...Very interesting kill. That's our first Purist killed without a lynch, isn't it? Way to go, you're doing better than our vig!
Fugazi, on 07 August 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:
Would you rather be accused of being useless?
Not that I really need to reply to this anymore but yes, I think I would. I'd rather sit out another vote than jump on yet another of Wilder's stupid wagons.
Speaking of rickety, set-up wagons, Wilder, perhaps you could go one day without trying to bait people with that? Try throwing out a name with some actual support behind it, rather than a weak argument just to see who hops on (hint: it doesnt' seem to have worked yet). You said it yourself, you want to see people bring up their suspicions in public rather than coming to you in private, so why the hypocrisy? It seems obvious to me that you are using someone you mildly suspect (if at all, I sometimes wonder) in the hopes that you can bait someone who you suspect more heavily to jump on the bandwagon. Why not just voice your concern over the heavier suspicion in the first place? If you're right, isn't there a good chance that others will have seen similar signs? You'll (hopefully) get solid reasons for votes because other people also strongly suspect whomever. Throwing a bait-and-switch target out there early has only really proven to stifle conversation as folks vote for that person, but only have your own reasons to go off of. I can't really blame you for the silence today, but it certainly isn't helping anything.
Waterbrick Down, on 07 August 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:
Yes, but if we all bandwagon early that kills discussion and no-one is willing to bring forth new ideas because they think the lynch canadite has been selected
Of course, the alternative would be for the rest of you (well, not all of you) to stop falling for it and giving Wilder an excuse to set you up as a target due to obvious bandwagoning. Or at least give a half-decent reason for
your vote.. *cough*
Shadows, on 07 August 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:
Just as a side note, nope, I've got nothing. Carry on.
Capt.JohnPaul, on 07 August 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:
I have nothing better to do with my life.
Masked Builder, on 07 August 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:
Vote: Lieutenant Wheeler (Inconspicuous) I'm really not sure who else to vote for at all.
AwesomeStar, on 07 August 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:
Well, you aren't prepared to get on with this then I shall step up the plate. We need to get somewhere, even if it is just anywhere.
fhomess, on 07 August 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:
I'm flabbergasted at the number of people who've proposed names other than Wheeler's to me in private, yet refuse to propose those same names in public. Are you all just trying to get me to vig kill those players instead of putting your own neck on the line with a lynch candidate?
Or maybe they just came to you because yes, you are the vig and they wanted you to consider a kill-target without raising awareness in public. Assuming that any one of these names brought to you was correctly suspected as a purist, unless we got the lynch (which, okay, there's a pretty good chance that'd happen), then we'd have only managed to alert the purists to the fact that we were onto one of them who likely wasn't in danger previously. Additionally, you're (supposed to be) one of the trusted/trustable loyalists, is it so unreasonable for them to want to bounce a suspicion off of you before going public with it?
fhomess, on 07 August 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:
That said, Vanderbilt's vote pattern is decidedly fishy today. Why did you vote only once the vote made it beyond 6, yet you were involved in the conversation well before then without voting. Not much appears to have changed between your non-voting contributions and your vote. Certainly no comment from Wheeler.
It's something of a moot point now but as I saw it before
she got blasted, Vanderbilt was engaged in a back-and-forth with Holloway which drove Vanderbilt to elaborate on her suspicions and vote. If she hadn't turned out to be a Purist, I'd have believed that it was the exchange with Holloway that prompted her vote before hearing a defense from Wheeler.
If you want to talk about fishy voting patterns, then how did Holloway's go unnoticed? Less than an hour passed before he decided that he did not, in fact, want to participate in the bandwagon that he had just recently contributed to. There was no defense from Wheeler in that period of time either (in fact, even less happened between his vote and unvote than between Vanderbilt's first suspicions and her vote), but he's allowed to have a change of heart without obvious cause, while you called out Vanderbilt for the same?
Shadows, on 08 August 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:
I'll give you one thing, Wheeler, you put up a hell of a defense, I hope this doesn't end up being the ultimate meat-shield.
The initial argument against Wheeler was a weak one at best, as was admitted by Wilder himself. I'll grant that he did give a pretty reasonable response to the points raised by Vanderbilt, but even those (stretch-theory and the voting pattern) weren't particularly strong supports for accusation either. But a hell of a defense? I dare say, you doth bestow upon him too much credit!