Mini 539: Game over

[Disciple Slayer]

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. 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?

[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.

[Ho1den]

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.

This is a little unfair I think. You have 3 more pages of info to judge the intentions behind SSK's vote than all of us did at the time. It's completely possible that he intended to use the vote to spur conversation or to start a bandwagon and see who jumped on or was merely scum jumping on a bandwagon. It's easy to look back and make that judgement call but at the time is was much more unclear. Plus I think it's completely unneccesary to include as the unvote was the scummy move which I feel Apy has yet to really explain.

[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?

[Ythill]

(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?

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.

The other angle is a little more complex and explaining it will require a little WIFOM. If you are town, you should be at least considering the possibility that I am scum, and therefore less willing to accept my points at face value. In this case, Justin has theorized that I was deliberately acting towards premature abandonment of legitimate discussion regarding Mafia’s behavior, so it is entirely possible that reads eluding to such a conclusion existed in the thread before your unvote, making your (as town) acceptance of my argument even riskier. However, if you are scum, you know I am town and, looking for an excuse for your actions, you could have rationalized something like

Ythill is town and made a good point, so agreeing with him is a win-win situation. If the point stands, I’m in the clear. If it is decried as scummy, I can claim he mislead me and use that to railroad Ythill.

Anyway…

You have elaborated on your reasons for the unvote, improving your position in my perception. In doing so you have accidentally set a very good trap for yourself. IGMEOY still, but now I’m looking for something specific that, if it appears, will be a very definitive scumtell on you. No need to worry, because it is a mistake you are very unlikely to make as town.

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?

[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.

[Ythill]

I feel you have answered my question satisfactorily, and have made a good point about the appeal to authority. Also, shortening his name to SSK rather than Mafia seems like a great idea. I think I'll do the same.

[charter]

Definitive Town: Ho1den, charter.
Probably Town: ChronX.
Middle of the Road: Mafia (slightly town), Incog, Xtoxm, Justin (slightly scum).
IGMEOY: Apyadg
FoS: North

Just wondering if you could explain why you feel ho1den and myself are definate town. I'm not saying I blame anyone for thinking I'm town, but I don't think I've done enough scumhunting so far for someone to label me as definate town (not that I mind however). I've really only made one or two posts with much substance.

[Northjayhawk]

Ythill: I didnt bother replying to your first mention of three random votes, because it appeared obvious to me that my random vote (#2) had no possibility of suspicion at all. I did not read it as a question towards me, more like a comment or unspoken question directed at the one who cast the third vote. I ALWAYS go to random.org in every game I play (research me if you want) to pick my first vote. Before I actually post the number, I do check to see if it would be a bad random vote (e.g. your random would be the third vote on someone in a 7-player game). In a 12-player game, a 2nd random vote might be mildly valuable to test for an overreaction, but hardly something that needs to be justified in itself.

My 2nd post was not in response to your post at all, I had basically ignored and forgotten about your comment by then. The explanation was necessary because I reaffirmed my random vote as no longer being random along with an explanation, and I would expect everyone to justify their votes and share their thinking whether asked for or not when there is the slightest whiff of suspicion on their target.

Someone who is only reactive to accusations over a few day/night cycles would start to look scummy to me, most town players would actively look for scum at least occasionally without needing to first be asked to explain their votes and suspicions.

As for the reason itself, it should be clear. Whether someone thinks that a question against someone else is a good one or not, I cant think of any value to the town at all (and a lot of potential harm) to answer for or feed them a good answer.

I do have a quick question though. Regarding this list:

My Current Reads

Ask if you want me to elaborate on anything. Obviously I do not have any reads on DS or Natude.

Definitive Town: Ho1den, charter.
Probably Town: ChronX.
Middle of the Road: Mafia (slightly town), Incog, Xtoxm, Justin (slightly scum).
IGMEOY: Apyadg
FoS: North

Why did you feel the need to post "definitive town" and "probably town" lists?

[Ythill]

It might help to know that I’m using definitive by it’s main definition (most reliable) and not the alternate definition (final answer). Definitive is the town equivalent of Fos/vote whereas probably town is the equivalent of IGMEOY. It might be more demonstrative to explain why ChronX is

not

definitive town: though he’s reading town, there are a number of conflicting tells.

In your case, charter, your post timing has given you a few opportunities to attack players already under scrutiny but you have refrained. Your one serious vote was self-motivated and reasonable. All of your statements have been based solidly on the available information and you have been the voice of common sense when town needed a wake-up call. I’m still not above accusing/suspecting/attacking you and if I start getting scumtells from you I will certainly move you down the list but it would take a lot for me to vote you at this point. Same for Ho1den but for different reasons and, honestly, more of them.

@ North: Oh, you

are

here. You’ve only answered one of my questions.

I never inferred that you not responding to #19 was suspect, nor that I thought your #39 was in response to it. In fact, one of the things scummy about #39 was that it was “unbidden, off-topic.” Simply put, you interjected it into a conversation about something else entirely, as if to slip it in quietly. I wouldn’t defend what Xtoxm did, but it was pretty harmless coming from a claimed n00b early in the game, especially since he was personally involved in the questions.

I don’t like your active lurking, your defense that relies on a misread of my accusations, or the fact that you’ve skipped three of four questions directed at you. I said the only reason my FoS wasn’t a vote was your apparent absence but you have shown up for roll call and, honestly, helped me feel even better about a

vote: Northjayhawk

.

[charter]

In your case, charter, your post timing has given you a few opportunities to attack players already under scrutiny but you have refrained.

Honestly, I don't think ssk is scum based on what he's said so far. I think some people took a confusing statement, and twisted it to no end to make him look like scum. However, he hasn't really done anything to show me he's town, so he very well could be.
Although, after jayhawks pretty much pointless post, and your arguments, I'm tempted to vote for him, but I think he is probably more noob than scum.

[Ythill]

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

[Northjayhawk]

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

If I had more reasons to vote for Xtoxm, I would have stated them. If someone else was scummier, I would have voted for them. Honestly this early on, we really do not have a lot to go on yet, and I'm still trying to figure out what to make of Justin Playfair's long arguements. I do not agree with many of them against you, particularly his indirect assertion that Mafia's page one suspicion could have been believable, and for him to say that you cant criticise someone who criticised you seemed very silly to me to name just a couple problems I have with his posts. I didnt see much of a fair basis for suspicion, but you already covered nearly every angle before I could get to it.

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

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

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

[Northjayhawk]

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

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

[Ythill]

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

[Ho1den]

@Incognito: After reading through your posts, I feel as if my questions have been answered and will

unvote

.

@ChronX -

Its not like mafiaSSK isn't voteworthy.

Voteworthy at the time . . . okay. But SSK has made some other posts after this post trying to explain his actions and your vote has been sitting there for a while without even commenting on his new posts, not really sure I see how this is applying any pressure at all to him.

@Apy - There's somthing a little unsettling about your posts so far. I understand that you see the validity of Ythill's post about not jumping to lynch bad players and that was what motivated you to unvote. The problem I have is that there was no threat of a lynch at that point. The SSK badwagon had died so there was not a chance that he could be quicklynched. So far the only way ppl have gotten info from him has been direct questions (mostly from JP) and you haven't even done this. I don't understand how you are wiling to let your #1 most likely scum off the hook and just keep an eye on them. Never once have you said that he has done anything to ease your concerns, yet you don't push it . . .

@MafiaSSK - you still have your vote JP. Do you still feel it belongs there? Your only real reason has been that he was suspicous of you. At this point you've been content to let the rest of us slug it out. We need to know what you're thinking as well. So any chance you could give us your idea of who are the 2 or 3 most suspicious people?

[Apyadg]

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

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

There's somthing a little unsettling about your posts so far. I understand that you see the validity of Ythill's post about not jumping to lynch bad players and that was what motivated you to unvote. The problem I have is that there was no threat of a lynch at that point.

Is the only occasion that one should unvote when there is threat of a lynch? It seems unnecessary, and almost lazy, to just leave a vote on when I don't think he should be lynched at that moment, especially as I didn't think that it was going to do much as a "pressure vote".

So far the only way ppl have gotten info from him has been direct questions (mostly from JP) and you haven't even done this. I don't understand how you are wiling to let your #1 most likely scum off the hook and just keep an eye on them. Never once have you said that he has done anything to ease your concerns, yet you don't push it . . .

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

[Ho1den]

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

When you're suspicious of someone early game and have no reason to let them off the hook . . .then yes.

It seems unnecessary, and almost lazy, to just leave a vote on when I don't think he should be lynched at that moment, especially as I didn't think that it was going to do much as a "pressure vote".

Agreed, see my comment to ChronX above. But I don't understand the point of removing a vote from someone suspicious who has not done anything to clear themselves . . .I mean isn't that how we basically arrive at a lynch, when 7 ppl fall into that mindset?

What further questions can I really ask about that? I don't see much scope for lines of questioning, really.

Really? SSK placed that OMGUS vote on JP with basically no other comments afterwards. Seems like a great place to start to me . . .

[Apyadg]

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

When you're suspicious of someone early game and have no reason to let them off the hook . . .then yes.

It seems unnecessary, and almost lazy, to just leave a vote on when I don't think he should be lynched at that moment, especially as I didn't think that it was going to do much as a "pressure vote".

Agreed, see my comment to ChronX above. But I don't understand the point of removing a vote from someone suspicious who has not done anything to clear themselves . . .I mean isn't that how we basically arrive at a lynch, when 7 ppl fall into that mindset?

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

What further questions can I really ask about that? I don't see much scope for lines of questioning, really.

Really? SSK placed that OMGUS vote on JP with basically no other comments afterwards. Seems like a great place to start to me . . .

Agreed, but by the time I'd see it, albeit only 5 hours later, other people had already posted on it, I believe you yourself point out the OMGUS almost immediately, I didn't see much point in basically just saying "Me too".

[Ho1den]

I’ve seen this opinion all over these boards and disagree. A mislynch is always bad for town, but can be acceptable if it reveals information. Lynching for bad play, however, makes it way too easy for wagoneers to justify their votes later. IMO, at this stage, the best strategy for dealing with Mafia is to ignore him while we examine others. It’s not like we’ll be short on evidence if we want to string him up later.

It seemed like a good idea to me at the time, I think easing off Mafia (I'm just going to refer to him as SSK for the rest of the game, I think), and looking at more people (I anticipate the point being repeated that I failed to do this, and it's a point that I concede, see my last post, regarding me planning to re-read), whilst keeping an eye on SSK was the best approach.

I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to. First of all your justification is based on bad logic. I've already laid out in post 77 why Ythill's stance here is contradictory and he agrees. The fact that you're using it as your defense just makes you look scummier. Given the fact that no one is making SSK talk and he seems reluctant to do so willingly, what makes you think that "keeping an eye on SSK" will help you learn anything about his alignment at all?

Agreed, but by the time I'd see it, albeit only 5 hours later, other people had already posted on it, I believe you yourself point out the OMGUS almost immediately, I didn't see much point in basically just saying "Me too".

You missed the point entirely. We wouldn't learn much of anything from you saying "Me too". However, if he's truly your #1 suspect why wouldn't you at least question him about the vote and have explain himself more. You're much more likely to learn his alignment by forcing him to post and defend himself than by waiting for him to just screw up.

[Incognito]

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

prod on Natude?

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

[Apyadg]

I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to. First of all your justification is based on bad logic. I've already laid out in post 77 why Ythill's stance here is contradictory and he agrees. The fact that you're using it as your defense just makes you look scummier.

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

Given the fact that no one is making SSK talk and he seems reluctant to do so willingly, what makes you think that "keeping an eye on SSK" will help you learn anything about his alignment at all?

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

You missed the point entirely. We wouldn't learn much of anything from you saying "Me too". However, if he's truly your #1 suspect why wouldn't you at least question him about the vote and have explain himself more. You're much more likely to learn his alignment by forcing him to post and defend himself than by waiting for him to just screw up.

Taken on board.

[ChronX]

I have a 20 minute bathroom break from the seminar we are in today, and haven't been able to read any of my games closely. However, I saw an @ ChronX, and will briefly respond to it by saying that: Just because MafiaSSK, after what I seem to recall was several futile attempts, finally came up with a credible(ish) explanation for his early game behavior, doesn't dismiss the fact that his behavior, on balance, was scummy. Having not had a chance to read much from the top of page 4 on closely at all, my gut feeling is that mafiaSSK is still possible scum, especially considering there now seems to be spirited defense on his behalf from a few places. I'm not going to unvote the player I find most scummy to this point to satisfy the wishes of someone else who could very well be sticking up for his scumbuddy.

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

[charter]

Given the fact that no one is making SSK talk and he seems reluctant to do so willingly, what makes you think that "keeping an eye on SSK" will help you learn anything about his alignment at all?

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

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

[charter]

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

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

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