Also, Zarovich's only posts were to vote for thg after the limit was reached, and then to say "oops"... seemed odd to me... but here was his vote post:
weird... amirite?Zarovich wrote:slay THG
With this many votes, I guess he isn't a good rp.
weird... amirite?Zarovich wrote:slay THG
With this many votes, I guess he isn't a good rp.
It's not much, I admit. In History Wars (I think) Kicksave made a great point about voting patterns. I commented in PM that Kicksave was not nearly as bad at this game as he sometimes makes himself out to be. PFIDC agreed and wanted to take out Kicksave, which we did, IIRC. That's all. It's the only thing I have to make sense of the Kicksave kill in this game.shafnutz05 wrote:redwill, if you can elaborate more on the "mysterious quote" from pfidc, that might sway me a little.
I see... so really it was you who made a point about Kicksave being good, and pfidc agreed... maybe you're the bad one.redwill wrote:It's not much, I admit. In History Wars (I think) Kicksave made a great point about voting patterns. I commented in PM that Kicksave was not nearly as bad at this game as he sometimes makes himself out to be. PFIDC agreed and wanted to take out Kicksave, which we did, IIRC. That's all. It's the only thing I have to make sense of the Kicksave kill in this game.shafnutz05 wrote:redwill, if you can elaborate more on the "mysterious quote" from pfidc, that might sway me a little.
This confuses me. You admit that you're suspicious of crayz and corvi, but don't have enough info on either to make a full case. Your suspicion of crayz is that he's defending corvi too much. Yet your only willing to get behind a crayz vote and not a corvi vote? That or one of the quiet ones.... why does corvi not make the list?shafnutz05 wrote:Alright.........while I am still quite suspicious of crayz and corvidae, I will admit that I probably don't have enough to make a full case. I am still not buying the "omg mods told me to act crazy that was weird LULZ!" excuse that corvidae used, and crayz going out of his way to defend corvi seems a little odd to me as well. They are still tops on my list right now, but not sure if I am QUITE ready to pull the trigger.
I could get behind 1 of 2 things:
1) a crayz vote
2) a vote for someone like Zaro or CK
Well, as Senka would say, there's a 50/50 chance that I'm bad.MWB wrote:I see... so really it was you who made a point about Kicksave being good, and pfidc agreed... maybe you're the bad one.
I can't argue that logic.redwill wrote:Well, as Senka would say, there's a 50/50 chance that I'm bad.MWB wrote:I see... so really it was you who made a point about Kicksave being good, and pfidc agreed... maybe you're the bad one.
(Got that, shafnutz?)
After catching up on the thread, this was the point I was going to make. I just agreed with kicksave kill due to good reasoning on REDWILLS part.MWB wrote:I see... so really it was you who made a point about Kicksave being good, and pfidc agreed... maybe you're the bad one.redwill wrote:It's not much, I admit. In History Wars (I think) Kicksave made a great point about voting patterns. I commented in PM that Kicksave was not nearly as bad at this game as he sometimes makes himself out to be. PFIDC agreed and wanted to take out Kicksave, which we did, IIRC. That's all. It's the only thing I have to make sense of the Kicksave kill in this game.shafnutz05 wrote:redwill, if you can elaborate more on the "mysterious quote" from pfidc, that might sway me a little.
2 thingsshafnutz05 wrote:
Also, crayz went out of his way to defend Corvidae on at least two separate occasions, when I suggested that Corvi might be a bad guy (or at the very least, a neutral not friendly to us). It seems as if everyone bought Corvi's alibi that the "mods" told him to act like that.....but does that make any sense? I know there have been some weird roles, but why would the mods tell Corvi to act weird on Day 1 only? Corvi is most definitely still on the hook for me.
Not necessarily. The mods kept track of the physical count that was posted, and when it got to one less for relantal, that's when jays jumped in and said it reached the limit, even though there was only 13 (or something like that).PensFanInDC wrote: I do, however, agree that there has to be a double voter out there so we should take a look at all who voted for relantel. There is a baddie there. I was accused of being said double voter but if I was, wouldn't there have been 2 votes for crayz on day 1?
iirc, he only had a couple posts when I was looking through the thread earlier... don't recall the content though. Mostly I was noting the people that had posted exactly once... but no one really seems to care much about that I suppose.Letang Is The Truth wrote:has tw voted yet?
This is what Ive been pondering as wellnewarenanow wrote:And also, the question is, is the double voter a good guy or a bad guy?
THG - 16 (tfrizz, canaan, the wicked child, count2infinity, newarenanow, shafnutz, crayz, beerman, irisheyes, slappybrown, MWB, redwill, mikenike, kicksave, troy loney, litt)
crayz - 1 (pfidc)
The people that voted for relantal that didn't for thg are:relantel - 13 count2infinity (1), Corvidae (2), pfidc (3), hockeynut! (4), crayz (5), mwb (6), WF (7), mikenike (8), canaan (9), NAN (10), IE (11), beerman (12), TW (13))
well why i was wondering is tw was last vote on relantel as noted by pfidc. perhaps tw opened a package similar to corv that whenever he voted it ended it right there or his votes count for double that day only. i think we may be reading to much into this at the moment with a small N to base it onthe wicked child wrote:iirc, he only had a couple posts when I was looking through the thread earlier... don't recall the content though. Mostly I was noting the people that had posted exactly once... but no one really seems to care much about that I suppose.Letang Is The Truth wrote:has tw voted yet?