Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 5:11:15 GMT -5
As we IMO need to get rid of Hockey Monkey before endgame, so it now seems we also have to deal with Charr.
I'm not happy about the situation. It's one more of those situations that makes me want to call out for a Town Vig to shoot. But as have been discussed before we don't seem to have that option in this game.
Charr to get rid of the dead weight.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 5:12:55 GMT -5
Is it me, or did the amount of meatchunks lazing about increase somewhere around day four? I mean - we get some people in to wagon on someone - say Crazypunker or Inner but right now it feels like the threads have slowed to a craw. Day 3 was slower than day 2, but that was nothing compared to the snails pace that day 4 crawled along at. Now we're in day five and there's barely a page 3. I don't disagree at all. But even though not many is posting like crazy it's still okay for you to re-read and present to the lazy what you find. I understand frustration - but to help speed things up you could go and present a case on who you find scummy and why
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 5:54:20 GMT -5
NAF - Night Zero1 post #91 Behind already but will try and keep up + disagree with Rysto re. mass claim-discussions: You have to start to get people to share as quickly as possible or town will never get anywhere
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 5:56:40 GMT -5
NAF - Day One8 posts #20 Moving on to my semi traditional opening salvo: so, how about that mass claim idea that we talked about on Night 0? Who's for it, who's against it and why? #42 Don't know how he feels about a mass claim, but pro information + discuss EDII + mafia is numbers vs information. #59 comments on Ed's post that mafia isn't just numbers vs information. To find Scum you need to gather information about other players + Towns assets are 1. Power roles, 2. lynch/vig, 3. numbers. #79 responds to Ed that Town has to "buy" information using risk and communication as currency + asks peek what part of the argument he didn't follow or agree with. #108 explains to peeker why he thinks holding on to information too long can be a bad thing + masons should claim Day 3 and Cop when he has 2 useful investigations + it is the nature of the game that, if town does nothing, it will always move from a position of strength to one of weakness. The only way to halt that move is to gather information. #135 responds to Suburban Plankton's vote for NAF ( based on him asking but not giving an opinion) with a "I guess it's fair" + What would you like to get my opinion on? I'm an open book, I just haven't had a lot of time to play + hasn't posted much and followed a single conversation thread #188 Work sucks + think the Pleo lynch is a bad idea + will vote soon #202 don't want to end Day without a vote + will go with Ed and vote for the non participant + votes Paranoia
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 7:05:45 GMT -5
NAF - Day Two 25 posts #23 1)Still not happy with Paranoia + votes Parinoia + 2) Texcat vote on Total Ullz is dumb because I never vote Day 1 + 3)The masons should claim #24 Expands his point on Paranoia that non participation is one thing but his behavior when he did come back is what I am finding suspicious now #32 It sucks to be a shoe hater (aimed at Story's claim). #35 bread-crumbers often get killed + But this goes back to my Day 1 point about my belief that transperant play is generally the best play for town #41 @ Texcat I would much rather a person not participate than participate in such a way that they cause more confusion had they done nothing at all + @ StoryDoes your hatred of shoes make you feel the need to vote them off the island, or would answering that break the first rule of fight club? + @ Charr do you have any opinions on that paragraph? Can you even follow that? #42 Actually, can anyone follow what I was trying to say at the end of my last post? #46 elaborates on his theory that Charr's vote might have been forced by a vote buyer + Story then comes in talking about hating shoes. He didn't mention this before toDay so my feeling is that he probably acquired the condition that caused the shoe hatred in the Night or start of the Day, recently at any rate. + hope players from old times understood him #49 hoping Story understood #50 asking Rysto about the bah reference #54 @ Suburban Plankton Are you still confused by me or just generally? #55 @ Sister Coyote also thought bah meant being displeased #66 @ Suburban Plankton he is testing a hypothesis by asking Charr and Story #67 possible explanations for Charr's vote: 1. is taking the piss or 2. is being forced to vote + tie in with Story because story's restriction is the only one we know of + that's why he is asking them #71 missed Charr's post in the Night thread + Charr, what say you? + @ Metallic Squinkwe don't know if Story has a posting restriction but saying shoes is often code for a posting restriction #81 on the same side with Peeker in their view that breadcrumb often isn't the best play for Town #105 So...Charr came back with an explanation that makes no sense and puts the final nail in the coffin of my hypothesis (it would have been sweet to have gotten that right though.) and story has a restriction that isn't actually a posting restriction but is another restriction of some sort. + still feel Charr is more likely town than scum + good with his vote #113 don't think we should hunt for third party or PFK before we have bagged at least a few scum first #145 agrees with Renata views on Story with It's something to notice, but there isn't anything to be done with it yet. #151 Ah Paranoia, how do you make me like my vote. Let me count the ways. : 1. smudgy posting, 2. focus on loud players and push the lynch of Pleo, 3. detect attempt to breadcrumb an investigating role, 4. accuse NAF of not participating while doing it himself, 5. taking NAF's posts out of context, 6.only pop into the thread just enough to save your own ass + Scum often think they are an easy lynch because they are guilty + based on his play so far I think Charr is town + Paranoia looks like he is getting coached + don't understand why Paranoia didn't vote #208 is confused about Metallic Squink comment that she can claim different things #209 Also Paranoia. I promise I will respond to your very long post in response to my very long post...but I can't right now.#215 God this has got to be the strangest early Day in the history of our mafia group. #218 OoG-talk regarding smudge #225 Hey story, with no posting restriction, why not just tell us your vote restriction? #235 responds to Renata regarding indication of being scum + Charr's post is not an indication of his being scum, it is an indication of him not knowing what he is doing which in this case makes it more likely that he is town.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 8:07:07 GMT -5
NAF - Day 34 posts #21 lot of information since he last checked in + looking at Maha's lynch will be very instructive + going to start drawing up a list #141 Headcold and will catch up #163 In the case of claiming scotsman I believe that the accepted play is to lynch the claimant anyway since it won't be a mislynch if he is telling the truth. + votes crazypunker
#182 I wouldn't be voting for him if the case wasn't compelling to begin with, but at least part of my vote is testing his claim. The scotsman claim has everything to do with it. Had he claimed cop or doc or some other role I would likely have not voted for him, but scotsman is testable. + What are you trying to accomplish here guiri?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 7, 2011 8:36:38 GMT -5
I appreciate the effort to review NAF's posts; I need all the help I can get. I thought I remembered another post and went back to look and found on page 1 on day 3: There is a lot of information that has come out since the last time I checked the thread, and I feel like there are connections to be made...but I have a wicked head cold and everything is just out of my reach. I think looking at Maha's lynch will be very instructive. We can probably confirm, or semi confirm, a couple of people based on that (sort of what SP said in the post above). I am going to start trying to draw up a list...or something. See if I can't start seeing some connections. Any reason to omit this post, CIAS? It seems odd to me now that we know NAF was also scum. Was he paving the way to build town cred for a fellow scum based on the Mahaloth lynch? And if so whom? I don't think he ever followed up on this post. The voters on Mahaloth were me, Sister(D1&2), Guiri(D1&2), Blockey, and BillMc (and MHaye D1). The other possibilities are the people who attacked Mahaloth on night zero for his help out roles remark. Those from memory were Ed and Pleo. (Or were there others?) This was one thing I was trying to figure out. My guess is that NAF1138 was going to build cred for a scum buddy based on how the EOD2 voting went. But it may be possible to also semi-confirm a couple of people as non-scum as he didn't follow up on it. So I guess the only thing to do is go back and look over it again and try and draw my own conclusions.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 7, 2011 9:44:13 GMT -5
Sorry Charr, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on your posting habits because you were a noob. It seems we've runned off another one. If there are to be no subs or mod kills we have to jettison the dead weight ourselves.
vote Charr
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 7, 2011 10:00:01 GMT -5
Vote Count
charr (4): peekercpa [11], paranoia [42], cookies [86], hockey monkey [97]
storyteller (2): mr ed [21], renata [54]
catinasuit (1): guiri [41]
crazypunker (1): brewha [44]
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 7, 2011 10:13:20 GMT -5
Grrr - was that because I forgot to write
VOTE: Charr
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 7, 2011 10:24:00 GMT -5
<OOG> www.idlemafia.com appears to have stopped responding </OOG> Trying to get this down before I lose it again. Voting for Day 2 all dates and times in English GMT End time is midnight 11/12 - 12/12. #16 7/12 16:06 texcat vote Total Ulla #22 7/12 16:54 NAF1138 vote paranoia #27 7/12 17:38 Mister B vote charr #31 7/12 18:40 BillMc vote charr #100 8/12 16:08 SP vote paranoia #107 8/12 18:21 HM vote rysto #108 8/12 21:37 squink vote paranoia #109 8/12 21:59 guiri vote mahaloth #110 8/12 22:54 charr vote paranoia - is not correctly stated, so does not count #115 8/12 23:58 peekercpa vote storyteller So at the end of Page 4: paranoia is the leader in the votes, with charr second
#124 9/12 10:55 cias vote storyteller #140 9/12 16:00 Mister B unvote charr #160 9/12 21:27 renata vote HM #169 10/12 08:11 cookies vote cias #176 10/12 13:30 total ulla vote squink #177 10/12 13:35 paranoia vote NAF #178 10/12 13:48 mahaloth vote charr #185 10/12 16:04 texcat unvote total ulla #188 10/12 16:35 mr ed vote squink #194 10/12 16:54 brewha vote squink #199 10/12 18:07 squink unote paranoia / vote brewha #223 10/12 20:06 total ulla unvote squink End of Page 8: paranoia, storyteller and charr are tied with paranoia being lynched. #242 10/12 23:56 mr ed unvote squink / vote storyteller (storyteller now has most votes) #244 11/12 00:17 punker vote cookies #248 11/12 04:41 texcat vote mahaloth #255 11/12 14:30 punker unvote cookies #256 11/12 14:49 total ulla vote HM #264 11/12 16:11 billmc unvote charr / vote HM So with about 8 hours left, storyteller and HM are tied on 3 with storyteller to be lynched #266 11/12 17:54 sister coyote vote mahaloth 6 hours left: storyteller, HM and Mahaloth are tied on 3 with storyteller to be lynched #269 11/12 19:47 mahaloth unvote charr / vote storyteller #270 11/12 19:48 mahaloth unvotet story / vote HM 4 hours left: HM is now in front on 4 votes #276 11/12 20:56 punker vote HM 3 hours left: HM is now in front on 5 votes #286 11/12 21:57 rysto vote squink 2 hours left: HM still on 5 votes #300 11/12 23:25 MisterB vote mahaloth 35 mins left: HM still on 5 votes, mahaloth (4) #301 11/12 23:55 billmc unvote HM / vote Mahaloth 5 mins left: Mahaloth lynched with 5 votes, HM (4)
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 7, 2011 11:20:13 GMT -5
Some thoughts on the voting. Reversing back down the votes.
1. At the time BillMC switched, Mahaloth was safe unless someone on HM actually switched votes as BillMC did. Otherwise it would have required two votes to lynch Mahaloth.
2. Mister B's vote on Mahaloth didn't change anything other than give an opportunity and put down a marker.
Q for Mister B: Why did you vote Mahaloth as you hadn't mentioned him at all in any of your previous posts in the game. Was it purely his last minute vote change?
3. I would guess that Punker's vote should have been enough for a lycnh as it put HM 2 clear with 3 hours left. As we know with hindsight, it wasn't.
4. Mahaloths strange voting pattern. If he hadn't voted, I would hazard a guess that he would not have been lynched. voting storyteller, put ST on 4, HM and M on 3. It appears he didn't realise it was a three-way and voted to save his own skin as anyone would do.
What I don't understand is why he then unvoted and voted for HM straight after. By the way the voting works, it means HM is the first to four votes and would be lynched if either ST or M gets another vote.
The question bugging me is: why switch votes like that?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Jan 7, 2011 11:33:21 GMT -5
One last thing looking through the votes, Mahaloth #178 made an interesting vote choice between charr and storyteller.
I'm undecided on lynching charr atm, so I will be sticking with the case against crazypunker. I think it is more likely he is scum.
vote crazypunker
I still don't trust storyteller, but it now appears that what I thought post restriction means is not what I think it means.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 7, 2011 11:35:55 GMT -5
I don't like the bandwagon on charr; he may have left the board, but that doesn't mean he's a good lynch. In fact, at this point, a lynch of charr does us absolutely no good and doesn't even garner us any useful information.
I'm going to poke crazypunker with a stick again; I've been and played a Scum Strongman myself, and the lack of reveal in conjunction with the play that was enough to get him lynched in the first place -- though not uncommon -- is bothering me more than a little bit.
Vote: crazypunker
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 12:43:10 GMT -5
Disclaimer, I'm not quite sure what the vote count actually is, and I'm under some time contraints here at work
I can't believe that we'd be heading towards lynching a non-participant when we have:
2 players who have claimed post restrictions despite the moderator denying the existance of post restrictions
and
1 player making a claim of 3rd party that just doesn't seem quite right
I haven't been on board with the lynch of crazypunker toDay, but CIAS' vote analysis makes me more comfortable with a vote for him. However, even if he were to flip Scum, it doesn't really make me comfortable with HM.
Unvote: storyteller Vote: crazypunker
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 7, 2011 13:30:58 GMT -5
Vote Count
charr (5): peekercpa [11], paranoia [42], cookies [86], hockey monkey [97], ullz [99]
crazypunker (4): brewha [44], catinasuit [102], sister coyote [103], mr ed [104]
storyteller (1): mr ed [21-104], renata [54]
catinasuit (1): guiri [41]
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 7, 2011 13:38:15 GMT -5
yeh, the board is acting wonky for me as well.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 7, 2011 13:40:31 GMT -5
the previous post was in reply to cias post #100.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 7, 2011 14:05:32 GMT -5
2 players who have claimed post restrictions despite the moderator denying the existance of post restrictions Again -- I think the fundamental disconnect here is whether or not "you can post anything" is equivalent to "you can post anything in any fashion you wish despite what your role PM says." Of course, there's no way of knowing until we know, which won't be until I die and flip exactly as I've told you I'm going to.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 7, 2011 15:20:23 GMT -5
I can't believe that we'd be heading towards lynching a non-participant when we have: <snipped> i think you are being awful generous in your chacterization. i mean i would not call it "non partipant". i mean apparantly not only has this person abandoned the game apparantly they have abandoned the entire board. and if not now, when? or would your suggestion be just to let him hang around until the end of the game. charr is effectively reducing the pool that scum need to shoot at. additionally town's power in having votes has effectively reduced by one. this assumes that charr is town. and if he happens to be scum who's to say he doesn't re-pop at an inopportune time. i mean that type of play would be crappy at best but if town is not going to punish "non participants" then not playing becomes a viable stategy.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 7, 2011 16:00:26 GMT -5
Sorry I haven't been very active. I went on a 3 day skiing trip and when I got back the board was acting funny. I'll look over what has happened recently and give my opinion on it.
for now I am voting Charr
I agree with what has been said. I don't think people should be able to not play and still live to the end of the game.
His posts before he left were pretty ridiculous as well.
I will be back with opinions and I may change my vote, but at least I have one on record in case the site starts acting up again.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 7, 2011 17:27:59 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm a bit gunshy about dead-weight players after the Dark Knights game, but [...] to get rid of the dead weight. If there are to be no subs or mod kills we have to jettison the dead weight ourselves. I agree with what has been said. I don't think people should be able to not play and still live to the end of the game. Is the main reason you guys are voting Charr his abandoment of the game? While his apparent decision to delete his account is extremely anti-town and anti-game, it gives no indication of his alignment at this stage of the game and, inmho, indicates a greater chance that he's non-scum. Are we in such a comfortable position that we can afford to use up a lynch on a player who is potentially Town and whose lynch will provide almost no information? Do you really have no-one scummier to vote for toDay so we can leave charr for later when we're really stuck with no decent leads? Please consider join me in voting CIAS. I think he's scum and the fact that he appears to have just started playing the game toDay just reinforces my suspicions. Or, at the very least, Total, Cookies and Hockey, consider moving your vote to crazy who was scummy enough for you to lynch on Day 3. I can't believe that we'd be heading towards lynching a non-participant when we have: 2 players who have claimed post restrictions despite the moderator denying the existance of post restrictions and 1 player making a claim of 3rd party that just doesn't seem quite right I haven't been on board with the lynch of crazypunker toDay, but CIAS' vote analysis makes me more comfortable with a vote for him. However, even if he were to flip Scum, it doesn't really make me comfortable with HM. I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing as I am but this post is unclear. You can't believe we're going to lynch a non-participant when there are two possible liars and a 3rd party alive but then you vote crazypunker based on some reasoning provided by CIAS which I'm unable to find?
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 18:01:05 GMT -5
I can't believe that we'd be heading towards lynching a non-participant when we have: <snipped> i think you are being awful generous in your chacterization. i mean i would not call it "non partipant". i mean apparantly not only has this person abandoned the game apparantly they have abandoned the entire board. and if not now, when? or would your suggestion be just to let him hang around until the end of the game. charr is effectively reducing the pool that scum need to shoot at. additionally town's power in having votes has effectively reduced by one. this assumes that charr is town. and if he happens to be scum who's to say he doesn't re-pop at an inopportune time. i mean that type of play would be crappy at best but if town is not going to punish "non participants" then not playing becomes a viable stategy. Not now, when we have viable suspects who could take anti-Town actions. If Charr is Scum, they're effectively crippled. Let's find the other ones while we have the advantage. If Charr is Town, we're killing dead weight, but we're reducing our number with no gain in information from the lynch. It's a policy lynch. It's not worth it. I can do the maths, if you'd like
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 18:04:10 GMT -5
I can't believe that we'd be heading towards lynching a non-participant when we have: 2 players who have claimed post restrictions despite the moderator denying the existance of post restrictions and 1 player making a claim of 3rd party that just doesn't seem quite right I haven't been on board with the lynch of crazypunker toDay, but CIAS' vote analysis makes me more comfortable with a vote for him. However, even if he were to flip Scum, it doesn't really make me comfortable with HM. I'm not sure if you're saying the same thing as I am but this post is unclear. You can't believe we're going to lynch a non-participant when there are two possible liars and a 3rd party alive but then you vote crazypunker based on some reasoning provided by CIAS which I'm unable to find? Scroll up, reply 100
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Jan 7, 2011 18:27:12 GMT -5
I read the post but can't see what you found in that vote analysis that made you more comfortable with a crazypunker vote. What new information did Cias's post add to the existing thoughts on crazy's vote for Hockey or which of his conclusions influenced your decision to vote?
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 18:36:55 GMT -5
I read the post but can't see what you found in that vote analysis that made you more comfortable with a crazypunker vote. What new information did Cias's post add to the existing thoughts on crazy's vote for Hockey or which of his conclusions influenced your decision to vote? It's not damning, but he placed a security vote on HM to help preserve Mahaloth. Mahaloth's own vote had made it HM 4 Maha 3 story 3 punkers made that lead a little more solid When I looked at the vote post, I remembered that he'd ID'd either HM or story as a claimed power role too. Which was odd, though not damning. So as of now it's a tie between hockey and storyI will vote HockeyMonkeyfor a few reasons: I feel like he was pushing too hard for a case that was not there against Brewha
Besides his case against Brewha he hasn't added anything to any other discussions I don't want to test a town power role claim right now.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Jan 7, 2011 19:13:38 GMT -5
You know, Charr was scummy for *several* days leading up to him just flat out abandoning the boards. if we're leave him alone simply because he is now dead weight and this is now a policy lynch....
That basically does send a point to the scum that Peeker just pointed out - they can just inactive lurk their way to endgame while we just spend our time shooting at active participants in discussion.
Ullz: Honestly, after my track record this game I think I'm feeling a bit frazzled. The only case I prevented so far that has been slightly successful in finding scum was my giant rants at NAF, and those didn't even do much in killing him off I suspect - at the moment I think I may feel better sitting back and supplementing cases I find have merit rather than build my own at the moment as I am *seriously* doubting my own abilities.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 19:21:38 GMT -5
You know, Charr was scummy for *several* days leading up to him just flat out abandoning the boards. if we're leave him alone simply because he is now dead weight and this is now a policy lynch.... That basically does send a point to the scum that Peeker just pointed out - they can just inactive lurk their way to endgame while we just spend our time shooting at active participants in discussion. Ullz: Honestly, after my track record this game I think I'm feeling a bit frazzled. The only case I prevented so far that has been slightly successful in finding scum was my giant rants at NAF, and those didn't even do much in killing him off I suspect - at the moment I think I may feel better sitting back and supplementing cases I find have merit rather than build my own at the moment as I am *seriously* doubting my own abilities. Firs off, don't doubt your abilities. Isn't there a parable about people hiding their laterns under a blanket or something? In any case, aside from my stellar mafia record (19 wins, 31 losses) I don't shy away from presenting my best cases, even though I'm usually wrong. Secondly, I agree that letting a suspicious Charr skate through to endgame would be a poor move. I just think we should take advantage of the other suspicious people who are currently active. Who knows what might change in thee Days to come. An investigator might have a result on Charr. If it comes back Town, that removes a hiding place from the Scum. Or maybe something else might take care of him for us. I doubt there's a Vig, but maybe there's another mechanism. In any case, let's deal with him when we truly don't have anything else to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 7, 2011 19:46:10 GMT -5
You know, Charr was scummy for *several* days leading up to him just flat out abandoning the boards. if we're leave him alone simply because he is now dead weight and this is now a policy lynch.... That basically does send a point to the scum that Peeker just pointed out - they can just inactive lurk their way to endgame while we just spend our time shooting at active participants in discussion. Ullz: Honestly, after my track record this game I think I'm feeling a bit frazzled. The only case I prevented so far that has been slightly successful in finding scum was my giant rants at NAF, and those didn't even do much in killing him off I suspect - at the moment I think I may feel better sitting back and supplementing cases I find have merit rather than build my own at the moment as I am *seriously* doubting my own abilities. Firs off, don't doubt your abilities. Isn't there a parable about people hiding their laterns under a blanket or something? In any case, aside from my stellar mafia record (19 wins, 31 losses) I don't shy away from presenting my best cases, even though I'm usually wrong. Secondly, I agree that letting a suspicious Charr skate through to endgame would be a poor move. I just think we should take advantage of the other suspicious people who are currently active. Who knows what might change in thee Days to come. An investigator might have a result on Charr. If it comes back Town, that removes a hiding place from the Scum. Or maybe something else might take care of him for us. I doubt there's a Vig, but maybe there's another mechanism. In any case, let's deal with him when we truly don't have anything else to deal with. and ed please don't do the maths but .... i understand where you are coming from but i just don't agree. and this may be a poor analogy but here goes. say you get home from work friday night and the missus gives you a list of 5 honey-dos that need to be completed before monday morning. one of which is mandatory and the others are close but not mandatory. wouldn't you like to knock off the mandatory one before friday is over. i mean it's not it's going away. it's gotta be addressed. and certainly there are other candidates for lynching toDay. all i know is there is also some uncertainty regarding what we should do with some of them. however, there is a mandatory individual that has to be dealt with. putting it off doesn't make it go away.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 7, 2011 21:10:22 GMT -5
i understand where you are coming from but i just don't agree. and this may be a poor analogy but here goes. say you get home from work friday night and the missus gives you a list of 5 honey-dos that need to be completed before monday morning. one of which is mandatory and the others are close but not mandatory. wouldn't you like to knock off the mandatory one before friday is over. i mean it's not it's going away. it's gotta be addressed. and certainly there are other candidates for lynching toDay. all i know is there is also some uncertainty regarding what we should do with some of them. however, there is a mandatory individual that has to be dealt with. putting it off doesn't make it go away. to use your analogy. I agree, but in my mind the list looks like this: 1. Must do: Visit mother-in-law 2. Fix drain pipe that appears like it might explode and leak sewage all over the basement at any time. 3. Have inspector over to check gas smell near furnace. 4. Repair section of roof that blew off in the storm. Yeah, maybe visiting the mother-in-law can wait until Sunday evening.
|
|