Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[Spolium]

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

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

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

[caf19]

What do you think about it now, Empking?

[Wall-E]

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

[Spolium]

TIMMMAAAAH! Timmy yaaargh.

Well, I'm voting Ghostwriter (now mykonian), so you can bet your buns I suspect him. How did you miss that?

I have other suspects, but shhh! They are

secret

.

TIIIIIIIIIIIM haraaah Timmeh.

[Empking]

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

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

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

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

[Spolium]

No, I'm suspicious of:

- the assumption that a perceived contradiction of mod statements is evidence of scumminess
- a distinct lack effort to clarify the mod's position on this matter before voting
- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

I find it odd that you failed to recognise the last one at least, considering that the scenario I suggested - which, according to you, made "no sense" - turned out to be the actual explanation. Perhaps I should be suspicious of your glib misinterpretation of my suspicion as well?

Oh, and please do address my question from the end of #523.

Timmyyyyy! Blaaaa. HmmfinjiggahDRAAAAjh. FzzzrnnnGGGGG TIMMEH.

[Empking]

No, I'm suspicious of:

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

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

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

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

- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

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

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

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

[Empking]

The M stands for modding and the B stands for the same thing each time.

[caf19]

charter's mod policy seems breakable in that any town can force someone to intentionally break their PR in order to get a modwarning and confirm it. Further than that, it's pretty much ModWifom in this case, because charter did confirm it and that could signify either alignment. Emp, is your case on Spolium now based on anything other than the fact that he suspects you for suspecting him? That doesn't seem like a very strong case on its own.

[Spolium]

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

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

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

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

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

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

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

What is more likely to be the case is that

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

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicion++

[mykonian]

I have not really read everything, but there are a few things I got from the recent posts that I didn't know yet, and that worry me:

a: I am suspected.
b: spolium is under attack

esspecially b is weird, as spolium has been one of the most protown players. I have some kind of meta on Empking-scum, that he will go for the most protown player. So, I would watch Empking. Also earlier, some of his posts only had as purpose to make things uncertain, to place doubt.


these are all not concrete things, and I don't think you can already expect that. I'm on page 11 now.

[Empking]

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

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

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

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

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

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

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

What is more likely to be the case is that

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

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicion++

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

[Wall-E]

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

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

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

[Spolium]

Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,

Hrrrmg

.

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

What are you talking about? The third option is what

actually happened

:

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

charter:

If I warn someone of breaking it, then they obviously have one.

I'm not clarifying anything further than issuing warnings to people.

Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.

_____________________

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

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

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

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

Tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

@Everyone:

Tell me what you think of Empking, and give your opinion on our recent exchange. First chance you get.

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmy!

[charter]

Stan: I don't care! We're going!
Towelie: Don't forget to bring a towel.
The Boys: Aaagh!
Cartman: Oh no, not Towelie.
Towelie: When goin' someplace new, you should always bring a towel.
Stan: Okay, thanks, Towelie.
Towelie: Do you wanna get high?
Cartman: No, we don't wanna get high!!
Towelie: You mean, you don't want Towelie around?
Cartman: That's right!
Towelie: So am I to understand that there's been a ...Towelie ban?...

Vote Count

ZazieR - 1 (Debonair Danny DiPietro)
Empking - 1 (Spolium)
Spolium - 1 (Empking)

Not Voting (4)

Wall-E
ZazieR
mykonian
caf19


With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch!
Deadline is May 4th at midnight EST.

[Wall-E]

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

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

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

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

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

The mod would not confirm a town post restriction.

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

Timmmaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Thanks for clearing that up, charter.

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

Hibbijoorah! Timmahuuurrrrr

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

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

No, I'm suspicious of:

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

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

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

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

- the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

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

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

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

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

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

It was the only explaination other than the mod lying.

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

the unwarranted and unjustified dismissal of alternative possibilities

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

Oh? So you don't remember this exchange:

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

What is more likely to be the case is that

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

, so there's some conflict there.

The latter makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspicion++

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

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

Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?

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

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

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

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

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

What does Empking have to say about this?

[Spolium]

Tiihehehmmmmy

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

Can you provide evidentiary support for this claim?

My evidence for this is circumstantial. To put it another way, which of the following would you expect from someone who intends to discuss that sort of allegation with the mod?

  (a) put the case on hold and seek further clarification from the mod
  (b) carry on pushing the case and claim that the mod is being dishonest, while seeking further clarification from the mod

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

In fairness, that could be coincidence, and your case has a hint of OMGUS.

I think I've been quite patient with Empking but he has crossed the line from overcautious townie to persistant scum in his blunt refusal to accept charter's position - it's not a difficult one to grasp, so it is my opinion that Emp is willfully denying it.

I've also been quite specific about why I think he's scum. Yes, you could say my case has a hint of OMGUS because part of the reason I find Empking scummy is his persistence in pushing his case on me, but this is an unavoidable consequence of finding his case scummy.

You had to know that PRs cause a LOT of interest in mafia games.

I've only been in one game with a PR'd player before this one, and there was little real interest in his PR (in retrospect there were other circumstances surrounding that player which generated a great deal more interest, so that might be why). My experience in this thread has been similar, for the most part - the PR was more or less taken for granted, with only a few players voicing concern with the times I didn't do it. Empking aside, it doesn't seem to have been a turning point in anyone's suspicions of me.

Therefore, in my experience, PRs don't necessarily draw a lot of attention. If I hadn't forgotten to do mine a few times, it might not even have been mentioned.

@Wall-E - Please comply with the @Everyone request in my last post. Just because I think you're town doesn't make your exempt.

Timmeh! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR RI-! TIMMEH

[charter]

ZazieR is V/LA for a couple of days.

[Empking]

Tiimargghhh! Raah Timmy! Tim, Tim,

Hrrrmg

.

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

What are you talking about? The third option is what

actually happened

:

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Its completely impossible.

Barring the idea that charter is willing to backtrack AND lie about his voting policy for the benefit of scum, I don't see how anyone could dispute this. Since this IS what you're suggesting, however, I suggest you take it up with charter since we're not going to get anywhere by arguing over your questionable interpretation of his posts/intent.

If its the only explaination then its probably right.
_____________________

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

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

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

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

Therefore,

unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

[Spolium]

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach is

implicit

. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

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

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.

Here's a thought - why don't

you

suggest another possible explanation?

Therefore, unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.

[Empking]

3rd Option:

an in-thread warning for a PR breach is part of his PR policy

,

but explicitly confirming a PR isn't

Or to put it another way explictly confirming a PR is part of his PR policy but explictly confirming a PR isn't.

Stop being obtuse. Explicit confirmation would be "Spolium has a PR". Charter's warning about my PR breach is

implicit

. There's nothing impossible about it, and at worst it makes the game breakable in a way that doesn't matter at this stage.

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Right now I would lynch Empking, because:

- his first stated reason for suspecting me based on my PR (see #345) was weak and unconfirmed
- he attacked a strawman of the basis for my suspicion instead of trying to determine the specifics (see #529)
- his counter-arguments to my stated suspicions are nonsensical (see #531)
- his argument now amounts to "the mod is lying" and "the mod changed his mind to accomodate scum" (see #531/536)
- he apparently has no intention of taking such drastic concerns to charter since he is continuing to push his "case"
- all this recent behaviour suggests an eagerness to jump at the chance to defame me

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

Are you able to provide another possible explaination?

If I thought another explanation was likely enough to warrant serious consideration then I'd have mentioned it already.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Here's a thought - why don't

you

suggest another possible explanation?

I'm town following the only possible explanation.

Therefore, unvote; vote: Empking

OMGUS

Yes, because I'm not voting you for any reason other than your vote for me.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

[Spolium]

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicit

enough

.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

[Empking]

Saying you had a PR is explict enough for me.

Explicit is an absolute. There is no such thing as explicit

enough

.

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

[Spolium]

Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.

Prove that

all

of these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.

TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY

[Empking]

Tirah hah hah TIMMYYY

I was unclear I meant a possible explaination for the mod's change of policy.

Loaded question. I am of the opinion that charter has not changed his policy.

Then how would you phrase it?

The question is fundamentally flawed, so I don't think it can be rephrased in a meaningful way. Please explain what you are getting at.

How can you explain the mod changing his policy?

If there is another reason than me being suspicious of you, you have yet to mention it.

Liar.

If I was lying you'd've provided a quote with that unbacked up statement.

I refer you to #543, where you quoted a list of reasons for which I think you're scum.

Prove that

all

of these reasons equate to "I am suspicious of Empking because Empking is suspicious of me", and I will retract my contention that you are a lying little weasel.

TIMMMAH. TImskdnujshdybsf Timm TIm jenfj fdkosf TIMMY

In this game you can't prove things if the other player doesn't have an open mind and you don't.

Oh yeah, I'm suspicious of you so you attack an insult me in order to decrease my credibility, wow.