Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[Idiotking]

/confirm

[Idiotking]

Vote Xalxe

For trying to distance himself from Jahudo.

[Idiotking]

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

Vote Idiotking

. Wagon.

For trying to distance himself from Jahudo.

How so?

It was a quasi-joke. It is, however, odd how he jumped off of my wagon when Jahudo joined it, as if he thought I was near a lynch already.

[Idiotking]

It was a quasi-joke. It is, however, odd how he jumped off of my wagon when Jahudo joined it, as if he thought I was near a lynch already.

Odd as in suspicious? Is your Xalxe vote serious or not? Calling it a quasi-joke downplays your seriousness, but you haven't retracted the theory that he was distancing himself from me. Why do you think the unvote had more to do with me and not you?

The "distancing himself from you" part was the joke. The main point of my vote was his supposed misunderstanding of how many votes were on the wagon/how many votes would make a lynch. The only connection it has to you is the fact that he backed away immediately after your vote on me.

[Idiotking]

And no, to answer the first part of your question that I forgot to respond to, it's not a serious vote. I just wanted to make the observation that Xalxe's reaction to your vote was unusual.

[Idiotking]

Unvote

Because the Xalxe thing seems like small potatoes now.

I am very, very wary of anybody who acts purely on gut, as pappums seems to have done. And to waste a one-shot ability on D1, on a gut feeling... that's just terrible play, in my opinion. I do not believe pappums one tiny bit. I also do not believe that, assuming that voided did turn up mafia, it would clear pappums. This could easily be a scum gambit to get voided lynched and have pappums "confirmed", when he is in fact voided's scumbuddy. Under this assumption it would make sense that voided would try to defend himself, 1. because then it wouldn't be obvious that it's a gambit, and 2. they (probably) wouldn't have planned it out like this, so it would catch voided by surprise.

Whether voided is scum or not, I don't believe pappums' claim at all. It just seems terrible play no matter how I think about it. If he's actually a 1-shot day cop,

why use the ability so early?!

If he's pulling a townie gambit, that's also bad. I don't like gambits because they mislead the town. If he's scum, then there's no reason to do something like this, unless he's pulling a gamble like I mentioned above.

[Idiotking]

Sorry folks, I'm here. Been spread a bit thin lately.

I don't like gambits because they intentionally mislead the town. I think LAL is generally a good guideline to follow. However in this case, I think the gambit worked out well enough to be worthwhile. If Pappums had done this as anything other than a gambit, it would have been mindblowingly stupid, because the question "why did he do it so early and on a gut read?" would have always been present. The only other possibility that I can see (beyond it being the gambit he claims it to be) is an attempt to look town by doing something that would be incredibly stupid if done as scum. That would be an odd move to take though, so for now, I don't think he's scum.

As for fitz, I agree that he's jumpy, but that could just be someone playing based on their emotions more than anything else. A good example of this is the post where he made the word "lie" really big every time he used it. That's just childish. I don't know if that's an indication of his alignment or if he's just being rude.

I am really not liking andrew. I wholeheartedly support lynches of anti-town players if there's not a strong candidate for scum available. Better to kill an anti-town townie on D1 than having to deal with the distraction for the rest of the game. However, given that there's a lot of action going on in this game, I don't think that a policy lynch of andrew is the best course of action this time. I'm not sure if that is a real option anymore anyway, given that most of you are treating him as a minor annoyance now.

[Idiotking]

I also don't like the fact that neil and fitz are trolling the hell out of each other.

[Idiotking]

Reading through these wallposts is giving me a headache. Can't you guys try to argue in a concise manner? At least a little bit? You're making my brain bleed, here.

After reading through the last couple of pages in a sleep-deprived stupor, I have decided to

Vote havingfitz

Predominantly because of his incredible shifting loyalties. He absolutely believed that pappums was town when pappums claimed cop, which is just a poor conclusion to reach, given that it could have been (and was) a gambit or a lie.

[Idiotking]

Ah crap. I didn't mean to hit submit. I was trying to work on that more.

[Idiotking]

Ok.

So havingfitz believed pappums' claim without adequately exploring any other possibilities. A symptom of that was is wish to have a quicklynch of voided. Why should a claim made under suspicious circumstances lead to a quicklynch, particularly on D1 when there is hardly any information anyway? There really isn't a good reason. Then, immediately following pappum's revelation that it was a gambit, fitz freaks out and attacks pappums, claiming that he (who fitz claimed probably wasn't lying and as such was probably town) is lying scum. This turnaround is so absolute and happened so quickly that I doubt it could ever be topped.

I'm sure this has been brought up somewhere in the wallposts, but as I said, reading through them made my brain sore.

[Idiotking]

So havingfitz believed pappums' claim without adequately exploring any other possibilities. A symptom of that was is wish to have a quicklynch of voided. Why should a claim made under suspicious circumstances lead to a quicklynch, particularly on D1 when there is hardly any information anyway? There really isn't a good reason.

What other possibilities needed exploring? Look above for my rationale on a quicklynch. In my experience a result on someone is cut and dry. Especially on D1. If we were in MYLO or LYLO I would not have been as quick to believe pappums. How was the claim made under suspicious circumstances? pappums has basically outted scum or revealed himself as scum.

All possibilities need exploring all the time. Blindly following someone's claim like this (in so doing assuming that one of them HAS to be scum) is poor play, because it means you aren't thinking for yourself. If there are really NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES, then sure, a lynch is a fair conclusion to reach. This was not the case, however.

Pappum's claim was suspicious for reasons I've already stated about three times: it was D1, pappums claimed sane 1-shot day cop, and would have absolutely wasted his power. The fact that he could have (and claimed to) hit scum was irrelevant, because the very act of doing it would be dumb. As such, pappums was either being incredibly stupid or he had something else under his sleeve. Believing his claim and following him was just about the last thing you should have done.

And as a rule, quicklynches are bad for the town. Quicklynches on D1 are no exception.

I will say the fact you were inclined to not believe pappums' claim regardless of whether it proved true or not seems like setting yourself up by conveniently not suspect pappum regardless of Void's possible lynched and flip outcome. So if Void were to have flipped town, you can avoid suspecting pappums for a revealed lie....and if Void were to have flipped scum...you set yourself to suspect pappums despite him having told the truth. Translation: if/when pappums is lynched, if he flips scum you have risen on the list of his possible scum buddies.

That's because for him to be telling the truth, he would have to be completely incompetent. There is just no good reason for wasting a power like that. So I looked at other possibilities, all of which would have been him lying. Apparently, I was right.

Then, immediately following pappum's revelation that it was a gambit, fitz freaks out and attacks pappums,

claiming that he (who fitz claimed probably wasn't lying and as such was probably town) is lying scum.

This turnaround is so absolute and happened so quickly that I doubt it could ever be topped.

How do I freak out and attack pappums? He admitted to lying, I found his lie suspicious, he is my top suspect and therefore has my vote. regarding the bolded bit above...WTH are you talking about? Are you saying you suspect me because I am being inconsistent by changing my opinion that someone who was probably telling the truth is lying scum? Are you forgetting about the bit where pappums actually admitted to lying? <headshake>

Well, you call him a lying ass, for one. You devolve into childish antics when confronted by the revelation that it was a gambit. Strange that you were happy enough to go with the flow and lynch voided, but when that changes, you lash out against pappums for lying. Tell me, what good reason would pappums have for revealing the gambit if he were scum? I know of one, but I want to see what conclusions you reach. As far as the bolded section is concerned, I'm talking about how you switch from being blindly sure that pappums is telling the truth to being blindly sure that he is scum. The important word here is "blindly". You seem determined to focus in on only one possibility, no matter the situation. Why? And yes, pappums admitted to lying. I am generally pro-LAL and anti-gambit. In this case, however, there is only one way that I can see pappums being scum, and just as many ways that he is town. Thus he is neutral, regardless of the lie. So your arguments that he lied mean nothing to me.

My turnaround was "absolute" because pappums admitted to lying and, once again...what is quick about my turnaround? Is quickness a scum tell?

It's quick because you switched completely in one post (your post following pappums' claim). And yes, quickness is a scumtell. Quicklynches are scumtells. Quickly changing one's opinion and lashing out because of it is a scumtell. It means you're not taking the time to think things through. Acting on impulse is scummy.

[Idiotking]

Fitz, could you at least try to be civil when posting? Talking down to others who are arguing against you is (as I've said before) very childish. I am not an idiot. I'd

like

for you to actually respond to my argument instead of devolving into insults. Alternatively, if you've already responded to my points in previous posts, could you direct me to them? I'd rather not wade through that wallpost mess again.

[Idiotking]

Also, what makes you think that I am scum?

[Idiotking]

I'm inclined to think that pappums' overreaction is just a result of being constantly trolled by fitz. It's not the overt kind with a lot of cussing, though. It's the gnawing, nagging kind, a lot of little jabs here and there that alone don't mean much but together get pretty insulting. He clearly has a low opinion of everyone who is in any way against him, and he doesn't mind voicing it. To me it looks like more of a "stop being an asshole" type thing that you get on all forums, not just mafia ones.

[Idiotking]

So who do you consider scum at this moment, fitz? Besides pappums and me, I mean.

[Idiotking]

Neil, that's the point. His scumlist consists entirely of people who are against him. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[Idiotking]

Which makes me think several things:

1. Fitz either does not understand that the town should deliberate instead of acting quickly (which he has said is not scummy), or he is scum.
2. Fitz either genuinely believes that three scum are all on his wagon, or he is being reactionary, which is scummy.
3. Fitz does not have a good understanding of how this game is played, regardless of whether or not he is scum.

[Idiotking]

(What I was trying to do was get him to post his list, and then copy/paste from his wagon on the mod's votecount. Guess it didn't work out.)

[Idiotking]

I've been terribly busy lately. I should be able to have time to make a substantial post tomorrow.

[Idiotking]

Good stuff IK....thanks for playing.

Your sarcasm is not welcome. Twice I've written posts requesting a replacement, only to delete them. The only reason I didn't post them is because there seem to be quite enough new replacements as-is, and I don't want to make things worse. That's the problem with having games near the end of a semester. All the college/high school students don't have time to deal with mafia.

As it is, my vote would stay on you anyway. Yes, pappums snapped like a twig and went into an ad hom frenzy, but again, I think that's just because you're good at irritating the piss out of other players. I've snapped before too, several times, when I was town. As for Cecily, I haven't gone through to look at her posts significantly,

because I have not had the time

.

What I

want

to do is go through and write an extremely detailed, extremely thorough post describing all my reads on everyone. I'd have to have the time to go back and read the thread again, though, and there's no guarantee that such would be forthcoming.

[Idiotking]

*no guarantee that the time to do so would be forthcoming.