Open 302: JUNGLE REPUB nope game over! Party time!

[Empking]

Yes and you think I'm scummy for that. What do you think I did? That in ten minutes I looked at all the games in the last year, found that one and then pretended it was my third?

Dodge dodge dodge. Once again you don’t answer the question about how that game was the third one you looked at. Anyone with sense can see where it is in the Closed game list. No-where near the top.

Yet you keep trying to deflect by saying “Did I lie about it”.

Weren't you the one just banging the drum that not answering questions is a scum-tell?

When did I say that?

OK, let me get this right. You think that the game I showed was the third game I found. Like I said. Yet for some reason you want to know why it was that that was my third game?

1. Why do you want to know that?
2. I looked at the two recent games and noticed that the person attacked was always town. I then thought to myself: What open game has a large porportion of scum? And then decided to search for Lover*

Dodge dodge dodge. Because you can’t answer why you chose that game in any manner that makes sense.

Oh so you do think I'm lying? I read every game in the last year in no more than ten minutes?

Or why more recent closed games don’t show it. Where are the MANY other cases that you have been saying are obvious scum play?

Mind providing some evidence of that?

Because losing a werewolf day one is pretty much the death knell for werewolves in this game. Just like in that game!

This is self-evident stretching to justify your bad tactical choice.

Do you disagree with it?

[MagnaofIllusion]

1. Why do you want to know that?
2. I looked at the two recent games and noticed that the person attacked was always town. I then thought to myself: What open game has a large porportion of scum? And then decided to search for Lover*

1. Because it shows your motivations.
2. Aha, the light is shed. You looked at recent games and found they didn’t support your premise. So you went to the one game style where linked Mafians have an overwhelming motive to defend themselves … because they automatically die when one is lynched.

And now I think you are lying about the whole thing. I just ran a search of Central Park using Lover* as the criteria and only looked for Titles. 214 isn’t the first game that appears on that search … the more recently run 267 is.

Summary – I think you actively hunted a game that bears no resemblance to this game to prop up your argument that is clearly bad. And when called on it have made up some garbled explanation.

Oh so you do think I'm lying? I read every game in the last year in no more than ten minutes?

Of course not. I just explained exactly what you did.

Mind providing some evidence of that?

Evidence that your theory of Partner defending in the first 4 pages is complete crap? I’ve got all I need in your inability to provide evidence to support your position. You had the burden of proof and you’ve failed.

I'm done as I think it is pretty clear that you are scum who overreacted to early pressure and have continued to dig your hole deeper and deeper. I've let you suck me in again. VIs drive me nuts.

[Empking]

Would you mind explaining how that first example was not him blatantly implying something in order to be able to use his pet phrase "I didn't say that"?

This is how I interprated it:

Empking: What allignment is so afraid of 1 (one) vote that they wagon the largest wagon and try and discredit the person voting them?

Neil1113: The largest wagon? 2 votes? =

You consider two votes to be a large bandwagon?

My interpratation: I don't think he was questioning your statement that you were the largest bandwagon, but questioning why you think he would feel the need to join the largest bandwagon when it was only two votes in this case.

You mean all that was

implied

. Which ultimatyely was my point in the start.

[Empking]

1. Why do you want to know that?
2. I looked at the two recent games and noticed that the person attacked was always town. I then thought to myself: What open game has a large porportion of scum? And then decided to search for Lover*

1. Because it shows your motivations.
2. Aha, the light is shed. You looked at recent games and found they didn’t support your premise. So you went to the one game style where linked Mafians have an overwhelming motive to defend themselves … because they automatically die when one is lynched.

And now I think you are lying about the whole thing. I just ran a search of Central Park using Lover* as the criteria and only looked for Titles. 214 isn’t the first game that appears on that search … the more recently run 267 is.

Yes which means I put that in a new tab first and then new tabbed the second. This means surprise, surprise that 214 was the closest to the left and thus the first one I read.

Summary – I think you actively hunted a game that bears no resemblance to this game to prop up your argument that is clearly bad. And when called on it have made up some garbled explanation.

Oh so you do think I'm lying? I read every game in the last year in no more than ten minutes?

Of course not. I just explained exactly what you did.

So what was my motive to say "third" rather than "fourth"?

Mind providing some evidence of that?

Evidence that your theory of Partner defending in the first 4 pages is complete crap?

So the game I provided isn't evidence?

I've let you suck me in again. VIs drive me nuts.

Note how he';s using the

exact

same trick as neil. Almost as if he saw how well it worked for his scumbuddy and ecided to do it for himself.

[Empking]

1. Why do you want to know that?
2. I looked at the two recent games and noticed that the person attacked was always town. I then thought to myself: What open game has a large porportion of scum? And then decided to search for Lover*

1. Because it shows your motivations.
2. Aha, the light is shed. You looked at recent games and found they didn’t support your premise. So you went to the one game style where linked Mafians have an overwhelming motive to defend themselves … because they automatically die when one is lynched.

And now I think you are lying about the whole thing. I just ran a search of Central Park using Lover* as the criteria and only looked for Titles. 214 isn’t the first game that appears on that search … the more recently run 267 is.

Yes which means I put that in a new tab first and then new tabbed the second. This means surprise, surprise that 214 was the closest to the left and thus the first one I read.

Sorry. I misremembered. Though I did do that tab thing the actual reason why that one was first was due to me only looking in completed open games.

[neil1113]

Wow... I really have nothing to say here. Empking, you're really not making this game fun. I'm almost positive you'll flip as Mafia and not Werewolf, because of your slip up earlier. You knew we weren't Mafia, because you're Mafia and you know we're not your buddies. Now onto who are your buddies? I'm guessing TS is Werewolf, since you made an effort to call him scum as well.. and I'm still not sure who KD is...

[Empking]

Wow... I really have nothing to say here. Empking, you're really not making this game fun.

You make it your personal mission to try and annoy me to such a degree that another player thinks that we only consider each other scum because of an outside grudge yet

I'm

the one not making this game fun.

Such bull.

I'm almost positive you'll flip as Mafia and not Werewolf, because of your slip up earlier. You knew we weren't Mafia, because you're Mafia and you know we're not your buddies.

Or I know you're not Mafia because you're pretty obviously wolves? That seems a bit more likely to me.

Now onto who are your buddies? I'm guessing TS is Werewolf, since you made an effort to call him scum as well.. and I'm still not sure who KD is...

See does anybody buy that?

[cjdrum]

Bloody hell, I sleep, wake up, find this?

Empking and MOI are arguing now. Again, probably not a Town on Town fight.
So either Empking is scum, or Neil and MOI are scum.

OBV MOST PROBABLE CHOICE IS OBV.
VOTE: Empking

He's been arguing like nothing else and it's like he

wants

to be killed. Town doesn't

want

to be killed. Scum don't

want

to be killed, but can sacrifice one of their two (or... three?) to get what they want.

They could've decided last night that Empking would be the scapegoat.
PEdit: Dammit, D1. Never mind.

Actually...

Mod: Did the Mafia and Werewolves get to talk before the game started? Or is that only for each Night?

[Umbrage]

Empking (5) - MagnaofIllusion, neil1113, DeityKabuto, cjdrum, HezLucky
DeityKabuto (2) - Sloth, Caboose
Twistedspoon (2) - zMuffinMan, Wickedestjr
neil1113 (2) - Empking, Regfan
HezLucky (1) - Twistedspoon

Btw, host, could you please list the people Not Posting/Inactives in the next vote count?

I allow 48 hours to pass before I send a prod. So far, I haven't had to send any. When I do, I will say so. Wickedestjr has declared he will have limited access for the next few days, so he is currently exempt from this rule.

[zMuffinMan]

MoI is pretty clearly winning this argument against Empking. I'm really not convinced that MoI is right, but I am convinced that MoI is a lot better at arguing.

Yes which means I put that in a new tab first and then new tabbed the second. This means surprise, surprise that 214 was the closest to the left and thus the first one I read.

Granted, the point about it being the "third" game he looked at is irrelevant and I don't know why MoI keeps pushing it, you ignored the main point... The game you looked at was one in which scum had vested interest in keeping their partner alive because they died with their partner... It's a different situation. You can't just say it's the same because it's not ideal for a werewolf to die on D1... Or, well, you can, but it's a pretty poor argument.

I have two problems with this. First of all, this is IIoA. He points this out but doesn't give any opinion on it. Secondly, this is opportunistic, because he thinks it is possible that Twistedspoon could be scum feigning ignorance of his role, but made no mention of neil1113 despite there being more evidence of this exact same point against him

I found it ironic that TS was criticising neil for doing it while it appears he was doing it himself. I regarded it as a null tell, but TS himself didn't, which is why I found it interesting, but that in and of itself is not why I'm voting for TS. I dislike his early play, trying to put pressure on someone for a poor reason, and I dislike that since then he has just been sitting back and not posting anything relevant.

[HezLucky]

Okay guys, I hate spam walls to death and will be weary of joining games in the future with these players. Nevertheless, here's what I picked up upon a thorough reread of the earlier parts of the game: [[Disclaimer: I have only read the first three pages thoroughly, the rest has been largely skimmed at best. Thanks for the spam wall guys]]

- Something about MAGNA OF ILLUSION's post #8 makes me really uncomfortable. I'm not sure what.
- I am familiar with Empking's style. I will not oppose pressure on Empking in future games because this
is far more activity than I am used to seeing out of him. So good work, everyone. (Although I am in the
"Empking is not a good day one policy lynch" meta, though I will happily subscribe to the "Empking is a
good day one policy pressure" meta)
- Twistedspoon's early posts are HEAVILY WIFOM. I'm not sure what my stance on WIFOM as a scum tell is,
but I certainly won't lynch based just on that.
- Neil wants to essentially policy lynch Empking. [[NB: point below. I have the sneaking feeling Neil would be happy with a Day 1 Empking lynch regardless of role, though]]

Those were some of my thoughts as I was reading the game. Then I came across:

- Post #66/#67 - Magna's post explaining why Neil is putting pressure on Empking, which is exactly what
I thought of BEFORE I read this post and makes complete sense, is something that doesn't make sense to
Empking? WTF? His response is highly abnormal. He's arguing it as if he disagrees. 2b is NOT an absurd
misrepresentation, as Empking calls it, but a highly relevant point. If I've learned one
thing about Empking on this site it is that I tend to agree with him, so his response is setting off
a huge alarm in my head.

Unvote, Vote: Empking

That's five.

[Empking]

Hez: When did I ever say that neil was calling me scum for my playstyle? Its irrelevant and an absurd misrepresentation of the point.

[Empking]

Bloody hell, I sleep, wake up, find this?

Empking and MOI are arguing now. Again, probably not a Town on Town fight.
So either Empking is scum, or Neil and MOI are scum.

I'm going to hold you to that.

Hez: Why are you saying that you're annoyed about the spam but look favourable on neil and MOI doing what they did to cause the spam? (I'm a simple creature. Whenever I'm suspicious of someone who refuses to scumhunt or answer my questions I post like that. Its a habit IO try to avoid.)

[Wickedestjr]

Mod: I'm going to have limited access the next three days. I should be able to post a little bit during that time, but I'm very busy right now and I'm likely to fall behind.

[DeityKabuto]

@MagnaofIllusion

On one of your recent large posts, you said how did I confront Empking if I've never played a town role?

Well, anyone can confront somebody, I just didn't want to start my own case between him as how the pages are going by fast, and I still have to read everything from yesterday.

[Wickedestjr]

Is there anything illogical about being suspicious of somebody engaging in extreme trickery so they can avoid having to answer an awkward question?

In this case, yes: I don't think Neil deliberately avoided your question, but I do think you were illogical to assume that he did rather than clarify the question.

Yes, because I need more information directly from Hez to help form a read on his alignment. I don’t at this point feel the need to get that same bit of information from the others.

Why Hez in particular?

The question to you – you agree that suspecting Neil on that basis was not good as it was a bad scum-tell. Or at least I thought you did. We tell Twisted this. When the game starts he doesn’t RVS Neil on that basis. You find that scummy?

Yes. While we may have convinced Twistedspoon that it was a null tell, I still thought that he was going to vote Neil for an RVS bandwagon, and was surprised when he didn't. Empking had voted Neil at the time of his RVS vote, so it wasn't as if there wasn't interest in a bandwagon on Neil. Also, even if we had convinced him not to vote Neil, the vote for HezLucky was still suspicious because we didn't convince him that a

bandwagon

was a bad idea. So, if he was interested in an RVS bandwagon, why didn't he vote for Empking, who, at the time, had three votes already?

@Wicked – What do you think of CJ?

Neutral, leaning newbscum. I don't have a very strong read though. Also, what do you think of zMuffinMan and the points I brought up?

I'm still behind, but found time to post this.

[Empking]

Is there anything illogical about being suspicious of somebody engaging in extreme trickery so they can avoid having to answer an awkward question?

In this case, yes: I don't think Neil deliberately avoided your question, but I do think you were illogical to assume that he did rather than clarify the question.

Is this a joke? What do you call bolding and enlarging the crucial word if not clarifying the question? You have to remember, I didn't just decide that neil was dodging the question I gave him the benefit of the doubt before it was clear that there was no other explaination than neil being scum.

Any why has neil yet to answer the question? Is it still unclear?

[Wickedestjr]

Everybody: I want you to look at the second quote in MOI's post and then look at my actual post. He took at the quote I was responding to in order to change my point completely.

I'm not seeing this.

Wicked; MOI called my question leading, loaded and incomprehensibly worded. When asked why it was those things he refused to answer. Why do you think that is?

Tbh, I can see why he didn't respond. I think your questions were loaded and

were

pretty much fluff.

If it was the second why would I bold and enlarge the word "say"?

I'm

not completely sure why you bolded and enlarged the word "say". What

was

that even supposed to indicate?

Scum getting attacked early doesn't happen early. Two men scum teams don't happen that often. I read very slowly. But this was thethird game I looked at and Hoopla in this game defended Haylen from a random vote.

1. Hoopla wasn't defending Haylen, but simply questioning the vote for her.
2. The vote for Haylen was

random

.
3. This game happened over a year ago. I find it hard to believe that it was the third game you checked. How did you find that game? What were the other two games you looked at? Also, please tell me, why did you chose this game in particular to look at? Has a scum never defended their buddy blatantly from a serious accusation early in any of

your

previous games?

Any examples of games where a scum has blatantly defended their buddy from a serious accusation early in the game?

[Regfan]

But he didn't say that. He said that he would regret it. This is called a lie because if he would regret it then he wouldn't have gotten into it. Surely lies in order to get sympathy are scummy?

This is incorrect logic, let me explain why. I know I'm going to regret going to university every day because my uni lecturers are incredibly bad, however I still go, is me going a lie? No. Is me stating that I'm going to regret going a lie? No.

Also, the fact that there are two mafia parties in this holds no ressemblence to a "Lovers" mafia game whatsoever, wolves are going to play the exact same way mafia would in this situation, there's no reason for them not to. Even if their partner gets lynched they know town still have to mafia-hunt.

I suspect Twistedspoon as well, but how was his vote over-eager and opportunistic?

He jumped and voted Neil before the game had even started, what way isn't that over-eager? Also, my gut scumread on you was becuase your ISO posts #1-6 all resemble coaching rather than actually scum-hunting. It's been slightly reduced since however I'd like for you to go into your town-read on MoI for me.

I also want to ISO Deity, except his only posts are concerning Emp. I don't think he warrants much of a ISO, or a concern... not saying he reads town for me though. I can definitely see him being scum.

Let me get this right. You want to ISO Deity, you don't think ISO'ing him is worthwhile but you can see him as scum? That makes no sense whatsoever and screams of an attempt to seem as if you've scumhunting.

Unvote: TwistedSpoon
Vote: Neil113

[Empking]

Everybody: I want you to look at the second quote in MOI's post and then look at my actual post. He took at the quote I was responding to in order to change my point completely.

I'm not seeing this.

You're not seeing how he changed the quote or you're not seeing how taking away the quote changed what the word "it" referred to?

Wicked; MOI called my question leading, loaded and incomprehensibly worded. When asked why it was those things he refused to answer. Why do you think that is?

Tbh, I can see why he didn't respond. I think your questions were loaded and

were

pretty much fluff.

What was loaded about them and what was flufff about them?

MOI: Your question was X.
Me; Why was it X?

If it was the second why would I bold and enlarge the word "say"?

I'm

not completely sure why you bolded and enlarged the word "say". What

was

that even supposed to indicate?

That the important thing was why he

said

something rather than why he

thought

something. (Which was the unrelated question he was answering.)

Scum getting attacked early doesn't happen early. Two men scum teams don't happen that often. I read very slowly. But this was thethird game I looked at and Hoopla in this game defended Haylen from a random vote.

1. Hoopla wasn't defending Haylen, but simply questioning the vote for her.

Why did Hoopla do that? To find out the voter's alignment?

2. The vote for Haylen was

random

.

Your point?

3. This game happened over a year ago. I find it hard to believe that it was the third game you checked.

I want you to check three games for whether there was defending day one. Tell me how long it takes.

How did you find that game?

By searching "lover*" in the Completed Open Game section.

What were the other two games you looked at?

Two recently completed normal games. I can't remember which two.

Also, please tell me, why did you chose this game in particular to look at? Has a scum never defended their buddy blatantly from a serious accusation early in any of

your

previous games?

Do you remember the intimate details of the games you've played?

Any examples of games where a scum has blatantly defended their buddy from a serious accusation early in the game?

Why does this matter?

This is incorrect logic, let me explain why. I know I'm going to regret going to university every day because my uni lecturers are incredibly bad, however I still go, is me going a lie? No. Is me stating that I'm going to regret going a lie? No.

It is a lie or at the very least a miswording (unless you're irrational).

[Regfan]

The argument that X is defending Y and Y is mafia therefore X must be mafia too holds no ground nor does the argument X is defending Y and Y is mafia therefore it's impossible for X and Y to be buddies.

I've seen both occur in previous games that I've witnessed, for example in this game Reck defended Dram almost throughout the entire game, in this particular case the fact it's a lovers game is meaningless because Dram/Reck weren't lover partners.

[Empking]

The argument that X is defending Y and Y is mafia therefore X must be mafia too holds no ground nor does the argument X is defending Y and Y is mafia therefore it's impossible for X and Y to be buddies.

I you taking into account the fact that MOI doesn't want to interact with Neil and the fact that along with an opaque defense he also engages in a chainsaw defence.

I've seen both occur in previous games that I've witnessed, for example in this game Reck defended Dram almost throughout the entire game, in this particular case the fact it's a lovers game is meaningless because Dram/Reck weren't lover partners.

I counterexample does not discredit the entire thing. I've seen people fake claim as town does that mean that fake claiming isn't a scum tell?

Oy yeah: Wicked I've just realized that you asking for an example of a defence of a serious point during a period of time where its unlikely to have serious points.

[neil1113]

I also want to ISO Deity, except his only posts are concerning Emp. I don't think he warrants much of a ISO, or a concern... not saying he reads town for me though. I can definitely see him being scum.

Let me get this right. You want to ISO Deity, you don't think ISO'ing him is worthwhile but you can see him as scum? That makes no sense whatsoever and screams of an attempt to seem as if you've scumhunting.

Unvote: TwistedSpoon
Vote: Neil113

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which of this seems to come from scum motivation, therefore I don't know how to adequately defend myself? Twisted hasn't really posted anything of value that I remember seeing (which his ISO proved when I did ISO him), and so I was posting my thought process. I didn't think I'd find much from TS, therefore I was stating I don't think he causes reason for a concern because I've noticed a band wagon forming on him and I didn't find him to be lynch-worthy when you have scum like Emp in the game? That's what I was trying to clarify with that post. The last bit was me clarifying that I wasn't calling him town for lurking, and he could indeed be found scummy, but when you have someone like Emp in the game and you can only lurk at Twisted? That seems kind of blatantly ignorant to me.

Emp, I still don't understand what you're asking? What specifically do you want to know from that question, what's the point in asking me this question, and why do you only choose to clarify when everyone ELSE calls you scummy, but not when I asked originally? When I asked you blew it off, and called me scummy. Are you now prepared to explain?

[HezLucky]

Hez: When did I ever say that neil was calling me scum for my playstyle? Its irrelevant and an absurd misrepresentation of the point.

What? When did I ever say this? Your question is an absurd misrepresentation of the point.

Hez: Why are you saying that you're annoyed about the spam but look favourable on neil and MOI doing what they did to cause the spam? (I'm a simple creature. Whenever I'm suspicious of someone who refuses to scumhunt or answer my questions I post like that. Its a habit IO try to avoid.)

I hate hate hate hate hate the spam but I can't lynch off spam. If you lynch everyone who urks you that is a quick way to lose the game. The only thing I can do is meta them out of future games I play.
On the other hand, your sixth ISO made me highly uncomfortable, as explained above, and the seventh basically sealed the deal. You were pressured and I did not at all like your response.

[Empking]

Emp, I still don't understand what you're asking?

Everybody: Do you notice how neil either knows or doesn't know whether or not he understands what I'm asking but rather than saying either way whether he knows or not he instead adds a question mark to it so he can't later be called out on it whether he knows or not?

What specifically do you want to know from that question, what's the point in asking me this question,

By goshy want me to make a model answer for you while I'm at it?

and why do you only choose to clarify when everyone ELSE calls you scummy, but not when I asked originally?

1. If I clarified after everyone else calls me scummy then why don't you understand it? Doesn't really make much sense.
2. I clarified

twice

before anybody added any extra votes to me.

When I asked you blew it off, and called me scummy.

You mean clarified twice.

Are you now prepared to explain?

I thought I already chose "to clarify when everyone ELSE calls you scummy"?