Mafia 104 - Dawg the Bounty Hunter - The Play

I scanned through real quick but I'm here for a while now so I can go back and read through what happened again. Before I do though, I want to comment about Pir.... holy crap, Pir.... that was quite an overreaction to some lightweight suspicion and a lousy vote from me. Regardless of which side you're on, you totally flipped out, overreacted, and brought personal crap here that does not belong in this game. Or, any other game we play.

First, I wondered about you because you questioned someone over a statement that begged no question whatsoever if you simply read and comprehended their post. I wasn't even accusing you of anything at first because I don't know Neph, have never played a game with them before, and initially wondered what you were suggesting. Then I saw your post again later and noticed how you pruned the actual quote -- which looked very suspicious on your part. Suspicious... as in scummy, opportunistic, and self-serving.

Not to mention the fact that you started making "game-related" posts before anyone else did while all the fluff was still going on. So yes, that did suggest the possibility that you had an agenda. And I voted you.

Had I been here to see all the crap you posted afterward, that would have only solidified any suspicion I had before.

On a personal note, Pir.... more than once, you accused me of singling you out and picking on you in this game for personal reasons. That, my friend, is pathetic.... to say the least.

From what I've read, no one else has picked up on that connection to the alias game. But yes I know exactly what you were talking about, now. Let me say that it's about time you acknowledged it in public. I'm also glad to see it's finally occurred to you to apologize to me for that. And I accept your apology. But this is where that needs to stop.

In no way was I attacking you for that reason. My inquiry to you and my resulting vote stand on their own based on your posting in this game only.
 
Plus I didn't need to question him. Seeing the reaction to the vote was what I wanted. Not a reply to a question I asked. Sometimes people reveal more that way. That said, I didn't glean much from his reaction.

What I'm wondering is how that can only be opportunistic to you. It's a pretty definitive conclusion to be coming to and I'd like to know what makes you so sure.

If you den't glean anything from his reaction, why didn't you change your vote? You did after all, say something about not wanting blood on your hands on a D1 lynch. Zaffy came pretty close to the noose tonight.

Just because I haven't played for a while doesn't mean I haven't read the games. I have seen your progression from your first game and JP also mentioned something about your play. I could go back and find his post, but I think you probably know which one I'm talking about.
 
I said I actually would have changed my vote if zaf had the majority but that he didn't so I left it. That was right around the time I said I didn't want a first round lunch of a possible innocent on my hands.
 
Chill, with the way the "random" votes fell, can you help me undertand why you questioned Zaffy's reason over anyone elses?
 
I said I actually would have changed my vote if zaf had the majority but that he didn't so I left it. That was right around the time I said I didn't want a first round lunch of a possible innocent on my hands.

He was in the lead at one point, and even a tie could get someone lynched with an unfortunate coin toss. Had it been a tie and Zaffy lost the coin toss, if he flipped innocent, wouldn't you still have blood on your hands?
 
To sum up what I have seen today, we lost an innocent to the lynch. However it would appear that he brought it on himself with his reaction to getting the first vote. Had I been around I probably would have voted him myself.

We lost an innocent to the turn, the worst part of that is that most of the players in this game could make the transition seamlessly. Combine that with the fact that it was D1 when we don't really have a read on anyone and the turn could have been anyone.

Not a good start at all.
 
I've read through again from where I left off earlier. Overall, I don't see we've got much to go on. Add to this, the double-whammy effect of a turn -- whereby the addicts gain one in number PLUS the town loses one in number. So the net result is doubled every time that happens.

What's wrong with being defensive? You usually have something better than just to poke at a kid with junk like that.

Thought this from Zaffy was an odd thing to say. I don't get your point behind that, Zaffy. I can't tell if you're trying to defend Neph, seriously mean defensiveness or even OMGUSSY behavior doesn't usually point to scum (which it often does), or if you're just goofing around again.

Which is it?
 
To Neph, Lab Rat, JB, Rich, and Zaffy:

For crying out loud, folks. Do you really think we ought to give the addicts pointers and the benefit of our analysis about who they should turn next vs. whomever else they might target?

:hypnotized:

I could probably more easily list the people I would NOT turn...naming suspects that way is both lazy and scummy IMHO.

No kidding! Thank you for that, Pappy.
 
I didn't vote Zaff for tootin', I voted Zaff for saying "darn tootin" which was about the best I could come up with at the time.

As you well know, if I place a joke vote on D1 I at least try to find something humorous to base it on.

Two things for you, Wizard. (1) If I remember correctly for the actual "toot," that requires you to pull on Zaffy's finger... and (2) it's Labby we're talking about. I always find her humorous... lmao.
 
I'm afraid that's it for the time being. I'm too worn out to come up with anything more tonight.
 
AquariaCentral.com