EBWOP:Oh wow we're on five already, my bad qwints. I'll post something like a promised so =P
---
Analysis of Pages (1-5)
Xyl, Post 9 wrote:Vote: zwetschenwasser
This guy is in every game I'm in, and he sucks at all of them. I want to see him dead in the first five pages. Go!
I assume this was a joke vote, still it had me worried since he seemed to show a dislike for Zwet. I guess I was fearing there could be a mislynch (since we had just began).
Xyl, Post 16 wrote:Voting people for putting a second (actually third) vote on is stupid, it just makes it harder to build bandwagons.
Mafiaplayer dies right after zwet.
This one could be more serious, I believe it was later proven he meant it. Line one I agree with but line two is narrow sighted. His hunches are appearing to be Holy ones and 'the answers to all our prayers'.
I don't think its as scummy as it is eager to lead town being honest.
qwints, Post 23 wrote:I would suggest that random voting is not going to gain us anything in a game like this because only masons have extra information.
I'd argue the masons should mass claim
. Let's narrow our focus while we can.
I know this risks them being nk'd but I think two factors will prevent this.
1) Power roles are robust - it takes two kills to stop them working.
2) An unknown mason pair could prove very dangerous after the shift.
3) Killing the soulshifter as fast as possible maximizes our chances of winning.
Really it speaks for itself. Those who encourage mass claims in a setup like this are either the SK themselves or else just unknowingly helping the SK had this idea been accepted.
Xyl, Post 24 wrote:This is an absolutely horrible idea. The masons can claim if they're going to be lynched. There's no reason to claim them early; it messes up reactions and gives the scum info on who to kill.
PhilyEc, Post 27 wrote:Agreed! If we mass claim, SK will claim with his mason buddy and he'll as well know who have the rest of the roles, thus being able to pick off powers very quickly and in a manor that leaves the last powers obsolete.
Masons will gain no info and scum will need to know everything possible to win ze game.
Nobody claim.
qwints, Post 28 wrote:I don't think masons should claim their roles
and I don't think it's even necessary for them to claim their partners.
Seems his theory shot out the window, the change in opinion so quickly is dodgy but I doubt an SK is dumb enough to get so involved so early, thus hes a non-suspect at the moment.
Zwet seems to agree with Xyl pretty strongly.
Mafiaplayer, Post 31 wrote:Policy lynches are silly because they essentially require no information, and may just kill newbtown. This is all the more likely considering that there's only one scum.
*Sprinkles with townpoints* Perhaps later I'll see why Jazz thinks hes worthy of a lynch. (Though he IS pointing out the obvious)
PhilyEc, Post 32 wrote: Anonymous Docs on 1 of the two investigators = Safest way to ensure long term investigating and increases chances of finding scum.
Okay, I thought this was the best strategy to take. Scum would have to be lucky enough to hit the doctors twice (assuming that role is in the game) and since only one person has claimed (being a cop role) we can develop long term protection of him as he weeds out one person after another~
Jazz, Post 36 wrote:I, too, disagree with the idea of masons claiming. I also think it's too early for anyone else to claim. I would suggest that we just play the game as usual for now and leave claims to a later date.
Zwets is the best candidate for a policy lynch that I have ever seen (next to killaseven and DrippingGoofball). But I don't really like policy lynches much, so I'll have to think about it some more.
Its a pretty townie response ^
AceMarksman, Post 46 wrote:I'm leaning heavily towards qwints being scum and, as much as I would like to see a zwet policy lynch, I think we should persue him. Especially considering this-
qwints wrote:I'd argue the masons should mass claim.
qwints wrote:I don't think masons should claim their roles and I don't think it's even necessary for them to claim their partners.
1) yes, let's reveal exactly whom our power roles are to the scum.
2) what good would a mason claim be if they didn't claim their partners? All that would do would severly narrow the scum's power role pool and royally screw the town over.
Thus: Unvote
Vote: qwints
+Scum Points
Ace is noming on that scum food far too keenly. Issue had been dealt with yet hes digging up corpses now.
Mafiaplayer, Post 48 wrote:Okay. Anyone who's not paired with someone else, claim. Now. Please.
*facepalm*
MafiaSSK, Post 49 wrote:Me.
*OmniFacepalm*
Jazz, Post 50 wrote:Vote: Mafiaplayer
For what should be obvious reasons.
Here I think Jazz's scumdar is out of whack. MP did say something a lil illogical but I dont see it as an SK move. Rather theyre waiting to invest their opinion into a wagon that'll never derail.
---
Pitstop, Post 61 wrote:I thought I would put it out there that I, too, am not in a Mason pair, which surprised me because I thought all Townies were, but maybe I misread?
Xyl, Post 62 wrote:I guess I don't get to kill zwetschenwasser yet this game.
But that's okay,
I found the SK
. We've already established that not all townies are masons; he's trying to act dumb in the hope that an early townie claim will clear him. It won't work.
unvote zwetschenwasser
vote Pitstop
I've just got to say, that bolded line is exactly what made the next few votes happen. I think people have alot of faith in your deduction skills and want to follow in your lead but You're really stretching that single line to justify a vote in my opinion.
Gorrad, Post 63 wrote:Don't you think you're jumping to conclusions a bit there, Xyl? Sure, Pitstop's post doesn't look good, but I think you may be going overboard.
Though it does help and seems very reasonable, I dont think much effort was put into explanation. Flimsy arguement, perhaps wants to preset something to quote incase a lynch occured. WIFOMing in my head, apologies.
---
2 votes for Xyl, from PhilyEc and Pitstop.
PhilyEc, P65 wrote:Basically you're jumpin' the gun too quick here. I thought MafiaPlayer was your second target.
Pitstop, P66 wrote:You're playing this game as if you already know who is who. Like srsly wtf, you vote me for a weak reason and now you assume you know everybody's role?
Both arguements float around the same area. I doubt shes town in all seriousness but then afterwards, RBT, MafiaSSK and qwints all jump onboard the no-room-for-stops-Pitstop-express-wagon.
AceMarksman, Post 75 wrote:THAT"S EVEN WORSE THAN MAKING OUR MASON PAIRS CLAIM! It cuts down on the power pool that the SK has to chose from without giving the town ANY information at all.
-Xyl, jumping the gun, a little? Explain your vote better, it seems rather baseless at the moment.
-Phily, way too early to cast your vote there. Keeping my eye on you.
-Pitstop, your vote is OMGUS, plain and simple. Unvote or my foot vote will make a pitstop in your ass.
-jazz, you aren't making much contribution to this game. All I've seen from you are just "peanut gallery" comments that don't add much. Do you have a case on anyone? Whom do you find most scummy?
-MSSK, do you have any opinions on other players?
Seems like the general pro-town question board.
Was he answered?
If not, did he care?
PhilyEc, Post 76 wrote:The way I see it, Pitstop simply didn't read the rules throughly, Xyl is trying to take advantage of a simple error in logic on her part and using Rule #37 as an excuse to lynch her. I'm not biting though 3 others have already. Best to step back and develop your own individual opinion of her posts first, mine are made.
AceMarksman, Post 77 wrote:everyone in my first three points cast their vote too early. If I had to guess, I would say Xyl's vote is the scummiest.
Ace and Phily both think Xyl is scummiest at that time, but Ace never puts down a vote. I wonder why. (+ SP)
---
Semantics arguement all the way down to the bottom of the page along with Zwet's vote for me and Ace/MafiaP voting for Zwet. I feel loved
---
Jazz, Post 103 wrote:MafiaSSK was the third player to purport to believe that all players in the game were in pairs, and in his post #40,
he said that "there has to be one townie with SK". Yet, in his very next post (#49) he said that he is not paired with anyone.
Sorry, but these two posts just
do not reconcile.
How can a player who purports to believe that everyone is paired with another (following the careless play by Phily) then say that he is not aligned with anyone?
One of these statements cannot be true.
Then, in his very next post (#67),
he jumped on the Pitstop wagon
that had started formulating.
More in a while about some of the other goings-on during the day, but that's enough for me to:
Unvote: Mafiaplayer
Vote: MafiaSSK
I think this is the most accurate shot at SK we've had this entire game and I'm seeing a very strong analytical side to Jazz. (Lets hope shes truely with us
)
I'd feel inclined to vote for Ace or Mafia at this point but the embolded text is why I'd totally agree that MafiaSSK is doing so heavy active lurking. His comments so far dont constitute as much.
---
qwints wrote:PhilyEC, please provide your analysis of events instead of simply recounting what has happened
Done.