It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
trentonlf: Carrion you are awesome LOL
Going to have fun with this, one way or another. ;)
avatar
Vitek: @JMich; what's your overall take on "too-many-blockers" situation?
Something smells fishy, as we've already discussed previously. 2 roleblockers is unlikely, but possible, but now we have 3 possible ones, assuming everyone is telling the truth.

avatar
Vitek: What do you think of drealmer and agent?
I still don't like drealmer7's RP posting, especially since it seems to be spreading. The ability sounds weird, and possibly bogus, and the staggered reveals (I can investigate someone that took part in a crisis. I can learn something. I can find out if they tried to sabotage it or not) doesn't really help. It is possible that it is a town role, so he does have the benefit of doubt for now.
As for agentcarr16, I will need to reread his posts. His claim of being blocked sounds false, mostly due to the amount of blockers that requires. Unless HijacK is lying though, which would mean there are 2 blockers (more likely than 3)

avatar
Vitek: What about HijacK?
I certainly dislike how he justifies not using his power. Too many assumptions, without reason to think them on night 1.

avatar
Vitek: Do you think both agent and Hijack are telling truth?
My guess would be that at least one of them is lying. I guess it would be relatively easy to verify their claims, so I'll wait for next day before going after either of them.

avatar
Vitek: If not who is the most likely scum here?
Not sure. Both claimed a bit easily, and neither has a night action that could be verified. I hope I'll manage to do a proper re-read this week, but not sure if I'll manage it.

avatar
drealmer7: Yeah, that's what I suggested and asked about people's views on way back before and you jumped on my case and pretty much put your foot down that a no-lynch scenario was had NOTHING GOOD AT ALL that could come of it (and then you voted contradictory to that stance.)
You do notice that I called the no lynch a bad situation, right? It's like saying that the benefit of losing the flight from east to west coast is that you can do a road trip.
So, intentionally going for no lynch (as in voting for it) is a very bad idea. Being indifferent to getting a lynch (not voting anyone) is not quite the same. Now, for voting someone just to get a lynch or not getting a lynch, it is not as clear cut. Not caring about who gets lynched is quite scummy (or serial killer-y), so it is a different can of worms altogether.
So, to summarize. Try to get a lynch. Vote for whoever you find scummier. Try to convince others as to why your target is the best one. Do change your target if there is a chance to lynch one of your other suspects. Ask yourself if lynching one you don't think as scum is worth it or not. Small distinctions, and no clear guide.
avatar
yogsloth: The problem is that I’m being asked to believe that HijacK made the reasonable play.
Pls. I'm the best strategist there is. Just because you got a skewed ass view due to Chuck Norris reasons it doesn't mean that's a valid argument. I'm the MVP.

avatar
yogsloth: We also have to consider the timing of the claim – why claim unprovoked?
Because I wanted to confront him about his ability. You see, it's a rare occurrence that someone is like: yup, I roleblocked X during the night. Oh, it turns out he was an investigative role. ----> Not suspicious at all /endsarcasm.
But then I slept on it and I reasoned I should just watch JMich. His actions didn't seem anti-town, but maybe he's just a master faker.

avatar
yogsloth: To me, this claim is difficult to swallow
Nobody asked you to swallow.... Just sayin'.

avatar
Vitek: @HijacK; What about you?
What about me?

avatar
Vitek: What do you make of JMich and drealmer?
See, this is what I find funny. I make the right call not to fuck up with potential investigative roles and people call me scummy. JMich does it, because oh, based on day 1 analysis drealmer was scummy, drealmer turns out to be some kind of weird cop (whether scum or town still to be decided though most having him towards town), and nobody criticizes this action. Sure. Doesn't look wrong at all. /endsarcasm
Individually, I don't have serious reasons to find JMich scum yet, outside of the usual scum role. And for all I know there is a second roleblock that has not been caused by me, so I am curious. The possibility of another blocker or JOAT is what gives me a stop for now. I don't want JMich today. This and I have a plan of how to check adalia's claim.
Drealmer is bleh. No idea. His actions are in between towny and scummy. Makes decent points, but too much fence sitting. And latches onto the smallest of things. And he reminds me of bler a little. Give him some flavor and RP and he'll go in places that you wouldn't thought possible. I'm curious to hear his findings though, unless of course he happens to be roleblocked. Again!

avatar
Vitek: What about agent?
Biased. Makes terrible points. Looks scummy. Debating whether vote-worthy.

avatar
Vitek: Do you think both agent and JMich can be telling truth?
Possibly. I've seen weirder shit. For all I know nobody took in consideration the possibility of a JOAT in the game. Whether I believe both of them at the moment is debatable.

avatar
Vitek: If not who is the most likely scum here?
Hard to say. Both, one, none? It all depends. I lack information here.

What about you, Vitek?
avatar
HijacK: I'm the best strategist there is.
Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player.
avatar
JMich: Unless HijacK is lying though, which would mean there are 2 blockers (more likely than 3)
Nope. Who else sees the flaw? No, I am not going to elaborate.
avatar
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player.
Oh, like role-blocking drealmer?

SHA BLOW.

Saved and noted for end game.
Unvote: flubbucket
Vote: yogsloth

Reasons are still for sissies.
avatar
Krypsyn: Unvote: adaliabooks
Vote: flubbucket

Reasons are for sissies.
Well there is the default reason.

The guy's a dick.

avatar
HijacK: ...........
maybe he's just a master faker.

...........
Giggle....weener joke.

avatar
HijacK: I'm the best strategist there is.
avatar
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player.
Agreed.

That's why he's got my Vote.
avatar
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player.
Ha! I was expecting that to grind your gears a bit. But not so much to cause you to say "Bull." Game full of achievements, I see.

@all: I recall a certain possibility for JOAT's to have 1 shot roleblocks. Nobody find it likely one such JOAT may exist among us?
avatar
flubbucket: Well there is the default reason.

The guy's a dick.
I think you quoted the wrong vote there. Although, yogsloth has been quite nice this game ... maybe too nice?!! *dun Dun DUN* (I used this reason Day 1, so it doesn't count!)

also:

Unvote: yogsloth
Vote: drealmer7

Raisins are for muffins.
Pre-post note: Yes, some people may have already talked about these things. I'm going to type up my responses while catching up on the thread, and I may decide not to remove my response just because someone else already said something similar. Don't like it? Then "Sucks to Your Assmar." (TM)

avatar
drealmer7: Nah, I like how you are playing, I was just quite perturbed by your claims of not having followed well enough to make any contributions when you joined; not sure I really believe it, you know? Also fishy that you were wanting the next crisis to occur, but of course that can be explained away by the curiousity from a gameplay standpoint.
As I stated previously, I didn't anticipate actually being tapped to join the game (especially with Adalia ahead of me in the replacement queue), so I didn't concern myself with actively trying to solve the game. doubly so since I wouldn't have any mechanism of investigating anything; from the outside it would be more like watching a movie or reading a book.

And yes, I do rather enjoy investigating the mechanical ideas of these games. You can count me among the apparently small number of players that are curious about the possible failure effects, though I don't want to actually incur them if they will harm town. If they'll harm only scum, then lets fail the crap out of some crises!

avatar
JMich: 2 blocked claims, 2 role blocker claims, 1 missing role blocker. Speculation on the affiliation of the blockers and the blocked ones. Extrapolation from result of those, should any of them be lynched.
Not as good a day 2 as we could have had, not as bad one either.
avatar
drealmer7: Oh, so there are advantages to a no-lynch. Got it.
With a lynch, we'd have had all the things JMich indicated unless we lynched JMich, Hijack, or someone else that turned up some sort of blocking role (in which case the night results can be adjusted accordingly, such as "confirmed" instead of "claimed"). We'd also have another confirmed player, even if they are dead. We might even have killed a scum (no lynch = no chance of that).

avatar
CarrionCrow: Something that's bugged me from the start, and I feel a bit badly for having to latch this onto Bookworm since they're a replacement, but it's still annoying me.

Way back in post 210, I made a silly comment to Crewdroog. Still screwing around, no expectation of getting any info based on it.
On post 220, she responds in a way that makes me think of a deer in headlights every time I read it. No characteristic silliness on her part, no pleasant smartass retorts, just a total verbal lockup. That's been bugging me ever since she did it.

Additional - typo'd, had to fix it. Penalize at will, it'll drive me up a wall if I leave it as it was.
I don't know where she might have kept any sharp objects she may or may not have had. I do not keep any I may or may not have under a bunny ear hat...probably. I don't think her reaction means anything more than your question did. Though if we want to look into this, did you answer her return question? I haven't checked, so I don't actually know the answer to this question of mine.

avatar
JMich: Yes. A couple of options.
1) agentcarr16 is telling the truth about being blocked. That means that we either have a 3rd role capable of blocking that did the blocking, or that HijacK did indeed block agentcarr
2) agentcarr16 is lying. So no idea about a roleblocker existing or not.
You've abandoned the redirector/bus driver option?

avatar
CarrionCrow: Like I said...perfectly sensible. They're playing the same character, but give it a pass just because.
Apparently I'm more convincing as town thus far. If nothing else, I talk more than she did; it means more chances for me to make a(n actual) scum slip and lynch me for better reasons. Were there particular comments from Crewdroog that bothered you, Crow? I know she revealed a little PM based info (I made sure to reread what she posted early, so I know what she's already put out there), but not much. If it isn't particular posts that concern someone, then why wouldn't their view change as they see how I act? That would be sort of like if she had continued, but become more convincing as a town player.

avatar
drealmer7: but will if you do it again, claimed intentional OR accidental.
Drealmer: Underlining in the quote is mine. One general rule my extended family tries to observe when playing any game: be wary of being a hard-ass about rules, because it could very well come back to haunt you.

More generally: Personally, I'm going to trust Quad to sort it out to the best of his ability, and I'll try to roll with whatever he chooses. Thus far, everything I've seen indicates he's trying to keep things on an even keel for us.

avatar
JMich: Bull. Your jailer play proves it. The best strategist play would be using the power on a correct player. And the "best strategist there is" would be able to choose the correct player.
avatar
yogsloth: Oh, like role-blocking drealmer?
The difference is that JMich isn't claiming to be the best strategist there is.

On the flip side, Hijack could actually be the best strategist there is, and everyone else is just worse than he is (and no, I don't think this is true). That would be...unfortunate...for the rest of us, but theoretically possible.
avatar
flubbucket: Agreed.

That's why he's got my Vote.
Who's the one that didn't screw things up? Let me hear it! Let me hear it!
<------------------------------------
*slam dunks*
*Commentator* AAAAND THE CROWD GOES CRAAAZYYYY!

avatar
Krypsyn: Raisins are for muffins.
But I'm a cookie!
avatar
HijacK: But I'm a cookie!
Valid point.

Unvote: drealmer7
Vote: adaliabooks

The guy's a dick. ;)
avatar
Bookwyrm627: On the flip side, Hijack could actually be the best strategist there is, and everyone else is just worse than he is (and no, I don't think this is true). That would be...unfortunate...for the rest of us, but theoretically possible.
You're entitled to your own wrong opinion.
avatar
Krypsyn:
Ain't happenin' Krypy. I voted for myself and it isn't working!

If we aren't going to lynch me before the crisis event can we at least lynch Bookwrym? Not only does he have his claim all ready to go and a desire for the event to occur, the real gem was suggesting it might be a GOOD thing to fail one! No, really, if we fail one (Quad said in the OP that consequences could be as severe as a townie death) it could actually be bad for scum! He said that.