Mini Normal 1854: Game Over

[xSoniaNevermindx]

Oh mother-
UNVOTE:

[xSoniaNevermindx]

I thought I fucking caught your ass
anyway
VOTE: EMP
Back to this I guess

[TwoFace]

I should have waited to see who blindly sheeped you.

You don't see that excited by an emp wagon. Why not?

[xSoniaNevermindx]

I don't feel as strongly a sr here as I do Gamma/Aj
I'm not against this lynch it's just not my pref'd choice I'm not gonna kick and scream over it though.

[TwoFace]

If i'm wrong and emp turns out to be town, I'm there with ya on both of those guys.

[Joshz]

its ok nacho might have an argument to not lynch empking, he seemed eager

[Empking]

That's not semantics. If he is claiming to have a policy in this game. And it certainly looks like a policy in this game. But it wasn't a policy in those other games. Regardless, I literally said that I am willing to concede the argument in that post. That's not remotely arguing over semantics.

You know what semantics is? Semantics is me doing the same thing in those other games as I did here but saying it's different because I didn't say the word policy.

"I also have this thing about lynching claimed PRs day one. "

"I am not a big fan of lynching claimed PRs on day 1"

"You don't lynch a claimed pr day 1 ever"

All 3 say essentially the same thing, just worded differently. All 3 my actions were the same. I didn't lynch a claimed pr. Since empking is big on semantics. I'll say it in a way that makes sense to hissimple mind.

All 3 say essentially the same thing, just worded differently. All 3 my actions were the same. I didn't vote a claimed pr.

The end result is the same. I'm never going to vote a claimed pr day 1.

They aren't the same thing at all.

To use a metaphor if one person says "I'm not a big fan of eating chicken" and another says "I have a policy against eating chicken" then only one of them is getting served my delicious chicken supreme.

Its not a big deal, but its worth remarking on. And I remarked upon it once. Its not me who is harping on about it.

[TwoFace]

Btw in my original post I never used the word policy so not even sure how that got introduced

[TwoFace]

Its not me who is harping on about it.

You're the one who can't stop talking about it

[Empking]

Luv:
I'll answer Luv's 2181 point by point.

Interacting with the largest wagon and asking things from it is not "off". That's retarded.

Giving your reads as they're created is obviously pro-town. My read on Josh was dead-on so I appreciate why you might think that it surely couldn't have come without a thorough reading, but it did. Josh had loads of posts, but none really that Nacho considered worth responding to or quoting. That's scum flying under the radar. That's active lurking. I was dead-on.

Read the thread. Read the pages either side of Nacho's vote if you think that reading all of Day One is too much work. Two is not the reason that the Hiraki and Creep wagons were overcome and scum got lynched. That came from Nacho and Gamma. Two was making no effort to get Having lynched Day One when the final wagon got on him. These are simply facts that happened. Don't trust me, look at the pages in question.

That's not semantics. If he is claiming to have a policy in this game. And it certainly looks like a policy in this game. But it wasn't a policy in those other games. Regardless, I literally said that I am willing to concede the argument in that post. That's not remotely arguing over semantics.

I have never said that Two going off the wagon was scummy - maybe before he said the policy - although I've acknowledged that it ought to be. What is scummy is that Two won't give a straight answer to questions about why he unvoted. "I don't lynch claimed PRs" is nonsense; it's impossible. It is halfway between "I won't be on the wagon of a claimed PR day one. Just won't" and "I'll try to keep claimed PRs from being lynched" Posturing or protecting, but when asked directly which one he just calls me a liar and repeats his (gibberish) mantra. That's not pro-town behaviour. Perhaps it was obvious to you that he meant posturing? But where was the pro-town motivation is refusing to make it obvious to me? My question was not difficult.

He was flip-flopping in his discussion with me. I was literally the only one reading his posts in connection to me. If scum did think Having's lynch was inevitable then why the Jailkeeper claim?

"Why would scum try to get credit for a scum lynch" is a retarded question, and you should be ashamed for making it.

How come competing wagons stopped Having from being lynched when Two voted him first, and went down so smoothly when it was Nacho? Did those competing wagons simply vanish? No. The competing wagons is obviously not a valid reason for saying why the wagon stalled with Two and went smoothly with Nacho.

Luv: in your second paragraph you are calling me a liar and saying I had read the thread. But then later posts are saying that I'm scum for not reading the thread. Did I somehow unread the thread in my intervening posts.

Everyone: Please just reread the creation of the final Having wagon. The fact that Having was lynched Day One was not down to Two. Just read the pages in question, it's not ambiguous. Two's most recent comment on Having before Nacho's interrogation is explicitly giving up on Having been lynched Day One. Nacho - and accidentally Gamma - are responsible for Having being lynched. I'm not saying trust
me over your memories. I'm saying reread the pages in question. It's not ambiguous.

If that requires my flip first then that's fine. But once it's proven that I am town, could people just read the relevant pages. Please.

It's off when you just subbed in and gave no indication in your opening post of having played with him prior like you did with Nacho. If me and Nacho weren't masons and you had asked him that same question, I wouldn't have given it a second thought because you at least showed that you knew him prior to this game and for all I know that's enough of a reason you may have to trust his summary of the game for the time being.

I did not interact with him to sheep him. I interacted to try to get a read on him since he was the biggest wagon. Is that honestly a concept you are unfamiliar with?

Giving reads isn't exactly pro-town and it definitely isn't when 3 of those reads you got were from Nacho. You didn't say you skimmed or you read just ISOs, you had claimed to have not read the game. There is no way you could have that read on Josh with that claim which is why I called you a liar.

I also made several references to Nacho's reads. Do you genuinely think i was trying to give the impression that i had read nothing related to the game? I had not read the game at that point just the mod's and Nacho's posts. If you'rte coming me scum for "arguing semantics" then how do you explain the beam in a mason's eye? surely that would be the definition of NAI if a mason like yourself is relying on it.

Your case on Josh still doesn't make him scum.

And whatever case was made on your slot didn't make you scum. and whatever case was made against hiraki doesn't make him scum. This is garbage reasoning for thinking somebody is scummy.

Active lurking is NAI. Also, why does it sound like you're trying to get town credit for giving reads yet you criticized TF for claiming he was trying to get town credit for saying the wagon on Fitz was all him?

I'm not trying to get towncred. I'm saying that calling providing content scummy is risible - particularly when you're calling active lurking null.

I don't trust you because I think you're scum and I was actually there. The reason people came around to Fitz were mostly for the reasons TF laid out.

TF's 2189 addresses this point fairly well.

You do not have to trust me. I am not asking you to trust me. Take ten minutes to read the relevant part of the thread.

All the answers he's given to that question are pretty much the same thing, you just keep arguing semantics.

This is dumb. Scum want to live just as much as town do. Of course some sort of fake claim was going to be thrown out.

If he was fakeclaiming to increase his chances of stying alive, then his odds of staying alive after the lynch was - to the scum's perspective - not inevitable.

Competing wagons stopped Fitz from being lynched quickly because people essentially wanted to policy lynch Creeps and also wanted to lynch Hiraki because his play didn't read like it was coming from town and was screaming scum. It looked like Nacho was the one that got Fitz lynched because he subbed in very late into a day which had taken such a toll on the town. We gave in and we lucked out.

The competing wagons were stil there when nacho subbed in. The existance of competing wagons does not explain where it took 20 pages after he made it for Two's arguments to magically create the successful wagon.

I am calling you scum because you have shown you're not willing to reread the game throughly. If you were willing, we would probably not be having this discussion right now.

Don't be a hypocrite. I've read the game thoroughly. If you thought that I hadn't, then you'd be willing to read the handful of pages relevant to this discussion. If you're actively avoiding looking at readily available evidence then that's not because you think the evidence will confirm your suspicions.

If Nacho had not voted Having at the end then Having would not have been lyynched day One. If Gamma had not followed - something he very easily could have avoided - then Having would not have been lynched. Two, on the other hand, had no such freely-made keystone choice. You don't have to trust me on that. You can read the thread. The primary source is right here. Its easy! If you're reading this sentence then you're most the way there.

P-Edit: I said policy in 1965. You continued the use in 1966. You gave examples in 1967. Regardless has there ever been a more semantics argument that "I never used the exact word"?

That's a lie. I am not the one bringing it up. That's Luv (and I think) you.

[Empking]

Nacho: One question that I think is important to answer before you die. Since I know Luv is so convincved that I am scum from the super-power supposition that he won't read this post I can feel free acknowledging that I know nobody has bother reading the part of the thread that they are calling me a liar over. If they had they would pointed out that you voted Having shortly after you got Two to link his case. Propter hoc, and all. Were you convinced to vote Having by Two's case?

And as a general point. People keep saying that 'everyone' was convinced by Two. Is anyone happy to claim that they were simply sheeping Two with their vote in particular?

[TwoFace]

Yes you brought up the policy.
You asked for examples of the policy
I provided examples of the "policy"

Plus you posted the exact posts wiothin thode games. Ezact posts that communicate a desire, a preference, but not so much a policy. Rgardless, I', willing to accept that you do have a policy

You then use the fact that against me in a negative way BECAUSE I never used the word policy.

no way you do that as town
No way ANYONE does that as town.

Die scum

[Empking]

Yes you brought up the policy.
You asked for examples of the policy
I provided examples of the "policy"

Plus you posted the exact posts wiothin thode games. Ezact posts that communicate a desire, a preference, but not so much a policy. Rgardless, I', willing to accept that you do have a policy

You then use the fact that against me in a negative way BECAUSE I never used the word policy.

no way you do that as town
No way ANYONE does that as town.

Die scum

"I do not X" is a description of policy. Regardless of whether the word is used,

a word you never objected to until now; over 100 posts later.

"I am not a fan of X" is not a description of a policy.

I have never called you scummy because of the difference in absoluteness between your posts in this game and your examples. I have always been willing - as I made very clear in the post discussing it - to consider that the change in absoluteness - that was once a dislike has become a policy - was genuine.

[Joshz]

twoface's arguments were why i lynched fitz. i read the argument as tvs and his side seemed more genuine. and empking, for all your effort, i dont think twoface is necessarily lock town, and i found his unvote odd too. however, i think he is very likely town and youre arguing he didnt cause the fitz lynch when he was a major factor. i think i suspect twoface more than any other player in this game besides yourself which is a little bit (not much), and if you had played this differently i might have considered your arguments if you had good point. instead you... well, ive said why youre scum. with your current arguments youve stated and argued twoface a ton yet im scum only for active lurking and im the one youre voting, DESPITE twoface being who youre vocally pushing? that doesnt make sense. the fact youre so certain twoface and i are the scum team when i know im clear actually increases my opinion of twoface, and you dug your own grave. if you flip town, i intend to reread day 1 and redecide. but i genuinely dont believe you can flip town at this point, your behaviour is incredibly anti-town. BEST CASE SCENARIO is you are a vi, and you arent getting killed so in lylo you mislynch myself or twoface and lose the game if it gets to that point (scum can kill 3 more ppl, being nacho luv and one of myself and twoface). im more confident in my vote on you than i was with fitz or hiraki, so its staying unless nacho gives me a really good argument as to why i should lynch aj.

[Aristophanes]

I'm not reading these walls.
If there is something worth noting other than a war based on semantics and full of bickering, please summarize it for me.

[TwoFace]

I'm not reading these walls.
If there is something worth noting other than a war based on semantics and full of bickering, please summarize it for me.

Nah just emp flailing

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Luv:
I'll answer Luv's 2181 point by point.

Interacting with the largest wagon and asking things from it is not "off". That's retarded.

Giving your reads as they're created is obviously pro-town. My read on Josh was dead-on so I appreciate why you might think that it surely couldn't have come without a thorough reading, but it did. Josh had loads of posts, but none really that Nacho considered worth responding to or quoting. That's scum flying under the radar. That's active lurking. I was dead-on.

Read the thread. Read the pages either side of Nacho's vote if you think that reading all of Day One is too much work. Two is not the reason that the Hiraki and Creep wagons were overcome and scum got lynched. That came from Nacho and Gamma. Two was making no effort to get Having lynched Day One when the final wagon got on him. These are simply facts that happened. Don't trust me, look at the pages in question.

That's not semantics. If he is claiming to have a policy in this game. And it certainly looks like a policy in this game. But it wasn't a policy in those other games. Regardless, I literally said that I am willing to concede the argument in that post. That's not remotely arguing over semantics.

I have never said that Two going off the wagon was scummy - maybe before he said the policy - although I've acknowledged that it ought to be. What is scummy is that Two won't give a straight answer to questions about why he unvoted. "I don't lynch claimed PRs" is nonsense; it's impossible. It is halfway between "I won't be on the wagon of a claimed PR day one. Just won't" and "I'll try to keep claimed PRs from being lynched" Posturing or protecting, but when asked directly which one he just calls me a liar and repeats his (gibberish) mantra. That's not pro-town behaviour. Perhaps it was obvious to you that he meant posturing? But where was the pro-town motivation is refusing to make it obvious to me? My question was not difficult.

He was flip-flopping in his discussion with me. I was literally the only one reading his posts in connection to me. If scum did think Having's lynch was inevitable then why the Jailkeeper claim?

"Why would scum try to get credit for a scum lynch" is a retarded question, and you should be ashamed for making it.

How come competing wagons stopped Having from being lynched when Two voted him first, and went down so smoothly when it was Nacho? Did those competing wagons simply vanish? No. The competing wagons is obviously not a valid reason for saying why the wagon stalled with Two and went smoothly with Nacho.

Luv: in your second paragraph you are calling me a liar and saying I had read the thread. But then later posts are saying that I'm scum for not reading the thread. Did I somehow unread the thread in my intervening posts.

Everyone: Please just reread the creation of the final Having wagon. The fact that Having was lynched Day One was not down to Two. Just read the pages in question, it's not ambiguous. Two's most recent comment on Having before Nacho's interrogation is explicitly giving up on Having been lynched Day One. Nacho - and accidentally Gamma - are responsible for Having being lynched. I'm not saying trust
me over your memories. I'm saying reread the pages in question. It's not ambiguous.

If that requires my flip first then that's fine. But once it's proven that I am town, could people just read the relevant pages. Please.

It's off when you just subbed in and gave no indication in your opening post of having played with him prior like you did with Nacho. If me and Nacho weren't masons and you had asked him that same question, I wouldn't have given it a second thought because you at least showed that you knew him prior to this game and for all I know that's enough of a reason you may have to trust his summary of the game for the time being.

I did not interact with him to sheep him. I interacted to try to get a read on him since he was the biggest wagon. Is that honestly a concept you are unfamiliar with?

Giving reads isn't exactly pro-town and it definitely isn't when 3 of those reads you got were from Nacho. You didn't say you skimmed or you read just ISOs, you had claimed to have not read the game. There is no way you could have that read on Josh with that claim which is why I called you a liar.

I also made several references to Nacho's reads. Do you genuinely think i was trying to give the impression that i had read nothing related to the game? I had not read the game at that point just the mod's and Nacho's posts. If you'rte coming me scum for "arguing semantics" then how do you explain the beam in a mason's eye? surely that would be the definition of NAI if a mason like yourself is relying on it.

Your case on Josh still doesn't make him scum.

And whatever case was made on your slot didn't make you scum. and whatever case was made against hiraki doesn't make him scum. This is garbage reasoning for thinking somebody is scummy.

Active lurking is NAI. Also, why does it sound like you're trying to get town credit for giving reads yet you criticized TF for claiming he was trying to get town credit for saying the wagon on Fitz was all him?

I'm not trying to get towncred. I'm saying that calling providing content scummy is risible - particularly when you're calling active lurking null.

I don't trust you because I think you're scum and I was actually there. The reason people came around to Fitz were mostly for the reasons TF laid out.

TF's 2189 addresses this point fairly well.

You do not have to trust me. I am not asking you to trust me. Take ten minutes to read the relevant part of the thread.

All the answers he's given to that question are pretty much the same thing, you just keep arguing semantics.

This is dumb. Scum want to live just as much as town do. Of course some sort of fake claim was going to be thrown out.

If he was fakeclaiming to increase his chances of stying alive, then his odds of staying alive after the lynch was - to the scum's perspective - not inevitable.

Competing wagons stopped Fitz from being lynched quickly because people essentially wanted to policy lynch Creeps and also wanted to lynch Hiraki because his play didn't read like it was coming from town and was screaming scum. It looked like Nacho was the one that got Fitz lynched because he subbed in very late into a day which had taken such a toll on the town. We gave in and we lucked out.

The competing wagons were stil there when nacho subbed in. The existance of competing wagons does not explain where it took 20 pages after he made it for Two's arguments to magically create the successful wagon.

I am calling you scum because you have shown you're not willing to reread the game throughly. If you were willing, we would probably not be having this discussion right now.

Don't be a hypocrite. I've read the game thoroughly. If you thought that I hadn't, then you'd be willing to read the handful of pages relevant to this discussion. If you're actively avoiding looking at readily available evidence then that's not because you think the evidence will confirm your suspicions.

If Nacho had not voted Having at the end then Having would not have been lyynched day One. If Gamma had not followed - something he very easily could have avoided - then Having would not have been lynched. Two, on the other hand, had no such freely-made keystone choice. You don't have to trust me on that. You can read the thread. The primary source is right here. Its easy! If you're reading this sentence then you're most the way there.

P-Edit: I said policy in 1965. You continued the use in 1966. You gave examples in 1967. Regardless has there ever been a more semantics argument that "I never used the exact word"?

That's a lie. I am not the one bringing it up. That's Luv (and I think) you.

Oh I understand the concept, it just doesn't make sense to me when you claimed you haven't read. I honestly think town would be more interested finding out for themselves why the wagon formed and who is/was reluctant to join it.

It didn't sound like you were joking when you said you hadn't read at all and if you only read the posts from the mod and Nacho, why wouldn't you just state that? Even then, how did Nacho's posts give you that read on Josh at that point?

I'm not saying and have never said you're scum for calling someone an active lurker. I'm just saying that doesn't make Josh scum.

Your reads list wasn't really content. There was no depth to it and looked very easy to fake.

I took a look and right after Nacho asked for TF to explained why he found Fitz to be scum in 935, he was convinced to vote for him in 938 based on TF's 937. He never moves his vote at any point that day and even tried to get Gamma to compromise in 992.

And yes the competing wagons were still there, that doesn't change the fact that the people on those wagons were stubborn. Also, Nacho is a mason and reads like an experienced player to me and some of the newer players on the site, we were waiting for him to catch-up and give his own reads shortly after he voted for Fitz.

[xSoniaNevermindx]

I'ma just act like I read all these walls and nod my head

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Just waiting on Nacho lol.

[Empking]

Oh I understand the concept, it just doesn't make sense to me when you claimed you haven't read. I honestly think town would be more interested finding out for themselves why the wagon formed and who is/was reluctant to join it.

What wagon? I asked AJ for a summary of the entire game. His own wagon? Someone describing the wagon on him could be a great source of information. About the mindset of the one describing. (As it was his response wan't that informative, to be fair)

It didn't sound like you were joking when you said you hadn't read at all and if you only read the posts from the mod and Nacho, why wouldn't you just state that?

Why would I just state that? I mean in a billion other quantum worlds, I probably would say that I looked at the votes and at Nacho's iso in a couple of million of them. However, if I wanted people to think that I hadn't read Nacho's and the mod's posts why would I have mentioned so often the votes and Nacho's reads?

Even then, how did Nacho's posts give you that read on Josh at that point?

Josh got himself all but ignored by Nacho.That's the point of active lurking. Getting ignored like that takes effort. I think that only scum will make that effort. You think it NAI.

I'm not saying and have never said you're scum for calling someone an active lurker. I'm just saying that doesn't make Josh scum.

Then that doesn't seem relevant to the rest of your wall, but OK. We disagree.

Your reads list wasn't really content. There was no depth to it and looked very easy to fake.

Being easy to fake is proof that its content. You can't fake Josh's frequent references to the deadline. You can't fake Sofia's spam. Or Gamma's youtube links. That's because that's not content.

If there is a difference between fake and real then you're looking at content.

I took a look and right after Nacho asked for TF to explained why he found Fitz to be scum in 935, he was convinced to vote for him in 938 based on TF's 937. He never moves his vote at any point that day and even tried to get Gamma to compromise in 992.

And yes the competing wagons were still there, that doesn't change the fact that the people on those wagons were stubborn. Also, Nacho is a mason and reads like an experienced player to me and some of the newer players on the site, we were waiting for him to catch-up and give his own reads shortly after he voted for Fitz.

They were stubborn before Having and Two started distancing from each other. Could Two have predicted that his post would probably get Having lynched? If the answer is 'no' - even if the answer is "No, cause we were too stubborn" then he isn't responsible for the lynch. The people who got the game shooked up and stopped people from being stubborn is responsible for the lynch.

p-edit: lol

[Joshz]

show me my frequent references to the deadline

[Aj The Epic]

What wagon? I asked AJ for a summary of the entire game. His own wagon? Someone describing the wagon on him could be a great source of information. About the mindset of the one describing. (As it was his response wan't that informative, to be fair)

You also asked a replacement to summarize the game.

[Joshz]

and nacho said hed bet the game im town, if thats ignored then ok!

[TwoFace]

I'ma just act like I read all these walls and nod my head

Good idea. He's not saying anything of value anyway

[Empking]

deadlines coming up folks, empking try and have your read through done today please!

What wagon? I asked AJ for a summary of the entire game. His own wagon? Someone describing the wagon on him could be a great source of information. About the mindset of the one describing. (As it was his response wan't that informative, to be fair)

You also asked a replacement to summarize the game.

Hadn't noticed that you were a replacement; most of the players are. Had no idea when you replaced in.

Josj did not mention deadline as frequently as I thought. Mea culpa. But yes not interacting you or even mentioning you other than in readlists or acknowledging that you have a vote is ignoring you. Maybe he has a good reason for ignoring you, but if he does then I would have though that he'd have mentioned it.