Page 9 of 12
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:54 am
by Kelly Chen
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.
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:14 pm
by Lawrencelot
undo wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:22 am
by Kelly Chen
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:32 am
by Kelly Chen
Deadline is Jun 23rd, but I will inch it closer if we're having full days without posts.
Four to lynch!
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:42 am
by undo
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.
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:51 pm
by Lawrencelot
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.
Where is everybody? I kinda felt sorry for Kelly after seeing her last posts, but I see the same problem in other games. I thought the exam period was over?
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:50 pm
by undo
Well, my exam period is starting just right now. My first one will be on 18th June and my last on 9th July.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:44 am
by Ameliaslay
I'm posting a placeholder (responding to the prod) and will post more substantively later this evening!
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:13 pm
by drake
If Ameliaslay doesn't actually post this evening, I will vote her. It's getting pretty late today.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:59 pm
by Eteocles
C'mon people. This is just getting ridiculous. Post
somthing
.
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.
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.
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.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:43 pm
by drake
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
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:44 pm
by drake
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.
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:12 pm
by undo
Why don't you explain it now? Maybe because you have no reason to vote her?
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:19 pm
by Eteocles
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
And I really am sorry for being lurky. :-\
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 agree with undo, why the wait?
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:45 pm
by Kelly Chen
1 - Lawrencelot (Eteocles)
1 - Ameliaslay (drake)
not voting: Ameliaslay, 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.
Prods Monday afternoon lol.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:19 pm
by drake
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.
Also, you guys probably know me enough in this game to make up a decision about me without knowing why I voted Ameliaslay, so why not just stop pretending to question me and announce what you really think about me? Because asking leading questions like you are asking isn't making you look like you're helping the town. Of course, me voting without explaining isn't either, but I've recognized that I'm not playing the best possible.
Well, at least we all know Eteocles has made up for previous failures to post. By now, Ameliaslay has no excuse.
I want to hear more from pete d right now. People don't like how he followed loudmouthlee, but no one really seems to be pressuring pete d at the moment.
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 1:38 pm
by Eteocles
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 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.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:15 am
by undo
What do you mean, drake? Are you telling me that voting without any reason doesn't require an explanation?
There's no need for you to get so unnerved just because me and Eteocles asked you an absolutely normal question: Why did you vote Ameliaslay without explaining the reason? You seem to be pretending you're a victim, you're acting too defensively, AND you are running away from the question I've asked you.
FoS: drake
So, why did you vote Ameliaslay without explaining the reason?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:37 am
by Lawrencelot
While this is true, Ameliaslay is suspicious too if she says she's gonna post while she doesn't. I see drake's point, but he has to answer the questions of course.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:12 am
by Ameliaslay
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
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:I think one of these 2 is scum, looking at how they agreed with LML often, although not that often to make it obvious
So in your mind agreement on opinions = scum connections? Could you elaborate on this further?
drake wrote:But of those two, since everyone links them together, I think pete d looks worse.
Why?
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
All of that seems rather snippity, nervous about something?
And to comment on my specific involvement, or hesitance yesterday. I'd like to reiterate that I thought the day's lynch seemed to be set up, with little extenuated discussion... I didn't like it at all.
peted wrote:And yet you didn't comment on this... at all?
I think this is a very valid point... retroactive unexpressed opinions?
FOS: Eteocles
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:13 am
by Ameliaslay
Sorry.. some how the tags messed up...
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:46 am
by Eteocles
I was not sure if streeflo was town or not. The lynch was being pushed hard, the lynch was inevitable. That and I was afk. I am commenting on LML now. I don't have to publicly announce it to have my eye on someone. I am not seeing this as suspicious, but I guess there is not much I can do about that.
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....
This is somthing I have been thinking about. I did not think It was possible to recruit a scum into a cult. (LML)
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:56 pm
by Kelly Chen
Prodded pete d (who is on VLA) and Tamuz.
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:10 pm
by pete d
So now that Ameliaslay has posted, I guess drake won't mind elaborating on his vote?
drake wrote:undo and Eteocles, if I don't have a reason for voting her, would you be angry and vote me in retaliation?
Yes
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:33 pm
by drake
unvote: Ameliaslay
My thought was that if I tried to vote Ameliaslay in the middle of her promise to post and her actual post, that she might get distracted and try to address the vote rather than trying to do what she originally intended to do. Since she was able to ignore me and really do well and talk about the entire game - which I think is what she meant to do originallyu on Thursday, then I think she might be townie. She talked about my response to Eteocles rather than my actual vote on her, but she was able to focus more on everything else.
I thought that maybe if she is mafia, that she would just talk about the recent votes and everyone trying to ask me about my vote on her instead but she didn't.
So half of it was a trap - and that's why I refused to explain my reason for vote. And the other half is because she has been the biggest mystery in this game. She has not been compeltey open and talking about things in this game, so I thought she was leaning back and trying to hide in the background. But now I think it is just that she just postes less, but is still trying hard.
I am going to vote without a reason this time though.
vote: Lawrencealot
You guys seem to like to ask me questions about stuff. It would not surprise me if one of Etoceles, undo or pete is scum because the way they couldn't focus on anything except for my lack of reasons for voting. I am pretty sure that there's a lot that we can talk about aside from it. And by focusing attention on me, they're pushing away from trying to look at associations in the past with Primate or Loudmouthlee. I think we should definitely go back to that.