Mini 1505: N is for Normal (game over)

[havingfitz]

Unvote

Catching up.....

[havingfitz]

I hope to be caught up tonight. At the latest Monday as my RL weekend is pretty full.

[havingfitz]

I've never encountered a hider before. It gets fake claimed a lot, so I typically lynch anyone who claims to be one.

How can you typically lynch hiders if you've never encountered one

Thor is today's lynch. I'll hold off voting for the time being as I don't know the VC atm and it will be fun to watch him wifom others.

[havingfitz]

I've never encountered a real hider before this game.

Ohh…so when you said this:

I've never encountered a hider before.

…you meant

REAL

hiders. I see. You realize until you know the hider is real or not it’s all the same.

It gets fake claimed a lot, so I typically lynch anyone who claims to be one.

“Typically” would imply you have lynched a hider more than once. I can’t find a single instance of you lynching a hider.

I didn't know a hider died if he hid behind scum.

Lynch all liars: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2279014

So fitz...do you actually have anything to contribute to this game?

See above.


Also…

I know a scum flip on Thor doesn't clear me by a long shot

Why would Thor being scum clear you?

Fitz and Skelda, get the fuck in here.

Here.

[havingfitz]

Holy crap. ICE was saying he's never encountered a real hider, but has encountered people claiming to be hiders, so he's lynched them. He never said he lynched a real hider. Stop misunderstanding/misrepping him, fitz. There are other issues at hand.

1. I'm not misrepping shit.
2. What other issues at hand? Lynching Thor? That's a given Something else? Do tell.

[havingfitz]

^ way to not address the points I brought up. Essentially I just proved:

- you lied about encountering hiders before (errrrr.....but not real hiders )

- you lied about typically lynching them, and

- you lied about not knowing how they work. You might not know every nuance of the roll but you sure as he// knew they died if they hid behind scum.

Discuss.



BTW...I was going to vote Thor now but L-3 seems like a good spot to maintain him for entertainment's sake. L-2 puts him in range for a self vote and that would be

[havingfitz]

Sure Tool....re: your case in Post 822:

You thought the milking D1 sentiment was fine.  Check

Then you provided a D1 exchange between Thor and Gamr (where I think the summary is that Thor is suspecting Garmr for wanting to wait?)....but then you put in a quote (Post 790) from D2 where Garmr is being consistent about "milking the day".  Why does his consistency wrt milking the day on D1 and D2 make him suspect?  Or at least...what does his D2 comment have to do with anything?  As for Thor coaxing him to vote sooner...why does the timeliness of Garmr's ABR vote matter when he had stated his intention to vote ABR already?  It's not like Thor talked him into voting ABR out of the blue. 

But looking at Garmr a little closer...he didn't really have all that much suspicion voiced towards ABR.  One spot in Post 180 where he essentially suspected ABR for OMGUS and being abrasive.  In the same post (Post 180) in which he calls ABR scum...he says zakk is "probably scum" and that GuthrieGov is a "slight scum read."  So he has what appears to be a stronger scum read on zakk and ABR than he does on Guthrie yet he maintains a vote on Guthrie.  Rather than having his vote on ABR (who has a larger wagon) or zakk. 

And looking back as his reason for voting Guthrie in the first place...I don't really think there is anything to his reasoning.  Which makes the previous point I make about him maintaining a Guthrie vote vs an ABR or zakk vote all the more suspect.

tl:dr;/

....I suspect Garmr.  Not so much for the tool case but more upon further review.  But it doesn't matter today because Thor is the lynch and I think I like ICEninja better for tomorrow.

Speaking of which...tool...could you take a look at my two or three posts directed towards ICEninja and provide an updated view since I do not think you did a very thorough job in your first opinion provided.  Specifically posts:  794, 817, and 881.

[havingfitz]

Excellent! An endorsement!

[havingfitz]

Excellent! An endorsement!

...From (nearly) confirmed scum.

Humor eludes you

[havingfitz]

Pardon the

embedded responses

…I didn’t feel like breaking my reply into multiple quotes:

@Fitz:

Sure Tool....re: your case in Post 822:

You thought the milking D1 sentiment was fine. Check

Then you provided a D1 exchange between Thor and Gamr (where I think the summary is that Thor is suspecting Garmr for wanting to wait?)....but then you put in a quote (Post 790) from D2 where Garmr is being consistent about "milking the day". Why does his consistency wrt milking the day on D1 and D2 make him suspect? Or at least...what does his D2 comment have to do with anything? As for Thor coaxing him to vote sooner...why does the timeliness of Garmr's ABR vote matter when he had stated his intention to vote ABR already? It's not like Thor talked him into voting ABR out of the blue.

My point is that it wasn't consistent. Garmr was fine with "milking" at first, then as soon as Thor challenged him on it, Garmr decided "milking" wasn't a good idea, then in day 2 he's back to the idea of "milking."

The day 2 part isn't even really that important. What's important is the way Garmr reacted to A) being pressured to comment on ABR; and B) Thor challening his "milking" sentiment. Both examples show Garmr perfectly willing to be pushed toward a town lynch.

And I don't think Thor saw any advantage in lynching ABR sooner rather than later -- or if he did, it doesn't matter. But Garmr took Thor's cue, which does matter if Thor flips scum. ScumThor was just challenging things he didn't agree with with equal opportunity, which he's been doing all game. Garmr thought Thor was trying to provide some subtle direction.

I’m not going to quibble over Garmr. You seem to suspect him. I suspect him. Cool.

As for ICEninja, I have no more opinions that haven't been expressed already, so let me see if I can make it even more clear for you.

Post 794: "How can you typically lynch hiders if you've never encountered one?"
Post 817: "“Typically' would imply you have lynched a hider more than once."
Post 881: "you lied about typically lynching them"
Post 881: "you lied about encountering hiders before"

My answer: ICE never, ever, ever, ever said he had encountered a REAL hider. He said he's encountered people who CLAIMED to be hiders, who turned out not to be. The link you posted to the 2010 game is an example of this.

My initial response to ICE came before he expanded on his comment to indicate he meant he never played with a REAL hider. My issues with his comments don’t really matter whether the hiders were real or not.

Here's what ICE is saying: "I have never lynched a real hider. I have lynched fake hiders."

ATTN TOOL….ICE has never lynched a real OR fake hider. So typically he does NOT lynch them. Capisce?

Here's what you're saying: "ICE said he's lynched a real hider!"

I never said this…you aren’t paying attention.

Post 817: "You realize until you know the hider is real or not it’s all the same."

My answer: That would be true during the game in question, but ICE is talking about games that have already ended. Therefore, he can look back now and know with absolute certainty that the people who claimed hider were not hiders.

But his actions that he is discussing were made or not made when he didn’t know it. Assuming he had ever lynched a hider…to say he always lynched them (because they make good fakeclaims) is crap considering he wouldn’t have known at the time he was voting them that they were in fact fake claiming. And as I’ve said a few times now…pay attention…he has never lynched a hider….real or fake. Typically or not.

Post 881: "you lied about not knowing how they work."

My answer:

That post you linked was years ago and I have no memory of it. By the looks of things, before making that post I read the wiki about what hiders do.

I remembered encountering fake claim hiders before. They're uncommon and therefore unlikely to be counter claimed, and a hider surviving the night is a lot less suspicious than a cop surviving the night. I had no memory of them having informational powers, I always thought it was a survival role (like bullet proof, except requires you to pick the person NOT getting shot).

I feel like this pretty much explains everything.

What would scum say? "Oh….I forgot."

Fact is…he said in this game that he did not realize if a hider hid behind scum they would die. Fact is…in the game I link people to…ICE probably has the most to say on the topic of the hider claim in that game and he details the fact that the hider would die if he hid behind scum. So you can say he forgot he knew it…I say he’s full of shit…aka lying. He knew. ICE is not dumb. Hider is a common enough role to have a basic idea of how they work...which he displayed.

If you insist on pursuing this line of reasoning, I challenge you to quote the post where ICE claims to have lynched somebody who actually turned out to be a hider -- NOT a post where he says he's played a game where somebody CLAIMED to be hider, but in fact was NOT A HIDER.

I never said he said that. Put your reading glasses on and you will see I said he has not lynched any hider (despite claiming he typically does) and that he knows the dynamic of them dying behind scum (which he claims he didn’t know).

Good night.

[havingfitz]

tool...the motivation for ICE feigning hider ignorance is that it allows him an excuse for not supporting the Thor wagon to start the day.  Sure...it looks bad for Thor but he's allowed to interject that shred of doubt.  To try and direct suspicions elsewhere.  That would be the scum motivation.  ICE caught a little flack for not being immediately supportive of a Thor wagon and acting all confused and dismissive about hiders was his response.  I find it suspect.  And it wasn't 1 lie IMO, it was 3.

He said he had never encountered hiders before (he didn't say real or fake until Slandaar and I called him on it).  Whether they were real or fake...he has in fact encountered them.  You and ICE don't want to stress over real vs fake....fine.  Whatever.  There are still 2 other lies.

ICE says he typically lynches hiders.  He never has!  How can you say you typically do something you've never done before?

ICE says he did not realize the hider died if he hid behind scum.  I've shown proof that he does know they die when they hide behind scum.  He explained it to everyeon else in the game I linked you all to.  He knows.  Could he have forgotten?  Maybe.  But why explicitly state you don't know something you have proven you do before?  Throw out an "iirc"....or an "I'm not sure."  ICE didn't do that.  He was certain.  He "DID NOT KNOW"....but in fact he did.

As for ICE's Post 905.  ICE...your first statement was not true.  You've said you've never encountered a hider before.  You didn't clarify real or fake and IMO there is no difference.  If I'm in a game and someone claims something...if I'm unfamiliar with the role...I look it up.  I do not know they are real or fake until they die.  It's kind of like Schrodinger's cat...are they real or are they fake?  Who knows until they are dead.  Your first encounter showed you clearly knew the basics of how a hider worked.  You had encountered one (albeit fake) and had somehow managed to obtain info on the role.  You had encountered the role of hider.  Fact.

And your typically lynch a hider mindset is a crock of shit!  Semantics my ass.  Semantics is what scum say when you hold them to their words.  You said you typically lynch hiders.  You've never lynched a $%^&* hider.  Fact!

And no...I do not think you are a sack of shit.  I think you are someone who has made comments that have proven to be untrue.  What is the town motivation for saying things that are untrue?  Other than hiding a PR abilty there is no reason afaik. 

So as I've already said before.....Thor will go today because he is guaranteed 100% scum.  And tomorrow remains to be seen....but ICE IMO is a leading candidate (he's mine atm) for his lies (or inadvertant untruths????).  1 lie/oversight....ehhhhhhhhhh....maybe.  3 lies/oversights?  No way.

[havingfitz]

That's L-1 on you Thor

....you self hammering?

For shits and giggles do you want to claim anything? Who is scum? Etc?

[havingfitz]

^ well...I gave some motivation in my next to last post. That might be a place to look....

[havingfitz]

^ no...I'm saying ICE lied three times and I don't think he is that forgetful or obtuse wrt the hider role.

Why not let Thor have his last say? Would there have been any potential benefit to that? Hmmm?

[havingfitz]

I didn't survive long enough to care in this game.

Good job scum.