Dawn of the First Empire Strikes Black and White Solid V: The Phantom Chrono Trek Into Friday on Elm Street Fantasy VII: Future Past With A Vengeance

[euklyd]

We should stop talking about that.

I mean shinori quoted it

I can't imagine scum wouldn't have seen it

Are you saying your own investigatable alignment changes when you investigate someone?

...no?

I'm saying that I'm a rolecop okay

I don't get alignment scans

then I scanned someone that DOES get alignment scans

told them and the Town Leaders™ about it

and then I get told by SB that there's a "guilty" alignment scan on me

and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the person I scanned because [redacted]

[Paperblade]

You pretty much just admitted you scan as scum

[euklyd]

why do that when town leader is voting you unless you thought you were caught? doesn't sound like a good time for self-voting for funsies

you clearly don't know me very well

[euklyd]

You pretty much just admitted you scan as scum

how???

SB says there's a guilty on me

in SB's world, there'd have to be another claim of an alignment cop

[Paperblade]

and then I get told by SB that there's a "guilty" alignment scan on me

and I'm pretty sure it wasn't the person I scanned because [redacted]

If you were town and your target is real, you'd know it wasn't them because you inspect as town and wouldn't need to hide the reason

Which means you don't know for a fact you're innocent

hence you are scum

[Green Poet]

Mm, I think I understand.

Would it be possible for you to post logs of your conversation with this other cop, with their name and whatever was in "[redacted]" omitted, to get a better idea of context?

[euklyd]

seriously how many alignment cops do you think there can be in this game

on SF we often don't even have ONE

two is basically unheard of

[euklyd]

If you were town and your target is real, you'd know it wasn't them because you inspect as town and wouldn't need to hide the reason

Which means you don't know for a fact you're innocent

hence you are scum

the mechanics of their role mean that, even if I were scum, they wouldn't be able to know that tonight

and SB knows this

so it must be someone else who says that

Mm, I think I understand.

Would it be possible for you to post logs of your conversation with this other cop, with their name and whatever was in "[redacted]" omitted, to get a better idea of context?

it kind of has role-sensitive info

the entire reason I'm not quoting it is because the person I scanned doesn't want the mechanics of the role in the open

[Paperblade]

you're avoiding my point

[euklyd]

you're avoiding my point

SB doesn't know that tho

him saying what he does means he clearly believes there are two alignment cops in this game

[Shinori]

So this lynch shouldn't be happening at the moment, not until later today.

Then possibly.

[Green Poet]

Would it be possible for you to post logs of your conversation with this other cop

[Shinori]

Don't post logs.

[Paperblade]

[00:56] <greenpoet> so you think he's scum because he said "I'm pretty sure they didn't scan me as guilty" instead of "I'm certain they didn't?"

[00:56] <greenpoet> not sure what your last post was citing, exactly

[00:56] <Paperblade> basically he's not thinking

[00:56] <Paperblade> "I can't be scanned guilty I'm town!"

[00:56] <Paperblade> imo

[00:56] <Paperblade> he's thinking "I don't know who this cop is this is BULLSHIT"

[00:57] <greenpoet> ahh didn't think about it that way

[Shinori]

There are plenty of people here who can decipher posting mannerisms of people. Especially in IM's and stuff.

Even if you cut out names it's just gonna give scum info.

[Shinori]

I'm like half on this lynch half off.

Willing to lynch him because of certain things, but would prefer we wait until later and avoid any early hammers at the moment.

[euklyd]

[00:56] <greenpoet> so you think he's scum because he said "I'm pretty sure they didn't scan me as guilty" instead of "I'm certain they didn't?"

[00:56] <greenpoet> not sure what your last post was citing, exactly

[00:56] <Paperblade> basically he's not thinking

[00:56] <Paperblade> "I can't be scanned guilty I'm town!"

[00:56] <Paperblade> imo

[00:56] <Paperblade> he's thinking "I don't know who this cop is this is BULLSHIT"

[00:57] <greenpoet> ahh didn't think about it that way

yeah but I'm the only one who knows I'm town

none of you guys do, obviously

[Paperblade]

you're not acting like you think you're town

[euklyd]

you're not acting like you think you're town

what would it help?

[euklyd]

I mean I guess I could try to BAMBOOZLE YOU WITH MY CHARISMA and vibes and stuff but

I figure more objective logic is probably the better bet

[Paperblade]

what would it help?

mafia post

[Eurykins]

Hot damn, first we go NL Day one, and now it seems like a Euklyd turbo is/was about to occur.

On a more urgent note:

Mm, I think I understand.

Would it be possible for you to post logs of your conversation with this other cop, with their name and whatever was in "[redacted]" omitted, to get a better idea of context?

Do not do this. At all. Whether it has case-sensitive info or not, all you're doing is putting the person that Euklyd is basically in a 1v1 against at risk for being found out. If you wish to know what I mean by this, look at any games with "Anonymous announcements" and players like Prims in said games. Being able to call out/label/identify people based on how they speak/type/react/etc. is not that hard, especially if/when you know the players well enough in a game.

If Euklyd flips scum upon a lynch, then you're needlessly throwing out the source of the knowledge for scum to possibly find out.

If Euklyd flips town (assuming he is lynched today), then it's up to SB to cough up the source of the inaccuracy.

Of course, there is always the possibility of tailors/framers lurking about to mess up scans, but all in all, we really can't do much else at this point (without SB telling us more or informing us more on the situation). Because at this point, all we have are people pointing fingers at each other, and calling out guilties.

[Holy fuck the amounts of posts cutting above me. Gah.]

Point is, we do/work with what we got. Can't do much else. Just stop dumping out incredibly reckless statements/information that really doesn't need to be said at any point in time out in the open/public thread.

[Kriemhild]

The thing is, Euklyd's story implies that SB is aware of the cop that Euklyd claims to have scanned. And SB supposedly got a second result. Two alignment cops is like, extremely fishy. Of course, there is the possibility that Euklyd is lying and/or faking logs, but if that's the case, SB should be able to verify how much of what Euklyd said is true.

I'm going to abstain from voting Euklyd here until SB gets here and sheds more light on the situation.

[Green Poet]

Do not do this. At all. Whether it has case-sensitive info or not, all you're doing is putting the person that Euklyd is basically in a 1v1 against at risk for being found out. If you wish to know what I mean by this, look at any games with "Anonymous announcements" and players like Prims in said games. Being able to call out/label/identify people based on how they speak/type/react/etc. is not that hard, especially if/when you know the players well enough in a game.

Think about this if Euklyd were scum.

He just realized he got investigated, and now knows there's a town alignment cop. Scum!Euklyd then claims to have conversed with said alignment cop, knowing that there's a chance that this cop will be outed when they confirm/deny in-thread.

If scum!Euklyd cannot provide logs, this corroborates the idea that scum!Euklyd fabricated the conversation. This is the motivation behind my question.

[Green Poet]

To rephrase: I'm not intending for Euklyd to be put in a 1v1 against anyone, or to out an actual cop. Whether or not he can provide logs is what I'm trying to see, nothing more.