|
Post by raypatean on Nov 8, 2008 9:47:15 GMT -5
Oh, I forgot something in the above post. Foo'. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 9:49:11 GMT -5
So why Cygnus? Didn't he vote for LE? Maybe LE felt a little heat? Maybe just playful bantering? Who knows for sure, but awefully convenient. You're not actually taking Cygnus' vote seriously, are you? And you know what I think is awfully convenient? Suddenly "inferring" that there are two wrasslers, just as your own wrassling buddy is put on the lynch train. So I'm going to go ahead and Vote: jrlafrance@wm: I speculated, but didn't reach any conclusions worth mentioning. Since you brought it up, how do you see the hidden role?
|
|
|
Post by Noodle on Nov 8, 2008 10:31:28 GMT -5
There's the possible hidden role, that I don't believe Goltar confirmed was in the game, and the druggie. Both are pretty much wild cards - the hidden role could have any type of power, while the effects of the druggie are random. Given this, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain a pattern, and hence make an educated guess. I'm not entirely sure how the Mullet Troll role works, or how to identify the person. I'm going to have to read posts and see who isn't making sense to try to reason it out.
Speaking of not making sense, Jason, would you care to explain your vote for me? Maybe something beyond a simple "Why not?"? At this stage of the game, that looks pretty suspicious.
JRLA, I'm going to go back and re-read the last seven pages of posts, and look for any mention of numbers.
- Noodle
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 11:30:35 GMT -5
And we've got enough people now, the hidden role will be in. The hidden role is in. The hidden role and the druggie might indeed be hard to sniff out. But I expect the Mullet Troll to act just like the other wrassler(s). After all, the bad guys will probably pick his target together. So each of them has the same stake in identifying townie roles.
|
|
|
Post by nolecub on Nov 8, 2008 11:32:00 GMT -5
Wow, 2 quick votes for Nac Runo! How can we be assured that LE and Nazdakka are not the 2 wrasslers? Both posts came at such close timing... Defending a known wrassler? Doesn't cast you in a very endearing light. Vote: jrlafranceAs I see it, you have several strikes against you: 1. Defending Nac 2. Agreeing with Noodle 3. Number crunching trying to identify the number of roles. A nice diversionary mafia tactic 4. You fall in my "First Four" theory. (seems I missed that by one) Awaiting your defense....
|
|
|
Post by goltar on Nov 8, 2008 11:35:58 GMT -5
I forgot to put the full details of the band's recruiting ability. The band can recruit ANYONE, wrestlers included. Whoever they recruit will be given the names of the band members, obviously the band will know them, but I will not specify if their recruitee has any role.
I have edited this into the original rules post as well.
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 12:14:54 GMT -5
@nole: you still haven't explained why you wanted to look at the "First Four" when there were ten posters. goltar: does that mean that if the band targets a wrassler, he or she effectively becomes a wrassler with the ability to spy on the band?
|
|
|
Post by nolecub on Nov 8, 2008 12:18:21 GMT -5
@muzzz - I failed at transitioning the thoughts in my head to the board.
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 13:33:45 GMT -5
Even if we forget about your apparently poorly worded first post, you still haven't explained anything.
Why are the first four posters any more likely to be wrasslers than the six (or ten) that followed them?
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 13:34:19 GMT -5
Oh, how I long to edit that post...
|
|
|
Post by goltar on Nov 8, 2008 13:40:28 GMT -5
goltar: does that mean that if the band targets a wrassler, he or she effectively becomes a wrassler with the ability to spy on the band? Correct.
|
|
|
Post by nolecub on Nov 8, 2008 13:51:39 GMT -5
Muzzz - your are trying to hard my friend.
My theory was that a wrassler would be one of the first to post. That is all. That is why I asked about the first four posters. Seems it was number 5 that won it though.
And since you long to edit your post, explain your thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Nazdakka on Nov 8, 2008 14:18:42 GMT -5
I'm baffled by a lot of this, Nolecub. Not that I don't suspect Jrla, but seriously, three out of four of your arguments make no sense. Reasonable. Please explain to me why this is suspicious. Seems like useful information if we can figure it out. Jrla seemed to just pull those numbers from thin air, which is very odd, but I don't see how trying to figure that stuff out constitutes a 'diversionary mafia tactic'. I suspect that timezones, free time and individual style have more to do with early posting than Wrestler-ness. In fact, given the likely number of Wrestlers we're up against (3-5, based on what seems like a sensible balance from a host's perspective), a wrestler in the first 4 would be a fairly likely occurence by random chance, which seems to invalidate usefulness of the theory.
|
|
|
Post by Nazdakka on Nov 8, 2008 14:30:24 GMT -5
damnation, fail at quotes. Also, under point 1 my meaning was that suspecting Jrla for defending NacRuno is a reasonable thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by muzzz on Nov 8, 2008 14:36:41 GMT -5
Muzzz - your are trying to hard my friend. My theory was that a wrassler would be one of the first to post. That is all. That is why I asked about the first four posters. Seems it was number 5 that won it though. Actually, I think I might not be trying hard enough. You see, I want you to tell us where you got the number four. And we're either having some serious communication issues, or you're evading the question. I understand that you think one of the wrasslers would post quickly. I don't agree, but that's irrelevant for now. What I want to know is why you insist(ed) on looking at the first four. Not the first three, or five, or six, or any other relatively small number, but four. Why? Explain that, and I might just get off your back for a while. And since you long to edit your post, explain your thinking. I forgot to put in the [/i].
|
|