Shlimazel (retracted), surprisingly you survived last round. Whether this is a good or bad thing we don't know yet but we have to start off this round somehow and a vote for the person who should be dead already is as good as anything.
This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 11 July 2008 - 02:23 PM
It's quiet. Too quiet.
I know we all voted Shlim last round, but it's really not looking like he's guilty right now.
Yeah... I was wondering the same thing myself. jrsh92 , What is the nature of your big beef against Shlimazel?
I'll probably retract this if I get a good explanation.
Exactly as stated in the post you clearly didn't read, SoItBegins (retracted), I was voting for Shlim with the goal of getting some action going this round. I succeeded, regrettably the action was someone voting for me... but after explaining that I was simply looking to get stuff moving being accused of "having a big beef" against Shlim seems silly. Vote for me for random voting? Yeah, maybe... but "having a big beef" after I explained that I was essentially random voting? I'm sorry, but that's not an adequate explanation, hence my serious, not random vote going to you at the moment. I will retract this vote if reasons to do so present themselves.
^about commenting that you will retract a vote, I'm not sure it's necessary... it's assumed that all players are playing with the game overall in mind and will move a vote if it makes sense to do so. Everyone saying it sort of apologetically when they vote with anything less than a perfect reason for that vote is a good sort of disclaimer I guess, as it demonstrates that the people are aware that their votes aren't too justified. It's just always seemed weird to me that it's used as the "I'm not sure disclaimer" almost universally.
Anyhow that applies to this post too, I think we all understand that 
This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 12 July 2008 - 09:52 AM
For the record, my post with something about homosexuals used to have the "you're reading into wolf kills! Proph does not approve!" pic instead of the one that's there now, but someone with too much PHP skills switched it out on me cause they were bored (and possibly inebriated). I'm leaving it there as a monument to hilariousness but I'm neither calling Shlim homosexual or saying anything about homosexuals, it's simply a switched out pic.
@jrsh92, on Jul 11 2008, 12:44 PM, said in The Werewolf Game - Game 26:
For the record, my post with something about homosexuals used to have the "you're reading into wolf kills! Proph does not approve!" pic instead of the one that's there now, but someone with too much PHP skills switched it out on me cause they were bored (and possibly inebriated). I'm leaving it there as a monument to hilariousness but I'm neither calling Shlim homosexual or saying anything about homosexuals, it's simply a switched out pic.
Link please?
@mrxak, on Jul 11 2008, 02:09 PM, said in The Werewolf Game - Game 26:
Woo, we got a werewolf, thanks Rebelious. So, who was RJC Ultra working with, what patterns can we pick up on based on his voting record? This also probably clears kickme and Shlimazel.
We don't know we got a werewolf, RJC just seemed like too good a target, at the same time saving Shlimazel, who I believe is innocent.
Also, I don't know who to vote for yet, I'll wait for more people to vote to make my decision.
Oh okay, prophile's post seemed to imply we had got one. Well, I don't really want to vote for jrsh92, it seems people are just jumping on him because he made an easy target. We know now that that kind of strategy would not have worked with Eugene Chin who pretty much did the same thing as jrsh92 did. I guess I'll vote for
Spoiler
SoItBegins
, since he got his good explanation even before he demanded one. If he's just not going to pay attention and jump on people for pretty much nothing, I think it's time to go. Still, if SoItBegins retracts his unwarranted vote, I'd be willing to reconsider my own.
I'm joining the party rather late. I'll go against jrsh92 , since I think he seems fairly suspicious and SIB doesn't strike me as at all suspicious. Since the choice for a vote that matters is between those two, jrsh is my preferences.
Better Formating.
The tally should tell you, at a glance, not only which way players are voting, but also who is still playing.
Vote count:
jrsh92: (3)
Mackilroy
SoItBegins
darth_vader
SoItBegins: (2)
jrsh92
mrxak
darth_vader: (1)
Rebelious
No Vote: (2)
Shlimazel
kickme
This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 12 July 2008 - 08:40 AM
darth_vader , you have to die.
Do you people realize that if you kill me, the innocents lose? There are 3 wolves. There are 8 players. Kill an innocent this round, the terrorists nightkill an innocent, and it's even, terrorists to innocents. Then the terrorwolves force ties and nightkill until the innocents are gone. We NEED to kill a terrorwolf this round. We can't be voting for people who "have suspicious behavior" by making one random vote-- something that went over fine earlier this game. We don't need targets. We need terrorists. I find it highly suspicious that nobody except Rebelious has noticed that Darth_Vader is bandwagoning on a wagon that started as a vote because I looked like an easy target, but then continued to bandwagon long after I explained my actions... in fact, over 12 hours after I had explained my actions and changed the vote in question! Neither of the people who had voted for me would do anything about it, even when called on their decision to vote for me, the "easy target" who had in fact ceased to be an easy target several hours earlier. I'm voting for Darth_Vader simply because he looks more suspicious then SIB, and seems to think that I am more suspicious than SIB, which is almost as absurd as SIB's original assertion that I was suspicious when he clearly hadn't read any posts...
I'm not going to go all out and accuse the three people voting for me of being terrorists... well, yeah I am. I think Mack, Darth, and SIB are the bad guys. I think one of them needs to die. We simply cannot possibly win the game if we dont' kill a terrorists this round. Think. Do I look like a terrorist because I randomly voted for someone just to get things moving and retracted the vote when people called me on it, moving it to a perfectly logical vote? Or do the people who jumped on me with little or no justification, and stayed on me far after the little bit of justification they had was gone or explained, look more suspicious?
Whoa.... Man, I'm shaking from how close I came to a lynching! Thanks, rebby, I owe you one.
Darth could simply not have much time for voting. I recall making votes and sticking to them in the past simply because I couldn't change them, because I couldn't get to the computer. This often resulted in me getting lynched. Mackilroy is the person whose motives we ought examine, in my opinion, because he started the bandwagon himself.
I do not believe that there's anything suspicious about jrsh92's vote for me. I find it to be an entirely typical move, in fact, and assaulting him for it is unproductive.
jrsh, why are you attacking Darth, who just jumped on a preexisting bandwagon, rather than going after Mack, who started the bandwagon?
@Shlim about not voting Mack: Because Darth already has a vote on him, and since I want to live and not die, having someone with more votes than me is beneficial.
Additionally, starting a bandwagon is not your fault. He didn't ask other people to jump on the wagon with him. They did it voluntarily. He called me out on a random vote which was expected.
What wasn't expected was continued votes coming in after that vote had been explained and retracted with little more explanation than "he looks suspicious" or "what's with the big beef against Shlim?" when I had already said it had nothing to do with having a big beef with someone.
SIB appears to have simply not read the post beforehand. Silly but not unbelievable. Darth_Vader, on the other hand, voted for me with no explanation other than that I look more suspicious than SIB does, an shameless bandwagon hop, and completely ignoring what had just gone on in the last 12 hours, a minor oversight that I don't think was a minor oversight at all.
This post has been edited by jrsh92 : 12 July 2008 - 10:24 AM
