dazza2008 wrote:betiko wrote:jimfinn wrote:Hey guys, sorry, I posted yesterday but apparently it didn't load? Anyway, I tested strikes claim and he was inno.

I'm getting pretty frustrated right now, but I'd like to keep playing and see if i can get anything useful.
lol, i got to say that is probably the worse person you could ve asked a report for... so you were not roleblocked, as i suggested.
I agree. Why did you not go for 1 of the guys everyone was suspisious of Jim?
unfortunately I will have to agree that jim's investigation did not help us in this instance. I can fully understand why he decided to investigate strike but ended up working against us. I am glad, though that jim is still interested in moving forward with us and I can undrstand his frustration. His result does also tell us that he was not roleblocked but I don't see how that really helps us out either
Coming back to my list then we have:
Leitz - claimed Sally One Way Lover
MoB Deadly - no claim
jimfinn - claim Cop
shieldgenerator7 replaced by
pancakemix - no claim
dazza2008 -Behemoth VT
trinicardinal - no claim
Epitaph1 - no claim
betiko - no claim
MeDeFe - no claim
chapcrap - no claim but considered to have softclaimed VT after the Rodion case
I'd say we would need to start by asking some questions of the people. highlighted in red. Those in green would be the secondary list
I'm going to start with PCM if only because he has replaced SG7 who was already seeming a bit scummy to me (although I understand this may be fairly normal for sg7)
either way since PCM came into the game his contributions were as follows (ignoring his confirmation):
pancakemix wrote:betiko wrote:Pancake will have the difficult task to read all this and to reincarnate a player that was very high on my suspect list.
Always a good sign.
Well, as far as that goes, I can say nothing in shield's defense. No other person I know has ever had such an aptitude for finding ways to screw himself up. I think other, more experienced voices would agree. He's on at least one foe list in this forum for his antics, I know for sure.
Now, on to game matters. As I was reading, this post kinda caught my attention.
dazza2008 wrote:Unvote Vote BG his defence has not sounded convincing to me and he sounds frustrated at being noticed so early. This case is a lot stronger than the betiko case. As BG said someone needs to get pressured and I think he is the best candidate for that now.
Two things about this post struck me as kind of odd:
1. Reasoning. It's pretty meh. "I wasn't convinced" and "It's stronger than the other case" don't mean anything (unless "stronger" means "has more votes on it", in which case that says quite a bit, now doesn't it?). These are just generic things to say about a vote to make it sound reasonable, and serve to keep the vote coming in for that person (and indirectly, that's what ended up getting BG lynched, following the Swifte diversion).
2. Placement. It's about fourth or fifth, which is well within the range of the "wagon window", as it were. This fits in pretty much with what I was saying with trying to get the votes rolling in.
Of course, dazza immediately backs off as soon as BG claims (despite the VT claim and with no source knowledge):
dazza2008 wrote:unvote I believe BG's claim. I have not seen the film but did a search to see what there was. It seems there has to be characters that are less common as there seems not to be too many. I found the one BG claimed and I can't see why he would not be VT.
..and latches immediately onto the next case that starts gaining some steam:
dazza2008 wrote:Swifte wrote:As far as trying to slip in to the background, I'm still right here, answering questions, and standing by my opinions untill I hear something better.
Well not really pal. You never commented on what chap and drunkmonkey said.
You have been very non-commital and do seem to be trying to look helpful without saying alot. This seems like the best case to me right now as I have already stated my reasons for believing BG's claim so
vote Swifte
...by not even making an effort to rehash things other people said:
drunkmonkey wrote:I think not only has Swifte been non-committal, but even in his case against BG, he uses a lot of words but doesn't really say a whole lot.
Again, backs off as soon after a claim.
dazza2008 wrote:unvote
Granted, it's the doc this time, but are you seeing a pattern here? Because it happened again with jimfinn.
dazza2008 wrote:Vote Jimfinn I find it very suspicious he only comes on when he recieved a vote and when he did he said nothing really. Seems he just wanted to appear active without getting involved.
dazza2008 wrote:unvote
So what I'm seeing here is a follow-the-leader game of trying to seem helpful and just riding the wave. That's scum play at its most basic.
As for the offering to hammer on the bomb, I'm calling shenanigans. Chap had already offered to hammer, so why bother saying you'd do it? Either you were skimming and didn't see the offer/request for him to claim or you were just trying to make yourself seem like a good little townie in a waving your arms and making lots of noise shouting "LOOK AT ME I'M TOWN!!!!1!!", and that's not something a townie would do.
Vote dazzaADDENDUM BEFORE POST: I wrote all of that before I reached lietz' case. I disagree with his assertion that dazza was flip-flopping, but I'll say he was either confident he wouldn't get blown up or confident he wouldn't be hammering.
And while I'm on that, I'm thinking Rodion's PM probably said he was a bomb to cause exactly the scenario that occurred.
pancakemix wrote:I unvoted BG because I know how he plays. We play mafia in our clan forum and from his game play I would never expect him to claim VT if he was scum on day 1. He would try something else in an attempt to survive. Scum claiming VT would normally get lynched.
I would say that generally any player wouldn't claim VT unless it was true. So that argument doesn't work. And guess what? It still got him lynched. Could it be that you knew for a fact that he was telling the truth? And without being psychic of breaking the rules, there's really only one option...
I did hop about from case to case. I never saw anything I could build a stronger case on so I joined in on the case I believed to be the strongest at the time. We never had a lot to go on so what do you want me to do? Just sit here doing nothing?
Well, instead of repeating verbatim what others said you could have added to the case or at least just said "X makes some good points on Y". Still follow-the-leader play, but a bit more discreet.
How on earth could I be confident I would not be blown up? If I was scum I would not have got involved.
Also how could I be confident Chap was going to hammer? I was in bed when the deadline passed and there is no way of me knowing chap would even be online. The only way I could be 100% sure he would hammer is if we were multis and he is in USA and I am in Scotland so thats not likely is it?
This whole case seems like scum trying to take off of a scum-mate.
The character was a clown. It made perfect sense that it was fake right there.I don't even know what you're trying to read into that. All you had to do was leave it for him to vote and that was it. I'm saying you offered to drop the hammer but you never actually intended to do it. Chap had already put forward that he would do it when you offered, making your offer useless.As I said, I had not read Lietz' and found it more scattered than anything else. I'm not backing up what he was saying; I came to my conclusion independently from his case.
pancakemix wrote:dazza2008 wrote:Leitz wrote:It's logical you'll find it a pretty weak case as it is a case on you! I've not played mafia for a long time, but I doubt anyone will ever say a case on themselves is a strong case. If you ask me, your defense & arguments are pretty weak.
What more do I need to say? I have claimed its up to you guys to decide if you believe it or not.
All the case is on me is that I offered to hammer after chap offered. I offered because I believed it was a fakeclaim. Maybe after chap offering I should have stayed quiet.
That is basically all your case is on me so what else can I say in defence of it?
That isn't true though. I still think your voting patterns are very telling of someone who's trying to slip through the cracks, and the offer to hammer looks like a move by someone who knows they haven't done much. Your actual contributions to the discussion have been negligible at best up until you became its subject. In my book that's more than just an iffy prospect. On top of that, your move to vote Lietz once the pressure starts lifting does you no favors, nor does your way of going about the move.
pancakemix wrote:Hmmm. I'm still not happy with dazza's responses. They just seem canned to me and I'm not buying it. As far as Lietz goes, I can't see anything beyond general newbieness in his arguments that would lead me to cast a vote (and to his credit, he did try to make a case, even if it wasn't up to snuff). Strike makes some good points on jonty, though I'd like to hear him weigh in on the case against him before I come to a conclusion there.
pancakemix wrote:I'm gonna go ahead and say jim's a lost cause at this point. Replacement would be nice there.
I'm pretty much of the opinion that MeDeFe is, and always will be, a slow talker when it comes to mafia games. He doesn't say much, but he say thoughtful things, and I always appreciate thoughtful posts. I'll wait for right now on that. No need to rush.
PCM was basically concentrating on dazza last day but as part of his case also quoted drunk but appears to be talking as if he was quoting dazza
it may be a small slip but it looks like it might be a slip anyway. I also find his speculation that Rodion's post said bomb when he was actually VT to be a bit far fetched and it looks like he is just using that to try to build the case against dazza.
for now FOS PCM. I'll try to look at the others soon
Fastposted btw