Couple all this with the fact that he's pretty much discounted everything I've offered the whole game and I think I've made a very strong case for who the Mafia Godfather is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Bundy's case in a nut-shell. I've disagreed with him, so I must be Mafia. I have had the
audacity to question a fellow player's thoughts and strategies, and because said player is confirmed Townie it looks like speaking my mind might have just spelled my doom.
Look at Bundy's post, ladies and gentleman. Read it... review it. Make note of the case. His
entire case, beyond that one line which I have quoted for you, consists of the write-up. It consists of interpreting the write-up in such a way as to paint a target on the player in question. And in a way, it's an ingenious case. It's built almost solely on something that cannot be proven or disproven until
after the target (ie, me) has been lynched. It's beautiful; wrong, but beautiful.
And that's really all I can say: if you think the President Snow stuff in the write-ups exists because of my votes, then you are wrong... and, one way or another, you'll learn that to be damned true.
So, let's move onto other matters, shall we?
First, let's take another look at the item I quoted. According to this, I have discounted everything he's had to offer? But... what has he had to offer? Does he provide a list of what he has said, and how I have dismissed it? No. He has not. So allow me to do so for him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part One: Bundy's FoS on Jag, Day OneAs I'm sure at least a few of you must remember, someone posted a questionnaire to get discussion flowing. One of the players to respond to it did so in a way that was seen as contradictory by the accuser; jag commented about his vast experience, but didn't brag too much about how good he was. This quickly became the first item that got a few people jumpy. People actually took jag's response to the questionnaire as being sign that he was Mafia. Disagreeing with it, as I saw a perfectly reasonable alternate explanation, I commented upon it. I didn't even completely dismiss the idea that jag was Mafia; I simply put forth the thought that his "contradiction" might have existed simply to keep him from being a Mafia target, as he has commented about being killed early in other games for being perceived as a very skilled player. If this snippet of information screams "MAFIA" to you, then I apologize to the Town... for it's in some deep crap if this sort of mentality runs rampart.
Bundy Counter, of Disagreements versus Agreements versus No Comment: 1/0/0.
Part Two: Bundy requests additional discussion from quiet members, Day OneMy involvement at this is peripheral, but I felt it prudent to include it. As anyone who paid attention on Day One can remember, I took some heat for speaking out against the mob mentality that was forming on jag. As this carried on between myself and Latino, I commented on another attack Latino had made; namely, he had thrown suspicion on Bundy. While I did not flat-out state that I agreed with Bundy on the issue of additional discussion, feeling it wasn't really necessary, I did defend
him in the same manner that I defended jag. In my post to Latino, I effectively denounced his actions as being counter-productive to Bundy's... and those was far from dismissive of Bundy's efforts.
Bundy Counter: 1/1/0
Part Three: Bundy puts a FoS on Jonathan Micheals for a drive-by vote, Day OneI didn't address this as it was resolved before I could post. But while I'm going to include this in the "No Comment" pile, I would like to point out that I've questioned drive-by votes as well, even when the person doing them has shown evidence of siding with me (namely, Ravishing's drive-by on Latino in Day One).
Bundy Counter: 1/1/1
Part Four: Bundy proposes a possible "lynch all lurkers" policy, Day OneSuch a policy has been mentioned a few times, but I didn't give my support or objection to Bundy's version. I have stated that lynching all lurkers can be risky, though. So, I'll put this in the Disagreement pile.
Bundy Counter: 2/1/1
Part Five: Bundy tries to take claim for unvotes on Sweet, Day OnePegasuswarrior had presented an idea that I could sink my teeth into based on insights into the game I have readily talked about having, so I went with it. When further information that came to light made that morsel not so sweet, I unvoted. A bit later, Bundy comments that people unvoted after an accusation of band-wagoning. I pointed out how such a statement ignored facts... and he never responded, having gotten involved in a role-claim with Gunslinger. Still, I'll gladly stick this one in Disagreement.
Bundy Counter: 3/1/1
Part Six, Bundy Role-ClaimsHere's where I'm sure some will disagree with
me. Bundy, as you all know, came forward and performed a double role-claim with Gunslinger out of fear for the latter's life. Afterwards, I asked for clarification: I wanted to know the
how in addition to the
what. I didn't say "I believe you, 100%; no need to question!" but nor did I go "I don't believe you!". I simply played it safe and asked for more data. To me, this is not an attack nor a disagreement; it's simply caution.
Bundy Counter: 3/1/2
Part Seven: Bundy views D2 as Scum, Day OneD2 made a huge blunder that made him look more guilty than anyone else. Bundy and I
both took the bite. Now, Bundy may want to use this as evidence to get me lynched... but to me, this is evidence that his claim about me throwing out everything he says is somewhat faulty.
Bundy Counter: 3/2/2
Part Eight: Bundy puts forth the idea that Role-Claims can be good, especially when faced with a lynch, Twilight OneI've been advocating this for a long time. I am in full agreement with such a proposition, and am proud to put this in the appropriate pile.
Bundy Counter: 3/3/2
Part Nine: Bundy's Second Case on Jag, Day TwoLet me say this: I still think the initial case on jag was complete crap. But jag's later actions
did rub me the right way, and he became one of my suspects as well.
Bundy Counter: 3/4/2
Part Ten: Bundy Targets Other D2 Voters, Votes For Me; Day TwoHere's where things get good. I've been accused of dismissing the idea that any D2 voters are/were Mafia, but look back; I pointed up the possible correlation between write-ups and player actions
even before Bundy did so. I made it a point to say that I wasn't dismissing the notion; I was simply looking in a direction that I, personally, felt was more fruitful. Not to mention, if you vote for someone when you have a bigger case presented against another, that's definitely going to get a raised eyebrow, and that's what happened here. Voting for someone and then using that person's dismissal of your vote's likelihood of getting Mafia is self-serving in the extreme. I know I'm not Mafia, so expecting me to agree with a vote against me makes no sense. Still, I'll go ahead and count this in the Disagreement pile, purely 'cause I disagreed with the vote on me and the idea of focusing only on D2 voters.
Bundy Counter: 4/4/2
Part Eleven: Bundy Challenges My Insights, Day TwoI have repeatedly mentioned what I've seen Mafia do in previous games. Why? Because it's in my nature. I'm a History Major; the word "citation" has been rammed into every orifice of my body. It's habit for me to cite things, whether it's a paper or an anecdote. And consider how often you hear something like this: "Mafia loves to ___; ___ type of attitude/action is scummy." EVERYBODY uses past experience to provide a basis to hunt for Mafia. My crime, it seems, is that I comment on where that experience comes from. I don't simply go "Mafia does ___" as I feel it's somewhat lazy; it's easy to make any claim you want, if you don't back it up. Hence why I comment on
where I've picked up my patterns... and in the end, that's the
only difference between my comments on Mafia behavior and many of the other comments I've seen... including Bundy's. Which leads me to my next point...
Bundy Counter: 5/4/2
Part Twelve: Bundy Warns About Mafia's Love For Avoiding The Limelight, Day TwoIn the same post where he challenges me using previous Mafia patterns to mark the beginning of my search for Mafia, he references a Mafia pattern that he himself has noted. See the joke? I do, but that's neither here nor there. Point is, I agree with the basic principal, and have used that myself when pointing out what piques my interest. I didn't dismiss the notion that Mafia likes to avoid the limelight or throw suspicion on others; in fact, I had supported that viewpoint both in previous games and in Day One.
Bundy Counter: 5/5/2
Part Thirteen: Bundy Subtly Calls Me Out For Commenting On The D2 Event, Day TwoIn that same post mentioned in the previous points, Bundy provides a subtle accusation against me due to how I commented once more on the D2 situation from the end of Day One. Yet... I did so because the situation had been brought up, again, by a returning D2. My comments weren't a planned attempt to derail any other conversation; they were responses to someone else opening up an old issue that still had some relevancy (as the entire anti D2-Voters stance taken by some rested upon the idea that it wasn't reasonable for multiple Townies to vote for him). He seems to think I was trying to stay out of the limelight with those comments... but I was just doing the key ingredient to a successful game: discussing issues.
Bundy Counter: 6/5/2
Part Fourteen: Bundy Comments On Me Disagreeing With Him, Day Two (Quoted for Relevence)