|
On October 21 2014 03:32 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 03:31 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:29 marvellosity wrote:
that's it So are you going to nay? i already did, as per my earlier post yesterday or earlier or whenever it was. I wish Palmar would come back. Slam looks somewhat better to me for pushing obviously very strange shit.
I think you should switch to yay. I yayed.
I think it might work and I think you think it might work.
|
On October 21 2014 03:35 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 03:34 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:32 marvellosity wrote:On October 21 2014 03:31 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:29 marvellosity wrote:
that's it So are you going to nay? i already did, as per my earlier post yesterday or earlier or whenever it was. I wish Palmar would come back. Slam looks somewhat better to me for pushing obviously very strange shit. I think you should switch to yay. I yayed. I think it might work and I think you think it might work. it might, i don't deal in mights. I want "quite probably" at the very least, and preferably "pretty likely"
Does this help?
On October 15 2014 01:36 batsnacks wrote:
I only deal in facts.
|
On October 21 2014 03:37 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 03:36 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:35 marvellosity wrote:On October 21 2014 03:34 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:32 marvellosity wrote:On October 21 2014 03:31 batsnacks wrote:On October 21 2014 03:29 marvellosity wrote:
that's it So are you going to nay? i already did, as per my earlier post yesterday or earlier or whenever it was. I wish Palmar would come back. Slam looks somewhat better to me for pushing obviously very strange shit. I think you should switch to yay. I yayed. I think it might work and I think you think it might work. it might, i don't deal in mights. I want "quite probably" at the very least, and preferably "pretty likely" Does this help? On October 15 2014 01:36 batsnacks wrote:
I only deal in facts. not in the slightest
Name a better team than the current one. From my perspective, a town perspective, our odds aren't getting better. It's another 4 man team tomorrow followed by a 5 man team.
|
Fair enough, now name a 5 man team, because town needs 3 wins for victory.
|
Okay. I do think it would be better to attempt a 4 man yay today then a 5 man yay in the future though.
|
So yay today. If it works we can do the same team tomorrow, avoid the 5 man teams altogether, and maybe win.
|
Liam is bonjwa this game trust in him
|
On October 21 2014 03:49 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 03:47 batsnacks wrote:
So yay today. If it works we can do the same team tomorrow, avoid the 5 man teams altogether, and maybe win. This makes no sense to your previous post why would I YOLO vote yes instead of spending the time and finding the person absolutely likeliest to be townie to add to the successful 3 man mission? Are you insane?
If you yolo now we can win before the 5 man missions start. Town needs 3 victories to win, we have 1 victory, we need 2 more to win. Today and tomorrow are the only 4 man missions left. If you don't yolo now we need to win at least one 5 man mission to win.
If you don't yolo now, which I understand why you wouldn't even though I'm trying to convince you otherwise, we can't win before the 5 man missions start.
I am insane.
|
question:
After missions 1-5, do the missions start back over at mission 1, or do we have to win by mission 5?
|
On October 21 2014 04:01 marvellosity wrote:
like we have 4 more attempts on mission 2 if we nayvote this team
why would we yayvote it?
it's ridiculous
Wait... wait... you mean if we reject this mission we get to try the same mission again? It doesn't automatically move to the next mission even if we reject it?
|
Okay sorry I didn't understand. The wikipedia article doesn't really make it clear.
|
On October 21 2014 04:27 Blazinghand wrote:
FWIW Mission 4 is effectively easier than missions 2 and 3, since it requires 2 sabotages to fail. Pretty sure it's more likely to get 5 people with 1 or 0 scum in it than it is to get 4 people with no scum, combinatorially.
I think this is true as long as town wins at least once and loses less than two times before mission 4; which is true for our game (so far).
|
marv do you need a joint? Or a glass of port? Or a slow, long fuck?
|
On October 21 2014 04:38 marvellosity wrote:
All 3.
Can you understand, please, why nayvoting now is the right choice, something you didn't think you could do even though you've already done it once this game?
Can I: yes.
Did I: no.
I yay voted before I understood.
|
Oats do the same team imo
|
On October 21 2014 05:23 Alakaslam wrote:
Rofl why? We just rejected it lol
But hey. Maybe it is worth talking about again.
It's worth talking about again because you rejected it.
|
Lets see what king marv has to say about these recent developments
|
On October 21 2014 05:32 liancourt wrote:
What is the scum motivation for all 3 scum to nay that team
discuss
Palmar didn't nay.
discuss
|
BH still thinks oats is using bat traps™
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
