Open 127 (Lovers Nightless -- GAME OVER) before 761

[mith]

[Insert Eye-roll Here]

Yes, you asked for "clarification" there, but (apparently) not because the question was unclear - you were asking whether I wanted a general or specific response. Then you answered the questions (well, sorta answered - your response to b. was "Depends", with no explanation of what it depends on and what the answer would be in each scenario). Then on follow-up, your reasoning was completely unrelated to the question you answered.

And that's five posts you made since I've asked you to elaborate on your reasons for voting me. I know you understand *that* request.

[Empking]

[Insert Eye-roll Here]

Yes, you asked for "clarification" there, but (apparently) not because the question was unclear - you were asking whether I wanted a general or specific response. Then you answered the questions (well, sorta answered - your response to b. was "Depends", with no explanation of what it depends on and what the answer would be in each scenario). Then on follow-up, your reasoning was completely unrelated to the question you answered.

And that's five posts you made since I've asked you to elaborate on your reasons for voting me. I know you understand *that* request.

Why was I asking if you wanted a general or a specific response? Because the question was unclear.

I'm pretty sure that last part is a lie because I've had two posts since saying why I'm voting you.

[mith]

The question was clear as stated (and you could have easily answered "Yes it's a bad idea in general, but in this specific game, maybe not" and gone from there with explanation, rather than being obtuse about it). And I'm pretty sure "asking once" does not qualify as "repeatedly".

But perhaps "unclear" was ambiguous there - my point was that it was (or seemed) clear to you what the question was by the time you answered it (that I was talking about hammering a chosen-in-advance player both in general and specifically in this game), that it was clear to everyone else, that you even answered that question (sorta), and yet when it came to giving a reason for your answer you responded with something completely irrelevant. If you were unclear whether we were talking about the hammer or the statement-about-the-hammer, you could have asked for clarification about that. Instead you've whined about me being unclear (when according to the other players, I haven't been), and ignored every attempt I have made to clarify in spite of my certainty at this point that you know exactly what I am asking you.

My bad on the last part - I had forgotten that you gave reasons because they were so easily debunked. Do you have any response to said debunking (post 69)?

[Empking]

If I thought you were referring to both I ewouldn't have asked you to clarify. By other Players, do you mean Sekinj?

I've done a brief meta on your recent games and I've seen much shorter posts.

[mith]

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but I took zwet's "WTF" in much the same way. We'll see what ortolan and Plum have to say about it.

Can we stop arguing semantics? Do you now understand

now

what I am asking you? How can hammering an arbitrarily chosen-in-advance player help the town in this game?

Brilliant analysis, there. I've posted short posts in other games (though often for some reason, such as "nothing has happened recently" or "I'm VLA"; I also note that I've made single line posts twice in this game already, prior to your comment on my posting style). I've also posted extremely long ones (like this, or this).

You accused me of making long posts out of some scummy motivation; the onus is on you to show that I am posting differently from other games, and "I've seen much shorter posts" doesn't cut it.

[Empking]

Yes, I do and it can by making me and you being scum together less likely and otherwise increasing the amount of information given.

[sekinj]

Empking dont' you understand that it DOESN"T make it more likley?

[Empking]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= - First game I saw. He posts a large number of short posts with some

large

posts neither one anywhere near to the exact size he does here.

[sekinj]

I'm not sure about pairings yet, but I am most suspicious of PLum so far. I think his ramblings are a lot of words that are supposed to look like reasoning, but really amount to nothing.

[sekinj]

almost half of his posts are walls of text in that game emp, with shorter ones in between. your resoning in nonsensical.

[sekinj]

PLUS - he has the same tone in that game as he has taken in this game. you've just proved yourself wrong emp.

[mith]

Empking, as I have already said, it makes us being scum together less likely only because

it completely rules it out as a possibility when I come up innocent

. It can't provide any additional information for D2 - D2 would have 5 alive and 10 possible scumpairs whether you hammer me arbitrarily or someone (me or anyone else) gets lynched the old fashioned way (by people voting who they suspect).

Try again. Or if that's your only reason, admit you are wrong. Either way, stop repeating the same idiotic statement.

[Empking]

PLUS - he has the same tone in that game as he has taken in this game. you've just proved yourself wrong emp.

Tone doesn't matter. At all. I don't see how you screaming something as subjective as tone proves me wrong.

Sekinj: In that game he posts small posts with very large posts in between. In this game he mostly posts large posts.

Mith: Why are you so sure you're going to be lynched?

[mith]

Are you kidding me? You decided to do a brief meta on me, and you chose a game from

six years ago

?? Frankly, I'm a little surprised my posting in that game is as similar to this one as it is. That game feels like a lifetime ago.

Where have I implied I'm "sure" I'll be lynched? I find it highly unlikely I will be. We're talking about the possibility of you hammering me. A hammer, by definition, is a vote that causes a lynch. If you hammer me, I will be lynched. This isn't rocket science, here.

[sekinj]

I hope some other people chime in because I don't think the mith/emp is going anywhere.

[Empking]

There's a plan. The plan has two parts. The plan has a goal. That goal is to make me and you ruled out as a lover pair. If you're not hammered then the first and most important point should still help rule us out.

[sekinj]

but your plan does not accomplish your goal.

[Empking]

but your plan does not accomplish your goal.

Out of 100, how likely do you think that me and Mith are scumbuddies.

BTW Town, I'd like to point out that Sekinj has been defending Mith all game.

[sekinj]

but your plan does not accomplish your goal.

Out of 100, how likely do you think that me and Mith are scumbuddies.

BTW Town, I'd like to point out that Sekinj has been defending Mith all game.

50%

or more liek I've been dis-agreeing with you. and no one else has been taking either side, so it doesn't matter.

[Empking]

You think there's at least a 50% chance that Mith is scum. Why aren't you voting him?

[mith]

(Re: Post 90.)

I get that.

Are you reading my posts at all? There are two possibilities:

1. I will get lynched today. The town will not have gained any information D2, because I will be dead. Lynching

any

player, in any fashion, will result in 10 possible scumpairs tomorrow (unless we hit scum today, in which case we win, of course). If that is all hammering me does, then it does not help rule anything out (and, as I have argued, will actually deprive town of information because of the "automatic" nature of the hammer).

2. I won't get lynched. The statement you made earlier in the game (along with our voting for each other now, our argument, and other factors) will either help rule us out or won't... and this is independent of whether or not you would actually hammer me or not.

The information from making the statement has been generated. Whether you actually follow through with "the plan" given the opportunity is irrelevant, and hammering me because of "the plan" can't help us (the town), and can hurt us. Thus, whether or not information has been generated to help us (which is debatable), the actual "hammering" part of the plan is anti-town, and your statement that you will follow through with it in spite of it not being helpful to the town is scummy as hell.

FOS: sekinj

. Empking makes a very good point. If you think there is a 50% chance that we are scum together, why aren't you voting for one of us? And I would remind you of the request I made earlier (post 73).

[sekinj]

that's not what you asked and that's not what I answered.

You asked out 100% if you and mith were scumbuddies. I answered that there is a 50% chance you are, which is the same percentage i personally have between everyone else.

[Empking]

If I follow through with it and your scum: Town wins
I don't follow through with it and you're scum: Town wins
I follow through with and you're town: I don't know
I don't follow through with it and you're town: Scum wins

[sekinj]

And I answered, mith

I'm not sure about pairings yet, but I am most suspicious of PLum so far. I think his ramblings are a lot of words that are supposed to look like reasoning, but really amount to nothing.

[mith]

"I don't follow through with it and you're town: Scum wins"

Eh? That does not follow. You not following through might result in one of us being lynched today (which would already be likely, if I were at L-1, and would be a certainty if you hammered me, so that's not an argument for... well, anything), but that lynching would disprove us as a pairing just as much as if you had been the one to hammer (because one of us would be dead). No one could accuse you of refusing to hammer me

because

we're scum together if I'm dead and proven to be innocent.

To restate my argument once again: Causing the lynch of someone you don't suspect makes it less likely the D1 lynch is successful, and does nothing for the town D2. That's a negative impact on our chances of winning.

sekinj, I don't care whether you're sure or not; I want you to make a list that is your best guess at this time. I'm trying to pin the scum to something to catch them in an incosistency later, or to get them to give something away about who they are scum with - such a limited response limits our read on you.