I wasn't neccesarily trying to have that conversation, I was guessing at your role based on what you had said and how I thought you would play a given role. I'm a bit stumped, but, of course, you may know something about your role that's not in the rules.

You have no comment on my vote for ntn?

I don't think that's completely true. In fact, since it's D1 and all...

Vote Hoopsguy

And with that I'm likely out for the day. Slight chance I'll be back on later.

ugh, and after Barkeep argues that more info is better for the village, he makes that enigmatic comment...

That may be true. I believe the visited prostitutes are on the side of good, so I know the person I visited is on my side. If the bad guys (i.e. Jack) are able to visit prostitutes at night, that gives them a target.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jack can only kill the prostitutes.

Why do we think Hoops is hinting at a role?

Ok not quite gone yet (the allure of WW is stronger than grading some papers). I wouldn't read too much into that. It's just that when hoops is bad he's never completley bad. And when hoops is good he's never completely good. One needs a day 1 vote, afterall, and with so little to go on, I went with that.

He says he got information on night 0.

I think the prostitutes are on the side of good. I just wonder if they can trust those that visit them...

Hmm. What does it tell us about the people who visit prostitutes? I can't decide if it tells us anything about them or not.

I'm sorry, that makes even less sense to me.

Fouts, since Jack gets a minor victory condition for killing all prostitutes I would be a little surprised if he visits them and pays them. Only way that makes any sense is if he has to identify them first. A two-step process to identify/kill 2+ prostitutes seems pretty challenging to complete prior to being identified.

Hoops does things as a werewolf that does help the villgaers (post recaps, for instance). And he's willing to lie and decieve as a villager if he thinks it'll help the villgaers overall. That is what I'm talking about.

That read poorly - let's try a clarification:

A two-step process to identify/kill 2+ (2 night actions for each) prostitutes seems pretty challenging to complete prior to Jack being lynched.

Well, we probably have multiple killers in this game. To keep them all from killing every night, I am thinking they must kill the right TYPE of role.

checking in. i wont name my street yet ( i dont want to look in my message just to find it).

since there is no real info on whom is good or evil yet ;) ill make a random vote

Vote Izulde

he was the last to sign up

What?

Vote Bulletsponge

on a side nopte, i think Jack can ONLY kill prostitutes. and the other badies also have certain peeps they are allowed to kill.

Either that, or, more simply, they communicate with each other and decides who to send out each night.

I find it interesting that you find this noteworthy.

is there something i said?

Unvote Izlude

Vote Fouts

is that better? :rolleyes:

Brilliant. How did you come up with that theory? ;)

Fine with me. I have nothing to lose. How about you?

Why? Do you think everybody got information on night 0? Because I didn't.

I would guess not everybody did, but I would bet most did...or could have.

It feels like some people shut down the information flow with their accusations.

This statement earlier by Fouts seems like the kind that can be pretty easily vouched for by other patrons or by the tramps. Unless there is variable pricing in this town, that fee should be the kind of information that people include in their evaluations on Fouts.

Until someone comes out and disputes this number, I'll believe Fouts is not the Ripper - which is the basis for my initial trust list because I don't know a way right now to distinguish between the other bad guys.

Here is my early vote total, as of Post #177:

Fouts 2 -- Swaggs (138), Bullet (171)
Dubb 1 -- NTN (134)
NTN 1 -- Cronin (142)
Saldana 1 -- Dubb (149)
Hoops 1 -- Barkeep (152)
Bullet 1 -- Fouts (167)

I'm wondering about that also. Seems like it could be easier than usual to come up with some sort of trust list if only good could do certain things. Still though, it does sound like you agree most everyone can do something, whether good or bad.

I hope it wasn't me that did that. I actually thought not having information was more suspicious and was hoping people would throw out those nuggets of info here and there.

I'll be popping in and out throughout the day. The votes are kinda all over the place and I'm a little uncomfortable voting for someone that already has a vote on them because it reflects poorly on the castee.

Vote path12

Subject to change of course.

I'm guessing you won't see people dispute that number.

dola,

no particular reason for my vote; I just looked at the list of players and his name stood out.

Or they have some sort of timing rule (after day 3, every other day, etc) or else they might have to specify an area or something like that (Jack has to state he's looking on Cavell for a prostitute, maybe). It does seem unlikely that they would all be able to kill every night.

Third that.

if someone comes out and vouches for him they set themselves up to be a target of the Ripper though

It would probably be better if the prostitutes didn't out themselves just in case Jack is paying attention. In fact, if you all want to come to my place, I'll take care of you... :D

Bullet, why would someone else who paid 5 shillings be a target for the Ripper? Unless there was only one person getting serviced last night.

Even if that is the case, I would expect that there is a pretty good chance that someone else would be able to confirm/deny that number by tomorrow at the latest.

With that in mind, I don't think Fouts is the right person to target today. And at the moment he is the leading vote-getter.

The Fouts vote seems really weak to me. This game seems like it has a lot of night actions floating around; we shouldn't kill someone just for being outside at night.

That said...*shrug*. I don't think a no-lynch would be insanely terrible today, but we seem to have enough going around that we have a marginally better chance than normal of getting a bad guy. I'm going to hold off voting for now until this clears up a touch more.

No offense to the arguments being put out there but this seems a rather subtle hint...the fact barkeep is going after hoops on day 1 is alarming to me, the fact he seems to somewhat accuse hoopsguy alarms me further. Hes not around, but until i hear a better argument elsewhere ill follow what could be a hint that everyone seemed to gloss over.

I was pretty baffled by Barkeep's various comments. They were way out of character, as was the vote.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It looked like hoops was giving incomplete information, on purpose, and Barkeep was pointing it out. Barkeep then gave what looked like an obligatory Day 1 vote on hoops.

Am I missing something important?

Hoops is not a guy I want to be involving on day 1 without something definitive. We can start thinking about whether he's been helpful enough later.

VOTE Barkeep49

Ah, now I see what he was getting at. Initially, I thought blade was going after hoops, now I see that it is Barkeep.

Blade, I've got about 30 minutes to play this out if you want to ask some questions.

What I think would qualify as a poor play would be to go after the one person who is coming out on Day 1 saying that they possess some information that could be used to form a trust list. That could be a bluff, I suppose, but I don't think it fits at all with my usual MO as a bad guy.

If the information I gained was reciprocal - and I believe it was based on location rather than role-specific in this instance - then there should be three people out there who can place me last night and should be working with the assumption that I'm not a bad guy. I don't know what info was contained in their PM's, but I'll speculate that they would clear me rather than condemn me at this stage in the game.

As far as what Barkeep suggested, I'm playing my cards pretty openly this game. I would like to think that is to the benefit of the law abiding citizens of London - time will tell, I guess.

I think Blade was suggesting that Barkeep might know something which caused the Hoops vote.

I believe it's been confirmed a couple times already. I agree it certainly makes me not want to vote Fouts.

I hate to read big things into day 1 comments, but it struck me that st.cronin seemed surprised that people got night 0 info. It's likely not anything, but it's somewhat better than random.....I thought it was obvious that there could have been a lot going on last night, so any surprise makes me wonder if they have a different role.

Vote st.cronin

Updated votes as of Post #197:

Fouts 2 -- Swaggs (138), Bullet (171)
Dubb 1 -- NTN (134)
NTN 1 -- Cronin (142)
Saldana 1 -- Dubb (149)
Hoops 1 -- Barkeep (152)
Bullet 1 -- Fouts (167)
Path 1 -- DC (181)
Barkeep 1 -- MrW (193)
Cronin 1 -- Path (197)

Remember, we need to have at least 1/3 on a candidate to have a lynch. So at some point we will need have some consolidation to move towards a lynch.

See, that is what I thought at first. After rereading it, it looks like blade is suspicious of Barkeep for going after hoops so early.

Hoopsguy said he was "on the side of angels," and barkeep said he didnt think that was entirely true...to me that means he saying hoopsguy isnt good, or at least not an angel. You can draw your own conclusions from it, i have one that i dont care to share yet, but putting pressure on the only one of the two here(barkeep is awol) will hopefully net us some more information