Mafia 759: Street Fighter 4 Mafia-That's Game!

[PsychoSniper]

.....are we supposed to confirm now, or after we receive our roles?

After

[PsychoSniper]

/confirm

[PsychoSniper]

More to the point, what do town gain from names? The Mod's flavour text makes it quite clear that the bad guys (mafia) are from Shadowloo, so any scum would know not to claim their real names. I don't see the point of mass nameclaim this early.

FOS: UltimaAvalon

[PsychoSniper]

Er, for some reason I'm against the role claim name thing, only because characters do have rivalries against each other in Street Fighter...

Generally..
Bison is bad.
Sabat (sp?) with Bison and is bad.
Akuma is generally bad.
Ryu and Ken have a mini rivalry.
etc etc.

Was it Chun Li and Sakura too?... or...
Vega and the other Spanish guy? XD... I haven't played 4 - just of them for Sega.

I don't know if the Mod is following the official storyline, but chronologically SF4 happens after SF2, by which time Sagat should be out of Shadowloo and is a good guy. I haven't actually had the chance to play SF4 though, so I don't really know the details of SF4's story, this is just what I read from the internet.

[PsychoSniper]

Hmmmm.....the way UA had been posting (suggesting unnecessary and potentially plans without explaining himself, throwing offensive insults, etc), Jester does seem like a good possibility. Or perhaps his role may require him to find/get rid of a specific role?

And yes, if he suggested the idea, it should be his responsibility to convince everyone why it's good, not for the others explain why it's not.

Regarding Empking, I had a brief game with him too, and I agree with Shinnen about his eccentricity, I wouldn't put it past him to make up that post restriction rule. It would be a good excuse for scum to vote someone without giving much explanation, too ("I vote this guy because I saw something he did long ago that makes me suspicious, but I can't talk about it because of post restriction...").

Not really enough to vote him, of course. In fact at this stage he should be kept alive. If he were lying about it there's a good chance of him slipping up and post something he "can't". Then we'll know whether the Mod punishes him for it.....

[PsychoSniper]

Hmmmm.....the way UA had been posting (suggesting unnecessary and potentially

risky

plans without explaining himself, throwing offensive insults, etc), Jester does seem like a good possibility. Or perhaps his role may require him to find/get rid of a specific role?

And yes, if he suggested the idea, it should be his responsibility to convince everyone why it's good, not for the others explain why it's not.

Regarding Empking, I had a brief game with him too, and I agree with Shinnen about his eccentricity, I wouldn't put it past him to make up that post restriction rule. It would be a good excuse for scum to vote someone without giving much explanation, too ("I vote this guy because I saw something he did long ago that makes me suspicious, but I can't talk about it because of post restriction...").

Not really enough to vote him, of course. In fact at this stage he should be kept alive. If he were lying about it there's a good chance of him slipping up and post something he "can't". Then we'll know whether the Mod punishes him for it.....

Missed out a word, EBWOP.

[PsychoSniper]

The Mod's flavour text makes it quite clear that the bad guys (mafia) are from Shadowloo

I will admit to knowing absolutely nothing about the SF storyline.

---

.....which still doesn't explain why you'd want a nameclaim. In fact, that gives you less reason to want nameclaims. What's the point of knowing names in a Themed game when you don't know what each character is supposed to represent?

And there's the fact that the Mod

specifically mentioned Shadowloo by name

in the first scene. I'm sure that even if the scum players don't know the storyline or what character they're playing, they'd at least be told in their role PMs that they're in Shadowloo, which gives them zero reason to want to give their names away.

[PsychoSniper]

Shortening the random voting stage just purely for a sake of shortening it is pointless. Especially when it pretty much leads to the same thing: a bandwagon on someone. All you did is to draw the bandwagon to yourself. Is that what you want?

Unless you actually are the mafia, it's an anti-town behaviour. The only thing you accomplish is to draw attention away from actual scum-hunting to you.

[PsychoSniper]

Actually, UA stopped voting himself quite a while ago (see post 82). This seems to be a Mod error.

Mod: you might want to recount the votes. UA's vote is on rokovoj, not himself.

[PsychoSniper]

I'm quite at a loss at this stage. I've stated how I consider UA's action to be anti-town, especially if he actually

is

town, but on the flip side, I don't see why he would want call attention to himself like that if he were scum, especially in the initial stage where no one has reason to suspect anybody else. The theory of him feigning jester doesn't make sense to me, since even if no one had attempted that vig-directing he still makes himself a potential vig target with what he's done.

I also think that rokovoj seems to be trying to too hard to cast suspicion on Tzeentch out of nothing. Quoting others' posts to support his own argument is a common practice, and taking into context the post that he was responding to, it made perfect sense.

Other than these two, nothing really caught my attention, and I don't really feel confident enough about either to cast a vote.....

[PsychoSniper]

Vote: Empking

His sudden shift of stance on UA looks fishy to me, a really vague explanation given (remember someone saying he always does this), makes me more convinced that his alleged post restriction is just to give him an excuse to be vague throughout the game.

[PsychoSniper]

What's vague about it? Why does that being vague matter?

If you find out that something is meta and not a scum tell, I think town are more likely to reveal that fact to the town and unvote than scum. Why do you disagree?

You didn't "find out" anything. You shifted a vote and your entire stance based on what you claimed to be purely hearsay, and not something that anyone can verify. It sounds totally like a weak excuse to turn in an OMGUS vote on Shinnen. Not to mention it totally ties in with what your alleged post restriction allows you to do: to cast votes with nothing more than vague past references with an excuse to not go into detail and properly justify your vote.

[PsychoSniper]

If I were vig i'd shoot psyco sniper tonight.

If you were a town role at all, you wouldn't be trying to direct this less-than-subtle attempt at directing power role.

I thought Empking's excuse was bad, but you didn't even bother to come up with one. If you think I'm scummy, why don't you share your reasoning with the town, or better, vote me yourself? Or are you simply going for the easiest lynch by just sticking with the guy with the most votes, which is what a scum would do?

Unvote, Vote: Porkens

[PsychoSniper]

What's vague about it? Why does that being vague matter?

If you find out that something is meta and not a scum tell, I think town are more likely to reveal that fact to the town and unvote than scum. Why do you disagree?

You didn't "find out" anything.

Proof please.

I love how you left out the rest my sentence. You said yourself that you switched your vote on 2nd-hand hearsay. What proof do I need?

You're

the one who needs to prove why you switched your stance.

[PsychoSniper]

In fact, here's an example, right in this game:

Shinnen said that based on your past behaviour in other games, he thinks you're capable or coming up with fake restrictions. You challenged him to back up his words with facts and even went so far as to vote him for it.

Yet you yourself, after emphatically stating, twice, that you think UA is scum, suddenly changes your stance because apparently "someone tells you UA likes to end RVS fast". Apparently that's enough to turn your stance around completely, to convince you that UA should no longer be voted, even though it was second-hand hearsay with no facts to back it up. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy here?

[PsychoSniper]

Empking: He's not nearly the only one. You were hypocritical.

Was that last sentence directed at Empking or me?

The difference between my Unvote on Empking and his on UA is that he tried to justify his unvote with a really flimsy reason why he no longer thinks UA is scum. I haven't actually changed my stance. I still think Empking is scum, but Porkens just did something much scummier. Not because he said I need to die, but because he didn't even specify why. That's as good as trying to get someone lynched without making a case on him.

Mod: Is Psycho really still voting Shinnen?

I've never voted Shinnen, so I have no idea why my name is there.

[PsychoSniper]

Porkens has the awesomest pair of votes on him I've seen in a while. One for "irking" and

another as a sweet and wonderful OMGUS-filled croissant

. There's a big difference between saying I'd shoot you if I was vig and telling a vig to shoot you (Hint, I'd put a bullet in you as well but I'm not claiming to actually tell someone else to shoot you).

My issue is not so much about him saying that I should be killed, but the fact that he had absolutely no explanation for that. To me that's as scummy as voting someone without explanation. If he'd done it to anyone else he'd have gotten my vote too. At least have the decency to specify

why

you find someone scummy, or else we might as well be just throwing random votes around.

[PsychoSniper]

....because I DO think he's directing power role? And notice that my vote came after I asked him why he wants me killed? That was my primary reason for voting him, which is why it came last, right before the vote. Although directing power roles didn't help.

He's more or less saying "I think the vigilante should kill xxx tonight". In my very first game here, one of the newbies stated something in the lines of "I think the cop should investigate xxx." and was promptly chided by others for attempting to direct cop, so I consider what Porkens did to be an attempt to directing the vig. Demanding isn't the only way you can direct roles.

[PsychoSniper]

Let's see:

If, during a trial, the jury judges the accused to be innocent. Then someone who watches a trial says "If I were the jury, I would have found him guilty.", what can he possibly be saying other than "I think the jury should have judged him guilty."?So enlighten me, how is saying "If I were vig I'd kill you." mean anything other than "I tink vig should kill you." which if you read my last post is how I've been taught to identify as attempting to direct roles. And for someone who accused UA of didging question, you're pretty good at it yourself. You still haveb't explained why you want be dead. That was not a light statement to make, and I think I deserve a proper explanation.

[PsychoSniper]

Porkens, you are directing the vig, though in a somewhat indirect manner. It's true you didn't say "If you are the vig, shoot PsychoSniper," but what you said was an attempt to influence the decision of the vig (if there is one) by affirming that that was a good idea. It's like if you told your friend something along the lines of, "If I were you, I would sign up for statistics." You're not ordering him to sign up for statistics, but you're making it known that you think this is a good idea, and depending on how receptive your friend is to your ideas, he might follow your advice.

Porkens, why do you prefer to vig instead of lynch?

Well, I think y'all are confusing "I want to do something" with "I think you should do something."

But here;

I think the vig, if there is one (thats for you, UA), should shoot PS tonight.

Now there's nothin' to argue about.

Vig instead of lynch because UA needs the lynch.

3 more posts from you, and you STILL haven't given a single reason why you wanted vig to should. Remember, this was even before I accused you of vig-directing, so you had no case on me. You never made a case on me when you said that, which is, like I said, equivilent to voting someone without explanation. Considering you listed "ignoring questions" as one of your reasons to vote UA earlier, I have no doubt that you deserve my vote.

Die, scum.

[PsychoSniper]

I'll just start off by saying my way of finding scum is by looking at word choice and people's logic behind their accusations and beliefs.

Vote: Empking

His sudden shift of stance on UA looks fishy to me, a really vague explanation given (remember someone saying he always does this), makes me more convinced that his alleged post restriction is just to give him an excuse to be vague throughout the game.

The word fishy strikes me as scummy. It's a word I would use if scum in the past.

This has to be the most ridiculous reason to suspect someone that I've ever seen. What's so scummy about the word fishy?

What's vague about it? Why does that being vague matter?

If you find out that something is meta and not a scum tell, I think town are more likely to reveal that fact to the town and unvote than scum. Why do you disagree?

You didn't "find out" anything. You shifted a vote and your entire stance based on what you claimed to be purely hearsay, and not something that anyone can verify. It sounds totally like a weak excuse to turn in an OMGUS vote on Shinnen. Not to mention it totally ties in with what your alleged post restriction allows you to do: to cast votes with nothing more than vague past references with an excuse to not go into detail and properly justify your vote.

Saying not to mention is also something I would say as scum. I don't find the first few sentences have much logic. It seems like a defensive arguement moreso than an honest arguement.

The way you nit-pick on choice of words and your "what I would say as scum" logic is getting more outrageous by the minute. I can do that to any of your posts, pick out a random word, and say "I'd use that word if I were scum, LOLz!", but I'm not going to do that, because, you know, I prefer to work with logic, something you're not using.

If I were vig i'd shoot psyco sniper tonight.

If you were a town role at all, you wouldn't be trying to direct this less-than-subtle attempt at directing power role.

I thought Empking's excuse was bad, but you didn't even bother to come up with one. If you think I'm scummy, why don't you share your reasoning with the town, or better, vote me yourself? Or are you simply going for the easiest lynch by just sticking with the guy with the most votes, which is what a scum would do?

Unvote, Vote: Porkens

Consistent, pointless questions as an attack appear scummy to me. Once again, his reasons do not give me the gut instinct of reality.

HELLO! This guy just said, I should be killed, which means he thinks I'm scummy, and he GAVE NO REASON FOR IT! What the hell is pointless about my question? If I were to call you scum, you're saying you wouldn't question me for that?

What's vague about it? Why does that being vague matter?

If you find out that something is meta and not a scum tell, I think town are more likely to reveal that fact to the town and unvote than scum. Why do you disagree?

You didn't "find out" anything.

Proof please.

I love how you left out the rest my sentence. You said yourself that you switched your vote on 2nd-hand hearsay. What proof do I need?

You're

the one who needs to prove why you switched your stance.

When scum, I would point out small things to attack with

(first sentence). Emphasizing the opponent's responsibility seems defensive as well.

Which is

exactly

what you've been doing, nit-picking on small words like "fishy", and "not to mention" and calling them scummy. That's all I need to say.

....because I DO think he's directing power role?

And notice that my vote came after I asked him why he wants me killed? That was my primary reason for voting him, which is why it came last, right before the vote. Although directing power roles didn't help.

He's more or less saying "I think the vigilante should kill xxx tonight". In my very first game here, one of the newbies stated something in the lines of "I think the cop should investigate xxx." and was promptly chided by others for attempting to direct cop, so I consider what Porkens did to be an attempt to directing the vig. Demanding isn't the only way you can direct roles.

Lol, underlined sentence makes me think scum. You're questioning you're own statement unconsciously.

What? I don't know how you read that as a question. I was EMPHASIZING that I think he was role-directing.

[PsychoSniper]

As a vig, I use my gut. I'd love to, by extension, influence, or subliminal suggestion, impart that gut to a/the vig in this game.

So you think a vig should make a kill PURELY on gut-instinct? Boy, it doesn't get more scummy than this.

[PsychoSniper]

Blackberry: Obviously, I don't agree with your style, but what makes it even worse is the fact that

immediately

after, you went and posted this, which I already highlighted above:

When scum, I would point out small things to attack with (first sentence).

Your "logic" consists of just that, picking out small, inconsequential words as basis of your attack because

you

like to use them as scum. By themselves, these words mean nothing. It's ridiculous to think that one wouldn't use big words if he were town.

About the gut-instinct bit, I can agree about copping, but vigging has far bigger consequences. Numbers is the one advantage that town has over scum, and to reduce that number unnecessarily when you have nothing more than gut-feeling to work with is irresponsible and anti-town, IMO.

I've read some of the older games here, and mostly from what I've seen, most vigs do not kill on the first night. Vigs shouldn't kill until they have much more info to work with, and to try and influence a vig's decision with nothing more than "gut-feeling" is just outright scummy.

MOD: My vote is still not in the right place. I'm voting for Porkens. You have mind name in two places, voting Empking and Not Voting, neither of which I'm doing at the moment.

[PsychoSniper]

Blackberry: Obviously, I don't agree with your style, but what makes it even worse is the fact that

immediately

after, you went and posted this, which I already highlighted above:

When scum, I would point out small things to attack with (first sentence).

Your "logic" consists of just that, picking out small, inconsequential words as basis of your attack because

you

like to use them as scum. By themselves, these words mean nothing. It's ridiculous to think that one wouldn't use big words if he were town.

About the gut-instinct bit, I can agree about copping, but vigging has far bigger consequences. Numbers is the one advantage that town has over scum, and to reduce that number unnecessarily when you have nothing more than gut-feeling to work with is irresponsible and anti-town, IMO.

I've read some of the older games here, and mostly from what I've seen, most vigs do not kill on the first night. Vigs shouldn't kill until they have much more info to work with, and to try and influence a vig's decision with nothing more than "gut-feeling" is just outright scummy.

MOD: My vote is still not in the right place. I'm voting for Porkens. You have my name in two places, voting Empking and Not Voting, neither of which I'm doing at the moment.

[PsychoSniper]

It wasn't totally tunnel vision, I did read what Spyrex posted. I did not attack Spyrex because at the time I believe he thinks he has a case on me. Contrary to what Spyrex said, he did

not

do exactly what Porkens did. Unlike Spyrex, he had already made it plain, prior to that, that he suspected me for what he considered to be an OMGUS vote on Porkens. Unlike Porkens, he did not post a simple one-liner proclaming me scum. He actually did try to make a case, one that I obviously don't agree with, but unlike Porkens, he tried. Because of that, I believed he said what he said out of genuine suspicion of me, more the fool I was, as we can all see now.

He accused my vote as being purely omgus. I'd assumed that it was still his main reason for wanting me vigged. It was something that I'd already responded to earlier, and explained in detail why it wasn't and omgus response. Besides, I figured when Porkens die and turns up scum it should become plain that it wasn't omgus.

I have to commend Spyrex though, he

did

pull off a "trap", except it wasn't a scum-hunting trap. It was a double-edged trap designed to make me look bad no matter what I say. He has so far repeatedly tried to paint my actions towards Porkens as OMGUS. If I had attacked Spyrex for his action, he would no doubt have said "Look, he's voting everyone that attacks him, that's OMGUS action, I was right!" Either way, he'd have found

some

way to paint me as scummy.

Of course, by your own words, you have pointed out how useless this little gambit of yours turned out to be:

@T:

Why is that so important to me? Well, if he was actually

looking

for scum he should have been all over my ass for it.

Hell, most everyone should have been.

And what happens? Out of a whole population of town, a grand total of

one

person responded in what you allegedly call a town reaction. I guess this is a rare case of the town being a minority number of 2 between you and T, huh?

Good attempt at trying to divert attention away from your scumbuddy Porkens, though, especially after he had already admitted that he really had no case on me to begin with, which legitimately makes his claim that I should be vigged a bunch of bollocks. Sorry, I'm not going to waste time switching my vote from someone I'm 100% sure is scum. To borrow your own words, he needs the lynch now. You can wait tomorrow.

Although I look forward to seeing what other inventive points you're going to bring up "tomorrow" - which, I note, is conveniently close to the deadline, making it possible for me not to have the opportunity to defend myself since I do not sit at the computer 24/7 waiting for you to post. Like I said, extremely convenient.

MOD: No offence, but the current vote-count (and the previous one) hasn't been accurate. I would appreciate it you can the time to redo all the vote-counts. If I'm going to be lynch today, I want it to be from votes that I actually have. Thanks

[PsychoSniper]

I've read some of the older games here, and mostly from what I've seen, most vigs do not kill on the first night. Vigs shouldn't kill until they have much more info to work with, and to try and influence a vig's decision with nothing more than "gut-feeling" is just outright scummy.

Eh. Poke around MD a bit and you'll find vastly differing opinions on vigging on the first night. If I were the vig, I wouldn't mind vigging based on gut feelings the first night with nothing better to go on, but I wouldn't try to pressure somebody else to do it or to go for a specific target unless I had extremely strong feelings about it.

Fair enough, but like you said, it would be vig's own preference, and it wouldn't be right for one to try and influence another power role's decision on your own gut feelings, which was what Porkens did.

The thing that bothers me the most about PsychoSniper (and I guess Shinnen) is that they're trying to pile suspicion on Emp based on the post restriction claim.

Eh, if you read the earliest posts, there were 2 people who voted Emp just for the post restriction, and I'm not one of them. In fact, I even suggested at first that maybe he should kept alive to see if he slips up. I've already explained that my vote was not purely for the post restriction. It was more of a bonus, something I see as being similar to circumstantial evidence that happens to tie in with the rest of my suspicion. Reread my posts. I was attacking him for his controversial actions in shifting his stance about UA but attacking Shinnen with self-contradicting reasons.

[PsychoSniper]

Well, first:

The vote counts are accurate and Am currently working on another one, If you would like to point out the specific inaccuracies please do so.
Current Vote Count
Empking(4): (jakep, Tzeentch,

PsychoSniper

, Sironigous)

Psychosniper(3): (Blackberry, SpyreX, EmpKing)

UltimaAvalon(2): ( Porkens, Shinnen_no_Me)

Porkens(1): (UltimaAvalon)

Not Voting(2): ( Nuwen, rokovoj)

Mod: I think I've already specified in an earlier post that I had switched my vote to Porkens and never switched it back since. I did forget to bold my note to you in that particular post, which may be why you overlooked it, but I DID bold my vote on Porkens, so it should be legit.

That means, of course, that I'm heading for the gallows, since Empking doesn't really have 4 votes on him, and he's obviously voting me to save himself from the lynch. I don't see this changing, since we're less than a day from deadline and about half the town hasn't been active for the past couple days. But for what it's worth, here's my response:

Hmmmm.....the way UA had been posting (suggesting unnecessary and potentially plans without explaining himself, throwing offensive insults, etc), Jester does seem like a good possibility. Or perhaps his role may require him to find/get rid of a specific role?

And yes, if he suggested the idea, it should be his responsibility to convince everyone why it's good, not for the others explain why it's not.

Regarding Empking, I had a brief game with him too, and I agree with Shinnen about his eccentricity, I wouldn't put it past him to make up that post restriction rule. It would be a good excuse for scum to vote someone without giving much explanation, too ("I vote this guy because I saw something he did long ago that makes me suspicious, but I can't talk about it because of post restriction...").

Not really enough to vote him, of course. In fact at this stage he should be kept alive. If he were lying about it there's a good chance of him slipping up and post something he "can't". Then we'll know whether the Mod punishes him for it.....

1.) Jester speculation. I think thats all I need to say about that.
2.) Sans that his entire first paragraph is parroted (Porkens et. al in reference to eliminating specific players, Nuwen's wonderful jester contribution.)
3.) Paragraph two again.. parroted from: Porkens once again!
4.) Paragraph three..again.
5.) "I could totally see him making this up, but lets not vote for him because he'll get modkilled or something"

1) Why is it that you never raised an attack on Nuwen if you found jester-speculation to be scummy? I don't find jester speculation to be suspicious, simple as that. It's a legitimate concern. More on this below.
2-4) And I'm scummy because I happened to agree with these points? Those were the only subjects in discussion at the time, so i commented on what I though. If I agree with what's already been said, why should I say different just to not be a "parrot"?
5) Actually, the real translation should be "I could totally see him making this up, but lets not vote for him

yet

because we'll be able to tell whether he's lying if he slips up and

doesn't

get mod-killed." Nice try twisting my words, though.

Shortening the random voting stage just purely for a sake of shortening it is pointless. Especially when it pretty much leads to the same thing: a bandwagon on someone. All you did is to draw the bandwagon to yourself. Is that what you want?

Unless you actually are the mafia, it's an anti-town behaviour. The only thing you accomplish is to draw attention away from actual scum-hunting to you.

Looks good right? It looked even better when I said exactly that the post right before it. Sup parrot a/s/l.

I'm quite at a loss at this stage. I've stated how I consider UA's action to be anti-town, especially if he actually is town, but on the flip side, I don't see why he would want call attention to himself like that if he were scum, especially in the initial stage where no one has reason to suspect anybody else. The theory of him feigning jester doesn't make sense to me,

since even if no one had attempted that vig-directing he still makes himself a potential vig target with what he's done.

I also think that rokovoj seems to be trying to too hard to cast suspicion on Tzeentch out of nothing. Quoting others' posts to support his own argument is a common practice, and taking into context the post that he was responding to, it made perfect sense.

Other than these two, nothing really caught my attention, and I don't really feel confident enough about either to cast a vote.....

Keep in mind: At this point PS still hasn't placed a vote. Ever.

So, UA is anti-town but giant pool of WIFOM therefore no vote.
In addition, he makes reference of Nuwen's vig directing but no vote.

In addition

, he actually "directs the vig" by saying UA is now a potential vig target.

So, he's over and over said UA is anti-town...[/quote]

1) I said UA's actions were anti-town

especially if he were town

. If he were scum, then he's basically doing the town a big favour by putting a big spot-light on himself, which is the last thing any scum wants to do. UA isn't a new player, in fact he's been around longer than most of us. I can see a newbie scum trying the "let's massclaim on Day 1" trick, but i can't see it from him. I've played only 2 games, and even I know early massclaims are bad.

This

is where my Jest concern comes from. I couldn't figure out how his action makes sense whether as town or scum. I'm still not sure about him even now. Hence I withheld my vote.

2) Unlike UA, I can totally see how scum benefits from what Empking does. A post restriction like his enables vague, unjustified votes like I've already explained. I felt more sure about him after his attack on Shinnen.

3) Yes, Nuwen directed vig and was called out for that. The first time it happened, I could take it as a genuine mistake. When Porkens did it again after

Nuwen was already called out for that

, it made Porkens look even scummier.

4) I did not direct vig, I was pointing out why I didn't think "feigning jester" was a good explanation for UA's actions. Obviously, the fact that Nuwen already suggested that vig idea shows that town has a very easy counter to that strategy, and I can’t see any scum with the least bit of experience trying that.

You didn't "find out" anything. You shifted a vote and your entire stance based on what you claimed to be purely hearsay, and not something that anyone can verify. It sounds totally like a weak excuse to turn in an OMGUS vote on Shinnen. Not to mention it totally ties in with what your alleged post restriction allows you to do: to cast votes with nothing more than vague past references with an excuse to not go into detail and properly justify your vote.

So, 172 and 174 have occurred and we're still on Empking. I'm not going to say much about this except for the fact [

i]his accusations of Empking for something outside of the realm of the game...are in fact also outside the realm of the game.[/i]

[/quote]

Again, I've stated multiple times that my attack on Emp was triggered by his action in the game: his unvoting of UA and attack on Shinnen. I'm not going to go through the details again since you're obviously deliberately ignoring them.

If you were a town role at all, you wouldn't be trying to direct this less-than-subtle attempt at directing power role.

I thought Empking's excuse was bad, but you didn't even bother to come up with one. If you think I'm scummy, why don't you share your reasoning with the town, or better, vote me yourself? Or are you simply going for the easiest lynch by just sticking with the guy with the most votes, which is what a scum would do?

Unvote, Vote: Porkens

Ahh, 195. The giant klaxon of scum tolling through the night.

Facts:

1.) Nuwen had already "directed the vig" yet no call out for directing.
2.) PS, himself, had already "directed the vig" yet of course no call out for directing.
3.) Clamoring for a vote if he Porkens actually thinks hes scummy (see the above with UA / Empking and now this).[/quote]

1) Already addressed above.
2) Ditto
3) I've never outright said that UA was scum and should be lynched/vigged, did I? I was confused by him, that was all. Again, see above concerning UA.

See, I wanted to be sure. This is when I decided to be "that guy" and do a little dance to ping his radar and couldn't. (see my 205, 209, MY 215 I MEAN COME ON NOW).

I addressed this part in my previous post.

Additionally, two more logic-tidbits come to mind:
[quote="Post 2 of PS""]
More to the point, what do town gain from names? The Mod's flavour text makes it quite clear that the bad guys (mafia) are from Shadowloo, so any scum would know not to claim their real names. I don't see the point of mass nameclaim this early.

I don't know if the Mod is following the official storyline, but chronologically SF4 happens after SF2, by which time Sagat should be out of Shadowloo and is a good guy. I haven't actually had the chance to play SF4 though, so I don't really know the details of SF4's story, this is just what I read from the internet.

"Scum DO NOT CLAIM SHADOWLOO NAMES. P.S. I am totally Sagat"[/quote]

You are totally wrong about this. You'll see how wrong you are after I'm lynched. This "tidbit" of yours is worth nothing.

Because, get this, UA and PS are in cahoots. Jumping off any suspicion on UA to try and nail Empking for a "poor vote" is a good move, but not good enough - especially when followed by leaping on Porkens for something others had done before AND others after worse. The only difference, really, is that you were the target.

So, tl;dr:

PS is a parroting, subjective-hunting, scumbo. Lynch him now, shoot/lynch UA tomrrow be well on the road to victory kthx.

And this is totally wrong as well. I'll look forward to seeing what links you can possibly find betwen my role and UA once my role is revealed post-lynch.


P.S. Town: Hang Porkens tomorrow once Spyrex is proven wrong.

kthxbai