House Frey Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Thorne' post='1313835' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.34']Corbray - I understand your position about lynching low posters but I'd prefer to do that only if we don't have any other viable lynch candidates. Mallister has been non-contributive but I haevn't gotten an evil read out of him. In fact no one here has said they think he's a FM, only that they are unhappy with his lack of posting. I'd rather cast my vote for someone whose acting suspcious like Erenford, Grandison or Plumm. Though it looks as if Erenford is currently the only of those in contention with the Pomm and Mallister mobs.[/quote] Plumm has three votes as well. The problem with Mallister is that the only post he did write was a rehash of everyone else's. So I mean, how are we expected to judge him if he won't post and when he does post, he just parrots the people before him? To me, it's suspicious and could mean he's a FM. However, I still like Erenford better, especially since the Plumm case above wasn't anything new. It felt forced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Erenford, the first two paragraphs of your second quote are from Dayne. Why do you want us to believe that they are from Plumm? :stunned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Corbray' post='1313822' date='Apr 14 2008, 22.27']I don't agree with much of Pommingham's reasoning or conclusions. I don't see Florent as an FM, for example. possibly a symp at best, but I don't really believe that yet either. Pomm hasn't been much help and has spent most of his time snarking back and forth with Fell and Florent.[/quote] And what do you think of Thorne? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Thorne' post='1313835' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.34']Corbray - I understand your position about lynching low posters but I'd prefer to do that only if we don't have any other viable lynch candidates. Mallister has been non-contributive but I haevn't gotten an evil read out of him. In fact no one here has said they think he's a FM, only that they are unhappy with his lack of posting. I'd rather cast my vote for someone whose acting suspcious like Erenford, Grandison or Plumm. Though it looks as if Erenford is currently the only of those in contention with the Pomm and Mallister mobs.[/quote] The problem is that there will *always* be someone that seems more suspicious than the non-poster. That's what makes non-vote/non-committal/non-substantive posting such a bad thing. Of the players under suspicion, a few seem worthy of a Day 1 vote, but that is not saying a whole lot about their actual guilt. If Mallister turned out to be innocent, I would feel a lot better about that lynch than making a mistake on one of these others. At least we can come back to these issues tomorrow. on the other hand, if we let Mallister get away with not participating, then he basically will start day 2 with a clean slate. I, for one, am done giving people free rides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mirror Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 It apparently eliminated the quotes brackets, so I thought it deleted the quote from the original post. That's an oops on my part. Looking at it again I know what you're talking about right away. Apparently I didn't read it over again closely enough before posting. *head-desk* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Wythers' post='1313869' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.57']And what do you think of Thorne?[/quote] Give me a few minutes on Thorne. I was looking at Thorne early in the game, but set him aside after his moderate defense of Florent, which I more or less agreed with. I will take another look with more recent posts in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Erenford' post='1313873' date='Apr 14 2008, 23.00']It apparently eliminated the quotes brackets, so I thought it deleted the quote from the original post. That's an oops on my part. Looking at it again I know what you're talking about right away. Apparently I didn't read it over again closely enough before posting. *head-desk*[/quote] Okay, that's all I wanted to know. I still think the case on Plumm is rather weak (Jesus, if I was his partner I would have told him to shut up right after he got into trouble), but you might be glad to hear that I also don't like the case on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Thorne' post='1313835' date='Apr 14 2008, 22.34']Corbray - I understand your position about lynching low posters but I'd prefer to do that only if we don't have any other viable lynch candidates. Mallister has been non-contributive but I haevn't gotten an evil read out of him. In fact no one here has said they think he's a FM, only that they are unhappy with his lack of posting. I'd rather cast my vote for someone whose acting suspcious like Erenford, Grandison or Plumm. Though it looks as if Erenford is currently the only of those in contention with the Pomm and Mallister mobs.[/quote] I'd rather vote for someone who is probably not going to deliver us any valuable informations in the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dondarrion Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Malister having so little posts is concerning. And I would be willing to vote for him. Partly because it encourages participation and may improve future games. I do also understand that some players hardly ever contribute on day 1 because they find it so hard to say anything meaningful. Well today there has been a few different discussions and I feel he could have found some things to comment on in more than one post that just parroted. Malister is an easy target, because he doesn't post. I don't like going after easy targets, its too easy for the FM to hide in them. However I don't think we should give him a free reign. If he's not lynched today then I will be expecting a lot more from him tomorrow. Erenford, at least he's trying and posting his thoughts (more so than Malister) He has made a couple of cases. One on me and one on Florrent is a symp. Question. if Florrent is a symp do you believe him likely to be a normal symp or a promotable symp? I personally don't believe a symp would have deliberately drawn attention to themselves so early. So I can't agree with your reasoning. Merryweather basically saying that not mentioning the possibility of Florrent being a FM or why you don't think so. Does have a good point. Ok so you latter gave your reason. It would be helpful in future to include why you dismissed some things out of hand. But then I am the last person who should be lecturing anyone on clear posts. You other case is on me. Well I think you could say I'm an easy target with all the recent attention. It also makes me want to vote for you – sometimes I can be petty. :P I could almost call your case timing opportunistic, however you where not around earlier so did not have a chance. I am trying to ignore this case while I evaluate you, because I am not sure I can give a fair appraisal of it. All things considered [b]Malister[/b] is getting my vote. [i]Please note I will be leaving now. But should be back within the hour. However I doubt I will be around at day end[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Wythers' post='1313869' date='Apr 14 2008, 15.57']And what do you think of Thorne?[/quote] my initial thought on Thorne is that I agree that the case on Florent was pretty weak overall. If Thorne was evil, why would he come to the rescue of Innocent Florent? Could be an attempt at false symping? I'd have to go back and look at the timing. I find it hard to believe that Florent is an FM and Thorne was trying to rescue him. In the later posts, Thorne makes a case against Plumm (parroted from Dayne), but puts the vote on Erenford based on Merryweather's case. Thorne insists that he does not find Erenford more suspicious than Plumm, but wants to pressure Erenford. However Thorne spends the next several posts harrassing Stokeworth, Fell, Tollett, and Merryweather about whether [i]Plumm[/i] is suspicious or not. Grandison makes a fair point that Thorne is leaving an easy out for switching away from Erenford later. Sure enough in post 344 Erenford has started to slip down the list and Plumm is right at the top. I'll admit, that a part of me wants to vote for Plumm as well, so it is hard to completely condemn Thorne's vote. Still, when I look at the series of posts, it does seem like it could have been planned. overall, my worst read on Thorne is kid Symp. I'm willing to ignore him for today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [i]I have to break for a couple of hours. I anticipate being back before the deadline, but not certain.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 So are the votes for Mallister basically a direct result of what happened last game, when the final 3 players were an active player, a middle of the road player (who was evil), and a quiet player? And the active player lynched the quiet one out of frustration, and thereby lost the game. Are people basically saying that they refuse to have a repeat of that in this game? I just want to be clear on what's happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I don't like this whole lynching someone for silence this early thing. Day 1 lynches are rarely right, but at least they provide clues based on how people reacted to each other, to the lynch, etc. When FMs hit quiet players, it's to avoid links being made. By lynching a silent we're doing their job for them... Not that i advocate lynching the loudest of course. After last game and Bar Emmond's silent game, i think it's pretty unlikely that the FMs will be too quiet. I'd prefer to hit the middle of the pack, or at least a lowish poster who's said something. We can always lynch the silents if/when we know we've lost our finder if we have one. Until then, lynches can bring information, it'd be silly to squander that. (Un)fortunately, i'm off to partake in some adult activities. No, I won't be back in 3 minutes. That's a bad pun to make, and i hate whoever thought it. I will, however, try to jump on in an hours time before i fall asleep, to see if it's worth me moving from pomm pomm over to plumm. Maybe they are Pfaceless Men this time, with a silent P? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='Plumm to Erenford']I could almost call your case timing opportunistic . . . All things considered [b]Malister[/b] is getting my vote.[/quote] Oh sweet irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Florent' post='1313982' date='Apr 14 2008, 16.47']After last game and Bar Emmond's silent game, i think it's pretty unlikely that the FMs will be too quiet.[/quote] Yeah, that makes sense. The quiet game worked perfectly for the FM last time, and they won the game. So they certainly wouldn't take that route this time around. :rolleyes: [quote]We can always lynch the silents if/when we know we've lost our finder if we have one. Until then, lynches can bring information, it'd be silly to squander that.[/quote] You're going to have to better explain your point here. I don't follow what you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Stokeworth' post='1314001' date='Apr 14 2008, 22.57']Yeah, that makes sense. The quiet game worked perfectly for the FM last time, and they won the game. So they certainly wouldn't take that route this time around. :rolleyes: You're going to have to better explain your point here. I don't follow what you're saying.[/quote] Luckily, i haven't quite dissapeared yet. Firstly, you don't suppose team innocent would be on the look out for the same strategy being used again, do you? That's just crazy. :rolleyes: Secondly, if we have a finder, and they are investigating the people we lynch, then we've got as good as a cf when they reveal. If we've lynched Johnny no mates who hasn't said or done anything, but led a silent, parroty game, we gain nothing from the information other than if we killed an innocent or a guilty, and by proxy roughly how we are doing. If we kill someone with some links, we have something to analyse. We have information. I know this relies on having a CF who lives to tell, but all the same, it's better in my eyes to kill those who at least have some links, reactions and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Hold on, yeah. I've just realised, a real finder isn't mechanical like the CF, and can actually use their brain. Fine, lets kill the low posters, but if we have a finder, investigate someone else. We're better off knowing someone playing actively's status than that of a dead guy with no links. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Merryweather' post='1313183' date='Apr 14 2008, 09.53']That last post by Mallister was pretty bad. Not only did he parrot everyone's thoughts but it seemed he sought to disarm anyone attacking him by readily admitting he was parroting thoughts[color="#000080"][b]. I do think he needs a bit more pressure but I want to pressure Erenford first.[/b][/color][/quote] [quote name='House Merryweather' post='1313832' date='Apr 14 2008, 16.31'][color="#000080"][b]I did not vote for pressure.[/b][/color][/quote] oh really? what do you call this? When we get to the las 1/3 of the day, it was my point thatthe time for JUST pressure is over and it is time for more solid cases. Yes, I know my case was weak, but it was better than parroting someone else. And I do think it has some merit, especially considering his recent denial of the pressure vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Pommingham' post='1313445' date='Apr 14 2008, 19.17']Excellent. We are darling enemies for now? Vendetta? I don't want to make it into Arryn vs Greyjoy thing, so I'll stay quiet for a time.[/quote] Have to say that I dislike this post. A lame excuse for lurking IMO (and half of the players probably don't know what [i]Arryn vs Greyjoy[/i] means). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 [quote name='House Florent' post='1314011' date='Apr 14 2008, 18.01']Firstly, you don't suppose team innocent would be on the look out for the same strategy being used again, do you? That's just crazy. :rolleyes:[/quote] So says the person who just argued that the FM [i]wouldn't[/i] try the same strategy again. Maybe they expected you to say that, and as a result decided to try the exact same strategy. *dismisses your point as WIFOM and moves on* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.