For those topics one could describe as the forum equivalent of a twinkie. Word games, forum contests and giveaways are all the rage here.
Topic locked

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:22 am

i'd like to remind people that if you banish Twinkle and she is/was allowed to revel her partners you may be missing out on a major opportunity

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:29 am

Rubywinged wrote:i'd like to remind people that if you banish Twinkle and she is/was allowed to revel her partners you may be missing out on a major opportunity


That would be a rather selective memory potion then. I think Twinkle is effectively a roleless character unable to do anything but vote. It's happened to me before in other games.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:33 am

true I'm just saying tonight may not be the best night to banish because we dont know for certain if it fully removed her memory or there are things she can tell that would be useful...

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:38 am

Gawd, I don't know. Christopher is right, it doesn't seem like she'd be able to reveal her teammates if her memory was erased, or whatever. If she hasn't got any powers, then we haven't got anything to lose for executing her if that whole thing is true. If it's a lie, we get rid of a baddie. Regardless, I don't really want to go another day without an execution. I dunno if we'll be able to reach a majority before night, but it's worth a shot.

Vote: Twinkle

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:43 am

Could we get a vote tally or something?

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:44 am

why would I use it on someone else unless I know they're a baddie? It's a waste if I wiped the role of another innocent you know.

Also, the sp says she gets a role on the innocent side, not just get role-wiped, so I'm sure she has a new role and not a PI.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:47 am

I don't think you're allowed to reveal your teammates under any circumstances.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:48 am

ok fine, even so, why still execute her? I still turned her innocent... at least wait for her to say what new role she got. Maybe she'll be useful.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:49 am

heck if she gets a new innocent role she could become the dreamer we lost!! Again maybe theose voting need to rethink it.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:50 am

Voting Tally

Twinkle (11) - Rissa, Blake, Pink, thetrueoogabooga, May, Helena, Princess Miyu, Susannahmio, Ella, Alex, Regan

Princess Miyu (1) - Rissa

Ella (1) - Laryxler

Byakuya-San (1) - Hansy

Hansy (1) - fzun

fzun (1) - Hansy

No Execution (1) - Rubywinged, Moongewl

Players still at Hogwarts: 27 Majority Single: 14 Majority Double: 21

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

heck if she gets a new innocent role she could become the dreamer we lost!! Again maybe theose voting need to rethink it.


Then that would have put a rez-ban on Tanner, which hasn't been done, so no, she's not going to be the dreamer we lost. My vote stays because I'm angry at how people have played this game.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:52 am

warxelo wrote:why would I use it on someone else unless I know they're a baddie? It's a waste if I wiped the role of another innocent you know.

Also, the sp says she gets a role on the innocent side, not just get role-wiped, so I'm sure she has a new role and not a PI.


As in, everyone was convinced and bandwagoning Twinkle. You could have used it on a baddie you knew, but the thread was not convinced of. On top of that, if a new role is generated I see no problem in using it on an innocent, any one of the people who have used up all their abilities wouldn't mind a new role.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:00 am

another baddie? I don't remember another one being confirmed. Speculation is one thing but Twinkle was confirmed. Also I'm not really in contact with enough people so I don't know who could have used a better role and it's much better to convert a baddie since we don't have to worry about their shields and protections, and if they were an OMT, team killed off.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:03 am

warxelo wrote:another baddie? I don't remember another one being confirmed. Speculation is one thing but Twinkle was confirmed. Also I'm not really in contact with enough people so I don't know who could have used a better role and it's much better to convert a baddie since we don't have to worry about their shields and protections, and if they were an OMT, team killed off.


Unless it turned into another Crazy situation, I think voting a baddie out is better than having to use up a power.

2 executions in 8 days!@@!#!%@#
Last edited by Christopher on Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:04 am

May wrote:
heck if she gets a new innocent role she could become the dreamer we lost!! Again maybe theose voting need to rethink it.


Then that would have put a rez-ban on Tanner, which hasn't been done, so no, she's not going to be the dreamer we lost. My vote stays because I'm angry at how people have played this game.



I'm not saying this is the exact role that she could be given but she could be given a dreamer role of some sort... I think you're all being silly for voting off someone who could in the end be very helpful!

Re: WW 32: Harry Potter

Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:06 am

that's a strange comment Christopher... I completely doubt baddies have 30% shields or lower here, even Ginny took an execution and an attack, Crazy took about 3 days of execution and they were in the same team. I'm guessing Dementors have the same shields so I really don't get the positive side of not using that sp. I could have easily lost it by dying and a baddie getting it instead...
Topic locked