Homestar Runner [Day 13]

#501

Who is a Baddie McBadderson? Day 1

Poll ended at Tue Aug 06, 2013 10:02 am

Player List:
0
No votes
A Person
2
Devin the Omniscient (9), A Person (26) 7%
agleaminranks
0
No votes
Bea
1
Vompatti (10) 4%
BigDamnHero
0
No votes
birdwithteeth11
1
Bullzeye (21) 4%
Bullzeye
2
Dom (13), Leamiteo (17) 7%
borokkuei
1
juliets (23) 4%
Captain Bunny Killer
1
thellama73 (8) 4%
Devin the Omniscient
0
No votes
DFaraday
1
Lizzy (20) 4%
DisgruntledPorcupine
0
No votes
Dom
1
bea (15) 4%
Elohcin
3
Matahari (12), Matt F (14), Snow Dog (19) 11%
Hedgeowl
0
No votes
Juliets
1
birdwithteeth11 (16) 4%
Kate
0
No votes
Leamiteo
0
No votes
Lizzy
2
Mongoose (18), reywaS (22) 7%
Matahari
0
No votes
Matt F
0
No votes
Mongoose
2
DisgruntledPorcupine (11), Captain Bunny Killer (27) 7%
MovingPictures07
2
BigDamnHero (4), Kate (24) 7%
Reywas
1
Elohcin (7) 4%
Snow Dog
0
No votes
Thellama73
0
No votes
Timmer
0
No votes
Vompatti
3
agleaminranks (3), MovingPictures07 (6), Hedgeowl (25) 11%
Marshie (Host, Non)
3
Spacedaisy (1), Epignosis (2), S~V~S (5) 11%
Total votes : 27

#502

Okay, so it looks like Cheerleader only kills on even nights, so we won't have to worry about her at least tonight. Only two more teen girls to go and we'll be able to knock off Cheerleader. Whatsherface was the protector role of the teen girls, so that will make them a bit easier to pick off.

#503

Mongoose wrote:
Simon wrote:Mongoose, do you work at the library.
Hi Simon! I do work in a library.

It's a joint use library, which means it's both a public library and a college library. I work on the second floor in the college part at the reference desk. I help people with reference or research questions, and also work on grant writing (which helps us fund our fun programs!)

The kids' section downstairs has an aquarium theme! There's even a wall with a circular foggy piece of glass you can stand behind. If your friends stood at the front and saw you behind it, it would look as if you were in a fish tank!

We have a summer kids' reading program. This summer the theme is "Dig Into Reading" so we had an archaeologist come and talk to us about digging up dinosaurs. The kids went around in a circle and named their favorite dinos. Happy reading, Simon!

That was fun to read. Thank you, Mongoose, for telling me that.

#504

This is only the second time I've seen a baddie go on day 1! Woo hoo!

Sorry to see you go Elo but bih to whats her name.

#505

Awesome result! :yay:

Great job to those who voted Elo!

#506

Wow, great result! I am amazed we got a baddie with such a spread out vote. I'll have to reread today and see if anyone was trying to protect Elo. Maybe we can find another girl tomorrow.

#507

Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.

#508

Vompatti wrote:Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.

me neither k

#509

bea wrote:
Dom wrote:
bea wrote:linki - so dom - are you assuming then that one of them is likely bad because they admitted to having info? How would admitting it before anyone ever said "only a civ would admit to it" make them bad? Also why bullz over snowy if you admit that one of them is likely bad? What made you pick bullz? TBH - that smells a bit like "B is for baddie"
Are you seriously comparing me thinking that, on day one, a baddie might admit they had info on the poll to gain some civvie creed, especially when several players throw out the idea that those players are likely civv, Especially when the player in question then say, "Ah now we won't find baddies by looking at who had info, shucks!", are you really comparing that to a theory that pretty much boiled down to "B 4 Bad"? Is that really what you're doing? It's a day one vote. This is what I have to go on.

Now, I do feel that one of the two may be bad. However, better options may present themselves in the future.

Basically Bea, I think that it's weird that bullz immediately said "oh now baddies won't be coming out with info lolz".
Yes, dom. I was seriously comparing it to that because in your vote post - you basicly said - one of the two of them may be bad and voted bullz with no stated reason to why he was more suspish to you than snowy. I was boiling it down to the same theory that happened in bioshock as "b = bad" That it was something tangent people could cling to - but no proof was being offered as to why one person was more guilty than the other. It was just "one of them must be bad. Here's my vote" - do you remember Bea 1.0 died as a vanilla civ on the "b= bad theory?" Do you see how your post felt like random picking of one of the two when you made it?

Yes - it's a day 1 vote. And I would think that all of the stuff you just said - would have been in your actual vote post. You know, not when I called you out on it.

And mata too for that matter.

With the both of you - it's not that I don't understand your votes *upon explanation* - it's that you made posts and votes w/o these more thought out explanations. And I would think, that with both of you - you would very much talk about why you are voting your minor pings on day 1 without me calling you out. But yet - here you are ....defending when you voted because it was the best time for you to vote.

Neither of you were as detailed in your votes till I asked for more detail.
can't you see why I would find that ping worthy on Day 1 too?

Bea, I don't think it's a fair comparison. At all. It was day one and I just voted based on a ping. I thought it was weird that Bullz was trying to get everyone to believe that if you had come out with info, that you couldn't be bad. Almost like he was trying too hard. That's hardly the same thing as, on day three and four etc, to say "B 4 Bad guy!" and then go down the players list and lynch players like that. I hardly suggested something like that.

I can see why it's ping worthy, Bea, but I don't think it's the equivalent to "B 4 Bad". I think that's unfair.
And I don't feel like I was defending when I voted? I don't really know what you mean. I just said that I dont' have a lot of time today... and I'm trying to balance hosting one game and being in two... so like an explanation of why I'm not very active so far.

bea wrote:ok - so really - this has never happened to me before that I got pings off peeps on day 1.

that said, between my two pings, I'm going to vote dom.

Here is why: Mata explained her reasoning when asking it.

dom did also explain his reasoning, but his "seriously?" comment as well as the general tone of his post made me feel like he was being overly aggressive to a completely legitimate question. It was almost as if he was hoping to quiet me down a bit by calling into question the legitimacy of my questions. Which - in turn has spiked my "I'm not stupid, and I asked a perfectly valid question" defenses.

I am just saying, in bioshock when I was civ, dom and I had a healthy distrust of each other. But this time, it feels different. I felt like his response was trying to make me feel dumb to drop the subject. If I'm wrong, dom, you have the rest of the game to prove it. But right now, and knowing that I'm totally NOT going to be up before this poll closes, you earned my day 1 vote. In part for weak voting reasoning, in part for only supplying your thinking behind it when you were called out on it and in part because I asked legit questions and you tried to blow them off like I wasn't.
My vote is a total you've got my vote.
vote dom
vote dom

Bea, I don't think saying my voting reasoning is like "B for BAddie" is a fair question at all. I can see how you would view that as overly agressive and it should teach me to go the hell to bed and not mafia that late at night

MovingPictures07 wrote:If Castle was indeed the civvie option, I was hoping it would provide me some sort of confirmation that it indeed was so, such as an extra vote on Day 1, or something similar. That has happened on other occasions.

Do you think it's possible that, perhaps, each option could have benefitted/hindered specific players, regardless of affiliation?

Bullzeye wrote:
Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:I highly doubt anyone will come forward. Especially not baddies at this point.
What makes you think they haven't already come forward?
In fact, why wouldn't you or Snow be bad?
*votes Bullz*
I think either him or Snow may be bad. I don't see why a baddie wouldn't admit they got info... especially since we all came to the conclusion that basically a civv would only do that.
Really? I was basically egging people on to come forward and prove me wrong there but I did also feel like baddies were unlikely to come forward after Daisy confirmed they got info, because why would they put themselves in the spotlight like that. As for Snow I have no idea but why I wouldn't be bad is because I know I'm not. Face it, if I was bad and had info more people would've voted my option because I'd have at least told my teammates to do it. As it is the only person who voted for my (civvie) option other than me was you, which has made me think you're probably a civ tbh. If I'm bad and you voted for a baddie's option how do you think you look?

So, you're argument that you're not bad is that your team didn't vote your option? Right. Because every team ever votes their option every time. And, as for "how it makes me look", see the reply I made to MP above.

and YAY for lynching a baddie!

#510

Dom wrote: So, you're argument that you're not bad is that your team didn't vote your option? Right. Because every team ever votes their option every time. And, as for "how it makes me look", see the reply I made to MP above.

and YAY for lynching a baddie!

Maybe the entire team wouldn't have voted it but are you seriously suggesting a baddie team with info would have only one of their members vote the option that benefits them and then make no attempt whatsoever to push their own option?

#511

Hedgeowl wrote:This is the first time I ever played with a baddie lynched on Day 1! Woohoo! Sorry Elo. We love you.

Don't regret your vote now eh Snowy?

I am mighty relieved. In more ways than one.

#512

A Person wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.
me neither k

I am OBSESSED with feeding my single guy friends and setting them up on dates. Just consider me your Jewish mother.

I should call my apartment "Girls & Latkes"

#513

Mongoose wrote:
A Person wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.
me neither k
I am OBSESSED with feeding my single guy friends and setting them up on dates. Just consider me your Jewish mother.

I should call my apartment "Girls & Latkes"

:O

"feeding" metaphorically or physically?

#514

Vompatti wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
A Person wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.
me neither k
I am OBSESSED with feeding my single guy friends and setting them up on dates. Just consider me your Jewish mother.

I should call my apartment "Girls & Latkes"
:O

"feeding" metaphorically or physically?

Providing food but not physically putting it in their mouths. I can't have people leaving my place hungry.

#515

Simon wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
Simon wrote:Mongoose, do you work at the library.
Hi Simon! I do work in a library.

It's a joint use library, which means it's both a public library and a college library. I work on the second floor in the college part at the reference desk. I help people with reference or research questions, and also work on grant writing (which helps us fund our fun programs!)

The kids' section downstairs has an aquarium theme! There's even a wall with a circular foggy piece of glass you can stand behind. If your friends stood at the front and saw you behind it, it would look as if you were in a fish tank!

We have a summer kids' reading program. This summer the theme is "Dig Into Reading" so we had an archaeologist come and talk to us about digging up dinosaurs. The kids went around in a circle and named their favorite dinos. Happy reading, Simon!
That was fun to read. Thank you, Mongoose, for telling me that.

You are very welcome, Simon!

#516

Mongoose wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
A Person wrote:
Vompatti wrote:Mmmmmmm I wouldn't mind findign a gril tomorrow.
me neither k
I am OBSESSED with feeding my single guy friends and setting them up on dates. Just consider me your Jewish mother.

I should call my apartment "Girls & Latkes"
:O

"feeding" metaphorically or physically?
Providing food but not physically putting it in their mouths. I can't have people leaving my place hungry.

That's very kind of you k

#517

Bullzeye wrote:
Dom wrote: So, you're argument that you're not bad is that your team didn't vote your option? Right. Because every team ever votes their option every time. And, as for "how it makes me look", see the reply I made to MP above.

and YAY for lynching a baddie!
Maybe the entire team wouldn't have voted it but are you seriously suggesting a baddie team with info would have only one of their members vote the option that benefits them and then make no attempt whatsoever to push their own option?

Yeah, I am suggesting that. I've done it as a baddie before, in fact, I've, as a baddie, had no one on my team vote my option before.

#518

Dom wrote: Yeah, I am suggesting that. I've done it as a baddie before, in fact, I've, as a baddie, had no one on my team vote my option before.

I've barely got time to catch up, but I've got to agree with this. Teams all voting for their option is often a disaster. In the Grand Theft Auto game, an entire baddie team got decimated once it was noticed that they had all voted together in the opening poll.

#519

And in terms of Trogdor, I figure there is safety in numbers, so I picked an option that already had a name on it.

#520

Yay! Well thats an awesome result!

#521

I'm hoping the medicine man will have some kind of voodoo potion that will keep the Trog away!

#522

Yeah let's all cram in there. Maybe he will pick a hut that no one is in.

#523

I also think the Medicine Man's Hut sounds like the wisest choice.

#524

Given I know my presence will be sporadic the next few days, I knew I wouldn’t have a chance to check this game at any point tonight, nor would I necessarily feel like it, so I have utilized my lunch period to do so. I might try and do this in the future if at all possible because I do NOT want to fall behind.

Also, sometimes I really don’t feel like mafiaing; I notice my mood is fluctuating heavily. I'm glad I voted when I did last night because thereafter was not particularly enjoyable. So I will only be reading and subsequently posting if I feel like playing -- and considering I don't want to fall behind, I had nothing better to do during lunch, and my emotional level is currently at stable levels, that is why I'm here.

I must say, wow, what a result. That is awesome. Now to use this and figure out where to go from here... this will be the challenge. The few times I’ve actually seen baddies lynched on Days 1 and 2, chaos ensued thereafter, with tons of misdirection, and subsequent lynches were civvie-dominated. We need to try and avoid that if at all possible, but it won’t be easy. But for now, I am quite pleased the first player eliminated is a baddie.

Here’s the million dollar question. Would a teammate of Elo’s have attempted to save her, thrown her under the bus, or specifically avoided to comment on her altogether and throw off a different direction? Food for thought.

Snow Dog, to address your question (I am not going to go back and quote all the posts I want to address here due to time, so sorry), I thought that as a civvie; if castle were the civvie option, maybe I would receive something from it, despite having no info.

Kate, a declaration and then also a question for you. First, the declaration, and this goes to everyone. If you believe me to be most worthy of your vote, then vote for me. Don't feel bad because of my situation; I don't want special treatment. I'm not even saying you or anyone else would even think of giving it to me, but I wanted to be blunt regarding it. I request no sympathy; I only have provided and continue to provide context because many of you are very close to me and constitute all the different avenues of my life (RL and internet and all the subsections of both) and, as such, this community means a lot to me, AND because I had no idea if I even would have the desire or the time to continue playing at any moment, etc. It is relevant to my participation level. It's no different than when I was complaining about how much the CPA sucks or whatever else I usually say. I generally am vocal about such things when I feel they are relevant.

Now for the question. You believe my vote to be nonsensical and yet that means I was the best possible player to receive your vote, and thus I am most likely to have nefarious intentions. Can you explain how that connects? Because I’m afraid I don’t understand how that makes sense. Additionally, I clarified to Mata, but I realize I’ve posted a TON, so I’ll repeat it so that hopefully you can understand (didn’t intend on being unclear, so sorry). I have no thoughts on Vompatti, or at least I did not at that time. There were only two votes at the time, one for me, and one for Vompatti. I disagreed with Gleam’s observation and questioned him. My vote had nothing to do with Gleam’s reasoning. However, I literally had no reasoning to vote for anyone. I was not going to randomize, and I’ve gunned after players based on my interpretation of early events enough as a civvie and lynched them incorrectly (myself as a civvie and them as a civvie) that I do not want a repeat of that again, if I can avoid it. Since I wanted to possibly obtain the most information I could about baddies from my vote, as should be the case with any civvie, I voted for Vompatti, since he already had a vote, as I wanted to see what would happen -- would a bandwagon form against him? Or would no one else vote him and someone else would take the blunt of the votes? More importantly, and this is what I thought was most likely to happen based on where the game discussion was at that time, if the vote was massively spread, would players try to save Vompatti (or fake us out by trying to look like they were saving Vompatti) in the event of a close vote, or would he get thrown under the bus?

I believe the Day 1 voting behavior by everyone, despite being across the board, convoluted, and perhaps difficult to ascertain true intentions, will actually be good fodder for analysis, and I stand by my Vompatti vote. I apologized in advance to him if he was a civvie and it did get him unfairly sacrificed, but fortunately (again, assuming he’s a civvie, I have no idea), that did not happen.

Now if he is a baddie, that would be interesting, now, wouldn’t it?

Dom, in fact, I actually did advocate that the poll was player-driven instead of alignment-driven for quite some time, and argued that I firmly believed the poll to be six players receiving info and it directly helps those players only (but indirectly, also, the alignment they are on). Given Daisy’s clarifications, my wacky theory is out the window, and I am more so entertaining the possibility this could be an alignment-split poll. But I do still consider that it could have been a simple enough six random players received info and it helped only them, or even six pre-selected ones. I just so happened to previously think the six pre-selected roles before were the six that seemed to correspond obviously with the options, but now we know that to be false.

There were a lot of interesting votes this past day period; certainly they require analysis.

There are a few players that have raised my suspici-o-meter... I’m especially keeping an eye on them. I’m not mentioning them until the next day period, however, for good reason.

There are also a few players I feel pretty good about at the moment, but do not want to paint a target on their backs. That said, I still heavily entertain the possibility of any of these players being bad, and I’m trying to work through all these possible theories in my mind to determine whether my reads are as accurate a guess as I can make or not. I would love to have feedback, but again, will mention these in the next day cycle.

If other players didn’t notice, I’m sort of trying to draw out attention with regards to every of my actions this game. I wonder why.

Anyway, I agree there is strength in numbers. In fact, it makes the most sense for every single one of us to vote the same option, given Trogdor can only pick one number, and within that number, only one player will be randomly selected to die.

Considering medicine hut is the place to be, I am there!

#525

That's quite the start.

#526

Also, I wanted to say that I am sorry to see you go on a personal level, Elo, always enjoy playing with you. But so glad your role is gone!

#527

Also, Warrior.

#528

bea wrote:
Dom wrote:
bea wrote:linki - so dom - are you assuming then that one of them is likely bad because they admitted to having info? How would admitting it before anyone ever said "only a civ would admit to it" make them bad? Also why bullz over snowy if you admit that one of them is likely bad? What made you pick bullz? TBH - that smells a bit like "B is for baddie"
Are you seriously comparing me thinking that, on day one, a baddie might admit they had info on the poll to gain some civvie creed, especially when several players throw out the idea that those players are likely civv, Especially when the player in question then say, "Ah now we won't find baddies by looking at who had info, shucks!", are you really comparing that to a theory that pretty much boiled down to "B 4 Bad"? Is that really what you're doing? It's a day one vote. This is what I have to go on.

Now, I do feel that one of the two may be bad. However, better options may present themselves in the future.

Basically Bea, I think that it's weird that bullz immediately said "oh now baddies won't be coming out with info lolz".
Yes, dom. I was seriously comparing it to that because in your vote post - you basicly said - one of the two of them may be bad and voted bullz with no stated reason to why he was more suspish to you than snowy. I was boiling it down to the same theory that happened in bioshock as "b = bad" That it was something tangent people could cling to - but no proof was being offered as to why one person was more guilty than the other. It was just "one of them must be bad. Here's my vote" - do you remember Bea 1.0 died as a vanilla civ on the "b= bad theory?" Do you see how your post felt like random picking of one of the two when you made it?

Yes - it's a day 1 vote. And I would think that all of the stuff you just said - would have been in your actual vote post. You know, not when I called you out on it.

And mata too for that matter.

With the both of you - it's not that I don't understand your votes *upon explanation* - it's that you made posts and votes w/o these more thought out explanations. And I would think, that with both of you - you would very much talk about why you are voting your minor pings on day 1 without me calling you out. But yet - here you are ....defending when you voted because it was the best time for you to vote.

Neither of you were as detailed in your votes till I asked for more detail.

can't you see why I would find that ping worthy on Day 1 too?

It always seems a bit off to me when someone claims I haven't explained something, when I've actually explained it three times. My original post might have been missed by Bea because it wasn't a huge case against someone. I merely thought it odd and noteworthy that elohcin mentions a slightly weird theory about voting the sixth player in the poll, gets called out for it a little, and then mongoose says that her and elohcin were just sort of shooting the breeze- nothing serious. I wondered how mongoose knew what elohcin's motives were. It struck me as something that needed questioning.

So I assumed when Bea thought I voted elohcin because elohcin randomized, that Bea had missed my earlier post, and I responded and explained it.

Then Bea posts again and says I only explained because she called me out? Bea did you not understand that I said I posted earlier in the game, so you could go and look at the post? Did you not see where I said I randomized between my pings?

When people try to paint things in a different light than what it actually was, I always take notice. For tomorrow, I'll have my eye on Bea and mongoose, as well as mp and gleam.

#529

DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Also, Warrior.

Oh come on, Patty Smyth. Why wouldn't you want safety in numbers?

#530

Mongoose wrote:
DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Also, Warrior.
Oh come on, Patty Smyth. Why wouldn't you want safety in numbers?

Patti Smith > Patty Smyth

#531

thellama73 wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Also, Warrior.
Oh come on, Patty Smyth. Why wouldn't you want safety in numbers?
Patti Smith > Patty Smyth

I agree! Everyone always thinks that song is Pat Benatar anyway.

#532

llama, have you already explained why you will be looking at gleam in another post somewhere (tbh, there has been so much posting I've lost track of some of the smaller things)? If not, could you give me some help on why you are looking there tomorrow?

#533

juliets wrote:llama, have you already explained why you will be looking at gleam in another post somewhere (tbh, there has been so much posting I've lost track of some of the smaller things)? If not, could you give me some help on why you are looking there tomorrow?

I don't remember saying that.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Right now, I am a little wary of Hedgeowl, for voting to tie Vompatti with Elohcin, and you for saying "I don't understand why Elo is getting votes" although to be honest, I doubt you would be that obvious if you were on her team.

#534

thellama73 wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
DisgruntledPorcupine wrote:Also, Warrior.
Oh come on, Patty Smyth. Why wouldn't you want safety in numbers?
Patti Smith > Patty Smyth

#535

thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote:llama, have you already explained why you will be looking at gleam in another post somewhere (tbh, there has been so much posting I've lost track of some of the smaller things)? If not, could you give me some help on why you are looking there tomorrow?
I don't remember saying that. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Right now, I am a little wary of Hedgeowl, for voting to tie Vompatti with Elohcin, and you for saying "I don't understand why Elo is getting votes" although to be honest, I doubt you would be that obvious if you were on her team.

And, for the record, if I was Eloh's teammate, I wouldn't have so brazenly defended us together for our train of consciousness dialog on the possible poll meanings/ramifications. I'd scrutinize everything I said much more.

#536

thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote:llama, have you already explained why you will be looking at gleam in another post somewhere (tbh, there has been so much posting I've lost track of some of the smaller things)? If not, could you give me some help on why you are looking there tomorrow?
I don't remember saying that. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Right now, I am a little wary of Hedgeowl, for voting to tie Vompatti with Elohcin, and you for saying "I don't understand why Elo is getting votes" although to be honest, I doubt you would be that obvious if you were on her team.

omg, stupid me, it was matahari that said that!

mata, could you answer this question that i misdirected to llama?

#537

thellama73 wrote:
juliets wrote:llama, have you already explained why you will be looking at gleam in another post somewhere (tbh, there has been so much posting I've lost track of some of the smaller things)? If not, could you give me some help on why you are looking there tomorrow?
I don't remember saying that. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

Right now, I am a little wary of Hedgeowl, for voting to tie Vompatti with Elohcin, and you for saying "I don't understand why Elo is getting votes" although to be honest, I doubt you would be that obvious if you were on her team.

Yes you are right I wouldnt have been that obvious. I was expressing i didn't know what people were voting on. In fact I still have to go back and look and see if the reason people voted for her applies to anyone else.

#538

Patti Smith <3

#539

I'm going for the Warrior's hut. Basically so there's more than one place with quite a few people in so that it's more likely people will survive (this makes sense in my head but possibly not to anyone else!)

#540

Vompatti wrote:Patti Smith <3

I saw her perform after the last showing (Vincent D'onofrio's horror musical Don't Go Into the Woods) at the Sarasota Film Festival about 3 years ago. It was one of the hightlights of my life.Vincent D'onofrio was there too.

linki - That's awfully altruistic of you, Bullz.

#541

Bullzeye wrote:I'm going for the Warrior's hut. Basically so there's more than one place with quite a few people in so that it's more likely people will survive (this makes sense in my head but possibly not to anyone else!)

One person is going to die regardless. Having multiple people in each hut just means the SK can't outright choose who he wants to kill. I would expect baddies to split up into different huts to minimize the chance that one of their team gets killed.

#542

thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:I'm going for the Warrior's hut. Basically so there's more than one place with quite a few people in so that it's more likely people will survive (this makes sense in my head but possibly not to anyone else!)
One person is going to die regardless. Having multiple people in each hut just means the SK can't outright choose who he wants to kill. I would expect baddies to split up into different huts to minimize the chance that one of their team gets killed.

See I would have thought Trogdor would have had to decide which hut he wants to pick day period before the Hut Poll goes up. Cause it says in the Trogdor description that if no one is in that hut, no one dies. Well Trogdor isn't going to consciously pick an empty hut, right?

What do y'all think?

#543

thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:I'm going for the Warrior's hut. Basically so there's more than one place with quite a few people in so that it's more likely people will survive (this makes sense in my head but possibly not to anyone else!)
One person is going to die regardless. Having multiple people in each hut just means the SK can't outright choose who he wants to kill. I would expect baddies to split up into different huts to minimize the chance that one of their team gets killed.

If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.

Linki - you could be right Mongoose, that makes a lot of sense.

#544

Mongoose wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:I'm going for the Warrior's hut. Basically so there's more than one place with quite a few people in so that it's more likely people will survive (this makes sense in my head but possibly not to anyone else!)
One person is going to die regardless. Having multiple people in each hut just means the SK can't outright choose who he wants to kill. I would expect baddies to split up into different huts to minimize the chance that one of their team gets killed.
See I would have thought Trogdor would have had to decide which hut he wants to pick day period before the Hut Poll goes up. Cause it says in the Trogdor description that if no one is in that hut, no one dies. Well Trogdor isn't going to consciously pick an empty hut, right?

What do y'all think?

Good question. Can our host elaborate on that, I wonder? He might pick an empty hut if he didn't want someone to die for reasons of his own, but yeah, it does seem unlikely.

#545

Bullzeye wrote: If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.

It's still a randomized kill among smaller groups. Why is that preferable? I don't understand your thinking here.

#546

thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.
It's still a randomized kill among smaller groups. Why is that preferable? I don't understand your thinking here.

I don't either!

#547

Mongoose wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.
It's still a randomized kill among smaller groups. Why is that preferable? I don't understand your thinking here.
I don't either!

Maybe Bullz is the SK and he already chose the Medicine Man's Hut, and just doesn't want to go there for fear of killing himself?

#548

thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.
It's still a randomized kill among smaller groups. Why is that preferable? I don't understand your thinking here.

I don't know, I never said I was definitely right it just seemed the better idea at the time.

#549

thellama73 wrote:
Mongoose wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: If everyone is in the same hut then it's just a randomised kill that could get anybody. Having several big groups split across huts just seems like the better idea to me.
It's still a randomized kill among smaller groups. Why is that preferable? I don't understand your thinking here.
I don't either!
Maybe Bullz is the SK and he already chose the Medicine Man's Hut, and just doesn't want to go there for fear of killing himself?

Maybe - but DP and Borok also voted for that option after we all Clowncar'd into Medicine Man, so I'm not sure what was up with that either. SK wouldn't have BTS with anyone else, so I don't know how to interpret that. Or maybe people voted without super duper knowing the ramifications of their selection?

#550

Seems to me that if we all pick the same hut every night then there is a fair chance his kill will miss.

Who offed my little sister?