|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 22, 2009 16:38:20 GMT -5
Why would you not? Because, apparently unlike others, I don't bother moderators with questions I don't expect them to answer.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 22, 2009 16:39:52 GMT -5
In all of your skimming did you also miss the fact that Total has all but said that she has a posting restriction such that she will lose her "get out of death" card if she claims?
And you still refuse to ask the mod a question about daykills and trying to lynch Pleo.
BTW, if you are so sure you're still unlynchable why even suggest we lynch you tomorrow?
I'm happy to try to lynch you today.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 22, 2009 16:42:49 GMT -5
Why would you not? Because, apparently unlike others, I don't bother moderators with questions I don't expect them to answer. Right. because it takes so much effort for the mod to hit reply, type "YES" or "NO" and hit send. Oh, the humanity, think of all those poor wasted electrons.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 22, 2009 17:00:11 GMT -5
In all of your skimming did you also miss the fact that Total has all but said that she has a posting restriction such that she will lose her "get out of death" card if she claims? And you still refuse to ask the mod a question about daykills and trying to lynch Pleo. BTW, if you are so sure you're still unlynchable why even suggest we lynch you tomorrow? I'm happy to try to lynch you today. Well, the fact that I missed her claim of "scotsman" should be a strong hint that I missed seeing any claims from her. Because I don't expect anyone to believe me when I say I'm still unlynchable. From a pragmatic standpoint, the Town will gain more information by delaying my lynch. You already know I couldn't be lynched (twice) earlier. Is testing that claim again more valuable than the information gained from lynching either Pollux or Natlaw? I don't think so. But once we've lynched one and investigated the other, lynching me again is probably more useful than lynching the claimed protector MHaye. Because, apparently unlike others, I don't bother moderators with questions I don't expect them to answer. Right. because it takes so much effort for the mod to hit reply, type "YES" or "NO" and hit send. Oh, the humanity, think of all those poor wasted electrons. If it's so simple, why don't you ask the moderator? As far as I know, your role is as involved with the daykills as mine.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Jun 22, 2009 17:03:24 GMT -5
Pleo; did you ever ask FCOH if the daykills were linked to your lynches? Sinjin, have you forgotten? You did. See D03.004 and FCOH's reply in D03.005. I took that, at the time, as FCOH denying that there was any link between voting a Pleo lynch and the Daykill. It's just as plausible that the Daykills were a delayed side-effect of Storyteller's attempts to Nightkill Pleo.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 22, 2009 17:16:16 GMT -5
I do remember that I asked but there are so many ways a mod can interpret a question. The same goes for his answer. Pleo could specifically ask about his role and expect to get an honest answer. I don't believe FCOH would answer me directly about another persons role, but I'll give it a try:
FCOH were Pleo's lynchs in anyway related to the daykills on those days?
As for why a Pleo lynch would be better today. IS still has two investigations. Either Pleo dies or he doesn't, but we haven't offed a townie by mistake. Unless the daykills are related to Pleo's lynch in someway we have figured out how to ask.
Call me conservative.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 22, 2009 17:19:59 GMT -5
Grrr have = haven't
[oog]W00t! I got interupted by a call from my lovely, beautiful, incredibly smart girl-child. She passed her board certifications and is now a licensed Dr. of Clinical Psychology.[/oog]
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jun 22, 2009 20:09:29 GMT -5
Vote Pleonast
As others have said, I just don't believe Natlaw would switch and kill NAF if he was scum. It makes more sense for scum to leave NAF alive to be investigated since he was the godfather.
Pleonast is left as my only suspect now. If he still cannot be lynched, we'll have to look at that maybe IS is a scum detective? Or one of the early town investigations has been recruited since.
I mean, I guess you guys will eventually have to lynch me if Pleonast isn't lynched again toDay. But I know I'm town, so.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jun 22, 2009 20:53:15 GMT -5
This game is getting frustrating.
First things first, I blocked Bill last night. I blame you all for not reminding me he was on the investigated list.
Other thoughts... I'm down to try lynching Pleo again. If nothing else, it may prove or disprove the idea that he's got something to do with the Daykills, which I think he might, because he's almost over the top, he seems so scummy to me. Like he's trying to get lynched.
The lack of Nightkills is really making me wonder if there's a recruitment mechanism still in play. I suppose the safe play is to keep lynching in the unconfirmed pool, but I wonder if at some point IS is going to need to reinvestigate.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 22, 2009 22:30:52 GMT -5
This game is getting frustrating. First things first, I blocked Bill last night. I blame you all for not reminding me he was on the investigated list.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 23, 2009 8:24:26 GMT -5
FCOH were Pleo's lynchs in anyway related to the daykills on those days? Obviously I can't answer that. Sorry. Vote count: Natlaw (1) - Pleonast Pleonast (2) - sinjin, Pollux --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 23, 2009 9:39:57 GMT -5
Like he's trying to get lynched. Apparently I'm not the only one skimming this game.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jun 23, 2009 9:56:43 GMT -5
Well from re-reading yesterday, I'm cool with trying to lynch pleo again
Vote: pleo
I just cant get my head around having an unkillable player
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 23, 2009 10:02:55 GMT -5
Natlaw (1) - Pleonast Pleonast (3) - sinjin, Pollux. BillMc
5 votes start the countdown.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 23, 2009 14:25:07 GMT -5
Input from more players would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 23, 2009 14:33:04 GMT -5
I think MHaye, as a claimed protector, gets a pass as the last to be lynched in the last group. First he puts MHaye in the confirmed town bucket, then suggests giving him a free pass. Do you disagree that MHaye should be the last on the list of four to investigate/lynch? BillMc, do you have an answer to my question?
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jun 23, 2009 15:13:13 GMT -5
Input from more players would be helpful. What kind of input and from who? I know I'd like more imput from you - but you seem to think I'm being silly and that leaves me with little to go on.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 23, 2009 15:32:23 GMT -5
Pleo, explain to me why lynching you again toDay is a bad idea. The uninvestigated are:
Natlaw Pollux MHaye Pleo
IS still has at least two investigations under his belt unless something else weird turns up.
You say a lynch of you is in no way related to the day kills. If this is true and you still can't be killed we lose nothing by lynching you and letting IS make those investigations. Every investigation reduces the chance we will hit town. What do we have to lose by lynching you today?
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 23, 2009 15:56:41 GMT -5
Pleo, explain to me why lynching you again toDay is a bad idea. The uninvestigated are: Natlaw Pollux MHaye Pleo IS still has at least two investigations under his belt unless something else weird turns up. You say a lynch of you is in no way related to the day kills. If this is true and you still can't be killed we lose nothing by lynching you and letting IS make those investigations. Every investigation reduces the chance we will hit town. What do we have to lose by lynching you today? Lynching me today isn't a bad idea, it's just sub-optimal. I'm in the "unknown" pool, so I need to be lynched or investigated. I don't expect an investigation of me will to be very helpful. So lynching me is the only option. The question is ToDay or Tomorrow. Stickler will investigate two of the remaining three. One should be used on the claimed protector, since it would be stupid to lynch him. The other will be used on Natlaw or Pollux, with a lynch used for whichever of those two who isn't investigated. Let's say the consensus is to lynch Pollux (since a lot of you seem to want to trust Natlaw because of his bussing of NAF). Is it more helpful for us to learn Pollux's alignment ToDay or whether Pleonast is unlynchable ToDay? We already know Pleonast was unlynchable before, testing that again gains us only marginally more information. We know nothing about Pollux except his claim. So if we want more info more sooner, it's better to lynch Pollux (or Natlaw) first. But either way, we'll have that same info in two Days. Input from more players would be helpful. What kind of input and from who? I know I'd like more imput from you - but you seem to think I'm being silly and that leaves me with little to go on. I'm looking for more discussion of any kind, but especially about the unknown pool. We'll need to lynch either Natlaw or Pollux, even if we lynch me ToDay. No reason not to start talking about that now. I have no incentives to give any more about myself. And you've given me little information anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 23, 2009 16:48:07 GMT -5
You seem to be indicating that you know that whoever is investigated toNight will turn up town Tomorrow. If IS turns up an ELE member with his investigation we will know who to lynch Tomorrow. Why is your way better?
As far as lynching Pollux or Natlaw, I'm kind of torn. Natlaw has a pretty goofy role and the third groupie appears to be missing. Natlaws jump vote to NAF could have been a gutsy gambit. For me it's a toss-up which one we lynch Tomorrow. But I still want you to go toDay.
Maybe you're the 3rd groupie who went over to the other side when Hammer man died.
|
|
|
Post by Pollux Oil on Jun 23, 2009 20:34:40 GMT -5
Yeah I'm wondering about the third Groupie. I'm starting to think maybe Natlaw is the third Groupie because his role is the least making sense having to do with the movie. Bill's role as the Mayor is also somewhat suspect as a possible recruitment. The third groupie may have just been a red herring all along.
Does anybody else find it weird that it seems like there's only three vanilla town in the game? Sachertorte (dead), Natlaw, and Bill? I'm starting to think maybe the ELE recruitment had something to do with the vanilla people?
Regardless, I still think we should try and kill Pleonast again toNight. We don't know what his condition is to be "recruited" supposedly, so it could have been fulfilled by now. He's the most suspicious on record right now.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jun 23, 2009 23:44:19 GMT -5
Like he's trying to get lynched. Apparently I'm not the only one skimming this game. Poo, you know what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jun 23, 2009 23:48:28 GMT -5
Regardless, I still think we should try and kill Pleonast again toNight. We don't know what his condition is to be "recruited" supposedly, so it could have been fulfilled by now. He's the most suspicious on record right now. This twigs me pretty hard. "Kill" and "toNight" have very specific meanings, very different meanings than "lynch" and "toDay".
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Jun 24, 2009 1:58:08 GMT -5
Um yeah kidV
Unvote: Pleo
Vote: Pollux
|
|
Total Ullz
Administrator
You can take the girl out of mafia - but you can't take mafia out of the girl
Posts: 2,029
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Total Ullz on Jun 24, 2009 3:44:23 GMT -5
Regardless, I still think we should try and kill Pleonast again toNight. We don't know what his condition is to be "recruited" supposedly, so it could have been fulfilled by now. He's the most suspicious on record right now. This twigs me pretty hard. "Kill" and "toNight" have very specific meanings, very different meanings than "lynch" and "toDay". I'm willing to test this with a vote. I agree that Natlaw and his vote on NAF seems like an unlikely thing for scum to do. I know I've been called stupid in other games for thinking the word "kill" instead of "lynch" could be a scum slip. I can see Pollux talking about the vig-killing and therefore saying toNight - if it wasn't for the fact that our vig isn't in the game anymore. Vote Pollux
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jun 24, 2009 7:59:44 GMT -5
Yeah I'm wondering about the third Groupie. I'm starting to think maybe Natlaw is the third Groupie because his role is the least making sense having to do with the movie. Bill's role as the Mayor is also somewhat suspect as a possible recruitment. The third groupie may have just been a red herring all along. Does anybody else find it weird that it seems like there's only three vanilla town in the game? Sachertorte (dead), Natlaw, and Bill? I'm starting to think maybe the ELE recruitment had something to do with the vanilla people? Nowhere did I claim Vanilla. My name and role is MAYOR - as you originally point out and then contradict yourself. Add that to what KidV already pointed out, and it looks very much like you are trying to suspicion elsewhere. Unvote: Pleo Vote: Pollux
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Jun 24, 2009 8:00:00 GMT -5
Do you disagree that MHaye should be the last on the list of four to investigate/lynch? BillMc, do you have an answer to my question? Yes I disagree - given the run around MHaye has given us recently in other games with false claims, I would be all for investigating him sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Jun 24, 2009 8:29:10 GMT -5
Pollux (3) - sinjin, Total Lost, BillMc Natlaw (1) - Pleonast Pleonast (1) - Pollux
5 votes start the countdown.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Jun 24, 2009 10:02:36 GMT -5
Heh, after some players complained that my reason for voting for Total was semantics, it's interesting to see others jumping on Pollux for a similar semantic slip.
I'll be voting for him, but not yet to avoid the countdown.
|
|
|
Post by KidVermicious on Jun 24, 2009 11:16:36 GMT -5
Heh, after some players complained that my reason for voting for Total was semantics, it's interesting to see others jumping on Pollux for a similar semantic slip. I'll be voting for him, but not yet to avoid the countdown. I don't know that it's worth a vote yet, to be honest. It's a data point, but the sort that could easily be nothing. Those of you voting for Pollux, is his "slip" the only reason?
|
|