In post 2038, Dumb and Dumber wrote:P1:
No, on ELo is not fine. Especially in a game where scum may have additional instantial kill power.
P2:
a. Still stands that at 979 we did not know about Corruption.
b. I wasn't keeping track of how much Corruption he had.
c. Why does it not make sense to independently ask someone not to use an ability if the side effect means they die?
d. So I can "easily fake" concern about insta-death side effects, but it's much more difficult to fake concern about 1 extra Corruption?
e. And your final argument is that we did not display enough concern about his getting 1 extra Corruption, and that's scummy? OK - were you concerned? Was anyone concerned?
-Dumbass
I don't think you're right on that, but I'll let others chime in.
@EVERYONE
, is it specifically pre-Elo when massclaims are encouraged? Is it not either/or?
I want to point out that no one thought maf had two
instant
kill powers. We thought it was either a conglomeration of events we didn't have the whole picture of, or a misguided vig. Pretty sure it was the possibility of the latter that convinced people to begin claiming
a) I'm aware. I included it because it was relevant.
b) Regardless of how much corruption you knew he had, it's clear that corruption wasn't your concern. And you had to know he at least had one.
c) It doesn't make sense because what would be the point of an ability giving you corruption if the additional side effect is that you
die
? Tell me how that makes sense.
d) Yes, it does take a bit more to interact with the part about corruption, because
> 1) it takes more thinking and active concern about the state of town's corruption
> 2) it's beneficial to maf for people to gain it, so it's riskier to discourage the use abilities if the cost is gaining corruption
> 3) besides, corruption-related concern has been faked
#1136, yours can too.
>> 3a) the difference between banana's #982 and his #1075 (quoted in Bell's post above) is that the former is banana putting it out there that he's at risk and the latter is an obvious logical error. Bell loses nothing by pointing it out, because
someone
was going to, anyway. (Someone, possibly me, I think expanded on why it was faulty.)
e) Norwe did. Granted, he could do something about it. I didn't say anything about it because I could also do something about it.
Alright, I gotta admit I feel a bit like a dog who's a little too happy having found a new chew toy. I actually think I could totally eliminate Jackel today, and if she's not scum I can come back to this, because:
Looking over the role PMs, Bell started with 2 corruption (with a 2-shot method to get more) and Porkens started with 3.
Their makeup, according to what we know, is 2/3/?. ? could be 3, 4, even 5.
and on the other hand, in the end, 2/3/3 is most likely, and there's no reason for me to go on and on about D&D if they can be established as townier just by being alive tomorrow.
I know Jackel's had some IRL stuff going on, but outside of that she fell back to the background after having to be pushed to be active before (her posts during then temporarily changed my stance on her).
So like. Why not.
Why not really.
