|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 11:56:56 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 2, 2009 11:56:56 GMT -5
The block, protection, whatever, was on Stanislaus night one. It was the target that was targeted, not my action. That's why I was able to try again on Stanislaus for the next day. So, because stanislaus was protected from your action, you got to try again? I wonder if that would have been the case had you been a killer of some sort..... I've honestly never heard of that type of do-over, but anything is possible, I suppose Right re Stan. I don't know, I've never actually played any type of killer before except having a one-shot kill as an inventor. Never played a role like this either, although I did play in a game that had one, but the jailer was only allowed to jail at night.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 12:56:10 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 2, 2009 12:56:10 GMT -5
Speaking as someone who has responded to myself instead of a mod or an intended recipient on more than one occasion, I wince at the idea that Ed is telling the truth, but the way the details had to be drug out of him was a pain in the ass. He also had a convenient target for his power on Night 1 in bufftaby, as she showed up dead and confirmed the next day, which makes me want to go back to thinking nothing but wifom about bufftaby's alleged transfer that he says he saw her make. He may be telling the truth about that as scum, just in case there is a pro-town tracker/watcher who also happened to see her visit the bank that Night. I can find nothing redeeming or worthy of empathy in archangel's play or testimony, however. I have to agree - rather than Ed coming straight out with it that he had screwed up he really dragged it. And the whole meta-gamey interaction with Archangel just seems far too staged - neither of their stories hold a lot of water, and in addition Ed appears to be changing his claim to be Tracker rather than Watcher. And I agree with Texcat's general comments - it's just too inviting to lynch Archangel today: The more I think about yesterday's events the more convinced I am that archangel is the terrorist bomber and that Ed is her scum partner. I think the whole bruhaha between them was started so that we would have a reason to vote archangel, she could make the ridiculous claim, and then get lynched today. Both of them are too experienced to be making these kind of rookie mistakes (ludicrous role claim, sending night move to yourself) without an ulterior motive. I think lynching them both is a very good idea starting with archangel, the more obvious of the two. But not today...let's wait until tomorrow. I'm not convinced that Stanislaus is the thief tho - it's somewhat circumstantial since we don't know anything about the mechanics of the role: And I still think that stanislaus is the thief. He seems like a safe lynch today. No one missed any money while he was in jail. As soon as he is out, peeker has money go missing. However, re-reading Stanislaus post does ping me: Enough of this third-rate Godot impression - I am back among you once more. I can't really confirm HM's experiences, I'm afraid. I was told I was a prisoner (and hence couldn't post) but I didn't get the full on Clockwork Orange treatment at all. I also had no idea who was involved in my incarceration (until archangel 'fessed up, anyhow. On which note I should add that I am not the Merc.) But I didn't get any clues about which side had done this to me.I will add - because there was some speculation about what could trigger imprisonment - that I have not, to date, taken any Day or Night actions, so it does seem to be a free choice. Bolding, colouring and underlying mine. Why the need to state that he is not the Merc? And the underlined part could be read as Stanislaus being neither Establishment or Rebel. Indeed, the fact that he is not confirming HM's incarceration story may be truth or deception. But it's the final purple statement I find most worrying - it can be read as him basically stating he has a power. Sending gold could be seen as a Day action, but he said Day or Night which kinda suggests he has a night action. We know that to hire the Merc, bids are placed during the day, and the kill is made during the night. It's a reasonable assumption, that since HM was probably blocked by MHaye that the Merc killed Bufftabby in response to a Day 1 request. Pleo probably was the scum kill, so the Merc didn't kill -- did no one bid on Day 2? or was it a case of the Merc not being able to receive bids on Day 2 due to being jailed? is Stanislaus the Merc? I know that would give some credence to Archangel's reasoning - which also worries me. And his only other post Today introduces wifom: This isn't a Day for lynching the obvious candidate. If he is the Merc, then he would be the obvious safe lynch. I think lynching Ed or Archangel today is probably the wrong thing to do. Vote: Stanislaus
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 15:02:10 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Aug 2, 2009 15:02:10 GMT -5
Why the need to state that he is not the Merc? And the underlined part could be read as Stanislaus being neither Establishment or Rebel. Indeed, the fact that he is not confirming HM's incarceration story may be truth or deception. But it's the final purple statement I find most worrying - it can be read as him basically stating he has a power. Sending gold could be seen as a Day action, but he said Day or Night which kinda suggests he has a night action. Because he got jailed because archangel thinks he could be the mercenary. Yesterday you didn't think the post of stanislaus she linked as a breadcrumb from a possible merc (because why would he?). So we shouldn't lynch someone who is (subtly) trying to get lynched. So not Hockey Monkey because she claims a mandatory kill and may have to lynch her Today, not Cookies because she suggested herself as tie-safety-lynch, not archangel because she has a shaky claim, not special ed because he's dodgy and set up archangel for a lynch. I could go back to my vote of Yesterday, but if spintari is being evasive to get lynched he's not an option either. Also we got texcat as confirmed mason. That leaves: Julie Naf1138 Natlaw Hockeyguy Pollux Mister Blockey BillMC Peeker Nanook Stanislaus Pumpjack dfrntbreign Kid Vermicious Captain Pinkies After rereading some no one jumps out to me at the moment. I'll make a poke vote: Vote: Kid Vermicious No posts yet Today and and not much Yesterday either. I'll look again tomorrow and recheck my game setup guess with two known vanillas.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 16:27:03 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Aug 2, 2009 16:27:03 GMT -5
However, re-reading Stanislaus post does ping me: Why the need to state that he is not the Merc? And the underlined part could be read as Stanislaus being neither Establishment or Rebel. Indeed, the fact that he is not confirming HM's incarceration story may be truth or deception. But it's the final purple statement I find most worrying - it can be read as him basically stating he has a power. Sending gold could be seen as a Day action, but he said Day or Night which kinda suggests he has a night action. I wish I hadn't got into this. I was accused of being the Merc - I denied it. I said I hadn't taken any actions because I hadn't, and people had suggested (are suggesting) that I had. I don't know why I didn't get the same treatment as HM, but I didn't. I know I can't give you reasons to believe my denials, but I feel I have to make them. You've got no evidence other than guesses, and pretty thin ones at that. I know you want to avoid the terrorist, but there's no need to go after an unconnected innocent just to play safe.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 16:28:54 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Aug 2, 2009 16:28:54 GMT -5
As a secondary point, I think we should all:
vote texcat
I know it's making you something of a martyr to the greater good, but the safe play is to lynch known town. Sucks I know, but pulling in random people on weak guesses is worse.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 16:34:53 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 2, 2009 16:34:53 GMT -5
As a secondary point, I think we should all: vote texcatI know it's making you something of a martyr to the greater good, but the safe play is to lynch known town. Sucks I know, but pulling in random people on weak guesses is worse. You must be kidding. I know it's a risk that the rumor may be true and the game could end. but you want to lynch a mason? Are you out of your mind?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 16:39:27 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 2, 2009 16:39:27 GMT -5
I'd rather risk blowing us all up than start killing masons to be "safe."
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 16:44:15 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 2, 2009 16:44:15 GMT -5
I started writing the rest of this post before Stanislaus posted (just after Natlaw's post). Refreshing before copying it into the reply window, I see Stanislaus has posted. Unfortunately (or would it be fortunately), nothing he says (you want us to lynch a Mason, rather than an "innocent" player; meaning you?) make me change my mind so: I know you (Dfrnt) haven't suggested Lynch-a-lurker or random voting, I'm trying to determine who you do want to lynch as opposed to the list of people that you don't. Fair enough. I've been waiting to hear more from people who haven't said much (or anything) toDay, but especially Stanislaus. I'd noticed some of what BillMC pointed out and was hoping Stan would have more to say about it without pointing it out. In the meantime I searched his posts on Day One with his being some third party in mind. (If I knew how I'd post a link to search results, but searching is pretty easy here, I found. If I tried to quote them this would be an unreadable mess.) I noticed he contributed a lot, both before and after being away for the weekend. And not the number of posts, but several substantial posts about different topics. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it seemed as though he could have been feeling us out about what we knew about mechanics of third party candidates (by asking questions about how Merc could be used). Talking about what to do with Hockey Monkey, he seems to want us to think "inside the box" (this in a game the mod described as being complicated from the start). Yeah I know, that's a lot of words in his mouth for "not putting words in his mouth", but read it for yourself and see what you think. Contrast that with toDay: Yeah, I'd like to hear from Stanislaus. Enough of this third-rate Godot impression - I am back among you once more. I can't really confirm HM's experiences, I'm afraid. I was told I was a prisoner (and hence couldn't post) but I didn't get the full on Clockwork Orange treatment at all. I also had no idea who was involved in my incarceration (until archangel 'fessed up, anyhow. On which note I should add that I am not the Merc.) But I didn't get any clues about which side had done this to me. I will add - because there was some speculation about what could trigger imprisonment - that I have not, to date, taken any Day or Night actions, so it does seem to be a free choice. and this I'm a little hesitant myself, for the following reasons: 1) I didn't share HM's experience. Why not? 2) If HM is right, we're looking at a role that has the advantage of removing an opposing player from action for a turn, and disadvantage of instantly revealing that this was a scum action. Why would anyone admit to that role? Ever? This isn't a Day for lynching the obvious candidate. And.... well, that's all so far. But he doesn't seem to be trying to get himself lynched (good list. BTW, Natlaw) so Vote: Stanislaus Our Days end while I'm having my "morning coffee" (if I drank coffee) so anyone finding themselves in the position of needing me to unvote them will have to make their case on Monday. The last two Days have changed (and changed again) on Tuesdays, while I'm asleep (or close enough as to make no difference). On Day 1 I voted for Cookies because I wasn't awake enough to process what she was doing. Day 2 I left my vote on Texcat rather than do the same thing again (I did make sure my one vote wouldn't matter).
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 19:11:29 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 2, 2009 19:11:29 GMT -5
Toward the end of Day 2 and continuing with Day 3, I was beginning to wonder if there were more than 1 bomber. PCM was identified as a pro-town Contrarian/3rd party candidate. PCM was listed as pro-town, so it's likely there would be more than one type of Contrarian, e.g. a pro-rebel Contrarian. What if the Contrarians are bombers with differing allegences? With that this would make sense : As a secondary point, I think we should all: vote texcatI know it's making you something of a martyr to the greater good, but the safe play is to lynch known town. Sucks I know, but pulling in random people on weak guesses is worse. However, to martyr a mason means we would have to confirm the identity of our last mason before texcat was lynched. Plus, it'd be like giving up entirely. Therefore, I must Vote: Stanislaus because he is probably a safe vote and possibly the merc.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 21:35:58 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 2, 2009 21:35:58 GMT -5
As a secondary point, I think we should all: vote texcatI know it's making you something of a martyr to the greater good, but the safe play is to lynch known town. Sucks I know, but pulling in random people on weak guesses is worse. Whoa there. Earlier, I was asking what your experience was so we could figure out what was going on with archangel, not because I suspected you of anything. At this point, I'd wonder why a "vanilla town" would sacrifice a mason under the presumption of the greater good, especially when a mason was the most recent death. vote stanislaus
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 21:39:35 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 2, 2009 21:39:35 GMT -5
because he is probably a safe vote and possibly the merc. I send a frownie face in your general direction. I had to turn around in my chair to do it. Yes, he's possibly the merc. At this point, only texcat is really unlikely to be the merc. But I'm not getting either case--merc or thief--against stan. I'm tempted to argue we need just to ignore the bomber threat lest it make us all nuts.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 2, 2009 21:55:23 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 2, 2009 21:55:23 GMT -5
However, re-reading Stanislaus post does ping me:
I wish I hadn't got into this. I was accused of being the Merc - I denied it. I said I hadn't taken any actions because I hadn't, and people had suggested (are suggesting) that I had. I don't know why I didn't get the same treatment as HM, but I didn't. I know I can't give you reasons to believe my denials, but I feel I have to make them.
You've got no evidence other than guesses, and pretty thin ones at that.
I know you want to avoid the terrorist, but there's no need to go after an unconnected innocent just to play safe.For what it's worth, I don't think you're the Merc. But I don't believe you're an "unconnected innocent" either. And even if I did I'd still vote for you before I voted for a Mason. Before you brought that up I might have at least considered a "benevolent third faction" role claim, but now I think you're trying to use the terrorist threat to stay in the game a little longer. Which leads back to you being anti-town whether you are Merc, Thief or just plain scum.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 1:20:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 1:20:57 GMT -5
Stanislaus' suggestion for us to go after Texcat implies that our worse-case scenario if he gets lynched would likely be that he's a Town power role, otherwise I don't think he'd make such a play. I think it is more likely that he's 3rd party of some kind, though that is mostly a gut read. I really hope the gut pays off this time, because it is really going to suck if Stan turns up town.
Vote: Stanislaus
I trust Texcat's motivations in bringing the case against Stan, weak and circumstantial as it is.
Where did NAF disappear to? I'm almost in Julie's camp of ignoring the warning, because it has basically resulted in negating momentum in just about every direction for a few Days now. The lack of detail about how NAF was provided the info, the paranoia that has ensued, not being able to talk the town into mitigating the tie-breaker risk with my own neck, his becoming so scarce...I really don't like any of it. It would be a great subtle little scum plan with not much potential blow-back for them, contrary to having to make a full fabricated claim.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 3:20:33 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 3:20:33 GMT -5
Ok, so scratch the part about NAF being missing. Just saw his post in the "Going to be away" thread, but I still don't like the rest of it, and he better not be pulling an Ulla. (I kid, I kid. I believe that there was indeed something lost in translation for her in that game.)
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 5:18:11 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 3, 2009 5:18:11 GMT -5
Stanislaus' suggestion for us to go after Texcat implies that our worse-case scenario if he gets lynched would likely be that he's a Town power role, otherwise I don't think he'd make such a play. I think it is more likely that he's 3rd party of some kind, though that is mostly a gut read. I really hope the gut pays off this time, because it is really going to suck if Stan turns up town. Yeah, the suggestion that lynching our confirmed mason is the best option really sucks. Where did NAF disappear to? I'm almost in Julie's camp of ignoring the warning, because it has basically resulted in negating momentum in just about every direction for a few Days now. The lack of detail about how NAF was provided the info, the paranoia that has ensued, not being able to talk the town into mitigating the tie-breaker risk with my own neck, his becoming so scarce...I really don't like any of it. It would be a great subtle little scum plan with not much potential blow-back for them, contrary to having to make a full fabricated claim. You make a good point. We have taken NAF's "note" at face value with nothing to back it up. Given the fake mason ruse that he and mhaye pulled off in Ragnarok, I wouldn't put it past NAF. Tho NAF is feeling decidedly more townie than he did in Ragnarok - but he was kinda evasive on how he got the note. I'd really like to hear some more from him on this.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 11:12:14 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 11:12:14 GMT -5
You make a good point. We have taken NAF's "note" at face value with nothing to back it up. Given the fake mason ruse that he and mhaye pulled off in Ragnarok, I wouldn't put it past NAF. Tho NAF is feeling decidedly more townie than he did in Ragnarok - but he was kinda evasive on how he got the note. I'd really like to hear some more from him on this. Hey all. Sorry, real life stepped in to make my world a giant ball of suck for the past week. I am honestly trying to not be evasive. I am doing my level best to be as open and honest about the note I got without actually quoting anything that Hawkmod sent me. I got a note, delivered by Hawkmod, it said that I had been informed that there was a terrorist attack scheduled for toDay. It said that if we lynched the wrong person toDay something very bad would happen. It didn't get more specific. It also said that if we chose not to lynch anyone the same something bad would happen. That is everything I "know". Things I am assuming. 1)The information doesn't have anything to do with my role. I think I was either picked by Hawkmod to recieve the information via random generation or that there is a role in the town called "informant" or something similar that selects people to get tidbits of inforation about the game setup. But I don't actually know. These are just guesses. 2) I don't acutally know what the very bad thing being hinted at is, but suspect that it is a game ender based on the timing of the very bad thing as well as the warning of said very bad thing. That's it. Feel free to ask me questions, but you guys know everything I do. Also, Stanislaus really wants to lynch a mason? The fuck? Also, Texcat, please either talk to your fellow mason and convince them to claim toDay (unless they already did and I missed it, I have been doing a hurry up read of the Day so far this morning) because it is exceedingly likely that you are going to be a NK target toNight seeing as how you are the only living claimed mason. If you die without confirming your other masonry partner the scum can convincingly claim mason and essentially end the game.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 11:13:42 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 11:13:42 GMT -5
Also, can someone explain to me how I have been evasive about the note? BillMc, I am looking at you for this explination.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 11:32:22 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 3, 2009 11:32:22 GMT -5
Also, can someone explain to me how I have been evasive about the note? BillMc, I am looking at you for this explination. I think what you've posted in #135 clarifies things for me. Thanks
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 11:40:06 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 11:40:06 GMT -5
Ok, fair enough.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 12:41:45 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 3, 2009 12:41:45 GMT -5
Also, Texcat, please either talk to your fellow mason and convince them to claim toDay (unless they already did and I missed it, I have been doing a hurry up read of the Day so far this morning) because it is exceedingly likely that you are going to be a NK target toNight seeing as how you are the only living claimed mason. If you die without confirming your other masonry partner the scum can convincingly claim mason and essentially end the game. Not really. If texcat does die toNight, the other Mason is hidden, true, but it won't give the Scum an easy kill target for Night Four. Besides, if they always claim later, and if no one counter claims, they're probably telling to the truth. If the Scum try to claim Mason later, then the real one can jump out and counter-claim. We'd just be forced to lynch one or both (if we guess wrong at first). A one for one trade is a fair trade for us, except at lynch or lose. So I'd advise the third Mason to stay hidden for now unless s/he doesn't want to. Also, lynching a confirmed Mason toDay? Seriously?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 12:43:51 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 3, 2009 12:43:51 GMT -5
And I'm finally caught up on all the reading I missed this weekend. I'm going to glance over it a second time though.
Remind me not to go out of town for a weekend again. It's hell trying to gather your thoughts upon jumping back into the game...
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 12:49:01 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Aug 3, 2009 12:49:01 GMT -5
Wait, you ask how you have been evasive about the note before you explained it (again), BillMc who you asked specifically to comment gives no explanation and yet you find that fair enough?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:06:27 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 3, 2009 13:06:27 GMT -5
Please forgive me if this posts twice, I really have trouble with these controls.
I don't see any possible pro-town reason for Stan's suggestion to vote a mason.
Unvote Ed
in the hopes that he will watch me tonight.
And FOS those people who think we're scum working together and know us both.
We are like this in every game. Just because I cool down eventually and am able to speak to him rationally doesn't mean it's "staged."
Vote Stanislaus
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:07:06 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 3, 2009 13:07:06 GMT -5
Big smelly finger of hate? Is there some kind of control on here that changes FOS to that? I did not type that and it's freaking me out!
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:08:00 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 3, 2009 13:08:00 GMT -5
Whoa...I've never seen anything like that before. I am trying to type eff oh ess.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:10:39 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 3, 2009 13:10:39 GMT -5
Yeah, there are some words or phrases that have been set to pop up when you say certain things.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:17:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 13:17:47 GMT -5
Wait, you ask how you have been evasive about the note before you explained it (again), BillMc who you asked specifically to comment gives no explanation and yet you find that fair enough? No, I find that Bill was talking out of his ass when he said I had been evasive before. Which is fair, as long as he is willing to admit it. Which he was by saying my explination was sound.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:33:12 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Aug 3, 2009 13:33:12 GMT -5
So what would be the reaction of someone deliberately voting a Mason? The last two for context (on preview archangel joined the club): Also, Stanislaus really wants to lynch a mason? The fuck? Also, lynching a confirmed Mason toDay? Seriously? So if the terrorist warning is true and it is a mod Jester warning, then the Jester wants to get lynched Today. Voting a Mason seems to generate that effect, so I don't get the stanislaus votes. I think the warning is not for a Jester or game-ending event. I would if the message was in colored text in the dawn/dusk color. At the moment it's just NAF's word for it (and his handshake earlier). There could also be a role which can send misinformation and/or maybe there was a second message send Night Two, but someone non-town got it and decided not to disclose. We can't ignore the message, but if I don't think Jester to likely, it might be some sort of Crazy Townie like role (let's name it Suicide Scum) who can kill someone who voted / last voted him when lynched. So his mason vote would scrap stanislaus of the list of 'not trying to get lynched'. Unvote: Kid Vermicious It was just a poke vote, but for all those who voted Jaade Yesterday: if it's better to lynch a lurker instead of a (shaky) claimed power role who might be tested - who not vote a lurker Today to avoid lynching the terrorist? I still think a lurker lynch doesn't help improve the vote record, not sure how the 'it prevents a mod-kill' meta game argument helps it. I don't think there is a role with her described powers. One Day Jailer and one scum (based on Hockey Monkey's description) role-blocker just seems simpler, although I might be making too much assumptions here. Why would scum block a compulsory vigilante? Only if they were pretty sure she was going to kill one of them. HM voted me, but archangel was also definitely a candidate after here shaky claim (in my opinion). Vote: archangel There is also the possibility of archangel being both Rebel and Terrorist which does kinda work color wise ('Rebel Suicidal Freedom Fighter'). But I don't find her claim Yesterday staged, more because she was going to get lynched. I think it worth the risk of biting the bullet by lynching very likely scum, plus I don't like the stanislaus vote build-up.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:46:03 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Aug 3, 2009 13:46:03 GMT -5
I don't want to get lynched and I don't particularly want to lynch a mason. It's not something I'm proposing idly. But there's a lot of concern about this alleged terrorist. The one guaranteed safe way to avoid it is to lynch someone who's confirmed town. Yes, it comes at a cost. Yes, it sucks for texcat. But I think it's valid strategy. There was a lot of talk about lynching HM for net strategic benefit and no-one thought that was beyond the pale. Sometimes we have to think outside the box. Which I note I've also been accused of not doing - what do you guys want from me?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:46:13 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 13:46:13 GMT -5
The Stanislaus vote build up was:
A) Initiated by a confirmed townie B) Motivated by what seems to be a majority opinion that we shouldn't lynch any "obvious" candidates today. C) I don't consider suggesting to vote for a Mason as screaming to get lynched. It is reasonable in many ways, I just don't think it is what we should do.
Trying to get us to go back to archangel I think is a bad idea this close to the end of the day. We need to get critical mass in some direction and stop being so damn paranoid. Can we pick that direction, please? I'm talking to you, people who are not weighing in with opinions at all or way too late to generate healthy debate.
|
|