Mini 1021: Battousai's Mountaintnous Mountain Mafia (Over)

[Xite91]

But aside from that, I don't see a worthwhile case on Xite. He's done several deliberately provocative things, like the false case on Nexus, or the "I'll hammer anyone at L-1" bit, and he has clearly done these with the full knowledge that this will draw negative attention on himself, and

that is not scummy

.

Whoawhoawhoa!
Where did I say I'll lynch

anyone

that hits L-1?
I don't do that shit unless they're scummy to me.

So yeah, fitz > Xite > wendy. I guess fitz isn't so much a popular choice any more though, looking at that vote count.

Now:

Xite, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
fitz, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
wendy, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
Nexus, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
Prana, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
LML, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
Leech, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?
Nightwolf, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?

...I'm forgetting someone. Oh right, Lat. Why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?

I lol'd a little.
Anyways my reason is that I'm in more than one game with him and it seems to be his meta. Why don't you read up on him?

1) I specifically asked LML and CA because I believe that both of them are experienced enough to know that nolynch is optimal, and their silence on the subject is interesting since my advocacy for nolynch is being used as a scum-tell against me by a couple of players.

2)...I don't think using a lottery is a good way to choose who you're voting for :/

nah, I am a little bit more confident that h.fitz is scum than xite,

but xite would be easier to lynch.

Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.[/quote]

1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.
2) Bolded.....

if we do that then no-lynch becomes optimal on day 2, and informed scumhunting still doesn't begin until day 3.

"Informed" scumhunting starts as soon as we get a flip. Two makes it better and so on.

I didn't notice that I had left off the Iamausername column and page number column on my screen shot.

Did Leech or Xite follow up on this? Did anyone else notice that the description I gave "the column on the right is the page number where each vote occurred" did fit the graphic I posted?

Did anyone notice that I left Iamausername out of the portion of the screen I grabbed?

Maybe because I took one look at that picture and went "Yup... screw that"
Also, that kind of a thing won't even be really useful until later, you said so yourself.

@ Xite:

4) How about your case on fitz pre-wendy replacing in?

1) (s)he only explained it when questioned about why (s)he switched to voting Lat rather than explaining it at the same time. Not particularly damning, but this whole gambit seems like it could very easily be an innocent guise for scum to hide behind, and I don't like it.
@ underlined:
2) From that point of view, sure. And it would also be a fine way of protecting your scum partner in the process. (Note: I am not claiming that Xite and Nexus are scum together. It is however a thought that has crossed my mind and one idea that I plan on looking at if Xite is lynched and flips scum.)
3) A player should be judged on their own actions regardless, so in my opinion it actually should not remove any suspicion from Nexus anyway. If Nexus acts scummy, then it's because Nexus is acting scummy, not because Xite wants Nexus to act scummy. Illustration of this idea - the amount of time that the wagon lived on after Xite jumped off and claimed the gambit.

5) That said, Xite has earned back a few town/credibility points during the discussion with me, but is still my top suspect at the moment.

Lulz counting fail
4) His violent attack on the easiest player to attack should say enough?
1) If I had explained it when I voted for lat, I would have gotten more shit for it methinks, it's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda things.
2) Ooh Ooh Ooh are we gonna play the WIFOM game? I'm an expert at that one!
3) It always takes a bit of time for a wagon to die down because there will always be those die hard fans (Take lincoln park as an example)
5) *gets down on knees screaming and crying* WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO EARN YOUR AFFECTION??!?!!??! [/moviemoment]
But seriously, what are the reasons I'm still your top suspect?

[tomorrow wendy]

1) I specifically asked LML and CA because I believe that both of them are experienced enough to know that nolynch is optimal, and their silence on the subject is interesting since my advocacy for nolynch is being used as a scum-tell against me by a couple of players.

2)...I don't think using a lottery is a good way to choose who you're voting for :/

nah, I am a little bit more confident that h.fitz is scum than xite,

but xite would be easier to lynch.

Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.

1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.
2) Bolded.....

1)I'm not really pushing it. If I were

really

pushing it I'd be throwing a professor mafia scummy in your face and calling most of you idiots for swallowing the "no-lynch is sub-optimal" site meta without noticing that this specific setup is an exception to the general rule.
Hopefully, after I flip y'all will reconsider it for Day 2. In this game, if you chart player proficiency against opinion of no-lynch in this specific setup, you'll see that those with titles and lots of game experience (with the possible exception of LML) agree with me that No Lynch

before mylo

is a key consideration.
2) Yes, I had two players I was suspicious of , and I took the tactical consideration of lynch capacity into consideration in picking which one to vote for, or in this case figured that the total difference was slim enough that using a provably random mechanism to choose whom to vote for was ok.

[Xite91]

1) I specifically asked LML and CA because I believe that both of them are experienced enough to know that nolynch is optimal, and their silence on the subject is interesting since my advocacy for nolynch is being used as a scum-tell against me by a couple of players.

2)...I don't think using a lottery is a good way to choose who you're voting for :/

nah, I am a little bit more confident that h.fitz is scum than xite,

but xite would be easier to lynch.

Rather than waste a bunch of brain resources, I did the equivalent of flipping a coin, and we got to share a teaching moment as a side benefit.

1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.
2) Bolded.....

1)I'm not really pushing it. If I were

really

pushing it I'd be throwing a professor mafia scummy in your face and calling most of you idiots for swallowing the "no-lynch is sub-optimal" site meta without noticing that this specific setup is an exception to the general rule.
Hopefully, after I flip y'all will reconsider it for Day 2. In this game, if you chart player proficiency against opinion of no-lynch in this specific setup, you'll see that those with titles and lots of game experience (with the possible exception of LML) agree with me that No Lynch

before mylo

is a key consideration.
2) Yes, I had two players I was suspicious of , and I took the tactical consideration of lynch capacity into consideration in picking which one to vote for, or in this case figured that the total difference was slim enough that using a provably random mechanism to choose whom to vote for was ok.

@Wendy
1) Other than games on this site, you don't know the "game experience" people have. Also, I do think that a no lynch would be a good idea AFTER DAY ONE, and that is the point we (as in other than you and maybe? Llama) are making. Again it's a

key consideration

as in they haven't said it's the absolute best idea, but it could be a good one. I mean, what if we catch scum D1? Then doesn't it become optimal to wait or not No lynch at all? We

need

the info from the D1 flip. The fact that you're still trying to push the same idea down our throats IS the point. Plus, it amuses me that now you're trying to convince us based on "the experienced players"
2) The way you worded it was interesting to me because you said that Fitz is more likely to be scum than me (AKA you have doubts that I'm scum) but I'm the easier lynch candidate so you couldn't decide on your own and just chose randomly? Just looks scummy to me

[tomorrow wendy]

xite, the only people who should lack doubts about a D1 lynch target are those with a scum win condition.

For a town player the baseline % chance of any other playing being scum is currently 22%, and to double those odds would be a remarkable piece of scumhunting, and would still yield an inaccurate lynch more than half of the time.

[Xite91]

xite, the only people who should lack doubts about a D1 lynch target are those with a scum win condition.

For a town player the baseline % chance of any other playing being scum is currently 22%, and to double those odds would be a remarkable piece of scumhunting, and would still yield an inaccurate lynch more than half of the time.

Yeah, only problem is, seeing the way people flip greatly increases the chances of catching scum, regardless of your statistics. Two people flipping by D2 is much better than 1 IMO.
I never said I lacked doubts about a D1 lynch target. Yes, they could be town, but they also could be D2, or 3 or 9798798. But the thing is, they could also be scum.
Now seriously, stop pushing for a D1 no lynch because it's not going to happen.

[Lateralus22]

He berates Xite because "any and every scummy behavior should be pointed out", but then goes to agree with Xite that the behaviour in question was not scummy. So basically he's just throwing dirt at Xite for no actual reason.

Huh… What… ?

That was me trying to be

friendly

in a not completely I'm going to hug you and hold you forever kind of way. I don't even know how you read that in a negative tone at all, so I gave my personal philosophy on mafia, your point? I do believe Nexus did a good thing pointing out what he did, that doesn't mean I agreed with it. This would be similar to you liking how Leech is critically thinking yet you believe he is wrong. Xite didn't even take this in a negative way, he gave a light hearted joke like response some time in this thread.

I enjoy the fact that Lat doesn't even deny that he is not actually trying to figure out Nexus's alignment.

If questioning someone and trying to point out inconsistent or scummy behaviors isn't trying to figure out someone alignment I don't know what else is.

Post #222: And here we start to move onto the next phase, where Lat starts to shift away from Nexus and onto Xite, because apparently town reads are scum slips now. But, strangely enough, his vote doesn't go anywhere. If he really thinks that Xite slipped up and accidentally admitted that he knew Nexus is town, you'd think he might want to stop voting for Nexus, no? Looks to me like he is waiting to see if an Xite wagon will take off before abandoning the healthy wagon he has already.

Unfortunatly I don't have a very good reason, I will however give you the true reason. I was lazy. There was no rush at all, from my point of view it was like I figured out a big piece of the puzzle noticing a scum slip that I figured leads Xite to being scum for sure. In the Nexus situation I was trying to get information, thus putting a vote on for more pressure. With Xite the pressure wasn't needed, I just decided to finish the conversation.

Post #311: Nearly 100 posts later, Lat finally switches his vote over to Xite. There's no big revelation in this post, he doesn't point out any new scummy behaviour from Xite (or new town behaviour from Nexus) that pushed him over the edge. In fact he doesn't even mention either Xite or Nexus in this post. So I am really wondering what the catalyst was for the vote change coming in this particular post.

At post #283 Xite ends the argument and so I put my vote where it should be.

This does a lot to convince me that he might have actually believed in his stupid points against Nexus.

My Awesome points against Nexus.

I haven't had much interaction with Prana, or you, Wendy, does that make us scum teams too?

Now that you notice this please try to change that. What do you think of all three of those players, does anything stick out to you?

And since I answered your CA question, why don't you tell us why you don't want to vote tw while you are at it. The tw vca spreadsheets just take up space (IIoA) and add no value (at least this early in the game). That on top of tw's blatent misrep on me, failure to answer questions directed at him/her (twice) and his/her crap play to this point in the game (+ dalt's).

Maybe because I took one look at that picture and went "Yup... screw that"
Also, that kind of a thing won't even be really useful until later, you said so yourself.

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

4) I do use mostly gut, yes, but for your sakes I have been providing information on the people I find scummy. Go back and read me, you'll see points on Lat, Fit, and Wendy, they just aren't all bundled up in one post like I'm sure you would like.

Do you not care enough about finding scum that you aren't make an organized case in order to present all the evidence and information needed to lynch or find scum?

…I'm forgetting someone. Oh right, Lat. Why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?

Xite is more scummy. I looked at another game CA was in so I figured he was just… not very good. I haven't looked at any more of his games though.

I looked at over tomorrow wendy's posts and I think I figured it out. tomorrow wendy's just messing with all of us. Most of his posts just looks like he's trying to get reactions out of others, though he could do a better job if he's town. I am not against his lynch as much as I was, but I still believe that Xite is a better lynch.

[Adel]

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

that + utilization of the reverse scientific method (determine conclusion then sort evidence to find support for conclusion) sums it up the approach rather nicely.

[tomorrow wendy]

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

that + utilization of the reverse scientific method (determine conclusion then sort evidence to find support for conclusion) sums it up the approach rather nicely.[/quote]

[Xite91]

1) That was me trying to be

friendly

in a not completely I'm going to hug you and hold you forever kind of way. I don't even know how you read that in a negative tone at all, so I gave my personal philosophy on mafia, your point? I do believe Nexus did a good thing pointing out what he did, that doesn't mean I agreed with it. This would be similar to you liking how Leech is critically thinking yet you believe he is wrong. Xite didn't even take this in a negative way, he gave a light hearted joke like response some time in this thread.

2) Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

3) Do you not care enough about finding scum that you aren't make an organized case in order to present all the evidence and information needed to lynch or find scum?

4) Xite is more scummy. I looked at another game CA was in so I figured he was just… not very good. I haven't looked at any more of his games though.

5) I looked at over tomorrow wendy's posts and I think I figured it out. tomorrow wendy's just messing with all of us. Most of his posts just looks like he's trying to get reactions out of others, though he could do a better job if he's town. I am not against his lynch as much as I was, but I still believe that Xite is a better lynch.

1) You don't wanna hug and hold me forever? T_T
2) I attacked him for it? I think I asked him about it, but he asked me why I didn't notice something about

his

chart and I gave my honest reason, it's too complicated for me to care about it until it's actually useful
3) I don't care enough to make a case with points that I've already stated, especially when it's pretty obvious why the person is scum/scummy to me
4) Awww does that mean that you consider me a good player?
5) Why don't you come down from that fence, lat?

[havingfitz]

And since I answered your CA question, why don't you tell us why you don't want to vote tw while you are at it. The tw vca spreadsheets just take up space (IIoA) and add no value (at least this early in the game). That on top of tw's blatent misrep on me, failure to answer questions directed at him/her (twice) and his/her crap play to this point in the game (+ dalt's).

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

Huh? How are any of the graphics tdel has provided been of use? As we get further into the game that sort of analysis will be more and more beneficial...but on D1 it doesn't mean a thing. So the three examples tdel has posted are just taking up space and not providing anything of value.

[LoudmouthLee]

What do LML and CA thank of nolynch?

Mathematically, a NL is a good play. However, the timing of the NL doesn't quite matter as long as it's before LyLO. I don't personally think that a D1 No-Lynch is practical here, especially since there is information and voting patterns that could be of incredible help when someone's alignment flips, along with the inherent Night Kill.

With that being said...

Prana, please note h.fitz trying to engage a deeper conversation about

Day2 nolynch

before you throw a yellow card at me for asking for LML and CA's opinions.

I specifically asked LML and CA because I believe that both of them are experienced enough to know that nolynch is optimal, and their silence on the subject is interesting since my advocacy for nolynch is being used as a scum-tell against me by a couple of players.

I don't think your advocacy of a NL is a scumtell, I think your votehopping is a scumtell. I don't think a NL is even on my radar right now, although it will be later on to increase mathematical odds. However...

Mafia is

not a game of mathematics

. Your math basically is a call to entertain the thought of random lynches. By using logic (for instance.. the quoted text is a typical logical fallacy called Argument from Authority.) we can engage in educated lynches, thereby increasing the mathematical odds.

I'm in five games at the moment, and in a few of them, this one included, I'm not that engaged in the game. I would love to change that though, just not sure how to get back into it.

I think no lynch is good later down the road, but not for day 1.

While I take IAM's "lynch craziness" with the lulz it was supposed to derive... your lack of substantial posting in this game since the beginning looks an awful lot like lurking rather than actively scumhunting. If I didn't like the TW lynch so much, and had HF next (or first, for that matter), I would be pulling for a CA lynch like crazy.

@CA: Make a case on someone. Please. I want to have something to read from you.

@ LmL:

I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at or not but I'll attempt to respond anyway:
Not so much iau's case on wendy as just the idea presented with the link. When I first saw that wendy was an experienced player, I looked back at his posts with that knowledge in mind thinking that I would find him scummier since nothing could be written off to newb-ness. Instead, I found some of wendy's scummy actions to be a bit too obvious for a player that knows what they're doing, even (and perhaps, especially) if they are acting the part of newb at the time. Once I saw iau's link, the idea of being deliberately scummy to draw out predators fit what I saw with some of these more obviously scummy actions to me.

I'm still shocked at the number of people who continually forget the main rule of Occam's Razor. Paraphrased, the simplest solution is generally the correct one. Instead of saying "TW/Adel must have been running a gambit", why can't we say "TW/Adel was incredibly scummy, has numerous cases pressed against him/her, ans should be lynched." Instead, you go out of your way to include a NEW ASSUMPTION about the situation. (Adel would NEVER play like this as scum. It's too obvious.)

Your necessity to defend in that way is a mark against you, IMHO.

1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.

I wouldn't quite consider me "uninvolved", especially with a comparison to CA. While I don't think this was a complete try to undermine any pull of what I'm saying, it seems incredibly awkward to put me in the same boat as CA. Especially since, as of this post, I will have posted 40 times, which is on the upper-half of the post count list for all players. Prior to this, I had not found you any scummier than most, but this comment gave me pause.

Okay. That brings me up to date, for the most part.

Here's how I feel, in a nutshell.

I still like the TW vote for reasons previously listed. The HF wagon went nowhere, and since it probably won't go anywhere, we can talk about that another day. I don't feel a CA lynch would give us any information about other's alignment right now, yet I feel an Xite lynch WOULD. However, I currently do not believe that Xite is scum, which is why my vote isn't on him.

I still like the TW play today.

[LoudmouthLee]

and the more I think about it...

[quote="LML's completely MetaGaming so you can feel free to ignore this.]

Dalt's first incorrectly parsed vote was on Saga, who is Nightwolf now. In the stone age, it was commonplace for new scum to vote their partner out of the gate as a way of 'distancing.' It's odder that Nightwolf currently is defending TW's actions (former Dalt's actions) by playing the "Adel would never do that" card. It also makes me wonder if the Alt was possibly outted on purpose for that rationale. [/quote]

I really want to see TW's alignment.

[LoudmouthLee]

Frick. I wish I could parse.

and the more I think about it...

Dalt's first incorrectly parsed vote was on Saga, who is Nightwolf now. In the stone age, it was commonplace for new scum to vote their partner out of the gate as a way of 'distancing.' It's odder that Nightwolf currently is defending TW's actions (former Dalt's actions) by playing the "Adel would never do that" card. It also makes me wonder if the Alt was possibly outted on purpose for that rationale.

I really want to see TW's alignment.

[Xite91]

1) Or because they seem to be a little less... involved... with the game? Also, it's not a scumtell that you suggested it, it's a scumtell that you're STILL pushing it, and you didn't start pushing it until you had a lot of pressure on you.

I wouldn't quite consider me "uninvolved", especially with a comparison to CA. While I don't think this was a complete try to undermine any pull of what I'm saying, it seems incredibly awkward to put me in the same boat as CA. Especially since, as of this post, I will have posted 40 times, which is on the upper-half of the post count list for all players. Prior to this, I had not found you any scummier than most, but this comment gave me pause.

I said "less involved" not uninvolved. You didn't seemed as interested as a few people, which is why I was saying that. Wendy was calling you two out together at first, so you could argue that she was the one that put you guys on the same level.
Also, you tend to post twice at a time, and lately you've been posting about 3-4 posts every other day, which (compared to people like me, wendy, etc. who post a *bajillion times a day) makes you look less involved.

*Disclaimer: That is an exaggeration

and the more I think about it...

[quote="LML's completely MetaGaming so you can feel free to ignore this.]

Dalt's first incorrectly parsed vote was on Saga, who is Nightwolf now. In the stone age, it was commonplace for new scum to vote their partner out of the gate as a way of 'distancing.' It's odder that Nightwolf currently is defending TW's actions (former Dalt's actions) by playing the "Adel would never do that" card. It also makes me wonder if the Alt was possibly outted on purpose for that rationale.

I really want to see TW's alignment.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

And this helps prove my point a bit

[tomorrow wendy]

it just occurred to me that an excellent argument for lynching xite is that it would shut him up, and make the game more readable for future replacements and those who reread the game. A more informed town is more likely to succeed, and a more readable game thread yields a more reading of the game yields a more informed town.

[tomorrow wendy]

lol, but nolynch would still be better

[Xite91]

it just occurred to me that an excellent argument for lynching xite is that it would shut him up, and make the game more readable for future replacements and those who reread the game. A more informed town is more likely to succeed, and a more readable game thread yields a more reading of the game yields a more informed town.

Interestingly this same argument would work for you was well, wendy.

[Xite91]

EBWOP
*as well

[tomorrow wendy]

it just occurred to me that an excellent argument for lynching xite is that it would shut him up, and make the game more readable for future replacements and those who reread the game. A more informed town is more likely to succeed, and a more readable game thread yields a more reading of the game yields a more informed town.

Interestingly this same argument would work for you was well, wendy.

not really. my signal:noise ratio is rather better than your's

[Nexus]

I dunno, I think you're both as bad as each other.

You're about to have another argument which will no doubt go on for another few posts, not really providing any of us with anything useful.

[Leech]

Post #272: This I like less. He's really putting fitz into a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of thing, where he is scummy for continuing to push his crappy dalt case in the face of massive resistance from everybody else, but then he's also scummy for dropping his crappy dalt case in the face of massive resistance from everybody else.

Again, it wasn't the fact that he dropped the case that bothered me. It was the fact that he dropped a case that he clearly believed in, for something he didn't appear to believing in nearly as much. Recent events and how he's going back with a "told ya so!" attitude does nothing but back my suspicions on his dropping the case to begin with. Considering he's trying to make Wendy's scumminess fit the mold of his previous case on Dalt, really makes me question his hop off of his case to begin with.

He's also horribly wrong in all his stuff about Xite and gut feelings, but I think he actually believes what he's saying there, so that's not scummy. Yeah, that's pretty much Leech in general, actually. He is wrong wrong wrong about pretty much everything and reading his iso made me want to beat my head against a wall (or his, actually), but I think he's earnest in his wrongness. The catch-22 bit with fitz is the only thing that actually strikes me as scummy.

Why are you so insistent on ignoring the fact that I've stated multiple times that there is nothing wrong with gut feelings? I said I don't consider a gut feeling to be the sole reason to vote. That was the extent of it. I've seen scum use gut as a reason far too often to accept that as a viable reason. It's indisputable and I don't think that should ever be the determining factor for that very reason.

Mind pointing out a few of the things I'm wrong about when it relates to Xite? You said "all his stuff" so you should have plenty you can show me. Just saying a person is wrong is no where near as effective as showing instances where I am wrong.

Leech, why don't you want to lynch ConfidAnon?

I never said I was opposed to a CA lynch. I definitely don't think he's the best choice, I think TW or Xite would be much better lynches.

6) are you really trying to use that as a scumtell?
First, it was night while I posted it
+ Second, I was talking to friends while I was writing it
= I mixed up my words a little.
But, since you're going to make this look horribly scummy (as in quite a bit scummy ) what's your take on it, sherlock?

Well, I was just pointing out an obvious miswording in what you wrote. I love the "I was talking to friends while writing it" comment though. It's the second time you've mentioned an outside-the-game defense. First it was trying to get Wendy to ask another member of the site how you act in real life, and now it's talking to friends which makes you mispost. Nice. I'm foreseeing a "I had a good post, but my dog ate it" excuse in the near future.

Also, I find it really funny that as soon

as I call you out on it

you start focusing more on Wendy

Yeah, because that's obviously what happened. It had absolutely nothing to do with Wendy posting and continuing her self-destruct intentional newbie play at all. I find it funny that you're acting like your words were a deciding factor in what I posted, when I clearly replied to a post that Wendy had made. If she hadn't posted again you'd have a point, but she did. What you did there was try to put me in a position where no matter what I did, you could claim it was scummy.

Yeah, only problem is, seeing the way people flip greatly increases the chances of catching scum, regardless of your statistics.

No, no it doesn't. The only thing that increases the odds of catching scum regardless of the statistics would be scum playing poorly. A flip won't change statistics, the skill level of the players, however, will. I'll touch on this more later.

Also, you tend to post twice at a time, and lately you've been posting about 3-4 posts every other day, which (compared to people like me, wendy, etc. who post a *bajillion times a day) makes you look less involved.

As I said to Wendy: Post count does not reflect alignment. Your posting style does make people look less involved, but that has no bearing on the alignments of the people you are posting more than.

Love how both of you like to attack tomorrow wendy when he posts fluff yet you attack him when he's posting useful information when Xite (and kinda fit) says that it will be useful later. If it is why are you complaining? Looks like both of you saw IIoA was a scum tell and decided to bash anyone who does so no matter what the content is.

There's a few suspect things about the way that TW posted that information. First, he didn't explain it, at all. What good is a bunch of numbers and colors when you don't get any sort of key to see what it means. He was quick to explain it once asked, but why didn't he just say it right away? Also, this information does us no good right now and I'm not sure why it was posted at the time it was. That should have been posted after a flip, not before. Think for a minute about this. He was looking like he was going to be the lynch of the day, can you seriously not see a scum reason to post that?

TW is town.

Are you basing this solely on the fact that TW is pushing no-lynch? All I see other than that is a result of shared suspects, which I'm not so sure is a town-tell. What exactly makes you claim that TW is town?

I would be happy with a no lynch today, but see my previous arguement on it not being a fundamentally good idea in this situation.

Ok, let's look at your previous argument for a second:

On no lynch - I actually like it for right now, but am against it in practice for a key reason. It will make an amazingly massive ammount of noise. People will split on it, some people will try to use it as a tell (which it is not as it can be argued as good and bad) but it will be used as a tell, which will create more noise, and just get in the way of scumhunting.

Those are all very good reasons why it would be a bad idea. So, why exactly have you stated twice that you would be happy with it? It seems like your argument for it is countered by your argument why it's bad, all the while endorsing it. Maybe I'm just not fully grasping your reasoning, but to me it seems like you're fence sitting on the subject.

Mafia is not a game of mathematics. Your math basically is a call to entertain the thought of random lynches. By using logic (for instance.. the quoted text is a typical logical fallacy called Argument from Authority.) we can engage in educated lynches, thereby increasing the mathematical odds.

While that appears solid on the surface, it isn't that simple. What you are overlooking is the potential ability of scum to be falsely accepted as town due to their plays. When you add in manipulation and deceit it balances out the statistics a little. While we can make educated lynches, some of the information we use to form them will be false. This does help balance the math a little. While I agree that statistics aren't really don't hold much weight in the game, they aren't as worthless as you're trying to claim they are.

Dalt's first incorrectly parsed vote was on Saga, who is Nightwolf now. In the stone age, it was commonplace for new scum to vote their partner out of the gate as a way of 'distancing.' It's odder that Nightwolf currently is defending TW's actions (former Dalt's actions) by playing the "Adel would never do that" card. It also makes me wonder if the Alt was possibly outted on purpose for that rationale.

Why did you quote that as "metagaming you can feel free to ignore this" when that is actually a valid observation? I hate it when people make valid points only to discredit them at the same time. I have seen that form of distancing enough times to entertain that thought.

Draw #6129 on 8/18/2010

8 10 19 34 36

unvote; vote: havingfitz

How is it this vote only got a very brief comment from Nexus then, for the most part, ignored by everyone else? I can't be the only one that sees a problem with this horrible vote.

Did Leech or Xite follow up on this? Did anyone else notice that the description I gave "the column on the right is the page number where each vote occurred" did fit the graphic I posted?

How exactly were you expecting me to follow up? "Oh...I get it now"? Don't get me wrong, I understand the point of voting patterns, but there's really not much you can do with it until someone flips. Also, considering the position you had gotten yourself into when you posted that, I see a legitimate reason scum would post that. I tend to not engage in conversations that can help the scum. Posting that before a flip at a point where it looked like you were going to be lynched was scummy. I didn't realize how bad it was, until you explained it.

[Nexus]

The reason I didn't follow up further was that it was basically proving my point that she's been horribly inconsistent with her suspicions, and keeps flip-flopping. The fact that someone will continue to leave their vote up to chance is, if not scummy, incredibly anti-town. One of the reasons why I'm leaning towards voting TW over anyone else is that I see her as the most anti-town and distracting. Xite's not much better, but I believe that tw is more damaging for the town. It's frustrating me, but she keeps digging herself deeper.

[Xite91]

1) Well, I was just pointing out an obvious miswording in what you wrote. I love the "I was talking to friends while writing it" comment though. It's the second time you've mentioned an outside-the-game defense. First it was trying to get Wendy to ask another member of the site how you act in real life, and now it's talking to friends which makes you mispost. Nice. I'm foreseeing a "I had a good post, but my dog ate it" excuse in the near future.

Also, I find it really funny that as soon

as I call you out on it

you start focusing more on Wendy

2) Yeah, because that's obviously what happened. It had absolutely nothing to do with Wendy posting and continuing her self-destruct intentional newbie play at all. I find it funny that you're acting like your words were a deciding factor in what I posted, when I clearly replied to a post that Wendy had made. If she hadn't posted again you'd have a point, but she did. What you did there was try to put me in a position where no matter what I did, you could claim it was scummy.

Yeah, only problem is, seeing the way people flip greatly increases the chances of catching scum, regardless of your statistics.

3) No, no it doesn't. The only thing that increases the odds of catching scum regardless of the statistics would be scum playing poorly. A flip won't change statistics, the skill level of the players, however, will. I'll touch on this more later.

Also, you tend to post twice at a time, and lately you've been posting about 3-4 posts every other day, which (compared to people like me, wendy, etc. who post a *bajillion times a day) makes you look less involved.

4) As I said to Wendy: Post count does not reflect alignment. Your posting style does make people look less involved, but that has no bearing on the alignments of the people you are posting more than.

5) How is it this vote only got a very brief comment from Nexus then, for the most part, ignored by everyone else? I can't be the only one that sees a problem with this horrible vote.

1) I lol'd a little at that. What else did you want me to say? You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. Also, I don't have a dog, but maybe you'll get that excuse about my parakeet
2) No, just the fact that you posted things about her right after I mentioned it was funny, maybe not scummy yet, but amusingly ironic.
3) I said regardless of statistics because this game, while it does have some mathematical basis, is still more a game of logic and deduction more than anything else, therefore, seeing flips and checking back to see their interactions with other players will help us catch scum far faster than math will.
4) I never said anything about his alignment. I was trying to point out that I thought Wendy was trying to manipulate people who seemed less involved with the game. Can I have another mouthful of words, please?
5) For how much you seem to be paying attention to me it amuses me that you didn't catch that I did say some things about it, but more before, when she gave the proof of random and after when she said that her reason for wanting to vote me was because it was easier than Fitz

[tomorrow wendy]

sorry guys, I don't have the heart to argue my heart out. I'll switch my vote to xite if the opportunity to lynch him presents itself, but I'll leave my vote on h.fitz in the meantime for the symbolic value since it seems pretty clear to me that I'm going to be the lynch. goodluck!

[tomorrow wendy]

calling scumteam of "Xite91 + havingfitz"

told ya!