House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 OK, so it's remotely possible that Caron's vote could be useful. However, no one is even looking at Wynch, we're nearing the end of the day (sort of) and Caron won't persuade others to vote with him, so ... yeah. Caron - ok, is there anyone else you're even thinking might get your vote at this point in time? Please tell me you didn't random.org Wynch and are sticking with it just 'cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mirror Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Snip.. you find the case with the least amount of logic, ..... Hey, I resent that! I'm sure my case has slightly more logic than Caron's one on Wynch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Caron - ok, is there anyone else you're even thinking might get your vote at this point in time? Please tell me you didn't random.org Wynch and are sticking with it just 'cause. I don't want to make another illogical move and vote for you but I am tempted. Satisfied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 So in other words, you find the case with the least amount of logic, which also just happens to coincide with your terribly opportunistic vote on Prester, plausible enough to term it "clever" for no apparent reason, thus lending subtle credibility to it? Right, I think I get it pretty well. Can you fucking read? You're seriously pissing me off. If you want to misrepresent a position, do it to someone who won't tear it apart like maybe Oakheart or Caron. Did I call the case clever? No. Did I lend credibility to the case by calling it clever? No, because I never called it clever. Did I explain this already? Yes. Did I say it was plausible? No. That isn't at all what I said and I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth in order to make a point that doesn't exist. Now, as for my vote, how is it being opportunistic when I was the first person to vote? I mean seriously. Was I jumping on a bandwagon that was forming? No. Was I voting someone that was under a lot of heat? No. So where the fuck was this opportunistic vote? And now lets discuss votes. Who are you voting for? No one. Who have you expressed suspicion on? I guess me, yet you haven't really claimed you're suspicious of me. You just "question" things by straw manning. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you want to misrepresent a position, do it to someone who won't tear it apart like maybe Oakheart or Caron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Hey, I resent that! I'm sure my case has slightly more logic than Caron's one on Wynch! Alright, fair enough. I really wish there was more constructive conversation, but there isn't much there. Caron's vote on Wynch...well, if I heard a case, I'd know what to think. I'm not sold on Wynch's innocence, but I don't see a reason for a vote there either. And Caron, as has been pointed out, won't give us one. What I do have to go on is what I see as a connection between you and Uller. You made an early case that you prefaced with being "poor." This is something I've often seen killers do to look contributory, but since they've already admitted it's poor, it's safe. Safe safe safe. And look how you ended it. Well I know we don't normally have symps signalling to their masters especially on day one, but its gonna happen one game soon right? This could be an honest observation. It could also be a killer calling out "hey symp, take a chance and signal me" The two responses you got? Jast and Uller. Jast I understand responding, your case was on him. Uller had no cause to make that comment. The rest of his game has been deconstructive and geared towards sewing confusion and discrediting people, clear symp behavior. The ONLY reason I have reason to think Jast might be a symp, and thus lend some credence to your case, is this post I found: What you talking about? I don't hear any echoes! Then again, I might be going deaf. Can't help it if I can't churn out posts in less than two minutes time, you know. Him waiting to jump on another person's case bugs me though. I don't think Norcross is actually evil or anything just for that, but it's awfully annoying. I'd like it if he'd do his own work. He clearly spells out the word W I T C H with the first letters of 5 choppy sentences. The other "I"'s i'm guessing were just to complete the thought. Could be coincidence. Maybe not. But Uller didn't find that. So for now, my vote is going to, as you said, the master, not the symp, Hasty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Can you fucking read? You're seriously pissing me off. If you want to misrepresent a position, do it to someone who won't tear it apart like maybe Oakheart or Caron. Oh boo hoo. Try and tear it apart then, because you've done nothing to dissuade me so far. Righteous indignation doesn't suit you very well. Did I call the case clever? No. Did I lend credibility to the case by calling it clever? No, because I never called it clever. Did I explain this already? Yes. Did I say it was plausible? No. That isn't at all what I said and I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth in order to make a point that doesn't exist. Oh right, because someone would just come the fuck out and say something like that if they were trying to hide. Yeah, good point, I should just follow your lead and only suspect the people who say "I'm a killer". Fucking moron. Now, as for my vote, how is it being opportunistic when I was the first person to vote? I mean seriously. Was I jumping on a bandwagon that was forming? No. Was I voting someone that was under a lot of heat? No. So where the fuck was this opportunistic vote? It's opportunistic because it's based on shit, and you haven't offered anything since except scathing remarks and dumbshit one liners meant to discredit people. And now lets discuss votes. Who are you voting for? No one. Who have you expressed suspicion on? I guess me, yet you haven't really claimed you're suspicious of me. You just "question" things by straw manning. So what the fuck are you waiting for? Be a little more patient, hothead, I was writing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 But Uller didn't find that. So for now, my vote is going to, as you said, the master, not the symp, Hasty Was I supposed to? I didn't know I have become the "code" finder now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Was I supposed to? I didn't know I have become the "code" finder now. I don't know what I meant with that actually. What I was getting at is the reason I think Jast could be a clever symp is a lot different than yours. I'm not 100% sure which one of you might be Hasty's symp, but my money would be on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 He clearly spells out the word W I T C H with the first letters of 5 choppy sentences. The other "I"'s i'm guessing were just to complete the thought. Could be coincidence. Maybe not. uhh, why would you point this out? You think its going to be setting up a fake claim? why would a symp bother with a fake claim of a role that could be evil as easily as it could be innocent? couldn't it just as easily be a real code from an innocent witch hunter? You just shot way up my suspect list unless you can explain what your doing here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I remove my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Oh boo hoo. Try and tear it apart then, because you've done nothing to dissuade me so far. Righteous indignation doesn't suit you very well. That's because you're seeing what you want to see instead of what's there. I've already explained why I said what I said and it had nothing at all to do with how you structured your argument. Oh right, because someone would just come the fuck out and say something like that if they were trying to hide. Yeah, good point, I should just follow your lead and only suspect the people who say "I'm a killer". Fucking moron. What does this quote have to do with? It's not a response to the paragraph you quoted so why was this added? Just to call me a moron? It's opportunistic because it's based on shit, and you haven't offered anything since except scathing remarks and dumbshit one liners meant to discredit people. We are talking about day 1 right? I am talking to the person, up until this point, who did not lay down a vote right? My "scathing remarks" and "dumbshit one liners" aren't meant to discredit people. It's meant to cause reactions and drum up conversation. Doing what you did this entire day 1 and wait for people like me to do what I do is exactly why I was making those scathing remarks and dumbshit one liners. If I cause a stir, people start discussing things. It makes people comment on what is going on and then it allows us to point out who isn't participating and who is. We can't all wait for people like me to create discussion because if there aren't people like me, no discussion happens. Who is confused at this point? Where did I confuse anyone? You say that my remarks are for causing confusion since that's what a symp does but you don't point out who's being confused and where I'm confusing anyone. You have to love baseless statements right? Here's the problem with cases based on symps. We don't know if they exist. Our illustrious mod can tell you first hand what it's like to be lynched off based on a symp clue that never existed. I will not vote someone on day 1 based on the actions of someone else. I've been in the situation where something perfectly innocent said by someone else was blown out of proportion on day 1 in order to get me lynched and I will not make the mistake. If you want to, go ahead. ETA: I don't know what I meant with that actually. What I was getting at is the reason I think Jast could be a clever symp is a lot different than yours. I'm not 100% sure which one of you might be Hasty's symp, but my money would be on you. I swear, I just want to throw a fist through my monitor and hit you right in the face. Did I ever say I thought Jast was a clever symp? No. I said if it was true, it would have been clever. I never said I thought it was true nor did I say I thought Jast was a symp. Do not straw man me again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 1. Inchfield's a symp. His harping on Uller rings like deliberate confusion to me. I just don't know who he's symping FOR. Obviously not Uller. Unless Inchfield can explain himself, Elesham might have nailed it here. Inch could be a symp who found a witch-hunter code and pointed it out so his masters know who to kill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 uhh, why would you point this out? You think its going to be setting up a fake claim? why would a symp bother with a fake claim of a role that could be evil as easily as it could be innocent? couldn't it just as easily be a real code from an innocent witch hunter? You just shot way up my suspect list unless you can explain what your doing here I already said I have serious doubts that there would be an innocent witch hunter. I wouldn't want one. And for the record, yes, I think it a symp would use a fake witch hunter claim to confuse people and buy extra time for their team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I vote Inchfield. Have a nice day, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mirror Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Alright, fair enough. I really wish there was more constructive conversation, but there isn't much there. Caron's vote on Wynch...well, if I heard a case, I'd know what to think. I'm not sold on Wynch's innocence, but I don't see a reason for a vote there either. And Caron, as has been pointed out, won't give us one. What I do have to go on is what I see as a connection between you and Uller. You made an early case that you prefaced with being "poor." This is something I've often seen killers do to look contributory, but since they've already admitted it's poor, it's safe. Safe safe safe. And look how you ended it. This could be an honest observation. It could also be a killer calling out "hey symp, take a chance and signal me" The two responses you got? Jast and Uller. Jast I understand responding, your case was on him. Uller had no cause to make that comment. The rest of his game has been deconstructive and geared towards sewing confusion and discrediting people, clear symp behavior. The ONLY reason I have reason to think Jast might be a symp, and thus lend some credence to your case, is this post I found: He clearly spells out the word W I T C H with the first letters of 5 choppy sentences. The other "I"'s i'm guessing were just to complete the thought. Could be coincidence. Maybe not. But Uller didn't find that. So for now, my vote is going to, as you said, the master, not the symp, Hasty Hey, Sorry you have confused me Are you saying that 1) you expected Jast to respond to my case because my case accused him 2) you don't think Uller would have responded to my case if he's innocent therefore Jast apparently codes Witch into one of his posts (that was not even in response to me), and because Uller never picks up on the code then I must be guilty. If I have understood your right then you think I have 2 symps. If I am going to respond to this I would like to understand what you really mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I already said I have serious doubts that there would be an innocent witch hunter. I wouldn't want one. And for the record, yes, I think it a symp would use a fake witch hunter claim to confuse people and buy extra time for their team. I'm the opposite I think we probably do have one because its the closest thing we could have to a Finder in this game I also don't think there's much chance you think Jast's code is a random accident. You posted it so you must think he's the symp. So who are his masters in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 It is day 1. 16 players remain: Ambrose, Caron, Elesham, Hasty, Inchfield, Jast, Lake, Lefford, Norcross, Oakheart, Prester, Sarsfield, Sunglass, Uller, Upcliff, Wynch. 9 votes are needed for a conviction or 8 to go to night. night: 1 vote (Ambrose) Prester: 3 vote (Uller, Oakheart, Hasty) Upcliff: 1 vote (Jast) Sarsfield: 3 vote (Sunglass, Wynch, Norcross) Lefford: 1 vote (Lake) Caron : 1 vote (Lefford) Jast: 2 vote (Sarsfield, Elesham) Sunglass: 1 vote (Prester) Hasty: 1 vote (Inchfield) Incfield: 1 vote (Caron) 1 players have not voted: Upcliff. You have about 16 hours left. And all hail new mod Dunhallym. I don't need a wife, so she could be... my natural daughter? I seem to have some auburn dye here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Lots of crap I'm not the one strawmanning it. My case isn't based on you thinking Jast is clever or a symp. My case on Hasty is based on her asking for her symp, and you responding. Your symplike behavoir was what has reinforced my beliefs. For the record, yes I understand how to goad people into conversation. Normally when people do that, they offer constructive advice and start making cases. They don't just try to make everyone hate them. I wish, I wish, I wish I was not so rediculously sick and had the time to dedicate to mafia right now. As it is I want to withdraw myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 whoa - just because you don't want one doesn't mean there isn't one (hunter). It could be a code, it could be a coincidence. The smart thing would have been to keep this info to yourself and use it to your advantage. I really don't like that you called it out. I see it as a sympish move, or an innocent one. Sympish because you can't communicate directly with your masters, and innocent because we do stupid things like that all the time. There would be no advantage to notice it and call it out instead of killing them silently at night. We would never have seen that coming as Jast is mildly lynchable at this time. The only reason an FM might do that is because he's scared of the role and can't kill tonight? At least we got Caron to move his vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.