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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.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?
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
Also...err, on the lurking thing..its more of a personal thingy than anything else >_< Sorry for bringing it up. I'd ask that we drop the discussion regarding the lurking part. <_<