Mini 539: Game over

[Shteven]

I'd certainly at the very least skim the entire thread. If someone tells you a case is closed, well, that's only as reliable as their word, which you can't trust. If you're looking for highlights, though, you should certainly look over Ythill's role claim closely, as well as current cases on Incognito, DS, Xtoxm. There's some suspicion on others, of course, but those are the three I hear the most on the last few pages. Personally, I think DS is our best shot.

[Ythill]

Meh.

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

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

something

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

[Incognito]

Sorry, I keep getting that CPU quota message when I hit submit but here's my response to your questions, Ythill:

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

Can you explain how unique and/or self-motivated cases against me and DS would clear you of earlier allegations of fence-sitting and following?

Well earlier in your PBPA, one of the issues that you had with me involved my "lumping up" of both ChronX and Apyadg into my post where I mentioned how they both placed serious votes on MafiaSSK before he conceded to lying. You theorized that my reason for doing this was so that I could see which bandwagon would gain strength so that I could follow that bandwagon with a vote. In response to your PBPA I mentioned that if I was truly lumping individuals up to eventually jump on the wagon that gained strength, I would have also lumped your name in there along with Apyadg and ChronX since technically you also joined the SSK wagon before he admitted to lying. I mentioned that I didn't include your name in that post though because you had classified your vote on MafiaSSK as a pressure vote instead of a serious one. My self-motivated cases against you and DS would also help clear your allegations.

Why did you claim that nobody else was scrutinizing DS when it was untrue? Why did you say that your issues against DS were self-motivated when none of them were unique?

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

[Ythill]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Xtoxm]

Apyadg asking what type of scumhunting people want I think is suspicious...

Isn't it just...scumhunting...Who you think is scum and why...

[Incognito]

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

This is true. However, the only way I can completely prove my own alignment is by showing you my role pm. =)

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

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

I fail to see how my case against Disciple Slayer was made from a desperate position. I had touched on at least part of my issues with DS well before you even suggested that you would be working on a PBPA of me. My first mentioning of DS was back on December the 11th and then again on the 13th while your first mentioning of a PBPA on me happened on the 27th. My case against you was certainly more of a desperate situation since you were doing to me the exact opposite of what you had done to SSK earlier; you were threatening to eliminate me after creating what I saw as a false PBPA while SSK was just receiving pressure.

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

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

Not explicitly but I could slightly agree at least. I refused to mention anything about DS before my post on the 11th because I was trying to give DS the benefit of the doubt - he would repeatedly enter the thread mentioning some real life issue that would keep him from the game, and I didn't want to accuse him of lurking or something of the sort since his reasons for being away seemed justified. Eventually he did it one too many times and when he

would

finally return, he would provide no evidence of reading the thread or any analysis whatsoever - he would just vote on the person who was feeling pressure atm.

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

And YES! Finally something I wanted to bring up haha.

We have this:

Non-Ythill stuff: I'd still like to see a response from Disciple Slayer with respect to the issues we've all raised against him, and I'm still distinctly unimpressed with Apyadg's contribution to the game. I should mention that he still continues to view this very forum (Little Italy) but is still unwilling to contribute to our game. I'm not sure if screenshots are allowed but they're probably unnecessary; you could look at his posting history to see that he's quite active in his Newbie game. He's not lurking as obviously as Disciple Slayer was earlier on but he

is

still lurking nevertheless.

where I mention that it seems like Apyadg has been monitoring the thread but not contributing anything.

and this:

Just like to say I have also seen Apyadg doing as Incog said.

Microscope finding it's way on to me now...This should be interesting

where Xtoxm confirms what I was mentioning about Apyadg.

And now this from Apyadg himself:

My sincere apologies, I've been checking in on mafia regularly, but entirely forgot about this game, I know from other games how irritating it is to have someone not posting, it won't happen again, it's been added to my bookmarks.

Forgot about the game, eh?

Unvote; Vote: Apyadg

I'm comfortable with either a DS lynch or an Apyadg lynch for Day 1.

[Shteven]

Apyadg asking what type of scumhunting people want I think is suspicious...

Isn't it just...scumhunting...Who you think is scum and why...

I actually prefer this response to mine.

[Justin Playfair]

Claus,

Let’s start with this:

How about the fact that even though you are one of the most active posters in the thread, you have only one serious vote in these 15 pages?

XtoXm has made 60 posts and has voted once, for MafiaSSK. Unless I’ve missed something his vote is still there, though MafiaSSK has barely been with us through the last 10 of these 15 pages. You posted this about him:

Xtomx: I like his play. He seems direct with his accusations and his defenses. His vote follows his opinions, and his opinions are consistent. Also, he does not verborrage

I’ve made 31 posts. Can you explain this seeming contradiction in how your opinions of others are formed?

Then this:

You say he is acting odd. You even say that you're unvoting Yth because of this. But you never vote him.

About this:

Well, I won't go as far as to vote MafiaSSK yet, but if we're starting to talk let me

Unvote: ythill

MafiaSSk, you say "Great. So now the votes are tied between me and Xtoxm."

I'm just a little curious here as to why you responded in this way. Because 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 as on Xtoxm. But these last votes you are getting are because of something you did.

Could you explain your reasoning behind placing the third vote on Xtoxm? What was suspicious if you found Xtoxm suspicious or why you chose Xtoxm to pressure if that was the case?

Now we can start with:

but if we're starting to talk let me

Unvote: ythill

Because see, I think to any fair reading this would make pretty clear that I was taking my vote off Ythill because serious discussion was beginning. I mean, with that being my actual words and all. Instead you choose to try to morph that into me taking my vote off Ythill because I was so suspicious of MafiaSSK.

And you link this to me then not voting MafiaSSK. Which at this point is kind of funny, because first you suggest my words don’t mean what they say to suggest that I unvoted Ythill because I was so suspicious of MafiaSSK, and then you use this interpretation to suggest that it was suspicious that I didn’t vote MafiaSSK.

What makes this particular argument of yours even more interesting (and the reason I quoted my whole post above) is that this post began a series of posts where I demanded answers from MafiaSSK which eventually lead to something none of the votes on him did. Actually, two somethings. I got his OMGUS vote (probably for being so timid), and he eventually actually answered some questions. Some people believe votes are a good way to get answers. I believe questions are the way to get answers and votes are for when I believe I’ve heard enough.

Onto this:

Your post number 7 is a mess. You question Incognito and mention Apy - saying that you want to defend him but you can't? The only think I can make from this post is that you're not taking a position regarding Incognito or Apy.

Yeah, I can see why you didn’t quote any of this post. I won’t bother to quote it all, as it’s rather long, just enough to make clear that you’re blatantly misinterpreting its content:

I’m not really coming to Apyadg’s defense here, because the way he removed his vote from MafiaSSK made me suspect he was just looking for a way out from what he felt was an exposed position and therefore I don’t have an argument with the reasons Charter gave for putting his vote on him. But I have to say that 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.

See, I’m not coming the Apyadg’s defense because his behavior when taking his vote off MafiaSSK seemed suspicious to me. But I wanted to ask Incognito a question about why he was making a comment about why Apyadg initially voted for MafiaSSK. But this is good, because it leads you directly to this:

In your post number 12 you question Apy pretty throughly, and call him oportunist, but don't even FoS him. So what do you think of Apy? Scummy or not scummy? If I say that you think that he is scummy from this post, you can come and say that I'm overstating things. :-/

I’m not even going to bother quoting this post, or my later restating in more detail of my points from it, or my final response (to this point) to Ythill on the subject. I will just ask this question: Does anyone else in town have any doubts as to whether or not I am suspicious of Apyadg?

Claus, your alleged suspicions in regards to my behavior toward Apyadg are completely manufactured. You’re saying, in short, that if, at the end of a post where I make clear exactly what my suspicions are of Apyadg, and exactly why I have them, I don’t vote or write fos at the end I can later somehow pretend I didn’t write all those other words.

And then there is this curiosity from you:

On post 13 you say that you have a "less than benevolent" view of CronX (me), but you never questioned him before. So we can't even use your questioning posts to know who you suspect. The post about MafiaSSK is just as bad. "A mislynch is a mislynch"? Argh.

No, you can’t use my questioning of ChronX. But you can use my words, clearly stated, in thread:

I have a somewhat different take on ChronX than you do. You mention his drive-by attacks on Ho1den above but not those on Incognito. In both cases they seemed to me designed to place the player on the defensive in a manner where they have very little solid to answer, and therefore make themselves seem more defensive. Ho1den didn’t rise to the bait, but Incognito did and ChronX pushed him in a way that made me think more of someone trying to work a player into being lynched than someone trying to find scum. I was hoping to see if ChronX would continue his attack on Incognito after Incognito answered my questions to him, but unfortunately ChronX had stopped any meaningful posting by then. In any case, I have a somewhat less benevolent view of ChronX than you do.

So I said a bit more than that I had a less benevolent view of ChronX than Shteven. I gave reasons for my suspicions and made absolutely clear why I was suspicious. Once again, if you can’t tell I’m suspicious of ChronX by the above it’s because you’ve decided you’re not going to. You know, though, if all I’d said was my view was less benevolent that would have been pretty unclear.

Oh, same with that MafiaSSK bit. Because quoting just a little bit more of this might have given the impression that I was giving a clear response as to why I thought Shteven’s notion that a mis-lynch of MafiaSSK wouldn’t be that bad.

About MafiaSSK: Sure, he might be scum. But his behavior has been so bad as to be largely indecipherable. And a mislynch is a mislynch. The only time they seem permissible to me would be when they would point an absolutely damning finger of guilt at another player. And I sure don’t see that here.

But if all I’d said was a mislynch is a mislynch? Yeah, that would have really made your point.

Now onto the listing of fake claims. My reason for listing them was to rebut what I saw as Incognito wanting to somehow create a connection between Disciple Slayer’s asking for a plan that would force town power roles to out themselves to Ythill. I couldn’t see how Disciple Slayer’s plan would profit scum if Ythill was scum with Disciple Slayer. What I listed seemed necessary to me to show that.

But I find much more interesting the two games you sent me to.

Didn’t expect me to read them, did you?

Because in mini 504 most of the players were discussing fake claims, not just Draux. The game was so specialized in its roles that it demanded it. I won’t comment on those still alive, but Seteal, Night Light, Y and Kilroy also speculated about false claims, on day one, before the claims were made. They are dead. They were town. Funny old thing, you not mentioning that.

And what would be the difference between my bringing up false claims and those of Shaft.ed and Aioqwe? Hmm…could it be that they were both trying to talk the town into making mass role claims? Yeah, it sure was.

Kind of important details there, don’t you think, Claus?

[Justin Playfair]

Apyadg,

Thank you for your answer. My primary question is this. If, as you say in your explanation:

I wasn't entirely sure whether SSK was scum or not. It seemed to me that he was playing very badly, but that would have been true were he scum or town. I was leaning towards scum due to the outright lie to the town, but was not really sure of myself; what justification did I have for really believing he was a bad scum player instead of a bad townie?

Then why did you post this? Because if you were leaning toward MafiaSSK being scum why would you come right out and say:

On the bright side, we've got the game going! I don't think it's a particularly good idea to lynch him based on this; he'd have to be the single worst scum player in the entire world - But his play, whether scum or town, has been awful, he's already admitted to lying to the town, and bandwagon jumping, for no reason at all, it doesn't bode well for him really.

Because in this post you do more than express uncertainty. You say you do not think it would be a good idea to lynch MafiaSSK.

My second question, given your defense, is whether post 92 is or is not representative of your true opinion on gameplay.

[Ythill]

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

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

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

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

[kuribo]

ugh sooooo many words

[Claus]

You are absolutely right kuribo. Let's try to keep things short:
(also, I stupidly closed the tab after hitting preview on a rather large response I started to write before this one )

====

@ The kuribo x xtomx x Ythill love triangle:

Oh, you hugged and apologized to each other. Great.
====

@ Ythill:

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

Oh, unrelated: I think your boxes make your posts harder to read.

====

@ Incognito:

-> So you're voting for Apy now. I guess that settles that point - your attack on him seem to be honest. Also, I think attacking someone who is away makes sense - if you believe they are scum, you still need to convince OTHER townies that the person needs lynching. And scum don't cease to be scum by lurking.

[quote="Incognito]Is it wrong for me to question your analysis of myself and the other players of the game?[/quote]
-> No, it is not wrong, but that is not what you're doing. You're questioning MY accusations of you. You're not mentioning my analysis of even one of the other players (and I commented on EVERY player in that post). Would you be so concerned about questioning my analysis if I wrote a one liner about you and put you in my neutral list?

Your reading of me (...) differs fairly drastically from your predecessor's reading of me (...) so I think my questions for you are pretty crucial.

-> If you say so. Well, I read the "attacks" of Cronx at you.

He attacks you once, at post 49. He comments that you trying to lead the town is a scummy tactic. Well, I think that is simpleminded and wrong. You were not trying to lead the town, and even if you were, trying to lead the town in general is not a scummy tactic in my opinion.

But then you defend yourself in 58. No, you don't. You don't comment whether he is right or wrong. You attack right back, by saying that his comment of you is a scummy tactic to distract the town from the fact that he is in the SSK wagon. But Cronx was not being questioned about his vote, so your attack is also wrong.

But not only wrong, your attack was also OMGUSy - in post 49, cronx comments on three people, but again, you only focus on his attacks on YOU. My impression is that if he didn't comment on you, then you would never have said that his was a scummy tactic.

After that, you and him exchange a few jabs, and let the matter drop.

So, questions:
A- Why is it

crucial

whether my opinions differs from Cronx or not? Despite we sharing the same role PM, we are different players, with different styles, and different ways to read other people. I never talked to Cronx either about this game. So please, tell me why this is

crucial

.

B- And where does Cronx points at you as one of the most scummy players? I couldn't find it. He attacked once at 49, then you two exchanged some jabs ("you are misrepresenting me! No, you are! No, you!"), then he replaced.

C- Do you have any comments on my reads on other players?

====

@Apyadog:

Welcome back to the game! I agree with the others that asking which subjects you should reply to, and which are already "closed" don't look good for you.

If you were asking a honest question, I feel that the best way you could return to the game is, instead of concentrating in specific episodes, to write what you think about the different players, and point out who you feel is scummy. That will give us a good "snapshot" of your position, and probably will allow you to put your thoughts about the game in order as well.
====

@Justin:

No, I don't think those details are important at all.

Regarding the "fake claims tell". Do you REALLY want to start discussing other games in this thread? Your read of those games is wrong. And biased, as you read them wanting to prove the point opposite to mine. I stand by my position that discussing fake claims before they took place is anti-town behaviour and a scum-tell.

Regarding your defense of my "timid" comment, I think you are making my point. Reading your quoting of yourself and the comments in your last post, I see the names of SSK, Apydog, Shteven, Cronx, and yet your vote during most of the game was firmly planted on Ythill. I see you as a butterfly, regarding accusations.

The "myslinch is a myslinch" point that I did is correct, even in context - I criticize you BECAUSE you think that myslinches are always bad to the town. That line is often used to paralize the town, and I have a problem with that.

And are you REALLY trying to argue that Xtomx is more verbose/less direct than you?

In short: I argue that you are not positioning yourself, and in response you try to draw me into a semantic war. You want to discuss the details of the posts with me, because you can't really argue with the one, simple, direct point that I make. Please!

Instead, how about putting your money where your mouth is, and telling us your current read on the players?

====

Mod: Vote count?

- waiting on apydog's read
- Incognito rises in my suspicion scale for scummy and exaggerated defense against small arguments.
- JP rises a lot in my suspicion scale for his last post, enough for me to

FoS: JP

[kuribo]

[quote="Claus"]You are absolutely right kuribo. Let's try to keep things short:
(also, I stupidly closed the tab after hitting preview on a rather large response I started to write before this one )

====

@ The kuribo x xtomx x Ythill love triangle:

Oh, you hugged and apologized to each other. Great.
====

No, we didn't, Xtoxm just doesn't recognize sarcasm. Especially when I pointed out that the way I worded it was exactly the same thing as what he said.

[kuribo]

oops, broke the quotes again

[Claus]

@ The kuribo x xtomx x Ythill love triangle:

Oh, you hugged and apologized to each other. Great.

No, we didn't, Xtoxm just doesn't recognize sarcasm.

... well, it seems I failed to recognize sarcasm as well. What a shame

[Xtoxm]

No, we didn't, Xtoxm just doesn't recognize sarcasm. Especially when I pointed out that the way I worded it was exactly the same thing as what he said.

Well I don't like you either.

Don't expect people to pick up sarcasm across forums...

[Xtoxm]

No, we didn't, Xtoxm just doesn't recognize sarcasm. Especially when I pointed out that the way I worded it was exactly the same thing as what he said.

Well I don't like you either.

Don't expect people to pick up sarcasm across forums...

[Xtoxm]

Ah crap posted it twice...Sorry about that. The first time the new page didn't load, so I hit it again.

[kuribo]

I figured the sarcasm was evident when I quoted my own statement, and your statement, and the fact that you said I fake quoted you, despite the significance that both statements mean exactly the same thing.

[Xtoxm]

I figured the sarcasm was evident when I quoted my own statement, and your statement, and the fact that you said I fake quoted you, despite the significance that both statements mean exactly the same thing.

I don't understand what you mean

[kuribo]

You said that when I said:

"If you guys want to get rid of DS, I'll jump on the bandwagon."

that I was false quoting you.

But you DID say "If DS is the way things are going, I'd be happy to sway my vote,"


That's the exact same statement.

[Shteven]

Perhaps I can clear up some confusion. Kuribo used "quotation marks" instead of a

block quote

to more loosely quote what he wanted to reference. He wasn't making an actual quote, which players here often use the block quotes for. However, Xtoxm thought he was, which is perfectly valid, because they are, after all,

quotation marks

. Kuribo then repeated the error, in a tongue in check fashion, by "requoting" (and by this I mean re-paraphrasing) him a second time. This was a subtle admission of guilt, but it really doesn't settle the matter in a clear fashion.

In fact, I think it's pretty much derailing the thread at this point, and while I haven't had much new to add over the past few days, hopefully we can put this behind us and get back to lynching DS. Thank you.

[Xtoxm]

You said that when I said:

"If you guys want to get rid of DS, I'll jump on the bandwagon."

that I was false quoting you.

But you DID say "If DS is the way things are going, I'd be happy to sway my vote,"


That's the exact same statement.

No, and i've already explained more than once why they are not, so go read back.

Thankyou Shteven.

[Incognito]

I'll be responding to Claus over the weekend but is this game still alive? It looks like we're going to need replacements for Ho1den, charter, SSK, and now Disciple Slayer also since his sig says /out on all games.

[Xtoxm]

We'll need 3 replacements, I'm hoping the other will be lynched. Proabably DS.