House Mooton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Hey, i'm back, just reading up. I cant really see Espinoza as very scummy tbh. Not just because he got referee. Didn't really seem to me that it was a delberate grab. People shouting "FIRST!" or whatever before reading the rules isn't exactly uncommon. So, I can't really seem where halls coming from. In fact, even in the post where he says he thinks espinoza is suspicious, he says it's useless to say so. So, I really don't see why he did that. I also find Bobby Brown quite suspicious. He made a wierd comment earlier, about Espinoza, if he were scum, not lynching, but nk'ing hall. Just seemed really pointless NK speculation, and that he could be setting something up for later. Seemed very odd reading it, just not the sort of thing someone would usually type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Robertson' post='1721110' date='Mar 16 2009, 20.14']I also find Bobby Brown quite suspicious. He made a wierd comment earlier, about Espinoza, if he were scum, not lynching, but nk'ing hall. Just seemed really pointless NK speculation, and that he could be setting something up for later. Seemed very odd reading it, just not the sort of thing someone would usually type.[/quote]Are you happy to rephrase Daniel's old post as if it was your own thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Are you happy to make insinuating questions with little substance? I've said why I found you suspicious. If you've done something suspicious, and more than one person thinks you're suspicious for it, are you surprised they suspect you for the same reasons? Or does every single person finding someone suspicious have to pick out a different reason why? Which would thus mean that someone would have to have done a fair few seperate suspicious things to get a lynch at all. [quote name='Bobby Brown' post='1720709' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.42']I think accusing a referee is a little odd.[/quote] Oh wait, a not completely original thing! You agreed with someone else! How [i]massively[/i] suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Robertson' post='1721138' date='Mar 16 2009, 20.34']Or does every single person finding someone suspicious have to pick out a different reason why?[/quote]Of course not. I suppose agreeing with previous poster is quite legal thing to do. As far as you make a reference to previous poster's post. Otherwise, it looks scummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Well, I wasn't trying to say I was the first to have the idea. If it makes you happier, then yes, I agree with what Daniel said earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Stokeworth Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Bobby Brown' post='1721146' date='Mar 16 2009, 14.40']Of course not. I suppose agreeing with previous poster is quite legal thing to do. As far as you make a reference to previous poster's post. Otherwise, it looks scummy.[/quote] I disagree with this line of thought. Perhaps if a person makes no other contributions but regurgitation, it's another manner (and I have no idea how much Robertson has contirbuted.) To me however, having the same line of thinking doesn't make you look scummy. Perhaps we have narrowed the amount of what is "non FM play" so much that it becomes difficult (especially day one) to contribute at all. Only the most verbose -- or those with unlimited time -- feel that can participate in our games. We wonder why participation in down... and no, this isn't/couldn't be the only factor, but I bet it contributes. /soapbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Clegane Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Robertson' post='1721147' date='Mar 16 2009, 20.44']Well, I wasn't trying to say I was the first to have the idea.[/quote]Wasn't you? [quote]If it makes you happier, then yes, I agree with what Daniel said earlier.[/quote]I'd be much more happier if you would assume this from the very beginning. Anyway, ppl, I have to leave, and I won't be back before our ref will make his decision. I think [b]Karl[/b] looks mostly suspicious for now. I also feel worse about Hal Hall after his last responces, those look somewhat artificial, though not that bad as Karl's. I somewhat like Daniel and Tommy. No strong opinions about the rest of the field. See you at the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [i]Hey, looks like my Internet has come back! [/i] :wideeyed: I will reread the thread and give you my two cents shortly. :read: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Mooton Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Tommy' post='1721155' date='Mar 16 2009, 18.47']Perhaps we have narrowed the amount of what is "non FM play" so much that it becomes difficult (especially day one) to contribute at all. Only the most verbose -- or those with unlimited time -- feel that can participate in our games.[/quote] Perhaps having a set idea of what is FM play and what isn't is a silly idea to begin with, due to the fact that if you know how to recognise FM play, so does the FM, and will play in ways considered non FM, so as to be considered non FM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Stokeworth Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Robertson' post='1721215' date='Mar 16 2009, 15.19']Perhaps having a set idea of what is FM play and what isn't is a silly idea to begin with, due to the fact that if you know how to recognise FM play, so does the FM, and will play in ways considered non FM, so as to be considered non FM...[/quote] I'll agree with that to a point. The point being one post does not a FM make, but instead we should be looking for a pattern of behavior. Only the best FM (who we could probably list on one hand) are going to be able to consistantly make moves that are contrary to how a FM acts and still remain successful. Eventually most others are going to have to act like the FM that they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I think I still have to reread the thread one or two times more to get an accurate picture, but here are my first impressions: I don't agree with Hall that Espinoza's first post was suspicious. I am also not concerned about Espinoza's claim that he didn't knew what he was doing, because I forgot myself that the first poster would become referee.* However, I also don't suspect Hall very much, because I can see where he was coming from and I belong to those that think that he was right to state his suspicion today. I don't think that his argument was destined to sow confusion or to influence the referee. I raised my eyebrows (in a karateka way) when I read [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=34855&view=findpost&p=1720628"]Jonny's theory[/url] about Hall being a possible symp to Espinoza. I mean wtf? Why would a symp accuse his master with his first move? A symp is not supposed to do that. And yes, Jonny said hiself that he did not really believe in that theory himself, but he introduced it to us nonetheless for a reason unknown to me. What was the pint of telling us something that Jonny did not believe in himself? But then Bobby's post here is also ringing my bells: [quote name='Bobby Brown' post='1720709' date='Mar 16 2009, 12.42']I think accusing a referee is a little odd. If he is actually guity, he probably won't lynch you for this, but you are likely to be nightkilled. So, Hall is either very careless innocent or a killer who doesn't need to be afraid of nightkill. Former or latter, it's hard to say without hearing form him more.[/quote] It has been pointed out that this post was a bit to straightforward. I agree with that, but then this post is also very subtle. Bobby is not really accusing Hall here, he isn't saying that he thinks he is suspicious ("it's hard to say without hearing from him more"). What he [i]is [/i]doing is to set up Hall as a possible lynch candidate, and he is also definitely discrediting Hall's valueness for the innocents. So, Bobby has been fueling the suspicion on Hall while he did at the same time not commit himself to something himself. Karl - he has gathered some suspicions by saying that there's not much going on and that most likely Hall will bite the dust because Espinoza has no other options. I disagree with Karl wholeheartedly, but then I think he was just saying what he was thinking - which isn't a sign of guilt to me. So yeah, Karl should try a bit more to add to the discussion, but I donät suspect him very much right now. I have a good impression by Dutch, Myagi and Daniel. The rest is still a blank paper for me. That said, I suspect [b]Bobby[/b] and [b]Jonny [/b]most of all right now. * btw I think it should have been everyone's goal to become todays referee, evil or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Miyagi' post='1720990' date='Mar 16 2009, 11.43']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?[/quote] It's possible. Yes, evil will cover their tracks as best they can no matter what, but Day 1 is a strange creature. It's easier to make slips as the game hasn't gotten very serious yet, cases and suspicions are usually brushed under the rugs by day 2. By putting him on warning it tightens the game up that much more. Would Espinoza have been willy nilly careless (if evil) without Hall's accusation? No, probably not, but every little bit counts. [quote]Second - why not call him out now? You think it sows confusion?[/quote] Yes, I do. We're discussing the probable guilt of someone who cannot be eliminated today. It divides our focus and our full attention is not on finding suspicious people we can do something about right now. It also pulls this discussion into Day 2 when Espinoza can actually be dealt with. It almost forces us to deal with it tomorrow instead of following up on new leads. (yes, we can do both, but again - a division of focus) [quote]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.[/quote] I agree actually. I'd like to know why my accusation of Hall is fundamentally different than Hall's accusation of Espinoza and why mine is more suspicious? And on another note, my feelings on Karl are meh - I wouldn't object to him being eliminated, but feel we can probably come up with a better candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Given that the day is winding down I'd like to hear from our dear ol' ref to get a better idea of his intentions. I don't know what's so suspicious about my 'last responces' (sic) but it appears I'm not going to get much out of Mr. Brown right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I see Kreese is leary of Bobby Brown, and I had some lingering doubts about him too so I tried to figure out why. I didn't like his defense of me when Miyagi suspected me. Other than that, I agree with most of what he says. I especially liked his response to Tommy when he said 'this is a Kingmaker game and you have to adjust'. Tommy's response was to agree and my reaction to this is mixed. On one hand it's a perfectly legitimate and honest reply to the comment. On the other hand, it's a perfect response by an FM to seem reasonable and gain trust. Sweet, sweet paranoia. I know this is not much help, but I did have a strong response when reading Tommy's comment agreeing with Bobby, I just can't figure out how to interpret it - is it hitting my gut because it's smoothly evil, or refreshingly honest? Right now I am thinking that neither Bobby or Tommy is very suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Right now, I think Vidal is my top suspect. His posts are quick one liners and he's not really putting effort into his responses so far. Yes, this could be a bored innocent and he is not the only one guilty of it, but I'm bothered specifically by this exchange. I posted my suspicions about Hall and then specifically asked Vidal what he thought about Hall. [quote name='Vidal' post='1720623' date='Mar 16 2009, 02.58']Apart from fact that he wants to be called after evil computer, I cannot say anything against his points so far. And just BTW, Espinoza had already posted when I came in (and I had seen it), so I was definetely not trying to grab ref today. What do you think of Hall?[/quote] The post I had made explaining why I thought Hall was suspicious was only a few posts upthread, but I restated that I thought Hall was more suspicious than Espinoza. Then he posts this: [quote name='Vidal' post='1720630' date='Mar 16 2009, 03.10']Why are you suspicious of Hall, Dutch?[/quote] I don't understand how he could have missed why I was suspicious of Hall at that point without being seriously disconnected to the game. This implies either boredom at the early stages with no significant role to ground him, or an evil skating through. It's often hard for evils to stay focused because they know the answers and are not trying to put the pieces together. The thing that makes me fall on the side of evil is his comment saying 'oh BTW, I wasn't trying to grab ref, ok?' No one thought he was. Even Hall retracted that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Could it be that Tommy, Daniel and Ali have no suspects? Ali, ok, she has been gone examining the nude photos that I gave her, so she had no time to suspect anyone, but Tommy and Danny? Hey you two, did I just miss something or do you really have nothing to say? :tantrum: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Dutch' post='1721329' date='Mar 16 2009, 21.48']Right now, I think Vidal is my top suspect. His posts are quick one liners and he's not really putting effort into his responses so far. Yes, this could be a bored innocent and he is not the only one guilty of it, but I'm bothered specifically by this exchange. I posted my suspicions about Hall and then specifically asked Vidal what he thought about Hall. The post I had made explaining why I thought Hall was suspicious was only a few posts upthread, but I restated that I thought Hall was more suspicious than Espinoza. Then he posts this: I don't understand how he could have missed why I was suspicious of Hall at that point without being seriously disconnected to the game. This implies either boredom at the early stages with no significant role to ground him, or an evil skating through. It's often hard for evils to stay focused because they know the answers and are not trying to put the pieces together. The thing that makes me fall on the side of evil is his comment saying 'oh BTW, I wasn't trying to grab ref, ok?' No one thought he was. Even Hall retracted that.[/quote] Good point about Vidal. I would like to hear an explanation by Vidal. Why did he miss Dutch's case? Why did he even ask Dutch about it, when afterwards he didn't follow that issue anymore? Btw I am convinced that Vidal is in fact bored and is waiting for day 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Crap. Forgot about Ali. Also realized that Vidal is 2nd highest poster. Really? I don't have a good feel for where he stands for being so active (it's probably mostly RP, but still). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Dayne Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 So if you're convinced he's just bored, why do you want to hear his explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 [quote name='Dutch' post='1721329' date='Mar 16 2009, 15.48']The thing that makes me fall on the side of evil is his comment saying 'oh BTW, I wasn't trying to grab ref, ok?' No one thought he was. Even Hall retracted that.[/quote] Er, I don't recall there ever being a case made to retract. I stated that Vidal doesn't fit the time frame in my first or second 'serious' post. It's not that I don't suspect Vidal, but he also hasn't said or done anything to make him stand out from the crowd either. A pretty good place for a FM to be but in this case post count on his side. Wouldn't mind hearing some substantial thoughts from him though. Other than myself, there's really only one person I'd object to being lynched at this point and that's Miyagi. Mainly that's because they've expressed a lot of the same thoughts I've had this game. I'm worried if that continues they could become a blind spot for me, but for now I trust them. I should probably do a better job of reading through Kreese, Tommy and a few others that I've yet to form substantial opinions 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.