doll: Your case on me is lazy
On reflection, this is true. My case on you is 'by default' as it were; I don't want to lynch juicebox because I want juicebox to kill TDS, I don't want to lynch TDS because juicebox can
only kill TDS, I don't want to lynch me because I'm town, I don't want to lynch Tiruin because of some meta bullshit or something I dunno. Probably because I'm struggling to understand where she's at mechanically, even though that's in many ways similar to my case on you? It bears further reflection, I suppose.
and speaks to your inattention to the thread. Cinder claimed the roleblock in the thread:
Okay, Cinder, then who did you inspect last Night?
TBF. This has the effect of roleblocking him.
Ta.
Yes, I'm vague about my role, that's a safety feature. I'm still wary of roles that utilize the rolenames or ability names of others to perform effects like Cheeetar in the five SK BYOR. Additionally, I like to be very thorough in what I say: I said "going back on my earlier claim" because if I didn't some clown would decide to say "lol 4mask lier implied only one ability", which yes, I did imply one ability, specifically because I was trying to keep the other a secret for what should be obvious reasons.
This is a fine reaction to mostly insubstantial attacks.
Incidentally,
how close are we to massclaim time?Now, on to your next accusation: no, I did not try to redirect the kill. My exact words were:
For want of other targets, I'd suggest 4maskwolf.
Don't do this, I have a kill-specific revive so it'd be a waste of everyone's time. If you think I'm scum you're better off lynching me.
juicebox: Welcome.
I then, when questioned by webadict, explained why it would be a waste of time, an explanation that, yes, did include the words "the vigilante could target someone else". And of course I don't want the kill targeted at me, who does? This isn't Paranormal 25, we haven't broken the setup, there's no reason for me to lie down and take a kill to the face since it wouldn't actually benefit the town. But there's nothing I can do to stop juicebox other than ask him not to and explain why it would be a bad idea: he still got to make up his own mind.
There's nothing suspicious about trying to direct the vigilante kill; obviously I want some players dead more than others, and as you say nobody wants the kill on them. The kill should have been on one of us, and out of those two I would choose you. What I find suspicious is not that you pushed the kill off yourself, but that you
didn't push the kill onto me. You see, what you said, especially with the fact that I pushed the kill towards you uncontested and close to day end, suggests that you were happy with a no-kill. Since having the kill on one of the semi-clears wasn't in my mind, having the kill outside of ourselves puts (or should have put) no pressure on the other member of a (4mask|doll)/(TDS|Tiruin|Webadict) team, and so lends itself to a no-kill (or does so much more than putting pressure on me specifically would, anyway).
Meanwhile, let's take a look at you, your cases, and your actions. You attempt to direct a vigilante kill with only a few hours left in the day, leaving limited time left to discuss if it's the proper course of action. You pursue a lazy case on a non-cleared player without actually bringing forth significant evidence and that displays severe gaps in your knowledge of the game and interest in confirming information. If we're talking about people who have taken strange enough actions to vote for, I might as well throw this one out here: doll.
You realize that you've literally said here (in calling my case lazy for being on a
non-cleared, inactive player in a game where the other players are more active and have given out mechanical information) is that
my case is valid. I can't apply pressure to an inactive player to get something to pick apart, so the best I can do is lump a lynch on them and ride that out.
We're the top choice to lynch, and obviously I'd rather lynch you than myself. I'll ride you harder and make a better case after I've had time to review the thread. Or I'll read the thread and decide someone else is a better target. In this moment, you, myself, or Tiruin should be getting lynched, so make a case on me because disturbingly, no-one
is.
Yes, I do have an action I'd like to share with the class, or rather, the lack of an action: I was roleblocked last night. So we have a second roleblocker in the game.
I was about to say "I thought we knew this" but actually it was just Cinder.
I'll re-read the thread from the start before my next post.
doll: See above, plus a whole bunch of other thoughts I have to look back over but that don't paint him in a good light from my perspective.
By all means, share those thoughts, since you haven't actually made case on me yet (it's even more insubstantial than mine).
TDS: I'll be honest: even without the meta-clearing and even with his strange behavior, I'd still put him as top town. His erratic actions, while highly anti-town, were also so bold and blatant that, honestly, I don't think he would do that as scum. Because for a while there the only thing that kept him alive was the fact that his power seemed so townie to everyone they wouldn't kill/lynch him, his use of his abilities pissed off a lot of people. From my experience, TDS is an intelligent enough player not to do something so stupid as scum but too risk-averse and not canny enough to try and subvert expectations like that as scum. Town.
I don't think he
wshould do that as town either, so it really doesn't lead me to read him either way.
He's ridden his power very heavily, but what concerns me is his claim that it would continue to control the game after he died. Only town could have that power (more or less), and that means he's trying to ride an unverifiable claim tacked onto a verified power he doesn't have anymore into the end of the game.
Author
Topic: Fallacy's BYOR 2: Game over! Post-game write up up. (Read 99891 times)