Is there any indication that your martyr death will have a different style of write-up then a death where you're killed by scum? So that the rest of us could differentiate between you using your ability and you being killed by scum.dejkha wrote:You mean would it sound like I sound my ability in the flavor text? I don't think I understand what you mean...
This is a terrible post, because it's a complete setup for someone to ask, "Why will you be of more use tomorrow?". From there you have two responses I can see..Riceballtail wrote:Actual post coming later, but for now, I can definitely say I will be of more use tomorrow. I also find the case against me to be a weak and easy wagon to get rolling. If you honestly think that you can think clearly when you are upset about something, then I don't know how you do it. Anyway, more later, mkay?
No, she said you were scum because you were pushing hardest on the Post-Restriction claim. And considering you said...Empking wrote: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.
RBT's statement seems pretty accurate and your last post appears to be a feeble attempt at an evasion.I want RBT to either unarguably claim PRed or stop it.
Which was because of my misread, I didn't think RBT had claimed anything other than her post restriction and her character so with that in mind Empking's statement would be suspicious because in Danny's world of make believe it wasn't a full claim. However, when I went back and re-read RBT's post and realized she had claimed vanilla that I realized I was in the wrong. Just a dumb mistake really.GhostWriter wrote:I don't think that's nearly as bad as you attempting to set up Empking on something weak like this:Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:I am in fact incorrect, I went back and looked closer at RBT's post and she claimed vanilla. I missed that on first go around, apologies.
Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Empking wrote:Her full claim suggests she thought I was pushing for a full claim.Wasn't really a full claim if she didn't claim her power role now is it?Empking wrote:She didn't claim her Power Role.
I was looking for inconsistencies and weak arguments, not just to blithely attack someone. I was reading Empking's posts, because of RBT's suspicion, in the context of Empking's posts when based on one of his posts I made an incorrect assumption. It's not like I'm trying to hide that fact though or argue the point anyways, made a mistake, it happens sometimes.RestFermata wrote:It kind of looks like DDD wasn't reading, just looking for reasons to attack other players. Why trust someone else's second-hand information when you can go back and read? That tickles my scumdar.
Fluffy words that mean nothing and simply give the appearance of being pro-town, not something a townie has to do.I think the RBT lynch was unfortunate.
You suggest I was fence-sitting, but then you claim I used (some) sound arguments and some policy-ish arguments. If I was clearly making arguments for the lynch, then I wasn't really fence-sitting was I? I was promoting the lynch. It looks like you're simply adding in more things to indict me on instead trying to find the truth.The only person I'm really suspicious right now is DDD. I know he's a popular suspect right now, but beyond the fact that he somehow totally missed RBT's claim--which was a main reason for his initial suspicion, by the way--his posts are somehow strange. He did some quality fence-riding in his support of the RBT lynch, hopping on the wagon without really selling it. Some of his arguments were sound (though previously stated), but some of his logic bordered on "policy lynch" territory:
Yes, I'm blaming the deadline for the lynch to a large degree. I came into the game four days before deadline, Dej was just at L-1 and all the suspicion quickly flowed from him to RBT after Dej's claim and by the time that bandwagon had reached critical mass there was basically no time left to find another target even if we wanted to. So at that point it became an issue of lynching RBT vs. no lynch, where the lynch of RBT was better, but wasn't the best option.RestFermata wrote:It almost seems like you're blaming his lynch on the deadline. It strikes me as "backing away from it" a little bit.
If I "honestly" missed the roleclaim (and I did) as you state then that would make it a mistake. Yet you insist on calling it selective reading like I willfully avoided the post. Furthermore, as far as I can see "selective reading" would be a null-tell anyways, since it doesn't help town or scum.I believe that DDD honestly missed the roleclaim, caf. I think that's just as suspicious as ignoring it, because it suggests that he is selectively reading, as I stated before.
When you've posted you've seemingly made good faith efforts to find scum (at least to my eye). As I noted with nico a large portion of her similarly few posts have had no content in them whatsoever and the quote I pulled from her looks mighty suspicious to me and you haven't done anything of the sort.GhostWriter wrote:DDD, other than what you said in post 349, is there anything else to separate me, who you had leaning towards town, from her?
I don't care for how you've phrased that, makes it seem like I willfully disregarded him which isn't the case.caf19 wrote:incidentally, DDD's only mention of Eso is calling him scummy in 349. But in his next post he chooses to vote nicolio over Eso. DDD: what made nico more scummy than Eso?
Maybe I overquoted what I was really objecting to. The phrase that bothered me was, "DDD's only mention of Eso..." Which makes it appear as if I was willfully ignoring Eso other than that single point, when the you could sub in at least three or four other players into the quote and it'd still be accurate. I'm having trouble phrasing this last part, but basically making such a post is attempting to link me to Eso by ignoring or forgetting the context of the situation. The situation being that I'm a later replacement in the game and have few links with any player.caf19 wrote:I'm not sure I follow you... Still, it means I have to consider you as a potential Eso-buddy.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:I don't care for how you've phrased that, makes it seem like I willfully disregarded him which isn't the case.
In general I think alot of the grief he's given is unwarranted. In this game he doesn't seem to be doing so well in finding scum, clearly missing with his two targets yesterday and continuing this trend with being incorrect in thinking I'm scum. It appears to me that his vote on me is nothing more than OMGUS which isn't particularly helpful to the town, but seems to fit within his general style. If pressed I'd say he's town, but that's based more on the likely distribution of roles and a lack of scumtells then any real conviction that he's with the town.Spolium wrote:@DDD - analysis on Empking, plz
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.Empking wrote:Hoew is it OMGUS?
Still a non-starter for me. Looking at D2 my focus was drawn by two players based off their current postings. Why didn't I find Eso incredibly noteworthy prior to my isolated reading? Because he didn't post anything noteworthy to draw my attention which was clearly his intention when looking back at his D2 posts.I see. Well, you are indeed a replacement, but that doesn't really weaken my point. You'd found time to express thoughts on RBT, Empking and Rest before that post, so it's clear that you didn't find Eso incredibly noteworthy prior to then. Also, that bit wasn't the most important part of the argument (the most important part being that you voted for nico over Eso, obv).
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.Empking wrote: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.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.Empking wrote:Hoew is it OMGUS?
I think I've translated your arguments into logical statements here...Empking wrote: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.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: 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.
You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?Empking wrote:You can't know intent (apart from your own). You have to look at actions.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Correct, but what role does intent factor into the equation?Empking wrote:Not so there's a difference between an unarguably incorrect argument and a arguably correct argument against town.
Seriously? You think I'm scum (or at least that it's a good argument) because I was exploring what I thought was a possible contradiction/pressuring a fellow player? I could see that argument having some validity if I had pushed for Empking's lynch or tried to railroad him in the process, but that's simply not the case here.caf19 wrote:Incidentally, Emp, I don't know why you didn't mention that part of your reasoning earlier.This seems like a better reason to pursue DDD for his attack, not the fact that he made an error.Empking wrote:Even if you were right then the thing I did was very minor and would more likely come from scum than town
Sure, but in some cases one option makes far more or less sense than the others in which case it's easy and often correct to use that as an assumption or toss it out as unlikely.Empking wrote:I look at possible intents but you can't know the player's intent.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?
And I've already debated/refuted those arguments, if you want to go back to them feel free to bring them up, but I'm not going to bring them up when I'm arguing a completely seperate line of logic.caf19 wrote:Please don't exaggerate my arguments or reduce them to one point. I've outlined previously why I consider you a scum candidate - your eagerness to get on the RBT wagon with scant reasoning, and potential buddy behaviour with Eso, form the main points.
And it could be I was exploring a percieved contradiction that another player had made which would be perfectly reasonable behavior, but because you already lean towards me being scum you view it through those tinted glasses instead of examining the reality of the situation.The action of yours that we're arguing on here could be a continuation of the first of those two - looking to build pressure on Emp using something as small as a bit of semantic pedantry - but it's not a central part of what makes me 'think you are scum' (and by the way there's a big gap between thinking you're scum and thinking someone else makes a decent argument, it's odd that you put the two together like that).
I chose that quote because I believed it to be generally a decent summation of the larger post. That the point against me was not that I was wrong in my argument, but that I was pressuring Empking at all. I was not attempting to exaggerate your claims, merely distilling the point down to a few lines for ease of use.The part of my post that you quoted was an address to Empking about how I thought that part of his post was better than the other part and why he didn't mention it before. I would have addressed it to you if it was a major part of my case. You claim that people are exaggerating your minor suspicion into a tunneling/lynch attempt, but you're bordering on doing the same to me here.
And I don't like your arguments so much.I don't like DDD's defences much.
At least this is consistent with your stance on RBT.At the same time, though, it's 5 days to deadline and there are still several very quiet people in the game. I don't see much changing in the next five days, so I'm not entirely happy with just plodding towards a DDD lynch in the current timeframe.
My point is that any good player can spin basically any point, post, or argument so that itcaf19 wrote:DDD, as for my use of 'could' and speculation, isn't that what town play is all about? I don'tknowanything about your alignment - only the scum have such knowledge. What I can do is assess your likelihood of being scum through how closely your behaviour resembles a scum behavioural profile, and that's what I'm attempting to do. Just because I choose not to phrase my case in needlessly dichotomous "yes" and "no" terms doesn't make it useless.
Besides being mildly suspicious it was just to demonstrate again that could isn't really good enough. I mean if you're pro-town and do X, it's tough to turn around and suggest I'm scum for doing X because in this case it would be clearly demonstrated that such action could easily be the action of a pro-town player.As for my alleged hypocrisy, well you do have a point that I did a similar thing. It was crappy play from me I guess, although at the time I was being rushed by dej's claim and the impending deadline. I can't fully exonerate you, though, because that's not how the "you did it too" defence works.
My point wasn't that it was an unreasonable argument because it was perfectly reasonable. My points were that is was incorrect and that it failed to meet a higher burden of proof than mere possibility.Spolium wrote:- I don't understand DDD's reaction to Caf's #382. Caf's observations were valid, and his conclusion (that DDD must be considered a possible Eso-buddy) is one which any sane townie could reach, irresepective of whether the same argument could be applied to other players who didn't have much of a stance on Eso.
And I continue to get in trouble for asking questions. Empking said that you can't know other people's intents and thus all you have are actions, the logical follow-up is to learn if he considers intentions at all so I can better tailor any arguments presented to or about Empking.- #395 strikes me as an attempt to spin what Empking said into something with which other players would most likely disagree. Needless to say, Empking clearly did not imply what DDD was suggesting in that post.
Wait, what? I think I spent the last two pages or so solely talking about myself and defending myself, but I'm "not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble"?- DDD's #411 is the best point he's made in his defence, but it seems to betoo little, too late, and in itself puts a dent in my view that he was not primarily concerned with getting himself out of trouble, as does this:
A) Has asking nicely gotten people to contribute, Spolium? Does the deadline on this game seem to compel people to action? No and no, what might compel them to participate? A demonstrated willingness to vote or even lynch them for that behavior.Are you serious? A POLICY LYNCH? If we mislynch today, we'll be in lylo tomorrow. Worse, if there are actually THREE scum (a definite possibility, since the town appears to be power role heavy), then we're in lyloDDD wrote:Vote: ZazieR
She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game.If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.right now.
This is too much like an attempt to justify a townie lynch without actually presenting a case, and I don't like the forced "we, the town" rhetoric.vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro
I've asked him to establish that my actions are not just possibly those of scum because any compotent player can do that (see my faux-case on caf for an example), I'm asking him to establish that they are the likely actions of scum.Spolium wrote:Pointing out that a reasonable point is invalid because "it's incorrect" is entirely redundant. Scum can take that stance just as easily as town. When it comes down to it, this counter-argument amounts to "prove it" - well, if anything in mafia could be proven so easily, we'd hit mafia every time.
And if the questioning had been about you or caf or most other players it would've gone in completely different directions and that question would've likely been unneccesary. However, with Empking I'm not sure what goes on beyond the one line posts and since he doesn't spell out anything more than exactly what you ask, sometimes it's neccesary to ask the smallest things so you don't make a fault assumption.When one analyses actions, they are seeking true intent. That's the whole point of focusing on actions and behaviour.
You said to Empking:You're telling me you never try to understand someone's intent? That you never explore people's possible motivations for their actions?
You seem like an insightful chap, so this seems more like a deliberate attempt at misrepresenting Empking's argument and drag the conversation around in circles than a request for clarification.
I see, unfortunately for me the two players that I found most likely to be scum were both modkilled and half the town has stopped posting and the other half seems most interested in me, so I don't exactly see many good options other than to answer the points brought against me and see if that leads to any interesting points. I wish I could be more aggressive and put forth arguments against other people, but I'm not going put forth arguments I don't believe or support just to appear that way.I meant this within the context of #362, where I indicated why I felt that you seemed town enough to swap my vote off you (essentially, due to good cases you presented on others). Since then, your arguments/defence have been a great deal weaker, more like you're grasping at straws than anything else.
If you actually believed that then why didn't you step in and either present another candidate for lynch or push the idea of a no lynch instead of just sitting back and letting it happen?ZazieR wrote:You explained this later. I do think it's a weak reason for lynching RBT.DDD wrote:As it stands however, I believe RBT is the best choice today; she’s provided next to no content other than agreeing when it’s easy and convenient to do so; making it obvious she’s still around but simply and willfully not participating. Also, if we assume her post restriction is authentic then her lynch would be helpful in at very least eliminating how the town is broken up between scum and town.
Because the more information we have the better off we are, it's a very simple principle. Even things we don't think are terribly important might hold the key to figuring everything out.Very innocent question at first sight, but in the end it's not. Can you tell me why town-Spolium would have liked to know the answer to this?Spolium wrote:Dej, was there any hint that your death would be significantly different flavour-wise, when triggered by your ability?
The same goes for DDD: Why would town-DDD would have liked to know the answer to this?
(I know Spolium gave an answer, however I'd like to know from him why it matters to a town player if scum did or did not perform a kill.)
If you actually believed that then why didn't you step in and either present another candidate for lynch or push the idea of a no lynch instead of just sitting back and letting it happen?This combined with DDD's second post, screams scum to me.DDD wrote:Yes, I'm blaming the deadline for the lynch to a large degree. I came into the game four days before deadline, Dej was just at L-1 and all the suspicion quickly flowed from him to RBT after Dej's claim and by the time that bandwagon had reached critical mass there was basically no time left to find another target even if we wanted to. So at that point it became an issue of lynching RBT vs. no lynch, where the lynch of RBT was better, but wasn't the best option.
Fail. Doesn't take into account that I had thought there was a real contradiction there, hence I thought the point was relevant to my mind.I'm in the mood for some circular logic hereDDD wrote:Seriously? You think I'm scum (or at least that it's a good argument) because I was exploring what I thought was a possible contradiction/pressuring a fellow player? I could see that argument having some validity if I had pushed for Empking's lynch or tried to railroad him in the process, but that's simply not the case here.Here it comes:
Because you can see the validity in the argument only if you had pushed an Empking lynch, you decided not to do it in order to avoid suspicion.
I'm sorry that I interrupted your laziness. My point was to do exactly what it did, to give you a reason to step back into the game and actually participate.Yeah, use the difficult words on the Dutch girlDDD wrote:Vote: ZazieR
She has posts since her last post in here so it's not that she simply hasn't been around, it's that she's chosen to not involve herself further in the game. If we the town don't create a disincentive for this sort of behavior then we implicitly condone it.
I don't like to read many pages when I'm busy with other stuff. The mod knows about this, and the co-mod especially.
What's your point actually with this vote?
FuzzyLightning hadn't posted anywhere for five days after his first post in this game. He clearly had gone missing from the site as a whole at that point, thus voting for him was stupid since what he actually needed a prod/replacement. You on the other hand had been participating in other games since your last post, you were just choosing to ignore this one and such behavior is not helpful to the town at all.So, you're just gonna vote a player who hasn't been posting. In other words, you're doing the same you criticised Eso for. Noted.DDD wrote:Look at it from my perspective Spolium, if the day continues on as it has then I get inevitably lynched because I'm apparently the only serious candidate today, except I know I'm pro-town, so if I don't do something to get the game moving then all those bad things about being in LYLO, well they happen anyways.
ZazieR wrote:Misrep. Your reason for voting RBT was weak. I never said that the general case against RBT was weak.If you actually believed that then why didn't you step in and either present another candidate for lynch or push the idea of a no lynch instead of just sitting back and letting it happen?
My best work ever? No. But hardly the atrocity some of you people seem to be claiming it is.me wrote:As for targets I like the arguments put forward by Spolium about his target [263]... but those are minor things compared to the arguments presented against RBT.
As it stands however, I believe RBT is the best choice today; she’s provided next to no content other than agreeing when it’s easy and convenient to do so; making it obvious she’s still around but simply and willfully not participating. Also, if we assume her post restriction is authentic then her lynch would be helpful in at very least eliminating how the town is broken up between scum and town.
Wall-E already noted that it's not a fallacy, though it is vague. I'll also note that while I was interested in the answer, my part in it was to clarify what Spolium had asked so Dej could understand it. I'll also reiterate that I'm not going to turn down any piece of information which might help us catch scum.Sure, keep it vague. Just tell how this information would have helped us. Everyone can say:
'This information is helpful, because information is helpful'. That's a fallacy.
Apparently, considering I've been hit on all sides on the point it's quite possible that I'm a little defensive about the point.Did you actually take that part serious?
A coincidence then, how lovely.No, your vote didn't have that effect.
It demonstrates an unwillingness to help the town find scum, it slows up the game for everyone making it that much harder for the game to proceed in any fashion, and it limits the information the town has to make the proper decisions.Before I get into this, was it scummy of me to ignore this game? And why?
Had to give it some thought as to positives and negatives. In the end I don't think it's a good idea. If the town is fragmented at all after the claims it'll likely lead to an easy scum victory, as will the town taking off together in the wrong direction. I think these are more likely to occur then the town moving in lockstep to victory. Furthermore, it seems possible as Spolium noted to link names and roles, so by undertaking this plan it could give inadvertently give scum the most important information they don't have.Also, I asked everyone to give their thoughts about a massclaim. Why didn't you answer that, and what's your opinion of it?
467 touches on it, basically I had agreed with Spolium's points (which covered most everything raised about RBT) and added two more of my own. Thus the reason for my vote included the general case that had been laid out, so if my case was weak then the town's case was weak in which case why didn't Zazier say anything. If she was talking about just my points I don't think they were that weak and that ignores a large portion of the arguments I was basing my vote off of.Wall-E wrote:DDD: Any response to this or did I miss one?
Lame answer for a lame question: Because I'm looking for scum and addressing all questions and arguments tossed my way.Spolium wrote:@DDD- What reason have we to believe you're town? Please summarise.
I never stated or implied that was a shortlist of who I believe scum to be, it's a shortlist of people that I want Spolium's thoughts on however. Interesting how you made that leap though.Wall-E wrote:Woah, DDD. The scum are me and two others? That's interesting. Please expound to me upon why I am included in your shortlist?
Congratulations, you've unraveled the great mystery that I overthink most everything I do.I was with you until you started to WIFOM up your post with all this, "Correct Answer:" stuff and talking about yourself as if unaware of your own alignment (?). Buzz buzz, that's bad stuff to hear.
Sure, but the real reason behind that is Empking pushing falsehoods as truth and as a reason for voting. Which, while more egregious in this case than my own this isn't his first go around with such behavior in this game.Spolium wrote:The majority of my case is based on Empking's "the mod is lying" approach. How could I have built it before he started pushing that angle?Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Given that I find it a touch curious that Spolium only builds his Empking case when he himself was the target of attack.
Doesn't reflect well on you, if you're so locked into one individual that you're missing suspect behavior from others.From my own POV, at the time I was more concerned about you being scum (that's how my read on you was leaning).DDD wrote:When Empking was pushing similarly one dimenionsal arguments about me, everyone seemed content to let it happen and wrote it off as playstyle to a large degree.
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.Spolium wrote: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.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Sure, but the real reason behind that is Empking pushing falsehoods as truth and as a reason for voting. Which, while more egregious in this case than my own this isn't his first go around with such behavior in this game.Spolium wrote:The majority of my case is based on Empking's "the mod is lying" approach. How could I have built it before he started pushing that angle?
I can understand why I drew your and other people's attention, but that doesn't excuse neglecting the anti-town behavior of another player. Neither does claiming "other people did it too".Look, as far as I'm concerned you were both grey areas, but in terms of playstyle Empking is close to unreadable - I'm not the only one who has been guilty of giving him a wide berth on this basis. On the other hand, your tone is - by your own admission - stilted/awkward, and you overthink everything you do then post it. These factors grabbed my attention a lot more.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:Doesn't reflect well on you, if you're so locked into one individual that you're missing suspect behavior from others.From my own POV, at the time I was more concerned about you being scum (that's how my read on you was leaning).
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).Wall-E wrote: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.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.Spolium wrote: 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.
First, as I already said, I don't think either of the other options were good ones. With myk's vote on caf, caf is at least a viable option today so I'm not wasting my vote. As for reasons specifically for caf...Spolium wrote:@DDD- why are you voting caf19?
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.mykonian wrote:I'm very sure about spolium, that isn't going to change. But wall-e is not that sure.
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.Spolium wrote:@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?
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.Empking wrote:This may seem crazy but I don't roleblock based on what you think.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.Spolium wrote:@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?
.
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.Empking wrote:Caf was scummy day one. That's not crazy and you're scum for acting like it is.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.Empking wrote:This may seem crazy but I don't roleblock based on what you think.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote: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.Spolium wrote:@DDD: Who do you think are the remaining scum, and why?
.
