The fight for Inishmore [Concluded]

**pevergreen** · 03-27-2009, 08:37

Brendan walks into Mcdoogals and sees shlin28 sitting there drinking beer. Brendan says I havent seen you in the bar much. You havent been drinking much lately. shlin says I been cutting back on beer. Brendan says then youre not really irish are you. And Brendan kills him with a knife. shlin died and he heard Brendan say you should have fought for ireland. then he leaves a card which says Two Blind Mice.

While other men frittered away their lives in the pub, Greyblades spent his time in study. Although he had by nature nothing heroic about him, and preferred running about the country to books—or at least books of information—for, provided that nothing like useful knowledge could be gained from them, provided they were all story and no reflection, he had never any objection to books at all. But he was in training to become a hero; he read all such works as a hero must read to supply their memories with those quotations which are so serviceable and so soothing in the vicissitudes of their eventful lives.

From Pope, he learnt to censure those who

"bear about the mockery of woe."

From Gray, that

"Many a flower is born to blush unseen,
"And waste its fragrance on the desert air."

From Thompson, that—

"It is a delightful task
"To teach the young idea how to shoot."

And from Shakespeare he gained a great store of information — amongst the rest, that—

"Trifles light as air,
"Are, to the jealous, confirmation strong,
"As proofs of Holy Writ."

And that

"The poor beetle, which we tread upon,
"In corporal sufferance feels a pang as great
"As when a giant dies."

So far his improvement was sufficient—and in many other points he came on exceedingly well; for though he could not write sonnets, he brought herself to read them; and though there seemed no chance of him throwing a whole party into raptures by a prelude on the pianoforte, of his own composition, he could listen to other people's performance with very little fatigue. His greatest deficiency was in the pencil—he had no notion of drawing—not enough even to attempt a sketch of his lover's profile, that she might be detected in the design. There he fell miserably short of the true heroic height. Oswald certainly thought so, and laughed to himself at the thought of a little Irish boy attempting to comprehend Shakespeare.

As Greyblades turned the page in his book a note fell out. Penned of course by Oswald, it nevertheless had a light, feminine slant to it and purported to be from an admirer of Greyblade's who, as a fellow admirer of Shakespeare was greatly excited at the prospect of conversing at length about his plays and sonnets. She invited him for a walk along the riverbank outside the village, by moonlight!

The note was signed "Iago". Oswald could barely contain himself when he saw how eagerly Greyblades donned his coat and hurried off to the meeting place.

In the morning, the body of Greyblades was found washed up on the shore near the edge of town. The investigation determined that he had crawled out onto the branch of a willow tree farther upstream and had drowned when the branch broke and dropped him into the river. This determination, read by Oswald in the morning paper, caused him to soak said paper in his morning coffee, drawing disapproving looks from the other patrons as he laughed loud and long at the expense of the people of Inishmore, and of the Irish in general.

"Provincial scarcely describes it" he said, when he had regained his composure. Donny, seated nearby and thinking the comment was addressed to him, nodded his head in agreement, wondering what "provincial" meant. It certainly wasn't a word he'd been taught during the six months he'd spent in school. Of course the vast quantities of cheap beer he swilled every night, even at a young age, had rather impaired his learning abilities.

As the town gathered again in the morning, the talk was not of the murders, but of the current rumour. "Donney's alive and 'ere ta 'elp, watch 'is space".

Alive:
Andres
Askthepizzaguy
LittleGrizzly
Reenk Roink
GeneralHankerchief
Sasaki Kojiro
Lord Winter
White Eyes
Seamus
Factionheir
serierkhaan
yoyoma1910
Diana Abnoba
boudica
Sigurd
El Diablo

Dead:
Publius Aelius Hadrianus
A Very Super Market
Jolt
taka
Polemists
gaelic cowboy
Alexander the Pretty Good
CountArach
Psychonaut
YLC
Captain Blackadder
greyblades
shlin28

Lynched:
Beefy187
F.C is the bees knees
777ares777
Ituralde

It is now Day 6.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 09:58

Can I just take a moment and say, whoever wrote the above Oswald kill is a very articulate, well-read, and delightfully sadistic fellow. As such, I'd have to point at myself... but I absolutely loathe Shakespeare and I nearly failed English class. I hate verbose and snobbish-sounding English writing. Call me plebian, but I simply zone out when I read that stuff, and I do not even bother to hide it. And, I might employ WIFOM tactics, but I don't think my forging ability is up to snuff to match Reenk's style.

Now, even if it gets me killed, I absolutely must lay out a very simple case, with evidence, that leads me to believe that it was either Reenk who wrote the kill, or a VERY intelligent impostor, who is also a mafia veteran, and that also narrows the suspect list a bit, doesn't it? Pardon me for a moment, while I prepare some evidence.

Vote: Reenk Roink

**White_eyes:D** · 03-27-2009, 10:06

Its Yoyoma.....he knows Shakespeare, like the back of his hand....

and a whole bunch of other authors....I will bring up evidence and quotes to back this up...

**Andres** · 03-27-2009, 10:11

I'll have to take a closer look to the Sasaki-LittleGrizzly duel from the previous round. I really didn't like how they seemed to try to draw attention away from Ituralde.

Vote : Sasaki

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 10:28

As soon as I read the above, I suspected Reenk. But, not wanting to merely act on instinct, I decided to check up on his writing style, especially from Mafia games, but also in instances where he was not writing for a mafia game. Some interesting examples:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Reenk is a very fancy talker, to put it in layman's terms. He also delights in calling people inept or stupid or otherwise demonstrating his own intelligence at the expense of others when he writes. I mean no disrespect in making this observation. I am simply stating that from the above example, we can see Reenk in a mafia game sort of... turning up his nose towards other playing styles. Also note the abundant use of parentheses, and his sentence structure is complex and more voluminous than average.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Again, in this relevant example from previous games, I note that there is a slight whiff of condescension. Of course, in this example, the mafia he refers to is... himself. Which is a common Reenk tactic. I employ tactics all the time which are designed to make me appear like a townie to throw off the trail, but Reenk here is the hands-down master. He lasted a very long time in the Prometheus game, and it wasn't because of luck alone either. He is a brilliant player. Again here we see an example of parentheses, which he uses a lot more often than the average player. He also employs a choppy one-or-two sentence paragraph structure with double spaces in between, a style characteristic of myself and only a few others that I know of. Sasaki does it on occasion, but he's never quite this verbose. So, again, I say if this is a forgery, well done. I would also make the subtle observation that Reenk does enjoy talking, almost as much as me!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Ok, Aries777777, where are you buddy? You didn't vote last round, and I could not find another suitable man to follow so I didn't vote last round (though I participated but our captain says it is not enough; he must follow that silly "Vote or Die" slogan

).

Early on you were active with your jokes and your votes, but now you're gone and I'm not laughing or guided, and it's becoming terribly hard to play in my new way.

I may have to vote for you in the future.

Because I am not kept satisfied by such good humor, I took some time out to be 'analytical' today in the hopes that maybe I could be helpful to us crewmembers.

First, I am shocked that Sigurd Fafnesbane was lynched this early for a pretty weak reason, even by common townie standards. An incredibly stupid thing to do if I may criticize the crew.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

By lynching him, especially this early, Sigurd's alignment is unknown. You can imagine the epistemic problems this brings when he will attempt to posthumously 'help' the town...

What would have been wiser was to let the Mafia kill him off, at least making it much more plausible that Sigurd was innocent or in a non-Mafia role. Then he could help us and we could trust him.

And had Sigurd remained alive by the end stages of the game, you could be sure that I would be on him hard for it. Sigurd has screwed the town and myself personally over brilliantly twice before in endgame, and one of my personal goals is to foil him.

What we did to Sigurd is the worst thing to do concerning him.

Secondly, I'm saddened though not surprised at how dogmatically people draw conclusions about the Mafia from scant evidence such as write ups or non killing behavior. They really prove nothing, and I would never make conclusions about the number of Mafia or how they operate from them personally.

Lastly, and I held off on doing this for a bit because I respect Seamus Fermanagh a ton, but I would be somewhat inclined to view him suspiciously since the get go.

Read this:

I think Seamus is doing what he did in that game. He is propping up the same framework so as to not blatantly show a change in behavior, but at the same time, it is also more shallow which, according to popular townie thought, is an indicator of trying to fly under the radar, which, again according to popular townie though, is a telltale mark of Mafia.

Now, I must add that I am probably one of the strongest opponents of using changes in behavior or semi-lurking as indicators of Mafia, because of the fact that it is such a poorly grounded theoretical framework (yes it has worked before, but I look for an epistemic and not pragmatic justification and you would think Mafia would caught on by now).

So by no means does this damn Seamus or anything close to it. Unlike Kommodus, I will not endorse voting for people based on the above-mentioned methodology for the above-mentioned reasons.

I do caution you to deal with Seamus with some trepidation though. Something about him is just not right (actually, that is MY personal reason for my suspicion, and I gave the evidence that usual townies accept so that YOU would also consider it).

No hard feelings buddy, as I said my personal stance makes me very critical of this method of suspicion in the first place. However, since everyone else is grasping at imaginary threads, I would like to point out a particularly big and fat imaginary thread. You are a great player and were it not for my close knowledge of your ways from earlier times, I wouldn't have caught this.

I will for now vote: Chaotix27 because Seamus is a good man as any to follow, and again, he is suspicious by the common methodologies gauge (BUT SO IS SEAMUS BY THE SAME METHODOLOGY).

Hope some of this helped.

At the very least, I hope it was interesting in some way that makes the game more fun, which is the main reason to play.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

A Vote Tally (cause none of you do it anyway

):

Chaotix27: 4 (seireikhaan, Seamus Fermanagh, YLC, Askthepizzaguy)
Askthepizzaguy: 2 (shilin28, Alexander the Pretty Good)
seireikhaan: 1 (White_eyes:D, Ichigo)
YLC: 1 (Mithrandir)
Peasant Phill: 1 (Beefy187)
pevergreen: 1 (Twilightblade)
shilin28: 1 (Chaotix27)

Edit: There is no way that Chaotix27 could be Mafia, unless he really doesn't care about getting lynched (such apathy would be legendary and quite ballsy for Mafia

). Voting will be closed in an hour or so

Unvote: Chaotix27
Vote: Askthepizzaguy

To try and force a tie to save a pretty clearly innocent townie (though I don't know if Askthepizzaguy is a good lynch either, he's better than Chaotix27).

New Vote Tally:

Chaotix27: 4 (seireikhaan, Seamus Fermanagh, YLC, Askthepizzaguy)
Askthepizzaguy: 3 (shilin28, Alexander the Pretty Good, Reenk Roink)
seireikhaan: 2 (White_eyes:D, Ichigo)
YLC: 1 (Mithrandir)
Peasant Phill: 1 (Beefy187)
pevergreen: 1 (Twilightblade)
shilin28: 1 (Chaotix27)

In this example, we see the lengths Reenk is likely to go to in order to make a point. He is likely to spend a good amount of time typing a single post. Again, much like myself, and not many others. Note the characteristic usage of parentheses more often than the average player, and the complex sentence structure. Check out the usage of quotation marks as well; Reenk is a very "punctual" writer, if I do say so...

Now, lets' examine examples of his style in a non-mafia setting:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Hi Atpg

To address 1)

First, you refer me to an article which essentially has the same idea of what is the objective standard of knowledge as you do. Unfortunately, the article does little to respond to the objections I have raised (your position itself was a bit better at that).

The article already presupposes deductive inferences (and strangely enough it mentions inductive inferences and (though not explicitly) sensory perception which are the basis for observation and experimentation - I suspect as a way to smuggle in a scientific basis rather than keep the definition of rationalism and reason to simply mean deductive inferences which is assuredly better grounded and much more coherent).

It then says something to the effect of "employed by scientists practicing the verification guide scientists to be objective" which is basically a poorly constructed sentence I cannot make any sense of. I think this was to tie in the presupposed standards (of logic and science - the term verification makes me think it was written by someone who follows the school of logical positivism) to an objective conception of knowledge.

This article is merely making the (unwarranted) assertions that these things are THE standard, and then defining objective knowledge based off of it. Thus this account entirely misses my point and talks past my objections raised.

I am not making the case that there is no objective standard of knowledge. I am questioning YOUR account of what that standard is. My questions were twofold at the start of the objective/subjective discussion:

1) What do you mean by the objective standard?
2) How do you know that it is the objective standard?

You answered 1 and have failed to answer 2, quite correctly observing that it is too difficult if not impossible (you call it unreasonable).

You then go ahead and attack subjectivity as self defeating. Very odd as if you interpret that to be my position than you actually are misunderstanding.

However, your attack did give me the idea to pose this question to you.

You would say all beliefs should be grounded in reason, correct? This is why you are so opposed to faith?

I would reply, that belief that "all beliefs should be grounded in reason" is itself a belief and thus by its own standard should be grounded in reason. Yet you cannot justify this belief by your own standard. I thus argue that your "rationalism" is self defeating, not only to an outside standard (such as subjectivity to logic as you claim) but to its very own standard. It is as self defeating as can be.

Lastly and most importantly you are most correct to say that we are an impasse. I would take it further and say that because of your position, because of what you already assume, your debate with Rhyfelwyr will merely flounder into semantics (you will throw around the words "rational" and "reason") and utterly fail to provide anything meaningful. As the very epistemic bases of the two sides are different, there is no way to really discuss. Rather it becomes a series of assertions and talking past each other.

I am sorry to be dismissing 2) so curtly, but your criticisms of faith all depend on the issues raised in 1). You essentially assume that your "rationalism" is the standard and then show how great it is and how faith does not live up to it. That is blatantly circular and vacuous. Essentially Atpg, you are preaching to the choir. Your arguments are only convincing to those who have accepted your position. To me, for example, I can dismiss them easily as they are asserted without justification.

I must say that the case that your "rationalism" is uncertain and allows for error is not a very good one to any person who doesn't already assume the position. Just again an example of the impasse that is arrived.

Why do you think "rational" arguments are so unconvincing to those who have faith?

This one is from my own visitor message page. He took the time to lay out a very learned and passionate case, well-argued in fact, for a very extreme form of skepticism, in contrast to my own objectivist viewpoint. Note that this would be Reenk as Reenk, not a mafia player version of Reenk.

Notice anything? Parentheses unlike anyone I've ever met, over-usage of quotations compared to the average person, and hints of education and brilliance combined with great confidence and eloquence. Indeed, a worthy debater and opponent in any setting. He simply cannot be a stupid man from these writings, whether I agree with him philosophically or not. He's not your average player. I admire him, in fact. But, he is probably the person who wrote the Oswald kills, that's all I wish to say.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Atpg, a couple of comments on your comments, especially on your use of the word 'rational' and its various forms.

You say:

Quote:
Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm
Here I take you to say that something is irrational if it either cannot be proven true using the scientific method or if it has been proven false.

(You later seem to espouse the opinion that it is "logic" that is the basis of rationality so I sense a bit of incoherence)

Ignoring what exactly you mean by 'scientific method' or 'prove' for a moment, is it correct to state that your position is one that states that the scientific method is the criteria for rationality? If so, please explicate your conception of the scientific method and then I will get back to you with my objections.

You say:
Quote:
Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.
Your claim of morality not originating from the supernatural is simply false to anyone who believes in any sort of voluntarist ethics.

You then say that one must use "rational arguments" as a justification even for people who claim "religion causes morality" and I wonder how this is so. I could simply assert that supernatural being A said act X was good. You could construe this trivially to be a form of argument, but it would be trivial, as you could construe any statement as such.

Your last statement doesn't even seem to be coherent. Because someone uses rational arguments to promote a case for voluntarist ethics it means that the ethics are "caused" by "rationalism" and not voluntarism? Is this what you are saying?

Quote:
religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.
The fact of the matter is, that every foundation of "rationalism" that you have hinted at (the scientific method and logical inferences) are the same. They are unprovable.

The law of non contradiction is the basis for (traditional/classical) logic. Please prove the law of non-contradiction without reference to itself.

Please prove the assumptions that is needed for any natural science to proceed. Prove that the external world actually exists beyond our sense perception.

Or are these "unquestionable" axioms that need to be accepted before logic or the scientific method can proceed?

Lastly, please explain why something that is testable has any more epistemic merit than something that is not.

These are basic foundational questions against (what I perceive as) your view of rationalism.

Quote:
But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.
By "logic" I will take you to mean deductive inferences. Is this what you mean?

If so, I have already provided an example of an axiom of deductive logic that is accepted without proof - on 'faith' that is.

Thanks

Reenk is well-versed in the topics which he likes to discuss. If he speaks about Shakespeare, he will know about Shakespeare. If he speaks about philosophy, he will know about philosophy. If he speaks about the fundamentals of logic, he will make sense, from someone's perspective, if not always mine. The bottom line is, I believe that forging Reenk's style would be very difficult, and I've given you several relevant examples of his usage of quotations, parentheses, specific and elite language styles, short, brief paragraphs, and a vast amount of general knowledge and the ability to articulate. Bottom line, this is probably Reenk, or a very good impostor. And would he WIFOM himself to death like this? Yes, yes he probably would. Because he's Reenk; and that's what he does.

Judge for yourself. The only thing missing in the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

...is the characteristic parentheses, which I doubt Reenk would employ while writing an effective bit of fiction. And I looked and found references to Othello, but I am not skilled enough in "google-fu" as I believe it is called to find any evidence of direct stealing from famous writers. Fiction is not my forte, nor is English literature. One of our better-educated orgahs may be able to detect such thievery. I believe he could have written it himself, or paraphrased, or stolen; but I do not believe a novice player, nor the average person, could achieve such a murder writeup as the above.

I suspect Reenk, and that is my case.

However, I welcome a counter-case from White_eyes, as I believe any knowledgeable Shakespeare lover could write it, and Yoyoma is on my short list of abundantly brilliant players capable of pulling this off. I am listening, White_eyes.

In summary, Reenk has the vocabulary, the tone, the psychological profile, the knowledge of the subject, and the bold attitude required to do the Oswald kill. I think there aren't as many people here would could do that, but I admit Yoyoma is perhaps one of them.

**White_eyes:D** · 03-27-2009, 10:33

He said this poem in response to my plan to kill him in "Noble Sons".....Man was I hated in that game...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

He had this to say about me and Beefy guessing his poems....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Basically, this all fits Yoyoma's MO.....he is always like a english King....or something...Vote:Yoyoma

I got all this off a game we played WAY back.....I could give you the link if needed....

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 10:35

Originally Posted by Andres

I'll have to take a closer look to the Sasaki-LittleGrizzly duel from the previous round. I really didn't like how they seemed to try to draw attention away from Ituralde.

I have a disagreement with your reasoning; in this game, the mafia families seem to be only killing once per night. A henchman dies, it is no big deal. If Sasaki and LittleGrizzly exposed themselves trying to save a henchman, it would make little sense. However, mafia games rarely make sense, so I suppose even though I disagree, anyone's opinion is valid here.

And White_Eyes, the writing style itself is completely different, as is the tone, in your examples.

**White_eyes:D** · 03-27-2009, 10:47

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

And White_Eyes, the writing style itself is completely different, as is the tone, in your examples.

.....of course....I hid my writing style from everyone on "Godfather 3"...anyone insane enough to use the same writing style as there posts is a Lynched Mafia.....I knew that as well...but I was pointing out the Motives and how the person(killer) sees himself in the write-ups....and Oswald sees himself higher then those he kills=Yoyoma....

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 10:54

Originally Posted by White_eyes:D

.....of course....I hid my writing style from everyone on "Godfather 3"

Hiding one's style and forging a much, much more articulate one are two very different animals.

...anyone insane enough to use the same writing style as there posts is a Lynched Mafia...

Your point? I argued in Godfather that "Reenk wouldn't do this" or "Reenk wouldn't do that". Bogus reasoning. Reenk will do whatever he darn well pleases, AND GET AWAY WITH IT, TOO.

..I knew that as well...but I was pointing out the Motives and how the person(killer) sees himself in the write-ups.

What is the psychological profile, real or fake, of the writer of the murder? Intelligent, narcissistic, long-winded, etc... again, why I fully expect to be lynched for "wifom" for accusing Reenk, when those arguments could be used against me. Assaulting Reenk is nearly impossible, especially if it's coming from me, because you guys will listen to Reenk over me. Just a fact.

...and Oswald sees himself higher then those he kills=Yoyoma....

Does not follow. I find Yoyoma1910 to act selflessly at times, take note of the Golden Rule game. I find him perhaps to love Shakespeare, but otherwise has nothing in common with the writer of Oswald's kills. Except maybe brilliance.

Oswald could very well be Reenk, and his WIFOM-tactics all game regarding his secret plotting and secret messages and all that nonsense... he knows he can get away with it as a townie, so, he's doing it as mafia. That's all. And yes, Reenk is absolutely prepared to pull off a WIFOM of this magnitude.

**Reenk Roink** · 03-27-2009, 13:44

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Your point? I argued in Godfather that "Reenk wouldn't do this" or "Reenk wouldn't do that". Bogus reasoning. Reenk will do whatever he darn well pleases, AND GET AWAY WITH IT, TOO.

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

What is the psychological profile, real or fake, of the writer of the murder? Intelligent, narcissistic, long-winded, etc... again, why I fully expect to be lynched for "wifom" for accusing Reenk, when those arguments could be used against me. Assaulting Reenk is nearly impossible, especially if it's coming from me, because you guys will listen to Reenk over me. Just a fact.

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Oswald could very well be Reenk, and his WIFOM-tactics all game regarding his secret plotting and secret messages and all that nonsense... he knows he can get away with it as a townie, so, he's doing it as mafia. That's all. And yes, Reenk is absolutely prepared to pull off a WIFOM of this magnitude

Your case is not good Atpg, but I think it is time to get rid of you, you are probably insignificant, but who knows, even insignificant seeming things can be dangerous to my plans.

Vote: Atpg

I will get away with it Atpg, as you said. Don't know why you bothered to try to be quite honest.

**FactionHeir** · 03-27-2009, 14:08

It could be anyone really because whoever wrote the kill knew that people would read the kill and could use it to frame others. Of course they could just write it in their own style to frame themselves but claim that the writer just wanted to make them look guilty when they really are "innocent".

The beauty of WIFOM

I think it would be more interesting to see who was killed by whom. Certain people have a preference for killing certain other players.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-27-2009, 14:17

Vote:LittleGrizzly

@Andres: Your vote on Ituralde was the 8th...

Atpg: I agree that the writeup looks most like reenk. And reenk is the person most likely to write in his own style. But that makes him #1 option for frame. There are few people who could "flowerize" there writing to that extent, I think you left lord winter of your list though. In the end I think it's more fruitful to go of off in thread evidence.

**LittleGrizzly** · 03-27-2009, 14:18

So let me see if i can summarie this into one post...

ATPG voted Reenk because he's brilliant
WE voted Yoyoma because he's brilliant
Andres voted for Sasaki because me and him had a big argument whilst we were lynching scum
Reenk is voted for ATPG because hes insignificant and maybe a threat to him...

I have to agree with ATPG's point, i very much doubt sasaki would make such an attempt... because im fairly sure at the time Ithurlude (complete guess at his name) looked like he was going to be lynched... on the other hand maybe sasaki thought he was brilliant enough to pull it off...

Im not going to vote sasaki this round... becuase of ATPG's point he does seem less scummy... though i would still like him to be investigated...

Ill avoid my a place holder abstain vote... as apparently it doesn't involve sticking my neck out... ill wait a little to see what else comes up...

Edit: Sasaki flicked a coin and the result is that i am still a good lynch target... rolling eyes smiley here!

**boudica** · 03-27-2009, 14:45

I'd be happy to vote Reenk again purely because of his blatant threats, but I still don't really have a clue about his playing style that everyone else seems to kowtow to (how exactly is it helpful to town again? Reenk? Anyone?

) - In the meantime, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and guess from the list of the living that Diana Abnoba may very well be capable of the Oswald kill/write up. Which I concur - was beautifully written

vote: Diana Abnoba

**Greyblades** · 03-27-2009, 15:13

Well that was pretty elaborate for a simple townie but I cant really say I'm ungrateful.

GG and all that.

One thing I would like to know is why they thought I was a better target than say ATPG or Sasaki?

**Reenk Roink** · 03-27-2009, 15:44

Just actually read Atpg's full case.

In essence Atpg, you use quotes from the Prometheus game to prove that I taunt Mafia and that I have an "articulate" style.

Nonwithstanding the fact that The Prometheus was my first game back a long time ago and I have been following a decidedly different course of play after the lessons of Fillet Royale, the fact is in the Prometheus, I was happy to be back, I had a lot more time, and the game was very fresh. I did spend some time in that game. I usually taunt the Mafia, but my taunts in the Prometheus are unique, because as you know, I was Mafia.

Essentially you made an already tenuous case on writing style (and I'm going to indulge the parentheses claim and point out that if you bothered to check other games, you would have noticed that I do change my style

) and failed to take into account the very special context of the game and the other topic.

As such, I feel that you are trying to obfuscate the fact that you are a bad guy by making long cases and also, feel somewhat insulted by my taunts at the Mafia, suggesting that you are one.

P.S: I don't like Shakespeare.

**GeneralHankerchief** · 03-27-2009, 15:56

Reenk is an expert at changing his style. This writeup, at least somewhat, points to Reenk. Therefore, it is not Reenk.

If we get too caught up in writeup analysis in the midgame then we lose critical information that we can look back on for the endgame. I suggest everybody back off from this angle before it gets us all wrapped up in it.

**Sasaki Kojiro** · 03-27-2009, 16:12

Originally Posted by boudica

In the meantime, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and guess from the list of the living that Diana Abnoba may very well be capable of the Oswald kill/write up. Which I concur - was beautifully written

vote: Diana Abnoba

I haven't seen more than two lines from Abnoba?? This accusation is off the wall.

What percentage chance do you think reenk has of getting into hot water over the writeup?

**ULC** · 03-27-2009, 16:51

The write up would not point to Reenk, unless, indeed, the person himself knew Reenk well enough to understand Reenk personality and social tendecies, as well as being able to mimic his writing style mentally - the write up is not forced, since it continues to keep the same consistency, meaning either their own writing style is close enough for them to do so, or they themselves have the same writing style.

I'd also like to point out that we switched from Oswald to Mikey Fingers when I died - someone have some form of sentimentality? This reeks to me of someone who can let his own feeling influence the game to an extent, that he enjoys simply playing and playing with people. Few people would expose names or numbers except Reenk.

I'm sorry Reenk, this is my own thoughts, not ATPG, and this is how I feel about what I have read - and yes, I did go over what ATPG posted, and have done my own searches. I am generally complimented on my writing and the level of articulation in it, but you are far beyond even me, and almost all here.

Also, your the only person who understands that since I have been playing mafia since way back in September, I have always been town - always. However, why not, if indeed my reasoning where to hold true, did you not pick me? Simply because I was a very late inclusion, and for all intents and purposes it appeared I would not be in the game, meaning you picked your mafia early on.

Thats if your the "Godfather", which I doubt - More then likely, someone else is Oswald, and your simply writing the kills for the player, which is actually fun for you and a good strategic move.

Once realizing that I was in, it was fine until I said something that made the game unfun for you - that, in it's usual sense, is the only reason you justify sending in the kill order for someone. Mafia is a game for you (as it should be) and your in to have fun, be fun, and make sure everyone else either knows it or has just as much fun as well.

The only thing I've done that might disturb you is name suspects, a small list of people my eye has been all game. I named Ituralde as a suspect, I named Seamus as one as well, and those where the only ones I really looked at before I was removed from voting. Otherwise I am, as usual, no threat to anyone, and actually am helpful to the mafia during the lategame. Obviously, I did something that cancelled my usefullness, I did something that made the game unfun (i.e., at this point make it quickly end).

FoS: Reenk Roink, Seamus

With Seamus as Godfather, and Reenk as a grunt. IMO, Reenk is not a Godfather this game, do not paint him in such a way, he is grunt, helping cover for the Godfather.

**Reenk Roink** · 03-27-2009, 17:02

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What percentage chance do you think reenk has of getting into hot water over the writeup?

6.27%

On one last note, it frankly smacks of elitism to say that only such and such a person with such and such education, intelligence, whatever would be able to produce such and such writeup. I don't know how any one can infer much about intelligence or education from Mafia games and internet posts.

I am of the opinion, that while there are some really good writers here, that almost everyone here who is a native speaker and old enough to have used the language a lot will be capable of writing up even the best write ups. I am of the opinion that most people can change their writing at will to whatever they want it to be.

I think the entire enterprise of write up analysis with regards to syntax or diction or style is just not worthwhile. All of these things are easily changeable.

Write up analysis with regard to theme is a little better, but again, only in certain contexts (we don't even know if pevergreen is writing most of the write ups or not) and also can be easily masked by just about anyone.

EDIT: Not you too YLC! I need someone to take up my banner.

**ULC** · 03-27-2009, 17:10

Then your sense of equality does not apply to me Reenk, because I am not capable of it. I cannot change my writing style at all, because of how I think of the words. My thought process, not the thoughts themselves, cannot change, or are extremely hard to change. So in essence, allow me to refine my post slightly - There is a slight chance that someone else is writing it because they want to go to either A) extreme effort to frame you, or B) extreme effort to win, both of which are pointless in my eyes, and I am not one of those capable of doing so.

Also, please continue to ignore the rest of my statements and invalidate my emotional status. It makes me feel like Sasaki.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-27-2009, 17:14

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I have a disagreement with your reasoning; in this game, the mafia families seem to be only killing once per night. A henchman dies, it is no big deal. If Sasaki and LittleGrizzly exposed themselves trying to save a henchman, it would make little sense. However, mafia games rarely make sense, so I suppose even though I disagree, anyone's opinion is valid here.

And White_Eyes, the writing style itself is completely different, as is the tone, in your examples.

Interesting case on Reenk, za-man. One of the better written ones you've done.

Remember, in assessing this mafia game, that it is a mafia battle. If you are limited to one kill and you are the only mafia, then protecting the Godfather is all. If you have to battle another mafia team, then numbers matter a lot in the endgame. You might not risk the GF to protect a member, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't put some kind of effort into it.

EDIT: Sasaki, you are correct that Boudica's case against Diana is thin. However, she has been pulling a pretty thorough lurk so far. This being the last phase of the midgame, getting our lurkers in play is worth a

Vote: Diana Abnoba.

What say you colleen?

**GeneralHankerchief** · 03-27-2009, 17:22

What we need is some mafia crossfire to happen. Otherwise, the town will have to go six-for-six on the lynch, and I seriously doubt that happening.

**ULC** · 03-27-2009, 17:23

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

EDIT: Not you too YLC! I need someone to take up my banner.

Why should I take up anyone's banner but my own? Why should I champion another player at all? I am not part of nay team, I am and have always worked alone, always doing what a group should be doing, as a single person.

Every one is suspect, there is no reason to champion anyone unless you have something to lose - I've already lost everything, and therefore have nothing more to lose. I have nothing to lose, I have no need to champion anyone.

This includes you Reenk, and anyone else I so

well choose. Unlike Sasaki, I am bitter, biting, and sarcastic without the humor. I am insane and cruel without being fun like you. I am emotional and rational without the logical side of ATPG. I follow people along like Seamus, but am never as insightful or to the point.

So Reenk, before asking me to pick up your flag without justification, where the

is my flag? Where is my banner, where is my champion?

**White_eyes:D** · 03-27-2009, 17:41

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

What we need is some mafia crossfire to happen. Otherwise, the town will have to go six-for-six on the lynch, and I seriously doubt that happening.

Come on GH.....anyone else???? and for reference on GH's scum detector....It's "gut instinct" and it WORKS

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 17:46

I knew it. I just knew, waking up, I would be the only vote on Reenk. Reenk could show up, declare that he wanted out of the game, post his actual mafia role pm, vote for himself, and you guys would think it was just Reenk being Reenk. It is possible, given his amazing skills, his ability to survive, that the English Godfather could choose him to be a henchman, you know.

But, since Reenk is getting a pass to survive the game, and it seems likely to me he's a henchman, not the Godfather, I say it's time we lynched a Godfather.

unvote,
vote: Yoyoma1910

In my estimation, Yoyoma, you are no townie. And Reenk is trying to pull of the big distraction to cover your butt, since you haven't posted here since the 23rd. And you voted for seireikhaan when he was an easy target, and Reenk (though I agree with Reenk) back when he was an easier target as well.

Lots of jokes, but no substance. Just trying to increase your post count, I'd suspect. You were here all yesterday, the 25th, and the 24th, and no posts here? Avoiding this thread, are we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Reenk, you may well be a henchman, and well done. But I'm only interested in hitting the godfather. Since we're obviously not lynching you, let's take a shot at not only wiping out you, but your entire family.

**ULC** · 03-27-2009, 17:49

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I knew it. I just knew, waking up, I would be the only vote on Reenk. Reenk could show up, declare that he wanted out of the game, post his actual mafia role pm, vote for himself, and you guys would think it was just Reenk being Reenk. It is possible, given his amazing skills, his ability to survive, that the English Godfather could choose him to be a henchman, you know.

But, since Reenk is getting a pass to survive the game, and it seems likely to me he's a henchman, not the Godfather, I say it's time we lynched a Godfather.

unvote,
vote: Yoyoma1910

In my estimation, Yoyoma, you are no townie. And Reenk is trying to pull of the big distraction to cover your butt, since you haven't posted here since the 23rd. And you voted for seireikhaan when he was an easy target, and Reenk (though I agree with Reenk) back when he was an easier target as well.

Lots of jokes, but no substance. Just trying to increase your post count, I'd suspect. You were here all yesterday, the 25th, and the 24th, and no posts here? Avoiding this thread, are we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Reenk, you may well be a henchman, and well done. But I'm only interested in hitting the godfather. Since we're obviously not lynching you, let's take a shot at not only wiping out you, but your entire family.

Way to acknowledge the premise of my theory, without actually acknowledging me for it.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 03-27-2009, 17:51

Originally Posted by YLC

Way to acknowledge the premise of my theory, without actually acknowledging me for it.

I didn't read your posts. I woke up and checked the vote tally to see if anyone, anywhere, anyhow, would ever vote for Reenk, even when a good case was made on him. They didn't.

Forgive me, YLC, but I do have my own brain and my own thoughts, and sometimes they are similar to yours without actually being yours.

**ULC** · 03-27-2009, 17:58

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I didn't read your posts. I woke up and checked the vote tally to see if anyone, anywhere, anyhow, would ever vote for Reenk, even when a good case was made on him. They didn't.

Forgive me, YLC, but I do have my own brain and my own thoughts, and sometimes they are similar to yours without actually being yours.

Or vice-versa. For some odd reason I tend to wait until the next page to read your posts sometimes.

**Reenk Roink** · 03-27-2009, 18:04

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I didn't read your posts. I woke up and checked the vote tally to see if anyone, anywhere, anyhow, would ever vote for Reenk, even when a good case was made on him. They didn't.

Forgive me, YLC, but I do have my own brain and my own thoughts, and sometimes they are similar to yours without actually being yours.

Your case wasn't really good Atpg. I already replied to it. Although you have really tried hard for the past couple games to hammer home a theory that I "get away" with things, perhaps the reason the town leaves me alone is because there is no good evidence against me?

I know you think there is, but that is because you made the case.

Thread: The fight for Inishmore [Concluded]

Thread Tools

Display

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Re: The fight for Inishmore (IN PLAY)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions