|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:08:58 GMT -5
Post by Hawkmod on Aug 6, 2009 15:08:58 GMT -5
The Town gathers in the evening to reflect upon the Day’s event. The words of Texcat still echoing through them.
“I urge everyone to vote for Stanislaus today. He is certainly not the scummiest person around, but he doesn't look like he has a bomb taped to his chest.”
“Well, Texcat was right.” point’s out Hockeyguy. He really didn’t look like a guy with a bomb on his chest.
“Hey, where’s NAF?” asks Julie.
“Over talking to the guards.” answers Archangel.
NAF queries the guard, “Hey I’m working on a potentially award winning article. Would you mind answering a few questions?”
“Um, okay.”
"Would you say marshmallows make you more or less likely to shoot someone?”
“No effect”
Scorpions?
“No effect.”
Temperature?
“No effect.
“How bout use of acronyms like FOS or PIS?”
As NAF waited for a response, a shot rang out from the local book depository, taking NAF between the shoulderblades and ending his life.
The guard kneels down beside NAF.
“I agree. More likely.”
NAF, the Establishment Reporter, has asked his last question.
On his person a notebook is found, but there is little information of value. It tells of a potential attack on Day 3, talks about how he failed to gleam information from a Night 1 investigation, while the page corresponding to Night 2 is completely blank. On Night 3 there lies a simple phrase. "The Last Victim."
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:18:01 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 6, 2009 15:18:01 GMT -5
I can't believe we spent a whole Day trying to avoid lynching the bomber only to lynch the bomber.
Did NAF lie when he said his information had nothing to do with his role?
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:21:01 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 15:21:01 GMT -5
I can't believe we spent a whole Day trying to avoid lynching the bomber only to lynch the bomber. Did NAF lie when he said his information had nothing to do with his role? It appears that he lied. He wanted us to have that information, but he didn't want the big target on his back that he ended up with.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:21:42 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 6, 2009 15:21:42 GMT -5
Never trust NAF, unless he's out on the street bringing you the scum-hunting beat. I keep thinking: what are the chances that our confirmed Mason would key in on the bomb of all people? And the possible answer I keep coming back to does not bode well for archangel, I'm afraid. I am thinking it is more likely that having Stan jailed on Day 2 was a scum ploy to set up his Day 3 martyrdom and less likely as a lucky pro-town play. This just adds to the case against archangel which is where my vote will be heading. But first, now that the jester threat has come and gone, I would like to return to the proposal of priming the tie-breaker pump with me, so Vote: Cookies
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:32:39 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 15:32:39 GMT -5
I have a result today, but I'm going to withhold releasing it until more people check in.
However, I will release this, to confirm that I'm not making up my result later when I do disclose it.
RSWBHAFTGTUVTDWPTAAIWSTASAIWFTNWTAHVWWPTPAVSSI
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 15:41:07 GMT -5
Post by julie on Aug 6, 2009 15:41:07 GMT -5
That's what SHE said.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 16:04:49 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 6, 2009 16:04:49 GMT -5
I cannot help myself from being compelled to try and crack, but I did not get far.
"Right, so we basically have a..." ?
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 16:19:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 16:19:47 GMT -5
I cannot help myself from being compelled to try and crack, but I did not get far. "Right, so we basically have a..." ? Good luck with that
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 16:44:23 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 6, 2009 16:44:23 GMT -5
Checking in to say that yesterDay really sucked, and I jailed Hockey Monkey last night.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 16:52:08 GMT -5
Post by Archangel on Aug 6, 2009 16:52:08 GMT -5
Sorry, hit send too soon. My reason for jailing her was two-fold; we could not afford to lose another town last night (I'm sure I'll have great difficulty convincing anyone of this, but in spite of my terrible play in this game I am town-- I guess all I can say to defend myself is at least I didn't choose the mod-kill route). I also think she can be really valuable to town in end-game so I was trying to protect her.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 17:14:49 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Aug 6, 2009 17:14:49 GMT -5
BAH!
Freakin Rebels! All I wanted was the TRUTH!
BAH! Go Town.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 18:00:50 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 6, 2009 18:00:50 GMT -5
Ouch. That really bites. I'm far too tired to even think about Ed's message.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 18:03:47 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 6, 2009 18:03:47 GMT -5
I don't believe Angel, and I see no reason to change that belief Today. I would like to hear from Ed and HM before I vote though.
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 18:07:25 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Aug 6, 2009 18:07:25 GMT -5
Same room, same chair, same headphones playing the same music.
Vote: Archangel
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 20:03:01 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 20:03:01 GMT -5
I have a result today, but I'm going to withhold releasing it until more people check in. However, I will release this, to confirm that I'm not making up my result later when I do disclose it. RSWBHAFTGTUVTDWPTAAIWSTASAIWFTNWTAHVWWPTPAVSSI I saw someone visit a player. The player who was visited has a two word name. The first word is a sport and the second word is an animal. The person who did the visiting uses the generic term for a heavenly being with significant rank. I know I was being paranoid. I reversed the order of the letters. I saw archangel visit hockey monkey last Night. It makes sense now that Archangel is telling the truth about who she has jailed, though that says nothing of her alignment. Stanislaus, perhaps lied about his jailing.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 20:12:22 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 20:12:22 GMT -5
Since I've been unable to find an updated player list:
Julie Special Ed Cookies Hockeyguy Pollux Mister Blockey BillMC Peeker Nanook Archangel Pumpjack dfrntbreign Hockey Monkey Spintari Kid Vermicious Captain Pinkies
PrecambrianMollusc, Town Contrarian/3rd party candidate,Lynched Day 1[/color]
Pedescribe, Doctor, Killed Night 1[/color] Bufftabby, Vanilla Rebel, Killed Night 1 MHaye, Peacekeeper Roleblocker, Killed Night 2
Jaade, Vanilla Town, Lynched Day 2 Sister Coyote, Vanilla Town, modkilled Day 2
Pleonast, Town Mason, Killed Night 2
Stanislaus, Rebel Bomb, Lynched Day 3 Texcat, Town Mason, Killed Day 2 Natlaw, Mercenary, Killed Day 3
Naf1138, Town Reporter, Killed Night 3
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 20:12:54 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 20:12:54 GMT -5
NETA, I forgot KidV was modkilled. I only checked first posts of the Day/Night, sorry.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 20:16:51 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 6, 2009 20:16:51 GMT -5
Would it be wrong of me to say I told you so? Eh, probably. Nope, still not seeing where you foretold anything with respect to Stan being the bomb. I was going to ask you to walk us through your transformation from seeming to give archangel the benefit of the doubt to voting for her and now flat out not believing her in a two sentence post, but that journey basically takes place within your last handful of (strategy allowed) posts, most of which will all be quoted here once I post the one that I have already quoted once as pinging me: In a nutshell, I continue to suspect you. I doubt all of Stanislaus' scum buddies happily jumped on-board his martyrdom bandwagon. The best situation for scum to be in Yesterday, which I currently believe that they had, was to have two scum as the two vote leaders, and your play is parsing to me like you could have been complicit in bringing that about. To that end, spintari's participation level and vote for Stan when he did with little-to-no commentary on the very compelling case against angel and why he was choosing not to participate in it, makes me wonder if he was not also complicit in the turn out. And while we're at it, all of the people who didn't weigh in with opinions or votes until late in the game could be complicit and guilty of waiting until the last possible minute to make sure that things were close, but that Stan went down in the end.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 21:16:07 GMT -5
Post by special on Aug 6, 2009 21:16:07 GMT -5
Only the final vote results, if someone wants to do a vote by vote, that would be great.
Day 1
PCM 8: (NAF, Pleo, Pedescribe, Julie, Special Ed, Cookies, texcat, Hockey Monkey) Hockey Monkey 3: (KidV, Bufft, Peeker) Special Ed 3: (Stanislaus, PCM, Hockeyguy) Pedescribe 2: (Sister Coyote, Mister Blockey) Cookies 2 (Natlaw, Dfrnt Breign) Jaade: 1 (Pumpjack) Captain Pinkies 1: (BillMC) Stanislaus 1: (Mhaye)
Not voting: Pollux, Nanook, Archangel, Spintari, Captain Pinkies, Jaade
Day 2
Jaade 7: (Julie, Pleonast, NAF, Archangel, Captain Pinkies, Nanook, Bill, Hockeyguy) Archangel 3: (Peekercpa, Special Ed, DarkCookies) Natlaw 2: (Texcat, Hockey Monkey) Special Ed 2: (Kid V, Pumpjack) Spintari 2: (Pollux Oil, Natlaw) Texcat 1: (Dfrnt Breign) Not voting: Mister Blockey, Spintari, Jaade, Sister Coyote, Stanislaus
In figuring this out, I noticed that Nanook and hockeyguy switched late from archangel to Jaade, and Bill voted late for Jaade, sealing her doom. Not sure that means anything though.
Day 3
Stanislaus 7: (Texcat, BillMc, Dfrntbreign, Pumpjack, Spintari, DarkCookies, Archangel) archangel 6: (Hockey Monkey, Special Ed, Natlaw, NAF, peeker, Nanook) spintari 3: (Julie, Mr Blockey, hockeyguy) texcat 1: (Stanislaus) Special Ed 1: (Captain Pinkies) Not voting: Pollux, Kid Vermicious
We should keep in mind that Scum might have wanted Stan lynched.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 22:11:44 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 6, 2009 22:11:44 GMT -5
Really? You're going to try and hold a fluff Night post against me? My point was simply that people were going crazy trying to avoid the bomb, saying things like "I suspect Archangel/whoever more, but they're far too obvious so I won't vote for them." And I said that we should not worry about the bomb because when Town starts trying to play that game, it inevitably ends badly for them. And that's what happened. If people had simply voted for the person they found scummiest, instead of trying to play games with the bomb, it wouldn't have gone off. Funny how that works huh? If you just play Mafia, things work out! Amazing isn't it?
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 6, 2009 22:27:59 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 6, 2009 22:27:59 GMT -5
Your night statement has nothing to do with anything, I was pointing out that your smugness was not attributable to anything about which you could be smug.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 6:22:46 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 7, 2009 6:22:46 GMT -5
Your night statement has nothing to do with anything, I was pointing out that your smugness was not attributable to anything about which you could be smug. I have to agree that it struck me as a very smug comment with little substance behind it. Stan led us all on a merry dance yesterday, egged on by texcat's conviction. Why would texcat be so sure? Was her vote bought or was she coerced into it? If I counted correctly, we have 15 alive. We originally thought 4-5 rebels, 2 are dead, so 2-3 remaining. I'm inclined to believe that Ed did indeed watch Archangel last night - and that she is our jailer - alignment unknown. Whether Archangel is town is highly questionable Keeping HM locked up is marginally pro-town -- HM still counts towards towns numbers and she's not accidentally killing town. The fact that NAF's note was true and that we did have a terrorist/martyr does give a little credence to the theory that the win condition of "no longer a threat" means we can win with a peaceful resolution - as Stan clearly represented an anti-peace role - ok, I'm assuming that a martyr would have found someway to go boom. Tho exactly what "peace" constitutes is unknown.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 11:22:52 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 11:22:52 GMT -5
The fact that NAF's note was true and that we did have a terrorist/martyr does give a little credence to the theory that the win condition of "no longer a threat" means we can win with a peaceful resolution - as Stan clearly represented an anti-peace role - ok, I'm assuming that a martyr would have found someway to go boom. Tho exactly what "peace" constitutes is unknown. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only person I recall hearing talk about a Peaceful win con is you Bill (now that I think on it, I do think one more mentioned it on Day Two and I'll look in a bit). Anyways, my win con says "when the Rebels are no longer a threat", and to me that means when they're all dead. If we don't kill them all, they can still NK us, so how can we win by Peace? In fact, when I hear you talk about this, it makes me think you're a Peacekeeper. Hawk confirmed it was a third party, though he said it could only have the one member (MHaye), but I find that doubtful. It would make sense that the Peacekeepers want to win by peace, whatever that could mean. But I don't want them to achieve their win con, if it would mean they'd win and we wouldn't. So, while Rebels trump all in terms of my suspicions, you, Bill, are rising on my list as I'm really starting to think you're a Peacekeeper.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 11:56:09 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 11:56:09 GMT -5
Texcat (Day 2):
That last part about a peace agreement would be what I think the Peacekeepers win con would be. Something like stopping both sides would killing the other side.
Bill (Day 2):
As for people that don't want Peace, I'd be willing to bet HM doesn't, despite being claimed Town. She's a Minister of War, without War, she's out of a job. And how could she realistically want Peace when she wants to kill someone every Night (though she's been blocked). And I do remember her stated PM was different (though similar) to the posted Vanilla one. Something like "when the Rebel threat as been removed", but I'm quoting from memory.
And again Bill, you mention other ways of achieving our win con, outside of killing Rebels. Just not killing for a certain period of time.
Ed (Day 2):
Then there's that. That's also very possible. Try to eliminate the players who don't particularly want Peace, just the other side to suffer. Which would lead me to a very probing question...
If there are players who want/don't want Peace, and the Peacekeepers are out to get the ones who don't want Peace, is it possible that those who want Peace, but are aligned as Establishment, would win if the Peacekeepers did, or would they lose because the Rebels are still a threat? Well, actually, if the Peacekeepers got rid of the non-Peace loving players, they have eliminated all the Rebels, right? Unless we have Peace loving Rebels. Stay with me here... Is it possible the Rebels are just rebeling against the Establishment, and not the people? It wouldn't make them any less of a threat to us, and I'm sure their win con is to eliminate the establishment, like ours is to eliminate the Rebel threat, but if we have players that wan't Peace, what's to say they don't as well?
Basically what I'm saying is that it wouldn't make sense to me if the Peacekeepers were only against the Rebels, and various other non-Peace loving people (like HM). Because then chances are they'd just steal the win from us when we got rid of the Rebels. I doubt that's the case, so there has to be another win con for them, and one that does fit is the one suggested up above. For everyone to agree to Peace for a certain time period.
None of this detracts from us needing to remove the Rebels, but I'm going to be extremely weary of anyone offering Peace before the Rebels are gone. Especially when they can still NK us if we decide not to kill anyone.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:00:08 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 12:00:08 GMT -5
When I say they may want Peace too, I'm saying in addition to the ones that don't want Peace. We know Stan didn't. He killed himself to try and kill others. That doesn't sound like Peace, but could there be ones that do want Peace, just with their own views in place, and not the views of the Establishment?
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:13:40 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Aug 7, 2009 12:13:40 GMT -5
My win condition clearly states that all the Rebels must be dead. Dead, dead, dead. I'm clearly not interested in a peaceful resolution. I'm also starting to think that BillMc is a peacekeeper. Not only him, but Archangel as well. I don't think she would have jailed Stanislaus (scum) if she were scum, and she claimed jailing him. I do believe she's the one jailing me on a nightly basis, but I can't ignore the color of my PM's. You guys can though. The color may have nothing at all to do with the alignment of the one jailing me. I'm beginning to think she's neither town nor scum aligned. On the one hand, it's been good that I've been stopped from killing. On a personal level it's extremely frustrating. But that's why I claimed on day one - so that someone who could stop me could excercise their own judgement. Bah! I don't know what to think! For now, Unvote: Archangel
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:16:40 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 12:16:40 GMT -5
My win condition clearly states that all the Rebels must be dead. Dead, dead, dead. I'm clearly not interested in a peaceful resolution. I'm also starting to think that BillMc is a peacekeeper. Not only him, but Archangel as well. I don't think she would have jailed Stanislaus (scum) if she were scum, and she claimed jailing him. I do believe she's the one jailing me on a nightly basis, but I can't ignore the color of my PM's. You guys can though. The color may have nothing at all to do with the alignment of the one jailing me. I'm beginning to think she's neither town nor scum aligned. On the one hand, it's been good that I've been stopped from killing. On a personal level it's extremely frustrating. But that's why I claimed on day one - so that someone who could stop me could excercise their own judgement. Bah! I don't know what to think! For now, Unvote: Archangel [/color][/quote] I believe your color fully now. Before it was that Stan contradicted it, and it was hard to tell who was telling the truth, etc. But now he's dead, and proven Scum, so I'd be willing to bet he lied about what he saw, etc.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:22:11 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 7, 2009 12:22:11 GMT -5
Anyone else willing to consider my tie-breaker proposal? If not I'll unvote myself and go back to just hoping that toDay isn't the Day that end up in a tie and killing a Town power role for lack of a little preparation.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:24:09 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 12:24:09 GMT -5
Day 2Jaade 7: (Julie, Pleonast, NAF, Archangel, Captain Pinkies, Nanook, Bill, Hockeyguy) Archangel 3: (Peekercpa, Special Ed, DarkCookies) Natlaw 2: ( Texcat, Hockey Monkey) Special Ed 2: ( Kid V, Pumpjack) Spintari 2: (Pollux Oil, Natlaw) Texcat 1: (Dfrnt Breign) Not voting: Mister Blockey, Spintari, Jaade, Sister Coyote, StanislausIn figuring this out, I noticed that Nanook and hockeyguy switched late from archangel to Jaade, and Bill voted late for Jaade, sealing her doom. Not sure that means anything though. Yeah, I switched late. Again that was because I was hoping you would Watch Archangel the following Night to confirm or deny her role, then based on if she lied or not, we could make a better decision about her alignment based on her play. In the end it didn't matter as if I didn't change my vote, Jade was still lynched due to Nanook and Bill's votes, and you failed to send in your Night action, thus rendering my plan to analyze Arch's posts the next day completely useless as we had no new information about her role. So while I take partial responsibility for Jaade's lynch, I feel I did it to help us make a well thought out decision the next Day, and not one that was rushed, and without all available evidence that Day.
|
|
|
Day 4
Aug 7, 2009 12:27:13 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 7, 2009 12:27:13 GMT -5
Anyone else willing to consider my tie-breaker proposal? If not I'll unvote myself and go back to just hoping that toDay isn't the Day that end up in a tie and killing a Town power role for lack of a little preparation. How high do you want your vote count to reach before we all start changing back, and when's the time cutoff on when we start to change back? I just don't want a cluster of people that need to unvote with a day remaining to, only to have them not appear online.
|
|