|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 8:40:49 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 26, 2009 8:40:49 GMT -5
And Hoopy: that reasoning is why I was surprised at your earlier suggestion she should vig. Yeah, I was still trying to decide the likelihood of a redirect of the kill. I think it's pretty high now, which is why I don't think it should happen. An unable to be screwed with vig would be very useful right now, which is why I entertained the idea. But a vig who can be messed with is a serial killer equivalent at best and an extra scum kill at worst.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 9:21:24 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Feb 26, 2009 9:21:24 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | Kat | peekercpa | Hoopy Frood | crazypunker | peekercpa | KidVermicious | crazypunker | KidVermicious | Nanook | crazypunker | molefan | peekercpa | KidVermicious | molefan | peekercpa | shaggy | Nanook | Natlaw | roxis | Natlaw | peekercpa | Kat | shaggy | peekercpa | Nanook | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | peekercpa | 11 (11) | molefan, shaggy | Hoopy Frood, roxis | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | 7 (7) | paulwhoisaghost, roxis | | peekercpa | KidVermicious | 6 (6) | crazypunker | molefan | Hoopy Frood | Nanook | 6 (6) | | crazypunker, peekercpa, shaggy | | crazypunker | 5 (5) | Hoopy Frood | | crazypunker, shaggy | shaggy | 3 (3) | peekercpa | | | Kat | 3 (3) | | paulwhoisaghost | roxis | paulwhoisaghost | 3 (3) | | | | molefan | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: Kat, KidVermicious, Nanook, Natlaw, Parzival, Pollux Oil --FCOD
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:23:03 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 26, 2009 12:23:03 GMT -5
Okay here's my trouble with the roleclaims.
crazypunker claims roleblocker with the ability to protect himself. Now, we've already had Special Ed as a scum roleblocker and Chucaraubby as a massive superroleblocker. Chances are if crazypunker is telling the truth about his powers, he's more likely a town entity than scum entity. However, with his power restrictions he won't be able to do anything for another two Nights, which is completely convenient.
peekercpa claims that if he's Daykilled all doctors that are still alive lose their powers, which is convenient, but if all doctors die he becomes a doc. Also convenient. As of right now, we have Natlaw and molefan as protective roles still alive but both of them have other powers besides being a doc. Peeker, if you could clarify: if we lynch you toDay, would all the protective roles lose ALL their powers, or just their protective ones?
Kat claims she's a redirector with a fail rate. That would make her our third redirector in addition to a PFK redirector and roxis as our mini-redirector. Two things bother me about her claim. First, fail rates are always good for fake scum claims. I know I purposefully claimed a 50% fail rate to my investigations when I was scum in the X-Men game. It's interesting that three out of the four Nights, Kat has failed in some way. The second thing that bothers me about her claim is that if it's true and we have three redirectors in the game...there should have been some crazy shit going on. In fact, two people got redirected on Night 3. Paul smacked Parzival when he was trying to smack himself, and Parzival buffed shaggy instead of Nanook. While Hal could have been responsible for one of those, both Kat and roxis claim to have not been involved with either. So if Kat's telling the truth, there's yet another redirector out there that's lying to us, or the scum have an additional redirect power somewhere up their sleeves.
While I'm thinking about it, roxis, could you give us a run-down of your actions on Night One and Night 3? At this point I think it would help more to know what you were doing than to keep your rotation hidden, especially since you've pretty much given away the order now.
Something curious and color-related to Kat's PM...why does her PM mention both Master Hand and Captain Falcon? As far as I can remember from the other role PMs that have been posted, nobody else has had another character mentioned in theirs. And not only does she have two mentioned but one of them doesn't seem to be in the game.
Now let's run with the train of thought that the trophying is an extra kill that requires some sort of charging since it seems to not be used every Night. What if paulwhoisaghost hit Nanook last Night because Nanook was attempting one of the kills, and he can either ninja or be one of the Nightkillers? It wouldn't surprise me since a) after all the people saying they were ninja'd by Nanook that the scum would figure nobody would bother to target Nanook last Night anyway, and b) they figured he was safe since nobody was going to risk offing Natlaw as well.
After I've thought about it, I'm also agreeing that roxis should use her redirect power and not risk vigging. However, in the case that Kat isn't lynched toDay and both her and roxis truly are both town, I think it would be beneficial as a town to publicly decide what roxis should do with her redirect power so her and Kat don't cross their redirects. Since roxis specifically redirects a person to another person, then Kat could use her powers in secret and switch a high-profile target (say roxis herself, Hoopy, or maybe molefan) with a possible scum target that roxis isn't affecting. I think if we go with this Hoopy should decide officially what to do.
As for my votes...
1. Vote Kat 2. Vote crazypunker 3. Vote peekercpa
Voting for Kat first because of the above stated suspicions about her role PM and the fact that I think she's lying about who she's redirected/the fail percentage. The entire thing doesn't jive well with me. Voting for KidV second based on previous stated reasons. Voting for peekercpa third based on the fact that while his role claim seems very fishy and convenient, lynching him and being wrong will affect the town in a very bad way. While it's probably just a lie to get people to think twice about lynching him, it's better safe than sorry.
One thing I've been thinking about is that peeker and Kat may have been forced into claiming Master Hand and Dark Samus because of my coroner role. Both are high profile villains, and aside from our masonic group of bad guys none of the other claimed roles have been villainous. (Although it could be argued that Metaknight is also a villain, but he's also somewhat of an anti-hero.) On the other hand, if that was the case, they knew the mass claim was probably coming toDay and could have killed me off easily last Night. On the other other hand, I make a pretty inviting target as a possible mislynch for them so maybe that's why they didn't bother targeting me. Hm.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:24:30 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Feb 26, 2009 12:24:30 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | Kat | peekercpa | Hoopy Frood | crazypunker | peekercpa | KidVermicious | Pollux Oil | Kat | crazypunker | peekercpa | crazypunker | KidVermicious | Nanook | crazypunker | molefan | peekercpa | KidVermicious | molefan | peekercpa | shaggy | Nanook | Natlaw | roxis | Natlaw | peekercpa | Kat | shaggy | peekercpa | Nanook | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | peekercpa | 12 (12) | molefan, shaggy | Hoopy Frood, roxis | paulwhoisaghost, Pollux Oil | crazypunker | 7 (7) | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | crazypunker, shaggy | Natlaw | 7 (7) | paulwhoisaghost, roxis | | peekercpa | Nanook | 6 (6) | | crazypunker, peekercpa, shaggy | | Kat | 6 (6) | Pollux Oil | paulwhoisaghost | roxis | KidVermicious | 6 (6) | crazypunker | molefan | Hoopy Frood | paulwhoisaghost | 3 (3) | | | | shaggy | 3 (3) | peekercpa | | | molefan | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: Kat, KidVermicious, Nanook, Natlaw, Parzival --FCOD
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:31:54 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 26, 2009 12:31:54 GMT -5
Whoops. I meant to say crazypunker up there, not KidV. I was debating back and forth between which one I thought was scummier and switched it a few times. Heh.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:49:15 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 26, 2009 12:49:15 GMT -5
After I've thought about it, I'm also agreeing that roxis should use her redirect power and not risk vigging. However, in the case that Kat isn't lynched toDay and both her and roxis truly are both town, I think it would be beneficial as a town to publicly decide what roxis should do with her redirect power so her and Kat don't cross their redirects. Since roxis specifically redirects a person to another person, then Kat could use her powers in secret and switch a high-profile target (say roxis herself, Hoopy, or maybe molefan) with a possible scum target that roxis isn't affecting. I think if we go with this Hoopy should decide officially what to do. The problem is, if Kat is scum she can easily hose Roxis plans by bussing one or both of Roxis' targets. Even if she isn't, scum can thwart anything roxis intends to do. But I am fine being a target of either or both Roxis and Kat. I'm vanilla, so it's not as if my death will hurt the power distribution. I also can confirm what happpened (at least from what my character sees) should I live. I think Kat and Roxis need to do what they feel is best. ToMorrow, Kat should claim her action first (since she is the more suspicious of the two) and then Roxis. If I'm alive, I can add my input. But regardless, I think neither should target any other townie but me. If you think someone is town, don't touch them. Either target two scum, or a scum and me.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:50:51 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Feb 26, 2009 12:50:51 GMT -5
Molefan, you seem to have adressed every issue in the game right now other than the possibility that Nanook is lying about his role. We know he's scum, and that scum do lie.
I understand that you suspect Peeker, and that's fine. In fact I have a feeling he is. But I don't think that right now is the time take a chance on whether or not he is. If we lynch him toDay and he turns out to be town, we shot ourselves in the foot and the only benefit is that we now have one less person to suspect. I'll say it again because I seem to be being ignored. Logically, lynching Natlaw is our best option. It provides a protown power to someone who may or may not be town. (I really dont see how the power could benefit scum seeing as how we don't really have any vigs for them to protect themselves from.) It also GUARANTEES a scum kill. Finally, it could potentially kill a scum other than Nanook, which would give us our next lynch target.
Why is no one agreeing with or trying to argue against me here. It seems like everyone is just ignoring me and voting based on gut feeling and who the suspects seemed to not get along with. How about a little point-counterpoint?
If we lynch Peeker and he is scum, then good for us. I'm not in any way trying to defend him. However if we lynch him and find out he's town, then I'll just sigh and sit back and wait for my turn to hang while you all wildly point fingers.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 12:59:56 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Feb 26, 2009 12:59:56 GMT -5
Have I missed something here? Like mod-confirmation, or even any sort of confirmation of Natlaw's, KidV's or anyone else's power (Hoopy Frood is the closest we've got)?
Why are we even close to not lynching the one almost-certain scum player we have and instead going off after the unconfirmed and risking mislynches?
On the upside we're having a fair amount of discussion. But there are actual full votes out, and they aren't for scum.
Right now I'd guess at least 1/3 of the remaining players are scum. And they'd like nothing better than to distract us from doing our best to win the game. If they split enough of us they effectively control the vote. We have one person caught in a lie, and I don't know why more people aren't voting for them.
Trying to keep power roles around isn't going to win the game for us. It might help us, but that's not what our goal ought to be. We don't win by staying alive. We win by KILLING SCUM. This appears to be and most likely is a no-vanilla game (maybe vanilla scum). There are endless interactions that could change what happens with the power roles and without the near-perfect knowledge* that the scum have it's very tough to figure out what the outcome of the night will be.
I'm 99.5% certain that Nanook is scum. I also accept that there's a very high chance that Natlaw will die as well if we lynch him. But if he's honest, his protection will go into effect for tonight anyway. It's not such a bad deal to me. Especially since we made it through last night a player up.
With the way things are going, I'm not in favor of doing anything other than lynching scum. I do intend to say who I find suspicious later.
1. vote Nanook 2. vote Parzival 3. vote Hoopy Frood [/b]
* We've all claimed. The scum know who's telling the truth and therefore know exactly which powers are in play, unless a town player is lying.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 13:23:54 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 26, 2009 13:23:54 GMT -5
With the way things are going, I'm not in favor of doing anything other than lynching scum. I do intend to say who I find suspicious later. But this is a different situation entirely. The scum we caught in a lie will most likely end up killing a town player as well if we lynch them. We also have to worry about the possibility that the trophy power is an extra kill. I just think the benefits of keeping Natlaw alive another Day are better at this point. On the other hand, I do agree with you that if we're going to lynch Nanook, we should lynch Nanook and not Natlaw. We know Nanook is lying. While Natlaw's PM states that if one dies, the other dies, we have no idea the specifics of Nanook's role. For all we know, if we lynch Natlaw it frees him and gives him extra powers. I'm remembering the Bane/Riddler team in the Batman game, where Bane thought they were a two-person serial killer team, but Riddler had his own agenda. Just because Natlaw thinks Nanook will die with him if he's lynched doesn't mean it's so.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 13:39:11 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 26, 2009 13:39:11 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think we should definitely not lynch peeker toDay. While it's fairly possible he's lying about his powers for precisely this reason, the point of keeping Natlaw and Nanook alive another Day is so Natlaw can use his protective powers one more time. If peeker is telling the truth and we mislynch him, not only have we mislynched but we've removed the protective abilities that we kept Nanook alive for in the first place.
3. Unvote peekercpa
3. Vote KidVermicious
Ugh. Another thing I've been thinking about is if Kat is a scum redirector, why didn't she just redirect roxis away from herself when the scum tried to kill her last Night. Unless she's telling the truth about her not being able to redirect a person from themselves to somebody else. But then that means she couldn't have been responsible for paulwhoisaghost's redirection on Night 3, which means she would have had to have redirected Parzival from Nanook to shaggy. But then why didn't molefan's investigation be redirected as well?
ARGH.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 14:00:30 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 26, 2009 14:00:30 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | Kat | peekercpa | Hoopy Frood | crazypunker | peekercpa | KidVermicious | Parzival | Nanook | Parzival | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | Kat | crazypunker | KidVermicious | crazypunker | KidVermicious | Nanook | crazypunker | molefan | peekercpa | KidVermicious | molefan | peekercpa | shaggy | Nanook | Natlaw | roxis | Natlaw | peekercpa | Kat | shaggy | peekercpa | Nanook | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | peekercpa | 11 (11) | molefan, shaggy | Hoopy Frood, roxis | paulwhoisaghost | Nanook | 9 (9) | Parzival | crazypunker, peekercpa, shaggy | | crazypunker | 7 (7) | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | crazypunker, shaggy | KidVermicious | 7 (7) | crazypunker | molefan | Hoopy Frood, Pollux Oil | Natlaw | 7 (7) | paulwhoisaghost, roxis | | peekercpa | Kat | 6 (6) | Pollux Oil | paulwhoisaghost | roxis | paulwhoisaghost | 3 (3) | | | | shaggy | 3 (3) | peekercpa | | | Parzival | 2 (2) | | Parzival | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | Parzival | molefan | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: Kat, KidVermicious, Nanook, Natlaw
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 14:15:43 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Feb 26, 2009 14:15:43 GMT -5
How many protection is reasonable for town? We have now:
Confirmed town: sinjin, Angel Pit (protects against all actions) MHaye, Toon Link (protects and block) Chucara, JigglyPuff (mass protects against all Day actions)
Claimed: roxis, Pokémon Trainer (one shot block) Natlaw, Zelda (delayed protection) crazypunker22, Princess Peach (self protects, needs charge) KidVermicious, MetaKnight (backup when protector lynched) peekercpa, Master Hand (protector enabler, backup if all protectors die)
What killing power have we seen? -standard SCUM Night kill -SCUM trophy gun (possibly instead of standard kill or normal action of wielder, but could be an extra kill) -roxis, Pokémon Trainer (delayed Night kill) -Zeriel, Ganondorf (50% Day vigilante if not voted 1st or 2nd) -misterblockey, Donkey Kong (vigilante) -shaggy, Solid Snake (one shot retaliation) -Hal Briston, Mewtwo (SK) -KidVermicious, MetaKnight (backup when killer lynched)
N1: two kills, N2: three kills, N3: three kills, N4: zero kills Even though there is quite some kill potential, the protection seems over the top. Role blockers could block either kill or protect, so I didn't count them. shaggy and Nanook could dodge Night actions, Hoopy Frood was a Scotsman.
Another thing is: what was JigglyPuff supposed to block at Day time? I don't believe he just was there to neutralize his own side powers. Day actions: -roxis pokémon ball swap -Zeriels Day vigilante (town) -Natlaws Day powers (I know it to be town) But that only tells us scum are lying about Day actions, not who.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 14:36:01 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Feb 26, 2009 14:36:01 GMT -5
crazypunkers Princess Peach claim:. Pede told me on day 1 that I started with one charge. I protected myself Night 1, Charged Nights 2 and 3, and used Peach Blossom on KidV Night 4. So even if he did try to use his power last night he couldn't have. Too bad you claimed this after KidVermicious said he did nothing. Here is my theory: I put KidV to sleep. The scum had designated him to perform the nightkill. He couldn't perform any actions, and that is why there were no deaths. If Hoopy is right about the trophy being an extra kill then I am pretty certain that KidV is scum. Either way I was very suspicious of KidV anyways, and now I am even more certain of his scumminess. I don't know why I didn't think of that before. Actually... I'm kind of surprised no one else thought of it either. Well, you had a couple of days, while we only had since you claimed. But I did consider a double block, but didn't ask yet: molefan: any indication you successfully protected? Anyone who knows anything about Night One with only two kills? Anyone targeted crazypunker Night One? I didn't do anything last Night. What exactly were your reason not to try to redirect someone last Night? Any indication you got actually blocked by Peach?
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 14:37:29 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 26, 2009 14:37:29 GMT -5
I've self protected every night except Night 2, where I blocked paulwhoisa/brokentree's votes.
I almost, almost protected sachertorte Night 1, had it typed and everything, but changed my mind at the last second.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 15:01:55 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Feb 26, 2009 15:01:55 GMT -5
Natlaw, in addition to all that you forgot molefan's protection. For the record, I wouldn't consider Jigglypuff's actions a protective role, though. I'm really leaning towards peeker lying through his teeth about his role, just because we have a lot of protects, and he only is a protector if all the rest of them die...it would make more sense if there were only like one or two docs. I think I might be playing it too cautiously.
I dunno, man. None of these claims are very good to me. KidV gets powers from whoever's lynched, but he can choose not to use it. crazypunker can roleblock or protect himself, but he has to charge them by not doing anything. peekercpa does nothing, but can be a doctor if all the other doctors are dead. Kat can switch people, but has a fail rate. I'm assuming at least one of them is telling the truth, but they're all just so...ech.
One thing that could be thought about is Parzival's boost. While his PM states he just helps percentage-wise people, he's given Roxis an extra Poke ball and molefan an extra Pikmin. The only percentage powers in play have been zeriel's Daykill vig power, Kat's bus driving, and shaggy's protecting himself. I guess we don't know how some of the Nightkilled people's powers worked, though.
I feel like I'm right on the verge of figuring everything out but that last elusive clue keeps running away from me.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 15:16:21 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 26, 2009 15:16:21 GMT -5
I agree with Pollux here.
If we are to take out the lovers, we take out Nanook. Lynching a protect power so that an unconfirmed can possibly use it to aid town when we don't know what will happen with that lynch is not a good idea.
On the flipside, if KidV is telling the truth about his power but not his alignment, he will have access to Nanook's power.
However, if KidV is telling the truth about both, he can always try targeting a scum with one of the powers.
And we also don't know what happens to Natlaw should Nanook get lynch. We know Sheik and Zelda have a connection, and we've been told that should Natlaw screw up and post at night, Natlaw can die without Nanook dying. It's quite possible that the flipside exists some way as well. There might be a way for Natlaw to survive when Nanook dies.
Also, if Nanook isn't sheik, we still bag us a scum, and keep our townie power alive for another Day anyway.
So really, I vote no on voting for Natlaw. If we're going to do this, we vote Nanook. I'm fine with a lynch of Nanook, peeker, or punker.
Nanook will bag us scum, but possibly lose us a townie. The other two are likely scum from where I'm looking.
But paul, please don't take out Natlaw. You're idea has merit, but I think the flaws are worse. (And no, I don't find you scummy for suggesting it. It was interesting and I've been thinking about it for a while. I didn't comment one way or the other because I wasn't sure how I felt about it yet.)
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 15:41:56 GMT -5
Post by KidVermicious on Feb 26, 2009 15:41:56 GMT -5
What exactly were your reason not to try to redirect someone last Night? Any indication you got actually blocked by Peach? I didn't have a good enough read on anyone to risk a redirect, let alone the investigation/kill. In hindsight, I coulda risked it, but I didn't know that at the time... I'm not comfortable with Peeks claim, and not just because he didn't post a PM. I'm meh regarding Kats, I need to chew on that some more. Lynching Nanook will make me nearly useless for a Night, but until/unless I'm confirmed I guess thats what we've got to do, if we decide to get rid of the lovers. I'm not too worried about losing Natlaw, unless that power he isn't telling us about is a doozy. What else? Oh, I'm worried about a scum daykill - it could be a red herring, but thats a bit gastardish. And I'm ambivalent on punkers claimed action last night. His timing on the announcement could have been better, and his motivations are suspect... if he's a scum blocker, who better to block than the guy what just got a killing power and investigate power, and has been suspicious of him? Paulwhoisaghost said: I said Day One that I was going to go after anybody doing this. I was wavering about Paul, but I'm now putting up my tent in the "he's scum" camp, and I'm pretty sure Peekers in there with him. In case anybody missed it the first time around, I consider this to be pro-scum behavior. A scum player has obvious reasons to want to manipulate the vote like this. A Town player should never manipulate the vote like this unless they've got solid information, in which case they should NOT be playing that info close to the vest. Town players skewing the vote count like this are not only making a unilateral decision with insufficient info, they're giving cover to scum players to do the same thing, only with perfect info. I strongly believe that in a Borda game, we should vote our most suspicious three (or the three we most want dead, anyway) and let the chips fall where they may. Paul is the first one I've seen to obviously try and skew the vote count (not counting the mason debacle), and I'm perfectly comfortable going after him for it. I don't know when I'll be back, so I'm going to place a vote now. 1. Paulwhoisaghost 2. Peeker 3. NanookIf I had a number 4, it would be on punker.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 15:43:40 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Feb 26, 2009 15:43:40 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | Kat | peekercpa | Hoopy Frood | crazypunker | peekercpa | KidVermicious | KidVermicious | paulwhoisaghost | peekercpa | Nanook | Parzival | Nanook | Parzival | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | Kat | crazypunker | KidVermicious | crazypunker | KidVermicious | Nanook | crazypunker | molefan | peekercpa | KidVermicious | molefan | peekercpa | shaggy | Nanook | Natlaw | roxis | Natlaw | peekercpa | Kat | shaggy | peekercpa | Nanook | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | peekercpa | 13 (13) | molefan, shaggy | Hoopy Frood, KidVermicious, roxis | paulwhoisaghost | Nanook | 10 (10) | Parzival | crazypunker, peekercpa, shaggy | KidVermicious | crazypunker | 7 (7) | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | crazypunker, shaggy | KidVermicious | 7 (7) | crazypunker | molefan | Hoopy Frood, Pollux Oil | Natlaw | 7 (7) | paulwhoisaghost, roxis | | peekercpa | Kat | 6 (6) | Pollux Oil | paulwhoisaghost | roxis | paulwhoisaghost | 6 (6) | KidVermicious | | | shaggy | 3 (3) | peekercpa | | | Parzival | 2 (2) | | Parzival | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | Parzival | molefan | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: Kat, Nanook, Natlaw --FCOD
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 15:46:11 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Feb 26, 2009 15:46:11 GMT -5
Yup, I forgot molefan could protect as well and I'm also wondering if Yoshi's egg provided a one-shot protection (need to attack to break it). Argh, while I'm suspicious of peeker I might have information that supports him, so I'll post the remaining part of my role PM. And that is any kills, not just the lynch, I confirmed that. It wouldn't have stopped Solid Snakes bomb, checking now whether it'll stop Ivysaur (doubt it). Basically I don't do dick except to try and escape "day kills". That was the part of my PM that stood out. Not necessarily a lynch but a day kill. My underline. That combined with JigglyPuffs Day protect, really makes me wonder if the SCUM have a Day kill. Though a SCUM peekercpa would know that as well and Zeriels Day kill was public. If there is such a kill, SCUM would probably use it Today to kill peeker or molefan. But if there isn't, me stopping the kills would just rob us a chance to kill SCUM or get information from a mislynch. Another reason to post this, is that it might be an indication of Sheiks power. At first I thought it might be that the mystery votes were from him (I calm down, he incites), but I think the Judgement Hammer is a better explanation. And a SCUM KidVermicious using it would not be good for town, though it won't affect LyLo last time I checked. So lynching Nanook might be the best and if KidV town, he gets to use the Ninja skill for Night protection (if Sheik truthful about that and not a redirect of some sort). On preview: KidV now worries about a Day kill as well. What to make of that? He's not comfortable with peekers claim, but does worry about the Day kill peeker mentioned.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:03:58 GMT -5
Post by roxis on Feb 26, 2009 16:03:58 GMT -5
Unvote Natlaw
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:18:03 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Feb 26, 2009 16:18:03 GMT -5
One thing that could be thought about is Parzival's boost. While his PM states he just helps percentage-wise people, he's given Roxis an extra Poke ball and molefan an extra Pikmin. The only percentage powers in play have been zeriel's Daykill vig power, Kat's bus driving, and shaggy's protecting himself. I guess we don't know how some of the Nightkilled people's powers worked, though. That wasn't my PM. I think I did speculate on boosting shaggy's percentage since he was my eventual target, but all I do is make them 'more powerful'. Since we're all claiming today, I may as well post my full PM now: There's my restriction in full as well. Essentially I can't target the same person on consecutive nights. On the other hand I can get confirmation if I'm successful. My targets: Night 1: Roxis. I was notified that I can no longer target her. Night 2: Rysto. (who died). Night 3: targeted Nanook, was redirected to Shaggy. Night 4: Molefan1981
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:20:54 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Feb 26, 2009 16:20:54 GMT -5
My 3rd vote should be on CrazyPunker. Not Peeker. I changed it day 3 post #89
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:27:13 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Feb 26, 2009 16:27:13 GMT -5
Also, I'm quite down with Town voting their ones, twos, and threes sincerely, and not gaming the vote. I'd furthermore like to see everyone sign on to this plan, because I think the temptation for scum for try and game it will likely be irresistable at some point, and I wanna nail them on it. So, yeah. I, at least, will be going hard after any player that looks to be manipulating the count. Well KidVermicious certainly argued against not 'gaming' the borda voting Day One. Except he didn't pick it up when I did it Yesterday. Why voting for Nanook? Earlier you wanted me for my powers, but you're not too worried about losing me now. Not wanting to trigger the countdown yet and not sure this will be my final vote: 1. I'll think be placing a Triple vote for Nanook in color laterOn one hand I don't want to risk Nanook using an offensive power, on the other hand letting us live gives another flask. 2. Double vote for KidVermicious 3. Single vote for crazypunkerIf punker town, blocking KidV was a good call, as SCUM he should have blocked a protector (if truthful about being able to block). I really don't see a reason for a town to not try to redirect someone they think scummy on another scum - the reward potential for scum killing scum is huge, while the loss town kill redirect to town isn't really a downside. I don't like the vote 'because I made a rule for it Day One'. If one isn't SCUM the other is, as the 'charging now, can't show my power' is a bit convenient. I need to rethink on peeker based on my 'too much protection' feeling and how the claim of the Kat! holds up. Also I want to look at Yesterdays votes still to see if that turns up anything.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:34:01 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 26, 2009 16:34:01 GMT -5
crazypunkers Princess Peach claim:. Pede told me on day 1 that I started with one charge. I protected myself Night 1, Charged Nights 2 and 3, and used Peach Blossom on KidV Night 4. So even if he did try to use his power last night he couldn't have. Too bad you claimed this after KidVermicious said he did nothing. Well, you had a couple of days, while we only had since you claimed. But I did consider a double block, but didn't ask yet: molefan: any indication you successfully protected? Anyone who knows anything about Night One with only two kills? Anyone targeted crazypunker Night One? I didn't do anything last Night. What exactly were your reason not to try to redirect someone last Night? Any indication you got actually blocked by Peach? I appreciate you commenting on my post. Here is a Karma point. Everyone else seems to be ignoring it completely. As for your first comment: I couldn't have said it before. I was after him in the claim order and I wasn't going to skip my place. But if you will notice before KidV or I claimed I said that I was for claiming because it would clear things up. Also, I don't think that there has been a very good case against me. The only thing that I have heard as an argument against me was that I was changing my voting strategy because it wasn't working out. I was for lynching the lurkers because we hadn't done that yet and it was something that might work better than what we were doing. At that point we had one scum and eight town dead and the dead scum was Ed. Of course I felt like a change was in order... The other reasons were because I didn't claim yet and there had to be a scum in the non-claimed pool. WTF? I had no reason to claim yet. Do you think the scum would NK me if they knew I could float away? They would hope that the town would lynch me. They would focus on different targets, but I was hoping that they would try to NK me and waste their NK. That would be definitely help us.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:40:19 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 26, 2009 16:40:19 GMT -5
I'm ambivalent on punkers claimed action last night. His timing on the announcement could have been better, and his motivations are suspect... if he's a scum blocker, who better to block than the guy what just got a killing power and investigate power, and has been suspicious of him? Or if he is town (which I am.) Then who better to put to sleep than the person I most suspect as scum, who also came in second in the voting on Day 4, who if his claim is not a complete lie, also has some crazy powers for the night? Of course I would put you to sleep. I would be fool not to.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:43:57 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 26, 2009 16:43:57 GMT -5
Also, why say "If I am a scum blocker?"
I am pretty sure that Pede would give you some indication that I put you to sleep. I am sure you know that it was me at this point. Why say "if?"
Trying to cast more doubt on me to save yourself perhaps?
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 16:48:22 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 26, 2009 16:48:22 GMT -5
Nevermind, I am retarded. You were saying if I was a scum blocker, not if I was a blocker. My fault. Bad read.
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 17:09:55 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 26, 2009 17:09:55 GMT -5
Also, I don't think that there has been a very good case against me. The only thing that I have heard as an argument against me was that I was changing my voting strategy because it wasn't working out. I was for lynching the lurkers because we hadn't done that yet and it was something that might work better than what we were doing. At that point we had one scum and eight town dead and the dead scum was Ed. Of course I felt like a change was in order... But there was nothing wrong with what we were doing. We only had two mislynches by the time you made this statement, and one was the mason debacle, which had nothing to do with people's posting behaviors and everything to do with a scum being in the masons. Whether taking out the masons was a good idea or not will probably be unknown. And the other mislynch was based off of voting patterns, not discussion level. It's not your desire of changing the voting rationale that I find odd. It's that you seem to think the one mislynch we had outside of the mason thing was for bad reasons. Aubby's voting record honestly made no sense from a town perspective, particularly when compared to every other player's and the fact that Ed was scum. It looked like a scum slip. Just because it wasn't, doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a bad lynch given the information we had up to that point.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 17:32:26 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 26, 2009 17:32:26 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | paulwhoisaghost | Natlaw | Kat | crazypunker | Hoopy Frood | crazypunker | peekercpa | KidVermicious | KidVermicious | paulwhoisaghost | peekercpa | Nanook | Natlaw | | KidVermicious | crazypunker | Parzival | Nanook | Parzival | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | Kat | crazypunker | KidVermicious | crazypunker | KidVermicious | Nanook | crazypunker | molefan | peekercpa | KidVermicious | molefan | peekercpa | shaggy | Nanook | Natlaw | roxis | | peekercpa | Kat | shaggy | peekercpa | Nanook | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters (#1) | Voters (#2) | Voters (#3) | peekercpa | 12 (10) | molefan, shaggy | Hoopy Frood, KidVermicious, roxis | | Nanook | 10 (10) | Parzival | crazypunker, peekercpa, shaggy | KidVermicious | crazypunker | 9 (8) | Hoopy Frood | Pollux Oil | paulwhoisaghost, Natlaw, crazypunker, shaggy | KidVermicious | 9 (7) | crazypunker | Natlaw, molefan | Hoopy Frood, Pollux Oil | Kat | 6 (5) | Pollux Oil | paulwhoisaghost | roxis | paulwhoisaghost | 6 (6) | KidVermicious | | | Natlaw | 4 (4) | paulwhoisaghost | | peekercpa | shaggy | 3 (3) | peekercpa | | | Parzival | 2 (2) | | Parzival | | Hoopy Frood | 1 (1) | | | Parzival | molefan | 1 (1) | | | molefan |
Not Voting: Kat, Nanook
|
|
|
Day 5
Feb 26, 2009 18:09:02 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Feb 26, 2009 18:09:02 GMT -5
Okay... go with the flow I guess.
UNVOTE NATLAW
VOTE #1 NANOOK[/b]
Also, I'm not sure if it is because of my delay situation that I havent seen it change, but my third votes should not be on Peeker. See day 3 post #89 please..
|
|