Trial by Jury - Day 1

[fhomess]

3 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I'd like to point out the obvious, and say that some of us have been discussed about. Some of us have been discussed about a lot. *Cough!* 

But there's some of us who have escaped with little discussion focused toward them.

Might be worth taking a look.

I'm not terribly concerned about making sure we discuss everyone.  Unless someone does something particularly scummy at this point, we should probably try to agree on one of the folks who have votes already.

2 hours ago, jluck said:

So at this point we need to ask do we need a day 1 lynch? We have around 12 hours left and have split between 3 suspects. Personally, I’m not convinced a lynch is necessary on day 1, but I know many other experienced players feel differently.  If we want a lynch we’ll have to make a move soon. 

The argument for lynching is always that the town needs to know the alignment of players in order to figure out patterns of behavior.  I'm less convinced than I used to be that it's a requirement, but it certainly helps.

24 minutes ago, Forresto said:

"Why should we do that for you?" My dear sir, you can pay attention to a conversation and still desire to know whether everyone is present and accounted for. I am scummy for asking a question? Talk about jumping the gun.

There is typically very little evidence this early on and I cast a vote for someone who was at that moment in no danger of being lynched. Lynching is a legitimate strategy on day one when there is little evidence to determine who is lying or being scummy. Is it always the best strategy?

I don't know, all I want to do is live and take out the Bellagios so I can continue to run my illegal business without competition.

However your prior responses have contributed us little insight this day other then to sow mistrust and discontent and your poor argument against me, for doing nothing different then others have so far done, has led me to suspect your gruff attitude is nothing more then a veneer. 

therefore I

Unvote Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

and I

Vote Harry Oldman (fhomess)

You can't demonstrate to us that you're paying any attention at all by asking us to tell you who's been around and who hasn't.  You have to actually talk about what other people are saying.  You have to show us that you're paying attention by contributing to the conversation and you haven't done that at all until I called you out.  The idea that I'm contributing little to the conversation by calling out behaviors that I see as questionable is laughable from someone who hasn't said anything of note.

[Kwatchi]

3 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I will say though, I'd rather have no lynch than to potentially risk lynching a townie. 

((sip))

I would agree with that, but some of the more "experienced" jurors seem to be, like, all for it.  As I said, I'll consider it if I am the tipping point but someone is going to have to make a pretty strong argument to me to make me switch, and I don't think there is enough data out there right now to really justify anything.

((sip))

Follow-up: I guess what I am asking is what is the benefit of a day 1 lynch.  It is a blind play.  Voting at this point should only be used to put pressure on people in my opinion, and I'll note we have 3 or 4 still skating free right now.

[Trekkie99]

2 minutes ago, fhomess said:

I'm not terribly concerned about making sure we discuss everyone.  Unless someone does something particularly scummy at this point, we should probably try to agree on one of the folks who have votes already.

I feel it is very necessary.

4 minutes ago, fhomess said:

You can't demonstrate to us that you're paying any attention at all by asking us to tell you who's been around and who hasn't.  You have to actually talk about what other people are saying.  You have to show us that you're paying attention by contributing to the conversation and you haven't done that at all until I called you out.  The idea that I'm contributing little to the conversation by calling out behaviors that I see as questionable is laughable from someone who hasn't said anything of note.

Dez Hunter for example. He's had little discussion put forward about him.

[Forresto]

8 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I will say though, I'd rather have no lynch than to potentially risk lynching a townie. 

Well here's a question. What more will we know tomorrow that will substantially add to what we know today?

We'll have one less townie, a heck of a lot more suspicion for one another, and we'll be no closer to having any actual clues. Any lynch tomorrow will be made under the same premises as tomorrow.

5 minutes ago, fhomess said:

You can't demonstrate to us that you're paying any attention at all by asking us to tell you who's been around and who hasn't.  You have to actually talk about what other people are saying.  You have to show us that you're paying attention by contributing to the conversation and you haven't done that at all until I called you out.  The idea that I'm contributing little to the conversation by calling out behaviors that I see as questionable is laughable from someone who hasn't said anything of note.

The fact that you're making such a huge deal out of a legitimate question is highly disturbing and...questionable (pun intended ) Mountains out of molehills.

One can talk much without saying anything.

As for your attitude the gruffness is wearing thin.

 

[Lady K]

11 hours ago, Kintobor said:

My apologies. I should be clear that I find quietness suspicious, and I also find people who haven't voted suspicious, and it seemed you were deflecting my suspicion on you to them. However, if I'm being honest, after everything that's transpired, my suspicions have moved away of you and onto other people, particularly the Oldman bandwagon and Cathy.

Vote: Cathy Bridger (Drunknok)

Cathy claims that her being the second vote in a potential bandwagon isn't suspicious, and I think she misses the point. What makes her suspicious is the act of voting for someone without elaboration. That to me looks like someone jumping in early to look pro-town, and avoid the bandwagon, especially with the lack of reasoning.

Cathy, mind talking for us? What's your opinion on the current situation? Who do you think is scummy?

Apology accepted.  I understand your thinking and suspicions on very quiet jury members.  I have read about cases with both shy jurors who saw conflicts  between others and just didn't want to draw attention to themselves and others that had scummy intentions and were hiding.  On Day 2, however, I tend to look a little closer at those who have been quiet day 1 and trying to fly under the radar on day 2 as well. 

4 hours ago, Tariq j said:

But on Day 1, where we have no night actions or kills. Votes get conversation going. Throughout the day Mr Oldman had been making general accusations and not actually giving a direct "this is the guy I want to lynch" vote until now. It felt like he was just waiting for a convenient bandwagon, so if someone questioned him later he could say "Well K said X,Y and Z about that person"

That said though, we still don't have  lynch yet and that's not good for the town, Mr Old,an has given good reasons for lynching Dez and doesn't seem as scummy as before. I'm thinking of changing my vote Clifford but I still think making a rookie error isn't enough to warrant a vote.

Votes with reasons behind them get the conversation going, votes without reasons don't give anything to discuss.  Which is why I was asking for thoughts on votes and not just baseless voting.

3 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I'd like to point out the obvious, and say that some of us have been discussed about. Some of us have been discussed about a lot. *Cough!* 

But there's some of us who have escaped with little discussion focused toward them.

Might be worth taking a look.

 

Then please do point out who you are talking about and why you think we should have a discussion about them.

2 hours ago, jluck said:

So at this point we need to ask do we need a day 1 lynch? We have around 12 hours left and have split between 3 suspects. Personally, I’m not convinced a lynch is necessary on day 1, but I know many other experienced players feel differently.  If we want a lynch we’ll have to make a move soon. 

This is a good discussion we as a concerned town need to have.  Losing an innocent townie on day 1 reduces us by one vote on day 2.  I have seen pros and cons with both schools of thought.

34 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Barely given reasons other then to deflect suspicion from himself to anyone else, no matter how shakey the argument. I can't tell if he's scummy or just scared to be voted off.

"Why should we do that for you?" My dear sir, you can pay attention to a conversation and still desire to know whether everyone is present and accounted for. I am scummy for asking a question? Talk about jumping the gun.

There is typically very little evidence this early on and I cast a vote for someone who was at that moment in no danger of being lynched. Lynching is a legitimate strategy on day one when there is little evidence to determine who is lying or being scummy. Is it always the best strategy?

I don't know, all I want to do is live and take out the Bellagios so I can continue to run my illegal business without competition.

However your prior responses have contributed us little insight this day other then to sow mistrust and discontent and your poor argument against me, for doing nothing different then others have so far done, has led me to suspect your gruff attitude is nothing more then a veneer. 

therefore I

Unvote Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan)

and I

Vote Harry Oldman (fhomess)

This could be conceived as revenge voting.......just saying.

11 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

Wassup yall.

I have been catching up on some posts, but I what have read really hasn't changed my opinion all that much.  IF people are so dead set on a day 1 lynch, which I am not convinced is a good thing, and Oldman (my original vote) is on 6 I'll consider switching back.  Right now though, I'm staying pat.

((sip))

So you will switch back to seal a bandwagon on day 1? But you don't have reasons of your own for switching your vote?

8 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I will say though, I'd rather have no lynch than to potentially risk lynching a townie. 

This is one school of thought.

[Tariq j]

5 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I feel it is very necessary.

Dez Hunter for example. He's had little discussion put forward about him.

If you're so concerned it's necessary then why are you not doing it yourself? Are you hoping the suspicion will be taken off you if other people are focusing on their players? You're right - a lot of players haven't been scrutinised yet but you seem to be pushing the idea forwardswithout actually doing it.

[Forresto]

8 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

I feel it is very necessary.

Dez Hunter for example. He's had little discussion put forward about him.

If you have something to say about me do it yourself and don't rely on others to do it for you sir.

2 minutes ago, Lady K said:

This could be conceived as revenge voting.......just saying.

They're attitudes towards me could be considered revenge as well given neither came after me since I originally voted for Mr. Clifford Schauer.

Curious Clifford Schauer and Harry Oldman seem to have a little tag team going on, both sowing seeds of confusion, and guarding each others backs. 

[Tariq j]

15 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Follow-up: I guess what I am asking is what is the benefit of a day 1 lynch.  It is a blind play.  Voting at this point should only be used to put pressure on people in my opinion, and I'll note we have 3 or 4 still skating free right now.

It can build a good picture of the other players, when the person who's been lynched has their allegiance revealed the next day (be it Town/scum or otherwise) we can look in to the voting patterns. Who was pushing the Lynch the most? Who was more reserved/laid back about it? Who started the bandwagon? Who jumped on the bandwagon immediately? A lot of this can be gained from a Lynch.

[Lady K]

2 minutes ago, Forresto said:

If you have something to say about me do it yourself and don't rely on others to do it for you sir.

They're attitudes towards me could be considered revenge as well given neither came after me since I originally voted for Mr. Clifford Schauer.

Curious Clifford Schauer and Harry Oldman seem to have a little tag team going on, both sowing seeds of confusion, and guarding each others backs. 

I just prefer to see reasons given with votes.  It helps to get discussions going so we can find the scum infiltrators amongst us.

Maybe they are maybe they aren't; it's Day 1.  Tag teaming won't be obvious till the trial is further along. 

3 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

It can build a good picture of the other players, when the person who's been lynched has their allegiance revealed the next day (be it Town/scum or otherwise) we can look in to the voting patterns. Who was pushing the Lynch the most? Who was more reserved/laid back about it? Who started the bandwagon? Who jumped on the bandwagon immediately? A lot of this can be gained from a Lynch.

Agreed, if it were Day 2 or later.  Day 1 is still just a dice roll unless someone really slips up in something they say.  Yes, on Day 2 we would still be at Day 1 as far as who's who; but with the added Day 1 conversations.  And we would still have Night 1 results to look at.  As I said before we have two schools of thought and pros and cons to both.

[Kintobor]

32 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Follow-up: I guess what I am asking is what is the benefit of a day 1 lynch.  It is a blind play.  Voting at this point should only be used to put pressure on people in my opinion, and I'll note we have 3 or 4 still skating free right now.

I was going to comment on the benefit of a day one lynch, which I'd be in favour of, but it seems I've been beaten to the punch. I'll agree however that those who haven't voted are withholding their vote for a reason. If you're pro town, you'll put your voice out there and vote for someone instead of sulking about in wait for a bandwagon to occur. In my mind, that is incredibly suspicious.

[Trekkie99]

23 minutes ago, Lady K said:

Then please do point out who you are talking about and why you think we should have a discussion about them.

@KotZ, @Khscarymovie4, @Tariq j.

Why should they be talked about? 

Because from what my research says, they haven't been questioned once for suspicious behavior, because they exhibit no such behavior.

They've been active enough in order to avoid suspicion, but their content  is minimal at best.

One or more of them could potentially be scum?

[Tariq j]

1 minute ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

@KotZ, @Khscarymovie4, @Tariq j.

Why should they be talked about? 

Because from what my research says, they haven't been questioned once for suspicious behavior, because they exhibit no such behavior.

They've been active enough in order to avoid suspicion, but their content  is minimal at best.

One or more of them could potentially be scum?

I think you've misunderstood us, you've pointed a number of times there are people who should be talked about/questioned but you yourself haven't actually questioned those people/analysed what they've said. It's like you're trying to deflect the suspicion of yourself by getting people to focus on others. 

[Kwatchi]

32 minutes ago, Lady K said:

So you will switch back to seal a bandwagon on day 1? But you don't have reasons of your own for switching your vote?

((sip))

I switched my vote, to you, based on your behaviour.  You deflect questions when posed to you about your reasons, but you constantly discount other players reason without any back-up.  That is the reason you have my vote.  Frankly, of all the vocal jurors, I trust you the least as i watch trying to manipulate conversations through coercion.  And I am calling you out on it so that later my concerns are documented. 

Or, like, something like that.

((sip))

8 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

I was going to comment on the benefit of a day one lynch, which I'd be in favour of, but it seems I've been beaten to the punch. I'll agree however that those who haven't voted are withholding their vote for a reason. If you're pro town, you'll put your voice out there and vote for someone instead of sulking about in wait for a bandwagon to occur. In my mind, that is incredibly suspicious.

Really? Give your head a shake mine-man.  If I switched my vote back last minute, I'd be crucified as, like, a bandwagoner.  So I stated my willingness to consider arguments openly (or otherwise).  Notice anyone stepping up to to argue for or against?.  Call that suspicious if you want.

((sip))

Follow-up: Sorry Gary.  I think I misread the meaning of your post.  My statement stands, but I should have been less snarky.

 

Double follow-up: Yikes!  That should have read "watch you trying to".  That typo don't look so good. :(

[Forresto]

20 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

@KotZ, @Khscarymovie4, @Tariq j.

Why should they be talked about? 

Because from what my research says, they haven't been questioned once for suspicious behavior, because they exhibit no such behavior.

They've been active enough in order to avoid suspicion, but their content  is minimal at best.

One or more of them could potentially be scum?

My content was minimal at best yet you chose to go after me.

Once again you obfuscate, exclaiming for others to go after your selected targets. Then when you get called out you make bland all encompassing statements. 

[Lady K]

11 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

I switched my vote, to you, based on your behaviour.  You deflect questions when posed to you about your reasons, but you constantly discount other players reason without any back-up.  That is the reason you have my vote.  Frankly, of all the vocal jurors, I trust you the least as i watch trying to manipulate conversations through coercion.  And I am calling you out on it so that later my concerns are documented. 

Or, like, something like that.

((sip))

Really? Give your head a shake mine-man.  If I switched my vote back last minute, I'd be crucified as, like, a bandwagoner.  So I stated my willingness to consider arguments openly (or otherwise).  Notice anyone stepping up to to argue for or against?.  Call that suspicious if you want.

((sip))

I didn't ask about your voting me.  I asked about you stating you would switch your vote to seal a bandwagon and thus attain a lynch. without any reasons against the person you would be voting for.  If you feel that strong against me then why would you switch so easily just to seal a lynch for today?

As for the reason you have now stated on why your vote is on me please give specific examples of where I have discounted other players reasons without back-up.  You are accusing me of something that you are doing right now; where is your back-up?  Also please give specific examples of where I have manipulated conversations through coercion?  I am curious as to these claims you are making.

[Kwatchi]

[I apologize in advance.  I could not get a multi-quote to work, so you'll have to dig a bit in the Day 1 thread to find my references to what Steph (LadyK) said].

1 hour ago, Lady K said:

As for the reason you have now stated on why your vote is on me please give specific examples of where I have discounted other players reasons without back-up.  You are accusing me of something that you are doing right now; where is your back-up?  Also please give specific examples of where I have manipulated conversations through coercion?  I am curious as to these claims you are making.

((sip))

Of course a college student would ask me, to like, write an essay.  So let's start with a definition of an underhanded PR techniques used to deflect tough questions I found on Brickepedia:

Question the question.

(a) Request clarification or further information about the question. This works as a delaying tactic in a short interview.
(b) Reflect the question back to the interviewer (“Why do you ask me that?”)

So, stuff like:

Quote

At least give some good reasons why if you are going to vote for me.

And this:

Quote

Keep your vote on me if you want; just give good reasons why.

And this:

Quote

Exactly what is it that you think I am deflecting?

When faced with a tough question, question the questioner.  Tried and true.

 

Then we have, like, coercion.

The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

Sort of like this:

Quote

And changing your vote that quickly based on someone else observations or questions only make you look suspicious.

And this:

Quote

If I was going to "deflection defense" I would have switched my vote to you.

And this:

Quote

This could be conceived as revenge voting.......just saying.

Your threats are subtle, but they are right there for all to see.

So, right now, I see you as manipulating the group towards a lynch (by keeping conversations going that are spiraling towards that end) while on the other hand claiming you do not want one.  All while, like, holding off my, and Gary's brief, suspicions of your actions which started when you mistepped and start talking about third party jurors and then led to an aggressive defense.

As I stated openly, as a "new" juror I don't see much point in a Day 1 lynch but if "more experienced" jurors make a strong enough case and I am the tipping point I will consider it.  In the mean time, you will unhappily note I haven't wavered my vote off of you.

Or like whatevs.

((sip))

[mediumsnowman]

Vote Count:

 

4 votes for Harry Oldman (fhomess): Tariq j, LegoMonorailFan, Umbra-Manis, Forresto

3 votes for Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan): KotZ, Drunknok, Lady K

3 votes for Cathy Bridger (Drunknok): jluck, Kintober, Khscarymovie4

1 vote for Stephanie Diaz (Lady K): Kwatchi

1 vote for Dez Hunter (Forresto): Fhomess

Nonvoting (0):

 

With 12 jurors remaining, a majority of 7 is required to lynch. Approximately 6 1/2 hours remain in the day.

 

[Trekkie99]

3 hours ago, Tariq j said:

I think you've misunderstood us, you've pointed a number of times there are people who should be talked about/questioned but you yourself haven't actually questioned those people/analysed what they've said. It's like you're trying to deflect the suspicion of yourself by getting people to focus on others. 

Your trying to make this about me.

I'm not talking about what you and others have said, I'm talking about what you and others haven't said.  

I feel that the attention that I and others have been receiving is being used by scum to carry them thru the day unnoticed. They'll add to the conversation as they go, but nothing to noteworthy in order to avoid suspicion or discussion being put forward about that scum.

[Lady K]

3 hours ago, Lady K said:

I didn't ask about your voting me.  I asked about you stating you would switch your vote to seal a bandwagon and thus attain a lynch. without any reasons against the person you would be voting for.  If you feel that strong against me then why would you switch so easily just to seal a lynch for today?

As for the reason you have now stated on why your vote is on me please give specific examples of where I have discounted other players reasons without back-up.  You are accusing me of something that you are doing right now; where is your back-up?  Also please give specific examples of where I have manipulated conversations through coercion?  I am curious as to these claims you are making.

So I asked for your back-up to where I have specifically discounted other players reasons for voting and manipulation conversations through coercion and you give this as your response:

2 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

[I apologize in advance.  I could not get a multi-quote to work, so you'll have to dig a bit in the Day 1 thread to find my references to what Steph (LadyK) said].

((sip))

Of course a college student would ask me, to like, write an essay.  So let's start with a definition of an underhanded PR techniques used to deflect tough questions I found on Brickepedia:

Question the question.

 

(a) Request clarification or further information about the question. This works as a delaying tactic in a short interview.
(b) Reflect the question back to the interviewer (“Why do you ask me that?”)

 

So, stuff like:

 

 

And this:

 

And this:

 

 

 

When faced with a tough question, question the questioner.  Tried and true.

 

Then we have, like, coercion.

 

The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

 

Sort of like this:

 

And this:

 

And this:

 

Your threats are subtle, but they are right there for all to see.

So, right now, I see you as manipulating the group towards a lynch (by keeping conversations going that are spiraling towards that end) while on the other hand claiming you do not want one.  All while, like, holding off my, and Gary's brief, suspicions of your actions which started when you mistepped and start talking about third party jurors and then led to an aggressive defense.

As I stated openly, as a "new" juror I don't see much point in a Day 1 lynch but if "more experienced" jurors make a strong enough case and I am the tipping point I will consider it.  In the mean time, you will unhappily note I haven't wavered my vote off of you.

Or like whatevs.

((sip))

You state that due to your not being able to get the multi-quote to work, everyone has to go back on their own to find what you are trying to reference.....how are we supposed to know what you are thinking or how you interpret something?  It is up to you to find and explain your thoughts on what you find suspicious so that we all understand where you are coming from.

Nothing you have given here gives the specific situations to validate your point.  Most of it doesn't even make any sense.  Simply put you are trying to say that I have said things that I haven't. You are correct that it is right there for all to see that I have in fact not threatened you in any way.  In addition I have not manipulated or used coercion on anyone.  And for the record I am not pushing for a lynch or pushing for no-lynch today.  

Oh, and you still have not provided clarification on where you think I threatened, coerced, or manipulated anyone.

[Kwatchi]

1 hour ago, Lady K said:

So I asked for your back-up to where I have specifically discounted other players reasons for voting and manipulation conversations through coercion and you give this as your response:

You state that due to your not being able to get the multi-quote to work, everyone has to go back on their own to find what you are trying to reference.....how are we supposed to know what you are thinking or how you interpret something?  It is up to you to find and explain your thoughts on what you find suspicious so that we all understand where you are coming from.

Nothing you have given here gives the specific situations to validate your point.  Most of it doesn't even make any sense.  Simply put you are trying to say that I have said things that I haven't. You are correct that it is right there for all to see that I have in fact not threatened you in any way.  In addition I have not manipulated or used coercion on anyone.  And for the record I am not pushing for a lynch or pushing for no-lynch today.  

Oh, and you still have not provided clarification on where you think I threatened, coerced, or manipulated anyone.

((sip))

So, like, your response to my defining the actions I am talking about and citing examples is more "provide reasons" in order top deflect from the information provided in order to attempt to invalidate it?  Thank you for providing yet another example.

((sip))

[Figured out my solution to multi-quoting.  Lots of separate posts mashed together... sigh]

((sip))

Stephanie, since you are so fond of asking everyone else to give good reasons, let's put the shoe on the other foot.  Just for, like, fun.

On 1/13/2018 at 11:47 AM, Lady K said:

I am starting to think there could be a third party possibility.  We have been told that the Bellagio crime family infiltrated us good citizens with their family members that mean to do us harm, but could there also be another involved as well hired by Bellagio himself to make sure bad things happen to us?

I have read about this kinda thing happening in my books at school; particularly about a story about a forest....and our mailman did reference a tree falling on someone.

My vote stays where it is.

When Gary and I called you out on this non-sequitor statement, you response was?

 

On 1/13/2018 at 12:24 PM, Lady K said:

As you stated here conversation is important, I'm just trying to get conversation going.  I was waiting to see what Clifford had to say to my suggestion of a possible third party.  After all it is only the first day of the trial and we have to consider all options.  At least he was been willing to engage in conversation unlike Dez and Tina who have been very quiet; with no initial votes either.   And Brock and Tony have said very little other than to vote.

 

Now, this I find very interesting:

1. First you say it was to get a reaction out of Clifford.  But you said this when responding to Gary.  So why say Clifford (whom you have ridculously voted for btw based on his tree "falling in the forest" fluff)?  This never made sense to me when you said it and still doesn't.

2. Then, you immediately try to change subject by raising suspicion on Dez, Tina, Brock, and Tony because they had not voted yet.   It was still very early the game and that statement was not going to do much pressure wise if those jurors were... in the washroom or something.

Since then, it has been nothing but "give reasons" ad nauseum every time I bring this up.  It is obvious you are trying desperately hard to deflect away from it.  So my question to you is simply "Why are you so defensive about the third party statement you made?" Please provide good reasons.

((sip))

[Lady K]

36 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

So, like, your response to my defining the actions I am talking about and citing examples is more "provide reasons" in order top deflect from the information provided in order to attempt to invalidate it?  Thank you for providing yet another example.

((sip))

[Figured out my solution to multi-quoting.  Lots of separate posts mashed together... sigh]

((sip))

Stephanie, since you are so fond of asking everyone else to give good reasons, let's put the shoe on the other foot.  Just for, like, fun.

When Gary and I called you out on this non-sequitor statement, you response was?

 

Now, this I find very interesting:

1. First you say it was to get a reaction out of Clifford.  But you said this when responding to Gary.  So why say Clifford (whom you have ridculously voted for btw based on his tree "falling in the forest" fluff)?  This never made sense to me when you said it and still doesn't.

2. Then, you immediately try to change subject by raising suspicion on Dez, Tina, Brock, and Tony because they had not voted yet.   It was still very early the game and that statement was not going to do much pressure wise if those jurors were... in the washroom or something.

Since then, it has been nothing but "give reasons" ad nauseum every time I bring this up.  It is obvious you are trying desperately hard to deflect away from it.  So my question to you is simply "Why are you so defensive about the third party statement you made?" Please provide good reasons.

((sip))

First let me ask you a question:  Why do you keep brining up Gary?  He asked me for clarification, I gave it, he accepted it, and we have moved on.

Clarification for you:

1. Its called referring to a previous game.  Yes there was a forest, and a SK who won in the end; so I was merely remembering the past when out of the blue Clifford made a statement of a tree falling on someone and killing them.  We have gotten past that as well, if you had been keeping up with the conversations going you would know that.

2.  I never raised suspicion about Dez, Tina, Brock, and Tony.  I merely stated they had been quiet at the time; also something I have cleared up with Gary, go back and read that conversation again. 

3.  Finally, I am not defensive about the third party suggestion.....maybe you need to read again to keep up with the various conversations going.  It was a one time thought, a conversation was had about it. I gave an explanation for my reasons. 

I have no problem clarifying my thoughts for anyone who wishes to ask.  

Does this clear things up for you?

 

[mediumsnowman]

Vote Count:

 

4 votes for Harry Oldman (fhomess): Tariq j, LegoMonorailFan, Umbra-Manis, Forresto

3 votes for Clifford Schauer (LegoMonorailFan): KotZ, Drunknok, Lady K

3 votes for Cathy Bridger (Drunknok): jluck, Kintober, Khscarymovie4

1 vote for Stephanie Diaz (Lady K): Kwatchi

1 vote for Dez Hunter (Forresto): Fhomess

Nonvoting (0):

 

With 12 jurors remaining, a majority of 7 is required to lynch. Approximately 1 1/2 hours remain in the day. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by mediumsnowman

[Lady K]

As it stands it looks like we will have a no-lynch today.  How does everyone else feel about that?

[KotZ]

Sorry all, been busy doing logging thing. Generally a no-lynch is a bad thing, but I thionk we all learned quite a bit today.

[Trekkie99]

9 minutes ago, Lady K said:

As it stands it looks like we will have a no-lynch today.  How does everyone else feel about that?

So-so.

I guess.

But better safe than sorry.