@Justin: If you looked closely enough,Justin you would have found that there is no depth to my answers. All I've said were one "They" seem suspicious which doesn't have any depth besides me not paying attention to the male symbol. The second thing of which you have already responded to but avoided,but as you well know I was doing neither of those things. I instead was putting one simple comment on this board. It was not meant to do anything at all besides maybe try and make 5 years olds laugh if they saw that. So since you seem susupicious of me, I will be suspicious of you.
Mini 539: Game over
-
-
MafiaSSK Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5338
- Joined: November 25, 2007
- Location: Washington, D.C.
Unvote: xtoxm Vote:Justin Playfair
@Justin: If you looked closely enough,Justin you would have found that there is no depth to my answers. All I've said were one "They" seem suspicious which doesn't have any depth besides me not paying attention to the male symbol. The second thing of which you have already responded to but avoided,but as you well know I was doing neither of those things. I instead was putting one simple comment on this board. It was not meant to do anything at all besides maybe try and make 5 years olds laugh if they saw that. So since you seem susupicious of me, I will be suspicious of you.Call me "SSK, or "ssk". Mafia is my father.-
-
Ho1den Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 78
- Joined: September 26, 2007
- Location: Ohio
Ok, did a read through. First of all we have been missing one, Natude has yet to post so we really need to hear something from him.
Xtoxm, you've answered for SSK twice now. Granted you think they are stupid questions to him, but he hasn't had to answer for just about anything he has done this game and when he did his response was "I lied" a huge townie no-no. I don't mind that you're attacking Ythill's argument as I find it a bit weak as it is entirely possible that SSk just miscounted the votes and didn't see/understand the gender icon BUT that is what HE needed to explain, not you.
xtoxm wrote:Yes, but it is easily acceptable that someone does not recognise the symbol, or even that they simply did not see it.
What are you getting at with this point?
All you had to ask was for what his line of reasoning was, there was no need to provide an easy answer to the question. At this point it's just a little scummy but it could become a larger problem as we get further into the game, so stop it.
Chronx - I was not pushing a bandwagon as you stated. He gave me a reason for the vote and I explained myself.
Ythill - I understand your point about SSK being perceptive enough to see someone as suspicious but not perceptive enough to pick up on someone's gender or the vote count. He managed to back track out of that with the "I was lying" response. I think this is much more significant than the argument you had against him before, yet you didn't even comment on it, how come?
SSK - You're not helping yourself with your recent posts. You admit to lying and then make an OMGUS vote. At this point I'm wondering if he could really be this obvious of a scum.
You're really okay with accepting the transition from "I think he's suspicious" (with no reasoning) to "I just wanted to jump on a bandwagon and lied about it"? At this point there's no good reason to give SSK this out when he did nothing to help himself. Scummy.Incognito wrote: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.
Unvote
Vote: Incognito-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Yeah, my post 48 did seem kind of scummy, and for more reasons than ChronX has pointed out.
Ythill chides him less mildly. Did you really not see that? IMO, Incog’s interjection was less excusable than Xtoxm’s butChronX wrote:YTHill mildly chides xtoxm for answering a question directed at MafiaSSK. Yet when Incognito does something similar...mepointing it out aggressively would have seemed OMGUS, reducing the validity of the accusation. I figured I’d leave it for someone who wasn’t on the wagon to bring up, but I guess it’s too late for that now.
“Seems to feel the heat,” “flip flop,” and “panic stricken” are weighted bombast. I hope, for your sake, that your slant here was meant to increase pressure on me, because it looks a little scummy otherwise. The unvote was for seemingly obvious reasons which I mentioned, but I’ll reiterate in defense:ChronX wrote:YT seems to feel the heat and unvotes... Awfully fast flip flop from being willing to pressure vote to L-3 to being panic stricken about your vote and others...
(1) Mafia started doing what I like to callsticking one’s head in the noose, a behavior that is reminiscent of Ryan’s and Dylan’s play, among others, and one that is likely to lead to a mislynch without providing much information. I am not the only player to note this behavior (see posts 41, 43, & 45) or to think it’s bad for town (see 44) and the L-2 vote camebecause ofit. It’s a little early to be risking a mislynch or claim for minutiae, and we haven’t even discussed the possibility that Mafia is a Jester.
(2) My vote was explicitly placed to elicit the answer to a specific question. Now that Mafia has dodged the question and Incognito has volunteered an acceptable answer, the reason for the vote is moot or at least not worth the obvious risks.
Also, my vote was one of the more solid of the five on the wagon. Certainly placed for more logical reasons than [paraphrase]you’re a whiner and what Apyadg said.[/paraphrase]
He placed a random vote, chided the inactive players for stalling the game, and then dropped out of sight while his random went wagonny. Not entirely damnable, but worth asking him about. Besides, I can’t just sayChronX wrote:I also don't understand the need to call out Charter.let’s talk about the wagonand then not contribute anything about it. Charter’s participation seemed like the easiest to examine and clear, I figured we could get it out of the way early.
WIFOM already? You’re a better player than that, ChronX. You’ll find that I’m always willing to face accusations because I think that giving honest townies the chance to scrutinize me will be conducive to forming good relationships for the purpose of scumhunting. I think it’s important for us to look atChronX wrote:And, some reverse psychology is attempted when he volunteers to be on the hot seat.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.
Anyone else want to take a stab at me before we move on to other matters?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
-
-
ChronX Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 672
- Joined: August 27, 2007
YT: Yeah, it was bombast. Got a rise out of you. Solid answers though. The only part of your play I still don't really like is unvoting...I think you should have left it on, which is why mine has been left on. Reasons:
-Others should justify their votes. Removing the pressure not only relieves pressure on MafiaSSk, it relieves pressure on everyone else (me included) to stay tthere.
-Others are reacting rather badly to the wagon. Incognito and xtoxm are both exposing either bad or scummy play. I don't especially like that several players are coaching xtoxm to play better. I would prefer to let him flounder on his own and hold him accountable later. It will however, be useful to keep in mind who has been there with the virtual arm around his shoulder.
-Its not like mafiaSSK isn't voteworthy. People are in love with the idea of the jester on this site, which makes it a very easy place for mafia players to hide. I find it mindbogglingly unlikely that in a mini, we have a jester with a game ending win condition. If he wins for himself, who cares? On the other hand, if he is scum lynching him is well done, and if he is just an unhelpful jerk townie, its a better mislynch than others. The only legitimate danger, which i think you mentioned, is that we prematurely force a claim out of him, which could lead to a premature counter claim if it is bogus. There is no need to out a power role over some jerk.
The only other thing that concerns me about you yt is that you claimed noob but seem pretty involved and in depth. This juxtaposition and apparent contradiction furrows my brow with worry.-
-
Ho1den Townie
- Townie
- Townie
- Posts: 78
- Joined: September 26, 2007
- Location: Ohio
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Good points ChronX. I may revote Mafia later, but I think we have plenty to talk about for now and I’d like to reserve my vote for pressuring others. I do want to address two things you said:
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.ChronX wrote:and if he is just an unhelpful jerk townie, its a better mislynch than others.
ThisChronX wrote:you claimed noob but seem pretty involved and in depth. This juxtaposition and apparent contradiction furrows my brow with worry.ismy second game but I spent two months reading the site before I signed up. Also, my IQ is 146. Not yanking my own chain here, just explaining that I am a quick learner.
@ charter: Thanks for answering sufficiently, accusation withdrawn.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Chron, this is a strange statement especially since I wouldn't even consider myself to be an "experienced player". I've only been on the site for a month and have only completed one Newbie game while this current game is my first mini-game ever. And since you've made the statement "this will come back to bite him when the inevitable rash of replacements occur" while you've also implied that my supposed "voice of authority" is a scum tactic, I'm guessing you've already come to the solid conclusion that I'm scum. Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself since you fall into the category of players who hopped onto the MafiaSSK wagon?ChronX wrote:Incognito seems to be setting himself up as the town's voice of authority, by answering game setup questions and making lengthy statements about game theory and such. This is often a scum tactic adopted by experienced players in a game with apparent newbs; you establish yourself as the wise man and can direct votes and thought processes later. Fortunately, this will come back to bite him when the inevitable rash of replacements occur and more vets filter into the blend.
I'm not okay with his transition, but I think the votes were piling up a bit too quickly on one person especially since this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar. I don't think placing someone at L-2 on page 2 in a 12-person game seems reasonable - there's still one player (Natude) who hasn't even popped into the game yet as you mentioned and one other player who won't be voicing his opinion until tomorrow. 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.Ho1den wrote:You're really okay with accepting the transition from "I think he's suspicious" (with no reasoning) to "I just wanted to jump on a bandwagon and lied about it"? At this point there's no good reason to give SSK this out when he did nothing to help himself. Scummy.
Ythill, what were you trying to get at when you asked MafiaSSK your question in Post 19?-
-
ChronX Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 672
- Joined: August 27, 2007
I hardly voted him for a mistake of grammar, Incognito. I voted him because he said xtoxm was suspicious (without specifying what was suspicious) and then bemoaning that he got some votes. I am 100% sure that both of these reasons are quite clear in the post where I vote him (24, last of page 1) because I just read it.Effectively done with MS-
-
Apyadg Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: East Midlands, UK
I object strongly to you saying that I "jumped on the wagon".Incognito wrote: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 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.-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
In fairness to the others, I also "jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying" and whatnot.
This sort of confirms what I said in the first point of my defense (#52).Speaking to ChronX, Incognito wrote:Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself since you fall into the category of players who hopped onto the MafiaSSK wagon?
No, actually. It began because at least three players thought his "random" bandwagon vote was suspicious (see 19, 20, & 24). The only argument the grammar thing figured into was mine, and then only because it was one indicator of an apparent conflict in perceptive abilities.incognito wrote:...this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar.
Honestly, I was kind of grasping at straws. I thought it was probably a grammar error or gender confusion, but took the opportunity to see how Mafia would react to a question. ThereIncognito wrote:Ythill, what were you trying to get at when you asked MafiaSSK your question in Post 19?wasthe possibility that it was an editing error (like he typed something else first, then changed his mind) or a slip of some other sort, but niether seemed likely.
I didn’t hit on the perception-level argument until a little later, when Mafia also miscounted the votes (#22). Really, in #19, I was just trying to jumpstart discussion. Yay for it working!Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
ChronX, I didn't say you voted for him for that reason. I said the following:ChronX wrote:I hardly voted him for a mistake of grammar, Incognito. I voted him because he said xtoxm was suspicious (without specifying what was suspicious) and then bemoaning that he got some votes. I am 100% sure that both of these reasons are quite clear in the post where I vote him (24, last of page 1) because I just read it.
Where did I say that the grammar mistake was your reason for voting for him? MafiaSSK made a total of two posts on Page 1, but I mentioned that the argument against MafiaSSK really began after the grammar issue. Although, Ythill brings up a good point in saying that the argument against MafiaSSKIncognito wrote:Further, there were two people (Apyadg and ChronX) who jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying and who werejustifying their votes on MafiaSSK based on what was said on Page 1.reallybegan when he placed the third "random" vote on Xtoxm.
Who are Ryan and Dylan, Ythill?Ythill wrote:(1) Mafia started doing what I like to callsticking one’s head in the noose, a behavior that is reminiscent of Ryan’s and Dylan’s play, among others, and one that is likely to lead to a mislynch without providing much information.-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Dylan and Ryan are examples of Mafiascum.net players often attacked for poor (rather than scummy) play. My mention of them was meant as a comparison for those players familiar with them, since that may be what is happening here. To be fair though, neither of these two is as blatant as MafiaSSK.Incognito wrote:Who are Ryan and Dylan, Ythill?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
ChronX Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 672
- Joined: August 27, 2007
Incognito, THIS is what you said.Incognito wrote:I'm not okay with his transition, but I think the votes were piling up a bit too quickly on one person especially since this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar.
I don't understand why you are trivializing the blunder M_SSK made and making it seem we are picking on him/her/it for a poor pronoun reference. Wait, maybe I do understand.-
-
Justin Playfair Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 538
- Joined: November 17, 2007
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:
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.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.
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.
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.Ythill wrote:I’m willing to take my turn in the hot seat if need be.
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-
-
Justin Playfair Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 538
- Joined: November 17, 2007
MafiaSSK,
Thank you for responding to me. I did look closely at your posts and I did find there was no depth in your answers. Which is why I didn’t immediately accept your change in heart when you put forth your second reason for voting Xtoxm, and is why I asked you for clarification. I will do so again.
If indeed you were lying when you said you had suspicions of Xtoxm, what was your intent behind doing so?
If you were not lying when you said Xtoxm seemed suspicious, what were your suspicions?
And why would you post something “not meant to do anything at all besides maybe try and make 5 years olds laugh if they saw that.”, when you were being asked questions you could presumably easily answer if you chose to?
Thank you for any answers.-
-
MafiaSSK Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Jack of All Trades
- Posts: 5338
- Joined: November 25, 2007
- Location: Washington, D.C.
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
ChronX, I don't know if you're deliberately making these kinds of statements to misrepresent me or if you truly don't understand what I'm getting at. In any case, let me break it down for you so that there's no confusion.ChronX wrote:
Incognito, THIS is what you said.Incognito wrote:I'm not okay with his transition, but I think the votes were piling up a bit too quickly on one person especially since this whole argument against MafiaSSK began as a mistake in grammar.
I don't understand why you are trivializing the blunder M_SSK made and making it seem we are picking on him/her/it for a poor pronoun reference. Wait, maybe I do understand.
Let's look at Page 1 again right at the point of Ythill's statement:
Ythill points out that there were three random votes in a row for the same person (Xtoxm). Instead of following up that point with probably the more practical question of "MafiaSSK, why did you also choose to vote for Xtoxm, and what is it about 'them' that seemed suspicious?" he chose to pick on what seemed like nothing more than a grammar mistake. Therefore, it reallyYthill wrote:Hmmmm... three random votes in a row on Xtoxm, none of them with dice.
Why "they seem" instead ofMafiaSSK wrote:Vote:XtoxmBecause they seem suspicious.he seems?doesseem like the bandwagon began there (after Ythill pointed out the grammar mistake). Yes, Apyadg, you, and Ythill each provided your own reasons for voting against MafiaSSK but as I mentioned in my initial point, the bandwagonbeganafter the grammar mistake. Here's what subsequently happened:
This weird, vague post by Apyadg who seems to be reprimanding MafiaSSK for calling someone suspicious without justifying it. This seems ironic to me since in my opinion Apyadg really didn't justify his vote against MafiaSSK either. He merely said that MafiaSSK's actions were "bad" which could basically mean anything.Apyadg wrote:Hi all!
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!Sorry I was doing some things. Vote:Xtoxm Because they seem suspicious.
Vote: MafiaSSK[/b]
And then your post:
Obviously your reason for voting for MafiaSSK was unrelated to the grammar mistake but like I said, the bandwagonChronX wrote:MafiaSSK wrote: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.unvote: xotxm
vote: MafiaSSK
There. Now it is untied. This is to pressure you to stop whining and, if you are going to cast a real vote during the random phase, to explain it.began afterthe "grammar mistake" post by Ythill. Is that clear now or do you want to take another attempt at misrepresenting me?-
-
charter Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Beware of Dog
- Posts: 9261
- Joined: July 12, 2007
- Location: Virginia
I feel like you contradict yourself here. You unvote mafia, but from what I gather from every one of your posts, you're not even looking for anyone else to be scum. Why unvote him? You still say that he's your pick for scum, and you have no one else. 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) and now you've realized he's not going to get lynched and it's time to get off. This, plus the fact that you haven't done hardly any of what I'd call scumhunting.Apyadg wrote:
I object strongly to you saying that I "jumped on the wagon".Incognito wrote: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 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.
vote apyadg
I really like justin playfair's post 65. As I was reading it, I realized that it reflected heavily on how I think when I play mafia, and most importantly was his vote at the end. If I was making that post, and I was town, I would have, with absolutely certainty, voted for ythill at the end, as JP did. If I had been scum and I made that post, I would most likely have not made the vote. Not saying he can't be scum, but in my eyes, he seems pretty town.
Mafia, you really need to start putting some effort into the game. So far you really don't seem to care what goes on, and you're really just helping the scum out. I'd say you're just a lazy townie rather than scum right now.
Not really sure about chronx. He hasn't really done enough for me to say he's scum, but there's something in the back of my head telling me he is.-
-
Apyadg Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 107
- Joined: August 15, 2007
- Location: East Midlands, UK
Bullshit. When I voted for him, there was no "wagon", simply a few random votes.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)
And I realised, as I stated, that there's a good reason tonot lynch him.Accepting a good argument != scummy.now you've realized he's not going to get lynched
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.This, plus the fact that you haven't done hardly any of what I'd call scumhunting.
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.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
I actually agree with charter on this. Your choice of words above is somewhat weird as well. You mention that you realized "there's a good reason to not lynch him" but in reality, after I mentioned what I mentioned about the bandwagon that formed on MafiaSSK, two people (first Ythill and then charter) had already unvoted before you ever even had a chance to. 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.Apyadg wrote:
And I realised, as I stated, that there's a good reason tonot lynch him.Accepting a good argument != scummy.now you've realized he's not going to get lynched
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, even though I disagree with his choice of a follow-up question.Apyadg wrote: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.
For my first official, non-random vote, I'd like toUnvoteandVote: Apyadg.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Justin Playfair Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 538
- Joined: November 17, 2007
Incognito,
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. You posted this:
About this:Incognito wrote:This weird, vague post by Apyadg who seems to be reprimanding MafiaSSK for calling someone suspicious without justifying it. This seems ironic to me since in my opinion Apyadg really didn't justify his vote against MafiaSSK either. He merely said that MafiaSSK's actions were "bad" which could basically mean anything.
Now maybe Apyadg could have phrased this better, but his intent is pretty clear, and his reason is about as good as you’re likely to get for a vote with cause at that early stage of the game. He’s accusing MafiaSSK of voting with a stated cause for Xtoxm without providing reasons. He says it is bad, but it follows pretty logically that what he’s saying is “scummy”.Apyadg wrote: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!
Now I didn’t participate in the wagon because I’m not a big fan of pressure votes. I think asking questions is better. But I certainly did ask the questions of MafiaSSK that seemed most pertinent to me, and they certainly followed the same path Apyadg took in the post above. Personally I think asking questions, persistently, usually works better than pressure votes, and in this case, with MafiaSSK, that appears to be true, but I also understand that mine is a minority opinion on this subject. Anyway, I disagree with your interpretation of Apyadg’s vote on MAfiaSSK, though the manner in which he removed his vote certainly seems suspicious.
I have read the sequence of posts into which you and Chronx have arrived at your current adversarial position a number of times. In that sequence I only see one aspect of your reasoning which makes me curious enough to raise a question. It is best encapsulated in this post of yours:
Incognito, you miss here what made MafiaSSK’s statement different from all those others. Whereas, for instance, your random vote on me was because there was only room in town for one black and white avatar, a reason no one is ever going to mistake for something serious…Incognito wrote:With regard to MafiaSSK's actions and vote, I think a bit too much weight is being placed on the random voting phase. So far we've seen reasons ranging from someone not liking Kansas, to something about an anthill, to MafiaSSK's reason of finding someone suspicious, to people choosing not to participate in the random voting phase at all. 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.
…MafiaSSK said his vote was because he was suspicious of Xtoxm.
Now if you didn’t see this as fundamentally different before, do you now?
By the way, I think MafiaSSK has now answered this as well as he is going to. And I think pressing him further would be as likely to crack an innocent MafiaSSK as a guilty one. But I would still like to hear your thoughts on the above.
For the most part I would like this clarification because the post you made which began this sequence was actually defending Xtoxm because Xtoxm had answered part of Ythill’s false case against MafiaSSK. And much of what you posted through the earlier part of your exchange with ChronX, what I suppose made him suspicious of you, seemed based on your aversion to the Ythill non-case as opposed to the reasons others voted for MafiaSSK.
I’ve liked many of the things you’ve posted, particularly your distrust of the MafiaSSK wagon building so quickly. And I think that first post of the sequence about Xtoxm was spot on. But you’ve also seemed reluctant to accept that there may be valid reasons for others to have voted for MafiaSSK unrelated to those in Ythill’s false case. You’re still questioning Apaydg on them.
On the whole I think ChronX is being too aggressive in his suspicions of you, mainly because I can see how all of your responses could have grown logically from your first post in defense of Xtoxm. But I would be grateful if you could address the two points I raised above.-
-
Justin Playfair Goon
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 538
- Joined: November 17, 2007
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.