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.

You're so zealous about declaring me a possessed-pskyer-daemon...

Stynier is probably laughing mad off of his chair right about now...

Your list then composes of 5 heretics, you're missing one if you are indeed correct in your accusations.

Only psykers and cultists can be possessed. There are two psykers in this game(one good, one bad) and about 4 cultists IMO. It would be most beneficial for the now dead demon stynier to attack the pro-town psyker to push the odds in the anti-town's favor.

The reason I think you are more active is because of the fact that stynier( a demon) was night killed, forcing the demons into a power play. As this is day two, there are more targets to get behind and more reason to become more active(you used the "getting your hands dirty" euphamism I believe). Stynier would possess you because of your posting regularity, not too often and not too rarely, but just right.

Also Syphonius, your logic has upset me. I see no connection between me, paul, vadem, and LL. I also don't see how I wasn't "rubbing people the wrong way". I grilled several people later on during day one and was most suspicious because I rubbed a lot of people on day one.

Also, didn't Drk also say that I was preferred to GND? So why isn't he on your list.

As to your point 5, I think you are the pro-town psyker. However, once you are possessed you are on the demon team so right now you are anti-town.

Who do you think is the pro-town psyker then if it is not you?

@Halonachos.
Stynier would only be able to guess at who the pro-town pysker is. If he got it wrong he would be banished (at least thats the impression i got from the rules)

Inqu, just want to know: What have I done suspicous?

Nachos, how do you know how many pyskers are in the game?

I know this becuase I am the inquisitor.

Just kidding, its because I remember the sign up role list.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/295599.page

Although I think the only difference is that he removed demon night kills.

Lord-Loss wrote:I'm afraid it has come down to 'lynch the least useful' now. We don't have much time left. The possibility of anyone revealing there scum and the town being able to decde and get a mjajority in these five (maybe four noe?) hours isn't likely.

VikingScott, you could follow others leads. Asking questions, challenging peoples unlogical arguments with logic etc.

I don't think it's good to lynch Halo. Could Scott and Inqusitior (You voted for him cause Drk said he didn't find him suspicous? Sometyhing like tha. Well if you did could you unvote to put GND and Halo on 2-2 so stuff can happen. Note: I havn't slept properly in three days. Cut me a break. :p

That's why I am suspicious-ish.

As a quick glance at the list can reveal, I got nothing on ya.

Yet you said that you were 99.99% sure. Interesting.

First I am possessed, then I am a cultist, then I am a demon, then I am a psyker, sheesh.

Anyhoo:

I believe BishopGore is the pro town pskyer.

halonachos wrote:Yet you said that you were 99.99% sure. Interesting.

Look at the list!!!!!111!/one!!!!

I guess it would be ok to say "I believe BishopGore is pro-town" but being a pro-town psyker wouldn't change your playstyle at all (I don't think so, as they're normal players who can be possesed) so you would not know that he is a pysker. Only a Inqusitior who ivestigated him would and I don't think a Inqusitior should reveal himself at this day phase, unless we know we got two Inqusitiors and both variations (The one where you can be protected from deamons and the one where you can be protected from cultists).

In that case we could have an invincible Inqusitior.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:First I am possessed, then I am a cultist, then I am a demon, then I am a psyker, sheesh.

Anyhoo:

I believe BishopGore is the pro town pskyer.

Trap.

In previous posts you said that stynier was voting anti-town. This means that IG would be pro-town as stynier voted for him. We all know now that stynier was a demon, but wait, only psykers and cultists can be possessed by demons. You suspected IG of being possessed indicating that he was either a cultist or a psyker, but you think that bishop is the pro-town psyker. Your logic is failing you right now, and how does it feel to be under the lamp and exposed for what you are?

To make it short, with your logic you indicate anyone that stynier votes for as being pro-town, Stynier voted against IG and was also against me. This inidcates the fact that IG and I are indeed pro-town(according to your logic), yet you believe IG to be possessed. This would make IG a psyker(the only pro-town role that can be possessed), but you say that you think bishop is the pro-town psyker. So how can IG be pro-town and possessed without being the psyker? Simple, he can't. You slipped up, plain and simple.

So, Syphonius, or should I say Stynier, when should we schedule your banishment?

That was a confusing post Nachos.

Just wonderin', can Inqusitiors be possesed? If so I hope the Demons don't get lucky... bad ass evil Inqusitiors runing around isn't good!

Lord-Loss wrote:I guess it would be ok to say "I believe BishopGore is pro-town" but being a pro-town psyker wouldn't change your playstyle at all (I don't think so, as they're normal players who can be possesed) so you would not know that he is a pysker. Only a Inqusitior who ivestigated him would and I don't think a Inqusitior should reveal himself at this day phase, unless we know we got two Inqusitiors and both variations (The one where you can be protected from deamons and the one where you can be protected from cultists).

In that case we could have an invincible Inqusitior.

He asked me a question, so I answered, if I had to take a guess, I would guess at that.

halonachos wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:First I am possessed, then I am a cultist, then I am a demon, then I am a psyker, sheesh.

Anyhoo:

I believe BishopGore is the pro town pskyer.

Trap.

In previous posts you said that stynier was voting anti-town. This means that IG would be pro-town as stynier voted for him. We all know now that stynier was a demon, but wait, only psykers and cultists can be possessed by demons. You suspected IG of being possessed indicating that he was either a cultist or a psyker, but you think that bishop is the pro-town psyker. Your logic is failing you right now, and how does it feel to be under the lamp and exposed for what you are?

To make it short, with your logic you indicate anyone that stynier votes for as being pro-town, Stynier voted against IG and was also against me. This inidcates the fact that IG and I are indeed pro-town(according to your logic), yet you believe IG to be possessed. This would make IG a psyker(the only pro-town role that can be possessed), but you say that you think bishop is the pro-town psyker. So how can IG be pro-town and possessed without being the psyker? Simple, he can't. You slipped up, plain and simple.

So, Syphonius, or should I say Stynier, when should we schedule your banishment?

Do not put words in my mouth.

Actually, more importatly, what does me thinking BishopGore is correlate to any of that?

/scratches-head-and-goes-back-quite-a-few-pages

Him being opposed to you?

He was voting for IG, and warning you, for being off-topic.

's at halo.

No, I grilled him in earlier posts you know and he didn't like it. Of course, you should remember that stynier.

As to your thinking about bishop having correlation, there is no logic in it. If IG is innocent possessed he would have to be the psyker in your theory, yet you think that bishop is the psyker. Meaning that you really have no theory and just want to get rid of the top 3 supects from the first day. Are you purposefully not getting that to cover it up while not trying to defend yourself to make you seem any more suspicious, or do you just not get it?

^ No logic in your theory that is, referring to "As to your thinking about bishop having correlation, there is no logic in it.".

bishop having a relation to what now?

You're really trying to sell that BrotherStynier-Inquisitor_Syphonious pitch eh? Going to sell merchandise next?

What does any of that jumble of thoughts mean? Enter key is useful for seperating thoughts...

IG is innocent now? When did I say that?

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:IGLannister? He is in my theory.

@IGL...

BrotherStynier was logical, though he wasn't scum hunting.

He was really just pretending to scum hunt.

He was voting for people that he knew were citizens (AFAIK)

He was flying under the radar, waiting to night-kill.

You should know, since he possessed you.

This is your very own post, indicating that Stynier was voting for people he knew to be citizens. Now, would he vote for IG if he was a cultist? Even if it was just because of being OT, that single vote endangered him and may cause the lynching of IG during this day phase. So no, that is not an adequate defense of why it is possible that IG is not innocent in your "theory".

Saying that he wasn't scum hunting and then beginning to scum hunt yourself, trying to create a gap between similarities you and stynier may have had.

Well:

The big capital AFAIK is the most doubt i've shown short of lord-loss' postion.

Also, BrotherStynier could very well have been pissed at the fact that he went off-topic.

*Gee, this guy is annoying, baddies always win anyway, let me 'urb stomp 'im!*

So why are you so shaky in your accusations?

I also pointed out the fact that stynier's anti-OT vote would be too risky if IG was a cultist, look at who else jumped on during that day phase and during this day phase. That on top of the fact that IG already had a tie with GND when Stynier decided to do that leads further proof to not only your incorrect logic and theory, but if you are correct the innocence of IG.

You either believe your theory or you don't and if you don't even believe your theory, why should we?

Shaky accusations?

Didn't realize he voted for IGL at that time.

What I do know is that:

His vote for IGL was purely out of IGL going off-topic.

How would you know that it was purely because of the OT? You're not stynier, oh wait, you are so I guess you would know.

Also, how can you not realize that IG had a tie with GND? The vote count was done and posted right before that vote.

Yes, your shaky accusations. You say someone's possessed, but declare their innocence while indicating that they cannot be innocent.

I feel like a chef right now doing some nice barbecue.

That's funny.

I never declared IG innocent.

Once you get that through, we can continue with the topic at hand.

halonachos wrote:

I am a cultistsss!!!

Sure, you never said that, though it would make my job alot easier.

halonachos wrote:How would you know that it was purely because of the OT? You're not stynier, oh wait, you are so I guess you would know.

Also, how can you not realize that IG had a tie with GND? The vote count was done and posted right before that vote.

Yes, your shaky accusations. You say someone's possessed, but declare their innocence while indicating that they cannot be innocent.

I feel like a chef right now doing some nice barbecue.

More grief:

2 line. Page & post number. Can I has it?

Drk_O would fit in nice and cozy with you heretics looking a few pages back... Probably nothing, though, always some brain food for you other townies. (ie: not halonachos! )