Mini 1238 - One After the Other - Over!

[Whiskers]

We should number them. And quote the last ones.
Just a suggestion.

If you don't want to quote the last ones (want to start fresh), number them, and I'll quote.

Also, I'm not the lynch? I thought you were against rushing into a NS lynch, since you thought I was scum. Why, you even voted for me.

Also, the reformatting was also for Killjoy, who can't handle this many colors.

[Killjoy]

My brain literally shits on itself when I see that many colors.

[Killjoy]

Lol after reading my own iso, my fake claim against Empking was horribly ba. How did anyone believe me? Not that I'm mad. I knew that he was scum.

[Junpei]

1002 is bad. That is very troubling.

Whiskers, I just wanted to see how you would respond to me trying to quickly BW you, and how NS would respond. And if NS flips a non-powerful scum role, then I will be even more suspicious of you.

NS will die today, but we will finish this debate as much as possible. Tomorrow I'll respond, and do the quote/number. Case = 1, r1 = 2, c1 = 3, r2 = 4, so I will number mine 5.

[Whiskers]

No, no, I mean, "Point 1, Point 2, Point 3"

That way we can hold several conversations parallel to one another.

[Whiskers]

What if NS flips a normally powerful role, like Goon? Am I still #1?

[Papa Zito]

"Man, I hate the Man."
"Yeah man. I hate the Man too."
"Fuck the Man."
"Yeah."
...
"Who's the Man again?"

Third Votecount of Day 4

4. Nobody Special (2): Killjoy, Whiskers
7. BBmolla (0):
8. chkflip (o):
9. Whispersilk (0):
10. Whiskers (1): Junpei
11. Junpei (1): Nobody Special
12. Killjoy (0):

Players not voting: BBmolla, whispersilk, chkflip


With 7 players alive, it takes 4 votes to lynch.
The current wagon leader is

Nobody Special

at L-2.
Deadline: November 24th @ 11:59PM CST

Prodding chkflip

[Junpei]

Well non-powerful scum role basically means a scum role that scum wouldn't want to protect. Because I think that if NS is scum, then that you are some scum role that isn't afraid of investigation for some reason. I can only speculate as to what that may be. In fact, we have Papa Zito as a mod, so why not ask him a question of normalcy!

@Mod would a jack of all trades which has an option to be completely investigation immune for one night normal?

But yes, if NS flipped goon I'd suspect you more, Whiskers, and okay numbering the points makes sense.

Jack-of-All-Trades variants (within reason) are considered Normal.

[BBmolla]

EBWODP: I have tentative town reads on Emp, Hiraki, and Special. Not so much on monk; I'd like to hear more from him.

lol.

Still reading.

Also not reading your rainbow walls.

[Junpei]

@mod you are dealing with a moron, but to make the question less specific, I'll give you three examples, and ask you to identify them as normal/not normal please.
1) Jack of all trades with 1shot ability to be completely investigation immune (trackers, watchers, cops) for 1 night.
2) 1-shot complete investigation immune (trackers, watchers, cops) for 1 night (not Joat)
3) completely investigation immune for all nights (from trackers, watchers, cops)

If your force me to pretend to have a normal setup I'm making that has these three things, then so be it, but I don't know why you can't answer it here.

Cuz setup speculation is bluh

[Whiskers]

So like, an extended Godfather?

[chkflip]

Absolutely no time right now. Tomorrow.

[whispersilk]

I think 3 scum sound right for the amount of players. I have to say that I assumed there were 3 scum as well.

[Whiskers]

Whispersilk's last post.

That was over a month ago, why have you been doing nothing?

Like, even now, you have the opportunity to do something, why don't you?

[Junpei]

Probably coasting scum; but who knows. The Whisper I know would have reads and analysis at this point in the game for sure and be much more active. Although, you did coast as scum at the end of Ninja Mafia...

I'll respond to you soon Whiskers, it's just that it takes a long time, and I"m not looking forward at all to the reoformatting of the post. I wish that this was real life so that we could sit down for a couple hours and finish the whole case. Anyway, yeah.

[Whiskers]

How much have you reformatted?

like I said, if you have reformatted the part we'd already did, I could reformat and add my update, and perhaps spped the whole thing along.

[Junpei]

FFFFFFFFFFFUCK

Whiskers, I'm just going to respond to your points, I don't have time to reformat and I just fucking lost my fucking work and I'm extremely pissed off at that. I left to take a break (I was try to format in my own responses which was taking FOREVER) and my friend called, wanted to use my computer, I said sure, and he asked if he could close out some tabs (I had like 10) and he closed the one with the reply in it.

So; could you format it? Because I'm just about fucking done with BBCode and I want to get on in this game; I can't believe that I am the reason it is dragging. I'm just going to go ahead and respond now in a post that doesn't quote what you wrote, if you can't format it, then I'll do it, but I'm not sure when exactly that would be. Honestly if people can't be bothered to read because "i have sensitive eyes~~" then all hope is lost anyway, and I need to figure out if you are scum are not.

[Whiskers]

I'm not, we'll look into the sensitive eyes issue after you're finished with me.

Also -- -- --
-- -- --
Connecting Jun to NS.

Do you want it in a quote-chain format, dear?

[Junpei]

Spoiler: Junpeis' response to the response to the response to the response to the case

1. not a point to you, but a point no longer to be debated; no need to further express (1)

2. A point for me indeed, no need to further express (2)

3. Friends' version expresses far more confidence in the scumread than in monks' version is the problem... and the unspoken "you're my partner and I wish you hadn't set off my trap" is completely ridiculous, can you at least admit that?

4. I just am of the opinion that at any given point, you should be voting your top scum read, so your periods of not voting to me indicate that you have no legitimate suspects. I see no reason not to think this, and therefore find it suspicious.

5. Nothing for me to say here, I mean, people reading this will have to decide if that is just your personality (I'm not even sure how to describe that) or if you scumtelled. I honestly don't know at this point; it's not that you're bad, it's just that you are acting so completely different than anything I would expect from a competent player like you.

6. This is bad too... like it's bad, and I can't argue it anymore other than to say that your point here is scummy. I mean it is flawed, and there's no way you should be content to go "meh, hiraki and whisper may be scum, but i'll know later, so no biggie!". I'm at a loss that you are so upfront about this.

7. First off, you made the vote; I don't care if you painted a picture of picasso and then voted scum in your next post; you voted for monk and that is all that matters here. You 100% sheeped Ashblade, and that is called bandwagoning, that isn't how bandwagons normally form; you sheeped for the sake of just going with another player. Also.. "I waffled to come off of the bandwagon, so your #1 negates your #2." that is so ridiculous... but this makes me suspect you less because it is such awful logic that it explains some things; particularly you don't look at the world in a similar way as me at all how I assumed. But regardless, the issue here is that waffling does not negate the bandwagoning. You waffled such that you bandwagoned. Even if you waffle off of the wagon, you still committed bandwagoning, and that does not erase with time.

8. Okay, you have a point here, BUT: I believe that the content verus no-content is an exception to the rule which you provided (anti-scumtell = town-tell).

9. I felt that you were moving from "Wow, Ashblade is very town" to "yeah.. maybe ashblade isn't so town as I thought", which is backtracking to a degree.

10. Wow, that is frustrating to read. I once again don't know if you're serious or not. Ugh; point over, you deflected to 'prove a point that your tell is legit' by using your rule which has an exception, which is the point you were trying to prove!

11. This isn't going anywhere; nothing I can say to that anyway.

12. I expected you to concede to the point; I brought it up to show why I thought you were scum. As for the explaining town tells thing (my whole point), you win; I can't argue that you don't believe that it is a good idea to ask town tells of oneself. Generally though it is thought that if you ask how someone views you as town, you are worried about how you are received, and how you can act and appear to be town; which town shouldn't care about.

13. WOW. So you admit that once an action is committed, it does not matter what happens immeditely afterward, as it is already done? Then how can you argue with me in number 7? I think I win 7; you can have 13 (by the way I'm not keeping track of points as a means to judge you)

14. Another frustrating read... There were no answers, so there was no presence of the answers! It is the QUESTIONS to which 'mutes post' is of. That is what you were asked of, and that is what you forgot about. % scum is arbitrary because whether he is 90% scum to you or 40% scum doesn't matter because THE QUESTIONS CAUSED 100% OF WHY YOU THOUGHT HE WAS SCUM AT THE TIME.

15. Sure, at this point, I'm not going to argue the same point over again.

16. Okay.. but there was no way in hell he was trying to signal someone to claim Miller.. but whatever, this isn't worth wasting time on and we need to move on.

17. Okay; fair enough.

18. No, you are caught in this point; you should have voted here and you didn't.

19. SO IT IS SCUMMY; POINT OVER

20. Why is this answer different than 12?

21. Well Friend thought he was scum flying under the radar without pressure, but whatever I can't argue this.

22. Not bothering to argue this either, don't care enough about this point.

23. I don't think it was meant to be that harsh, but whatever, you misread him.

24. Ugh. Whatever, honestly this has been broken down to where I can't argue with that, but I don't believe it.

OKAY, TWENTY FOUR POINTS OH MY GOD. You know what? I don't even want you to respond to most of these. You're the first person ever to show me that my case making ability needs serious work. This hasn't been very productive, and we simply don't have the time to do this. Others need to be scumhunted. In fact, we should stop doing this case thing, if I'm alive tomorrow with you, then maybe then, but this is wasting time; I want you to respond to two points in particular.

" * You almost hammered on a town read?You would rather end the day prematurely than try to wagon someone else? You are hardly advocating at all for your opinion, you're practically coasting."

" * Still haven't provided an explanation as to why he was only scum from being from EM."

Also I could care less how it is formatted; I have already read every word, it's up to the others, but maybe that's what you meant.

I will be voting NS closer to deadline by the way. Whiskers, see if there's things you really want to respond to in the spoiler, respond to it, and then respond to the last 2 points. I've already gotten everything I wanted to get out of my Day 1 case section though, so I'm only asking for the last 2 points.

[Whiskers]

God damn it, but I'm just cleaning up!

I've got it all formatted, I just need to make sure all my quote tags are correct. >:|

[Junpei]

Honestly Whiskers, we don't need to argue those points further, the formatting is just so that others can judge our conversation. After responding to your points, I realized there was no reason to argue further, as I have already extracted what I can from the points.

No need to format in my new responses, they can just find my post, don't waste your time.

[Whiskers]

I get hung up with things linke Number 4.

If that's what you meant in the first place, then why isn't it what you

said

in the first place? Why didn't you just accuse me of "not voting your scum reads, evidence is here and here"? I feel like, "Well, Whiskers has come up with a suitable argument/defense, and I can't come up with a way to beat it, so now I will call her scummy for something else and dismiss the point, thereby getting the last word and giving her no credit for her response."
To reiterate:
Whiskers came up with a suitable argument. (My opinion)
You can't beat it down. (my assumption)
You call me scummy for something slightly related, but not really the original point at all. (fact)
You dismiss the point, saying, "You don't need to respond to these." (fact)
You get the last word. (Your assumption-- that I'm too cowardly to respond?)
You give me no credit for my response. (My assumption.)

You're waving your hand and saying, "Well, you talked me into a corner," but instead of saying, "You win on this point" or "well, that makes sense" or "We'll have to agree to disagree," You just say, "You talked me into a corner, so I'm going to pretend it never happened."

Tl;dr, I'm very frustrated. Add it to the frustration where you seem to just make stuff up about me, and when I respond to it, you adjust and say, "Oh well I

really

meant

this

!" Things like "Voting for Ashblade."

[Junpei]

I'm scumhunting; I made the case basically from my notes, which, if you saw the method I use to take notes, you'd be surprised I was able.

This isn't about winning or losing. At the end of the day, the case means nothing if I can't point to people and say "look, Whiskers did this, and this is how she responded, and this is why that makes her scum". Often times, it was a matter of arguing things which I can't prove, which doesn't fully discredit my point, rather that I simply cannot prove things like that you aren't extremely paranoid about your towniness.

Sometimes you did give good defenses, and I credited you there. Some points, I will still believe that I can credit, some I will have to push as null simply because you are pulling cards I can't disprove (things like the newbie card; which you did NOT pull, but it is indisputable the same way), and some I will discard.

I never made things up about you, I just kept moving on and investigating you constantly, I'm not going to argue semantics (I've a habit for that, although I believe there are times when it is good to do so) with you, so I drop it and move on. Sometimes I really did mean something else, and you did the same thing a couple times.

Number 4 is me explaining a scum read, and that you committed it, and that you are saying it is not a scum read. That is all I can do there. I will never pat you on the back and go "nice whiskers, good response! YOU WIN!", as I don't think you need the false-compliments to motivate you.

If you want to get the last word in on all the points I could care less, just put it in spoiler tags, or format it if you want to waste time; frankly I'm very annoyed with the formatting business, and the line of questioning and how it has ended. Also, since my entrance, it has been you and me. 5 slots are AWOL, and I want to start focusing on them.

[Whiskers]

I will never pat you on the back and go "nice whiskers, good response! YOU WIN!", as I don't think you need the false-compliments to motivate you.

I lol't.

Sometimes you did give good defenses, and I credited you there. Some points, I will still believe that I can credit, some I will have to push as null simply because you are pulling cards I can't disprove (things like the newbie card; which you did NOT pull, but it is indisputable the same way), and some I will discard.

I never made things up about you, I just kept moving on and investigating you constantly, I'm not going to argue semantics (I've a habit for that, although I believe there are times when it is good to do so) with you, so I drop it and move on. Sometimes I really did mean something else, and you did the same thing a couple times.

I wish you would tell me where I'm doing well and where I'm lacking.

And you may not have made things up, but you certainly

looked

like you made things up. Whether misspoken or intentionally untrue, it looks funny when you accuse me of something that never happened, I express ??? and you have to explain yourself. Not just change a name and the point is valid, but change a name and the connotation of the point.

Also, since my entrance, it has been you and me. 5 slots are AWOL, and I want to start focusing on them.

Yes, and this is different from the rest of the game-- how? Watch me as I tear my hair out because I can't reciprocate your analysis, since you replaced in and can just defend any point with "I didn't do it!"

I'll respond to your stuff soonish. Probably tonight, no guantees.

[Whiskers]

Spoiler: 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, +filler.

3. Friends' version expresses far more confidence in the scumread than in monks' version is the problem... and the unspoken "you're my partner and I wish you hadn't set off my trap" is completely ridiculous, can you at least admit that?

What happened to "I'm not going to argue semantics?" Friend rewords and the meaning is still the same.
No, it's not ridiculous until you look back and see what alignment monk flipped. As it turns out, that's not the issue here. While it's an interesting point, I don't know why I brought it up.

4. I just am of the opinion that at any given point, you should be voting your top scum read, so your periods of not voting to me indicate that you have no legitimate suspects. I see no reason not to think this, and therefore find it suspicious.

I did not have any legitimate suspects. Is that bad? I mean, yeah, it's bad.

but is it scummy?

We've been over it before, I think, I didn't do much work early game.

5. Nothing for me to say here, I mean, people reading this will have to decide if that is just your personality (I'm not even sure how to describe that) or if you scumtelled. I honestly don't know at this point; it's not that you're bad, it's just that you are acting so completely different than anything I would expect from a competent player like you.

Where did you get the thing where I was competent?

6. This is bad too... like it's bad, and I can't argue it anymore other than to say that your point here is scummy. I mean it is flawed, and there's no way you should be content to go "meh, hiraki and whisper may be scum, but i'll know later, so no biggie!".

I'm at a loss that you are so upfront about this.

Why?

Will come back to 7 later, maybe.

Yay, a point for #8.

I understand and even concede your Point #9, provided it was an exaggeration for the sake of explanation.

#10: This is restrospective. It makes sense to me that that's what I was doing, but I really don't remember.

12. I expected you to concede to the point; I brought it up to show why I thought you were scum. As for the explaining town tells thing (my whole point), you win; I can't argue that you don't believe that it is a good idea to ask town tells of oneself. Generally though it is thought that if you ask how someone views you as town, you are worried about how you are received, and how you can act and appear to be town; which town shouldn't care about.

I had my posts numbered wrong at first, and thought you were saying this proved that content=town was the exception. Consider it that way. Reads with no reasoning? anti-town. Reasoning for reads (even townreads)=protown.

Will come back to 13 AND 7, apparently.


#14: Misunderstood the % bit. Gotcha now.

#16: Fair enough.

18. No, you are caught in this point; you should have voted here and you didn't.

Kay. We'll argue about it later then. I see the reason in dismissing this one in your favor, since my best argument is going to be something like, "BUT I THOUGHT SO, JUST TRUUUUST ME!"

#19, conceded.

20. Why is this answer different than 12?

Because there were two of them and I went in different directions when I responded to each of them in "steam-of-consciousness" style posting.
#12 is saying it's bad play, to which I respond, "No, transparency and content is good play."
#20 is in regards to me, so, "This is why I don't like being a town-read."

21. Well Friend thought he was scum flying under the radar without pressure, but whatever I can't argue this.

Yeah, but we already had a scumread

on

the radar. Rather than make a case why Pseudo(Junpei) was scum, Friend(chkflip) just said, *deadpan: "oh, no, don't lynch zden."

23. I don't think it was meant to be that harsh, but whatever, you misread him.

which is why I took it in the direction I did. Rather than accuse Zden of ad hom, I accused him of backpedaling.

#24: Believe it. Go read some Hiraki games. It's all like this.

" * You almost hammered on a town read?You would rather end the day prematurely than try to wagon someone else? You are hardly advocating at all for your opinion, you're practically coasting."

Yes. The Day was old. chkflip wasn't defending against any of my points, just jumping up and down and saying, "strawman, strawman!"
I gave him a chance to defend himself and he didn't and not only do I fail to see how the others failed to see he should be lynched for that, it enraged me and I just kept my vote on him for pretty much the rest of the game without much work, because my original case was still valid and he hadn't done anything to protect himself from my accusations.

" * Still haven't provided an explanation as to why he was only scum from being from EM."

I don't know. I looked back at my and his ISO at one point and was kind of confused about how I got the great town read on him. Since then, I've explained that that is

why

I had a town read on him, because it is. Whether it (him being town and having committed epicmafia-tells) is true or not, I don't know. I will have to go back and look. Okay?

Actually, I'll also have to look at the case against him, because if that can be disproven with, "well, it's like that on EM," then maybe I can re-conf-town him again.

I've already gotten everything I wanted to get out of my Day 1 case section though, so I'm only asking for the last 2 points.

SO! SHALL WE MOVE ON TO DAY 2 AND BEYOND!?