Fuzz, I’ve known you to not be so wreck-less in such a situation as this. EVEN IF I were the other detective, you’re giving the SK a really big advantage by revealing BOTH UCs. (I’m not UC btw)
In gonna sit back and watch this 
PLOT TWIST
Waht?
No I’m not, his goal is to kill Sonny, the lead UC, which is you. Therefore, if we kill you, we deny him his win condition and we win instead. And if we don’t lynch you today then he kills you tonight and wins, since he goes before the Vigilante.
Why reveal? Because the Serial Killer’s win condition is obviously to kill Sonny. If we remove that win condition, then he can’t win, meaning we win.
1). Why would his win condition be killing the Lead UC when the Lead UC has an assistant to take over after his death?
2). Why would it be the UC of all roles…? The game could’ve ended a long time ago if the SK got extremely lucky
1). I don’t know, kaz wouldn’t answer you in the PM either. He threw the knife at your picture though, not a picture of us, so I’m assuming it’s just you
2). He didn’t start killing until Night 3 (IIRC) as he likely had to fulfill some kind of condition first, similar to the Wesker role from Forge’s game. Plus he’s a 3rd party role, he’s not supposed to have a good shot at winning
Fuzz, if I had to guess who the UCs were, It would be you and BK
Well you don’t have to guess, you know that it’s you and me, so that’s irrelevant and you’re dodging the topic. Don’t make me spam PMs again, I’ll do it.
I don’t see the logic in your theory. It doesn’t make sense to have the SK win condition as killing the Lead UC when there is an alternative.
You can spam PMs all you want to me and get DQ’ed for PMing another player who is not legally supposed to PM with you.
Well I don’t see the logic in the Vigilante being unable to buy bullets at the store, but you don’t see me complaining.
Very funny, but drop it already. I am in a PM with you, kaz, and Pimp Willy. That’s the UC PM conversation, nothing illegal about it.
@RadicalFuzz Why don’t you send me a message via PM and @kaz, @PW, Can I trouble you a question? May I take a picture of a PM ASSUMING HE SENDS ME ONE and publicly post it?
Nevermind
- Do not post any PMs, even as a joke. If you are going to make an image joke regarding PMs, at least make it obvious that it’s a joke (e.g. make it using MSPaint.)
Sure, I just sent you one, check your notifications.
3 minutes left…
1 last question before i go to bed and continue this tomorrow ON THE THREAD
BESIDES THE WRITE-UP
What else convinced you to believe in such a theory WHOLE-HEARTEDLY
Nothing, aside from the writeup. Even though it is Pimp writing, he wouldn’t actually troll us in-game via writeups.
Knowing you, you wouldn’t believe in a theory so quickly without thinking rationally
Obviously I’m using some logic here, but the main thing is the writeup. If the writeup said that Quincy Jones came out of the ground, danced the Thriller, gave the Vigi some more bullets, and then went back into his grave, then obviously it’s just Pimp being Pimp. It’s feasible that there’s a role who’s goal is seeing a specific role die, and it makes sense to give him a knife to accomplish the task with.
If I really was your partner and we had a PM together as UCs… Why would I be as so opposed to your theory when I as your partner (in theory) should be agreeing with you. It does not make sense for your partner to not support you in your theory and oppose it if it leads to a civ win.
Just because we’re UCs doesn’t mean we have to look eye to eye on every topic. Hell, we’ve disagreed most of the game. I suggested we investigate MP night 1, but you never wanted to until the night he got offed. You were hesitant about going in on pie so hard yesterday (rightfully so, but that’s beside the point) and I clearly wasn’t.
You’ve stated your reasons as to why you don’t believe that the Serial Killer loses when you die, and I’ve stated my reasons why I believe he does. There’s really not much more to say. Sorry for forcing you into this, but you weren’t going to do anything about it so I did.