Jump to content

Peanuts

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,854

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Peanuts

  1. Peanuts
    No, here's the thing: Your amount of contribution actually isn't that low. But you are contributing without analysing. I myself may not have said much, but this is because I wasn't able to come up with any good suspects. You, on the other hand, have tried to look like you helped us by frequently speaking, when you, in fact, were adding nothing to teh discussion at all. Also, I accused you earlier. That's more than you have done. Right now, I don't know how I'll be available until the end of the day, so I'll vote: Li'l Piratedave. I still should be able to follow and post later, but I want to be sure the day doesn't end without me voting.
  2. Peanuts
    Hm, it's true that Li'l Hinck came up with the "kill him or we won't know if this is a sting" resoning, I completely missed that before. I have to say, it sounds like a strange reason to vote for someone, simply because that's basically inherent to most lynches. I don't know about Li'l Walter; I have to say, his quick support puzzles me. Maybe he was suspicious of Dave before? But if, why didn't he say so?
  3. Peanuts
    I am still town. Congrats to Li'l Cecilie for being mayor. I hope you'll live longer than two days...well, that is, if you are town, of course. Right now, I can't say I have many people who appear outright scummy to me. The only person I am really suspicious of right now is Li'l Piratedave. Why? I re-read all his posts yesterday and I realized, that while he said quite a lot, and encouraged the lynch of Li'l Scouty, he never came up with a character analysis. At all. Out of every post I read, I never saw anything that I would count as character analysis. He seemed to base his whole gameplay on numbers, game mechanics and night actions, which I think is highly scummy. There are some others, like Li'l Pal or Li'l Redblade, who have acted weird in the past, but I can see how a townie might behave like they did. The thing about Li'l Dave is, in my eyes he tries to look helpful by posting frequently, but when he does, he ususally is summing up what others said or is looking for information instead of analysis. To me, his reasoning behind his vote for Scouty sounded like "If we don't lynch him, we won't know what side he's on" and "I don't think he'd try the same thing he tried in the last game". To me, he looks like the best lynch candidate we have today. Oh, and I completely forgot to mention this: When called out on just reiterating, he reacted highly defensive. His whole post read like "Why do you call me out, I am already acting like a townie!"
  4. Peanuts
    Sorry, but I can't see how Li'l Corny's death correlates with the scum team uniting at all. In fact, all I read there is: "Either they tried to convert him and teamed up or they didn't try to convert him and teamed up or they didn't team up at all". It's not very far-fetched to say that they killed him just because he seemed townie, as that's the logical thing for the scum to do. I think all combinations of conversion and uniting are possible, but there are no real signs that strongly indicate either. Trying to find some signs looks like reading tea leaves to me, you'll always get the result you were expecting to get. By the way, if nobody else wants to, I don't mind becoming the new Mayor. I don't want to see the role given to somebody at random.
  5. Peanuts
    Actually, no, it wouldn't. Whether they killed one of their own or not, it always makes sence to kill someone who they are farily certain is town. And Danny seems like an unlikely scum target to me. But I guess that's yesterday's topic.
  6. Peanuts
    Well, that's not good at all. I guess those of you who thought the mayor was about to have a short life were right. So, who wants to be his successor? I guess we can agree that the vig took out Li'l Foog, while the scum killed our late mayor . I find it somewhat strange that Li'l Sandy seems convinced that Li'l Danny was offed by the scum. I thought we had agreed that we couldn't be sure, or am I missing something? I meant Li'l Cecilie, of course...
  7. Peanuts
    I don't think the scum would actively try to get anyone lynched, out of fear that they might end up lynching one of their own by accident. That's why Danny voting for you doesn't clear you one bit, it just means you were not on the same team, but it doesn't mean, that you aren't both scum. The case against you is not the best I've ever seen on Day Two, but it's the best we can go on right now. One third of the day is left, and I seriously doubt something better will come up. Fortune favors the bold, as they say. Vote: Li'l Scouty On another note, we all said yesterday we were town, in order to give a possible Lie Detector something to test. Thing is, people can be converted, and I am afraid the Lie Detector might get skewed results. Do you think we should state our towniness once a day from now on? Well, it's just three words, so: I am town.
  8. Peanuts
    No, I mean the scenario, that he was converted before he was killed (by either side). And by Dead Miller I mean a Miller who isn't cleared right upon his death. Not that I really believe that, it seems far more logical that he was scum to begin with. What I really meant to say is that for metagame-y reasons I don't think the scum would have converted Li'l Danny.
  9. Peanuts
    To be honest, I doubt the scum team would have converted Li'l Danny after the way he played in the Pearl (no offense, I really don't want to be mean or complain about him, but he was killed for a reason). It is odd that we all together asked if he was town right before he was revealed, though. I wonder if he might have been a Dead Miller? But that role doesn't make sence without an investigator, does it?
  10. Peanuts
    Well, it's good news that one scum is dead. I wonder if that's the result of Li'l Trumpetking's ploy, or just pure luck? And I wonder what happened to the other kill. Maybe we got lucky and blocked their killer, maybe they got lucky and blocked ours. Do we even have a blocker?
  11. Peanuts
    Furture.
  12. Peanuts
    I'm sorry for not bolding my vote, Mr. def. It won't happe again, I promise But I have an excuse: I was on my notebook, which doesn't display the "bold" button. Anyway, I'll vote correctly in furture...
  13. Peanuts
    So, Li'l Trumpteking has spoken up, and what he said doesn't make me believe he is town. And even if he is, I highly doubt we'd lose much if we lynch him, he hasn't been very helpful either. Thus, I vote: Li'l Trumpetking[b/]
  14. Peanuts
    I am aligned with the town. I can't say the case against Li'l Zepher is strong, his defense was okay considering the accusation didn't have much weight. The stranger is it that Li'l Trumpetking seems to be so tunneled on him, first because he wanted to lynch convertible townies, then because of his "inconsistencies". I'm afraid I can't see where these inconsistencies lie, can you please point them out by quoting his posts? If not, you seem to be a good lynch candidate to me.
  15. Peanuts
    I highly doubt scum would be able to provoke a tie. Think about it, in all the mafia games that were played on Eurobricks, there never has been a tie (I think). And every lynched scum player ever would have created one if they had been able to. Probably not, no.
  16. Peanuts
    Sorry, I wanted to say "disagree that an unexpected move would be a good move for the scum".
  17. Peanuts
    Well, I know that I won't trust our mayor just because he is a mayor, but to me, it's not a reason to scrutinize them either. I just don't think it's a very important role, because I think we as town will manage to make sure no ties will be generated. But I have to disagree that an unexpected move would be a good move for the town. There's a reason we don't expect them to step into the spotlight, because it would be bad for them to be scrutinized. Huh? Are you just thinking aloud now? There is no reason whatsoever to elect a scummy mayor. It's just stupid. We can scrutinize them without electing him, you know. And no scum in their right mind would refrain from using a night action without a good reason to. As you yourself point out, we should lynch scummy players, not make them our mayor. I don't say the mayor has to be incredibly trustworthy, but he shouldn't be scummy either. I'd prefer them to be town. There is no more productive way to use this role, in my opinion. It rarely has any power, but we won't gain anything from giving it to the scum.
  18. Peanuts
    I wouldn't go as far as to say Li'l Cornelius is confirmed town just for candidating, but he seems as good a candidate as any, and I might not be around by the time voting ends. Hence, I Mayor: Li'l CorneliusMurdock. Wrong format Mayor: Li'l CorneliusMurdock
  19. Peanuts
    There doesn't seem to be a penalty, but two of us have already voted, which means, if no-one else votes, Li'l Kovacs will be mayor. But may I ask why you think that we will profit if there is no mayor?
  20. Peanuts
    Well, at least we have a candidate now. I myself don't set value on being mayor, and I'm happy to defer to you. It's unlikely the mayor will ever have to return a verdict, so I don't think the scum would actually make killing him top priority.
  21. Peanuts
    Hey guys, I'm Li'l Peanuts. Hey, me too! But yours looks awfully like it reduces your field of view a lot. So please make sure you don't bump into me, okay, because I don't think my helmet would stand a chance if hit by your clunky metal one.
  22. Peanuts
    Even without the mandatory voting, I guess there would be a lynch. Many players on EB are rather averse towards days without a conviction, me included, that is. Is this a rethorical question or do you really want to know? I don't think a majority rule works without optional voting, does it?
  23. Peanuts
    I should have enough time to play, I guess, so I'll just sign up. 1) I played in the games listed in my profile, and also in Excalibur (1.0 and 2.0) and The Pearl. Guess I should update my profile. 2) If I play town, the recruiting team is completely overpowered. If I'm scum, it's the mason. Nah, I think it will work well. 3) I'll just say I'm against it, or at least not doing it, but I'm not entirely sure what it means.
  24. Peanuts
    Well, that's definitely good, but I really never would have told anyone I was scum, not even a neutral. I'm way too conservative. I don't think it would have worked either, you shouldn't have attacked def and Badboy that much in public, not without telling def in advance that you were trying to get me to make a mistake.
  25. Peanuts
    Er, not at all. We didn't even mention them... I really think the balance would have been even worse if we had to sacrifice all our night actions for the possibility to steal. Players with two actions would have been the lesser evil, I think. Did you really still trust me even after there was an investigation result? Anyway, I think you were far too tunneled on def What I can say about the game layout is, that it was definitely intriguing. It was very well-designed, though, no offense, Bob. For example, the game would have been a lot fairer if the other thieves would have to keep the diamond until the end (or at least hold it for a certain period of time, such as three days in a row). And if a player has fulfilled their condition, they should be taken out of the game! That way whoever steals the diamond wouldn't want to draw too much attention, and their roles aren't just another method of investigation. I enjoyed playing the game, it was confusing at some points, but you'd expect a Bob game to be. I'm not entirely glad about my own performance, either, I think I played to passively and at the same time accused too many players. But it was a good game, even if we were, like, totally underpowered.
×
×
  • Create New...