There's only room for one black and white photographic avatar in this village and that's mine.
Mini 539: Game over
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Bleh. My movie knowledge is failing me at this moment. I have no clue which movie your avatar is from but that doesn't mean mine's inferior! Yours is probably really obvious too.Justin Playfair wrote:Incognito. I know what movie your black and white avatar comes from. Unless you know mine my avatar has yours at a disadvantage.
P.S. Happy birthday, mod!-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Ho1den, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. From what I've seen so far, MafiaSSK placed a third vote on Xtoxm, Ythill brought up an issue with MafiaSSK's grammar, and Xtoxm mentioned that he probably said "they" instead of "he" because MafiaSSK was unsure of Xtoxm's gender. MafiaSSK actually placed a vote on Xtoxm; I wouldn't consider Xtoxm's response a "defense" especially since I'd find it hard to believe that Xtoxm would defend someone who just placed a third vote on him. And since you're using this as a means of stepping away from the random phase, it seems like a crucial point. Could you please clarify?Ho1den wrote:
I don't like the unneccessary defense of MafiaSSK.xtoxm wrote:He said they instead of he because of uncertainty of my sex, "they" refers to either.
Unvote
Vote Xtoxm
@Apyadg: I believe that in a closed Mafia game nothing is really known about the role set-up. As the days progress and people's alignments are revealed due to deaths, the set-up should become more apparent.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Ythill: Just a quick note for you since you're new. IMO, I think a pressure vote loses its ability to pressure someone when you indicate from the beginning the purpose of the vote. It would be like me pointing a gun in your face telling you "Give me the money! And no I'm not gonna shoot you but give me the money anyway!". Just point the gun in the person's face and wait for the response... the effect is lost when you let the person know you're not gonna shoot them.Ythill wrote: I believe pressure is justified here.
vote: MafiaSSK
@ Mafia: This is a pressure vote, putting you at L-3. Give a satisfactory answer to Apyadg’s question and I’ll unvote immediately.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
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. 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. It's only page 2 of the thread - unless someone practically comes out of the starting block shouting "I'm scumz!" I think it's difficult to get a good read on anyone this early.-
-
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?-
-
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.-
-
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?-
-
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
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Yes, I've noticed from the very beginning that MafiaSSK's random vote was distinctly different from the others. While everyone else's votes were made in a joking manner using reasons that make no practical sense of being scum tells or true reasons to suspect someone of being scum, MafiaSSK's random vote bordered that very thin line of being either a random vote or a very serious one. He certainly could have done a better job of letting everyone know for certain that it was in fact a random vote by choosing a reason that seems more random than claiming "someone seems suspicious" or by even explicitly stating "this is a random vote" but all in all, I think his vote was actually beneficial for bringing about discussion - look how much discussion one random vote generated as opposed to the zero amount of discussion my random vote or your random vote generated.Justin Playfair wrote: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…
…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?
With regard to Xtoxm, I wouldn't consider my post 28 a defense of Xtoxm - mainly I wanted clarification from Ho1den since the explanation behind Ho1den's non-random vote against Xtoxm didn't make much logical sense to me.Justin Playfair wrote: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.
Sequence of events:
1) MafiaSSK placed the third vote on Xtoxm.
2) Ythill makes his "non-case" against MafiaSSK.
3) Xtoxm answers Ythill's question "on behalf" of MafiaSSK.
4) Ho1den votes for Xtoxm for defending MafiaSSK.
It just didn't seem logical to me for Ho1den to claim Xtoxm wasdefendingMafiaSSK when I'd find it hard to believe that Xtoxm would defend someone who just finished placing the third vote in the series of votes against himself. Since Ho1den thought Xtoxm's "defense" warranted a vote, I just wanted clarification and possibly some re-thinking on his part.
I'm willing to accept that there were other valid reasons for others to vote for MafiaSSK - in fact, I mention that here in post 68:Justin Playfair wrote: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.
I guess I was mainly questioning Apyadg at the point you mention because of his usage of the word "bad" which probably made his post seem more vague and ironic than it really was.Incognito wrote: 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.
I hope this addresses your concerns. Let me know if you still would require some more explanation - you sure weren't kidding when you mentioned you have a tendency to make long posts!-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
I certainly wouldn't go as far as you have to consider charter "definitive" town but as of right now, I haven't been able to form a strong opinion on him. I don't particularly like how he can go from making statements like this:Ythill wrote:@ Incog & charter: What are your reads on one another?
and like this:charter wrote:
I think it comes down to, do you think mafia made a joking vote but did a poor job of ensuring it came across that way, or do you think mafia was trying to build a case against xtoxm based off nothing. Personally, I think it was a joke he just didn't make it obvious.Justin Playfair wrote:…MafiaSSK said his vote was because he was suspicious of Xtoxm.
where he seems to be leaning in favor of believing SSK is pro-town to more recent statements like this:charter wrote:
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.Ythill wrote:In your case, charter, your post timing has given you a few opportunities to attack players already under scrutiny but you have refrained.
Here charter mentions I was "sticking up" for SSK when that's not true at all - votes were coming in so rapidly against one person over page 1 events that I immediately became more suspicious of the people on the bandwagon that formed so early than of SSK himself. I've already explained this pretty thoroughly in a bunch of posts where I've responded to ChronX and Justin Playfair... why charter still feels the need to make an inaccurate statement like this, I have no clue.charter wrote:Incog gives me mixed feelings. Some of his posts don't seem to be pro town, in that he stuck up for SSK, something that seemed like a poor idea in the beginning, he should have no reason to come to his defense that early. However, others of his posts give me a good town feel, so right now I'm just watching him.
I need to do a read-up on recent events so that I'm posting ideas related to things that are more current. I guess I should also pm the mod since he doesn't seem to be creating vote counts or responding to our prod requests for Natude.
@Disciple Slayer:You've been asked a number of questions from different sources now that you have yet to respond to. I'd like for you to become more active in the thread now so that your posts aren't as retrospective as they have been, otherwise I'm tempted to call you out on lurking. It seems like you've been avoiding scrutiny because you haven't been around to garner it.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
o_O Okay then.
Um yeah. I don't even know where to go after that one. I somewhat completed my read from where I left off. I'd love to comment on the Ythill/Justin Playfair arguments but they seem a bit over my head.
I got a response from the mod and apparently Natude has been prodded so I'm not sure if he'll end up getting replaced or not.
@Ythill:I guess one question I have for you is what was the true reason you asked for the meta-information at the start of the game? I thought it was a bit odd at first especially since I've never seen someone ask for that information before. You mention that you asked for it to "forestall a mis-lynch later on". Justin Playfair mentioned from the start that he has a habit of making "very long posts" but recently you seemed to mock his posts when you mention that "accusations don't need to be direct and982920019 words longlike the stab you made against me[...]". It just seems kind of odd to me for you to seemingly mock something that Justin Playfair mentioned upfront under your important "meta-information".
Also, before he left, I feel like Northjayhawk made a fair point here (although I wouldn't agree with him saying "best target"):
and while I will agree with your statement here:Northjayhawk wrote:Because assuming the scum doesnt identify a power role, their best target would likely be the ones who are least likely to be lynched. Telling them that information point-blank without making the scum guess at it seems extremely foolish to me.
do you not feel like at least part of your description of charter in post 98 is also at least somewhat of a decent description of one who is considered to be a good "scum hunter"?Ythill wrote:Power roles and effective scumhunters are the most likely targets, Me reading someone as town proves neither of these two things about them and doesn’t really help scum at all.
I will say this: I feel like this part of Northjayhawk's argument against you seemed somewhat contradictory - he placed a vote against you but his argument against posting "most-likely town" and "least-likely town" lists as they help out the scum would only work if we assumed you were town. This would mean he was voting against you because he felt like you were being a bad townie and not because he felt like you were most likely scum, unless I've misinterpreted his argument.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
@Shteven:Could you just clarify what you mean by what you mentioned below - namely what I have bolded?
I'm having a hard time understanding how the Ythill statements you've quoted are anything like what ChronX was calling me out for. ChronX was accusing me of taking on some sort of an experienced Mafia player role that becomes the "voice of wisdom" and guides the town to mislynches. How is that related to all of the statements you've quoted from Ythill?Shteven wrote:You also have a disturbing trend of trying to get one people's good sides by pointing out how fair and noble you are. Now, I've done this once in a current game of mine, but after I did, and was rightly called for it, I admitted the mistake and I'm being more careful about doing it again. Let me quote some of yours:I’m willing to take my turn in the hot seat if need be.
Anyone else want to take a stab at me before we move on to other matters?
This is my 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.
Not trying to distract from attacks against me, keep ‘em coming if you like.
I do have a rather tame question for you.
And, as always, I invite attacks and suspicions. I'm as likely to be scum as anyone. You may fire when ready. Very HappyIt's starting to get old. I find it odd that ChronX called Incognito for it, but no one's pointed out Ythill doing it to a far greater extent.
My vote will remain on Apyadg as I still believe his actions are most suspicious, and I feel his exchanges with Ho1den and Ythill did nothing to clear my suspicion of him.
Also, I'm extremely leery of Disciple Slayer. Justin Playfair brings up information that's at least noteworthy about him with regard to how he was able to rapidly appear in the thread after I called him out for non-posting. I think more noteworthy though is how Disciple Slayer promised player summaries following his reread but instead, only followed that statement up with a player list and a vote on Shteven. That's twice now where Disciple Slayer has been able to look at things retrospectively, gather information from the evidence provided, and place a vote on the player feeling the most pressure at said time. Shteven still only has two votes (I believe) on himself but Ythill's posts against Shteven haven't seemed to die down or lessen in intensity.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Well, Ythill, that was opportunistic of you and that certainly came out of nowhere. Anyway, I'll respond to your post.
It's cute how you attack me here on something that you yourself told all of us we may want to watch, out of respect for the replacements in your Post 143. Did you not notice when I began asking for prods to the mod and referencing others' inactivity? Somewhere around Page 5 where Natude still hadn't said a word, Disciple Slayer still hadn't posted any content even though he promised to upon returning on the 9th, and ChronX just finished mentioning that he would not be available until the end of that week. And guess what - on page 6 things worsened: Northjayhawk left, Ho1den said he would be inactive for a time, and ChronX asked for a replacement. To me it doesn't make sense to continue adding more and more content to a thread when it seems like at least half of the players aren't even participating. Did you not notice how active IYthill wrote:Incognito has the fourth highest post count in the game, yet the second worst sig:noise after ChronX. He’s lead the most digressions. So he is active, yet posts less content than some players who are less active than he. Meanwhile, he directly references others’ inactivity nine times, including sending a prod to the mod. This game is slow and many of us have referenced inactivity a bit, but Incognito, who posts a lot of fluff, is establishing himself as the “lurker police.” Why? To establish that post count equals content? To draw suspicion away from his disinterested scumhunting?waswhen it seemed like a fair majority of the players were also active? Since when is asking for more activity from all of the players a scumtell?
You make it seem like the game-related posts in the game of Mafia have to always be one of two extremes: either attacks or defenses. Where in Post 88 did I mention that I was attacking Ho1den? I distinctly remember mentioning that I was asking forYthill wrote:PBPA- In #28 Incog defends Xtoxm under the guise of attacking Ho1den. This is his first serious post and we see his first incidence of fence sitting. This post can be played later as an attack or a defense (he ends up calling it an attack in #88, after Justin challenges him on it being a defense).
clarificationfrom Ho1den. After he provided clarification, I never went further to place a vote on him or an FoS or ask further questions - I felt his explanation was sufficient and didn't warrant an attack. Also, please if you're going to begin referencing post numbers, could you link the post it is you're referring to so people could get a clear understanding of what you're citing? Otherwise it looks like you're hiding something in an attempt to distort the facts to hopefully gain some support from the other players.
Did it not occur to you that maybe I was just trying to help someone who asked a game set-up question in the thread? Your statement "and therefore a good target?" is a reach and it urks me that you would accuse me of having an ulterior motive for helping someone with a question.Ythill wrote:Incog also makes his first “voice of authority” post here, which I saw as not scummy in itself, as he simply answers Apyadg’s question. But the post thereby establishes Incog realizing that Apyadg is a true n00b (and therefore a good target?) because he doesn’t know about the closed setup.
This is hilarious. I share with you some advice on how I think you might be able to draw out better information from future targets and you consider this an attempt to "distract attention from him"? You're better off making that accusation towards my subsequent post in Post 44 where people actually began unvoting from SSK and directing attention elsewhere. Oh but that would probably be a much more difficult accusation for you to make considering the fact that you agreed with me and subsequently unvoted. Ah, the irony.Ythill wrote:In #36 Incog poses as the IC again, this time bringing a digression to the thread, possibly attempting to distract from the attention on Xtoxm or SSK. If so, it doesn’t work. There is something else very scummy about this post but I want to let it play out before drawing attention to it. If allowed to progress naturally, it will either confirm or disprove itself.
Actually it wouldn't have been possible for me to question the wagon without mentioning my portion about his vote being a random one and my thoughts about random voting in general. Undoubtedly if I just mentioned that "a bit too much is being placed on the random voting phase", people would have followed up with the question: "Do you really think that MafiaSSK's vote and reason for voting was random?". My intent was to include my own feelings about SSK's first vote while questioning the wagon. Also, didn't you agree with me wholeheartedly in your subsequent post? Why have your feelings suddenly changed about that post?Ythill wrote:In #44 Incog clearly defends SSK. It would have been entirely possible for him to question the wagon without that defense but he posts it anyway. In fact, the defense takes up the majority of the post and the attack seems like more of a deflection of suspicion. It is very vague.
Way to cut off the rest of my post. Actually my post read more like this:Ythill wrote:[*]
This is Incog’s defense to the “voice of authority” accusation (which came in #49). I thought the accusation was well thought out even if it was a bit of a stretch. The defense, however, makes me wonder about Incog. It amounts toIn #58, Incognito wrote: 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.I am not a duck, therefore I could not have been pretending to be a duckand is left to stand unsupported.
in response to a comment made by ChronX which looked like this:Incognito wrote: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.
First he misrepresented me by labeling me as an "experienced player" and next he makes a statement that seems like a solid conclusion about my alignment. I wasn't trying to state "I am not a duck, therefore I could not have been pretending to be a duck"; instead I was pointing out the flaws in his argument that he was using to classify me as "scum". Don't you think that an argument with flaws probably shouldn't be strong enough to come to a negative conclusion about someone's alignment? I'm really surprised that you believe my response to ChronX was more scummy than his statement "Fortunately, this will come back to bite him when the inevitable rash of replacements occur and more vets filter in the blend".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.
Reread Ho1den's Post 51. In that post he has more of an issue with me accepting SSK's transition from thinking someone's suspicious to jumping on a bandwagon and lying about it. He then proceeded to place a vote on me. My response post mentions ChronX and Apyadg because they both had chosen to place serious votes on MafiaSSKYthill wrote:What gets me here is, why not post those players’ names the first time he suspected the wagon? Why deepen it once he comes under attack? Neither player had done anything else “scummy” in the interim. And why lump the two players together? This is another fence-sitting post, looks like he’s accusing both to see which attack gets support. The accusation regarding Apyadg was clearly not valid, a fact that Apyadg points out two posts later (in #60).beforeSSK even made the transition that Ho1den had mentioned in his post. Later on in your very next post you yourself even admitted that you too had "jumped on the wagon even before MafiaSSK admitted to lying". If my post was truly a fence-sitting post, don't you think I should have, as you call it, "lumped you" in there as well right along with Apyadg and ChronX? Guess what: I didn't because you had classified your vote as a pressure vote as opposed to a serious one and I certainly didn't want to misrepresent you. But right now it seems like you have no issue misrepresenting me.
If I truly found ChronX scummier, I would have voted for him. My posts following Apyadg's reply and ChronX's reply were made for me to both clarify what I stated in Post 58 and to determine if ChronX truly didn't understand what I was getting at or if he was deliberately trying to misrepresent me. Eventually he fell silent and mentioned that he would be away for about a week, so unfortunately I wasn't able to get a good determination of what he was attempting to do and now he's been replaced. I'll wait for Claus's interpretation of the thread to come to this kind of conclusion.Ythill wrote:[*]But ChronX has posted a weaker defense in #59 and Incognito comes back in #62 to argue with him; ChronX’s #64 and Incog’s #68 continue this spat. Neither player makes very good points. My gut says that this exchange feels contrived, but I can’t back that up with facts. Suffice to say, Incog never challenges the stronger of the two defenses. This choice of arguments infers that he has identified ChronX as the scummier of the twins from #58.
OMG another hilarious statement! Now you mention that charter has "taken my bait". Hmmm... Wasn't charter's vote on Apyadg the reason you labeled him as definitive town in your Post 98? It's really funny how you're becoming tangled in your own lies.Ythill wrote:[*]Except charter takes Incog’s bait in #69, attacking Apyadg. Two posts later, in #71, Incog follows and cheerleads charter, voting Apyadg. So we have therealityin which Incog quietly initiates suspicion on Apyadg (the n00b) but theillusionthat charter lead the attack, both factors set up by Incog’s posts. Also with his vote, Incog suggests that it is Apyadg (not ChronX) whom he finds the scummiest of those original twins. He never returns to the ChronX argument, or to suspecting him at all.
In order to say that I was on the defense at that point, I guess you'd have to assume that Justin Playfair's questions were attacks. But if I remember correctly, Justin Playfair himself mentioned that he wasn't attacking me, and I personally never felt that Justin Playfair was attacking me either. Where did I use the phrase "a little odd" or "a bit odd" in that post? I just used Ctrl + F to find the word "odd" on Page 4, and I only found two instances of the word. One in your Post 84 in which you're quoting Northjayhawk and one in your Post 86 where you're quoting Justin Playfair. Seriously, why the hell are you trying to misrepresent me?Ythill wrote:[*]In #88, Incog is on defense. He deflects suspicion back on Apyadg, reiterating his use of the word “bad” to vaguely say “scummy.” My main problem with this is that, in context, Apyadg’s meaning was clear. Incog has heavily decried me questioning SSK’s grammar, yet does the same thing here without the depth of my “failed premise”. Also Incog chronically commits the same sin he accuses Apyadg of, using phrases like “a little odd” and “a bit odd.” Even in context, these statements of his are less clear than Apyadg’s and could actually be construed as intentionally placing suspicion without coming out and saying it.
And so you find me scummier than Disciple Slayer for making Post 109 than his Post 89 in which he pops up out of nowhere to place a vote on Apyadg? I think you've been awfully accommodating towards Disciple Slayer this whole game. Apyadg was already being questioned by Ho1den, and I became suspicious of Disciple Slayer for placing a vote on Apyadg the way he did. Considering Disciple Slayer's action, I was actually beginning to form a different opinion about Apyadg but I was still waiting for the scum-hunting that he promised before removing my vote. He has yet to provide us with that scum-hunting.Ythill wrote:[*]By the time Incog posts #109, DS has come out of lurking to quick-vote Apyadg, making the wagon seem scummier. Incog doesn’t address Apyadg’s defenses or his own vote, just questions DS and promises to post content “later today” (Tuesday, December 11).
Uhm, seriously, wtf? Where did I mention that my read on charter is on the fence, leaning town? Please everyone have a look for yourself and tell me where I mentioned that I'm leaning town on charter: Post 129.Ythill wrote:[*]On Decenmber 13, Incog finally posts content in #129, but only to address a direct question. His read on charter is on the fence, leaning town, which makes sense considering the public reads on charter and Incog’s recent teaming up with him. His one accusation is a sly defense of himself, as he is only referring to charter’s attack on him; he twists the words of that attack, making it seem as if charter posted a scummy read regarding SSK, when, in reality, charter never referenced SSK’s alignment; and he accuses charter of making an “inaccurate statement” that IMO (and others’) was accurate. Incog is setting up a way to distance himself from others who are voting Apyadg.
I don't even feel the need to continue this long post replying to your PBPA of me when you clearly haven't even analyzed my posts well enough to be considered an analysis. When I first read it, I remember thinking: Wow, I really said all that? After reading that shit where you've completely misconstrued everything I said and after I've finished reading all of your other posts in the thread, I think it's pretty easy for me to switch my vote from Apyadg to you. And no, this is not an OMGUS vote.
Unvote
Vote: Ythill
I still have anFoS on Apyadgbecause I'd like to see the scum-hunting he promised and now anFoS on Disciple Slayerfor reasons that I've mentioned previously.
Oh and hey, Claus and kuribo! It's nice to know we now have the full complement of players. =)-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Before I even reply to your claim, I'm going to suggest that if someone else has the role of Vigilante, now would be a good time to counterclaim Ythill since there's most likely only one Vig per mini-game. I'll just mention that I'm not completely buying your claim since I could think of a number of legitimate reasons for mafia to claim such a role at this stage of the game, especially since you're threatening to vig-kill me on Night 1. I really don't see how you've already come to this solid conclusion that I'm scum, and you place me into a weird position since I feel I too am forced to claim just so you won't vig-kill me tonight if either one of us doesn't end up getting lynched today.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Xtoxm, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that I should be the person lynched today to have my alignment revealed by the mod? And that if my alignment is revealed as town, that automatically proves that Ythill is lying about his role and that he should be lynched on Day 2? Have you considered that maybe Ythill isn't lying while at the same time I'm aligned on the side of the town?Xtoxm wrote:I'd be happy to go along with that...if you die and your mafia, then Ythill is twlling the truth, if your town, we can lynch Ythill.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Actually, Justin, you've already mentioned some information about the fourth scenario that I agree with but you're also missing something else. Ythill considers the fourth scenario to be "excellent strategy" because he says the scum will not NK at all and make his claim seem false. Ythill has already made it quite clear that he intends to target me for his Vig-kill, and he's also made it even more clear thatYthill wrote:(4) I am not lynched #3. Scum have excellent strategy, they don’t NK at all. My claim seems false and I am pretty much guaranteed to be lynched D2. But, again, I don’t think my death is the worst thing that could happen to town. Whether D1 or D2, it will reveal my alignment and role which will uncork a mountain of data on other players. Not to mention that this option costs scum a NK.
This outcome could also happen if I am targeted by scum but doc protected. Because it could be the most favorable to scum of the four, I am going to ask that (if we have a doc) I not be protected from N1 NK whether you believe me or not; there are far better targets for protection anyway.he considers me scum. At the start of Day 2, the mod will reveal all of the deaths that happened during the night and the alignment of the killed person. Suppose Ythill is telling the truth and he is the One-Shot Vigilante who decides to kill me, and the scum follow his "excellent strategy" and decide to no-kill on Night 1: Imagine how the next day would read if you suppose I'm scum. The mod would reveal my alignment (in this case we're supposing I'm scum), mention that I was killed, and no other death would occur. Ythill's role would be confirmed since it would be pretty evident that my death would have been a result of his Vigilantism.
In order for Ythill's fourth scenario to be considered "excellent strategy" as he called it, one would absolutely HAVE to assume that I'm a townie. Why? Because think about how the next day would read in that case: Incognito (Townie) was killed during Night 1. No other kill would be revealed during the night because Ythill mentioned it would be "excellent strategy" for the scum to not kill anyone. It would then and ONLY THEN be unclear if the town should believe Ythill's claim because you all would be questioning if my death really was a result of Ythill's "One-Shot Vigilantism" and not the result of a Mafia kill. It would also be unclear if the doctor protected the right person or anything along those lines. Justin, I think you are correct in stating that it almost seems as though Ythill is "laying down the carpet" for his day 2 defense, and I think Ythill has just slipped up.My vote will remain on Ythill.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
ROFL! So if we assume I'm scum, the scum would kill me through this elaborate bussing to help confirm that you are in fact the one-shot vigilante?Ythill wrote:Cross-posted a bit...
Or of elaborate bussing. Barring that, you make a good point that I hadn't considered. In hindsight, #4 is not "excellent strategy" unless I am wrong about you. None of that changes my read on you or the fact that my claim is confirmable.Incognito wrote:it would be pretty evident that my death would have been a result of his Vigilantism.
Also, I forgot my vote confirm thingy in the last post.
Some people should learn when to wave the white flag.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Justin, you are absolutely correct. Ythill's 4th strategy ONLY works if the victim is Town. See the problem that Ythill ran into is he's part of that informed minority that we call the mafia. He got a little ahead of himself suggesting that the mafia's "excellent strategy" would be to no kill because he knows as well as I do that I am an innocent and if I were killed, I would show up as an innocent. So essentially, he knows what the results of tomorrow's night kill would be if his fourth strategy were enacted, and basically he was, as you said, "laying down the carpet" for his Day 2 defense that he knew he would have to make once I appeared as Town. That's what sometimes happens to a player when he/she knows a little TOO much information.Justin Playfair wrote:Incognito,
Two things, though I'm not sure the first is still relevant after Ythill's post 229. And Ythill, I'm somewhat flummoxed by what you've posted there.
The first would be that Ythill's fourth strategy ONLY works if his eventual victim is town. Otherwise it doesn't work at all. I took that as a given, but after Ythill's response I guess it wasn't to him, which is really very strange. I mean, if the eventual victim is scum then scum have no reason at all for not killing someone. Conversely, if the victim is scum Ythill comes up blameless on a no-kill by mafia regardless.
And what a beautiful strategy it would have been too. I mean, he basically outlined everything the way it would have happened if we fell into his trap to believe he's really the Vigilante. He would have used his one-shot during Night 1 (because conveniently he claims he's a night-kill one-shot Vig). He would have defended himself saying stuff like "Wow, those members of the mafia sure were smart to use "excellent strategy number 4"". Then he would have been this "Vanilla Townie" from then on, unable to ever shoot another person again. In reality he would be this member of the Mafia hiding among us guiding the town to even more mislynches. It's really quite nice, isn't it?
There are two things Ythill said with absolute certainty in Post 218.Justin Playfair wrote:Incognito,
The second thing. I think Ythill in post 229 is suggesting that the elaborate bussing would be his killing of you. I looked all over the Wiki to see if mafia could night kill their team mates, but I couldn't find the answer.
1) He is the One-Shot Night-Kill Vigilante.
2) I am scum.
His "elaborate bussing" he was referring to was where he realized "Oh hey wait a minute... if I, Ythill, am lying to the town and claiming with absolute certainty that Incognito is scum, then shit, Incognito is right. I forgot that I also have to pretend that Incognito also shows up as scum at the beginning of Day 2, and I have to make the town realize that for some reason, the mafia elaborately bussed Incognito by night-killing him to help me out with my role of being the One-Shot Night-Killing Vigilante!" Which of course makes no sense at all. Justin, he's backtracking. It's plain and simple. Ythill is scum.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Heh. Spoken like Ythill's scum buddy.Disciple Slayer wrote:I am perplexed. I have no idea what to do any more. Mass RC, anyone?
Seriously, are you guys even reading what just happened? Ythill is scum.
Read Post 218's "excellent strategy".
Read Justin Playfair's response: Post 221 and read my response: Post 227.
Read Ythill's backtracking: Post 229 and my response to his backtracking: Post 230
Justin Playfair's points: Post 231
My response as well: Post 232
This really shouldn't be that difficult.
Confirm vote: Ythill-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Bullshit. You've already said with great certainty that I'm scum. For you to not consider your target's alignment (in this case Incognito the scum) when you suggested the "excellent strategy number 4" just doesn't seem to ring true to me. WhatYthill wrote:
I didn't think it through. When typing my possible outcomes, it occured to me that mafia could screw me by not killing. I didn't consider my target's alignment in that situation at all. Very bad oversight on my part, I know.Justin Playfair wrote:Ythill, did you really only realize that when Incognito brought it up, as seems to be indicated in post 229? Because that really seems to indicate that you know he's innocent, or if Incognito is not your eventual target that you suspect you'll be killing town. I mean, you really hadn't considered that?doesring true to me is that you're scum and when you were writing up your point about "excellent strategy number 4", you were thinking about it with the knowledge that Incognito will appear as Town when the mod reveals his alignment.
Of course it's a realistic mistake. It just happened.Ythill wrote:First point: does the slip up Incog hypothesises seem like a realistic mistake? Meaning, if I am forward-thinking enough to lay out this elaborate "carpet," does it follow that I am short-sighted enough to miss such an obvious hole in the plan?
Hmm... A little "Wine In Front of Me" perhaps? You're forcing us to think that if Ythill is scum, then he should have also asked for the doc's protection. Since he didn't, he must not be scum. Not asking for the doctor's protection of courseYthill wrote:Second point: the "doc protected" plan seems much more viable if I am scum, so what's the point of me asking the doc not to protect me? In Incog's theory, wouldn't that be entirely counter-productive? As scum, I should have asked for doc protection.seemslike a very generous town action when in this case it's the action of the scum attempting to fool the Town.
I've already tried to respond to what I call, your Post By Post Distortion and upon doing so, I noticed so many points that were complete misrepresentations of things that I mentioned in the thread that I didn't even feel the need to complete the response. In fact, I urge everyone to sit down and read his so-called PBPA of me. Take the time to go to each and every post that he cites (since he didn't do anyone the favor and link each one), read what he says, read the actual post that I made in which he's referring to, and determine for yourself if his PBPA is actually valid. I've already found the real scum, Ythill. One of them happens to be you.Ythill wrote:Final point. Look at Incog's actions here and ask yourself why he selected the course he did. He has several options. He could go back and try a real defense against my PBPA, clearing himself enough to put Shteven back in my sights. He could try to find "the real scum" and direct my kill towards them. Or he can look for a mistake in my post and continue to argue desperately to lynch me. Which of these are the most realistic approaches for town? For scum?
And this would be assuming I have actually bought your claim of being the One-Shot Night-Kill Vigilante, in which case I haven't. Think about it like this: Let's assume that you really are this One-Shot Night-Kill Vigilante that you claim to be. Would it really make sense from your perspective as a member of the town, who's duty and obligation is to the town, to form this solid conclusion about another player after creating a PBPA and reading my response to that PBPA to come forward and announce to everyone that you're the One-Shot Night-Kill Vig whose primary target is Incognito and that you absolutelyYthill wrote:The obvious move here for any townie is to steer clear of a D1 lynch on me, waiting for my confirmation and lynching me D2 if it does not come. In the case of a townie who is my declared target, the obvious move is to stall the lynch, try and clear himself, and work hard to determine if my #2 suspect is actually scummy.knowI an scum? And you did all this when the possibility of you being lynched was still very slim since you only had 3 votes on you. If you were actually this townie, you would have taken a step back and thought for a second: Wait, what if Incognito isn't scum and here I am announcing to everyone that I will kill him at night? The scum wouldn't even bother Night Killing you since they would know you're targeting a townie and you'll end up being Vanilla once you finish killing me. The scum also wouldn't even bother Night Killing me since they would also know I'm a townie and that you're gonna take care of me by killing me. They would just let you proceed with your killing and target a completely different target from the list of other potential victims that they have.
But now let's assume that you're Mafia. What would you have to gain by claiming this role? First off, in a mini-game there's no guarantee that we even have a Vigilante. So technically you could rest assured that there probably won't be a counterclaim since there's a good chance the role doesn't exist. And even if a counterclaim did come forward, you could mention "Oh but you must be day-kill. Mine is night-kill so no worries, I'm still telling the truth". Secondly, if I actually bought your claim and ended up not getting lynched today, you could keep your target that you will now be keeping at the bottom of each of your posts on me, realizing that "Hey, Incognito is a Townie. He's buying my claim and in an effort to prevent his own death which would be a loss to the Town, he'll claim his role before Night 1 rolls around." If I have a power role, then BINGO you just scored big by claiming to be the Vig. If I don't have a power role, then you and your mafia buddies could turn your attention on someone else from the town who may have a power role. Thirdly, you've laid out the rest of the beauty behind the claim ahead of you - you would from then on appear to everyone as this Vanilla Townie since you "used up" your one shot and you would be able to guide the town to mislynches.
I'm in no rush. I have no problem allowing the day to progress forward. My only fear is that you will somehow talk your way out of this one (like you're attempting to do right now) to hopefully lead the town to a mislynch on Day 1. You're also acting like that one mistake (which is a pretty horrific mistake considering how certain you are of me being scum) was the only reason I concluded that you are probably scum. Your PBPA of me was so bad and such a drastic misrepresentation of me that it was easy for me to come to the conclusion that you're scum. Your actions this whole day have also helped me to come to this conclusion (constantly reaffirming to everyone that you're a townie, mentioning that only the towniest of the town will realize Incognito's mistake in his post, flat-out lying about different points within the thread). The mistake you made was just a little icing on the cake.Ythill wrote:Insead, Incog analyzes my post and finds a mistake that he immediately (and repeatedly) insists leads to no other conclusion except Ythill=scum + Incog=town even though there is at least one other explanation. He pushes this ruthlessly (look at his recent post count compared to a couple days ago) to try and get town to hang me. Why the rush?
Where did I hint that I have a power role? And what's so bad about my counterclaim request? If someone counterclaims you, we'dYthill wrote:Ask yourself the same questions about most of his posts: his hint that he has a power-role, his request for counter claims, his fence-riding habits, his "case" against apyadg, his shifty defense to my PBPA, etc, etc, etc. I am very comfortable letting you all form your own answers to these questions.knowthat at least one of you is lying, and we'd eventually be pretty much guaranteed to out one scum. With regard to Apyadg, my analysis of him wasn't allowed to continue since he never appeared in the thread again to provide us with that promised scum-hunting.
Seriously, what kind of a townie attempts to figure out the role of another townie? Oh, I know which kind: the kind who's actually scum. And I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt because as I mentioned before, since you were so certain that I am scum it strikes me as unbelievable that you would make a mistake that badly when laying out your "excellent strategy" number 4.Ythill wrote:Also, take a look at Justin. I think he's pretty clearly a vanilla townie and I have been his top suspect since very early in the game. Yet he is giving my claim the benefit of the doubt. Why? Why wouldn't Incog do the same?-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
You bring up good points, Justin. I will not remove my vote just yet because I still have major issues with everything about the claim but as of right now, my FoSes were and still are currently on Apyadg and Disciple Slayer. Apyadg has remained inactive despite the fact that I've seen him online a number of times browsing this very forum (Little Italy) but still not contributing anything. And he continues to contribute to the Newbie game that he's in, but he is remaining non-contributory to this game despite his promise to scum hunt.Justin Playfair wrote:Incognito,
I don’t like anything about Ythill’s claim. At best it seems a claim designed to benefit the claimant at the expense of the town’s greater interests, and at worst it seems absolutely scummy. But for town as a whole the possible benefits of leaving Ythill unlynched going into tonight outweigh the possible risks. If I were you, staring down the barrel of his gun, I am not at all sure I wouldn’t be reacting with the vehemence you’re showing. But lynching Ythill today would not be the best play for the town, and you have to put the town in front of yourself. Easy for me to say, since it’s not me we’re talking about getting killed by him? Yeah. Sorry about that. And I think the best thing you could do now wouldn’t be to either attack or answer Ythill, but to spend your time and energy hunting for scum among those players not named Ythill. It’s the very best thing you could do for town, and my guess is it is also the way to have the best chance of being alive in the morning.
Now, unless something dramatically new comes up involving this claim I am going to try to do some hunting. Because even if Ythill is scum, he’s not here all by himself.
Mod:Can you please prod Apyadg?-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
I can't help but make one final point about the Ythill role claim especially since Xtoxm has mentioned that he can only see it making sense from a town perspective. I think the role claim makes 0% sense from a townie perspective and contrary to Xtoxm, I would be really surprised if Ythill comes up as town. And my reasoning for this will be completely free of the analysis I've presented previously about the mistake he made in "excellent strategy" 4. Here's why:
First, let's look at the post that Ythill made after I responded to his PBPA of me. He said three pretty solid things after wrapping the whole thing up:
1) He said my Post 215 was the scummiest post of the entire game, and it confirms his read on me.
2) He said the towniest of the town should be able to see my post 215 for what it is and come to conclusions about it.
3) He claimed his role to be that of the One-Shot Night-Killing Vigilante.
Read his post and the above conclusions. Doesn't this seem like a huge appeal to emotion? Further, if you're a townie reading his post, does it not urk you that he was able to make all three of these points in one post after completing a single PBPA on a person and reading that person's response? Especially considering that it's inconsistent with his playstyle so far? I know for a fact that if he had made that post against anyone else in the game even if I was slightly leaning scum on said person, I personally would have been extremely urked by it.
So far, Ythill has basically seemed to attack two main people: Justin Playfair and Northjayhawk/Shteven. His playstyle has read as follows so far:
1) Attack.
2) Battle of words for a bit.
3) Resolution.
Compare this to what he did when he chose me as his target:
1) Attack.
2) Resolution.
Where was his usual battle of words? Why did he not feel the need to include this against me?
I could see a townie doing this if said townie had an investigative role and that townie investigated a person and confirmed his/her investigation to be guilty. But a One-Shot Vigilante is far from an investigative role. How could he have come to such a solid conclusion about me? Does Ythill really have these amazing powers of perception and ability that he's able to come to the solid conclusions that MafiaSSK is the VI, Justin Playfair is a Vanilla Townie, and Incognito is scum? It just doesn't make sense.
Further, ask yourself this question: How does what Ythill mentioned in his post jive with his final actions? Surely someone who has come to the conclusion that the "towniest of the town" will see my post for what it is wouldn't also feel the need to claim his role at the end of his post that came after reacting to my response to his PBPA. If he really had this role, wouldn't it make even better sense to try to further build his case against me, gain support from the town, and have me lynched to in effect save his night-killing ability for a future night?
I stick by my conclusion that Ythill is scum, and I'm willing to help try to find the rest of the scum, but I just want you all to seriously consider this no matter what happens from here on out.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
EBWOP: That should be "jibe" and not "jive". Sorry about that.[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Excellent posts both of you, and I completely agree. I too thought about Disciple Slayer's vote against Apyadg as an early form of distancing especially considering the rapidity with which he removed it. I've also mentioned previously how I think Ythill has been awfully accommodating of DS here:
and since I have such a low impression of Ythill already, I wouldn't be surprised by that scum grouping. Ythill's recent removal of his FoS on Shteven and switch to DS could also be some form of distancing. Basically, he could use another vote so I would like toIncognito wrote:And so you find me scummier than Disciple Slayer for making Post 109 than his Post 89 in which he pops up out of nowhere to place a vote on Apyadg? I think you've been awfully accommodating towards Disciple Slayer this whole game. Apyadg was already being questioned by Ho1den, and I became suspicious of Disciple Slayer for placing a vote on Apyadg the way he did. Considering Disciple Slayer's action, I was actually beginning to form a different opinion about Apyadg but I was still waiting for the scum-hunting that he promised before removing my vote. He has yet to provide us with that scum-hunting.
Unvote; Vote: Disciple Slayer
Justin, I wouldn't mind reading the rest of your analysis on DS.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Justin, I don't think Disciple Slayer's plan clears Ythill or DS at all, and I think it works quite well as bussing an unsalvageable buddy. You're right though; it would have been dependent on whether or not there really is a Doc and Cop and whether or not said Doc/Cop would be willing to go along with the strategy and reveal the information learned at the start of the next day. If the strategy actually went through though and Ythill really did appear as guilty, I could see it as an attempt for DS to kill two birds with one stone: he would come away looking fairly innocent for suggesting the strategy that lead the town to find one scum, and it would pave the way for the scum to rid the town of some power roles.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
SSK, if you're back for good now, you might wanna tell the mod. I saw him place a post in the Replacements thread.[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Claus, I don't think your meta-analysis of me is entirely fair and certainly don't think it should be used to place me on your so-called "Naughty List". Remember that the game you and me played together in which I was scum was a game where I was replacing a player who was very obviously scum to just about every player in the game. I posted about 5 or 6 posts and then self-hammered. Further, that game is still ongoing so I don’t think it should be discussed here.Claus wrote:Incognito
He started average, and was on my neutral list until pressure started to fall on him in these last pages. I don't like the way that he reacted to the pressure on him... feels like the last game we played together, where he was scum afterall. And he seems to quickly point to anyone not himself when the heat gets off him.
This seems very similar to post 58, when he overreacts to a small accusation on him. And I have seen it as well in another game we played together.
Also, why didn’t you mention anything about Ythill’s role-claim? Do you think that even with his role-claim at L-4, his mistake in “excellent strategy number 4”, and the points I bring up with respect to why his role-claim makes no sense that he still belongs on your “Nice List”? You even listed him as “SK possibility”. That’s a nice thing?
Also I guess it’s worthy to note that you actually placed me on your neutral list early in the game while your predecessor seemed to come to the conclusion that I was definitely scum. What do you think of your predecessor’s arguments against me? How about his arguments against MafiaSSK?
I feel like Justin had questions for me somewhere so I'll get to those when I'm more awake tomorrow morning or afternoon.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Okay, I have some time now to answer these questions.
No, I don't think we should lynch Ythill today. Even though I feel that the possibility of him being aligned on the side of the town seems slim to none, I'd rather not have the guy lynched today. If he really is the Vig I would have liked it if he would have kept his role to himself and saved his ability for another night when he may have been more sure of his read against another player, but we can't cry over spilled milk.Justin Playfair wrote:Incognito, I want to ask you a couple questions. If given your preference, would you still prefer a day one lynch of Ythill? And how would finding two bodies in the morning impact your suspicions of him?
With regard to your second question, I'm thinking that finding two bodies the next day would definitely at least ease my suspicions of him a bit, although my suspicions probably wouldn't matter anymore since he's already made it clear that I would be his target. As you mentioned previously though, it wouldn't completely clear him as a definite Vig since the very small possibility of him being the Serial Killer could still hold true. I think the SK possibility is extremely small though since following Night 1, he would have to essentially no-kill every single night to maintain our trust while keeping himself alive all the way to the end of the game.
Non-Ythill stuff: I'd still like to see a response from Disciple Slayer with respect to the issues we've all raised against him, and I'm still distinctly unimpressed with Apyadg's contribution to the game. I should mention that he still continues to view this very forum (Little Italy) but is still unwilling to contribute to our game. I'm not sure if screenshots are allowed but they're probably unnecessary; you could look at his posting history to see that he's quite active in his Newbie game. He's not lurking as obviously as Disciple Slayer was earlier on but heisstill lurking nevertheless.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Ythill:I'm letting you know that I still have a hard time believing your claim but I do have a few questions for you. These questions assume that you really are the Vig. After reading all of the reactions generated after your claim, do you still believe claiming was the right thing to do? You've now removed your vote and FoS from underneath all of your posts, but where do you currently stand with your issues against me? Also, you've indicated that you too are suspicious of Disciple Slayer, and you would vote against him but you're waiting for his response. What do you think of both me and Shteven voting against Disciple Slayer as of current? You were highly suspicious of both me and Shteven, so why have you not questioned the wagon formed on DS?-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Eh? Firstly, Apyadg has been inactive for quite some time now. Does it really make much sense for me to keep drilling the same issues I've had with him over and over again when the guy's not even here to provide input? Secondly, I didn't forget my previous attacks on Apy. He's been one of my FoS's ever since I changed my vote from Apy to Ythill. I've also been mentioning comments as of recent about his lurking as he continues to look into this forum and continues to remain active in his newbie game but refuses to provide content here.Claus wrote:You started cool (loved your "hate pressure votes" comment), then eventually settled on Apydog. Then when you come under fire by Yth, you set all your cannons on him - eventually to the point of forgetting your previous attacks on Apy.
Well let's see. I didn't vote against you or place an FoS on you or anything along those lines so no, I'm not suggesting that you are partners with Ythill and DS. I'm really surprised that you would even think that; is it wrong for me to question your analysis of myself and the other players of the game? Again, I recommend you look back at my recent posts to see where I stand with Apyadg; he still remains as my FoS and I would still like to see the scum-hunting that he promised.Claus wrote:Same thing with my attack - you question me in an agressive manner because I put you in my suspect list. So I'm partners with Ythill and DS? Where is Apy in your suspicion scale now?
Haha, Claus, you crack me up. I've also mentioned previously that I would question you when you were all caught up with your read since your predecessor had a number of issues with me. See below:Claus wrote:
I can't answer for my predecessors arguments. Do you really want me to do it, or are you just entering OMGUS territory?What do you think of your predecessor’s arguments against me? How about his arguments against MafiaSSK?
Incognito wrote:If I truly found ChronX scummier, I would have voted for him. My posts following Apyadg's reply and ChronX's reply were made for me to both clarify what I stated in Post 58 and to determine if ChronX truly didn't understand what I was getting at or if he was deliberately trying to misrepresent me. Eventually he fell silent and mentioned that he would be away for about a week, so unfortunately I wasn't able to get a good determination of what he was attempting to do and now he's been replaced. I'll wait for Claus's interpretation of the thread to come to this kind of conclusion.
So in response to your question, yes, I really would like for you to at least attempt to answer those questions. Your reading of me from the pre-Ythill PBPA part of the game differs fairly drastically from your predecessor's reading of me from that same point of the game so I think my questions for you are pretty crucial.
@Ythill:Thanks for answering those questions. I've already attempted to respond to your PBPA of me and found myself having a hard time doing so. All I can really say is this: I agree that my sig:noise ratio was fairly high during the period in which you analyzed. However, I think you should seriously consider the amount of inactivity that existed at that time period. I remember you mentioning something about how we should watch our sig:noise ratio out of respect for the replacements and you went further to state that you like the smaller, intimate setting provided as it allows for good information gathering. I can't say that I completely agree with you on your second point. I'm not a fan of allowing players the chance to look at things retrospectively and responding to issues from that point; I think more information can be gathered when all the players in the game are active and providing content during the same time period.
I also don't know how to respond to your fence-sitting comments since I don't agree with your read on me. I can't say that my issues with Apyadg were completely my own since charter was the first to place a vote on him. I could say though that my issues with Disciple Slayer and you were self-motivated. Disciple Slayer wasn't being scrutinized by anyone when I first mentioned my issues with him, and my issues with you were different from Shteven's and kuribo's issues. If you really are the Vig and still feel like I haven't swayed your opinion of me, then unfortunately I guess you'll just have to shoot me tonight to find out my alignment. If it comes down to that, I'm hoping that enough information has been provided from me and people's reactions towards me to at least lead the town in a positive direction.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Sorry, I keep getting that CPU quota message when I hit submit but here's my response to your questions, Ythill:
Well earlier in your PBPA, one of the issues that you had with me involved my "lumping up" of both ChronX and Apyadg into my post where I mentioned how they both placed serious votes on MafiaSSK before he conceded to lying. You theorized that my reason for doing this was so that I could see which bandwagon would gain strength so that I could follow that bandwagon with a vote. In response to your PBPA I mentioned that if I was truly lumping individuals up to eventually jump on the wagon that gained strength, I would have also lumped your name in there along with Apyadg and ChronX since technically you also joined the SSK wagon before he admitted to lying. I mentioned that I didn't include your name in that post though because you had classified your vote on MafiaSSK as a pressure vote instead of a serious one. My self-motivated cases against you and DS would also help clear your allegations.Ythill wrote:@ Incog: Realizing this AM that my rambling argument was unfair (in the same way as my PBPA) without a few summary questions for you to respond to. So...
Can you explain how unique and/or self-motivated cases against me and DS would clear you of earlier allegations of fence-sitting and following?
I was going from memory when I made my previous post, and I could have sworn that I was the first person to mention problems with DS's posts. Ho1den did make a comment before me though so you're right in saying it was untrue. I was probably thinking of the FoS I placed on him when I replied to you.Ythill wrote:Why did you claim that nobody else was scrutinizing DS when it was untrue? Why did you say that your issues against DS were self-motivated when none of them were unique?-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
This is true. However, the only way I can completely prove my own alignment is by showing you my role pm. =)Ythill wrote:In short: your defense here does not actually address your alignment but, instead, attempts to discredit my theory by suggesting false “town-only” motivations for a course of action that would benefit either alignment. Comments?
I fail to see how my case against Disciple Slayer was made from a desperate position. I had touched on at least part of my issues with DS well before you even suggested that you would be working on a PBPA of me. My first mentioning of DS was back on December the 11th and then again on the 13th while your first mentioning of a PBPA on me happened on the 27th. My case against you was certainly more of a desperate situation since you were doing to me the exact opposite of what you had done to SSK earlier; you were threatening to eliminate me after creating what I saw as a false PBPA while SSK was just receiving pressure.Ythill wrote:
The reason I claim that they do not is that they were made from a desperate position rather than an allegedly conniving position. Do you see the difference here?Incognito wrote:My self-motivated cases against you and DS would also help clear your allegations.
Not explicitly but I could slightly agree at least. I refused to mention anything about DS before my post on the 11th because I was trying to give DS the benefit of the doubt - he would repeatedly enter the thread mentioning some real life issue that would keep him from the game, and I didn't want to accuse him of lurking or something of the sort since his reasons for being away seemed justified. Eventually he did it one too many times and when heYthill wrote:
Your candor here does not clear you altogether, but I do appreciate it. I believe that this equates to a concession on your part: the DS case was not unique and can therefore be dropped from your most recent defense. Would you explicitly agree?Incognito wrote:I was going from memory when I made my previous post, and I could have sworn that I was the first person to mention problems with DS's posts. Ho1den did make a comment before me though so you're right in saying it was untrue.wouldfinally return, he would provide no evidence of reading the thread or any analysis whatsoever - he would just vote on the person who was feeling pressure atm.
And YES! Finally something I wanted to bring up haha.Ythill wrote:Finally, do you have any comments regarding Apy’s return? I am willing to put our chat on hold if you would like to dedicate your entire focus to questioning him for a little while, as I believe such an interaction could potentially shed more light on his alignment and yours.
We have this:
where I mention that it seems like Apyadg has been monitoring the thread but not contributing anything.Incognito wrote:Non-Ythill stuff: I'd still like to see a response from Disciple Slayer with respect to the issues we've all raised against him, and I'm still distinctly unimpressed with Apyadg's contribution to the game. I should mention that he still continues to view this very forum (Little Italy) but is still unwilling to contribute to our game. I'm not sure if screenshots are allowed but they're probably unnecessary; you could look at his posting history to see that he's quite active in his Newbie game. He's not lurking as obviously as Disciple Slayer was earlier on but heisstill lurking nevertheless.
and this:
where Xtoxm confirms what I was mentioning about Apyadg.Xtoxm wrote:Just like to say I have also seen Apyadg doing as Incog said.
Microscope finding it's way on to me now...This should be interesting
And now this from Apyadg himself:
Forgot about the game, eh?Apyadg wrote: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.
Unvote; Vote: Apyadg
I'm comfortable with either a DS lynch or an Apyadg lynch for Day 1.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Pretty excited watching the Giants beat the Cowboys! But yeah, back to this haha.
It's crucial because your predecessor came to a pretty solid conclusion that I'm scum. I just wanted to know your standpoint in relation to your predecessor's. You've mentioned in question B that you couldn't find this so I'll point this out to you below.Claus wrote:So, questions:
A- Why is itcrucialwhether my opinions differs from Cronx or not? Despite we sharing the same role PM, we are different players, with different styles, and different ways to read other people. I never talked to Cronx either about this game. So please, tell me why this iscrucial.
See below:Claus wrote:B- And where does Cronx points at you as one of the most scummy players? I couldn't find it. He attacked once at 49, then you two exchanged some jabs ("you are misrepresenting me! No, you are! No, you!"), then he replaced.
He states this is often a scum tactic used to direct votes and thought processes later and then says it will come back to bite me. This implies that his conclusion at that point was that I'm scum.ChronX in post 49 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.
Yes, I've already mentioned that I disagree with your read on Ythill, I disagree with your read on MafiaSSK, and I'm not receiving the same vibes as you are on Justin Playfair either. Also I'd probably shift Xtoxm to "The Unlisted" if anything.Claus wrote:C- Do you have any comments on my reads on other players?
Mod:We also need a replacement for Disciple Slayer. He seems to be the top suspect for a lot of people, but he's not around to respond which sucks and is leaving us at a standstill.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
So I guess we're basically just waiting on content from people like Apyadg, and the charter & Ho1den replacements then before agreeing on a lynch.[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
This is sad really. We have the exact amount of active players we need to make a lynch with our 7 actives. I'm beginning to feel like we should either have a modkill or an abandonment. I don't see much progress being made in the replacements department and with the way this game has been going, it seems like this will all just be cyclical.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Yeah, kuribo, I would agree with you under other circumstances. However, given the fact that Apyadg's Newbie game was running at the exact same time as this Mini, his playstyle would remain relatively the same.Xtoxm wrote:
Yeh but there is no time diff is there, the games are being played simultaneouslykuribo wrote:
Newbie games can't be assumed to mean anything, since a player's playstyle will (hopefully) change over time.Incognito wrote:Oh and P.S. I've been checking out Apy's newbie game just for the heck of it and it turns out he dipped out when he started receiving some pressure. He dipped out to the point of being replaced and by the looks of it, he was scum.
Coincidence? =]
Also, he lied about forgetting about this game. That's reason enough for me to have him as today's lynch.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
The game was just wrapping up when I made that post, so I was going by soupfly's comment which stated that the town had won the game. Now that the game has officially ended, it's a certainty that he was scum in that game. You can see the game for yourself: Newbie 531. More specifically I would pay attention to the area of the game just before Apyadg goes AWOL and gets replaced.Ythill wrote:
What do you mean by "by the looks of it?" How does his previous play as scum suggest his alignment in this game without having his previous play as town for comparison?Incognito wrote:He dipped out to the point of being replaced and by the looks of it, he was scum.
I know that it's not completely solid evidence because like you said, we have no comparison to how he might have played as town if he was under a high pressure situation that questioned his alignment, but I just wanted to present some evidence that would at least suggest that Apy could have been doing the same thing within our game.
I've gone through my evidence previously a few posts back in response to you but just to reiterate, both Xtoxm and I confirmed that we had each seen Apyadg browsing this forum (Little Italy specifically) on a number of occasions. Obviously he could have been observing other ongoing games within this same forum but I'd find it hard to believe that our game (which was still fairly active at the time and was therefore near the top of the forum when I first mentioned this information) would go completely unnoticed from his eyesight. The first thing he mentioned when he did finally post here again was something like: sorry guys, I forgot about this game.Ythill wrote:
What evidence supports this?Incognito wrote:Also, he lied about forgetting about this game.
Lynch all liars?-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
His sig says /out for all games and now he goes by the moniker "Captain Bandwagon".[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Oh, it's not like he went around telling people that he made this new account. He kinda got found out by JDodge or someone else. I read it somewhere in the forums.[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Lol. It was pretty funny actually. He tried to nominate himself for a Scummy Award under the name Captain Bandwagon for DS's play in a Newbie game. JDodge pointed out that he has to be the same person because he votes the same way as DS. DS usually would make his votes in bold and all caps and Captain Bandwagon did the same.Xtoxm wrote:
Oh right lol...Serves him rightIncognito wrote:Oh, it's not like he went around telling people that he made this new account. He kinda got found out by JDodge or someone else. I read it somewhere in the forums.
How did he get found out?
Anyway, I've made my feelings about DS pretty clear in the past so I don't feel the need to restate what I've said previously. However, I would still prefer an Apy lynch to a DS one but DS still seemed scummy to me so either one would be fine for me on Day 1.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
I disagree. He's already claimed to be a one-shot, night-kill vig who will be using his shot tonight. He's also stated that he confirmed with the mod that if he chooses to kill someone and he's also targeted for a night kill, his one shot will still be effective despite the fact that he might be NK-ed. If he really is the one-shot, the scum would be better off leaving him alive since he'll basically be a vanilla townie after using up his shot.kuribo wrote:Assumedly, the fact that scum almost always go after claimed power roles. Unless he's scum, he's likely dead, since they won't want to risk leaving him alive.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Again, I disagree. Do you realize how much shit could happen in one night that might give everyone a skewed opinion about Ythill if we all really do accept his claim as a given? TheXtoxm wrote:That's an interesting idea. Although, he would pretty much confirm himself as a townie, which the mafia don't want.
Also, there aren't usually many, if any, power roles in these games, I've checked a few of them.onlything that would confirm his as town in my eyes would be an innocent cop investigation or his death and the mod revealing his role. Two bodies going down tonight would also help me believe him more but it still wouldn't completely solidify a town opinion of him from me.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
I know you're dead and all but good shot, Ythill!
I'm guessing that since we now know Claus's alignment, a good place to start would be here in Claus's Naughty and Nice list:
Obviously Claus could have potentially been bussing one of his buddies when he listed them in the naughty list but I feel like the people in the Nice list and the Unlisted list might be a good link to who could potentially be the scum. What do you guys think?Claus wrote:My secret list (as of this post)
The Nice:
Xtomx: I like his play. He seems direct with his accusations and his defenses. His vote follows his opinions, and his opinions are consistent. Also, he does not verborrage .
Ythill: IQ 147 boy . Has a tendency to build "infallible secret plans", but when he is not trying to solve the whole game on D1, I like his posts. Has been less wordy the last few pages, which makes me like him more. He attacks other people in a way that I see as honest scumhunting. SK is a possibility.
Shteven: NightJay was OMGUSy, but from his abandonment, that may be personal. Shteven, on the other hand, seems to be playing solid, and is explicit in his position regarding other players, which is a towntell for me.
Charter: The little he posted gave me a townie feeling - his case on Apy was good. Then he dissappeared. Needs prodding, but I don't think he is a lynch candidate.
The Unlisted:
Kuribo:
Kuribo started well, and I though his initial analysis good, even if I didn't agree with some of his points (Suspicion of Ythill, loving JP). His last few posts, however, drew a WTF from me: Fishing for Direction - what is that? Xtomx is scum because he agreed about voting someone he already FoS'ed?
Holden:
Another lurker. Some of his posts I like (the Apy accusation, the questions to DS, and those to Ythill and Incognito regarding SSF), but he has a very timid style of accusing and not voting, or voting then later saying that he didn't want to lynch the person, that I find scummy. Middle of the road for me.
The Naughty:
MafiaSSK
At first I thought he was either a clueless or a ballsy player with his bandwagon/"I'm lying". But his subsequent lurking, his strange votes on Natude, and specially JP have worsened my opinions of him. Not on the top of my scumlist, but we could do without SSF.
Apydog
Lurker. But the impression I had of him before he dissappeared was really bad, with him jumping up in the SSF bandwagon, and then jumping away after it derailed.
Justin Playfair
About as wordy as Ythill, except that he doesn't really seem to be honestly attacking anyone, and when he is, it is very timid for someone so wordy. Trying to lead the town without dirtying his hands?
And I REALLY don't like his list of possible fakeclaims. The three times out of three that I saw someone do that, they were mafia.
Incognito
He started average, and was on my neutral list until pressure started to fall on him in these last pages. I don't like the way that he reacted to the pressure on him... feels like the last game we played together, where he was scum afterall. And he seems to quickly point to anyone not himself when the heat gets off him.
This seems very similar to post 58, when he overreacts to a small accusation on him. And I have seen it as well in another game we played together.
Disciple Slayer
Votes Apy when it is cool to do so. lurks, but comes back when it is convenient. Shteven vote out of nowhere, and the "hey, let's discuss night strategy". Not lurking - Trying hard to lurk and to look like a VI - not succeeding in either,
Also, the fact that only two people died last night, we could probably state pretty confidently that there's not an SK in the game. The doctor died on Day 1 so nobody could have been protected and so I think the maximum amount of possible deaths happened last night.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
This is actually incorrect. Claus stated that I was scum in one of his previous games but not that we (he and I) were scum together.kuribo wrote:Incognito is on the naughty list, and Claus stated that they had once been scum together. Firstly, it seems unlikely for lightning to strike twice. Even without that meta argument, I think leading us down that road would be stupid, even if you're bussing him.
While I agree that the naughtiness against Justin is vague, I agree with Ythill's closing summary about how the long, drawn-out argument between Claus and Justin seemed pretty realistic and that would lead me to believe that they probably aren't scum with one another.kuribo wrote:The naughtiness against Justin is fairly vague.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Eh? I think he means that someone will be replacing one of the inactives in our game while Xtoxm follows suit and replaces one of the inactives in Gorgon's game.[ooc][color=black]patrickgower2006 (8:12:03 PM): all beer tastes same to me
patrickgower2006 (8:12:07 PM): like dish water
If you see Patrick drinking dish water, please try and stop him. Friends don't let friends drink dish water.[/color][/ooc]-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Okay, you know what, Justin Playfair was the only person whom I was waiting for before coming to a decision about what to do with the information I have. The reason why I feel Claus's Naughty and Nice list is a good place to start is because of my role. I am aPro-Town Mason. My Mason buddy might seem obvious to you since I basically defended him early on:MafiaSSK. You can see now why the early bandwagon that formed on him set off alarm bells for me. And knowing the information we know now, we see that ChronX (who was replaced by Claus) was actually scum, and he was one of the five people who hopped on the bandwagon.
Look at the Naughty portion of Claus's list. He's listed me (you now know my role), MafiaSSK (you now know his role), Disciple Slayer (we now know his role), Justin Playfair (we don't know his role but judging by the way Claus and him argued with one another, it seems likely that they aren't of the same alignment), and finally Apyadg. Apyadg is the only one on that list who gives me pause since I still feel like he is very likely scum. Further, let's look at what Claus said after he listed the people on the Naughty and Nice list:
If ApyadgClaus wrote:Ythill, if you ask me, you should hit one of those on my Naughty list.isscum, Claus would have known that listing him on the Naughty list might not be such a bad idea. I mean, Ythill basically had come to the conclusion that Apyadg was probably town (so he probably wouldn't choose to vig him anyway) and even if Ythilldidchoose to vig him and he came back as scum anyway, Claus wouldn't have looked like such a bad guy. After all, he was listed on the Naughty list and Claus would have looked like such a pro-town character for placing him there the way he did.
Now, I realize that the majority of the active players left in the game (kuribo, Xtoxm, Shteven) fall into the Nice and Unlisted portions of Claus's list so obviously all three of you have reason to be concerned. If you want my opinion though about the rest of the list, I too feel like Ho1den was probably town judging by the content of his posts. Charter really didn't do enough for me to lean one way or another about his alignment. Shteven seems relatively pro-town to me so far, and I feel like Northjayhawk's abandonment was coming more from a frustrated townie rather than floundering scum. Kuribo and Xtoxm seem interesting to me so far, and I'd bet that one of these two is scum (I'm leaning towards Xtoxm though).
So in my opinion as of right now, I feel like the remaining scum are probably Xtoxm and Apyadg. I need to do a re-read to see if anything sticks out to me about anyone else but that's where I'm leaning at the moment. If you have any questions about my claim, feel free to ask me.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Woah, uhhhhhh. You know what? Now I'm not so sure I should have claimed Mason. I was reading through some of the threads in Mafia Discussion and apparently a Mason is just someone who can talk with another person at night. I thought that meant that the person you are partnered with is absolutely on the same side as you but apparently it doesn't always need to mean that. I'm still doing me re-read but I'll try to piece this together.
With regard to your question, Shteven, I claimed Mason to help everyone see things from my perspective with respect to Claus's Naughty and Nice list. From my perspective, Claus's Naughty and Nice list looked like a pretty good place to start since DS's role was known, I know my role, Justin Playfair's and Claus's argument seemed to suggest that JP is town, and then I knew MafiaSSK's role and *thought* I also knew his alignment but after reading Mafia discussion, now I'm not so sure.
Also, during the week-long Night phase, I private messaged MafiaSSK but he wasn't active during that time. He finally responded to my message on Friday (about a day after the thread opened) telling me he didn't know who he found suspicious. From my point of view, I wasn't and I am still not sure whether or not MafiaSSK will be returning to the game. And since I thought he was absolutely guaranteed to be town but seemed so anti-town at the start, I wanted to make sure that his role was known to all so that the town didn't go forward with a possible mislynch of SSK in the future if he did decide to reappear in the thread. Ughhhhhhhhh, fuck. I'm gonna need to pm the mod to try to figure this out.-
-
Incognito Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Not Rex
- Posts: 5953
- Joined: November 4, 2007
- Location: Philadelphia, PA