Open 133 - Lovers Mafia (Over) before 771

sekinj · Post Post #3 (isolation #0) » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:37 am

vote: hohum

sekinj · Post Post #12 (isolation #1) » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:24 am

@korts - I didn't know it was a joke. your very next post was advising everyone to review the other lover games as proof that a policy or random lynch is a good Day 1 strategy.

sekinj · Post Post #14 (isolation #2) » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:29 am

you still stated that you believed they backed up your proposed strategy, which made me believe your vote wasn't a joke....

but if you say it is... *shrug*

sekinj · Post Post #29 (isolation #3) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:00 am

well, although I haven't agreed with this route before... I would agree with a random lynch for DAY 1 ONLY. Or I at least think we should role the dice and then discuss. I think this is appropriate in a game modded by emp...

sekinj · Post Post #30 (isolation #4) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:02 am

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (6) = 6

sekinj · Post Post #34 (isolation #5) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:54 am

it says fixed because you re-posted it. that shows that I didn't know the outcome before I rolled (posted) it. it's just coincidence that it landed on zwet. some one else can roll if they think it is unfair..... but it does defeat the purpose if we just roll until we are happy with the results.

sekinj · Post Post #37 (isolation #6) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:26 am

Original Roll String: 1d6

1 6-Sided Dice: (3) = 3

sekinj · Post Post #38 (isolation #7) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:27 am

I clicked preview until it went to 3 and then submitted it.... but it still re-rolled it when it submited.

sekinj · Post Post #39 (isolation #8) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:27 am

we could ask the mod to roll a dice

sekinj · Post Post #40 (isolation #9) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:29 am

Great and powerful mod: can you do us lowly immortals the favor of rolling a single six sided die for us?

sekinj · Post Post #44 (isolation #10) » Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:09 pm

lol... no... i said it wrong....

EBWOP: 'immortal' should be 'falible'

sekinj · Post Post #71 (isolation #11) » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:34 pm

I think zwet's reaction to phily's defense of him is interesting.

sekinj · Post Post #74 (isolation #12) » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:48 am

funny, I didnt' notice any framing, just defending of you, zwet...

sekinj · Post Post #86 (isolation #13) » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:26 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:He fixed the dice.

impossible. it was just your lucky day.

sekinj · Post Post #88 (isolation #14) » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:30 am

because that was my dic roll that he quoted. it says fixed if you quote a dice roll so that everyone will know it could have been tampered with.

sekinj · Post Post #101 (isolation #15) » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:30 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:I feel caught in a McCarthyist web...

are you getting your games mixed up, zwet?

sekinj · Post Post #106 (isolation #16) » Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:35 am

damned if you do, damned if you don't?

sekinj · Post Post #111 (isolation #17) » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:48 am

zwetschenwasser wrote:Yes. Just because I'm in a crapload of games doesn' t mean I can't keep up with them.

you sound a bit defensive. I just mentioned it since you said the same thing in two of them.

sekinj · Post Post #116 (isolation #18) » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:23 am

I thought phily was trying to frame you?

sekinj · Post Post #120 (isolation #19) » Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:02 pm

PhilyEc wrote:Thanks Korts, I'll look at them now, as for Zwets. I personally like the guy so I'm not interested in any policy lynches until
after
scumhunting has been done.
Proposing a likely mislynch (33% chance hes scum at this point) is very reckless and inappropriate seeing as how the RVS hasnt even ended yet.

Could you give your train of thought as to why we should lynch Zwet when if he turns town we'll be in a LYOL situation instantly?

@Zwet - YOU called ^THIS^ framing!

sekinj · Post Post #125 (isolation #20) » Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:11 am

I'm exploring inconsistencies. zwet seems to be the master of them.

sekinj · Post Post #126 (isolation #21) » Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:11 am

@phily - are you goign to excuse zwet no matter how he acts?

sekinj · Post Post #129 (isolation #22) » Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:19 pm

I agree that he is difficult to analyze, but shouldn't be able to get away with everything. that is why I am questioning him on his back and forth opinion of you.

sekinj · Post Post #137 (isolation #23) » Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:17 am

also, zwet has his meta going for him...

Phily - why have you decided to not excuse zwet any more?

sekinj · Post Post #139 (isolation #24) » Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:14 am

there's no rush, i'm content to wait for answers for now.

sekinj · Post Post #144 (isolation #25) » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:21 pm

Can we get back on topic?? Phily - Are you around to answer my question?

sekinj · Post Post #148 (isolation #26) » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:01 am

Phily - I really don't like it that your last post was to push suspicion off on zwet. Before that you gave no indication that he ever did anything wrong...

Vote: Phily

I'm still waiting for an answer...

sekinj · Post Post #149 (isolation #27) » Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:03 am

Lynx - so do you think that zwet is the better choice? right now it looks liek the votes are mainly divided between them.

sekinj · Post Post #154 (isolation #28) » Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:24 am

I think he has dissapeared.

sekinj · Post Post #157 (isolation #29) » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:09 am

what is that?

sekinj · Post Post #160 (isolation #30) » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:23 pm

maybe he is looking where to drop the hammer.... I'd love phily to deign us with his presence first...

sekinj · Post Post #172 (isolation #31) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 4:21 am

Santos - that logic does sound pretty bad. Do you have any suspicion of Korts on your own? or were you just piggy backing on phily's? just because phily was a townie, doesn't make him right in his assumptions...

Korts - I dont' like it that you are trying to blame santos for phily's death. you were on the wagon too, plus you asked for a hammer. and now you come back and say that santos is in the wrong for hammering? The last vote on a lynch counts just as much as the first vote.

I take responsibility for my own vote on Phily. His actions toward zwet were all over the map. He didn't suspect zwet until other people pointed out zwet's inconsistancies.

sekinj · Post Post #175 (isolation #32) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:36 am

I was tired of waiitng for him to answer and thought a vote would help spur him along. I DO think he was defending zwet and then only after everyone else pointed out zwet's wishy-washy-ness, did phily call him on it. i thought it was very out of the blue. up until then, phily dismissed any suspicion on zwet as goign after him for the policy lynch.

sekinj · Post Post #179 (isolation #33) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:13 am

@lynx - why would you be asking those kinds of questions to someone if you didnt' suspect them? He never asked anything of zwet until in post 133 where he asks zwet to explain himself. Until then phily was excusing everything he did PLUS saying that everyone else's suspicion was just based on wanting a policy lynch. I think it IS a stretch to go from absolute defense to telling zwet to defend himself. PLUS you even agreed that both player's opinins were on a roller coaster in post 146.

sekinj · Post Post #180 (isolation #34) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:19 am

Korts wrote:I never blamed Santos for Phily's death, nor did I say that he is in the wrong for hammering; I called him out for opportunistically using Phily's last words as a way to try and lead a righteous crusade against me. I take full responsibility for my role in Phily's death.

Well, as I said in what I addressed to santos I dont' agree with that crusade. phily was just a townie, so obviously had no special knowledge. It seemed like you were just going after santos hard for phily's death.

sekinj · Post Post #181 (isolation #35) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:21 am

another clarification: I'm not attacking Korts. I addressed him with some issues, just like I addressed Santos. at this point Korts has responded a little over the top and Santos has not responded at all.

sekinj · Post Post #196 (isolation #36) » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:53 am

zwet - please post something I can respond too if you are goign to vote me

sekinj · Post Post #199 (isolation #37) » Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:13 am

As far as the buddying in this game goes it looked like phily/zwet (which is out now) and then Lynx/Korts, and then Korts had suggested sek/santos.

Remember at this point we have to get ALL townies to agree with a lynch in order to win...

sekinj · Post Post #218 (isolation #38) » Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:05 pm

Korts/lynx and korts/santos are my top pairings, not that anyone is listening.

sekinj · Post Post #220 (isolation #39) » Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:56 pm

Korts wrote:Please feel free to show me which part looked like I was blaming Santos for the lynch. I remember no argument that went in that direction.

I'm saying I didn't read carefully enough. I saw you were going hard against Santos and it looked to me like it was because he hammered. Now that I went back and read you statements mroe carefully, I can see that you made no actual refernce to the hammer.

now I know you are goign to say I'm just backtracking, but really it was just poor reading with a little too much assumption thrown in.

sekinj · Post Post #260 (isolation #40) » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:11 am

@Lynx - what exactly did you want me to respond too? I've already said that I DO think Phily's change was a 180.

I think that zwet is probably town because he's playing his normal game.

I don't like the way Korts and Lynx are teaming up. Lynx's delay seems like an attempt to play pro-town. However, the fact that I have not been hammered may indicate that santos and korts are the scum pair. Also, Korts response to my comments to him were way over the top. I commented, then responded and voted me, I did not feel liek I had a chance to evaluate his reponse before he was all over me. If I had I would have realize my mistake sooner that Kort's attack of santos was not because of the hammer. Although korts went after santos, he never really put him in danger, which indicates the little spat was probably distancing.

@zwet - what does that have to do with anything?

sekinj · Post Post #262 (isolation #41) » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:16 am

my point exactly. zwet is playing his normal game.

sekinj · Post Post #265 (isolation #42) » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:02 am

I would rather vote Korts because he is in both pairings that I suspect. However, I DO suspect Santos over you, Lynx, so I don't have a problem voting santos.

Vote: Santos

sekinj · Post Post #276 (isolation #43) » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:44 am

i guess scum won...

sekinj · Post Post #278 (isolation #44) » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:46 am

lol, never mind, i guess I can't trickster you anymore

but for the record - i still think Phily did a 180 AND it still looked like korts attacked santos for hammering... just sayin...

sekinj · Post Post #286 (isolation #45) » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:31 am

me either, i still don't know where it came from...

thank for modding emp!