[Omtose]

Right I've read through Fener's case on Mockra and I don't really like it. He's going after Mockra forbeing reluctant to vote, and I personally don't see anything wrong with waiting and weighing your options before casting a vote. Some of those quotes he used regarding Mockra on day one were things I was looking at when making my case against him (Fener). I look at it from the opposite side of things, why were you pushing so hard to get Mockra to vote, why are you being so aggressive? This is more of the behaviour that was bothering me in the first place. The fact that he didn't want to jump in and vote on day one and hasn't been as quick to commit to cases like yourself doesn't neccessarily make him scum. Yes he could be trying to fit in a little but that could mean he's more of a cautious player who likes to see how things develop before jumping to a conclusion or he could be a noob and be trying to get the hang of things. I just don't think the case has that much merit, but you pushing it right off the bat and casting a vote right away at the beginning of a round make me look at you even more closely that I did initially. So for now once again you've earned my vote, I'm going to read through some of the other cases and if something looks more plausible this could very well change.

vote Fener

[Shadow]

It is post #394.

Edit: @ Meanas

This post has been edited by Shadow: 26 April 2009 - 05:27 PM

[Fener]

Meanas, on Apr 26 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

Right now I feel like putting some pressure on the low posters though.

My main issue there is the night kills. I reckon that if the killers were deliberately laying low, they wouldn't be killing off players that fit the same profile.

And as it's sunday, hopefully most of them will start posting more tomorrow.

[Meanas]

Read it, I can't believe I missed it before.

Seriously Shadow, are you brain dead? It's either that or you're scum. I am speechless. :Surprise:

[Fener]

Omtose, on Apr 26 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Right I've read through Fener's case on Mockra and I don't really like it.

*snip*

Heh.

Most cases here, people are unsure about or people are keen to vote on them. I make a case on Mockra, and people leap to his defence.

I'm getting more and more confident about Mockra's guilt.

[Meanas]

Vote Shadow

For either being brain dead or scum. Either way we win by lynching him.


Edit: I mean a win-win situation.

This post has been edited by Meanas: 26 April 2009 - 05:38 PM

[Shadow]

Well, thanks for that display of sound intellectual analysis, Meanas. While the case may be foolish (or not), I'd like you to provide proof of that before coming to such a strong conclusion. And furthermore, where are your contributions, may I ask?

[Meanas]

You still don't get it do you? :Surprise:

[Shadow]

Meanas, on Apr 26 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

You still don't get it do you? :Surprise:

It's answers like this which really get me. How is this reply in any way helpful to anyone? Care to give an actual explanation, or do you just feel like padding your post count?

[Meanas]

A hint buddy, there might be other pairs than scum pairs...

[Shadow]

Uh, Meanas, why on earth would they have to signal to each other within a game? Usually, pairs can PM each other.

A symp and a killer is not a pairing anyway, 'buddy'.

[Meanas]

Seriously Shadow, you're not winning me over. In case they have to reveal of course, granted that would apply to a scum pair too, if they want to fake reveal. Has the elevator gone all the way up yet?


Edit: and exactly, moron.

This post has been edited by Meanas: 26 April 2009 - 05:49 PM

[Shadow]

If people need to reveal, they code their names in, they don't do it like this. On the other hand, because a symp and a killer is not a pairing, the killer at least does not know who his symps are. The symps have to make their master aware of who they are within the game. This could be one way of attempting to do it.

And there's absolutely no need for name calling. I don't even know what your 'exactly' is meant to refer to.

[Meanas]

Sigh, I give up.

[Ruse]

Fener, on Apr 26 2009, 07:49 AM, said:

To sum up, then.

I don't like the way Mockra tried to fit in at the start. I don't like the symp clue from D'riss. I don't like Mockra's reluctance to vote on day 1, wishy-washyness with regards to cases, links to Emurlahn and inconsistency about low posters.

ETA: I forgot to add, I don't like the many negative reactions to my earlier case on Mockra either.

Vote Mockra

Fener, on Apr 26 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

Omtose, on Apr 26 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Right I've read through Fener's case on Mockra and I don't really like it.

*snip*

Heh.

Most cases here, people are unsure about or people are keen to vote on them. I make a case on Mockra, and people leap to his defence.

I'm getting more and more confident about Mockra's guilt.

It's a fine case, but you are really bull-dogging it. You basically threaten or lump in anyone that dissents and with your aggressiveness so far nobody knows what to think. People want a chance to offer their opinion and probably are somewhat afraid they are going to be your Day 4 + 5 minute case.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 3. 19 hours and 34 minutes remaining

20 Players still alive: Ampelas, Anomandaris, Barghast, D'riss, Emurlahn, Fener, Galain, Gamelon, Kessobahn, Korlat, Meanas, Mockra, Omtose, Rashan, Ruse, Serc, Shadow, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

11 votes to lynch, 10 votes to go to night

1 vote for Mockra: ( Fener)
1 vote for Shadow: ( Meanas)
1 vote for Fener: ( Omtose)

Players not voted: Ampelas, Anomandaris, Barghast, D'riss, Emurlahn, Galain, Gamelon, Kessobahn, Korlat, Mockra, Rashan, Ruse, Serc, Shadow, Telas, Tellan, Tennes

[Fener]

Ruse, on Apr 26 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

It's a fine case, but you are really bull-dogging it.

Yeah. I just don't really like the way the last two days have gone. Some discussion, no lynch gets above 1 or 2 votes, and then there's a last-minute scramble. So I really do want people to vote (and preferrably on Mockra, from my point of view, because I think Mockra looks guilty).

In an ideal world we'd have two or three viable lynches, with 6 or 7 votes on them, with a few hours still left in the day. That would be so much better, as we can start talking about who is on which lynch and why.

Quote

People want a chance to offer their opinion and probably are somewhat afraid they are going to be your Day 4 + 5 minute case.

With the number of people jumping in to shoot me down, does it really look like there's anyone here afraid of me?

[Mockra]

Feel free to vote for me. The case is crap. I've explained things, but you don't want to believe them. Fair enough.

But, I'm also quite sick of the bully-pulpit attitude. I was suspicious of the random insta-case on day two. Switching back to me immediately, for no better reason than I vote for someone before going to bed to feel somewhat worthwhile to the game is dumb.

Vote Fener.

[Ruse]

Fener, on Apr 26 2009, 11:32 AM, said:

With the number of people jumping in to shoot me down, does it really look like there's anyone here afraid of me?

Yes that's why you are getting so much blow-back, rather than useful conversation, pro or con. You yourself point to the number of people jumping in, do you think they are all his symps trying to save their master or your posting manner?

[Omtose]

Fener, on Apr 26 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

Omtose, on Apr 26 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Right I've read through Fener's case on Mockra and I don't really like it.

*snip*

Heh.

Most cases here, people are unsure about or people are keen to vote on them. I make a case on Mockra, and people leap to his defence.

I'm getting more and more confident about Mockra's guilt.

It's very convenient that you chose to just clip this tiny portion of what I said and make it seem like the whole intent of my post was to defend Mockra. In fact a good portion of the post had to do with your behaviour as a whole over the course of the game, than Mockra himself, but you ignored that completely. No I did not like your case not because it was specifically about Mockra but because there was very little to go on. Why not post a decent defense rather than a one liner in which you try to make things seem like more than they really are.