|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 11, 2013 7:46:49 GMT -5
Also, can a player suspicious if Cookies please address this: The case against Cookies is that they considered the possibility that a player may have missed certain important parts of their role PM. Cookies wasn't even arguing that a player had missed anything, but simply considered the possibility. I really don't see how you can go from that to " Cookies can't be a basic villager". Do you think that other players don't have their equivalent information displayed the same way? That is, your hypothesis is " Cookies, a Witch with 'Witch' in the role PM in bold and in the subject line and with an image, thought that basic villagers don't have the same indicators"? Pleo I've addressed this several times. I don't really care if someone called the basic village basic, vanilla, etc. It's a term, I can see calling a basic villager vanilla, because they aren't Holy/Spy/Witch. My problem with Peeker's slip was that in calling them vanilla, he was also saying they had no powers. It wasn't until later in the thread that he admitted he didn't see that basic villages had powers. That's where the problem lies. Because every player in the game has a power. It would be easy as a Witch/Spy/Holy to not realize that a Basic Player doesn't have a second card. But for a basic villager, it would be obvious that they had a power unless they 1) didn't read their PM, or 2) didn't read the rules, or 3) didn't read the game thread. I just find it VERY unlikely that Peekers didn't do any of those three, and therefore those who are saying "give him a benefit of the doubt" are suspect to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 11, 2013 10:15:04 GMT -5
May I also address Pleo's question?
A Witch with Witch bold-faced early in the body of the PM might guess that a Basic Villager has Basic Villager bold-faced early in the PM, and might not.
A Basic Villager wouldn't have to guess.
I don't think this is rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 11, 2013 10:36:12 GMT -5
Re Cookies. I can see the case for her not being basic town, though I am not sure it's nearly as conclusive as the case for peeker not being basic. What I wonder is why we are all assuming that she is not a spy? Because she told us she was not a spy? I don't think she'd be likely to claim spy if she were one, and in fact, it seems to me that a spy's main job is to not be identified as a spy. She not only said she wasn't a Spy, she also claimed Assassin Basic Villager or to quote her directly: <snipped> BTW, I'm Basic, Assasin.
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 11, 2013 10:42:48 GMT -5
Speaking of scum, Ginger, I think you're a lurking witch, I'd like you to die toDay. Defending Peeker, soft claiming non-basic, bandwagon pile on Peeker when it looked like a done deal, oh noes there's nothing to talk about, fence-sitting on Jan... Vote JustBeingGingerI like this case against JBG.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 11, 2013 10:46:43 GMT -5
I am the Investigator. Every Night I submit a target; in the Morning I learn whether or not that target is a Spy. The Innkeeper also receives that result. This would be a great Power for the Witches, if they had it! (If, after reading this post, you still think I might be Witch, please come back here and figure out how Witch would use the power, if they had it.) Even though he'd never learn anything he didn't already know, it would also be a great power for a Spy to have: "If you check them [the Spies] all, you gain an extra life." Instead I'm a Basic Villager and the power seems to have only smallish value. On Night 1, I asked about Cookies and learned she is NOT a Spy. Cookie's (deliberate?) Day-2 slip that she is not a Spy did seem an odd coincidence. I chose Cookies as target because she appeared not to be Basic Villager -- that increased the chance she was Spy. I did receive a result on another Player this Morning; I may or may not reveal it later toDay. In the remainder of this post I will prove that I am a Basic Villager. It won't be a 100%-complete mathematical proof, but should establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt for any objective reader. The proof will mention one or two "witnesses." I will NOT identify them by player-name, nor do I ask them to come forth for my defense. As I will show, my mention of their existence should be enough to convince reasonable players I am a Villager. One witness is the Innkeeper. I won't reveal that Player's name or even gender (but since I don't like the singular "they," I will refer to him arbitrarily as "she"). The Innkeeper and I can communicate and form a sort of 2-player Masonry. For that to be valid, we'd both have to be Villagers, of course. From our conversations I'm about 99% certain Innkeeper is a Villager, but I don't need to demonstrate that in this post. I intend simply to prove that I am a Villager. I will demonstrate this by disposing of any other possibility: Might Innkeeper and I both be Witches? The odds are against this of course, but this is one possibility I can't really refute. If this post is convincing then I suppose one might argue two Witches might have concocted it because it's convincing. But if any of you read this post and conclude that all this is a weird bundle of lies made up by two Witches, all I can do is throw my hands up in the air in astonishment. Might the Innkeeper be an inactive or dead Player? Since I know who the Innkeeper is, might I know she is not participating, and "put words in her mouth," knowing that no one will come forth to counterclaim? This might be a plausible guess, but is refuted by an extra "witness"! The Inquisitor knows (by clicking her PM links) who the Innkeeper is. Inquisitor would be happy to break silence and out a Witch ... assuming this is not some three-Witch conspiracy. To be clear: I am not asking either Innkeeper or Inquisitor to appear and confirm anything I post. Your silence will be enough. I know who Inquisitor is (the Innkeeper told me) and I know both Innkeeper and Inquisitor are alive and active in the game. To those who think I'm inventing all this knowing Innkeeper is inactive or dead, I ask: what are the odds that Inquisitor is also inactive or dead and that I would know that?Might the Innkeeper be a Villager whom I've fooled into thinking I'm not a Witch? First of all, if I were a Witch I'd surely be using my Investigations to narrow down the List of Witches-or-Spies that I'm looking at. I can't lie to Innkeeper about my targets or results; she is told by the Mods directly. Thus she knows I investigated Cookies and that Cookies is not a Spy. Thus anyone who thinks I am a Witch, must conclude then that Cookies must also be a Witch (along with my target of last Night) unless I've deliberately wasted my (huge-if-Witch) Power. If Cookies is my fellow Witch, why have I been trying to Lynch her?If I've lied in this post, Village Innkeeper should happily come forth to denounce me. In summary, we can conclude that were I a Witch, Innkeeper is not a Witch, nor dead, nor inactive, nor (since she won't denounce me) a Villager. Therefore I am not a Witch. Q.E.D. I think this is all very logical. Please Lynch me if you disagree. I'll then become an Angel, shaking my head in dismay and repeating Puck's "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 11, 2013 10:54:58 GMT -5
Also, can a player suspicious if Cookies please address this: Pleo I've addressed this several times. I don't really care if someone called the basic village basic, vanilla, etc. It's a term, I can see calling a basic villager vanilla, because they aren't Holy/Spy/Witch. My problem with Peeker's slip was that in calling them vanilla, he was also saying they had no powers. It wasn't until later in the thread that he admitted he didn't see that basic villages had powers. That's where the problem lies. Because every player in the game has a power. It would be easy as a Witch/Spy/Holy to not realize that a Basic Player doesn't have a second card. But for a basic villager, it would be obvious that they had a power unless they 1) didn't read their PM, or 2) didn't read the rules, or 3) didn't read the game thread. I just find it VERY unlikely that Peekers didn't do any of those three, and therefore those who are saying "give him a benefit of the doubt" are suspect to me as well. Very well said, Dizzy. I feel that people continuously making this argument are not Basic Villagers. As I said before, Basic Villagers know *exactly* what we mean. There are no, "well, maybe [fill-in-the-blank]" arguments that work here.
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 11, 2013 11:56:37 GMT -5
Not quoting Swammerdami's entire post b/c after reading the boards on my tablet, I realized how hard the WOW's are to get through.
I have read and re-read his claim. Then I went back and re-read his posts.
His posts overall seem to indicate Basic Villager to me and I can't see claiming Basic Villager and a false role, so I tend to believe his claim of Investigator as well. If he is not, the Innkeeper should/would (I hope) speak up.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 11, 2013 14:50:06 GMT -5
My! This is an interesting development. I certainly now believe that Cookies is not a spy. I can't imagine that with two other people to back him up that Swammer would lie about the investigation. Although as Swammer points out, I guess it is at least possible that the other two of the investigator/innkeeper/inquisitor trio are inactives like Hal and Wombat, but it seems unlikely, and in any case, unnecessarily risky to lie. And since I don't believe that Cookies is a basic townie, although the evidence is not quite as conclusive as peeker's case, I will
unvote: Swammer vote: Cookies
My unvote of Swammer is reluctant. Just because I believe that his investigation result is true, I don't believe that proves his alignment in any way, nor the alignment of the other iii's. A witch in the iii trio would be forced to tell the truth about an investigation and look as townie as possible, just as Swammer has done. Since his investigation happened on N1, it makes me doubly suspicious of his vote on SilverJan on D2 following his poopooing the case on SilverJan. And I don't necessarily believe that he is the investigator. He could easily be any of the iii trio.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 11, 2013 16:30:30 GMT -5
I already said I was not a spy, so this claim would be piss poor play on the part of an actual Village investigator, since there is nothing verifiable in the claim, and the claim offers 0 new information that wasn't already on the table. But then I don't think Swammer is a Village investigator. Vote Swammer[/color]
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 11, 2013 17:11:01 GMT -5
Swamptimus, a few questions: 1. When you say that a hypothetical witch-investigator would never learn anything they didn't already know, what do you mean? Surely the investigator is potentially a useful witch power, especially when the innkeeper is dead? 2. If Cookies is a witch, how do you think your partial claim helps village? 3. I don't follow your logic why you must be a villager based on your ability to communicate with the innkeeper- that's the innkeeper's power. 4. How would the innkeeper or inquisitor counter-claim you or call you out? While you may well be the investigator, there's no reason to believe you're a villager 5. I understand your last statement, if you were a witch your goal would be to distinguish spies from witches in the pool of witches known to you so your negative investigation result on Cookies would indicate she's a fellow-witch. Apart from an attempt to gain cred by bussing a fellow witch who's under lynch pressure, there's absolutely no reason why you'd be forced to investigate into the pool of possible witches, most especially when you were told that your result would be shared with a third party and they know your identity
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 11, 2013 23:08:54 GMT -5
Swamptimus, a few questions: 1. When you say that a hypothetical witch-investigator would never learn anything they didn't already know, what do you mean? Surely the investigator is potentially a useful witch power, especially when the innkeeper is dead? 2. If Cookies is a witch, how do you think your partial claim helps village? 3. I don't follow your logic why you must be a villager based on your ability to communicate with the innkeeper- that's the innkeeper's power. 4. How would the innkeeper or inquisitor counter-claim you or call you out? While you may well be the investigator, there's no reason to believe you're a villager 5. I understand your last statement, if you were a witch your goal would be to distinguish spies from witches in the pool of witches known to you so your negative investigation result on Cookies would indicate she's a fellow-witch. Apart from an attempt to gain cred by bussing a fellow witch who's under lynch pressure, there's absolutely no reason why you'd be forced to investigate into the pool of possible witches, most especially when you were told that your result would be shared with a third party and they know your identity 1. I said that a Spy Investigator would learn nothing. (It would still be a strong power, since he would quickly gain a 2nd life.) A Witch Investigator would be a big asset to his team, starting with a list of only 6 or 7 potential Spies. 2. (Wasn't mine a full claim rather than a "partial" claim? I suppressed only one result, and two player-role identities.) The motive was to help Judge avoid a misLynch. (I was nowhere near ten votes, but expected no one to get ten. My claim was directed at the Judge.) 3. (I thought I laid all this out in excruciating detail. ) Brief summary: If I were Witch Investigator, I could not both Investigate Cookies to be not-Spy and want her dead. If I am lying about my target and Innkeeper is Village, he will counterclaim. If I am lying and Innkeeper is dead or inactive, Inquisitor can counterclaim to point out I'm lying about Innkeeper being active. 4. By declaring that I'm lying. The Investigation target and certain other statements in my post are unlikely to be true if I'm Witch. 5. A hypothetical Witch Investigator learns nothing unless he targets from the Witch/Spy list. (BTW, an Elder Witch Investigator would be urging Coven to NK the Innkeeper.) Cookies wrote: > "I already said I was not a spy, so this claim would be piss poor play on the part of an actual Village investigator" I investigated you N1 before you said you were not-Spy. I reported the result as part of a chain of evidence for my truthiness.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 1:30:18 GMT -5
And if you're telling the truth, that would be shitty play because it introduces 0 new information and does nothing to support your case against me, nothing to support a case against anyone else, and nothing to clear anyone, including yourself. What is an Investigator's function? To incriminate or clear, and you're actions have done neither. If you are a Villager and an Investigator, you've now outed yourself with nothing to show for it.
Prior to your claim I thought maybe you were just mistaken and stubborn about what you thought was a gotcha comment on my part. But now that you've claimed as you have, that benefit of the doubt is getting too thin too stretch. I think maybe you're a Witch who is reaching to support a circumstantial case to get me mislynched.
What sucks in this scenario is that there is still a chance that you're a mistaken Villager since our testimonies are not mutually exclusive, but the veneer is quickly fading from that hyppothetical, imho. If that is what is happening, the Witches are having a good old time pointing and laughing at us right now.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 2:19:01 GMT -5
Hi Cookies.
I'm not going to change font size. Please use the zoom function on your browser to expand this text. Use the Google Translate webpage to translate to your native language which evidently isn't English.
1. Outing myself has very little cost: A Village Investigator in this game has very little importance -- even if I find a Spy I'm not going to tell anyone. True, the Coven won't waste a NK on me now, but they weren't going to anyway. 2. My post constructed a logical proof that I was Villager. If you think there's a flaw in the proof, point it out. Don't just babble. 3. The purpose of my outing was to prevent a misLynch of me. It had nothing to do with my case against you (except to confirm that I am Villager and you are not Spy). Please do translate this sentence to your native language, as you seem not to understand it. 4. That you are not a Spy does add info. At least one player stated he didn't want to Lynch you for fear you were a Spy pretending, for Witches' benefit, not to be. 5. I realized long ago that the case that you were not Basic Villager was never iron-clad; I voted you because I was suspicious and had no strong suspicions against others. In part because you voted Peekers, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. By now, however, although there are 2 or 3 others of whom I'm also very suspicious, you have become my prime suspect. Your refusal to acknowledge straightforward reason makes it appear you're totally floundering.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 3:59:47 GMT -5
Now you're just being a dick. Offering opinions of hypothetical bad play is not a personal attack. It is analytical and game-related. Childish insults on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 4:10:25 GMT -5
Reading back, I may have been a been a bit snarky in the past, but I've never called you stupid or anything like it. I accused you of being manipulative. Which is actually a compliment in this game.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 4:40:52 GMT -5
I should apologize. I over-reacted to your writing "And if you're telling the truth, that would be shitty play because ..."
Since I am telling the truth, you're accusing me of shitty play. I still consider it almost obvious I'm telling the truth, but should accept the possibility that you, for whatever reason, sincerely do think I'm lying.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 5:07:14 GMT -5
Everyone should be considering the possibilities that everyone else is lying, or telling the truth, or some combination of both (generally speaking, obviously there are some groups who have perfect information about each other and are exceptions to that). That's how the game is played. Half of my last substanative post was me mtalking about how you might be truthful. Truthful and mistaken about why I said what I said, but truthful. And maybe that is indeed the case.
Proving whether or not someone made a slip is inherently subjective. You are advocating one interpretation of what I said. I am advocating another. People have to pick one or the other or defer. That is a soft and squishy part of the game. I am not a Spy. And if you investigated me and found that I am not a Spy, that's a firm, tangible, confirmable mechanics-based part of the game.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 8:25:35 GMT -5
Cookies, you're making my claim all about you. Don't feel slighted, but my mention of Investigating you had nothing to do with you! It was just a fact about me, the Investigator, presented as part of a chain of proof that I must be Villager.
If you really think I'm Witch, you'll need to come up with a scenario. Is my claim of being Investigator false, and if so why doesn't Innkeeper or the real Investigator counterclaim? If I am Witch Investigator and you are neither Witch nor Spy so not on my List, why did I waste my N1 Investigation on you? Just so that I could make this weird Day-3 claim? If I'm lying about my N1 target, Innkeeper knows I am lying: Does your scenario require that the (still incognito) Innkeeper must also be Witch?
I constructed a step-by-step almost Euclidean proof that I'm Villager. To oppose it you really need something more specific than a vague sense I'm lying.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 12, 2013 9:46:31 GMT -5
Swammer, you keep saying this bit about a "proof", but I fail to see it. A witch with the Investigator role would play exactly as you have done. A witch in the other group from Cookies would know that Cookies was either a spy or a witch. You suspected that she was a spy, but N1 you investigated and discovered that she was a witch. You naturally decide to keep quiet about this and hop on the SilverJan wagon even after you poopooed it. But when Laurie makes the case on Cookies and Mahaloth and Crys jump on the wagon, you decide that you must vote Cookies to avoid suspicion. But you decide not to claim because you really do not want Cookies to be lynched. Today, after consulting with your fellow witches, you become the bus driver and claim in the hopes of "proving" yourself town.
Having the Investigator role does NOT make you a villager. Bussing a fellow witch does NOT make you a villager. And the more that you try to claim that you have "proved" that you are a villager, the more suspicious I become.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 12, 2013 9:59:45 GMT -5
Not edited to correct: Looking back at D2, I see that I still have Mahaloth and Crys's votes incorrect in my notes. They voted for Laurie yesterDay.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 10:10:05 GMT -5
... N1 you investigated and discovered that she was a witch. ... Today, after consulting with your fellow witches, you become the bus driver and claim in the hopes of "proving" yourself town. I did acknowledge this possibility in my claim. But please note that I was among the first to hint of the "Not-Basic" tell. I was also the one arguing strongly for Cookies' Lynch D2; reread to see that the bandwagon would never have gained strength without my posts. Rather extreme for early-round bussing, no? You might be correct to reason that if I am Witch, so is Cookies. Meanwhile, I'm keeping an open mind and think Cookies might well be Basic Villager as she claims! In an earlier post I mentioned that I have other strong Scum candidates. I won't post a complete laundry list, but I'll drop one hint ...
Texcat is near the top of that list.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 12, 2013 12:51:30 GMT -5
Septimus, if you were a witch playing logically, your logic is passable but with the existence of an innkeeper, a witch investigator's optimal strategic move may well be to go for a no information investigation, or depending on the other witch roles, sacrifice one of their own.
JustBeingGinger, nothing worth commenting on? Afraid of the spotlight?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 13:04:47 GMT -5
Proving whether or not someone made a slip is inherently subjective. I wanted to follow up on this and say that proving whether or not someone played their role well or not so well is also just as subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 12, 2013 13:08:46 GMT -5
Sorry for my inactivity. Life happened. Responding to posts/ideas in reverse order.
I don't agree that cookies/you would be a scumteam, Swammer. Like, at all. That would be weird.
I also don't really agree that your role is necessarily better for the mafia than the town. As a townie, anyone that you find out is a spy is 100% clear, but at the same time, the mafia will be reticent to vote for them on the off chance that they're a teammate. This can be really useful for forming reads for both you and the Innkeeper, who may not be clear but also has your information and thus is someone you can talk to. If the Innkeeper's mafia, they can kinda sabotage your reads from that by letting their buddies know what's up, but the other half of the scumteam still doesn't have that advantage. Meanwhile, mafia don't necessarily want to hit spies over potential Holy villagers.
I'm not particularly fond of your 'proof' of you being a villager for, well, a number of reasons -
Because you have two witnesses, you have every impetus to act exactly as you think a townie investigator should act as long as the innkeeper is town. Dropping your power on players that you know you can't clear that still aren't mafia isn't bad play as long as the innkeeper is still alive. It gives the town as little information as possible from your role, and can even be used to try to force a ML.
I'm also not particularly fond of your response when you listed the idea that the Innkeeper could also be a witch - you basically just say that if you were, then you made a convincing post. You even admit "this is one possibility I can't really refute." I mean, it's not particularly likely that you're both witches just based on the probability of that happening, but it certainly doesn't make the combination impossible, which you later go on to say that it does - "...were I a Witch, Innkeeper is not a Witch..."
At this point, though, I'm really averse to lynching you if only because you're generating discussion and most of the rest of us aren't. I was a little bit tempted to vote for you just because you said to vote for you if we weren't convinced by your post, but I'd much rather hear what you have to say about Tex.
I really like the case on JBG as well. In my reread, I saw pretty much exactly what Guiri did. In fact, Deadline Vote: JustBeingGinger in case I can't get on later. I think it'd be nice if we could hear what other people thought about this, though.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on May 12, 2013 13:11:48 GMT -5
... N1 you investigated and discovered that she was a witch. ... Today, after consulting with your fellow witches, you become the bus driver and claim in the hopes of "proving" yourself town. I did acknowledge this possibility in my claim. But please note that I was among the first to hint of the "Not-Basic" tell. I was also the one arguing strongly for Cookies' Lynch D2; reread to see that the bandwagon would never have gained strength without my posts. Rather extreme for early-round bussing, no? You might be correct to reason that if I am Witch, so is Cookies. Meanwhile, I'm keeping an open mind and think Cookies might well be Basic Villager as she claims! In an earlier post I mentioned that I have other strong Scum candidates. I won't post a complete laundry list, but I'll drop one hint ...
Texcat is near the top of that list. Why is texccat near the top of that list? I'm not sure I know what to make of swammer and cookies right now. My initial read of swammer's post was that it was a solid case that he/she is a villager. Actually, I'll think out loud for the rest of this post. Am I right about the following? - Cookies claimed non-basic villager - Swammer is saying that Cookies came back as "non-spy" This all means Cookies is a witch? What am I missing about this case? I have been extremely busy these last weeks and now that Track is finished(I coach it), my time should loosen up a bit, especially not on weekends.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 13:30:16 GMT -5
Why is texccat near the top of that list? ... ... Am I right about the following? - Cookies claimed non-basic villager - Swammer is saying that Cookies came back as "non-spy" No. Cookies claimed nothing until, under some pressure, she claimed "Basic Villager -- Assassin." The idea that she was non-Basic comes from D1 when, defending Peekers, she made a comment that might seem odd if she'd seen a Basic Villager role PM. If you really missed all that discussion, I'll accuse you of skimming. If the unexplained mention of Texcat bothers you, ignore it. I may or may not support a case against someone other than Cookies later toDay.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 13:39:22 GMT -5
Why is texccat near the top of that list? ... ... Am I right about the following? - Cookies claimed non-basic villager - Swammer is saying that Cookies came back as "non-spy" No. Cookies claimed nothing until, under some pressure, she claimed "Basic Villager -- Assassin." The idea that she was non-Basic comes from D1 when, defending Peekers, she made a comment that might seem odd if she'd seen a Basic Villager role PM. If you really missed all that discussion, I'll accuse you of skimming. If the unexplained mention of Texcat bothers you, ignore it. I may or may not support a case against someone other than Cookies later toDay. No?? How is that answer no? I believe the proper response, assuming you're being truthful would be, "Yes, but..." where you could then elaborate on other information. But the two isolated incidents that Mahaloth posted happened in exactly the order he posted them in, so the answer is "Yes". Also, the implication of your post is that waiting until I had some lynch pressure to fully claim is somehow incriminating, which is it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 12, 2013 14:07:47 GMT -5
Mahaloth wrote "Cookies claimed non-basic villager, [right?]" Unless I missed something the answer to this is "No." No?? How is that answer no? I believe the proper response, assuming you're being truthful would be, "Yes, but..." where you could then elaborate on other information. But the two isolated incidents that Mahaloth posted happened in exactly the order he posted them in, so the answer is "Yes". Also, the implication of your post is that waiting until I had some lynch pressure to fully claim is somehow incriminating, which is it isn't.
I'm really sorry we seem to be antagonizing each other. My response to Mahaloth was intended to be Fair and Balanced. I was (and still am) unaware of any "implication .. that waiting ... is somehow incriminating." I think you're reading things into my posts that aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 12, 2013 14:33:33 GMT -5
Cookies, you're making my claim all about you. Don't feel slighted, but my mention of Investigating you had nothing to do with you! It was just a fact about me, the Investigator, presented as part of a chain of proof that I must be Villager. This is how I read your post - It did not feel like a case against Cookies. It felt like your were explaining your claim.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 12, 2013 14:43:55 GMT -5
Argh. Yes, I somehow missed the 'non-' in Mahaloth's post. So you are indeed correct that it is indeed inaccurate statement. My bad.
|
|