|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 8, 2007 21:46:28 GMT -5
Now you're just outright saying that you're scum. Perfect knowledge, a slip that is less than negligible, and now a "hands in the air, I'm rooting for the other team" post. BTW, we've already established that some people are manipulating Karma points just to see what happens. Mr. Universe is a coward? Doesn't seem to fit the canon very well. Infected person that might have been thought to be town? Actually, Mr. Universe being a coward is totally canon. You're right. Too bad drain and I (in for a penny, in for a pound?) both are townies are going to get lynched. Scum's skating through this damn game.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 8, 2007 21:55:59 GMT -5
*shrugs* I don't see scum as skating, either. It's only Day Three--we would've been happy to be at about this point on Day 3 in Sekham.
Diomedes, if you ARE town, why is it so hard to consider that drain bead might simple be lying, as I laid out in my post. Given the circumstances, it's what *I'D* do as scum--make my powerrole claim that much more believable by claiming to have blocked people I know were blocked, and then use the fewer deaths last night to try to drag my opponent down first by claiming to have blocked them.
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 8, 2007 21:58:01 GMT -5
Second question--when we lynch Drain, what makes you so sure you're next on the block if he's town? That seems highly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by dnooman on Oct 8, 2007 22:05:10 GMT -5
Now you're just outright saying that you're scum. Perfect knowledge, a slip that is less than negligible, and now a "hands in the air, I'm rooting for the other team" post. BTW, we've already established that some people are manipulating Karma points just to see what happens. Mr. Universe is a coward? Doesn't seem to fit the canon very well. Infected person that might have been thought to be town? You're right. Too bad drain and I (in for a penny, in for a pound?) both are townies are going to get lynched. Scum's skating through this gorram game. Wouldn't Cookies be the next one to ascend the gallows? What's up with you? Why do you sound so kamikaze lately?
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 8, 2007 22:05:51 GMT -5
It's the patented Idle defense!
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 8, 2007 22:05:57 GMT -5
Zeriel's questions:
1: I'm going on the assumption that drainbead is either town or lying. I'm thinking there's got to be some sort of roleblocker out there, because I really now believe that I -was- roleblocked night one/zero.0.5.
If there was another roleblocker out there, I expect they would have counterclaimed by now. So I believe her claim of roleblocker. And if she's a pro-scum roleblocker, I just don't see her blocking me by random chance one night, and not again in future nights.
2. Good question. Perhaps it's because I posted that right after A-Rod's homer in the bottom of the seventh, and I'm feeling wildly on edge right now. Perhaps I should stop posting until Cleveland finishes the Real Scum off.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 8, 2007 22:07:25 GMT -5
You're right. Too bad drain and I (in for a penny, in for a pound?) both are townies are going to get lynched. Scum's skating through this gorram game. Wouldn't Cookies be the next one to ascend the gallows? What's up with you? Why do you sound so kamikaze lately? You're right. I'm sorry, everyone. q.v. post 205. Diomedes out, until the end of the baseball game.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 8, 2007 22:07:46 GMT -5
NETA: post 305
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 8, 2007 22:11:17 GMT -5
I'm sayin', Dio, you're ignoring the possibility that drain is just scum, and not a blocker at all.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 8, 2007 22:19:34 GMT -5
After rereading drain bead's claim a couple of times, I'm parsing her abilities like this as having the following limitations: A) They only work on scum ("if I block scum") B) They only work on Night kills ("blocking a Night kill") C) They only have a 1/x chance of succeeding on top of all of that ("I have a 1/x chance...") I'm still trying to figure out what this means for Diomedes' fuzzy screens result... Then there's this: Re: Drain Bead claim So we have a role blocker. Your actions explain some of what has happened, but I'm still a bit puzzled about the blocked hit on panamajack. It's a strange type of block that still lets the target know that he was targeted. Perhaps there is something unreliable about your blocking ability. Is there anything to indicate that your block is less than 100% effective? And feel free to ignore this question if you think this info is better left unsaid. There is nothing in my role PM that indicates that my blocking ability is anything other than 100% effective. Which, earlier today, was one of the posts that prompted me to claim when I did. But upon re-reading a few things, made my head almost explode trying to reconcile it with multiple interpretations of how she worded her claim, layered with multiple assumptions about her alignment, wrapped in various assumptions about who might be lying about what in the various outcomes, steeped in enough enigma to choke a hippo. All I know is that I'm crew and I was not blocked on Night 3. I don't know which way is up regarding her claim, but I'm leaning towards the clusterfuck of possibilities being the result of the loose ends of a scum-manufactured claim. However you dice it, I'm not very confident at all as to whether or not she or I or anyone but (hopefully?) the Mods understand what her role powers/limitations actually are (if she indeed has any).
|
|
|
Post by Zeriel on Oct 8, 2007 22:22:44 GMT -5
Cookies: I'm inclined to believe that dotchan simply misread the roleclaim--it read exactly like the Alchemist in Sekham, without the failure chance.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 8, 2007 22:28:24 GMT -5
Cookies: I'm inclined to believe that dotchan simply misread the roleclaim--it read exactly like the Alchemist in Sekham, without the failure chance. Yeah, that was my first interpretation (c.f. Reply #257). But since drain bead wasn't very clear about her role and has, as Cookies pointed out, somewhat contradicted herself, I'm going crazy trying to reconcile drain bead's, Diomedes', and Cookies' claims.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Oct 8, 2007 22:30:56 GMT -5
Ok, so we're back on familiar ground...
The Alchemist belonged to a third win-condition group (Non-believers vs Believers vs Cult). If her role is like that of the Alchemist, does that imply three win-condition groups in this game, not including the dead SK? How does an Alchemist-like role pan out in a two win-condition set up?
What happens to her probabilities and chances if she targets someone other than the scum?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 8, 2007 22:46:17 GMT -5
Hey Pygmy, what's a tool commonly used for driving nails into things and otherwise impacting force on them? Ham-sammich, no. Ham-fisted, no. Ham-radio, no. Errrr...<snip> I have no problem with doing it, but last time I inadvertently cut off some discussion, and it appears that there's a few people who haven't been online to chime in on this mess because of the holiday weekend, so I'd like for the Day to last at least until toMorrow afternoon. I'm not really sure what to think of Cookie's claim, but it sure is an elaborate plot to explain her mentioning the scum investigator, if it's made up. Drainbead finding Dio the first night is pretty random, but it makes sense that she'd stop blocking him after she realized her mistake. A little too much sense. Especially considering that Dio hasn't really produced any meaningful results yet. I can see this as them being in cahoots, but I can just as easily see it as scum not caring if Dio's around, since he may be just as likely to help the scum expose a pro town role as he would be to see one of them sneaking around with a chloroform soaked rag. Another thing that strikes me about drainbead's claimed role is that she says her blocking of Cookies affected the "normal" number of night kills, but the sample size has been way too small to even determine what a "normal" number of night kills is. ToMorrow we might have a better idea, but it just rings odd to me for Today.
|
|
|
Post by mtgman on Oct 8, 2007 23:20:30 GMT -5
I am Kaylee Frye, Roleblocker. I am aligned with Crew, I win when all Alliance are dead. Once per night I may use my skills to trap a person in their room, blocking their night action. I have a 1/x chance of blocking a Night kill if I block scum, with x being the number of remaining Alliance. The first night, I blocked Diomedes.... The second night is where it gets interesting. I blocked Greedy Smurf. ... The third night, I targeted Cookies, and was rather surprised when there was only one kill. So let me get this straight. You're roleclaim is Forrest Gump beause you've been improbably involved in every single one of the significant events which have occurred around you, somehow making them better for everyone(in the Town) along the way. I'll have to see how breakfast tomorrow turns out. If I end up at Milliways then you're in the clear, otherwise I think you've earned another vote here. I do believe Drain Bead is a roleblocker. I even believe there's a good possiblity that she's that character name. I do NOT believe that her/her character/that role is a pro-town role. And yes, from what I've read, I DO realize that her character IS a good person in the show apparently. Doesn't change the fact that I don't think she is in this game. Here's another place where I think your actions and thought processes are very out of line with an experienced Mafia player. At least the thought processes you make public. A vanishingly small number of games have pro-scum roleblockers. There are several reasons for this, mostly because they don't need them. If someone is getting on the scum's nerves, they don't need to block them, they just kill them. A pro-scum roleblocker negates two of a town's greatest weapons, doctor and cop. A cop is the only thing that makes the games anything like fair between the uninformed majority and informed minority. A Dr. is that cop's life insurance. Having a pro-scum roleblocker is almost as strong as giving them two night kills. This is a very dangerous territory to tread in, and it is extremely rare. So for you to say you believe our real life Forrest Gump over here but you want to throw in an even more improbable trait on top of all the Gumpy goodness... It just seems like a stretch not justified by any public information. Still a strong FOS on Idle Thoughts. Enjoy, Steven
|
|
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:
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 8, 2007 23:58:22 GMT -5
Fair warning: I intend to vote for drainbead some time tomorrow evening Pacific Time. It'll be no earlier than 4:00 p.m. PDT and probably closer to 6 or 7. Obviously that doesn't mean I will necessarily be the hammer. Anyone who wants to extend the Day can unvote (or get someone else to unvote). And anyone who wants to end earlier be my guest. There's no shortage of people voting for her, and I've suspected her at least since Yesterday, but my primary reason to disbelieve her claim is the attempt to be involved in every odd event that happened the last few nights. The second sentence of her role description stuck out to me on rereading: I am Kaylee Frye, Roleblocker. I am aligned with Crew, I win when all Alliance are dead. Once per night I may use my skills to trap a person in their room, blocking their night action. Note : "trap a person in their room". Knowing this, why would she even suspect that she "blocked" Greedy's attack on me if he was confined to his room? Why not assume a fourth killing role (not implausible considering she thought she 'blocked' Cookies, and K4 might have been idle or missed again on scum.) Or why not even suspect me of lying? I see this "Forrest Gump" routine (like that one, mhaye) as an attempt to get in good with some townies to avoid a vote. I'm not buying it, though. I think Crew would be more likely to have less to show for their actions; as scum, she wanted something that would be a little bit stranger and possibly be believed, but not too outlandish.
|
|
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:
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 9, 2007 0:08:40 GMT -5
mtgman, not mhaye. I also don't get drainbead's roleblocking explanation. I think a plausible explanation can be made for what happened that doesn't even involve a role-block occurring (assuming everyone else is telling the truth) : Night 1: Diomedes was interfered with by Hal's night visitor. His or her presence blocked Mr. Universe. Night 2: My attacker (not necessarily Greedy) simply missed, and I was aware of it. To me this seems at least as plausible as a role block that yields that result. (And if you disbelieve my attack, then you don't even need to explain this one, do you?) Night 3: Cookies performed her intended task last night. I also think we need to keep something in mind with any of these "two men say they're Jesus, one of 'em must be scum" arguments: If drainbead is lynched and found scum, we have no real lead on Cookies. If she is Crew and telling the truth, Cookies is likely scum; not guaranteed, but enough to be worth lynching. In the unlikely event that the momentum shifts the other way (toward Cookies), it's roughly the same situation with the roles reversed.
|
|
|
Post by nesta on Oct 9, 2007 0:15:52 GMT -5
Wow this game is crazy. A few thoughts before I go to bed:
I'm torn on this either/or between drainbead and Cookies. While originally reading Day 1 as a spectator I found both to be a little scummy, but more so dreainbead. As I caught up on Today I was ready to cast my vote for drainbead before she claimed. The claim seems solid enough, other than Cookies counter-claim, but it does seem very convenient that she managed to block the player on Night 1 that we all already knew fit very well with being blocked.
The part that has me second guessing my original scum read on drainbead, and now trying to figure out if it's really a false-claim, is that Idle Thoughts has been pushing for her lynch. And I find Idle Thoughts most suspicious of all. I'm sure Idle will want to know why, and I don't have time right now to dig up the quotes, but it started as a spectator on Day 1. You just seemed way too eager to believe dnooman and Roosh based on their PM "language" being the same as yours. That was rather convenient, but if memory serves the language in their posts was actually a little different. Maybe I'm misremembering it, but I remember it pinging my scumdar hard even as a somewhat disinterested spectator. Now you are making arguments Today that I think you want to seem pro-town, but aren't. There is a time and a place for role-claims, and if it's a minor role like Cookies has claimed and it can get us to lynch a false-claimer then that is the best time for a role-claim. I think you know this but were hoping to push the claim back until we didn't have time to properly deal with it.
I could be wrong about Idle, though, in which case my initial suspicion of drainbead would win out. Maybe I'm right about both Idle and drainbead and Idle is going for the townie cred by pushing so hard for her lynch. Or maybe I'm wrong about both of them.
My other problem is that something just doesn't seem right about Cookies claim, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. Yesterday she said she had her role-claim post all ready to go as the votes piled up early against her, yet Today she's reluctant to post it even though it could out scum? One of her specific results, presumably spelled out in her PM since she asked the Mods for clarification, was that she would know if she was blocked? That seems a little convenient that she now uses the fact that she wasn't blocked as evidence, since her PM says right there that she would know it if she was.
Sorry for the rambling post, but I probably won't get a chance to post again until tomorrow night and I wanted to get my thoughts on the record in case the hammer falls before I get another chance.
If I had to vote right now it would be for Cookies, but I'm having a hard time staying convinced of that for more than a few minutes so I'm going to hold off.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 9, 2007 0:44:15 GMT -5
Easy, when Mingo is found, either by a lynch or Cookies at Night, and it's shown that s/he is scum, that verifies it. Now, this is a real problem for me. It pretty much states that Cookies is town and that Mingo is scum. No hint that it might be the other way around. It almost reeks of perfect knowledge if we hadn't been discussing it. Way to read into things then. Really, it's as simple as this: I believe Cookies to be more Town than scum so I happen to believe what she says. Since this is what she said, if it's the truth (and I think it is since I believe she is Town and DB is scum), then that is the way it can be verified. No not really. I get it now. No more argument from me, I understand where you're coming from. However, I'd just like to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I saw Cookies claiming and giving us information that could alter our perception of drainbead's claim as the same as asking Mingo to come forward and claim if they're town and can change our perception of Cookies' claim (which, you've said you're in support of). I wasn't taking into account how many lynch votes she had (again, as you're not saying Mingo should wait until they're on the lynching block before claiming anything and possibly refuting Cookies' points). I was treating Cookies' situation as more of a counter-claim than an individual role-claim. I hope that helps you understand my reasoning. Well, that makes more sense. Here's another place where I think your actions and thought processes are very out of line with an experienced Mafia player. Well there's your mistake then. I'm not an experienced Mafia player. This is only my fourth game PLAYING. Although I've hosted a lot of them and I've put in scum role blockers a plenty. I'm not in the know how things are usually played on any Mafia online site other than SDMB and the ones I've hosted on Norom (the other boards I admin, just google Norom and it's the first and second links). Hahaha, well, I don't agree with you and know you're barking up the wrong tree but I get a kick out of your posts. You just seemed way too eager to believe dnooman and Roosh based on their PM "language" being the same as yours. That's because it is. Roosh had said something along the lines of "it doesn't matter to me based on what my PM says. It says Alliance period" and then voted. This made me recheck what mine said and found it, indeed, didn't give any difference between Town or Scum Alliance. I then voted with him. So I don't know where the language differences were. My post reads what Rooshs was confused over. I don't see how that's possible unless he has the exact same wording. From then on, at least HIM and dnooman have been the highest up on my "probably town" list. I can do nothing else BUT trust them based on what I saw and knew then. Cookies hadn't claimed yet when I was saying that. From what she was saying it sounded like a bit of a REALLY important role (important here being relative since ALL true Town roles are important to Town) such as a Detective. In that case, no, I still don't and wouldn't agree she should have roleclaimed. I don't even agree that she did with this role. She only had seven votes if I remember right, at the time. And everyone was saying "Roleclaim!" And we had, what? Two, three more days of Day left? Yeah, that was something I felt (and still feel) wasn't for the best, but what you gonna do? I have sufficiently explained this numerous times, including the one right above this quote.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Oct 9, 2007 0:46:35 GMT -5
Ah... On basis of Preview, I can see Idle has spoken up. So you can ignore this message. However, for the basis of Posterity, I'll post it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You just seemed way too eager to believe dnooman and Roosh based on their PM "language" being the same as yours. That was rather convenient, but if memory serves the language in their posts was actually a little different. Maybe I'm misremembering it, but I remember it pinging my scumdar hard even as a somewhat disinterested spectator. I can help with that one, as I noticed it too when I did my claim on Day 1. Dnooman and I didn't have the same wording it seemed, based on the PMs, So I stated mine more explicitly, and then we got a ModConfirm that the two were one and the same. So our win conditions could still be similar. Since then, Idle has stated that he believes Me more so, because His PM is the same as MY stated Win condition. So from Day 1, I found an odd backup in Idle, who points out that he has the same condition as me. This is of course after the Mod PM and such, so i don't know what to make of it. but at the time, he was the first to speak up as having a similar phrased win condition as myself, so I tend to ignore him. This may not be the best idea in the future, but for now, it's given him a pass. As for Dnooman, I can't remember it as well. I know now we both have the same win objective as stated by the Mods, but I don't know if it was phrased the same way, like when we brought it up (which is why I don't have 100% trust in him. Then again, I don't trust anyone 100%, but meh to that issue). I believe perhaps in the PM it may be the same, but we both "stated it" in different ways. Also interesting to note, is that people are now copying my Win condition phrasing (Cookies has said it as well almost word for word), and so I'm tending to ignore it as a sign of "towniness" however, for the case of Dnoo, I'm giving him the Pass, since he and I had that ModCrazyMixUp, and I believe we are fighting for the same end goal.... Also, I really like PanamaJack's point about the "Locking in the Room" thing. If I had a hammer, I'd be swinging it from that Post alone. Very VERY interesting Point. so a "Good Posting" award to you, sir.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 9, 2007 2:28:43 GMT -5
Having slept on the issue raised by Today's claims, I can't see how they can be reconciled.
If you assume both are telling the plain truth, then Drain Bead roleblocked a player last Night who nevertheless successfully used her Night power. This is a contradiction so it's not the case that both players are telling the whole truth.
If DrainBead was telling the truth, she has no need to lie, and doing so obfuscates the situation and confuses the players. Doing so (at least in a case like this)1 is not acting in a pro-Town fashion. Looking back, DrainBead was on 9 votes when she claimed; 3/4 of the needed lynch total. If she is scum (again) she might have felt that a claim was needed. This slip is just the sort of slip a scum might make if she's making up a roleclaim from whole cloth.
DarkCookies lying, on the other hand, would mean that an Alliance player had made a false claim at a time when not under great pressure (although frankly I at least could see a steamroller coming her way) that contradicts another claim. (It's quite plain Cookies knew that long before making the post). Consequently all she could achieve is a trade between one Alliance and a known role. I don't see that as a good trade for the Alliance side at the moment.
Consequently I'm leaning towards voting Drain Bead, but I'm hesitating over applying the last vote right now.
1 : It might be acceptable for town-aligned players to lie regarding traps for attacking scum. Some claim like Roosh's would have been better concealed, for example - if it's true.
Roosh's roleclaim might explain why NAFKat refused to confirm or deny whether a particular Alliance member is sent out to perform their action. Roosh's claimed power requires that the attacker be known. If the Mods say "no, no specific player performs the hit" they've just outed Roosh as a liar. If they say "yes, a specific Alliance member performs the hit" they've just gone a long way towards confirming Roosh is telling the truth. So they can't answer Hal's question. (I think it was Hal who asked that.)
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 9, 2007 3:09:33 GMT -5
I can think of a couple of things to further confuse the issue.
The problem of specific killers did spring to mind a while ago. If drainbead is right and she did block Cookies, as the most suspect person, she would be the ideal person to carry out the killings, because she would not leave to much of a trail if she was caught.
If drainbead is also town, I suspect that Cookies is likely to be dead in the morning by Vigilante.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Oct 9, 2007 5:10:50 GMT -5
I will not be dropping the hammer now.
DrainBead can live long enough to give a closing address before someone drops the hammer.
Me? I'm off to Holland now.
See you when I get back online.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 9, 2007 6:37:24 GMT -5
After rereading drain bead's claim a couple of times, I'm parsing her abilities like this as having the following limitations: A) They only work on scum ("if I block scum") B) They only work on Night kills ("blocking a Night kill") C) They only have a 1/x chance of succeeding on top of all of that ("I have a 1/x chance...") I'm still trying to figure out what this means for Diomedes' fuzzy screens result... No, they work on anyone who has a power. If I block a member of the Alliance, I have a chance of blocking their kill.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 9, 2007 6:38:57 GMT -5
*shrugs* I don't see scum as skating, either. It's only Day Three--we would've been happy to be at about this point on Day 3 in Sekham. Diomedes, if you ARE town, why is it so hard to consider that drain bead might simple be lying, as I laid out in my post. Given the circumstances, it's what *I'D* do as scum--make my powerrole claim that much more believable by claiming to have blocked people I know were blocked, and then use the fewer deaths last night to try to drag my opponent down first by claiming to have blocked them. You'd think the real roleblocker would have spoken up by now if that were the case.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Oct 9, 2007 6:48:14 GMT -5
I have a question.
Where in the rules does it say that the scum picks someone to do their killing? First off, it doesn't match with my role PM at all, and second, it's nowhere in the original rules post or its replies. So how is it that two people are saying that the scum picks who kills in a CLOSED game setting?
|
|
|
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 9, 2007 7:26:27 GMT -5
I have a question. Where in the rules does it say that the scum picks someone to do their killing? First off, it doesn't match with my role PM at all, and second, it's nowhere in the original rules post or its replies. So how is it that two people are saying that the scum picks who kills in a CLOSED game setting? It doesn't say anywhere in the rules, as a closed setup we just don't know. What it does mean is that if you are town we also lynch Roosh because his role claim said he will counteract against the player who has tried to kill him. If you only block in general, then Roosh cannot target a specific killer. The only other explanation I can think of is that the Bastard Mods TM have got it wrong and that the description is more like block the killer if you guess right and prevent a recruitment (yup, it raises its ugly head again) with chance 1/x if you guess a scum. If the scum send out a killer, then they count as the only one taking a night action. NAF/Kat, for sanity's sake, please do a quick check on the PM's. (Or the mods are being real evil and that the 1/x situation is never going to occur and it only matters if you guess a scum killer, but then I can't see them throwing out a false PM like that.)
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Oct 9, 2007 8:27:59 GMT -5
After rereading drain bead's claim a couple of times, I'm parsing her abilities like this as having the following limitations: A) They only work on scum ("if I block scum") B) They only work on Night kills ("blocking a Night kill") C) They only have a 1/x chance of succeeding on top of all of that ("I have a 1/x chance...") I'm still trying to figure out what this means for Diomedes' fuzzy screens result... No, they work on anyone who has a power. If I block a member of the Alliance, I have a chance of blocking their kill. Okay, so your powers: 1) Have a 100% chance of blocking a non-killing power and 2) Have a 1/x chance of blocking an Alliance kill Or does the 1/x chance apply to all blocks?
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 9, 2007 8:44:55 GMT -5
NAF/Kat, for sanity's sake, please do a quick check on the PM's. (Or the mods are being real evil and that the 1/x situation is never going to occur and it only matters if you guess a scum killer, but then I can't see them throwing out a false PM like that.) Betcha dollars to doughnuts there aren't any problems with the PMs, just problems with the stories some of us are telling. By basis of -my- power, however, I'm going to assume that the scum are selected individually, either by their vote or by lot, to go out and do a hit. Not only Roosh's power, but mine as well are bunko if the scum go out killing anonymously.
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Oct 9, 2007 8:47:36 GMT -5
I have no idea what to believe, rereading all of this in the light of day (and an Indians victory. Go Tribe!).
But I'm feeling mighty less sympathetic to drain's claim today. I still like Cookies' less, though.
|
|