|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Jan 7, 2011 21:18:08 GMT -5
I don't like the bandwagon on charr; he may have left the board, but that doesn't mean he's a good lynch. In fact, at this point, a lynch of charr does us absolutely no good and doesn't even garner us any useful information. So you're that convinced that Charr is going to be a mislynch? Because if he flips scum I fail to see how that does us absolutely no good.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 7, 2011 22:38:49 GMT -5
If he's unsubscribed from the board and he flips Scum, even if he were the last Scum he wouldn't exactly be going to kill anyone, now would he?
I say take him out in the end-game, if you really think he's Scum; for now, just like in Halloween, we should be focusing on the players who can hurt Town.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Jan 7, 2011 22:44:59 GMT -5
...actually. Alright, I'll give lynching someone other than charr atm some thought, as I actually get your point now.
|
|
|
Post by metallicsquink on Jan 7, 2011 23:34:03 GMT -5
Night 3, I blocked Ed and last Night, I blocked Renata. Why are you still blocking randomly? I mean - there's a lot of pain coming down on the likes of Storyteller, CAIS, Charr, and Crazypunker. And you're still blocking randomly. Why? I thought we discussed this like... days ago that randomly blocking, especially this late in the game is bad, and ya'know. Anti-town. Can you stop doing stuff that has potential to hurt your own claimed win condition plskthx. Who said I was blocking randomly? I picked Ed because he looked suspicious to me. Same reason for choosing Renata. Apologies if everyone thinks they could have played this role better than I.
|
|
|
Post by special on Jan 8, 2011 9:40:47 GMT -5
Why are you still blocking randomly? I mean - there's a lot of pain coming down on the likes of Storyteller, CAIS, Charr, and Crazypunker. And you're still blocking randomly. Why? I thought we discussed this like... days ago that randomly blocking, especially this late in the game is bad, and ya'know. Anti-town. Can you stop doing stuff that has potential to hurt your own claimed win condition plskthx. Who said I was blocking randomly? I picked Ed because he looked suspicious to me. Same reason for choosing Renata. Apologies if everyone thinks they could have played this role better than I. Excellent! I like it when players indicate that they found someone suspicious. Now, please detail what it is that Renata and I did to garner your suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 8, 2011 10:50:05 GMT -5
Is the main reason you guys are voting Charr his abandoment of the game? While his apparent decision to delete his account is extremely anti-town and anti-game, it gives no indication of his alignment at this stage of the game and, inmho, indicates a greater chance that he's non-scum. Are we in such a comfortable position that we can afford to use up a lynch on a player who is potentially Town and whose lynch will provide almost no information? Do you really have no-one scummier to vote for toDay so we can leave charr for later when we're really stuck with no decent leads? Please consider join me in voting CIAS. I think he's scum and the fact that he appears to have just started playing the game toDay just reinforces my suspicions. Or, at the very least, Total, Cookies and Hockey, consider moving your vote to crazy who was scummy enough for you to lynch on Day 3. I would rather lynch CIAS, but I'm going to do my best to keep myself alive because I know for a fact that I am town. If that means voting the non-participant to save myself then that's what I am doing because I know that I am a more useful townie than somebody who isn't going to be here to participate.
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 8, 2011 11:07:48 GMT -5
Or, at the very least, Total, Cookies and Hockey, consider moving your vote to crazy who was scummy enough for you to lynch on Day 3. I think it's already been shown in the Ed and Peeker-discussion. We simply view Charr very differently ATM. I have no idea if he's Town or Scum. As I've said I was getting townie-vibes from his confusion. However when I did my review of NAF's posts in this game he also said (over and over) that he thought Charr to be town. So I can only say that Charr's confusion has left me with very little to judge his alignment by. However Crazypunker is posting and therefore every Day he's in the game will give me more data to process. Charr will not. Let's just say that yes Charr is Town and Crazypunker is Scum. Then if we leave Crazypunker for now and lynch him toMorrow instead we will have more post to re-read and analyze. There will be a vote-record to look at. We might even catch a Scum-body based on what Crazypunker has posted. So for me it's like handing the participation Scum a longer rope to hang themselves with. I hope it makes sense. If not I'd be more than happy to elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2011 11:14:00 GMT -5
i understand where you are coming from but i just don't agree. and this may be a poor analogy but here goes. say you get home from work friday night and the missus gives you a list of 5 honey-dos that need to be completed before monday morning. one of which is mandatory and the others are close but not mandatory. wouldn't you like to knock off the mandatory one before friday is over. i mean it's not it's going away. it's gotta be addressed. and certainly there are other candidates for lynching toDay. all i know is there is also some uncertainty regarding what we should do with some of them. however, there is a mandatory individual that has to be dealt with. putting it off doesn't make it go away. to use your analogy. I agree, but in my mind the list looks like this: 1. Must do: Visit mother-in-law 2. Fix drain pipe that appears like it might explode and leak sewage all over the basement at any time. 3. Have inspector over to check gas smell near furnace. 4. Repair section of roof that blew off in the storm. Yeah, maybe visiting the mother-in-law can wait until Sunday evening. well we come from different skill sets then. because me doing 2, 3 or 4 results in.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Jan 8, 2011 11:19:53 GMT -5
shit that didn't work out so well. but to elaborate.
me doing # results in.
2. crap after my assistance i need to call of professional at Night and on the weekend. mucho bucks.
3. honey go buy some additional comforters, it's going to be down right cold over the next couple of Nights.
4. i think we can put a skylight in where i put my foot through the ceiling sheetrock. mybe we can use some of the insulation that is currenty on the bed for additional warmth.
1. have to work late. so please let your mom know that we will only be able to stay for an hour or so because of these other issues.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 8, 2011 11:43:26 GMT -5
I am unable to look at pages for some of the previous days, so forgive me for not having quotes.
My strongest suspicion right now is CIAS. Here is my reasoning:
1) He (she?) has been one of the least active players since the start. When he's posted it has mostly been rehashing what other players have said already.
2) He has voted in very safe ways. The only votes I have seen from him are jumping on a case that somebody else has established. He has basically added nothing new to any case he has bandwagoned.
my vote is staying where it is as a method of self preservation for reasons I stated previously.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 8, 2011 11:45:16 GMT -5
Why are you still blocking randomly? I mean - there's a lot of pain coming down on the likes of Storyteller, CAIS, Charr, and Crazypunker. And you're still blocking randomly. Why? I thought we discussed this like... days ago that randomly blocking, especially this late in the game is bad, and ya'know. Anti-town. Can you stop doing stuff that has potential to hurt your own claimed win condition plskthx. Who said I was blocking randomly? I picked Ed because he looked suspicious to me. Same reason for choosing Renata. Apologies if everyone thinks they could have played this role better than I. Why did you find them suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 8, 2011 12:03:45 GMT -5
Or, at the very least, Total, Cookies and Hockey, consider moving your vote to crazy who was scummy enough for you to lynch on Day 3. I think it's already been shown in the Ed and Peeker-discussion. We simply view Charr very differently ATM. I have no idea if he's Town or Scum. As I've said I was getting townie-vibes from his confusion. However when I did my review of NAF's posts in this game he also said (over and over) that he thought Charr to be town. So I can only say that Charr's confusion has left me with very little to judge his alignment by. However Crazypunker is posting and therefore every Day he's in the game will give me more data to process. Charr will not. Let's just say that yes Charr is Town and Crazypunker is Scum. Then if we leave Crazypunker for now and lynch him toMorrow instead we will have more post to re-read and analyze. There will be a vote-record to look at. We might even catch a Scum-body based on what Crazypunker has posted. So for me it's like handing the participation Scum a longer rope to hang themselves with. I hope it makes sense. If not I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Something about this post pinged me a bit. I don't like this logic. I don't think a scum would give much away if he knew he was likely to be lynched in a day or two anyways. In fact, I think he would be more likely to side with townies to make them look bad when he turned up scum. If you think that somebody is scum you should vote them. That is unless somebody is more scummy or you are trying to save your own skin I think the best play is to vote somebody who you think is scum over somebody who is a non-participant. For the record I am not saying vote for me. I'm saying you should vote for who you think is scum. I don't like how this post feels like you have come to the conclusion that I am scum but you aren't voting me anyways.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 8, 2011 12:10:19 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that Inner Stickler didn't post much of anything day 4. He didn't even vote. I know he figured he was going to die, but he still could have helped town by posting.
If you are town and you are going to die you should still post to help out the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Jan 8, 2011 14:28:11 GMT -5
Vote: CIASStory made a case against him here: ... because there’s very little to go on, but in the end Cat’s attack on me seems lazy and opportunistic, consistent with Scum who thinks if they just keep repeating that something seems off, that others will conclude it must be off. Guiri has voted him twice. From his day 3 post: This really looks like he's going through the motions: minimal participation, regular fluff, half-hearted votes ("pending an answer", "For the moment though"), half-hearted summaries (Yeah, I gave up trying to do it piece by piece."). I get the feeling he either doesn't really want to play or is scum trying to give an appearance of participation. I don't see him making an effort to find scum or committing himself to a case. Damning evidence? No, but he's no noob and there's something off about his play. ToDay, CIAS looked at NAF , but made no mention of the one post of NAF's that I found interesting. He comes to no conclusions and again says he's "going to think some more." Seems like more of the trying to look helpful without actually helping. While there is no post from CIAS that screams scum to me, the lack of posts that look like town seems incriminating.
|
|
|
Post by bufftabby on Jan 8, 2011 14:52:08 GMT -5
Vote Count
charr (6): peekercpa [11], paranoia [42], cookies [86], hockey monkey [97], ullz [99], crazypunker [110]
crazypunker (4): brewha [44], catinasuit [102], sister coyote [103], mr ed [104]
catinasuit (2): guiri [41], texcat [133]
storyteller (1): mr ed [21-104], renata [54]
|
|