House Payne Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I don't think Harlaw was exactly putting himself out there.OK. Maybe I should have phrased it more like "I don't think an FM would highlight the fact they've created a bandwagon by using the word bandwagon". It draws unwanted attention.Ok, I intend to leave soon.Does anyone know if Kenning is gone for the rest of the day? Perhaps it's too much to hope for his partner to say "Why yes, actually I know..." :(With Cassel and Kenning (possibly) gone for the day and both their votes on non-trains, we need 6 votes out of 10.I will not lynch Swann - I am convinced he's an inno newbie.Would you rather a non-lynch or lynching Swann? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I read your comments, apologies if I didn't take in your meaning.Of course being an unhelpful innocent is not suspicious because innocents are not suspicious. Do I think being unhelpful is suspicious? Sure - and normally FM are more subtle about it than you have been, to be sure, but of course FM don't want to help the innocent team. But the nub of it is that I'm happy to lynch you for being unhelpful, because I don't think it makes you innocent, so if the day one lynch is basically random (and let's face it it is) we may as well lynch someone who hasn't properly tried.I meant your faction would be useful info - do we not even get that? I confess I barely even skimmed the rules once I saw I was RI.Well, what I said was that what these guys had done looked like acting as a team, their votes going so neatly one after another. I never said that I though they were actually a team. And then I also added that out of the three of them the one that I suspect was Swann.FM want to look helpful, and a lot of times being helpful and looking helpful appear to be pretty much the same things.Well, I haven't seen anything about this in the rules. In the previous game this thing was clear, but now I have no idea.And please, don't say that I'm not trying, will you? You can say that I'm useless or silly or whatever but do not comment on trying, ok? just a remark here... May as well ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 FM want to look helpful, and a lot of times being helpful and looking helpful appear to be pretty much the same things.Well, I haven't seen anything about this in the rules. In the previous game this thing was clear, but now I have no idea.And please, don't say that I'm not trying, will you? You can say that I'm useless or silly or whatever but do not comment on trying, ok? just a remark here... May as well ignore it.See the problem is, there's no way to read the several comments you've made like this and not think WIFOM. Like, normally I'd agree that it serves the FM interests to attempt to fit in and participate on day one, but then you bring attention to the fact that you're not doing what the optimal FM would do and I can't help but wonder if that's deliberate on your part.I will say this, if it comes down to a lynch of Swann or Ball, my vote won't be changing. I wouldn't go quite as far as Ambrose in declaring Swann innocent, but nothing he's done so far has made me suspect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 See the problem is, there's no way to read the several comments you've made like this and not think WIFOM. Like, normally I'd agree that it serves the FM interests to attempt to fit in and participate on day one, but then you bring attention to the fact that you're not doing what the optimal FM would do and I can't help but wonder if that's deliberate on your part.What's WIFOM?Well, I've based the comment on my own experience and on my own style of playing, so yes, you might as well say that it was deliberate, although my point was to express my disagreement with H.A., not to draw one's attention to what I'm doing right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Reed Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 And please, don't say that I'm not trying, will you? Personally, not trying is not at all what I think about you. But since what I am thinking is that you're behaving somewhat suspiciously, I'm voting for House Ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What's WIFOM?Well, I've based the comment on my own experience and on my own style of playing, so yes, you might as well say that it was deliberate, although my point was to express my disagreement with H.A., not to draw one's attention to what I'm doing right now.WIFOM=Wine in front of me. Essentially using circular logic to prove you're innocent. Sorry, we should really stop using acronyms whenever possible, but that one's something of a board staple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Personally, not trying is not at all what I think about you. But since what I am thinking is that you're behaving somewhat suspiciously, I'm voting for House Ball."Somewhat suspiciously"? And what is my suspiciousness about? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Remove vote. I'm more than willing to replace it if the need arises, but I'm also not liking the lack of other options on the table -- Swann is a horrible alternative.Gah! I did it again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Remove vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Corbray Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 WIFOM=Wine in front of me. Essentially using circular logic to prove you're innocent. Sorry, we should really stop using acronyms whenever possible, but that one's something of a board staple.Oh damn, now I remember that someone's already explained that to me after my previous game. It's no problem, don't be sorry. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yieehah, now this is getting funny. I think I'm the highest vote so far?First: what's WIFOM? EDIT: thanks for explaining, that post took me too long /EDITSecond: I have constantly been picking about Harlaw, because he was rather aggressive and that made me think he was nervous. Also because he didn't do anything usefull. THEN he did, by voting for me cause I allegedly voted for night (the only thing I was saying, well trying to say was that Harlaw had been my only option so far for a POSSIBLE lynch). He then engaged more in conversation so I felt my case not being valid.Third: I switched to Ball because he hadn't done anything. Honestly, that he outright refused to try to do better made me angry. So it was somewhat and anger-vote. It worked: he tried to make a case on me. So I feel that vote was justified (also see #114).Because of lunch-related-absence I think I have become what it's called an easy target?So Ball voted for me - the new weakest player- because I voted earlier for him, when he supposedly were? (Whatever weakest player means?).Overton voted for me because I piled up votes with Yarwick. We did so almost the same minute, for the same reason: Ball asked for it by refusing to say anything usefull. So Overton, if you don't like votes piling up, you probably don't like lynching at all, do you?Inchfield had the same reasons. So they have moved onto my radar. Will now look again if I find someone better or at least more "evidence", since Ball is now participating it seems. Meanwhile remove vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Well, what I said was that what these guys had done looked like acting as a team, their votes going so neatly one after another. I never said that I though they were actually a team. And then I also added that out of the three of them the one that I suspect was Swann.FM want to look helpful, and a lot of times being helpful and looking helpful appear to be pretty much the same things.Well, I haven't seen anything about this in the rules. In the previous game this thing was clear, but now I have no idea.And please, don't say that I'm not trying, will you? You can say that I'm useless or silly or whatever but do not comment on trying, ok? just a remark here... May as well ignore it.Well what's the point of saying they look like a team, if you don't mean to imply that they actually might be a team?Apologies for saying you're not trying, to be perfectly honest, you seemed (if you're innocent) to be like a relatively experienced player doing one of the 'behave oddly to see what people's reactions are' type gambit, especially after the comments about people who had voted for you - I hate those types of moves because I don't think they are helpful. So I didn't think you'd been trying to help the innocents - no comment on how much effort or time you've put into the game was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Ball is now participating it seems.Depends on your definition of participating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Gaga Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Remove vote.Yarry - this would have been sensible three or four hours ago - right now the chance of getting a train going on someone else is slim, especially if you don't push anyone - people not on the trains have left for the day, Swann's suspicion of Harlaw has apprently evaporated, and no-one else has come under sustained general suspicion. I suspect you know this, so I am left wondering what you hoped to gain by removing vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Ashford Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Depends on your definition of participating.reading-thinking-rereading-deciding-writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Connington Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Remove vote. I'm more than willing to replace it if the need arises, but I'm also not liking the lack of other options on the table -- Swann is a horrible alternative.Gah! I did it again...Remove vote.So you critisize the two most viable lynch options without suggesting an alternative then remove your vote. Nice. Yarwyckedited to fix bolding issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Upcliff Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Here, have some weak and pointless impressions.Ambrose - no real read but won't be voting for him today. Ball - seems to have dug themselves in pretty deep; Will replace my vote for him if no other options present themselves, but admittedly I'm feeling less confident about his lynch than before -- he continues to defend himself which I wasn't really expecting. Cassel - mixed feelings. satisfactorily addressed my concerns about him, but many of his thoughts on the game seem opposite to my own. (might be a little biased). anyway, not going to lynch today. Florent - doesn't look like we'll have enough information on him today to properly conclude his eligibility for a lynch. where are you florent? I thought you said you now had time to read through the thread. Harlaw - not sure how I feel about him. no real read. Inchfield - same as above except he seems awfully quick to drastically switch opinions. might vote for him. Kenning - satisfactorily responded to my prodding. need to see a good case in order to vote for them. Overton - on one hand I admit my initial case was weak (never meant it to be anything but), on the other he hasn't convinced me of his innocence. Like Inchfield they seem to shift opinions at the drop of a dime. Swann - don't like the case presented so far -- I read him as new to the boards which explains much of the evidence against him.Upcliff - only gut here, but I'd consider voting for him. There are a few posts that I recall him making that fit the helpful but ambiguous mold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Payne Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Okay I have some time to read the thread now.Found anything over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Reed Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 "Somewhat suspiciously"? And what is my suspiciousness about? :)Mostly about two comments that you made earlier, comments that I find odd:#105: "I don't have any though process to talk about today. Unforgivable? Oh well, lynch me."#125: "If I were an FM, then I could win in a competition for the worst FM ever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Targaryen Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 t is day 1.11 players remain: Ambrose, Ball, Cassel, Florent, Harlaw, Inchfield, Kenning, Overton, Swann, Upcliff, Yarwyck6 votes are needed for a conviction or 6 to go to night.1 vote: Overton (Kenning)2 votes: Ball (Ambrose, - Yarwyck, - Swann, + Upcliff)4 votes: Swann (Harlaw, Ball, Inchfield, Overton)1 vote: Yarwyck (Cassel)3 players have not voted: Florent, - Upcliff, + Yarwyck, + SwannETA:Overton, please use bolded text for your votes only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.