In post 1772, DVa wrote:This might actually be very close to auto-win on mass-claim
if you think the setup design is so crappy that after 2 town deaths its still an auto win you are delirious
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:31 pm
by OkaPoka
DDL? How do you know that BEF was a vig shot?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:32 pm
by DrDolittle
In post 1771, OkaPoka wrote:fair enough but that implies you know it was a vig shot on BEF?
Nope just a guess - but it makes more sense than scum shooting BEF
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:32 pm
by OkaPoka
No, don't back pedal on this. Your statement lacked qualifiers and you seemed pretty sure of it.
How do you know?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:33 pm
by DVa
Yeah something can't be right, there can't be 6 TPRs in a 13p game, even with scum roleblocker
unless some of them are heavily gated?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:35 pm
by OkaPoka
Talking in scum chat to get somebody to pull you out of your scumslip?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:35 pm
by DrDolittle
In post 1779, OkaPoka wrote:No, don't back pedal on this. Your statement lacked qualifiers and you seemed pretty sure of it.
How do you know?
Are you saying that I have to add "I think" to every statement? If I say Oka is scum, now I'm a cop that knows for sure you are scum?
It's literally a hypothesis, one that has been echoed throughout today
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:39 pm
by OkaPoka
The basis of your scumread on me implies that based on no evidence at all, kill on BEF was vig shot.
Then you claim my motivation of hypoclaiming is specifically because I want to out protectives for masonry, when the purpose of hypoclaiming is mainly to get investigative role hypo-claims. There'd be no reason for protectives to hypoclaim.
Your hypothesis requires several leaps in logic
1) BEF was a vig shot based on __
2) Scum!me shot masonry
3) Masonry was saved
4) I'm willing to sacrifice my position to start hypoclaiming that has no guarantee of working
5) Everyone is willing to cooperate with hypoclaiming
6) town protectives will hypoclaim their town protections, rather than just investigatives
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:40 pm
by OkaPoka
and based on these several leaps in logic, I am a solid lynch.
I think you know something that we don't.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:40 pm
by DrDolittle
^ yeah all these seem extremely likely and makes a lot of sense. Thanks for writing it out explicitly.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:41 pm
by Gamma Emerald
In post 1771, OkaPoka wrote:fair enough but that implies you know it was a vig shot on BEF?
Ew what? This looks like you trying to Jedi mind trick DrDolittle’s argument into one that makes him look bad
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:41 pm
by DrDolittle
In post 1783, OkaPoka wrote:when the purpose of hypoclaiming is mainly to get investigative role hypo-claims
Here's the key. You are not investigative, yet you are down and jiggy with hypoclaim. Why? A50 said as much.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:42 pm
by OkaPoka
Because having hypoclaims is nice in case that an investigative role gets shot without outting info?
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:44 pm
by DrDolittle
its also nice as scum to bait out information
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:45 pm
by Gamma Emerald
Like how does that imply KNOWLEDGE of such a thing? It implicitly states that he thinks that the case, but he didn’t say you were for sure hypoclaiming to fish out the role that stopped your kill. He just stated that was his theory. VOTE: OkaPoka
In post 1790, Gamma Emerald wrote:Like how does that imply KNOWLEDGE of such a thing? It implicitly states that he thinks that the case, but he didn’t say you were for sure hypoclaiming to fish out the role that stopped your kill. He just stated that was his theory. VOTE: OkaPoka
can you link me where he says that before i make my post about me saying that the implying thing
So Oka started a hypoclaim I think to try to bait out night information, since as scum he has more to work with.
Note the words “I think”
I wasn’t even sure my proof existed but BOOM.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:54 pm
by OkaPoka
lmao i guess i did
VOTE: gamma
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 7:55 pm
by OkaPoka
he did*
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:02 pm
by OkaPoka
anyways case on ddl could be typed but alternatively you could go to the DDU game, go to page 2 of katyusha's iso, ctrl+f "stating" and see katy's case on me about stating motivations and creating narratives vs genuine scumhunting
gamma is just a player who
has no fire to their spirit. if ur going to vote me and call me out for my bullshit then you need to be a little more combative than that