Tariq j Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Kintobor said: Would you mind elaborating for us? On which part? I meant to make them as separate points. It's possible the reason there was no kill was due to the scum trying to recruit which has been done a lot in the past. On the other hand though a blocker/protector would have a good chance of stopping a kill as there are less players in the game than usual.
Kintobor Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Tariq j said: On which part? I meant to make them as separate points. It's possible the reason there was no kill was due to the scum trying to recruit which has been done a lot in the past. On the other hand though a blocker/protector would have a good chance of stopping a kill as there are less players in the game than usual. I think I've got the information I need. Thanks. As for your claim that there was a recruitment, it's a line of questioning that'll get us nowhere real fast, so let's hold off on that. On a separate note, I'd like to hear more from Tony. He's been somewhat quiet.
Lady K Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 17 hours ago, jluck said: Huh, weird. I know it feels like a repeat of day 1, but I’m pleased with the turn of events. I’m sure there were some night actions and we also have several decent conversations from yesterday to build off of, all without losing any townies. So what do you take away from yesterday's conversations? 27 minutes ago, Tariq j said: There could even be a recruit at play. I mean in a game this small, a block/protector is more likely to get lucky with 12 players rather than say 17. That's a rather in-depth thought for this early in the game. What makes you think scum would choose to recruit night one instead of kill? I seem to recall in my studies at school that this sort of thing would happen much later in the game after several investigations to clear townies. 6 minutes ago, Tariq j said: On which part? I meant to make them as separate points. It's possible the reason there was no kill was due to the scum trying to recruit which has been done a lot in the past. On the other hand though a blocker/protector would have a good chance of stopping a kill as there are less players in the game than usual. Again, why would the scum recruit so early before investigations could be done to clear jury members? Also why do you think the blocker/protector would have a better chance of stopping a kill now vs say later when there are fewer jury members left? This feels off to me somehow........ 3 hours ago, Kintobor said: I doubt we have a third party, but I think we can safely rule out a Serial Killer. A Serial Killer would've killed last night, so with the murder from both the Bellagio and the Serial Killer, we would've gotten something. Whether we have a vigilante is yet to be seen, although I'm leaning towards their not being one. Now then, onto more pressing matters: let's pick up from yesterday. Oldman and Schauer, if you had to vote for someone right now, who'd it be? There's probably a loophole for exactly this kind of occasion. Why do you feel as there might not be a town vigilante? Could you clarify what you mean please?
Trekkie99 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, Kintobor said: On a separate note, I'd like to hear more from Tony. He's been somewhat quiet. And was eating from an abandoned hotdog cart. What's that all about?
Tariq j Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lady K said: That's a rather in-depth thought for this early in the game. What makes you think scum would choose to recruit night one instead of kill? I seem to recall in my studies at school that this sort of thing would happen much later in the game after several investigations to clear townies. .... Not really sure what's wrong with that. A recruit is a perfectly common scum action which has been used in lots of games. You're correct in saying recruits are generally used later in the game, but there's always a possibility the scum may have used it. 6 minutes ago, Lady K said: Also why do you think the blocker/protector would have a better chance of stopping a kill now vs say later when there are fewer jury members left? This feels off to me somehow........ I didn't, you misunderstood me, what I meant was compare to past games (where we've usually had 16-19 players), if there is a blocker/protector then they have a higher chance of getting lucky because we have fewer players in this game (12). All im doing is trying to suggest reasons why there was no kill last night.
Steamdemon Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said: And was eating from an abandoned hotdog cart. What's that all about? And holding meat. I think it might be indigestion...UNLESS SOMEONE POISONED HIM....
Kintobor Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, Lady K said: Why do you feel as there might not be a town vigilante? Could you clarify what you mean please? The evidence simply isn't there, and I doubt it will be for a few more nights. Vigilantes tend not to strike on night one, where the likelihood of killing a townie is higher as there's less information to go on. I'm not ruling out a vigilante, I just don't think there's one. 3 minutes ago, Tariq j said: All im doing is trying to suggest reasons why there was no kill last night. Brock, who are you going to vote for, because ultimately that's a far more productive train of thought over speculation as to what happened last night. 3 minutes ago, Steamdemon said: And holding meat. I think it might be indigestion...UNLESS SOMEONE POISONED HIM.... You've added nothing of interest or discussion since arriving Jimmy. Who are you going to vote for once voting opens?
Lady K Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said: And was eating from an abandoned hotdog cart. What's that all about? Any thoughts about yesterday's conversations or lack of scum kill last night? 2 minutes ago, Steamdemon said: And holding meat. I think it might be indigestion...UNLESS SOMEONE POISONED HIM.... I know this is your first day of jury duty; what are your thoughts so far on the trial and crime family members kidding amongst us? 4 minutes ago, Tariq j said: Not really sure what's wrong with that. A recruit is a perfectly common scum action which has been used in lots of games. You're correct in saying recruits are generally used later in the game, but there's always a possibility the scum may have used it. I didn't, you misunderstood me, what I meant was compare to past games (where we've usually had 16-19 players), if there is a blocker/protector then they have a higher chance of getting lucky because we have fewer players in this game (12). All im doing is trying to suggest reasons why there was no kill last night. Much later in the trail would make more sense to me for scum to use that action. Thank you for clearing that up. I understand what you were comparing now. 4 minutes ago, Kintobor said: The evidence simply isn't there, and I doubt it will be for a few more nights. Vigilantes tend not to strike on night one, where the likelihood of killing a townie is higher as there's less information to go on. I'm not ruling out a vigilante, I just don't think there's one. Brock, who are you going to vote for, because ultimately that's a far more productive train of thought over speculation as to what happened last night. You've added nothing of interest or discussion since arriving Jimmy. Who are you going to vote for once voting opens? Thank you for clarifying. I agree that a wise vigilante won't kill night one due to the kill almost always being an innocent townie; however I don't see why town wouldn't have one. We should know in another night or two.
Steamdemon Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 Who am I voting for? Tina. Definitely Tina. As for my thoughts on Crime family members amongst us, It just makes me want to bulldoze everything Bellagio owns.
Trekkie99 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, Lady K said: Any thoughts about yesterday's conversations or lack of scum kill last night? Not really. I'm a little befuddled. I probably don't no what I'm talking about, but despite all this talk of blocking and recruiting, Is there any chance that the scum wouldn't cast a vote?
jluck Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 33 minutes ago, Tariq j said: Not really sure what's wrong with that. A recruit is a perfectly common scum action which has been used in lots of games. You're correct in saying recruits are generally used later in the game, but there's always a possibility the scum may have used it. I didn't, you misunderstood me, what I meant was compare to past games (where we've usually had 16-19 players), if there is a blocker/protector then they have a higher chance of getting lucky because we have fewer players in this game (12). All im doing is trying to suggest reasons why there was no kill last night. I’ve seen both tactics of recruiting used (early and late in game) so I don’t think it’s a theory we can write off, however, it doesn’t help us if it’s true. Since we’ve not really cleared anyone a recruit action doesn’t change much. 2 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said: Not really. I'm a little befuddled. I probably don't no what I'm talking about, but despite all this talk of blocking and recruiting, Is there any chance that the scum wouldn't cast a vote? It happens on occasion. I’ve seen a few odd games where the scum can only kill certain nights or can do other actions instead of killing. I believe on one or two occasions I’ve seen teams skip a kill to cause confusion though that’s usually later in the game. I’m still holding on my suspicions of Cathy, I don’t wanna through away all my thoughts from day 1.
Kintobor Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, Steamdemon said: Who am I voting for? Tina. Definitely Tina. Mind elaborating why you want to vote for Tina?
Steamdemon Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 Tina's been too quiet today. Of course, that could be for a multitude of reasons. But for me, something feels off about her. However, I may change my vote once I feel I can make a decision.
KotZ Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 1 hour ago, LegoMonorailFan said: I probably don't no what I'm talking about, but despite all this talk of blocking and recruiting, Is there any chance that the scum wouldn't cast a vote? Skip a vote, or skip a kill? Those are two different things. Skipping a kill is entirely possible. Skipping a vote, no. 58 minutes ago, jluck said: It happens on occasion. I’ve seen a few odd games where the scum can only kill certain nights or can do other actions instead of killing. I believe on one or two occasions I’ve seen teams skip a kill to cause confusion though that’s usually later in the game. Do you think they'd try that tactic this early? Or we just got lucky in the night?
jluck Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, KotZ said: Skip a vote, or skip a kill? Those are two different things. Skipping a kill is entirely possible. Skipping a vote, no. Do you think they'd try that tactic this early? Or we just got lucky in the night? Pure speculation at this point but I tend towards the simple explanation until it’s shown to be untrue. So in this case my assumption is they were prevented from killing or chose a different action. It seems unlikely there’d be some complex system in place and a recruit is unlikely on day 1 as the scum would miss a lot of the advantages of recruiting e.g. recruiting a trusted townie.
Trekkie99 Posted January 17, 2018 Posted January 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, KotZ said: Skip a vote, or skip a kill? Those are two different things. Skipping a kill is entirely possible. Skipping a vote, no. I meant kill.
Lady K Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, jluck said: I’ve seen both tactics of recruiting used (early and late in game) so I don’t think it’s a theory we can write off, however, it doesn’t help us if it’s true. Since we’ve not really cleared anyone a recruit action doesn’t change much. It happens on occasion. I’ve seen a few odd games where the scum can only kill certain nights or can do other actions instead of killing. I believe on one or two occasions I’ve seen teams skip a kill to cause confusion though that’s usually later in the game. I’m still holding on my suspicions of Cathy, I don’t wanna through away all my thoughts from day 1. With Cathy dismissed due to illness why would you still be suspicious of her? 57 minutes ago, Steamdemon said: Tina's been too quiet today. Of course, that could be for a multitude of reasons. But for me, something feels off about her. However, I may change my vote once I feel I can make a decision. Tina has been quiet today, but so has Amanda. What are your thoughts about yesterday's conversations? Tina and Amanda, any thoughts for us?
jluck Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lady K said: With Cathy dismissed due to illness why would you still be suspicious of her? Tina has been quiet today, but so has Amanda. What are your thoughts about yesterday's conversations? Tina and Amanda, any thoughts for us? Cuz the character wouldn’t change allegiance even after being replaced. So if Cathy was acting suspicious yesterday to the point of me thinking she was possibly scum then Jimmy is going to start in the same position. Unfortunately for Jimmy, I can’t forget the actions of his predecessor.
Lady K Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 8 minutes ago, jluck said: Cuz the character wouldn’t change allegiance even after being replaced. So if Cathy was acting suspicious yesterday to the point of me thinking she was possibly scum then Jimmy is going to start in the same position. Unfortunately for Jimmy, I can’t forget the actions of his predecessor. True the alliance won't change, however we don't know if how she acted was due to being new or due to alliance. I'm not sure four fluffy posts (as you pointed out yesterday) is enough to go on for suspicious behavior; after all that is typical Day 1 of the trial. Maybe you could elaborate for us on why you are still suspicious of Cathy.
Steamdemon Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 1 minute ago, jluck said: Cuz the character wouldn’t change allegiance even after being replaced. So if Cathy was acting suspicious yesterday to the point of me thinking she was possibly scum then Jimmy is going to start in the same position. Unfortunately for Jimmy, I can’t forget the actions of his predecessor. Right, so guilty by association? If you think that, you've got a few bricks loose. 22 minutes ago, Lady K said: With Cathy dismissed due to illness why would you still be Tina has been quiet today, but so has Amanda. What are your thoughts about yesterday's conversations? Confusing, to say the least.
jluck Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 28 minutes ago, Lady K said: True the alliance won't change, however we don't know if how she acted was due to being new or due to alliance. I'm not sure four fluffy posts (as you pointed out yesterday) is enough to go on for suspicious behavior; after all that is typical Day 1 of the trial. Maybe you could elaborate for us on why you are still suspicious of Cathy. I found her suspicious on day 1. So did several others. At the end of day 1 she was still suspicious. Nothing changed from day 1 til now, so I still find that character role suspicious. 26 minutes ago, Steamdemon said: Right, so guilty by association? If you think that, you've got a few bricks loose. Confusing, to say the least. Unfortunately Jimmy, until I’ve seen your actions speak for themselves I must continue to judge you based on what I know about Cathy. I thought Cathy acted scummy and you are now (for all intents and purposes) her role.
Lady K Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 24 minutes ago, jluck said: I found her suspicious on day 1. So did several others. At the end of day 1 she was still suspicious. Nothing changed from day 1 til now, so I still find that character role suspicious. Unfortunately Jimmy, until I’ve seen your actions speak for themselves I must continue to judge you based on what I know about Cathy. I thought Cathy acted scummy and you are now (for all intents and purposes) her role. Ok, but I was asking for your reasons from yesterday restated here for us to see. As for the end of day 1 of the trial, here is what it looked like: Final Vote Count: 4 votes for Harry Oldman (fhomess): Tariq j, LegoMonorailFan, Umbra-Manis, Forresto 3 votes for Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan): KotZ, Drunknok, Lady K 3 votes for Cathy Bridger (Drunknok): jluck, Kintober, Khscarymovie4 1 vote for Stephanie Diaz (Lady K): Kwatchi 1 vote for Dez Hunter (Forresto): Fhomess Nonvoting (0): So Tony is saying several others found Cathy suspicious. I see three here that three voted for Cathy; Amanda (who has been quiet all day) and Gary do you both still find Cathy's behavior from yesterday suspicious?
Lady K Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said: I thought she was suspicious. I just reviewed Day 1 of the trial and I did see where you stated (later on) that you found her suspicious (after others had stated the same thing); the difference is these three found her suspicious enough to vote for her. You still voted Harry. If you found her more suspicious then why didn't you change your vote to her?
Kintobor Posted January 18, 2018 Posted January 18, 2018 33 minutes ago, Lady K said: So Tony is saying several others found Cathy suspicious. I see three here that three voted for Cathy; Amanda (who has been quiet all day) and Gary do you both still find Cathy's behavior from yesterday suspicious? I still think Cathy was suspicious, especially after seemingly disappearing near the end of the day to not answer the questions levied against her, although with her being sick, it's possible that her illness forced her away from jury duty.
Recommended Posts