GRcade

I think there's one there.

So out of the two who are we voting for?

I'd hate to lynch the wrong one and let the vamp get away. That's if there is one.

Zellery wrote:So out of the two who are we voting for?

I'd hate to lynch the wrong one and let the vamp get away. That's if there is one.

Lynch one today and the other tomorrow, if it comes to it. I don't think PCCD is a Vamp though. So I may go for Luke. Maybe, I dunno.

Memento Mori wrote:

satriales wrote:What did Luke_25 do that made him look suspicious?

Just inactivity I think.

I don't think inactivity on it's own is enough reason to be lynched just yet. However, if people feel strongly that there is a vampire (or even The Count) among Dan's nominations then I'm all for lynching both PCCD and Luke_25 today and tomorrow. At least then we'll know if 'Mocky's flock' also contains some vampires.

Just caught up.


Seem like alright choices picked today based on what little we know at the moment.

satriales wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

satriales wrote:What did Luke_25 do that made him look suspicious?

Just inactivity I think.

I don't think inactivity on it's own is enough reason to be lynched just yet. However, if people feel strongly that there is a vampire (or even The Count) among Dan's nominations then I'm all for lynching both PCCD and Luke_25 today and tomorrow. At least then we'll know if 'Mocky's flock' also contains some vampires.

I think it was more he posted twice, which were really rather pointless. Though Dan did quote one of them, so that 2nd post (the quoted one) may have been off.

Mocky was an incredible werewolf and has played almost every single one of these games - he's simply not stupid enough to try and "rescue" a vampire being put up for a random lynch because he knows that doing so incriminates him should one of the candidates be outed. As it stands, if I'd been here this afternoon I would have voted for Dan because PCCD is freaking me out, but I've never been very good at these games.

As for the person who incriminated Karlprof - I've had the dubious pleasure of going directly head to head with him in the last one of these and his posting style wasn't the same as it is now, he was much more quiet and reserved. I'd be quite surprised if he's a vampire. Then again, I refer you to my previous point about not being very good at the game.

I'm also up for lynching them both, today and tomorrow.

Then if a vamp emerges from that, we should look towards Mocky and co.

Well if nothing else comes up before tomorrow shall we lynch whoever survives tonight? Then if no vampires are found we can ignore Mocky and his merry men, if we do find a vamp we have five leads to follow.

satriales wrote:Well if nothing else comes up before tomorrow shall we lynch whoever survives tonight? Then if no vampires are found we can ignore Mocky and his merry men, if we do find a vamp we have five leads to follow.

Sounds good.

Sorry I missed the mayoral vote.

I was catching up fine then Karlprof's formula made my head explode. Seems like there was quiet a last minute flurry for candidates there and some interesting tactics.

I reckon PCCD's mentioning of the Twitter account's was just due to confusion, as one the of the vamps followers (on twitter) I can only apologise if you got a bit lost by some of the stuff I was posting about and I hope you liked the picture of the hedgehog.

With regards to inactive players, could someone please explain what sort of thing we should be posting about to stay 'active'? I've never played before so it seems like most of the content is based on speculation and suspicion about other member's activity. If it's a case of just chipping in with your tuppence worth every so often then that's fine but, by the time I get round to catching up on stuff it's already moved onto a different discussion!

Still up for the game and I'm reading up when I can but it'll only be every so often that I can post.

I am not a crook. I was merely active in the thread at the time and saw an idea proposed which I agreed with. I think I was quite clear in my mathematical reasoning for supporting it. Had the probability I calculated been vanishingly small I would have withdrawn my support.

(EDIT: Typo.)

NBK wrote:With regards to inactive players, could someone please explain what sort of thing we should be posting about to stay 'active'?

Post anything you like.

I post way too much and it'll probably get me killed by the vampires as they like to eliminate active players, but the way I see it i'd rather be active and get killed than sit back and get killed for no reason (like Fatal Exception and Drumstick).

I suppose I should explain a few things then -

PMing Staydead -

Very basic here. Before the Twitter accounts were banned I noticed that the GRVampire one was following one person so I clicked to see who it was and found it was GRcade. The thing was Staydead's tweets were in there as well so because I don't understand how some of Twitter works I PMed him to find out how that could be.

PMing Darkritual

This is related to the above. In case me admitting I didn't know how some of Twitter works made me a prime target to be bullshitted I PMed Darkritual with the same question. Why Darkritual? He was the first person I found in the thread with a Twitter link in his sig. I deleted it after the Twitter accounts were banned because it wasn't relevant anymore.

Me picking the people being targeted by the Twitter account

Because I felt even if I was to show the Twitter account was giving clues as to who was being targeted (at the very least I did with the Call & Answer tweet I felt) the general response would be too ignore it anyway, I felt we could get away with offing one of them ourselves to prove it. With 45 villagers at this point one extra death isn't going to make our chances terminal. I didn't at all like how the general response from some people was to ignore it completely (Satriales and Dan) because of the potential for vampire misdirection but were quite happy to go along with lynching inactives as that's something else the vampires want to do. Prior to it being banned it was a solid lead and I couldn't understand why some people were so dead set against following it up in favour of random lynchings. Yes there was the possibility for the vampires to mislead us with it but we've still got to work out the clues in the Tweets before we can act on them and considering how obtuse some of them were the vampires may not have bothered trying too mislead us.

Me not being in here until now

Breakfast > keeping the house ticking over > Le Mans > checking last night's UFC results.

Not going to be here tonight after around 5pm as I've got the last of my weekend of dates tonight, but I too find it suspicious that there was such a rush to change the mayorship. Perhaps the vamps are influencing the villagers in some way whilst keeping themselves hidden?

NBK wrote:I reckon PCCD's mentioning of the Twitter account's was just due to confusion, as one the of the vamps followers (on twitter) I can only apologise if you got a bit lost by some of the stuff I was posting about and I hope you liked the picture of the hedgehog.

That was you?

PCCD wrote:Prior to it being banned it was a solid lead and I couldn't understand why some people were so dead set against following it up in favour of random lynchings. Yes there was the possibility for the vampires to mislead us with it but we've still got to work out the clues in the Tweets before we can act on them and considering how obtuse some of them were the vampires may not have bothered trying too mislead us.

I can't fathom your logic. How was it ever a solid lead? Even if - and this is unlikely to the point of being impossible - the twitter told us who the vamps were targeting, how would that be useful info? We can't protect them, save for making them mayor!

Zellery wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Zellery wrote:Yeah it'd be nice if more villagers actually reported in, there's 50 of us!

Why sign up to play a game then never post again?

It's called the 'Villager? strawberry float that' syndrome.

Oh right, great.

It's been 2 days (well 1 when you posted that), Christ, keep your hair on. I've caught up to page 23, this is going to take strawberry floating ages.

NBK.

When I said earlier about inactive players I didn't mean you as you had already posted a few times. I was really only referring to people who had not posted more than once thus far.

As for when to post, whenever you have an idea, an insight maybe or any other useful information you feel is worth sharing. Also it'd be nice if people were active when we actually vote for a Mayor every day and when someone dies at the end.

Dan. wrote:

PCCD wrote:Prior to it being banned it was a solid lead and I couldn't understand why some people were so dead set against following it up in favour of random lynchings. Yes there was the possibility for the vampires to mislead us with it but we've still got to work out the clues in the Tweets before we can act on them and considering how obtuse some of them were the vampires may not have bothered trying too mislead us.

I can't fathom your logic. How was it ever a solid lead? Even if - and this is unlikely to the point of being impossible - the twitter told us who the vamps were targeting, how would that be useful info? We can't protect them, save for making them mayor!

If we've got a witch doctor in this then that's two people we can protect, two less deaths per night is a big deal in something like this and we can look at who the targeted were looking at as potential suspects. I don't understand how that can't be considered useful, usable info or why anyone would be so dead set against following it up at all.