Toony:Jack AT probably prevented Night 1's kill, good on him.
I doubt it, given that Jack A T said we almost certainly had a cult yesterday. I doubt he'd be so certain if he had blocked a kill.
@NQT:
Everyone on the IG lynch
I don't see the contradiction, though IG could have been clearer. He uncovered ZU's face, started the ritual, was disturbed, Toony comes along, digs him up and then revives him. Where's the contradiction?
ZU's grave wasn't disturbed when I arrived. I had to do "a good bit of digging" to unearth the body.
Did it specifically say it was undisturbed?
notquitethere:
Not so fast Persus. We know ZU may be good, we also know that there are scum players out there. It's absurd to lynch ZU today. Better kill all the original scum and see whether we've won and then if not we can kill ZU as back up. It's senseless to waste a lynch on him, especially in a potential cult set-up.
Yeah, good point.
Unvote. Lynching a possible third party is not the best idea at the moment.
EVERYONE should we be lynching IG over the Toony-IG conflict? I say no, but I'd be interested to see what others think.
I wouldn't mind lynching IG (and haven't minded since D1), but I do think we should focus on hunting elsewhere as well to be in a good position tomorrow.
Did it say anything about putting the soil back over ZU?
I put the soil back over ZU.
This is really convenient, especially since it's right after IG said he had nothing else to add and he hadn't specified this earlier, even though it would have explained the contradiction.
Why are you leading IG by asking questions that help his claim? I'm noticing a pattern where you go "maybe it was this" and IG going "that's right" even though he didn't mention it earlier.
It's just I'm having Supernatural 6 flashbacks where I didn't know the possibility of the hybrid cult and then lost horribly because I'd assumed nothing like that could happen, which along with Magic Mafia has given me a heightened fear of ignored cults. As far as I'm concerned, IG was a bit shady, but he didn't look to be a cult leader and so there are still better people to target.
Yeah, but does a full-blown cult and multiple third parties sound like a balanced game to you? Unless flabort is lying and distracting us with good flavor (which frankly, I don't think him capable of). What's your theory?
Toaster:Persus:
Why are you and Jim so passive-aggressive with TheWetSheep?
Not sure what you're looking for here; voting him is about as non-passive as you can get.
Yes, after implying he was scummy without being very aggressive about it for several days.
Flabort:I think what IG means is that his proc'd first, then failed, consuming it. THEN Toony's proc'd.
Yes, but Jim was specifically saying that that isn't how revives work in Supernatural games. All revives are one-shots, and the last time a revive failed, the person was able to reuse it the next night.
And get back on Toaster's case. What did YOU do last night, and why haven't we heard about it yet?
Anyone else besides Toony or IG Surely some of your actions last night are worth mentioning. NQT, Hapah, did you do anything near the graveyard or Jack's house last night?
Maybe people haven't claimed because they don't want to die tomorrow night?
ImperialKnow what? Don't really care about toaster right now. IG, I was willing to believe you before, but that's just dumb. If you're going to be that childish, and ignorant, and blind... At this moment, nothing you're saying seems believable.
Imperial Guardsman, I am a fool for having believed you earlier.
Oh, just because Im complaining that he isnt being clear?
He's being very clear. The only ambiguous thing in this post is the quote where it's unclear which player you think is a scum priest.
Imperial Guardsman:
I for one agree with NQT and think our problem is Toony.
So that's your response to this?
I for one, think that you are a scum priest or something else with ulterior motives.
If that's true, why aren't you voting him?
Quietly voting him back without acknowledging what I said? Yeah, that's a scum move right there.
4maskwolf:Just FYI IG, if you get a warning from the Toad you can blame me for reporting you. Not just for mafia things, but other places as well.
That was kind of unnecessary. Having almost everyone baying for your blood can be very stressful.
Oh, and replacement list
Can't you only replace in for TheWetSheep?
Jim and Hapah:I'm starting to suspect that there might not be a "traditional" scum or cult team. My reasoning is that with one definite SK (Werebear), one very likely SK (Neccy, if you believe flabort. His claims seem genuine to me), and one whatever-the-hell IG is (who I think exploded Jack, intentional or not), how weak would the actual scum team need to be for the game to be balanced? I took a quick look at the rolelists from past SuperNats, and if there are this many thirds with a real scum team it seems like the deck would be stacked pretty far towards anti-town. Am I totally off-base thinking this?
I'm starting to come around to the same opinion. I think we should be wary of a traditional scum team though. Regardless I'm still in favor of lynching IG/his replacement unless somebody even scummier comes along.
It sounds plausible, but three thirds isn't a lot more then normal. Maybe there's only a 1 or 2 person scumteam, but I doubt there wouldn't be any scumteam.
Everyone:If we do assume that IG is responsible for Jack's death, then where's the necromancer kill? Where's the scum kill? Argh this is pretty frustrating.
This. Anyone have any ideas? I'm starting to wonder if we're dealing with a Necromancer scum team or something. There have been third party versions of scumteams in the past (Lone Vampire) so it could be possible. Things are definitely confusing and Jim's idea of lynching IG for answers might be a good idea at this point.