[Sorrit]

oops
I just thought Kessoh was HP again.

So if i got a bit stroppy i suppose i am sorry, i thought HP was...erm....like repeating himself and trying to start some kind of argument.

but i stand by my entire post regardless.

[Kessobahn]

Sorrit, on 18 August 2010 - 09:43 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on 18 August 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

I dislike people explaining things so much with out a real pressure, sorrit. Its kinda stinks of an egomanical sociopath needing attention or recognition for what they feel is a moment of genius. The fact that you are conducting your play with such machavelian style indicates a hidden motive.

Ughhh.....should i, or should i not explain myself when quite a few people were clearly confused by my actions?
You want me to keep being cryptic?
You are now damning me no matter what i do. And i dont like where you are heading with this. Use your head man.
If i explain, im an "egomaniac with a hidden agenda", if i shut up...then what?...i am scum?
Fuck offffff.

Kessobahn, on 18 August 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

You say its not a trap, but when atrahal responded you did say "atrahal did bite" which implies it was a trap or at least a hook.

no....i said i was going home...and i was disappointed that i didnt get much of reaction on thread from my post, except atrahal who "bit"
But not by much. Only after that did Atrahal go into more depth and made an even bigger post, clearly not grasping what i had tried to do.

My reference to "byte" was not to trap any particular person but to hook the entire thread into ACTION!
Now get off your high fucking horse....and either vote for me or fuck off , seriously your going to just piss me off and start a needles pissing match.
I HAVE explained myself now get over it.
Either you fucking believe me, or you dont. I am not going to waste my time arguing a point wich i can not prove one way or the other.
We are going to end up repeating the same things over and over!

Kessobahn, on 18 August 2010 - 09:26 AM, said:

It is still day 1, and over explanation this early is not something i would expect from an inno. In fact your long post to hp almost reads like gloating, and indicating your own play as wifom is also just another tactic you seem intent on employing to muddle the waters.

THEN VOTE FOR ME!!

I was explaining because there was some confusion as to why i did what i did, even after i flet i made it pretty clear what i was doing.
I assumed my "bite" statement would be enough to show the thread that i was merely trying to get things going and make people talk.
Obviously i was asking too much of you lot.

You lot? Please, stop throwy hissy fits everytime someone questions you or your throwaway comments about being a symp will be more than just a suspicion.

[Kessobahn]

Sorrit, on 18 August 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

oops
I just thought Kessoh was HP again.

So if i got a bit stroppy i suppose i am sorry, i thought HP was...erm....like repeating himself and trying to start some kind of argument.

but i stand by my entire post regardless.

I quite enjoyed the attention to be honest

[Atrahal]

Am here, reading up.

[Sorrit]

well....as much as i like all the attention, i am inno.
And as an inno would not be doing the game any justice by just sitting back and doing nothing.

Im trying my damnedest to get the game going but now i think that i am maybe becoming more of a distraction.
Atrahal is here and im sure we are going to see soem bricks being shat shortly.

You guys really do make such big issues out of non issues lately dont you...sheesh

[Atrahal]

Ok, on Sorrits defence. I think it's crap.

Firstly, it's pretty OMGUS.

Sorrit did something blatantly scummy(symp clue). According to him, this was to get a reaction, to find scum. This defence has been used before, and it just doesn't add up. If you do something scummy in order to get a reaction, and someone reacts, how can you use that as evidence that they are scum? If you do something deliberately scummy, you are going to provoke a reaction. However, there is no reason it would be scum.

You say you were trying to liven up the thread, and that you knew you would draw heat. Firstly, I fail to see how knowing you would draw heat is meant to make it look lesss scummy. Just makes it looks like you knew what you were doing looked bad, and did it anyhow-making it look like you've got an ulterior motive for wanting to do it anyway. I cannot see how I am meant to somehow be "trapped" here. Because I voted for someone who was looking scummy(on purpose, apparently). That is what the game is about. I saw something that looked scummy. So I voted for it.

The defence that it was deliberate makes no sense.
Why would only scum vote something that you say you did deliberately to look scummy?
There was very little else on the thread at the time. It looked, and still looks, like a deliberate symp clue. Your reasoning for why only scum would vote it, is that innos would think more, and see that actually it isn't scummy. Apparently only a gung-ho scum would actually vote on something lthat is scummy.

Essentially the defence relies on claiming that it was deliberately scummy, and that no inno would vote it(even though it is deliberate).

After that, i'm definetely happy with my vote.

[Atrahal]

Sorrit, on 18 August 2010 - 09:54 AM, said:

well....as much as i like all the attention, i am inno.
And as an inno would not be doing the game any justice by just sitting back and doing nothing.

Im trying my damnedest to get the game going but now i think that i am maybe becoming more of a distraction.
Atrahal is here and im sure we are going to see soem bricks being shat shortly.

You guys really do make such big issues out of non issues lately dont you...sheesh

Yeah, we've never jumped on anyonefor symp clues before have we

[Kessobahn]

To be fair sorrit, i have no problem with people putting second votes on players. the game is about voting after all and committing to a lynch when you have a suspicion is the best way to play. Announcing on thread that your vote was not really because you found someone scummy but just to get a reaction is fairly calculated on both sides of the equation. firstly you are putting someone on a course for lynching just to see who reacts and secondly you let everyone know as a reaction to questions about the vote that it was a ploy instead of giving any valid reason (which given the time of the vote would be near impossible).

[Atrahal]

The claim it was to get the game going is stupid too, imo, since it is fairly obvious that getting the game going at the expense of looking like scum, is most likely going to lead to a wasted day.

Similarly with getting reactions.

[Sorrit]

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:01 AM, said:

Ok, on Sorrits defence. I think it's crap.

Firstly, it's pretty OMGUS.

Sorrit did something blatantly scummy(symp clue). According to him, this was to get a reaction, to find scum. This defence has been used before, and it just doesn't add up. If you do something scummy in order to get a reaction, and someone reacts, how can you use that as evidence that they are scum? If you do something deliberately scummy, you are going to provoke a reaction. However, there is no reason it would be scum.

See ive explained this many times now.

FIRSLTY....i was trying to get the game going.....trying to get Anything going because nothing was happening. Even if it was me who was getting talked about.
SECONDLY... i have explained that i feel, that scum and inno will react differently to what i did. I HAEV EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY!!
Yes!.... inno's will react and yes scum will react. But i think that fundamentally they will react differently. And thats what i wanted to look out for.
You clearly did not bother reading my explanation properly either. And i refuse to repeat myself.

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:01 AM, said:

You say you were trying to liven up the thread, and that you knew you would draw heat. Firstly, I fail to see how knowing you would draw heat is meant to make it look lesss scummy. Just makes it looks like you knew what you were doing looked bad, and did it anyhow-making it look like you've got an ulterior motive for wanting to do it anyway. I cannot see how I am meant to somehow be "trapped" here. Because I voted for someone who was looking scummy(on purpose, apparently). That is what the game is about. I saw something that looked scummy. So I voted for it.

As i have explained....i was not trying to TRAP anyone specific FFS.
I was baiting the entire thread, and then i wanted to assess what was said, assess who i think could be inno and who seems scummy.
Excuse me for trying to find scum. Or should i rather jump on any old silly thing people do on day one like you did!
I mean really!...

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:01 AM, said:

The defence that it was deliberate makes no sense.
Why would only scum vote something that you say you did deliberately to look scummy?
There was very little else on the thread at the time. It looked, and still looks, like a deliberate symp clue. Your reasoning for why only scum would vote it, is that innos would think more, and see that actually it isn't scummy. Apparently only a gung-ho scum would actually vote on something lthat is scummy.

Essentially the defence relies on claiming that it was deliberately scummy, and that no inno would vote it(even though it is deliberate).

After that, i'm definetely happy with my vote.

You are all making it out to be MUCH more elaborate than what it really was.
I was not looking for any definite answers.
I was looking for a place to start. Nothign much happened except for you picking up on it, and i gave up the goat then and there before i left for the day.
Then only after did it start getting interesting.
You made the case bigger and started pushing, some others found it interesting. and yet others though it was silly.
THAT was where i feel the info came in. You were more than looking like you were pushing for an easy lynch. thats when i felt a proper explanantion was due.

[Sorrit]

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:17 AM, said:

The claim it was to get the game going is stupid too, imo, since it is fairly obvious that getting the game going at the expense of looking like scum, is most likely going to lead to a wasted day.

Similarly with getting reactions.

Im so terribky sorry for being pro active and getting people to stop talking about dragon sex....i really am sorry about that.
Yes its silly of an inno to try and actively look for scum rather then to sit back and wait till someone says somthing stoooopid and lynch them....ohh noooes i have ruined day one for everyone!!!



You have to look at it from my point of view.




I am sitting on day one....I see nothing happening on thread.
I decide to DO something, something a little "off" and see what happens.

Nothing much happens (besides you having a slight baby, bit dissapointing) and I say as much, explain myself (to a degree) and leave.

After I leave people only THEN start making a fuss and the next day I feel I have some info for the thread and some things to say,
But first I must explain myself properly to get my end point across.

Instead of people understanding, or at least trying to. I get criticized for over explanation? and Egomania FFS!!

Then I get pissed off and try and explain further since it seems no one understands and the whole thing starts spiraling out of control....the more i explain the more i get berated for explaining too much.

but what else can i do but try and explain since you all dont seem to understand?

Its crazy!!






edit - aded a missing word for clarity

This post has been edited by Sorrit: 18 August 2010 - 10:24 AM

[Galain]

I agree with atrahal, I really don't like Sorrit's defense. An inno wouldn't point out something that is obviously scummy, because they know a scum wouldn't play like that, therefore atrahal must be scum looking for an easy lynch? The logic behind that reasoning seems very backwards. Added to the huge protestation, something definitely doesn't seem right.

I'd be very happy to switch my vote back onto Sorrit for a lynch, but I'm going to keep it where it is for now. Sorrit is playing like a classic symp at this point, so lynching him isn't going to give us as much info as we would like. The only person he could be symping is me, since I know I am innocent I'm not sure what has agenda is.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 1, 7 hours and 43 minutes remain.


12 players are left alive. Anomandaris, Atrahal, D'riss, Emurlahnis, Galain, Hood's Path, Kessobahn,
Okaros, Olar Ethil, Silchas Ruin, Sorrit, Tulas Shorn


1 vote Atrahal: Hood's Path
1 vote Hood's Path: Sorrit
1 vote Silchas Ruin: Anomandaris
2 votes Galain: Atrahal, D'riss
1 vote Olar Ethil: Emurlahnis
2 votes D'riss: Olar Ethil, Galain


Players not voted: Kessobahn, Okaros, Silchas Ruin, Tulas Shorn

[Sorrit]

I got work to do

will check in periodiclaly.


Also....Atrahal
You dont have anything to say about the D'riss case?....blinkers on much?

[Atrahal]

The idea that you could be able to tell the difference between scum and innos judging on the reactions to one event is ludicrous. Different players play differently. Sometimes we get scum who are loud. More often, we get scum who are cautious. And yet, somehow, for jumping on something deliberately scummy, I am scum.

Fishing for reactions by doing something scummy just doesn't work.

As for trying to get the game going, making yourself look scummy is a bad way of going about this.

And yet apparently, when I push something that is scummy(rather common in mafia. Also actually get's the game going, funnily), this is somehow something innos wouldn't do.

There is no reason an inno would not push a symp clue.

It is hardly a "silly little thing".

Trying to find scum by looking like scum makes no sense. It just doesn't work. Because there is no reason an inno wouldn't react to that.

[Sorrit]

Galain, on 18 August 2010 - 10:22 AM, said:

I agree with atrahal, I really don't like Sorrit's defense. An inno wouldn't point out something that is obviously scummy, because they know a scum wouldn't play like that, therefore atrahal must be scum looking for an easy lynch? The logic behind that reasoning seems very backwards. Added to the huge protestation, something definitely doesn't seem right.

I'd be very happy to switch my vote back onto Sorrit for a lynch, but I'm going to keep it where it is for now. Sorrit is playing like a classic symp at this point, so lynching him isn't going to give us as much info as we would like. The only person he could be symping is me, since I know I am innocent I'm not sure what has agenda is.

So much for thinking outside of the box


are you scared of being named as my master?

Hmmm....interesting.

[Atrahal]

The D'riss case is basically that he has looked like he is deliberately trying to be inconspicious, not contributing much just restating and agreeing. It's not bad, and certainly worth bearing in mind.

Though how can you see that as scummy?

I thought the scummy ones were the ones who actually pushed things they thought were scummy?

Oh wait, I was apparently pushing an easy lynch too.

I would also like to make the point that the "easy lycnhes" are easy because they are the people who look scummiest. I really don't get how you can surmise someones scumminess from how willing they are to vote someone who looks like scum-that's individual playstyle...

To me, your defence just seems like a bunch weak excuses that don't add up, because you've been called on a symp clue, and there's not really any justification for dropping one.

[Atrahal]

Also, on D'riss, he's hardly the only one being inconspicious. It does look a bit forced though. I wouldn't normally mind voting it, but I prefer my vote where it is.

[Sorrit]

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

The idea that you could be able to tell the difference between scum and innos judging on the reactions to one event is ludicrous. Different players play differently. Sometimes we get scum who are loud. More often, we get scum who are cautious. And yet, somehow, for jumping on something deliberately scummy, I am scum.

No....i never said i could tell the difference for sure, but it does give me information... much more info than when i see someone else make a case on yet another third unknown individual
I can try and see if i can suss any given person out much better if that person is talking about and too myself. be it through pissing match or any other argument. I know i am inno and can make much better judgement because of that fact.
You get a much better read on people when YOU dictate proceedings than when they say what they want only when THEY want.
I have been playing this game long enough to know that sitting back and not doing anything and only reacting to others statements yields allot less resutls than MAKING something happening and forcing people out of their comfort zones.

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

Fishing for reactions by doing something scummy just doesn't work.

As for trying to get the game going, making yourself look scummy is a bad way of going about this.

No....i find it works rather well, especially on making people who would not normally talk....talk.
And this is all a matter of personal preference in how to play the game anyways.....so whats your point?

Was what i did really THAT scummy?...no....but your seemed to REALLY go for it.
More so than anybody else...and i find that interesting. Im not sure if you are scum...but TO ME. You stuck out more so than anyone else.
Its somewhere to start is it not?.

Atrahal, on 18 August 2010 - 10:26 AM, said:

And yet apparently, when I push something that is scummy(rather common in mafia. Also actually get's the game going, funnily), this is somehow something innos wouldn't do.

There is no reason an inno would not push a symp clue.

It is hardly a "silly little thing".

Trying to find scum by looking like scum makes no sense. It just doesn't work. Because there is no reason an inno wouldn't react to that.

Well then why did not 3/4 of the thread react as badly than what you did?
Is that not something to consider?
It all boils down to you really believing that i was symping galain, and then stating on thread while i was doing the symping that is exactly what o was doing.

That is what you really think.....ok....but then that is the argument then isnt it. ...wich is WIFOM is it not.


So i made all of this other stuff up to cover my ass....ok....you really believe that?.
Or were you really looking for an easy lynch?

[Galain]

Sorrit, on 18 August 2010 - 10:28 AM, said:

Galain, on 18 August 2010 - 10:22 AM, said:

I agree with atrahal, I really don't like Sorrit's defense. An inno wouldn't point out something that is obviously scummy, because they know a scum wouldn't play like that, therefore atrahal must be scum looking for an easy lynch? The logic behind that reasoning seems very backwards. Added to the huge protestation, something definitely doesn't seem right.

I'd be very happy to switch my vote back onto Sorrit for a lynch, but I'm going to keep it where it is for now. Sorrit is playing like a classic symp at this point, so lynching him isn't going to give us as much info as we would like. The only person he could be symping is me, since I know I am innocent I'm not sure what has agenda is.

So much for thinking outside of the box


are you scared of being named as my master?

Hmmm....interesting.

Not scared, more like irritated. Getting lynched day one because I did something stupid I can handle. Getting lynched because someone fake symped me is annoying. A snarky little comment like that makes me more convinced that you are just trying to cause as much shit as possible.