Mafiascum.net

Xtoxm's claim does seem to make more sense now; but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a pro-town role.

Incognito wrote:

Raging Rabbit wrote:

Xtoxm wrote:On re-examination of my PM, I am told specifically the extra vote is related to enchancement of my Charisma aspect.

sthar also specifically claimed to have not been told what boosting him does, but rather that he "narrowed it down". Your claim has more holes than swiss cheese.

He's talking about his boost PM though that I'm guessing he would have received during twilight.

Yeah, that makes more sense, but I still think he's lynchworthy for the contradictory claim alone.

I'll have another look at my notes on Iceman later and try explain his link to Jahudo, but really either one is an excellent lynch imo.

You would.

icemanE (3) <- Green Crayons, Incognito, eldarad
Xtoxm (2) <- TDC, Raging Rabbit
Raging Rabbit <- Xtoxm
eldarad <- Huntress

Not voting: Vollkan, icemanE.


Vollkan (3) <- Green Crayons, eldarad, Raging Rabbit
eldarad (2) <- TDC, Xtoxm
Raging Rabbit <- Incognito

Not boost-voting: Vollkan, icemanE, Huntress.

With 9 alive, the cool/lethal stuff happens at 5.
The is Tuesday, 3 February 2009, 06:00 UTC, which is 8 days, 7 hours, and 19 minutes from this post. If deadline hits, the day will end with No Lynch.

KoC wrote: Right, I've scanned the thread, and right now, to be honest, I can't see anything other than Max. All day, he's just been posting 6-7 lines max, with little content, and instead of defending himself, he's really just been pointing fingers all day. I can't see any reason to disbelieve the claims, so... might as well Vote: Max

How does Max's play here compare to his meta? If you didn't check out his meta, why?

KoC wrote: DGB - I don't give a damn if this is Max as his "town self" - it's the definition of active-lurking, he's posted little-to-no content, and right now, he's the only person I could absolutely, with concrete certainty, say is playing in an anti-town manner. And why is it opportunistic? Because it's the 8th vote on Max? By your reasoning, then, anyone else who votes for Max must be even more scummy, for jumping on even later.

But if Max is playing the same way as he normally is, then it means that his (admittedly bad) behaviour here is not a scumtell. Thus, the nature of the inquiry is changed significantly (basically from a suspicion lynch to a policy lynch)

KoC wrote: I'm not here to "whip him into playing by the book", but if someone is playing in an anti-town manner - and it is anti-town to post no content and active-lurk - then I'm going to vote for them. Simple as. I can't help but feel that this is just a massive

chainsaw

on your part, DGB.

Anti-town =/= Scum. See my point above. You aren't looking for scum; you are looking for anti-townness. That is lazy at best, and opportunistic at worst.

And you get a big slap on the wrist from me for using the word "chainsaw" against DGB. For those who aren't aware of the term (and I wasn't until it popped up a few weeks ago):

wiki wrote: The general form of this tell is "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum".
The key to identifying this tell is intent - it is possible to confuse Chainsaw Defense with a player who simply finds the attacker scummy and has no intent of defense. In general, you can be reasonably sure that this tell is involved if a) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense has not previously been especially critical of the player he is now attacking, and b) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense seems to find the player he is supposedly defending at least reasonably pro-town.
The extreme form of this tell is Mutual Chainsaw Defense, where two players defend each other by attacking each others' attackers. This is a major scumtell, and Tarhalindur would be willing to lynch/vig both players with only this tell as justification.
The Chainsaw Defense is named after the mental image of a player ripping apart another player with a chainsaw for daring to attack his ally. It should not be confused with the Cochrane Defense, which can also be referred to as the Chainsaw Defense (the Wiki refers to the Cochrane Defense this way), which is a gambit made by players investigated as scum. The Chainsaw Defense can also be referred to as the Bodyguard Defense in order to prevent confusion.
UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here.

My problem with it in this context is simple: DGB was legitimately attacking poor reasoning in KoC's attack on Max. There is nothing at all wrong with town defending people by shooting down craplogic; in fact, I'd argue that it is often an obligation.

Accusing DGB of "chainsawing" simply serves to place a meaningless negative label on her actions (akin to poisoning the well)

KoC wrote: Okay, I'm sorry, but THIS is definitely scummy.
"Don't lynch me, because then no-one can win!" and then threatening people with the no-lynch hanging over our heads. Seriously? Is this your best defence?

He's making a claim of some sort. It sounds very dubious, sure, but it isn't "definitely scummy".

@DGB: WHen you said "just one" investigation, did you mean "just one" in the sense that an OSV has "just one" kill, or that you get one investigation per day?

Vi wrote: Quick post to say: Max needs to claim. He needed to claim when he said we didn't want to kill him, but better late than never.

Agreed. He's claimed the power, and we need a full claim to assess the validity of what he's said.

DrippingGoofball wrote:

zwetschenwasser wrote:DGB: I'm pretty sure I came up with that theory a while ago... And I don't believe that you're a daycop. Could you nameclaim?

I'm John McCain, The Maverick. I'm a mason with Obama.

Weird claim. I don't see any reason to disbelieve it, though, especialy given that DGB's play thus far hasn't been scummy or anything

Crap. I posted in the wrong game. Ignore the above.

Apologies

What would happen if someone reached 5 to lynched before someone got 5 to boost?

435: @Incog, you say that "in your experience" scum do tend to push the smear campaign mode of play. About what proportion of the time do you find this to be the case? My problem here is that, whilst your logic is correct (scum stand to benefit from smearing), it ignores the obvious alternative explanation (town having multiple suspicions). Essentially, your argument is inherently unfalsifiable - you are simply claiming that you think a particular interpretation of an apparently innocuous play (there is nothing inherently wrong with having many suspects) is the most reasonable.
458: I don't like Huntress's attack on electra's claim here. Electra claimed vanilla, in the sense that, unboosted, she has no power. She proceeded to state that, if boosted, she would learn information. Huntress paints this as a contradiction - "Here Electra claims to be vanilla but also claims to have a role PM which is clearly not vanilla". (+1)
488: Randomgem uses craplogic to justify suspicion of guardian and ilord. Says that the incog+SL/Guardian argument is too strong for bussing, and so 0 or 1 must be scum. Proceeds to FoS them both, but it's unclear what he actually finds scummy - why not just two townies arguing? (+1)
538: Huntress. Electra explains her alleged misrep of Crazy by saying that she thought Crazy's "play nomrmally, boost later" meant he wanted to ignore boosts. It's a reasonable interpretation. Huntress spins this as "So you called Crazy suspicious based on what you decided he meant, not on what he actually said", which, ironically, misreps Electra in return. (+2)

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 53
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 56
7) Incognito - 57
8) eldarad - 51
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 51

I'm up to page 30. almost done

Ooh yay, does that mean my score is about to shoot up where I replace in?

Not necessarily. It depends on how you play

Wonder if I can beat my old score...About 70, wasn't it...

Xtoxm wrote:What would happen if someone reached 5 to lynched before someone got 5 to boost?

Nothing would happen; the day would continue, with people being able to unvote said player if they wanted too.

Kk thnx.

[url=https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?p=1460373#1460373]957[/url], vollkan wrote:435: @Incog, you say that "in your experience" scum do tend to push the smear campaign mode of play. About what proportion of the time do you find this to be the case? My problem here is that, whilst your logic is correct (scum stand to benefit from smearing), it ignores the obvious alternative explanation (town having multiple suspicions). Essentially, your argument is inherently unfalsifiable - you are simply claiming that you think a particular interpretation of an apparently innocuous play (there is nothing inherently wrong with having many suspects) is the most reasonable.

I don't know the exact proportions but from what I've seen in the games I've played, scum players certainly have much more of a tendency to find as many reasons as possible to be able to clear or label players as town when compared to town players. In the case of Guardian, I just found it really unnatural for him to find only one person to be super townish and everyone else just "meh" or scummy. Upon replacing in, he even said he found iLord townish as well but for some reason he seemed to immediately retract that position and find him "meh" as well for reasons that don't seem clear to me. It just looked to me like he was trying to keep multiple options open.

Huntress wrote:Fuzzylightning seemed to have no problems posting content, and RandomGem had one decent length post (488) which had an interesting point at the end re: the value of a boost on him.

Fuzzylightning was not a prolific poster by any stretch of the imagination.
RandomGem, as you say, made decent length post.

Raging Rabbit wrote:QFT. The role itself is both generally bad for the game and somewhat contradictory with the theme in particurlar. I highly doubt a mod like Patrick would put a role that encourages lurking in a game like this. Very inconsistent with Iceman's predecessors as well, who posted few long posts instead of (relatively) many short ones. I'd say we have two caught scum here.

I was not suggesting that they had a role that specifically encouraged them to not post. Rather, that their role incentivised them to not express too many (contraversial or otherwise) opinions.

Which two scum have we caught?

Xtoxm wrote:I expected you to call my vote omgus. Standard scum accusation.

I particuarly like how Raging Rabbit accused me of OMGUS for things .

I am much happier with Xtoxm's claim now that he has elaborated on it.

Huntress wrote:Xtoxm's claim does seem to make more sense now; but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a pro-town role.

I agree, for what it's worth.
But it is worth mentioning that I think it is more likely that - in and of itself - a booster is more likely to be a scum than a double-voter.

Vollkan, I see that - as at #957 - Incog currently has the highest score on your ranking. Is this because you find him more scummy than most, or is it a function of Incog making more posts than other people?
Also, it seems like you are only looking for scum points (as you have not given anyone a -ve point yet). Is that an accurate assessment?

~~~
I actually found #954 quite interesting even though I had no knowledge of the context, lol.

I agree, for what it's worth.
But it is worth mentioning that I think it is more likely that - in and of itself - a booster is more likely to be a scum than a double-voter.

What's this supposed to mean?

Posting as I read from page 36.

TDC, in 882, wrote:vote: Xtoxm.

Sort of jumping the gun, here. 880 can easily be seen as role fishing if directed towards oneself (which is why I'm assuming Xtoxm voted in 881). Within the context of the larger conversation, I don't really think it is, since the general flow of the discussion is leading up to Xtoxm's role reveal.

RR, in 883, wrote:Xtoxm is looking like a prime lynch right now, almost as much as Iceman.

Xtoxm looks like a clueless townie. Iceman looks like an active lurker. I think one is a much more enticing lynch candidate.

Iceman, in 891, wrote:Just waiting on that pbpa...

From whom? And how will that pbpa help you stop actively lurking?

RR, in 892, wrote:'Cause sthar was real scummy himself, and xtoxm fucked up his already shady looking claim.

Why was it shady again? I never really understood your suspicions of sthar. After Electra(or whoever her replacement is), I think he was my second candidate for the second boost while I had my head in the game.

Huntress, in 894, wrote:How is he more scummy than Sthar?

Huntress, in 901, wrote:although an individual read of him made him look more town, my initial read of the whole thread, plus his later posts, make him seem more likely to be scum.

How does an individual read differ from your initial read of the whole thread plus later posts to such an extent that he's pretty much number one scumbag? I don't think 914 really explains this adequately.

Xtox, in 898 wrote:Vig a PR if you really want. I still fail to see how anyone can see Sthar as scum.

Yay, appeal to fear. Please refute the claims against you, don't fall on the assistance of trite fallacies.

Iceman, in 903, wrote:Vig me instead.

Wow. I like my vote. Unless are we voting who for Incog to kill?

Xtox, in 913, wrote:Volkan doesn't get anything though. We may aswell try and give a townie a power.

If he's town, he'll get more information for us. Also - are you suggesting he isn't a townie?

Iceman, in 916 wrote:

Eld wrote: vote iceman
primarily because there is a lack of content, not just from iceman, but from all of the other players who have had that role. Possibly it suggests that

there is something in the role PM that incentivises them to keep quiet

Wow. Super happy with my vote.

RR, in 926, wrote:Incog, what about Xtoxm completely mucking up sthar's claim? That's as good as scumtells come.

I didn't really see it as "mucking up" the claim. He agreed to what sthar had revealed. I didn't catch where Xtox or sthar claimed that to be the end-all of their role.

Incog, in 932 wrote:What do you think the leadership portion of your role PM means?

Since you seem to be of pretty reasonable intelligence, I would suggest it probably means what I instantly thought it meant - and, therefore, what you probably thought it meant when you put your mind to it. Charisma:double vote; Leadership:_____.

Sthar, in 943, wrote:Your claim has more holes than swiss cheese.

Could you please actually spell out these holes with post numbers/quotes? Just because sthar/Xtox have revealed their power peacemeal doesn't make them scum - it makes them a hesitant townie.

Vollk, in 955, wrote:Crap. I posted in the wrong game. Ignore the above.

Heh, I was like "Whoa, DGB is in this game? And wtf is KoC?" Ah, silly.



. I want more information. It's a win/win situation regardless of Volk's true alignment.
Still super-happy on my active lurker Iceman.

Me, in the above post wrote:Still super-happy

with my vote on the

active lurker Iceman.

Fixed. My mind operates faster than my fingers.

Volk doesn't get anymore information. El said that..Using it on him is just a blank.

There are two boosts per person. I don't see how Vollk would not apply to this rule.

Where did Electra say this? I must have missed it.

Well I just looked and I can't find where El said it, but remember someone saying it, and this has been imprinted in my mind for a while. I'm quite certain it's coroborated knowledge.

I may have misinterpreted something. I'd like Volkan to to say, please...Whether you can be boosted again.

If he can then I can go with that.

One thing I wanted to point out that makes icemanE even more obvscum is how he previously promised to provide some content here citing that it's been tough lately (real life issues):

820, icemanE wrote:

unboost

boost: incog

5 to boost, eh? Well, I'm OK with an incog boost.

I know I haven't done a whole lot this game. It's just been tough lately. I will try.

and then immediately following eldarad's suggestion that something in his role PM might be preventing him from talking, he tried to adapt that suggestion to make it seem like he holds some kind of post restriction. I don't buy it in the least.

-- In other news, Xtoxm has pretty much settled into his completely readable town behavior and if we do go forward with an icemanE-lynch, and I get a second vig bullet upon being boosted during twilight, I'd like to request to the town that I choose a different target to vig tonight instead of Xtoxm. Seriously. He's town.

-- Huntress, have you finished preparing your case against eldarad?

-- I, too, can get behind a re-boost of vollkan. The fact that the boost seemed to work the first time by providing Electra with the information she received leads me to believe it should work again to perhaps provide more new information.

X, nothing I've received suggests that I am an exception to the "2 boosts per person" rule. Since the information I have recieved is very clear that players can are either able to be boosted twice, or not at all, the only conclusion I can draw is that I can be boosted a second time.

I just checked electra's posts as well, and I can't see anything which would give you the idea that I don't get more info.

Yeh upon re-looking I think a read a comment of RR wrong.



Incog, vig targets should not be decided by town, just gives scum extra info, vig should just kill who they thinks scum.