Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[Jahudo]

/confirmed, and Ooh 2 week deadlines cool.

[Jahudo]

Vote: Xalxe

As a bobcats fan I find your basketball team pretty scummy

[Jahudo]

Nice flavor Rhinox. Now I feel like wagoning for wagoning sake.

unvote;
Vote: Idiotking

[Jahudo]

7 votes is the standard number for 12 player mini games on day 1, so I knew I was voting to L-4. And I typically won't acknowledge what my vote is bringing the wagon to unless its L-2 or L-1, so I feel my vote was a safe one.

[Jahudo]

1. I don't really have a set schedule day to day, but I'll try to post at least once a day or I'm online for my modding duties.
2. I'm probably more cautious than reckless, would try and build a case before making serious votes that type of thing.

@Xalxe: Did you miss the vote count entirely? Even if the "votes need to lynch" line wasn't there you could see that Idiot only had two votes and my vote came 5 posts later. It wouldn't have taken that long to add it up against the number of people alive.

[Jahudo]

The voided wagon is a good one, he is not contributing. Though Jinxx, you aren't that much better since your only contribution is to acknowledge that voided didn't random vote.

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

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

FOS Cecily

for 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.

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.

I wouldn't say three scum is out of the question. Third, with three votes and three potential non-scum on, plus the presence of several...sub-par players in this game, I was worried, that's all.

Okay that's understandable. We have quite a few lost post count players that could play the newb card if the wagon continued to escalate and hammer before anyone noticed. Your unvote was early, but I don't see any reason scum would want to unvote in that situation so it doesn't bother me. I think you just reacted instinctively.

[Jahudo]

Okay, idiotking.

I don't see the problem with pappums push.

[Jahudo]

This looks more like a gambit to me than the alternative options (pappums scum lying, pappums town telling the truth). I know some people like to cop hard to read roles or VI's, so his target would make sense but I think it would make more sense to hold off on using a one shot power in case someone else becomes even more hard to read after 10, 15 pages.

If this isn't a gambit then naturally I think pappums would be telling the truth. Scum wouldn't want to create a "me or him situation" when it would be easy to lynch both. As scum he would have at least given himself an out. So if this isn't a lynch, voided is scum and pappums town.

Though it is also a good idea to keep talking and think how scum would react in these different scenarios, after everyone has reacted of course. I have a few ideas based on other games.

[Jahudo]

Neighbors don't choose their night talk partners.

i see this as anti-town. if you believed my claim to be a gambit, you should have let it take it's course to see what sort of blunders the scumteam would make. i see this as tipping your scumbuddies off to keep their mouth's shut and not do anything incriminating.

I didn't see a point to keeping quiet about that. If voided is mafia, scum would assume you were telling the truth even if you pulled a gambit and got lucky. If voided is not mafia, they would know you were either pulling a gambit or accidentally targetted a miller. Either way they would have much more information than townies during a fast-paced part of the game. I feel it is important that townies consider all scenarios then so there isn't any quicklynch despite your request or a backlash in case you did say you pulled a gambit and a quick wagon formed on you.

---

Voided looks like he could be trying to reason with Xalxe and Mikemike in post 113, like they could be townies he could get on his side still. And then he suspects Jinxx in post 131. I wonder if he would think to distance at that point, or if he still thinks he could swing a lynch that's not himself or pappums. Maybe Jinxx is town too, although I feel a little more confident about the post 113 tell.

[Jahudo]

unvote

My vote was still on idiotking for random reasons.

I don't think the day should last much longer. But its a good idea for people to start thinking about other possible scum so day 2 can start off right where we are going to leave off. It won't be great information because we are only 7 pages in and vote count analysis won't be helpful, but its still good for players to start making opinions about players besides voided.

what does everyone think of voidedmafia's defense of himself?

He's isn't making a good attempt to defend himself. It looks like he's mostly resigned himself to being lynched.

- Voided hasn't placed a vote on Pappums, which I cannot understand.

- He has ignored the other votes on him and everyone else's reaction, only talking about Jinxx. He should be guessing if pappums has a buddy or two supporting him, but this looks like he doesn't want to make any connections to anyone else.

- The claim was a poor one. Neighbors can't pick their night talking partner. Another role can, but not "Neighbor", so you know he's lying. I'm a little surprised scum wouldn't pick a better claim like miller, to leave some doubt about his alignment, or another power role like doctor to try and draw a counter-claim into the open. But I'm guessing that voided is just inexperienced scum and thought neighbor would be a safer, less obvious choice?

---

voided mafia, it would be wise to claim now

Out of curiousity, what did you hope to get out of this question if you already believed pappums claim?

---

How do you know there is a doctor ?

Why did you ask this question? This is a closed setup so the only answers I think Cecily could give are "I don't know" or "Because I am the doctor". The first won't help with scumhunting and the second is rolefishing on your part. So why ask him at all?

[Jahudo]

@andrew: What did you hope to get out of this question if you already believed pappums claim?

---
I didn't see neil's reaction to the claim as scum-motivated. He was the first one to say voided should be lynched, but he didn't vote in that post. I think scum would want to be on a lynch wagon if they knew their buddy was caught. They would be thinking about be on that wagon more than town, who are more interested in just there being a wagon on scum.

[Jahudo]

You had my hopes up pappums. But at least it did get this game sorta moving so your initiative was good.

Part of my suspicion on voided is whether he lied about his claim or if he just misread it. Yes, he could have misread a neighborizer claim as scum, but if he had that power role as scum I also think he'd be more careful about getting it right because its not something he'd have to make up on the spot. As town he might be more likely to think he's going to be lynched anyway so he answer like its an offhand comment.

So I think we should test voided's claim to clear up one suspicion I have.

[Jahudo]

Neighbors are determined pre-game, it would be part of your role pm.

[Jahudo]

Pappums gambit did not take us back to square one, we have some good information to work with in the future. That is how his actions can be seen as pro-town, and why townies have pulled these gambits in the past. Its possible he saw a gambit and thought to try it as scum, but I won't condemn him for it based on what we know now.

Here is my theory:

* If voided is town, scum had great incentive to get a hammer before pappums revealed his gambit. They would not have asked people to wait for pappums to answer questions, or asked the game to play out longer because a mislynch would mean an automatic day 2 wagon on pappums for not revealing the gambit sooner. Their best case scenario could be going into day 3 after two mislynches and minimal scumhunting. Even cautious scum wouldn't pass that up.

* If voided is scum, a buddy would have made sure to be on the wagon. Its as simple as that when you assume the day cop is real and voided is getting lynched no matter what.

In either scenario I count Jinxx, havingfitz, P.T. Barnum, Xalxe, and Cecily as suspects. Two scum in that group of five. A third might have stayed off or be either voided or pappums, allowing scum to make an easy bus.

I'll come back with more developed reads on those players next. It makes much more sense to lynch one of them because they would be scum whether voided or pappums flip town or scum.

[Jahudo]

@PT Barnum: I think scum would have been eager to join a voided-town wagon in order to get a hammer before Pappums revealed it to be a gambit, because suspicion would then fall to pappums and not the wagoners. It is his responsibility to not let a gambit go too far. The only real risky vote for scum in this case is the hammer itself, which is another reason why they'd want to vote earlier and hope there's someone with a personality for quick-hammering as either alignment.
---

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

Unless it's a townie gambit on pappum's part, in which we're stuck WIFOMing until he comes clean. Which is why speculation without votes on this issue is useless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote: havingfitz

[Jahudo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jahudo]

I'll take another look at neil's ISO when I get a chance. I haven't commented on Cecily's case yet so that is at the top of my to-do list.

I'm also wondering about Jerbs for the reasons Jinxx listed. I can't tell if Jerbs is suspicious of mikemike or what the point of that was. Jerbs is naive for believing in LAL.

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.

Okay, what kind of gambits have you seen then? Just fake votes? I've seen town fakeclaim others as scum, as town, and even one time fakeclaim a mason buddy. The non-mason buddy went along with it and they were both town.

The point of these types of gambits is that townies are always skeptical to trust other people because you never know who is lying, whereas scum know who is town and assume they will play honestly. You trusted pappums. You are scum.

@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?

Here are a few games that come to mind: Karma mafia, x-files mafia, dilemma mafia.

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.

That is essentially my point. It is scummy to argue that a lynch was the best scenario for everybody when pappums had not confirmed his role. A lynch would put scum in a great position to get two mislynces off with little scumhunting or connections, if pappums and voided are both town.

[Jahudo]

I'm retracting my name calling argument because it seems to have stopped

Do you think it was townish of neil to stop it, or the way he stopped it? Do you think scum-neil would have handled it differently, or is because this went on for only a little bit you don't have enough evidence to really be confident keeping your vote on him? I'm trying to figure out what you currently think about him, because your unvote wasn't entirely clear.

For the record I disagree that any of that name calling or attitude was scummy to say. It looked like a personality not playstyle tell, I've seen plenty of players act abrasive as town. Its possible that in some cases there is a motivation to make a player look bad, but I think it would be done in a more subtle way so you don't realize the person name calling is being a jerk.

-----

How was Jerbs detrimental to town why would he say that he seemed still null to me oh hai Bub welcome to the game!

[Jahudo]

Pine is not looking townish to me. I question how he is so confident about Lynch All Liars being tried and true.

And LAL is tried and true. Gambiting like you did holds zero benefit for Town.

How many games have you seen with a gambit lie?

I'm usually very, very against speedlynches, but the day has already fallen into bickering and recursion. Let's get done with this.

He seems to be using that theory confidence to justify not giving other reads today, except for fitz which doesn't look natural yet.

For the record, Fitz is a moderately-distant second on my scum list. I'd be satisfied with a Fitz lynch, though I haven't put the effort into his case that I have with PR.

Why is he also a suspect? The town is strongly divided along these two bandwagons and I am wondering how someone is able to support both without looking hypocritical in a theory stance or opportunistic in arguing for a chain lynch without sufficient reasoning. Where is your reasoning.

FoS: Pine

[Jahudo]

Done on D1 in order to get someone who (at the time) was a total null read is remarkably scummy.

Why? Also, no. It sparks discussion and that is always good for town because they start to see connections form.

[Jahudo]

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.

Why are my suspicions against Cecily invalid?

[Jahudo]

It looks like pappums expected his gambit to received better, like they have in other games I've seen recently. So his latest posts are not too surprising.

@Cecily: In your experience why do you think a forceful nature, maybe stronger language makes someone more likely to be scum? What do you think a pappums-scum is trying to achieve through this playstyle, or do you think scum are more likely to act this way and not even realize how its different than a town approach?

[Jahudo]

I asked you some questions a while back Pine. Like how many times have you seen a gambit lie like this? How do you know this is something scum do? I guess you play on another site / irl / an alt since that account is pretty new?

[Jahudo]

And you are focusing on this part I guess:

You should generally try to gambit only if you're going to get a superior result if you succeed (none of that mindgames-for-the-sake-of-it garbage) and the gambit has low-to-no chance of failure.

I've still seen mindgames for the sake of it from town, and the rest of the town like it. Though pappums scum with that knowledge could easily gambit too so I honestly pappums and voided were the two that we wouldn't get clear reads on from that gambit. Now if one of them is scum its a great thing to know that early, but I won't switch my vote unless its deadline time.

I will take another look at cecily in the meantime though.

-----

NACHOOOOOOOO!!!!

[Jahudo]

Happy Birthday Rhinox!

[Jahudo]

Rat never looked scummy to me until the end of his part in this game, where he totally blew his top. I read this more as frustrated townie than as cornered scum. It seemed like he was fed up with this game and just wanted out, whether it was because he was lynched or modkilled or replaced.

So you are saying his late actions did look scummy, but you are reading it as frustrated townie? I'm leaning towards that explanation too. Clearly he thought his gambit was going to be better received and wasn't prepared to defend it in the long run. His attitude looked like frustration from that.

@Jahudo: Fitz, the rat slot, or neither?

If you are asking me who I think is more likely to be scum, my fitz vote can explain that. I think the gambit served a scumhunting purpose that helped me get reads on several players, but unfortunately the two hardest players to read from it are pappums and voided because they had inside information. But my gut says both of them are alright.

[Jahudo]

Its just how I play. I like to work slow and methodically regardless of alignment or role.

[Jahudo]

I'm good with a voided lynch, so I'll switch over now. Nacho's case looks good. The lack of a vote on pappums was questionable after being told that non-sane cops aren't in normal games. At that point he should have had no doubt pappums was scum or gambit.

And fitz makes a good argument that voided's claim cannot be solidly verified.

unvote;
vote: voidedmafia