Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[Wall-E]

Hello all.

Oh man, what an excellent game. Why did it die?

Good show to Dej keeping his ass out of the fire despite Spolium's excellent attacks (not always logically sound ones, but *shrug*).

My first question is for Empking: Can you justify your vote on RBT following dej's claim? I missed your reasoning or you didn't give any.

My second question is for Spolium: How many games of mafia have you played?

My third question is for GhostWriter: Can you link me to any game you've played as scum in? I'll understand if you want to refuse.

It's unfortunate that modkills happened, but it's fortunate that one of them was scum. With the doc dead we're going to have to rely more heavily on analysis, so here's my first crack at it:

Spolium doesn't seem like the type to make illogical arguments, yet he did so during his case on Dej. I liked that Danny called Spolium out for tunneling, since I had that impression during my read (around page ten or so when I was wondering why one of Dej/Spolium wasn't dead yet). Dej's statement wasn't worth destroying the town's interest in the game as it wasn't a solid scumtell nor was it particularly damning. I really wish I hadn't read that whole conversation.

The problem with metaphors, Spolium, is that they are never accurate. Buttsecks hilarity aside, the entire metaphor needed to be thrown out, as the two situations were provably dissimilar enough to render your argument pointless (man I wish I'd been there to say that).

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

Nobody even batted an eye! Even the person being asked was like, "Well, I don't see the need, but OK!"

I'm hoping that some of the other players will ask some specific questions of me to help flesh out this game a bit.

[Wall-E]

Wups, forgot this game. Reading up!

[Wall-E]

First, questions directe at me by Spolium.

Spolium doesn't seem like the type to make illogical arguments

Not that I'm not flattered, but what makes you say this?

You support your points with evidence from the thread. I appreciate that. It makes it easier to hunt for scum.

Dej's statement wasn't worth destroying the town's interest in the game as it wasn't a solid scumtell nor was it particularly damning.

Dej's statement didn't bother me as much as his reaction to questions about it. He was being evasive/dismissive about it, and that just screams scum to me.

I got no such read from him, sorry. With some quoting and commentary you can convince me, but no guarantees.

The problem with metaphors, Spolium, is that they are never accurate. Buttsecks hilarity aside, the entire metaphor needed to be thrown out, as the two situations were provably dissimilar enough to render your argument pointless

I was trying to relate how his statement was indirectly suggestive. I really don't see how the metaphor was particularly off-target.

Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The intent of this post is to discuss a potential flavor claim. It is on-subject and succinct. If you disagree, you're wrong, in my opinion. dejkha is unable to force anyone to make any kind of claim, and so he is not scummy: While he is indeed fishing for a flavor-claim's viability, he's approaching it from the departure point of argument and discussion rather than rhetoric or jumping straight into a claim.

Would there be any harm in all having butt sex? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like sphincter pain or maybe tearing if someone's too tight. Not that I'm suggesting us all having butt sex is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly offering butt sex, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The departure-point of this metaphor for dej's post is one of mockery and is clearly biased. Your claim is that he wants to nameclaim because he's talking about it? Probably right. How is it scummy?

Note that repeatedly offering buttsex is unequal to the repeated use of your PR. The two do not equate, and so your example can't apply. Your point that it shows dej is interested in a nameclaim is like me saying water is wet.

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

Nobody even batted an eye! Even the person being asked was like, "Well, I don't see the need, but OK!"

What's the problem with that question? You seem to be taking it for granted that the flaw is obvious, but I guess it escapes me.[/quote]

The scum have to pick someone to NK. If you go around telling them who you think is most town, they will eliminate those players and leave you with almost nothing to go on by the end of the game.

[Wall-E]

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.

Hm.

[Wall-E]

The case you are pushing against DDD makes me wary, Spolium. I acknowledge your other points, and aside from your very dismissive tone I have nothing to comment on.

[Wall-E]

DDD, you don't need to defend lurker lynching. I would never factor a person's policies into a vote on them. Spolium made a good point about what you said to Emp, however.

The argument between the two of you is serving only to prove DDD's meta and give Spolium more opportunities to rack up obvtown points, imho.

[Wall-E]

A bull-ring is the ring in the nose of a bull that's used to control the bull.

I'm always wary when a townie starts to look like a bull-ring. Until I get over my suspicion of him I'm afraid I won't be much use for hunting anyone else but Spolium. If I do get over it you'll know because I'll start talking about someone else obsessively.

[Wall-E]

wat's up town

zazie's analysis sure was short

how about that spolium? what do you guys think about his leadership in this game thus-far?

[Wall-E]

i am well aware

[Wall-E]

sod it

[Wall-E]

Spolium: Do you disagree with my callout on you about telling the town who is town?

[Wall-E]

@DDD (post 445)

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?

Misrep. Your reason for voting RBT was weak. I never said that the general case against RBT was weak.

Is that a misrep or perhaps just a misunderstanding? A misrep carries some burden of proof of intent. What would be the benefit of someone trying to trick you (?) into believing you meant something you didn't?

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.

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.

No, that is a fact. Information is helpful. The word vague fits better than fallacy.

Let me ask you a question: How would the information HURT us?

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.

To support this continuing hilarity you'd have to believe that I...
Read RBT's role claim and willingly chose to ignore it.
Then breadcrumbed this fact.
Then presented an argument that I would know had no validity against Empking, but intentionally didn't push too hard to leave myself a WIFOM backdoor.
Then admitted to my point being wrong bringing major suspicion from everyone else in the game.

So you have to assume I'm both a genius setting up backdoor after backdoor to wiggle out of this scenario, but that I'm an idiot who wouldn't have considered the most obvious ramifications of posting an indisputably incorrect argument.

Did you actually take that part serious?

Please explain what you meant by this, ZazieR. It's unclear.

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.

No, your vote didn't have that effect.

Is this sarcasm?

Also, I asked everyone to give their thoughts about a massclaim. Why didn't you answer that, and what's your opinion of it?

ZazieR is trying to capitalize on Spolium's attentions on DDD to push a weak lynch.

Vote: ZazieR

[Wall-E]

I should have said, "PUshing a weak CASE" not "pushing a weak Lynch"

'Blonde Dutch people' are just as smart as Norwegians and Buddhists and Republicans and human slaves. Don't be a bigot (Especially not self-depricatingly! You should know better!) and especially not to dismiss your own actions. The retraction is acceptable, but not the bigotry.

[Wall-E]

No, that is a fact. Information is helpful. The word vague fits better than fallacy.

Let me ask you a question: How would the information HURT us?

It's not that it hurts us, it's that I see more why scum want to know if it's shown in the NK or not.

And if information is always helpful, then please explain why the information we would receive from a mass claim is not helpful?

I disagree. I think it's reasonable that a townie would be curious about kill flavor. A scum would probably have asked in a private message to the moderator. WIFOM applies to make it a null tell.

The information we would recieve from a mass claim IS helpful. To both the town AND the scum. See? Information is always helpful.

Please explain what you meant by this, ZazieR. It's unclear.

I'm saying that I was joking to that part to which DDD responded. please tell me how this could ever be taken seriously:

I'm in the mood for some circular logic here Here it comes:

Uh... good one?

Is this sarcasm?

No, it's not. You've played a game with me before. You're actually saying that I was fully present at all times in that game?

Dismissiveness and a meta-defense are two things that will keep you smelling scummy-fresh in my book.

ZazieR is trying to capitalize on Spolium's attentions on DDD to push a weak lynch.

Anyway, I'll wait with my vote till I've heard the responses to my posts.

Tell me where I've said that I was aiming for a DDD lynch today?

You're keeping the option to vote him open. You just quoted yourself stating such. The reasons you've given to lead-up to this potential vote are weak at-best, in my honest opinion, as I've tried to demonstrate.

Vote stays. You've done little to assuage my suspicion.

[Wall-E]

I don't even know what bigotry is >.<

This is an arguably inaccurate definition.

[Wall-E]

I'm supremely interested in how Spolium will address the questions you've posed to him. I'm going to

Unvote

to give you time to continue grilling him.

[Wall-E]

Why in the chickenfart would you claim!?!?!

[Wall-E]

Before I get into this, was it scummy of me to ignore this game? And why?

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.

It's anti-town, for certain. As to whether it's scummy, that's case by case. Sometimes a lurker is just a lurker. Let's not get into a lurker policy argument unless we think it's pertinent, please.

[Wall-E]

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.

I agree with this sentiment 200%.

[Wall-E]

I dislike ZazieR's plays. She seems to be looking for someone to excuse her to claim. Softclaiming your information was enough, ZazieR. Please don't fully claim unless you are forced to or it will ABSOLUTELY catch scum or some other very important reason I haven't thought of.

I'm willing to bet ZazieR's claim is a morally "good" character in the show, regardless of her alignment, and thus she's unafraid to claim.

[Wall-E]

@DDD (post 445)

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?

Misrep. Your reason for voting RBT was weak. I never said that the general case against RBT was weak.

Is that a misrep or perhaps just a misunderstanding? A misrep carries some burden of proof of intent. What would be the benefit of someone trying to trick you (?) into believing you meant something you didn't?[/quote]

I thought that misrep means to twist words in order to attack a different player. Apparently I was wrong.

I can see this view, considering your prior stated views on RBT.

DDD: Any response to this or did I miss one?

[Wall-E]

Woah, DDD. The scum are me and two others? That's interesting. Please expound to me upon why I am included in your shortlist?

[Wall-E]

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.

[Wall-E]

I agree that Spolium has been warned by the mod to utilize a PR and that it is largely evident that he is not lying about said PR. DDD has not done anything that I feel is overtly evil enough to lynch on this page or in the next one as of yet. ZazieR needs to give some love to the thread. I'll revote her very soon if she does not.

Spolium: Did that answer your question?

[Wall-E]

And actually, if you ARE lying about it Spolium, he would be trying to play out-guess-YOU.

[Wall-E]

Okay, so that proves the mod will post in-thread warnings about PRs but will not confirm his PR policy.

How does this make me scum? Try to answer without playing

out-guess the mod

.

The mod has said he won't confirm PRs. He confirmed your "PR". Therefore, you do not have a PR. Therefore you're lying. You want admit you're lying. Therefore you're scum.

A refusal to admit to lying is not lying, nor is it a scumtell imperically. If that were the case, I could turn you into scum by deeming you such, which is a logical fallacy.

[Wall-E]

Spolium, before you let Empking's hypocrisy drive you into a tree, do you have another suspect besides Empking?

[Wall-E]

ZazieR I'm still interested in. She seems to get away with playing the airhead card, and I really don't like that.

Empking's hard for me to read, so I usually just play along with him to see what comes of his perverse methodology.

Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?

[Wall-E]

Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed

And with this post my Town Read on Spoilum has gone bye bye. Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.

I am honestly not sure I am following your logic on that one. Could you explain more?

The mod would not confirm a town post restriction.

- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

So you're suspicious of me for being suspicious of you after we had close to mod-confirmation that you were scum. Wow, I'm not unvoting.

- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)

No, I'm suspicious of:

- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting

How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?

- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.

I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation.

I don't remember you suggesting the mod lied to us.

- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)

the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

Have you considered why the mod grant scum the ability to call for a fake in-thread PR warning then state that he refuses to confirm PRs? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

What is more likely to be the case is that

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy, but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.

There's also the fourth option which is that there's an evil Charter clone that's confirming people's PRs instead of the real Charter.

I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)

a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting

How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?

I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".

That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.

That wasn't clarifying that was getting Charter to change his mind.

It is of some concern to me that you evidently did not pay attention to a post which was directly related to your case/vote.

Suspicion++

I did pay attention to it, he didn't clarify he merely changed his policy.

- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"

Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?

- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

In fairness, that could be coincidence, and your case has a hint of OMGUS. You had to know that PRs cause a LOT of interest in mafia games.

In short, he's either stubborn to the point of detriment to the town, or he is scum. I would be quite happy to see him swing.

I have a note to say here, but I want to wait for Empking to post first.

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

What does Empking have to say about this?

[Wall-E]

You're going to have to ask me again, Spolium. I didn't see your @everyone thing and I still don't.

[Wall-E]

I think that Empking's no different than he normally is, meaning I have no idea what his alignment is. Your recent exchange didn't sell me on Empking being scum. It strikes me that a better defense on your part may have been to simply ignore his "reasoning" and his vote considering how obviously flawed the logic was, but I realize you were attacking rather than defending, in which case I'm null-minded on the whole ordeal.

[Wall-E]

Wasn't Empking hammered already?

Unvote

in case he wasn't and I'm on his wagon.

The inconsistency with his claimed night-actions and calling Caf pro-town is alarming. Can you qualify this contradiction, Emp?

[Wall-E]

I just saw 576.

Unvote: Vote: ZazieR

Zazie's next on my chopping block.

Zazie, can you tell me what you now think of Spolium taking into account his responses to your posts?

[Wall-E]

He had a good chance to pick a vanilla townie when he claimed. RB is not that popular a role. Just playing Devil's Advocate, here.

[Wall-E]

The Most Important Question Of This Page: Was Zazie town trying to lynch Empking based on well-reasoned arguments and Empking's past behavior (claiming at L-1 is not a scumtell, so it must have been predicated on past behaviors by Empking)? Or is Zazie scum trying to bus or get the town's RB killed?

Let's examine every post in which Zazie mentions Empking:

Dejkha, there should have been a reason why you 'suggested' the name claims. And I want to know what it is. It's hard to believe that you didn't have a reason for it, but just for kicks.
And no, you didn't state why you mentioned it. If you did, show it.

And Empking said that I was fishing after I asked Spolium if he had a PR.

Post 65. That's one wrong similarity you're making. The thing about the name claim was a question, wondering if there would be anything wrong with it. This implies that you are in favor for it. But the butt sex is a statement. It only shows that you don't like it.

Wait, you actually didn't have an opinion about it and just have faith in the players answering? You let others think about it, for what? You mention something in which you have no opinion. Not buying this explanation.

Yep, claiming to get rid of all the arguments against you is the right thing to do

Not stating reasons for suspecting someone is also the correct way to go...
So what's the reason for not doing so?

Yep, RBT doesn't answer the question about the PR directly. Seems RBT has something to hide.

Refusing to discuss something that might be worth to discuss (see post 99) makes him really look scummy.

God help the town if Spolium is Mafia.

Deja Vu! I'll definitly remember this.

It also makes much sense to call some players already lurkers...
But Spolium apparently did this as well (according to Caf), may I ask where as I apparently missed it.


It seems very likely that at least one PR is real.

As for targets I like the arguments put forward by Spolium about his target. I’ve got further suspicions about Spolium at this point, he tunneled pretty hard on dej which always raises my eyebrows and he seems to forget his post restriction at a rate that suggests to me he isn’t afraid of being modkilled because of it which then suggests to me that his post restriction isn’t authentic, but those are minor things compared to the arguments presented against RBT.

^^noted

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.

I don't follow the part about RBT's PR. Could you rephrase? Now that RBT was lynched, could you tell if what you wrote above did help?

You explained this later. I do think it's a weak reason for lynching RBT.

Dej, was there any hint that your death would be significantly different flavour-wise, when triggered by your ability?

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?
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 RBT doesn't reply satisfactorily within 24 hours, my vote's going on her.

Noted. I don't trust it when somebody makes a case, and doesn't vote. It gives me the impression that sombody is power role fishing.

Post 327: I want to hear why what DDD was pointing out in this post was scummy from Empking and Spolium.

I disagree with post 343.

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.

This combined with DDD's second post, screams scum to me.

The next damning thing is how Spolium asked someone who they felt was most town on dej's wagon. What. The. Flipping. Banana.

HUH??? Where?


Also, after having looked at these pages, I suggest a name-claim.

@DDD - analysis on Empking, plz

@Ghostwriter - analysis on DDD, plz

@caf19 - analysis on Ghostwriter, plz

@Empking - analysis on caf19, plz

What The *Beeb*?! What's the point of this?

I really couldn't follow the Emp-DDD discussion at page 16

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.

I'm in the mood for some circular logic 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.

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.

Yeah, use the difficult words on the Dutch girl
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?

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.

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.

what do you guys think about his leadership in this game thus-far?

He was only a 'leader' day 1. His switch to agree with other players during day 2, is suspicious though.

Anyway, I'll wait with my vote till I've heard the responses to my posts.
Also, think about my name claim suggestion and add reasons why you want to have one or not. I'll explain later if needed why it's a good thing, but I rather don't want to explain it.

Aside from the vote-post, I see only three mentions of Empking by Zazie. None of them explicitly implicate Emp.

What's the deal, Zazie?

[Wall-E]

Zazie: You make the occasional grammatical error while posting hastily. It's barely noticable, and your meaning is still clear, so no worries.

[Wall-E]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

From my own POV, at the time I was more concerned about you being scum (that's how my read on you was leaning).

Doesn't reflect well on you, if you're so locked into one individual that you're missing suspect behavior from others.

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.

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".[/quote]

QFT

Happy Birthday DDD.

[Wall-E]

Also, why would an idiot necessarily not block Caf?

[Wall-E]

Posting to post. Nothing to add. Zazie come back.

[Wall-E]

I don't want you to claim anything you feel you shouldn't. Stop trying to make us play for you! The comment about grammar was supposed to be directed at myconian. My vote for you is NOT rolefishing. If you read the posts I've made you'll see the reason for my vote.

[Wall-E]

Why again are we lynching the claimed and uncontested role-blocker?

I simply require a lot more convincing, sorry. Empking's very hard for me to 'read.'

[Wall-E]

Why again are we lynching the claimed and uncontested role-blocker?

I simply require a lot more convincing, sorry. Empking's very hard for me to 'read.'

Because he's lying. Besides, scum can have a roleblocker, while town doesn't.

I believe what you meant to say here is, "It is possible for the scum to have a roleblocker and the town not to have one."

What a useless post, if so.

Your grammar is hurting you, if the above is the case, because what you've actually written is this: Scum can have a roleblocker so long as the town does not.

Since we can't know now what you really meant or whether this is the case, I'm siding on you're scummy for saying something pointless.

You seem very sure that Empking is lying. Evidence?

[Wall-E]

On this moment, Empking has very little against him, because his claim makes little sense as scum roleblocker. Your claim is... well, I don't want to lynch you for it yet.

He's lying as I've already pointed out, and I don't think he'd tell the truth if he's the scum roleblocker.
From the looks of the discussion between me and Empking, you should be able to figure out that both of us can't have a town powerrole. So one of us is lying. Caf may have had a stupid reason to you, but one of me and Empking is scum. This means that we can have one scum lynched for sure in two days. If caf is town, and if me and Empking resume this tomorrow, it will only cause trouble for town. So pick!

I dislike the false dilemma here.

[Wall-E]

[09] Lynches require a majority of votes. At a deadline if there is no majority, there is no lynch. You may Vote: No Lynch.

Hmm. No lynching is typically bad. I don't know what the formula is for figuring out if the town can afford a no lynch is, but I'm going to hazard that we should be lynching today.

Unvote: Vote: caf19

because of Zazie/Emp, I'm siding against the scummier player. I don't trust my judgement of this situation enough to risk no lynching in the event that nobody else wants to help me kill Zaz. I'm willing to revote ZazieR if her lynch is made possible before the deadline.

[Wall-E]

I cannot remember Professor Chaos interacting with a bus in the show, but I have not seen many episodes.

Sigh.

Three roleclaims on D1...

[Wall-E]

Oh, it's D2. I forgot I replaced into D2. That's less bad.

Hypothetical Spolium-scum is kicking this game's ass, because I feel like putting my money where his mouth is today. Vote stays on caf19.

[Wall-E]

Err, I misread something.

Unvote

NOBODY HAMMER BEFORE I POST AGAIN

[Wall-E]

@DDD

- why are you voting caf19?

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...

Mostly hypocrisy - In day one he made a point of the Dej/Spolium debate taking over the thread and allowing scum to lurk and posted everyone's vote count. Fast forward to the present, Spolium has tons more posts, ZazieR who binges and purges in posts has more posts than him, I only had four days of day one and I nearly have as many posts as him. He's active enough to avoid suspicion, but he's under-contributing.

Furthermore, many of his points particularly when he was working over me today were things he himself had done. He called out EsoMonty and then ignored him which he claimed was a scumtell, he was dubious as to why I would pursue nico over EsoMonty on day two when he himself had vote for nico earlier in the day.

Furthermore, caf's vote on Empking based around the two claims is absolutely built on an unsound foundation, he's also stacking lynches in it so that if Empking is lynched and is town then ZazieR is lying and can be lynched tomorrow.

Yes. This is the post I agree with.

Unvote: Vote: caf19

Zazie and caf19 are both pushing the false dilemma angle and I find that disconcerting.

[Wall-E]

Timm... TIMMEH!

@Myk - Kindly outline your case on DDD.

Haaah.

2nding this.

I'll have more to post later (next week-ish)