Triglav, 837 wrote:xvart [emphasis ours] wrote:[Triglav's] initial vote on me had terrible justifications. Like I said, the list was going to be made, there is no doubt about that, so you voted for something that was not a scumtell. It's not a towntell, either;
but the fact that you don't assert with any sort of backup that I was going crazy to be the first person to post the list
in an attempt to look town by being helpful or that I needed crazy town points because of evidence A, B, and C does not help your case.
We...did claim that you did it right away to look townish.
Don't understand.
Want time/date stamp to show how quickly you volunteered to do it?
Okay... I suppose that saying "Noise/Ward list coming in next post" could be construed as "volunteering" in an "attempting to look townie." What alternative is there? Should we have voted on who was going to make the noise list? Ideally, who should have started the list and when? My point is your justification would have fit for anyone who started the list, which is terrible justification for a serious vote, which you are defending as such. Which reminds me, I never added the one missing piece.
Lost Butterfly, 1086 wrote:xvart wrote:
Relevance?
He's the only one on that hydra I can read one way or another (mostly due to lurking as scum), or at least the easiest and only one of their posts before then hadn't been signed so I wanted to know who made it.
I'm not really sure I buy this; which post of Trilobite are you referring to? They all are signed in the day leading up to your comment. This looked like a deflection in trying to get some hydra support since someone hadn't posted yet. In the context of that post, it seemed relevant to the hydra discussion and not to trying to read out a possible scum lurker. Also, all the arguments just seem a little out of place or off; like Faraday talking in third person? These responses just don't plausibly sit well with me as all being legitimate; but I recognize that it is circumstantial at best now.
UNVOTE:
While looking back I saw I missed this question:
Trilobite, 647 wrote:Xvart have you ever played with furc before? If so, what game(s)?
I think I've only been in one game with Furcolow, and it is on going. That is the only game that comes to mind; which is why his read on me and my play is so intriguing because he has never struck me as the player to metamine.
Seacore, 1118 wrote:Furpants_Tom wrote:
Yes, the flavours are different; but he can claim his murder was rezzed away - as, in fact, we're already planning to allow him to do.
Actually this reminds me of something that should be brought up.
There's almost certainly going to be a greater ritual tonight, I don't see a reason why it would just be a standard one.
So: Benmage murdering fate, Player A rezzing fate, Cultists doing ritual
will look the same as
Player A rezzing fate, Cultists doing greater ritual.
Both of them allow a rezzer to step forward and say "I tried to Rez Fate last night and I got blood all over me, but fate is still dead"
Hell, Cultist-Benmage could have had one of his buddies pick up a rez kit for that express purpose, i.e. in my second example, Player A could be cult.
I'm not saying this is what happened or will happen, I'm just saying we can't discount it just because of the kill flavour
The problem with your final speculation is that your assumption is based on Benmage Murdering Fate, so Benmages Cult buddies does not follow. Also, even if the Cult crafted a Fetish of Fate I doubt they would use it tonight just based on the pure madness that is surrounding them and the madness that will probably be tomorrow depending on what Benmage does tonight. And, why would they kill someone who might die tonight anyway? This whole rezzing thing just doesn't seem worth it to try to get some town cred for Cult members, especially when a Murder could easily unravel their plans by murdering one of the people involved in this plot.
Seacore, 1128 wrote:It's particularly interesting that he has taken a comment of mine about how frustrating the Fate/Benmage thing was in early days and decided its a scum tell, as I'm pretending to be a concerned townie.
Yet we're not allowed to take this as a scum tell, because it's just a sign of his laziness.
I.e. He's allowed to be lazy, I'm not allowed to be frustrated.
I don't see how the two tells are comparable, other than they both are fairly bad tells.
ReaperCharlie, 1159 wrote:If I was cult, why wouldn't I just let Furcolow get lynched?
Really? This is easy. ScumRC would want Furcolow alive because in the eventual event of his lynch you could claim an impeccable read on him. Also, him being alive would create a player slot that could very well be detrimental long term, or at least create pages of nonsense and little content to filter through for days. The fact that you have always been so adamant about Furcolow not being lynched has always struck me as odd, because even if you think he is so obvious town, you don't strike me as a player that would be up in arms about keeping him around. You have always struck me as a guy willing to trim the fat, or at least not caring enough about not trimming the fat.
ReaperCharlie, 1004 wrote:Wait, I thought the Cult could kill each night regardless of stalking.
Fetishes give people extra insanities, and the Ritual kills 'em, right?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Now this is something I could actually see ScumRC doing as misdirection. Trying to pull a not so fast one on everyone. Who were you even talking to when you made this comment Reaper?
VOTE: ReaperCharlie
Feysal, 1164 wrote:If you are so sure, why are you not defending him with proper arguments? Your word alone does little to influence my opinion of him... though I've not yet really formed my opinion, I will have to read ReaperCharlie's posts to see where this wagon is coming from.
Feysal, meet DGB. DGB, meet Feysal.
xvart.
