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

[Mixologist]

I am not harping on your about not sharing ideas. Where did I say that? In post 168 I asked you:

Who on the wagon do you think is Wolves and to that extent who off the wagon do you think is Mafia?

which you still haven't answered. That is what I am harping on you about. After Dust claimed seer you FOS'ed Ash and Ace for not contributing enough and poked at zwet a little. Please answer.

I'm going to be patient with you because I've had my own slip ups when developing skill in this game - - but for the last time, read carefully - - I even took the time to put italics on a word in the very category you're trying to put me under.

Love the condescending tone there. Why do you assume that I am new to this game?

I've got no eggs in the basket on this one, if I've had a thought, I've proposed it - - After I made a choice to unvote, gave reasons, and exhausted several speculations, you seem to think that I haven't shared ideas?

Again, it's been all "If" and theory. While that is good to talk about, we also need to talk about the actual people on the bandwagon.

Mixer - I'm expressing that we need to hear from everyone else and that they will either offer something new, take action and back it up, or be followers - - all of which will inform us.

There is no harm in discussing it with people who are active though.

Vote Count

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

[AA23]

I am not harping on your about not sharing ideas. Where did I say that? In post 168 I asked you:

Who on the wagon do you think is Wolves and to that extent who off the wagon do you think is Mafia?

which you still haven't answered. That is what I am harping on you about. After Dust claimed seer you FOS'ed Ash and Ace for not contributing enough and poked at zwet a little. Please answer.

Re-read what I felt the standards were for the second section, and you'll note that no, I wouldn't belong in that category.

And I can't say who I think is who because it would be hunting lynches and not scum - - and it would be that way because I don't know where they stand on anything - - and I don't know where they stand on anything because they haven't posted yet.

See what I mean?

Love the condescending tone there. Why do you assume that I am new to this game?

Actually I'm annoyed with you seeing as you've made yourself look like a fool on at least three accounts of not properly reading - - I can assure you I'm genuine in the post you're thinking is condescending and want to indeed be patient with you - - don't get proud and push it - - there's a fine line between an inexperienced player who can't read posts well enough before posting multiple times and a scum that's trying to put a case together out of anything they can get their hands on - - I assure you I'm being fair to you on this.

So for the last time - just read the posts carefully, and I indeed want to be patient and kind with you - it's not sarcasm.

Again, it's been all "If" and theory. While that is good to talk about, we also need to talk about the actual people on the bandwagon.

Mixer - I'm expressing that we need to hear from everyone else and that they will either offer something new, take action and back it up, or be followers - - all of which will inform us.

There is no harm in discussing it with people who are active though.

You're suggesting power and immunity should be given to those that are most active.

I'm being fair and calculated. We can't build cases around people we're not talking to. We need the cases to develop through interrogation and discussion with them.

Patience.

[Empking]

Empking (due to putting the "don't counterclaim out there for Dust to easily see it)

I don't think anyone would need to tell Dust not to counterclaim himself. Claiming seer was the obvious scum move and wouldn't need to be told about. Not-counterclaiming as a seer is not as obvious.

[AA23]

That's in the event of someone claiming - you're right emp.

However, you coaxed the person in question to claim, and THEN gave the "don't cc" note.

How do we know Dust would have claimed had you not said it? It would have been more scummy otherwise, but now he can say he did it as per request of the town.

So what could have been:

Scum on trial claims on their own - - we're in a bad situation with the calim and warn the real perosn not to cc

has become (from you):

a seeming viallain buddy tells their partner to claim (to keep them alive) and then in the same post, after putting us in the bad position of a claim in the air, telling the real person not to CC (if they exist)

It becomes less of a town tactic to protect ourselves (saying no cc) and in your case, becomes seemingly "a villain setting the stage"

[Empking]

Letting scum not claim isn't as good as you seem to think.
Town posting before the seer is as big a certainty as you seem to think.

[AA23]

Clarify your statement -

I'm telling you letting scum claim on their own is more valuable than having their hand held by a scumbuddy (hypothetically).

You seemingly instructed Dust, and then covered his ass with the no cc request - - all in one post - -

requesting no cc is a way to get out of the mud (someone claiming - they do it, we decide then)

You put us in the mud in the very same post.

If you can't justify that action, I will absolutely vote you and see you hang, Emp. It is a genuinely scummy act that cannot be mistaken for a towny move.

Unless you can enlighten me.

Enlighten me.

[Empking]

Clarify your statement -

I'm telling you letting scum claim on their own is more valuable than having their hand held by a scumbuddy (hypothetically).

You seemingly instructed Dust, and then covered his ass with the no cc request - - all in one post - -

requesting no cc is a way to get out of the mud (someone claiming - they do it, we decide then)

You put us in the mud in the very same post.

If you can't justify that action, I will absolutely vote you and see you hang, Emp. It is a genuinely scummy act that cannot be mistaken for a towny move.

Unless you can enlighten me.

Enlighten me.

AA, I'll write this simply.

I got him to claim: A pro-town action.
I stopped counter claims: A pro-town action.

That's all that happened in that post, two pro-town actions.

[AA23]

Telling someone to claim is putting us in the mud, it wasn't necessary

A request for a no cc is a way out of said mud.

At different times, both of these things, under the right circumstances are pro town.

In a single post, you put us in the mud and then made a no cc request - - that's redundant for the town and only benefitial to the person on trial. Why set it up if you were going to knock it down in the same sentence?

You're badically saying "Dust, get some immunity - - and anyone that can question it should let him have it"
------------------

In ANY circumstance when it's pro town to ask someone to claim, we are 100% to have a CC - - if not, then what we're doing is throwing the suspected scum a lifeline. Do you understand?

It looks like you threw him a lifeline.

Last chance to explain it

[Empking]

Do you understand?

Don't say that.

He's town: I prevented the lynch of our seer.
He's scum: I practically guaranteed the eventual killing of a scum without outing the seer.

Which one of those is anti-town?

[AA23]

I apologize for that statement Emp - it was thoughtless of me and I mean that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification:

Asking someone to claim is pro-town when we do so in a willingness to have someone CC. - - The person claims, no CC, he/she must be who they say they are.

Requesting no CC is what we do in a circumstance when someone claims on their own, and we worry they're trying to lure the true identity out, or mislynch the CC.

You put these two things together in the same damn message - - they cancel eachother out and niether are helpful to town in our circumstance.

They then become only useful to scum.

Vote: Emp

FoS: Dust

**Let it be noted that Dust also, early in the game made buddy like statements to Emp to the effect of securing him safety from his Emp meta.

Perhaps that's even WHY Dust brought it up to begin with? You find out your partner has a target sign on their back because of their meta and try to clear it early...

[Empking]

I apologize for that statement Emp - it was thoughtless of me and I mean that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification:

Asking someone to claim is pro-town when we do so in a willingness to have someone CC. - - The person claims, no CC, he/she must be who they say they are.

Requesting no CC is what we do in a circumstance when someone claims on their own, and we worry they're trying to lure the true identity out, or mislynch the CC.

You put these two things together in the same damn message - - they cancel eachother out and niether are helpful to town in our circumstance.

They then become only useful to scum.

Vote: Emp

FoS: Dust

**Let it be noted that Dust also, early in the game made buddy like statements to Emp to the effect of securing him safety from his Emp meta.

Perhaps that's even WHY Dust brought it up to begin with? You find out your partner has a target sign on their back because of their meta and try to clear it early...

Was there a mistake in my above post?

[AA23]

Your mistake was in post 106.

[dejkha]

they distract town away from our primary objective of finding scum by getting into arguments

that they won't back down from, and refuse to listen to reason.

AA, it's in the best interest of the town if you just let it go.

[Empking]

Your mistake was in post 106.

So you admit that I'm correct in what happened and that they're both pro-town actions?

I'm at a loss for why you're voting me then.

[Dust]

To be honest, I don't see the Empking case. I was L-1; there was no way in hell I wasn't claiming. That said, Empking's post really had no effect on me whatsoever, as claiming was my course of action any way.

That said, I don't see how Empking is scum. His urge to not have someone counter was a pro-town move. Sure, if someone had counter-claimed, I'd have known they were scum, but it would have probably led down the tedious path to lynching me before we could get the counter-claiming scum. Because no one has dropped a lying counterclaim, I'm still alive, and the town is spared having to lose their seer Day 1, and probably another Townie night two, before getting to lynch the counter-claimer Day 2.

Likewise, other people were also calling for no-counterclaim. Why haven't you addressed questions to these people as well, AA?

On a different note, I'm still waiting on Ace to put in some more input, but if he doesn't, that's where I'd place my vote. As for AA, I don't understand his issues with Empking, and the entire 'case' seems very forced. This has really shaken my thoughts on his likelihood of being town, and his argument with Mixo isn't really helping.

I'd like to second Dej's movement to stop the entire Mixo v. AA thing, by the way.

In general, I think we need more input from the people who've been sitting on the fringe, like Khamisa and Ash. As long as they're silent, they remain wild cards that are hurting the town inherently through their silence. I'd move equally strongly to hear from Ace, but I understand he's LA until Thursday, so I'll wait until then.

[dejkha]

The whole point about the Emp case is that he told no one to CC if you were to claim Seer. That's scummy. When you ask someone to claim, you wait and see and then say something like that. Since he said it beforehand, you look like possible scumbuddies.

[Dust]

Oh... Well, that's not good.

On the other hand, it's also not true on my part, so perhaps that's why it wasn't as immediately obvious to me.

Due to my own alignment, I don't think it's a particularly scummy thing to do, but I can't really find the proof against the argument on him. My knowledge of my own role invalidates the basis of such a case, and although that doesn't apply as proof for the rest of the town, I wouldn't jump aboard an Empking bandwagon just based on that.

Has he done anything else irregular or scummy?

[AA23]

Dust, for me, you've written much once again and said less.

The case on Emp isn't a matter of whether asking someone to claim is scummy,

it isn't a question of requesting a CC to not come forth as being scummy.

It's saying that putting them in the same sentence is 100% redundant and completely villan serving.

You say you were to claim anyhow, and you're defending a case against Emp - - but all of this means nothing to people who understand the logic of the case and therein see you as the scumbuddy defending him.

And you misunderstood Dej's comment, Dust - - He was trying to put a stop to an Emphole - there's no beef with Mix.

--------------------------------
Simply put. Again.

To call for a claim - - Is when we want the person being lynched to claim their identity and see if it is challenged (calling for a claim

only works if we expect a CC

) - - if the CC comes, we work from there, if not, the person is telling the truth and lives.

Why call for a claim and in the same message ask not to have it countered? The very statement is "Dust, protect yourself - Everyone else, let him!"

Requesting no counter claim - is when we do NOT ask for a claim, and we suspect the scum is trying to lure out a target for a NK.

Emp took two pro town actions, and put them together in one sentence thus cancelling them out and turning it not into a towny tactic, but a scum communication.

This isn't complicated.
-----------------------------------------------

And I haven't questioned anyone else because opinions on the matter of counter claiming are variables with everyone else after the fact. - - the real matter at hand is about the responsibility of the person that called for it, that initiated it - Emp
---------------------------------------------

Dej - what are your own thoughts on the case and how do you then feel about the Zwet vote?

[Dust]

EBWOP: ...Empking bandwagon just based on that even if I didn't know my innocence.

[AA23]

Has he done anything else irregular or scummy?

Do we have some sort of a "three strike, you're out rule" - or can we go off of an actual scumtell based case?

[Dust]

That's not what I'm saying, AA. Your point, from my perspective, is invalid. However, if Empking is to be the subject of a case, I'd like to see more evidence in favor of it. Surely he must have made some other slip if he was scum? The thing is, I haven't considered him as scum until now because I haven't seen scummy things from him.

I'm simply wondering if there's anything else to this attack on Empking. Is there?

[AA23]

**to start - - my apologies to Mix - - he and Khamisa both misread me in posting close together and I tied them into one when I made the patience comment**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

If we do lynch you - - we can base our cases on the other players off of that. Knowing if you were innoent all along or one of the bad guys helps us better understand the interactions everyone was having with you.
---------------------------------
The risk in both....

If we don't lynch you, no matter who we do lynch today, we lose two people in the night, and one of them might not be you. Suppose a villain decides not to kill you in the night, thus hurting your credibility and putting doubt into who you really are thus leading us to an innevitable mislynch.

Lynching you is clearing you - thus clearing anyone that has been attached to you.

You had what looked like scum communication from Emp

You were at L-1 and nobody quicklynched (villains from your team choosing not to off their own?)

I confess that I'm very torn.

If we don't lynch you - - I'm looking at Emp right now, it seems fitting (making you scum)

If we do lynch you - we lose three townies by tomorrow morning if you're innocent, and no matter your innocence or guilt, we get an idea of who could be who based on their position on you the previous day

If we no lynch - we lose two in the night, you being likely one of them - - that's the lowest body counts, and we clear your name/reveal your identity thus giving us a better kick start to who is who (based, once again, on how everyone has responded to you)

Those are my feelings, and unfortunately they're worth nothing until I hear from every single person.

I'm sticking to my vote - the case holds water.

[dejkha]

Dej - what are your own thoughts on the case and how do you then feel about the Zwet vote?

Like Dust said, it's not much of a case, so I won't support a lynch just for that. I think my lead on Zwet and Ace is better.

[Mixologist]

If we do lynch you - we lose three townies by tomorrow morning if you're innocent, and no matter your innocence or guilt, we get an idea of who could be who based on their position on you the previous day

You've lost me. If we lynch him today, how will we be three short tomorrow morning? One from lynch obviously. Where are the other two coming from?

[AA23]

this is the very first game I've played with enemies that aren't just scum - -

since we have scum and werewolves, do we not lose two a night?