[Galain]

Seeing as how Spite's 'case' on me is that I didn't use correct terminology and so I must therfore be scummy, I'll quote the snips of relevant usage by moi.

Galain, on 19 December 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Possibly 2 people who didn't get orders in.

And 2 people who were incapacitated(?) last night to the point they can't vote today.

Path-Shaper, on 19 December 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

It actually has nothing to do with Avatar, and everything to do with individual abilities. I thought a REflect was pretty clearly a REflect, and not a DEflect. Either way, if you don't have the ability, you don't really need to worry about it. Worry about YOUR abilities. I have played in many a game where I didn't know anything about certain abilities and did just fine. I'm sure you'll survive!

PS seems to have said that there is no "deflecting" going on. OE could have been vigged. (Was he a fire bender? if so, maybe he tossed something that reflected back on him?)

Now, if I combine two apparent guarding/incapacitating actions being used (Karosis and Liosan) with the zero equalist NKs, it leads me to believe that maybe just maybe those two things are connected.




Liosan, did you toss something incapacitating at somebody last night and now find it reflected back on you? That would be rather upsetting.

Vote Liosan

4 font used for the relevant language.

The question mark on my first use of "incapacitate" is there to indicate that I had a question as to what ability type might have been.

Next time I referenced it, I used both words. Again, indicating doubt in my mind as to what type of ability and what correct terminology might be.

Third use was only "incapacitate". I think this is the one that has your panties in a bunch. Had I used "something non-lethal" would that have better suited you? Had Liosan used a lethal and it was reflected, he'd be dead. So I used a word that meant "less than lethal."


My next use of those words:

Galain, on 19 December 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

It's a bit thin. but with Liosan's carping about the incapacitate/guard thing, it does put a little more stink on him.

Again, larger font for emphasis. See, I've still not decided what to call the vote blocking ability. Damn, I must be evil 'cause I can't decide what to call something that I don't actually know what is.

Next:

Galain, on 19 December 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

The no NKs could be equalists didn't get their orders in in time. Or it could be that they were incapacitated/guarded. Or one of each.

Liosan sounds to me like he ordered something and is unhappy with the results. Not with the mechanism of the result. But how that result happened to him.

Getting rather self explanatory here. But here comes Spite to save the day!

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Read the OP.

Quote

Order of Resolution for Night Actions: Incapacitate > Block/Reflect > Guard > Control > Heal > Kill
Certain special abilities have special rules that may supercede the order of resolution.

Read the fucking manual to get your facts straight before you start a wild chase.

Incapacitate comes before reflect so if Lio is incapacitated, it could not have been by a reflect unless that reflect was also a special ability that superceded the normal order of resolution.

Furthermore, you tie "Lio can incapacitate" (no proof apart from his rather pissy inquiry into resolution)" to "Lio is scum". That's jumping the gun a bit. You thereby assume that the incapacitating action (if it is vote blocking) is limited to scum only. Dangerous assumption, in and by itself, and always a bit scummy in a tmdi 10 game, where likely everyone has abilities and few will be limited to one side, apart perhaps from kills, the traditional scum ability.

I also consider it rather strange that you are so certain that Lio incapacitated someone, when I haven't seen any definition of 'incapacitate'. Looks like you know more than I do. In fact, your post smacks a bit like someone really eager to reap the benefits of their own night action.

All in all, to me it seems that you are pressing a lynch using either deliberately faulty logic and/or superior knowledge (a misrepresentation of the order of resolution of reflect & incapacitate, and superior knowledge of what constitutes 'incapacitate'), or logic that is tied to several assumptions and/or at the least a misunderstanding of action resolution (the leaps of faith being 1) incapacitate is what the vote block is, 2) Lio's target had a reflect that was also special, and 3) Lio is pissed because he is targeted by his own action).
To me, that sounds sympish, especially considering how easily a faulty lynch can be laughed off later on by "oops, I misunderstood mechanics, lol".

There are several scenarios here that are a better explanation (one of them being, Lio can reflect and is pissed off because he figured he might be immune). You didn't even consider that but vote straight away. To me, that is extremely aggressive and traditional symp behavior.

Vote Galain.

Yes, you nailed me. My superior knowledge allows me to be utterly certain that Liosan is equalist. Hence the fact that I'm pressing a lynch.

You know how I have superior knowledge and certainty? Just look up there and see the complete lacking of such words as 'maybe', 'might', 'seems', "could be this or could be that or could be". Nope. None of that.

Spite, you simpering, symping, sputtering, spitting piece of shiite.

The only real evidence I have that Liosan is somebody to be scared of is you.

I made a slight case. I admitted it was slight. I did so in order to see what reacted. And what reacted was your synapses, In a surge of stratospheric hullabaloo that must have Liosan crying and banging his head against the wall.

You have single handedly made me believe that not only is Liosan equalist but that he's Amon.

The only thing that will get me to move my vote at this point is Blend coming on thread as Blend and saying "Lioson is not equalist."

[Tennes]

I think it boils down to one of Lio or Galain being an Equalist. Obviously, there are others who have come out leaning to one side or the other, but this is what it boils down to. Personally, I don't see an Equalist aggressively attacking another player right off the bat like that, especially with them being a man down. Coupled with the Lio-Ruse pseudo-interaction at the end of the lynch, and Lio's seeming anger at PS...
I will indeed
Vote Liosan
now, but I'm also willing to listen to what they have to say, and am open to changing.
Would be funny/tragic if it's two townies butting heads in Galain and Spite

[Galain]

somebody is naked

[Atrahal]

going to go to bed now. Should be back just before lynch i think, but just in case im going to

Remove vote


Vote Liosan


because recent posts have made me question my suspicions on Fener a bit and Spite's big defense of Liosan is definitely making me think we might be on to something with Liosan.

If i do get back before lynch then i will happily change it if there is anything more substantial but for now im good with this.

[Emurlahn]

I have had time for a quick catch up but nothing intense yet. I am going to bed soon and will have some time tomorrow. There are definitely connections being created. Amp got the first vote of the day. I see Spite attacked Galain for attacking Liosan and I'm not sure what to make of that, Spite could be a Lover of Liosan, a symp of Liosan, done a find on Liosan. When any player openly defends another player then they must know something about that player that we don't otherwise why stick out your neck like that? Lio did only reveal after Karosis which needs a bit more explaining. This could be a person with the ability to block other people from voting and using that to "reveal" that they are one of us when in fact they are the ones doing it. So I am not sure what to make of that yet.

Olar's CF was very surprising to me as I had connected him to Ruse day one. We are lucky for the day one lynch and the clearing up of Olar. The fact that Ruse was Equalist and Olar turned out to be Republic City Faction came as a little shock.


Basically I need a more intense read up before actually making up my mind on anything. Back later

[Osseric]

Here and catching up.

[Osseric]

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Galain, on 19 December 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

<snip>

Liosan, did you toss something incapacitating at somebody last night and now find it reflected back on you? That would be rather upsetting.

Vote Liosan

Read the OP.

Quote

Order of Resolution for Night Actions: Incapacitate > Block/Reflect > Guard > Control > Heal > Kill
Certain special abilities have special rules that may supercede the order of resolution.

Read the fucking manual to get your facts straight before you start a wild chase.

Incapacitate comes before reflect so if Lio is incapacitated, it could not have been by a reflect unless that reflect was also a special ability that superceded the normal order of resolution.

Furthermore, you tie "Lio can incapacitate" (no proof apart from his rather pissy inquiry into resolution)" to "Lio is scum". That's jumping the gun a bit. You thereby assume that the incapacitating action (if it is vote blocking) is limited to scum only. Dangerous assumption, in and by itself, and always a bit scummy in a tmdi 10 game, where likely everyone has abilities and few will be limited to one side, apart perhaps from kills, the traditional scum ability.

I also consider it rather strange that you are so certain that Lio incapacitated someone, when I haven't seen any definition of 'incapacitate'. Looks like you know more than I do. In fact, your post smacks a bit like someone really eager to reap the benefits of their own night action.

All in all, to me it seems that you are pressing a lynch using either deliberately faulty logic and/or superior knowledge (a misrepresentation of the order of resolution of reflect & incapacitate, and superior knowledge of what constitutes 'incapacitate'), or logic that is tied to several assumptions and/or at the least a misunderstanding of action resolution (the leaps of faith being 1) incapacitate is what the vote block is, 2) Lio's target had a reflect that was also special, and 3) Lio is pissed because he is targeted by his own action).
To me, that sounds sympish, especially considering how easily a faulty lynch can be laughed off later on by "oops, I misunderstood mechanics, lol".

There are several scenarios here that are a better explanation (one of them being, Lio can reflect and is pissed off because he figured he might be immune). You didn't even consider that but vote straight away. To me, that is extremely aggressive and traditional symp behavior.

Vote Galain.

Wow... holy defensive batman. You realize the case was on Liosan and not you right? This post seems to be an extreme over reaction to one vote.

I think Galain's case might be a bit off... but it did get me to thinking...

If there was no NK last night (from the equalist camp), and someone was confirmed to be incapacitated. (Karosis and Liosan) wouldn't that man that there is a possibility that one of the 2 incapacitated people is equalist? Given the info we have to this point... that might be a good assumption, and I have seen cases based on less.

remove vote.


I still have a bunch of posts to catch up on so I am gonna withhold a vote until I process everything. Looks like you guys have been busy posting. yay!

[Osseric]

Tennes, on 19 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Silanah, on 19 December 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Even kills can't be held as one side's ability as OE was killed by friendly fire from republic city forces, which are kiind of a town faction... And yet equalists haven't killed anyone yet.
Maybe you know scum (equalists) have a kill because you're a killer equalist.

I know this isn't directed at me, but I already answered this kind of question from Fener some time earlier. One of the VCs for Equalists is that Korra must die, so it stands to reason that at least one of them has some kind of killing ability - Blend wouldn't give them nothing except the hope that Korra is lynched/caught in crossfire I don't think.

However, that's not to say that any killing ability might be limited somehow, which might be another reason why we saw nothing that seemed from them last night.

This is true, we can't know why the equalists didn't kill last night. But we can draw conclusions from what DID happen...and that is that 2 people were incapacitated in some way. Coincidence or not... we have to decide.

[Osseric]

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Silanah, on 19 December 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

Even kills can't be held as one side's ability as OE was killed by friendly fire from republic city forces, which are kiind of a town faction... And yet equalists haven't killed anyone yet.
Maybe you know scum (equalists) have a kill because you're a killer equalist.

Also, that's quite a blatant defense of Galain there, attacking someone who attacks him, by-passing all the other (reasonable, well-thought out, logical) parts of my posts. Symp?

You mean the same way that you are symping Liosian with no provocation? I don't think I have seen such blatant defense of someone in a faction game in a while. Regardless of what happens today you have pretty much tied yourself to Liosan.

[Osseric]

Silanah, on 19 December 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Galain, on 19 December 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

<snip>

Liosan, did you toss something incapacitating at somebody last night and now find it reflected back on you? That would be rather upsetting.

Vote Liosan

Read the OP.

Quote

Order of Resolution for Night Actions: Incapacitate > Block/Reflect > Guard > Control > Heal > Kill
Certain special abilities have special rules that may supercede the order of resolution.

Read the fucking manual to get your facts straight before you start a wild chase.

Incapacitate comes before reflect so if Lio is incapacitated, it could not have been by a reflect unless that reflect was also a special ability that superceded the normal order of resolution.

Furthermore, you tie "Lio can incapacitate" (no proof apart from his rather pissy inquiry into resolution)" to "Lio is scum". That's jumping the gun a bit. You thereby assume that the incapacitating action (if it is vote blocking) is limited to scum only. Dangerous assumption, in and by itself, and always a bit scummy in a tmdi 10 game, where likely everyone has abilities and few will be limited to one side, apart perhaps from kills, the traditional scum ability.

I also consider it rather strange that you are so certain that Lio incapacitated someone, when I haven't seen any definition of 'incapacitate'. Looks like you know more than I do. In fact, your post smacks a bit like someone really eager to reap the benefits of their own night action.

All in all, to me it seems that you are pressing a lynch using either deliberately faulty logic and/or superior knowledge (a misrepresentation of the order of resolution of reflect & incapacitate, and superior knowledge of what constitutes 'incapacitate'), or logic that is tied to several assumptions and/or at the least a misunderstanding of action resolution (the leaps of faith being 1) incapacitate is what the vote block is, 2) Lio's target had a reflect that was also special, and 3) Lio is pissed because he is targeted by his own action).
To me, that sounds sympish, especially considering how easily a faulty lynch can be laughed off later on by "oops, I misunderstood mechanics, lol".

There are several scenarios here that are a better explanation (one of them being, Lio can reflect and is pissed off because he figured he might be immune). You didn't even consider that but vote straight away. To me, that is extremely aggressive and traditional symp behavior.

Vote Galain.

I feel like your suspicions have basis. The logical leaps are quite big leaps. Galain might be going off gut right now, but even gut doesnt totally make up for lack of logical reasoning i'm most concerned by the vote, however. A vote on something such as a percieved ability and it's possible reflection on alignment is not solid evidence to go on. However, Spite, you go on to do something similar. Why vote the symp and not the master? Why not look for connections and go off if those?

This is a good question. If Galain is symping... who is he symping.

A question for you Silanah. Up to the point that Galain made his post what info at all did we have to go on to make a vote. At some point someone has to stick their neck out and push a case or the game stagnates. Look at what his one vote/case has done.

Myself, I think Galain's case had some flaws...but there are parts that are at least conceivable. Whats more interesting to me is the way spite came on thread and started defending Lio as well as his OMGUS vote. Why does he feel the need to defend Lio so much unless he knows that he is on his team. (did that make sense?)

[Osseric]

Fener, on 19 December 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Not gonna lie, the severity of Spite's response to the pressure on Lio (which hasn't even translated to votes really) seems a bit dodgy.

my thoughts too... I am more interested in the response than the actual case.

[Osseric]

Silanah, on 19 December 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

There seem to be lines drawn. Spite, and by extension Lio (i feel like theres a connection there), vs Galain

I agree... there is too much happening OFF OF ONE VOTE.

[Osseric]

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

May I congratulate you on that last bolded, italicized phase? That's basically preparing tar and brush to tarnish me with the "symp" brush if I keep it up, and tarnish me with "distancing" if I back off - not bad, especially not if you're a symp

I still agree on my earlier statement. Vote blocking is damned powerful and I'd see it as an upper echelon ability. I think it unlikely that amongst the players who have posted today, anyone would NOT have come forward with this, especially after Karosis did.

I can't answer if Liosan put his action in. I agree that he's jumpy - and if you're antsy and insecure, you ought to PM Path-Shaper. Especially if you're a powerhouse. I'll have to re-read the entire convo though - does it point at him being pissed off about the vote block, or about something else?

What I took from the convo was that Lio was grilling PS about the order of resolutions and didn't like the answers he got. (Thats my interpretation) . He just came off as pissy. When i originally read that part of the thread I was confused a little cause it read almost like a PM conversation.

[Osseric]

Spite, on 19 December 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

Fener, on 19 December 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Not gonna lie, the severity of Spite's response to the pressure on Lio (which hasn't even translated to votes really) seems a bit dodgy.

Do you like a debate based on faulty premises? I don't. That was reason one. Reason 2 why I came on so strong was that Galain had everyone nodding along - trains have started for worse than that.

Yes but why are you so worried about Liosan? Why are you willing to irrevocably tie yourself to Liosan? You seem intelligent, you had to know that with your post you were throwing your eggs in the basket with Liosan. Why would you do that after 1 vote?

[Osseric]

Fener, on 19 December 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

Tennes, on 19 December 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Silanah, on 19 December 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

Fener, on 19 December 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Not gonna lie, the severity of Spite's response to the pressure on Lio (which hasn't even translated to votes really) seems a bit dodgy.

I feel like either Galain or Spite or Lio is an equalist.

Agreed.

Interesting that Karosis has come back saying his action failed - because his target had some kind of protection, or was it part of the vote block ability? If the same is true for Liosan, then I would side with it being part of the vote block ability I think.

If it's part of the vote block ability, then could that be connected to the lack of a scum NK?

Thats what I am trying to figure out as well... if the answer is YES then it add credence to Galains case. if the answer is NO then it hurts it.

[Osseric]

Karosis, on 19 December 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Spites reaction to the case on Liosan sound a hell of a lot like a symp trying look sympiish to me. Way to over the top. It looks more like his is trying pounce on the opportunity to set up a lynch on Liosan. IMMHO

That would be a crazy bold move, though...smart if you think about it. If Lio comes back as non equalist he comes off smelling like roses.

[Osseric]

Tulas Shorn, on 19 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

I've noticed that Tennes is backing up Galain pretty strongly. Moreover, being vote blocked implies having bending ability, a fact that makes Liosan less likely to be an equalist (unless Amon has bending ability. But I doubt that Amon would be acting as Liosan would be and doubt Amon could be vote blocked). Galain is committed to the attack on Liosan (backing off would look suspicious), but I suspect the reasons for the attack was trying to direct the thread toward someone not on his equalist team.

Vote Galain

Who exactly was under pressure that Galain was defending? Who was he deflecting from? Our only suspect for connection to Ruse was Olar...and he was dead and CF'd inno... Also, why would being vote blocked impy having a bending ability? That makes little sense to me. More defense of Lio here... just more subtle. Your entire post seems made up on the spot and not thought through. But it's enough for you to vote on...

[Osseric]

Atrahal, on 19 December 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Tulas Shorn, on 19 December 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

I've noticed that Tennes is backing up Galain pretty strongly. Moreover, being vote blocked implies having bending ability, a fact that makes Liosan less likely to be an equalist (unless Amon has bending ability. But I doubt that Amon would be acting as Liosan would be and doubt Amon could be vote blocked). Galain is committed to the attack on Liosan (backing off would look suspicious), but I suspect the reasons for the attack was trying to direct the thread toward someone not on his equalist team.

Vote Galain

You do realise that chi blocking should work on benders and non benders alike right? You seem to be under a false assumption.

Why do you say this? Do you have some info on Chi blocking that I don't? hmmm fishy post here.

[Osseric]

Whelp I am all caught up. I think we have a lot of time left... but I don't see how we are getting away from this Lio/Galain thing.

The good thing is we can draw some good conclusions from this as people are definitely polarized on this issue.

I am leaning towards a Liosan lynch

I think we get the most out of his lynch. If he comes back equalist we can look real close at Spite and Fener. If he comes back non equalist we can look hard at Galain and to a lesser extent, Tennes. Either way, we get a ton of info off of one lynch. There are still around 12 hours left I think. I'll double check, but if thats the case I won't be around for lynch resolution as it will be 3 am my time. But I am gonna hold my vote for a few more hours in hopes of more info/posts.

[Liosan]

Holy explosion batman! Reading up (a bit skimmingly, I'll admit) now. Seems like people are taking my grilling PS on action orders to be some sort of weird implication I think I got reflected on. It isn't - I just hate stupid Dr Evil games where the mechanics are just thrown together and there's no sense to how they are resolved. If I'm going to play a game, I want to understand it, and after getting a "chi blocker" CF with no explanation, I'm not confident that the mods have any sort of concrete notion of explaining anything to us, rather than assuming we have all memorized the entirety of this anime show.