Jump to content

Orlok Tsubodai

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1473

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Orlok Tsubodai

  1. Orlok Tsubodai
    "Eyewitnesses saw you slice my client in half, and heard your voice speak afterwards. Fourteen individuals in agreement on that is far beyond eyewitness evidence. You yourself acknowledge that my clien't body is buried in Unkalaki, and go on to say that the eyewitnesses saw you stab "someone". Why contradict yourself, Remnant? The fact that my client is now alive is a moot point. What is relevant is that he died at your hands. He was murdered. What happened after his murder doesn't impact the fact that my client was dead."
  2. Orlok Tsubodai
    "The sworn statements from fourteen witnesses, and the scar across my client aren't enough to convince you of the futility of a rebuttal? Plead guilty, my friend, and I'll advise the jury to show some clemency."
  3. Orlok Tsubodai
    Locke Tekiel turned once more to Skai's Remnant, and called for the recommencement of the trial. "Esteemed Jurors, we have before us the most grave case. Our good friend, Mr, Red Facemask was murdered on this very world by the man standing before us. The evidence is clear, many of you watched the murder yourselves: I'm not sure anyone here would argue that such action constitutes murder of the second degree. Skai's Remnant appears to have taken positive action to end the life in the Physical Realm of another individual, although we currently have no evidence for the murder being premeditated. The interesting question before us, though is created by Mr, Red Facemask's fortuitous return to life. I would argue that this is entirely irrelevant to the murder. If a doctor breaks someone's arm, and then heals them, they should still be found guilty of assault. What they did afterward provides an interesting view on their character, which is certainly useful for sentencing, but is irrelevant to the crime." @Ecthelion III
  4. Orlok Tsubodai
    Fascinating. Who have you killed with this role, then?
  5. Orlok Tsubodai
    Apparently you need to know the command, which I presume means being Nalthian. I'd try putting it in as an action after using the new Essence Mark. I really should have waited until the Day Cycle to unsheathe it, but oh well.
  6. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm really glad that you've done this, Roadwalker. Gut might be a tool for finding things, but it's not useful for everyone else, trying to get a read on you, or establishing whether your lynch target should be supported. That said. You've set out why you think your gut is as it is, which is wonderful. I disagree on a number of points you've made - the Yitzi bandwagon being negative rather than neutral, and the Odium statement, but think Clanky is worth further scrutiny. Lets look at the player list again. 1. Lucky Duke (Cloudjumper) - handy with a barrel2. Vulture Sam (asterion137) - a card hustler3. BrightnessRadiant as Herself - very confused worldhopper4. Liz Allan (Sami) - terribly confused Marvel fanatic5. Tautali Laust (Megasif) - valiant Radiant on a journey of self-discovery6. Dr. C (Clanky) - Rickrolling mad scientist7. Locke Tekiel (OrlokTsubodai) - I feel like this guy's died before8. Silver Feather (Roadwalker) - deep in thought9. An Innocent Man (A Joe in the Bush) - definitely harmless10. Daniyah as Herself - first blackout game!11. Aralis (Araris Valerian) - former head-thumper back from the dead12. Mr, Red Facemask (Alvron) - likes to use commas From this player list, we can rule out Asterion, and I'm going to take myself out for the purposes of my analysis. I had thought that Alv was evil, based on my misreading of Manukos (for which I'm terribly sorry, @Manukos). I don't think there's any other reason to read him as evil. Equally, we don't know the alignment change mechanics. I'd be surprised if it were as high as a 50% chance of conversion, and would be equally surprised if the eliminators could bring people back as evil. I'm going to rule Alv out of being evil for now. If Manukos had been evil, I'd have been suspicious of Megasif. I think he deserves some scrutiny for not voting, but it didn't save an eliminator, and I think Roadwalker is likely a villager based on his actions through the game. I'm going to rule both of them out as evil. I've thought Brightness good since D1, and don't think I have cause to re-evaluate that. I'd struggle to articulate it, but don't think Clanky is evil. I don't think Roadwalker's argument is convincing, and think most of the points are NAI at best. This leaves the following players as (in my mind) potential eliminators. I'd like to hear more from all of them, particularly Dani and Sami. I can't recall anything from Araris this game (my apologies, Araris). I think Cloud warrants a lynch for his actions on cycle 0, calling for everyone to reveal their essence marks. That was never pursued, and I think is likely our best bet for catching an eliminator at this stage. 1. Lucky Duke (Cloudjumper) - handy with a barrel4. Liz Allan (Sami) - terribly confused Marvel fanatic9. An Innocent Man (A Joe in the Bush) - definitely harmless10. Daniyah as Herself - first blackout game!11. Aralis (Araris Valerian) - former head-thumper back from the dead I have Nightblood. I'm going to die at the end of this cycle, unless anyone sends me Stormlight or Breath. I'd be hugely appreciate if players applying their new essence marks could include as an action giving Breath to me. I intend to use Nightblood to kill Joe tonight. I'm struggling to articulate it, but can't shake a feeling that he's evil. @A Joe in the Bush, I guess you have seven hours to convince me not to kill you.
  7. Orlok Tsubodai
    @King Cole, sign ups are up for this game for the next couple of days, if you're still interested in joining a game of SE.
  8. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'd agree. @cloudjumper, @asterion137, @Sami, @Megasif, @Clanky, @Roadwalker, @Daniyah, @Araris Valerian. Three votes with thirteen of us alive essentially concedes the game to the eliminators.
  9. Orlok Tsubodai
    Roadwalker: Brightness, Manukos (2) Manukos: Orlok (1) @Megasif, if you think Roadwalker is a villager, you really ought to vote. As it stands, it looks an awful lot like you're protecting an eliminator Manukos, and trying to get credit for calling Roadwalker preemptively. @A Joe in the Bush, you're active right now. Do you agree with the Roadwalker lynch, or will you vote? @Alvron? @BrightnessRadiant, why the change of heart on Manukos?
  10. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm in agreement that Roadwalker might well have been a misreading of the rules, although some of his actions since, namely throwing suspicion on me for giving a GM ruling to the thread that anyone could verify appear suspicious, so will remove my vote from Roadwalker, and return it to Manukos. If you think Manukos is more likely to be evil, why refrain from voting? Do you not agree that by not voting, but calling him out as evil, it looks like you could be protecting a teammate whilst seeking to benefit from his lynch, if it occurs? Whilst (clearly) I don't mind having suspicion cast on me, I'd like to understand why you think I could be evil. Are you able to articulate your gut read?
  11. Orlok Tsubodai
    @Roadwalker, I've just had explicit confirmation from the GM that it is impossible to pass any item to a player in the cognitive realm, unless it is stated on the item that such a thing is possible. Manukos, Roadwalker, please explain why you're attempting to claim that Alv's return from the dead is your doing, this being the case.
  12. Orlok Tsubodai
    Apparently I can't edit my post, so I apologise preemptively for the double posting. @Alvron, care to reveal any information on the Cognitive Realm? What actions did you have available? Is there any way in which we might communicate with those still there? Did you find anything out abut the meaning of Ecthelion's suggestion that you might change your outlook on life? How did you get the essence mark that allowed you to return? Was your will changed, at all? If so, in what way?
  13. Orlok Tsubodai
    @Manukos, given this very suspicion was mentioned a number of times, both in the cycle that Drake claimed, and in the following night cycle, why mention this as something you’ve just realised? Why did you display such hesitancy in putting the idea forward? Do you not agree that your hesitancy gives the impression that you are evil, and want to cast suspicion on Drake without committing to a vote? @Megasif, did you ask the GMs about this plan at all before mentioning it in the thread? I did, and got the answer that only items marked as such could be passed into the cognitive realm from the physical realm. If you were serious about the plan, why didn’t you ask the GMs about it, and if you did, why did you then give the thread the impression that you could do this? At present, I can’t help but be suspicious of your actions here, which seem to be only focused on having people think that you’re doing the right things, rather than actually doing them. @Manukos, what was the wording of the answer? Did Ecthelion specify an action able to move items into the Cognitive realm, or an item able to be moved as such? I’m sure we have some protective actions in the game - an option might be for an individual with this action (if they exist) to claim, relieve protection, and act as a conduit to pass spare essence marks into the Cognitive realm. @BrightnessRadiant, what answer did you get when you asked the question in your PM? @Drake Marshall quotes @Clanky's following post: Drake says the following in response to this post: I disagree that we should have a village lean from this post. @Clanky, my view is that this is more likely to be a distancing action, either trying to present the idea that Odium isn’t a member of the eliminator team if he exists, or making it seem like he isn’t on the eliminator team. I think it was fairly obvious that Odium would be a role in the game (thinking about the “one of them will destroy the world”), which makes me more inclined to read this as a somewhat eliminator leaning post. @Drake Marshall also addressed @Aonar Faileas, arguing that his offering to give up a mark is a highly village thing to do. I’d point out to the rest of the village that Aonar didn't actually intend to follow through with this promise. His suspicion of Yitzi is however alignment indicative, and is more likely to come from village!Aonar.@Roadwalker said the following: Part of me is minded to think that this could be a distancing attempt, having us think he believes that Ruin, rather than Odium, is the evil special role. Also, @Roadwalker, I’m not sure you ever gave a satisfactory answer as to your flip flopping on @Alvron. Do you not agree that it looks like you’re trying to go with the majority to lynch a villager without providing justification. Drake also brings up the following quote from @Roadwalker: For those of you who don’t know, Arelon Villager was just the basic roleless, so I’m in agreement with Drake that this isn’t alignment indicative. Drake brings up the following post from Yitzi: Drake says it reflects on Cloudjumper’s alignment, as he believes D1 bussing to be poor for, and thinks Yitzi to be honourable. I disagree that this is something we should use to consider alignments, given other players may not consider the same things dishonourable. I think Yitzi’s immediate retraction is very suspicious, and warrants a great deal of further suspicion being cast on Cloudjumper. It’s entirely possible that Yitzi realised his vote made Cloudjumper a viable lynch target, and withdrew it, not wanting a D1 bus of a teammate. @BrightnessRadiant, you’ve been much quieter than I’m used to seeing this game. What are your thoughts Drake ruling out Alv, Aonar, Asterion and Cloud as evil? If you agree, why? Who do you think is likely to be evil? @Roadwalker, you’ve used your gut as justification for votes and suspicions an awful lot this game. Would you be able to do an analysis on a player or two, so that we can look at your actual thought process? What are your thoughts on @Manukos, and on @Clanky? @Sami, you’ve now had three days since this post to catch up on what’s been going on. What are your thoughts on the game? Do you have any suspicions, and if so, who are you suspicious of? @Manukos, I really don’t want to lynch you, as you’ve been far more involved in this game than I’ve seen you previously, which I think is highly commendable, but I really don’t like this post of yours. Why on earth would we seek to go through every player systematically? Please explain how that is advantageous to us, and how it isn’t merely a ploy to end discussion. Please also explain why revealing roles is a remotely good idea. If we know the eliminators will target one of those five, it allows us to focus protection. Revealing roles makes it more likely the eliminator kill will get through, and allows the eliminators their choice of targets. Until you provide satisfactory answers to those, my vote will be on Manukos. Also interesting that @Clanky prevents the lynch of @Manukos following this post: @Manukos, I suspect he did, and left it buried in his will to make it less obvious, to minimise tampering. I think it entirely possible that he scanned Aonar and Asterion, and left his items to one or the other of them, knowing neither was evil. In summary, lots of questions, and ideally I’d like everyone to read the questions addressed to all players, and particularly the questions targeting Manukos.
  14. Orlok Tsubodai
    I'm well aware. I don't really RP, and Locke has been a recurring character since the first SE game I played.
  15. Orlok Tsubodai
    @Elenion, we haven't yet brought any evidence against Requiem, nor opened the case. Isn't this a mistrial?
  16. Orlok Tsubodai
    Whilst the burden of proof now lies upon me, the onus was on you at the time of the claim to demonstrate that you were not affiliated with Silverlight. In terms of what is to be done with you, I propose leaving the punishment to the determination of the jury. I'm sure they'll have a number of creative ideas.
  17. Orlok Tsubodai
    "The second charge to address is that of Phil's conduct. I am indeed grateful to Requiem for his interjection, however improper, clarifying Phil's identity, and providing an independent and respectable witness of the belief that Phil has impersonated a judge. I remind the jury of his words, for the benefit of their memory:" "Thankfully, we have since established that we are indeed acting under Silverlight law. I would seek to amend the charge against Phil to one of falsely claiming to be a judge, rather than a silverlight official. There is irrefutable evidence suggesting that Phil did claim to be a judge:" "There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Phil is indeed not a judge, beginning with the words of god himself: "This extends to the conduct of Phil during the trial, and namely, that he sought to preside over a trial relating to one he was well acquainted with. A real judge would know that behaving in such a manner would be an act of grave corruption, and Phil's lack of regard for this is indicative of his not really being a judge. Evidence for their being well acquainted is as follows, wich if insufficient, can be corroborated by additional evidence: "Not only do these quotes indicate that Phil and Mr Hooded Cloak are well acquainted, they also indicate that Phil appears to be working for Mr Hooded Cloak, which, although unnecessary, makes Phil's presiding over the trial yet more improper. If Phil is a judge, this acquaintance is sufficient to justify a charge of corruption against Phil, who would clearly be using his position for his own benefit. I'll expound upon this if such a charge becomes necessary. Although the charge, as it stands, is now impersonation of a judge, evidence does exist suggesting Phil was acting as an official of Silverlight. The initial "trial" Phil presided over occurred in the Cognitive Realm, and the only recognised legal authority existing in the Cognitive Realm is that of SIlevrlight. It would be assumed by all present, this being the case, that Phil was acting as a legal representative of Silverlight, and he made no action seeking to demonstrate to the contrary. If Phil is indeed a judge, or a representative of Silverlight, then he is guilty of corrruption, for presiding over the trial of an acquaintance (at best), and his employer (at worst). If he is not a judge, then he is guilty of illegally claiming to be a judge. I eagerly await Phil's response, and look forward to seeing how he will plead." @Ecthelion III
  18. Orlok Tsubodai
    Sounds good to me. I expect to be back in a couple of hours, at which point I'll get Phil's charge written up.
  19. Orlok Tsubodai
    Before I address the charges of murder, corruption/impersonation, slander and libel, I'd like to clarify the case addressed yesterday. There are ultimately two legal questions being debated. The actual result of Mr Hooded Man's action isn't in question. He struck out, and caused injury to, another individual. The first point of contention is Mr Hooded Man's claim that the intention of the action was in self defence, and the second his argument that intention doesn't ultimately matter, because the net effect of his action was to defend his property. I'll address first his aspersion that intention doesn't matter. He argues that despite not knowing that he was defending his property, his defence of self defence should hold, for he did defend his property. This can be summarised as a position that whatever the intention of an action, only the impact determines its legality. Let's apply this principle elsewhere (for a legal principle must be applied consistently). Person A is walking down the street and believes that Person B is raising a revolver with which to shoot Person A. Person A then shoots Person B, in self defence, only to find that Person B had merely been opening an umbrella. Under Mr Hooded Man's proposed legal principle, Person A would be found guilty of murder, for despite their intention of self defence, the actual result of their action was the death of an innocent. Mr Hooded Man's proposed legal principle does not work. This example has been picked to illustrate how it applies taken to an extreme, but the situation we find ourselves in is exactly the same, and once again, the principle does not work. To accept it in this circumstance means accepting it in the circumstance of the example, and I hope none of our esteemed jury would wish to find those honestly believing themselves to be defending themselves proportionately guilty of murder. The second question is whether his actions should qualify as having been with the intention of self defence. Let us remind ourselves of the evidence: If we accept Mr Hooded Man's claim of self defence, we set the bar for anyone being able to lash out with impunity as sensing movement. I do not believe that anyone, acting in their right mind, would believe that to be a sensible requirement before self defence is considered right. Mr Hooded Man had no knowledge of who he was striking out at, nor did he make any effort to ascertain that knowledge before acting. If he had done so, we would face a very different legal question, but as it stands, we have before us an individual guilty of rash action, prone to violence before making any effort to determine whether violence is necessary. He was lucky, but his luck does not change that he acted before knowing that he did have to defend his property, making his action the crime of assault that fortuitously did defend his property, rather than acting with the intention of defending his property. The fact that he acted without the intention of self defence, without taking any reasonable action to determine whether self defence was warranted, and the importance of the intention of self defence established above ensure that there is a clear case available to determine that Mr Hooded Man should be found guilty of assault against my client. I'm currently camping, and am about to have to go on a hike, so will almost certainly not be able to get all charges up well before the end of the cycle, so I suspect the trial will have to continue into the next day cycle.
  20. Orlok Tsubodai
    There being no independent judge able to grant this, we'll have to use the mutual consent mechanic to authorise Amicus Curiae. It is my belief that Ecthelion is not short of reputation, and that we are not setting precedents, merely applying precedents set in countless cases before us, so I do not provide my consent for you to file an Amicus Curiae brief. (Drake, we'll no doubt discuss your trial before this trial is completed. I intend to make a post bringing charges against you tomorrow.)
  21. Orlok Tsubodai
    @Ecthelion III, I reserve the right to summarise my case tomorrow, but yes, for now, lets move on to the other cases. You'll understand that it takes a while to write the initial case, so it may go up tomorrow morning, PDT.
  22. Orlok Tsubodai
    Indeed, you did not have to. You, as an individual, were not in danger. Your intention was not prevention of a felony, but was to assault the source of the movement behind you. It is indeed fortunate that you, in so doing, prevented an alleged felony, but you acted before you knew whether it was a shadowy figure, a servant of odium, a thief, or indeed Adonalsium himself. That you did prevent a felony is nothing more than circumstantial, and doesn't change that you acted before you had reasonable grounds to consider yourself or your property in danger which is the bar you must pass to prove self defense. Seeing someone attacking you, or stealing from you, does pass that bar. Seeing "movement out of the corner of your eye" does not pass that bar. If we were to set that as the bar, I could attack anyone who passes behind me as and when I choose. The "speculation" is not speculation, but illustration. It serves to illustrate to our assembled jury that for all you knew when yoy acted, you could have hit a child, and that if they accept your argument, they set the precedent in case law that seeing movement constitutes acceptable grounds for self defence, which will have the consequences of children being attacked by people seeing someone pass behind them, which will be legal as self defence. See the nuance, my dear friend. It is important to your understanding of the issues we address.
  23. Orlok Tsubodai
    You sensed movement, and without looking, as you have admitted not doing, had no way of knowing that your violence was directed at someone deserved of violence. Indeed, you were wrong to lash out, even had it been a servant of Odium. Your claim of self defence should hold no water when you had no way of knowing that you needed to defend yourself, and indeed, as it turned out, did not have to. If someone moves behind you, you have no right to attack them for their movement. If you observe them, and have reasonable grounds to believe that they're a threat to you, you may then engage in self defense. Until that point, your action constitutes assault. Whether or not you were lucky, and through pure chance assaulted someone that you would have had a right to defend yourself against, is completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. As far as you knew, when you were making the action, you could have assaulted a child. I think the important thing here is that you had no justification for believing yourself to be under attack. You have stated that you had time travel capabilities, yet claim you believed it was a shadow monster. These two statements are completely contradictory, and should give any observer cause to think on the reliability of your future and past statements in this case.
  24. Orlok Tsubodai
    There's a very clear difference: intention. In any respectable legal system, intention matters. It's what differentiates murder from manslaughter, and indeed from self defence. If we were to consider solely the impact of the action, and not why it occurred, we should be consistent in this, and treat those who kill in self defence in exactly the same manner as we treat those guilty of premeditated murder. I'm sure you'd agree that the principle of intention applies here, and would not advocate finding those who kill in self defence guilty of murder. The principle extends throughout the legal system. We do not apply it solely in the case of an individual dying, but always, including in this case. Here, you acted not in the interest of self defence, but with randomly directed violence, and so are guilty of assault, regardless of the actual impact of your actions. If you shot a robber trying to shoot a terrorist, you would not be guilty of murder, but it would be because of the initial intention of trying to protect yourself from a terrorist, and would apply whether they were a robber or a bystander. It's not an equivalent situation. (Ecthelion, I'd suggest you look at any legal system in a western democracy. Intention is incredibly important, and works as I have set out.)
  25. Orlok Tsubodai
    It would provide evidence, potentially, had you not already made the erroneous claim that you thought the movement was caused by a servant of Odium, as my client has proved not to be. Consider the hypothetical. A man, armed with a gun, walks up a street. He hears movement, and without looking, shoots the source of the movement. Regardless of whether the movement is caused by a passerby, or an assailant, the action consitutes murder, for it is committed before the perpetrator has determined that they are acting in defence of their self, or their property. (Ecthelion, care to put this to the spec doc as a jury? No offense, but I suspect that you might be slightly biased...)
×
×
  • Create New...