Mini 967 - Mafia War (Over)

[Empking]

/confirm

[Empking]

Vote: Katsuki

- Didn't vote. (Slightly serious.)

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: Katsuki

- Serious vote this time.

[Empking]

I already said the reason. To make it easier to tell that I'm seriously voting you.

[Empking]

Mainly calling a player an angry child for voting them.

[Empking]

There is no such thing as "benign" this early in the game, considering there is a lack of information thus far and even very small tells are worth pursuing.

I agree in principle, but this case does not apply. It wasn't a "small tell", it wasn't a tell at all. I was commenting on how I didn't like the way Empking was making something out of nothing.

If you call acting overdefensive to a vote (such as calling the voter an angry child) or trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes, or an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes. "nothing" . Then I'd ask you to look up the definition of nothing so you'll stop being suspicious of me.

[Empking]

Empking - why is Katsuki more likely to call me an "angry child" as scum than town?

Scum is more worried about getting votes.

[Empking]

1. Katsuki, you called a player a "child". Y/N
You said that to a player who voted you. Y/N
You said that in response to the post where he voted you. Y/N
A child's vote has less meaning than an adult's (When thinking of following.) Y/N
That voter never gave any reason to beleive he was a child. Y/N
Your post wasn't serious. Y/N
When somebody voted you, you called them a child in response to that vote. (AKA you were overdefensive). Y/N

2. Where is the word "All" in this sentance.

Trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes

You called a serious vote a vote based on not liking cupcakes. Y/N
This is calling it a random vote. Y/N
A random vote has less worth than a serious vote. Y/N
You were trying to reduce the worth of a serious vote. Y/N

3. Are you saying that saying I'm reacting to "cuddly bears and cupcakes" rather than my serious reasons, is not a comment related to my vote?

[Empking]

Katsuki: Now that Soundwish has posted. Can you finally admit that you're trying to make serious votes look like baseless random votes?

Katsuki: Are votes a reaction to things?

Katsuki: Please explain what your reactions to random votes has to do with my case?

Katsuki: Have you made any posts that you're not going to brush off as "sarcasm".

Katsuki: You called Soundwish's vote an overreaction but haven't given any reasons to support that. Y/N.

[Empking]

I hadn't mentioned the contribute constructively because before that post I wasn't certain if it was noteworthy.

How is "an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes." vague?

[Empking]

How is "an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes." vague?

It's just saying that he is not contributing enough, which is vague because there is no specific amount that constitutes bad contribution.

Ah. I thought it was clear that there was no contribution. I guess it wasn't crystal clear.

[Empking]

I'm with pman, I once believed Katsuki's defense to be weak, I take no issue with his more recent posts and responses to the cross examination by Empking. And defense of someone looking down the barrel of charges that could be interpreted as silly isn't a scumtell either.

Its a group tell though. If you don't know someone's alignment you shouldn't link with them, plus if somebody's of unknown alignment you'll want to know how they'll react.

[Empking]

Exemption: Do you consider trying to format a post clearly as scummy? (Your eighth post)
Exemption: About Me=Weird. What's scummier wanting a quick lynch or parroting?

[Empking]

Exemption: Is your suspicion on Me=Weird about wanting a quick lynch or wanting to lynch anyone quickly (or something else)?

[Empking]

Stef, Katsuki, DJ, Unsight: How willing are you to lynch me=weird? How willing to lynch Katsuki? Do you think me=weird should claim?

(Deadline is pretty soon BTW)

[Empking]

Me=Weird: If your a power role claim now. (If we don't get a deasline extension.)

[Empking]

Unsight: The only one else that seems seriously scummy is Pman for the reasons that have been said.

[Empking]

Unvote

Vote: AC

AC: Are the first and last quotes in your post, separate posts?

[Empking]

The Unsight case is awful.

The answers to your questions are: We were near deadline and I didn't want us to have to rush a lynch.

[Empking]

FoS: Stef

If you're going to pretend not to have seen my answer for your questions, don't respond to it before hand critiquing its lack of reasons.

[Empking]

@ Empking why is the unsight case awfull?

It doesn't seem based on enough actual scummy things.

[Empking]

Vote: AC

Nothing has really changed.

[Empking]

Vote Empking

Reasons given for AC vote are totally based on WIFOM. Either AC is indeed scum, or mafia NK'ed unsight to frame AC. Convenient way for mafia to frame a scummy-looking AC, and seems more like the later of the two possibilities I stated.

What reasons are based on WIFOM?
My vote has absolutely nothing to do with the death?
Are you trying to misrepresent my vote?

[Empking]

Vote: Empking

Even though he knew it was required to be a majority lynch, he didn't hammer the Me= case, despite the fact that there was really no way any other lynch would happen.

Any reasons for me being the one your voting?

[Empking]

I don't think there's anything wrong really with going "all right, but what else have you got?" scummy as long as you don't use that to discredit what the person has which Exemption isn't doing.

[Empking]

[quote="deadjoker"(scum team members are going to purposely avoid each other),[/quote]

You realize that that means you can look for players purposely avoiding each other.

[Empking]

Spy: Please quote where you said (before DJ said it) that Kat was trying to appear town.

[Empking]

Hey empking just been looking through all your last posts and the last few don't include much more than just commenting on things and repeating questions. I know it's exam time (i'm having trouble finding time to post too) but your levels of lurking are really starting to make me wonder if you doing it on purpose?

FOS: empking

AC is still miles ahead in the scummy stakes but he hasn't voted for ages.

[Empking]

I meant.


AC is still miles ahead in the scummy stakes but he hasn't posted for ages.

Stef: I've started all the bandwagons on scum, so far this game. (If memory serves.)

[Empking]

@ Empking: I will agree your not the most scummiest, that is why I didn't vote for you. Just wondering if your hiding on purpose or not.

What bandwagons on scum would those be?

AC

Also do you think horror, Spyrex, both or nether of them are scum?

Neither.

[Empking]

Unvote
Vote: Kat

Its dead here and Kat's always been my second.

[Empking]

Question to all players: Do you think we should start a lynch all lurkers campaign? I see three: AC, Soundwish, and Hrezs.

While I disagree with lynching me, I see no downside of lynching AC who everyone has a general feeling that he is scum. The same applies to soundwish

I'd be fine with starting at AC. Soundwish not so much.

[Empking]

Kat, can you claim. We don't want to have to rush it.

[Empking]

Vote: DJ

I haven't seen much from him plus FG's lynch analyses is pretty good.

[Empking]

Vote: Empking

You just randomly sheep off of what FakeGod said without any real contributions of your own? Why?

I disagree with you that I randomly did anything.

[Empking]

Vote: Empking

You just randomly sheep off of what FakeGod said without any real contributions of your own? Why?

I disagree with you that I randomly did anything.

Do you have anything to add to the argument, at all?

DJ, makes a snide comment against one of the (or the only (I'm not sure)) without giving any weight to it, suggesting that its just a scum-like way of defending himself, without actually addressing FG's analysis. (the attack on FG suggests that the comment about me was not just a coincidence.)

[Empking]

ah, I see there has been a misunderstanding.

I meant that "do you disagree with my analysis?", and "do you agree that there are no scum among the three?"

Hopefully that helps clarify things.

I don't think the problem is he didn't understand you. Its just that he's pick at straws.

Everybody. Secondary suspect?

[Empking]

DJ: Why are you voting Soundwish?

[Empking]

DJ: Say "Bob".

[Empking]

Yes magically. He hasn't been suspected from the beginning of the day. No not at all.

[Empking]

There are probably two scum left, both from a group that haven't lost somebody yet. I'm going to reread.

[Empking]

Yeah, definitely.

[Empking]

I'm The Detective. A JOAT with Watcher, Cop, Tracker and hider abilities. I'd prefer to ewait before claiming further.

Exemption first.

[Empking]

DPM

[Empking]

I'm thinking that Berry isn't telling the complete story.

I targetted Berry (berry's Horror, right) with a track last night and got No Result.

[Empking]

No Result. As in Results were not their. It wasn't a the-target-didn't-act but more roleblock-esque.

b) I waited because of my last nights result. Day 1 I investigated Stef (Town obv) I watched somebody day 2 but I'd like to hold off claiming that until you claim.

c) I'm leaning no. Rolename is Townie Detective.

[Empking]

Actually, I watched SpyreX. Horror targetted SpyreX, also.

[Empking]

BB: I don't pay much attention to rolenames in a mini normal.

[Empking]

SpyreX is a good player meaning that I thought he'd be a night kill regardless of his scum statis plus his towniness led to that thinking of him as a likely target.

[Empking]

Vote: Bb

I agree that scum could pretty easily work out what to false claim, plus I don't like his complete reliance on his claim.