Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]
-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Confirm.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
You doubt "we" will help town much? I believe you.pappums rat wrote:yay
vote idiotking
with a name like that i doubtwill help town much.we
Vote: pappums ratTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
1)Cecily wrote:I guess we should get things moving.
I'd like to ask some questions, just because we can't stay in RVS forever unfortunately.
1. When are you most likely to be posting?
2. How would you describe your play style?FOS Cecilyfor inquiring about posting timeframes. I can envision the answer to this question being beneficial to scum but do not see how it matters to town.
2) Usually start off a bit slow...have a tendancy to lock in (~tunnel) on a suspect more often than I should. While I prefer short posts and hate wall-posts...I sometimes find myself caught up in wall post exchanges.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Nice...three v/LAs two days into the game.
@Jahudo...Cecily's response above shows it (quickhammers) is something she had in mind when she asked the question. Even with her response above I do not see how the answers would benefit her as town?Jahudo wrote:
That's an interesting point. I can't think of a town benefit either, though its one of those icebreaker questions I see often. And now that I think about it scum would be more likely to lie, so it could benefit them if they want to plan out lurking times or setup quickhammers in the future. However I don't scum would come into a game thinking about that, so I don't suspect Cecily for asking the question. Its just that scum could exploit it after its asked.havingfitz wrote:FOS Cecilyfor inquiring about posting timeframes. I can envision the answer to this question being beneficial to scum but do not see how it matters to town.
@Cecilytown...how do you plan on mitigating the possibility of a quicklynch (on you or anyone else) with the answers to your posting time question? I think it would be easier to coordinate a quicklynch among ~3 scum with the answers than I think it would have any benefit in preventing a quicklynch by ~10 town. I don't think the question is voteworthy but it could be a consideration later in the game combined with the rest of your gameplay.
As an aside...if any of you have ever played with andrew94 before...he is a pleasant enough player but is nothing but a detriment to town. I'd be up for cutting town losses and just removing the detriment before he gets too far in the game to where he (if town) would actually be relied on for his gameplay...not lamented for it. I.e. I'm up for an andrew94 policy lynch.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
That's fine. I expect/ed some flack for bringing up the dreaded "policy lynch" but the truth is the truth. andrew is a detriment to town and town would not want him to be around when it matters (ie LYLO or the day before LYLO). If I'm scum I want him in the game...he will drive town crazy.mikemike778 wrote:
No I haven't. Think its pretty off to be talking policy lynches at this point though and pretty scummy for that matter.havingfitz wrote: As an aside...if any of you have ever played with andrew94 before...he is a pleasant enough player but is nothing but a detriment to town. I'd be up for cutting town losses and just removing the detriment before he gets too far in the game to where he (if town) would actually be relied on for his gameplay...not lamented for it. I.e. I'm up for an andrew94 policy lynch.
With the day 1 odds favoring a mislynch (short of scum making a stupid mistake) I would prefer the potential mislynch to be deadweight.
No offense andrewTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
A self proclaimed lazy poster who comes off scummy if you aren't familiar with his playstyle...and if you are familiar with his playstyle you still don't know wth to do with him. He posts a minimal amount of minimal content. Uhhh...let's see...at least one occasion I know of where he has claimed a town PR when he was VT, thereby causing the real town PR to counter claim and thus be nk'd. Otherwise he's a nice fellow.
I'm not advocating a quicklynch on him and thereby averting a full day's worth of discussion and tells...but if he was a candidate to be lynched it would not take a lot of persuasion for me to put my vote on him.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
I agree that pappum's claim was very premature. Assuming he is telling the truth (which I believe he is) it is coming so early in the day that Voided's scum buddies will not do anything to link themselves to him. So we have essentially lost the ability to gather potentially good interations between scum partners. 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.
VOTE: VoidedmafiaTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
How are other scum going to be pressured? Are they at risk of being lynched today?
If they aren't at risk of being lynched today all your "pressuring" is going to serve to do is to allow the remaining scum (assuming Void is in fact scum) to intelligently manipulate who they NK based on what type of pressure to do or do not recieve. Ex....we all mistakenly focus on a townie and "pressure" him. Then we lynch Void...and scum NK's one of the pressured townies main opponents. That sets up the townies mislynch tomorrow. I'm sure scum could equally come up with a beneficial way of selecting their nk as well if the pressure was appropriately placed (ie on scum). The concept is the same as voting for a no lynch without any discussion when that is deemed the right move. IMO the right move now is to prove out pappum's investigation result.
tl:dr;If we have identified scum it is in town's best interest to eliminate asap vs letting scum manipulate or assess town. At this early stage of the game scum may not have the best idea who is the most obvtown or most dangerous town to keep alive.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
pappum....what is illogical about my reasons supporting a quick voided vote? What point or points that I made do you not understand or disagree with. Please elaborate. Your early claim was poor play and your ego at thinking you have pegged a scumbuddy based on my posts is ridiculous. The fact you think I am scum bussing my partner only supports my comment that everything to do with your finding on voided from this point on is going to be WIFOM and do town no good. And the longer the day goes before we do lynch voided the more time town has to screw itself over....more so IMO than scum does.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Not exactly eod...pappums rat wrote:
https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Normal_gameVoidedmafia wrote:Honestly, this sounds more like Rat just picked a random target and then just decided to give him a guilty verdict.
However, I believe that in this kind of game there can also be naive or insane or paranoid cops, which would make his claim practically useless otherwise.
The one big overhanding question, though, is this: Why the hell didya pick me? Don't like the fact that I'm not really participating? Still ticked off that I didn't participate in RVS?
'Roles which are explicitly Non-Normal include:
Non-Sane Cops, Blanks/Quacks, Janitor, Survivor, Lyncher, Cultist, Jester, Scum Masons, Bus Driver, Lightning Rod, Nexus, Redirector.'
eod.
That said, until we have a voided flip I am inclined to believe your investigation.Mini Normal Queue Rules wrote:Mini Normal Games
[*]There can only be a maximum of one new/variant role in the game.
[*]Only normal mechanics and roles (besides the single variant) are allowed. See here for more information.
Also pappums...you failed to answer my questions to you.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
The suggestion that andrew be considered for a policy lynch (in lieu of any concrete targets such as we now have with Voided) was not to avoid conversation.mikemike778 wrote:
Agreed 100% - as discussed earlier, both these examples indicate Fitz avoidin talking about what was happenning in the game both by discussing PL and then attempting to end - if he did end up turning up scum, makes me wonder if there was some sort of minor scum slip early on, he was looking to avoid talking about.pappums rat wrote: i did anexhausting(lol) re-read of the game, and i am definately not liking havingfitz' call for a policy lynch on andrew. if andrew had been actively doing anti-town things and was being a menace, then i probably would have went along with it, as i agree with pl's a good deal of the time. but when it was based solely on meta, i dont think so. combined with his rush to get this day over, he is my #2 scumread atm.
The suggestion to get on with Voided's lynch is. The more town run's around with it's head cut off as to what is or isn't the best move with Voided and who is or isn't his potential scumbuddies...the more benefit there is to scum IMO. If anyone disagrees with this train of thought I would like to hear your reasons why. To start day 2 off at 2 scum and 9 town (assuming 3 scum and 10 town now) should be reward enough. In this situation (pappum's result) I see continued discussion as a negative.havingfitz wrote:I'm not advocating a quicklynch on him and thereby averting a full day's worth of discussion and tells...but if he was a candidate to be lynched it would not take a lot of persuasion for me to put my vote on him.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
I don't believe I said or insinuated anywhere that town was going to let Void off the hook. I think it's pretty much a done deal hence my position on getting it over with.neil1113 wrote:The thing is Fitz, is I don't see us being stupid enough to let Voided off the hook.
OK...so you agree....but why following up that you agree with me by proposing the exact opposite (below) of what I am?neil1113 wrote:However I agree with your theory, it'd be absolutely nuts and so much WIFOM we'd get drunk, if we sat around during the day trying to figure out who Voided's partners were, since Voided has said relatively nothing, and there hasn't been much time to establish any real tells.
neil1113 wrote:I would like to use the day - 17 more days - for everyone to continue pressuring whoever they found scummy to begin with, and move on from there. Near the week before deadline, we could easily just wagon back on Voided and end the day.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Voided....why should we not believe pappum's claim? What would be his incentive to not tell the truth? I believe the different possibilities have already been covered well enough and there aren't any good ones I can see that involve pappum lying.Voidedmafia wrote:
Considering that I think his claim is bollocks, and that I think there's little reason for him to do so, yet everyone is still going along with it, why wouldn't I?Jahudo wrote: It looks like he's mostly resigned himself to being lynched.
I think a one shot day investigative role that returns inaccurate results would be a pretty crappy role to put in the town. Also...I think your claim is pretty fishy as you claimed you were going to be picking your neighbors at night (which I do not believe is how the Neighbor role is set up to work) and then you change your role to the Neighborizer. That's a pretty unusual role IMO opinion to forget and/or confuse with just a standard Neighbor.
I'm assuming your "Neighborizer" is someone who can recruit/select others to be his neighbor. I'm not familiar with this role (like a cult leader?) but it could just as easily be a sccum aligned role. And as has already been mentioned...if you aren't scum, then wth is pappums doing?
At least you should have some solace in the fact that is pappums' result is not accurate...that he is probably next on the gallows.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Voided...none of the options you provide above explain why pappums would call you guilty when if you are town...he's lynched next. I applaud your efforts to turn things around and stay alive but your reasons for disputing pappums claim don't hold water...your claim seems off...and there is no non-suicidal reason for pappum to fakeclaim a result on you.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
We seem to have stalled a bit. Looking forward to hearing from the day+ absentees. Still not interested in doing much more than getting to the bottom of the pappum claim (ie lynching Voided). Anything else is just icing on scum's cake IMO.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
That fakeclaim was bullshit pappums. The fact you lied and then came clean does not in any way clear you as someone mentioned above. The fact you took a game that was still in the fairly early stages and completely derailed it with a lie about someone else...and basically skewed the rest of the conversations by having them based on your lie, did nothing but waste two RL days and 4 pages of discussion. And you forced Voided to claim (though I don't think mafia would be worried about a "Neighborizor").
Still not sure Voided's claim is legit either and it in no way confirms him as town. He could still be scum and easily either neighbor up with a townie or claim to neighbor with one of his scum partners. We don't know. And now we are back almost as far as we were when the fakeclaim was made. Nice focking lying gambit. Just kidding.
Unvote,VOTE: pappum's lying ass ratTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
What scummy reasons do you refer to. You mention opposition to my "just get the lynch over with" sentiment which I had explained my rationale for somewhat in detail. Iirc I also asked you some questions regarding your suspicions which you have not answered. If you maintain suspicions on me I would appreciate you explaing how you disagreed with my suggestion. Not that it matters now since it was all based on a lie but as you still harbor those suspicions an explanation would be nice.neil1113 wrote:However, I don't like Fitz either, for scummy play and reasons I've already posted.
He benefits from the fact you (and some others) apparently think scum would never do such a gambit. That is, some people now think he is town because of his lie. That would be the benefit. See how that works?Xalxe wrote:neil, I get your point, but explain to me why pappums benefits from this gambit AND coming out with it now as scum. Please.
BTW...if anyone didn't notice...pappums lied and had us all diverting our attention to normal scumhunting.
andrew....not sure pappums is still claiming a one shot Cop because that WOULD make him a target of interest to scum. So my guess is the role and the result were both lies. If it isn't...there is no reason there can not be a non-sane cop in a mini normal. Mini's are allowed one non-standard role. I would not however think there would be a non-sane cop AND a neighborizor....because IMO that would be two non-standard roles and that would not fly.
So was your role claim a lie as well pappums? I'm asking becuase if it wasn't....then either you or Voided would still be lying about your role.
After all this lie fallout I do not think anyone is cleared and we are for the most part back to square one...other than te fact we have a confessed liar. Which in addition to my opinion towards andrew (ie in lieu of a sure thing he's a better lynch than most) I also support lynching all liars. At the point Voided hit L-1 there were 20 posts before you unvoted him. He could have very easily been lynched based on your info. You backtracking is perfectly understandable if you are scum who realized "Oh shit...once Voided is lynched and flips town...I'll be next." If you are town that just decided to lie...you've removed all credibility IMO for the rest of this game.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
All your suspicions have been laid out? Looking over your ISO I see one post where you indicate any suspicion with a shred of reason towards me. Singular. One post/reason. Here it is:neil1113 wrote:
All of my suspicions have already been laid out, other than your aggressive tendencies but that could easily be justified as a play style, so I'd find it hardly worth discussing. I didn't mention I had a TON of reasons to find you oddly scummy, just reasons.havingfitz wrote:What scummy reasons do you refer to. You mention opposition to my "just get the lynch over with" sentiment which I had explained my rationale for somewhat in detail. Iirc I also asked you some questions regarding your suspicions which you have not answered. If you maintain suspicions on me I would appreciate you explaing how you disagreed with my suggestion. Not that it matters now since it was all based on a lie but as you still harbor those suspicions an explanation would be nice.
So it’s scummy play which I have asked you to elaborate on and reasons (plural) which you have already “posted.” Which other than the one I quote above I can not find. I find that scummy.neil1113 ISO 9 wrote:Fitz,
While yes, we may not be able to gain any type of connection between Voided and his buddies now that the issue is on the table, it doesn't limit us from pressuring other scum in general on other issues, like we've been trying to do as town.I don't like your desire to go ahead and just eliminated Voided when we still have so much of the day left to get information apart from him... :/
Then you say:
So you don’t agree with LAL in mafia…but you state in your ISO 11 that you don’t like his lying. Then in the quote directly above, you don’t want to lynch him for lying…but you DO want to lynch him on the basis of what COULD have happened because of his lying. Wha? That makes no sense to me. So not the act itself but the potential outcome of the act. Sounds like you want to steer clear of perceived policy lynching but you still like being on the liar’s wagon.neil1113 wrote:
I agree, this is kind of aggravating. However I don't agree with the L.A.L style of Mafia, so I can't justify lynching him just because he lied, despite how anti-town that is. I kind of understand his view, as far as trying his luck at reaction fishing. However there are better ways then this, and he could've single handedly caused a stupid lynch on perhaps a town PR, and then we'd be **** out of luck at the start of Day 2, especially if scum hit ANOTHER town PR during the night. So I WOULD be up for lynching him for the single purpose that he almost caused a lynch on someone that may or may not be scum, all because he was "reaction fishing." In fact:havingfitz wrote:BTW...if anyone didn't notice...pappums lied and had us all diverting our attention to normal scumhunting.
UNVOTE: Xalxe
VOTE: Pappums
This is not the first time you have done a 180 in the same post. This question question that you have avoided answering up to this point came out of a similar 180. If you were so certain Voided was going to be the lynch…why did you keep your vote off him and instead maintaining it on a RV for Xalxe? I also find it odd that in the very first post after pappum’s claim…that you call him out on potentially joking. Why in the world would anyone of imagined that pappum’s claim was a joke. Are town fakeclaims on day 1 that common? [the answer btw is NO] It’s like you knew he was joking. And perhaps he was joking in the right direction and you preferred staying off Voided’s wagon. I would think a PR claim of scum (until it was confessed to be a lie) would be a lot more of an indication of one’s guilt than using as a reason the potential result from a lie…which you are now using to vote pappums.
You are avoiding my questions and not being consistent with you gameplay. I’m torn between pappum and you now. I think if pappum were to flip scum it would somewhat absolve you and Voided (though not entirely). However…if pappum were to flip town, my vote would be going straight to you (if it doesn’t before then).Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Looking forward to Jerbs joining the game. Hint...you vote by typing the name of the person who you want to vote for, highlighting their name, and selecting the vote button. Rationale would be good too.
Looking forward to more input from Idiotking too. Only one post of content in which he displays the insight of knowing pappums' claim is fake. Either there's inside knowledge on IK's part or he is very intuitive in which case the more from him the better.
@Jerbs and IK...which one of you are scum?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
What do you call what you did pappum? Fibbing? No...you lied. If you weren't lying please enlighten us on what is is.
And how am I rolefishing? I would like to know if your day cop claim was legit or not as that would impact Voided's claim's validity. Otherwise I'm only interested in your flip. And while if you are town you may have thought you were doing some slick gambitting...it was in fact still a lie which did in fact derail everyone else's scumhunting. So for the sake of your lone benefit (according to you) everyone else was operating/scumhunting on false premises.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Jahudo...no offense but...no shit. You're saying regardless of whether Void is town or scum....there stands a good chance that there are 2 scum out of the 5 on his wagon. Why does this theory leave out pappums? he should be a consideration as well? So that makes 2 out of 6. That's not far off what the probable ratio of scum to town is for the entire game.
And if we assume there was one scum off the wagon (and I would argue possibly two off the wagon if Void IS scum)....then you have to look at 1-2 of Voided, Jahudo, andrew, Neil, Jerbs (assuming he is still in the game), mikemike (is he still playing) and Idiotking.
So basically you're saying in your theory...there is probably scum on and off Void's wagon.
I would argue there is no guarantee there were any scum on Void's wagon given they had a claimed result on him (from possibly a townie) which was going to offer the opportunity for scum to lay back and let town do the lynch (whther it was on scum or town) without them having to join in (see neil). See how thatwas a bad thing? So yeah, good stuff. Let's go with that. Not!LIE
As for back to square one...I said for the most part. Everything that has occurred since thewill be of use D2 and beyond but it did us no good today. Which is my point. I stopped looking at anyone else (as I would assume some others did) because I believed pappum'sLIEand figured we had confirmed scum. Now we will have to get flips on pappums and possibly Void to see how everyone's actions may have been motivated. On a non-pappum/Void note...I also have a strong feeling towards neil being scum as well for reasonLIEs, which unlike neil, I actually did provide.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Just pointing out that that is what they were despite pappums' illusion that they weren't. And I'm not sure I can state the 5th any clearer.Voidedmafia wrote:yknow, as much as I agree that Rat set us back in the scumhunting department, you don't have to do that with the "lies". -_-
And I don't quite get the 5th paragraph.
How am I jumpy? We get an investigation resulting in a guilty on voided from our ~day cop. The fact he asked for no quicklynch means nothing to me as I did not share his opinion on the matter. IMO a confirmed scum so early on D1 was better off eliminated asap. I’ve given my reason in further detail and if people don’t agree with them they are entitled to their opinions.mikemike778 wrote: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.
As for immediately jumping on pappum…I did this for a few reasons…1) My vote on Void was no longer for valid reason so I needed to unvote him. 2) My vote before I went to Voided was on pappums to begin with so without #3 it still would have probably gone back to him (pappums, and 3) pappums lied and wasted towns’ time. Yes…the days events will still be of value later on but our time would have been better served IMO looking for scum and not having our play revolve around Void guilt (which true as it might be…is deemed confirmed until the lie was confessed). And I support the LAL policy.
As for me rolefishing...wth are you talking about? I didn't ask pappum or Void to claim. pappum has said his result on Void was a lie but I do not recall whether or not he hass said his claimed role is a lie. To ask if that was a lie is not rolefishing. If that really is his role then IMO that would confirm that either pappum or Void is scum as I do not believe there would be a one shot day cop AND a neighborizor in a mini normal. I would consider both of those to be unusual roles of which we can have only one.
mikemike778 wrote:Well my take on it is that its pretty clear he would be drawing a big bullseye on himself by doing this. Sure he might not be lynched but if not ... there's a pretty good chance he'll be investigated which unless he's investigation proof would be the end of him.
I've a scum read on you.
-Looking to finish the day early and pushing for it
-Apparently writing off large parts of the day
-Flying onto a Rats wagon on the safe grounds of LAL
If town, surely you'd want to make the most of all info available not just launch it into the recycle bin. Whether you agree with Rats' tactics or not - there's stuff there to be used. You seem way too happy to disregard stuff that has been posted as being of no use ... you claim to have stopped looking for scum after the claim - why not look for more scum ??? Because you had your mislynch in the bag and were happy with your day's work ?
VOTE: HavingFitz
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.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Welcome back. Thanks for the player assessment. Do you plan on contributing to the game? Other than pointing out VIs do you have any thoughts on what has transpired? Any suspects?Jerbs wrote:@fitz
I WAS V/LA
andrew and pappaums are VIsTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
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 butnotthe 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.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
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’tweall accusing at some point in this game?
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.neil1113 wrote:… 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.
neil1113 wrote: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….
neil1113 post 223 wrote: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.
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.”neil1113 wrote:You lied, and I've explained it in my previous posts against you.
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.neil1113 wrote:Lastly, about this whole "fencesitting idea." You did not agree with Andrew did you? Please don't let it be so.
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 neilTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
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.Idiotking wrote:I also don't like the fact that neil and fitz are trolling the hell out of each other.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
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.Jahudo wrote:
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.havingfitz wrote: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.
@ 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?
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 deceivedJahudo wrote:
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.havingfitz wrote:If we have identified scum it is in town's best interest to eliminate asap vs letting scum manipulate or assess town.uswe 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?
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.Jahudo wrote:
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.havingfitz wrote:Your early claim was poor play and your ego at thinking you have pegged a scumbuddy based on my posts is ridiculous.
------------
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.Jahudo wrote: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.
What cases on me do you think are decent? And why is neil not a consideration with his inconsistencies and overdefensiveness?Jinxx wrote: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.
@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.
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.andrew94 wrote:erm fitz and ceci;y, i notice when u vote/fos neil, u neglected my case yes?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
EBWOP:
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.havingfitz wrote:
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.Jahudo wrote:
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.havingfitz wrote:Your early claim was poor play and your ego at thinking you have pegged a scumbuddy based on my posts is ridiculous.
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.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Remind me where I made a personal attack on you pappum...Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
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).mikemike778 wrote: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).
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).
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.mikemike778 wrote: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.
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.
Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
You're hilarious. Those are not personal attacks. Lying is what you did and what you acknowledged...pappums rat wrote:
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.havingfitz wrote:Remind me where I made a personal attack on you pappum...
pappums rat wrote:i did decieve the town
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.pappums rat wrote:once again, im sorry that i lied to you,
It would also appear this comment regarding your lie is not accurate:
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 producedpappums rat wrote:i am ready to accept your scorn and loathing,
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...
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.pappums rat wrote: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),
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?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Jahudo wrote:Pappums said not to quicklynch.- havingfitz wrote:The fact he asked for no quicklynch means nothing to me as I did not share his opinion on the matter. IMO a confirmed scum so early on D1 was better off eliminated asap.
Jahudo wrote: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.
People mention the possiblity it was a gambit after I had voted (not that it really mattered IMO) and in fact...two who mentioned the possibility of it being a gambit laid down voided votes in the same post. His claim timing was rightfully questioned but that does not take away the fact he had made a claim and there was no getting out of it...either he would be found to be telling the truth (good for town) or he would be caught in a lie and lynched (good for town). I was not following him blindly (as I assume the other pappums voters would echo in their cases)...he was making a claim that could be proven with 100% certainty. I'll pursue 100% certainty in this game any day.
We can disagree but I have made my opinion on this fairly clear as shown by a few of my comments on it:Jahudo wrote: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?- havingfitz wrote:Assuming he is telling the truth (which I believe he is) it is coming so early in the day that Voided's scum buddies will not do anything to link themselves to him. So we have essentially lost the ability to gather potentially good interations between scum partners. 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.havingfitz wrote:everything to do with your finding on voided from this point on is going to be WIFOM and do town no good. And the longer the day goes before we do lynch voided the more time town has to screw itself over....more so IMO than scum does.havingfitz wrote:The more town run's around with it's head cut off as to what is or isn't the best move with Voided and who is or isn't his potential scumbuddies...the more benefit there is to scum IMO. If anyone disagrees with this train of thought I would like to hear your reasons why. To start day 2 off at 2 scum and 9 town (assuming 3 scum and 10 town now) should be reward enough. In this situation (pappum's result) I see continued discussion as a negative.
Jahudo wrote:So have you never seen a gambit in one of these games?
I have seen gambits. I have not seen a gambit (iirc) where one player claimed a guilty result on another player. Why? That would be suicide if the claimant was not telling the truth. A few of my thoughts on pappums' claim before he confessed:- havingfitz wrote:until we have a voided flip I am inclined to believe your investigation.havingfitz wrote:why should we not believe pappum's claim? What would be his incentive to not tell the truth? I believe the different possibilities have already been covered well enough and there aren't any good ones I can see that involve pappum lying.havingfitz wrote:there is no non-suicidal reason for pappum to fakeclaim a result on you
@pappums...in addition to my questions to you in my post prior to this one, here's another one - Have you ever gambitted in a game before and if so, did the gambit implicate someone else?
@all...have any of you ever been in a game where a player fakeclaimed a result on another player? If so could you provide a link?
Why wouldn't I want to stay on the Voided wagon....as mentioned by more than a few (and reiterated again and again and again by me)...there was no good reason to not believe pappums claim because it either was or wasn't the truth. Either way we were on the road to finding scum. That's why I was secure enough in my vote to maintain it. Role confirmation would come with the flip.Jahudo wrote: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?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
equally, your contribution of posts/content is annoyingly small.Jinxx wrote:Sorry, I don't have time to go through all of these new posts... fitz's walls are annoyingly huge. I might find time to post tonight though.
Idiotking wrote: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. 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.
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>Idiotking wrote: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.
My turnaround was "absolute" because pappums admitted to lying and, once again...what is quick about my turnaround? Is quickness a scum tell?
Is posting a crap case on someone a scumtell?
I think this post by IK would be a good one to reflect on in D2.
There are too many people not posting in this game.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
The dealy-o...
WIFOM.pappums rat wrote: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 thatandat the same time repeatedly tell people not to mislynchandtell everyone your pm said you were sane (giving you no option to claim that your sanity was not assured after the supposed vm townflip).
Why would town lie to the rest of town, for a PR to claim and possibly draw out a real cop if one existed, implicate someone who could be town as scum, consider letting possible town be lynched based on gut, and then base theonlyscumhunting they (pappums) has attempted on that lie?
pappums rat wrote:to believe havingfitz is scum, you would need to believe scum would want to policy lynch someone who he claims is a vi, thereby bringing about a shorter day without any real scumhunting (which is good for scum)Misrep.andrew's play has spoken for itself and I did not advocate a ql of him. Anyone who says I did is lying as well (as pappums).
Your lie put apappums rat wrote:andendorse quicklynching vm after a suspicious early day one claim without scumhunting (once again, good for scum)temporarystop to my scumhunting (one of the reasons I object to your lie) and in case no one has noticed...I have stated my case for ql'ing Voided.
There are no pretenses...you lied. You deceived town to the brink of lynching someone whose alignment you had no idea of. LAL is not the only reason I support your lynch (other reasons below).pappums rat wrote:andendorse lynching someone for using a gambit under the pretense of lynch all liars without scumhunting (are we seeing a trend, here?).
pappums rat wrote:the whole point of my gambit was to see the reactions people would have to there beinga confirmed scumcornered, and then after the gambit was lifted people could scumhunt by looking for suspicious reactions.
Quit calling your lie a gambit. It was a lie. The result of your lie was that it led more than a few townies (myself obviously included) to believe we had, in your own words....a confirmed scum.
pappums rat wrote:havingfitz has made every attempt to make this day shorter than it should be, which is antitown and scummy.Misrep.What is "every attempt?" I supported a quick end of the day when the prevailing info supported Voided as scum. I did not advocate a quick end to the day before OR after your lie.
pappums rat wrote:the fact is that havingfitz has done no real scumhunting at all, and has been avoiding doing so all day.Misrep.I have made a case on you. I have presented suspicions towards neil and IK and to a much lesser degree mikemike. Who have you provided supicions against? Who have you scumhunted? The sum product of your effort so far is a lie and a push towards a mislynch.
Why is pappums the best choice for a lynch?
- Theonly indisputable fact we have in this gameis that pappums lied and deceived town. (scummy)
- Repeatedly ignoring accusations and question towards him. (scummy)
- Misrepping/overexagerrating to pad a weak case. (scummy)
- Ad-hom attacks in lieu of rational debate. (scummy)
- AtE with "moar votes plz." Maybe if he had said "pretty plz" he would be moar convincing?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
I can't argue with IK...his name says it all. He is either being very lazy or obtuse. Or he is scum which I am starting to believe. Your recent points on me do not hold any water and I will save town from another wallpost (this time) as I have made my points to all your accusations already I believe. Speaking of not holding water...
@Jahudo...this comment, "You trusted pappums. You are scum." is absurd. I trusted pappums because he was in a cut and dry position that was provable. Now he is in a cut and dry position in that he lied to town. And why does your ~formula not apply to the others who put their vote on Void after pappums' lie?
What does it matter what gambits I have seen? I stated I have not seen any like pappums'. Does it matter that I have seen people claim PGO on D1 to avoid night actions (both as town and scum)? I have obviously seen scum fakeclaim PRs...usually to no avail. I have also seen town make dreadful PR claims which usually resulted in their lynching (when caught), some of which have forced the real PRs to counterclaim and out themselves. None which implicated another player that I recall though.
Of the gambits you have provided, the Karma game was a good example but is not like this game in that 1 ) it occurred on the 3rd day when players had had a chance to assess/form opinions on each other and 2) ABR allowed his claim to result in a lynch (which he got lucky with). Karma was similar to this game in that two players immediately (blindly?) laid down votes following ABR's fake claim. No gambit talk or anything...and the voters were town.
The 2nd game you provide (which is ongoing so I am hesitant to discuss too much) was a similar "gambit" in that it occurred D1 (albeit later in the day) but was different in that two players were implicated...so there was still debate to be made. I would not have advocated a ql in this case. It should also be noted that votes were immediately cast as a result of the gambit, it only went on for 7-8 hrs, the gambitor somehow knew his targets alignment (??he called them both town??) AND the person suspected as a result of the gambit and lynched D1 was town. I also note that you and pappums are in that game.
As for the 3rd game...which I note you are in...if the fakeclaim I think you are referring to is correct...it was that someone else was town. Hardly the type of vote that would immediately produce a lynch so not relevant to this game. If your were referring to a different fakeclaim in this game please feel free to point it out.
The fact is though...I have not been in a game where town fakeclaimed a PR that implicated someone else as scum and was therefore easily proven.
Also...has anyone been in a game where given the result of a lynch...a town entering MYLO immediately conducted a No-lynch without discussion (ie a ql)? That was the same effect I was proposing with our post-lie/pre-confession ~confirmed scum Void.
@cecily. What? IK and pappums cases on me are pathetic. Please state yours after you have read theirs and my responses. And why do you state you think pappums is not scum and then follow that up by discrediting his 'gambit' plan? That makes no sense as does (not) your vote on me. Please state your case. If you are lazy time-consumed town, do town a favor and replace out. Otherwise play to your wincon (which if you are scum you are doing well atm).Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
IK...I didn't pick your name. Feel free to say I'm having fits.
I have 5 people voting me, 4 of whom (sans Cecily) have made some effort to present cases which are basically regurgitating some or all of the same main points. In summary (and if I am leaving anything out...anyone can feel free to add):
- Early PL statements re: andrew
- Belief of pappums' lie
- Push to q/l Void
- Switch to pappums' wagon after he confessed and/or supporting LaL
I have addressed each of these points at least once and most likely several times. ISO me.
Everything else is iirc is based on opinion and WIFOM of how both pappums and I would or wouldn't act as town or scum....conjecture.
IDK who is or isn't town or scum. The only thing I do know is that pappums lied, derailed genuine scumhunting, and is pushing a mislynch based on his lie. I have also provided additional suspicions of me for anyone actually reading the game.
You are scum because the case you have presented is crap and I'm confident you could do better if you tried...if a case actually existed. I responded to your first accusations you made with your vote. Your second post of accusations was even worse and primarily (if not completely) based on your opinion and WIFOM.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
P.T.....if a boring wagon is a bad wagon, then by all means, my wagon is boring.
I agree Jerbs has done squat so far but that is a poor reason for anyone to be voting him (especially now that he has decided to replace out). Pointing out a town-like post by him would be hard to do given the amount he has contributed but alternatively, is there anything really scum-like in his gameplay (or lack thereof)? I have a null read on him and would not support his lynch ATT. Especially given all the events that have transpired today.
The willingness to vote Jerbs to avoid a replacement is very scummy IMO.
My top four ATM are pappums rat (reasons already provided in ample detail); Idiotking for pushing a very bad case on me, neil [only if pappums flips town], and Cecily for her last post [aka her recent ridiculous vote on me and the associated rationale???].Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Touchy much? Just because by some miracle you do not have a competitive wagon at the moment does not mean you are concensus town and immune from suspicion. If can you admit that your willingness to vote on someone simply because they are being replaced can be found scummy...then what is scummy about people pointing that out? But thanks for pointing out under the immense pressure you are facing that you are town. That's good to know.neil1113 wrote:Lol if you say so Mike and Fitz. Just remember, Fitz is in danger of being lynched, it's only right that he pulls something out against somebody who has called him out as a viable lynch candidate.
And why are people (neil and IK to name at least 2) using 'quickness' as a negative? Is an action deemed quick based on the amount of RL time it takes to react on the number of posts it takes an individual to act? I'll answer for you....neither. It's not a scum tell. If some of you are slooooooooow to form an opinion, take a stance, make a vote, whatever...so be it. Town is as entitled to promptly posting their take/actions on things. <headshake>
@pappums...why take the time to craft such a well played and productive lie (aka gambit for those still catching up) and then basically be anon-entity the past week?I have responded to numerous posts by you, asked you questions, made accusations based on my suspicions, and you ignore them and simply say I'm obvscum. Here they are to save you your precious time:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2887913
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2891977
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p2892207
Well??????????havingfitz wrote:@cecily. What? IK and pappums cases on me are pathetic.Please state yours after you have read theirs and my responses. And why do you state you think pappums is not scum and then follow that up by discrediting his 'gambit' plan? That makes no sense as does (not) your vote on me. Please state your case.If you are lazy time-consumed town, do town a favor and replace out. Otherwise play to your wincon (which if you are scum you are doing well atm).
Also...regarding your post 329, let me see if I have this right:
You voted neil because of his attacks on others (being disrespectful...ad-hom'ing) and unvoted him because he stopped. ????? Is that what you are saying? Awesome logic. So if someone does something scummy but stops...it's ok. And since he didn't believe me to be scum [Note to Cecily...have you noticed who neil's 2nd ranked lynch candidate is?] in the first place, it's ok that he resorted to names. Yer guuuud.[/sarcasm]
And thanks for explaining your vote. In summary, it appears you are voting me because:
1) My "unwillingness to let the gambit go as simply a way to provoke everyone to talk about things." Annnnd,
2) that I am "so opposed to it [discussion] that he's [me] attacking the one [PR] who started the conversations in the first place."
I would counter those points with:
1) I'm unwilling to let it go because it forms the basis for my suspicions of PR. It is not the only reason my vote is still on him.
2) Are you saying scum can't do things to provoke discussion? Ridiculous. And you are saying I am voting pappums because I do not like discussion and I am holding it against him? That is a faulty analogy. I would also note that you have not mentioned one word of suspicions towards me (that I can find) until the post you decide to vote for me. Despite at various points suspecting Voided (and keeping your vote on him for a few days after the lie was confessed), neil (for saying mean things) and out of nowhere...me. And what was your main reason for voting me again? For being against discussion:
What? But.....b-b-b-but,Cecily wrote: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 notbefore continuing on with deliberations over who his buddies are. We can always come back and re read these pages tomorrow, and knowing explicitly who is lying would definitely be better than throwing random guesses around.
I call bullshit on you Cecily. I'm committed to pappums att because today looks like its him or me, but whoever among town is still here tomorrow needs to string you up. IK can get in line behind you.Cecily wrote:Pushing a quicklynch without much information is very scummy.
TO...350+ posts in this game and I'm the person you find most scummy (for using)? Please do town a favor and replace out.EMPHASISTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
^^Uninterested/lazy scum/town. Way to keep up the level of effort there pappum.pappums rat wrote:^^ flailing scum.
and i have either already answered the questions in your impossible to read wall posts or they are completely worthless questions to be answering in the first place.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
tarsonisocelot wrote:
It's not because you used emphasis, it's because your overall reaction to the reveal of the gambit/lie seemed entirelyhavingfitz wrote: TO...350+ posts in this game and I'm the person you find most scummy (for using)? Please do town a favor and replace out.EMPHASIStooemotional. You reacted more than I would expect someone to react naturally in a forum game, and that does not indicate town to me.
So town are calm and collected. Scum aren't. Got it.tarsonisocelot wrote:especially the enlarged and bolded LIESTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Nice...language like that might force Cecily to bus you.pappums rat wrote:fuck you
i dont need walls to convey what i am trying to say. all your walls do is add alot of rehashed bullshit to make it seem like you have more to say than you do.
Considering all the discussion and scumhunting you advocate you have done amazingly little of both.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Since you are big on normal reactions TO...how do you like pappums little hissytarsonisocelot wrote:
It's not because you used emphasis, it's because your overall reaction to the reveal of the gambit/lie seemed entirelyhavingfitz wrote: TO...350+ posts in this game and I'm the person you find most scummy (for using)? Please do town a favor and replace out.EMPHASIStooemotional. You reacted more than I would expect someone to react naturally in a forum game, and that does not indicate town to me.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
You do realize I was being sarcastic I hope (I believe you do).Pine wrote:
This is correct. However, the inverse is also true. Town are also emotional and passionate, where scum generally aren't. Sound like a contradiction? It kind of is. But when you think of it from scum's perspective, it makes perfect sense. What's the goal of scum? Tohavingfitz wrote:So town are calm and collected. Scum aren't. Got it.blending in. Real, genuine emotion and passion arefakehardto fake. They usually stick out and smell funny when they try. Scum generally ride the moderate emotional scale, trying not to let anything slide but not over-reacting to anything...unless they think they'resupposedto over-react.
Just as I hope everyone realizes that there are no reactions, comments, scenarios that are explicitly/guaranteed townie or scummy. If they were the game would be a lot less complicated (for some at least).Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Par for the course/this game.Pine wrote:I'd be satisfied with a Fitz lynch, though I haven't put the effort into his case that I have with PR.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
On the defense again and my comment wasn't even directed at you. What was not fair about my comment? You said:neil1113 wrote:Fitz playing the "look who's Neil second lynch candidate is" card is not fair to myself. You and Pappums are both the only real viable lynches of the day, so you two were included because of that. I said I'd rather see Pappums go then you, because I'm more confident in that lynch then yours. I was not saying you out of EVERYONE is my second guess to being scum.
I was simply pointing that out as an inconsistency of Cecily's in my response to her terrible post explaining her ~reasons for voting me. If you have people you suspect more than me they should be on your comfortable lynching list. Would you rather lynch me than whoever your #2 suspect is? Your #3? etc etc?neil1113 wrote:My vote is Pappums, Fitz, Jerbs in the order of first to last as far as who I feel most comfortable lynching.
Awfully quiet day. Anyone have any thoughts on my 'case' on Cecily? On pappums coming unglued for no good reason? (At least that wasn't an ad-hom attack...good job PR)Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
First of all...a little reminder:
Add to these his lack of contribution the last week+ and his coming unglued for IMO no good reason.havingfitz wrote:Why is pappums the best choice for a lynch?
- Theonly indisputable fact we have in this gameis that pappums lied and deceived town. (scummy)
- Repeatedly ignoring accusations and question towards him. (scummy)
- Misrepping/overexagerrating to pad a weak case. (scummy)
- Ad-hom attacks in lieu of rational debate. (scummy)
- AtE with "moar votes plz." Maybe if he had said "pretty plz" he would be moar convincing?
To my new #2 suspect (who I would switch my vote to now if I thought it would result in her lynch). I would invite town to look over her posts and see what little she has contributed (not the amount of posting but the content). Look not so much at her reasons for voting Void and neil (neither of which I had an issue with) but rather for her vote changes.
After pappums' lie is confessed Cecily says she still finds VM suspicious and thanks him [PR], proclaiming he [PR] is now"pretty much cleared"in her book. She then chooses to let her vote linger on VM.
When she does move her vote off VM and on to neil...its for neil's language, though she makes no mention of no longer suspecting VM. Also, no suspicions of neil were mentioned prior to her vote so I would assume her only suspicion was his language. I would ask people to note that she voted neil in post 235.
Then without any previously voiced suspicions of me, Cecily decides to vote me. She determines neil no longer warrants her vote becuasesince he [neil] has claimed that he never actually believe fitz to be scum I feel like I can overlook the names as just a shift of character, and not as a scummy move.The trouble with this logic is that neil stated he didn't think I was scum both before (post 223) and after (post 230) his ad-hom attacks. Her vote on neil came AFTER he had already stated he thought I was not scum. So how can she vote him and unvote him for things he did prior to her vote on him????? For those not paying attention...Cecily's post 235 came after neil's posts 223 and 230. So how is this contradiction not obvious Cecily?
Then Cecily tapdances around her vote on Voided:Cecily p375 wrote:Yeah, fitz I'll admit I was all for lynching voided when everyone thought he was scum because everyone else was just as down. I was willing to do it because it would have helped us actually understand what was going on. That was before pappums admitted to gambitting.
First off Cecily...when do you think I was pushing for Voided's quicklynch? BEFORE pappums admitted lying to us! That's when. How does that make your and my actions any different? Are you even thinking about what you are posting???? I've given my reasons for wanting an early D1 scum result to have a quicklynch. You were just as quick to vote him and echoed my sentiments with this comment:
But now you deceide to hold it against me.Cecily p160 wrote: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. We can always come back and re read these pages tomorrow, and knowing explicitly who is lying would definitely be better than throwing random guesses around.
Cecily p375 wrote:Now that pappums has come clean with his intentions I am no longer certain and I know that nothing other than night will come out of quicklynching. You still seem to think that killing someone is the best course of action. It isn't and trying to push it is scummy.
He "came clean" with his ~intentions 10 days ago, before you voted neil. So why are my actions with regard to pappums' lie (which your comments/actions were in line with) all of a sudden voteworthy? I have not advocated any sort of quicklynch since pappums "came clean" so if you are inferring that you would be misrepping me. If you aren't inferring that then why are you voting me? And of course I think lynching someone [scum] is the best course of action...isn't that the object of the game? Trying to push a lynch is scummy? I guess that makes ten of us scummy by the current votecount.
I am not flailing....I'm pointing out what is blatently clear. Feel free to call me on it and show me where I'm in error,Cecily wrote:Don't quote me out of context, because I promise it will not work, I will call you on it, and it's making you look like you're flailing.
The only reason it looks like a contradiction is because the situation has changed.
While I am at it....nice to note scum #3 [IK] is "blindly" defending pappums.
I can not lay out all three of their inconsistencies/cases any more clearly.
tl:dr;pappums is scum; Cecily's last two posts were terrible...make absolutely no sense, and are full of contradiction and hypocrisy; and IK is scum.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
By regurgitating do you mean the quotes from you that prove your contradictions and hypocrisy? What's wrong with that?Cecily wrote:So, fitz, pretty much right now you're regurgitating what my actions were and calling them scummy. Thanks, but I'd like to leave it up to everyone else how they view what I've been claiming.
Cecily wrote:How is me stating that I voted him because it would have helped us know what was going on tap dancing? I wasn't avoiding my reasons for voting him. Those were my reasons, I clearly stated them before pappums came clean, and I'm not going to go back and try and change that.
No...but last thing you said in your ~explanation for voting me was"Pushing a quicklynch without much information is very scummy. And that's why I'm voting fitz."Which is hypocritical considering you were advocating the same thing I was.
What is your point? This is what I have been pointing out to everyone and it supports my comments just above. ????Cecily wrote:You were pushing a quicklynch on voided before pappums claimed, as was I because when no scum is willing to associate himself with voided it's pointless to try and drag it out. All that would get us is pissed off townies and less helpful information than we started with.
Cecily wrote:I'm calling you out on your obscene willingness to lynch pappums now. You've been jumping around pointing at pappums saying he's scum, he's scum, but all you've been focused on is his gambit. The rest of us are over it, moved on to something more worthwhile - the stuff that came out of his gambit. And you are sitting on something that you know to be a safe platform to lynch from. You're using his gambit as an excuse for his lynch which would be fine if there weren't other people who looked scummier.
What is obscene about wanting to vote someone? That's the point. I do think pappums is scum. I have not focused only on pappums lie (which you immediately absolved him of and cleared him for it)...if you have been paying attention I have pointed out several other suspicions I have on pappums. Nice misrep. And I have looked at other players (ironic you haven't noticed).
Still a MISREP. You're repeating yourself. See my last comment above.Cecily wrote:Notice how the rest of us have pretty much gotten over his gambit and are now on to making claims based on people reactions to it. You aren't. Because steering yourself to a topic other than his gambit is dangerous, because as soon as you relieve him of that guilty claim there is nothing else to go on. I am past his claim, and I see something else... you.
Cecily wrote:And I will call you on contorting my quotes. One was taken from before pappums came out, and the other was after. As I have clearly stated my intentions do differ between those times and so quoting both times and trying to draw the same conclusions out of them is ludicrous.
You aren't doing anything other than saying you are calling me out. Which comments am I taking out of context or out of order? Not the neil unvote quotes...those are there for all to see. Which quotes do you refer to?
Cecily wrote:Let me make myself perfectly clear. I do not hold your vote on voided against you. I do not hold your willingness to quicklynch voided against you. Idohold you unwillingness to accept pappums gambit as simply a gambit against you.
It wasn't a gambit against me....it was a lie against voided that could have resulted in a potential mislynch and it is not what I am focusing on. And as for not holding my VM vote against me....what are you referring to in thequoteI italicised earlier in this post? <headshake>
Et tu Cecily? So essentially you are telling me the same thing pappums rat did but in a checken shit manner. Just say it. Coupled with all your apologies toCecily wrote:I completely agree with the frustration pappums felt that led him to quoting cee lo green. Seriously. And claiming that he said it out of anything other than sheer frustration will lead me to ask what kind of life you've been living that you've never wanted to express those feelings and how can I get in on it?usfor this and that you are trying too hard not to offend/annoy. And do you really feel the need to act that way (like cee lo) based off pressure from one person (moi)? Shame. If you feel the urge to curse others out for gameplay on a mafia site I can only hope your life improves and you eventually get over it.
So why were you voting me again?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
You're joking...right? 'Cause you made me laughIdiotking wrote:So who do you consider scum at this moment, fitz? Besides pappums and me, I mean.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
IK...
1) Every plays differently. There is no always right method. To say so just makes you feel better in justifying your weak points towards me.
2) I have expressed suspicions towards neil as well but the points I have towards him pale compared to my top three. There is no reason that 3 scum could not be on my wagon. I am not presumptuous enough to think I have caught three scum but the three I am targetting the most are the people I suspect the most.
3) Nice ad-hom.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
That's two posts in a row you've agreed with me. You're getting better. Now if you can just put down the WIFOM and vote PR (pick any of the several reasons I've provided) we'll be getting somewhere.mikemike778 wrote:Alarmingly after reading 385, I'm kinda finding myself agreeing with my chief suspect Fitz regarding Cecily as well.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
lol at pappums still not doing anything. You ask me for information yet you continue to avoid my recent questions/accusations towards you? Try this, ISO me and seach for idiotking or IK. My wallposts are answering questions, responding to accusations, or pointing out comments/actions I find suspicious. Stop slacking and contribute. Maybe you could start with what your case was on me again? Or reply to my recent posts directed at you.
TO...your rationale for suspecting me coupled with your willingness to accept PR's "fuck you" comment is ridiculous. Why would you have made a similar comment towards me? He is my top suspect (though I have provided info on others) and I ampressuringhim. Is pressuring your top suspect a scumtell? And lets say I'm town....just envision it.....why would I not be more inclined to suspect those pushing my mislynch for what I consider FMPOV to be poor reasons? And my reasons provided in my suspicions towards others are not "Because you are voting me"...I've provided specific examples for pappum AND Cecily and to a lesser degree, IK. IMO you are not bringing anything to this game atm. Please try harder.
Jahudo is not making any sense with his unwillingness to acknowledge valid suspicions towards Cecily and pappums and now FOSing someone who actually is making sense with their reads.
@void....I can see why a pappum town flip would direct attention towards me. I would hope if he were to flip town that my reasons for voting him stood on their own merit. He has provided plenty of valid suspicions for consideration...if we get it wrong...*it happens. Regardless of his flip however I would say Cecily is still a top lynch candidate tomorrow.
@pappums again. Did someone say you thought you were cleared because of your lie? Also,
So if I'm lynched you're going to replace out? That's nice...I assume you just want to stick around to make some assinine comment if I am today's lynch and then you'll bail (since I would no longer be in the game).pappums rat wrote:the only reason i am still in this one is because havingfitz is still alive.
DING! DING! DING!!!! QFT.Pine wrote:Gambiting isn't scummy when it's on D4 to protect a power role or to get known scum lynched. Done on D1 in order to get someone who (at the time) was a total null read is remarkably scummy.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Upon further ISO, no, they aren't invalid...I just did not recall them. You made them a week and a half ago and left it at that. She did not even warrant an FOS for basically similar things you are voting me for, yet you feel Pine's play does warrant an FOS. That seems a bit off to me. A lot has been said since you voiced your three suspicions and you have had very little to say. Any thoughts on my recent posts re: Cecily? Is Pine more suspicious in your opinion than Cecily? What's up?Jahudo wrote:
Why are my suspicions against Cecily invalid?havingfitz wrote:Jahudo is not making any sense with his unwillingness to acknowledge valid suspicions towards Cecily and pappums and now FOSing someone who actually is making sense with their reads.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
TO...what are the valid reason you have/agree with to suspect me?
I do not think my way is the only correct way. I get it wrong all the time and am fine acknowledging that. If the only problem I had with PR was his lie I probably would have moved on to Cecily by now but pappums post-lie play has only added to my suspicions. As for my little digs at others...I am not a patient person...with the game or with players. If people aren't contributing or I don't agree with them I let them know it. I know what my alignment is so I know who is on the right path with their vote and suspicions and if the walls of commentary I have supplied defending my actions/opinions aren't sufficient enough to enlighten them...my frustrations could raise to the surface. I also don't have a lot of patience for people who don't contribute (ex: andrew pl comments early in the game). It's not a tell as it's how I play. And I was betrayed...I believed pappums lie. I was annoyed and unamused when he came clean.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
@mikemike...pappums lie is only part of the reason he has my vote. Are there people who are voting him simply based on his lie? Are you voting me based on that assumption?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
havingfitz wrote:@pappums again. Did someone say you thought you were cleared because of your lie? Also,
So if I'm lynched you're going to replace out? That's nice...I assume you just want to stick around to make some assinine comment if I am today's lynch and then you'll bail (since I would no longer be in the game).pappums rat wrote:the only reason i am still in this one is because havingfitz is still alive.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
I wouldn't support a pl on andrew at this point. IMO there are at least three stronger candidates for a lynch. He is playing the way he always plays (hence my initial pl question) but not now.
pappums...whatever your question is I have already answered it in my earlier posts and I believe at least one other owner has mentioned/quoted it. You might actually have to look.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
Cecily...you are ignoring my case against you and my clarification of the points I made towards you. Your entire last response to me was a piece of work any slimey politician would be proud to spoutTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
VM...I haven't hurled insults at PR, please don't say I have.
pappums rat...I have answered your questions. Stop being a lazy waste. And if your mother knew you were acting like you have been she would probably not let you on the computer. The answers to your questions are in my posts. At the bottom of the page is a box that says "All users." Click the arrow pointing down, select havingfitz, and hit go. There you will find your answers.
Pine...I don't like the fact that you "see the wagon on Fitz" and I am your "moderately-distant" second yet you are voting PR for all (or a subset of) the same reasons I am. And while you understand and are fine with my wagon, Cecily has passed me as your second highest suspect...is that accurate? What are your thoughts on neil?
Speaking of your reasons for voting pappums, you say "I'd be satisfied with a Fitz lynch, though I haven't put the effort into his case that I have with PR."....did you ever put a case together on me? If so...can I see it? Also...I think stating you put effort into a pappums case might be a bit of an overstatement. Aside from reading what others have said about him, what original thought/suspicion with respect to pappums have you produced?
You also say "Town are also emotional and passionate, where scum generally aren't." How does this comment correlate to pappums rude, irrational, out of line, and some might say..."emotional and passionate" behavior?
I don't care for the way pappums has played in this game. When I thought he was telling the truth during his 'gambit' I thought he had claimed a result too soon (ie he tainted gameplay). Lesson learned...next time I will consider the possibility of a gambit being in play. Then when he admitted to deceiving and lying to town, kept his vote on VM (despite no good reason att) and his subsequent OMGUS vote on me, it only supported my opinion that he was either scum or just incompetant town. However, the possibility that he is incompetant town has me bothered. I would like him to be gone because of his bad play and the fact he is being a dick (if that's hurling an insult so be it...it's also a fact). However....if he is town...then both leading wagons are on a mislynch and there will IMO be nothing to be gained from analyzing either of our wagons. I'm all for making scum work for their mislynches so I'm going toUnvotepappums and put my vote somewhere I feel more confident of the result...
VOTE: Cecily
If the result is my lynch...fine, I'll be out of the way and town can assess my wagon. If if the lynch is pappums and he is scum...great! But if he is town, it will be seven players other than me who can be scrutinized. I would already be a popular candidate based on my current wagon so not being on a potential PRtown lynch would just put more scum in the spotlight. And if is isn't obvious from what I am saying above...I am saying I am town-aligned.Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
@Pine...you stated in a fairly recent post that Cecily was the #1 target for D2. So why isn't she your #2 on D1? And if she is the to target for D2...are you assuming both pappum and I to be gone by D2? Or are you assuming the flip of whomever the D1 lynch is will exonerate the other?
With regard to the one contribution towards pappum that you take credit for...the logic behind why his gambit/lie could have come from scum was discussed at least once before you made your "effort."
Looking forward to your case on me. I'll wait till then to consider the "you suspect pappum for the same reasons as I do" train of thought.
And while neil is lower on my suspect list than a handful of others atm, I still find it interesting that you are willing to dismiss him for "glaring, screaming town tells" (which I read as things scum wouldn't do OR things that only or most of the time town would do) when you are not willing to do the same with pappum's lie (ie scum wouldn't do that which is why scum would do that). As for your psychology lesson...what good does it do? It's just taking up space. It appears you are just saying scum try to look like town. Well thanks for that revelaton.
What's up Bub and Jahudo?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
@Pine...I had a post dedicated almost entirely to you that seems to have gone unnoticed. No comment?
@All...Cecily's vote on pappum is another mark on her list of suspicions IMO. As far as I can see she has avoided any kind of push on pappum until now and overlooked his lie and rude behavior. Now that he is walking out on us, and now that it looks like a few of the people who are not voting him (PT and TO) appear to be leaning towards his [PRs] wagon...she decides to hop on.
I do not see where Cecily ever adequately responded to my suspicions towards her and she gives as her reason for voting me as my"emotonal response to pappums' gambit."Huh? Then you end the point with saying you wereonly agreeing with his [PRs] reasons for voting"me. WTF? Was pappums voting me for being emotional? I don't recall ever getting a good reason from pappums on his vote of me. If he wasn't voting me for being emotional, and you agree with his reasons, then why do you say you were voting me for being emotional? That doesn't make sense.
And if emotion is the only thing you are basing your votes on...are you just going to keep switching back and forth between whomever gets (in your opinion at least)...emotional? I don't actually think anyone would do that and I only point it out because that's how your post is coming across to me and it's ridiculous.
Everytime you take the time to post I like my vote on you better. Even if you do feel the need to continually apologizeTown 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!
And did we lose Bub?Town 57w-66l :: Not Town 29w-16l:: TBD 2
V/LA on weekends (i.e. RL > mafia)
The shortest GTKAS thread ever!-
-
havingfitz Survivor
- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 10118
- Joined: July 1, 2009
- Location: Here....no, here...wait! There!