Author Topic: Tiffany's Murder Game - Round Six: Serial Killers on Baka World (Read 6354 times)

Dex_Belle · « **Reply #220 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:23:24 PM »

So if there is a tie, do we put to death two people? If we are right we could win the game right here!

gits · « **Reply #221 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:26:21 PM »

I don't think it works like that, I vote for Krudda...I did it only to switch to Jinhong later, I hope somebody will change his vote now to tie it.

jay21stm · « **Reply #222 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:26:49 PM »

My two top suspects are Krudda and SeventyX7
but still sticking with my original vote. . . .(Krudda)

But come tomorrow, if there is still a report on two, or possible two serial killers still left then I am Voting SeventyX7 for sure.
Gomen, if we kill an innocent

So that's Krudda with 7
And Jinhong91 with 5

Correct?

gits · « **Reply #223 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:33:31 PM »

Quote from: jay21stm on March 30, 2014, 03:26:49 PM

My two top suspects are Krudda and SeventyEX7
but still sticking with my original vote. . . .(Krudda)

But come tomorrow, if there is still a report on two, or possible two serial killers still left then I am Voting SeventyEX7 for sure.
Gomen, if we kill an innocent

So that's Krudda with 7
And Jinhong91 with 5

Correct?

Correct, Krudda = 7, Jinhong = 5.

harpy · « **Reply #224 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:36:15 PM »

First day voting suck....

lololitas · « **Reply #225 on:** March 30, 2014, 03:38:51 PM »

Yes, hence my original question about abstaining. Anyway, since you can miss one vote (a total of three, but only one consecutive vote), that's probably the reason why we have people not saying anything.

The exact numbers:

Krudda 7
Jinhong 5
Lololitas 1
1000mAh 1
gits 1
Seventy 1

If you want another image of the updated table, say so, but it's not really necessary yet

Krudda · « **Reply #226 on:** March 30, 2014, 05:26:15 PM »

Seventyx7 also sticks to his usual posting behavior, so I honestly believe he hasn't posted yet because he simply forgot he's in the game. Has anyone sent him a pm yet?
And dammit, this lynch mob turned on me. Well, since I'm screwed anyway, might as well go back to sleep for half an hour.

gits · « **Reply #227 on:** March 30, 2014, 05:39:39 PM »

Since nobody tied it (I wished somebody would) I am going to vote for Jinhong and make it a tie, since I wonder what will tiff do.

lololitas · « **Reply #228 on:** March 30, 2014, 05:55:12 PM »

Man, gits. I wish you'd stop switching around. You're already at your 7th vote^^

Actually, I don't know if we should register the vote change or not. More than 24 hours have passed since the last news announcement, and we have to hear back from tiff, right? Right now we are at 30hours after the last announcement.

Krudda · « **Reply #229 on:** March 30, 2014, 05:55:57 PM »

Reading the news again, csoo was apparently attacked, but the killer only got as far as the kitchen floor before losing his shoes, that doesn't mean csoo is innocent, it means he may be the second killer. Nobody says he was at home, just that someone tried to kill him, but he was never seen.
I dunno, just a theory. 1000mah is pretty much guaranteed to be innocent though.

I need a solid alibi, but at this stage, nobody has one, so I went back and re-read the news and posts after. Most people picked me to begin with, because of the time I posted. Its not much "proof", but I was active AFTER the news was posted, right, but never came in until hours later.
Those hours later were my first look at the news, you can tell because I clearly had no idea who to target, I had only just read the thread.

For someone to be the killer, they'd need to be online BEFORE the news, thus able to tell Tiffanys their intended target. Everybody is a suspect, the post times rule nobody out because who'd to say Tiffanys didn't post the news a bit late?

Anyway, that's my best attempt at an alibi, so please don't vote for me ;_;

Oh, and reassessing using my own logic, I'm going back to the theory of Dex_Belle did it.
Final (i hope) vote, Dex_Belle

TiYlER · « **Reply #230 on:** March 30, 2014, 05:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Krudda on March 30, 2014, 05:55:57 PM

Oh, and reassessing using my own logic, I'm going back to the theory of Dex_Belle did it.
Final (i hope) vote, Dex_Belle

You just sealed your fate of being lynched (assuming no other votes are cast/changed) right there.

Krudda · « **Reply #231 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:00:51 PM »

I know, but rather than jumping on bandwagons, I'd rather vote who I want to, even if it means you guys vote me out. The way it is, looks like I'm out no matter what I do.
gits is acting too suspicious too, I think.
Oh and lololitas, Tiff Said all votes count until the next news. If we go a bit over, I guess it counts? Besides, it hasn't been 24 hours yet.
News post:
« Reply #47 on: Yesterday at 10:57:15 »
Current time for me:
« Reply #231 on: Today at 06:00:51 »

We still have five hours.

harpy · « **Reply #232 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:10:03 PM »

I am starting to think that gits is the bad apple. Way to eager to lynch 2 people at once...... beside one of Tiffs hints kind of pointed that he could be a suspect, but then again Tiff did tell us that she might lie

so Gits why do you want to lynch 2 people at once?

lololitas · « **Reply #233 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:28:00 PM »

rly? we still have time? Oh, why is my forum time on AM/PM, and not 24h clock?

Anyway, gits was trying to lynch three people. don't forget the attempts at csoo. maybe he originally targeted csoo?

jay21stm · « **Reply #234 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:30:16 PM »

Yes, I sent him a message quite a few hours ago. . .since then, he has been online several times already, but has yet to reply.
Exactly one of the reasons I am so suspicious of him.
Hence why I said that if we kill you off Krudda and the next day the news hints at or confirms that both killers are still alive. . .then I will be voting for him. . .SeventyX7 that is!

Also the Gomen if you are innocent if the news had to reveal that. . .
but still sticking with my vote for Krudda for now

^ actually, if you look at the chart, no one has been consistent. . .but he has redirected his vote only a hand full of times and majority of the time he merely conforms to what others say. . .but still Hmmmm I'm not too sure about him being guilty

harpy · « **Reply #235 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:33:31 PM »

sooooooooo gits is running around trying to kill of people and we just let him do so?

jay21stm · « **Reply #236 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:38:21 PM »

The charts show that he has switched his vote between jinhong91 and csoo twice. . .then the last vote being Krudda

harpy · « **Reply #237 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:42:35 PM »

He changed his vote to Jinhong again. Just to make a tie and he did say that it could be fun both of them was lynched

jay21stm · « **Reply #238 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:53:29 PM »

Quote

he did say that it could be fun both of them was lynched

think he said it on two separate occasions actually. . .

but besides that. . .he did try to give some evidence towards one of his votes. . .
but have to agree the majority of the time he has done nothing but almost impede the voting.

but besides that. . .what if it's only because he has no idea who to vote for!
but still think it's worthy enough to be suspicious. . .

so then it comes down to 4 candidates.
Krudda
jinhong91
Gits
SeventyX7

gits · « **Reply #239 on:** March 30, 2014, 06:54:05 PM »

Quote from: gits on March 30, 2014, 03:26:21 PM

I don't think it works like that, I vote for Krudda...I did it only to switch to Jinhong later, I hope somebody will change his vote now to tie it.

I enlarged the hidden message for you guys, you can check the message and the last time I edited it is a proof, in the part where I changed my vote, I never meant to lynch krudda, I hoped somebody would tie it and I'd get Jinhong down.

Also, I don't think Tiff would kill two people, but she explicitly said it never happened and she would figure out something on the go if a tie occured, so I am just naturally curious what will happen and don't want krudda dead

Also, seventy isn't replying on purpose.