Tea Party Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, Day 4, Day 5

[Gallstones]

A vote for Feck will put the town down by three. I can't prove this unless he is lynched--not the way town wants to find this out.

[Gallstones]

Vote Feral_Punctuation

[Uselesstwit]

A vote for Feck will put the town down by three. I can't prove this unless he is lynched--not the way town wants to find this out.

how do you know he isn't the don?

[Zigmen]

3 hours til nightfall

[charlou]

A vote for Feck will put the town down by three. I can't prove this unless he is lynched--not the way town wants to find this out.

how do you know he isn't the don?

Maybe he viewed as a special?


I wasn't copying you, UT .. The bluntness of Gallstones' admonishment about Feck took me by surprise as I had someone else in mind as seer from a comment that person made earlier which read like a hint to me, so the question to Gallstones was kneejerk.

But if Gallstone is going to direct members not to lynch someone in that way, then she's outing herself ... unless she's bluffing ... I'll assume we know her role.

[totals]

question to the more veteran players:

if gallstone is the seer, any reason why he would pretty much announce this if the doctor is dead?

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this. we lynch feck or we dont, but gallstones is going to die now for outing as the seer no? am i thinking of this with flawed logic? im kinda confused on this last turn of events

[charlou]

question to the more veteran players:

if gallstone is the seer, any reason why he would pretty much announce this if the doctor is dead?

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this. we lynch feck or we dont, but gallstones is going to die now for outing as the seer no? am i thinking of this with flawed logic? im kinda confused on this last turn of events

No, it's not flawed logic ... Gallstones needn't have said anything about Feck as he wasn't getting votes at that point. She's put both herself and Feck at risk.

Unless she's not the seer ... in which case it's quite a bluff .. perhaps designed to expose the real seer.

[Uselesstwit]

Seer view usually are scum or innocent. They don't get the role, unless zigmen changed that for these games. Did the views you had last game include anything except guilty or innocent? The only exception I've ever heard for that are some independent roles and those might be for or against town.

Gallstones, same question to you. You're outed now, could you give us any special info you have so we don't have this argument again tomorrow. A completely cleared person could be very useful.

[charlou]

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this.

Unless they're protected (we've lost the doctor already though) a town player always dies overnight anyway because scum know who town are.

[totals]

yeah thats what i was thinking. sorry i gotta think its a bluff. theres not like some special where we can die or get some penalty for lynching gallstones is there?

[totals]

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this.

Unless they're protected (we've lost the doctor already though) a town player always dies overnight anyway because scum know who town are.

thats what i mean. bc theres no doctor, someones definitely going to die anyway, so im confused as to why gallstone has put this in motion.

is there a role besides doctor that can save someone from scum?

[Uselesstwit]

question to the more veteran players:

if gallstone is the seer, any reason why he would pretty much announce this if the doctor is dead?

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this. we lynch feck or we dont, but gallstones is going to die now for outing as the seer no? am i thinking of this with flawed logic? im kinda confused on this last turn of events

No, it's not flawed logic ... Gallstones needn't have said anything about Feck as he wasn't getting votes at that point. She's put both herself and Feck at risk.

Unless she's not the seer ... in which case it's quite a bluff .. perhaps designed to expose the real seer.

Totals you're right on the money, a seer should never provide innocent views directly unless the vote would doom town, and we're not at a crucial vote right now. Usually a scum view is worth coming out for like char did last game.

Charlou, that would be very gutsy indeed on day two. If she's still alive tomorrow we might want to think about it.

Gallstones just to be clear you are the seer? I don't want to read in the post game that one of the newer players weren't clear what you were claiming so didn't counterclaim.

[Morticia]

Well we did lynch Charlou last game for very much the same thing...it would be a well played bluff as most would not wish to make that mistake again.

[Uselesstwit]

i mean one way or another, a town is going to die tonight bc of this.

Unless they're protected (we've lost the doctor already though) a town player always dies overnight anyway because scum know who town are.

thats what i mean. bc theres no doctor, someones definitely going to die anyway, so im confused as to why gallstone has put this in motion.

is there a role besides doctor that can save someone from scum?

There might be a town roleblocker, he basically gets to halt a night action. But he has to pick the person doing the actual hit to succeed, so it's a long shot this early in the game.

[Uselesstwit]

yeah thats what i was thinking. sorry i gotta think its a bluff. theres not like some special where we can die or get some penalty for lynching gallstones is there?

Other than if it's not a bluff we'll have done scum's job for them, no, no real penalty. Just a rule of thumb that i've been kicking myself for not following. If someone is claiming a special role, that is likely in the game, do not lynch them until there is a counterclaim.