Print

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

[Elephant Parade]

Hm?

No, sorry, I was perhaps being a bit paranoid.  This round is weird.

But yeah, the wincon is

Wincon: You win if the Evil role is eliminated.

Okay, now I'm being paranoid, but I still have to make this request: state your wincon has your wincon, without a quote. There's a 90% chance that this is a massive waste of everyone's time, in which case I apologize, but that other 10% is always there.

...Yes, that's it.

No, you're still not doing it—you're referring to my quote, this time. Please state your wincon in a way that could not possibly be misinterpreted and without referring to external sentences, quotes, or other text. This isn't hard.

(An example: "I win if I survive until the end of the round.")

I know I made no action to kill Darryl Cricket.

The evidence should back this up.

I have not been told of a change to my wincon, which should be the same as it is normally.

Would you mind explicitly stating it? I think I know what you mean, but I'd appreciate a full response in case I misunderstood.

Okay, I got the go-ahead. So, hector13, do you promise to lynch someone today?

I promise.

I feel vaguely like you're going to break your promise, but sure:

Starver visited Darryl Cricket on Night 0.

[TheBiggerFish]

My wincon is that I win if the Evil role is eliminated.

Geez.

Starver:What did you do to Darryl?

[Elephant Parade]

My wincon is that I win if the Evil role is eliminated.

Jesus Christ, that took forever.

FallacyofUrist: Were you able to use your action N0? What results did you get?

[Elephant Parade]

Totally missed these questions earlier.

EP/Starver-as-evidence-custodian:Why should we trust you?  The mod can lie.

It sounds like you're asking less why you should trust us and more why you should trust our results. IMO it'd be pretty strange if our results were flawed, since they're so vague to begin with: we don't know whether Starver killed Dull NPCName, but only that he visited them.

If nothing else, our results are a point of discussion.

Heck, what if the results from your ability just aren't sane?

That seems unlikely, since Starver explicitly acknowledged that they'd be bad for him. ...We should be able to clear that up soon enough, though?

I feel like you're trying to create doubt for the sake of doubt (i.e. WIFOM, except with bastard mechanics instead of motives, so BAFOM or something), though I'm obviously prejudiced by your earlier evasiveness.

Tomasque: If I need to, like, explicitly acknowledge that I'm going for True Reveal or whatever, consider this sentence the acknowledgement.

Starver: Do your part of the confirmation process, please.

[Elephant Parade]

Corrections:

I know what EP is going to say (unless it's even more bastard, but I also presume that EP completely knows that I know), and I know that this doesn't quite match what I was originally informed. This is going to be interesting.

My stated character conditions were also changed (and/or added to) betwixt night-start and conclusion.

He didn't acknowledge that it would be bad for him. I'm not sure why I thought that? Weird.

I did know that he knew. I'm curious what you mean by "this doesn't quite match what [you] were originally informed", though, Starver.

[hector13]

Ah... At least according to the night results, only Starver can request a true reveal.

[hector13]

EP: why is TBF's wincon sans quotes and such so important?

[hector13]

TBF: what did you have to lose by providing your wincon sans quotes and such?

[Elephant Parade]

Ah... At least according to the night results, only Starver can request a true reveal.

The True Reveal mechanics I was PM'd state that the start of the process is me stating something. What I'm supposed to state is ambiguous, so I covered my bases with that post.

EP: why is TBF's wincon sans quotes and such so important?

Well, we didn't (and don't, obviously) know his wincon, so I thought I might as well ask him. He answered, but he phrased it really oddly:

I have not been told of a change to my wincon, which should be the same as it is normally.

I thought it possible that shenanigans were going on, so I chose to dig deeper. In the end, nothing came of it (probably—it's possible that FoU is a statement evaluator/TBF thought he was/etc.), but I felt it to be worth pushing him on.

[Elephant Parade]

To clarify: I continued to push him because I wanted an explicit statement of his wincon; vague references might cause a truth-teller's ability to fail, as an example of why that might be important.

[Elephant Parade]

TBF: Could you post your full role as a quote from Tomasque? IIRC he's said we're allowed to do that; feel free to get confirmation if you're not sure.

[TheBiggerFish]

TBF: Could you post your full role as a quote from Tomasque? IIRC he's said we're allowed to do that; feel free to get confirmation if you're not sure.

I'd rather not.

@hector:Nothing in particular.  I was being paranoid, honestly.

@EP:I was expecting something more interesting than that prior to the release of the evidence.  Like, you know, 'It was FallacyofUrist, in the kitchen, with a candlestick.' or something.

Honestly I feel like I've been playing into the flavor a bit much.

Everyone:Ignoring flavor, who are your scumspects?

[Elephant Parade]

Everyone:Ignoring flavor, who are your scumspects?

Well, let's see here! Assuming the spoilers aren't blatant lies, I'm left with two options:
- you
- Starver

You've been pretty suspicious, but the evidence currently points towards Starver. In the end, I still think you did it.

Also: "ignoring flavour"? Do you mean... the rolenames? Because I would hardly call those "flavour". I have seen basically no flavour, otherwise.

(If I was to disregard the mechanics entirely, I'd find FoU's total lack of activity rather suspicious. But, y'know, I'm not going to do that. I still do find it a bit suspicious, but it's possible he's just busy.)

Unrelated: Please space your colons properly.

I'd rather not.

I'd rather you did, and, last I checked, you're the one on trial! Care to explain why you'd rather not?

And, if you're still unwilling: Please at least claim your night action.

[Elephant Parade]

Also, this is basically the definition of an activelurking post.

TBF: Could you post your full role as a quote from Tomasque? IIRC he's said we're allowed to do that; feel free to get confirmation if you're not sure.

I'd rather not.

non-response

@hector:Nothing in particular.  I was being paranoid, honestly.

non-response

@EP:I was expecting something more interesting than that prior to the release of the evidence.  Like, you know, 'It was FallacyofUrist, in the kitchen, with a candlestick.' or something.

joke response

Honestly I feel like I've been playing into the flavor a bit much.

vague comment on own playstyle

Everyone:Ignoring flavor, who are your scumspects?

generic reads question with nonsensical qualifier

TBF: I'm curious: Why were you "paranoid" about explicitly posting your own wincon? What harm could possibly come of it, if it's merely "lynch evildude"?

[TheBiggerFish]

Last I checked, I have a one in five chance of being guilty, assuming any of us actually did kill this NPC.

... One in four if we're hoping Tomasque wouldn't make the kingmaker the Evil role, but there are such things as corrupt judges too.  Or fake roles because secret autos or something.  I mean, those have happened too.

Because it's not a trial, it's a game of Mafia, and claiming randomly helps scum, EP.

I acted on Hector last night.

(I actually have RL stuff to do, and in the next 1.5 hours, so excuse me until then.)


@Ninja!EP:I seriously was expecting more...Evidence-y evidence than that, though.