[Okaros]

Kessobahn, on 06 October 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

So I'm thinking the only roles that I could see not having a vote count are the Warlords, the Usurper, the Empress (speculated role), and possibly the Emperor of the faction the person belongs too, although that one might be a long shot. I find it interesting that Kaschan, Telas, and Thyrllan have not yet voted on a lynch, and we had one person who had a non-counting vote on this train. I'm honestly thinking the Warlords and their Champions votes do not count... That would be 4 people, 2 warlords and 2 champions...

Four votes not counting seems to be quite a bit though. I could see maybe the warlords or champs not getting their vote counted, but as i said 4 seems a bit much. It would also be quite useful if just the Usurper's vote didn't count, because then we'd have a list with his/her name on it. Still one name among 12 (or was it 13) others. But it could help.

[Okaros]

Emurlahn, on 06 October 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Okaros, if you look at that post where you asked for a followup posts, in the post directly above it, I said "i'll go get the quotes, brb".



just so happens that i've dealt with the difficult part of my week (sunday-tuesday), and in the latter half of the week I actually have time to play properly.

Ah my bad I missed that one. Glad you did it though, my laptop shut down on me so I was stranded until I got back to my pc.

[Emurlahn]

Osseric, on 06 October 2011 - 05:08 AM, said:

Emurlahn, on 05 October 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

secondly: a lot of you seem to think i'm Xia. more power to you. since you do think that, i'll play along and tell you why it's a bad idea to vote Xia.

the game had 25 players.

3 families, 2 warlords, and the usurper.


now, keep in mind, this game was designed a while ago, before we played the tales. so, the final showdown was always going to feature 3 kingdoms + the usurper.
if the usurper is a 1 man faction, we would be looking at 3 families, 8 man strong.

however, the warlords were added, because the Xia and the Lu lost their minis. thus, the warlord factions were "carved out" of their allotment of players. meaning, they started out with 5-6 players each. let's assume (WCS for me, since i'm supposedly Xia) that the northern kingdoms have 5 each, and hte warlords each have 3 (warlord, champion and someone we don't know yet). that leaves yan with 8. minus Sima Yi. still 7

now, lu lost one, yan lost one. no guarantees that last night's recruit was Yan. no matter how you put it, Yan has plurality at this point.

since all of you assume i'm xia, i'm gonna do what a xia would do in this situation--that is, look for more Yan.

When did anyone called you Xia? What an emo post.

I just accused you of not confronting anyone, repeating the same thing (Yan iz big!) without going anywhere with this idea (and getting annoyed when others didn't either)

About the Yan: Maybe I don't put enough importance to the influence of previous games, but if Lu and Xia have to deal with the warlords and not Yan, then balance rules would actually tell me that Yan would be smaller than the others, since they already have a "geographical" advantage. It's not like D'rek would double-punish two factions in a game just because the way other players played in previous ones. To me, if the Usurper is in the Yan, then the geographical advantage might be balanced, so I feel everyone is equal in size.

Then saw your mega-posts, but I'm not certain if you accuse me or Meanas there (or everyone else that you mention in there). I just like how you read into the fact that after you spazzed out (you can't defend from a typo? how about just saying " , and m are next to each other on the keyboard " instead of freaking out like a vampire in a garlic factory?) those that attacked you were "zombies". Maybe many people say you just acted strange, you know?

please point me out where I "freak out". I respond with sarcasm to a day 1 "case". I have provided a "defence" for that several times. I don't see why I should have to explain myself again.

also, the zombie comment refers to day3. please read over page 17 (on 40 post per page) and tell me you don't find a cascade of similar sounding posts, consecutively, at least a bit strange

[Osseric]

Emurlahn reading the thread until now:

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla EMURLAHN bla bla

Oh sh-!



There's a type of play I have seen before, with two modes: 1-not care until mentioned and 2-all in. The fact that he can quotes where I "lead" the votes is because I have actually been one of the players that have been confronting people - not too compatible with what he accuses me to be.

He went to make cases, and managed to make one on the two people that confronted him. How convenient.

[Osseric]

Emurlahn, on 06 October 2011 - 05:15 AM, said:

also, the zombie comment refers to day3. please read over page 17 (on 40 post per page) and tell me you don't find a cascade of similar sounding posts, consecutively, at least a bit strange

OK, sorry, I misunderstood that part.

Well, what I said is that you are the second-highest poster, and I didn't remember you confronting anyone. I meant it, there was no "reality bending" action at work. Other simply agreed, it's normal.

What I didn't mean to was to get votes on you. You were cruising - I just wanted to shake you into action.

[Emurlahn]

riiiight.... convenient of you to "forget" how much ppl have talked about me on day 1, isn't it?

also, I love how you don't say I made a case on 2. people. when I've identified 3 likely leaders, and at least 2 possible "followers"

i'm waiting for the part where you mention that I dismiss the case against me.

[Osseric]

But anyways, now is night, not the time for titty-twisting.

The vote thing is interesting, I assume it is not a mistake. The obvious reasons are:

-Tiam needed one more vote to get lynched as per role PM, but since we lynched two MO already without problem, that doesn't sound the most probable.
- Someone's vote got blocked, but why use it on this lynch and not keep the surprise for later? Tiamantha was not lynched for a case, but because her faction was open (like I said, in a faction game, dead woman walking)
- Someone's vote doesn't count, in which case Kesso's post becomes very interesting.

[Okaros]

Osseric, on 06 October 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

Emurlahn reading the thread until now:

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla bla bla bla

Quote

bla bla bla EMURLAHN bla bla

Oh sh-!



There's a type of play I have seen before, with two modes: 1-not care until mentioned and 2-all in. The fact that he can quotes where I "lead" the votes is because I have actually been one of the players that have been confronting people - not too compatible with what he accuses me to be.

He went to make cases, and managed to make one on the two people that confronted him. How convenient.

This seems like a blatant disregard for the case he has presented against you. We all had suspicions against Emur early game, so if he or she were to choose almost any other it would probably be someone who had struggled with the decision to vote for him early game. It is less convenient, and should be expected, that he/she found two that did confront him.

[Osseric]

Emurlahn, on 06 October 2011 - 05:21 AM, said:

riiiight.... convenient of you to "forget" how much ppl have talked about me on day 1, isn't it?

also, I love how you don't say I made a case on 2. people. when I've identified 3 likely leaders, and at least 2 possible "followers"

i'm waiting for the part where you mention that I dismiss the case against me.

"talk about you" is not the same as "you confronting people".

People didn't talk about you to answer your accusations or hypotheses. They talked about you because of your strange behavior and other people's around you, to which you answered with a disappearing act which lasted until I confronted you.

[Emurlahn]

also, I hate to drag RL in this, but it's true:

monday and Tuesday I have about 3 hours of free time in a day (I work evening shifts).

the rest of the week I have about 8.
game started on Wednesday. check my posting rates throughtout the week.

my burst of activity is only partially motivated by the lynch threat. I was gonna take a look at other people anyhow, once I had time.

[Okaros]

Well I'm off for the night. I'll check back in the morning. I'll probably miss the night resolution, but I'm too tired to stick around.

[Osseric]

Okaros, on 06 October 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

This seems like a blatant disregard for the case he has presented against you. We all had suspicions against Emur early game, so if he or she were to choose almost any other it would probably be someone who had struggled with the decision to vote for him early game. It is less convenient, and should be expected, that he/she found two that did confront him.

This post is a blatant disregard for the case he presented, it is a continuation of the case I make against him. I address his case in other posts.

If he thinks that leaders would play by attacking and confronting so that his peoples can follow (disregarding the fact that leaders don't know their flock themselves), then fine, what can I say, that's how I played. Like Gamelon said, you need to attack a bit if you want the seams to show.

[Osseric]

Emurlahn, on 06 October 2011 - 05:25 AM, said:

also, I hate to drag RL in this, but it's true:

monday and Tuesday I have about 3 hours of free time in a day (I work evening shifts).

the rest of the week I have about 8.
game started on Wednesday. check my posting rates throughtout the week.

my burst of activity is only partially motivated by the lynch threat. I was gonna take a look at other people anyhow, once I had time.

Well, fair enough, but I don't know your RL and just because you post things to describe it doesn't mean I trust them.

[Emurlahn]

I have another 200+ pages to read for tomorrow evening.

I wonder when i'll collapse? few things are more dreary than supreme Court's musings about the constitutionality of collective bargaining agreements.

[Emurlahn]

Osseric, on 06 October 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

Okaros, on 06 October 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

This seems like a blatant disregard for the case he has presented against you. We all had suspicions against Emur early game, so if he or she were to choose almost any other it would probably be someone who had struggled with the decision to vote for him early game. It is less convenient, and should be expected, that he/she found two that did confront him.

This post is a blatant disregard for the case he presented, it is a continuation of the case I make against him. I address his case in other posts.

If he thinks that leaders would play by attacking and confronting so that his peoples can follow (disregarding the fact that leaders don't know their flock themselves), then fine, what can I say, that's how I played. Like Gamelon said, you need to attack a bit if you want the seams to show.

meh, we'll conclude this tomorrow, once we have a night scene.
just to reiterate:

unless i'm mistaken, your case consists of the following

I played suspiciously (signalling) on day 1.

when accused of signalling on a flimsy case, I "freaked out"

when I managed to no get lynched, I "went under", and started cruising.

I only respond when provoked

is that it?

[Osseric]

Emurlahn, on 06 October 2011 - 05:33 AM, said:

Osseric, on 06 October 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

Okaros, on 06 October 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:

This seems like a blatant disregard for the case he has presented against you. We all had suspicions against Emur early game, so if he or she were to choose almost any other it would probably be someone who had struggled with the decision to vote for him early game. It is less convenient, and should be expected, that he/she found two that did confront him.

This post is a blatant disregard for the case he presented, it is a continuation of the case I make against him. I address his case in other posts.

If he thinks that leaders would play by attacking and confronting so that his peoples can follow (disregarding the fact that leaders don't know their flock themselves), then fine, what can I say, that's how I played. Like Gamelon said, you need to attack a bit if you want the seams to show.

meh, we'll conclude this tomorrow, once we have a night scene.
just to reiterate:

unless i'm mistaken, your case consists of the following

I played suspiciously (signalling) on day 1.

when accused of signalling on a flimsy case, I "freaked out"

when I managed to no get lynched, I "went under", and started cruising.

I only respond when provoked

is that it?

Perfect

[Osseric]

Just one more thing:

The first serious vote of the game was Gamelon votes Emurlahn.

A few hours later, Gamelon was lynched, with votes based on 3-4 different stated reasons.

That's circonstancial, but one of the reasons I kept my eye open on Emurlahn.

[Emurlahn]

good to know i'm not strawmanning.

i'll respond to this tomorrow, if needed. I think we've done enough night-talking.

[Emurlahn]

Osseric, on 06 October 2011 - 05:37 AM, said:

Just one more thing:

The first serious vote of the game was Gamelon votes Emurlahn.

A few hours later, Gamelon was lynched, with votes based on 3-4 different stated reasons.

That's circonstancial, but one of the reasons I kept my eye open on Emurlahn.

with you casting the first stone.

[Emurlahn]

and it was about 30 hours later. just saying.