Mini 301: Berry Kingdom Mafia II -- (Game Over!!)

Ameliaslay · Post Post #9 (isolation #0) » Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:27 pm

vote: Bacardi

Ameliaslay · Post Post #11 (isolation #1) » Thu Mar 30, 2006 4:14 pm

FISHSTICKS

Ameliaslay · Post Post #30 (isolation #2) » Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:52 pm

Llyod seems to choose strange ways to provoke reactions early game... I don't know what to make of it yet though.
It should have been pretty obvious that since this is a mini. reg that a player wouldn't have daykill powers...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #42 (isolation #3) » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:47 am

thecesspit wrote:Plus your original vote on Cherry isn't random, it's posted directly under the original Cherry vote. Your response doesn't seem to hold to me. Yo

Just because it follows another vote dosn't make it non-random if votes are truly generated randomly, the possibilities are great that a person will come up with the same random vote as another--- that's what makes it random.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #53 (isolation #4) » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:16 pm

I will be L/A till Mon. the 10th and should things become held up, I will proxy to Ll.oyd

Ameliaslay · Post Post #84 (isolation #5) » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:49 am

Lloyd wrote:Commodore Amazing,

Doctor is a
potential
role. See post 2.

Even if we don't have a doctor, a 1 for 1 trade is still worth it.

Well, I got back in time for the thread to be locked on the closing vote... This kind of stood out to me... care to explain?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #96 (isolation #6) » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:39 am

the cesspit wrote:Why would anyone role-claim the SK

To go for the prisoner's dilemma... since he's (by Lloyd's claim) exposed in one form or another, he might as well and we can

possibly

use him to our benefit rather than detriment...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #118 (isolation #7) » Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:27 pm

CA wrote:so blocking me really didn't do much

Huh? I thought you are either blocked (and your action goes through) or you aren't (and it doesn't)...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #126 (isolation #8) » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:47 am

I think the difference semantically between you claiming SK in 285, and his in this one is that you delcared you were anti-town and unwilling to work with the town whereas he has not gone either way.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #128 (isolation #9) » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:40 pm

As ambiguous, it's like he realizes that to stay alive he must vote with and etc. what the town wants, but it's not wholehearted as in BMQ's more reluctant...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #139 (isolation #10) » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:05 pm

Sorry guys, This slipped to the bottom of the thread so I kinda forget about it. I have the same position on SK's as I did in the mini w/ ziliu I don't trust them, but as has been said killing CA might put us in lynch or lose. I really don't have any concrete suspicions about anyone, the person I was semi-suspicious of died in the night... But as has been said the focus has been on CA since daybreak, it's hard to get a read on anyone else

Bacde wrote:As I was rereading her posts I didn't feel her adamant vibes to catch the scum

What kind of argument is that?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #141 (isolation #11) » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:35 pm

Even though you "fingered" him?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #144 (isolation #12) » Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:22 am

Do you have any specific reasons you think he's scummy?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #149 (isolation #13) » Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:42 pm

[quote="Bacde"If I had to guess another scum, honestly right now I'd say ziliu for accusing me and doing nothing about it when he doesn't get much approval from others[/quote]

Well, I could vote you but that'd just be an OMGUS

Ameliaslay · Post Post #156 (isolation #14) » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:40 am

Bacde wrote:Note here that Amelia likes to make herself known for trying to get other people to post useful stuff.

What are you referring to? My style, as I like to think of it is to get people to clarify what they are saying-- hopefully to elaborate further so I can get a better read on what they're saying. I don't have any great pearls of wisdom, I do have suspicions but I prefer to share them

when

I have posts to back them up-- Your logic is flimsy, in my humble opinion--

Ameliaslay · Post Post #158 (isolation #15) » Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:47 pm

Bacde wrote:I was reffering to the Title fairy thread

Forgive me if I'm lost...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #160 (isolation #16) » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:35 am

thecesspit wrote:I would say that Ziliu or Ameliaslaty are the quietest up until recently,

If I may interject a small comment, I was out of state for the last half of day one and so missed a large chunk of the action...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #164 (isolation #17) » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:51 pm

Bacde wrote:That's cool. So who do you think is scum?

I'll keep my poker face for now, and share my suspicions when all of my little ducks are lined up in a row-- that is, I'm biding my time patiently for one more tiny thing.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #167 (isolation #18) » Mon May 01, 2006 9:50 am

*Bump Whom have we not heard from in a while?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #180 (isolation #19) » Tue May 02, 2006 4:30 pm

I apologize to everyone, but I do have an answer to who I am suspicious of my thoughts, etc., I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs. I've been testing this week, and have time for nothing other than brief check-ins. And again I apologize...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #192 (isolation #20) » Fri May 05, 2006 11:14 am

Here's to all who waited with bated breath: the person I'm suspicious of is Lloyd.
And what I was really waiting for was his reaction to the arguments of today beyond what he has said about CA, or more to the point suspicions of his own. His only comment on the matter hasn't even been very extensive-or to the point, he merely said:

Lloyd wrote:
Ameliaslay wrote:I just don't have time to lay out my case until Thurs.
I look forward to you laying out your case.

All I've seen beyond this post recently, was a brief one 6 days before answering the reason his vote was still on CA.

Furthermore, considering that CA's claim has been called into question soley on the basis of Lloyd's claim of roleblocker, I wondered why his claim was accepted so readily and thought it was convenient that because of his role-blocker claim CA was allowed to slip conveniently and quickly into the shoes of an SK--and thus unlynchable in the face of destroying the balance of power.

And to comment, on the current Bacde/ ziliu question... Ziliu's posts appear most pro-town in sentiment, but some of Bacde's actions cause me to question his alignment. He seemed over-defensive and a bit angry in his response to the PBPA directed at him.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #197 (isolation #21) » Sat May 06, 2006 9:16 am

What I meant, is that the reason he re-claimed was because you claimed. And because a vig. was killed d1, my theory about the nightkills was that the vig. killed the mason and the scum killed the vig which justifys there only being one night kill.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #200 (isolation #22) » Sat May 06, 2006 10:00 am

That does put a hole in my theory-- which was really the only one I had

Ameliaslay · Post Post #202 (isolation #23) » Mon May 08, 2006 5:27 pm

*Bump Is all art of speaking dead? Did anyone else speculate on the theory...etc.? In this case perhaps silence is not golden..

Ameliaslay · Post Post #217 (isolation #24) » Fri May 12, 2006 1:26 am

thecesspit wrote:This isn't true. You made the SK accusation at 10:33, April 17th. CA claimed SK at 20:05. I removed my vote 4hours 30min later, 02:29, April 19th. For only a short period of time (6 hours) was CA at 3 votes for the first time. The second time I didn't post, as I suspect I didn't even log in.

Unless it's a typo, from April the 17th to the 19th is a day and four hours, slight flaw in that argument.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #222 (isolation #25) » Sat May 13, 2006 3:27 pm

^^I think I agree that it would be odd for a scum to so quickly unvote...So then the ones to focus on, if I get this right are ziliu and cherry?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #235 (isolation #26) » Wed May 17, 2006 4:37 pm

Yos2 wrote:Can you think of any other reason why he might have made that semi-cop claim post at the end of day 1?

I didn't really understand why he did something that blatant and unbackable-- why would an SK want to come out?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #240 (isolation #27) » Thu May 18, 2006 4:03 pm

Hi, Turbovolver... any analysis?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #251 (isolation #28) » Mon May 22, 2006 3:52 pm

I think I will also

vote: Ziliu

, when it comes down to the two of them, Cherry has been non-committal, but I think that can be fixed by getting a more firm opinion from him. I'd like to hear from him a lot more before I'd be willing to place a vote on him. And ziliu's posts on the other hand, concretely make me suspicious.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #259 (isolation #29) » Wed May 24, 2006 2:38 pm

^^^I could be wrong-- but the argument goes that a scum wouldn't have exposed himself in such a manner at end of d1-- he had to be an SK who thought the lynchee was scum-- and he could ride the possible doc protection wave by being a "proved " cop...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #271 (isolation #30) » Fri May 26, 2006 3:29 am

ziliu wrote:
Ameliaslay, I'd like you to explain on what you meant in your post 164:
Ameliaslay wrote:
Bacde wrote:That's cool. So who do you think is scum?
I'll keep my poker face for now, and share my suspicions when all of my little ducks are lined up in a row-- that is, I'm biding my time patiently for one more tiny thing.
What were you waiting for?

I was actually hoping conversation would continue (which it didn't) and that by having a greater body of posts to work with, I could better lay out my suspicions.

Second, to answer Lloyd. My reason for voting ziliu was that I thought Yos2's post was logical (the one where he layed out why he was voting ziliu instead of Cherry) and after reading through ziliu's post I could see where he was coming from. And as I believe I've stated, I don't realy agree that the accusations against Cherry indicate scumminess-- that they could be rectified--although at this point, Cherry hasn't shown ant inclination to post more throughly....

Ameliaslay · Post Post #282 (isolation #31) » Mon May 29, 2006 5:33 am

unvote

No counterclaim here.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #301 (isolation #32) » Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:49 pm

Perhaps Cherry should be replaced?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #328 (isolation #33) » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:25 pm

Hmm, well... small idea... I'm usually not an advocate, but would a no-lynch put us in bad spot? Especially since it looks like we've lost whatever consensus we had...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #330 (isolation #34) » Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:10 pm

We do have a roleblocker...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #343 (isolation #35) » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:45 pm

Okay from what I understand, you think Cherry/Ibaesha is scummy because
A. Noncommital
B. No votes have built up on him or me

Anything else you can detail?

Bacde wrote:Vote: Ameliaslay for having the most votes among the people I think are scum.

There's a real winning way to vote, she's suspicious and has the most votes...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #346 (isolation #36) » Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:38 am

What would you like... should I bat my eyes and say: Thank you for thinking of me as you place you well-thought out vote... I've been given nothing really to respond to, and if I said nothing it would be said I'm ignoring things directly affecting myself... I think the saying goes d*** if I do d*** if I don't...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #351 (isolation #37) » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:08 pm

Bacde wrote:You know, Ameliaslay, I'm still willing to lynch Cherry. *wink* *wink*

Just chilling there w/o a vote on anyone doesn't make you look better.

I actually was considering a vote on Cherry before he was replaced,
but I wanted to give the replacement a chance to make up where Cherry lacked-- contribution of opinions... But the thought never carried over into action... Sometimes when I'm uncertain/ thinking I try to be conservative with my vote...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #352 (isolation #38) » Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:14 pm

I'm kind of torn, the persons I have had suspicions toward have logical reasons behind why they should not be lynched-- and the other obvious candidates don't really seem to have concrete scum tells or anything of that nature....

Ameliaslay · Post Post #361 (isolation #39) » Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:19 am

Setting up future lynches huh?

Ameliaslay · Post Post #369 (isolation #40) » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:46 pm

^^^ At the time I thought it was odd as well... CA claimed one thing--felt a barrage of why'd you do what you did at the lynch... Yos2 said you must be an SK from the way you've acted and CA then backed up and said yeah he's right, I'm the SK... Kind of like the words were placed in his mouth, very convenient...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #374 (isolation #41) » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:41 am

Turbo wrote:But how does that point to Yos as scum?

I have no clue.

Ameliaslay · Post Post #383 (isolation #42) » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:07 am

Bacde wrote:Everyone and their mothers should know what role I am right now.

Scum. You've come under suspicion once and then slipped under the radar... I don't believe you're what you're implying you are at all...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #387 (isolation #43) » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:13 am

Bacde didn't claim... he said "notcop"
And if you're saying that the night kill was the SK, what were the scum doing??? What would be a reason for them to not make a kill?? Especially if the RB blocked a townie...

Ameliaslay · Post Post #388 (isolation #44) » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:15 am

EBWOP:
What I meant to add was is it plausible for scum and SK to target the same person twice?