Cardcaptor Sakura Mafia thread 2 [Day six]

Shh shh. It's okay, Luxxxiepop. We all die sooner or later, sometimes.

Hey all,

Had spontaneous plans to hang out with someone night, went to sleep ~2am my time. Sorry for the delay here...

Angel, answering you shortly.

In the mean time, I can ONLY make people little. I still think the NK was previously blocked, so I'm vote: Katagi until I get my bearings here.

Time to bust out DeMorgan's Theorem and friends.

"blaire is not the change and (dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town)" == false

=> "blaire is not the change" == false OR "dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town" == false
=> "blaire is the change" == true OR ("dylan can only shrink people" == false AND "mitsu is town" == false)

ヾangel★★★★★彡◦°˚☆ wrote:no but hayley said that my statement will short circuit - which means that if you can get the answer for sure already, you don't need to evaluate the rest of the statement

ヾangel★★★★★彡◦°˚☆ wrote:WAIT NVM UPDATE FROM THE HOST: IT SHOULD BE "CANNOT DISCERN"

I assume "cannot discern" means in the case where we could short circuit one way or another, we don't know how exactly it short circuited. For example:

"statement1 OR statement2" == true

means either statement could be true, and we don't know which are true, but at least one has to be true.

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

What I get from all this is we have the following cases:

AT LEAST ONE OF THESE TWO STATEMENTS IS TRUE:
* Blaire is the change,
* dylan can do more/less than just shrink people and also mitsu isn't town

I know for a fact that the only thing I can do is shrink people. So, the ONLY thing we gain from this is that Blaire is the change.

Still, lynch me if you feel that is useful. I don't think it is. I think we have much stronger things to go on, and I don't think it will reveal that much information.

oh guys

I'm going to the ballet tonight, so today's day phase will be extended until 11:00pm EST, because I don't want to end a day phase early!

The host hit me over the head with a wooden board and told me to step away from the game again, so I will, but since drandahl has graced us with his presence:

If Blaire's the Change under your assumptions, she pretty clearly lied about it yesterday because she outright claimed she was The Erase last night.

So why not vote Blaire? I mean, assuming you really can't do anything, Blaire pretty much did a Gerry and claimed a card she actually wasn't yesterday. Your interpretation of Angel's result is that Angel proved that Blaire was The Change, which directly contradicts what Blaire pretty much hardclaimed last night. If Blaire is town, she has no reason to lie about her abilities.

Hmm, I had not thought that far yet. As it stands, I'd rather not split the votes right now, but I really want to hear from both Blaire and Angel. From my perspective, at least one of them is lying.

Also,

nautilus wrote:but since drandahl has graced us with his presence

Didn't say this explicitly, but sorry for being afk the earlier part of this phase. I recognize it's hard to work around missing players.

Actually, that's enough info to change my vote. It's more solid than my guess that the NK was blocked a couple phases ago.

vote: Blaire

I'd be fine lynching either Blaire or Angel, or even myself since there's at least one lie between the three of us. I'm just hoping there's not some misunderstanding somewhere.

no but dylan, the only way i could get the "cannot discern" result is if the first part where true. i don't see how there's multiple ways of short circuiting? it's always left to right, and, again, i confirmed with the host that it works as i explained in my post right after the phase ended (before rollover went up). so blaire is definitely not the change, and you can do more than shrink things

however, i have a confession. i did fuck up. right after i got my result i realized that i worded dylan's part wrong. i said shrink people, but the flavor text of dylan is make people little. i asked the host:

[4/7/16, 10:47:05 PM] angel: does shrinking people = making people little?
[4/7/16, 11:12:33 PM] King Boo: shrugging emoji :3c

so uh. yeah. pretty sure i fucked up. my b

i held out on it a bit to see if dylan would change his answer, but he's stayed true to it, so i think i'm more inclined to believe him. i think. so i guess unvote, vote: katagi :|
still really unsure about both of them, but....

unfortunately i'll be out for the rest of the phase /o\ best of luck town o/

Oh! I misunderstood you, Angel.

"blaire is not the change and (dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town)" ==

Hmm, yeah... we'd still need to evaluate both sides of the AND, unless we short-circuit on "blaire is not the change" == ... but that seems wrong.

so we must have (dylan can only shrink people or mitsu is town) ==

With short-circuiting acting as described, we don't evaluate "mitsu is town" if "dylan can only shrink people" is true. So, if "mitsu is town" is the source of , then "dylan can only shrink people" must be false.

But I know it to be true. So either Angel is lying, one of these other component statements is indiscernible, or this action is working in a way we don't understand. It could be that while we think we're on the same page with the host, she decided that the presence of alignment-checking ANYWHERE in the statement invalidated it.

Btw, I feel like shrinking people and making them little are synonymous. I'll even word it as a statement here:

"Person A is made little by Person B if and only if that Person A was shrunk by Person B" If you can give me one example that invalidates this statement, then I'll buy into those two phrasings being not synonymous.

vote: katagi

hmm, I dunno, the host's response makes me inclined to think that she doesn't find them synonymous.

also, again, since my first result was false, the alignment checking in it doesn't invalidate the whole thing. I'm fairly sure it's the little/shrink thing that messed up my results.

drandahl wrote:I can ONLY make people little.

I only upload high-quality video game rips.

Mitsu, are you okay with this lynch? If you really want to change to drandahl, I guess we could do that, but the discrepancy in wording might change things. I... suppose lynching Blaire is also an option, since we'd apparently get Aeiou back and the ratio would be the same?

got word back from the host! if there was ALSO an nk on aeoiu, they would not be revived by my death, so just a heads up

i don't mind too much if i get lynched at this point because i've put all my cards (hAHA) on the table and i have 0 things left to offer unless the game gets dragged on much longer than i anticipated

i'm thinking that the way this goes, i'll either be voting drandahl or either katagi/ezzelin later on. i'll be voting early because i gotta go to work and if it's as busy as it was yesterday, i doubt i'll have time to read posts too clearly and then vote in time D:

@naut--i like ur theories ;)

@katagi--
1. a coincidence is the only thing i can think of ;; like i said, i was reading around for people with some suspicion on them but wasnt really paying too much attention to usernames so ??? i highly doubt five and my actions are connected purposely in any way
2. oh yeah totally
3. i dont have a meatomo


wtf i wrote this on my phone and it never fully submitted  so here wow wth

Edit: Vote: drandahl I HAVE TO GO TO WORK NOW I'M SORRY BYE!!!

im rpobably going to get lynched anyway so

vote: drandahl

Blaire, why me in particular?