|
Post by Paranoia on May 9, 2013 18:44:28 GMT -5
Day Three
OH NO CRYS HAS DIED this is a tragedy I demand you find those responsible.
or something. I don't know I'm wingin' these messages.
Crys has died!
1. Idle 2. Wombat99 3. scathach 4. luariern 5. BillMC 6. mahaloth 7. dizzymrslizzy 8. sario 9. Pleonast 10. Texcat 11. Sai 12. Colby11 13. JustBeingGinger 14. PolluxOil 15. Guiri 16. Cookies 17. gnarlycharlie 18. Swammerdami 19. Hal Briston
With 19 alive, it takes 10 to lynch. Day ends in a little over 120 hours at 7:00 PM CDT on May 14th.
|
|
|
Post by crys on May 9, 2013 18:45:20 GMT -5
Day ThreeOH NO CRYS HAS DIED this is a tragedy i demand you find those responsible. or something. I don't know I'm wingin' these messages. Crys has died!1. Idle 2. Wombat99 3. scathach 4. luariern 5. BillMC 6. mahaloth 7. dizzymrslizzy 8. sario 9. Pleonast 10. Texcat 11. Sai 12. Colby11 13. JustBeingGinger 14. PolluxOil 15. Guiri 16. Cookies 17. gnarlycharlie 18. Swammerdami 19. Hal Briston With 19 alive, it takes 10 to lynch. Day ends in a little over 120 hours at 7:00 PM CDT on May 14th. Well crap. With did I do lol Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by lauriern on May 9, 2013 20:13:41 GMT -5
Hey All,
Having technical issues with my laptop - can't get online. As I've mentioned before, reading/posting from my tablet is a PIA. I'll read/post as I can but it will probably be less frequent b/c I just don't have the patience......
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 9, 2013 20:33:25 GMT -5
Okay, I'm commenting on Day Two and then making a vote. I've read through the Day already, but I might still be slightly incoherent. I probably won't be able to post again ToDay. I'll be vacationing for the rest of the month. I'll have internet and I will try to keep up, but don't expect quick turn-around. Are the amount of post we have posted indicative of what we have posted in this environment (Idle's Board) I have just noticed that under your name there is how many posts you have posted. Scum have been caught out by this before so I am just putting it out there. Actually, scum weren't caught, the person that discovered this excused himself from the game. Of course I know it's Idles board, what I am thinking is that are scum boards here too? Probably not cos it has been discovered earlier in other games but if anyone wants to count.......go for it. When did that happen? I've played here for 4 years or so and I believe every game has had scum and other boards "off-site" so to speak. I always kept my secret boards for games here also on this site. It's convenient for keeping everything together for future reference. But then we found a serious security flaw (based on how many posts came up when searching on a player) and so everything should be kept off-site. Maybe it's fixed, but I don't really trust it now. I find it very odd that silverjan even commented on it. Why? It seems like a distraction, but I hate meta-game arguments anyway. Vote silverjanI have no interest in playing with people that think I would lie in real life! Self-voting is anti-game, but fortunately in this rules set we're not allowed to vote for ourself (unless the moderator changes what "any living player may vote for any other living player" means again). Is there any case against SilverJan beside the double login? If not, I hope we find a better Lynchee. There was a similar confusion about SilverJan in another recent game at Idlemafia -- I think she has two logins for two computers. In that game, there was much suspicion about that -- I thought there might be crossover from an account on scum board -- but she turned out to be Townie. Huh? Is there any case on silverjan that is because of the double login? I missed it there was. Your post here looks to me a lot like an attempt to divert attention from the reasons for the votes. Sai and Cookies have been on SilverJan pretty hard. As I said before, SJ seems frustrated Townie to me: I think this is just SilverJan being SilverJan and though what she's doing is very metagamey, her pointing this out, if she were a witch, would only point herself out as a witch. Doesn't make sense. Again, pointing this out, if she was a witch, would implicate her as being a witch. (If the witch boards are here on Idle.) If they are not here on Idle, no one will have the post discrepancies and the point is moot. On re-read, Pleo has done the same thing as Cookies an Sai and also voted her right out of the gate. Something feels hinky about all this. Going to re-read Day and Night 1 tonight. Have to cook dinner and feed my Mother's chickens since she's out of town There's nothing hinky about going after a player that is acting like scum do. We might be wrong or we might be right, but making cases based on reads is what every player should be doing. It bothers me that you think doing this is bad. I'm so distracted I didn't even realize my vote was a "Non-Deadline" (i.e. Hammer) vote. That wasn't my intention. Rather than changing it, I'll retract it altogether -- there still might be time for a bandwagon to develop on someone more Witchy. Unvote: SilverJanThis is very suspicious to me. It looks like scum trying to pull back a vote from a teammate. Now with her claim of Hunter and the fact that she cannot be NK'd according to her claim, would put her in the townie column, that is if we don't have any vig style roles... Please read the rules for this game. You're missing some simple facts about how the roles and alignments are distributed. I'm claiming because of two reasons A- the Witches will keep me alive because I am not one of the powers that can hurt them badly, like the Bishop. Let a player live that isn't a threat to you, other than their vote, and go after players who can really throw your game B- Peek's reveal gives us at least a starting point with vote patterns. It has nailed scum in the past. If a Holy player happens to be lynched, please only state that they were Holy, not the specific role. Villagers don't need to know which role nearly as much Witches do. Also I wish Pleo would post more. Not because I need to read him, but because his posts make me happy. I love you too. I am a Basic Villager. The phrase "Basic Villager" occurs in the Subject line of my role PM. The same phrase is repeated, in bold face, early in the body of my role PM. Anyone who is a Basic Villager knows that he/she is a Basic Villager!Anyone who thinks Basic Villagers might not know that they are Basic Villagers has not seen a Basic Villager role PM.Interesting. But you know, I don't think I actually read the subject of my role PM. I simply clicked the PM to open it up. ... Reading through all the vote on Cookies, I'm not seeing anything convincing me that they are scum. My most likely candidate for scum at this point is vote swammerdamifor 1) totally misrepresenting the votes on silverjan, then 2) voting for silverjan because of "reasonable suspicion" without articulating anything more, and finally 3) unvoting silverjan in order to find another bandwagon. To me that looks like scum trying to redefine the arguments against their teammate, then jumping on the bandwagon to avoid suspicion, and then jumping off when the bandwagon didn't pick up steam as fast as expected.
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 9, 2013 23:14:50 GMT -5
SilverJan was the Basic Village Hunter (repeating what the mod told me)
So she was telling the truth....
Not a complete loss, but it does eliminate an important piece come Halftime
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 9, 2013 23:19:26 GMT -5
PleonastI can see where you are coming from. If I was scum, I sure as hell would love to see one of the Holy roles go out. What does everyone else think about this? Another thing- Should we focus on inactive players? Mod- what are you going to do with inactive players? Will you mod kill them? Make them pancakes?
|
|
|
Post by Sai on May 10, 2013 2:11:26 GMT -5
I am a Basic Villager. The phrase "Basic Villager" occurs in the Subject line of my role PM. The same phrase is repeated, in bold face, early in the body of my role PM. Anyone who is a Basic Villager knows that he/she is a Basic Villager!Anyone who thinks Basic Villagers might not know that they are Basic Villagers has not seen a Basic Villager role PM.Interesting. But you know, I don't think I actually read the subject of my role PM. I simply clicked the PM to open it up. [/quote] Take a gander at this post - psychopathgame.proboards.com/post/106804/threadBecause Cookies has explicitly claimed BT (now with a role - Assassin), it basically means that if she's not Basic Townie, then she's a witch. I will agree that the sheeping + retraction on Silverjan is all kinds of messed up; even though Silver flipped town, that really does look like joining a bandwagon on what looked like a surefire lynch, and then switching off when the lynch looked more difficult. I'm fairly sure that Swammer + Cookies are NOT partners, and I'm also fairly sure that Cookies + Peeker aren't partners. With the way the teams are set up, though, it's still possible for Cookies to be a Jr Witch. Also, the judge-kill tells us that the Judge is more likely townie. With the opportunity to kill literally any player in the game, the Judge picked one of the top suspects. What else . . . Oh yeah, the hit. I also don't really follow what Crys did to get whacked. Aside from voting for / posting a case on Lauriern, he didn't do a whole lot yesterday, and Lauriern's fairly unlikely to be an Elder given her talking to Peeker D1. Anyone have thoughts on the hit?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on May 10, 2013 2:56:44 GMT -5
PleonastI can see where you are coming from. If I was scum, I sure as hell would love to see one of the Holy roles go out. What does everyone else think about this? Another thing- Should we focus on inactive players? Mod- what are you going to do with inactive players? Will you mod kill them? Make them pancakes? I'll try to get replacements for them, but please understand sometimes doing so is kinda hard!
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 10, 2013 5:24:35 GMT -5
I am a Basic Villager. The phrase "Basic Villager" occurs in the Subject line of my role PM. The same phrase is repeated, in bold face, early in the body of my role PM. Anyone who is a Basic Villager knows that he/she is a Basic Villager!Anyone who thinks Basic Villagers might not know that they are Basic Villagers has not seen a Basic Villager role PM.Interesting. But you know, I don't think I actually read the subject of my role PM. I simply clicked the PM to open it up. I'll see your interesting and raise you a curiouser and curiouser. Not only is "Basic Villager" in the title of my PM, it is restated within the first couple of lines of my PM But what is the real give away about knowing or not knowing you are a basic villager - is the damn card in the PM Someone may have missed the bold text, but it's bloody hard to have missed that.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 10, 2013 5:25:15 GMT -5
SilverJan was the Basic Village Hunter (repeating what the mod told me) So she was telling the truth.... Not a complete loss, but it does eliminate an important piece come Halftime So this begs the question, why Crys and not Colby? Town's biggest asset is information - and with no reveals we pretty much have zero information. Yet the gravedigger is the only role that can provide us with reveal information - and he claims D2. There is no role that could protect Colby, and no role that could watch Colby to see who a potential killer was - yet he is still alive. Of course Colby, could actually be a witch and could be feeding us BS. The only role who can check you out is the priest, and they are unlikely to claim or reveal anything before half time.
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 10, 2013 7:10:50 GMT -5
Bill you spoke my words almost exactly. It is damn hard to miss 1) that you are a basic villager, and 2) that you have a "power" other than just surviving.
I'm maintaining where I was yesterday. Cookies, there is no benefit of the doubt, so unless you are a Holy/Spy, there is no way that you would give Peekers the benefit of the doubt.
Vote: Cookies
|
|
|
Post by dizzymrslizzy on May 10, 2013 7:11:47 GMT -5
I don't know why I'm having a problem remembering colors right now....Blech....
Vote: Cookies
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 10, 2013 7:57:48 GMT -5
... [1] Huh? Is there any case on silverjan that is because of the double login? I missed it there was. Your post here looks to me a lot like an attempt to divert attention from the reasons for the votes. ... [2] If a Holy player happens to be lynched, please only state that they were Holy, not the specific role. Villagers don't need to know which role nearly as much Witches do. ... ... The same phrase is repeated, in bold face, early in the body of my role PM. Anyone who is a Basic Villager knows that he/she is a Basic Villager![3] Interesting. But you know, I don't think I actually read the subject of my role PM. I simply clicked the PM to open it up. ...[4] My most likely candidate for scum at this point is swammerdamifor 1) totally misrepresenting the votes on silverjan, then 2) voting for silverjan because of "reasonable suspicion" without articulating anything more, and finally 3) unvoting silverjan in order to find another bandwagon. To me that looks like scum trying to redefine the arguments against their teammate, then jumping on the bandwagon to avoid suspicion, and then jumping off when the bandwagon didn't pick up steam as fast as expected. I've excerpted four points I want to answer. [1] Since minimizing or misstating a case against someone invites the accusers to repeat their charges this is not an approach smart Scum would take to defend a colleague. (Admittedly I've never been Smart Scum.) [2] Let's think this through. A claiming Holy should claim EITHER Priest/Acolyte or Bishop/Nun (though not Acolyte/Nun as Peeker did). I'm not sure how Gravedigger should declare. Let's discuss it. [3] Did you ignore the quoted part I've now underlined? It now appears you are not Basic. I'm penciling you in as Holy/Spy/Witch. [4] I jumped on a bandwagon against teammate, hoping she wouldn't be Lynched, then jumped off when it appeared she wouldn't be Lynched??? Anyway, Gravedigger declared SilverJan to be Villager. Should I still address the allegation or will you just retract it?
|
|
|
Post by sario on May 10, 2013 8:28:34 GMT -5
SilverJan was the Basic Village Hunter (repeating what the mod told me) So she was telling the truth.... Not a complete loss, but it does eliminate an important piece come Halftime So this begs the question, why Crys and not Colby? Town's biggest asset is information - and with no reveals we pretty much have zero information. Yet the gravedigger is the only role that can provide us with reveal information - and he claims D2. There is no role that could protect Colby, and no role that could watch Colby to see who a potential killer was - yet he is still alive. Of course Colby, could actually be a witch and could be feeding us BS. The only role who can check you out is the priest, and they are unlikely to claim or reveal anything before half time. Actually there is a role that can protect, the Angels.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 10, 2013 11:17:21 GMT -5
Interesting. But you know, I don't think I actually read the subject of my role PM. I simply clicked the PM to open it up. I'll see your interesting and raise you a curiouser and curiouser. Not only is "Basic Villager" in the title of my PM, it is restated within the first couple of lines of my PM But what is the real give away about knowing or not knowing you are a basic villager - is the damn card in the PM Someone may have missed the bold text, but it's bloody hard to have missed that. I was going to ask "missed what"? But when quoting you I see there's code for an image. It doesn't show up for me; I can't see it. I went back to check my role PM and I see there's two embedded images. One for the character and one for the type. Neither appear when I view my PM; I can only see the codes when I quote the message. The case against Cookies is that they considered the possibility that a player may have missed certain important parts of their role PM. Cookies wasn't even arguing that a player had missed anything, but simply considered the possibility. I really don't see how you can go from that to " Cookies can't be a basic villager". Do you think that other players don't have their equivalent information displayed the same way? That is, your hypothesis is " Cookies, a Witch with 'Witch' in the role PM in bold and in the subject line and with an image, thought that basic villagers don't have the same indicators"? That doesn't seem plausible to me. [1] Since minimizing or misstating a case against someone invites the accusers to repeat their charges this is not an approach smart Scum would take to defend a colleague. (Admittedly I've never been Smart Scum.) [2] Let's think this through. A claiming Holy should claim EITHER Priest/Acolyte or Bishop/Nun (though not Acolyte/Nun as Peeker did). I'm not sure how Gravedigger should declare. Let's discuss it. [3] Did you ignore the quoted part I've now underlined? It now appears you are not Basic. I'm penciling you in as Holy/Spy/Witch. [4] I jumped on a bandwagon against teammate, hoping she wouldn't be Lynched, then jumped off when it appeared she wouldn't be Lynched??? Anyway, Gravedigger declared SilverJan to be Villager. Should I still address the allegation or will you just retract it? (By the way, I like the numbered paragraphs, much better than splitting up the post.) [1] "Poor play" is never a useful defense, because all players play poorly sometimes. Mischaracterizing arguments is something that scum do to shape discussion. It doesn't always work out, but there's little else they can do against a good case. [2] The Gravedigger should only reveal "Holy" if that is the case. This is different from a player claiming. Villagers don't need to know the specific Holy character--that will come out after Halftime when full claims are made. But Witches can make use of the specific character in order to plan their kills better, or even make false claims easier. [3] See my above comments to Bill. All role PMs are the same format. It's implausible that a player would not assume the other role PMs would have the same format. That you find giving other players the benefit of a doubt about comprehending their role PMs is suspicious is very odd. If I've learned nothing else from playing Mafia, it's that people's reading comprehension is highly variable. [4] I don't care if you address it or not. You've already made a series of suspicious plays. You can't undo what you've done. The only way my vote is changing is if I find someone else more suspicious. Or if I remember that the voting system here sucks. unvote swammerdamideadline vote swammerdami
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on May 10, 2013 11:32:52 GMT -5
I can see both cases for Cookies and Swammer being possible witches....I'm leaning more with Cookies, though.
Vote Cometothedarksidewehavecookies
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 10, 2013 11:45:15 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Pleonast: your entire case seems predicated on the idea that I was defending my Scumbuddy SilverJan.
Do you think Gravedigger is lying?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 10, 2013 12:31:30 GMT -5
Benefit of the doubt is my default stance in the early game, and the odds support such a stance in most settups, and in any setup where the Town outnumbers the other factions.
I've played in a lot of games and seen people misinterpret/misread their roles and the rules in all sorts of ways, refer to themselves with the wrong term and get lynched, refer to other players with the wrong terms on accident and getting the other player lynched, the list goes on and on.
This is the first game I've played that involved imbedded images in the role PM, and I have no idea what method/device/settings people are going to read their PMs with. Do any of you?
That's my defense for my D1 statement. Take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 10, 2013 13:17:03 GMT -5
... This is the first game I've played that involved imbedded images in the role PM, and I have no idea what method/device/settings people are going to read their PMs with. Do any of you? That's my defense for my D1 statement. Take it or leave it. I don't recall seeing the images when I first opened my role PM, though I see them now. If they were missing (or slow to load) at first, that might be due to chocolate.pi's website, or to the flaky ISP I'm using. But this has nothing to do with my charge against you! Reread to see that I referred only to the bold-faced " Basic Villager" early in PM body. And anyway, your latest post seems deliberately ambiguous. Did you see the images when you first opened your PM, yes or no?Vote: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 10, 2013 13:22:18 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Pleonast: your entire case seems predicated on the idea that I was defending my Scumbuddy SilverJan. Do you think Gravedigger is lying? Is this post supposed to show us that you have a habit of minimizing and misstating cases? Pleo laid out a long case on you, and conveniently summarized with 3 points. for 1) totally misrepresenting the votes on silverjan, then 2) voting for silverjan because of "reasonable suspicion" without articulating anything more, and finally 3) unvoting silverjan in order to find another bandwagon. To me that looks like scum trying to redefine the arguments against their teammate, then jumping on the bandwagon to avoid suspicion, and then jumping off when the bandwagon didn't pick up steam as fast as expected. I voted you Yesterday for misstating the case on SilverJan, and I don't think SilverJan has to be scum for the case to make sense. Scum defend townies all the time for town cred. What sticks out to me Today is the inconsistency of first saying that there is not a good case on Jan and then turning around and voting for her and then almost as quickly unvoting her. I think you are scum looking for a bandwagon, not a townie who is witch hunting and voting their convictions. Vote: swammer
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 10, 2013 13:24:55 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Pleonast: your entire case seems predicated on the idea that I was defending my Scumbuddy SilverJan. Not really. You seem to have a problem comprehending cases. My most likely candidate for scum at this point is vote swammerdamifor 1) totally misrepresenting the votes on silverjan, then 2) voting for silverjan because of "reasonable suspicion" without articulating anything more, and finally 3) unvoting silverjan in order to find another bandwagon. To me that looks like scum trying to redefine the arguments against their teammate, then jumping on the bandwagon to avoid suspicion, and then jumping off when the bandwagon didn't pick up steam as fast as expected. You'll see that my three points do not refer to silverjan's alignment. True that these actions look more suspicious if jan was scum, but not being scum does not make your actions innocent. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Also, can a player suspicious if Cookies please address this: The case against Cookies is that they considered the possibility that a player may have missed certain important parts of their role PM. Cookies wasn't even arguing that a player had missed anything, but simply considered the possibility. I really don't see how you can go from that to " Cookies can't be a basic villager". Do you think that other players don't have their equivalent information displayed the same way? That is, your hypothesis is " Cookies, a Witch with 'Witch' in the role PM in bold and in the subject line and with an image, thought that basic villagers don't have the same indicators"?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 10, 2013 13:27:18 GMT -5
Heh, cross-posted with texcat.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on May 10, 2013 13:37:43 GMT -5
Re Cookies. I can see the case for her not being basic town, though I am not sure it's nearly as conclusive as the case for peeker not being basic. What I wonder is why we are all assuming that she is not a spy? Because she told us she was not a spy? I don't think she'd be likely to claim spy if she were one, and in fact, it seems to me that a spy's main job is to not be identified as a spy.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on May 10, 2013 14:02:25 GMT -5
Well crap. With did I do lol Apparently claiming basic villager is a death sentence: Maybe I should also say that I do have a 2nd card/power in addition to being plain town. I will admit to this much though I am a basic villager. I can only think of metagame reasons why these two would be witch targets despite their explicit basic villager claims, although I don't believe I've seen either of them lie as town so I'm at a loss. Who said the judge was likely a villager? Why kill Jan over Cookies who had more lynch votes? Force us to lynch Cookies again toDay? I see the points against Septimus but his handshake attempts and semi-claim aren't giving me a scummy read. Speaking of scum, Ginger, I think you're a lurking witch, I'd like you to die toDay. Defending Peeker, soft claiming non-basic, bandwagon pile on Peeker when it looked like a done deal, oh noes there's nothing to talk about, fence-sitting on Jan... Vote JustBeingGinger
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on May 10, 2013 14:19:46 GMT -5
[ I went back to check my role PM and I see there's two embedded images. One for the character and one for the type. Neither appear when I view my PM; I can only see the codes when I quote the message. I guess you have embedded images disabled somehow, or playing on a vt100. Even then, the image string is pretty obvious chocolatepi.net/wh_svn/images/rules/cards_9.0a/ss/_Basic%20Villager.jpg
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on May 10, 2013 15:22:35 GMT -5
... This is the first game I've played that involved imbedded images in the role PM, and I have no idea what method/device/settings people are going to read their PMs with. Do any of you? That's my defense for my D1 statement. Take it or leave it. I don't recall seeing the images when I first opened my role PM, though I see them now. If they were missing (or slow to load) at first, that might be due to chocolate.pi's website, or to the flaky ISP I'm using. But this has nothing to do with my charge against you! Reread to see that I referred only to the bold-faced " Basic Villager" early in PM body. And anyway, your latest post seems deliberately ambiguous. Did you see the images when you first opened your PM, yes or no?Yes I saw them but last time I checked, I am not Peeker. Is there anything else implied in any of my statements that I need to speak slowly and clearly about so as not to be accused of being deliberately ambiguous, hinky, etc?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on May 10, 2013 16:00:35 GMT -5
[ I went back to check my role PM and I see there's two embedded images. One for the character and one for the type. Neither appear when I view my PM; I can only see the codes when I quote the message. I guess you have embedded images disabled somehow, or playing on a vt100. Even then, the image string is pretty obvious chocolatepi.net/wh_svn/images/rules/cards_9.0a/ss/_Basic%20Villager.jpgI don't even see the code string, unless I quote the message. (It's probably the high-security proxy server that I'm using that's blocking stuff.) Anyway, your contention is that the Witch Cookies saw all these things in their role PM showing they're a Witch, but then implicitly assumed that a Basic Villager would not have any of these indicators?
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on May 10, 2013 18:48:02 GMT -5
Just to be clear, Pleonast: your entire case seems predicated on the idea that I was defending my Scumbuddy SilverJan. Do you think Gravedigger is lying? What would give me a reason to lie? To cover for scum? If I was doing that, I would not have revealed that Peeks was an Elder Witch, that way they can appear to have more information than. Don't forget, everyone can use my information. Elder and Junior Witches are trying to kill the spies, not each other.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on May 10, 2013 20:18:39 GMT -5
I think Colby is town and my vibe is that I believe him. I think a witch gravedigger would just hold the info. to his own team and keep it quiet. Not make an early claim with info. I know there might be temptation to lie, but my vibe is that colby is town.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on May 11, 2013 3:48:43 GMT -5
My comment wasn't intended to imply Colby was lying ... it was a rhetoric question directed against my unholy accuser ... and a reminder to reread role PM's, clicking the links.
I'm afraid the Judge is going to decide many or most of our Lynches -- I sure hope he/she is a Villager; otherwise we don't have a chance. With votes being diverting to myself, the chance of Lynching real Scum is reduced, so I'm going to reveal my role later today. I'm waiting until I have some time free to compose a longish post, because in addition to stating my role, I'll also provide a proof that I am almost certainly Villager!
|
|