|
Day Six
Jan 11, 2011 21:59:54 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 11, 2011 21:59:54 GMT -5
..... Are you actually accusing me of not contributing my own cases? No, I am suggesting that when you vote, you should give a reason, not just a "me too".
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 11, 2011 22:09:08 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 11, 2011 22:09:08 GMT -5
..... Are you actually accusing me of not contributing my own cases? No, I am suggesting that when you vote, you should give a reason, not just a "me too". Thanks for the suggestion.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 0:07:31 GMT -5
Post by Paranoia on Jan 12, 2011 0:07:31 GMT -5
I'm going to vote for Paranoia based on an analysis of his vote history. Day One: no vote - easy for scum Day Two: one off on NAF - one offs are an easy place for scum to hide Day Three: one off on Plankton - another one off Day Four: Joins Peek in voting for Charr - almost a one off Day Five: Votes Charr, Charr is lynched - almost have to be at least one scum on that wagon (and I know it wasn't me) vote ParanoiaYou know - this is getting ridiculous. I was vocally suspicious of both Charr and Plankton for days. You also grossly over simplified what I've Said regarding NAF and Plankton and Charr. The vote on Charr? That basically happened when he couldn't be bothered to do nothing but shove his foot in his mouth. He hadn't added anything TO discussion, he was doing no discussion of his own, he was basically being a great big unknown, and NAF was doing everything in his power to make Charr NOT come off as suspicious. What conclusion am I going to draw? Also, it was pretty obvious day two NAF was going to ride my ass into next week had I not come back to stop the lynch on me day two. While you could read that as NAF trying to get rid of a less useful partner above say, Maha, you have to keep in mind by time I got in to post Maha wasn't even in danger. Also, Renata? I said day 3 I thought the case on Punker had merit - day 4 I wasn't so sure that there'd be a scum scottsman. The only reason I mentioned the possibility of Punker is honestly - I don't believe the mafia would have so many PRs on their side. It doesn't mean I think he's town, but I want to put the potential out there that instead of being necessarily scum, he has potential to be a PFK, which to my knowledge would make more sense with an execution stopping power than a scum scottsman.
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 5:19:21 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 5:19:21 GMT -5
The end of yesterDay voting was definitely suspicious, as noted by Total. I am also not liking the togetherness of Mahaloth and crazypunker. First the alleged cross-post votes of Pleo. Then at the end of yesterDay, Mahaloth comes in and votes Hockey Monkey to break the tie. He is followed by crazypunker who also votes Hockey Monkey to break the tie, which of course was not a tie at that point. It pings me as if both votes were discussed on the scum board. Do you still feel this way or did something happen that changed this?
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 5:37:22 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 5:37:22 GMT -5
OK, Bill made the case very early in the Day but you still voted Special afterwards. You're correct. What? No she isn't. I wouldn't be voting for him if the case wasn't compelling to begin with, but at least part of my vote is testing his claim. The scotsman claim has everything to do with it. Had he claimed cop or doc or some other role I would likely have not voted for him, but scotsman is testable. It isn't either/or...it's both. What are you trying to accomplish here guiri? I keep returning to this post and I'm still not sure what to think of it. Is NAF making a huge scum-bluff or is this logic for real? Was testing the claim really part of his vote or was it to prove the claim in stead? I'm very unsure because I know I'm easily manipulated by NAF and therefore I'd like to hear if others have a comment on this?
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 6:13:19 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 12, 2011 6:13:19 GMT -5
@ Metallic, who did you block last Night? Was there a reason you only posted 1 word on Day 4 and only your results (with a brief defense of your target selection) yesterDay? Do you also have a vote or post restriction? The scum roleblocker is dead, no-one has counterclaimed you and so there's a decent probability your claim is true and are therefore Town but you need to participate, state your suspicions and vote if you want to help us win.
@ Total, did you come to any conclusions from your analysis of CIAS's or NAF's posts? You put a lot of effort into the WoWs and it would be great to see your thoughts.
@ Mister Blockey, I count 11 posts in total: N0- PM received D1- catching up, against mass claims D1- more on mass claims D1- having trouble following game, vote on Charr for reasonless vote 1 minute past the deadline D2- rl issues, votes Charr again to get an explanation D2- follow-up on vote reasoning, Charr promised an explanation D2- unvotes, Charr is playing poorly, not scummily, in on the fence about story's restriction D2- votes mahaloth, gut feeling in response to mahaloth's vote on Hockey D4- wasn't suspicious of NAF, doesn't think there's a Vig D4- gives advice to Charr on value of speculation, votes Inner to provoke a claim D5- questions sistercoyote about her claim Your two final votes led to lynches, one of which was scum - cool, but your lack of participation and vote record is not helping us.
@ Story, can you confirm that there are circumstances in which you can vote?
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 7:03:50 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 7:03:50 GMT -5
@ Total, did you come to any conclusions from your analysis of CIAS's or NAF's posts? You put a lot of effort into the WoWs and it would be great to see your thoughts. Yes and no. I find it very hard actually getting much out of the posts from NAF. He seems to talk a lot without actually saying much. However the post above yours is quoting a post from NAF that I feel might be a key-point. He seems to hint that if we somehow "verifies" the scotmans-claim we will be able to deduce something from it. However I can't see why he would think that. All we learned was that Crazypunker was a scotsman. But it didn't IMO tell us anything about his alignment. The post from NAF seems to indicate somehow that it would (or so I read it). That's why I'd like to hear how others read it as well. CatInASuit had very few posts - but actually named surprisingly many players in them. He pushed very hard for a lynch of Story and that could indicate that Story at least is a non-Scum. On Day 2 he made a very big deal of "why did Cookie defend Brewha" and we now know Cookie was Town. This had me thinking. But it could be both ways: 1. CIAS knew both were Town and tried to stir things up 2. CIAS knew Brewha was Scum and tried to set Cookie up if Brewha later was lynched. Hard to say - but definitely a data-point.
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 7:07:06 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 7:07:06 GMT -5
One of the reasons why I didn't post my comments on the WoWs was based on a hope that others might also re-view the dead players actions and interactions.
But we seem to focus more on votes toDay - and I didn't spend much time looking too close at them. So I'm off to try and figure out what happened with votes and why.
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 8:01:48 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 8:01:48 GMT -5
I'm running out of time today but should have more time to spend on the game later toDay I've only had time to look at Day 1 so far - but already think it's rather interesting. Based on #207 I find it highly unlikely that crazypunker and paranoia are on the same scum-team. Of cause there could be a hidden scum or an investigator not joining the scum-team to begin with. So it's not 100% certain. Just seems unlikely to me.
|
|
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:
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 8:04:01 GMT -5
Post by Total Ullz on Jan 12, 2011 8:04:01 GMT -5
Day 1-votes: #17 Pleonast votes Suburban Plankton Lynchee: Suburban Plankton
#93 Peeker votes Story #94 Guiri votes CatInASuit #103 Crazypunker votes Pleonast #104 Mahaloth votes Pleonast Lynchee: Pleonast
#113 Guiri unvotes CatInASuit #113 Guiri votes Mahaloth #133 Suburban Plankton votes NAF #142 Rysto votes Suburban Plankton Tie: Pleonast and Suburban Plankton
#143 Peeker unvotes Story #143 Peeker votes paranoia #164 Hockey Monkey votes Rysto #165 Metallic Squink votes Pleonast Lynchee: Pleonast
#169 Cookie votes Pleonast #176 CatInASuit votes Rysto #199 Mr. Ed votes paranoia #200 Renata votes Mr. Ed #202 NAF votes paranoia #207 Crazypunker unvotes Pleonast Tie between Pleonast and Paranoia
#212 Brewha votes Sister Coyote #213 Brewha unvotes Sister Coyote #213 Brewha votes Pleonast Lynchee: Pleonast
#216 Peeker unvotes paranoia #216 Peeker votes Pleonast #221 Inner Stickler votes Rysto #224 Texcat votes Mr. Ed #225 MHayevotes Mahaloth #227 Mr. Ed unvotes paranoia #227 Mr. Ed votes Texcat #230 Charr votes Rysto #236 Mahalothunvotes Pleonast #236 Mahalothvotes Charr Tie between Pleonast and Rysto
#238 Rysto unvotes Suburban Plankton #238 Rysto votes Pleonast Lynchee: Pleonast
#240 Sister Coyote votes Mahaloth
1 minute after Day ends #245 Mister Blockey votes Charr
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 8:33:49 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 12, 2011 8:33:49 GMT -5
When I voted for Hockey he was tied with Story. Malhaloth was a vote back. I explained my reasoning then. If I had voted for Malhaloth it would have been a 3 way tie and the scum could have chosen whoever they wanted to vote for. You realized there wasn't a tie immediately after making your vote: oops, it wasn't a tie. My vote stands though. The only time that this defense could have been valid was 3 hours earlier, when Bill voted Hockey to tie her with Story at 3 votes each over Mahaloth's 2. Did it take you 3 hours to type up your vote?
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 10:42:22 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 12, 2011 10:42:22 GMT -5
Story, can you confirm that there are circumstances in which you can vote? ...I don't know. Should I? I guess it can't hurt. Yes, I confirm that there are circumstances under which I can vote. It seems like every time a new Day starts, I get creamed with seven thousand things to do. I have another eighteen inches of white crap in my driveway to shovel, but once done, I will be back with more. In general, though: 1. I don't agree with the reasoning behind the Charr lynch, but I understand it and don't find it particularly Scummy. That said, I think it entirely possible that at least one non-Town element would have sat on that lynch as a "safe" way to blend. I haven't actually looked at it yet, though - that'll be my first stop this afternoon. 2. Someone asked earlier if I would post my PM exchanges with buff. I will; they are as follows: ROLE PM- I sent the following message sometime thereafter: To which buff replied: Five days later, in the midst of my initial claim, I received the following, unsolicited: ------ 3. My inclination, at the moment, is to believe Sister Coyote. Maybe. I think. I don't know. She certainly breadcrumbed her restriction a bit, in her responses to my own claim. But it's bothering me that her claim is so obviously and unambiguously a post restriction - honestly, if a restriction on how you can post doesn't constitute a post restriction then the phrase has no meaning whatsoever. But frankly, I'd consider my own restriction to be nearly as obviously a post restriction as Sister Coyote's, and I KNOW mine is real... so maybe buff is screwing with us, a bit. And if that's the case, I don't know how to handle it. I kind of wonder if I should try voting, and see what happens.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 11:30:34 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 12, 2011 11:30:34 GMT -5
I kind of wonder if I should try voting, and see what happens. <snipped> well since i don't know what the "sanction" is i certainly don't have sufficient information to give any meaningful input. but i will say this from a curious george standpoint i'd much rather have you tell us what your "sanction" is. then there could be some discussion surrounding it. additionally, if we were to know what your "sanction" is and you eventually go ahead and decide to vote at least we would be able to determine your truthfulness depending on how your "sanction" plays out subsequently.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 12:00:40 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jan 12, 2011 12:00:40 GMT -5
I kind of wonder if I should try voting, and see what happens. <snipped> well since i don't know what the "sanction" is i certainly don't have sufficient information to give any meaningful input. but i will say this from a curious george standpoint i'd much rather have you tell us what your "sanction" is. then there could be some discussion surrounding it. additionally, if we were to know what your "sanction" is and you eventually go ahead and decide to vote at least we would be able to determine your truthfulness depending on how your "sanction" plays out subsequently. I don't know what the sanction is. I know what the restriction is. If I vote in a situation other than the one in which I am allowed to vote, bufftabby has indicated that... something bad will happen. But she says it won't confirm my alignment and it won't help my team. I can't figure out what sort of sanction would do that. I guess she could mod-kill me, but that, really, would help my team (Town) because I'd be dead and not subject to mislynch. I have no powers to take away. I have (basically) no vote to take away. However, she could mod-kill me and end the Day without a lynch. That would hurt my team, but no more so than a mislynch would. Dunno. I don't like post restrictions for exactly this reason - because they encourage players like me to think about sneaking around them or using them as tools rather than just playing the game. So it goes.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 12:28:15 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jan 12, 2011 12:28:15 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (3): renata [20], mr ed [24], hockey monkey [29]
mr blockey (1): texcat [19]
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 17:24:23 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 12, 2011 17:24:23 GMT -5
<snipped> well since i don't know what the "sanction" is i certainly don't have sufficient information to give any meaningful input. but i will say this from a curious george standpoint i'd much rather have you tell us what your "sanction" is. then there could be some discussion surrounding it. additionally, if we were to know what your "sanction" is and you eventually go ahead and decide to vote at least we would be able to determine your truthfulness depending on how your "sanction" plays out subsequently. I don't know what the sanction is. I know what the restriction is. If I vote in a situation other than the one in which I am allowed to vote, bufftabby has indicated that... something bad will happen. But she says it won't confirm my alignment and it won't help my team. I can't figure out what sort of sanction would do that. I guess she could mod-kill me, but that, really, would help my team (Town) because I'd be dead and not subject to mislynch. I have no powers to take away. I have (basically) no vote to take away. However, she could mod-kill me and end the Day without a lynch. That would hurt my team, but no more so than a mislynch would. Dunno. I don't like post restrictions for exactly this reason - because they encourage players like me to think about sneaking around them or using them as tools rather than just playing the game. So it goes. wow, something bad will happen. that sounds really ominous. i can clearly see why you don't want to come forward. that something bad sounds like, i don't know, really bad. i can fully understand your relacitrance. i remember when i was a kid my parents would tell me that something really bad would happen if i didn't behave myself on the days leading towards chistmas. basically inferring that santa would not come. you can bet your bottom dollar that i was on my best behavior. so i certainly see your viewpoint.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 12, 2011 19:10:22 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 12, 2011 19:10:22 GMT -5
Paranoia votes NAF at post 177 while he is still in the lead, followed in the next post by scum Mahaloth bringing Charr also to three. Scum *twice* made votes that served to lessen the danger that you were in on that day, regardless if they helped to put you there in the first place. Minor nitpicks: - Blockey had unvoted Charr in 140 so Mahaloth's vote only put Charr on 2 votes, not a tie - Both Surburban and Metallic voted Paranoia as a prod. I also notice that Charr's self-defense vote on paranoia in 110 was ignored by the Mod and apparently not noticed by anyone at the time (he only put the name in blue, not the word vote). With 4 days left in the Day, I doubt scum would have felt the need to take action to protect a scummy paranoia from "danger" based on the votes he'd gathered - more likely they'd have prodded him to participate more - At the time of his vote, Mahaloth, NAF and CIAS all had 1 vote each, I can see scum trying to rouse suspicion elsewhere to keep themselves safe
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 0:34:55 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jan 13, 2011 0:34:55 GMT -5
sigh I simply don't have the time to play mafia like I prefer to. I'm sorry, I know my participation/lack thereof is hurting the game. Five times I've realized I'd planned out a post only to have simply never made it. I'd almost ask for a sub out but this game doesn't have them and it's too late anyway.
My vote on mahaloth was purely due to his weird vote change. It sounded like scum self defence and I was fortunately right.
At the moment I just don't want to go another day without voting. The attention I can muster says that the paranoia case looks decent, so I'm going to tentatively vote paranoia, and see if I end up back in time to solidify or alter that stance.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 7:03:46 GMT -5
Post by guiri on Jan 13, 2011 7:03:46 GMT -5
@ Renata, based on Total's Day 1 vote analysis, what do you think NAF was up to when he voted paranoia? Do you still think crazypunker is scum?
#167 Vote count: Pleo: 3 Suburban: 2 Mahaloth: 1 NAF: 1 Paranoia: 1 Rysto: 1
#169 Cookies votes Pleo, moves him up to 4 votes #176 CIASs votes Rysto, moves him up to 2 votes #199 Ed votes paranoia, tied for 2nd place on 2 votes #200 Renata votes Ed, a one-off vote #202 NAF votes paranoia, moves him up to 3 votes #207 Crazypunker unvotes Pleo creating a tie between Pleo and Paranoia
On Day 4 you said "Crazypunker -- would have been my repeat vote today if not for IS. Mafia with single-shot lynch survival (not even scotsman, technically) is quite common somewhere else I play, and it's even more sensible for a PFK."
On Day 5 you were "a little torn on whether to vote for you [story] or crazypunker"
ToDay your opinion on crazy is not so clear. In fact, what do you make of story toDay? And is Ed still minding his p's and q's?
@ Total, the 3 post-claim votes on crazypunker caught my attention because they appeared to be intended as easily defensible policy votes to just test the claim and not based on suspicions of crazypunker. NAF said as much in his vote post, charr was just being himself, and Renata, while having previously commented on the merits of the case but put her vote elsewhere, bothered to join the bandwagon when there were already 7 votes there and crazy was almost a guaranteed lynch.
Without knowing crazypunker's alignment, it's hard to say what was going on but my first thoughts were that, at the time of the claim (#145): - crazypunker had 7 votes to CIAS and Story's 2 - sistercoyoye was quick to unvote in #151 - Scum were worried that others would follow and feared the votes would switch to CIAS so voted to strengthen the bandwagon - NAF voted in #163 - Charr added a "me too" vote in #166 - Renata gave her "endorsement" of the lynch in #172
Of course, I was voting CIAS and the movement of votes onto crazy's bandwagon was suspicious but I wasn't about to smudge 3 players based on a theory that required CIAS to be scum, crazypunker to be Town and at least 1 of the three post-claim voters to be scum...
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 9:27:27 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Jan 13, 2011 9:27:27 GMT -5
Can we please kill Crazypunker Today? It's a loose end that's really bugging me. I still find her scummy, and (barring evidence to the contrary) I'm going to keep my vote there til she or I are dead.
Vote CrazyPunker
Yes, she survived a lynch. I can think of several scenarios where she could do that as scum. And, if she does flip town (which I very much doubt) at least we'll know something.
My question is for : hockey monkey, total ullz, texcat, suburban plankton, charr, & renata
What has happened to exonerate Crazypunker in your minds?
And, if we don't lynch CP, can we lynch Hockey Monkey instead. We know she's not town. I'd rather see her hang than have another mislynch and kill one of our own again.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 10:24:27 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 13, 2011 10:24:27 GMT -5
...And, if she does flip town (which I very much doubt) at least we'll know something. ...What has happened to exonerate Crazypunker in your minds? ... I must be missing something. What will we know other then crazypunker's alignment? And couldn't you say that of anyone we lynch? Crazypunker is not exonerated in my mind, but we now have 3 dead mafia, all with roles. And we know that crazypunker did not lie about his role. It's easily possible that the scum started with a tracker, a roleblocker, a godfather, and a scotsman, but I think the case is not as strong as it was.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 10:35:48 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jan 13, 2011 10:35:48 GMT -5
Vote Count
paranoia (4): renata [20], mr ed [24], hockey monkey [29], mr blockey [47]
mr blockey (1): texcat [19]
crazypunker (1): brewha [49]
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 10:38:51 GMT -5
Post by brewha on Jan 13, 2011 10:38:51 GMT -5
And we know that crazypunker did not lie about his role. Do we, really? We know that the lynch against Crazypunker failed. We don't know why. There's tons of mechanisms that scum can employ to prevent a lynch. Maybe CP has a one time power that prevents a lynch. Maybe one of her scum buddies has a one time power that prevents a lynch. All we really know is that nothing happened when we tried to lynch 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 Six
Jan 13, 2011 11:40:45 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jan 13, 2011 11:40:45 GMT -5
Can we please kill Crazypunker Today? It's a loose end that's really bugging me. I still find her scummy, and (barring evidence to the contrary) I'm going to keep my vote there til she or I are dead. Vote CrazyPunkerYes, she survived a lynch. I can think of several scenarios where she could do that as scum. And, if she does flip town (which I very much doubt) at least we'll know something. My question is for : hockey monkey, total ullz, texcat, suburban plankton, charr, & renata What has happened to exonerate Crazypunker in your minds? And, if we don't lynch CP, can we lynch Hockey Monkey instead. We know she's not town. I'd rather see her hang than have another mislynch and kill one of our own again. I haven't mentally exonerated Crazypunker, and nowhere have I said as much. I've voted elsewhere because of more compelling reasons. You can have suspicions of more than one person at a time you know, but you can only vote for one. And I rather not be lynched today thankyewverymuch. And it is a mislynch since you wouldn't be lynching scum and you'd be losing a day that you could be lynching scum. I'm not a threat to anyone's win condition so lynching me is just wasting a day.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 11:54:58 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 13, 2011 11:54:58 GMT -5
and is crazy punker really a she? for some odd reason i always envisioned carrot top dressed in goth and attending a marilyn manson concert.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 11:57:06 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 13, 2011 11:57:06 GMT -5
Dunno. I don't like post restrictions for exactly this reason - because they encourage players like me to think about sneaking around them or using them as tools rather than just playing the game. So it goes. <snipped> yaknow i really kind of wish you would make up your mind on this restriction business. now it's back to being a post restriction?
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 12:08:01 GMT -5
Post by texcat on Jan 13, 2011 12:08:01 GMT -5
And we know that crazypunker did not lie about his role. Do we, really? We know that the lynch against Crazypunker failed. We don't know why. There's tons of mechanisms that scum can employ to prevent a lynch. Maybe CP has a one time power that prevents a lynch. Maybe one of her scum buddies has a one time power that prevents a lynch. All we really know is that nothing happened when we tried to lynch her. As far as I can tell, any scum mechanism that would allow a scummy crazy to escape the lynch, would require a fourth scum role. And it is clear that crazypunker was not lying about his ability to avoid a lynch.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 12:50:58 GMT -5
Post by special on Jan 13, 2011 12:50:58 GMT -5
For the record, I have a one-time lynch stopping ability. A nearly worthless power. I did not use it on crazypunker.
Since I'm claiming, I'd actually support a full on role claim at this point. I think it may be time.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 12:50:59 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jan 13, 2011 12:50:59 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, any scum mechanism that would allow a scummy crazy to escape the lynch, would require a fourth scum role. And it is clear that crazypunker was not lying about his ability to avoid a lynch. Why are you assuming there isn't a fourth scum role? Whether it's crazypunker or not. - sistercoyoye was quick to unvote in #151 Nice smudge, even if you do go on to say Scum were quick to make sure no one followed my lead. It is not my habit to leave my vote on an uncontested Town Role claim, whether or not I've seen the same role given to/used by Scum. Finally, after reading everyone's arguments, I'm most swayed by the case against paranoia, so I'm going to: Vote: Paranoia I don't quite know what to make of the crazypunker situation, but I also don't think four Scum roles are completely out of the question, either.
|
|
|
Day Six
Jan 13, 2011 15:29:44 GMT -5
Post by metallicsquink on Jan 13, 2011 15:29:44 GMT -5
Hi Everyone. I know I haven't toDay but work is just killing me this week. I'll try to read and place a vote before the end of the Day but I'm not making any promises at this point.
|
|