Frozen Mint

Members
  • Content count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Crew Leader

2 Followers

About Frozen Mint

  • Rank
    Can we pretend there's something clever here?
  • Birthday 12/31/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

700 profile views
  1. That stuck out to me too. I'm leaning towards the explanation that a whole lot of people drew the Taylor defense. Which would also mean that there'll be a lot more bloodshed next round. I find it unlikely that the vast majority of players drew Lines of Forbiddance.
  2. Well something about this seems off. It's a bit early in the game to be so sure that a particular player is out to kill you.
  3. I haven't played in a while so this will be exciting. Sign me up as Rose Shol. I probably won't be able to come on more than once a day but I'll try to be as active as possible.
  4. I haven't played in a while, so why not. I'll sign up as Mint because I'm too lazy to think of a name.
  5. As much as I'd like to play this game, I have to back out. I have too much I need to do before the end of this year, and before the end of November particularly.
  6. I really don't think Jon's suspicions of you indicate that he's an elim. I was getting a slight elim read on you too. Whether Jon's right or not is another matter, but I don't think his vote on you is suspicious at all. I know you've already removed your vote and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to bring this up in case inactivity comes up again later in the game. I'd say that inactivity is NAI for new players. I really don't want to kill Straw for the reasons you mention. And to be honest, I kind of want to see how keeping him alive plays out for once. I understand the worry with his playstyle but there probably is some rhyme and rhythm to it, if observed for long enough and well enough. Also killing a player for their playstyle kind of rubs me the wrong way, and it seems to happen all the time with Straw. I'm currently going through the older cycles to evaluate and re-evaluate my suspicions and will hopefully have something more substantial by tomorrow.
  7. Steeldancer and Flash are the same person? I did not know that.
  8. So the Seer killed Steeldancer due to something about Steeldancer's playstyle. Because the Seer knows Steeldancer's playstyle, they must know mine, therefore, they must be interested in me. There are a few issues with that logic. 1) Regardless of whether we started at the same time, I don't believe that Steeldancer and I played many games together. Even if I'm wrong about that, the fact that I don't remember much should speak for itself because it means one or both of us weren't very active in a game, so there wasn't really much to be learned about our playstyles. You could argue that someone who's very active in SE games could have played most of the games that both I and Steeldancer are in, but if that's the case, wouldn't they know a lot of players' playstyles very well? And even if Steeldancer and I played the same games together, I'm not sure how anyone would get to know our playstyles particularly well compared to anyone else's. There are much more prominent players. 2) Why would the Seer being familiar with my playstyle motivate them to convert me? Why would them being familiar with Steeldancer's playstyle motivate them to kill him? Being familiar with a playstyle isn't the same as being interested by it. 3) I'm not going to argue against the initial premise of the Seer's reasons for killing Steeldancer, but I do disagree with it. I personally think that the elims killed off a more quiet player to keep us from inferring anything from their kill.
  9. I feel like only a handful of very experienced players would draw that much attention to themselves D1. I can see Aman doing that. But if the Seer is a player isn't that experienced or known for being vocal, I'm inclined to think that they were active without taking strong action. I'm suspicious of Joe for publicly offering to trade information. He mentions the flaws in Aman's plan but then agrees with it. And he never provides reasoning for why he thinks it's a good idea, even when he's voted on. Shqeeves and Striker also made the same offer as Aman, but my gut says they're village. The only other thing that stood out to me was that Orlok and El both advocated for the lynch but never voted. Orlok's last post on D1 mentions that the threat of the lynch in general was more valuable than picking out an individual at the time. El said that she was okay with either of the lynch candidates towards the end of the turn so there was no incentive for her to vote. Fair reasons, but still, the lack of action feels off to me. I'm going to keep an eye on them for now.
  10. I voted for Aman because I realized that his plan didn't make much sense. Looking at who's willing to take the risk of reaching out to him is helpful. But in terms of learning more about the Seer's approach to the game via his death on D3, is there really any circumstance where the Seer wouldn't convert him despite his inevitable death? There are cases where the best strategy isn't so clear cut, but this didn't seem to be one of them. Basically, Aman's conversion was inevitable and his death wouldn't tell us anything about the Seer's approach moving forward. By lynching Aman, we've prevented the Seer from gaining information. Two points on pushing for the lynch. First, I stand by what I said on the lynch giving us information we can use in the long run. Lynches, D1 or not, promote a lot of discussion. The amount of discussion we had wouldn't have happened without the genuine threat of a lynch. You wouldn't even be voting for me if no one was willing to lynch a player on D1 (I think you've come to the wrong conclusion given the evidence but that's another issue ). I didn't think we were going to hit the Seer. I didn't want to hit the Seer because that would have been a boring game (not true as of my first post but something I felt later on). If we waited until some players were converted, we would have more of a chance on killing an elim, but the elims would have time to plan and discuss while we would be as blind as we were at the start of the game. Second, if the Seer wanted a lynch, I wouldn't think they'd push too hard for one. It would draw a lot of attention to them. Which I wouldn't think they would do, especially D1. It draws more attention then they'd probably want. Of course, that would also depend on the specific player. But I really don't think my promotion of the lynch makes me suspicious. Maybe if it was a more vocal and experienced player, but I don't see how this reasoning works with me.
  11. Gah. I'll switch my vote to Aman for now. Striker. I'll try to get on before the turn ends tomorrow, but I don't know if I'll be able to. Any reason you're going for Joe and not one of the others?
  12. @Seonid @Araris Valerian @Darkness Ascendant @little wilson @Sart @Paranoid King @DarianHammersmith @Davus Care to chime in? And a special shout out to @Doc12 because he should know that he's been voted on.
  13. In terms of lynch candidates, I'm leaning towards Striker or Shqeeves. It's easy for a Seer to offer role swapping after someone else has proposed it. It's a great way to gather information while not bringing too much attention to yourself since you're just picking up on another person's idea. Shqeeves has shown a stronger anti-lynch stance. In contrast, Striker seems to be laying low, so that's where my vote will go for now. Those of you who wanted to use the turn to gather intel so you could make a more informed lynch later, how successful have you been? It's highly unlikely that I'll be convinced to support no lynch this cycle, but I may change my mind depending on your answers.