[Galain]

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

i fail to see this kind of logic. Basing a possible d-day scenario on hoping we hit a symp is frankly suicidal. Posting that you think a player is scum but deciding we should go for a random instead is just such an odd leap in logic it just has to be crap.

vote atrahal

You dont want to lynch galain because he may be scum, you could be a symp for galain or someone else. hell you could be the killer and know galain is inno and are making your play. either way that post was bonkers.

Wow, I disagree with this on so many levels. Atrahal didn't say he thinks I am guilty, therefore we must lynch someone else. He said that IF I am guilty then the chances are pretty much definite that it is not in fact D-day. So given the fact that if I am scum there is leeway to vote wrong; but if I am not there isn't, the smartest thing to do is check out some other options rather than gamble everything on me being guilty a day earlier than we need to.

[Hood's Path]

You mean in the whopping 25 minutes between his post and yours, I didn't refresh? LE GASPZOR.

[Hood's Path]

@Galain - actually, Atrahal said he does think you're likely to be scum. Jus' sayin'.

[Sorrit]

Im actually getting more and more convinced that HP and kessoh are paired.

He berates ME for voting early....but kessoh did it half an hour earlier and HP says nothing. Only coming out in protest once i voted Kessoh.
I dont think those two have said a bad word about each other all game....at least nothing serious.

[Sorrit]

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:10 AM, said:

You mean in the whopping 25 minutes between his post and yours, I didn't refresh? LE GASPZOR.

yes 26 min is a long time.

and you STILL replied to my post and not his wich was first....you would have read his first.
I call bullshit SIR!

[Hood's Path]

See above. Unless you have nothing else to do with your life, ever.

Also, your other post I already pointed out why that would be a kinda 'meh' reason not to think that Atrahal is sounding very sympish right now.

[Hood's Path]

Sorrit, I do not post immediately after I read another post. I read the thread to the end, then respond. Hence, your return-vote of Kessoh struck me as rather hypocritical, while Kessoh's own vote (which I mentioned in the same post) was a bit strange itself. Or do you just refresh, see a post, respond to it and then read? Dude, you must end up repeating other people a LOT.

[Sorrit]

your post was 1 minute after mine!!.....and your last post was 40 min earlier.
Is it not within the realm off possibility that you were on the whole time or at leaset periodically and only posted once you saw my post and conveniently ignored/missed kessoh's....hell yes!!

sorry....thats just what the evidence shows to me.

[Galain]

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

I think you've survived two days of attempted lynchings, Galain.

Besides, I specifically stated I don't disagree with his logic, just that his post is absolutely screaming symp to me, which is unfortunate given its contents.

I've survived one really weak day one case, and been the subject of much discussion thereafter.

I said before that atrahal only looks like my symp if you ignore the context of pretty much everything else that has happened so far this game. Why are you so eager to keep pressure on me, especially if you agree with atrahal's logic?

We spent much time rubishing cases because a symp would be stupid to do this/that so early. On the other hand, when the possibility that a symp has actually done a good job of derailing trains and playing smooth, it means it's unlikely also?
I'm eager to keep options open and not rule you out on one other player's say-so. I agreed with his logic, THEN he posted that ridiculous post. So while the former point makes me inclined to agree with him (and hey, look! I didn't vote for you!) the latter makes me go 'oh fucking hell, that just makes me doubt myself', hence me pointing such out on thread.

What 'THEN'? There is only one post of atrahal's under discussion here. No-one has said that I should be given a free pass for the rest of the game, or that it is unlikely SR was my symp if I was guilty. Atrahal laid out some logic, the product of which is that today, and only today I am a bad choice. You then come along and say you agree with the logic, but not the conclusion drawn from said logic?

[Hood's Path]

1. That's meta.
2. That's why we go invis.
3. Yeah, I refreshed the thread and responded to your post + kessoh's post after I ate my dinner...uhm...?

[Sorrit]

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 08:09 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

i fail to see this kind of logic. Basing a possible d-day scenario on hoping we hit a symp is frankly suicidal. Posting that you think a player is scum but deciding we should go for a random instead is just such an odd leap in logic it just has to be crap.

vote atrahal

You dont want to lynch galain because he may be scum, you could be a symp for galain or someone else. hell you could be the killer and know galain is inno and are making your play. either way that post was bonkers.

Wow, I disagree with this on so many levels. Atrahal didn't say he thinks I am guilty, therefore we must lynch someone else. He said that IF I am guilty then the chances are pretty much definite that it is not in fact D-day. So given the fact that if I am scum there is leeway to vote wrong; but if I am not there isn't, the smartest thing to do is check out some other options rather than gamble everything on me being guilty a day earlier than we need to.

Its kessoh again bending his own logic to see what he wants to see to make his story stick.

[Hood's Path]

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 08:21 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

I think you've survived two days of attempted lynchings, Galain.

Besides, I specifically stated I don't disagree with his logic, just that his post is absolutely screaming symp to me, which is unfortunate given its contents.

I've survived one really weak day one case, and been the subject of much discussion thereafter.

I said before that atrahal only looks like my symp if you ignore the context of pretty much everything else that has happened so far this game. Why are you so eager to keep pressure on me, especially if you agree with atrahal's logic?

We spent much time rubishing cases because a symp would be stupid to do this/that so early. On the other hand, when the possibility that a symp has actually done a good job of derailing trains and playing smooth, it means it's unlikely also?
I'm eager to keep options open and not rule you out on one other player's say-so. I agreed with his logic, THEN he posted that ridiculous post. So while the former point makes me inclined to agree with him (and hey, look! I didn't vote for you!) the latter makes me go 'oh fucking hell, that just makes me doubt myself', hence me pointing such out on thread.

What 'THEN'? There is only one post of atrahal's under discussion here. No-one has said that I should be given a free pass for the rest of the game, or that it is unlikely SR was my symp if I was guilty. Atrahal laid out some logic, the product of which is that today, and only today I am a bad choice. You then come along and say you agree with the logic, but not the conclusion drawn from said logic?

If you read my posts: I was thinking along the lines of Atrahal's logic. Then I read his post (that's the 'THEN' btw, perhaps you are not privvy to my substitution of 'posted' for 'I read') and that made me think twice about the logic because of how terrible that post reads.

[Kessobahn]

Sorrit, on 23 August 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

i fail to see this kind of logic. Basing a possible d-day scenario on hoping we hit a symp is frankly suicidal. Posting that you think a player is scum but deciding we should go for a random instead is just such an odd leap in logic it just has to be crap.

vote atrahal

You dont want to lynch galain because he may be scum, you could be a symp for galain or someone else. hell you could be the killer and know galain is inno and are making your play. either way that post was bonkers.

Vote Kessoh

you know its D-Day potentially right?
your not even hesitating with dropping a vote? 2 wrong votes and the scum pile on!!

For the FIRST time this game i find Atrahals logic sound. AND THEN you decide its not good play?

Being dday was kinda the point mate. We have a player saying galain is scum and then deciding we should vote someone at random because they believe that sr was a symp. Why hesitate to drop a vote? You need five to get a lynch and i doubt i would have a bunch of people jump on straight away. I am long since beyond agreeing on anything with you.

As a valid second stretegy we could go to night. We lose one player then face a situation with possibly 3 of seven being guilty instead of 3 of eight.

[Galain]

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:11 AM, said:

@Galain - actually, Atrahal said he does think you're likely to be scum. Jus' sayin'.

That's not the point. Kesso paraphrased atrahal in a way that indicated atrahal was contradicting himself. The best choice is to investigate other people despite his personal opinion of my guilt because he realizes that there is a chance I am innocent. Which is different to saying we should investigate someone else because I am guilty, which is how I read what Kesso said. Speaking of Kesso, who would drop a bombshell like that early on a possible D-day and then not stick around to defend his actions?

[Hood's Path]

@Galain - I think you're going to have to ret-con that last part to 'doesn't stay to defend his actions but comes back later to do so due to RL'....
Well, I didn't read Kessoh's post quite like that, but I can see how you got that reading. However, I was merely pointing that while you said Atrahal thought you weren't scum, he actually thinks that is quite possible, even likely. *shrug*

[Sorrit]

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:22 AM, said:

1. That's meta.
2. That's why we go invis.
3. Yeah, I refreshed the thread and responded to your post + kessoh's post after I ate my dinner...uhm...?

Your post was definitely more directed at myself than at kessoh.
Call it what you will though.

Its got nothing to do with the times of the posts essentially.
I can see it in your posts that you are really struggling with trying to not make kessoh look too bad.
But at the same time you see that you need to say something bad because what he is saying is getting flak.

Why are you not all over kessoh like a bad rash when he makes a scummy mistake, you get all up everyone else's grill?...
you say all wishy washy things like, that you agree with atrahal's logic but you seem to somehow now all of the sudden believe that atrahal is galains symp?
Where you even here the first two days? It looks like you are really trying to destroy galains statement and credibility but cant really want put too much into it or you will get noticed.


I find your, and kessoh's play extremely disturbing and I personally think its very likely you two are connected.

[Galain]

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:24 AM, said:

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 08:21 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:03 AM, said:

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 07:57 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

I think you've survived two days of attempted lynchings, Galain.

Besides, I specifically stated I don't disagree with his logic, just that his post is absolutely screaming symp to me, which is unfortunate given its contents.

I've survived one really weak day one case, and been the subject of much discussion thereafter.

I said before that atrahal only looks like my symp if you ignore the context of pretty much everything else that has happened so far this game. Why are you so eager to keep pressure on me, especially if you agree with atrahal's logic?

We spent much time rubishing cases because a symp would be stupid to do this/that so early. On the other hand, when the possibility that a symp has actually done a good job of derailing trains and playing smooth, it means it's unlikely also?
I'm eager to keep options open and not rule you out on one other player's say-so. I agreed with his logic, THEN he posted that ridiculous post. So while the former point makes me inclined to agree with him (and hey, look! I didn't vote for you!) the latter makes me go 'oh fucking hell, that just makes me doubt myself', hence me pointing such out on thread.

What 'THEN'? There is only one post of atrahal's under discussion here. No-one has said that I should be given a free pass for the rest of the game, or that it is unlikely SR was my symp if I was guilty. Atrahal laid out some logic, the product of which is that today, and only today I am a bad choice. You then come along and say you agree with the logic, but not the conclusion drawn from said logic?

If you read my posts: I was thinking along the lines of Atrahal's logic. Then I read his post (that's the 'THEN' btw, perhaps you are not privvy to my substitution of 'posted' for 'I read') and that made me think twice about the logic because of how terrible that post reads.

Aah, I didn't get that you had come to the same conclusion as him before you read his post but were made suspicious by the manner in which other was presented. Fine then, I can understand where go are coming from.

[Kessobahn]

Galain, on 23 August 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

Hood, on 23 August 2010 - 08:11 AM, said:

@Galain - actually, Atrahal said he does think you're likely to be scum. Jus' sayin'.

That's not the point. Kesso paraphrased atrahal in a way that indicated atrahal was contradicting himself. The best choice is to investigate other people despite his personal opinion of my guilt because he realizes that there is a chance I am innocent. Which is different to saying we should investigate someone else because I am guilty, which is how I read what Kesso said. Speaking of Kesso, who would drop a bombshell like that early on a possible D-day and then not stick around to defend his actions?

Stick around? Its been about an hour. What has happened to you lot that a vote is such a bombshell? Seriously regardless of what our situation is we need to vote. I found atrahals post odd so i voted. Clearly you are all giant wusses. If three scum were to suddenly jump on and vote it still wouldnt be enough. Also given peoples reluctance to vote all game i doubt any of you are going to jump on in there. And the vote has in fact provided us with quite a bit of info already.

[Sorrit]

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

Sorrit, on 23 August 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

i fail to see this kind of logic. Basing a possible d-day scenario on hoping we hit a symp is frankly suicidal. Posting that you think a player is scum but deciding we should go for a random instead is just such an odd leap in logic it just has to be crap.

vote atrahal

You dont want to lynch galain because he may be scum, you could be a symp for galain or someone else. hell you could be the killer and know galain is inno and are making your play. either way that post was bonkers.

Vote Kessoh

you know its D-Day potentially right?
your not even hesitating with dropping a vote? 2 wrong votes and the scum pile on!!

For the FIRST time this game i find Atrahals logic sound. AND THEN you decide its not good play?

Being dday was kinda the point mate. We have a player saying galain is scum and then deciding we should vote someone at random because they believe that sr was a symp. Why hesitate to drop a vote? You need five to get a lynch and i doubt i would have a bunch of people jump on straight away. I am long since beyond agreeing on anything with you.

As a valid second stretegy we could go to night. We lose one player then face a situation with possibly 3 of seven being guilty instead of 3 of eight.

you have no idea what atrahal was trying to say do you?
Either that or you are purposefully not seeing it to make it look bad.

[Sorrit]

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

Sorrit, on 23 August 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Kessobahn, on 23 August 2010 - 07:30 AM, said:

i fail to see this kind of logic. Basing a possible d-day scenario on hoping we hit a symp is frankly suicidal. Posting that you think a player is scum but deciding we should go for a random instead is just such an odd leap in logic it just has to be crap.

vote atrahal

You dont want to lynch galain because he may be scum, you could be a symp for galain or someone else. hell you could be the killer and know galain is inno and are making your play. either way that post was bonkers.

Vote Kessoh

you know its D-Day potentially right?
your not even hesitating with dropping a vote? 2 wrong votes and the scum pile on!!

For the FIRST time this game i find Atrahals logic sound. AND THEN you decide its not good play?

Being dday was kinda the point mate. We have a player saying galain is scum and then deciding we should vote someone at random because they believe that sr was a symp. Why hesitate to drop a vote? You need five to get a lynch and i doubt i would have a bunch of people jump on straight away. I am long since beyond agreeing on anything with you.

As a valid second stretegy we could go to night. We lose one player then face a situation with possibly 3 of seven being guilty instead of 3 of eight.

you have no idea what atrahal was trying to say do you?
Either that or you are purposefully not seeing it to make it look bad.