fact, I never mentioned the word "vote" at all in my last post except when referencing my own votes for Someone and subsequently mlaker. Please don't twist my words for your own purposes or to justify a vote, OK? If you think I'm scum, fine, but don't hide behind semantics to make yourself feel better about a vote you yourself said you've "been waiting for a reason to" undo.

No, you never mentioned people voting for you, but you did say,

And for those of you who are bandwagonning to hear a roleclaim from me... "get used to disappointment". The only thing I've done that's "suspicious" this entire game is form an independent opinion in this game, and it doesn't happen to agree with the opinion of the masses.

Bandwagoning sort of implies voting, except in the most unusual of circumstances. And I think your posts that, for example, say I "hide behind semantics" to make myself feel better in voting for you, or imply that we're all sheep for not agreeing with you and lynching two very un-suspect people, are pretty ranty and ravy, although that's up to interpretation. I stand by my statement, and my vote.

mlaker: Although I disagree with rite voting for you, I think he and Werebear really are independant of Dourgrim. I seriously doubt that mafioso would go about backing each other up in a such a public way.

[Someone]

To people who are not voting for anyone presently, please present your position. We seem to be at a stalemate now, and both sides have stated their opinion.

I don't know why you guys aren't voting for anyone but right now nothing is going to happen in this town without your output.

[Sugar]

I've been following the posts with much interest and forehead-slapping, however nothing has been said to make me change my position.
Except it seems to me that Dourgrim is innocent.

[Dourgrim]

For the record, I hate writing these long posts almost as much as you probably hate reading them... but I have to at least

try

to defend myself.

No, you never mentioned people voting for you, but you did say,

And for those of you who are bandwagonning to hear a roleclaim from me... "get used to disappointment". The only thing I've done that's "suspicious" this entire game is form an independent opinion in this game, and it doesn't happen to agree with the opinion of the masses.

Bandwagoning sort of implies voting, except in the most unusual of circumstances. And I think your posts that, for example, say I "hide behind semantics" to make myself feel better in voting for you, or imply that we're all sheep for not agreeing with you and lynching two very un-suspect people, are pretty ranty and ravy, although that's up to interpretation. I stand by my statement, and my vote.

Regarding the "vote" vs. "bandwagon" issue: I was specifically attempting to address those who might be bandwagonning for a role-claim, not those who are voting for me because they think I'm scum. I realize that I did not phrase this in the most precise way, but I think my intentions should've been pretty clear. Of course, at the rate I'm going, everything I say is going to be read in the worst possible light, and I should've realized that when I posted earlier... this is a flaw I've had since I started playing Mafia (check out the Blinvitational, if you can find it, for a shining example of said flaw). Let's just say I know what I meant.

Regarding my "sheep" implications: Everyone's entitled to their opinions (and their votes), and I guess I have to respect that... for implying otherwise, I apologize. However, I stand behind my opinion and vote as well, even though it seems that all the heavy campaigning going on will eventually cause my lynch. I am not scum, I haven't done anything to indicate scumminess, and I'd be willing to wager that not a single person in this game can cite an concrete example of anything I might have done to clearly indicate scumminess without saying something to the tune of "well, his voting and posting seems kinda weird"... unless, of course, you count me FoSing and subsequently voting for people that others seem to consider above reproach. It

is

possible, however, that I'm giving off "scum vibes" which could be provoking all these votes. If that's the case, then consider this:

that's a good portion of the reason I FoS'd Someone and mlaker (at the same time, to address the "wishy washy" theory), which is in turn the reason most of you have cited for voting for me!

If you don't want me to condemn you for your votes and opinions,

don't condemn me for mine.

To do so is the absolute height of hypocrisy.

Regarding my "ranting and raving": I've been stuck in this same damn argument for quite awhile now, and it seems to me that, no matter how much time I take to compose a post that states fact, using quotes whenever possible, people continue to ignore the gist of what I'm saying and instead blindly pile on votes because, I suspect, I annoy them... which, of course, only frustrates me further. And then you come out and say that you've been "looking for a reason to unvote" me, but you can't because you've "found a couple of my statements odd" and that I'm vocally upset that I'm being bandwagonned for little reason. That sounds a

lot

like hiding behind semantics to me. But hey, maybe you have other, concrete reasons for voting for me that you're just somehow unwilling to share with the rest of the class... that's cool. I just wish I knew what they were so I could (attempt to) address them head-on rather than spending all this time triple-checking my posts for unnecessary "oddness".

Someone:

Well spoken.

Whether or not people want to lynch me or someone else, we need everyone's opinions and participation if we're going to make a successful run at finding scum. Stand up and be counted, everyone!

P.S. Would everyone think the absolute worst of me if I suggested that perhaps the seeming lurkers should be drawn out somehow? If so, then someone else should certainly suggest it ASAP.

Sugar: thank you for the vote of confidence, but as I said to rite and Werebear before, it seems to be very dangerous to agree with me nowadays. Be careful...

[Dourgrim]

As if my last post weren't bad enough, I just realized I forgot something:

Werebear: why are you voting for me? You didn't give a reason except to crack an (assumed) joke referencing my denial of any affiliation between the two of us. What gives?

[jadesmar]

unvote: Dourgrim

I'm convinced. I will vote later, no time now.[/b]

[Werebear]

Dourgrim, it was MEANT as a joke originally. Thinking about it, the two mafias in this forum I'm having trouble getting into; this one and Famous Women. I really WANT to be more active, but most of the time I end up just reading and leaving. If the mafia let me live long enough, I'm sure I'll get into the swing of things, but at the moment in both, I'm lurking.

Unvote: Dourgrim

because I really had nothing to go on in the first place.

[Someone]

Okie, long post time is it

and I'd be willing to wager that not a single person in this game can cite an concrete example of anything I might have done to clearly indicate scumminess without saying something to the tune of "well, his voting and posting seems kinda weird"... unless, of course, you count me FoSing and subsequently voting for people that others seem to consider above reproach

Well, here goes.

Y'know, this is interesting: suddenly everyone goes quiet, even though we have a sizeable bandwagon on mlaker. We also have Someone and his "master plan" which apparently absolves him from the need to talk, even though (in my mind) he's one of the more suspicious players in this game. Perhaps now would be the time for you to speak up, me buckos. Let's see if I can encourage that:

FoS-that-WILL-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking: mlaker & Someone

As you all know, this, in my mind is the offending post. Now, an FOS-that-will-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking sounds more serious then a real FOS, doesn't it. Furthermore, I

was

talking, and made it clear that I would not be joining the mlaker wagon because I found it to be unfounded.

I wanted to hear more from you because you had (and still have) failed to allay my suspicions, and the only thing you do is rant and rave about my FoS. That'd be almost funny if it weren't such an obvious ploy to avoid attention. The reasons to be suspicious of you are well documented throughout the thread, and the only thing preventing people from voting for you and lynching you because of those reasons is the fact that no one really trusts DP's "Grandpa" claim or his sanity. I really don't care how often you post... I care what you have to say in those posts. So far all I see is smoke and mirrors.

Ok, so even if it was a ploy to avoid discussion....what have I done? The reason that I suspect you, is that

you

have been avoiding the subject of my lynch. How am I "avoiding the subject" when you don't even make an arguement. If you could kindly produce some reasons that you find me guilty, maybe I could um..stop"avoiding" the subject? Maybe you see reasons why I seem suspicious but I sure don't. I sure can't make arguements against myself.....

Y'know, this is interesting: suddenly everyone goes quiet, even though we have a sizeable bandwagon on mlaker. We also have Someone and his "master plan" which apparently absolves him from the need to talk, even though (in my mind) he's one of the more suspicious players in this game. Perhaps now would be the time for you to speak up, me buckos. Let's see if I can encourage that:

FoS-that-WILL-turn-into-a-vote-unless-you-start-talking: mlaker & Someone

The bolded part of the quote was intended to point out that Someone was acting like he was cleared because of the "plan" he put forth regarding DP and was not meant to say that Someone was lurking or not posting enough. (I freely admit that I worded it poorly, and for that I apologize, but I stand behind the intention of the statement nonetheless.)

I really don't get this paragraph. rite's explination was as follows:

Let me restate what Dourgrim said here. He believes you to be suspicious because of issues where you've contradicted yourself and appeared to act shifty. For these specific issues (not all of which I see), ask Dourgrim. As to what Granpa's "sainity" has to do with you, he's referring to the fact that almost all discussion has revolved around him and people he's accused, leaving people not connected with that issue, namely, you, free from discussion. He believes that you are keeping the people distracted by bringing that issue up over and over again.

Ok I'm getting quite annoyed with all this I've been avoiding the topic stuff. Why don't we just get it over with: what did I say that made me a suspect. If it was a "gut feeling" how can I be avoiding the subject? So everyone, accuse me with all you have because i'm ready .

I stand behind the statement that Someone has not only not cleared himself to my satisfaction but has failed to do much of anything to prove his innocence beyond a role-claim that, quite frankly, would be incredibly easy to fake considering the number of people who have made identical claims in the thread already. I will grant you that it is extremely difficult to prove one's innocence in a game of Mafia. This does not mean, however, that my "gut feeling", as rite put it, is any less valid. And FoS's (which is all I originally threw out there) are often based on nothing more that "gut feelings".

Okay, this is where i get mad . How can you mistrust my role claim? I have

exactly

the same role as sugar, and mole. Now, I am not

invincible

because of it but see, if i'm guilty, so are sugar and mole, or else I somehow guessed the second word in the townee title when I had no idea whatsoever of the role. Furthermore, you FOSed me just because of a gut feeling, knowing all this, and turned it into a vote because I said that you made a vote, and that I was trying to drag suspicion off myself from some invisible plague of suspicion. I repeat, if anyone wants to make a post pointing out how I was suspicious, go ahead. Frankly, I had no idea I was suspisious before dourgrim brung it up. Actually, I was quite suprised to be the highest on somebody's susupicion meter.


Now, as for dourgrim's suspiciousness, summarised from the above posts is: the FOS which was at first undifined, followed by an explination that didn't make much sense. Followed by an argument against me which was not backed up by evidence (from before the event) and then
I guess that's all I have to say.

[mlaker]

Would everyone think the absolute worst of me if I suggested that perhaps the seeming lurkers should be drawn out somehow?

Now if that is not trying to draw suspicion off ones self I'm not sure what is!


mlaker

[Dourgrim]

Would everyone think the absolute worst of me if I suggested that perhaps the seeming lurkers should be drawn out somehow?

Now if that is not trying to draw suspicion off ones self I'm not sure what is!

The quote you used was

intentionally

written that way, which you might have picked up on by the smiley you magically managed to fail to quote, you dolt! Jesus, man, grow a few gray cells before posting, would you? This is crap and you know it... or at least you should!

Confirm vote: mlaker

Ok, so even if it was a ploy to avoid discussion....what have I done? The reason that I suspect you, is that you have been avoiding the subject of my lynch. How am I "avoiding the subject" when you don't even make an arguement.

You are confusing two issues here: my theory that your heavy involvement with the DP claim/sanity issue was intended to direct people away from you (which really amounts to a gut feeling), and my suspicion of you afterward based on your initial responses to the above situation. These

are

two different issues, if you think about it... I do not believe that you've been avoiding

me

at all, actually, but you certainly seemed to be avoiding the prevalent suspicion that had been surrounding you before by trying to center attention around DP's claim.

Ok I'm getting quite annoyed with all this I've been avoiding the topic stuff. Why don't we just get it over with: what did I say that made me a suspect. If it was a "gut feeling" how can I be avoiding the subject? So everyone, accuse me with all you have because i'm ready.

Same thing here... you're confusing the two issues and trying to lump them together into one. I think quite a lot of this has to do with the inevitable frustration that comes with long, drawn-out arguments like the one we've been having here. Of course, I could be wrong...

Okay, this is where i get mad . How can you mistrust my role claim? I have exactly the same role as sugar, and mole. Now, I am not invincible because of it but see, if i'm guilty, so are sugar and mole, or else I somehow guessed the second word in the townee title when I had no idea whatsoever of the role.

Are you serious here? You think it's incredible that I could mistrust a

Townie claim

? Jesus, man,

anyone

who read the book or saw the movie could come up with "Florin Townie" as a roleclaim with little or no effort, and it's a tough roleclaim to dispute because there's almost certainly a role out there with that name, it's not going to be a unique role, and there's no way to test it short of lynching. IMO, Townie claims are the best and safest claims for scum to make in a game! And you're amazed I don't buy it at face value? And no, you are not necessarily linked with Sugar and mole because of said claim... it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely) that one or more of you is lying and the others are telling the truth.

As I said in my previous post, I respect your right to an opinion and a vote... but I really think you're grasping at straws here because you're mad at my former vote and not because you have a real reason to think I'm scum. In short, I think your vote is a glorified OMGUS, and we should be able to do better than that, don't you think?

Werebear: I kinda thought so. Take it from me: all you have to do to get heavily involved is start a gigantic argument with someone (pun definitely intended) like I did... that'll suck you in completely in short order.

[rite]

I like the way Dourgrim says "Jesus, man,..."

That's all.
Rite

[mlaker]

I just think that was a last ditch attempt to bring votes off you and to have them vote for the lurkers.I saw that as a very suspicious move.

mlaker

[JereIC]

I guess I'm seeing things from Dourgrim's perspective now.

Unvote: Dourgrim

FOS: Dourgrim

for still seeming really, really off. I agree that mlaker is seeming really, really off too, now.

[Dourgrim]

I like the way Dourgrim says "Jesus, man,..."

That's all.

Because I can't help but make movie quotes whenever possible... "I would not say such things if I were you!!"

[mlaker]

Right now I can't see why Dourgrim would not seem suspicious.I also see rite as extremely supicious as well and if anyone deserves a vote more than Dourgrim it's him.Also Dourgrims warning of not to go with his side seems to be a warning to his other mafia members to tell them not to vote with him,it may not be that but it seems like a logical assumption to me.

mlaker

[Dourgrim]

Right now I can't see why Dourgrim would not seem suspicious.I also see rite as extremely supicious as well and if anyone deserves a vote more than Dourgrim it's him.Also Dourgrims warning of not to go with his side seems to be a warning to his other mafia members to tell them not to vote with him,it may not be that but it seems like a logical assumption to me.

OK, so wait, let me see if I have this right: I'm warning rite, Werebear, and Sugar not to help me

in the thread

because they're my supposed "other Mafia members"?! ROFL... you get more and more ridiculous every time you say something! I am not a newbie to Mafia, mlaker... but I am becoming more and more sure that you are. Let me clue you in on some Mafia 101 lessons it seems you may have missed.

• Mafia do
  not
  clearly identify one another in the thread,
  especially
  all in one post via a list of any variety, regardless of the supposed purpose of the list.
  Mafia do
  not
  draw unnecessary attention to themselves (i.e. by entering long, drawn-out arguments with newbies).
  Mafia do
  not
  stick up for one another in the thread to attempt to derail a bandwagon (because it draws too much attention to them).

Do the above three rules make any sense to you whatsoever? They should because they're

common sense

.

Y'know what? I give up on you... think what you want to think, vote how you want to vote. I'm done trying to make sense of you. Go argue with someone else... I'm done.

[Werebear]

...and that concludes our broadcast day. Thanks for tuning in, we'll see you tomorrow. [cue national anthem]

[massive]

To people who are not voting for anyone presently, please present your position.

All right, here it is, my current prognostication. I'm indifferent to Dourgrim and mlaker at the time, and so putting my vote randomly on either of those two doesn't really help. Dourgrim is Dourgrim and mlaker, while over the top, doesn't scream scum to me.

The only person I'm REALLY suspicious of is jadesmar, who seemed to take the quickest reason possible to vote Dourgrim back on page 13, but has since unvoted. (Granted, the posts are a day and a half apart, so maybe "the quickest" was a poor choice of words.) It was almost as if jadesmar stayed low after DP's role claim (only a couple of throw-away posts on page 10), and then popped up once that blew over to vote for Dourgrim as soon as Dourgrim used his vote for emphatic measure.

That may just be my opinion though. jadesmar kinda had me piqued a little asking for a townie clue from mole towards the end of day one, but I washed over it since that could be an honest mistake. Looking back though, it stuck out a little as well.

vote jadesmar