|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:18:56 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Jul 23, 2009 19:18:56 GMT -5
I am absolutely opposed to no-lynch. Um, in all of the scenarios that I've come up with, at least. So, that'd kinda be a conditional absolutism, huh? I'm also against no-lynch (in your scenarios or otherwise) though I have been accused of being more of a absolute conditionalist. Such as why would we assume any 'unknown' kills. We have the scum, blocked HM, merc and the peacekeepers.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:24:01 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 23, 2009 19:24:01 GMT -5
I am absolutely opposed to no-lynch. Um, in all of the scenarios that I've come up with, at least. So, that'd kinda be a conditional absolutism, huh? I'm also against no-lynch (in your scenarios or otherwise) though I have been accused of being more of a absolute conditionalist. Such as why would we assume any 'unknown' kills. We have the scum, blocked HM, merc and the peacekeepers. I said 'unknown' kills in the sense that we have no idea who could have been behind it. We know that Scum can kill every Night. HM claimed to kill every Night. We know the Merc can potentially kill every Night, if they accept one of the offers submitted to them. We don't know if the Peacekeepers have a NK ability, a one-shot vig, or whatever. We don't know if there are any other Town/Scum players with the ability to provide an extra kill at Night. That's why I said Unknown.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 23, 2009 19:30:39 GMT -5
I'm also against no-lynch (in your scenarios or otherwise) though I have been accused of being more of a absolute conditionalist. Such as why would we assume any 'unknown' kills. We have the scum, blocked HM, merc and the peacekeepers. We can account for 3 deaths if we assume the peacekeepers can kill (which could make sense if they are some sort of town guard). So, scum kills Pedescribe. That would make sense. Merc kills MHaye. I don't see a reason MHaye would have been a target, but okay. Peacekeepers kill Buff? Or maybe: Scum kills Ped. Merc kills MHaye or Buff. Peacekeepers arrest Stanislaus. X kills Mhaye or Buff. I like the idea of MHaye being involved in taking out Stan since MHaye thought Stan was scummy.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 19:59:06 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 23, 2009 19:59:06 GMT -5
I'm not particularly comfy with drawing much of any conclusions from the circumstantial evidence of the Ed voters showing up dead or Mhaye voting for Stan and then showing up dead and Stan going on hiatus. Null tells all around because those targets could have been specifically chosen to leverage that very evidence.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 20:02:15 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 23, 2009 20:02:15 GMT -5
I would call what I'm doing rampant speculation rather than conclusion-drawing.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 20:11:37 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 23, 2009 20:11:37 GMT -5
I'm also against no-lynch (in your scenarios or otherwise) though I have been accused of being more of a absolute conditionalist. Such as why would we assume any 'unknown' kills. We have the scum, blocked HM, merc and the peacekeepers. We can account for 3 deaths if we assume the peacekeepers can kill (which could make sense if they are some sort of town guard). So, scum kills Pedescribe. That would make sense. Merc kills MHaye. I don't see a reason MHaye would have been a target, but okay. Peacekeepers kill Buff? Or maybe: Scum kills Ped. Merc kills MHaye or Buff. Peacekeepers arrest Stanislaus. X kills Mhaye or Buff. I like the idea of MHaye being involved in taking out Stan since MHaye thought Stan was scummy. If MHaye thought Stan was Scum, why would he support removing Stan from the discussion toDay, and preventing his lynch in the process? I'd think he'd want Stan to post to incriminate himself. At least that's what I'd do... Shrug.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 20:26:15 GMT -5
Post by julie on Jul 23, 2009 20:26:15 GMT -5
If I had the ability to knock out someone I thought was scummy, I'd take it, even if it's only temporary.
But I think the idea of an arrest-like action by the Peacekeepers is plausible. Obviously, there could be yet another party out there we've never had a glimpse of yet.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 21:23:11 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 23, 2009 21:23:11 GMT -5
BTW, I'm glad you're willing to let me post. Yeah, because I have to wait until you address everything I've said before voting. It's not like I can unvote or anything. I did also mention that you may very well have not been online to read my comments when I voted. Sorry, that was just a joke intended at NAF's phrasing. Now to address what you asked: I guess you guys missed me. I was out and about in the real world. Next time, just browse some random articles on wikipedia until I get back instead of voting me. So, what's the case against me, that I miscounted? No, not solely on the fact that you miscounted. First off, yesterDay you were acting shady. Thus my vote on your yesterDay, which if I recall correctly you never directly asked me about, maybe because you knew you weren't going anywhere, I dunno. By shady I mean, the posts of "I didn't want to say anything until I saw if people caught it too", etc. I don't like posts like that, as it makes you look like you're hiding information from us. Useful information that is helping you form opinions. By holding it back we can't defend ourselves from it, as you never tell what it is, and it could also mean you have nothing, and you're just saying it to look useful OK, so the way cookies claim and alignment without claiming an alignment wasn't obvious to you. That's the reason why I phrased it that way. [sarcasm]I guess you're calling me shady because it appeared like I had some super ultra secret reason to cast suspicion on cookies without having a reason too. And to think. I almost got away with it too. No one else would have noticed it either and I could have gotten her lynched and no one would be suspecting me at all. It was a brilliant plan. Thank goodness for Town that you caught me [/sarcasm] Secondly, your actions toDay. Miscounting, not knowing Stanis wasn't killed, That's the same thing. I miscounted because I forgot Stan wasn't dead. saying HM wasn't Blocked, despite her saying she was (she could be lying, we don't know that though as MHaye is dead and was told to be a Roleblocker, he can't confirm it. Perhaps there's another though). I never said she wasn't blocked. I was open to the possibility when she said it "appeared' she was blocked. IN fact, here's what I said: With HM's new information, I suppose it's possible she wasn't blocked and her less than explicit PM may be misleading her. Anyways, all that makes it appear to me that you've been skimming the thread. In my opinion, skimming is a Scum tell, because it makes you look like you aren't paying attention. OK, I've made errors. I'm not skimming. I can't prove it. But, to sum up you case: (and please let me know if I've made errors) - I wasn't upfront about what I saw suspicous about cookies on Day 1. You think that was because I was trying to hide and hope someone else made my case. I contend that it was because I wanted to see if others saw the error that I did and I wasn't really sure it was a big deal. You contend that I was going to try to keep it to myself. I contend that I don't think the players here are foolish enough to have let me get away with that. And they weren't. I wanted to discuss it, not hide it.
- I forgot Stan wasn't dead and miscounted him as a dead body not a missing person. You contend I was skimming. I contend I made a mistake
- You contedn that I said HM wasn't blocked. You are wrong. I don't need to contend anything. I just presented a possibility, you seem to think I was stating a fact.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 23:39:36 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 23, 2009 23:39:36 GMT -5
Okay I'm rereading and looking through this and there are a couple things I wanted to say.
There is doubt on the veracity of NAF's information not just because it's possible that he's lying, but it's also possible that it's misinformation spread via a scum power. I've personally run a game where a player not only had a similar power, but also used it to great effect. That is not to say that we can assume the information is false either, but we need some more wine.
Skimming is a scum tell: skimming is bad, but not necessarily a scum tell. Many people playing scum pay incredible amounts of attention to the main thread for multiple strategy reasons. The more important thing to look out for is betraying extra knowledge, since the scum have this, and the town, for the most part, doesn't.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 23, 2009 23:48:40 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jul 23, 2009 23:48:40 GMT -5
On the peacemakers: I find myself thinking of a race in a series of books I love called the Forkrul Assail. They would arbitrate conflict by killing both sides.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:23:04 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jul 24, 2009 0:23:04 GMT -5
Anyone have any money stolen last night? We certainly have a lot of factions/roles in this game. On the establishment side, we have confirmed: - a doc
- a contrarian/3rd party candidate
And claimed: - a mandatory vig
- a mason group
- some vanilla townies who may or may not know the secret semi-colon handshake
And then we have the other roles/factions: - rebels (I wonder if there are there pro-rebel/contrarians?)
- peacekeepers
- Vinny, the merc
- the thief
And somehow we ended up with 3 dead and 1 paralyzed body last night. So, there are obviously some killer roles that are not listed above. I am thinking that MHaye might have blocked HMonkey. If he was a "peacekeeper", it seems like he'd want to prevent killing, and the one person who he was sure was going to kill last night was HMonkey. Is it possible to have your roleblock go through and then end up dead afterwards? It's hard to imagine what all of the win conditions for these various factions could be. I could imagine that for the contrarian's it might be something like rebels no longer a threat and Kenith, the town leader dead, forcing a new election that they might win. For Vinny and the thief it might just be all about the money. Is it going to be possible for us to come to some sort of peace agreement? Is that what was up with the "threat" wording? If the rebels agree to lay down their arms and bombs are they no longer a threat?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:29:15 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 0:29:15 GMT -5
Anyone have any money stolen last night? We certainly have a lot of factions/roles in this game. On the establishment side, we have confirmed: - a doc
- a contrarian/3rd party candidate
And claimed: - a mandatory vig
- a mason group
- some vanilla townies who may or may not know the secret semi-colon handshake
And then we have the other roles/factions: - rebels (I wonder if there are there pro-rebel/contrarians?)
- peacekeepers
- Vinny, the merc
- the thief
And somehow we ended up with 3 dead and 1 paralyzed body last night. So, there are obviously some killer roles that are not listed above. I am thinking that MHaye might have blocked HMonkey. If he was a "peacekeeper", it seems like he'd want to prevent killing, and the one person who he was sure was going to kill last night was HMonkey. Is it possible to have your roleblock go through and then end up dead afterwards? It's hard to imagine what all of the win conditions for these various factions could be. I could imagine that for the contrarian's it might be something like rebels no longer a threat and Kenith, the town leader dead, forcing a new election that they might win. For Vinny and the thief it might just be all about the money. Is it going to be possible for us to come to some sort of peace agreement? Is that what was up with the "threat" wording? If the rebels agree to lay down their arms and bombs are they no longer a threat? The Devil is in the details. I'm a claimed vanilla who did not fraternize with any semi colons. NAF was a handshaker, but vanilla townies don't foresee terrorist threats, at least not on their own. Who the hell is Kenith?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:31:45 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 24, 2009 0:31:45 GMT -5
^^ Kenith?
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:40:03 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 24, 2009 0:40:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:42:00 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 24, 2009 0:42:00 GMT -5
- I wasn't upfront about what I saw suspicous about cookies on Day 1. You think that was because I was trying to hide and hope someone else made my case. I contend that it was because I wanted to see if others saw the error that I did and I wasn't really sure it was a big deal. You contend that I was going to try to keep it to myself. I contend that I don't think the players here are foolish enough to have let me get away with that. And they weren't. I wanted to discuss it, not hide it.
- I forgot Stan wasn't dead and miscounted him as a dead body not a missing person. You contend I was skimming. I contend I made a mistake
- You contedn that I said HM wasn't blocked. You are wrong. I don't need to contend anything. I just presented a possibility, you seem to think I was stating a fact.
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. There's no way I can prove if you were skimming, so I'll have to take your word for it. And I'm willing to accept that it was a simple mistake about what you thought had happened to Stan. I will still be watching you though. And I'm not un-voting as of now, as I still find you the most suspicious as of yet.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:45:03 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 24, 2009 0:45:03 GMT -5
I didn't take much that was said in the Night Zero color to mean anything more than background. Maybe I'm was wrong to assume that.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 0:46:39 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Jul 24, 2009 0:46:39 GMT -5
[ I'm a claimed vanilla who did not fraternize with any semi colons. NAF was a handshaker, but vanilla townies don't foresee terrorist threats, at least not on their own. Handshakers weren't necessarily Vanilla, were they? I don't think we'll know either way until one claims or bites the dust.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 1:10:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 1:10:57 GMT -5
I was responding to texcat's
No, the handshakers aren't necessarily vanilla (nor necessarily town ;D) but nothing that was shook upon was not otherwise mentioned in the posted Vanilla town PM.
Then there was the whole conjecture about how, if anyone else besides me had an mistaken first PM, such people were likely to be vanilla and not be exposed to any insight of non-vanilla matters in the mistaken PM, else the game would be cracked open like a piggy bank.
None of which means that the handshakers are necessarily vanilla (nor town), and NAF's terrorist warning evidence is not typical for a vanilla.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 1:11:29 GMT -5
Post by special on Jul 24, 2009 1:11:29 GMT -5
I didn't take much that was said in the Night Zero color to mean anything more than background. Maybe I'm was wrong to assume that. I didn't either. But I came up with that when I searched the forum for "kenith'
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 1:35:45 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 1:35:45 GMT -5
Which got me thinking about what is nagging me about NAF's delivery of his intel, at least as it stands now. If there are any protector-type roles left for Town, based on the information provided, such an individual would currently be in a awfully tough spot trying to decide whether or not to try and protect NAF.
I have played in games where town power roles were able to bestow extra information upon other players, but if that were at play, NAF would have been able to disclose such a delivery mechanism without incurring risk for the bestower, if he were even to know who the bestower might be.
If NAF came about the information via powers of his own, he's already made himself a big fat target by sharing what information he has already shared. Why not just make a full claim in that case, and give any possible protectors something more meaty on which to make a decision?
So I am having a hard time seeing the pro-town benefit to being so mum about how he came to know about the 600 lb terrorist gorilla in the corner of the room, and at least one not-so-pro-town detriment to being so mum.
Then there's the full-scale paranoia angle that there is no bomber or terrorist threat, that NAF could be a lying Rebel/3rd/PFK, and the information was presented to encourage town-on-town suspicions and distract any remaining protector's with a tough decision and nothing solid to base it on.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 2:46:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jul 24, 2009 2:46:16 GMT -5
Then again maybe I'm having a hard time seeing it because I'm just a simple vanilla and NAF has his pro-town reasons for keeping mum which will become evident in the fullness of time.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 8:30:01 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 24, 2009 8:30:01 GMT -5
I didn't take much that was said in the Night Zero color to mean anything more than background. Maybe I'm was wrong to assume that. yaknow, this has always been my default position. color is just that, color. however, in ragnorak the color provided some clue about game mechanics. it had something to do with norns or some such (i was pretty well lubricated through that whole adventure). however, i have observed this game morphing over time. participants are much more savvy. is it not logical that mods would also morph to some extent? not only in game sophistication but what also should be paid attention to.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 9:43:50 GMT -5
Post by Pleonast on Jul 24, 2009 9:43:50 GMT -5
I think being publicly skeptical of unconfirmed information is useful, at least better than trusting it quietly. There are a lot of other people who have been just as non-participatory as the Cap'n, including not voting yesterday. He's here posting at least. I can only vote for one player at a time in this game. I was planning to vote for one of the non-voters, and after CaptPink threw out his drive-by post, he made the choice easy. Note, it's not what he's saying that triggered my vote, it's the throw-away nature of it. If he comes back and puts some effort into making a point, I'll remove my vote. I hate when players barely participate. It's stupidly anti-Town, and I'm not going to let it slide.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 10:12:27 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jul 24, 2009 10:12:27 GMT -5
I think being publicly skeptical of unconfirmed information is useful, at least better than trusting it quietly. There are a lot of other people who have been just as non-participatory as the Cap'n, including not voting yesterday. He's here posting at least. I can only vote for one player at a time in this game. I was planning to vote for one of the non-voters, and after CaptPink threw out his drive-by post, he made the choice easy. Note, it's not what he's saying that triggered my vote, it's the throw-away nature of it. If he comes back and puts some effort into making a point, I'll remove my vote. I hate when players barely participate. It's stupidly anti-Town, and I'm not going to let it slide. rut roh. i agree with pleo. this is one of my pet peeves as well. and chocolate did integrate with peanut butter creating a delicious mid day pick me up.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 10:16:07 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 24, 2009 10:16:07 GMT -5
I can only vote for one player at a time in this game. I was planning to vote for one of the non-voters, and after CaptPink threw out his drive-by post, he made the choice easy. Note, it's not what he's saying that triggered my vote, it's the throw-away nature of it. If he comes back and puts some effort into making a point, I'll remove my vote. I hate when players barely participate. It's stupidly anti-Town, and I'm not going to let it slide. It was the main reason he got my vote yesterday, and I agree the throw away nature of that comment doesn't really instil a lot of confidence in more concrete participation -- tho he did seem to participate a lot more in the night thread.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 12:24:54 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Jul 24, 2009 12:24:54 GMT -5
That's been his MO in like every game I've played with him. Lots of fluff, minimal content. He's always right there when it's time to pass out the drinks during fluff time, but never at any other time.
Cookies, is there a reason you feel the need to point out that you are vanilla in like every other post? It's starting to make me suspicious.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 12:36:52 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 24, 2009 12:36:52 GMT -5
I'm trying to get my head around who killed who and why we think who killed who and why who didn't kill who and what the heck is actually going on. So in the words of Monty Python - Bring out your dead. - So who are the Peacekeepers?
Blockey points out that in one book, Peacekeepers "arbitrate conflict by killing both sides". While Texcat suggests " Is it going to be possible for us to come to some sort of peace agreement? Is that what was up with the "threat" wording? If the rebels agree to lay down their arms and bombs are they no longer a threat?"
We win when "The rebels are no longer a threat.". So the Establishment doesn't need to beat the Peacekeepers, and if we take Texcat's viewpoint, as "peace" being the goal - then maybe we don't have to actually kill all the Rebels. But what is peace? No kills? for what period of time? a day? a Day and Night? longer? But interesting to note that MHayes power is non-lethal.
If it were that simple, then everyone wins.
Interestingly, NAF's magic bag on possible terrorist/bomber suggest's no-lynch as a bad idea. The Night 0 colour could be interpreted as that folk have tried to reach peaceful resolution before, but elements have stopped it. So if we could win by "Peace" it seems that we have folk who don't want peace.
- How did Pede die?
Would Pede value a Doc over an unconfirmed Mason and choose to protect Pleo over himself? Claim to save himself from the lynch only to sacrifice himself on the first night. Seems very un-Pede. Tho maybe he couldn't self-protect.
So if he self-protect, the rebels would have had to block and kill, or they had an un-blockable kill as suggested by Pleo.
- How did Buff die?
If the Peacekeepers are killers, then possibly they did it. If they are Peaceful, then either the Merc did it, or we have another town Vig. I say another, as if HM actually killed Buff why did she not take credit?
- How did MHaye die?
If the Merc took out Buff then either the rebels or the establishment were responsible.
- Who blocked HM?
Assuming HM is a compulsory vig, and is truthful about being blocked -- then if the rebels had to block and kill Pede then unlikely they would have a second blocker. So it is most likely MHaye blocked HM. However, her comment about potentially being redirected may be totally innocent, or was a plant just in case there was a watcher/tracker involved that would disagree with her story.
After bluntly refusing suicide as an option, HM is now suggesting we lynch her on Day 3 - could she actually be the terrorist? Yep, it would be a terrible idea if I'm some kind of bomb. You are more than welcome to kill me today for confirmation.
Indeed this does seem somewhat anti-town as we would need to waste a lynch on her rather than her suicide.
- How did Stanis end up frozen?
If the Rebels did it, what threat was he to them? would it have not made more sense to freeze HM and frame them for an Establishment death? If the Establishment did it, why take him out of the picture on day 2? If the Peacekeepers did it, why do they want to make sure he survived day 2?
NAF claims the "terrorist" is linked to the Day 3 lynch, are the Peacekeepers trying to keep Stanis alive for some counter-terrorist move?
I really don't know what to make of this, and on top of this, we have a couple of low/non-contributors who may be trying to sneak under the radar to make it to Day 3.
|
|
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 12:37:52 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 24, 2009 12:37:52 GMT -5
urgh, that was longer than I thought - apologies - it's been a dreadfully dull Managers meeting I've been stuck in all afternoon.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 13:24:23 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 24, 2009 13:24:23 GMT -5
To hook in on BillMc's why did people die and who did it: a look at MHayeDoes anyone want to serve as my personal lightning rod? This line stand out to me, though it probably is just fluff. I was considering that MHaye could have blocked Hockey Monkey with his own life (he redirected her on himself to keep the peace), but HM's PM of 'locked in her room' and Hawkmod's now listing him as role blocker point to a normal block. The reason to think he blocked HM and not someone else, is that a Rebel blocker would have probably blocked pedescribe. Unless they both have a block and a (limited shot) unstoppable kill. I'ts a shot in the dark, but better than lynching either of the claimed roles. MHaye votes pedescribe over HM/Pleonast My basic suspicions have been as follows. He lists stanislaus for vote special ed, but also special ed for his guess-my-vote-reasons and finally a minor ping for Cookies for her explicit alignment correction. If stan was jailed by Peacekeepers, they could have been trying to neutralize a Rebel on MHaye's suspicion. Jailing/arrest would fit a peacekeeper faction, though as someone mentioned such factions usually are a bit misnamed (I'm thinking of Farscape myself). I don't think one faction ( if the Peacekeepers are a faction) would have both a kill and a jailing power. In further speculation, could the jailing be a side effect of getting robbed by the Thief? I think we can afford to look for someone we think might be Rebellious Tonight. I also feel that the risk of losing a second player to Nightkills, this early in the game, is worth it if it reveals a redirector. I read these as two more hints he was the one who blocked Hockey Monkey. My objections are, in the main, twofold. Firstly what you propose grants a voice in the argument about who to kill to the Rebels - and don't think they'll remain silent. Thus, if HM agrees to go along with the Town wish, you're risking letting the Rebels have an extra Nightkill. This is in response to special ed. It makes it seem like MHaye got killed because he was after special ed - but scum typically would avoid to do that. Also if Rebels killed pedescribe, they couldn't have killed MHaye unless they had an extra kill.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Jul 24, 2009 13:41:19 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Jul 24, 2009 13:41:19 GMT -5
On bufftabby, there is much less except for a lot of fluff at Night (perhaps used as hit she was Night talking?). Assuming the Rebels killed pedescribe, the Mercenary or a unknown (Peacekeeper) killer must have killed here. Again if the Rebels had an extra kill, it could also have been a lucky redirect (and the mercenary killed MHaye). How so? All I see that the wincon provides for is that we don't have to remove any 3rd parties to achieve our wincon. I'm not comfortable thinking I can deduce anyone else's wincon from that. Scum likely doesn't have to remove the 3rd parties either, but that's about as much conjecture as I'm really willing to apply to the subject. She was against the handshake being trustworthy so that does give it a bit more credit. I hate to do this in a way, but I think Hockey Monkey is too dangerous to live. Even without the concern of a scum redirector, the likely result of leaving her alive is a dangerous number of dead Town (snip) As far as the whole handshaking goes, I'm not seeing anyone as confirmed. I would also like to hear from Pleo on his seeming inconsistency in his views on using the PMs, but don't see that as a convincing reason to vote for him at the moment. She voted Hockey Monkey and some suspicion to Pleonast (before he claimed).
|
|