Mini 539: Game over

[Ho1den]

vote Northjayhawk

because I don't like Kansas.

[Ho1den]

He said they instead of he because of uncertainty of my sex, "they" refers to either.

I don't like the unneccessary defense of MafiaSSK.

Unvote
Vote Xtoxm

[Ho1den]

My point is that he tried to explain something that he had no reason to trying to explain. Ytill brought up a question about MafiaSSK's grammar which MafiaSSK should have been able to answer on his own. The was no reason for Xtoxm to jump in and say anything. Even if I am almost certain I know why someone did somehting I want THEM to explain it so I can see their line of thinking. If by some odd chance MafiaSSK had made a slip (not likely in this case) Xtoxm gave him an easy out.
At least now there's a minor reason for the vote because there are few good reasons to jump to someone's aid at this point in the game.
I in no way think Xtoxm (god that's annoying to spell) was trying to defend MafiaSSK's vote against Xtoxm - that makes no sense.

[Ho1den]

Ok, did a read through. First of all we have been missing one, Natude has yet to post so we really need to hear something from him.

Xtoxm, you've answered for SSK twice now. Granted you think they are stupid questions to him, but he hasn't had to answer for just about anything he has done this game and when he did his response was "I lied" a huge townie no-no. I don't mind that you're attacking Ythill's argument as I find it a bit weak as it is entirely possible that SSk just miscounted the votes and didn't see/understand the gender icon BUT that is what HE needed to explain, not you.

Yes, but it is easily acceptable that someone does not recognise the symbol, or even that they simply did not see it.

What are you getting at with this point?

All you had to ask was for what his line of reasoning was, there was no need to provide an easy answer to the question. At this point it's just a little scummy but it could become a larger problem as we get further into the game, so stop it.

Chronx - I was not pushing a bandwagon as you stated. He gave me a reason for the vote and I explained myself.

Ythill - I understand your point about SSK being perceptive enough to see someone as suspicious but not perceptive enough to pick up on someone's gender or the vote count. He managed to back track out of that with the "I was lying" response. I think this is much more significant than the argument you had against him before, yet you didn't even comment on it, how come?

SSK - You're not helping yourself with your recent posts. You admit to lying and then make an OMGUS vote. At this point I'm wondering if he could really be this obvious of a scum.

The point is if a player chooses to participate in the random voting phase it's usually common practice to provide an explanation along with the random vote and MafiaSSK did just that.

You're really okay with accepting the transition from "I think he's suspicious" (with no reasoning) to "I just wanted to jump on a bandwagon and lied about it"? At this point there's no good reason to give SSK this out when he did nothing to help himself. Scummy.

Unvote
Vote: Incognito

[Ho1den]

Chronx - I realize I have been "coaching" Xtoxm but my reasons are not to make him play less scummy; they are to get the answers from the person who was asked the question. We can't learn much from SSK if Xtoxm responds to all of his inconsistencies.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Ho1den]

@Incognito: After reading through your posts, I feel as if my questions have been answered and will

unvote

.

@ChronX -

Its not like mafiaSSK isn't voteworthy.

Voteworthy at the time . . . okay. But SSK has made some other posts after this post trying to explain his actions and your vote has been sitting there for a while without even commenting on his new posts, not really sure I see how this is applying any pressure at all to him.

@Apy - There's somthing a little unsettling about your posts so far. I understand that you see the validity of Ythill's post about not jumping to lynch bad players and that was what motivated you to unvote. The problem I have is that there was no threat of a lynch at that point. The SSK badwagon had died so there was not a chance that he could be quicklynched. So far the only way ppl have gotten info from him has been direct questions (mostly from JP) and you haven't even done this. I don't understand how you are wiling to let your #1 most likely scum off the hook and just keep an eye on them. Never once have you said that he has done anything to ease your concerns, yet you don't push it . . .

@MafiaSSK - you still have your vote JP. Do you still feel it belongs there? Your only real reason has been that he was suspicous of you. At this point you've been content to let the rest of us slug it out. We need to know what you're thinking as well. So any chance you could give us your idea of who are the 2 or 3 most suspicious people?

[Ho1den]

Is the only occasion that one should unvote when there is threat of a lynch?

When you're suspicious of someone early game and have no reason to let them off the hook . . .then yes.

It seems unnecessary, and almost lazy, to just leave a vote on when I don't think he should be lynched at that moment, especially as I didn't think that it was going to do much as a "pressure vote".

Agreed, see my comment to ChronX above. But I don't understand the point of removing a vote from someone suspicious who has not done anything to clear themselves . . .I mean isn't that how we basically arrive at a lynch, when 7 ppl fall into that mindset?

What further questions can I really ask about that? I don't see much scope for lines of questioning, really.

Really? SSK placed that OMGUS vote on JP with basically no other comments afterwards. Seems like a great place to start to me . . .

[Ho1den]

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.

I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to. First of all your justification is based on bad logic. I've already laid out in post 77 why Ythill's stance here is contradictory and he agrees. The fact that you're using it as your defense just makes you look scummier. Given the fact that no one is making SSK talk and he seems reluctant to do so willingly, what makes you think that "keeping an eye on SSK" will help you learn anything about his alignment at all?

Agreed, but by the time I'd see it, albeit only 5 hours later, other people had already posted on it, I believe you yourself point out the OMGUS almost immediately, I didn't see much point in basically just saying "Me too".

You missed the point entirely. We wouldn't learn much of anything from you saying "Me too". However, if he's truly your #1 suspect why wouldn't you at least question him about the vote and have explain himself more. You're much more likely to learn his alignment by forcing him to post and defend himself than by waiting for him to just screw up.

[Ho1den]

I don't especially like that several players are coaching xtoxm to play better.

my gut feeling is that mafiaSSK is still possible scum, especially considering there now seems to be spirited defense on his behalf from a few places.

I'm not going to unvote the player I find most scummy to this point to satisfy the wishes of someone else who could very well be sticking up for his scumbuddy.

These type of vague accusations don't help us at all, and I'm getting tired of them. If you want to accuse me of something just do it as opposed to dropping subtle hints from which I can't defend myself. I realized you were busy from your previous post and didn't expect you to be following closely but I had a comment and put it out there. There was no need for your OMGUS response to a legitimate question.
I didn't ask you to unvote. I asked why you would have an active vote in place from something SSK said on page 1 without having even commented on anything he said afterwards.

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?

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

[Ho1den]

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

You paint me as having more conviction than I do. I have found some inconsistancies in Apy's play but I feel that at this point my vote could help push him to a lynch which I don't think we're ready for at this point. We have one player who has yet to post anything (Natude -

Mod can we get a replacement please?)

and more than a couple - Xtoxm, SSK, DS and ChronX who have not really contributed all that much.

@Apy - Still waiting for that "scumhunting" you promised us . . .

[Ho1den]

Just a heads up - I'm out of town from the 14th-16th so I'll have limited to no access.

[Ho1den]

Xtoxm - you've got to be more specific which is what Ythill is getting at. If you're going to make an accusation, you have to spell it out for the rest of us. It's only fair to the person you're accusing and everyone else doesn't always see things that you do, and you might be on to something important.

SSK - voting an inactive player doesn't help us at all. It places your vote in a useless place. If someone is lurking ask for a prod, that way they may actually respond. In this case it looks like you just threw your vote on the easiest target and I find it hard to believe that after 6 pages, your most likely scum candidate is the one who hasn't talked at all.

[Ho1den]

JP - my original vote on Xtoxm was not meant to lead to a lynch. I did not think 3 votes on someone when it takes 7 to lynch was a very serious danger. And you're right, it's very unlikely we could have learned anything from SSK's response to the question. It was partially a policy vote because if he did not know any better at least I could curtail the behavior early when it really had little effect on the game. Besides, my original vote was random and was doing absolutely nothing sitting on NJH. And as I stated previously, there's not many good reasons to answer for somebody else this early in the game (most likely, only scum know others' alignment) and it could have been an early slip - standing up for a townie.

As for the post when I take the vote off Xtoxm, I do comment that he made the same act again, but I felt that Incog's defense of SSK was much more significant (which you agreed with as you were questioning him about it as well). The same arguement stands for this vote. Although this was less a policy vote and more of a vote based on suspicion because I thought the defense was so blatant.