|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 24, 2008 12:16:16 GMT -5
I1) No lynch. I think Town always has to lynch, but thankfully we never got into this arguments. But since I'm not a fan of it, I was trying to avoid it. I should probably clarify that I know a plurality leads to a lynch, but I'm speaking here of my vote only. If I voted "no lynch" I would have known full well that someone was going to still get lynched, just I wasn't going to be involved in picking who if I went with this option.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 24, 2008 12:21:45 GMT -5
:sputter::coughs:So we got a confimation from Hal, but it might not do us any good. (FWIW I think story might just be paranoid, but better safe than sorry.) :coughs::coughs:It :coughs:looks like Zuma is under a weird posting restriction. Don't know what that is all about. My head hurts. I might post less than I have been :coughs::coughs:becasue :coughs:I seem :coughs:to be :coughs:having :coughs:a bit :coughs: of trouble :coughs:keeping my thoughts short. I will be posting, but expect :coughs:fewer longer :coughs: posts from me. :coughs:. It's looking like it will be easier for me to gather my thoughts in longer posts. :coughs:
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 24, 2008 12:24:27 GMT -5
Drunk zuma does post some weird shit, but this is the second straight day that he's posted weird shit at 10 AM Pacific.
I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against a posting restriction, now that I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 12:48:27 GMT -5
My head hurts. Likewise, and having to read past all the hacking and coughing isn't helping. Of course, it might be a good thing you got sprayed. That stuff can save your life, you know. And FWIW, "Great White Shark" is on the role list.
|
|
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 24, 2008 12:57:50 GMT -5
I stand by my vote of CIAS. Here's how I looked at my options late on Day 1: 1) No lynch. I think Town always has to lynch, but thankfully we never got into this arguments. But since I'm not a fan of it, I was trying to avoid it. 2) Vote Kat. Had a bit of scum on her, but the case against her wasn't blowing anyone's mind. Before this claim she had a grand total of 4 votes. Five if you think I should have picked her. Plus I had said earlier that I wasn't going to vote for someone I thought was legitimately busy on Day One. 3) Vote kassia, an option, but like Kat I wasn't convinced and hadn't made a self defense post. 4) Vote CIAS, an option, but like Kat I wasn't convinced. Unlike kassia made a self-defense vote. 5) Vote for some random person getting low numbers of votes. If the cases were at all convincing, they'd have more than 1-2 votes. A few people voted after Kat's claim, and one person voted for her, then unvoted, then voted for CIAS and that was hawkeyeop. I didn't want to toss my vote around all over the place so close to the deadline so I just sat back and waited for dusk. You're really using the fact that Kat said she wasn't convinced for two of your five justifications for not having your vote on her?
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 24, 2008 12:59:59 GMT -5
No, I'm saying that like my opinion of Kat's scumminess, I was likewise unconvinced about the other two options.
Sorry if that was confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 13:06:19 GMT -5
Here's a whacky idea. If we do go with a role claim, why don't we exclude NAF and Mole? The Do Gooders know that they are masons. If they reveal, it would show how their names are linked and the dogooders would be able to link the other masons to them as well. NAF and Mole, if your names were kept secret, would the other masons still be obvious if they name revealed? Don't forget that Cookie also roleclaimed and would have to do the same thing. I don't want to answer the question directly, in case there is a general nameclaim. Let's say that I would prefer it if no Mason - and there are more than three - had to roleclaim.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 24, 2008 13:16:27 GMT -5
It seems that when I was made shark proof :coughs: it was because I was attacked. I don't know who my attackers are (or really how I survived, but thanks to whoever protected me), but I was given a tidbit of info about them. :coughs: NAF, can you clarify something for me? Do you know that you were protected last Night? Because Koldenar was a Bodyguard, sinjin survived a night-kill, and now you're saying that you were protected too? Just how many pro-town Doctors are out there? I'm very suspicious of the fact that everybody seems to be glossing over the attack on sinjin. I've already explain why I think that it was a Vig who attacked her. The Vig would have had to have seem something that made them suspicious(it's possible that the Vig has to kill every night, but still the Vig would target their biggest suspect, right?) So if we had a Doctor protecting NAF and another Doctor already dead, am I supposed to believe that there's a third pro-Town Doctor who was protecting sinjin? I don't buy that. A scum Doctor, now that I could believe.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Mar 24, 2008 13:16:34 GMT -5
You know what? I think, as a Mason, I'm an unlikely target for a lynch here, which gives me a certain degree of freedom. Last time I voted Atarus based on pure gut instinct and the fact that nobody seemed to be attacking him. Now, with the added knowledge of Kat's alignment, I have definite reasons to suspect Atarus from his own posts as well as my previous suspicions. And looking at his actions in respect of the Kat votes is the icing on the cake for me. I don't like his attack on Diggit, who was the only person voting Kat then. I don't "buy" his reasons for it. I think his whole post on page eight of the second "Day One" thread looks scummy as hell. I'm going to get my vote in early and hope that this time it makes a difference. Vote Atarus.(color removed) I knew this was going to happen as soon as Kat turned up scum. Yes, I thought that diggit was more suspicious with his reasoning towards Kat, and I did vote for him. I felt like his posts were mischaracterizing what Kat was actually saying. For reference, here are Kat's posts "stoking arguments." Ugh, I was going to link to them but it just takes me to the top of the Day One thread so I'll just quote them. All those posts, to me, looked (and still look, quite frankly) fairly innocuous and no different than what other people were saying. Maybe it's just my perspective, but I felt like diggit exaggerated what Kat was doing, and that's where my suspicion of him came from. Clearly diggit was better at finding a bead on scummy activity than I was. And on to something else my FOS Aturus for this sentence in his YesterDay post. Looks like Kat was doing just that, was this an early life rope thrown to Kat or just an honest townie mistake. I don't know but he seemed to be spending more time on diggit's vote on Kat than who he himself should vote for. (color removed, underlining mine) No no no no no. Hindsight is 20/20. Just because Kat turned up scum doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions like this. Again, I hate this because I can't find the words to express what I'm thinking but I'll try. Yes Kat turned up scum, and yes I thought diggit was making a big deal out of something I thought was nothing. But don't pigeonhole me (or anybody for that matter) as scum and my opinion as wrong just because I was on the wrong side of a lynch. Ugh, I still don't feel like I'm expressing myself the best way but oh well. Furthermore, you can say that I spent "more time on diggit's vote than who I should vote for" but in the same post I clearly outlined that I was going to vote for either diggit or Cookies. I outlined my opinions on diggit's vote BECAUSE I was thinking about voting for him and wanted to provide a reason for it! I think that's a blatant mischaracterization of my intention. --- Finally, on a related note, as I was going through Kat's posts I noticed two things. One: She outlines in one of her early posts what her role PM says, and then in her later role claim she doesn't contradict herself. What she said was in her role PM was in her fake claim. I don't know if this is significant or not but I thought I'd point it out. Two: She was in favor of a mass name-claim. This isn't mega-useful since we know she had a fake claim ready now (obviously) but maybe scum do have an ulterior motive for wanting all the names to be out in the open.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 24, 2008 13:21:16 GMT -5
It seems that when I was made shark proof :coughs: it was because I was attacked. I don't know who my attackers are (or really how I survived, but thanks to whoever protected me), but I was given a tidbit of info about them. :coughs: NAF, can you clarify something for me? Do you know that you were protected last Night? Because Koldenar was a Bodyguard, sinjin survived a night-kill, and now you're saying that you were protected too? Just how many pro-town Doctors are out there? I'm very suspicious of the fact that everybody seems to be glossing over the attack on sinjin. I've already explain why I think that it was a Vig who attacked her. The Vig would have had to have seem something that made them suspicious(it's possible that the Vig has to kill every night, but still the Vig would target their biggest suspect, right?) So if we had a Doctor protecting NAF and another Doctor already dead, am I supposed to believe that there's a third pro-Town Doctor who was protecting sinjin? I don't buy that. A scum Doctor, now that I could believe. :coughs:No :coughs: I don't know I was protected. It is possible that the attacker simply missed :coughs:. I assumed I was being protected :coughs: but all I really know is that I was attacked by disguised Do Gooders and survived. :coughs:
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Mar 24, 2008 13:24:12 GMT -5
I would kinda like to hear what sinjin has to say about her attack, if anything, before skipping merrily down the path of further contemplation.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Mar 24, 2008 13:24:20 GMT -5
I'm very suspicious of the fact that everybody seems to be glossing over the attack on sinjin. I've already explain why I think that it was a Vig who attacked her. The Vig would have had to have seem something that made them suspicious(it's possible that the Vig has to kill every night, but still the Vig would target their biggest suspect, right?) So if we had a Doctor protecting NAF and another Doctor already dead, am I supposed to believe that there's a third pro-Town Doctor who was protecting sinjin? I don't buy that. A scum Doctor, now that I could believe. I get where you're going with this, but it's entirely possible that whoever targeted sinjin simply had a chance of kill success < 100%. Certainly, the color given to us would seem to suggest that sinjin's survival was not a function of intervention by any other player.
|
|
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 Mar 24, 2008 13:26:47 GMT -5
My head hurts. Likewise, and having to read past all the hacking and coughing isn't helping. Of course, it might be a good thing you got sprayed. That stuff can save your life, you know. And FWIW, "Great White Shark" is on the role list. Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 13:27:39 GMT -5
So I could see TDPats, whose vote was completely baseless and Kat jumping on someone with a few votes to get attention away from Kat. Which looks good for CIAS's towniness. Gah! This is exactly the kind of reasoning I was warning about yesterDay. There are two scum factions, so this looks good for CIAS not being a Do-Gooder. He could still be Playing For Keeps. OK... first of all, we don't KNOW that there are two Scum factions, although it seems logical given the manner of Kold's killing. That said, the "Joker Faction" might be "neutrals", or even a single lone neutral, while the "Batman Faction" might be the real scum. It worries me that while people are still arguing with ideas that seem to me to be pretty much confirmed (for example the theory that the scum have been given "alternate" identities to use in place of their own), they're accepting these huge assumptions that I'm not prepared to make. I know there's enough evidence for a separate non-human element in this game. In what way does that translate into a certain second scum team? It's possible, yes. It's even fairly probable. But I'm still not ruling out the idea of "neutrals", which the "serial killer" idea would seem to back up. All I'm saying is, keep an open mind on this one because a phantom second scum team would be a GREAT distraction for the real (and only) scum team to use. They could have us chasing a second group of scum that doesn't even exist. Secondly, we have a HUGE piece of evidence to use in the form of Kat's being confirmed as a wolf. I've done my analysis of that one and IMO there are four people in particular who come out of it looking like strong targets. I've voted for the one of those four (Atarus) who I find the most suspicious. In short, we have all this evidence for one scum faction, and very little if any for the other. Why even bother with the "Joker" faction for the time being, assuming it exists and isn't just a "neutral" with a killing role? Unless I've missed somethign pretty damn huge in the last couple of days, we don't have the evidence for who that faction is. We DO have a large amount of evidence regarding the "Batman" faction. Mind you, if there was any certain way of getting out whoever killed Kold - that scum almost certainly being "Joker" faction - then I'd say go for it. As far as I can see there isn't. Let's go after the scum who are exposed and worry about the rest later on. Thirdly, I specifically say in my analysis that I'm not ruling anybody out as scum, I'm just pointing out that certain people are unlikely to be partners of Kat. Just because I don't think Diggit or CatInASuit are likely to be Kat's partners, doesn't mean I'm ruling them out as scum in the other faction. It DOES mean that when there's a heap of what seems to me to be fairly solid evidence pointing in another direction, I'm not going to ignore it in order to run around chasing shadows - because as regards the "Joker" faction, that's all I got right now.
|
|
|
Post by brewha on Mar 24, 2008 13:29:47 GMT -5
After sorting themselves, and taking attendance, one of them gives a yell- a corpse is in the corner! But the rest of the inmates walk over, and mutter- it's merely the unfresh-smelling corpse of Bane from the Day before. The great host of "The Town" arrays itself for another Day as the sun begins to pour its light through the bars of the Asylum. Suddenly, a gruff voice cries out: "Look, it's the Bat!" Everyone turns their heads, and out by the window you can see a figure throw something into the room, and quickly swing off to hide. Does this mean anything? Apparently we sorted ourselves and took attendance - was no one noticed missing? The Bat and was seen throwing the bat shark repellant at NAF. Does this mean that one of us is not Batman - in Batman mafia? Why the line about taking attendance? Am I reading too much into this?
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 24, 2008 13:31:20 GMT -5
I think it's just RoOsh not paying attention to continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 24, 2008 13:33:59 GMT -5
Two: She was in favor of a mass name-claim. This isn't mega-useful since we know she had a fake claim ready now (obviously) but maybe scum do have an ulterior motive for wanting all the names to be out in the open. She was? Does this read like somebody in favour of a mass claim to anybody else? I'm going to do another Miss Marple argument here: in YSI Mafia, everybody did a claim of their dossiers. It was similar in some respects to the name claim idea under consideration. sachertorte(scum) was constantly telling us how he did not trust that the dossier claims were true -- he argued that the scum had almost certainly lied in their claims. But then, later on, sachertorte made an argument that assumed that the dossier claims were true. story was all over him for it, but none of the rest of us bought in until the very end of the game. Later on sach admitted that he'd been sloppy with his argument because he knew that the conclusion was true. I think that we're seeing something similar here. atarus knows that the scum, by and large, wouldn't be opposed to a name claim because they have their fake claims ready. So he was sloppy and didn't bother checking whether Kat actually came out in favour of it or not. I can't see how a pro-Town player could have reviewed Kat's posts like he said he did and be completely wrong about Kat's stated opinions of a name claim. My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 24, 2008 13:36:56 GMT -5
OK... first of all, we don't KNOW that there are two Scum factions, although it seems logical given the manner of Kold's killing. That said, the "Joker Faction" might be "neutrals", or even a single lone neutral, while the "Batman Faction" might be the real scum. There is a group out there who is "Playing for Keeps". They must be eradicated for the Town to win. This meets my definition of a "scum group".
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 13:42:43 GMT -5
OK... first of all, we don't KNOW that there are two Scum factions, although it seems logical given the manner of Kold's killing. That said, the "Joker Faction" might be "neutrals", or even a single lone neutral, while the "Batman Faction" might be the real scum. There is a group out there who is "Playing for Keeps". They must be eradicated for the Town to win. This meets my definition of a "scum group". Good point, I missed that. Although it doesn't really alter my second point at all. When we have a crateful of evidence against one scum group, and very little if any against the other, surely it makes more sense to go after the exposed scum group and leave the second one alone until we have more to go on.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Mar 24, 2008 13:49:16 GMT -5
I think it's just RoOsh not paying attention to continuity. Maybe it's tdpats not paying attention to the fact that Batman has a sufficient quantity of awesome to be in two places at once.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 13:50:06 GMT -5
I think it's just RoOsh not paying attention to continuity. I can't wait to see what that does to your karma.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 13:50:49 GMT -5
Does this read like somebody in favour of a mass claim to anybody else? I'm going to do another Miss Marple argument here: in YSI Mafia, everybody did a claim of their dossiers. It was similar in some respects to the name claim idea under consideration. sachertorte(scum) was constantly telling us how he did not trust that the dossier claims were true -- he argued that the scum had almost certainly lied in their claims. But then, later on, sachertorte made an argument that assumed that the dossier claims were true. story was all over him for it, but none of the rest of us bought in until the very end of the game. Later on sach admitted that he'd been sloppy with his argument because he knew that the conclusion was true. I think that we're seeing something similar here. atarus knows that the scum, by and large, wouldn't be opposed to a name claim because they have their fake claims ready. So he was sloppy and didn't bother checking whether Kat actually came out in favour of it or not. I can't see how a pro-Town player could have reviewed Kat's posts like he said he did and be completely wrong about Kat's stated opinions of a name claim. My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this. I was going to make exactly the same point as you've made, considering I've just gone through analyzing every one of Kat's posts with a toothcomb. Unfortunately you beat me to it. Hell, I'll let you take all the credit if that's what you want. As for the content, all I can say is that I agree, although I don't particularly think it detracts from either Atarus' defence or my case against him... If anything, it would suggest that he didn't have a firm handle on what exactly Kat had been saying. Whether that's because he simply wasn't watching her very closely as a human, or because he felt he didn't need to as a wolf, is of course up to the other votors to decide. If there's anything to be gleaned here, it seems to me to be this: it does seem kinda off that he was so dismissive of Diggit's claims regarding Kat, but doesn't really seem to have read her posts in enough detail to be able to recall exactly where she stood. Kat was pretty non-committal anyway so I'm a bit loath to read too much into this; but combined with the other reasons I've got for suspecting him, it damns him a little bit more than he already was in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Mar 24, 2008 13:53:33 GMT -5
She was? <snippy snip snip snippy snip> I think that we're seeing something similar here. atarus knows that the scum, by and large, wouldn't be opposed to a name claim because they have their fake claims ready. So he was sloppy and didn't bother checking whether Kat actually came out in favour of it or not. I can't see how a pro-Town player could have reviewed Kat's posts like he said he did and be completely wrong about Kat's stated opinions of a name claim. My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this. Bwuh...huh. Okay, that's definitely a mistake on my part. I was reading Kat's posts and I thought for sure I saw she said in favor of the name claim. In fact I swear I even saw a vote in purple. Relooking back at it, she didn't even officially vote so I have no idea what I was on. AH! Here we go. I think this is what I saw. Keep in mind I was looking through Kat's posts while I was mounting my own defense and my mind was kind of in two places at once. My mind registered this statement as something to mention about Kat and when I got around to writing the remainder of the post I generalized it to "Kat was pro name claiming!" Dammit. What I should have said was "Kat was pro name-claiming Day One." Yeah okay, she voiced an anti-opinion of the mass name claim, but she did say "if we do it, we should do it right away." That's what stood out to me but I majorly goofed by not rechecking after I wrote up the post. I know this is going to look like backpedaling but dammit, I'm just scatterbrained.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 24, 2008 13:55:17 GMT -5
Does this read like somebody in favour of a mass claim to anybody else? I'm going to do another Miss Marple argument here: in YSI Mafia, everybody did a claim of their dossiers. It was similar in some respects to the name claim idea under consideration. sachertorte(scum) was constantly telling us how he did not trust that the dossier claims were true -- he argued that the scum had almost certainly lied in their claims. But then, later on, sachertorte made an argument that assumed that the dossier claims were true. story was all over him for it, but none of the rest of us bought in until the very end of the game. Later on sach admitted that he'd been sloppy with his argument because he knew that the conclusion was true. I think that we're seeing something similar here. atarus knows that the scum, by and large, wouldn't be opposed to a name claim because they have their fake claims ready. So he was sloppy and didn't bother checking whether Kat actually came out in favour of it or not. I can't see how a pro-Town player could have reviewed Kat's posts like he said he did and be completely wrong about Kat's stated opinions of a name claim. My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this. I was going to make exactly the same point as you've made, considering I've just gone through analyzing every one of Kat's posts with a toothcomb. Unfortunately you beat me to it. Hell, I'll let you take all the credit if that's what you want. As for the content, all I can say is that I agree, although I don't particularly think it detracts from either Atarus' defence or my case against him... If anything, it would suggest that he didn't have a firm handle on what exactly Kat had been saying. Whether that's because he simply wasn't watching her very closely as a human, or because he felt he didn't need to as a wolf, is of course up to the other votors to decide. If there's anything to be gleaned here, it seems to me to be this: it does seem kinda off that he was so dismissive of Diggit's claims regarding Kat, but doesn't really seem to have read her posts in enough detail to be able to recall exactly where she stood. Kat was pretty non-committal anyway so I'm a bit loath to read too much into this; but combined with the other reasons I've got for suspecting him, it damns him a little bit more than he already was in my eyes. :coughs:Frankly :coughs:, the above coupled with :coughs:what Rysto wrote and what I pointed out at the start of the Day :coughs:is enough for me to vote AtarusAt least for now. :coughs::coughs::coughs::coughs::coughs:
|
|
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 Mar 24, 2008 13:55:47 GMT -5
Two: She was in favor of a mass name-claim. This isn't mega-useful since we know she had a fake claim ready now (obviously) but maybe scum do have an ulterior motive for wanting all the names to be out in the open. She was? Does this read like somebody in favour of a mass claim to anybody else? I'm going to do another Miss Marple argument here: in YSI Mafia, everybody did a claim of their dossiers. It was similar in some respects to the name claim idea under consideration. sachertorte(scum) was constantly telling us how he did not trust that the dossier claims were true -- he argued that the scum had almost certainly lied in their claims. But then, later on, sachertorte made an argument that assumed that the dossier claims were true. story was all over him for it, but none of the rest of us bought in until the very end of the game. Later on sach admitted that he'd been sloppy with his argument because he knew that the conclusion was true. I think that we're seeing something similar here. atarus knows that the scum, by and large, wouldn't be opposed to a name claim because they have their fake claims ready. So he was sloppy and didn't bother checking whether Kat actually came out in favour of it or not. I can't see how a pro-Town player could have reviewed Kat's posts like he said he did and be completely wrong about Kat's stated opinions of a name claim. My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this. This makes a whole lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 24, 2008 13:56:02 GMT -5
Not so fast my friend. A couple quoted PMs including zuma, Rysto and Kat (yes we know it's fake) from Day One mention "Playing for keeps" as a faction that needs to be destroyed, but I think we might be ignoring a key adverb: (Do a search for 'maliciously,' bold mine)I might have discarded this little tidbit if it didn't appear in three different PMs. Kat's claim used the term, but was outed as a fake. The phrase, "other threats maliciously playing for keeps against the Baddies" bugs me, though. I'm curious as to what this means. Does that means there are two kinds of Playing for Keeps roles? Do they both have to be lynched? I mean, I ask because I don't think they'd put that word in there if they didn't mean to make a point about it. I hear your point, molefan about sticking to what we know, but maybe it's in our interests to examine all the information we have at our disposal early in the day when we have time. There will only be more facts in evidence regarding "the Batman scum" as we go, not less. It's not like their guilt will be washed from the boards by checking something else out. Plus, the fact that they will have to go on the record on more issues can only help us in finding a pattern. Maybe it's tdpats not paying attention to the fact that Batman has a sufficient quantity of awesome to be in two places at once. Heh, awesome. I can't wait to see what that does to your karma. If RoOsh wanted to torpedo my karma, there's plenty of reasonable excuses from high school he could use to justify it.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 24, 2008 14:00:03 GMT -5
My trigger finger is getting itchy here, but I'm going to hold back until other people comment on this. Excellent deduction, Miss Marple... My playstyle is to try and poke as many holes into whatever is on the table at the time. Doesn't matter if I have to put myself in the mindset of town or of scum -- trying to knock theories apart is a terrific way to find an avenue worth pursuing. That theory holds itself together very well. Strong FOS on Atarus
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 24, 2008 14:03:49 GMT -5
Do you know that you were protected last Night? Because Koldenar was a Bodyguard, sinjin survived a night-kill, and now you're saying that you were protected too? Just how many pro-town Doctors are out there? I'm very suspicious of the fact that everybody seems to be glossing over the attack on sinjin. I've already explain why I think that it was a Vig who attacked her. The Vig would have had to have seem something that made them suspicious(it's possible that the Vig has to kill every night, but still the Vig would target their biggest suspect, right?) So if we had a Doctor protecting NAF and another Doctor already dead, am I supposed to believe that there's a third pro-Town Doctor who was protecting sinjin? I don't buy that. A scum Doctor, now that I could believe. My experience prior to this game is pretty much confined to observing fluiddruid's, but from what I've found online (via wikipedia and at least one FAQ on mafia games) there are blocker roles as well. (FD doesn't have a blocker in hers.) It's quite possible town has at least one blocker who happened to choose well last night.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Mar 24, 2008 14:08:43 GMT -5
Just out of interest, what is "Miss Marple" deduction? Agatha Christie fan over here...
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Mar 24, 2008 14:09:11 GMT -5
Thanks to Molefan for answering my question of six hours and almost three pages ago. At least I now know I won't accidentally vote for a claimed and un-counterclaimed Mason.
*Scratches head, resets hat.*
Rysto's point about Atarus's error is well-made. Atarus's response is plausible but not wholly convincing. I'm leaning towards a vote, but tea comes first.
|
|