Mini 515 - The Pine Barrens - Game Over!

[opie]

/confirm

[opie]

Vote: Spider Jerusalem

because random.org said so!

[opie]

I have now been avatared. hasdgfas, I believe this merits an unvote, since the lack of said avatar was the sole basis for said vote. Thank you.

[opie]

I'm inclined to believe Boggzie. He's made a pretty bold claim very early. If and when ryan is every lynched and turns out to be townie, any credibility that Boggzie has will go out the window and most likely be the next lynch target himself. I don't think that Boggzie would put that much on the table this soon if he were scum. Therefore I believe Boggzie to be a townie. If Boggzie is a townie, then I do not believe he would make such a play against another player unless he feels that player is in fact scum.

unvote

Vote: ryan

[opie]

Okay, let me provide a quick recap of a few things (mainly for my ownself)

Post 64:
Boggzie claims that during the confirmation stage, he received a notification of a PM from ryan. When he went to read the PM, it was unsent. Boggzie then says he believes that ryan is scum and mistakenly PM’d the wrong name. Vote for ryan.

Post 65:
Ryan states there is a possibility that he PMed Boggzie to be a replacement in Open 41. Vote for Boggzie

Post 66:
Boggzie posts a copy of email notification of a PM from ryan. He also they casts the net to include Bookitty stating that he beliefs she is who ryan intended the PM for.

Post 67:
Boggzie adds that the PM notification came and hour after his role PM.

Post 74:
Boggzie (in response to hasdgfas) claims that he never asked to be a replacement for any game. He also reiterates that the PM was deleted/unsent before he had a chance to read it.

Post 77:
In her first post since Post 66, Bookitty admits receiving a replacement PM from ryan on 10/8 for Open 41. She then states ryan has not PMed her since.

Post 78:
Ryan says that he PMed a bunch of people that were online at the time looking for a quick replacement. He then says:

The message I sent you was to replace into a game (I can’t find it in my sent box at the time but I will keep looking)

Post 82:
From ryan:

Your PM (and you know it) was about replacing into my game.

Post 86:
Bookitty provides the sixth vote for ryan to “clear [her] name”

Post 109:
Bookitty states that she is thrown by the whole situation and unvotes wondering what we learn by lynching any of the three.

Post 114:
ryan in response to two questions posed by Spider Jerusalem writes:

2) Without quoting my role I can tell you that he has lied about the contents of said PM. Basically the way I look at it is IF I sent him a PM (which I didn't) and I was scum and he wasn't and it was past the speaking deadline than he should have reported it to the mod and one of us should have been modkilled for PMing AFTER the deadline was imposed, that would be breaking rules early on and easily fixed (by one of us being modkilled)

[opie]

I think the undisputed facts are that ryan sent Boggzie a PM during the confirmation stage (at least, ryan has no yet outright denied it). I think the job for us as a town is to determine what is the significance of it.

Three people have been roped into this whole mess: Boggzie, ryan and Bookitty.

I feel confident in ruling out Bookitty as scum (for now). The only reason she got roped into this was because of Boggzie's comments in Post 66, which I feel were wild speculation on his part, without any evidence other that the similarity in their names. This is not entirely implausible, but it is tenuous. I know she has drawn some votes for voting for ryan hoping that he be turn up townie, but I suspect it was a move to distance herself and that she got caught up in the overreactive nature of this discussion thus far. Further, her vote was the sixth vote for lynch. While scum will vote for other scum to divert attention. I think its a dangerous tactic for scum to provide the L-1 vote for a fellow scummy.

Currently, my vote is for ryan and will remain so for reasons I will explain. Even before all of this ryan raised my suspicion over Bookitty's comments in Post 37 about hasdgfas "directing" my play. In Post 40 ryan throws a seriously suspicious eye towards Bookitty for comments that were clearly tongue-in-cheek. ryan may have misinterepreted but he seemed to me pretty quick to finger a target to lynch and was the first one to cast any real suspicion. This alone is not enough to warrant a lynch vote, but enough for me to keep my eye on.

Based on the undisputed facts, I think Boggzie's assumption/interpretation is a reasonable one. ryan's extremely reactive replies and his jumping up and down claiming LIAR LIAR has done little to dissuade me. If anything it has had the opposite effect. But I was really struck just now by ryan's second part of Post 114. It left me with a lot of questions:

-Why would he need to quote his role to tell us that Boggzie lied about the contents of the the PM?
-How did Boggzie lie about the contents of the PM? He said that it was "unsent" before he had a chance to read it. He only stated what he thought and "unsent" PM during the confirmation stage implied: that you were scum who mistakenly sent a PM to a non-scum.
-I also don't understand "IF I sent him a PM (which I didn't)" are you

now

denying sending a PM?
-Also "and it was past the speaking deadline", this is the first time I've heard this. Boggzie said he received the notice during the confirmation stage, an hour after his role PM. Where is this coming from?

This reply from ryan in very confusing to me. He seems to be muddying the water by bringing up new issues and diverting attention back to Boggzie. This seems to be scummy behavior.

Therefore my vote for ryan stands.

[opie]

"Bus" as in "throw him under the"

Meaning if he was scum he would be distancing himself from ryan for drawing too much attention to himself.

[opie]

With regards to Boggzie. I agree with TheHermit

My vote for ryan was more for his reaction to Boggzie’s accusations, not necessarily because of the PM. Although that contributed. Seems to me that Boggzie misinterpreted the PM and honestly believed that ryan was scum. One would think that scum would avoid drawing such attention to themselves, especially if they now the target is going to turn out townie. Needless to say, I’m very interested in how the rest of this day plays out.

Here are some preliminary thoughts that I have:

hasdgfas seems pretty clean to me. He's the only one who consistently defended ryan even as early as Post 70. It would seem to me that scum would have had no interest in slowing down the ryan train wreck. This would be even more true if, as I suspect, that Boggzie is town as well.

For this reason, I’m a bit suspicious of the few that remained fairly quiet during Day 1. But I have no way knowing right now if they are scum or just lurking. This would include ThAdmiral, Zakarum and to some extent neko2086.

I also find myself agreeing with the comments of TheHermit and Zakarum with regards to mcpaltp. Posts 130 and 131 just seem a bit odd to me. They just don’t seem necessary. I don’t think Post 129 warranted any kind of apology.

As for Bookitty, looking back through the posts, I do find her early reaction to the ryan situation a little suspicious. Boggzie made a random, tenuous accusation that she was scum. Her reaction to vote for ryan, hoping that he turn up town to prove her innocence, seems odd. First, I don’t know how ryan turning up town would prove her innocent of Boggzie’s accusation. It seems that she may have latched onto ryan in order to “distance” herself. But I don’t know if I’m 100% correct about that. I felt pretty sure about ryan. And we all now how that turned out. I feel a bit tentative pointing my finger at anyone at this point. I don’t know if these reactions were in response to ryan’s own reactiveness or indicative of something more.

[opie]

I didn't intentionally leave out Elias_the_thief in my discussion on Post 161. However, I think I mentioned every player in that post but Elias_the_thief. That was really an oversight. I was trying to let everybody know my thoughts based on what happened during Day 1, to see if others agreed or if I was off base. I have reread (again) all the posts and the post Zakarum posted was Post 87. Elias_the_thief's first hasdgfs's first defense of ryan (Post 70). However after that post, Elias_the_thief seemed to focus more of his attention on Bookitty than on ryan. Perhaps that is why I didn't include him on the ryan bandwagon.

[opie]

I'd imagine somebody pressing on me amy be scummy, as I could seem suspicious...

This confuses me. I presume "amy" is a mistype/mistake, I just don't know what you were trying to say.

[opie]

Does anyone have anything that we can take away from the death of Spider Jerusalem. Does anyone think the mafia killed him for a particular reason or was it a random kill? I've been trying to come up with something, but am at a loss.

I only count 8 total posts (11, 17, 31, 54, 87, 101, 104, 127). Only five of those being substantive (54, 87, 101, 104, 127). And at the time of death, he seemed, most suspicious of ryan, but had not voted.

[opie]

I think Elias's reasoning is faulty, and a bit forced

Could you explain why? It seems to me that the main reason you' dont like my reasoning is that it is against you.

I'm a bit confused, what reasoning are you refering to Bookitty (in Post 190) are you refering to all of Elias_the_thief's reasoning or just one issue. You just dropped that line about in near the end of the without really explaining it.

[opie]

I agree. ThAdmiral needs to start participating. Saying "Oops, sorry guys I'm here. I'm gonna start posting" [Post 178] just doesn't cut it.

[opie]

FOS: Zakarum

for the following reasons:

1. During all of Day One, he posts a total of three posts. [Posts 4, 59, and 109] One of which is his confirmation vote.

I find this suspicious because:
(a) Lurking in generally always seems suspcicious to me; and
(b) In Post 211, he hypocritically calls out Boggzie for laying low and implys that laying low is indicative of scum behavior.

2. In Post 109, he votes for Bookitty. Rather than provide his own analysis or explanation, he adopt Elias_the_thief's explanation wholly.

I note this because:
(a) Elias_the_thief continued to maintain his vote for Bookitty for the same reasons in his first post of Day Two. [Post 167]
(b) Zakarum, on the other hand, seems to completely ignore her as a suspect without offering any comments or explanations why. Furthermore his points a finger of suspicion at mcpaltp [Post 156]; hasdgfs [Post 183]; myself [Post 183] and calls out Boggzie [Posts 175 and 211].

Elias_the_thief maintained a consistant position from Day One to Day Two, while Zakarum having adopted the same positioned switches positions and makes accusations of four other players in the span of a day and a half [Post 156 to Post 183]

Throwing around a lot of suspicion seems suspicious itself.

3. After accusing Boggzie of scum behavior [Post 211], he seems quick to back off [Post 217] after only one post from Boggzie in defense [Post 216].

I find it suspicious that someone would makes such an accusation without standing behind it.

I don't know if all of this warrants a vote, but I do find it all to be suspicious behavior when taking altogether.

[opie]

ThAdmiral, I think you are misreading Bookitty's posts and by not quoting them, you are misleading others by misstating them.

I think the post you are refering to is Post 80, when she says:

I am going to ask, though. Are you aware, Boggzie, that if this is just a gambit on your part, you're likely to be lynched tomorrow if you're wrong?

This is not a "If ryan is scum, i'm definately voting boggzie tomorrow" statement. I read it to be a warning that is Boggzie is wrong about this issue he is setting himself up to be a lynch target. Not necessarily by her but the town.

It's something I noted in Post 72:

I'm inclined to believe Boggzie. He's made a pretty bold claim very early. If and when ryan is every lynched and turns out to be townie, any credibility that Boggzie has will go out the window and most likely be the next lynch target himself.

Something that ryan noted in Post 136:

guarantee you will be lynched after my role is outed

And something that even Boggzie acknowledged in in Post 73:

Even better - making a play like this is suicide if I'm lying.

And he repeated this sentiment in other posts (see Post 105)

Bookitty is not attacking you over a "grammar" issue. She is confronting you because you are mistating her comments and because you are lazy with your posting.

[opie]

In response to neko2086 and his vote for Boggzie:

My opinions are based on the following assumptions:

I assume ryan

did

send Boggzie a PM.
I assume that the PM was

withdrawn

before Boggzie could read it.

I could not find in ryan's posts were he flatly denied either of these claims, therefore I assume them to be facts.

This was all revealed in Post 63. Based on these facts Boggzie made the following assumption:

Now, being that Ryan and I have

no

connection other than this game, why would he PM me out of the blue? I believe the answer is pretty simple; he PM'd the wrong name from the list - he's scum.

As I've said before (Post 119), I don't think Boggzie's assumption was unreasonable. Further, that assumption alone (incorrect as it was), in my opinion, is not scum behavior. Following this claim, I can't find a post were Boggzie behaves in a suspicious manner. He largely is only responding to ryan's posts.

If

Boggzie were scum, as Spider Jerusalem noted in Post 87:

If this is the case it is a series of amazing coincidencies. First is that is the existence of the PM itself. Either by pure chance Boggzie got a PM at just the correct time to try and use it against ryan, or hey took a chance and made it up whole cloth but ryan has told is that there is every possibility that he did send it. what a stroke of luck that would be. Secondly, at the exact same time that the previous event occurred ryan just happened to be already under some amount of suspicion here for other behavior, giving the opportunity for the PM bombshell to have extra effect. This just seems overall unlikely to me, if ryan had denied flatly the existence of the PM I would give this option a lot more weight. In the light that ryan has said he may have sent a PM but can neither confirm nor deny it, and has not made any denial in regards to potentially having retracted said PM. The luck necessary to stumble into this situation just seems to be to great for me to believe it happened...

And not to be the second to ressurect the ghost of Spider Jerusalem, but I agree completely with what he was says in this post.

What Boggzie got us all into on Day 1 turned out to be anti-town, but I'm not quite sure it was scummy. I think the lesson we can learn from Day 1 is not to overreact or act too quickly. Therefore, I'm not comfortable lynching Boggzie based on a misplaced assumption. His behavior that day was not otherwise scummy. I could vote for Boggzie in the future, but I would need more evidence to feel comfortable doing so. We've already lost two towns thanks to all this nonsense, I would hate to lose a third.

[opie]

Before someone calls me out on it. I know I have ignored Boggzie's Post 169. I'm still trying to figure out what I make of it. My opinions in Post 254 are based primarily on his conduct from Day One.

[opie]

My thoughts on Boggzie, in light of Post 169 (and now Post 260):

The way I see it, there are four likely scenarios:

1. Boggzie is town. He is sincere. He thinks that being lynched today really is in the best interest of the town.

2. Boggzie is town. He is disingenuous. These two posts are a reverse pyschology gambit: By claiming that the correct thing to do is to lynch him, he hopes that such a claim will cause others to hesitate in casting their votes.

3. Boggzie is scum. He made a bold claim against a townie in Day One. It worked. He is now employing a reverse pyschology gambit.

4. Boggzie is scum. He made a bold claim against a townie in Day one. It worked. He is now bussing himself, lest he implicate his fellow scum. To that end, he claims town so that he can cast suspicion on those defending him, while his scum buddies lie low.

Scenario Four is unlikely because it is very poor play. By making such a bold Day One move, a scum must presume that they will be a Day Two lynch target. I've said it before in may Day One posts, I just don't believe scum would make themselves so vulnerable on Day One. But the addition of claiming town further makes this scenario puzzling and unlikely. While this strategy may be effective for Day Two, when Boggzie is lynched all benefit is lost.

I also find Scenario Three unlikely because (and I'm being repetitive here) such a bold move is unlikely for scum to make on Day One. In addition, if Boggzie is scum, he would have to have known that he would be a lynch target in Day Two based on that actions of Day One. He is taking a gamble with the reverse pyschology gambit. Put all together, it just doesn't seem to be smart scum play.

[I've argued that a bold move on Day One by scum is unlikely. I know it's not impossible. Venturing down that road however is getting into WIFOM territory that could make my head explode. Therefore I'm sticking by the presumption that bold moves are unlikely.]

That leaves Scenario One and Two. Boggzie is town in both scenarios. I don't really know which is correct. I feel at this point both are equally likely. For voting purposes however, the result is the same.

As I've said before, I don't think Boggzie acted scummy in Day One (see my Post 254). Boggzie's Post 169 and 260 definately seem suspicious but given my analysis above, for now my suspicion is not focused on Boggzie.

Did I leave anything out? Am I glancing over something? Is there an angle I didn't include? I'd like to know.

[opie]

Personally, I think that getting suicidal as town is obnoxious (see:ryan).

Agreed!!!

[opie]

Wow, a couple of long posts since my last. I'm just giving everyone a heads up that I might not be able to substantively until Monday. Bookitty, neko2086, and Elias_the_thief have given me a lot to ponder over and posts to re-read and I want to be able to devote enough time to what they are saying. I'm going to try to stay active through the weekend, but it's shaping up to be a busy one, so I just wanted to give everyone fair notice.

Just a quick question for ThAdmiral. I don't think I asked it earlier and Bookitty's post just reminded me of it:

I am intrigued by the opie-hasdgfas connection, as I am uneasy on both of these two, and am also following elias' attack on bookitty as she is under my suspicion as well.

I'm not sure if you were implying this or not, or if I'm reading this wrong, but were you "uneasy" on me

before

Elias_the_thief's comments in Post 181? If so, why?

[opie]

With regards to Bookitty and some of Elias_the_thief’s comments:

While I think there is a case to be made, I don’t think the case against Bookitty is

that

obvious. Boggzie pointed a finger at ryan and then suggested that Bookitty was his scum buddy. ryan responded in an emotionally reactive way. I think this left Bookitty in a real tough situation with how to respond. If she felt ryan was scum, defending him would make her look very suspicious. Therefore, I think she felt like she had to distance herself. I think voting for him was her attempt to do that. I do, however, disagree with her reasoning that if ryan turned up town then it would absolve her. That said given ryan’s extremely anti-town reaction, I can see why scum

and

town would want to distance themselves from ryan. Both are likely. So while I think there remains some suspicion around her, I just don’t see it as a clear cut issue.

And my reaction to ThAdmiral:

I can see why the two quotes you posted might seem suspicious, but:

Also I didn't like the way you only really started talking right towards the end of day one.

Are you serious? Are you accusing me of lurking? Let's quickly recap your posts from Day One:

/confirm

(sorry...)

I did forget to insert the /humour tag before and after. My bad.

No, Ryan's bad. It wasn't needed.

That's it! Two posts!

Your next post:

sorry for lack of posting yesterday - my internet was down for about three days. But I'm back now and will be definately contributing to today's scumhunting.

Apologizing for lack of posting due to lack of internet for three days. That was posted Tue Oct 23 2007 6:06 am.* But ryan PM quoted on Fri Oct 19 2007 3:49 pm! That doesn't explain any lack of posting during Day One. I can't believe a claim of lurking would come from you!

That said, just because you're guilty of lurking doesn't make me innocent. Here is why your claim that I was lurking is incredulous.
My posts count from Day One:

• Mon Oct 15- 1 post (confirmation post)
  Tue Oct 16- 1 post (random vote)
  Wed Oct 17- 1 post
  Thu Oct 18- 1 post
  Fri Oct 19- 3 posts

Day One Ends Fri Oct 19 2007 4:06 pm

I posted something every real time day during Day One. I'm not claiming to be the most active participant, but Day One really only substantively lasted a couple of real time days before it was surruptiously ended. (Thanks again, ryan!) I post mainly from work and was not able to do post that frequently on Wed and Thu. I would also like to point out that this is my first ever game of Mafia. I didn't want to make a lot of posts out of the gate just to make posts. I didn't think that would be helpful to the town.

So explain to me why my "lack of posting"** is suspicious? How is

your

lack of post

not

suspicious?

*All times cited are GMT-6 Hours
**Not a quote, but rather sarcasm.

[opie]

sorry for lack of posting yesterday - my internet was down for about

three

days. But I'm back now and will be definately contributing to today's scumhunting.

• **Emphasis added**

As I mentioned that was posted Tue Oct 23 2007 6:06 am.* I read that to mean you had internet difficulty Sat, Sun and Mon, possibly Fri. Day One

ended

Fri Oct 19 2007. So I don't think your "absence day one has already been covered."

. Are you now saying that you had internet difficulties for a week?

Regardless:

Secondly I think the phrase "really started talking" refers not only to posts but posts with real content. As far as I can tell your first three posts (i.e on the 15th, 16th and 17th) were just random comments (or a confirmation post) while the posts on the 18th and the three posts on the 19th were chock full of contenty goodness. Hence you "only really started talking" towards the end of day one.

HOWEVER - I do realize that day one ended abruptly and that we will never know how much you would have talked in subsequent days.

I agree with this but you still haven't explained why my post behavior during Day One was particularly suspicious. I would argue that the action in this game didn't really get going until Boggzie made his claim against ryan. That was Post 63, Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:36 am. My very next post was Post 72 later that day when I weighed in on the issue. The next real time day I had three substantive posts. The day then ended that same real time day. So I may not have been

too

active during the random vote phase, but I don't see why that would seem suspicious? Where am I wrong?

*Again all times and dates are GMT-6 Hours

[opie]

Happy Birthday neko2086!!

[opie]

I pointed a FOS at Zakarum back in Post 218, and while he attempted toaddressed my concerns in Post 219, that post and posts subsequent have not eased my supsicions.

My second concern I outlined:

2. In Post 109, he votes for Bookitty. Rather than provide his own analysis or explanation, he adopt Elias_the_thief's explanation wholly.

I note this because:
(a) Elias_the_thief continued to maintain his vote for Bookitty for the same reasons in his first post of Day Two. [Post 167]
(b) Zakarum, on the other hand, seems to completely ignore her as a suspect without offering any comments or explanations why. Furthermore his points a finger of suspicion at mcpaltp [Post 156]; hasdgfs [Post 183]; myself [Post 183] and calls out Boggzie [Posts 175 and 211].

Elias_the_thief maintained a consistant position from Day One to Day Two, while Zakarum having adopted the same positioned switches positions and makes accusations of four other players in the span of a day and a half [Post 156 to Post 183]

Zakarum's response to this point:

2. I agreed with what Elias was saying and rather than just repeat what he said I quoted it. Like I said I don’t really know what to look for on day one and I felt Elias made a good point. The reason I was being suspicious or rather looked that way is because the way I think in my everyday off is by bouncing ideas off people. I have suspicions for every person I mentioned even though there isn’t much evidence I figured I would through out what I feel and think and maybe it would spark something in someone else. I mean this is a team effort I am just sharing ideas.

Elias_the_thief then asks for clarification on this point:

Zakarum: Do you still agree with the points I made today, or not? And if so, why have you made no serious mention of the possibility of Boo being scum today? If not, what was it that changed you mind?

To which Zakarum replied that he still agrees with the points made by Elias_the_thief in Post 167 but adds:

The only thing different is that I fell more suspicious of Boggzie than of Bookitty.

The main reason is for pushing ryan very hard without strong evidence even after Bookitty stated that she got a pm regarding replacing into ryan's game.

What strikes me about that last statement is the part I italicized. That reason existed on Day One! Yet no mention of that concern on Day One. The only significant differance between Day One and Two is that ryan turned up town! I am infering, unless Zakarum wants to correct me, that ryan's status as town diminishes the case against Bookitty in his eyes. And this post seems to support that inference:

Well.... does this mean Bookitty is off the hook or could she just have been trying to cover for herself by outing ryan.

Yet in Post 225 he says he agrees with Elias_the_thief's points in Post 167 where he argues that:

This logic still holds true, especially since Ryan was town

I also find Zakarum's comments in Post 225 troublesome because even though Boggzie is his prime suspect due to his behavior on Day One, he never votes for him nor points a FOS at him. Rather he points a FOS at mcpaltp, hasdgfs, and myself instead without providing much explanation.
In Post 219, he explained he did this because he figured he would "through[sic] out what I feel and think". Yet offers little with regard to his number one suspect. That, I find suspect.

But now it looks like

my

number one suspect will be replaced. Even still, I am going to:

Vote: Zakarum

While it may not prod Zakarum, I hope that it will put some heat on his replacement to engage in discussion quickly and substantively so that I can determine if I should focus my attention to other suspects.

[opie]

I just wanted to drop a real quick note, my wife went out of town and accidently took my laptop powercord, so I'll be offline for the next 48 hours. Sorry guys.

[opie]

vote: opie
fos: Bookitty

Based on my model of scum voting actions for their respective activity level.

I will not share the algorithm I use, or the data points I rely upon. I have about 70% confidence in opie being scum, and I have about 67% confidence in a Bookitty lynch being accurate. I do not have any significant evidence connecting them as buddies.

Wait. What? You're voting for me because of math? Hold on. I thought you said:

I wouldn't worry too much about those notes. They are just surface-level observations I made while collecting data. The deeper analysis takes much longer. The post where I present my conclusions will include a vote.

A few questions:
Is Post 335 the extent of your deeper analysis and conclusions?
Are you

only

voting and (FOSing) based on scum voting action for my respective activity level?
Could you explain the logic behind this model.
What assumption did you make when you developed this model?
Could you plug every player into your model and post their results?
Why can't you share the algorithm you use or the data points you rely on?
What's your percentage of confidence based on?
Is your vote for me in part based on my FOS and then voting for Zakarum?

I really don't know how to respond to this. I don't know what I'm being accused of other than I'm scum and that Adel is 70% sure.

I would like to comment on some of your notes in Post 328. First you note that Spider Jerusalem FOS ryan but never voted for him even though he had every chance to. You cite this as typical townie behavior, meaning FOS are not followed by votes.

But you go on later to say that scum will point a FOS at a buddy, but

not vote

for that buddy until a late bus is needed. You are implying then that typical scum behavior is: FOS (for buddys) not followed by votes (unless bus). If you discount our hindsight (i.e. before the end of Day One), couldn't one have used this logic against Spider Jerusalem? Couldn't one argue based on this logic that Spider pointed a FOS ryan (his buddy) and not voted for him? And was unable to bus his buddy because ryan modkilled himself first?

Bookitty, I would not be expecting a vote from Adel. Here's why:
(a) He pointed a FOS at you in Post 335;
(b) Adel claims to be town;
(c) Townie's don't follow a FOS with a vote for the same person.
Therefore, I wouldn't worry about a vote from Adel. For if Adel

were

to vote for you then he would be acting contrary to typical townie behavior and thus likely scum.

[opie]

Oh, and since I forgot. Welcome to the game Adel!

[opie]

With regards to ThAdmiral:

It seemed that the longer zakarum was absent the more people were growing suspicious of him. And while it's true that you and hasdfags had mentioned your suspicions earlier people like opie and the hermit seemed to be just jumping on the overall sentiment, or at least were swayed by it.

I pointed a FOS at Zakarum in Post 218. I think I was the first to really publicly focus on him as a suspect. Further I think I explained the reason for my vote In Post 304. In summary: (a) even though Zakarum defended himself, I was not swayed; and (b) he continued to act in a suspicious manner. Not once did I use his absence as evidence on scum behavior, I based my decision based on the content of his posts. I even explained why I was voting for him even though he appeared to be absent.

On what do you base your claim that I was "jumping on the overall sentiment" or jumping on Zakarum because he hasn't been able to defend himself?

The deadline is/was approaching, I hadn't voted for anyone up 'til then and rather than no vote, I voted for Zakarum who I felt was the most suspicious person at that time, as explained in Post 304.

[opie]

Are you

only

voting and (FOSing) based on scum voting action for my respective activity level?

no, your activity level only determined which model I used to evaluate you

Allow me to rephrase, is your vote for me based on anything other than your algorithm?

I did plug every player in, and I will not share the results

Why not?

This is the kind of paragraph that led me to try to develop an accurate model based upon objective observations. It is all bull in my eyes. Not that that makes opie any more scummy to me, pretty much every player is so full of bull I have a lot of trouble telling scum from townie.
Based upon a large number of games, I've noticed a couple of voting patterns that generally hold true. That kind of analysis is still too intuitive for me to build an algorithm around it. I would like to.

So are you trying to eliminate the

subjective

from this game? The human element? I just don't understand why you would want to do that. The fun of this game (for me) is trying to figure out who is who, based on what they say and how they act. I don't understand wanting to turn over those decisions to an algorithm. And rather than deal with my questioning of you logic, you cry "Bull" and rest on your math.

is opie warning his scum buddy not to overreact to my post?

Wow. Apparently you missed the sacarsm and cynicism with which this was written. I wrote this to try to expose some of your logic as flawed. And again, rather than address my critique you side step.

The scatter point graph is more simple. I usually group players into three categories: active, passive, and lurking. The scatter point graph makes it easier to determine which category each player falls into.

I'm curious about your definitions of active, passive and lurking. Quantifiably that is.

Generally, there is a clear gap between the active and the passive players. So I had to run my system a few additional times, and determine a way to weigh the difference in scores.

What does this mean?

And Posts 363 and 364? What's going on here? I feel like we've taken a serious left turn in this game.

hasdgfas, I'm not concerned with just myself here. Adel has now voted for me and pointed a FOS at Bookitty and mcpaltp. Why? Damned if I know. Well, I know it has something to do with an algorithm. But he's hiding it from the rest of us so that we judge and evaluate it for ourselves. When I vote for someone, I try to make it clear why and give a legitimate explanation. I feel that Adel is denying the town that. I find all of this

very

distracting. And that's bad for the town. Period.

mcpaltp, my vote was for Zakarum and currently is for Adel. And it will remain that way. I explained my reasons for voting for Zakarum in Post 218 and 304. I am keeping my vote on Adel because I feel he is seriously distracting the town since he replaced in. Further he has voted for me without ever explaining it in a way that would allow me to defend myself and have other judge for themselves. And lest this be considered a OMGUS vote, I will maintain this position until Adel offers a substantive analysis for his actions and votes no matter who he votes for or point to. Hiding behind a mathmatical formula is no way to play Mafia.

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with posting as fast as you mcpaltp, I've been trying to wrap my mind around technical analysis and the Commodity Channel Index. Why? I don't know. I guess I'm hoping it will shed some light on what the heck Adel is getting at. To be honest I never imagined encountering during a game of Mafia.

[opie]

fine then, a reference to

Jabberwocky

along with a hint that it includes a breadcrumbed role claim, in addition to the

Pine Barrens

flavor, leads me to conclude that mcpaltp's post @ 361 shows that he is a werewolf.

So, despite my earlier post saying that he was not a good lynch choice for today,

unvote:opie, vote:mcpaltp

neko, does that leave you feeling any happier?

Ugh. This must have been posted while I was composing my post.

I'm slightly baffled my this. I see mcpaltp suggesting a breadcrumb, but where are you coming up with werewolf? And if he was werewolf, why would he claim now? And now that you are following a FOS with a vote, should I consider this a scumtell on you?

[opie]

opie has 57 game posts on mafiascum.net

Now he is telling me how to play mafia? Seriously, STFU with that "spirit of Mafia" nonsense. Mafia is a game that was developed by Math geeks with an interest in game theory, like me.

One word: classy.

We tend to ignore 2000 word posts filled with subjective nonsense and logic so fuzzy and undefined that it is impossible to engage.

I thought 2000 words posts contributed to my "activeness". Isn't that a good thing?

Note that I was lynched the same day I replaced in, and I was a townie. Try to follow my posts- I did generate a game winning tactic (rooted in math) that the town decided to lynch me for.

If I followed correctly, you were trying to convince others to encrypt secret messages so that townies could communicate privately. So I see that both are rooted in math, but that seems all that they have in common. I don't understand why you brind this up.

I though I would try being a little more honest in this game- and actually explain what is driving me to the conclusions I reach.

But you're not really. You are honest in that you are using an algorithm, but that seems to be all the explanation you provide. You won't show us what lies under the algorithm.

So, despite my earlier post saying that he was not a good lynch choice for today, unvote:opie, vote:mcpaltp

I'm curious what your algorithm has to say about mcpaltp. What's his percentage? Is your vote for him based on anything other than his breadcrumb role claim?

Boggzie, you said that neko2086's vote for Adel was distracting. He asked you why but I don't see that you responded, only saying that he is now off your list for reason's you would like to share until Adel responds. I would also like to join in asking why the vote was distracting and what are you waiting for Adel to respond to?

ThAdmiral, I think this is the first you've mentioned by suspicious of TheHermit. What are you suspicious of?

[opie]

Just noticed this:

I'm in a game full of SA players. oh. lynch me now.

vanilla townie

here, not full of noise, but at least it is safer than continuing with the day and possibly outing a powerrole.

I've said pretty much all that I want to in this thread for this audience anyhow.

unvote: vote:adel

*** Emphasis mine

Seriously?!

[opie]

Ok, so you're making lots of assumptions to make this thing work. The problem with assumptions is that they're misleading. The bigger problem is that you've based a mathematical equation on your assumptions and now you're touting it to be worthy of basing votes. Plus, you're not willing to share what those assumptions are, so why should we assume you're making good ones?

Now this is interesting, because to me, your pretty graphs and percentages don't mean anything to me.

I'm sorry, but your reasoning to me is bogus. Your graphs are useless. Your percentages and assumptions are misleading, and worse yet, you're being incredibly secretive. I think you've got something to hide, and you are hiding them with fluffy charts and mumbo jumbo.

If you want to be remembered, and in a good way, could you do us all a favor and actually read the posts? I mean, not just the vote patterns, but the actual context as well. I would find this much more meaningful and pro-town than shady statistics. I don't know about everyone else here, but the numbers just don't mean anything to me without the context.

And Adel, I do appreciate your honesty, but I still don't find your tactics in any way helpful.

neko2086, you a harsh critic of Adel, as was I and others, but I don't understand how Adel's death validates any of her methods. You told Adel that if she wanted to be remembered in a good way she should provide context to her numbers. I don't think she ever did that. I think Adel's method was just as bogus now as they were then, regardless of how confident she was.

[opie]

(Just a quick note since there seems to be some confusion, but in Adel's Wiki page, she refers to herself as a she.)

[opie]

Where have I defended mcpaltp? Don't confuse my critique of Adel as a defense for mcpaltp. I just have a problem using Adel's "confidence" to justify a vote.

[opie]

I'll just quickly add this about ThAdmiral, in Post 387 he also said he was suspicious of TheHermit without explaining why!

I asked him to explan his suspicions in Post 400 and he has yet to respond.

[opie]

ThAdmiral, this post just seems really defeatist to me. I know we've lost four townies, but come on. If you think someone is suspicious, go for it.

True, this behavior does not seem as helpful to town (as mcpaltp pointed out), but on the flip side a surviving townie is better than a dead one.

I don't understand this. You may have survived, but we've lost four others. How is having you survive better than any of the others who have died?

This is at least the third time you've called me out as suspicious with out giving us a clear reason why. If you are not sure of you "scum hunting" abilities, quit thowing names out there without stating why. If you have reasons you find me suspicious, I think you owe it to the town to tell us. We can't rely on a cop to bail us out. So far none has come forward, so until one does we need to figure this out for ourselves and this defeatist attitude is not helping any of us, except the scum.

Vote: ThAdmiral

[opie]

neko2086, could you outline your case for a opie-mcpaltp connection?

[opie]

In Post 309, TheHermit raised the issue of a the possibility of a Zakarum-ThAdmiral-neko2086 scumteam.

Are you saying that because Zakarum jumped on my lead, that that makes me scum too? Are you serious? Why on earth would mafia follow each other's lead? Zak could very well be scum yes, but that doesn't automatically make me scum.

That was neko2086's response to such a scumteam. I just find it interesting that neko2086 dismissively rejects this reasoning when TheHermit applied it. Yet!

I think it's hilarious you and mcpaltp are trying to connect us, when it's so obvious that opie and mcpalpt are

following each other's footsteps

. You've been after admiral for awhile, and you've been following opie and mcpaltp closely as well.
(...)
the blatant cooperation between opie and mcpaltp is astounding

• emphasis by neko2086

But here neko2086 applies the very same logic to link mcpaltp, bookitty and I and offers no further evidence of a connection.

[opie]

I was hoping to hear more from Boggzie, hasdgfas, and Elias_the_thief before heading into the holidays. Doesn't look like that's going to happen. Sigh.

Well, I'm going out of town for the holiday and won't be back until Monday. Take care guys!

[opie]

I have to say guys, I'm surprised by the lack of response. =(

Relax. You posted the day after Thanksgiving. I was out of town and am sure many other players were involved with family, etc.

That said, please re-read Posts 254 and 261. Both are substantive posts devoted solely to Boggzie and my thoughts on his play up to that point.

As a matter of fact, he almost never brings it up again.

In light of Posts 254 and 261, I find this comment misinformed at best or disingenuous at worst.

[opie]

Happy Birthday hasdgfas!

I look forward to your thoughts on mcpaltp.

[opie]

I suppose I should thank ThAdmiral vote his well thought out, reasoned post (even though I have the privilege of being the target of his

very first vote

this game).

I want to adress a few points that ThAdmiral brought up.

With regards to my votes, I have voted for those whom I sincerely thought were scum. Granted I'm 0-2, but I feel that I have explained each of those votes reasonably:

• Post 72: Explanation of original vote for ryan
  Post 119: Explanation of why vote remained on ryan
  Post 218: Explanation of FOS pointed at Zakarum
  Post 304: Explanation of vote for Zakarum
  Post 341: Questions raised about Adel
  Post 345: Response to ThAdmiral regarding why I had voted for Zakarum
  Post 370: Explanation for why I kept my vote on Adel

A few more thoughts regarding my votes. My vote for ryan was based on Boggzie's original case but remained because his reaction raised suspicions. My vote for ryan put him at L-4. That was a long way from a lynch. I had no idea he would off himself. You yourself bring up that ryan cracked only after one day of pressure against him. Boggzie, mcpaltp and I were not the only ones that were critical of ryan, just the only ones to vote for him.

Zakarum/Adel is a whole other (but equally idiotic) story. I think my posts above will sufficiently explain my original vote for Zakarum. I did not vote for him because he couldn't defend himself. Just the opposite. I was hoping that it would spur him into activity or in the alternative, since I found him to be suspicious, to put pressure on his replacement to quickly get involved. It was not an attempt to lynch him before a replacement could be found. I kept my vote on Adel for the reasons found in the post above. When Adel voted for himself, I did take pause, but I ultimately decided that he was scum trying to bluff us. I left my vote to call his bluff. Unfortunately I was wrong along with four others (not counting Adel) which I believe means that there were at least two pro town players voting for him.

I think it is important when analyzing the votes the unusual nature of those two days. While ryan and Adel were town, they really did the town a disservice by allowing their deaths to occur as they did.

ThAdmiral also argues that I focus on a player and accuse them no matter what happens. I disagree with that to some extent. You are right that on Day One my first real vote was on ryan and stayed there, and on Day Two my first FOS and vote was for Zakarum/Adel and stayed that, and now on Day Three my first vote is for ThAdmiral and remains. So that is a bit focused, however I disagree with the characterization that I will accuse them no matter what. I intially voted for ryan because he acted suspicious and I felt that he continued to act in that manner, so my vote stayed. Same with Zakarum/Adel. With regard to ThAdmiral I have felt his has acted suspicious for much of this game and have stated as much. I would argue that Post 480 is his first real, substantive, quality, pro-town post. Elias_the_thief mentioned he like ThAdmiral's Post 434. I didn't. The first full paragraph is simply a recap of what happened in this game so far. He then admits that he has not followed through on any solid cases and is not confident in his scum-catching abilities. This makes him cautious, and it is this cautiousness has managed to keep him alive. He admits that this behavior doesn't seem to help the town, but a surviving townie is better than a dead townie. I have a problem with this sentiment. Alive townies are always better than dead townies, but I feel this leads to sacrificing active townies for passive townies. Active townies are better than passive townies. He then says that he suspects me, he could make a case against me but essentially why bother. Then he pleads any power role to reveal or we are all screwed. This whole sentiment in anti-town and for that reason I was not impressed with this post. I'm not sure what was to like in this post.


I'm not sure what you mean that I go after soft targets, could you please explain that a bit more?

This is discussion. This is good. And even though I am the target, I feel Post 480 to be a pro-town post. I might reconsider my vote but I'm going to leave it for now.

[opie]

Boggzie, since you are voting for me because of my voting record and that it lines up with mcpaltp's, is there any reason why you are voting for me over mcpaltp?

[opie]

The part that I liked about the post is that it showed that he has a view of the game that is current, he is willing to start posting in the future, he is willing to give us his feelings on the game, and help us to get a better read.

While I didn't like the content, you do have a point here, I guess he was at least putting something out there.

Also, you think he's suspicious because of your own imagined scenarios that his own-time-use meta strategy lead to?

I'm a little confused by what you are saying here.

Active townies are better than passive townies.

Not necessarily true.

Actually now that I think about it more. I agree. I point to ryan and Adel as Exhibits A and B. I stand corrected.

[opie]

Although, all theories being equal, if there is a third, based on my own case (via Admiral), and evidence - it would be me

What evidence are you refering too?

So, that leaves me thinking has is a strong possibility as a "hidden" partner for scum.

What do you mean by this?

[opie]

I understand what you are getting at now.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that being "cautious" may keep you alive but when we've lost four town already, I don't see how it benefits the town at all.

[opie]

So Boggzie has pulled two triggers now?

[opie]

See ya mcpaltp!

[opie]

I have.

[opie]

I agree with all. Great game. This was my first game and I really enjoyed it. I also learned a lot of lessons, so I would like to thank everyone for that.

It's been said before but Rishi, really a great job.

I think we were in a real disadvantage from the beginning with ryan's behavior, but that isn't to discredit the play by the scum in any way.
hasdgfas, I didn't expect you at all. Elias_the_thief, I had an uneasiness about you earlier on but I could never see any real evidence to make a case. I chalked it up to an OMGUS reaction to your post in response to my Post 161. I did leave you out but your response with just didn't sit well with me. But since that was the only thing I could really point too, I decided to say nothing. And Bookitty, I kept going back and forth on and at the end you were creeping up my suspicious list, but obviously they were others I place ahead of you. Good job all.

I think we were also really distracted and ultimately harmed by Adel's methodology. Not only were his results completely incorrect, it also really shifted focus off of the business at hand.

I'm also curious why ThAdmiral made some of the decisions he did, especially the Night One decision regarding Zakarum. Not in a critical interest, just curious.

Thanks again everyone, I really enjoyed myself!