Drinking with a Angel and Demon - Round Four

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:40 pm

Remus West wrote:You joked with stessier round 1. The round in which you claim he fell into your trap. Then round 2 Unagi comes out saying he thinks stessier is Evil. You, however, having "trapped" stessier the previous round wait pages before even mentioning his name. You do not do anything regarding him until after someone else has poured for him. Then the following round you lead the charge to get the first player to pour stessier killed.

Asked and answered.

Trying that hard to catch me at being evil only has a prospect of success when I'm, you know, evil.

What I can't figure out is whether you're

A: Evil and manipulative and trying to contrive my death, your survival, and the death of one of {theohall, Newcastle}
or
B: Good and confused and shooting us in the foot

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 12:56 pm

As I said, I have some reasons for thinking theohall is good, and none for thinking he's evil.
As I also said, I have some reasons for thinking Newcastle is evil, and few for thinking he's good. His stessier-quotefest is especially bizarre and forced, but he was looking off even before that.

So my current hypothesis is this:
Good: both of {Grundbegriff, theohall}
Bad: one of {Newcastle, Remus West}

Pours in play:
Remus
Newcastle
Grundbegriff
theohall
Isgrimnur (how did we forget he has a pour? Let's not forget it this time.)

We can count on Isgrimnur's non-cooperation. He has to be wondering whether the remaining Evil is Remus or Newcastle. So he'll probably either pile on me or poison theohall.

Let's assume Isgrimnur will pour against theohall and then poison the pour. In that case, whichever of {Remus, Newcastle} is evil will win unless we ensure he doesn't survive. Therefore, we must nuke that site from orbit.

Let's assume Isgrimnur dispenses his antidote instead of poisoning a Good. That leaves the evildoer standing unless the antidote eliminates only one dose of poison and we double up to overcome that effect.

We can't reason further without Scoop's clarification.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:12 pm

Let's simplify, and let's assume (as the rules seem to state) that the Demon can only offset one dose of poison for his colleague.

Let's assume maximum casualties and then do the math:

Remus poisons Grundbegriff
theohall poisons Remus
Newcastle poisons theohall
Grundbegriff poisons Newcastle
Isgrimnur pours against someone, but doesn't poison because Isgrimnur must save his colleague {Newcastle, Remus} or Evil loses.
Semaj saves someone.

If Isgrimnur successfully saves his colleague and the Angel saves a Good, Evil wins. As Semaj pointed out, everything depends on the fact that Isgrimnur cannot be sure. On the assumption, everything also depends on the idea that the Evil has only been poisoned once.

Therefore, we can win only by
(a) leaving Isgrimnur to guess between candidates, and
(b) stacking poisons on the candidates.

This would be possible only if we had an unambiguous top candidate. Let's assume Newcastle stood in that role.
Grundbegriff poisons Newcastle
theohall poisons Newcastle
Newcastle poisons Remus

If Newcastle is Evil, then Isgrimnur cannot save him, won't try, and will gamble on saving someone else or poisoning someone else. Won't matter though, since Evil will be thwarted.

Likewise, if Remus were the top candidate, it might go like this:
Grundbegriff poisons Remus
Newcastle poisons Remus
theohall poisons Newcastle

Again, if Remus were Evil and Demonic antidote only negates one poison, Good would win.

Conclusion: now that Remus has poisoned me, the only way we can win is to guess correctly which candidate is the Evildoer, and then poison him twice.

What happens if we select the wrong candidate? Suppose Remus is Evil but we accidentally pile on Newcastle:
Grundbegriff poisons Newcastle
theohall poisons Newcastle
Newcastle poisons Remus

In this case, Evil wins if the Demon bails out his colleague, unless the Angel also bails out a colleague.

*sigh*

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:14 pm

Grundbegriff wrote: A pour, once announced, is irrevocable. Is that right, Scoop? Remus cannot take that pour back?

Correct.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:24 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:Scoop: If BubbaEvil has been poisoned by two Goods and then the Demon applies his single antidote, does it save BubbaEvil, or does the antidote only negate one of the two doses of poison?

Same question re BubbaGood and the Angel.

The demon's anti=poison only negates ONE does of poison. If two doses of poison are applied, and only one anti-poison is applied that player dies. This applies to the angel as well.

rulez wrote:Poisons: - One anti-poison negates one poison; negating two poisons requires two antidotes, and so on. Poisons and anti-poisons are stackable.

The only difference between that angel's and demon's anti-poison is if the demon applies his anti-poison to a glass the contains no poison, that player is killed by the demon's anti-poison. The angel's anti-poison will not kill a player if applied to glass with no poison in it.

rulez wrote:The Demon can also administer a single does of anti-poison to any ONE player's glass of wine which removes one dose of poison. However, if no poison had been put in the player's glass then the anti-poison (Demon Only) kills that player.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:25 pm

Thanks.

I just don't want any more surprises.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:37 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:Scoop: What happens if, say, Remus is Evil and I poison Remus and theohall poisons Remus and then the Demon applies antidote to Remus. Does the single dose of infernal antidote save Remus from the two doses of poison, simply because the "antidote" comes after the poison?

No.

Also, I believe our only difference of opinion was on how to handle the demon's anti-poison in this circumstance.

If player A has only one dose of poison in his glass and the angel and demon BOTH apply their anti-poison, the demon's anti-poison WILL NOT kill player A even though the angel's anti-poison remove the poison. I ruled that the demon's anti-poison will become harmless if administered to a glass that has poison present at the start of the Round.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:43 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Scoop: What happens if, say, Remus is Evil and I poison Remus and theohall poisons Remus and then the Demon applies antidote to Remus. Does the single dose of infernal antidote save Remus from the two doses of poison, simply because the "antidote" comes after the poison?
No.

Also, I believe our only difference of opinion was on how to handle the demon's anti-poison in this circumstance.

If player A has only one dose of poison in his glass and the angel and demon BOTH apply their anti-poison, the demon's anti-poison WILL NOT kill player A even though the angel's anti-poison remove the poison. I ruled that the demon's anti-poison will become harmless if administered to a glass that has poison present at the start of the Round.

That was a good ruling. I think my confusion arose because stessier was emphasizing sequence of events rather than dosage.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:52 pm

Scoop20906 wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Scoop: What happens if, say, Remus is Evil and I poison Remus and theohall poisons Remus and then the Demon applies antidote to Remus. Does the single dose of infernal antidote save Remus from the two doses of poison, simply because the "antidote" comes after the poison?
No.

Also, I believe our only difference of opinion was on how to handle the demon's anti-poison in this circumstance.

If player A has only one dose of poison in his glass and the angel and demon BOTH apply their anti-poison, the demon's anti-poison WILL NOT kill player A even though the angel's anti-poison remove the poison. I ruled that the demon's anti-poison will become harmless if administered to a glass that has poison present at the start of the Round.

I thought you said the Demon and Angel countered each other. Thus an unpoisoned glass would not kill someone if they both went after it but a poisoned glass would. Which would make more sense or else you are allowing the Angel to counter 2 poisons with one dose.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:55 pm

NM, I see what you saying, the poison stops the Demon's ANTI-poison from becoming poison then the Angel's anti-poison clears it up.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:56 pm

Doesn't the Demon have straight poison though? He can do either a kill or an attempt to save I thought.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:59 pm

Remus West wrote:
Scoop20906 wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Scoop: What happens if, say, Remus is Evil and I poison Remus and theohall poisons Remus and then the Demon applies antidote to Remus. Does the single dose of infernal antidote save Remus from the two doses of poison, simply because the "antidote" comes after the poison?
No.

Also, I believe our only difference of opinion was on how to handle the demon's anti-poison in this circumstance.

If player A has only one dose of poison in his glass and the angel and demon BOTH apply their anti-poison, the demon's anti-poison WILL NOT kill player A even though the angel's anti-poison remove the poison. I ruled that the demon's anti-poison will become harmless if administered to a glass that has poison present at the start of the Round.
I thought you said the Demon and Angel countered each other. Thus an unpoisoned glass would not kill someone if they both went after it but a poisoned glass would. Which would make more sense or else you are allowing the Angel to counter 2 poisons with one dose.

Hmmm. Let me try to be clearer. Anti-poisons DO NOT cancel each other out.

Only poison and anti-poison cancel each other out. Therefore, the angel's one does of anti-poison will cancel out the demon's one dose of poison.

Furthermore:

Glass = 1 poison + demon anti-poison = player lives
Glass = 0 poison + demon anti-poison = player dies (anti-poison turns to poison without presence of at least one dose of poison)
Glass = 1 poison + angel anti-poison = player lives
Glass = 2 poisons + angel anti-poison = player dies
Glass = 2 poisons + demon anti-poison = player dies
Glass = 2 poison + angel anti-poison + demon anti-poison = player lives
Glass = 1 poison + angel anti-poison + demon anti-poison = player lives

I ruled that the demon's anti-poison will become harmless if administered to a glass that has poison present at the start of the Round.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:59 pm

Remus West wrote:Doesn't the Demon have straight poison though? He can do either a kill or an attempt to save I thought.

That's correct. The discussion above has to do with antidote.

Didn't you see Isgrimnur kill Lassr? How do you think that happened?

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:01 pm

Remus West wrote:Doesn't the Demon have straight poison though? He can do either a kill or an attempt to save I thought.

Sorry, I see you get it.

Also:

rulez wrote:The Demon can choose to either to poison or anti-poison a player's glass each round but can not do both in the same round.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:07 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Remus West wrote:Doesn't the Demon have straight poison though? He can do either a kill or an attempt to save I thought.
That's correct. The discussion above has to do with antidote.

Didn't you see Isgrimnur kill Lassr? How do you think that happened?

Technically he could have done it with either as the Anti-poison kills when it is the only thing a player drinks.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:26 pm

Remus West wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Remus West wrote:Doesn't the Demon have straight poison though? He can do either a kill or an attempt to save I thought.
That's correct. The discussion above has to do with antidote.

Didn't you see Isgrimnur kill Lassr? How do you think that happened?
Technically he could have done it with either as the Anti-poison kills when it is the only thing a player drinks.

Good point.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:56 pm

Round Four

Alive:
Isgrimnur
Newcastle
theohall
Grundbegriff
Semaj
Remus West

Dead:
Chaosraven - Vicar Bentley (Goodie Goodie)
Stessier - Admiral Fawkes (Bad Seed)
Unagi - Mr. Astin (Goodie Goodie)
Lassr - Lord Carleton (Goodie Goodie)

Drinks poured:
Remus West pours a drink for Grundbegriff

Players not pouring a drink:
Isgrimnur
Newcastle
theohall
Grundbegriff
Semaj

Round Sequence:
1a. Players may inform moderator (by PM) if they choose to poison their wine bottle or own glass (only once).
1b. Players may announce in the main forum that they pour a drink from their bottle of wine into a player's glass (only once).
1c. Demon may administer a single dose of poison or anti-poison into a single player's glass by informing the moderator (by PM). If no player pours a drink for someone then the moderator will give the demon the option administering poison to a player's plate of food.
1d. The Angel can administer a single dose of anti-poison to a player's glass (this is done secretly by sending an IM to the moderator timestamped before the hard deadline) which removes ONE dose of poison from that player's glass of wine. The number of doses anti-poison the Angel can apply depends on the Round. Therefore:
Round 1 = 4 doses of anti-poison
Round 2 = 3 doses of anti-poison
Round 3 = 2 doses of anti-poison
Round 4 and beyond = 1 dose of anti-poison

Hard Deadline - Round Ends
2a. A rumor is whispered to a living player (not angel or demon).
2b. Drinks are drunk. Food is eaten. Players drinking or eating poison die (angel and demon are immune to poison and can not die).
3. The Waiter announces who has died and clears their spots at the table. Next Round begins.

Rounds will take ONE calendar day. All orders for Round Four must be submitted by 10:00 pm (ET) on Wednesday, May 27, 2009.

Semaj · Post by **Semaj** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:28 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:Heh.

OK, Mr. Angel. Could you please set aside the minutes before and after 10pm EST?

To be fair... I had a date... I got to the computer around 10:30.. Which is too late to do much... It's pretty vicious me having to be here at a specific time or i get screwed..

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:31 pm

Semaj wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Heh.

OK, Mr. Angel. Could you please set aside the minutes before and after 10pm EST?
To be fair... I had a date... I got to the computer around 10:30.. Which is too late to do much... It's pretty vicious me having to be here at a specific time or i get screwed..

"Miss Michigan" is not a "date". Stop killing kittens and save people.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 3:52 pm

Semaj wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Heh.

OK, Mr. Angel. Could you please set aside the minutes before and after 10pm EST?
To be fair... I had a date... I got to the computer around 10:30.. Which is too late to do much... It's pretty vicious me having to be here at a specific time or i get screwed..

Nobody saw that coming, so you're off the hook.

If we replay, the rules should definitely be adjusted so that the deadline can't be gamed that way. Outcomes shouldn't hinge on that sort of thing.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:01 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Semaj wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:Heh.

OK, Mr. Angel. Could you please set aside the minutes before and after 10pm EST?
To be fair... I had a date... I got to the computer around 10:30.. Which is too late to do much... It's pretty vicious me having to be here at a specific time or i get screwed..
Nobody saw that coming, so you're off the hook.

If we replay, the rules should definitely be adjusted so that the deadline can't be gamed that way. Outcomes shouldn't hinge on that sort of thing.

He could preemptively protect just as easily. What made it so very effective was the lack of anticipation on our part.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:23 pm

theohall pours a glass for Remus

I suggest you do the same Grund. I don't trust at all that stessier completely avoided mentioning Remus West when it was pretty clear stessier was going to die.

As long as you do the same and poison Remus, since you appear to believe him to be evil, he can't be saved without the Demon AND Angel giving him antidotes.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:32 pm

theohall wrote: theohall pours a glass for Remus

I suggest you do the same Grund. I don't trust at all that stessier completely avoided mentioning Remus West when it was pretty clear stessier was going to die.

As long as you do the same and poison Remus, since you appear to believe him to be evil, he can't be saved without the Demon AND Angel giving him antidotes.

As I understand it given 2 doses I can not be saved period. I thought the Angel and Demon would cancel each other out. No matter though. Thank you for following my suggestion. Hopefully Newcastle does the same.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:33 pm

wow simply wow. Go to bed thinking one thing, wake up read this and your thinking is tossed around like a ship in stormy seas.

1. Remus did a lot to reaffirm my original doubts that I had about grund. And they continue...

2. this mass suicide plan really hinges on grund being protected. This really gives the village no wiggle room. What if Grund is in fact the bad guy. I just dont like it...very convenient to get everyone to off themselves, but leave him up. I just dont like the plan overall. I dont mind sacficing myself for the village, but i think it puts a lot of faith in grund being a good guy, more faith than i currently have.

3. If remus or i was really his suspect yesterday - why waste our pours on Isg? Wasn't semaj's confirmation enough? We know now that lassr was good. Just seemed a waste of a pour proving something that most of us suspected. I just dont see the gain as a village, ok we confirmed him 100%...now what?

4. I am really tempted to not pour this round. Or maybe simply pour for the angel or demon.

5. I think it is very much within grund's strategic mindset to off his partner once he saw that his partner had no value in living (read unagi hounding stessier) and much value could be gained by his uncovering of the "bad seed".

I dont see as much evil in Remus that GRund sees somehow or Theo for that matter.

6. I didn't get the rumor from last night, am assuming that Remus didn't...did you Grund? or THeo? Am sure isg. will not answer so not bothering to query him.

7. Am just tryin to show where my thoguht process is right now.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:33 pm

The above would leave it up to Isgrimnur to decide between myself or Newcastle and up to Newcastle whether he wants to pour or not. I do get the whole Newcastle possibly being evil thing, but I also find it odd that Newcastle was one of stessier's lead evil candidates, duruing his death throes, with stessier knowing his partner.

Odds are really stacked against us now though. We'll just have to see what Newcastle does later tonight.

[meta - won't be available until sometime after 9:15 pm ET due to work

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:38 pm

Newcastle wrote:wow simply wow. Go to bed thinking one thing, wake up read this and your thinking is tossed around like a ship in stormy seas.

1. Remus did a lot to reaffirm my original doubts that I had about grund. And they continue...

2. this mass suicide plan really hinges on grund being protected. This really gives the village no wiggle room. What if Grund is in fact the bad guy. I just dont like it...very convenient to get everyone to off themselves, but leave him up. I just dont like the plan overall. I dont mind sacficing myself for the village, but i think it puts a lot of faith in grund being a good guy, more faith than i currently have.

3. If remus or i was really his suspect yesterday - why waste our pours on Isg? Wasn't semaj's confirmation enough? We know now that lassr was good. Just seemed a waste of a pour proving something that most of us suspected. I just dont see the gain as a village, ok we confirmed him 100%...now what?

4. I am really tempted to not pour this round. Or maybe simply pour for the angel or demon.

5. I think it is very much within grund's strategic mindset to off his partner once he saw that his partner had no value in living (read unagi hounding stessier) and much value could be gained by his uncovering of the "bad seed".

I dont see as much evil in Remus that GRund sees somehow or Theo for that matter.

6. I didn't get the rumor from last night, am assuming that Remus didn't...did you Grund? or THeo? Am sure isg. will not answer so not bothering to query him.

7. Am just tryin to show where my thoguht process is right now.

No rumor for me. The mass suicide plan hinges on the Angel picking who he thinks is good - not necessarily Grund. If you don't pour, Isgrimnur will likely choose to pour for one of us. This again puts things in the Angel's hands. The counter to #5, it's also very much in Remus West's mindset to wait until the last minute to make his "counter" which could've been made sooner. Just additional thoughts.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:44 pm

theohall wrote:
Newcastle wrote:wow simply wow. Go to bed thinking one thing, wake up read this and your thinking is tossed around like a ship in stormy seas.

1. Remus did a lot to reaffirm my original doubts that I had about grund. And they continue...

2. this mass suicide plan really hinges on grund being protected. This really gives the village no wiggle room. What if Grund is in fact the bad guy. I just dont like it...very convenient to get everyone to off themselves, but leave him up. I just dont like the plan overall. I dont mind sacficing myself for the village, but i think it puts a lot of faith in grund being a good guy, more faith than i currently have.

3. If remus or i was really his suspect yesterday - why waste our pours on Isg? Wasn't semaj's confirmation enough? We know now that lassr was good. Just seemed a waste of a pour proving something that most of us suspected. I just dont see the gain as a village, ok we confirmed him 100%...now what?

4. I am really tempted to not pour this round. Or maybe simply pour for the angel or demon.

5. I think it is very much within grund's strategic mindset to off his partner once he saw that his partner had no value in living (read unagi hounding stessier) and much value could be gained by his uncovering of the "bad seed".

I dont see as much evil in Remus that GRund sees somehow or Theo for that matter.

6. I didn't get the rumor from last night, am assuming that Remus didn't...did you Grund? or THeo? Am sure isg. will not answer so not bothering to query him.

7. Am just tryin to show where my thoguht process is right now.
No rumor for me. The mass suicide plan hinges on the Angel picking who he thinks is good - not necessarily Grund. If you don't pour, Isgrimnur will likely choose to pour for one of us. This again puts things in the Angel's hands. The counter to #5, it's also very much in Remus West's mindset to wait until the last minute to make his "counter" which could've been made sooner. Just additional thoughts.

Theohall, two things.
1) please keep in mind that I have not asked to be spared today, in fact I have asked to be killed.
2) due to 1 you should be able to take what I am telling you on faith---provided you kill me.

Thus killing me and Grund assures you that if he is right Good wins and if I am right Good wins.

Yes, I could have made a claim against Grund sooner but I really was taken in just like the rest and caught up in things. You will note that I repeatedly had said I thought him good. Until I took a more complete look.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed May 27, 2009 4:45 pm

As for #6, neither I nor the Angel are eligible to receive the rumor at any time.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:27 pm

Newcastle is good.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Remus West wrote:
theohall wrote:
Newcastle wrote:wow simply wow. Go to bed thinking one thing, wake up read this and your thinking is tossed around like a ship in stormy seas.

1. Remus did a lot to reaffirm my original doubts that I had about grund. And they continue...

2. this mass suicide plan really hinges on grund being protected. This really gives the village no wiggle room. What if Grund is in fact the bad guy. I just dont like it...very convenient to get everyone to off themselves, but leave him up. I just dont like the plan overall. I dont mind sacficing myself for the village, but i think it puts a lot of faith in grund being a good guy, more faith than i currently have.

3. If remus or i was really his suspect yesterday - why waste our pours on Isg? Wasn't semaj's confirmation enough? We know now that lassr was good. Just seemed a waste of a pour proving something that most of us suspected. I just dont see the gain as a village, ok we confirmed him 100%...now what?

4. I am really tempted to not pour this round. Or maybe simply pour for the angel or demon.

5. I think it is very much within grund's strategic mindset to off his partner once he saw that his partner had no value in living (read unagi hounding stessier) and much value could be gained by his uncovering of the "bad seed".

I dont see as much evil in Remus that GRund sees somehow or Theo for that matter.

6. I didn't get the rumor from last night, am assuming that Remus didn't...did you Grund? or THeo? Am sure isg. will not answer so not bothering to query him.

7. Am just tryin to show where my thoguht process is right now.
No rumor for me. The mass suicide plan hinges on the Angel picking who he thinks is good - not necessarily Grund. If you don't pour, Isgrimnur will likely choose to pour for one of us. This again puts things in the Angel's hands. The counter to #5, it's also very much in Remus West's mindset to wait until the last minute to make his "counter" which could've been made sooner. Just additional thoughts.
Theohall, two things.
1) please keep in mind that I have not asked to be spared today, in fact I have asked to be killed.
2) due to 1 you should be able to take what I am telling you on faith---provided you kill me.

Thus killing me and Grund assures you that if he is right Good wins and if I am right Good wins.

Yes, I could have made a claim against Grund sooner but I really was taken in just like the rest and caught up in things. You will note that I repeatedly had said I thought him good. Until I took a more complete look.

The problem - if you both happen to be good and are the only two victims, evil wins, since it means Newcastle would be the evil. Of course, Newcastle will claim I'm the evil in that scenario. This does make the mass suicide plan seem almost plausible and hope the Angel picks the Good Guy out of the 4 of us. Heck, he's at least got a 75% chance of being right. Isgrimnur also has the 75% chance of picking the right one to double dip on.

theohall · Post by **theohall** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:48 pm

Remus West wrote:Newcastle is good.

So you got the rumor, I'm guessing. Was writing the other post when you wrote this - so

1) Newcastle - don't do anything
2) Grund and Remus die
3) Good guys prevail, no matter who Isgrimnur decides to knock off.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:19 pm

theohall wrote:
Remus West wrote:Newcastle is good.
So you got the rumor, I'm guessing.

No, I don't. I'll save why Newcastle is good until much closer to ten o'clock just in case I'm wrong though.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:44 pm

Here's my current thinking:

1. Remus threw victory down the toilet if he's good. If he's evil, he threw his Evil victory down the toilet. Ergo, he wins Least Valuable Player this time now matter what.
2. There's a certain satisfaction in watching him go down in flames either way.

3. If Remus is Good and has shattered our chances, it doesn't much matter what I do.
4. Remus might be right about Newcastle; hard to say.
5. Maybe Unagi was right about theohall, but I'm inclined to take theohall's advice, which also happens to be Remus's advice; I think I'll pour for Remus.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:58 pm

Grundbegriff pours a lovely Schnapps for Remus West

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:59 pm

as emeril likes to say...lets kick this up a notch

/newcastle opens up a special flask, vapors come steaming out, a purtrid smell emanates from it, it is most decidedly vile smelling

/with a wicked grin he smiles and pours

here ya go THEOHALL, have some on me, been saving this for a long, long time

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:59 pm

Grundbegriff wrote: Grundbegriff pours a lovely Schnapps for Remus West

... most richly deserves to die regardless of alignment.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed May 27, 2009 9:59 pm

Isgrimnur pours for Theohall

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:00 pm

Newcastle wrote:as emeril likes to say...lets kick this up a notch

/newcastle opens up a special flask, vapors come steaming out, a purtrid smell emanates from it, it is most decidedly vile smelling

/with a wicked grin he smiles and pours

here ya go THEOHALL, have some on me, been saving this for a long, long time

I stand corrected. Newcastle is evil.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:00 pm

Pouring is closed!!

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed May 27, 2009 10:00 pm

Remus West wrote:
Newcastle wrote:as emeril likes to say...lets kick this up a notch

/newcastle opens up a special flask, vapors come steaming out, a purtrid smell emanates from it, it is most decidedly vile smelling

/with a wicked grin he smiles and pours

here ya go THEOHALL, have some on me, been saving this for a long, long time

I stand corrected. Newcastle is evil.

Nice Remuscide, Remuscide.

Congrats, Isgrimnur, stessier, and Newcastle.