|
On July 23 2010 14:27 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Before this day turns into a giant flame fest like the last few pages.
I took a hit last night. Holy crud. This is the info I was talking about. Wait a second... then how did two people die. and a third got hit? Was there a vigilante?
Has to be a vigilante shot. There is no sign of a Mad Hatter death...
Which raises two pertinent questions:
1) Which one of the hits was a Vigilante shot?
2) Was the shot a lone shot in an attempt to be a hero, or was it directed?
Compiling Roffles' and Jayme's posts. I don't really recall much of them during this game between everything else going on, but they both seemed semi-inactive. I guess this was a blue-sniping night...
|
On July 23 2010 14:27 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:26 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Before this day turns into a giant flame fest like the last few pages.
I took a hit last night. Holy crud. This is the info I was talking about. Wait a second... then how did two people die. and a third got hit? Was there a vigilante?
Had to have been a vigilante or BC is lying. Mad hatter would have shown up dead. Bomber would have shown up dead. Assuming BC is telling the truth we can't tell if he was hit by a vigi or the reds. I'd think BC would be more likely to attract a vigi hit since he has been more suspicious than roffles/jayme. Although Jayme has been mentioned for inactivity.
Whoever the vigi is, you are normal townie now, so I think it would be okay to claim so we can at least have some more info about what went down.
|
On July 23 2010 14:29 Subversion wrote:
Shit. Someone suicided bombed Jayme maybe?
That seems like a weird choice though.
This kind of sucks, as neither of these 2, imo, were really seriously suspected of being scum.
suicide bomber would be dead now if that had happened.
|
The real question is why would vigilante hit any of these three? It makes no sense. There was no spotlight on any of them and they didn't really shine a spotlight at anyone (well BC said some things a while back).
|
Yeah, I want someone to confirm this is a good idea before you do it, but I think vigi should claim who he hit. Then maybe BC, Vigi, and d3 could start a townie circle?
Also, does anyone think it would be a good idea for DT to pm any of those people with info he has? Or would it be too risky.
I'm new, so I want other players to comment on this before anyone does this.
|
Well we don't really need to know who the vigi is, although it doesn't matter. But if the vigi really doesn't want to claim they could leak who they aimed the hit so we know who the mafia was after.
Or if no vigi made a hit or we don't have a vigi BC must be lying.
|
Bad idea. Scum can easily counter-claim. BC could be scum faking the vigi hit. And what's with the d3 being included o.o?
|
On July 23 2010 14:36 youngminii wrote:
Bad idea. Scum can easily counter-claim. BC could be scum faking the vigi hit. And what's with the d3 being included o.o?
He was hit, but yeah some pming and reminded me he hasn't spoken much either.
|
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference.
|
ebwop. And with that, as long as the vigi reads this, we have a confirmed townie or a confirmed scum.
|
On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference.
No.
|
On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference.
we can't do that since we might have 2 vigis.
they would both have to claim and then we'd lose one of their hits.
unless maybe both hits have been used and doubled up on someone somehow
|
On July 23 2010 14:40 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference. we can't do that since we might have 2 vigis. they would both have to claim and then we'd lose one of their hits. unless maybe both hits have been used and doubled up on someone somehow
Oh didn't realize we had two vigis. Frick I thought we finally had something to go on -.-
|
On July 23 2010 14:35 youngminii wrote:
The real question is why would vigilante hit any of these three? It makes no sense. There was no spotlight on any of them and they didn't really shine a spotlight at anyone (well BC said some things a while back).
Yeah they were pretty inactive. It's definite bluesnipe
|
On July 23 2010 14:35 youngminii wrote:
The real question is why would vigilante hit any of these three? It makes no sense. There was no spotlight on any of them and they didn't really shine a spotlight at anyone (well BC said some things a while back).
The only reason I could think I would be hit.
A) Mafia think I am a threat based on posts I have made previous which were largely ignored. Possibly trying to suppress information, and prevent me from stepping up when time opens up in my schedule and attempting to organize the town.
B) Vigilante thought I was red and fired a shot.
|
On July 23 2010 14:41 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:40 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference. we can't do that since we might have 2 vigis. they would both have to claim and then we'd lose one of their hits. unless maybe both hits have been used and doubled up on someone somehow Oh didn't realize we had two vigis. Frick I thought we finally had something to go on -.-
We know we have two kp roles, one is a vig, the other could be hatter or vig.
|
On July 23 2010 14:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:41 Pandain wrote:On July 23 2010 14:40 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference. we can't do that since we might have 2 vigis. they would both have to claim and then we'd lose one of their hits. unless maybe both hits have been used and doubled up on someone somehow Oh didn't realize we had two vigis. Frick I thought we finally had something to go on -.- We know we have two kp roles, one is a vig, the other could be hatter or vig.
we don't know, it wasn't revealed
|
On July 23 2010 14:44 BloodyC0bbler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:41 Pandain wrote:On July 23 2010 14:40 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:On July 23 2010 14:38 Pandain wrote:
I think if the Vigi didn't make a hit, they should claim so now.
If they don't claim so now, then BC is NOT lying.
I think that's a solid inference. we can't do that since we might have 2 vigis. they would both have to claim and then we'd lose one of their hits. unless maybe both hits have been used and doubled up on someone somehow Oh didn't realize we had two vigis. Frick I thought we finally had something to go on -.- We know we have two kp roles, one is a vig, the other could be hatter or vig.
We can't have 2 hatters?
|
I don't think B) is true. It's extremely unlikely that there is a Vigilante that is bad enough to waste their kill so early in the game with such little evidence. I have my own reservations on whether or not I believe your claim but A) seems to be the most likely at this point in time.
|
20/24 town-aligned players alive
2/2 Veterans alive
2/2 Town KP roles alive
1/2 Medic alive
2/2 DTs alive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
