Mini 828 - ProzacMod 3 - Lost Mafia - Over

[curiouskarmadog]

Updating. Typing as I read.

And can you be 100% certain I am scum?

What was that? A defense? Ugh.
==

How did I know there was going to be a Reckoner wagon? That was before he put his vote on Jason and got called out on it; the Reckoner wagon didn't even exist.

whoa really? who had the most votes at the time of your vote? Are you saying that you didnt know there was a wagon forming at the time of your vote?

==

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.

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.

==

What ABOUT CDB and ZONEACE?

I feel much better about LL after his recent exchange with Jason. I think I could happily lynch Reckoner or Jason at this stage.

Why?

==

Hey, so, how about I go ahead and get this over with since it seems like I'm going to inevitably be put at L-1 and I have to work tonight:

I'm the cop.

oh snap...cant wait to see what happens next.
==

Kate as a cop seems strange considering she's a fugitive for most of the show. What was your question and answer now so if it comes up we know you are telling the truth.

if we do indeed have a cop...who (character) would it be? Also this is getting into a flavour/mod outguess debate.

=

I don't think Kate would be a cop. What is the typical fake claim of a mafia? Cop. I am not saying he is lying and I haven't voted him. But I do think a) if there is another "cop" they should not counterclaim because that is what scum-Reckoner would want and b) we should have a discussion regarding his claim.

What? typical mafia fake claim is cop? Thought it was doctor? Juls, how many games have you been in that mafia claimed cop in Day 1? Actually how many games have you been in that mafia claimed cop?

I do agree that if there is another "cop" they should not claim.

I am a little confused by the reaction to the claim. Certianly he wont be lynched now. If he is the cop, it is a suicide claim today. He is not the lynch today.

==

I also would like to know why CDB backed off so quickly and didn't say anything about the claim.

better question is why you still have your vote on him.

[xRECKONERx]

I still don't quite get the question thrown at me, then.

[VP Baltar]

if we do indeed have a cop...who (character) would it be? Also this is getting into a flavour/mod outguess debate.

There have been some suggestions brought up already that would make a more logical fit. Sawyer definitely would be a good choice. However, like you said, it's outguess the mod, which is very dangerous territory.

Do you think questioning the cop claim is scummy?

Who do you think today's lynch should be?

I still don't quite get the question thrown at me, then.

Are you talking about the question from the mod in relation to the episode flavor?

[xRECKONERx]

No. But I responded that I don't hand Aaron over, I keep him and take him to the Island with me, and that wasn't really mentioned in today's episode.

Anyway, I was referring to the question of my claiming in the other game.

[Porochaz]

Please note episode summaries do not relate to the question

[Juls]

What? typical mafia fake claim is cop? Thought it was doctor? Juls, how many games have you been in that mafia claimed cop in Day 1? Actually how many games have you been in that mafia claimed cop?

I do agree that if there is another "cop" they should not claim.

I am a little confused by the reaction to the claim. Certianly he wont be lynched now. If he is the cop, it is a suicide claim today. He is not the lynch today.

I guess the "the" should be an "a". I play occasionally at another site where fake claims are more common (shorter games) and often cop is fake claimed. I can't recall an instance on this site where I have seen anyone fake claim a cop or doctor for that matter. These two though are logical choices for scum on the brink of death. A 1-for-1 trade of a scum for cop or doctor is good news for scum.

But I agree he shouldn't be lynched today. I did think his claim should be discussed though to see if he back tracked or slipped. I still don't see Kate as a cop but it's not necessary to discuss that right now I guess.

[EmpTyger]

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]

I want to emphasize that I do not want my previous post to become a distraction.

---

Reckoner:

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.

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.

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.

<snip>
BTW, you any closer to actually coming to any sort of conclusions instead of sniping from the sidelines and committing to nothing?

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 pressure

vote: Jebus

.

---

Jason:
What do you think of VP’s treatment of you?

---

CKD:

<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>

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.

[xRECKONERx]

@EmpTyger:

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.

[Locke Lamora]

How did I know there was going to be a Reckoner wagon? That was before he put his vote on Jason and got called out on it; the Reckoner wagon didn't even exist.

whoa really? who had the most votes at the time of your vote? Are you saying that you didnt know there was a wagon forming at the time of your vote?

Which vote? My Jason vote? I was referring to me in 144, at which point a Reckoner wagon did not exist.

I also would like to know why CDB backed off so quickly and didn't say anything about the claim.

better question is why you still have your vote on him.

Because he wasn't in any danger of getting lynched and I was waiting to see how Jason responded to my comment on him before I moved my vote. I don't think he's at all interested in whether Reckoner's claim is believeable or not and that makes me think he's scum whose prime target has made a claim that means it's incredibly unlikely they'll get lynched. All Jason has done is unvote and sit back, waiting to see how this plays out.

unvote; Vote: Jason

[VP Baltar]

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.

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 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.

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.

[EmpTyger]

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:

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.

Outguess the mod isn't all that useful of a game to play.

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.

<snip>
If Jason flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy.
<snip>

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?

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.

First of all, that’s the opposite of specific.

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:

<snip>
@Jebus-do you think players should always provide original reasoning before joining a wagon?

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?

I’m curious: whose level of contribution (besides your own, I’m sure) fits your criteria?

---

Reckoner:
Guess again.

<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.

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.

(and note that you were maintaining a vote on inHim at the time)

[xRECKONERx]

I said I find it odd, because I don't THINK there should be two town roleblockers. I *never* voted against the other roleblocker, though, because I strangely believed his claim.

By the way, why are you wasting time with absolutely useless nitpicking about a different game, again? Because I said "the" instead of "a"? Jeez.

[Porochaz]

Jason - 4 - Juls, xReckonerx, ChannelDelibird, Locke Lamora
xRECKONERx - 2 - VP Baltar, ZONEACE
Jebus - 2 - canadianbovine, Emptyger
LockeLamora - 1 - curiouskarmadog


Not Voting:
Santos, Jebus, Jason

Deadline August 21st 3pm

Noone has requested a prod. Will be looking into prods tomorrow.

[VP Baltar]

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.

Surprisingly, I'm a sentient being and not every one of my thoughts is documented in this thread. The basic of it is that I posted the first line because his "history" line seemed to be quite disparate with my own. After some reconsideration, I decided I may have been jumping the gun there.

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?

I don't see what is non-sequitar about it at all. 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?

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?)

The problem is that this far along in the day you should not have to be prompted to state your suspicions. This is exactly what I think is scummy about your play, and you can't really deny that it is taking place when before I asked you directly who you thought was suspicious, no one could have definitively stated any conclusions you had come to in the game.

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?

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, other than this looks like a fairly poor strawman attempt. That line of questioning didn't seem to be leading anywhere, and I think it was obvious to anybody that I was more interested in Reckoner as the game progressed. You really think I haven't made my suspicions known this game?

Now, you are saying that after all of these questions you've asked throughout the day, you've reached a good conclusion with Jebus. Well, as I said before, I call shenannigans. You implied that your reasons for voting him are clear enough and are not just related to him lurking. Well, let us take a close analysis of those reasons.

Reason #1:
You question his post 143 as being hypocritical-

So, Jason is suspicious to you because he simply restated and paraphrased others’ reasons without adding anything.

…yet you express your suspicion of Jason by repeating and paraphrasing others’ reasons without adding anything?

Jebus eventually responds-

Second, in response to Emp from way back, that was laziness at 1:00 am, I really don't know what I was thinking then >.<

and you say you are "not satisfied" with his response.

Reason #2:
He has lurked and hasn't caught up with the game.

Well, gee-whiz, after 15 pages and a million questions, that is certainly a great case you have there. I don't care what kind of weirdness you are professing as a hinderance to you playing the game, you are clearly fake scumhunting.

Unvote, Vote: Emptyger

And just so you don't (falsely) accuse me of being hypocritical again if I don't state my reasons clearly, I shall put them in a convenient to remember format:

• You are fake scumhunting
  
• You only put up a case when prompted, and it is majorly weaksauce
  
• You try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.
  
• You have made several attempts to call my points hypocritical, when that clearly is not the case
  
• You are expressing a strong obsession with semantics, a common scum tactic

I also plan to hopefully do some meta of you here pretty soon. We'll see if you play this game is similar to your other town games.

I’m curious: whose level of contribution (besides your own, I’m sure) fits your criteria?

I am extremely disappointed with the level of participation right now, but there are several players (CDB, Juls, Zoneace) who seem like they are genuinely scumhunting when they are here.

mod, this game needs some major prodding. I know you said you would do it tomorrow, but I would prefer today if possible. Thanks

[Porochaz]

You name who, then I will prod. You dont then I will do it tomorrow.

[VP Baltar]

Please Prod list

canadianbovine
Santos
Jebus

Thank you.

[xRECKONERx]

VP Baltar makes a compelling case. Come now, EmpTyger, let's see some real scumhunting instead of wasting time by pressuring me on the minute details about a completely different game.

Unvote, Vote: EmpTyger

[EmpTyger]

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:

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.

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?

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?

(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.)

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.”

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 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?

[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”.

[xRECKONERx]

Um, I'll tell you where it came from:

I didn't have any restrictions to using my powers, I wasn't odd night or even night cop, I wasn't Day Cop or Night cop, nothing. I was just a plain old cop. Sorry for "assuming" and using the wrong article. Jesus H Christ, get off it.

[VP Baltar]

Replying to Emptyger:

1) 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) Yes you did only finally vote someone after prompted (twice) by me. I will quote it for your convenience:

<snip>
BTW, you any closer to actually coming to any sort of conclusions instead of sniping from the sidelines and committing to nothing?

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 pressure

vote: Jebus.

2b) 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. Are you really willing to lynch Jebus over one single statement?

As far as if he has done something pro-town, no not much, but he hasn't really done anything scummy either because he hasn't hardly said anything this game. I don't see how anyone could have anything better than a null read on him.

3)

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.

I fail to see how this addresses what I said about you excusing your lack of scumhunting. By "other players don't have a problem", I mean that no one else but you seems to be having so much trouble at least voting and saying who they would like to see lynched. Even though some of them have bad reasons for their wagons, they at least seem to be taking

some

kind of discernable stance.

4) And you failed to explain how my refutations to these in examples

within actual context

is wrong. Instead, you prefer to continue comparing apples to oranges, which is why I say your arguments are not the actual case.

5) No, you're arguing semantics and it's scummy. Reckoner's "a" vs. "the" thing is the most obvious example.

re: non-sequitor- Fine, I should have pushed the return key there so it wasn't so confusing for you. The point still stands.

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.”

Again, mine was conditional and Jason's was not. IF he flipped scum, you could be a likely partner certainly does have a logical flow to it. Talking about bussing taking place with no insight does not.

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?

I find these questions rather irrelevant. Please explain how they are necessary.

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”.

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]

VP:
1)

<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.

Again, it would be really nice to have specifics instead of trying to guess at what you “feel is fake”.

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)

<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.

Well, after 14 pages the best you had was a bandwagon hop onto someone you had been defending until then.

Are you really willing to lynch Jebus over one single statement?

No, but I’m willing to lynch Jebus over his behavior this entire day. (and more on this below)

3) [sorry, misinterpreted what the “problem” was you were referring to. Responding to the original accusation]

You try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.

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 are

4) 1)

<snip>And you failed to explain how my refutations to these in examples

within actual context

is wrong. Instead, you prefer to continue comparing apples to oranges, which is why I say your arguments are not the actual case.

Huh? That’s not what you attacked me for, nor what I responded to.

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)

No, you're arguing semantics and it's scummy. Reckoner's "a" vs. "the" thing is the most obvious example.
<snip>

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?

re: non-sequitor- Fine, I should have pushed the return key there so it wasn't so confusing for you. The point still stands.

There’s still no point to stand!

Why am I guilty if Jason is guilty?

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?

I find these questions rather irrelevant. Please explain how they are necessary.

Well, of course you think they’re irrelevant and unnecessary. They undermine your argument.

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.

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”.

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.

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.
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?

[Santos]

prod received. i don't have time to catch up at the moment; I will read the last few pages later.

[Porochaz]

Unless he changes his mind canadianbovine is being replaced.

[Jebus]

Note: V/LA for the next two days, will get back then.