WW48: Melllvar's Grand Competition!

[Alhambram]

Gazlum was a Hero 3-Shot Voyeur. A Voyeur can learn what actions targeted a player at night. Gazlum left me 2/3 uses of this ability, I do not know whom he voyeuered on night1, but I hinted this in an early post Day2 to see if people might react to it.

How do I know this? My role has been a Hero Village Backup. A Backup will inherit the role of the first Hero power role that dies, losing this ability in the process and has no other active abilities.

So why do I share this now? I believe it is likely that the scum has a backup as well and that would mean that either Thrawns or Commodores Abilites might have transferred to another player, either a previous villager inheriting the first role to die or a wolf on backup. So be on the watch, especially for the abilities these two had re-surfacing.

Highlighting this part. Kaiser's reasoning for revealing his power is because he thinks that scum team might have someone who has similar power.
Also he claim gained this power day 2 soon Gazglum died.

I think that I am starting become extremely very paranoid. IF Kaiser is right, then it would mean someone might gained Thrawn's powers at night 1.
IF that person used posion power at night 1, then it lights different shed upon second death of night 2.

I don't know what to think about it, probably I am reading too much into player powers. Maybe I should forget it and stick to normal player reading instead role reading.

[pindicator]

So I still need to vote for someone- based on his Day 2 votes, and current "woe is me" attitude, I'm voting for Pindicator right now.  That's right, Jerry!

I'm down on myself, but I'm not letting myself wallow in self pity. Anybody who follows my pitboss reporting knows my heart is on my sleeve.

[Alhambram]

Also note that Kaiser posted before night 2 ended.

[Meiz]

I don't know what to think about it, probably I am reading too much into player powers. Maybe I should forget it and stick to normal player reading instead role reading.

I think that's generally speaking a good idea. There are numerous examples on how badly we've failed on trying to read GM's mind on roles and lynched villager after another for metagaming reads. It's especially hard on a custom role game like this one.

As a sidenote, I've liked Alhambra's contributions today, and don't find the post from Bob above bad either.

[Meiz]

I also liked Kaiser's take of his own gamestyle not working out, and planning to change that. That's one part of his game that I've identified, coming too late behind from the game events & his reads. So I do like that he has recognized the issue himself and planned on changing the style. I think GES has the same type of issue, which is why I've prompted him couple of times to start contributing more on the recent events.

[pindicator]

As a sidenote, I've liked Alhambra's contributions today, and don't find the post from Bob above bad either.

By the way Meiz, this is a fine example of the type of post that has raised my hackles. These blanket good town statements without saying what makes them good town.

The next post about Kaiser is better because it explains why.

[novice]

Yeah I agree with Meiz's latest spam.

[Meiz]

Thanks novice.

[novice]

As a sidenote, I've liked Alhambra's contributions today, and don't find the post from Bob above bad either.

By the way Meiz, this is a fine example of the type of post that has raised my hackles. These blanket good town statements without saying what makes them good town.

The next post about Kaiser is better because it explains why.

So sharing feelings is not allowed? Can't skeletons have their hearts on their sleeves?

[Meiz]

As a sidenote, I've liked Alhambra's contributions today, and don't find the post from Bob above bad either.

By the way Meiz, this is a fine example of the type of post that has raised my hackles. These blanket good town statements without saying what makes them good town.

What's your opinion of Alhambra?