Mid-Range Game 9: The Steel Ministry

[DeathClutch19]

 

 

Deathclutch

Two questions for you. 

1. What does this mean? I can't respond to it if I don't understand it. 

 

2. Why do you say Clanky is a very "townie town", as opposed to just a "town?" Is it something particular about Clanky that makes him very innocent in your eyes?

I was hoping the last standing experienced skaa wouldn't take my accusation lying down. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I saw you get offline and got scared for a bit.

 

1) As I was looking through joe's day1 10 page shenanigans and I wrote down any posts that stuck out as "suspicious" or "something I would say as skaa" and put it next to your name. Exactly what that was? I mean I can go and look back but you'll have to give me a minute.

2) Yes. All of Clankies posts day 1 were extremely town to me. Every post I read just solidified his position as a town member. I stand by my position to put him in my town circle along with Wyrm and Winter. They are in no way 100% not skaa, they're just more likely to be town than you.

 

Also Kipper,

I died Night 1 in the QF. NIGHT ONE! Check the dead doc, I maybe posted like five or six lines in the Dead Doc and moved on.

Dying night one might be the reason you were salty. Don't take this as me attacking you I know nothing about you and don't intend for you to take offense. I'm just saying dying night one is a valid reason to be angry at a skaa team.

CASE AND POINT THANK YOU: http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345447 oh look Mail died D1. How convenient.

http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345891I'm just finding golden gems in all of your D1 posts today aren't I kipper? Your plan in Step 1. seems to have come true. You killed Mial, lynched Joe, killed Alvron yesterday and kasimir was switched with Ripple so there's no need to kill her. Why you killed Sart over Wyrm is beyond me(good bronze check on lurcher?).

 

 

 I'm still suspicious of The Only Joe, most of all. I want him dead.

Unfortunately your teammates haven't given me such blatant clues to being a skaa like you have. If you could tell me who they are that'd help me a lot.

 

@Kipper I'd like to hear your opinion on your fellow skaa members Alfa and Zephrer if you don't mind. Also Honey Badger. He seems bad.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 @Clanky I understand what you're saying Clanky. 3 pewter's wouldn't be OUT OF THIS WORLD anyways. As I have nothing more than "he's not playing like a good Pewter should" and "2 good pewters are dead" I'll change my vote to skaa leader Kipper Oh another reason I suspect Alfa that I didn't write down was that he voted for Phattemer without any reasoning Day1 another person I believe to be very town. Also Alfa has only had one post to my knowledge that had any sort of Inquisition-like substance. This can be seen here http://www.17thshard.com/forum/topic/46623-mid-range-game-9-the-steel-ministry/?p=345797

Edited October 29, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[the winter system]

There's not much I can say about erratic behavior, besides missing most of two games which I did mention. Look, whatever. I can't be excited? Yeesh. A coinshot got two skaa in a row. If that's not cause for a little bit of celebration, what is? 

 

(Might have been a little bit cranky while writing this because I was trying to download a game for my computer and it isn't working. Ugh. Disclaimer: Offense is not intended)

[RippleGylf]

I honestly feel like I'm failing at my second go at things. I have no veritable suspicions that I feel strong enough about to really vote for. I try to get on as often as I can, but I don't have the time to make good analysis. However, this is what I think of people at the moment.

 

DeathClutch: Your tone is very harsh and biting, but the depth that you've gone though to make analysis seems very villager to me. I don't see why a skaa would go through the trouble of reading every single post, especially after being inactive a couple days.

 

Kipper: I don't think Kipper seems like a skaa. Granted, a day 1 death from my perspective would seem like more cause to be sour, (I'm still a little salty over your assassination of me in MR8 after I dodged the lynch, by the way, but I can't blame you for being accurate) but perhaps Kipper is just the kind of player that doesn't get very worked up about dying.  However, it seems like he is trying to divert attention to Clanky after refuting the arguments against him. That seems more skaa to me.

 

Winter: I can't really blame her for not posting often, as I suspect that she has the same problem I do with time to analyze, but it wouldn't hurt to actually try to contribute once in a while. That being said, I don't like the way that these kind of suspicions work on people. It leaves some with an attitude of "Oh, you want me to vote/contribute/whatever? Then I'll do that, then!"     This doesn't allow a villager to adequately defend themselves, as these posts only exaggerate suspicion. It just makes a huge downward spiral that doesn't help anyone. Mini-rant aside, I think Winter is one to keep an eye on, but she hasn't gotten my suspicion to the point of lynching yet.

[the winter system]

I'll add a bit more, but I really don't have anything right now. 

[Creccio]

@Kipper

 

What do you have to say to Clutch?

 

I myself had my suspicions on you from here

 

Maybe you just said your plan out to everyone... who would do that? What Skaa would give out their plan day 1 and then continue to do it?

 

There are some possibilities

.

• Someone on the Skaa team thinks you got a good plan and is following it
• You are a Skaa and believe your plan is the best course of action based solely on experience of said players.

So... What do you have to say about those two points?

 

Also... what is your metal and how many charges you have? I am curious 

 

 

@Ripple

 

Winter is not a Skaa... i dont know why, but i just dont feel it.. Granted I have already lynched 2 villager (namely you and Orlok). That being said, I dont believe that is  a reason for her not to say what she has in mind. Let us know about your suspicions 

 

 

EDIT:

 

I also used my Zinc yesterday transferring anything from x to y if any seeker wants to say anything to confirm or people just want to know...

 

2 charges left....

 

Suggestions?

 

EDIT

 

Added a question to Kipp I'm so jealous, i wish i had cats

Edited October 30, 2015 by Creccio

[Kipper]

...I'm not even sure how to respond to all that, but I'll try. Firstly:

 

 

 

CASE AND POINT THANK YOU: http://www.17thshard...istry/?p=345447 oh look Mail died D1. How convenient.

This post was essentially one big half inside, half not-inside joke. The first part was saying (again, in a joking way) that I couldn't personally support a D1 lynch on Ripple, because I had already killed her (him?) D1 in a previous game as an Assassin. Then I made another joke about being the sacrificial lamb in her place, but then said "No, I actually don't want to die N1." Because, for obvious reasons, I don't want to die Night One. Then I said to kill Mailliw instead, because he happened to "call me evil." It was a joke. That's all. I'm sorry that I have to explain this, but apparently I do. Correlation does not imply causation. Other notes: I'm not the type of person who gets mad when I get killed D1. It's happened to me twice at this point, and I don't go on vendetta sprees against the Eliminators who killed me. That's just not me. If anything, that D1 kill made me satisfied that I was considered a threat enough to kill, and it gave me more time to focus on the LG. Like I said, I didn't even know who the Corporates were until you posted them. Yes, I killed Ripple, because I thought she was an Eliminator, but so far she hasn't been all like "KILL KIPPER, HE KILLED ME." To be completely honest, I'm not even sure how to defend against this utter nonsense. You're being so agressive, and I'm not sure that anything I can say will convince you at this point that I'm not a Skaa. Like, what still-reasonable person says stuff like 'okay  Kipper, do you want to tell us anything about your Skaa teammates Alfa and Zephrer?" This is just bull. I'm sorry, but this stuff is irritating. I don't know if I'm entirely rational at this point... The accusation for the other post has more substance...

 

 

 

http://www.17thshard...istry/?p=345891I'm just finding golden gems in all of your D1 posts today aren't I kipper? Your plan in Step 1. seems to have come true...Okay, for one thing that was not a D1 post. By virtue of me talking about someone's death, that has to be post-D1. And like others, I was simply shedding some light on the reasons for Mailliw's death, as I see it. That would be my thought process if I were a Skaa. I would have killed Maill/Wyrmhero if I was a Skaa. I would have. Creccio, we've been over this before, so I don't think there's anything more we can say that isn't just rehashing what has already been said. I think accusing people that offer good reasons for why something happened is very rational or well-thought-out. Note that this post was AFTER Maill died, again, so it's not like I just posted a plan for the Skaa to follow. It already happened. Other players agreed with me (most other players who posted), but no one detailed the thought process like I did.

 

 

 

...You killed Mial, lynched Joe, killed Alvron yesterday and kasimir was switched with Ripple so there's no need to kill her. Why you killed Sart over Wyrm is beyond me(good bronze check on lurcher?).

If I were Skaa, yes, that is what happened. ? Why is there a need to re-inform me of my supposed crimes? Am I supposed to say, "Oh yeah, I'm a Skaa, and here's why I killed Wyrm?" The obvious (to me) reasons are many.

A. Wyrm is an Eliminator and can't kill himself.

B. The Skaa want to put suspicion on Wyrm as an experienced player who didn't die with the rest.

C. The Skaa wanted Sart dead for whatever reason.

D. And many variants of these.

 

@Creccio, I have one charge of metal left. I will keep the metal type secret for now. As an extra bit of info, I was the person (or perhaps one of the people) who visited Joe Night One.

 

Edit: This whole debacle makes me REALLY want to vote for Deathclutch. Maybe next cycle. I hope he/she is just being irrational right now, and I do believe that my accusations of Clanky have merit, especially his attitude shift toward Maill's death.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Kipper

[DeathClutch19]

...I'm not even sure how to respond to all that, but I'll try. Firstly:

 

 

I'm not sure that anything I can say will convince you at this point that I'm not a Skaa. 

 

First off I'd like to apologize for being aggressive. But you are skaa so please understand. You're killing my teammates one by one and have the intention of finishing me off tonight as well!

 

I agree with you I'm not sure anything will convince me you are not skaa. Apologies. This whole post just makes me believe you are Skaa more. You write everything off as a joke and then say this.

 

 

 

" I would have killed Maill/Wyrmhero if I was a Skaa. I would have. " - Kipper

 

As a frequent Mafia player this statement are highly indicative of skaa. Unfortunately for you, you did not know about it. Fortunately for you not many other people do either and may not believe me which is fine. I would hope people wouldn't take everything I say without at least a small hint of doubt.

 

Let me explain. Skaa(Traitor's, Mafia, Werewolves, etc.) will often repeat things they have already said two sentences in a row so that they are certain they got their point across(they don't want to die because of miscommunication on their part they'd rather die a noble death). 

Example: I'm not skaa. I assure you.

TL;DR Double Affirmatives are indicative of Skaa.

 

I learned this from a psychology major(and I didn't just take his word for it I tested it several times myself) I am not that good guys I didn't figure this out myself xD.

 

But yeah sorry. There's no changing my mind so you might as well kill me tonight if you aren't lynched today.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[STINK]

Where do you play Mafia?

[DeathClutch19]

I play with my floor(I live on campus) in college every week. We use cards and just go to sleep by putting our heads down.

I also play in the Custom Games section of Starcraft 2 fairly often as well as TTT in Garry's Mod. (FPS version of Mafia)

 

Along with all that I play ranked in Town of Salem when I have free time.

My username is Dscythe feel free to add me I love playing with other people!

[Kipper]

As a frequent psychology major and a frequent player of mafia, surely you know that saying things like, “And now you will kill me tonight" greatly increase your chances of dying? And if you don't die, your suspicion of me will only increase, because your mind will invent a reason why I wouldn't kill you. You are more likely to believe something that you personally write down, even if you just copied it...

All that aside, I get that you are convinced of my guilt, no matter how trumped up the charges, and you're even pretty good at coming up with more and more rationalizations for why I'm evil. Just be aware that I've played a lot of mafia as well, and I'm not exactly inexperienced. I know about Double Affirmatives. I use 'em all the time in normal posts and PMs. Other people do as well. It doesn't imply evil, and you should not infer that. It implies desire that people take your message seriously.

The psychological issue that I think you are running into right now is called confirmation bias, or in its less sophisticated form, tunnelling. It's when you don't even consider a person's arguments, like mine against Clanky (and instead just say “His posts just seem Towny to me"), but you read a player's posts with the intention of finding something to use against them. Heck, my post about Clanky would have been twice as long if I had been doing that. I'm acutely aware of what I say in thread, and this is yet another baseless attack. This is part of the reason I'm so flabbergasted, because I try to make a policy of never saying things that could be construed as blatantly suspicious in thread, no matter what. I'm reading back through my old posts, thinking, “What was it that started this tunnel?" And I can't find anything. Now all that I'm wondering is what you'll come up with in this post that is suspicious to you.

1. Only Skaa talk about psychology like that!

2. It's a very Skaa thing to do to turn the tables on the accuser and accuse them of tunnelling!

3. You just seem like a Skaa!

4. Skaa use words like “heck" to precede a sentence, making them seem more homey, warm, and approachable!

5. Only a Skaa would deliberately try to not say suspicious things in thread!

6. You've only been evil once out of all your games. The Gambler's Fallacy says you must be Skaa.

7. The whole first paragraph is designed to take blame off of Skaa Kipper for killing me if I die tonight!

8. That whole list of things is set up to deligitimize a point that I may or may not make! (See, that was VERY Skaa, to point out a tactic that I might use to draw suspicion away from myself...)

9. Create your own!

Feel free to choose from this list, as I've already set up rebuttals for #s 1-7. Please do not pick #s 8 or 9, as I have to go to bed, and rebutting #8 would just be irritating.

TL;DR

A. I'm very aware of what I say in thread

B. We could bicker about what types of words/phrases/sentences are more psychologically likely to come from a Skaa (and I would be happy to; ask little Wilson and STINK how much I like to talk about psychology!), or we could discuss actual issues, like...

C. Do you have anything in Clanky's defense beyond “Every one of his posts has been Towny?"

[polkinghornbd]

I don't know what it is, but DeathClutch seems to be acting a little strange.  I agree with Kipper that you seem to be too confident in your beliefs.  Usually, being single minded is reason to be thought of as an eliminator.  I am not saying you are, but the ways you have been communicating, you seem to think you will be killed, and Kipper is the devil incarnate.  I think the fear of death might be a hope to remain under the radar while being in the middle of the action.  This may be idle suspicion, but I think there might be an ulterior motive here.

[DeathClutch19]

I choose 9 !!!

 

I'm glad we could get to this point. As I said before I was hoping the last standing experienced skaa wouldn't go down without a fight!

 

In a world where you are Inquisition you write my suspicions off as just that, suspicions and move on because you understand there is nothing that will change my mind.

 

Unfortunately in this world you are skaa. You feel threatened. You should. I called you out. With a degree of aggression I apologized for. 

And in this world you defend yourself to the best of your ability. I applaud your defense it was grandiose. However, I think you overdid it a little but don't take it to heart every skaa would do that.

But it's up to everyone else now to make up what they think of your defense. Not me. You're not convincing me. Like you said I'm tunneling. "It's when you don't even consider a person's arguments."

 

Edit: (ninjaed by polking) "you seem to think you will be killed, and Kipper is the devil incarnate." This is true. 
 

You seem irked Kipper. I apologize if I cause you stress but it was necessary to bring out the true skaa in you and also my goal.

Also

 "“And now you will kill me tonight" greatly increase your chances of dying?" 

Yes.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[polkinghornbd]

I disagree, DeathClutch.  You are making allegations.  Kipper responds, and you respond.  This is a conversation, and as you have been accusing him, he has been responding.  You accused someone because they saw your accusation and then waited, but now you use them replying as proof that they are skaa?  It just doesn't make sense to me.

[DeathClutch19]

I didn't want to say it outright to anger kipper more but being overly defensive is indicative of skaa haha.

Like I said though it's not up to me. I've cast my vote. It's up to whatever you guys make of my evidence and what you guys make of his defense. I've said my piece. I've gotten the intended response. Use your wits to the best of your ability and decipher who is skaa and who is inquisition.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Kipper]

I choose Pikachu!

Oh wait, we're on Scadrial; never mind.

I was deadly serious about going to bed. You had to pick #9. Alright. We've had a heckle. Time for the heckle put-down.

Stormin' right I ain't going down without a fight! Your opinion matters a lot to me, and I wish we could just be friends. Friends. (<-- See what I did there?)

When does an Inquisitor just ignore suspicions? To the best of my knowledge, nobody says, “Eh, I don't care," when faced with an accusatory post.

As I said, I definitely feel threatened. (<--Indirect Double Affirmative) One of my problems is that I'm having an incredibly hard time coming up with logical defenses to your accusations. I humbly accept your apology, but I heartily disagree with your word choice of “grandiose." “Eloquent." “Charming." “Urbane." “Gentlemanly." These would all have been acceptable words to use as descriptors for a post in which, as you say, I defended myself to the best of my ability. Even a combination of multiple words from the above list. As for overdoing it, well, I sometimes think the sun is overdoing it when it burns my skin, but I still need the sun to live, and I don't call the sun “grandiose," either (hmm, that sounded a lot better in my head).

Oh, I know. I've given up trying to convince you. In the bottom of my heart, I'm still hoping this story ends with: “And then Deathclutch and Kipper strolled hand in hand into the sunset. ‘Isn't that grandiose?' asked Deathclutch. ‘Shhh,' said Kipper, ‘let's just enjoy it for what it is.' They both smiled faintly, as if sharing some private joke, then walked on."

But for now, we're THROUGH! At least we can agree that you're tunnelling.

If all you're worried about is me being the devil, we can just drop it now. We're trying to lynch the Skaa, not the devil. Hell (heh), I may be devilishly handsome, but that's not a good reason to lynch me.

Guys. Guys. (<--Dang it, I can't get away from these Double Affirmatives) He put white text in there. SKAA DO NOT READ!!!!!

You still haven't answered my question about Clanky...

Edit: Oh boy, I was just ninja'd. Bow howdy, was I ninja'd. FYI, this is a game to me. A game I try to win, and win it hard, yes, but a game nonetheless. To date, the only things that have actually angered me are people insulting me in Dead/Spec Docs without me being there to defend myself. For the record, I fully expected you to come back with something like, “Well, he's defending himself, and only Skaa defend themselves." Tbh, I'm giggling like a maniac right now. This is the most fun I've had all day.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Kipper

[Clanky]

 

D2:1: Suggest that Maill's death has some analytic value. I'd like to overlook this as well, but the post didn't actually say anything substantive about what value Maill's death might have. The post seemed to be more of a starter for other people to tack onto. It implied that perhaps some of the people who suspected Joe (like myself, presumably) might be evil. Again, though, it did not actually say anything concrete, and most of the other people during the day said that they did not think Maill's death had that much analytic value. So it seems to me that Clanky was simply trying to run a flag up a pole to see if would fly, to see if he could get a lynch going on someone he knew to be innocent. Of course, if he is evil, this is a great strategy to employ, because he has plausible deniability later. It's a very easy strategy to get behind, but I don't buy it for a D1 kill on Maill.

2:Also, Clanky does another Contribution Crusade thing, which just irritates me in general. I'm always wary of the Contribution Crusade, not because it doesn't have valid points, but because it was started by an Eliminator, and it's a nice strategy to use as an Eliminator.

D3: Not much to report. Voted zephrer for saying anti-skaa things without any analytic value, zephrer said "Yeah, but seriously I'm not skaa." Says Wyrm's plan wouldn't work that well.

3:D4: This post really stands out to me. Contrast what he says in this post with what he said earlier about Maill's death. Earlier he thinks that there is analytic value in Maill's death. Now he votes Alvron for voting Wyrm, with some strange reasoning, saying that:

 

Also says that he would expect the skaa to avoid the conversation because of randomness and irrationality. (possible IKYK) Says that he has a lingering suspicion of Creccio, which I would agree with as well. 

Anyway, that about sums it up. D1, D2, and D4 contain my main suspicion points, especially that viewpoint change on Maill's death.

 

 

 

Okay I a finally back and able to address the rest of kippers suspicions about me. It seems like things have escalated while I was gone.

 

1: So when I suggested that Maills death had some analytical value I did give my ideas about what I thought they might be. That is in this post. I didn't give any hard accusations about what I thought because I wanted to know what other people thought. Unfortunately al I got from people was don't look into it too hard because it was probably just a fear kill. I decided not to keep pressing on about it because of all the negative feedback I was getting. Tat is why you saw me post this  

 

 

Everyone can tell that players are normally targeted by eliminators based on their threat and activity levels. I'm sure Wyrm knows that and was saying that he can't see what else we can learn by analyzing these kills.

I do tend to believe in most cases that the first few kills are fear kills and the other part of this post was supposed to be slightly sarcastic in that everybody knows not to attempt to analyze eliminator kills(Except me). I understand how this makes me seem like I changed my mind but I have still been keeping the maill kill in mind when analyzing this game and I am currently leaning towards this option as to why it happened: 

 

 

Was it to get people to focus on Joe/Wyrm/Kas and everyone who was accusing/defending him? I think this could be a viable reason and that the Skaa were not involved with Maill in any way so they attempt to put suspicion somewhere that they have no part

This is actually one of my main reasons for not voting Wyrm.

 

2: If you actually go and see what I said about the contribution crusade you will see that it bears very little resemblance to the original"only try and lynch inactives unless there is undoubtable suspicion". I was attempting to find a different way to spur inactives into participating by threatening death by coinshots. It doesn't eliminate the power of the lynch but can still work to promote activity. I'm sorry that I used the words contribution crusade while doing this but I do like the true goal of the crusade even if the original name and banners were created by an eliminator.

 

3: I tried to answer this in the first rebuttal I made but if I didn't I would be glad to answer any more questions you have kipper.

 

 

Now after seeing kippers reasoning I feel no different about kippers guilt or innocence. This obviously was a well thought out argument and I hope that I answered your suspicions to your liking. 

 

EDIT: Got Kasrippimar and Wyrm confused

Edited October 30, 2015 by Clanky

[DeathClutch19]

Clanky could I get your opinion on me?

Any read is welcome.

 

 

edit: he got offline I cry everytime

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[STINK]

I'm just gonna say here, (mainly to DeathClutch) that while aggravating people to deliberately get some secrets out of them is a strategy, when the person replies and is annoyed/overly defensive, it isn't always because they are evil but also because they are being aggravated. 

 

I don't think many people would respond with smiles of joy if this tactic was used against them, and if you wanna see when this tactic goes wrong, just look at Seonids death in the previous LG, where I tunneled and aggravated someone who turned out to be a great asset to the town, though Kipper may not be a great asset to the town  

[DeathClutch19]

 Nothing in this game is certain. The "what if's?" are endless. So I make do with what is given to me little by little.

@Stink and everyone else reading the argument between me and Kipper

 

I understand that him being overly defensive does not condemn him as 100% skaa. And that's not the point I'm trying to get across. Nothing I do or say can condemn him as 100% skaa. I'm not a true seeker role that checked him night one.

It's up to you guys to make do with what I gave away to you guys in my posts and what his defense gave away to you guys in his posts.

 

Was he being overly defensive?

Did he brush off every point made against him as a joke?

Once he realized my true intentions did he change his tone a little too much?

Did Deathclutch have any good points?

Did Kipper have any good points?

Does any of this even make him Skaa or is he just defending himself like an Inquisition would?

Was his defense good and actually seems more like an Inquisitor now?

Has Deathclutch just been lying to us and he has ulterior motives?

Does Deathclutch seem more Skaa after all of this?

 

It's up to you! I've done all I can.

My goal was to get you guys to be able to get a good read based off of BOTH of our posts on who is Inquisition and who is not!

 

No one of my points can make him a proven skaa. The double negatives, the overly-defensive, the skaa kills, the terrible reason given for voting for joe, the step-by-step process he explained, him asking mail to be killed d1. None of it can make him proven skaa. I know I sound confident in my reads (It's because I am ) and I know I made it sound like I'm finding one thing per post and using that to make him 100% skaa every time, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. I just want some D5 Discussion.

 

edit: Format

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[Clanky]

Clanky could I get your opinion on me?

Any read is welcome.

 

 

edit: he got offline I cry everytime

 

Sorry for leaving you hanging there. Had school in a few hours and decided I should probably sleep at least a little.

 

Now for my opinion on you. I started off when you became active again thinking that you were good. Then I realized that this post here was basically just rehashing my suspicions so I thought you may be trying to gain my trust through that. Also your recent defence of me from Kipper reinforces that this may be the case. This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate it but anytime someone defends me without reason to trust me 100% I worry about that. 

 

Other than that you have been good about promoting discussion and have been very open with your suspicions. This makes me want to trust you even though I disagree with some of your suspicions and methods (mostly how you are using who played in previous games). Also you had Lopen as the most suspicious person in the game in your will before his death which is a (small) point in your favour.

 

So if I had to guess which side you are on I am leaning inquisitor, but that doesn't mean that I am not watching you very carefully

[DeathClutch19]

Thanks for responding Clanky!

To be perfectly honest with you Clanky I didn't entirely(not at all sorry ) read your post against Zephrer I just read the vote tally and noticed you and Wyrm voted for him (At the time you were my top two town) and I could definitely see how you could see me as rehashing your suspicions considering Zephrer hadn't said much since then (hell even now he's only posted a few times after d3) and so we didn't have much to go on.

 

As you might have noticed with me defending Creccio, I am very defensive of people who I believe to be town. ESPECIALLY when I believe that the person attempting to attack my townsmember is a Skaa.

 

Note: I'm not dead set on voting for Kipper. I am also willing to vote on my other suspicions (Alfa and Zephrer) until they give me a reason to think they are Inquisition.

 

EDIT: The (not at all sorry ) Doesn't mean I'm NOT SORRY. It means: I didn't read it at all sorry. Lol I reread over it and was like oops.  ALSO sorry for use of acronym profanity it's a part of my vernacular as a college student and avid gamer. I'm glad that the website caught me though haha. Edited it out.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19

[the winter system]

Kipper, don't you usually hate 'I know you knows'? And isn't that basically what you're doing? Or am I getting the meaning mixed up? Also, darn isn't to be cutesy and make you think that someone's inquisitor- I'd use it regardless. It's just another word that conveys emphasis. 

Deathclutch, I think is probably good. Either really active on purpose to throw people off guard or good. I'm shifting towards good.

Creccio: Again, I sort of trust Creccio. I don't think he (she?) is skaa. 

 

Wyrm: Probably wouldn't have offered to GM LG15 if he was skaa. Either that or he's magic. If you are, I'm impressed. Anyway, I don't like you're voting for me, but, what can you say? I'm suspicious. I'm alright that I'm being voted for.

 

STINK: Weird with the sorta rude comment a while back, but I'm extrapolating that he was probably just in a bad mood or something RL is going on. Might be skaa, might be inquisitor. Not vote worthy. 

Clanky: Can't get a read on. Might be either way, I guess. I've played with him before and have suspected him before for acting like he is, but he was good. So, I think maybe good. More likely good than evil. 

 

Alfa: Ditto. Could be Inquisitor. Could be skaa. Again, I don't know enough about how he (she?) usually plays. Is this his (her?) first game? 

 

Pretty much everyone who stands out to me. Anyone else important I'm missing? Oh, Ripple. Right. With the zombie thing: Can't really get a new read because I don't know if the gap is what caused any changes in character. 

[Clanky]

 

Wyrm: Probably wouldn't have offered to GM LG15 if he was skaa. Either that or he's magic. If you are, I'm impressed. Anyway, I don't like you're voting for me, but, what can you say? I'm suspicious. I'm alright that I'm being voted for.

 

 

You have to sign up a long time ahead of GMing right? So didn't Wyrm know he would be GMing the next LG before even signing up for this game?

[the winter system]

No, he could've skipped it onto the next person. 

[DeathClutch19]

As much as I believe all three of you are Inquisition, and I want you all to trust each other as much as possible, I don't think he'd skip GM'ing just because he's skaa.

Edited October 30, 2015 by DeathClutch19