Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[P.T. Barnum]

/confirm

[P.T. Barnum]

I'll mostly be posting in the evening EST. I enjoy brevity.

Vote Idiotking

. Wagon.

For trying to distance himself from Jahudo.

How so?

[P.T. Barnum]

Heh. Heh. ITT I fail at math; I honestly thought you were within idiotscum (not to be confused with idiotking) quickhammah range. Plus it was a random vote anyway, and we've got a bit more info now.

1. How could you have possibly thought that he was in lynch-range? That sounds suspiciously bad at counting.
2. What does "idiotscum quickhammah range?" mean exactly?

[P.T. Barnum]

edit:

that sounds

you sound

[P.T. Barnum]

Xalxe: you seriously thought the scum were going to line up three votes to hammer someone on day one?
I'm only pushing this point because this seems like irrational fear to scare off potential wagons. I don't think the idiotking wagon built that quickly in the first place.

[P.T. Barnum]

We are lynching voided today. Lynching pappums would be a mistake: if voided is scum we have a confirmed innocent in pappums, but if pappums is scum it does not necessarily confirm voided.
I don't like this either, and I think pappum's claim is enormously stupid from either a town or a scum perspective, but that's where we're at.
Unless it's a townie gambit on pappum's part, in which we're stuck WIFOMing until he comes clean. Which is why speculation without votes on this issue is useless (addressing this to Jahudo in particular.) Who knows when he might tell us unless voided is actually under threat of lynch?
I hope your "me or him situation" isn't the dominant meta for gambits on this site.

Unvote
Vote voidedmafia

--
I don't like havingfitz's suggested policy lynch on andrew because I don't see enough evidence for andrew's "lazy playstyle", but I especially don't like neil's parroting in post 93 as though it were an established fact.

[P.T. Barnum]

Nobody hammer until pappums gets back to the thread and answers questions and then some.

[P.T. Barnum]

post coming tonight

[P.T. Barnum]

I don't buy voided's claim (neighbor became neighborizor only under pressure), and it still wouldn't merit lynching pappums. Andrew is right that neighborizor could be scum, and therefore unconfirmable (and not particularly useful). Voided's responses to Jahudo look like flailing.
There's no point to dragging this out for too long; since we're almost certainly lynching voided, it doesn't make sense to wagon anyone else because there will be no threat of a lynch. I do like the top suspects idea.
Here are mine:

neil for 93 and 57, 93 I've explained already, and I don't like the gratuitous aggression in 57 (it could be jocular but it doesn't read like it).
xalxe's post on me is of course nonsense. That I was defending him in that post is a stretch to begin with, but as he must know I questioned him the post after that and continued to do so before pappum's claim. I still don't believe he thought three scum were going to line up on him with that vote.
I liked the wagon on Xalxe before pappum's claim. It would be worth picking up again.
I haven't had time to look for partners for voided. That might be fruitful, although he's spent most of his posts protecting himself.

[P.T. Barnum]

post arriving shortly

[P.T. Barnum]

quick post today

Unvote

To everyone who constantly decries pappum's lying: yes, a gambit is a lie, but lies are not necessarily scummy. For one thing, pappum's claim was fairly obvious to spot as a gambit. I think Jahudo caught it in his first post, and I certainly was skeptical as soon as pappum said "but don't lynch him just yet, do some other scumhunting." Was pappum's gambit that destructive, anyway? He only let it sit for about four pages. I think it and his recent defense of it are valid.
For that reason, I think Jahudo is wrong to assume the scum were dying to jump on voided's wagon

if

they knew voided was town. Smart scum would let town do the work for them and stay off any townie wagon.

[P.T. Barnum]

you probably won't get a substantive post from me until friday evening. Sorry all.

[P.T. Barnum]

post a-coming

[P.T. Barnum]

I don't see neil as particularly scummy anymore, mostly because I don't see scum carrying an arguments like his with havingfitz through with that much text and for that long. Also, his reaction post-voided claim was reasonable (the other points against him still stand AFIC).
Xalxe, on the other hand, has done nothing since the voided claim. He hasn't even posted since Tuesday. He's comfortably sat out of any controversial decision. Let's wagon him.

Vote Xalxe

If that doesn't take off, I'll switch to Jerbs. Jinxx makes excellent points, to which I see Jerbs didn't even bother to respond. His latest post is particularly weak: "your gambit didn't accomplish much tho." No explanation, no significance, and no attempt to scumhunt. This guy should get wagonned too.
Of the current wagons I'd probably back voided, since I still hate his neighbor-neighborizor claim. But I feel like we can get more done now that pappum's has come clean.

I think scum would have been eager to join a voided-town wagon in order to get a hammer before Pappums revealed it to be a gambit, because suspicion would then fall to pappums and not the wagoners. It is his responsibility to not let a gambit go too far.

Fair enough, though if I had been scum I probably would have assumed that voided was an SK. Pappum's claim as a gambit is still surprising to me.

If I've missed an important discussion or question, I'd be grateful if someone could let me know. I have to admit that it is harder to catch up in this game than in others.

[P.T. Barnum]

Xalxe is going to be replaced, I guess.

Unvote
Vote Jerbs

[P.T. Barnum]

The havingfitz wagon is boring. Can we get a wagon on Jerbs, please? Unless someone wants to point out something town-like in his posts, that would be okay too.

[P.T. Barnum]

Unvote

I wish it weren't considered acceptable to ask for a replacement because you think you're not playing well, if that really is Jerbs' reason. Takes the fun out of a good wagon.
I'm lost. I probably won't have time for a real post until Friday.

[P.T. Barnum]

Tomorrow I'll cover the players I'd prefer to be lynched. It's frustrating to have one's top two suspects replace out, so this game is hard to get into. I really just need to reread. Here's at least something, my stance on the current two wagons:
1. The fitz wagon is nonsense, as far as I'm concerned. The only thing I have ever disliked about his play (and it was a significant strike against him) was his suggestion of andrew as a policy lynch. The more andrew posts, the less wary I am of that. He's been posting and responding very much like I'd expect him to, and he's been scumhunting, which is more than I can say for other players. His post #272 is a particularly good one against pappum, whose claim that being called a liar is a personal attack is baloney.
2. That being said, I'm not sold on pappum's scumminess. For one thing, I don't necessarily disagree with his gambit. It's steered this town in a good direction. I'd much rather lynch voided, as I said before, who hasn't really done anything since his wagon. Nonetheless, I have some problems with pappums's behavior

after

he revealed his gambit:

all right folks, here's the dealy-o. to believe that i am scum, you would have to believe that scum would be willing to pull a suicidal move like that and at the same time repeatedly tell people not to mislynch and tell everyone your pm said you were sane (giving you no option to claim that your sanity was not assured after the supposed vm townflip).

His would not be the first gambit that the mafia ever faked. What makes this scummy is that pappum's is insistent on reminding the town that because he played that gambit, he can't be scum. The fact is, his stunt has bought him a lot of leverage, which he is using transparently.
Secondly, I don't like how terse his tone is when discussing with havingfitz. His rudeness is over-the-top, particularly "Fuck you" and calling his posts "rehashed bullshit." It comes across as being a little faked.

I'm not voting him yet, as I need a reraed (as I said before).

[P.T. Barnum]

I had unexpected guests... tomorrow, I swear!

[P.T. Barnum]

Pine:
1. Is Xalxe's replacement.
2. He claims there is "no protown reason" for pappum's gambit. Really, Pine? No pro-town reason? Maybe you disagree with it, but there still is a reason, that pappums and others (including myself) have argued: that it started discussion and helped give this game a focus.
3. His reaction to andrew in post 383 is way off. It's almost as if he intentionally overreacted in order to confirm his theory in post 364.
4. Pine is uncomfortably obsessed with LAL, as Jahudo pointed out.

andrew94:
1. In 303, he declares that "we have enough reactions to pappum's gambit". Except for his very recent posts on Pine, however, he focusses solely on pappums. Why would somebody want to shut down discussion on his only lynch target, unless that lynch wasn't convincing in the first place? I realize he defined progress as lynching pappums, but it's still strange to call for an end to discussion about pappums.
2. He slyly suggests that voided is scum in post 165, but does a complete 180 when pappums revealed his gambit. It makes it seem like he knew the alignments of both players beforehand.
3. He refuses to make sense of his posts when asked.

I like lynches on these two. I don't know which is more likely to get a wagon, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say andrew, just because Pine is still a fresh face. If there's interest in Pine I'll switch immediately.

Vote: andrew

Come deadline time, if we continue to limit our choices to fitz and pappums, I'll vote pappums, as I've already said. But I hope that can be avoided.

i have never said that i, in any way, was cleared from being scum. (i even said that previously in a post when people were saying that i was trying to clear myself). what i was doing in that post was trying to make people question whether scum was more likely to take the course of actions that i did or that fitz did

The two aren't exactly the same thing, but they're close. How many times couldn't you say, "which is more likely, a gambit or ___"?

[P.T. Barnum]

why are you voting me then?

I'm voting you because you're scum, and you should die horribly. I'm hoping the town will see reason.

[P.T. Barnum]

Avoiding the two main targets at this point only makes you look like you're too scared or dumb to contribute something useful.

"Avoiding the two main targets"? I've dedicated several posts to the two main targets! Can you really not bother to read more than one post? Or are you covering for yourself if (and when, in my view) havingfitz comes up town?
The idea that we should be limited to either havingfitz or pappums as a lynch is scum-motivated stupidity of which you seem all too happy to be a part.

[P.T. Barnum]

Yet, we firmly believe that Rat (or Fitz, depending on the wagon) are scum. Even if we have other suspicions, why would it be stupidity to push for a wagon we believe in?

If that's supposed to be directed towards me, you're missing the point. We should vote who we want to vote until we're under the pressure of a deadline (six days does not qualify) or there is a compelling reason to end the day (there isn't). If fitz or pappums is your top choice, fine, but I'm going to vote who I feel like voting, and I certainly won't let anyone tell me that scumhunting is "unhelpful" or "dumb" or cowardly.

[P.T. Barnum]

Ms. Cecily.

[P.T. Barnum]

Everyone else not voting Fitz/Nacho: Guys, there's three days left, and we'll no lynch if Fitz or Nacho aren't lynched. Unless you can whip up some amazing case to persuade the majority to someone else, WE NEED TO LYNCH ONE OF THEM TODAY IF AT ALL POSSIBLE!

I agree with this, much as I don't like it.
I don't think havingfitz is scum.

Unvote
Vote Nacho

[P.T. Barnum]

neil's response to Bub's case confuses me. Where is the WIFOM?

[P.T. Barnum]

If there's renewed interest in a voided wagon I'm totally up for that. I particularly like his recent appeal to newbieness- that's a last resort if I've ever heard one. The neighbor-neighborizor bit, as I've said and said, would be enough to lynch him.
Besides, the deadline's been extended.

Unvote
Vote: voided

[P.T. Barnum]

1. Sufficient to lynch =/= necessary to lynch, sufficient to lynch =/= only player worth lynching (I think andrew and pine have both done enough for us to lynch them.
2. Voting and wagoning has importance outside of lynching.
3. I have no clue what you're getting at with "a neutral" or "wolly at best." Clarify your pronouns.

[P.T. Barnum]

*have

[P.T. Barnum]

Neutral - Andrew said little of any significance, it was all nothing-y nonsense or thats what I made of it anyway. By neutral I meant I couldn't see how anyone could get a positive read (scum or town) on him. Not enough to lynch anyway if you had a confident a read on someone else

I made my case. You may disagree with it, but I would rather you reference it than just assert that he's "a neutral."

If you thought the neighbour thing was a satisfactory reason to lynch Voided (I don't but thats a different matter) then I don't see why your reasons given for your Andrew vote would make him the better vote.

There are a few people in this game with satisfactory reasons for a lynch. You seem to be saying that once someone commits a bad scumtell, every subsequent post and vote of mine should be devoted to lynching them. I don't think that's useful.
Wagons lead to reactions. Voided had his wagon, and I didn't think there was any interest for a future one. I tried to start one on andrew. Since we're so close to lynching, though, I figure lynching voided is far superior to lynching the other two.
And yes, I did forget about voided somewhat, but I guess I got bored with him and wanted to stir the pot.

What do you have as a case on Andrew? The only thing I see is a VI Policy Lynch, in which case if that's what your pushing over everyone else, that's extremely anti-town...

Mike quoted my case at the top of this page.

[P.T. Barnum]

So basically, you have no case?

Could you really be that lazy? Look at the post of mine that andrew quoted in #582, towards the bottom. I made two cases, one on Pine and one on andrew. Each contains three or four specific points.

[P.T. Barnum]

Have only skimmed the thread since the opening, but:

Vote Pine

I had problems with Xalxe/Pine, but Pine's hammer conversion was just ridiculous. Seriously, does anybody think that was genuine? Anyone? At all?

[P.T. Barnum]

-PT post 270 says “Fair enough, though if I had been scum I probably would have assumed that voided was an SK. Pappum's claim as a gambit is still surprising to me.” This is interesting. I doubt any of the townies considered that pappums might have caught the SK. The fact that Pappums says this makes me wonder if this was his genuine reaction to Pappums gambit. He thought Pappums had found the SK. In spite of this, I think scum still would've been pretty hesitant with the wagon, since though they'd consider SK they'd know it was way more likely to be a gambit

What is this nonsense? The very sentence you quoted states "If I had been scum." Obviously, if somebody claims a scum result, your first instinct isn't to think of an SK alignment, but if you were scum, that would be something to consider.

Mike makes a good point about it when he says, “If the neighbor-neighborizor thing was enough to lynch him on its own as you've said and said then why vote for Andrew here ? Seems a very woolly vote really...

Answered this already. It would be courteous of you to mention my objection.

[P.T. Barnum]

Your objection did not allay my suspicion of your original statement enough to warrant mentioning it.

Well, at least you're admitting to being an ass.

[P.T. Barnum]

You would rather not lynch than lynch your number four suspect? These objections can't be serious.

[P.T. Barnum]

He wasn't even my number four. He just was scummier than Fitz. So of course I preferred lynching him.

[P.T. Barnum]

(Also, fyi - I find that scum do this quite often, wanting the points against them dropped just because they addressed it. Town does sometimes too, but scum more so. So there's that.)

And I find replacement-scum often bring up an old, irrelevant point and imply that the accused player ignored it. I'm not saying his argument was wrong because I objected to it; it's wrong because the content of my objections made it obsolete, since it was a very bad arguments to begin with. If you don't think that, I'd love to hear why.
And the idea that you couldn't quote my response in your original post because you were worried about its length is irritating to the extreme. Don't bother with integrity, bullshit is briefer. Give me a break.

[P.T. Barnum]

1. I have no strong opinion of you; I hate your arguments, but defending myself has cost me a chance to reread the game and get a sense of whether Idiotking was scum. I do think that comment in your first post was scummy, but you're overreacting badly.
2. You never quoted my original response to mike. Why?
3. Several people asked me who I would vote for out of pappums/fitz. That's why I said I'd prefer pappums in that post. Are you really that determined to take my comments out of context?
4. As I said to mike, I preferred a lynch on somebody as opposed to a lynch on nobody. I had a strong belief that fitz was town, so I voted pappums. I did not want a "voided wagon the whole time." I wanted a Xalxe wagon, then I reread the game and wanted a Pine wagon (Xalxe's replacement) and an andrew wagon. Voided was #3 or so on my scumlist (I don't keep one officially), and was so throughout the day. I would have liked a lynch on him. I would have especially liked a lynch on pine or andrew. I would have easily taken voided over pappums, and I did. The voided wagon was a surprise to me and everyone else.
5. I wanted to be the driving force on several wagons that day. Nobody joined them. I'm sorry I can't be as persuasive as you would like me to be. I thought my cases were thorough and well-thought out. Perhaps I could be more verbose for you?
6. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that I was sure voided was scum. I said there was enough to lynch her (and several others). Those are very different statements, especially on day one. You and mike seem to share that inexplicable confusion.
7. Waiting to put my vote on the biggest wagon? Baloney! At

no time

did I vote for the biggest wagon while it was the biggest wagon, except for voided at the start of the game, and pappums when it looked like we weren't getting a lynch.

If you really believe that's a genuine description of the pappums and voided wagons and my participation on them, you didn't read the game fully. I'm beginning to believe it's willful ignorance.

[P.T. Barnum]

Sure come the deadline or very close to the deadline then I'd switch to avoid a no lynch but it was way too early for this.

Nobody anticipated the voided wagon. If you had asked anyone in the town at the time of my vote who they thought was headed for the scaffold that day, they would have said fitz or pappums without question. You are right that I was wrong to vote that early, but the fact that no one had an issue with my vote until today shows that it was appropriate to move to those bandwagons. And I switched when I saw a better wagon build. I can't see the issue here.

[P.T. Barnum]

He claimed tracker without claiming his result? lynch 'em

[P.T. Barnum]

the meta on this site has essentially established the tracker as a safe mafia claim (which of course makes it a terrible mafia claim), since it has weaker results than those of a cop and it can exist with other information roles. It's a lot like claiming Nurse.

[P.T. Barnum]

why mikemike?

[P.T. Barnum]

rereading. niel's flip should prove very useful. I understand Bud's point intellectually, but chkflip's posts had a town ring to them, if I recall correctly.

[P.T. Barnum]

Took a look at Xalxe/Pine:
Not much from Xalxe. My reasons for suspecting him had more to do with his comments than his interactions with other players. He does have a terrible reason for voting IK, for being the last-to-confirm. Scum tend to confirm last so that they can have more time to talk at night, so Xalxe probably wouldn't bring it up if IK were scum, as it might implicate his other buddy. Small point in Setael's favor.
Pine has two interesting posts in which he dismisses andrew completely without calling him scum. In fact, Pine seems to refer to andrew as though he knew andrew was town. Pine was a sloppy player, so I doubt he did this for effect. The weird thing is that Pine never explicitly stated that andrew was town either. I think these are points in favor for chk. They just don't read as scum talking to another scum.

I will come up with a vote tomorrow, the gods of time providing.

[P.T. Barnum]

Cecily: How else should I have responded? Of course I was defensive, I was defending myself (I don't know what you mean by "uncharacteristically"). At my sounding "peeved" and calling setael an ass, well, I still think it was incredibly unfair for her to post a point that I thought I had already answered thoroughly without also mentioning my response to it.

[P.T. Barnum]

Why has no-one covered mikemike again?
His first serious post (his fifth game post!) is about voided, from whom he would be "interested" to hear.
Hmm.. drawing attention to yourself by outright refusing to random vote isn't something I'd expect a scum player to do ... not sure why a town player would do either though so would interested to hear from Voided:

a) Why he has refused
b) What he thinks is the best way of starting a game if not RVS

His answers (and lack of any questions himself) don't seem to show a massive enthausiasm for RQS either.[/quote]
Note that these statements are entirely neutral. Everything here is said through implication. Or just talking for the sake of talking: who cares that he "doesn't show entusiasm for RQS either"? If this had any significance, why didn't mike just say it?
His next post (#86) doesn't say much of anything either, and it's even longer. All he says is that Xalxe "earns a black strike in my green book," and that fitz's policy vote is scummy, both without moving his vote from his random one on Jahudo. And in his next post, he says he's "not against policy votes in general," which is leaving himself some nice room to escape. This is before the fitz wagon, mind you, so scummike would have no reason to commit yet. Also, the way he refers to Xalxe is textbook bussing.

Not much to add to this.

If its not a gambit then obviously Voided will be lynched at some point today. Not just yet though.

UNVOTE:

Fitz doesn't seem too keen on us discussing what is happenning in this game - firstly bringing up the possible policy lynch based on Andrew's meta rather than the current game and then looking to bring the day to an abrupt halt.

In this post mike has nothing to add but feels the need to post anyway, doesn't actually comment on when voided should be lynched, unvotes his random vote (it is his eighth post and he still hasn't made a serious vote) and claims that fitz doesn't want to discuss the game. The last point in particular is nonsense: if fitz didn't want to discuss the game, one would thinks he would avoid the most important topic in the game thus far.
It isn't until his 14th post that he votes someone, this time fitz, which he has been building up to ever so slowly. In the post before he votes fitz (and one game post above it, too), however, he says this:

Fitz - Seems pretty jumpy- firstly attempting to get an early close to Day 1 after Rats specifically said do not quick lynch and then immediately jumping at Rat. I am kinda seeing his points re Andrew now though and not going to hold those against him. Also potentially an element of role fishing when he queried Rats in 201.

This is not the position of a townie before he votes his top suspect. I refuse to believe anybody here could think that this is anything but weak, weak stuff.
Also amusing is his next post, where someone (finally) calls him out on this and mike tries to defend himself:

That's nice but is there a punchline to your reading of my iso or are you just doing going to do the 'information not analysis' thing? Kinda looks a little like you were going to do a proper read through all the players to find something scummy to frame them with but got bored after me so figured Paupam sort of lied so he'll do.

Flat-out OMGUS. That's quite a serious accusation considering that mike never brought Jerbs up again.

That's part 1. Part 2 tomorrow.
I should have brought mike up sooner, but I was worried about his suspicions of me biasing my response. I hope I've made a case that stands on its own so far.

Vote mikemike

[P.T. Barnum]

^mod, delete above post please?
Why has no-one covered mikemike again?
His first serious post (his fifth game post!) is about voided, from whom he would be "interested" to hear.

Hmm.. drawing attention to yourself by outright refusing to random vote isn't something I'd expect a scum player to do ... not sure why a town player would do either though so would interested to hear from Voided:

a) Why he has refused
b) What he thinks is the best way of starting a game if not RVS

His answers (and lack of any questions himself) don't seem to show a massive enthausiasm for RQS either.

Note that these statements are entirely neutral. Everything here is said through implication. Or just talking for the sake of talking: who cares that he "doesn't show entusiasm for RQS either"? If this had any significance, why didn't mike just say it?
His next post (#86) doesn't say much of anything either, and it's even longer. All he says is that Xalxe "earns a black strike in my green book," and that fitz's policy vote is scummy, both without moving his vote from his random one on Jahudo. And in his next post, he says he's "not against policy votes in general," which is leaving himself some nice room to escape. This is before the fitz wagon, mind you, so scummike would have no reason to commit yet. Also, the way he refers to Xalxe is textbook bussing.
mike wrote:
Not much to add to this.

If its not a gambit then obviously Voided will be lynched at some point today. Not just yet though.

UNVOTE:

Fitz doesn't seem too keen on us discussing what is happenning in this game - firstly bringing up the possible policy lynch based on Andrew's meta rather than the current game and then looking to bring the day to an abrupt halt.

In this post mike has nothing to add but feels the need to post anyway, doesn't actually comment on when voided should be lynched, unvotes his random vote (it is his eighth post and he still hasn't made a serious vote) and claims that fitz doesn't want to discuss the game. The last point in particular is nonsense: if fitz didn't want to discuss the game, one would thinks he would avoid the most important topic in the game thus far.
It isn't until his 14th post that he votes someone, this time fitz, which he has been building up to ever so slowly. In the post before he votes fitz (and one game post above it, too), however, he says this:
Fitz - Seems pretty jumpy- firstly attempting to get an early close to Day 1 after Rats specifically said do not quick lynch and then immediately jumping at Rat. I am kinda seeing his points re Andrew now though and not going to hold those against him. Also potentially an element of role fishing when he queried Rats in 201.

This is not the position of a townie before he votes his top suspect. I refuse to believe anybody here could think that this is anything but weak, weak stuff.
Also amusing is his next post, where someone (finally) calls him out on this and mike tries to defend himself:
That's nice but is there a punchline to your reading of my iso or are you just doing going to do the 'information not analysis' thing? Kinda looks a little like you were going to do a proper read through all the players to find something scummy to frame them with but got bored after me so figured Paupam sort of lied so he'll do.

Flat-out OMGUS. That's quite a serious accusation considering that mike never brought Jerbs up again.

That's part 1. Part 2 tomorrow.
I should have brought mike up sooner, but I was worried about his suspicions of me biasing my response. I hope I've made a case that stands on its own so far.
Vote mikemike

[P.T. Barnum]

fucking quote tags

[P.T. Barnum]

I still find it incredibly scummy that you resorted to ad hom.

Insult =/= ad hom. I wasn't saying you were wrong because you were an ass. The fact that you were an ass was quite independent of your being completely wrong.

[P.T. Barnum]

PT, why is it that you only post content against people who are attacking you?

well, I did comment on chkflip, so I don't think that's strictly true. But otherwise, it's coincidence. I think mike is scum and I wanted to defend myself against setael. I can't think of anything else to say.

[P.T. Barnum]

got home later than expected: promised post tomorrow