We did have a way, yes. Then you changed it. Now we no longer have a way.
You are changing how your role works. YOU. Your role is literally designed around mechanics like in mine. You shouldn't be worried that your role wouldn't work unless you are willfully lying about the role, or selling yourself a ridiculous narrative so you can get your way and tunnel mikal.
Whatever reason you have changed you stance on the role, the end result is the same: you can't guarantee a kill on Elminster so you have voided the original agreement.
You are right, I can't kill elminster. Not by myself. The plan always included you motivating my role. If you are changing the mechanics of your own role, your are the one lying.
The same point in lynching anyone: to remove them from the game.
You wanted to remove the game to prevent him from quitting. We have since talked him out of quitting, and he is playing normally. Your objective was accomplished, and you are still trying to lynch him.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.
You aren't just punishing mikal here, you are punishing the entire team by not even trying to consider his affiliation. Also if anything you are doing mikal a favor with your "punishment" he doesn't like playing here. The fact that he is trying to play and you are still trying to lynch him demonstrates your motives are for personal gain, not in the effort of winning, or solving who scum is. More likely you are just scum wanting a mislynch you think is consequence free, but in the off chance you aren't, then you are still a net detriment to your team, even more so now than mikal ever was.
Well, he's progressing the game in the sense he has agreed to sheep your vote, so I can see how you would want to keep him in the game. As it is, I believe actions have consequences. I don't think it is "out of whack" to not wish a person who acts like Elminster does to be in the same game.
A person who acts like elminster, you mean a person who is trying to play a normal game and adding pressure to inactives and questioning other players? He is doing more for the town right now than you are.
I didn't back out of the agreement: you did. If you can vouch for your original agreement, I'm in.
Nothing has changed if your role functions the way you said it did in post 10.
It's certainly interesting that, after I mention that this might be a scheme by scum you magically reveal that you misunderstood your role and it can be stopped by something other than a roleblock.
The only drawback that can happen is if you are roleblocked, I am night killed, and Mikal is the scum who isn't carrying the night kill. In which case my role also operates as an investigative one and we would know for a fact that mikal is scum and end up lynchinh him anyway.
I think it is an entirely reasonable interpretation of my role to suggest that the ability cannot be stopped and I will agree that having the mafia night kill also include a free roleblock is out of line and pretty much makes both you and my roles rather weakened.
Your role literally counters how weak my role is.
Even permitting the free roleblock, I agree that my role should by pass it and allow the ability to work, but Pie has ruled that is not the case.
Where?
