Mini Normal 1854: Game Over

[Empking]

Great to see Nacho. I'l get to reading the thread shortly but its almost 1 am here. Could AJ give me a brief summary of the thread, please.

[Empking]

I haven't actually read the game yet, but as it stands:

Town:
Aristophanes - Nacho's read
Nachomamma8 - Mason
Lil Uzi Vert - Mason

Slight town:
Gamma Emerald - Having's votes
xSoniaNevermindx - Nacho's read

Slight Scum:
TwoFace - Hasving's votes seem like the basic - dump a vote on a partner for distancing because you don't want to bus play

Scum:
Aj The Epic - Nacho's read
Joshz - Like big time, like hugely, like blindingly obvious. He scream scum. Maybe, that'll change once I read his posts but so far it screams 'invested in the game; trying to play to win; not actually engaged in scumhunting'

Vote:Joshz

[Empking]

Wit AJ, why are you calling josh probstown? That came out of nowhere.

[Empking]

Read his posts. Haven't changed my mind. Although he was less invested than I thought; how has he not been called out on it from what I'd read before I though the active lurking was going to be more subtle? Plus, the fact that he's twice planned his night kills in the thread.

It actually did reduce the probability I have for him being scum. Since, surely I must have missed something that cleared him for him to get away like this.

[Empking]

Emp,if you're town you're freaking stupid. I pushed hardest for having to get lynched.

That's not what I see when I look at the vote counts. I doubt that's what I'll see when I read the thread. Even if it is, then scum wanting town red for the lynch of a partner is hardly something unheard of.

[Empking]

Twoface, why do youi think that looking at the vote count seems to contradict your being the driving force behind Having's lynch?

[Empking]

The only vcs I wasn't on were ones after he claimed. I started the wagon on him. I pushed hardest for his lynch. Harder than anyone else on his wagon. You're vca is either wrong or you're scum

Why did you drop it once he'd claimed?

[Empking]

I don't lynch claimed PRs day 1.

Can you provide any evidence of that - awful, awful - policy?

You really need to read and not just look at VCs. Those don't tell the whole story.

Its 80 pages long. Regardless, you can tell me the whole story.

[Empking]

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 5#p8413025

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p8526212

Here are completed games.

Empking: "I'm not reading 80 pages of this game. Show me where you said you don't lynch PRs D1."
TwoFace: "Sure! Read these other two games and you'll see!"

I'm reading 80 pages. I just haven't read them all yet.

[Empking]

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.

Regardless, Having's early posts including the 286, 348 banter and the three leaning scum reads only to vote Two without providing any reason why people should join him on that rather than Gamma or Eric seems like distancing (349, 350). Then Two votes Having with reasons that could not possibly convince anyone to join him (352). Neither one ought to feel like they're in any risk at this point. That seems like distancing.

[Empking]

Yeah, and scum have daytalk so that could all be planned out.

[Empking]

The only vcs I wasn't on were ones after he claimed. I started the wagon on him. I pushed hardest for his lynch. Harder than anyone else on his wagon. You're vca is either wrong or you're scum

Well you dropped him like it was hot in post 500. More than 500 posts before you claimed. You then got back on him, which I haven't gotten to yet. We will see if it seems forced.

(Also just repeating the mantra 'if you think I'm scum, You're scum' won't have any effect on me.)

[Empking]

Got to Two's revote. Its meh, the fact it comes after Gamma says he thinks Having looked scummy is a slight point in his favour.

LMAOOOOOO

Sorry luv my read on vedith is back to red.

Am I right in thinking that its another: "You think I'm scum, you must be scum"?

[Empking]

I do typically scum read people who scum read me, see normal 1850 (one of the only games I've completed on this site). But actually, I've been scumreading vedith the entire game and only backed off when luv and hiraki got in my head, so actually, it's you that is voting me with that logic and the irony is funny. And your list overall is shit. But let's see what you come up with when catching up, idk if this is some mentality of joining the thread -> scumreading me -> catching up -> ending the stupidity because aj did that too but hey, I want to see your reads.

I dount my reads on you will change. I've read your posts. They're a whole lot of nothing.

[Empking]

Finisged Day One. Two gets no credit for Having's lynch. It is almost causing me to guffaw that he claims otherwise. Gamma gets much credit. You can put him on almost certainly town.

Andf paty of why Josh has been unecamined is made clear. Math - very sensibe guy - died night one after having previously been the one to suspect him.

[Empking]

Thinking about it in the bath, scum were obvioysly happy to see two townhies get spontaneously wagoned without having to do anything*, so move Creep into the very likely town bucket. I' haven't seen much bad from AJ, so he beongs in the could be scum bucket (which if i were a spectator would also ber where I put this slot. While Two and Josh are in the likely.

*Until at the last moment Nacho followed by Gamma got Two hung by his own words thus getting a curt third vote for him. (Its really hard for me to resist continuing with a "And then he shamelessly tried to derail it at the last moment with Having's farcial claim")

Joesh: i'l get you your quotes after.

Two gets no credit for Having's lynch.

Bullshit. Just cause I wasn't on the wagon, that's my wagon.

No it wasn't. You - like my slot - voted for him without convincing people - everyone found him vaguely scummy but that wasn't down to either of us - then Nacho came in at the last moment (with an essential assist from Gamma) and got him lynched. Josh does get more credit for it than you since he at least had some choice in the matter. After your distancing you couldn't really have avoided following Gamma.

[Empking]

VOTE: Wyv

Statistically one of those replacements is scum.

I mean you have to take into account the reason for replacement.
Replacement for inactivity is very different from replacing out.
Theoretically the former is however many scum to town there are.

Of which is a rd of the player list that replaced out so yeah statistics show 1's probably scum.

I just realized the link GE gave hasn't been updated in 6 years (and if there's an updated version, I don't see it)

It's hard to say (and I don't think we have a user in this game that's been playing since 2010), but I think it's safe to say that meta has changed since 2010.

Especially

in such an "it's your playstyle" type genre such as mafia.

It also said it was often ignored.

@IO: In your #6 and #10 are you being serious? Like do you plan on actually voting based on those statistics? Or do you have impressions of the game so far?

Nah I'm not that stupid. Like someone said you could say that on any 4 players you pick.

in what world are these townie posts

VOTE: scumdeers

what is your plan if creeps flips town? its a complete waste of a lynch. he is nai lynchbait.

also im voting hiraki what??? i guess that was eric

I think Joshz is scum potentially with Creeps.

Either way moving a wagon off to a vanity wagon with so little time left is sketchy. And who the hell is Eric?

I like Gamma and JoshZ as a team. In the last game we played together Gamma was more forceful with me about reads and such. Now he plays nice with JoshZ and is only forceful on the mason claim.

So I like Creeps JoshZ and Gamma as the scumteam after catching up.

hey mathblade

you said yourself that compromises result in townie lynchces. WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME TO COMPROMISE ON A HIRAKI LYNCH??? the last game i played on here and first one ive finished (so i can discuss it!!) i compromised on two lynches, both were mislynches, and we still won due to godly vig but the problem remains. i think io is scum. i am confident in that read. join my wagon if youre so desperate for a lynch. SCUMDEERS is SCUM, DEER mathblade.

On the contrary. I am not calling on you to compromise at all. I am calling you scum for your voting pattern. What the hell does DEER stand for anyway? Creepers is getting rope followed by Gamma.

He definitely went lighter on you as the day went on, but he never had a conversion and fingered you as town. (To clarify in case there was an unspoken question: I thin Math died because of the protective role soft-claim, not mainly his reads.)

P-Edit: As an empirical point, you didn't convince anyone. Even though he was widely viewed as scummy. Are you lousy at convincing people, or did you not really want him lynched?

p-p-editL No, I don't think that means much. They're just words that don't hold you to anything.

p-p-edit: I've just read it, and that's not what I saw.

[Empking]

well if you're town you can't read for shit. I was the most vocal for a fitz lynch. No buddy is going to hard bus only to back off once it's inevitable.

You definitely did expend the most characters on saying he should be lynched. However, it was Nacho and Gamma who got him lynched. But on a more interesting note:

So when you unvoted - for the last time - you thought his lynch was inevitable? When then did you unvote? Posturing?

(To clarify I don't think you or Having thought the lynch was inevitable. I think you though you could save him.)

[Empking]

So when you unvoted - for the last time - you thought his lynch was inevitable? When then did you unvote? Posturing?

What are you talking about? What unvote

You claimed that you backed off once you thought the lynch was inevitable - this isn't true, you unvoted when Fitz claimed Jailkeeper and that certainly wasn't a reasonable time to believe that the lynch was inevitable.

Deadline was less than 12 hours away when I changed my vote. His lynch was basically going to happen regardless of his claim.

So why the unvote?

Can't tell if King is VI or scum.

I like t think I'm neither. However, crucially, those two aren't mutually exclusive. If thinking Eric was VI is giving the Josh-slot towncred it shouldn't. Its a reasonable reason to derail the early wagon if the things are just from that VIness, b ut it certainly shouldn't be giving you a townread on the slot.

[Empking]

So why the unvote?

Why ask the question when you already know the answer?

We discussed this. You asked for examples of it.

You don't lynch a claimed pr day 1 ever

Damn at least make yourself look like town[/quote]


But lynching claimed pr day 1 was 'inevitable', thus your unvoting apparently served no useful purpose. Why, if Having's lynch was inevitable, did you bother to unvote?

[Empking]

AJ: Who are the bigger fish? Just Gamma?

[Empking]

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

We've got four days. That's plenty of time. (And this post was active lurking. And Active lurking in the artful way you're doing is big scumtell*)

I've read through the game;I read it out of order so might have missed a page here or there, but that makes no difference.

* The bit in brackes above isn't really direced to Josh. I'm well aware that I shan't convince him.

(Sonia's post was also active lurking, but it seems more like prod-dodging rather than the artful way Josh is doing. More importantly Having clearly was not acting like the Creep wagon was a wagon on his buddy.)

[Empking]

i am what he would call active lurking too because ive already given all my thoughts and just want the thread to progress. empking's reads are basically what we are all waiting for.

Josh, are you claiming that I have given no scum reads other than yourself?

Your posts have - for an awful long time - been active lurking. It is not a new thing caused by a lack of recent content to respond to. (I would quote all today's posting-for-camouflage but my post would be to line. The clearest sign that it is scum-motivated.)

P-edit: It wasn't an obvious lynch. They thought the claim was a good one that would help him; obviously.

Luv: What makes Two town?

[Empking]

To elaborate on that 'obviously': that's why one makes a claim (as scum). To avoid getting lynched. They have Daytalk so if scum-Two thought it would have been ineffective they could have brainstormed an alternative.

Sonia: If you're going to lurk then stop posting. Flippant comments pollute the feeling of the thread.

[Empking]

Does anyone want to comment at all on Twoface's twofaceness of flip-flopping between 'I tried to avoid lynching claimed PR Day One" and "Oh it was obvious that we were going to lynch a claimed PR Day One" depending on the question you ask him about the exact same post and invite?

Lots has happened in this thread recently, that is just one example, there is absolutely no need to be twiddling one's thumbs and repeating things baselessly.

P-Edit: Sinis is town based on Creep wagon, and no spamming one character comments is not good for the town. It makes the thread more painful to read for no gain to the town.

Also, are you saying (in post 2028) that I have given no scum reads other than my one on you?

[Empking]

I haven't flip flopped anything. Lie more scum.

Was your unvote about trying to enact your policy on not lynching claimed PRs Day One, or was it about posturing since you considered our lynching a claimed PR Day One inevitable?

Regardless of which answer you give now, you've given the opposite one previously. But, I'm not infallible, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Could that not be worth one line of comment if we really are starved for comment?

I've given updated reads an everyone but Arist and the masons in one post or another since reading through it.

P-Edit: Yo, Josh, in post 2028 were you saying I've given no scum reads on anyone but you?

[Empking]

if youve finished reading lets see your thoughts on the game besides me being a manipulative artful scum active-lurker. i must have a partner, no? whats your game plan if i were to be lynched and if i were to flip town?

i did not say youve given no reads besides me. your reads post was pre-reading the thread. you have not given comphrehensive reads besides what seems to be fosing twoface and a couple town reads (trusting one mason on aristo being town and putting him as town when the other disagrees is also bad!). youve finished reading youve said, so whats your updated reads list?

I'm not so much trusting a Mason's read as I am trusting Nacho's read who happens to be a Mason.

I have not posted so much that this ought to necessary, but:

Town:
Nacho, Ouv - Mason

Arist - Naco

Gamma - Got Having lynched
Sonia - Having was essentially apathetic between Dreep and Hiraki (which was stooped cause Hiraki's a great player)

Scum:
AJ, could be. Nothing screams that he can't be.

Two: His interaction with Having looks like distancing. His retaliatory and dishonest reaction to this claim also looks bad.
Josh: Active lurking in what looks like a very deliberate way. (Is doing exactly what I'd do if I was scum)

[Empking]

To be fair, if I was Josh I probably wouldn't have repeatedly talked about scum's future night action in lieu of scum hunting. A scum tell so basic, it probably has its own wiki page. Still, doesn't seem to have hurt him any.

[Empking]

I haven't flip flopped anything. Lie more scum.

Was your unvote about trying to enact your policy on not lynching claimed PRs Day One, or was it about posturing since you considered our lynching a claimed PR Day One inevitable?

Regardless of which answer you give now, you've given the opposite one previously. But, I'm not infallible, perhaps I am misunderstanding. Could that not be worth one line of comment if we really are starved for comment?

I've given updated reads an everyone but Arist and the masons in one post or another since reading through it.

P-Edit: Yo, Josh, in post 2028 were you saying I've given no scum reads on anyone but you?

Well let's be accurate. First it wasn't an unvote, I changed my vote. I did so because I don't lynch claimed PRs day 1. Doesn't matter if it's inevitable or not.

My answer now is no different than any of my previous answers.

Can we SERIOUSLY lynch this scum now?

He blatantly lied saying I flip flopped when I never did. There's no town motivation for this type of lying.

Changing one's vote involves unvoting. Nowadays, it's generally an implied unvote but it is there.

Lynching is never something you do by yourself. Your policy is obviously not 'I don't singlehandedly lynch claimed PRs day one' since you can't singlehandedly lynch anyone.

Your moving your vote from Having was either in order to enact your policy of trying to stop claimed PRs being lynched day one, or it was posturing. Those are your only choices. Pick a or b. (I'm aware that you're going to pick c) yell "don't listen to him, he's lying scum. Don't listen to him" but I hope people can see past that.)

[Empking]

empking, what is your solve in the hypothetical situation that you were to know for a fact im town?

Two, Aj

[Empking]

Gamma got Having lynched. Nothing forced him to. He chose to do so. It's not impossible for it to be a last-minute hard bus, but I highly doubt that. Plus he's not trying to get cred from it, and if it were a scum-tactic that would have been priority #1.

Your moving your vote from Having was either in order to enact your policy of trying to stop claimed PRs being lynched day one

I've said this was the reason from the beginning and I haven't waivered. Why do you keep asking me? You think I'm going to change my answer?

I unvoted cause I don't lynch claimed PRs day 1.

So you were trying to stop Having from being lynched day one. You've denied that before. You've said that you though his lynch was 'inevitable' and that thus you were not trying to keep him from being lynched.

Having's actions towards you were not bussing, nor your actions to him. They were distancing, neither one of you putting toward a convincing argument against the other. Since you're claiming to have made "awesome" arguments to why he must be scum, would you mind quoting one of them? (Hint: "He voted me" is not an awesome argument.)

[Empking]

In post 2043, Empking wrote:
In post 2042, Joshz wrote:
In post 2028, Joshz wrote:
if youve finished reading lets see your thoughts on the game besides me being a manipulative artful scum active-lurker. i must have a partner, no? whats your game plan if i were to be lynched and if i were to flip town?

i did not say youve given no reads besides me. your reads post was pre-reading the thread. you have not given comphrehensive reads besides what seems to be fosing twoface and a couple town reads (trusting one mason on aristo being town and putting him as town when the other disagrees is also bad!). youve finished reading youve said, so whats your updated reads list?


I'm not so much trusting a Mason's read as I am trusting Nacho's read who happens to be a Mason.

I have not posted so much that this ought to necessary, but:

Town:
Nacho, Ouv - Mason

Arist - Naco

Gamma - Got Having lynched
Sonia - Having was essentially apathetic between Dreep and Hiraki (which was stooped cause Hiraki's a great player)

Scum:
AJ, could be. Nothing screams that he can't be.

Two: His interaction with Having looks like distancing. His retaliatory and dishonest reaction to this claim also looks bad.
Josh: Active lurking in what looks like a very deliberate way. (Is doing exactly what I'd do if I was scum)

TF pushed the wagon through. His only qualm was the claim.
Really not impressed by Empking.

Retread the thread. TwoFace was not voting Having when you and Nacho got on him. He was not actively pushing Having when you two got on him. He was not even the most recent person to be on Having when Navho and you voted him (that was me). If it was down to Two then Having would not even have had a wagon on him come end of day. Two is not responsible for Having's lynch. Retread the thread.

Twoface did not make a single decent argument against Having. Even he can't find something that approaches a decent argument that he gave against Having.

His position on his Unvote seems to be "I didn't unvote, but if I did it was because I thought his lynch was inevitable and thinking that it was inevitable I decided to get off his wagon since I value my policy more than being on the inevitable lynch of the scum who I definitely caught and got lynched" which is obviously garbage. And he knows it's garbage which is why it was like getting blood out of a stone to get anything out of him.

Luv: What do you think about josh trying to shut down discussion - first claiming deadline was near when we had more than four days, then trying to narrow down the lynch pool to me and AJ - once AJ and myself started looking suspiciously at him and Two?

[Empking]

In post 2043, Empking wrote:
In post 2042, Joshz wrote:
In post 2028, Joshz wrote:
if youve finished reading lets see your thoughts on the game besides me being a manipulative artful scum active-lurker. i must have a partner, no? whats your game plan if i were to be lynched and if i were to flip town?

i did not say youve given no reads besides me. your reads post was pre-reading the thread. you have not given comphrehensive reads besides what seems to be fosing twoface and a couple town reads (trusting one mason on aristo being town and putting him as town when the other disagrees is also bad!). youve finished reading youve said, so whats your updated reads list?


I'm not so much trusting a Mason's read as I am trusting Nacho's read who happens to be a Mason.

I have not posted so much that this ought to necessary, but:

Town:
Nacho, Ouv - Mason

Arist - Naco

Gamma - Got Having lynched
Sonia - Having was essentially apathetic between Dreep and Hiraki (which was stooped cause Hiraki's a great player)

Scum:
AJ, could be. Nothing screams that he can't be.

Two: His interaction with Having looks like distancing. His retaliatory and dishonest reaction to this claim also looks bad.
Josh: Active lurking in what looks like a very deliberate way. (Is doing exactly what I'd do if I was scum)

TF pushed the wagon through. His only qualm was the claim.
Really not impressed by Empking.

Retread the thread. TwoFace was not voting Having when you and Nacho got on him. He was not actively pushing Having when you two got on him. He was not even the most recent person to be on Having when Navho and you voted him (that was me). If it was down to Two then Having would not even have had a wagon on him come end of day. Two is not responsible for Having's lynch. Retread the thread.

Twoface did not make a single decent argument against Having. Even he can't find something that approaches a decent argument that he gave against Having.

His position on his Unvote seems to be "I didn't unvote, but if I did it was because I thought his lynch was inevitable and thinking that it was inevitable I decided to get off his wagon since I value my policy more than being on the inevitable lynch of the scum who I definitely caught and got lynched" which is obviously garbage. And he knows it's garbage which is why it was like getting blood out of a stone to get anything out of him.

Luv: What do you think about josh trying to shut down discussion - first claiming deadline was near when we had more than four days, then trying to narrow down the lynch pool to me and AJ - once AJ and myself started looking suspiciously at him and Two?

To give more detail to the "he was not actively pushing him", he literally said to lynch him day two and when Nacho asked for reasons to lynch Having - obviously having his own suspicions - first Two refused to give any reasons. Until he was pushed even further by Nacho and finally gave a link. Two was literally reluctant to give Nacho any reasons for lynching Having. They were distancing while town was eating itself. It bit them in the a.

[Empking]

But lol hammering is the best hammer...

Stop responding to Josh's active lurking spam, and start reading the actual scum hunting going on.

(Letting people interact with low-thinking garbage rather than having to deal with looking at the actual facts of day one actually paid off is one of the reasons why garbage content is much worse than no content, by the way, Gamma.)

[Empking]

"Luv: What do you think about josh trying to shut down discussion - first claiming deadline was near when we had more than four days, then trying to narrow down the lynch pool to me and AJ - once AJ and myself started looking suspiciously at him and Two?"


OK you're scum because this never happened. I didn't try to shut down discussion, I warned deadline was approaching and asked for your reads to discuss....... on what planet is generating discussion shutting down discussion? Aj is not looking suspiciously at me, he's the one who said I'm probs town and that he has bigger fish to fry. 4 days = deadline near when the day is 2 weeks long and half of you are inactive as fuck, and the lynch pool is you and Aj to me and I am seeing if people agree on that.

Now stop existing please. I am set on my vote on Empking now and have no intention to change it. He's blatantly lied multiple times about me even excluding TwoFace - for example saying I'm reactionarily voting him when I called his slot scum for the entire game. If Empking is town he's a useless fuck and with everything he says I get more convinced he's scum.

1. Quote me where I said that You were reactionary voting me?
2. Deadline was not approaching - it was over four days away - and I had already given my reads.

(Also, ellipsis are the mark of a liar. That's a rule for life.)

But yeah provide evidence of my saying that you were reactionary voting me - that's the claim I made against your, buddy, I can see how you'd get it confused.

Anyone willing to give me even odds that he'll pull a Two and go "Oh, I'm not going to find it for lazy scum like you! Find it yourself!"

P-edit: Deadline is in every vote count. Stating it is not contributing. Not contributing is active lurking. Trying to make deadline seem closer than it is is trying to shut down avenues of discussion. I don't particularly like the term it is just an accurate description of your play this game.

P-p-edit: if you can't find one. And I can't find one. One probably doesn't exist.

[Empking]

Gamma: Me with my wicked questions, and trying to shut down stupid comments that consist of one character with nothing to do with the game. Clearly, I am trying to turn this thread into a ghost town.

In post 1980, Empking wrote:
Got to Two's revote. Its meh, the fact it comes after Gamma says he thinks Having looked scummy is a slight point in his favour.

In post 1979, Joshz wrote:
LMAOOOOOO

Sorry luv my read on vedith is back to red.


Am I right in thinking that its another: "You think I'm scum, you must be scum"?

You hadn't even voted me at that point. So that clearly wasn't me calling it a reactionary vote. It's also before I fully read the thread and was a question. Care to try again?

P-edit: If the shoe fits, then you'd either stop doing it - or at least give it a break - or you're happy scum.

P-p (and p) - edit: I Mean the fact that when asked to provide evidence you said you wouldn't is good enough evidence for me to say you can't (perhaps you call that my policy).

Also stop putting "I" and "Lynch" in the same sentence. You can't lynch anyone. That's not how the game works. The town or the game lynches together. (I'd like to say the continued use of grossly erroneous phrasing is a scum tell, but I doubt that it is.)

Regardless of the effort Nacho and Gamma put in to getting Having lynched, they were still the ones who got him lynched; even if Gamma has somehow forgot. You were against his lynch (day one) until pushed by Nacho. That is simply something that happened.

[Empking]

I'm sorry. Semantics are the BEST scumtell. That's my vote pool and who I will vote for. Not lynch. Happy professor? It doesn't need to be a material vote, but again, sorry, I'll make sure to use technical terminology. Not reactionary vote, just reactionary fos!

I'm done talking to you because these stupid repetitive questions to TwoFace and myself are just that; stupid and repetitive. Oops I used the semicolon wrong classic scum tell.

My post can not sensibly be described as accusing you of making a reactionary vote. That is not semantics. That is fact. It was asking a question in response to TwoFace's vote against me.

If you were town you would not have got mixed up with my reaction to Two - a player whose alignment, unlike your own you did not know. That is only going to happen if you are scumbuddies with Two.

P-edit: lol a spam post without any characters. how hilarious. with posts like that scum will never get away from us. good posting

P-p-edit: Day one was some time ago and you've been super vainglorious since. People are misremembering. Plus the people calling you town are misreading you. People do that in this game.

P-p-p-p-edit: You can't. Use your words properly.

[Empking]

Semantics are garbage scumtells. Don't even start thinking that's acceptable.

Look at the post. That is not even similar to an accusation of him reactionary voting. It's a question from somebody who hadn't finished reading the thread. To call it a lie about him reactionary voting me is utter garbage, utter nonsense.

[Empking]

Look at the post but the opposite of that

So "Am I right in thinking that its another: "You think I'm scum, you must be scum"?" is not a question?
So "Got to Two's revote" is a declaration of my having finished reading the the thread?

The fact that you had not even voted me at the time, although true, is not even relevant to the fact that saying that post 2080 makes me a liar is utter trash.

[Empking]

Cool buddy

You say I'm active lurking but I'm not the one recycling arguments over and over

I used it as an example of blatant lying. The post contained more. You have stated why you disagree. This doesn't need to be discussed over and over, stop active lurking.

So you have no rebuttal. Just antagonistic argumentative snark.

Gamma: If you are here enough to post high-larious videos, then you're here enough to say whether you do or do not think that 2080 is blatant lying. Do you?

[Empking]

I have never sarcastically claimed scum. I have never sarcastically admitted to scum tells. In summary my posts have been nothing like yours,

At this point Emp is just shading.

Oh, just answer the question. How is being a wanker pro-town. Stop being a jerk, and answer the question. Josh has an excuse: he's scum. You're just being vile for the kicks. Is 2080 a blatant lie or isn't it. Where is the benefit in rudely not answering me.

[Empking]

Whoops wrong post - doesn't dhange Gamma's actions at all - 1980 was the post in question.

[Empking]

2080 is blatant lying

Obviously it's not a blatant lie because in 2079 I even directed you to where you're can find my arguments against fitz.


But you don't seem too interested in looking for those. You'd rather just pretend they didn't exsist for some reason. Not sure what that reason is but it certainly isn't a protown reason.

Your arguments sucked. Hence why - despite everyone Having having down as scummy - it never got any real traction. Stalling out at a minor three votes. The only reasonable defence is whether they're sincere.

P-edit: Not being able to find things that do not exist is not lazy. If I say something doesn't exist, and you say it does. Then the response to asking for evidence should not be "Find it yourself."

P-p-edit: Josh, tell your buddy that you were being high-larariously sarcastic (feel free to do it in the scum thread); not as highly riots - autocorrect still worked - as Gamma's posts though.

P-p-p-edit: Tisnt a lie. Josh called it a blatant lie. Have you not been paying attention to his posts?

[Empking]

P-edit: No we were disputing the existence of decent arguments against Having. I freely acknowledged the existence of the garbage, unconvincing arguments early on. It was part of why I called distancing.

The second post where you admitted not scum hunting despite the fact that you can't possibly believe I'm the last scum even if you were town is probably NAI.

????
"Am I right in thinking that its another: "You think I'm scum, you must be scum"?
I think you're scum, so I must be scum. That's what's happening. I scum read vedith the entire game, you don't get other come in the thread scum read me and say I'm scumreading you for scumreading me. It is the opposite that happened. Your high-larious scum tells are funny tho.

Now why are we having this pointless circular discussion when the thread is waiting for the masons to comment on this? Apologies in advance for killing discussion.

I didn't say anything of the sort. I asked a question. In addition the post I was replying to clearly implied - in a rigorous logical way - that you were not scum reading my slot immediately before my calling you a scum read. However, regardless of that "back to red" bit, I was asking a question and had not finished reading the thread - 1980 begins with me saying that I had got to Two's second vote on Having - and thus calling it a lie of any sort is obviously garbage.

Asking a question about why we're continuing discussing it while pretending like we should cease discussion is obviously disingenuous. Is obviously a scum move. But if they're willing to ignore everything else. Then I can't be bothered.

[Empking]

Emp a lot of your logic is you either misrepping things or just outright lying and trying to twist it to your advantage and the way things keep progressing I'm leaning towards the ladder
You should give a reads list before someone omes and gives intent on you

I've given my reads very clearly. Very recently. They haven't changed.

Quote a lie. Do you think 1980 is a lie?

[Empking]

I haven't played for a year. Is a bolded "Intent to hammer" a part of the site discourse with associated obligations? (If it does then Luv can you answer quite quickly since I need to go to bed quite soon its past midnight here.)

P-edit: Yes,

[Empking]

I think I've made my views clear. When I flip appreciate that I read the game yesterday, my memory is clear. My understanding of how the game went is accurate, and if you can't trust me. Then [please just reread the relevant pages. It wouldn't take long.

The fun thing about you josh is that you're so generaly pleasent that the sarcasm becomes even more obvious as a scum ploy. Although, if that's only apparent to the target then perhaps that makes it even more potent.

P-Edit: I'll quote it.

[Empking]

I haven't actually read the game yet, but as it stands:

Town:
Aristophanes - Nacho's read
Nachomamma8 - Mason
Lil Uzi Vert - Mason

Slight town:
Gamma Emerald - Having's votes
xSoniaNevermindx - Nacho's read

Slight Scum:
TwoFace - Hasving's votes seem like the basic - dump a vote on a partner for distancing because you don't want to bus play

Scum:
Aj The Epic - Nacho's read
Joshz - Like big time, like hugely, like blindingly obvious. He scream scum. Maybe, that'll change once I read his posts but so far it screams 'invested in the game; trying to play to win; not actually engaged in scumhunting'

Vote:Joshz

if youve finished reading lets see your thoughts on the game besides me being a manipulative artful scum active-lurker. i must have a partner, no? whats your game plan if i were to be lynched and if i were to flip town?

i did not say youve given no reads besides me. your reads post was pre-reading the thread. you have not given comphrehensive reads besides what seems to be fosing twoface and a couple town reads (trusting one mason on aristo being town and putting him as town when the other disagrees is also bad!). youve finished reading youve said, so whats your updated reads list?

I'm not so much trusting a Mason's read as I am trusting Nacho's read who happens to be a Mason.

I have not posted so much that this ought to necessary, but:

Town:
Nacho, Ouv - Mason

Arist - Naco

Gamma - Got Having lynched
Sonia - Having was essentially apathetic between Dreep and Hiraki (which was stooped cause Hiraki's a great player)

Scum:
AJ, could be. Nothing screams that he can't be.

Two: His interaction with Having looks like distancing. His retaliatory and dishonest reaction to this claim also looks bad.
Josh: Active lurking in what looks like a very deliberate way. (Is doing exactly what I'd do if I was scum)

[Empking]

ah screw it it's all the active lurking comments
I dislike how you called joshz scum for his lurking when I was doing the EXACT same thing

He wasn't the big wagon of much of Day One. That (and Having's reaction) is what clears you. Plus he has much more posts than you; although he replaced in earlier.

[Empking]

If arist is breaking him scum meta in a big way, then that makes him town. even if it wasn't me who discovered. It would've been the same iof Nacho was one of our bodyguards/ My other reads are my own.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.

[Empking]

I didn't mean to have that Josh quote in. I thought it would have automatically un-q+'d when I changed the page.

[Empking]

good. gonna pause for a sec. this is not active lurking empking. the goal of questions to generate discussion. discussion is good! now see where its progressing? i

Guess what? It isn't your posts on this page that I called out for being active lurking. I'm not a time travellor.

Your actions in this post are literally the opposite of an earlier post which was of the sort "Deadlines coming! Everbody don't think of anyone other than AJ and Empking." The fact that it is so literally the opposite is coincidental, but funny. THat's without getting into the issue of your two 'Nacho is going to be nightkilled' posts and other examples.

Nacho: I don't think Two overegging his role in Having's lynch is a scumtell. Its utterly null. Other people overestimating his role in the Having lynch is going to let scum coast. That's the problem.

My view on wo is that his push looks like pre-planned mutual distancing. I mean initially Two's actions towards me have been quite similar. But past that initial his actions have been quite different. This is what his sincerely trying to get somebody lynched looks like. To my eyes - although obviously I have a bad perspective - they look utterly different despite the same initial similiarities ("I think Two is scum", "No you're scum!")

I'm willing to vote AJ, but I think he might be on four votes already so I'll wait for a votecount.

[Empking]

good. gonna pause for a sec. this is not active lurking empking. the goal of questions to generate discussion. discussion is good! now see where its progressing? i

Guess what? It isn't your posts on this page that I called out for being active lurking. I'm not a time travellor.

Your actions in this post are literally the opposite of an earlier post which was of the sort "Deadlines coming! Everbody don't think of anyone other than AJ and Empking." The fact that it is so literally the opposite is coincidental, but funny. THat's without getting into the issue of your two 'Nacho is going to be nightkilled' posts and other examples.

Nacho: I don't think Two overegging his role in Having's lynch is a scumtell. Its utterly null. Other people overestimating his role in the Having lynch is going to let scum coast. That's the problem.

My view on wo is that his push looks like pre-planned mutual distancing. I mean initially Two's actions towards me have been quite similar. But past that initial his actions have been quite different. This is what his sincerely trying to get somebody lynched looks like. To my eyes - although obviously I have a bad perspective - they look utterly different despite the same initial similiarities ("I think Two is scum", "No you're scum!")

I'm willing to vote AJ, but I think he might be on four votes already so I'll wait for a votecount.

How is deadline coming here's who I think the lynch pool should be scummy? You've already exaggerated how much I referenced it.

Deadline wasn't coming up. We had four days left of discussion. Just as we would have had two more days of discussion now if Two hadn't lolhammer'd AJ.

[Empking]

I'm not down with a Gamma lynch. AJ hasn't even flipped yet, and people already seem to be letting Two off for his lol-hammer .

[Empking]

Show me where someone is letting TwoFace off for his lolhammer

If he's not being lynched then he's being let off. If you're railroading Gamma then he's not being lynched.

[Empking]

Reading over tonight, I think that the Josh can be explained by him not interacting with certain players (mainly Nacho) because Mason, and Nacho ignoring Josh for inexplicable town read. With AJ flipping town, though, I still say he's scum by POE.

However, I knew that you'd all let of Two for lolhammering town.

Vote: Two

[Empking]

Kinda busy right now but @emp. I didn't lolhammer anyone. I accidentally hammered. There's a difference

VOTE: emp

Accidently two posts after the vote count. Yeah, guys at my high school used o do that all the time.

[Empking]

Honestly, I'm with TF here and Emp pushing this shitty reasoning so hard is making me scumread him significantly.

How is the reasoning possibly bad. He hammered two posts after the vote count, after Josh's tiny post. "Lol, didn't read" can excuse anything. Especially when you're only asking to read two tiny posts immediately before his.

[Empking]

We lost Nacho's final thoughts due to that manner; probably. That's a great harm.

That hammer cannot plausibly be seen as an accident. If people are willing to let you get away with what is clearly awful garbage, then we deserve to lose.

[Empking]

VOTE COUNT 3.08

Gamma Emerald (3): Aj The Epic, xSoniaNevermindx, Lil Uzi Vert
Aj The Epic (3): Nachomamma8, Aristophanes, Gamma Emerald
Empking (1): Joshz
Joshz (1): Empking

No Vote (1): TwoFace

With 9 players living, 5 votes are required to lynch.

TIMER

(expired on 2016-12-31 18:30:00)

NOTES

None

I'm very sure Empking is scum. However, since we are ignoring it for now at nachos request

Unvote and VOTE: aj

Whatever

VOTE: aj

I'm over this game

wow. such accident. much whatever. much im over this game. such accident. wow.

[Empking]

no we didn't because he shares a PF with another mason who is still alive and they had the entire night phase to discuss things. The other mason is perfectly capable to summarize Nacho's final thoughts for us.

Nacho didn't give any in the thread. He was probably busy over that two day period. We'll never actually know whether he would have found the time with two more days, but it is likely that he would have.

[Empking]

Whatever

VOTE: aj

I'm over this game

This post is the not the post of someone unaware that he is ending the Day. "Whatever" is saying that he is consigned to the lynch. "I'm over this game" is pithy words to go into night. Two is clearly lying about it being an accident. That is only going to come from scum.

What does you put as a defense? Just frequent refences to me being a whiner or a baby or a six year old. Not much of an argument.

Also, the fact that he managed to fully make clear that he did not read Luv's comment about Nacho not giving his thoughts - just like he didn't read Josh's post which came immediately before his own - is clearly calculated. I know that I find it tricky to make repeated and specific refences to stuff that I haven't read so as to make it clear that I have not read them.

Ywo's posts have been consistently calculated. They have also been incrdibly on the nose. Am I seeing things? No. I'm, also, the only one looking at his surprise-hammer and that definitely happened.

[Empking]

Dude you're scum reading me because I have a policy you disagree with and I accidentally hammered somebody I previously said I'd be ok lynching.

Go change your diaper and fuck off.

Nothing about me is calculated.

I have never scumread for the policy. I have never scumread you for the unvote.

My core reasonm for scumreading you was the fact that the whole: Fitz gives a lacklustre attack on Two, Two reacts with an unconvincing attack on Fitz that looks like distancing.

As I've said before: Is Two reacting to me like he reacted to Having?

Are all these diaper comments acting like he thinks I could be scum at all?

[Empking]

UNVOTE:

Not ending the day until I hear back from Gamma.

Two was already on me. Accidental hammers don't actually happen. You had nothing to worry about.

[Empking]

No, but there is still a slight possibility that King is just VI.

The problem I have with a King lynch is that no one can tell me who is the definite focus for Day 5 regardless of flip. With Gamma it's like, okay, Day 5 should be at the most two hours but with a King lynch, Day 5 is just going to lead to whole bunch of back and forth with no end in sight and a likely compromise on a town slot. I rather not have the town lose that way.

actually if king flips scum, josh goes up my radar a bit.

plus if we lynch king and he flips scum, we have allowed us an extra mislynch I think.

No with one kill a night the number of allowed mislynches is set at game start and doesn't change. In Nightless, more misynches come into being as scum are lynched.

[Empking]

DC Comics themed game!

Like I can do charachters and shit but I'm not creative with flavor.

That is basically flavor unless you're talking about having trouble with powers and stuff?

Night and lynch flavour is sometimes tricky. I'm partial to getting thrown off a cliff.