Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll check the timing later, I thought it was the other way around.
Your opening post is on post 116 and you talk about Melkor on post 119. My last post before I went to sleep was on post 84. Literally woke up, read the thread, and responded to quote 116 on post 167. I then called out Melkor on post 168.
 

Ratchet

The End and the Beginning
Your opening post is on post 116 and you talk about Melkor on post 119. My last post before I went to sleep was on post 84. Literally woke up, read the thread, and responded to quote 116 on post 167. I then called out Melkor on post 168.
Ah, I see the confusion. You responded to me, then Melkor, then after I responded you said you didn't see my post - I would have expected some form of concession on your part given that. But eh, whatever.
 
Ah, I see the confusion. You responded to me, then Melkor, then after I responded you said you didn't see my post - I would have expected some form of concession on your part given that. But eh, whatever.
I didn't see your post at the time I made my post, that's what I was saying.

Mr. Pedantic is striking early!
 
question

on WG in particular are bolded votes required
Yes, sometimes they’ll count them if they aren’t but you’re supposed to.

Yes. Depending on the host, it could affect multiple forms of investigation and, more explicitly, it reverses the sanity of investigative roles that target them. By default, a Cop is considered "Sane". Town result in Innocent, Scum in Guilty. So when it targets a Miller, it becomes Insane, Town become Guilty, and Scum (with the scum-aligned version of Miller) becomes Innocent.
I also explicitly fail lie detects.
 

Ratchet

The End and the Beginning
I didn't see your post at the time I made my post, that's what I was saying.

Mr. Pedantic is striking early!
I noted it was potentially getting pedantic with the "eh, whatever". Before this, my perspective was you were saying you hadn't seen something which shouldn't have been possible to not see, but I acknowledge in retrospect your version of events is plausible.

Your pedantic comment feels unnecessary to be honest, like you're just finding angles to snipe at me over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top