Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not saying that helping new players out is bad, after all I am new to this as well and enjoy the help. I just feel that the fact that you are good at hiding roles is a great threat. You could be a cultist or demon and we wouldn't know it till the end when you pull out triumphant.

I'm certain any one of us could end up being a cultist or daemon, even you. Though I suppose your point does have some merit. But I stand by my statement that you've got nothing to worry about from me, none of you have, well the forces of Chaos surely.

And actually you may have something to worry about from me, I do like to vote lynch people to see how they turn up and to try and make it easy for the rest of us, to figure out who's who.

Halonochas, as you can see in the last game, sometimes a person who can get disscussion going is best left to be lynched until day 4 if the scum haven't got him already

Ultra has decided to leave the game.
The requirement for today still remains at 9 however as 8 would be exactly half and a majority is over half thus keepig it at the same level.

Current votes

the_ferrett -0
ginger_nid_dude -1
VikingScott -0
Scarper -0
Lord-Loss -0
Drk_0blitr8r -1
Inquisitor_Syphonious -1
Paul Atreides -0
BishopGore -1
Arheiner -0
Karon -1
Fifty -1
Halonachos -0
Steempunk -0
BrotherStynier -1
IGLannister -0
No Lynch -2

With 16 alive 9 are required to lynch. Yet if this day phase were to run out of time the target with the most votes would go. That would be a no lynch at the moment.

It's Wednesday now leaving 12 days including today.
Vote log
Sorted like this voter (target)

Drk_0 (Ferret)
Halo (Drk_0)
Scott (Halo)
Nid (Scott)
50 (Nid)
Halo (Unvote Drk_0)
LL (50)
Syph (Drk_0)
Halo (Scott)
Lan (Scott)
Nid (unvote Scott)
Lan (unvote Scott)
Lan (No Lynch)
Scott (Unvote Halo)
Bishop (Ferret)
Bishop (unvote Ferret)
Scarper (Bishop)
Halo (unvote Scott)
Halo (No Lynch)
Drk_0 (unvote Ferret)
Drk_0 (Bishop)
Arhiener (Syph)
Paul (No Lynch)
NEW
Stynier (Karon)
Scarp (Unvote Bishop)
Halo (Unvote No Lynch)
Halo (Stynier)

As for those that need proding was it just Karon and Steempunk or did I miss some more?

Hey LL, does IG and Halonachos approach remind you of anyone? Someone who got an idea in his first game and proclaimed that all the good players should be killed?

Halo and IG, you can't read anything into this game. Anyone who has played this game before will not be taking any form of RP aspect seriously. This game is very difficult, you have to use logic and tactics to uncover the scum, you can't assume based on some RP that anyone will give themselves away.

Drk_O loves to make a spectacle of himself, be in the limelight, be under suspicion. So he is loud and sometimes obnoxious, keeping things rolling, but sometimes in a haphazard manner. Players like Brother_Stynier prefer a more introspective game, thinking each piece through, a player who is as random and confusing as Drk_O throws them off, so they aim to have him removed early to save them from having to try to get a handle on him.

Everyone in this game is aiming to get something. If you're pro-town then over half the people want the same thing as you do. Try to work out who seems to be aiming for what you want. There's a chance they might be trustworthy. Or good at playing the game. Either/Or really

Vote: Halonachos

Casting my vote because Halo has so far been quick to jump at whoever is talking sense. This doesn't seem a pro-town angle to take, he could be pro-town and just inexperienced, as I was, but I'm not sure.

And don't depend on the "I'm a first time player, why would I have been given a role?" line, roles are assigned randomly, so you could well be a minion of Chaos, finding his feet.

Oh I like first time suspects Easy to pick, hard to convince the guilt of. Then again, we've seen my persuasion skills :p

Hey Not_u. Nid unvoted me. Or at least claimed to.
You forgot that on the vote log

the_ferrett wrote:Oh I like first time suspects Easy to pick, hard to convince the guilt of. Then again, we've seen my persuasion skills :p

I've seen you at work. Sneaky chap that you are.

He is indeed a first timer, but that doesn't equal innocence.

Halonachos wrote: I think the biggest proof of vikingscott's innocence is Drk_O's innocence or the survival during the night of anyone who voted against either one of them.

Drk_Oblit has nothing to prove and neither does VikingScott, cause they've done nothing wrong!

If anything Halonachos, you have something to prove, after building that ridiclous straw man again Scot and Drk_Oblit, I'm not sure about you. It might just be new player mistakes, I'm keeping my eyes open.

I would like to vote Halo but it would be more flames to his argument.

It wouldn't.

Not every vote has to be with lynching. You can put pressure on people to act properly, or explain themselves by getting a few votes on them.

Just thought I'd put that out there for the n00bs.

That isn't what i m meant but ok.

VikingScott wrote:Hey Not_u. Nid unvoted me. Or at least claimed to.
You forgot that on the vote log

Just spotted it and put it in the right place.

Makes it a lot easier to see if it's out by itself than hiding in a line of text

Ooooops

IG, could you give us an idea of who you are suspicious now that you have a little better idea of what to look for

I was just following advice from the more experienced gamers and voting at random.

Seeing as though stynier was the only person talking who had not been voted for, I decided to vote for him. Seeing as though he surpassed my hardcore detective grilling, I can see no real evidence against him.

So, lord-loss the more votes on a person means that they will act differently?

It's putting more pressure on them to stop/start acting in a different/better/more baddie/more sensible way.

Does anyone else feel that with so many voices, it is hard to get a read on anyone? I really only feel I know those I have worked with/against in previous games.

This leads me to a plan, but, ironically, I would ruin the plan if I revealed it. :s

Oh, and I don't see how I was voting at anybody who was using logic. I did not vote for you bishop, and I also did not vote for ginger nor IG.

I also did not waste a vote voting for a person who hasn't even begun to join in the conversation. Once they join I would vote for them to see how they act.

Lord-Loss wrote:

Halonachos wrote: I think the biggest proof of vikingscott's innocence is Drk_O's innocence or the survival during the night of anyone who voted against either one of them.

Drk_Oblit has nothing to prove and neither does VikingScott, cause they've done nothing wrong!

If anything Halonachos, you have something to prove, after building that ridiclous straw man again Scot and Drk_Oblit, I'm not sure about you. It might just be new player mistakes, I'm keeping my eyes open.

I would also like to point out the fact that ginger was the first to cast a stone against scott. I voted for Drk_O due to his reaction, thinking he was trying to cover up his heresy. Scott voted for me due to my voting of Drk_O. However, I was not the last to vote for Drk_O and not the last to call scott a heretic. After all, syphonius himself tried to make us believe that scott was a heretic. Also note that I was third to vote for scott as heretic of the day.

I did not start any bandwagon, nor did I have a false assumption of Drk_O's guilt, lest you will believe that syphoius's reason for voting Drk_O was also false and mislead.

UNVOTE: Stynier

Also, Drk_O was the first one to vote. He voted against ferret because of his remarks concerning the inquisitor "just being a guy". If anything ferret could be an inquisitor making him a peer to the now deceased inquisitor, allowing him to call him "just a guy".

Drk_O was the first to cast a vote against someone due to a remark, so LL, why does Dark_O not have to prove HIS innocence.

All of you veteran players here who critisice (do you spell it critisize? is it an american/british english thing?) those voting no lynch, I know I lack experience in this game, and that we have mostly engaged in probing votes, but I feel I should explain myself. Surely without any evidence we are more likely to hit one of our own rather then the cultists? That would be more or less deliberately shooting ourselves in the foot! As such, statisticaly, wouldn't we benefit more from not lynching rather than lynching without evidence, even counting out the possibly boon of losing a distracting element? I am currently voting no lynch, because I lack any particular suspects.

It's best to just note vote now. You don't have to make a decision yet!

Drk_Oblits vote was a RVS vote.

My previous read on Halonachos was correct, any form of perceived attack sends him into a frenzy of posting. I don't really find you very suspicious Halo, I'm probing, and you really didn't seem to like it.

Paul, I can see where you are coming from, but tactically, from what I have seen so far, that would be a bad choice. Killing an innocent will give us more information than killing a Cultist in the first day. Think about it. Cultists want to kill off pro-towners during the day and during the night. They increase their odds of winning each time a pro-towner dies.

So let's say, Day 1, by pure chance (because that is all we can possibly get at this stage) we hit a cultist. That's a majority of pro-towners all voting for him and the Cultists most likely not voting. That doesn't really give us a read on who is guilty, just who is probably innocent, which is useful, but it doesn't help us on Day 2 or 3.

The more likely is Day 1, we kill a townie. Now the likelihood of one of the Cultists voting for said townie is very high. We look at who voted for the dead person and it narrows our list of suspects. We have an idea of who is evil.

Of course you get the times when Cultists vote for other cultists to make themselves seem more innocent and times when cultists just remain completely impartial and refuse to even cast votes. It all depends how good the bad guys are at both playing the game and playing the other players.

But a kill on the first day, even a kill of a good guy, is not a waste nor is it shooting ourselves in the foot.

Vote: Lord-Loss

He's been evil before and probably is again. And he's thinking of everything a few posts before me!

Unvote: Lord-Loss

Just kidding.

EDIT: Wrong tags

I can see your reasoning now,, thank you

And lord-loss, you are right, I should've just bidded my time with voting. Ah well, live and learn.

BishopGore wrote:My previous read on Halonachos was correct, any form of perceived attack sends him into a frenzy of posting. I don't really find you very suspicious Halo, I'm probing, and you really didn't seem to like it.

While I would doubt that anyone would like to be voted for and probed with questioning. I really do not see what you are getting at though. All of your "probes" were incredibly mislead and I could easily counter them. You criticized my votes and I explained every one of them with logic, while you were saying that I was voting against those who were logical.

My responses really weren't to your probing, but to your lack of logic in said probing. I also have a nasty habit of posting before I finish a complete thought, anyone who has seen me in the OT section will know this. This is mostly due to the fact that in real life I have to often leave my computer to either complete a chore or go to work and I don't wish to get ninja'd. Also, at that very moment there weren't a lot of people posting and I have been very talkative since the first thread, which really hasn't changed since then.

I've still posted with the regularity I have been since I started.

I do find your questioning odd though. I have alluded to it a bit in previous posts, but why do you insist on targeting me and not those who have done likewise? Because out of all I have seen, you have just created the same straw-man argument that I created in my conviction of Drk_O.

You quoted a rapid amount of posting as your evidence when I have posted rapidly since post one. I think I know where you're trying to go with this line though. If I keep posting over and over again, then that means I must be guilty. However, I can also point out that you, LL, ginger, and stynier both followed the same suit. You didn't post that much until people convicted you, LL was just getting into the gamelate I believe, ginger has been a regular poster since day one, and stynier didn't really begin talking about this game until I convicted him.

While stynier probably is not a heretic, I am not too sure about LL and you. You both seem to be going after me and double teaming in an organized fashion.

I don't like the way you bandowaged on Scott, that come combinded with the weird logic of yours you used to 'work out' how Scott and Drk_Oblit are inocent/guilty makes me suspicous.

halonachos wrote: stynier didn't really begin talking about this game until I convicted him.

I had nothing much to say cause there wasn't much in need of saying.

Double post.

Lord-Loss wrote:Double post.

((I see no such thing...))