As mentioned in my first post, the word ninja/ninjas/etc does not appear in my RM, and I had no victory condition listed. I'm not sure what you are getting at with this new scummer implication. I am specifically referring to your claimed role, as an investigator, that if ninja appears in your RM in a format of explaining how your role power works then it should not be surprising that other roles didn't have this. A cop could well have 'detect if someone is a ninja' in there text, or a miller, as I mentioned in the preceding post, whereas a town tracker or RBer has an ability that functions regardless of alignment, as would a BP, safe from vig, SK and DF alike, or a doc, a jailkeeper, a lie detector etc. A cop or miller could easily have an RM that merely said 'you detect if people are guilty or innocent' or 'you show up as guilty' without mention of ninjas, but other roles by and large would have no more reason to mention ninjas than a vanilla's would.



It is rather contradictory that you keep using Inadvertent Mountainous now but originally suggested all vanilla and Mountainous. They are not the same, you even linked to Mountainous so its not like it was minor confusion on terms or a slip of the tongue. Mountainous is is roleless, Inadvertent Mountainous is where the roles are setup to imply lots of power roles, like has backup roles of cop and doc but no cop or doc and investigation-immune scum. In IM virtually everyone has a role, pointless roles. Are you saying now that your investigatory role is a back up? I say I have no reason to think my role is a red herring or similiar trick.

At best you just didn't think this out, I keep, and other keep, saying why this was dangerous, we've discussed things like this before in prior games. Again, first and foremost, people rarely guess other people's secret plans and don't always think things through. It is very likely others would have claimed vanilla quite honestly, and endangered everyone else. 12 players, 2 or 3 bad guys probably 3, probably 3 or more town roles, lets say three people claimed vanilla. Ninjas now have 6 candidates for role and probably half or more of them are, not good. Next, there's adding to a lie. IF a few people claimed vanilla a role could easily get spooked about assassination and claim vanilla, now a few Days later they need to make a RC because maybe they're the doc and we're near LyLo and the probable lynch candidate is someone they protected previously and foiled a kill on. OR you have a questionable role, like miller, town roleblocker, or jailkeeper, you sure don't want to be confronted when trying to sell that RC with having de facto lied earlier, like claiming to be some sort of investigatory role after saying the game might be vanilla, regardless of what you say about 'hypothetical' and it not being connected to your RM, that just doesn't fly. We're not going in circles here I just don't buy a roled character suggesting an all vanilla game that way.

And this is another thing, you argue on the one hand that you presented this idea as a theoretical thought, yet at the same time you present your actions on the matter as though you had a prepared strategy in mind with it? Which is it? Idle speculation or master plan, many of the former can turn into the latter surely but they typically don't exist as both simultaneously.



Again, now it's hypothetical pondering and last paragraph it was a 'plan'



I think it will go that way, if you are town, that will suck, but realistically with no method to HC this will have been inevitable. Were you town and later claimed investigator and reported results, the vanilla hypothesis would have cast a cloud on any claim made.









I can't accept a 'theoretical' comment of that nature, you knew it wasn't true and you said it, you said you thought it was Mountainous and linked to the very page for that, now you say Inadvertent Mountainous yet that whole concept revolves around roles, roles that are false indicators, like nurse and deputy and miller ina cop-less and doc-less game. You say you're not a miliar, you say you're investigatory.



This, at least, is valid, but coupled with everything else



You're singing to the choir on that one

But really its not too effective, for one thing games are boring if people don't talk, and while we haven't done it in a while we used to lynch or threaten to lynch less talkative players. I agree with the sentiment though, I've been accused more times than I can count, as scummer of town, of being scum for things I've said, very rarely have those comments selected as 'suspicious' been even vaguely connected to any plot I was about. Lurkers gain no victory but coattail victory, which is no victory, there's a reason why some of our players with sub-par victory streaks are also the most feared, so to speak.

For what its worth, I do have some great doubts on this one, convince me I'm wrong, that I've got a Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy going on in your case, and I'll drop my vote. If there's no better candidate to be had, I'm content with blitzkrieging lurkers, its been a while since we rattled that cage and it could use it after last game. But there just seem to be too many contradictions in your statements, none of them are damning in of themselves, but... as a whole, and on day 1