Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Snapshot]

I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

I thought it was obvious, but I've been using the word LOT in all of my posts - or at least trying to. A fair warning I gave in the sign ups I have no intent of voting anyone on the basis that others would.

[Snapshot]

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.

Absolutely. And it's getting very tiresome that he throws an allegation my way, says 'lot is scum', but pays absolutely no heed to anything I have to say in response He has misrepresented what I've said at every turn but he has ignored that and just continues to throw my name out to see if it sticks.

I don't know if Paul is bad, but Paul - in a game when everyone's avatar looks the same, and it's flippin hard to work out who is who, you are making life VERY difficult.

I'm surprised at how few people actually seem to have noticed the point about Jephthah, which for me is the most convincing thing I've seen so far by quite a lot.

[Snapshot]

I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

This is what I find suspicious about Lot too. His first post of the game was a similar comment, voting for The Law because everyone else was. How is that a good reason?

See above. I've used the 'a lot' reason a lot, because I'm trying to have fun with the sock. My real reason for voting the law was because I did not think voting for the apocalypse was a good idea, and the two of them were about equally in the lead when I came in.

[NurseWilgy]

Thanks for the clarification, Lot. That flew right over my head.

[Ben Linus]

Dear Lord please bestow upon Paul the ability to post all his habitual thoughts into one post per page and grant unto me a small portion of his psychic abilities, Amen.

[rabbit8]

Martha would be a good choice for a vote.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.

Absolutely. And it's getting very tiresome that he throws an allegation my way, says 'lot is scum', but pays absolutely no heed to anything I have to say in response He has misrepresented what I've said at every turn but he has ignored that and just continues to throw my name out to see if it sticks.

I don't know if Paul is bad, but Paul - in a game when everyone's avatar looks the same, and it's flippin hard to work out who is who, you are making life VERY difficult.

I'm surprised at how few people actually seem to have noticed the point about Jephthah, which for me is the most convincing thing I've seen so far by quite a lot.

Which is?

[Golf]

Martha would be a good choice for a vote.

Is this really your only post?

[Joe Who?]

I think as usual a lot of the baddies are probably hiding and laughing at how we're going after the high posters. Reading the thread, while Paul posts a whole lot and makes me read pages, he seems to be truly scumhunting, so I don't want to vote him. I enjoy how people play differently behind socks, so like others I'm not wanting to vote people doing that to its full extent just yet and we'll see if it lasts in the coming days. Right now I'm wanting to know why Samson jumped to vote Samuel without much explanation. I'd also like to see more thoughts from people who haven't talked as much, just to see more thoughts. And more biblical jokes based on socks.

[Joe Who?]

I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

[NurseWilgy]

I think as usual a lot of the baddies are probably hiding and laughing at how we're going after the high posters. Reading the thread, while Paul posts a whole lot and makes me read pages, he seems to be truly scumhunting, so I don't want to vote him. I enjoy how people play differently behind socks, so like others I'm not wanting to vote people doing that to its full extent just yet and we'll see if it lasts in the coming days. Right now I'm wanting to know why Samson jumped to vote Samuel without much explanation. I'd also like to see more thoughts from people who haven't talked as much, just to see more thoughts. And more biblical jokes based on socks.

I see Pilate has not posted yet. I guess he has washed his hands of this game.

[Paul Stevens]

vote for me then Martha im not afraid of you or anyone at least I am trying

Sweetie calm down. You don't need to be afraid. I'm just saying you're being way too crazy dear and your behavior seems forced. It's making you seem very suspicious and fake hunny.

your behavior seems forced too we don't have any regulars that habitually call everybody hunny and sweetie. shall I voteth you for being fake too?

its a sock game we're all being fake here

Very much agree with the sentiment here. Probably won't vote based on it but I do find it funny that Martha calls Paul fake in one of the fakest sounding posts I've read.

Re: the Horsemen, I don't think they can be trusted at all or be expected to side with the Righteous. It's a heavily obscured, in terms of win condition and abilities, and terrifying, canon-wise, quartet. What Jonah said about finishing off the Heathens in order to win the game being "too easy" reminds me of Death Note: civs only had to eliminate four players (out of 27) to win, but bickered over an entire rogue faction being civ-friendly or not (granted, they were destined to receive the power to kill at certain point- although they never did), and almost all the four players that needed to be eliminated won the game unscathed. My point being we should primarly aim for the Righteous' win condition: take out the Heathens.

The Horsemen are named Conquest, War, Famine, and Death. It's kind of hard to imagine them being anything but bad.

Whatever happened to good old Pestilence? Is he not canon? I think Belshazzar is generally right. If we spend all game worrying about the Horsemen, the Heathens will roll over us while we bicker. Easier to deal with what we know to be a threat, then sort out anything else. I can't see them being civ-friendly though.

My thought was that in this community, we give new players the BOTD their first game, and pretending to be one of those new players would be a smart strategy for a Mafia. We tend not to lynch noobs day one of their first game. It would be a way for a veteran to get to play the noob card. A Get Out Of Jail Free card, if you will.

Huh. Interesting thought. Such a person would probably be very obvious though to other veterans, correct?

I would be more than happy to die d1 if it means doing so leads to a town victpry

I never understand people who say this. Surely you didn't sign up to the game so you could be martyred and let other people get all the fun/credit?

I am also voting for Samuel.

There are actually many female-identified socks in this game.

Why did you vote? I can't seem to find any explanation for your vote, which makes me wonder about your intentions.

considering that much it's very interesting to me that Samson latched onto my vote for Samuel with no explanation

real scummy

Yep. I'd have expected for him to at least come up with some small reason, even just that he thought certain things you said were good points.

low posters why you not post

People have busy lives. I wish I had the luxury of being able to make tons of posts in such a short period of time. Also this one post of mine could be like six or seven posts of someone else's.

you are a possible good wagon b/c you have been posting but all you have said is you don't trust me

So he might be bad because he thinks you aren't trustworthy?

you say I'm flooding the thread but you choose to drown instead of swimming

I love this line.

Host: Can we attain sainthood by making martyrs of ourselves?

What? No! That would ruin the carpet.

Sainthood is bestowed upon those who bring the beer.

Sorted. I have plenty here I'm happy to share. will begrudgingly share.

I thought it was obvious, but I've been using the word LOT in all of my posts - or at least trying to. A fair warning I gave in the sign ups I have no intent of voting anyone on the basis that others would.

One could almost say you've done it a lot!

Martha would be a good choice for a vote.

Is this really your only post?

Is it really not clear he posted from his real account instead of his sock? Even if you're new to the site, I don't think there are many characters called Rabbit8 in the Bible. I could be wrong though, I've never actually read it.

[Prisoner 509378]

A little time off, some thinking, and this post:

basically im being misunderstood b/c its d1 and there is almost nothing to go on so i created stuff to go on

i waited long enough for d1 i can't believe people deal with that

i also can't believe people are taking me so srs i am trying to hunt scum by fishing for reactions to the stuff i say how else do you hunt this early

...gives me a new perspective on Paul. I have not seen such an aggressive, relentless, button-pushing fisher in a long time but now Paul makes a lot of sense to me. Were you really suspicious of Samuel initially or did your lasting suspicion come from the reactions he gave you? After coming out the other side of this issue, it's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when you go after someone. I will always have to wonder whether you really suspect someone or if you are just fishing for a reaction from them or anyone else.

While I respect your cowboy style of play, I can tell we're not kindred spirits and that may lead us to be at odds as this game progresses (assuming we're both alive come Day 2). For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

My thought was that in this community, we give new players the BOTD their first game, and pretending to be one of those new players would be a smart strategy for a Mafia. We tend not to lynch noobs day one of their first game. It would be a way for a veteran to get to play the noob card. A Get Out Of Jail Free card, if you will.

This goes hand in hand with the other reason people are suspectng me: the thought that I was trying to determine peoples identities. No, I was only trying to see if Paul was what he appears to be. I don't think he is, personally. In other words, I doubt new players would ACT like new players.

Having caught up after a busy Saturday, though, it is also possible there are just "woo hoo fun" reasons for pretending to be new to this forum, especially if Paul has an especially highly recognizable game. But it is something I think needs to be kept in mind if he ever does play the noob card.

Having skimmed the day so far, I need to read more in depth today. I will probably post as I catch up.

An interesting theory. I can think of 2 or 3 regulars from TS that might go this route. I say no slack to new folks though. It's pointless to engage in some kind of affirmative action policy. The only way to truly learn is by doing. You signed up for the game, so sink or swim. There are no water wings in mafia.

Also, whoever said that all the avatars look the same, oh my God, yes!

Yeah, it's definitely tricky. I'm used to determining posters by their avatar not their name. This aspect of the sock game has been challenging because they're all so similar.

maybe people should stop focusing on me being new and actual focus on what I am saying and on catching scum

do you see how many people have been forced to show their hands already by issuing opinions on me let alone others? if so why aren't more of you talking? I don't mean this as condescending or
Anything but it's a genuine question

No I don't see it but, then again, it's not my style. Who has been forced to show their hands and what makes you say so about them? I'm trying to keep tabs on who you suspect so I can determine whether or not you're actually as good as you're intimating.

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

What else do we really have to go on? Aside from Paul steering much of the conversation, it's been a typical Day 1 where not much else happens and a few low posters sneak in to say something nondescript. At least Paul gave us something to talk about and potentially a voting theory to test out. If not for that, wouldn't most of us have made random-ish votes with little to no direction?

As an aside, I have been curious about the Day 0 poll. I can't help but wonder if one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse because that is their purpose in the Bible. Normally, one would suggest that the Horsemen would steer clear of voting Apocalypse because it would be to obvious- aka WIFOM. But over time, WIFOM gets so played out that players do the very thing they shouldn't do because it would otherwise seem to obvious. I'm not sure how sock logic plays into the circular logic of WIFOM but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Horsemen is among the eight who voted Apocalypse. If we come to understand them to be a threat, we can look there.

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.

Re: Paul, CFA Absalom. CFA. Cain's vote threat was intriguing but it was probably just fluff. Or it was circular logic/wifom.

And more biblical jokes based on socks.

Does this avatar make my ass look big?

[Golf]

Martha would be a good choice for a vote.

Is this really your only post?

I just realized this isn't a sock puppet and blue text.

[Golf]

Is it really not clear he posted from his real account instead of his sock? Even if you're new to the site, I don't think there are many characters called Rabbit8 in the Bible. I could be wrong though, I've never actually read it.

Yeah, I didn't notice the username and text. It was such a game centric post. I'm not used to people from outside the game commenting on who to vote on.

[Golf]

No I don't see it but, then again, it's not my style. Who has been forced to show their hands and what makes you say so about them? I'm trying to keep tabs on who you suspect so I can determine whether or not you're actually as good as you're intimating.

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

Are we going to put every person's convictions to the test each dayphase? I heavily discourage this tactic. Paul will make his case. If any of his cases sound convincing, we may choose to follow his lead. But it's risky to start testing everyone's scumhunting skills just because they're vocal.

[Prisoner 509378]

No I don't see it but, then again, it's not my style. Who has been forced to show their hands and what makes you say so about them? I'm trying to keep tabs on who you suspect so I can determine whether or not you're actually as good as you're intimating.

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

Are we going to put every person's convictions to the test each dayphase? I heavily discourage this tactic. Paul will make his case. If any of his cases sound convincing, we may choose to follow his lead. But it's risky to start testing everyone's scumhunting skills just because they're vocal.

No, this isn't something to do every day. This is about Paul. On Day 1. As the game plays out, we'll have empirical evidence to go on. Right now, all this day has been about is Paul and his spider sense. I'm suggesting we give him the chance to prove himself. You know, fish or cut bait. Catch scum or stfu. Know what I mean?

[Larry David]

Been getting caught up, it's a busy Sunday here. I'm taking everything Paul says with an entire bag of Salt unless he pulls up a Heathen. Mainly because he spent about 24 hours going "Samuel is scum guys, scummy scummy scum, you're so scum Samuel!" going so far as to even place an unchangeable vote on him, and then he backpedals and says "No lol guys I dont think Samuel is actually scum. I'm just kidding. Samuel best bros right?". It seems like he is either doing whatever he wants just for the hell of it, or he isnt actually confident in anything he is saying and is struggling to grasp at straws.

The only productive thing that came of Paul running off at the mouth this whole time is that Samson followed his vote, and never explained it. While I felt like Paul had reasons that werent worht lynching somebody over, he at least had a reason. Samson on the otherhand just did it and has dodged the question since, and that really ticks me.

[Young Lady]

Catchin' up.

Judging by Samuel's long awaited reply to Paul's scumread on him, I'm a bit surprised he only addressed the part where he asked the Host about the need to figure out players behind the sock. Do you really believe that is why Paul called you scum, Samuel, or were you intentionally skipping the real accusation - your agressive opener, that not only Paul, but several others have deemed suspicious. Furthermore, in the same post, Samuel is eyeballing Ruth for her attempts to flush out players who seem/act new, even though he has questioned the Host if there is any purpose in doing sort of the same thing. Something feels a bit odd about this.

Then again, everything suddenly seems water under the bridge now between Samuel and Paul, with Paul right away saying

Samuel glad we're cool but why do you only comment about Ruth

yo Samuel you want to be best buds? you seem like a cool guy

and later insisting on the fact that he voted and scumread Samuel only to fish / test reactions and get the ball rolling. Whilst I understand this tactic, I must confess I'm still slightly irked by this switch, especially given that he voted before doing any of this. As in, absolutely everything he has done so far.

Onto the issue of Paul's play being a total pretense, which if I'm not mistaken Ruth, Martha and Lot have brought it up: my gut tells me Paul is indeed new to the Syndicate, because it would take a great amount of fabrication to create such a persona. However, I'm not rejecting the idea either, given that it's such a nice timing, with the Champions game ongoing and such, to take advantage and adopt a different tactic and vocabulary, in addition to hiding under the sock. I'd give it a few more days to judge this, on the belief that if he will remain obstinate in how he plays, it will actually become a sign that it is a possible pretense cracking under limitations (sticking to "scum this, scum that" and other rebuttals) rather than that he is a natural "outsider" who's very much sticking to his own style of mafia.

If Paul is indeed new here, he is no doubt experienced otherwise in playing mafia, therefore he is not a "noob" and I would have no problem with him being voted, even as a "new forum player", if anyone deems him bad. He wouldn't have a problem with it either, from what he says, so game on. On the hand, I don't suspect Rebecca and others who may bring the "BOTD/no newbie d1 lynch" card, because it's such an old and constant debate over here and we never really seem to reach a resolution either, every time it happens.

I don't understand, nor like Samson's follow vote for Samuel. Samson has otherwise said nothing of value or to back his vote, except supporting Paul's actions earlier on. I would just note that Paul's initial reaction was

wow someone followed me on my vote cool

followed after a split second or so by actually questioning Samson's vote and later turning Samson into his main scum lead.

Bottom line w. Paul, I don't like that he voted first and then has done everything else, his scumreading/fishing switch of intentions strikes me as odd since he is usually defending his actions as being meaningful baddie hunting. I also don't recall him giving any reasons for Nicodemus being a third choice (or 2nd wagon) on his scum list.

[Snapshot]

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

Boy did this ping me...

I mean, it sounds like a bad strategy to me anyway out of self-interest... but lets say you did take this tactic and the person you lynched came back as civilian (be it me or someone else)... would you have us lynch Paul next? We already know to take Paul's words with a lot of salt. There hasn't been any opportunity for Paul to be sure - he is quite clearly just expressing his opinion in a certain-sounding way. But being wrong doesn't necessarily make you heathen, either.

I don't like it when people imply that being wrong = being bad...

@jephthah - don't play dumb. Belshazzar made a post, and then I made a post where I quoted literally nearly everything you had said up to that point. I don't need to repeat that post, but I do strongly encourage people to read it. I'm still very surprised at how little attention it has gotten. You did a complete and utter about face without any apparent explanation.

[Young Lady]

More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Don't get the suspicions on Lot, especially for the post that earned him a scumread from Paul. I think Lot's suspicions on Paul have faded since yesterday, yet Paul instead now ranks him 2nd on the scum list and 2nd wagon choice. If it's for that post sounding like he'd wagon for a Paul lynch on Day 1, I still find it a weak reason and a possible misinterpretation as well.

Not quite sold on Jephthah's reply to the suspicions on him. It wasn't a case of defending, then accusing Paul, but of siding with his action at first, then siding with the others who questioned his action. He says he intentionally did a bit of both - again, this "shakin' things up a bit" that Paul also claims hard to do, hmm. All this Jephthat wrote as a paragraph inside a larger, broader post about us marking people for unusual play and about Paul vs. Lot. A bit awkward defense, if you ask me. What does everyone else who noted Jephthah's flip think now?

BTW, can we try Jeph for a nick? Would that be ok with you, Jephthah?

Honorary suspicion for Uzziah's scum-rooting post, although, I have to confess, it also instantly made me think of someone in particular and, in case it's true, it's a case of "here we go again" and it's shenanigans.

[Snapshot]

The only productive thing that came of Paul running off at the mouth this whole time is that Samson followed his vote, and never explained it. While I felt like Paul had reasons that werent worht lynching somebody over, he at least had a reason. Samson on the otherhand just did it and has dodged the question since, and that really ticks me.

I agree, Samson's vote also pinged me a lot. I don't necessarily thing it's the only productive thing Paul achieved - actually, I completely understand Paul's tactic of getting people talking, and he really has done that, I just don't think casting a vote is a sensible part of that.

[Spooky Ghost]

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

I agree with Paul about Lot. Balaam seems good to me, and Lot is going after Balaam. Let's be friends, Paul, and vote Lot out.

I'm going to vote for Lot.

[Snapshot]

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I'm just posting what pings me - any time something pings me. I'm still a lot more suspicious of Jephthah's actions than anything else I've seen today. Also just did a reread of Uzziah and I'm not impressed. And where is Pilate?

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

I agree with Paul about Lot. Balaam seems good to me, and Lot is going after Balaam. Let's be friends, Paul, and vote Lot out.

I'm going to vote for Lot.

Gideon is this the only reason you are voting for Lot or is there more?

[Young Lady]

Several players have still not posted on Day 1, but Pilate is indeed yet to show up at all.

[Spooky Ghost]

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

[NurseWilgy]

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

Now THAT is interesting.

[Snapshot]

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

Fair enough. I'll take it under advisement. I have no intention of voting Balaam today, but it does bother me that he seems to imply we should lynch Paul if Paul is wrong about his suspicions, and I'd like him to clarify that. And he is welcome to make a lot more ass jokes.

[Prisoner 509378]

I'm quite surprised at how much heat I'm taking today with very little clear justification. I make one post about balaam, and I'm 'going after him'? By the way gideon, what is it about balaam that makes you so sure he is good?

I have nothing to say about that.

Fair enough. I'll take it under advisement. I have no intention of voting Balaam today, but it does bother me that he seems to imply we should lynch Paul if Paul is wrong about his suspicions, and I'd like him to clarify that. And he is welcome to make a lot more ass jokes.

Where exactly do I imply that we lynch Paul if he is wrong? Oh wait, I don't. Let me throw this back up for you:

No I don't see it but, then again, it's not my style. Who has been forced to show their hands and what makes you say so about them? I'm trying to keep tabs on who you suspect so I can determine whether or not you're actually as good as you're intimating.

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

Are we going to put every person's convictions to the test each dayphase? I heavily discourage this tactic. Paul will make his case. If any of his cases sound convincing, we may choose to follow his lead. But it's risky to start testing everyone's scumhunting skills just because they're vocal.

No, this isn't something to do every day. This is about Paul. On Day 1. As the game plays out, we'll have empirical evidence to go on. Right now, all this day has been about is Paul and his spider sense. I'm suggesting we give him the chance to prove himself. You know, fish or cut bait. Catch scum or stfu. Know what I mean?

As I mentioned earlier, I have a better understanding of Paul's tactics now. I have no read on him or anyone because I don't read people well. All I'm saying is give Paul's suspicions a go today and see what happens. If he's wrong, hopefully he'll dial it back a notch until we can get some empirical evidence. I never said anything about lynching him if he's wrong, just getting him to turn the dial back off of 11.

[Julinook]

Oh wow, this is really hard. I'm not used to the avatars or names and I tried a quick catch up but my eyes are bleeding. It's hard to remember who posted what. I think I missed Samsons reasoning for his vote so I guess I'll start there.

I am also voting for Samuel.

There are actually many female-identified socks in this game.

I guess I didn't miss it, it seems to not exist. Samson can you please explain why? Right now it just looks like you are coat-tailing.

[Snapshot]

No, you didn't say lynch. That's why I used the word imply. So, if you wouldn't lynch him, you would have us debating Paul's actions and following Paul's lead... for what? You clearly agree it proves nothing about Paul, since you've now clearly stated you wouldn't lynch him for being wrong. So what would you be trying to achieve? You want Paul to be quieter? Why? You think if Paul is wrong about one person, his words should no longer hold weight? What if he is right about the next one?

I honestly - and again, self-interest here probably plays a part - but I can't see any civilian reason for you to suggest that we just follow Paul blindly and then stop listening to him if he is wrong. But imagine, for instance, you know Paul is wrong about Samuel and me but right about Nicodemus, or about other people he might have mentioned but not pushed today - might it not be in your interests to lynch a civilian and discredit Paul in one go?

I'm willing to listen to Gideon today, and take heed of the shot he made across my bow. He essentially vouched for you, and I'm willing to put a lot of trust in that for now. But I'm just saying - to me your idea looks like it can achieve nothing good, and didn't seem to me like a very civilian thing to say.

[NurseWilgy]

Gideon's post is an implied BTSC if there ever was one, but I see nothing in the roles about civilian BTSC. Especially not on Day 1 before any night powers have been used. This would imply that he is either a Heathen or possibly a Horseman (not sure if they have BTSC). Am I missing something here? What other explanation is there for a vouch at this stage?

[Snapshot]

Indeed, Absalom. But given those are the only people with apparent BTSC, why would Gideon make it so obvious? It's very wifom. That's why I'm not willing to vote for either of them, but why I've also said 'today'... it's something interesting to keep an eye on.

I feel like I'm not seeing eye to eye with a lot of people this game - the only people I've really felt are seeing things a similar way to me are Absalom and Belshezzar, and perhaps to some extent Job (except as his posts apply to suspicion of me).

[Spooky Ghost]

I think Balaam is good. I think Lot is bad. I'm still learning English, okay? Paul talks a lot and makes it hard. :P

[dodo]

I could see Paul getting a lot of votes... I'd consider voting that way. So far not much has stood out for me. Paul has, very much, with posts and practices which seem designed to set himself apart. So has Ruth - what with the apparent fishing for finding out where people are from and then waving it off as a joke.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if anyone felt that their vote in the poll yesterday turned out to be worthwhile. I, for one, do not - at least I have no reason to believe it was for now.

this post essentially says I could see a wagon on Paul so I'm not gonna commit to voting him but gonna leave the possibility here for later b/c I am scum and need to find a reason to vote someone

I agree this post of Lots was odd. Why state your intent to vote someone simply because they have the potential to get a lot of votes? Vote for who you find suspicious, don't vote someone just because all the cool kids are doing it.

This is what I find suspicious about Lot too. His first post of the game was a similar comment, voting for The Law because everyone else was. How is that a good reason?

Who had a good reason for their Day 0 vote?

As an aside, I have been curious about the Day 0 poll. I can't help but wonder if one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse because that is their purpose in the Bible. Normally, one would suggest that the Horsemen would steer clear of voting Apocalypse because it would be to obvious- aka WIFOM. But over time, WIFOM gets so played out that players do the very thing they shouldn't do because it would otherwise seem to obvious. I'm not sure how sock logic plays into the circular logic of WIFOM but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Horsemen is among the eight who voted Apocalypse. If we come to understand them to be a threat, we can look there.

I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.

Re: Paul, CFA Absalom. CFA. Cain's vote threat was intriguing but it was probably just fluff. Or it was circular logic/wifom.
/quote]
Balaam, for someone wary of circular logic/wifom you sure embrace it in the paragraph above.

[dodo]

also i think you guys are reading too far into gideon's post tbh

[Echo]

I'm rooting for the scum.

Oh yeah?

Yeah.

[Perd Hapley]

More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Tbh I am sock playing when I speak some of the time, but the point I keep trying to make was Paul was rubbing me the wrong way by not how he was talking, but how was he acting when he posted. I was also fishing for reactions when I mentioned so what if that is how I really talk or not? I think it's interesting some of the responses of wanting me lynched just for how I talk and saying I'm annoying. I think if anyone talks differently than normal, that's the point of a sock game to have mystery to everyone's usernames. I think we should focus on finding Heathens and less on if someone seems like a new player or how they speak, dears.

[SmashKings]

miss me?

See above. I've used the 'a lot' reason a lot, because I'm trying to have fun with the sock. My real reason for voting the law was because I did not think voting for the apocalypse was a good idea, and the two of them were about equally in the lead when I came in.

lol I am sorry lot not sure how I missed this

[SmashKings]

Dear Lord please bestow upon Paul the ability to post all his habitual thoughts into one post per page and grant unto me a small portion of his psychic abilities, Amen.

you wish

have any thoughts on scum?

[SmashKings]

I would be more than happy to die d1 if it means doing so leads to a town victpry

I never understand people who say this. Surely you didn't sign up to the game so you could be martyred and let other people get all the fun/credit?

it honestly doesn't matter to me i already have had a LOT of fun and if i die as long as i tried my best to catch scum i am happy

[SmashKings]

A little time off, some thinking, and this post:

basically im being misunderstood b/c its d1 and there is almost nothing to go on so i created stuff to go on

i waited long enough for d1 i can't believe people deal with that

i also can't believe people are taking me so srs i am trying to hunt scum by fishing for reactions to the stuff i say how else do you hunt this early

...gives me a new perspective on Paul. I have not seen such an aggressive, relentless, button-pushing fisher in a long time but now Paul makes a lot of sense to me. Were you really suspicious of Samuel initially or did your lasting suspicion come from the reactions he gave you? After coming out the other side of this issue, it's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when you go after someone. I will always have to wonder whether you really suspect someone or if you are just fishing for a reaction from them or anyone else.

While I respect your cowboy style of play, I can tell we're not kindred spirits and that may lead us to be at odds as this game progresses (assuming we're both alive come Day 2). For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

hey man I am glad

don't get me wrong i understand observation i just was trying to say that if no one made any bold moves during d1 that no information can be gathered

[SmashKings]

Catchin' up.

Judging by Samuel's long awaited reply to Paul's scumread on him, I'm a bit surprised he only addressed the part where he asked the Host about the need to figure out players behind the sock. Do you really believe that is why Paul called you scum, Samuel, or were you intentionally skipping the real accusation - your agressive opener, that not only Paul, but several others have deemed suspicious. Furthermore, in the same post, Samuel is eyeballing Ruth for her attempts to flush out players who seem/act new, even though he has questioned the Host if there is any purpose in doing sort of the same thing. Something feels a bit odd about this.

Then again, everything suddenly seems water under the bridge now between Samuel and Paul, with Paul right away saying

Samuel glad we're cool but why do you only comment about Ruth

yo Samuel you want to be best buds? you seem like a cool guy

and later insisting on the fact that he voted and scumread Samuel only to fish / test reactions and get the ball rolling. Whilst I understand this tactic, I must confess I'm still slightly irked by this switch, especially given that he voted before doing any of this. As in, absolutely everything he has done so far.

Onto the issue of Paul's play being a total pretense, which if I'm not mistaken Ruth, Martha and Lot have brought it up: my gut tells me Paul is indeed new to the Syndicate, because it would take a great amount of fabrication to create such a persona. However, I'm not rejecting the idea either, given that it's such a nice timing, with the Champions game ongoing and such, to take advantage and adopt a different tactic and vocabulary, in addition to hiding under the sock. I'd give it a few more days to judge this, on the belief that if he will remain obstinate in how he plays, it will actually become a sign that it is a possible pretense cracking under limitations (sticking to "scum this, scum that" and other rebuttals) rather than that he is a natural "outsider" who's very much sticking to his own style of mafia.

If Paul is indeed new here, he is no doubt experienced otherwise in playing mafia, therefore he is not a "noob" and I would have no problem with him being voted, even as a "new forum player", if anyone deems him bad. He wouldn't have a problem with it either, from what he says, so game on. On the hand, I don't suspect Rebecca and others who may bring the "BOTD/no newbie d1 lynch" card, because it's such an old and constant debate over here and we never really seem to reach a resolution either, every time it happens.

I don't understand, nor like Samson's follow vote for Samuel. Samson has otherwise said nothing of value or to back his vote, except supporting Paul's actions earlier on. I would just note that Paul's initial reaction was

wow someone followed me on my vote cool

followed after a split second or so by actually questioning Samson's vote and later turning Samson into his main scum lead.

Bottom line w. Paul, I don't like that he voted first and then has done everything else, his scumreading/fishing switch of intentions strikes me as odd since he is usually defending his actions as being meaningful baddie hunting. I also don't recall him giving any reasons for Nicodemus being a third choice (or 2nd wagon) on his scum list.

hey bzar

lol my posts on being buds, like i said, sometimes i post to have fun, like i don't post everything to be taken totally seriously

i can understand why you and others think that

like i said earlier normally i would have removed my vote if i felt Samuel responded well to pressure but i cant do that here

that said i don't regret my action, my move would not have as effective if i didn't back it up with the perm vote

[NurseWilgy]

miss me?

Always.

[SmashKings]

also on nicodemus he makes no effort to scum hunt and all he has said is over and over that he does not trust me

that on its own is fine but it is weird since i obv could have been an easy target today

[SmashKings]

As I mentioned earlier, I have a better understanding of Paul's tactics now. I have no read on him or anyone because I don't read people well. All I'm saying is give Paul's suspicions a go today and see what happens. If he's wrong, hopefully he'll dial it back a notch until we can get some empirical evidence. I never said anything about lynching him if he's wrong, just getting him to turn the dial back off of 11.

this is scummy, like, why can't you come up with your own opinions on who is scum

it should be obv that when I am speaking that everything that comes out onto the page is my opinion and that I am not infallible so I don't mean to sound like i am

i just like to be assertive at times b/c it gets more telling reactions

also you said something about never knowing whether i am serious with a suspicion or not

don't you always have that question about anyone if you are town? anyone could be lying to you about a suspicion at any time

[SmashKings]

More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Tbh I am sock playing when I speak some of the time, but the point I keep trying to make was Paul was rubbing me the wrong way by not how he was talking, but how was he acting when he posted. I was also fishing for reactions when I mentioned so what if that is how I really talk or not? I think it's interesting some of the responses of wanting me lynched just for how I talk and saying I'm annoying. I think if anyone talks differently than normal, that's the point of a sock game to have mystery to everyone's usernames. I think we should focus on finding Heathens and less on if someone seems like a new player or how they speak, dears.

why do you still not issue any opinions on anyone

this is super scummy

[NurseWilgy]

More:

If Martha's "hunnies" are sockplay (I didn't get the reference, tbh, I'm not that knowledgeable), then I'm fine with it. Sockplay is fine by me.

Tbh I am sock playing when I speak some of the time, but the point I keep trying to make was Paul was rubbing me the wrong way by not how he was talking, but how was he acting when he posted. I was also fishing for reactions when I mentioned so what if that is how I really talk or not? I think it's interesting some of the responses of wanting me lynched just for how I talk and saying I'm annoying. I think if anyone talks differently than normal, that's the point of a sock game to have mystery to everyone's usernames. I think we should focus on finding Heathens and less on if someone seems like a new player or how they speak, dears.

This pings me more than anything you have said so far. I took your "hunny"-ing as in character role playing (although I did find it annoying) but I wouldn't expect you to back down from it the second a hint of suspicion comes your way. You have taken no votes and no one has said they are seriously considering voting for you. To cave in under such light suspicion seems like a hair trigger to me, and I find that suspect.

[SmashKings]

new scum list

1. Martha
2. nicodemus
3. Samson
4. balaam
5. Samuel

however it is hard to say atm

i am not sure how i feel about lot anymore, he seems cool to me

all of these 5 players are not really scumhunting

Samson's move almost seems too scummy to be true, its really weird to me

i know my original pressure to Samuel was a joke but I want to see more from him