House Targaryen Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 It is day 3. 11 players remain: Bar Emmon, Corbray, Erenford, Fell, Florent, Mallister, Plumm, Pommingham, Smallwood, Tollett, Wythers. 6 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night. 4 votes for Plumm (Tollett, Pommingham, Wythers, Fell) 1 vote for Pommingham (Mallister) 1 vote for Fell (Bar Emmon) 5 players have not voted: Corbray, Erenford, Florent, Plumm, Smallwood. 2 hours left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I'm writing up a ridiculously long-winded case on Erenford, so I'd really appreciate it if no one hammers me before I'm done. Shouldn't take much more than another half hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Mallister' post='1301987' date='Apr 5 2008, 07.50']Well, because I don't suspect them much. I fail to see something sufficiently wrong in their play.[/quote] Hmm. You just said that your second tier was the low posters, what have Florent and Plumm done to make you not suspect them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tully Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Fell' post='1302006' date='Apr 5 2008, 12.38'](I will never live saying that down *sigh*) I said it when we were on Page 7 and we had had 5 pages of joking around. I think what the two Nks had in common (even without looking at their alts) was that they were active and strong characters who weren't afraid to state their opinions...when you add in the alts, that becomes even more obvious. I think the NKs need to be looked at for clues, but all the clues will be found in reviewing the day stuff. It is without a doubt a combo affect. ALL information is needed to make the best choices. You cannot simply disregard a part of it. The fact that Mallister wants to disregard part of it is rather worrisome and I am now wondering if I should have done more than a quick glance at Connington. (I will later today)[/quote] You don't seem to be saying much here. I only mentioned the re-read thing because you said that analyzing NKs was a better strategy. I haven't seen you follow up on that by doing any NK analysis. It is a little obvious that in doing a NK analysis that you have to consider what those dead players did during the day, and who would benefit. What conclusions can we draw from the NKs? WJ and Mexal are excellent, analytical players. If they were alt-guessed, they would be obvious targets. That doesn't really seem to help us much at all in terms of finding the FM. Was anyone trying to align themselves with Connie or Merryweather? I think that Connie was keeping a bit of a low profile outside of the initial jokes. I had put him in the analytical group, with Mexal as a possibility among others. I had no read on WJ, but in hindsight, I can see it much better. The fact that Mallister wants to disregard the NKs is worrisome, yes, but I kind of implied that in my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tully Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [b]Remove Vote[/b] In light of Fell's vote, I want to remove mine to give Plumm some time. I am still hanging around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 Just under 1.5 hours left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tully Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 The vote against Plumm is Wythers, Pommingham and Fell (plus my suspended vote). That is not enough to lynch Plumm. Is there another player that intends to vote Plumm? I'm not asking you to place your vote, I'm just wondering if we are going to get a lynch today or not. If you don't think Plumm is guilty is there another choice you want to try? :Yells Echo: [size=5]Echo[/size] [size=4]Echo[/size] [size=3]Echo[/size] [size=2]Echo[/size] [size=1]Echo[/size] :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I'm here and I'm willing to vote for Plumm, although I'm curious about his case on Erenford. I was actually thinking Eren was acting pretty innocent on day 2, but I haven't liked his voting analysis today so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Case on Erenford. This is entirely uneditted and comprises entirely of me spitting down thoughts as I reread. Usually I trim these things down for conciseness, but I'm just trying to finish this thing before the day ends (and me as well, most likely). [quote name='House Erenford' post='1297798' date='Apr 2 2008, 10.07']I unfortunately find myself agreeing at leas a bit with both cases. Thorne's post was about as middle of the road as possible. Then we've got Grandison who almost looks like he's throwing himself in the way of the lynch train of Thorne. He's so suspicious it makes me less suspicious of him. If that makes any sense.[/quote] So he says he's agreeing to both cases, spews the same line about Thorne's middle-roading. Nothing new there, just echoes. Oddly, he says that Grandison is so suspicious that he's not as suspicious... so doesn't that mean Thorne's the one for the noose now? If it's not Grandy, then it's got to be Thorne, right? There's really no one else standing under the noose. Anyhow, this is Erenford's last post of the day. Apparently he's not interested in voting for Thorne. Erenford's reply to the Why-Didn't-You-Vote question: [quote name='House Erenford' post='1299813' date='Apr 3 2008, 13.18']I stayed without a vote for a couple of reasons: - Neither case seemed solid enough to warrant a vote at that stage. I was waiting to see what developed (and promptly fell asleep). - However, when it comes to the cases in question I believe the one on Thorne was the strongest. The now probably infamous 'middle of the road' post did seem rather odd to me. At the same time though I found Grandison's actions to also be a bit suspicious. As momentum was being gained on Thorne's lynch, he made a post that was...more than a little odd. It drew quite a bit of attention off of Thorne, and possibly could be a symp trying to defend his FM (and failing at it). Basically I was split, and not sure enough of my suspicions to place a vote.[/quote] Allow me to summarize: 1) He wanted wait and see which way the winds were blowing. Keeping options open much? (To clarify: I do believe he fell asleep. I'm just annoyed that he didn't vote back in the post prior when it seemed clear that he preferred Thorne over Grandy.) 2) States again that he thought the case on Thorne was the strongest, so it bears asking, [i]why didn't he vote?[/i] I assume he didn't plan on falling asleep, so he would've, as far as he knew, been around to change his vote later anyhow. Why wait? As an innocent, I know I'm vote-happy, content to place things anywhere--after all, the worst that could happen is a little bit of pressure. As an FM though, I've always been more cautious to not seem opportunistic, more likely to play the waiting game to see how the dice fall. 3) If he thought Grandy could've been a symp trying to defend his FM (ie, Thorne), then seriously man. Where the hell was your vote? That only solidifies the case on Thorne, it shouldn't make you feel even more split between the two. He claims he was split, but "I believe the one on Thorne was the strongest" seems pretty un-split to me. He posts again suggesting that GGGrand is purposely drawing attention to himself in attempt to distract from somebody else. Clearly, this means GGGrand was a symp. ...A symp to [i]who[/i], may I ask? Thorne? Thorne's dead. Erenford also mentions the idea of two, communicating symps, which made me [i]wtf[/i] back then and it still makes me go wtf now. I'm not sure what the idea was behind that. [quote name='House Erenford' post='1299852' date='Apr 3 2008, 13.37']Lynching Grandison though an easy path may not be the right one. That's just my current opinion though.[/quote] So what on earth [i]are[/i] you suggesting? Nothing? It looks more like Erenford's trying to plant the idea of GGGrand being a symp, and hoping everyone else will follow the train tracks for him. Were he innocent, I'm [i]very[/i] sure that Erenford would've at least got off his ass and speculated on who GGGrand's FM masters could've been. It's what I would've done and what any decent player with the innocents' best interests in mind would've done. But he doesn't. This isn't a super-active game, quite the opposite, and it shouldn't have taken long to just skim through and see what possible connections there were. [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300255' date='Apr 3 2008, 18.54']If it comes down to it I'm willing to vote for Grandison if that's ends up being our only option. At the moment it appears that a lynch of Grandison may in face be our only option. I just think we may be far too focused on Grandison as I said earlier, and other players have been saying. The worst part is as others have said is that with the day in a downswing, and with it ending late (for those of us in North America). I need to read through again, and see if I can come up with anything.[/quote] Middle of the road post. Says he's willing to vote Grandy. Doesn't vote Grandy. Clearly waiting for some other option to show up, to the point that I could suspect an Erenford-GGGrand partnership what with Erenford suggesting GGGrand was a symp (and you obviously want to lynch the FM over the symp) and joining the lynch train relatively late. He does some genuinely useless vote analysis. And by genuinely useless, I [i]do[/i] mean genuinely useless. Check it out: [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300299' date='Apr 3 2008, 19.32'][i]<snip stuff about Plumm, Fell, and Smallwood>[/i] I don't draw any particular conclusions from this, but one of our FM may in fact be among those three people. The only person I've actually been suspicious of on this list is Plumm. Though unfortunately this data isn't perfect. Because it's only one and a partial day worth of voting.[/quote] This, my friends, is what we call contributing-without-contributing. What is this? He even says flat out that he can't draw any conclusions from it. I could randomly pick three people and there'd be a half-decent chance that one FM would be on the list. Sure, Fell or Smallwood could be FM. Or me, from your perspective, but I'm not, so yeah. He makes this list of Fell, Plumm, and Smallwood, and he says he doesn't draw any conclusions, but if he made the list then he's clearly making some conclusions, however weak. If he didn't favor a GGGrand lynch, why didn't he vote for me? If he's suspicious of me and his vote analysis (without a public CF, vote analysis for a day and half IS really very weak data, but still data) supports it, why not vote? He's testing the waters, I think, dropping bait and seeing who bites. [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300368' date='Apr 3 2008, 20.59']I'm looking over the case against Smallwood one more time, but from first glance I'd be willing to vote Smallwood over Grandison. However, I want to look over it one more time before saying anything solid, alright?[/quote] [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300374' date='Apr 3 2008, 21.08']After the look I'd say I'll vote for Smallwood if it isn't completely hopeless. I'd rather we eliminated one of them (Grandison or Smallwood) today then have us split, and nothing get done as it were.[/quote] Still refuses to commit a vote. What on earth is he waiting for? [i]Why[/i] does he keep on waiting? What's he afraid of? Some people are indecisive, yes, but this is taking it to one hell of an extreme. Does he want to consult a partner? Make sure they're not lynching their symp? Is he [i]still[/i] waiting to see which way the winds are blowing, to keep his options open? Is he trying to seem reasonable? [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300405' date='Apr 3 2008, 22.12']I personally don't think it's a particularly strong case against either person (Grandison or Smallwood). The 'case' just made me feel suspicious, and really that's the only thing I'm going off of. It combined with looking at voting patterns where Smallwood is in on both of the current lynches to make me suspicious enough to [i]consider [/i] voting for him provided there would be enough people to back it. Now Smallwood is dropping into an over-the-top defensive posture. I've never been sold on the case against Grandison because it seems far too much like somebody making a ruckus to distract us all while the FM get to cackle in the background at our tunnel vision. So it wasn't a very difficult jump to make from considering voting for Grandison (which I still might do because it's frakking distracting everyone) to considering voting for Smallwood dependent on whether or not there would actually be enough support to warrant trying.[/quote] So, uh, now he's saying both cases suck, but he'd rather vote Smallwood [i]if[/i] people will support it. Testing the waters much? Pandering the public? Great! So, he's sitting in front of his computer, watching as these so-called crappy cases come up... and what does he do? Nothing? If he prefers Smallwood, for the love of god, [i]push[/i] the Smallwood case. Build a case of quotes and analysis and whatnot, be an advocate ffs. I'd much prefer that over him using a lot of words to say that he's not a fan of either a Smallwood or Grandy lynch. [quote name='House Erenford' post='1300415' date='Apr 3 2008, 22.34']Smallwood, Thank you for throwing down your defense. You're still suspicious as of course all the players are in this game, but not nearly as much as before. I didn't expect you to quietly accept your fate, so defensiveness is expected. It was just a bit more so than I expected. I say we need to take a look at Mallister because he's done a rather interesting and rather drastic switch of opinions here.[/quote] And he backs off of Smallwood. Basically, it seems to me like his support of a Smallwood lynch is likely fabricated. At this point, I believe the Grandison lynch was starting to look more and more inevitable, and if Smallwood's a partner, then it would've been a great time to do some distancing. And again, he suggests we all look at Mallister but does not actually get off his ass to take a look at Mallister himself. He does promise to look at Mallister the next day before he finally votes Grandison though. Of course, Tollett beats him to the chase. [quote name='House Erenford' post='1301226' date='Apr 4 2008, 12.31'][i]<snip vote analysis that incriminates me, Fell, Smallwood, and Pommingham on basis of being on both lynches>[/i] A new idea revolves around Wythers. He wasn't in either lynch group. Instead he had votes on two people whose cases were obviously going sideways. His vote on me was to try and get me to participate, and he said it failed, but at the end of the day his vote was still there. It makes me curious as to whether or not it's possible he could be trying to fly under the radar in regards to his voting pattern by not involving himself in the lynches. My suspicions of Mallister revolve around his change of heart towards the end of the second day. It was rather extreme, and gave me a bad feeling afterwards.[/quote] His case on Wythers only works if either TGT or GG were FMs. To suggest that he didn't vote for those lynches and that would make his suspicious is basically saying that he wasn't willing to lynch either TGT or GG. There is no such thing as flying under the radar in regards to votes imo, so I'm not sure what Erenford's trying to say there. Quite frankly, Tollett's cases read more like rereads, and while they're definitely helpful, they're not really persuasive cases by any means. I don't see why Erenford couldn't have followed up with a case of his own besides, you know, for want of remaining off the radar. I'm pretty sure Tollett reread Erenford somewhere down the line, but that doesn't stop me from doing my own reread, does it? [quote name='House Erenford' post='1301294' date='Apr 4 2008, 13.06'][b]Post #368[/b] This is the big one to me. He really wanted a lynch, and was confident about the lynch on Grandison. He also complained about lack of time to get a lynch done. However, towards the end of the day he tried unsuccessfully to reverse the lynch against Grandison, and switch momentum to Smallwood. It now seems somewhat at odds with his earlier opinion.[/quote] Again, if he has the data to work with, why not make a full-blown case on Mallister? Why keep throwing little facts and ideas at us? Low-profile, reasonable FM, I say. Hell, Erenford tried (sort of) to switch momentum to Smallwood, also unsuccessfully. He does another vote analysis that I'm not going to bother quoting in full. It's more solid than his last, and probably worth at least taking a look at, I guess. This is the conclusion: [quote name='House Erenford' post='1301701' date='Apr 4 2008, 21.13']Conclusions: I don't have a single suspect, and therefore cannot place a vote at this time. I'll continue considering those mentioned in this post, and looking at any cases (or summaries) that have been done on these people.[/quote] When is this guy ever going to commit to a vote? All this vote analysis is nice, but vote analysis is a wonderful tool for an FM because it's logical, clean and easy. Doesn't involve any risks. People can't pull any connections out of you one way or another if you keep sticking to looking at the cold facts. For me, I've always found it difficult to build a real case based on quotes, looking for suspicious behavior as an FM, because it just feels so weird when you know you're an FM. I find it interesting that bulk of his posts are either vote analysis or comments on other people's cases (usually saying they're good, but not good enough). So I'm voting [b]Erenford[/b] because I may as well. With 1.5 hours left (thanks for the update, Targ), I'm going to say you all should lynch me. There aren't really any other options around. I doubt we can pull off a lynch on anybody else. Just look at Erenford, and possibly Smallwood, tomorrow for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 About 1 hour left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Tollett' post='1302069' date='Apr 5 2008, 10.13']If you don't think Plumm is guilty is there another choice you want to try?[/quote] I don't think Plumm is guilty. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 I'm here as well. I've read through Plumm's posts (took awhile for technical reasons), and my main impression is that he's been pretty middle of the road. I've no problem voting for him for the sake of lynching. However, I do like his case on Erenford, it looks like Erenford has a similar but more drastic case of Fell's problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Plumm, what do you think of my case on Fell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 45 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Bar Emmon' post='1302089' date='Apr 5 2008, 10.37']Plumm, what do you think of my case on Fell?[/quote] I like mine on Erenford better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Plumm, I [i]really like[/i] your case on Erenford. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, I think a lynch on Erenford is impossible at this point. However, if you happen to be a ninja, would you mind taking out Erenford before going down? :P The reason I bring this up is that with no information from a finder or a CF, I don't think we get too hung up on the idea of one person being evil, such as Grandison. I think you present a good case for Erenford and Grandison being partners--after all, Erenford was pretty late coming onto that lynch. However, if Grandison wasn't evil, I don't think Erenford's holding back would have accomplished much if he were evil--he might as well have voted earlier. I propose we lynch someone who's NOT a potential Grandison partner today, like Plumm (who I still don't feel good about, EVEN THOUGH I like his case) and then, if we don't have any new evidence tomorrow, lynch someone (like Erenford) who could have been Grandison's partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Smallwood' post='1302093' date='Apr 5 2008, 10.38']Plumm, I [i]really like[/i] your case on Erenford. Thank you for that. Unfortunately, I think a lynch on Erenford is impossible at this point. However, if you happen to be a ninja, would you mind taking out Erenford before going down? :P[/quote] Trust me, if I were a ninja, I would be all about the :ninja: right now. Anyhow, I'm all for lynching me in interests of lynching somebody. I'd much prefer it if I survived the day though. :rolleyes: While Erenford's distinct lack of vote does connect him to GGGrand, I also think he's still suspicious even if GG was innocent. He was waiting for something (or he's the singlemost indecisive player to ever grace the mafiaverse, which may be true but I don't really know GG very well), keeping his options open for one reason or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mirror Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Plumm' post='1302071' date='Apr 5 2008, 14.14']Case on Erenford. This is entirely uneditted and comprises entirely of me spitting down thoughts as I reread. Usually I trim these things down for conciseness, but I'm just trying to finish this thing before the day ends (and me as well, most likely). So he says he's agreeing to both cases, spews the same line about Thorne's middle-roading. Nothing new there, just echoes. Oddly, he says that Grandison is so suspicious that he's not as suspicious... so doesn't that mean Thorne's the one for the noose now? If it's not Grandy, then it's got to be Thorne, right? There's really no one else standing under the noose. Anyhow, this is Erenford's last post of the day. Apparently he's not interested in voting for Thorne. Erenford's reply to the Why-Didn't-You-Vote question: Allow me to summarize: 1) He wanted wait and see which way the winds were blowing. Keeping options open much? (To clarify: I do believe he fell asleep. I'm just annoyed that he didn't vote back in the post prior when it seemed clear that he preferred Thorne over Grandy.) 2) States again that he thought the case on Thorne was the strongest, so it bears asking, [i]why didn't he vote?[/i] I assume he didn't plan on falling asleep, so he would've, as far as he knew, been around to change his vote later anyhow. Why wait? As an innocent, I know I'm vote-happy, content to place things anywhere--after all, the worst that could happen is a little bit of pressure. As an FM though, I've always been more cautious to not seem opportunistic, more likely to play the waiting game to see how the dice fall. 3) If he thought Grandy could've been a symp trying to defend his FM (ie, Thorne), then seriously man. Where the hell was your vote? That only solidifies the case on Thorne, it shouldn't make you feel even more split between the two. He claims he was split, but "I believe the one on Thorne was the strongest" seems pretty un-split to me.[/quote] A wet napkin is stronger than a napkin. For those two cases specifically I was mulling, and seeing if anything new was going to be tossed out there. It was the first day, and I more than likely was going to vote for Thorne looking back. [quote]He posts again suggesting that GGGrand is purposely drawing attention to himself in attempt to distract from somebody else. Clearly, this means GGGrand was a symp. ...A symp to [i]who[/i], may I ask? Thorne? Thorne's dead. Erenford also mentions the idea of two, communicating symps, which made me [i]wtf[/i] back then and it still makes me go wtf now. I'm not sure what the idea was behind that.[/quote] I have no idea who it could be to be 100% honest. [quote]So what on earth [i]are[/i] you suggesting? Nothing? It looks more like Erenford's trying to plant the idea of GGGrand being a symp, and hoping everyone else will follow the train tracks for him. Were he innocent, I'm [i]very[/i] sure that Erenford would've at least got off his ass and speculated on who GGGrand's FM masters could've been. It's what I would've done and what any decent player with the innocents' best interests in mind would've done. But he doesn't. This isn't a super-active game, quite the opposite, and it shouldn't have taken long to just skim through and see what possible connections there were. Middle of the road post. Says he's willing to vote Grandy. Doesn't vote Grandy. Clearly waiting for some other option to show up, to the point that I could suspect an Erenford-GGGrand partnership what with Erenford suggesting GGGrand was a symp (and you obviously want to lynch the FM over the symp) and joining the lynch train relatively late. He does some genuinely useless vote analysis. And by genuinely useless, I [i]do[/i] mean genuinely useless. Check it out: This, my friends, is what we call contributing-without-contributing. What is this? He even says flat out that he can't draw any conclusions from it. I could randomly pick three people and there'd be a half-decent chance that one FM would be on the list. Sure, Fell or Smallwood could be FM. Or me, from your perspective, but I'm not, so yeah. He makes this list of Fell, Plumm, and Smallwood, and he says he doesn't draw any conclusions, but if he made the list then he's clearly making some conclusions, however weak. If he didn't favor a GGGrand lynch, why didn't he vote for me? If he's suspicious of me and his vote analysis (without a public CF, vote analysis for a day and half IS really very weak data, but still data) supports it, why not vote? He's testing the waters, I think, dropping bait and seeing who bites.[/quote] Oh crap I dropped data hoping that somebody would get an idea from it. Isn't that the point of making cases and presenting evidence in this game? Not only to convince, but also to get others to look into things? and yes it was useless because it was flawed to all hell, so I tried again later in the day. [quote]Still refuses to commit a vote. What on earth is he waiting for? [i]Why[/i] does he keep on waiting? What's he afraid of? Some people are indecisive, yes, but this is taking it to one hell of an extreme. Does he want to consult a partner? Make sure they're not lynching their symp? Is he [i]still[/i] waiting to see which way the winds are blowing, to keep his options open? Is he trying to seem reasonable?[/quote] I'm just indecisive. I wait rather patiently, and generally have gotten in closer to the end of things than to the beginning, so I try to see if anything new pops up before making a vote. [quote]So, uh, now he's saying both cases suck, but he'd rather vote Smallwood [i]if[/i] people will support it. Testing the waters much? Pandering the public? Great! So, he's sitting in front of his computer, watching as these so-called crappy cases come up... and what does he do? Nothing? If he prefers Smallwood, for the love of god, [i]push[/i] the Smallwood case. Build a case of quotes and analysis and whatnot, be an advocate ffs. I'd much prefer that over him using a lot of words to say that he's not a fan of either a Smallwood or Grandy lynch.[/quote] Actually though I was slightly suspicious of Smallwood at the time. I also figured that what Mallister was doing would possibly get some people drawn out of the wood work, and it did. It spawned a discussion and a full fledged defense out of Smallwood. [quote]And he backs off of Smallwood. Basically, it seems to me like his support of a Smallwood lynch is likely fabricated. At this point, I believe the Grandison lynch was starting to look more and more inevitable, and if Smallwood's a partner, then it would've been a great time to do some distancing.[/quote] I backed off of Smallwood because his defense made me less suspicious of him. That's what good defenses do... [quote]Quite frankly, Tollett's cases read more like rereads, and while they're definitely helpful, they're not really persuasive cases by any means. I don't see why Erenford couldn't have followed up with a case of his own besides, you know, for want of remaining off the radar. I'm pretty sure Tollett reread Erenford somewhere down the line, but that doesn't stop me from doing my own reread, does it?[/quote] I dislike repeating information over and over again. I still search back and look over a few things, but don't feel it's necessary to toss the information out again. [quote]Again, if he has the data to work with, why not make a full-blown case on Mallister? Why keep throwing little facts and ideas at us? Low-profile, reasonable FM, I say. Hell, Erenford tried (sort of) to switch momentum to Smallwood, also unsuccessfully. He does another vote analysis that I'm not going to bother quoting in full. It's more solid than his last, and probably worth at least taking a look at, I guess.[/quote] I like working with facts, and throwing out ideas for people to consider. Somebody else put up the case against Mallister before I had a chance to even start working on it. [quote]This is the conclusion: When is this guy ever going to commit to a vote? All this vote analysis is nice, but vote analysis is a wonderful tool for an FM because it's logical, clean and easy. Doesn't involve any risks. People can't pull any connections out of you one way or another if you keep sticking to looking at the cold facts. For me, I've always found it difficult to build a real case based on quotes, looking for suspicious behavior as an FM, because it just feels so weird when you know you're an FM. I find it interesting that bulk of his posts are either vote analysis or comments on other people's cases (usually saying they're good, but not good enough).[/quote] I'll commit to a vote when I'm convinced that the case is decent enough. I'll comment on other people's cases and drop down voting analysis' to see if that'll give something to the people who've been making cases hand over fist. I'm much slower at making cases, and have been beaten to the punch more than once. Conclusion from me to everyone else: Now if I vote for Plumm everyone's going to look at me funny. Like I was trying to silence him, but you know what, I waited for him to put up his case against me. I've been moderately suspicious of him for a bit here. My voting analysis was what I was going with on it, and frankly here is my vote [b]Plumm[/b]. I didn't have a good enough read on the other people from the voting analysis. And also because this is so damn late I've got no time to write a comprehensive defense before the damn day ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 [quote name='House Plumm' post='1302095' date='Apr 5 2008, 11.42']Anyhow, I'm all for lynching me in interests of lynching somebody.[/quote] Me too. :( [b]Plumm[/b] *wishes he had gotten up earlier* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted April 5, 2008 Author Share Posted April 5, 2008 It is day 3. 11 players remain: Bar Emmon, Corbray, Erenford, Fell, Florent, Mallister, Plumm, Pommingham, Smallwood, Tollett, Wythers. 6 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night. 5 votes for Plumm (Pommingham, Wythers, Fell, Erenford, Smallwood) 1 vote for Pommingham (Mallister) 1 vote for Fell (Bar Emmon) 1 vote for Erenford (Plumm) 3 players have not voted: Corbray, Florent, Tollett. 26 minutes left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.