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.
Mini 539: Game over
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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 Ireallydeserve 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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]
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 heXtoxm wrote:
What are you getting at with this point?Ythill wrote:Xtomx’s gender is clearly marked under his avatar.reallyvoted you.
Why do you keep jumping to his defense?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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?Xtoxm wrote:I am not jumping to his defense. I am questiong a weak argument... So drop the gender thing.
QFT. But nowIncognito wrote:With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase.you’revolunteering 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 betterunvotebefore 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?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Yeah, my post 48 did seem kind of scummy, and for more reasons than ChronX has pointed out.
Ythill chides him less mildly. Did you really not see that? IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s butChronX wrote:YTHill mildly chides xtoxm for answering a question directed at MafiaSSK. Yet when Incognito does something similar...mepointing 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.
“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:ChronX wrote: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...
(1) Mafia started doing what I like to callsticking 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 camebecause ofit. 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]
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 sayChronX wrote:I also don't understand the need to call out Charter.let’s talk about the wagonand 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.
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 atChronX wrote:And, some reverse psychology is attempted when he volunteers to be on the hot seat.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?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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:
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.ChronX wrote:and if he is just an unhelpful jerk townie, its a better mislynch than others.
ThisChronX wrote:you claimed noob but seem pretty involved and in depth. This juxtaposition and apparent contradiction furrows my brow with worry.ismy 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
In fairness to the others, I also "jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying" and whatnot.
This sort of confirms what I said in the first point of my defense (#52).Speaking to ChronX, Incognito wrote:Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself since you fall into the category of players who hopped onto the MafiaSSK wagon?
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.incognito wrote:...this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar.
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. ThereIncognito wrote:Ythill, what were you trying to get at when you asked MafiaSSK your question in Post 19?wasthe 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!Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Incognito wrote:Who are Ryan and Dylan, Ythill?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.
Please reread what you quoted from my post. I said that perception level would be required to findIn post #65, Justin Playfair wrote: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.honestsuspicions, 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 peoplechoose to doand why they choose to do it, not what they arecapable of doing. Please know what a term means before you accuse me of it.
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.Justin Playfair wrote:...you have seen plenty of wagons build over far less than what was in Xtoxm’s first post
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’sJustin Playfair wrote: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”.reasonwas false, addressing the second of these two different things, not the first.
Justin Playfair wrote:...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.Thatis what WIFOM means. How ironic.
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.Justin Playfair wrote:And if there is an “easy answer” to Apyadg’s question… what would that answer be? And why would it be an easy answer?
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 makesJustin Playfair wrote:You have cast reflective suspicion back at all three players (Xtoxm, Chronx and Incognito) who questioned you about your posts.mescummy?
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.
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,Justin Playfair wrote: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).even if it isn’t, you are arguing semantics.
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.Justin Playfair wrote: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’ve explained above how Incog gave the easy answer, and demonstrated that my premise wasn’t false. Besides, IncogJustin Playfair wrote: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.doesn’t even mentionmy premise in that post (#44).
I said he dodged the question, not refused to answer it. He dodged itJustin Playfair wrote:You also point to MafiaSSK refusing to answer your question as a reason to give up,bybeing 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.
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.Justin Playfair wrote:...you refer to other players who have done what MafiaSSK has done as though by doing this you make your response more authoritative.
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.
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) heJustin Playfair wrote: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.probablyadmitted 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 thatyourlegitimate 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 isat leastas 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.
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?Justin Playfair wrote: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!
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?”
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.Justin Playfair, regarding his vote wrote: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.
I'm very interested to read others' opinions of Justin's #65.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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.
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 wasYthill wrote: It’s not like we’ll be short on evidence if we want to string him up later.veryvague.
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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 anddo notintend 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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?
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…Northjayhawk wrote: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.
FoS: Northjayhawk.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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:in your 2nd post, you wrote:...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…in your 4th post, you wrote:MafiaSSK...this is the kind of behavior that could pick you up an awful lot of votes pretty quickly.in your 5th post, you wrote:…the bulk of the discussion of MafaiaSSK’s behavior away from what might have been legitimately suspicious…Regarding Incog:in your 7th post, you wrote:…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.
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.in the same post, you wrote: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.
Justin Playfair wrote: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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Apyadg wrote:
It was a good point, and I agreed, what's the issue?(2) Apyadg admitted openly to following me with his unvote and didn’t add any elaboration of his own, which is suspicious IMO.
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 likeYthill 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?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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 isnotdefinitive 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, youarehere. 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 avote: Northjayhawk.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Northjayhawk wrote: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"?
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.
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.Northjayhawk wrote: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?
Taking sides isn’t going to do you any good regarding my suspicions of you.Northjayhawk wrote: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...
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.Northjayhawk wrote: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...
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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. Youraccusations(or whatever you want to call them) are another matter.
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.Justin Playfair wrote:If you want to take another whack at it, be my guest.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Talking about post lengths, right?JP and Ythill - can you guys just whip it out, see who's is longer, and move past the useless arguments?
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I didn't say anything about you claiming that. Does anyone else think I evenNorthjayhawk wrote: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.mighthave 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.
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.Northjayhawk wrote: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.
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.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Ho1den wrote:You paint me as having more conviction than I do.
I never thought the vote was unrealistic.ChronX wrote:Question to the rest of the field: Is my vote on SSK still so out of the realm of realistic?
@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?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
To be fair, youIncognito wrote: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.didspeak 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Overreact much?
Since North has asked to be replaced, I'llunvote: Northjayhawkfor 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...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.
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.Incognito wrote:…one question I have for you is what was the true reason you asked for the meta-information at the start of the game?
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.Incognito wrote: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 and982920019 words longlike the stab you made against me…
[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]
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 ourIncognito wrote:…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"?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 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 behaviorIncognito wrote: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.couldbe 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:
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.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…
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
How very specific of you. Got questions or accusations to go with that?Xtoxm wrote:Ythill, I think you are acting very suspicous.
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
He can give his opinion of the exchange. That's all I asked for.Xtoxm wrote: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 himRecord:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.
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 whichIn 166, Shteven wrote: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.requiresecrecy. Tempting me into explaining myselfcouldhave ulterior motives.
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.In 166, Shteven also wrote: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.
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).In 166, regarding meta on North, Shteven wrote: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.
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.Regarding the same topic, Shteven wrote: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.
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. Thiscouldbe 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 thereforevote: Shteven. Again, Ido notthink 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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 whateveryouwant 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 itdoesexist 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 alignmentespeciallywhen 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; hisonlydefense 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 becausethe 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 hisplay, I mentioned this in the same paragraph. Hedidhave outs.
Justin Playfair wrote:I mean in my mind there was even a pretty big suspicious statement in his answer to test him on, this:
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...Northjayhawk wrote:Someone whois only reactive to accusationsover a few day/night cycles would start to look scummy to me, most town playerswould actively look for scum at least occasionallywithout needing to first be asked to explain their votes and suspicions.
(bold added for emphasis)In #122, Ythill wrote:Either way, it is good that you are posting more, even if itis only reactive to accusations. I really wish youwould actively look for scum at least occasionally.
So Ididcall him on it, just not in the way you would have.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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?
In 174, Shteven wrote:You're leaping to conclusions. My previous posts have been pointing out notable things in the thread; NOT who I think we should lynch.
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.”In 166, Sheteven wrote: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.
How do you know this?In 174, Shteven wrote:…there's 3 scum...
The claim matched his play in this game, but was belied by his play in the other two. Your suggestion isIn 174, Shteven wrote: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.possiblebut, 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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…
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.”In 177, Shteven wrote: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.
Show me where I’ve made a meta-attack. I accused North of lurking, he made aIn 178, Shteven wrote:Meta attacks in games like this (of people who are newer, and more importantly people who are inactive) are counter productive.meta defense, I shot it down. This has been explained. Unless you can disprove my explanation, drop it.
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.In 178, Shteven wrote:You have tunnel vision. You vote MafiaSSK, then all NJH/Me.
Idoagree that my behavior could be seen as tunnel vision but insist that my reasons for it are clear. There are no ulterior motives here.
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.In 178, Shteven wrote:You also have a disturbing trend of trying to get one people's good sides by pointing out how fair and noble you are.
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.In 178, Shteven wrote: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.
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ DS: Reposted for your convenience…
In #118, Ho1den wrote: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?
Also, could you reply to these declaratory statements which reference your behavior?In #119, I wrote: 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.
In #163, Shteven wrote:
I hope you've got two votes buddy, because that was not at all a joke vote!Discipline Slayer wrote: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.Justin Playfair wrote:A minor thing, but I’ve been rereading the thread a lot.
On the 11th Disciple Slayer posts:
He is asked a few questions but does not respond. On the 13th Incognito posts this:Disciple Slayer wrote:I'm here if anyone wants to ask me any questions.
And just over 30 minutes later Disciple Slayer responds:Incognito wrote:@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.
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.Disciple Slayer wrote:Posting will commence on the 18th. I've got a busy weekend and a flight immediately after.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Shteven wrote:...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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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 youarescum, you are a far better player than I (and you can quote me on that later ).
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.In 187, Justin Playfair wrote: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.
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 IIn 187, Justin Playfair wrote:I want to ask why Incognito makes your number two slot.wassaying 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, Iamabout 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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.
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 toIn #58, Incognito wrote: 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.I am not a duck, therefore I could not have been pretending to be a duckand 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” hewasn’tsetting 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 realityin which Incog quietly initiates suspicion on Apyadg (the n00b) but theillusionthat 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 hecould. 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 Incognitoand, just for the record... I'm still firmlyFoS: Shteven.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I noticed this during my reread. On the topic of my defense vs. Shteven, I believe the quotes speak for themselves (bold mine).
In 178, Shteven wrote:In fact, I take issue with Ythill's post here:
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.IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s but me pointing it outaggressivelywould 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.He's overlooking Incognito's behaviorselectively....referencing #52, in which Ythill wrote:ChronX wrote: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 butmepointing it outaggressivelywould have seemed OMGUS...…which refers to #48, in which Ythill wrote:
QFT.Incognito wrote:With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase.But nowWhat, you hear the train coming? I hope you guys are this nice to me when I’m under the microscope.you’revolunteering the easy answer.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@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
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.Shteven wrote:
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.Justin Playfair wrote:Accusing Ythill of tunnel vision seems odd.
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.Shteven wrote: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…
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.Shteven wrote: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.
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 XtxomShteven wrote: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.
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.Xtoxm wrote:@ 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
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.Xtoxm wrote:
This. And I also remember you saying somehting about having your go in the hotseat, but I couln't find the post.Anyone else want to take a stab at me before we move on to other matters?
I’ve answered your #200 in my response to Shteven, above.Ythill wrote:
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 atChronX wrote:And, some reverse psychology is attempted when he volunteers to be on the hot seat.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.
(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 givingXtoxm wrote: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?anyreasons. Were I to revote mafia, it would be for the information from page 1andany 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 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.Xtoxm wrote:(1)I'd be interested to hear why you have me at the middle of the road?
(2)And what has Apyadg done?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Xtoxm wrote:So i'm an incompetant noob? Gee, thanks.
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 youXtoxm wrote: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?seemlike scumbuddies. It's the sort of thing players look back for later in the game.
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.Xtoxm wrote:Don't know what WIFOM means.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Xtoxm wrote:Well it sounded very much like an argument against me. You're accusations of me and Shteven.
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.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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…
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.kuribo wrote:Most of you have been scummy at one time or another, and since this is Mafia, that's to be expected.
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.kuribo wrote:Ythill in Post #5 seemed a little off to me… I'm willing to chalk these up to inexperience, though.
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.kuribo wrote:Post 13- Ythill seems to be a big fan of the meta.
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.kuribo wrote: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.
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.kuribo wrote:Post 63- Pointless meta from Ythill. Any player in this game could be doing anything.
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.kuribo wrote:Post 76- Ythill goes on the offensive (or acting defensive if you will) against Justin Playfair. This post seemed very defensive to me.
In my notes, underkuribo wrote:Post 83- Ythill accepts a completely non-explanation from SSK and then asks his opinion of the other players. What?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.
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.kuribo wrote: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.
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.kuribo wrote:And he's leaning toward SSK being town. Huh?
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 iskuribo wrote: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...youropinion: not very applicable since what you’re attacking ismyopinion of charter at that point and inmyopinion, 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.
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.”kuribo wrote: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."
“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. Mekuribo wrote:Ends with a defensive North vote while not calling charter out on the same thingnotplacing 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.
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.kuribo wrote: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.
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 absolutelykuribo wrote:Post 186- Ythill accuses Shteven of trying to control the thread. Jealous, Mr. TLDR?did notaccuse Shteven of that. What I did was quote the previous post, whereheaccusedmeof it.
Finally... here’s some of my signature “reflective suspicion”:
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.kuribo wrote: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...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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 preemptiveoh-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:
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.In #13, I wrote:Veryinterestinggames.
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.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ 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.
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.Justin Playfair wrote: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.
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.Justin Playfair wrote:You’re not a vig. You’re a serial killer.
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.Justin Playfair wrote: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?
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 aboveespeciallybenefits 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.
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.Justin Playfair wrote: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.
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 amJustin Playfair wrote:Ythill could be wrong and still be the vig.nottaking my kill lightly.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Cross-posted a bit...
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.Incognito wrote:it would be pretty evident that my death would have been a result of his Vigilantism.
Also, I forgot my vote confirm thingy in the last post.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
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.Justin Playfair wrote: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?
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?
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.Xtoxm wrote: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 think it's quite clear actually. If you believe that Incog is townXtoxm wrote:I'm not sure what we should do anymore.andI am scum,andare willing to bet my N1K on that (which isn't a huge risk), then lynch me right now. If you think Incog is scumorI am townorwould 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 amuchbetter lynch than SSK. Killing him reveals nothing excepthisalignment.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
No matter what's actually going on here you have to admit, the game just got more fun.
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 andDisciple Slayer wrote:Well, what we could do is this: have the doc randomly protect you or Shteven, while the cop (if any) can investigate Ythill tonight.FoS: Disciple Slayer.
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007