|
On February 15 2013 09:48 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 09:16 Sylencia wrote:
How is it possible to say for certain that there's only a mafia roleblocker, when we don't know if it was a JK or a RB? Show nested quote +
Roleblocker
Once per night, you may send in a PM detailing a person you would like to block. That person will be notified that they were blocked, and if the person being blocked has a night action, he or she will not be able to use it. Roleblocks work on both active and passive abilities, but block only one ability. Active abilities will be prioritized over passive abilities.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
I assumed you being informed that you were blocked meant there was an RB, since JK does not mention informing the target that they were blocked. I could be wrong about this assumption, though.
I am relatively experienced with JK;
the "save" does indeed inform much like an RB.. in fact, if RB and JK both select the same target; the target will receive only 1 notification.
|
On February 15 2013 09:50 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 09:48 warbaby wrote:On February 15 2013 09:16 Sylencia wrote:
How is it possible to say for certain that there's only a mafia roleblocker, when we don't know if it was a JK or a RB?
Roleblocker
Once per night, you may send in a PM detailing a person you would like to block. That person will be notified that they were blocked, and if the person being blocked has a night action, he or she will not be able to use it. Roleblocks work on both active and passive abilities, but block only one ability. Active abilities will be prioritized over passive abilities.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
I assumed you being informed that you were blocked meant there was an RB, since JK does not mention informing the target that they were blocked. I could be wrong about this assumption, though. I am relatively experienced with JK; the "save" does indeed inform much like an RB.. in fact, if RB and JK both select the same target; the target will receive only 1 notification.
Jailkeeper
Every night you may choose one person to jail. You will protect them from 1 KP and prevent them using any role they might have. Neither you nor your target will be informed of successful saves.
The setup explicitly states JK target will not be informed of a save. If you're saving a JK save and a RB block are the same, I'd expect that based on this wording JK targets are not informed. Can't hurt to ask though...
If a JK targets a town power role, will that player be informed that their role was blocked?
Sorry for more setup speculation, but this is probably worth clearing up.
|
Vote Count
warbaby (0): mocsta
ObviousOne (8): TestSubject893, mocsta, zarepath, Sevryn, Sylencia, warbaby, Sn0_Man, Mandalor
No vote (2): ObviousOne, cDgCorazon
ObviousOne is currently set to be lynched. 24 hours until the deadline. Voting is mandatory
|
On February 15 2013 09:57 warbaby wrote:
If a JK targets a town power role, will that player be informed that their role was blocked?
All (successful) roleblocks result in a roleblock message.
The role of the roleblocked person has no bearing onto this.
|
Hum who should I vote for?
Syl Zare Mand
##VOTE: Mandalor
For not living up to my expectations thus far.
|
corazon are you really going to keep us in suspense for who you're voting?
The vote is essentially majority now; are we able to shorten the cycle to say: 30hrs (or now); Pretty Puh-lease ?
|
On February 15 2013 10:15 Mocsta wrote:
corazon are you really going to keep us in suspense for who you're voting?
The vote is essentially majority now; are we able to shorten the cycle to say: 30hrs (or now); Pretty Puh-lease ?
I'm not sure. Do you want me to delay my case until N2 or do you want me to give me thoughts now? I feel like cases lose traction after a day if the person does not get lynched...
|
On February 15 2013 11:22 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 10:15 Mocsta wrote:
corazon are you really going to keep us in suspense for who you're voting?
The vote is essentially majority now; are we able to shorten the cycle to say: 30hrs (or now); Pretty Puh-lease ? I'm not sure. Do you want me to delay my case until N2 or do you want me to give me thoughts now? I feel like cases lose traction after a day if the person does not get lynched...
I assume you may not be voting for OO then
Im stuck in the middle here..
Like you said on one hand; early cases tend to lose traction (and we have a clear lynch this cycle already)
On the other hand; Town is not talking much anymore, so we almost lost a whole cycle and not scum hunted; this might kick start discussion
I can't tell you what to do on this one; do which ever you think will be more beneficial.
If it was me; I wouldn't release the case; BUT, that is only because zarepath still hasnt addressed my concerns....
|
Yeah I think I'll hold off on the case.
Let's hope the hosts decide to end this quickly.
##Vote: ObviousOne
|
Mocsta, I thought I already addressed them. It's the most recent long post in my filter.
|
On February 15 2013 12:19 zarepath wrote:
Mocsta, I thought I already addressed them. It's the most recent long post in my filter.
Righto
Not sure how I missed that lol
Thanks  The thought process relayed makes sense to me, pretty innovative tactic too.
As an aside - probably not worth discussing further (just my musing):
I still think your "case" contributed to the lack of consolidation.
By this; I mean, that it played a part in the outcome; but do not infer it is the sole reason by any means.
This is primarily because the fake case  ID* create a state of thread confusion - a genuine WTF moment; and in addition took away emphasis from most scum hunt pressure present in the thread at the time.
The "fake case" conclusion did not lead to a clear target, and hence, for a meaningful portion of the cycle; there was essentially a lack of scum hunting.
|
Honestly, if I were to do it over, I would wait until there was a warbaby wagon, and then done it. I thought a warbaby wagon was imminent and wanted to give a wagon for scum to hop onto if they didn't want warbaby lynched. But doing it so early in Day 1 proved problematic.
|
On February 15 2013 12:49 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2013 12:19 zarepath wrote:
Mocsta, I thought I already addressed them. It's the most recent long post in my filter. Righto Not sure how I missed that lol Thanks The thought process relayed makes sense to me, pretty innovative tactic too.
As an aside - probably not worth discussing further (just my musing): I still think your "case" contributed to the lack of consolidation. By this; I mean, that it played a part in the outcome; but do not infer it is the sole reason by any means. This is primarily because the fake case ID* create a state of thread confusion - a genuine WTF moment; and in addition took away emphasis from most scum hunt pressure present in the thread at the time. The "fake case" conclusion did not lead to a clear target, and hence, for a meaningful portion of the cycle; there was essentially a lack of scum hunting.
Do you feel like you effectively hunted scum during that period? You've made a lot of noise, but a half of the time you've mentioned players other than me, it turns out that you're using them as an excuse to tunnel me some more (eg).
I'm glad if you think I'm scum, but I can't be all 3 scum. How do you feel about corazon? You've mentioned and quoted him a lot, but it only seems to be when you're tunelling me. You say here that you haven't been thinking of Corazon much, but then when I search for "Corazon" if your full filter, I get 42 hits!
Something is up here.
|
I'd like to see you take that logic a step further and actually make a case, WB.
|
To put it another way, Mocsta, do you feel like lynching a semi-active town over a really shaky meta case is indicative of good scumhunting? When there were other more legit lurkers to lynch?
What scumreads did you come out of it with? Me? Anybody else?
|
That sounded a little aggressive, sorry. But basically I don't want to go study all 42 of his corazon mentions. You imply that "something is up" because he's mentioned one person a lot, but I don't fully see the implication, at least not enough for me to understand things better. I think it might be a good point you bring up, but I pretty much can only tell if you make a real case.
|
On February 15 2013 13:37 zarepath wrote:
I'd like to see you take that logic a step further and actually make a case, WB.
I don't have access to any knowledge you don't (unless you're scum). You're welcome to review the thread like I'm doing, and make any case you think makes sense.
Or are you too busy making fake cases to see if you can start a wagon?
|
Durr, don't want to start a pissing match Zare (if you're even capable, you seem too level headed).
Yes your fake case could have a town motive. My point was it could have also had a scum motive -- "hey guys i wanna lynch this active townie on D1!" And unless I'm wrong, the person you made the fake case on turned out to be a townie...
|
On February 11 2013 09:43 warbaby wrote:- Don't be a jerk for no reason; try not to use personal insults and inflammatory language. Avoid OMGUS if possible.
I failed on the last .. points in NMM 36,
Guess what warbaby.. your still failing on this point in NMM37
|
On February 15 2013 13:45 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 09:43 warbaby wrote:- Don't be a jerk for no reason; try not to use personal insults and inflammatory language. Avoid OMGUS if possible.
I failed on the last .. points in NMM 36, Guess what warbaby.. your still failing on this point in NMM37
Thanks, I like you too. So how about posting some scum reads on someone other than me?
Are you ignoring my question of what you think about Corazon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
