Mini 828 - ProzacMod 3 - Lost Mafia - Over
-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I would like to preemptively request a No Season 6 Spoiler Policy, please.
Randomvote ChannelDelibird
CB:
Speaking as an ex-LOST mafia moderator, if you haven’t seen S5 and don’t want to be spoiled, I suggest you either get caught up fast or replace out.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Reckoner:
Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?xRECKONERx [36] wrote:I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Reckoner:
…That’s your interpretation of Jebus’s post? Don’t you think that’s a little overliteral for the first 12 hours into the game? Why don’t you think that he was RVing there?
CB:
Are you asking me something?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Unvote: ChannelDelibird
Also, note that I’m going to be rather busy this week.
Reckoner:
That’s not what I meant. I’m asking why you thought that Jebus’s declaration (on p2, within the first 24 hours of game start) that a player (who hasn’t yet posted) was “obviously scum” was significantly more serious than RVing.
Which I still want to know.
VP:
What do you think about Reckoner’s reaction to the LL bandwagon?
CD:
If there hasn't yet been any "suggestion of scummy intent", what's wrong with still randomvoting?ChannelDelibird [64] wrote:Vote: Zoneacefor posting as if the last two pages of discussion didn't happen.
I see signs of theoretical differences of opinion in the last couple of pages, not any real suggestion of scummy intent from any party.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Zoneace:
Given how strenuously you are arguing that "nothing serious" had happened in the first 3 pages, what do you think of Reckoner's interpretation of Jebus's posts?
Reckoner:
It seems like it should be incredibly obvious from context that those posts were about as serious as everything else posted before page 3. I really don't get why you are insistent that Jebus was genuinely declared that LL was "obvious scum".
In fact- if you genuinely thought Jebus was pushing a LL bandwagon, wouldn't that be something significant for Zoneace to comment on? But instead, you agree with Zoneace, who's arguing that nothing serious had happened.
Jason:
What's with all the ;)s to Zoneace?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Still in one of my busiest weeks of the year. May not get another chance to post until Monday or Tuesday.
Zoneace:
Why haven’t you posted in this game in the past 3 days?
Jebus:
So, Jason is suspicious to you because he simply restated and paraphrased others’ reasons without adding anything.Jebus [143] wrote:<snip>
Despite the (bluntness?) crude wording of it, a post that I agree with.ZONEACE wrote:certainly bigger than "you ignored the random votes before you". you made a nub scum move of jumping on a weak case to move forward a wagon.
you had nothing ot add to the reasoning, you simply restated what CDB said. everything you did is indicative of scum.
Oh hello,jasonT1981 wrote: Juls, I had already said I was just putting what others had already said in my own words. I never once made out that they where 'fresh' or 'new'unvote, Vote: Jason
That, and pretty much what Zoneace said in the previous quote.
…yet you express your suspicion of Jason by repeating and paraphrasing others’ reasons without adding anything?
Jason:
CB was trying to make a joke, but mixed up Jason/Jacob.jasonT1981 [152] wrote:
this here alarms me really to be honest... why has no one quick lynched me?canadianbovine wrote:why did no one quick lynch jason? =P
What’s your excuse for asking this?
By this, do you mean that Zoneace is not suspicious?jasonT1981 [176] wrote:Locke, Zoneace has not really posted anything since his blowup, but recently Reckoner has been quite scummy, he has jumped on my wagon without giving any reasoning.
Juls:
I’m paraphrasing, but you seem to be saying “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Jason:
Why does Reckoner (or anyone) need to be “100% certain” you’re mafia?
And I still would like answers to these:
CB was trying to make a joke, but mixed up Jason/Jacob.jasonT1981 [152] wrote:
this here alarms me really to be honest... why has no one quick lynched me?canadianbovine wrote:why did no one quick lynch jason? =P
What’s your excuse for asking this?
And:
By this, do you mean that Zoneace is not suspicious?jasonT1981 [176] wrote:Locke, Zoneace has not really posted anything since his blowup, but recently Reckoner has been quite scummy, he has jumped on my wagon without giving any reasoning.
Zoneace:
Okay about not yet voting Reckoner, but why the unvote of Jason?
LL:
Okay about 193, but I don’t think Reckoner’s explanation of 183 is implausible at all. Why couldn’t town have misread, and not realized the mistake until a day later?
CB:
HT?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Jason:
Then how certain are you about Reckoner?
VP:
Really? I’ve been seeing Jason trying to blend in and avoid his own lynch, but I don’t really see him trying to hunt. Where are you seeing that type of behavior?VP Baltar [220] wrote:<snip>
As far as Jason, definitely VI but I don't have a good read on his alignment yet. He has made some tremendously stupid statements that could have scum motivations, but he also seems to at least betryingto hunt scum (however poorly executed those attempts are).
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Reckoner:
Seems like VP just gave you your “actual case against which you can defend yourself”- you have a defense?
And, why the insistence on “actual cases”? When you first voted Jason, there was nothing of the sort, and most of your posts against him haven’t been with reasons.
VP:
I’m not really seeing what you see in Jason.
[83]: you originally said that this was Jason “just sheeping along”
[119]: this seems no different than Reckoner’s [229]: a call for his attacker to be more specific in their attack.
[176]: Jason defending himself, not “scumhunting”. The vote at the end seems tacked on to me.
Juls:
But that wasn’t what brought attention to Zoneace- it was his non-comments that did. He already had 3 players voting him at the time of his “rage”.Juls [214] wrote:<snip>
No, what I meant was that if he is scum, it is pretty risky to bring THAT much attention to yourself on D1. Basically what I am saying here is his "rage" seems authentic. <snip>Emptyger 187 wrote:Juls:
I’m paraphrasing, but you seem to be saying “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”?
So, temporarily assuming Zoneace is antitown, and he’s gotten attention for an unrelated reason- how certain are you that he would or wouldn’t “rage”?
Zoneace:
Specifically, what has Reckoner done that’s “trying to appear town” but hasn’t been “being town”?
Jebus:
Still waiting on an answer to [187] whenever you decide to stop lurking.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Juls:
The original comment that puzzled me was this:
You seem to say “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”, which obviously doesn’t follow. You clarify in [214] that you thought Zoneace is town because he wouldn't want to call attention to himself if he were guilty. Except that at that time, he was already at the center of attention!Juls [135] wrote:<snip>
I LOL'd. I have been known to get too invested but I have to agree this reaction is just ludicris. Although I don't agree he should be lynched for it. ZONEACE, what has transpired is not worthy of this response. I have to say, that you are town or this is some pro-manufactured rage.
TL;DR
============
<snip>
~ZONEACE needs to calm down....Alot. But I think he is town at this point.
<snip>
So, basically, I'm asking you to reconcile your analysis of Zoneace with that fact.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
The answers are “A lot of people” and “I’m not sure”. (Yeah, I know. I’ll elaborate.)VP Baltar [261] wrote: Emptyger, who do you think is scum and why? You've been playing this background investigator role for far too long now.
There’s a lot of things that are *wrong* in this game. But the issue I’m having is that Player A will pick up on some *wrong* thing X that Player B is doing- but when Player C, D, or even A themself does X, A either ignores it, or, paradoxically, they’ll say that X is an innocent thing.
So, when I look at players in isolation- I do find some suspicious enough to vote. When I look at the bigger picture, though- I can’t get past that something weird is going on. And I’m more concerned about that weirdness right now than simply making a case against whoever has done the most *wrong* things.
If I had to pick one player in isolation right now: Jason. If I had to achieve an immediate lynch: I’d go along with Reckoner. If I was simply trying to pressure someone: Jebus. But, I *don’t* have to do any of these things right now, I’d rather hear the As to elaborate on the Xs.
(Incidentally, while I agree with some of your sentiments about the current arguments for bussing, I don’t think that’s a reason to not discuss it. In fact, I’d say that that’s a reason *to* discuss. Discussing allows the opportunity to rebut something that’s false, or to get on the table something that’s a possibility. There’s no guarantee that player who notices the possibility will still be alive after the reveal- or the players who would rebut it still be alive either. In short: discussion is good.)
Also:
First you said that Jason's vote on Zoneace was “just sheeping along”.
Then you said that that vote was “scumhunting”.
Now you’re saying that
So, which is it?VP Baltar [284] wrote:<snip>
moving the game out of RVS is more likely to be carried about by town than scum. Plain and simple. More often than not, scum are not going to want to be sticking their necks out early in the game by going after people. They would rather wait for a secure wagon to form and then chime in to try and drive it through.
<snip>
Jason:
But you haven’t done this.jasonT1981 [276] wrote:<snip>
Well if I think you both are scum.. have given evidence to suggest why i think you both are... then it stands to reason I think you are bussing if I see your vote on the other person I suspect of being scum no?
You’ve said that LL is guilty because it seems like he’s bussing Reckoner…
And then you’ve said that LL is bussing Reckoner because they’re both guilty.
That couldn’t be more circular.
The closest thing to an actual suspicion of LL that I’ve heard is “his vote was opportunistic”- but how was the way he voted any different from, say, how you voted Zoneace? Was that opportunistic of you? Were you bussing Zoneace?
I mean, earlier you attacked Reckoner for being 100% you were guilty, didn’t you? How is this different?
Zoneace:
I agree with that logic in theory, but as others have already said, that’s not an instance of it. Or are you implying that Reckoner deliberately misread CDB’s post?
Juls:
Okay, thanks for clarifying. Although, I will say that I happen to disagree with your opinion.
While I don’t have any experience with Zoneace, I have seen mafia in other games react this way when they feel they’re getting attention for illegitimate reasons. And I can certainly see it possible for a guilty Zoneace to have thought that he should not be facing a lynch (and perhaps being bussed by Jason?) for the reasons he was. In any case, according to VP, it sounds like this behavior isn’t exceptional enough that it would be difficult for him to feign it if necessary.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
No, my exact plan here is, as I just said, to inquire into why some players are making accusations against one player but ignoring or excusing the same behavior in others.VP Baltar [287] wrote:<snip>
I don't quite buy your whole 'feeling out the weirdness' thing here. It's page 12 for crying out loud and you haven't voted anyone. What is your exact plan here, wait until deadline and then plunk down on the leading wagon?
If Jason is innocent- as you say you think: then it’s good to explain to him why the conclusions he’s drawing are wrong.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
Discussing something that has no logical reason to be believed either way is a major waste of time on D1. This is particularly true when you start going down the road that jason was heading where the 'bussing theory' was starting to become a scumpoint. In short: not all discussion is good.Emptyger wrote:Discussing allows the opportunity to rebut something that’s false, or to get on the table something that’s a possibility. There’s no guarantee that player who notices the possibility will still be alive after the reveal- or the players who would rebut it still be alive either. In short: discussion is good.
If Reckoner is guilty- as you say you think: then it’s good to explore with who.
(Unless, of course, you’re confident that you’re going to be able to do these things after Reckoner’s reveal?)
More importantly, if Jason is *not* innocent- a conclusion which I don’t see how you can be certain of: then why are you trying to stop him from incriminating himself?
No, I don’t agree that it’s a horrible discussion point.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:<snip>
So you agree with me that it is a horrible discussion point? Why would you think it's a good idea to even bring to the table then?
I think the argument Jason was trying to make is horrible. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. See above for 3 reasons why.
Reckoner:
What about CDB and Zoneace?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Santos:
Reckoner is at lynch-2. So unless one of these mysterious modquestions doublevoted you or made Reckonere 1 less to lynch, your little stunt shouldn’t have lynched him. Really, why did you vote in [292]?
Reckoner:
You’ve said that LL and Jason are mafia, and that VP’s case is weak. What about CDB (who, as he just mentioned, started your wagon) and Zoneace (who is also voting you)?
LL:
That, plus the fact that he hasn’t done anything in the past 10 days, and there no longer seems to be any excuse for it. Kind of hard to compare the suspicious things, say, Reckoner has done since then to Jebus’s nothing.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
There’s only one thing I see potentially wrong with Reckoner’s claim. And it’s not anything that’s been mentioned so far. On the contrary, I really don’t like the objections that have been raised by VP and Juls. And I happen to disagree with their conclusions.
Reckoner:
Why did you say “I'm the cop”? How do you know that there isn’t another cop?
Jebus:
Despite the recent events, I would still like you to explain why you would have supported the Reckoner wagon.Jebus [295] wrote:<snip>
First off, I support the Reckoner wagon (currently reading in isolation, will post later).
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
Your second choice for lynch is someone who you’ve been reading all day as innocent?
You seemed immediately sure about what information would and wouldn’t be included in a role, enough to conclude that Reckoner was lying. (The worst being “In other news, can someone who watched season 5 more recently inform me if the marshall who arrested Kate even makes an appearance in that season. If not, we have caught scum here.”) Not only do I not see any basis for that certainty, but my role at least doesn’t bear out the assumptions your making about flavor-matching, making me personally skeptical.VP Baltar [335] wrote:@Emp-I don't understand whatever you're getting at. I actually think your "the" vs. "a" argument is much more senseless. Please explain what is so odd about the questions that Juls or I asked.
<snip>
Reckoner:
In NY95- when you counterclaimed and using the “can’t be 2 of [role]” logic, your claim was “I’m a [role]”. Even in that situation, you didn’t say “I’m the [role]”.
But in this game, you did. You speculate a detail into your claim, at a time when you weren’t even claiming more obvious detail: your flavorname.
(That may be “too much” for you. But you’re not making this decision. 11 other players are.)
LL:
How is that suspicious?Locke Lamora [333] wrote:<snip>
I think Jason's unvote has added to his scumminess; it read as though he was doing it because he thought it was a pro-town thing to do.
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Sayid:
I think I can help here. I’m not certain enough to propose a massclaim (although that may be good for other reasons), but I think we have a window. If you want to try, I want you to know that I am not asking you to say anything to put yourself at risk. If you don’t want to try, I am disappointed, but I understand- however please keep the potential outcomes in mind tonight.
Someone who knows that I shouldn’t be talking to Sayid:
I hope you can understand what I mean, especially because I’m not sure that we have enough to trust each other, but the same goes. I hope you understand why I chose Sayid.
Everyone else:
I apologize being cryptic. I do not intend to explain further at this time, unless the above make explicit that they are willing to discuss this. I do not want this to become a distraction.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I want to emphasize that I do not want my previous post to become a distraction.
Reckoner:
In NY95, you didn’t say “I’m *the* roleblocker”- not even when you were counterclaiming a fakeclaiming rolebloker. You said, “I’m *a* roleblocker.” And in this game here, you have even less basis than that for thinking that you’re the only cop.xRECKONERx [[url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1711772#1711772]NY95, 427[/url]] wrote:You want me to claim?
Fine. Whatever.
I'm a town-aligned Roleblocker. Which is why I find inHim's claim so odd, because I don't think there should be TWO town-aligned roleblockers. I roleblocked Xylth last night.
Here though, you’re certain enough to say that you’re “the cop”. And, forgive the irony, but I can think of an explanation for this oddity which involves you being guilty.
VP:
Yes, I do find it quite healthy to question claims on D1 as well. Which I have done.
No, I don’t find it healthy to first state that a certain detail cannot possibly be in the role PM, then when that doesn’t gain traction reverse to oh-wait-I-actually-do-have-something-like-it-in-my-PM, then try to sweep the matter away by deciding outguessing-the-mod-is-a-bad-idea. Which you have done.
If you feel that players have been wishy-washy, I invite you to point out specifics.
If you’re trying to slander me specifically, I challenge you to say what’s been wishy-washy, because I have been quite precise in pointing out exactly what I feel.
Also, I stand behind my characterization of your treatment of Jason. Considering what you’ve said about Jason and what you’ve said about, say, me, I don’t understand how Jason is who you’re voting.
I’m reaching the conclusion that after 4 days absence, 6 days of I’ll-post-soons, and then finally a disavowal of what he was saying 10 days prior, it’s time for that pressureVP Baltar [349] wrote:<snip>
BTW, you any closer to actually coming to any sort of conclusions instead of sniping from the sidelines and committing to nothing?vote: Jebus.
Jason:
What do you think of VP’s treatment of you?
CKD:
Er, that was my point. Juls was saying that that made Zoneace innocent. I was showing that her reasoning didn’t eliminate the possibility of Zoneace being guilty.curiouskarmadog [350] wrote:<snip>
I am pretty sure I have seen Zone blow up for these reasons as scum and town. Null tell at best. My impression, I think ZA thinks he is the shit and gets fustrated at reasonless wagons. I can say this, because I can relate. I too get fustrated and curse like sailor when wagoned for little reason. Though it should be noted, that I have have never seen ZA go to that extreme.
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
First of all, okay about the timing issue, so I’ll concede the insinuation that you made up the PM detail. But I didn’t “intentionally ignore it”. I saw that you stated definitely that there was no way that a certain type of detail could be in a role PM *before* you checked whether you had it in your own. And those parts of my argument I still maintain:VP Baltar [320] wrote:In other news, can someone who watched season 5 more recently inform me if the marshall who arrested Kate even makes an appearance in that season. If not, we have caught scum here.
You 180 from being certain that something can’t be in a PM, to outguessing the mod is bad, and I’m not seeing any justification for this sudden reversal.VP Baltar [342] wrote:Outguess the mod isn't all that useful of a game to play.
You have reasoning to go with this non sequitor? Or did I just do that good a job of convincing you that discussing pairings before reveals can be helpful?VP Baltar [360] wrote:<snip>
If Jason flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy.
<snip>
First of all, that’s the opposite of specific.VP Baltar [360] wrote:Really? Wow, because I don't have much of a clue who you think is scum and who is not. This is your progression in this game simplified: you random vote, unvote, you pop in and ask some questions that never seem to come to a conclusioin, and now you want to pursue a lurker wagon. That's some pretty aggressive scumhunting you have going on there.
However, to respond: as I’ve already explained, I’m not going to just blindly vote a top suspect in isolation when in the context of this game, that suspicious behavior is rampant. I’m going to try to figure out *why* it’s rampant. I have been on the record. I’ve stated who I think is suspicious, either by pointing out what they’re doing that’s suspicious, or by explicitly saying so. (Such as in [285] in response to your asking me, remember?) And I’ve also pointed out who I don’t think is suspicious when that happens. So unless your "wishy-washy" accusation is that I'm not stating categorically that X must be guilty, but to that I'd say unapologetically that it's better to be doing that and giving a specific reason for *why* and try to do something about it, than, say, to make the categorical statement and then follow it up with "jk nevermind don't outguess the mod". For example.
And Jebus isn’t just a lurkervote. I’ve been suspicious of him since [143], and gave him plenty of time to answer, and I’m not satisfied with his response, for the reasons I gave when I just placed my vote. For comparison, let’s look at the only thing you’ve said about Jebus:
Is that different from what you’re now attacking me for? Did I miss where that reached a conclusion, or did you just have no good reason for asking it in the first place?VP Baltar [153] wrote:<snip>
@Jebus-do you think players should always provide original reasoning before joining a wagon?
I’m curious: whose level of contribution (besides your own, I’m sure) fits your criteria?
Reckoner:
Guess again.xRECKONERx [358] wrote:<snip>
Except, by that point, we had established that there were pairs in the game, and so I didn't necessarily disbelieve the claim. Oh, and he turned out to be a roleblocker just like me.
(and note that you were maintaining a vote on inHim at the time)xRECKONERx [[url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1711772#1711772]NY95, 427[/url], [color=blue]emphasis added[/color]] wrote:You want me to claim?
Fine. Whatever.
I'm a town-aligned Roleblocker. Which is why I find inHim's claim so odd,. I roleblocked Xylth last night.because I don't think there should be TWO town-aligned roleblockers-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
1) You are fake scumhunting
(Going to need something more specific to reply to this one. I’m guessing you meant that my questions are not actually trying to find mafia, but all of them have been exploring suspicious things that I’ve found other players have done.)
2A) You only put up a case when prompted
Not what happened. When prompted, I explained that I was *not* ready to put up a case. More importantly, I explained why I wasn’t. My case on Jebus doesn’t happen until after further suspicious behavior, including a lack of explanation.
For that matter, when is the proper time to put up a case on Jebus?
1) Immediately after he does the first suspicious thing?
2) While he’s on declared LA?
3) The second he returns?
4) After he can’t explain his suspicious behavior?
5) Never today?
2B) and it is majorly weaksauce
Jebus does something I find suspicious. (Which, presumably you found suspicious too, given how you questioned him on it too.)
Jebus can’t provide an explanation for it.
Jebus hasn’t done anything protown during this time. (Or do you think he has?)
Where is Jebus being protown according to you?
3) You try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.
The only person who has had any problem with my [285] is *you*.
Unless, by “many other players don’t seem to have a problem”, you just mean that since they haven’t said anything opposing it, that means that they’ve completely analyzed it and don’t see any problem with it. In which case, well, many other players don’t seem to have a problem with “attempts to call your points hypocritical. I guess that means that many players think that you’re hypocritical.
4) You have made several attempts to call my points hypocritical, when that clearly is not the case
You defended Jason with a “town gut read”, and then said he’s your number 2 suspect.
You said that Reckoner’s flavor must make him guilty, then said that outguessing the modflavor is a bad idea.
You say that Jason trying to reasonlessly link 2 players before alignment flips is antitown. Then you try to link me and Jason before alignment flips without reason.
So there’s some reversals. In fact, after I asked you, you just admitted that after some reconsideration you changed your mind and didn’t document it in thread. You may have a good explanation for this, or you may not. But not only is it not “clearly not the case”, but I think that seems to make my questions to you more than legitimate.
5) You are expressing a strong obsession with semantics, a common scum tactic
Uh, because you say so?
Maybe you meant that “mafia commonly express a strong obsession with unhelpful things”, and then “semantics is commonly useless”. Except that in this case, my follow-up questions have already revealed that, at the very least, Reckoner included a detail in his claim that was not part of his given role. Maybe it was a legitimate assumption, maybe it was an unconscious fabrication. But either way, it’s not useless- unless any exploration of how a player a player’s claim.
And I submit that making definitive statements about flavor to try to push through the lynch of a powerrole postclaim is a much more common tactic.
VP:
Here’s your non sequitur:
You’re talking about how *I*’m questioning *your* statements about *Reckoner*’s claim- and then all of a sudden “If *Jason* is mafia then so is EmpTyger”. So, again: how does the blue follows from the green?VP Baltar [360, [color=green]emphasis[/color] [color=blue]added[/u]] wrote:Except you intentionally ignore where I explained why I don't think that detail fits given my PM, and instead try to charactarize it as "oh-wait-I-actually-do-have-something-like-it-in-my-PM". Your 'not gaining traction' theory is complete bullshit because the time between me saying the first and second thing was LESS THAN AN HOUR. If I was really trying to push that angle, don't you think I would have waited at least long enough for someone to log on and actually read what I wrote?
Also, I like how you are now stating that I'm covering something up, when I have done no such thing. Questioning the format of a role PM and outguessing the mod about what character would be which role are two very different things.If Jason flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy.
(If Reckoner were to be revealed as town, I’m pretty confident that even Jason wouldn’t be able to make the argument that LL bussed Reckoner.)VP Baltar [364] wrote:Nor is it the same as what I was saying was wrong with people calling buddies earlier. Mine is conditional on jason flipping scum. Earlier people were making the argument that 'player X is bussing player Y', without seeing an alignment at all. Do you think these are really similar statements?
The point is that both you and Jason were making statements that 2 players were mafia together without any actual reasons connecting the 2. Just like Jason. And regarding Jason’s action, you had this to say: “Discussing something that has no logical reason to be believed either way is a major waste of time on D1.”
If Jebus’s behavior wasn’t suspicious, then why did you ask essentially the same question?VP Baltar [cont] wrote:Yes, it very much is different and I don't understand what anything I said about Jebus has to do with you not following up on your suspicions
If Jebus’s behavior was suspicious, then what in Jebus’s behavior since indicates that he’s innocent to invalidate the suspicion?
[The rest of [364] I believe is covered above.]
Reckoner:
No, you made an assumption that there’s no other cop in the game. That assumption didn’t come from your PM. I’m trying to figure out where it did come from. That’s hardly “useless”.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
1)
Again, it would be really nice to have specifics instead of trying to guess at what you “feel is fake”.VP Baltar [370] wrote:<snip>
The point is that your scumhunting seems to have no real direction. That is why I feel it is fake. I don't care how effective you think your questions are, they aren't reading that way to me.
2A) I’ll concede this point because I had forgotten about the second prompting. But your prompting was not what prompted my vote of Jebus. His actions did. And you seem to be implying that there’s no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid.
2b)
Well, after 14 pages the best you had was a bandwagon hop onto someone you had been defending until then.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:<snip>
Again you are deflecting to a lesser point. I'm saying that if after 15 pages of a game the best case you can come up with is a mostly lurker vote on Jebus you are clearly not trying. You have considerable experience on the site, and I expect you are more than capable of effectively scumhunting. This fits nowhere near those expectations.
No, but I’m willing to lynch Jebus over his behavior this entire day. (and more on this below)VP Baltar [cont] wrote:Are you really willing to lynch Jebus over one single statement?
3) [sorry, misinterpreted what the “problem” was you were referring to. Responding to the original accusation]
Didn’t you just say that according to you, only 3 other players “seem like they are genuinely scumhunting”? Which is the “weirdness” I mentioned, in which far too many players areYou try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.
4) 1)
Huh? That’s not what you attacked me for, nor what I responded to.VP Baltar [370, cont] wrote:<snip>And you failed to explain how my refutations to these in exampleswithin actual contextis wrong. Instead, you prefer to continue comparing apples to oranges, which is why I say your arguments are not the actual case.
You were attacking me for “calling your points hypocritical, when that clearly is not the case”. If you require a contextual refutation involving thoughts not documented in this thread, then it’s not “clearly the case”. And so my questions have merit, regardless of whether your explanation is valid or not..
Or, am I supposed to say “Player X just did 1 or 2 or 3 contradictory things. I’ll ignore them because I’m sure X has a perfectly good contextual explanation for all that.”?
And speaking of ignoring actual context…
5)
Let’s hear the antitown motivation for the following context:VP Baltar [cont] wrote:No, you're arguing semantics and it's scummy. Reckoner's "a" vs. "the" thing is the most obvious example.
<snip>
Reckoner claims cop/Kate.
VP and Juls try to get Reckoner lynched because Kate doesn’t match cop and because marshall was mentioned.
EmpTyger makes up an attack on Reckoner while simultaneously rebutting the attacks that 2 others have against Reckoner.
How does that make any sense? Unlike, say, that I’m genuinely reacting to questionable statements made by each of VP, Juls, and Reckoner?
There’s still no point to stand!VP Baltar [cont] wrote:re: non-sequitor- Fine, I should have pushed the return key there so it wasn't so confusing for you. The point still stands.Why am I guilty if Jason is guilty?
Well, of course you think they’re irrelevant and unnecessary. They undermine your argument.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
I find these questions rather irrelevant. Please explain how they are necessary.Emptyger wrote:If Jebus’s behavior wasn’t suspicious, then why did you ask essentially the same question?
If Jebus’s behavior was suspicious, then what in Jebus’s behavior since indicates that he’s innocent to invalidate the suspicion?
You’re saying that my attack on Jebus is invalid because you “don't see how anyone could have anything better than a null read on him.” I’m pointing out that based on *your* actions, either:
You think he’s behaved suspiciously, or
You were doing the same thing you’re accusing me of doing.
Reckoner did not even go that far in his conclusion: he quickly admitted (in response to my question) that there could be another cop with a different sanity.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
Hint: This is a mini-game. There is no way in hell there is multiple cops unless the mod is horribly stupid. That is most certainly not the case. Ergo: there aren't multiple cops and this is you pushing semantics.Emptyger wrote:No, you made an assumption that there’s no other cop in the game. That assumption didn’t come from your PM. I’m trying to figure out where it did come from. That’s hardly “useless”.
Alternatively, I can very easily see that slip being made by a mafia cop overconfidently saying “I’m the cop”.
Do I think that that is definitely what happened? No. But I don’t see why a potential slip shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s “semantics”. Do mafia never misspeak when they make up a claim?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
I’ll agree that more people need to post. I think I’m going to separate out the questions pertaining to my attack on Jebus into a separate post I’ll make later- I do not have much time now.
I was referring to your vote on Jason.VP Baltar [377] wrote:<snip>
Really? How would you assess my involvement in the Reckoner wagon? Do I seem to be genuinely pursuing my case against you?Emp wrote:Well, after 14 pages the best you had was a bandwagon hop onto someone you had been defending until then.
That was exactly my point! According to you , Jason, CKD, LL, Reckoner, and the rest “don’t meet what you would consider contribution” or however you want to phrase it. That’s 8/11 players = most of the game…VP Baltar [cont] wrote:<snip>
This is some really BS selective quoting you have going on here. You asked for persons who met my expectations for contributions. I gave you three names. That doesn't mean I think there are only three players who are contributing. I have an admittedly high standard. Jason, CKD, LL, and Reckoner have all been regularly contributing, but it doesn't necessarily meet what I consider good contribution.
“Disingenuous”? I gave reasons and explanations. With a basis that you seem to agree with: that there is an issue with how most of the players in the game are contributing. Except for me, it is that they are being contradictory in their behavior.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:The difference with your play and their play is that your attempts to scumhunt seem especially disingenious, which is why I think you are likely scum.
You seem to be vaguely implying that since I didn’t just blindly sheep along onto bandwagons, I’m guilty.
This is ridiculous. You want to talk out of context? Here’s the timeline.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
What I'm saying is that when you brought up every single one of those "contradictions" originally, I explained why, based on the context of my words, your accusations were incorrect. You then simply restated the "contradictions" again out of context, as if I had never addressed them in the first place.emp wrote:Or, am I supposed to say “Player X just did 1 or 2 or 3 contradictory things. I’ll ignore them because I’m sure X has a perfectly good contextual explanation for all that.”?
You contradict yourself x3
I point it out and ask for an explanation. x3
You explain yourself. x3
You attack me for calling you hypocritical when according to you clearly were not.
I point out that you clearly had been before you explanations (without going into whether you still were after the explanations)
You accuse me of restating contradictions out of context as if they were never addressed.
The only reason I brought it up again then was to rebut how you falsely claimed that I made up the contradictions in the first place!
You’re saying that I’m guilty unless I agree with every single argument made against a player, or unless I disagree with every single argument made against a player? That’s ridiculous. Some arguments may be good, some may be bad.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
The anti-town motivation is that you are casting suspicion on both sides of an argument so you are guaranteed to come out on the "right" side of it later.emptyger wrote:Let’s hear the antitown motivation for the following context:
Reckoner claims cop/Kate.
VP and Juls try to get Reckoner lynched because Kate doesn’t match cop and because marshall was mentioned.
EmpTyger makes up an attack on Reckoner while simultaneously rebutting the attacks that 2 others have against Reckoner.
How does that make any sense? Unlike, say, that I’m genuinely reacting to questionable statements made by each of VP, Juls, and Reckoner?
Here, there were [at least] 2 arguments against Reckoner.
One of them was bad, and so I said so.
One of them I wanted to explore further, and so I did.
VP Baltar [cont] wrote:Also, please quote for me where you "rebutted" anything Juls or I said about Reckoner's claim.EmpTyger [326] wrote:There’s only one thing I see potentially wrong with Reckoner’s claim. And it’s not anything that’s been mentioned so far. On the contrary, I really don’t like the objections that have been raised by VP and Juls. And I happen to disagree with their conclusions.
<snip>
So, then, if Jebus flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy, right?VP Baltar [377, cont] wrote:
If jason flipped scum, I would suspect your "attack" on me as being a chainsaw defense.emp wrote:Why am I guilty if Jason is guilty?
VP Baltar [cont] wrote:Speaking of which, what is your opinion on jason anyhow? I don't remember hearing you clearly state which side of that argument you're leaning.
To elaborate: I think he’s suspicious taken in isolation. But I’m not at this point willing to just vote one player in isolation without considering the context of the rest of the game, for reasons I’ve also already pointed out.EmpTyger [285] wrote:If I had to pick one player in isolation right now: Jason.
Non-zero. Reckoner in his claim put it at zero. I feel that that is a discrepancy worth asking about. Especially when nothing is lost by asking.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:<snip>
What do you place the odds at that this game has multiple cops in it?emp wrote:Do I think that that is definitely what happened? No. But I don’t see why a potential slip shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s “semantics”. Do mafia never misspeak when they make up a claim?
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
In [143] Jebus voted for Jason, with the reasoning being things that Jebus himself was doing.
Jebus’s explanation was part “laziness at 1am” / part no excuse. I don’t buy the explanation. (At least, not for a protown. Although, I would believe that coming from mafia.)
Jebus’s vote and attack on Jason came in the middle of a lengthy post in which he argued against and even voted Zoneace. And then after voting Jason, he continued to list other suspicions, against Drench. There’s absolutely no sign of laziness there- that’s a serious attempt to justify a vote on the current leading bandwagon, by mindlessly parroting popular reasoning without thinking to see if it’s something that Jebus actually thinks. Given his own actions- it’s clear that he doesn’t.
Now, if Jebus had other protown behavior, this might be less of an issue. But there’s nothing else from him. Other than 8/3 and randomvoting, Jebus has done only one other thing today: say that he “supported for the Reckoner wagon”. Which I am also skeptical about (and have asked him about, still without reply). Because he was still voting Jason at the time he said that. Perhaps he simply didn’t realize where his vote was- but an hour later, after the mod posted a votecount, Jebus unvoted Jason without voting Reckoner, or providing any of that promised contribution.
VP:
Exaggeration? That’s exactly what you are saying! You’re saying that any vote made against Jebus today can’t be legitimate because there’s no way anyone could have a valid read on him given his actions.VP Baltar [379] wrote:<snip>
How does me saying that there is no way you could have a read on Jebus at this time given his contribution thus far to the game translate into "there's no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid"? Blatant exaggeration.emp wrote:you seem to be implying that there’s no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid.
<snip>
(And, incidentally- um, isn’t that behavior of Jebus’s suspicious in itself, then? At least, using the reasoning you’re trying to use against me.)
First of all, I wouldn’t have to deduce what your read is if you’d just answer the question about what your read of Jebus was, instead of trying to deflect the question so you can have the cake of “EmpTyger is doing something suspicious” while still eating your “I did it too”.VP Baltar [cont] wrote:
So, because I questioned one thing he said you think I have a scummy read on him? If that were the only criteria for me to consider someone scum, then pretty much everyone in the game would be a suspect of mine.emp wrote:You’re saying that my attack on Jebus is invalid because you “don't see how anyone could have anything better than a null read on him.” I’m pointing out that based on *your* actions, either:
You think he’s behaved suspiciously, or
You were doing the same thing you’re accusing me of doing.
<snip>
Second of all, strawman. Here are the 2 explanations I can see for your questioning Jebus:
1) You find him suspicious because you questioned one thing *and* he can’t provide a reasonable explanation for it and hasn’t done anything protown since and doesn’t have any kind of some tellingly protown behavior before.
2) You’re not sure and were doing the exact same thing I was doing- asking a question to see what his reply was for his contradictory behavior. Which contradicts some of your attacks on me. Namely that you haven’t seen the kind of contradictory behavior in this game that I’ve been pointing out. And that asking questions and waiting for replies is a suspiciously disingenuous tactic.
Reckoner:
I’ll still go along with a Jason lynch, although the rules have submajority lynches at deadline. So I’d rather use the last few days of D1 to try to pressure Jebus.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Does anyone know whether Santos has been active elsewhere on site?
Reckoner:
First of all, this seems to be assuming that no further information will be obtained between one lynch and the next. Which is a rather odd thing for an alleged cop to be assuming.xRECKONERx [396] wrote:<snip>
I think Emp is scummier, but should Emp be town, I support Jason's lynch.
<snip>
Seccondly, are you saying that if I’m guilty, you wouldn’t support Jason’s lynch? Or would you still support Jason’s lynch if I’m guilty, making this statement completely pointless? (Unless you’re expecting me to be revealed as town and are trying to line up a Jason lynch?)
(Didn’t notice that you were voting me until now. What do you think about Jebus?)
VP:
Most of what I posted is a defensive response to your attacks, so if you don’t have response to it, then I’m done too. However, for the questions about your own behavior, I would like a response. In particular, the “chainsaw defense”: I’d like you to explain how what you’ve done with Jebus isn’t the exact same thing you’ve said is a suspicious thing I’ve done to Jason.
Also, what do you think about this?Juls [394] wrote:<snip>
For the record, I did not agree with and found it too declarative of VP to say that if the marshall wasn't in season 5 we had found scum. I didn't mention it at the time because I was caught up in the sleuthing more than the scum-hunting.
<snip>
Juls:
That’s your idea of a strategy for dealing with Jebus? Let’s run through the options:
Ask him to be replaced.
He’s either declared V/LA or posted filler. And he’s indicated he’s been keeping up with the thread. There’s absolutely no grounds for replacement. “Not helping the town” isn’t grounds for replacement; it’s grounds for lynching.
Ask him to be prodded.
He’s been following the game. So what would prodding accomplish?
Evaluate his activity and the cases and comments he makes
Which is what I’ve done and you seem to have a problem with. My vote isn’t for his inactivity- it’s for his activity. (His inactivity is just a compounding factor.)
Evaluate his activity and the cases and comments he makes, but don’t pressure him to be active or make cases or comments.
What do expect to happen? If you give Jebus a free pass to do as little as he wants, what do you think will happen if Jebus is guilty?
Assume he’s innocent with no basis whatsoever.
Just listing this for completeness.
…Did I miss something else?
Pop quiz:Juls [394] wrote:<snip>Now I am starting to get irritated. Quotes. Show me where I said he was scum or did anything other than question Kate as cop. I did not suspect him before. My largest problem with Reckoner is this point of contention. I don't intend to vote him based on this inconsistency because it very well could be his role. You are seriously misrepresenting my views here. And don't think I haven't noticed this, your second attempt to lump VP and I together.
For the record, I did not agree with and found it too declarative of VP to say that if the marshall wasn't in season 5 we had found scum. I didn't mention it at the time because I was caught up in the sleuthing more than the scum-hunting.
Player A makes a statement that you disagree with. You’re town. Do you:
(a) State that you disagree with A’s conclusion.
(b) Go to lengths to show that A’s premise is true.
You didn’t do anything coming anywhere close to (a). You did do (b) by quoting imdb listings.
I stand by my interpretation of your actions.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
No reason to hammer Jason. He'll be lynched at deadline per Rule 1.4, and it's better to let the clock run out to give Jebus and Santos as much time as possible to get on record/deliberately avoid participating today.
Santos:
Or we can lynch you.Santos [413] wrote:Well, you can replace me or let me catch up.
Not today, realistically. But just pointing out that the options here aren't limited to "do something out of our control" and "sit by and allow you to not help the town".-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:VP Baltar [342] wrote:Outguess the mod isn't all that useful of a game to play.
<snip>
(Your cue to start attacking me for making baseless accusations, or somesuch.)VP Baltar [511] wrote:<snip>
re: outguessing the mod--there are not generally "facts" in mafia games to go on and most of what you lynch people over ends up being speculation and what you feel the optimal play is. I'm saying the mod has a history of making setups that are reasonably balanced. There is little reason to believe that this game would be any different.
I mean, according to you, one of {Reckoner, Jason} is lying because:
(a) a detail in Jason's role that Jason hasn't actually said and
(b) you apparently don't think the mod has ever heard of mafia roleblockers?
And for all you say about "site meta" and "balanced games", the newbie cop+doctor+mafia+roleblocker setup seems to be a clear indication otherwise.
That's... a bit too much on the far-fetched side for me. And this is the second time that you reasoning has, in my opinion, taken a huge tumble to get to the conclusion.
Jason:
Why did you *breadcrumb* if you really did not want to claim?
If that's how you felt when Reckoner claimed- then why would you say "you want my role, you lynch me" when a significant number of people wanted to do just that?jasonT1981 [517] wrote:Honestly LL yes, if he had not claimed I would have supported his lynch.. I had been making points for his lynch in the lead up to his claim.
<snip>
Yes, I know the reasons you gave:
But you were willing to be lynched instead of claiming. Which per your logic should outs the doc and cop day 1 even worse, and gives the scum an even greater advantage. So how do those reasons explain your actions?jasonT1981 [440] wrote:<snip>
that is why IDID NOTwant to claim... I did not want to have the doc and cop outed on day 1... Also it now gives the scum a great advantage.
<snip>
Reckoner:
Remind us again what your reasoning was for voting me? I *really* want to hear the reasons you have for asking these questions, given how voteworthily useless you declared my "a vs. the" question.xRECKONERx [456] wrote:1. Richard Applet =/= Richard Alpert
2. Why the bolded red font to describe his claim?
3. In S5, Alpert wasn't really the doctor. He took Ben into a temple and supposedly healed him even though we never saw Ben again the rest of that season, and when he patched up Locke's leg, he was just doing what Futurelocke was telling him to do. Richard doesn't fit the doctor claim IMO.
LL:
Coincidentally, I'm already voting Jebus.Locke Lamora [516] wrote:<snip>
People need to make their minds up now. There's less than 48 hours to the deadline (regardless of which deadline post you look at) so we really need to see a definitive decision from everyone after this claim from Jason too. We do get a lynch even without a majority but I don't want to see people sliding by and not voting at this stage and given that Jason has claimed now I want to hear what everyone has to say on the matter.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
1) canadianbovine
2) Zoneace
Again, I do not intend to explain further at this time.
Reckoner:
You know, maybe if you weren’t so overeager to prematurely justify how an alleged cop would be staying alive for more than a night after a doctor’s death, you would have actually claimed your target.xRECKONERx [565] wrote:So.
I got "no result". In addition, I am told that now I am back on the island (?) so I have no need to investigate now and am now vanilla.
I also really can’t help but recall my observation yesterday: “First of all, this seems to be assuming that no further information will be obtained between one lynch and the next. Which is a rather odd thing for an alleged cop to be assuming.”
1) A thief. And I’m having trouble seeing who and how a thief’s flavor could fit “back on the island/no need to investigate now/now vanilla” when we have a confirmed Richard Alpert, Doctor.xRECKONERx [cont] wrote:What role can take away someone else's power?
2) A psychiatrist. Are you claiming ex-SK?
Zoneace:
Where do you see this? Granted, I have a bias regarding this, but where do you see any sign of this? Of the 3 people who voted Jebus:ZONEACE [562] wrote:Everyone on that Jebus wagon gets an fos That looked like an organized last minute effort to not lynch reckoner, and anything organized like that in mafia is generally bad.
1) I had been voting Jebus for over a week before, well before the last second push to Reckoner.
2) Reckoner can hardly be faulted for not wanting himself lynched, regardless of his alignment.
3) CB’s “lynching” vote on Jebus was what got Jason out of lethal range.
Better question: if that is what you feel happened, why only those who were voting Jebus? Why not Juls and CKD also?
Nice defense you prepared, but it wasn’t necessary:ZONEACE [cont] wrote:also,fos mefor not showing up to vote reckoner. I'm sorry guys, between work and my messed up sleep schedule I missed the end of the day.Porochaz [560] wrote:<snip>
Day 1 deadline ended a day early.
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
I think I would have appreciated a self-hammer there, but okay.
Santos:
No. It’s not that “townies are back on the island”.Because I’m *not*.
And it’s not because a thief targeted him with an ability, for a couple reasons, most significantly because you’re saying it happened to both of you.
And no, it’s not because Locke turned the wheel in the flavorscene, because
It could be Reckoner had to make up a lie to explain what he claimed D1 and you’re supporting it, though. And there is at least one innocent reason for doing this, so if that’s the case, say so now.Porochaz wrote:2.8 I write flavour scenes solely for the players’ and my own enjoyment. They do not contain any info that could be used to catch scums or clear townies, or be relevant to the game in any other possible way.
(As for the “not taking anything into consideration of RECKONER's explanation”, see below.)
Reckoner:
This would be more believable if Zoneace or CKD *had* considered your claim, and if I *hadn’t*. Instead of what actually happened, which was the other way around.xRECKONERx [575] wrote:<snip>
I find it truly ridiculous that he's not even considering my claim.
Because, um, I did so consider your claim.
And I had a problem with it. And I said so.
And the response you gave me was (1) to just repeat that the flavor makes sense and is consistent, ignoring my objection or (2) that the mod lied to you.
And I don’t accept those. And there’s enough other cause. And so I voted you.
Incidentally, have you given a single non-OMGUS reason against me all game?
You were too overeager to prematurely justify how an alleged cop would be staying alive for more than a night after a doctor’s death? I’m mean that was just off the top of my head. Maybe, because it’s false information too?xRECKONERx [cont] wrote:I mean, if I was just making up that I got roleblocked, why would I go through the trouble of giving the town information that my role got completely taken away?
Or, maybe it has some basis in truth, but because you lied about being a cop D1, you had to alter what you claimed happened, creating an inconsistency.
CDB:
Why is Santos “just being silly”? That’s awfully dismissive of something that should be relevant, to whatever alignment Santos has.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
EDWODP:
Just to clarify this "And there is at least one innocent reason for doing this, so if that’s the case, say so now."
Just say that it's the case if so. Don't say specifically why.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Unvote: xRECKONERx. From where I am, I honestly don’t see how he can be telling the truth. But if he and Santos somehow are…
If VP is the only one here besides me who began off-island and still is off-island, we can confirm each other as innocent.
Is anyone else off-island who thinks they shouldn’t be based on what Reckoner and Santos have said?
VP:
I know there’s a good chance you don’t see how what I’m talking about above is possible. If I’m right in my guess,don’t panic. Because if Reckoner is telling the truth, we probably shouldn’t.
[As for who with a mafia Reckoner: that’s a good point. It would have to be Santos + somebody else, given what Santos has claimed. And the only other one who seems possible for the somebody else is CKD. Maybe Juls, but I can’t get past the imdb attack. And this makes me start to worry that Reckoner + Santos are somehow telling the truth.]
Zoneace:
If it’s you, you don’t need to say anything unless someone else is lying.
Santos:
/acknowledging [626], but until I hear from someone, it’s not my place to tell. I don’t think any harm would come of it, but it’s a trust thing, and I need for them to know they can trust me.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I don't know why I was worried that you were telling the truth.xRECKONERx [637] wrote:People being off-island doesn't prove anything. In fact, I was thinking the Losties are on-island and the scum are off-island. I don't see how being off-island confirms anything though.
You just said that you began off-island.
Vote: xRECKONERx-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I know I have a bias here, but for what it’s worth, I don’t have any problem with a cop choosing to have investigated VP in this situation.
Also, I hate second-guessing myself.
Santos:
Point blank- will you vouch for Reckoner’s innocence? Yes or no.
CB:
Wait right there.canadianbovine [662] wrote:no it was because i write things as i read through, since i always come home to 1-3 pages to read. i voted you because i dont like the fact that you still pushed a reckoners lynch. maybe i dont think he's had protown behaivour, maybe i've felt that he's been very unlucky. maybe he is a cop and maybe he did lose his power. Then what? then its day 3, we've lost cop and doc, we've lost an additional 4 more town players. I say 4 because i think we've assumed that there is a serial killer, unless this game has weird post day 1 flavor kills? didnt think so. Anyways, 6 town players gone, it'll be lylo tommorow. I'm not ready to take that risk by voting for the one person who is currently cop.
“We” haven’t done any such assuming. There hasn’t even been any discussion even remotely related to this. (And incidentally a SK in that situation you outline would not be targeting innocents.)
Moreover, if you believe that Reckoner was a cop, then if he were targeted by a thief, we’d still have a cop.
I don’t like either of these assumptions.
Juls:
And- I repeat- how would your proposed Sawyer-thief work with the *confirmed* powerroles we have? Specifically, “Richard Alpert, Doctor”?Juls [652] wrote:<snip>
Who is simple. Sawyer is a thief on the show. He is a conartist. Why wouldn't this be extremely obvious to you? Second, Sawyer would have reason to bring Kate back to the island. It's a crazy little thing called love.Emptyger wrote:1) A thief. And I’m having trouble seeing who and how a thief’s flavor could fit “back on the island/no need to investigate now/now vanilla” when we have a confirmed Richard Alpert, Doctor.
<snip>
(You’re arguing that I *should* be thinking you’re mafia with Reckoner…?)Juls [cont] wrote:
I explained that my comment was that I thought VP's questioning was a good question. What I didn't agree with was that if it proved to be true that this automagicly made him scum. With this knowledge, please explain what you have a problem with?Emptyger 632 wrote:[As for who with a mafia Reckoner: that’s a good point. It would have to be Santos + somebody else, given what Santos has claimed. And the only other one who seems possible for the somebody else is CKD. Maybe Juls, but I can’t get past the imdb attack. And this makes me start to worry that Reckoner + Santos are somehow telling the truth.]
I don’t believe that you disagreed with VP’s argument.
Because- as I’ve already said- a player who disagrees with “If A then B” does not spend as much effort as you did to prove A, while not saying a word about the “but that doesn’t imply B” part, as you didn’t.
Reckoner:
You just burst out with sudden and out of nowhere total agreement with something VP said, and while I don’t have time to check, this isn’t for the first time it’s happened this game.
VP:
(Sorry, which previous questions are you waiting for me to answer?)
I don’t think there’s anything I can say to make you trust me. Maybe with a massclaim, but if there’s even a grain of truth in what Reckoner has said, I don’t think that’s a good idea- and I think there might a grain of truth regardless of his alignment.
As for Reckoner/CB: I remember considering it and rejecting it, because the last second switch from Jason to Jebus made me think CB was unlikely to be aligned with a mafia Reckoner. (In fact, I remember considering whether he could be a SK, but dismissed that too.)
Reconsidering now, though- I might have been too hasty. I am still leaning towards CB being more likely to be in a non-Reckoner mafia.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Oh god I'm a moron. I just realized something.Unvote: xRECKONERxbecause right now I need to reevaluate the entire game.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
To the person who I was hoping would understand me:
I think I know who you are. I know I know what you are.
I cannot protect you. Do not come forward, or identify yourself as my audience in any way.
I was wrong- not about everything, but about enough- and I’m sorry, and please believe me.
(Still rereading)-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I believe Santos and think he’s innocent.
I believe Reckoner, but I don’t think that means he’s innocent, and yet I don’t think he’s the right lynch today.
I’m feeling much happier about CDB and a little happier about VP.
I’m dead tired and need to get to sleep. Sorry.
VP:
You got the result of your question/answer right away? Can Reckoner or someone else corroborate this?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP said that his role changed immediately.
Reckoner said that his role changed at dawn.
I would like this discrepancy cleared up immediately.
Santos:
When did you learn you lost your ability?
Zoneace:
I think Santos is innocent because regardless of Reckoner’s alignment, I don’t see any reason for a guilty Santos to defend him in the way that he did.
VP:
Yes, done rereading. Just haven’t had the time irl to figure out what to do with it, sorry.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I think that Reckoner or VP is lying. And I can think of good reason for each to be doing so if not town.
Santos:
Why don’t you how anything to say about how VP was told immediately about his role change? Considering how strenuously you defended Reckoner- why didn’t you have anything to say about VP?
CB:
You went to a lot of trouble to breadcrumb Korean- why?
Yeah, 3 of us were voting Jebus who wasn’t contributing.canadianbovine [775] wrote:<snip>
lynching me.... the last time we needed to lynch someone, we chose the wrong person because they didnt contribute or post a lot. Deja vu?
<snip>
Another 3 of us *were* voting LL and Jason, who were participating.
What’s your point?
Reckoner:
So what do you think your losing your power was a result of?xRECKONERx [768] wrote:No, I don't think me losing my powers was a result of me answering that question.
<snip>
Zoneace:
We don’t need to lynch Reckoner to gain that significant information. We’ll know it today, as soon as we get another question or 2.ZONEACE [771] wrote:<snip>
I think he is the lynch today, and that we gain a SIGNIFICANT amount of information if we lynch him. I believe him to scum, but, on the off chance he isn't we gain confirmation of his role being lost, which would then give us a solid town prospect in santos, and would bump VP up in the townliness meter. If he's not town, HEY HE'S SCUM AND OH LOOK, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN SANTOS.
<snip>-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Juls:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether VP flavorclaims. He's already given the relevant mechanical information, and flavor isn't the issue here. If he thinks it's important (or if someone else wants to argue that it is), that's his (or their) call.
Reckoner:
Okay, fine, what do you think your returning to the island was a result of?
Why don't you know what the point of your question was, when Juls and VP do?
Santos:
Despite what I said earlier, I'm getting an increasingly bad feeling about you.
Huh? First of all, Zoneace just voted CB to lynch-1.Santos [780] wrote:ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>
Second of all, *you* hadn't given one look at either CKD or CB!
But that's different from "Reckoner is innocent". Unless you're saying that it makes him innocent, which is what I wanted to know.Santos [704] wrote:Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I would not believe that name claims predict the validity of alignment. (although the "have not clearly expressed a view whatsoever" group was accurate)
Santos:
This better be good. If you believed that name claims predicted the validity of alignment, why you didn't suggest a massnameclaim?
And, again, being more direct:
Why did you say this, when it's not true about Zoneace, but is true about *you*?Santos [780] wrote:ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>
Does that make Reckoner innocent?Santos [704] wrote:Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I did a quick votecount and think CB’s at 3: VP, CKD, Zoneace. But don’t treat that as official. There’s no rush, and at the very least there’s still Santos’s explaining for today.
CB:
Let’s try this one more time. This time, why don’t you not evade the questions that someone who isn’t voting you is asking you when at best you’re at lynch-2 with someone else willing to vote you.
1) Why did you breadcrumb Korean? I don’t care if it’s “minor details”. I want you to explain those minor details.
2) No, *you’re* changing what you said. Which was this:
Not thiscanadianbovine [775] wrote:<snip>
lynching me.... the last time we needed to lynch someone, we chose the wrong person because they didnt contribute or post a lot. Deja vu?
<snip>
So, again, what’s your point? Are you saying that since some of us voted innocents yesterday, you must be an innocent today?canadianbovine [814] wrote:<snip>
the town has been 0/4 for trying to lynch people.
<snip>
Juls:
Um, Santos? Why don’t you want to hear what he has to say:Juls [816] wrote:mod:I would like a votecount please. I think my vote on CB would be the hammer so I am trying to hold off so conversation can wrap up. Does anyone (besides CB) object to my hammer? Is there more to be discussed?
If you think he’s innocent, then why don’t you want to hear his theory, either because it’s useful if he’s right, or to correct an innocent’s misconception if it’s wrong?
If you think he’s guilty, then why don’t you want to have him explain himself?
If you’re uncertain, then why don’t you want to hear him speak further?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Santos:
Why did you say this, when it was not true about Zoneace, but was true about *you*?Santos [780] wrote:ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>
Does that make Reckoner innocent?Santos [704] wrote:Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.
CB:
No, here’s the actual post:canadianbovine [880] wrote:<snip>
i was having fun with the game, that was in the point of RVS.
Reckoner is making a serious point. I ask him a serious question. You quote us, and then add your line in response.canadianbovine [43] wrote:
[says to someone who hasnt posted yet]EmpTyger wrote: Reckoner:
Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?xRECKONERx [36] wrote: I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.
그는 그녀를 좋아하는 그녀가 알고 있는것 같아요 ?
This might be more believable if your primary argument against Jason hadn’t been that you didn’t like how he breadcrumbed his role.canadianbovine [880, cont] wrote:again. Reckoner breadcrumbing desmond...yet no ones asking why he isnt desmond. I breadcrumbed Jin...so everyone assumes im Jin? What role could jin possibly fit?
Why is (3) going to be killing a town? This is the second time that you’ve stated that.canadianbovine [877] wrote:<snip>
since im lynched at dusk, dusk is the start of night.Zoneace wrote: 3 town members tongiht? there were only 2 kills last night, did you just let slip something?
<snip>
Me (1) + Scum kill (2) + SK/vig kill (3)
<snip>
Zoneace:
Stop rushing the CB lynch. He’s not going anywhere, and I’d have thought that you’d have been interested in having Santos explain himself.
You’re already conceding me, and Reckoner clearly is not going to vote himself over anyone. So that leaves CB, who if anything derailed the *Jason* wagon, not the Reckoner one. And that’s neither an “entire wagon” nor “premeditated”. If anything, it’s 1 person being opportunistic.ZONEACE [857] wrote:
I said this at the beginning of today. That entire wagon looked premeditated. except for emp (who was on jebus for a long time) it was like the wagon was specifically an attempt to derail the reckoner wagon yesterday.curiouskarmadog wrote:On the jebus lynch was CB, EMp, and reck. I would bet money that 1 (or more) scum was on this lynch...call it gut
VP:
I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I would definitely be revealing something significant today. At this point, I don’t expect to be. I can elaborate on [737] if you’d like, but for the most part it won’t be directly related to what prompted my reread, just incidental things I noticed in the course of it. (Actually, I should probably do this anyway, but running to work now.)-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
That’s still only lynch-2. CKD unvoted. Not that that makes CB’s not-self-hammering defense any less ridiculous.
Juls:
Why do you still have no interest in hearing Santos?
CB:
Once again: no, here’s the actual post.canadianbovine [896] wrote:<snip>
what i said in korean has absolutely nothing to do with what you guys were talking about. it was irrelevant.
<snip>
If it had nothing to do with what we were talking about, then why did you quoted the conversation between Reckoner and me. Why did you do that what you were saying was “irrelevant”?canadianbovine [43] wrote:
[says to someone who hasnt posted yet]EmpTyger wrote:
Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?xRECKONERx [36] wrote:I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.
그는 그녀를 좋아하는 그녀가 알고 있는것 같아요 ?
Although, it’s getting to be a better question why you keep giving quick denials that don’t hold up and as little explanation as possible, instead of a straight answer.
VP:
I believe Santos and think he’s innocent.This was the manner of his defense of Reckoner. I’m having second thoughts about this.
I believe Reckoner, but I don’t think that means he’s innocent, and yet I don’t think he’s the right lynch today.[waiting on the question I keep asking Santos]
I’m feeling much happier about CDBIf CKD were mafia, I can only really see it with Santos and CB. The attacks on Reckoner are too consistent to be feigned, I feel, and [554]- there’s got to be some reason why he avoided the Jebus wagon. And I am having a really hard time seeing Reckoner and VP innocent with Santos guilty.
and a little happier about VP.Reckoner lying is a big point in your favor. I don’t see you 2 aligned.
/acknowledging that I am aware of your concern, and am not ignorant of the scenarios involving my being targeted tonight.VP Baltar [889] wrote:<snip>
My main concern is that if you are town and the scum come after you tonight, your information dies with you. Obviously it is a calculated risk to reveal, but it's not going to help us if you just simply die when there is something we should know.
Incidentally, how come you’re not worried about CB self-hammering, like you were Reckoner?
Also, is there something in particular we should be looking at in CB’s prior? I’ve not enough time irl to aimlessly delve through CB’s history.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I’ve not yet gotten a question from the mod.
I am way too tired tonight to look for a reason to list all the reasons why I don’t believe Santos. Maybe over the weekend. Better is to consider who do I think is mafia with him. Possibilities:
1) Juls. Tried way too hard to lynch CB to end the day before Santos needed to explain himself.
2) CB. Why is Santos doing this drawn-out theory-launching *now*?
3) Reckoner. For the defense. I don’t know. I’m less sure as I think about it.
I do not think Zoneace, but the rest I think I need to look closer at. Not voting because not ready to lynch yet.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I think CB is still the correct lynch today.
Does anyone know if CDB is active anywhere on site?
VP:
Why is Juls “obvtown”? I read her as being shut-up-Santos-before-you-do-more-damage.
CKD:
No, here’s what you *know*:curiouskarmadog [1031] wrote:<snip>
you know this is all based on fucking flavor..so i dont know..I am going with what I know..started on the island..dont have a power...never had a power.
Started on the island, had a power. Not based on flavor, or Santos’s word. That’s based on mod-revelation. So, why are you insisting that you “know” something that completely contradicts this?Porochaz wrote:jasonT1981 - Alpert - Doctor - Killed Night 1
Reckoner:
What odd vibes, where did you already say this? Because I’ve been noticing a couple times VP will say something, and you will immediately drop everything to agree with him, without any kind of prior indication that you thought whatever it was.xRECKONERx [1062] wrote:VP has been giving me odd vibes (as I've already said), but I don't want to lynch him.
Santos:
Do I need to ask why you think I should be trusting you?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
CKD:
We're not talking about your role. We're talking about everyone's roles.
You said: "Being on the island...means you dont have a power."
Richard Alpert was on the island.
Richard Alpert had a power.
So either an explanation for the mechanics of Others' was in your role PM, or you're trying to hand-wave a complete guess you have about flavor as something you "know from your role", or you're lying. Which is it?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Quick clarification I just caught: I typoed in [918]. That should read: “I’m feeling much happier about CDB.IfCKDCDBwere mafia…”
Need to look into permutations involving CB, not sure I’m going to get to tonight. But CB’s still today’s lynch. [1090] is hilariously desperate, and not just because of the “CKD is Sun” error:
So, CB thinks that CKD is an innocent with a *non-vanilla* role.canadianbovine [1090] wrote:ckd and juls are sun and jin..
there was implied that they are related somehow.
usually in a lovers/brothers/ w/e situation, one is town, and one is scum..
CKD is sure that i am vt because our role pms match up, so im going to.
Vote: Juls
Because CB thinks CKD accurately knows a *vanilla* role PM.
CB:
If you and Santos are both mafia, he launches this theatrical theory to stall your lynch. If you’re innocent and Santos is guilty, I don’t see why he doesn’t keep his mouth shut and wait for you to swing.canadianbovine [1072] wrote:<snip>
how does the bolded make me a possible scum partner?EmpTyger wrote:2) CB. Why is Santos doing this drawn-out theory-launching *now*?
<snip>
<snip>
What’s your explanation for what Santos was doing? (Keeping in mind of course that he’s claimed Sun, not CKD.)
VP:
Don’t like this a lot.VP Baltar [1068] wrote:
Mostly meta reasons. Juls and I have been playing a lot of games together recently (in which she was always town), so my gut says town on her based on that. I'm not ruling out the possibility of her being scum, but for the today it's not even really a consideratioin of mine.emp wrote:Why is Juls “obvtown”? I read her as being shut-up-Santos-before-you-do-more-damage.
1) You go from “obvtown” to “gut for meta reasons that only you have”.
2) I’m leery that you apparently need me to point out the logical fallacy here. (Consider the following analogy: “Juls hasn’t been eaten by giant purple alligators in your many recent games. Juls was town in your many recent games. Therefore, since Juls hasn’t been eaten by giant purple alligators in this game, she’s town in this game!”)
3) More seriously, you’re implying that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently that you’d be able to catch her? That’s almost implausibly absurd thinking on your part.
4) I’m rather dubious that there’s a precedent that explains Juls behavior here. She seemed to be trying as hard as she did anything up until that point to get the day to end before Santos spoke (once ignoring my directly pointing out that we were still waiting on Santos). Then she tried to convince him to drop his argument. And she abandons the very principle she was arguing to do the very thing she is allegedly arguing against.
For those of us who haven’t played a lot of games recently with Juls and you, can you provide any specifics of what is so telling to you?
Juls:
Just out of curiosity, do you have anything to say about VP’s gut read of you?
CKD:
You’re betting your life that mafia role PMs look nothing like town role PMs? How do you know with that much certainty what mafia role PMs will look like?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Juls:
Fine, let me cite actual evidence:Juls [1097] wrote:Emptyger, I am sick of you characterizing me as someone who was "trying" to not allow Santos to explain his theory.
<snip>
(Same page, same day, 2 hours later...)Santos [805] wrote:Also, I have an enormously favorable argument to presentin favorof ZONEACE's position, but I would like to hear from those 'neutral' folks, please.
(I call you on it. You plead misunderstanding. Yet a few days and pages later...)Juls [816] wrote:mod:I would like a votecount please. I think my vote on CB would be the hammer so I am trying to hold off so conversation can wrap up. Does anyone (besides CB) object to my hammer? Is there more to be discussed?
(Same page, same day, 14 hours later...)Santos [903] wrote:Thank you. I will post my theory, POA, tomorrow now that everyone is playing.Juls [910] wrote:OK, the conversation has died down. I am still good with his lynch and it seems others are as well. No need in holding this up any longer.
vote: canadianbovine
There’s the evidence in support of my characterization. You have any evidence for an alternate characterization, or are you just going to say “you're wrong because I say so”?
Not really. As I explained in [918], I felt a little better about VP because I didn’t see him aligned with Reckoner. And I still think that. But I’m looking at the permutations involving VP as well as the ones involving Reckoner, especially after comments like [1068].Juls [1097, cont] wrote:<snip>
You, however, seem to be going back and forth about him. I seem to recall you saying you felt good about him before now you seem to be going a different direction. Is that a fair assessment of your stance?
Out of curiosity, how has VP’s play been different here, to you?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I was asked the other question. It’s a good one and I’m still thinking about my response, but I’m leaning towards diverging from what happened on-screen. I want to think over it for a little bit, but I’ll PM my answer tonight.Do not end the day until I get a chance to learn what if anything the result was.
Other than allegedly Reckoner, has anyone *not* been told the result of their answer? I had thought Santos, from the way he was vouching for Reckoner, but he’s since clarified that he wasn’t asked a question.
Haven’t had a chance to look at groupings. I keep having the site not load property <frustrated>
Reckoner:
Do you have any reason for suspecting me beyond the (a) “I attacked you D1” that you mentioned D1 and (b) that I “didn’t consider your claim” earlier today (which, I already showed in [595] is not true)?
CKD:
Noting your choice to ignore this.EmpTyger [1096] wrote:<snip>
CKD:
You’re betting your life that mafia role PMs look nothing like town role PMs? How do you know with that much certainty what mafia role PMs will look like?
VP:
Can you provide any of these “few different aspects that seem indicative to Juls being town”?
You didn’t say “Juls is town for meta reasons”.You said Juls is “obv town”.Does that mean something other than “Juls is obviously town” to you? Because while I do see a basis for how you could use that term to describe Zoneace in that situation, I don’t see any way that you could legitimately call Juls obvtown. And you haven’t. You’ve just given vague assertions that you say only you could possibly know, that you aren’t trying to clarify, that apparently can only mean something to you, and you keep saying these nebulous reasons outweigh the exceptions that I’ve brought up that you agree are suspicious!
None of those other members of the town (myself included) attempted a few days after being warned to lynch again Reckoner. Juls did, with Santos.VP Baltar [1103] wrote:<snip>
Yes, the Santos thing looks sort of bad and I noted it as well, but several members of the town (yourself included iirc) looked awful at the beginning of the day to me because they wanted to lynch Reckoner with almost no discussion whatsoever. That may or may not have been a royal mistake, but given the revelations this day has brought I am glad that I went out of my way to stop it.
<snip>
You don’t have a control.If you don’t know how Juls acts when *not* town, how do you know that it’s not like this? I repeat: you’re implying that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently that you’d be able to catch her. And that’s implausibly absurd thinking on your part.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
/submitted answer. I’m deviating from canon. Again, wait until me (and CKD) can see what reply the mod gives.
I really need to consider groupings. There are a lot of suspicious behavior that I do not think are compatable.
VP:
Nah, I think your trying to deflect your suspicious behavior by trying to allege that my accusation is groundless. But to make sure no one forgets tomorrow, I’ll repeat and clarify:VP Baltar [1134] wrote:I'm curious why you have such an issue with that.
1) Deceptive reasoning.You use “obvtown” to mean “gut for meta reasons that only he has and don’t apply to anyone else”. And in the same sentence where you’re using “obvtown” about Zoneace, I might add.
2) Insists on logical fallacy.You have no experience, no extra knowledge with how Juls behaves as *mafia*. But you’re claiming to know exactly how she’d behave differently if she were mafia.
3) Implausibly bad play.You assume that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently, despite their recent games together, that you’d be able to catch her out D1. And since she didn’t behave so stupidly obviously differently, she must be town.
4) Can’t give an explanation.You say you have an explanation for the behavior Juls has done in this game, which you concede is otherwise suspicious. But you conveniently can’t give it, and supposedly won’t ever be ever to give it.
…Huh? What’s to be argued about Zoneace?VP Baltar [cont] wrote:Also, why do you think it's ok for me to say it about zone and not Juls? I don't have any experience playing with zone at all, so it seems like the vice versa would be the valid argument to make.
There is in-thread evidence that Zoneace is town, and I *agree* with your conclusion.
There is no in-thread evidence that Juls is town, and I *disagree* with your conclusion.
CKD:
Okay, fine. Do you have any reason that “VP is scum” other than your certainty of role PMs?curiouskarmadaog [1135] wrote:<snip>
please post where I said I was betting my life betting on PMs...thats why you are scummy, nice misrepping.
but to address your "point". I do not know what mafia Pms look like...I also dont know what power role PMs look like. What I do know I have said over and over and over and over again..CB's claim looks exactly like mine. If you had our PM you would know that...point noted.
I am betting my life that VP is scum.
<snip>
(Yes, I know, he’s not taking your wager. But that wasn’t until after you made it.)
Reckoner:
For someone who wants us to believe you didn’t lie about being a cop who got no result last night, you have a really unconvincing way of showing it.xRECKONERx [1142] wrote:Actually, I think he's asking for us to take the wager of lynching VP today and if he's not scum, lynching CKD tomorrow. It would appear that he's trying to avoid a CB lynch. I wonder why? What makes CB the "most important scum"?
Also, I’ve lost track of the number of times you haven’t answered the why-do-you-think-I’m-suspicious question.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Reckoner:
Once upon a time you claimed that you got "no result" for your alleged cop investigation. Now, you can't seem to find a reason why some mafia might be more important to lynch than others.
CKD:
Then, for those of the town whose mindreading abilities aren't up to your expectations, could you tell us what it does have to do with?curiouskarmadog [1164] wrote:<snip>
Emp, me thinking that VP is scum has little to do with PMs.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
I don't see a mafia Zoneace reacting that way to Santos.
If Santos is guilty: I don't see him pushing, not when CB is waiting to hang. (Although I'll admit I didn't consider a CB/Santos/Zoneace possibility until just now.)
If Santos is innocent: I don't see Zoneace going to all that energy to try to end Santos's distracting misconceptions.
...If you are proposing that your statement that Zoneace was obvtown was baseless, okay, sure, I'll bite:
Why did you say that Zoneace was "obvtown"?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
It's not up to me. The game's not going to move forward until the *mod* gets back from V/LA. I can't get any result untli then. And, CB's lynchscene wouldn't be posted until then either.
Not that we can't listen to CKD and anyone else (I personally would also like to hear Reckoner) explain themselves in the meantime. (Or, *not* explain themselves, as the case may be.)-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Reckoner:
The incredibly vague "it's the people you're putting in the hotseat that interest me" that you're claiming consistently makes me your number 2 suspect.
And, no, you can't stall for a reread. Not when this past week you went from this:
to this a few days later:xRECKONERx [858] wrote:<snip>
I guess I should read CB and Emp in iso, because their names keep coming up.
<snip>
So either you just did a reread, or your reasoning for supporting my lynch doesn't depend on a reread. (Or you're lying about finding me suspcious.)xRECKONERx [1092] wrote:<snip>
As for now, I'm in support of a CKD or Emp lynch.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
I received a PM.
I’m on the island.
Jacob is not mafia.
My role did not change.
He is hiding in the shadows.
I am confident that Reckoner lied about not getting a PM before D2 dawn.
Grouping analysis, assuming CB/Reckoner/X
I don’t see VP or CDB being the third, because of the D1 finalvotecount. Zoneace went to a lot of trouble to stop the Jason lynch, and pushed too genuinely I feel against Reckoner and CB. That leaves:
Juls: not sure what to make of CB’s WIFOMy vote on her. OTOH, the imdb attack on Reckoner.
Santos: “if reckoner is scum, im pushing your lynch” to CB. OTOH, tried very hard to distract from CB’s lynch.
CKD: not sure what to make of the “CKD is a vanilla lover town Sun” that CB was pushing. And his Reckoner votes never stuck for more than a few hours. And quickly joined the CB wagon. Although he definitely tried to protect CB.
CB/Reckoner/no one:
I’d be curious to compare who was on what bandwagons/off what bandwagons. But that can wait.
If Reckoner is revealed as not-Kate, Santos (who insisted that Reckoner = Kate = innocent) and CKD (who pushed the mafia don’t have safeclaims theory) shoot to the top of the suspect list.
CKD:
You have anything final at all to add? I’m done today.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Vote: canadianbovine. Lynch-1.
I think I don't agree with anything CKD said in [1201]. It reads to me like a desperate attempt to buy out breathing room for CB and Reckoner, who at a couple points today he's tried to assert cannot be today's lynched. And I really don't like how so much of CKD's logic is based on how he knows exactly what mafia role PMs must look like. That's all he's said about why VP is guilty, and all he's said about why CB is innocent. (I don't believe he actually has another reason against VP. Both because he can't provide one, and because he after a reread "felt okay" about VP on 8/30, but one week later was so confident that VP was mafia- and according to him then, it was based solely on name claims [1073].)
The only incongruous thing is why Santos is back on the island. Because either he lied (presumably to save Reckoner?), or that it did happened, for a reason. And I'm not thinking of any reason that doesn't include him lying. The only thing I could think of would be if he was brought back as a result of someone else's question, but I'd expect that to be Juls and she didn't receive a question until D2.
So, CB/Reckoner/CKD. With Santos if one of CB or Reckoner are not mafia. "santos, vote me if you want too...but you better back up that vote." in [1020] feels very much that CKD instructing Santos to bus him.
Santos
My mistake: CB said that to you. Point stands- I think it makes a CB/Reckoner/Santos less likely.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Waiting for the mod to clarify something.
To the person who understands me:
Thank you and you're welcome. Don't say anything else at this time.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
Zoneace, please don't reveal what happened just yet. I think I've earned your trust, yes?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
VP:
Why do you think Juls made a protection?VP Baltar [1264] wrote:<snip>
Also, if Juls' previously stated one shot ability was a protect, I would like to know who was protected so we can confirm that person as well.
Porochaz [1249, [color=blue]emphasis added][/color] wrote:Hi gingers, ladies and instruments of some inadvertant usage...
I aM quite obv. DRUNK. DRUNK LIKE A SKUNK.
A few things to let you know...
I think I will be processing them asap. Then the thread will reopen.I have all night choices in.50 page mini replacement is a hard job so would appreciate some help. Will post in the replacement queue when sober... Thanks guys. Love and Kisses.I am still searching for a Juls replacementr.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
It's almost tragic how the mafia, who apparently made all these "we're in lynch-or-lose" doomsday plans to push the town into today, now have to resort to desperately fishing for the protective and killing roles that we so obviously have, which so obviously make this not lynch or lose.
Don't reveal things to the mafia. Intentionally or unintentionally. Zoneace, especially you.-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005
CKD:
You mean, the way you didn't stall on answering my question yesterday: why would you bet your life that VP is guilty?curiouskarmadog [1277] wrote:right now, waiting for emp to put his foot in his mouth....and quit stalling answering my questions.
VP:
But why would you think that Juls submitted a nightchoice *after* she requested replacement?-
-
EmpTyger It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- It's a JOKE!
- Posts: 2134
- Joined: January 4, 2005