Print

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

[Max White]

Yea, that is what I was thinking. Even more so when you consider that Simple is a RB, and not a jailer, so that takes out the chance of Toaster being the target of both kills.

Simple could be town, could be mafia, but there is too strong evidence saying that Toaster has a kill.

[Simple]

...
Simple:  You should check me on D1 again.  D3, sure, I wasted a lot of time on people who weren't talking. (Darvi and BD)  Darvi because I wanted him to actually play, and BD because he was being a passive lurker, like you were being (until you got voted on it.)

Looks like i missed the least important part where you wait for serious answers from somebody you voted ? I don't get what you're trying to prove by that quote. Honestly i would be surprised if you did not go after powder miner after what he did despite of your alignment. And with the zrk2 witch hunt going on, bussing your partner d1 looks like a reasonable scum move.

So by chance you did something N1 and nothing when i blocked you ?

Rolefish much?

Yes. I want to know what you did (or rather what you tried to do) and i don't see why it's something wrong.

You conveniently ignored my scumslip question.

Which one ? Why there was no kills ? That's because i blocked you. I think it's pretty clear.


Jack AT:

Let me get this straight: you had a case against Toaster, which was your reason for blocking him, but you didn't suspect him?  While blocking him and having a case against him?  I find this hard to believe.

No i got slight suspicion, something making me feel like i should not ignore him. And going with my "night to make situation clearer, day to pursue" attitude i decided to block him. When we got one kill less on the following night i thought that maybe i got the right target so i did it again. And here we are : no kill and after rereading toaster's posts i'm convinced that he's that it's him. Maybe it's because i'm lazy and did not wanted to reread everything and find out if it's worth pursuing but it apparently worked. I'm not saying they were very solid reasons and besides that's why i called them semi-random.

[NativeForeigner]

'Sup guys? I'm Darvi now.

I'm gonna go ahead and do my best to catch up, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could get me up to speed on the important bits.

[Jim Groovester]

Yea, that is what I was thinking. Even more so when you consider that Simple is a RB, and not a jailer, so that takes out the chance of Toaster being the target of both kills.

Simple could be town, could be mafia, but there is too strong evidence saying that Toaster has a kill.

Oh, I love your equivocation about Simple. It's almost like he's your scumbuddy and you don't want to state any serious opinion about him.

Further, Toaster having a kill doesn't automatically make him hostile third party or scum. You haven't justified your vote on Toaster with that little something something I call a case.

[Max White]

You mean it sounds like a vig to be firing off kills on n1?

[Jim Groovester]

Totally.

Roles are meant to be used. Vigilante is an investigative role in addition to a killing role. I'd expect any member of the town with a modicum of skill to use the vigkill in aggressive pursuit of their suspects.

That said, it doesn't mean Toaster is a vig or that he even has a killing role, but I find your objections to even the concept that he could be a protown killing role hollow and contrived.

Also, you completely neglected to provide a case on Toaster after I pointed out that you don't have one.

You are scum. If only there could be more than one lynch in the day.

[Max White]

You have a habit of missing the part where I explain stuff, don't you?
Two blocks, two missing kills? That is pretty condemning, but even more so when you choose to defend that Toaster could be a vig without questioning him over it. I mean you attacked Simple over role blocks, but when it comes to kills your willing to let anything slide? Even attacking anybody that goes after Toaster? Blatant chainsaw bro.

[Jim Groovester]

You have a habit of missing the part where I explain stuff, don't you?
Two blocks, two missing kills? That is pretty condemning, but even more so when you choose to defend that Toaster could be a vig without questioning him over it. I mean you attacked Simple over role blocks, but when it comes to kills your willing to let anything slide? Even attacking anybody that goes after Toaster? Blatant chainsaw bro.

It's not a perfect explanation for the missing kills. There are a lot of roles in this game and lots of combinations for the absence of two nightkills, or perhaps the presence of a single kill.

You know what your greatest crime is? It's that you are lazy. You are so fucking lazy. You are lazy fucking scum. It is disgusting. You disgust me with your laziness. It is grotesque and horrible that you think this pathetic effort is at all passable for a scum game.

Somebody who was town and had a mixed read on Simple wouldn't be perfectly content to do jack fucking shit about it. Somebody who was town wouldn't be perfectly content to go along with the easiest and laziest justification to vote a powerful player in the game.

[Max White]

A ha, I'm scum for a subjective quality that you can apply to anything without a frame of reference?
Doing jack shit? Na, I confirmed enough of what I needed. I had my doubts that maybe Toaster was protected and was in fact a target, but that got blown away. I thought maybe Toaster would claim he wasn't blocked, but he confirmed that he was.
I was also wondering if Toaster would provide us with something useful, but turns out nope, so that leaves the most reasonable coarse of action.

Remember what Toaster himself said in Supernatural, when he blocked Dariush? Back when he was town at that point. He said he makes a point of lynching people who are role blocked and no kill turns up, and that game was a closed set up. Sorry but sometimes we have to work with a margin of error, and with two blocks and two missing kills, that marine is small enough for me.

[Jim Groovester]

He was also wrong about Dariush having a kill, and lynched scum more through coincidence than anything else.

I fail to see what that example is supposed to prove.

[Max White]

If Toaster was town, and somebody else was being blocked not once, but twice in a row with a lack of kills, he would demand their blood. Hell, anybody with any sense would. Also, that was a cult game, but we know there are missing kills, for a fact. That makes this an even better case to lynch for.

The mechanics dictate that Toaster is scum, and they are a very reliable tell.

[Dariush]

If Toaster was town, and somebody else was being blocked not once, but twice in a row with a lack of kills, he would demand their blood.

Why? And how? 'Hey bros, who kept RBing me for the last two nights?'?

And even if you're right, Simple is scum for one very simple reason - he saw that while Toaster was blocked there still was a kill and he still blocked him again. There's no way to explain it, apart from EXTREME stupidity or being scum.

[Max White]

Well that would be a very good and valid point, if it weren't for the fact that you missed the point. It isn't that there was still a kill, but rather that there was one less kill. If there is one less kill when you block somebody, then it makes sense to block them again.

[Dariush]

If there is one less kill when you block somebody, then it makes sense to block them again.

There was one less scum killed. Why the fuck would you block someone AGAIN if the first block resulted in one less scum killed?

[Max White]

Wait... What? Are you trying to imply that you don't want scum dead? I mean that is what it reads as, but I don't know why you would say that, so could you rephrase or something?