|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 3, 2011 16:47:27 GMT -5
Seems to me he provided a link to his reasoning.
Also, Why so eager to get Bill's information? I mean, I also wondered why he hadn't shared it, but then it crossed my mind he's revealed quite enough about what he knows already, without sharing any details IF THEY HAPPENED which I don't know if they did.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Dec 3, 2011 17:22:23 GMT -5
<font style="font-size: 12px;">OOG//I'm sorry for dwindling out on Day 2. I got swamped with several projects at work and got behind on everything I do for fun. Trying to catch up now.//OOG Well crap. We managed to get one scum and we're down five Blue Team. Looking back over the last two Days, I'm thinking sinjin is looking increasingly scummy. On Day 1 she gives a down-to-the-wire last minute vote for Paranoia and then on Day 2 votes for Paranoia again...up until there's a nice safe (and IMO, scummy) switch for a third post in a bandwagon on Archangel. Again, pushing it right up to the wire, as if waiting for a good candidate to get off of Paranoia. It looks an awful lot like strategic vote shifting, trying to go for a "safe" lynch candidate repeatedly until there's that chance to slide in unnoticed on killing a townie. How exactly is this a "safe vote"? I went from Paranoia, whom I came to suspect and voted late on Day 1. I reposted my concerns early on Day 2 and revoted him. Two others including sachertorte subsequently also voted Paranoia. When Archangel did her ridiculous drive by vote after an almost complete lack of participation on both Days 1 and 2 and I found her way more suspicious than Parnaoia who had been much more active on Day 2 than Day 1. Note sachertorte also unvoted Paranoia and voted for Archangel, do you consider his vote a "safe" vote too? <font style="font-size: 12px;">Okay, so thinking about the double blue kills and all that - I am slightly curious if we are looking at a smaller than average scum team. Anyone else's thoughts on this? also agreeing with Caerie up there; sinjn hasn't really shown any real interest in pursuing her lynch on me, so I am interested in hearing from her. Are you disappointed I didn't keep my vote on you yesterDay? Why? This makes no sense to me. @ storyteller: it's from Firefly my second most favorite game ever even though I got subbed out early for seeing classified info by mistake. The blue wee game was obviously my most favoritist ever.
|
|
|
Post by Caerie on Dec 3, 2011 17:40:37 GMT -5
How exactly is this a "safe vote"? I went from Paranoia, whom I came to suspect and voted late on Day 1. I reposted my concerns early on Day 2 and revoted him. Two others including sachertorte subsequently also voted Paranoia. When Archangel did her ridiculous drive by vote after an almost complete lack of participation on both Days 1 and 2 and I found her way more suspicious than Parnaoia who had been much more active on Day 2 than Day 1. Note sachertorte also unvoted Paranoia and voted for Archangel, do you consider his vote a "safe" vote too? It looks to me as though you've been voting on Paranoia because you needed somewhere to put your vote, so it wouldn't look suspicious that you weren't voting. Yet you couldn't have felt that strongly about, since you were so willing to change. The third vote in a forming bandwagon is generally a "safe" hiding place for scum. You didn't start it and you didn't jump on at the end. You almost had Paranoia, someone you've been suspicious of from the start, and yet you decided to switch with little justification except that Archangel hadn't been very active? I'd been suspicious of you before, but this "defense" clinches it for me. Vote sinjin
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Dec 3, 2011 18:19:11 GMT -5
How exactly is this a "safe vote"? I went from Paranoia, whom I came to suspect and voted late on Day 1. I reposted my concerns early on Day 2 and revoted him. Two others including sachertorte subsequently also voted Paranoia. When Archangel did her ridiculous drive by vote after an almost complete lack of participation on both Days 1 and 2 and I found her way more suspicious than Parnaoia who had been much more active on Day 2 than Day 1. Note sachertorte also unvoted Paranoia and voted for Archangel, do you consider his vote a "safe" vote too? It looks to me as though you've been voting on Paranoia because you needed somewhere to put your vote, so it wouldn't look suspicious that you weren't voting. Yet you couldn't have felt that strongly about, since you were so willing to change. The third vote in a forming bandwagon is generally a "safe" hiding place for scum. You didn't start it and you didn't jump on at the end. You almost had Paranoia, someone you've been suspicious of from the start, and yet you decided to switch with little justification except that Archangel hadn't been very active? I'd been suspicious of you before, but this "defense" clinches it for me. Vote sinjinNow you're just being silly. The third vote has never been a "safe" hiding place for scum. Would it have been better if my unvote/vote was 4th after sacher's. Do you never change your mind about who you think might be scum or is scummiest? The only time I'm SURE is when I'm scum. vote Caerie I think you are scum and know way more than me.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Dec 3, 2011 18:40:38 GMT -5
Oh wait on reread Caerie, you didn't change your mind Day 1, you voted Silver Jan first and never budged. And you never voted Day 2, [churchlady]how convenient[/churchlady]
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 4, 2011 4:50:34 GMT -5
Just trying to decide if Sinjins vote on Caerie is OMGYS or just plain and simple because of the "third" vote theory...
I was tempted to vote myself but would I just be hopping on a train?
For now...
Vote BillMc
I can't see any PRO TOWN reason for him revealing that he apparently has a power.
I've already stated that I think that if what he's saying is true.. then it would be more powerful for SCUM than it would for TOWN.
Would SCUM do that... you bet they would .
|
|
|
Post by Caerie on Dec 4, 2011 9:32:57 GMT -5
The third vote is not the main point. Sinjin moved from what could have been a lynch on her primary suspect to a forming lynch, for very weak reasons. To me, this looks like she's scum and so is Paranoia. She'd been voting for another scum so if one of them got killed the other would look cleaner, but didn't actually want to lynch him...so got off when it looked like he really could get lynched. If you had somebody in your sights since Day One and had the chance to lynch them...why change because of a drive by post? Participation level isn't the best measure of scum, but it's a good excuse for scum to use.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Dec 4, 2011 9:50:49 GMT -5
Special Ed could be a bit more clear and enlighten us when you say "but as my role isn't too terribly pro-Town at this point in the game" in Day 2. What exactly is not so pro-town? Also, Ed after Archangel posted and voted for Sis C you posted stating "I will not vote Archangel, I will not vote Archangel" Is this because you always think she is scummy or are there other reasons? I could be more enlightening, but I won't at this point. Yes, I always think she's Scummy, but this time she really probably is. Some good questions here. Ed, I know that you're apparently using a "new playstyle", but not noticing that one of (apparently) your scum candidates was killed and is town just seems like skimming. I wouldn't mind you clarifying what you mean by your role not being "pro-town" either.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 4, 2011 10:56:27 GMT -5
I could be more enlightening, but I won't at this point. Yes, I always think she's Scummy, but this time she really probably is. Some good questions here. Ed, I know that you're apparently using a "new playstyle", but not noticing that one of (apparently) your scum candidates was killed and is town just seems like skimming. I wouldn't mind you clarifying what you mean by your role not being "pro-town" either. I did not say that my role wasn't pro-Town. Please read more carefully. I'm not going to claim now, despite some people wishing they knew more. I'm certain the Scum also wish they knew more. And yes, I forgot that Archangel was killed. I suppose I skimmed a bit. I mean, I knew we lost 2 Blue players. I'm certain that I read it was Archangel, but then, I didn't recall it when I was asked about my comments regarding her. Not sure what else you'd like me to say about it. If you'd like to spin that into a skimming is a Scum tell vote, by all means, go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by scáthach on Dec 4, 2011 11:13:17 GMT -5
And yes, I forgot that Archangel was killed. I suppose I skimmed a bit. I mean, I knew we lost 2 Blue players. I'm certain that I read it was Archangel, but then, I didn't recall it when I was asked about my comments regarding her. Not sure what else you'd like me to say about it. If you'd like to spin that into a skimming is a Scum tell vote, by all means, go ahead. We lynched her? I mean, it's a pretty big thing to skim over who we lynched yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 4, 2011 11:15:16 GMT -5
And yes, I forgot that Archangel was killed. I suppose I skimmed a bit. I mean, I knew we lost 2 Blue players. I'm certain that I read it was Archangel, but then, I didn't recall it when I was asked about my comments regarding her. Not sure what else you'd like me to say about it. If you'd like to spin that into a skimming is a Scum tell vote, by all means, go ahead. We lynched her? I mean, it's a pretty big thing to skim over who we lynched yesterday. It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it?
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 4, 2011 12:08:34 GMT -5
We lynched her? I mean, it's a pretty big thing to skim over who we lynched yesterday. It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it?How about Bah ?
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 4, 2011 12:13:39 GMT -5
It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it?How about Bah ? Yeah that might be appropriate
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 4, 2011 14:20:32 GMT -5
We lynched her? I mean, it's a pretty big thing to skim over who we lynched yesterday. It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it? It happens, Ed. All you can do is go on.
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 4, 2011 15:01:46 GMT -5
@Colby11
Do you have any response to my question to you D3 #26 regarding whether you actually finished reading.... or are you hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away ?
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 4, 2011 20:22:38 GMT -5
Case in point, I didn't read all of Day 3 and didn't see Special Ed's response to Ginger's post. So you post without catching up on what has gone on ? Most people state they are posting as they catch up... and surely you did bother to finish reading all of what had been written on Day 3 before you went off and did something else.... You could have then put a response to Mr Special Ed's response to Gingers post... Or am I reading this totally wrong ? At Lightfoot as I understand it... BillMc has only been active in the game since the start of Day 3... It was stated by the MOD that he wouldn't be around at the start of the game... so I don't think he would have even put in a PM for an actiion on Night 1.... Though he could well have done for Night 2 To explain myself, I did read the thread before posting. But, I missed Special Ed's response back to Ginger about her questions. Otherwise I would have commented on Special Ed's response. Bill announcing that he has a gadget is interesting to say the least. Doesn't mean that he is Town or Scum. But, I think that he did put a target on himself. He could have used it Night 2, but he did say that he would be gone for 2 weeks. (Welcome back, Bill!)
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 4, 2011 20:25:21 GMT -5
@ Colby11Do you have any response to my question to you D3 #26 regarding whether you actually finished reading.... or are you hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away ? No, I did make a message last night, and I guess it didn't post. Nothing ever goes away in Mafia games
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Dec 5, 2011 6:20:32 GMT -5
Day 3 Vote Count
Lightfoot (2): Sister Coyote(#3), Gnarlycharlie(#28)
Inner Stickler (1): Drain Bead(#18) sinjin (1): Caerie(#32) Caerie (1): sinjin(#33) BillMc (1): moodymitchy(#35)
With these votes, Lightfoot will be lynched.
Day ends in 32 hours ish.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 5, 2011 8:59:07 GMT -5
I am not a huge fan of moodymitchy's vote for Bill. Mind you, I'm also not a huge fan of Bill's reveal, because he didn't really give us much in the way of usable information. But he supposedly can, and I will expect him to in the future. And obviously, if his information ever turns out to be false, we can lynch him then. It seems like a stretch to say there's no pro-Town reason to reveal stuff now.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Dec 5, 2011 10:26:39 GMT -5
Hi, all -
I'm having a bit of a rough spell at work; I will do my best to read and comment when I get home tonight. Sorry!
|
|
|
Post by JustBeingGinger on Dec 5, 2011 10:48:20 GMT -5
Aw geez. If you're telling the truth, BillMc, I don't think this soon was a good time to show your hand. You're giving a lot of information away and if any of it is true you may have just given the scum a huge upper hand by essentially offering up a power role for attack. You might also be scum trying to sow confusion, though I'm trying to figure out why you'd do that, since that isn't a role that would lend itself to much scum manipulation. Back to sinjin, the weak case against Paranoia and the switch to a forming bandwagon on Archangel really doesn't look good, especially coupled with a general lack of arguing for her votes. Just look at the post justifying a switch to Archangel: Arrrrghhhhh, I hate, hate, hate this post by this player. This is Archangels only post toDay. This is the sum total of her game posts yesterDay: Given the timing of her vote on Deonyesterday as pointed out by Pollux , her complete lack of any substance at all and this drive by vote; unvote Paranoiavote ArchangelDoesn't really seem particularly well justified, considering she'd been going after the same person two Days in a row up until this post. Yes, this puts a somewhat target on his back, but 1. BillMc typically always has a target on his back from Night 0, due to how good he is. 2. He stated that upon his death, he can pass it to another player. So I don't see that he would be much of a target for giving out the information, because he is just a device that still continue to help town by passing it. If he was scum, I don't think he would reveal what he has. He had no suspicion on him prior to joining the game toDay. Now is the device pro-town or anti-town, right now the more information we have on the collars is pro-town. The collars, so far have been hurting town more than they have been hurting scum... So with the enabling/dis-enabling the collars, I am going to assume if this is how the NKs happen as well as the protecting from the DOC, it may also be how the 3rd party kills, if we have them. on other news: I don't like the play of Ed with his comments that he is not exactly pro-town right now and with the forgetting that Archangel was lynched. BUT, I don't think this makes him scum, would scum be so bold to come out and say that he is acting not so pro town, maybe the 3rd party since the 3rd party has only taken out town, I am assuming that 1 of the 2 NK's might be happening by a mandatory 3rd party. I am going to go back and read the case on Sinjin and Inner.
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 12:04:42 GMT -5
Vote: Colby11 Feel free to refer to Day 2, post #87 here for my reasonings... they haven't changed... but I will add that his "participation" Today is weak at best. Still considering voting for Special Ed, but also wondering the answers to the same questions that Ginger brought up. Going back to reread, in case I missed something obvious. (I've done that before) Considering voting for Ed? This pings me. He doesn't say he's suspicious of Ed... or give any reasons for being suspicious... he just says he is considering voting for him. I'm seen scum tactics like this before. It's basically showing anyone else who thinks Ed is suspicious that he would support that vote without being the one to start the voting, this way people won't look at him too much if the Ed hangs and it turns out to be a mislynch. After reading through, I think I need to apologise to the blue team for my absence as I do have information regarding the collars. I have a gadget - yes, they do exist. blah blah blah..... Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that. As to gadgets, I was referring to the Night 0 color where it states this: Since we were talking about the fact that the collars were linked (as mentioned in the Night 0 color), I also made an assumption that there would be gadgets. Did he say anything here? I mean "Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that." Really? Because Bill just claimed he had that power.... so I guess it you could make that assumption... unless you think Bill is scum and lying about having that power but you suspect that the power does exist... just not in Bill's hands. But nothing about Bill's claim indicates that he would be the only player to have this power. I could see this game having multiple power roles who all have the same gadget. Colby's statement sounds more like scum knowing that Bill is telling the truth and making a statement that they believe the power exists and Bill is telling the truth without revealing they know Bill is telling the truth because they know he is Town... err... blue team.... while at the same time the wording kinda implies that he is skeptical of Bill actually having that power. Why only considering.... ? Why not just go ahead and do it... you might get a reaction... you might get others join in and could perhaps get a read of where they are coming from... I just think it's a little pointless openly stating that your considering voting someone without actually doing it... Case in point, I didn't read all of Day 3 and didn't see Special Ed's response to Ginger's post. Ok... didn't read all of Day 3... and somehow Ed's response to Ginger dissuades you from voting for him. Wait a second..... his post where he was considering voting for Ed was #16 of Day 3.... so he didn't read "all" of Day 3? A whopping 15 posts? And somehow this.... Would dissuade voting for Ed.... if anything it would support voting for him... and yet Colby still hasn't done so. Why refer to that post from Ed and not follow up on it? It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it? It happens, Ed. All you can do is go on. Here he supports offers a kind word to the person he was "considering" voting for..... but the reason Ed is proclaiming his own idiocy is the post that supposedly changed Colby's opinion of Ed... or supported it? So you post without catching up on what has gone on ? Most people state they are posting as they catch up... and surely you did bother to finish reading all of what had been written on Day 3 before you went off and did something else.... You could have then put a response to Mr Special Ed's response to Gingers post... Or am I reading this totally wrong ? At Lightfoot as I understand it... BillMc has only been active in the game since the start of Day 3... It was stated by the MOD that he wouldn't be around at the start of the game... so I don't think he would have even put in a PM for an actiion on Night 1.... Though he could well have done for Night 2 To explain myself, I did read the thread before posting. But, I missed Special Ed's response back to Ginger about her questions. Otherwise I would have commented on Special Ed's response. Bill announcing that he has a gadget is interesting to say the least. Doesn't mean that he is Town or Scum. But, I think that he did put a target on himself. He could have used it Night 2, but he did say that he would be gone for 2 weeks. (Welcome back, Bill!) OH! So he did read the whole Day! Ok! But he missed that particular post the first go around... again, it was a whopping 15 posts... kinda hard to miss something in 15 posts. And why did he say he didn't read the whole Day and now he's saying he did but he missed a posts? @ Colby11Do you have any response to my question to you D3 #26 regarding whether you actually finished reading.... or are you hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away ? No, I did make a message last night, and I guess it didn't post. Nothing ever goes away in Mafia games [sinjin] blah blah blah [/sinjin] Nothing here points to him having any interest in actually finding scum or progressing blue teams goals. Some of it does show an attempt to appear like he is trying... and some of it shows that Colby can't get his story straight. He's active and he's spending way more time trying to convince us he's hunting scum than he is actually looking for scum. And again... I still hold that my case Yesterday is just as strong Today... nothing in it has changed...
|
|
|
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Dec 5, 2011 12:07:30 GMT -5
Vote: Colby11 Feel free to refer to Day 2, post #87 here for my reasonings... they haven't changed... but I will add that his "participation" Today is weak at best. Still considering voting for Special Ed, but also wondering the answers to the same questions that Ginger brought up. Going back to reread, in case I missed something obvious. (I've done that before) Considering voting for Ed? This pings me. He doesn't say he's suspicious of Ed... or give any reasons for being suspicious... he just says he is considering voting for him. I'm seen scum tactics like this before. It's basically showing anyone else who thinks Ed is suspicious that he would support that vote without being the one to start the voting, this way people won't look at him too much if the Ed hangs and it turns out to be a mislynch. After reading through, I think I need to apologise to the blue team for my absence as I do have information regarding the collars. I have a gadget - yes, they do exist. blah blah blah..... Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that. As to gadgets, I was referring to the Night 0 color where it states this: Since we were talking about the fact that the collars were linked (as mentioned in the Night 0 color), I also made an assumption that there would be gadgets. Did he say anything here? I mean "Quite interesting that there might be a power that can disable the collars. I am assuming right now that there is a power that can do that." Really? Because Bill just claimed he had that power.... so I guess it you could make that assumption... unless you think Bill is scum and lying about having that power but you suspect that the power does exist... just not in Bill's hands. But nothing about Bill's claim indicates that he would be the only player to have this power. I could see this game having multiple power roles who all have the same gadget. Colby's statement sounds more like scum knowing that Bill is telling the truth and making a statement that they believe the power exists and Bill is telling the truth without revealing they know Bill is telling the truth because they know he is Town... err... blue team.... while at the same time the wording kinda implies that he is skeptical of Bill actually having that power. Why only considering.... ? Why not just go ahead and do it... you might get a reaction... you might get others join in and could perhaps get a read of where they are coming from... I just think it's a little pointless openly stating that your considering voting someone without actually doing it... Case in point, I didn't read all of Day 3 and didn't see Special Ed's response to Ginger's post. Ok... didn't read all of Day 3... and somehow Ed's response to Ginger dissuades you from voting for him. Wait a second..... his post where he was considering voting for Ed was #16 of Day 3.... so he didn't read "all" of Day 3? A whopping 15 posts? And somehow this.... Would dissuade voting for Ed.... if anything it would support voting for him... and yet Colby still hasn't done so. Why refer to that post from Ed and not follow up on it? It is what it is. I fyou want to call me an idiot, fine. I deserve it. If you want to vote for me, go ahead. If you want to keep discussing it, that's fine too. What else would you like me to say about it? It happens, Ed. All you can do is go on. Here he supports offers a kind word to the person he was "considering" voting for..... but the reason Ed is proclaiming his own idiocy is the post that supposedly changed Colby's opinion of Ed... or supported it? So you post without catching up on what has gone on ? Most people state they are posting as they catch up... and surely you did bother to finish reading all of what had been written on Day 3 before you went off and did something else.... You could have then put a response to Mr Special Ed's response to Gingers post... Or am I reading this totally wrong ? At Lightfoot as I understand it... BillMc has only been active in the game since the start of Day 3... It was stated by the MOD that he wouldn't be around at the start of the game... so I don't think he would have even put in a PM for an actiion on Night 1.... Though he could well have done for Night 2 To explain myself, I did read the thread before posting. But, I missed Special Ed's response back to Ginger about her questions. Otherwise I would have commented on Special Ed's response. Bill announcing that he has a gadget is interesting to say the least. Doesn't mean that he is Town or Scum. But, I think that he did put a target on himself. He could have used it Night 2, but he did say that he would be gone for 2 weeks. (Welcome back, Bill!) OH! So he did read the whole Day! Ok! But he missed that particular post the first go around... again, it was a whopping 15 posts... kinda hard to miss something in 15 posts. And why did he say he didn't read the whole Day and now he's saying he did but he missed a posts? @ Colby11Do you have any response to my question to you D3 #26 regarding whether you actually finished reading.... or are you hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away ? No, I did make a message last night, and I guess it didn't post. Nothing ever goes away in Mafia games [sinjin] blah blah blah [/sinjin] Nothing here points to him having any interest in actually finding scum or progressing blue teams goals. Some of it does show an attempt to appear like he is trying... and some of it shows that Colby can't get his story straight. He's active and he's spending way more time trying to convince us he's hunting scum than he is actually looking for scum. And again... I still hold that my case Yesterday is just as strong Today... nothing in it has changed...
|
|
|
Post by moodymitchy on Dec 5, 2011 13:21:28 GMT -5
@Paulwhoisaghost
You're so convinced you posted twice huh....
@drain Bead
I realise you might not be too enamoured with my vote but I still wonder on the merits of BillMc revealing a power as early as he did.
I voted early in order to give him plenty of time to respond.... then I'd evaluate the response. I'm still waiting.. I'm also curious as to how he "gets to pass the power after his death" (not exact wording)
Until something else possibly leaps out at me I'll leave me vote...
@colby11
Your D2-#45 post. You make a comment referring to BillMc's claim and you use the wording...
"Doesn't mean that he is Town or Scum. "
does this mean you think he is 3rd party ?
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 5, 2011 14:13:36 GMT -5
on other news: I don't like the play of Ed with his comments that he is not exactly pro-town right now and with the forgetting that Archangel was lynched. BUT, I don't think this makes him scum, would scum be so bold to come out and say that he is acting not so pro town, maybe the 3rd party since the 3rd party has only taken out town, I am assuming that 1 of the 2 NK's might be happening by a mandatory 3rd party. No where did I say I wasn't exactly pro-Town. I am exactly pro-Town. No where did Isay I wasn't acting pro-Town. I am acting pro-Town. (or at least I am trying to). I am a Town player. I win with Town and only with Town. I am on the Town side. I'm Town. Town is my alignment. I get down with the Town. I am not responsible for any death other than through my participation in the discussion during the day and my votes.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 5, 2011 14:15:33 GMT -5
Vote: colby
I am a paid subscriber to paul's newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Dec 5, 2011 15:45:18 GMT -5
paul -- I was reading Bill's claim as being able to investigate the status of a collar, not to be able to disable it. Obviously the claim, if taken at face value, means that there is some mechanism by which a collar can be disabled, but that mechanism is not Bill.
|
|
|
Post by Caerie on Dec 5, 2011 16:04:11 GMT -5
paul -- I was reading Bill's claim as being able to investigate the status of a collar, not to be able to disable it. Obviously the claim, if taken at face value, means that there is some mechanism by which a collar can be disabled, but that mechanism is not Bill. That's how I read it as well. If he could investigate and disable, that would be two entirely different powers. The nature of his investigation seems to imply the existence of a disabler is all.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Dec 5, 2011 16:25:27 GMT -5
@ Paulwhoisaghost I voted for Special Ed in Day 2 (see post #48). I haven't decided whether I want to vote for him again based on that same information, plus what we have learned since then. Bill's gadget does not give him the power to activate, disable, or duplicate a collar, just allows Bill to see if they have been activated, disabled, or duplicated. Might want to get your story straight first. Hmmm... voting for someone based on a slip... When has that happened? OH WAIT, to me the last game! (PS- your link to your post from Day 2 doesn't work) moodymitchyBill is in my "I have no idea which side he is on" list at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 5, 2011 16:25:55 GMT -5
I realise you might not be too enamoured with my vote but I still wonder on the merits of BillMc revealing a power as early as he did. I voted early in order to give him plenty of time to respond.... then I'd evaluate the response. I'm still waiting.. I'm not sure Day 3 in a game with a dual-kill mechanic is necessarily "early" in terms of a power reveal. Also, you know as well as I do that Bill is, generally speaking, a low-volume poster at the best of times. "Doesn't mean that he is Town or Scum. " Quoting Colby I'm not sure about the case on colby, so this shouldn't be seen as defending him, but I read that as saying it doesn't say anything about Bill's alignment. Only that he has claimed a power. Not as implying he wasn't either Town or Scum.
|
|