Shattered Rift

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Shattered Rift last won the day on June 5

Shattered Rift had the most liked content!


About Shattered Rift

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/02/1988

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Shattered Rift
  • Website URL
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Sparkbomb Mansion
  • Interests
    Worldbuilding, writing, dancing

Recent Profile Visitors

10,430 profile views
  1. Yes. It will be co-hosted by Blacjak and Rexozord and signups should be going up following Inu's game (or maybe during, depending on timing). I'll be sending out an email tomorrow most likely. I've been focused on the job hunt these past few days.
  2. Sounds good. Go ahead. Edit: Looks like you already did. Excellent.
  3. Not currently. Do you want to take the next one?
  4. I had gotten confirmation through my role that you had been protected, but that it wasn't by my protect. As a result of that, I had no reason to suspect the subversion, so I believed Spirit was responsible, especially once Zilary's claim both failed to contradict it and could only try to cast suspicion on you. Edit: Looks like I misread my Night PM and assumed it said you were protected rather than simply targeted. In any case, the disable on you provides no explanation for how you were targeted for death and survived. I suppose Traitor should have been a viable thought for explanation.
  5. So Inu was a Traitor? That's nice. There was no way I was going to logic that out and really no way that Zilary could convince me. All logical evidence pointed against Zilary, and the only way to counter that was to assume I was lying/had extra information. Getting confirmation on Inu changing my result halfway through the day certainly didn't help anything. I mean, it certainly was a strong innocent balance if the Dreamer's super-effective included a protect, but it made a logical sense to balance out the likely possibility of a dream failure. Also pretty embarrassed that I read mccraabi's death and then promptly forgot about it for the first half of the day. I'd definitely like to see the mechanic used again in a larger game. It seems like it has potential, particularly in an HP-based game.
  6. Inu getting roleblocked (can refute: he was not) is irrelevant with both Spirit and myself vouching for him.
  7. Thanks for pointing that out. I somehow glazed over Sinical's execution post and just glanced at the first post in the thread. Unvote: mccraabi Vote: Zilary
  8. Considering everything's public right now, a possibility of two protects leaves one of the three of us unguarded. The obvious play is for me to protect Spirit and for her not to say who she's targeting, since the Killer is already one of Zilary or Mccraabi (barring a believable counterclaim). Given the random nature of the game, it might be better for me to just say I'm targeting one of the two of you and then trusting luck. Thoughts? Vote: mccraabi My money's on Zilary, based on gut, and I expect her to make a claim at this point that would suggest the Killer having an additional power if it's her. But I probably won't be online later tonight to switch my vote, and splitting the vote temporarily seems safer. I should be online for another three(?) hours or so.
  9. I'm the Protector, and while I failed to protect Inu last night, something kept him alive.
  10. (C/S)inical's name is alternating its spelling. It depends on what exists and what Sinical designed. Based on what you've said combined with the knowledge of my own role, I'm inclined to vote against a full claim. However, if three of the other living players are in favor, I will cooperate. Also. Vote: Spirit Partially keeping votes spread out, partially other reasons. (Nothing worth following through on without your own reasons, mind you.)
  11. I don't have much to say, and I'm hoping someone else has some idea to work off of.
  12. Even in this format, I'm inclined to think a Watcher would still be more powerful than a Dreamer. What happens with a tie vote? Randomizer?
  13. This is officially one of the best penalties we've ever seen.
  14. Yes. A lot of the comments I've seen going around Facebook have been about the fact that the US is supposedly in disagreement with the entire world and blah blah blah as if any of this matters. The agreement requires certain nations, including the US, to contribute to other nations, effectively costing us money without providing returns. I've seen some mention that China is exempt from this portion (which would explain why they entered into it), but I'm still in the process of finding accurate sources on this. As I understand it, this is Trump's issue with the agreement, that we're just saying, "Yeah, we'll pay you guys money and you don't have to pay it back ever." I disagree with this completely. The questions of whether it's man-made and whether or not we can make a significant difference are the two core issues. If it's not our fault, then let's stop with the guilt-tripping arguments. If we can't do anything significant about it, then let's release the burdens on business. Our insistence that the government must be the acting force ignores the large number of individuals and charitable organizations willing to take action without insisting on yet another increase in taxation. I can just as easily argue that this is irrelevant because in 1,000 years we'll have technology that eclipses what's currently possible and this entire issue will be moot.
  15. I see that you've since done some research, but I think this has been the big problem surrounding this discussion. There are only two reasons that there's been a nearly worldwide support for the agreement: the lack of penalty and the fact that most countries are individually impacted minimally (if not garnering support). Meanwhile, the United States faces a disproportionate amount of the burden. The political motivations behind the climate change narrative are a large cause for concern in my mind. While I would like to address the ecological impact humans have upon the Earth, I see hubris in the assumption that we and we alone are responsible for the warming of the Earth, and furthermore we lack anything resembling any certainty of what our impact will be or where a tipping point is to whether our efforts will justify the costs involved. Many are quick to say that the worst case scenario of an uninhabitable world is reason enough, but that's a poor argument. Meanwhile, the awareness an interest by many individuals and groups provide other avenues to work towards the goals of the Paris agreement without requiring action on the part of the federal government.