| radishhead said: ABC, me, you, trash, noname.. we've all been talking about the strange outcome of last night. |
...we have?
radishhead said:
I was going to mention this - it's a pretty large mistake to make. |
When were you planning to mention it? Were the over ten minutes you had enough to post something else, but not to point this out?
| A Bad Clown said: Statement: That one of the players that lurks a lot and digs out old posts may have something to do with it. |
Name names. I noticed you're the only person who never mentioned who you suspected by name when I asked everybody. Why the crypticism?
| Linkzmax said: I just feel it wasn't the most pro-town way about trying to get people to vote, because essentially ABC and FF were just bandwagon votes. It shows they're fairly easy to sway, but doesn't really give a clue as to their alignment as I see it. |
The alternative was to vote for a time limit and then dawdle about doing nothing for days, until the limit was reached. I refuse to do that: it makes the game boring, and it's frustrating to watch. I'm willing to bet that if someone had been willing to do something similar last game, it would not have dragged on as long.
More to the point, why would you give people who jumped on a free pass? My entire approach was almost literally to say "hey, if you think wonk's scum, vote for him please." I'd like to think I'm so persuasive that a one-liner like that would get them to do as I ask, but I've got a lifetime of evidence that proves otherwise. This is especially true since at least one person I asked, namely trashleg, has indicated she wouldn't have jumped in the first place.
| Hephaestos said: Yes the part you quoted it poorly worded, I did make the point that ABC would have been stuck at L-1 as is said at the end of the quote. Here you do confirm that you chose the train most likely to succeed and not the most deserving of a lynch. You do however point out that you had a thourough lookout on the situation, a post from 6 days ago that I did not dig out. It does list wonk as your second suspect (second on the list), and thus just puts you in a position of going for an imediate kill rather than have the kill you though was best but wait on the timer. I'd downgrade you to HoS, the vote being there to put presure and forcing you to react, but i'll first read the 100 replies I see waiting in the thread (2 pages at 50 ^^). |
No, here I confirm that I chose to lynch someone who I was both suspicious of and thought I could actually lynch. You've played enough games to know by now that the game's as much about the group's choices as an individual's: it's all nice and fine that I preferred ABC's lynch, but if I can't get the votes after several days of trying to persuade at least five others, then my preference amounts to little more than a hill of beans for that day. I question how much attention you're paying if you truly think I wasn't doing a lot to get ABC lynched.
Now that that's dispensed with, what basis do you have for thinking that I need pressure before I respond to a post? Seriously, give me one reason why that makesa lick of sense. Just one. Use this game, or any other that I've played in. Because frankly, I'm having a hard time believing that this is your real rationale.
| Hephaestos said: because she was exterior to the wonk inquisition... and thus not incriminated by complying to a request on a train lynch, just doing a townie's job to get the day moving, same for ABC and FF... What I mean is that this vote doesn't say much about them, hence why they could vote easily. I believe I explained that in the longpost... but it was long I do conceed. (and i'm often confusing when I explain stuff). |
I'm afraid I still don't understand what you're saying here. Or rather, I might understand, but it doesn't make sense. Essentially, you're repeating linkz' mistake of claiming that people who get asked to vote for someone are somehow absolved of responsibility for their votes. Why? What logic is there to that? It was not by accident that my request included the qualifier of 'if you think wonk's scum...' At best, it's akin to people throwing in their votes just before a deadline, but even that analogy is a stretch on the "you forced them to do it!" front.
| Hephaestos said: I was replying to linkz and used the linked posts... I don't see where the challenge to his townieness was when it concluded with proff saying "GOOD role" as in townie. You're talking of challenge of the roleclaim though which is not in relation to my conclusion, I'm talking about townieness and not power role. By distant from the action I mean that many of your posts have been late sumaries and conclusions of the events. Yes you have been active, I do not deny this, but you also have not been the pushing force behind any of the investigations of yesterday. If you reread my sentence, in no way does it say that you were not active, the point that I make is that talking to you today will be more informative than talking to proff. |
Except that the underlined simply does not make any sense. Level with me, heph: how much energy are you giving us this game? Because I have a hard time believing that you're honestly wondering why I would suspect ABC, even after the linked pages. The only way your post is NOT self-contradictory is if you believed that I thought ABC had a protown power role. Most importantly, why exactly are you putting prof's words in my mouth?
And the second paragraph pretty much seals it; either you're not paying attention, or you're trying to fabricate a case from nothing. Re-read the thread. Right now. No, I mean right now, before you respond. And then come back and try to tell me that I've been primarily doing "late summaries and conclusions of the events."
The only way you could be more wrong is if you said I've been absent for the entire game!
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
Essay Pro