Mini 1121: Nexusville Mafia.

[Nexus]

WeaponsofMassConstruction has been prodded.

@Empking he said he would replace out if he hadn't caught up, but he hasn't said explicitly that he wants replacing. We shall see what he says. If he does replace out, I may extend the deadline.

[Empking]

...What? You...you just used an example that you yourself said for in-depth analysis. When you clearly earlier said that it was bad. You countered my argument...and at the same time admitted to a similiar but slightly different contradiction. I don't even know what to say about that.

Er wrong. You're claimerd scum therefore dwelving into indepth analysis to you post carries with it no dangers.

What? If I understand this right then you are saying that in depth analysis is fine, but only if someone has admitted to being scum?

Its not a way of learning someone's alignment.

Even though I didn't? And that if I HAD you should have just been able to point it out and get town to lynch me?

This is scum gloating.

Having the entire reason for your scuminess down in one place makes it easier to see that you are scum, and explains my entire argument in one place instead of making people have to re-read the entire thread to understand it.

LOL. King's forgotten that he hasn't finished his wall (i.e it isn't all in one place.) Scummy, scummy liar.

Calling me a scummy liar because I havn't finished something yet? And even if I do keep it in two places if I finish it it would still be far more convienient than looking back through the whole thread.

You're clearly contradicting yourself in your rush to try and not get lynched for lynching a mason.

If you do turn out to be town then it helps to show how terrible all your arguments against me have been, so I don't get lynched because of them. And they have been terrible.

You're right I did forget that.

4. You're scum who can't argue with the message and as such is attacking the messager. (As we're all aware, town would trust in their innocence rather than going down to usde scum tactics.)

Attacking the messanger? You mean Adhominem?

Misrep. Attacking the messenger is exactly this. I've explained why you can't not ber scum. But rather than asrgue with that you're instead trying to sully my reputation by trying to pretend I'm overwhelmingly.

I could have sworn this whole time that I've been giving actual reasons for my posts (You know, those reasons you've been ignoring) and why yours are bad and not ever sucumbing to the temptation of insulting you.

It will help your later play to know exactly why people think of you as scum.

You do realise how bad you are playing, right? You are at L-1 with a mason claim even though it is apparently a terrible idea to kill a claimed mason day 1. Thats how scummy you are being.

I wouldn't call a large porportion of the player base having no grasp of theory equivilant to my being scummy.

On that note I would like to point out that you completly ignored the original reason I gave for posting the wall: "I wanted EVERYTHING scummy you've done to be on the table, not just the more obvious stuff or the things you actually respond to." Its extra relevent 'cause you once again ignored huge portions of my posts.

Why?

What's the motive for that? (Therre isn't one, King is just scummy Mc. Scum.)

[KingTwelveSixteen]

Guh, I'm not gonna quote that.
The motive is that you are repeatedly attacking me for anything and everything you can, and ignore at least half of my responses in order to continue to falsely attack me. I tend to try and counter incorrect arguments by pointing out how incorrect they are,

especially

if they are attacking me.

Misrep. Attacking the messenger is exactly this. I've explained why you can't not ber scum. But rather than asrgue with that you're instead trying to sully my reputation by trying to pretend I'm overwhelmingly.

Like this right here is ignoring that I've already explained pretty much every single thing you've accused me of, and why each of them is wrong. You just ignore my arguments in favor of claiming that "it's to rhetorical" or "King is just gloating" or some pointless drivel like that, as if just saying that actually counters my argument.

TL:DR, I posted that to show how many times you ignored my counters to your argument in order to continue to attack me, or just made up a horrible "reason" in the first place.

[Empking]

OK. When you claimed to not be scumhunting and was just active lurking in order to trick the town into believing you were town. Where's your counterargument to that?

[Empking]

When I said that there wasn't a town motive for your big post directed against me, your counter argument was?

[Setael]

Emp, here's the thing. If you are a mason and have a buddy and there are breadcrumbs to verify this (as you hinted), then it needs to be pointed out now. This is the only protown thing to do, since the deadline is so close and too many people are willing to hammer (including me) to avoid a no lynch and clearly no one is willing to really consider another wagon this late. The only way to avoid your lynch is for you both to claim and point out the breadcrumbs - this was inevitable from the moment you claimed. This is the only benefit of masons - you can confirm each other. Regardless of the scummy thing nameless said about lynching you anyway, this should not happen. If you both claim, we have 2 confirmed townies and there should be protections that at least will make it difficult for the scum to know which one to target, and there should be a cop role that can ask about either you or your buddy to eventually confirm you. If you are town, your buddy needs to claim and point out crumbs in order to stop your wagon.

Nobody hammer until this happens - there's a chance his buddy isn't active or isn't sure what to do. There are a lot better ways to find out if the mason claim is true and we need another wagon in the meantime. Any thoughts on my nameless case? I should have time to reread implosion later today, as his possibly has enough support to get a lynch before deadline.

If you are scum, Emp then continue on as you are. You will be lynched at deadline and we'll know you were just lying. If you are town, you need to back up the mason claim in order to stop your wagon.

[Empking]

No. I is not even close to the pro-town thing. A confirmed townie (like me mason partner) is stronger late game rathen than getting killed off night two.

(Oh yeah and LOL at the Two Masons, 1 Doc and a Cop speculation.)

Set: Why would scum claim Mason? (And no. "In order to get lynched Day 2" is not even close to a reasonable reason.)

[Setael]

You claimed to try and stop your wagon. Scum would do that for the same reason town would.

Can you show anywhere YOU or mongoose breadcrumbed that wouldn't out your partner?

[Setael]

Also, why not 2 masons a doc and a cop? If there are 4 scum (1 or 2 teams) there could definitely be 4 town power roles.

[Empking]

Also, why not 2 masons a doc and a cop? If there are 4 scum (1 or 2 teams) there could definitely be 4 town power roles.

If its 2:2:9 then that's still broken in favour of the town. If its 4:9 then that's ridiculous. (Also its less the number of power roles as much of the strength and the numbers of confirmed townies.)

You claimed to try and stop your wagon. Scum would do that for the same reason town would.

I said ""In order to get lynched Day 2" is not even close to a reasonable reason". Try again. (I know that 1. I'll be nightkilled 2. When it comes down to it I can claim my partner. Scum know neither of those reasons.)

Can you show anywhere YOU or mongoose breadcrumbed that wouldn't out your partner?

I'm afraid I cannot.

[KingTwelveSixteen]

OK. When you claimed to not be scumhunting and was just active lurking in order to trick the town into believing you were town. Where's your counterargument to that?

Here it is I believe. If you were talking about something else please mention it, but this is the part that counters your supposed "He admitted to not scumhunting" thing.

...
As previously stated, I only brought that thing up as a possible thing you could be talking about because I wasn't sure what you were talking about. The attitude thing had two posts about it and the second was immediatly after the first and did nothing but clarify why I hated that reasoning so much.
The reasoning being that you are right because you just are. The whole thing was me saying that that attitude and the actions and "reasoning" that result from it shove any and all debate straight into the ground and that you had better not be using those actions and reasoning to try and justify yourself, because no, that is not how it works. AT ALL. EVER. You have to give

actual

reasons other than "because its true" if you want people to believe you. Or be able to debate with you. Or say that you are right. Or really do anything at all.

To be more specific and helpful and whatnot I shall spell it out: the reason I made that big seperate thing calling the attitude terrible and useless is because I DESPISE that attitude. Otherwise I would have just made a single little point like: "Thats not how it works" or "Try giving a real explanation instead of just saying that you're right" or something like that. The reason I made the huge thing that could make that qualify as a seperate argument is because I so severly dislike everything there is about that attitude. Everything.

For bonus points, here is your (non)response to it.

...
Or to put it into less passionate terms. "I was active lurking because I'm scum."

Or to put that one in more clear terms: "I don't know how to attack this so I'll just call it scummy and not give any reasons."

Heres the second answer: "7. You have done so many scummy things that you've gotten away with a bunch of them just because people are to busy accusing you of the other things, and you're ability to completly ignore things you don't like is rather amazing.

I wanted EVERYTHING scummy you've done to be on the table, not just the more obvious stuff or the things you actually respond to."

and here are some more: "You still might not be lynched, so my giant wall could help kill a scum.

Having the entire reason for your scuminess down in one place makes it easier to see that you are scum, and explains my entire argument in one place instead of making people have to re-read the entire thread to understand it.

If you do turn out to be town then it helps to show how terrible all your arguments against me have been, so I don't get lynched because of them.

And they have been terrible.
It will help your later play to know exactly why people think of you as scum."

Come to think of it, the second bolded works just as well if you are scum and don't die as it does if you are town and do die.
The bolded are more important than the underlined one, which is more important than the rest.

...

Can you show anywhere YOU or mongoose breadcrumbed that wouldn't out your partner?

I'm afraid I cannot.

What? Why would you breadcrum? Scum have several people who can read over the thread for those breadcrums, and if any of them find them then your partner is gonna die. Its like all of the negatives with only one of the positives.

...
(I know that 1. I'll be nightkilled 2. When it comes down to it I can claim my partner. Scum know neither of those reasons.)
...

Why would you be nightkilled? Scum are probably going to just let you live and try to get town to mislynch you, or just attempt to off your partner. Also, you just told scum those reasons. Also, Also, this assumes that you are town and not a scum desperatly trying to get at least one mislynch out before he dies, a possibility I already pointed out. (I still don't understand what your counter to it was actually about, since you just insulted my intelligence instead of answering the second question.)

[Zdenek]

Zedenek--You keep saying Ice isn't a good lynch today, but I'm not wondering about today, I'm wondering about in general, do you think he might be a good lynch? You seem to be trying to skirt the issue.

I don't have strong enough reads to take anyone's lynch off the table for the entire game at this point. If by "in general" you mean in a more general situation than that, your question is too hypothetical for me to answer.

Mod and all: I am going to be V/LA until Wednesday.

I should still be able to check the thread, so if I am needed for something, I should be able to post, but that is not 100% clear to me at the moment.

[neko2086]

I really just wanna know if you think Ice is scummy. I didn't think this would be so difficult. It's not going to make a difference for today, but I would like you to say one way or the other before the day is over.

A question for all (especially those voting Emp)--If Emp is indeed a mason and his partner were to claim, do you believe we will be able to agree on another lynch before deadline? At the moment, I don't see any clear direction that this would go except for a no-lynch or a hasty scramble for an alternative lynch.

I'm still not sure if I even believe his claim. Will think about this more later. Need to run.

[Empking]

There is no motive for scum to claim mason. Scum would rather draw the lynch today rather than allow us the chance to lynch his buddy today.

[Nameless]

KingTwelveSixteen: Empking is arrogantly ignoring your accusations, blatantly misrepresenting you, acting as if patronisingly obvious questions and ignorant theory were a valid defence, and general being obvscum.

We get it.

STOP TYPING.

Please. ;_;

If you both claim, we have 2 confirmed townies

No. If Empking's buddy claims, we have 2 confirmed players of the same unknown alignment.

Neko: I'd swap my vote back onto implosion or Saint if it came to it, but I'd rather lynch Empking first because he's not only painfully scummy but also the most disruptive to the town.

Empking: Players have already provided a motive for scum in your position, and answered most of your other bad questions-instead-of-defences too. Desperately posting in large text is only drawing attention to this fact and that you continue lying.

[implosion]

Sorry about inactivity. I was at a debate tournament yesterday and Friday, and I got kind of lazy today...

Saint doesn't read as particularly scummy to me. After considering it a bit more, Saint's play doesn't really give me vibes that are necessarily scummy. Kind of strange, but I don't think scummy. So I'd lean town on that slot at this point.

You know what I notice about this answer? It doesn't comment on or even acknowledge (hey that sounds familiar) a single aspect of the case against Saint.

I've seen the case. It doesn't really convince me. I'm not going to go through and defend Saint, that's his job.

Doesn't really count as evidence though.

Okay, so if a whole wall of over half a dozen players all pointing out scummy aspects of Saint's play and asking questions that - again - Saint refuses to acknowledge (*inhale*) does

not

count as evidence, what actually does? Or would you like to go through the list and defend against each point individually?

Or I guess you could just go ahead and wave your hands some more, if you feel like that's helping.

There's no reason why a member of the mafia would be more likely to act the way Saint is than a member of the town, IMO. Why are you asking me to defend him? I think he's town, not particularly strongly, so why should I go out of my way to defend him?

More so than you posting full scumscales?

That was done very early on. Posting a scumscale on page two doesn't mean that I instantly want to lynch anyone on that scale. Saying "I'm willing to lynch a, b, c, or d" does.

Implosion, I asked you about the CASE on Saint, not Saint himself.

Saying that I think Saint is town should be equivalent to saying that I don't agree with the case on him.

On Emp's claim: honestly, I'm not sure if I believe it. He keeps saying that there's no scum motivation, but people have pointed out scum motivation several times. In fact, if there were no scum motivation for claiming mason, that in itself would be a scum motivation for claiming mason, because no town would expect scum to do it (ergo wifom). And more importantly, he just isn't fitting into what I've seen of town Emp.

Also, Setael is wrong. We DO NOT want Emp to claim his mason buddy (or for his mason buddy to claim). That would basically be a waste of a confirmed townie if Emp is real. Emp should just breadcrumb it in a way that only his mason buddy will be able to see. 2 masons would only be confirmed to each other - it's feasible that scum could gambit and claim masons (Nameless said this in the post above this). And in the case that Emp is real, there's really no need to. Besides, we

want

scum to cc his partner if he's real - ccs are good for the town.

@Neko - not sure if we would be able to come to a lynch. I think lynching Emp is the best choice.

ICE's last 3 posts all say the same thing over and over, by the way. ICE - is your "commanding case" on me based on anything other than what I said about the _over9000 wagon?

[KingTwelveSixteen]

...
A question for all (especially those voting Emp)--If Emp is indeed a mason and his partner were to claim, do you believe we will be able to agree on another lynch before deadline? At the moment, I don't see any clear direction that this would go except for a no-lynch or a hasty scramble for an alternative lynch.
...

Saint was at L-2 a while back, wasn't he? We might be able to lynch him.

There is no motive for scum to claim mason. Scum would rather draw the lynch today rather than allow us the chance to lynch

his buddy

today.

Buddy, singular? Not buddies?

[Setael]

There are 3 votes on nameless if I'm not mistaken. Anyone care to weigh in about him? Rather than just repeat over and over that we don't have time to get another wagon, how about commenting on some of the other wagons?

If emp is a mason, there is likely a cop that could look into it. Scum obviously are thrilled we're going to lynch a mason, but the townies at least should be seeking other alternatives. We likely have an investigative role that can check him out. Scum might take him out for us. If neither of these happen, he can always be lynched later. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell who's just being lazy town and who is scum because everyone is just saying "oh well. even if he's a mason let's just lynch him."

I don't know if his claim is true or not either, but I do know that it's stupid (or smart, if you're scum) to lynch a claimed mason when there are other ways of finding out if he's telling the truth or not.

[InflatablePie]

@Mod: V/LA from Tuesday until Friday. Gonna be on a road trip, don't have guaranteed internet.

I'll try to make a post sometime tomorrow, just got off from a LONG day at work and too tired to read.

(Yeah, I'm posting this in all my games.)

[Saint]

I'm here, catching up

[KingTwelveSixteen]

There are 3 votes on nameless if I'm not mistaken. Anyone care to weigh in about him?
...

I have a bit of a scummy read on him (coin-flips for voting are bad) but I would not be comfortable lynching him at this time.

...re-reading the earlier posts in this thread makes me realise how much my argument with Emp derailed everything productive.

[mb53]

I don't have much to add but...

I think this fight between Empking and king is going nowhere.

I didn't have time to re-read the thread today, but I promise I will tomorrow with everyone's thoughts on nameless/ICE in mind.

[Saint]

I kind of have to mimic the above post. I need to go back and read the last couple of pages properly. Skimming it, though, I saw there was a lot of pressure on EMPKing. Where it's 6am, I'm kind of on the run, but I am going to reiterate that I will be attempting to make a very good go at scumhunting shortly. Thanks.

[InflatablePie]

Pie made one of those scum-lists everyone has said not to make,

lol

but the main reason is thus:

*looks at OP* Oh look, mongoose is Empking. Okay.

UNVOTE: ICEninja
VOTE: Empking

...
I don't have a solid townread on Empking based on only his posts, either. So it's not like I'm voting Emp just because he's Emp (or because he's mongoose's replacement), but this realization doesn't exactly make me hesitate to vote him.
...

He says he's not doing it just 'cause he's mongoose's replacement, he's doing it because...he doesn't have a solid read on him, and he's mongoose's replacement.

I don't see the problem here. Like I said, I'm not voting Emp solely on the fact he's mongoose's replacement, but I also don't have a solid townread on him. I found him slightly scummy, so I voted. I still think he's scum, so I left my vote.

A question for all (especially those voting Emp)--If Emp is indeed a mason and his partner were to claim, do you believe we will be able to agree on another lynch before deadline? At the moment, I don't see any clear direction that this would go except for a no-lynch or a hasty scramble for an alternative lynch.

I would move to the next highest wagon to avoid a No Lynch. If Emp is town and has a partner, it's too dangerous for scum to leave a mason team alive just to try and frame them/get them mislynched. Which is why this post is laughable:

No. If Empking's buddy claims, we have 2 confirmed players of the same unknown alignment.

Scum claiming Mason is smart, having a scumbuddy claim Mason partner is just stupid, no matter what the ratio of town:scum is.

If emp is a mason, there is likely a cop that could look into it. Scum obviously are thrilled we're going to lynch a mason, but the townies at least should be seeking other alternatives. We likely have an investigative role that can check him out.

Unless we caught ourselves a Godfather.

[InflatablePie]

^Keep in mind the above reasoning in my @King response is concerning the point in the game where I voted Emp. Now I'm leaving my vote because I don't believe his mason claim (especially due to ll the WIFOM he's using to support his claim), as well as getting general scummy vibes. Just clarifying.