[Kaschan]

I'm around, briefly, HP. And, that is most certainly "brief." I need to sleep shortly.

[Hood's Path]

ok reading the opening scene it looks like we have three scum which is about right for this size of game. its low tmdi so i doubt there are many outrageous roles, though given the military setting it is possible roles have been tweaked to sound official.

i am gonna reread see if anyone strikes me as evasive or trying to hard.

[Hood's Path]

think i might

vote emurlahn

there is a hint of needing to appear helpful, but over all a lot of spam.

[Hood's Path]

plus a bit of pressure on day 1 is always a good thing.

[Serc]

Yea we need to get the ball rolling here...lots of nothing happening.

[Sorrit]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

think i might

vote emurlahn

there is a hint of needing to appear helpful, but over all a lot of spam.

Why are you voting for Emurlahn? I understand why Serc is. But your main point seems to be "a lot of spam". There hasn't been a lot of spam from anyone.

If you'd just agreed with Serc i'd have understood. But this looks really odd to me.

Remove vote
Vote Hood's Path

[Hood's Path]

Sorrit, on Jul 27 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

Galayn Lord, on Jul 27 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Sorrit, on Jul 27 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

Hello, Ruse.

Slow game.

Well say something suspicious then, that'll get it moving!

Ha! Why are you waiting for someone else to say something suspicious, when you could do so yourself? Hmmm?

Vote Galayn Lord

Sorrit, on Jul 28 2009, 10:18 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 08:56 AM, said:

think i might

vote emurlahn

there is a hint of needing to appear helpful, but over all a lot of spam.

Why are you voting for Emurlahn? I understand why Serc is. But your main point seems to be "a lot of spam". There hasn't been a lot of spam from anyone.

If you'd just agreed with Serc i'd have understood. But this looks really odd to me.

Remove vote
Vote Hood's Path

i suppose the most obvious reaction to your vote is why are you defending emurlahn. Given that you voted weakly against galayn lord when emurlahn was the only player with a vote and now he hits three you are trying to put pressure on those voting for him. Generally when players do that they are either paired scum/symp types or trying to associate with someone they know is innocent. You will also notice that i added that i felt some pressure was required as nothing is happening in the game as yet.

My vote stays.

[Serc]

Hmmm...

Im jot sure what to make of Sorrit...seems like he just felt he spotted something and went for the jugular.

Is he defneding Ehmurlahn?...i dont hink so...He would have to attack me aswell in order to do that.
Unless he is trying to change the focus onto someone else.

[Hood's Path]

spotted what exactly? voting for someone on day 1.

Over reactions are suspicious, they either end up forcing a lynch on those they are in defense of or backfiring completely.

[Serc]

I seems to me he thinks you are voting for Emurlahn for no reason...

*shrugg*

[Hood's Path]

do i need a reason other than voting on day 1? i felt i put my reasoning very clearly, spam and pressure.

The second seemed to work out quite well.

[Serc]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 02:04 AM, said:

do i need a reason other than voting on day 1? i felt i put my reasoning very clearly, spam and pressure.

The second seemed to work out quite well.

Thats a question sorrit would have to answer.

I understood why you voted...at least i think i do

[Sorrit]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

i suppose the most obvious reaction to your vote is why are you defending emurlahn.

Obvious and easy, yes. Unsurprising that it's the first thing you come up with.

The idea that any attack on any player other than the first target of the game is a defence of that player, and therefore that player must be lynched, is very harmful to our chances of lynching a killer early on. We need alternatives and to make everyone justify their choices.

Quote

Given that you voted weakly against galayn lord when emurlahn was the only player with a vote and now he hits three you are trying to put pressure on those voting for him.

My vote on GL was a joke. And the vote on Emur wasn't serious either.

If you think i'm a stupid enough partner to Emur to tie myself to him like that before serious discussion has even got going, think again.

Quote

Generally when players do that they are either paired scum/symp types or trying to associate with someone they know is innocent.

So either way I must be guilty? But you're still voting for Emur?

Quote

You will also notice that i added that i felt some pressure was required as nothing is happening in the game as yet.

I don't much like that either, to be honest. There's no point saying you're voting for pressure, it removes the pressure!

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

do i need a reason other than voting on day 1? i felt i put my reasoning very clearly, spam and pressure.

The second seemed to work out quite well.

My point being, nobody has much spam. Voting for someone for too much spam in the least spammy game I can remember here, is very strange.

[Hood's Path]

Sorrit, on Jul 28 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 10:35 AM, said:

i suppose the most obvious reaction to your vote is why are you defending emurlahn.

Obvious and easy, yes. Unsurprising that it's the first thing you come up with.

The idea that any attack on any player other than the first target of the game is a defence of that player, and therefore that player must be lynched, is very harmful to our chances of lynching a killer early on. We need alternatives and to make everyone justify their choices.

Quote

Given that you voted weakly against galayn lord when emurlahn was the only player with a vote and now he hits three you are trying to put pressure on those voting for him.

My vote on GL was a joke. And the vote on Emur wasn't serious either.

If you think i'm a stupid enough partner to Emur to tie myself to him like that before serious discussion has even got going, think again.

Quote

Generally when players do that they are either paired scum/symp types or trying to associate with someone they know is innocent.

So either way I must be guilty? But you're still voting for Emur?

Quote

You will also notice that i added that i felt some pressure was required as nothing is happening in the game as yet.

I don't much like that either, to be honest. There's no point saying you're voting for pressure, it removes the pressure!

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 11:04 AM, said:

do i need a reason other than voting on day 1? i felt i put my reasoning very clearly, spam and pressure.

The second seemed to work out quite well.

My point being, nobody has much spam. Voting for someone for too much spam in the least spammy game I can remember here, is very strange.

thats a very long response to a very short post.

Also three votes are three votes regardless of me commenting on my reasons.

And now you want me to vote for you? Well at least you are talking.

[Hood's Path]

Sorrit, on Jul 28 2009, 11:27 AM, said:

My point being, nobody has much spam. Voting for someone for too much spam in the least spammy game I can remember here, is very strange.

also this makes no sense as you are agreeing with me. In a game with little spam i vote for a player for spamming and you find it strange?

[Omtose]

Eek. Just haven't had time today.



But I'll have a lot more tomorrow, so expect stuff from me then. Sorry guys.

[Sorrit]

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

thats a very long response to a very short post.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote

Also three votes are three votes regardless of me commenting on my reasons.

What?

Quote

And now you want me to vote for you? Well at least you are talking.

I don't want you to vote for me, but i'd feel much happier about you if you were consistent. Your two scenarios are that either i'm partnered to Emur or that i'm guilty but trying to associate myself with an innocent. So if you were consistent you would be voting for me, as in either scenario i'm guilty.

Quote

also this makes no sense as you are agreeing with me. In a game with little spam i vote for a player for spamming and you find it strange?

Emur spammed no more than anyone else, and less than some. Yes, I find it strange.

[Hood's Path]

Sorrit, on Jul 28 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

thats a very long response to a very short post.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Quote

Also three votes are three votes regardless of me commenting on my reasons.

What?

Quote

And now you want me to vote for you? Well at least you are talking.

I don't want you to vote for me, but i'd feel much happier about you if you were consistent. Your two scenarios are that either i'm partnered to Emur or that i'm guilty but trying to associate myself with an innocent. So if you were consistent you would be voting for me, as in either scenario i'm guilty.

Quote

also this makes no sense as you are agreeing with me. In a game with little spam i vote for a player for spamming and you find it strange?

Emur spammed no more than anyone else, and less than some. Yes, I find it strange.

But he did nothing but spam and already had votes. Two points, spam and pressure. Voting you will see the pressure removed from emurlahn and your obvious and continued push away from him will be a success. therefore, denied.

And the massive response again adds more weight to my side i feel as you are over reacting to everything written and having to labour each individual point with a response to convey a weight to your words that they themselves lack through volume of space taken up.

Are you also so dense that you cannot recognise that 3 votes is a pivotal number in a game when only 7 are required?

[Karatallid]

I'm here - catching up.

[Sorrit]

Your refusal to comment on the majority of the points I make is noted.

Hood's Path, on Jul 28 2009, 12:14 PM, said:

But he did nothing but spam and already had votes. Two points, spam and pressure. Voting you will see the pressure removed from emurlahn and your obvious and continued push away from him will be a success. therefore, denied.

You continue to turn my attack on you into a defence of Emur. I guess I just refer you to the comments I made on that upthread.

You think already having votes is a good reason to vote for someone? Maybe at the end of the day when we're rushing to get a lynch. Not at the start. You vote for the most suspicious looking player.

Confessing to being a sheep isn't helping you, IMO.

Quote

And the massive response again adds more weight to my side i feel as you are over reacting to everything written and having to labour each individual point with a response to convey a weight to your words that they themselves lack through volume of space taken up.

You'd rather I wrote less? I try not to be redundant, but i'm not going to silence myself to make you more comfortable.

Quote

Are you also so dense that you cannot recognise that 3 votes is a pivotal number in a game when only 7 are required?

I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here.