|
Day 5
Aug 16, 2009 19:28:12 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 16, 2009 19:28:12 GMT -5
To get completely metagamey, I think the number of living scum is on the low side because we're still playing due to basically town three players just quitting. The deaths that have occured with "others" and the rebels must still have us in it, or the scum, mod, and any spectators are toying with us and we were dead days ago.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 16, 2009 19:30:20 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 16, 2009 19:30:20 GMT -5
That should read:
To get completely metagamey, I think the number of living scum is on the low side because we're still playing even with basically town three players just quitting. The deaths that have occurred with "others" and the rebels must still have us in it, or the scum, mod, and any spectators are toying with us and we were dead days ago.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 16, 2009 21:53:24 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 16, 2009 21:53:24 GMT -5
That should read: To get completely metagamey, I think the number of living scum is on the low side because we're still playing even with basically town three players just quitting. The deaths that have occurred with "others" and the rebels must still have us in it, or the scum, mod, and any spectators are toying with us and we were dead days ago. Yeah, it's entirely possible that Scum are on the low side right now, I just look at it from the point that at game start, I would've said five Scum. And with a known Rebel being a Peacekeeper I'd assume their numbers would go up to compensate for that. In addition to one that was set to blow up on Day Three as well. That's why I set my numbers at four remaining Scum. Though I could see three. Starting with four, a bomb, and a Peacekeeper.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 16, 2009 21:54:07 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 16, 2009 21:54:07 GMT -5
Also, if you believe they have low numbers I'm not against HM being blocked again, but I don't think they have low numbers which is why I say AA should free her to kill tomorrow Night.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 0:07:45 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 17, 2009 0:07:45 GMT -5
I've never felt like such a pawn in a game.
Bill how do we peons know that a peaceful solution even benefits us vanillas with a win? As far as we know you could get your treaty and fly away to some resort with your peacekeepers, and terrorist strikes or guerrilla warfare continues in the streets of our town. Also, why couldn't a peacekeeper announced this Day 1?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 0:12:51 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 17, 2009 0:12:51 GMT -5
I also don't understand the preoccupation over peacekeepers by HockeyMonkey and HockeyGuy. It seems to me that Peacekeepers have no kill powers or at least haven't used them, so, excluding Bill as Rebel Leader, they aren't a threat to either's stated win condition. I don't have to kill any specific person. If I am a barrier to the town win condition, then I won't stand in the way of a win. Having them all dead would mean they aren't a threat anymore, so it looks to me like I can win with the town if we kill all scum. Bill's logic fails. I'm just a barrier to the Peacekeepers win and the Rebels win, so please don't lynch me today. It seems to this lowly peasant, that you haven't even tried to target scum. According to this: (post #25, Day 4) 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. <snip> And I can only assume that this has to be Archangel. It looks like we have a definite target for today and a possible target for tonight if I am not blocked. I've been trying to kill Bill for 4 nights now based on one comment he made on day one. He was referring to NAF's question about be suiciding if it was good for the town. Bill said something to the effect of "Yes, THIS is the key question." It pinged me enough to try for the kill. Every day since my suspicion has only grown stronger. I say we kill Bill today, then decide on appropriate course of action per his statements based on his death reveal. Vote: BillMc How can Peacekeepers keep you from acheiving your goal, and thus must die, if town doesn't play along with them? You are playing to your agenda and not in the town's best interest.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 1:59:51 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 17, 2009 1:59:51 GMT -5
And then there's Hockeyguy.
(Bolded as edit in post #72)
And 3 more on page 8.
My point is not that HockeyGuy tried to protect Archangel. My point is that while BillMC made 2 or 3 posts on Day 3 about Archangel, HockeyGuy made 7. Many players made comments for and against ArchAngel but HockeyGuy was by far the most prolific. That was what pinged me on his first post about Bill when he accused Bill of repeatedly standing up for her on Day 3.
Then on Day 4, we have this between HockeyMonkey and HockeyGuy :
Where HockeyGuy was starting to turn on Archangel and snuggle up to HockeyMonkey because Archangel may be a peacemaker. Probably to make sure HockeyMonkey was not aiming his way when Archangel decided not to block her.
Even though Hockeyguy brought us the rebel leader, Hockeyguy is the bigger threat. Never trust a traitor.
Unvote: HockeyMonkey
Vote: HockeyGuy
He is the biggest threat to peace or victory.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 2:54:59 GMT -5
Post by hockeyguy8435 on Aug 17, 2009 2:54:59 GMT -5
Never trust a traitor? Bill admitted to being a Rebel traitor.... why trust him? He could betray us just as easily.
Bill is Rebel Leader. REBEL Leader. He claims to be solely a Peacekeeper, but he could very well be BOTH rebel and Peacekeeper.
Third, you said it yourself, how do we KNOW he won't just run off once he's established Peace. We have no way of knowing if we can trust him, just his word.
As for my "protecting" of AA, that was solely to preserve a potential power role that benefited us. By having Ed watch her, it let us know if she was truthful, and based upon Ed's death, we know AA has the role she claims. Whether she is Town or Scum has yet to be determined. To determine that we need to look at how she acts from now on, and look back over what else she's done.
That was why I changed to Jaade on Day Two. NOT why I voted for Spin on Day Three. I could ask you about that too, why did you fully believe Stan was the best lynch option over AA on Day Three if you're accusing others of protecting her now?
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 4:06:25 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2009 4:06:25 GMT -5
I've never felt like such a pawn in a game. Bill how do we peons know that a peaceful solution even benefits us vanillas with a win? As far as we know you could get your treaty and fly away to some resort with your peacekeepers, and terrorist strikes or guerrilla warfare continues in the streets of our town. Also, why couldn't a peacekeeper announced this Day 1? We've already established that "the Rebels are no longer a threat" and "the Rebels are dead" mean different things. If we have peace, then the rebels are no longer a threat, and folk with the "no longer a threat" win condition will win -- those with "are dead" will lose. When folk have died, all that has been revealed is their role and alignment - their actual win condition "no longer a threat" vs "are dead" is not revealed. I've no idea how many Peacekeepers there are - we don't have any off board communication. Given HockeyGuy's decision to act against the decision of the Rebels and take out MHaye on Night1 instead of who we agreed on, I have been suspicious of him since then -- indeed the fact that there is a "Vanilla Scum PM" posted on the Rebel board indicates that there are elements within the Rebels who are not who they said they are. Myself and HockeyGuy for starters. Also with HonkeyMonkey declaring she wanted the Rebels dead, and Pleo immediately deciding that the Peacekeepers should be considered a hostile faction, and HonkeyGuy seconding it, it was clear that explicitly suggesting peace early on wouldnt get us anywhere - but I have been suggesting it - as HG likes to point out.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 4:07:07 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2009 4:07:07 GMT -5
That should read: To get completely metagamey, I think the number of living scum is on the low side because we're still playing even with basically town three players just quitting. The deaths that have occurred with "others" and the rebels must still have us in it, or the scum, mod, and any spectators are toying with us and we were dead days ago. Really? you think HockeyGuy's suggestion of five living true rebels is low? So you think the Rebels started with more than 7 (5+Buff+Stan)?- that would be a very large number of scum for any game -- then on top that you have HockeyGuy and I infiltrating the Rebels -- so a total Rebel team of 9 that all know each other when the game starts - controlling a third of the initial vote when the game started? That would be way imbalanced. And just to clear up the obfuscation that HockeyGuy is trying to introduce: My Character is "Damean, The Rebel Leader" My Alignment is "Peacekeeper" I am NOT Rebel AND Peacekeeper - my only win condition is that of Peacekeeper. Let's look at HG's numbers, lets first list the win conditions again: - Peaceful Establishment win when "the Rebels are no longer a threat"
- Peaceful Rebels win when "the Establishment are no longer a threat"
- Peacekeepers win when there is a day/night, or night/day of no attempted kills - ie peace - no one is a threat to anyone else.
- War Establishment win when "the Rebels are dead"
- War Rebels win when "the Establishment are dead"
As Pumpjack has pointed out - lynching Peacekeepers is pretty much a waste of the Establishment lynch -- You can kill all of the Peacekeepers and it will not make the slightest bit of difference to the Establishment vs Rebels battle. The only person to profit from a Peacekeeper lynch is HockeyGuy --- his goal is kill me -- and despite finding his spoon fed investigator/back up compulsory vig role unbelievable, I find it even more unbelievable that if such a role really does exist, and he accomplishes his goal of killing me - all we gets out of it is an unknown reward? Given he really doesn't seem to care about the retribution the Rebels will surely dish out to him tonight for being a pro-war spy in the Rebels, it can only mean one of two things: -the Rebels are dominated by pro-war players -he is PFK and will win toDay with my death. In light of this I believe we have more Scum than 2-3 remaining. Especially if you factor in a Traitor Scum. I'd guess four at the least, but most likely. Five if you include Bill in that number. That would leave us at 7-5 right now if you want to leave the PKs as Establishment right now, or 5-2-5 (Town-PK-Scum) if you separate them at a worst case, 7-1-4 at best case (7Town-1PK-4 Scum). Do you work for the government office of statistics too? what a load of garbage. Seven true Rebels to start with? Pull the other one, it plays Dixie. It's stated in the Establishment vanilla PM - "when the rebels are no longer a threat" - so counting Peacekeepers with the Establishment or Rebel numbers is wrong. I know there is at least one other Peacekeeper within the Establishment. For a game of this size, we would expect to have 4-5 true scum. Myself and HockeyGuy are not in that number. And his absolute declared goal of wanting to kill me makes me pretty sure he is more PFK than Establishment. I'll make a chart, worst case then best case. After toDay (If Bill goes): 5-1-5 or 7-0-4 N6 (without HM killing): 4-1-5, (5-0-5) or 6-0-4. N6 (with HM killing): 3-1-5 (if both hit Town), 4-0-4 or 6-0-2. So we are currently most likely at 7-2-3 (Establishment-Peacekeepers-Rebels; I'll even include HG as Establishment) D6: 7-1-3 if you kill me and the game doesn't end. N6: 6-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment D7: 5-1-3 Most likely a mislynch/lynch a lurker N7: 4-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment D8: Lynch or Lose If the decision is to let HM out to play tonight things could go pear shaped very quickly - by her own admission, and from her limited analysis, the only person that has pinged her is me - so she'll be firing blind into the crowd (and won't suicide) Option 1; HM hits Establishment D6: 7-1-3 if you kill me and the game doesn't end. N6: 6-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment N6: 5-1-3 HM kills Establishment D7: 4-1-3 Most likely a mislynch/lynch a lurker N7: 3-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment N7: HM MUST kill a Rebel or game over Option 2 ; HM kills a Peacekeeper D6: 7-1-3 if you kill me and the game doesn't end. N6: 6-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment N6: 6-0-3 HM kills Peacekeeper D7: 5-0-3 Most likely a mislynch/lynch a lurker N7: 4-0-3 Rebels kill Establishment N7: HM MUST kill a Rebel or game over Option 3 ; HM kills a Rebel D6: 7-1-3 if you kill me and the game doesn't end. N6: 6-1-3 Rebels kill Establishment N6: 6-1-2 HM kills a Rebel D7: 5-1-2 Most likely a mislynch/lynch a lurker N7: 4-1-2 Rebels kill Establishment N7: 3-1-2 or 4-0-2 HM will be more likely to kill non-Rebel D8: 2-1-2 or 3-0-2 - lynch or lose For the Establishment to win by extermination they cannot afford more than two mislynches if HM remains out of play, or one mislynch by HM is in play. Killing me makes no difference to the Establishment vs Rebel battle and is anti-Establishment play. Now a different viewpoint, it appears that HM and HG are the only pro-war folk at the moment. So if we look at Peace vs War rather than Establishment vs Rebels, then its 10-2. Let me live, let me get the Rebels to agree to a ceasefire tonight -- this will be a straight yes/no vote by the Rebels. If they don't want a ceasefire, you can continue Tomorrow and blow everyone to hell.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 5:58:28 GMT -5
Post by Dfrnt Breign on Aug 17, 2009 5:58:28 GMT -5
This just keeps getting better and better. We started with two (no three) factions; town scum and a game within the game (starring Natlaw and Julie). Then we went to four factions and now five. And for all this to be true, I have to believe that Hawk created a game with a faction called Peacekeepers (starring Bill and Mhaye and possibly others) that crossed alignments and another faction, name unknown (but starring Hockey Monkey and Hockyguy and possibly others) that also (according to Bill) crossed alignment.
With all this, Hawk had no issue with asking a dead member of one of these secret factions (who could still win) to step in as a co-moderator. And MHaye had no moral qualms about doing so, even going so far as to continue to post in character.
Does anybody see anything a little odd in any of this?
This entire weekend's entertainment has seemed to have one giant subtext. "Kill Bill. Kill Him Today". Does that seem familiar to anyone else? I think I've seen it somewhere before, but where? I bet NAF could have told us.
|
|
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 5
Aug 17, 2009 9:39:38 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Aug 17, 2009 9:39:38 GMT -5
Pumpjack, I don't know if you are misunderstanding what I've said or if you are just twisting everything to suit your own needs.
How you arrived at that statement from the quoted post is beyond me. I've targeted a person every night, and been blocked. Are you saying that Bill isn't a Rebel?
I have no preoccupation with the Peacekeepers. I don't care about the Peacekeepers or how they win. I care about the Establishment and how we win. The vanilla PM says the Rebels must no longer be a threat. Mine says they must be dead. No longer a threat =/= dead, but dead = no longer a threat.
As a side note, laying down arms and getting a peaceful solution is ridiculous. I signed on to play Mafia. This whole Peacekeeper thing is rubbing me the wrong way because it's basically an agreement by everybody to quit. If y'all all want to quit then I never want to play another game.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 10:06:02 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2009 10:06:02 GMT -5
How you arrived at that statement from the quoted post is beyond me. I've targeted a person every night, and been blocked. Are you saying that Bill isn't a Rebel? Maybe you missed it My alignment is Peacekeeper, not Rebel. As a side note, laying down arms and getting a peaceful solution is ridiculous. I signed on to play Mafia. This whole Peacekeeper thing is rubbing me the wrong way because it's basically an agreement by everybody to quit. If y'all all want to quit then I never want to play another game. Don't go throwing your toys out the pram. Mafia is about logic and deduction to meet your (teams) win condition, whatever that may be.
|
|
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 5
Aug 17, 2009 11:01:01 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Aug 17, 2009 11:01:01 GMT -5
You are the Rebel Leader by your own admission. You have access to the Rebel board by your own admission. I could really give a shit that you say your alignment is Peacekeeper.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 11:13:02 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2009 11:13:02 GMT -5
You are the Rebel Leader by your own admission. You have access to the Rebel board by your own admission. I could really give a shit that you say your alignment is Peacekeeper. Then that is your loss dahlin'
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 12:26:06 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Aug 17, 2009 12:26:06 GMT -5
Look BillMC, by your own admission there are most likely other peace keepers alive and therefore the win you're talking about can occur after your death.
I'm not gunning for you because you admitted you're a rebel, I'm gunning for you because you're making an extraordinary claim, asking for extraordinary cooperation, and I need more than your word before I agree to it.
Unfortunately the only thing I can get more than your word is your death message.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 13:18:26 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 17, 2009 13:18:26 GMT -5
Look BillMC, by your own admission there are most likely other peace keepers alive and therefore the win you're talking about can occur after your death. I'm not gunning for you because you admitted you're a rebel, I'm gunning for you because you're making an extraordinary claim, asking for extraordinary cooperation, and I need more than your word before I agree to it. Unfortunately the only thing I can get more than your word is your death message. Fair enough. Tho I'm pretty sure I'm the only Peacekeeper on the Rebel boards. My only concerns with that is that HG is also a rebel traitor (I'm quite prepared provide his posts from the Rebel board), and has stated that his role is to kill me - so killing me may be handing him 2nd place in the game. He's obviously not worried about retribution from the rest of the rebels so I think that is likely. Look at it this way, I ignored HG's peacekeeper rant yesterday, I could have easily ignored it today and went after someone else. Of course, it could be that you are also pro-war, in which case I'm pissing in the wind. Goodnight Vienna.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 17, 2009 22:44:56 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 17, 2009 22:44:56 GMT -5
That should read: To get completely metagamey, I think the number of living scum is on the low side because we're still playing even with basically town three players just quitting. The deaths that have occurred with "others" and the rebels must still have us in it, or the scum, mod, and any spectators are toying with us and we were dead days ago. Really? you think HockeyGuy's suggestion of five living true rebels is low? Catching up and wanted to clear this up right away. I wasn't referring to HG's proposed number, but to the number of scum left in general. In fact, it was supposed to have been a counter point to HG's number, so I think his numbers were hight.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 0:41:49 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 18, 2009 0:41:49 GMT -5
You're right HockeyMonkey, maybe I could have organized my post a little better. My point is that on Day 3, you were sure that you found scum with Archangel. Yet, you didn't try to take her out on Night 3. You were so sure that you immediately voted Archangel on Day 4. But you never took your gunsights off Bill. Then on Day 4: Your first reference to Bill as non-town in the whole game is that you're starting to think he's a peacemaker. Yet, you continued to target him instead of trying to kill rebels. I don't have to kill any specific person. If I am a barrier to the town win condition, then I won't stand in the way of a win. Having them all dead would mean they aren't a threat anymore, so it looks to me like I can win with the town if we kill all scum. Bill's logic fails. I'm just a barrier to the Peacekeepers win and the Rebels win, so please don't lynch me today. It looks like we have a definite target for today and a possible target for tonight if I am not blocked. I've been trying to kill Bill for 4 nights now based on one comment he made on day one. He was referring to NAF's question about be suiciding if it was good for the town. Bill said something to the effect of "Yes, THIS is the key question." It pinged me enough to try for the kill. Every day since my suspicion has only grown stronger. I say we kill Bill today, then decide on appropriate course of action per his statements based on his death reveal. Vote: BillMc Your sights were set on Bill even though you were sure Archangel was scum and even though you thought Bill was a peacemaker. "I can win with town if we all kill scum." Is a false statement because you haven't even tried to kill scum. Though you may have gotten lucky with Bill, I think you have your own agenda that you have not fully shared and are a danger to town.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 1:33:07 GMT -5
Post by pumpjack on Aug 18, 2009 1:33:07 GMT -5
Never trust a traitor? Bill admitted to being a Rebel traitor.... why trust him? He could betray us just as easily. Bill is Rebel Leader. REBEL Leader. He claims to be solely a Peacekeeper, but he could very well be BOTH rebel and Peacekeeper. Third, you said it yourself, how do we KNOW he won't just run off once he's established Peace. We have no way of knowing if we can trust him, just his word. As for my "protecting" of AA, that was solely to preserve a potential power role that benefited us. By having Ed watch her, it let us know if she was truthful, and based upon Ed's death, we know AA has the role she claims. Whether she is Town or Scum has yet to be determined. To determine that we need to look at how she acts from now on, and look back over what else she's done. That was why I changed to Jaade on Day Two. NOT why I voted for Spin on Day Three. I could ask you about that too, why did you fully believe Stan was the best lynch option over AA on Day Three if you're accusing others of protecting her now? I do not trust Bill, however, an exposed traitor is less dangerous than a hidden traitor. He still hasn't answered why this "Peace" option wasn't made known earlier. I explained my vote on Day 3 and I did not ask about your vote. Your vote, though, came with only a couple of hours left in the Day. A very safe move. As for the rest, I already explained: <snip> My point is not that HockeyGuy tried to protect Archangel. My point is that while BillMC made 2 or 3 posts on Day 3 about Archangel, HockeyGuy made 7. Many players made comments for and against ArchAngel but HockeyGuy was by far the most prolific. That was what pinged me on his first post about Bill when he accused Bill of repeatedly standing up for her on Day 3. <snip>
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 2:29:36 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 2:29:36 GMT -5
He still hasn't answered why this "Peace" option wasn't made known earlier. Apologies if I wasn't clear. I answered this question here. I wasn't sure at that point, who within the Rebels I could trust. In retrospect, I probably should have made them aware last Night after HG's Peacekeeper comments Yesterday. It was clear from Pleo's comment that he was pro-war, as was HG and HM, so a claim that early on would have fallen on deaf ears. Indeed today, it appears to have fallen on non-participation ears with more than half of those alive contributing nothing or virtually nothing to the Day: Archangel, Blockey, Cap, Nanook, Peeker, Pollux. And yes, I would put "I don't believe your claim" in the virtually nothing bucket. I have to hand it to HG on a well timed attack - he knew the level of participation on both sides. I fully expect HG to "win" at dusk, since the rest of the Rebels know he has been blatantly lying about having access to the Rebel board, and thus is the obvious NK target for them. Peace thwarted by non-participation. Excellent game Hawk, just a shame participation wasn't better
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 9:20:38 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 18, 2009 9:20:38 GMT -5
Oh please. You honestly think that lynching you will cause the game to end? I sure as hell don't. At this point you clearly need to go, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Your story has massive holes in it. You don't want to name the other Rebels. Why? A post restriction? That doesn't seem feasible to me, since what's Hawk going to do if you went ahead and did it anyway? Mod kill you? Game would be broken anyways, so that seems like a minor thing. Some sense of fair play? Then why do you seem to have no problems calling out HG as a Rebel, going so far as to claim to be willing to copy and paste his posts from the Rebel board?
You're quite clearly lying about something. I don't know what, but it doesn't matter. Any which way you cut it, you are a threat, and therefore you need to be dealt with.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 9:57:30 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 9:57:30 GMT -5
Your story has massive holes in it. You don't want to name the other Rebels. Why? A post restriction? That doesn't seem feasible to me, since what's Hawk going to do if you went ahead and did it anyway? Mod kill you? Game would be broken anyways, so that seems like a minor thing. Some sense of fair play? Then why do you seem to have no problems calling out HG as a Rebel, going so far as to claim to be willing to copy and paste his posts from the Rebel board? quite clearly you are pro-war and why would i want to name the rebels and make your pro-war agenda easier? HG is lying and not willing to admit it oh frak it: (Mod Note: Link Removed. No using offboard storage sites. Too easy to edit)
To use Ed's favourite phrase "You're an Idiot" which will be shown with my death.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 10:34:32 GMT -5
Post by Nanook on Aug 18, 2009 10:34:32 GMT -5
Clearly pro-war huh? I guess you forgot who it was that was involved in the Day 1 handshaking eh? Hell, as I stated in the very post you're responding to, my win condition says threat. And right now, I consider you to be a threat.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 10:46:56 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 10:46:56 GMT -5
Clearly pro-war huh? I guess you forgot who it was that was involved in the Day 1 handshaking eh? Hell, as I stated in the very post you're responding to, my win condition says threat. And right now, I consider you to be a threat. I'm not forgetting - the vanilla win condition was "rebels are a threat" Since I'm a peacekeeper, not a rebel, then I'm not a threat. Since you are choosing to believe HG with his "goal" of "kill the rebel leader who is actually a peacekeeper" your logic is inconsistent.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 10:47:56 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 10:47:56 GMT -5
oh frak it: (Mod Note: Link Removed. No using offboard storage sites. Too easy to edit)
No worries - I kinda expected you to nuke the screen captures.
|
|
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 5
Aug 18, 2009 11:43:54 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Aug 18, 2009 11:43:54 GMT -5
Let there be a Vote Count. Four votes. One vote In the event of a tie, BillMc, who reached four votes first, shall be lynched. - Victoria, Late First Lady of Quantom
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 11:55:34 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 11:55:34 GMT -5
Let there be a Vote Count. Four votes. One vote In the event of a tie, BillMc, who reached four votes first, shall be lynched. - Victoria, Late First Lady of Quantom Put the kettle on please, Earl Grey, Black, Slice of Lemon.
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 11:57:24 GMT -5
Post by Captain Pinkies on Aug 18, 2009 11:57:24 GMT -5
hmmmm interesting.... Bill lots of information.... thanks!
I have to agree with Nanook, you do seem like a threat! So.....
Vote: BILL
|
|
|
Day 5
Aug 18, 2009 12:06:07 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Aug 18, 2009 12:06:07 GMT -5
hmmmm interesting.... Bill lots of information.... thanks! I have to agree with Nanook, you do seem like a threat! So..... Vote: BILL It's Mr Show Up A the Last Minute with a Vote....again
|
|