Conquer Club

Fircoal wrote:Also if we know he didn't do the kill I'll rather go after and target someone who could have done the kill.

I am not terribly attached to voting Stubbs at the moment. If someone comes up with another idea I will gladly consider it.

Fircoal, where do you stand on safariguy now?

If you want to lynch me for doing something in this game, go ahead.
At least I'm not afraid to post what's on my mind.

StubbsKVM wrote:Fircoal, where do you stand on safariguy now?

I stand that I am still suspicious of him, however I don't think my arguments hold as much water. Because IB was town, that means that now he had to be trying not to lynch IB because he's town, which would lead me to believe that if he is scum Hensow is as well. (That is, he targeted a teammate for a lynch, and tried to avoid targeting an innocent)

Fircoal wrote:

StubbsKVM wrote:Fircoal, where do you stand on safariguy now?

I stand that I am still suspicious of him, however I don't think my arguments hold as much water. Because IB was town, that means that now he had to be trying not to lynch IB because he's town, which would lead me to believe that if he is scum Hensow is as well. (That is, he targeted a teammate for a lynch, and tried to avoid targeting an innocent)

Conveniently though, Hensow was almost our D1 lynch. I cannot remember how that got broken up to where Hensow can continue his minor activity and it didnt get brought back up. Unless I didnt read far enough, I havent gotten enough time to read the few pages from D1 and D2, but if someone could re-evaluate to see if he was ever brought back into question, maybe now is time to do so to at least get the conversation rolling forward in a progressive manor. Hope for, if nothing else, a scum slip to get a better lead.

ghostly447 wrote:Conveniently though, Hensow was almost our D1 lynch. I cannot remember how that got broken up to where Hensow can continue his minor activity and it didnt get brought back up. Unless I didnt read far enough, I havent gotten enough time to read the few pages from D1 and D2, but if someone could re-evaluate to see if he was ever brought back into question, maybe now is time to do so to at least get the conversation rolling forward in a progressive manor. Hope for, if nothing else, a scum slip to get a better lead.

Hensow claimed VT but was still probably going to be lynched until Iron Butterfly posted this:[spoiler]

Iron Butterfly wrote:The game is Summer vs Winter. Winter did the killing so I assume they are mafia (red). Why would a Summer VT be orange?? Could it be that Summer has a cult leader that must recruit Summer VTs?

[/spoiler]Hensow quickly switched his vote to Iron Butterfly and Dazza and Stubbs where the first to follow. Iron Butterfly has been the center of discussion ever since.

spiesr wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:Conveniently though, Hensow was almost our D1 lynch. I cannot remember how that got broken up to where Hensow can continue his minor activity and it didnt get brought back up. Unless I didnt read far enough, I havent gotten enough time to read the few pages from D1 and D2, but if someone could re-evaluate to see if he was ever brought back into question, maybe now is time to do so to at least get the conversation rolling forward in a progressive manor. Hope for, if nothing else, a scum slip to get a better lead.

Hensow claimed VT but was still probably going to be lynched until Iron Butterfly posted this:[spoiler]

Iron Butterfly wrote:The game is Summer vs Winter. Winter did the killing so I assume they are mafia (red). Why would a Summer VT be orange?? Could it be that Summer has a cult leader that must recruit Summer VTs?

[/spoiler]Hensow quickly switched his vote to Iron Butterfly and Dazza and Stubbs where the first to follow. Iron Butterfly has been the center of discussion ever since.

Thats it, thank you. So it is sensible to pressure dazza or stubbs, at least to get some form of discussion ongoing. With that said, I will go back through and read when I get time and try to put a case against anyone, but that bit of info may play in.

4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

kgb007 wrote:4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

Well we have:
1 claimed PR
3 confirmed VT's
1 claimed VT

I would bet the breakdown goes something like this:
3 Mafia
2-5 power roles
Rest VT

OR

4 Mafia
3-6 PR
Rest VT

More mafia, more power roles. In a game with VT's I normally either see 1:3 scum:town or 1:4. So I would bet money there are a couple more power roles and some of these VT claims are going to be fakes.

ghostly447 wrote:

kgb007 wrote:4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

Well we have:
1 claimed PR
3 confirmed VT's
1 claimed VT

I would bet the breakdown goes something like this:
3 Mafia
2-5 power roles
Rest VT 8 - 5

OR

4 Mafia
3-6 PR
Rest VT 6 - 3

More mafia, more power roles. In a game with VT's I normally either see 1:3 scum:town or 1:4. So I would bet money there are a couple more power roles and some of these VT claims are going to be fakes.

4 VT is well with in your estimates.
I'm surprised at the idea that saf would kill a team mate on day one tho I understand the logic it just seems wasteful.
but I have little to add to whats been said right now.

Hensow wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:

kgb007 wrote:4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

Well we have:
1 claimed PR
3 confirmed VT's
1 claimed VT

I would bet the breakdown goes something like this:
3 Mafia
2-5 power roles
Rest VT 8 - 5

OR

4 Mafia
3-6 PR
Rest VT 6 - 3

More mafia, more power roles. In a game with VT's I normally either see 1:3 scum:town or 1:4. So I would bet money there are a couple more power roles and some of these VT claims are going to be fakes.

4 VT is well with in your estimates.
I'm surprised at the idea that saf would kill a team mate on day one tho I understand the logic it just seems wasteful.
but I have little to add to whats been said right now.

Im not sure that I said anything about 4 VT's not being within the estimates. Dont be surprised by anything you see on this site. Mafia get thrown under the bus all the time in an attempt to clear one of the others. No one is clear until they prove their role, and even then there are roles that arent always confirmed because a mafia side could be in play as well.

Hensow wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:

kgb007 wrote:4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

Well we have:
1 claimed PR
3 confirmed VT's
1 claimed VT

I would bet the breakdown goes something like this:
3 Mafia
2-5 power roles
Rest VT 8 - 5

OR

4 Mafia
3-6 PR
Rest VT 6 - 3

More mafia, more power roles. In a game with VT's I normally either see 1:3 scum:town or 1:4. So I would bet money there are a couple more power roles and some of these VT claims are going to be fakes.

4 VT is well with in your estimates.
I'm surprised at the idea that saf would kill a team mate on day one tho I understand the logic it just seems wasteful.
but I have little to add to whats been said right now.

I would add that a tracker and watcher combo makes sense, so I would say there's a high probability we have a watcher. Probably a doctor as well or maybe some other combination of protective roles.

safariguy5 wrote:

Hensow wrote:

ghostly447 wrote:

kgb007 wrote:4 VTs in a 13 player game? anyone care to speculate on the balance?

Well we have:
1 claimed PR
3 confirmed VT's
1 claimed VT

I would bet the breakdown goes something like this:
3 Mafia
2-5 power roles
Rest VT 8 - 5

OR

4 Mafia
3-6 PR
Rest VT 6 - 3

More mafia, more power roles. In a game with VT's I normally either see 1:3 scum:town or 1:4. So I would bet money there are a couple more power roles and some of these VT claims are going to be fakes.

4 VT is well with in your estimates.
I'm surprised at the idea that saf would kill a team mate on day one tho I understand the logic it just seems wasteful.
but I have little to add to whats been said right now.

I would add that a tracker and watcher combo makes sense, so I would say there's a high probability we have a watcher. Probably a doctor as well or maybe some other combination of protective roles.

I wouldnt be surprised if there was some sort of vig setup for summer though. Just picking out all the mafia through lynches is pretty difficult sometimes.

No change to VC. Deadline still stands. Iron Butterfly has been prodded.

jonty125 wrote:No change to VC. Deadline still stands. Iron Butterfly has been prodded.

Prodding the dead? (SORRY, I'll go back to not haunting you guys)

vote spiesr

I don't really want to die.

Vote Count
StubbsKVM (1) - spieser;
spieser (1) - StubbsKVM;

If the vote count were to remain like this at deadline, a 24 hour runoff would be enforced would be lynched.

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch. Deadline is Wednesday 18 September @ 1600 BST.

Mass prod going out.

jonty125 wrote:If there is a draw, there will be a 24 hour run-off period where only voting is allowed and no discussion.

this isn't exactly desirable either..

StubbsKVM wrote:vote spiesr

I don't really want to die.

Im sure you dont want to die, but why did you vote spies, just wondering? Trying to figure out your thought process

Whatever I'm just going with my feelings at this point.

Vote: Safariguy5

new guy1 wrote:

StubbsKVM wrote:vote spiesr

I don't really want to die.

Im sure you dont want to die, but why did you vote spies, just wondering? Trying to figure out your thought process

I would wager it is OMGUS. Or perhaps the fear the voting for anyone else would trigger an OMGUS from them.

new guy1 wrote:

StubbsKVM wrote:vote spiesr

I don't really want to die.

Im sure you dont want to die, but why did you vote spies, just wondering? Trying to figure out your thought process

he voted spies bc stubbs would have been lynched by spies one vote against stubbs if no one else voted so it was part OMGUS and part self preservation since it forced a (now) 3-way tie in votes against stubbs, spies and saf

I really don't have a clue what to do.

kgb007 wrote:he voted spies bc stubbs would have been lynched by spies one vote against stubbs if no one else voted so it was part OMGUS and part self preservation since it forced a (now) 3-way tie in votes against stubbs, spies and saf

Of course he wants to live and the way the deadline works voting someone else is part of that. The real question is why does he think I should be lynched out of all potential candidates.

spiesr wrote:Of course he wants to live and the way the deadline works voting someone else is part of that. The real question is why does he think I should be lynched out of all potential candidates.

didn't you already answer your own question a few posts earlier? he may not necessarily think you should be lynched at all as you alluded below...i was just adding additional context since some ppl may not understand why he voted at all..

spiesr wrote:I would wager it is OMGUS. Or perhaps the fear the voting for anyone else would trigger an OMGUS from them.

vote no lynch this is going no where and the lack of activity in this game makes us all look scummy

Vote Count
StubbsKVM (1) - spieser;
spieser (1) - StubbsKVM;
safariguy5(1) - Fircoal;
No Lynch (1) - kgb007;

If the vote count were to remain like this at deadline, a 24 hour runoff would be enforced would be lynched.

With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch. Deadline is Wednesday 18 September @ 1700 BST.