Mini 539: Game over

[Ythill]

Time will tell. I'm comfortable with my vote but see no need to convince others at this point.

[Northjayhawk]

Ythill, I read everything, but address only things I find relevant, interesting, and can add to or disagree with. I answered all your other questions without having to spell it out, or at least I thought that should have been easily inferred from my answer.

If I had more reasons to vote for Xtoxm, I would have stated them. If someone else was scummier, I would have voted for them. Honestly this early on, we really do not have a lot to go on yet, and 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, but you already covered nearly every angle before I could get to it.

Now to my question, since you and charter apparently didnt get it. I'm not criticising your use of "definitive town" instead of some other adjective to use to name someone a likely pro-town, I am seriously questioning why in the world you would go out of your way to argue that anyone is innocent at all this early in the game. I believe on day 1 and day 2, if someone makes a list or arguement for who is likeliest to be innocent this early that is anti-town (but not necessarily scummy, could could just be a townie making a bad play).

Suppose every one of us started throwing around fingers of innocence and arguements for town along with FoS and votes? Wouldnt that just be a huge blinking neon sign to the scum saying "lynch these people to win"?

Why did you feel the need to post "definitive town" and "probably town" lists? In what way does this help the town at all in the first day or two?

[Northjayhawk]

Suppose every one of us started throwing around fingers of innocence and arguements for town along with FoS and votes? Wouldnt that just be a huge blinking neon sign to the scum saying "lynch these people to win"?

Looks like I didnt read this through enough times before posting. Thats obviously supposed to be "kill these people to win".

[Ythill]

Sorry guys, busy morning. Will post content later today.

[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?

[Apyadg]

It might help to know that I’m using definitive by it’s main definition (most reliable) and not the alternate definition (final answer).

I think you should use a better dictionary, as I think that main definition is right, I guess you'renotusing an Oxford or Cambridge dictionary, but I don't want to get into another linguistics discussion. Using it as "most reliable" is bastardising the word, its etymology makes it quite clear what it should predominately used for, but I fear that this is an argument I should take up with dictionary.com, not you.

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.

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

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 . . .

I asked him to justify his vote,he answered saying he wanted to jump onthe bandwagon, someone else picked him up on that (So I saw no need to comment), he said he was lying, and then claimed he wasjoking. What further questions can I really ask about that? I don't see much scope for lines of questioning, really.

[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 . . .

[Apyadg]

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?

See post 94, I think I've explained myself fairly clearly there.

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 . . .

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".

[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.

[Incognito]

I'm still at work so I'll provide some feedback later today about the recent events. Did the mod ever get a

prod on Natude?

Also I'd like to see more content from Disciple Slayer - he came out of nowhere to place a vote on Apy and hasn't contributed much aside from that.

[Apyadg]

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.

I don't think it does; even if your argument in 77 is correct, and it looks pretty valid, it's still actually a justification for not lynching SSK.

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?

Good point, but I just didn't see anything I could really ask him, hopefully your post a couple up will draw some interesting resposes from him.

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.

Taken on board.

[ChronX]

I have a 20 minute bathroom break from the seminar we are in today, and haven't been able to read any of my games closely. However, I saw an @ ChronX, and will briefly respond to it by saying that: Just because MafiaSSK, after what I seem to recall was several futile attempts, finally came up with a credible(ish) explanation for his early game behavior, doesn't dismiss the fact that his behavior, on balance, was scummy. Having not had a chance to read much from the top of page 4 on closely at all, 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.

Sorry for not following all the content, I posted that this would be a tough work week for me.

[charter]

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?

Good point, but I just didn't see anything I could really ask him, hopefully your post a couple up will draw some interesting resposes from him.

You really can't think of a single question to ask someone in this game? No 'who do you suspect and why' type questions? Or nothing you see slightly amiss in his posts? You went on a long speech about ythills usage of definitive (of which he clearly defined anyway) but you can't find a single thing on SSK? Don't really see how this one works...

[charter]

Don't know what happened, but meant to put this at the beginning of my last post.

Now to my question, since you and charter apparently didnt get it.

What didn't I get? I was just asking ythill how he figured so soon that ho1den and myself were townies.

[Ythill]

Suppose every one of us started throwing around fingers of innocence and arguements for town along with FoS and votes? Wouldnt that just be a huge blinking neon sign to the scum saying "lynch these people to win"?

You expect everyone to infer your answers to direct questions by the fact that you didn’t answer them, but then doubt that the scum in this game could infer who I think is town from a suspicion list that names only scum. So you appear to believe two opposite things, demonstrating that you are either daft (which I doubt) or are choosing words to serve ulterior motives rather than the truth.

In itself, your statement about my list helping scum is way off. Power roles and effective scumhunters are the most likely targets, Me reading someone as town proves neither of these two things about them and doesn’t really help scum at all.

Why did you feel the need to post "definitive town" and "probably town" lists? In what way does this help the town at all in the first day or two?

Sorry I misunderstood your question. I wanted to let people know where I stand and give more fuel for dialogue, that’s the “official” reason I posted all of my reads. There are also several town stratagems that are initiated by listing whom one suspects to be town, but I’m not going to explain them to you. Either figure them out yourself or wait to see if any are played out here.

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...

Taking sides isn’t going to do you any good regarding my suspicions of you.

Ythill, I read everything, but address only things I find relevant, interesting, and can add to or disagree with... Honestly this early on, we really do not have a lot to go on yet...

Digging yourself deeper here. I’ve read both of your other games. I’ve seen you post more earlier and with much less to go on. Why the lie about your playstyle? Note that since your other games are ongoing, it is not appropriate for us to argue the specifics of them, which is why I’m being vague. Anyone who is curious can go read for themselves.

At this juncture, I don’t see you clearing yourself with an argument. We should probably move on to other topics. As I’ve said, I see no reason to convince others of your scumminess at this point. We still have lots of information to gather before anything like a lynch, and that means there’s still time for you to start playing like town.

[Justin Playfair]

Ythill,

So…

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…

…the answer to my question as to whether you could provide any examples of me accusing anyone other than you of anything was no. Because the definition of accuse, from Merriam Webster on-line, for one of many examples, is pretty definitive:

transitive verb 1 : to charge with a fault or offense : blame 2 : to charge with an offense judicially or by a public process

So, no, you are wrong in your interpretation of what accuse means. And no, you couldn’t find any examples of me doing so. Finally, my referring to the false case you pushed on MafiaSSK, which diverted attention down frivolous paths, was not backhanded or underhanded. I stated it clearly in my case against you and repeated it again later. It is about as direct as it could possibly be.

So we have now reduced accusing players under suspicion to asking questions of players under suspicion. In the case of MafiaSSK I continued to ask my questions after votes were coming off of him, which makes your pattern here rather meaningless. I would also point out again, that it was my asking him these questions that actually finally got him to respond, which I would think would be something all of us would want. Your quotes of me in relation to this consist of me observing that he could get votes quickly if he did not answer (which as I recall did happen), asking him to give a reason for the post in which he responded in what was an odd fashion by commenting that he has as many votes as Xtoxm (not nearly as edifying to his behavior as your seizing on the fact he miscounted the votes, I know), and pointing out that you pointed attention away from his initial vote, his claim that he was only bandwagoning, and his statement that he lied and toward your concerns, that he called Xtoxm “they” and miscounted the votes.

So, no pattern there in any regard. I kept asking him my questions after votes were coming off him, so that takes away from your supposition that I only ask questions of players under current pressure. I asked these questions until I actually…hmmm…got answers, which yes, is a pattern of mine, and nothing that you posted comes close to being an accusation of any kind.

In the second case, that of Incognito I asked him questions that would allow me to be sure of what I think I made pretty clear throughout my post to him, that he was being made to seem a defender of MafiaSSK and an attacker of those who voted for him based on a sequence of events that actually began with him defending Xtoxm for answering your “they” question. My post sought clarification of the only two points which I found at all inconsistent with my interpretation. I was trying to give Incognito a chance to explain his thinking outside of the confrontational environment which had arisen between him and ChronX. Remarkably, this too seems to have worked.

So in short, thank you for inviting me to discuss whether I beat my wife everywhere I go, but I think I’ll let you show anything even close to real evidence that I am beating her here, first. You have not supported an initially silly statement. If you want to take another whack at it, be my guest.

[Disciple Slayer]

Fucking grammar nazis. Who gives a shit, really? Post here so I can take note of it.

I'm here if anyone wants to ask me any questions.

[Ythill]

@ Justin:

Ah, so it is semantics. So, to use your example, if I were to say, "Your wife has a lot of bruises on her and I heard the two of you yeling in the next room," that wouldn't be an accusation, right? Only he with a weak position argues what exactly is said rather than the meaning that is clearly intended.

I was never refering to your questions, which I don't find scummy in the least. Your

accusations

(or whatever you want to call them) are another matter.

If you want to take another whack at it, be my guest.

No need. Your behavior has demonstrated to me that the pattern was scumspoor. I've taken note of it and will be watching for more.

[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?

[Ythill]

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

Talking about post lengths, right?

I don't see how our discussion is useless. He addressed me as scummy and voted me, I defended. I asked him a question about a scumtell, he asked for clarification, I gave it, he defended, I addressed his defense. Every bit of it has been game relevant non-repetative and, IMO, more revealing than the Apyadg thing.

Actually, DS, I do have a question for you. Assuming you've had time for a readthrough, how about a brief summary of your views on each of the players. I like the unique perspective of a person who returns after hiatus.

[Northjayhawk]

Suppose every one of us started throwing around fingers of innocence and arguements for town along with FoS and votes? Wouldnt that just be a huge blinking neon sign to the scum saying "lynch these people to win"?

You expect everyone to infer your answers to direct questions by the fact that you didn’t answer them, but then doubt that the scum in this game could infer who I think is town from a suspicion list that names only scum. So you appear to believe two opposite things, demonstrating that you are either daft (which I doubt) or are choosing words to serve ulterior motives rather than the truth.

To your first sentance, yes absolutely I do doubt the scum could infer your most innocent vs just uncertainty in the middle. When I think someone is likely town, I keep that information to myself the first day or two until we have enough evidence based on past votes and behavior to really know what we are doing. Even then, I would hesitate to call someone innocent for fear of telling the scum who they should kill, and would focus more on arguing for a lynch elsewhere.

I do NOT expect the scum to infer your most innocent out of the list of 8 or so people you dont name as suspicious, how could they presume otherwise? If you name 3 or 4 people as suspicious, the people you dont name are in some gray unknown middle which could easily receive your full attention later, but if everyone comes to an agreement as to who is most innocent, then obviously that would be a great kill target for the mafia. Why? 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.

I stand by my statement, what you are doing with your innocent list is very anti-town and either indicates scumminess or just a very bad play by you. (I had presumed the latter, but since you actually defend the practice of identifying innocent people in the first day, I have to reconsider) 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.

Ythill, I read everything, but address only things I find relevant, interesting, and can add to or disagree with... Honestly this early on, we really do not have a lot to go on yet...

Digging yourself deeper here. I’ve read both of your other games. I’ve seen you post more earlier and with much less to go on. Why the lie about your playstyle? Note that since your other games are ongoing, it is not appropriate for us to argue the specifics of them, which is why I’m being vague. Anyone who is curious can go read for themselves.

At this juncture, I don’t see you clearing yourself with an argument. We should probably move on to other topics. As I’ve said, I see no reason to convince others of your scumminess at this point. We still have lots of information to gather before anything like a lynch, and that means there’s still time for you to start playing like town.

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. Obviously in my other games I did find something interesting to add to the conversation. In this game, a lot of what I saw was already explored by others, and it would hardly be useful if I just posted a bunch of "me to's". (which I arguably already did on your comments vs Justin Playfair, but that huge back-and-forth argument practically demanded some kind of comment).

At this point, I have to

unvote, vote: Ythill

. This is not an OMGUS, because if you cant understand why feeding the scum our most innocent lists this early in the game is bad for the town, you are either a scum trying to convince the rest of the town to follow a very bad strategy, or you are a townie playing poorly enough to lead us off a cliff if others follow.

[Northjayhawk]

Now to my question, since you and charter apparently didnt get it.

What didn't I get? I was just asking ythill how he figured so soon that ho1den and myself were townies.

It was a comment on your post saying that my earlier post was pointless. (I assumed you referred to my question on why Ythill would post his most innocent list) If you were referring to something else, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Ythill]

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.

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.

[Ythill]

@ Ho1den: You've argued heavily with Apyadg and have concluded that his behavior looks scummy, yet your vote is in limbo. Why?

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

@ SSK & DS: Still waiting for a player analysis from each of you...

[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 . . .