|
Post by Paranoia on May 2, 2013 10:43:50 GMT -5
Day Two
Patricia failed to keep her arms in the vehicle, and they were sliced off in some manner or the other. HOW TRAGIC.
Patricia has been killed in the night.
It is now day 2, and with 21 alive, it takes 12 to lynch. Deadline is in 120 hours from 12:01 PM CDT, and so will end at 12:01 PM CDT on may 7th.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 2, 2013 10:57:13 GMT -5
OMG! Not again. Sai it's freaking D1 and all you have done is tell Peeker to lie. It's like your the only one who knows all the flaming rules and is the only one to have an original thought. I should have voted for you when I first saw your post. HOW do you know Peeks isn't a basic townie? Because if it's from the way he has posted well then you are really good. Forcing someone to claim on D1 is so not good. Vote SaiAs far as I can tell, Sai has been making good deductions and giving pro-town advice. Silverjan voted for them for that. This feels to me like someone sowing confusion to prevent good play. vote Silverjan for voting for someone for being pro-town.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 2, 2013 12:08:24 GMT -5
No other replies yet? I find that to be rather interesting... It is now day two, and with 22 alive, it takes 12 to lynch. Does this mean you've replaced the duplicate Silverjan or that you've miscounted?
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 12:23:53 GMT -5
At work so I can't make as detailed of a comment as I'd like, but the hit makes me (really really strongly) think Peeker's more likely to be maf than town and I'll explain that when I get the chance. Given that, I also think we should look at people that ignored Peeker and especially those that commented on the case without speaking to Peeker directly. Pleo and Cookies probably aren't witches WITH Peeker (might be other-witch), and once I get home I should be able to add more names to the list.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 12:34:27 GMT -5
OMG! Not again. Sai it's freaking D1 and all you have done is tell Peeker to lie. It's like your the only one who knows all the flaming rules and is the only one to have an original thought. I should have voted for you when I first saw your post. HOW do you know Peeks isn't a basic townie? Because if it's from the way he has posted well then you are really good. Forcing someone to claim on D1 is so not good. Vote SaiAs far as I can tell, Sai has been making good deductions and giving pro-town advice. Silverjan voted for them for that. This feels to me like someone sowing confusion to prevent good play. vote Silverjan for voting for someone for being pro-town. If I was a witch, I would have lied in the Night thread but I didn't. This is just a carry over from yesterday so get on with it. How do you know that Sai got it right, have you had a reveal that the rest of us haven't got, do tell.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 2, 2013 12:48:07 GMT -5
If I was a witch, I would have lied in the Night thread but I didn't. You'll have to explain your thinking a little more, because I don't follow what you're saying here. This is just a carry over from yesterday so get on with it. How do you know that Sai got it right, have you had a reveal that the rest of us haven't got, do tell. YesterDay's discussions are what we have to work with, since we don't know the alignments of either peeker or patricia. We can't get reads from the results, so we have to get reads from the discussion. Sai was making good pro-town suggestions and you voted them for that. To me, that says you are not interested in advancing pro-town positions, but instead want to suppress them. That's good enough for me to vote for you, for now.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 2, 2013 13:00:24 GMT -5
The Gravedigger should know the alignment and role of peeker. Is there any reason why they should not announce it? I realize that without knowing the alignment of the Gravedigger, we may not be able to trust the reveal entirely, but I think it would be better to have something to go on.
I assume that Patricia was some sort of town (holy, spy, or plain) and that the witches killed her. Is there another explanation?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 13:00:52 GMT -5
If I was a witch, I would have lied in the Night thread but I didn't. You'll have to explain your thinking a little more, because I don't follow what you're saying here. This is just a carry over from yesterday so get on with it. How do you know that Sai got it right, have you had a reveal that the rest of us haven't got, do tell. YesterDay's discussions are what we have to work with, since we don't know the alignments of either peeker or patricia. We can't get reads from the results, so we have to get reads from the discussion. Sai was making good pro-town suggestions and you voted them for that. To me, that says you are not interested in advancing pro-town positions, but instead want to suppress them. That's good enough for me to vote for you, for now. Ok, if I was a witch I would have lied about which role I had looked at, ie. I would have said I was playing the survivor role which would have made everything I did look townie from that perspective. As I didn't need to lie because I am not a witch I admitted to playing the other role. Does that make sense? If I were a witch I would have definitely taken the easy way out. I hadn't realised that I had been sent 2 roles or I would have queried it and since the role that I have been playing is Town, I had no need to lie. I am very interested in hearing Sai's thoughts on the NK cos as far as I could see Patricia didn't do very much except say that she was vanilla and then changed her mind and said she was basic Town. Sort of the same kind of "slip" Peeker made. From what Peeker said near the end I think he could have been the nun because he said he could see one other player. The nun can see the bishop. There is also the acolyte/priest thing too.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 2, 2013 13:07:34 GMT -5
If I was a witch, I would have lied in the Night thread but I didn't. That's a) irrelevant as it is unconfirmable b) not a very sportsmanlike thing to suggest that you would do, lie as someone who received two roles in error and at least one of them was a Witch This is just a carry over from yesterday so get on with it. This isn't a very effective counter-argument. How do you know that Sai got it right, have you had a reveal that the rest of us haven't got, do tell. Pleo didn't say that he 'knows Sai got it right'. As far as I can tell, Sai has been making good deductions and giving pro-town advice. Seems like you could be putting words in his mouth in an attempt at propping up a strawman argument. Further, your OMGUS post toward Sai carries a false dichotomy that someone with an apparent grasp of the rules can't be a Villager for some reason. Even if a significant number of Village players have been confused about some of the rules, that doesn't mean the logic that led to Peeker's lynch wasn't sound. Peeker made statements that could either be attributed to confusion about the rules OR to Peeker's having received a non-basic-villager role. I don't see anything incriminating in making sound logical inferences based on public information. Vote SilverjanTime will tell of any of us have been right about anything so far, but in this brave new no-reveal world, SilverJan's play is the most suspicious to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on May 2, 2013 13:09:56 GMT -5
The Gravedigger should know the alignment and role of peeker. Is there any reason why they should not announce it? I realize that without knowing the alignment of the Gravedigger, we may not be able to trust the reveal entirely, but I think it would be better to have something to go on. I assume that Patricia was some sort of town (holy, spy, or plain) and that the witches killed her. Is there another explanation? I would guess that the gravedigger would rather risk living a few days and tell us the identities of more than just one person. I would think revealing him/herself right now would put a major target on their back for the witches, who probably rather like that no one learns alignments. Having said that, I leave the timing decision to the gravedigger. Do whatever you think is wisest. All the above is if the gravedigger is town, and I just remembered the gravedigger might be a witch anyway, which means they would never reveal anything to us anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 2, 2013 13:32:03 GMT -5
I assume that Patricia was some sort of town (holy, spy, or plain) and that the witches killed her. Is there another explanation? Yes. The Witches kill one of their own in order to discredit a player (living or dead) or otherwise mess up our reads. There's seven of them, which gives them a lot of spares. We started at 16 Villagers vs 7 Witches. That gives us 4 mislynches (the 5th one loses the game). Which means we need to get 7 out of 11 lynches right. That's very difficult. We better hope that the Angels do a good job and the Halftime bonus kills really help us. I'm not optimistic. Still, it's very unlikely that the Witches would sacrifice one of their own this early in the game. But let's not simply assume all the Night kills are Villagers.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 13:55:07 GMT -5
Cookies, why did you pick apart the defensive, frustrated part of my post and yet had nothing to say about my thoughts on Peeker, of course my thought depend on him being Town. If he is a witch he could have just been lying through his teeth.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 2, 2013 14:03:18 GMT -5
I commented on what stands out to me. I don't know anything about Peeker and I voted to lynch him so it seems that I am more likely to think that he may be a Witch than you apparently are. Through the earlier parts of Yesterday I did try to give Peeker some of the benefit of the doubt that he may Holy or even a Basic who got tripped up by the rules, but then he went silent and used up what benefit of the doubt I was willing to give him.
|
|
|
Post by gnarlycharlie on May 2, 2013 14:13:38 GMT -5
hmmm... why Patricia? did she let on that she had an important role?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 14:16:31 GMT -5
Hmmm interesting, I thought that witches would most likely try and stay UNDER the radar and not say anything controversial. Well apparently I'm wrong and I'm obviously not a very good witch (sarcasm). It looks to me as if you are trying to make a case just for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 14:17:18 GMT -5
hmmm... why Patricia? did she let on that she had an important role? No, she said she was vanilla and then changed it to basic villager.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 14:30:24 GMT -5
Hmmm interesting, I thought that witches would most likely try and stay UNDER the radar and not say anything controversial. Well apparently I'm wrong and I'm obviously not a very good witch (sarcasm). It looks to me as if you are trying to make a case just for the sake of it. Your posts D1 were just about as noncommittal as you can possibly get until I voted for you so, yeah, I don't buy that you're keen on making waves.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 14:31:51 GMT -5
Also Vote: Silverjan
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 14:33:17 GMT -5
Hmmm interesting, I thought that witches would most likely try and stay UNDER the radar and not say anything controversial. Well apparently I'm wrong and I'm obviously not a very good witch (sarcasm). It looks to me as if you are trying to make a case just for the sake of it. Your posts D1 were just about as noncommittal as you can possibly get until I voted for you so, yeah, I don't buy that you're keen on making waves. Wasn't voting for you controversial enough?
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 14:41:26 GMT -5
psychopathgame.proboards.com/post/106818/thread This one? The one right after I outlined your posts as being passive and bad? The one after I voted for you? Also, Patricia hammered a player that claimed Holy, and then got hit. That means a lot. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 2, 2013 14:51:06 GMT -5
Hmmm interesting, I thought that witches would most likely try and stay UNDER the radar and not say anything controversial. Well apparently I'm wrong and I'm obviously not a very good witch (sarcasm). The justification phrase you're looking for is 'scum would never do that', but as it happens, sometimes they do. It looks to me as if you are trying to make a case just for the sake of it. Not really sure what you're accusing me of here. You have said things that I find suspect and I'm voting for you. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role? In a game with no reveals? I can think of a few reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on May 2, 2013 14:56:16 GMT -5
psychopathgame.proboards.com/post/106818/thread This one? The one right after I outlined your posts as being passive and bad? The one after I voted for you? Also, Patricia hammered a player that claimed Holy, and then got hit. That means a lot. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role? I believe that I disagreed with you before you voted for me! What the hell, this is just too frustrating, I am off to bed, see you all whenever.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 2, 2013 16:26:07 GMT -5
Also, Patricia hammered a player that claimed Holy, and then got hit. That means a lot. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role? Why wouldn't they hit Pleo, the player who seemed to lead the charge on peeker, rather than the player who came in at the last minute to hammer?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 2, 2013 16:35:09 GMT -5
This could be a really long game of 'Guess what the scum are thinking'.
There are a lot of players who aren't saying much. The lynch-leaders we've had so far have been participatory. This is troubling, particularly without flips.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 2, 2013 17:11:43 GMT -5
Has anyone played or studious previous games with these rules? How should we proceed? Peeker's post made it look he was not Basic Villager. Invited to claim Priest/Acolyte or Bishop/Nun he instead claimed Acolyte/Nun! I think it's likely he was Witch, caught handily. One or two other players on Day 1, including Cookies, seemed to reveal they weren't Basic. I think pursuing them may be a logical default action. I still think progressive disclosures might help a bit. Pleo said he was Expanded-set character. I said I was Basic/Holy. I'll go further and say I am Basic/Expanded-set. I do realize that Witches (and some Villagers) may have motive to lie -- though my own declaration is truthful -- but still it is a starting point to develop info. (Some will argue that claiming non-Holy will make it less likely that the Coven will waste a NK on me. This argument ignores that Scum never NK Swammerdami unless I have a proven Power role -- I'm just too frequently misLynched for NK ever to be worth wasting on me. )Cookies -- are you Basic, Holy, Spy or Witch?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 2, 2013 18:31:55 GMT -5
One or two other players on Day 1, including Cookies, seemed to reveal they weren't Basic. I did? Saying that you're Basic/Holy is meaningless. Everyone is Basic/Holy aside from the Witches, and you're not going to come out and claim Witch. Everything after 'Scum never...' is metagame crap. You first.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on May 2, 2013 19:57:54 GMT -5
Peeker's post made it look he was not Basic Villager. Invited to claim Priest/Acolyte or Bishop/Nun he instead claimed Acolyte/Nun! I think it's likely he was Witch, caught handily. One or two other players on Day 1, including Cookies, seemed to reveal they weren't Basic. I think pursuing them may be a logical default action. 1. I don't remember Cookie's reveval that she is non-basic. 2. Who were the other one or two that revealed it, not including peeker?
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 20:41:58 GMT -5
Also, Patricia hammered a player that claimed Holy, and then got hit. That means a lot. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role? Why wouldn't they hit Pleo, the player who seemed to lead the charge on peeker, rather than the player who came in at the last minute to hammer? It's true that Pleo should have been a better target, regardless of Peeker's flip. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable that they'll hit him later. I don't think his survival tells us nearly as much as Patricia dying. Why would maf hit a player that hammered on a legit holy role? In a game with no reveals? I can think of a few reasons. Maybe a rhetorical question was the wrong way to put that. If Peeker were town, Patricia would have been a great target for a mislynch. The fact that they chose to hit her instead makes it very likely that this wasn't on their minds.
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 2, 2013 20:43:01 GMT -5
Saying that you're Basic/Holy is meaningless. Everyone is Basic/Holy aside from the Witches, and you're not going to come out and claim Witch. He was explicitly claiming not-spy.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 2, 2013 22:34:30 GMT -5
Regarding Patricia- she could have been a Junior Witch, since the Elder Witches do not know who exactly they are. So, I don't put that beyond the scope of reason. I would think, however, that the Bishop (sees all Coven members at Halftime) is more important to scum than finding the Junior Witches.
[mod]I echo what someone else said, if Jan got two roles, shouldn't it be 21/24? [/mod]
|
|