What was the purpose of scum!me pretending to receive a pm from webadict? To confirm that I'm town? Why would I create such an elaborate lie and risk getting it discovered when nobody really suspected me?
You do know it's one thing to not be suspected for the moment, and another to be believed to be town?
Why would I risk receiving the potentially ruinous wrath of webadict?
Because you didn't know about that risk.
The rules only said not to quote. I didn't quote, but damn...
Why would I then attack Iceytea with a day action, when he already was the runner-up for getting lynched?
To ensure that lynch, because it's far from guaranteed at this point, or perhaps to protect the top wagon.
If !Scum me wanted to get rid of him, I could have easily come up with a simple justification to move my vote away from Fallacy and towards Iceytea. That would break the Tie and put Icey next in line to be lynched, even if he removed his self vote.
And would also put heat on you for lynching a townie with only a "simple justification".
If I did decide this was the best way to get rid of Iceytea, why did I use a method where successfully defending myself sheds no light on the guilt of Iceytea since his outburst could easily be rationalized as the mafia targeting him in order to make me look bad?
Because I received my message around the same time you said you did, meaning your message couldn't have affected the action. Or if we're both town, it would require scum to spend two separate actions. And a single player generally doesn't perform more than one action per phase, and if they do, not the same action.
It's like this plan is incredibly high risk, for only minimal reward!
Lynching town isn't a major reward?
to provoke a reaction from the scum who sent it.
What sort of reaction were you expecting?
There was an unintended consequence of the PM debacle though. It gave town!Heydude's claim of being maliciously targeted more legitimacy, creating Scum's worst enemy: The confirmed towny.
Actually, scum!heydude would have got into the same debacle; quoting one of your own actions is still quoting a mod PM.
It sure is strange that their immediate instinct is to assume I sent it when doing so would put !scumHeydude in a lot of unnecessary danger.
That's because abilities that can kill generally don't double-target. That I was targeted reduces the odds of another claim being true. Combine that with naming me specifically in the post, before town!you could have known I was targeted.
Anyway, of those two scenarios which do you think makes more sense?
As noted, I know for a fact that if you really were targeted, it was a single double-target action and not two actions, one made in reaction to your post.
What can I say except that you're wrong? I still have a copy of the original infringing post since I sent it to web to have it judged after-the-fact. I compared the two again for you and can say that the meaning is the same.
Much of the meaning, yes, but the original post mentioned my name thrice, while the new version only does so twice. Specifically, the third part of the ability was different.
Do you really think Web's PM would cite the username of the person who targeted me?
Not misspelled, but yes, it believably could, and you admit you changed it "a bit".
You answer this question by ignoring its context. This is a malicious ability that was sent against a person who had not really done anything very scummy at the time. If I got their username, then this would out the sender as a confirmed mafia and I would do everything in my power to convince the rest of the town to lynch them. Webadict would never design such an ability and if he did, that person wouldn't risk sending it to someone like me. All it would take is a town flip, and everyone would know that I was telling the truth about being the target of this ability, as well as the user who sent it. Such a badly designed ability would clearly look fake. Especially in hindsight.
Can you write a response that addresses the context this time?
I was going reaffirm that yes, one of wuba's PMs could believably cite an attacker by name, because it's happened before, but I went back and it actually happened in one of Fallacy's games, not wuba's. I suppose it's unlikely, but it's dangerous to say "would never design".
Unfortunately, though I did get a mafia reaction eventually (which I am proud of), it wasn't through a post but through an anonymous day action, leaving you as the only person to attack me and be read.
Saying once more because it's important: this didn't happen. I received my PM before you made that post, and only a couple minutes after time you said you received it.
Justifying my decision to attack you has been the biggest hole in any argument for me being scum, as I mentioned in the excerpt. If I faked the PM to make myself look like a townie, then why did I throw all that away to attack you? If I wanted to get you lynched, there were easier and less risky ways to do it.
Yeah, I'm just going to
Unvote at this point. You're clearly not thinking with a scum mindset, and wouldn't have come up with what I suggested as the enemy strategy (at least not alone).
This is the part I find the most suspicious. When you say particular post, you mean my edited one, but you dance around it with unnecessary euphemisms. I don't even see what was so important about it since only exact details are missing in the paraphrase.
I asked wuba, and talking about it too clearly would toe the line of using information gained through a rules infraction.
Yes, I can say beelzebub without getting harmed. Did the mafia make you afraid it? It's a rather unimportant word so I'm sure you can describe what happened to you without mentioning it.
This game was designed by wuba. Abilities can reference things posted publicly, and role names are particularly strong candidates for such words, doubly so for words often associated with such things in other media. And of course the player with such a role name themselves would be immune to it, but I don't think that's the case anymore.
In my response to your next question below, I mentioned that it seems like you got a contract, but if that's the case, I recommend you to pay it off so we can have a proper discussion.
How do you know whether or not I've already done so? Why is a proper discussion contingent on it?
How would you know? I never showed the original contract in the infringing PM. Did you get a contract too? In that case are the terms the same?
I know because I received it with those terms, yes.
I still find it strange that two contracts have been sent though. Usually you can only use an ability once per phase, but I wouldn't put it past the mafia to coordinate something funky.
I'm more concerned that it seems to be a double-targeting killing ability. I think the sender is more likely an SK than mafia, actually.
