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.

Am I the only one who can't make it to page 31?

Never mind, all good now.

Drk_Oblitr8r, page 29 wrote:

Paul Atreides, page 26 wrote:Page twelve to thirteen. When pressed to point out who he would lynch if he had to, this is his response

the_ferrett, page 13 wrote:Lan due to the votes hopping. Either he and Nachoes are very indecisive or they'e playing silly buggers. Either way it raises my hackles. Heretic behaviour, maybe not. Offputting - yep!

I skimmed through the whole thread yesterday. Now I'lladmit that this is a veeeery weak lead by itself. There was one more quote from ferrett on this very subject, but I couldn't find it now. I'll try again.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:I'm testing something, so I'm not going to change my vote.

So in otherwords, I'm not really adding much atm.

Ohh and incase I get nightkilled, I'm just going to quote these posts. I'm testing something by doing so, I'll explain it if I don't die.

Halo, I sure hope you at least try to read this. The_ferret pointed out the two people he thought where most suspicious, and Drk_O tested if he was actually serving us two cultists to gain some trust from the town. But he wanted to be a little subtle about it, and so didn't change his vote (it was already on IG) and lo and behold, IG was a cultist. After the nightphase, he claimed the fact he was Alive was further proof that you were too, as it would cast you in a bad light if he had been killed. What, Halo, do you think the cultists gain by you not looking suspicious in everyone else's eyes?

These are not thoughts I have jumped on for the first time this dayphase, if you doubt my word, go reread page 26. Please. And if you think my change in behaviour was sudden and random, I 'm sorry I startled you, but do know that I have been very much in doubt who of you or syphonius to trust throughout most of dayphase 2.

And speaking of Syph, "thinner than flak armour"... This is the most delicious of ironies.

By the way, I go to bed and leave you alone to talk, and now you are both claiming to be Inquisitors? Give me a break.

Lastly and totally unrelated, Scott, why do you think IG seemed to hate you more than Drk_O?

EDIT: had to tidy up the quotes a little.

Hate me?
Maybe because I am awesome.
And a Viking.
Or maybe because I brought a sword back from europe? ^.^

Cultist hated townie. All there is to it.

I guess. I just found it odd he would adress just one of his lynchers. What could that mean?

Well, Nu suth. Glad to have you back.

Paul Atreides wrote:1. And speaking of Syph, "thinner than flak armour"... This is the most delicious of ironies.

2. By the way, I go to bed and leave you alone to talk, and now you are both claiming to be Inquisitors? Give me a break.

1. Please elaborate on this, honestly.

2. No. As I have stated, mine was purely hypothetical, I was trying to prove that any of us could claim that we're inquisitors. Some of us have better stories than others.

You brought a sword back? Yeah, I hate you.

OK, you know what's really disappointing? Do you guys know what I'm getting out of your arguments? It's a special new way of arguing anything called "Shove it down their throat". Seriously, you guys have at some points just been screaming stuff that made sense, then retorted with "Your point is m00t because you're evil"....

IGLannister wrote:You brought a sword back? Yeah, I hate you.

Not a proper sword. Wooden.
Mate of mine brought back a butterfly knife. If i really wanted to I could have bought a flintlock pistol or a machete or something. Really bloody cheap.

Anyway OT now. The argument between Inq and halo isn't ending cultists. You both believe yourselves to be town then prove it.

Inq: I don't think your the Inquisitor

Halo: You neither. Anoucing it may be a way to certify 1 lynch but its really a suicide note.

Example is BishopGore cypticlly said he was a pysker, then was night-killed just incase he was tellling the truth. So Halo I beleive that your trying to make yourself a target to help the actual Inquisitor survive another night phase.

#1

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:

Paul Atreides wrote:Praise the emperor! ...

...

...thinner than flak armour...

I guess it isn't the same thing by far really, but still.



#2 Well okey then, sorry to bother you.

Viking, the thing is I was kind of prevented from using my night shield to protect someone else. I was the main target for both days and had to keep my shield on myself. The night-kills have been safe randoms and I had hoped that by saying bishop could be a possessed goodie or that he was just lying he wouldn't be night killed.

I was bluffed into thinking that I would be the target for the second night kill and kept it to myself. They struck bishop down though so it made me look guilty by making me look like I was a cultist trying not to look guilty, which really sucks and is really confusing.

I'm a new inquisitor and I got myself bluffed to bits.

Paul, about the whole IG thing.

By not killing Drk it made me look guilty, if they had killed him I would look guilty. The only difference being that one would make it look like I was a stupid cultist who was risky and the other would make me look like a cultist trying to night kill whoever would make them look innocent.

The cultists were playing it relatively safe though, night kill a good player who will most likely have a role and then blame it on someone with the most suspicion on them. If the cultists had night killed,let's say, fifty or scarper, or even you it would look like the person with the highest chance of being lynched(being me) was voting people who hadn't talked that much to avoid suspicion because the cultists had been "caught".

No matter who was night killed I would still look guilty, it would just look like I took a different route to hide it.

halonachos wrote:Viking, the thing is I was kind of prevented from using my night shield to protect someone else. I was the main target for both days and had to keep my shield on myself. The night-kills have been safe randoms and I had hoped that by saying bishop could be a possessed goodie or that he was just lying he wouldn't be night killed.

You were a target during nightphase two and three for nightkills?

I was bluffed into thinking that I would be the target for the second night kill and kept it to myself. They struck bishop down though so it made me look guilty by making me look like I was a cultist trying not to look guilty, which really sucks and is really confusing.

By whom?

I'm a new inquisitor and I got myself bluffed to bits.

Personally, I just see this as being excessive. A silly snippet delcaring yourself inquisitor.

By not killing Drk it made me look guilty, if they had killed him I would look guilty. The only difference being that one would make it look like I was a stupid cultist who was risky and the other would make me look like a cultist trying to night kill whoever would make them look innocent.

No, if you had night killed him, you wouldn't be any more of a suspect.

No matter who was night killed I would still look guilty, it would just look like I took a different route to hide it.

Nope, you always look guilty, though one or two options would make you look MORE guilty.

-------------

Alright, you and I know that you're not the inquisitor, so let us get down to business...

My argument:

The cultist band wagoned on the easy GND, to save you from the lynching. Team play followed.

Your argument:

You're apparently an inquisitor now, and that you investigated me, seeing that I was a cultist...

Hrm.

The bandwagon thing is a somewhat important fact. Although you did suspect me and GND and IG, you voted for GND and only switched your vote from IG to me because Drk decided to vote for IG as well.

The bandwagon would put IG, Paul, and Vadem together in an act to "protect me". I thought IG was innocent, Vadem I didn't know about and he was new at the time so I doubt he actually had a role assigned as soon as he joined. We didn't have any empty roles till after day 1 so Vadem's vote was made because he was a townie and new. Think about that one.

My suspicion of Paul comes in because of this quote:

paul wrote:While they can be distracting, That is what makes them so important to us.

During the beginning of Day 2 your suspicions were Vadem(who didn't have a role because they were all filled), Paul, LL, and I.

We all know that LL was an inquisitor, as to Paul... we all know he's fishy.

So Inguisitor, you didn't vote for IG last day phase huh? What's your excuse, I missed the deadline because I thought it was on monday again.

Your vote stayed directly on me while you blamed Paul and I for being cultists. IG was understandable in terms of logic(he would night kill the guy who went after him). While you said that Drk voted for GND well before I was in any danger and that Paul voted for GND after I was in danger.

Well, here's the thing, I was only in danger because of your vote after you switched from GND to me. I think you did this to get on our good side.

The bandwagon thing is a somewhat important fact. Although you did suspect me and GND and IG, you voted for GND and only switched your vote from IG to me because Drk decided to vote for IG as well.

The bandwagon would put IG, Paul, and Vadem together in an act to "protect me". I thought IG was innocent, Vadem I didn't know about and he was new at the time so I doubt he actually had a role assigned as soon as he joined. We didn't have any empty roles till after day 1 so Vadem's vote was made because he was a townie and new. Think about that one.

My suspicion of Paul comes in because of this quote:

paul wrote:While they can be distracting, That is what makes them so important to us.

During the beginning of Day 2 your suspicions were Vadem(who didn't have a role because they were all filled), Paul, LL, and I.

We all know that LL was an inquisitor, as to Paul... we all know he's fishy.

So Inguisitor, you didn't vote for IG last day phase huh? What's your excuse, I missed the deadline because I thought it was on monday again.

Your vote stayed directly on me while you blamed Paul and I for being cultists. IG was understandable in terms of logic(he would night kill the guy who went after him). While you said that Drk voted for GND well before I was in any danger and that Paul voted for GND after I was in danger.

Well, here's the thing, I was only in danger because of your vote after you switched from GND to me. I think you did this to get on our good side.

Last Day Phase Vote Tally:

Halo=Bishop
Drk=Lan
Scott=Lan
Inq=Halo
Vadem=No vote
Lan=Scott

Day Phase one, Inq also voted against me. So you started your attack against me from the very beginning of the game.

Ah screw it all, even the consequences.

VOTE: Paul

halonachos wrote:Last Day Phase Vote Tally:

Halo=Bishop
Drk=Lan
Scott=Lan
Inq=Halo
Vadem=No vote
Lan=Scott

Day Phase one, Inq also voted against me. So you started your attack against me from the very beginning of the game.

Yes. Since it is obvious that you are a cultist. IGLannister had his doubts, as did Paul and TherVadem. Lord-Loss had the most doubt.

Three squares and one circle, all the squares follow the circle. Groups tend to be evil. Circle or square?

Circle? I'm a leader, not a follower.

Although wasn't Caeser attended by 3 fellow senators?

Lannister had his doubts as did Paul and TherVadem? Paul did, but I see that I forgot to get his vote for the last day phase. Vadem had voted for IG, but decided that he might be innocent.

Lan hated scott so either Scott is a townie or a cultist, its one hell of a distancing ploy if scott is a cultist, but he followed me in questioning the lynch of GND so I think he's on my team with that.

Vadem needs to prove himself, but as I said, I doubt he has a major part in this play of conundrum and convolution, he might just be a tree in the background. If I live and he survives the night, he's on my list to look at along with Drk and Scott. Paul, if we both survive, I'm checking you out.

halonachos wrote:1. Circle? I'm a leader, not a follower.

2. Although wasn't Caeser attended by 3 fellow senators?

3. Lannister had his doubts as did Paul and TherVadem? Paul did, but I see that I forgot to get his vote for the last day phase. Vadem had voted for IG, but decided that he might be innocent.

4. Lan hated scott so either Scott is a townie or a cultist, its one hell of a distancing ploy if scott is a cultist, but he followed me in questioning the lynch of GND so I think he's on my team with that.

5. Vadem needs to prove himself, but as I said, I doubt he has a major part in this play of conundrum and convolution, he might just be a tree in the background. If I live and he survives the night, he's on my list to look at along with Drk and Scott. Paul, if we both survive, I'm checking you out.

1. Yes, that is what I was getting at.

2. I don't think he was really attended by that number. Either more or... not senators.

3. I meant I had my doubts about them.

4. Scott is a townie, he questioned the lynch of GND like me? So... on my team...?

5. You mean with you're "investigate"? I thought you already "investigated" me.

Ok, answer the question please!

Groups are bad.

There are three squares following around a circle.

Do you nab the circle or a square?

Oh, well you can cut the head off the snake, but you're just removing the body from the head.

I can remove the circle, but another square will smooth things out and be the new circle and seeing as though there are no mental ramifications and they get 2 days I doubt removing the circle will actually do anything besides put someone else in charge. Unless the cultists are incredibly democratic and believe in communalism.

I was wrong, I think it was 6 senators. Point being these men followed Caeser, but later killed him to end his reign. It is possible that Paul and Viking and Vadem and anyone else who supported me are cultists, but that will be taken care of in due time.

And I wasn't talking about investigating you.

Oh, well you can cut the head off the snake, but you're just removing the body from the head.

I can remove the circle, but another square will smooth things out and be the new circle and seeing as though there are no mental ramifications and they get 2 days I doubt removing the circle will actually do anything besides put someone else in charge. Unless the cultists are incredibly democratic and believe in communalism.

I was wrong, I think it was 6 senators. Point being these men followed Caeser, but later killed him to end his reign. It is possible that Paul and Viking and Vadem and anyone else who supported me are cultists, but that will be taken care of in due time.

And I wasn't talking about investigating you.

halonachos wrote:Oh, well you can cut the head off the snake, but you're just removing the body from the head.

I can remove the circle, but another square will smooth things out and be the new circle and seeing as though there are no mental ramifications and they get 2 days I doubt removing the circle will actually do anything besides put someone else in charge. Unless the cultists are incredibly democratic and believe in communalism.

How can you possibly be saying this? Is getting rid of cultists not productive now?

I seriously find your post confusing. /shrug

Circles are easier to spot than squares.

If you kill the circle, then you don't kill a triangle, and you put the squares on their back foot. As well as getting closer to the triangle's goal.

If you kill a square, you're not killing a triangle, and the triangles get closer to achieving their goal.

What about the ovals? If we ignore them the trapezoids will have full reign to trample over the rhombi as they please. If the rhombi are taken out we may lose our acute triangles!

halonachos wrote:What about the ovals? If we ignore them the trapezoids will have full reign to trample over the rhombi as they please. If the rhombi are taken out we may lose our acute triangles!

It started off as circles and squares, but when you didn't understand I had to go more in-depth.

Glad you're still dodging around things though.

I am also lost.
Different analogy may be needed.

The Triangles are us, the townies.
The Circle is the lead cultist(?), who is making the executive decisions.
The Squares are the people purposefully, or inadvertently, following the lead cultist.

Syphonius wants to know if we should kill the lead cultist (who is easier to spot), or his support, the squares. Meanwhile, Halo says that killing the lead cultist will only result in one of the followers, or squares, becoming a new lead cultist.

Right?

TherVadam wrote:The Triangles are us, the townies.
The Circle is the lead cultist(?), who is making the executive decisions.
The Squares are the people purposefully, or inadvertently, following the lead cultist.

Syphonius wants to know if we should kill the lead cultist (who is easier to spot), or his support, the squares. Meanwhile, Halo says that killing the lead cultist will only result in one of the followers, or squares, becoming a new lead cultist.

Right?

Indeed. It just started off as why I chose to nab him.

It grew into that.

Though the fact that he says lynching a circle is less valuable then lynching a square is a bit silly.

Especially since squares may or may not be townies.

Circles are cultists though.

Not necessarily silly, like I said nabbing a circle doesn't really matter in this game. Now, if we were talking about war or some terrorist organization in which people actually listen and follow orders I would say go after the circle.

Now, in this game there are a majority of townies left, or else the game would've ended, so you could say that the squares are the cultist and the circle is our Caeser in which case I would go after the squares.

halonachos wrote:Not necessarily silly, like I said nabbing a circle doesn't really matter in this game. Now, if we were talking about war or some terrorist organization in which people actually listen and follow orders I would say go after the circle.

Now, in this game there are a majority of townies left, or else the game would've ended, so you could say that the squares are the cultist and the circle is our Caeser in which case I would go after the squares.

Why is our circle Caesar? I pointed out he was a leader of the squares so to say.

So, that is why I am lynching you, and I still don't get your argument.

Are you implying that killing the person who the cultists are following (you) is dumb, and that we should kill some other square. (your lackeys?)

Can we drop the analogy and replace it all with simply townies, cultists and cult head.