Mini 539: Game over

[Apyadg]

Hi all!

Sorry I was doing some things. Vote:Xtoxm Because they seem suspicious.

Voting without reason is also suspicious, you know, random voting is still ok-ish at this point, but saying you have a reason without justifying it is bad!

Vote: MafiaSSK

[/b]

[Apyadg]

Great. So now the votes are tied between me and Xtoxm. And yes I was refering to Xtoxm as they rather than he because I was unsure of his gender.

Why did you vote for him?

[Apyadg]

Just a quick newb question to get it out of the way (can't find my answer in the wiki), what do we know about the role setup? Do we know how many mafia, or what power roles are available?

[Apyadg]

With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase.

Perhaps, the problem is that he gave the impression that it wasn't a "random vote".

The point is if a player chooses to participate in the random voting phase it's usually common practice to provide an explanation along with the random vote and MafiaSSK did just that.

Maybe, but the rest of the reasons were on the grounds of avatars, usernames, and so on, his seems to stand out.

Quite frankly, I'm more suspicious of the people who have chosen to provide this MafiaSSK wagon with some momentum when it's still ridiculously early in the game.

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.

[Apyadg]

Further, there were two people (Apyadg and ChronX) who jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying and who were justifying their votes on MafiaSSK based on what was said on Page 1

I object strongly to you saying that I "jumped on the wagon".

I voted, I gave my reason, and I was the first person to point out that he was the first person to make a real accusation --"They look suspicious" -- and he completely failed to back it up. The fact that other people had already voted for him is irrelevant; my vote was a good one backed up with sound logic.

I am going to unvote him, but I want to make it very clear that I still think there's a possibility that he's scum, and it's going to take a lot to knock him down my list of suspicious people (especially as he's the only person on it above the base level), I unvote him purely upon agreeing with Ythill's point from his last post.

Unvote:

MafiaSSK

. My eye is still very firmly upon him.

[Apyadg]

You seem like you could be scum and you initially jumped on mafia's bandwagon (I agree, he's given anyone plenty of reason to do so)

Bullshit. When I voted for him, there was no "wagon", simply a few random votes.

now you've realized he's not going to get lynched

And I realised, as I stated, that there's a good reason tonot lynch him.Accepting a good argument != scummy.

This, plus the fact that you haven't done hardly any of what I'd call scumhunting.

Well, I was the first to really point out any scummy behvaior, so I'd say that's bollocks too, before my post asking him to justify his claim of suspicious behavior, people were arsing around talking about his grammar and perception.

I appreciate I've not really picked at any other posts yet, other than those directly aimed at me, alas, this will not change before tomorrow evening. Busy weekend, I'm afraid, with little time to deal with all but the most urgent (i.e., those directly relating to me, or an occasion on which a lynch seems immnent, as in the other game I'm playing). Write my Marx essay for me, and I'll start picking on other people's posts.

[Apyadg]

VOTE: APYADG

Because something seems off about you. There was no way MafiaSSK's initial vote could have been a serious one. Come on, who finds someone suspicious at the beginning of the random voting stage? That was obviously a joke vote. You look like you're trying to find something to cling to, like you're trying to build a case on nothing.

It couldn't have been a serious one? Why not? If it was a random, it should have been made obvious, why say someone is "suspicious", it doesn't look like much of a joke to me.

I'm trying to build a case out of nothing? At the point at which I voted, what else was there to base a case on?

Secondly, if he's still the scummiest person in the game to you, why'd you remove your vote? Is it because it doesn't really matter to you who gets lynched, as long as it isn't you or your scumbuddies?

No.

[Apyadg]

I'll start by apologising for the lack of involvement for the last two or three days, it was a work-intensive period at uni, fortunately I've now finished until after Christmas, so I expect no further inactive periods during this game.

I stand by my vote for SSK at the time, and I still think he's pretty scummy, but as to why I unvoted him, well, I tried to make it clear at the time, but I decided to unvote based upon this argument by Ythill (post 57)

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.

In other words, MafiaSSK had went from an L-2 situation to an L-4 situation where he was nowhere near being lynched. If you still felt that MafiaSSK was the scummiest person above your baseline, then I don't see any reason for you to unvote him and place him at L-5 when keeping pressure on a person you consider scummy might be to your own benefit if you were town.

I see little reason to keep a vote on someone unless I think they should be lynched at that time. He'd had several votes on him, so I don't think he'd have felt under much "pressure" just due to my vote, if several people had unvoted him.

This is incorrect also. If you want to consider Ythill's post about "three random votes in a row without a die" a statement where someone points out scummy behavior, then it was actually Ythill who was first to point out scummy behavior

True, I didn't notice what that post was suggesting until you pointed it out, I guess I was still skim-reading at that point.

Apyadg, You still didn't explain why you unvoted him but aren't looking at anyone else. My main reason for voting you.

Simply haven't had time to try and look carefully for scummy behaviour from others, I will be doing a thorough read of the topic later this evening or tomorrow morning, in which that will be my aim.

(2) Apyadg admitted openly to following me with his unvote and didn’t add any elaboration of his own, which is suspicious IMO.

It was a good point, and I agreed, what's the issue?

[Apyadg]

I do have a rather tame question for you. The first of your two defense posts (#90) is very weak. Two posts later (#92) you make some solid points that amount to a relatively strong defense. What happened during the four hours between these posts that could explain the improvement?

Had to go to do some proof-reading, run to uni, print off my essay, and hand it in. Prior to my last post, my contributions have been the result of a few minute's of skimming through the topic, and a hastily thrown together post, to save time that I've hardly had. As I mention in my last post, I'll be able to devote adequate time to the game from now on.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy

On the one hand, it is not the agreement that seems suspect, but the justification of a “suspicious” action using only that agreement. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Taking an allegedly scummy action based solely on a logical fallacy is fishy.

It is, but my unvote was not based upon an appeal to authority; an appeal to authority is saying that an argument is justified based upon the person who puts forward the argument, for example, "Pigs fly, they must do because Einstein says that they do, and we all know how smart he is". Whilst I used the argument put forward by someone else, the strength of the argument is not derived from the credibility of the original author, the full logic is there for all to assess.

I did consider the possibility of you being scum whilst weighing up the point that you made, but it seems to me to be a good one, what do other people think about it? The argument is as follows:

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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[Apyadg]

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.

In this post, I'm pretty much just going to defend myself against my most controversial (my only?) action in this game. I'll re-read thw whole game tomorrow morning.

I'll be using Justin Playfair's post #306, as he lists all of the posts that relate to my vote/unvote, and summarises them quite nicely.

Because in post 47, before Ythill’s post 57, which “convinced” Apyadg that it would be a bad idea to lynch MafiaSSK, Apyadg said he didn’t think it would be a good idea to lynch MafiaSSK. And yet in Apaydg’s post 70 he says, explicitly, that he realized because of Ythill’s post 57 that there was not a good reason to lynch MafiaSSK.

Because in post 47 Apyadg says it wouldn’t be a good idea to lynch MafiaSSK, but he keeps his vote on MafiaSSK until post 60, when he uses Ythill’s post to justify removing his vote. And then in post 92 he tells Incognito that he sees little reason to keep a vote on someone unless he thinks they should be lynched at the time.

My logic behind it was thus:

Post #47 - 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, after considering Ythill's argument, I decided (though I'm having trouble seeing why I did) that even *if* SSK was scum, it wasn't a good time to lynch him (I think it was because we wouldn't really gain much information to help us forward, though I'll check that when I do a re-read tomorrow), and so I unvoted. My post #92 does however seem to be verging on lunacy, it appears to be indefencible, but hopefully will not be deemed voteworthy.

[Apyadg]

Ythill, that depends which approach people would want me to take.

I'm prepared to go through the whole topic and see what I make of it. It's quite a lot of material to go through -- considering this is my first non-newbie game, it's pretty tough going -- so I think it'll take me a couple of days to go through it all, make some notes, and try to comprehend it as one game rather than just loads of posts -- by trying to see inconsistencies, as well as how arguments fit together.

However, I'd imagine that most of the cases have been closed satisfactorily, and that any new insights I bring will be few and far between, with the rest just being a mass of text with no relevance to the game as it stands.

Would it be preferable for me to only address the topics you're discussing now, as well as ones people specifically point to if they want to know my thoughts on it? If so, I will probably be able to summarise my thoughts on the topics covered on the last couple of pages tomorrow morning.