Mini 1137: Long Overdue Mafia [Game Over!]

[Voidedmafia]

...*facepalm*

Quite honestly, the way you're playing, I'd follow Neil's wagon whole-heartedly if I wasn't focused on pappums. Because your play so far has been horrible.

And Neil D2 lynch? Really? REALLY?

[havingfitz]

However, I don't like Fitz either, for scummy play and reasons I've already posted.

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.

neil, I get your point, but explain to me why pappums benefits from this gambit AND coming out with it now as scum. Please.

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?

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.

[Xalxe]

Xalxe, your argument seems to be "it's TOO scummy to actually be a scum move." That's a fallacy, and it's one you (if you're town) need to be VERY careful to avoid. It's not town oriented, and you can't possibly clear him because "he did such a stupid, anti-town move that he can't possibly actually be scum (anti-town)." As scum in my previous games, there's been certain instances where I SPECIFICALLY did something (like completely push for a day 1 lynch on one of my partners who wasn't active at all that game) that if you thought about it, there's no way I being scum would actually do it. But I did, and I did it to bring out that exact reaction. The town bought onto it, and I rode my way to a victory. Don't be so close minded to do it this time with him, Xalxe.

No, my argument is that there is no scum motivation. Rather the opposite of what you're arguing.

Quite frankly, I'm ticked off (or pissed, if you don't mind that) that andrew has so far made nearly no sense whatsoever in his posts. The only two that made any amount sense recently are the post asking me to claim, and the post that says that neighborizers aren't always town-aligned.

If he'd try to make sense with this case against you, then I wouldn't be so up about it.

PROTIP: andrew94 is what we folks refer to as a Village Idiot (VI). Easy vig-target please.

[neil1113]

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.

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.

BTW...if anyone didn't notice...pappums lied and had us all diverting our attention to normal scumhunting.

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:

UNVOTE: Xalxe

VOTE: Pappums

No, my argument is that there is no scum motivation. Rather the opposite of what you're arguing.

How on EARTH could you make such a solid comment with so much clarity, unless of course you know who the scum and who the town are? In which case, that'd make you Mafia. Could this be a scum slip? Anyways may I ask you, apart from the obvious "reaction fishing" fallacy, how on earth do you see this at all to be town motivated?

[Rhinox]

Votecount 1.6

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

not voting (5): Jerbs, mikemike778, Idiotking, Jahudo, Xalxe,

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

Jinxx is V/LA until Monday or Tuesday

[havingfitz]

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.

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.

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:

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... :/

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.

Then you say:

BTW...if anyone didn't notice...pappums lied and had us all diverting our attention to normal scumhunting.

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:

UNVOTE: Xalxe

VOTE: Pappums

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.

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).

[havingfitz]

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?

[pappums rat]

i would like to clear it up for everyone that this was a gambit, as i have stated already, since cecily thinks it was a joke. a gambit is meant to do something specific, such as in this case gauge peoples' responses to there being a confirmed guilty. i didnt do this for shits and giggles. i did it

in an attempt at scumhunting

, not to divert scumhunting, as havingfitz accused me of.

that being said, i definately like the way this is going. i would like everyone to note havingfitz' repeated use of the words 'liar' and 'lying' and his clear attempt at rolefishing me. his first post-gambit post was especially telling i think, given all the fake emotion behind it. someone who has been here as long as he has should know the difference between a base lie and a gambit, and for him to keep pushing the word 'lie' the way he has done is scummy. he is clearly trying to misrep me here, and his rolefishing is just plain

bad

. why in the hell should i tell you my role, eh? and i never forced vm to claim, he only claimed after andrew asked him to. he should have only claimed if someone had expressed intent to hammer.

i am very disappointed that people have abandoned talking about vm's responses. vm's responses are still just as valid as if i hadnt gambited, and they need to be examined, as well as everyone else's responses.

i would also like to point out that no one has claimed that i am cleared, cecily just said that to her, i am, and then she said in that same post that she wasnt so sure after all. i am not cleared by any means.

p. edit:

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.

this makes perfect sense. he dosent want to vote me based on a 'lie', but would vote me based on the danger of a mislynch that was an effect of that 'lie'.

and note the namecallling 'liar' once again.

[havingfitz]

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.

[Voidedmafia]

i would like to clear it up for everyone that this was a gambit, as i have stated already, since cecily thinks it was a joke. a gambit is meant to do something specific, such as in this case gauge peoples' responses to there being a confirmed guilty. i didnt do this for shits and giggles. i did it

in an attempt at scumhunting

, not to divert scumhunting, as havingfitz accused me of.

How is it not diverting scumhunt when, by your claim, everyone was focused on me, my actions, and what would happen on my lynch, and nearly nothing else? And you can't just write it off as just being narrow-sighted for everyone, either.

and i never forced vm to claim, he only claimed after andrew asked him to. he should have only claimed if someone had expressed intent to hammer.

You could argue that andrew asking to claim is implicating he would hammer.

i am very disappointed that people have abandoned talking about vm's responses. vm's responses are still just as valid as if i hadnt gambited, and they need to be examined, as well as everyone else's responses.

They're examining others, let them be. If they want to probe my replies, they'll get to them.

and note the namecallling 'liar' once again.

Well, you are.

[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.

[havingfitz]

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 that

LIE

was a bad thing? So yeah, good stuff. Let's go with that. Not!

As for back to square one...I said for the most part. Everything that has occurred since the

LIE

will 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's

LIE

and 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 reason

s

, which unlike neil, I actually did provide.

[Voidedmafia]

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.

[mikemike778]

Thoughts on stuff ...

Rat - I like the gambit in principle, it was a pretty good way to get the game going out of RVS. On the flip side, he kept it going for long enough to make a potential mislynch by gambit a genuine possibility. But then again if he did (and he is voting for him) think Voided was scum then maybe he figured that lynching Void should happen one way so if the gambit led to a lynch then that's fine. Ultimately I don't see a scum player doing this Day 1.

Voided - Was pretty happy with his defence overall and would scum really claim that ? It looked to all extents and purposes like he was doomed so if he was going to fake claim a PR, why fake claim a relatively minor one that the town could probably afford to risk lynching and one with no real chance of drawing out a PR. I'm not seeing him as scum at the moment.

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.

Andrew - Not the foggiest, am I right in thinking he thinks Rats is scum because there are no none sane cops in Mini-Normals ?

[mikemike778]

Fitz

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?

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

[Jerbs]

@fitz

I WAS V/LA

andrew and pappaums are VIs

[havingfitz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[havingfitz]

@fitz

I WAS V/LA

andrew and pappaums are VIs

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?

[P.T. Barnum]

post arriving shortly

[P.T. Barnum]

quick post today

Unvote

To everyone who constantly decries pappum's lying: yes, a gambit is a lie, but lies are not necessarily scummy. For one thing, pappum's claim was fairly obvious to spot as a gambit. I think Jahudo caught it in his first post, and I certainly was skeptical as soon as pappum said "but don't lynch him just yet, do some other scumhunting." Was pappum's gambit that destructive, anyway? He only let it sit for about four pages. I think it and his recent defense of it are valid.
For that reason, I think Jahudo is wrong to assume the scum were dying to jump on voided's wagon

if

they knew voided was town. Smart scum would let town do the work for them and stay off any townie wagon.

[Xalxe]

For that reason, I think Jahudo is wrong to assume the scum were dying to jump on voided's wagon

if

they knew voided was town. Smart scum would let town do the work for them and stay off any townie wagon.

I don't think that's necessarily true in this case. Scum could easily hop on the wagon and then say "lol I followed the cop, not my fault!" I get that usually, but in this case I think it's null at best.

[pappums rat]

@fitz

I WAS V/LA

andrew and pappaums are VIs

and you enjoy intercourse with aardvarks. start contributing please, or replace out.

And you may condone lying and misleading town but I do not. Lynching liars IMO is a safe bet.

lololol. lal is a 'safe bet' eh? that is probably the stupidest thing i have ever heard. if someone lies with proper intentions (aka a gambit) then your dumbass policy doesnt mean jack shit. your love of policy lynches when there is no good reason for them is scummy, 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), i used a gambit and then came clean with it.

unvote
vote havingfitz

p.s. while i was typing that up i thought that it may be the case that jerbs was trying to send a message with that post i quoted, as in, 'stfu about them, you are looking bad'.

[Voidedmafia]

@fitz

I WAS V/LA

andrew and pappaums are VIs

and you enjoy intercourse with aardvarks. start contributing please, or replace out.

p.s. while i was typing that up i thought that it may be the case that jerbs was trying to send a message with that post i quoted, as in, 'stfu about them, you are looking bad'.

If you had bothered to LOOK, you'd know he'd be V/LA up till today. So don't hate on him because he had a reason to not be there.

[neil1113]

Why oh why Fitz, are you so Anti-Town? I don't believe you're scum to be honest, but I don't believe you to be helping the town much either.

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.

Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself Fitz? It "looks like" you're simply restating what you obviously have not searched hard for, in several ways, to make it seem like you have more of a case against me then you do. THAT my friend, is scummy. Reread everything I've said, I don't need to lay it out for you again. I haven't posted THAT much. But, 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. Okay little boy?

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.

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. (etc etc)

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.

Again, basically restating your first three paragraphs. You're basically saying "I don't see it so your scummy... I don't really see it at all, so you must be scummy.... you must be scummy, because I don't see it." Rephrase it all you want, you still don't have a case.

Then you say:

BTW...if anyone didn't notice...pappums lied and had us all diverting our attention to normal scumhunting.

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."

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.

... what? Why did you confuse what I said? I said it in a way that nobody else seemed to get confused, so why did you? If it helps, I'll say it AGAIN this time in a way that even you can understand it:

I don't like that he lied. But I don't lynch all liars, because it's a lynch wasted usually. Townies lie because they are human. Humans lie. *gasp* yes Fritz I know... it's a hard concept to grasp. But follow me here.

So we've established already the fact that he lied in order to get a reaction. Now that this part is out of the picture, my difficulty with it is the fact that his lie could have gotten a townie lynched. Lying in and of itself isn't always anti-town as someone pointed out. Reaction fishing, isn't usually anti-town. HOWEVER... when you let it get to a point of a possible mislynch BECAUSE of your lie, then it becomes Anti-Town. Following?

So I don't want to lynch Pappums because he lied, but because of the implications the lie was very close to having. Get it? I hope so, because I am NOT repeating myself again. The fact that you've completely twisted this in your explanation of "what I said", helps my read of you as scummy. Why would scum purposely put a very simple concept, and twist it to make it difficult to understand? If I had said what you said I said, even I'd be confused by that concept.

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.

Your question was, how would scum be pressured? What do you want me to say? By votes, and by asking them questions? I don't understand why you'd ask me such a question? So I didn't answer. If you don't know how to pressure scum, you shouldn't be playing Mafia. Simple as that. If I had took it as you were ACTUALLY wondering, then I'd have given you an answer. Instead you came off as an pompous jerk trying to make some fallacy of a point, in which nobody would give more then 30 seconds worth of a thought of in the first place. So, I didn't answer. Get it? If not, I'll go slower...

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?

Is this a serious question? If you don't understand this, I really have doubts about you being above the age of 13. I kept my vote off of him, like I've explained, because I was certain if pappum's claim was real, that Voided would be lynched without much of a doubt. We had a LONG time before the day came to an end, why would I want to rush a lynch? When the time came, he'd be lynched. I was certain of it. Why rush things? You rushing the day, is anti-town. Would you like to know how it is as well? In fact, instead of asking questions, I'll just start referring you to the Wiki. That way I don't have to explain it to you much more, because gameplay discussions should be limited.

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.

Gameplay question again? Okay. Well you see, one needs to be careful. I was curious because of the current situation, and I had doubts as to why he would do the things he did if he was in fact what he claimed to be. So, I was hinting to him, that if it was a joke he is going to need to be careful with it. Mostly because I didn't want a townie lynched because of reaction fishing. Which, oh my gosh guess what? IT IS WHAT HE DID. Does it strike you as scum that I played that smart and didn't rush into it?

Are town fakeclaims on day 1 that common? [the answer btw is NO] It’s like you knew he was joking.

What about my post made it seem like I KNEW he was joking? What part of it hinted that I was SURE he was joking? And to answer your obvious first question, EVERY game is different, EVERY player is different. You can't pull out a statistic to try and explain someone elses gameplay. I don't count anything out of the game because "it doesn't happen often." If you do that, you fall into this very limited bubble, and can get easily deceived by scum.

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).

If Pappum flips town or scum, please oh PLEASE do not change your read on me. I welcome your pressuring, and if you even LIVE throughout today, I can personally promise I will tear you apart piece by piece until all of your questions are finally answered in your thick skull, and we can both actively move on to scum hunting apart from each other. I'm trying, and I'd suggest you try too.

More to come for you. Give me a minute to follow the rest of your posts.

[neil1113]

What do you call what you did pappum? Fibbing? No...you lied. If you weren't lying please enlighten us on what is is.

Why are you speaking on terms of "us?" Nobody is following you Fitz. Refer to YOURSELF, not the rest of the town. If you haven't noticed, you're not exactly benefiting "us." Oh, and for the record, STOP believing the fallacy that all lies are scummy.

And how am I rolefishing?

I don't even need to quote the rest of your post.

"Are you a power role?"

Is asking

"Are you a power role?"

No matter what reasoning you have behind it. THAT is role fishing by definition. THAT is what you asked him. Now, I know you're not too good with logic, so let's try math shall we? If 1 role fishing = 1 role fishing, and X (you) have done 1 rolefishing, how many role fishings have you done?

Correct answer: 1. You have role fished with him. I hope this answers your question.

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.

What did you hope to accomplish with this attempt at math that you pulled out?

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.

Let me explain this with three simple words... We're not assuming.

So basically you're saying in your theory...there is probably scum on and off Void's wagon.

This theory is better then most of what you've been posting!

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 that

LIE

was a bad thing? So yeah, good stuff. Let's go with that. Not!

Lol you're quick wits and charming intellect is just too much for me. I enjoy how you quickly try to throw me under the bus as scum... the only problem here is that, well... I'm not. Might I just point out about the bolded text, what are you arguing exactly? There

IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE

that scum is either on or off the wagon. You're not arguing anything, it's fact. Posting things like this appear to be scum hunting but in reality, is fluff. THAT is scummy.

As for back to square one...I said for the most part.

Your explanation for this, is not the reasoning you first stated. You've now changed your reasoning. Which by the way, since it wasn't what you originally stated, could be considered a .. how did you do it...

LIE

... and by your standards, we should now proceed to lynch you. Liar.

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.

You just answered your own question. Do you really not see how that's jumpy??? If not.. why was the VERY next sentence your wrote:

As for immediately jumping on pappum

You went on to explain why, but none the less you basically just CONFIRMED that you recognized it as quickly jumping, and yet you still questioned us as though you had no idea what we were talking about? I don't get it... are you TRYING to appear scummy? Oh wait, do you have a Jester role???

As for me rolefishing...wth are you talking about? I didn't ask pappum or Void to claim.

Both posts are directed to Pappum

I would like to know if your day cop claim was legit or not

And how am I rolefishing? I would like to know if your day cop claim was legit or not

... I don't believe I need to say anything more, except... LIAR. :/

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.

I'm really hoping I'm misreading this statement. Please tell me you're not actually saying, that there was no real chance of a mislynch?