Newbie 694 (over)

[Xtoxm]

Mkay happy with my vote.

[magicrabbit]

Well, from my point of view 6/8 people are innocent to start with (4/6 now) so I feel like it's better to go for the innocent first as I'll have a better chance of looking for them rather than looking for the minority.

The way I saw (and see) the game playing out looked more indicative of a less experienced manipulator. Besides, if they did fool only me, then the potential IC scum that you refer to didn't do a good job of targeting an immediate audience as SP was basically out of the game completely for a little before and after the lynch, before I was able to replace in.

Do you have any reasons other than just that dip/_over/mil turned out to be innocent to say that it was a bad lynch? Taking into account the deadline, claim of VT (which you also said is often just an auto-lynch in your other games played as well), and their actions/lack of action beforehand?

No, the result is the reason why it is a bad lynch. What else is the goal of the mafia besides achieve non-mafia lynches and to kill someone who is not protected by the doctor?

If a lynch of an innocent occurs it is obvious to look at what contributed to that lynch, is it not? And not trying to find the best possible lynch?

Regarding the auto-lynch of VTs... the games I used to have been themed with 20 or more players where a VT claim was usually not in the game. When over 50% of the roles are VT in this type of game it does not seem like a good auto-lynch to me is what I was attempting to say previously.

[ClockworkRuse]

Re-read coming tonight or tomorrow. I have a four day weekend with little work to do, so I have plenty of time to get it down now.

Thank you for your patience GIEFF and town.

[hasdgfas]

OK guys, I think the replacement has had enough time to catch up, so I'm going to set a deadline of

January 25th

.

[hambargarz]

In regards to recent points put against me...

Could you clarify? This seems to be contradictory

I don't really see them as being contradictory, I had follow one way of thinking and haven't really changed it throughout. The confusion seems to have come from my wording. In post 110 I was not saying discussion was bad, I was saying is was scummy that CR had asked for the town's opinion on his action and wether it's scummy or not. True it was a form of discussion, but it wasn't discussion I could see as being constructive for the town in finding scum.

By the point of 155 you had already attacked militant for unvoting yet had let infamousace slide for doing the exact same thing to Xtoxm. Was there any reason for this?

Militant was the more likely scum at the time in my eyes. If I had changed and gone after infamousace, it would have reduced the pressure on Militant. Not to mention infamousace was absent alot of the time anyway.

In 177 again you are seeming to try to remove discussion by discouraging GIEFF to defend militant. You continue to hammer the point on militant many times (185,213,232).

I don't see this as stopping discussion. I just want to see players defend themselves, as this gives you better reactions to work off. Having another player defend another influences the attacked player's response.

So this was all before _over9000 replaced mlitant and acted more suspicious with the lie. So essentially you seem to be very sure that he is guilty, and even attacking others over defending militant, all over the fact that militant made one pretty innocuous post in response to CR as well as unvoting a *random vote that didnt mean anything* You were ignoring infamousace (who I'm replacing) who did the exact same thing and was probably shadier with the sarcasm comments and such. Did you stay with militant because they always had more votes and more people questioning them?

You're implying the evidence wasn't enough. It wasn't just the response to CR, it was the occasion he was caught out creating an artificial case against me. A case that was developed not from suspicous behaviour from me, but just because it was me who attacked him. I didn't stay with militant because other people were, he was simply the most likely scum at the time.

Infamousace was scummy yea, but there's a small probability his behaviour can be attributed to newbieness. What I had seen in militant was more solid. Like I was telling GIEFF, you can't vote for more than one person, so I usually choose to concentrate on the most likely targets first.

This especially concerns me with you considering your tendency to want to limit information being posted. Is this an attempt to cover your bases, I want to lynch but then I also exercised caution? It doesn't make much sense to me.

I wasn't sure what to do here, nothing was happening, alot of time had passed and no one was discussing anything. There was an argument for proceeding with the lynch (militant/over was unlikely to respond and it would have been a very short game for his replacement). On the other hand longer days are better, and waiting would promote discussion so I was all for that. As it turned out dipstick replaced, there was a bit of discussion, although the lynch still went through.

Isn't it patently obvious that the easy way out if one is about to be lynched is to attack the person with the next most votes? It doesn't seem to be odd at all that West was annoyed especially since Dipstick had no case.

A town player would be interested in finding scum for the benefit of the town, not pinning the blame on the person with more votes to save his own skin. If a towny presents good logical analysis on players is lynched, flips town, and his thoughts are used, that player has overall helped the town, even though he/she got lynched.

This vibed me sort of like a "oh no too bad x is dead" scumtell post for some reason.

I don't see this, and I DID think it was a quick lynch, I had literally logged back on and dipstick was lynched, there was still plenty of time for discussion. Many people have expressed these views openly through their posts, you can say these posts are scumtells too by that thinking.

BTW, commenting on the NK can be seen as a scumtell, however commenting on a quick lynch is not so.

You echo GIEFF's suspicions of Xtoxm (392) in the same post and then soon afterwards yet switches to another suspect (infamousace, post 426), and then defend Xtoxm because his comments have conviction and are not wishy washy (430). Even though he hammered an undiscussed claim.

GIEFF had the same question, I've answered him on these.

I think this is B.S. and possibly attempting to hide yourself and/or protect Xtoxm by virtue of attempting to argue for less information for the town.

It wasn't B.S. It's what I believe. If you don't agree with what I said even after reading my explanation, it means your mind is already made up, nothing I can say can change your mind here.

I wasn't going to defend Xtoxm because we need to see his own reactions and explanations for his actions. On the other hand I understand GIEFF needed answers for my actions so I obliged. (but still told him why I didn't like to do it).

Since you don't think anyone should talk about other players (i.e. defending them) unless it is an attack, what exactly do you think is important stimulating discussion? A bunch of people attacking each other in circles? I'm sorry but I do not understand this. And I still fail to see any "quality" in Xtoxms posts, however you refuse to defend him so I know I am not going to get an answer.

People attacking each other in circles can be good, but it gets to a point where it isn't helping, I told this to GIEFF, I made a point that his questions were repeating covered points which were verging on the edge of being pro-town and anti-town. ie. risking turning the back and forth into a circular argument.

I didn't mean to imply that Xtoxm's posts had "quality". What I mean by quality it content to posting ratio. having more content in less posts or shorter posts from more people, is better than less content in long, frequent posts by a few people. This is mainly because it makes the game easier to read and avoid confusion. My comments on this was in response to GIEFF concentrating on just post length and number of posts. I was trying to make a point that it's more than that that makes good discussion.

[ClockworkRuse]

Up to page 20 right now.

[ClockworkRuse]

First portion of my re-read. [To make it easier to read, I'm breaking it up into chunks.]

Started at post 391

Sorry, guys. I hammered because he claimed vanilla, amd theats geberally what you do wiht a vanilla claim. Trust me, i'm town. I've just got back froma night out and i'm pissed, so you can trust me wjen I say i'm town.

I've never liked it when people push themselves to be town. It just doesn't sit well with me at all. Not nessacairly scummy but it's noted.

[I realize I said I was going to ignore Xtoxm but I think it's better if I just do a complete read through.]

Oh, you're right; it was more like 90 minutes.

I thought that I would remind you of an honest mistake you made as well, since that is what you are suspicious of me over? I'm looking forward to some clarification on that.

Looking at it from a purely statistical viewpoint (which you are), that extra hour and a half changes a lot, you know. But looking at it like that isn't useful anyway.

Yes, I believe that was the first i'd checked this game for a few days. Usually I don't have unlimited time to check my games, and I just check the ones that have me more interested/are at a climax.

I don't like the fact that you admitted to hammering when you were "checking in." Did you re-read before you hammered? Did you catch up?


First time Xtoxm is asked to explain his suspicions; 411.



Xtoxm kinda of sorta answers at 415, but not really. Just reiterates that the night kill somehow suits me and that he "needs a new second suspect."

Post 423; Xtoxm asked for a third time to explain suspicions.

The post right after that, he quotes 415.

Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him?

I found one, ham:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=264

That seems pretty typical of how I would expect two scumbuddies to interact. A reverse-OMGUS igmeoy followed by two smiley faces and never mentioning it again. Not to mention Xtoxm saying "I'm not sus of ham" twice.

Ham - For same reasons as before, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

And what reasons were these? Can you link me to the post? As far as I can tell, all you've said on the subject was "I'm not sus of ham" with no reasoning whatsoever to explain why, even after you were IGMEOY'd by ham.

If this isn't answered, I would love it to be. I'll quote the answer if I find it.

I'll be addressing GIEFF's points on me in multiple posts, as I only have time in short bursts

Militant later provided his reasoning (you being lurky), but it was deemed weak (by myself and others).

This was my point I was making, he only gave a reason for me being scummy, AFTER he looked back with an "interest" in me. My point was, why wasn't there any points brought up on me to warrant that original reread with a bias on me. My point is that he DIDN'T have anything scummy on me prior to him rereading with that bias on me. My point is he reread with an intent of finding some dirt on me in particular with when he had no suspicions to justify it.

I don't see the conviction you're talking about, hambargaz; can you explain? Xtoxm has shown a history of failing to answer questions until they're asked a third or fourth time and of providing little to no reasoning behind his votes. That is very wishy-washy in my eyes.

Are you asking me to defend Xtoxm's behaviour with examples? I don't think townies should defend anyone but themselves. I'll leave it to Xtoxm to defend himself against the points put against him. All I'm saying is my opinion. My interpretations of Xtoxm's posts is that they are concise but contain decisive action. I hate when people post pages and pages of content with lots of wishy washy positions and thought processes. It makes rereading harder and in turn is anti town.

Looking at the first two posts on this page reminds me of these two posts:

88 (first vote for militant):

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will

Vote Militant

.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

You've actually posted an example of what I'm talking about. Obviously everyone saw Militant's post as forced, thats all you have to say. Place you're vote. No beating around the bush. He was the first to say it (showing initiative rather than being a sheep) and gave a strong position (Voted rather than FOS/no action).

95 (second vote for militant):

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote

Vote: militant

I don't know if it was 95 seconds (I refresh the site often, but no that often!) Xtoxm's position was clear, Easily readable. I agreed, My position is clear. You can see I have the same attitude to posting as he does. I assumed it was obvious to everyone else. But I explained myself to people who questioned me about it in case they didn't see it.

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

If Xtoxm is scum, you seem the prime candidate to be his buddy. Can you point me to a post where you address Xtoxm directly without agreeing with him?

There's a danger of getting into WIFOM with that, but Ye, you always run the risk of that when you agree with other posters like I have. But his reason was compelling so I had to. Xtoxm saying he was not suspicous of me piqued me a bit that he may be scum trying to buddy with me, though he hasn't shown me anything else since and as I've written above, his posting style has a pro-town feel to it from my perspective (although you guys have a different opinion on that).

There are a few good points in this post that'd I'd like to re-enforce.
1. Townies should defend themselves first, and not others. CarnCarn's probably sick of hearing this, but I find it suspicious when anyone defends someone else before that person has a chance to react.
2. Moving out of just game play, it does sound like Militant re-read on ham with the intent of finding some dirt without any reasoning behind it. While this is anti-town, I don't know if I would call it scummy.

Post 451; Xtoxm says he has enough reason to vote me, he still hasn't explained his reasoning fully at this point.

Post 454, the same question has been asked to Xtoxm eight times now.

Post 455, GIEFF you say you find my request for clarification scummy? To be honest, I misread what ham was saying about the scum pair. At first I thought he was saying that the scum pair was West and the person he replaced and I was really confused because I didn't read very carefully. Needless to say, I /facepalmed.

Post 456, You reference a game where Ham was scum, but did you take the time to look at a game where he was town as well? That could very well be his playing style in general.

Post 462, I believe this is the Xtoxm is asked. To this point, there has been a lot of back and forth betweeen GIEFF and ham. I don't really know how I feel about it, it looks like tunneling to be honest.

[ClockworkRuse]

I need to pause there for today. I'll be finishing this tomorrow morning/afternoon.

[GIEFF]

Oh, you're right; it was more like 90 minutes.

I thought that I would remind you of an honest mistake you made as well, since that is what you are suspicious of me over? I'm looking forward to some clarification on that.

What mistake are you referring to? Also, the correct number to use for the statistical argument against Xtoxm really is more like five minutes, as Xtoxm referred to a post 7 minutes before his hammer-post.

Post 455, GIEFF you say you find my request for clarification scummy? To be honest, I misread what ham was saying about the scum pair. At first I thought he was saying that the scum pair was West and the person he replaced and I was really confused because I didn't read very carefully. Needless to say, I /facepalmed.

I /facepalm that you misunderstood the point, especially because it was about you. Was anybody else confused by ham's ambiguous language? Read from posts 436 through 440. He mentioned a relationship between you and infamous/Westbrook, and it was clear that this was what he was talking about in 440.

Post 456, You reference a game where Ham was scum, but did you take the time to look at a game where he was town as well? That could very well be his playing style in general.

There are no completed games on the site where ham is town.

[ClockworkRuse]

Oh, you're right; it was more like 90 minutes.

I thought that I would remind you of an honest mistake you made as well, since that is what you are suspicious of me over? I'm looking forward to some clarification on that.

What mistake are you referring to? Also, the correct number to use for the statistical argument against Xtoxm really is more like five minutes, as Xtoxm referred to a post 7 minutes before his hammer-post.

Post 455, GIEFF you say you find my request for clarification scummy? To be honest, I misread what ham was saying about the scum pair. At first I thought he was saying that the scum pair was West and the person he replaced and I was really confused because I didn't read very carefully. Needless to say, I /facepalmed.

I /facepalm that you misunderstood the point, especially because it was about you. Was anybody else confused by ham's ambiguous language? Read from posts 436 through 440. He mentioned a relationship between you and infamous/Westbrook, and it was clear that this was what he was talking about in 440.

Post 456, You reference a game where Ham was scum, but did you take the time to look at a game where he was town as well? That could very well be his playing style in general.

There are no completed games on the site where ham is town.

It's not that the language was ambiguous. It's that I butchered it when I read it.

And as for the no completed games for ham as town, are you willing to judge him based on that one game then?

[GIEFF]

No.

You should know this, as you saw my post where I analyzed Xtoxm's old games, and saw he had a similar voting style as both town and mafia.

[ClockworkRuse]

No.

You should know this, as you saw my post where I analyzed Xtoxm's old games, and saw he had a similar voting style as both town and mafia.

Indeed I did, but you certainly judged Ham for his voting style in a mafia game compared to this game. You even FoSed him over it, I believe.

[ClockworkRuse]

Progress update, by the way, I'm going to pick up on my re-read at five or six.

[Xtoxm]

So what's going on? Are we lynching me or not?

[GIEFF]

So what's going on? Are we lynching me or not?

What do you recommend?

[CarnCarn]

Gosh, still trying to journey through these wall-o-texts on the last page. I'm afraid I won't be able to get anything analytical up until Sunday, though.

[Xtoxm]

So what's going on? Are we lynching me or not?

What do you recommend?

Can you accept that i'm town?

[GIEFF]

I could be convinced, but the outlook is not good right now.

[Xtoxm]

I could be convinced, but the outlook is not good right now.

I don't think I can do any more convincing. You keep calling me scum, yet you seem unwilling to vote me.

[magicrabbit]

I could be convinced, but the outlook is not good right now.

I don't think I can do any more convincing. You keep calling me scum, yet you seem unwilling to vote me.

Who do you think is most likely to be scum (besides me, apparently)... and what convincing have you done?

For the second point I guess I'm asking for specific posts you say outline your best defense.

[Xtoxm]

Who do you think is most likely to be scum (besides me, apparently)...

I've made that quite clear.

and what convincing have you done?

Plenty.

For the second point I guess I'm asking for specific posts you say outline your best defense.

Well that's a shame, cos you're not getting it.

[GIEFF]

Xtoxm, you are supposed to be an IC. rabbit just replaced in, and is asking you to summarize your position so he doesn't have to read through. There is no need to treat him that way.

[Xtoxm]

Don't tell me how to do my job.

It's not a reasonable request, and it doesn't work.

What's your best defence, Gieff?

[GIEFF]

If you don't think it is a reasonable request, there are two things you can do.

1. Act like a petulant child, be snotty and antagonistic, and don't answer the question.
2. Explain why you don't think it is a reasonable request, and don't answer the question.

[Amished]

Just judging by the timing and the posts of xtoxm, I've found his case to be relatively clear. Some posts didn't make sense the first time going through, but I found if I went through and looked at some of the posts between his current and his last one, I think I find what he saw. Of course, I could be seeing other stuff too, but that just helps me out too by making me read more carefully.

If you felt you had made a good case (whether you did or not isn't the point), and were active in, what? 3-4 other games?, would you want to go back and restate your posts, especially if they were on the shorter side. As ham said, xtoxm has a pretty concise posting style, making it pretty easy to find his points and posts in particular.