|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 13:53:43 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 13:53:43 GMT -5
Moley, why are you making this so complicated? The simple answer is that SisC is scum and is lying. She tried to invent an investigator role similar to ryjae's and messed it up. Wait, are you suggesting that I just accept what you're saying without any kind of critical thought? 1) That's kinda shady, and 2) Do you even KNOW who you're dealing with here? Asking me not to think about stuff like this in detail is like... asking a fish not to swim. Why wouldn't I try and work this one out? The slip that you're ascribing to her is no more damning, in my mind, to the slip I'm assigning to HockeyMonkey. (Which is, to recap: she's told that dead people go to Hell, she claimed to receive a role PM stating that killing devils is good, yet she suggested that devils' wincon might be to make it to hell?) Yet you'll notice I'm not voting for her either. I'm not getting a scummy read off of SisC here. I agree that the Laurien thing needs to be explained, and if it's not explained to my satisfaction that this could have happened if she's not scum, I will vote SisC. I think it's at least reasonable to ask some pertinent questions first. Look, I suck at roles. We all know this. When you were scum together with me, it was my failure to kill BillMC and take his role for myself when I should have done that led directly to our loss. If I'm going to vote based on role-related evidence (as opposed to stuff I can actually do well, like scum linking, voting patterns, etc) then I want to be convinced.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:11:44 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:11:44 GMT -5
I'm telling you what the mod told me. I can't explain any further than I have. Vote me if you must, but I'd seriously look for "other" Devils at this point.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:14:52 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Feb 11, 2013 14:14:52 GMT -5
Based on her claim, if SisterCoyote had received a result of Guilty but Laurie did not die, we could deduce that there was a protection or other interference. Given that the result was Innocent, protection of Laurie doesn't explain the disparity. Sister Coyote, can your investigation be redirected or otherwise interfered with? If you have information that Laurie has no sins but she says she does, apart from one of you being untruthful, can you think of an explanation? I'm struggling to see a townie you saying "Look, she's innocent" and a scummy Laurie saying "No, I'm not"... I've said all along that Death by Inquisition can be prevented by protection etc. That would only apply if you'd received a result of guilty but Laurie survived, don't you remember? You can't keep your story straight. Vote SisCAs far as redirection, my PM this Dawn said laurieRN was innocent. Not "the person you investigated" not some other weasel words. Well, that rules out redirection then. Laurie, I'm guessing you didn't receive an offer to have your sins removed and weren't informed tht your sins had been cleansed overNight? I am not Scum, and I am not Lying. Those of you voting for me are all going to have an additional sin. Have you asked the mod to clarify sin or Sin? Have you clarified if your power can be interfered with?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:17:48 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:17:48 GMT -5
Based on her claim, if SisterCoyote had received a result of Guilty but Laurie did not die, we could deduce that there was a protection or other interference. Given that the result was Innocent, protection of Laurie doesn't explain the disparity. Sister Coyote, can your investigation be redirected or otherwise interfered with? If you have information that Laurie has no sins but she says she does, apart from one of you being untruthful, can you think of an explanation? I'm struggling to see a townie you saying "Look, she's innocent" and a scummy Laurie saying "No, I'm not"... I've said all along that Death by Inquisition can be prevented by protection etc. As far as redirection, my PM this Dawn said laurieRN was innocent. Not "the person you investigated" not some other weasel words. I am not Scum, and I am not Lying. Those of you voting for me are all going to have an additional sin. "Innocent" implies more than just that Laurie might have been protected. It implies that she had no sin. Something that she's explicitly denied. You seem to have backed yourself into a corner here... if Laurie isn't a devil, I don't see what motivation she has to lie about her sins. If she IS a devil, your "innocent" claim makes no sense, regardless of whether or not she was protected. I was wondering if your power referred to a part of the role of the other type of sin (not going into more detail here for obvious reasons), but your own wording contradicts that theory as well. Finally, my question was whether or not Laurien might be a scum Godfather. If sins can be "disguised" then that actually works. If you're scum I don't understand why you would back yourself into a corner like this. This is why I hate voting on "role-related" reasons. I get it wrong every single damn time. Screw it, Godfather theory it is. Vote: Laurien. For the record, I'd rather lynch DizzyLizzy than anybody else on the block right now. Sorry, Lizzy, if I'm wrong. I just hate the "informational" votes. Classic scum tactic. Town don't throw single votes "for information". (Yep, not even me, yesterday.)
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:18:31 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:18:31 GMT -5
No, I have not asked the mod either question -- I wouldn't get an answer before EoD, so it's rather a moot point.
And to your first comment: Bull. Bull bull bull. That's not what I said, and you know it.
/me gives guiri the stink-eye.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:20:03 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:20:03 GMT -5
Moley --
It implies that I get "guilty" or "innocent." Like any investigation, mine can be interfered with; likewise with any vigging.
There are sins and there are Sins and it is entirely possible that I have only cleared laurie of the latter.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:21:30 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Feb 11, 2013 14:21:30 GMT -5
I do not support the cases on SisC, Bill, or Dizzy, and I am wondering if this is one of the rare times when No Lynch might be the best vote. Anyway, I am instead looking to see who is laying low, keeping out of the fray, and placing "Safety McSaferton" votes, as MrV put it.
Vote: Crys
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:22:03 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 11, 2013 14:22:03 GMT -5
Sister Coyote, let me ask you a question. Does your power cause you to sin?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:23:52 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:23:52 GMT -5
Moley -- It implies that I get "guilty" or "innocent." Like any investigation, mine can be interfered with; likewise with any vigging. There are sins and there are Sins and it is entirely possible that I have only cleared laurie of the latter. Well your vigging wasn't interfered with, since Laurien was found to be innocent. It would have to be the investigation. Define "sins" and Sins". I'm not clear on that part and I don't want to lead the witness, so to speak.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:24:09 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:24:09 GMT -5
If I kill a Christian, yes.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:25:30 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:25:30 GMT -5
Or, reading back, ask the mod to do so.
Again, I don't want to lead you here, given how Patricia was caught.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:26:27 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:26:27 GMT -5
My previous response was to pollux; this is to Moley:
sins = ordinary, everyday sins of which we cannot but help doing being only impure mortal vessels Sins = Cardinal Sins, e.g., Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride
It is entirely possible that laurie has sin, being unconfessed, but does not have Sin.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:27:06 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:27:06 GMT -5
Again: The mod is AFK and not returning before EOD so it won't do me any good to ask him now.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:31:39 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 11, 2013 14:31:39 GMT -5
If I kill a Christian, yes. So because you found Laurie as innocent, you didn't sin last night. Hmmmmmm. Interesting. That means if you are a Christian, you're still at starting value, so it probably means you won't go to Hell if we lynch you. Also, since the extent of your powers is known, it might be better to lynch you now because the Devils may be able to figure out your Cardinal Sin before they kill you and damn you to Hell, which would be bad. On the other hand, your power is useful in eliminating Devils. Hmmmmm. Still have a half hour to think on this.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:32:38 GMT -5
You are extrapolating that I have a Cardinal Sin. Not everyone does.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:34:16 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:34:16 GMT -5
My previous response was to pollux; this is to Moley: sins = ordinary, everyday sins of which we cannot but help doing being only impure mortal vessels Sins = Cardinal Sins, e.g., Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride It is entirely possible that laurie has sin, being unconfessed, but does not have Sin. Well assuming the devils have sins... do they also have Cardinal Sins? I thought the Cardinal Sins were apparently what the devils could use to send us to Hell. I would think the mod would use the terminology Cardinal Sins if he meant Cardinal Sins. If that's the case, then we're back to the original dilemma: 1) You're lying scum, or 2) Laurie investigated as sinless last night but actually does have sins, or believes that she does. In case it's Laurie who's making the mistake here - or just isn't aware she's been "cleansed" - I'm going to Unvote: Laurie. Which brings me to option (6): a secret sin-eater role that targeted Laurie last night.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:35:41 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:35:41 GMT -5
Incidentally, where the heck is Storyteller? He would eat this problem up.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:38:08 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 11, 2013 14:38:08 GMT -5
You are extrapolating that I have a Cardinal Sin. Not everyone does. Fair enough. If you don't have one, though, that makes you even more useful to Town.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:38:59 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:38:59 GMT -5
That was meant to be: Unvote: Laurien, by the way. Just to make that clear.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:40:38 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Feb 11, 2013 14:40:38 GMT -5
Still have a half hour to think on this. Wait, what? I thought we had HOURS left. I hate time zones!
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:41:14 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:41:14 GMT -5
Noon PST. 20 minutes by my clock.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:42:18 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 11, 2013 14:42:18 GMT -5
Theologically, by the by, the Devils should predominantly be guilty of the sin of Pride.
It's why Lucifer fell, after all...
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:45:12 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 11, 2013 14:45:12 GMT -5
That was meant to be: Unvote: Laurien, by the way. Just to make that clear. It's actually LaurieRN just fyi.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:47:44 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 11, 2013 14:47:44 GMT -5
I do not support the cases on SisC, Bill, or Dizzy, and I am wondering if this is one of the rare times when No Lynch might be the best vote. Anyway, I am instead looking to see who is laying low, keeping out of the fray, and placing "Safety McSaferton" votes, as MrV put it. Vote: Crys So you're expressing your displeasure and suspicion of people laying low, keeping out of the fray, and making "Safety McSaferton" votes by keeping out of the fray and making a "Safety McSaferton" vote?
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:51:01 GMT -5
Post by wombat99 on Feb 11, 2013 14:51:01 GMT -5
I do not support the cases on SisC, Bill, or Dizzy, and I am wondering if this is one of the rare times when No Lynch might be the best vote. Anyway, I am instead looking to see who is laying low, keeping out of the fray, and placing "Safety McSaferton" votes, as MrV put it. Vote: Crys So you're expressing your displeasure and suspicion of people laying low, keeping out of the fray, and making "Safety McSaferton" votes by keeping out of the fray and making a "Safety McSaferton" vote? May I refer you back a few pages to before the filibuster? I've hardly kept out of the fray Today.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 14:55:56 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 11, 2013 14:55:56 GMT -5
So you're expressing your displeasure and suspicion of people laying low, keeping out of the fray, and making "Safety McSaferton" votes by keeping out of the fray and making a "Safety McSaferton" vote? May I refer you back a few pages to before the filibuster? I've hardly kept out of the fray Today. That's why I didn't accuse you of "laying low"...but by placing a vote on a player you know darn well won't be lynched Today, and washing your hands of the issue of who we will lynch, I certainly think you're "keeping out of the fray" at the moment.
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 11, 2013 16:44:52 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Feb 11, 2013 16:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day Two
Feb 14, 2013 17:29:55 GMT -5
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 14, 2013 17:29:55 GMT -5
Oh well, I suppose I have to answer this eventually. I can investigate someone at Night that I have voted for during the Day. I get results of who visits them and who they visit. I did something silly yesterday too so don't expect an investigation from me toNight. You were voting for me for not saying anything about investigating anyone or what I meant by my comment to Guiri, so I did say something and no I can't do anything toNight. I got a PM at dawn saying that Lauriern challenged me to a duel last Night and she lost. I don't have a killing role so she must have inadvertently killed herself. I was protected last Night so that could be it. I also have sins cos I helped lynch SisC so that could be it, I don't know. All I can say is that I'm not too happy about it and it makes me look bad. If I was scum I would have kept my mouth shut. Did we ever get an explanation for all of this? Jan has an investigative power, but she did something on Day 2 (or possible on February 10th, depending on whether she meant 'Day' or 'day') that pervented her from acting last Night...then apparently lauriern attacked her but wound up dead? Is that about it? Jan, did you report a result from a Night 1 investigation?
|
|