Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
(April 16th, 2015, 07:24)Mattimeo Wrote: For someone so quick to ridicule the argument that you'd say something demonstratably false in the hope that no-one calls you on it, you certainly seem to be doing exactly the same thing immediately afterwards.
Wait, what? Who am I calling on saying something demonstratably false?
I have to run.
Posts: 3,045
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2006
That theory against Pind is strange indeed.
Posts: 1,650
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2011
(April 16th, 2015, 07:31)AdrienIer Wrote: Not giving Krill town points is pretty weird for example, if he's scum and jailed Lewwyn why weren't there any deaths ? Trivial answer here is Krill's baiting the protective role that was actually successful last night to come forward and claim "hey, I protected <x>, so it could also have been them targetted rather than Lewwyn".
-- Don’t forget.
Always, somewhere,
someone is fighting for you.
-- As long as you remember her,
you are not alone.
Posts: 6,255
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
But then why did he claim to protect Lewwyn ? If someone else protected him he wouldn't come out
Posts: 1,650
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2011
(April 16th, 2015, 07:33)novice Wrote: (April 16th, 2015, 07:24)Mattimeo Wrote: For someone so quick to ridicule the argument that you'd say something demonstratably false in the hope that no-one calls you on it, you certainly seem to be doing exactly the same thing immediately afterwards.
Wait, what? Who am I calling on saying something demonstratably false? You're not; you're claiming something trivially disprovable (that the link you provided specified targetted redirection roles come before blocking roles) immediately after ridiculing claims that you'd do something like that deliberately.
-- Don’t forget.
Always, somewhere,
someone is fighting for you.
-- As long as you remember her,
you are not alone.
Posts: 23,453
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Yeah, but if someone comes forward and says that they were the person to jail Lewwyn (or whomever it was redirected upon) get's lynched the day after I turn up Town. So you won't see scum trying to frame me as scum because long term that path doesn't work.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 23,453
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Fucking no edit rules.
Quote:Yeah, but if someone comes forward and says that they were the person to jail Lewwyn (or whomever it was redirected upon), they get lynched the day after I turn up Town. So you won't see scum trying to frame me as scum because long term that path doesn't work.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 6,255
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
Rowain, Pindi being scum nightkiller means he's scum (3/16) and he was chosen to do the kill (1/3) which is theoretically 1/16. It's low compared to Lewwyn being targetted (~1/2 or 1/3)
Posts: 1,650
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2011
(April 16th, 2015, 07:39)Krill Wrote: Yeah, but if someone comes forward and says that they were the person to jail Lewwyn (or whomever it was redirected upon), they get lynched the day after I turn up Town. So you won't see scum trying to frame me as scum because long term that path doesn't work. Why would anyone be counter-claiming gaoler?
If you were scum, the reason for a lack of night-kill would have been completely unrelated to you imprisoning Lewwyn. That wouldn't (didn't, assuming scum) stop you from claiming that it was your efforts that prevented it, to gain cover.
On the other hand, that's a hypothetical situation, and one I honestly don't believe resembles reality all that much, so I should probably unvote you.
-- Don’t forget.
Always, somewhere,
someone is fighting for you.
-- As long as you remember her,
you are not alone.
Posts: 13,563
Threads: 49
Joined: Oct 2009
What was the edit, Krill?
(April 16th, 2015, 07:37)Mattimeo Wrote: (April 16th, 2015, 07:33)novice Wrote: (April 16th, 2015, 07:24)Mattimeo Wrote: For someone so quick to ridicule the argument that you'd say something demonstratably false in the hope that no-one calls you on it, you certainly seem to be doing exactly the same thing immediately afterwards.
Wait, what? Who am I calling on saying something demonstratably false? You're not; you're claiming something trivially disprovable (that the link you provided specified targetted redirection roles come before blocking roles) immediately after ridiculing claims that you'd do something like that deliberately.
Quote:The Golden Rule
Apply actions which modify other actions before the actions they modify.
At any rate, you really believe that after ridiculing the idea that I'd intentionally and nefariously claim something trivially disprovable, I would intentionally proceed to do that again? Like, really really?
I have to run.
|
