|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 14, 2011 18:01:34 GMT -5
guiri. the post to natlaw was intended to accomplish two things. first, was to call into question the blindness that was being exhibited about lynching based on some sort of fracking "breadcrumbing" that ren had been engaged in. while secondly "breadcrumbing" that i knew that natlaw didn't kill pinkies because i fucking had. now in retrospect i should have claimed yesterDay. most likely that would have led to natlaw's lynch and my subsequent kill of lazy which i most assuredly have carried out last Night.
and i stand by my post about ren. if she had a result on a visitor to a Night death i am convinced that she would have shared it. seriously, she has got to be getting close to being one of the last town power roles left and better to spill than go to your grave with nothing out there. the fact that she flipped from lazy to law and then back to lazy pretty much cinched the deal that she didn't have a result on either of them.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 14, 2011 18:38:47 GMT -5
Vote: Natlaw [/color] I'll start with this: 1. Because I thought you (Natlaw) were scummy before you claimed. 2. Because your claim conveniently allows you to not kill to prove your ability, via the "GREATER POWER". Then I will remind folks of this: Nextly, I am skeptical as hell of this: This is bad. I targeted naturallylazy so with a scum redirector dead that means most likely there is a third party/pfk one. And also my concern as expressed here: Natlaw (and CIAS): Two quotes, here, both CIAS arguments that raise the same question for me. This kind of thing is pinging me and I cannot put my finger on why. Natlaw, why did you not just unvote Bobarrgh, but also tell him that he doesn't have to claim? 3. Natlaw - I looked over Natlaw's posts on Day 3 and nothing seemed that wrong with them, but I still don't like the "you don't have to claim now" post he did for bobarrgh. On the one hand, Bob is a newish player and thus I could see offering him advice when he's said he's not sure what to do. On the other hand...if Bob was in danger, and he was a Town Power, why discourage him from claiming? Also, there is still the issue of Scum Mahaloth tying Natlaw to Town timmy; yeah, it's a hell of a lot of WIFOM but I think we do have to factor it in when considering Natlaw's actions. So. I hesitated a long time about unvoting you when you claimed, Natlaw, and now I think that may have been the wrong maneuver. Somehow, I suspect you're coming at us all with something a lot deadlier than a banana. Also, regarding the Mass Claim -- I do not like them, Sam-I-Am, and in thinking about it I like this particular suggestion even less. What are you looking for? 4. There is no reason for a SK to claim today, as far as I can tell. Well, other than the fact that Town would like to know who they are, so we can eventually take care of the threat they present; probably in the final act and rather messily. mod edited to prevent eyestrain
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Mar 14, 2011 18:39:32 GMT -5
Oh, look. Eenie weenie eyestrain-o-vision.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 14, 2011 19:48:21 GMT -5
Kills so far, per day: Night 1 : 2 kills ( Timmy and Paranoia) Night 2 : 1 kill ( Plankton) Night 3 : no kill Night 4 : 2 kills ( bunny and Pinkies) Night 5 : 2 kills ( Renata and Sinjin) Night 6 : 2 kills ( Cookies and texcat) Natlaw claims the Pinkies kill, while peeker claims Pinkies, Sinjin and texcat. Natlaw's claimed actions: N1: No kill because he had no good target (D5 #105) N2: Targeted natlazy for failing to vote on D1 & D2, but she didn't die (D5 #105) N3: Targeted Hockey Monkey for low participation (hesitated between her and Capt Pinkies). HM didn't die either (D5 #105) N4: Targeted Pinkies because he would have had 2 final votes (D5 #105). Pinkies died. N5: Targeted natlazy. She didn't die. (D6 #8) N6: Targeted no one to prevent a scum redirection (toDay #11) peeker's claimed actions: N1: targeted no one N2: targeted no one N3: targeted no one N4: Targeted Pinkies, who died. N5: Targeted Sinjin, for inactivity. She died (toDay #16) N6: Targeted texcat because he felt that texcat contributed less than others (today #16). texcat died. Things that bugs me: 1) If he's telling the truth, Natlaw's "greater power" doesn't make sense. If someone was validating his kills, we would know about it by now. I also thought that it could be Scum controlled, but they would not have refused the N2, N3, N5 kills because natlazy and Idle are now known to be Town (aka Scums would take a free kill). If there's no greater power, I can see how this claim could have been an attempt to get the real vig to claim. I mean, stating that his kills didn't work on N2 & N3 isn't hard to do, if you have an alibi (the greater power), but the N4 kill worked - why? Because he wanted the real vigilante to come out? I can see a Natlaw Scum making this play, with a tally of Natlaw 6, everyone else 1 (or zero). There wasn't much to lose. 2) As guiri wrote, why didn't peeker kill Natlaw after he posted his role PM, and claimed the Pinkies kill for himself? If he was convinced that Natlaw was lying, then he should have killed him immediately. Natlaw claimed on D5 (#105) so peeker would have vigged Sinjin on Night 5, then texcat on Night 6. These two before Natlaw? Does it make sense? NOTE: I posted the same thing on D5... I replied in the wrong thread while reading D5 (I guess). Sorry Aren't these threads supposed to be locked?
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 14, 2011 20:40:44 GMT -5
NOTE: I posted the same thing on D5... I replied in the wrong thread while reading D5 (I guess). Sorry Aren't these threads supposed to be locked? They aren't locked. Keeping them open allows someone to use the "quote' button to copy and paste a post into a current thread. Scene 6 was temporarily locked because I didn't want anyone posting in there not realizing the Day had ended early.
|
|
Romola
Mome Rath
One of them saw two words of the joke and spent several weeks in hospital.
Posts: 107
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Romola on Mar 14, 2011 20:53:08 GMT -5
Vote Natlaw because Peeker's claim makes more sense, the breadcrumbing fits, as does his vote record, which I believe goes, scum, scum, scum, pfk, Natlaw, hammer candidate.
|
|
|
Post by special on Mar 14, 2011 20:55:21 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 4 days, 14 hours and 4 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] Natlaw (3) (3 35) Red Skeezix [6], Sister Coyote [31], romola [35] Not Voting (6) Merestil Haye, CatInASuit, peekercpa, guiri, Natlaw, Romanic With these votes, Natlaw would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 14, 2011 21:14:28 GMT -5
2) As guiri wrote, why didn't peeker kill Natlaw after he posted his role PM, and claimed the Pinkies kill for himself? If he was convinced that Natlaw was lying, then he should have killed him immediately. Natlaw claimed on D5 (#105) so peeker would have vigged Sinjin on Night 5, then texcat on Night 6. These two before Natlaw? Does it make sense? <snipped> why should i have killed him immediately? he was actively engaged in the game. he was participating. i have espoused this more times than i can count. i participate in this endeavor because it provides me enjoyment and entertainment. that entertainment comes from engagment. if i would have killed natlaw as you seem to feel i should have then i would have missed this nugget: ...(and I bet peeker flips as "Fluffy White Bunny with nasty, big, pointy teeth .... <snipped> which struck my funny bone, made me chuckle and perhaps is a bit freudian to boot. but now since we seem to have eliminated most, maybe not all, of the non participants i guess it is time to put the big boy pants back on. vote natlawand it's too bad that cookies got killed. after the mason/tracker/watcher/batcave hoorahrah i'm sure she'd have some real choice words for me.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 14, 2011 21:29:40 GMT -5
why should i have killed him immediately? he was actively engaged in the game. he was participating. i have espoused this more times than i can count. i participate in this endeavor because it provides me enjoyment and entertainment. that entertainment comes from engagment. if i would have killed natlaw as you seem to feel i should have then i would have missed this nugget: I get the idea that a vigilante should kill some players if they are not participating, but at some point you have to deviate from this strategy and target scummy players. In this case, you are saying that you knew Natlaw was lying about killing Pinkies, but you chose to let him live because... he was participating and killing him would spoil your entertainment!? So you waited two days, and now you're telling everyone that Natlaw is a liar? Revealing yourself as a vigilante, instead of killing him?
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 14, 2011 21:32:10 GMT -5
i believe that i called bullshit the second he claimed.
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Mar 14, 2011 21:44:19 GMT -5
Actually it took you 4 posts and 6 hours to do that, peeker. hey, nat any reason lazy and hm/idle are still alive? i think what he must be referring to is the fact that the Nights last between x and y number of hours. i guess i'd ask nat is that what you are inferring to be the case or do you have information that is how in fact your power works? hey, nat would you mind posting your pm's to the mods regarding your kill choices? btw, in case anyone left is obtuse as a box of tinny* rocks i think natlaw is full of bugger*. But you indeed stated that you thought he was full of it. Then what? You are expecting me to believe that you waited 2 days, killing Sinjin and texcat, instead of Natlaw? And then endanger yourself, with a public roleclaim, instead of simply taking care of him at night?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 5:57:32 GMT -5
I believe this is accurate.
Day 1 Voting.
KidVermicious (5)(5 405) Renata [350], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [360], Sister Coyote [361], guiri [389], Suburban Plankton [405]
timmy (5)(5 436) Red Skeezix [310], Captain Pinkies [335], Hockey Monkey [380], Natlaw [408], CatInASuit [436]
bobarrgh (3)(4 247) Natlaw [213 397], guiri [238 282], Renata [241 256], texcat [247], sinjin [273], harmless little bunny [330]
harmless little bunny (2)(6 346) Renata [141 156], Romanic [164 366], Suburban Plankton [186 358], Sister Coyote [260 359], peekercpa [263], bobarrgh [286], KidVermicious [346 382] sinjin (2)(2 295) Paranoia [174], romola [295]
Captain Pinkies (1)(1 252) timmy[252] guiri (1)(1 290) Mahaloth [290] Sister Coyote (1)(1 366) Romanic [366]
Mahaloth (0)(6 282) Red Skeezix [153 309], Renata [156 241 256 341], harmless little bunny [168 330], KidVermicious [271 303], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies [281 325], guiri [282 322] CatInASuit (0)(4 139) Romola [113 283], sinjin [128 273], harmless little bunny [131 168], Mahaloth [139 160] Hockey Monkey (0)(1 140) Renata [140,141]
Not voting (4) Merestil Haye, naturallylazy, pedescribe, KidVermicious
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 2 Voting.
Mahaloth (8) (8 192) harmless little bunny [3], peeker [163], Suburban Plankton [167], pedescribe [180], romola [182], guiri [184], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [187], bobarrgh [192]
ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (5)(5 203) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151 192], Mahaloth [178], sinjin [194], Merestil Haye [203]
Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] Merestil Haye (1) (1 188) Natlaw [188] naturallylazy (1) (1 201) Red Skeezix [201]
pedescribe (0)(2 179) Natlaw [169 188], Merestil Haye [179,203] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111] Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72] texcat (0)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131 187]
Not Voting (3) Captain Pinkies, Hockey Monkey, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 3 Voting.
Bobarrgh (15) (15 146) Sister Coyote [12], Romanic [30], Renata [31], CatInASuit [50], guiri [52], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [59], pedescribe [83], Red Skeezix [101], Hockey Monkey [102], peekercpa [104], Merestil Haye [113], harmless little bunny [127], Romola [132], sinjin [140], natlaw [146]
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0)
Romanic (0) (1 42) pedescribe [42 83]
Not Voting (4) Captain Pinkies, bobarrgh, texcat, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 4 Voting.
pedescribe (13) (13 138) Renata [22 78], Sister Coyote [41], Romanic [52], CatInASuit [59], guiri [64], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [82], Red Skeezix [84], peekercpa [99], romola [102], Merestil Haye [120], Natlaw [122], sinjin [123], texcat [128], Idle Thoughts [138]
Captain Pinkies (1) (1 0) Romanic (1) (1 17) pedescribe [17] naturallylazy (1) (1 78) Renata [78]
Natlaw (0) (1 80) Red Skeezix [80 84]
Not Voting (3) Captain Pinkies, harmless little bunny, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 5 Voting.
Idle Thoughts (4) (5 152) romanic [76], guiri [115], Red Skeezix [119], Merestil Haye [148], romola [152 157] naturallylazy (4) (4 146) Renata [4 62 112], Natlaw [120], Sister Coyote [146]
Natlaw (3) (6 98) Red Skeezix [52 119], CatInASuit [59], peekercpa [60], Renata [62 112], Sister Coyote [63 146], guiri [98 115], ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [134], romola [157, 158]
Renata (1) (1 28) Idle thoughts [28] Red Skeezix (1) (1 45) Natlaw [45 120], romola [164]
Romola (0) (1 51) Sister Coyote [51 63]
Not Voting (3) sinjin, texcat, naturallylazy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Day 6 Voting.
naturallylazy (12) (12 51) texcat [5], Natlaw [8], Sister Coyote [9], Red Skeezix [10], Romanic [12], guiri [17], Romola [19], CatInASuit [29], Merestil Haye [44], peekercpa [47], naturallylazy [51]
Natlaw (1) (2 27) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [20], peekercpa [27 28]
romola (0) (1 28) peekercpa [28 47]
Not Voting (0)
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 6:11:17 GMT -5
Alive: 5. Merestil Haye 3. CatInASuit (BillMc) 4. peekercpa 6. Sister Coyote 8. Romola 15. Romanic 20. guiri 23. Natlaw 24. Red Skeezix
Town: 1. KidVermicious, Sir Galahad, Archangel 2. Renata, King Arthur, Tracker 7. Captain Pinkies, Hiccoughing Guard, Vanilla 9. sinjin, Witch, Vanilla 10. Paranoia, Prince Herbert, Questioner/Investigator 11. Idle Thoughts (Hockey Monkey), Patsy, Vanilla 14. texcat, Dennis the annoying peasant, Vanilla 17. Suburban Plankton, Sir Robin, Paranoid Doc 18. timmy, Frank the Historian, Vanilla 19. naturallylazy, Sir Not Appearing in this Film, Vanilla 22. harmless little bunny, Sir Bedevere, Watcher
Scum: 13. bobarrgh, Dead Collector, Scum Toughguy 16. Mahaloth, Dingo, Redirector
3rd Party: 12. ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, The Black Knight, Survivor 21. pedescribe, The Spanish Inquisition, Mad Bomber
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 15, 2011 6:12:26 GMT -5
hey, i already admitted i should have claimed earlier (yesterDay). if you don't like the way i've played or don't believe me you can certainly vote me.
and yes it did take four posts to call bullshit. but as you can see the first three were aimed to see how much rope he was going to give himself to hang himself. and frankly, his responses to those inquiries a well as posting all those pm's certainly had me scratching my head and thinking to myself that if he was lying it was the best contrived setup i had ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 15, 2011 6:19:37 GMT -5
neta: also, romanic i typically play in an online poker tournament that starts at 2:00 p.m daily (the facebook freeroll skeezy). so if i was a better poker player than apparantly i am at this game the lag would have even been greater. additionally, while i am typically more "real time" than a lot of folks periodically i do have to face the real world and do stuff like actual work (the stuff that buys groceries and pays the rent kind of shit) and or chores around the joint.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 6:27:20 GMT -5
Ok, looking at it, I would guess at 3 more scum and at least 5 more town + 1 other (town/3rd). Whether there is an SK or not is up for debate.
Let's see , if we lynch town and two more town die overnight, it leaves it at 3 scum, 2 town + 1 other - which would likely be a win for the scum.
If we lynch scum, and two more town die overnight, it leaves us at 2 scum, 3 town + 1 other. If it is just scum left, town has a chance to win, if there is a 3rd party, there is a very good chance they will win.
If we lynch a 3rd party SK, assuming there is one, and only 1 town die overnight, that leaves us 3 scum and 4 town, which then goes LoL to the end.
But assuming there is a 3rd party SK, there is always the chance they could hit scum, but that would not be in their interest, they need to continue killing town. At some point though, scum will need to stop any SK, otherwise by the time they finish taking town out the SK will win.
Either way town is in a very bad position.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 15, 2011 7:15:43 GMT -5
Scum know peeker is scum, so won't kill him yet ¿? Should be "after I get lynched and flip town, scum know peeker is SK, so won't kill him yet" however at the end I concluded that scum most likely will kill peeker (even with the ridiculous small chance he is a town vigilante) since he'll need to kill scum to prevent them from winning. Tonight after my lynch *: 4Tv3Sv1SK then Tomorrow one of: -2Tv3Sv1SK (peeker + scum kill town, scum win) -3Tv2Sv1SK (peeker kills scum + scum kill town, lylo) -3Tv2S (peeker kills scum + scum kill sk, lylo) -2Tv2S (peeker kills town + scum kill sk, scum win) -3Tv3Sv1SK (peeker doesn't kill/blocked + scum kill town, lylo) -4Tv3S (peeker doesn't kill/blocked + scum kill sk, lylo) So scum won't need to kill peeker Tonight but if they lose their role blocker before Intermission 8 (peeker kills him or he gets lynched) peeker becomes a very, very serious threat to them and town cannot afford to lynch him (or scum win) so they have to deal with him sooner rather than later. *) Of course I hope to convince everyone to lynch someone else Today but I think I don't have much chance. I'm do relish the opportunity to have some strong words with this Greater Power when I get to Spoiled Heaven . Plus slap the moderators around the head with a big, smelly fish ** for this crippled role I got with such a big unknown factor. **) Just a fantasy Ed, no need to stop whatever you and Ulla are doing with that goat.6. If you come up vig, he dies tomorrow; or at least i'll vote for him. You would be giving scum the win if they have three left.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 15, 2011 7:27:05 GMT -5
which struck my funny bone, made me chuckle and perhaps is a bit freudian to boot. I stole from the best - Monty Python . Vote Natlaw because Peeker's claim makes more sense, the breadcrumbing fits, as does his vote record, which I believe goes, scum, scum, scum, pfk, Natlaw, hammer candidate. Oh wow, don't you mean: town, scum (2nd which I agree is good), scum (late bus), PFK (null tell), unknown (Natlaw but I know I'm town)x3, unknown (Romola), town (hammer, null tell)? Anyway that Mahaloth vote plus me turning out to be not a limited vigilante but a severely limited one (as in if peeker is truthful I'm might not have targeted any actually kill at this point) makes me not vote peeker at this point as he might be an actual vigilante. And either way, I think scum will have to deal with him (I doubt peeker is scum because that would be suicide to claim as he did). Just to reiterate, if you do lynch me, see me flip town vigilante (limited), don't lych peeker as it will give the game to scum if they have three left. Anyway back to work for me now.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 8:29:50 GMT -5
I'm trying to work out the possibility of both NatLaw and peekercpa both being town? Because that is the horrible sneaking suspicion I am getting.
What I notice is that neither of them have said they received confirmation that their kill went through.
Can someone point out anything which says that only one of them can be a Vig?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 15, 2011 8:48:16 GMT -5
What I notice is that neither of them have said they received confirmation that their kill went through. According to Natlaw's PM: Power: Every Night (as long as you are alive in the game) you may target a player. Next Day you will be informed if you succeeded in killing the player. Powers greater than you will decide if you succeed or not. /added underline Natlaw, do you receive a PM at the end of the Night? No, the "you'll be informed" refers to the Dawn post. From Peeker's PM: Power: Every Night (as long as you are alive in the game) you may target a player. They die. Rather simple really.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 9:05:08 GMT -5
True, but neither of them get direct mod confirmation saying "Congrats you killed X". Natlaw has to wait for the Dawn post and peekercpa gets no confirmation at all.
They could both have targeted Pinkies and no-one would be the wiser. My guess is that peekercpa carried out the kill though.
Another possibility, Natlaw is a town mechanism for dealing with 3rd parties. He targets them, they go boom. It makes more sense than trying to target a specific person or being a general vig.
One question though, a scum redirector was lynched Day 2, why did natlaw think he might be redirected last Night?
Seriously, I can see them both being town and given all the PMs and other bits and pieces, I don't think I will be voting either of them toDay, it just doesn't make sense. Barring someone coming forward with absolute proof of course, but gut instinct says they are both town.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 15, 2011 9:12:07 GMT -5
I could see Natlaw's claimed role as a one-shot deal (I doubt you can re-use a hand grenade!) but his role gives no indication that that's the case and claimed power is: "Exploder/Vig (limited)"
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 9:14:46 GMT -5
True, which could also make it a one shot PFK or possibly scum kill for the Town. But I bet it depends on who he targets, and not some extra 3rd party making the choice for him.
I think the "Higher Power" is a complete red herring.
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Mar 15, 2011 10:03:00 GMT -5
Ok, thinking about it, following along the assumption that the pair of them are town, then lets see what drops out using the process of elimination.
Town: 3. CatInASuit (BillMc) 4. peekercpa 23. Natlaw
Probably leaving three scum in the following pool.
Alive: 5. Merestil Haye 6. Sister Coyote 8. Romola 15. Romanic 20. guiri 24. Red Skeezix
Of the six, I would guess that romanic and guiri are town from the cases they put together against scum leaving...
5. Merestil Haye 6. Sister Coyote 8. Romola 24. Red Skeezix
Sod it, let's start as follows.
vote romola - starting with the screwup at end of Day 5, saying one thing, then voting something different before being corrected.
and I think a general role claim is a good idea. Guess what, here's mine.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 15, 2011 12:37:40 GMT -5
Sorry CIAS, but you don't get to declare mass claim by fiat. You haven't extolled what might be gained by a mass claim. It would be a needless sacrifice of any remaining powers (We haven't seen any masons this game, right?). We have a contention lynch going on right now, and don't need any mass claims at this point or shady vanilla claims at this time. Plus you're vanilla claim stinks. Too close to Maha's for you not to have raised suspicion at his claim. What are the odds that one's pm mentions another character in the game being a legit PM?
As for theories and WAGs, I theorize that Natlaw is a scum bomb, not a vig. He may have claimed vigilante to draw the fire of the real vig during the night, causing him to assplode. So i hereby nominate CIAS being claimed vanilla to be the last voter on Natlaw, should we (and I hope we will) lynch him today. Failure for him to do his proper best vanilla behavior and jump on that possible grenade, will result in me pursuing him swinging tomorrow.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 15, 2011 14:27:55 GMT -5
Sorry CIAS, but you don't get to declare mass claim by fiat. You haven't extolled what might be gained by a mass claim. It would be a needless sacrifice of any remaining powers (We haven't seen any masons this game, right?). We have a contention lynch going on right now, and don't need any mass claims at this point or shady vanilla claims at this time. My reasons for suggesting a mass claim was that the Day 5 and 6 vote records have turned up pretty worthless since none of the candidates was actually scum (from my point of view) and we're getting dangerously close to lynch or lose. As reason for you, believing peeker a town vigilante, would be because obviously peeker needs all the help he can get to actually hit scum (even if he's SK, see my previous post). Even with three masons (which I don't think likely) we don't have enough to do a kill the unknowns strategy but with two kills a Night they aren't really that save anyway. Plus it force scum to pick roles now while otherwise they could maybe save a power role claim for a scum up for lynch. But with the amount of town roles flipped I suspect most are vanilla. Maybe two masons and a mass role blocker. I agree (and I like the fact that you want to use information from his claim while being against a mass claim ). More in separate post. I absolutely don't like your second "if X happens we'll lynch Y Tomorrow" of the Day (the other being lynching peeker if flip town).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Mar 15, 2011 14:56:08 GMT -5
Hi Mahaloth - welcome to the game England, 932 A.D. You are a... shrubbery!!! Made by the famous ROGER THE SHRUBBER!! These are sad time when passing ruffians can 'ni' at will to old ladies. And being a shrubbery in sad times can be... well... sad! So you're kind of sad and when a shrubbery is feeling sad like you it sometimes wither away. We don't want that to happen to you. So now it's time to fight back and overcome the sad, sad, sad, sad times!! Alignment: Town Role: Vote-investigator Power: Every Night (as long as you are alive in the game) you may target a player that voted the previous Day. You may ask the Moderators about one and only one of that players voted the previous Day only. You will then before next Day begins be informed by the Moderators if the target-player and the player voted for have the same alignment or not. Wincon: You win with your team of fellow Townies. This will happen when all threats to Town have been vanquished or withered away from the game. Even plants has to follow rules. You better as the well. The Moderators might invent shrubbery-shredding if you don't read, understand and follow the rules provided in the Thread of Rules. CIAS about Mahaloth Day One (last minute post): Will given Mahaloth, punker + KidV benefit of doubt atm. Day Two (in response to crazybunny's vote for Mahaloth with paranoia flipping town investigator) Ok, care to explain how paranoia being town means Mahaloth is scum? WoW on Plankton and Cookies, votes Cookies, argues with Cookies, more ok Cookies when vote tied between Maha/Bob/bunny, ... , (Cookies tied Mahaloth), ... , (Maha 8 - 4 Cookies), ... , (end of Day). Intermission 2 in response to Mahaloths lynch. Sweet. That'll do nicely. Day Three, colorec vote count but no comment on them, later on Mahaloths investigation: Despite what Red Skeezix says D3.035, I can think of one reason why this might be of interest and that is if the scum deliberately killed Timmy on Night 1 to give some possible cover to Natlaw, even though if discovered, most people will ignore it as it had come from a scum. But then makes it bob 4-1 Pinkies (a final vote): The changing suspicion from HLB to Cookies to Mahaloth doesn't have much explanation and the lack of suspicion for HLB goes from voting on Day 1 to them making good responses on Day 2 with no reason as to why there is a shift in trust for the better. I've read the Day 3 responses, but I'm left wondering how much they are written with hindsight. For now: vote bobarrghJust for note: I still don't trust Cookies, but if bobarrgh is scum it is likely he voted to push a Cookies lynch away from Mahaloth, making her far more likely to be town. So CIAS didn't comment on Mahaloth claim in depth, pushed the Cookies case hard, then votes bob the Day after for pushing the Cookies case. What's your take on it Red Skeezix? You obviously remembered Mahaloth had claimed as a shrubbery (I for sure didn't) and did the check I just did to see what CIAS did mention about Mahaloth. Had a scum CIAS already given up bob since he had three votes when no one else had a player vote? Or was it just the stink that made you pipe up?
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Mar 15, 2011 17:13:52 GMT -5
True, which could also make it a one shot PFK or possibly scum kill for the Town. But I bet it depends on who he targets, and not some extra 3rd party making the choice for him. I think the "Higher Power" is a complete red herring. Wouldn't that make him some sort of a weak investigator as well as a Vig? If his role PM mentioned a specific character/player/group he had to find, OK, but would the mods really mess around with a player by throwing in a red herring? I've no idea, but I also doubt they'd say in his role PM that he'd be informed if his kill was successful but then said he'd find out by reading the Dawn color. Natlaw, did the mods tell you to look at the Dawn post or is that another assumption?
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 15, 2011 17:40:21 GMT -5
What's your take on it Red Skeezix? You obviously remembered Mahaloth had claimed as a shrubbery (I for sure didn't) and did the check I just did to see what CIAS did mention about Mahaloth. Had a scum CIAS already given up bob since he had three votes when no one else had a player vote? Or was it just the stink that made you pipe up? Actually, I misremembered it, I had thought that Mahaloth had claimed to have been Roger the Shrubber initially. It wasn't until I went back and fact checked that, that I saw what he had actually claimed and how CIAS was not pushing on him. As far as the Bob lynch goes, I don't know. It is mostly the stink, and the rushing to claim nothing that caught my eye. I know that scum like to jockey for early claims when they smell a mass claim coming.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Mar 15, 2011 18:20:06 GMT -5
mod question#1: would a one shot power show up in the death reveal of an otherwise vanilla townie?
mod question #2: while you have indicated a willingness to assist folks in the construction of fake role pms would that assistance extend to assisting in the construction of any additional communication between a player and the mods or is it merely limited to a role pm?
just so it is clear. i recieved only the notification that my submitted action had in fact been received. there was nothing to indicate whether it would or did in fact occur.
|
|