Mini 309, Mordor Mafia--Game over!
Forum rules
- Mastermind of Sin
- Mastermind of Sin
-
Mastermind of Sin
- Cassandra Complex
- Cassandra Complex
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: October 30, 2004
- Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
- Contact:
- SpamWise
- SpamWise
-
SpamWise
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 628
- Joined: October 6, 2005
- Location: County Cork, Ireland
I'm suspicious of everybody.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.
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"
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:
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 )
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.
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:
Huh. "Everybody" seems like the largest list of suspicions one can give, no?Spamwise wrote:I'm suspicious of everybody.
Especially people who give relatively large lists of suspicions.
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 )
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
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.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 would only press the issue if I thought Norinel wasn't the cop, but I think he is the cop.
My suspicion list was based on those who were on both lynches, which to my mind went down in a very hurried fashion.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.
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...
- SpamWise
- SpamWise
-
SpamWise
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 628
- Joined: October 6, 2005
- Location: County Cork, Ireland
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.Stikey wrote:Huh. "Everybody" seems like the largest list of suspicions one can give, no?
"The sky will cover you when you fall down"
- Norinel
- Norinel
-
Norinel
- Not Voting (3)
- Not Voting (3)
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: March 2, 2003
- Location: My computer
You already did press the issue though, after I'd said I wouldn't reveal once.evilandy wrote:I would only press the issue if I thought Norinel wasn't the cop, but I think he is the cop.
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?)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.
How can you hide someone if you're listing everyone?My main gripe with large lists is that scum often hide the names of their scum buddies within their lists.
- Mastermind of Sin
- Mastermind of Sin
-
Mastermind of Sin
- Cassandra Complex
- Cassandra Complex
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: October 30, 2004
- Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
- Contact:
[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]
At this point, Mos and Spamwise top my suspicion list by leaps and bounds.
Your explanation, Samwise, is craplogic. It's a commonNorinel wrote:How can you hide someone if you're listing everyone?
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
- Mastermind of Sin
- Mastermind of Sin
-
Mastermind of Sin
- Cassandra Complex
- Cassandra Complex
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: October 30, 2004
- Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
- Contact:
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.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)?
Permanent V/LA.
- SpamWise
- SpamWise
-
SpamWise
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 628
- Joined: October 6, 2005
- Location: County Cork, Ireland
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.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.
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"
- Mastermind of Sin
- Mastermind of Sin
-
Mastermind of Sin
- Cassandra Complex
- Cassandra Complex
- Posts: 15163
- Joined: October 30, 2004
- Location: Sleeping with the Godfather's Daughter
- Contact:
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.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.
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:
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.SpamWise wrote:I'm really bad at this game somtimes.
unvote
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:
But stikey had never shown any suspicion of c_d in the past.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 willVote: chaotic_diabloto break the tie.
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.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:
Post #42:
Post #51:Alexander wrote:I'm pretty sure both Norinel and ubertimmy are scum.FOS Norinel, ubertimmy
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 bitmisplaced.
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: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.
Norinel then gave his reasons (generate more conversation, not give scum an easy target). You then responded: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?
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".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.
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
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.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 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?!?!
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).
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
@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:
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:
Post 177: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.
ubertimmy wrote:Stikey, if you think his vote was scummy, why aren't you voting for 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:evilandy wrote:@Stikey: But not enough to vote him?
Vote: MoS.
"Sure, his arguments can be considered compelling, but when taken out of context, so can urine." -- Atticus
- Norinel
- Norinel
-
Norinel
- Not Voting (3)
- Not Voting (3)
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: March 2, 2003
- Location: My computer
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
So
FOS: MoS
and consider this confirmation that I didn't investigate him last night.There was no Night 0. Night 1 I investigated Vyolynce, who got arrowed, and got innocent.stikey wrote:Wait, Norinel, who did you investigate Night 0?