Bugger it. Seeing as some folk don't appear to be on the DA train, I guess I feel compelled to respond.
doll:Deus Asmoth
You're a telepath.
TBF knows your inspect result on him (or at least what it would appear as).
He knows what it appears as because he's telling the truth (or has claimed a role with a matching goal I guess). I wanted to see if he was going to claim something that didn't match the result I had on him, since he was being hesitant about actually claiming.
hector:DA
Doll: I know Leafsnail can't be scum.
Why not go whole hog and make your claim? Leafsnail claimed they were a kook earlier, there are only so many roles that'll either see through that or not be bothered by it.
You see where I said I was holding on the role claim to see what TBF claimed?
You holding off your claim at the time didn't make sense. We knew there were two observant guards in the game, one claimed and one hadn't. Tiruin is essentially being treated as confirmed town, so it's fairly obvious she's getting protected all over the joint (all three guards claimed to have protected her N2, after all) which left one to protect you because your role, if town, is quite useful.
I imagine it would bring someone to the table quickly if you say they have a kill goal, too.
When you got your N2 result, what role do you think TBF had? Why?
Taking those answers into consideration, why did you think it would be better to soft-claim something, say you knew that Leafsnail - a claimed kook, allowing people to narrow down what you are even further - wasn't scum, and wait for TBF to claim in their own time?
4mask: hector's posts have been striking me as scummy since I read over the thread during N1, for largely similar reasons to the read I gave in #287. After spending much of D2 arguing with me about my case from D1, including FoSing over it towards day end, he's also dropped that line of enquiry altogether in favour of using doll's case instead. There's also the matter that I mentioned that he was misrepresenting what I had said when I posted at the start of D2, and he continued to do so until his last post during D2 when he said he'd actually worded it wrongly and I should apparently have assumed that was what had happened from the beginning.
"much of day 2" compromising all of 2 posts, this, which was directed at a lot of people, and this which happened after the RattyB revelation, which was directed at someone I wanted some clarification from, and TDS, who made one contribution on D2.
Where am I only using doll's case? I said I agreed with him, but also said I wasn't particularly pleased with your lack of movement on TBF during D2.
Who's misrepresenting whom, again?
You are. Again. Are you claiming that your discussion with me wasn't the majority or your day 2 activity?
I made two posts on D2, you appeared in both of them. By that metric, the majority of my D2 was spent on you.
But you didn't say that. You said I spent "much of D2" arguing with you, which is patently untrue.
While everyone else was happy to shorten the day away, I wanted to respond to you, let people know that had I had suspicions regarding you. Had I not done that, the majority of my D2 would've been hounding doll about being an ass, and Tiruin apparently obfuscating, with a little bit of shade thown at you, and quick questions for TBF and Shakerag.
In the quote above, I have bolded the last sentence you directed at 4mask. Why did you use the phrase "he continued to do so until his last post", knowing that I had only posted twice on D2?
While I'm no every-man, to me that phrase implies some degree of incessant, repetitive behaviour, for example "he professed his innocence, and continued to do so until his dying breath." rather than two instances of something happening. Anyway... continuing on to the end of the bolded sentence:
When did I say you should have assumed that I was miscommunicating my thoughts about you regarding third parties?
I also note you draw the conversation away from the fact you also said I dropped that line of enquiry in favour of doll's case, which is
untrue.
Why are you so eager to misrepresent me, when a significant part of your case on me is that I am misrepresenting you?
If you think I am scum as a result of misrepresenting you, what do you think others should think of you misrepresenting me?
This one's on you, methinks. I used the word "actively", which means actually doing something as opposed to going "okay my opinion from D1 hasn't changed, cool cool *vote*"
So yeah, go door to door handing out fliers, get a megaphone and shout it from the rooftops, accost people in the street and scream in their faces that TBF should be hanged by the neck 'til he's dead.
You were very sure of TBF's anti-townness on D1 and the start of D2, so why not pull out all the stops for someone you think isn't town?
This is actually really tiresome, so I'd like you to tell me what exactly you mean by that in a text-only game, then explain why you weren't doing that. Because you didn't attempt to get anyone onto a TBF wagon while you were voting for him, and every vote you've made since has been you playing follow the leader.
What does my vote on TBF have to do with your vote on TBF? I
made my thoughts clear on why I was voting him.
I made them clear on why I unvoted him, too.
When I voted for fillipk, it was clear that people were willing to vote for him.
When I voted for RattyB, it was quite clear they were going to be lynched. Was it necessary for me to do anything more than state my case against them at the time? If so, what, and why?
You said you were convinced that TBF was not town based on his play, yet you did not at any point try to push a lynch on him. Why not?
How is
my current vote "following the leader", bearing in mind my suspicions of you were made public on D2?
I think I've laid out all my previous votes in this section in the links above. Did any of my previous votes strike you as problematic? Why?
What's to respond to?
The post is, in order of paragraphs: your opinion on third parties + maintaining your case; maintaining your case x 2; conflating experience with ability; maintaining your case and forgetting my position is "it's TBF's meta"; asking my opinion on a related topic.
Since your case was TBF was anti-town, and I said that's his meta, I didn't particularly think a long argument - the essence of which I anticipated as "I'm right, your wrong" on both our parts - would be particularly fruitful.
So you were willing to keep that argument going for all of day 2 and were suspicious enough of me for points that I had already brought up in previous posts to FoS me over it, but saw nothing worth carrying over?
You're also skipping several parts of the post. The part where I pointed out that you were pushing me about mentioning third parties while ignoring literally everyone else doing so as well, for example.
Who is "literally everyone else" and where did they mention third parties? You mentioned doll earlier in regards to this, I'm reasonably sure. Was there anyone else?
You know when you voted TBF for not bothering to read over D1? Try using ctrl F and searching for survivor if you want to save some time.
You made an accusation, I think the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Remember when you were voting for TBF for being lazy?
It's also a bit silly you're allowing me to provide the evidence of the accusation you're not backing up, but I guess I can fluff my feathers and get some lovely town-cred at the same time. /s
Paranormal 25... D1... survivor. doll's claim to fillipk? Not really relevant to what you were doing. fillipk refused to provide the town with the information that someone had claimed survivor, and that someone had also said they were going to side with the scum with a hold-out blaster. That was being discussed because it was oh so awful of fillipk to have done that, and it did form a pretty significant part of the case against him.
In hindsight, I'm kicking myself for failing to pay attention to Leafsnail who pointed out that fillipk doing that wasn't as big a deal as others - including myself, thus throwing into doubt your accusation I was ignoring other TP stuff - were making of it. doll was throwing out claims like candy, and fillipk did say they didn't want to muddy the water further. It was still in RVS, too, so all it would've done is provide that doll was acting like a clown. Would've been nice to have an agent, but shit happens.
Unless, of course, you are referring to something else?
PPE: haven't read anything since webadict's roleplaying post, in case something important happened.
Author
Topic: Paranormal 25 - Game over! Town victory! (Read 81152 times)