I'd like to apologise in advance for burdening everyone with a huge essay.
jak111 wrote:Read my posts Aage, and then ask clearly what you want to know in a single post, with everyone jumping around, I'm trying to keep my head together, so explaining myself again and again is not helping my thought process move forward.
Stop telling me to read your posts again. Seriously. Not just in this game. I wish you could just for once realise that I am not a blind fool but actually a well-lettered student at university level that is fully capable of reading those few poorly constructed paragraphs you wrote in your previous post.
Stop patronizing me. If you think a specific part of a previous post explains everything, quote that part. If I genuinely missed (a part of) one of your posts, which is possible since all humans (not in-game humans but actual humans...) err, point that out to me instead of gesturing vaguely, and pretending the game revolves around your brilliance and my putting question marks at you interrupts this divine process. Yes, you come across to me as arrogant, which I am sure is not your intention, so you might want to try to work on that. I know I come across as arrogant sometimes, and I try to work on it as well, but this is not helping, and yes, I have a problem with that.
Thank you. It is not necessary for you to reply to that part, I just needed to get that off my mind.
And as I said in the "Always wanted to say..." thread, it is
personal, but I don't hate you or anything. Just wanted to make that clear.
Secondly, and here is where my post becomes relevant to the game again. In my post I clearly defined the three issues I have with your post, just as I'm doing here, by using linking words. All that would be required of you is either to answer the three parts separately, or give a general answer to the post I made, which cannot be very hard since the part directed to you is what, five lines long? Could you try again?
jak111 wrote:The fact that me being confused about who WIlliam of York was is being used against what I'm putting out on the table, means somebody gotta be covering something up, I cleared that a while back that I didn't know who he was so I was confused if I was a saint or an angel or whatever.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems you're saying that you didn't read your role pm. Also, you say you cleared something while it seems there are several people who disagree. That probably means you didn't clear it as well as you thought you did. As long as you keep saying "I already did that", your accusers will keep using the same arguments against you. That does not mean your accusers are flawed, it means your clearance is flawed. In fact, the flaw has been pointed out. Repeatedly.
Is my case on Mr.Squirrel perfect? Hell no, he's too good at covering his bases to let a slip out easy. Are you gonna understand my logic without going back and re-reading what I am talking about? Probably not, considering I'm posting in a way that makes sense to me. But if you never WIFOM and you never question what it does, then essentially as long as the player is good enough to make active posts you will not question them. Mr.Squirrel is good at covering his bases in each post, I know this and hopefully so do some of you. A few others are also good at covering your bases when posting, but if Mr.Squirrel only finds angels, unless an angel wants to say they are third party or cult or whatever and we are assuming angels are town, then isn't that a bad power? Oh wait, that's right, I can't use logic because as my grasp of the present roles and alignments increase people will brush it off with past posts, sorry, I forgot.
Oh look, there is zero evidence against player X. He must be a scum masterbrain! *more wifom*
I think that the mistake you made in your reasoning is that a cop who only finds innocent people is useless to town. As Mr. Squirrel already demonstrated in his attempt to set Violet up, and as Strike Wolf repeatedly explained in his posts (which you seem to ignore, although I sure hope that's not the case) his power could easily have been used by town (Angels) to filter out non-angels for questioning, and clear angels from suspicion. Information is power, and public information is town power.
Moreover I find it doubtful that Mr. S would claim his role immediately on day 2 while he was never under any suspicion and would gain nothing by providing town with information and a public claim. As you can see, VioIet has not been lynched. If Mr. Squirrel were the masterbrain you say he is, he would never have undertaken such action.
I also find it hilarious that in the upper quote you told me to go back and reread, while in the second quote you admit that it won't help.
F1fth wrote:@aage - how do we know that Iliad even had that second vote to begin with? It could be his role is to conceal his vote and the ??? vote was simply his first and only vote. This sounds like it would be a scum role to me, and I think Iliad would know this. That makes it all the more suspicious that his second vote just so happened to be "stolen" before he ever confirmed he had two. As far as I'm concerned, Iliad is by no means confirmed despite his claim of Saint Elisabeth (which he has thus far refused to elaborate on as per /'s request).
How do we know --> we don't, except that he used an anonymous vote nearly immediately after he announced that he would. The day simply ended before Iliad "proved" he had two votes. Obviously his own vote was stolen by someone who didn't want him to have two votes. If I were a vote stealer, my first and foremost target would be a doublevoter because they are usually town aligned (which is the party that scum tries to undermine) and I might even get both votes.
Assuming that Iliad's claim is true, and a vote stealer targeted him last night and stole his ???-vote, there is nothing he can do today to prove that this ???-vote was stolen, he can only claim. Which he did.
Assuming that Iliad's claim is false, and your theory about concealing his vote is true, he probably lied about his vote getting stolen. Vote concealment would obviously be an option because Iliad never voted in the thread to put a ???-vote on VS, so it seems logical that if he would vote in the thread his vote would show up as normal (since almost all power roles are optional). In that case he would probably claim that he lost his ???-vote during the night. Which he did.
It seems to me that there is no different outcome to either scenario, and therefore I believe that pursuing it right now serves no purpose.