Also, quit being a smartass. It's not very nice
zzzz good morning SyncSync wrote:
Sure that makes sense, aside from the fact that you did not give any explanation as to why you do in fact agree with the lynch. I mean, if I were you, I would have known to explain myself considering the position I was in. Jumping on the bandwagon like that made me look more suspicious, so why shouldn't it you? Oh wait... It's because Salvage/Wojjan won't call you out if you agree with them. You knew it too, so that is why you voted for Dusty. I guess you at least TRIED to get the spotlight from under you... anyways, nice try
Vote: Mashley
This man understands my weak feelings. This is why I will not vote Rantai for this entire year.Rantai wrote:
Mara being Mara is not enough for me to follow. No one has that sort of swing.
The only flaw I see in your plan is that the 2nd vig doesn't have a 100% chance either. That could be another reason as to why the inactive didn't die, unless:Wojjan wrote:
how about we ask the second vig to shoot an inactive
if an inactive dies the vig did well and that doesn't mean anything, worst case.
if they didn't die the vig was roleblocked or a maf extrakill who didn't want to off his teammate.
Case A: whoever was given roleblocker is scum. Two townies dead, Dusty and the NK. Case B: maf are idiots and we have two outed scum. Two townies dead, Dusty and NK.
If the inactive does die then you got what you wanted and I got what I wanted.
Two's reply to this is "Yes", in which case I think the plan would work well.Chris wrote:
@MOD - Assuming there are multiple vigilantes, if a vigilante dies without having used a bullet, will the other vigilante(s) have an improved accuracy chance?
Fair enough then Wojjan.Two wrote:
sure
you're always against me (((Rantai wrote:
I think I'll believe Dusty for now.
Leaving me with Sync again.
What exactly did we overlook? The only reason I voted for him is because I didn't like the way he voted without giving a reason which seemed like it was a convenient way to jump on the bandwagon and get the spotlight off of him. That's done for now I guess... I suppose we always have day 2 to see what happens...Dafydd wrote:
To add: so how about Sync? I think we overlooked this just because of Dusty's roleclaim. In fact, they both pressed Mashley hard.
also wow I just read this again and I lol'dDusty wrote:
I read bmin's posts as just showing Korean cultural differences (saying "sorry" all the time and stuff), not scumminessSalvage wrote:
that paranoid reaction to a simple vote is what im talking about
second vig please shoot dafyddDafydd wrote:
Now I don't know what to believe.
Might as well wait for more answers though. :/
Rantai wasn't lynched... On top that, what makes you think that kill was suppose to point YOU out as Mafia? It just sounds...odd.Sync wrote:
Poor Rantai :< Confused why you were lynched myself. Maybe since you suspected me, mafia was setting up a way to point out me as mafia.
Pretty shallow, but who knows
are you dumb or stupidWojjan wrote:
well there's no lurker dead
that should account for something.
Fixed it for you. Sure, a vig kill might have given us more information but who knows, maybe the vig has a better idea? Who knows what it might be though?Wojjan wrote:
thing is I, Wojjan only, specifically said "vig kill one a these bitches"
I meant killed and Rantai was calling me suspicious D1.Lilac wrote:
Rantai wasn't lynched... On top that, what makes you think that kill was suppose to point YOU out as Mafia? It just sounds...odd.Sync wrote:
Poor Rantai :< Confused why you were lynched myself. Maybe since you suspected me, mafia was setting up a way to point out me as mafia.
Pretty shallow, but who knows
don't you startLilac wrote:
Fixed it for you. Sure, a vig kill might have given us more information but who knows, maybe the vig has a better idea? Who knows what it might be though?Wojjan wrote:
thing is I, Wojjan only, specifically said "vig kill one a these bitches"
using vig so early in the game and pushing for it so muchWojjan wrote:
So why did no inactive die? I actually think all vigs in play might be all town right now. Scum woulld waste no time using a second kill on an inactive if it wouldn't only reduce our numbers but also earn them confirmed cred.
maybe so he could say "mafia probably did that to make me look bad, hurr durr".Chris wrote:
I'm not sure if Sync is just paranoid or bad, but I don't see why he would send a kill in that would (in his opinion) make him look bad.
yes.dkun wrote:
but then again, i've only lurked and read so far, does that make me scum according to your logic?
He doesn't say he has a chance of missing. It's quite clear from this post that he doesn't know if he has a chance of missing. The way it's worded suggests that he was simply told what was in the role list, that if there are other vigs then his accuracy goes down.Dusty wrote:
If the description on the role list my giftee had is the same as my vig role, I don't even have guaranteed 100% accuracy...
Just because my day 1 posts were such almighty genius that they transcended the level of your pitiful mind.Lilac wrote:
By God.
Mashley said something that actually made sense and I can somewhat agree on.
He said if his vig role works like his giftee's, then he wouldn't even have 100% accuracy.Mashley wrote:
Read his post againHe doesn't say he has a chance of missing. It's quite clear from this post that he doesn't know if he has a chance of missing. The way it's worded suggests that he was simply told what was in the role list, that if there are other vigs then his accuracy goes down.Dusty wrote:
If the description on the role list my giftee had is the same as my vig role, I don't even have guaranteed 100% accuracy...
Read then post plz, right back at you.
If he chose vig for his giftee then he would have come to the conclusion that he isn't 100%, not that he might not be 100%.JInxyjem wrote:
He said if his vig role works like his giftee's, then he wouldn't even have 100% accuracy.
Sounds to me like he chose vig for his giftee and thus came to that conclusion that he may not be 100%.
If he was saying what you're trying to say, then his statement would have read:JInxyjem wrote:
No, his post showed that he thought he may not have shared the same type of vig as his giftee but if he did share the same type of vig, it meant that he did not have 100%.
Dusty wrote:
If the description on the role list my giftee had is the same as my vig role, I don't even haveguaranteed100% accuracy...