Long Game 16: The Empty Throne Part 2: The Catacombs

[Alvron]

Day Three: Mourning

Avis hated the night.  Darkness was the realm of Epics.  For years Nightwelder had shrouded the city in perpetual night.  And Epics ruled the city.

Then the unthinkable happened.  The sun shone on Newcago for the first time in what seemed to many as a lifetime.  The steel city shone like a beacon while Epics fled, died or offered their services to the people in exchange for their lives.

While some mourned the loss of Metrick, Avis was happy.  He saw an Epic die right in front of him.  ‘Soon,’ he thought. ‘all Epics will be brought out into the light and the plague will be purged from humanity.’
 

***

Avis and his wife, Saree, walked through one of the new tunnels running under the newly renamed Newcago.  Steelheart himself had ordered the tunnels dug not long after claiming the city as his own.

They were a marvel to behold.  Steel corridors ran deep underground and lights were placed so no area was too dark.

They turned a corner that sloped upwards slightly until it reached the surface.

Saree thumped into the back of another and both sprawled onto the tunnel floor.  The one she bumped into rose to his feet and slowly turned around, his face a thundercloud of fury.  He was clad in various shades of brown and a hardhat.  His muscles bunched under his clothes as he reached towards Saree

Avis watched in horror as his wife was killed by Digzone.  He could hear her screams long after she died and the sight of her being ripped apart as if she was nothing more than tissue paper was something he knew would be with him every time he closed his eyes.

He swore then and there that he would do whatever he had to do to remove the darkness that Epics had brought to his home.
 

***

Distracted as he was by memories, Avis failed to hear as someone crept up behind him.

“It ain’t only Epics that walk in the night.”  whispered a voice before slitting Avis’ throat.

As the light faded from his eyes and he dropped to his knees, Avis’ could swear he could see Saree standing in front of him holding out her hand.  He stretched forth his hand to be with his wife again after so long.


Hellscythe - Avis was a Strong Willed Beggar with Duct Tape.

Day Three has started so no more PMs.
Result PMs being sent out slowly.  Want to make sure I get everything right this time.

Player List:

 

 

Mailliw73 - Milton Towren aka Altermind

Deathclutch - Hashirama

Elbereth - Ereth

Hellscythe - Avis Strong Willed Beggar

Adavantos - Michael Durbin

Kynedath - Drake Pierce

Araris Valerian - Allen

Kipper - Krippe the Krippling

IrulelikeSTINK - Rance Idsmill

Shallan - Citona Vinid

Burnt Spaghetti - Blaize Ghetti

Mark VI - Marr

OrlokTsubodai - Locke

phattemer - Exisa

Elkanah - Neal

Clanky - Clanky

TheMightyLopen - Finn

twelfthrootoftwo - Theresa

Metacognition - Metrick Beggar and Living Legend

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Alvron
Write up finally done

[phattemer]

Keeping with the tradition of announcing that people are evil beggars, I got a note from a snitch who I know is not blind that Kipper is one.

Yes, I am being completely serious, and I'll start off with Kipper.

[Hellscythe]

Just for the record. I called me dying.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Hellscythe

[Alvron]

No talking after you die.  There are no ghosts here.

 

Also, Meta's death writeup has been done.  Finally.  If anyone wishes to do their own death then please PM me with it.  I suggest that you do one for the lynch and another for a night death to cover all bases.

 

Note: The GM reserves the right to edit any and all parts of write ups if he deems it necessary.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Alvron

[Kipper]

Keeping with the tradition of announcing that people are evil beggars, I got a note from a snitch who I know is not blind that Kipper is one.

Yes, I am being completely serious, and I'll start off with Kipper.

And in the time-honored tradition of people being accused of being evil Beggars, I will say that I am indeed a Beggar, but not an evil one. Adavantos, at least, has known my role since N1, and can confirm that I'm not making this up on the spot. Answer me this, phatt, and set aside the immediate inclination to say "Oh, he's doing an I Know You Know!! EVIL!!" Ask yourself if you would have done these things as me, as an Eliminator Beggar.

1. If I was an Eliminator Beggar, why would I out a Note saying that Meta was an Eliminator Beggar after I roleclaimed to Adavantos, knowing that people would be looking at Beggars more closely? Wouldn't I simply have changed the note to say something like, "Meta is an evil Bodyguard," or some similar thing? Essentially, why draw unnecesary suspicion on myself when I easily could have lied about it?

2. Okay, let's assume, for a minute, that I did #1. Now why the storms would I kill the only other claimed Beggar in thread. Does that make any logical sense?! For me, as an Eliminator Beggar, to say "Hmm, I know they'll be looking at Beggars more closely now, so why don't I kill off the other person who claimed Beggar? Yeah, that will lessen suspicion on me, right?" That's right, it makes no logical sense.

Honestly, this looks like an attempt to frame me, but since you're apparently convinced of this Note's infallibility, I don't necessarily expect a retraction (Oh Ada, there were no results from the follow, so don't read this post as such).

[Mark IV]

Ummm, to the persons concerned, I fell asleep last night, and woke up minutes after the turnover, and so I couldn't do what we had planned. We'll do it tonight? Is that okay?

Again, I'm sorry, I fell asleep without giving the order.

[phattemer]

[REDACTED] because Kipper knows some stuff.

This post was going to say some things that I no longer think are a good idea. Unfortunately, saying why would almost have the same effect as saying them in the first place. I'm iust glad that I now think of these things before and not after I hit "Post".

Instead, I'll respond to Kipper.

1. Two reasons. First, because it makes him, if he doesn't want to lie about his role, look incredibly suspicious: why would a note have the wrong alignment but the right role? It probably did have the right alignment too, but seeing as Kipper, a traitor got it, he decided that (possibly knowing about the blindness of the snitch) it was worth it to get Meta killed.

And actually, you just gave away that you did know or guess at their blindness.

Can't quote right now, but

"knowing that people would be looking at Beggars more closely?"

The only reason anyone would look at beggars more closely is if the snitch targeted the wrong person. That could only happen if they were Blind, or if their action was redirected. Since you said that you wouldn't do that as a traitor Beggar, you decided that you could use the blindness if the snitch to make it seem like you got a note that didn't refer to Meta, while actually you did, but lied about it.

The second reason for doing what Kipper did is so he can make this argument. Not only did he get a valuable villager lynched, but he forced the town to waste a lunch and essentially a full day of discussion. He even got a snitch to reveal, if he didn't already know their role. And, because it wouldn't be something an eliminator would do, he did it.

2. Because the note referred to him, and if you lied about the name on it, you knew that the snitch would get you killed.

Finally, "this looks like an attempt to frame me...".

Of course it does. That's the only thing you can say at this point, whether or not you're an Eliminator, although barring the possibility that you're a Compulsive Liar who happened to give your correct role and wrong alignment, that note is infallible.

[Mark IV]

... but he forced the town to waste a lunch and essentially a full day of discussion.

(Emphasis mine)

I'm very hungry. Does anyone have food?

[phattemer]

Well, I wasted a lunch yesterday and so I'm all out.

I always get that autocorrect. For some reason my phone doesn't think lunch is a word.

[Mark IV]

Well, I wasted a lunch yesterday and so I'm all out.

I always get that autocorrect. For some reason my phone doesn't think lunch is a word.

Well, it certainly thinks lunch is a word. I'm not sure about lynch though...

XD

[Kipper]

[REDACTED] because Kipper knows some stuff.

What?

This post was going to say some things that I no longer think are a good idea. Unfortunately, saying why would almost have the same effect as saying them in the first place. I'm iust glad that I now think of these things before and not after I hit "Post".

Okay...

Instead, I'll respond to Kipper.

1. Two reasons. First, because it makes him, if he doesn't want to lie about his role, look incredibly suspicious: why would a note have the wrong alignment but the right role? It probably did have the right alignment too, but seeing as Kipper, a traitor got it, he decided that (possibly knowing about the blindness of the snitch) it was worth it to get Meta killed.

And actually, you just gave away that you did know or guess at their blindness.

I received a note from Mark, who claimed Snitch to me (not Blind Snitch, just Snitch). The note said that Meta was an evil beggar. I outed said note. After heavy discussion by the rest of the thread, I freely admitted that I might have been wrong, and retracted my vote. I was not the first person to suggest Blindness as an option.

Can't quote right now, but

"knowing that people would be looking at Beggars more closely?"

The only reason anyone would look at beggars more closely is if the snitch targeted the wrong person. That could only happen if they were Blind, or if their action was redirected. Since you said that you wouldn't do that as a traitor Beggar, you decided that you could use the blindness if the snitch to make it seem like you got a note that didn't refer to Meta, while actually you did, but lied about it.

...yes, exactly. The Snitch claimed to be Blind. Meta died, phatt, and the Snitch obviously is either lying or had their Scan messed up by Blindness. Edit: So people will be scrutinizing Beggars more, now that the existence of an Eliminator beggar is confirmed. Ada knew I was a SnitchBeggar (edited typo), so of course I would be expecting more scrutiny from him, personally, at least. And I never claimed that the note "didn't refer to Meta," so I don't understand your logic here.

The second reason for doing what Kipper did is so he can make this argument. Not only did he get a valuable villager lynched, but he forced the town to waste a lunch and essentially a full day of discussion. He even got a snitch to reveal, if he didn't already know their role. And, because it wouldn't be something an eliminator would do, he did it.

I did know Mark's role, Edit:but only as a Snitch, not a Blind Snitch. We've been over this multiple times.

So this doesn't seem like something an Eliminator would do? Why not? Seriously, why not? If this doesn't seem like something an Eliminator would do, why are you voting for me based off a Note that you don't even know is true?

2. Because the note referred to him, and if you lied about the name on it, you knew that the snitch would get you killed.

Riiiight. So you're saying that I (recall that I have no knowledge of the Snitch being blind) would deliberately lie about a note that I think is genuine? Because if so, that's literally signing my own death warrant. Until Mark claimed to be Blind, my belief was that it was a genuine note. I wouldn't lie about a Note that I believed to be from a genuine Snitch, because quite frankly, that's stupid, and I'm not.

Finally, "this looks like an attempt to frame me...".

Of course it does. That's the only thing you can say at this point, whether or not you're an Eliminator, although barring the possibility that you're a Compulsive Liar who happened to give your correct role and wrong alignment, that note is infallible.

Nice dismissal of all of my arguments. It's easy to say "Of course you would do that; you're an Eliminator," without having any reasons to back you up. Most of your reasoning here is based on hindsight, and doesn't take into context what I believed at the time of certain events. Also, you seem to be very assured of this note's infallibility, phattemer. Why? And, sknce the general consensus of the thread yesterday was that I should have waited to out my Note, why are you doing so now?

Edit1: Fixed grammar, added a sentence, and fixed a typo, detailed above.

Edit2: Added a dependent clause for clarification, also noted above.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Kipper

[phattemer]

1. Of course I'm not saying what.

2. So now you're saying that a note that read "evil beggar" did refer to Meta? I was referring to the role, not the name.

3. You claim "it's not something an eliminator would do". I claim that, given an evil scan of you, it makes perfect sense for you to be an eliminator.

4. That was referring to the fact that if you wanted to get someone killed, it had to be Meta, because his name was the one on the note and the snitch knew it.

5. Because I got a note from a snitch who isn't blind. On the other hand, you seem to be convinced that it's inaccurate. Without saying "because it says I'm evil so it's wrong", why does the note not say your true role/alignment?

6. Because now we get to see how you respond to all this right away. I could just quote your own post on why you outed a guilty note.

[Mark IV]

GM, if the mirror is used on a Snitch scan, what does the Snitch see? The actual scan or a faulty scan displaying the name of the original target and role of the actual target?

[Alvron]

GM, if the mirror is used on a Snitch scan, what does the Snitch see? The actual scan or a faulty scan displaying the name of the original target and role of the actual target?

It would be the same as being Blind.  As far as the Snitch knows they are targeting who they chose to target so the note will have the name of their target but the role of the actual target.

[Mark IV]

@Alv

Thanks.

[Kipper]

2. So now you're saying that a note that read "evil beggar" did refer to Meta? I was referring to the role, not the name.

I have said practically a zillion times that I received a note with the contents, "Meta = Evil Beggar," or words to that effect.

3. You claim "it's not something an eliminator would do". I claim that, given an evil scan of you, it makes perfect sense for you to be an eliminator.

It would make absolutely zero sense for an Eliminator to do what you are saying I did.

4. That was referring to the fact that if you wanted to get someone killed, it had to be Meta, because his name was the one on the note and the snitch knew it.

Exactly. But here's the thing. At the time, I thought the Snitch was a genuine, un-blind Snitch. So with that assumption in my head, lying about Meta's alignment on the Note is quite possibly the stupidest thing I could have done, and I didn't, which is why I retracted my vote after more information came out.

5. Because I got a note from a snitch who isn't blind. On the other hand, you seem to be convinced that it's inaccurate. Without saying "because it says I'm evil so it's wrong", why does the note not say your true role/alignment?

Perhaps the Snitch is evil? Perhaps an Eliminator redirected the action? Perhaps you're evil, and you're lying about a Note you got. Imagine that, if you got a Note saying "Kipper is a Good Beggar," and then thought, "Haha, I can accuse Kipper of doing exactly what I'm about to do!" Pretty clever play, and you've put me on the defensive. Now, since I've given my reasons as to why I think this "Note" is fallible, how about you explain to me how we can be assured of

A. The Snitch being good.

B. You being good.

C. The Snitch not being redirected to frame me.

6. Because now we get to see how you respond to all this right away. I could just quote your own post on why you outed a guilty note.

Right.

Also, something I mentioned to a few people Night One, it would be very nice for an Eliminator be in charge of this MUIOOP thing, having all the parts and items flow through their hands.

[twelfthrootoftwo]

All through the night turn, I was convinced Kipper was evil. Then I went back over the previous day, and started to think he wasn't. Then I got to the bit following Meta's 'reveal', and changed my mind again. Now this? I don't know what to think. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that Phatt's Snitch does exist, due to the argument over side roles in Snitch notes last cycle.

 

Kipper (and Kynedath to a lesser extent): please explain what was strange about Meta's 'reveal'?

[Amanuensis]

I just want to say that knowing Kipper is a Beggar, I had him follow me night one. I scanned another player who happened to be another Snitch. This is the same one who scanned me N1, and scanned Kipper N2. Kipper knows for a fact that the result is accurate because he himself received the results that I followed said player and because he received the relevant note. Also I was told ahead of time by Phatt that he was in contact with another Snitch who was scanning me. Kipper had no knowledge of this, let alone who that player was nor that I had the order in to scan them. Therefore he could not make up said claim unless either phatt or said Snitch were evil themselves, which is a possibility, but I doubt they'd bother throwing one of their own under the bus this early. As for why they went after HS and not Mark or Snitch#3, I suspect its because A: Mark is their snitch, or they at least want it to seem that way (personally I think this Mark and Kipper are Traitors and had this all planned out. In this theory Mark is not actually Blind but just had it prepared as an excuse so Kipper could back pedal to get him out of harms way) and B: because they knew they couldn't kill me, I would immediately out the only players who knew said player was a Snitch, which would narrow it down to Phatt and Kipper.

All evidence points to Kipper being evil, and to a lesser extent, Mark. Personally I think both are worthy of dying this cycle (one to a lynch, the other assassination). I knew something was wrong early on last day turn and voted for Kipper for a reason; his reaction to said vote would have told me to keep it on him, but I let other evidence (which was probably fallible) sway me. Being a man who bases they're entire life on probabilities of success, I did not, and still do not believe, that Kipper received a note that said Meta was a Traitor Beggar while Meta was actually a Beggar and Kipper was probably the Traitor Beggar himself. The fact that Meta and I had to drag him out to vote for him, while he was the only player whose vote did not count because he was searching, suggests to me that he knew something was up and didn't want to fall into a trap. Also the fact that he has no results to share with me last night suggests because Mark and him have a plan to claim him being roleblocked with Duct Tape by the eliminators. So, Mark? Did you get "role blocked." If not who did you send your note to, and can said player confirm they received it? Kipper? Why do you think you got no results last night?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Adavantos

[STINK]

I should be doing work and other various stuff, but here I am. This post will obviously be better than when Ada does this stuff. 

Instead of doing player posts, I'm hopefully going to do ALL of the posts so far. Have fun. After the number, names will be used so CTRL+F can just help you find peoples posts. 

 

Day One. (not fully done) 

1. Hellscythe makes a really funny joke.

2. Elkanah has a really funny comeback. 

3. Phat votes for STINK.

4. STINK is confused.

5. Twei votes for Maw. Proposes idea that we minimise uses of roles, for the mortician.

6. Mark is confused at votes for RP reasons.

7. Meta RP. Says that we may not even have a mortician. Votes for Mark.

8. Mark votes for Meta. Stopping pointless deaths.

9. Meta responds that only traitors know if deaths are pointless. Shows Marks actions in a negative light.

10. Kipper votes for Mark because 'threat of death'. See Kippers profile for why (it's a post by Kasimir)

11. Kynedath RP. Votes for Adavantos. Says Meta is tunneling. Says Marks voting back is weird, but might be his gut reaction.

12. Mark defends himself from Metas statements about Marks actions.

13. Kipper likes death. 

14. Clanky RP. Disagrees with Twei's plan, saying that it might not be a traitor kill but a ray-gun and we wouldn't know.

15. Meta semi-accuses Kyn of being a traitor with Mark. Says he isn't tunneling. Responds to Marks post, then RP.

16. Araris votes for Phatt because of his vote on STINK. Would like to hear more from STINK. RP.

17. STINK didn't say much because the only thing really happening was Meta v Mark. 

18. Adavantos thinks role usage should be up to the people with roles. 

19. Mark was being sarcastic.

20. Alvron clarifies some rules and such.

21. Adavantos says we shouldn't poke-vote, to help the Mortician. Is glad that the bodysnatcher doesn't find out info. RP. Thinks Maw, Elbereth, Lopen and Meta are evil.

22. Clanky RP. Votes HS. Wants to hear from HS and Elkanah because they posted at the beginning then stopped. 

23. Phatt voted for STINK to see how people would respond, and because he likes D1 Lynches.

24. Elbereth votes for Meta, saying he is being too harsh on Mark. 

25. Araris RP. Votes for Phatt, as he still hasn't elaborated why he voted for STINK instead of Shallan.

26. Alvron posts about times.

27. Orlok counters Ada about bodysnatching and morticians. Wants roles to be used.

28. Hellscythe has a sarcastic response to being voted on. Votes for Araris because of the vote on Phat. Said he has no starting items 

29. Adavantos responds to Orlok. RP. Countdown clock.

30. Twei says that if they were a traitor, they would want to 'hang on to the bodysnatches as much as possible'. Uses MR10 as an example.

31. Adavantos says Twei has a good point. Says that the SK has an easier time if his plan is followed. 

32. Kynedath RP. Retracts vote on Adavantos. Is suspicious of Mark and Meta.

33. Adavantos isn't trying to get people to not poke-vote. Just that it should be removed. Thinks Meta is more aggressive than usual.

34. Kynedath is grateful.

35. Elkanah says that Meta is aggressive. Likes 'the purging process'.

36. Kipper says that bodysnatching is for Elim kills, not lynches.

37. Araris voted for phatt because of arbitary reasoning for his vote on STINK.

38. Adavantos says 'right' to Kips post. 

39. STINK asks for a vote tally.

40. Hellscythe says that Phatt was only making a poke-vote. Retracts vote on Araris.

41. Adavantos makes a vote tally. (Does it in a really rude way)

42. Kynedath corrects the vote tally.

43. Hellscythe votes for Elbereth because Elbereth said they didn't want to talk because of fear of dying. New Vote Tally. Says Rookies shouldn't pick him. Asks for Snitches to send him stuff.

44. Meta says that Ada should justify why he thought Meta was evil. Says he is being respectful of Mark, as he thinks he is capable. Suggests that Elbereth played the newbie card because Mark and Elb are traitors together. Retracts vote on Mark.

45. STINK Votes for Mark.

46. Ada says he had already justified why he thought Meta was evil.

47. Hellscythe says he would've done what Mark did as well. 

 

Time to actually do stuff, this takes more time than I initially thought.

[Mark IV]

@Ada,

I am blind. Perhaps you could do a scan on..... oh wait. That wouldn't work. You tell me how I prove myself blind. After all, killing someone over something they can't prove true, because they didn't have a chance, is a bit sketchy IMO.

Also, I did not send a not because a I fell asleep and woke up literally 10 minutes after the deadline. You can refer to my earlier post this turn.

That's all for now.

[Kipper]

All through the night turn, I was convinced Kipper was evil. Then I went back over the previous day, and started to think he wasn't. Then I got to the bit following Meta's 'reveal', and changed my mind again. Now this? I don't know what to think. But one thing I am fairly certain of is that Phatt's Snitch does exist, due to the argument over side roles in Snitch notes last cycle.

 

Kipper (and Kynedath to a lesser extent): please explain what was strange about Meta's 'reveal'?

I also believe that Phatt's Snitch is real. I don't believe that that Snitch is necessarily a good Snitch.

 

Let me get this straight. You don't think it's strange when someone who has previously been strongly defending themselves just "gives up" and says "vote me, I'm a Traitor?" That doesn't seem strange to you at all?

 

I just want to say that knowing Kipper is a Beggar, I had him follow me night one. I scanned another player who happened to be another Snitch. This is the same one who scanned me N1, and scanned Kipper N2. Kipper knows for a fact that the result is accurate because he himself received the results that I followed said player and because he received the relevant note. Also I was told ahead of time by Phatt that he was in contact with another Snitch who was scanning me. Kipper had no knowledge of this, let alone who that player was nor that I had the order in to scan them. Therefore he could not make up said claim unless either phatt or said Snitch were evil themselves, which is a possibility, but I doubt they'd bother throwing one of their own under the bus this early. As for why they went after HS and not Mark or Snitch#3, I suspect its because A: Mark is their snitch, or they at least want it to seem that way (personally I think this Mark and Kipper are Traitors and had this all planned out. In this theory Mark is not actually Blind but just had it prepared as an excuse so Kipper could back pedal to get him out of harms way) and B: because they knew they couldn't kill me, I would immediately out the only players who knew said player was a Snitch, which would narrow it down to Phatt and Kipper.

Ada, yes I know what the Note says. You're still completely removing the possibility and taking on faith that that Snitch could be a Compulsive Liar.

Also, you're saying that you "doubt they'd bother throwing one of their own under the bus this early," while using that as reason to kill me. There is just about zero reason to kill me, as my previous posts have indicated.

 

 

 

All evidence points to Kipper being evil, and to a lesser extent, Mark. Personally I think both are worthy of dying this cycle (one to a lynch, the other assassination). I knew something was wrong early on last day turn and voted for Kipper for a reason; his reaction to said vote would have told me to keep it on him, but I let other evidence (which was probably fallible) sway me. Being a man who bases their entire life on probabilities of success, I did not, and still do not believe, that Kipper received a note that said Meta was a Traitor Beggar while Meta was actually a Beggar and Kipper was probably the Traitor Beggar himself. The fact that Meta and I had to drag him out to vote for him, while he was the only player whose vote did not count because he was searching, suggests to me that he knew something was up and didn't want to fall into a trap. Also the fact that he has no results to share with me last night suggests because Mark and him have a plan to claim him being roleblocked with Duct Tape by the eliminators. So, Mark? Did you get "role blocked." If not who did you send your note to, and can said player confirm they received it? Kipper? Why do you think you got no results last night?

I did not receive any results. The GM PM said "Mark didn't follow anyone," or words to that effect (since I'm not allowed to c/p). And you and Meta didn't have to "drag me out." I was completely honest about it. I planned to search, so voting for Meta would have been pointless.

[phattemer]

I have said practically a zillion times that I received a note with the contents, "Meta = Evil Beggar," or words to that effect.

 

However, as it was stated earlier, that is very unlikely, which is why Meta was lynched. The allegedly blind snitch would have had to have not only failed his blind check, but also the evil beggar would have had to be picked randomly out of eighteen people.

On the other hand, if you were evil, then the note could have been correct, and have read "Loyal Beggar". For this to be true, you would have to be evil, and the allegedly blind snitch would have had to succeed in his blind check.

As probability theorists, we must look at which of these outcomes is more likely.

Outcome 1: Kipper is evil

He would have lied about the snitch note, so it does not depend on the blindness of the snitch.

The snitch note that says he is evil is correct. There must have been no Mirror or Street Performer, which would be extremely unlikely given that the user would have had to target Kipper and happened to randomly redirect the action to the evil beggar. It is possible that a traitor did this, but since they had no idea Kipper would be scanned, it would have been almost entirely random.

Outcome 2: Kipper is town

He received a note saying Meta was an evil beggar. The snitch must have failed his blind check, and randomly selected an evil beggar as his target. (1/2 x 1/36)

The snitch note that said he was evil is false. Since the snitch isn't blind, there must have been a redirect to the evil beggar, and since nobody knew that Kipper was going to be scanned, that is so unlikely as to be able to be completely disregarded.

 

"It would make absolutely zero sense for an Eliminator to do what you are saying I did."

Please explain why.

 

"Perhaps the Snitch is evil? Perhaps an Eliminator redirected the action? Perhaps you're evil, and you're lying about a Note you got. Imagine that, if you got a Note saying "Kipper is a Good Beggar," and then thought, "Haha, I can accuse Kipper of doing exactly what I'm about to do!" Pretty clever play, and you've put me on the defensive. Now, since I've given my reasons as to why I think this "Note" is fallible, how about you explain to me how we can be assured of

A. The Snitch being good.

B. You being good.

C. The Snitch not being redirected to frame me."

 

A. They've been scanned by a confirmed good snitch.

B. I believe Ada scanned me last night. At least he was supposed to.

C. The odds are so low that this happened that I'm disregarding it. You didn't claim that you have a Mirror or are a Street Performer, and so someone else would have had to do it.

 

"Also, something I mentioned to a few people Night One, it would be very nice for an Eliminator be in charge of this MUIOOP thing, having all the parts and items flow through their hands."

A few people in a doc, perhaps? That is why you joined almost right away, so that you could be in the trusted group and gain control of devices.

 

Finally, you keep on saying that it doesn't make sense for an Eliminator to do what you did. I don't care about whether it makes sense, I care about whether it is more likely that a Villager or an Eliminator did what you did. It is much more likely that the preceding things would have happened if you are an Eliminator. QED.

[Shallan]

Well, since Kipper already knows this, I'll come out and say that I'm the Snitch who scanned Kipper. I'm not blind.

[Amanuensis]

@Ada,

I am blind. Perhaps you could do a scan on..... oh wait. That wouldn't work. You tell me how I prove myself blind. After all, killing someone over something they can't prove true, because they didn't have a chance, is a bit sketchy IMO.

Also, I did not send a not because a I fell asleep and woke up literally 10 minutes after the deadline. You can refer to my earlier post this turn.

That's all for now.

Sorry, did not see your first post. Considering how early in the turn we discussed your scan, however, I'm going to go ahead and assume that's just an excuse. Edited January 24, 2016 by Adavantos

[Kynedath]

Kipper (and Kynedath to a lesser extent): please explain what was strange about Meta's 'reveal'?

The way that I see it, there are three different play styles in SE, newcomers, experts and fumblers/flailers. I can fit most people into one of these categories, myself being a fumbler. Meta was clearly a veteran and an expert. To the (limited) extent of my knowledge, an expert eliminator would not just give in to accusations without fighting with everything that they had in their arsenal. True, Meta did argue his innocence, but that resignation in the tone of his posts wasn't what I think is characteristic from a veteran eliminator. Even more so when he gave up and "admitted" to being an eliminator. Kipper right now, he is fighting. He wants to live almost too much. I don't think that I am going to vote for him in this post, since I want to analyze his posts more and I have to go and do stuff, but I probably will later unless I find something fishy about this.