Mini 343: Donnie Darko 0:0:0:0 Game Over

[EmpTyger]

AniX:
It doesn’t need to be long, but it needs to have content. Some kind of participation. Some kind of interaction with other players. Something indicating who you suspect, or who you don’t. Extra credit if you include reasons.
I don’t want you to defend your nonparticipation. I want you to correct it.

<snip>if you expect me to do anything resembling this length in the next two days, you better deliver me some food or something.<snip>

<tosses AniX a super fudge cake brownie>

[Sotty7]

So I suggest that if we do lynch Scale and he is town, that we then consider lynching emp, unless emp can convice the town otherwise... on the grounds that emp mislead the town. That seems logical to me. To me someone who leads the charge on a townie looks guilty. That is partially why I went after STD, as mentioned. He was the one who really led the charge on Chamber, not trying to dig that conversation up again.

Woah... I don't agree with this and I think I can see what Olio's problem is with you now. Emp hasn't claimed any investigative knowledge on Scale. Emp is working purely off a tell he picked up from Scale in that he was analyzing the single night kill like mafia trying to figure out where it came from. (correct me if I'm wrong). Sure

if

we lynch Scale today, Emp will be pushed some more tomorrow but setting up the lynch like that is crazy. This means if we lynch STD today after your points against him then you should be the next lynch. Also, Emp has stopped pushing Scale, he's now voting and pushing me, kinda makes this whole paragraph void, no?

Sotty:
I don’t believe you.

I don’t see anything that implies that you were about to vote Scalebane before I came forward. And I don’t like how all of a sudden you’re all “Scalebane is still number one on my list,” since I don’t see you ever being anyone near that strong.

Consider the deliberative analytic buildup before you voted chamber; you didn’t hesitate in trying to evaluate his situation.

But with me and Scalebane, your were nearly silent until I turned the spotlight onto you. You mention a few skepticisms of me in [151], but otherwise avoid the issue so completely that you don’t even mention either of us in [173], which was only your second post since I came forward.

First things first. I never voted Chamber... so I don't know where you go that from

As for the rest, believe me, don't believe me but know this. I am inherently thoughtful/careful player and when I am unsure in certain situations (ala you v Scale) I try and gather as much info as possible before jumping on either side. I was a little quite for awhile there, but checking my posting record on the site, I was busy during that time so I was quiet in all my games. Bad timing, perhaps but it's one reason. When my gut/thought process is clear I push on players that I think warrant it, (Olio, CK, early day Chamber) but as I have said over and over I'm still torn between you and Scale

Hypothetical question:
Temporarily assume that I’m telling the truth. What would you have done in the morning if you had discovered that you were a vigilante and your kill was the night’s only death?

OK I'll play along here. Honestly I would have kept quiet about it. Thinking about it I doubt that I would have even killed night one as the vig with nothing more than my suspicions to go off. I would have waited, but for the purpose of your question I would have kept this information to myself and watched to see how everyone else reacted.

[MeMe]

Sure

if

we lynch Scale today, Emp will be pushed some more tomorrow but setting up the lynch like that is crazy. This means if we lynch STD today after your points against him then you should be the next lynch.

You seem to ignore the possibility that Scale and/or STD may be revealed as scum if lynched.

[Chess83]

Okay, I am back home... To defend two points, the first by scale...

Chess: Is currently trying to draw attention towards Olio, with the argument that Olio is trying to argue for the fact that I'm innocent when clearly chess thinks I am scum and Olio's actions therefore seem scummy. I, however, have a bit more information than that about myself, kthx.

I find it amazing how Olio comes after me for distracting the town and me defending myself is then distracting. Scale did it occur to you that OLIO CAME AFTER ME FIRST? What am I supposed to do ingore him? I HAVE to defend myself. In otherwords, I think this line is wrong. I do not think I was distracting the town, I think I was defending myself. I do have the thought in my mind that you saw this thing between me and Olio slowing down and thought you might stur the pot a little to keep the heat off of yourself, IMO.

So I suggest that if we do lynch Scale and he is town, that we then consider lynching emp, unless emp can convice the town otherwise... on the grounds that emp mislead the town. That seems logical to me. To me someone who leads the charge on a townie looks guilty. That is partially why I went after STD, as mentioned. He was the one who really led the charge on Chamber, not trying to dig that conversation up again.

Woah... I don't agree with this and I think I can see what Olio's problem is with you now. Emp hasn't claimed any investigative knowledge on Scale. Emp is working purely off a tell he picked up from Scale in that he was analyzing the single night kill like mafia trying to figure out where it came from. (correct me if I'm wrong). Sure if we lynch Scale today, Emp will be pushed some more tomorrow but setting up the lynch like that is crazy. This means if we lynch STD today after your points against him then you should be the next lynch. Also, Emp has stopped pushing Scale, he's now voting and pushing me, kinda makes this whole paragraph void, no?

Wow, I wrote this awhile back. Sotty, did you notice that I wrote that we lynch Emp, UNLESS he can convice us otherwise? That is basically the rule for everybody. All I was suggesting is that if Scale would turn up innocent then we should look into and put some heat on Emp, BECAUSE HE DID MISLEAD THE TOWN. To answer your question, yes I would EXPECT the town to look into me and apply some heat on me if we lynch STD and he is innocent. I would assume that any good town player would. It kinda makes the paragraph void, except that we can simply sub your name in for Scale. Buy yeah it is kinda void, so why are you bringing it up? I originally wrote this is 164, repeated it in 216 making a note that it was originally posted in 164 and being repeated for clearification... so again, why are you brining it up if it is void?

[nonny]

VOTE COUNT
EmpTyger(1): Scalebane
Scalebane(2): Chess, MeMe
Chess(1): olio
Sotty7(1): EmpTyger

Not Voting: AniX, Ixnayonthehombre,Save the dragons, Sentinel99, Sotty7, StD

Sorry guys, I'll get on top of sentinel for ya.

Mod Note: You shall have a sub mod augest 18th-25th(ish) Because I will be out of town and also moving into my dorm. Yaw will be taking care of your vote counts and closing the thread if/when you reach a lynch. You will still need to send night choices to me and I will get that sorted the night of the 25th if there is need.

[Sotty7]

Sure

if

we lynch Scale today, Emp will be pushed some more tomorrow but setting up the lynch like that is crazy. This means if we lynch STD today after your points against him then you should be the next lynch.

You seem to ignore the possibility that Scale and/or STD may be revealed as scum if lynched.

Not really, it's implied. Things would be a lot different if either turned out to be scum, I was working of what Chess wrote.

Wow, I wrote this awhile back. Sotty, did you notice that I wrote that we lynch Emp, UNLESS he can convice us otherwise? That is basically the rule for everybody. All I was suggesting is that if Scale would turn up innocent then we should look into and put some heat on Emp, BECAUSE HE DID MISLEAD THE TOWN. To answer your question, yes I would EXPECT the town to look into me and apply some heat on me if we lynch STD and he is innocent. I would assume that any good town player would. It kinda makes the paragraph void, except that we can simply sub your name in for Scale. Buy yeah it is kinda void, so why are you bringing it up? I originally wrote this is 164, repeated it in 216 making a note that it was originally posted in 164 and being repeated for clearification... so again, why are you brining it up if it is void?

Awhile back? It was Tuesday. I brought it up because I read it in the unread posts during my last post and it stuck out to me. The fact you were still talking about it without noticing Emp had moved on, struck me as strange.

[Chess83]

Awhile back? It was Tuesday.

Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:41 pm Post subject: 164

That was the original post.

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: 216

That was the second post, in which clearification was being made.

The fact you were still talking about it without noticing Emp had moved on, struck me as strange.

You never said that me repeating it was strange, you just wrote a reply to it, which caused me to point out the lapse in time between the original post and your reply over 1 week later.

As for me still talking about it while Emp moved on, it is irrevelent. In case you did not notice, that part was in responce to Olio who had been on my case since post 164, which I was repeating to clearify that it was indeed that post that spooked him. Please read more carefully, there is plenty of confusion already in this game, we don't need anymore.

I AM STILL AWAITING OLIO'S RESPONSE TO POST 216

[Sentinel99]

Quick request: can somebody throw up some Cliff's Notes to this game? It has waxed quite verbose.

[Chess83]

Sentinel...
I think you should just sit down and read the posts. Personally I see it as your own fault that so much has happened while you were not here. You never left a note saying you would be absent or even posted anything for that matter. Sit down and read the posts, make your own opinions and for God's sake... KEEP UP.

[MeMe]

Hear, hear.

[olio]

Back from the trip and ready to continue.

Olio, maybe my post was not written as clear as I should have made it. I did not mean to say that your vote rested on Scale while you began to charge after me, I meant to convey that you were charging after me WHEN your vote was on scale, of course you switched it to vote for me. I wrote about the fact you voted for me based on one post back in post #171.

That was a good try to twist your own words. Are you implying that my vote was on Scale during that post in which I charged you and thus your point was well-placed and well-thought? Your post about my vote being on Scale did nothing but caused confusion and you did it on purpose.

Also I am getting confused by your posts. You wrote...

Like I said, your constant name-calling is distracting in my opinion. Others - including me - have given it a rest it seems to me. You have to ask yourself the question I presented to Sotty and the question by EmpTyger:
How big is the probability that there isn't a vig in this game in your opinion?
How big is the probability that EmpTyger would know that there weren’t a real vig in this game?

Then you suggest me for a vig target? Have you answered your own questions?

Why don't you answer those questions? Are you afraid that your scheme is exposed to those still not seeing it? I've answered those questions myself and you should be able to see it from my posts. If you don't quite get it, I'm happy to explain, but first: you answer those questions, please.

So I suggest that if we do lynch Scale and he is town, that we then consider lynching emp, unless emp can convice the town otherwise... on the grounds that emp mislead the town. That seems logical to me.

That's fine crap-logic, if I may correct.

In short Olio, u are really starting to look scummy to me personally. You are taking some heat and attetion off of scale, which is a known scum tactic, trying to save your partner.

So why aren't you voting me?

Check the last two lines. If you choose to display my previous posts, to check this - which you should - it's the post number 9.

I may be a moron but I just don't understand what you mean by this.

It was for others if they wanted to check that you're really lying with your "olio's vote is on Scalebane while attacking Chess".

Also you have still not said how I tripped.

This is like the 3rd or 4th time I think I have asked.

Looks like you have trouble reading my posts, which I apologize. I try to be more direct in future.

Your biggest mistakes so far:
- you say you don't have nothing to say and yet you present a plan based on crap-logic how town should proceed
- you say that EmpTyger's unrevealed information has something to do with Scalebane
- you blatantly lie, accusing me of having my vote on Scalebane while attacking you
- you're trying to twist the meaning of your own words
- you don't have guts to vote me, when you know I'm pro-town

But hey, you'll learn from this, I'm sure!

[olio]

My final thought is this, if Scalebane comes up clean then we take out Emp, unless Emp can convince us otherwise. Those are my two cents.

All I was suggesting is that if Scale would turn up innocent then we should look into and put some heat on Emp, BECAUSE HE DID MISLEAD THE TOWN.

So "taking out Emp" is now transformed to "putting some heat on Emp"?

[Chess83]

Okay Olio, here you go...

How big is the probability that there isn't a vig in this game in your opinion?
How big is the probability that EmpTyger would know that there weren’t a real vig in this game?

Vig is a fairly common character in my experience, therefore I would suggest a near 50/50 chance of their being a Vig. So, I tend to believe Emp with the vig claim.
The probability of Emp knowing that there is no vig in the game is a thing of chance. Again there could be and there could not be, if Emp is not the Vig then he is taking a chance on there being a real vig to counter his claim.

Are you afraid that your scheme is exposed to those still not seeing it?

What scheme?
FYI: I don't really see the advantage of ansewering these questions but there they are. Now if you don't mind explaining how you are able to contradict yourself... saying Emp is not a vig then calling for a vig on me tonight.

That was a good try to twist your own words. Are you implying that my vote was on Scale during that post in which I charged you and thus your point was well-placed and well-thought? Your post about my vote being on Scale did nothing but caused confusion and you did it on purpose.

I am twisting nothing, I am posting fact, quoting your posts! You had your vote on Scalebane when you posted your attack on me, then switching your vote to me. I quote you post AGAIN!

Posted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:08 am Post subject: 169 Reply with quote
Chess, I'm getting really bad vibe from your last post. You say don't have anything to add, and yet you:
a) set up a point when EmpTyger should reveal his information
b) impose a restriction on voting (I assume "safty" means "safety" in your post)
c) plan a course of action for the whole town

Point a)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that Scalebane will get (at least) 4 votes today. Why do you think EmpTyger will reveal his information when Scalebane is at 4 votes? Why do you want to hear EmpTyger's information today?

Point b)
In case EmpTyger won't reveal his information we can never lynch Scalebane, right? Or if he gets lynched, that dumb hammerer must be scum? Where do you base such an assumption? If you're so sure that the person hammering Scalebane is scum (in case EmpTyger's info isn't out), why didn't you put your restriction of votes to 5 votes and get that possible hammerer-scum tomorrow?

Point c)
EmpTyger hasn't claimed a cop with guilty result on Scalebane, now has he? Where do you base your logic that if Scalebane is innocent, EmpTyger is scum?

unvote
vote: Chess

Again, this is adding nothing. I am asking for Emp's hidden information in your point A. Point B is a warning about quick-lynching Scale before discusion. Point C is simple as I have said many times, someone who leads the town to lynching a townie deserves to be checked out. I said in my post and I quote...

if Scalebane comes up clean then we take out Emp, unless Emp can convince us otherwise.

Read that carefully, note the words

UNLESS EMP CAN CONVINCE US OTHERWISE.

This does not mean that if we lynch Scale and he is innocent then we just blindly kill emp, no we allow him the chance to dialogue, see your point B above, DON'T QUICKLYNCH.

Oh yeah your post before your attack on me...

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:49 am Post subject: 154 Reply with quote
You're right, it isn't perfect claim for SK. For SK with something extra in his/her role it could be a perfect claim. For normal SK it's a very risky gambit with not so great chances to succeed.

That said, I believe your claim at the moment. I do disagree with you that your rolename wouldn't give any extra information, but at the same time I see the benefit of keeping it disclosed. Latter seems to be better now.

vote: Scalebane

It seems to me that the problem you have with me is two fold.
1) I said I have nothing to add then seemingly add to the conversation (I say I did not ad anything, you say I did)
2) I make a connection to Emp's accusation/suspicion on Scalebane, saying that if scalebane is innocent and we lynch him, then we "take out" emp, providing that he cannot convince us otherwise.

Does that about sum it up?

So I suggest that if we do lynch Scale and he is town, that we then consider lynching emp, unless emp can convice the town otherwise... on the grounds that emp mislead the town. That seems logical to me.

That's fine crap-logic, if I may correct.

How is that crap logic? If someone leads the town to lynch an innocent person, they deserve no investigation or to be considered the lynch for the next day? That is just stupid.

So why aren't you voting me?

Obviously because I feel that there are more scummy people out there than you.

Your biggest mistakes so far:
- you say you don't have nothing to say and yet you present a plan based on crap-logic how town should proceed
- you say that EmpTyger's unrevealed information has something to do with Scalebane
- you blatantly lie, accusing me of having my vote on Scalebane while attacking you
- you're trying to twist the meaning of your own words
- you don't have guts to vote me, when you know I'm pro-town

But hey, you'll learn from this, I'm sure!

My biggest mistakes...
1) this has been covered, but please explain the falacy in my logic, how it would be better to NOT go after Emp is Scale is innocent.
2) Actually, I do not. I say that it would lend creedence to Emp's claim. Knowing his name would help us to better trust his claim of Vig.
3) Read your post. You place you vote on Scalebane, then attack me and move your vote to me in the same post. YOU need to stop twisting words.
4) Yeah, how exactly again?
5) Is that a claim? Are you claiming pro-town? Furthermore, if I know you are pro-town why would I vote for you? That is just stupid. And if you took the time to notice, I have mentioned time and time again that the two most suspicious people in the thread to me are STD and Scalebane, so again. Why SHOULD I vote for you? Yes, you appear scummie to me, but that is not enough to vote for you. I should be voting for the scummiest person that I see who actually has a chance of being lynched. That being said, if there was some other people who thought you were being scummie for dragging all this up and distracting the town away from Emp's claim and everything surrounding that for so long, then I would seriously consider joining in that pressure being placed on you.

So "taking out Emp" is now transformed to "putting some heat on Emp"?

Um... if you read the entire post...

UNLESS EMP CAN CONVINCE US OTHERWISE.

How is this still not clear?

Also, is it safe to assume that this long post was your response to how I tripped? If it is then it is built around the two points of
1) I said I have nothing to add then seemingly add to the conversation (I say I did not ad anything, you say I did)
2) I make a connection to Emp's accusation/suspicion on Scalebane, saying that if scalebane is innocent and we lynch him, then we "take out" emp, providing that he cannot convince us otherwise.

Which seems to be a misunderstanding of what I wrote, granted I may have not been all that clear in my writing.
If this is settled I would like to get back to hunting scum.

[This post is soon to be availbe in paperback form just for Hombre 8)

[AniX]

I have a theory on Emp's vig status: Hypothecially, if Emp is indeed not the Vig. and is instead mafia/SK, theorically the real vig. could be purposefully not revealing himself in order to personally take out Emp himself tonight. This has a advantage over counter-claiming in the nature that the Vig. remains hidden from the eyes of the scum (who would certainly want to take out a proven or semi-proven vig.) whereas he would be quite out in the open if he counter-claimed (and could put himself up on the lynching block by claiming), while both have similar results of Emp not making it to another day.

So basically, we have 3 situations:

1. Emp is Vig. Thus, it is against the town's best interests to lynch him.
2. Emp is SK/Scum and no Vig. exists to counterclaim. A viable option and one where it might be in the town's best interest to lynch.
3. Emp is SK/Scum and Vig. is going to get him tonight. If this is the case, it would be better to not lynch a claimed Vig. and let the real Vig. take control than risk Emp being the Vig.
4.Emp is a townie who really likes to lie. If this is the case, he is a dumbass and should be lynched because he would eventually lynch the confirmed townie over the confirmed SK. This is naturally the least likely situation, but I thought I'd add it...just in case.

So basically, we need to figure out which of these apply to our situation. I'm leaning towards 1 or 3 in this particular situation, because I find it somewhat hard to believe a Vig. isn't in this game.

[EmpTyger]

I’m feeling a innocent vs. innocent vibe from Chess/olio, but I’d have no problem hearing more from them. And I’d really like to hear more from Scalebane, though for a different reason.


AniX:
Well, I certainly concur with your conclusion about how I shouldn’t be lynched. But who do you think should be?

<snip>4.Emp is a townie who really likes to lie. If this is the case, he is a dumbass and should be lynched because he would eventually lynch the confirmed townie over the confirmed SK. This is naturally the least likely situation, but I thought I'd add it...just in case.<snip>

This case can be eliminated. If I am lying, I am not protown.

[Sotty7]

I’m feeling a innocent vs. innocent vibe from Chess/olio, but I’d have no problem hearing more from them. And I’d really like to hear more from Scalebane, though for a different reason.

I have to agree with this. Olio seems to be actively hunting scum and Chess gave me a very strong pro town feel when he first came into the game. I will need to read back though the day to see if either of them are pushing their points towards misrepresentation of the other, which could be a scummy thing.

Emp – You didn't comment on my answers to your questions. Regardless of your role, you're in the position to kill me tonight and I would like to know if I have managed to sway you either way or not.

Scale – I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are in fact scum. When your neck was on the line you were posting constantly trying to save it. Now that the focus of the town has shifted to Olio/Chess and Emp/myself you have been very quiet. I think you are sitting back and letting the town fight amongst themselves. Get involved, ask questions state opinions. Do you think I'm scum? What's your take on the Olio chess debate? Who do you think is scum?

[olio]

FYI: I don't really see the advantage of ansewering these questions but there they are. Now if you don't mind explaining how you are able to contradict yourself... saying Emp is not a vig then calling for a vig on me tonight.

I don't quite get how I have contradicted myself. When was the last time I said Emp is not a vig? When it comes to those questions, they were there to show that getting EmpTyger's name really doesn't bring any light to the situation if he is a vig or not.

I see the situation like this:
a) there's a very high probability that there's a vig in the game
b) there's a very small probability that there's an anti-town role who would know (on day 2) that there isn't a pro-town vig in the game

Those points lead to the following conclusion:
Anti-town player claiming vig on day 2 is very risky play, thus player claiming vig on day 2 has very high probability to speak the truth. His rolename would add very little to that probability and is thus better kept secret, in case an anti-town player tries to claim it.

I am twisting nothing, I am posting fact, quoting your posts! You had your vote on Scalebane when you posted your attack on me, then switching your vote to me. I quote you post AGAIN!

You pick one line from the bottom of the

one

post and have guts to say that I'm voting Scale while accusing you. If I would've changed my vote after my accusations, in another post, then your point would be valid. Now it's just technical nit-picking without any merit and you try to use it like it would really mean something. Let me put it this way: do you usually change your vote first thing in your post and then give your reasoning? Yep, didn't think so.

It seems to me that the problem you have with me is two fold.
1) I said I have nothing to add then seemingly add to the conversation (I say I did not ad anything, you say I did)
2) I make a connection to Emp's accusation/suspicion on Scalebane, saying that if scalebane is innocent and we lynch him, then we "take out" emp, providing that he cannot convince us otherwise.

Does that about sum it up?

Not quite. You're omitting the biggest point of all:

- you say that EmpTyger's unrevealed information has something to do with Scalebane

2) Actually, I do not. I say that it would lend creedence to Emp's claim. Knowing his name would help us to better trust his claim of Vig.

I read the following quote differently: (See my train of thought above about how EmpTyger's name wouldn't really make his claim more believable. )

Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and

is pointing to Scale claiming he has more info to release at a latter time

. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town.

Therein lies my biggest problem with you, the third point you didn't include in your list above - the third point you actually try to wriggle yourself out now.

You base your "EmpTyger is misleading the town" -logic to the information EmpTyger hasn't told us. That information has nothing to do with EmpTyger's vote on Scalebane. That effectively makes your second point above moot, unless you really think that everyone who accuses player, who turns out to be pro-town when lynched, is guilty of "misleading the town".

In other words: EmpTyger isn't the one misleading the town, you are.

So "taking out Emp" is now transformed to "putting some heat on Emp"?

Um... if you read the entire post...

UNLESS EMP CAN CONVINCE US OTHERWISE.

How is this still not clear?

You're not answering the question, but wriggling again. First you said: lynch him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Now you say: put some heat on him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Why the change of tone?

[MeMe]

Oh, Sentinelllll.....how're you coming?

[Chess83]

Okay olio, quick question...

Do you think I am scum? If not, then leave me alone, if so then make it definitively known.

You attacking me while your vote was on scalebane was a bit nit-picky. However, I ususally try to unvote at the start of the post and cast my new vote at the end of the post.

That being said I am only replying to two points because most of this is back and fourth garbage.

Emp did not claim cop, Emp claimed vig. and is pointing to Scale claiming "he has more info to release at a latter time. Therefore, if Scale turned up innocent, then Emp mislead the town.

Therein lies my biggest problem with you, the third point you didn't include in your list above - the third point you actually try to wriggle yourself out now.
You base your "EmpTyger is misleading the town" -logic to the information EmpTyger hasn't told us. That information has nothing to do with EmpTyger's vote on Scalebane. That effectively makes your second point above moot, unless you really think that everyone who accuses player, who turns out to be pro-town when lynched, is guilty of "misleading the town".
In other words: EmpTyger isn't the one misleading the town, you are.

Okay, so you admit that you are reading what I wrote in your own way (thank you for explaining YOUR line of thought by the way). Perhaps it would be better if I had wrote the problematic quote this way...
Emp is claiming vig and voicing suspicion on Scale. He is also saying that he has more information to release later." How is that? That clear? My God I was nit-picky, you are basically admitting that you are reading it differently because you see that his nameclaim would add nothing to his role claim, I disagree and you are coming after me because you read my statement differently. Chill out, open you mind... ask a question or two before going off the deep end.

FYI: I clearified my statement about emp's hidden info back on Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: 189

I don't recall saying that it did directly effect scalebane, if I wrote it I was mistaken, if it was implied, again I am sorry. I do make mistakes and this maybe one of them. I think that the information Emp is not releasing will shed some light on the validity of his claim, thus strenghting his accusation agaisnt Scale. Right now it is a toss up of "Do we believe him or not?" If we had a name then it may help with that decision and thus help us decided on what to do with Scale.

How am I misleading the town? By saying that Emp should name claim? Or by saying that we should pressure him if we were to lynch scale and he was innocent? Or is it the part about Emp's hidden information making scale look more guilty, which I never claimed. Or is it that Emp's role name would lend creedence to his claim, which I still think it would.

You're not answering the question, but wriggling again. First you said: lynch him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Now you say: put some heat on him, unless he can convince us otherwise. Why the change of tone?

Excuse my change of tone. I don't know why I changed it from "lynch him unless he can convince us otherwise" to "put some heat on him." Maybe, because the first post was on Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:41 pm and the second post was on Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:12 pm. That is 10 days, 1.5 weeks. Alot happens in that time, things like 3 pages of text. Unlike, me changing who I think is the scummiest after one post. There was 64 posts between my two comments. Between you vote on Scale and you vote on me there was 15 posts. So which is more drastic, changing of wording or changing of vote. After that consider which had more time between the two. This point of yours looks excessive.

As a final note, before accusing me of trying to worm out of a question or a point, you may want to ask it again and mention that you want me to specifically answer that point/question. As you can tell I have not shyed away from anything you have brought up against me. I have tried to answer all the points, even though it is getting very redundant at this point.

I appreciate your zeal to find scum, I think you should be redirecting that zeal to another player right now and not directing it at me, a I think this has basically come down to a misunderstanding. However, if you choose to continue this discussion please order your points/questions against me in a list, include everything that you want me to address and I will address them point by point.

[Scalebane]

Olio: You just said that it implied that I'm not a townie because I defended myself vigorously (and still continue to defend my self vigorously) whenever anyone looks my way, but I'm not helping with the scum hunting very much. On a note towards that last bit, read the rest of this post. But I'd be interested to see what you thought a townie would do when they're attacked quite vigorously. Not defend themselves? Maybe the fact of the matter is that I'm simply a bit gunshy now. That I think that if I come out and say exactly what I think, it will all get twisted around and I'll just have to defend myself all over again.

But, I hate people who play defensively, so here's my opinions on what's going on:
I'm getting Townie vs. Townie vibe from pretty much all of the arguments that are going on, which leads me to think that the mafia are the people who aren't really posting much. I'm pretty sure that both Chess and Olio are townie, even if neither one seems to think the other one is innocent. I'm pretty sure at this point that EmpTyger is either a Vig or an SK, but either way, I'm convinced that he's not mafia. I think sotty is town, but I'm not quite sure why I think that. Here's my list of people that I'm currently trying to figure out what I think about:

MeMe - She's posted a good bit, but hasn't gotten that much involved with any of the current discussion. She's spent pretty much the whole game lurking hunting, or getting looked at because all she's doing is lurker hunting. She's done a very good job of not tipping her hand ever, but she is a quite experienced player.

Sentinel - I'm not going to say he's scum because he's not posted, but once again he's someone I'd like to hear more from because he's been so quiet (and therefore, hard to read.)

Anix - I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of his playstyle. Note how in his last post he tried to turn attention back to EmpTyger and whether or not he's the vig, even though it's moot at this point. We just need to come up with who we think Emp should vig. If he does it, then we keep him around until he could be a liability. If he doesn't do it, then we lynch him. Simple as that, really.

STD - Something about his posts just keeps on throwing off these slightly scummy vibes to me. I'm going to go back through his posts and try and figure out what makes me suspicious, but generally I've been keeping a close eye on him.

And that's my list right now. And I'm in no way claiming that I'm perfect or that I myself haven't been posting less than I should've. This is simply my list.

and,

Unvote

Just because I'm not even sure who my vote is on at the moment.

[Sotty7]

Any chance we could get some

prods

? STD, Sentinel99, Ixnayonthehombre all haven't posted in about a week.

Good to see you back in the mix Scale and you do bring up an interesting point about the people who don't seem to be around. I had noticed Meme seems to be on the edge of all discussions. She does weigh in from time to time, but I'm not sure if it's her usual play or not.

[MeMe]

I don't feel the need to be a featured player in every discussion -- some get on well enough without me. I do, however, ask questions when a discussion prompts some and they haven't yet been asked by anyone else.

Sotty -- I'd like to hear your thoughts on Sentinel. I find it really odd that you fault me for being "on the edge" and yet seem to be quite comfortable with players who aren't anywhere

near

the edge.

[EmpTyger]

MeMe:
Honestly, were you to be mafia, I would figure you to play this exactly the way you have been. I don’t think there’s anything to be made of this today. I wasn’t going to mention anything before at least twilight, if not tomorrow, but since Sotty did bring it up…


Sotty:

<snip> Emp – You didn't comment on my answers to your questions. Regardless of your role, you're in the position to kill me tonight and I would like to know if I have managed to sway you either way or not. <snip>

I’m going to indicate whoever I would be killing inthread to give them a chance to defend themself fully. I don’t want another CK. (Or, for that matter, another chamber.)

<snip>

Sotty:
I don’t believe you.

I don’t see anything that implies that you were about to vote Scalebane before I came forward. And I don’t like how all of a sudden you’re all “Scalebane is still number one on my list,” since I don’t see you ever being anyone near that strong.

Consider the deliberative analytic buildup before you voted chamber; you didn’t hesitate in trying to evaluate his situation.

But with me and Scalebane, your were nearly silent until I turned the spotlight onto you. You mention a few skepticisms of me in [151], but otherwise avoid the issue so completely that you don’t even mention either of us in [173], which was only your second post since I came forward.

First things first. I never voted Chamber... so I don't know where you go that from

Sorry, bad phrasing. “Consider the deliberative analytic buildup while you were considering whether to vote chamber…” Specifically, I was referring to [65].

As for the rest, believe me, don't believe me but know this. I am inherently thoughtful/careful player and when I am unsure in certain situations (ala you v Scale) I try and gather as much info as possible before jumping on either side. I was a little quite for awhile there, but checking my posting record on the site, I was busy during that time so I was quiet in all my games. Bad timing, perhaps but it's one reason. When my gut/thought process is clear I push on players that I think warrant it, (Olio, CK, early day Chamber) but as I have said over and over I'm still torn between you and Scale <snip>

This is exactly my point. That *is* your playstyle, and how you’ve behaved towards those players, and more besides. But you *haven’t* acted that way with Scalebane, which was what called you to my attention. (Nor with me initially, as well, though you have now that you’ve been pressed.) Especially the way you afterwards tried to portray yourself as having been so strongly against Scalebane. If that’s how you felt, why hadn’t you said anything? It just feels like your attitude towards Scalebane is different. You’re still the most suspicious player to me, and I’m keeping my vote on you.


Scalebane:

<snip>I think sotty is town, but I'm not quite sure why I think that.<snip>

If you do figure it out, I’d be interested in hearing why. Also,
[quote="Scalebane "[219]"]I get the impression from Sotty that she thought I was the most suspicious out of the set [Scalebane, STD] which was what Chess brought up at the beginning of today. If sotty thought I was the most suspicious out of everyone in the game, I'm not really sure.<snip>[/quote]

<snip>Scalebane is still number one on my list, but my evidence isn't really compelling.<snip>

[MeMe]

And how, pray tell, would you expect me to play if town?

[EmpTyger]

MeMe:
Well, yeah. That’s why I wasn’t planning on mentioning it just yet.