|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 13:50:35 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 31, 2009 13:50:35 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 13:55:46 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 31, 2009 13:55:46 GMT -5
There's also the issue that she was blocked but allowed to pick another target for later in the same cycle. That seems very odd to me.
Plus her statement that she was trying to "control" the merc, that he was breadcrumbing merc, that it could have been necessary to identify the merc, that blocking the merc during the Day would have any effect whatsoever, etc.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 13:59:17 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 31, 2009 13:59:17 GMT -5
I'm a little bugged that we got confirmation of Stan's imprisonment in the color, but none for HM. That could be simply a matter of timing, or could be the pants-on-fireness of her LIES!
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 14:11:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 31, 2009 14:11:43 GMT -5
One more bit of minor circumstantial evidence...her HATE of the case against Jaade could be a little bit of a scummy-perfect-knowledge-slip showing.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 15:03:11 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 31, 2009 15:03:11 GMT -5
My main beef with archangel's claim is the 'got to pick another target Night One because the first wasn't allowed'. It makes the role a combination of watcher/investigator (by targeting someone 'special') and if not special act as paranoid doctor (protect/blocker the allowed target) at Night or jailing someone for next Day (and apparently able to keep retargeting the same person every Day, effectively preventing them from participating).
It's just too much, though I guess anything is possible.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 16:36:46 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 31, 2009 16:36:46 GMT -5
Ed thinks I'm stupid, but I'm not, just scatterbrained. Just because intended to do it. I don't think you're stupid. In fact, I don't think stupid is usually an adjective I use when describing people. I do, at times, call people idiots when describing their actions. And I do enjoy pointing out inconsistencies, as I believe they can often point toward anti-Town behavior and players. So, no, I acknowledge that you're smart, I just point out your mistakes, and when I do, you often make more of them trying to avoid admitting to the ones I point out. Okay. I'm having trouble believing your claim though-- you were gunning for me so hard yesterDay that it's hard for me to believe you would forget to turn in your order about me. Vote Ed
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 16:39:43 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 31, 2009 16:39:43 GMT -5
Hi guys, sorry, I was out all day. I jailed Hockey Monkey last night. Julie's question yesterDay about me not thinking to block the compulsory vig hit home. That's a better use of my power than what I was trying to do before. Ed thinks I'm stupid, but I'm not, just scatterbrained. Just because I announced to scum I was self-protecting didn't mean I really intended to do it. Why didn't you jail someone toDay? Julie, I can only jail one person per day/night cycle (and I can choose which of those I want). Your comment yesterday about "Didn't you think of jailing the vig?" hit home. I tend to go crazy when I have a power and come out with these elaborate schemes to use them in an unorthodox way that don't work too well. You pointed out to me that there was a much simpler and more pro-town way of using it.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 16:48:08 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Jul 31, 2009 16:48:08 GMT -5
I still see null tells at least, where Julie sees holes. Hockey publicly stating that she was blocked first could have provided Archangel with a convenient opportunity to step in and claim credit. I have other issues, though. Some of archangel's powers allegedly have restrictions of not being able to perform them for two cycles in a row, yet others apparently do not, or at least cycle restrictions don't seem to apply as one type of activity (Day jailing Stan) immediately (allegedly) preceeded another (Night-bondage for Hockey). Cookies, I'm not sure what you're asking here, but let me be clear about the cycle restrictions. When night begins, I can PM Hawkeye to say that I want to jail someone for that night or the next day. I used my power last night, so I can't jail anyone for today. If I'm still alive when night falls, I can use my power toNight or on Day 4. So it's once per game cycle, with game cycle being day/night. I guess it will continue to be a WiFom. I was going to suggest that you guys vote on a candidate for me to jail toNight or toMorrow so I can prove my power to you but I realized if we do that then scum will know I'm unprotected. I have no idea why Hawkeye handled the color differently this time than last time, unless it has to do with the fact that Stan was jailed during the DAY, which affected his ability to post in DAY, while HM was jailed during the NIGHT, while the rest of us aren't posting.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:04:38 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 31, 2009 17:04:38 GMT -5
I understand that is what you are saying, but the issue comes from the back-to-back sequence of events you've provided going from Night 1 to now. For a mod to enforce a restriction that prevents a Day action to immediately follow a Night action but allow a Night action to immediately follow a day action, seems extremely inconsistent to me.
I also agree that misfiring and still being able to pick another target also seems unlikely, as is the added option of you apparently being able to self protect, possibly every day if you wanted to, unless there is still another restriction on when you can/can't self protect that you have yet again forgotten to tell us.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:43:57 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 17:43:57 GMT -5
I understand that is what you are saying, but the issue comes from the back-to-back sequence of events you've provided going from Night 1 to now. For a mod to enforce a restriction that prevents a Day action to immediately follow a Night action but allow a Night action to immediately follow a day action, seems extremely inconsistent to me. I also agree that misfiring and still being able to pick another target also seems unlikely, as is the added option of you apparently being able to self protect, possibly every day if you wanted to, unless there is still another restriction on when you can/can't self protect that you have yet again forgotten to tell us. There's always the chance that she can't self-protect and just claimed to be able to to mislead. I highly suggest she not claim again if she can or can't self-protect. Keep the Scum guessing please. I have something to add. Why is everyone forgetting that we have a Terrorist set to blow toDay? I've seen it mentioned a couple times, but we need to figure out a plan here.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:47:22 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 17:47:22 GMT -5
I don't think you're stupid. In fact, I don't think stupid is usually an adjective I use when describing people. I do, at times, call people idiots when describing their actions. And I do enjoy pointing out inconsistencies, as I believe they can often point toward anti-Town behavior and players. So, no, I acknowledge that you're smart, I just point out your mistakes, and when I do, you often make more of them trying to avoid admitting to the ones I point out. Okay. I'm having trouble believing your claim though-- you were gunning for me so hard yesterDay that it's hard for me to believe you would forget to turn in your order about me. Vote EdI also find it hard to believe that Ed failed to send in his action. It's very possible that his claim is false. It's easy to claim you Watched a dead player the first Night. I just find it very odd that you were in Archangel's face so much yesterDay, that you forgot to Watch someone (maybe her, or someone else). It makes sense for you to Watch the person you're most suspicious of to see if they told the truth or not, but then to forget? I just find that a bit suspicious.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:50:46 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 17:50:46 GMT -5
My main beef with archangel's claim is the 'got to pick another target Night One because the first wasn't allowed'. It makes the role a combination of watcher/investigator (by targeting someone 'special') and if not special act as paranoid doctor (protect/blocker the allowed target) at Night or jailing someone for next Day (and apparently able to keep retargeting the same person every Day, effectively preventing them from participating). It's just too much, though I guess anything is possible. I find that odd as well. The part about picking someone, being told you couldn't, and then being able to pick again? Unless hawk failed to mention someone important to her about her role, which then led to some confusion about what she could or couldn't do, I dunno, but yeah, it's still weird. As for the retargeting. Maybe she can't retarget the same player multiple times. Again, I'd ask her not to specify either way, as to keep the WIFOM going. But then again, not knowing does leave a shadow over her in terms of what we believe she can and can't do.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:51:21 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 17:51:21 GMT -5
Unless Hawk forgot to mention something* important to her...
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:51:40 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 31, 2009 17:51:40 GMT -5
We have an alleged terrorist, and by my approximation, I'm the closest thing people have to a suspect for such role. I'd be happy to continue discussing that topic or any other topic.
I do not think we should no-lynch out of fear of blowing ourselves up.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:54:06 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 17:54:06 GMT -5
We have an alleged terrorist, and by my approximation, I'm the closest thing people have to a suspect for such role. I'd be happy to continue discussing that topic or any other topic. I do not think we should no-lynch out of fear of blowing ourselves up. Since NAF said a no lynch accomplishes the same as lynching the Terrorist, I'd advise we lynch someone. We just can't jump the gun, which is what seems to be happening. And despite the need to discuss this bomb, or whatever it is, we can't close discussion on Archangel/Ed/HM either.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 17:59:14 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 31, 2009 17:59:14 GMT -5
Ed is frustrating the hell out of me as well. I can see no pro-town reason not to dissect his "embarrassment" in minute detail for everyone to see and make our own decisions about. He seemed to be waiting for a response to something that didn't get sent appropriately. A little play by play on how we all got screwed out of the payload of his alleged power at a very inopportune moment with respect to archangel's hair-pulling-out play and testimony, would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:03:16 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jul 31, 2009 18:03:16 GMT -5
I have something to add. Why is everyone forgetting that we have a Terrorist set to blow toDay? I've seen it mentioned a couple times, but we need to figure out a plan here. In my mind, it's clear that archangel's claim can't be true. Picking one target and then when that didn't work, being able to pick another target is just too unlikely. (Ed, maybe if you sent in your request again you could get a second chance at watching someone last night?) The question is now whether archangel is the terrorist. Is it possible that she made the bad claim late yesterday hoping to be lynched today? I'm leaving my vote on her for now, but I would consider waiting to lynch her tomorrow. No one else seems to be stepping up to be lynched today. If archangel is not the terrorist, where/who is he?
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:03:18 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 18:03:18 GMT -5
Ed is frustrating the hell out of me as well. I can see no pro-town reason not to dissect his "embarrassment" in minute detail for everyone to see and make our own decisions about. He seemed to be waiting for a response to something that didn't get sent appropriately. A little play by play on how we all got screwed out of the payload of his alleged power at a very inopportune moment with respect to archangel's hair-pulling-out play and testimony, would be greatly appreciated. Agreed.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:38:52 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:38:52 GMT -5
it's hard for me to believe you would forget to turn in your order about me. I didn't forget. I erred.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:39:56 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:39:56 GMT -5
Why didn't you jail someone toDay? Julie, I can only jail one person per day/night cycle (and I can choose which of those I want). Your comment yesterday about "Didn't you think of jailing the vig?" hit home. I tend to go crazy when I have a power and come out with these elaborate schemes to use them in an unorthodox way that don't work too well. You pointed out to me that there was a much simpler and more pro-town way of using it. Is it a Day/Night cycle or a Night/Day cycle? Is it a Night only power, or can you specify it's use during the Day too?
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:41:49 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:41:49 GMT -5
I guess it will continue to be a WiFom. I was going to suggest that you guys vote on a candidate for me to jail toNight or toMorrow so I can prove my power to you but I realized if we do that then scum will know I'm unprotected. I have no idea why Hawkeye handled the color differently this time than last time, unless it has to do with the fact that Stan was jailed during the DAY, which affected his ability to post in DAY, while HM was jailed during the NIGHT, while the rest of us aren't posting. She was able to post in the Night, but maybe that's just a strategy/fluff issue.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:42:21 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 18:42:21 GMT -5
it's hard for me to believe you would forget to turn in your order about me. I didn't forget. I erred. , Ed, what exactly do you mean by you failed to properly submit your request? You didn't send it in? You have to follow a specific format? Some more information please. I didn't send it to the moderator. Sounds like you forgot.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:44:03 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:44:03 GMT -5
My main beef with archangel's claim is the 'got to pick another target Night One because the first wasn't allowed'. It makes the role a combination of watcher/investigator (by targeting someone 'special') and if not special act as paranoid doctor (protect/blocker the allowed target) at Night or jailing someone for next Day (and apparently able to keep retargeting the same person every Day, effectively preventing them from participating). It's just too much, though I guess anything is possible. I find that odd as well. The part about picking someone, being told you couldn't, and then being able to pick again? Unless hawk failed to mention someone important to her about her role, which then led to some confusion about what she could or couldn't do, I dunno, but yeah, it's still weird. As for the retargeting. Maybe she can't retarget the same player multiple times. Again, I'd ask her not to specify either way, as to keep the WIFOM going. But then again, not knowing does leave a shadow over her in terms of what we believe she can and can't do. And why wouldn't she have been able to target stanislaus? Was he roleblocked? protected? It seems an odd coincidence, but possible, I suppose.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:46:14 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 31, 2009 18:46:14 GMT -5
If a player could pick acting in Day or Night, I would have thought it would be Day 2 or Night 2, then Day 3 or Night 3. Not Night 2 or Day 3. And not "Pick a player to jail until it works."
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:46:27 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:46:27 GMT -5
Ed is frustrating the hell out of me as well. I can see no pro-town reason not to dissect his "embarrassment" in minute detail for everyone to see and make our own decisions about. He seemed to be waiting for a response to something that didn't get sent appropriately. A little play by play on how we all got screwed out of the payload of his alleged power at a very inopportune moment with respect to archangel's hair-pulling-out play and testimony, would be greatly appreciated. Here's the situation. I thought I sent in my role PM. I saw Day started. I noted that I was waiting for my result. I PM'd Hawkeye Hawkeye informed me that he got no PM from me. I checked. I had sent the PM, but not to him. I notified the Town I wasn't getting a result. I was/am ashamed of my error. I am an idiot.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:47:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:47:47 GMT -5
(Ed, maybe if you sent in your request again you could get a second chance at watching someone last night?) That would be unfair. It would be as if allowing me to see how the Night unfolded before deciding on my Night action.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:49:22 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:49:22 GMT -5
I didn't forget. I erred. I didn't send it to the moderator. Sounds like you forgot. It's equivalent to forgetting. If you'd like to call it forgetting, I can live with that.
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:53:19 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 31, 2009 18:53:19 GMT -5
Can I ask who you did send it too?
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:53:54 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 31, 2009 18:53:54 GMT -5
Ed is frustrating the hell out of me as well. I can see no pro-town reason not to dissect his "embarrassment" in minute detail for everyone to see and make our own decisions about. <snip> Ed's posts: I'm still awaiting my results. Apparently I'm not getting a result from last Night. I was not blocked. I appear to have failed to properly submit my request. I'm quite embarrassed. I had intended to watch archangel instead of hockeymonkey as was suggested to me. I didn't send it to the moderator. Over six hours it went from: I'm waiting...oh I'm not getting...I didn't submit it properly....oh right, I didn't send it at all Can I call you an idiot? :-)
|
|
|
Day 3
Jul 31, 2009 18:54:56 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 31, 2009 18:54:56 GMT -5
Ed is frustrating the hell out of me as well. I can see no pro-town reason not to dissect his "embarrassment" in minute detail for everyone to see and make our own decisions about. <snip> Ed's posts: I didn't send it to the moderator. Over six hours it went from: I'm waiting...oh I'm not getting...I didn't submit it properly....oh right, I didn't send it at all Can I call you an idiot? :-) yes, please
|
|