Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[Cecily]

Yes, because you're not worth it. You're obnoxious and unhelpful, but I'd rather cast an actual suspicion than go on about a LAL thing. At this point in the game there are enough other people to be concerned with that someone that, while not helping anything, isn't more scummy than anyone else.

[Rhinox]

Votecount 1.8

andrew94 (0) -
Xalxe (0) -
neil1113 (1) - Cecily
P.T. Barnum (0) -
Jahudo (0) -
Jerbs (1) - Jinxx
mikemike778 (0) -
Idiotking (0) -
Jinxx (0) -
Voidedmafia (0) -
Cecily (0) -
havingfitz (3) - mikemike778, pappums rat, Jahudo
pappums rat (4) - Voidedmafia, havingfitz, andrew94, neil1113

not voting (4): Jerbs, Idiotking, Xalxe, P.T. Barnum

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

[havingfitz]

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.

It was not pro-scum if pappums had been telling the truth. To have confirmed scum nailed early on Day 1 favors a quicklynch IMO. Why waste everyone's time looking for scumbuddies (who should not be stupid enough to link themselves to Voided) with what could be assumed to be an honest claim & result? My ISO 6-8 give my rational for a VM QL and I reiterate my belief that pappums has to be telling the truth in my ISO 12. I disagree that under the circumstances..if pappums had been truthful my sentiment was pro-scum. As three others did as displayed by their actions if not their comments. With the entire basis for my opinion being pappums' honesty...the fact he lied distorts any actions up to his confession as people (town at least...myself at least) were unknowingly operating on the basis of that lie.

@ all. Why did I not question pappums lie? Typically when someone claims a PR...especially early in the game...I am very hesitant to believe them. The reason I was willing to take pappums as legitimate was that he was implicating someone else and there was a way of confirming his claim. IMO there would be no way someone would falseclaim a result on another player when there was a way of proving that result. If VM were to have been lynched and turned out town...it would have been obvious (to me at least) that pappums was scum (or at the very least town not playing to the town's wincon). I had no reason not to believe pappum based on the consequences I felt he would suffer if he was not telling the truth.

Instead...he appears to be getting a pass from many of the game and instead there is a growing wagon on the person who was the most committed to believing him. At this point the only people who know whether pappums and voided are scum are scum...so how can the possibility of one and two mislynches be a negative against me (due to my actions from believing pappums' lie) when one or both of pappums could still turn out to be scum?

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.

I state I assume he is telling the truth and as mentioned above...I give my rationale with my Voided vote and subsequent posts. I don't have trouble believing him because if he had turned out to be lying...it would have implicated him (pappums) as scum. Now with his admission that he lied and deceived

us

we no longer have that cut and dry (ie one of them has to be scum) situation. What we do have is at least one player we know has lied and deceived town. What's more scummy...believing another players' claim OR lying and deceiving town and coming right on the edge of what may have been a mislynch?

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.

When I made this post directed at pappums (as well as now) I did not trust him. What is your point? "Sounds like I do enough to lynch?" What? I don't trust him and I am voting him. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

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

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.

When people are basing their play on lie...how can they be viewed as acting like themselves? If pappums doesn't lie...my vote isn't on Voided and I'm not looking to anyone for a QL.

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.

---

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.

What cases on me do you think are decent? And why is neil not a consideration with his inconsistencies and overdefensiveness?

@VM...thanks. Not sure that describes any of my posts to neil but definitely think the term troll could apply to neil...and pappums rat for that matter.

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

andrew...I saw your comments. Was I supposed to reference them? As usual you are posting the bare minimum and your case on neil is all of one or two lines. Not a whole lot to digest in re: to neil. I'm happy for my suspicions towards neil to stand on their own two feet.

[havingfitz]

EBWOP:

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.

When I made this post directed at pappums (as well as now) I did not trust him. What is your point? "Sounds like I do enough to lynch?" What? I don't trust him and I am voting him. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I went back to this post to try and figure out what you were talking about. I thought it had came after his confession as opposed to prior to it. My comments towards pappums were made in regards to him expressing suspicions towards me...that has nothing to do with trust...that has to do with the knowledge he is off on his read. Which would be consistent IMO with my read on his early claim (which at the time I thought was truthful) and in fact now...consistent with his crap gambit.

To clarify...I do not trust him post-confession...but pre-confession, when the quote above was taken, I did trust his fake result (for reasons already provided). I did not agree, obviously, with his read on me or the logic behind his (what I perceived as truthful) early D1 claim.

[pappums rat]

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

yes, my gambit could have caused a mislynch, but i took measures in an attempt to prevent that from happening. why do you think gambits are a basis for lal?

im pretty sure there are no non sane cops in mini normals>>

vote pappums

he revealed its a gambit now cos there is no no no no non sane cops

i said that there are no non-sane cops in mini normals while the gambit was still in play. so why do you think i retracted my gambit because of that fact?

Why waste everyone's time looking for scumbuddies (who should not be stupid enough to link themselves to Voided) with what could be assumed to be an honest claim & result?

they wouldnt be linking themselves to voidedmafia, the goal was to judge people's reactions to the gambit.

Not sure that describes any of my posts to neil but definitely think the term troll could apply to neil...and pappums rat for that matter.

lol im not even going to dignify that with a response... although i guess i kind of did, but w/e. the simple fact is that havingfitz and jerbs started with the personal attacks and i got pissed and joined in. but that is over now, so lets just move on from it.

[havingfitz]

Remind me where I made a personal attack on you pappum...

[Jerbs]

your gambit didn't accomplish much tho

[mikemike778]

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'

Well the simple answer is speak English then ...

If you can't write coherent sentences then its going to cause more problems for you in life than this site. I'd suggest you seek out some assistance in this area.

If you can write coherently but just can't be bothered to do so then you are wasting everyone's time playing on this site.

[mikemike778]

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

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.

[mikemike778]

Fitz says

So your take is beneficial to him if he is scum. Scum would never do that. Or would they. Pappums may or may not be scum but what he is…in this instance at least…is a confirmed liar. That is enough in my book to lynch. As for there being a “good chance he is investigated”…looks who’s rolefishing now.

As for your scum reads.
1) I’ve explained this in detail and stand by it. Had pappums’ claim been legitimate IMO a quicklynch of Void would have been in the town’s best interest.
2) I’m not writing off anything. I think the time would have been better served not working under false pretenses which were introduced by pappum. And as I have mentioned…regardless of the false pretenses…the D1 events will still be of value later on.
3) How long should I have waited to vote the person I wanted lynched most? Ridiculous rationale. And you may condone lying and misleading town but I do not. Lynching liars IMO is a safe bet.

And there was no mislynch in the bag when pappums claim was still considered legitimate. If you have issues regarding the potential mislynch of Void you need to look at the cause of it…not the people who believed pappum.

So me suggesting that there's a reasonable chance Rats will be investigated is role fishing is it ? How do you figure that one out ?

As for your answers, OK fair enough but we'll have to agree to disagree - sorry but I have a scum vibe about you and the way you've played the game and reacted to stuff that has happenned (mainly the gambit and the revealing of the gambit).

Not read through Neil's walls yet ...

[mikemike778]

your gambit didn't accomplish much tho

Well its taken us from being in RVS to having a lot ... of stuff to analyse.

[mikemike778]

EBWOP:

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.

When I made this post directed at pappums (as well as now) I did not trust him. What is your point? "Sounds like I do enough to lynch?" What? I don't trust him and I am voting him. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I went back to this post to try and figure out what you were talking about. I thought it had came after his confession as opposed to prior to it. My comments towards pappums were made in regards to him expressing suspicions towards me...that has nothing to do with trust...that has to do with the knowledge he is off on his read. Which would be consistent IMO with my read on his early claim (which at the time I thought was truthful) and in fact now...consistent with his crap gambit.

To clarify...I do not trust him post-confession...but pre-confession, when the quote above was taken, I did trust his fake result (for reasons already provided). I did not agree, obviously, with his read on me or the logic behind his (what I perceived as truthful) early D1 claim.

Queston re Rat, you don't trust him but is this purely down to the gambit - ie if anyone had attempted a similar gambit would you have automatically given them a scum read ?

I think my main issue with you is your immediate over-reactions, ie we have guilty on Voided quick lets end day now, Andrew is bad player quick lets policy lynch, Rats wasn't cop after all - must be scum lynch him. Probably need to get my backside in gear and read some of your previous games to see if its consistent with your meta I suppose.

[Voidedmafia]

For future reference, mike, if you didn't know, you can have more than one post quoted. There's a quote button for posts in the 10 most recent posts below where you type yours.

[andrew94]

@ pappums, you retracted it because you had to.
if we lynched voided and he flipped town, there are no excuses for your 'fail'.
thus, you would have been lynched the next day.

not wishing for a 1 1 tradeoff, you decided to cancel the gambit.
its that simple.

[Voidedmafia]

@ pappums, you retracted it because you had to.
if we lynched voided and he flipped town, there are no excuses for your 'fail'.
thus, you would have been lynched the next day.

not wishing for a 1 1 tradeoff, you decided to cancel the gambit.
its that simple.

Actually makes sense, even if it's a reiterated way of saying what a few of us have said before.

[Voidedmafia]

EBWOP: Rat, you just can't simply brush off this possibility. Maybe you panicked (or however you say that) near the time you actually revealed the gambit, or maybe what andrew said was just realized by you, but they both are certainly ideas of what happened.

[neil1113]

V/LA Mod this weekend

noted, thanks

[mikemike778]

For future reference, mike, if you didn't know, you can have more than one post quoted. There's a quote button for posts in the 10 most recent posts below where you type yours.

Thanks, never knew about this

[havingfitz]

So me suggesting that there's a reasonable chance Rats will be investigated is role fishing is it ? How do you figure that one out ?

As for your answers, OK fair enough but we'll have to agree to disagree - sorry but I have a scum vibe about you and the way you've played the game and reacted to stuff that has happenned (mainly the gambit and the revealing of the gambit).

If I have no way of knowing there are certain PRs/abilities in the game I do not make any inferences to their existence. I think doing so is a way of rolefishing. At the very least I would construe your comments as steering a potential invesitigative role towards pappums (assuming pappums makes it through the day)...which if he were to flip town...would also translate to the opinion you were steering the investigation towards pappums in order to avoid investigations on yourself or your buddies (assuming you were scum).

As for my reactions to the lie, fmpov my actions are perfectly reasonable given the circumstances they came under (i.e. the initial belief and the subsequent confession).

Queston re Rat, you don't trust him but is this purely down to the gambit - ie if anyone had attempted a similar gambit would you have automatically given them a scum read ?

I think my main issue with you is your immediate over-reactions, ie we have guilty on Voided quick lets end day now, Andrew is bad player quick lets policy lynch, Rats wasn't cop after all - must be scum lynch him. Probably need to get my backside in gear and read some of your previous games to see if its consistent with your meta I suppose.

He has done some other things to make me suspect him but my level of trust towards him is lower than anyone else atm due to his lie. If by similar gambit you mean...if anyone had lied a PR result on another player...brought them to the edge of a lynch...and then refuted their claim...yes, I would not trust them. And while a revealed lie may make me suspect someone more it wouldn't necessarily move them to the top of my scum list. There are gambits that would not necessarily draw the same opinion from me.

I don't see any of my actions re: the lie as over reacting. They were all based on cut and dry scenarios (though not in the order you present them):

• - andrew is going to frustrate the hell out of town and we are going to regret having him the game the further we get.
  I never advocated a quicklynch on him
  ...just a lynch on him. Has his play proven me wrong? Also...the play of others has superceded this opinion and andrew would be no higher than 4th on my list at the moment. Jerbs is making him look like an overposting beacon of mafia knowledge.
  
  -pappums got a scum result on Void and since there is no way in my mind pappums would lie...it must be true. Lets lynch Void asap for reasons already provided.
  
  - pappums admitted a lie because he realized (either as town or scum) that it could or would backfire on him. IMO scum have every reason to lie and do it throughout the game. Town have very few reasons to lie ergo pappums earns my vote.

[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.

[pappums rat]

Remind me where I made a personal attack on you pappum...

every time you have said i lied or called me a liar. i made it clear that this was a gambit, and i took every opportunity i could to ensure that vm would not get lynched, right from the very first post of the gambit.

your gambit didn't accomplish much tho

wow! zomg! that makes me scum, doesnt it?! (obviously i disagree that the gambit didnt accomplish much, as we have a lot of reactions to analyze)

@ pappums, you retracted it because you had to.
if we lynched voided and he flipped town, there are no excuses for your 'fail'.
thus, you would have been lynched the next day.

not wishing for a 1 1 tradeoff, you decided to cancel the gambit.
its that simple.

i made it explicitly clear that i did not want him lynched, and even unvoted him when he was at l-1 to ensure someone would not hammer him. the whole point of this was to gauge people's reactions to having 'confirmed scum' and what sort of action they would take because of it.



all right then, i am done talking about the gambit, if anyone tries to flamebait me again into explaining it (which i have done in detail) i am just going to ignore them. the results of the gambit speak for themselves, and i am voting accordingly.

[havingfitz]

Remind me where I made a personal attack on you pappum...

every time you have said i lied or called me a liar. i made it clear that this was a gambit, and i took every opportunity i could to ensure that vm would not get lynched, right from the very first post of the gambit.

You're hilarious. Those are not personal attacks. Lying is what you did and what you acknowledged...

i did decieve the town

once again, im sorry that i lied to you,

Better examples of personal attacks would be you calling me a 'dumbass' or accusing Jerbs of having sex with aardvaarks (?)...essentially for suspecting you. I'm not sure sex with an aardvaark could be construed as an ad-hom attack but your dumbass comment definitely is. It serves to discredit my opinion based on a personal attack and not on the merits of what I have said. You (and neil) are using them IMO because you realize you do not have a leg to stand on in your arguments against me and as a result need to undermine what I am saying with insults. When I admit to being a dumbass feel free to call me one like I am doing with your admission of lying.

It would also appear this comment regarding your lie is not accurate:

i am ready to accept your scorn and loathing,

Now you want to distance yourself from the lie/gambit by stating you are through talking about it. Well isn't that convenient. You're through talking about it. I suppose that makes sense...why would you want to continue to talk about your lie to everyone? You want to deflect everyone's (at least town's) attention from lie itself and just focus on the excellent results it produced

Let's see what those results were...

- you determined Voided's initial reaction was really bad (Question to all...wouldn't your reaction be bad if you had just been confirmed as scum when you actually weren't [assuming of course Void isn't]?)
- you were so convinced he was scum (for what credible reason I can not see) that you were willing to let your lie run it's course to a possible mislynch.
- you admit to lying yet state Void's further posting has improved his standing with you and you proceed to defend/rationalize some of his reactions/comments.
- AND then despite the fact he has come across better to you in his recent posts and you can see where some of his reactions/comments came from...you REVOTE him.

CRAP!

Then...the current net result of you masterful "gambit" is that I have come across as your top suspect. You seem to be basing the bulk of your suspicions of me on my actions which were made on the belief of your lie (which I believed). With the knowledge I have of my alignment suspicions towards me just further discredits you in my eyes. You made a bold claim with your result on Void which I was inclined to believe, you admit you lied to us, then you come after me. WTH wouldn't I think you were scum. Then the best you can do is throw insults at people.

All this despite your willingness to lynch Void on the same basis that most people generally base D1 suspicions on (hunches I would argue), your defense of him, and STILL maintaining the confidence in your hunch on him to re-vote him. (at least until you swapped to me) The only time there are better reasons to suspect someone D1 than a hunch would be in the case of a ..............wait for it.....................confirmed investigation result or a really bad and/or exposed lie. ding! ding! ding!

Also...while you had expressed suspicions of me in relation to your lie, your vote on me comes across as nothing more than OMGUS given your confidence in Void's guilt and the only issues you raise when you vote me regard policy lynches (which you yourself admit you support). More hilarity...

you want to just lynch people for supposedly being vi's (andrew) and for gambiting (me) without really talking and actually scumhunting. it isnt like i said one thing earlier in the game and then contradicted myself later (which i think is the proper basis for lal),

1) I don't support lynching gambitors...I support lynching liars (especially to the extent of yours). You call your lie a gambit. I call your lie scummy. And whether you consider your lie a contradiction or not (aren't lies typically a contradiction of the truth once they are uncovered)....the basis of LAL= a lie. I'm not pushing your lynch for contradicting yourself...I'm pushing your lynch because of your lie...and subsequent play.

tl:dr;

pappums suspects Void enough to lie about him, considers letting the lie run its course to a Void lynch, defends Voids actions and then immediately re-votes him. Then he ad-hom's me and places an OMGUS vote on me for my policy lynch comments.

BTW...I always get a kick out of people who want to lynch other players who advocate policy lynches...it's like a policy lynch loicy lynch. It's inherently hypocritical.

So what are your reasons again pappums for voting me?

[Jahudo]

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.

It was not pro-scum if pappums had been telling the truth. To have confirmed scum nailed early on Day 1 favors a quicklynch IMO. Why waste everyone's time looking for scumbuddies (who should not be stupid enough to link themselves to Voided) with what could be assumed to be an honest claim & result? My ISO 6-8 give my rational for a VM QL and I reiterate my belief that pappums has to be telling the truth in my ISO 12. I disagree that under the circumstances..if pappums had been truthful my sentiment was pro-scum. As three others did as displayed by their actions if not their comments. With the entire basis for my opinion being pappums' honesty...the fact he lied distorts any actions up to his confession as people (town at least...myself at least) were unknowingly operating on the basis of that lie.

@ all. Why did I not question pappums lie? Typically when someone claims a PR...especially early in the game...I am very hesitant to believe them. The reason I was willing to take pappums as legitimate was that he was implicating someone else and there was a way of confirming his claim. IMO there would be no way someone would falseclaim a result on another player when there was a way of proving that result. If VM were to have been lynched and turned out town...it would have been obvious (to me at least) that pappums was scum (or at the very least town not playing to the town's wincon). I had no reason not to believe pappum based on the consequences I felt he would suffer if he was not telling the truth.

Instead...he appears to be getting a pass from many of the game and instead there is a growing wagon on the person who was the most committed to believing him. At this point the only people who know whether pappums and voided are scum are scum...so how can the possibility of one and two mislynches be a negative against me (due to my actions from believing pappums' lie) when one or both of pappums could still turn out to be scum?

Pappums said not to quicklynch. Players were talking about the possibility of a gambit. The timing of his claim was in question. Those should be reasons to not blindly follow pappums to a hammer. At least to question pappums and get him to explain his thoughts more.

You say there's no point in trying to search for scumbuddies in that situation, but what is the harm in keeping the day open until everyone has at least reacted to the claims? These games typically last several months, they are meant to be slow. I don't think anyone's time was being wasted.

So have you never seen a gambit in one of these games?

My comments towards pappums were made in regards to him expressing suspicions towards me...that has nothing to do with trust...that has to do with the knowledge he is off on his read. Which would be consistent IMO with my read on his early claim (which at the time I thought was truthful) and in fact now...consistent with his crap gambit.

But you did acknowledge that his early claim was poor play, and yet you were eager to stay on the voided wagon. How was it not enough to make you at least distrustful enough to unvote, wait for everyone to react to the claim, and ask for a role confirmation from pappums?

[Rhinox]

bump for VC