|
Post by diggitcamara on Mar 20, 2008 14:13:46 GMT -5
Approximate post counts for Day 1 (ordered by number of posts) 21. Hoopyfrood | 6 | 4. Captain Klutz | | 9. Atarus | 7 | 1. HawkeyeOp | 7 | 12. Diggitcamara | 8 | 17. Kassia | 9 | 16. The Dark Smurf | 10 | 24. Sinjin | 15 | 10. Drainbead | 16 | 11. Kat | 17 | 6. Cookies | 23 | 14. HockeyMonkey | 25 | 3. Hal Briston | 25 | 2. Koldanar | 28 | 19. CatinASuit | 28 | 7. tdpatriots12 | 29 | 8. Brewha | 29 | 22. Ryjae | 37 | 23. Molefan1981 | 44 | 18. Santo Rugger | 52 | 13. Storyteller | 54 | 20. Rysto | 54 | 5. zuma | 55 | 15. NAF1138 | 74 |
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Mar 20, 2008 14:15:46 GMT -5
Approximate post counts for Day 1 (ordered by number of posts) 21. Hoopyfrood | 6 | 4. Captain Klutz | 7 | 9. Atarus | 7 | 1. HawkeyeOp | 7 | 12. Diggitcamara | 8 | 17. Kassia | 9 | 16. The Dark Smurf | 10 | 24. Sinjin | 15 | 10. Drainbead | 16 | 11. Kat | 17 | 6. Cookies | 23 | 14. HockeyMonkey | 25 | 3. Hal Briston | 25 | 2. Koldanar | 28 | 19. CatinASuit | 28 | 7. tdpatriots12 | 29 | 8. Brewha | 29 | 22. Ryjae | 37 | 23. Molefan1981 | 44 | 18. Santo Rugger | 52 | 13. Storyteller | 54 | 20. Rysto | 54 | 5. zuma | 55 | 15. NAF1138 | 74 |
Sorry about that, Captain Klutz's data wasn't between proper tags... 21. Hoopyfrood | 6 | 4. Captain Klutz | 7 | 9. Atarus | 7 | 1. HawkeyeOp | 7 | 12. Diggitcamara | 8 | 17. Kassia | 9 | 16. The Dark Smurf | 10 | 24. Sinjin | 15 | 10. Drainbead | 16 | 11. Kat | 17 | 6. Cookies | 23 | 14. HockeyMonkey | 25 | 3. Hal Briston | 25 | 2. Koldanar | 28 | 19. CatinASuit | 28 | 7. tdpatriots12 | 29 | 8. Brewha | 29 | 22. Ryjae | 37 | 23. Molefan1981 | 44 | 18. Santo Rugger | 52 | 13. Storyteller | 54 | 20. Rysto | 54 | 5. zuma | 55 | 15. NAF1138 | 74 |
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Mar 20, 2008 14:19:46 GMT -5
So here's a hint: before you jump on a "suspicious" sentence, which in this case when taken in context is A JOKE, read the damn post in its entirety and understand what it means! Okay...here's you're entire post. I'm not sure about "quality post theory", nor am I sure about Ryjae. Right now I'm thinking us newbs should probably stick together. It's worth mentioning, Santo-style, that when I was a wolf on another forum ("Spies 2" for those of you who know it), I never made a single fluff post - just extremely well-planned strategic lies. This was deliberate strategy and got me through nine lynches without picking up any serious suspicion or a single vote. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I'm doing it because Ryjae seems to me to be not so much scummy as - well, rather confused, the same as I am. I've got several people who I think are likely humans, but my "probable wolf" list remains annoyingly unpopulated right now, and I haven't had enough confidence in the two votes I've thrown to stick with 'em. (One of which was Ryjae himself, if you recall.) I'd rather not see a mass bandwagon started on a total newb who isn't au fait with the rules and conventions of how you handle yourself in a game on this forum. (Which is kinda what happened to me.) Are we going to damn him because he doesn't know how to put up a good conventional defence of the sort TD wants to see? Bearing all that in mind, I'm going to give Ryjae a chance, which means I will NOT be voting him again this round. My two cents, make of 'em what you will. Mmmm. Well, I'll just say that I don't see how people were supposed to determine that you were joking about the newb thing because to me the entire post is pretty serious strategy. Maybe my internet joke-o-meter is broken unless there's a well-placed smiley but I had the same reaction that Rugger did. In other news, I don't like this idea that people are putting people on their townie checklist just because of a role PM or they got a phrase right before anybody else did. Everybody's going to have a role in this game and everybody's going to have a name. We need to look at people's actions and what they do, not give them a free pass because of a snippet of a PM. We really go into dangerous territory if we exonerate people even if they're acting scummy. I guess it's okay for narrowing down Day 1 voting but I hope it doesn't continue into the later Days. So I hereby FOS all of you who are actively pursuing (or even thinking about pursuing) cases against Hockey, Dark Smurf, zuma, NAF, or Mole, and there are likely people missing from this list, so if you were the first to reveal a chunk of your PM, please yell. Hell, I'm not even putting myself on that list because no one else has come forward to confirm that their PM didn't include a twiki link either. So, ironically, I'd be more comfortable with people coming after me than coming after these others. Just a question for Cookies. Why is zuma on your list but draingead is okay to vote for? Because as far as I can recall, the only thing zuma has given is a nameclaim which is the same as what draingead has. I understand the rest of them, but this line of logic bugged me.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 14:21:36 GMT -5
zuma was first to reveal the Alignment: Baddie(Town) piece of the role PM.
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Koldanar on Mar 20, 2008 14:22:22 GMT -5
I hate to ask this, but my brain has been odd today, and It just came to mind : Can the mods be bastards enough that there's only ONE faction, and we're just all going nuts, fighting amongst ourselves for naught? You're saying there's no Batman? Or a bastard mod fills in the role? Damn. Anyway, I'm trying to keep up with these fast moving threads and take notes here at work so that I can really present a worthwhile case, or at least point a finger and ask the right questions.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Mar 20, 2008 14:26:10 GMT -5
zuma was first to reveal the Alignment: Baddie(Town) piece of the role PM. Oh okay. So many posts, I knew some information would slip my mind. Carry on then!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 20, 2008 14:27:51 GMT -5
zuma was first to reveal the Alignment: Baddie(Town) piece of the role PM. This is false, I think. Hoopy Frood listed this construction in his own role claim, shortly before zuma's.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 14:29:28 GMT -5
part (6?) of a series
I have taken Hockey off my suspicion list, and sinj shouldn't have been there in the fist place...so that leaves Rugger. Here are my notes:
Rugger –
Ok, here I go. Let’s see what looking at Rugger will get me.
Night 0: Fluffy fluff.
Day 1: asks what the functional difference between a lynch and a mod kill is in a public post to the mods Questions HM about her confusing Cookies with CIAS Agrees with Patriots that name claim is useless Says name reveal will help scum more than town short term, and this might break town morale Says we can’t know the benefit of a name claim until it has been done. Suspicious of mole for using the phrase “you guys” Some scum will be high posters (based on past games) Makes a firefly game joke that will go over moles head. (but it was funny) Makes a joke about the current SDMB game (also funny) Mentions a 4% chance of finding Batman today and that we shouldn’t get too hung up on it. Offers story a hug Waiting for clarification from Dio (re: mole’s pm mention) Likes mole but thinks Dio outed him as scum Is confused by my defense of mole (which I maintain is the only logical conclusion you can reach about Dio’s actions.) Is confused about molefan clarifying at Dio’s request instead of Dio clarifying himself Votes for molefan Corrects coding. Says mole might be a mason (interesting, hadn’t noticed that one) but is probably scum. Responds to the clique post by cookies Unvotes mole Corrects coding Thinks hoopy is posting like he did in firefly. Responds to hoopy that he wasn’t using doublespeak and he was was not talking about hoopy in the second paragraph. Also he thinks that hoopy shoul not have claimed so soon. Agrees with story that we seem to have lost the ability to pursue multiple avenues simultaneously. Can see Joe Chill (zuma’s claim) being a do gooder. Calls zuma a jackass for his post claim behavior (see above joke re: SDMB game). Wants to know why mole thinks he is overzealous Backs up DB’s claim that she copied and pasted her role PM and that the mods might have modified it for her. Wants to remind town of how convincing his fake claim in Conspiracy was, and that we shouldn’t trust role PM’s Says something to zuma that I can’t parse without further context Clarifies that he meant the format, not the name of role claims would be easy to fake. Joke about DB’s posting restriction (less funny than the others, sorry can’t win em all) Wants Rysto to share his outside info. Says he thinks there will be at least 2 scum who are prolific posters Questions me about my list and willingness/unwillingness to post Votes for Rysto, but without context I am not sure why (I hate that it doesn’t link to the context anymore) The post was made at 9:22am (PDT) anyone want to look it up? Says he figured out the post restriction bit of DB’s but he doesn’t think offboard material should be brought into play (interesting since the mods explicitly gave most of us wiki links.) Wonders why Rysto thought holding back info was a good idea. Goes back to my lists. Says rysto didn’t answer his question Answers zuma’s question of who he is voting for by quoting his vote. Unvotes rysto. Joke post (but funny, so he is back on track) Tells rysto how to find all posts by a user Responds to DB’s accusation of bandwagon. (with a fairly convincing rebuttal) Goes off on mole for his newbs stick together remark Goes off on koldanar for responding to mole Questions why cookies is voting for DB Thinks something is still fishy with me and mole Responds to cookies saying we should trust the people we think are safe because of info reveals (good advice) @ mole: how do I know that masons share a win condition with town. Then sarcastically agrees that he should just laugh when people say suspicious things. 4 posts that were posted after I started writing this so I will not include them since I don’t have any context.
Well Santo, I am going to put you in the same category as story for now. After going over your post, I think you are the most townie of all the players I have looked at. (doing just enough suspicious and irrational stuff to make me think you are “trying to look clean” while at the same time dropping some townie tells like not reading carefully enough, and making jokes.
This isn’t the same as being probably town, but I won’t vote for you today.
Fucked if I know who I WILL vote for.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 14:32:08 GMT -5
zuma was first to reveal the Alignment: Baddie(Town) piece of the role PM. This is false, I think. Hoopy Frood listed this construction in his own role claim, shortly before zuma's. zuma revealed the Alignment part here, well before either name claim.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 14:33:49 GMT -5
Will you post your complete list of players that you consider cleared on the basis of their statements so far, and briefly outline why? Please do not include anyone that you consider cleared for reasons apart from their actual contributions (ie, don't out the other Masons), but if you can add to the above list with folks about whom we can generally agree, it will help tremendously. Sure thing, and I will even break it down further. Give me a couple of hours, I have to go to lunch and then do a bit of work first.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 20, 2008 14:38:28 GMT -5
First answer: HOW DO I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL WIN CONDITIONS? I don't. Just because you're most likely town right now, doesn't mean that you get a free pass to say and do whatever you'd like without any scrutiny. Rebuttle to second point: How is joking about forming a bond joking. I still don't think it's funny, even now that I know you didn't really mean it. Saying stuff you don't mean isn't going to help us in identifying all the scummy things you list. Are you saying somebody defending town who end up being confirmed is a scum tell or a town tell? Why or why not? OK... answer to first point - you don't. I can't prove anything there because my win condition has already been posted several times over. I could be copying and pasting from anywhere. But without any real evidence to the contrary, do you think you can at least accept NAF and me temporarily as Masons, until something happens to prove it one way or the other? Don't forget that we've pretty much made ourselves night-kill targets because of my screw-up. There could still be investigations, possibly public ones; hell, anything could happen at this point. And no, I don't expect NO scrutiny. You never can in a game like this. Unless you come across someone who says the word "honestly" at the start of every sentence though, you're not going to catch the wolves by isolating single sentences of posts, taking them out of context, and then trying to build mountains out of them. Second point - "Saying things you don't mean?" Jeez, I meant to raise a smile, not a cheer! EPIC FAIL on both counts apparently... Third point - good question actually, and I'm going to go into this on in a bit more detail. In my experience of mafia games - obviously nonexistent here, but fairly substantial on other boards - I find that it's fairly rare to see a wolf make a solid defence for an unconfirmed human. Wolves might provide a bit of support for the sake of two wolves being on one team, two on another, etc, but not generally in any great depth. If you get a person who makes a solid, rational, well-explained case for another person being human, keeps strongly advocating that case, won't let go etc, and then the other person does turn out to be human, then the initial case-maker is either a genuine human themselves (most of the time they are human) or a very particular type of wolf. My absolute least favourite type of wolf, in fact: the wolf who will not stop at anything to build up a convincing "human persona". They're aggressive, bloody dangerous, and they've beaten me in a few games I could name. Give me a game full of nice weak wolves who don't venture too many opinions and don't contribute too much, so that they're easily singled out and removed a few rounds in, thanks! That's the kind of wolf I like to go up against because it's easy (well, easier). The ones who have their own suspect lists and alliances and everything else - it's a lot more satisfying to get one of these buggers, but a lot harder too. So yes - a really well-thought-out defence for an unconfirmed human tells me a lot. If there have been other "Human" tells for the defender, mark them down as human. If not, you at least know that they're not a weak wolf, and you can watch them to see if there are other signs pointing to them being a stronger one.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 20, 2008 14:40:37 GMT -5
Ah. OK. So, analysis of the name-claimants to date:
ZUMA In light of Rysto's point immediately above, I suppose zuma properly belongs on the "no-vote-for-today" list with Smurf and monkey. There is no reason to include those two on such a list but not him.
But for the record: zuma's behavior so far is perfectly consistent with what he's done as Town. Doesn't mean anything. Thing is, zuma is: (1) very smart; and (2) very impulsive. While #2 means that, even as Town, he will do things like blast a player for a premature name claim then make one of his own minutes later, #1 means that as Scum, he'd know that we'd be looking for impulsive, aggressive behavior from him. There have been times during this game when zuma's aggressiveness has seemed - I don't know - forced - like he's trying to live up to his past reputation so people won't wonder why he's changed. For this reason, while I won't vote for him toDay, I will continue to watch zuma very carefully in this game.
DRAINBEAD She hasn't technically name-claimed. Two meta-game points, one in her favor, one against. First, it's worth noting that The Ventriloquist was, basically, afflicted with multiple personalities; while Scarface (his dummy) was definitely a Baddie, the Ventriloquist himself was not necessarily so. The character would be an interesting candidate for an unusual, solo, or conditional win condition.
However, thinking even more meta, would a scum player really be given a post restriction in a game where no one else appears to have one? A post restriction like the one given to drain was certain to draw attention in her direction; giving scum a trait that would automatically draw questioning eyes to her would have been pretty rough on drain.
Overall, I see no particular reason to exempt her from consideration, though. Back in the pool she goes.
HOOPY FROOD As his participation has been relatively modest in volume, and his name claim gives us no real information as to his alignment, I really have nothing to say about him. He could be anything at all. Back in the pool.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Mar 20, 2008 14:40:52 GMT -5
A couple of quick thoughts about my post-count: 1. I tried to count only the posts made in the "Day 1" threads. 2. It seems that a couple of players have definitely monopolized the conversation. That, in itself, isn't bad, but it helps scum. They just have to sit back and watch the sparks fly. 3. A quick review makes Kat stand out (at least to me). She has 30ish posts (counted). But 21 of those were in the Introduction/Night Zero/Rules threads. Her posts have decreased, quite dramtically. Not only that, but she has pretty much been "poking" people. Here she simply asks a question about "possible alignments". No follow-up I can see. Somewhere else she poked ryjaeShe was an active participant in stoking the fire both against ryjae and drainbead, was actively encouraging the discussion about slight differences in the objectives section of our Role PMs, etc. . And yet she seems to be... curiously on the sidelines of all this. Thus, I'll vote Kat.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Mar 20, 2008 14:41:51 GMT -5
I hate to ask this, but my brain has been odd today, and It just came to mind : Can the mods be bastards enough that there's only ONE faction, and we're just all going nuts, fighting amongst ourselves for naught? Oh, man, that would be funny. Right up until Roosh and Diomedes were murdered by a snarling multicultural mob from across the globe, it would be funny. Hey... there's no part in anybody's Role PMs that says that there actually are any scum or anti-town elements in the game. Just think of Roosh and I as Ed McMahon: You may have already won!
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 20, 2008 14:43:32 GMT -5
In my experience of mafia games - obviously nonexistent here, but fairly substantial on other boards - I find that it's fairly rare to see a wolf make a solid defence for an unconfirmed human. Wolves might provide a bit of support for the sake of two wolves being on one team, two on another, etc, but not generally in any great depth. Interestingly enough, this has not generally been our experience around here. The kind of Wolf you say you don't like has been relatively common, so it might be wise to assume that they're out there here, too.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Mar 20, 2008 14:48:03 GMT -5
(snipped) DRAINBEAD(snipped)First, it's worth noting that The Ventriloquist was, basically, afflicted with multiple personalities; while Scarface (his dummy) was definitely a Baddie, the Ventriloquist himself was not necessarily so. The character would be an interesting candidate for an unusual, solo, or conditional win condition. However, thinking even more meta, would a scum player really be given a post restriction in a game where no one else appears to have one? A post restriction like the one given to drain was certain to draw attention in her direction; giving scum a trait that would automatically draw questioning eyes to her would have been pretty rough on drain. (snipped) Well, I just wanted to comment on this. Who says there aren't other, more subtle, restrictions on other players? Wouldn't you think that, for instance, The Riddler would be a marvelous target to use for a post restriction? The Joker? And, as far as I can see, draingead has yet to say what her name is. She could very easily be Scarface, not the Ventriloquist. In that case, like I pointed out before, couldn't she literally become a "dummy" under certain circumstances? She might even be unkillable herself... but die automatically as soon as the Ventriloquist is killed.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 20, 2008 14:49:43 GMT -5
Well, I just wanted to comment on this. Who says there aren't other, more subtle, restrictions on other players? Wouldn't you think that, for instance, The Riddler would be a marvelous target to use for a post restriction? The Joker? Fair enough. But drainbead's restriction is one that is, and would have been expected to be, eye-catching.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 20, 2008 14:54:13 GMT -5
Mmmm. Well, I'll just say that I don't see how people were supposed to determine that you were joking about the newb thing because to me the entire post is pretty serious strategy. Maybe my internet joke-o-meter is broken unless there's a well-placed smiley but I had the same reaction that Rugger did. Smiley will be suitably placed next time. Speaking personally, there are very few people I'd exonerate on those grounds. One or two seem no-brainers though. Personally, if it makes my job easier to have a few less potential wolves to worry about, I'm happy to take it, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 20, 2008 14:55:17 GMT -5
In my experience of mafia games - obviously nonexistent here, but fairly substantial on other boards - I find that it's fairly rare to see a wolf make a solid defence for an unconfirmed human. Wolves might provide a bit of support for the sake of two wolves being on one team, two on another, etc, but not generally in any great depth. Interestingly enough, this has not generally been our experience around here. The kind of Wolf you say you don't like has been relatively common, so it might be wise to assume that they're out there here, too. Oh, I'm keeping that possibility very much in mind. But thanks for the heads-up.
|
|
|
Post by diggitcamara on Mar 20, 2008 15:07:50 GMT -5
Interestingly enough, this has not generally been our experience around here. The kind of Wolf you say you don't like has been relatively common, so it might be wise to assume that they're out there here, too. Oh, I'm keeping that possibility very much in mind. But thanks for the heads-up. The phenomenon even got a name for itself: the "perfect information" syndrome. Scum/wolves let the townies/people do their dirty work by lynching townies. At one point or another during the Day scum would chime up, saying "well, I certainly don't think so-and-so is scum". In a way it provides perfect cover: you're not voting for someone whom you know not to be scum, and you're even saying so. And usually during the next Days no one would even glance in your direction.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 15:10:40 GMT -5
Is the way that the Hoopy Frood thing went down bothering anybody else? We all agree that name claims aren't very helpful, especially in light of the "Playing for Keeps" group. Then some Frood gets some heat. He name claims. And everybody pressuring him immediately backs off. The discussion just dies. This makes me a bit suspicious of those who were pressuring him in the first place. Is there any particular reason that they were so ready to believe the name claim meant that Frood was Town? The inconsistency bugs me, but I'm not sure if it's a case of townies not practicing what had been preached or if it was a case of perfect knowledge syndrome on the part of a scum.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 20, 2008 15:13:11 GMT -5
Okay, molefan, this is my (very biased) view of our exchange:
mole: Us newbies have to stick together. Santo: No, you don't, and here's why. mole: Hey man, I'm a MASON. Oh, and I was just joking, so don't make a big deal out of something I said. Santo: Look dude, I saw something I thought was scummy, and called you out on it. mole: Well I'm a mason, let's just drop it.
In other words, from my perspective, I expected it to only be a single post of mine, perhaps two. You've made me explain why it was bad (which you should already know, and I'm sure you do), then made me expound on why I thought it was bad, and then make me describe why I wasn't giving you a free pass because you were a MASON. I just pointed something out, and you've been just as responsible as me for dragging it out and making a big deal out of it. I'd have left it alone a long time ago if you wouldn't keep poking me about it. Besides, I have zero intention of placing a vote for you or NAF in the foreseeable future, and that will only change if/when we find out that masons have some funk to em.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 20, 2008 15:19:41 GMT -5
Okay, molefan, this is my (very biased) view of our exchange: mole: Us newbies have to stick together. Santo: No, you don't, and here's why. mole: Hey man, I'm a MASON. Oh, and I was just joking, so don't make a big deal out of something I said. Santo: Look dude, I saw something I thought was scummy, and called you out on it. mole: Well I'm a mason, let's just drop it. In other words, from my perspective, I expected it to only be a single post of mine, perhaps two. You've made me explain why it was bad (which you should already know, and I'm sure you do), then made me expound on why I thought it was bad, and then make me describe why I wasn't giving you a free pass because you were a MASON. I just pointed something out, and you've been just as responsible as me for dragging it out and making a big deal out of it. I'd have left it alone a long time ago if you wouldn't keep poking me about it. Besides, I have zero intention of placing a vote for you or NAF in the foreseeable future, and that will only change if/when we find out that masons have some funk to em. OK... in other words, from my perspective and yours, let's drop this. Absolutely fine by me.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 20, 2008 15:34:31 GMT -5
I have absolutely zero idea who I'm going to vote for at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 15:37:49 GMT -5
You'd think that in 24 freaking pages we could find something scummy. I'm picking players at random and looking at all of their posts to see if anything jumps out.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 20, 2008 15:46:40 GMT -5
NAF and mole... who are you going to be voting for?
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Koldanar on Mar 20, 2008 15:48:19 GMT -5
At this point my thinking is we might just get alot of information with the night happenings, when we all wake in the morning. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lynch, but hell this is a tough one.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 20, 2008 15:51:52 GMT -5
You'd think that in 24 freaking pages we could find something scummy. I'm picking players at random and looking at all of their posts to see if anything jumps out. That's essentially what I was doing with the whole QP thing (but people were hung up on it, even though it was basically a MacGuffin). I decided to go back later tonight and look over more posters, even though as of right now I haven't seen a compelling reason to unvote ryjae, I will resume going through posts to see if I can find anything else.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 20, 2008 15:54:15 GMT -5
At this point my thinking is we might just get alot of information with the night happenings, when we all wake in the morning. Doesn't mean we shouldn't lynch, but hell this is a tough one. Let me just say this: we should lynch. And I say that as a proponent of no-lynches in previous games. In this game, we must lynch, early and often. Fortunately, a no-lynch is a virtual impossibility given this set-up.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Mar 20, 2008 16:12:39 GMT -5
story: why?
|
|