[Kaschan]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:09 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 01:56 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

I don't know if he's not on my team, though I do think he is a bad influence if he is.
What I did notice was, when he first came on, how he spouted a crapload of shit, how he got voted for it, and how in the meantime Mockra and you did what I perceived as damage control, rather than let him go along with his antics.

You may call that bad reasoning, but I do notice how your choice for a vote was split between, oh wait... * drum roll * the two players who voted Kaschan first. It could be a coincidence. But look, you also attacked Silanah by saying he overreacted... and oh noes, he was the third to vote Kaschan.
Now, it may all be coincidence, but pardon me for stating that you do seem to be defending Kasch.

3 straight votes in a 3/4 team merc game suggests some kind of organisational structure. And I don't much care for Kaschan, I've mostly just been ignoring him, but he's loud and vocal, which acts as a good catalyst, so I don't want him dead yet. If he continues playing like this, it's not likely he'll be that hard to lynch later in the game. I'm more likely to vote on behalf of the guy who's provoked reactions than the people who are reacting. Even if he is an idiot.
As for my vote on Atrahal or Tellann, as I said, 3 votes suggests some organisational structure. I would be tempted to vote Tellann, as he's first, but it's unlikely he has a power-role, he was just throwing some pressure around, so in general, Atrahal, you would be the best vote possible., jumping on early, but not first.

Underlined one: Kasch's vote was in between. As was Mockra's (post 185). So, not three in a row. Incidentally, Kasch, you and Mockra were the 3 I had linked on beforehand. Seems I hit a nerve.
Underlined 2: very altruistic of you. Generous, even. Except that it has been consistently your point to say you don't care much for him, say he's an idiot, how the other players can profit, et cetera.
Underlined 3: so Tellan, me and Sil is apparently an organisation - then what do you make of Kasch, Mockra and you, good sir? The whole shitfest started when I linked you 3 together, after all.

When did you link me with Mockra, and Kaschan, actually? I seem to remember that the only reason we were linked was because we were all posting at the same time.

My voting post, and its reasons, was #149.
I read back through it, and still think you were and are defending Kaschan. Mockra less so, but he's been cool and collected throughout.

or he was not so much defending me as he was calling your case bullshit.
Every time some one calls someone elses case rubbish then he is defending?...kill it with fire!!!...this cancer must surely have died by now?

[Atrahal]

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

As I said before, he's useful because he's loud. He makes noise, stomps around, gets reactions. He's like a bull in a shop filled with ninjas. Eventually, he's going to find one, so for the moment, he's convenient. And I'll defend him when the arguments against him consist of "He's an idiot and he's telling us how to play the game" and "LOOK, A LINK BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE."
And the vote? It's called pressure. I'm curious. You're trying to smack the ball back in my court, hard, which has my attention. You're claiming that I'm linked to Kaschan and focusing on that, instead of what I've said a couple of times, that he's loud and thus useful (at the very worst, he'll draw a night kill from his leader for being an idiot, which will still give some info).

Also, Ad Hominem.
I vote against you because I'm trying to see what your response is.
You claim I'm linked to Kaschan.
Therefore, my vote is clearly to defend Kaschan (which it won't anyway, being so obvious a defense that a five year old could see through it) instead of putting pressure on you.

Logical fallacy in action, gentlemen.

Bolded: because clearly, there have been better arguments. On day 1. In a faction game, where defending is sticking your neck out.
Underlined: nice can of wifom.

My response is pretty consistent: you have been, and continue to, defend Kaschan. Your motive does not really concern me, defending is always circumspect in faction games, and has to be explained by what is usually a bogus reason to avoid getting connected as a faction member.
You overlooked a couple of votes against me in eagerness to claim a connection/plan, which you then discarded again. all in all, you have been fairly vocal where you could easily have let things slide.

[Atrahal]

Kaschan, on 06 April 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:09 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 01:56 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

I don't know if he's not on my team, though I do think he is a bad influence if he is.
What I did notice was, when he first came on, how he spouted a crapload of shit, how he got voted for it, and how in the meantime Mockra and you did what I perceived as damage control, rather than let him go along with his antics.

You may call that bad reasoning, but I do notice how your choice for a vote was split between, oh wait... * drum roll * the two players who voted Kaschan first. It could be a coincidence. But look, you also attacked Silanah by saying he overreacted... and oh noes, he was the third to vote Kaschan.
Now, it may all be coincidence, but pardon me for stating that you do seem to be defending Kasch.

3 straight votes in a 3/4 team merc game suggests some kind of organisational structure. And I don't much care for Kaschan, I've mostly just been ignoring him, but he's loud and vocal, which acts as a good catalyst, so I don't want him dead yet. If he continues playing like this, it's not likely he'll be that hard to lynch later in the game. I'm more likely to vote on behalf of the guy who's provoked reactions than the people who are reacting. Even if he is an idiot.
As for my vote on Atrahal or Tellann, as I said, 3 votes suggests some organisational structure. I would be tempted to vote Tellann, as he's first, but it's unlikely he has a power-role, he was just throwing some pressure around, so in general, Atrahal, you would be the best vote possible., jumping on early, but not first.

Underlined one: Kasch's vote was in between. As was Mockra's (post 185). So, not three in a row. Incidentally, Kasch, you and Mockra were the 3 I had linked on beforehand. Seems I hit a nerve.
Underlined 2: very altruistic of you. Generous, even. Except that it has been consistently your point to say you don't care much for him, say he's an idiot, how the other players can profit, et cetera.
Underlined 3: so Tellan, me and Sil is apparently an organisation - then what do you make of Kasch, Mockra and you, good sir? The whole shitfest started when I linked you 3 together, after all.

When did you link me with Mockra, and Kaschan, actually? I seem to remember that the only reason we were linked was because we were all posting at the same time.

My voting post, and its reasons, was #149.
I read back through it, and still think you were and are defending Kaschan. Mockra less so, but he's been cool and collected throughout.

or he was not so much defending me as he was calling your case bullshit.
Every time some one calls someone elses case rubbish then he is defending?...kill it with fire!!!...this cancer must surely have died by now?

In a faction game? That is definately odd, yes.

[Serc]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 10:56 AM, said:

There has been plenty of discussion already of the 4th team being composed of 4 or 1 person, you're not the first to bring up the possibility of a 4-man 4th team. We're at it for the past 60 posts/12 hours or so. Consensus is however that 1 person is likelier than 4.

Then, we get Kaschan pushing for a 4 man possibility, Serc reacting to that, and Mockra being tired of discussing set-ups. Sounds like Serc is defending and Mockra giving hints to Kaschan to shut the fuck up. Now, since he may be leader material, he ain't mine, so:

vote Kaschan.


I'm away for an hour or 2.

Alright. So, my comment to Tellann was he was being quite aggressive, denying the existence of a fourth team, when we have no evidence either way. That's my reaction to Kaschan, apparently. Even though I'd said several times that I didn't see any point in discussing mechanics.
Mockra also gets tired of talking about game mechanics.

We're all clearly on the same team. Christ, why didn't I see this. All hail Kaschan, the Great Emperor, may he lead us into eternal glory. Well played, Atrahal, nothing gets past your eagle eyes.

[Mockra]

What I said about Atrahal's case towards Kaschan was that I failed to see how he would get to reeled up by upping the language and throwing a vote because he didn't agree with his suggestions about the game setting/balance.

Vote alone would have been OK, but the passion he put in there, which was quite provoquing, felt artificial. It came right after Tellan's vote (and he admits it was not a cross-post or something), which makes me think 1) Tellan is his leader and Atrahal is following him or 2) Atrahal wants us to secretly think it is the case.

[Mockra]

And for the record, I agree that 1) is unlikely as it would mean poor play, so I'm betting on 2.

[Kaschan]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

As I said before, he's useful because he's loud. He makes noise, stomps around, gets reactions. He's like a bull in a shop filled with ninjas. Eventually, he's going to find one, so for the moment, he's convenient. And I'll defend him when the arguments against him consist of "He's an idiot and he's telling us how to play the game" and "LOOK, A LINK BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE."
And the vote? It's called pressure. I'm curious. You're trying to smack the ball back in my court, hard, which has my attention. You're claiming that I'm linked to Kaschan and focusing on that, instead of what I've said a couple of times, that he's loud and thus useful (at the very worst, he'll draw a night kill from his leader for being an idiot, which will still give some info).

Also, Ad Hominem.
I vote against you because I'm trying to see what your response is.
You claim I'm linked to Kaschan.
Therefore, my vote is clearly to defend Kaschan (which it won't anyway, being so obvious a defense that a five year old could see through it) instead of putting pressure on you.

Logical fallacy in action, gentlemen.

Bolded: because clearly, there have been better arguments. On day 1. In a faction game, where defending is sticking your neck out.
Underlined: nice can of wifom.

My response is pretty consistent: you have been, and continue to, defend Kaschan. Your motive does not really concern me, defending is always circumspect in faction games, and has to be explained by what is usually a bogus reason to avoid getting connected as a faction member.
You overlooked a couple of votes against me in eagerness to claim a connection/plan, which you then discarded again. all in all, you have been fairly vocal where you could easily have let things slide.

Yes but If your case is nonesense DEFENDING does not mean AUTO SYMP.

[Atrahal]

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

What I said about Atrahal's case towards Kaschan was that I failed to see how he would get to reeled up by upping the language and throwing a vote because he didn't agree with his suggestions about the game setting/balance.

Vote alone would have been OK, but the passion he put in there, which was quite provoquing, felt artificial. It came right after Tellan's vote (and he admits it was not a cross-post or something), which makes me think 1) Tellan is his leader and Atrahal is following him or 2) Atrahal wants us to secretly think it is the case.

I already answered that the provocation was indeed artificial, and was intended to get a response. I found Kaschan very middle of the roadish, I wanted to get him off that course. The fact there already was a vote on him, made it easier. The squiggly blue line got riled up as I intended (sadly, he is now still riled up but combines it with smugness). Since then, Serc has been all over me 'because Kaschan is useful'. Apparently, we should ignore the idiots (his word, not mine) because once in a while, even someone who can't tie his shoelaces stumbles into a pile of gold.

[Kaschan]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:44 PM, said:

Kaschan, on 06 April 2010 - 02:38 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:20 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:09 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 01:56 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

I don't know if he's not on my team, though I do think he is a bad influence if he is.
What I did notice was, when he first came on, how he spouted a crapload of shit, how he got voted for it, and how in the meantime Mockra and you did what I perceived as damage control, rather than let him go along with his antics.

You may call that bad reasoning, but I do notice how your choice for a vote was split between, oh wait... * drum roll * the two players who voted Kaschan first. It could be a coincidence. But look, you also attacked Silanah by saying he overreacted... and oh noes, he was the third to vote Kaschan.
Now, it may all be coincidence, but pardon me for stating that you do seem to be defending Kasch.

3 straight votes in a 3/4 team merc game suggests some kind of organisational structure. And I don't much care for Kaschan, I've mostly just been ignoring him, but he's loud and vocal, which acts as a good catalyst, so I don't want him dead yet. If he continues playing like this, it's not likely he'll be that hard to lynch later in the game. I'm more likely to vote on behalf of the guy who's provoked reactions than the people who are reacting. Even if he is an idiot.
As for my vote on Atrahal or Tellann, as I said, 3 votes suggests some organisational structure. I would be tempted to vote Tellann, as he's first, but it's unlikely he has a power-role, he was just throwing some pressure around, so in general, Atrahal, you would be the best vote possible., jumping on early, but not first.

Underlined one: Kasch's vote was in between. As was Mockra's (post 185). So, not three in a row. Incidentally, Kasch, you and Mockra were the 3 I had linked on beforehand. Seems I hit a nerve.
Underlined 2: very altruistic of you. Generous, even. Except that it has been consistently your point to say you don't care much for him, say he's an idiot, how the other players can profit, et cetera.
Underlined 3: so Tellan, me and Sil is apparently an organisation - then what do you make of Kasch, Mockra and you, good sir? The whole shitfest started when I linked you 3 together, after all.

When did you link me with Mockra, and Kaschan, actually? I seem to remember that the only reason we were linked was because we were all posting at the same time.

My voting post, and its reasons, was #149.
I read back through it, and still think you were and are defending Kaschan. Mockra less so, but he's been cool and collected throughout.

or he was not so much defending me as he was calling your case bullshit.
Every time some one calls someone elses case rubbish then he is defending?...kill it with fire!!!...this cancer must surely have died by now?

In a faction game? That is definately odd, yes.

In a faction game even more so.
If you are voting for stupid reasons how does anyone know its not because of something else?
In a normal game you could be just going by gut but you cant in a faction game i might be on your side FFS!!!

You are acting like you KNOW i am not on your side...dont you get it?
How would you know that?

[Mockra]

By the way, we currently have 9 players with less than 10 pots who are in for a wonderful evening of quality reading.

[Serc]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

As I said before, he's useful because he's loud. He makes noise, stomps around, gets reactions. He's like a bull in a shop filled with ninjas. Eventually, he's going to find one, so for the moment, he's convenient. And I'll defend him when the arguments against him consist of "He's an idiot and he's telling us how to play the game" and "LOOK, A LINK BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE."
And the vote? It's called pressure. I'm curious. You're trying to smack the ball back in my court, hard, which has my attention. You're claiming that I'm linked to Kaschan and focusing on that, instead of what I've said a couple of times, that he's loud and thus useful (at the very worst, he'll draw a night kill from his leader for being an idiot, which will still give some info).

Also, Ad Hominem.
I vote against you because I'm trying to see what your response is.
You claim I'm linked to Kaschan.
Therefore, my vote is clearly to defend Kaschan (which it won't anyway, being so obvious a defense that a five year old could see through it) instead of putting pressure on you.

Logical fallacy in action, gentlemen.

Bolded: because clearly, there have been better arguments. On day 1. In a faction game, where defending is sticking your neck out.
Underlined: nice can of wifom.

My response is pretty consistent: you have been, and continue to, defend Kaschan. Your motive does not really concern me, defending is always circumspect in faction games, and has to be explained by what is usually a bogus reason to avoid getting connected as a faction member.
You overlooked a couple of votes against me in eagerness to claim a connection/plan, which you then discarded again. all in all, you have been fairly vocal where you could easily have let things slide.

Actually, I quoted your argument about the link between us three earlier. There actually were better arguments, including three votes on Kaschan. One dropped by someone who has then disappeared.
Also, yes. Yes it was. I'm quite proud of it.
Your response has been consistent. I haven't attacked Kaschan, and I've defended him from you. I don't know if he's on my team or not, but hell, even if you're both on my team, I'd prefer to vote for someone who's on the attack blindly, than someone who's vocal, albeit stupidly so.
And yes, I have been quite vocal, but the game would get boring if I allowed you to take the reins and lynch Kaschan without any opposition. Something I've learnt from previous games, sitting back and following someone is a very, very foolish thing to do.

[Kaschan]

I actually take offense to you people calling my play stupid.

not my fault you're too lower grade to see my logic is flawless

[Mockra]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

What I said about Atrahal's case towards Kaschan was that I failed to see how he would get to reeled up by upping the language and throwing a vote because he didn't agree with his suggestions about the game setting/balance.

Vote alone would have been OK, but the passion he put in there, which was quite provoquing, felt artificial. It came right after Tellan's vote (and he admits it was not a cross-post or something), which makes me think 1) Tellan is his leader and Atrahal is following him or 2) Atrahal wants us to secretly think it is the case.

I already answered that the provocation was indeed artificial, and was intended to get a response.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for "artificial". I hear you when you explain why is was so, but still, that came after my bite

It's the same radar which is currently pinging for Kaschan's verbosity about his (imaginary?) leader.

[Atrahal]

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:52 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

As I said before, he's useful because he's loud. He makes noise, stomps around, gets reactions. He's like a bull in a shop filled with ninjas. Eventually, he's going to find one, so for the moment, he's convenient. And I'll defend him when the arguments against him consist of "He's an idiot and he's telling us how to play the game" and "LOOK, A LINK BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE."
And the vote? It's called pressure. I'm curious. You're trying to smack the ball back in my court, hard, which has my attention. You're claiming that I'm linked to Kaschan and focusing on that, instead of what I've said a couple of times, that he's loud and thus useful (at the very worst, he'll draw a night kill from his leader for being an idiot, which will still give some info).

Also, Ad Hominem.
I vote against you because I'm trying to see what your response is.
You claim I'm linked to Kaschan.
Therefore, my vote is clearly to defend Kaschan (which it won't anyway, being so obvious a defense that a five year old could see through it) instead of putting pressure on you.

Logical fallacy in action, gentlemen.

Bolded: because clearly, there have been better arguments. On day 1. In a faction game, where defending is sticking your neck out.
Underlined: nice can of wifom.

My response is pretty consistent: you have been, and continue to, defend Kaschan. Your motive does not really concern me, defending is always circumspect in faction games, and has to be explained by what is usually a bogus reason to avoid getting connected as a faction member.
You overlooked a couple of votes against me in eagerness to claim a connection/plan, which you then discarded again. all in all, you have been fairly vocal where you could easily have let things slide.

Actually, I quoted your argument about the link between us three earlier. There actually were better arguments, including three votes on Kaschan. One dropped by someone who has then disappeared.
Also, yes. Yes it was. I'm quite proud of it.
Your response has been consistent. I haven't attacked Kaschan, and I've defended him from you. I don't know if he's on my team or not, but hell, even if you're both on my team, I'd prefer to vote for someone who's on the attack blindly, than someone who's vocal, albeit stupidly so.
And yes, I have been quite vocal, but the game would get boring if I allowed you to take the reins and lynch Kaschan without any opposition. Something I've learnt from previous games, sitting back and following someone is a very, very foolish thing to do.

And if no-one attacks (and all day 1 attacks are in essence blind, apart from the odd drunk reveal), no responses are gained, we might as well vote for night.

[Atrahal]

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 02:54 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 02:46 PM, said:

What I said about Atrahal's case towards Kaschan was that I failed to see how he would get to reeled up by upping the language and throwing a vote because he didn't agree with his suggestions about the game setting/balance.

Vote alone would have been OK, but the passion he put in there, which was quite provoquing, felt artificial. It came right after Tellan's vote (and he admits it was not a cross-post or something), which makes me think 1) Tellan is his leader and Atrahal is following him or 2) Atrahal wants us to secretly think it is the case.

I already answered that the provocation was indeed artificial, and was intended to get a response.

Yeah, I'm a sucker for "artificial". I hear you when you explain why is was so, but still, that came after my bite

It's the same radar which is currently pinging for Kaschan's verbosity about his (imaginary?) leader.

As I said, I already explained it once before. Don't know if that was before or after your vote, could look back, but work is over (though not done, thanks Mafia), and I can go home. Out for the next couple of hours, all yours again after that and the Champions League.

[Serc]

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 03:02 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:52 PM, said:

Atrahal, on 06 April 2010 - 02:43 PM, said:

Serc, on 06 April 2010 - 02:34 PM, said:

As I said before, he's useful because he's loud. He makes noise, stomps around, gets reactions. He's like a bull in a shop filled with ninjas. Eventually, he's going to find one, so for the moment, he's convenient. And I'll defend him when the arguments against him consist of "He's an idiot and he's telling us how to play the game" and "LOOK, A LINK BETWEEN THREE PEOPLE."
And the vote? It's called pressure. I'm curious. You're trying to smack the ball back in my court, hard, which has my attention. You're claiming that I'm linked to Kaschan and focusing on that, instead of what I've said a couple of times, that he's loud and thus useful (at the very worst, he'll draw a night kill from his leader for being an idiot, which will still give some info).

Also, Ad Hominem.
I vote against you because I'm trying to see what your response is.
You claim I'm linked to Kaschan.
Therefore, my vote is clearly to defend Kaschan (which it won't anyway, being so obvious a defense that a five year old could see through it) instead of putting pressure on you.

Logical fallacy in action, gentlemen.

Bolded: because clearly, there have been better arguments. On day 1. In a faction game, where defending is sticking your neck out.
Underlined: nice can of wifom.

My response is pretty consistent: you have been, and continue to, defend Kaschan. Your motive does not really concern me, defending is always circumspect in faction games, and has to be explained by what is usually a bogus reason to avoid getting connected as a faction member.
You overlooked a couple of votes against me in eagerness to claim a connection/plan, which you then discarded again. all in all, you have been fairly vocal where you could easily have let things slide.

Actually, I quoted your argument about the link between us three earlier. There actually were better arguments, including three votes on Kaschan. One dropped by someone who has then disappeared.
Also, yes. Yes it was. I'm quite proud of it.
Your response has been consistent. I haven't attacked Kaschan, and I've defended him from you. I don't know if he's on my team or not, but hell, even if you're both on my team, I'd prefer to vote for someone who's on the attack blindly, than someone who's vocal, albeit stupidly so.
And yes, I have been quite vocal, but the game would get boring if I allowed you to take the reins and lynch Kaschan without any opposition. Something I've learnt from previous games, sitting back and following someone is a very, very foolish thing to do.

And if no-one attacks (and all day 1 attacks are in essence blind, apart from the odd drunk reveal), no responses are gained, we might as well vote for night.

Mostly we vote for the wrong person, anyway.

[Telas]

Jesus, looks like I've got some reading to do.

[Kaschan]

well...i have to go.
Champ league is coming up and supper needs to made.

cheers

[Telas]

Well, I find the vote on Kas by Silanah to be quite iffy. Doesn't contribute anything really, just jumps right on in with a vote that essentially amounts to 'don't like Kas' speculation. Mockra and him stink', and there's little followup. The Mockra-Kas thing has also been loudly touted by Atrahal since, with Serc in there as well.

Still going.

[Ampelas]

Right, first things first... @PS, I think you have me and Kalse mixed up here, because I don't think I've voted for anyone yet.

Path-Shaper, on 06 April 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

It's day 1.

roughly 15 hours and 10 min left in the day.

16 players remain alive: Sorrit, Atrahal, Alkend, Kalse, Silanah, Korlat, Ampelas, Rashan, Tennes, Tellan, Telas, Serc, Mockra, Liosan, kaschan, Galain

9 votes to lynch
8 vote to night

1 vote for Kalse (Ampelas)
1 Votes Rashan (Galain)
2 Vote for Kaschan (Tellan,Atrahal,Silanah)
3 Vote for Atrahal (Kaschan, Mockra, Serc)


8 players have not voted: Sorrit, Alkend, Kalse, Korlat, Tennes, Telas ,Liosan,Rashan

Right.

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

By the way, we currently have 9 players with less than 10 pots who are in for a wonderful evening of quality reading.

Urf. You have no idea.

It seems to me from reading up the past few pages is that there is (or at least there seems to be) a connection between Sil and Atrahal, and one between Serc and Kaschan.

Sil came on and was very quick to vote for Kaschan. Since then, he initially tried to keep it all jovial, with posts like the following:

Silanah, on 06 April 2010 - 01:47 PM, said:

Kaschan, on 06 April 2010 - 01:46 PM, said:

the third post came AFTER another one...how do you explain that shit?

paranormal activity?


further proof ypou're EVIL

Since then, things have got a bit more serious but Sil keeps his vote on Kaschan. I am inclined to think Sil and Atrahal are on the same team slightly more than Serc with Kaschan, since Serc's link to Kaschan seems to come later on, and is put out there basically because he's voting for someone else. Having said that, it doesn't mean that Kas and Serc are NOT on the same team. I'm just getting less of that vibe.

I propose that if Sil/Atrahal/Kaschan/Serc are all really unsure whether the other person is on their side, they should switch their votes. After all, who the fuck knows? That would be interesting, though I doubt it would happen.

vote Atrahal

for now, because I think Sil was quick to the mark with the Kas vote.

Lastly, about what a leader-vote means...

Kaschan, on 06 April 2010 - 11:59 AM, said:

Mockra, on 06 April 2010 - 11:41 AM, said:

Kaschan, on 06 April 2010 - 11:32 AM, said:

You are making out as if the guys playing this game are useless idiots who would give their boss away at the first chance.
But they ARE going to open their eyes more if there leader is making a case and you would be daft to ignore that.
So be my guest.

Although you are not directly responding to me in your last few posts, I would like to come back and remind (yourself included) that your original comment was "i expect allot of people jumping onto trains for weak reasons following their leaders. ", and that is what I reacted to.

Your recent posts say more or less what I was throwing at you originally and got you all reeled up.

you took what i said the wrong way.
Or rather i just what i meant incorrectly in my haste....maybe a bit of both. although i suppose i am to blame.

The reason I even brought it up was BECAUSE it will not be obvious vote piling. I was saying it to bring attention to it.
I expect people will see their leaders vote or make a case, and do SOMETHING about it. As its great intel.
Not jump blindly/immediately onto the train FFS!
I didnt mean it to say they would be obvious when they do it.
Thats an insult to the mafia we play here, i am taking it for granted that you would understand that. But clearly not...
The leaders have all the info we need...so when they vote i am expecting... something...as the team are looking at the leader for guidance.
Thats it in a nutshell...Not that difficult to understand, simple concept.

Tennes, on 06 April 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

Lot of good discussion! I think some people are missing the obvious pieces, however.

A leader has few, if any, reasons to early vote in a day. If they vote early, all they're doing is risking outing themselves if some careless faction mates jump on the train. It's a lot more likely, IMO, that a leader will slide onto a train late in the day. If its one of their own members in trouble, the leader may try to pick an alternate train, but even if not, it's still better to quietly lynch your own brood than to risk outing yourself.

Leaders may also vote to signal their faction members where to direct any NAs.

I would also like to point out that the really big thing to keep an eye on is if a train is building up, then someone comes on and posts for someone else and it derails. This could be people going "shit, my leader doesn't want to vote for this guy, he must be on my team... better vote someone else instead"