|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 18:06:47 GMT -5
The Alegis suspicion on Frosteey may be a defensive reaction to Frost's attack on BuzzBuzz.
As for Mr.D, I wouldn't block him without killing him, and if we're killing him we're killing him.
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 18:09:38 GMT -5
Mmm, he might be harmless. He could always seer Buzz Buzz. I really wouldn't mind killing Infidel at this point, and use our other two kills on trying to find other vigilantes.
|
|
darian
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by darian on Jun 12, 2010 19:08:44 GMT -5
Killing MrD would be a very good thing, I think, then spend our other two attacks on unknowns looking for the vigs (Tank, femme, Lady Eri).
Probably take out Kirbo tomorrow, unless you think he's going to change that Frosteey target. And/or we could just disable Kirbo today, leaving Frosteey as a suspicion for the network to go after tomorrow. Other option with the role-block would be to just use it as an extra seer, looking for a missing vig.
|
|
|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 19:16:29 GMT -5
Nah, we'll leave Kirbo alive, bus drive off Frosteey onto or Infidel, and use the role block to try and find the other vigs.
|
|
|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 19:22:32 GMT -5
Going through my old PMs, I'm kinda sure Buzz Buzz is a special. Hrm.
|
|
|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 20:47:36 GMT -5
Sir Fab is the odd day guard. I have him guarding me.
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 20:52:55 GMT -5
Altering our actions to account for that? Or is he just guarding Mr. D/himself?
|
|
|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 20:55:35 GMT -5
Nah he knows no other specials. I guess he's only been guarding Infi.
We need to hit the vigs first and foremost, seers after.
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 21:00:48 GMT -5
Well between the vote target of jackisreal, our three kills, and KIRBO hitting either frosteey or we have a 29.4% chance of finding at least 1 vigilante tonight.
|
|
|
Post by kime on Jun 12, 2010 21:00:49 GMT -5
So AF decided to dick us over some more with the latest clarification.
|
|
|
Post by adventfalls on Jun 12, 2010 21:03:00 GMT -5
I already said host clarifications were trustworthy. Hindsight's a bitch for me.
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 21:03:16 GMT -5
Was that recent clarification needed at all? The fact that Infidel was converted was known to the village since Day 2 and confirmed on Day 9 with the death of the converter. If the village couldn't be bothered to analyze deaths I really don't see how that requires them to be explicitly told there are thralls in play.
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 21:04:09 GMT -5
Which clarification was specifically being violated?
|
|
aegis
Full Member
Posts: 246
|
Post by aegis on Jun 12, 2010 21:06:12 GMT -5
B:L, do you want me to guard you tonight in this case? You'd be pretty much target #1 in terms of who'd be a thrall but if femme fatal is in contact with the village then I'm likely still a target.
|
|
|
Post by adventfalls on Jun 12, 2010 21:06:44 GMT -5
'Host communications are trustworthy'. It's in the OP.
|
|