Ythill, I think I do have to take a stab at you.
I look for patterns, and I have questions about the pattern I’m seeing in your posting. Let's begin with your behavior regarding MafiaSSK. In this sequence:
MafiaSSK votes on Xtoxm, calls him a they and says he finds them suspicious
MafiaSSK complains that there are as many votes on him as on Xtoxm, but miscounts
MafiaSSK says he wasn’t suspicious of Xtoxm but instead just jumped on a bandwagon
MafiaSSK says he was lying about being suspicious of Xtoxm but gives no further information
You are drawn to MafiaSSK calling Xtoxm “they” and miscounting the votes, based on a highly suspicious, inaccurate and absolutely WIFOM premise you invented that someone would have to be “uncannily perceptive” to have been suspicious of Xtoxm’s original post. Why do I find this premise of yours so dubious? First let me quote the pertinent portion of your post:
Ythill wrote:Xtomx’s gender is clearly marked under his avatar. Also, when Mafia whined about the votes being tied, he only had 2 votes to Xtoxm’s 3. Mafia has revealed himself to be less than uncannily perceptive, yet finding honest suspicions in Xtoxm’s post #12 would require amazing powers of perception. Mafia also neglected to post the easy answer to Apyadg’s question. I believe pressure is justified here.
Now you claim to have read this board for two months before playing. In that case you have seen plenty of wagons build over far less than what was in Xtoxm’s first post, an immediate noob claim and taking a quick easy out to avoid participating in the random vote phase. Do I consider that sufficient reason to start a bandwagon? No. But I’ve certainly seen those bandwagons, and pushed by folks who weren’t scum. One might even say they are more likely to be pushed by people who are “less than uncannily perceptive”. So this seems almost like a deliberate misstatement on your part. In addition, given your first post in this thread, claiming that it would take someone uncannily perceptive to discern suspicious intent from Xtoxm’s first post seems possibly self-serving, since the same not uncannily perceptive someone might have seen your post as a reason to be suspicious of you.
And if there is an “easy answer” to Apyadg’s question, given that you’ve stated that finding “honest suspicions” in Xtoxm’s post would require “amazing powers of perception”, what would that answer be? And why would it be an easy answer?
You have cast reflective suspicion back at all three players (Xtoxm, Chronx and Incognito) who questioned you about your posts. Nothing overly suspicious there, the first impulse of anyone being hit is to hit back, but then you also include things like:
Ythill wrote:I hope you guys are this nice to me when I’m under the microscope.
Ythill wrote:I think it’s important for us to look at everyone, including me, before we do anything rash. Plus, at this stage of the game, it helps town to be attacking players capable of defending themselves: less likely to lead to a mislynch and more likely to reveal useful information. I hope you will be as amiable when it is your turn.
Ythill wrote:I’m willing to take my turn in the hot seat if need be.
Which don’t play nearly as sincere when you’ve cast reflective suspicion back at all three of the players who have pushed you at all.
You take your vote off MafiaSSK because he has become “abstract”, which is neither an accurate description of his post (if I am incorrect about this using any conventional meaning of abstract, please explain). You agree with Incognito that looking at the reasons behind the votes on MafiaSSK is a good idea, even while you’re sliding off the wagon, and use the last line of your post to try to direct those questions at a specific target.
You then amend your reasoning for taking your vote off MafiaSSK into being because Incognito obviated the need for an answer to your initial question, even though Incognito’s answers didn’t address any of the possibly relevant suspicions of MafiaSSK’s behavior, only the ones you were pursuing based on your false premise. You also point to MafiaSSK refusing to answer your question as a reason to give up, even though the initial condition you set for removing what you carefully identified as a pressure vote was MafiaSSK answering it. You conclude it with a reading of how some players respond under pressure, which would have been as valid at many other less obviously opportunistic points in this sequence. And you refer to other players who have done what MafiaSSK has done as though by doing this you make your response more authoritative.
To me this looks like false scum hunting on your part, deliberately leading the bulk of the discussion of MafaiaSSK’s behavior away from what might have been legitimately suspicious and down obviously non-productive paths.
Your responses to Incognito, Chronx and Xtoxm look like posing as being more than happy to be looked at while responding to everyone who has looked at you by trying to direct suspicion back at them.
And overall your posts look like they’re laying a veritable carpet of reasons to excuse any behavior you engage in: I’m new! I’ve read games for two months and have an IQ of 143! I may tell you to mind your own business if you ask me a question, but if I do it I’m pro-town!. Let’s look at that bandwagon I was on that I’m not on anymore and got off of for reasons which will evolve as they need to, and let’s start by looking at that other guy!
And to me, none of it looks very good. I don’t like pressure votes. This isn’t one. I might change it if I come to believe what I’ve seen above was early game jitters or if I see someone who I think is more definitely scum. But you have it now.
Vote: Ythill
