Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
Posts
14942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
-
(I love you for being so in character, Sprout!
)Hm, you do make an interesting point, though I'm far from convinced. Again, @Zell, what do you say to this?
-
It's the other way around and I don't know.
Yeah, we never really got any explanation except a hunch.
Anyway, I don't really know where to go from here. No one seems suspicious enough for me to want to risk a lynch at this point, and there doesn't seem to be happening much more today. A shame, really - I thought we'd get somewhere today.
For good measure:
Withdraw Vote
-
I think that the argument is being spun to make it seem like people are against excuses :p They'e against people using personal attacks to scare people off.
Obviously it should never come down to personal attacks. That's just taking it too far.
-
I think you know my other targets? I don't have reasons, just half intuition/half random.
As we've already seen, I'm quite confused, so I'd love to have a list plus any thoughts you may have given to the targets.
-
I roleblocked Yvonne because I was suspicious of him, mostly from reasons that have already been said (the who did Supergrunch target fiasco). Just because he's a tracker doesn't mean he's good, so I'm not sure why people are suspicious of me for roleblocking him. And if he's mafia, tracking isn't the only thing he could've been doing. Remember, there was no kill last night.
I just don't see why Supergrunch would lie about something like that. It doesn't make sense. So I'm not sure why Yvonne is so adamant that Supergrunch was lying.
What have your other targets been, and why did you choose them?
-
Might just be me being unclear then. I'm only saying Yvonne is more suspicious than anyone who actually did reach their target.
Anyone who was stopped by a protector would be equally as suspicious as Yvonne but unfortunately we don't know anyone that was. The longer it takes for someone to come out and say they were stopped then the more likely it seems to me that the person is mafia.
Ah, right, then I misunderstood you. My apologies.
Also! Thanks, @Zell, for the answers to my questions, and apologies for confusing who you targeted to Dannyboy instead of the Peeps. Having never played the games I don't know what the characters look like, and Dannyboy's avatar is confusing me into thinking he's someone else! I'll try to remember from now on/refer back to the first post more often.My character is my avatar.
I'm fairly confident Jonnas gave me the role for that very same reason, likely to prevent confusion. 
hmm Zell was viewing the thread before but has gone without responding to any other questions aimed at him.Not proof of anything - he may have just been unable to post... but worth noting.
I must say my suspicions are shifting more and more away from Yvonne and towards Zell.
In fact, I'll drop a vote for pressure.
Vote: Zell
-
I think we should conclude that it's up to the individual GMs what rules they wish to implement, be it against inactivity, talking about inactivity in the game, or something else altogether.
-
Oh, I know, I just agree that it's an interesting discussion.
-
I believe I pretty much said that :p
Yet you claim her roleblocking makes her more suspicious than anyone else, which I find to be a logical fallacy.
He never had a chance to admit to his lie.But why would he lie about it?
Anyway, I'm still very undecided, and I very much want to hear from Zell.
-
Hm, that may be worth noting.
This post was in response to the vote listing.
-
Of course Yvonne is more suspicious than anyone else. We know for a fact he was roleblocked.
If we knew for a fact who was stopped by a protector, they would also be more suspicious than anyone else - or just as suspicious as Yvonne is.
I wonder if our protector(s) is/are told how many people they prevent from reaching their target.
If anyone can say for certain that they reached their target then they are automatically less suspicious than Yvonne is. I'm not saying Yvonne is 100% mafia because of being roleblocked while there was no kill but you can't deny it makes him more suspicious than others!
But we know for a fact that other people are able to roleblock/protect, so obviously there are people out there equally suspicious. Just because we don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
-
Hm, that may be worth noting.
-
Do we have any clues towards the other two happening?
That's as fallacious as can be. We know for a fact there are other players who can stop actions, so why does it make Yvonne more suspicious than anyone else?
-
I get the joke, but it doesn't say "Did you mean recursion?" when I do it. Probably doesn't work for the Danish version of Google, I guess.
-
Yes, quite sure.
-
Wasn't it clear? Yvonne targeted Sprout, was roleblocked by Zell. Additionally there was no kill last night.
Yeah, I just got it messed up in my head.
you know how else a kill can be prevented?protection
no kill order
This is a valid point, Diageo. The lack of kill and her roleblock isn't worth all that much as an argument.
-
Section 13: Claim real life problems are preventing you from paying attention properly.
Don't forget Subsection 13.a: Get pissed when called out on it.
-
Wait, what? I targeted sprout this night just past, just after grunch was killed. I am consistent.
What? Argh, sorry, I messed the targets up. I'm a bit confused at the moment. My apologies.
-
I would advise against voting on your hunch, it's cost us two players already.
As you say, with supergrunch his competence was called into question. That was the moment I decided to target him.
Sometimes we only have our hunches to vote on, but please note that I haven't actually voted yet as I'm still in doubt.
You've got the order wrong: It wasn't until we'd lynched Supergrunch that his competence was called into question, yet you tracked Sprout the night before. Why? The whole Supergrunch situation hadn't happened at that point - his competence hadn't been thrown into question. So why do you claim that as the reason you targetted him? Perhaps you know something we don't?
Still want to hear from Zell, just so I don't forget it.
-
I'm not sure the recursion thing is working for me. What's supposed to happen, exactly?
-
I targeted Sprout because it's very easy to play stupid if everyone thinks you're a stupid cop. We already lost two townies from worthless investigators and another bad lynch is going to seal it for the mafia. I was trying to check he was targeting who he said he was.
You all need to figure out what is going on with these investigators, and fast.
That's all well and good if we had any reason to doubt Sprout at that point, but the thing is, we hadn't. Only with Supergrunch was his competence thrown into question (if we ignore the initial worries some of us had because of his role).
I must say, your whole attitude seems very unlike you, which only increases my worries.
You don't know for sure, but if you kill me and find me to be town, you should consider it as such.Obvious we will, but we can't just accept it as undeniable fact yet.
-
What does grunch's info have to do with the truth? The whole thing is made up. It is known I am a tracker, so he wrote a blurb that sounds like a tracker's blurb. He may have even targeted me on a different night to get that info. the FACT is that that night I targeted grunch and it said he targeted zell. fact.
Shouting FACT all the time isn't gonna change a thing since we have no way of knowing for sure. We only know your facts seem to contradict what a confirmed townie we have no reason to doubt told us. If you're not lying, I'm convinced you were redirected. You never told us why you'd track a confirmed cop, either.
You do, however, bring up a good point about Zell. @Zell, who have you roleblocked so far, and why?
-
Two in this case. I thought the same as Mokong before realising it.
-
You're right. I've forgotten, why is it that Yvonne claims Supergrunch targetted Zell?
Ace Attorney: The Turnabout Mafia
in General Chit Chat
Posted
It'd be nice to know who exactly Nintendohnut has under his jurisdiction.