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 Two
May 28, 2007 12:03:39 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on May 28, 2007 12:03:39 GMT -5
Posting error alert! It does, yes. And that is good news; it reduces the pirate numbers by 1 and raises the crew numbers by 1, thus making it harder to win. For "thus making it harder to win" read "thus making it harder for the pirates to win.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:09:42 GMT -5
Post by ArizonaTeach on May 28, 2007 12:09:42 GMT -5
Yeah, I suppose mhaye makes some pretty good points there. The difference between what happened in M2 and this one is that if Blaster didn't do what he was told to do, he would have been lynched. Ben's not role claiming here, has no reason to "prove" himself, so he can take whatever we say with a grain of salt. I was just thinking that we should steer him in a direction (and yes, the odds of the scum steering the direction are pretty good). Hmm. Something to think on, I guess.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:11:24 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on May 28, 2007 12:11:24 GMT -5
I'm with mhaye - paranoid killers are, generally speaking, a liability.
Even worse, on the off chance he ends up helping the ship and knocking off a few pirates, the Pirates or Deadeye Dick just go down the list of previous misses and get rid of him. It's very hard for Ben to do any good - he's pretty much a monkey wrench (sorry, 'spanner in the works'), skewed towards being bad for the crew IMO.
[dorky]Auto's post made me think of something ... from a role-playing standpoint, "we" don't have any idea of what Dick's knives look like until we find his dead body, so we can't make assumptions about the manner of death.[/dorky]
One more question for Malacandra regarding Deadeye Dick :
Does D. Dick get immediate access to the pirate boards (even if he can't post) the Day after his third/Flint kill, or is he not actually privy to their council until the next Night? We might be able to look for someone with sudden enlightenment as a newly minted Pirate.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:24:08 GMT -5
Post by auntbeast on May 28, 2007 12:24:08 GMT -5
I've not read through the thread, just busy with Memorial day stuff. Didn't want to be accused of dodging this place, just giving a heads up.
RIP Fluid Druid.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:40:51 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 28, 2007 12:40:51 GMT -5
I don't think you'd have needed to convince the other pirates to off fluiddruid. She was a strong player and no pirate would complain about having her out of the game. But what about that thing you said that I quoted immediately above this post? Which was it: that the pirates offed FD to protect me or capybara, or that they offed her because she was a strong player? Yes. I think both fit together perfectly. I thought it was obvious that I felt that way, and I find it suspicious that you'd ask a question like that. It makes me feel like you're trying very hard to discredit me. We don't have much more information to go on than we did yesterday. All we have to go on are weak assumptions. I still have unresolved suspicion for capybara, and I'm going with it. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:46:17 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on May 28, 2007 12:46:17 GMT -5
Which was it: that the pirates offed FD to protect me or capybara, or that they offed her because she was a strong player? Yes. I think both fit together perfectly. I thought it was obvious that I felt that way, and I find it suspicious that you'd ask a question like that. It makes me feel like you're trying very hard to discredit me. I'm not trying to discredit you. I am clarifying what assumptions you are working from. I can see now that your suspicion of capybara is based on two assumptions to do with the pirates' motivation, and your suspicion of me is based on those plus a third (i.e. the fact that I have asked you some clarifying questions that you find suspicious). Is that accurate?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:53:47 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 28, 2007 12:53:47 GMT -5
Drive by posting. Sorry to see you go, Fluid. Be back to actually read and say stuff as soon as I can.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 12:54:00 GMT -5
Post by Lakai on May 28, 2007 12:54:00 GMT -5
I'll leave the rest of you to figure who killed poor FD tonight. Right now I'm worried about figuring out who acted like a pirate yesterday.
I mentioned hockeymonkey yesterday but no one would listen to me, so I'll make my case for her again.
So far she had 12 posts. In those posts she voted for Auntbeast because of what MTS said and KatiRoo because of what Storyteller said. I called her on her thin reasoning for voting for Auntbeast yesterday, and all she said was:
So the two times she voted for people she used someone else's reasoning, and she did a bad job of coming up with her own reasons later. I feel that is pirate like behavior.
Vote hockeymonkey
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 13:08:50 GMT -5
Post by Malacandra on May 28, 2007 13:08:50 GMT -5
I'm with mhaye - paranoid killers are, generally speaking, a liability. Even worse, on the off chance he ends up helping the ship and knocking off a few pirates, the Pirates or Deadeye Dick just go down the list of previous misses and get rid of him. It's very hard for Ben to do any good - he's pretty much a monkey wrench (sorry, 'spanner in the works'), skewed towards being bad for the crew IMO. [dorky]Auto's post made me think of something ... from a role-playing standpoint, "we" don't have any idea of what Dick's knives look like until we find his dead body, so we can't make assumptions about the manner of death.[/dorky] One more question for Malacandra regarding Deadeye Dick : Does D. Dick get immediate access to the pirate boards (even if he can't post) the Day after his third/Flint kill, or is he not actually privy to their council until the next Night? We might be able to look for someone with sudden enlightenment as a newly minted Pirate. That's "Dick Deadeye", a name I lifted from HMS Pinafore, not "Deadeye Dick" who is one of the villains in the Ballad of Eskimo Nell. ;D Dick becomes a pirate as soon as his third kill is ratified - he gets a PM from me with a link to the secret forum. But you should be aware that pirates may not strategise during the Day; they only get enough peace and quiet when the honest men are all keeping their heads down in their hammocks.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 13:14:19 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 28, 2007 13:14:19 GMT -5
Yes. I think both fit together perfectly. I thought it was obvious that I felt that way, and I find it suspicious that you'd ask a question like that. It makes me feel like you're trying very hard to discredit me. I'm not trying to discredit you. I am clarifying what assumptions you are working from. I can see now that your suspicion of capybara is based on two assumptions to do with the pirates' motivation, and your suspicion of me is based on those plus a third (i.e. the fact that I have asked you some clarifying questions that you find suspicious). Is that accurate? My suspicion of capybara was initially based upon her posts from Day One. It was increased because of my two assumptions of the pirate's motivation. I got a little suspicious of you because of your question. You asked me which of my assumptions were true (i.e. A or B, but not both) when I felt it was very clear that A and B could both be true. I thought I had already expressed my opinion that they were both true. I got the feeling that you were trying to make it seem like I was contradicting myself, and that's what caught my attention. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 13:14:27 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 28, 2007 13:14:27 GMT -5
Sorry for my lessened activity thus far (I have been busy in the other game... grumble-grumble). I have to review the rules and re-read everything to get up to date, and I'll try to contribute a bit more during this day.
By the way, excellent side-thread Gadarene!
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 13:35:19 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on May 28, 2007 13:35:19 GMT -5
My suspicion of capybara was initially based upon her posts from Day One. It was increased because of my two assumptions of the pirate's motivation. I got a little suspicious of you because of your question. You asked me which of my assumptions were true (i.e. A or B, but not both) when I felt it was very clear that A and B could both be true. I thought I had already expressed my opinion that they were both true. I got the feeling that you were trying to make it seem like I was contradicting myself, and that's what caught my attention. Nope, I don't think you're contradicting yourself - I think you're using unprovable assumptions, which is something I identified at the beginning as a strategy that can quickly lead to trouble. But I have also stated that I don't think someone's scummy just because I disagree with their strategy. For now I'm assuming you're town (along with everyone else), and figuring out if I want to agree with your analysis or not.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 14:14:50 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 28, 2007 14:14:50 GMT -5
mhaye:Heh. I was gonna call you out on that. DiggitCamara:Thanks! I don't have much time for substantive analysis at the moment (Happy Memorial Day, everyone!), but I did want to reiterate my feeling that cowgirl, more than capybara, is an interesting beneficiary of the fluiddruid murder, being someone who fluid initially voted for and then later cleared of her suspicion. If cowgirl was a pirate, I could easily see fluiddruid being a perfect target in that regard. But, as I've said, I think there are a myriad other reasons that fluiddruid was killed that are at least as likely, including the simple fact that she was a good player who wasn't storyteller, and the possibility that she was truly randomly selected. So I dunno. I want to take a little time reevaluating the different activity level of each player and cross-referencing it to my list of who fluid did and didn't mention, but that will have to wait until tonight or tomorrow. Right now I'm off to barbecue.
|
|
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 Two
May 28, 2007 14:18:49 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 28, 2007 14:18:49 GMT -5
<game off> I'm having a hell of a day here at work. Yes, I know it's Memorial Day, but I'm working. I haven't had time to really read over all the posts since dawn. <game on> RIP Fluiddruid. Sorry to see you go so soon. Acknowledging we had only one kill last night, there are obviously lots of scenarios that could have played out. Some are good and some are bad. Fact is, we won't know what exactly happened to much much later in the game. If the rest of you want to try to figure it out, please do. I can't. I'm also acknowledging Lakai's vote for me based on my posting history and thin reasoning. I can't argue with either really. I don't have near the time available to post as I did last game. I explained my reasoning in an earlier post...by the time I get done catching up, someone else has already said what I want to say, and did a much better job of it to boot! I'll stand by my earlier vote and reasoning for Auntbeast, however thin you think it to be. She sounded like an inexperienced pirate to me. That's all the reasoning there was. ;D My general thoughts right now are that Capybara is acting like crew. ComeToThe DarksideWeHaveCookies (boy that is hard to type) has pinged my pirate radar a couple of times, but since she is no doubt living it up with the new Mrs. Cookies right now I won't vote for her. Congratulations BTW Cookies! Heavy FOS until you get back to defend.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 15:02:07 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 28, 2007 15:02:07 GMT -5
Man, so many posts to catch up on. I may move to the east coast just to be on EST for once!
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 15:44:48 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 28, 2007 15:44:48 GMT -5
Nope, I don't think you're contradicting yourself - I think you're using unprovable assumptions, which is something I identified at the beginning as a strategy that can quickly lead to trouble. But I have also stated that I don't think someone's scummy just because I disagree with their strategy. For now I'm assuming you're town (along with everyone else), and figuring out if I want to agree with your analysis or not. For now, all of our assumptions are unprovable. Until a pirate is killed, we won't know anything for sure. Once we get to that point I'll no longer act on my gut feelings. FTR, I don't a pirate vibe from you. Yarr. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 17:56:51 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on May 28, 2007 17:56:51 GMT -5
[GAME OFF] Happy Memorial Day, US players! [/GAME ON] The day is young, and I'd like to read over everything again, but here's an early comment: I think the most likely scenario is that the pirates killed fluid and Deadeye Dick's kill failed (it has a 50% chance of failure). I'm still suspicious of capybara, and reading fluid's posting history (thank you Gadarene) makes me even more so. Fluid was going after capybara quite a bit and I think she was killed because of that. Vote capybara--FCOD I find this post to be either exceedingly misguided or outright disingenuous; I'll need to do a bit more reading to decide which. But as I have repeatedly maintained (I even said it in the last game, and it was the truth then as now), there is no profit in trying to make judgments based on what happens at night. To do so is to make decisions based on evidence hand-selected by the very people with an interest in forcing you to make the wrong decision. In the quote above, FCoD seems to be assuming that the pirates will make a very obvious night kill for a very obvious reason; they won't, and he knows this perfectly well (in M2, the scum - of whom FCoD was one - rarely killed those who were suspicious of one among them). For FCoD to baldly assert that the pirates in this game are making such an obvious play - not just suggesting it as one of many equal possibilities but asserting it - strikes me as sketchy. FoS FlyingCowofDoom! Reformed my backside!
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 18:36:40 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on May 28, 2007 18:36:40 GMT -5
I find this post to be either exceedingly misguided or outright disingenuous; I'll need to do a bit more reading to decide which. But as I have repeatedly maintained (I even said it in the last game, and it was the truth then as now), there is no profit in trying to make judgments based on what happens at night. To do so is to make decisions based on evidence hand-selected by the very people with an interest in forcing you to make the wrong decision. First of all, I'm not basing my vote on what happened at night at all. I'm pretty sure I was the first person to vote for capybara yesterday/ever, and I ended the day with my vote on her. I wasn't all that thrilled with the vote, but she was the one I felt was the most suspicious. The night killing helped me to justify my vote a little bit. I'm still not convinced that capy is a pirate, but at the time being she's still the most suspicious person to me...although I'm hoping that will change today. Here are quotes from me: Here's what you said: In the quote above, FCoD seems to be assuming that the pirates will make a very obvious night kill for a very obvious reason; they won't, and he knows this perfectly well (in M2, the scum - of whom FCoD was one - rarely killed those who were suspicious of one among them). For FCoD to baldly assert that the pirates in this game are making such an obvious play - not just suggesting it as one of many equal possibilities but asserting it - strikes me as sketchy. Please tell me where I'm baldly asserting that the pirates are doing anything. In fact, I even said it was a weak assumption! But there you are asserting what the pirates wouldn't do. Talk about misleading... The only way you could know what the pirates would or wouldn't do is if you were one yourself. Are you? If not, I'd advise we don't blindly rule anything out, even the "very obvious." I realize that there isn't much to go on, so we're all going to by trying to twist each other's words to find scum, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: Until a pirate is dead, there isn't much useful information to analyze. We can go on and on about he said she said, but the fact is that there aren't any facts. I have a weak suspicion about capybara, and until someone convinces me otherwise that's where my vote will stay. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 18:45:18 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 28, 2007 18:45:18 GMT -5
So... I still haven't read up on the rules but I have had a couple of thoughts in the (still running) Mafia III game which might help us: 1. Avoid the classic "tunnel vision". Almost every non-scum player has it (and, probably, most scummy players have it as well). It's defined by viewing a.) any post that has your name in it b.) any post that has a thought you think you "created" in it Its natural result is, usually, counter-claims against those who have just FOS-ed or (Og smash!) voted against you 2. Re-read your own stupidity. More likely than not, your first guesses will be completely off the mark. Look at them again. (If possible, after two or three gamedays). For instance, look at my first list of suspected individuals from Mafia III Day One (hence MIIID1). Almost all dead, almost all wrong. 3. I have said it before: suspect EVERYONE. You have no certain information 'til Day 3 (at least) if you're a non-power-role. Even if you are, be wary of your information and how you'll transmit it. 4. Run-offs (defined by close votes which are decided by Random.org if need be) are GOOD (for non-scurvy-lads and lasses). Afterwards you'll be able to look at: a.) People who drove the vote (usually non-scurvy if the victim is non-scurvy) b.) People who "hung back" (as many a time, they'll be scurvy if no scurvy was in the lead). (Ask Lemur866for details) 5. Run-offs need at least 2 days to develop. Until then you only have half the information needed (MIIID1, MIIID2, MIIID3--all but one were town vs. town/crew vs. crew)
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 18:53:49 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on May 28, 2007 18:53:49 GMT -5
(snip) I find this post to be either exceedingly misguided or outright disingenuous; I'll need to do a bit more reading to decide which. But as I have repeatedly maintained (I even said it in the last game, and it was the truth then as now), there is no profit in trying to make judgments based on what happens at night. To do so is to make decisions based on evidence hand-selected by the very people with an interest in forcing you to make the wrong decision. (snip) Careful. In your game it might have happened. However, have you looked at the MIII game? fluiddruid was killed relatively early, based on the Detective's early demise. And though I don't know that tirial's suspicion that fluiddruid had been the investigatee is right, the Detective very well might have been killed because he voiced an early suspicion (Kyrie, Gadarene, please don't confirm or deny my suspicions) against scum. True 'nuff: intelligent scum would disregard townies suspicions up to the point of using Random.org (--non traceable, fun to watch wrong conclusions) to kill in the night. However, scurvy might sometimes make mistakes ( Lemur866 sure made at least one mistake in MIII)
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 20:44:07 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 28, 2007 20:44:07 GMT -5
FCOD:
Okay, but shouldn't the fact that last night's killing pointed so directly at capy make you less suspicious of her?
|
|
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 Two
May 28, 2007 21:59:09 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 28, 2007 21:59:09 GMT -5
snipped Okay, but shouldn't the fact that last night's killing pointed so directly at capy make you less suspicious of her? Gad, I'm confused on how last night's kill pointed at capybara. In a good way? In a bad way? Could you please elaborate?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 23:20:01 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 28, 2007 23:20:01 GMT -5
Yeah, sure. Let's say A states on Day One that she distrusts B and trusts C. One pitfall we've encountered in past Mafia games is to assume when A gets killed that B (the person A distrusted) is likely to be the killer, because B has a "motive": namely, that A was getting too close to the truth and had to be silenced before she convinced people to lynch B. But this isn't the way the Mafia has tended to work in our games, which is why I think (assuming fluid wasn't chosen randomly, a possibility that I keep mentioning because we can't dismiss it) that capybara, who fluid expressly felt was scum, is less likely to be a pirate than someone who fluid expressed no suspicion of (and possibly less likely than someone like cowgirl, who fluid mistrusted and then trusted). I can best state my thinking here by way of analogy. Some poker books teach you that there are at least three different levels to playing poker: Level One is playing based on what your cards are in front of you. Level Two is playing based on your cards as well as what you think your opponent's cards are. Level Three is playing based on your cards, your estimation of your opponent's cards, and your best guess as to what your opponent thinks your cards are. The books say that Level One is essentially how most novices play poker, that Level Two is where most amateurs are at, and that you have to master Level Three to play well professionally. So let's say (as above) that A has expressed distrust of B and trust of C. A is killed. Under Level One thinking, we tend to believe that B has killed A. But this level is very easy to manipulate by C, if C knows that killing A will cause people to suspect B. So under Level Two thinking, we tend to believe that we're being manipulated into suspecting B, and we suspect C instead. But this level itself can be manipulated by B, if B knows that killing A will cause people to believe that there's a double-bluff and suspect C. Therefore, under Level Three thinking, we have to gauge what the scum believe our reaction will be to A getting killed, and assume that they (whether they're A or B) would be trying to provoke a particular, desired reaction. So if we think that they think that we would suspect B if A is killed, we should suspect C instead (or, at least, not suspect B and give them their desired reaction). And if we think that they think that we would suspect C if A is killed, we should act accordingly there as well. That's probably really confusing, but I'm tired. It should be clear that this quickly descends into "wine-in-front-of-me" thinking, which is why it's not particularly fruitful, but I still say that it's riskier for the scum (especially at this point in the game) to kill someone who has cast suspicion on one of their own, and thus it's more likely that fluid was killed by people who were either mentioned positively by her or not mentioned at all. Of course, as my chart from the first page of this thread shows, that still includes most of the townspeople.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 23:23:04 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 28, 2007 23:23:04 GMT -5
Hockeymonkey, I don't know how Gad will answer that (in case you're looking for Gad's particular take) but I think the prevailing idea is that since FD was suspicious of me (and cowgirl but moreso me?), I/ the pirates of whom I'm thought of as a representative snuffed her to protect/maintain me. So Gad means pointed at me in a bad way, I guess. I think Gad is suggesting that this is so guilelessly transparent of a move that it should be seen as a weak theory, especially for the pirates who kill as a collective-- instead perhaps a red herring or sticking a "kick me" note on my back. But that might be the beer talking (Howe Sound's Baldwin and Cooper Bitter followed by Bowen Island Cream Ale, FYIW). Arrr! Where's me grog?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 23:25:19 GMT -5
Post by capybara on May 28, 2007 23:25:19 GMT -5
Whoops. Retardaire simulpost. What he said, or something close. Consider mine the 'I went to public school' translation.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 28, 2007 23:33:19 GMT -5
Post by Gadarene on May 28, 2007 23:33:19 GMT -5
And consider mine the 'far less clear' translation. ;D
|
|
|
Day Two
May 29, 2007 0:13:59 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 29, 2007 0:13:59 GMT -5
This entire debate about whether deadeye dick or the pirates offed fluiddruid just seems like noise to me. I'll assume it was the pirates. If deadeye exists and offed fluid, then the pirates were blocked by captain steele, which means we caught a pirate. Steele will let us know, I assume, one way or another. Of course it's important we know who did what, because the reasons behind the kill would be totally different. And Steele sure as hell better not let us know except in the most subtle of terms, so that statement is loony. Jeez, zuma, I was willing to believe last time that you just made a mistake, but what you're saying there is just plain nonsense. I was scratching my head over his post too. Any info, if found out, is useful. I don't see any harm in trying to figure out what happened. I think the most likely scenario is that the pirates killed fluid and Deadeye Dick's kill failed (it has a 50% chance of failure). I'm still suspicious of capybara, and reading fluid's posting history (thank you Gadarene) makes me even more so. Fluid was going after capybara quite a bit and I think she was killed because of that. Vote capybara--FCOD What about others she mentions, though? Maybe it was one of those (like cowgirl, for example, who she also mentions being suspicious of). Maybe it was all of them. Maybe it was none of them. What singles you out about Capy? Not saying it's odd. I'm actually curious. Trying to figure out why FD was targeted will inevitably result in a wine-in-front-of-you cycle that we can't crack. Perhaps capybara or I is a pirate (or a Dick, etc) and so along with our crewmates we keelhauled her at night. Or perhaps one or the other of us is not a pirate, and the pirates keelhauled her to direct suspicion at one or both of us. We can't possibly know until hindsight gives us clarity.Snipped and bolded. I'm sure I'm just taking this wrong, so correct me if I am, but from your wording there (with the perhaps' and the use of "we" in the last sentence) you don't know what your own team is? We have to assume that the pirates are just as smart or smarter than we are. I think that it's reasonable to assume that part of the reason that the pirates killed fluiddruid was to exonerate cowgirl and capybara. Snipped. You say this pretty sure of yourself. Why isn't it reasonable to also think that it was a throw off? I mean, it could be either. I'm keeping my mind open. You, you seem to be saying "no no, it's this way". Yeah, that really killed me in the last game, if you're following along with it. Personally, if anything, I'd think at the very least it was a combo of the two. That fluid scored one small hit on someone (and was wrong on the others) and combined with being a good player, was smitten. Be careful, don't talk too much about motivations, or zuma will vote for you out of the blue. Or in the blue too! Bwhahahaha! Get it? Voting? Blue? Is this on?
|
|
|
Day Two
May 29, 2007 0:27:01 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on May 29, 2007 0:27:01 GMT -5
Good lord, you people put up three pages, I only just foound out the new day started!
Anyway RIP Fluid, you were a sharp player who had a lot to offer. You will be missed.
I haven't done an in depth read through, but this caught my eye, maybe because I was already suspicious of him, but this post seems weird.
FCoD was scum in my Mafia game, and good at it. He should know better than this. This is exactly the type of action the scum in that game conciously tried to avoid.
So he says something he knows is false and then tries to cast strong suspicion on someone else?
Vote FCoD
|
|
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 Two
May 29, 2007 1:12:37 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on May 29, 2007 1:12:37 GMT -5
Of course it's important we know who did what, because the reasons behind the kill would be totally different. And Steele sure as hell better not let us know except in the most subtle of terms, so that statement is loony. Jeez, zuma, I was willing to believe last time that you just made a mistake, but what you're saying there is just plain nonsense. I was scratching my head over his post too. Any info, if found out, is useful. I don't see any harm in trying to figure out what happened.bolding what I want to address and snipping out the rest I agree that any info we can glean is useful, but a major thing we may run afoul of is devoting too much time to trying to figure out who killed who and why, rather than trying to figure out who the bad guys are and voting for them. I would like to avoid a speed lynch if at all possible. Gad, thanks for answering my questions. I'm not much clearer on the outcome, but the reasoning I understand now. I think capybara talks too much to be a pirate. ;D I realize that pointing that out with my low post count in this game is foolish, but I know I'm not a pirate. Compared to the rest of you, I'm a mute. Anyway, after the end of the month, I'll have more time to compose coherent and relavant posts...if I last that long.
|
|
|
Day Two
May 29, 2007 6:14:39 GMT -5
Post by zuma on May 29, 2007 6:14:39 GMT -5
I will say that I agree that capy talks way too much to be a pirate. This all is reminding me way too much of mafia 2, when all the constant babblers were town.
I would like to advise Capy to tone down the responses and postings a bit, if Capy is truly town.
|
|