Print

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

[Tomasque]

Bonus Round - Night 2
 A consensus was reached. For the second time, the punishment was carried out. There was no triumph in the eyes of the monsters, only the grim knowledge it could have gotten worse. Soon they would find out just how much.

FallacyofUrist (0)
hector13 (1) - Starver
Starver (0)
The Moonlit Shadow (2) - FallacyofUrist, hector13

[Tomasque]

Bonus Round - Day 3
 The killings stopped. Life returned to normal - almost. While some believed they had rid themselves of the evil among them, others still thought they were in danger. They were right.

 (ergh... I really want to reference more of Undertale in this flavor text, but it could give away the roles still in the game!)

Votecount
hector13 (0)
FallacyofUrist (0)
Starver (0)
The Moonlit Shadow (0)

[FallacyofUrist]

Okay hector13. As per yesterday's reasoning, you're the scum.

NYEH HEH HEH HEH!
~~~
But why do I feel I'm missing something?

[FallacyofUrist]

I used Blue Attack on hector13. The fact that he's still alive means he took no action last night. Coincidentally(not), there was no kill last night.
Maybe he was telling the truth in his first claim(Chara)?
~~~
The Moonlit Shadow: why do you think I'm the Evil role?
Why do you not think hector13 is the Evil role?
What is your new role(if you're willing to tell)?

Having considered that FoU and Starver are unlikely to be collaborating as evil roles, and I'm not sure FoU, if he was evil,  would be willing to risk that Starver has an action at the end of D1/start of D2, that it's more probably than not that they're both telling the truth.

Thus, Moonlit should get stripped.

And why, considering my reasoning from yesterday, and the fact that the game isn't over, do you think hector is not the Evil role? He's the only one left! Starver and I basically confirmed each other as not having preformed the kill, leaving you and hector, you just had your role changed, leaving hector. Only hector's left as the possible Evil role. So why do you not think he's Evil? I need an explanation here.

[FallacyofUrist]

Hector is Asriel. It was in my role name, and I think I can trust it. I didn't have a role that is easily fooled. Especially with the lore behind it.

I don't have anything to say to that. You can't prove it, but it could still be true.

I can vote for him now, however.

Because of your new role?

How do you know Hector doesn't have an action?

I don't know that. I do, however, know that he took no action last night, because he's not dead. I used Blue Attack on him, which would have killed him if he took an action. He took no action, and there was no kill last night. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

After all, you have a kill.

Which only works if my target takes an action. It's basically been verified that I didn't preform the kill N1(and still, how did TBF die with that Mercy auto?), seeing as I confirmed Starver took no action...
~~~
I have been frustrated.

Okay.

What would I need to do in order to convince you to vote Hector?

[FallacyofUrist]

For the second time, TBF's Mercy ability wasn't an auto. It was a one-shot target.

Actually, apparently it's not 1-shot, but it is a targeted ability... sorry.
My bad.
~~~

What would I need to do in order to convince you to vote Hector?

Question repeated.

[hector13]

FoU

And why, considering my reasoning from yesterday, and the fact that the game isn't over, do you think hector is not the Evil role? He's the only one left! Starver and I basically confirmed each other as not having preformed the kill, leaving you and hector, you just had your role changed, leaving hector. Only hector's left as the possible Evil role. So why do you not think he's Evil? I need an explanation here.

You're left as well, actually. For all we know, you have an auto that can tell you if someone can take a night action. All Starver's confirmation of his night action on N1 tells us is he didn't take an action on N1. You then claimed you used a"blocking" role on someone who doesn't have a night action, and really killed TBF. /speculation

My role has been confirmed by another player even after they were lynched. The fact the game hasn't ended tells us Moonlit wasn't the Evil role, so why would he lie about confirming my role as neutral or town, and then after his role has been wiped?

Hector is Asriel. It was in my role name, and I think I can trust it. I didn't have a role that is easily fooled. Especially with the lore behind it.

I don't have anything to say to that. You can't prove it, but it could still be true.

You can't prove your role either, but you still expect us to take your word on it. Why do you expect us to accept your word but not Moonlit's?

How do you know Hector doesn't have an action?

I don't know that. I do, however, know that he took no action last night, because he's not dead. I used Blue Attack on him, which would have killed him if he took an action. He took no action, and there was no kill last night. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Confirmation bias if you're town. I don't have an action to take, which is why I didn't take an action. You don't seem willing to accept any argument that doesn't portray me as scum, FoU. This is bothersome.

My only thoughts regarding the NK was it was a one-shot, or that it was Moonlit what did it. The latter is less likely seeing as he was wiped yesterday and the game hasn't ended... unless he was a neutral murder role or something.

Moonlit: can you tell us anything about your previous role? Did you do the NK?

After all, you have a kill.

Which only works if my target takes an action. It's basically been verified that I didn't preform the kill N1(and still, how did TBF die with that Mercy auto?), seeing as I confirmed Starver took no action...

Nonsense. As I said above, Starver confirmed he took no action, but how does that prove your claim of a "blocking" role that kills? Heck, since nobody you claimed to have "blocked" has died, we don't even know if your claimed ability works!

The only reason I'm not voting you right now is because I'm also unsure about Starver. He didn't respond to my points about his vote on me, which could be because he was busy, or because he's scum and doesn't care.

It's obvious to me that one of you is the scum, I just need to figure out which one...


Starver

I need a response to this post. Also your thoughts on what is happening.

[Starver]

I'll give my reasons for missing this at round-end, for now just my apologies.

I claimed Chara, probably the most evil character in the game. Indeed, the genocide run basically forces the idea that you, the player, are the real monster because you murder everything.

That's one interpretation of any game.  I've played a DOOM-themed Mafia where 'town' are the demons,a gainst the nasty DOOMGuy, and another where 'town' was a DoomGuy squad.

I was pissed about people claiming stuff on D1 all the time that ends up breaking the game for town

I don't like claiming D1, but I don't like no useful information D1.  It's a dilemma, isn't it.  Fully polarised in either direction is bad.

As Moonlit has said, he has confirmed my Asriel claim.

Confirmed that Asriel is mentioned in the role.  Given the nature of role-replacement, it doesn't confirm that Asriel exists from the beginning in the player-pool, just that it can (if it happens at all!) find itself there.  And it depends on how the mentioned occurs.  c.f. also the Captain's 'ability' to not be usurped by the Politician, last round.  Politician dies first, and there's nothing worthwhile there.

We've had 8 (or 9?) rounds prior to this in which there has been only one Evil role per game.

I'm not ruling anything out.  From what I've just seen, it looks like you're trying to ship me and FoU (I can only give FoU the benefit of the doubt, but that's the best I had for the whole lot, and FoU's 'read' on me depends on there not being two Evils of course).  I wouldn't rule out double-evil.  Or the possibility of multi-evils through a non-evil lynching bing replaced with an evil whilst another evil (original or lynch-replaced) already existing.

It's a single-player game, so I suppose if it's definite that Human Player is the Evil then there's only one.  But there's so much about the game I don't understand (the different Routes through the game) that there's a possibility of parallelism of 'player-Evil', if that's what it actually is in the first place.  Depends on the round config.  And if human is evil, then perhaps I'm now not looking at Moonlit as suspicious.

• Accepting the alibis (one actually apparently dead, one who would be unlikely to be accurate about my inactivity and be a bad guy), there's just two people to vote for.

Where did I accept FoU's alibi? I demand quotes for this, brah.

If I accept FoU's alibi... as discussed above.  Why would I be trying to persuade you that there's just you and Moonlit to vote for?  Makes no sense to read it that way.

How do you expect me to question a dead man? How do you expect me to vote for a dead man, who isn't even in the vote count?

What makes you think TBF isn't dead? Mod-confirmed NK. Tomasque hasn't lead us astray in a game with his pronouncements yet.

I know I made an error with this bit, but not sure whether whether you were referring to the older, wronger opinion from before I was disabused of that notion when you said this.  My fault for having had some huge absences.

I actually don't like that you voted someone because I said I'd be fucked off if you didn't.

So, I should have just left you fucked off with me by doing nothing (changing nothing) rather than having you not liking how I voted by voting as I did (changing nothing)...  Let me file that away for future reference.

You essentially wasted your vote to spare my feelings. Does that sound like a well supported argument for a vote?

If my 'sway to emotion' would have counted, then I probably wouldn't then have swayed to mere emotion and clearly explained this.  That's not to say I might not have done the same thing and let you know why, but I'd have had to dig deep for reason - and made it more likely that I'd have timed out on the day before I actually found one.  Something that seemed to be unimportant given that that your overriding need appeared to be that I make an ineffectual vote rather than an ineffectual non-vote and I had no reason not to oblige, no matter what my background motives could have been...

One criticism I have of your posting style is that it is absolutely not clear. You're thoughts are all over the place, with asides in parentheses.

YMDV, obviously.  Unless I have accidentally messed up some opening/closing of nested parentheses (not just once-enclosed (but twice), that is), especially, then it's surely not that hard to read.  Easier to read than the nested comma-subclaused versions. While we're being critical it should be "Your thoughts", in your quote.  But please admonish me of my own error that I have made in this comment, then move on.

Brevity is the watchword in mafia, which is something you are not.

And I often worry I've said too much.  I've said very little this round, as well, for which I have already apologised, so again I seem caught between a rock and a hard place.

Starver's reasons for voting me appear to be utterly nonsense. Looks like he's looking for any old thing to try to get me lynched, which is either confirmation bias as town, or scum trying to convince the rest of you for a mislynch.

In other words... you have no good evidence either way.  I don't envy you...


{And now I shall look at Day 3's development.}

[Starver]

I'm in a huge dilemma here. I think FoU and Starver are a duo evil role, or FoU is not lying but is still the Evil role (he does have a kill after all).

(Fixed your tag for you, just for neatness.)  I know I'm not, but I was convinced that you and Hector were both Evil so double-evils are a possibility that I'm prepared to believe so I can't ask you not to....

Hector: Still careful of you, but I don't think you are Evil.

I still do, but now for reasons that follow...

I think that you [FoU] might be the Evil role. After all, you have a kill.

There's non-scum kill-skills possible, of course.  Especially if this is intended to be a 'combat orientated' sub-game for both sides of the equation.  I'm only just now beginning to realise part of what's going on.

The fact the game hasn't ended tells us Moonlit wasn't the Evil role,

I'm not sure that's what's supposed to happen, this game.  At one point I was even torn between the idea of an "evil-less" and a "multi-evil" game-setup.  Ignoring the fact that Lynch-replacements can change an evil-now-killed game into a different-evil-reappears game, seemingly at the (pre-planned) whim of the mod.  **brain asplode**

Starver

I need a response to this post. Also your thoughts on what is happening.

Done first part above. Second part now fully revised and shifted to below!

...ummm - this came in whilst I was editing...

@Hector: I was actually the Evil role - I was Chara. That's how I know you aren't. Yes, I did the Nightkill, and my auto was that I couldn't vote for you as long as you were Asriel.

Confirmation that (one!) Evil Killed isn't Round Ended...  I also know that you're not now Human, but there's precious little time for anyone to make any use of this information.

@FoU: Also, I know that you couldn't have done the kill with your ability. Hector needs to do something scummy for me to vote him, and Starver needs to back you up. I don't know if the round actually ends tonight, so... anyway, what Hector said was right as well.

IIRC, this is a three-day round, but I can't immediately find the WoG quote right now, in my scroll-down.

@Starver: I 'forget' who you are and what you do. Please tell me 'again'.

Undyne.  Guard.  I didn't say anything more.  But on the basis that there's no harm in revealing more fully (I don't think I've got more opportunities to do anything, anyway) 'what I do' is that if I find a human, at night, I kill them.

I had no information N1 (did nothing, and FoU found/guessed that I did nothing). I used best guess of "it's a replacement Human" N2 and checked you (now claiming to have been Human, but I didn't even know that at first) and found that (after the lynch-replace) you are not one.  You can take that as a confirmation/guess, as you wish.

Thoughts on everyone else.
Fallacy - Willing to believe has the suggested skill.  Willing to believe that (if not in a two-Evils scenario) this exonerates them from being the Evil one.
Moonlit - Willing to believe that you are not now human.  Willing to believe that this means that you are not Evil.
Fish - Dead as one now shot in a barrel.  If I'd have Guarded against (lynch-replacement) Frisk, N1 then Fallacy would have killed me, so I suppose I can't complain that I missed this one, although it would have been nice to have been randomly right.
Hector - Seems almost deliberately 'no read' in nature, but still seems intent on stirring up dissent.  If not Chara (and real Chara wasn't originally inclined to argue?) then definitely something funny going on there.  I'm voting Hector, but everyone else needs to consider their own information (and personal (current) motivations), of course.

[Meta-wise, the only thing I've been ruling out in this game is Masonic groups.  Because anyone who knows sufficient about fellow members in this game could have been lynch-replaced to become an anti-Masonic/rivaling-Masonic character but now with privileged information.  There's ways for this to be handled, such as hold-over win conditions that apply to the new character, but that makes things too complicated.]

BTW, consider that none of the above (revelation/thoughts) helps me.  May actively hurt me if things don't end like they should.  I'm giving what I'm giving to you, therefore, as a gift.  Hopefully to the town in general.  If it's not worse than that already.

[hector13]

Fallacy - Willing to believe has the suggested skill.  Willing to believe that (if not in a two-Evils scenario) this exonerates them from being the Evil one.

Why, on both counts?

Moonlit - Willing to believe that you are not now human.  Willing to believe that this means that you are not Evil.

And again, why? There are evil monsters in the game, cha know.

Hector - Seems almost deliberately 'no read' in nature, but still seems intent on stirring up dissent.  If not Chara (and real Chara wasn't originally inclined to argue?) then definitely something funny going on there.  I'm voting Hector, but everyone else needs to consider their own information (and personal (current) motivations), of course.

Not sure what you mean by "deliberately no read". I've said I'm scum reading both you and FoU, and that given Moonlit's wipe, he's not the Evil role. Seems like reads to me.

Also, what "dissent" am I stirring up?

Moonlit also claimed Chara, post-lynch, so why would there be copies of the same role in the game?

FoU

Starver

@Hector: I was actually the Evil role - I was Chara. That's how I know you aren't. Yes, I did the Nightkill, and my auto was that I couldn't vote for you as long as you were Asriel.

Two points here. How does Moonlit claiming the NK fit into FoU's narrative that I performed the NK and am obvscum?

How does Moonlit's claim to have performed the NK and confirmed my role as Asriel fit into Starver's narrative that I'm obvscum?

Are you both completely ignore it because it doesn't fit your theory?

Moonlit: what can you tell us about your new role?

[Starver]

I don't need to explain myself to you @Hector, because it's other people who I need to convince (rightly or wrongly; correctly, incorrectly or even as a diversion), but for the sake of openness I will do anyway.

@everybodyelse: Make of it what you will.  I could be wrong (mistaken/misspeaking), but it's what I'm saying.

@Tomasque: Yeah, I normally give you this level of analysis (or an interpretation of it) in private.  Decided not to fill up your Inbox so much, as well as the problems I had.

@all: Yeah, it's long.  But it's in response to a long multi-part question (from the person who doesn't like complicated posts!) who will doubtless require that I immediately address any point that I missed mentioning.

Fallacy - Willing to believe has the suggested skill.  Willing to believe that (if not in a two-Evils scenario) this exonerates them from being the Evil one.

Why, on both counts?

The suggested skill: because the results of its action meshed with what only I knew, when first told, letting me confirm it with a statement (that nobody is obliged to take at face value) that all is so..  Had I actually Guarded someone (not an unreasonable thing to consider) I could have disproven a fakeclaim in this regard.  At least to myself.  So, on balance, it seems reasonable to consider the declaration true (as far as it goes), rather than a fabrication.
The exoneration: If we aren't stacked to the gills with Evil roles (both in the initial distribution and their prospective lynch-replacements), the chances of the aforementioned probably-not-outright-lying Fallacy being Evil as well reduces even further.
Really has to be compared to all other opinions of other roles (e.g. if everyone else was definitely a good-guy, then least-unscummy would be likely scum), but with the benefit of already knowing what I think about the rest of the cast-list I can declare that scuminess is well below mean or median averages...

(Were I not willing to confirm the situation - or even could wish to rubbish Fallacy - it would have also been easy.  If, from my POV, it's 90% chance that Fallacy is both correct and not scum, then everyone who is not me/Fallacy has now to consider the possibility that we are in evil alliance.  25% chance of that means that I'm 25% likely-evil, whilst Fallacy is 25%+(75%*10%)=32.5% likely-evil.  But those figures are plucked out of nowhere, does not include the very low possibilities that I'm Evil but am helping a non-Evil, instead of being non-Evil but inadvertently assisting the (or 'an') Evil.)

Moonlit - Willing to believe that you are not now human.  Willing to believe that this means that you are not Evil.

And again, why? There are evil monsters in the game, cha know.

Yes, but from whose perspective?  Also (rightly or wrongly) I have been influenced by the precise wording of the Mod message.  If I'm wrong, I shall rightly blame the Mod at the end.  But the one thing I do know is the humanity (or lack thereof) of now!Moonlit.
Actual relative scuminess assessment hovers around the 'neutral' level, barring some actual useful revelation that might change my mind.

Hector - Seems almost deliberately 'no read' in nature, but still seems intent on stirring up dissent.  If not Chara (and real Chara wasn't originally inclined to argue?) then definitely something funny going on there.  I'm voting Hector, but everyone else needs to consider their own information (and personal (current) motivations), of course.

Not sure what you mean by "deliberately no read". I've said I'm scum reading both you and FoU, and that given Moonlit's wipe, he's not the Evil role. Seems like reads to me.

Also, what "dissent" am I stirring up?

Moonlit also claimed Chara, post-lynch, so why would there be copies of the same role in the game?
[/quote]Last point first: Originally I thought you were correctly claiming Chara (before retracting), and that was part of my original assessment.
Now I know think your replacement claim is either correct (the character who is notoriously bloodthirsty, a SOUL stealer, teams up with humans, one of whom is known to be Evil, etc, etc, etc) or else it is yet another fakeclaim, in which case ^whoknows?...

As for 'no read', I've done it myself (for various reasons), and I'll do it again no doubt and your sense of "Oi! I don't like all these questions!" goes far enough to appear to want to suppress all enquiry.  Not to a sensible amount¹, but in a general refusal to partake in a democratic sharing of information.  Given how little information I had given out, myself, and yet had at least tried to join in (external actions aside), your trying to suppress all current/future discussions of this sort looks more like a motive.

But you're the only person allowed to scum-read, naturally, by listening to what information we spill.  And I've now spilled far more information than should be necessary.

And I was doing a lot of 'scum-reading', whilst Scum myself, last round.  Not everything I thought (or 'thought up') was said out loud, but I had a whole lot of 'reading' on why it was... Moonlit, I think... who I 'thought' was the more likely villain on the Spaceship.  And barely anyone read me at all!  I even nearly replied to one too-casual mention by yourself that it was possible that I was Evil... I even saved the post I never actually ended up posting...

Starver isn't clear. Starver could be scum.

You couldn't discount it, certainly, if you didn't have the absolute knowledge that only I have about myself.  But as far as I'm concerned, we've probably got a Neutral hiding in plain sight amongst you lot, as well as the real Evil.  Such that they'd find it hard (but not impossible!) to 'fess up and perhaps save themselves...

You also can't (by open game knowledge) say that Moonlit's not Evil because of the lynch-replace.  The first lynch-replace created an Evil role.  My own best guess, Night 2, was that the second lynch-replace would do something similar.  I could be wrong about the non-Evilness - but I know I'm not wrong about this one not being Human...


¹ Off-round analysis, for general information only:
You're right about the Driver reveal being useful to me, in the Car Journey round.  I can't actually remember whether it changed where I was heading for, but it gave me the opportunity to realise what it was I was supposed to do, to actually win that game.
The Astigmatism one in the Spaceship round certainly helped me stay sneaky, although I was very wary about that one, I was expecting it as a trap by a non-weak character trying to lure me into revealing myself - perhaps even with the aid of a Bulletproofness skill.  (Actually, I recall being suspicious that the Driver claim, above, was also a deliberate misdirection for my benefit.)
I also thought that learning who the Captain was in the Spaceship round was useful, at the time, but it looks like it actually wasn't. (Mod knows for sure, but my reading of it is still leaning that way.)

@Hector: I was actually the Evil role - I was Chara. That's how I know you aren't. Yes, I did the Nightkill, and my auto was that I couldn't vote for you as long as you were Asriel.

Two points here. How does Moonlit claiming the NK fit into FoU's narrative that I performed the NK and am obvscum?

It doesn't, but that's not my (current) narrative.

How does Moonlit's claim to have performed the NK and confirmed my role as Asriel fit into Starver's narrative that I'm obvscum?

Your being confirmed as Asriel doesn't even help your own case.  It hurts it.  At least for me, from what little I do know of the Lore - should Lore actually count for anything.

But you're also moreobvthananyoneelsescum because of other things.

[Starver]

EBWOP - section half way down where I messed up quote-levels.

Hector - Seems almost deliberately 'no read' in nature, but still seems intent on stirring up dissent.  If not Chara (and real Chara wasn't originally inclined to argue?) then definitely something funny going on there.  I'm voting Hector, but everyone else needs to consider their own information (and personal (current) motivations), of course.

Not sure what you mean by "deliberately no read". I've said I'm scum reading both you and FoU, and that given Moonlit's wipe, he's not the Evil role. Seems like reads to me.

Also, what "dissent" am I stirring up?

Moonlit also claimed Chara, post-lynch, so why would there be copies of the same role in the game?

Last point first: Originally I thought you were correctly claiming Chara (before retracting), and that was part of my original assessment.
Now I know think your replacement claim is either correct (the character who is notoriously bloodthirsty, a SOUL stealer, teams up with humans, one of whom is known to be Evil, etc, etc, etc) or else it is yet another fakeclaim, in which case ^whoknows?...

[...and then onwards as before, but also "Now I know think..." should just be "Now I think...", while I'm EBWOPing, although it was originally "Now I know this, I now think..."]

[FallacyofUrist]

I DON'T EVEN.
~~~
First of all... Moonlit claimed the kill. Okay, I can accept that. Okay... so yesterday, we lynched Moonlit, meaning that today, he's most likely not Evil.
If Moonlit turns out to be evil at the end of this round, my head is going to break slightly.
~~~
So now I know(basically for certain) that Starver didn't preform the kill.
~~~
Okay. So basically, Moonlit was Evil, according to him, now he's not.
Assuming, again, that Moonlit didn't become evil, the only two possible remaining choices for Evil are Hector and Starver, both of whom are voting each other(am I right?).
Neither Starver nor Hector has been hit with the lynch yet, meaning that if either of them is Evil, then the Evil role was Evil from the start. Meaning two Evil roles at the start of the game. Wow.

So if the remaining Evil role didn't preform the kill...
dangit, Starver is no longer effectively confirmed town anymore.
~~~
Hector, Starver: Please state your cases against each other, preferably in 3 sentences each or less. For my sake. Also, I will unvote Hector for the moment.

[Starver]

Hector, Starver: Please state your cases against each other, preferably in 3 sentences each or less. For my sake. Also, I will unvote Hector for the moment.

1) The practical evidence is that from our (non-)interaction, I've ruled out you (perhaps wrongly) and from a further (non-killing) interaction I've ruled out Moonlit's new role (perhaps more/differently wrongly), whilst Hector remains either uncleaned or unwhitewashed, whichever it is for the others...
2) The evidence from Lore is that (of those roles we still know, i.e. not Hector), I think I should dislike the activities of Asriel more, when it comes to picking sides.
3) The 'feeling' evidence is that Hector is just obfuscating more (or just more obviously!) than anyone else.

Those are your three sentences, but further to an earlier bit:

Assuming, again, that Moonlit didn't become evil, the only two possible remaining choices for Evil are Hector and Starver, both of whom are voting each other(am I right?).

A: I cannot rule out Moonlit being Evil [and Moonlit, for whatever reason, is not giving me anything new on this], but if I'm not totally wrong/misled about you from the start then I'm personally drawn towards the conclusion that I've made.
B: My take on the vote-count is that with your original vote (now recanted), on Hector, Moonlit's vote for you and my vote for Hector it's 1 each for you and Hector.  But I might have Hector's vote for me that you seem to have counted from somewhere.

[Starver]

'what I do' is that if I find a human, at night, I kill them.

This is hugely suspicious...

Definitely.  This would worry humans.  Of any alignment!  I was worried that it would worry town-aligned humans.  (Or get non-town humans to violently dislike me, on principle, and want to lynch me.)  But it's a night-skill (or a night's-kill, if you will!) and unless we have another delaying-Captain analogue (WoG said otherwise... or so I'm hoping that I correctly remember!) I can't hurt anyone so nobody should have reason to get rid of me because of my declared skill, at this point in the game.  They can only dislike me because of a win-condition that requires the death of me-as-Undyne in general.

the only reason I'm not voting you is because you would've used your ability N1 if you were scum,

Indeed, I had no reason to target anyone N1 nor any practical clue whom to target.  It turns out that I could have targeted your (now lost role of) Chara, if that was truly who you were before your lynch-replace.  And I could have targeted Fish and his lynch-replace (that immediately died by your apparent hand, so not sure if I'd have done anything).  But there was no known reason to do so.  I nearly targeted Hector for the (now declared false) Chara declaration, which seems like it would have done nothing but kill me (courtesy of Fallacy).  As it would had I 'aimed true'.  (I did not even know of this potential danger.)

I already explained that I targeted you last night in your (post-Chara) ability, on the assumption that one replaced-by-human switch might be followed by a second replaced-by-human switch (if it's like a game, player-character incarnations jumping in when someone dies isn't unbelievable, and it was the easiest pattern to derive from the single/partial datum-point we'd so far had).  And you survived.  If I did get opportunity to target you tonight (and for some reason wanted to repeat my failure), you'd survive again.

That's my claim, for all the good it'll do me.

Admittedly, humans aren't always good in Undertale, because it's not humans vs monsters.

I think it's more complex, anyway.  I'm falling back upon Humans being targets for me purely because of what my role says.  I don't know how much Tomasque has mixed things up, but as the only surviving replaced-role holder, you aren't human and you might as well be good for all the good (NPI!) it does me.

But [your role, Moonlit] said I couldn't vote Hector as long as he was Asriel... if what you say is the case, then wouldn't it be that I can't vote for anyone with the Asriel role?

I'm going by what I understand you said about your role.  I understand it to have been "You cannot vote for..." (maybe "your vote will not count for" or "your vote will backfire upon if you try to vote for"?) "...any player who is Asriel".  If your role specifically named Hector as having the role of Asriel... that'd be something strangely specific and I'd be more likely to start disbelieving your whole story than modifying anything of what you said.

The quote you quoted was in response to Hector's claim that "As Moonlit has said, he has confirmed my Asriel claim." prior to your declaration of having been originally Chara when I was still seriosuly considering his withdrawn 'claim' that way.  I was trying to say there that Asriel being named in your role-spec (as I understood it: see above!) does not prove Hector as Asriel (just the possibility of an Asriel!).

Even if it does prove Hector as Asriel, it doesn't prove Hector as non-Scum.  As already mentioned, the Captain had the Politician as an aligned 'backup', ready to take over on the Town side.  Perhaps Asriel has(/had) Chara as an aligned backup, ready to take over on the Scum side.  (This is a further black mark against Hector.  But assuming Tomasque is doing as I understood he was doing, and is not assigning replacement roles based upon alignment of the roles being lynched-out, it has no linkable consequences towards your own current role, so you're still 'meh' and Hector is still 'bah!')

Hector: I am not going to tell you my role because it will not help town. I am Town Weakness.

I know this was not to me, but I expected as such. (That you wouldn't tell.  Regardless of whether Weak, Special Neutral or Evil. That you claim Weak adds no new info and you're still sitting in 'not as scummy as Hector' territory so I'm willing to listen to you even though I don't think there's anywhere left to go, today/this round.)


(I think, on balance, I should have gotten myself lynched, Day 1.  I would have gotten to see what a second role was.  Although that role would have been Frisk, and I might have been targeted by presumably-your-Chara for the same reason that Fish/Frisk was, for the same permadeath...  Perhaps only you can answer that conceptual permutation.)