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?
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).
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?
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?
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.
SummaryJokerman 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.
Author
Topic: BYOR5.5 - Day 9: Just Kidding. Game Over. (Read 133082 times)