Glorfindel wrote:OK, thanks for the consideration of allowing me to address my technical issues. I'm afraid Dom that I could not reply to you earlier. My keyboard gave up the ghost and would only work intermittently and it took ages to type anything. I was at work on a break when I sent that last message and as much as I'd have wanted to reply to you, it simply wasn't going to happen - I appreciate your patience.
Basically, I agree with what's been said already - the well of newer players being Mafia has dried up. On the law of averages, you'd have to assume that there are one or two more experienced players involved as part of the Mafia families.
On that note, some time ago I was playing a Mafia game where (as Town) I'd concocted this theory on the guilt of one of my fellow players based on their use of certain punctuation in their posts. I was absolutely convinced of their guilt and put my case to the rest of the players in that game. Needless to say I got laughed out of town and rightly so, I was completely wrong. Now please don't misunderstand me here - I fully respect the ability of each and everyone of you, my fellow players and in particular S-V-S. I know we had that run-in early on over my post that you thought was too carefully worded. I think that case was pretty thin (more so than the one I described above) and what's more, it was wrong.
I found your argument with Golden interesting and for better or worse, I think his judgement is pretty good from all accounts (after all, you don't win all those Socky's for nothing). And then, in the dying shadows of dawn, you started accusing me again. You said that you would vote for me because I am not direct in answering questions - and that may be true. I do the best I can to contribute fully and respect each and everyone of you in the face (sometimes) of some considerable provocation. You would do well not to misjudge me for that.
In terms of my vote right now, I think it will be S-V-S. I have an open mind and if someone comes up with a better case before tomorrow morning, I'll happily consider it.
[/quote]
Thank you.
OK, so you suspected me because of the early suspicion I had of you.
You are misconstruing what I said. I said that I suspected you for how carefully you answered someone elses wuestion, writing a big long post to say you trusted Zebra, and then you had to be poked before you would list a suspicion, and you worded it ever so carefully~ it was Matt, the person who suspected Zebra. I suspected you for, not only how carefully you answered, but WHAT you answered. You keep implying it was becasue it was too careful, and I keep correcting you. Same thing as the more recent thoughts on you; you keep saying it is BECAUSE of the comparison with Star Wars, but it is actually becasue of your content. You keep couching it in the terms of Star Wars, not the rest of us.
For me, misconstruing the cases against you are a very big bad tell and it has nothing to do with Meta.
Did anything ever come of your suspicion of Matt, btw? Have you moved past that?
And you also suspect me for suspecting you of being selective & evasive, yes? Well, that still holds true. I would hope you had some suspicions that were not self referential. All of the reasons you had for suspecting me have to do with me suspecting YOU.
And I did see this post, from what you said, I thought there was another one, this one reads like a summary. So sorry for badgering you.
Golden wrote:I think SVS might be a good judge.
At first I was not sure, but either he has been super careful, or he is not a baddie. I don't think he has been particularly careful, so
I am not planning on voting for him.
. Basically for two reasons:
