• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kipper last won the day on May 14 2015

Kipper had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,339 Steel Inquisitor


About Kipper

  • Rank
    Official Cheshire
  • Birthday 06/30/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,986 profile views
  1. They are aflame. They burn. They bring the darkness when they come, and so all you can see is that their skin is aflame. Burn, burn, burn... 

    — Collected on Palahishev 1172, 21 seconds pre-death, by the Silent Gatherers. Subject was a baker's apprentice.
  2. Can confirm that Mark was not the Tineye, and admitted to having the role that he was Seeked as to me in PM. Rae. I might have believed you over Wilson if you hadn't brought Mark into it.
  3. Yes. I want to remain alive. That's my reason. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that Ecthelion's death wasn't something that a lot of people wanted, or thought that they would gain value from.
  4. I'm going to retract Hero, and vote Ecthelion instead. I want to live, thanks.
  5. Well, I'm not entirely ready to let Hero off the hook for this absurd tunneling. We've been over this multiple times, but what motivation would the Spiked have to kill me? They already have a guaranteed conversion with Meta's rotting carcass. They would only gain a conversion from me, but they would lose the distraction of the discussion/suspicion around me. That discussion/suspicion is fairly dominant in the thread right now. Even if I by some miracle survive until the late game, I'll have suspicion attached to me that the Eliminators can use to their advantage. Again - the village has no verifiable reason to trust Hero. But Hero is trying to make things out as if he's confirmed village.
  6. I'll just say here that I really don't understand why people are suspicious of Aonar, or why this is a Aonar vs. Kipper thing. What has Aonar done that's suspicious? Not posting because he doesn't have anything relevant to say? He's not being inactive at all, and he's promptly responded when requested to. A few things: As @Elenion pointed out, I'll likely be Smoked regardless of what I claim, so no, I'm not going to claim in thread and give the Eliminators an idea of the best to kill me tonight. The Seeker will be confounded if they try to Scan me anyway. Re: Inactivity. As I said before, I've been incredibly busy lately with school, relationship stuff, and work. This morning, I was sick and throwing up, but I still had to make it to a required school event that made me feel even worse. Did not have time to post. Also, what's the point of me posting and saying "See, I'm a village thug?" I wouldn't do that in any case, because I don't make a habit of public roleclaiming. Thug is one of three obvious things I could say about my role (Thug, Inquisitor, Mistborn), and I wouldn't claim any of them ever in public. Also, you're taking actions that you wouldn't normally consider suspicious, or even actions that directly conflict with someone's playstyle and personality, as things that must signify Eliminatorness. Do I really seem like the type of person to "panic" and "consult the evil-doc" before being able to post? I'm capable of defending myself, and I think you know that. I don't have anything relevant to say during the Night (except PROTECT ME), and I'm obviously not going to claim Inquisitor. It's not as if me saying "See, I'm a village Thug!" would have removed your suspicion on me. In fact, you probably would have made an entirely separate post talking about how obvious roleclaims are suspicious. #tunneling Re: Your power. GM confirmation that a name is revealed when a Lurcher blocks a kill is not GM confirmation that you are a Lurcher. Pretty important distinction right there. Relying on illogic to bolster your role claim isn't the best. Also, it does get proven more concretely. With a Seeker. Re: role fishing. Quibble over definitions all you want, but I ask for roles in PMs directly in every game with PMs, regardless of alignment. Also, relying on IKYK and possible WGG (however publicly you attack the idea of it being a WGG) for reinforcement of your suspicions of me being an Inquisitor is illogical. No, I don't think that it's time I put my "money where my mouth is" and publicly reveal my informant, and I'm startled that you would suggest revealing said info to you. You are not as confirmed-village as it is possible for a player to be; the tin-eye is. I wish I could vote for Hero during the Night, but maybe a Coinshot can do it for me. @Mark IV I'll agree with Hero that some confirmation would be nice.
  7. I've been quite busy lately with IRL things, like student government, school, and investing time in a pretty exciting new relationship, so there's that. (<-- all this in OOG color because it's true, but I'm not sure whether we're using blue these days) Re: Hero's suspicions of me. I have not been “fishing for roles.” When I want to find out someone's role, I ask them explicitly, and I don't beat around the bush. In my first or second PM to Hero (I believe it was the first), I asked him for his role explicitly. His impression of me “role-fishing” most likely comes from the way I asked for his role, which went something like this: “Hey Hero! Someone told me that you're a Seeker. Is that true?” Hero then thought, “Hmm, I already posted publicly telling people not to role reveal in PMs, and Kipper knows that (I didn't actually know that; completely missed that section of Hero’s post). Obviously he’s lying about someone telling him I'm a Seeker, and he's just fishing for roles.” Here's the thing though...someone did actually tell me that Hero had claimed Seeker, and I was just following my usual pattern of directly asking people about roles. I still don't know whether or not Hero is actually the Seeker, but I'm leaning towards not. Anyway, let's assume for a second that I was actually fishing for roles. Regardless of my assumed alignment, why would I do something so contrary to my normal play? Why would I role fish Hero, an experienced player who posted in thread about not revealing roles? Short answer: I wouldn't, and I didn't. I'm not disputing the words I've said in PMs, but calling them fishing is dishonest and fallacious. Also, it's honestly startling to see how many people have jumped on this bandwagon. Think for yourselves, and don't be so quick to jump on bandwagons when the person hasn't even had time to defend themself (<-- that's a word). TL;DR Just because Hero denies claiming Seeker does not mean someone didn't tell me that Hero claimed Seeker. I always explicitly ask for roles and that's not unusual. Also, the person that told me Hero claimed Seeker has given me one Seeker result that was confirmed by @Mark IV.
  8. Okay, this "challenge" thing seriously ticks me off. What motive does the Inquisitor possibly have for playing in a honorable way? It's just dumb. Why not keep to the shadows with your confirmed village group and influence things from there? The Inquisitor knows that you're a Misting because the Inquisitor can see you using your power; there's no need to tell him. Also, the whole concept of villagers making fail-safes so they can be immediately killed if they get converted leeches a lot of the fun out of the game. Just like people were saying "It won't be fun if we kill the Inquisitor in the first cycle," it also won't be fun if the Inquisitor converts someone and we immediately know who it is and lynch that person. It doesn't make sense to me to play with the idea in my head that my alignment might change. We should play for our current alignments without sabotaging our ability to play for our alignment if that alignment changes. @little wilson I know we have our disagreements on how alignments should play; no offense is intended. K. Rant over. All that said, I'm putting a vote on Hemalurgic_Headshot. He's been following a pattern of posting without actually contributing anything, and he (along with Arinian) did a weird sort of vote switch to Araris last Day, sheeping Wilson for no apparent reason. I still maintain my suspicion of Arinian. Note: I don't care if people just don't contribute; it's when they post without contributing anything that my gears are grinded and my suspicions are flared.
  9. @STINK A LOVE LETTER TO STINK Jack the Ripper/ Off the light of consciousness// The bell tolls because someone rung it/ Frozen hearts remain frozen// (unless the power goes out in your shop) Dessert comes with an opportunity cost.
  10. @Arinian as others have mentioned, people's playstyles can change radically from game to game. I prefer to use and see in-game reasoning rather than outside-game reasoning. Also, I missed this post earlier (I've been on mobile a lot, and it's easier for me to miss things), but here's a classic, obvious example of what I mean by fillerposting. @Drake Marshall
  11. @Drake Marshall I basically said what I was doing is filler-posting, and that it was and is irrelevant to the game. Also that I was only discussing it because it involves motivations and assumptions. Because I don't have anything else of import to say, it would be a much more heinous example of filler posting to make a post that solely exists to agree with someone else. You're defining filler posting very broadly. Too broadly. My vote on Arinian and the reasoning attached still stands. Next, I'm not a Coinshot, and I would have no reason to do a long post basically abusing myself for killing Aman. And I agree with you that it's hard to understand why a Coinshot would kill him. But it's harder to understand why an Inquisitor would do so.
  12. My groups of points are all co-dependent on one another. No one point stands on its own. However, I still consider them all very strong. This one...leaving him alive, the Inquisitor would gain possible misdirection, possible suspicion from Aman, and presumably a future conversion. Killing him, the Inquisitor loses the potential of suspicion from Aman, loses the potential for conversion of a typically trusted player. Add Aman's challenge to this, and my personal opinion is that an experienced Inquisitor would leave him alive. We're basically repeating ourselves on this point, though. Hey, don't sell yourself short! We were all new players once. To your point: Regardless of Aman's previous sneakiness, it would seem just a wee bit off for anyone to request death. My primary reason why an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't kill Aman is the whole dare thing. Imo, an inexperienced/erratic/whatever Inquisitor's thought process on this would be largely distilled to the dare, which seems quite fishy. Why would an inexperienced Inquisitor assume that Aman would honor his word if Aman is requesting a kill on himself? That's ludicrous. Honestly, I think making the dare was a horrible, pointless move for Aman himself, though I wasn't expecting him to die. Again, we're just repeating ourselves on this point. Well, I'd argue that what the Inquisitor did instead of killing is not a weakpoint in my reasoning, solely because I didn't even address it. Perhaps the Inquisitor was inactive; perhaps the Inquisitor made another action. I don't really care. In fact, this whole argument is rather irrelevant. It won't make a difference to the game. I'm addressing only motivations because I like to talk about them. In my analysis, the Inquisitor doesn't have a good motivation for killing Aman that is good enough to outweigh the drawbacks and potential drawbacks. The only type of player who does have that kind of motivation is an inexperienced Coinshot. Also, there's a difference in how the two of us are approaching this problem. I'm approaching a specific action that happened and addressing different roles' motivations for making that action. The reasons that I've used are objective reasons and analysis that any outside player could come up from. The conclusion I reach is subjective, but the presumptions are not. On the other hand, you're trying to prove that I'm wrong by trying to get into the Inquisitor's head; addressing actions (by the way, actions that you presumably don't know if the Inquisitor even has in this game) that may or may not have happened (which you also don't know, presumably), and coming up with the motivations for those actions. The conclusion of your argumentation still relies on a massive assumption, which I've already addressed elswhere. All that said, I'm about done arguing this. The points are all out there, and it's not going to change the game. Arinian. His suspicion of Aonar doesn't really seem to be based on anything but past games, and find it very suspicious when votes like that are placed. Also, I've seen quite a bit of fillerposting from Arinian. @Arraenae are you voting for Yitzi because of a lack of reasoning, or because you actually suspect Yitzi to be the Inquisitor, using a lack of reasoning to accomplish a nefarious goal?
  13. @randuir but the logical conclusion is not that the Inquisitor killed Aman. After all, there are quite a few reasons why the Inquisitor might refrain from wrecking him. Let's look at a few. -Aman would have garnered some suspicion for his "grand challenge," almost certainly, as you and others mentioned. Suspicion always leads to discussion, and Eliminators love to fly under the radar when lynch discussion is happening on an innocent. This particular case would lend itself very well to loads of filler discussion. Why remove that possibility, especially if it might lead to the village lynching Aman? -Aman is one of the typical movers and shakers of discussion. However, no matter how fantastic he is at analysis, it's unlikely that he'll pick the single bad guy out of a crowd in the first few Cycles. In fact, he would have likely led the village to lynch a few more innocents, with air-tight reasoning and solid conviction. Why give that potential up as an Eliminator? -Aman requested to be attacked. Why? While we know in hindsight that he had no protection and wasn't a Thug, we didn't know that at the time. With the potential to waste a kill, why would the Inquisitor wreck Aman? With the reasoning above, I'm almost positive that IF the Inquisitor killed Aman, they were not experienced. Following, I'm fairly certain that an inexperienced Inquisitor wouldn't have killed Aman. The request for death would seem like a trap to a small child with even the barest background in Star Wars. Who else can kill? Oh yeah, Coinshots. Why would an experienced Coinshot NOT kill Aman? Here are a few reasons, again. -Typically, I don't have strong suspicions this early in the game. Most people don't, in fact. Poke votes happen in the early game, not tunnels. -Aman didn't really do anything suspicious. Did anyone suspect him? -Experienced Coinshots would most likely wait and use their powers judiciously once they have solid suspicions. -Even if an experienced Coinshot did suspect Aman, it seems unlikely to me that they would fall into what looked a lot like a trap. -Delayed consequences: If a Coinshot wanted to reveal himself later, imagine having to explain killing Aman N1. A lot of suspicion would come from that. In light of these reasons, I think the only role left that fits the profile of Aman's killer is an inexperienced Coinshot. Someone who saw the challenge, immediately suspected Aman for it, and was willing to use a kill this early in the game without thinking about future consequences. Quite a bit of the pro-Inquisitor kill conversation has been coming from an assumption that the Inquisitor would kill someone Night 1. We don't necessarily know that that's true, and saying that "The Inquisitor SHOULD want to kill someone N1" doesn't mean that the Inquisitor DOES want to kill someone N1. I'd challenge peeps to give reasoning aside from that assumption. This has been a Normative Statements Post, bois. #Microeconomics #Jargon @Yitzi2 @Mark IV @EveryoneWhoWhinedAboutMeHavingHomeworkAndNotSpendingEveryWakingMomentOnTheShard
  14. Pls. Get over it. You still have a kill coming for you @Elenion. I haven't forgiven you. As I've been saying in PMs, I don't think it was the Inquisitor who killed Aman. Unfortunately, Economics homework is calling me, and I'm too lazy to paraphrase my PM message at the moment. Will explain later.