Faeries & Lycans [Epilogue]

[Lycanthropy]

Argh... Plot twist!

I don't know what to do.

 

[Shak]

Do what you will. The truth is revealed in death. And you claiming that you're actually seer ascendant is only going to get you killed during the next day phase.

Would I really reveal if I wasn't confident?

 

[Winter]

Yeah... The seven riddles thing seems a bit weird for the Seer Ascendant... I mean you could be pulling a Klippy on us...

[burn] Sonata

 

[Sonata]

Would I really reveal if I wasn't confident?

Depends on which side you're actually on. I can see you taking one for the team and letting yourself get killed if it means that the seer ascendant can also be killed. And I could especially see you risking this if you're the alpha. Since even if the hunter put traps outside it wouldn't affect you.

 

[Ice1]

That seven riddles thing sounds overly complicated, tbh, and sounds stronger than the normal seer role. I can't imagine that role being real.

[Execute] Sonata

 

[Lycanthropy]

Seer Ascendant
The apprentice and destined successor to the current Seer. As they're a novice clairvoyant under the tutelage of an imperfect oracle, they're not typically permitted to utilize their powers as their sight is inordinate and the strain could prove too much for them to handle. Under dire circumstances, such as the untimely demise of the current Seer, the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary.

Rereading this, it doesn't sound like an automated thing actually. I think it can be interpreted as the becoming the Seer when the current Seer gets killed, agreeing somewhat with Shak's description.

[PYRE] Sonata

 

[Etherion]

This is quite the plot twist we have here :)
Well then, there can only be one Seer Ascendant!
[Kill] Sonata

 

[Shak]

I totally went missing O_O.
I do find it strange that Sonata voted for me just for attempting to draw conclusions
[Kill] Sonata

Spoiler:

What, too soon?

 

[Circuit]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Okay okay okay.

So like, everyone just take a step back, and let's look at what just happened before your eyes that YOU JUST BLOODY WELL BOUGHT.

Okay, so Sonata comes out explaining a role which is replacing the simple seer/investigator role. In this role, he simply receives 7 RIDDLES. Let's stop there a moment and regard this fact. He gets RIDDLES. Have you ever played a game of riddles, properly? I have, and it gets VERY difficult VERY quickly. I'm sorry, but to me, this sounds in actual fact, quite the opposite to over powered. If anything, it allows room for error on Sonata's part, and means that the new Seer is imperfect, which is EXACTLY what the apprentice Seer should be. Imperfect.

The apprentice and destined successor to the current Seer. 1.As they're a novice clairvoyant under the tutelage of an imperfect oracle, they're 2.not typically permitted to UTILIZE their powers as their sight is inordinate and the strain could prove too much for them to handle. 3.Under dire circumstances, such as the untimely demise of the current Seer, the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary.

1. Let's look at this for a moment. A novice Clairvoyant. A claivoyant is someone who views things beyond the human plane i.e. a VISION. This from the start fits with Sonata's description, and does NOT fit the idea that the person becomes simply a new Seer.

2. Not being typically permitted to utilize their powers sounds an awful lot like not having a night action. Point number TWO that fits with Sonata's description, and NOT the idea that you all seem to have about this role.

3. Now I'm just going to quote the whole effing line because it seems no one actually paid the least amount of attention to it. At what point in this line does it say "the player will become the new seer"? IT DOESN'T. It states, and I QUOTE: "the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary." The bolded acting as point number THREE to agree with Sonata, and NOT the idea you are all imagining. This line also states that the person could be counted on "under dire circumstances" meaning that they are not ready to simply become a new Seer, further enforcing my first point, before the quoted passage.

Guys, don't buy this crap Shak is selling. He is wrong, through and through. I don't care what Sonata is at this point, Shak's argument was uncalled for, unbelievable and unrefined. He is also holding a grudge about a vote held during Day 1, a time when we have NO information, and the votes are based on jokes, or guess work, which will always likely be wrong. Holding a grudge for this reason is completely bogus, and a person that does this is in no way trustworthy, in my opinion. He is arguing that Sonata's description of the Seer Ascendant role is false, when from what I can see, Sonata's description is actually very accurate and fits well with the description in the original post. Finally, Shak is remaining adamant upon his points, despite having been put into a dangerous situation, not improving his argument as new information or arguments are used, but instead sticking to a basic argument; insisting that Sonata has had suspicions growing due to his actions, but Sonata hasn't actually commit any actions that outright incriminate him. The number crunching was strange, but correct, and doesn't give any extra reason to suspect him, on top of what Sonata himself has already accepted, which is very little at this point.

When people argue like this, it is because they have lost an argument, yet want to appear strong, when in fact they don't have any basis for their arguments, and are only standing strong by the support of those who do not read or listen to opposing arguments carefully, or at all. Stop, put down your signs supporting Shak, and think about this.

 

[Shak]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Okay okay okay.

So like, everyone just take a step back, and let's look at what just happened before your eyes that YOU JUST BLOODY WELL BOUGHT.

Okay, so Sonata comes out explaining a role which is replacing the simple seer/investigator role. In this role, he simply receives 7 RIDDLES. Let's stop there a moment and regard this fact. He gets RIDDLES. Have you ever played a game of riddles, properly? I have, and it gets VERY difficult VERY quickly. I'm sorry, but to me, this sounds in actual fact, quite the opposite to over powered. If anything, it allows room for error on Sonata's part, and means that the new Seer is imperfect, which is EXACTLY what the apprentice Seer should be. Imperfect.



1. Let's look at this for a moment. A novice Clairvoyant. A claivoyant is someone who views things beyond the human plane i.e. a VISION. This from the start fits with Sonata's description, and does NOT fit the idea that the person becomes simply a new Seer.

2. Not being typically permitted to utilize their powers sounds an awful lot like not having a night action. Point number TWO that fits with Sonata's description, and NOT the idea that you all seem to have about this role.

3. Now I'm just going to quote the whole effing line because it seems no one actually paid the least amount of attention to it. At what point in this line does it say "the player will become the new seer"? IT DOESN'T. It states, and I QUOTE: "the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary." The bolded acting as point number THREE to agree with Sonata, and NOT the idea you are all imagining. This line also states that the person could be counted on "under dire circumstances" meaning that they are not ready to simply become a new Seer, further enforcing my first point, before the quoted passage.

Guys, don't buy this crap Shak is selling. He is wrong, through and through. I don't care what Sonata is at this point, Shak's argument was uncalled for, unbelievable and unrefined. He is also holding a grudge about a vote held during Day 1, a time when we have NO information, and the votes are based on jokes, or guess work, which will always likely be wrong. Holding a grudge for this reason is completely bogus, and a person that does this is in no way trustworthy, in my opinion. He is arguing that Sonata's description of the Seer Ascendant role is false, when from what I can see, Sonata's description is actually very accurate and fits well with the description in the original post. Finally, Shak is remaining adamant upon his points, despite having been put into a dangerous situation, not improving his argument as new information or arguments are used, but instead sticking to a basic argument; insisting that Sonata has had suspicions growing due to his actions, but Sonata hasn't actually commit any actions that outright incriminate him. The number crunching was strange, but correct, and doesn't give any extra reason to suspect him, on top of what Sonata himself has already accepted, which is very little at this point.

When people argue like this, it is because they have lost an argument, yet want to appear strong, when in fact they don't have any basis for their arguments, and are only standing strong by the support of those who do not read or listen to opposing arguments carefully, or at all. Stop, put down your signs supporting Shak, and think about this.

I shall list what I know...
Sonata pulled out some statistics that seemed dodgy
I had early suspicions of Sonata
I questioned Klippy and eros
Sonata voted me
I wondered what Sonata's basis for voting me was
Next day, I voted Sonata
Then the next day Sonata is involved in the night actions
I vote him again based on Gimmepie's suspicions, which only build upon my own
Sonata claims to be Seer ascendant, with some convoluted role description
I realise that I'm actually the seer ascendant
My suspicions are now validated and I can make a case for them
I post that I'm the real Seer ascendant
Everyone starts voting

 

[Winter]

"untimely demise" oh dear what could it ever mean?

 

[Lycanthropy]

But even if we're trusting Sonata, why would we vote for Sopheria? Wouldn't we want to kill Shak first? I mean, Sonata wasn't even certain about Sopheria's guilt.

 

[Shak]

If I end up dying, the fingers will just point at Sonata and eros
*Shrugs*
Why would a havenite lie about their role? I'll be proven as the seer ascendant. At this point my death will do more good than bad, but you guys just need to do the right thing afterwards

 

[Lycanthropy]

I need a drink.

Off-topic as hell, so it must be a secret code or something. Eros is a lycan confirmed!

 

[Shak]

I need a drink.

We have a situation where two people have came forward as a Seer Ascendant. One gave us someone they think is a target. The other is just making claims to the role. Right now we need to gauge which one we can trust. If Sopheria is killed and turns out innocent, then Sonata will get into **** and Shak will be forced to prove more about his role. If Sopheria is not innocent, then Sonata will have more of a level of trust and Shak will either fall back with these claims or be roasted.

Of course if someone can give another solution without the death of Sopheria then speak now.

How does one prove to be a role that has no abilities?
Some one will have to die, if it's me then so be it
Your call...

 

[Sopheria]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

Okay okay okay.

So like, everyone just take a step back, and let's look at what just happened before your eyes that YOU JUST BLOODY WELL BOUGHT.

Okay, so Sonata comes out explaining a role which is replacing the simple seer/investigator role. In this role, he simply receives 7 RIDDLES. Let's stop there a moment and regard this fact. He gets RIDDLES. Have you ever played a game of riddles, properly? I have, and it gets VERY difficult VERY quickly. I'm sorry, but to me, this sounds in actual fact, quite the opposite to over powered. If anything, it allows room for error on Sonata's part, and means that the new Seer is imperfect, which is EXACTLY what the apprentice Seer should be. Imperfect.



1. Let's look at this for a moment. A novice Clairvoyant. A claivoyant is someone who views things beyond the human plane i.e. a VISION. This from the start fits with Sonata's description, and does NOT fit the idea that the person becomes simply a new Seer.

2. Not being typically permitted to utilize their powers sounds an awful lot like not having a night action. Point number TWO that fits with Sonata's description, and NOT the idea that you all seem to have about this role.

3. Now I'm just going to quote the whole effing line because it seems no one actually paid the least amount of attention to it. At what point in this line does it say "the player will become the new seer"? IT DOESN'T. It states, and I QUOTE: "the Seer Ascendant could be counted upon to act as Haven's spiritual leader and visionary." The bolded acting as point number THREE to agree with Sonata, and NOT the idea you are all imagining. This line also states that the person could be counted on "under dire circumstances" meaning that they are not ready to simply become a new Seer, further enforcing my first point, before the quoted passage.

Guys, don't buy this crap Shak is selling. He is wrong, through and through. I don't care what Sonata is at this point, Shak's argument was uncalled for, unbelievable and unrefined. He is also holding a grudge about a vote held during Day 1, a time when we have NO information, and the votes are based on jokes, or guess work, which will always likely be wrong. Holding a grudge for this reason is completely bogus, and a person that does this is in no way trustworthy, in my opinion. He is arguing that Sonata's description of the Seer Ascendant role is false, when from what I can see, Sonata's description is actually very accurate and fits well with the description in the original post. Finally, Shak is remaining adamant upon his points, despite having been put into a dangerous situation, not improving his argument as new information or arguments are used, but instead sticking to a basic argument; insisting that Sonata has had suspicions growing due to his actions, but Sonata hasn't actually commit any actions that outright incriminate him. The number crunching was strange, but correct, and doesn't give any extra reason to suspect him, on top of what Sonata himself has already accepted, which is very little at this point.

When people argue like this, it is because they have lost an argument, yet want to appear strong, when in fact they don't have any basis for their arguments, and are only standing strong by the support of those who do not read or listen to opposing arguments carefully, or at all. Stop, put down your signs supporting Shak, and think about this.

Even with all that considered, all we have is Sonata's word. Even setting aside whether or not his description of the SA's abilities is plausible, we have no way of knowing whether or not he actually is the SA. Personally, I'm not convinced, but that's just me.

I think everyone should just make their own call regarding whether or not to go along with Sonata. We don't all have to think and act in unison (I think that doing that too much gives the Lycans the advantage, personally).

 

[Shak]

Is there even a single vote against you? Most of us have bought your story and have gone for Sonata to burn.

You vote me, I'll vote me.
I'm leaving this to you judgement. After all I've revealed my role, I've put a target on my own back
I wouldn't have done this if I wasn't confident it would turn out with clues for the Havenites

 

[Lycanthropy]

no I'll have a triple vodka please.

Hey, "I need a drink" was your entire post at the moment I quoted it. If you do so and edit things later to camouflage the code, because I unmasked you, you're just getting even more suspicious.

Of course if someone can give another solution without the death of Sopheria then speak now.

I think we need to kill either Sonata or Shak, then we know something. Because Sonata can only accuse Sopheria or a possible yet unknown person, there's still a chance he can be trusted and Sopheria too. But if we then murder Sopheria, we'll kill Sonata too and lose him. Then Shak will be the laughing one.
We can always kill Sopheria tomorrow if Sonata appeared to be trustworthy because either he appeared innocent or Shak guilty.

 

[Klippy]

I don't know who to trust anymore. There's so much suspicious crap going on and it doesn't make sense. I'm holding my vote to [BURN] Ice until I decide if there's much substance beyond all the fluff you guys are making.

 

[Circuit]

I shall list what I know...
Sonata pulled out some statistics that seemed dodgy
I had early suspicions of Sonata
I questioned Klippy and eros
Sonata voted me
I wondered what Sonata's basis for voting me was
Next day, I voted Sonata
Then the next day Sonata is involved in the night actions
I vote him again based on Gimmepie's suspicions, which only build upon my own
Sonata claims to be Seer ascendant, with some convoluted role description
I realise that I'm actually the seer ascendant
My suspicions are now validated and I can make a case for them
I post that I'm the real Seer ascendant
Everyone starts voting

Gonna respond down the list;
Sonata pulled out some accurate and correct figures that can only be deemed as dodgy by someone with something to hide.
Early suspicions? Based on what exactly? Where did he ever give you reason, outside of the day/night posts, to suspect him?
How does this point even relate to the debate at hand? Are you trying to throw the topic off? That's suspicious if you are, but as this is a list of "what you know" (sarcasm is also present here, slightly) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Sonata voted you, likely because of a guess. Not for any valid or incriminating reason, but simply because we didn't have enough information to kill a lycan guaranteed. Considering you didn't even rack up any considerable numbers of votes, I don't understand what your issue here is.
You've just now voted Sonata, and everyone has jumped on your bandwagon, without noticing the wheels are about to fall off, because your debate here is very very flawed.
What suspicions are these exactly? You've mentioned them twice now, without stating what they are. Either give us some actual information, or your point is invalid.
Sonata claims to be a Seer Ascendant with a very plausible and fitting description of the role, as I have already explained.
How do you just suddenly REALISE you're the Seer Ascendant exactly? You would have known from the beginning that you are the Seer Ascendant and not just have figured it out from sudden epiphany.
Everyone starts voting jumping onto a bandwagon you suspiciously started with no real valid argument for doing so.

Your argument has so many holes in it and isn't convincing at all my friend. It seems to me that you are trying to pull a tactic similar to ComicFanatic did in Hunger Games. That didn't work, and it won't work here either, especially when your argument is built off of pure speculation, the details of which you haven't even listed, outside of claiming that Sonata has "stolen" your role. He may well have done, but I don't see that as the likely outcome, when you don't even have a valid argument against him. You have only your word, which to me doesn't count for much at the moment. Time to switch tunes dude.

You vote me, I'll vote me.
I'm leaving this to you judgement. After all I've revealed my role, I've put a target on my own back
I wouldn't have done this if I wasn't confident it would turn out with clues for the Havenites

Why would you put a target on yourself when you have no information to give us? What's the point? You're simply preventing your role from having any impact at all anyway. But that wouldn't matter if you were confident you weren't going to be killed in the night phase, which would imply you have the support of the lycans. Now, I'm not jumping to conclusions, but your behaviour just doesn't add up at all. You need to think about your actions and their consequences before you let your mouth run loose like this. No, you've dug your hole too deep in my books. That's it.

But even if we're trusting Sonata, why would we vote for Sopheria? Wouldn't we want to kill Shak first? I mean, Sonata wasn't even certain about Sopheria's guilt.

That is my very intention at the moment my friend. Assuming Sonata makes it through the night, we can follow his plan tomorrow. If he dies, and Shak was right, Sonata dies. If Sonata was right, but dies in the night, we can still lynch Sopheria tomorrow.

How does one prove to be a role that has no abilities?
Some one will have to die, if it's me then so be it
Your call...

Erm, it quite clearly does have an ability, but you haven't said anything that even gives an idea you know what your role does. Sonata has done just that, and is at least trying to act like he's using it, should he not actually have the role. All you have done is state that you are the Seer Ascendant and not Sonata, and expect us to suddenly all kill Sonata with no proof at all? Dude, you're playing this game wrong, I'm afraid.

Even with all that considered, all we have is Sonata's word. Even setting aside whether or not his description of the SA's abilities is plausible, we have no way of knowing whether or not he actually is the SA. Personally, I'm not convinced, but that's just me.

I think everyone should just make their own call regarding whether or not to go along with Sonata. We don't all have to think and act in unison (I think that doing that too much gives the Lycans the advantage, personally).

Actually, thinking and acting in unison is exactly what we should do. That way the lycans have to blend in and subtly influence our decisions, lest they reveal themselves accidentally and get themselves killed. Acting and banding together is the safest, most efficient way we can route them out.

And you don't have to be convinced by Sonata yet, but when it's a toss up between Shak and Sonata, I think it's pretty clear who has at least played the game right. Shak is simply throwing around accusations and not actually giving any information at all, all in a glossed up manner. That is exactly the behaviour of someone actively trying to influence people. Which is very suspicious behaviour to take in a game like this. Of course, you can say; "But Aiden, you're trying to influence us too!" But the difference is, I am only basing my arguments off of things we know have happened. I will not argue against a point, should I not have actual evidence to back it up.

At this point my intentions and arguments are clear. Whether you listen to them or not is up to you, but I would strongly advise not listening to Shak's arguments for the time being.

[KILL]: Shak