[CFUW Game 11 goes here!]

Mar 02, 2006 20:57

Seeing as how you're one of the few players present who might actually play intelligently, I might as well take the risk and seek you out, Nishi. If you want to trust me or are feeling as reckless as I am, that is.

Leave a comment

Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:04:10 UTC
Heh, am I the only one noticing discrepancies?

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. for_the_han March 4 2006, 04:06:37 UTC
Hm? I've been fairly absent this round, but what do you mean?

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:14:19 UTC
You might want to, it brings all the females to scrutiny.

Now, I might be not a veteran of these games... but how often does a clue implicate half if not more of the remaining group this early? Especially since the previous ones have been rather specific.

A long period of no show with a clue, and 'passed on' through someone else... Well, considering the pattern of kills, I don't blame them for sitting on a clue... just a few little things are combining... or maybe I'm just unduely paranoid.

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. for_the_han March 4 2006, 04:17:13 UTC
Not very often, but it's happened. When it was misinterpreted, we very nearly lost the game.

What little things do you think are combining?

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:24:07 UTC
There's not a lot to interpret. Honestly, we're as good as being without a clue... and one implicated immediately, Ed's had a hard on to nail. I'm wondering if the real clue still exists out there somewhere. I wonder if one might be confident enough about their guesses to just write one...

Do you mind if I ask about that game?

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. for_the_han March 4 2006, 04:33:56 UTC
Hm.

Well, that game, Ed, Riddle, and Yozak were all wolves, and the other sheep were Brock, Gwendal, Mello, Near, Evangeline, Yuusuke, Dearka, and Momoko.

Brock eventually had a clue that said "among the lovers lies a wolf." This was after I was cleared as a sheep by Yuusuke, Dearka was ousted, and Momoko eaten. So out of the nine remaining players, five were immediately implicated. (Yuusuke was exempt because of his clue at the beginning.) Ed/Riddle, Gwendal, and Mello/Near.

We thought the clue meant that one of each pair was a wolf, so Gwendal was ousted nearly immediately. Riddle faked a clue after that, which made us suspect him, and then everything went awry after that. It was a fairly entertaining game, actually.

In the end, it came down to Ed, Mello, and that lovers clue. WE didn't know if it meant one from a pair of lovers, or a pair of lovers, and I think it came down to a coin toss.

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:43:32 UTC
By 'almost lost' I assume it was a lucky toss then. Difficult... I could see how that could work out a multitude of ways. If the Shepherd is using the same style to stir things up, it might be real after all.

Well... that's interesting. Have something in mind by implicating yourself after you'd been discounted?

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. for_the_han March 4 2006, 04:48:07 UTC
I'm just... not sure about the clue. It just seemed to make the most sense to have me as the wolf who's actually a boy because of camp.

But at the same time, if the other two are sheep...

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:57:41 UTC
Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 04:58:41 UTC
I'm falling short of finding the actual logic in that.

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. for_the_han March 4 2006, 04:58:59 UTC
Me too. I'm sorry; I'm just tired.

Reply

Re: Reckless? Why not. death_2_parrots March 4 2006, 05:20:16 UTC
Two in a row... heh, you know, I don't care how much of a sheep you've been playing. I think that's enough for me.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up