[END] Avant-Garde Mafia 2

#201

Anyone who votes for themselves is up to something, that much is a given. I know I haven't posted much, but that is only because I don't really have much to say. As soon as I think of something useful to add, I will post like a madman.

#202

These posts have not helped chaindeath in the slightest. So much blame and hate being thrown around... Chaindeath is; however, very thankful for the player by the name of Illyria for summing up suspicions and discussions, bringing up all the major topics in one continent posts. It has helped put his mind at ease. (He has read them) Though he has not arrived at any definite conclusions...

Chaindeath has completed post one of three.

#203

*giggles*

You are welcome Chaindeath. Do you speak of yourself in the 3rd person all the time, or are you trying to role play here?

I cant stop laughing at my continent post. I guess it is better than the alternative.

What? I have the maturity of a 12 year old. Sue me.

#204

DharmaHelper wrote:Thoughts:

INH's quickness to finish the task and finish it first (sloppily I might add) pings me something fierce. I am reminded of a game we played together where there was a similar posting "contest" (wouldn't call this a contest, just an incentive to talk). He REALLY tried hard to win it, breaking the actual rules of the contest in the process (he posted some off topic nonsense to boost his post count). At the time, I was doing pretty well in the contest as well and I was pretty much a confirmed civvie. His trying so hard to beat me set off bells all over the place and it turns out he was Doc Ock (Baddie).

So, that's where I'm at with INH. It wasn't a contest, it was just an incentive to post 3 times with 3 sentences over 48 hours. Him rushing to complete it and completely ignoring the three sentence rule for some of his posts makes me look in his direction.

Vompatti caught onto this just as I did, and rabbit claimed that it wasn't all that suspicious. For rabbit not to realize that something as odd as what INH did might not even be the slightest bit pingy also pings me. Rabbit dismissed it outright, which I don't think is fair, especially on Day 1. Rabbit also called out Epignosis for not posting alongside his poll vote. He called it a "baddie move". Now, I dunno Epignosis but lets compare:

Rushing to complete an ambiguous challenge, ignoring the rules of the challenge, and bending the rules of the challenge - Not remotely suspect.

Voting in a Day 0 poll without posting - Baddie move.

Bit of a leap.

ADDED: Seems rabbit was just "messing" With Epignosis. But LT apparently wasn't when she agreed that it might look like a baddie move. Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Oh now SVS is explaining the "Drive-By" thing. I dunno if "Drive-By" voting applies to a Day 0 poll. I mean really, my reason for voting the Sun was nonsense, so it wouldn't have mattered if I posted it or not.

Also, Leech's voting for him/herself and refusing to post more than 3 posts on topic pinged me. Might be an excuse to scrape the bare minimum and then fall into the shadows. Nobody would expect a baddie McBadderson to vote for themselves day 1...

And it seems theres quite a bit of discussion about secrets, alot of back and forth and again rabbit is kicking the cages.

My head is thinking a vote for INH or rabbit. Granted, I know both of them more than I know half of the folks playing, so Might be I am biased a bit.

Ok, I wasn't sure if I would be around, so I just took care of the challenge so I didn't have to worry about it. I missed one detail on MP's post, but how does that translate into bad? Wtf do you mean by 'bending the rules', also? And you didn't mention my response to Vompatti either. The example you used, I don't think is valid. As you stated, that was a competition, not what's happening right now, which is a means to measure inactivity, and to inspire discussion.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:As of right now these are my top 3 suspicions after reading back, in no particular order:

Lastly is INH. I remember the posting challenge in Spider-Man that DH brought up, and that one reeked of something fishy. The way he completed it so quickly and didn't really post anything of substance (even though it was technically on-topic) strikes me as not being genuine.

I would like to hear more from these 3 people justifying their actions. Because whichever one gives the worst defense is probably the one I will vote for, as right now I would be equally comfortable with voting for any of these 3.

See, THIS is how you end a posting challenge! :P

Once again, I wasn't sure if I would be able to post late. As for the substance, I'm not 100% sure what you mean, I was talking about what the Day 0 poll could have meant. The last sentence I posted was a joke, if that's what's bothering you.

Right now my biggest suspect is Leech, his odd post reeked of bad to me. How many games of mafia has he played even? I think he could just be an inexperienced baddie.

I am typing this on my iPad, so I imagine there may be a few spelling/grammar/sanity issues, and I apologise.

#205

I meant the crazy double triple quadruple posting, INH. Like you were treating it like a contest. Also the posts you made that were not 3 sentences long. That's what set off bells in my head that made me recall JLvA

#206

DharmaHelper wrote:I meant the crazy double triple quadruple posting, INH. Like you were treating it like a contest. Also the posts you made that were not 3 sentences long. That's what set off bells in my head that made me recall JLvA

I didn't mean to treat it like a contest, and the short posts were a result of me misreading the instructions saying each post had to be 3 sentences long.

#207

Is it still day 1?

Sorry I've been so absent - I have a busy life and oft forget to even check.

On topic, though, I don't really see the harm in INM haste in completing the challenge. He wanted to get it done with it, that's all.

#208

Ah, I forgot "day 1" was technically a 2-day period.

Been a while since my last mafia, heh.

#209

I agree, of all the suspish floating right now, I think INH trying to complete a posting requirement ASAP makes total sense.

I have to reread and catch up to the thread.

#210

Kate wrote:
Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

I had a similar line of thought as well

Vompatti wrote:
I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.

This sounds like a pretty valid "defense" to the concerns initially directed at him. I think the bigger concern, however, about vomps is that he actually makes a bit of sense posting this game. Clearly not in character.

DharmaHelper - "a bit of a leap" is an understatement

lemme read more see what else I got.

#211

I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.

#212

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.

Who, me?

#213

Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.

No way no how would any host try to limit posting. I would not interpret his posting requirement that way.

Leech, I really want to hear from you, regardless of this post.

#214

Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here. I will try to add more smilies this weekend; I should have enough time to.

#215

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here.

Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"

#216

Kate wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here.
Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"

LOL

I am going to promise myself, if I ever find the perfect time to start an event by posting exactly what I did above, I will.

#217

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Kate wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here.
Haha! I totally thought this was the beginning of some event. "The eye"
LOL

I am going to promise myself, if I ever find the perfect time to start an event by posting exactly what I did above, I will.

Awesome event!

#218

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.

ture

#219

Do you guys say "ture" on purpose? Because this is bothering the anal grammarian in me, and if it is a "thing" I will just ignore it.

#220

Kate wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.
Who, me?

Sorry it wasn't really clear, I meant that as a continuation of my previous post, so I was directing that at Dharma

S~V~S wrote:Do you guys say "ture" on purpose? Because this is bothering the anal grammarian in me, and if it is a "thing" I will just ignore it.

flase

#221

#222

#223

Sorry for not checking in earlier. Me being sick could have something to do with it. I suppose it's not too late to prevent myself from getting punished?

#224

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Kate wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.
Who, me?
Sorry it wasn't really clear, I meant that as a continuation of my previous post, so I was directing that at Dharma

S~V~S wrote:Do you guys say "ture" on purpose? Because this is bothering the anal grammarian in me, and if it is a "thing" I will just ignore it.
flase

Ture.

Also Vomps is a liar k

#225

Has Leech himself said anything in defense of his self vote? Sorry. Just got home from a long day and am catching up. Blurgh.

#226

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Illyria wrote:
Really? We need some suspicious and eye smileys please!

The eye is here. I will try to add more smilies this weekend; I should have enough time to.

You are the bestest!

LoRab wrote:Has Leech himself said anything in defense of his self vote? Sorry. Just got home from a long day and am catching up. Blurgh.

Not that I know of LoRab, though I wish he would. For real.

#227

I think INH's attempt to get the requirement over quickly was quite understandable, I thought of doing that myself. To me it reads more as an attempt to avoid punishment for not posting enough than anything else.

I think I'm leaning Leech right now. He's basically established that he can't respond to any questions directed at him (unless he gives up the "no more than 3 posts, 3 sentences bit), which does seem a bit convenient for avoiding further prodding. I am also looking at Vompatti for his defense of Leech, but I maintain that his suspiciousness in this scenario hinges on Leech being bad. Thus, Leech is my primary suspect atm.

#228

AND I just want to mention that Illy was my team leader in my very first Mafia game, so I'm glad to be playing with her again!

#229

I must admit that I am a little behind on this game. At a glance, I am weary of Leech's posts about the secrets and whatnot. I also agree with DH's post about INH being uber aggressive in getting the challenge done...sloppily. I will properly catch up tomorrow before the vote.

Ive been use to playing in one average sized game at a time. I haven't played in multiple games in a while. Now I'm in a small game, an average size game, and a big game. Bear with me...plus, there are tons of new people (to me) in this game so it will take some time for me to get into the swing of things, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in that regard.

#230

LoRab wrote:Has Leech himself said anything in defense of his self vote? Sorry. Just got home from a long day and am catching up. Blurgh.

He conveniently picked to approach the challenge in a way that is not only slightly baffling but also prevents him from defending himself at all.

also,

Anders Johan Ture Rangström (30 November 1884 – 11 May 1947) belonged to a new generation of Swedish composers who in the first decade of the 20th century introduced modernism to their compositions. In addition to composing, Rangström was also a musical critic and conductor.

#231

I assume I am in the clear, then. I'll try to check in more often, as I don't want to fall behind. Speaking of The Fall, I both love and am intimidated by the size of their work, since I want to listen to it all but never have enough time.

#232

DFaraday wrote:AND I just want to mention that Illy was my team leader in my very first Mafia game, so I'm glad to be playing with her again!

Great Muppety Odin that's right!! I forgot, awww. Good times.

#233

I thought at first Leech's post was typical Jase. I'm not saying I completely agree with the idea behind it - but it's tempting especially to newer players. (And not one I've not contemplated a 1000 times.)

The defenses of him seem one sided to those who are newer to mafia and are just trying to figure things out and those players who are more seasoned. (and by trying to figure things out - I mean - a one time player of a sock game. We have some seasoned members who heard stories, but never played a sock game. I can understand the newer player's paranoia even when it is faulty) I'm fairly sure there are crossed wires going on here.

If anyone can show me someone "defending Leech for crazy he gets powers if lynched wierd protect move" from someone from the mafia home, I'm totes willing to look there. I'm more leary of jumping on the newer peeps as they have not mostly played as many games as we have. (it's funny though cuz they have payed only sock games.) :nods:

Also - I found myself - agreeing all the time with TEEEFIES! It's like you KNEW I missed you!!! I concur btw - that's how you make an ontopic post. I'm so very sad my post was not as epic as yours.

#234

also -DF - I don't find name all that suspish either for wanting to get the posting requirements out of the way - he tends to be easily distracted. and also fine just flaunt it. everyone but me has had bts with the goddess. fine. my love burns unadorned. it's the lot i bear.

who was it again jumping on name for wanting to get it out of the way?

#235

I don't think Leech counts as a new player, he just has a new username.

#236

Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?

It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?

How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.

#237

bea wrote:I thought at first Leech's post was typical Jase. I'm not saying I completely agree with the idea behind it - but it's tempting especially to newer players. (And not one I've not contemplated a 1000 times.)

Wait. Leech is JASON from TP??

#238

Illyria wrote:
bea wrote:I thought at first Leech's post was typical Jase. I'm not saying I completely agree with the idea behind it - but it's tempting especially to newer players. (And not one I've not contemplated a 1000 times.)
Wait. Leech is JASON from TP??

I don't know who the hell that is, I think bea meant that it reminded her of typical Jase (whoever the hell that is).

#239

I've played about two and a half games total over the span of about two years. I was the Phuncky Feel One.

#240

Leech wrote:I've played about two and a half games total over the span of about two years. I was the Phuncky Feel One.

Riight. Okay. Well Jason from TP was a famous self voter on day one which would have helped me understand your choice but nope. That's not you.

So I am back to..

#241

Err...I was expecting more than 1 person to have voted thus far to help make my decision easier!! I don't wanna vote someone based on their screen-name and I don't think enough information has been presented to make a logical vote. I see the logic behind the "self-vote" and I also see where some suspicions may arise...but I don't think it's enough to call them a baddie and lynch them, especially since they just made an attempt to explain their reasoning. I am concerned at how seriously they seem to have taken the discussion that's going on. Now we can raise more suspicion based on that: Either they are a baddie and they're doing everything they can to make it seem like a sound decision or they are a civvie and they're seriously pissed off that their conservative self-vote strategy isn't working the way they hoped.

"...All I know is my gut says Maybe..."

#242

Illyria wrote:
Leech wrote:I've played about two and a half games total over the span of about two years. I was the Phuncky Feel One.
Riight. Okay. Well Jason from TP was a famous self voter on day one which would have helped me understand your choice but nope. That's not you.

So I am back to..

So a famous self-voter on day one can casually exist, and many people (included bea who you quoted just now) have admitted to self-voting before or at least having considered doing so.

If you're up for it Illyria, what's your case for self-voting as a baddie move?

#243

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Kate wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.
Who, me?
Sorry it wasn't really clear, I meant that as a continuation of my previous post, so I was directing that at Dharma

S~V~S wrote:Do you guys say "ture" on purpose? Because this is bothering the anal grammarian in me, and if it is a "thing" I will just ignore it.
flase
Ture.

Also Vomps is a liar k

Why/how?

#244

Leech wrote:
Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?
It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?
How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?
You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.

I'm not sure how explaining it was your third post helps. It was less than 24 hours into the day and there was still plenty of time for discussion. I understand early votes if you have a strong suspicion or you will be away, but you were in a hurry to vote yourself? That's odd IMO

I don't have right now to address all your points and I'm on the iPad but nice no u. Srsly? I'm suspish for pointing out a suspicion instead of making a lazy vote 12hours into the day? Yea, ok...

#245

I will not be in much today until after Day 1 has ended as my fiance and I will be meeting people at various wedding venues all day

so I will have to make my vote now just in case I am not back in time.

I was hoping to have more to go on by now but, alas I do not

At this point Leech just seems like a civie trying not to use his vote on another civie. But, I don't know.
With nothing else to go on and no one going with or against my earlier theory about locations benefiting teams, I am going to cast my vote based on that. I REALLY don't like the Residents after Avant 1 (puking tounges and all) and my theory is that the Residents would have benefited from the supposed Pluto portal. So I am going to cast my vote for Boomslang because he was the first to jump on the wagon to Pluto. This is purely because I have nothing else to go on and I won't have a lot of time today so I am REALLY sorry if I am wrong.

#246

I find myself kind of in your camp, Devin. That whole "Residents" thing totally deterred me from Pluto. Did any of the Pluto voters also play Avant 1?

I have to catch up here today, I am woefully behind. Three games and a rough week at work (all the weird crap the people in our branches hide under their desks all year cause they don't know WTF to do with it HAS to get submitted by 12/31, so the first week of the year I, literally, have a desk full of misery) have led me to fall behind in two of three games, and this is one of them.

#247

Less than 8 hours to go and there are 13 players who have not yet fulfilled the challenge.

#248

bah - sorry for causing the confusion. I ment that leech's behavior reminded me of jason not that he was jason. Though, thank you for pointing out that you were plucky on the other site Leech. I'm trying to keep everyone straight in my head. *blush* I have no idea where my vote is going today. I may random if I can't decide.

#249

Kate wrote:
Leech wrote:
Kate wrote:Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day?
It was my third post. In fact first let me make it clear that the only reason I'm posting again is that I'm now convinced that not providing an argument could get me lynched, which is a worse punishment (probably) than anything Sock could conjure up. If I had known that post (and the vote) would've sparked up THIS many damn suspicions, I wouldn't have made it. It was my third post, and I didn't want to be the guy that votes without posting. Paranoid? I honestly still don't think so. Like someone said for a different context, it's a Sock game, thus anything could happen. A sneaky trick like the one I mentioned certainly wouldn't be outside the possibility of a game I would ever host, and I don't think Sock's any different.

Kate wrote:if it weren't for I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move?
How do you expect me to respond to this sensibly if you refuse to get into a discussion about random voting? First off, self-voting isn't even random voting in the first place, it's situational, and to me I find it far less suspicious from any standpoint than an actual randomizer. You could make a case that I would agree with that self-voting is lazy voting, but suspicious? Although I've seen a lot of posts saying that my action was suspicious, I didn't read a single one explaining to me how, and instead demanded I make an explanation. If the suspicion stems from me putting myself in a position where I supposedly am shielded from defending myself, for one, I didn't think I would have to defend myself in the first place, and for another, that's now void. I ask you now Kate, how exactly was my move baddielicious. If you still don't want a random voting discussion, then to me you're in the same boat you tried to put me in about attempting to dodge responsibility in defense. That is unless you convince me without a discussion on that, unlikely, because I honestly don't understand why anyone considers self-voting suspicious, especially on Day 1, early, when I have no one else to be suspicious to.

Kate wrote:You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?
You're spinning this because "voting a known civvie" carries a bad connotation and "voting for yourself", what I did, doesn't. At all. The reason why is because when you self-vote, you don't make a case for why anyone else should make the same vote, and thus you're not trying to get the civvie lynched. The purpose of self-voting is to just VOTE, when you have no other suspicions. Not only do I find a randomizer not the better option, to me it's a more suspicious action. Two baddies on the same team can claim to use a randomizer and "coincidentally" end up with the same player who's not on their team or a civvie, getting him or her lynched.

I feel like you consciously believe that it's not a suspicious move (after all, a lot of people admitted to considering it (and doing it) themselves after my action became a hot topic), which sparks my suspicions for you. Add that to the fact that there was a good space between my post and yours and no one else found it suspicious enough to say so. You were the first to speak bad about it, and by doing so you created a freak chain of spotlight which sparked other people's suspicions because if I'm not mistaken your "suspicions" of me (that is, again, if you actually find my move suspicious) was the first stated suspicion of anyone there was. Baddie move? I won't make that conclusion this early but it seems very strange to me.

As for addressing vomps' unwarranted defense of me, I've got nothing. lol. Trying to explain why I think it's not weird would only increase your suspicions that we're on the same team, and in addition it would be dishonest, because I do think it was a strange defense, and it brought up a bunch of weird possibilities that to me don't even seem possible for a Day 1 situation, such as the whole forced to self-vote by a Mafia idea, which I don't subscribe to, although I guess it's not for me to say.
I'm not sure how explaining it was your third post helps. It was less than 24 hours into the day and there was still plenty of time for discussion. I understand early votes if you have a strong suspicion or you will be away, but you were in a hurry to vote yourself? That's odd IMO

I don't have right now to address all your points and I'm on the iPad but nice no u. Srsly? I'm suspish for pointing out a suspicion instead of making a lazy vote 12hours into the day? Yea, ok...

The reason I said I didn't want to talk about random votes was twofold. 1. It's irrelevant to your self vote and 2. That discussion derails thread and gets people off track of the point at hand. Is that your intention is insisting to delve into it?

#250

Leech's defense does help to an extent, but I'm still looking at him. INH doesn't strike me as suspect right now, and DH I never have a read on. I'll be back in awhile to make my final decision, but I'm still leaning Leech or, less likely, Vomp.

Who killed Boomslang?