Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[CUBAREY]

confirm/

[CUBAREY]

[quote="Lleu"]

vote:qwints

for being at the top of the list.[/quote

vote Lleu

for only being half correct. X jumped the gun and voted before the game officially started.

[CUBAREY]

In my experience, random voting is necessary for REAL discussion to take place. So I "go with the flow" to avoid the aforementioned problem. I will, however, immediately stop as soon as something real happens. Something real has happened, so I am quite done now. Natural impulse is screaming for me to start calling X scum and say that he's trying to get me in trouble on baseless evidence. Again, though, that's natural impulse, there's no reasoning behind it. I'm going to go ahead and assume that witchhunting is kind of required when there's no evidence, and I just pulled the short straw with my Wiccan magicks.

QFT.

That said, did anyone's response to this seem scummy to you?

Hmm, X put Idiotking in a Catch 22 to see if he would squirm. Idiotking immediately says X is trying to get him in trouble on baseless claims instead of seeing the point was to see his reaction.

At this point its enough for me to

unvote, VOTE idiotking

[CUBAREY]

Idiotking you phrased your reply to X quite strangely:

"Natural impulse is screaming for me to start calling X scum and say that he's trying to get me in trouble on baseless evidence. Again, though, that's natural impulse, there's no reasoning behind it. I'm going to go ahead and assume that witchhunting is kind of required when there's no evidence, and I just pulled the short straw with my Wiccan magicks."

Why would the Natural impulse be to call him scum? He was not accusing you he was asking for you to explain your vote. Moreover, such a question is not a witchhunt its a request for information. Any innocent player would have viewed it as such. A guilty player however would have the "Natural impulse" to cover his own guiltiness by calling the request for information an attempt " to get me in trouble on baseless evidence".

The only other plausible explaination is that you are an innocent townie but are paranoid about anyone questioning your motives. Since I do not believe that you are paranoid I must assume that you are a Mafioso.

[CUBAREY]

@Cubarey: I agree with Idiot and Krer...calling Idiot scum for saying that his was a natural response is really weak.

The only other plausible explaination is that you are an innocent townie but are paranoid about anyone questioning your motives. Since I do not believe that you are paranoid I must assume that you are a Mafioso.

Um..you know this how? What evidence do you have AGAINST him being paranoid? If you have something, I'm missing it. While Idiot has said things which are noteworthy, I think you are grasping at straws on this one. Maybe I should call you a Mafioso for making such a strongly worded accusation on such flimsy evidence?

I meant paranoid in RL. Person asks for an explaination and he gets My "Natural Response" is to call you scum. Its more then a little over the top. Thus I felt that the reaction was do to his possibly being Mafia. Now, am I certain, of course not, but on the first day you never have hard evidence all you can go by is what your gut tells you from a few posts. And reacting like Idiotking did is not normal. Why not just answer the question and leave it at that?

To IdiotKing:

I do not post much at the beginning of a game because its mostly a waste of time. I'll make comments only when posts seem odd to me and indicate that something is fishy.

First day lynches are almost always semi-random by definition. Someone says something that seems suspicous, someone else calls him on it and if he/she does not respond with an appropriate answer the original poster finds himself with a couple of votes, if there are no other likely targets people start to join the wagon (either becuase they have no firm suspicions themselves or they are scum and want townies to die). I thought your reaction was over the top and you stating that it would be a "natural response" to call someone scum for asking you for an explaination a possible tell. At this point I stick by my initial read of you.

[CUBAREY]

I meant quote]Why do you think Idiotking's reaction wasn't normal? I certainly thought it was - OMGUS is a natural, gut response. Simple logic tempers it out, and Idiotking said that his logic was preventing him from thinking that I actually was scum because of it.

Calling someone scum because they asked you a question is not a "natural response".

Don't lurk.

I do not post just to post. I will post when I have something to say or another makes a comment that I believe is a tell. If you believe that I am scum for not posting then vote for me ( I am a townie but if you really believe I am lurking then you do not believe me anyway).

Do you think one of us should be at the other's throat? Which one of us was in the wrong?

Possibly neither, you could be in cohoots.

[CUBAREY]

To NOOB"

This is not the only cite where you can play Mafia (It may be the oldest and best but its definately not the only one).

To Idiotking. Now that sounds like a reasonable response.

Unvote Idiotking vote X

[CUBAREY]

Wow, um, weekend was actually a bit slower than I thought. Two people did say some things that stand out to me however -
barfy and Cubarey.

Here are the two quotes -

If i were scum, and i'm not, unvoting to leave me free makes no sense at all.

( I am a townie but if you really believe I am lurking then you do not believe me anyway).

Simple little posts, but why the 'I am townie' comments? (This is directed at everyone else, not Cubarey and burfy). This is mafia. There is absolutely no reason to reassure everyone that you are a townie. When it comes time for you to claim, great, claim. But realize, EVERYONE says they are townie right now. I actually find this type of unnecessary reassurance suspicious, almost like you feel you need to reassure us for some reason. Actually saying you are a townie when it is already understood you say you are a townie, well, there is a reason. Are you trying to make it seem like your post has more validity? Are you scum trying to slip that in there because you consciously or unconsciously feel some need to reassure the town to try and appear less suspicious? Are you simply a newer player who does not realize that every thing you say will be parsed closely? I do not know, but I do notice and think about them.

Anyway, yellowbunny asked if we would all post our thoughts so far on people. I think its a good idea and I will help out by doing my part now.

yellowbunny - a bit town. Definitely trying to get discussions going. Tries to make clear observations

Jase - a bit town. Aggressive in stating his opinions and has clear reasons for his suspicions but aware it is day 1 so it will all be supposition in the end

X - a bit scummy.

My previous post made a point. If you think I am lurking or acting scummy and vote for me then you obviously do not think I am a townie. I wanted to point out the obvious. As to my one track mind, I find first day lynch's to be a crap shoot whatever the claims that people are voting because the victim made remarks that might be perceived as scummy. I therefore will pick a player that exhibits scummy behavior and normally keep my vote on him unless he makes comments that assuage my concerns. Is this approach problematical? Of course, but so is any other strategy when we have only suspicions based on zero verifiable information. That does not mean I will keep my vote on X, if a vote on someone else I think looks scummy builds-up I will switch my vote to make a majority. However, continuously switching votes on clues made on small statements does not help the town to focus it search it merely gives us a multiplicity of choieces which is how we began the game. Thus I prefer to make my first serious vote based on something I view as scummy and will not change it just because other players then say something that I could interprete as scummy. I will also not change my vote simply because other players do not view the statement I zero in on as scummy, at this point I can not judge the accuracy of your reads, and one of you could be scum protecting your partner, therefor, on the first day I rely almost exclusively on my own judgment. Does not make me right but at least I am not being misled by relying on somebody elses flawed opinion.

Jase I thought I had answerd all inquiries if not please re-state your questions and I will try to answer them in a timely manner.

[CUBAREY]

The vote was because he was the focus of my suspicion. Also I changed my vote from a random one so it isn't as though I was trying to jump off a dead wagon or something like that.

I think that the discussion about wall-e is pointless until he's prodded. If he IS in fact lurking that might merit some discussion, but I'm beginning to suspect that he just flaked.

I'm also not liking the way Cubarey is looking. Though I did find IKs response a bit over-defensive it seems like Cub is trying to make it seem like much more than that. As a matter of fact...he contradicts himself saying that Xs question was not serious but meant to see how IK would react, then later he says that Xs remark was a simple request for information, and any townie would have taken it as such.

Seeing this now I'll change my vote once more.

Unvote

Vote: CUBAREY

I'd like you to address this.

My two responses do not contradict themselves. I think that X's whole purpose (my interpretation) was for the purpose of getting a reaction from Idiotking that might give X some clues on Idiotkings' affiliation. Instead of giving a straight forward answer and leaving it at that Idiotking responded by saying his gut tells him that X is scum while his logic persuades him not to make the claim. I found this suspicious in two ways first he overreacts (in my opininion) and instead of answering the question he attacks X. Second, the way he phrased his attack on X seemed disengenuous in that it clearly states the his gut tells him that X is scum but his logic precludes him from stating it. He seems to be eating his cake and having it too.

If felt this was at least suspicous and called him on it. He then attacked me, which went to confirm my first thought that he had a guilty mind and was lashing out at anyone who questioned his affiliation.

Subsequently, Idiotking backdown and said that his reaction to X was possibly based on him being partially paranoid (which is an acceptible answer in my opinion and if given as his first response to my post would have persuaded me that he was in fact not exhibiting a tell but was actually a bit paranoid about any accusation against him and therefore he had simply overreacted). Furhter after my post X and others implied or straight out said that my post was scummy and that I was likely Mafia. Idiotking took the position that my post while possibly indicating that I was "overzealous" (which I admit too) did not to him indicate that I was scum. Since such a defense of me when their were two votes against me and several other people indicated that I looked scummy could possibly throw suspicion his way, I concluded that Idiotking was probably both earnest in his belief and not scum himself. I therefore have unvoted him (actually did this when he explained that his reply to X my have been partially caused by paranoia) and Voted X who seemed overly eager to lead the bandwagon that had started to form around me .

Please note that while others have voted against me or have indicated I am scummy I do not believe that that in and of itself evidence that they are scum.