Print

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

[Tiruin]

perhaps he is a cereal killer?

You made my day. xD
Also third party as in a general sense of third party? Note that 'third party' means a general subset of roles which aren't Town or Mafia sided--but they aren't all malevolent either (ie Survivor), but their danger comes in how you play them.

Also I don't think anyone...asked Vivalas as to how he regards recent events yet. There is a notable lack of communication from, and with him.

[origamiscienceguy]

Anyways, that's all I can post today. Be back in about 15 hours 

[Tiruin]

Oh, also @Deus Amoth: I never denied that Caz was a miller. It seems that my question asking your certainty got you to conclude otherwise...for some reason.

[Deus Asmoth]

Oh, also @Deus Amoth: I never denied that Caz was a miller. It seems that my question asking your certainty got you to conclude otherwise...for some reason.

Caz was a miller, so the fact that my inspect showed her up as scum makes sense.

So sure of ye thar?

Because this totally doesn't give the impression that you didn't believe her claim.

Addendum:

Lying. Untruth. Claiming things are otherwise than they actually are. Like when you claim I supported the planting evidence theory when this is the first post in which I've said anything in favour of it, now that there's actually some evidence that supports it.

Err...when I said 'supported', the meaning of 'support' there was more on you bringing it up as a plausible idea. That is what I mean by you supporting the theory.

..Is this a misunderstanding on terms or something? Because I did initially get the idea of you being twisty, however I'm still sticking to my idea at the end of D2 and at the start of D3 that you're a legitimate cop...though its becoming muddled by your seemingly D:< attitude here. I mean, you could've talked and inquired on such things--but instead you go to extremes, to conclude the negative before assuming an inquisitive stance.

That's not supporting the theory, that's not dismissing it before there's evidence for or against it. At least, that's my definition. Supporting it would be if I said it was the most likely scenario, or gave evidence that showed it was a possibility.

As for talking or inquiring, I've already said that I was worried my result on you was because of paranoia rather than you actually being guilty. I was playing with a weak hand, and I felt the best way to do that was applying as much pressure as I could and seeing how you (and a few others) reacted.

Next up @Deus
...o_O
You have a very strange way of interpreting things.
> You pushed for an emotional test (a very blatant one, in my book :v)
Then you...go off and make it into an explosion of malevolent intent.

...Seriously?

And of course, the fact that she DEFINITELY knew that Caz wasn't scum (after she'd flipped) when beforehand the only thing she had to say on the matter was to agree that Caz's wagon was too big.

Uh, no? Given the events of D2--before the flip--I was still not that 'bought into' by the events in concluding Caz being scum--again, by that note of her stating her presence of a book, and you finding such a book in her possession: if that occurrence had not been present, I would be more leaning towards Caz being seen as scum--but something didn't feel right in how it progressed.

Ok, I want to get this book thing sorted out. Why do you think it's such a big deal that Caz didn't know she'd have the book in her possession when no one else knows what they have either? flabort didn't know about the journal he has before TolyK revealed it, you haven't mentioned knowing about what I found on you, so why is it such an issue for Caz?

In any case, what do you think of the flavour of my result for Tiruin? Do you think it's more likely to be paranoia or evidence planting?

...Also what flavor result? Looking up--you're responding to Flabort, yet I don't see any indicative flavor result.

That's because I'd already revealed it, at least twice. The German identification papers the were in Caz's pack yesterday and Mein Kampf again. You've obviously read at least on of the posts where I mentioned this before, since you quoted sections of it.

And continuation as it seems my first post 4 posts back got a bit out of continuation because of my internets.
Yay.

I waited because if I'd revealed that I didn't trust my own inspection result, trying to get a reaction out of Tiruin using it would have been kind of pointless.

...?
So other than missing a question (you missed that question below), you've some kind of judgement extrapolating something bad out of the below?

Also, you are very aware that dumping your findings is a very conclusive piece of evidence, right? Something which I believe persus is also asking for? Something by which you're only squeezing out bit by bit in vague ways until now?

Deus

Tiruin, how's life on the scum team?

. . .?
(Real) Life's been hectic -_- More personal life than internet reasons. Is there something up on why you issue the one question to me--not in RVS (or rather only mention me now) in the present time, with brevity and an assumption in the background?

DA: What is your appraisal of yesterday's events? Comparatively, you and TolyK; could you give a comparison, and include what you did last night? Also more questions below.

...That?
The question has no value at all in regards to scumhunting--but it shows or gives an excuse (in the form of a standpoint) that you're 'analyzing a person's "reaction".' It's a shallow excuse, if you can only deem it that far as a 'reaction'.

...Especially since I got nothing out of the above. A bit rude there. <_<

Yeah, no. flabort asked me for my inspection results beforehand, I voted for you and said you were scum, then told flabort that it answered his question. The fact that you saw the assumption in the vote and also seconded Persus' question for the flavour of the inspection result would imply that you knew this, but since you then acted as though you had no idea that I'd inspected you I decided to make sure you knew that much before revealing that I'd had doubts about the result.

Also:

Great.
Who decided that it was a good idea to kill TolyK? Don't answer that, I know which team decided it.
Scum team, you just did that to spite me, didn't you? Because you picked up on the "if I can't prove you're scum, you can lynch me" thing I told TolyK. So you made him flip.

So now I resign to being killed, if there is anyone who trusted TolyK. But I will try to survive and aid the town anyways, and oust the scum.

I'd also like to say that I've looked at this a couple of times, and I like it less each time I see it. It looks more like scum pretending to be town and appealing to emotion than genuine town to me.

Who are you talking to here, DA?
And what is 'this', pertaining to? (highlighted above)

That quote and my response were literally the only things in that post. 'This' refers to the quote from flabort. I'm talking to flabort mostly, but I also wanted to see what other people thought of it, since it seems to have gone mostly under the radar.

Also, since I can follow links properly again.

Do you recall this one tidbit?

Because that one bit is a cornerstone in my attention towards your credibility. You hopped away from the theory which you mentioned earlier (or at least, did not mention it at all in your first posts...until poked), and yet in the link above to your post...misses it completely.

Link to Caz not knowing that the flavourtext would give descriptions of what cops find in people's possession, followed by vague mention of a theory I apparently mentioned earlier which I would very much like you to tell me about. Because unless you mean this one:

THEORY:
Scum have an ability to fake evidence, such as blatant German propaganda, in order to counteract the two cops.

Which you might notice had nothing to do with me and which I never treated as anything more than a theory, I don't know what theory you're talking about, since that's the only theory aside from the poisoning idea that I've talked about at all.

That's just it. That faked evidence planting.
What I thought when I was re-reviewing D2 was the...err, some role linked in the BM 'flash mafia' which let someone else 'frame' the other in implicating them as 'mafia'.

And next: An emphasis on flavor text.
WE ARE IN A BASTARD GAME--this is grounds enough to take note of flavor as it being important, rather than a normal game where flavor is nearly irrelevant.
THAT is why I'm so...touchy(? unsure term) about these things. A cop out of all people is being dismissive (or it seems that way to me) when talking about such ideas!

I still don't see your point here. Caz said she didn't know she had a copy of MK. I didn't know what items I have, I assumed that neither did anyone else, and even if Caz had known about it, she still would have denied it because it's the scummiest book she could possibly have had! Do you mean I'm being dismissive about flavour in general or just Caz's reaction? Because I've pointed out a couple of times my concerns about finding Caz's stuff when I searched your belongings and the possible implications, though no one else seems particularly interested.

Last paragraph makes no sense. I'm jumpy because I didn't immediately launch into a detailed dissection of Caz not knowing what she had? Caz said that she wasn't aware of any items at all being in her possession. I also didn't receive any catalogue of my possessions, and as such have no idea what would be found in my pack if another cop did inspect me. Do you? Since we have another example of someone who got investigated by a cop in this game already,

...No? You're 'jumpy' because of some deviations in your behavior towards me.
Starting off with an 'emotional test'?
Then giving several pointed words in how you speak to me?
It's jumpy, in the way it refers to your conclusion system.

That's not acting jumpy, that's me wanting to see how you react to the guilty result and pointed words.

Also the catalogue isn't something to nitpick about: What is something to nitpick about is you...finding Mein Kampf all over the place. Now, I'm not a miller but I'm curious on why such a result is applied onto me.

I've already spoken about this, and have yet to receive anyone else's thoughts on the matter. The fact that MK turned up on both of my inspections made me think I was suffering from paranoia, but you having the same papers Caz did (and me noticing that) made me think that something else was in play and is the first piece of supporting evidence for the planting theory that I've seen so far (assuming you're not scum).

I think I missed something I need to reply to, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll get to it in a while.

[Vivalas]

WHOAH post conflagoration. I haven't read much of D3 other than being accused of being a SK, but my tl;dr opinion of Caz was because she got lychned due to her horrible, lackadaisical defense. She even stated losing interest in the game.

Your concept of me being SK is quite cute, but I do understand I may be lacking in participation. I sorta got put off by attacking TolyK, but by RIA analysis was because I thought he was reacting to a scum read of him, and an experienced player wouldn't react so violently to a scum read, so that's where that came from.

 I'm still waiting for an answer from Deathsword, but he is claiming health problems so fine I guess.

Anyways pfp, I shall analyse expand on this post and read up on D3 when I get to a computer.

[origamiscienceguy]

I didn't accuse you of serial killer, I was just throwing out the possibility. I think you are third party, though.

Vivales please find me a moment when you were passionate about lynching someone (or not lynching someone)

[Deus Asmoth]

Vivalas, since you're here; my inspection result for Tiruin indicated she was mafia, had a Mein Kampf in her possession and also had Caz's identification papers. Do you think that this points to me being paranoid, the evidence planting theory being correct or something else? Provide your reasoning for full marks.

origamiscienceguy, same question.

[Tiruin]

Oh, also @Deus Amoth: I never denied that Caz was a miller. It seems that my question asking your certainty got you to conclude otherwise...for some reason.

Caz was a miller, so the fact that my inspect showed her up as scum makes sense.

So sure of ye thar?

Because this totally doesn't give the impression that you didn't believe her claim.

...That's your subjective perception of it.  It is plausible to take it that way--or it is plausible to take it as if I'm asking your certainty on that in regards to all other theories present. A judicious cop would take that in stride rather than be stubborn-headed in these waters. >_>

That's not supporting the theory, that's not dismissing it before there's evidence for or against it. At least, that's my definition. Supporting it would be if I said it was the most likely scenario, or gave evidence that showed it was a possibility.

Good point. :v

Ok, I want to get this book thing sorted out. Why do you think it's such a big deal that Caz didn't know she'd have the book in her possession when no one else knows what they have either? flabort didn't know about the journal he has before TolyK revealed it, you haven't mentioned knowing about what I found on you, so why is it such an issue for Caz?

It's not a major issue actually--the issue is in your behavior in regards to such an item; it makes little sense in the flavor context of this game, and when compared to the legitimacy of the present standards--does not feel foolproof as a resolute evidence.

That's because I'd already revealed it, at least twice. The German identification papers the were in Caz's pack yesterday and Mein Kampf again. You've obviously read at least on of the posts where I mentioned this before, since you quoted sections of it.

Duh
And yet in your next post...you say I had "Caz'" identification papers.
You confuse me -_-

I still don't see your point here. Caz said she didn't know she had a copy of MK. I didn't know what items I have, I assumed that neither did anyone else, and even if Caz had known about it, she still would have denied it because it's the scummiest book she could possibly have had! Do you mean I'm being dismissive about flavour in general or just Caz's reaction? Because I've pointed out a couple of times my concerns about finding Caz's stuff when I searched your belongings and the possible implications, though no one else seems particularly interested.

. . . Not when you're a miller.
My concerns regarding you are more on your attitude through all this. You start the day with an emotional test out of all things--with the idea of...lacking confidence when you've an inspect result?

I waited because if I'd revealed that I didn't trust my own inspection result, trying to get a reaction out of Tiruin using it would have been kind of pointless.

Like this.
And on a semantic note--you're working two steps ahead of the question Persus gave:

Deus, I asked you for flavor at day start. Why did you wait?

Given the...orange part.

That's not acting jumpy, that's me wanting to see how you react to the guilty result and pointed words.

....Yeeeaaah sure.
My face was :| IRL, and my mind went snarky. "...What. That is a very shallow announcement of 'u r scum, I've inspected you.'" Then it went on to consider why you'd word such a thing, with emotional testing being one consideration among...many others.

"Alright--he's the claimed cop, and he found me as scum. Why isn't he dumping the information out into the open? Backing evidence? Did he ponder on his previous theories? Maybe he's uncertain. Though this does tie into my note on him being a newbie, although he did display a signifcant amount of acuity back there...Though if this is a reaction test--it'd be the worst kind of cop play I've seen, albeit a streak of newbieness too, so that's considerably understandable. Unless he builds it up on that. Oh look, a tiny moth. Though if he found me as scum then...either he's a paranoid cop or some other variant of the anti-sane. I wonder what his flavor inspect is. I should've worn gloves. It's cold. I miss Silthuri. Why do you guys keep on thinking we're he's when..our profile states otherwise? Is that a spider? I hope Deathsword is ok. Sickness isn't good. I wonder if its snowing in Scotland. When did they become an independent state again? I wonder if the thread title has any specific relevance in this context. I wish I had a good rifle. Why don't we have the German stick grenades..."
Amongst many things. >_>

I've already spoken about this, and have yet to receive anyone else's thoughts on the matter. The fact that MK turned up on both of my inspections made me think I was suffering from paranoia, but you having the same papers Caz did (and me noticing that) made me think that something else was in play and is the first piece of supporting evidence for the planting theory that I've seen so far (assuming you're not scum).

I think I missed something I need to reply to, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll get to it in a while.

...It'd be weird to see a paranoid cop seeing Mein Kampf all over the place. It's a big, darn book.

And you STILL didn't answer that one question regarding TOlyK. And on the 'wait until reveal'. ANd many other things... :I

[Tiruin]

EBWOP:

Yeah, no. flabort asked me for my inspection results beforehand, I voted for you and said you were scum, then told flabort that it answered his question. The fact that you saw the assumption in the vote and also seconded Persus' question for the flavour of the inspection result would imply that you knew this, but since you then acted as though you had no idea that I'd inspected you I decided to make sure you knew that much before revealing that I'd had doubts about the result.

...You do realize that your 'fact' is already evidence enough to go full throttle on the person--yes?
This 'fact' is merely how you conceived my response to be. This kind of attitude is what made me really poke on you being 'jumpy', because of the quickness to ascertain guilt in order to back yourself up: in other words, its not really feeling as if you're trying to countercheck yourself if paranoid, until much later on, but first pushing on the asphalt before straightening the road, if the metaphor makes sense. -_-

[4maskwolf]

Unfortunate Accident Voting:
mastahcheese(0):
TheDarkStar(1): flabort
Deathsword(0):
Persus13(0):
Vivalas(1): origamiscienceguy
Tiruin(2): Deus Asmoth, Comrade Shamrock
origamiscienceguy(0):
flabort(0):
Comrade Shamrock(0):
Deus Asmoth(2): Deathsword, Persus13
No Lynch(0):
Not Voting: mastahcheese, TheDarkStar, Vivalas, Tiruin

Lookout Voting:
mastahcheese(1): flabort
TheDarkStar(0):
Deathsword(0):
Persus13(1): Persus13
Vivalas(0):
Tiruin(0):
origamiscienceguy(0):
flabort(0):
Comrade Shamrock(0):
Deus Asmoth(0):
Not Voting: mastahcheese, TheDarkStar, Deathsword, Vivalas, Tiruin, origamiscienceguy, Comrade Shamrock, Deus Asmoth

Current Lynch Target: No Lynch
Current Lookout Target: mastahcheese or Persus13

[Deus Asmoth]

We don't have asphalt here, but I think I see what you mean. On the other hand, since I wasn't assuming you were guilty in that post- I was making sure you knew why I had voted for you before I revealed the flavour of my inspection- I'm not certain what your point is.

Unvote.

Back here...

Tiruin, all of your links go to the top of a page for me, so I'm going to have to wait till I get home to answer questions based on those links.

:v
Can you see them now?

It's not a problem on your end, I just can't follow links properly during the day because of the connection I'm using or something. Or if that's what you meant, yes, I went back and answered the relevant question, I think.

Confirmed because he got night killed and flipped cop. Or if you mean me, confirmed because myself and TolyK checked that our roles matched over the course of day two, which you claimed twice that you were reading through.

...Yeah, none of you mentioned the Minister thingy.

... what's the Minister thingy?

Again, you're asking me questions I've already given the answers to. I revealed myself because I had a guilty result and didn't think it worth the risk of getting randomly night killed and losing the information, as well as the fact that it meant out guard would be more likely to keep watch if they knew there was a more likely night kill target around, meaning we'd hopefully know the identity of two of the scumteam by the start of day three for the price of one cop.

...And what made you think that you'd be 'randomly night killed'? You're relating a conclusion by an assumption that is inferred to have been a real possibility instead of a random possibility, in the tone up here.
And regarding the guard: Doesn't that mean that you'd be trusting another...random individual? It seems like that 'fact' is more representative of an ideal watchman rather than the state by which a watchman is (can be any allegiance, rather than the ideal 'town' or 'honest' watchman)
So I'm curious about your stance here. It's wobbly, as it has been since D3. Especially given your tone against me, rather than talking to me.

My logic:
-I have a guilty result at the start of day 2.
-If I don't reveal myself, I have a one in ten (nine?) chance of being killed tonight.
-There is no guarantee that a watchman would actually do lookout duty at night.
-If I reveal myself, I will more than likely be killed tonight.
-However, since I'm a more temping target than the guard, they're more likely to keep watch.
-Therefore, revealing I'm a cop is a net gain for the town, giving 1.5 scum on average for one cop.

Why is my tone with you such an issue? If I want to see if my result on you is accurate by getting you to slip up while arguing with me, I'm not going to start the conversation by asking you nicely.

What are you trying to say here? I investigated someone I found suspicious, do you think I shouldn't have?

:v
The context is you found a Mein Kampf book. You didn't talk about it much when Caz said she didn't have such a book.
So other than the context being under the grounds of 'Caz is miller', it seems like a nice scapegoat to broach upon--or it is a big credit to the 'plant evidence' theory which occurred before.

Caz didn't say that she didn't have the book, she said that she didn't know of any items being in her possession. Because of that, I assumed that people simply didn't get told what a cop would find on them if they were investigated. I don't see what use it would be as a scapegoat, though.

Let's analyse this for a sec.
*I say that someone who claimed to be a miller and flips town was a miller.
*You ask why I'm so sure that said miller was a miller.
*I answer and ask the meaning behind the question.
*You claim that me asking this proves I'm being defensive.
*I dismiss strange question that you're refusing to provide justification for.
*You claim that me not asking for the meaning of the question proves I'm being defensive.

And I'm supposed to be the jumpy one here?

Yo, jumpy. I said you're jumpy because in between your statements, you add a toxic and 'mean' note towards me. It's in your tone. It feels very well like you're moving to incriminate rather than interrogate (as a real and honest cop in the court of law should). While I'd be apt to debate specifics on this, I'm talking to a player rather than one who is seasoned in the intricacies of law and communication (under the law)--hence why I poked you that "emotional reactions" do not generally work when the other side is experienced or has been exposed and understands such ideas; emotional reactions have a double-sided point--that it requires the personal conclusion on the tester's side.[/quote]
The only side of law I know anything about is aviation law, which I doubt is relevant here. I won't deny that I was irritated by what I saw as you persistently misreading and misrepresenting my previous actions and yes, I use sarcasm when I'm annoyed. You seem to be trying to blow it far out of proportion, though.

The orange part here is where our perspectives diverge. I did not ask whether she was a miller--I asked you why your wording in your first posts of the day, seemed very conclusive that the miller was a TOTAL miller, after considering what you said--and WHAT SHE SAID (as evidenced by that one snippet of...evidence back there. You did NOT discuss her having Mein Kampf, despite being a predominant role against Caz.).

As above. I had no other flavour results to compare hers against besides one that came from a person I wasn't completely sure was a cop at the time and her reactions to the result seemed a lot more important than some flavour text.

As for me saying her guilty result was because of being a miller... That's what a miller is. She claimed being a milker in response to the guilty result, indicating that this was the reason for it, so how else am I meant to take it?

Perhaps you missed the part where I revealed that 'Caz is mafia' was part of my result. That seemed like plenty of evidence to try get her lynched because of.

As is how the 'bias' in investigative roles stem from. "Caz is Mafia" has a lot of weight in Mafia (the game) circles, because the cultures (as my research sees it) has a psychological aspect when dealing with information. Saying this, along, is leverage enough is very...shallow to 'try to get her lynched because of'.

...Especially when there is contradicting evidence, in the form of flavor.

Except there wasn't. There was the flavour I found, which pointed to her being a Nazi, and the flavour she claimed in response was

I'm a miller. Chinese private that wanted to be deployed against the Japanese or something.

Which is not exactly convincing.

You're trying to metagame me off a single instance of play? Good luck with that. Especially considering that I only revealed the flavour of my result on Caz after I gave the actual result and the formatting if that result, when TolyK said that the flavour might play a part in who he voted for. The flavour result I got off you was having another MK in your pack as well as the papers that were in Caz's possession the day before. And then at the end, we had a nice little 'Tiruin is mafia'. As I said above, I was pretty sure I was paranoid after the flavour result, but I wanted to see how you reacted to the guilty result.

Wtf on the first orange, DA :v You're really coming off as a pointy and jumpy person with the tone there. Continuously.
Where is the 'metagame' there, when I'm discussing how your behavior is being, instead of relating it to...whatever your previous actions in other games were?

Are you trying to convince people I'm being jumpy and defensive through sheer force of repetition? And the attempted metagaming is here:

> I ask you to prove that incriminating evidence by giving the flavor which incriminates me (unless I misunderstand how your investigate works). Because by now, you would've put it down, in my book of how you deliver proof.

Where you claim that I would have revealed the flavour of my result earlier based off how I'd played the day before ... 'You' was a generalisation in that sentence, not referring specifically to me, wasn't it? Excuse me, I need to be angry at myself for a while.

Now on the second orange part: ...And? Your 'reaction testing' is not by any bar seen as conclusive, but as a personal opinion.
Given your...lacking understanding as to how interrogations are performed, I'll ask you one thing:
> What do you understand about reaction-testing?
And what is your "result" from my one paragraph on it? It didn't mean anything to me given that...if you've a guilty report on one person--you've to give EVERYTHING about it, and not just a 'oh hey light nudge softball poke'. If I were to see it from the scum-viewpoint, it didn't feel sincere...or for better words: "impactful", when you first stated it. As a general note: Brevity does not bode well with me. :v

Should I call you on your toxic snakebite attitude in this paragraph, or shall I let it slide. Hmm...

Your initial reaction made you think you were town, and then you came back with a strange post about Caz's miller status and an implication that you didn't actually realise I'd investigated you, which is why I ended up taking so long to post the flavour of the result.

Oh, also @Deus Amoth: I never denied that Caz was a miller. It seems that my question asking your certainty got you to conclude otherwise...for some reason.

Caz was a miller, so the fact that my inspect showed her up as scum makes sense.

So sure of ye thar?

Because this totally doesn't give the impression that you didn't believe her claim.

...That's your subjective perception of it.  It is plausible to take it that way--or it is plausible to take it as if I'm asking your certainty on that in regards to all other theories present. A judicious cop would take that in stride rather than be stubborn-headed in these waters. >_>

The phrasing of the question was either deliberately challenging or as a result of a dialect I'm not familiar with. Not thinking of the latter, I assumed the former and answered it as such. What theories are present other than Caz being a miller? Considering she claimed miller in response to the guilty result, why would I not take that as the reason for my result once she'd flipped town?

Ok, I want to get this book thing sorted out. Why do you think it's such a big deal that Caz didn't know she'd have the book in her possession when no one else knows what they have either? flabort didn't know about the journal he has before TolyK revealed it, you haven't mentioned knowing about what I found on you, so why is it such an issue for Caz?

It's not a major issue actually--the issue is in your behavior in regards to such an item; it makes little sense in the flavor context of this game, and when compared to the legitimacy of the present standards--does not feel foolproof as a resolute evidence.

The MK and papers from the result had little to do with me continuing trying to get Caz lynched. Her role claim was poor at best and her replies were of nearly no use to the town. I would have been more than willing to believe her claim if she'd actually done something to back up her claim of being on the town's side, but she didn't.

That's because I'd already revealed it, at least twice. The German identification papers the were in Caz's pack yesterday and Mein Kampf again. You've obviously read at least on of the posts where I mentioned this before, since you quoted sections of it.

Duh
And yet in your next post...you say I had "Caz'" identification papers.
You confuse me -_-

You had a set of German identification papers. On closer inspection I found them to be the same papers I found on Caz the night before. That's why I think they support the evidence plant theory.

My concerns regarding you are more on your attitude through all this. You start the day with an emotional test out of all things--with the idea of...lacking confidence when you've an inspect result?

I waited because if I'd revealed that I didn't trust my own inspection result, trying to get a reaction out of Tiruin using it would have been kind of pointless.

Like this.
And on a semantic note--you're working two steps ahead of the question Persus gave:

Deus, I asked you for flavor at day start. Why did you wait?

Given the...orange part.

Lacking confidence in the result seems perfectly reasonable to me, considering what it was. On the other hand, I didn't want to take the chance that you might actually be scum and trying to spook you with just the guilty result seemed the best way to try get some indication of your alignment before giving you the out of saying that I'm clearly paranoid because of getting the same result for Caz. For Perseus... That's one step ahead at most.

I've already spoken about this, and have yet to receive anyone else's thoughts on the matter. The fact that MK turned up on both of my inspections made me think I was suffering from paranoia, but you having the same papers Caz did (and me noticing that) made me think that something else was in play and is the first piece of supporting evidence for the planting theory that I've seen so far (assuming you're not scum).

I think I missed something I need to reply to, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll get to it in a while.

...It'd be weird to see a paranoid cop seeing Mein Kampf all over the place. It's a big, darn book.

And you STILL didn't answer that one question regarding TOlyK. And on the 'wait until reveal'. ANd many other things... :I

I did answer the 'wait until reveal', you quoted the answer in the same post as you're claiming that I didn't answer it.

Compare myself and TolyK... You know that this is just filled with potential bias on my part, right?
- The inspection targets both seem reasonable. Caz was acting oddly on day 1, and a lot of people seemed suspicious of flabort's line of questioning.
- To be honest, I think revealing himself was a bad move on TolyK's part. For one thing, having a different revealed cop on the team that he could have verified without revealing himself would have guaranteed him another night to investigate in while I took the bullet. For another, if we have any doctors on the team, revealing that we have a second cop makes that doctor have to choose between which to protect. All in all, I think that TolyK could have kept his role a secret longer and benefited the town more. It's what I would have done if he'd revealed himself first.
- The results from our inspections would have made me more likely to go for flabort (since the Mein Kampf thing was a bit blatant, while journals and codes are more believable) but Caz's reaction made me stick with her.
- Of the two of us, I think TolyK was probably sane, though flabort's third party miller claim versus his result confuses the issue.

Oh crap I've lost a closing bracket for a quote somewhere...

[Deus Asmoth]

EBWOP

We don't have asphalt here, but I think I see what you mean. On the other hand, since I wasn't assuming you were guilty in that post- I was making sure you knew why I had voted for you before I revealed the flavour of my inspection- I'm not certain what your point is.

Unvote.

Back here...

Tiruin, all of your links go to the top of a page for me, so I'm going to have to wait till I get home to answer questions based on those links.

:v
Can you see them now?

It's not a problem on your end, I just can't follow links properly during the day because of the connection I'm using or something. Or if that's what you meant, yes, I went back and answered the relevant question, I think.

Confirmed because he got night killed and flipped cop. Or if you mean me, confirmed because myself and TolyK checked that our roles matched over the course of day two, which you claimed twice that you were reading through.

...Yeah, none of you mentioned the Minister thingy.

... what's the Minister thingy?

Again, you're asking me questions I've already given the answers to. I revealed myself because I had a guilty result and didn't think it worth the risk of getting randomly night killed and losing the information, as well as the fact that it meant out guard would be more likely to keep watch if they knew there was a more likely night kill target around, meaning we'd hopefully know the identity of two of the scumteam by the start of day three for the price of one cop.

...And what made you think that you'd be 'randomly night killed'? You're relating a conclusion by an assumption that is inferred to have been a real possibility instead of a random possibility, in the tone up here.
And regarding the guard: Doesn't that mean that you'd be trusting another...random individual? It seems like that 'fact' is more representative of an ideal watchman rather than the state by which a watchman is (can be any allegiance, rather than the ideal 'town' or 'honest' watchman)
So I'm curious about your stance here. It's wobbly, as it has been since D3. Especially given your tone against me, rather than talking to me.

My logic:
-I have a guilty result at the start of day 2.
-If I don't reveal myself, I have a one in ten (nine?) chance of being killed tonight.
-There is no guarantee that a watchman would actually do lookout duty at night.
-If I reveal myself, I will more than likely be killed tonight.
-However, since I'm a more temping target than the guard, they're more likely to keep watch.
-Therefore, revealing I'm a cop is a net gain for the town, giving 1.5 scum on average for one cop.

Why is my tone with you such an issue? If I want to see if my result on you is accurate by getting you to slip up while arguing with me, I'm not going to start the conversation by asking you nicely.

What are you trying to say here? I investigated someone I found suspicious, do you think I shouldn't have?

:v
The context is you found a Mein Kampf book. You didn't talk about it much when Caz said she didn't have such a book.
So other than the context being under the grounds of 'Caz is miller', it seems like a nice scapegoat to broach upon--or it is a big credit to the 'plant evidence' theory which occurred before.

Caz didn't say that she didn't have the book, she said that she didn't know of any items being in her possession. Because of that, I assumed that people simply didn't get told what a cop would find on them if they were investigated. I don't see what use it would be as a scapegoat, though.

Let's analyse this for a sec.
*I say that someone who claimed to be a miller and flips town was a miller.
*You ask why I'm so sure that said miller was a miller.
*I answer and ask the meaning behind the question.
*You claim that me asking this proves I'm being defensive.
*I dismiss strange question that you're refusing to provide justification for.
*You claim that me not asking for the meaning of the question proves I'm being defensive.

And I'm supposed to be the jumpy one here?

Yo, jumpy. I said you're jumpy because in between your statements, you add a toxic and 'mean' note towards me. It's in your tone. It feels very well like you're moving to incriminate rather than interrogate (as a real and honest cop in the court of law should). While I'd be apt to debate specifics on this, I'm talking to a player rather than one who is seasoned in the intricacies of law and communication (under the law)--hence why I poked you that "emotional reactions" do not generally work when the other side is experienced or has been exposed and understands such ideas; emotional reactions have a double-sided point--that it requires the personal conclusion on the tester's side.[/quote]
The only side of law I know anything about is aviation law, which I doubt is relevant here. I won't deny that I was irritated by what I saw as you persistently misreading and misrepresenting my previous actions and yes, I use sarcasm when I'm annoyed. You seem to be trying to blow it far out of proportion, though.

The orange part here is where our perspectives diverge. I did not ask whether she was a miller--I asked you why your wording in your first posts of the day, seemed very conclusive that the miller was a TOTAL miller, after considering what you said--and WHAT SHE SAID (as evidenced by that one snippet of...evidence back there. You did NOT discuss her having Mein Kampf, despite being a predominant role against Caz.).

As above. I had no other flavour results to compare hers against besides one that came from a person I wasn't completely sure was a cop at the time and her reactions to the result seemed a lot more important than some flavour text.

As for me saying her guilty result was because of being a miller... That's what a miller is. She claimed being a milker in response to the guilty result, indicating that this was the reason for it, so how else am I meant to take it?

Perhaps you missed the part where I revealed that 'Caz is mafia' was part of my result. That seemed like plenty of evidence to try get her lynched because of.

As is how the 'bias' in investigative roles stem from. "Caz is Mafia" has a lot of weight in Mafia (the game) circles, because the cultures (as my research sees it) has a psychological aspect when dealing with information. Saying this, along, is leverage enough is very...shallow to 'try to get her lynched because of'.

...Especially when there is contradicting evidence, in the form of flavor.

Except there wasn't. There was the flavour I found, which pointed to her being a Nazi, and the flavour she claimed in response was

I'm a miller. Chinese private that wanted to be deployed against the Japanese or something.

Which is not exactly convincing.

You're trying to metagame me off a single instance of play? Good luck with that. Especially considering that I only revealed the flavour of my result on Caz after I gave the actual result and the formatting if that result, when TolyK said that the flavour might play a part in who he voted for. The flavour result I got off you was having another MK in your pack as well as the papers that were in Caz's possession the day before. And then at the end, we had a nice little 'Tiruin is mafia'. As I said above, I was pretty sure I was paranoid after the flavour result, but I wanted to see how you reacted to the guilty result.

Wtf on the first orange, DA :v You're really coming off as a pointy and jumpy person with the tone there. Continuously.
Where is the 'metagame' there, when I'm discussing how your behavior is being, instead of relating it to...whatever your previous actions in other games were?

Are you trying to convince people I'm being jumpy and defensive through sheer force of repetition? And the attempted metagaming is here:

> I ask you to prove that incriminating evidence by giving the flavor which incriminates me (unless I misunderstand how your investigate works). Because by now, you would've put it down, in my book of how you deliver proof.

Where you claim that I would have revealed the flavour of my result earlier based off how I'd played the day before ... 'You' was a generalisation in that sentence, not referring specifically to me, wasn't it? Excuse me, I need to be angry at myself for a while.

Now on the second orange part: ...And? Your 'reaction testing' is not by any bar seen as conclusive, but as a personal opinion.
Given your...lacking understanding as to how interrogations are performed, I'll ask you one thing:
> What do you understand about reaction-testing?
And what is your "result" from my one paragraph on it? It didn't mean anything to me given that...if you've a guilty report on one person--you've to give EVERYTHING about it, and not just a 'oh hey light nudge softball poke'. If I were to see it from the scum-viewpoint, it didn't feel sincere...or for better words: "impactful", when you first stated it. As a general note: Brevity does not bode well with me. :v

Should I call you on your toxic snakebite attitude in this paragraph, or shall I let it slide. Hmm...

Your initial reaction made you think you were town, and then you came back with a strange post about Caz's miller status and an implication that you didn't actually realise I'd investigated you, which is why I ended up taking so long to post the flavour of the result.

Oh, also @Deus Amoth: I never denied that Caz was a miller. It seems that my question asking your certainty got you to conclude otherwise...for some reason.

Caz was a miller, so the fact that my inspect showed her up as scum makes sense.

So sure of ye thar?

Because this totally doesn't give the impression that you didn't believe her claim.

...That's your subjective perception of it.  It is plausible to take it that way--or it is plausible to take it as if I'm asking your certainty on that in regards to all other theories present. A judicious cop would take that in stride rather than be stubborn-headed in these waters. >_>

The phrasing of the question was either deliberately challenging or as a result of a dialect I'm not familiar with. Not thinking of the latter, I assumed the former and answered it as such. What theories are present other than Caz being a miller? Considering she claimed miller in response to the guilty result, why would I not take that as the reason for my result once she'd flipped town?

Ok, I want to get this book thing sorted out. Why do you think it's such a big deal that Caz didn't know she'd have the book in her possession when no one else knows what they have either? flabort didn't know about the journal he has before TolyK revealed it, you haven't mentioned knowing about what I found on you, so why is it such an issue for Caz?

It's not a major issue actually--the issue is in your behavior in regards to such an item; it makes little sense in the flavor context of this game, and when compared to the legitimacy of the present standards--does not feel foolproof as a resolute evidence.

The MK and papers from the result had little to do with me continuing trying to get Caz lynched. Her role claim was poor at best and her replies were of nearly no use to the town. I would have been more than willing to believe her claim if she'd actually done something to back up her claim of being on the town's side, but she didn't.

That's because I'd already revealed it, at least twice. The German identification papers the were in Caz's pack yesterday and Mein Kampf again. You've obviously read at least on of the posts where I mentioned this before, since you quoted sections of it.

Duh
And yet in your next post...you say I had "Caz'" identification papers.
You confuse me -_-

You had a set of German identification papers. On closer inspection I found them to be the same papers I found on Caz the night before. That's why I think they support the evidence plant theory.

My concerns regarding you are more on your attitude through all this. You start the day with an emotional test out of all things--with the idea of...lacking confidence when you've an inspect result?

I waited because if I'd revealed that I didn't trust my own inspection result, trying to get a reaction out of Tiruin using it would have been kind of pointless.

Like this.
And on a semantic note--you're working two steps ahead of the question Persus gave:

Deus, I asked you for flavor at day start. Why did you wait?

Given the...orange part.

Lacking confidence in the result seems perfectly reasonable to me, considering what it was. On the other hand, I didn't want to take the chance that you might actually be scum and trying to spook you with just the guilty result seemed the best way to try get some indication of your alignment before giving you the out of saying that I'm clearly paranoid because of getting the same result for Caz. For Perseus... That's one step ahead at most.

I've already spoken about this, and have yet to receive anyone else's thoughts on the matter. The fact that MK turned up on both of my inspections made me think I was suffering from paranoia, but you having the same papers Caz did (and me noticing that) made me think that something else was in play and is the first piece of supporting evidence for the planting theory that I've seen so far (assuming you're not scum).

I think I missed something I need to reply to, but I'm in a bit of a rush. I'll get to it in a while.

...It'd be weird to see a paranoid cop seeing Mein Kampf all over the place. It's a big, darn book.

And you STILL didn't answer that one question regarding TOlyK. And on the 'wait until reveal'. ANd many other things... :I

I did answer the 'wait until reveal', you quoted the answer in the same post as you're claiming that I didn't answer it.

Compare myself and TolyK... You know that this is just filled with potential bias on my part, right?
- The inspection targets both seem reasonable. Caz was acting oddly on day 1, and a lot of people seemed suspicious of flabort's line of questioning.
- To be honest, I think revealing himself was a bad move on TolyK's part. For one thing, having a different revealed cop on the team that he could have verified without revealing himself would have guaranteed him another night to investigate in while I took the bullet. For another, if we have any doctors on the team, revealing that we have a second cop makes that doctor have to choose between which to protect. All in all, I think that TolyK could have kept his role a secret longer and benefited the town more. It's what I would have done if he'd revealed himself first.
- The results from our inspections would have made me more likely to go for flabort (since the Mein Kampf thing was a bit blatant, while journals and codes are more believable) but Caz's reaction made me stick with her.
- Of the two of us, I think TolyK was probably sane, though flabort's third party miller claim versus his result confuses the issue.

Oh crap I've lost a closing bracket for a quote somewhere...
[/quote]

[Teneb]

Replacement Request

Also unvote.

Distended belly is not fun.

If for whatever reason I've not been replaced once I've recovered, I'll jump back in again.

[flabort]

Best of luck recovering.

PFP Deus I won't deny that at some level I wanted to create an emotional reaction. Wasn't meant to be primarily AtE though.

[origamiscienceguy]

Caz
L
I trust Deus and the way he revealed his suspect immediately. TolyK seems a bit odd at this point, waiting for mastahcheese to reveal who he investigated. Even if one of you could be paranoid, I am leaning more towards framing due to the flavor. I also don't think there could be two cops, who both found miller N1. One of you four is lying. The other interesting thing is that both accused claim miller, which would be highly suspicious. Overall, something doesn't add up. Also that scruffle between TolyK, Caz, and me over that read from mastacheese seems more usefull now, since, hey, look at the people involved. TolyK will be my target tomprrow, he was dropping off my suspicion list, but now he is second from the top.

This just seems lackluster. You didn't give your reasons for why you thought Caz was guilty, you just seemed to jump on the bandwagon. You also don't seem to make any assertions as if you are trying not to anger anyone. Jumping on Caz seems like a good way to stay hidden as if you are 3rd party. Alternatively, you could be scum who just doesn't get along will with your buddies.