|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:48:51 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 13:48:51 GMT -5
Can has vote count with peak vote tally?[/color]
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:52:32 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 3, 2009 13:52:32 GMT -5
color=green]Vote Count please?[/color]
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 13:53:13 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 3, 2009 13:53:13 GMT -5
Seems I messed up, but Cookie's has got my back... Well she preemptively got my back.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 14:19:32 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Aug 3, 2009 14:19:32 GMT -5
As promised, but do note that these are my guesses/assumptions.
27 players, assuming 5 Rebels and 5-7 total TP (peacekeeper(s), Thief, Mercenary) That leaves 15-17 town, let's say 15 with the 2 TP candidates.
Town: 6 players known: 13 points (3x2.5 masons=7.5, doc=3, 2x1 vanilla=2, TP candidate=0.5) 9 unknown: 15 points (comp vig=1.5 (claimed), watcher=2 (claimed), cop=4, TP candidate=0.5, 7x1 vanilla=7 (one claimed)) 17 players total for 29 points. (+1 for Day start, missed that earlier)
Rebel: 1 player known: 4.5 points (1x4.5 vanilla) 4 unknown: 25 (vanilla=4.5, tough guy (pede kill, my guess!)=7, roleblocker (HM block)=6.5, godfather=7) 5 players total for 29.5 points
Third Party: 1 thief = 0 points (steal from both) 1 mercenary = 0 points (changed from SK*)
1 peacekeeper/role blocker = 6.5 points 1 peacekeeper/jailer = 7.5 points (I don't think it's archangel, but a peacekeeper who didn't want to counter claim) 2 TP candidate = 0.5x2 (assuming they linked to peacekeeper win condition) 1 unknown peacekeeper= would need to be 10+ points to come up to the ~29 points of Establishment/Rebels, but that is too much swing. Maybe move one town to peacekeeper (for 4.5x2 vanilla).
Comments welcome, including from Pollux who also hasn't made any posts Today.
*) Because I now think hiring makes him more like a vigilante. Assuming everyone start with at least one gold, town has more gold than rebels though they can out bid on specific Nights. Also with regards to only one kill: it strengthens my guess we had extra Rebel kill Night One. The Mercenary either blocked or hit a protected target, accepted an offer to do nothing or didn't like any the offers (has a specific hit list or limited kills?) or no offers at all (unlikely). Aka guesswork.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 14:32:54 GMT -5
Post by Natlaw on Aug 3, 2009 14:32:54 GMT -5
I've got it as (unofficial but with unbulleted lists ): Seven votes: [/b] (texcat, BillMc, Breign, pumpjack, spintari, Cookies, archangel)[/ul]Three votes: [/b] (Hockey Monkey, special ed, Natlaw) [/ul]One vote: [/b] (julie) texcat (stanislaus) [/ul] Tie breaker: [/b] (seven vote peak)[/ul]
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 17:16:55 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Aug 3, 2009 17:16:55 GMT -5
Here beginneth the Vote Count. Seven votes. Three votes. One vote. In the event of a tie, Stanislaus, was the first to reach a total of seven votes, shall be lynched. Thus endeth the Vote Count. - Victoria, late First Lady of Quantom.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 17:19:45 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 3, 2009 17:19:45 GMT -5
Also, Texcat, please either talk to your fellow mason and convince them to claim toDay (unless they already did and I missed it, I have been doing a hurry up read of the Day so far this morning) because it is exceedingly likely that you are going to be a NK target toNight seeing as how you are the only living claimed mason. If you die without confirming your other masonry partner the scum can convincingly claim mason and essentially end the game.<snipped and bolding mine> did i miss something? why would this end the game, essentially?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 17:47:32 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 17:47:32 GMT -5
If a scum can effectivly/belivably claim mason town can no longer win unless there is another third party alive who will target the fake claimed mason.
Now I am not saying that scum will pull this off, but it becomes possible if Texcat dies without having an additional mason backup to support him.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 18:31:12 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 3, 2009 18:31:12 GMT -5
If a scum can effectivly/belivably claim mason town can no longer win unless there is another third party alive who will target the fake claimed mason. Now I am not saying that scum will pull this off, but it becomes possible if Texcat dies without having an additional mason backup to support him. but we know there is exactly one mason left after texcat. He told us there were 3 to start with. Only one Scum can claim mason, and they can be countered. Even if not countered, if the true mason should die, then we'll know the Scum claimer is lying. If texcat dies, I encourage a Scum to fake claim mason.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 18:36:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 3, 2009 18:36:36 GMT -5
I may be biased, but doesn't everything archangel say seem very convienent?
She jailed stanislaus....
in the Day..to try to control him for Town
Well, yeah, but since that doesn't make sense, she actually tried to jail him at Night, but he must have been protected from her jailing somehow...
so she got to jail him during the Next Day...
Then, she jailed Hockey monkey after HM claimed to have been blocked.
Only the mechanism was really different AND the end result was very different. If HM was jailed at Night, why could she still post? And why could she still try to perform her Night action? And why was Stanislaus' jailing described so differently and broadcast in the color to the Town? Can all this be explained by the difference between Day and Night?
None of it adds up. She's lying, but not so badly that she'll get lynched after NAF's dire warning. She's trying to hide it in the convenience of what's going on around her.
So, we're basically lynching stanislaus for having a bad idea. OK, a really bad idea..and awful idea. Instead of lynching the person who is obviously lying?
It would make even more sense if you lynched me for being an idiot. Not that I'm recommending that.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 18:47:54 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 18:47:54 GMT -5
I may be biased, but doesn't everything archangel say seem very convienent? She jailed stanislaus.... in the Day..to try to control him for Town Well, yeah, but since that doesn't make sense, she actually tried to jail him at Night, but he must have been protected from her jailing somehow... so she got to jail him during the Next Day... Then, she jailed Hockey monkey after HM claimed to have been blocked. Only the mechanism was really different AND the end result was very different. If HM was jailed at Night, why could she still post? And why could she still try to perform her Night action? And why was Stanislaus' jailing described so differently and broadcast in the color to the Town? Can all this be explained by the difference between Day and Night? None of it adds up. She's lying, but not so badly that she'll get lynched after NAF's dire warning. She's trying to hide it in the convenience of what's going on around her. So, we're basically lynching stanislaus for having a bad idea. OK, a really bad idea..and awful idea. Instead of lynching the person who is obviously lying? It would make even more sense if you lynched me for being an idiot. Not that I'm recommending that. I don't think you'll find many people who are going to disagree that angel's play is very dubious, or your own play what with the conveniently accurate information about bufftaby that you shared after she was already dead, and then accidentally forgot to submit the following Night. The most popular notion seems to be or have been to avoid killing anyone obvious toDay out of fear of bringing about whatever NAF's warning is trying to warn us about. Also, a circumstantial case against Stan being the thief was already in place and gathering votes long before he suggested lynching texcat.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 18:48:22 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 18:48:22 GMT -5
If texcat dies, I encourage a Scum to fake claim mason. Seconded! I don't think Stan's suggestion of texcat is so egregious that he must must must be scum or even 3rd party. It would be one way of going about getting around the terrorist threat. But it would also be one way of lying like a rug and getting us to lynch a mason, then standing in the shadows twirling his mustachios and sniggering. So, here's my question about how we tackle this threat. Say we lynch someone we aren't all that suspicious of, with the assumption that person isn't trying to get lynched and therefore isn't the bomb. And say that person turns up town. Then, let's say that we get the same warning tomorrow. What then? I really still don't like Spintari's unresponsiveness to direct questions. I can't think of a pro-Town excuse for it since the questions, honestly, haven't been all that pointed. I'm not for Stan being lynched, though I'm not strongly against it either. I don't really see the case against him and, to be honest, I'd be extremely suspicious of texcat's reasoning if I didn't believe in texcat's mason claim. The idea that Stan was blocked at Night by a Day block doesn't make sense. The merc accusation does work a little better since we can't know the mechanism by which the merc gets the assignments, but the thief accusation is really weird.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 18:56:00 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 18:56:00 GMT -5
What the hell, I need to place a vote toDay and the argument against Archangel is sounding good.
vote archangel
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 19:05:14 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 3, 2009 19:05:14 GMT -5
I really still don't like Spintari's unresponsiveness to direct questions. I can't think of a pro-Town excuse for it since the questions, honestly, haven't been all that pointed. Would a more pointed question be asking for clarification on why you have voted to lynch a town twice and are now advocating for stanislaus?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 19:53:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 3, 2009 19:53:16 GMT -5
What the hell, I need to place a vote toDay and the argument against Archangel is sounding good. vote archangelYou mean you don't share the rampant paranoia that archangel is on a short-but-expanding-list of people to fear as the horseperson of the apocalypse?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 20:14:42 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 20:14:42 GMT -5
Would a more pointed question be asking for clarification on why you have voted to lynch a town twice and are now advocating for stanislaus? I've voted more than twice for Town, and I bet I'll vote for Town again before the game is over. Let's see. Day 1 I suspected and voted Pleonast, who claimed mason. Then I switched to Capt. Pinkies, then to PCM to try to protect power roles. Day 2 I voted Jaade for not helping Town. I think I was the first vote on her and I didn't change my vote. The only thing I regret about the Jaade vote is not knowing that Sister Coyote was going to quit. Today, I've voted for you, Spintari, for question avoidance and no voting. I'm sticking with that for right now. Am I wrong? Could be. Are you Town? Could be. Are you the bomber? Could be. Are you helping Town? Not that I can tell. Am I willing to be proved wrong? Absolutely. Since you're so opposed to my advocating for Stan, how about you explain the case against him?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:01:14 GMT -5
Post by spintari on Aug 3, 2009 21:01:14 GMT -5
I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:10:55 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 3, 2009 21:10:55 GMT -5
I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter. Can you clear something up for me? Can you explain what julie is saying about you and asking you to do?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:11:51 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 21:11:51 GMT -5
I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? I don't care what you believe. I care what you contribute and what explanations you give for why you didn't vote. That matters. The only people who could go through this game and never vote for Town are people who know who is Town and who isn't. What was my Day 1 MO? I voted for Pleonast because I thought he was shifty. I switched to Captain Pinkies after Pleo claimed. I switched to PCM to protect power roles. Again, contribute something! Explain the case against Stan, or explain why you didn't vote or explain something. You're trying to deflect this off onto me but I think the only things I can't be accused of are under-explaining and not talking enough! ;D
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:12:20 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 3, 2009 21:12:20 GMT -5
Would a more pointed question be asking for clarification on why you have voted to lynch a town twice and are now advocating for stanislaus? I've voted more than twice for Town, and I bet I'll vote for Town again before the game is over. Let's see. Day 1 I suspected and voted Pleonast, who claimed mason. Then I switched to Capt. Pinkies, then to PCM to try to protect power roles. Day 2 I voted Jaade for not helping Town. I think I was the first vote on her and I didn't change my vote. The only thing I regret about the Jaade vote is not knowing that Sister Coyote was going to quit. Today, I've voted for you, Spintari, for question avoidance and no voting. I'm sticking with that for right now. Am I wrong? Could be. Are you Town? Could be. Are you the bomber? Could be. Are you helping Town? Not that I can tell. Am I willing to be proved wrong? Absolutely. Since you're so opposed to my advocating for Stan, how about you explain the case against him? and can you clarify your case against spintari? I fear something is getting lost in the translation. Or maybe something is hitting close to home.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:13:30 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 21:13:30 GMT -5
The only people who could go through this game and never vote for Town are people who know who is Town and who isn't. In other words, scum.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:17:46 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 21:17:46 GMT -5
and can you clarify your case against spintari? I fear something is getting lost in the translation. Or maybe something is hitting close to home. He doesn't answer straight questions, didn't vote Day 1 or 2 (unless I missed one and if I did I apologize), and now is doing some weird impression of PeeWee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" To me, he seems desperate to avoid accountability or questions.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:18:00 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 3, 2009 21:18:00 GMT -5
I may be biased, but doesn't everything archangel say seem very convienent? <snipped> pot and kettle. i'm really torn between our two vote leaders. on the one hand we seem to be having a shifting claim and on the other we have an advocation of a mason lynch. of these two i am more willing to give some slack to what seems to be a horrible idea but backed by some kind of funky, makes sense in a weird way logic. with that said. i'll go ahead and vote archangel
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:20:17 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Aug 3, 2009 21:20:17 GMT -5
If a scum can effectivly/belivably claim mason town can no longer win unless there is another third party alive who will target the fake claimed mason. Now I am not saying that scum will pull this off, but it becomes possible if Texcat dies without having an additional mason backup to support him. and color me obtuse as hell. i still don't see how a fake mason claim means that there would be no lynch.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:24:43 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 21:24:43 GMT -5
and color me obtuse as hell. i still don't see how a fake mason claim means that there would be no lynch. We're both obtuse, because we have been told there are three total masons, so if two masons die, we know there are no more and there will be no false claim. And if there is a false claim while a mason lives, we can lynch 'em both if necessary.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 21:38:45 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 3, 2009 21:38:45 GMT -5
and can you clarify your case against spintari? I fear something is getting lost in the translation. Or maybe something is hitting close to home. He doesn't answer straight questions, didn't vote Day 1 or 2 (unless I missed one and if I did I apologize), and now is doing some weird impression of PeeWee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" To me, he seems desperate to avoid accountability or questions. Can you point out where he avoided answering questions?
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 22:05:19 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 3, 2009 22:05:19 GMT -5
Can you point out where he avoided answering questions? I'm gonna try. Spintari, is there a reason you've ended both Days with no votes on anyone? Because I want to get things rolling, vote-wise: Vote: SpintariFor no voting, for deflecting, ignoring, shimmying and otherwise avoiding all issues. *raises eyebrow* I agree with Cookies....where is Stan, and can he comment on his experience? Spintari, I see that you were able to come in and post. Yet you didn't answer my question. So I ask again, is there a reason you didn't vote either of the last two Days? Spintari, you've had a number of votes and questions cast your way. Are you going to continue to ignore them? Whoa there. Earlier, I was asking what your experience was so we could figure out what was going on with archangel, not because I suspected you of anything. At this point, I'd wonder why a "vanilla town" would sacrifice a mason under the presumption of the greater good, especially when a mason was the most recent death. vote stanislaus I could go back to my vote of Yesterday, but if spintari is being evasive to get lynched he's not an option either. I really still don't like Spintari's unresponsiveness to direct questions. I can't think of a pro-Town excuse for it since the questions, honestly, haven't been all that pointed. Would a more pointed question be asking for clarification on why you have voted to lynch a town twice and are now advocating for stanislaus? Since you're so opposed to my advocating for Stan, how about you explain the case against him? I'm supposed to believe that you voting for town "more than twice" by your own admission, plus you advocating for stanislaus who is going against your day 1 M.O. is a bit more suspicious than me not voting for town? Either way, it doesn't matter. I hope this comes through. Preview is not agreeing with me.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 22:13:04 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Aug 3, 2009 22:13:04 GMT -5
What's that strapped to archangel's chest? Is it her new padded bra? Oh..wait..it's ticking..uh oh..I think it's a bomb! And what's Ed doing behind her with his new I-phone? Is he looking up something on wikipedia? Oh no, he's downloading the detonation app from the app store!
Let's wait for the bomb squad and kill them tomorrow.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 22:33:42 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 3, 2009 22:33:42 GMT -5
What the hell, I need to place a vote toDay and the argument against Archangel is sounding good. vote archangelYou mean you don't share the rampant paranoia that archangel is on a short-but-expanding-list of people to fear as the horseperson of the apocalypse? Can't live that way. If she is, it's good play to her. But we have to actually play mafia here, and she is the person I legitimately find to be scummiest, and on a re read her behavior tracks as too consistent to be aimed at a lynch toDay. Like I said, if she is, she did a great job.
|
|
|
Day 3
Aug 3, 2009 23:36:32 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 3, 2009 23:36:32 GMT -5
I'm going to wait on actually voting for right now but I've gotta say Archangel is just too good of a target. There might as well be a neon arrow pointing at her head, and what with the bomb threat I'm ok going another way.
Hence Stanislaus, with the suggestion to lynch a mason is a good secondary target.
I am seeing the textbook lurker case on Spintari. As far as I can see he hasn't really added anything to the conversation, and has only made one vote, a completely safe vote. Then trying to imply someone is scum because they didn't know who was and wasn't town....
I'm definitely seeing a case there.
|
|