1 - Lawrencelot (Eteocles)
not voting: Ameliaslay, drake, Lawrencelot, pete d, Tamuz, undo
With 7 alive, it takes 4 votes to slay a warrior! Four votes at deadline.
Autodeadline for Saturday June 23rd.
You could see it that way, but how can I plan to post before someone else does? I was just online first. It's true that I attacked some people, but not to move the suspicion away from me. You are allowed to attack me of course, and I will try to defend myself, but so far all you guys did for attacking me was for UA's actions, something which I cannot defend against.undo wrote:UA's behaviour has always been suspicious. He has never posted much, he has hammered Haut Boy and then he was one of the first to vote Streeflo with no apparent logical reason.Lawrencelot wrote:It's true that UA did the same thing on day 2, I don't understand why he did that, but he did not do it on day 1 so that either makes him less suspicious or more suspicious.
Of course you are not responsible for his actions, but that puts some pressure on you nevertheless. In your first post, you have casted three FoS's. One can see that as an "attack before they attack me" post - I mean, you may be trying to move suspicions away from you and to put them on other people.
Ok that makes sense.undo wrote:I know that, that's why I'm not voting you. But you realise many people have their eyes on you because of your predecessor's attitude.Lawrencelot wrote:but so far all you guys did for attacking me was for UA's actions, something which I cannot defend against
Well right now that is all we have to go on with you. Just becuase you were replaced in does not mean that UA's posts no longer apply to you.Lawrencelot wrote: undo wrote:
Lawrencelot wrote:
but so far all you guys did for attacking me was for UA's actions, something which I cannot defend against
I know that, that's why I'm not voting you. But you realise many people have their eyes on you because of your predecessor's attitude.
Ok that makes sense.
Says the guy who also has not posted anything at all today. Both of you are equally guilty in my book.drake wrote: If Ameliaslay doesn't actually post this evening, I will vote her. It's getting pretty late today.
Says the guy who only has seven posts in this game and only three of those were during the entire month of May...Eteocles wrote:Says the guy who also has not posted anything at all today. Both of you are equally guilty in my book.drake wrote: If Ameliaslay doesn't actually post this evening, I will vote her. It's getting pretty late today.
And I really am sorry for being lurky. :-\drake wrote: Eteocles wrote:
drake wrote:
If Ameliaslay doesn't actually post this evening, I will vote her. It's getting pretty late today.
Says the guy who also has not posted anything at all today. Both of you are equally guilty in my book.
Says the guy who only has seven posts in this game and only three of those were during the entire month of May...
vote: Ameliaslay
I agree with undo, why the wait?By the way, my reason for voting has nothing to do with activity, so I was never being a hypocrite Eteocles. I'll explain once Amelia posts.
I am assuming that you do have a reason, seeing as though you said you did. If you don't... then... yes that would be suspicious. I am not liking Amelia's lurking "today" either, but I am not a fan of lurker lynching. I might consider voting for you, but to be honest you are kind of low on my list right now, although I did not like your play in the beggining of the game.drake wrote:undo and Eteocles, if I don't have a reason for voting her, would you be angry and vote me in retaliation? I want to see why you really want to hear why I voted. I'm not going to tell you if I have a reason or not for voting her, but since you put the question back on me - I want to put the question back onto you.
I think the first thing I want to address is the existence of the cult. I'm not sure whether speculation would be good or no, but its existence seems to be largely uncommented on, which I thought was interesting. I don't think the name means anything special, other than being a name....Lawrencelot wrote:th Thursday night (after I got off work at 11) and Friday, but it kept coming up with the CPU error... and then a work packed weekend... but enough of the whys., you can take them as you will
So in your mind agreement on opinions = scum connections? Could you elaborate on this further?Lawrencelot wrote:I think one of these 2 is scum, looking at how they agreed with LML often, although not that often to make it obvious
Why?drake wrote:But of those two, since everyone links them together, I think pete d looks worse.
All of that seems rather snippity, nervous about something?drake wrote:Says the guy who only has seven posts in this game and only three of those were during the entire month of May...Eteocles wrote:Says the guy who also has not posted anything at all today. Both of you are equally guilty in my book.drake wrote: If Ameliaslay doesn't actually post this evening, I will vote her. It's getting pretty late today.
vote: Ameliaslay
I think this is a very valid point... retroactive unexpressed opinions?peted wrote:And yet you didn't comment on this... at all?
This is somthing I have been thinking about. I did not think It was possible to recruit a scum into a cult. (LML)AmeliaSlay wrote:I think the first thing I want to address is the existence of the cult. I'm not sure whether speculation would be good or no, but its existence seems to be largely uncommented on, which I thought was interesting. I don't think the name means anything special, other than being a name....