Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[andrew94]

i cant really do anything due to the fact that people are not responding to me apart from calling me 'vi' and 'speak english pls'

[Voidedmafia]

i cant really do anything due to the fact that people are not responding to me apart from calling me 'vi' and 'speak english pls'

'cause, yknow, this game is more than just responding to what people tell you.

Oh, wait, it ISN'T?! Oh, jeez, what a surprise.

start scumhunting, boy. You can start by better pounding out your case on neil. One post does not necessarily make one sum.

[Voidedmafia]

Now, it's true I'm not doing it right now, but I HAVE done so over the course of this game.

YOU, on the other hand, have done pretty much nothing content-wise other than that Neil case (which I still don't quite understand, but this could just be me posting at 3:10 AM Central), and even that's rather weak.

[andrew94]

imagine if i said this: alright X is scummy (no vote) and andrew should be policy lynched later on if there is no body else.

thats what neil did, thats fence sitting, thats scummy

[havingfitz]

Neil...not sure why you have decided to make the game personal. "OK little boy?" "pompous jerk?" "thick skull?"

I consider unprovoked ad-hom attacks to be scummy. And I do in this case along with pappums' "dumbass" comment. When you can't converse sensibly and have to resort to base level attacks it shows you are frustrated and do not have solid ground to stand on.

I'm not going to respond to everything throughout your 2-part wall post because that would create a longer wall which I suspect many would gloss over.

I will say it's hypocritical to gripe about my using the term "us" or "we" when you use it as well. There is nowhere ITT where I have lied and your attempt to color me as such is baseless and reaching.

As for the rolefishing...I'm not sure why this doesn't get across to you, but I did not ask for anyone to claim. pappums claimed of his own free will. My question to him in regards to the claim he made was…was his claim still valid. I don't want to know if pappums is VT or any other type of PR, I want to know if his unsolicited PR claim is still valid because of its relationship IMO to Voided's claim. If you or anyone else thinks trying to confirm a claim someone has already made is rolefishing then arguing it further is pointless.

Lastly...I have pointed out two situations where you contradict yourself within the same posts. Your recent posting towards me would be example three. You begin with stating you don't believe I am scum...then you proceed to build a lengthy ~case on me where you say you have a scummy read on me. You haven't devoted that much attention or effort into the person you are voting for (for the potential result of his lie but

not

the act of lying itself ) It's kind of like the fencesitting andrew is suspecting you for.

And as much as I hate to say it, if pappums’ was found to be scum…my read on you would probably change.

[neil1113]

Lol alright Fitz.

"OK little boy?" Was referring to your seemingly lack of understanding and knowledge of the game, by the way you phrased things and the way you tried to come off as accusing.

"pompous jerk?" I said is what your post made you out to seem like in my opinion. I could've said "arrogant jerk" or "ignorant jerk" or "blind-sided jerk" and all would be acceptable. I don't mean it to be a shot on you as a person, but what your post seems to make you out to be. I'm saying it so that you could be careful in which you speak.

"thick skull?" Again, referring to a more one sided, tunneling outlook. Instead of being open and realizing, there's almost nobody here that's actually following you, you instead attempt to get questions out there by referring to the term "we" and "us." As far as I've been concerned, there are people agreeing with my reads and if they are town, they are on my side. Now I apologize if anything I said was taken as a personal attack on you as a person outside of this game. I didn't mean for anything to come off that way, though I can easily see how my words could've been taken that way. However I assure you, nothing I said was on a personal, or even angry for that matter, basis. I'm enjoying this game, and I hope you are too.

All in all, I didn't lay out a case against you. That wasn't my point. My point was in disproving your statements, and proving that you are a hypocrite when it comes to your own "policy." You lied, and I've explained it in my previous posts against you. I laid my cards out on the table that I had against you, in order that I may move on from you. Like I said, I don't believe you to be scum, just slightly anti-town. However, if you could take half the effort you put into me, and put it into scum hunting, I do believe you can be a great asset to the town when you choose to be. So my goal in the posts I made, were to make you come out and "choose to be."

Lastly, about this whole "fencesitting idea." You did not agree with Andrew did you? Please don't let it be so. Andrew's case is that because I basically called him out on a policy lynch, if nothing else, I'm scummy. He has no fencesitting case against me, because I am very careful where I put my vote. I acknowledged where I'd be putting my vote when the day came to, but I didn't want the day to end quickly so I kept the vote to myself during that moment. I WASN'T okay with a quick lynch. That's not fence sitting, that's technique. And now? How do you see right now as fence sitting? I'm still waiting for Pappums to come back before I move on. My vote is on him. My vote has spoken. You can't be fence sitting, when you're voting for someone. Voting is more powerful then the actual words themselves when it comes down to it. Fence sitting? Really? Oh dear, please don't ever settle for such a reaching, useless, and rather harmless case such as that against me. A little about me... I don't fence sit. Town or Mafia. Ever.

[pappums rat]

these last several posts by neil feel like distancing to me.

and now that i think on it more, his vote on me doesnt really make much sense. he is voting me because of the possibility that vm could have been mislynched while my gambit was still in play, but that possibility would have been there whether i was town or scum.

also, the 'aardvark' comment was out of line. sorry about that.

[Rhinox]

Votecount 1.7

andrew94 (0) -
Xalxe (0) -
neil1113 (0) -
P.T. Barnum (0) -
Jahudo (0) -
Jerbs (0) -
mikemike778 (0) -
Idiotking (0) -
Jinxx (0) -
Voidedmafia (2) - Jinxx, Cecily
Cecily (0) -
havingfitz (2) - mikemike778, pappums rat
pappums rat (4) - Voidedmafia, havingfitz, andrew94, neil1113

not voting (5): Jerbs, Idiotking, Jahudo, Xalxe, P.T. Barnum

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.
Deadline for Day 1 is Wednesday, March 30 at 9:00AM EST.

The doorbells of Jinxx and Idiotking have been rung.

(aka, they've been prodded)

[havingfitz]

Poor backtracking. You defend your ad-hom comments with more ad-hom statements. Nice. And if I’m coming across as accusing I probably am. Aren’t you accusing? Aren’t

we

all accusing at some point in this game?

… there's almost nobody here that's actually following you, you instead attempt to get questions out there by referring to the term "we" and "us." As far as I've been concerned, there are people agreeing with my reads and if they are town, they are on my side.

I don’t know if anyone is following me or not. I really don’t care. I’m stating my suspicions and questions and people can do with them what they want. I also did not realize you had people agreeing with you (aka followers?)…good job. Instead of making pronoun use a point of contention (a worthless one at that), feel free to substitute” us” or” we” with “I” the next time you get put off by my use of them.

All in all, I didn't lay out a case against you. That wasn't my point.

What? Do you even keep track of what you write? What about this….

now I have a bigger case. THIS case, I'll lay out for you and even trail the main points so that THIS time, you don't miss it.

You lied, and I've explained it in my previous posts against you.

No. I have not lied (unlike you and your case denial above). You accused me of lying by implying I have rolefished and denied it. When you explain how it is rolefishing to ask someone who has ALREADY claimed to confirm whether their claim still stands, then perhaps we’ll see where you are confused. You are also accusing me of lying in regards to my “back to square one” comment. There is no lie there either. I stand by anything I have said regarding “square one.”

Lastly, about this whole "fencesitting idea." You did not agree with Andrew did you? Please don't let it be so.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with andrew. His post prior to mine mentioned he thought you were fencesitting and that is how I see some of the 180’s you have done. In your ISO 10 you agree with theory regarding lynching Voided (which was to do it ASAP) and then say you want to extend the day 17 more (rl) days. You dislike that pappums lied and are voting him for the impact his lie could have had but you indict the LAL policy. You do not find me scummy and then proceed to lay out a case on me as to why I am scummy. It seems like you want to have things both ways. If fencesitting doesn’t sit well with you, consider my accusation to be for contradictory comments instead.

I’m not certain pappums is scum (nor anyone else) but his lie is the model lie for my support to the LAL in this instance. Someone pointed out that not all lies are bad for town. I can agree with that comment and I could envision some instances where a lie would not warrant a LAL sentiment. That does not apply to pappums’ lie however. His lie could have resulted in a mislynch and hypothetically…if there was a cop of some sort in the game…the lie could have forced a PR to out itself. Then there could have been two roles outted due to his lie (along with Voided’s Neighborizor claim). That is a lie worthy of a LAL IMO. And despite your aversion to LAL…in this instance your vote on pappums is a result of him lying. You’re trying to lynch a liar.

I think town would get more info from a pappum flip but I would be equally interested in seeing a neil flip. My current vote is not set in stone.

FOS neil

[Voidedmafia]

imagine if i said this: alright X is scummy (no vote) and andrew should be policy lynched later on if there is no body else.

thats what neil did, thats fence sitting, thats scummy

That ain't fencesitting. That's a promise as to where his vote is going next if his current wagon falls through. Fencesitting would be like teetering between you and Fitz for the vote.

these last several posts by neil feel like distancing to me.

and now that i think on it more, his vote on me doesnt really make much sense. he is voting me because of the possibility that vm could have been mislynched while my gambit was still in play, but that possibility would have been there whether i was town or scum.

also, the 'aardvark' comment was out of line. sorry about that.

I don't know about distancing, but there is some backtracking in them.

By "That possibility" you mean my mislynch, right? If so, the possibility is always there, but if your gambit hadn't been started, it wouldn't have increased so high in probability.

[Cecily]

Woah that's a lot of wall to read through...

I'm going to be honest and say that I didn't do an incredibly thorough read through because my head hurts, but what I've gathered through my skimming is that pappum's gambit as explained through recent posts seemed to be town-oriented and I'm no longer looking at pappums as scummy specifically for it.

Neil does seem to be trying to keep himself out of the spotlight while still targetting fitz, and I agree that the name calling does seem more like a personal attack than something that is beneficial to fitz for learning how to better his argument style. If the name calling in itself wasn't scummy, the "Lol alright fitz" doesn't sit too well with me. It's belittling and rude and leads me to think that neil is saying that stuff to try and make fitz out as the bad guy, which would have worked had he not been called out on it. And upon being called out for the names, he continued to act as though fitz had almost no right to be offended. That is scummy to me.

Blame it on me having the emotions of a girl, but

unvote
vote: neil

I'd be more than happy to clarify on why if anyone has problems with it, but hopefully that can happen after the room stops spinning.

[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.

[neil1113]

Our conversations are not getting us anywhere.

Lastly, about this whole "fencesitting idea." You did not agree with Andrew did you? Please don't let it be so.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with andrew.

It's kind of like the fencesitting andrew is suspecting you for.

What is this then? Is this not in some form, agreement? Enough said.

these last several posts by neil feel like distancing to me.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Distancing? If I wanted to DISTANCE myself from somebody, I wouldn't be DRAWING ATTENTION to both of us by arguing with them, now would I? That sounds kind of.. well, contradictory. Think about what you said before you talk, please?

and now that i think on it more, his vote on me doesnt really make much sense. he is voting me because of the possibility that vm could have been mislynched while my gambit was still in play,

but that possibility would have been there whether i was town or scum.

It's not that VM could have been mislynched but you caught it just in time, it's that the only reason VM wasn't mislynched is because some people (like myself maybe?) didn't buy into your false claim in the first place, or rather, wanted to wait it out to see how things played out. If you almost got VM lynched and your role is town, you're not playing to your win condition so you deserve to be lynched for being anti-town. If you almost got VM lynched and your role is scum, then you're playing to your win condition but you should still be lynched because well.. you're scum. Either way, you don't seem to win in this situation, so how is my vote against you NOT pro-town? Explain that, or stop trying to use your little WIFOM suspicions to change the subject.

Neil does seem to be trying to keep himself out of the spotlight while still targetting fitz,

I ask you the same question as I did the others, how on earth is me completely throwing myself out here to question Fitz mean I am trying to keep myself out of the spotlight? Those are almost completely contradictory statements.

and I agree that the name calling does seem more like a personal attack than something that is beneficial to fitz for learning how to better his argument style.

How is this more scum motivation then town motivation? How can you establish which motivation it is, just because a name has been thrown out there? And I've already explained WHY I have stated the names I chose.

If the name calling in itself wasn't scummy, the "Lol alright fitz" doesn't sit too well with me. It's belittling and rude and leads me to think that

neil is saying that stuff to try and make fitz out as the bad guy,

which would have worked had he not been called out on it.

And upon being called out for the names, he continued to act as though fitz had almost no right to be offended. That is scummy to me. [/quote]

The only problem the following bold statement, is I have specified SEVERAL times that I do not believe Fitz is scum. That my friend that is a girl, is quite contrary to the picture you believe I'm painting. Your "suspicions" seem like very little thought out, and almost instinctive instead of logical. You seem to have caught on to what OTHERS have said, and jumped on the wagon rather quickly. What about me do you find scummy in your own words? Other than what I've already explained? If you CAN'T state a half way decent case here (which, by the way, I don't believe you can), you can sure be prepared to be lynched for "lurking" and "fluff accusations" and then prepare to die scum. For next game, if you ever play scum again after this game, remember... you can't just ride the town wagons and repeat accusations and try to half-read my posts and make your own accusations, then make it seem like you're scum hunting. Because it's not scum hunting, it's repeating and showing you're not actually paying attention to my posts. Which is either an insult to me, or you're scum that doesn't really care about the town.

[neil1113]

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

I'm done "trolling."

[neil1113]

Messed up the first quote:

EBWOP:

Our conversations are not getting us anywhere

FITZ

.

Lastly, about this whole "fencesitting idea." You did not agree with Andrew did you? Please don't let it be so.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with andrew.

It's kind of like the fencesitting andrew is suspecting you for.

What is this then? Is this not in some form, agreement? Enough said.

[havingfitz]

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

I haven't ever been accused of "trolling" before and I have never used the term. Can I get a definition. And nice to see you post a few times. You're almost out of lurker territory. Way ahead of Jerbs at least.

[Cecily]

Can I ask why it is such a bad thing to agree with people? I can't post all the time, so when I do unless something big has happened at just the right time, someone else has most likely already called out what I was thinking. That's how wagons form, and that's how scum get killed.

To answer your question, you are keeping yourself out of the spotlight with the name calling. I guess saying out of the spot light isn't exactly the right way to phrase it, and instead maybe keeping yourself out of the line of fire by diverting it elsewhere. I understand that you explained why you chose those words, and while I completely understand the contexts, they were unnecessary. The "Ok little boy?" was condescending. "pompous jerk" could have easily been substituted with just "arrogant". Adding the extra "jerk" in there is what makes it scummy.

And personal attacks on someone you don't think is scum definitely doesn't strike me as town oriented.

And then calling me scum when I expressly stated that my post was not a good one doesn't help my opinion of you. I just hate being prodded and have things in real life that need doing, so sorry if that comes off as "lurking", but I'm doing my best.

[Jahudo]

@PT Barnum: 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. The only real risky vote for scum in this case is the hammer itself, which is another reason why they'd want to vote earlier and hope there's someone with a personality for quick-hammering as either alignment.
---

I looked through the voided voters to see who comparatively looks scummier. Jinxx you can't really analyze because he didn't say anything. He could have wanted to wait or wanted to get the wagon over with.

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

Here he is arguing for a larger wagon, but he recognizes that it could be a gambit.

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

This is a good sign. It makes me think his earlier quote was to have a pressure wagon, not a lynch wagon. I think he is town.

----------------

Point is, make effort besides stating the obvious. You're probably getting strung up anyway, but on the off chance you're town, we'd like some help going into tomorrow.

Xalxe spent his time questioning voided. I do not think scum would feel any need to do this, actually lengthening the day.

Also, voided's defense is...better than I expected, actually. He hasn't laid down without a fight.

I think Xalxe was scumhunting for a townie and waiting for comfirmation that pappums does want this lynch. Xalxe did not try to push the wagon faster than a townie would want it.

---------------

Best thing to do IMO is to just eliminate Voided and if by some chance pappums is not being truthful...lynch him. I would think everything else from this point on with respect to Voided is going to be WIFOM.

Pro-scum attitude. Even if this is your playstyle opinion, its a strategy that would benefit scum if both those players are town. You are basically advocating entering day 3 that could possibly be after two mislynches.

If we have identified scum it is in town's best interest to eliminate asap vs letting scum manipulate or assess town.

You don't ask for pappums to confirm his thoughts, or question why he is delaying, so I have trouble believing why you take pappums for his word. And why you understand tomorrow you could be lynching him. Its like you aren't worried about being duped today.

Your early claim was poor play and your ego at thinking you have pegged a scumbuddy based on my posts is ridiculous.

This sounds like you don't trust him, but the rest of your posting sounds like you do enough to lynch. Unless this is also a post you want to have ready in case voided flips town.

--------------

Like I said in my previous post, it is an unfortunate way of proving something, but it's really the only way at this point.

I don't like this attitude, you are acting as if there is nothing left to talk about as reason to end the day, when other people are talking about player reads besides pappums and voided.

All that said I don't think we need to wait the entire continuation of this day unless someone is going to admit to being scum, and I think it would be more useful to learn if Voided is actually scum or not before continuing on with deliberations over who his buddies are.

Wants to end the day early, isn't asking for a pappums confirmation.

No one's jumped out as scummy specifically because all of the attention is on you. No one is going to try to come to your rescue at this point because that would be suicide if your result comes up scum.

Another of these posts, you are arguing that the day should end because there is no one else to talk about. What about everyone's reactions to the wagon? Who joined vs. who didn't? To me it sounds like you are only interested in the hammer and that is scummy.

------------
Both Cecily and havingfitz look like scum. I have town reads on xalxe, pt barnum, neil, mikemike, pappums. Idiotking is also town, but that's a gut feeling. Jinxx, Jerbs, and andrew are null reads. I'm conflicted on voided because he was put into a situation he probably wasn't used to, so he may not have been acting like himself. I want to see more of him not in the spotlight. I don't have a reason to suspect him now though.

Vote: havingfitz

[Jerbs]

I see no point of joining a flame war.

Took a look at mikemike's iso and found...fluff. then content

He answers question and post fluff from 0-5
post 6 is agreeing with 2 people and saying policy lynch is scummy
post 7 is saying policy lynch is bad
post 8 is pointing out the obvious
The rest is mostly content tho

I approve of a paupams lynch because his lying could have caused a mislynch and I'm a supporter of LAL

[Jinxx]

I'm here and reading.

[Jinxx]

Ok.

I'm not sure what to think of pappum's gambit. Overall, I guess it has been helpful to town. I don't think scum would ever do something like that, but then that thought goes into WIFOM. Best to just leave the gambiter as null.

Voided... =/
I guess knowing that the claim was fake, I think that your defense is more likely to genuinely be town.

---

I am against lynching all liars. Or any type of policy lynch for that matter. The fact is: both town and scum lie, lurk, and are stupid. Don't lynch someone for just one of those reasons.

---

Jerbs is terrible. First noticing how cautious he is to vote or accuse someone of being scum. Then, what is with your post on mike? "He had fluff during RVS, but now is posting content." What was the point of the post? Do you think he is scum? Why don't you vote for him (or someone)?

Why am I not voting for you?

unvote, vote: Jerbs

Also, note his signature

Those that hammer others are called scum. But I think those who lurk and refrain from voting are worse than scum.

Hahaha... Irony.

---

Regarding fitz/niel. I think that neil is likely town, and that fitz could be scum. I think that the cases against him are decent, but I would rather vote for jerbs.

[Voidedmafia]

I'm here and reading.

Fine, then. Since you're so sure I'm scum, start elaborating on that.

P. edit: Or not...

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

I haven't ever been accused of "trolling" before and I have never used the term. Can I get a definition. And nice to see you post a few times. You're almost out of lurker territory. Way ahead of Jerbs at least.

Basic definition of trolling: Intentionally baiting someone with remarks so as to obtain a certain desired reaction, usually along the lines of rage from the person this is instigated against.

So, to make it applicable, Neil could be using names like this to get you riled up and respond in kind, potentially with much harsher words, and also potentially make you screw up in regards to posting.

Jerbs: ...so...you start the post talking about mikemike, give statements that say nothing, and then 180 onto another person (Pappums) as to their scumminess without any particular rhyme to it. What gives?

[P.T. Barnum]

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

[andrew94]

erm fitz and ceci;y, i notice when u vote/fos neil, u neglected my case yes?