Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
Kovath didnt push anyone?
Oh, I think I know why.... But i'll sit on that thought for a little bit before revealing so I can double check.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
Oh, I think I know why.... But i'll sit on that thought for a little bit before revealing so I can double check.
Why arso would burn N1, that is, not why he didn't push anyone.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
Desperately is definitely an overstatement. But okay, as you wish.
This is a fairly big hint that you are the scummy and not Frinkles, I thought about this for awhile and it just does not sit well with me as to why you would say this as a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
In my opinion, town benefits the most from a lynch. Ideally there would have been more conversation today but you have to remember that the Arsonist had the first move last night.
So you ignited to prove your point, I don't think you were planning on this but wanted to hammer it home to all of us, a nice bread crumb trail. You could tell at the EOD1 that you were disappointed with no lynch (in all likelihood you wanted a lynch so you had less dousing to do while eliminating a prime townie)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovath
I don't really like Toad from my skim of D1 but given how little was said (my fault), I doubt that's much to go on
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
Why? What don't you like?
Immidiately concerned about what Kovath noticed in your patterns, that in itself is a red flag with how you reacted in such an alarmed manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
So the arsonist decided to kill instead of douse someone else. Interesting.
This proves your point in the last statement; you wanted a lynch to further your cause at EOD1, so since you didn't get it you made a example of a prime townie (Kovath). It is in my opinion that any other doused town member at the time would have had the same fate as Kovath, just to prove that Toad's theory was correct.
With all that being said -vote Toad
Hopefully someone else follows this train of thought.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
-vote Toad
I have no regrets. It’s not in my DNA.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
The two variables known as Toad and Varcon have 1 Parasite within them.
Admirably, there’s only one Parasite at large.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
This is a fairly big hint that you are the scummy and not Frinkles, I thought about this for awhile and it just does not sit well with me as to why you would say this as a response.
So you ignited to prove your point, I don't think you were planning on this but wanted to hammer it home to all of us, a nice bread crumb trail. You could tell at the EOD1 that you were disappointed with no lynch (in all likelihood you wanted a lynch so you had less dousing to do while eliminating a prime townie)
This is arguably the stupidest explanation I have ever seen in my life. How much more can you pull out of your ass? Seems you have a lot of storage room up there.
1. You had said I was desperately pushing for a lynch. Desperately was definitely not the case. Which is why I would make a statement as such. It was to correct you.
2. To say that this would make me more scummy that Frinckles implies that the only options you are considering right now is Frinckles and I.
- So sorry you didn't like being corrected, but unfortunately there are as well more than Frinckles and I in the game.
3. Ignited to prove my point? I had just previously stated why I believed the Arsonist ignited. This is what I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
Well, I'm not too sure I have the answer to that.
The only thing I can think of is that if the Douse Checker had checked him, it would have cleared him and immediately put him in confirmed town along with the douse checker and that allows the town pool to be narrowed.
This was a strategy suggest by Frinckles that I opposed, so if I had a point to prove from what I was suggesting I would have doused.
- Another thing you inaccurately represent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
Immidiately concerned about what Kovath noticed in your patterns, that in itself is a red flag with how you reacted in such an alarmed manner.
This proves your point in the last statement; you wanted a lynch to further your cause at EOD1, so since you didn't get it you made a example of a prime townie (Kovath). It is in my opinion that any other doused town member at the time would have had the same fate as Kovath, just to prove that Toad's theory was correct.
With all that being said
-vote Toad
Hopefully someone else follows this train of thought.
LOL, I don't even believe this warrants a long explanation. You're grasping at loose strings.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caustic
-vote Toad
I have no regrets. It’s not in my DNA.
Followed up with a vote with no explanation. Seems legit.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
This is arguably the stupidest explanation I have ever seen in my life. How much more can you pull out of your ass? Seems you have a lot of storage room up there.
1. You had said I was desperately pushing for a lynch. Desperately was definitely not the case. Which is why I would make a statement as such. It was to correct you.
2. To say that this would make me more scummy that Frinckles implies that the only options you are considering right now is Frinckles and I.
- So sorry you didn't like being corrected, but unfortunately there are as well more than Frinckles and I in the game.
3. Ignited to prove my point? I had just previously stated why I believed the Arsonist ignited. This is what I said:
This was a strategy suggest by Frinckles that I opposed, so if I had a point to prove from what I was suggesting I would have doused.
- Another thing you inaccurately represent
LOL, I don't even believe this warrants a long explanation. You're grasping at loose strings.
I dont see an issue with Varcrons logic overall. You did perfectly lay out the goals that my plan sought to achieve as a reaction to me asking a question. It's only particularly weird because you gave a much more direct response to it as opposed to yesterday when it was brought up.
Still, I dont understand why you would ignite a doused target that you voted for. As Arsonist I'd assume youd aim a mislynch outside of your douse.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
This was a strategy suggest by Frinckles that I opposed, so if I had a point to prove from what I was suggesting I would have doused.
- Another thing you inaccurately represent
I wasn't even using this, but okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
1. You had said I was desperately pushing for a lynch. Desperately was definitely not the case. Which is why I would make a statement as such. It was to correct you.
2. To say that this would make me more scummy that Frinckles implies that the only options you are considering right now is Frinckles and I.
- So sorry you didn't like being corrected, but unfortunately there are as well more than Frinckles and I in the game.
3. Ignited to prove my point? I had just previously stated why I believed the Arsonist ignited.
You're right, you weren't desperate, but you *pushed* for it, you wanted one anyways to push your own agenda. On your next point, I was comparing you and Frinkles to see which one fell out of line, and in this current position it seems to be you and not him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toad
This is arguably the stupidest explanation I have ever seen in my life. How much more can you pull out of your ass? Seems you have a lot of storage room up there.
This entire line is irrelevant other than to gaslight.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Still, I dont understand why you would ignite a doused target that you voted for. As Arsonist I'd assume youd aim a mislynch outside of your douse.
That would be the logical thing for someone who has been mentioned to be calculated
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
And a final point, to be fair the only people giving real contributions here are me, Toad, Varcron and MM.
With the arsonist igniting early, I'd say were ahead.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
That would be the logical thing for someone who has been mentioned to be calculated
Are you self admitting to planning something or being framed here? I'm not sure I understand that.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
This entire line is irrelevant other than to gaslight.
It's not gaslighting, it's politely calling you a moron. Trust me, I don't think you're scummy. Stupid, but not scummy.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
Are you self admitting to planning something or being framed here? I'm not sure I understand that.
I'm implying that I am someone who likes to use logic. If I was the Arsonist I would try to win, not try and have Kovath dead because apparently I have a hard-on for him. Which is what Varcron's theory mostly suggests.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
I dont see an issue with Varcrons logic overall. You did perfectly lay out the goals that my plan sought to achieve as a reaction to me asking a question. It's only particularly weird because you gave a much more direct response to it as opposed to yesterday when it was brought up.
Still, I dont understand why you would ignite a doused target that you voted for. As Arsonist I'd assume youd aim a mislynch outside of your douse.
I could understand why, it would make town more urgent assuming that arso had doused two people, going on three.
Basically what I'm saying is that as a whole we would be much more urgent to catch arso two or three dousees than with just one.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
I wasn't even using this, but okay.
You were using it though, and if you refuse to understand that what you're suggesting goes against what I wanted, then let me tell you... Tunnel vision is bad for your health, sonny boy
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
I'm implying that I am someone who likes to use logic. If I was the Arsonist I would try to win, not try and have Kovath dead because apparently I have a hard-on for him. Which is what Varcron's theory mostly suggests.
No, my theory suggests that you want to act like the good guy and lynch a douse target so you don't instill panic. As a whole the town will be; as I said before, a lot less worried with only one doused target compared to two, three, four, or five doused targets.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Toad
I'm implying that I am someone who likes to use logic. If I was the Arsonist I would try to win, not try and have Kovath dead because apparently I have a hard-on for him. Which is what Varcron's theory mostly suggests.
I don't see any correlation between you and Kovath from Varcrons POV outside of your vote on him. I think what he's getting at is the rhetoric you used in that quote seems like an openly wolf thing to say, which it could be.
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Varcron
No, my theory suggests that you want to act like the good guy and lynch a douse target so you don't instill panic. As a whole the town will be; as I said before, a lot less worried with only one doused target compared to two, three, four, or five doused targets.
It should always be an urgency to catch the Arsonist. Regardless of how many douses they are in. lol
Re: S-FM 296 Simple Arsonist II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Frinckles
I think what he's getting at is the rhetoric you used in that quote seems like an openly wolf thing to say, which it could be.
Like is said, grasping on loose strings.
