Print

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

[origamiscienceguy]

Okay, I guess I'll trust you on that. Mainly because it's tedious to link everything 

[Jack A T]

Oh, and I have a hunch about how one of the town roles works.

Deus Obvious Wellspring Asmoth, purify post #116 tonight.

[Persus13]

I'm buying the argument that flabort's post is responsible for what happened. In response this post will appear in multiple installments to be safe.

Deus Asmoth:

This does mean that there were at least three corrupting powers used last night though; Jack's first post, Jack's edit and BHK's post. The implication being that scum can either target multiple posts or have more than one action at night (assuming that the opening flavour is accurate).

If BHK's post was targeted, then why didn't this post by TDS get targeted? And why did only the initial posts quoting Jack's get corrupted?

[Persus13]

Also Extend. I don't want to be rushed by the day ending tomorrow.

Mafia and SKs don't want to get lynched either, I don't see the point you're trying to make in that.

Saying its his fault for something that isn't scummy is like saying its someone's fault you murdered someone because they were wearing a red shirt. Its passing the blame onto someone else instead of explaining why you took the path that you did. I asked you why you were willing to vote O. Wilde and were willing to lynch him, not "how can you make this look like O. Wilde's fault and my vote look like an act of God."

In the random voting stage, drawing attention onto yourself by counting numbers down for no reason? That worked, but not in the way he expected.

So, why is it scummy?

Scum tend to fake lurking so that they don't have to contribute towards the town hunting themselves.

Really. I've rarely seen this to be the case. How often has this occurred in your experience? And why O. Wilde over anyone else who was lurking just as much as he was?

And I'm honestly just interested in why you're approaching me about this over flabort. I'm going to naturally assume, that if you see flabort's vote and refuse to acknowledge it, you're either tunneling me or buddying with flabort. I'm assuming it because I have zero inclination to think otherwise from the context I have.

Flabort justified his actions shortly before O. Wilde was lynched. You didn't. I know flabort would view my vote of him as the pressure vote it was. I had no idea how you'd react to my attempts to pressure you in the first post of D2. Where did I "refuse to acknowledge flabort's vote?" Why should I feel obligated to ask him what happened when he's already clearly laid out his case against O. Wilde? There's a lot of possible reasons why I chose you to interrogate and not flabort.

Why haven't you done anything besides defend yourself against me and try and deflect me onto flabort? If you're suspicious of him, why don't you vote him? If I'm so suspicious for ignoring flabort, why don't you vote me? I want you to do something productive today.

[Persus13]

Huh. An interesting theory.  Alternate theory: red prevents any other effects from being spread to or from that post.
Not saying either one is correct or incorrect, just hypothesizing. Yours seems more likely, though. Good job spotting that.
But... all of them? I don't think I quoted myself in the red post 

None of your posts got corrupted. Check my list. You'll see all the posts negatively affected were quoted by your post. This means that your experiment could kill a lot of people by D3.

[TheDarkStar]

Extend as well.

Oh, and I have a hunch about how one of the town roles works.

Deus Obvious Wellspring Asmoth, purify post #116 tonight.

What was it that made you sure about DA's role?

Persus: If BHK is so scummy, why aren't you voting for him?

[Jack A T]

What was it that made you sure about DA's role?

TDS: Simple.  I strongly doubt there would be both a scumteam and multiple thirds in a 9-person setup.  We know what one third (yes, third.  See the rules post) acted on: flabort's firebrick-coloured post.  Very unlikely to be any more thirds than that.  Scum actions are at least largely accounted for in the mass-o-corruption, I very strongly doubt that they were left with anyone who could and would purify after all the corrupting actions they appear to have taken, and scum-unique purifiers in particular are at odds with the entire concept and flavour of the game.
Only one known role purifies (Wellspring), and it can only purify its own posts (see the rules post).

Deus Asmoth is a Wellspring, and if he somehow isn't (a quite unlikely prospect), then we'll suddenly have some very interesting new info about what we're facing when he replies to me.

Persus: If BHK is so scummy, why aren't you voting for him?

He is.

[Jack A T]

Oh, and extend.

[flabort]

Quick post before going to bed to reply to some things.

Jack, voting me, post 130
I explained that I believed his countdown was a trigger for something, not a post restriction, already.

#131, fillipk
OK. Neither Jack or OSG did any gambits, either, or RiA's if you'd rather call it that.

JACK, #136
Blowing someone's cover? poor form.
Jack A T

#138, persus
I second that extend, or third or fourth or whatever

[Jack A T]

Jack, voting me, post 130
I explained that I believed his countdown was a trigger for something, not a post restriction, already.

flabort: So, a trigger for something.  A reason that could last after O. Wilde gave his explanation.
That just raises further questions.
Your vote, as I noted, stayed after the explanation.  Your reason for third party suspicion was inherently incompatible with the explanation.  So, what did you do?  You did not challenge the explanation.  You did not question the explanation.  In fact, you completely failed to engage with the explanation at all.  You never even wrote a single word about it.  Your only further dealings with Wilde consisted of a very short-lived claim that one of his statements felt like an OMGUS.

Your lack of engagement wasn't part of general inactivity.  You were active through the rest of the day.  You just didn't engage.  Now, you did say you would rather lynch mafia than a third party, and seemed half-hearted about your vote.  You hardly prioritized finding mafia over challenging your alleged third party vote target, though.  The rest of your post-explanation behaviour?  Sitting back on your vote and answering questions.  Not searching for a better target, or improving your case.  Just coasting through the end of the day, keeping the little wagon working.

So.  Why not engage?  Why not even comment once on the explanation?  Why do less than the bare minimum to improve your vote?

JACK, #136
Blowing someone's cover? poor form.
Jack A T

Heh.
If I can quickly figure out someone's role through glancing at the rules for a second and noting the tiny bit of public information we have, there's hardly any cover, but alright, I can see how you come to that conclusion.
What's missing is any coherent link between that and me being scum.  Why would this be a Scum Jack move more than a Town Jack move?  What is the underlying narrative of my actions behind your vote?  I'd especially like to see you explain the part where I revealed my conclusion, instead of hiding it.

[Mephansteras]

The Vote Tally
BlackHeartKabal: Persus13
flabort: fillipk, Jack A T
Jack A T: flabort


Day has been Extended to ~4pm Pacific Monday. 1 possible Extension remains for this day.

[fillipk]

Flabort so to you a gambit makes someone look more like scum then someone who didn't try one?  That just seems like a lazy reasoning and even if it was a countdown we could lynch him if he starts counting down again.

[Deus Asmoth]

Jack:

Deus Obvious Wellspring Asmoth, purify post #116 tonight.

Well yeah, I wasn't collecting corrupted posts for shits and giggles.

flabort, what did you think was the cause of the change to my post?

[origamiscienceguy]

Don't bother cleaning any of my posts.

[Deus Asmoth]

Why?