TWG CLXVIII: Capitalism [Game Thread]

[Google]

Originally Posted by GE

holy shit Starbucks. Nice work. Marlboro

Repeat of what I previously said about Microsoft latching onto possible shell acquisitioner: This looks opportunistic.

Hoping Wells Fargo elaborates on why he hates GE so much since while there hasn't been anything bad that stood out to me badly except may this one thing, i don't remember anything standing out as good as wells' or shell's posts this game either.

[Marlboro]

Originally Posted by Google

Thinking that it could be seen that we've been lynching based solely on inactivity (though that was really only UPS, my Verizon vote was legit). And Marlboro has been one of the most inactive. I don't see an acquisitioner moving to somebody that based off of previous lynches would immediately be in danger

So if scummy players and inactive players are too risky, then that'd just leave the good players, which is a scary idea because that could invalidate reads if the acquisitioner acquires an account, which is further complicated by replacements coming off as acquisitioners by previous players.

Oh god this game.

[Google]

Originally Posted by Starbucks

Hypothetically, only UPS would have died when Wal-Mart switched, so Marlboro would have been a safe bet at that point

furthermore, Marlboro would have been safe because it would have been the easiest to "fit in" to the old Marlboro since there were fewer tics to replicate --- Marlboro did jack shit D0, so he was a tabula rasa so to speak

but I'm afraid I just publicly humiliated myself in TWG again because there is just so much in the air at this point -- this role is so useless

the "good" news is that the acq. has to maintain their facade for one more day phase at least, so it should be easier to find them for the night phase if it's not Marlboro

Oh yeah, you're right about only ups.
And it's fine I guess, the role is pretty specific to have work properly and you don't even know if it worked because acquisitioner could just no-target. Though there's been no counter-claim so just consider you being clear (although you were pretty much town read anyway)

[Google]

Though you coming out did help a tiny bit more than that Starbucks. The result of the role doesn't actually prove anything so votes have to have been based solely off of your 'post-analysis' to have merit. I see your vote on them as a combination of your post-analysis and misunderstanding the role so your vote looks fine, but GE and mcdonalds were pretty quick to vote after with no specification as to whether they agreed with the role usage conclusion, your post-analysis, or both.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Starbucks

let's not talk about replacements beyond that

I'm just kind of mad atm

fwiw I don't think the acq. would pick China Mobile, MAAAAYbe Amazon but ppl were scumreading him too iirc

Marlboro's reasoning is shit

[IBM]

Originally Posted by Marlboro

So if scummy players and inactive players are too risky, then that'd just leave the good players, which is a scary idea because that could invalidate reads if the acquisitioner acquires an account, which is further complicated by replacements coming off as acquisitioners by previous players.

Oh god this game.

Look at this defensive posture all

take notes

[Google]

Marlboro, have you already said why it took you until this long to actually start posting in the thread and I missed it?

[Marlboro]

I'm trying to understand the game, MIB, I'm sorry if I come off as defensive.

[Marlboro]

Originally Posted by Google

Marlboro, have you already said why it took you until this long to actually start posting in the thread and I missed it?

irl shit

[McDonalds]

i dont like malboro

[GE]

unvote

[GE]

Ok. So Starbucks, the person YOU target is the person the acquisitioner CAN'T take over. So you're whole thesis is fucked. The vigilante, who they target is dead yeah? Well they have you target the ACCOUNT the acquisitioner is GOING to take over, NOT who they already are.

Are you tiloco? Because you're fucking up the role you have. (Dont answer that)

[GE]

Ok, I fucked up, you were right, but I'm right about the vigilante.

[GE]

Originally Posted by Google

Repeat of what I previously said about Microsoft latching onto possible shell acquisitioner: This looks opportunistic.

Hoping Wells Fargo elaborates on why he hates GE so much since while there hasn't been anything bad that stood out to me badly except may this one thing, i don't remember anything standing out as good as wells' or shell's posts this game either.

I fell asleep, sue me.

[IBM]

Originally Posted by GE

I fell asleep, sue me.

Our company lawyers will be in contact shortly.

[Wells Fargo]

Originally Posted by Google

Wells, haven't played with WV. what's their wolf meta?

I don't know WV's wolf meta, I'm talking about the person that replaced WV.

[Wells Fargo]

Originally Posted by Starbucks

Wait what the fuck was that about a replacement???

hahahahahahaha

somehow, I think Xiz was looking to mine salt, and struck gold.

[GE]

Originally Posted by IBM

Our company lawyers will be in contact shortly.

Of all posts to reply to, why waste your time with that one.

[Wells Fargo]

while I was in the shower, I was thinking about the replacement thing

I think I've settled on it being unfortunately necessary with the acquisitioner in play, Starbucks.

[Wells Fargo]

want my next post to be on the top page