PFPDeus: One tiny mistake in your 'Caz is miller' theory. You inspected a book of Mein Kampf on her.
...How in the world would a Chinese soldier even get that kind of book?
Snippet short reply here for ya, but I really dislike that toxic snake-tone you're bringing there.
Other than the obvious note that Caz claimed miller--why are you only giving superficial data which does not explain a deeper level of thought regarding that kind of logic? [Esp. on the snarkasm with Caz....really. Wow >_>]
This post? I've to say, totally misses one crucial point despite displaying an enaction towards Caz being miller.
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.
Query: How do you consider flavor, in general games?
Then, how do you consider flavor--in bastard games?
...It's like I ramped up your defensiveness value by...like how Ghandi becomes a nuclear superpower in the Civ games when they try to go "peaceful". ._. Hilarious bug-in-game reference aside, there seems to be a discrepancy in viewpoint here.
A cop who's been confirmed as matching the other (confirmed) cop in his title and ability.
-Who outed himself for the town's benefit when he got a guilty result.
-Who found someone acting suspicious that claimed to be a miller.
-Said miller flipped town. (As for why I'm so certain she was a miller, check below)
And then this 'defensiveness' you're seeing. Because I asked you for the justification for a ridiculous question? That's not defensiveness, that's me trying to figure out why you're asking me a ridiculous question. Yes, I was sure that Caz was a miller, because she said she was a miller and got a guilty result when inspected by a cop in spite of being on the town's side
> Confirmed where? Exactly confirmed now?
> Outed,
why? I do hope you didn't miss my tidbit regarding asking
why you outed yourself so early, yes? (Well, it wasn't in interrogative form in my
wall of first big post)
But I am very curious as to why he outed himself as a cop, to reveal scum so early in a large game.
> And does the ends define the means? Meaning: Found someone
acting suspicious?
You said you found a MK book, and that's all I gleaned from it -_-
> And how is such a question, regarded as ridiculous? Either it seems the facade of a curious and judicious 'cop' is breaking, or that you're already judging a question by how you saw it rather than inquire as to why it was being asked.
'Tis a note of jumpiness I do hear from thee.
Do you mean the note in which I dismissed the planting evidence theory because it was only a theory with no supporting evidence, or the one in which I used it as one of the unlikely scenarios that would mean we didn't lose one of our cops in the night?
Dismissed why? Was the fact that you found a GERMAN BOOK...evidence enough? Explain how that doesn't lead onto supporting evidence?
While in normal games, I'd excuse the note of flavor--it is a general rule to not consider that kind of action in bastard games: (little) things must be analyzed, instead of discarded outright for the bigger details.
I honestly have no idea what any of this means.
> DA is cop.
> DA seems like somekind of flavor investigating cop.
> DA states he found Mein Kampf on Caz (and possible other stuffs), which as stated by Caz was not even known by her up there.
> 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.
I picked you because you were lurking, hadn't given any useful information in spite of promising to several times and therefore seemed a less likely candidate for scum to plant evidence on if you weren't one of them yourself, assuming that's even something they're capable of doing.
>_>
<_<
You didn't even bother to talk to me beforehand?! Like, seriously? Lurking!?
Yeah I got touchy because it was RL issues instead, but...the lack of any poke or...what. While it is understandably reasonable in certain contexts...
Why didn't you just poke me earlier? Or do something like:
4mask: Prod Tiruin {and whomever else I feel is lurking for activity}As for the phrasing when I voted for you, yes, I did want to get a reaction out of you.
And how'd you base a reaction like that? I'd have to warn that whichever reaction it is--it is a biased one by what you
expect rather than judicious analysis, given how you worded that question.
I mean, look at it open-mindedly; the 'reaction test' in that context does no good in telling one scumside or townside if the answer is...comical, or not taken to heart: and even then, it would continue onto follow up questions.
The fact that your defence seems to be lying through your teeth about what I said about the evidence planting theory and asking a strange and pointless question so that you can misrepresent me asking for your point as putting me on the defensive does little to convince me that my investigation of you got the wrong result.
...Defense whatnow? Lying..what?
...
You did recall Caz noting something regarding A SPECIFIC BOOK YOU FOUND, right?
Like, this thing right here? That book which
I have to restate was NOT talked about when Caz mentioned it in return response? You posted...right after her. And nothing came of it.
...Because this is seriously what I define as you being jumpy. I mean, before you accuse someone of 'lying through your teeth', you could do best to look up your own words too. Especially in an accusatory tone which you're leveling out of vagueness there.
Thinking a bit here..
.PFP
Author
Topic: Operation Overlord, Day Five: Game Over! Town, Town-Ally, and Survivor Victory! (Read 112438 times)