Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nirur Torir]

I don't buy your claim.

1) Prevents mafiakillage on nights I'm able to do this (when I run out of kittens I won't be given a warning, it'll just fail)
2) Should confirm my role/alignment, barring usage of a mafia framing ability (I wouldn't put it past Wuba to predict me doing this and give the scum such a power accordingly)
3) Is a better use of my kittens than reviving over and over. Even if the town were too stupid to acknowledge my town alignment and kept lynching me, at least I'd be out of the way of the TCS before too long.

1) Does it? Hypothetical 1: You're scum, and the possible targets are any/all, rather then just all. Hypothetical 2: You're scum, and there's a scum that can't be redirected, which you know.
2) It would confirm that you can draw everyone to you, yes. It doesn't confirm that you're not teamed with somebody who can revive you.
3) Ohh ... kay ... So, the best use of your "FUN AND EXCITING" ability is to prevent the town from getting any actions in tonight, rather then targeting Archangel, IronyOwl, or myself, the only people you think are scummy? (You've done nothing since day 1, so I don't see how your suspicions have changed.)

You still haven't explained why I shouldn't block you tonight.

You've done nothing for the town. You've been waiting for your night action all game, and I really don't believe that your claimed ability is worth hanging around doing nothing for.

[Argembarger]

OK I only found two questions. If I missed any please point them out for me.

Argembarger: Too lurky. Who are your top picks? If you were scum, who would you have killed last night and why?

God I hate falling behind in mafia games and having to catch up again. It's really hard because everyone's already laid out all these arguments and such; it's hard to have a nice, original thought or two.

And I can't necessarily trust anyone's arguments because they could be scum.

Urg, must fight laziness, must do own work...

OK, here's what I think.

I actually really don't like what I see from both Jokerman and NativeForeigner.

I shall extend their cases directly from my last read on them, where I said,

Jokerman-EXE. As much as I want to avoid bringing Zath's death into this, I can't help but feel that you killed him because he had you pinned as scum and that made you uncomfortable. Finger of suspicion for now. Moooostly because I find it very strange that you just sort of say, very matter-of-factly, that you killed Zath, that you regret nothing, and then you leave that little tidbit there and move on to other things (which you may or may not be being attacked for by others at the moment). I don't entirely see how it's justified, I mean, you couldn't have known he was a SK, and any real reason you may have had to suspect him for being scum before his flip sounds OMGUSy to me. But, um, thanks for killing a serial killer? I guess?

I don't want to lay out the impression that I'm clinging to Zathras' tunnel against him mindlessly... just that that whole debacle is pretty irrevocably planted in my head, and asking me to totally ignore it is something I'm not prepared to do.

But now it looks like Joker and Native are OMGUSing each other >:-|

[...]

NativeForeigner. As I said in the Jokerman post, looks like Joker and Native are OMGUSing each other to me, which I would find hilarious, if they weren't focusing exclusively on each other. However, there seems to be some kind of odd thing going on between him and Toaster... A couple of times, it looks like Toaster is pushing Native, and getting him to attack Joker more. I could just be paranoid. And it's a pretty unsubstantial thing to attack someone for, but I'm gonna keep an eye on that. However,

Native, what's your read on Toaster?

Since Day 2 started, they seem to just be doing more of the same, focusing on each other. (-) on both of them.

NativeForeigner appears to be scumhunting though; (+) for him.
Jokerman handled Native and Zathras' questions pretty well, at least in my opinion; (+) for him.

So they're pretty even. So I shall question them! Huzzah!

NativeForeigner,
Your unvote of Zathras here is sending me confusing mixed messages. It looks like you're unvoting him because he attacked Joker. At the very least, your initial vote of Zathras kind of looked halfhearted. You even freely admit, later, that you think Zath's willingness to be blocked could be a ruse. Which is it? And why do you instead choose to IGNORE Zathras in favor of attacking Joker? The two activities can be done simultaneously, you know.

Jokerman,
Native was at least kind enough to share with everyone his reads/suspicions on everyone besides you. I'd like to see you follow suit.

On Zathras, I don't really trust your sudden revival... Unfortunately, it's just something that will have to be confirmed/denied later on. Until that happens, you've been like a laser-guided Jokerman missile. Your case against him is very interesting,

"If Zath says he's found scum chances are he's found scum"

but what are your reads on everyone else? (link me if I simply overlooked them somewhere)

For the second question:
If I were scum, I would have wanted to kill Toaster last night. He reads town to me right now and I think Toaster is very effective town.

Unrelated:
Org: Holy shit, words, voting, attempts at usefulness! woo

Argembarger: You've been quiet. What do you think of my roleclaim?

Um, honestly? I don't know what to think of your roleclaim. Ask me again tomorrow, when the haikus achieve results or something.

OH, except, the one thing I did want to ask. When you answered my question about your haikus earlier, namely that it had to be 5-7-5, I think what I was actually getting at was, can you just pull an arbitrary haiku out of anyone's post if you want? Like in this sentence, the words are arranged in five, seven and five. Well, it would have been, if I could have thought of a grammatically correct one-syllable word to shove in that final phrase. Could you have taken that sentence and called it a haiku for a roleblock? Because there's a good chance almost everyone has "accidentally" posted a haiku in that sense.

[NativeForeigner]

NativeForeigner,
Your unvote of Zathras here is sending me confusing mixed messages. It looks like you're unvoting him because he attacked Joker. At the very least, your initial vote of Zathras kind of looked halfhearted. You even freely admit, later, that you think Zath's willingness to be blocked could be a ruse. Which is it? And why do you instead choose to IGNORE Zathras in favor of attacking Joker? The two activities can be done simultaneously, you know.

I unvoted Zathras because I felt that he had presented a reasonable case in his defense and his willingness to be blocked would at least render himself harmless during the night. So I felt it would be better to go after someone that I know almost for sure is scum rather than go after someone who is might actually be town now. It doesn't clear his name, and I mentioned that it could be a ruse. There's a slight difference there, if I thought it was a ruse, I might have kept my vote on him, but I don't think it is. If it is, it gets him another day to live but doesn't clear his name.

In short, the reason I chose to go after Joker rather than Zathras is because Jokerman is scummier to me than Zathras is and I want Jokerman gone by the end of today.

Oh, speaking of which, extension, please.

[Pandarsenic]

Well I can also roleblock everyone (Same mechanics as my draw/multidraw, but with a block) if I wanted to prevent scum actions. I want to be investigated to prove my point though.

[Nirur Torir]

OH, except, the one thing I did want to ask. When you answered my question about your haikus earlier, namely that it had to be 5-7-5, I think what I was actually getting at was, can you just pull an arbitrary haiku out of anyone's post if you want? Like in this sentence, the words are arranged in five, seven and five. Well, it would have been, if I could have thought of a grammatically correct one-syllable word to shove in that final phrase. Could you have taken that sentence and called it a haiku for a roleblock? Because there's a good chance almost everyone has "accidentally" posted a haiku in that sense.

I considered it, but I believe it has to be intended as a haiku for it to work. Or at least on different lines.

Well I can also roleblock everyone (Same mechanics as my draw/multidraw, but with a block) if I wanted to prevent scum actions. I want to be investigated to prove my point though.

"Litter of kittens" would quite probably have a godfather passive.

Now, explain why you'd be willing to sacrifice 3-4 extra lives to "prove" yourself as town and to stop all night actions.

[webadict]

Day Extended to Friday.

[IronyOwl]

"Litter of kittens" would quite probably have a godfather passive.[/quote]
That's... actually brilliant. I had considered he might be fakeclaiming for the same reason, but couldn't think of what else he could be.

[Pandarsenic]

1) Prevents mafiakillage on nights I'm able to do this (when I run out of kittens I won't be given a warning, it'll just fail)
2) Should confirm my role/alignment, barring usage of a mafia framing ability (I wouldn't put it past Wuba to predict me doing this and give the scum such a power accordingly)
3) Is a better use of my kittens than reviving over and over. Even if the town were too stupid to acknowledge my town alignment and kept lynching me, at least I'd be out of the way of the TCS before too long.

[Ottofar]

Sorry guys. My parents decided yesterday would be a good day to do the after-christmas clean-thingie.

Anyways, I'm rereading now.

[Ottofar]

Yeah, I think I'm gonna leave my vote where it is. I'd like to know if t really is a revivocult, as I think it is.

Also, I think NF and Joker are quite equally scummy, MBP coming close behind.

I'll be gone for the next two days, probably. Might be able to post tomorrw morning, though.

[Nirur Torir]

1) Prevents mafiakillage on nights I'm able to do this (when I run out of kittens I won't be given a warning, it'll just fail)
2) Should confirm my role/alignment, barring usage of a mafia framing ability (I wouldn't put it past Wuba to predict me doing this and give the scum such a power accordingly)
3) Is a better use of my kittens than reviving over and over. Even if the town were too stupid to acknowledge my town alignment and kept lynching me, at least I'd be out of the way of the TCS before too long.

Congratulations. You've completely succeeded in convincing me ... that you're a liar and are horrible at fake claiming.

1) Only if you're town.
2) Not even slightly. It might succeed in convincing us that you've got a one-shot multidraw, but that's it.
3) No it isn't. A skilled player alive at lylo and apparently unkillable would be devastatingly effective for any alignment. Even if you did believe that the delay was worth sacrificing three or four lives over, you would be using your limited time wisely instead of doing nothing.

I'm guessing scum-JAOT for you, with each kitten having an ability that sacrifices it.

You have my block tonight. I'm not voting you right now, as you might revive again, and there are other people who need to die. Currently, I'm waiting on Jokerman's responses to questioning.

Ottofar: Who do you think the scum are, and why?

[Jokerman-EXE]

Spoiler: Zathras (click to show/hide)

Jokerman, Please see below the conversation with the context restored for better readability, and answer the follow up questions.

1. Do you or do you not admit to contradicting yourself several times D1? "mmmmaybe a third party", "I'd bet on a third party", "the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low", so are there or aren't there?; "I never said anything about ignoring lurkers." and "I'm not even defending lurking!", yes you did, and yes you were.

1. I do.

Very well. Let the record state that you admit to lying here:[1][2] ("I didn't say/defend it!"), and that you did defend lurking, which you yourself call "detrimental to town."

Follow up question: Why would a town-aligned player defend a behaviour that is detrimental to town?

I wasn't. Defending. Lurking. Stop fucking ignoring what I'm saying, it's really getting to piss me the fuck off, you ass.

2. You said your intention was to Vig-kill the lurkers. Leaving aside that you couldn't have NK'd them all, do you think killing the lurkers without knowing if they are town or scum is good for town? Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Wouldn't you want to at least ask them a couple of questions to better guess their alignment? Or is lurking a justifiable death sentence for town in your mind? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? That kind of indiscriminate bloodlust screams scum to me.

2. I didn't say anything about indiscriminately killing them all; I'm not an Exterminator. I also never said that I wouldn't target anyone else - I didn't mean to imply that I would only kill lurkers, simply that it was a prerogative that I have/had.

You said "if [lurking] got to be too much trouble this game I would just take them out myself"[1], and "lurkers would find themselves dead and the actual hunting would have more room to happen. That was my plan, anyway." [2]. I say you explicitly stated that your defense for defending lurkers was that you were planning to kill them, and didn't give a second thought as to what alignment the lurkers may have been. I didn't say you said "only", but how many nights do you think you'd have to try anyway? Your plan, as stated by you was "to get other town to hunt active people" so you could get the lurkers yourself. You weren't even proposing to ask them a single question or probe them a bit before shooting. No, your plan was "to take them out yourself", alignment be damned.

So I ask you again, as you didn't actually answer the question: Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? But you not only didn't challenge them, but insisted that challenging was the wrong thing to do (unless you were completely convinced all the active players were town, that is).

Yes, I would likely have hit Town as well. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have hit scum, and I would think that people would start to get the picture and not lurk after a specifically lurker-targeted NK.

Rhetorical for those following: isn't this an extremely anti-town position to take for someone with a night kill? I say this is the thinking process and profile of a scum with an interest in thinning the herd by going for those no one is paying attention to.

Alternatively, you can skip the question above if your answer to this follow up is "yes": Were you lying when you stated that your plan was "to get town to hunt active people", "to take them out yourself", and that "lurkers would find themselves dead"?

3. D1 is over. What will your policy on lurkers be for D2? If you don't follow through with it, should we consider you scummy?

3. I think that as the days progress, lurking becomes more and more of an issue, because doing so means you give off far less of a signature on the game, and information from lynches and kills has less effect on how you appear. In that vein, I feel that beyond D1 lurking should be something that's looked at.

OK. Follow up: Who is lurking now, and what are you doing about it? (yes, I know who is lurking, I'm asking you if you do). The day will be over in 24 hours. What have you done D2 about it, other than "people need to start playing the game here"? Or do you merely "feel it should be looked at", but plan to do nothing yourself? Sure, why would scum interfere with the lurkers, yes?

Right now, I'm not even sure who's lurking other than me. Work's been crazy and I've got some stuff on my hands to deal with (like figuring out how I'm paying tuition this quarter). So, sorry, I'm not sure right now.

4. Do you concede that I could have no knowledge of your alignment, given that I wasn't in the scum team? If you do, weren't then you lying when you said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]"?

4. I suppose that's true. However, my statement is not false, and at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that? It was enough reason (I thought) for me to take matters into my own hands.

Yes, your statement is false. You said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]", and at the time you said it you knew exactly what faction I was then; you even posted "well, there's that roleflip, so fuck you and you and you", so you saw the roleflip, and knew that I wasn't of the faction you said I was.

Since you "suppose that's true", let the record show that you lied here [1]. This is particularly important, because this is the paragraph where you justify your action:

In the post where you admit lying you were answering the question "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?", and your answer was "[...]on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't." You didn't, and don't, have an answer for "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" and had to lie to get away from the question.

Let me restate it more simply: "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" Nothing but pure, unadulterated, emotional rage at being outed, and a necessity to shut your attacker up. You had no reason, no evidence, no confidence behind your attack, and had I flipped town you would never have claimed. You cowardly shut up the voice attacking you, and hid, only coming out when you saw it was safe. When asked why you did it, you could only lie to seem grandiose. There was nothing else you could say.

To hammer the point home, let me answer your question:

at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that?

Of course I can. At the time, you had no way of knowing if I was town or SK or cult or jester (you did know I wasn't in your scum team, but in the hypothetical you aren't scum, you couldn't know I wasn't there either). You had no evidence, and you still shot with the only purpose to silence your attacker, and damn the consequences. What's his alignment? I don't know! I don't care! Just get rid of him! This is exactly the tought process your question betrays, and it's not a townie one.

Follow up: You admit you had no way of knowing I wasn't town, so what specifically made you feel confident enough to kill me? Had I flipped town, would you have claimed?

You're right, it was just a ragekill. But when that's an ability you have, and you feel you need to use it, you do. I did, it wasn't wrong, you're trying to turn it into a scumtell. You're trying to turn killing the Serial Killer into a scumtell. And yes, if you had flipped town, I would have claimed. It would be better for town if I did.

5. You went from "you don't feel like scum" to "For one thing, Zathras is scum" in one post, 24hours. Then posted once more trying to defend yourself and failed, so you followed it up with a daykill. Is this correct? Please confirm. If it is correct, how is it not a) a blatant OMGUS; and b) an action explicitly taken to shut up your attacker?

5. I'm not denying that it was an OMGUS - it totally was. But that's not the important part of it at all. If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things and trying to shunt attention off yourself and onto Town, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone with an ability like mine to take action.

Let the record show that you admit lying yet again: you said "So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious." [1], but now you admit "it totally was".

And as said above, it was not just an OMGUS vote, but an OMGUS daykill, done while you admit you had no way of knowing if you'd hit a townie, and with the only and express purpose of saving your own ass. That kind of self preservation is only seen in scum. Town tries not to die, but will hang rather than risk using a potentially game-winning ability to kill another townie. This is the important part of it, yes. This is what marks you as undeniable scum. A townie with a daykill wouldn't use it D1 without being sure he wouldn't hit a townie, and you admit you spent it on a "gut feeling".

Follow up: Let's go back to your statement: "If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things." Could you be less vague? Please, even if it's long after the fact, provide actual evidence that the person attacking you was "doing scummy things" enough to justify you daykilling them for the good of town, as opposed to for the good of your own ass. But we know you can't, therefore the daykill was an act of pure self preservation, and therefore scum, and not of a role with the town's victory in mind.



One more bit of my previous post to which you didn't respond (my fault, I didn't put it in the "direct questions" section). I hereby repeat it here, and ask you to respond to the direct challenges posted therein:

This one is quite telling:

Didn't say you're scum. Said you're scummy. Zathras' assaults scummed you up quite a bit, and having the possibility for other anti-town roles, your name is not cleared. I'm not making any sort of new claims here, and I'll give hard evidence when I have it. Like I said, I'm choosing not to pursue you yet.

Basically what you're saying is that a highly anti-town role painted me to be scum, and that combined with the fact that there's a possibility of more anti-town roles, is enough to mark me as scummy in your eyes, despite the evidence to the contrary? Boy, that makes sense.

Boy, your argument makes no sense, and your sarcasm is on you. That "highly anti-town" role of which you speak was a third party, so there's not only the possibility, but the certainty of more anti-town roles: the scum team. And you end it up with "despite evidence to the contrary"? what, pray tell, evidence to the contrary? Produce that evidence, or you are lying again, scum.

And of course, my previous SK alignment does not invalidate my arguments at all. Had I been part of the scum team, and known you were town, sure, but I wasn't, and didn't have any knowledge of your alignment beyond your actions, so my arguments are to be judged on their own merit. You don't get to dismiss them just because you got lucky. That's what a member of the scum team would try to get away with, though.


He was challenged on this, and tried to wiggle thusly:

In a game with 13 players, you can bet on three scum, leaving ten. We've already identified one third-party, leave nine. If you account for a survivor, that's eight, which is just about perfect for town. So actually, the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low, as that would unbalance the game terribly. So now what?

This is called evidence.

Bullshit. The question is whether you are part of the scum team, for which you say there's "evidence to the contrary". Your "evidence" cites that there are likely three, but does nothing to say you aren't one of them. I say you are. Incidentally, I also think there's decent chance for further anti-town roles like jester or cult that you are conveniently ignoring once again like you did earlier in the game.

Produce the evidence that you claim exists that you are not scum, or you are lying yet again.

But we all know there is no such evidence.



Summary

Jokerman did indeed lie about:
a) stating that he had evidence my previous role was scum;
b) stating that he had knowledge he didn't have, to make himself look better in the eyes of town;
c) stating I had knowledge I didn't have;
d) that he felt confident his daykill target would hit scum;
e) denying saying what he had indeed said.

Jokerman did admit to:
a) using his daykill without any evidence at all on his target's alignment, based only on self preservation, emotion, and gut feel; this is utterly scummy.
b) doing this only to shut up his attacker ("OMGUS? - it totally was!"); scummy.
c) defending a practice he considers detrimental to town; scummy.
d) intending to kill lurkers without regard to their alignment (though he may backtrack on this and admit to lying instead); super-scummy.
e) multiple contradictions; scummy.
f) placing an OMGUS vote, and then denying it was OMGUS, then admitting under pressure he had no basis for it; super-scummy.



Jokerman-EXE, you are a liar, a coward, and a scum.

How many lies does it take? Lynch all liars. How many scummy acts does it take? Lynch the scum.

I think I got all of them but it's hard to tell. Let me know if I missed any and I'll answer them when I have a chance.

Nirur:
You can't stop me mate.
'Cos I am unblockable
No, you can't stop me.

Does that work? I don't care if you block me, because like I said, I already gave up my night ability.

Arg: Zathras is likely telling the truth about not being the SK anymore, but I would think that it's obvious we have a NecroCult. Scum he ain't, but it's worth looking at. Native, for the reasons that I've stated before and the fact that he still hasn't said anything other than, "Zath is right, Joker's scum, his reasons for voting me are garbage and I don't have to prove why because they're garbage." Pandar might be fake-claiming, though I actually believe he took A Litter of Kittens as his role. Org, Ottofar, and Archangel are useless and lurky. Argembarger was lurking for a bit there, but his recent post has pretty much shown that he was able to catch up. Other than that, not much I can see.

[Org]

So, there was wifi where I stayed, however, it did not reach thr back, which is where I was. Kinda annoyed.

[NativeForeigner]

Spoiler: Zathras (click to show/hide)

Jokerman, Please see below the conversation with the context restored for better readability, and answer the follow up questions.

1. Do you or do you not admit to contradicting yourself several times D1? "mmmmaybe a third party", "I'd bet on a third party", "the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low", so are there or aren't there?; "I never said anything about ignoring lurkers." and "I'm not even defending lurking!", yes you did, and yes you were.

1. I do.

Very well. Let the record state that you admit to lying here:[1][2] ("I didn't say/defend it!"), and that you did defend lurking, which you yourself call "detrimental to town."

Follow up question: Why would a town-aligned player defend a behaviour that is detrimental to town?

I wasn't. Defending. Lurking. Stop fucking ignoring what I'm saying, it's really getting to piss me the fuck off, you ass.

2. You said your intention was to Vig-kill the lurkers. Leaving aside that you couldn't have NK'd them all, do you think killing the lurkers without knowing if they are town or scum is good for town? Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Wouldn't you want to at least ask them a couple of questions to better guess their alignment? Or is lurking a justifiable death sentence for town in your mind? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? That kind of indiscriminate bloodlust screams scum to me.

2. I didn't say anything about indiscriminately killing them all; I'm not an Exterminator. I also never said that I wouldn't target anyone else - I didn't mean to imply that I would only kill lurkers, simply that it was a prerogative that I have/had.

You said "if [lurking] got to be too much trouble this game I would just take them out myself"[1], and "lurkers would find themselves dead and the actual hunting would have more room to happen. That was my plan, anyway." [2]. I say you explicitly stated that your defense for defending lurkers was that you were planning to kill them, and didn't give a second thought as to what alignment the lurkers may have been. I didn't say you said "only", but how many nights do you think you'd have to try anyway? Your plan, as stated by you was "to get other town to hunt active people" so you could get the lurkers yourself. You weren't even proposing to ask them a single question or probe them a bit before shooting. No, your plan was "to take them out yourself", alignment be damned.

So I ask you again, as you didn't actually answer the question: Don't you think you'd end up NK-ing townies that way? Isn't challenging the lurkers to participate better for town than night killing them? But you not only didn't challenge them, but insisted that challenging was the wrong thing to do (unless you were completely convinced all the active players were town, that is).

Yes, I would likely have hit Town as well. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have hit scum, and I would think that people would start to get the picture and not lurk after a specifically lurker-targeted NK.

Rhetorical for those following: isn't this an extremely anti-town position to take for someone with a night kill? I say this is the thinking process and profile of a scum with an interest in thinning the herd by going for those no one is paying attention to.

Alternatively, you can skip the question above if your answer to this follow up is "yes": Were you lying when you stated that your plan was "to get town to hunt active people", "to take them out yourself", and that "lurkers would find themselves dead"?

3. D1 is over. What will your policy on lurkers be for D2? If you don't follow through with it, should we consider you scummy?

3. I think that as the days progress, lurking becomes more and more of an issue, because doing so means you give off far less of a signature on the game, and information from lynches and kills has less effect on how you appear. In that vein, I feel that beyond D1 lurking should be something that's looked at.

OK. Follow up: Who is lurking now, and what are you doing about it? (yes, I know who is lurking, I'm asking you if you do). The day will be over in 24 hours. What have you done D2 about it, other than "people need to start playing the game here"? Or do you merely "feel it should be looked at", but plan to do nothing yourself? Sure, why would scum interfere with the lurkers, yes?

Right now, I'm not even sure who's lurking other than me. Work's been crazy and I've got some stuff on my hands to deal with (like figuring out how I'm paying tuition this quarter). So, sorry, I'm not sure right now.

4. Do you concede that I could have no knowledge of your alignment, given that I wasn't in the scum team? If you do, weren't then you lying when you said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]"?

4. I suppose that's true. However, my statement is not false, and at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that? It was enough reason (I thought) for me to take matters into my own hands.

Yes, your statement is false. You said "on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't. [referring to me being that faction]", and at the time you said it you knew exactly what faction I was then; you even posted "well, there's that roleflip, so fuck you and you and you", so you saw the roleflip, and knew that I wasn't of the faction you said I was.

Since you "suppose that's true", let the record show that you lied here [1]. This is particularly important, because this is the paragraph where you justify your action:

In the post where you admit lying you were answering the question "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?", and your answer was "[...]on D1 there's only one faction that knows something the others don't." You didn't, and don't, have an answer for "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" and had to lie to get away from the question.

Let me restate it more simply: "What specifically made you feel confident enough to kill him?" Nothing but pure, unadulterated, emotional rage at being outed, and a necessity to shut your attacker up. You had no reason, no evidence, no confidence behind your attack, and had I flipped town you would never have claimed. You cowardly shut up the voice attacking you, and hid, only coming out when you saw it was safe. When asked why you did it, you could only lie to seem grandiose. There was nothing else you could say.

To hammer the point home, let me answer your question:

at the time I had no way of knowing that you weren't what I suspected you to be - can you admit to that?

Of course I can. At the time, you had no way of knowing if I was town or SK or cult or jester (you did know I wasn't in your scum team, but in the hypothetical you aren't scum, you couldn't know I wasn't there either). You had no evidence, and you still shot with the only purpose to silence your attacker, and damn the consequences. What's his alignment? I don't know! I don't care! Just get rid of him! This is exactly the tought process your question betrays, and it's not a townie one.

Follow up: You admit you had no way of knowing I wasn't town, so what specifically made you feel confident enough to kill me? Had I flipped town, would you have claimed?

You're right, it was just a ragekill. But when that's an ability you have, and you feel you need to use it, you do. I did, it wasn't wrong, you're trying to turn it into a scumtell. You're trying to turn killing the Serial Killer into a scumtell. And yes, if you had flipped town, I would have claimed. It would be better for town if I did.

5. You went from "you don't feel like scum" to "For one thing, Zathras is scum" in one post, 24hours. Then posted once more trying to defend yourself and failed, so you followed it up with a daykill. Is this correct? Please confirm. If it is correct, how is it not a) a blatant OMGUS; and b) an action explicitly taken to shut up your attacker?

5. I'm not denying that it was an OMGUS - it totally was. But that's not the important part of it at all. If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things and trying to shunt attention off yourself and onto Town, then I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone with an ability like mine to take action.

Let the record show that you admit lying yet again: you said "So changing my mind is automatically an OMGUS? Whether your vote was on me or not, I would still find you suspicious." [1], but now you admit "it totally was".

And as said above, it was not just an OMGUS vote, but an OMGUS daykill, done while you admit you had no way of knowing if you'd hit a townie, and with the only and express purpose of saving your own ass. That kind of self preservation is only seen in scum. Town tries not to die, but will hang rather than risk using a potentially game-winning ability to kill another townie. This is the important part of it, yes. This is what marks you as undeniable scum. A townie with a daykill wouldn't use it D1 without being sure he wouldn't hit a townie, and you admit you spent it on a "gut feeling".

Follow up: Let's go back to your statement: "If I felt you were scum, doing scummy things." Could you be less vague? Please, even if it's long after the fact, provide actual evidence that the person attacking you was "doing scummy things" enough to justify you daykilling them for the good of town, as opposed to for the good of your own ass. But we know you can't, therefore the daykill was an act of pure self preservation, and therefore scum, and not of a role with the town's victory in mind.



One more bit of my previous post to which you didn't respond (my fault, I didn't put it in the "direct questions" section). I hereby repeat it here, and ask you to respond to the direct challenges posted therein:

This one is quite telling:

Didn't say you're scum. Said you're scummy. Zathras' assaults scummed you up quite a bit, and having the possibility for other anti-town roles, your name is not cleared. I'm not making any sort of new claims here, and I'll give hard evidence when I have it. Like I said, I'm choosing not to pursue you yet.

Basically what you're saying is that a highly anti-town role painted me to be scum, and that combined with the fact that there's a possibility of more anti-town roles, is enough to mark me as scummy in your eyes, despite the evidence to the contrary? Boy, that makes sense.

Boy, your argument makes no sense, and your sarcasm is on you. That "highly anti-town" role of which you speak was a third party, so there's not only the possibility, but the certainty of more anti-town roles: the scum team. And you end it up with "despite evidence to the contrary"? what, pray tell, evidence to the contrary? Produce that evidence, or you are lying again, scum.

And of course, my previous SK alignment does not invalidate my arguments at all. Had I been part of the scum team, and known you were town, sure, but I wasn't, and didn't have any knowledge of your alignment beyond your actions, so my arguments are to be judged on their own merit. You don't get to dismiss them just because you got lucky. That's what a member of the scum team would try to get away with, though.


He was challenged on this, and tried to wiggle thusly:

In a game with 13 players, you can bet on three scum, leaving ten. We've already identified one third-party, leave nine. If you account for a survivor, that's eight, which is just about perfect for town. So actually, the odds of an anti-town role are extremely low, as that would unbalance the game terribly. So now what?

This is called evidence.

Bullshit. The question is whether you are part of the scum team, for which you say there's "evidence to the contrary". Your "evidence" cites that there are likely three, but does nothing to say you aren't one of them. I say you are. Incidentally, I also think there's decent chance for further anti-town roles like jester or cult that you are conveniently ignoring once again like you did earlier in the game.

Produce the evidence that you claim exists that you are not scum, or you are lying yet again.

But we all know there is no such evidence.



Summary

Jokerman did indeed lie about:
a) stating that he had evidence my previous role was scum;
b) stating that he had knowledge he didn't have, to make himself look better in the eyes of town;
c) stating I had knowledge I didn't have;
d) that he felt confident his daykill target would hit scum;
e) denying saying what he had indeed said.

Jokerman did admit to:
a) using his daykill without any evidence at all on his target's alignment, based only on self preservation, emotion, and gut feel; this is utterly scummy.
b) doing this only to shut up his attacker ("OMGUS? - it totally was!"); scummy.
c) defending a practice he considers detrimental to town; scummy.
d) intending to kill lurkers without regard to their alignment (though he may backtrack on this and admit to lying instead); super-scummy.
e) multiple contradictions; scummy.
f) placing an OMGUS vote, and then denying it was OMGUS, then admitting under pressure he had no basis for it; super-scummy.



Jokerman-EXE, you are a liar, a coward, and a scum.

How many lies does it take? Lynch all liars. How many scummy acts does it take? Lynch the scum.

I think I got all of them but it's hard to tell. Let me know if I missed any and I'll answer them when I have a chance.

Nirur:
You can't stop me mate.
'Cos I am unblockable
No, you can't stop me.

Does that work? I don't care if you block me, because like I said, I already gave up my night ability.

Arg: Zathras is likely telling the truth about not being the SK anymore, but I would think that it's obvious we have a NecroCult. Scum he ain't, but it's worth looking at. Native, for the reasons that I've stated before and the fact that he still hasn't said anything other than, "Zath is right, Joker's scum, his reasons for voting me are garbage and I don't have to prove why because they're garbage." Pandar might be fake-claiming, though I actually believe he took A Litter of Kittens as his role. Org, Ottofar, and Archangel are useless and lurky. Argembarger was lurking for a bit there, but his recent post has pretty much shown that he was able to catch up. Other than that, not much I can see.

I'm sorry, but if I'm reading this correctly you're basically saying that you don't have to prove my reason for voting you is "garbage". What makes you think you're above the rest of us? You haven't answered many of my questions nd you have yet to provide evidence as requested. Instead, you choose to bash on my reason to vote you but do NOTHING to prove that anything you're saying is true. If anything is garbage, it's you. If you "don't have to prove" that my reasons are garbage, then what DO you have to do? Sit around and twiddle your thumbs, ignoring anything I say against you? Sorry bud, doesn't work that way. Get to proving. Oh wait, you can't, can you? Because you're full of shit. Funny how that works out.

[Jokerman-EXE]

Re-link me to your questions, then.

PFP