A Bad Clown said:
radishhead said:
A Bad Clown said:
radishhead said:
A Bad Clown said:
radishhead said:
radishhead said:
A Bad Clown said:
radishhead said:
Strange turn of events - don't forget that I haven't actually been suspicious this game - the only time that I've been mentioned is where Wonk was picking me out as an example of a player that we could lynch to get the numbers down. You can ask me whatever, but I don't have much to say.
|
Why do you think Wonk didn't suggest anyone else though?
|
He suggested a few, after he realised that singling out me was a mistake.
|
Not only this, but he admitted that he didn't have any grounds to be suspicious of me, and merely made misguided remarks about the last game, which Linkz was quick to put right. Nobody could have saw that coming last game - that's why nen was given the MVP, for pulling it off so well.
In my opinion, the way that you've managed to divert suspicion off yourself by targeting another player that has had their name mentioned a few times seems considerably more suspicious. Maybe you should have done the research, and actually realised that there was nothing going on there at all.
Vote: A Bad Clown
|
Now that doesn't seem suspicious at all...
|
If you explain how it's suspicious, I'll try and solve the situation - but that response makes me feel more confident that I've hit a Mafia.
|
Well, when we decided to look at someone else you finally started talking to me. Earlier in the thread when I was being ganked you didn't have much to say about me. When prof and I decided to look into you specifically you at first didn't have much to say but quickly posted again about not really being suspcious of you. It looked like you wanted to keep low until you saw that others still had votes on me. This would have been the perfect time to vote me because the conversation against you restarted. Voting now would be tactical at this point when two people would both be questioning you. If the prof would have questioned you first, you would have to wait until you could appeal to him by voting the person he was suspicious of. Now that you've stated you want to vote me he will probably follow along, saving yourself.
|
1. Might that be because I was having to answer Wonk's questions? I've had to deal with problems this game too :s
2. Why do you keep linking yourself with prof anyway? I thought that the interrogation would have sorted that out
3. That's definitely unfair, since that conversation never ended. It's an ongoing thing - you'll find that people comment on your day 1 actions thoughout the entire game, and maybe even into future rounds.
4. There's a lot of situational things going on in this case too - I wouldn't have to do any of those things. Firstly, prof didn't question me first - Wonk did. Also, I'm not trying to appeal to Prof by putting a vote on you- I mentioned in my voting post that my vote was 100% because of the discussion that we had. Just me and you - prof isn't involved.
|
2. Because he's the only one who was active today and yesterday against me, and we did sort it out. I suggested he check out other suspicous users (like you). Orangetanget is MIA and so are noname and Hep. It was either you or Wonk, but Wonk seemed more realible so I chose you. As I mentioned too when you didn't post when you were online made it look like you were avoiding the conversation.
4. Everyone else in this game seems to be inactive so if you appeal to the most active, he'd easily spread the decision. I haven't seen final-fan for a while and he already voted me.
|
2. I've never avoided a conversation about me when I've been at my computer on VGC. If one of my posts had been quoted, I would have been there immediately, so there must be something going wrong there.
4. Actually, where is FF? Besides, just because I'm active, doesn't mean that you need to target me - it's not like you've been posting particularly worthwhile arguments anyway, just ones spliced together from Wonk's posts.
