Mini 2063 - Rapier Upick Shuffle [Game Over]

[Parmigiano Reggiano]

Oh btw what did parm claim? It was the parry anybody thing right?

I will flip town, yes. I'm the Town Enhanced Parrier, I can parry anyone regardless of who they're voting. They switch to Not Voting and they forfeit the right to vote the player they were parried from for the rest of the DP.

[Brigitte]

I want Brigitte

Not interested.

[Brigitte]

@Mod VLA till Friday

[Reality Check]

Has it been tested?

[Parmigiano Reggiano]

Has it been tested?

No, I'd rather not since it's once per game.

[mbaki]

beep boop beep im a sheep

[mbaki]

if reality check is going to hard block the other scummy slots

VOTE: Varsoon

VOTE: Michael Scott

VOTE: Varsoon

[mbaki]

Has it been tested?

No, I'd rather not since it's once per game.

and regardless of alignment, fake claiming a provable role like that is dumb so that is his real role (or at least part of it) if he's scum

[mbaki]

I knew joining this game was a bad idea

thank you, next

[mbaki]

Your reads are obscene

I might just replace out this game is awful

needy

[mbaki]

Oh wait Brigitte is town too
Oh wait parmigiana is town too

imagine

[mbaki]

So, back to the Alonzo wagon. Choo choo.

Upon review, I do not think that Fractured or Brigitte is scum. I am not necessarily opposed to a compromise wagon on GuiltyLion now. But I would strongly prefer Alonzo being lynched.

Could we get more votes on him please?

break up with your girlfriend, i'm bored

[Fractured]

You're right, the next time someone tries to tell me the earth is flat, I'll just keep my mouth shut because telling them I disagree is the same thought process used to support anti-vacc argument.

[mbaki]

You're right, the next time someone tries to tell me the earth is flat, I'll just keep my mouth shut because telling them I disagree is the same thought process used to support anti-vacc argument.

ooh, another good example! but yours only works the other way around. burden of proof is on the accusing party, not on the defender.

[Fractured]

The fact that you don't fundamentally disagree with anti-vacc is probably the least surprising thing here.

[Fractured]

You're right, the next time someone tries to tell me the earth is flat, I'll just keep my mouth shut because telling them I disagree is the same thought process used to support anti-vacc argument.

ooh, another good example! but yours only works the other way around. burden of proof is on the accusing party, not on the defender.

Actually, you're backwards. Burden of Proof is on the claimant.

[mbaki]

that is what i just said, yes

[Fractured]

The fact that one part is accusatory in court is due to the fact that the accusatory party makes a claim. But thank you for that excellent example of a situation where correlation does not imply causation.

[Fractured]

that is what i just said, yes

No, it's not.

[mbaki]

the claimant is the accusing party, in legal terms the plaintiff

[Fractured]

the claimant is the accusing party, in legal terms the plaintiff

Behold! A correlation! Burden of Proof lies on the claimant, and the claimant is the accusatory party in court.

[Fractured]

You're right, the next time someone tries to tell me the earth is flat, I'll just keep my mouth shut because telling them I disagree is the same thought process used to support anti-vacc argument.

ooh, another good example! but yours only works the other way around. burden of proof is on the accusing party, not on the defender.

"Someone tries to tell me" = "someone makes a claim" that person is the claimant, and burden of proof lies on them.

[mbaki]

= somebody makes an accusation, yes. then the defending party disproves the evidence or argues or w.e legal term you want

[Parmigiano Reggiano]

This is fun, which one of you is scum

[Parmigiano Reggiano]

This is fun, which one of you is scum

Also which head is talking rn