My logic is fine.
you're just leaving out the reasoning behind your questions.
ive uncovered them through my questions. So again, bad accusation.

You complain about me being harmful to town but instead of simply answering a question, you hide behind "ive already posted it". Sure maybe you did. But simply saying you already answered it isnt helpful.

Im on my phone and vgc isnt good for reading the thread. Any on could tell you that. Vgc is not mobile friendly.

About rolefishing. How am I supposed to know what you are and aren't doing. I assume nothing here. Im asking very simple logic questions. Again, not having a name shouldn't have been suspicious to you since show marine also doesn't have a name.
unless of course you suspect the same about wepl and ive simply missed it?
My name or lack thereof shouldn't have any impact on the game.
thats why I said it was an illogical question, and at the worst an active lurk question asked for no reason other than to look like participation.

*shield marine* not show marine.
shield marine didnt have a name. Your insistence that I did or didnt is illogical.

Logic behind the rolefishing accusation.
I have no reason to make any other claims. I'm not under heavy suspicion by any players I consider dangerous. The accusations against me thus far are somewhat impotent. I've pushed hard for both astro and sparks. Sparks being on my top list yesterDay.
The only vote on me was padib (again, not worried in the slightest)
Why should I claim for no reason? To alleviate some paranoid thinking?

Meh.

I'm just not into doing a full claim when I have no need to. Otherwise we should just do a massclaim. That line of playing the game is cheesy and noobish.

Now you're starting to sound like theprof we knew from before

I think you're fighting for the wrong reasons, though. The three of you (impertinence, you, and Trucks) are who have been winning this game for us so far. Lesser extent Wonktonodi, though i still have doubts about him.

Radish is now clear too, I guess?

Come off it. Don't call out outhers use of logic when you can't make a reasonable argument yourself.

It's clearly stated when I asked you that I consider it as established that power roles have characters and or names, thus it follows that I don't consider the extra abilities such as shield and stimpacks (or jetpack for that matter) to be power roles. You claimed a power role, and going by my assumptions about the game setup I assume you would have a name or character as well.

You can pretend that is illogical all you want which seems to be a standard attack/defence you like to bring up but you're wrong. There's nothing illogical about what I have said and if you think so you either don't know what constitutes a logical argument or you're incapable of reading what is in front of you.

Anyway, speaking of harmful to town, back and forth about this is not doing town any good. I know that what you said gave me a strong feeling your a zerg power role, and your attempts to spread doubt about that read isn't really moving me off it.

objectively, my arguments are sound.
Whether it was scum or not, you were the first to directly imply that dark templars were vanilla scum. Regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it, that came off as a slip. Whether or not it was scum-motivated is the only thing up for question.

This is how logic works:
Supporting statements
One player has a role with a name
Two players have roles and only unit names

By logic, some roles have names and some do not.
I don't know if you know logic or not, but there are rules.

Your evidence
At least one player has a role and is named (R AND N)
At least one player has a role and is not named (R AND NotN)

Conclusion: Prof has a role and must have a name

This doesn't follow logically.

Conversely, it does follow that SOME roles are Named and NotNamed (P = NotR and (R and (N and NotN)))

Some players have roles, some do not. Of those players with roles some have Names and some do not.

That is called logic. Your statement does not support that, as you have omitted evidence for no real reason whatsoever.

--------------------------

" thus it follows that I don't consider the extra abilities such as shield and stimpacks (or jetpack for that matter) to be power roles."

that statement is not a LOGICAL CONCLUSION from the evidence.
Evidence:
Some players have roles and Names
Some players have roles and NotNames
A power role is a player who has a role
Imp casts suspicion on a player that claims not to have a name.

Conclusion:
Imp doesn't consider the roles without names to be power roles.

NOT LOGICAL.
There is no deductive reason why you should consider some roles to not have power roles based on the statements. Unless there are logical statements missing, which you haven't provided.

You don't consider Shield (bulletproof?) Stim (doublevote? night kill?) and Jetpack (commuter) to be power roles???

I see that you're trying to explain yourself, but every explanation warrants even moer questions. Why would you not assume those are power roles? This is directly related to your accusation of me. You're supporting your suspicion by simply oblivating other evidence?? Can't you read this and think to yourself "yeah, that sounds ridiculous"? Because it clearly is!

Lastly, you can consider anything about me you want. You think that I'm trying to dissuade you but you couldn't be anymore wrong. I think you've made some glaring errors. Whether or not you are scum or simply hard-headed and WRONG is the question I have to answer for myself. Most of your other input this game has been very strong, so it bothers me that you'd be making these errors.

I forget my reasoning on radish but I believe he said something earlier that outed himself as a power role. I'll try to find it. I would say he's likely town.

THE PROF IS BACK!!!!!!!

Anyway, I think Imp is the scum here....

I wonder if the Templars were able to fuse.
when I first read that astro was one half of a dark Templars, I mistook it for one half of an archon.
then I was really surprised we got the second half.
Wouldve been interesting if dts were able to fuse and gain an abolity in exchange for becoming siblings.

We are getting somewhere, I don't consider the role modifers to be power roles. So, feel free to disagree with the axioms, to pretend that the consclusions don't follow logically is incorrect. Anyway, I am not sure how useful it is to continue down this path. Perhaps you are used to people whimpering because you throw these kinds of statements around, but in a game like this an excerzise like the one you made is useless. I'm excitted for you that you've taken a class of formal logic, it's pretty useless in a setting like this though.  Despite what you think, it's pretty rare for people to make basic logical errors and most argumanets are not structured as anything other than very rudemantary logical statements at best. The issue is almost always with the axioms and yes, my reasoning is based on premisses that are far from proven axioms. They are, wait for it, theories and thoughts I've put forward to check assumptions. In a game like mafia as in life at large it's not at all unheard of to make arguments from shaky premisses. You've done it throught this game yourself, as have everyone else.

Anyway, I appologise to town for this, I'm sure you didn't sign up for mafia to see nerds argue over formal logic used on an informal logic application.

Bottom line is, the name prof claim for his ability doesn't gel well with the flavor and a supposed town alignment, I'm not the only one to have noted it either.