Print

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

[hector13]

Did you visit FoU last night?

I targeted myself...

[TheBiggerFish]

Huh.  Okay, I rescind my earlier statement.

[TheBiggerFish]

I don't think my action has worked, but that's just bad luck.

[Starver]

Summary:
Fallacy = Not actioned
Fish = Not working
Hector = Not reliable
Moonlit = Not useful
Me = Not convinced

This is a fun round...

Risky partial revelation time: I have a primary and secondary person in my action. N0, my secondary was Fish. Did anything happen that perhaps I can fill in more gaps around, whilst also reconfirming that I'm not self-deluded by hidden-auto/Super Secret stuff?

[TheBiggerFish]

I didn't see anything, Starver.

[Starver]

That is how it probably should be, but that just rules out one of my "how I could be wrong" ideas, not differentiate between my assumed role and the other "...but if I'm wrong" one.  It partially confirms that my secondary is a 'not Visiting' action, if you didn't notice. And, yes, I'm aware that I'm revealing some scumish role details.

I'm reluctant to say what happened last night. Depending on who is lying/mistaken, I could be opening myself to dangeous counter-claim (whether or bad or good faith). Did nobody notice me, last night? One particular person should perhaps have, depending on the (in)accuracy of their own role, and then with Fish's help the rest should start to unpack.

(BTW, I'm worried about the no-killing situation. Bodes for a more bastard scum role, this round.)

[TheBiggerFish]

Did anybody act on hector N0?

[FallacyofUrist]

hector: You were all for lynching me yesterday. What changed?
~~~
My personal theory is that everybody has a role in the previous round that their own role parallels significantly. Case in point my role.
Would you say that is true for your role? (talking to everybody)
~~~

[TheBiggerFish]

Hrm.  Possibly.  Ish.

[Starver]

As already given.

Anyway, there's (at least) two roles in the last round that together provide components of my role this time. (But not my own last-game role.) If this is not obviously refelected amongst everyone else, I suspect it might still be with another Super Secret Squirrel thing involved. To hat's^[!] my best guess at the moment. Anybody want to defer from that?

^[!] EBWOthisP: "That's"


More recently revealed, the Primary/Secondary aspect of my actions.

[hector13]

hector: You were all for lynching me yesterday. What changed?

Obviously someone hasn't been reading. I got a bit of a shock upon discovering that my action may not be reliable shortly before I posted.

Perhaps you should explain your OMGUS, though?

My personal theory is that everybody has a role in the previous round that their own role parallels significantly. Case in point my role.

It's not really a case nor a point if you don't actually provide your role. /pedant

... but only pedantic to a point. Why are you role fishing?

[Starver]

I'm role-fishing at least as much, you know.  Dangling my own answers (or promises of them) as bait. Nobody's biting yet. Which is frustrating when I'm trying to find the one person with most to hide.

Almost tempted to get myself lynched, tell everything and let my roleflip confirm (or correct, if I'm squirreling) my own claim, at this rate.

Anyone got a better idea.

[hector13]

I disagree, but I'm more interested in your views on FoU. You seem to think he's town, seein' as how you're defending him. What makes you think that?

[Starver]

Simply, I trust Fallacy more than I trust certain others. Limited data, and necessarily minimalist assumptions behind that, but it's my position. Even if I don't yet have much to say that would convince anyone.

I'm really rather keen to give you all more of my data, but I'd rather have something I can contradict and be killed/roleflipped for than risk being accomodated by a enemy willing to bend their own 'truth' to what I say.

"Is this a high-risk scum-plan?", I think (most of) you are thinking.  I can't prove its not. Yet. Someone might be a bit scared, though. The dawdling is killing me, though, even if nobody else is.

26 more hourse, yes?

[FallacyofUrist]

It's not really a case nor a point if you don't actually provide your role.

... but only pedantic to a point. Why are you role fishing?

... One. I'm not role fishing. If I were, I would have asked a different question. My question is simple: is there a role in the previous round that your own role parallels in some way? Now, as scum, how am I supposed to use that? I wouldn't say that's usable. Unless you have any ideas for how scum could use that?
Two. I'm not role fishing. Not all asking questions about other players' roles is role fishing.

Three. I'll provide my role if you provide your role. Deal? In any case, I shouldn't need to provide my whole role to say that there's a role in the previous round my own role parallels.
~~~

Obviously someone hasn't been reading. [1] I got a bit of a shock upon discovering that my action may not be reliable shortly before I posted.

[2] Perhaps you should explain your OMGUS, though?

[1]: Unless your action's result was why you voted me on day one, that shouldn't have changed anything.
[2]: Not all votes for the person who is voting you are OMGUSes. An OMGUS is a "knee jerk" reaction by a player who has just been voted, in which they vote the voter in question, saying that the person voting them must be scum because of said vote. I, however, though I voted you for your vote on me, it wasn't the vote that got me against you, but rather why it was placed, and what it seemed to imply. You voted me for asking a question... about a small aspect of the other players' roles. It seemed like a bit of an overreaction, plus it seemed like you were trying to hop onto any bit of potential scumminess you could find in order to speed a lynch through without giving the other players much thought.
~~~
I await your rebuttal.