[M] Micro 237: Greatest Idea Mafia - (Hunger ENDGames)

Guyett · Post Post #875 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:27 pm

Right now I'm really only happy with the following peoples lynches (higher you are the more you need rope)

Lucky
Bulba
Nat
Skrew

Sak is conf town and I am satisfied that disturbed is town. Miltos is less obvious town but the use of the psychomagnet then doesn't seem like a scum orientated move

Bulbazak · Post Post #876 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:28 pm

In post 874, Guyett wrote:do you not think that I looked anti town on purpose to not draw scum attention before I full claimed? I tried to steer clear of the NK pool while trying to avoid the top of the lynch pool as I felt it would be best play as Doc

That's the dumbest excuse I've ever heard, and it contradicts what you just said.

Guyett · Post Post #877 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:29 pm

contradicts what?

Lucky2u · Post Post #878 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:02 pm

Well if noone counter claims a protective role of some kind... Then how can a Guyett lynch even be considered?

VOTE: skrew

I wanted this one yesterday.

Bulbazak · Post Post #879 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:12 pm

In post 877, Guyett wrote:contradicts what?

You said originally that you unvoted Who so that you could think about his reaction, even though you never mention that reaction again and voted him based on his alignment card claim, which was out before your fakehammer. When I press you further, you said that you didn't want him to be quickhammered, even though there was no evidence that would be a problem, Who wasn't that great of a townread for you anyway, and a quickhammer would increase the odds that we would lynch scum the next day. Now you say that you were being anti-town on purpose in order to not get NK'd, even though everything you've said before completely contradicts that, since you were presenting them as town actions.

Anyone else noticing a pattern here?

Natirasha · Post Post #880 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:21 pm

In post 878, Lucky2u wrote:Well if noone counter claims a protective role of some kind... Then how can a Guyett lynch even be considered?

VOTE: skrew

I wanted this one yesterday.

Why is every vote you throw so scummy looking?

Bulba, can we deal with SleepyK and Guyett tomorrow and lynch this fuck finally?

Bulbazak · Post Post #881 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:25 pm

In post 880, Natirasha wrote: Bulba, can we deal with SleepyK and Guyett tomorrow and lynch this fuck finally?

I want us to hold off on Lucky today. Trust me. I have my reasons.

Natirasha · Post Post #882 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:32 pm

In post 881, Bulbazak wrote:
In post 880, Natirasha wrote: Bulba, can we deal with SleepyK and Guyett tomorrow and lynch this fuck finally?
I want us to hold off on Lucky today. Trust me. I have my reasons.

=/

Bulbazak · Post Post #883 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:34 pm

It's the difference between conf. town or conf. scum. You'll have it on Lucky tomorrow.

Natirasha · Post Post #884 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:01 pm

In post 883, Bulbazak wrote:It's the difference between conf. town or conf. scum. You'll have it on Lucky tomorrow.

Okay, so where does that leave us? I mean, of SleepyK vs Guyett, I'd have to lean towards Guyett on basis of play, but I like both of them...

Bulbazak · Post Post #885 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:04 pm

I would rather lynch SK, simply because Guyett could be useful if he's a town doctor.

Natirasha · Post Post #886 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:11 pm

Okay.

I'm going to see if SleepyK actually produces content soon.

Guyett · Post Post #887 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:37 pm

Nat do you think I am scum?

Mitillos · Post Post #888 (ISO) » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:37 pm

@Mod: Do investigative roles only receive a binary result (X vs. not-X), or do they get a full response (you investigated Y and he was X/not-X)?

Guyett · Post Post #889 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:06 am

Why are you asking? You're a psychomagnet...

Natirasha · Post Post #890 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:54 am

In post 887, Guyett wrote:Nat do you think I am scum?

Well, we know Sakura isn't. I'm willing to believe that DO isn't either. I know I'm not. That leaves four targets--Bulba, Lucky, you, SleepyK. I've established I want lucky killed dead. After that, I think that SleepyK is the most townie due to his interactions and everything day one--his day two performance has been pretty bad though. That leaves you vs Bulba, of which both I'm not entirely sure on.

I'm hoping that we just have a single scum so we kill Lucky and win.

In post 889, Guyett wrote:Why are you asking? You're a psychomagnet...

Think...who claimed both a target and a result last night?

Guyett · Post Post #891 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:59 am

In post 890, Natirasha wrote:
In post 887, Guyett wrote:Nat do you think I am scum?
Well, we know Sakura isn't. I'm willing to believe that DO isn't either. I know I'm not. That leaves four targets--Bulba, Lucky, you, SleepyK. I've established I want lucky killed dead. After that, I think that SleepyK is the most townie due to his interactions and everything day one--his day two performance has been pretty bad though. That leaves you vs Bulba, of which both I'm not entirely sure on.

I'm hoping that we just have a single scum so we kill Lucky and win.

Would you say my play has been consistent through the game? Why has your read changed from 96

In post 889, Guyett wrote:Why are you asking? You're a psychomagnet...
Think...who claimed both a target and a result last night?

Sorry my brain has switched off today... I'll go and check

Guyett · Post Post #892 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:01 am

Also you can be sure that there is at least 2 scum Nat, Maestro won't run the game with less than 2 scum or more than 4 scum

Natirasha · Post Post #893 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:31 am

In post 891, Guyett wrote:Would you say my play has been consistent through the game? Why has your read changed from 96

Um, you realize that was a page, like, 4 read, right? And, yes, your play's been consistent this game. I'm still processing the Bulba-you interactions, as it is, but I find your claim acceptable as it is. I mean, I'm clearly missing something if there have to be two scum--so I don't know.

Also you can be sure that there is at least 2 scum Nat, Maestro won't run the game with less than 2 scum or more than 4 scum

Oh? Did I fail to read the guidelines more?

Guyett · Post Post #894 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:41 am

If my play has been consistent and you had a town read on me due to a 'town tell' then surely I'd still be a town read now?!?

I seem to remember him saying that somewhere nat.. however I can't find it now.

Natirasha · Post Post #895 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:42 am

In post 894, Guyett wrote:If my play has been consistent and you had a town read on me due to a 'town tell' then surely I'd still be a town read now?!?

You'd think.

Guyett · Post Post #896 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:44 am

why has your opinion changed?

Guyett · Post Post #897 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:45 am

Wouldn't be to do with me putting you down as potential scum now would it

Natirasha · Post Post #898 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:46 am

In post 897, Guyett wrote:Wouldn't be to do with me putting you down as potential scum now would it

Nah, I think I'm on everyone's radars.

Reads decay is the correct answer, and others apparently find fault in you, so I'm likely missing something.

Guyett · Post Post #899 (ISO) » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:49 am

maybe others find faults in me as I am always an easy mislynch and they are scum pushing for it...