BRICKYWOOD - Day 2

[Shadows]

Man I hate this version of IPB, it makes replying to posts like this a hassle...

18 minutes ago, Zepher said:

Hey there, Mr. Nouget, but why are you so okay with having lynched a townie? Did you really think a scum would not have a whole team telling them to respond?

So should we all clamp up and say nothing, sir? That seems like a real good way to make sure no information is garnered for yet another day. I seem to recall you always encouraging poking and prodding, Mr. Nouget, in hopes someone slips up. Why the sudden change now?

I'm fine with lynching the inactive when it's all we have to go on, especially when he was here and could have replied multiple times, and someone even went so far as to message him to try to get him to do so. Are you saying that being silent would be a good way for scum to stay safe on day one? I think that would be a dangerous precedent.

As for the second part, all this babbling, especially about what the scum may or may not be able to do, is fluff, designed to look helpful when it really isn't. I fully encourage poking and prodding people, but am not going to reward idle speculation as if it is helpful, that's pretty much a scum tactic right there. Claiming that my view has changed in any way, when it hasn't, is another fairly scummy tactic, isn't it?

[Kintobor]

1 hour ago, Tariq j said:

I have explained in the above posts, like I said, I didn't want to vote for Mr Fostuud as the lynch candidate because he hadn't said anything so when he flipped the next day we don't know his suspicions, his thoughts on other players.

Quote

Finn Foley (Tariq j), Day 1
That said though, if he's not defending himself now, 6 hours before voting ends, is there any guarantee he'll come to defend himself or be of any help later in the game?

Today you claim that you wanted Fosstud around today so he could explain his suspicions and thoughts on studio members, despite yesterday acknowledging what most of us said: that if he's not going to be participating on Day 1, what' the likelihood he will continue to do on Day 2? Six hours before voting closed, no less. 

Foley, what do you have to say about this?

[Tariq j]

Youve taken my quote somewhat out of context, if you read the first paragraph Id said how due to being a newbie, Bob may not claim if he had a PR role, so I'd say my comment was more of a "food for thought" remark than anything else. Like a counterargument basically.

I was thinking out loud, weighing up both sides of the argument and making a desicion, which in this case, was to not vote for him.

[Rider Raider]

9 hours ago, Bob said:

An interesting point to be sure, and one that I hadn't thought of. I don't think I've ever seen it done before on here in any previous games of life, but my memory might be fuzzy. After all, I'm just a dog!

I believe I've seen it happen only once, when I was binge-reading mafia games.

 

[MagPiesRUs]

6 hours ago, Umbra-Manis said:

I don't personally have any reason to believe there was a failed recruitment, I was just listing off reasons we as a group had already posted, as seen in the post below:

But the possibility of a successful recruitment has been mentioned plenty of times too. Why specifically list "failed recruitment" as an option?

[KotZ]

You guys can vote now.

[Actor Builder]

I personally have no idea what's up. This is all conjecture, right? I don't think we know anything for sure, which is bad, and is also the premise of my 2008 film "Alone In A Can". I love that one.

[WhiteFang]

On 7/24/2017 at 7:05 PM, Tariq j said:

The votes that look scummiest are Noughat, Mrs Hepbrick and Mr Clutch and Mr Studcille, with their reasoning going down the usual "he's inactive" vote and just reiterating what others have said throughout the day to make their posts look bigger, Mr Gophers vote was also incredibly sheepish, and I'm not just saying that because he voted for me. 

Somehow, you manage to have a good grasp of your suspicions based on the above candidates based on the reasoning. I will reckon that the votes at this point is worth analysing and I could not be surprised if some of the Burpamounts are mixed with the nay-sayers. I would be very careful and focus on the people who changed their views like their change of pants OR skirts. 

13 hours ago, Zepher said:

I'd actually argue that a vigilante is highly unlikely in this game. It seems unlikely Burpamount is unable to kill during the night, and having two potential deaths each night in a studio with only sixteen people would make for a quick depletion of numbers. Not certain, of course, but it seems unlikely.

......... removed quotes, which is not my focal intention. 

So should we all clamp up and say nothing, sir? That seems like a real good way to make sure no information is garnered for yet another day. I seem to recall you always encouraging poking and prodding, Mr. Nouget, in hopes someone slips up. Why the sudden change now?

Gopher, I think and I strongly believe there is a vigilante 

To start the ball rolling and I always believe in putting someone under the fire, would help... 

So, may I be bold enough, I would like to cast my vote based on the above input. Purely conjuncture, nothing personal, just business... 

Vote Ari Nougat, Agent (Shadows)

[jluck]

1 hour ago, WhiteFang said:

Somehow, you manage to have a good grasp of your suspicions based on the above candidates based on the reasoning. I will reckon that the votes at this point is worth analysing and I could not be surprised if some of the Burpamounts are mixed with the nay-sayers. I would be very careful and focus on the people who changed their views like their change of pants OR skirts. 

Gopher, I think and I strongly believe there is a vigilante 

To start the ball rolling and I always believe in putting someone under the fire, would help... 

So, may I be bold enough, I would like to cast my vote based on the above input. Purely conjuncture, nothing personal, just business... 

Vote Ari Nougat, Agent (Shadows)

"Based on the above input"

What was said prompting this vote? You didn't quote him or analyze anything he said. In fact, the only other post I've seen from you today said you have to collect your thoughts before sharing. Then you showed up and offered no thoughts, then voted for someone with absolutely no logic behind it. 

[WhiteFang]

44 minutes ago, jluck said:

"Based on the above input"

What was said prompting this vote? You didn't quote him or analyze anything he said. In fact, the only other post I've seen from you today said you have to collect your thoughts before sharing. Then you showed up and offered no thoughts, then voted for someone with absolutely no logic behind it. 

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

[Umbra-Manis]

11 hours ago, TinyPiesRUs said:

But the possibility of a successful recruitment has been mentioned plenty of times too. Why specifically list "failed recruitment" as an option?

It wasn't my intention to single out this option, I put it in my list as a bit of a reference point for myself as to what had been suggested already. 

And Ms. Hepbrick, do you have anything to say for yourself today? (@Dragonator) You've been awfully quiet despite the allegations being leveled at you in the first few hours of the day. 

[Duvors]

3 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

This is confusing. Why make a vote you admit is illogical after thinking about it for a long time? And if you have anything to reveal then why wait? Not telling us the reason behind your choices makes you more suspicious.

[Tariq j]

3 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, 

 Sitting around and waiting is what you've done all day, you then came on and quoted me and Gopher, agreed with what we said and then used our analysis to base your vote. You seem to be keen to lynch Mr Noughat yet you've given no reason as to why. 

3 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

  So you'd rather you got lynched, yet you're still certain on lynching Mr Noughat, I'm not defending him or anything since he's on my watch list too, but you're not giving any reasons. 

[Shadows]

6 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

To start the ball rolling and I always believe in putting someone under the fire, would help... 

So, may I be bold enough, I would like to cast my vote based on the above input. Purely conjuncture, nothing personal, just business... 

Vote Ari Nougat, Agent (Shadows)

The problem with "putting someone under the fire" is that you need an actual fire.

4 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

Confident of a vote that you call "purely conjecture?" I'm still left with nothing to comment on except how silly your logic is. No, wait, you say there is "no logic" to it either. So it's just a "get a reaction" vote, as opposed to "sitting around to wait." I understand that, but the way you've done it, the only thing I have to react to is how silly the vote is, so I'm not sure what can be gained from it.

I'm certainly not going to respond as some would with a vote for you, I have no idea if you're town or not, so I can't tell if this is a sincere (but poor) effort to start discussion, or a blatant distraction.

[Zepher]

4 hours ago, Umbra-Manis said:

It wasn't my intention to single out this option, I put it in my list as a bit of a reference point for myself as to what had been suggested already. 

And Ms. Hepbrick, do you have anything to say for yourself today? (@Dragonator) You've been awfully quiet despite the allegations being leveled at you in the first few hours of the day. 

Boy oh boy, maybe we should lynch her because she is quiet?

4 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

Man geez oh boy wow lots of back and forth there. You will not reveal more than you need to, but there is nothing to be revealed? But you are very confident regardless?

29 minutes ago, Shadows said:

The problem with "putting someone under the fire" is that you need an actual fire.

Confident of a vote that you call "purely conjecture?" I'm still left with nothing to comment on except how silly your logic is. No, wait, you say there is "no logic" to it either. So it's just a "get a reaction" vote, as opposed to "sitting around to wait." I understand that, but the way you've done it, the only thing I have to react to is how silly the vote is, so I'm not sure what can be gained from it.

I'm certainly not going to respond as some would with a vote for you, I have no idea if you're town or not, so I can't tell if this is a sincere (but poor) effort to start discussion, or a blatant distraction.

Well, then, Mr. Nouget, what do you say? We haven't heard anything from the night action people and we have nearly 24 hours left in the day with only one vote cast. It's very big of you to not vote for the person who voted for you, but unless we have some forward movement there's a good chance there will be a kill tonight, or a conversion, or whatever the Burpamount can do to harm us.

Vote: Ari Nouget (Shadows)

[Umbra-Manis]

Just now, Zepher said:

Boy oh boy, maybe we should lynch her because she is quiet?

No, lynching a quiet person now does us no good, the lynch has to be someone with a voting history. I want to hear her response to the accusations made earlier.

[Shadows]

10 minutes ago, Zepher said:

Well, then, Mr. Nouget, what do you say? We haven't heard anything from the night action people and we have nearly 24 hours left in the day with only one vote cast. It's very big of you to not vote for the person who voted for you, but unless we have some forward movement there's a good chance there will be a kill tonight, or a conversion, or whatever the Burpamount can do to harm us.

Vote: Ari Nouget (Shadows)

You want to hear from "the night action people?" Really? That's your idea of a town strategy, to get the people with the power killed early. I must admit, that's almost enough to get my vote, if nothing else comes along, it's certainly the scummiest thing I've seen so far. Well, plus supporting a vote you mock earlier in the same post. Oh, and the idea that somehow lynching a townie will give us some forward movement or stop "a kill tonight, or a conversion, or whatever." You're really missing on all points...

So let's see, what amazing defense can I make against no actual charges? I used to be the biggest agent in this town, people lined up at my door hoping to be the next big thing. Then those Burpamount bastards came along and started stealing the best actors and parts for themselves. If I ever want to get back to my former glory, and the style to which I have become accustomed to living in, I need to help stop them. It's going to be hard to do that if I'm dead, but at this point, what can anyone say to prove what side they are on.

How about you? Tell us about your contribution to all of this. Let's all take turns and make our case, at least people would be talking, maybe we'll get lucky.

[jluck]

1 hour ago, Zepher said:

Boy oh boy, maybe we should lynch her because she is quiet?

Man geez oh boy wow lots of back and forth there. You will not reveal more than you need to, but there is nothing to be revealed? But you are very confident regardless?

Well, then, Mr. Nouget, what do you say? We haven't heard anything from the night action people and we have nearly 24 hours left in the day with only one vote cast. It's very big of you to not vote for the person who voted for you, but unless we have some forward movement there's a good chance there will be a kill tonight, or a conversion, or whatever the Burpamount can do to harm us.

Vote: Ari Nouget (Shadows)

Umm...what's going on? In one line you're attacking a vote and then in the next your making the same vote. So far I've seen no logic in these 2 votes. Literally both of you have cast the most lakeluster, unlogical votes. In looks like two scum trying to build a case together while distancing themselves from each other. Make a case and you might have my support!

 

[MagPiesRUs]

4 hours ago, Tariq j said:

 Sitting around and waiting is what you've done all day, you then came on and quoted me and Gopher, agreed with what we said and then used our analysis to base your vote. You seem to be keen to lynch Mr Noughat yet you've given no reason as to why. 

  So you'd rather you got lynched, yet you're still certain on lynching Mr Noughat, I'm not defending him or anything since he's on my watch list too, but you're not giving any reasons. 

So who on your watch list are you most comfortable with lynching at the moment? In light of Ms. Clutch's vote, do you think  she's more or less likely to be scum? How about Mr. Nougat?

 

47 minutes ago, jluck said:

Umm...what's going on? In one line you're attacking a vote and then in the next your making the same vote. So far I've seen no logic in these 2 votes. Literally both of you have cast the most lakeluster, unlogical votes. In looks like two scum trying to build a case together while distancing themselves from each other. Make a case and you might have my support!

So who are you leaning towards lynching at the moment? It seems as if you're waiting to see where the bandwagon goes before you risk actually voting.  

Vote: William Plastic (jluck)

[jluck]

13 minutes ago, TinyPiesRUs said:

So who on your watch list are you most comfortable with lynching at the moment? In light of Ms. Clutch's vote, do you think  she's more or less likely to be scum? How about Mr. Nougat?

 

So who are you leaning towards lynching at the moment? It seems as if you're waiting to see where the bandwagon goes before you risk actually voting.  

Vote: William Plastic (jluck)

Nah I've got 3 suspicions...2 of them already voted (neither is you). I'll put my case out there when I get to sit down in a few hours. I'm reading a script at the moment (aka driving). 

[Kintobor]

22 hours ago, Tariq j said:

Youve taken my quote somewhat out of context, if you read the first paragraph Id said how due to being a newbie, Bob may not claim if he had a PR role, so I'd say my comment was more of a "food for thought" remark than anything else. Like a counterargument basically.

I was thinking out loud, weighing up both sides of the argument and making a desicion, which in this case, was to not vote for him.

Fair enough. It's merely a lead I wanted to follow through on, and I wanted to hear what you had to say concerning the matter. 

10 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Somehow, you manage to have a good grasp of your suspicions based on the above candidates based on the reasoning. I will reckon that the votes at this point is worth analysing and I could not be surprised if some of the Burpamounts are mixed with the nay-sayers. I would be very careful and focus on the people who changed their views like their change of pants OR skirts. 

Gopher, I think and I strongly believe there is a vigilante 

To start the ball rolling and I always believe in putting someone under the fire, would help... 

So, may I be bold enough, I would like to cast my vote based on the above input. Purely conjuncture, nothing personal, just business... 

Vote Ari Nougat, Agent (Shadows)

Based on what assessment do you believe there's a vigilante, both you and Gopher? Also, you've got info that you admit you have, but you're not spilling it for what reason? Claiming to have information and failing to reveal it is particularly scummy in my eyes.

3 hours ago, Zepher said:

Boy oh boy, maybe we should lynch her because she is quiet?

Man geez oh boy wow lots of back and forth there. You will not reveal more than you need to, but there is nothing to be revealed? But you are very confident regardless?

Well, then, Mr. Nouget, what do you say? We haven't heard anything from the night action people and we have nearly 24 hours left in the day with only one vote cast. It's very big of you to not vote for the person who voted for you, but unless we have some forward movement there's a good chance there will be a kill tonight, or a conversion, or whatever the Burpamount can do to harm us.

Vote: Ari Nouget (Shadows)

In what reality do night people reveal there actions and roles on the second day? Gopher and Glenn are acting incredibly off.

1 minute ago, TinyPiesRUs said:

So who on your watch list are you most comfortable with lynching at the moment? In light of Ms. Clutch's vote, do you think  she's more or less likely to be scum? How about Mr. Nougat?

You threw the question out there, Reagan. Who among Gopher, Clutch, and Nougat seem the most suspicious? Honestly, Gopher and Clutch seem to be trying and failing to build a case against Nougat, with Clutch's argument being "random vote", and Gopher's call to try and get the night people to speak seems like baiting said people to speak up. Honestly, though, I'm finding Glenn Clutch the scummier of the two. Her initial vote has nothing backing it. She then claims that she does have a reason for it, but won't reveal why unless "put into the hot soup".

8 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

Well, I for one want to have some Clutch Soup, and I want to know Clutch's supposed reasoning for her vote on Nougat.

Vote: Glenn Clutch (WhiteFang)

[mediumsnowman]

Rereading both days, Glenn's wacky behavior is really standing out to me. On Day 1, she sprouted some gems like "Well, I think those who are still lurking behind those curtains and yet not voice out, are my greatest concern." and "To me, lurking is just equal to danger. It's our best bet for Day 1 and in order for us to get some results on Day 2. We need to be pro-active on Day 1. [votes for Fosstud]" (Can't quote because the topic is locked)

Glenn hopped on the Fosstud bandwagon after simply reiterating points that others had already made, and contributing nothing of real substance.

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:35 PM, mediumsnowman said:

Unfortunate, though not unsurprising, that Fosstud was one of us. Lack of kills is interesting, to say the least. A game of this size is unlikely to have a vigilante, but it is possible. Either the blocker/protector got lucky, or the scum passed on the kill to perform some other action, such as a recruit.  I don't see any reason they would choose not to kill on Night 1.

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 9:20 PM, WhiteFang said:

While it is not a surprise that Fosstud is loyal, but the unfortunate lack of participation is the cause of his demise. 

My conclusion is we ought to have a vigilantie and he or she may choose not to use it. If is a successful protection, then we will see it in the above sequence. The lack of the Burpamount (killing) is more interesting, being the scummy person, they have not done any killing which is very strange and if is a successful block, we ought to see that too. Not sure if is any constrain on their end, but we ought to put our thoughts together. 

On my part, I need to consolidate some of my personal thoughts too before sharing. 

She begins this day with a near identical version of my thread-opening post. Similarities, even down to word choice, are bolded. Interesting.

Then comes this nonsensical exchange and vote, which are summarized neatly by William. Whatever Glenn is trying to say, it makes no sense.

11 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Somehow, you manage to have a good grasp of your suspicions based on the above candidates based on the reasoning. I will reckon that the votes at this point is worth analysing and I could not be surprised if some of the Burpamounts are mixed with the nay-sayers. I would be very careful and focus on the people who changed their views like their change of pants OR skirts. 

Gopher, I think and I strongly believe there is a vigilante 

To start the ball rolling and I always believe in putting someone under the fire, would help... 

So, may I be bold enough, I would like to cast my vote based on the above input. Purely conjuncture, nothing personal, just business... 

Vote Ari Nougat, Agent (Shadows)

9 hours ago, jluck said:

"Based on the above input"

What was said prompting this vote? You didn't quote him or analyze anything he said. In fact, the only other post I've seen from you today said you have to collect your thoughts before sharing. Then you showed up and offered no thoughts, then voted for someone with absolutely no logic behind it. 

8 hours ago, WhiteFang said:

Well, I thought for quite long before commit and I will not reveal more than what I need to do, unless you choose to put me in the hot soup. It is a rash decision. No logic and I agree. Rather than sitting and around to wait, I would rather go for the plunge and risk for my own lynch. I am very confident of my public vote. 

Vote: Glenn Clutch (WhiteFang)

 

....and ignore all the bold in the second batch of quotes. As Ari said, the new forum software is not friendly when it comes to quoting large blocks of text.

[WhiteFang]

It is getting interesting. I am ok to be lynched. Because if you need my conviction to get a vanilla result at Day 3. Don't worry I won't come back as a vengeful spirit. 

The point for me, to put Nougat on fire is conjuncture at this point. I am prepared. If the information is withheld on my end. At least the real scums will learn nothing and even I choose to share the source. It will be blantently wrong at this point. 

It is worth to note in the first 24 hours of voting period of who come and vote for me despite of my openly poor accusation of Nougat and against me. 

Thelma, my theory is that in such game of life. There's very highly probable chance that we got no viligante or killer at night. (Hate the quoting, because I can't do them on mobile)

[MagPiesRUs]

Just now, Kintobor said:

You threw the question out there, Reagan. Who among Gopher, Clutch, and Nougat seem the most suspicious? Honestly, Gopher and Clutch seem to be trying and failing to build a case against Nougat, with Clutch's argument being "random vote", and Gopher's call to try and get the night people to speak seems like baiting said people to speak up. Honestly, though, I'm finding Glenn Clutch the scummier of the two. Her initial vote has nothing backing it. She then claims that she does have a reason for it, but won't reveal why unless "put into the hot soup".

It seems like an incredibly bold move for two scum to go after Nougat right out of the gate, and without evidence. I'm leaning towards town on Clutch because of his boldness, and Nougat and Gopher are about equal to me. I hope Clutch can clarify his suspicions of Nougat though. If Clutch is an ABS, the scum will probably assume he has some sort of night action at this point, and will attempt to silence him. 

[WhiteFang]

Always remember, a scummy tactic is trying their best to protect their hot asses in the first few days or to blend in among the crowd. I choose to speak up because there's nothing to lose. Because if we do nothing as part of ABS, then we can just sit here and watch other die. 

Even is a wrong chance to take, I will risk my bloody life to prove my point regardless if is logical or not in the eyes of fools among us. 

It is way better than I wait for someone to create a bandwagon. I would rather have a conviction than nil conviction in Day 2. Nougat is my best bet and my sole safest bet.