That’s the second time that game has come up recently, the other being a reminder of when Ed baited not one but two scum into voting for me by first doing so himself, at which point I all but flipped my gourd. Good times.
IMO no; he’s been chatty as town – in De’endee for instance.
I agree with Gadarene about fubbles, though more from instinct/comparison with other Pizza-created roles than by any information I am privy to.
What say you, fubbles, is it true? And can you be neutral in terms of information, or what else do you have in mind?
Do you have some information that the rest of us are not privy to, or is this based solely on your interpretation of what’s been posted in the game thread?
The former.
That much should be clear from the writeup, but I’ll confirm just to be very clear.
That’s just the way I write. I am sure of my role, and it may or may not be Soldier, as far as other people are concerned. I guess.
Normal Phase, the balance discussion is interesting. I didn’t realise that triple voters are uncommon. If Scum have a triple voter, then they can easily flip the wagons purely to create confusion.
I was thinking that the traitor was a godfather, because he looks like he is from the Town, but he could be a lone Scum, and the people from the North and West are some kind of neutral team. But that makes less sense to me than them all being a Scum team together. We shall see, I guess.
So Glee didn’t take any damage after all. Why did you protect him, Bob?
I’m not sure that it was all that obvious. I’m a little put off that you exposed me like that. I think you could have said that I took 25 HP damage from protecting someone without mentioning who it was that I protected, unless this is the same as the person who protected Visorslash getting named.
Anyway, yes, I protected Glee. I’m not prepared to say why at the moment.
What’re you getting at?
While I am sure I have scum tells, although those who have intimated as much in previous games have been maddeningly mum on the subject when I’ve been around, I feel pretty confident that my chattiness is not one of them and in fact, the only time I remember that my level of garrulousness was a factor in getting lynched, it was Ed’s rerun of Julie’s Pod People game and I was scum, the master pod person in fact. (They lynched scum, but they lynched me for the wrong reason. I talked a lot on day 1 and not very much on day 2. They determined it was because I’d been recruited overnight when the real answer was day 1 was during a week I had off and day 2 was not. It kinda grated.)
Ok. other thoughts now that story time is over. Fubble’s post about identifying objects for a fee strikes me as a)brazen and b)the attitude of a third party mercenary type player.
I’m really curious why guiri chose to protect me. I appreciate the thought and all, but, I’ll be frank. If I were playing in a game with me, I probably wouldn’t bother to protect me. Ah well, I’m sure I’ll find out soon enough.
I have to admit, I’m a little cheesed that apparently guarding gets revealed like that and attacking doesn’t. It seems like it give scum some pretty good ideas about who they should eliminate if they have these HP based day attacks.
Hey, why should you get special treatment when the color also made it clear that Inner protected Visorslash (twice, no less) and Guiri protected Inner?
Speaking of which, forgive me for my craptastic memory, but Guiri, did you ever mention why you protected Inner Stickler?
And also… Inner’s explanation of why he protected Visorslash twice (albeit once unsuccessfully) was just that he likes him?
Uh, I protected visorslash once. The fact that he was attacked twice, once by a physical attack and once by a magical attack doesn’t mean I am capable of multiple protections. And why not because I like him? I like most people in this game but I figured visorslash was a higher risk for damage and you’ll note, I was right. If I hadn’t guarded him, he would have had over twice the damage of the next highest damaged player. Someone here really doesn’t like visor.
Only if they don’t know that pretty much everyone can guard people, subject to varying restrictions. Which by this point I’m pretty sure they would have cottoned on to as soon as they compared their PMs/cover roles/etc.
At this point I think it’s intended to function as an alibi thing, though a chancy one.
That’s not what the color/narrative of the battle implies. Or am I misreading this?
Am I misreading this, since pizzamod basically stated that the order of the moves above is intentional cause/effect?
Fair enough, I guess… I just wonder why you thought he’d need protection, and from whom.
I read it that when you are protecting some one it’s for the Whole Night. What ever comes
[quote=“choie, post:653, topic:617480”]
That’s not what the color/narrative of the battle implies. Or am I misreading this?
Am I misreading this, since pizzamodIt implies to me that Visor was attacked twice, not that I sent in two protections.
Because people were voting him for stupendously crap reasons and when the momentum shifted away from his lynch, I figured someone was going to be peeved and take their anger out on Visor.
Aww, I borked it.
It implies to me that Visor was attacked twice, not that I sent in two protections.
Oh! Light dawns. Okay, that makes sense, if one’s protection is good for no matter how many attacks are made on the attackee.
This makes me wonder why the second one didn’t work, but the first one did. I guess the first one was an attack by a player, whereas the second was via the demon? The color does say much of the damage was done by ourselves.
On second reading, there’s no reason I should assume the second attack was the demon. It just says a magical orb of some kind. Could be a player, could be one of the demon’s army dudes, could be Phere himself. Is that right?
Some can protect from physical damage some from magics?
I addressed that aspect of the color when I said this:
[QUOTE=bobarrgh]
… unless this is the same as the person who protected Visorslash getting named …
[/QUOTE]
I was at work and wasn’t able to go back and re-read the N1 color, so I was going off of memory.
I realize now that I could have worded that differently: “… unless this is the same [mechanism] as the [revealing of] the person who protected Visorslash getting named …”
So, to summarize, if the standard mechanism is that if Person A guards/defends Person B and the color reveals the target of the guarding, then I’m fine with the way the correction was posted. It’s just that when I first read Pizzamod’s correction, I thought he had outed me as a guardian of some kind by mistake.
So, my mistake, I’m not chaffed at Pizzamod for that.