A Story Revisited (Anything uPick): Day 6

[NicoRobin]

How many times do ou plan to mislynch me before realizing that lurking is my town trait? 13456?

[jjh927]

You're not flat out lurking though

[NicoRobin]

I might go back to that if you continue being stupid.

[NicoRobin]

Like, you want to vig a rolecop in the name of protecting someone who may be lying about their role. That's sheer stupidity, if you ask me. Oh, and double standards. Can't forget double standards.

[jjh927]

I don't have any interest in vigging you

[jjh927]

You have been consistently defending yourself by misrepping me and then making arguments with no logical validity, a fair bit of ad hom, and visible panic. Gives me more to work with on a mega case tomorrow

[jjh927]

Might I have got something from the Firebringer slot? Maybe. Might you need to be worried about that? Also maybe I guess. But this is the first I'm mentioning of it

[NicoRobin]

One more thing. When I say 'you', I mean in plural.

[jjh927]

Oh okay so everyone is stupid because someone suggested something got it

[jjh927]

That's worse than just admitting you can't remember who said what

[NicoRobin]

Everyone who defends mastina solely because of role is stupid.

[NicoRobin]

especially when there is possibility she is lying regarding said role.

[jjh927]

Yeah you keep saying that but when it comes to providing reasons for scum reading her you're being totally useless.

We've given reasons for why she can be role by town here and considered why she would not be lying. You have yet to actually attack those reasons

[NicoRobin]

Okay, but what if I rc her and prove that she was lying. What then?

[NicoRobin]

And I do not need to attack those reasons. The fact that you townread her because of role when I have proven why that's a bad idea, plus the fact that she is being useless in terms of play now and is generally useful as town is enough.

[Vecna]

One particularly interesting thing is how certain NicoRobin is that Mastina is lying, when she supposedly holds a role that can determine this and did not use it to determine this, but is critical of others for being so sure she is telling the truth.



But I mean the visible panic with her interactions with me should be all you need anyway

Way more interesting question: What result could she possibly have gotten on Porkens role that makes her so sure Mastina is lying about a loyal modifier and thus scum?

NR?

[jjh927]

You have yet to prove it's a bad idea to townread her on role. Doing so would involve attacking the reasons I do so

[jjh927]

Also I decide who or what is or isn't useless

[Varsoon]

This No Lynch guy is so screwed.

[NicoRobin]

You have yet to prove it's a bad idea to townread her on role. Doing so would involve attacking the reasons I do so

No, doing so would involve citing a previous game in which such an approach went badly.

But I'll humor you. Why are you 100 % sure that this role can't be a scum role? You said that the flavor matches the role, but have you ever heard about a fakeclaim flavor?

[NicoRobin]

Also, you conveniently neglected to address this

Okay, but what if I rc her and prove that she was lying. What then?

[jjh927]

You have yet to prove it's a bad idea to townread her on role. Doing so would involve attacking the reasons I do so

No, doing so would involve citing a previous game in which such an approach went badly.

But I'll humor you. Why are you 100 % sure that this role can't be a scum role? You said that the flavor matches the role, but have you ever heard about a fakeclaim flavor?

It would have to be a perfect flavour fakeclaim. Note that RC introduces the gladiate with "A guilty has been declared" and RC finds Ginngie declaring guilties on town to be hilarious so mod meta has, if anything, more than a perfect fit there.

Citing a previous game in which such an approach went badly only works if you actually understand this approach, and because you think it is universal and identical to all other setup spec you clearly do not. It is not enough to say "This didn't work here" if you don't understand the specifics of why it didn't work there, because this case is different to that one and you need to make the case of why the specifics of that situation apply to this one.

[jjh927]

Also, you conveniently neglected to address this

Okay, but what if I rc her and prove that she was lying. What then?

In that situation, Mastina would presumably try to gladiate you. Note that Mastina must activate this ability in chat, and so she cannot specifically choose to fail it, and it is publicly visible when she has attempted it.

The way you would claim a guilty on Mastina is saying she is not loyal. At which point, if you were telling the truth, she would still be able to gladiate you, and thus we would lynch Mastina. If you say she's not loyal, and then she fails to gladiate you, then we would lynch you. This is mechanically solved by itself.

[jjh927]

Enjoy the corner you are in

[jjh927]

Also, you conveniently neglected to address this

Okay, but what if I rc her and prove that she was lying. What then?

In that situation, Mastina would presumably try to gladiate you. Note that Mastina must activate this ability in

chat

thread, and so she cannot specifically choose to fail it, and it is publicly visible when she has attempted it.

The way you would claim a guilty on Mastina is saying she is not loyal. At which point, if you were telling the truth, she would still be able to gladiate you, and thus we would lynch Mastina. If you say she's not loyal, and then she fails to gladiate you, then we would lynch you. This is mechanically solved by itself.