House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Vidal' post='1720831' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.34']I think I said so on page one somewhere. Maybe you should read more. ;)[/quote] hmmm, let me see...your posts from page one: [quote name='Vidal' post='1720150' date='Mar 15 2009, 14.11']*testing avatar*[/quote] [quote name='Vidal' post='1720164' date='Mar 15 2009, 14.25']I have actually never see Karate Kid :([/quote] [quote name='Vidal' post='1720187' date='Mar 15 2009, 14.51']Bobby Brown's av looks bit dorky ;) Not that mine is much better.[/quote] [quote name='Vidal' post='1720193' date='Mar 15 2009, 14.57']Apparentely it was allowed in the 80s. *shudder*[/quote] [quote name='Vidal' post='1720203' date='Mar 15 2009, 15.02']Are you young version of Kiefer Southerland or something? ;)[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Seems the popular consensus was that I shouldn't have brought up the possibility of Espinoza's guilt until tomorrow. I debated whether to say something now or just observe, but maybe I'm honest to a fault. If anything, it saves the argument from being brought up later today as a means to deter a popular lynch choice. Maybe it's WIFOM, but without knowing who'd be accused later today, it seems rather short sighted of me to bring this up now if I was working for the Cobra. [quote name='Dutch' post='1720637' date='Mar 16 2009, 03.21']Vidal - it's outlined in my post upthread, but essentially, it looks like he's picking on an easy target. There is really no reason to bring this point up today while Espinoza is immune other than to sow confusion.[/quote] Honestly, a distraction? I'm pretty certain Espinoza is aware of his own allegiance and isn't in any danger of voting himself out of the game. If there's any distraction here it's the backlash that bringing up the possibility of Espinoza's guilt has caused me. I don't see how that benefits me -- or my alleged Cobra Kai leanings -- in the slightest. [quote name='Johnny Lawrence' post='1720717' date='Mar 16 2009, 06.53']What concerns me about the discussion of the referee is that it could be done in a way to get the referee to change the type of decision that they had been planning on making. If he'd been about to lynch someone a bit suspicious, he may now conform to the expectation.[/quote] Again, I could see your point [i]if[/i] it were done at some other time in the day. As far as I know there were no serious accusations being flung at that time. [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720740' date='Mar 16 2009, 07.39']I agree that Hall was looking a a little too hard and would have made a case from ANYONE who had posted first.[/quote] You're probably right in that it was my initial reaction upon reading the rules that state the first to post gets the referee power for the day, but the only thing that gives that thought any credence is the fact you posted within two minutes of the game starting. It also doesn't help that you deny having prior knowledge that you were in line for said powers despite it being stated by the mods at least twice. [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720774' date='Mar 16 2009, 08.29']He made the first jump to serious posting, looked for an easy target. I still think he would have picked whoever the poster was. I am thinking he belongs in a black Gi.[/quote] That's rather presumptuous of you based on one serious post. Even I only brought up the possibility of your guilt. I'm not saying I believe it to be true, just that it's probably something I would do as a guilty player (yes, I know this is just set up for a WIFOM argument). Er, then again your actions and [i]reactions[/i] thus far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Or you could mean this one (if you have more than 20 posts per page) where you don't address anyone, make it sound like a half joke and never really answer my question? [quote name='Vidal' post='1720207' date='Mar 15 2009, 15.10']Well duh :P I think you are lying :)[/quote] [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720211' date='Mar 15 2009, 15.21']Are you talking to me? I can hold this stance forever.[/quote] [quote name='Vidal' post='1720217' date='Mar 15 2009, 15.27']Is not holding stance, is walking away afterwards :D Kreese, if you are not Kreese, then who are you?[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Hall' post='1720848' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.47']Seems the popular consensus was that I shouldn't have brought up the possibility of Espinoza's guilt until tomorrow. I debated whether to say something now or just observe, but maybe I'm honest to a fault. If anything, it saves the argument from being brought up later today as a means to deter a popular lynch choice. Maybe it's WIFOM, but without knowing who'd be accused later today, it seems rather short sighted of me to bring this up now if I was working for the Cobra. Honestly, a distraction? I'm pretty certain Espinoza is aware of his own allegiance and isn't in any danger of voting himself out of the game. If there's any distraction here it's the backlash that bringing up the possibility of Espinoza's guilt has caused me. I don't see how that benefits me -- or my alleged Cobra Kai leanings -- in the slightest. Again, I could see your point [i]if[/i] it were done at some other time in the day. As far as I know there were no serious accusations being flung at that time. You're probably right in that it was my initial reaction upon reading the rules that state the first to post gets the referee power for the day, but the only thing that gives that thought any credence is the fact you posted within two minutes of the game starting. It also doesn't help that you deny having prior knowledge that you were in line for said powers despite it being stated by the mods at least twice. That's rather presumptuous of you based on one serious post. Even I only brought up the possibility of your guilt. I'm not saying I believe it to be true, just that it's probably something I would do as a guilty player (yes, I know this is just set up for a WIFOM argument). Er, then again your actions and [i]reactions[/i] thus far...[/quote] I am not in the habit of reading all the rules, sorry. I skim the "special" conditions and the roles an that's usually it. It is just how I roll. My reactions have been to explain myself...not overly defensive, not ignoring the issue. eta cause I just can't type :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720858' date='Mar 16 2009, 09.55']My reactions have been to explain myself...not overly defensive, not ignoring the issue.[/quote] I was speaking of not only how quickly you were to fall into the 'Hall must be guilty' camp but also how you're towing the party line rather adamantly. It definitely puts me in a bad position as you're the one with all the power here. Anyway, any further points I would make against you do seem rather null until you can be held accountable. Therefore I suggest we move on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Mirror Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Hall' post='1720848' date='Mar 16 2009, 15.47']Again, I could see your point [i]if[/i] it were done at some other time in the day. As far as I know there were no serious accusations being flung at that time.[/quote] Which I noted, but you excluded from your quote. I know it's a cliche, but this strikes me of being overly defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720844' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.43']Or I could take brain enhancing drugs to give me a photographic memory and eliminate everything from my life but mafia. :P[/quote] You dare have other things in your life except mafia? Heretic! [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720851' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.50']Or you could mean this one (if you have more than 20 posts per page) where you don't address anyone, make it sound like a half joke and never really answer my question?[/quote] That is the one I mean, yeah. I think it was pretty hard to misunderstand who it was for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Johnny Lawrence' post='1720889' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.18']Which I noted, but you excluded from your quote. I know it's a cliche, but this strikes me of being overly defensive.[/quote] By your wording I wasn't clear if you were accusing me of doing this or not. I used that quote to address the argument in general, not just you specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Hall' post='1720874' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.06']I was speaking of not only how quickly you were to fall into the 'Hall must be guilty' camp but also how you're towing the party line rather adamantly. It definitely puts me in a bad position as you're the one with all the power here. Anyway, any further points I would make against you do seem rather null until you can be held accountable. Therefore I suggest we move on...[/quote] What party line? and 8+ hours is quickly? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Hall' post='1720895' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.23']By your wording I wasn't clear if you were accusing me of doing this or not. I used that quote to address the argument in general, not just you specifically.[/quote] But when I asked it you meant me, you really didn't answer, and like I said, it half sounded like it was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Bobby Brown' post='1720832' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.34']Yeah, what the hell? What did you try to say? That you are jumping on popular bandwagon 13 hours before dusk just because there no other bandwagon?[/quote] I'm saying that I don't really think that the evidence on Hall is incriminating. But I haven't seen anything scummy from anyone except perhaps Espinoza. I think it's fairly obvious to say that Espinoza won't lynch himself, and if he's got to lynch someone, Hall is atm the obvious candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Karl Smith' post='1720900' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.26']I'm saying that I don't really think that the evidence on Hall is incriminating. But I haven't seen anything scummy from anyone except perhaps Espinoza. I think it's fairly obvious to say that Espinoza won't lynch himself, and if he's got to lynch someone, Hall is atm the obvious candidate.[/quote] Actually, I don't really want to lynch Hall. He at least is speaking up and posting thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720896' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.23']What party line? and 8+ hours is quickly? :rolleyes:[/quote] I'm not talking about 'the time' but the amount of content. I only had three posts to my name at the time only one of which was serious. Doesn't exactly seem like enough information to determine someones guilt to me. [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720899' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.25']But when I asked it you meant me, you really didn't answer, and like I said, it half sounded like it was a joke.[/quote] Huh? I'm pretty sure you're mistaking me for someone else. [quote name='Karl Smith' post='1720900' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.26']I'm saying that I don't really think that the evidence on Hall is incriminating. But I haven't seen anything scummy from anyone except perhaps Espinoza. I think it's fairly obvious to say that Espinoza won't lynch himself, and if he's got to lynch someone, Hall is atm the obvious candidate.[/quote] Do I really have to point out how scummy this makes you sound... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Tyrell Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Hall' post='1720914' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.36']Huh? I'm pretty sure you're mistaking me for someone else.[/quote] Argh...I meant to quoate V. This is what happens when you rush :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Wythers Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Espi, yes I did mean you. And Karl, do you usually lynch people that you think are innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Karl Smith' post='1720900' date='Mar 16 2009, 17.26']I'm saying that I don't really think that the evidence on Hall is incriminating. But I haven't seen anything scummy from anyone except perhaps Espinoza. I think it's fairly obvious to say that Espinoza won't lynch himself, and if he's got to lynch someone, Hall is atm the obvious candidate.[/quote] So, 1) you don't have any suspects but the most popular ones and 2) you are ready to support Espinoza lynching Hall even if you suspect Espinoza by yourself? You want to support lynching Hall just because lynching Espinoza is impossible? Do you even understand how deep is the hole you've digged for yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Stokeworth Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Morning folks, I thought I'd comment on the last few things that have happened. Hall - much ado about nothing. I personally don't find his behavior all that guilty looking. Day one cases are typically weak, and Espinoza's actions don't make him come off in the best light. There is nothing wrong with pointing it out. It was the first major thing that came into play and it certainly started discussion... that is definitely a plus. Espinoza - You don't read the rules? OK, fine. I know that there are players out there who do this. Did you even know that this was a king/ref maker game? Certainly you will admit to yourself, if not to us, how your first 2 posts (*stretch*, "Who, me, king?") make you look a bit iffy. Karl - Dude, stand up for yourself! We lynch people we think might be innocent all the time, especially day one. To claim anything else is a lie. Because let's face it, must of us are glad to lynch anyone as long as it's not himself. Sure there are trumped up charges, but basically the thought process goes like this... "Well, I guess that could be construed as guilty, and it does mean that I won't be lynched. Vote!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Vidal' post='1720933' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.47']Espi, yes I did mean you. And Karl, do you usually lynch people that you think are innocent?[/quote] At the end of the day, it's up to Espinoza to decide who he wants to lynch. I have no real opinion at the moment. I'm not saying we should lynch Hall, but when I play, the philosophy is get a lynch no matter what. I haven't seen anything that's worth lynching for at the moment, but it's trial and error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Dutch' post='1720616' date='Mar 16 2009, 02.39']My question to you is why the hell bring that up right now? Espinoza is the referee for the day and therefore is not going to be lynched today (barring an Ali Mills intervention - unlikely). Why not just watch him make his decision, see who he resists/favors and go after him tomorrow - or even later in the day if you were worried about being killed. By bringing it up right now, you've given him warning (if he's evil) and he is going to be more careful about covering his tracks. I would say that you calling him out is just as suspicious, if not moreso than his quick post. It's an easy target and sows confusion at a point in the game where it will do very little good and is more likely to do harm by creating a distraction that cannot be resolved today.[/quote] Have to disagree with you, Dutch. First off, you really think Hall's post would make a hypothetically evil Espinoza more careful in how he approaches the Referee job? You really don't think an evil player would be careful anyway? I'd argue that an evil player with the Referee job would be worried about 'covering his tracks' no matter what, regardless of whether or not people have said anything negative about him. Second - why not call him out now? You think it sows confusion? I think that's kind of ridiculous. Nobody is being forced to focus on Hall's post about Espinoza. People can talk about whatever they find suspicious. I personally hate that 'sows confusion' argument in general, aside from when its applied to evaluating a role claim (because a role claim really does have the potential to create chaos). When its just used to criticize an argument somebody has made...an argument that everyone else is free to ignore....sorry, I think its pretty damn weak. Not buying it. I mean, hell, its day 1. We are supposed to be making arguments like the one Hall made. The goal is to put as much information out there as possible, and see how people react. I don't care if Espinoza is unlynchable today - its still worth bringing up, just to see how he responds and see what other people have to say about it. Its worth it to see if the discussion has any impact on who Espinoza chooses to kill. And it doesn't prevent us from talking about other things, so its not as if Hall's post set us down a path where we would never get around to discussing people who actually can be lynched today. [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720774' date='Mar 16 2009, 08.29']Vidal, what are your thoughts on Hall? He made the first jump to serious posting, looked for an easy target. I still think he would have picked whoever the poster was. I am thinking he belongs in a black Gi.[/quote] [quote name='Espinoza' post='1720902' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.30']Actually, I don't really want to lynch Hall. He at least is speaking up and posting thoughts.[/quote] I'm confused by the contradiction in these 2 posts. Can you explain further? You went from saying that you think Hall 'belongs in a black gi' (which I took to mean that you suspect him) to then saying 2 hours later that you don't want to lynch him. I understand that part of the reason is because he's speaking up and posting, but is that it? Do you still suspect him or has something changed there? [quote name='Karl Smith' post='1720812' date='Mar 16 2009, 09.18']Okay, Espinoza is hardly going to lynch himself. And Hall is the only real suspicious person so far. I personally think the case on him is very very light but if there's no one else: then, what the hell?[/quote] Easily the most suspicious thing posted so far. Hall is the only real suspicious person? Okay, first, if you think the case on him is 'very very light' then how is he also 'the only real suspicious person'? Second, if you do suspect him, then you need to explain why. Are you just agreeing with other people? Or is there something more? Third, are you really ready to just throw up your hands and stop looking for suspicious behavior? There's still a ton of time left in the day. Why would you be willing to just settle on the lynch of somebody, when you described the case against him as 'very very light'? That makes absolutely no sense. [quote name='Karl Smith' post='1720900' date='Mar 16 2009, 10.26']I'm saying that I don't really think that the evidence on Hall is incriminating. But I haven't seen anything scummy from anyone except perhaps Espinoza. I think it's fairly obvious to say that Espinoza won't lynch himself, and if he's got to lynch someone, Hall is atm the obvious candidate.[/quote] So Hall is the obvious candidate to be lynched, in spite of the fact that you don't think the evidence on him is incriminating? And again, you are ready to just stop looking for evidence, with so much time left in the day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.