Print

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

[Starver]

I don't think I will benefit from any outcome.  I don't even know that I'm looking in the right direction, for scum, but as a reiteration, open for comments:

I have a personal conviction that Fallacy is either not Scum, was never the only Scum or else just deserves the credit for not being so through sheer audacity. This is a POV I can't convey to anyone else, unmuddied by doubt, but it is my current position.

If Moonlit is currently a non-Human who is yet adverse to the 'verse we're in (rather than the claimed Weak one) then Moonlit could yet be scum.  But with no claim likely to come through I'm left with Moonlit sitting on my fence, on this one.

Hector's (serious, rather than original and now apparently frivolous) claim looks favoured as worst for the world, to my eyes, but see below.

(Whatever you think of me, Fallacy knows I did nothing N1 which seems to rely upon there being a double-Evil from the start to make me a bad guy.  Moonlit, you know that I've at least guesed that you're not Human now, and said so.  And I can't see why you're holding back about this if I was lying about having found this out and also wrong, or not grasping at it as 'proof' that you're on the good side if I was truthful but mistaken about the alignment part.)


However, I'm disappointed that nobody has yet explained to me the proof that Hector says he has copiously given.  I haven't seen/understood the suitable proof Hector says he has given, and nobody else has said "Ah, yes, I see.  I understand now."

Fallacy has had doubts, obviously.  Even Moonlit, who proclaims Fallacy as scum, seems not to want to tell me why I should not consider Hector.  (That might be explained if Moonlit has motivations for not explaining, obviously, and I've even put those into my assessment, but so far they aren't swinging the balance too far in the wrong direction for Moonlit.)  All in all, that's confusing, along with several statements you've made.  And I've missed the reasoning for Fallacy being scum, too.   You must therefore have seen something in what was said that I'm just missing.  Either that, or you don't want to, which begs other questions that I'm yet to resolve.

I'm quite open for reasons why I should switch.  Either away from Hector or towards another.  But as Hector hasn't managed to give reasons, that I understand/comprehend/identify, why not to vote Hector, I was always trying to politely request a lack of baseless "No don't vote me!" posts from that direction.  I'll always explain my own position, I might even say it'd be a bad idea to lynch me (whether or not that's the case, naturally), but I do try to avoid contextless "No don't vote me!" posts, myself.

Also, in the event that Hector actually has not yet explained his innocence to the world at large (so that at least one friendly face can re-explain the innocence in my uncomprehending direction, but better) I was wanting Hector to explain himself to the others.

So @Moonlit Why is Hector not scum?  ...for 'starters', although this it's hardly the start of this whole affair.

(I bet Secret abilities, perhaps still unrevealed, are a key to this whole affair, but of course we won't get to see those until the round ends, so that's speculation at best.)

[hector13]

You're obviously open to me being town, that's why you're completely ignoring everything I say.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Starver]

You're obviously open to me being town, that's why you're completely ignoring everything I say.

Because I can't work out what you've said...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Doesn't show on my machine...  Either incorrectly copied or my ISP is filtering 'meme.am' silently.

[hector13]

Is the Obama "seems legit" meme.

If you don't tell me what bits don't make sense, I can't clarify them for you or anyone else, can I? At the risk of sounding like my 3/4th Year maths teacher:

"If you don't understand it, chances are someone else doesn't either, so put your hand up and ask about it"

[Starver]

Is the Obama "seems legit" meme.

Missing nothing, then.  (Probably part of my ISP's unannounced 'Adult Filter', because of what the site might be serving.  On past experience.)

If you don't tell me what bits don't make sense, I can't clarify them for you or anyone else, can I?

It's not that bits don't make sense, it's that I don't see anything to make sense of, for the large part.

Tell you what, let's try this...

Spoiler: Post list (click to show/hide)

Day 1 Start
Hector with meta-question.
Tomasque with answer.
Fish starts posting in/as Sans.
Moonlit has meta-question.
Fish conjectures.
Moonlit queries conjecture.
Fish answers query.
Moonlit queries answer.
Fish answers query answer query.
Myself being flippant, as promised.
Fish asks for my role.
Moonlit keeps on about the conjecture.
(Page summary: Heavy/obscure hints of role from Fish, depending on the recipient, but nothing from anyone else.)
Fish on the same track (further hints as to character, that I still hadn't understood).
Moonlit seems to get it.
Fish confirms.
Fish suggests checking lore.
Moonlit asks Hector for role.
Fish asks Moonlit for role.
Moonlit reveals 'Asgore' (which seems to have been a lie, by Chara).
Fish surprised at this and/or finds it noteworthy...
Myself showing my ignorance.  (Also I asked Moonlit of TBF had replied with the role yet.  I meant "had Hector?")
Fish asks for my role, again!
Hector announces Chara role. (Later turns out to have be a lie.)
Fish finds that interesting...
Moonlit does too.  (And it later seems for even better reasons.)
Hector practically suggests he's not being honest.
Fish puts forward doubts about Chara (misplaced, maybe it turns out).
(Page summary: Confirmation from Fish; Moonlit and Hector make statements later retracted.  I'm actually absent more that I'd like to have been.)
Fish is suspicions about Chara.
Fish thinks anyone who was Chara wouldn't claim it.
Moonlit agrees (because...?)
Hector doesn't like being asked names, nor given names.
Fish restates role.
Hector suggests Sans==Evil out of the air.
Fish proclaims Sans==Investigator.
Hector doubts that.
Fish banters back.
Fallacy has meta-ideas/questions.
Fish has meta-answer.
Hector with more meta-queries.
Myself has only partly-informed meta-ideas.
Fish opines that it's a Genocide Route version of the game (whatever that means about Fish's character).
Fish also goes OOC, for my benefit.
(Page summary: Big doubts placed upon Hector=>Chara. Fish restates Sans-ness.  Hector argues the point/points the finger.)
Fallacy announces 'blocking skill', looks for candidates.
Fish diverts possibility towards me, but not sure how serious.
Myself doesn't think that's useful.
Hector doubts the Genocide Route concept.  Hints he knows what my and Fallacy's roles are, and some meta (that later is informed to be wrong).
Fish still doesn't like the Chara claim.
Hector doesn't think the Evil role is "evil", yet.  Wants Moonlit 'smothered' by Fallacy.
Fallacy wonders why Moonlit?
Fish makes a semantic correction, only.
Tomasque gives meta-information. (Note: I misunderstand something about this, but never mind.)
Hector just thinks Moonlit is evil. (May even have been correct, but I don't understand the reasons.)
Fish queries.
Hector doesn't like all this claiming stuff.  Apparently drawn conclusions.  Apparently everyone else could also do this. (Nobody seemd to go "oh yeah..." about that)
Fish has meta-idea.  (Dog?  I've not seen anything about a dog, yet!)
Tomasque gives Meta stuff.  Don't ignore the Lore!
Fish with meta-followup.
(Page summary: First appearance of Fallacy's Blue SOUL whatavyer thing; Hector seems to have reasons to think (or state) that it isn't a Genocidal Route; Some meta-info, etc, but not much else of significance. To me!)
Fish states (whatever character) doesn't change at all, between Routes?
Moonlit seeks character names because of own Role. (And states again that Hector is lying about being Chara.  Might have been a big clue, there, if I'd have been keeping an eye on things.)
Fish had spotted Hector's retraction.
Hector now makes it official and re-claims as Asriel, shutting the door on everything else.
Fish points out the problems with an Asriel-claim, and henceforth the implications vis-a-vis Flowey.
Tomasque minor meta-stuff.
Fish doesn't trust Hector.
Hector acknowledges.  Starts up "names or be voted for" policy.
Fish promises 'investigation' on Hector (never happens, SFAICT, thanks to lynch).
Fallacy claims as Papyrus (later retracted).
Fish is in character as Sans.
Hector responds to Fish/Fallacy
Fish gives passive support for possibility of Fallacy==Papyrus.
Fish asks about Flowey, again.
Hector comments upon some bit of the Lore, in response.
(Page summary: Hector re-classed as being an Asriel-claimaint. Asriel tends to be considered not-necessarily-nice. Fish might be threatening Hector.  Fallacy claims Papyrus name, for Hector.  Flowey distractions.)
Fallacy expands upon caimed blocking skill.
Hector talking about Toriel/Undyne.  (When I finally read that, I definitely perked up by ears.  Errr... eyes.  Whatever.  Given who I hadn't yet said I was.)
Fish wants Fallacy to 'guard' them.
Fish wonders about that, actually...
Fish decides it's Ok, after all. (Never actually happens, for various reasons.)
Moonlit tells Fish that Hector is/claims Asriel.
Fish wonders about Flowey, still.
Fish links to re-roling...
Moonlit asserts Hector is Asriel (still not sure why so definite about this, especially as I hadn't arrived back on-board and announced my own role!)
Hector votes against me, as I'd been voiceless. (Can't complain, except that it's not exactly logical...)
Fish thinks that that was too hasty, too...
Hector reasons his own activity, time left, etc.
Fish disagrees... (With what turns out to be an ironic statement.)
Hector argues for the lynching approach.
Fish argues against.  (Anyone for tennis?)
(Page summary: Fallacy's blocking skill.  Fish's willingness to be blocked.  Asriel role 'confirmed' (although is it, really?).  My role remains a mystery (sorry!).
Hector continues the volley.
Fish counters with a good point (not yet confirmed/dismissed!)
Hector persuades.
Fish acquiesces.
Hector starts to actively campaign against nolynches.
Fish alludes to his investigative role.
Hector has good arguments (but a bit unbalanced, IMO).
Fish backs down.
Fallacy will use ability on TBF (strange statement, has to be a misdirection, but could be for any purpose...)
Hector responds to Fish with a hard-to-parse statement...
Fish forgot about the three-day limit.
Hector is the only one voting.
Hector makes a minor correction.
Fish has a plan.  (It is secret, though!)
Fallacy asks a meta-question.
(Page summary: Not much learnt.  Fish has(/had) a plan, Hector wants lynches. Fallacy possibly misdirects (or else has to change his mind later).
Hector switches aim to Fish, for speculative reasons.
Fish OMGUSes.
Fish announces intended plan.  (Starts to looks threatening to scum?)
Fish appends.
Fish queries Hector on a point.
Hector thinks there's Lore involved.  (Also insists that roles will be replaced...)
Fish says Hector has the wrong end of the right stick.
Fish thinks Investigation will happen, yet.
Fallacy announces more about Blue Attack.
Fish says "bring it on!" (essentially...)
Tomasque answers meta-questions.
Hector aims back at me, whilst I'm still absent.
Fish unvotes.
Fallacy aims at Fish and (I missed this, first time round!) announces a Blue Attack on me...  (oh, right, missed that).
Fish aims at me, and mentions the non-flip.
(Page summary: General fighting.  A bit more about Blue Attack, things get hectic.  I'm sorry I missed this.)
Hector wants to get rid of me and have Fish blocked.  (Makes me wish I'd later stayed silent, when I arrived, it might have been more interesting.)
Myself arriving, apologising, trying to catch up.
Fish reiterates Investigator ability.
Fish asks me who I am.
Hector gives a frankly nonsensical reason for disbelieving anything.
Fish claims more than I'd personally believe, but I guess we're not meant to know if it's true or not, until round-end, so...
Fish laconically expands.  Not sure what to make of it, but we obviously have no reason to.
Hector gets a bit more aggressive against Fish (who, by the way, has claimed great things).
Fish stands by his unresolvable claim...
Fish makes an argument I find convincing, but... meh...
Myself gets (nearly!) caught up.  I claim. I say some things. Not sure I can influence things.
Hector replies to Fish, but re-aims at Moonlit.  (Bloodthirsty, aint ya?)
Fish makes a good summary, I think.
Fish says something I still don't understand.
Fish worries about a mistake (I don't think there was one...)
(Page summary: I return!  Hector ups the berserker activities, with nothing new said.  Fish affirms his standfastness.  Nobody else features, on this page.)
Fish responds to Hector.
Hector responds to Fish. (Nothing worth saying about this.)
Fish announces (RL) sleeping, and unvoting.
Hector doesn't like that (no change there!)
Fish thinks it's a tie.
Fish is sleeping...
Hector states Town Weakness.  Expects something Secret to happen.
Myself, revealing not much more, except that I don't know much more.
Hector re-aims at now-absent Fish. (Sheesh...)
Myself thinking I'm happy with that.  (Now, not so much.)  And some OOC.
Hector OOC.
Hector regarding Lore, slightly overturning previous statements, but... it's your argument.
Hector asking me about my Lore-cramming.
Myself OOC.  Plus obviously I'm still cramming.
Hector OOC.  Plus trying to get me to vote for someone.
(Page summary: Hector flip-flops and strongarms. Fish sleeps.  Sleeps, perchance to dream, aye, there's the rub...)
Myself, voting (as requested), even though it doesn't matter.
Hector doesn't like that.
Fish has awoken, and wants to vote for Hector.
Fish decides to vote for me instead.
Fish doesn't like the "lore" reason.  (That wasn't the main reasin, anyway.)
Tomasque ends the day.  (Makes me wish I'd voted for Hector, and let Fish make it a draw, because I don't now like how it turned out.)
Tomasque starts Day 2.  Fish (lynched-replaced already) was killed overnight too, in the new-character of Frisk (Neutral).  Don't know who did this, but I know it wasn't me.
Fish "bah"s...
Hector asks silly questions of me and Fallacy, and FOSses Moonlit.
Myself replying.
Fallacy (plausibly) confirms me as inactive, thus (plausibly) confirming Fallacy's actions.  Considering Moonlit/Hector as maybescum but mostly Moonlit (for reasons I don't completely agree with..,).  (Also error considering Fish-killed-at-night as the same as Fish-lynched-prior-day, but... meh...)
Hector goes off on the "your vote is important" thing (which it provably wasn't).  I put this down to basic gameplay differences, but it doesn't help Hector's cause.  Problems with Fallacy, too. More 'meh'.
Fallacy replies to Hector.
Hector replies to Fallacy.
Fallacy replies to Hector.  (Does sort of lean on getting my confirmation, at this point, with the caveat of a Redirector, so isn't a 100% confirmation that I can give, but that's discussed later, anyway.)
(Page summary: Fish(D1) died - We don't know what Fish(D1) was. Fish(N1) died - We know Fish(N1) was Frisk, and Neutral. Fallacy(D1) continues to live and is seeking confirmation from me (and will more or less get it). Hector's all over the place.  Moonlit is currently absent.
Hector demands scumhunting.
Fallacy either lays out his store or plays a gambit (either way, it'll work).
Myself confirming/correlating with Fallacy.  I already don't like Hector's approach, it seems.
Fish whilst dead, clarifies a technical point only.
Myself, temporarily under the misconception that as well as lynch-replace there's also nightkill-replace of roles.  Meh.
Hector corrects me.
Moonlit says nothing important.
Moonlit apologises for being busy.
Myself, still slightly confused about nightkills.  (Fish's second post-death message didn't help. )
Hector being helpful about this.
Moonlit (effectively) points out that Evil characters ought to try to kill more through lynches.  ('strue!  Or was, until the end of D2.)
Hector asks for my reasons (already given!)
Myself, giving them.  Again.
Moonlit accepting Hector as Asrael, still.  (I still don't know why so definite!  Even if it is so!)
Hector makes generally stupid responses, IMO.
(Page summary: So... ummm... well, not much that we don't know about, right now.  Slightly less, though.
Fallacy makes some points.  (But boy am I fed up writing this list...)
Hector ...
Moonlit (Fakeclaim to a possibly real role status.  As yet unproven.)
Hector on about the voting, again, with Moonlit...
Hector nudging me.
Fallacy responds to Hector.  (Bear in mind that I'd confirmed the assertion, at this point, so making the claim/fakeclaim pretty definite, whichever it was.)
Hector aims at Moonlit.
Moonlit will not vote, because thinks Hector is scum. (Or so says. One has to drawn into question the motives for this statement, in hindsight, but still...)
Hector is hectoring.
Tomasque ends Day 2 (that was quick!), with Moonlit lynched, to be replaced.
Tomasque opens Day 3.  Nobody died.
Fallacy reiterates that Hector is Scum.
Moonlit decides to go with Fallacy, instead.  (Doubtless 'clears' Hector because of new status.  Although that really doesn't mean much, with Secret alignment-transfers/awakenings or somesuch.)
Moonlit oopses...
Fallacy says Hector took no action last night.  (Means nothing much, though.)
(Page summary: All change!  We don't actually know this, yet, but we lost Chara (Moonlit's lynch-out role), gained someone new (allegedly town-Weak) and Moonlit probably is free(er) to proclaim Hector as innocent, although that isn't necessarily going to be how it plays out, anyway...
Moonlit goes through some details.  (I think there's a big mistake in considering "You have a kill" as significantly scummy...  Scum usually, although not always in this game, wants to use a kill.  And, when they don't, there's usually something else on the agenda, rather than a kill...)
Fallacy ...
Moonlit corrects Fallacy.
Fallacy is corrected, presses ahead with a prior question.
Hector WOTs us all... (Is wrong about "being able to tell if someone can take a night action", because I can. Is wrong about own role being confirmed by Moonlit, it only agrees with stated circumstances. Starts slinging around "confirmation bias", and contradicts prior idea about what skill Fallacy actually has at the same time. Valid point about Fallacy's role not being fully confirmed, but I think enough "not contradicted"ness.  Also getting seems to be getting needy again.)
Moonlit confirms N1 kill was self, as Chara.  (Or says so... always a chance that it still wasn't!)
Myself responding to a missed message, resulting in a WOT.
Myself responding to this round.  More WoT, because I was sure if I missed anything out I'd just be asked for more detail...
Hector asks for more detail...
Myself starting to get a bit fed up, TBH, but tries best.
Myself with an EBWOP.
Fallacy is in *head asplode* mode, it seems.
Moonlit deals with some of what I said.
Myself, responding to Fallacy.
Myself, responding to Moonlit.
(Page summary: Walls Of Text, often requiring Walls Of Text in reply.  Revelation of Chara's (prior) existence in the person of Moonlit.  Exonerates Hector from being original killer, but I'm not sure that's still the case.  Never mind.  Doesn't matter to me, but maybe it does to others.
Hector looks to be in damage control mode, from my POV.  YMMV.
Myself pointing out that Hector hasn't made many defensive points.  Asks for assistance from others.
hector takes umbrage at this.
Myself ....
Myself trying to set a logic trap for any non-Hector scum out there to wander blindly into.
Hector trips it, from the off.  Annoying and/or telling.  Hard to say which.
Hector WoTs against me.  (Points out a couple of minor mistypes, by assuming them to mean something completely wrong.)
Myself clarifying.  (And pondering.)
Moonlit ...
Hector responding to Moonlit.
Fallacy Metas.
Hector asking for votes again.  (Bloodthirsty, still...  Playing style, or...?)
Fallacy ...
Meta-answer
(Page summary: Everything I have to say about this page I've already said on this page...
Moonlit replies to Hector.
Fallacy replies to Moonlit.
Myself with a smaller WoT.
Hector misunderstands.
Myself clarifying.
hector makes the message above, setting me on the path to creating this message.

...so? I could ask if anyone spotted anything wrong in there, but I wouldn't actually want to inflict it upon you.  I'm quite surprised I haven't been ninjaed about it, already.  I gave up bolding items after a while, you notice.



Primary ideas not in agreement with my main line of thinking:
1) Fallacy's "Blocking-and-killing" action might yet have killed Fish/Frisk, Night 1.  Didn't even block me, but somehow guessed that I did nothing and didn't want the attention (whether good or ill).  For some reason, Moonlit doesn't want to realise/reveal this, in hindsight.
2) Moonlit is an evil non-Human, now, after evil-Human Chara's lynching.  But that seems far too neat. (One out, one in.)  And doesn't even automatically work with what Tomasque says of the replacement system.
3) Hector never was Asriel.  Asriel is perhaps even elsewhere on the list of characters.  (Moonlit hasn't yet said anything to convince me of the connection.  And Hector being someone else might even make me think better of them!)

Each of those has its own (minor) merits, but not enough merit to put them forward as my main thoughts...  All of which are already explained.

[hector13]

If you don't tell me what bits don't make sense, I can't clarify them for you or anyone else, can I?

It's not that bits don't make sense, it's that I don't see anything to make sense of, for the large part.

Then I'll just continue to say you have no interest in examining anything which disagrees with your position.

[Starver]

Then I'll just continue to say you have no interest in examining anything which disagrees with your position.

Patently, though, that just isn't true.  I went through the entire thread, laboriously, and (attempted to) review it all again.

Give me something that disagrees with 'my position'.  Don't just be an information-sink.

Or, and again I ask the others to help, tell me what I've missed because I haven't even seen in the first (or second!) time round.  Quote yourself (or, others if you are so inclined, quote Hector, please) with something I've missed.

Or don't, but then don't tell me that I'm not trying to do my best in the given circumstances...

[FallacyofUrist]

Starver detonates a nuke.

It's super effective!

hector13. I've been convinced.

Also, I'd like to note: why couldn't Moonlit vote hector yesterday? I wouldn't be too surprised if we were dealing with something similar to the Phantom(remember this bloke? Had an ability that caused a town player to think that their wincon changed to "you win when the Evil role wins")'s ability... that is to say, some sort of conversion, wielded by hector.

[Starver]

(Cheers. And I wish I was actually 100% about this position, but it's currently my best bet.)

why couldn't Moonlit vote hector yesterday?

AIUI: Part of Moonlit's role (whilst Chara, but secretly so), was to be unable to vote for Asriel.  Hector claimed Asriel.  Moonlit interpreted this as saying "Cannot vote for Hector".

Without (yet) seeing the Chara role, I have a hard time imagining that it was ever "You cannot vote for someone claiming to be Asriel".  And if it were the more unbelievable "You cannot vote for Hector, who is Asriel", then a lot of the early mess with faux-Chara being called out would have been avoided.  Especially given that real-Chara (we are told) was Evil.

Perhaps it was an "If you vote for Asriel, you will die", in which case I can accept character-caution (and might even explain current reticence), but my maths tells me that this wouldn't be bad for the Town anyway, unless things are already worse than I'm imagining...

If it was a more generic "You cannot vote whilst Asriel is active", then again it depends upon the claim being believed.  I did query that, but there wasn't even a "The mod directly told me in a PM that I could not vote...", or any subtler 'not directly quoting the Mod' version, that I noticed.  I would have expected that the game-mech way of handling this kind of skill would have been the (silent?) negation of an attempt of Moonlit to vote for (or, in the latter case, in the mere presence of) an Asrielic Hector, to be revealed in the vote counts.  But until the round ends and everything is revealed, that's just what I can suppose.




How about this alternative to the whole mess..?
1) Moonlit was indeed originally not-Evil Chara - as with Frisk being not-Evil -.
2) Hector is simultaneously an undetermined-alignment version of definitely-not-Chara.
3) Post-lynch Moonlit is Evil-SomeoneElse whilst Hector is still original-Hector (of whatever flavour) and Moonlit finds it useful to try to blame original-Moonlit for original-Hector's actions because it seems to help exonerate current-Moonlit's position...
x) ...but, darnit, that points back to original-Hector being an original-Evil, making two of them now...
y) ...which means that there's either some daytime-based evil-combating thing in the game that I don't yet know about or the two Evils aren't even (officially) allied.
z) ...Belligerent 'Neutrals' could be in the mix, of course.

[hector13]

Starver detonates a nuke.

It's super effective!

hector13. I've been convinced.

By what?

[hector13]

Holy Jesus fuck, Starver.

I didn't read through the summary up there 'cause, you know, bit nonsense, but wow, man, you clearly have no bias toward me being scum at all in your page summaries. Wow.

That third one from the bottom where someone else claims the kill and you still believe I did it? Fucking wow.

Wow.

[hector13]

This is Starver's summary of why he thinks I'm scum. In other words, things he thinks I need to defend myself against.

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.

To which I respond thus:

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?

This addresses the three components of his read against me: that I have no reads; I am "stirring up dissent"; that my claim of Chara and subsequent claim of someone else is suspect.

He responds:

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...

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...

My response:

Response to 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.

Indeed, but you owe it to yourself to at least consider that I'm not scum. If you're default position is to not respond to anything I say, how do you expect to be convinced I'm not scum? Nobody else is going to defend me, are they? They're in the same boat as I am: they don't know who is what alignment.

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?...

Asriel is actually convinced by Chara to absorb Chara's soul and then go out to kill 6 more humans to break the barrier to the Underground so... I'm not sure where you're getting notoriously bloodythirsty soul stealer from.

Which one do you think it is? Fakeclaim or genuine?

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...

So you're scum reading me based off your meta now?

Where have I stated I don't want any discussion in this round? When have I withheld information? It's all well and good telling us this is what I said, but without evidence, it's just some more hot air.

You're the one that doesn't like to share. "Spilled more information than should be necessary" aye? I think everyone else gets to be the judge of when you've shared enough information.

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...

The first lynch-replace created a Neutral role, actually, but you do have a point here. I'm not sure about humans being exclusively evil here, though. Chara is a bad human, while the human you play as during the game can be good, neutral, or evil. Assuming all humans are bad is not a good thing to do, methinks.

Moonlit claimed he was the Evil role prior to the lynch-wipe, so it's not inconceivable that his role was replaced with an Evil one, since the game hasn't ended yet.

He has been quite forthcoming with having been the Evil role prior the the lynch, and it wouldn't be very fair to the town to not be getting flips from lynches and then have an Evil role in the replacement pool, especially with a three day limit, so I'm inclined to think Moonlit is not Evil at this point.

... which he completely ignores, save for quoting parts I clipped out because they don't have anything to do with why he was initially scumreading me. If you want to read the posts in their entirety, the top "Quote from..." links will take you to them.

So, let's go a bit more in-depth.


The first point: Hector has no reads.

In his own words, patently untrue. When I point this out to him, he basically says "yeah, well when I was scum I had reads too!"

I said he was scum-reading me off his own meta, which he ignored. Quite unfair of him to scum read me off someone else's play, but we could also look at this another way.

Have any of you ever had reads when you are town? It's pretty much the entire game of Mafia. This is a nonsense point to bring against anyone in any game.

Anyhow, he went from "Hector has no reads" to "having reads is scummy" in two posts. Does this sound like someone who is looking for scum? It looks to me lke someone is trying to force a lynch on someone else.


The second point: "stirring up dissent"

I had no idea initially what this meant, but in the second paragraph of his first response, he says I want to suppress discussion of my play. Except that all we were really doing was discussing my play.

Indeed, from posts 1656 to 1660 and 1663 and 1665 to 1673 that is the crux of the conversation.

Notably, in post 1673, it is Starver who stops this discussion, because he knows his case is going to collapse if we continue to discuss it.

I want to discuss my play. The only way that I'm going to convince you guys I'm not scum is by discussing my play.

Another issue I have with this is he provides exactly *counting* *counting* zero examples of me suppressing discussion and exactly zero examples of me not sharing information with you guys.


His third point: my claim.

I initially fakeclaimed Chara because I have been quite annoyed with TBF and FoU for being so overt with their town weakness roles (TBF with the astigmatism allowing Starver to attack him despite having an auto that identifies him as the evil role to anyone he attacks, FoU announcing he was the driver and that if he died everyone dies) so I was unwilling to share my role on D1. He seems to think that was not a good justification and scum reads me for it.

After I rescind my claim and tell you why I did it, he also scum reads me for being Asriel (but apparently doesn't yet believe I'm Asriel despite someone else confirming it? Not sure about that one yet) citing "BUT THE LORE!" every time I bring it up. So lets look at the lore then, shall we?

This is Asriel's story, direct from the game. The bit I most want you to take away comes shortly after the three minute mark, but that's the source material, so have at it. Watch it, come to your own conclusions, and then ask yourself if Starver's constant references to the lore - without actually giving us any links or anything to go off - is a good reason to scum read me.


One final thing I'd like to point out is this aspect of one of his quotes:

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...

Which he meant as:

... I meant to say lynch one created a human, with no reason not to assume something similar for the second, not an Evil-one...

Now, I think that this means that Starver thinks that the human roles are evil (perhaps backed up by his claimed ability as Undyne, if Starver finds a human during the night they get killed by him) which, if true, means he shouldn't think I'm scum.

I've played through the game in a neutral, true pacifist and genocide run, and as far as I can tell there are only two named humans, Chara and Frisk. We know Frisk is dead, TBF died and flipped with the role. Moonlit claimed that, before he was wiped after the lynch, he was Chara. This means there are no more human roles left in this game (assuming Moonlit was being honest)

[Starver]

I'm not going to make a point-for-point reply.  You'll make one that's a point-for-point-for-point to which I'll be drawn into doing a point-for-point-for-point-for-point.  I'll just make an overview instead, and basic reiteration.

Of the three people that aren't me, my personal assessment is that you do yourself the least favours.  I have not seen any interaction mentioned which puts you in a positive light (the others look better, all power to their elbows...).  You are an information sink, not a source.  I find myself misunderstood, when I omit a subject from a line, or you hold onto minor thinkos of mine when I later (if not immediately!) correct them.  I've never "BUT THE LORE!"ed, because I hardly know the Lore.  When mentioned, it's been "Lore suggests, and there's nothing else to go on right now..."

I'd retreat back into obscurity (the tooth I now don't have is troubling me in an odd way), but you'd say I was trying to close down conversation again.  Not that I even was before, I was actually inviting conversation from elsewhere - as I later clarified.  Attempted to clarify.  YMMV.

I appreciate (and/or dread, if I've been completely fooled) Fallacy seemingly agreeing with my minimally-considered opinion, but I'd also like to know more about the reasoning rather than just doing so straight off.

I would appreciate Moonlit making a decision, if not presenting a personal opinion, and would like to know more about the reasoning from that direction too.  (Also, if possible, clarify the whole thing of Asriel being a vote-blocker.  Please!)

You... aren't cooperating and are unlikely to change.  I just hope that's gameplay.

[hector13]

I'm not going to make a point-for-point reply.  You'll make one that's a point-for-point-for-point to which I'll be drawn into doing a point-for-point-for-point-for-point.  I'll just make an overview instead, and basic reiteration.

Of the three people that aren't me, my personal assessment is that you do yourself the least favours.  I have not seen any interaction mentioned which puts you in a positive light (the others look better, all power to their elbows...).  You are an information sink, not a source.  I find myself misunderstood, when I omit a subject from a line, or you hold onto minor thinkos of mine when I later (if not immediately!) correct them.  I've never "BUT THE LORE!"ed, because I hardly know the Lore.  When mentioned, it's been "Lore suggests, and there's nothing else to go on right now..."

I'd retreat back into obscurity (the tooth I now don't have is troubling me in an odd way), but you'd say I was trying to close down conversation again.  Not that I even was before, I was actually inviting conversation from elsewhere - as I later clarified.  Attempted to clarify.  YMMV.

I appreciate (and/or dread, if I've been completely fooled) Fallacy seemingly agreeing with my minimally-considered opinion, but I'd also like to know more about the reasoning rather than just doing so straight off.

I would appreciate Moonlit making a decision, if not presenting a personal opinion, and would like to know more about the reasoning from that direction too.  (Also, if possible, clarify the whole thing of Asriel being a vote-blocker.  Please!)

You... aren't cooperating and are unlikely to change.  I just hope that's gameplay.

In what way am I not cooperating? Because I don't agree with you? Of course I don't agree with you, I'm not scum. You think I'm just going roll over and die for you? Think again, bub.

That is a perfect example of you not wanting to discuss things.

We have rafts of posts made over the days, there is a boatload more to go on that the lore. There should never be an instance that you're going on what the "lore suggests" more than what's happening in the game.

Again, you're not providing examples of any of these things you say that I'm doing. You just went over the posts of the entire game, you must know where I did these things. So to paraphrase a meme, quotes or it didn't happen.

For example:

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.

Number 1, you admit to not interacting with Moonlit or FoU. How can you have a solid read on either of them without having done so? You appear to have multiple issues with my play and my claims, but no problems with them? This after having apparently gone through all the posts in the game so far? Not buying that.

Number 2. Evidence from the lore, which - with the video I linked to - shows that Asriel (my role, confirmed by Moonlit) is not the bastard soul-stealing mofo that you have portrayed him.

Even if Asriel was a complete bastard, we know how easy it is to fakeclaim in this, so neither your role nor FoU's are close to confirmed. My early claim of Chara seems to have thrown you for a loop, you keep coming back to it, and Moonlit claimed Asgore and nobody questioned that 'til he comes out with "oh, btw, I was Chara".

We don't even know Moonlit's role name because he won't tell us. How can you apply the lore (of which you say you know little about in the first place) in such a situation?

The quote at the top of this is also a perfect example of you stopping discussion. Of course if you just slip back into obscurity I'm going to say you're closing down conversation, I'm attacking your for spouting nonsense and lies! I've been trying to keep the discussion going, while you're happy to just sit back and let the game die from inactivity. We lost the last two games because we let you get away with it, but never again.

PPE: byraway, Asriel is Chara's adoptive brother. Should probably have mentioned that for the video. Chara is the human that fell and was found by Asriel, just in case you didn't know.

[Starver]

Number 1, you admit to not interacting with Moonlit or FoU. How can you have a solid read on either of them without having done so?

Blatant misreading.

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...

In context to what I've repeatedly said, that clearly expands out to "...from my [apparent] interaction with Fallacy [one thing], my [known] interaction with Moonlit [another thing] and my non-interaction with Hector [I have been left to fill in the gaps]...".

I'll get back to the rest when I can work out what words to use to banish all possible ambiguity, because this is hard work...