[WW] The Facts of Life - 9:20 pm

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:54 pm

Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.

Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:54 pm

Lagom Lite wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:I'm Natalie. Don't vote for tru1cy. I like short skirts.
Awesome. But why not tru1cy?

You protected someone when stessier got killed.
You protected Mr Bubbles last night.
Other than that you have no more information than most of us.

Could Grundbegriff be the other Dame?

No, because:
Natalie was alive last night since she protected Mr Bubbles. So:
stessier was not Natalie. So:
Natalie must currently be alive and able to counter your claim, enabling us to pin you (or the counter-claimer) down.

So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).

where did you see the bolded part there Lagom? Cant find it.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:55 pm

Lagom Lite wrote:OMG TaylorScoop, it's like they'll think we're together or sumthing, tee hee!

OMG!! Its like they will say anything about us!!

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:58 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?

we don't, we know there was a protection last night...I think only Grund and Lagon Lite knows it was Mr. Bubbles last night. thus why I moved my vote back.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:00 pm

Newcastle wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:I'm Natalie. Don't vote for tru1cy. I like short skirts.
Awesome. But why not tru1cy?

You protected someone when stessier got killed.
You protected Mr Bubbles last night.
Other than that you have no more information than most of us.

Could Grundbegriff be the other Dame?

No, because:
Natalie was alive last night since she protected Mr Bubbles. So:
stessier was not Natalie. So:
Natalie must currently be alive and able to counter your claim, enabling us to pin you (or the counter-claimer) down.

So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).
where did you see the bolded part there Lagom? Cant find it.

It was implied.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:04 pm

Lassr wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?
we don't, we know there was a protection last night...I think only Grund and Lagon Lite knows it was Mr. Bubbles last night. thus why I moved my vote back.

We all know Mr Bubbles was protected last night, there is no other possibility. How else would you explain that there was no expulsion last night? The Dames must expel every night. Rules say, Dames "will expel", not "may expel".

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:15 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:OMG TaylorScoop, it's like they'll think we're together or sumthing, tee hee!
OMG!! Its like they will say anything about us!!

I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:17 pm

Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?
we don't, we know there was a protection last night...I think only Grund and Lagon Lite knows it was Mr. Bubbles last night. thus why I moved my vote back.
We all know Mr Bubbles was protected last night, there is no other possibility. How else would you explain that there was no expulsion last night? The Dames must expel every night. Rules say, Dames "will expel", not "may expel".

I don't know, I assume. Grund would know and the other Dame would know.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:52 pm

Lassr wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?
we don't, we know there was a protection last night...I think only Grund and Lagon Lite knows it was Mr. Bubbles last night. thus why I moved my vote back.

Golly, I'd hate to think that Lagom might have been caught in a mistake. Still its the kind of thing that being said that should be tested.

withdrawal Lassr

Accuse Lagom Lite

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:53 pm

Lassr wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:OMG TaylorScoop, it's like they'll think we're together or sumthing, tee hee!
OMG!! Its like they will say anything about us!!
I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.

OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:28 pm

Lassr wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Yes, I typed that wrong. I meant we would have known soon enough.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:32 pm

Lagom Lite wrote:So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).

It doesn't follow that (a) I must be Natalie. After all, I could be (b) a simple partier emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into expelling me (which functionally serves to protect everyone else, including Specials). Or I could be (c) a Special emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into trying to expel me so that the real Natalie can protect me and thwart the Dame (thus wasting her turn).

Of course, (b) and (c) would depend on the cluefulness of Natalie, who might be tempted to out herself if she mistakenly thinks I'm a Dame. But by now we're all savvy.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:50 pm

Votes:
Against Lassr (1): Lagom Lite
Against Theohall (1): Mr Bubbles
Against Grundbegriff (1): Theohall
Against Lagom Lite (2): Lassr, Scoop20906

No vote: Chaosraven, tru1cy, Grundbegriff, Newcastle

Majority: 5

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:55 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Lassr wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Yes, I typed that wrong. I meant we would have known soon enough.

yeah, I dunno. If stessier had been Natalie then there would not have been a protection last night...
I got in a hurry and just royally screwed up that statement.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:00 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).
It doesn't follow that (a) I must be Natalie. After all, I could be (b) a simple partier emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into expelling me (which functionally serves to protect everyone else, including Specials). Or I could be (c) a Special emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into trying to expel me so that the real Natalie can protect me and thwart the Dame (thus wasting her turn).

Of course, (b) and (c) would depend on the cluefulness of Natalie, who might be tempted to out herself if she mistakenly thinks I'm a Dame. But by now we're all savvy.

absolutely true. I just think it is obvious that you are not a Dame (like the last game where you pulled a similar trick)

so stessier is not Natalie
stessier could have been tootie
stessier could have been Jo.
Mr. Bubbles is most likely not a Dame
Grund is not a dame
Grund could be Natalie.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:02 pm

Lassr wrote: Grund is not a dame
.

should probably say very highly unlikely.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:03 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).
It doesn't follow that (a) I must be Natalie. After all, I could be (b) a simple partier emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into expelling me (which functionally serves to protect everyone else, including Specials). Or I could be (c) a Special emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into trying to expel me so that the real Natalie can protect me and thwart the Dame (thus wasting her turn).

Of course, (b) and (c) would depend on the cluefulness of Natalie, who might be tempted to out herself if she mistakenly thinks I'm a Dame. But by now we're all savvy.

Well... alright, I guess. Liar!

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:05 pm

This party is a blast!!!!

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:09 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:
Lassr wrote:I can believe Grund. I'm not Natalie. If stessier was Natalie we will know soon enough.
Not possible. Mr Bubbles was protected by Natalie last night.
Sorry I missed it. How do we know that Mr Bubbles was protected last night?
we don't, we know there was a protection last night...I think only Grund and Lagon Lite knows it was Mr. Bubbles last night. thus why I moved my vote back.
Golly, I'd hate to think that Lagom might have been caught in a mistake. Still its the kind of thing that being said that should be tested.

withdrawal Lassr

Accuse Lagom Lite

Mistake? Umm, like, whatever.

I mean ok, technically Grund could be lying. Maybe she's not Natalie and/or didn't protect Mr Bubbles, in which case she's a lying biaz and we should totally poison her makeup.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:10 pm

withdraw Grundbegriff

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:36 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.
OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.

Pretty sure that's a different Scoop.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:45 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.
OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.
Pretty sure that's a different Scoop.

we have more than one scoop! Oh dear God!

guess that explains why you left the numbers off in the mugshot...

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:01 pm

Lassr wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.
OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.
Pretty sure that's a different Scoop.
we have more than one scoop! Oh dear God!

guess that explains why you left the numbers off in the mugshot...

No, thats me. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!

edit: to add that only one line there.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:52 pm

Scoop20906 wrote: No, thats me. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!

That's a relief.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:32 am

Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.
OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.
Pretty sure that's a different Scoop.
we have more than one scoop! Oh dear God!

guess that explains why you left the numbers off in the mugshot...
No, thats me. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!

edit: to add that only one line there.

Wait-- I'm freaking out. For some reason, I thought you were an in-person friend of Remus West, and that you were therefore in his neck of the woods. However, your caption says your in Alexandria, which is consistent with your being the Scoop who attended the OO get together a few years back. Are you the guy who attended that meeting with The Preacher, Tareeq, PR_GMR, $iljanus, and me? Have we actually met?!

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:17 am

/cue twilight zone music

Mr Bubbles · Post by **Mr Bubbles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:32 am

Wow.. Grund is freaked out. I'm a little freak myself. I take that back.. I down right scared.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:06 am

Nah, Remus West circle o' local loons: Chaosraven, LordMortis, redrun, kinetickid, RevHempus71.

Ok, so my question to y'all is:
If the 'Bubbles protected' thang were a slip, why would Grund not pounce on it and hand over the Lass Lite?

FWIW, I'm not Natalie

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:23 am

Grundbegriff wrote:Second Garrett's Room Phase:

Natalie guarded __Bubba____ successfully

Dame tried to expel __Bubba____ and was blocked
I think we can safely infer that "Bubba" is actually Mr Bubbles and that Mr Bubbles must be innocent. After all,
(1) There's only one way that expulsion can be thwarted, and that is for Natalie and the remaining Dame to converge on the same person

In other words, Mr Bubbles is as good as confirmed. That's probably why the remaining Dame tried to expel him, and (equally obviously) why Natalie chose to protect him. Nothing else comes close to explaining the current facts this well.

Grundbegriff wrote:Either way, I might've been scanned. And it wouldn't be good for them to know something you don't. And I can be emulated, since the Dames control expulsion. And I can't defend myself. So even though they might kill Bubbles (a sure thing) tonight, I have to suppose they might instead kill me.

So I'm letting you know that I'm Natalie.

Ok, so not a slip, more like careful reading and analysis.

Others:
Newcastle- Not Nat
Scoop90210 - Not Nat
Lagom Lite - Not Nat
Lassr - Not Nat
Chaosraven - Not Nat

tru1cy - not stated
theohall - not stated
Mrs Bubbles - not stated

Now the latter three have checked in, but did not counterclaim Grund.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:28 am

If we assume stessier was NOT tootie or jo we can proceed as follows:

Grund - Nat
tootie - should have 2 scans thus far (if not Mr B, Grund, Remus, or stessier)
jo - Bangbang
Mr B - if Grund be Nat
scan1
scan2

unknown
unknown
unknown

-----------------

Which would allow for us to Shoot then Vote then Vote tomorrow and WIN by eliminating all 3 unknowns

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:34 am

"Mrs. Garrett's Room" phase:
This phase resembles the Night Phase in a standard Werewolf game.
Natalie will select a player to protect from expulsion.
Tootie will select a player to inspect.
Blair will select a player to inspect.
The Dames will chose a player to have expelled from school.
- - -
Blair will be told if the player she inspected is {Natalie / Jo} (but not specifically which one).
Tootie will be told the exact role of the player she inspected.
Any expelled player will be told of their expulsion.
The Dames, if Mrs. Garrett is still in the house, will be told the role of the student that was expelled.

Based on the above, it would seem the Dames choose the Expellee before they get the info re Blairscan.
Obviously they found out who stessier was as both Dames were alive when she was expelled.

So what was Remus trying to do?

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:47 am

Grundbegriff wrote:
Lagom Lite wrote:So, Grundbegriff must be Natalie and will get expelled UNLESS Grundbegriff is a fool (she is not).
It doesn't follow that (a) I must be Natalie. After all, I could be (b) a simple partier emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into expelling me (which functionally serves to protect everyone else, including Specials). Or I could be (c) a Special emulating Natalie in order to lure the remaining Dame into trying to expel me so that the real Natalie can protect me and thwart the Dame (thus wasting her turn).

Of course, (b) and (c) would depend on the cluefulness of Natalie, who might be tempted to out herself if she mistakenly thinks I'm a Dame. But by now we're all savvy.

What the Vulcan forgets within this is that the other 8 of us are not Vulcans.

Now, if stessier was tootie, we would follow the same plan as above, and then 'tootie' is the fourth to be voted out, as the Dame would have faked it.

A fake tootie MUST be the remaining Dame, but neither of the scans (whoeverthey may be) could be, as only one Dame remains, and nobody needs to pretend to be tootie.

Should check back to see who responded right away with Not Nat status

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:48 am

Not Natalie, either.

tru1cy · Post by **tru1cy** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:55 am

Nat I am not

Mr Bubbles · Post by **Mr Bubbles** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:04 am

I've already stated what I am.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:10 am

Chaosraven wrote: Ok, so not a slip, more like careful reading and analysis.
.

probably not a slip by lagon but we don't know for sure that Grund is telling the truth yet. It's looking highly likely right now but not 100%.

Lassr · Post by **Lassr** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:13 am

Chaosraven wrote:If we assume stessier was NOT tootie or jo we can proceed as follows:

Grund - Nat
tootie - should have 2 scans thus far (if not Mr B, Grund, Remus, or stessier)
jo - Bangbang
Mr B - if Grund be Nat
scan1
scan2

unknown
unknown
unknown

-----------------

Which would allow for us to Shoot then Vote then Vote tomorrow and WIN by eliminating all 3 unknowns

So are you suggesting a reveal today with a shooting and lynch vote to eliminate 2 players. Might work if Tootie is alive and can clear 2 players...

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:18 pm

Lassr wrote:probably not a slip by lagon

"lagon"? Who's that?

Anyway, I still haven't heard an explanation as to why Grund doesn't want us to vote tru1cy, which makes me want to put my vote back on her.

Or maybe on Grund.

I stated before that Grund probably is Natalie, like she claims, since otherwise the real Natalie would simply step forward and counter-claim Grund, dooming Damebegriff.

But then, I started thinking. Which is never a good sign since innocents tend to get lynched when I do that, but still: What if Grundbegriff is trying some kind of double bluff? If the real Natalie stepped forward, Grund could simply say "Oh, I wasn't really claiming Natalie, it was just a ruse orchestrated by my twisted Machiavellian mind to make the real Dame out herself in some obscure way", and we'd buy it because that is something Grundbegriff would do. And then she'd have outed the real Natalie while still having our trust.

Therefore, I'm not sure anymore it's a good idea for Natalie to out herself to counter-claim Grund right now. Also, if my reasoning is sound (which it may or may not be), Chaosraven just moved up the suspect list since she's been pushing to make people state whether or not they are Natalie. Which might, incidentally, have been the slip "innocent-Grund" was trying to achieve.

Is Grund this devious? Or is she really Natalie, trying to narrow the pool of suspects or getting someone to slip up?

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:25 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Lassr wrote:I've seen you without your makeup

a little butch but still cute.
OMG! That is like such a horrible picture of me. UGH!! I look like I should be on Tyra's show begging for a makeover.
Pretty sure that's a different Scoop.
we have more than one scoop! Oh dear God!

guess that explains why you left the numbers off in the mugshot...
No, thats me. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!

edit: to add that only one line there.
Wait-- I'm freaking out. For some reason, I thought you were an in-person friend of Remus West, and that you were therefore in his neck of the woods. However, your caption says your in Alexandria, which is consistent with your being the Scoop who attended the OO get together a few years back. Are you the guy who attended that meeting with The Preacher, Tareeq, PR_GMR, $iljanus, and me? Have we actually met?!

Yep, that was me. I think this lunch was before I started joining in on the WW games. I remember enjoying the Andre stories. I certainly hope I was not too annoying.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:28 pm

Lassr wrote:
Chaosraven wrote: Ok, so not a slip, more like careful reading and analysis.
.
probably not a slip by lagon but we don't know for sure that Grund is telling the truth yet. It's looking highly likely right now but not 100%.

Can't believe I got this confused. That blows the theory out of the water. Seems like everything hinges on Grund since he has claimed a special and names two players an innocent.

withdrawal Lagom Lite