Mini 309, Mordor Mafia--Game over!


Forum rules
User avatar
ubertimmy
ubertimmy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
ubertimmy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 677
Joined: March 26, 2006

Post Post #250 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:19 am

Post by ubertimmy »

The same reasons I voted you for yesterday.
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
User avatar
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
Cassandra Complex
Posts: 15163
Joined: October 30, 2004
Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
Contact:

Post Post #251 (ISO) » Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:10 pm

Post by Mastermind of Sin »

ubertimmy wrote:
Vote: MoS
for a terrible defense of his vote.
that's the most you've said. That's a really crappy set of reasoning with only 6 left alive.
Permanent V/LA.
User avatar
SpamWise
SpamWise
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
SpamWise
Goon
Goon
Posts: 628
Joined: October 6, 2005
Location: County Cork, Ireland

Post Post #252 (ISO) » Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:00 pm

Post by SpamWise »

evilandy wrote:At the moment I'm most suspicious of Spamwise, MoS and Stikey. It would be good if we have an innocent on one of those.
I'm suspicious of everybody.

Especially people who give relatively large lists of suspicions. What's wierd though is how I'm on both your list and ubertimmy's, especially as no-one was suspicious of me earlier. At least as far as I'm aware.

Unfortunately for me, as I don't know either of your alignments I can't say whether or not this is an associative tell or if you actually are suspicious of the aforementioned players.

FoS: Ubertimmy


FoS: Evilandy
"The sky will cover you when you fall down"
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #253 (ISO) » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:23 am

Post by stikey »

There are six people left: Norinel, Myself, Evilandy, ubertimmy, Spamwise and MoS. I assume that Norinel is not scum. Right now, my list of suspiciousness is as follows:

1. MoS. He avoided being lynched yesterday for hammering C_D with no explanation and then claiming to not know that his vote was the hammer. If Masterchief didn't implode completely, MoS would be a goner by now.

2. Spamwise. Apologizing for hammering someone is scummy (see MoS), especially since Samwise seemed to be in such a hurry to get a hammer dropped on page 6 (day 1, I think) as well. And this doozie in the post right above the one I'm typing now is also a whole lot of scummy:
Spamwise wrote:I'm suspicious of everybody.

Especially people who give relatively large lists of suspicions.
Huh. "Everybody" seems like the largest list of suspicions one can give, no?

3. Evilandy: Earlier today, he was egging Norinel on to reveal his investigation results. In post 244: "Do you have resons for holding out on us and not sharing the information? Was this innocent on both lynches? One lynch? Neither?". Then in Post 247, after Norinel reiterated that he wouldn't reveal who he investigated: "Well I guess we will know soon enough and there is no hurry. At the moment I'm most suspicious of Spamwise, MoS and Stikey. It would be good if we have an innocent on one of those." It seems in this second post that he's trying to get Norinel to bite and reveal whether one of the three of us was the target of his investigation.

4. ubertimmy. There's not too much I find suspicious about his play so far, except for his relative silence on the first day.

5. Norinel. He's almost certainly a cop (albeit not a particularly good one :P)

I think that MoS is far and away the scummiest player right now. If I have time today (severely unlikely, I'm afraid) I'll go back and summarize all of the connections that the living players have to one another and to dead players.
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #254 (ISO) » Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:44 am

Post by evilandy »

stikey wrote:3. Evilandy: Earlier today, he was egging Norinel on to reveal his investigation results. In post 244: "Do you have resons for holding out on us and not sharing the information? Was this innocent on both lynches? One lynch? Neither?". Then in Post 247, after Norinel reiterated that he wouldn't reveal who he investigated: "Well I guess we will know soon enough and there is no hurry.
I think you are using emotive languare here: "egging". But that's by the by. I was going to give Norinel my reasons why I'd like to know who is innocent, but what's the point? My reasons are obvious and he knows what he is doing.

I would only press the issue if I thought Norinel wasn't the cop, but I think he is the cop.
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #255 (ISO) » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:06 am

Post by evilandy »

SpamWise wrote:What's wierd though is how I'm on both your list and ubertimmy's, especially as no-one was suspicious of me earlier. At least as far as I'm aware.
My suspicion list was based on those who were on both lynches, which to my mind went down in a very hurried fashion.

However I am aware this is not science, but we are on day 4 and we have less pages than one of my day 1 games.

You gave the hammer to Masterchief. I'm debating in my mind whether you got the vote count wrong accidentally, but I do concede that Stikey's vote was difficult to spot.

Thinx...
User avatar
SpamWise
SpamWise
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
SpamWise
Goon
Goon
Posts: 628
Joined: October 6, 2005
Location: County Cork, Ireland

Post Post #256 (ISO) » Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

Post by SpamWise »

Stikey wrote:Huh. "Everybody" seems like the largest list of suspicions one can give, no?
All pro-town players should be suspicious of everybody. My main gripe with large lists is that scum often hide the names of their scum buddies within their lists. It's a common distancing tactic.
"The sky will cover you when you fall down"
User avatar
Norinel
Norinel
Not Voting (3)
User avatar
User avatar
Norinel
Not Voting (3)
Not Voting (3)
Posts: 1684
Joined: March 2, 2003
Location: My computer

Post Post #257 (ISO) » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:46 am

Post by Norinel »

evilandy wrote:I would only press the issue if I thought Norinel wasn't the cop, but I think he is the cop.
You already did press the issue though, after I'd said I wouldn't reveal once.
SpamWise wrote:Especially people who give relatively large lists of suspicions. What's wierd though is how I'm on both your list and ubertimmy's, especially as no-one was suspicious of me earlier. At least as far as I'm aware.
Well, we're past the point when people can be under the radar, or so I hope. I certainly agree that your apology is a bit cheesy. On the other hand, the droppers of the hammer on pro-town players are very easy people to target, and the fact that you and MoS have topped a few lists is interesting. (Might it be related to the fact that they're the most experienced people who haven't claimed cop?)
My main gripe with large lists is that scum often hide the names of their scum buddies within their lists.
How can you hide someone if you're listing everyone?
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #258 (ISO) » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:29 am

Post by evilandy »

Norinel wrote:You already did press the issue though, after I'd said I wouldn't reveal once.
That was not me pressing the issue by any means.
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
User avatar
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
Cassandra Complex
Posts: 15163
Joined: October 30, 2004
Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
Contact:

Post Post #259 (ISO) » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:26 am

Post by Mastermind of Sin »

...
Permanent V/LA.
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #260 (ISO) » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:20 am

Post by stikey »

[quote="Spamwise]All pro-town players should be suspicious of everybody. My main gripe with large lists is that scum often hide the names of their scum buddies within their lists. It's a common distancing tactic.[/quote]
Norinel wrote:How can you hide someone if you're listing everyone?
Your explanation, Samwise, is craplogic. It's a common
avoidance
tactic to simply say "I'm suspicious of everyone" and not give reasons why you're suspicious of people. It's
hypocritical
to say that you're suspicious of everyone,
and
you're suspicious of people who are suspicious of everyone.

At this point, Mos and Spamwise top my suspicion list by leaps and bounds.
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #261 (ISO) » Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:38 am

Post by evilandy »

Before I cast my vote I want to ask:

@MoS: Why are you playing a less aggressive game than your usual this time (its been bugging me since Masterchief stumbled on/off briefly)?
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
User avatar
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
Cassandra Complex
Posts: 15163
Joined: October 30, 2004
Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
Contact:

Post Post #262 (ISO) » Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:31 pm

Post by Mastermind of Sin »

evilandy wrote:Before I cast my vote I want to ask:

@MoS: Why are you playing a less aggressive game than your usual this time (its been bugging me since Masterchief stumbled on/off briefly)?
I ran out of suspects for the moment, plus I had graduation this weekend and was gone all of sat and sunday, in addition to being really busy packing to go home the week before.
Permanent V/LA.
User avatar
SpamWise
SpamWise
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
SpamWise
Goon
Goon
Posts: 628
Joined: October 6, 2005
Location: County Cork, Ireland

Post Post #263 (ISO) » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by SpamWise »

Stikey wrote:Your explanation, Samwise, is craplogic. It's a common avoidance tactic to simply say "I'm suspicious of everyone" and not give reasons why you're suspicious of people. It's hypocritical to say that you're suspicious of everyone, and you're suspicious of people who are suspicious of everyone.
There's a difference, and I don't feel I was being hypocritical at all. The clumsy wording of my posts give that impression, but that's not the case. Mafia is a game of shades of grey, not black and white.

In my opinion, if you're pro-town you should adopt a strategy of "Don't Trust Anybody Unless Told Otherwise". So that's where I stand. I'm "suspicious of everybody" because I don't know anyone's alignments, apart from my own. To me it's just good pro-town play to be suspicious of everyone, and should be an implied point added to everyone's game.

I'm
more
(and this is where the clarity is lost, and where everyone is attacking me based on my wording) suspicious of evilandy and Ubertimmy because "FoSing your partner/s while FoSing innocents" is fairly common scum tell. Scum will give a list of players, outlining various reasons and FoSing them. In that list they often include a buddy, or even several, so that if they are lynched and turn up scum then they've effectively created distance between their partners and themselves.

Unfortunately for me, as I don't know the alignments of Ubertimmy or evilandy, so that tell isn't really much to go on right now. Hence why I didn't vote for them, but raised it as a point.

As for my hammering of Masterchief: Well I've handed the scum an absolute gem in that. I think MoS has done the same. But we could both be scum who've just speed hammered two players looking for a quick win. Or one of us, or neither or any other possible combination.

PS: I'll be away for the next few days.
"The sky will cover you when you fall down"
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
User avatar
User avatar
Mastermind of Sin
Cassandra Complex
Cassandra Complex
Posts: 15163
Joined: October 30, 2004
Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
Contact:

Post Post #264 (ISO) » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:06 pm

Post by Mastermind of Sin »

*bump*
Permanent V/LA.
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #265 (ISO) » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

Post by evilandy »

stikey wrote:3. Evilandy: Earlier today, he was egging Norinel on to reveal his investigation results. In post 244: "Do you have resons for holding out on us and not sharing the information? Was this innocent on both lynches? One lynch? Neither?". Then in Post 247, after Norinel reiterated that he wouldn't reveal who he investigated: "Well I guess we will know soon enough and there is no hurry. At the moment I'm most suspicious of Spamwise, MoS and Stikey. It would be good if we have an innocent on one of those." It seems in this second post that he's trying to get Norinel to bite and reveal whether one of the three of us was the target of his investigation.
Did you actually read the dialog here Stikey? I asked Norinel once and after that accepted his response. I never pushed the point. In fact it was you who first tried to get Norinel to reveal the results of his investigation. That is fair enough, but to then use that as a scum-tell on someone else is suspicious to me.

Now some significant findings of my re-read:

Now remember that we have had two very hasty lynches. I'm not going to give too much weight to Masterchief as he was wierd (I notice everytime I do a re-read he has changed his avatar).

The first lynch on chaotic_diablo was partiucularly poor. With both stikey and MoS jumping on for the hammer. What is interesting is that when stikey jumped he looked very suspicious and I voted him for it. Then c_d voted him. But MoS jumped on and hammered c_d. Possibly to quell a turnabout for stikey? Dunno.

Post #150:
SpamWise wrote:I'm really bad at this game somtimes.

unvote
I've looked at the vote counts and it apears SpamWise would have been on the chaotic_diablo lynch but jumped off at the last moment for what looks like to me to be poor reasoning. Could have been a bit of misdirection or a distancing tactic? He was also on the Masterchief wagon.

FOS SpamWise


But the people who were on both chaotic_diablo and Masterchief were ubertimmy, MoS and stikey.

However stikey jumped onto the chaotic_diablo to break the tie:

Post #160:
stikey wrote:Okay, now that c_d took his vote off of Norinel, we have a tie, which I can only assume will result in a no-lynch. I'm always supicious of people who set up a tie situation, so I will
Vote: chaotic_diablo
to break the tie.
But stikey had never shown any suspicion of c_d in the past.

And from the very start of the game I was suspicious of Alexander who stikey replaced well before all this. On a re-read I find it difficult to see how Stikey survived so long.

So on balance I'm gonna
vote stikey
and I suspect a partnering with MoS. But probably not with Spamwise as they have had a bit of fistycuffs during the game.
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #266 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:59 am

Post by evilandy »

Some stuff that may back up a possible partnership b/w Stikey and MoS. Remember Alexander is Stikey. However please remember this is very early game stuff so needs to be weighed accordingly. I'm going to look at later game stuff this evening.

Post #42:
Alexander wrote:I'm pretty sure both Norinel and ubertimmy are scum.
FOS Norinel, ubertimmy
Post #51:
chaotic_diablo wrote:IMO, both MOS and Alexander are making things up. It is to my belief that Norinel made an observation that strongly disagrees with Lloyd's. MOS and Alexander's accusation all seem a bit
misplaced
.
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #267 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:02 am

Post by stikey »

evilandy wrote:Did you actually read the dialog here Stikey? I asked Norinel once and after that accepted his response. I never pushed the point. In fact it was you who first tried to get Norinel to reveal the results of his investigation. That is fair enough, but to then use that as a scum-tell on someone else is suspicious to me.
Let's examine what happened. I asked Norinel what he found last night ("Let me guess, Norinel: you investigated Starkmoon?"). He then responded that he found an innocent result. You then responded with the following:
evilandy wrote:Do you have resons for holding out on us and not sharing the information?

Was this innocent on both lynches? One lynch? Neither?
Norinel then gave his reasons (generate more conversation, not give scum an easy target). You then responded:
evilandy wrote:Well I guess we will know soon enough and there is no hurry.

At the moment I'm most suspicious of Spamwise, MoS and Stikey. It would be good if we have an innocent on one of those.
The first sentence looks a lot like "Ohcrap, I shouldn't argue with the cop" and the second one looks a lot like "But maybe I can try to slyly convince him to give up an innocent result".

At this point, I still like my suspicion ranking the way it is: MoS, Spamwise, evilandy.
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #268 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:39 am

Post by evilandy »

stikey wrote:The first sentence looks a lot like "Ohcrap, I shouldn't argue with the cop" and the second one looks a lot like "But maybe I can try to slyly convince him to give up an innocent result".
I agree that the first sentence was an "Ohcrap, I shouldn't argue with the cop". But the second one was to indicate to Norinel that my line of thinking was (and still is more or less) to examine who was on the various lynches.

I don't really think it would ever be possible for me to "slyly convince him to give up an innocent result". And you don't either really do you?!?!
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #269 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:17 am

Post by stikey »

If I didn't think it were possible, I wouldn't postulate it.

I don't think it's a lock-down scum-tell (which is why you're third on my suspicion list). I still think that MoS is much scummier, and Spamwise is a lot scummier (with much > a lot).
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #270 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:42 am

Post by evilandy »

@Stikey: But not enough to vote him?

Funny, but we have been here before. You thought MoS was scummy before but refused to vote him and instead lynched someone else.

Post 175:
stikey wrote:Well, that's a good question, evilandy. I asked whether TEOM whether the deadline was midnight or noon on Sunday (Iceland time), and he didn't answer (he just said 12:00 on Sunday, which, in the States, could mean midnight or noon). To be on the safe side, I assumed he meant midnight, in which case it was ~1.5 hours before the deadline. I think he actually meant noon, so it was ~13.5 hours before the deadline.

I agree with you that MoS's vote sans explanation is scummy.
Post 177:
ubertimmy wrote:Stikey, if you think his vote was scummy, why aren't you voting for him?
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #271 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:08 am

Post by stikey »

evilandy wrote:@Stikey: But not enough to vote him?
You're right. MoS has had ample opportunity to explain himself, and hasn't said anything to remove my suspicion. So this is long overdue:

Vote: MoS.
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
evilandy
evilandy
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
evilandy
Goon
Goon
Posts: 750
Joined: January 7, 2006

Post Post #272 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:06 am

Post by evilandy »

Ok that puts MoS on two.

While I'm very suspicious of him I'm not going to switch my vote. Too risky. But it may well be worth MoS considering a role claim or Norinel to pipe up if there is any relevant information.

Sorry if that sounds like I'm digging. But this is critical stuff now.
User avatar
stikey
stikey
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
stikey
Goon
Goon
Posts: 275
Joined: April 24, 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post Post #273 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:43 am

Post by stikey »

Wait, Norinel, who did you investigate Night 0?
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
User avatar
Norinel
Norinel
Not Voting (3)
User avatar
User avatar
Norinel
Not Voting (3)
Not Voting (3)
Posts: 1684
Joined: March 2, 2003
Location: My computer

Post Post #274 (ISO) » Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:05 pm

Post by Norinel »

I can see the points against MoS. He was quite verbose against Alexander, all but disappeared after that whole controversy, then hardly stuck his head out until Masterchief came along and became an easy target.

So
FOS: MoS
and consider this confirmation that I didn't investigate him last night.
stikey wrote:Wait, Norinel, who did you investigate Night 0?
There was no Night 0. Night 1 I investigated Vyolynce, who got arrowed, and got innocent.
Locked