Newbie 694 (over)

[hambargarz]

Nice analysis Amished, some interesting points raised

So, since I know the 7 of us are alive, 2 are ic's, and were more pro-town in my views, Gieff was most pro-town IMO

Whilst I agree GIEFF's play has been very pro-town, I wouldn't say he has been the most pro-town. There are alot of points he has been jumping on that aren't really constructive which raises a few flags. I wouldn't drop the possibility that GIEFF is scum trying very divert attention to other players.

Finally, at something a bit more recent than day1, (I kinda rushed through d2, though much of it is kinda weird and I'll try to come back to it). In post 474 from Ham, I thought that your definition wasn't right. (it's regarding the regret from GIEFF and lack thereof from ham). Regret is wishing something didn't happen, even if you'd do it over again if you were put in the same position. Knowing now that we lynched an innocent townie, I regret that it came to that, as I'd much rather have lynched a mafia.

This is symantics, I'm not going to get into an argument on this but I will say, If you are going to regret you're vote everytime you lynch a non-mafia member, you're going to regret the majority of your votes, mislynching is unfortunately part of the game and is necessary to get more information.

Finally, since I'm firmly of the belief that inf/Westbrook is the scummiest of all the people we have left, I will Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

I obviously don't buy into the Westbrook/Me scum buddy relationship. But I do agree that Westbrook is the most scummiest. Mainly because of infamouseAce2's behaviour and the overlaping with a possible CR/Westbrook scum partnership I'm suspecting.

I think it's time for Westbrook to come back into the game

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

[hambargarz]

I've informed you that the burden of proof is on you to convince me that your voting pattern is a hambargaz habit rather than a hambargaz-as-scum habit.

There is no case to be made either way that that play is me-scum or me-town. I can equally argue that the burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a correspondence with my last game. ie. Playing like I did last game means that I have the same role. Which in my opinion is quite hard because people tend to play the same way anyway.

Yes, I took this as a threat. I interpreted this as you saying "Questioning me is OK, but as soon as I give an answer, do not question me about this further." I was not satisfied by the answers, and so I asked the questions again. Answering to my satisfaction or saying "I have nothing else to say" will end the questioning.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant the questions you were asking were not constructive. They were not constructive because they were belabouring points that were already addressed. I said they were "on the edge", as in still within the realms of what a townie would do on a scum hunt, but "on the edge" as in those last points were pushing it (towards scummy sensationalisation). I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

You were the first to do this, not me. You said "I do not regret my vote" in response to me saying that following Xtoxm is not a good strategy. I only brought up the fact that I do regret my vote to contrast my thoughts with yours. Once again, you FOS someone for something you yourself have done.

Let me clarify what I meant by "talking about your previous votes that way". I should have been more specific. What I meant by "that way" was talking about regretting the previous lynch. I never said I regretted my actions day 1 as you have. To me, this is a minor scum tell along the lines of expressing regret on a NK, expressing regret on the loss of a town power role, etc.

[hambargarz]

If one (or both?) of the ICs are scum, this is going to be a classic example of why lynching based on NKs is a terrible strategy early on. I'd prefer to disregard discussion of the NK at the moment. In fact, notice that the ICs haven't said anything about experience related to the NK.

GIEFF, I'll get to your question shortly.

I think it's quite unlikely both IC's are scum. 1 possibly, but 2 would be unfair on newbies.

This is not a useful scumhunting question at all, IMO, because, no matter which way someone answers, it will only be a null-tell. Town can say "Yes, I regret it" or "No, I don't regret it because it was the best lynch we had and would give us the most info, etc."; scum can say "Oh, of course I regret it" or "No, etc." Regardless of how they answer, you can't really get any useful info.
I'm not sure if I answered this question or not, but if I haven't, I will just say that I don't regret voting for the lynch yesterday, because militant/_over9000/Dipstick was by far the scummiest lynch candidate. To regret this would to regret playing this game correctly, and I certainly don't do that.
What makes this question a reach is that you imply something that isn't there simply because the other person's (ham's) answer is different from yours.

Yes, this is what I mean by pushing it. Some questions GIEFF was asking are approaching the edge of constructive discussion.

From the way I read that, I would say ham assumed you would claim a town perspective, and that that post by itself is not an indication that he "knows you are town." He assumed you were town because, well, if he assumed you were scum, you would know militant was town and the whole argument would be moot.

Exactly, I must have missed this question from GIEFF. I was kind of making a snide comment there. I'm making no assumption on wether you're town or scum, my assumption was that you would have a town stance. I should have put a wink with it or something.

CarnCarn: Can you tell me why Xtoxm is you're number one suspect? is it only because of his delayed answer to GIEFF/CR's question?


damn just realised post 500 has screwed up quote tags, that quote below the

tag is my response to amished quote. The quote boxes should be reversed.

[Amished]

Well, since IC roles are random, statistically there's a 1/81 chance that both are. As to Ham, GIEFF was definitely most pro-town day one, as that's what I was trying to focus on in my catchup reading. That way I could get more of a "I've been here" feel. Everybody's gotten a bit more "suspicious" day two, but I would think that's to be expected. With more posts to go on, and people accusing other people cause of something they saw, and not everybody can be guilty either...

Regret is a null-tell, and semantics. I basically argued it could go either way, and I do believe it. I also don't think that since I'm pretty sure Ham was only in one other game, there's no real way to meta him (if I used the term right..)

[ClockworkRuse]

Lol. whatever scum. That's BS. I didn't post anywhere for like 3 days, jsut boxing day.

Lynch the scum.

Once again, another post where you avoid the questions I asked you in my other post.

Please go back and answer them.

[ClockworkRuse]

If one (or both?) of the ICs are scum, this is going to be a classic example of why lynching based on NKs is a terrible strategy early on. I'd prefer to disregard discussion of the NK at the moment. In fact, notice that the ICs haven't said anything about experience related to the NK.

GIEFF, I'll get to your question shortly.

I think it's quite unlikely both IC's are scum. 1 possibly, but 2 would be unfair on newbies.

This is not a useful scumhunting question at all, IMO, because, no matter which way someone answers, it will only be a null-tell. Town can say "Yes, I regret it" or "No, I don't regret it because it was the best lynch we had and would give us the most info, etc."; scum can say "Oh, of course I regret it" or "No, etc." Regardless of how they answer, you can't really get any useful info.
I'm not sure if I answered this question or not, but if I haven't, I will just say that I don't regret voting for the lynch yesterday, because militant/_over9000/Dipstick was by far the scummiest lynch candidate. To regret this would to regret playing this game correctly, and I certainly don't do that.
What makes this question a reach is that you imply something that isn't there simply because the other person's (ham's) answer is different from yours.

Yes, this is what I mean by pushing it. Some questions GIEFF was asking are approaching the edge of constructive discussion.

From the way I read that, I would say ham assumed you would claim a town perspective, and that that post by itself is not an indication that he "knows you are town." He assumed you were town because, well, if he assumed you were scum, you would know militant was town and the whole argument would be moot.

Exactly, I must have missed this question from GIEFF. I was kind of making a snide comment there. I'm making no assumption on wether you're town or scum, my assumption was that you would have a town stance. I should have put a wink with it or something.

CarnCarn: Can you tell me why Xtoxm is you're number one suspect? is it only because of his delayed answer to GIEFF/CR's question?


damn just realised post 500 has screwed up quote tags, that quote below the

tag is my response to amished quote. The quote boxes should be reversed.

Don't try to out guess the mod. It is possible that both IC's are scum. Mods choose roles randomly, so there is an equal chance that anyone can be scum with anyone.

[GIEFF]

I'll start by addressing Xtoxm:


Xtoxm, I'm going to bold and underline the questions I'd like you to answer. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snotty, I just think this will make it easier to glean from a long post the points I would like you to answer.

For the second time, what reasons did you give for finding ham town?

Well the way he's acted looks like genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt. I'm not sure if I can explain it much better than that. Along with a few small things along the way that make me think he's town. Suffice to say, he has me convinced he's town, and at this point I trust him.

Thanks for the reply, Xtoxm. You said earlier that you think hambargaz is town "for the same reasons as before," yet had not provided any reasons up until this point:

Ham -

For same reasons as before

, I find him town, and I haven't seen anything that's made me want to change my mind about this. Town.

I find it odd that in the above-quoted post (407) you presented new reasoning (although not always concrete) for everybody except for ham, and even more odd that you mistakenly wrote that you had already provided this discussion.

Here is what you said about me in post 407:

Gieff - Town. He's doing a lot of work, and a lot of stuff he's done looks to me

genuine attempts to scum hunt and help town.

I would find it hard to see him as scum.

And here is what you said about hambargarz above:

Well the way he's acted looks like

genuine pro-town interests, and genuine attempts to scumhunt.

Xtoxm, if this is really why you find hambargarz pro-town, why didn't you say so in post 407 (when you said the exact same thing about me), instead of implying you had already given different reasons, when you had in fact given no reasoning at all?

And no, saying ham has you convinced that he is town does

not

suffice. If you are convinced he is town, you should be trying to convince those who are not convinced (i.e. me). Telling me you are convinced achieves nothing; it is an unverifiable claim, and does not provide anything to attack or defend. Is your point just that you haven't seen him do anything scummy?

Xtoxm, do you have any comment on the points I have brought up about ham?

Why did you vote for ClockworkRuse?

Well, not just for the night-kill, also looking back over his posts, when I initially hadn't suspected him, I found I wasn't really seeing much from him. He hadn't done anything directly scummy, as such, which is why I wouldn't have noticed first time round, but I didn't see anything that really made me think he was town either. This, along with my nightkill reasoning (which is only a back-up, really) is when I initially mentioned my suspicion of him. Shortly after, I decided to vote him. I can't remember if this was because I hadn't found anywhere better to put it, or because I disliked a reaction of his. Possibly a mixture of both. His subsequent kick-back looks construed to me, I think he's scum and he's attacking me because he knows i'm largely viewed as scummy, and he can easily get me mislynched, so there's no point in trying to do anything else.

Night-kill thing. It's really not that big of a deal, and it pretty much applies to me just as much, but I wasn't expecting that as a kill, I think someone picked up a cop-tell from him, so expect it more from an experienced player like CR, whereas a pair of newbie-scum I would more expect to kill a vocal player. I can see CR being more comfortable in that kind of a situation.

I see an inconsistency in your reasoning. As far as hambargarz is concerned, you say he looks town because he hasn't done anything scummy (at least that is the reasoning I induce from your earlier point), although you can't name anything that looks especially pro-town. But when it comes to CR, you say he looks scummy even though he hasn't done anything scummy, because you don't see anything that made you think he was protown.

Xtoxm, if you feel that neither player has shown much scummy or pro-town behavior, why are you so sure ham is town and CR is scum?

If CR really is scum, I need to see the same thought processes and logic you used to come to that conclusion (even if this logic is based on your gut feeling, I need to see the posts that gave you this gut feeling), or else there is no way to get me to see it.

Xtoxm, could you look back at CR's posts again, and try to link to (via quoting) the things you saw that convinced you he was scum?

-----------------
Now, on to hambargarz:

I'll let the town decide on how to take a few of your points raised. Some were valid, but some were "on the edge"

It looks to me like you are trying to lead the town here; you tell the town to decide for itself, but in the very next sentence you tell the town that not all my questions were valid.

--

I've found two recent inconsistencies between your words and your voting patterns, ham:

#1:

Whilst I agree GIEFF's play has been very pro-town, I wouldn't say he has been the most pro-town.

You have FOS'd me twice, IGMEOY'd me once, and said this about me in Post 208:

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

(which implies I am the second-most-scummy in your eyes). If my play has been "very pro-town," why have you shown so much suspicion towards me?


#2:
In post 457, you said:

To be honest Xtoxm is low on my scumdar.

and in post 490, you FOS'd Xtoxm for defending you, stating that this isn't the first time he has done so. Am I supposed to believe that Xtoxm went from "low on your scumdar" all the way to an FOS simply because he defended you again? If he's done it before, and you find it scummy, why was he low on your scumdar in post 457?

--

Another question, ham; why did you wait until recently to vote for Westbrook? It looks to me like you didn't want to be the first to do so, because you voted in your next post after another player voted for him. As in day one, you used the words "I agree" shortly before your vote statement, and were again the second on the wagon. Your implication that you are doing so to get him back into the game strikes me as an excuse, does not change the fact that you could have done this pages ago, and will not have its intended effect as Westbrook is V/LA until the 6th.

--

I will summarize the points I brought up against ham that remain valid, in general order of what I feel is scummiest:

1. ham expressed very little disagreement with Xtoxm and had very little interaction with him throughout the thread (see the middle of Post 471 for examples.
   
2. ham found militant's failure to specify what was scummy about ham suspicious, but not so for Xtoxm's failure to specify what was scummy about CR
   
3. ham has voted/FOS'd in a similar manner to the only other game he's played on this site, in which he was scum
   
4. ham followed Xtoxm's vote to a mislynch on day one
   
5. ham recently voted for Westbrook without presenting any new reasoning; why didn't he vote pages ago?

CarnCarn does seem to agree with you that my questioning is verging on anti-town, ham, so I'll address his points in my next post:

[GIEFF]

IMO, the two situations are not that similar at all. Xtoxm's comment about the NK could be interpreted as protown reaction-fishing on his part, and there is nothing to suggest that he would have "read the thread with a bias," since his explanation has very little to do with content from this game. What makes this a reach is that you are taking the two cases to be similar (perhaps intentionally) to make ham look suspicious/buddying for not expressing his suspicion on Xtoxm.

I do feel that the situations are similar. You say that Xtoxm's comment "could be" interpreted as pro-town reaction fishing, but this is not the reason hambargarz gave. It is the way

hambargarz

viewed Xtoxm's comment that is relevant here, not the way an arbitrary person could potentially view it, right? My point is only a reach if the cases are not similar, and I feel that they are, as I will try to explain again below:

Clock - Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more. The nightkill suits Clock, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

1. Xtoxm said he found something scummy but did not mention what it was
2. militant said he found something scummy but did not mention what it was
3. Xtoxm's post was scummy because he said CR was suspicious without explaining why
4. militant's post was scummy because he said hambargaz was suspicious without explaining why
5. Xtoxm's post was attacking someone who had been attacking Xtoxm
6. militant's post was attacking someone who had been attacking militant

My point is not that the two situations are completely analogous; my point is that the situations are analogous enough (the similarities are described above) that I feel a townie would see the behavior of both players as scummy, and the fact that hambargarz found militant scummy but Xtoxm not seems inconsistent to me.

Do you disagree with any of the above 6 points? If you don't disagree, is it simply a matter of degree (i.e. you feel both players' behavior was scummy, but militant's much more so than Xtoxm's)? If you do disagree, which points do you disagree with, and why?

This is not a useful scumhunting question at all, IMO, because, no matter which way someone answers, it will only be a null-tell. Town can say "Yes, I regret it" or "No, I don't regret it because it was the best lynch we had and would give us the most info, etc."; scum can say "Oh, of course I regret it" or "No, etc." Regardless of how they answer, you can't really get any useful info. What makes this question a reach is that you imply something that isn't there simply because the other person's (ham's) answer is different from yours.

Again, this is only a reach if your opinion (that what I am implying isn't there) is correct. It is my opinion that something IS there. Here is the context in which hambargarz originally said it:

The last time you echoed Xtoxm's thoughts, we lynched a townie. Maybe a new strategy is in order.

Hey well that's how it goes, I don't regret my vote. Are you implying I'm scummy because I agreed with Xtoxm's point on lurking? You could say that for everyone on Militant's wagon.

Not just because you agreed, but because you jumped on it immediately, and did not change your vote until the lynch, even after FIVE subsequent FOS's. You were also the only one who did not provide any original reasoning for voting for militant, simply saying "I agree."

Even if ham doesn't regret his vote, shouldn't he regret following Xtoxm to a mislynch? ham said he didn't regret his vote because it was the correct play, but following another player is NOT the correct play, and should be regretted. I agree that the discussion on regretting one's prior vote is degenerating into semantics, but a discussion on regretting one's strategy and logic on the previous day should remain a good one, and I feel it is pro-town to pressure hambargarz if he continues to echo others' thoughts without adding any new content (as he did with Xtoxm on the top of Page 18, and as he did with Amished in his recent vote for Westbrook).

Well, since IC roles are random, statistically there's a 1/81 chance that both are.

At this point in the game, it's 1/15, not 1/81. There are 6 players left of unknown alignment to a non-cop townie, and 2/6 * 1/5 = 1/15.

[GIEFF]

Here's vote history:

By Chronology

Post Number

Poster

Vote
Post 19

Elennaro

FoS: clockworkruse
Post 22

infamousace2

FoS: ClockworkRuse
Post 26

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm
Post 28

militant

Vote: GIEFF
Post 30

urielzyx

VOTE: Elannaro
Post 32

infamousace2

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 41

Elennaro

Vote: urielzyx Unvote. UnFoS.
Post 43

RealityFan

Vote: Gieff
Post 57

urielzyx

Unvote
Post 82

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 88

Xtoxm

Vote Militant
Post 95

hambargarz

Unvote Vote: militant
Post 96

ClockworkRuse

Unvote Vote hambargarz
Post 97

Elennaro

Vote: RealityFan
Post 110

hambargarz

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 121

urielzyx

Vote: infamousace2
Post 137

infamousace2

Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 146

GIEFF

FoS militant
Post 157

Elennaro

Unvote
Post 169

militant

Unvote
Post 171

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Militant
Post 177

hambargarz

FOS: GIEFF
Post 189

GIEFF

vote: infamousace2
Post 190

Elennaro

FoS: militant.
Post 204

CarnCarn

Unvote Random Vote: Xtoxm FoS: Elennaro FoS: militant Unvote: Xtoxm
Post 209

hambargarz

+1 FOS: militant
Post 220

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Inf
Post 230

CarnCarn

Unvote:Elennaro
Post 235

_over9000

FOS: ClockworkRuse
Post 240

_over9000

vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 248

hambargarz

+1 FOS: _over9000
Post 252

CarnCarn

Vote: _over9000
Post 254

GIEFF

HoS over9000
Post 256

ClockworkRuse

HoS over9000
Post 281

ClockworkRuse

Mod: Any responses from those prods?
Post 284

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: _over9000 FoS: Xtoxm
Post 287

SilverPhoenix

Vote: ClockworkRuse
Post 304

GIEFF

unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000 FoS Westbrook
Post 305

ClockworkRuse

Unvote
Post 318

Dipstick

Unvote
Post 322

ClockworkRuse

FoS GIEFF
Post 341

hambargarz

+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 342

Dipstick

FoS Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 356

GIEFF

HoS Xtoxm
Post 359

insanepenguin02

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 376

Dipstick

FoS: xtoxm
Post 378

insanepenguin02

Vote: Dipstick
Post 379

Westbrook_Owns_U

Vote: insanepenguin02
Post 382

Xtoxm

Unvote Vote Dipstick
Post 385

Dipstick

MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm
Post 391

GIEFF

Vote Xtoxm
Post 431

GIEFF

FoS hambargaz
Post 451

Xtoxm

Vote CR
Post 452

ClockworkRuse

HoS Xtoxm
Post 456

GIEFF

HoS hambargaz
Post 467

ClockworkRuse

Vote: Xtoxm
Post 470

hambargarz

FOS: Xtoxm
Post 474

hambargarz

+1 FOS: GIEFF
Post 485

ClockworkRuse

Major HoS Xtoxm
Post 494

Amished

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U
Post 500

hambargarz

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U

By Character

insanepenguin02

FoS: clockworkruse

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 19
Vote: urielzyx, Unvote., UnFoS.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 41
Vote: RealityFan

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 97
Unvote

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 157
FoS: militant.

(Posted as Elennaro)

Post 190
FOS: Xtoxm Post 359
Vote: Dipstick Post 378

Westbrook_Owns_U

FoS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 22
Vote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 32
Unvote: Xtoxm

(Posted as infamousace2)

Post 137
FoS: _over9000, FoS: Xtoxm Post 284
Vote: insanepenguin02 Post 379

hambargarz

vote: Xtoxm Post 26
Unvote, Vote: militant Post 95
FOS: ClockworkRuse Post 110
FOS: GIEFF Post 177
+1 FOS: militant Post 209
+1 FOS: _over9000 Post 248
+1 FOS: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 341
FOS: Xtoxm Post 470
+1 FOS: GIEFF Post 474
Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 500

Dipstick

Vote: GIEFF

(Posted as militant)

Post 28
Unvote

(Posted as militant)

Post 169
FOS: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 235
vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as _over9000)

Post 240
Unvote Post 318
FoS Westbrook_Owns_U Post 342
FoS: xtoxm Post 376
MASSIVE HoS: xtoxm Post 385

Amished

VOTE: Elannaro

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 30
Unvote

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 57
Vote: infamousace2

(Posted as urielzyx)

Post 121
Vote: ClockworkRuse

(Posted as SilverPhoenix)

Post 287

Vote: Westbrook_Owns_U Post 494

CarnCarn

Vote: Gieff

(Posted as RealityFan)

Post 43
Unvote, Random Vote: Xtoxm, FoS: Elennaro, FoS: militant, Unvote: Xtoxm Post 204
Unvote:Elennaro Post 230
Vote: _over9000 Post 252

ClockworkRuse

Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 82
Unvote, Vote hambargarz Post 96
Vote: Militant Post 171
HoS over9000 Post 256
Mod: Any responses from those prods? Post 281
Unvote Post 305
FoS GIEFF Post 322
HoS Xtoxm Post 452
Vote: Xtoxm Post 467
Major HoS Xtoxm Post 485

Xtoxm

Vote Militant Post 88
Unvote Vote Inf Post 220
Unvote Vote Dipstick Post 382
Vote CR Post 451

GIEFF

FoS militant Post 146
vote: infamousace2 Post 189
HoS over9000 Post 254
unvote Westbrook (previously infamous) <BR>vote _over9000, FoS Westbrook Post 304
HoS Xtoxm Post 356
Vote Xtoxm Post 391
FoS hambargaz Post 431
HoS hambargaz Post 456

[Amished]

Well, since IC roles are random, statistically there's a 1/81 chance that both are.

At this point in the game, it's 1/15, not 1/81. There are 6 players left of unknown alignment to a non-cop townie, and 2/6 * 1/5 = 1/15.[/quote]

I was thinking of Day 1, and either way I thought about it the wrong way. It was a 1/36 chance day 1 without knowing your own role. In any case, from a townies perspective, there's a 14/15 chance that both aren't scum together. I know which way I'd bet, given no information. In this case, where there is info, I'd lean against it further. Of course, that's just my opinion with the evidence.

I know this will make it slightly more work, but GIEFF, do you think you could put a divider between day1 and day2 in the chronological, and possibly put the people dead either first or last (and make a note of it) in the by character side? It'd just make it easier for any of us to do some side by side comparisons, and keep the days straight without following the post count by day.

[Amished]

EBWOP: The "at this point" is from GIEFF, the "I was thinking" is where I start there.

[GIEFF]

Per hambargaz' suggestion, I analyzed Xtoxm's and ClockworkRuse's past games, as these are the only two posters who have been here since the game's start.


Xtoxm: In this game, there are simply votes; no FOS's or HOS's. There are about 125 posts for each time Xtoxm change his vote. There was no random vote.

In Open 95, Xtoxm was town. Here is his vote history in that game:

Xtoxm

Xtoxm

Vote SC
Unvote Vote Crazy
Vote Crazy


Although this only goes until post 29, the pattern is the same as in this game. There was a random vote.

In Mini 688, Xtoxm was town. Here is his vote history in that game:

Xtoxm

Vote RBT Post 6
Unvote Vote Juls Post 57
Unvote Vote Rhinox Post 104
Unvote vote OP Post 145
Unvote Vote BG Post 218
Unvote Vote BG Post 273
Unvote Post 365
Vote Volkan Post 487
Confirm Vote: Volkan Post 564
Vote EA Post 593
Unvote Vote CKD Post 649
Unvote Vote Pyro Post 678


Again, very similar to this game. There was no random vote, and 85 posts per vote change.


In Mafia 83, Xtoxm was mafia. Here is his voting pattern:

Xtoxm

Vote K7 Post 10
Unvote Vote BM Post 140
Vote Alvinz Post 374
Vote Panzer Post 402
Unvote Post 412
Vote Panzer Post 534
Vote Reclusion Post 609
Unvote Vote K7 Post 677
Vote Bio Post 716
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 732

Once again, similar to this game, with 7 new votes in 732 posts, i.e. 105 posts per vote. There was no random vote.


In Mini 680, Xtoxm was town.

Xtoxm

Vote Zazier Post 129
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 286
Unvote Post 301
Unvote Vote TSN Post 354
Unvote Vote Zazier Post 363
Unvote Post 435
Vote Zazier Post 438
Unvote Vote KOC Post 466
Vote KoC Post 545
Unvote Vote Ice Post 629
Unvote Vote Xtoxm Post 758

No random vote, and 95 posts per vote change.





I don't really see a pattern in Clockwork's voting in this game. There are 3 new votes in 500 posts, for about 170 posts per new vote. There was no random vote (unless you count his self-vote).


In Mini 655, CR was town. Vote history:

ClockworkRuse

HoS Danger Post 119
Vote: Danger Post 301
FoS Max Post 360
Vote: Raider Post 546

This is about 230 posts per new vote, with no random vote.

In Newbie 621, CR was mafia, but replaced in late and didn't have any votes, fos or hos.


In Mini 619, CR was town:

ClockworkRuse

Vote Muerrto Post 9
FoS Post 83
Unvote Post 105
FoS Post 120
FoS, FoS Post 318
Vote Charter. Post 380
Unvote. Post 389
FOS., Vote: Muerrto Post 504
Unvote Post 526
Vote: ClockworkRuse Post 587
Vote: Darla Post 638
Vote: BB Post 699
Unvote Post 703
Vote BB Post 716
Vote: charter Post 795
Unvote Post 806
Vote: Charter Post 815


116 posts per vote, with a random vote, and FOS's sprinkled in.


I don't have a good mafia game of CR's to look at, but his past town play seems generally consistent with his play in this game. Xtoxm's play in this game seems consistent with his past play as both town and as mafia, lending credence to ham's claim that the multiple FOS's is just his playstyle, and Xtoxm's defense of ham on this point. I still think it's a little fishy that they are SO similar, but I see Xtoxm's point about playstyle being constant no matter your role.


Amished, I will work on adjusting the vote history to do what you asked.

[GIEFF]

I decided not to re-post the vote history, as it would just add to the clutter. My vote of Xtoxm is the first Day 2 action.

Also, I don't think the statistical argument holds any water, as ANY potential scumpair could be dismissed with the "14/15" argument, not to mention the fact it ignores the relative scumminess of each character. We should not assume that the two IC's being a scumpair is any more or less likely than if there were no IC's.

[ClockworkRuse]

Gieff, you are my hero. Did you really go through all of those games?

Newbie 621 was very bad play on my part, so it really isn't very indicative of anything. It's true you don't have a mafia game to look at to see how I act as Mafia, so you shouldn't be assuming I am town based on previous games.

In fact, don't assume at all.

I do find your vote histories helpful though.

Looking at it, CarnCarn hasn't made a vote since _over9000. I find that pretty interesting and it is noted.

Waiting for Xtoxm, checking to see if he is being active in other games at the moment.

[CarnCarn]

Looking at it, CarnCarn hasn't made a vote since _over9000. I find that pretty interesting and it is noted.

Neither have W_O_U or hambargarz. Why do you think I should be voting now? Do you think I should be voting now? What about the other two?

[ClockworkRuse]

Looking at it, CarnCarn hasn't made a vote since _over9000. I find that pretty interesting and it is noted.

Neither have W_O_U or hambargarz. Why do you think I should be voting now? Do you think I should be voting now? What about the other two?

What I meant more about that is that during the lynch yesterday you weren't on the wagon, which I'm taking note of. I'm not really sure if I find it scummy or not. I have to go back and look at the rest of the vote history and see if there is anything else I find interesting.

[GIEFF]

What do you mean by "not on the wagon?" CarnCarn voted for _over.

Westbrook did not vote for _over, though. Westbrook also has not voted since day 1. Why did you focus on CarnCarn and not Westbrook?


I wrote a macro to go through the games for me, so it's not as much work as it looks like.

[CarnCarn]

Yeah, I voted _over9000 when he started acting scummy about withholding his vote, saying he wasn't sure what the vote count on CR was after reading all but one page, etc. His story was really inconsistent.
I also said Dipstick hadn't done anything to change my mind about it and so I was keeping my vote on him.

[GIEFF]

Why did you feel the need to explain your vote, CarnCarn?

[CarnCarn]

I was reminding him about when and why I voted (and then even confirmed my vote), since he said I wasn't on that wagon. Basically, I just elaborated on what you said.

[GIEFF]

Basically, I just elaborated on what you said.

You elaborated on a detail that was not at all relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was about Clockwork, not about you.

Do you think it's odd that Clockwork focused on you instead of on Westbrook? If so, why did you choose to focus on explaining your reasoning rather than on why Clockwork didn't focus on Westbrook, especially after having been accused of having a blind spot for Westbrook earlier on Day 2?


Still waiting on Xtoxm and ham to answer my post 506. How many games are you in at the moment, Xtoxm?

[CarnCarn]

Do you think it's odd that Clockwork focused on you instead of on Westbrook? If so, why did you choose to focus on explaining your reasoning rather than on why Clockwork didn't focus on Westbrook, especially after having been accused of having a blind spot for Westbrook earlier on Day 2?

He originally said he found it odd that I haven't voted today, but I responded to that by saying that others (hambargarz, W_O_U) haven't done so either. Then he "clarified" with this:

What I meant more about that is that during the lynch yesterday you weren't on the wagon, which I'm taking note of. I'm not really sure if I find it scummy or not. I have to go back and look at the rest of the vote history and see if there is anything else I find interesting.

Again, the same applies to Westbrook, but, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if CR didn't notice/forgot since he was clearly wrong about me not voting for the lynch yesterday anyway.

You elaborated on a detail that was not at all relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was about Clockwork, not about you.

I just elaborated on

where and when

I voted yesterday and confirmed that vote, because CR said that

I

wasn't on the lynch wagon. True though that it wasn't really what you were talking about towards the end of your post, which was questions for CR.

[hambargarz]

Impressive researching GIEFF, very pro-town of you. You are either a good townie or a very dedicated scum. I'm leaning to the former given you're recent activity.

but this is not the reason hambargarz gave. It is the way

hambargarz

viewed Xtoxm's comment that is relevant here, not the way an arbitrary person could potentially view it, right? My point is only a reach if the cases are not similar, and I feel that they are, as I will try to explain again below:

Yes, my view is different, but they still aren't similar here's why... I'll use you're quotes

Clock - Initially I wasn't suspecting him, but now I am a bit more.

The nightkill suits Clock

, from the way I see, although that's probably not a useful thing to be thinking about.

Here Xtoxm is giving a reason for his increased suspicion. The first sentence also states that he wasn't suspecting CR but became increasingly more suspicious, pressumably from his more recent behaviour.

Contrast this to militant's post

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

Here we have no reason given at all. There is no though process given as to why he's rereading with an "interest" in me. It just says simply, he is suspicous of me. Reading this in it's early context was also suspicous because he should be rereading with a suspicion many, if not all other players.

I noticed something in the post before the quoted one that I didn't like. I am going to re read tommorow but I am also going to adress the thing I noticed.

Here we have the reason, but it's important to note the context. This reason was given AFTER his reread, and AFTER he was pressured to answer for himself. This reason is irrelevant because it comes AFTER he reread the thread in order to find it, can you see the paradox? The point raised, was if he had that reason in his head BEFORE he went back to reread (which would have justified his "interest" in me) WHY did he not say it originally? He had no answer to this. This strongly implies he went back with a specific target in mind but had no real reason to find him scummy (as scum would do).

So ye, in summary, I disagree with points 1 and 3. So I don't believe I'm being inconsistent. How militant approached it stuck out to me as towns would always explain with findings and thought processes.

Neither have W_O_U or hambargarz. Why do you think I should be voting now? Do you think I should be voting now? What about the other two?

I have haven't I? *goes back and checks* Yes I have in post 500. Similarly, W_O_U has an excuse as he is V/LA for the holiday period

Westbook (narrowly) remains my top suspect at the moment, this is because of infamousace2's

very

suspicious behaviour day1, CR (another suspect) ignoring/questioning-cases-against infamousace2's/Westbrook. It's just unfortunate happens to be away at the moment.

[CarnCarn]

I have haven't I? *goes back and checks* Yes I have in post 500. Similarly, W_O_U has an excuse as he is V/LA for the holiday period

Oh, I'm sorry. I completely missed your vote. Well, my questions still stand for CR. I have a good reason for asking the questions.

[Xtoxm]

Basically, I just elaborated on what you said.

You elaborated on a detail that was not at all relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was about Clockwork, not about you.

Do you think it's odd that Clockwork focused on you instead of on Westbrook? If so, why did you choose to focus on explaining your reasoning rather than on why Clockwork didn't focus on Westbrook, especially after having been accused of having a blind spot for Westbrook earlier on Day 2?


Still waiting on Xtoxm and ham to answer my post 506. How many games are you in at the moment, Xtoxm?

Oh sorry, didn't notice. Only had time to glance at this one in the last few days. I'm alive in 4 games right now. I'll respond to 506 another time, as i'm tired and hungover right now.