Cogito Ergo Sum: 1 (logicticus)
MrBuddyLee: 1 (Dragon Phoenix)
No. Because the English language hates me.Tamuz wrote:I don't think that really works so well as a phrase IH.
Can you reproduce your thoughts in intelligible English. Like, what you did, but without the butchering.
Ok, thanks to Glork and his awesomeness, I am now confident of Talitha as not being town.GlorkPodPodGlork wrote:I read your post and understood it completely. You stated that you thought you were wrong, but that you felt it might have been a safeclaim (something on which I would like you to elaborate, if you don't mind). You also stated that you wanted to reasess exactly why you were suspicious of Oman/IH and whether you still felt it was valid. Have you made that reasessment? Do you feel that your suspicions were valid? Why exactly did you suspect him to begin with?
I take issue with your time process....Talitha wrote:I was wrong about doubting his claim
- My intial reaction when the day broke was, 'OK, IH must certainly be town...' I obviously didn't post that as I do not like to announce a player as cleared.
- Someone else (can't remember who) mentioned safe claims
- Thought to myself.. 'Hmm, i bet LML was given Mercedes as a safe claim.. he was awfully willing to claim'
- Thought to myself.. 'Hmm, I wonder if the other scum have safe claims too'
- Thought to myself.. 'Hmm, I bet the mafia, if they are given safe claims, would be given lesser believable safe claims than 'Mercedes', as a balance thing'.
- Thought to myself.. 'Hmm, I guess IH isn't cleared after all.'
I'm drawing it off of this. I think Glork hit on something significant when he mentioned you not doing this.Talitha wrote:For me, it's back to the drawing board. I had two top suspects yesterday, one is now dead and the other one is less suspicious. Not cleared because mith might have been sneaky enough to give 'Innocent Fresnoer' (or whatever) as a safe claim. Anyway, what it means is that I will have to go back over the thread to see what made me suspicious of Oman/IH in the first place, and whether I still feel that way.
Seems like he could be right about that.the one's that seem the most likely to be the members of the mafia are of course Baron Danglars, Count de Morcerf aka Fernand Mondego, Monsieur De Villefort, and Gaspard Caderousse since they are the four that send Edmond Dantès to Château d'If.
- his own claimed role. Something about this just seems weird to me. Like he wanted to get the 'D'avrigny = doctor' idea into people's minds right from the start. Maybe because hewe also have a possible doctor in D'avrigny
Kinda sounds like it's possible he could be in league with Villefort. Could anyone who is familiar with the story comment on this, please?Doctor d'Avrigny: This is the doctor who attends to the many "sicknesses" in the Villefort household. He is adamant that the deaths are due to poison, yet he does not reveals his suspicions to the public at Villefort's request.
Don't act like Mos ;_;Talitha wrote:I think *I* hit on something significant when I mentioned that me not doing this yet was because of my busy week, and recovering from said week. A small amount of patience please, m'dear.
Almost all of the posts that don't fall into one of these categories are centralized among about three (maybe four) general analysis posts. I noted that you quoted each of these statements individually, so as to make your post seem longer/more significant. Essentially, MBL, I'm perfectly willing to admit that you've made about one real, original, contributive post per day. Everything else is asking questions without following up on them, answering others' questions about your thoughts, or making vauge and inconclusive remarks (which you also never elaborate on).Glorkspar's Notes wrote:Post 1262, as a reference for both myself and others following along....
I'm just going to number MBL's quotes rather than citing them all here to save space.
A few things on your "WALL O' TEXT," MBL.
1) A lot of what you listed as questions. I've already acknowledged that you have readily asked questions of others; my contention is with the fact that you didn't seem especially interested in giving your thoughts in light of said questions. Case in point: Quote #2, a question to IH. You ask him to give his best game as scum. IH never followed up on this request, and youNEVERmentioned it again. One would think thatif you were genuinely interested in hearing and analyzing the responses to the questions you ask, you would make sure that your questions/requests did not go unanswered.
Tell me, MBL. Why exactly did you ask that question to IH?
What do you think of his lack-of-response?
Why didn't you say or do anything back when IH failed to respond?
Did you even notice that he didn't respond?
I'm not seeing how "but look at these questions I've asked!!" is a legitimate 'defense' against my accusations when you're obviously not even bothering to comment on the responses (or, apparently, the lack thereof).
<<EDIT>>
#10, you ask IH to post his thoughts on Mgm/Skruffs. He doesn't; you don't push him on it.
Others that fall into this category: 14,
2) This could be called 1a, because it does tie in with the previous point. A handful of your questions were completely open-ended and revealed no real conclusion on your part. #6, 7, and 8 were all of the "is this indicative of scum or not?" nature -- they all came from a list of things you said you wanted to investigate. Looking through your posts, I find that -- lo and behold! -- you didn't follow up on any of them! I mean, I could say something like "MBL: Contentless content or genuine, thoughtful musings?" just as easily as you have done.
3) A significant percentage of the comments you listed were made as direct responses to direct questions to you. Sure, if somebody actually calls to your attention a specific case/request/query, you'll respond. For example: Quotes #1, #3, #9
To say that you've made healthy contributions hardly applies to answering direct questions -- you, as a player, are expected to answer them, and you don't show the same kind of willingness to share your suspicions just by answering to others.
4) Even the questions you do ask which go answered immediately are never follwed up on by you. #11, 12,
There is a also the possibility that LML really did have two lives. I'm not sold on the other stuff, but giving the SK an extra life seems like a good idea to balance the game.IH wrote:MBL. Cubs claimed what his action would do on scum, or probably I would guess mafia.
Now look at Thesp's alignment, and look at LML's alignment.
I was actually just thinking about this last night.
I'm not saying I'm god's gift to this game, but I don't see how my play has distinguished me as "the most likely scum" to you. I understood VitR's suspicion of me--it was largely based on Adele's play, and as expected, it SOFTENED over time as he read my posts. Your suspicion of me INTENSIFIED, and that doesn't jive. Still doesn't, after your weak explanation.Gaspar wrote:Almost all of the posts that don't fall into one of these categories are centralized among about three (maybe four) general analysis posts. I noted that you quoted each of these statements individually, so as to make your post seem longer/more significant. Essentially, MBL, I'm perfectly willing to admit that you've made about one real, original, contributive post per day. Everything else is asking questions without following up on them, answering others' questions about your thoughts, or making vauge and inconclusive remarks (which you also never elaborate on).
If I had to pick out two scum right now they'd be Sarc and Gaspar. Wildcard: all three people CES has voted have turned up dead town, plus the disappointment factor makes him tres sketch.Sarcastro wrote:You're right that I should probably be doing a better job of that. I admit that I've kind of just been wanting to finish off this day with an LML lynch and put in more effort starting tomorrow.