|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 4:17:51 GMT -5
Post by peekercpa on Jan 27, 2009 4:17:51 GMT -5
Actually I prefer Atarus, but what the hey.
Never played with Aubby (out of the gutter Santo) and Nanook seems to be his usual reticent self (which I dislike).
So we have the standard hold no grudge admonision.
We have the "it's too early for a mass claim" observation (although it is something to be revisited in the future - maybe).
Haven't really gone down the LTL path.
We haven't really embarked on the set up and implications, yet.
Have had an interesting discussion on claiming conventions.
After reading up I still am confused as to some of the color (hotel rooms in strange cities make me this way generally, however).
And yet, at the end of this day Hell has still frozen over. The Arizona Cardinals are in the freaking Super Bowl. I know one thing. I am definitely going to church this coming Sunday. If those guys win I believe that the second coming is just around the corner.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 4:33:27 GMT -5
Post by harmless little bunny on Jan 27, 2009 4:33:27 GMT -5
Haven't really gone down the LTL path. What does LTL stand for?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 5:26:34 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 27, 2009 5:26:34 GMT -5
* So in hindsight in that particular game, I probably should have false claimed a power role. Which reminds me of Inara Roosh! In Firefly, Roosh thought he was vanilla, so he fake-claimed a power role (I think it was a 50% chance of any Nightkills targeting him would kill the killer). This kept him alive long enough for him to find out he was really the backup cop. Probably the reason this worked was because he didn't claim a standard powerrole, so he wasn't counterclaimed. It's worth remembering what happened in Day 3 as a direct result of that claim. Our oniony friend 1 spotted the lie and spent the whole Day going after Roosh because he was lying. It wasn't until about an hour from death that I decided not to take Roosh with me after all. So the Town could have lost its backup investigator before he claimed. That may well have put the Alliance right back in it. 1"Ui" is, as Yattara reminded me, Dutch for onion.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 5:42:56 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 27, 2009 5:42:56 GMT -5
When one is dealing with a Scotsman/Investigator/Doctor the normal rules don't apply. Why do you feel this way? You make the statement as if it is obvious (it isn't) or that we should believe you simply because you say it is so. What justification is there? The justification is simple. The claimant wanted or needed to die. Since false claiming Mason is one of the surest ways to get lynched,any Jester role has an easy way to get killed. (Although I note NaturalBlondChap didn't do so in T2.) A Scotsman/Investigator needs to die somehow in order to be reborn as the investigator. If he's having no luck drawing the attention of Nightkillers (or simply wants to start his investigative career early) claiming Mason works. Yes there are risks involved, to the Town as well as yourself. To sway the uncecided and "who do you believe" crowd two Masons have to claim. This exposes them early, thus preventing them from a mass claim late in the game to catastrophically (from the SCUM point of view anyway) reducing the size of the unknown pool.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 5:52:27 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Jan 27, 2009 5:52:27 GMT -5
Haven't really gone down the LTL path. What does LTL stand for? LTL = Lynch the Lurker The argument is generally that someone hanging back and not posting much is a SCUM trying to hide his alignment by not posting much, on the grounds that if he 1 doesn't say anything he cannot contradict himself and be exposed as a SCUM. Standard theory around here is that this is not a good pointer in teh early stages because (a) some Town power roles will behave the same way to avoid notice by the SCUM, and (b) there's a definite difference between lurking and not being able to play because of rl complications. As for name changes, if you put the mouse pointer on a player's name you can see (in the bar at the bottom) a link come up to their player profile which will show the player's account name. Display names can be changed; account names cannot. 1Or, as it may be, she.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 7:47:46 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 27, 2009 7:47:46 GMT -5
We haven't really embarked on the set up and implications, yet. Not much to embark on, really. We have town with a mix of power roles and vanilla. We have scum. We have a 3rd party that both town and scum need dead or trophyfied in order for either to win. (A serial killer or something similar.) And we have the possiblity of other 3rd parties who while not required to be dead are probably still a threat in that they can steal the win. (A mad bomber typically falls under that.) The implication is that scum can both kill and trophyfy, since it says in the town wincon that the impostor "must die too" while in the scum wincon the impostor "must be killed (or trophyfied)." Since trophyfication is only mentioned in the scum wincon, it probably acts as a bonus kill mechanic for scum, who jointly kill. The joint kill also means we are less apt to have a role-blocker or a role who can identify individual killers (e.g. scotsman/bulletproof townie with the ability to know who attacked them or a watcher type).
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 8:01:07 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 27, 2009 8:01:07 GMT -5
LTL = Lynch the Lurker The argument is generally that someone hanging back and not posting much is a SCUM trying to hide his alignment by not posting much, on the grounds that if he 1 doesn't say anything he cannot contradict himself and be exposed as a SCUM. Standard theory around here is that this is not a good pointer in teh early stages because (a) some Town power roles will behave the same way to avoid notice by the SCUM, and (b) there's a definite difference between lurking and not being able to play because of rl complications. My opinion on LTL is as an indication of scummitude its pretty much null. However, non-participation is anti-town. As detective in SMB, there was one point where I was going to investigate blockey since he had given us very little to gauge him by. And I figured that the only way to ascertain what he was was by investigating him. I then thought better and investigated Almost Human instead. I figured if blockey wasn't participating much, he'd be better served as a lynch candidate. (Instead due to the evil castle role rearrangement, we had two confirmed town who were scum for that Day effectively Vig him.) Now he had a lot of real-life crap going down, so it wasn't really his fault that he didn't post much, but from a game standpoint, his behavior was anti-town. LTL is a good strategy in the end game for lynching unconfirmeds. It's also a decent fall-back strategy in the beginning of the game since it is punishing anti-town behavior. But lurking is hardly ever a reliable scum-tell, and LTL should not be used if there are scummy candidates out there. It's a pretty passive method of voting and can be a convenient way for someone to not have to justify a vote on someone they might want to see dead for other reasons. So in some ways, LTL itself can be anti-town depending on why the person votes it. If someone does nothing but LTL votes, that's suspicious.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 9:13:06 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jan 27, 2009 9:13:06 GMT -5
I was just looking through the player list. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen or heard Aubby, Pollux Oil, or Nanook. Senor Pantalones isn't on the player list so I am assuming that he is one of these, but where are the other ones? As mentioned, Pollux Oil is Senor Pantalones De Fuego. I don't know where Aubby is...I'll go poke* her. Nanook is typically a heavy lurker, so that doesn't suprise me, but I'll poke him as well anyway. *Poke (v.) A method of getting someone's attention, usually in a direct and unnoticeable way.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 9:14:21 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jan 27, 2009 9:14:21 GMT -5
Why do you feel this way? You make the statement as if it is obvious (it isn't) or that we should believe you simply because you say it is so. What justification is there? The justification is simple. The claimant wanted or needed to die. Since false claiming Mason is one of the surest ways to get lynched,any Jester role has an easy way to get killed. (Although I note NaturalBlondChap didn't do so in T2.) A Scotsman/Investigator needs to die somehow in order to be reborn as the investigator. If he's having no luck drawing the attention of Nightkillers (or simply wants to start his investigative career early) claiming Mason works. Yes there are risks involved, to the Town as well as yourself. To sway the uncecided and "who do you believe" crowd two Masons have to claim. This exposes them early, thus preventing them from a mass claim late in the game to catastrophically (from the SCUM point of view anyway) reducing the size of the unknown pool. Actually, he started off as an investigator, and then became a doctor after he came back. But your point stands. As for NBC, he couldn't have false claimed mason in an open game without masons.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 9:39:34 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 27, 2009 9:39:34 GMT -5
Why do you feel this way? You make the statement as if it is obvious (it isn't) or that we should believe you simply because you say it is so. What justification is there? The justification is simple. The claimant wanted or needed to die. Since false claiming Mason is one of the surest ways to get lynched,any Jester role has an easy way to get killed. (Although I note NaturalBlondChap didn't do so in T2.) A Scotsman/Investigator needs to die somehow in order to be reborn as the investigator. If he's having no luck drawing the attention of Nightkillers (or simply wants to start his investigative career early) claiming Mason works. Yes there are risks involved, to the Town as well as yourself. To sway the uncecided and "who do you believe" crowd two Masons have to claim. This exposes them early, thus preventing them from a mass claim late in the game to catastrophically (from the SCUM point of view anyway) reducing the size of the unknown pool. This is even more confusing. My understanding is that specialEd's point was that he (as Mason) would feel compelled to reconsider outing someone false-claiming mason due to whatever it was that happened in some game that I didn't read. If a scotsman really wanted to die in some manner, there are much better and less damaging ways to do so. My point is that: 1) Town should not false claim Mason 2) It is not the job of Masons to determine whether or not a false claim is coming from town or scum. By observing (1), the Masonry is kept in tact. I don't understand what happened in the other game, but it seems to me that a Townie decided to false-claim Mason. (Special Ed implies that the false claim was to 'become a fifth mason' somehow by reasons that don't seem to exist; MHaye implies that the false claim was because the false-claimer wanted to die). My point is that a Townie should not have false-claimed mason, and that current Masons should not even consider that a Townie might false claim Mason, because a Townie should not do so.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Jan 27, 2009 9:48:42 GMT -5
Hey just got on and caught up, my thoughts are that I also hate vanilla claims, because this eigther is SCUM wanting to hide they are SCUM or TOWN making it easier for SCUM to pick off the power roles.
I am not a fan of name claiming as I think this is just fluff to get distracted by, since I have seen games where the names correlate to roles/alignment and other ones where it does not, so I think it is a bad thing when we start assuming we can learn things from just names alone. Role claims I feel are best when it bennefits the TOWN not yourself. So doing a mass claim at the start I am not a fan of, but think it should be done when you personally feel is the right time.
As for LTL, I have said on other games, I feel for me, I would rather lynch people for what they do, then what they do not. People get bussy with RL, and sometimes can not always be here, so lynching them over that is to me almost metga-game playing. With that being said I saw one game where most did vote and then lead to a LTL and that person did turn up SCUM. However I can not help but feel that was just a lucky geuss. Epsecially being that it was day 1 of that game.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 10:21:16 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 27, 2009 10:21:16 GMT -5
As for LTL, I have said on other games, I feel for me, I would rather lynch people for what they do, then what they do not. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart. There is nothing wrong with metagame plaing. Metagaming can be just as valid a tool in analyzing the game as anything else. Not posting is anti-town. Excessive posting of fluff is anti-town. Anti-town does not necessarily mean pro-scum, but anti-town behavior generally makes scum's job easier and town's job harder. Punishing anti-town behavior is usually pro-town.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 10:22:50 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jan 27, 2009 10:22:50 GMT -5
*Poke (v.) A method of getting someone's attention, usually in a direct and unnoticeable way. If it's "unnoticeable" how do you expect to get someone's attention? ;D
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 11:20:55 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 27, 2009 11:20:55 GMT -5
I am back, and checking in. (As a side note, i was recently laid-off. My play may be wildy varying from posting tons to not at all, depending on how the search goes.) I'm solidly in the camp of I HATE DAY ONE. There is always always always some sort of bandwagoning going on; when I was less experienced I jumped right on (and soundly got thrashed when scum then used me), and lately, I tend to want to lurk. I don't like making a move w/out some solid information; invariably I'm wrong
|
|
Koldanar
Mome Rath
[on:I survived the apocralypse!][of:Into the void, go I]
Posts: 4
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 11:36:00 GMT -5
Post by Koldanar on Jan 27, 2009 11:36:00 GMT -5
Da hell? A snowman smiley?
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 11:37:22 GMT -5
Post by shaggy on Jan 27, 2009 11:37:22 GMT -5
As for LTL, I have said on other games, I feel for me, I would rather lynch people for what they do, then what they do not. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart. There is nothing wrong with metagame plaing. Metagaming can be just as valid a tool in analyzing the game as anything else. Not posting is anti-town. Excessive posting of fluff is anti-town. Anti-town does not necessarily mean pro-scum, but anti-town behavior generally makes scum's job easier and town's job harder. Punishing anti-town behavior is usually pro-town. Sorry, to clarify I meant not posting as much, as other's. If you post not at all, or only fluff for a day or 2, then yes that is anti-town. And i would agree lynching them after that, maybe good. I just mean that just because they maynot be as big of posters as some, does always translate into them being scum or not trying to contribute to the game. My problem sometimes with metagame playing is before I started on FB, I was reading there past games and there was one guy that counter claimed against the town role, as he was scum. Then in the next game when he really was that role, they did not believe him, so they lynched him. So using past games and using things from outside the game can some times lead to wrong conclusions, as it did for that guy. I will give you that sometimes though it does work. The 2nd game I played on FB they used my getting pink boxes as the biggest reason for lynching me, and won the game. So it is sad that they used things that were sort of out of the game to win, but it did pay off. I just think we need to watch that we do not fall into the trap of thinking it will always work, cause some times it will work and sometimes it will not work.
|
|
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:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 12:40:33 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Jan 27, 2009 12:40:33 GMT -5
Hey, why not vote? (And it snowed a little last night, but not enough for a 1. molefan1981[/b] 2. sinjin[/b] 3. Hoopy Frood[/b] I think one tactic of scum might be to agree with a bit of strategy suggested to the town as helpful to gain townie cred (especially if it's a plan that has little to no effect on the scum). Molefan came out in agreement with the plan to only put 'scummy' people on the vote list after it was suggested. He also raised the specter of 'malicious PFK' which smacks of fearmongering on Day 1. Sinjin just seems a little too paranoid to me. Hoopy I'm least sure about. Just kind of a feeling, maybe too much talk about power roles (but on the other hand he's had discussions with substance). Remember, you can always change it later, so why not vote?
|
|
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:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 12:41:50 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Jan 27, 2009 12:41:50 GMT -5
Hey [/b] ought to turn off blue, right?
1. molefan1981 2. sinjin 3. Hoopy Frood to be official.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 12:52:14 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jan 27, 2009 12:52:14 GMT -5
Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | Parzival | molefan | sinjin | Hoopy Frood | peekercpa | Nanook | Hal Briston | crazypunker |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters | Nanook | 3 | peekercpa 1st | molefan | 3 | Parzival 1st | Hal Briston | 2 | peekercpa 2nd | sinjin | 2 | Parzival 2nd | crazypunker | 1 | peekercpa 3rd | Hoopy Frood | 1 | Parzival 3rd |
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 13:24:56 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 27, 2009 13:24:56 GMT -5
He also raised the specter of 'malicious PFK' which smacks of fearmongering on Day 1. I thought the "impostor" is a 'malicious PFK' that both Town and Scum want dead. Isn't this established fact? I'm not sure if pedescribe introduces the term "malicious PFK," but he uses the term here: On the imposter: it means there is exactly one malicious PFK who will directly interfere with your win condition. It says nothing about how many 3rd parties are in this game (except that there's at least one). Fact: One impostor is a malicious PFK Other third parties may or may not exist.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 13:36:40 GMT -5
Post by aubby on Jan 27, 2009 13:36:40 GMT -5
Sorry, I am late. I have no excuse other than I forgot the check in. I am in the 'I hate Day 1' camp. All these hypothetical discussions are making my head spin... along with this Borda voting system. I can relate to the lynch the lurker standpoint. I've advocated it myself... silent town doesn't help town. However, I truly have nothing intelligent to say at this point.
|
|
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:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 13:54:44 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Jan 27, 2009 13:54:44 GMT -5
That should have been "malicious PFK s". I believe he was the first to pluralize it by combining it with 'malicious' in quotes, in this post: LOL, we've got a small debate going on. Oh well, guess it gets people talking.
Special Ed - you're against early vanilla claims? I'm SHOCKED!
On the PFK point - it belatedly occurs to me, about three seconds after posting my incorrect analysis as usual, that the fact that we know there's one PFK who can "interfere with" the win condition doesn't preclude there being other "malicious" PFKs about. So correct that one, not that it particularly matters, I still think an early bout of vanilla claimers would be a bad thing in this game.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 13:57:07 GMT -5
Post by Mister Blockey on Jan 27, 2009 13:57:07 GMT -5
I see what you're saying Parzival, however assuming that there's only one pfk isn't a good idea either.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jan 27, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -5
I think we need to be precise in the meaning of "PFK." Some have used it to mean anyone who is not scum or not town. I do not like this use of "PFK." There's been a bit of discussion on this topic on the SDMB. The consensus is that applying PFK to innocuous third parties (e.g., Catwoman in Batman) is erroneous. PFK means playing for keeps, if the player is not a win-stealer, then using "PFK" is misleading and wrong. Pedescribe is not privy to that conversation as it is in the forbidden thread of a game in which he is still alive.
Historically, has pedescribe labelled third parties with non-interfering win conditions PFK?
Also, I would ask that in this game we use PFK to refer to third parties with a win-stealing win condition. Otherwise, we are going to have needless confusion.
For example:
I see what you're saying Parzival, however assuming that there's only one pfk isn't a good idea either. misterblockey, could you clarify what you mean by this statement? Do you mean that you think there are more than one win-stealing third party factions? Or do you mean there are possibly other third parties (other than the impostor) who is 'pfk' in the sense of being neither town nor scum but not a win-stealer?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 14:32:00 GMT -5
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Jan 27, 2009 14:32:00 GMT -5
Historically, has pedescribe labelled third parties with non-interfering win conditions PFK? There is, at this point, no publicly available precedent, as the only game that I have made that I am not currently running had no 3rd parties of any stripe.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 15:55:38 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Jan 27, 2009 15:55:38 GMT -5
Sinjin just seems a little too paranoid to me. How am I coming off too paranoid Parzival? I have made only seven posts in the game so far. 1. To vote for my purple choices.2. To ask a question about how borda voting works. 3. To ask for a clarification on what the hell trophyfication was. 4. To ask the Mod for a clarification on the imposter and whether or not we won if the imposter was trophified and not killed/lynched. 5. To stick my tongue out at Hoopy. 6. To ask the exact same question in green because pede saw fit to ignore it the first time. 7. To ask pede for further clarification because he only answered half the question. How the hell is that too paranoid? This might seem OMGUS but I don't care. That was a deliberate smudge AND vote with absolutely no supporting evidence AND a complete fabrication. Vote 1. Parzival
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 15:57:29 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jan 27, 2009 15:57:29 GMT -5
Since I'm here: Votes: Player | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | Parzival | molefan | sinjin | Hoopy Frood | peekercpa | Nanook | Hal Briston | crazypunker | sinjin | Parzival | | |
Totals: Votee | Total | Voters | Parzival | 3 | sinjin 1st | Nanook | 3 | peekercpa 1st | molefan | 3 | Parzival 1st | Hal Briston | 2 | peekercpa 2nd | sinjin | 2 | Parzival 2nd | crazypunker | 1 | peekercpa 3rd | Hoopy Frood | 1 | Parzival 3rd |
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 17:08:01 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2009 17:08:01 GMT -5
I think the bigger names might get offed first because it's possible that they are the power roles...or it would be assumed that they are. Once again, no mook factor. There really aren't any "big" names in SSBB, as far as I can tell. OK, there's a few "bosses", but I think that's stretching it. That said, there are a few characters in SSBB who I've thought might have particular powers relevant to the game of mafia. There might be a risk of exposing them. I'm not questioning your conclusion BTW, I 110% agree with the people who are against a mass nameclaim at this point, largely for reasons already given by myself and others. I just don't think there are obvious "big names" in this game. Well, it's a much more interesting discussion than, say, talking about hating Day 1. Or the more usual "random voting vs lurker voting vs whatever-other-criteria voting". Agreed. I don't think there's much information as to who's sided with who at the mo', but it's always interesting to see what different ideas people have about this sort of stuff. And I HATE DAY ONE too. For reasons already given by others and also because I can't see a bandwagon without jumping on it.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 17:39:04 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2009 17:39:04 GMT -5
[/b] I think one tactic of scum might be to agree with a bit of strategy suggested to the town as helpful to gain townie cred (especially if it's a plan that has little to no effect on the scum). Molefan came out in agreement with the plan to only put 'scummy' people on the vote list after it was suggested. He also raised the specter of 'malicious PFK' which smacks of fearmongering on Day 1. [/quote] Oh boy, here we go again. 1) I haven't agreed with any strategy suggested to the town so far. I explicitly disagreed with the voting strategy suggested early on by Mhaye, and agreed with KidV who was opposing it. Unless this: counts as agreeing with him. 2) I "raised the spectre" of malicious PFKs? You mean, I completely forgot they could be in the game, then corrected myself for factual accuracy in the following post? That's essentially what you've quoted. The only other reference I've made to malicious PFKs refers to the game that's just finished. I hardly think that's fearmongering. Also, do you realise that your two top suspects were both scapegoated and mis-lynched early on in previous games? Hell, if I were scum, I'd target a player with a history like mine or Sinjin's as well. For that reason only, vote 1: Parzival.
|
|
|
Day 1
Jan 27, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
Post by Holy Moley! on Jan 27, 2009 17:40:44 GMT -5
What the shit?
vote 1: Parzival.
Hope that works.
|
|