Mini 539: Game over

[MafiaSSK]

Sorry if there's been homework. GOD! Anyways I can't really tell if anybody is scum or not yet. I mean they're not clearly acting out of the characteristics of a normal townie. They don't relaly jump the bandwagon.
Anyways due to inactiveness which could mean too scared too post I am going to have to

unvote

and

Vote:Natude

. Thsi could have been one of their first gamers as mnafia so they didn't knwo what top ost without revealing without their idenity. So overall this is the best analysis I've got.

[ChronX]

I STILL haven't read any of page 5 thoroughly, but since SSK's post is the page topper for page 6, it kind of caught my eye.

Question to the rest of the field: Is my vote on SSK still so out of the realm of realistic? You know, the part where now he has decided to vote for the guy who hasn't posted anything yet?

I will have more abundant time this weekend and plan to do a vote/unvote sequence analysis, as well as reading the tomes posted by a few players and giving any of my comments. I have to say I'm not very comfortable with the game proceeding much more until the absentee is accounted for or replaced. Despite SSK's ludicrous vote, it is fair to say that role, whatever it is, is getting quite the free skate.

[charter]

Incog gives me mixed feelings. Some of his posts don't seem to be pro town, in that he stuck up for SSK, something that seemed like a poor idea in the beginning, he should have no reason to come to his defense that early. However, others of his posts give me a good town feel, so right now I'm just watching him.

[Ythill]

You paint me as having more conviction than I do.

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

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

I never thought the vote was unrealistic.

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

[Incognito]

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

I certainly wouldn't go as far as you have to consider charter "definitive" town but as of right now, I haven't been able to form a strong opinion on him. I don't particularly like how he can go from making statements like this:

…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.

and like this:

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.

where he seems to be leaning in favor of believing SSK is pro-town to more recent statements like this:

Incog gives me mixed feelings. Some of his posts don't seem to be pro town, in that he stuck up for SSK, something that seemed like a poor idea in the beginning, he should have no reason to come to his defense that early. However, others of his posts give me a good town feel, so right now I'm just watching him.

Here charter mentions I was "sticking up" for SSK when that's not true at all - votes were coming in so rapidly against one person over page 1 events that I immediately became more suspicious of the people on the bandwagon that formed so early than of SSK himself. 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.

I need to do a read-up on recent events so that I'm posting ideas related to things that are more current. I guess I should also pm the mod since he doesn't seem to be creating vote counts or responding to our prod requests for Natude.

@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.

[Disciple Slayer]

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

[Ythill]

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

To be fair, you

did

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

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

[Northjayhawk]

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

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

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

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

Now you've just descended into the pit of flat-out lying. I do not reveal my most-innocent suspicions here or elsewhere early in any game. I dont care who you have seen post most-innocent lists or how often, it is retardedly stupid strategy. I am very comfortable with my vote at this time.

[Northjayhawk]

I'll also note that you failed to explain why your action is not anti-town after I explained why it is. You surrender too much valuable information to the scum. Your answer essentially was: "Well, I read about how a few other people elsewhere posted innocent lists on day 1, so I guess it must be good strategy", which obviously is not an answer at all.

[Northjayhawk]

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

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

might

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

I'm assuming you misread my accusation.

You left your accusation vague, and forced me to guess at what you meant. The couple sentances following what you quoted answered your question. I'm not sure if you just stopped reading to post or just skimmed right over it.

I would also think that a townie would make their questions clear, while a scum would favor vague questions asking many possible things, ready to come back with a "gotcha" to say you obviously asked B when someone answered A, or that you obviously asked A when someone answered B.[/sup]

[Northjayhawk]

You know what, forget it.

I've played for years elsewhere where everyone was civil and didnt easily throw around false allegations of "lying" with no evidence whatsoever. I was fine until ythill said I was "lying" about my playstyle, which was just crap. I explained why he was wrong. I posted accusations early elsewhere because I found something interesting and original early. Here, I didnt really see anything original that someone else hadnt already spotted and talked about until ythill's very ill-advised innocent lists, but he still insists I'm a lier. There is very little good, calm, rational thought going around, just a little of convoluted idiocy.

I resign, and am leaving all games on this board.

Mod, replace me.

[Ythill]

Overreact much?

Since North has asked to be replaced, I'll

unvote: Northjayhawk

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

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

[Incognito]

o_O Okay then.

Um yeah. I don't even know where to go after that one. I somewhat completed my read from where I left off. I'd love to comment on the Ythill/Justin Playfair arguments but they seem a bit over my head.

I got a response from the mod and apparently Natude has been prodded so I'm not sure if he'll end up getting replaced or not.

@Ythill:

I guess 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 thought it was a bit odd at first especially since I've never seen someone ask for that information before. You mention that you asked for it to "forestall a mis-lynch later on". Justin Playfair mentioned from the start that he has a habit of making "very long posts" but recently you seemed to mock his posts when you mention that "accusations don't need to be direct and

982920019 words long

like the stab you made against me[...]". It just seems kind of odd to me for you to seemingly mock something that Justin Playfair mentioned upfront under your important "meta-information".

Also, before he left, I feel like Northjayhawk made a fair point here (although I wouldn't agree with him saying "best target"):

Because assuming the scum doesnt identify a power role, their best target would likely be the ones who are least likely to be lynched. Telling them that information point-blank without making the scum guess at it seems extremely foolish to me.

and while I will agree with your statement here:

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.

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"?

I will say this: 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.

[Ho1den]

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

[Ythill]

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

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

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

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

982920019 words long

like the stab you made against me…

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

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

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

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

suspicions

.

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

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

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

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

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

could

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

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

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

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

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

[Ythill]

Errrrrrrr.... EBWOP

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

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

[Nanosauromo]

Votecount!

Apyadg- 3 (charter, incognito, Disciple Slayer)
MaffiaSSK - 2 (ChronX, Xtoxm)
Ythill - 2 (Justin Playfair, Northjayhawk)
Natude -1 (MafiaSSK)

I'm looking for a replacement for Natude.

[ChronX]

Checked the thread and see on this page alone that 1 player is being replaced, one asked to be replaced, and 2 won't be playing until sometime next week.

Riiiiiiight. This is why I at least tried to check in during my really busy week?

I'll play when everyone else is doing so too. *grabs the remote*

[Ythill]

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

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

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

[Xtoxm]

Ythill, I think you are acting very suspicous.

I don't know why Apyadg has the most votes, I don't know what the case against him is, though it's quite possible that I missed it.

Are there some cliff notes for reasons of votes on him?

[Ythill]

Ythill, I think you are acting very suspicous.

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

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

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

[Xtoxm]

@ 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.

This

[Ythill]

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

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

While writing that I thought,

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

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

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

[ChronX]

unvote

request replacement

[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.