Post by Bunnylaroo on Oct 13, 2013 20:08:46 GMT -8
The forum is doing that thing where it eats quotes when other people are quoting me, so forgive the formatting of this post.
Bunny: I think you missed my point about how many people were suspicious of Tae at the beginning of Day 4. It wasn't so much how few or many there were but rather it was how Wrecker abruptly changed her postion on it when I suggested she might be bussing Tae, first denying any change, then saying it was due to a reread, and finally saying it was a mistake.
I didn't misunderstand. I just don't agree that there is a "change of story". I was purposely looking back to see whether Wrecker was correct in what she was saying. There was a lot of attention on Tae, but only you and Wrecker had her specifically labeled FoS (because I only saw FoS lists from you). So both things she said were true.
It was sufficient on Day three because there was little else to go on at the time. It wasn't sufficient on Day four because stuff had happened. I'm a little surprised you even have to ask this.
But...a lot of the stuff that had happened was regarding Tae and her not changing to Riku. Which you were questioning her about. I would think that would add weight to the gut feeling you already had.
Why is this of interest to you now?
Because in my re-read, I noticed that you encouraged Firebolt to change her vote to Riku, which would not have resulted in a lynch unless someone else showed up and changed, whereas if you, Firebolt, and I (who were all present at the time) had all switched to Tae, then she would have been lynched. I'm wondering if you realized this at the time and didn't suggest it. That's why it is of interest to me now.
There were clearly not more people willing to vote Tae on Day 4, or she would have been lynched then.
What I meant was "more people than there were Day 3 when you voted Tae to begin with as a singleton." There were 2 people voting Tae on Day 4, Joly had indicated she was willing to switch, as was I. So yeah, that's "more people".
Do you really think I'm that stupid? Or are you just trying to make me look bad.
I don't believe I made any comment about your intelligence, so let's keep it civil shall we. But first you said "it was because of majority lynch rules", then when it was pointed out that majority had already been met, you said "when I did that voting analysis I suddenly had a very vague memory of something from another game, which I still haven't been able to pin down, but which made me more certain." Forgive me if I don't find that very convincing. I'm not "trying to make you look bad"; the switch just looks bad to me.
Why would she do that? There was little or no suspicion on Joly so banning you would mean it was just between the two of us and I'm pretty sure Joly would have been willing to consider both sides. That would have made it more risky for Wrecker.
The highlighted portion indicates that you don't believe I am considering both sides, which if I was the kind of person to take offense, I'd find pretty offensive. I have considered both sides.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't like the "tone" of my last post, since it ends with a vote on you. Again, the highlighted portion assumes that I didn't spend the past two days rereading the thread and coming to my own conclusions. Which, you can believe that if you want to, but it isn't true, and it's a little irritating. Also, you've said more than once that the voting analysis points to me being Tae's rogue partner, but how exactly?
I seemed to remember that it was Tae herself who was the first to mention it so I went back to have another look. Yes, it was Tae, but what was more interesting was the timings. In post 202 Tae said she saw Furare's post showing Leif's vote on her third refresh then scrolled up to see his post, but it wasn't until an hour after the deadline that she mentioned it in the thread, just a few minutes before Wrecker posted her 180 degree flip on Tae. The closeness of the two posts makes it clear that Wrecker had been typing hers before Tae posted but was it pure coincidence? Or had Wrecker and Tae been using that time to discuss what action they should take?
I guess it wasn't clear, but I meant that wrecker was the first to mention Tae "missing Leif's post" as being suspicious. Obviously Tae was the first one to mention that she had missed Leif's post.
Bunny: I think you missed my point about how many people were suspicious of Tae at the beginning of Day 4. It wasn't so much how few or many there were but rather it was how Wrecker abruptly changed her postion on it when I suggested she might be bussing Tae, first denying any change, then saying it was due to a reread, and finally saying it was a mistake.
I didn't misunderstand. I just don't agree that there is a "change of story". I was purposely looking back to see whether Wrecker was correct in what she was saying. There was a lot of attention on Tae, but only you and Wrecker had her specifically labeled FoS (because I only saw FoS lists from you). So both things she said were true.
I wrote:
And in this post, Marinated is less inclined to vote for Tae because "that's still partly a gut feeling". But why was gut sufficient to vote her on Day 3, when no one else was, yet not sufficient on Day 4, when there was already a vote there.
And in this post, Marinated is less inclined to vote for Tae because "that's still partly a gut feeling". But why was gut sufficient to vote her on Day 3, when no one else was, yet not sufficient on Day 4, when there was already a vote there.
It was sufficient on Day three because there was little else to go on at the time. It wasn't sufficient on Day four because stuff had happened. I'm a little surprised you even have to ask this.
But...a lot of the stuff that had happened was regarding Tae and her not changing to Riku. Which you were questioning her about. I would think that would add weight to the gut feeling you already had.
I wrote:
Noteworthy (although I am also guilty of this) is that if Firebolt had switched to Tae, and then Marinated and I also switched, we could have lynched her Day 4. I was not mentally capable of realizing that fact at the time, and honestly, would have done whatever anyone told me to do, but it is of interest to me now.
Noteworthy (although I am also guilty of this) is that if Firebolt had switched to Tae, and then Marinated and I also switched, we could have lynched her Day 4. I was not mentally capable of realizing that fact at the time, and honestly, would have done whatever anyone told me to do, but it is of interest to me now.
Why is this of interest to you now?
Because in my re-read, I noticed that you encouraged Firebolt to change her vote to Riku, which would not have resulted in a lynch unless someone else showed up and changed, whereas if you, Firebolt, and I (who were all present at the time) had all switched to Tae, then she would have been lynched. I'm wondering if you realized this at the time and didn't suggest it. That's why it is of interest to me now.
I wrote:
- Backed off from voting Tae because she "preferred a lynch on Riku" Day 4 and 5, when more people were willing to vote/ actually voting Tae.
- Backed off from voting Tae because she "preferred a lynch on Riku" Day 4 and 5, when more people were willing to vote/ actually voting Tae.
There were clearly not more people willing to vote Tae on Day 4, or she would have been lynched then.
What I meant was "more people than there were Day 3 when you voted Tae to begin with as a singleton." There were 2 people voting Tae on Day 4, Joly had indicated she was willing to switch, as was I. So yeah, that's "more people".
I wrote:
- Says she was "always willing to switch" but didn't actually switch until there was really no point in switching at all. I still don't see the point in switching, unless it was "gee it will look bad if I'm the only one not on Tae once Tae flips rogue".
- Says she was "always willing to switch" but didn't actually switch until there was really no point in switching at all. I still don't see the point in switching, unless it was "gee it will look bad if I'm the only one not on Tae once Tae flips rogue".
Do you really think I'm that stupid? Or are you just trying to make me look bad.
I don't believe I made any comment about your intelligence, so let's keep it civil shall we. But first you said "it was because of majority lynch rules", then when it was pointed out that majority had already been met, you said "when I did that voting analysis I suddenly had a very vague memory of something from another game, which I still haven't been able to pin down, but which made me more certain." Forgive me if I don't find that very convincing. I'm not "trying to make you look bad"; the switch just looks bad to me.
I wrote:
But I would expect a rogue Wrecker to ban me over Joly, because Joly pretty much said "We'll do it your way tomorrow Wrecker."
But I would expect a rogue Wrecker to ban me over Joly, because Joly pretty much said "We'll do it your way tomorrow Wrecker."
Why would she do that? There was little or no suspicion on Joly so banning you would mean it was just between the two of us and I'm pretty sure Joly would have been willing to consider both sides. That would have made it more risky for Wrecker.
The highlighted portion indicates that you don't believe I am considering both sides, which if I was the kind of person to take offense, I'd find pretty offensive. I have considered both sides.
Anyway, I've had another look through all your posts and I still can't find anything which really points at you being a rogue until this last post where the tone feels all wrong. It just looks like you're taking Wrecker's points against me and using them to justify voting me. So I was going to go with that together with my gut feeling that Wrecker is innocent, plus my original voting analysis which showed that you were the most likely, after Riku, to be Tae's partner.
It doesn't surprise me that you don't like the "tone" of my last post, since it ends with a vote on you. Again, the highlighted portion assumes that I didn't spend the past two days rereading the thread and coming to my own conclusions. Which, you can believe that if you want to, but it isn't true, and it's a little irritating. Also, you've said more than once that the voting analysis points to me being Tae's rogue partner, but how exactly?
I wrote:
But then again, there was virtually no suspicion on Tae prior to Night 3, and wrecker was the first to bring up Tae's "missing Leif's post" then, so I don't think "preempting other people's suspicions on Tae" would be the rogue team's course of action in that situation.
But then again, there was virtually no suspicion on Tae prior to Night 3, and wrecker was the first to bring up Tae's "missing Leif's post" then, so I don't think "preempting other people's suspicions on Tae" would be the rogue team's course of action in that situation.
I seemed to remember that it was Tae herself who was the first to mention it so I went back to have another look. Yes, it was Tae, but what was more interesting was the timings. In post 202 Tae said she saw Furare's post showing Leif's vote on her third refresh then scrolled up to see his post, but it wasn't until an hour after the deadline that she mentioned it in the thread, just a few minutes before Wrecker posted her 180 degree flip on Tae. The closeness of the two posts makes it clear that Wrecker had been typing hers before Tae posted but was it pure coincidence? Or had Wrecker and Tae been using that time to discuss what action they should take?
I guess it wasn't clear, but I meant that wrecker was the first to mention Tae "missing Leif's post" as being suspicious. Obviously Tae was the first one to mention that she had missed Leif's post.