Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
...and you're looking for defenders, not people pointing out what you can't know. Got it.
...no? The original post you responded to was engaging with an argument in defense of these leaks, but I wasn't expecting you to take up that banner. I just don't want to have a prolonged discussion where I can already see the end result: we don't have enough information and the investigation has to play out to figure out more of what went on.
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (2/5):Â Luna, Pie
Luna (1/5):Â That2
Casey (1/5):Â Austin
You must sacrifice, give willingly… sacrifice your ethics, your morals. Sacrifice your soul to the task. You must give everything to it, and you must cause pain in the doing of it.
The Alchemist (from Castlevania S4)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Just to clarify, this is the same mechanic I use in my games right? Scum can ask about 2 characters and 2 roles and you will truthfully answer?
Yes, I copied your homework on this. I will say there is a partial distinction, but I can’t specify what that is without giving away more than I’d like.
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (1/5): Luna
Luna (1/5): That2
Casey (2/5): Austin, Pie
We all have nightmares. The first time a slave runs away, they're branded with this mark on their shoulder. Second time, they're hamstrung. Third time, killed. When I was a girl, I was taught to be frightened of people on our plantation with this mark on their body. Troublemakers, But after I escaped myself. I saw them differently. The people with this mark, they're the people who know intimately how much freedom can cost. They wear it every day. So I do too. If I'd let my past terrify me. I'd never be free of it.
-Annette (from Castlevania: Nocturne S1)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Luna (1/5): That2
Casey (2/5):Â Austin, Pie
Belnades and Belmont! We roll out and hit the road and fight nasty hovering death goats that open their flaming bowels upon the innocent
-Sypha Belnades (from Castlevania S3)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Frankly, I just don’t see much reason to continue this conversation, as it seems clear that your goal is more to introduce uncertainty about what could have happened rather than defend it. On that basis, I’m fine ending this by saying that yes, there are circumstances where things might have turned out this way and everyone was doing their due diligence. Even in that instance, it doesn’t present the government in a positive light, but hey, it’s possible.
Based on what we do know, I don’t think that’s the most likely reason all this happened, and I suspect further investigation will reveal as much, but there’s room for uncertainty now, so I’ll concede that and we can wait to see what happens.
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Casey (2/5): Austin, Pie
Sarcasm still runs in the Belmont blood. Trevor would be proud.
-Alucard (from Castlevania: Nocturne S2)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Could we have Owen hydra with that2 if they are gonna be this inactive?
I’ll look into it, should be able to make that happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If they are cyber security professionals I would be open to reading their opinions.
I’ll do some research and get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Previous statements were generalizations from people who clearly have no inside information.
I did cut down the quote so that I wasn't just covering the page with examples, but several quotes from the article that upheld those statements, so that's pretty dismissive for no reason. Then again, looking further down, it seems like you don't really think these experts are worth listening to anyway, so I don't know why you bother responding to any of them in the first place. It's not that they have no inside information, it's that they're too biased to provide information that we can have any trust in.
"phone's secure enclave", the implication that a phone is more secure than a PC is naive. Maybe an iphone because of their rather wise policy of using full drive encryption without making users jump through too many hoops.Otherwise nonsense, an off the shelf android phone from samsung has no automatic encryption around app storage or much else nor are phones generally immune from spyware anymore than PCs. In both cases spyware is either baked in (somebody tampered with the OS installation), or it was let in by the user.
Not really responsive to any of the points he made. The argument here is not that a phone, as a device, is less hackable than a PC. The argument is that the more devices information is shared to, the more opportunities there are for one of those devices to be hacked. Increasing the number of devices by, say, sharing that data with a PC is the problem, not the fact that it's a PC vs. a phone. Yes, there will always be multiple devices involved, but no, that does not mean that more devices is better for cybersecurity.
Also, I already acknowledged that the app encrypts those messages, so I don't know why you're responding by pointing that out. Encryption, by itself, isn't enough to assuage security concerns, and I don't know why your pointing it out is responsive to anything I quoted.
Suffice to say Signal, in the hands of experts, would have been secure; and the greatest efforts of the Pentagon would have failed to keep this information out of the news after having invited a blabbing journalist to participate.
Fair. Optimally using this app would probably have prevented anyone from even knowing it was being used. Was it in the hands of experts in this case? Was it foolproof in this instance? Doesn't seem so. Also doesn't seem particularly likely that an internally developed program that is not open source would offer the opportunity to invite a journalist to join. Maybe that's just my assumption.
BS, look at what happened with the obamacare website.
Don't know why you're going off on this tangent. Yes, I can acknowledge that the experts aren't always right and there are some major fuck-ups. Not sure why this applies or how this invalidates their insights on cybersecurity.
... and yea if it was intentional that implies that they would be willing to do it again, but under that conditional who cares?
Feels like this should matter for pretty obvious reasons. Your response here is, essentially, if they're doing this optimally, then there's no harm. First off, we shouldn't assume that they will always do this optimally, i.e. selectively managing information so that the only information that is ever released can do no harm whatsoever through it's release. The more this happens, the more opportunities they have to release vital and dangerous information. Second, it matters anyway because perception is everything. If the US public and our allies perceive the military complex of the US as leaking information to the press like a sieve, that's a problem. If they have to keep being dragged before Congress to answer for it, that's a problem. People need to trust in their security.
1-5 people are consulted by propagandists in the AP cabal and then they repeat the same claim a hundred times.
I mean... do you want me to just give you a list of sources that all provide similar information? Doesn't seem like you care because they're part of "the AP cabal" and so their information is prima facia useless. They're a source you don't trust, ergo their expertise doesn't matter. We have to reference experts at some point since none of us are, but if all of them are just biased hacks, then there's no point in discussing any of this and we might as well just throw up our hands.
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Savant (2/5): WyIted, Pie
Barney (1/5):Â Â Luna
Trevor Belmont: I don't know any of you. But that doesn't matter, does it? My family - the family you demonized and excommunicated - has fought and died through generations for this country. We do this thing for Wallachia and her people. We don't have to know you all. We do it anyway. And it's not the dying that frightens us. It's never having stood up and fought for you. I am Trevor Belmont, of the House of Belmont, and dying has never frightened me.
-Trevor Belmont (Season 1 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
All I am saying is that same weakness would be in any other medium they used. If they emailed it would have the same weakness. You can't really have the signals not appear publicly. Email also uses asymmetric encryption and session keys. It's the same exact weakness.I could see limited use for secure lines of communication. Like actual hard lines that are untappavle but those wouldn't be available when you have multiple people communicating thousands of miles apart at the same time and messages are more secure than a phone call.
Except that's obviously not accurate. You don't have to share these programs between multiple devices like email, otherwise security experts across the country wouldn't be calling it out specifically for this problem. Again, I'm not knowledgeable about how these programs work, but if a lot of people who are in the know are decrying this for this specific flaw, then I assume that the existing communication methods include something that can get around it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They aren't explaining it well. It uses asymmetric encryption. That means one password for encrypting and a second for decrypting. You can only decrypt with the second password so if another computer captures the data they can't decrypt it without the credentials which includes the receivers password. If they have those credentials it may be undetectable, I have to check. I also need to check and see but I think signal uses temporary session keys as well which means they would have to intercept and decrypt in real time
Alright. Get back to me when you have more information because it doesn't sound like there's a difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying. I'm not arguing there aren't credentials involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Unlikely, perhaps someone else?
Then I struggle to understand how this could be described as a "honeypot." Who was it trying to entrap and why would a journalist be dragged into it instead of keeping the operation quiet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I don't disagree I just don't want anyone discouraged from using signal because they think the feds can crack it.
I think for this specific purpose, the use of Signal was a distinctly poor choice, that it should not be used as a vehicle for the delivery of classified military info. No one is arguing that Signal should never be used by anyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I understand how you said it can be cracked. It's not signal being cracked so much as the users credentials. So I would agree that if you allow your credentials to get stolen you are vulnerable but there is no system that can prevent that. If your credentials get stolen you can capture the data with a Man in the middle attack and decrypt it anyway in a replay attack.
That's an inherent part of how Signal works. That connection to other computers is the problem here, not the existence of credentials associated with the account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You are essentially supposed to have 2 separate Operating systems on the phone. One for secure communication and one that's less locked down than normal. Now I can't imagine that big publications don't have cyber security professionals on stand by given that if they leak information from people in vulnerable locations. Such as whistleblowers in the Iranian government, it can literally cause their sources to be killed.
Again, assuming a lot about what these organizations have access to with their limited resources and how that stacks up against the resources of the federal government. What's optimal is not reality in this case. Even if that was true, though, this is all besides the point. The federal government shouldn't assume journalist's phones are this secure, and even if they did assume that, they shouldn't be making these journalists privy to information that they do not have the security clearances to receive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You can make email more secure but nobody can crack signal not even state level actors.Â
Literally explained how people can crack Signal right now.
"'People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application.' he said. 'This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers where it isn’t being stored in a phone’s secure enclave. That data is then at risk from commodity malware on the system.'"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They actually are. Journalists can have access to the same stuff. I would say the government can hack more things than a civilian but as far as secure communication is concerned. I can secure my communications as well as the government can.Â
WyIted, this is just blatantly false. Journalists do not have security details that travel with them, they don't have anyone to constantly check their devices for the associated malware that can cause these leaks, nor trained professionals who can prevent and/or address hacks. That's part of the reason that journalists aren't given access to classified information. You can have the best phone with the best security program imaginable and it still can get broken into by someone with the means and desire to do so if you don't have the support you need to prevent it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
There is a myth that the government has stronger encrypted apps than what they actually do. They don't have anything stronger than signal. Open source is always going to be stronger than anything proprietary because literally millions of people are looking for exploits in open source software.Â
I mean... according to literally every source I can find on the subject, they do have messaging apps that are more secure than Signal. I don't have insider information on the subject, but the link above and several others I found make clear that Signal is far less secure than systems that they have in place. As for the argument that open source is always going to be stronger than anything proprietary, I'd say that's a stretch at best, especially since we know this data is exploitable. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but it is.
Why don't you ask AI for an alternative to Signal for group chat that is stronger. Matthew crooks was using similar messaging apps probably to communicate with foreign adversaries and the best hackers in the world. The ones who work for the United States government are unable to crack those messaging apps to see what or who Matthew crooks was communicating with.ÂThe apps he used BTW are probably less secure than signal
I don't know why I'd do this or why I should trust the result that AI spits out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you think of the possibility of a honeypot? Assuming the info wasn't actually dangerous.
So they openly invited a journalist to join the honeypot? Isn't the whole point that cybercriminals and hackers are supposed to find their way in so they can be entrapped by it? Were they trying to entrap Jeffrey Goldberg?
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Savant (1/5): Pie
Barney (1/5):Â Â Luna
That2 (1/5):Â WyIted
"It's a cruel world. Maybe we do all deserve to die. But maybe we could be better, too"
-The Captain (Season 3 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Signal is pretty locked down. Even state level actors have not been able to penetrate it, which is why government officials have been told to use it in lieu of text messages.
See above, I gave ADOL a response on this.
That's fair but honestly journalists should have phones that are resilient to exploitation by being password protected, encrypted and enabled with remote wiped ability to protect whistle blowers who would be tracked by state level threat actors.Â
By necessity, since journalists don't have the infrastructure of the US government, they're not going to have access to all the same tools and personnel required to ensure that their phones are absolutely impregnable. The resources just aren't that broadly available. I understand that it would be optimal, but it's not at all likely in an era where journalists and the organizations behind them are struggling financially.
I have nothing to add to anything else you said. Those seem like fair criticisms. I kind of trust them to be playing chess but the criticisms are fair
Appreciate that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
@WyIted
Was is insecure?
By the usual standards of classified military information, not just for basic text messaging or for grunt level communication, yes, it's insecure.
"The app’s security is viewed as fairly strong due to its robust privacy features and minimal data collection, as well as default end-to-end encryption of all messages and voice calls. The app also includes a function that deletes all messages from a conversation within a set time frame, adding an additional layer of data protection. But experts agree that it shouldn’t be used by government officials as an alternative to communicating through more secure, sanctioned government communications — which Signal is not.
...members of Trump’s Cabinet — including the vice president, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, among others — were likely using personal devices, since in most cases, Signal cannot be downloaded onto official federal devices. This alone creates a host of cybersecurity issues.
...One of the biggest risks of using Signal is where the data can be stored.
'People can link Signal messaging to a desktop application.' he said. 'This means that Signal data is being delivered to potentially multiple desktop and laptop computers where it isn’t being stored in a phone’s secure enclave. That data is then at risk from commodity malware on the system.'"
So much as you might view this app as sufficiently trustworthy, and much as it is significantly better than a lot of other communication programs, it's not anywhere near the standard that is allowed for these kinds of discussions.
That is an incorrect analogy. Holes in dams cause bigger holes (and if not then what point were you making?).
Not what I was implying. My point was as I said it: an active willingness to make one hole in the structure (or, in this case, release more classified military information) suggests a willingness to keep doing so. This was a response to the point that they might be doing this intentionally. If so, I don't understand why anyone would assume that this is the only time they would ever engage in this.
In other words given intentionality then the fact that no operations were compromised must be seen as intentional too, perhaps explaining the short timeline. i.e. they leaked X when they knew there was no time to prevent X from happening.
So because nothing interfered with the operation, nothing could have interfered with it and it was never dangerous. Maybe. Doesn't scream "secure" to me when there's even a chance of interference or a journalist leaking pertinent information that might become important in future engagements.
In a serious intelligence conflict (with cunning players) all governments would be leaking false or inconsequential true information all the time. If you didn't then the enemy would know that those few leaks which remain were likely true.It's like jamming, prevent them from identifying the true signal by disguising it among the false/useless ones.
My problem with this is what we know it wasn't false and we don't know if it was useless. If you want to argue that it's beneficial to do this, fine, but you're assuming a lot about how important that information was. Beyond that, I don't think it's valuable to the government to set a standard that there are active leaks in the system by creating new holes in it. Doesn't seem like that's necessary to throw other governments off the scent of other relevant information and it makes our intelligence apparatus look poorly managed, which is a problem when that's how everyone (including your own people and allies) perceive it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nothing in that text hurt the United states.
I don’t love this argument. The fact remains that classified information on military operations went out through an unsecured app and, at minimum, that information was delivered to a journalist and received on an unsecured and unauthorized device. The fact that it didn’t interfere with the operation and hasn’t had knock-on effects yet only tells us that it could have been worse.
Essentially either waltz is a traitor who needs fired or this was intentional because they were confident in Goldbergs journalistic integrity to wait for the attack before publishing as a message to Europoors
I don’t love this argument, either. If this was the actual aim, then the fact remains that it imparts a common perception of our intelligence that is negative. Honestly, it might be worse to know that the information was released on purpose, since that suggests an active rather than an accidental willingness to undermine the security we normally place on classified information regarding military engagements and suggests there will be more to come. If they drilled the hole in the dam on purpose, then it’s not a one-time “we’ll fix this” situation - more holes are coming, and that’s decidedly bad.
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (2/5): Pie, Luna
That2 (1/5):Â WyIted
"I think I felt part of my brain die just trying to follow that logic."
-Alucard (Season 4 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (1/5):Â Pie
That2 (2/5): WyIted, Luna
"Goodnight, Tree."
-Trevor Belmont (Season 2 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Vader (1/5):Â WyIted
That2 (2/5):Â Pie, Luna
Juste Belmont: Your power is a force for good in the world, not killing stupid old men!Maria Renard: Most of what's bad in the world is because of stupid old men!
-Exchange between Juste Belmont and Maria Renard (Season 2 of Castlevania: Nocturne)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
That2 (2/5):Â Pie, Luna
Dracula: I have told you how it will be. The humans will die. You will be taken care of. Little Godbrand. Little vampire. Little parasite. Little boll weevil who delights in making noise and pretending he is important and dangerous. Are you going to continue questioning me? Are you going to fight me, little Godbrand?Godbrand: ...(looks away in fear)…no...Dracula: Then why are you still here, making your little noises? Get out before I slit you up the middle... And bite. Out. Your. Heart.
-Exchange between Dracula and Godbrand (Season 2 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (1/5):Â Casey
That2 (2/5): Pie, Luna
Well, whatever they are, I’m sure they can die.
-Richter Belmont (Season 1 of Castlevania: Nocturne)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (1/5):Â Casey
That2 (1/5):Â Pie
Bishop:Â You cannot enter the house of God!Blue Fangs:Â God is not here. This is an empty box.Bishop:Â God is in all of His churches!Blue Fangs:Â Your God's love is not unconditional. He does not love us and He does not love you.Bishop:Â I have done His bidding! My life's work is in His name!Blue Fangs:Â Your life's work make him puke.Bishop:Â I am the Bishop of Gresit!Blue Fangs:Â Your God knows we wouldn't be here without you. This is all your fault isn't it?Bishop:Â She was a witch!Blue Fangs:Â Lies? In your house of God? No wonder he has abandoned you. But we love you.
-Exchange between the Night Creature Blue Fangs and the Bishop of Gresit (Season 1 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
Votes:
Barney (1/5):Â Casey
What the fuck is toilet paper?
-The Judge (Season 3 of Castlevania)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@That2User
@WyIted
@Casey_Risk
Calling all humans, vampires, Night Creatures and assorted gods!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@AustinL0926
@Savant
Mafia time!
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome to Castlevania Mafia! This game is based off of the animated series Castlevania and Castlevania: Nocturne by Clive Bradley. I've never played the games these were based on (I imagine a lot of the same background information is used for these series), but I decided to start watching this series around 2018 and I haven't been able to put it down since. There is some incredible fight animation in this series and surprisingly strong characters and narratives to boot. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested.
As for this game, yes, there is a theme split. After some consideration, I've decided that Mafia will be given the same opportunity that they've received a lot in recent games: they will learn of two roles and two characters over the course of the first DP with regards to their presence in the game. I will do my best to answer any questions beyond that, which can be posed to me by PM or publicly. I will try to post vote counts often over the course of each DP.
Going to stick to some pretty basic rules (just stealing these from Pie):
1) No editing or deleting posts of any kinds
2) No copy/pasting your role PM (please paraphrase)
3) No cryptography of any kind
4) No communication outside of the mafia game
5) No liking/upvoting posts after you die
6) No using ChatGPT/AI to paraphrase your PM
And, same as him, I reserve the right to add rules as necessary.
All DPs will be 72 hours and NPs 24 hours unless the NP ends with everyone submitting actions earlier.
Remaining Players:
1. Pie
2. Savant
3. Lunatic
4. Austin
5. Vader
6. Barney
7. Casey
8. That2
9. WyIted
With 9 players alive, it takes 5 votes to lynch. This DP will end Wednesday March 26th at 8:30pm EST. Ready, steady, go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
@TheGreatSunGod
If we still need another person to do writeups for individual users, then I nominate TheGreatSunGod (a.k.a. Best.Korea) for mine, given that he's basically written one for me already.
I was planning on doing yours, but haven’t started yet. If BK’s down, I’m good with that.
Created:
Posted in:
Hall of Fame VI
Pursuant to the sixth Hall of Fame election process, the following are inducted into the DebateArt.com Hall of Fame:
Â
-- Users --
Savant
I dont think I even need an explanation here. It is obvious. Savant is very active on the site, in forums, in games, in debates, everywhere, and always gives some very clever responses and thinks outside of the box. Then he is an undefeated debating champion. Yes. This isnt someone who farmed wins or just did few debates here and there. He went against many top debaters and won every time. You could even say he obliterated all opponents. This never happened before on this site. Ever. This alone means he deserves to be here, but there are also noble deeds done by him on this site. When RM was getting troll voted and unjustly lost rating due to troll votes spam, it was Savant who made another account with moderator's permission to help restore RM's rating, and also he helped create solution for troll votes. Savant participates in all discussions regarding the improvement of the site, and he brings very high quality arguments which is what debating site needs the most.  -TheGreatSunGod/Best.Korea
ILikePie5
[placeholder]
Lunatic
[placeholder]
-- Debates --
THB in the Efficacy of Gender Affirming Care
A match between two debaters in the top ten is almost always a contender for the Hall of Fame. Both Bones and Benjamin have impressive debate records, and it's not the first time either of them has debated transgender issues. Not many debates go into this level of depth, with multiple studies presented by each side and a meta-analysis, and both contenders put up a good fight. Also a good example of how to argue when the data isn't super clear one way. For a topic that's brought up a lot in forums, it's good to see a high-level matchup with with this level of analysis.   -Savant
The Catholic Church is Infallible
CatholicApologetics vs. Savant
One of the marks of an impressive pair of debaters is their ability to take a topic and make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences, particularly ones with no background in the subject matter. This is an example of one such debate, delivering a detailed and exceedingly well researched performance by both sides. CatholicApologetics demonstrated a deep understanding of the literature as well as the history of the Catholic Church, while Savant countered with a variety of sources that mainly focused on the context of these statements in the wider scope of history and churches in general. This debate mainly came down to the issue of whether principle alone could demonstrate infallibility, but was about a myriad of issues surrounding it and proved engrossing.   -whiteflame
THBT: Personhood begins at conception
Savant vs. Benjamin
This debate thrives on taking a step back from the issue of abortion directly and instead focusing on one of the more fundamental assumptions that come with it. It was impressive to see each side attack it in their own way. Savant focused his attention mainly on principle arguments, establishing a lack of distance between the unborn and humans born into the world alive, whereas Benjamin placed his attention mostly on the practicality of affirming this as a society and focusing on elements that divorce the unborn from those born into the world alive. Both sides showcased well-elucidated arguments that ended up making for a close and well-articulated debate.   -whiteflame
-- Misc.--
U.S. Governors Mafia DP5
A Belated Defense of UnitedHealthCare
In a time when it is all too easy to mete out our frustrations on the popular target of the time, Swagnarok's post about the killing of UHC CEO Brian Thompson focused on grounding the narrative in reality. It is understandable that so many people would see the often frustrating health insurance system as a target for anger and resentment, though this post demonstrates that there is more to the issue that everyone should consider before supporting murder as a tool for change. A valuable post to counter a storm of outrage.   -whiteflame
Hell Diary DP 1
[placeholder]Â
Beastiality
[placeholder]Â
Conclusion
This concludes the induction announcement. Congratulations to all those inducted! Going to try to fill these in (and fill in previous entries) in short order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
1. Pie
2. Savant
3. Lunatic
4. Austin
5. Vader
6. Barney
7. Casey
8. That2
9. WyIted
Backup
1. Owen
Alright, thanks for stepping in, WyIted.
I’ve got to work on the PMs today, but this game should start sometime this weekend.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Pie
2. Savant
3. Lunatic
4. Austin
5. Vader
6. Barney
7. Casey
8. That2
9.
Backup
1. Owen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Thanks for all your help! I've gotten some feel for what unbalances a game, but it's much harder to see when you're building one from the ground up, so I appreciated all the insights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It was pretty obvious pie was town but it didn't matter if he wasn't and I wanted to give the impression my role was unlimited.I didn't want to waste a cop on an obviously innocent person and didn't want town distracting themselves speculating he was guilty
Shame you never got to use your role, then, though I guess we were both surprised that you were eliminated that early.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah... honestly, I thought we were pretty cooked when we had to NK Luna in NP2. Felt Vader/Barney were obviously town and there was no way we were eliminating him. The fact that we somehow did, and that we were also somehow able to eliminate WyIted in the first match with Luna telling everyone that he'd been Vanillaized, was just baffling to me.
Also, based on the above list of actions... did WyIted actually decide not to use his role NP1 or DP2? Didn't he claim to have used his role on Pie? Why bother with the fake-out?
Created:
Posted in:
GG everyone. I'll shut this one down and leave further discussion to the endgame.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Pie
2. Savant
3. Lunatic
4. Austin
5. Vader
6. Barney
7. Casey
8.
9.
Backup
1. Owen
Created:
Posted in:
1. Pie
2. Savant
3. Lunatic
4. Austin
5. Vader
6. Barney
7. Casey
8.
9.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Bullish
@Casey_Risk
@Owen_T
Still looking for a few more!
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I've made my case. We'll let the votes decide it at this point, DP's done in about two hours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
You keep saying how the claim is unusual, but this is an unusual game. Question, am I faking my role? If so, you have to admit I would take a huge gamble predicting who voted who, and thats honestly ridiculous. There are plenty of day roles that give results/actions immediately, but in a game where votes are anonymous, you raise the issue with my day use?
I’ll start by being clear about something: one of us is scum since the game is continuing, so yes, I’m necessarily going to argue that you’re it. The only question is the how.
I don’t know if you’re faking your role. You could have been given a set of fake claims to use for all I know. I agree the roles in this game are unusual, but even among that cadre, yours stands out for reasons I’ve already mentioned. If the issue is that you gambled on who voted on the match between Owen and me, that’s part of the problem. You chose a match with an obvious skew in terms of who would receive all the votes. Owen was obviously scummy, wasn’t defending himself, and was the easy target. It’s by far the easiest selection to predict. Your second choice could have been more telling, but we conveniently don’t have names for that one.
I disagree that what you have is anything like a common role. If you want to sus me, be my guest. It’s weird that, if you’re town, you haven’t started doing that yet.
Created: