Mini 539: Game over

[Ythill]

Not a fan of the random vote phase. Carry on if you want, but don’t expect me to participate. How about some meta instead?

Fair Warnings:

This is my second game, though I’ve read a bunch. I’m playing the n00b card now, so I won’t be tempted to later. Also, I am of the belief that keeping some information secret can be strong town play, so don’t think of it as a scumtell if I tell you, “none of your business,” or some such thing.

Any of you want to share bad habits now, to foresatll a mislynch later? Any of you have important meta tidbits about each other? I’ve not read any games including players from this game, but will be looking for some now that I’m playing with you.

[Ythill]

Don't get into a fight with DS.

Why, is he mean or just good at arguing? DS, your opinion of this?

[Ythill]

@ Justin: Yts are decidedly creepy but they’re also pro-town unlike ants, who will carry off entire submarine sandwiches. [/OT silliness]

@ DS: Very interesting games. Thanks for the info. I don’t think I’ll set off too many of your peeves. Am willing to give at least one good reason if/when I cast suspicion on or vote you. Please keep the ad hom off me unless I

really

deserve it. Fair enough? It’s nice to see another poker player in here.

@ Xtomx: N00b card noted. Thanks for playing it upfront.

Any other meta? I’m just trying to get our word count up so we can start the scumhunt.

[Ythill]

Hmmmm... three random votes in a row on Xtoxm, none of them with dice.

Vote:Xtoxm

Because they seem suspicious.

Why "they seem" instead of

he seems

?

[Ythill]

Ah, the game is afoot.

Xtomx’s gender is clearly marked under his avatar. Also, when Mafia whined about the votes being tied, he only had 2 votes to Xtoxm’s 3. Mafia has revealed himself to be less than uncannily perceptive, yet finding honest suspicions in Xtoxm’s post #12 would require amazing powers of perception. Mafia also neglected to post the easy answer to Apyadg’s question. I believe pressure is justified here.

vote: MafiaSSK

@ Mafia: This is a pressure vote, putting you at L-3. Give a satisfactory answer to Apyadg’s question and I’ll unvote immediately.

@ Xtoxm: Not a big deal in this case, but please refrain from posting speculation when I ask another player about his behavior. You will only feed him easy answers and defeat the purpose of the question. Thanks.

[Ythill]

Also, @ Justin: I appreciate you dropping the random vote on me, but please repost it in bold. Thanks.

[Ythill]

No problem. It wasn't exactly a game breaking question.

Really just telling you for later.

[Ythill]

@ Incog: I do appreciate the advice but, in this case, I disagree. IMO, this is more like holding someone on the train tracks and saying, "I'm keeping you here until you answer the question." The train in this example is opportunistic scum and/or overzealous townies and the threat is quite real.
[/OT theory discussion]

Xtomx’s gender is clearly marked under his avatar.

What are you getting at with this point?

Didn't I make that clear in the rest of the post you quoted? Mafia missed two obvious details, but claims to have discerned your scumminess from a single benign post. It’s acceptable that he didn’t see the symbol and that he misread the vote count, but it doesn’t make sense for someone who commonly makes such mistakes to have supernatural scum-reading capabilities. I want to know why he

really

voted you.

Why do you keep jumping to his defense?

[Ythill]

I am not jumping to his defense. I am questiong a weak argument... So drop the gender thing.

Why would I drop an argument you are openly questioning as weak? Rather than pollute the thread trying to explain it, though, I’ll just ask: did anyone else understand how Mafia’s apparent lack of perception was relevant?

With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase.

QFT. But now

you’re

volunteering the easy answer. What, you hear the train coming? I hope you guys are this nice to me when I’m under the microscope. The thing is, I agree with you wholeheartedly. And now Mafia is being abstract, which is hardly a scumtell. I’d better

unvote

before someone starts claimfishing.

I certainly agree with Incog about the bandwagon suspicions. Sounds like a useful topic. I’m willing to take my turn in the hot seat if need be.

@ Charter: Still like your random vote?

[Ythill]

Yeah, my post 48 did seem kind of scummy, and for more reasons than ChronX has pointed out.

YTHill mildly chides xtoxm for answering a question directed at MafiaSSK. Yet when Incognito does something similar...

Ythill chides him less mildly. Did you really not see that? IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s but

me

pointing it out aggressively would have seemed OMGUS, reducing the validity of the accusation. I figured I’d leave it for someone who wasn’t on the wagon to bring up, but I guess it’s too late for that now.

YT seems to feel the heat and unvotes... Awfully fast flip flop from being willing to pressure vote to L-3 to being panic stricken about your vote and others...

“Seems to feel the heat,” “flip flop,” and “panic stricken” are weighted bombast. I hope, for your sake, that your slant here was meant to increase pressure on me, because it looks a little scummy otherwise. The unvote was for seemingly obvious reasons which I mentioned, but I’ll reiterate in defense:

(1) Mafia started doing what I like to call

sticking one’s head in the noose

, a behavior that is reminiscent of Ryan’s and Dylan’s play, among others, and one that is likely to lead to a mislynch without providing much information. I am not the only player to note this behavior (see posts 41, 43, & 45) or to think it’s bad for town (see 44) and the L-2 vote came

because of

it. It’s a little early to be risking a mislynch or claim for minutiae, and we haven’t even discussed the possibility that Mafia is a Jester.

(2) My vote was explicitly placed to elicit the answer to a specific question. Now that Mafia has dodged the question and Incognito has volunteered an acceptable answer, the reason for the vote is moot or at least not worth the obvious risks.

Also, my vote was one of the more solid of the five on the wagon. Certainly placed for more logical reasons than [paraphrase]you’re a whiner and what Apyadg said.[/paraphrase]

I also don't understand the need to call out Charter.

He placed a random vote, chided the inactive players for stalling the game, and then dropped out of sight while his random went wagonny. Not entirely damnable, but worth asking him about. Besides, I can’t just say

let’s talk about the wagon

and then not contribute anything about it. Charter’s participation seemed like the easiest to examine and clear, I figured we could get it out of the way early.

And, some reverse psychology is attempted when he volunteers to be on the hot seat.

WIFOM already? You’re a better player than that, ChronX. You’ll find that I’m always willing to face accusations because I think that giving honest townies the chance to scrutinize me will be conducive to forming good relationships for the purpose of scumhunting. I think it’s important for us to look at

everyone

, including me, before we do anything rash. Plus, at this stage of the game, it helps town to be attacking players capable of defending themselves: less likely to lead to a mislynch and more likely to reveal useful information. I hope you will be as amiable when it is your turn.

Anyone else want to take a stab at me before we move on to other matters?

[Ythill]

@ Ho1den: I think I incidentally answered your question in my point (1) of the above post. If you don't feel this is an adequate answer, let me know and I'll address your question more directly.

[Ythill]

Good points ChronX. I may revote Mafia later, but I think we have plenty to talk about for now and I’d like to reserve my vote for pressuring others. I do want to address two things you said:

and if he is just an unhelpful jerk townie, its a better mislynch than others.

I’ve seen this opinion all over these boards and disagree. A mislynch is always bad for town, but can be acceptable if it reveals information. Lynching for bad play, however, makes it way too easy for wagoneers to justify their votes later. IMO, at this stage, the best strategy for dealing with Mafia is to ignore him while we examine others. It’s not like we’ll be short on evidence if we want to string him up later.

you claimed noob but seem pretty involved and in depth. This juxtaposition and apparent contradiction furrows my brow with worry.

This

is

my second game but I spent two months reading the site before I signed up. Also, my IQ is 146. Not yanking my own chain here, just explaining that I am a quick learner.

@ charter: Thanks for answering sufficiently, accusation withdrawn.

[Ythill]

In fairness to the others, I also "jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying" and whatnot.

Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself since you fall into the category of players who hopped onto the MafiaSSK wagon?

This sort of confirms what I said in the first point of my defense (#52).

...this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar.

No, actually. It began because at least three players thought his "random" bandwagon vote was suspicious (see 19, 20, & 24). The only argument the grammar thing figured into was mine, and then only because it was one indicator of an apparent conflict in perceptive abilities.

Ythill, what were you trying to get at when you asked MafiaSSK your question in Post 19?

Honestly, I was kind of grasping at straws. I thought it was probably a grammar error or gender confusion, but took the opportunity to see how Mafia would react to a question. There

was

the possibility that it was an editing error (like he typed something else first, then changed his mind) or a slip of some other sort, but niether seemed likely.

I didn’t hit on the perception-level argument until a little later, when Mafia also miscounted the votes (#22). Really, in #19, I was just trying to jumpstart discussion. Yay for it working!

[Ythill]

Who are Ryan and Dylan, Ythill?

Dylan and Ryan are examples of Mafiascum.net players often attacked for poor (rather than scummy) play. My mention of them was meant as a comparison for those players familiar with them, since that may be what is happening here. To be fair though, neither of these two is as blatant as MafiaSSK.

[Ythill]

Sorry guys. I hit submit on this last night, then went to bed. It obviously never went through, so here it is now, with one clearly marked edit. I'll post something more current a little later.

You are drawn to MafiaSSK… based on a highly suspicious, inaccurate and absolutely WIFOM premise you invented that someone would have to be “uncannily perceptive” to have been suspicious of Xtoxm’s original post.

Please reread what you quoted from my post. I said that perception level would be required to find

honest

suspicions, not just for him “to have been suspicious.” And I was right, Mafia was lying. So my premise was not inaccurate. Whether it’s suspicious is a matter of your opinion. WIFOM deals with what people

choose to do

and why they choose to do it, not what they are

capable of doing

. Please know what a term means before you accuse me of it.

...you have seen plenty of wagons build over far less than what was in Xtoxm’s first post

I never said I hadn’t. Are you suggesting that because something has happened to a greater degree in other games, we can’t point it out as fishy here? Ludicrous.

But I’ve certainly seen those bandwagons, and pushed by folks who weren’t scum. One might even say they are more likely to be pushed by people who are “less than uncannily perceptive”.

I never meant to connect my “perception” argument to any accusation of pushing a wagon. I said that three random votes on one person without in-game dice rolls was interesting. Then Apyadg questioned the reasoning behind Mafia’s vote. These are two different things. My perception argument suggested that Mafia’s

reason

was false, addressing the second of these two different things, not the first.

...claiming that it would take someone uncannily perceptive to discern suspicious intent from Xtoxm’s first post seems possibly self-serving, since the same not uncannily perceptive someone might have seen your post as a reason to be suspicious of you.

That

is what WIFOM means. How ironic.

And if there is an “easy answer” to Apyadg’s question… what would that answer be? And why would it be an easy answer?

Something along the lines of what Incog said: that we were being too harsh in the random vote phase, that his vote was indeed random, that “they seem suspicious” was no more scummy than voting for someone based on an avatar or name. He could have said he was being sarcastic. He could have disarmed the statement by saying something like “I meant he seemed suspicious because he doesn’t have an avatar, or because there are too many exes in his name.” I call these “easy answers” because I thought of them as possibilities when the question was asked, and I’m probably not the only one who did.

You have cast reflective suspicion back at all three players (Xtoxm, Chronx and Incognito) who questioned you about your posts.

Interesting preemption in an attack post full of rhetoric, repetition, misrepresentation, misquotes, improperly applied terminology, reaching arguments, crap logic, opinions touted as evidence, and even an outright lie. So let me get this straight, if I point out that you are doing these things while accusing me, that makes

me

scummy?

I think you’ll find that I’ve cast suspicion on just about everyone I’ve talked to or about. I’ve cast suspicion in most of my posts. Just because someone is accusing me does not give them immunity to my suspicions. Calling it “reflective” because it coincidentally appears in a defense post is misleading. Have I cast an OMGUS vote? No. Have I attacked in place of defending or to cover up a weak defense? No. Have I redirected attacks vehemently enough to distract people from suspicion on me? No. In fact, as you quoted, I’ve invited suspicion, often right near the end of my posts where it will not be missed. Whether or not these statements “play as sincere” is, again, a matter of your opinion.

You take your vote off MafiaSSK because he has become “abstract” which is neither an accurate description of his post (if I am incorrect about this using any conventional meaning of abstract, please explain).

In #40, Mafia makes what sounds like a scummy confession, but he adds a smiley at the end. Was his confession serious? Was it sarcastic? A joke? Then, in #42 he simply posts that he was lying. About what? His suspicions? This seems to be the consensus, but maybe he meant he was lying about what he said in #40. If so, was he lying about a serious #40 or a sarcastic one? Mafia leaves all of these important questions for the reader to answer subjectively. So yes, I believe abstract is used properly here but,

even if it isn’t

, you are arguing semantics.

You then amend your reasoning for taking your vote off MafiaSSK into being because Incognito obviated the need for an answer to your initial question,

I didn’t amend anything, just explained it better when asked. I pointed out Incog’s obviation in the same post that I mentioned Mafia being abstract (#48). Forgive me if I don’t spell things out as verbosely as you do. I’m perfectly willing to explain myself better in later posts, which is helpful to the town so long as somebody isn’t twisting my words.

even though Incognito’s answers didn’t address any of the possibly relevant suspicions of MafiaSSK’s behavior, only the ones you were pursuing based on your false premise.

I’ve explained above how Incog gave the easy answer, and demonstrated that my premise wasn’t false. Besides, Incog

doesn’t even mention

my premise in that post (#44).

You also point to MafiaSSK refusing to answer your question as a reason to give up,

I said he dodged the question, not refused to answer it. He dodged it

by

being abstract, which behavior I mentioned in the original “unvote” post (#48). Again, I say something in brief, am asked to elaborate, and do so, then you come along to make it look like I’m changing the pith of the answer.

...you refer to other players who have done what MafiaSSK has done as though by doing this you make your response more authoritative.

How many times are you going to attribute false motives to me? It would be horribly inefficient for me, a self-claimed n00b, to strategically post in order to sound authoritative. I’m working against myself in your scenario.

What I was saying by bringing up those other players is:

Hey guys, you know those people who end up distracting town from the scumhunt and sometimes get themselves mislynched by playing poorly enough that everyone thinks they’re scummy? Those players best dealt with by taking their actions with a grain of salt or even simply ignoring them? I think Mafia might be one of them, rather than scum, so let’s be careful here.

Which is very much implied in my original statement about him being abstract. Again, I was elaborating, not changing my stance.

To me this looks like false scum hunting on your part, deliberately leading the bulk of the discussion of MafaiaSSK’s behavior away from what might have been legitimately suspicious and down obviously non-productive paths.

There have been only four reasonable suspicions posted about Mafia. (1) he placed a third “random” vote on Xtoxm, which I pointed out first in #19 (2) he didn’t explain his suspicion, which I assisted Apyadg in pressuring him for in #30 (3) he couldn’t have honestly suspected Xtoxm at all, which I pointed out first in # 30 (4) he

probably

admitted to bandwagoning/lying, which really isn’t worth examining, because we’ve already determined that he bandwagoned and lied, so a confession of these things is moot. I don’t see how my part in any of this was “false” anything, or how I’ve lead anyone away from legitimate discussion of his behavior, being as that I started half of that discussion and participated meaningfully in another quarter of it.

You really think your questions regarding Mafia are legitimate discussion? Fine. Keep asking them. None of us have stopped you and, thanks to chiding by me and others, nobody else is answering them for him. Don’t forget that

your

legitimate discussion is in response to statements prompted from Mafia by other players including me, the false scumhunter. But, most of all, don’t try to tell me I’m scummy because I’ve gotten a read on a player more quickly than you and I want to move on.

Your tunnel vision is

at least

as detrimental to the town as my multiplicity.

My addition this morning: Justin seems to have changed his mind about the usefulness of pressuring Mafia, so this statement of mine is no longer valid. I've only left it here so that you can all see the post as it was meant to be last night.

And overall your posts look like they’re laying a veritable carpet of reasons to excuse any behavior you engage in. I’m new! I’ve read games for two months and have an IQ of 143! I may tell you to mind your own business if you ask me a question, but if I do it I’m pro-town!. Let’s look at that bandwagon I was on that I’m not on anymore and got off of for reasons which will evolve as they need to, and let’s start by looking at that other guy!

If you want to quote me, why not hit the quote button? I guess then maybe you wouldn’t be able to change words, type in things I never said, or put your poorly formed opinions into my mouth for emphasis. Are the exclamation points there at the end of every phrase to make my actual points seem foolish?

I have made exactly two preemptive statements meant to explain my behavior: I’m a n00b, and I don’t always share information upfront. Both are true. Neither was said to be a towntell (I only said the latter was a null tell). Each was meant to forestall overzealous players from mislynching me based solely on my known bad habits. Too bad Mafia didn’t make a post like that, huh?

Every other statement I’ve made to explain my behavior has been in answer to a direct question or accusation. In these cases, I feel that neglecting to answer would have made you no less suspicious of me.

Note also: in #52 I conceded that one of my posts seemed overly scummy. How does this fit into your “veritable carpet?”

I might change it if I come to believe what I’ve seen above was early game jitters or if I see someone who I think is more definitely scum.

This is the icing on a multi-layered crap cake. Way to falsely limit the possibilities. What you’re suggesting is that either my points so far are invalid, or I am scum. The funny part is that this premise is based on your accusations being reasonable, which is clearly untrue.

I'm very interested to read others' opinions of Justin's #65.

[Ythill]

@ Ho1den: I see your point about me. No, I do not have a definitive alignment read on Mafia yet, though I'm leaning very slightly town. I could have been more clear about coming back to lynch him later thing. I didn't mean we would do so for the content of his current posts.

It’s not like we’ll be short on evidence if we want to string him up later.

Meaning that he would probably continue to put his foot in his mouth in the future, providing new evidence to analyze. Also meaning that I didn't see much point in continuing to pressure him over current suspicions. I understand that my initial statement was

very

vague.

The reason I didn't address his "I was lying vote" is simple. I believe I'd already provided reasonable proof that he was being less than honest. Therefore, him admitting it seemed to be a null tell to me. It was the lie that was scummy, not the admission of the lie. Also, others were addressing his admission post already.

[Ythill]

@ Mafia: Thanks for making sense.

I hope you have not taken my previous posts regarding you as personal insults, I know they might read that way. I am only referencing your game-related skills and strategies and

do not

intend to infer anything about you as a person.

Actually, now that the initial shitstorm is cleared up, I'd be very interested to hear your honest opinions about the other players.

[Ythill]

I’ve been on defense for awhile. Going to post my own current opinions now, as well as a couple jabs of my own. Not trying to distract from attacks against me, keep ‘em coming if you like.

My Current Reads

Ask if you want me to elaborate on anything. Obviously I do not have any reads on DS or Natude.

Definitive Town: Ho1den, charter.
Probably Town: ChronX.
Middle of the Road: Mafia (slightly town), Incog, Xtoxm, Justin (slightly scum).
IGMEOY: Apyadg
FoS: North

Accusations

@ Justin: Your attack against me seemed to be a severe stretch, but could have been the act of a townie who had convinced himself. My read on you is very MotR but I do want to question a pattern of your own. Though you have accused three people, each of them was already under scrutiny by other players at the time, so your points were likely to have support. This seems scummy. Is it a bad habit of yours?

Re Apyadg: I agree with both of the players voting on Apyadg, and may very well place my vote if I keep getting scumvibes of my own from him. Currently I have two points to add to the argument (1) on my stat sheets, Apyadg is credited for as many scumtells as mafia was, including those mentioned by Incog and charter (2) Apyadg admitted openly to following me with his unvote and didn’t add any elaboration of his own, which is suspicious IMO.

@ Northjay: You have made only two posts. Your #16 was the first of two “random” votes I called out suspicions on (in #19). Your #39 was an unbidden, off-topic justification of that “random” vote. In this post you don’t remove the random vote or defend it as such, but instead register a weak argument in favor of it by repeating what Ho1den had already said in #25 & 29. I’ll quote #39 below for reference. Why did you feel the need to justify your vote? Why have you not addressed the other topics in this game? Do you have other reasons to think Xtoxm is scummy? Is he still the scummiest in your opinion?

I like where my vote is currently at. "They" seemed a bit odd, but not drastically suspicious. However, feeding MafiaSSK an answer does not seem to be helpful to the town.

More than likely it was nothing, but you never know. Perhaps it really was a slip and then when questioned MafiaSSK may have said something really stupid and unbelievable, but that possibility is gone now.

This would be a vote if North was more active, but I don’t think it’s good practice to vote someone while he is apparently absent so…

FoS: Northjayhawk

.

[Ythill]

Semantics again? We don’t have to use the word “accuse” if you don’t like it, but I think it fits. Accusations don’t have to be direct and 982920019 words long like the stab you made against me, and they don’t have to include a vote. I would term even your repeated mention of my “non-case/false premise” as an underhanded accusation. But I digress…

Regarding Mafia:

...it seems by your wording that you're attempting to suggest that it's as odd/unfair that these votes have piled up on you…

MafiaSSK...this is the kind of behavior that could pick you up an awful lot of votes pretty quickly.

…the bulk of the discussion of MafaiaSSK’s behavior away from what might have been legitimately suspicious…

Regarding Incog:

…in your last post you point at his initial reason for voting for MafiaSSK in a way that I don’t think is entirely fair.

I’ve liked many of the things you’ve posted… But you’ve also seemed reluctant to accept that there may be valid reasons for others to have voted for MafiaSSK… You’re still questioning Apaydg on them.

In each of these statements you suggest through declaration (not inquiry) that the player in question has acted in a suspicious manner and/or discredit that player’s position. That’s what I mean by “accuse.” Please entreat discussion of the pattern, remembering that it is not these statements I’ve decried, but the fact that all of your statements of this type are targeted against players currently being scrutinized by others.

I suspected you wouldn’t be able to hold out for long.

I assume you refer to “reflective suspicion.” I’ve already said my piece about that, and even included some in my defense against you, but I suppose you can keep needling me if you want to. My suspicions of you are limited to a few tells and I’m really not trying to lead a witch hunt against you here. I simply want to hear what you have to say about the above.

[Ythill]

EBWOP:

I would term even your repeated mention of my “non-case/false premise” as an

underhanded

accusation. But I digress…

The word I was looking for was

backhanded

, sorry.

[Ythill]

(2) Apyadg admitted openly to following me with his unvote and didn’t add any elaboration of his own, which is suspicious IMO.

It was a good point, and I agreed, what's the issue?

On the one hand, it is not the agreement that seems suspect, but the justification of a “suspicious” action using only that agreement. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Taking an allegedly scummy action based solely on a logical fallacy is fishy.

The other angle is a little more complex and explaining it will require a little WIFOM. If you are town, you should be at least considering the possibility that I am scum, and therefore less willing to accept my points at face value. In this case, Justin has theorized that I was deliberately acting towards premature abandonment of legitimate discussion regarding Mafia’s behavior, so it is entirely possible that reads eluding to such a conclusion existed in the thread before your unvote, making your (as town) acceptance of my argument even riskier. However, if you are scum, you know I am town and, looking for an excuse for your actions, you could have rationalized something like

Ythill is town and made a good point, so agreeing with him is a win-win situation. If the point stands, I’m in the clear. If it is decried as scummy, I can claim he mislead me and use that to railroad Ythill.

Anyway…

You have elaborated on your reasons for the unvote, improving your position in my perception. In doing so you have accidentally set a very good trap for yourself. IGMEOY still, but now I’m looking for something specific that, if it appears, will be a very definitive scumtell on you. No need to worry, because it is a mistake you are very unlikely to make as town.

I do have a rather tame question for you. The first of your two defense posts (#90) is very weak. Two posts later (#92) you make some solid points that amount to a relatively strong defense. What happened during the four hours between these posts that could explain the improvement?

[Ythill]

I feel you have answered my question satisfactorily, and have made a good point about the appeal to authority. Also, shortening his name to SSK rather than Mafia seems like a great idea. I think I'll do the same.

[Ythill]

It might help to know that I’m using definitive by it’s main definition (most reliable) and not the alternate definition (final answer). Definitive is the town equivalent of Fos/vote whereas probably town is the equivalent of IGMEOY. It might be more demonstrative to explain why ChronX is

not

definitive town: though he’s reading town, there are a number of conflicting tells.

In your case, charter, your post timing has given you a few opportunities to attack players already under scrutiny but you have refrained. Your one serious vote was self-motivated and reasonable. All of your statements have been based solidly on the available information and you have been the voice of common sense when town needed a wake-up call. I’m still not above accusing/suspecting/attacking you and if I start getting scumtells from you I will certainly move you down the list but it would take a lot for me to vote you at this point. Same for Ho1den but for different reasons and, honestly, more of them.

@ North: Oh, you

are

here. You’ve only answered one of my questions.

I never inferred that you not responding to #19 was suspect, nor that I thought your #39 was in response to it. In fact, one of the things scummy about #39 was that it was “unbidden, off-topic.” Simply put, you interjected it into a conversation about something else entirely, as if to slip it in quietly. I wouldn’t defend what Xtoxm did, but it was pretty harmless coming from a claimed n00b early in the game, especially since he was personally involved in the questions.

I don’t like your active lurking, your defense that relies on a misread of my accusations, or the fact that you’ve skipped three of four questions directed at you. I said the only reason my FoS wasn’t a vote was your apparent absence but you have shown up for roll call and, honestly, helped me feel even better about a

vote: Northjayhawk

.

[Ythill]

Time will tell. I'm comfortable with my vote but see no need to convince others at this point.

[Ythill]

Sorry guys, busy morning. Will post content later today.

[Ythill]

Suppose every one of us started throwing around fingers of innocence and arguements for town along with FoS and votes? Wouldnt that just be a huge blinking neon sign to the scum saying "lynch these people to win"?

You expect everyone to infer your answers to direct questions by the fact that you didn’t answer them, but then doubt that the scum in this game could infer who I think is town from a suspicion list that names only scum. So you appear to believe two opposite things, demonstrating that you are either daft (which I doubt) or are choosing words to serve ulterior motives rather than the truth.

In itself, your statement about my list helping scum is way off. Power roles and effective scumhunters are the most likely targets, Me reading someone as town proves neither of these two things about them and doesn’t really help scum at all.

Why did you feel the need to post "definitive town" and "probably town" lists? In what way does this help the town at all in the first day or two?

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I wanted to let people know where I stand and give more fuel for dialogue, that’s the “official” reason I posted all of my reads. There are also several town stratagems that are initiated by listing whom one suspects to be town, but I’m not going to explain them to you. Either figure them out yourself or wait to see if any are played out here.

I'm still trying to figure out what to make of Justin Playfair's long arguements. I do not agree with many of them against you...

Taking sides isn’t going to do you any good regarding my suspicions of you.

Ythill, I read everything, but address only things I find relevant, interesting, and can add to or disagree with... Honestly this early on, we really do not have a lot to go on yet...

Digging yourself deeper here. I’ve read both of your other games. I’ve seen you post more earlier and with much less to go on. Why the lie about your playstyle? Note that since your other games are ongoing, it is not appropriate for us to argue the specifics of them, which is why I’m being vague. Anyone who is curious can go read for themselves.

At this juncture, I don’t see you clearing yourself with an argument. We should probably move on to other topics. As I’ve said, I see no reason to convince others of your scumminess at this point. We still have lots of information to gather before anything like a lynch, and that means there’s still time for you to start playing like town.

[Ythill]

@ Justin:

Ah, so it is semantics. So, to use your example, if I were to say, "Your wife has a lot of bruises on her and I heard the two of you yeling in the next room," that wouldn't be an accusation, right? Only he with a weak position argues what exactly is said rather than the meaning that is clearly intended.

I was never refering to your questions, which I don't find scummy in the least. Your

accusations

(or whatever you want to call them) are another matter.

If you want to take another whack at it, be my guest.

No need. Your behavior has demonstrated to me that the pattern was scumspoor. I've taken note of it and will be watching for more.

[Ythill]

JP and Ythill - can you guys just whip it out, see who's is longer, and move past the useless arguments?

Talking about post lengths, right?

I don't see how our discussion is useless. He addressed me as scummy and voted me, I defended. I asked him a question about a scumtell, he asked for clarification, I gave it, he defended, I addressed his defense. Every bit of it has been game relevant non-repetative and, IMO, more revealing than the Apyadg thing.

Actually, DS, I do have a question for you. Assuming you've had time for a readthrough, how about a brief summary of your views on each of the players. I like the unique perspective of a person who returns after hiatus.

[Ythill]

I am not claiming lack of time to post and participate, now you are trying to place something into my words that I did not type.

I didn't say anything about you claiming that. Does anyone else think I even

might

have meant that? Read what you quoted again. You made a claim about your tendancies as a player and, based on a read of your other games, that claim was false.

I'm assuming you misread my accusation.

Whatever small benefit we may gain from knowing who everyone thinks is most innocent is dwarfed by the huge strategic sacrifice we would make to the scum. I cant believe you dont see this the same way I do.

I think you are way off on the strategy point. I'm also not going to argue theory, because it distracts from the game. Read some games, note how many good scumhunters give innocent reads D1, and then find a real reason to vote me.

You're playing different here than you do in your other games, and demonstrate a lack of scum strategy knowledge. First game as a mobster, huh?

Either way, it is good that you are posting more, even if it is only reactive to accusations. I really wish you would actively look for scum at least occasionally.

[Ythill]

@ Ho1den: You've argued heavily with Apyadg and have concluded that his behavior looks scummy, yet your vote is in limbo. Why?

@ Incog & charter: What are your reads on one another?

@ SSK & DS: Still waiting for a player analysis from each of you...

[Ythill]

You paint me as having more conviction than I do.

That was unintentional. Just trying to make some conversation with the players I haven't picked on yet. I feel you've answered my question sufficiently, which was expected.

Question to the rest of the field: Is my vote on SSK still so out of the realm of realistic?

I never thought the vote was unrealistic.

@SSK: You said earlier that you jumped on a bandwagon. Now you seem to infer that jumping on a bandwagon is a town characteristic, but I could be wrong here so... Do you think bandwagon jumping is something town should do? Why or why not? Do you feel it's fair to vote for someone who hasn't posted at all? You've read extensive arguments against Apyadg, Justin, Northjayhawk, and myself. Do you agree or disagree with each of these arguments?

[Ythill]

Here charter mentions I was "sticking up" for SSK when that's not true at all - why charter still feels the need to make an inaccurate statement like this, I have no clue.

To be fair, you

did

speak in SSK's defense. I think you had good reasons to do so and I don't think your actions were particularly scummy in this case, but these justifications do not change what you did/said.

Thanks for pointing out charter's apparent inconsistancies. I'm not sure they amount to too much, but it is always good to hear about "questionable" play that I have obviously missed.

[Ythill]

Overreact much?

Since North has asked to be replaced, I'll

unvote: Northjayhawk

for now. If he reconsiders I'll certainly be putting my vote back, and I'll be watching his replacement closely, but I don't see any reason to vote someone who isn't here.

Also, I don't see any sense in responding to posts #132-135. If someone else wants me to, say the word and I will. Otherwise, on with the game...

[Ythill]

Incog, thanks for sifting out the reasonable bits. Before I reply, I’d like to apologize to the other players and the mod. If I was out of line and in any way caused us to lose a player, I’m sorry. If anyone else considers resigning because they think I’m being an asshole, just ask me to back off and I’ll do my best to comply. We’re playing a game where criticism and mind games are pretty common and I’d like to think that a good player has thick skin, but I really do not intend to hurt people’s feelings.

…one question I have for you is what was the true reason you asked for the meta-information at the start of the game?

Just in case this isn’t rhetorical: the move was a brainstorm during my read-only time on the forum. I’ve seen a lot of people complain about the random vote phase and was trying to spend that time pursuing game-relevant discussion.

Justin Playfair mentioned from the start that he has a habit of making "very long posts" but recently you seemed to mock his posts when you mention that "accusations don't need to be direct and

982920019 words long

like the stab you made against me…

I meant that accusations could be brief/vague/backhanded. The exaggeration was admittedly a bit of a jab, but I didn’t mean to infer that his post length was scummy. In fact, when writing my defense to his WOW, Justin’s earlier statement made me dismiss the length of his post as both a scumtell and an argument.

[disclaimer]I don’t like to discuss game theory in thread, as it can be very distracting to the hunt. I will answer your questions because you are the second player to infer that they have relevance to my alignment, but I seriously disagree that believing in an allegedly unpopular strategy means one is scummy.[/disclaimer]

…do you not feel like at least part of your description of charter in post 98 is also at least somewhat of a decent description of one who is considered to be a good "scum hunter"?

It might describe a good scumhunter but not in a way that would be more indicative than information the scum already have. A good scumhunter, necessarily, is one who correctly identifies scum and effectively convinces townies to vote them. Knowing their own identities, the scum are the best readers of who is a good scumhunter and it is information they gain from us posting our

suspicions

.

And really, what difference does my singular subjective opinion of other people make?

I honestly don’t believe posting innocent reads D1 helps scum much at all. Some very good, experienced scumhunters do it all the time. More than the “few other people” North said I was referring to and I would certainly trust their tactical opinions over those of a player who hasn’t gotten past D1 in any of his three games. Nor do I agree that the only benefit to such posts is, “knowing who everyone thinks is most innocent.” Considering the changes that such a post could trigger in the subtleties of our interrelationships, a lot could be gleaned from how people react to innocent reads. Not to mention the more elaborate town stratagems that could begin with such a post.

Furthermore, if my post endangered the three experienced players mentioned as innocent, it seems to me one of them would have said something about it, or at least agreed with North when he brought it up. The facts? Two ignored the post completely, the only one who responded said (twice) that he didn’t mind me reading him that way.

I feel like this part of Northjayhawk's argument against you seemed somewhat contradictory - he placed a vote against you but his argument against posting "most-likely town" and "least-likely town" lists as they help out the scum would only work if we assumed you were town. This would mean he was voting against you because he felt like you were being a bad townie and not because he felt like you were most likely scum, unless I've misinterpreted his argument.

I have to point out that you’re feeding answers again, but I agree. I was going to bring this up if the theory topic was pressed. To be fair, such behavior

could

be a scum gambit, but only in this case if you subscribe to a Ythill + charter and/or Ho1den scumpartnership, which would be a pretty farfetched conspiracy here: a case of the theory conforming to the evidence, rather than the other way around.

His argument was contradictory in other ways as well. The accusation and vote came in #120 which was his very next post (except for an EBWOP) after #101, in which he said:

I'm still trying to figure out what to make of Justin Playfair's long arguements. I do not agree with many of them against you, particularly his indirect assertion that Mafia's page one suspicion could have been believable, and for him to say that you cant criticise someone who criticised you seemed very silly to me to name just a couple problems I have with his posts. I didnt see much of a fair basis for suspicion…

Also, and this is minor… In #101, North decries my posting “definitive town and probably town lists” (which contain a total of three names). Then, after my statement that scum could infer the identities of the people on these lists even if they were omitted, he expands the criteria to include not posting one’s neutral reads either.

North had a really bad habit of posting to suit his needs of the moment rather than the truth, especially in this game. Before anyone gives weight to his arguments, I’d suggest at least skimming the other games he was in. If it had not been for the rule about discussing games in progress, he would have been arguing from an even less credible foundation.

[Ythill]

Errrrrrrr.... EBWOP

a case of the theory conforming to the evidence, rather than the other way around.

I think I said this backwards, but you get the idea.

[Ythill]

We might want to watch our sig:noise out of respect for the replacements, but I hardly think it's worthwhile to put the game on hold. One third of the players are temporarily gone, which gives us a more intimate setting for information gathering.

I'm starting to see another level to this game. Nothing I can quantify yet, but the motivations of certain players are appearing more clear to me after a day's meditation.

@ Justin: I think it might be a good idea for you and I to reread our spat. I may have confirmed a scumtell on you but that doesn't mean you are mafia. Certain key pieces of damning evidence are missing from a complete case against you, such as signs of partnership between you and the others I suspect. Though I understand that it is not an argument, I assure you that I am town, and wonder if you, through honest contemplation, can find the holes in your own case.

[Ythill]

Ythill, I think you are acting very suspicous.

How very specific of you. Got questions or accusations to go with that?

I don't know why Apyadg has the most votes either. I understood the questions posed to him, but believe his answers have been both solid and consistent. The only problem I still have with his behavior is: now that the attacks on him seem to have subsided, we still haven't seen the scumhunting he promised ages ago.

Still, I do not think he is today's play and will not be putting my vote on him unless he does something very damning.

[Ythill]

Okay... but what's "very suspicious" about it?

I spent a day considering the game and looking at things from different angles. Justin ended up looking a little more innocent, which reminded me that I'd left that discussion with something like "haha you have confirmed a scumtell" and I wanted to let him know that one scumtell does not damn someone in my eyes.

While writing that I thought,

maybe stepping back would help Justin see more clearly as well.

Simply put, it is entirely possible that both he and I are town, in which case a conflict-based relationship between us would be counterproductive left as is.

I really don't see how that's suspicious at all, but if you can explain it to me I'll try to address your concerns.

[Ythill]

I am still checking in, still taking notes and forming opinions. I've got some new angles but I think I'll wait to post them until more of us are active.

I don't want this game to die

[Ythill]

Welcome Shteven. You are replacing into my hot seat though I will withhold my vote, giving you a chance to read the game. Once you have, I'd love to know your opinion of the confrontation between myself and your predecessor (96-103, 113, 120-122, 132-136), with the understanding that you cannot truly answer for his statements.

[Ythill]

He can't answer for them at all, no matter his role. That is an unreasonable request. You can base your vote off what northjay said, but you can't ask the new guy to answer for him

He can give his opinion of the exchange. That's all I asked for.

[Ythill]

Please forgive my silence these last couple of days. I’ve been very busy and have also been refraining from posting here out of respect for Shteven. Figured I’d let him finish his analysis before throwing too much new information into the thread. I still plan on analyzing this game from a new angle soon (as promised) but I want to reply to Shteven first and will probably wait on the other stuff for a day or two.

The only weapon that the town has is lynching; which requires a majority vote. If you plan on conducting a uber-secret powerful town strategy, the only way it will do anything is if you can explain it to everyone and get consensus on it.

I disagree whole heartedly. This is more theory discussion so I’ll try to be brief. Lynching is not the town’s only weapon. Don’t forget power roles. Furthermore, good lynching requires good information, which can be gained via traps, another town weapon. Town strategies include setting traps and protecting suspected power roles, both of which

require

secrecy. Tempting me into explaining myself

could

have ulterior motives.

The town has few secrets; strategies for exposing scum are almost universally public. It must be a public, clear policy. Otherwise, it's fictional; and that doesn't look good on you.

Keeping my previous response in mind, your claim of fiction is unfounded. Also, recall my first post, in which I admit upfront to secrecy as a part of my playstyle. I’ve heard the secrecy-is-scummy argument before and, in many cases, disagree.

How many games of his did you read? I'm going to assume it's around 3-4; let's say it was 3. You're now basing your attack on the claim that you've interpreted his alignment correctly in three games.

It was 2 games other than this one, which was all of them. I also read his posts in the Mafia Discussion forum but they were irrelevant. However, nothing in my meta argument relied on knowing North’s alignment in any game (see below).

Important: In my above post, responding to pages 5-6, I misinterpreted Ythill's meta against Northjayhawk as him playing the same (poorly) in all games; on rereading the posts he asked me to, Ythill claims NJH is playing differently in this singular game.

You have misinterpreted again. Since I believe this may become important later, I want to clarify. My claim that North “is playing differently in this singular game” is correct but was a secondary assumption, a fact meant to correlate with North’s lack of scum-strategy knowledge to suggest that this game is his first as scum. This entire argument is admittedly weak and reaching and was intended more as a pressure statement (to goad North) than as a piece of evidence.

My primary meta argument was entirely different. Simply: North made a claim about his playstyle in general (not per his alignment) but a read of all his external posts proved convincingly that his playstyle claim was false. It is possible though unlikely that he could have been mistaken. It is also quite possible that he was lying, a suggestion which he grossly overreacted to.

In response to your analysis in general, I feel that you have managed to deepen my suspicions of the role you’ve stepped into, for the following reasons:

(1) SSK is clearly the VI (no offense SSK, labeling your playstyle not your intelligence level) which means he is the easy lynch. The VI is more of a pawn than a player. Aggressively attacking the VI at this juncture has the potential of several serious ulterior motives no matter what SSK’s alignment is. This

could

be bad townie play but you strike me as a good player. You have not only attacked SSK vehemently, but have stated your willingness (eagerness?) to make him today’s play. Yet we have some roles (DS & Natude mainly) that we know almost nothing about. Ding ding ding on the scumdar.

(2) You’ve suggested that if SSK is scum, Ho1den is his scumbuddy. This is based on unnamed possibilities that you even identify as “a bit of a stretch” and is directly tied to your preemptive set-up for a D2 lynch. Ho1den is the towniest mofo in our bunch, IMO. Nor do I see evidence of distancing between Ho1den and SSK (even weak evidence) anywhere. This suggestion is ludicrous in every respect except it’s possibility of adding credibility to an attack against SSK, a course upon which you seem clearly set.

(3) You have taken stances in and expanded upon a number of our theory discussions and have introduced some new ones. I don’t think this, in itself, is a reliable scumtell but it can have nefarious purposes and is generally distracting to the town. I would never hang someone on this point alone but have included it for completeness.

In summary

:
North was my PE#1. Shteven has already deepened my case against the role. I will therefore

vote: Shteven

. Again, I

do not

think we are ready to lynch anyone and I am not looking for a Shteven wagon. There are too many players on whom we have no reliable reads, and two players on whom we have almost no data at all.

[Ythill]

@ Justin: Spat is the word I use in my notes to refer to any confrontation between players, don’t read too much into its use here. I never asked you for a pardon, just for you to reread our exchange. I hope that you did. I do appreciate you continuing to look at other players and do not fault you for keeping your vote on your PE#1.

Remember that accusations (or whatever

you

want to call them) serve two purposes: lynching players and drawing out defenses. I hope that you are at least considering my defenses and that you have noted how thoroughly I have responded to you.

Repeating Old Arguments

:
I’m not going to address old accusations here, except to point out that such repetition is an unfair attack. My original defenses still stand. If you would like to question one of them, do so, but don’t think it proves anything to endlessly repeat allegations I’ve already rebutted.

The Invisible Evidence that Justin May be Town

:
You have said that you prefer questions over accusations, why didn’t you just ask? I’m certainly not going to post a PBPA about why you might be town, but I’m willing to share a tell or two if asked. Honestly, your latest posts look even more townie to me. About D1 scumbuddy evidence: I do agree that it is unreliable but it

does

exist and a complete lack of it between two players, one of whom I am convinced is scum, makes me question middling scum reads on the other.

The Four Questions

:
Your quotes are fair and complete, but I don’t agree that North answered more than the one question: “Why did you feel the need to justify your vote?” It may be true that answers could be inferred from his post, but such assumptions are less reliable and telling than direct answers. I asked direct questions; demanding answers is neither misleading nor unfair. A lot of your argument here seems to hinge on the fact that I did not act in the way you would have; a difference in our approaches says absolutely zip about my alignment

especially

when nobody knows yours.

North’s Lie

:
Did you read North’s other games? From the POV of someone who didn’t, I absolutely agree with your reads on me here. However, the whole thing takes on a different hue from the POV of someone who did.

Me pointing out North’s lie was in no way unfair. I drew direct suspicion on his active lurking; his

only

defense was “Ythill, I read everything, but address only things I find relevant, interesting, and can add to or disagree with,” which references his playstyle. I checked up on him (as any good scumhunter would), found that his playstyle was very obviously not what he claimed, and I said so. The proof is all there for everyone to read if they care to. I would have been more specific, but I’m not going to break site rules. I’m also not going to let a lie stand as the only defense for scummy behavior, just because

the person who told the lie chose one that can only be disproved by evidence in ongoing games

.

Though it is true he could not defend with specifics, it is also true that I could not (and did not) argue specifics. We had the same handicap. My only advantage was that anyone could do the meta and would see his lie for what it was. This advantage resulted from him lying, not from me finding it.

Regarding the end of my post #114, look at the pattern of my spat with North: I accuse him of scummy lurking in my all-player analysis (84); he pops in the next day with a “misread” of my case and the first jabs of an OMGUS attack based on strategy differences (97, a little scummier); I clarify the accusation and turn my FoS into a vote (98); he responds by lying, contradicting himself, sucking up to me, and deepening the strategy argument (101, even scummier). Rather than clearing himself, North was hanging himself. I expected his next post to be even scummier and…

it was

(120). But even though I was convinced he was going to argue himself into a hole (and was right), I was keeping an open mind to my read changing based on his

play

, I mentioned this in the same paragraph. He

did

have outs.

I mean in my mind there was even a pretty big suspicious statement in his answer to test him on, this:

Someone who

is only reactive to accusations

over a few day/night cycles would start to look scummy to me, most town players

would actively look for scum at least occasionally

without needing to first be asked to explain their votes and suspicions.

Which almost reads as Northjayhawk saying “can’t you see my post 39 was made so that I give the bare appearance of being involved”. But you don’t call him out on this...

Either way, it is good that you are posting more, even if it

is only reactive to accusations

. I really wish you

would actively look for scum at least occasionally

.

(bold added for emphasis)
So I

did

call him on it, just not in the way you would have.

[Ythill]

An interesting quadrangle for your consideration…

Xtoxm’s suspicion of me is not unexpected. Anyone who has been keeping track can see that he has exhibited tunnel vision, focusing his contrary posts on SSK and myself. I’m not saying this is scummy, my read on Xtoxm is still stuck @ MotR. However, his focus is obvious, especially to someone who has just read the thread in its entirety.

I have clearly been attacking North/Shteven. Shteven has clearly been attacking SSK and cheerleading Xtoxm while taking it pretty easy on me. This pattern is somewhat suspicious.

@ Xtoxm: If you are town, watch your back on this. Your intentions may be entirely innocent but I do not believe Shteven’s are. Either way, you could tarnish your reputation here if you’re not careful.

[Ythill]

@ Shteven: MotR = Middle of the Road. I am certainly looking forward to your conclusions, but take your time. The holidays will slow down our games anyway.

The apparent about-face on SSK doesn’t really look any better than your attacks against him. I hate to meta-argue with you after what you said about the practice, so please answer honestly… do you tend to “think out loud” in the thread?

You're leaping to conclusions. My previous posts have been pointing out notable things in the thread; NOT who I think we should lynch.

To test that theory I'd only be willing to lynch MafiaSSK due to his other mistakes, and only if he turned out scum would I still support a Ho1dem lynch on day 2.

This plus 728201626128 comments about SSK’s scumminess. It is possible my assumption wasn’t correct, but it’s misleading to say I’m “leaping to conclusions.”

…there's 3 scum...

How do you know this?

Was his claimed play style wrong in all games or only wrong in this one? If it's wrong in all, it could be just that he wanted to have that play style but couldn't pull it off.

The claim matched his play in this game, but was belied by his play in the other two. Your suggestion is

possible

but, considering other tells, I consider it unlikely.

Regarding the “interesting quadrangle” it was more of an observation than an accusation. The suggestion of scumminess stems more from the fact that I already think you are scummy than from some conspiracy theory. I really do want to turn my attention elsewhere but (for Justin’s sake, LOL) I’ll make sure to give you the last word.

And, as always, I invite attacks and suspicions. I'm as likely to be scum as anyone. You may fire when ready.

[Ythill]

Shteven, I am still convinced that you are scum and my vote will remain. However, I agree that going round and round with you is distracting from other legitimate hunting. I have been wanting to get away from this for some time now. Therefore I will let your current defenses stand, refrain from indicating what might be scummy in your newest posts, and abandon this line of argument for now.

For the record, I do not feel that your vote is OMGUS. It is somewhat unnecessary since you are really just confirming the vote left on me by your predecessor, but you have provided enough evidence (however contrived) to disprove an OMGUS claim.

On to my defenses…

For you to go into such detailed arguments and not understand what I'm doing is wrong.

Aka: it's the perception argument about MafiaSSK all over again.

Good point, except that I didn’t miss or misunderstand your statement. If I were to believe that saying “This is just notes,” excuses whatever is posted afterward, then I wouldn’t be very good at this game. Pointing out suspicious behavior in my PE#1 isn’t scummy. Arguing, after a replacement, to determine whether my PE#1 appeared scummy due to the player or the role is not “pushing way too hard.”

Meta attacks in games like this (of people who are newer, and more importantly people who are inactive) are counter productive.

Show me where I’ve made a meta-attack. I accused North of lurking, he made a

meta defense

, I shot it down. This has been explained. Unless you can disprove my explanation, drop it.

You have tunnel vision. You vote MafiaSSK, then all NJH/Me.

I’ve made 46 posts counting this one. The number of accusatory posts made by me referencing each player are as follows: Shteven 11, Incog 3, SSK 2, charter 2, Ho1den 2, Xtoxm 2, ChronX 0, Natude 0, DS 0, Justin 3, Apyadg 1. Some players have lower numbers because I haven’t gotten to them yet, or they haven’t been posting; others because I got a read on them right away. True, I have been caught up arguing with North and you, but this line of discussion has produced 13 reliable scumtells (3 of them major) stretched evenly over the role’s two players. It has also produced a whole lot of counter argument (your role’s accusations against me number 11 as well). In spite of all this, I have clearly tried to get away from this focus at least twice (Justin even called me scummy for it), and have inferred that I would like to move on to other things.

I

do

agree that my behavior could be seen as tunnel vision but insist that my reasons for it are clear. There are no ulterior motives here.

You also have a disturbing trend of trying to get one people's good sides by pointing out how fair and noble you are.

Absolutely WIFOM. I would simply end the argument there, except that you chose to blur the distinctions of something ChronX posted and twist my words in support of this ludicrous accusation. ChronX accused Incog of trying to set himself up as the voice of authority, yet you compare this to my “fair and noble” posts which clearly do not have the same effect, intended or otherwise. As for the word twisting, it sure helps a weak argument when you lump a bunch of quotes together out of context. Two of the “fair and noble” statements you quoted were posted in response to direct accusations, one was a friendly response to a friendly jab (both with smilies), another was rhetoric correctly describing a “rather tame question,” yet you attribute them all to some asinine proactive scum strategy on my part.

You can't attack someone if you're involved? They get a free pass? Well great, I guess you'd better unvote me now, because you wouldn't want to appear to be making an invalid accusation. I think this is a serious red flag. He's overlooking Incognito's behavior selectively.

You can attack someone if you’re involved but the attack lacks credibility, is easily defended against, and could be twisted into a reliable counter-attack by opportunistic scum. You infer these facts with the preemptive OMGUS defense that this part of your post supports, yet you forget them a few sentences later when such becomes convenient for your attack on me. I have not ignored Incog, I’ve made 3 accusatory posts directed at him, making him my most suspected player second to you, and… oh the irony… the “new angle” I’ve been foreshadowing focuses heavily on Incognito’s behavior.

I disagree with Justin’s attacks against me. He is wrong in his suspicions but he makes a much better case than you do. I don’t like your cases against Apyadg and ChronX either, but will let them defend themselves. It would greatly interest me to read Justin’s opinion of Shteven’s #177 & 178.

[Ythill]

@ DS: Reposted for your convenience…

DS - as long as you're around, what's your take on Apy after his arguement with me? More convinced he is scum? Has it alleviated your suspicions?

Actually, DS, I do have a question for you. Assuming you've had time for a readthrough, how about a brief summary of your views on each of the players. I like the unique perspective of a person who returns after hiatus.

Also, could you reply to these declaratory statements which reference your behavior?

There was no way MafiaSSK's initial vote could have been a serious one. Come on, who finds someone suspicious at the beginning of the random voting stage? That was obviously a joke vote.

I hope you've got two votes buddy, because that was not at all a joke vote!

A minor thing, but I’ve been rereading the thread a lot.

On the 11th Disciple Slayer posts:

I'm here if anyone wants to ask me any questions.

He is asked a few questions but does not respond. On the 13th Incognito posts this:

@Disciple Slayer: You've been asked a number of questions from different sources now that you have yet to respond to. I'd like for you to become more active in the thread now so that your posts aren't as retrospective as they have been, otherwise I'm tempted to call you out on lurking. It seems like you've been avoiding scrutiny because you haven't been around to garner it.

And just over 30 minutes later Disciple Slayer responds:

Posting will commence on the 18th. I've got a busy weekend and a flight immediately after.

It is now the 23rd and Disciple Slayer has not posted. With the time of the year it could be nothing, and the quick response to Incognito when Incognito called him on not answering questions as he’d said he would could certainly have been a coincidence. But I thought the timing was interesting enough that it was worth pointing out.

[Ythill]

...Mr. I'm Controlling The Thread.

I really hope this doesn't end up being my special title someday, lol... I stand by the fact that I didn't take it there (meta) originally, but will concede that a "counter-defense" is technically an attack.

DS, I understand your reads though agree that the way you posted them was a little vague. I also agree with what you said about the talkative = town + scum = quiet (in this game, not generally) except that I have Xtoxm and ChronX both firmly MotR. I'd love to get better reads on these two.

Could others share their thoughts on Xtoxm and ChronX? Or maybe some good questions for them? I'm going to start working on an Incog PBPA today.

[Ythill]

Thank you, Justin. I knew I could count on you being reasonable about Shteven's accusations even though your vote is on me. I hope that time will show you the truth about my alignment but I am growing more certain about yours. If you

are

scum, you are a far better player than I (and you can quote me on that later ).

I have read Northjayhawk’s posts in his other two games... I will say that it is my belief that one might want to take into account the level of posting a player did during a specific time frame as opposed to a specific phase of the game, as their external situation may have a great deal to do with their level of posting. Another possible factor would be the level of involvement someone may have in a specific game at a specific time.

I hadn't considered these points. On the one hand, you are right. On the other hand, he could have said as much, rather than making a general statement about his playstyle. Either way, I think it stands that the statement he made was untrue, though you bring more doubt as to whether he was lying or mistaken.

I want to ask why Incognito makes your number two slot.

You have misunderstood what I meant though I don't blame you. Rereading, my statement was easy to misinterpret. I did not mean to say that Incognito was in my #2 slot. In all honesty, I've been focusing a bit too much on Shteven and have not quantified the rest of my scum-list in a while. What I

was

saying was that, with 3 posts from me regarding suspicions of Incoginto, he was second to Shteven as the person I had posted the most suspicions of (a.k.a my second most suspected person).

However, I

am

about to look heavily into Incog's behavior to check out some unspoken suspicions I've had. In fact, I logged in to reread him when I noticed your questions so... I'll be sure to include where he stands on my scum-list at the end of my PBPA on him.

[Ythill]

My first niggling suspicions of Incognito came as a result of what I considered a clear town read on Apyadg sometime after he was pressured with three votes. I started thinking about the things that both charter and Incognito have done in this thread. Consideration of Incog’s actions and possible motives got me interested enough to do a reread. This topic, IMO, has tarnished charter a bit as well, but not enough to pick apart here.

I’ve now reread Incog both in isolation and in context, studied my notes on him, and have some points for everyone’s consideration.

Basic Stats

Posts: 17, On Topic: 11, Check ins: 4, Digressions: 2.
Sig:Noise = 11:6
Votes (1/11): Apyadg (not counting the random on Justin)
FoSes (0/11): nobody
Accuses (6/11): Shteven (1), Ythill (2), charter (2), ChronX (2), DS (2), Apyadg (2)
Defends (3/11): Ythill (1), SSK (1), Xtoxm (1)

Incognito has the fourth highest post count in the game, yet the second worst sig:noise after ChronX. He’s lead the most digressions. So he is active, yet posts less content than some players who are less active than he. Meanwhile, he directly references others’ inactivity nine times, including sending a prod to the mod. This game is slow and many of us have referenced inactivity a bit, but Incognito, who posts a lot of fluff, is establishing himself as the “lurker police.” Why? To establish that post count equals content? To draw suspicion away from his disinterested scumhunting?

There are two players whom Incog has defended but not attacked. A lot of his “attacks” are not what Justin (or Miriam-Webster) would call “accusations,” they are more like jabs, are spread around evenly, and are often backhanded.

PBPA

• In #28 Incog defends Xtoxm under the guise of attacking Ho1den. This is his first serious post and we see his first incidence of fence sitting. This post can be played later as an attack or a defense (he ends up calling it an attack in #88, after Justin challenges him on it being a defense).
  
  Incog also makes his first “voice of authority” post here, which I saw as not scummy in itself, as he simply answers Apyadg’s question. But the post thereby establishes Incog realizing that Apyadg is a true n00b (and therefore a good target?) because he doesn’t know about the closed setup.
  
  
• In #36 Incog poses as the IC again, this time bringing a digression to the thread, possibly attempting to distract from the attention on Xtoxm or SSK. If so, it doesn’t work. There is something else very scummy about this post but I want to let it play out before drawing attention to it. If allowed to progress naturally, it will either confirm or disprove itself.
  
  
• In #44 Incog clearly defends SSK. It would have been entirely possible for him to question the wagon without that defense but he posts it anyway. In fact, the defense takes up the majority of the post and the attack seems like more of a deflection of suspicion. It is very vague.
  
  

• Chron, this is a strange statement especially since I wouldn't even consider myself to be an "experienced player". I've only been on the site for a month and have only completed one Newbie game while this current game is my first mini-game ever.

  This is Incog’s defense to the “voice of authority” accusation (which came in #49). I thought the accusation was well thought out even if it was a bit of a stretch. The defense, however, makes me wonder about Incog. It amounts to
  I am not a duck, therefore I could not have been pretending to be a duck
  and is left to stand unsupported.
  
  He goes on to justify his defense of SSK (see #44, above) as not being a defense, but being a wise move, thereby invoking the “voice of authority” he
  wasn’t
  setting up earlier. He smokescreens by increasing his suspicion of the wagon, posting the names of two players who “jumped on.” What gets me here is, why not post those players’ names the first time he suspected the wagon? Why deepen it once he comes under attack? Neither player had done anything else “scummy” in the interim. And why lump the two players together? This is another fence-sitting post, looks like he’s accusing both to see which attack gets support. The accusation regarding Apyadg was clearly not valid, a fact that Apyadg points out two posts later (in #60).
  
  
• But ChronX has posted a weaker defense in #59 and Incognito comes back in #62 to argue with him; ChronX’s #64 and Incog’s #68 continue this spat. Neither player makes very good points. My gut says that this exchange feels contrived, but I can’t back that up with facts. Suffice to say, Incog never challenges the stronger of the two defenses. This choice of arguments infers that he has identified ChronX as the scummier of the twins from #58.
  
  
• Except charter takes Incog’s bait in #69, attacking Apyadg. Two posts later, in #71, Incog follows and cheerleads charter, voting Apyadg. So we have the
  reality
  in which Incog quietly initiates suspicion on Apyadg (the n00b) but the
  illusion
  that charter lead the attack, both factors set up by Incog’s posts. Also with his vote, Incog suggests that it is Apyadg (not ChronX) whom he finds the scummiest of those original twins. He never returns to the ChronX argument, or to suspecting him at all.
  
  In fact, his only other mention of ChronX is a tidbit in #129: “I've already explained this pretty thoroughly in a bunch of posts where I've responded to ChronX and Justin Playfair... why charter still feels the need to make an inaccurate statement like this, I have no clue.” This suggests that ChronX initiated their spat when, in fact, Incog did.
  
  
• In #88, Incog is on defense. He deflects suspicion back on Apyadg, reiterating his use of the word “bad” to vaguely say “scummy.” My main problem with this is that, in context, Apyadg’s meaning was clear. Incog has heavily decried me questioning SSK’s grammar, yet does the same thing here without the depth of my “failed premise”. Also Incog chronically commits the same sin he accuses Apyadg of, using phrases like “a little odd” and “a bit odd.” Even in context, these statements of his are less clear than Apyadg’s and could actually be construed as intentionally placing suspicion without coming out and saying it.
  
  
• By the time Incog posts #109, DS has come out of lurking to quick-vote Apyadg, making the wagon seem scummier. Incog doesn’t address Apyadg’s defenses or his own vote, just questions DS and promises to post content “later today” (Tuesday, December 11).
  
  
• On Decenmber 13, Incog finally posts content in #129, but only to address a direct question. His read on charter is on the fence, leaning town, which makes sense considering the public reads on charter and Incog’s recent teaming up with him. His one accusation is a sly defense of himself, as he is only referring to charter’s attack on him; he twists the words of that attack, making it seem as if charter posted a scummy read regarding SSK, when, in reality, charter never referenced SSK’s alignment; and he accuses charter of making an “inaccurate statement” that IMO (and others’) was accurate. Incog is setting up a way to distance himself from others who are voting Apyadg.
  
  
• In #137, Incognito finally addresses current events. At this point there are two dynamic exchanges that have taken place, both involving me (sorry). About the Justin/Ythill exchange, Incog openly takes a seat on the fence, saying the arguments are over his head. Then he argues both sides of the North/Ythill debate, another solid seat on the fence.
  
  
• Now we have #191, in which Incognito echoes my latest defense and moves slightly to one side of the Shteven/Ythill debate, as if to soften my attack. He preemptively justifies his vote on Apyadg and, in doing so, points out that Ho1den and I have also accused Apyadg. So now we are meant to see that he is on a wagon charter started and other players (including the one about to PBPA him) failed to derail. Again, it’s everyone’s fault but his.
  
  He ends the post by casting suspicion on DS. I agree with a bit of what Incog says here. Who wouldn’t? But what makes me suspicious is that he links it all back to the Apyadg thing. Not only are we meant to believe that the Apyadg case is not Incog’s doing, we are shown that ~should we find the wagon scummy~ it is DS who is to be held in highest suspicion.

Summary

I’m seeing a very scummy pattern here. Every dynamic action by Incognito is conveniently dual-edged. Not only is he making the initial fence-sitting posts but he is without exception leaning whichever way best suits him personally, rather than following the evidence. In one case he even played both sides of the fence, switching quickly when it would have best suited scum to do so.

Incog’s scumhunting consists of a few jabs here and there, from which he jumps on weakness and follows other players, rather than proceeding logically. After failed attacks he distances himself from them. He has asked a few questions but has yet to tie one of the answers logically to a read on anyone; considering the questions in some cases, one must wonder how he

could

. From the beginning, Incog has pursued a very suspicious case against Apyadg. When he reads that there is a PBPA coming, his vote on Apyadg is the only thing he preemptively justifies.

Many of these factors are perfectly explainable alone but... together? Incog seems to be consistantly playing strategy rather than hunt. You know, I wasn’t expecting this when I started writing this post, but I have convinced myself. Incog is not in my #2 slot, Shteven is.

Unvote, vote Incognito

and, just for the record... I'm still firmly

FoS: Shteven

.

[Ythill]

I noticed this during my reread. On the topic of my defense vs. Shteven, I believe the quotes speak for themselves (bold mine).

In fact, I take issue with Ythill's post here:

IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s but me pointing it out

aggressively

would have seemed OMGUS, reducing the validity of the accusation. I figured I’d leave it for someone who wasn’t on the wagon to bring up, but I guess it’s too late for that now.

You can't attack someone if you're involved? They get a free pass? Well great, I guess you'd better unvote me now, because you wouldn't want to appear to be making an invalid accusation. I think this is a serious red flag.

He's overlooking Incognito's behavior

selectively.

YTHill mildly chides xtoxm for answering a question directed at MafiaSSK. Yet when Incognito does something similar...

Ythill chides him less mildly. Did you really not see that? IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s but

me

pointing it out

aggressively

would have seemed OMGUS...

With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase.

QFT.

But now

you’re

volunteering the easy answer.

What, you hear the train coming? I hope you guys are this nice to me when I’m under the microscope.

[Ythill]

@Kuribo: Welcome and thanks for replacing. Sorry I've been such a blabbermouth, I'm sure it makes your reread harder. I look forward to reading your views. As I've said before, I believe a fresh perspective is refreshing and good for the game.

[mrow]Responses to Shteven

Accusing Ythill of tunnel vision seems odd.

I've come to realize that it's not quite tunnel vision. It's a different kind of play style. What he'll do is he'll pick someone and focus on them for a day or two (or three or four). He'll carry out an argument with them fully, and not argue with other players. But after the argument concludes, he'll latch on to another person.

Good read. This is exactly what I’m doing. Not sure it’s a good playstyle, as it seems to have drawn quite a bit of suspicion down on me, but whatever. I would like to note that the arguments last until I get a good read (not a random amount of time as your post could suggest). The exception here is my argument with North/you, which I tried (and failed) to slip away from after I got a read.

Ythill seems to avoid game theory pretty strongly. For the record, I don't think -minor- game theory is a scumtell if it's balanced with game content…

I wouldn’t say I’ve avoided game theory altogether, though I have made a point of identifying it as such and only discussing it when it is directly related to alignment. I don’t think it’s always (or even usually) a scumtell but, unless the theory talk is very relevant, I do think that it is bad for town. I really don’t understand how me acting on this belief is scummy by itself, but I do see how it could add to your next point.

In a related, yet separate tell, Ythill also posts various I'm-a-saint phrases… I don't like him being so grandiose; it feels like a gambit. Trying to build up the you-can-trust-me vibe.

Grandiose is an excellent word to describe my writing in mafia and elsewhere. I certainly can’t argue with your opinion that it “feels like a gambit.” And I don’t think it’s out of line for any player to want the others to trust him. After all, this is a team game. For the purposes of discussion, I think we should separate the two types of “suspicious” statements you’ve attributed to me. Those in which I invite suspicion are discussed below (in my response to Xtoxm). The others are a different animal. When read in context, they make a lot more sense. If you want to pick apart a specific example or two, I’m game.

The switch to Incognito is very interesting in particular, because of the previous avoidance… Ythill realized there was something wrong there, and as a bit of a perfectionist, he's zealously correcting the error.

You seem to be getting a very accurate read on my personality, which is good. It will help you to understand my motives. However, I stand by the fact that I never avoided Incog, selectively or otherwise. Incontrovertible evidence of this was posted here. Also, if you look at my posts in isolation, starting with my second post from December 15, you can see this switch to Incog forming long before your false allegation that I was avoiding him. [mrow]Responses to Xtxom

@ Xtoxm: If you are town, watch your back on this. Your intentions may be entirely innocent but I do not believe Shteven’s are. Either way, you could tarnish your reputation here if you’re not careful.

(1)

Why did you say that?

(2)

what does it mean?

(3)

That sounds just very manipulative to me...doesn't show good for you I don't think?

(4)

And what's my reputation anyway? I haven't even completed a game on this site yet

I added the numbers to reference my answers. (1) If you are town, I thought it fair to warn you of this subtle pitfall because you might have missed the ramifications. There are other reasons for my post, but I’m not making them public. (2) It means that you should be careful to avoid tying yourself accidentally to Shteven. Let’s say I’m lynched and I come up town, D2 would include a thorough read of my interactions and, if you’re not careful here would tie you to Shteven at a point when his behavior is being seriously questioned by me. If your attacks are weak here, they could be identified as very scummy. (3) I don’t know if this is actually a question. Could you rephrase? (4) I mean your reputation in this game.

Anyone else want to take a stab at me before we move on to other matters?

This. And I also remember you saying somehting about having your go in the hotseat, but I couln't find the post.

Obviously you also couldn’t find ChronX accusing me of this or my defense either. I’ve quoted both for you and would appreciate you continuing the line of debate rather than starting it over from scratch.

And, some reverse psychology is attempted when he volunteers to be on the hot seat.

WIFOM already? You’re a better player than that, ChronX. You’ll find that I’m always willing to face accusations because I think that giving honest townies the chance to scrutinize me will be conducive to forming good relationships for the purpose of scumhunting. I think it’s important for us to look at

everyone

, including me, before we do anything rash. Plus, at this stage of the game, it helps town to be attacking players capable of defending themselves: less likely to lead to a mislynch and more likely to reveal useful information.

I’ve answered your #200 in my response to Shteven, above.

Good points ChronX. I may revote Mafia later, but I think we have plenty to talk about for now and I’d like to reserve my vote for pressuring others.

(1)

Why do you want to reserve your vote for pressuring?

(2)

are you trying to force out power claims or something? …

(3)

Why are you willing to revote mafia later over the same information we got on page one?

(1) Pressure often assists in gaining information, which allow us to get reads. It is a common town strategy in this game. I’m chalking your lack of understanding here up to you being new. (2) I have done absolutely no claim-fishing. My unvote of SSK was explicitly posted to avoid claim-fishing. I’ve consistently warned wagons away from my pressure targets because I want to (among other things) avoid claim-fishing. (3) I said I “may revote Mafia later,” without giving

any

reasons. Were I to revote mafia, it would be for the information from page 1

and

any other scummy information we got anywhere else. However, since making that post I have come to trust my read that SSK is the VI, meaning I will probably not vote him for his behavior at all. Ideally, we have a cop and the cop will investigate him, or SSK will become inactive enough to be replaced by a player with a different approach. Barring these, we will have to determine his alignment from the actions of other scum (which is only slightly more reliable) before we get into a LYLO situation. Since you’re new, I’ll suggest that you read [url=http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6946]this thread[/quote] as it will help you understand why some of us are pussyfooting around SSK.

(1)

I'd be interested to hear why you have me at the middle of the road?

(2)

And what has Apyadg done?

(1) I have you at MotR simply because I have few tells on you either way. This fact will most likely change as time goes on. (2) What Apyadg had done to gain my suspicions at that point was clearly presented in the post you quoted. Since then, he’s addressed my statements and, IMO, the accusations of others. My read on him has changed significantly since then. I wouldn’t list him as “definitive town” but I’m not really all that suspicious of him at this point.

[Ythill]

So i'm an incompetant noob? Gee, thanks.

Lol. Not at all. First, I think that VI play (which the thread refers to) only gives the appearance of incompetance. Second, I was talking about SSK's play, not yours. Apply that article to SSK's play and you'll see what I mean.

You say you are questioning Shteven's behaviour. Why is this? whta has he does that is suspicious? And how does this in turn make me scummy?

Not going to repeat accusations against North/Shteven here. They are all clearly posted in the thread. But making weak attacks against me right around the time I am attacking Shteven, he is cheerleading you, and both you and he are suspecting SSK could make the two of you

seem

like scumbuddies. It's the sort of thing players look back for later in the game.

Don't know what WIFOM means.

Wine In Front Of Me: in brief, a statement or argument which could be read several ways depending on the intentions or motives of the target. For example, ChronX said that I invited suspicion as "reverse psychology" to seem more town, when it is just as likely that I said that to actually invite suspicion. Neither can be proved or disproved and the argument is really just baseless speculation. There's a lot of discussion about WIFOM in the Mafia Discussion section, as well as an article on the wiki. You'll probably find better definitions than mine there.

[Ythill]

@ Xtoxm: I have no clue what you're talking about. I've not made an argument against you. Why are you defensive?

[Ythill]

Well it sounded very much like an argument against me. You're accusations of me and Shteven.

Rereading, I can see how you thought this. My apologies for being unclear. Rest assured that I didn't mean to attack you. I've got enough on my hands right now, lol.

Looks like I've got a lot of work to do... Catching up my notes right now, and my response to kuribo is almost finished. Will be addressing Incog afterwards, but I may not get to it for a little while (maybe tonight?). Pretty please respect my backlog and try to wait with things I need to directly address until I get caught up.

[Ythill]

Thanks for the quick read, kurbio. It seems like you’ll be active here, which is a good thing. I’m also glad to have another aggressive player on board. It’s a bit of a pain that you are posting yet another Ythill inquisition, but I did invite suspicion…

Most of you have been scummy at one time or another, and since this is Mafia, that's to be expected.

If all players slip up with scumtells, then it must be somewhat true that players who post more make more of these all-players-do-it mistakes. They also have more chances to set off mistakes of perception. Not saying this is a town tell on me, but note that this is my 56th post, which is more than double the count from the next most frequent poster. Also, my word count is quite high. Just keep these things in mind when calculating who is scummiest.

Ythill in Post #5 seemed a little off to me… I'm willing to chalk these up to inexperience, though.

You seem to be withdrawing the accusations here. I will therefore refrain from defending, Let me know if you want me to address post #5.

Post 13- Ythill seems to be a big fan of the meta.

Just as others seem to “be a big fan” of random voting. I think it’s clear that discussing meta is at least as revealing and game relevant as discussing random votes, as others still are at that point in the game.

Post 52- Ythill raises the possibility of a jester. Just FYI, I read somewhere on this site that 4 out of 5 times that a jester is mentioned, the mafia are the ones mentioning it.

If this is given just FMI, why include it as one of the bulleted items in an aggressive analysis? This is mud-slinging, and uses false statistics. I read somewhere on this site that 999, 999, 999 out of 1,000,000,000 times someone raises false statistics, they are a penguin. If you want to claim sources, identify those sources… penguin.

Post 63- Pointless meta from Ythill. Any player in this game could be doing anything.

Not pointless at all. It was the answer to a direct question and was one of several pieces of evidence I’ve given that SSK is the VI.

Post 76- Ythill goes on the offensive (or acting defensive if you will) against Justin Playfair. This post seemed very defensive to me.

Justin’s first attack against me was rambling and full of crap-logic. It felt like he was trying to build a case against me rather than stating an honest case. So my defense is going to be a little barbed. Since you’re a fan of using out-of-game data in your accusations, here’s one for you. That said… yes, I did just call someone defensive myself.

Post 83- Ythill accepts a completely non-explanation from SSK and then asks his opinion of the other players. What?

In my notes, under

Player Overview

, SSK’s very first entry is: “Responds to honey, not vinegar 67.” Kissing up to someone a little bit is as valid a tactic as being aggressive or insulting if it seems to be the best way to get information.

In post 84, Ythill claims Ho1den and Chater are definite town. But Ho1den has been scummy to me, and Chater has been lurking. So they're not definite town to ME.

So we saw things differently, not a big deal, especially considering your other reads. Since then, charter has slipped from that definitive town category IMO. I’ve currently got him @ MotR because of some things I caught in a reread. I still have a pretty high opinion of Ho1den but haven’t really pressured or reread him so could be wrong.

And he's leaning toward SSK being town. Huh?

SSK is clearly a VI. I’ve already linked to this article but will point you to this specific post from it so as to avoid being a penguin. Other people have the same opinion as the post I’ve linked to: the VI is scum about 25% of the time. This is the main reason for my lean.

Attacks North for not posting much, but his "Definate" town guy Charter hasn't contributed much either at this point. In fact, toss out his page 1 posts (Random vote, pointless meta, "Please contribute") and he has exactly the same number of posts as North. Two. And yet, he's town but North is scum? Hmmmm...

Twisting statistics? Of those two posts you credit to North, one is a random vote (which you’ve subtracted from charter). Of the posts subtracted from charter, you’ve included “pointless meta,” which is

your

opinion: not very applicable since what you’re attacking is

my

opinion of charter at that point and in

my

opinion, the meta was not pointless. So, with correct math, the North:charter content post count was 1:3. Also, though lurking was certainly part of my accusation against North, you glaze over the fact that I was also attacking him for the content and timing of the post he came out of lurking to make.

Post 98- Ythill's post is pointless. He throws away his suspicion while saying that "Definate" means "maybe" and "maybe" means "I got my eye on you..." but he included someone in the category of "I got my eye on you."

You like to bandy the term “pointless” for things you may not understand. Most of what you say here is untrue to the extent that you are severely twisting my words, and your use of quotes is misleading support for this dishonesty. What I actually wrote was, “It might help to know that I’m using definitive by it’s main definition (most reliable) and not the alternate definition (final answer). Definitive is the town equivalent of Fos/vote whereas probably town is the equivalent of IGMEOY.”

Ends with a defensive North vote while not calling charter out on the same thing

“Defensive” again? I pointed a FoS at North, saying that it was not a vote because he was apparently absent. He responded immediately and failed to clear himself. Me

not

placing that vote would have been suspect. As for the charter issue, I’ve addressed it above. And please forgive me for neglecting to take a game action based on the unstated opinions of a player who hadn’t joined the game yet. My actions followed my own stated opinions to the letter.

Post 120- Jayhawk seems very pro-town to me in this post, and smells BS with Ythill. In post 122, Ythill makes some semantic assumptions about Jayhawk being a newbie mafia.

A vague statement. I won’t question your read on North but “smells bullshit?” In that post North poorly argues game theory, and falsely accuses me of word-twisting, denying that he said something I never claimed he said. Can you substantiate his accusation? No. He may smell shit in #120, but it’s on his own shoes.

Post 186- Ythill accuses Shteven of trying to control the thread. Jealous, Mr. TLDR?

This accusation is so baseless and obviously false that I’m going to chalk it up to misunderstanding, probably because you were boggled from the read. I absolutely

did not

accuse Shteven of that. What I did was quote the previous post, where

he

accused

me

of it.

Finally... here’s some of my signature “reflective suspicion”:

I hate when people TELL you a vote is just for pressure… And good contribution by Incognito… The dreaded "pressure" is back. How I loathe that… THANK YOU INCOGNITO… Incognito voices one of my own thoughts...

The most cheerleading yet in one post. Considering the play that I’m about to make, I think you had better explain this. That said, I didn’t get much of a scummy vibe from your post. You made some questionable arguments but, in your defense, they were justifications of first impressions based on a very quick read.

[Ythill]

Actually, this post is going to be easier than I thought. Time to take this game to the next level.

Thanks for #215 Incog. It includes very suspicious semantics arguments, severe stretches, and what appears to be intentional “confusion” allowing you to argue minutiae while dodging the real points. You conveniently note that it isn’t worth bothering to address the rest of the post after only touching on a few of its points. Your #215 is the scummiest thing anyone has posted so far and confirms my read on you.

I’m going to do a 180 on my playstyle here and refrain from picking your post apart quote by quote. You have made a few good points, as was expected, but they are all the easy defenses and make little difference to my overall case. You have committed, in #215, a few of the scumtells already mentioned as such by people I am reading as town. You have also posted some obviously unreasonable defenses. Conveniently enough for me, some of these are defenses to things you were accused of by other players I am reading town. Point? The towniest among us should be able to see your #215 for what it is without any help from me.

Despite your preemptive

oh-no-it-isn’t

, your vote is very clearly OMGUS. Furthermore, it is a quiet leap off of the Apyadg mistake. Shouldn’t a townie accused of a scummy vote justify his vote instead of unvoting it? Further-furthermore, you have leapt onto the player who is unquestionably under the most pressure. With yours as the third vote and two other people actively accusing me, what better place is there for scum to land?

I do not, however, think that my bandwagon is bad for town. In fact, I am encouraging it. If you suspect me, by all means vote me. And, for the clincher, I am ready to claim:

V

ery

i

nteresting

g

ames.

I am a single-shot vigilante (one night kill). If not lynched today, I will confirm tonight by killing the person my vote is on (currently Incog). If that person is lynched, I will kill the person my FoS is on (currently Shteven). From now on I will be confirming my current vote and FoS at the bottom of each of my posts.

Some of you may think this was too quick a play. I disagree and I really hope I’m right about it. From the beginning, I’ve been playing with the assumption that I probably wouldn’t live past N2, which should shed some light on certain points of my behavior. There are a limited number of scenarios which could come of this claim. I am not going to bother addressing any that suppose I am not a vig, because the fact that I am will be proven without question soon.

(1) I am lynched. You will see my role and know that I was not lying. Town will lose a power role but it is a minor one. The confirmation of that role will shed new light onto my 27182637213891236 words and the responses to them. Not a bad exchange as I believe there is a great deal of useful information there. All I ask is that I am given the chance for a “final words” post sometime after L-2.

(2) I am not lynched #1. Scum has bad strategy and I am confirmed by my kill N1. We have a confirmed townie (basically a vanilla at that point, since I’ve used my night kill) and, maybe I’m being overly confidant here, but we have an extra scum killed by my hand.

(3) I am not lynched #2. Scum have middling strategy and I am killed by them N1. Same as combining the above two, except that my death also protects more important power roles. I have already confirmed with the mod that my kill will still happen if I am night-killed.

(4) I am not lynched #3. Scum have excellent strategy, they don’t NK at all. My claim seems false and I am pretty much guaranteed to be lynched D2. But, again, I don’t think my death is the worst thing that could happen to town. Whether D1 or D2, it will reveal my alignment and role which will uncork a mountain of data on other players. Not to mention that this option costs scum a NK.

This outcome could also happen if I am targeted by scum but doc protected. Because it could be the most favorable to scum of the four, I am going to ask that (if we have a doc) I not be protected from N1 NK whether you believe me or not; there are far better targets for protection anyway.

Ythill's current vig targets: Incognito (vote) and Shteven (FoS)

[Ythill]

@ Incog: Even though your response to my claim reads scummy, you’re not dead yet. Please do not claim. Instead, look at my suspicions of you from the perspective of me being town and calmly explain to me why I am mistaken. My goal is to NK scum, not you personally. It’s just that I think you’re scum. Change my mind instead of trying to discredit me.

First, the claim is too early. It almost looks like you were planning it all along and just couldn’t keep from pulling the trigger any longer. Three votes? I don’t consider it a certain scum tell, but it seems either the result of panic or pre-planning.

You are correct. I was planning it all along. The votes had nothing to do with it. Initially, I was going to try to wait until D2 for better information, then pull the trigger. However, I got lucky in catching Incog (and probably a little impatient too). I wanted to claim as punctuation when the context was good for revealing scum and I don’t believe there’s going to be a better time. As for the panic suggestion, ask yourself if my latest defenses sound any more panicked than those posted earlier.

You’re not a vig. You’re a serial killer.

This is a possibility… I wouldn’t even call it far-fetched (from a perspective other than mine). I really can’t post much of a defense here either, except to remind you that the scum don’t know if I’m a vig or SK. I really doubt I’ll live through N1. If I do, you’ll just have to deduce whether or not I’m an SK from my posts and, if there’s doubt, just be sure to lynch me before LYLO.

Whatever you are, why would scum decide that making you the most likely (but not assured) day two lynch would be worth not taking their very certain night one kill?

My assumption here could be a n00b mistake, but… Say the day ends with Incog alive and my vote on him and then he is the only one killed. Is there anything I would be able to say to save myself from the noose? It would be very plain to everyone that I am scum. Not to disagree with you, but I would call that a certain lynch. So scum isn’t losing their kill, they are simply waiting to get it during the day, forcing town to lose a lynch. No real gain there, but no loss either.

The real gains come in other ways. The scenario would be a perfect set-up for role-fishing the doc, which is another reason I asked upfront for no protection. The day-long dynamic where I am certain scum would give ample opportunity for the real scum to gain trust. Imagine the sly mobster that defended me until the end of D2 then turned suspicion back on the townies who lynched me; or the “poor sot” who railroaded me and, when I come up vig, posts what seems like honest surprise and self doubt. With a night to talk about it, they could even get some convincing distancing out of the play. Scum would have ample ammo to attack anyone I’ve supported or defended, or anyone who has done the same to me. Also, scum take a negligible risk (very unlikely that they will lose a kill) to buy more time for hunting power roles. D2 is far better for that, isn’t it?

Note that all of the above

especially

benefits scum if I am wrong about whomever I kill. It would score them an extra body and make my D2 lynch even more certain. Watch for changes in reactions if my listed vote changes before nightfall. Also note that the above benefits them less now that it is out in the open.

But rest assured, if the scum “have an excellent strategy” and don’t kill night one, I will not be swayed an inch with any argument about how those brilliant scum put you in the hot seat.

I wouldn’t expect you to be. What I would expect is for you to be diligently guarding against claim-fishing and pushing for the quick lynch on me to verify my role. Hell, if only my target dies tonight and I’m alive in the morning, I’ll vote myself.

Ythill could be wrong and still be the vig.

Absolutely. I am certain that Incog is scum but we all know how reliable one townie’s certainty is. For this reason, I am open to continue the hunt for as long as it takes. Personally, I think we need to examine Incog more closely, put DS in the hot seat for awhile, work to get better reads on Xtoxm and charter, and double-check Ho1den. By then, we should have enough content from our replacements to look seriously at them. Ideally we will kill two scum here. It is very important that we kill at least one. I might have rushed this strategy, but I am

not

taking my kill lightly.

[Ythill]

Cross-posted a bit...

it would be pretty evident that my death would have been a result of his Vigilantism.

Or of elaborate bussing. Barring that, you make a good point that I hadn't considered. In hindsight, #4 is not "excellent strategy" unless I am wrong about you. None of that changes my read on you or the fact that my claim is confirmable.

Also, I forgot my vote confirm thingy in the last post.

Ythill's vig targets: Incog (vote), Shteven (FoS).

[Ythill]

Ythill, did you really only realize that when Incognito brought it up, as seems to be indicated in post 229? Because that really seems to indicate that you know he's innocent, or if Incognito is not your eventual target that you suspect you'll be killing town. I mean, you really hadn't considered that?

I didn't think it through. When typing my possible outcomes, it occured to me that mafia could screw me by not killing. I didn't consider my target's alignment in that situation at all. Very bad oversight on my part, I know.

First point: does the slip up Incog hypothesises seem like a realistic mistake? Meaning, if I am forward-thinking enough to lay out this elaborate "carpet," does it follow that I am short-sighted enough to miss such an obvious hole in the plan? Second point: the "doc protected" plan seems much more viable if I am scum, so what's the point of me asking the doc not to protect me? In Incog's theory, wouldn't that be entirely counter-productive? As scum, I should have asked for doc protection.

Final point. Look at Incog's actions here and ask yourself why he selected the course he did. He has several options. He could go back and try a real defense against my PBPA, clearing himself enough to put Shteven back in my sights. He could try to find "the real scum" and direct my kill towards them. Or he can look for a mistake in my post and continue to argue desperately to lynch me. Which of these are the most realistic approaches for town? For scum?

It is entirely possible (if not probable) that my claim is true. It is clear that, if I am scum, I will be dead by D2. The obvious move here for any townie is to steer clear of a D1 lynch on me, waiting for my confirmation and lynching me D2 if it does not come. In the case of a townie who is my declared target, the obvious move is to stall the lynch, try and clear himself, and work hard to determine if my #2 suspect is actually scummy.

Insead, Incog analyzes my post and finds a mistake that he immediately (and repeatedly) insists leads to no other conclusion except Ythill=scum + Incog=town even though there is at least one other explanation. He pushes this ruthlessly (look at his recent post count compared to a couple days ago) to try and get town to hang me. Why the rush?

What does he gain as town by chosing this option? As scum? What does he have to lose as town? As scum? Ask yourself the same questions about most of his posts: his hint that he has a power-role, his request for counter claims, his fence-riding habits, his "case" against apyadg, his shifty defense to my PBPA, etc, etc, etc. I am very comfortable letting you all form your own answers to these questions.

Also, take a look at Justin. I think he's pretty clearly a vanilla townie and I have been his top suspect since very early in the game. Yet he is giving my claim the benefit of the doubt. Why? Why wouldn't Incog do the same?

Ythill - did you think about this (if you are town). What if the doc think Incog is town. He protects him. Mafia kill you. Role wasted.

I believe it would be more important to the doc to clear this situation up and gain information from it than it would be to protect my target. If doc protects my target, we are at D2 with no new information, my claim is uncomfirmed and I am more likely to be lynched, and there is a slim posibility that the doc could reveal himself in the process. IMO, only a very inexperienced doc would protect my target. There's more of a risk that I could be targeted by a mafia role-blocker, but it's a slim risk I'm willing to take.

I'm not sure what we should do anymore.

I think it's quite clear actually. If you believe that Incog is town

and

I am scum,

and

are willing to bet my N1K on that (which isn't a huge risk), then lynch me right now. If you think Incog is scum

or

I am town

or

would rather not risk losing the N1K, consider me town for the rest of the day and lets get on with the hunt. As for which of these two things to do, we should take a vote. Oh wait, we already are...

No hard feelings if you lynch me here. Just let me have my last words after L-2 and use all of the information gained by my death to win the game for town. And I insist that I am a

much

better lynch than SSK. Killing him reveals nothing except

his

alignment.

Ythill's vig targets: Incog (vote), Shteven (FoS).

[Ythill]

No matter what's actually going on here you have to admit, the game just got more fun.

Well, what we could do is this: have the doc randomly protect you or Shteven, while the cop (if any) can investigate Ythill tonight.

Which would require the cop to claim D2 as well as revealing whether or not we have a doc. Almost as scummy as asking for a mass-claim D1. Congratulations on changing my mind a bit. I'm knocking Shteven back to #3 and

FoS: Disciple Slayer

.

Ythill's vig targets: Incog (vote), DS (FoS).

[Ythill]

With regards to Incognito's defense, I really liked some of his responses:

OMG another hilarious statement! Now you mention that charter has "taken my bait". Hmmm... Wasn't charter's vote on Apyadg the reason you labeled him as definitive town in your Post 98? It's really funny how you're becoming tangled in your own lies.

In which he does not defend himself from my suggestion (that he is switching votes based on other people's reactions to his fence-sitting trap), but rather picks out an apparent contradiction in my play, suggesting that it is scummy for me to change my mind about somethig after rereading. Note that I mentioned I had changed my mind about charter in the same post Incog is arguing with.

He also suggests that it’s scummy to not link my references even though I

am

posting references which can be easily looked up (I like to keep a second window open for this). Etcetera, etcetera. Incognito’s defense consists largely of very bad attacks against me. The best defense, in mafia, is not an offense.

There's also the post 88 controversy: where does he say a little or a bit odd? It's perfectly fine to paraphrase people's posts, but not if you use quotation marks. And I can't find him saying anything similar, there's no mention of strange or weird either.

Where did I use the phrase "a little odd" or "a bit odd"

in that post?

I just used Ctrl + F to find

the word "odd" on Page 4

, and I only found two instances of the word.

I’ve bolded where Incog has inserted false parameters in my accusation. Which actually reads:

Also Incog

chronically

commits the same sin he accuses Apyadg of, using

phrases like

“a little odd” and “a bit odd.”

Do I say he does it in that post? On page 4? No. I say he does it “chronically.” Do I limit my accusation to “the word odd?” No. I mention “phrases like ‘a little odd’ and ‘a bit odd’. Let’s open up an isolated record of Incog’s posts and do the real count: strange statement (#5); weird, vague post (#7); is somewhat weird (#7); I don't particularly like (#12); a bit odd (#13); kind of odd (#13); at least noteworthy (#16); more noteworthy (#16). That’s eight instances before my PBPA, each one referring directly to behavior that is suspect. I’ve left out several that didn’t refer to such behavior. Since then, he has used such gems as "hilarious" and "cute" to refer to the same behavior, showing that his tendancies are truly

chronic

. So, which one of us is misrepresenting the other?

More importantly, Incog makes it sound like I was saying that his use of such phrases, by itself, is scummy and he is thereby diverting attention from the real argument. I said no such thing and in fact believe no such thing. Let’s look at this bit in context.

He deflects suspicion back on Apyadg, reiterating his use of the word “bad” to vaguely say “scummy"... ...Incog chronically commits the same sin he accuses Apyadg of, using phrases like “a little odd” and “a bit odd.”

I have said that one of the few “scumtells” Incog is using to justify his suspect vote on Apyadg is either (1) a non-tell, (2) a very unreliable tell, or (3) a reliable tell that Incog himself has commited more often than Apyadg has.

My main problem with this is that, in context, Apyadg’s meaning was clear... ...Even in context, these statements of his are less clear than Apyadg’s and could actually be construed as intentionally placing suspicion without coming out and saying it.

I am saying that, if Incog is suggesting that Apyadg’s use of “bad” was scummy because using such vague terminology can be denied or redefined in later arguments, then it should be noted that Incog’s uses of similar terms are even more vague than Apyadg’s.

The conclusion of this argument is that either Incog is using false/mistaken reasons for his suspicious vote on Apyadg or he himself is scummy based on the same reasons. It is a valid argument which Incog clearly dodges. He’s slippery but read him carefully and you will catch a lot of these little tricks. Read my PBPA, his defense, and the posts to which they refer. If there are other specific questions, I will answer them, but I’d rather not have to do all the work here.

[Ythill]

EBWOP:

one of the few “scumtells” Incog is using to justify his suspect vote on Apyadg

This is worded badly. I am not saying that Incog links the vote and the scumtell directly. He doesn't

say

this is why he's voted Apyadg and I didn't mean to suggest that he had.

[Ythill]

First point: does the slip up Incog hypothesises seem like a realistic mistake? Meaning, if I am forward-thinking enough to lay out this elaborate "carpet," does it follow that I am short-sighted enough to miss such an obvious hole in the plan?

Of course it's a realistic mistake. It just happened.

It's realistic because you said it happened? Great logic.

Second point: the "doc protected" plan seems much more viable if I am scum, so what's the point of me asking the doc not to protect me? In Incog's theory, wouldn't that be entirely counter-productive? As scum, I should have asked for doc protection.

Hmm... A little "Wine In Front of Me" perhaps?

Only if there is some reason for scum asking not to be protected, and only if that reason is similar in risk and benefit to the alternative.

You're also acting like that one mistake... ...was the only reason I concluded that you are probably scum.

No. I am acting like the only reason you have "concluded" I am scum (note I don't say probably scum) is that you

still

cannot actually explain the patterns I've found in your play. So you turned a convenient attack on me, not expecting my claim to spoil your gambit. Now you are panicking because you realize I don't need the rest of town to kill you, and you know that, because you are incapable of defending yourself, your only chance is to convince town to lynch me.

Funny thing is: it will not save you. See, your "defenses" absolutely hinge on me being scum. But I'm the vig and

if

you are successful in lynching me, your empty "defenses" will be even more clear. Not to mention the fact that your witchhunt will be seen for what it is. Hence the timing of my claim.

I'm in no rush.

Another post where your only proof of something is the fact that you said it. Too bad you're arguing against statistics. I don't need to post numbers for anyone to see how active you've become all of a sudden. And the main topic of every post you've made since my PBPA? How Ythill is scum. Note also how your tone of desperation has increased since my claim. But you're not rushing to lynch me, not you. Just like you didn't hint at having a power role. Just like you didn't cover your ass from every direction regarding the Apyadg thing, fence-sit and follow onto him, sneak off of him in a flurry of accusations, etc, etc, etc.

And if you're not rushing, why are you acting like someone who's under heavy vote pressure? If I am scum, as you insist I am, then you are safe from my non-existant vig kill, aren't you?

Where did I hint that I have a power role?

...you place me into a weird position since I feel I too am forced to claim just so you won't vig-kill me tonight...

Oooooooops! I guess you

did

do that. Which would have been a dangerous move for a townie, but is fine for you because you are scum.

And what's so bad about my counterclaim request?

My claim is verifiable without a counterclaim. If I am scum false-claiming, your request endangers an actual vig for absolutely no gain. Of course you're not worried about that, because you know my alignment and know my claim to be true.

Seriously, what kind of a townie attempts to figure out the role of another townie?

Generally? All of them. So long as we don't post our beliefs publically, extra information cannot hurt town. Specifically in my case? The kind of vig who doesn't want to accidentally kill a power role. Which is not a danger with you, because you are scum.

I keep giving you the opportunity to log a defense and you keep refusing to do so. Is it because you are unable to? If not, why have you not made a defense? You're only convincing me more and more, which means that you will die tonight.

[Ythill]

Also:

The obvious move here for any townie is to steer clear of a D1 lynch on me, waiting for my confirmation and lynching me D2 if it does not come...

And this would be assuming I have actually bought your claim of being the One-Shot Night-Kill Vigilante, in which case I haven't.

Would it assume that? I doubt Justin has "bought" my claim. The thing is, it's confirmable on its own. What "this" does assume is that you want town to win, which you do not.

[Ythill]

The One-Shot-Vig itching to claim after three votes (especially from a player who says he has a very high IQ) AND looking to shoot his wad on N1... very suspect.

I've already stated that my timing had nothing to do with the votes. It had everything to do with punctuating Incog's "defense." Also, some of us did notice DS' blatant post. His next one (after the one you quoted) is also highly suspect.

@ Justin: Good advice, thank you.

Unvote, un-FoS

. I will probably be a little less active over the next few days, so as to stop being so damn distracting.

[Ythill]

I would like to read the first part of your DS case, Justin.

[Ythill]

Can't... stay... away...

I would like to read the first part of your DS case, Justin.

He already provided it~

Yeah. An oooops on my part. Checked the game by refreshing page 11. Didn't notice page 12 until this morning.

I'm not going to get involved in the question of my claim here. I'm not opposed to a DS vote, but am abstaining for the moment because I would like more information before we lynch

anyone

. Reiterating that I am taking my night kill very seriously.

I still would like to hear defenses from Incog that suppose I am town because, for obvious reasons, I have trouble seeing the logic in defenses that hinge on me being scum. I believe the people we know the least about (in no particular order) are Xtoxm, Apyadg, charter, klaus, and kuribo. Did I miss anyone?

Also, I have a question for the field. Please everyone, answer directly. Assuming we lynch DS, who should I NK and why?

[Ythill]

Thanks for the direct answer. Awaiting others...

I think that 2:SK:9 and/or 2:2:8 and/or 3:SK:8 and or 2:10 could be balanced by tweaking the power-roles enough. 3 mafia isn't a foregone conclusion but it is probably the safest guess. Then again, I'm not that experienced so I could be wrong about this.

[Ythill]

@ Shteven: Not going to discuss my plans, just want to get people's individual opinions.

[Ythill]

I just realised if there's a mafia roleblocker you're wasting you're one kill

Funny, because I already mentioned the role-blocker risk in post #241. I'm looking forward to reading Xtoxm's response to kuribo.

[Ythill]

Also, I have a question for the field. Please everyone, answer directly. Assuming we lynch DS, who should I NK and why?

And stop fishing for direction. You're so eager to move on to night, when if you're town, you should be here on Day 1 trying to get the best lynch off.

I think I've made it clear that I'm not eager for night. Rather, I want to gather as much information as I can before it happens. Hence my question which, by the way, serves the dual purpose of helping me decide as well as prompting everyone (including scum) to post more of their opinions for consideration in the hunt.

It has been noted that you haven't answered. And that you are directing ridiculous attacks at me though my alignment is almost certain to be revealed in the near future. What are you trying to accomplish here?

Finally, I find it highly unbelievable that any townie would have a problem with speculation about scum power-roles.

[Ythill]

@ Shteven: promise me you will join me for a conversation about vig tactics once this game is complete. Pretty please? I think it would be both fun and enlightening.

All of the above simply cannot be true.

I’m going to step up and defend Apyadg or, more correctly, defend my read on him because I think he’s explained himself quite clearly as regards his unvote. Not only is there a scenario by which all of the indicated statements could be true, it’s also the most likely/reasonable scenario: in #47 Apyadg is unsure as to whether lynching for bad play is a good idea, but is willing to vote SSK anyway because he thinks he’s scummy; in #60 (after I have argued that lynching for bad play is not wise), Apyadg still suspects SSK but has decided not to pursue an SSK lynch based on his bad play, so he unvotes; in #70, Apyadg reiterates this; in #71 (after Incog has suggested that there is no reason to

fear

an SSK lynch) Apyadg reiterates again, explaining that it was not fear that motivated his unvote, but the fact that he had decided not to pursue a lynch on SSK.

Basically stated: Apyadg is unsure about strategy but thinks he has a read, he makes up his mind about strategy and acts accordingly without changing the read, people get on his case for it and he defends himself without changing his story. I think this is quite plain. I’m certainly not clearing Apyadg completely but I think this unvote case is the proverbial dead horse and I, for one, don’t buy it.

That's just it, your actions DON'T make it clear that you're not eager for night.

Right, because I’m voting for... nobody. So I must be impatient for night because I’m leading a crusade to lynch my PE#1... no, wait... that would be Incog and what I’ve actually been doing is repeatedly urging him to lodge a reasonable defense. Then I must be impatient because I’m drilling town to lynch the most pressured player... no, wait... that would be DS, whom I haven’t pointed out scummy behavior in since before his little wagon got going.

Yet I have made 738926213812365123 statements seeded throughout this thread cautioning us to avoid rash decisions until we have a decent amount of information from everybody. One of these was posted along with my question about NK opinions and it’s pretty clear: “I'm not opposed to a DS vote, but am abstaining for the moment because I would like more information before we lynch

anyone

.” In that same post I give an extensive list of the information we need before we allow night to fall.

You, my friend, have posted shenanigans. You want to think I’m scum? Fine. But if you’re going to bring a case against me before D2, please be certain it’s a damn good one because otherwise you and I are both being a distraction.

The Nice:

...

Ythill

Yay! Somebody likes me, which makes me feel good personally... but could certainly have ulterior motives at this point. I’ve faced heavy suspicions from 5 players and there’s no way we have 5 scum, so there must be some reasonable dirt on me. At least enough to drop me to MotR on a player analysis? This is especially the case since I spent the early part of the game

intentionally

dropping minor scumtells as part of my “secret infallible plan.” Of course, scum and myself

know

that I am town and therefore about to be confirmed. Clearing me is a smart play from replacement scum coming into the thread at this point.

I am not saying that the above

is

what you are doing. I am mentioning that it

could be

what you’re doing but am willing to also keep in mind the possibility of your reads being honest until one or the other of these explanations is disproven.

Regarding Justin, I have recently entertained new scenarios in which he would be scum and at least one of them is plausible. Still, your case is pretty empty and I look forward to his response. Regarding Incog, I agree with you about his alignment but I find it very suspicious when anyone makes a meta-claim about someone without naming the game.

[Ythill]

I think the mistake was honest.

I felt the same way, though I couldn't have explained why so clearly. The accusation was absolutely untrue but also not very scummy. I thought shenanigans was a good word for it.

[Ythill]

Or you've posted a false dichotomy. And a lame one at that. It's pretty obvious IQ boy isn't playing the VI and what, pray tell, would be the purpose of scum admitting intentional tell-dropping in response to someone putting him on the "nice" list? You're like a kid throwing a tantrum kuribo: long on aggression, short on sense. I think someone needs a time-out.


Thing is, I feel like kuribo believes he is scumhunting. This is just more shenanigans.

Mod: did we get prods on charter and Apyadg?

[Ythill]

Note: the above was cross-posted with Xtoxm.

[Ythill]

_{@ Xtoxm: I never said that. You are answering for me, but you are mistaken.}

Kurbio, briefly calling pooh-pooh by its proper name is absolutely constructive at this juncture, but you’re obviously stuck on this ridiculous inquisition so I suppose I’ll have to address it more directly. Your latest post has either disproved the VI half of your false dichotomy or proved it to be rhetorical, so I’ll just address the second half.

WIFOM really is the I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong buzzword on this site, isn’t it? To be WIFOM, an argument must address one or more possible courses of action that

benefit the player accused of taking them

. There is zero benefit in me (as scum) making the “intentional scumtell” statement, for several reasons. (1) It was made in response to a player who was reading me as town, if I was trying to look innocent I wouldn’t have challenged his read at all. (2) In context the statement would only excuse past scumtells, from which I’ve already defended myself, there’s absolutely no reason for me to argue with a town read on me in order to vaguely suggest a second, weaker defense to past tells. (3) My claim already seems to have protected me from a D1 lynch, me making borderline scummy statements in order to further “prove” my innocence would be ludicrous.

Furthermore, if you must insist that I would somehow benefit from the above and therefore that the argument truly is WIFOM, remember that

you are the one who raised the question of my motives

. In this case, an (actual) WIFOM assertion only disproves

your accusation

.

I think he wanted some suspicion on him so he could claim

OMFG, LOL. What difference does it make why I did it? Nobody’s guesses can be proved or disproved. Neither can I prove the actuality of it, but I suppose I should probably register it here.

There is one very good reason for any power role to drop minor scumtells: avoiding the night kill. Note that, before the Incog case, I had been hoping to pull the trigger on my plan on D2, meaning I had to ensure that I would live through N1, meaning that I had to get a few votes from diligent scumhunters. There is another reason as well, but I’m not even going to bother getting that deep into theory here.

Repeating this

again

for Xtoxm’s benefit: the timing of my claim had

nothing

to do with the votes on me; it had

everything

to do with my argument vs. Incog. I would have made the claim at that point

even if nobody at all was voting me

. Everyone in this game seems stuck in the mindset that claims should only be made under the hammer, which is almost as ludicrous as kurbio’s attacks.

Now kurbio, I’m going to repeat this clearly, hopefully for the last time. I am comfortable with a D1 Ythill lynch. If you are, then vote me and shut the hell up about it. If you are not, then just shut the hell up about it. My death is almost a certainty either way. Your non-cases are doing nothing except distracting us from reading others.

[Ythill]

Obviously you are either too unintelligent to understand logic, or pretending the same to be true. Either way, arguing with you is pointless. I will henceforth be ignoring everything you say about me (and probably the rest of your spew), at least until day two.

If anyone wants me to address anything kurbio brings up, please restate it.

[Ythill]

Sorry Ythill, clearly I was mistaken, I thought that's what you said.

No problem. You've yet to make a mistake anyhwere near as bad as the one I made in #218.

Where's everyone else today?

[Ythill]

Woooooot! We're immortal!

Actually, by "everyone else" I meant Justin, Incog, Shteven, and Claus. And I thought maybe DS would grace us with another drive-by scuntell.

For the record, I believe I've come to a solid read on Xtoxm and kurbio.

[Ythill]

Jealous, Mr. TLDR? ...I genuinely believe that Ythill is a liability to the town... Unless you've planned "I hope I get lynched and screw the town," this has to be the worst plan I've ever heard.... to admit it is either drop-dead village idiocy or... Just because you type alot doesn't mean you're right... oh, and captain mcwordy shouldn't tell people to shut up... Yes, I'm sorry that I can't grasp the logic behind your "super secret pro-town plan." Maybe you should stop taking things so personally.

But I'm childish because I can't just sit here and read this sort of thing and not react? I'm a bad guy because I want to have logical two-way conversations about the game?

During my first game on mafiascum, I met a player who very much reminds me of kuribo. He called himself "aggressive" and shouted insultingly about how this and that were scummy, but refused to carry on actual conversations. If I dared to prove him wrong, he glazed over it by acting dense and continued his egomaniacal diatribe as if I hadn't spoken at all. Eventually, he degraded into calling me names and swearing at me until I replaced out of the game.

So, yeah, I might be a little touchy regarding this sort of thing.

Your posting has degraded on this page... you're starting to get far too self-righteous... saying "nah nah nah nah I'm right and you're wrong and I'M NOT LISTENING" has to be one of the most childish things I've seen here.

So this game is suddenly no longer about our roles? It's about us as people?

My questioning kurbio's intelligence (which I suggested might have been an act) was game related: he had slipped out of an argument by pretending not to understand it. My choice to ignore kuribo's accusations during D1 was game-related: I think the question of my guilt/innocence is spurious until tomorrow and so do a lot of you,

including kurbio

, or so he said anyway. Nothing about me ignoring him says "I'm right and [he is] wrong," it's just me trying to minimize the distractions. The "nah nah nah" part was yours alone.

I do apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings and admit that my tone hasn't been entirely free of ad hom but, really, can we concentrate on the game?

[Ythill]

[mrow]Responses to Incog

After reading all of the reactions generated after your claim, do you still believe claiming was the right thing to do?

Yes. I think the strategy is sound. My one concern is that I could be wrong about you, in which case I’ve blown the wad on this plan without nearly as much benefit. So if you turn up town at some point I will concede that the strategy was ill-timed, but I still believe it to be valid.

You've now removed your vote and FoS from underneath all of your posts, but where do you currently stand with your issues against me?

I removed these on the advice of both Justin and Shteven, agreeing that broadcasting my night kill was bad for town. On the issue of your alignment, I stand where I’ve stood since your response to my PBPA. I believe that most of your defenses hinge on the supposition that I am scum and that the few others rely on false logic or assumptions. I would like to hear you frankly discuss the “actual” motives behind some of your questionable play (from the PBPA).

Also, you've indicated that you too are suspicious of Disciple Slayer, and you would vote against him but you're waiting for his response. What do you think of both me and Shteven voting against Disciple Slayer as of current?

I believe that DS’ lack of a response speaks pretty loudly considering his posting habits. What I’m waiting for is more information on others. I’d like a good read on Claus, and would like to spend some time looking at charter and Apyadg which is a bit frustrating since they’re not here. As for you and Shteven on the wagon, I don’t have a lot to say about that. Considering current events, bussing DS would be appropriate. I’ve already said I don’t consider my own certainty foolproof and I would be pretty surprised to find that all three of you were scum though I think it’s a safe bet that at least one of you are, which opens up a ton of scenarios. These all seem pretty plausible to me now but will be far more clear once we know one or more of the alignments involved.

You were highly suspicious of both me and Shteven, so why have you not questioned the wagon formed on DS?

After the way DS reacted to my claim and then vanished again, I find it very hard to question anyone for voting him. To townies, he has negated any belief that he might have been a power role and has seriously tainted his reputation, possibly beyond repair. To scum, he’s either become a patsy or the perfect mislynch. [mrow]Response to Justin

God help me, I think I’m starting to understand how you think.

That must be unpleasant. Only point on this part of your post: I do not intend to hold anyone else responsible for my decision. If I do so, I trust you’ll call me on it at that time. I agree that my defense of Apyadg relies on WIFOM somewhat. I wouldn't consider it a factual discourse on his meaning/motives but rather a possibility, where your statement was that you didn’t see any honest possibilities. It is only my opinion that it is the most reasonable possibility and I don’t expect you to agree with me there. As for the #47 --> #92 transformation, I agree that it is the strongest point of the case. However, I do believe there is at least one non-scummy possibility here. Where we differ is on the subtle levels of our read of what Apy means in #92. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think he is giving

more reasons to unvote

in #92 after explicitly claiming earlier that my argument was the only reason for his unvote, and is therefore not being truthful. Whereas, in #92, I see Apy

arguing against

supposed reasons to keep his vote on SSK (intending a lynch and/or pressure). To illustrate this possibility further: from reads we can see that (A) Apy was suspicious of SSK (B) he was unsure as to whether lynching for bad play was a good idea (C) he didn’t have another suspect. Let’s give his tell-based suspicion of SSK an entirely arbitrary score of +1 (reason to lynch); SSK’s bad play would be worth +1 or –1 depending on whether he decided lynching for bad play was a good or bad idea, so his “total reasons to lynch SSK” is either 2 or 0, which is worth a vote to him since he doesn’t have anywhere better to put it (and he mentions that he’s not sure if this is worth a lynch on SSK). Once Apy decided lynching for bad play was a bad idea, he sees that 1-1=0, he decides that there isn’t reason to lynch SSK, and he unvotes. When questioned in depth, he claims that he didn’t have a reason to lynch (analogy translation: the equation equaled zero) and suggests that a pressure vote in this case was not a factor (analogy translation: pressure was not +1 in the equation). Does this make any sense at all?

[Ythill]

On current events: I think it's pretty clear that neither Xtoxm or Kurbio are scum.

I think that any Xtoxm behavior which could be construed as defending me has only appeared since my claim. Before that time, I was his PE#2 and he was actively attacking me. I agree with kurbio that fishing for town opinion is a scumtell but don't personally think this is enough to outweigh the Xtoxm towntells I've seen.

[Ythill]

@ Claus: Nice defense. If you're scum, you're slippery. I'll keep that in mind. And yes, I'll admit I do play pretty clumsy. That whole

#4: really smart scum won't kill anyone

thing definately qualifies for the "Worst Scumtell You Have Dropped As Town" thread.

As you put it, he didn't make his mind, but used your reasons instead to make his mind. He used everyone's reason to vote, and your reasons to unvote.

Apy clearly used his own reason to vote. I did call him on using only my reasons to unvote and still have it listed as a scumtell, but I also think his defense to my accusation was sound.

I'm thinking your town read of him might be pride of having convinced him

I considered that but I don't believe it is was the case, especially since the read didn't come until much later. Having said that, I am questioning two of my town reads now: Apyadg and charter.

[Ythill]

@ Incog: I appreciate your willingness to defend yourself in a non-OMGUS manner. I can see how responding to the PBPA could have been tough because it was quite extensive. Let's just take things from here for now.

If you really are the Vig and still feel like I haven't swayed your opinion of me, then unfortunately I guess you'll just have to shoot me tonight to find out my alignment. If it comes down to that, I'm hoping that enough information has been provided from me and people's reactions towards me to at least lead the town in a positive direction.

I’m noting the appeal to emotion here. I can assure you that I have not made the final decision on my NK yet and probably wont until night or just before. It might not be you. It will absolutely be whomever I think is the best kill for town, regardless of the target’s feelings.

...my issues with you were different from Shteven's and kuribo's issues.

I haven’t verified whether they were or not. Your issues with me in/after post #215 were reliant almost entirely on my attack against you. Even if it is a fact that you are scum and fence-sitting at every opportunity before my attack, there is no similar temptation for you to fence-sit or follow during your OMGUS on me. So your point is irrelevant to the question of your earlier behavior.

Disciple Slayer wasn't being scrutinized by anyone when I first mentioned my issues with him...

Again, reaching for a defense does not require the same scum strategy as setting up a mislynch, so it wouldn’t disprove other fence-sitting if your cases against DS were lone and unique, but

I did

check up on your statement here and it doesn’t look good.

Unless you're talking about when you called DS out for lurking (which you did to a lot of people), your first suspicions of him show up in #191, the post during which it appears you are preempting my PBPA. In that post you make three accusations. Not only were other people already looking at DS before then, but all three of your accusations had already been made by other players:

I'm extremely leery of Disciple Slayer.

Justin Playfair brings up information that's at least noteworthy about him

with regard to how he was able to rapidly appear in the thread after I called him out for non-posting.

(bold added for emphasis)

I think more noteworthy though is how Disciple Slayer promised player summaries following his reread but instead, only followed that statement up with a player list and a vote on Shteven.

Which Shteven pointed out in #184.

That's twice now where Disciple Slayer has been able to look at things retrospectively, gather information from the evidence provided, and place a vote on the player feeling the most pressure at said time.

The first instance of which was pointed out, including the part about the advantage of retrospection, by Ho1den in #91.

This sets up your next mention of DS in your defense to my PBPA:

And so you find me scummier than Disciple Slayer for making Post 109 than his Post 89 in which he pops up out of nowhere to place a vote on Apyadg? I think you've been awfully accommodating towards Disciple Slayer this whole game. Apyadg was already being questioned by Ho1den, and I became suspicious of Disciple Slayer for placing a vote on Apyadg the way he did. Considering Disciple Slayer's action, I was actually beginning to form a different opinion about Apyadg but I was still waiting for the scum-hunting that he promised before removing my vote. He has yet to provide us with that scum-hunting.

Translation: DS is scummier than me. Ythill and DS must me scumbuddies. See how I suspected DS a few posts ago? I almost unvoted Apyadg before Ythill brought it up.

The next time you mention DS is in #239. You quote him, say “Heh. Spoken like Ythill's scum buddy,” and then proceed to “prove” that I am scum without mentioning him again. The next place you suspect him is in #278 where you openly follow Shteven and Justin onto the DS wagon after he’s dropped his smoking gun and even I have FoSed him.

As an aside, something else of note appears in that last block-quote above: you say, “I was actually beginning to form a different opinion about Apyadg,” which is a little suspect considering what you just said to Claus.

[Ythill]

@ Incog: Realizing this AM that my rambling argument was unfair (in the same way as my PBPA) without a few summary questions for you to respond to. So...

Can you explain how unique and/or self-motivated cases against me and DS would clear you of earlier allegations of fence-sitting and following? Why did you claim that nobody else was scrutinizing DS when it was untrue? Why did you say that your issues against DS were self-motivated when none of them were unique?

[Ythill]

@ Apy: I'm sure the other players appreciate your return to this subject. Personally, I'm more concerned with the scum-hunting you promised. Any idea when you'll be able to catch up and address current topics and/or your suspects?

[Ythill]

Meh.

Apy, I don't think it matters which method of hunting town wants to see from you. The crux of the problem is that the most questionable part of your earlier behavior (IMO and perhaps some others) was that you left the SSK wagon without any other suspicions, said that you would form those suspicions but never did, and then disappeared.

So, I guess do whatever will best help you form opinions. I also guess we're waiting for

something

from you, since the thread's gone so dead.

[Ythill]

@ Incog: Thanks again for discussing this matter. Our dialogue may or may not change my mind about you. However, in the event that we are both town (which I know we both doubt) and only one of us dies, this conversation will help the rest of the town make a good decision regarding the fate of the other.

In response to your PBPA I mentioned that if I was truly lumping individuals up to eventually jump on the wagon that gained strength, I would have also lumped your name in there along with Apyadg and ChronX since technically you also joined the SSK wagon before he admitted to lying. I mentioned that I didn't include your name in that post though because you had classified your vote on MafiaSSK as a pressure vote instead of a serious one.

This was one of the points from your defense I considered logically un-sound. Assuming you are town, this makes sense as you have stated it. Assuming you are scum, not lumping me in with the others for your stated reasons still makes sense. After all, if you have already seen (and personally pointed out) the difference between my vote and the others, then it wouldn’t make any sense for scum-Incog to lump us all together.

In short: your defense here does not actually address your alignment but, instead, attempts to discredit my theory by suggesting false “town-only” motivations for a course of action that would benefit either alignment. Comments?

My self-motivated cases against you and DS would also help clear your allegations.

The reason I claim that they do not is that they were made from a desperate position rather than an allegedly conniving position. Do you see the difference here?

I was going from memory when I made my previous post, and I could have sworn that I was the first person to mention problems with DS's posts. Ho1den did make a comment before me though so you're right in saying it was untrue.

Your candor here does not clear you altogether, but I do appreciate it. I believe that this equates to a concession on your part: the DS case was not unique and can therefore be dropped from your most recent defense. Would you explicitly agree?

Finally, do you have any comments regarding Apy’s return? I am willing to put our chat on hold if you would like to dedicate your entire focus to questioning him for a little while, as I believe such an interaction could potentially shed more light on his alignment and yours.

[Ythill]

I fail to see how my case against Disciple Slayer was made from a desperate position. I had touched on at least part of my issues with DS well before you even suggested that you would be working on a PBPA of me. My first mentioning of DS was back on December the 11th and then again on the 13th...

We are running into problems with the same gray area that you argue the other side of to justify your actions regarding Ho1den and ChronX. Namely, what constitutes an accusation/attack/case/whatever? By my original definition, the 12/11 and 12/13 posts do constitute an accusation but then so does the behavior you and Justin call "clarification."

I have differentiated (and I believe I said so earlier) between your more overt case against DS (which comes from a "desperate" position) and your early attacks against him for lurking (which is what the 12/11 and 12/13 posts amount to). The reason for this differentiation: you have been outspoken about inactivity all along, regardless of the culprit.

That said, this point has nurtured my doubt a bit. I'll keep it in mind. At the moment, my interest has been piqued by the Apy situation as well as the Justin vs. Claus matter.

[Ythill]

I'm still here.

Good Defense? Slippery? Uh, I didn't realize you were attacking me. Or are you commenting to my previous answers to Incognito?

Meh. 'Twas a jab.

I'll be pretty busy tomorrow. Hopefully I can work in a post but, if not, I'll be back on Sunday.

[Ythill]

Just made a realization on my way to bed. Completely unrelated to the conversation at hand but important enough to point out...

Justin suggested (and I think some others echoed) the fact that I could be a SK even if a second body hits the ground tomorrow, but wouldn't that body be chainsawed? As a vig, my target will be shot. Problem cleared up, methinks.

Not that I'll live through the night.

[Ythill]

What? there's a verbose war, and you claim I'm winning? Or is that losing...heh.

Ha. Eat my dust puny-word-count boy.

Just checking in, not inspired to add content at the moment.

[Ythill]

What? there's a verbose war, and you claim I'm winning? Or is that losing...heh.

Ha. Eat my dust puny-word-count boy.

Am I the only person that doesn't like long, rambling posts?

Was joking, making fun of my own blabbermouthness.

[Ythill]

Ha! Xtoxm was the last to post! He's sc... Oh, wait.

Just checking in.

[Ythill]

Wow, serious cross-post. I agree with Incog. This game is limping along. Sad.

[Ythill]

He dipped out to the point of being replaced and by the looks of it, he was scum.

What do you mean by "by the looks of it?" How does his previous play as scum suggest his alignment in this game without having his previous play as town for comparison?

Also, he lied about forgetting about this game.

What evidence supports this?

[Ythill]

I just wanted to present some evidence that would at least suggest that Apy could have been doing the same thing within our game.

I think that it only suggests that Apy stops posting under pressure. Though it is a gambler's fallacy, his confirmation as scum also suggests that he is town in this game, statistically speaking.

Forgive my supposition if you simply misspoke yourself, but why would you

want

to find evindence against Apy specifically?

I've gone through my evidence previously a few posts back in response to you but just to reiterate, both Xtoxm and I confirmed that we had each seen Apyadg browsing this forum...

I didn't remember you specifically calling it a lie. Was feeling a litte lazy and didn't look back at what you said. Sorry 'bout that and thanks for reiterating.

The agreement of two unconfirmed roles is hardly proof in a game where there's at least two scum alive, but I'll grant you a strong circumstantial case here. Would he have registered as browsing Little Italy if he'd direct-linked to other games in the forum? Were the instances of his browsing consistant throughout the period of absence or, to put it another way, is it possible he forgot about the game temporarily?

And no, I don't believe in LAL. If I did, I'd have been pushing SSK long ago. I think people lie for various strategic and personal reasons whether they are scum or town.

[Ythill]

Jesus, guys, enough with the meta.

Point taken. I know you dislike it and have tried to minimize, but it's also the only content discussion going on right now. Not to mention that its really all we have to go on regarding Apy.

His newest disappearance is certainly making me wonder about him.

[Ythill]

The gambler's fallacy is just that - a fallacy.

Yeah, I know. Hence the term "suggests" rather than "proves". Hitting two 25%s in a row isn't impossible (or even highly unlikley), but it is less likely than the alternatives. Heck, hitting 25% once is less likely than the alternatives.

I'm still not comfortable participating in an Apy lynch based on what's been posted. Our best strategy with him is to prod and replace. DS is a scummier (and therefore better) option and his lynch is supported by a wider range of players, which makes me feel safer about it.

That said, the flakiness on this site is quite frustrating. I'm getting pretty bored with the pace of this game. I'm okay with waiting for replacements but see no need to drag my own feet anymore. So I might as well

vote: Disciple Slayer

.

DS has been known to check in after being prodded in-thread by players. Maybe a bigger wagon will inspire him to defend himself.

Mod: please prod Apyadg and Disciple Slayer.

[Ythill]

Some folks

are

waiting for replacements. At least one other is waiting for DS to return. Personally, I was waiting to get a read on Claus and for the chance to verify my reads on charter/Ho1den/Apy. I feel like I've gotten all I'm going to get along those lines, other than conducting a thorough investigation of the replacements out of the gate. I was also waiting for a more reasonable defense from Incog, which has come.

Still, I have no problem with others' waiting.

[Ythill]

I’m going to wait until tomorrow before I place my vote.

Probably a good play. If my count is accurate, your vote would put him @ L-1 with a couple of "suspicious characters" (Incog and Apy) not voting for him. Though I'm not sure what he could say to change my mind about him, I really wish DS would say

something

in his defense.

[Ythill]

His sig says /out for all games and now...

Yeah, you said that earlier, didn't you? Again, I apologize. The pace of the game is making my play sloppy as my interest here is fading a bit. Grumble...

For the moment...

unvote

. Pressure obviously isn't going to bring DS back. I'd like to hear opinions on this matter from everyone on the DS wagon, as well as from Justin, Incog, and whomever else is actually still playing this game. DS

did

follow up scummy, lurkish play by dropping a pair of smoking guns and I am not fundamentally opposed to lynching him even in his absence but i'd rather not let people sit quietly on his wagon while this happens.

[Ythill]

On the more important topic: I'd be happy to cross-replace, especially since I'm probably going to die tonight. Which brings up another option:

Bolded for Mod Input: In the event of my death, I am also willing to re-replace into this game if people think it would be appropriate. My only stipulation is that the role be randomized so that there is no inference of moderator reasoning for new role assignmnets. I would have no problem with others doing this as well. I've seen it used before in other games without serious negative effect. I am capable of separating the roles and even playing for the win as scum despite my initial alignment. I think our other active players would be capable of this as well. It's not a perfect fix, but is preferable to abandoning the game IMO.

On to other matters...

Maybe if we’re lucky the bad guys will be nice enough to take the number down to three.

I doubt it. Leaving a basically confirmed townie is too big a sacrifice. It is pretty clear that I'll be killed tonight. If we are

really

lucky (or I am anyway), all of our scum are among the slackers and they won't kill anybody. Lol.

Tempted to ask Ythill to use his possible kill to take out another, but I think all his top suspects are among the present, and the vig kill is too potent a weapon to use for random brush clearing.

I've considered this, but... replacing SSK is going to be the only way to determine his alignment, my reads on Ho1den and charter are town (for the most part) and I'm unwilling to kill town just to make a point, Apy is a little more suspect but my suspicions of Incog prevent me from acting so dynamically on a case he has championed. Maybe I'll kill Apy anyway, but I have other ideas at the moment. Learning the alignment of our lynch will be a factor in making my final decision. But don't expect me to kull a flake if I think another move would be more beneficial to town.

I'd still like to hear Shteven, Claus, and kurbio give their thoughts about lynching a non-accounted-for DS

but I do see the value of moving on here. In an ironic twist, it seems that Incog and I are the two who will do the deed. Incog, if you vote I will hammer.

[Ythill]

Again, I disagree. Do you realize how much shit could happen in one night that might give everyone a skewed opinion about Ythill if we all really do accept his claim as a given? The

only

thing that would confirm his as town in my eyes would be an innocent cop investigation or his death and the mod revealing his role.

Xtoxm was more correct than kurbio in identifying the reason I believe I'm a sure-fire NK. While you personally doubt me quite thoroughly, others have expressed different views of the confirmation of a second body. It is my belief that scum won't be likely to leave a "confirmed townie" alive on D2, but I could be wrong. In fact, I hope I'm wrong.

I'm going to place the hammer as promised, but first I wanted to post some last words just in case.

• Apy: I’m very wary of the case against him because of my current suspicions. Carefully scrutinize any D2 case against his replacement. If he dies and comes up town, put Incog and Justin in the hot seat.
  
• charter: My initial read on him was town to the core. My reread revealed enough dirt to question that conclusion, but not enough to call him scum. Grill his replacement.
  
• Claus: Either he’s scum or Justin is, for a lot of reasons that will be apparent during a reread. Chief among these was their recent debate, which was too slippery to be town vs. town and too reaching to be distancing. Also, Claus as scum clears Incog while Incog as scum is almost required for any scenario that embroils Justin.
  
• Ho1den: My read on him is still town to the core but that doesn’t mean his replacement gets a free ride.
  
• Incog: Copy his defenses to a text document and, once my alignment is revealed, delete every defense that in any way includes the supposition that I am scum or am purposefully railroading him. In doing so, you will reveal how weak his defenses really were and then you can reread my PBPA on him to see how many suspicions he couldn’t answer. This was a large part of my “secret plan” and also the reason that I kept asking him for reasonable defenses (because I didn’t want to run up a townie for overreacting).
  
• Justin: Reread his first attack against me and my defense, look at how he stretches the truth. I had a town read on Justin for a long time and
  much of it is still valid
  but there were a few scumtells that surfaced after I made that statement. Most of the evidence against Justin lay in his interactions with Incog and Incog’s targets, so redouble investigations against Justin if Incog comes up scum. He’s probably a good cop investigation.
  
• kurbio: Despite our disagreements, I think this guy is town. If I’m alive tomorrow, I’ll welcome his statements as to my alignment because they will once again be relevant. He’s new and should be tested, but so far I don’t find him suspicious at all.
  
• Shteven: He spent some time as my PE#1. I still find him scummy but have realized that the majority of the tells I uncovered regarding he and his predecessor were dropped while defending and under pressure which, IMO, makes them less reliable. As with Incog, check his interactions with me to discredit his OMGUS and reflective suspicions once my alignment has been confirmed by my death.
  
• SSK: I know it’s been said that I’ve defended this guy. What I’ve been arguing against is the VI lynch. SSK should be replaced and/or investigated. If you are town, you will not lynch him until one of these things happens.
  
• Xtoxm: My read on him has been leaning town for most of the game, but his late D1 play taints him a bit. I agree with kurbio that a D2 Xtoxm hunt is important to town winning this game. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him scum, but I really wouldn’t call him town anymore either.

I guess that’s it. Goodnight everyone.

Vote: Disciple Slayer

And about me being the vig, here's a preemptive "I told you so".

[Ythill]

Woot! Go town!

[Ythill]

FTR, I had Justin tentatively pegged as the last scum when he killed Jester, not that it mattered 'cause dead men tell no tales.

You guys are goofy for thinking I'd give info with my "woot" post. In actuality, the only reason I posted "woot" instead of "bah" was because I'd died on purpose and so I figured "bah" was inappropriate.

Also... I suspected charter was the cop D1. My head was in my hands when Justin didn't kill him because I knew JP, kuribo, and SSK wouldn't read back for pre-replacement breadcrumbs.

C

an some

o

f the

p

eople who haven't posted yet post?

Oh well. Good game everyone. I've got to go to work now but sometime in the next couple of days I will, as promised, open a thread in Mafia Discussion for chatting about one-shot vig strategy.

[Ythill]

That crumb is so vague I think it's an accident.

I doubt it, though I’d love to hear charter’s word here. I doubt it because it immediately followed my breadcrumb; it was the first line of a short, otherwise pointless post; and I tested the waters with my “definitive town” read on charter (Ho1den was a smokescreen to hide the role talk) which he reacted to with surprise and concern.

I could be wrong though. I just wish someone else had noticed it when Gorgon claimed.

Not looking scummy is something i've been told on multiple occasions I gotta work on.

I didn’t think your playstyle was very scummy. I thought it was a playstyle easily manipulated by scum, but I was pretty convinced you were town, especially mid-game. I did question your alignment at the end but wouldn’t have voted you over Justin. And I did question it a bit on D1 because I hadn’t gotten a solid read yet.

Seriously, I don’t think you need much work. In fact, your playstyle with very minor adjustments would be excellent for trapping opportunistic scum.

Btw, was Ythill really one shot?

Yes sir. And here is the theory topic as promised. I think you did a really good job as scum, Shteven. North was a dead man. You replaced in and managed to take the heat off long enough that we strung up DS. Justin certainly helped you, but good show!

BTW, the DS lynch will forever haunt me as the cost of n00bness and impatience. I will never lynch another absent player as town, at least not on D1.

Xtoxm, you are not the only one that has to work on that part of the game (not looking scummy)...

Don't feel too bad about it. English as a second language makes you seem like an easy target for scum, and it makes your defenses less comprehensible. This isn't the only game where I've seen the bilingual player pushed hard toward mislynch. I think I'm going to start considering that a possible tell.

I think that Ythill killed me not as much as because he thought I was scum, as because my death would reveal the most information about most players, since I had a very strong opinion of a lot of players.

It was both. Your opening town read on me really pinged my scumdar because I had seriously been trying to look scummy and had faced suspicion from many angles. Your read seemed like a lie and it was one that followed scummy motivations. When I pointed that out, your too-casual reply confirmed it for me.

I couldn’t kill Incog because he was the target of my vig gambit and it would have been a wasted bullet (I never planned on killing him). I considered Shteven, SSK, Apyadg, and even Justin for the kill. It was a tough decision (I think I turned in the choice a few hours before deadline) but in the end I chose Claus because, of the candidates, he provided the most information. Based on that kill I posted my final positions and boy was I wrong about Justin.

However, I realized Justin was scum around the same time I realized he was town in mini 542. Too bad I was dead in this game by then… So much for my spotless record.


I really hope to play with each of you again. Especially Incog, so I can redeem myself for that brain-dead read on him.

[Ythill]

Apy: I’m very wary of the case against him because of my current suspicions. Carefully scrutinize any D2 case against his replacement. If he dies and comes up town, put Incog and Justin in the hot seat...

Justin: Reread his first attack against me and my defense, look at how he stretches the truth. I had a town read on Justin for a long time and much of it is still valid but there were a few scumtells that surfaced after I made that statement. Most of the evidence against Justin lay in his interactions with Incog and Incog’s targets...

Shteven: He spent some time as my PE#1. I still find him scummy...

The preceding quote has been shameless self promotion. If we are town together again and I die before you, please examine my last words carefully.