Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Can you just claim or not?Riceballtail wrote:I'd be more inclined to believe that there were others in this game that had a post restriction, since that would make us seem to fit together better, mkay?
Dejkha: Personally, I didn't ignore it, just put it in my notes where it says Dejkha's scummy behaviour? (Its scummy because he was floating it but not wanting to make it seem like he wanted it, when it messed up.)-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
His reaction to being asked doesn't seem like its what someone would write just because they're banned from claiming it. Also, I don't think banning things with grey area is something that an experienced mod would do.caf19 wrote:
@ Empking: have you considered the possibility that RBT is PRed but isn't allowed to openly admit it? I think he's made it fairly clear from his posts that he does have one. (naturally, this has no bearing on his alignment, but I don't think it's likely that he is faking it).-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
I've asked them about it because it seems to me from reading the thread that everyone agrees with Spoilum.caf19 wrote:
To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself. His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in. This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.Spolium wrote:
Considering the above...? Empking's post in 137? Zaz's quote/your response in 138?caf19 wrote:Spolium, considering the above, what do you think of Empking?
If you're referring to his fairly low post count, I'd say it isn't a huge concern at the moment because his contributions have been content related and relevant, if a little brief (though this is probably preferable to the brainfucking wallposts I've been dishing out). I would expect to see more from him as the game progresses.
One thing that concerns me is his role in the dejkha case. His initial response was that he noted dej's post 38 as "scummy behaviour" (somewhat nonthreatening) then he followed up with a vote based on dej's wishy-washiness, but he hasn't actually pressed dej for an explanation of either of those. I'd like to know why.
@ nicolio: you haven't elaborated much on your suspicions either. Is dej your top suspect, or someone else?-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
I don't think I am an active lurker. I was the strongest advocat for RBT to claim PRed. I was also one of the first to have suspicion of Dejkha. I haven't posted that much due to the fact that I find Dejhka the scummiest and nobody seems to disagree about Dejhka being scummy only that there are scummier players.Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
I'm not sure. I don't see why he'd be reluctant at all. I can only think he's scum faking who wanted an out. I'm not sure if that's the reason or that there's an explaination I haven't worked out.Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
I think that scum would benefit by keeping their options open and I they could be awkward about it to distract the town from any more scummy thing they have done or as an excuse not to contribute (as RBT was doing).Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
He had pre-marital sex and as such will go to hell.dejkha wrote:I see how how it could be seen an contradictory stance, but I don't think it is. She pointed out how most characters have gone bad and that's true, but as far as I remember, it's not true of Mr. Mackey. The closest thing to "bad" I can remember Mr Mackey doing was smoking pot. Most other characters have some sort of bad side, so I don't think her claiming was particularly scummy.
Dejkha: Can you understand how Spoilum got the impression he did from those posts he quoted? (the manipulation or readiong comprehension one) What did you mean?-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Unvote
Vote: RBT
I'm not sure if I beleive Dejkha but I can't see the harm in seeing if he uses his powers tonight.
RBT claimed way too early, was skittish about PR claiming and hasn't really been trying to hunt scum.Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
I think town (other than our two dead) were really unlucky as both of our dead power roles were very scummy and due to that we can't really see if scum jumped in or if its just town who were convinced by Dejhka's and RBT's actions.
Spoilum: Your thoughts on yesterday's events please.Plus, if you guys want to make a point, skip the walls, because everyone else in the game does as well. - Magister Ludi-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Her full claim suggests she thought I was pushing for a full claim.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:
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.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
She didn't claim her Power Role.EsoMonty wrote:
This stands out to me. RBT did claim, she claimed Mr. Mackey. It wasn't whether or not she claimed that got her lynched. It was her response to being asked about the post restriction.caf19 wrote:Don't know why RBT didn't claim, it might have saved her.
(I doubt changing her story would've saved her though?-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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?-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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.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?-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Not so there's a difference between an unarguably incorrect argument and a arguably correct argument against town.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:
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.
1) If I was right, then you'd have committed a minor slip, but I would be more likely to be scum than town for trying to nail you on a minor point.
Only true given knowledge of your alignment. Furthermore, I wasn't hounding you or voting for you based on this slip, just exploring a possible contradiction. So your characterization of my behavior is incorrect in the first place, but that's all irrelevant because there's no possibility I was right since the contradiction I saw was based on me having incomplete information. Let's move onto the relevant point then...
2) Because my argument was wrong, I am more likely scum than town.
Please demonstrate how using incorrect arguments is a scumtell. Because I would argue that if townies never used incorrect arguments then there'd never be mislynches and scum would never win. Since there are many mislynches then often pro-town players make incorrect arguments. Hence such behavior is a null-tell.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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?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.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Its structure is exactly the same,.Wall-E wrote:
Then allow me to enlighten you on why this particular metaphor is invalid:
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.dejkha wrote: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 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?Spolium wrote: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...-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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.Spolium wrote: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 playingout-guess the mod.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
The latter makes no sense.Spolium wrote:Timmmeeeehhhh TImmy.
@Empking - Earlier you said
which is apparently the root of your skepticism of my PR.Empking wrote:Mod confirming a PR is a scum power role not a town power role.
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 first being a lie is BM, the second being a lie is being a B.
Even if you disregard that, you have basically taken two apparently contradictory statements from the mod and chosen which one you think is true. Why pick that one over the other?
Timmyyyyyyyy-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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.Spolium wrote:Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah
Thanks for clearing that up, charter.
My suspicion of Empking is officially strengthened for pushing a retarded case.
Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:No, I'm suspicious of:
- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
I don't remember you suggesting the mod lied to us.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.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
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.Spolium wrote:
This is a false dichotomy, and ignores the third option which I suggested.Empking wrote:
It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.Spolium wrote:the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:Empking wrote:
There were two possibilities and you didn't suggest either of them so I couldn't have dismissed them.the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities
It's right there, emboldened and underlined; the elusive third option. You even acknowledged it's existence in claiming it made no sense.Empking (517) wrote:
The latter makes no sense.Spolium wrote: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 thatan 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.
I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)
That wasn't clarifying that was getting Charter to change his mind.
I was thinking of something more like "Mod; Here are two statements which appear to be contradictory - please clarify".Empking wrote:
How would you have clarified the matter. I can only thing of going "Mod; Is Spoilum scum". Is that what you were thinking?a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
That's what I did, and apparently at least one other person did as well. Charter responded. Not hard.
I did pay attention to it, he didn't clarify he merely changed his policy.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++-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.Spolium wrote:Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,Hrrrmg.
What are you talking about? The third option is whatEmpking wrote:I don't think either one of them can be taken as real options (though mine makes more sense than your's.)actually happened:
3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn't
Its completely impossible.
If its the only explaination then its probably right.Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.
_____________________
Right now I would lynch Empking, because:Wall-E wrote:Spolium: Who would you lynch right now if given no choice otherwise and why?
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
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.
[/quote]
Are you able to provide another possible explaination?
OMGUSTherefore,unvote; vote: Empking
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.Spolium wrote:
Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach isEmpking wrote:
Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.Spolium wrote:3rd Option:an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy,but explicitly confirming a PR isn'timplicit. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.
I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.Empking wrote:
Are you able to provide another possible explaination?Right now I would lynch Empking, because:
- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me
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'm town following the only possible explanation.Here's a thought - why don'tyousuggest another possible explanation?
If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.
Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.Empking wrote:
OMGUSTherefore, unvote; vote: Empking-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
Then how would you phrase it?Spolium wrote:
Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicitEmpking wrote:Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.enough.
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.
Liar.Empking wrote:If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
How can you explain the mod changing his policy?Spolium wrote:Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY
The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.Empking wrote:
Then how would you phrase it?
Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.Empking wrote:I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.
In this game you can't prove things if the other player doesn't have an open mind and you don't.
I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.Empking wrote:
If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.
Liar.If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.
Prove thatallof these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.
TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY
Oh yeah, I'm suspicious of you so you attack an insult me in order to decrease my credibility, wow.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
?[/quote]caf19 wrote:My opinion on Empking: I don't really buy his case on Spolium. A bit of mod confusion is not enough to indicate scum, imo. And he appears to be reaffirming his case through the fact that Spolium is arguing against it - well, he's obviously going to disagree, isn't he?
There's a difference between disagreeing and just deciding to insult and chainsaw defend yourself.
I'm Chef. Role-blocking, aesthetic, aesthetic maker. I do this be making sweet-loving to the player I target.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008
You were the scummiest player and acting like you are anything less than very sure is anti-town.Debonair Danny DiPietro wrote:
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.-
-
Empking Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Empking's Alt's Alt
- Posts: 16758
- Joined: May 4, 2008