Author Mafia - Game Over!

[Confucius]

A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.

Players need to talk less and say more. Lurkers need to post.

~

Dr. Seuss, why did you describe your month-long absence as "lurking"? Would you agree you had one of the easier post-restrictions in the game? Why was Bret Easton Ellis "clearly" a good guy at the end of Day One?

[Confucius]

The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute; the man who does not ask is a fool for life.

1.)

Dr. Seuss, answer my questions from Post #272. And why do you not replace out if you do not intend to play? Your last post dishonors you.

2.)

William Shakespeare, plainly explain your vote on Thomas Pynchon. And why vote Thomas Pynchon over Marion Zimmer Bradley?

3.)

Jane Austen, if Edgar Allen Poe is "still definitely scum," why only pursue Dr. Seuss? Please also make a concise case against Edgar Allen Poe without quoting yourself.

4.)

Lemony Snicket, what were the "few things" you had to "look into?" Have you done so yet?

~

Mod

, please at the very least prod:

Gertrude Stein
ee cummings
Gregory Williamson
Christopher Marlowe

[Confucius]

Baron Kung Fu Sioux, telephone us why you are nut volting for Spinning Paper? Or his buddy Julius Shake Spear?

Be 4th on the wagon, or does it just scare you? Take a chance and vote; I fucking dare you.

Confucius, you asked four questions in your previous post, if you have somehow forgotten because you suffered a brain injury that somehow Confucian historians did not know about. What did you find from these answers? Who is a criminal? Who is not?

The cautious seldom err.

I am still in the process of getting past the immense amount of waste in this game. Day One is not an easy read, and I have been unable to force myself to read it a second time yet. If I were to

force

myself into scumreads right now it almost necessarily have to be within the active players, in large part because there is so little to differentiate between the inactive players. This is too much of an incentive for scum to lurk. Furthermore, although I

have

asked questions, I

have not

received many answers.

I'll vote when I vote.

~

1.)

Jane Austen, you have claimed that Edgar Allen Poe has taken both your posts and Lemony Snicket’s posts out of context for the purpose of attacking you. Please drop the pretense (your cryptic posting) and argue what you

mean

.

Furthermore, I asked you

two

questions, not one. Answer my second question.

2.)

Edgar Allen Poe, in Post 322 you suggested that scum were piling on Dr. Seuss. In your next post, after being asked who you want to lynch, you named four people, none of whom were voting for Dr. Seuss. Explain.

3.)

William Shakespeare, answer my question. While you are at it, plainly explain the connection between Marion Bradley Zimmer and Thomas Pynchon.

4.)

Gertrude Stein, please treat Rucks' Post 335 as a set of questions to you. Namely: (i) Where did your suspicion of Shakespeare come from? And (ii) Why are you voting Dr. Seuss because you "agree, mostly" with Fred Phelps while you simultaneously list Fred Phelps as somebody you want to lynch?

~

Mod

, please keep us up to date on who has been prodded. Part of the stagnancy in this game is that there are so many players missing.

[Confucius]

Never give a sword to a man who can’t dance.

Vote: Jane Austen

~

1.)

William Shakespeare,

answer my questions.

2.)

Edgar Allen Poe,

answer my question.

Bemoaning whether you look like scum is not an answer.

3.)

Gertrude Stein,

answer my questions.

4.)

Jane Austen,

answer my questions.

And to be clear: I want you to

explain

how Edgar Allen Poe and Lemony Snicket have been taking your posts out of context to attack you. And when you do so,

stop posting in-character

. The fact that I understand your accusation generally does not mean I specifically understand your accusation.

~

5.)

EL James, where is your promised content?

6.)

I am not willing to call Dr. Seuss Town solely because of his role:

24) Setup Design:

The roles were fully randomized. There is no correlation between author and role. Do not try to outguess the mod.

But I think Dr. Seuss is more likely to be town than Jane Austen is. And I will point out that scum with such a role

would

want to wait for pressure to start dying on them before they used it, or else the momentum would likely roll right back and with potentially more force given the restricted options.

[Confucius]

Behind every smile there is teeth.

~

I want you to explain how Edgar Allen Poe and Lemony Snicket have been taking your posts out of context to attack you. And when you do so, stop posting in-character.

I never claimed that Snicket took my words out of context, and I'm interested in what gave you that impression?

It is a pity that when I'm lynched you'll still consider his role as proof positive of Seuss's towniness; I wish that wasn't so, and as a general point I'd ask if anybody thinks that it would be broken as scum as it is certainly useful for scum?

I misrembered your accusations, presumably because you have failed to sensibly explain them and therefore they do not leave much of an impression on my memory. You apparently instead accused Edgar Allen Poe of taking both your words and Lemony Snicket's out of context. You could have simply corrected me (as I was talking about the correct three people) instead of acting politely offended.

Now answer my question. This is at the very least the third time you have avoided it.

Finally, if you read

my

post, I never said that Dr. Seuss' role as "proof-positive of Seuss' towniness"; I said that his role does nothing to sway me in either direction given the Moderator's set-up post and the timing of its use.

[Confucius]

When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger.

~

Confucius has yet to provide any analysis of who HE thinks is scum, and why. The "answer my questions" bit is getting real old, and it has lost its effectiveness already. Nobody's going to answer to you at this rate until you give us some indication that you're actually trying to find scum already.

Read between the lines. The people I question are almost always the people I am suspicious of, and the questions I ask often skirt around the reasons why. The reason I persist in actually getting answers is therefore self-evident, regardless of whether you think it is "getting old."

To be blunt:

1.)

I was suspicious of Jane Austen because she was using politeness as a shield and was not explaining herself sensibly when she was asked questions about her actions.

2.)

I am suspicious of Gertrude Stein in a similar vein because it is very difficult to separate the nonsense from the content, and I have the definite feeling she is doing it purposefully as a shield similar to Jane Austen's.

3.)

I was suspicious of you (Dr. Seuss) because you admitted to lurking for a

month

(instead of simply

being away

for a month) when you of all players have the

least

excuse to do so since your post restriction is so easy to fulfill. And then you hammered somebody while also saying you thought they were Town.

4.)

I am suspicious of Edgar Allen Poe because his thought process does not follow: he ridiculed the players voting for Dr. Seuss but then called four players not voting Dr. Seuss his top suspects. He then acknowledged this inconsistency and promptly avoided it.

5.)

I am suspicious of William Shakespeare because I think he is completely fabricating his "Thomas Pynchon & Marion Zimmer Bradley" connection, and he seems to be using it as a crutch for posting anything of value. If he can sensibly explain the connection that may change my mind, but despite having such a firm opinion on the matter he has failed to expand on his thought process in the slightest.

~

But even with these mild suspicions (none of which was enough to prompt me into a vote up until there were only two options, of which I had an opinion on), I am not ready to vote. This is in part -- as I previously explained -- because I feel I am necessarily focusing on the more active players solely because it is difficult to have an opinion on players who infrequently post. As such I will continue to gently promote activity.

[Confucius]

Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without.

~

Yes, Lemony Snicket, I have seen your questions. I will point out that they are not very good questions, either.

To answer:

1.)

Yes, I have read the game. It is mildly insulting that you would even ask this.

2.)

You keep acting like my questions are keys that I use to unlock deep secrets into players. They are not. The fact that I ask a question does not mean I have great things to say, or that an answer will immediately clear things up for me.

Furthermore, players have largely

failed

to answer my questions. Dr. Seuss was one of the few who gave a response, and you will note that I did not pursue him after his answers (meaning I did not suspect him as much after he answered). Other than that, I have no revelations to give you.

3.)

I already said that I have several suspicions, and that they largely align with the players I have been pestering with questions. I do not have very

firm

feelings about the game (hence my lack of a vote), and I am not going to create them for the sake of "having suspicions."

It is simplicity itself to call a player scum and vote for them for some reason or another. But it is another matter entirely to be

accurate

.

~

Out of character: I lazed over the weekend and although I tried to reread the game in its entirety tonight with an eye towards Jane Austen interactions (or lack thereof), I have relapsed into "skimming mode" and so I plan to pick up where I left off tomorrow evening.

[Confucius]

It does not matter how slowly you go so long as you do not stop.

~

1.)

Players I do not think are paired with Jane Austen: Dr. Seuss, ee cummings, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mark Z Danielewski, and Lord God. James Joyce almost made it onto this list, but his early defense of Jane Austen could have forced his hand (for the sake of self-consistency) in the Gladiator situation. Lemony Snicket also almost made it onto this list.

2.)

Edgar Allen Poe, why did you get the impression that Jane Austen might be a "

nervous

" criminal in Post #172? That is peculiar word choice. Explain where you saw the nervousness.

3.)

Oscar Wilde, what are your "pet theories" you alluded to in Post 260?

4.)

EL James, why the Rucks vote? Please post.

5.)

I am still waiting on answers from Gertrude Stein, William Shakespeare, and Edgar Allen Poe. If I had three votes I know where they would go.

[Confucius]

To ignore a problem is to magnify it.

~

And just to be clearer: William Shakespeare, you did not answer my questions in your Post #442. It does not explain in the slightest why Thomas Pynchon and Marion Zimmber Bradley formed a "vile pair" apparently worth reading in tandem. It also does not explain why you would default voting for Thomas Pynchon over Marion Zimmer Bradley.

The follow-up question I was holding onto but I am no longer going to: after voting for Pynchon, why did you vote for Marion Zimmer Bradley in your

next

post (Post #338) if you had earlier decided Thomas Pynchon was the better vote between the two? Why did you not continue to pursue Thomas Pynchon (even if you were not going to continue voting him)?

Jane Austen's flip may "relight" the thread of play, but that will not excuse you from ignoring these issues.

~

Edgar Allan Poe, either answer questions sensibly or eat rope.

[Confucius]

Vote: William Shakespeare

.

[Confucius]

"In delay there lies no plenty."

-- William Shakespeare

~

My vote is staying. Rather than answering questions as a wagon built on you, you merely hinted that you were not Vanilla Town without actually claiming. When more votes accumulated, you simply double-voted (i.e., still not-quite-claiming but practically doing so). Now that you are at L-1, you are

finally

talking out-of-character and making yourself seem mildly presentable.

These moves all seem calculated solely to get votes off of you, and do nothing to convince me you are Town. Waiting this close deadline and only doing so under extreme pressure is too little, too late.

Like Jane Austen was, you seemed to be hiding behind your author. It is

not

our job to fill-in-the-blanks for your cases, especially when questions

about

your blanks are put directly to you. If you actually

believed

your words, you could have easily taken the time to explain them.

[Confucius]

Deadline is in less than 24 hours. More votes on William Shakespeare, please.

[Confucius]

Vote: Hulk Hogan

[Confucius]

Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage.

~

I am going to claim. I have no qualms with the Gertrude Stein wagon, but I would rather this information be known instead of lost in case there is another speedy lynch before everybody can post. I am reasonably sure I have pinpointed one scum, and potentially two.

I am a Prostitute -- I roleblock a player of my choice while learning a small tidbit about them, with the additional effect of being visible to all other players who target my target.

1.)

My predecessor did not target anyone on Night One.

2.)

On Night Two, I tried to look for players who seemed like they could be connected to either Jane Austen or William Shakespeare. I ended up targeting OscarWilde. On Day Three, he began by claiming he had "precious little memory of the night before", suggesting he knew he was role-blocked, which only an information-receiving role could really know.

The curious thing is that upon the opening of both Days Two and Four, he did not appear to drop any crumbs to suggest a night result. This leads me to think that if he is an information role, he would have been leaving more subtle messages to scum-partners in his opening posts. (A more common tactic for, say, a Mafia Role Cop is to have the first letter of a sentence represent their result, like "T" for Townie, and so forth).

Also, him following along with the "redirected" logic would not make sense if he knew he was instead roleblocked.

This is not my highest suspect, although obviously he is suspicious and I think he should die. But:

3.)

Last night I asked the Mod if I had successfully targeted OscarWilde on Night Two (the alleged "Lightning Rod" Night), and it was confirmed that I had -- this was further supported by the fact that I learned a tidbit about OscarWilde's role that did not seem to match Gregory Williamson's role. And obviously, if there had been a mass redirection to Gregory Williamson, then

everybody

with a targeting role who used it would have seen me with Gregory Williamson.

Based on all of this, I realized that James Joyce may have

actually

had a compelling result on Hulk Hogan / Fred Phelps. Mafiates are not exactly prone to trying to lynch somebody with an essentially claimed Guilty on Day Three of a 24-player game unless they actually have a reason to do so. I expect he planned on a Hulk Hogan lynch, followed by being Doc-protected, etc.

As such, I blocked Hulk Hogan last night, and as you can see, there have been no deaths tonight. The possibility that James Joyce had incriminating evidence against Hulk Hogan combined with my rolebocking of him on a night with no kills gives me little doubt he is scum.

~

I will hold on to the tidbits of information I have for both OscarWilde and Hulk Hogan for now. Neither tidbit is incriminating in any sense, and I expect they are related to the players' roles rather than their alignments.

[Confucius]

I can already confirm that Hulk Hogan is a fruit vendor -- it matches the information I learned about him. But that does not make Hulk Hogan Town.

If you seriously think I am trying to protect Gertrude Stein, though, you really should read my posts more closely.

[Confucius]

The object of the superior man is truth.

~

OscarWilde,

My role said nothing about informing the player I sleep with of my presence; only that players who also target who

I

target will see me. I will send a question to the Mod about your claimed affirmation, though. As far as I can tell, you should only have seen me if you had targeted yourself. [As an aside: Hulk Hogan, were you informed of my (or somebody's) presence?]

Also, why did you crumb your lack of result for Night Two, but you seemingly did not crumb anything (for anybody to find in case you died) for Nights One and Three? And why do your first posts of the gameday keep referring to the players who have already died?

Additionally: what were your "pet theories" about the Night One deaths? I already asked you this before, but you failed to answer.

~

I will think about the James Joyce / DrippingGoofball situation as it concerns Hulk Hogan. It kept reading to me like James Joyce had a "guilty" result on Hulk Hogan and felt compelled to retract it under the fear of the Lightning Rod contradicting their result somehow, but if James Joyce was DrippingGoofball then I concede she is much more likely to have been making it up.

[Confucius]

I expect my role is particular to this game; whether it is in the Wiki somewhere is of no importance to me.

Looking at the order-of-actions (which I should have done sooner), it seems I would have roleblocked OscarWilde prior to roles being redirected. (Though it is weird I would still learn something about OscarWilde instead of Gregory Williamson, since my tidbit is arguably an "inspection," but that would not make much sense flavorwise). I had been under the impression that Gregory Williamson had

not

actually used his ability on Night Two at all given that I successfully targeted OscarWilde. I suppose my role does not actually support that theory.

~

Marion Zimmer Bradley, your nightkill speculation does not match up to the nightkills we've actually had. Could you rephrase?

[Confucius]

Almost forgot:

I can also confirm that OscarWilde is a Role Cop given my information.

I still think there is a strong chance OscarWilde is a

Mafia

Role Cop since (i) it is very rare to see a Town Role Cop while it is relatively commonplace to see Mafia Role Cops, (ii) my role essentially is

already

a very watered-down version of a Town Role Cop, except I have some more bells and whistles and it is not truly the "meat" of my role, and (iii) as I previously mentioned, he does not appear to have left any crumbs the Town can follow in the event of his death (except for Night Two when he made it clear he failed to get a result), suggesting that if he left crumbs, they were left in a manner that only players already in-the-know (i.e., scum partners) could understand.

[Confucius]

To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it.

~

Unvote: Hulk Hogan

Vote: OscarWilde

1.)

First, Hulk Hogan, my role is not a direct counterclaim to OscarWilde's role. I am only told a tidbit that is

suggestive

of a player's role, and not the actual role itself. I have to do some thinking to figure out what role a player

probably

has -- so far it has been enough to at least confirm your claims. Also, the point of my role is role-blocking; the tidbits are just icing.

2.)

That said, my tidbit for OscarWilde is

far

more suggestive of "Role Cop" over "Flavor Cop." To avoid modquoting, I found a volume on vocational behaviorism (the study of finding out somebody's

job

or

role

by watching how they behave). I think OscarWilde is perhaps trying to change the wording because he is aware that "Role Cop" has a Mafia-like connotation, while Flavor Cop sounds more innocent.

3.)

OscarWilde's Day Two post started with "Good," which I will note matches the first letter in "Gladiator," his result on Dr. Seuss. This is making it more likely that OscarWilde was trying to make use of the common "start my first post of the day with the role of the player I investigated in order to signal to scumpartners" strategy. His Day Three post does not fall in this pattern (it does not start with "D"), but he could be lying about his result (if he even has one), or he might not have any more partners to signal to (if he is in the Orange Mafia group, for example).

4.)

EL James, please explain your Rucks vote from the other day. I asked you about this around two weeks ago now.

I also

do not believe

that you are actually forgetting about this game. Since you have a main account, you are therefore on MafiaScum, and as a result the fact that you are in a large game is not a fact that should continue to elude you. If you continue to lurk and use "forgot about it" as an excuse, I will assume you are scum using your alt as a shield against participating.

[Confucius]

It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop.

~

Unvote: OscarWilde

Vote: Lemony Snicket

FoS: Marion Zimmer Bradley

I can hardly believe players continue to ignore Spinning Paper. It is most disgraceful given his posts.

1.)

OscarWilde: what are your "pet theories" for what happened on Night One? Do you have any similar "pet theories" for Night Three?

2.)

OscarWilde, why did you not crumb any results on Day One or Day Three?

3.)

OscarWilde, why do your first posts of each game Day start with a reference to the dead players?

4.)

EL James, I have asked you at least three times: explain your Day Two Rucks vote.

5.)

Gertrude Stein: why were you suspicious of Shakespeare? And why did you "agree, mostly" with Fred Phelps' (now Hulk Hogans') suspicions of Dr. Seuss while also listing Fred Phelps as a player you wanted to lynch?

6.)

Marion Zimmer Bradley, why are you so persistently concerned with getting a Gertrude Stein lynch? I doubt we will have any troubles with deadlines today, so why do you continue urge a lynch and suggest that players are connected to her if they are not voting for Gertrude Stein?

It's starting to smell like you are anxious, and anxious players have a strong tendency to be scum pushing a plan.

Deadline is about two weeks away, so we can afford some conversation given the lack of conversation on Day Three.

7.)

Marion Zimmer Bradley, please explain your suspicion of Spinning Paper.

[Confucius]

He who would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools.

~

Marion Zimmer Bradley, your logic is not very reasonable.

It became highly evident at the start of the game Day that Gertrude Stein will either be lynched today or she will be killed in the near future barring a substantial reason for keeping her alive. Unless Gertrude Stein is scum with a role that is particularly worth saving for a single Night, I do not think any potential partners would

truly

defend her with any real zeal.

At best

one can argue that potential partners might try to go for a different lynch-target before that target becomes "unlynchable" later in the game (through an investigation, for example). But I think it is more likely that if somebody is actually trying to push an alternate lynch, it is probably because they have their own ideas on who is scum moreso than because they are trying to circumvent a Gertrude Stein lynch. Even

if

Gertrude Stein is scum, there are presumably other scum in the game which will need to be caught at some point. The legwork will have to put in at some point, and doing it while one is still alive is better than holding onto a suspicion and then dying with it.

As a result, I actually have been crediting slight Townpoints to players who are bothering to push in other directions.

Finally, whether you "normally" tunnel this much is of no concern in this game. And even then, "tunneling" is not a sufficient explanation for your accusations that players are partnered with Gertrude Stein because they are not voting for Gertrude Stein: that is an appeal to fear.

[Confucius]

Ability will never catch up for the demand for it.

~

I indeed had a licentious time with Lemony Snicket last night. The tidbit on his role suggested he was very tired from staying awake all night, and I took the wording of it (which I cannot quote) to suggest he might be a Watcher/Tracker (who would be stressed from sitting and trying to watch somebody all night) or possibly a nervous role (like a Paranoid Gun Owner). I see he has claimed Watcher, which I cannot say my information contradicts.

I am

very

suspicious of the claim that Lemony Snicket allegedly watched David Foster Wallace and was given a Tracking result. Seeing as David Foster Wallace was a

Townie

, the Mod accidentally revealing that he "went nowhere" does not even reveal any information to a Watcher at all, and I would fully expect in such a situation that a real Watcher would insist on getting a

proper

result, and the Mod would

have

to relent given that the improper result could not possibly have harmed the game whatsoever. Alternatively, if the Mod actually felt the game had somehow been compromised, Lemony Snicket should have been force-replaced and a true result should have been given to his replacement.

I think more likely is Lemony Snicket targeted every player he claimed (perhaps he expects that Spinning Paper has a tracking result on him, and therefore he cannot afford to lie) with the possible exception of the Dr. Seuss watch on Night Three. Besides the very obviously suspect Night One result, it is the Night Three claimed Watch that instills any shred of doubt.

I will likely vote Lemony Snicket in due time, but I am in no rush. The lack of any effort to get a proper Night One result is not believable.

[Confucius]

Thinking on it further, a Mafia Watcher (for example) would be likely to watch players who were likely to be killed by the opposing scum team, or who are likely to be protected (in order to suss out protective roles). And so even if Lemony Snicket is a Mafia Watcher, him targeting Dr. Seuss on Night Three would actually make a good deal of sense.

As such, I have very little doubt that Lemony Snicket thought he had found a clever way to get out of his Night One action but failed to realize that if what he claimed were true, he would have reacted very differently as Town Watcher getting a Tracking result. I fully expect Lemony Snicket in actuality killed David Foster Wallace on Night One.