|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 23, 2013 11:56:56 GMT -5
Vote: Mahaloth for his question to Chameleon Vote: Chameleon for her vote on Patricia, which seems extremely anti-town
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 23, 2013 13:25:49 GMT -5
Top of the page Vote Count
Mahaloth (6,6): Pleonast [18]; silverjan [33]; Meeko [48]; Colby11 [52]; dizzymrslizzy [55]; xarchangelx [60]
Chameleon (4,4): dizzymrslizzy [7]; Pleonast [18]; gnarlycharlie [36]; xarchangelx [60]
dizzymrslizzy (3,3): Chameleon [6]; silverjan [17]; Mahaloth [51]
Meeko (2,2): Pleonast [18]; Mahaloth [24] silverjan (2,2): gnarlycharlie [36]; Pleonast [38,44,44] Pleonast (2,2): Chameleon [47]; Mahaloth [51] gnarlycharlie (2,2): Chameleon [47]; Mahaloth [51]
xarchangelx (1,1): Pleonast [18] BillMc (1,1): Pleonast [18]
patricia (0,1): Chameleon [6,31]
With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 23, 2013 14:20:24 GMT -5
The following players have not voted: BillMc and patricia. There's plenty to work with ToDay, please contribute.
You've miscounted Mahaloth's vote for Meeko in post 24.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 23, 2013 14:57:10 GMT -5
Vote dizzy Vote Pleo Vote gnarly
I believe Chameleon's claim and therefore, can support killing anyone voting for her. This takes away from your "case" on me, don't you think? No.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 23, 2013 15:00:01 GMT -5
I don't like how Mahaloth is throwing votes down on anyone voting for someone he thinks is town - I would like to see him voting on people he thinks are scum. This is either lazy or a scum looking for a safe vote. Saying you believe Chameleon claim is fine as I believe it as well but voting for everyone voting for her is a sure way to the gallows. Well, I figure there is likely a scum in the bunch voting for Chameleon. I don't have a strong suspicion of which it is, so I am voting for all of them. We do get multiple votes and I don't mind using them. It isn't lazy, it's the votes of someone who doesn't have a strong case but wants to be pro-town by putting votes out there. Lazy would be not voting or participating.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 23, 2013 15:01:12 GMT -5
Vote: Mahaloth for his question to Chameleon For my question? OK, I guess. I'll claim, folks, if the need arises. Please tell me you will all check in Thursday or Friday to remove your vote if you believe my claim. However, I am going to wait to claim since I'd rather not. I will claim Town, though, not third party.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 24, 2013 3:02:13 GMT -5
Vote: Mahaloth for his question to Chameleon Vote: Chameleon for her vote on Patricia, which seems extremely anti-town I took my vote off Patricia, precisely because everyone felt it was very anti-Town. Getting myself lynched is also anti-Town and people raised some fair questions about my theory on Patricia, so I removed my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 24, 2013 3:05:39 GMT -5
Vote dizzy Vote Pleo Vote gnarly
I believe Chameleon's claim and therefore, can support killing anyone voting for her. I'm with Colby, this vote is way too easy and opportunistic, and makes no sense. We're talking about a claimed vanilla, not a claimed power role. You may be right and Chameleon may be plain Vanilla Town, but I don't like their play, and don't think they've been very anti-town. Vote: MahalothYou don't like my play because because you don't think I've been anti-Town?
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 24, 2013 3:47:07 GMT -5
Agreed Patricia, I think it's worth discussing the lack of a poison (or delayed kill) victim. I have one idea that perhaps those of you who have more experience playing can help with. Can a poisoner poison someone every night or do they have to wait until their first victim is dead? If this is the case then they may not be able to poison another player until Night 3? I honestly don't know, but I thought I would ask. Or it was a one-shot power or the Poisoner is dead or was blocked. If the Poisoner is no longer with us then the most likely corpse would be TLD - but is it typical for a Strongman's power to be that specific? I mean Strongman is one role and Poisoner would be another role in and of itself. So wouldn't the Poisoner part show up in the role reveal? Unfortunately this is just more questions with no answers.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 24, 2013 7:08:08 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something but how could Scum have had 3 kills at the end of N2 based on this? Ok, if you presume that the Strongman had more than one kill then yes, it's possible - I don't think he did though. Two NK's and the day kill. Given the lack of other deaths, to me this would be imbalanced. Do we seriously think that there isn't a poisoner in this game? Doesn't it seem obvious or am I missing something? We have circumstantial evidence - fruit saying he was sleepy, and him popping his proverbial clogs at the end of day. It could be a delayed kill linked to the sleepy message, or it could have been a day kill. Beyond that everything else is conjecture. If TLD killed Idle, then TLD can't have been responsible for Fruit's death. If TLD didn't kill Idle, then Patricia is lying. Everyone has checked in today, and no one has said they are sleepy, so either a) the sleepy message meant nothing b) someone is sleepy, but they have protection or an antidote (if it is a poison) c) the person causing the sleepiness was blocked d) the person causing the sleepiness didnt act e) something else If someone else drops dead at the end of the day, then we'll at least know that there is a day killer and it has nothing to do with the sleepy message. We have both Mahaloth and Dizzy inadvertently outing themselves as non-vanilla. I would say that was a rookie mistake - but since I did that last game lol. Another person to out themselves as not Vanilla Town! This is only good for Town if you are scum. I have re-read all Mahaloth's posts and there is a whole lot of.....nothing. Vote: Mahaloth I agree Mahaloth's posts have been largely content free - like several others...gnarly, colby, meeko, archangel I believe Chameleon's claim and therefore, can support killing anyone voting for her. That is a strange turn of phrase - kill rather than lynch; and that you believe her claim - unusual for someone to take such a vocal stand on a vanilla claim - or are you now going to claim an investigative power? Vote: Mahaloth for his question to Chameleon Vote: Chameleon for her vote on Patricia, which seems extremely anti-town That's your sole contribution to the day in addition to your sole contribution yesterday? Sorry to be MIA, my cats destroyed my computer. Vote: Vote TheLastDays because I believe PatriciaVote: Vote SuburbanPlankton because he is pinging me I would also still like to vote Fruitandgarbage because he is also still pinging me, but like Chameleon, I would like to see what the results of him getting sleepy are. The following players have not voted: BillMc and patricia. There's plenty to work with ToDay, please contribute. Now this is an interesting post on the back of Archangel's brief contribution. I would have expected you to comment on archangel's lack of content -- but all you apparently care about is getting us all to vote -- so the only contribution you value is a vote? or is it that you have a passive power that is only triggered when everyone has placed a vote? Indeed, the other things about Fruit's death on D2 were that a) he was in 2nd place and b) everyone had voted. This makes me wonder whether you have a passive double lynch power when everyone has voted.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 24, 2013 10:12:39 GMT -5
I took my vote off Patricia, precisely because everyone felt it was very anti-Town. Getting myself lynched is also anti-Town and people raised some fair questions about my theory on Patricia, so I removed my vote. Thank you for removing that vote. But removing a suspicious vote does not remove the suspicion for placing it in the first place. Agreed Patricia, I think it's worth discussing the lack of a poison (or delayed kill) victim. I have one idea that perhaps those of you who have more experience playing can help with. Can a poisoner poison someone every night or do they have to wait until their first victim is dead? If this is the case then they may not be able to poison another player until Night 3? I honestly don't know, but I thought I would ask. Or it was a one-shot power or the Poisoner is dead or was blocked. If the Poisoner is no longer with us then the most likely corpse would be TLD - but is it typical for a Strongman's power to be that specific? I mean Strongman is one role and Poisoner would be another role in and of itself. So wouldn't the Poisoner part show up in the role reveal? Unfortunately this is just more questions with no answers. It's impossible to know without further information from this game. The game designers here are very creative and roles are not standardized. If TLD killed Idle, then TLD can't have been responsible for Fruit's death. If TLD didn't kill Idle, then Patricia is lying. That's incorrect. patricia has claimed to be a tracker and claimed to track Last. If truthful, that gives no information about anyone else who may have targeted Idle. In particular, it doesn't tell us that no one else targeted Idle. We have both Mahaloth and Dizzy inadvertently outing themselves as non-vanilla. I would say that was a rookie mistake - but since I did that last game lol. Sloppy veteran play. Now this is an interesting post on the back of Archangel's brief contribution. I would have expected you to comment on archangel's lack of content -- but all you apparently care about is getting us all to vote -- so the only contribution you value is a vote? or is it that you have a passive power that is only triggered when everyone has placed a vote? Indeed, the other things about Fruit's death on D2 were that a) he was in 2nd place and b) everyone had voted. This makes me wonder whether you have a passive double lynch power when everyone has voted. My primary method of hunting scum is looking at votes and the motivations behind them. Talk is cheap and without consequence. Votes and non-votes have consequences. If not voting is really a player's intent, then they can say so. No comment on your speculations of course--I've already claimed as much as I am going to.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Oct 24, 2013 12:44:38 GMT -5
I usually don't place my votes early in the day because I usually try not to unvote
However, I do want to put down a vote on Vote: xarchangelx as her play seems real safe to me, posting very little, making a couple of safe votes on players that have already had votes on and no real scum hunting that I can see
Also, In my may vote list is Pleonast - his picking apart of TLD's claim seems a little like fellow scum bussing as in that we now know that the claim was fake maybe that bit was a set up to give a fellow scum credit after his flip? Need to reread first but I'm sure scum would have used the time after the claim to give someone town credit
And Colby11 is also on my list - which is why a reread is in order before placing more votes but he also seem to be placing safe votes and flying below the radar
|
|
|
Post by xarchangelx on Oct 24, 2013 13:10:57 GMT -5
Vote: BillM for not voting.
Right now it is (my sole contribution). I seem to be badly off in my suspicions as the two people whom I was most suspicious of were town powers. And those of you who have played with me before (including Bill) know that I always get lynched for playing like this when I am town.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 24, 2013 13:15:20 GMT -5
That's incorrect. patricia has claimed to be a tracker and claimed to track Last. If truthful, that gives no information about anyone else who may have targeted Idle. In particular, it doesn't tell us that no one else targeted Idle. True it doesn't tell us who else may have visited Idle; but TLD's power was strongman - so if he did visit Idle, then he was there to kill Idle - he didn't visit Idle to poison Fruit. My primary method of hunting scum is looking at votes and the motivations behind them. Talk is cheap and without consequence. Votes and non-votes have consequences. If not voting is really a player's intent, then they can say so. No comment on your speculations of course--I've already claimed as much as I am going to. Double lynches are largely anti-town, so on that basis - I'm going to choose not to vote. If I were to vote, my vote(s) would be on Meeko and Archangel for very little participation, with Gnarly a close third for the same reason. There will be no more subs after today, so folk who aren't participating are dead weight.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 24, 2013 14:31:35 GMT -5
That's incorrect. patricia has claimed to be a tracker and claimed to track Last. If truthful, that gives no information about anyone else who may have targeted Idle. In particular, it doesn't tell us that no one else targeted Idle. True it doesn't tell us who else may have visited Idle; but TLD's power was strongman - so if he did visit Idle, then he was there to kill Idle - he didn't visit Idle to poison Fruit. My primary method of hunting scum is looking at votes and the motivations behind them. Talk is cheap and without consequence. Votes and non-votes have consequences. If not voting is really a player's intent, then they can say so. No comment on your speculations of course--I've already claimed as much as I am going to. Double lynches are largely anti-town, so on that basis - I'm going to choose not to vote. If I were to vote, my vote(s) would be on Meeko and Archangel for very little participation, with Gnarly a close third for the same reason. There will be no more subs after today, so folk who aren't participating are dead weight. What do you mean by double lynches? I agree with the people you would have voted for but I don't understand why you won't vote for them. The reason I am not voting for them at this time is that I feel more strongly about the people I am voting for. I feel that I have been really quiet for a RL day and then I went back and reread, hardly anyone has had much to say except for Chameleon and apart for her vote on Patricia which she has since rescinded there isn't much to argue with her about at this time. She really looks as if she is hunting scum. Meeko is not his usual self, no major arguments and long rants of which I understand little of what's being said. Is this a reason for a vote? Possibly. I know it's a bit meta but after a few years of playing with people you do tend to see their traits, except for BillMc who never lives long enough to get to know. I am very twixt and tween about voting for Meeko. Now gnarly has done very little scum hunting in my opinion, he came in and slapped down 2 votes and then left again (after one question to me), although he often does play like this, I don't feel as if he is actually engaged with the game. Lynch the loud again. Often scum seem to be middle of the road, neither lurking nor being too loud (yes there are definitely exceptions). Archangel: another one that hasn't said very much at all, I don't like the way she hedged her bets with voting for Mahaloth and Chameleon, citing more or less the same reason for both votes. As for Mahaloth: I don't like claims right at the end of the Day. At least give people time to consider what you have to say, it's just as bad,if not worse, than claiming investigator at the beginning of the Day (me guilty of doing that). People need a bit of time, we aren't all on line at the same time and if you are not telling the truth then t also gives time for a counter claim. Claiming at the end of the Day tends to make people make rash decisions (guilty as charged) and not think about what it is that you have claimed and go back and look through all the evidence to support or disprove what it is you are claiming. Up to now I am happy with my vote there.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Oct 24, 2013 14:56:01 GMT -5
Mahaloth (6,6): Pleonast [18]; silverjan [33]; Meeko [48]; Colby11 [52]; dizzymrslizzy [55]; xarchangelx [60]
Chameleon (4,4): dizzymrslizzy [7]; Pleonast [18]; gnarlycharlie [36]; xarchangelx [60]
dizzymrslizzy (3,3): Chameleon [6]; silverjan [17]; Mahaloth [51]
Meeko (2,2): Pleonast [18]; Mahaloth [24] xarchangelx (2,2): Pleonast [18]; patricia [71] BillMc (2,2): Pleonast [18]; xarchangelx [72] silverjan (2,2): gnarlycharlie [36]; Pleonast [38,44,44] Pleonast (2,2): Chameleon [47]; Mahaloth [51] gnarlycharlie (2,2): Chameleon [47]; Mahaloth [51]
patricia (0,1): Chameleon [6,31]
With these votes, Mahaloth will be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 24, 2013 14:59:13 GMT -5
As for Mahaloth: I don't like claims right at the end of the Day. At least give people time to consider what you have to say, it's just as bad,if not worse, than claiming investigator at the beginning of the Day (me guilty of doing that). People need a bit of time, we aren't all on line at the same time and if you are not telling the truth then t also gives time for a counter claim. Claiming at the end of the Day tends to make people make rash decisions (guilty as charged) and not think about what it is that you have claimed and go back and look through all the evidence to support or disprove what it is you are claiming. Up to now I am happy with my vote there. I don't know if I'm likely to be lynched, so I am unsure whether I should claim. I'd rather not. Vote count, please?
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 24, 2013 15:01:18 GMT -5
What do you mean by double lynches? We don't actually know for certain how fruit was killed - it could have been something to do with "being sleepy" or it could have been something else. Pleo seems more interested in getting everyone to vote rather than what they are saying, so I'm wondering whether he has a passive power that is activated when everyne votes, and that that gets the 2nd place person lynched as well. On day 2, everyone did vote, and fruit was in 2nd place. The theory could be tested in a number of ways - someone doesn't vote, if a second death does occur then it has nothign to do with this - everyone does vote, and see if the second place person does get killed as well
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Oct 24, 2013 16:50:15 GMT -5
I've thought about it more and decided not to claim. I'm Town(as said), but won't reveal any more.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 24, 2013 17:14:22 GMT -5
I've thought about it more and decided not to claim. I'm Town(as said), but won't reveal any more. It's up to you but you are the lynch leader and if you don't claim we could lose an important role. on the other hand you could just be scum and are trying to mess with Town
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 24, 2013 17:21:33 GMT -5
We don't actually know for certain how fruit was killed - it could have been something to do with "being sleepy" or it could have been something else. Pleo seems more interested in getting everyone to vote rather than what they are saying, so I'm wondering whether he has a passive power that is activated when everyne votes, and that that gets the 2nd place person lynched as well. On day 2, everyone did vote, and fruit was in 2nd place. The theory could be tested in a number of ways - someone doesn't vote, if a second death does occur then it has nothign to do with this - everyone does vote, and see if the second place person does get killed as well I know colour isn't always relevant - but Fruit was feeling sleepy and then his death was described as falling into a slumber from which he will never awake (not the exact quote but you get the idea). I know things can be complex and convoluted but I'm finding it odd that some of you are so adamant about denying the possibility of a Poisoner - which is the most logical explanation. I do appreciate the input and I myself often over-analyze and over-think, but you seem to really want us to look at everything but a Poisoner. So are you saying you're not voting in case it allows Pleo to fulfill some latent action?
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 24, 2013 17:25:57 GMT -5
I've thought about it more and decided not to claim. I'm Town(as said), but won't reveal any more. It's up to you but you are the lynch leader and if you don't claim we could lose an important role. on the other hand you could just be scum and are trying to mess with Town I don't know what to make of this. If you are Town you should be doing what you can to save yourself - especially if you're a power.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 24, 2013 17:32:39 GMT -5
It's up to you but you are the lynch leader and if you don't claim we could lose an important role. on the other hand you could just be scum and are trying to mess with Town I don't know what to make of this. If you are Town you should be doing what you can to save yourself - especially if you're a power. Are you talking to Mahaloth or me? I assumed it was Mahaloth.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Oct 24, 2013 17:37:05 GMT -5
I haven't dismissed the possibility of a poisoner. Feeling sleepy is what happened in the field of poisoned poppies. It is most likely a scum role and it could have been a once off or if a Townie has been poisoned they might be keeping their mouth shut to see who votes for them?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Oct 24, 2013 17:49:42 GMT -5
I don't know what to make of this. If you are Town you should be doing what you can to save yourself - especially if you're a power. You're rather mixed up. Scum do what they can to save themselves; they're short on numbers and each loss is a major blow. Town, on the other hand, do what they can to maximize information--that's what we need. Mahaloth's refusal to reveal more is anti-town, if they have any information. It's also anti-scum, if they are scum, since a lack of a claim basically guarantees a lynch. (I will certainly not remove my vote because of a lack of claim.)
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 24, 2013 17:53:23 GMT -5
I know colour isn't always relevant - but Fruit was feeling sleepy and then his death was described as falling into a slumber from which he will never awake (not the exact quote but you get the idea). I know things can be complex and convoluted but I'm finding it odd that some of you are so adamant about denying the possibility of a Poisoner - which is the most logical explanation. I do appreciate the input and I myself often over-analyze and over-think, but you seem to really want us to look at everything but a Poisoner. So are you saying you're not voting in case it allows Pleo to fulfill some latent action? Where have I denied the possibility? I'm not denying the possibility - if you take stock in the colour, then fruit died of a delayed kill - that does not mean it is a poisoner - only that a delayed kill happened - but it is not conclusive proof of the killer being a poisoner - tho it seems everyone else has little or no opinion on the subject. It makes no difference to the current situation whether Fruit was killed by a poisoner, or by the boogieman. My main interest at the moment is Pleo's apparent focus on getting everyone to vote and ignoring weak and content free posts. That to me, kinda suggests he has something to gain from everyone placing a vote, and whether than gain is pro-town is unknown.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 24, 2013 17:57:33 GMT -5
I don't know what to make of this. If you are Town you should be doing what you can to save yourself - especially if you're a power. As town, you should only be fighting to save yourself if it is in the town interest - a vanilla townie fighting to save themself which then results in the lynch of another townie is not pro-town. Of course, Mahaloth could have a scotsman role, in which lynching him is pro-town as it deprives the scum of a mislynch
|
|
Colby11
Administrator
Creator of Hell's Kitchen Mafia
Posts: 1,193
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Colby11 on Oct 24, 2013 23:33:04 GMT -5
Bill- yeah I've been a little quiet. I've been attempting to post more content and less fluff lately. Also, I've been busy with real life so I haven't had as many opportunities to post. I disagree with your Scotsman role, but he doesn't seem to want to defend himself much.
But, Mahaloth is the only person who I am suspicious of based off his behavior lately, and his steadfast belief in Chameleon. I think that he knows something that we don't. I think Patricia is town, or at least not scum. I don't see them giving up a scum buddy for town credit...
Though, the thing that bothers me is why didn't scum attempt to kill Patricia last night? I have the feeling that scum decided that if there was a tracker, there might be a watcher as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Oct 25, 2013 0:38:27 GMT -5
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why Mahaloth is seemingly conceding to being lynched regardless of what side he's on. Could he be a bomb? If he's a Town bomb it would be better if he was killed by Scum during the night. How would a Scum bomb work? I just think if he were Scum then he and his Scum buddies would be fighting a little harder to keep him in the game. Sorry if I don't make sense - I'm really sick Ha! There is one for that!
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Oct 25, 2013 7:41:42 GMT -5
After re-reading, I'm going to accept that the colour Fruit's death being validation of the "sleepy" message - so the fact that everyone voted on Day 2 had no relation to Fruit's death. So a delayed kill - if folk want to call it a poisoner then I'm not going to argue that point as it is irrevelant. No one is admitting to being sleepy today - so no one should be dropping into a deep sleep today. Pleo's focus on everyone voting still holds my suspicion - I'll need to have another read through from D1 and decide whether my suspicion still holds water. Bill- yeah I've been a little quiet. I've been attempting to post more content and less fluff lately. Also, I've been busy with real life so I haven't had as many opportunities to post. I disagree with your Scotsman role, but he doesn't seem to want to defend himself much. But, Mahaloth is the only person who I am suspicious of based off his behavior lately, and his steadfast belief in Chameleon. I think that he knows something that we don't. I think Patricia is town, or at least not scum. I don't see them giving up a scum buddy for town credit... Though, the thing that bothers me is why didn't scum attempt to kill Patricia last night? I have the feeling that scum decided that if there was a tracker, there might be a watcher as well. Agreed, his solid belief in Chameleon without apparent evidence is strange. Possible, watcher+tracker+cop (and backup) would give the town a lot of investigative powers which would indicate a more powerful scum team. The scum can't really afford for kills to fail - there is most likely still a town doc, and it would be a reasonable guess that a doc may protect patricia - so scum would shoot elsewhere.
|
|