so then would it make sense to accuse an even or an odd numbered person?
Accuse an Odd. That leaves 10 even and 8 odd after the accusation. If the question comes back No, that eliminates the 10 even room occupants and only leaves 8 odd left that could be wearing a bowtie.
No, I'm saying acting like that question is going to clear half of the people doesn't work. We have to be careful we don't spend so much time trying to find someone who had a bowtie that we forget there are other reds out there trying to avoid suspicion. That's all.
why don't we just use the clues that we have instead of ignoring them?
No, I'm saying acting like that question is going to clear half of the people doesn't work. We have to be careful we don't spend so much time trying to find someone who had a bowtie that we forget there are other reds out there trying to avoid suspicion. That's all.
You are sold cold crazy. Unlike any other game, we've been given information and the ability to act on that information rather than simply bandwagon someone. We can use actually direct our kills using probability to find a Red quicker and you seem to be opposed to it. We should be voting off an odd if we use Columbia's question. Use your suspicions then to find the other Reds.
No, I'm saying acting like that question is going to clear half of the people doesn't work. We have to be careful we don't spend so much time trying to find someone who had a bowtie that we forget there are other reds out there trying to avoid suspicion. That's all.
True, that's why I proposed determining if the bowtie really belonged to the murderer. I think it's a given that there is more than one bad guy.
If the answer to our question is yes, does that really mean that the person that killed bhaw is in that group? How do we know there is only 1 person with a bowtie?
No, I'm saying acting like that question is going to clear half of the people doesn't work. We have to be careful we don't spend so much time trying to find someone who had a bowtie that we forget there are other reds out there trying to avoid suspicion. That's all.
You are sold cold crazy. Unlike any other game, we've been given information and the ability to act on that information rather than simply bandwagon someone. We can use actually direct our kills using probability to find a Red quicker and you seem to be opposed to it. We should be voting off an odd if we use Columbia's question. Use your suspicions then to find the other Reds.
I'm not opposed to it, at all. And I don't think it's crazy to keep in mind that there are others out there. It's still day one, though, and we won't have an answer to our question until tomorrow. I'm perfectly okay with your theory of voting off someone in an odd-numbered room. I just took exception to some of your language is all.
If the answer to our question is yes, does that really mean that the person that killed bhaw is in that group? How do we know there is only 1 person with a bowtie?
Looking at the corrected form of columbia's question, I'm wondering if there is.
And Gaucho, I'm going on the assumption that the bowtie, being that it was clutched in bhaw's fist, did belong to the murderer.
