Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[Empking]

/confirm.

[Empking]

Vote: Zaz

- Fishing

[Empking]

Yeah, I can't see NC working in a game modded by someone who loves NCs.

[Empking]

I'd be more inclined to believe that there were others in this game that had a post restriction, since that would make us seem to fit together better, mkay?

Can you just claim or not?

Dejkha: Personally, I didn't ignore it, just put it in my notes where it says Dejkha's scummy behaviour? (Its scummy because he was floating it but not wanting to make it seem like he wanted it, when it messed up.)

[Empking]

I want RBT to either unarguably claim PRed or stop it.

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Dejkha

- oooks to me that he changed his mind when he saw the town against it.

[Empking]

@ Empking: have you considered the possibility that RBT is PRed but isn't allowed to openly admit it? I think he's made it fairly clear from his posts that he does have one. (naturally, this has no bearing on his alignment, but I don't think it's likely that he is faking it).

His reaction to being asked doesn't seem like its what someone would write just because they're banned from claiming it. Also, I don't think banning things with grey area is something that an experienced mod would do.

[Empking]

That said,

UNVOTE; VOTE:Empking

for pushing the hardest on this.

If it was obvious why wouldn't you just claim straight away? What is scum's motivation for seeing if you had a PR?

[Empking]

Non-Dejhka voters: Why are you non-dejhka voters?

[Empking]

Spolium, considering the above, what do you think of Empking?

Considering the above...? Empking's post in 137? Zaz's quote/your response in 138?

If you're referring to his fairly low post count, I'd say it isn't a huge concern at the moment because his contributions have been content related and relevant, if a little brief (though this is probably preferable to the brainfucking wallposts I've been dishing out). I would expect to see more from him as the game progresses.

One thing that concerns me is his role in the dejkha case. His initial response was that he noted dej's post 38 as "scummy behaviour" (somewhat nonthreatening) then he followed up with a vote based on dej's wishy-washiness, but he hasn't actually pressed dej for an explanation of either of those. I'd like to know why.

To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself. His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in. This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.

@ nicolio: you haven't elaborated much on your suspicions either. Is dej your top suspect, or someone else?

I've asked them about it because it seems to me from reading the thread that everyone agrees with Spoilum.

[Empking]

I don't think I am an active lurker. I was the strongest advocat for RBT to claim PRed. I was also one of the first to have suspicion of Dejkha. I haven't posted that much due to the fact that I find Dejhka the scummiest and nobody seems to disagree about Dejhka being scummy only that there are scummier players.

[Empking]

Clearly, if I didn't have a PR, I wouldn't use "mkay" at the end of every post I've made. .

I didn't like people pressuring me for a claim when mine is potentially subtle

These seem to contradict each other slightly.

[Empking]

I'm not sure. I don't see why he'd be reluctant at all. I can only think he's scum faking who wanted an out. I'm not sure if that's the reason or that there's an explaination I haven't worked out.

[Empking]

I think that scum would benefit by keeping their options open and I they could be awkward about it to distract the town from any more scummy thing they have done or as an excuse not to contribute (as RBT was doing).

[Empking]

I see how how it could be seen an contradictory stance, but I don't think it is. She pointed out how most characters have gone bad and that's true, but as far as I remember, it's not true of Mr. Mackey. The closest thing to "bad" I can remember Mr Mackey doing was smoking pot. Most other characters have some sort of bad side, so I don't think her claiming was particularly scummy.

He had pre-marital sex and as such will go to hell.

Dejkha: Can you understand how Spoilum got the impression he did from those posts he quoted? (the manipulation or readiong comprehension one) What did you mean?

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: RBT

I'm not sure if I beleive Dejkha but I can't see the harm in seeing if he uses his powers tonight.

RBT claimed way too early, was skittish about PR claiming and hasn't really been trying to hunt scum.

[Empking]

RBT is the best lynch candidate.

[Empking]

I think town (other than our two dead) were really unlucky as both of our dead power roles were very scummy and due to that we can't really see if scum jumped in or if its just town who were convinced by Dejhka's and RBT's actions.
Spoilum: Your thoughts on yesterday's events please.

[Empking]

I don 't think they're very good because the crux of it that I was pushing for a full claim and I wasn't.

[Empking]

I don 't think they're very good because the crux of it that I was pushing for a full claim and I wasn't.

No, she said you were scum because you were pushing hardest on the Post-Restriction claim. And considering you said...

I want RBT to either unarguably claim PRed or stop it.

RBT's statement seems pretty accurate and your last post appears to be a feeble attempt at an evasion.

Her full claim suggests she thought I was pushing for a full claim.

[Empking]

Don't know why RBT didn't claim, it might have saved her.

This stands out to me. RBT did claim, she claimed Mr. Mackey. It wasn't whether or not she claimed that got her lynched. It was her response to being asked about the post restriction.

She didn't claim her Power Role.

(I doubt changing her story would've saved her though?

[Empking]

Her full claim suggests she thought I was pushing for a full claim.

She didn't claim her Power Role.

Wasn't really a full claim if she didn't claim her power role now is it?

That's BS

Vote: DDD

[Empking]

Spoilum has been warned about breaking her post restriction.

And with this post my Town Read on Spoilum has gone bye bye. Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.

I'm going to think about this a little more.

[Empking]

And with this post my Town Read on Spoilum has gone bye bye. Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.

I am honestly not sure I am following your logic on that one. Could you explain more?

The mod would not confirm a town post restriction.

[Empking]

I'm still thinking DDD.

[Empking]

Spoilum: Do you think voting for a soon to be modkilled player is a good use of your vote?

[Empking]

RBT claimed way too early, was skittish about PR claiming and hasn't really been trying to hunt scum.

[Empking]

Vote: DDD

[Empking]

Caf seems to be solidly contributing and appears pro-town. She's got quite a few waste posts though.

[Empking]

Hoew is it OMGUS?

[Empking]

Hoew is it OMGUS?

Let's see, you immediatly vote for me following my incorrect argument with you. And then you continue to assert that I'm scum with no listed reasons. Furthermore, I trust that you've actually analyzed my mistake and as far as I can tell there's no logical reason I would intentionally ignore information as scum and if we assume it is a mistake then it seems it is a nulltell. Making it appear to me that the sole reason you're voting for me is that I tried to challenge you on a point.

I'm voting you for your "incorrect" argument not the fact that you had an argument against me. I think that's pretty easy to spot.

[Empking]

Hoew is it OMGUS?

Let's see, you immediatly vote for me following my incorrect argument with you. And then you continue to assert that I'm scum with no listed reasons. Furthermore, I trust that you've actually analyzed my mistake and as far as I can tell there's no logical reason I would intentionally ignore information as scum and if we assume it is a mistake then it seems it is a nulltell. Making it appear to me that the sole reason you're voting for me is that I tried to challenge you on a point.

I'm voting you for your "incorrect" argument not the fact that you had an argument against me. I think that's pretty easy to spot.

Getting somewhere at least. I fully admit to being wrong, the burden I ask of you is to show how my incorrect argument shows that I'm scum and not just an idiot who made a mistake.

Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town so the fact that you incorrectly made that argument means you're more likely scum than town.

[Empking]

Getting somewhere at least. I fully admit to being wrong, the burden I ask of you is to show how my incorrect argument shows that I'm scum and not just an idiot who made a mistake.

Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town so the fact that you incorrectly made that argument means you're more likely scum than town.

I think I've translated your arguments into logical statements here...

1) If I was right, then you'd have committed a minor slip, but I would be more likely to be scum than town for trying to nail you on a minor point.

Only true given knowledge of your alignment. Furthermore, I wasn't hounding you or voting for you based on this slip, just exploring a possible contradiction. So your characterization of my behavior is incorrect in the first place, but that's all irrelevant because there's no possibility I was right since the contradiction I saw was based on me having incomplete information. Let's move onto the relevant point then...

2) Because my argument was wrong, I am more likely scum than town.

Please demonstrate how using incorrect arguments is a scumtell. Because I would argue that if townies never used incorrect arguments then there'd never be mislynches and scum would never win. Since there are many mislynches then often pro-town players make incorrect arguments. Hence such behavior is a null-tell.

Not so there's a difference between an unarguably incorrect argument and a arguably correct argument against town.

[Empking]

Not so there's a difference between an unarguably incorrect argument and a arguably correct argument against town.

Correct, but what role does intent factor into the equation?

You can't know intent (apart from your own). You have to look at actions.

[Empking]

Not so there's a difference between an unarguably incorrect argument and a arguably correct argument against town.

Correct, but what role does intent factor into the equation?

You can't know intent (apart from your own). You have to look at actions.

You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?

I look at possible intents but you can't know the player's intent.

[Empking]

Thirding

[Empking]

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

Would there be any harm in all having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like sphincter pain or maybe tearing if someone's too tight. Not that I'm suggesting us all having butt sex is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly offering butt sex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

Its structure is exactly the same,.

[Empking]

I haven't really noticed a change in Spoilum's play. We had two very scummy players yesterday and now we don't really.

[Empking]

I'll look later at your case against GW, Spolium.

I had to check another game for one of my ongoings, and in that finished game, I realised that Empking might actually be right. So I first want to explore this.

Can you clarify this, please?

[Empking]

Spilum: My opinion of DDD hasn't changed, I don't think he's done anything pro-town to make my opinion change.

[Empking]

Empking, whatever happened to your theory about a mod not confirming a townie post restriction?

I forgot about it.

Mod: What is your policy of confirming post restrictions?

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Spoilum

If the mod isn't going to confirm PRs then Spoilum has to be scum.

[Empking]

Spoilum has been warned about breaking her post restriction.

Mod: What is your policy of confirming post restrictions?

I'm not going to..

[Empking]

Okay, so that proves the mod will post in-thread warnings about PRs but will not confirm his PR policy.

How does this make me scum? Try to answer without playing

out-guess the mod

.

The mod has said he won't confirm PRs. He confirmed your "PR". Therefore, you do not have a PR. Therefore you're lying. You want admit you're lying. Therefore you're scum.

[Empking]

Timmmeeeehhhh TImmy.

@Empking - Earlier you said

Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.

which is apparently the root of your skepticism of my PR.

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever? What is more likely to be the case is that an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

Even if you disregard that, you have basically taken two apparently contradictory statements from the mod and chosen which one you think is true. Why pick that one over the other?

Timmyyyyyyyy

The first being a lie is BM, the second being a lie is being a B.

[Empking]

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

So you're suspicious of me for being suspicious of you after we had close to mod-confirmation that you were scum. Wow, I'm not unvoting.

[Empking]

No, I'm suspicious of:

- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting

How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?

- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.

I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation.

I don't remember you suggesting the mod lied to us.

[Empking]

The M stands for modding and the B stands for the same thing each time.

[Empking]

the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

What is more likely to be the case is that

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.

There's also the fourth option which is that there's an evil Charter clone that's confirming people's PRs instead of the real Charter.

I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)

a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting

How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?

I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".

That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.

That wasn't clarifying that was getting Charter to change his mind.

It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.

Suspicion++

I did pay attention to it, he didn't clarify he merely changed his policy.

[Empking]

Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,

Hrrrmg

.

I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)

What are you talking about? The third option is what

actually happened

:

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Its completely impossible.

Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.

If its the only explaination then its probably right.
_____________________

Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.
[/quote]

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

[Empking]

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach is

implicit

. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Here's a thought - why don't

you

suggest another possible explanation?

I'm town following the only possible explanation.

Therefore, unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

[Empking]

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicit

enough

.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

[Empking]

Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.

How can you explain the mod changing his policy?

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.

Prove that

all

of these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.

TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY

In this game you can't prove things if the other player doesn't have an open mind and you don't.

Oh yeah, I'm suspicious of you so you attack an insult me in order to decrease my credibility, wow.

[Empking]

My opinion on Empking: I don't really buy his case on Spolium. A bit of mod confusion is not enough to indicate scum, imo. And he appears to be reaffirming his case through the fact that Spolium is arguing against it - well, he's obviously going to disagree, isn't he?

?[/quote]

There's a difference between disagreeing and just deciding to insult and chainsaw defend yourself.

I'm Chef. Role-blocking, aesthetic, aesthetic maker. I do this be making sweet-loving to the player I target.

[Empking]

I targeted Caf.

[Empking]

I didn't think he had a pro-town power role but I didn't have a pro-town read on him either.

[Empking]

Can't confirm either way.

I'm having trouble seeing why Emp would have blocked me - during D2 when someone asked him what he thought of me, he said I seemed pro town.

You acted townier day 2 than day one.

[Empking]

Wasn't Empking hammered already?

Unvote

in case he wasn't and I'm on his wagon.

The inconsistency with his claimed night-actions and calling Caf pro-town is alarming. Can you qualify this contradiction, Emp?

He acted a lot townier day 2.

DDD: My logic was not non-existant either time.

[Empking]

If you have something to contribute to the case, kindly support it and cite examples of what you mean instead of complaining about how nobody had a problem with him going after you.

Should've already been clear, but the similarities are apparent. Both times Empking isolated on a single player and pushed them as scum, both times Empking's "logic" was non-existant. In this case it's more obvious that he's just pushing a lynch, but in my own case after discussion it appeared there was a consensus that the point Empking was pushing my lynch on what was possibly useful supporting evidence at best and a complete null argument more that likely.

For those of us unskilled in reading into pronouns, what argument was likely null or supporting evidence and supporting of what? I'm confused by this post because it lacks referential treatment.

Empking's argument revolved around me mistakenly questioning him on an issue due to me missing part of RBT's claim. After hashing it out most people seemed to accept that it was a mistake and thus no an indicator of alignment, at most it would've been a piece of collaberative evidence used to backup other, stronger points. Empking on the other hand declared it to be clear indication I was scum. (See pages 14 through 17 if you need to go back and read it all again).

You were the scummiest player and acting like you are anything less than very sure is anti-town.

[Empking]

Zaz: Do you remember us?

[Empking]

Power roles don't know why they can perform their action, and making sweet-loving towards children?! How can anyone believe this claim?

The power roles in this game do.

[Empking]

My opinion: I'm not convinced by Emp's claim in isolation. That he would have blocked me is somewhat unlikely, and his explanation (that I looked more town D2 than D1) is not backed up by his previous posts. When he was asked about his opinion of me, he didn't mention it all and just mentioned in a general sense that I looked town. There isn't really anything in his posts to make me believe him.

mykonian's opinion makes me pause for thought though, I hadn't really considered that. If dej was roleblocked as Zazie implies, however, it means that either

a) Emp is a town RB, and there is a separate scum RB who blocked Dej. (and then he got killed anyway)
b) Emp is lying scum.

While a) is possible, it seems a lot less likely than b). Emp is a good lynch today. He's probably better than Zazie as a lynch anyway - if Zazie is scum lying about her info, we can catch her in the lie tomorrow.

Vote Empking

L-1.

No need for Zazie to fullclaim for now.

There is when you're voting me due to Zaz's absurd claim.

Caf, do you agree that your early day 2 posting were different from your late day one posting.

[Empking]

Why again are we lynching the claimed and uncontested role-blocker?

I simply require a lot more convincing, sorry. Empking's very hard for me to 'read.'

Because he's lying. Besides, scum can have a roleblocker, while town doesn't.

Wow what role do you have where you can tell who's roleblocked and what factions have a roleblock.

Unvote
Vote: Zaz

The role she's half claiming is ridiculous and she refuses to claim further.

[Empking]

So Zaz you deny making this post?

while town doesn't.

Zaz, what's your role name (Cop, Doc ect)?

[Empking]

In that post, I'm saying that it's possible that in set-ups that town doesn't have a roleblocker, while scum does. It was a general statement.

Because he's lying. Besides, scum can have a roleblocker, while town doesn't.

That's the full post, you're saying that scum can have a roleblocker but town doesn't. That's not talking in general.

That's saying you apperently have information proving that town doesn't have a roleblocker.

Due to that question, I know for certain that you're scum. Because my role PM does not have a role name in it. Let's lynch this liar already.

Nor does mine. I want to know your role.

[Empking]

Can somebody please explain to me how I'm saying here that scum in this set-up have a roleblocker, while town doesn't:

Because he's lying. Besides, scum can have a roleblocker, while town doesn't.

Because I'm clearly not saying that.

When did anyone say you said scum have a roleblocker?

Nor does mine. I want to know your role.

I may target a player during the night to find out if that player used a night action. I targeted Dejkha night 1 and learned that he did not perform an action.

If you're not asking this, then what are you asking?

Role names are less ambiguous.

Zaz; Why did you target Dej?

[Empking]

Wow what role do you have where you can tell who's roleblocked and what factions have a roleblock.

You perhaps didn't say that I said that scum have a roleblocker, but as I said that it's possible that town doesn't have one, I assume that you're saying that I know that scum have a roleblocker.

That's a lie.

You said scum doesn't have a roleblocker.

Role names are less ambiguous.

Why are you saying this?

To work out what role you have.

Zaz; Why did you target Dej?

Because he was the only one of which I was certain that he had a powerrole at that time. Besides, due to the question DDD and Spolium had asked about his role, I was thinking that scum might try to get him killed, while giving the impression that he used his action.

Why would thery do that?

[Empking]

That's a lie.

You said scum doesn't have a roleblocker.

ORLY? Where?

Sorry my mistake. You said town.

To work out what role you have.

How?

By you telling it to me.

Why would thery do that?

Look at your QT and afterwards you can tell me.

You tell me.

[Empking]

Sorry my mistake. You said town.

I said that it's possible that town doesn't have a roleblocker, while scum does.

No you said town doesn't.

By you telling it to me.

I've already said what my role is. I can't tell you the name, as it isn't given which is something you should know when looking at your claim.

If you actually had the role you claimed you wouldn't need the role name given to you.

You tell me.

Not possible as you already know.

No you supposedly picked Dejhka for a reason. I want to know why you thought the reason was likely.

[Empking]

No you said town doesn't.

I said that it's possible for town not to have a roleblocker in a set-up, while scum have one. What don't you understand about this?

The fact that its a lie.

You said scum can have a roleblocker and town doesn't.

Can you also tell me, if this is important to you? If so why?

its important because I want you to admit you lied.

If you actually had the role you claimed you wouldn't need the role name given to you.

The role PM doesn't have a role name. You know this. Slip?

No as its not related to what I said.

I bet the player playing Kyle could have told us he was a cop.

No you supposedly picked Dejhka for a reason. I want to know why you thought the reason was likely.

A claimed powerrole who can protect everyone for one night, while sacrificing himself. If he could choose when to use this, wouldn't he be a threat to the scum? That's why it's likely.

But why wouldn't scum kill him without roleblocking hm if they were worried he wouldn't use it that night?

[Empking]

How is it a lie? I'm really not following you anymore.

You said that scum can have a roleblocker and that town doesn't.

You're claiming that you claimed that town might not have a roleblocker.

No as its not related to what I said.

I bet the player playing Kyle could have told us he was a cop.

There's no name mentioned in the role PM, so how can I answer it?

The same way the player playing Kyle could have.

But why wouldn't scum kill him without roleblocking hm if they were worried he wouldn't use it that night?

How should I know. Check your QT for answers.
Why are you asking this?

The target you're claiming doesn't make sense.

[Empking]

The same way the player playing Kyle could have.

Not possible.

You don't think he knew he wasa cop?

The target you're claiming doesn't make sense.

That's your opinion. I disagree.

Can I clarify that yu're saying you picked Dejhka because you thought scum would roleblock him and then kill him despite the fact that you don't know why scum would d that?

[Empking]

TIMMAHAAAAHHHH

Sorry about the delay. Was training all weekend, too exhausted to do anything but update my reads on my games last night.

_________________

I have more to say, but for now just one question: Zazie, earlier on you suggested a nameclaim and implied that there was some correlation between player names and alignment (middle of 456). What happened with that? You didn't mention it again or in your claim.

QFMFT. Give us everything you have, Zaz. Right now.

Also, you seem to go through periods of frequent activity and zero activity, which seems to increase when you're under pressure. Scumhunting doesn't seem to be high on your list of priorities. I don't like this.

That said, I'm actually not liking a Zaz lynch right now. The question I'm asking myself is "why would scum-Zaz claim to have watched dej and say he was blocked"? Bear in mind she hinted at having this information long before Empking claimed roleblocker and she has questioned others in a manner which fits her claim.

My thinking right now is this; if what Zaz says is true then mafia most likely acted to hide their roleblocker and getting Zaz lynched would be further evidence for his existence, so it seems almost to the mafia's benefit to focus somewhere other than Zaz. Myklonian's change in vote from Zaz to caf19 is a bit suspicious for this reason.

I will also note that I don't like the way Empking is attacking Zaz. It reminds me of a game where scum went after a player who was learning English, deliberately misrepresenting the things he was saying. He seemed to drop his case on me without further comment as soon as he had another target, and the pattern of attack seems much like it did when he attacked DDD and myself.

There isn't much to comment on when you don't post.

[Empking]

I'm Butters Stotch. If no-one votes me during the day, I get a bus driver power at night. There is a bit of flavour (I dress up as Professor Chaos) but it doesn't attempt to explain my night action.

I don't buy this claim (its absurdly weak). What does everyone else think?

[Empking]

Caf is scummy, we're on a deadline and I'm the only one not on one of the big bandwagons plus I need to go now.

Unvote

Vote: Caf

[Empking]

 - Empking, being a roleblocker in the midst of an otherwise role-heavy town (with the confirmed existence of a mafia RB - see above). He cycled through the same pattern of weak tunneling attacks on DDD, myself, and Zaz (two of which I am quite certain are town, DDD will likely see what I mean here) and his hammer on caf was blatantly opportunistic.

If the majority of the town wanted Caf lynched instead of me, I shouldn't force them to make a suboptimal choice.

[Empking]

I've just realized. We're almost surely on LyoL so we should probably mass claim.

[Empking]

I'm very sure about spolium, that isn't going to change. But wall-e is not that sure.

So you're completely unwilling to view alternative viewpoints in regards to Spolium. And you've already reversed field from saying scum had to be Emp and/or DDD to being "not sure" about Wall-E. I'm not liking either of those statements.

I'm worried that you're likely scum but that makes a lot of sense.

[Empking]

@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?

I think Empking is scum. I think with as many power roles as we've seen come out that scum has to have a roleblocker. With the knowledge of caf's alignment it becomes even harder to see why he would be blocked by a pro-town roleblocker since the transgressions I voted on primarily occurred on D2. Couple that with his voting history and I'm fairly certain he's scum.
.

This may seem crazy but I don't roleblock based on what you think.

[Empking]

@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?

I think Empking is scum. I think with as many power roles as we've seen come out that scum has to have a roleblocker. With the knowledge of caf's alignment it becomes even harder to see why he would be blocked by a pro-town roleblocker since the transgressions I voted on primarily occurred on D2. Couple that with his voting history and I'm fairly certain he's scum.
.

This may seem crazy but I don't roleblock based on what you think.

No, you seemingly roleblock based on the alignment of the moons of Jupiter or at least that'd be as logical as whatever convoluted theory you tossed out to us as your reasoning.

Caf was scummy day one. That's not crazy and you're scum for acting like it is.

[Empking]

@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?

I think Empking is scum. I think with as many power roles as we've seen come out that scum has to have a roleblocker. With the knowledge of caf's alignment it becomes even harder to see why he would be blocked by a pro-town roleblocker since the transgressions I voted on primarily occurred on D2. Couple that with his voting history and I'm fairly certain he's scum.
.

This may seem crazy but I don't roleblock based on what you think.

No, you seemingly roleblock based on the alignment of the moons of Jupiter or at least that'd be as logical as whatever convoluted theory you tossed out to us as your reasoning.

Caf was scummy day one. That's not crazy and you're scum for acting like it is.

Then why no mention of caf as possible scum from you on day one? No hints, no suggestions, no questions. If you did have such inclinations and withheld them from the town that's fairly anti-town behavior. And then there's the much debated quote where early in D2 you noted that caf seemed pro-town. I find it hard to believe you pivoted 180 degrees that quickly from believing caf to be scum, worthy of roleblocking, to appearing pro-town.

My mine reason for thinking he was scum was his lurking. I , crazily. it seemed that other people could also see what I could see.

[Empking]

I think Spoilum lurking is veeery telling.

[Empking]

vote Empking

that is a subjective sentence, that doesn't add anything, and only tries to get suspicion on Spolium.

that is a subjective sentence, that doesn't add anything, and only tries to get suspicion on Empking.

[Empking]

I think I pointed pretty well out, what it is that is scummy and why it is scummy.

You think wrong.

I can't get it more objective then that.

If you can't then I worry for you.

so please defend.

I stated a fact,. That's better than what you did.

[Empking]

Prod: Spoilum

?

[Empking]

I think Spoilum lurking is veeery telling.

I don't think this is a fact.

How is it not a fact. Ib think I should know best about what I think.

and thank you for the insults. I love you too. It also doesn't help to move my vote.

What insults?

[Empking]

If you can't then I worry for you.

it doesn't help you.

Sorry, I thought that was obvious that I merely disbelieved you couldn't say something more objective.

[Empking]

ok, first point, while I first pointed out that his play resembled the play I saw from him, and voted him for that, his claim seemed good to me, and I stopped thinking about it. Now, after some players I saw as protown stayed alive, and assuming two scum, he must be one of them.

The vote-unvote was a controlled vote to see what would happen. The vote now, is because I can really not see town making that post, he is only trying to shift attention to you, without any scumhunting intent.

What is the scumhunting intent of your posts?

[Empking]

I am sorry, but could you restate that question? It is probably me, but short as it is, I have trouble to get what it means without context.

Where is the scum hunting intent of your posts?
Is there scum hunting intent to your posts?

[Empking]

yes, there is. It have done my best to find the correct lynch, I have compared you to earlier scumgames and saw the same kind of style. And that last post was a trigger, that post has no town idea behind it.

I don't understand this.

Do you think that lurking in LyoL when you're the main suspect in one person's eyes isn't a scum tell?

[Empking]

I don't believe the way you pointed it out is a towntell. Far from.

Nobody said it was a town tell, I wonder why you thought somebody did...

plus, that you and wall-e are also not that active.

Really, I think recently I've posted the most.

And Spolium doesn't have to lurk because he is scared of you, honestly. There are easier ways to avoid you, usually.

Usually doesn't matter.

[Empking]

It meant that I thought it a scumtell.

and gambling that I'm around for less then half of the game (I don't know), I think I have with 49 posts done more then your 90 in the whole game. At least, I've said much more, while you had you funny conversations with DDD.

Usually does matter. Empking, face it, people don't often listen to you. I know that is harsh, but that makes that you are not really a danger to the person that you are attacking, because mostly, your cases don't make the most sense.

That only increases when people think you are scum. So there is no need to avoid you.

Scum don't always to what what make sense from your perspective.

Was there a point to that post?

[Empking]

No, they don't always do, but it is the most likely. So, it is the most likely that Spolium is not away because he is lurking,

He's able to post and he doesn't. There is no explaination other than he's lurking.

and therefor it is most likely your subjective statement about him was just to shift attention to him.

Just like your posts were trying to shift discussion onto me.

Plus, that the way you did it, would never be protown. It is antitown to try to make it look worse then it is, link it with being scum, and then try to push a weak case by screaming "LURKING SCUM".

that is as scummy as it gets.

I didn't scream anything. Lying to push a weak case? Now THAT's as scummy as it gets.

[Empking]

He's able to post and he doesn't. There is no explaination other than he's lurking.

Busy week.

Timmaaaah.

Different definitions of lurking.

[Empking]

Then define "lurking".

Timmmeeee

Someone who is not on V/LA and does not post.

[Empking]

FRIGGSDN Timmeh.

define "lurking"

Someone who is not on V/LA and does not post.

In that case it's odd that you didn't make this point against anyone else. Plenty of players have done exactly the same thing throughout the game - why single me out?

Did they do it in LyoL? Do I find them the most suspicious?

Who are your top 2 suspects, Emp, and why?

You as the mod has told us you're scum. Myk as he's lying and active lurking.

You?

All you've done so far today is engage in a flaccid argument with myk, and vaguely accused me of being scum for lurking. Your lack of actual contribution is veeery telling.

I've done the most contribution today.

Also, who did you target last night, and why?

Timmraaaajhjjjjj! Huahhh BITIMMAH

You as you're scum.

[Empking]

Timmeeehhh

Did they do it in LyoL? Do I find them the most suspicious?

What's the difference between lurking out of LYLO, and in LYLO? Scum benefit either way.

Because in LyLo we need to lynch right or lose.

You as the mod has told us you're scum. Myk as he's lying and active lurking.

You?

I've already pointed out my two suspects. You're paying attention, right?

Interesting that you're unable to repeat them then.

I've done the most contribution today.

Your "contribution" is empty and hasn't helped.

Help yoyu and Myk win, possibly.

Also, who did you target last night, and why?

You as you're scum.

I don't believe you.

vote: Empking

Traaagh. TIMMAH.

Why don't you beleive me?