LaunchpadMcQ
Banned
I may as well post this.
These are the original PMs, from a few weeks earlier, which is why I even brought it up to him.
This was a few weeks later:
Then right after:
These are the original PMs, from a few weeks earlier, which is why I even brought it up to him.
Makai said:FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFLaunchpadMcQ said:Makai said:Uh...both of us Lucky Students have identical roles, right?
MAAAAAAAYBE
This was a few weeks later:
Makai said:LaunchpadMcQ said:Thanks. I'll get him to explain his role tomorrow if we survive.Makai said:Darnit! : )LaunchpadMcQ said:I just wanted to remind you, I never said that you and the other Lucky Student had the same role PM
I'm convinced we do because he directly quoted key phrases from the "no one" section. "No one" is OP if you know the identity of the other Despair. I guess it's possible if he's Despair but doesn't know the names of the main Despair, but that would also preclude him from the Night 7 kill.
Hmmmmm eh I'm not sure how to phrase this without leading you somewhere, but I've used the phrase "No one" in several instances during this game.
I am not saying anything else on the matter, though. I just saw you acting a certain way and wanted to make sure you hadn't misunderstood something.
Then right after:
Makai said:Sorry, I interpreted that rule to mean you cannot transcribe the PM. I didn't think what Kingkitty did was any different from a role claim - using key phrases and paraphrasing abilities. If you read today's posts, you can see that neither of us believed that the other was Despair. The only change from what would have otherwise happened is we divulged the SK part of our role. I thought I had PMed you my plan ahead of time, but I see I just said, "ask about his role," although I meant give a summary.LaunchpadMcQ said:Makai said:This is today from my perspective:
I believe my lucky buddy is Hope and have been 100% sure of that since Day 4. I believe this because of what Kingkitty said that day and the wording of the role, not because of anything you told me. Out of nowhere, you PM me to cast doubt on my belief me that my buddy is not Hope. I don't believe you and continue to press my only scum target. She says we are in Lynch or Lose because one of the buddies is neutral but I refute her claim. You change the rules, implying my buddy is Despair-aligned and that we may be in Lynch or Lose. I still think my buddy is Hope but ask my buddy to confirm what I am already certain of.
I feel like you went out of your way to mislead me and I did what I could within the boundaries of the rules to confirm my long-standing belief that the buddies share the same role. Had you not intervened, we would have just lynched Swamped without revealing the other part of our role. I do not know that this is true, but this is what it seems like to me.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I haven't been following the game that closely, so I don't know what information you have. But, I remember you asking me if the two roles were identical, and I answered with a "maybe". The way I said it, I wasn't sure if I gave the wrong impression. I saw the way you made a comment in this phase and decided to address it. There was no ulterior motive to that.
The win condition change is a completely unrelated matter. One of the chief motivations is to speed things along, but there are others.
I did not do anything to try to affect the game, and I definitely did not want you guys confirming yourselves by using key phrases from the PMs, which is covered under the umbrella of not posting PMs.