Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:03:04 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Mar 2, 2010 19:03:04 GMT -5
The sun rose again, reflecting off the calm waters. Most everyone woke up from a calm somnambulism, and gathered to kill someone else, as was the procedure. As the townies gathered, they noticed one among their number--cometothedarksidewehavecookies--was not present. They looked in her room, in the...other ship-y places, but they couldn't find her! Someone thought to look in the boiler room, and there she was, covered in a yummy, sticky-looking fluid that was completely frozen.
Cometothedarksidewehavecookies (Fox)--Town Lynchee, is dead[/color]
Apparently, someone had decided to make this room into an impromptu graveyard, as BillMC's body had been dragged down here as well. Only it looked a bit...odd. Where previously his skin had been a soft pastel pink, it was now a shiny, chrome pink. It appears that he was transformed into a robot. How odd.
Total Lost had been trailing behind, and when she got into the new graveyard, one look at Cookies made her blanche. She started poking her arm. "Hey you all. Some last-minute advice". Everyone else looked up, surprised. "Move. Now. In any minute, this area's going to be swarming with paparazzi and investigators." And before anyone could stop her, she ran to the main decks. The rest of the town ran after Total, but by the time they had gotten on-deck, she had already blasted off in a spaceship.
They moved the boat, and sure enough, spaceships started flying in. They still haven't left...
Total Lost (Samus)--Third Party Lyncher/Mason, has lost.
Day 2!
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:07:33 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Mar 2, 2010 19:07:33 GMT -5
what the hell.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:07:58 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 2, 2010 19:07:58 GMT -5
Interesting. So Total needed to lynch RabidCookies but scum inadvertently interfered. And she was a mason. A variant on the last game I suppose.
Well, paul? You said you had stuff to share come the dawn?
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:10:50 GMT -5
Post by special on Mar 2, 2010 19:10:50 GMT -5
OK, this is odd.
So, Cookies was a lynchee, which, means maybe she was the target of the lyncher, Total. I'll go back and check if Total was trying to get Cookies lynched, of course, maybe she didn't know who she needed lynched?
And Total just left the game becuase she lost since her lynchee was dead?
Is any of that making sense?
and a 3rd party Mason?
I'm getting a bad flashback to the original game.....
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:12:09 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Mar 2, 2010 19:12:09 GMT -5
Viva la Union, comrades!
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:13:13 GMT -5
Post by Inner Stickler on Mar 2, 2010 19:13:13 GMT -5
My other wonder is was cookies killed because she got too close to something or were scum just avoiding the whole meeko/paul imbroglio and ridding themselves of a pretty competent player as well?
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:19:35 GMT -5
Post by special on Mar 2, 2010 19:19:35 GMT -5
So, um, this might be confusin, here are all of cookies' game posts I'm not too bothered by the borda votes, or having to potentially do without some vote record insights. The silver lining is that we'll be less likely to infer scummy motivations on townies who just happen to have vote records that look bad.
To those with ideas to mitigate scum manipulation of the multiple votes, can I ask that you present your proposals in such a way that the potential pros and cons to each faction are illustrated? Meeko: You admit that you aren't following me, yet you're comfortable coming to the conclusion that I'm fishing?
Read what I said again, without that part of putting words in my mouth, and maybe you will see that your paranoia is a bit overkill.
The rules are the rules, and there have been a few posts that seemed to be "Oh noes!11! Borda bad!!" which I don't understand. Why sweat it? Be aware of it, yes. Discuss strategy about it, fine. But I'm confident Pede gave us a balanced game with an apparent upgrade in flexibility of the borda system since the last go-round. I don't see how worrying and fretting and wringing our hands about it is worth the keystrokes. In the part of my post that you are interpreting as fishing, apparently, all I am asking is that the players who are, as Nanook has proposed, likely not to utilize all of the votes at their disposal to explain why. If you someone is going to try and telegraph a personal policy about how they plan to use restraint in their number of votes like that, I'd like to hear the logic behind that decision. Does he, by extension, consider people who do not make a similar pledge or who end up voting with a different policy as suspicious? Anyone who might pledge to use all of their available votes each and every day would get the same question.
The silver lining statement was just that. There is a cloud of potential scum manipulation of the votes in this set up, and such manipulation will be difficult to tease out of vote analysis. The silver lining is, if we are mindful of this and emphasize scum-hunting in areas outside of vote analysis, we will be less likely to run into those pesky false-positives where we lynch Townies because of their bad voting records.
Not celebratory sunshine and flowers and unicorns...the silver lining of a cloud.
If we all agree otherwise, I'll eat my hoodie. I also doubt you'd get universal agreement on when this game crosses the threshold from "early" to "late", but I'm willing to hear your projection of that magic moment when everyone should shift their voting methods in unison. Meeko, I don't know what to tell you other than you are very much seeing things in my posts that just aren't there. Ed's synopsis is a good one, but now it looks like he's in hot water with you too.
I would respond to you line-by-line, but I'm not clear on exactly what your open questions to me are.
For example...
I used the word follow because you had used it.
Which implied, to me at least, that you weren't understanding what I was trying to say. Yet by the end of your post you had come to the conclusion that my first post of the game proper, and all of its three brief sentences, was absolutely scummy and bad for town.
The relevant part of my response was:
But I'm not even sure if you are asking me what I meant by "following", or if you are trying to explain what you meant by "following", or neither.
You seem to want me to be freaking out more about the rules of the game we're playing, and I simply don't agree. The rules are the rules and we can't change them. If you don't expect me to want to try and change the rules somehow, I don't understand your reaction to my reaction to the Borda system in this game.
I got a bit ahead of myself. It wasn't until Meeko's post 41 where the absolutely scummy and bad for town perceptions of me started to flow. The only thing he accused me of in my first post was the fishing. Glad we got that cleared up, Meeko. I happen to agree that trying to impose some sort of consensus-imposed policy is likely not to go over well and likely to have a lot of collateral damage to the Town if we try. I plan to take each of my votes one at a time within the context of the game at the time that I make the vote, and to justify any and all votes I make to the best of my ability.
I am willing to hear policy proposals that might differ, but I do have an admitted bias against them, including the bias that it is more fun to play against the other players than the mod. Including the bias that I think debating such policies may not be the best use of our time, which is why I was trying to emphasize the need for such proposals to be as balanced and complete as possible so that we don't have to spend a Day just haggling out the details of the proposal.
That being said, I am trying to maintain an open mind and not be a hypocrite who attacks the concept of policy voting strategy in one breath and then advocates a policy of suspecting players who propose policies. If you can bring a well-supported proposal to the table, I will do my best to put my biases aside and hear you out as best I can.
I'm not referring to anyone in particular when I say "you", I mean you the reader of this post.
I realize you may only be speaking in hypothetical mode, dirx, but if we are trying to make it less likely for scum to game the system, why advocate a policy to limit us to only use the lowest point value vote instead of the highest?
By my reckoning our three-point vote is equivalent to a single vote in a single vote setup, and the 2pt and 1pt votes can be pooled to add up to more single votes.
By trying to limit us to only the 1pt vote, when the rules allow for 3pt and 2pt, would leave our flank exposed to late-Day shenanigans that would be 2 to 3 times more powerful than the votes being cast. It mitigates much less risk than trying to limit people just to their 3 point votes. I don't know that this hypothetical-on-top-of-hypothetical discussion is useful, but I would not have voted for him just for such a proposal alone. It is early in the game and people are still getting their heads around things. It could be a data point towards a larger case, though.
I do believe that everyone casting but one vote is probably the best course of action. It keeps the Scum ability to manipulate the vote to what we are used to.
I don't see anything scummy in Dirx, he suggested casting 3rd place votes. It's academic which votes we cast. If we all cast the same level of votes, they're all equivalent. Now, granted Scum can swoop in and change the vote quickly with 1st level votes. I welcome that
But, I'm a realist. I know people won't agree to limit themselves to just one vote. Some people will find more reasons to vote (and that doesn't make them scummy just impatient or maybe self-important) And the odds of them being Scum probably aren't all that great. (I really have no idea how probable to be honest, that's the problem)
You might welcome a scum risking the exposure in the early game, but later? I think not. And if you're not going to try to enforce a "place only 1pt vote" policy consistently all the way through, why bother because I doubt everyone will agree about when it does become acceptable. We've been down this road before. Policy, if not universal, just defers the hard part until later in the game, which doesn't necessarily make it more potentially damaging to scum, or to the town, but there will be very likely be a fractioning of town at some point in all cases of self-imposed policy voting. I think you have me confused with someone else, Meeko. I have not posted suspicions of Paul that refer to post 80. For the people placing only 2pt votes for the people they find the most scummy, a hypothetical. Say there is a mislynch. They've been known to heppen from time to time. And some players placed 2pt votes on the lynched townie but no other votes elsewhere. Some players had 3pt votes on the lynched townie.
Are those who voted 3pts any more 'responsible' for the lynch than those who voted 2pts? That should say the 3pt voters in my hypothetical also didn't place any other votes elsewhere. I feel your pain about the late voting, Paul, but I have no idea what to do with a majority of the voters at the moment making only 2pt votes.
It makes no sense to me but I really doubt all three of them are scum.
Peeker's vote justifications seem the weakest of the three, and that where I'll put my vote for the moment:
Vote: 1st vote (3pts) : Peeker grumble
[ vote ]1st vote (3pts) : Peeker [ /vote ] For fuck sake. Don't we have a short cut? Or is that Giraffe...
1st vote (3pts) : Peeker
Sorry my mistake, Meeko.
I parsed "Cookies gets me back to your number 2. You mention post 80 as your reason to vote Paul. "
As, "Cookies, gets me back to your number 2. You mention post 80 as your reason to vote Paul." and I thought that the "you" and "your" were in reference to me.
I am aware of that. But if we don't punish anti-Town play, especially on a Day like today where there isn't a whole lot of other things going on, then we're just giving scum a blank check to do whatever they want. I'm not willing to do that under the guise of "Oh it's just meeko being Meeko".
Can someone please show me where I said I would never make a 3 point vote?
I was asked why I made a 2 point vote. My response, in so many ways was because it is a first day vote.
Here is the problem:
If I make a 2 point vote on Day 1, and I am wrong, I believe that I am less responsible for the mislynch than a 3 point voter. [I believe that was one of Cookies' posts.] Scum would love nothing more than to force mislynches AND to NK town.
Instead, if I am coerced into making a 3 point vote, on Day 1, which historically goes bad for town [I don't think that fact is in debate] I believe it will be more of a problem down the line when someone tries to start a bandwagon on me.
I see this as a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation. The lesser of the two evils is to place a two point vote on a Day 1 vote than a three point vote.
I do not see how voting on Day 1 is anti-town. I do not see a reason for it to be punished.
Punish those who don't vote at all then.
That would make a LOT more sense that voting someone who frankly is a bit vote-shy, given historical evidence.
I completely disagree that there is any more or less responsibility for a mislynch based on the point count of any single vote made against the lynchee.
By single vote I mean the voter only placing one vote on one player and not excercising their other two votes. Town should be putting as many points as possible down in blue for whoever they are most suspicious of. I can muster enough suspicion of peeker to vote for him, but I don't have enough building against anyone else to warrant using my other votes, so peeker gets my 3 points.
Meeko's explanation that he was trying to somehow mitigate the risk of having his responsibility in mislynches used against him later in the game compared to a 3pt voter is based on an false argument, and can be seen as trying to dodge accountability, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now that he doesn't realize the implications of what he is saying and still trying to adjust to the new ru Peeker: Why the 2pt vote and not the 3pt? Bruno the Townie places a 3pt vote on Jenny, presenting a case for why she is the most suspicious. Bill does not place any other votes that Day.
MaryAnne the Townie places a 2 pt vote on Jenny, presenting a case for why she is the most suspicious. MaryAnne does not place any other votes that Day.
A bunch of other hypothetical people make votes but their votes and alignments are not relevant to my point, the only other datapoints that are relevant is that Jenny ends up being lynched by 2pts and she flips as Town.
In no way is MaryAnne any less responsible for Jenny's lynch than Bruno.
Drat. That Bill should be Bruno. I forgot Bill was playing when I was making up my story and neglected to change that one. No smearing of BillMc was intended. poor choice of words on my part. Invalid would have been better maybe?
And it really doesn't matter how many points tip Jenny over the edge in my analogy. Bruno and MaryAnne would hold an equal share of responsibility. They're both Town so they have the same motivation. Peeker: If all you have at the end of the Day is a 2pt vote on a clean-noser, does it not logically follow that that is the player you find the most suspicious and therefor they are deserving of a 3pt vote? No. The only reason there is a possibility that Bruno could potentially be perceived as more responsible than MaryAnne is because MaryAnne decided to only place a 2pt vote on the player she sees as the most suspicious.
If she had just placed the 3pt vote there is no possibiity of such a perception. And since anyone who would choose to suspect Bruno more than MaryAnne because of the 1pt difference in their vote, would be still applying suspicion to a town player, I fail to see how either MaryAnne's decision to only place a 2pt vote or the decision to put more accountability on Bruno than MaryAnne does a damn thing to mitigate any risks for the Town.
Well peek, I think your vote justification and vote method really stunk at the time I made my vote for you. You are making more sense now.
Unvote: Peeker
I cannot seem to stress enough how nonsensical it is to me to be making only #2 votes.
I am aware of that. But if we don't punish anti-Town play, especially on a Day like today where there isn't a whole lot of other things going on, then we're just giving scum a blank check to do whatever they want. I'm not willing to do that under the guise of "Oh it's just meeko being Meeko".
Can someone please show me where I said I would never make a 3 point vote?
I was asked why I made a 2 point vote. My response, in so many ways was because it is a first day vote.
Here is the problem:
If I make a 2 point vote on Day 1, and I am wrong, I believe that I am less responsible for the mislynch than a 3 point voter. [I believe that was one of Cookies' posts.] Scum would love nothing more than to force mislynches AND to NK town.
Instead, if I am coerced into making a 3 point vote, on Day 1, which historically goes bad for town [I don't think that fact is in debate] I believe it will be more of a problem down the line when someone tries to start a bandwagon on me.
I see this as a Damned if you do, Damned if you don't situation. The lesser of the two evils is to place a two point vote on a Day 1 vote than a three point vote.
I do not see how voting on Day 1 is anti-town. I do not see a reason for it to be punished.
Punish those who don't vote at all then.
That would make a LOT more sense that voting someone who frankly is a bit vote-shy, given historical evidence.
This is the post wherein you describe the #2 vote as a way to try and secure less responsibility (read accountability) for participating in mislynches so that the Scum will have a harder time using your participation in mislynches to spin suspicion toward you. Peeker stopped his nonsensical #2 voting and presented justification for all of the votes he made. Better justification, I think, than his initial vote on Sister. That is enough for me to back off for now. I'm personally not willing to commit to or advocate for a policy that everyone should use, but I am just fine speaking out against policies when they make no sense to me.
I've stated that I'll be taking my votes one at a time, and for toDay I am comfortable putting a 3pt vote down on whoever I find most suspicious, as soon as I decide who that is. Just a reminder of who all's playing. If my memory wasn't so bad I'd point out who I had forgotten was playing, but I'll just let you all come to your own subjective conclusions in that regard.
1. Sister Coyote 2. Meeko 3. Inner Stickler 4. BillMC 5. peeker 6. drainbead 7. Special Ed 8. luvbwfc 9. FCoD 10. NAF 11. redskeezix 12. Cookies 13. mentalguy 14. Total Lost 15. paul 16. Shaggy 17. Dirx 18. fluiddruid 19. Nanook This game is shaping up to be a doozey. For all of the discussion of whether or not to try and impose policy, if so which policy, and then as the votes started coming in a bunch of people seem to decide that the best thing to do is put down just a 2pt vote, which just completely boggles my mind.
That being said, it is not line of debate that I feel at all confident trying to find scum in the people who happen to be espousing views that are different than mine.
I was quite surprised when Ed went after Meeko for a post that, to me, was either indicative of a townie Meeko trying to figure out a new ruleset (and deciding to reconcile things very differently than I would have) or a horribly awful scum Meeko blunder. I think Ed saw an opportunity to press an off-balance Meeko and try to keep him off balance, which seems to have worked and resulted in a bandwagon and a claim that at this point I'm inclined to believe.
So Vote: 1st vote (3pts) Special Ed
I also realize that this vote might make me look like a hypocrite, as Ed and I have made some posts that are quite similar and I have been in agreement of many things that he has said, but where we differ is that my motivation in the debates has been "I think you're wrong" and his seems to have been "I think you're wrong and scummy".
I could almost see it coming when Ed first said something to the effect of "I'm inclined to vote for you Meeko, but I'm going to give you some slack..." it just sounded to me (and even more so now) like he was saying, "I think you just dug yourself a nice little hole, but I'm going to see how much deeper you can dig it before I try and push you in."
I agree that FCOD's vote justification is weak, and that he hasn't said much toDay.
I don't share Meeko's confidence that a scum would not have pointed out the Conspiracy precedent. I left out "or a 3rd party" from my post. Are you forgetting that possibility too, Meeko? I meant the possibility that Ed could be 3rd party, Meeko. Unvote: Ed
Vote: 1st (3pt) Bill Vote: 2nd (2pt) Ed
As much as I agree that a 3rd party killing role has the potential to be a benefit to town, I think that is more likely when they are operating while undiscovered. Otherwise, they are just too much of a distraction. Unfortunately I have a hard time remembering the last time I played a game that where such a role wasn't exposed and killed off right away, so ymmv.
I remain wary of Ed, so he now gets my 2pts. Possibly, but I don't see how keeping him around just so we can worry about it going to do us any good. Better to blow a bomb up when there are lots of vanillas around to hopefully take one for the team. I'm just playing the odds, peeker.
Bombs can blow up in a variety of ways, with a variety of triggers, targeting a variety of ways. My point being is that if we are going to have to potentially sacrifice someone to the bomb, and that someone turns out to be town, better to have that chance when all of the town's vanilla's are around to slim the chances of a town power role getting hit with shrapnel.
Or do you mean how do I know there are vanilla's in the game? That was an assumption.
SKs really have a hard time surviving the unluck of the Day 1 draws lately. Or pede just confirmed that whatever role was given to Meeko was poorly written. IMHO few things are 'better' than a scum lynch, but who knows how individual luck, personalities and biases might affect the ripples of an SK in the game. Maybe, if we had let Bill live, he would have taken out half the scum within a few Days. Since there are more Town than Scum an SK is more likely to kill Town than Scum when and if they do open fire, though. As I said before, I didn't follow the first game, but whether or not it was an all-power-role set up has nothing to do with this set up. I've made my own assumptions about this game, the opposite assumption made by Paul. Will either of us be correct? Who knows. It is irnoic that self-protection (as Paul is alleging was his motivation in not voting for Bill) carries over to to toDay, when Paul's justifications painting a "But I'm a power role! I thought we all were?" target on his back.
You're right. It is pure brilliance when neither the Town nor the Scum can get a read on your motivations. If self-preservation is your instinct, I don't understand why you decided to come clean when challenged about your vote. If you were not behaving in that manner, but rather trying to put on a show in order to wifom scum, you shouldn't be surprised that people and/or their paranoia sniff out your ruse and are suspicious of it.
It is one of those examples where "lynch all liars" is perhaps too constricting. I don't mind if you told some little whilte lies to put on a show for scum. Other people might mind. What I mind is not owning that earlier decision by spinning a better yarn to preserve the wifom instead of making your gambit moot. I don't know that there is a magic bag at play. Or even if there is one that it is going to have much in it, which is the part I don't understand about Paul's play.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:20:37 GMT -5
Post by special on Mar 2, 2010 19:20:37 GMT -5
That came out better and longer than I expected. On preview, it seems like her suspicions were mostly on Bill and myself, which doesn't look so good for me...but them's the facts.
I do apologize for the length, but it's not a difficult read.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:26:36 GMT -5
Post by special on Mar 2, 2010 19:26:36 GMT -5
there wasn't much to see in Total's posts, and since she didn't post in this thread, I don't seem to be able to multiquote her into her.
She voted Bill and went after paul a little bit when he had the self-preservation non-vote for Bill
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:27:07 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Mar 2, 2010 19:27:07 GMT -5
well in the interest of full disclosure she did vote me and was kind of getting after paul as well.
but i still can't figure out total at all. she didn't post much the first Day based on memory and not a real search.
and what in the world is a third party mason supposed to be?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:27:59 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 19:27:59 GMT -5
I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance..... I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance..... I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:30:48 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Mar 2, 2010 19:30:48 GMT -5
I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance..... I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance..... I will not make a comment about a Fox and a sticky substance. care to talk about lubricants then?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:31:58 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 19:31:58 GMT -5
What's up with the new Kirb-a-tron? Robots?!
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:35:27 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 19:35:27 GMT -5
Paul, If you need me to kill you tonight, let me know.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:36:29 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 19:36:29 GMT -5
OOG
Sega Master System outranks the NES?
REALLY?!
/oog
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:46:04 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Mar 2, 2010 19:46:04 GMT -5
What's up with the new Kirb-a-tron? Robots?! Yeah, i noticed that too... Also, it sounds like Cookies was killed by winnie the pooh. Was he a smash bros character?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 19:56:29 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 19:56:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 20:00:47 GMT -5
Post by special on Mar 2, 2010 20:00:47 GMT -5
I loved that game. I think it was the last game I was better at than my kids. Plus, my now 16 year old was too scared to go the more difficult route because the ending was 'scary' I can't even remember the 2 different endings now. Right now, my 13 year old daughter is into Left 4 Dead 2 and my sons seem to play League of Legends a lot.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 20:48:09 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 20:48:09 GMT -5
Can we vote on Robots?
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 21:04:29 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Mar 2, 2010 21:04:29 GMT -5
So... who should I kill? I'm a Day vig, and was a bit gun shy yesterday.... the reason I said I won't be around long is that my kills are announced in public during the Day when I target them. I wasn't planning on claiming or using my power so early, but everyone pushing on me about self preservation caused me to say somethings that revealed a little more than I had hoped to. So, a claim you get... And yes, I am aware this makes me a huge target for scum because it essentially gives town 2 kills a Day, but I'm pretty sure I would have had to claim after my first kill anyway. So... not planning on being around long because I fully expect scum to take me out toNight.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 21:06:17 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Mar 2, 2010 21:06:17 GMT -5
I wanted to kill Red yesterday, but he didn't have near enough votes for me to support such an action. And then I was thinking about killing Bill when the votes were piling on him, but I didn't want to tilt my hand, and people would have been scrambling to find a new lynch leader and it would have been a mess. So I didn't kill anyone.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 21:17:21 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 21:17:21 GMT -5
Can we have your full claim then?
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 21:18:04 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 21:18:04 GMT -5
NETA : That is, your role pm
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 22:09:29 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Mar 2, 2010 22:09:29 GMT -5
Sure. As long as they're alive and in the game, you can vote for any player, robotic or non-robotic. Also, since I may have been less than clear: Total Lost is not currently playing anymore. So you can't kill her or lynch her.*
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 22:59:42 GMT -5
Post by Meeko on Mar 2, 2010 22:59:42 GMT -5
On the assumption that Robots are big and scary, and once they grab hold of you with their metal claws, they wont let go :
3 point vote on Domo Aragoto Mr.Roboto
(That is, Bill, or what's left of him.)
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 2
Mar 2, 2010 23:24:44 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Mar 2, 2010 23:24:44 GMT -5
On the assumption that Robots are big and scary, and once they grab hold of you with their metal claws, they wont let go : 3 point vote on Domo Aragoto Mr.Roboto (That is, Bill, or what's left of him.) No, no--since Bill is dead, he can't be voted for, period. Also, does anyone know someone who could sub in for NAF? I tried asking around again, but couldn't find anyone.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 3, 2010 0:58:26 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Mar 3, 2010 0:58:26 GMT -5
On the assumption that Robots are big and scary, and once they grab hold of you with their metal claws, they wont let go : 3 point vote on Domo Aragoto Mr.Roboto (That is, Bill, or what's left of him.) No, no--since Bill is dead, he can't be voted for, period. Also, does anyone know someone who could sub in for NAF? I tried asking around again, but couldn't find anyone. You could try Cookies or Bill.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 3, 2010 2:00:40 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Mar 3, 2010 2:00:40 GMT -5
Can we have your full claim then? I thought about it.... and I don't see why not.
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 3, 2010 2:02:30 GMT -5
Post by Dirx on Mar 3, 2010 2:02:30 GMT -5
I don't care if it's legit or not, that's fucking hysterical! ;D
|
|
|
Day 2
Mar 3, 2010 2:02:37 GMT -5
Post by Paulwhoisaghost on Mar 3, 2010 2:02:37 GMT -5
Pedemod.... please note that I did say the initiating words there, rather I just quoted your words.... I was in no way attempting to kill Meeko or yourself.
|
|