Help
Well, fuck. Group H is gonna stay interesting till the bitter end. I was hoping we'd clinch it.
the other game-related stuff: I don't see the merit in a Cast lynch atm. The fact that Barg and Grasp are pushing it just makes me more wary of doing that.
Either Rash or Dem will have to hammer, cuz I ain't
[2]
Mafia 105: Ghoul Gulch - Game Thread Yes, the game thread.
#2346
Nimander Golit 
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:50 PM
I don't see any lurkers, just empty thread...
[0]
[0]
#2348
Meanas
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05-October 08
Posted 10 September 2013 - 11:15 PM
Nimander Golit, on 10 September 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:
I don't see any lurkers, just empty thread...
[0]
[0]
Meant low posters
(2)
Edit: stupid double posting phone. Plz delete
This post has been edited by Meanas: 10 September 2013 - 11:16 PM
#2352
Denul
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
[1]
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
[1]
This post has been edited by Denul: 11 September 2013 - 03:23 AM
#2353
Meanas
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05-October 08
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
#2354
Grasp
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:20 AM
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
Jalan's a big maybe. He flip-flopped on his story back and forth quite a bit, claiming first to be a victim then claiming he was gonna triple-cross everyone all along, so who knows.
The next one though, yeah.
[0]
#2355
Denul
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:22 AM
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
I understand there were shenanigans. But he's dead, and wasn't insane, so its a different situation
[1]
This post has been edited by Denul: 11 September 2013 - 03:22 AM
#2356
Denul
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:23 AM
Grasp, on 11 September 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
Jalan's a big maybe. He flip-flopped on his story back and forth quite a bit, claiming first to be a victim then claiming he was gonna triple-cross everyone all along, so who knows.
The next one though, yeah.
[0]
Also this.
[1]
#2357
Meanas
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05-October 08
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:26 AM
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
I understand there were shenanigans. But he's dead, and wasn't insane, so its a different situation
[1]
Point being, you suspect Cast is the one causing shenanigans. fair enough
I think it's more likely they are linked to people who benefited from them. Who's right? only time (and spoilers) will tell.
#2358
Grasp
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 20-March 13
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:31 AM
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
I understand there were shenanigans. But he's dead, and wasn't insane, so its a different situation
[1]
Point being, you suspect Cast is the one causing shenanigans. fair enough
I think it's more likely they are linked to people who benefited from them. Who's right? only time (and spoilers) will tell.
I posit that his role, the likely nature and cost (cheat, which he has a lot of compared to most roles) of an ability that would manipulate the lynch like that, the possible duplicity he used yesterday and his reluctance to garner attention relating to the lynch process in previous days, despite definitely not being insane as we saw yesterday, all of that would be good reasons why he has the lynch manipulation mechanic, and it's all irrefutable, but not concrete.
The problem with who benefits from the lynches is that [a] we don't know how the lynch shenanigans work, so we can't say if the people being shown on thread are even benefitting at all - certainly the increased suspicion is not good for them! - and [b] that argument is still full of WIFOM, as who is to say he doesn't pick other people on purpose to distract from himself and make it more incredulous.
[0]
#2360
Meanas
- Recruit
-
- Group: Game alts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 05-October 08
Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:37 AM
Grasp, on 11 September 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:
Meanas, on 11 September 2013 - 03:09 AM, said:
Denul, on 11 September 2013 - 02:42 AM, said:
Sorry my participation has dropped, I've been really busy. Basically my logic is this:
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
If we elect cast, and he dies, all good.
If we elect cast, and shenanigans happen, we know we need to target him with NA's, and should probably look elsewhere, as the shenanigans, i assume, will continue should we keep trying to lynch cast.
If we don't elect cast, then we leave soneone who hurts all on their tile, and who is a wildcard in the gane. I don't like leaving wildcards on the table unless there is good reason, IE continued shenanigans on one target.
You all seem to ignore the fact that there were voting shenanigans before Cast... sigh.
I guess everyone already forgot about Jalan....
I understand there were shenanigans. But he's dead, and wasn't insane, so its a different situation
[1]
Point being, you suspect Cast is the one causing shenanigans. fair enough
I think it's more likely they are linked to people who benefited from them. Who's right? only time (and spoilers) will tell.
I posit that his role, the likely nature and cost (cheat, which he has a lot of compared to most roles) of an ability that would manipulate the lynch like that, the possible duplicity he used yesterday and his reluctance to garner attention relating to the lynch process in previous days, despite definitely not being insane as we saw yesterday, all of that would be good reasons why he has the lynch manipulation mechanic, and it's all irrefutable, but not concrete.
The problem with who benefits from the lynches is that [a] we don't know how the lynch shenanigans work, so we can't say if the people being shown on thread are even benefitting at all - certainly the increased suspicion is not good for them! - and [b] that argument is still full of WIFOM, as who is to say he doesn't pick other people on purpose to distract from himself and make it more incredulous.
[0]
a) there are numerous roles that may fill the description--not cheat per se, but we have a bunch of whacked-out magick-users who are Voodoo-themed to boot. manipulation doesn't seem unlikely.
B ) yes, it's wifom. but the fact that the interest in dealing with Cast was spearheaded by those beneficiaries, especially at the stage where Cast is revealed as insane (and irrelevant to VCs. and let's face it, for some parties, this is the endgame) does seem a bit too convenient of a timing.
meh. In any case, this is moot until Taps wakes up tomorrow.
This post has been edited by Meanas: 11 September 2013 - 03:37 AM
