Mafia 121 -- Picking Simplicity Game Over

[Yosarian2]

Wow the player who's lying and defending LMP is trying to threaten me out of my suspicions of Jack. God, I'm afraid.

Vote:Empking

Yeah, not buying the "Ooohh, I'm sooo scared" act. You're scum, aren't you? Probably scum who's hoping for a chance to lynch a town power role today; you're not going to take the risk of really pushing the Jack wagon, but you're making sure you can get on it if it looks like it might go somewhere.

Plus, the way you're throwing around the word "lying" here in a situation where it clearly dosn't apply feels like a scummy diversion attempt, as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

Jack has the benefit of outing the power roles in (what's probably) the near future.

Bull.

No town role is going to claim in order to counter a "I'm either a doc or a cop" claim. Sure, at some point in the future, if, for example, a doc claims, the cop would know that either the doc or Jack is lying, but he still wouldn't counterclaim; he's investigate and figure out which one is lying.

The odds of Jack's claim outing any town power roles in the immedeate future are pretty low.

In the mean time he may have been planning at looking really pro-town in order to lead the town along with getting the doc to protect a scumbag and off a townie. Its a suicide mission but one that clearly has large gains for scum.

Pffft.

If he's lying scum, all he did was attract a ton of attention to himself early on day 1 for no reason, increase the odds a cop investigates him, guarantee his eventual doom, and he dosn't get anything out of it. Why would you think that would let him "lead the town"? Town or not, who the hell would blindly follow him after a boneheaded move like that day 1 claim?

Your theory makes no sense. Also, you're probably scum.

[Nikanor]

But, I dislike it when it's just 1 wagon rolling along. I think we have a better shot at catching more scum if we do competing wagons. (Competing wagons are <3.)

Lynching scum is better.

It looks like my Empking vote stocks are rising in value. :OOOOO

[Empking]

Wow the player who's lying and defending LMP is trying to threaten me out of my suspicions of Jack. God, I'm afraid.

Vote:Empking

Yeah, not buying the "Ooohh, I'm sooo scared" act. You're scum, aren't you? Probably scum who's hoping for a chance to lynch a town power role today; you're not going to take the risk of really pushing the Jack wagon, but you're making sure you can get on it if it looks like it might go somewhere.

Plus, the way you're throwing around the word "lying" here in a situation where it clearly dosn't apply feels like a scummy diversion attempt,

LMP: I like the claim.
Me: LMP says he liked the claim.
Yos: No he didn't.
That's a pretty clear cut lie.

as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

The fact that you're defending scum while at the same time attacking (one of) his most vocal attacker is a strike against you. Your acting like somebody who knows they're on LMP's team.

Jack has the benefit of outing the power roles in (what's probably) the near future.

Bull.

No town role is going to claim in order to counter a "I'm either a doc or a cop" claim. Sure, at some point in the future, if, for example, a doc claims, the cop would know that either the doc or Jack is lying, but he still wouldn't counterclaim; he's investigate and figure out which one is lying.

And the cop claims. Outing one of our power roles in the near future.

The odds of Jack's claim outing any town power roles in the immedeate future are pretty low.

Unless of course we follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion.

In the mean time he may have been planning at looking really pro-town in order to lead the town along with getting the doc to protect a scumbag and off a townie. Its a suicide mission but one that clearly has large gains for scum.

Pffft.

If he's lying scum, all he did was attract a ton of attention to himself early on day 1 for no reason, increase the odds a cop investigates him, guarantee his eventual doom, and he dosn't get anything out of it. Why would you think that would let him "lead the town"? Town or not, who the hell would blindly follow him after a boneheaded move like that day 1 claim?

Boneheaded people especially when his scumbuddies are supporting his claim.

[Jack]

Empking doesn't know what a lie is

And also in your "jack is scum/doc dies/the cop claims scenario" your forgetting that the cop wouldn't claim because he would be confidant in my lynch if he got night killed.

[Empking]

Empking doesn't know what a lie is

My dictionary says something meant to deceive. Like trying to cover for your scumbuddy and hoping nobody checks.

And also in your "jack is scum/doc dies/the cop claims scenario" your forgetting that the cop wouldn't claim because he would be confidant in my lynch if he got night killed.

Then why is the cop wasting an investigation on you?

[Jack]

Empking doesn't know what a lie is

My dictionary says something meant to deceive. Like trying to cover for your scumbuddy and hoping nobody checks.

And yos meant to deceive how? He hoped nobody would check, that's your claim?

You said it was a clear cut lie. But that is not true, it is an obvious

falsehood

. So your claim was false, and if you meant and understood it, you were lying.

And also in your "jack is scum/doc dies/the cop claims scenario" your forgetting that the cop wouldn't claim because he would be confidant in my lynch if he got night killed.

Then why is the cop wasting an investigation on you?[/quote]

Why indeed, he wouldn't bother. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

[Jack]

I want to call yos-empking distancing on this one.

[Empking]

Empking doesn't know what a lie is

My dictionary says something meant to deceive. Like trying to cover for your scumbuddy and hoping nobody checks.

And yos meant to deceive how? He hoped nobody would check, that's your claim?

You said it was a clear cut lie. But that is not true, it is an obvious

falsehood

. So your claim was false, and if you meant and understood it, you were lying.

You noticed it was a falsehood and didn't say anything about it? Why?

And also in your "jack is scum/doc dies/the cop claims scenario" your forgetting that the cop wouldn't claim because he would be confidant in my lynch if he got night killed.

Then why is the cop wasting an investigation on you?

Why indeed, he wouldn't bother. Are you going to admit you were wrong?[/quote]

I wasn't wrong. I was extrapolating from Yos's principles in order 9on the off chance thart he is town) to convince him that he was wrong.

[Yosarian2]

LMP: I like the claim.
Me: LMP says he liked the claim.
Yos: No he didn't.
That's a pretty clear cut lie.

Are you scum, or are you just delibratly being obtuse?

as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

The fact that you're defending scum while at the same time attacking (one of) his most vocal attacker is a strike against you.

If LMP flips scum, then yes, me defending him would be a rational argument against me.

What you're doing now, though, is just terrible. You made a bad argument against someone who looks mildly townish to me so far, I called you out on it, and now you're trying to say I'm "defending scum".

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched. If you get him lynched, and he flips scum, then you can try to look for connections. That's not what you're doing right now. What you're doing right now seems to be assuming that your horrible and illogical case is right for no apparent reason and then attacking anyone who disagrees with you by saying they're "defending scum".

Your acting like somebody who knows they're on LMP's team.

So, if I see you try to make a bullshit attack on Jack, and then you follow it up by attacking LMP for pointing out that your attack was bullshit, I shouldn't dare question your moves, because I would only do that if I "knew what team LMP is on"? Is that really the argument you're trying to make here? Because I'm pretty sure that's not how mafia is played.

And the cop claims. Outing one of our power roles in the near future.

So, now you're worried about the cop claiming on like day 3 or 4 with several results at least one guilty? The cop SHOULD usually claim in that kind of situation. You're not making sense.

Boneheaded people especially when his scumbuddies are supporting his claim.

And it looks like you're pretty much just going to try to ignore everything I say by calling me, and anyone who disagrees with you, scum, and saying that they must be scum because they disagree with you, right? Yeah, that's a pretty standard scum tactic.

[Empking]

LMP: I like the claim.
Me: LMP says he liked the claim.
Yos: No he didn't.
That's a pretty clear cut lie.

Are you scum, or are you just delibratly being obtuse?

Essentially we have two choices.
1. You forgot about LMP's post and you're scum protecting another player.

OR

2. You're scum protecting another player.

Occam's razor suggests two is the correct answer.

as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

The fact that you're defending scum while at the same time attacking (one of) his most vocal attacker is a strike against you.

If LMP flips scum, then yes, me defending him would be a rational argument against me.

What you're doing now, though, is just terrible. You made a bad argument against someone who looks mildly townish to me so far, I called you out on it, and now you're trying to say I'm "defending scum".

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched. If you get him lynched, and he flips scum, then you can try to look for connections. That's not what you're doing right now. What you're doing right now seems to be assuming that your horrible and illogical case is right for no apparent reason and then attacking anyone who disagrees with you by saying they're "defending scum".

You're lying to defend LMP and your chainsawing to protect LMP. At least half your actions in this game have been indirect defense and spreading falsehoods to protect LMP. There's a connection and I'm not going to forget about that if it turns out that you were just buddying LMP.

Your acting like somebody who knows they're on LMP's team.

So, if I see you try to make a bullshit attack on Jack, and then you follow it up by attacking LMP for pointing out that your attack was bullshit, I shouldn't dare question your moves, because I would only do that if I "knew what team LMP is on"? Is that really the argument you're trying to make here? Because I'm pretty sure that's not how mafia is played.

Again, you post about my "attack" on Jack after I FoS you and after you lie in order to help defend LMP.

And the cop claims. Outing one of our power roles in the near future.

So, now you're worried about the cop claiming on like day 3 or 4 with several results at least one guilty? The cop SHOULD usually claim in that kind of situation. You're not making sense.

Why is the cop investigating Jack when he could just come up with one more innocent and still reveal Jack as scum (by getting the doctor to claim).

Boneheaded people especially when his scumbuddies are supporting his claim.

And it looks like you're pretty much just going to try to ignore everything I say by calling me, and anyone who disagrees with you, scum, and saying that they must be scum because they disagree with you, right? Yeah, that's a pretty standard scum tactic.

Seriously, I FoS a page ago and now I'm suddenly calling you scum because you disagree with me.

Jack; Can I at least call that a lie?

[Jack]

BEST TOWN PERFORMANCE??????

[Yosarian2]

LMP: I like the claim.
Me: LMP says he liked the claim.
Yos: No he didn't.
That's a pretty clear cut lie.

Are you scum, or are you just delibratly being obtuse?

Essentially we have two choices.
1. You forgot about LMP's post and you're scum protecting another player.

OR

2. You're scum protecting another player.

...dude, what kind of drugs are you on?

Essentially, we have one choices.

1. I forgot about that line in LMP's post, and wasn't thinking about it when I responded to you. Also, I still don't really think it's important, since the relevent post is the one where he explained himself, and you're still avoiding actually talking about the relevent stuff by pretending me forgetting one line is some kind of huge proof of conspiracy.

Nothing else makes sense. I don't even begin to understand how you can take that and assume I'm "protecting" someone.

as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

The fact that you're defending scum while at the same time attacking (one of) his most vocal attacker is a strike against you.

If LMP flips scum, then yes, me defending him would be a rational argument against me.

What you're doing now, though, is just terrible. You made a bad argument against someone who looks mildly townish to me so far, I called you out on it, and now you're trying to say I'm "defending scum".

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched. If you get him lynched, and he flips scum, then you can try to look for connections. That's not what you're doing right now. What you're doing right now seems to be assuming that your horrible and illogical case is right for no apparent reason and then attacking anyone who disagrees with you by saying they're "defending scum". [/quote]
You're lying to defend LMP and your chainsawing to protect LMP. At least half your actions in this game have been indirect defense and spreading falsehoods to protect LMP. There's a connection and I'm not going to forget about that if it turns out that you were just buddying LMP.[/quote]

...again, what drugs are you on?

Actually, most of my posts this game have been directly or indirectly attacking you. I attacked your lame attack on LMP, I attacked your super scummy and lame attack on Jack, and I'm now attacking your lame OMGUS attacks on me. Because you're acting like scum.

Also, I like what you're doing here. If I defend someone and they're scum, I'm "chainsawing". If I defend someone and they're town, I'm "buddying". You don't actualyl care about facts, or about if what I'm saying makes sense, you just want to pretend that you think I'm scum so you can fake scumhunting, right? Just like you did with Jack and LMP.

Why is the cop investigating Jack when he could just come up with one more innocent and still reveal Jack as scum (by getting the doctor to claim).

You're right, the cop shouldn't investigate Jack, and the doc shouldn't claim to reveal Jack as scum. THIS IS WHY JACK'S PLAY MAKES NO SENSE AS SCUM. You're proving the EXACT point I was trying to make all along, at the same time you're calling me scum for making it.

Guys, can we please just lynch EmpKing now?

Boneheaded people especially when his scumbuddies are supporting his claim.

And it looks like you're pretty much just going to try to ignore everything I say by calling me, and anyone who disagrees with you, scum, and saying that they must be scum because they disagree with you, right? Yeah, that's a pretty standard scum tactic.

Seriously, I FoS a page ago and now I'm suddenly calling you scum because you disagree with me.[/quote]

"Suddenly?" You FOS'd me becasue I disagreed with you about LMP, right?

[Glork]

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched.

Does "Glork says so" count? Because it should.

[Yosarian2]

I want to call yos-empking distancing on this one.

Whatever. Just help me lynch the obvscum empking today, and I don't care what you want to call it.

[Yosarian2]

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched.

Does "Glork says so" count? Because it should.

Heh. Don't bail EmpKing out now, Glork; let him wriggle on the hook for a while longer, I want to see how much more he's going to implicate himself as scum.

[Empking]

LMP: I like the claim.
Me: LMP says he liked the claim.
Yos: No he didn't.
That's a pretty clear cut lie.

Are you scum, or are you just delibratly being obtuse?

Essentially we have two choices.
1. You forgot about LMP's post and you're scum protecting another player.

OR

2. You're scum protecting another player.

...dude, what kind of drugs are you on?

Essentially, we have one choices.

1. I forgot about that line in LMP's post, and wasn't thinking about it when I responded to you. Also, I still don't really think it's important, since the relevent post is the one where he explained himself, and you're still avoiding actually talking about the relevent stuff by pretending me forgetting one line is some kind of huge proof of conspiracy.

Nothing else makes sense. I don't even begin to understand how you can take that and assume I'm "protecting" someone.

It could be that there are a bunch of explainations for your scummy defense of LMP that are all perfectly innocent. But its much more likely that you're scum.

as is you trying to sound like me "defending LMP" is somehow a strike against me.

The fact that you're defending scum while at the same time attacking (one of) his most vocal attacker is a strike against you.

If LMP flips scum, then yes, me defending him would be a rational argument against me.

What you're doing now, though, is just terrible. You made a bad argument against someone who looks mildly townish to me so far, I called you out on it, and now you're trying to say I'm "defending scum".

If you think LMP is scum, make a real case for it, try to get him lynched. If you get him lynched, and he flips scum, then you can try to look for connections. That's not what you're doing right now. What you're doing right now seems to be assuming that your horrible and illogical case is right for no apparent reason and then attacking anyone who disagrees with you by saying they're "defending scum".

You're lying to defend LMP and your chainsawing to protect LMP. At least half your actions in this game have been indirect defense and spreading falsehoods to protect LMP. There's a connection and I'm not going to forget about that if it turns out that you were just buddying LMP.

Also, I like what you're doing here. If I defend someone and they're scum, I'm "chainsawing". If I defend someone and they're town, I'm "buddying".

Wow is almost as if expending all your energy in defending somebody is scummy regardless of the other person's alignment isn't it?

Why is the cop investigating Jack when he could just come up with one more innocent and still reveal Jack as scum (by getting the doctor to claim).

You're right, the cop shouldn't investigate Jack, and the doc shouldn't claim to reveal Jack as scum. THIS IS WHY JACK'S PLAY MAKES NO SENSE AS SCUM. You're proving the EXACT point I was trying to make all along, at the same time you're calling me scum for making it.

increase the odds a cop investigates him

Contradicting yourself now.

Boneheaded people especially when his scumbuddies are supporting his claim.

And it looks like you're pretty much just going to try to ignore everything I say by calling me, and anyone who disagrees with you, scum, and saying that they must be scum because they disagree with you, right? Yeah, that's a pretty standard scum tactic.

[/quote]

I'm not saying your scum because you disagree with me, plenty of players disagree with me. I'm calling you scum because of your defending of LMP and your ways of going about it.

"Suddenly?" You FOS'd me becasue I disagreed with you about LMP, right?

Are you calling the LMP "like" thing a disagreement because even Jack admitted that was a falsehood.

[Yosarian2]

It could be that there are a bunch of explainations for your scummy defense of LMP that are all perfectly innocent.

Um, that'd be great, if you could explain how my defense of LMP was "scummy". Of course, you can't, because it's not; at least not without pretending that I made some kind of deliberate lie about what he said, even though you clearly know that doesn't make sense.

Wow is almost as if expending all your energy in defending somebody is scummy regardless of the other person's alignment isn't it?

No, of course it's not. If a player is under attack, and I think that attack is flawed, it's pro-town to point that out. If someone I think is likely pro-town is under attack, then it's pro-town to defend them.

The goal of town people is to lynch scum, empking, not to sit back and let people who are probably town get lynched for bad reasons.

Also, I'm pretty sure that right now I'm expending about 95% of my energy in trying to lynch you, because you're acting like caught scum.

Why is the cop investigating Jack when he could just come up with one more innocent and still reveal Jack as scum (by getting the doctor to claim).

You're right, the cop shouldn't investigate Jack, and the doc shouldn't claim to reveal Jack as scum. THIS IS WHY JACK'S PLAY MAKES NO SENSE AS SCUM. You're proving the EXACT point I was trying to make all along, at the same time you're calling me scum for making it.

increase the odds a cop investigates him

Contradicting yourself now. [/quote]

No, I'm not.

If Jack hadn't done anything, and he's not the cop, the odds of him being investigated were something like 1/19, just like everyone else. If he's not the cop, they're almost certanly higher then that now.

Does that make it the right move for a cop to investigate him? No, it dosn't, because we already know that Jack is like 95% likely town, and if he is scum he'll be caught without wasting an investigation.

There is no contradiction between those two statements. From a "Jack-Scum" point of view, one of the reasons that this fake claim would be a terrible idea is that it'd increase the odds of him being cop investigated. That dosn't mean that I think a cop SHOULD investigate Jack; I don't.

"Suddenly?" You FOS'd me becasue I disagreed with you about LMP, right?

Are you calling the LMP "like" thing a disagreement because even Jack admitted that was a falsehood.

The relevant thing her was you making a scummy, illogical case against LMP, and me trying to find out why to get a read on your alignment by asking you questions about this. Note that I started doing this before you FOS'd me, and in fact, your FOS on me was in response to my second post directed towards you on the subject.

The irrelevant thing was me forgetting a throwaway line LMP made that didn't really have anything to do with the point I was making.

You're focusing on the irrelevant thing in order to avoid actually discussing the relevant matter at hand; you don't want to explain your case on LMP, because you don't have one; you don't want to explain why you think Jack is scum, because you know that doesn't make any sense, so you're playing semantic games and trying to distract the town with irrelevancies. Again, that's what caught scum do.

[eldarad]

Just bought Fable 3. Posting frequency will drop as a result.

~~~

How is advising the sk to kill scum similar to advising the scum to kill a town pr? Careless fake scumhunting

I didn't say they were similar. I asked Nik how they were different.

What Jack said. You didn't see me giving Glork flack for asking the SK to kill me.

I want to understand the principle behind your objection to Glork's post and how that principle doesn't apply to other posts because at the moment I'm not getting it.

Surely Glorkscum has no need to give scum advice on who to kill in-thread because he can just give that advice at Night? Or is your issue with Glork's advice that you don't think the scum would have thought to kill a claimed power role if left to their own devices?

Why is giving advice to the SK acceptable if giving advice to the mafia isn't? Or are there specific things about Jack's SK advice that makes it OK?

~~~
Just a quick point on Yos/Empking.
I don't believe scum lie about things that are easily verifiable. That makes Empking's first point - about Yos lying regarding LMP - wrong.
It seems to me that from there Empking's further points are fruit from the poisoned tree.

[Empking]

That like thing is not irrelevant because you're arguing that I don't haver a case on LMP and that onbly makes sense if you were right about the like thing and you weren't.

(Compare
Empking: LMP is scum because he's reacting in a manner completely conflicting with how town would ract.
Yos: No he didn't.
Empking: Bugger, I have no case
Yos: You have no case.

with

Empking: LMPis scum because he's reacting in a manner completely conflicting with how town would ract.
Yos: No he didn't.
Empking: Yes he did *provides quote*
Yos: You have no case.)

Also, sleeping on it, Yos agreed with my quote (which was devoid of context and used pretty much the same words we were using) far too quickly for somebody who didn't know about the line.

eld: If the meta is that scum don't make easily checked upon lies then scum will realize that and then make easily checkable lies. (After all, he lied and nobody but myself thinks him any scummier for it.)

[Xine]

There is a difference between a Lie, and, being Wrong. You, Empking, are refusing to conider that, or any other piece of the discussion that has taken place so far. Yos, on the other hand, is making a full case, littered with different points to reference.

[UncertainKitten]

Fucking Conciseness: How does it work!?

Seriously, what's up with the towers of text on page 8? I tried to read through them to see if anything could be gleaned, but it's basically reiteration of the same two stances in slightly novel and different ways. Also practically impossible to read ways. Could you each, in 5 sentences or less, without quotes, state your damned positions?

[VasudeVa]

Yos: Are you considering Jack's meta before debunking EmpKing's theory? (Jack is scumWIFOMclaiming PR Theory?)
Empking: Are you making that theory solely from Jack's Meta?

Isn't it a little too early to be yelling chainsaw and misrep?

Also, sleeping on it, Yos agreed with my quote (which was devoid of context and used pretty much the same words we were using) far too quickly for somebody who didn't know about the line.

Where did this happen?

[Empking]

There is a difference between a Lie, and, being Wrong. You, Empking, are refusing to conider that, or any other piece of the discussion that has taken place so far. Yos, on the other hand, is making a full case, littered with different points to reference.

No I accepted that it was possible for him to be wrong and defending LMP in a scummy fashion. I just consider it more likely that his falsehood was just part of his defending LMP rather than having a completely seperate motive.

Xine: Describe Yos's case on me.

Va: I haven't seen Jack's meta so no. The only time its too early to call people on chainsawing is before it happens.

[Empking]

Va:

I like Jack's claim.

FoS: Yos

For saying something that obviously an untruth.

Yeah, yeah. I had forgotten about that line, actually.

[Nikanor]

Fucking Conciseness: How does it work!?

First, you tie a magnet to each hand. Then you type. The post you make will probably be quite short.

Surely Glorkscum has no need to give scum advice on who to kill in-thread because he can just give that advice at Night? Or is your issue with Glork's advice that you don't think the scum would have thought to kill a claimed power role if left to their own devices?

I said it was a dumb idea. I'm starting to suspect Glork, but not because of his advice-giving.

Why is giving advice to the SK acceptable if giving advice to the mafia isn't? Or are there specific things about Jack's SK advice that makes it OK?

Because saying, "KILL THIS GUY PLZ" doesn't have an effect on the SK's actions. If people started saying, "The SK should kill all of the power roles, and here's why: (Not actually true; the town's power roles aren't a threat to the SK)," I'd take issue with that.

I'm not really seeing how there aren't more votes on Empking. Can somebody explain to me why there aren't more votes on Empking?