|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 13:10:42 GMT -5
Post by pede on Feb 1, 2009 13:10:42 GMT -5
...
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 13:37:55 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 1, 2009 13:37:55 GMT -5
Are we using Pikmin to protect a protector? Yep, although it didn't occur to me before. I guess I can always say I did it "in case she wanted to protect Parzival" or something.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 13:39:03 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 1, 2009 13:39:03 GMT -5
Also, Roxis did say specifically that she wanted to "protect" when she thought she was being lynched.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 15:50:43 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 1, 2009 15:50:43 GMT -5
hmm... What do you guys think about the Brokentree votes?
I think I am a mix of some of the roles in this game. The brokentree votes might be someone else's version of my confusion.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 16:55:57 GMT -5
Post by kat on Feb 1, 2009 16:55:57 GMT -5
Could be someone with the ability to put votes on someone at Night for the next Day.
Could be some kind of penalty restriction related to brokentree's role.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 17:25:11 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 1, 2009 17:25:11 GMT -5
Also, Roxis did say specifically that she wanted to "protect" when she thought she was being lynched. Also I could always say I was afraid of a scum role-block / kill double-team on Roxis. As for the extra votes... looks like a town vote-stuffer role is suspicious of Broken. A couple of people have said that they are, might be worth looking at them in that role.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 1, 2009 22:38:41 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 1, 2009 22:38:41 GMT -5
Sinjin is trying to hint that he is petrified in the main thread. What do you guys think it did to him? Obviously he can still post like normal. Maybe he just can't use his powers or something.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 6:11:50 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 2, 2009 6:11:50 GMT -5
What does a mad bomber/jailer do? I guess the jailer part is easy to figure out since he egged Aubby.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 16:46:14 GMT -5
Post by virginmary on Feb 2, 2009 16:46:14 GMT -5
Who da heck knows. Since sach is dead I don't seem egging anyone. But who knows what order pede is going in. And good call barb. Otherwise I would be toast. So eduardo swings today, which although that sucks for him it basically gives the rest of us a free day.
And really, they shouldn't allow old farts to try tricks on razrs. Mother of Og, even breathing hurts.
Even the missus is kind of distant since she saw the I-phone version.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 18:22:43 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 2, 2009 18:22:43 GMT -5
Vet me plz! I want to make a more substantive post, but don't want to get pinged as scum. This is the kind of thing I'm looking to say, but it looks kinda scummy. What should I change?
Well on the subject of unfortunate events, it looks as though I might be snowed in myself tomorrow, so I may have lots of time to hang out with you guys.
I don't have very much to say right now, and I've learnt the hard way that when you're in that position on this board, it's better to shut the heck up.
I do agree largely with Nat though, but I think you should add early Zeriel votors to your "suspicious" list. I've looked over the votes and nobody's made any real attempt to explain why the scum mason would deliberately out himself and the other two, as Zeriel was supposed to have done, beyond pure "aggressiveness". Some of the reasoning from various people looks quite weak.
Oh, and on the growing list of things I disagree with Parzival about: I have a question. Do you guys always go by mafia conventions, regardless of how relevant they are to the actual game in hand? Let's not start up the vanilla town argument again, but look at the question of "discussion" in the daytime thread. Now normally I'd say, let it last as long as possible so we can get all our info out there. But in this case there's no point in discussing the lynch, because we already have one. So what's the point of prolonged discussion? At best we're going to pinpoint a nightkill target for the scum, at worse we might end up outing a couple more PRs. If anyone has any definite information that could be useful now (although it's doubtful how any information could be at this point) then they should say it. Otherwise, wait until the next day when we can act on it and, if necessary, lynch someone because of it.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 18:30:57 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 2, 2009 18:30:57 GMT -5
Going on from the above...
Actually it looks incredibly scummy... but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything really obvious.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:15:26 GMT -5
Post by kat on Feb 2, 2009 19:15:26 GMT -5
Don't do it Caeser. One thing that will always draw unwanted attention to you is advocating shortening the Day this early in the Day. Even if there's no discussion going on, people will jump you for it, remember it, and start picking apart your posts.
Hey, Ed, maybe you should start posting a little bit of noise and fluff in the Day thread. Maybe something that will appear to "out" a nonscum as your scumbuddy (but don't be too obvious).
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 19:20:33 GMT -5
Post by mrspecialed on Feb 2, 2009 19:20:33 GMT -5
I can do that. Any ideas?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:17:06 GMT -5
Post by virginmary on Feb 2, 2009 21:17:06 GMT -5
Just do what comes natural, my friend. Confusion rules the day.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 2, 2009 21:35:01 GMT -5
Post by mrspecialed on Feb 2, 2009 21:35:01 GMT -5
Just do what comes natural, my friend. Confusion rules the day. When they start comparing me to you, I know I'm succeeding.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 6:10:50 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 3, 2009 6:10:50 GMT -5
OK, let's try again:Hoopy:I agree with this. I also disagree with the Hoopy suspicions. Kid Vermicious: I'll be honest, I didn't notice anywhere the moderator had said one way or another, so when Mitey claimed tracker, I assumed that the scum would have to pick an individual killer.[/quote] Wait, what? "I'll be honest" - that's what people say when they're about to lie their pants off. Why are you laying such stress on you not knowing how the scum kill? Hoopy:I agree, which causes me problems, because: Aubby:I also agree with this (even if it's somewhat less definite than Hoopy's, I'm not one of the camp of people who seem to think that indefinite = scum. More on that in a moment. Parzival seems to think that every possible mafia convention applies to every game, whereas I'm strongly of the opinion that that's not the case. Look at my vanilla town argument last game, for example. In this case though, while I agree that we should have discussion to see where everyone stands, I really hate the idea that there should be a rush to put all our cards on the table on the one day when we're in no position to do anything about whatever is revealed. We can't lynch anybody, other than Ed of course. IMO the current level of discussion is fine. Let's not go out of our way to present the scum with night-kill targets or out PRs by accident. Natlaw:I agree with the new guy, with the added proposition that we'd do well to look at the early Zeriel votors as well. Some of their reasons for voting seemed pretty weak to me. Misterblockey:Good question. Are we now assuming that that ballot-stuffer or whoever did this is town? Also, why don't the Brokentree votes actually count as "votes"? I don't get that. Crazypunker:I think you missed the part where I said, he also outted the masons with out everyone on agreement, what I even though aparently know one else see's it, a magic bag. Though I do have to say, I dunno why he is seen as not magic mbagging but she is. He wanted to hide his power so the scum would not be able to play around it and force a lynch or NK him. She hid her power so the scum would not play around it and force a lynch or NK her. And the differance is? ?? So it was not soley on one thing. Really? Did you even read people's arguments against you? You still have no concept of what constitutes magic bagging? Nobody voted you for only voting one. I only voted one. I gave my reasons for suspecting that one, but I also gave my reasons for suspecting the other two as well. I didn't have to vote them, but I gave my thoughts on them so that other players could learn my motives and also so that if I noticed something about the other masons that other town did not notice, they could use that information to make more informed decisions themselves. Everyone has their own reasoning and I will not vote someone for disagreeing with me, but if they are voting or not voting for reasons that appear to be scummy then I will vote them. You seemed to have inside information about Mitey. Not because you didn't vote her, but because you never discussed anything about her. You didn't tell us why you never suspected her. OK, I have some sympathy with Shaggy here because he, like me, seems to have some difficulty in expressing himself, awbeit in a different way than I do. As for Crazypunker's statement, asking Shaggy to "look at the reasons for voting him" seems rather harsh, because I can't find a single one in any of the previous posts. What is supposed to be the case against Shaggy? Oh wait - there's the last bit: "You didn't tell us why you never suspected her." WHAT? Assuming CP speaks for the Shaggy votors in general... you're voting him... because he didn't tell you... why he doesn't suspect... someone who turned up town? (Triple periods for emphasis.) And what is supposed to be "scummy" about Shaggy's reasons for voting the people he did vote? Considering we've already established that he hasn't given any reasons for not voting Mitey? And how did this all apparently spring from a misunderstanding over the term "magic bag"? The thing I hated most when I was Arcade in the "Skrull Planet" game was that people - townies - seemed to be going out of their way to find reasons to vote me, regardless of whether or not those reasons made any sense, just because I wasn't able to communicate effectively at the time. This smells like the same thing. From what little I can see it's circular logic: going from "Shaggy's not told us why he didn't vote Mitey, that's scummy" to "Shaggy's scummy, so the information he's given us must be doubtful", to "The information Shaggy's given us is doubtful, so why hasn't he told us why he didn't vote Mitey"? I'll add a suspect of my own, and that's Nanook. I don't understand why he hasn't contributed more, and his votes largely fit what I'd expect an UTR scum to do. What little he has said has meant nothing to me, and might be designed to do so. Of the people who got involved with the Mason votors, he's the one I'm most suspicious of right now. As for the Aubby - Parz - Sinjin situation, I have major suspicions of all three right now, but nothing concrete. I think at least one of them is probably scum or malicious PFK, but unless they're deliberately trying to disassociate with each other I can't see how Aubby could be scum along with either Parz or Sinjin at this point. I also find it difficult to imagine Parz voting his scumbuddy for what's essentially the first full vote of the game, and doing so for less than great reasons IMO. Not that it matters in Parzival's case, he's not going to be lynched after his role claim unless something really, really shattering happens. OK... Vote 1: Mr Special Ed. Vote 2: KidVermicious. Vote 3: Nanook.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 6:37:25 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 3, 2009 6:37:25 GMT -5
wrong board?
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 6:38:03 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 3, 2009 6:38:03 GMT -5
I hope it doesn't show Batman Jenkems if you post it in the main forum. I would be lynched immediately.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 11:57:16 GMT -5
Post by nanook on Feb 3, 2009 11:57:16 GMT -5
Let's see how that gambit works out. I tried to hide it in the middle of the post. I just hope she doesn't come right back and yell about how I'm scum after that.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 14:48:38 GMT -5
Post by crazypunker22 on Feb 3, 2009 14:48:38 GMT -5
Let's see how that gambit works out. I tried to hide it in the middle of the post. I just hope she doesn't come right back and yell about how I'm scum after that. I don't know that i would have risked that, but that is because I am the rookie I guess. I am trying to play a little safe. The good thing, though, is that so far it seems everyone has ignored or overlooked it, so at least you did hide it good enough. I wonder if she knows her counterpart is scum? Probably not. You could be two town players with the lover role for all she knows. Hopefully that is the case.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 15:04:48 GMT -5
Post by nanook on Feb 3, 2009 15:04:48 GMT -5
I like to take a few chances when my role calls for it. Plus it's better to leave breadcrumbs regarding it for future reference, in case of claims or similar. Plus, if I eat it first and she doesn't die, you can try and use it as a reason to lynch anyone that claims Zelda.
If no one bites on it, I'll be vaguely mind boggled. A red herring in my role maybe? I can't see that though, since my role is very very powerful, and lover is a very solid balancing agent. Knows I'm scum and doesn't want to get caught? The only way I can see that being the case is if Zelda is a similarly powerful role for Town.
Oh and if you guys could keep an eye out for crumbs I might miss, I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 16:41:15 GMT -5
Post by molefan1981 on Feb 3, 2009 16:41:15 GMT -5
Not wrong board, just wanting vetting. Anyway, I'm gonna post a shortened version.
BTW - calling for Zelda - that could be a bad move... if she knows that her lover is scum...
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 16:47:20 GMT -5
Post by virginmary on Feb 3, 2009 16:47:20 GMT -5
I certainly wouldn't have risked it but, what the hey it's your call.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 18:32:13 GMT -5
Post by virginmary on Feb 3, 2009 18:32:13 GMT -5
Ok. A little help. When I reread charle's pm I am getting the distinct impression that is just another personality in his body not an actual player in the game. Have the tylenol threes fogged me up? More than usual, of course. Had to preempt that smart ass come back.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:15:49 GMT -5
Post by nanook on Feb 3, 2009 19:15:49 GMT -5
No I got that impession too actually. But it doesn't hurt to play it up in the game thread, and some of the comments from Ped have made it sound like it could go the other way. In fact, let's try the direct approach.
Is Zelda actually in the game or is she all in my head?[/color]
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:34:25 GMT -5
Post by virginmary on Feb 3, 2009 19:34:25 GMT -5
Mason Scumlord. Can you kick up the annoyance factor? Seriously, something like doing the alphabet song one letter at a time? Or bottles of beer one bottle at a time. Try to create as much clutter as possible. And maybe we can end this day early. Seriously a couple hundred post an hour would be awesom. Shit, quot limbaugh for all I care or recite nursery rhymes. You will be villified and respected for all time. I know if I were in your situation we would be having a Julia Child discussion. Periodically smudge someone, including us and Santa vrings your toys early next year.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:42:52 GMT -5
Post by pede on Feb 3, 2009 19:42:52 GMT -5
No I got that impession too actually. But it doesn't hurt to play it up in the game thread, and some of the comments from Ped have made it sound like it could go the other way. In fact, let's try the direct approach. Is Zelda actually in the game or is she all in my head?[/color][/quote] Technically, she's all in your head. If you asked here though, she'd say your all in her head. Real answer: Yes, there is a role named Zelda in the game.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 19:45:21 GMT -5
Post by pede on Feb 3, 2009 19:45:21 GMT -5
Oh, and a rule:
Because you and her are...closer...than regular lovers, powers cross moreso than normal
If someone were to protect Zelda, you would be protected also. Same with roleblocking, and other miscellanious powers. This is not true, however, with investigations, since those have to do with the mind and not the body.
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 21:17:53 GMT -5
Post by mrspecialed on Feb 3, 2009 21:17:53 GMT -5
Mason Scumlord. Can you kick up the annoyance factor? Seriously, something like doing the alphabet song one letter at a time? Or bottles of beer one bottle at a time. Try to create as much clutter as possible. And maybe we can end this day early. Seriously a couple hundred post an hour would be awesom. Shit, quot limbaugh for all I care or recite nursery rhymes. You will be villified and respected for all time. I know if I were in your situation we would be having a Julia Child discussion. Periodically smudge someone, including us and Santa vrings your toys early next year. For you, anything seriously though, I do hope you're feeling better
|
|
|
Day 2
Feb 3, 2009 21:35:56 GMT -5
Post by nanook on Feb 3, 2009 21:35:56 GMT -5
I think I love you Ed. Keep it up, and add some more. Enough annoyance and we can probably get the town to end the day early. Less discussion is a win for us.
|
|