|
Geript I would also like you to explain this post
On January 20 2016 15:03 geript wrote: Oh yeah and Breshke is town. Also, only Breshke should pick Watson. I think that's a really good role for him and Watson should claimed Holmes' sanity ASAP; I'm 50/50 on him claiming Moriarty's.
|
I also dont udnerstand rels why you would not want me to pick watson even if I was mafia.
Im 7, that is fairly high if i was mafia i would probably the highest or second highest on my team. i could probably get a role that does KP if I wanted to. I know I am not a good player especially scum player so WIFOM ALERT would happily sack myself and take down some people with me.
Instead Im claiming to take watson which if you actually think about it would be perfect for someone you suspect. If i lie to sherlock or moriarty about their sanity it would become apparent very quickly.
So can you explain why even if i am a mafia read me picking watson would be bad?
|
On January 20 2016 23:17 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 23:06 Breshke wrote: Rels why do you scum me for talking about setup and then continue to only talk about setup and ask me a question which was about the setup? I had this feeling when you "kindly" adviced me to take the number 7. You already did it to FF. Since then you did nothing but you have 2 pages of filter anyway. Who is scum in your opinion ?
I was telling you that FF might pick 7 so you should have been careful?
Not really intrested in talking about who is scum right now because i have piddles because nothing has really happened.
|
On January 20 2016 23:21 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 23:17 Rels wrote:On January 20 2016 23:06 Breshke wrote: Rels why do you scum me for talking about setup and then continue to only talk about setup and ask me a question which was about the setup? I had this feeling when you "kindly" adviced me to take the number 7. You already did it to FF. Since then you did nothing but you have 2 pages of filter anyway. Who is scum in your opinion ? Talking about this post: Show nested quote +On January 19 2016 23:29 Breshke wrote:On January 19 2016 23:24 Rels wrote:On January 19 2016 23:23 Breshke wrote:On January 19 2016 23:19 Rels wrote:Caught up. On January 19 2016 13:34 Damdred wrote: It sort of does, oneg trolls in x way as town and t way as scum. Its just hard to quantify.
but yeah couple town leans at this point. Since you didn't state them, can you expand ? I'm not sure that damdred knows the actual answers you would need to ask geript i think. I also dropped it because while geript can give some nice meta reads I don't think you are going to get much from this one im fairly sure it is more of a "feelings" thing. But lets see I'm asking for his townleans p: I saw geript's "Mm can't really explain this feeling" post, seemed super townie to me. Yep derp soz Also there is a chance FF is choosing 7,1 because i told him that was free but he never really said anything about it. Just a warning for ya Like you did a kinda useless post in which you told FF to take 7, then you reminded the thread you did that one post.
No, I was telling you that you might be overlapping
On January 20 2016 23:19 Rels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 23:14 Breshke wrote: I also dont udnerstand rels why you would not want me to pick watson even if I was mafia.
Im 7, that is fairly high if i was mafia i would probably the highest or second highest on my team. i could probably get a role that does KP if I wanted to. I know I am not a good player especially scum player so WIFOM ALERT would happily sack myself and take down some people with me.
Instead Im claiming to take watson which if you actually think about it would be perfect for someone you suspect. If i lie to sherlock or moriarty about their sanity it would become apparent very quickly.
So can you explain why even if i am a mafia read me picking watson would be bad? You know that's actually super true. If you lie about their sanity we'll know pretty fast. The problems is that Watson is also a doctor, so if you're scum we're giving you a protective role, but it's better than a KP role.
Why is the bolded included in this post. You disagree with yourself in the same sentence what's the point?
|
I'm going to bed.
Rels it is really annoying when I explain something to you then you say it back to me like you are letting me know
|
Yeah SL and you not PM'ing the hosts right isnt a dumbtell its just dumb
|
On January 20 2016 23:41 sicklucker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2016 23:38 Breshke wrote: Yeah SL and you not PM'ing the hosts right isnt a dumbtell its just dumb a mistake mafia probably cant make because of the scum qt. oh wait you already scum slipped that mafia cant put there numbers in that. thanks for that
lol the scumslip would have been that mafia COULDNT have put their numbers in the QT. So yep dumb again.
Actually going to bed now.
|
Ff are you going to follow the plan?
|
I'm down for palmers plan also FYI
I also like kitas suggestions aswell
|
Moriarty seems super strong with the role check aswell
|
I don't think GB is going to be around to pick the kita role which sucks because i feel like it's impotant
|
On January 21 2016 07:18 Fecalfeast wrote:yes
|
On January 21 2016 07:21 Palmar wrote: Kita's additions completely undermine my plan.
The reason is quite simple. If we assign everyone roles, mafia can just freely pick a role that wasn't assigned to them. The entire point of having ffa/check players is for them to take roles that SHOULD have been taken before them to PROVE the players before them actually took the roles they were meant to take. It's a failsafe.
If we have no failssafes, mafia can just pick whatever the fuck they want. Essentially, my plan is pointless.
I basically can't be arsed arguing this, I am out of energy trying to get people to be not stupid.
Kita is very likely mafia because he's not dumb enough to think his version is an actual improvement.
But then don't we have roles like moriarty/kita that can perform role checks anyway.
I understand the importance of checks but not having them doesn't completely undermine your plan i feel that is a bit of an overreaction.
|
On January 21 2016 07:27 Fecalfeast wrote: oh well if alotsomuch isn't gambling then I want to gamble
someone has to pick watson then. disfo you can have it now if you like
|
On January 21 2016 07:30 disformation wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2016 07:28 Breshke wrote:On January 21 2016 07:27 Fecalfeast wrote: oh well if alotsomuch isn't gambling then I want to gamble someone has to pick watson then. disfo you can have it now if you like wut? I like, but what are you picking then? oO
What palmar told me to pick
|
FF have you actually read the gambler role?
|
On January 21 2016 07:41 disformation wrote: if we go that route I'd like someone to get Professor Moriarty so imma change to watson now, if no one has complaints
Fairly sure it was assigned it to someone. iirc it was TT
Just depends if they see it or not
|
obi you could go moriarty?
Kinda shit if ppl know you are picking it idk
|
super weak trust is better than no trust at all.
Also I understand kei's frustration not sure it is alignment indicative though
Kind of bothers me that rels was all ancy about me picking watson because he thought i was scum then Palmar tells me to pick holmes and he is fine with that plan although still thinks im scum.
|
|
|
|
|