Game Over! Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[Marmot]

GG wink winks

Good game nudgies.

[Made]

I am sitting here on the bus. Screaming, "a herring a herring" at my phone. I looked up and all the bus people were as far from me as they could get. I am crazier than the bus people.

You could of posted from your phone :P

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

[Roxy]

Hey, I got that second practice question right. I said Graham Chapman and you said I was wrong. :P

I needed his Role - Arthur not his rl name

[Marmot]

Most gracious co-host, may we change our votes after placing them in this game?

[Enrique]

Well considering the thread has been 100% silliness up to this point. Losers (<3), do you have anything to report from your chatroom? Did any of your teammates say something that jumped out at you?

[Bullzeye]

So, losers, did anyone in your chat seem suspicious in any way?

Linki: Great (winning) minds think alike!

[Enrique]

You really get me, bullz

[Made]

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

[Made]

also, with host permission, i'll post logs on pastebin.

[Bullzeye]

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

There were about 6 or 7 of us in our chat, I think some of us had seen the film. AP posted a link to a youtube playlist of the entire film as well as the script, so we were pretty well prepared.

And you know you'd be bragging if you won. I've played one game and a bit with you and I feel confident in saying you would :P

[Made]

Day 1 has begun!

Which of the not-so-victorious will die a horribly painful death?

we COULD just kill someone who didn't show up to the challenge ...real talk tho wink winks, how many of you guys were there and how many of you saw the movie?



Also, I'd say chat's pretty irrlevant because everyone (probably) wanted to win.....assuming there aren't any team of 3+. and even if there was, avoiding the chatroom all together makes more sense than sabotage.


3 fucking brag linkis really?

There were about 6 or 7 of us in our chat, I think some of us had seen the film. AP posted a link to a youtube playlist of the entire film as well as the script, so we were pretty well prepared.

And you know you'd be bragging if you won. I've played one game and a bit with you and I feel confident in saying you would :P

We had 4 people, 2 posters, and 1 person who saw the movie. We had scripts, but no youtube. And yeah probably bullz lol, but the lost was fustrating more than anything.

[Enrique]

@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

[Bullzeye]

We had 4 people, 2 posters, and 1 person who saw the movie. We had scripts, but no youtube. And yeah probably bullz lol, but the lost was fustrating more than anything.

I can imagine the loss was quite annoying. I'm about to drop a fact on you that will improve your and everyone else who is unaware's life but also comes too late to really be helpful. Pretty much every scene of every Monty Python thing ever can be found easily on Youtube. Seriously, there are like four or five links to the full films that get reuploaded every now and then. You could have found all that and enriched your viewing experiences as well as increasing your knowledge for the challenge. There were a few questions that I answered more quickly thanks to watching from the link AP provided.

[Made]

If we're being real, I dropped the ball really hard on question 6, I thought it was Juliets turn to post the question to chat, and my turn to paste even though I told them seconds eariler that it was their turn.

pretty sure that was my only sin tho.

[Bullzeye]

@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

While non-participants didn't help their team in any way, perhaps it might not be best to revenge-lynch them. I dunno. I wouldn't necessarily vote someone just for not being able to take part in the challenge unless they outright just refused to bother and deliberately watched their team struggle.

[Marmot]

@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

Also, Made. Voting the non-participants is what we used to do back in the glory days of LP Survivor hosted by my dear friend Bullzeye. Of course it's not the same here given that there's probably specific roles we should be trying to lynch, but, our info is limited enough that lynching inactive users may not be a terrible idea. It's a silly game after all, we're all running blind

It's not a common thing here, in fact it's almost frowned upon. Players that suggest voting non-posters are often put on the chopping block themselves, typically when it happens later in the game.

Buuut there's definitely space for suspicious behavior in chatrooms. So, I don't know, I'll hear you guys out if you think anybody deserves death more than others or if there was some rolehinting going on or whatever. I have no problem going with the flow on this one.

Is there something you had in mind already?


Linki: Agreed. I was given none of the resources my teammates were since I arrived right at the start of the competition; I just googled Holy Grail script and everything was right there. No need for youtube.

[S~V~S]

I am sitting here on the bus. Screaming, "a herring a herring" at my phone. I looked up and all the bus people were as far from me as they could get. I am crazier than the bus people.

You could of posted from your phone :P

no I really couldn't~ posting that one message took almost 5 minutes with spotty 3G at best, and all the linkitis plus I am a horrible phone typist.

And I would just like to point out that in Darkday Island Survivor, the baddie team basically got the civvies to turn on each other based on loyalties to the challenge team, rather than on loyalties to the other civvies. We did stuff like, oh, suggesting that we lynch the no shows in the challenges. Stuff like that.

Just throwing that out there.

[Enrique]

Well, given we are running blind, is that bad of an idea? We don't know the roles, we don't know the teams. We are gonna lynch someone after all, doesn't it make the most sense to lynch someone who isn't contributing?

Of course if something else comes up that takes priority. But so far there's absolutely nothing. I could go back to the first page of this thread and read everything that has been said... to be honest it's mostly off-topic, and nobody seems to be acting any role. There was nothing to talk about other than whether winking or nudging is the superior form of suggestion, and as far as I know there were no agendas to push. So yeah, I'm fine voting for a low poster if it comes to that. Not taking this poll too seriously until something comes up.

[Enrique]

And no, nothing on my mind, as far as I'm concerned the game just started but there's the possibility someone else knows something. I'm just trying to generate discussion.

[DisgruntledPorcupine]

@Hosts: Are the chatrooms there to stay? Do Winkers and Nudgers have BTSC, or is this over?

It was just for the challenge.

also, with host permission, i'll post logs on pastebin.

Nope.

Most gracious co-host, may we change our votes after placing them in this game?

Sure.

[Made]

Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

[A Person]

Ignoring the chat seems like the best thing to do, it's too easy for the baddies to use it against us.

[birdwithteeth11]

And no, nothing on my mind, as far as I'm concerned the game just started but there's the possibility someone else knows something. I'm just trying to generate discussion.

In that case, what is your stance on political campaign contributions?



What, you said you wanted to generate discussion. You're welcome. :P

But really, I have no idea where to start. There hasn't really been any serious game-related discussion yet.

Linki

[juliets]

I didn't see anything suspicious out of the people who were there. We were all focused on the game and how it worked and finding the answers. For the people who didn't come, I know one had work interference and I suspect others had the same or school, but i don't know that for sure.

[S~V~S]

Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

No we can't ignore it, but trying to lynch people based solely on the challenge has zero to do with who is bad and who is good. When I played Roxys previous game with a very similar challenge, I was very participatory, and so were ALL of my teammates. And we manipulated the civvies hard into turning on each other for false loyalties.

No we can't ignore them. But I intend to watch for that sort of manipulation, for sure. It works. Ask Juliets

[Tangrowth]

Sorry I couldn't help with the challenge, fellow Nudgers, I had just gotten home from a long day (second day of PhD orientation) when I entered the chat and the game was already underway, and then I got a Facetime request from my family.

Not sure how I feel about anyone using non-participants or anything in the BTSC as an actual way to suspect anyone -- seems to me that regardless of the alignment, anyone would have wanted to help contribute to their team winning.

"The Current Job #2"....oh no.....

That's a good thing. Trust us.

Mafia, it's fun. Trust

Don't sweat it, Dana. I've seen way worse newbie mistakes before. :P

Name four.

Well, the first three I thought of were:

1. When Yossarian declared he had to consult with his "teammates" in thread in his first game ever.

2. When Mongoose PMed me in Bioshock targeting someone who was not in the game.

3. When my team (In my first game ever) had a one-time recruit and we recruited the person who was gunning HARD after me (Dom) and it was a total disaster.

I'm sure I could think of more.

What game was that? I vaguely remember it. I was suspicious of a few people on your team, but was going after you really hard.

LoRab and DD's John Hughes Mafia on LP.

[Made]

I didn't see anything suspicious out of the people who were there. We were all focused on the game and how it worked and finding the answers. For the people who didn't come, I know one had work interference and I suspect others had the same or school, but i don't know that for sure.

SVS and another weren't at home, and only had a cell phones.

[Epignosis]

Well, given we are running blind, is that bad of an idea? We don't know the roles, we don't know the teams. We are gonna lynch someone after all, doesn't it make the most sense to lynch someone who isn't contributing?

It's a terrible idea.

Those who participated are a microcosmic snapshot of the entire game. I would bet my last coconut (and therefore have to walk or take the bus with S~V~S ) that a bad guy was an eager participant in the quiz hoping to bring home a benefit for the team.

[Enrique]

Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

If you're not contributing, you're not contributing. But the thing is... game's been on for a few days so we have a pretty decent idea of who's around and who isn't, right? And that's about everything, our own roles aside, that we know about this game.

But yeah don't think I'm really passionate about voting low posters or anything. I'm still hoping one of you guys noticed something that can help today. In my experience, the higher posters are the most excited to play... I don't know about their roles, but you can at least count on them to be around. That's all I've got.

Holy linkitis I'm sorry my internet is taking a dump on me... left off at the first post of this page. Gimme a sec.

[Made]

Well, given we are running blind, is that bad of an idea? We don't know the roles, we don't know the teams. We are gonna lynch someone after all, doesn't it make the most sense to lynch someone who isn't contributing?

It's a terrible idea.

Those who participated are a microcosmic snapshot of the entire game. I would bet my last coconut (and therefore have to walk or take the bus with S~V~S ) that a bad guy was an eager participant in the quiz hoping to bring home a benefit for the team.

While we must acknowledge the possiblity of mafia teams, I agree. Mafia being on two seperate teams/evenly split between teams (which is probably more likely anyways) is more likely anyways.

[Boogs]

Sorry guys just got home from work and dinner. Didn't know what was going on but I saw I had an email and checked and saw a challenge was going on, sorry if I couldn't help with the busyness. Hope to help more now that Day 1 started.

[thellama73]

Not sure how I feel about anyone using non-participants or anything in the BTSC as an actual way to suspect anyone -- seems to me that regardless of the alignment, anyone would have wanted to help contribute to their team winning.

I completely agree with you here that everyone would want to help their team win regardless of alignment, and I am not in favor of *GASP* going after non-participants.

HOWEVER

There was one interesting post in the Nudger chatroom that seemed to me to indicate that a certain someone had BTSC with a player on Winker team. It might have been a slip, it might have been nothing. I intend to follow it if nothing better comes along.

[Tangrowth]

Enrique, I'm not sure I understand; you seem to be saying conflicting items. First, you say we have nothing better to judge players by than what occurred during the contest, and you imply that non-participants seem like the best choice, and then you post that most recent post which doesn't seem to say much of anything at all ("I don't know about their roles, but you can at least count on them to be around" regarding high posters).

To me, it kind of comes across like you're either trying too hard or maybe I just misunderstand you.

So tell me: Do you think those who are "not contributing" are worthy of a vote today or not?

Woah tons of linki, posting anyway

[thellama73]

Woah tons of linki, posting anyway

Don't ignore my linki, MP. Mine is important.

[Tangrowth]

Not sure how I feel about anyone using non-participants or anything in the BTSC as an actual way to suspect anyone -- seems to me that regardless of the alignment, anyone would have wanted to help contribute to their team winning.

I completely agree with you here that everyone would want to help their team win regardless of alignment, and I am not in favor of *GASP* going after non-participants.

HOWEVER

There was one interesting post in the Nudger chatroom that seemed to me to indicate that a certain someone had BTSC with a player on Winker team. It might have been a slip, it might have been nothing. I intend to follow it if nothing better comes along.

Why aren't you in favor of it?

Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

[Tangrowth]

Woah tons of linki, posting anyway

Don't ignore my linki, MP. Mine is important.

I never ignore linki, sometimes I just don't feel like addressing it at the bottom of my posts and sometimes I do.

[S~V~S]

llama, tell us, tell us

[Enrique]

And no, nothing on my mind, as far as I'm concerned the game just started but there's the possibility someone else knows something. I'm just trying to generate discussion.

In that case, what is your stance on political campaign contributions?



What, you said you wanted to generate discussion. You're welcome. :P

But really, I have no idea where to start. There hasn't really been any serious game-related discussion yet.

Linki

Yeah, there really hadn't been anything at all. We got our roles. That's about everything anyone knew about this game since it started. No agendas to push, no nothing. The game just started.

Then again.... people who would be most intrested in the game would be those with important roles, and the irresponcible....


(also, pure speculation, is that a reoccuring pattern? those talking most towards the beginng of the game being the ones that are bad, or things like that)
thirdly SVS, should we then just ignore the challege (save from things that are really suspicious of course)

No we can't ignore it, but trying to lynch people based solely on the challenge has zero to do with who is bad and who is good. When I played Roxys previous game with a very similar challenge, I was very participatory, and so were ALL of my teammates. And we manipulated the civvies hard into turning on each other for false loyalties.

No we can't ignore them. But I intend to watch for that sort of manipulation, for sure. It works. Ask Juliets

I completely agree. I don't know if teams are making a comeback, and I really don't care. What's important right now is that only Nudgers can be voted for... so yeah, I want to know if anybody has something they think we should look out for.

Literally all we got right now, is if somebody got any vibes or if there was any role-hinting going on in the chatrooms. I never suggested activity had anything to do with alignment. But what can we do?

GODDAMMIT TOO MUCH LINKITIS. Here we go again. Expect another post in a few.

[Tangrowth]

How is literally all we have right now whether someone has vibes about what went on in chatrooms? What about the thread?

[thellama73]

Why aren't you in favor of it?

Not feeling it today. I don't think we are any more likely to fnd a baddie in a non-participant than anywhere else, and I would rather go by actual pings if we have them. There has been a lot more posting than on most Day 0s even if most of it has been off topic, so we have little excuse for randomizing or going after low posters in my opinion.

Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.

[Tangrowth]

There are still almost 48 hours, Enrique, I'm not sure why you think all we have to base informed votes off of equals what's in the chatrooms.

Frankly, I'm going to be basing my vote on what goes on in the thread, like in every other game ever.

Linki with Llama

[thellama73]

ntereting that several people say we have "nothing to go on." I think nine pages by the beginning of day one is a lot to go on.

[Tangrowth]

Why aren't you in favor of it?

Not feeling it today. I don't think we are any more likely to fnd a baddie in a non-participant than anywhere else, and I would rather go by actual pings if we have them. There has been a lot more posting than on most Day 0s even if most of it has been off topic, so we have little excuse for randomizing or going after low posters in my opinion.

Interesting. I was only in the chatroom for like less than a minute, lol, so I can't say I know what you're talking about, but that's intriguing. I presume you don't want to elaborate on it just yet or else you would have in that post anyway?

I'll elaborate. I'm not scared. Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

To me, this looked like a slip, indicating that he knew what the other team was up to, followed by an attempt to cover it up.

Bonus, if we lynch Made and I am right, we can narrow down his teammate to one of the six or seven people active in the Winker chat.

I agree with you, I just was curious since you can be one of the few proponents of no or low posters this early on this site.

That's odd regarding Made. Could definitely be a slip. In fact, I would be tempted to think it likely is; HOWEVER, and I won't say much of anything regarding Misfits since it still hasn't ended, but it's the only game that Made has ever played... his thoughts were suspicious and all over the place as hell that game (he even heavily implied he was mafia multiple times), and he recently flipped civvie, so it's possible his mind is just a really, really paranoid civvie a la MR F.

That notwithstanding, your observation is certainly worth considering.

Linki: Thank you, I've also found that interesting and sort of suspicious to be honest with you.

[Made]

Made said something along the lines of "I doubt the other team will be doing what we're doing" referring to our strategy. He immediately followed this up with a bunch of posts saying things like "not that I would know. Actually I have no idea what they're up to." and so on. Not exact wording as we're not allowed to paste from the chats and I don't remember the exact words anyway.

few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.

2. from what i understand, implying i do know what the other team was doing probably would be considered BTSC.

3.You're assuming their are only Mafia Teams.

[thellama73]

Damn it, MP, whenever you agree with me this much you always turn out to be bad. I really hope you are not though, because you are such a great thread partner to bounce ideas off of. :P

[Tangrowth]

Damn it, MP, whenever you agree with me this much you always turn out to be bad. I really hope you are not though, because you are such a great thread partner to bounce ideas off of. :P

There's a solid difference between agreeing and buddying.

I heavily value your input regardless of my alignment, but I tend to suck up to you as a baddie. I am not sucking up. If you had said you wanted to lynch non-posters I would have grilled you for it.

Besides, I've been bad statistically way too many times, especially in full games. I love being a baddie, but even I'm sick of it right now.

But feel free to suspect me all you want now or in the future; you'll just be wrong.

[Marmot]

I posted nothing on topic on Day 0, the OT day. We should lynch me just for that...

Linki: lol, meta talk already

[Made]

Roxy cleared the room 8 seconds ago, so i can't check exactly who asked if i knew something...

[thellama73]

few things wrong with that.

1. someone said something to the tune of "you would know" right after I said that, which is why i said I wouldn't actually know.
My memory is that all your posts came rapidly in a row with no one else talking in between. But memory is fallible.

2. from what i understand, implying i do know what the other team was doing probably would be considered BTSC.

3.You're assuming their are only Mafia Teams.
I'm not assuming that, which is why I said it looked like you had BTSC, not it looks like you are mafia. Still, if you're going to take that route, what evidence can we ever use to lynch somebody? It is a more reasonable assumption to make that "X has BTSC, so is probably mafia" than "X has BTSC, but we don't know anything about the mafia this game, so let's leave him alone." In a game with so little information, we have to make a few reasonable assumptions.