Already thinking about mission 5, eh K? Funny. If you were expecting a success here, wouldn't we be talking about a mission 4 win? Do you know something about the mission outcome already, just maybe?
Already thinking about mission 5, eh K? Funny. If you were expecting a success here, wouldn't we be talking about a mission 4 win? Do you know something about the mission outcome already, just maybe?
Uh, perhaps you can explain the fault in my scenarios that don't even rely on anything other than the number of players in the game and kaneski's use of the lady on rhan to conclude that this mission will fail?
Already thinking about mission 5, eh K? Funny. If you were expecting a success here, wouldn't we be talking about a mission 4 win? Do you know something about the mission outcome already, just maybe?
Uh, perhaps you can explain the fault in my scenarios that don't even rely on anything other than the number of players in the game and kaneski's use of the lady on rhan to conclude that this mission will fail?
Hedge being evil doesn't conclude that Kaneski is good. Kaneski has been "throwing Hedgethorn under the bus" since like page 1 of this thread. This phrase refers to the (common) practice of evil players fingering each other to build credibility.
Indeed, but that common practice is only used once one of the evil players is suspected by others; there is no reason to throw an evil player under the bus if they aren't suspected. Concealment of 2 players is still better than outing 1 for no reason and giving everyone a 'thread' to pull on - analysing past votes, etc...
Which, incidentally, and as I pointed out earlier, you cleared Hedge, I poked him for evilness, and you condemned Hedge straight after. While your condemnation makes sense as both good and bad guy, your clearing him after mission 2's 3+1 vote had no basis as a good guy.
That is irrelevant. If an evil player made a team for a must-fail mission (for record those are 2, 3 & 5) it will contain an evil player to fail it, so if hedge & kaneski are evil... that changes nothing
Ok, I demand you and Jdark hop into a real-time chat with me WITH cameras, so you can prove you're not the same fleshsack.
You've been saying for quite a while that you think Jdark is one of the confirmed good guys and that I am one of the bad guys.
Changing your tune?
When... did I ever... say Jdark is good? I pegged him as a weak suspect at first, and unpegged him, after more voting evidence came in. Never, once, said Jdark is a confirmed good guy. And if I did - quote of post thx.
That is irrelevant. If an evil player made a team for a must-fail mission (for record those are 2, 3 & 5) it will contain an evil player to fail it, so if hedge & kaneski are evil... that changes nothing
It may not change anything, but it's important to recognize the fact that their evilness is not mutually exclusive. They can both be evil. And are.
Ctrl-F; "Jdark". Checked every post since I did my initial accusation of Jdark. Never said he's good, just withdrew accusation.
Nor did I ever "clear" Hedgethorn. I just said I liked the way he was playing. On page 2. Which I later withdrew from.
Look... would someone who Phyphor actually trusts like to chime in and tell him who our confirmed evil dudes are? If we split a vote we could be in trouble.
I'm just dying to get to the end of this game just to see which of you two is full of shit.
Silly minion post.
If you're good (which you are not), you already know that we're both full of shit (because we are both calling you evil). If you're evil, you already know which of us is full of shit. Even if Kaneski is Broberon you already know based on votes.
In any case you already know, so why would you even post this? Either way, it proves you're evil. And by extension implicates Kaneski even further, since you put him on the team.
Ctrl-F; "Jdark". Checked every post since I did my initial accusation of Jdark. Never said he's good, just withdrew accusation.
Nor did I ever "clear" Hedgethorn. I just said I liked the way he was playing. On page 2. Which I later withdrew from.
Look... would someone who Phyphor actually trusts like to chime in and tell him who our confirmed evil dudes are? If we split a vote we could be in trouble.
Ok, yeah, accepted. Sort of. No 'ok Hedgethorn' before my accusation. Your initial unjustified trust still stands. And my "Jark is confirmed good" is still totally fiction.
Kaneski says Hedgethorn is evil.
Hedgethorn claims to be good.
Hedgethorn then puts a player on the mission team that has been calling him evil for the entire game.
Hedgethorn then votes for this mission to go ahead. Kaneski also votes for the mission to go ahead, even though he claims that Hedgethorn (the person who constructed the team) is evil.
Is this clear enough?
How could it possibly be any clearer?
Case closed. Even if mission 3 succeeds, we have our confirmed evil dudes.
Still works out since Kirindal has been voting with you and is also confirmed as evil.
"Kaneski votes for the mission to go ahead, even though he claims that Hedgethorn (the person who constructed the team) is evil." stands all on it's own, of course.
The 5th person doesn't matter for this mission but unless we can confirm Rhan or Davoid one way or the other - which would be ideal - you will probably have to take me on mission five.
The Lady whispers me sweet nothings, and @jdarksun 's loyalties, as well.
I'll wait on my suggestions until I get the result back. Davoid seems pretty likely to be evil, based on what I've seen so far, so I didn't want to waste the LoL on him.
I voted 3.1 because I was on it, sure. I voted 3.2 because I, nor anyone else from the failing team was on it, which is what I thought the discussion was suggesting?
Posts
Uh, perhaps you can explain the fault in my scenarios that don't even rely on anything other than the number of players in the game and kaneski's use of the lady on rhan to conclude that this mission will fail?
Hedge being evil doesn't conclude that Kaneski is good. Kaneski has been "throwing Hedgethorn under the bus" since like page 1 of this thread. This phrase refers to the (common) practice of evil players fingering each other to build credibility.
You've been saying for quite a while that you think Jdark is one of the confirmed good guys and that I am one of the bad guys.
Changing your tune?
Which, incidentally, and as I pointed out earlier, you cleared Hedge, I poked him for evilness, and you condemned Hedge straight after. While your condemnation makes sense as both good and bad guy, your clearing him after mission 2's 3+1 vote had no basis as a good guy.
When... did I ever... say Jdark is good? I pegged him as a weak suspect at first, and unpegged him, after more voting evidence came in. Never, once, said Jdark is a confirmed good guy. And if I did - quote of post thx.
It may not change anything, but it's important to recognize the fact that their evilness is not mutually exclusive. They can both be evil. And are.
Nor did I ever "clear" Hedgethorn. I just said I liked the way he was playing. On page 2. Which I later withdrew from.
Look... would someone who Phyphor actually trusts like to chime in and tell him who our confirmed evil dudes are? If we split a vote we could be in trouble.
Silly minion post.
If you're good (which you are not), you already know that we're both full of shit (because we are both calling you evil). If you're evil, you already know which of us is full of shit. Even if Kaneski is Broberon you already know based on votes.
In any case you already know, so why would you even post this? Either way, it proves you're evil. And by extension implicates Kaneski even further, since you put him on the team.
Ok, yeah, accepted. Sort of. No 'ok Hedgethorn' before my accusation. Your initial unjustified trust still stands. And my "Jark is confirmed good" is still totally fiction.
Kaneski says Hedgethorn is evil.
Hedgethorn claims to be good.
Hedgethorn then puts a player on the mission team that has been calling him evil for the entire game.
Hedgethorn then votes for this mission to go ahead. Kaneski also votes for the mission to go ahead, even though he claims that Hedgethorn (the person who constructed the team) is evil.
Is this clear enough?
How could it possibly be any clearer?
Case closed. Even if mission 3 succeeds, we have our confirmed evil dudes.
Post a whole lot.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Yeah Sok, why do you think I was in that mission? I'm waiting for your revisions.
I actually just straight up got confused.
o_0
Still works out since Kirindal has been voting with you and is also confirmed as evil.
"Kaneski votes for the mission to go ahead, even though he claims that Hedgethorn (the person who constructed the team) is evil." stands all on it's own, of course.
Success!
Success!
FAILURE
TWO failures doom this quest.
The lady of the lake token may now be used by @Rhan9.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
The 5th person doesn't matter for this mission but unless we can confirm Rhan or Davoid one way or the other - which would be ideal - you will probably have to take me on mission five.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
In addition to previous long posts - no longer a doubt.
I'll wait on my suggestions until I get the result back. Davoid seems pretty likely to be evil, based on what I've seen so far, so I didn't want to waste the LoL on him.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
As for the group, I'll wait to see some suggestions before I decide on a group composition.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists