Eh, this isn't done yet but its close to deadline so I'm posting this much right now. It's like half way through anyway.
I have decided to make a post-by-post analysis and point out everything Empking has done scummily. Complete with tally of Scum-pointsTM, (Warning, is very long. Also a little confusing.) (and not done.)
Post 0: Says he's joined the game, nothing interesting here.
Post 1: Posts a scum list even though at least 3/4 of the town have specifically said not to do that, +1. Votes on someone without explanation, +1.
Post 2: Claims gut read on Nameless, +1/2.
Post 3: Claims every read he has is gut, all of them, +1.
Post 4: 1 Player previous this askes for reasons other than gut, ignored, +1. Claims that Nameless is just attacking his attacker, doesn't counter his actual accusation in any way, +1.
Post 5: Claims that "In depth analysis is just a way to feel confident in your fallacy filled reads." as the reason he has only gut reads. Ignores that there are ways to analyse other than "in depth", +1, then says that it is obvious that Nameless is scum without giving any other reason, +1. FOSes me for not answering questions, (I had quoted someone else when I explained what I thought of Saint, not him. Apparently you have to specifically say you are answering a question for it to count.) when he himself has just avoided answering two questions in the same post, +1 for that, additional +4 for his later claim that not answering questions or giving reasons for voting is town. Says I am "jumping on the Empking wagon rather than scumhunting," (at this point nobody is voting him (One guy is voting his predeccesor though) and I'm still talking about Saint as well. Like, in the same post he claims I'm jumping on his wagon at I'm talking about Saint.) +1, then claims my post saying that he shouldn't post a full scum-town read list (especially when there are at least 10 posts of people saying not to) is scummy for no reason other than my post is "so filled with scuminess that I don't even know where to begin," +1.
Currently three people saying to give reasons other than gut.
Post 6: Me, Yoshi, and Ice all say to give reasoning other than "its obvious". 5 players have now said to give reasons other than gut on the Nameless read and everything else. All of this is ignored, +2. Additionally I bring up the question ignoring and the wagon hoping (to him) comment, both also ignored, +1. Except this post is a case specifically against me, +1/2 more.
Says not voting immediatly on entering is anti-town and that I am scum for it, even though those posts were consecetive, +1. Says something is a transparent ploy and doesn't elaborate, +1/2. Claims I changed my vote as soon as I thought Implosion won't be lynched, even though there is only one post between my voting and unvoting him, +1/2. Says I'm pretending to scumhunt when I included a minor thing calling him out for the scum-town list thing. Does not elaborate, instead says: "Do you know who pretendfeds to scumhunt? That's right! Scum," +1 and 1/2.
Post 7: Ignores my defense, instead focusing on Yoshi asking him why not voting early is a scumtell, +1. He also acts very patronising to Yoshi, +1/4.
Post 8: Nothing in this post but a vote for Nameless. Even though the count of people that have asked for reasoning for suspecting Nameless is currently 5. +2
Post 9: I say to Emp that he is still not giving reason for his Nameless vote and that he ignored my post again. He claims its scummy for me to do so, (+1 for attacking his attacker) the reasons being IIoA, that I gave no analysis, (which is covered by IIoA, +1.) that I'm "refusing to put [myself] out there", and then he claims that not answering questions or giving reasons for votes is a null tell at worst.
Post 10: Currently in the middle of an argument with me. Says the analysis comment was really supposed to mean "not thinking about the game in depth then," +10 for contradicting himself, he said in depth analysis was worse than useless earlier.
And then he goes and says that not answering questions or giving reasons for votes is a town tell, which is still stupid but I've decided not to give any points for that stuff because it would inflate the end count.
Post 11: Says that Pie has completly opposite reads than he does. Post is kinda pointless.
Post 12: mb has called Emp out for the "immediate vote is town, you didn't do that" thing. Nameless calls Emp out on being patronising and refusing to answer questions whilst simultaneously declaring it a town tell. I've posted my first "what." post. Pie votes him for having Mongoose as a predeccesor (or something). neko has said that meta-wise town-emp is missing and that town-emp would have called for a mass-claim.
This post is entirely a link to where Emp says town should mass-claim in these games, specifically only
after
someone has called you on it. +1.5 for that, another +1 for ignoring everything else, +1 again for doing these both together.
Post 13: I post the bigger "what." post and Empking responds with this post. He claims not answering questions or giving reasoning for votes is a town-tell because it has no scum motivation but plenty of town ones. +1/2 for forgetting that scum could purpousefully do town-tells in order to seem town. +1/2 for not giving those town reasons.
Post 14: Argumentation with me happening again. I give scum motivations (Stifle debate and get away with not needing arguments) and ask for town ones, he says the town ones are to "lure scum out of their comfort zone" (which makes no sense) and "helps trap players who are more interested in theory than hunting scum." He says I'm one of the second type. Then he calls my scum reasons awful because "it doesn't" (+1/2) and "Arguments are rarely scummy." (+?)
Post 15: I say it does stifle debate and give an example, then point out that faulty arguments could get town killed and should be considered scummy. (since scum wants town killed.) I ask how it takes scum out of their comfort zone and mention that knowing the reasoning behind votes is important for determening their alignment.
Then comes his post: He says it doesn't stifle debate because he's "finding scum" (me?) and because people who arn't me and him are talking about other things, which is false, the last 5 posts are only ours, +1 for that, another +1 for it being irrelevant to the debate whether other people are talking about other things, since we are talking about whether the debate on Nameless is being stifled. Then he says that unless they are made public faulty cases arn't damaging. He says the reason that it lures scum out of their comfort zone is that they can't prepare and its unusual. Then he responds to the last point (importance of arguments for alignment determinations) by saying I'm lying and giving no other reason, +1.
Post 16: I say that Nameless debate is stifled and other people talking is irrelevant to him finding scum, people voting with faulty cases in their mind will cause mis-lynches, "theres a reason for [it being unusual]...", nobody can prepare or even respond to it, and that he should counter the last point instead of calling me a liar.
He says: "As the only player on the right track...I kinda am" which I have already made an angry post about, +1 for not giving real reasons. He doesn't respond to the next point, instead claiming I'm changing the goal posts and am scum for it, then does that "who would do that? Oh, yeah, scum." thing again, +1. Says the reason why its unusual is newbie games teaching new players badly. Says town don't need to prepare and ignores the rest of the point, +1. He says he doesn't have to debunk the point because it is clearly false because scum arn't honest, +0 because he actually gave a reason there, even if he was pretending not to.
Post 17: People other than just us two start posting again. Ice says Emp's case is weak and that he isn't scumhunting much (and that Ice doesn't like me either). Implosion asks Emp if he saw the reactions to scumscales before he posted his and if he was purpousfully giving terrible reasoning for everything, then agrees with neko about Emp-meta, and says he would have switched to Emp now if he hadn't already been voting for Mongoose. Yoshi says he can't tell if Emp is scum or just anti-town.
I make my counter which goes, not including the attitude thing, basically like this: I didn't change goalposts that happened automatically, Emp saying I'm doing it is him trying to do it. This part is officially going nowhere. I point out the parts of this point he ignored. I say the whole point is that scum are dishonest whilst town is honest. I also mention that Emps playing is bad enough to make me think he could be a jester, if there were jesters.
His reply is post 17, where he says: AtE on the attitude thing, then asks me why I am having "this argument"
Post 18: I ask which argument he's asking about, if its the big argument or the thing about attitudes that just popped up, and that the reason I made the whole huge thing for the second was because I dislike it so much. Emp asks if I'm not hunting scum, just distracting the town, says I'm scum for it, then says that this is the last post for me because he's still on Nameless's wagon, +3 points for that last part.
Post 19: Consecutive to previous post, answers Implosion's questions with yes I saw people talking about the scumscales before I posted them and then uses the second to attack me, instead of giving any actual answer, +1 for that, he says I'm active lurking, using rhetoric to get town to like me, lurker voting, wagon hopping, and "not even pretening to scumhunt," he also acts like a jerk to Implosion, +1/4.
Post 20: I give a case against Emp right before this post that goes like so: Mentioning the +three thing then sarcasticly immitating him, he didn't answer Implosion's second question, give a counter for "wagon hopping" and say the Emp is doing it himself, Emp dodges way to many questions, a thing about AtE that I realised was incorrect and won't repeat, if our argument was me active lurking than Emp is as well, except worse since he started it, and then pointed out that +four thing way back in post 5.
He said: I argued with you to cement my read (so its not active lurking), that my entire post is just OMGUS, and that he did answer Implosion's question. +5 for ignoring the entire rest of the argument in favor of attacking the points he thought weakest.
Post 21: Pie says he wants Empking lynched. Emp's post is responding to Setael's post, nothing really scummy here that I see.
Post 22: Setael makes a post about Emp that goes approximately like so: Emp why did you claim Ice as scum at the start then not follow through? Mongoose just coasted through and played terribly, Emp didn't give reasons in his scumscale post then gave "gut" as a reason for being most suspicious of Nameless, Emp put neko Ice and Nameless on his scumlist and I like that because thats who I think is scum. If Emp is scum I am doing horribly. Emp listed q21 as town which I thought was wrong, q21 did terrible. I think it's wierd that Emp thinks my slot is town from q21's posts and I find myself agreeing with him because of it, except that he could know I am town because he is scum. I would prefer an Ice lynch with Empking coming in second.
Emp responded like so: Gut and proper analysis are two different ways of analysing posts, gut is more accurate for me. +1/2 for not at least bringing this up sooner.
Post 23: Set says Emp should say more stuff and asks the questions: Why did you think Ice was scummy at the start? What do you think of my case on Ice? What about his defense? Why do you think q21 is town?
(Other stuff noticed during read-through: Saint never stopped being scummy, and is currently lurking to avoid suspicion. Saint also somehow claimed VT out of nowhere without many people commenting on it.
Pie made a scum-list at one point, and in the same post said my "bandwagon-hopping is setting off tons of alarms now." Then he votes Empking entirely because of his predeccesor. Afterwards he claims this is not the case and that Emp is "not setting off town bells in my head" but does not say he is scummy, which is contradictory. Suspicious.)
Very 
The specific defense that implosion gave I believe was, "Your quotes are out of context. Also, misrep." At the time of me voting I had not, in fact, looked back at where the quotes were. (actually I still havn't, I should go do that soon.)
Utterly useless accusation.