Open 143: Jungle Republic (Game Over!) before 787

[dejkha]

Damn, my sig is at it's limit.

Vote Count

zwetschenwasser 3 - Khamisa, dejkha, AshMC1984
AceMarksman 3 - Percy, Mixologist, Dust
AA23 1 - Gorckat

[zwetschenwasser]

Can I get meta on Hewitt's posting habits?

^scum

[Mixologist]

Besides Dust, who is not going to be lynched today, who do you think is scum and why?

[dejkha]

Can I get meta on Hewitt's posting habits?

^scum

Why do you say that?

[zwetschenwasser]

I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU

[Dust]

No, different scenario Zwet.

This time, it's to confirm what Hewitt is actually doing in the thread. Not for discussion purposes.

[dejkha]

I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU

No, you quoted the post and said scum, which implies you think so because of that post. So why?

[Percy]

why go down as scum on a day 1 lynch when you can claim "seer" and have the real one CC (NK in the bag) and convince us to go and mislynch someone from the wagon (mafia then get two excellent deaths on their hands)

I think anyone would claim Seer if they didn't want to die.

Town would claim it to delay their death and attract an NK.
Mafia would do it simply to stay alive.
Wolves would do it to stay alive and force the Seer to counterclaim later.
The Seer would do it because they're the Seer.

...so claiming Seer means we don't lynch him, but we wait. We'll figure it out later.

I think my theory is sound and worth investigating.

Dust being scum - - calling seer to coax the real one out (juicy NK) and throw a lynch from him to a mislynch on a towny from the wagon.

He lived because both werewolves were on the wagon and no scum wanted to lynch their own - hence no quicklynch hammer.

Sounds pretty tight to me so far.

A quicklynch would look bad for anyone. I think anyone who hammered Dust before he claimed would be toast tomorrow. Your scenario is a 'best case' scenario, and it's certainly not tight.

He could've said, with eihter of the square bracketed items below and I would've instantly realized it was my vote he referred to:

You ask a question [about the RVS] - I answer it - [someone gorckat] votes me for my answer - you join in and express suspicion toward me

OK, I'll pay that.

Re: Empking:

The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"

This only works if they're scumbuddies. Yes, putting it together in a sentence means this is a possible interpretation, but I just don't see it yet. Emp asked for a claim. He didn't want anyone to CC a Seer claim, which was ensuring the best result for the town. We went over this when zwet

asked directly

for a CC, and we addressed just how bad a CC would be.

Imagine, if you will, that zwet was the Seer. Could you imagine a scenario where Dust-as-wolf claims Seer, and zwet CCs the post after that? "NO I'M THE SEER DUST IS SCUM"... I certainly can. Emp's warning was protown, I feel.

Emp

may

have been worth a FoS, but not a vote. This is grasping at straws.

@Dust - - My honst opinion is that telling the truth or not, you're dead by tomorrow and no longer a powerful role to the town.

If we don't lynch you, we have to risk lynch hunting which is irresponsible, often accidental, and a risk to the town - - we could lose three innocents by tomorrow morning.

If we do lynch you - - we can base our cases on the other players off of that. Knowing if you were innoent all along or one of the bad guys helps us better understand the interactions everyone was having with you.
...
Lynching you is clearing you - thus clearing anyone that has been attached to you.
...
I confess that I'm very torn.

By "lynch hunting" do you mean "scumhunting"? There's nothing stopping us looking for someone to lynch who isn't Dust. That's how this game, you know, works.
Secondly, if you're so sure he'll die, then you must be sure that we will know his alignment first thing tomorrow morning. Why on earth are you torn? I don't see the case for a Dust lynch

at all

.

At the time I believe he was number 1 in my mind for two reasons. The first is that he stuck out the most prominently in my mind as someone I disagreed with pretty much just based on quantity of posting which is not a good reason to suspect someone but he was the one I most remembered. The second is that I felt he pushed the case on Dust so vigorously and a little too forcedly in the first three pages in the game which I felt was too early.

Now though after reading back I don't think he was the scummiest but the one I disagreed with the most.

So he posted a lot, and pushed a case too hard. Now you're backtracking.

Posting a lot is a mild towntell. Pushing cases is, in general, a mild towntell as well. Do you disagree?


However,
Ace claimed meta on Dust. Ace claimed that Dust can clear him. Ace changed his story. Dust did not clear him.

Ace lied, twice. Lynch all liars. It really is that simple.

Also, everyone take a look at Zwets 20 posts in isolation. No scumhunting whatsoever. All he's done is blindly agree with Ace's reasons for his vote and asked for a CC. Both of which are scummy.

I don't know what to do with zwet, and I don't think anyone else does either. He's just scummy in every game I've ever seen him. If anyone else had done this, I would be pushing for their lynch right now. Ace has my vote, but zwet is my solid #2. hewitt is at #3.

[AA23]

Re: Empking:

The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"

This only works if they're scumbuddies. Yes, putting it together in a sentence means this is a possible interpretation, but I just don't see it yet. Emp asked for a claim. He didn't want anyone to CC a Seer claim, which was ensuring the best result for the town. We went over this when zwet

asked directly

for a CC, and we addressed just how bad a CC would be.

To be sure that no points are being missed, I really do want everyone to give an answer on this one:

Do we understand that asking for a claim is only useful if we intend to see how it stands to a counterclaim/with the town? I'm not being sarcastic, I just strongly feel you've all lost something in the texthere.

Instructing a man to claim, and in the same sentence instructing everyone not to challenge it - - is communicating an immunity play to a scum buddy.

It is not scummy to not want a CC - - it is not scummy to ask for a claim - - it is scummy to instruct a player to gain the immunity of a claim whilst instructing the town not to challenge it.

You have all said it yourself - - if a claim was on the way no matter what - - based on common sense and the need for survival.....why ask for it? Remember, you've all said it yourself, it's just SO expected and obvious - - why instruct both motions that cancel eachother out?

One can't say "Oh he asked because it was coming anyhow" - because in the same sentence was the "Don't CC" - One would have to say "Guys, if/when he claims, don't CC" - - so it's not that Emp saw it coming,

It was "Dust - claim. It's immunity" "Town, don't challenge it, or it will make confusion/risk lynching him"

A claim, 99% of the time works hand in hand with a counter (when we ASK for the claim)

The request of no CC is us covering our asses.
---------------------

I really am asking - - do we see the distinction? He didn't say "If/When" and the request for no CC was in the same sentence-- it was scum communication.

And since it was two instructing statements, and there was no if/when, one can assume that it was a nervous scum communicating with a buddy. He jumped the gun (as logic holds it, since we agree the claim was innevitable and expected) - - jumped the gun as a nervous scum buddy, and reinforced that his pal should claim, whilst telling us not to challenge it.

These weren't seperate statements, these weren't what if's or "Hey, when he does it, don't claim" - - it was "Dust - Claim - it's immunity - - Town, let him" - - and THAT is scummy!!

I'm trying Bill Nye stuff with the repetition but do you all see the point now? PLEASE tell me this doesn't at least provoke thought because I find it rather interesting.

[Mixologist]

@AA- What are your thoughts on Ace?

[AA23]

Please acknowledge 258 - I need to know I'm not crazy here and the thought is at least

understood

, I'm not asking for vote on him, just READ it-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Ace:

Reasons why I voted: See my explanation and my Dust meta (a few pages ago)

Ace lies about a meta to put a vote down and gets caught/suspected of it later - - this could make him a villain and the reasons for lying suggest Dust being a villain of the opposite variety to him.

Reasons why I stayed: My LA
Reasons for pulling off:

He claimed an un-countered seer. That's good enough for me.

opinions: This is tricky.

While Dust has done some scummy actions

(and

I don't like the circumstances of his claim ("Don't kill me, I'm the seer"))

, the

lack of a counterclaim makes me think he is town (if you are seer and dust is not, please don't CC

. We need our only PR to not be outed kthxbai).

This post is riddled with the very redundencies I said was initiated by what Emp did.

Ace, a potential partner of the same villain variety, is now playing both sides of the fence and has moved up to

actively

lurking with this post.

In the above post:

1.Why list the reason for voting him being meta, and later say he's done scummy things? were they not worth mentioning, or non existent?
2.He says he doesn't like the circumstances of the claim - Please, all, refer to 258
3. He hates that the lack of a counterclaim is stoppijng him from knowing....."God, if only there was a CC, you know? I'd be able to lynch scum because I love town so much! OH the cross I bare!!!!!!!!!.......ps - nobody CC"

[Empking]

Do we understand that asking for a claim is only useful if we intend to see how it stands to a counterclaim/with the town? I'm not being sarcastic, I just strongly feel you've all lost something in the texthere.

In this post we find AA23's main problem.

[Mixologist]

@AA - I'll respond to 258 and 260 when I'm at a computer. Quick question though, you acknowledge Ace's contradiction but aren' voting him? Why? Also, how does Ace's contradiction suggest to you that Dust is a scum of aother group?

[AA23]

If he lied in order to get a vote down, that's working for it, that's wanting a lynch, making me think he too could be a villain - - As I feel Dust is also a villain, I suppose they are of different allignments each.

I am suspicious of Dust, Emp, and Ace - - I think Ace may be different allignment of villain than Dust, and I think Emp is Dust's partner and he communicated to him.

I look forward to the 258 responses (sincerely)

[AA23]

EBWOP - in case the first sentence reads poor - - lying is what makes Ace potentially villain, working for the lynch makes Dust one of a dif. variety as one wouldn't attack their own

[Mixologist]

In my opinion, it's poor judgment to think that scum of the same group will not bus each other.

Also, since you are voting Empking instead of Ace, do you believe Empking to more likely be scum than Ace?

[AA23]

We'll discuss Ace vs Emp once you respond to my post

[zwetschenwasser]

Emp seems like his normal insane townie self this game.

[dejkha]

AA, I understand the reason you're voting, but the problem is that it's to little to vote for. Your Emp case is worse than the Dust case, which wasn't all that good either.

[AA23]

it's hardly a case so much as a LEAD that I would like to follow - - and my points on Emp are significantly more substantial than a semantics game played on Ace - - who's to say it wasn't stream of thought hyperbole when he was trying to convey that he had played with the guy as scum before?

And passing off what I'm showing you guys as scumtalking for "Emp if being Emp" - threatens to be immunity based on meta -

We can't just ignore things because we think he's insane.

I feel like less consideration/weight fall on what I tell you guys when you think it's a case so

Unvote

I want you to understand this is following a lead, not persecuting, and right now, I feel my points on Emp are strong.

Actually answer some of the questions I ask in the post:

If the claim was inevitable, why ask for it whilst saying not to claim? Why pair them together?

The above is the important question that shows you it's scumtalking. If he wanted us not to CC, he could have told town "Hey, if/when he claims, dont CC" - but he didn't - I'm asking you all why.

So answer, please

[AA23]

EBWOP "Emp is being Emp" meta immunity for being crazy instead of actually considering the idea I present

[dejkha]

I don't think it's a case, that's just what I decided to call it. Whether it's a case or lead, it's not really enough to be voting for given the larger leads out there.

There's no reason to pair them together. I know it's scummy, but I feel there have been scummier actions to think about.

Even saying "Hey, if/when he claims, dont CC" means the same as what he originally said, since Seer is the only thing someone would claim with a chance of a CC. No one would CC Townie or Mafia/Werewolf if someone were crazy enough to claim those.

[dejkha]

EBWOP "Emp is being Emp" meta immunity for being crazy instead of actually considering the idea I present

I never let him by just because he's stupid (or whatever you wanna call him). I'd think the same of it no matter who it was.

[Mixologist]

Do we understand that asking for a claim is only useful

if we intend to see how it stands to a counterclaim/with the town?

I'm not being sarcastic, I just strongly feel you've all lost something in the texthere.

There are other ways of putting this claim to use. If Dust is

not

the Seer, then the real Seer knows this and can safely hide behind him. How is not a good thing? If Dust is

not

the real Seer, then the Seer is safe tonight, letting us possibly get a guilty verdict tomorrow. How is this not a good thing?

Instructing a man to claim, and in the same sentence instructing everyone not to challenge it - - is communicating an immunity play to a scum buddy.

It is not scummy to not want a CC - - it is not scummy to ask for a claim - - it is scummy to instruct a player to gain the immunity of a claim whilst instructing the town not to challenge it.

Or, it could be letting the town's only power role know that he shouldn't put a huge X on his back? As it is, Dust is most likely dead tonight. If he doesn't die tonight, we'll have to go back and re-evaluate everything.

You have all said it yourself - - if a claim was on the way no matter what - - based on common sense and the need for survival.....why ask for it? Remember, you've all said it yourself, it's just SO expected and obvious - - why instruct both motions that cancel each other out?

Because it's not so obvious to everyone. Did you not see zwet's responses? Just because one person sees something, does not mean everyone sees it also.

The request of no CC is us covering our asses.

No. The request of no counter-claim is to make sure if Dust isn't the Seer, the real one does not outs himself. Percy pointed this out in his post.

[Mixologist]

Oh this is getting fun.

Ace lies about a meta to put a vote down and gets caught/suspected of it later...

...and my points on Emp are significantly more substantial than a

semantics game

played on Ace...

So now an out and out contradiction is being downgraded to semantics? Why are you defending Ace?

FOS AA