Mini 539: Game over

[charter]

…MafiaSSK said his vote was because he was suspicious of Xtoxm.

I think it comes down to, do you think mafia made a joking vote but did a poor job of ensuring it came across that way, or do you think mafia was trying to build a case against xtoxm based off nothing. Personally, I think it was a joke he just didn't make it obvious.

Apyadg, You still didn't explain why you unvoted him but aren't looking at anyone else. My main reason for voting you.

[Ythill]

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

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

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

honest

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

choose to do

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

capable of doing

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

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

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

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

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

reason

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

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

That

is what WIFOM means. How ironic.

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

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

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

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

me

scummy?

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

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

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

even if it isn’t

, you are arguing semantics.

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

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

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

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

doesn’t even mention

my premise in that post (#44).

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

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

probably

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

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

your

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

Your tunnel vision is

at least

as detrimental to the town as my multiplicity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ho1den]

@Ythill -

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.

So you unvote because it was a pressure vote and you can't get the answers to your questions. You still don't bring up his "I was lying" post, move on, and

Mafia started doing what I like to call sticking one’s head in the noose, a behavior that is reminiscent of Ryan’s and Dylan’s play, among others, and one that is likely to lead to a mislynch without providing much information.

draw the conclusion that SSK is a bad player,

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

but we can come back and lynch him if we want to.

What I have a problem with is that in the entire exchange, all you learned was that SSK is a bad player, you know nothing of his alignment and therefore I don't see how you're fine saying we can come back and lynch him.

@Incognito

I understand that those on the quick bandwagon look suspicious at this point. I don't agree with just ignoring SSK's early vote as it was in the random vote stage because by providing a reason like "they seem suspicious" it was no longer a throw-away random vote. I don't understand this.

Gonna post this before I fall even further behind with the flurry of posts goin up . . .more to come

Mod:

Can we get a prod on Natude?

[Ythill]

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

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

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

very

vague.

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

[Xtoxm]

Wow. You guys makes such big posts. I'm too tired to read it all right now, but i'll try and put some time aside next week to read this whole thread.

Just saying i'm still here.

[Ho1den]

I think it comes down to, do you think mafia made a joking vote but did a poor job of ensuring it came across that way, or do you think mafia was trying to build a case against xtoxm based off nothing. Personally, I think it was a joke he just didn't make it obvious.

QFT. I just wish he would have said this. There were so many "easy ways" out of this statement but he managed to pick the scummiest.

And just throw in my two cents on the Apy situation, I don't find anything scummy about the original placement of the vote, but do question the removal of the vote without another target especially when there was no danger in keeping the vote on.

JP - I feel as if my previous post laid some of what you were trying to communicate in your post. . .only without all the unnecessary inflammatory arguments. Any reason you couldn't have just laid out a logical argument without attempting to paint Ythill in such a bad light? You're not looking for a response with that post, merely a reaction and it's a shame, because there are some good points there.

[ChronX]

/OOC

I have an insanely busy start to the work week coming up, with meetings during the work day and kid/holiday activities evenings all week. I will try to stay current on my lunch hour, but I may be VERY LA until friday. Sorry. This will be in my tag too, but with this game just underway and so active, I wanted to do the courtesy of posting.

[MafiaSSK]

So to clarify things, in post #42, I was talking about my original post about me voiting for Xtoxm because he was suspicious. So yes my confession was serious. The reason why I put a smiley at the end of the sentence is because I was saying the term "Bandwagon" in a jokingly way. Also in post #42 the reason why I said that I was lying was because Xtoxm was getting confused. Xtoxm said

You are backtracking now. You said you found me suspicious.

so I was telling him that I was lying about suspicious. This satement still agrees with my post 40. As I said that I was jumpin gon the Bandwagon that means that my real reason was not me being suspicious of Xtoxm.

[Ythill]

@ Mafia: Thanks for making sense.

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

do not

intend to infer anything about you as a person.

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

[Ythill]

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

My Current Reads

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

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

Accusations

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

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

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

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

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

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

FoS: Northjayhawk

.

[Justin Playfair]

Ythill,

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

@ 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?

Hmmm…Ythill, could you point out in my posts where I accused anyone other than you of anything?

Now I would assume the other two people you are talking about are MafiaSSK and Incognito. If I am wrong certainly feel free to correct me. But at no point do I accuse either of them of anything.

In the case of MafiaSSK I certainly didn’t vote for him. I never accused him of being scum. I asked him questions. I continued to ask him questions long after those who had attacked him and voted for him began peeling away, their questions unanswered. And I asked him questions until he answered me.

In the case of Incognito I think it should be clear from an even casual reading of my post that I am not accusing him of anything. I ask him to clear up two points that could lead me to accepting what my interpretation of his posts in thread are. You would have done better to go after me for leading him to an easy defense with this one. I wasn’t doing that, either, I was trying to find out if my reading of him was accurate.

Now, I will ask you to please provide us with the posts where I’ve accused either Incognito or MafiaSSK of anything. If you establish this pattern by providing these posts I would be happy to proceed with a discussion of this pattern you are suggesting.

If you can’t, may I ask you why you made the accusation?

[Ythill]

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

Regarding Mafia:

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

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

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

Regarding Incog:

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

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

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

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

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

[Ythill]

EBWOP:

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

underhanded

accusation. But I digress…

The word I was looking for was

backhanded

, sorry.

[Incognito]

Incognito, you miss here what made MafiaSSK’s statement different from all those others. Whereas, for instance, your random vote on me was because there was only room in town for one black and white avatar, a reason no one is ever going to mistake for something serious…

…MafiaSSK said his vote was because he was suspicious of Xtoxm.

Now if you didn’t see this as fundamentally different before, do you now?

Yes, I've noticed from the very beginning that MafiaSSK's random vote was distinctly different from the others. While everyone else's votes were made in a joking manner using reasons that make no practical sense of being scum tells or true reasons to suspect someone of being scum, MafiaSSK's random vote bordered that very thin line of being either a random vote or a very serious one. He certainly could have done a better job of letting everyone know for certain that it was in fact a random vote by choosing a reason that seems more random than claiming "someone seems suspicious" or by even explicitly stating "this is a random vote" but all in all, I think his vote was actually beneficial for bringing about discussion - look how much discussion one random vote generated as opposed to the zero amount of discussion my random vote or your random vote generated.

For the most part I would like this clarification because the post you made which began this sequence was actually defending Xtoxm because Xtoxm had answered part of Ythill’s false case against MafiaSSK.

With regard to Xtoxm, I wouldn't consider my post 28 a defense of Xtoxm - mainly I wanted clarification from Ho1den since the explanation behind Ho1den's non-random vote against Xtoxm didn't make much logical sense to me.

Sequence of events:

1) MafiaSSK placed the third vote on Xtoxm.
2) Ythill makes his "non-case" against MafiaSSK.
3) Xtoxm answers Ythill's question "on behalf" of MafiaSSK.
4) Ho1den votes for Xtoxm for defending MafiaSSK.

It just didn't seem logical to me for Ho1den to claim Xtoxm was

defending

MafiaSSK when I'd find it hard to believe that Xtoxm would defend someone who just finished placing the third vote in the series of votes against himself. Since Ho1den thought Xtoxm's "defense" warranted a vote, I just wanted clarification and possibly some re-thinking on his part.

But you’ve also seemed reluctant to accept that there may be valid reasons for others to have voted for MafiaSSK unrelated to those in Ythill’s false case. You’re still questioning Apaydg on them.

I'm willing to accept that there were other valid reasons for others to vote for MafiaSSK - in fact, I mention that here in post 68:

Yes, Apyadg, you, and Ythill each provided your own reasons for voting against MafiaSSK but as I mentioned in my initial point, the bandwagon

began

after the grammar mistake.

I guess I was mainly questioning Apyadg at the point you mention because of his usage of the word "bad" which probably made his post seem more vague and ironic than it really was.

I hope this addresses your concerns. Let me know if you still would require some more explanation - you sure weren't kidding when you mentioned you have a tendency to make long posts!

[Disciple Slayer]

VOTE: APYADG

Because something seems off about you. 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. You look like you're trying to find something to cling to, like you're trying to build a case on nothing. Secondly, if he's still the scummiest person in the game to you, why'd you remove your vote? Is it because it doesn't really matter to you who gets lynched, as long as it isn't you or your scumbuddies?

[Apyadg]

VOTE: APYADG

Because something seems off about you. 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. You look like you're trying to find something to cling to, like you're trying to build a case on nothing.

It couldn't have been a serious one? Why not? If it was a random, it should have been made obvious, why say someone is "suspicious", it doesn't look like much of a joke to me.

I'm trying to build a case out of nothing? At the point at which I voted, what else was there to base a case on?

Secondly, if he's still the scummiest person in the game to you, why'd you remove your vote? Is it because it doesn't really matter to you who gets lynched, as long as it isn't you or your scumbuddies?

No.

[Ho1den]

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.

This is a little unfair I think. You have 3 more pages of info to judge the intentions behind SSK's vote than all of us did at the time. It's completely possible that he intended to use the vote to spur conversation or to start a bandwagon and see who jumped on or was merely scum jumping on a bandwagon. It's easy to look back and make that judgement call but at the time is was much more unclear. Plus I think it's completely unneccesary to include as the unvote was the scummy move which I feel Apy has yet to really explain.

[Apyadg]

I'll start by apologising for the lack of involvement for the last two or three days, it was a work-intensive period at uni, fortunately I've now finished until after Christmas, so I expect no further inactive periods during this game.

I stand by my vote for SSK at the time, and I still think he's pretty scummy, but as to why I unvoted him, well, I tried to make it clear at the time, but I decided to unvote based upon this argument by Ythill (post 57)

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.

In other words, MafiaSSK had went from an L-2 situation to an L-4 situation where he was nowhere near being lynched. If you still felt that MafiaSSK was the scummiest person above your baseline, then I don't see any reason for you to unvote him and place him at L-5 when keeping pressure on a person you consider scummy might be to your own benefit if you were town.

I see little reason to keep a vote on someone unless I think they should be lynched at that time. He'd had several votes on him, so I don't think he'd have felt under much "pressure" just due to my vote, if several people had unvoted him.

This is incorrect also. If you want to consider Ythill's post about "three random votes in a row without a die" a statement where someone points out scummy behavior, then it was actually Ythill who was first to point out scummy behavior

True, I didn't notice what that post was suggesting until you pointed it out, I guess I was still skim-reading at that point.

Apyadg, You still didn't explain why you unvoted him but aren't looking at anyone else. My main reason for voting you.

Simply haven't had time to try and look carefully for scummy behaviour from others, I will be doing a thorough read of the topic later this evening or tomorrow morning, in which that will be my aim.

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

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

[Ythill]

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway…

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

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

[Apyadg]

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?

Had to go to do some proof-reading, run to uni, print off my essay, and hand it in. Prior to my last post, my contributions have been the result of a few minute's of skimming through the topic, and a hastily thrown together post, to save time that I've hardly had. As I mention in my last post, I'll be able to devote adequate time to the game from now on.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy

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.

It is, but my unvote was not based upon an appeal to authority; an appeal to authority is saying that an argument is justified based upon the person who puts forward the argument, for example, "Pigs fly, they must do because Einstein says that they do, and we all know how smart he is". Whilst I used the argument put forward by someone else, the strength of the argument is not derived from the credibility of the original author, the full logic is there for all to assess.

I did consider the possibility of you being scum whilst weighing up the point that you made, but it seems to me to be a good one, what do other people think about it? The argument is as follows:

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.

It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, I think easing off Mafia (I'm just going to refer to him as SSK for the rest of the game, I think), and looking at more people (I anticipate the point being repeated that I failed to do this, and it's a point that I concede, see my last post, regarding me planning to re-read), whilst keeping an eye on SSK was the best approach.

[Ythill]

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

[charter]

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

Just wondering if you could explain why you feel ho1den and myself are definate town. I'm not saying I blame anyone for thinking I'm town, but I don't think I've done enough scumhunting so far for someone to label me as definate town (not that I mind however). I've really only made one or two posts with much substance.

[Northjayhawk]

Ythill: I didnt bother replying to your first mention of three random votes, because it appeared obvious to me that my random vote (#2) had no possibility of suspicion at all. I did not read it as a question towards me, more like a comment or unspoken question directed at the one who cast the third vote. I ALWAYS go to random.org in every game I play (research me if you want) to pick my first vote. Before I actually post the number, I do check to see if it would be a bad random vote (e.g. your random would be the third vote on someone in a 7-player game). In a 12-player game, a 2nd random vote might be mildly valuable to test for an overreaction, but hardly something that needs to be justified in itself.

My 2nd post was not in response to your post at all, I had basically ignored and forgotten about your comment by then. The explanation was necessary because I reaffirmed my random vote as no longer being random along with an explanation, and I would expect everyone to justify their votes and share their thinking whether asked for or not when there is the slightest whiff of suspicion on their target.

Someone who is only reactive to accusations over a few day/night cycles would start to look scummy to me, most town players would actively look for scum at least occasionally without needing to first be asked to explain their votes and suspicions.

As for the reason itself, it should be clear. Whether someone thinks that a question against someone else is a good one or not, I cant think of any value to the town at all (and a lot of potential harm) to answer for or feed them a good answer.

I do have a quick question though. Regarding this list:

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

Why did you feel the need to post "definitive town" and "probably town" lists?

[Ythill]

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

not

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

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

@ North: Oh, you

are

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

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

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

vote: Northjayhawk

.

[charter]

In your case, charter, your post timing has given you a few opportunities to attack players already under scrutiny but you have refrained.

Honestly, I don't think ssk is scum based on what he's said so far. I think some people took a confusing statement, and twisted it to no end to make him look like scum. However, he hasn't really done anything to show me he's town, so he very well could be.
Although, after jayhawks pretty much pointless post, and your arguments, I'm tempted to vote for him, but I think he is probably more noob than scum.