Canucklehead wrote:TH, my thoughts on Blooper are that she has been posting just enough (both in terms of frequency and content) so that she seems involved but distracted, but without ever really saying everything. If you read through her posts, they're all a bunch of summaries, gestures towards other people's thoughts, banal statements, and not much input of her own. She never addressed my initial prodding of her/call out of her lack of posting (which was odd since many other people commented on the jokey/over the top language of the post, many thinking I was possibly cursed), yet as soon as her name comes up as a suspect, rather than just a low poster, she's instantly available to address llama's suspicions and modify her behaviour. That, coupled with her supremely blendy behaviour and her record of latching on to llama's Vomps suspicion early and sticking unquestioningly with it, seems vote worthy to me. Read her posts. They're a beautiful example of seeming involved without doing/saying anything that could possibly be controversial or draw an eye.
Let me get a few things out of the way first that I have said multiple times in a bit more detail. I have mentioned that I have been extremely busy, and with what little time I've had to actually play mafia, I was very invested in the Game of Champions. Unfortunately for Mongoose (and I'm sorry I hadn't put as much effort in the beginning, almighty hostess!), this game began in the middle of that, and I had signed up for this one during a lull period at work (AKA not working), not knowing that Christmas is also a lull period for mafia and that it goes nuts again in January, as does work. So, by the time I died in GoC, and hadn't paid enough attention in this game, I was hanging on by strings in what I knew was going on here, and voting by what I understood and could see easily (AKA behavior). This was especially easy with the Vomps vote because his playing in this game was EXTREMELY similar to a game I'd actually played with him when he was bad (AYBS?). I thought he was bad, and I got to stick with it during a busy time. This assumption, quite unfortunately, turned out to be false.
Second point: I summarize what people say for my own benefit as well as letting others that I'm trying to participate. By the time I get to respond, since I don't leave work until 5 most days, several different conversations have already passed where I could have responded more uniquely had I been around, but was not able to do so. I agree or disagree with what I see.
Third point: My response to llama was in response to you, as well, Canuck, about my inactivity. In fact, my last post was mostly addressed to your concerns about it. If I missed an earlier one, that was due to, well, my inactivity. I apologize if I came across as ignoring you (that totally wasn't my intention!)
Canucklehead wrote:Just to add to my above Blooper comments, the only suspects she's stated all game are Vomps (zany player), Rico (new and seemingly super adaptable player), and Made (zany player). These are the absolute PERFECT suspects for a baddie to stick to, because they are so easily justifiable if they flip civ. They're easy votes, and they're easy to use as a shield of consistency, and they're easy to explain away if and when they flip civ.
Blooper hasn't had a single vote-related suspicion, or a single association-related suspicion, or a single suspicion based on anything other than zany-ness or newbie-ness. It's bizarre, for a player as smart as she is.
linki: oops. I thought you asked for the case on Blooper?? But maybe that was MM.....
True about the first two suspects, false about Made. I had mentioned at least on three occasions that while others have re-read him as possibly bad, I have said he is his "normal zany self" with a touch of busyness. Civ. Not bad.
In response to Dom's inquiry, I still suspect Rico, but I'm feeling bad about making him feel bad - he's playing an AWESOME game, and I don't want him to think it could only be attributed to outside help, but it's one major thing to go on. And now, at the risk of a No U, I'm feeling itchy about Canuck - she seems extremely keen to get me lynched, and partially doing so by falsifying my opinions. And if you want something besides "behavior" (since apparently that's looked down upon), she's also voted for three Civs in three Civ lynches. But if that garners no support, I'll likely go with my Rico suspicion.
I appreciate that I'm a "dangerous" baddie
But I am not so in this game. I would be playing a horrid and sloppy baddie game in my opinion.
Linki @ SVS - I have seen no such defending except my own.
Hope that answers your question, but I'm happy to clarify (probably tomorrow, if I survive).
