Tamamono Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You haven't noticed how he's talking only in questions and maybe's (and No a few times)? Obviously there's some sort of trickster. Or Helen's just being a giant douchebag. Either situation is likely. It didn't make a big impact on me since I'm used to seeing rhetorical questions from him. Yeah, I guess a trickster is a viable option. Odd choice for a curse, but I could see it. Why not have everyone claim their alter egos now? I actually wouldn't be averse to this. There are a lot of claims out in the open right now, so as long as nobody reveals their role - just alter ego, I could see it going a-ok. What does everyone else think?
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Did I say, "Didn't you already tell us you didn't vote for Kingsley because you couldn't get your phone to vote?" And then did I quote the other quote and realize they actually matched? Is that what happened? Does it make no sense because I accidentally deleted the first half when I went back to capture the other quote? Is it? I don't think I can follow this train of thought. I never intended to vote for Kingsley. My only vote was for Derek on Day 1. By the time you had explained how to correctly do this, the vote was on for Kingsley, which I didn't feel comfortable doing, so I left my non-counting vote where it was and left the day without voting. As it ended, that bandwagon ended up killing a townie, and a PR at that. I'm not trying to be accusatory with this, just pointing out the facts.
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I don't think I can follow this train of thought. I never intended to vote for Kingsley. My only vote was for Derek on Day 1. By the time you had explained how to correctly do this, the vote was on for Kingsley, which I didn't feel comfortable doing, so I left my non-counting vote where it was and left the day without voting. As it ended, that bandwagon ended up killing a townie, and a PR at that. I'm not trying to be accusatory with this, just pointing out the facts. Didn't I say I already figured that out for myself when I went back to find your first quote?
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 It didn't make a big impact on me since I'm used to seeing rhetorical questions from him. Yeah, I guess a trickster is a viable option. Odd choice for a curse, but I could see it. I actually wouldn't be averse to this. There are a lot of claims out in the open right now, so as long as nobody reveals their role - just alter ego, I could see it going a-ok. What does everyone else think? Do you not think that revealing alter-egos will then possibly reveal those with actions? It seems that those claiming to have actions are those that have been non-monstery monsters. I have no problem giving mine, just my train of thought on the subject.
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Why are people having trouble understanding me???
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Didn't I say I already figured that out for myself when I went back to find your first quote? If you did, I hadn't seen that, so sorry for repeating myself if it wasn't necessary. I'm glad we're all on the same page. Why are people having trouble understanding me??? Yes.
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 It seems that those claiming to have actions are those that have been non-monstery monsters. Do you think it's worth losing PRs to catch the Scum?
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Do you think it's worth losing PRs to catch the Scum? Only if you think that the scum can't hide in the claims. It appears that the monsters aren't just populated with just pure monsters(Werewolf,Dracula,Mummy,etc), so hiding along the fringes is possible, and then nothing has been gained.
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Only if you think that the scum can't hide in the claims. It appears that the monsters aren't just populated with just pure monsters(Werewolf,Dracula,Mummy,etc), so hiding along the fringes is possible, and then nothing has been gained. Isn't that what we have to figure out? And isn't that the risk we would take?
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Isn't that what we have to figure out? And isn't that the risk we would take? It's definitely the risk you take. The question is how willing everybody is to give up the info.
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Mikatta, Pamela, Carl, Giovanni, do you think the question doesn't pertain to you for some reason??
Mencot Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You were keen on voting for Kingsley? Why not then? I can´t say keen but willing but as I said the thread was locked when I returned from a nightssleep, to check all the comments and make up my mind what to do (I live on the other side of the world, so I slept when you were up) Why not have everyone claim their alter egos now? So Helen you are playing hard ball here, the only way (my opinion) this would work is, that everybody (and it means everybody and town has to work toghter here) gives all the info to a person we choose and trust and when it is given the person turns it public. So this way the scum won´t be given many options. But one of the problem here with this is, I don´t know one person yet I would trust that much. But one thing for sure. No more public claiming this early on, that does not work. Helga.. oh sorry Helen stop being such a Bi tch
Hinckley Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 But one thing for sure. No more public claiming this early on, that does not work. Why not? Helga.. oh sorry Helen stop being such a Bi tch Why do you keep insulting me?
Captain Genaro Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Which question are you referring to? Revealing our identities? I tend to think that it's a terrible idea for everyone to come out and publicly state what they are. If they don't pertain to our roles, then what's the point? Catching scum? Hoping they will slip up, claim something wrong and revel their selves? If our roles are relevant to PRs then we really shouldn't reveal them. I'll post a better response in a couple hours. I'm in a bit of a rush right now.
jimmynick Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I can´t say keen You did say "keen" the thread was locked when I returned from a nightssleep Like Helen said, you could have voted earlier. I'm happy to claim my alter-ego, but I'm concerned that a mass claim could give away the faith healers. My point is that Scarecrow is 10 times more monstery than what the Faith Healers have claimed. But, I'm not sure monsteriness is even worth focusing on. It just gives us all something to discuss and react to. If the scarecrow is "10 times more monstery" than the faith healers' alter egos, then scum could guess who they are. Unless many other people here have not-monstery alter egos.
MetroiD Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You don't like the fact that I'm steering everyone the wrong way yet you understand my motives? Can you be any Scummier? First part - no. Second part - yes. Third part - lynch me, to put this gently. Helen - you really need to lay off the wine for the next few hours. Just try it. Here, I'll even give you a free hairdo. Only condition is you sober up first. Want some coffee too? Or would you rather just refrain from communicating with me in the long run? I'm not so certain about Lacey, but I think that a strong case can be made for Melinda. She seemed to act pretty confused about the whole idea of egos/IDs early on yesterday. Pretty much anyone who was reading the thread should have at least been able to come up with a general thought about what was going on. Plus, she made a (weak) case for lynching Sally, then disappeared and never said a thing during the whole Kingsley issue. Does anyone recall seeing Melinda lurking around during that time? Be a dear and go read through the Day threads again. Both of them. Since you'll probably need me to spell it out for you anyway, here goes: my alter-ego is a Monster, and yet, it is pretty human and none too monstrous either. As a matter of fact, at first I actually thought my alter-ego was my role, even though I was given to understand I had no night action in my bio. I haven't played the first chapter, remember? And I try not to metagame... And yes, as you could probably tell, it took me a few hours from Day One to actually get a grasp on things. Seriously though, asking people around to see whether I've been catching up "behind the curtains" and avoiding to post? When I've reiterated that I wouldn't have changed my vote because - surprise surprise - it was the only move that made sense to me by the end of Day One? Oh, and you even call it weak case. When all you've done is - jog my memory? To quote our dearly drunk friend once again, Can you be any Scummier?
Darkdragon Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I disagree with those saying that there were two PR lost yesterday. If we are going by the general idea of PR having not-quite-monster monster alter egos, then Caitie was definitley not a PR. If she was a PR, then that whole theory is out the door. With the scarecrow, I'd say that is a not-quite-monster monster and matches the pattern that Derek suggested and with no public counter-claim (as others have mentioned too) it all seems to fit, so I'm believing his claim. Why wasn't there another kill in the night though? Well there's of course no guarantee that every game has an SK and a vig or that they must kill every night. If they do exist maybe one was blocked, missed turning in his/her action, or just decided not to kill (usually that'd be a vig but i've seen it happen with sk before). I hope we haven't already lost our vig.
Bob Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I find it very odd that Helen continues to say "Hey, let's claim who we are" but hasn't actually done that yet. Oh, here's something else I noticed: Someone needs to hammer Kingsley the starfish. Unless you want a no-lynch, a vote for Kingsley would be appreciated. Sorry, I must have missed yours. This is embarrassing, I combed the the thread at least three times counting and recounting. Sorry! You seemed really really insistent on voting off Kingsley. This is just on the last page of Day 1, I'm not sure if there are more posts like this, but why are you so pushy that we vote him off? One last thing I've noticed: The Starfish or a not vote. And another thing we all remember a Helga... Helga and Helen that is pretty close. Helga was an megablock that was a mindtwister, hopefuly Helen won´t turn up as one!!! Just saying That's some really bad metagaming right there.
Captain Nemo Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Mikatta, Pamela, Carl, Giovanni, do you think the question doesn't pertain to you for some reason?? Maybe. I don't really have a problem with it. It's a possible way to get scum to slip up--and I don't think it gives many advantages to scum.
DarthPotato Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I'm not following you. Are you saying that by revealing your investigation results you would give scum a fix on that person's allignement and thereby making them a target? I don't follow. The scum already know who the town are, so obviously revealing that information won't give them an advantage. Everyone knows you've claimed cop, so there's no more information to be revealed vis a vis that. As others have said, revealing who's town would give the scum a better idea of who to target. They already know enough already. And I also disagree with sharing alter egos at this point. Now that we've had two public claims, I'm sure the scum would be able to piece together how some claims relate to roles. It's just too risky at this point. Last game it worked because there were only like 2 scum left, but this is only Day 2 and no scum have been caught yet.
Piratedave84 Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 I find it very odd that Helen continues to say "Hey, let's claim who we are" but hasn't actually done that yet. Oh, here's something else I noticed: You seemed really really insistent on voting off Kingsley. This is just on the last page of Day 1, I'm not sure if there are more posts like this, but why are you so pushy that we vote him off? One last thing I've noticed: That's some really bad metagaming right there. If you thought that Timmy was so pushy and felt he was eager to lynch Kingsley, why did you hammer the vote? You seemed to agree with Timmy yesterday and even echoed that a lynch was necessary.
LegoDad Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Maybe. I don't really have a problem with it. It's a possible way to get scum to slip up--and I don't think it gives many advantages to scum. I disagree, I think it potentially gives the scum the blueprint to winning the game. Yes, you could get a slip up, but you could also risk getting PR's killed. Obviously the risk is worth it to you, I'm on the fence about it right now. If you thought that Timmy was so pushy and felt he was eager to lynch Kingsley, why did you hammer the vote? You seemed to agree with Timmy yesterday and even echoed that a lynch was necessary. If you thought that Timmy was so pushy and felt he was eager to lynch Kingsley, why did you hammer the vote? You seemed to agree with Timmy yesterday and even echoed that a lynch was necessary. Nice catch.
Tamamono Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 You seemed really really insistent on voting off Kingsley. This is just on the last page of Day 1, I'm not sure if there are more posts like this, but why are you so pushy that we vote him off? He was our only chance for a lynch at that point. I wish he'd flipped scum, but he was a good bet and, at least then, it seemed better than a no-lynch.
Scubacarrot Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 But one thing for sure. No more public claiming this early on, that does not work. Weren't you the one that claimed first and foremost?? You seemed really really insistent on voting off Kingsley. This is just on the last page of Day 1, I'm not sure if there are more posts like this, but why are you so pushy that we vote him off? That's interesting, coming from you, especially since you sealed the deal to vote off Kingsley with only 15 minutes remaining in the deal.
Recommended Posts