Mini 778 - Inventor Mafia (OVER)

[LunaLouise]

vote: LeakingGoofball

for having the most characters in his name.

[LunaLouise]

Excuse me....

for having the most characters in their name.

[LunaLouise]

Yep, I'm going to have to agree that the one to peek and poke is the one to die.

During the day phase, you nominate someone to test out the contraption that you have built. Safety is not guaranteed. In fact, it's highly doubted that you could ever survive.

[LunaLouise]

In other news, what happened to, about say 5 people. I'm sure this was a 12 player game. Speak up.

I have been quiet while trying to make sense of all the ad hominem in this game. I haven't been in a game with any of you and all the personal opinions on who to lynch just because of their playing style is very confusing to me. It clouds my ability to tell awkward moves from personal animosity.

Out of interest does anybody not want an Empking or zwet lynch?

I don't for obvious reasons. I don't know Empking or Zwetschenwasser and I don't support lynching them for their game play. In general rhetoric; if you don't like how a person plays, why opt into a game with them ? I'm sure there are enough game around to avoid certain players ?

Also, what does everyone think of AceMarksman's fumble regarding box instructions?

Just to note; this is a leading question. I don't like leading questions.

It's a nice discussion. I see why AceMarksman is adamant against claiming box colour, but I think AceMarksman might have gotten himself in a sticky spot persuing semioldguy.

After reading the game instaructions again, semioldguy backs out of wanting a claim in 114 and 116. By keeping the discussion going AceMarksman gets himself in a situation that needs explaining afterwards. I can't tell whether he is sincere in 141 and 146 or fabricating to fit.

[LunaLouise]

Oh, and

Unvote

[LunaLouise]

I can't blame Darox. My eyebrows almost disappeared this morning when seeing ZEEnon's vote.

[LunaLouise]

I can't blame Darox. My eyebrows almost disappeared this morning when seeing ZEEnon's vote.

Why?

Are you more bothered about Darox's vote on AceMarksman than on ZEEnon ? Darox already gave an explanation. Since you are asking me and AceMarksman is asking Darox at the same time, I'll give Darox room to sort it out himself first, so as to prevent me from answering for Darox. Ask me again later if need be.

As for why Darox voted ZEEnon, I agree with Darox that ZEEnon jumped on AceMarksman for no good reason. semioldguy's reminder does not constitute a catch by any standard in my opinion. And I was surprised to see that ZEEnon thought it does and found it enough reason to vote.

I don't seem to be the only one either;

Good catch? I was just hoping to see his post by pointing out he still needed to do it.

Why are people voting AceMarksman, him forgetting to post doesn't mean anything unless he actually doesn't post it at all

[LunaLouise]

I can't blame Darox. My eyebrows almost disappeared this morning when seeing ZEEnon's vote.

Why?

Are you more bothered about Darox's vote on AceMarksman than on ZEEnon ? Darox already gave an explanation. Since you are asking me and AceMarksman is asking Darox at the same time, I'll give Darox room to sort it out himself first, so as to prevent me from answering for Darox. Ask me again later if need be.

So you want Darox to answer for you?

No, I don't. I am very happy to answer questions myself.

But unless I misunderstand, you were asking me why I think I understand why Darox voted like he did. I am happy to answer that question (and I already did on the ZEEnon part of the vote), but since AceMarksman is questioning Darox on his vote on AceMarksman, I don't want to propose my own explanation prematurely while doing so gives Darox a way out in case he ends up not having an explanation himself.

I may believe I am right, but I also believe I am fallible and before I give anyone a way out, I would like to exercise some caution to prevent myself from ruining a possible opportunity of gaining some interesting new information.

As said, as soon as AceMarksman is happy with Darox's answer I would be happy to revisit the subject with you. Until such time I'll keep my opinion to myself. And really.... it's not that hard to figure out what happened, just look at the two posts !

[LunaLouise]

LunaLouise--
(...)
Last Post: Days ago
Activity Level: Low-Mediocre

Consider me prodded. Didn't expect to be on the weekend however, but after a read-through of the rules I see that weekends are indeed not excluded in the 72 hours activity count. I would have notified you of Labour Day weekend if I had realised this earlier.

Expect a catch-up post tomorrow.

[LunaLouise]

Expect a catch-up post tomorrow.

...You quoted me, for a post on this page.

That seems fairly caught up to me...

No, quoting you shows nothing besides that I read along. Catching up is analysing what I have missed and answering open questions.

(...) Luna, who do you suspect?

Overview here;

AceMarksman

says in post 213 he has suspected Darox all along, but the only thing he has to substantiate that is an IGMEOY on Darox in post 40. He has been on Darox's case as much as on semioldguy's. Not particularly convincing and not very smart to use that as argument.


Post 233 of Tarhalindur is a good observation;

The reason you stated for you vote when you voted Darox was that he failed to answer a question; furthermore, you said in that post that you would unvote Darox if he answered your question: (...)

I have difficulty seeing how this is consistent with VOTING Darox because you think he's scum. (...) Because your stated reason for voting was to force Darox to answer a question, NOT because you thought he was scum (it may have been A reason, but it was not the STATED reason).

FoS: AceMarksman

Darox

spouts a lot of ad hominem, but no inconsistency as far as I can see in isolation.

Can't tell

Empking

from the two lines max. in any given post that are directed at multiple people. Would like him to be more argumentative and substantial.

As Tarhalindur said in 203, nothing from

Farside22

but defense. She promised to post more, but so far I don't see anything that leads me to believe that she is interested in Scum hunting.

Kabenon007/Mastin

: Need more time and posts to assess his play.

LeakingGoofball

has been posting enough to not seep through the cracks and finally posted content in his/her/its last post. Would be nice if the latter continued and the earlier stopped.

semioldguy

must be content with where his vote is (on AceMarksman) since his suggested flavour claim, since he is not actively hunting. Something I am watching him for.

Tarhalindur

and

ZazieR

seem to be the only ones genuinely questioning and hunting.


But...

What's your reason for not mentioning my post, while I also used 'seem'?

Strange that you only attack Ace for 'backtracking', but not me or Farside for her post as I already said. Why's that?

Maybe yours didn't feel nearly as wishy-washy as his did.

Or, I decided that now wasn't the time to bring up that post.

One of these is true. Probably. I'll elaborate on which later.

Probably ? What ?? I don't know what or why you are trying to hide, but I don't like it.

Saying that you would rather not say something because it will influence the person you are looking into is one thing, but speaking in riddles while stating that they might or might not be true is purposeful misleading.

MFoS: Tarhalindur

ZEEnon

I am sad to see go, since I have not learnt anything on him besides that he dislikes policy lynches and can't or won't explain his eyebrows raising vote on AceMarksman. Just when you think you might have spotted Scum, he is replaced out ! No fair.

[LunaLouise]

And a notice;

I will be on V/LA 15th through 25th of May due to a trip to the Fatherland. Will have laptop with me, will put in an effort to stay with you. Posts may be short.

Noted.

[LunaLouise]

It's not fair, because one can not reasonably expect the replacement to say anything about his predecessor's play with certainty. It will for them just as much of a guess as it is for us. Hence unresolved question.

And, why, oh why, didn't I notice you being the last in my pull-down menu, zwetschenwasser ? Work is calling, but I will write about you too, later on.

[LunaLouise]

And, why, oh why, didn't I notice you being the last in my pull-down menu, zwetschenwasser ? Work is calling, but I will write about you too, later on.

I feel unloved.

No need, hun. Here you go;

zwetschenwasser

is very passive. He is responsive and votes based on argumentation of others, but there is no active inquisitiveness from him.

I think that "obfuscating" would be a better choice of words than "misleading", but that's a minor nitpick. Yes, I'm trying to hide my actual meaning. That's kinda the POINT - I'm hiding something and being very open about it: specifically, I'm unwilling to reveal my thoughts on Zazie's post at this time, because bringing it up now would ruin its potential effectiveness.

Obfuscating is indeed a better word than misleading, couldn't think of it at the time (non-native speaker and all that).

But that is not what irked me. As I said in my quote (or was trying to say);

Saying that you would rather not say something because it will influence the person you are looking into is one thing, but speaking in riddles while stating that they might or might not be true is purposeful [obfuscating].

The way you wrote your reply to ZazieR you made it sound like you noticed her way of writing before she brought it up and you found it to be wishy-washy all along;

Maybe yours

didn't feel

nearly as wishy-washy as his did.

Or,

I decided

that now wasn't the time to bring up that post.

One of these is true. Probably. I'll elaborate on which later.

Past tense. Something that had already happened.

I gave you the MFos because I don't see why you have to be as obfuscating as you were. The way you wrote that suggests that you did feel it wasn't the time to bring it up. Because if it was simply a case of not finding it nearly as wishy-washy as AceMarksman's post, you probably just would have said that. Or there is a third reason ?

Why are you being more covert than you need to be ? Why are you not only making us guess at what you are thinking, but also making us guess at why you are hiding things ? Not good in my opinion.

[LunaLouise]

Past tense. Something that had already happened..

Does that matter?

Yes. Like I said in the post you quoted, by writing in the past tense Tarhalindur emphasised that he noticed ZazieR's way of writing before she brought it up and that he found it to be wishy-washy all along. That in turn suggests that Tarhalindur didn't feel it was the time to bring it up, because if it was simply a case of not finding it nearly as wishy-washy as AceMarksman's post, he probably just would have said that.

[LunaLouise]

I have asked for a replacement.

Good luck to all of you.