Mafia Game Thread--The Thing

[slats]

Crap!

unvote

I didn't realize I put Sharrow at L-1.

Just wanted to get that out there.

We definitely need to hear more from Sharrow. I have no problem torching him today, I just don't feel the need to rush into it this morning.

[CTM]

Is there anything you two would like to share with the rest of the class?

Honestly, it's been discussed so much at this point that it's become a joke to me. Obviously, with the conversion factor, all bets are off.

Your style of play has me frustrated. You could be coached up, you could be clean as a whistle. It's your second game, though, and I am giving you a little tough love with my vote. I have a vote change coming in this post, don't worry.

Haha! While I tend to agree, that's an interesting post from one of the bottom-dwellers in post count this game.

I appreciate the sentiment, but this whole post reads like, "gee, I better say something before I get torched." You've been absent all game, most notably during the six hours between me putting AVM at L-1, and him finally getting hammered. Up until this point -with everyone calling you out on it- you haven't had much to say about the game at all.

unvote

vote: Sharrow

that puts him at L-1 sparky.. unvote until we hear from him

[CTM]

Crap!

unvote

I didn't realize I put Sharrow at L-1.

good good..

[slats]

that puts him at L-1 sparky.. unvote until we hear from him

Haha! This time I ninja'd!

[Integrity28]

You are still new, but Vic plays this way when he's innocent. You were forming a case on sarcastic voting on day 1. He claimed roleless townie when he was L-1/L-2. Vic doesnt play that way when he's rolled up. He would have gone down in flames or at least tried to defend, the fact that he was perfectly fine with it happening made me feel very confident in his innocence. He was totally indifferent.

I took it to the extreme on purpose. You are new, and you were claiming greatest case ever on what I that was pure doodo (no offense). I have not tried to protect Vic at all, in fact, I voted him...if I was trying to protect him, why would I be fine with his torching to prove a point?

The difference between me being convinced that he was a bored townie and your case was the fact that what you were doing could have lead to what I thought was an obvious bored townie torching. My point was to try and make you aware the zeroing in on a player, especially day 1 is never a good thing. It was urging you to look else where because we were getting no where with your case on Vic because he didnt care and we seeked to gain no info by your amazing case on sarcastic voting.

My "sureness" about the case I built on Vic is no different than your "sureness" in assuming that you read his play correctly.

If you come in knowing exactly who plays what way, in what scenario.... then what is the point? It's not possible that Vic just bluffed some of you? 7 "sarcastic" votes... and we get "thats how Vic plays when he's innocent."

I place one sarcastic vote to stop you and Crusher from flirting and I am still defending it.

And spare us the "Why would I be fine with his torching to prove a point?" He wasn't in any danger as you have made it abundantly clear, so torching was never really a threat was it? If his train had ramped up you could have easily jumped off and said you weren't serious... we'll never know.

Until we know what side he is on, I see no reason why I should just go along with your read on him.

[Sharrow]

Well now Sharrow, that's just not true.

I have been reluctant to the play the "oops, I an new at this card" and I have begrudgingly acknowledged my mistakes as I have come to realize them as such. In addition, multiple players have commented on the fact that I am not just trying to chalk my poor play up to being new to the game.

You keep saying "I learned this, I learned that, etc." well that's basically saying you didn't have enough experience in the game and that's why you f'ed up. It's the same thing. Just cause you don't use the word "noob" doesn't mean that's not what you're trying to do.

As far as "attacking" I am not attacking anyone... I am trying to piece together the behavior of players to build cases. Something you have not done. You have simply locked onto me, and let Pac do all the case building.

You really think I would be dumb enough to give myself away as you suggested when I thought being "research team member" meant "townie?"

Are you kidding me? It's not a matter of being dumb, it's a matter of being careless. You had serious heat on the first day, and you couldn't wait to gain some credibility so you jumped right on SMC's first post saying how you knew it was so.

Notice its "he's with me." This was what I wasn't able to figure out earlier in the game... whether Pac was the lead dog, or Sharrow was. Very telling... I suspect you'll find your way back to the shadows now? All the while, Pac's vote is on Crusher... and again we see Sharrow checking in with Pac's position in the game.

I don't think they are dumb enough to both be scum and be this blatant, but I do think one is scum and is using the other to drive momentum.

So I'm following Pac, then I'm pulling his leash, then back the other way. Make up your mind. I've been on you all game, Pac hasn't. How is that me following him around constantly? I followed him onto you day 1, and I've stayed there. And the case against you only got stronger, while the cases on everyone else have only seemed to get weaker in comparison.

[Sharrow]

I appreciate the sentiment, but this whole post reads like, "gee, I better say something before I get torched." You've been absent all game, most notably during the six hours between me putting AVM at L-1, and him finally getting hammered. Up until this point -with everyone calling you out on it- you haven't had much to say about the game at all.

unvote

vote: Sharrow

Yeah, I wasn't here then, I wouldn't have hammered him anyway, so what? And there just isn't that much to say about the game. Everyone other than I28 has played a pretty clean game so far, imo. All the cases based on everyone else's actions so far are flimsy as hell, and everything else is weak metagaming at best.

[JiFtheOracle]

My "sureness" about the case I built on Vic is no different than your "sureness" in assuming that you read his play correctly.

If you come in knowing exactly who plays what way, in what scenario.... then what is the point? It's not possible that Vic just bluffed some of you? 7 "sarcastic" votes... and we get "thats how Vic plays when he's innocent."

I place one sarcastic vote to stop you and Crusher from flirting and I am still defending it.

And spare us the "Why would I be fine with his torching to prove a point?" He wasn't in any danger as you have made it abundantly clear, so torching was never really a threat was it? If his train had ramped up you could have easily jumped off and said you weren't serious... we'll never know.

Until we know what side he is on, I see no reason why I should just go along with your read on him.

I never asked you to go along with my read on him.

And whats the point of all this? I explained to you, Vic's votes were sarcastic, DanX used conviction. Thats the differecne. You ask for explanations, and you are never good with what you receive.

[Bleedin Green]

Haha! While I tend to agree, that's an interesting post from one of the bottom-dwellers in post count this game.

I figured that comment would come back to me, and rightfully so, but I still stand by it.

[Sharrow]

Anyway, I'm going to take a shower and then I'm going to go take down my grandparents' snow fence, so I'll be away for a few hours. I'd like to hear if anybody else thinks my "mysterious" play is more scummy than a guy who knew the result of the lynch before it was revealed. We've got plenty of time, btw, for the guys with the itchy triggers.

[SMC]

Sorry, JiF

OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT--DAY 2

Integrity (2) -- Sharrow, slats

CTM (1) -- Pac

Sharrow (4) -- JVoR, Crusher, Integrity, JiF

Pac (1) -- CTM

With 11 Research Team Members, it takes 6 to torch.

[Sharrow]

I never asked you to go along with my read on him.

And whats the point of all this? I explained to you, Vic's votes were sarcastic, DanX used conviction. Thats the differecne. You ask for explanations, and you are never good with what you receive.

The point is distraction. Distraction, and deflection.

[JiFtheOracle]

The point is distraction. Distraction, and deflection.

Yes, I've pointed this out on him as well.

But I'm just not even sure he's picked up on that tactic this early in the game...especially considering he didnt feel any heat last game.

Maybe he's being coached. I'm still nervous of him, but you havent done enough for me to change my vote off you.

[Integrity28]

I never asked you to go along with my read on him.

And whats the point of all this? I explained to you, Vic's votes were sarcastic, DanX used conviction. Thats the differecne. You ask for explanations, and you are never good with what you receive.

I thought you were the one proving points.

[Bleedin Green]

I'm not exactly a huge fan of lynching either of our two best candidates right now (Sharrow and I28). I would definitely prefer to lynch Sharrow of the two, but at this point we certainly can't put any more votes on him until we here more from him. That said, there's still actually plenty of time to go somewhere else, and of the suspicions I have, one that I think could be a viable lynch option based on what some other people are saying would be Crusher, so for the time being that's where my vote is going to go. As already stated, the change in approach since he was able to get the heat off has been concerning. And despite the excuses used for his absence, he's actually been around many times to make his case on why he's not more involved, but without saying very much at all beyond that, thus still managing to stay back keeping his distance.

Vote: Crusher

If it comes down to Sharrow vs. random lynch, then I'll certainly switch to avoid it, or if I'm more convinced after hearing what he has to say now being at L-2, but at this point I'd prefer to go another direction.

[Vicious89x]

What's up everybody, I'm back, had a very busy weekend. I've read through the thread and honestly I see the case against Sharrow as more of a damnation of his play style. The man (I think) is as steady as they come. If he's scum he plays the same way if he's a townie.

Everyone who has played with me previously KNOWS I am not a fan of inactive people. I just think if you let people live with inactivity mafia can just cruise into the end game with the numbers.

With that being said, can anyone tell me how to bring up post counts for the thread? I feel like we may have some people getting by on the dramatics of I28 and the pressure on Sharrow.

As for I28, my honest feelings are he's a self-assured townie that thinks he knows it all. He certainly puts "thought" into his cases but when he does that he turns himself into a Terminator and only responds to "Kill on sight". His focus is purely on that. Quite frankly I'd love it for someone like that to gain a pac-like reputation of don't listen to him because I have a feeling his cases have been on innocents. He won't be converted. He's a perfect player to be used by mafia to push an agenda with, he'll do the dirty work for them.

With that being said, I think he's as much of a "town-killer" as he called pac.

[SMC]

OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT--DAY 2

Integrity (1) -- Sharrow

CTM (1) -- Pac

Sharrow (4) -- JVoR, Crusher, Integrity, JiF

Pac (1) -- CTM

Crusher (1) -- Bleedin' Green

With 11 Research Team Members, it takes 6 to torch.

[Integrity28]

Yes, I've pointed this out on him as well.

But I'm just not even sure he's picked up on that tactic this early in the game...especially considering he didnt feel any heat last game.

Maybe he's being coached. I'm still nervous of him, but you havent done enough for me to change my vote off you.

This was my point Jif:

My "sureness" about the case I built on Vic is no different than your "sureness" in assuming that you read his play correctly.

There are NO absolutes.

Simply put, I disagree with your assertion that we can just dismiss Vic's play. I don't understand why, in a game where I am being criticized for being narrow-sighted, you are being equally narrow-sighted in exonerating Vic... rather than putting some pressure on him to see if he was really being sarcastic or not.

After all, sarcasm isn't the easiest thing to read on the interwebz...

And this is not meant to be a distraction or whatever. I have been criticized all game for honing in... so I thought, while my vote sits on Sharrow... that it would make sense to revisit one of my other suspicious players.

I thought this was what everyone was urging me to do... now that I do it, still wrong eh?

[JiFtheOracle]

I thought you were the one proving points.

I tried but when it became fruitless, I gave up. Maybe you should take a page out of that book.

With that being said, I think he's as much of a "town-killer" as he called pac.

Now thats harsh. Where as I can see the similarity in play, I28 hasnt actually led a lynching yet which may insult Pac reputation.

[Vicious89x]

I tried but when it became fruitless, I gave up. Maybe you should take a page out of that book.

Now thats harsh. Where as I can see the similarity in play, I28 hasnt actually led a lynching yet which may insult Pac reputation.

Which is why I'm tempted to pull a JiF and just go along with his vote. At this point though I'm afraid to do that because honesty I feel we need to hit with this.

[Integrity28]

Which is why I'm tempted to pull a JiF and just go along with his vote. At this point though I'm afraid to do that because honesty I feel we need to hit with this.

The difference is, I was the only one trying to make a case on you. So Jif's attempt to prove a point isolated my case on you.

There are a couple different cases on Sharrow. Not the same thing.

[Integrity28]

I tried but when it became fruitless, I gave up. Maybe you should take a page out of that book.

So, even after I have tried to appeal to you to not automatically assume Vic is town... your only response is more suggestions on how I should play the game.

Got it.

[Vicious89x]

The difference is, I was the only one trying to make a case on you. So Jif's attempt to prove a point isolated my case on you.

There are a couple different cases on Sharrow. Not the same thing.

I was more or less referring to your "cases" on slats and pac. It's remarkable you have a vote out on someone who hasn't voted for you.

Oh wait.

[The Crusher]

I'm not exactly a huge fan of lynching either of our two best candidates right now (Sharrow and I28). I would definitely prefer to lynch Sharrow of the two, but at this point we certainly can't put any more votes on him until we here more from him. That said, there's still actually plenty of time to go somewhere else, and of the suspicions I have, one that I think could be a viable lynch option based on what some other people are saying would be Crusher, so for the time being that's where my vote is going to go. As already stated, the change in approach since he was able to get the heat off has been concerning. And despite the excuses used for his absence, he's actually been around many times to make his case on why he's not more involved, but without saying very much at all beyond that, thus still managing to stay back keeping his distance.

Vote: Crusher

If it comes down to Sharrow vs. random lynch, then I'll certainly switch to avoid it, or if I'm more convinced after hearing what he has to say now being at L-2, but at this point I'd prefer to go another direction.

Fair enough Bleedin. I have some stuff to day but I have to wait till 1 when Im on break.

For now I really don;t see this I've changed since my pressure thing. Ive changed because of the weekend. Weird that Sharrow, DanX, CTM, and even sweet Boopsie is allowed to be too busy to post but when I do it Im inactivew scum. Im not defending my time spent anymore.

Honestly this post opens my eyes more with your defense of Sharrow rather than your suspicion of me. Your mostly after me because of my lack pf participatrion since my heat but ok with Sharrows in and out play all game.

Sharrow has made way more shady moves than I have with little to no reasoning. I will go further into it when I get a chance later. Just to list: He had a really scummy pop in vote after barely posting and not explaininng it earlier. His constant attention to I128 who seems like one of the cleanest in the game to me screams 'Look at me Im hunting scum" post with no real contribution.

Im back at noon and will explain myself furhter. But to say I haven't contributed as of late is bull doo doo. Before I lgot busy this weekend I gave my opiion of what I thought was going on.

[Integrity28]

I was more or less referring to your "cases" on slats and pac. It's remarkable you have a vote out on someone who hasn't voted for you.

Oh wait.

Please. Have you been paying attention to the game bored roleless townie?

Oh wait.

[Pac]

will be able to post in about 30-45... not caught up but that was a fast Sharrow train.

[Vicious89x]

Please. Have you been paying attention to the game bored roleless townie?

Oh wait.

I have actually. I know you voted slats, after you voted pac. Both whom had put votes out on you. And now you have one on Sharrow....... who voted you. It's your way of playing, but simply voting for people because they voted for you, no matter what case you draw up isn't exactly a great way to approach the game. But that's your prerogative, do as you please.

[The Crusher]

I'm not exactly a huge fan of lynching either of our two best candidates right now (Sharrow and I28). I would definitely prefer to lynch Sharrow of the two, but at this point we certainly can't put any more votes on him until we here more from him. That said, there's still actually plenty of time to go somewhere else, and of the suspicions I have, one that I think could be a viable lynch option based on what some other people are saying would be Crusher, so for the time being that's where my vote is going to go. As already stated, the change in approach since he was able to get the heat off has been concerning. And despite the excuses used for his absence, he's actually been around many times to make his case on why he's not more involved, but without saying very much at all beyond that, thus still managing to stay back keeping his distance.

Vote: Crusher

If it comes down to Sharrow vs. random lynch, then I'll certainly switch to avoid it, or if I'm more convinced after hearing what he has to say now being at L-2, but at this point I'd prefer to go another direction.

I got a couple minutes. This is the part of this post that bugs me. You voting me makes sense, anyone voting me makes sense since day 1.

But this looks weird to me man. Looks non-committal and wishy washy. I know being the friend of the town is your game but you seem to be trying and defend here without really wanting to. Maybe nothing but I dont like it.

[slats]

Sharrow has made way more shady moves than I have with little to no reasoning. I will go further into it when I get a chance later. Just to list: He had a really scummy pop in vote after barely posting and not explaininng it earlier. His constant attention to I128 who seems like one of the cleanest in the game to me screams 'Look at me Im hunting scum" post with no real contribution.

I agree with you regarding Sharrow, but your play certainly deserves scrutiny, too. You had that weird, "let's lynch Pac before he kills us all," vote earlier, and brushed it off as some sort of scum detecting move. While I was originally okay with that defense after reading back and seeing that you said that's what you were doing at the time, the more I think about it, the scummier it seems.

That and the fact that it was you and Sharrow who were the last guys to post three suspects yesterday, and you were also the only two guys who weren't around the entire time AVM was waiting to be torched. If those are part of Sharrow's suspect behavior, it has to be seen as part of your suspect behavior, too.

So I'll...

vote: Crusher

Seems like a decent place to sit while we figure out what's going on with Sharrow, too.

[SMC]

OFFICIAL VOTE COUNT--DAY 2

Integrity (1) -- Sharrow

CTM (1) -- Pac

Sharrow (4) -- JVoR, Crusher, Integrity, JiF

Pac (1) -- CTM

Crusher (2) -- Bleedin' Green, slats

With 11 Research Team Members, it takes 6 to torch.

[Integrity28]

I have actually. I know you voted slats, after you voted pac. Both whom had put votes out on you. And now you have one on Sharrow....... who voted you. It's your way of playing, but simply voting for people because they voted for you, no matter what case you draw up isn't exactly a great way to approach the game. But that's your prerogative, do as you please.

My vote on Slats was me being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure he knew I was just doing it because I was frustrated, don't try to spin it into more than it was.

Like both you (all 7 of your day one votes) and Jif (Crusher earlier in the game), I think I am entitled to one "joke vote" or "sarcastic vote" no?

[Vicious89x]

My vote on Slats was me being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure he knew I was just doing it because I was frustrated, don't try to spin it into more than it was.

Like both you (all 7 of your day one votes) and Jif (Crusher earlier in the game), I think I am entitled to one "joke vote" or "sarcastic vote" no?

NO.

[The Crusher]

I got a couple minutes. This is the part of this post that bugs me. You voting me makes sense, anyone voting me makes sense since day 1.

But this looks weird to me man. Looks non-committal and wishy washy. I know being the friend of the town is your game but you seem to be trying and defend here without really wanting to. Maybe nothing but I dont like it.

I agree with you regarding Sharrow, but your play certainly deserves scrutiny, too. You had that weird, "let's lynch Pac before he kills us all," vote earlier, and brushed it off as some sort of scum detecting move. While I was originally okay with that defense after reading back and seeing that you said that's what you were doing at the time, the more I think about it, the scummier it seems.

That and the fact that it was you and Sharrow who were the last guys to post three suspects yesterday, and you were also the only two guys who weren't around the entire time AVM was waiting to be torched. If those are part of Sharrow's suspect behavior, it has to be seen as part of your suspect behavior, too.

So I'll...

vote: Crusher

Seems like a decent place to sit while we figure out what's going on with Sharrow, too.

You would be much more convincing if you actually read my post. This is the third time you jumped in and mentioned something I already addressed. Trying a little hard are we?

[Integrity28]

NO.

Well ****. No wonder I've been doing it wrong.

[CTM]

I'm waiting for Sharrow to get back before voting him.. I'm ok with lynching any of the top 3 however