Super Role Madness The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
- Thread starter Fujishiro
- Start date
Ekko was clear, he said jinri used an action n1. He shouldn't have received the results he did but he received them.
Jinri claims no use. This is in contradiction with ekko and must be resolved. If anyone wants to make claims such as ekko just lied about mech, then they must establish why they think this and why it's the most plausible turn of events. Otherwise I can only assume that they're scum trying to create a false narrative around a player who can't fight his own corner now.
Jinri claims no use. This is in contradiction with ekko and must be resolved. If anyone wants to make claims such as ekko just lied about mech, then they must establish why they think this and why it's the most plausible turn of events. Otherwise I can only assume that they're scum trying to create a false narrative around a player who can't fight his own corner now.
Silly man.
I am the one bringing the whole thing up while everyone is busy barely playing the game.
While you are fighting a 3p and a treestump.
I think Ekko could lie about the misc part of his claim because it is not in his flip.
I don't think he lied about the claim itself (there is a world where he got redirected, but we can't solve for that here)
I am the one bringing the whole thing up while everyone is busy barely playing the game.
While you are fighting a 3p and a treestump.
I think Ekko could lie about the misc part of his claim because it is not in his flip.
I don't think he lied about the claim itself (there is a world where he got redirected, but we can't solve for that here)
Have you ever seen Ekko lie and not recant about mech? I haven't. And I don't think you have. So unless you can give me a good reason as to why you think that is in play then I don't have any way to reconcile your beliefs other than you're attempting to undermine Ekko and call into question the mech.
The middle part is textbook deflection from you, I've clearly been doing more besides that, but you're aiming to prop your own contributions up when what I do really has no bearing on any of this. And logically isn't relevant.
We have explained to you that Ekko claimed it was a host error. There is 0 motivation for him as town to lie about having received an action from jinri when he received none. And unless you can give me one, what am I to do with your statement, which left no room for doubt: "It was a lie anyway"
The only explanation I could see is for you to say "I didn't see the discord, let me retract my post then". But you haven't done that, have you? So I can't even give the benefit of the doubt there.
The middle part is textbook deflection from you, I've clearly been doing more besides that, but you're aiming to prop your own contributions up when what I do really has no bearing on any of this. And logically isn't relevant.
We have explained to you that Ekko claimed it was a host error. There is 0 motivation for him as town to lie about having received an action from jinri when he received none. And unless you can give me one, what am I to do with your statement, which left no room for doubt: "It was a lie anyway"
The only explanation I could see is for you to say "I didn't see the discord, let me retract my post then". But you haven't done that, have you? So I can't even give the benefit of the doubt there.
That is not a reason for lying. It just adds disinfo to the discussion for no gain. He wasn't using it to reaction test because he claimed use of a benign action. And he wasn't town reading jinri at any point and supported the wagon on day 1 and day 2, so no reason to play in a way to protect jinri on a role basis. You got anything else for me?
Now you're trying to shift the argument into being personal by attacking my character. I think I outlined a good number of fair assumptions you could have made, and instead you still haven't even conceded your initial position despite having multiple sources explain to you that he claimed how his ability worked was treated incorrectly by the host.
What an I supposed to do with this? I engage you for a defence and you try to attack my character in response, and otherwise refuse to engage on any sort of reasonable level with what I'm outlining. I haven't insulted you. I've just given you the opportunity to defend yourself on what I see as a hard to defend position that you held. And if you refuse to do that, then I can only assume it's because you don't have a defence. You can't lecture about good vibes and then try to bring the vibes down when I'm trying to play mafia with you. That's just hypocritical.
What an I supposed to do with this? I engage you for a defence and you try to attack my character in response, and otherwise refuse to engage on any sort of reasonable level with what I'm outlining. I haven't insulted you. I've just given you the opportunity to defend yourself on what I see as a hard to defend position that you held. And if you refuse to do that, then I can only assume it's because you don't have a defence. You can't lecture about good vibes and then try to bring the vibes down when I'm trying to play mafia with you. That's just hypocritical.
Let me be very clear - the narrative that Jan is selling about Ekko lying is not accurate. Ekko would not do that. He can be lazy and frustrating but he is not a troll. If I may appeal to my own authority here, I've played with Ekko for over 6 years. He *used* to be a player that would lie as town and create chaos, and over time, learned and improved his way out of it. And when he does do it, which is rare at best, it is done in a controlled fashion - he would not simply lie and then leave it.
I wholesale reject that notion. And if anyone wants to oush that narrative forward I will insist on them defending that position. I've given you how Ekko viewed Jinri. Day 1 he wanted her lynched. Day 2 he was happy with her being lynched. There is no indication from his play anywhere that he felt he had exposed a role that was strong and townie that required him to lie to cover it. Moreover, this angle falls flat entirely, because jinri claims no action - for Ekko to have received anything, he must have detected action.
The only outcome left is that ekko must have been moved over to another target. However, that requires a large assumption, and I see no reason for any townie to make that assumption for Jinri on the back of no claim. This is why I am asking for a defence from Jan - because having gone through all of the logical explanations that I can think of, none of them hold up except ignorance to the discord, which would be fine, but instead of invoking that, Jan has doubled down and deflected from the point, which does not look townie to me.
I wholesale reject that notion. And if anyone wants to oush that narrative forward I will insist on them defending that position. I've given you how Ekko viewed Jinri. Day 1 he wanted her lynched. Day 2 he was happy with her being lynched. There is no indication from his play anywhere that he felt he had exposed a role that was strong and townie that required him to lie to cover it. Moreover, this angle falls flat entirely, because jinri claims no action - for Ekko to have received anything, he must have detected action.
The only outcome left is that ekko must have been moved over to another target. However, that requires a large assumption, and I see no reason for any townie to make that assumption for Jinri on the back of no claim. This is why I am asking for a defence from Jan - because having gone through all of the logical explanations that I can think of, none of them hold up except ignorance to the discord, which would be fine, but instead of invoking that, Jan has doubled down and deflected from the point, which does not look townie to me.