Mini 518: Underground Mafia, The Nightmare is Over!

[Korlash]

Sorry guys, I have been swamped at work these last few days. I missed my daily read up of this game and I know that will hurt me later. I will try and catch up tomorrow though.

[Jayalay]

Okay, I am here, I'm trying to read the thread every day at the least. Sorry for not posting.

At the moment I'm not sure that Gunslinger is scum. He's made a lot of contradictions and his "scum list" was pretty terrible but these strike me as more of a newbie trying to play well.

I am fairly nervous about Sudonym, for obvious reasons, but not ready to throw down a vote on him.

I'm gonna do a full reread later and see if I can pick up anything.

[Abstract Actuary]

Vote Count as of Post 218

Sudo_Nym (2):

jerubbaal, GunglingerKB

Korlash (2):

Abstract Actuary, Miztef

Miztef (1):

curiouskarmadog

Mexal (1):

Sudo_Nym

Not Voting (6):

Jayalay, Anata112, Korlash, Jitsu, Mexal, oEJo

12 alive, 7 will lynch.


Prodding Jayalay

Note:

Please bold "Mod" in all future in-thread communcations. (or send a PM) Sometimes I only have time to skim the thread, and that makes things easier to spot.

NabakovNabakov

: Miztef unvoted, but he already pointed that out. I think you also missed Sudo_Nym's unvote for Mexal in post 145.

Also, I was assuming that the Korlash voters were red because you weren't counting Gunslinger's earlier vote for Korlash that wasn't bolded. Now that Gunslinger has a real vote, I'm curious. Are they red for some other reason? If this has already been explained, I apologize.

[Mexal]

NabakovNabakov

: Miztef unvoted, but he already pointed that out. I think you also missed Sudo_Nym's unvote for Mexal in post 145.

Also, I was assuming that the Korlash voters were red because you weren't counting Gunslinger's earlier vote for Korlash that wasn't bolded. Now that Gunslinger has a real vote, I'm curious. Are they red for some other reason? If this has already been explained, I apologize.

I would appreciate some comments on where you stand on people so far. Like, who do you find scummy and why? Who do you find town and why? I saw you commented on Sudo, but that was one little thing and you've been gone awhile.

I assume you're caught up now that you're questioning the vote count.

[Abstract Actuary]

I really don't like Gunslinger's analysis. It's been halfassed and mainly rooted on what he calls his feelings about things. Be particular. If you aren't pointed and specific about what you find wrong with people, everyone else here has no reason to believe anything that you say. I have absolutely no reason to trust your "feelings." If your only justification of an idea is a feeling, I'd rather you keep it to yourself than throw it out there to distract other people. Follow it up, if you want, and find something hard, but I'm not going to waste my time chasing down a feeling of someone I have no reason to trust.

I want to address the sentiment in this paragraph as well as in some other jerubbaal posts (and maybe some others). Maybe the game is played very differently on this site than I've played it before. If it is, I'm not sure I completely agree with the benefits to that (this mostly deals with my second point).

All we have is feelings. Gut instincts. There are no absolutes, unless you are on the mafia. To talk about absolutes in mafia, is absolutely foolish. If you need to absolutely believe that someone is mafia before you vote for them, I'm not sure how you will ever vote.

Sure there is some evidence out there, like inconsistent arguments and poor plays, but still all we have is a feeling about those plays. Those plays alone don't make a player guilty or innocent.

You made a comment like this after I said that I had a gut feeling about you based on your scumhunting praising of Jitsu. I even pointed to the exact sentence. That is what you would call "hard evidence". Just because I used the word "gut" in my post, don't assume the suspicion is any less worthwhile than when others do the same thing and not use the word "gut".

Addressing a second assertion that I disagree completely with: I would like to hear everyone's opinion and gut feelings on everything and everyone. In the first round, it has very little value. But as the game moves on and we begin to learn more and more about who people actually were, I would love to have a very rich history of every player commenting on multiple things that every other player did, even if those comments were just "gut feelings". When someone turns up mafia this is by far the best evidence we have.

I'm also a little disappointed in the lack of voting. I wish everyone had a long trail of voting history after they died. The way to gather the most information for later in the game is to put real pressure on people now and then look back later when we know more and analyze how they reacted. I don't necessarily mean the people getting the votes either. I mean their potential scumbuddies who are forced to make a decision about bussing them or trying to derail the wagon or try to start up a new wagon.

My point is that I think that everyone should have a bold vote down at all times. I'm not saying I want to string someone up, but let's force everyone to make a real decision, not just say whatever they want (without consequence).

[Mexal]

I want to address the sentiment in this paragraph as well as in some other jerubbaal posts (and maybe some others). Maybe the game is played very differently on this site than I've played it before. If it is, I'm not sure I completely agree with the benefits to that (this mostly deals with my second point).

All we have is feelings. Gut instincts. There are no absolutes, unless you are on the mafia. To talk about absolutes in mafia, is absolutely foolish. If you need to absolutely believe that someone is mafia before you vote for them, I'm not sure how you will ever vote.

Sure there is some evidence out there, like inconsistent arguments and poor plays, but still all we have is a feeling about those plays. Those plays alone don't make a player guilty or innocent.

You made a comment like this after I said that I had a gut feeling about you based on your scumhunting praising of Jitsu. I even pointed to the exact sentence. That is what you would call "hard evidence". Just because I used the word "gut" in my post, don't assume the suspicion is any less worthwhile than when others do the same thing and not use the word "gut".

I agree with this to an extent. I think you shouldn't dismiss someone's suspicions because it's based on gut. At the same time, I don't think it's a valid reason to vote someone. If you can't come up with a reason why your gut feels the way it does, then I just can't back it up. It's too easy for scum to just say...I have a gut feeling, lets lynch him. There are reasons your gut feels the way it does and it's your job to translate it into writing so the rest of us players can understand it.

Addressing a second assertion that I disagree completely with: I would like to hear everyone's opinion and gut feelings on everything and everyone. In the first round, it has very little value. But as the game moves on and we begin to learn more and more about who people actually were, I would love to have a very rich history of every player commenting on multiple things that every other player did, even if those comments were just "gut feelings". When someone turns up mafia this is by far the best evidence we have.

I'm also a little disappointed in the lack of voting. I wish everyone had a long trail of voting history after they died. The way to gather the most information for later in the game is to put real pressure on people now and then look back later when we know more and analyze how they reacted. I don't necessarily mean the people getting the votes either. I mean their potential scumbuddies who are forced to make a decision about bussing them or trying to derail the wagon or try to start up a new wagon.

My point is that I think that everyone should have a bold vote down at all times. I'm not saying I want to string someone up, but let's force everyone to make a real decision, not just say whatever they want (without consequence).

Honestly, you've missed pretty much all the discussion the past few days. I don't think you have any right to criticize us for our play in that time since you haven't participated in any of it. If you want us to vote, pressure us to vote. If you want us to post our thoughts, pressure us to do it. Just because you come out of nowhere expressing your disappointment that we're not adhering to principles of gameplay that you expect us to...the same principles you're not adhering to since you haven't even been here for days, hardly means we have to listen to it. I would agree with your sentiments had you been around. I like votes, I like lists...to an extent. But the fact that you've barely participated in this game, barely posted any suspicions yet you're still chastising us doesn't sit right with me. If you want to be taken seriously, start by helping the town find the scum.

[Abstract Actuary]

I would appreciate some comments on where you stand on people so far. Like, who do you find scummy and why? Who do you find town and why? I saw you commented on Sudo, but that was one little thing and you've been gone awhile.

I assume you're caught up now that you're questioning the vote count.

Sorry, I'm still pretty busy, I'm trying to put together some opinions.

I would like to comment on the second part of your suggestion. Is it a good idea for us to list people we think are town? In the games I've played we don't do that because it puts a big NK target on their backs.

[Abstract Actuary]

Honestly, you've missed pretty much all the discussion the past few days. I don't think you have any right to criticize us for our play in that time since you haven't participated in any of it. If you want us to vote, pressure us to vote. If you want us to post our thoughts, pressure us to do it. Just because you come out of nowhere expressing your disappointment that we're not adhering to principles of gameplay that you expect us to...the same principles you're not adhering to since you haven't even been here for days, hardly means we have to listen to it. I would agree with your sentiments had you been around. I like votes, I like lists...to an extent. But the fact that you've barely participated in this game, barely posted any suspicions yet you're still chastising us doesn't sit right with me. If you want to be taken seriously, start by helping the town find the scum.

I apologize that my post came off so harsh. I'm just trying to sort out the general strategy used here and compare and contrast it to what I'm used to.

[Mexal]

Sorry, I'm still pretty busy, I'm trying to put together some opinions.

I would like to comment on the second part of your suggestion. Is it a good idea for us to list people we think are town? In the games I've played we don't do that because it puts a big NK target on their backs.

They're a NK target anyway. The scum already know who is town and who isn't, so I don't think it matters all that much.

In your last post, you stated you wanted people to post lists with opinions on everyone. Wouldn't that list include pro-town opinions as well? If so, then expressing who you think is town, or least suspicious isn't any different then what you were telling us we should do.

Besides, while it might put a target on their back (it's already there anyway as I'm sure the scum can figure out who looks town and who doesn't) it also helps the healer (if there is one) possibly heal a target or the cop (if there is one) investigate a target.

[Mexal]

I apologize that my post came off so harsh. I'm just trying to sort out the general strategy used here and compare and contrast it to what I'm used to.

Where do you play?

It wasn't harsh, it just seemed hypocritical since you were doing none of what you were telling us to do.

[jerubbaal]

All we have is feelings. Gut instincts

. There are no absolutes, unless you are on the mafia. To talk about absolutes in mafia, is absolutely foolish. If you need to absolutely believe that someone is mafia before you vote for them, I'm not sure how you will ever vote.

Sure there is some evidence out there, like inconsistent arguments and poor plays,

but still all we have is a feeling about those plays

. Those plays alone don't make a player guilty or innocent.

I certainly hope you have more than "gut feelings" if you actually want me to give your opinions a decent hearing. You're creating an absolutely ridiculous dichotomy between gut feelings and absolute truths. No, we don't have any absolute truths about anyone, just claims to analyze and posts to dissect. But there's a lot of ground to cover between gut feelings and absolute certainty. This is what we've been doing to this point, discussing the possible motivations and reasons for certain posts being done the way they were and where that leads us. I am very new at this, I'll confess, but if the only way that we can try to find the mafia is following our "feelings," I think the game is severely flawed. Nothing is solid until someone is dead or the game is over, but we can follow paths of evidence and actually understand something about why people are playing the way they are playing. And, yes, this does make me rather slow to vote for a lynch, but when the time comes that a convincing case can be made or a decision must be made, I will make the best decision I am able to with my understanding of the actions the people concerned have made.

My central point with all this is I will not allow stupid or anti-town comments to be justified by gut feeling. I did not mind your comment on my post overmuch (it is a possible contingent interpretation, although I certainly do not agree with it), but I asked you to justify it and you said that it was just a feeling, and you didn't even really remember. I think that gut feelings might give us some possible leads, but don't expect me to consider your opinion unless you back it up by responsible analysis.

And, to be quite honest, I'd almost rather not hear it if you can't back it up somewhat. It's very similar to what we were talking about with Sudo, it's really easy to throw out little tidbits of ideas backed by nothing but feeling or pondering to see who might bite on them. It is very easy to attempt to absolve yourself of the responsibility for your comments if you disguise them as "just a feeling." So unless you have reasonably thought out arguments and points, don't clutter up the thread with meaningless speculation. Its' distracting and not helpful.

I certainly shared some of Mexal's sense of resentment when I read the post, probably slightly more because you were attacking my playstyle. There are different ways to play the game, and if you want us to give your way a decent consideration, participation would be a good first step.

[Abstract Actuary]

Sorry, I'm still pretty busy, I'm trying to put together some opinions.

I would like to comment on the second part of your suggestion. Is it a good idea for us to list people we think are town? In the games I've played we don't do that because it puts a big NK target on their backs.

They're a NK target anyway. The scum already know who is town and who isn't, so I don't think it matters all that much.

In your last post, you stated you wanted people to post lists with opinions on everyone. Wouldn't that list include pro-town opinions as well? If so, then expressing who you think is town, or least suspicious isn't any different then what you were telling us we should do.

Besides, while it might put a target on their back (it's already there anyway as I'm sure the scum can figure out who looks town and who doesn't) it also helps the healer (if there is one) possibly heal a target or the cop (if there is one) investigate a target.

The mafia does know who is town and who isn't, but I would much rather they take someone out that I may have thought was on the mafia then someone I was pretty sure was town. I agree, in general, they will have a pretty good idea of who is a suspect and who people think is town, but I don't want to help them out.

I see why I seem hypocritical about this point. I said I wanted everyone to give an opinion on everyone and everything. I should have made some qualifying statements. I would rather avoid making lists that list everyone or saying someone who isn't on anyone's radar is probably town. These are unnecessary observations. If someone is taking considerable heat and you say you think they are town, that is perfectly fine and a good play, in my opinion, because you are defending someone in the spotlight. Something the mafia doesn't want to be forced to do.

So I would revise that to say that I would like it if everyone gave their opinion on all the hot button topics and people. I realize this is something I have not done yet in all cases.

To be honest, I haven't got much of a scum read on anyone at this point. Most of the fighting seems to be around theory and not actions and seems to be between two townies. That is mostly because there isn't a lot of action (voting, trying to derail bandwagons).

Ask me about a specific event or fight and I'll give my opinion.

I play on the ActuarialOutpost. It is in a small subforum where we play one large mafia game every few months. We use some pretty different rules in some regards. I'd be happy to discuss them further in PM (if that is allowed).

[jerubbaal]

Well, the current commonly regarded most scummies are Sudo, for irresponsible posting, and Miztef, primarily for inconsistency (at least in my book). I'm curious what you think about them.

[Mexal]

The mafia does know who is town and who isn't, but I would much rather they take someone out that I may have thought was on the mafia then someone I was pretty sure was town. I agree, in general, they will have a pretty good idea of who is a suspect and who people think is town, but I don't want to help them out.

I see why I seem hypocritical about this point. I said I wanted everyone to give an opinion on everyone and everything. I should have made some qualifying statements. I would rather avoid making lists that list everyone or saying someone who isn't on anyone's radar is probably town. These are unnecessary observations. If someone is taking considerable heat and you say you think they are town, that is perfectly fine and a good play, in my opinion, because you are defending someone in the spotlight. Something the mafia doesn't want to be forced to do.

So I would revise that to say that I would like it if everyone gave their opinion on all the hot button topics and people. I realize this is something I have not done yet in all cases.

To be honest, I haven't got much of a scum read on anyone at this point. Most of the fighting seems to be around theory and not actions and seems to be between two townies. That is mostly because there isn't a lot of action (voting, trying to derail bandwagons).

Ask me about a specific event or fight and I'll give my opinion.

I play on the ActuarialOutpost. It is in a small subforum where we play one large mafia game every few months. We use some pretty different rules in some regards. I'd be happy to discuss them further in PM (if that is allowed).

The problem is, you're making the assumption that mafia are just going to NK people based on their level of suspicion in relation to others. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't always happen that way. Mafia kill for all sorts of reasons, some of which include: the player having a possible power role, player having suspicions in regards to scum, the player providing little to no information when dead (ie: quiet people who've had very little interaction), possible leaders, ect. To automatically assume that someone will die due to the fact that other's find him town is simply not good play. It's good for everyone to know where people stand so that you can use that information later in the game.

I will agree with you though that we do need to get some voting in and move this game along. While you're incorrect when you say most of the discussion is between two people, or about theory, you are right when you say there isn't enough actual pushing of suspicions. Most of the discussion you see about theory comes from us trying to justify certain player's actions to determine whether it's truly scummy or not. I'd also like to point out that pretty much everyone but you and Jayalay has taken part in those discussions so to say it's mostly between two people is just blatantly misleading.

For now though, I'm going to

vote: Jayalay

because I think she needs some pressure to start speaking and I truly dislike quiet people who give us very little to work with in judging their alignment.

[Abstract Actuary]

Well, the current commonly regarded most scummies are Sudo, for irresponsible posting, and Miztef, primarily for inconsistency (at least in my book). I'm curious what you think about them.

I think some of the things Sudo_Nym has done have been strange. I agree with Mexal's original point, though, that we can dismiss them because they were asked for or qualified, that's great way to float an opinion and have an alibi if it is run with. This coupled with his relative experience makes this a decent possibility.

Miztef, at first I had pegged as a town player who wanted to turn up the heat on people silently (the first to put someone to 3 [ckd], the first to put someone to 4 [Korlash]). But with the relative caution shown by everyone else in voting, it is starting to seem as if he was too willing to push the wagons. And the change of heart he had midgame about this practice makes it seem like he was trying to cover for his earlier hastiness.

Currently, I am most suspicious of Miztef so I will

Unvote: Korlash
Vote: Miztef

[Abstract Actuary]

Edit: Should be can't dismiss them

[Anata112]

All we have is feelings. Gut instincts. There are no absolutes, unless you are on the mafia. To talk about absolutes in mafia, is absolutely foolish. If you need to absolutely believe that someone is mafia before you vote for them, I'm not sure how you will ever vote.

You made a comment like this after I said that I had a gut feeling about you based on your scumhunting praising of Jitsu. I even pointed to the exact sentence. That is what you would call "hard evidence". Just because I used the word "gut" in my post, don't assume the suspicion is any less worthwhile than when others do the same thing and not use the word "gut".

Playing on this forum is really a new experience for me, since I'm used to playing this while seeing the actual other players, so it gives me a chance to read body language, etc. By only interacting with other players through a forum, it forces me to stop and think more thoroughly by reasoning, as opposed to gut feelings.

To me, a "gut feeling" is just a feeling. An instinct. Of course there are no absolutes in Mafia, especially when one is a townie because one is never sure who is playing what role, and what tactics other players may use. However, through logic and seeing how people react, one can make guesses. I don't think it's wrong to ask people for gut feelings, but in an early stage of the game, it's hard to have correctly placed gut feelings.

For example, I wouldn't take Gunslinger's votes or even his list as seriously as other players simply because he hasn't backed his ideas with sufficient reasoning. I noticed that Gunslinger ranked me quite high on his scummy list, but I don't know the reasoning behind it. Similarly, what is his reasoning behind his whole list?

That's why I haven't made a vote yet. Whether I play on a forum or in real life, I don't vote until I have some sort of reasoning behind my vote. However, I do have a couple of suspicions, and I've mentioned them before. This is just the way I've always played.

[Jitsu]

These comments are largely in response to post 153, with some in response to comments made after.

Sudo_Nym
He started off with a random vote (second for CKD), and tried to prod people when they reacted. He was part of the discussion about the necessity of the mass claim, but he didn’t propose it until Jitsu asked him for it. Later he unvoted for CKD, and voted for Mexal, but I don’t know why. Later he explains that he was just doing more random voting. I have a feeling that he’s just trying to hunt out the scum, rather than acting scummy.

You seemed to completely misinterpret how the mass claim started here. Given how important of an event that was in the game, not taking the time to go back and see how it started is at least a little suspicious. Nobody else seemed to have a problem seeing what happened, so I don't think it was that subtle of a detail. And when you were called on it in post 154 by Mexal, your reply was basically "I suppose" and then you express that he may have been probing for scum. I'm sorry, but how does making an anti-town post like that root out scum? Giving support for a mass claim on Day 1 is potential suicide for any player. Nothing is definite, and even scum would be likely to denounce it or just keep quiet. Given all the lurking that was going on at the time, I would say that it was a pointless exercise at best. And when Mexal voted Sudo for making the stupid massclaim, Mexal retaliated by OMGUSing Mexal for it. How is that decent scum hunting? Sudo may or may not be scum, but IMO, he hasn't been a scum hunter in this game.

Jitsu
He first started off with a vote for Abstract, and then unvoted him. He stated that Jayalay seems townie-ish and that the initial voting stage was quite random. When Miztef started pushing for a fourth vote, he agreed. He also agrees with Miztef that random voting is good for checking for people’s reaction. He also seconds the guess that korlash is a townie. It’s interesting to me on how he’s sure that certain people have a townie-vibe. After checking for new posts, he agrees that sudo_nym shouldn’t have proposed the mass claim, but he was the one that asked sudo_nym what his ideas were. Am I wrong here?

I and others have already commented on how you were mistaken on how the mass claim started. When Mexal called you on this, your reply to him in post 163 was that "You suppose" and you reiterated the possibility that Sudo was scum hunting. I also challenged you to tell me when I mentioned I was sure certain people were townie, and you couldn't come up with any evidence (because there was none), even though you found the whole thing interesting (which tells me it particularly stood out in your mind for some reason).

Conspicuously missing is my long exchange with Mexal where I pointed the FoS at him and then changed my mind as he presented his arguments to everyone -- and that had been concluded before you made your post. Where was commentary on that? And the logical fallacies I made, where is the commentary on that?

I still can’t decide whether Jitsu is simply really good at scum-hunting, or whether he’s trying act townie, so I can’t agree with Jerubbaal. I also don’t understand why he voted or sudo_nym since I couldn’t see a clear explanation. Considering that he feels that the random voting stage is done, then why did he vote for sudo_nym?

Huh? Did you not see the firestorm of suspicion that Sudo was under at that point? And that Sudo's defense was hardly inspiring then? He wanted to put pressure on Sudo to defend himself. It's right there in the post.

Mexal
Mexal voted for Korlash randomly (he was the first one), and then later unvoted and voted for sudo_nym. Again, I’m not sure why, and I would like to hear an explanation. He also agrees that a mass claim is a bad idea.

You're not sure why he voted for Sudo? Are you serious? The exchange that sprung up from this lasted several

pages

. Even if you missed the reason on the post where he actually placed his vote, the reason is repeated several times over on the next few pages. When Mexal called you on this (#154), your response was "perhaps I missed something" (#162). You never answered his question.


When I read your post, I was sure you were trying to frame me. Now I'm a bit less sure, but I still think that's a possibility.

As for the rest of your analysis, I think it's total crap. Most of the stuff you mention is totally pointless and too much of it was a rehash of the random voting stage where nothing much was going on.

But more telling is all the stuff that was missing. You talk about the massclaim, but only to get it wrong about how it started and question the extremely obvious reasons for Mexal and Jerubbaal's votes on Mexal. There is not an ounce of commentary on the aggressive posts, disagreements, and the noticable swing of several players to Mexal's side of the argument. At that point in the game, that exchange provided enormously valuable information and after it was all over, likely formed some of the basis for some the reads people currently on each other.

While I don't expect anyone to cover every aspect of the game in a summary like this, and not every analysis can be completely comprehensive, you talked about a lot of things that had little impact on the game, and did not comment on just about everything that has had a big impact on the game.

One could simply say that you're a townie that has done a really, really sloppy job on reading and keeping up, and that you're lazy. Perhaps you were just looking for posts where people voted and reported some information about it. I admit that is a possibility.

But given that you seemed to know who was involved in the massclaim and you comment on votes that took place during it without mentioning any of the really telling events that happened, I have to think you read at least some of those posts. And if you did that, why didn't you go back and reread more carefully, as it should have been pretty obvious something was going on since votes were actually being placed then (unlike a lot of this game so far). I think it is possible that you intentionally distorted your analysis.

Also, I get the impression that you may have been trying to help out Sudo by deflecting suspicion from him. You didn't seem to understand the reason for any of the votes on him, yet you seemed to notice the votes themselves. When people were talking about their suspicions on him, you replied that it was possible that he could be scum hunting. When you thought I prodded him for the mass claim, it was suspicious enough to move me up to the top two on your most scummy list with Miztef (post 153), but Sudo_Nym, who actually said it, was probably scum hunting? I'm speechless.

You may be just a lazy townie, but at this point, I think it is more probable that you are scum, lazy or otherwise.

I also find Miztef and Gunslinger scummy at this point, but I think the others are adequately pressuring them already. You've given no real comment on anything important that's happened in this game, and I think you are flying under the radar. In light of all of the other reasons above, I want to put some pressure on you to start talking. So here it is.

Vote: Anata112

I'd also appreciate your comments on Sudo's speculation of Mexal having a power role or not (Post #164) and the recent attacks on Miztef and GunslingerKB.

[Jitsu]

For example, I wouldn't take Gunslinger's votes or even his list as seriously as other players simply because he hasn't backed his ideas with sufficient reasoning. I noticed that Gunslinger ranked me quite high on his scummy list, but I don't know the reasoning behind it. Similarly, what is his reasoning behind his whole list?

So are you defending Gunslinger now? How is it correct to not take his votes seriously just because he hasn't backed his ideas with reasoning? Throwing out votes with little or no reasoning beyond the random voting stage is hardly pro-town behavior.

[Mexal]

I like Jitsu's post above.

unvote, vote: Anata112

Jayalay, I haven't forgotten about you. Post some content please!

[jerubbaal]

I'll add an amen to most of the above. Any way you cut it, lazy and distorting analysis doesn't help the town. The general ineptitude of Anata's analysis leads me to believe it is more likely bad reading and bad reasoning than deliberate attempts to mislead, but bad reasoning and bad reading are anti-town as well.

I also think that this has the fortunate consequence of bringing Sudo's actions back into the discussion, as Anata seems to have attempted to color his actions in a favorable light. I personally was never very satisfied by Sudo's answers (which is why my vote was on him up until now), so perhaps this might cause him to actually respond to the issues.

However, for now I'll ride the gathering bandwagon. Anata has a lot that needs to be explained. At the least, lazy analysis is unacceptable. Three votes seems like significantly more pressure than two.

Unvote, Vote Anata112

[Sudo_Nym]

I love how people post that their votes are for pressure. For me, at least, saying that a vote is for pressure actually reduces the level of pressure on a person.

And my answers were never designed to satisfy anybody but myself, and for good reason. I don't know you from Adam; to attempt to soothe your nerves would be a fruitless endeavor. I post to satisfy myself, mainly, as I'm the only member of the game whose mind I know, and I do this regardless of my alignment. It works out well for me, normally, but occassionally gets me into trouble.

The main outpouring of this is theory. I prefer to talk in theory than anything else, because I find it to be an easier way for my mind to approach the game. However, this sometimes means that I come up with ideas that sound great to me but are unconnected with reality.

[curiouskarmadog]

^^^

so then was this post for you or us then?...because clearly you dont care if we have this knowledge or not.

[Sudo_Nym]

Sorry, I just felt it needed to be said. I was wondering why I tend to do so well in Newbie Games, yet poorly in regular games, and this is the conclusion I came to- that theory works well in Newbie games, and not so well in regular games. I don't know whether it's helpful or not, or whether it's even relevant, but it's something I was thinking about when I came to post, so I put it up. Feel free to ignore it, if you please; it was mostly for my own benifit, but if you guys want to use it as a defense, or use it to lynch me- I'm fine either way, I actually feel better getting it off my chest.

I don't know why I felt compelled to post it here, but I did.

[Jitsu]

I love how people post that their votes are for pressure. For me, at least, saying that a vote is for pressure actually reduces the level of pressure on a person.

Huh? How do you figure that? Putting pressure on someone to gauge their reaction is an important concept of the game! Just because it doesn't work on you doesn't mean it won't work on someone else.

And my answers were never designed to satisfy anybody but myself, and for good reason. I don't know you from Adam; to attempt to soothe your nerves would be a fruitless endeavor. I post to satisfy myself, mainly, as I'm the only member of the game whose mind I know, and I do this regardless of my alignment. It works out well for me, normally, but occassionally gets me into trouble.

If you are townie, it is bad town play to refuse to defend yourself, because it makes you look guilty and makes people want to lynch you. How does that help the town?

The main outpouring of this is theory. I prefer to talk in theory than anything else, because I find it to be an easier way for my mind to approach the game. However, this sometimes means that I come up with ideas that sound great to me but are unconnected with reality.

Your contribution to the game has been two theories, a massclaim that was never going to fly (followed by an OMGUS vote), and a speculation about Mexal having a power role, both of which were very bad town plays. How is this supposed to help find scum? Nobody is saying you have an obligation to act like "Goody-Two-Shoes" townie, but a self-serving defense like this has to rank up there as one of the worst ways to help the town.

And I'm pretty sure being unconnected with reality is a really bad town play.

Are you

trying

to get lynched? It's really starting to look that way to me.