Be Excellent To Each Other

Couldn't we just pick up the table plan and look at it to see who shouldnt be there?

I might do poker again later for no reason at all.

Hence I used words like "imagine" and "probably" also I think I read the same book once, and I was sure the sentence went more like "these people who didn't vote must contain the baddies" rather than "they are probably split around" I mean what I said really doesn't help (the baddies are split amongst the 3 groups of people) find them, I was more saying that they could be anywhere rather than looking for a group of people all doing the same thing.

Malc

I asked this earlier, and was told by mysterious powers that yes, we could look at the guest list.

As such, I know who Joans investigated last night. I only know that the person investigated is a confirmed guest though, so unless this person starts getting close to a lynch I'll be keeping my mouth shut, as they could just as easily be the photographer, bride, groom or best man.

I have agonised over whether to reveal this, but hopefully you too will get a message from mysterious powers.

To be fair I think it is only me who has been saying that and I did actually vote for someone else.



I am not voting for the same person today because I voted for them yesterday and despite being near death Mr Dave did not change his vote to them as well. I appreciate that Mr Dave had no more info than we do however I feel that since I specifically asked him for his thoughts before he was lynched, it is only fair if I act on them, otherwise I could be looking back and thinking why did I ask if I didn't use that info?

I don't really understand how I am coming across as being muddled, I think anyone could surely agree that I have been saying the same thing all day. I am suspicious as to why you would now suggest I'm being muddled without actually outright accusing me, that seems very much like planting a seed to me.

VOTE UPDATE

mr chris: 1 (TheAlbin0Kid)
mr russell: 1 (myp)
kalmar: 1 (superdupergill)

Not voted: 11 (craster, kovacsc, grim..., kalmar, malc, morte, mr chris, mr dom, mr russell, zaphod79, runcle)

With 14 players alive, 8 votes are required for a lynch, and 11 nolynch votes are required to not lynch anybody.

http://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/counter/

This all sounds... annoyingly sensible.

Not that I'm siding with Mr Russell, but why is he a good call kalmar and albino? How can you say that on one hand, then on the other hand say you want me to continue voting for Morte as that was a good call(or at least voting for a quiet one was)? Mr Russell was the other person who voted for Morte so if you think that was a good idea how is he suspicious? You are both being a bit weird.

You are muddled because yesterday you wanted to vote for a quiet one, which had some sense to it, and now you're ignoring the idea of voting for a quiet one, when the idea still has some sense to it. Since we essentially know nothing more than we did yesterday (ignoring Russ's big pile of hogwash that he just posted), why is yesterday's approach no good today?

I didn't say yesterdays approach was no good today, I said that I voted for them yesterday but Mr Dave didn't think it worth changing his vote to match that despite that then meaning there would have been three votes for Morte and more of a reason for others to join. I also said I know that Mr Dave isn't some sort of God or anything and that he didn't have any more info than us however I asked his opinion and so I am going to trust his judgement and go for someone he suspected. It is the best I have. I don't know Morte is bad I just know he is quiet and if he was lynched and innocent people would immediatly look at me since it seems I am the only one people remember voting for him.

Points one and two do, yes. Point 3 is clearly sour grapes over him being stuck on the kids' table and not being able to bask in the witty repartee at my, far better, table.

I didn't vote yesterday afternoon as I was at a client meeting from 2pm until 6, and din't get home 'til after 7, but there we are.

If I was deliberately turning up early to post once and then fuck off and hide silently in the toilets sobbing over not being able to play with Mr Dave in the coatroom one last time then (a) I wouldn't be so bloody daft as to signpost that that was what I was doing and (b) I wouldn't be here now.

I've got my eye on you, 101019021387409821. Which isn't hard, as you're taller than everyone else on your table.

I'm sorry, but in case you missed that, I KNOW THE NAME OF A CONFIRMED GUEST.
I can stop the lynch of a goodie!!
In my mind that's pretty much as damn good as being the wedding planner for a night.

He really isn't.

That means you probably won't get to sample the next lovely course, though, you do realise that Russ?

He's shorter than a 5 year old? Excellent. Mind you, the bridesmaids better check under the table.

Yeah, that's why I said I was agonising over it.
And only mentioned it when Runcle brought it up also.

Hmm, I like how albino managed to make two points out of a three point post into suggesting I'm suspicious. Since I just asked him to carify how I'm being muddled and he said that it's because I'm not voting for a quiet one, and point one is I'm not voting for a quiet one. So the more he speaks I'm beginning to think he is making a lot of suggestions to vote for me without actually marking himself out as voting for me. Especially since he ends the post by proclaiming we should vote for someone else. so he spends two points suggesting you all doubt me, then hides that fact in plain sight.
If anyone else was for a moment to pretend they knew I was innocent and then re-read his posts would they agree with this assessment? I'm not saying to believe I'm innocent, just some food for though which may come in useful at some point.

Gill, you're missing a very important point regarding Dave's voting yesterday. Dave blatantly didn't give a fuck what happened, he knew he'd have a bugger of a time trying to stay alive given how good he is at the game, and he certainly wouldn't be able to convince 9 people to vote for someone who hadn't even opened their mouth. And once we left it so late to get a run on a quiet one (not Morte necessarily, although he is the name that came out of the hat), then really the only person Dave could have used his vote against to push someone else was me, and that's where his vote already was.

You're really cluttering up the discussion here, nobody has even really commented on my outright FOSing of Mr Chris even though you were all desperate for names from me yesterday when I said I had some tinglings in my trousers. I guess it must be lunch break so everyone is busy. Are you on a liquid lunch from one of the barrels? It sounds like it.

My last post is actually a bit muddled lol.
What I meant was he made two points which said the same thing (point1-she was voting for a quiet now but now isn't, point 2-she is being very muddled [when asked to clarify, by muddled he meant I was voting for a quiet one but now I'm not])

So he managed to spread one thing he is saying about me into two seperate points in a post to draw lots of attention to me (like he needs help ) but then hides it behind an accusation towards someone else. So then someone else starts pointing the finger at me and they are the one marked out as doing so.

So now I hope that won't happen because I have pointed it out so thoroughly.

It seemed good at the time based on what myp said (about yesteday).
Since then, reading Mr Russell's posts, I retract it.

The Scum don't have an investigative role, do they? If I've read the rules right - which is never a guaranteed proposition.

I think it's a pretty silly time to confess to all this to be honest, which is why I'm not buying it. You seem a nice guy, so I'd rather believe you were a liar rather than a cretin.

I'm being frank to shock here.

It was all one paragraph in my original essay that the server chewed up, if that makes you feel any better. Would it help if I say that under no circumstances will I vote for you today? Ok, I'll say it anyway... under no circumstances will I vote for Gill today.

I genuinely believe you are just being dizzy and over-defensive, and are therefore missing the fact that I devoted twice as much time to my accusation of Mr Chris than anything else and even put his name in bold! You can't retract it once it's in bold!

1. I think it is unfair to say Dave didn't give a fuck what happened. He couldn't have known for sure he would go til near the end and so I presume he would still have been playing the game properly (and probably still is in the dead thread).

2. Cluttering up the discussion? At least I am trying to figure stuff out, the days are way shorter than we are used to and given the fact that we ran out of time yesterday to figure things out, surely it is best we talk as much as possible today to try and give ourselves a better chance?
Also, you haven't played a full game with me yet so get used to it-I blabber a load of nonsense throught mostly. When I get near a PC at work, I fill my time 'cluttering up the discussion'. It's my trademark.

3. I don' t think people were desperate for names for you, it was mainly me who was asking and that was so as we would have some information to work with and not just excited voting for the two most obvious candidates. I still refuse to see anything I have done as being anything less than logical and I am deeply suspicious of anyone who doesn't read my posts and see a bit of sense in them. As I said earlier, imagine for a moment I am innocent and read my posts from that point of view. You don't have to believe me, but at least acknowledge I am being logical.

4. If people haven't commented on you FOS's Mr Chris it's because they have nothing to say. If I read the thread and see something I want to comment on, I do so before I read more of the thread. If you think your comment has been lost, repeat it.

You say that, but you don't appear to have any other setting. Almost as if you were, I don't know, drunk and gatecrashing?

I think there may have been slightly more to it than that , but i remember the same book , and had drawn the same conclusion as Malc but had not posted it because of the memories of that book.

{vote: t1h2e8a7l1b3i2n0o9f8l7i8d2}

Just get on with your fake roleclaim already, you shouldn't get another chance at doing one after today...

"Shouldn't", perhaps, "won't", hopefully not. I'm assuming by the silence on the matter that people are quite rightly taking your accusations of me as the gibbering, baseless nonsense that they are.

I dont think that quite works :-)

(be excellent if any random string of letters with numbers mixed up did though :-)

I'll be in the same boat today in that if we have not voted by 17:30 i will not be around to vote before the day times out - i'm also in meetings for a chunk of the next 2 hours so will catch up with things then

I WROTE a book about ghosts once, and it had people called Craster, Mr Dave and Mimi in it... do those names mean anything to anyone?

I'm shocked and appalled that our Overlords haven't sorted that out.

[vote: TheAlbin0Kid]

VOTE UPDATE

thealbin0kid: 1 (Mr Chris)
mr chris: 1 (TheAlbin0Kid)
mr russell: 1 (myp)
kalmar: 1 (superdupergill)

Not voted: 10 (craster, kovacsc, grim..., kalmar, malc, morte, mr dom, mr russell, zaphod79, runcle)

With 14 players alive, 8 votes are required for a lynch, and 11 nolynch votes are required to not lynch anybody.

http://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/counter/

Still very open at the moment!!

Yeah, we need to be thinking about getting the ball rolling.
I'm rather tempted to vote for Wh1teB0y or SDG, but only because they are posting a lot of stuff to read.
I am also down with the 'quiet one' conversation.
Also also, I'll be around until the end of this course, so I'll wait it out and see what happens.

Busy with pump, back after 4.30pm

SDG was defending Albino yesterday, and someone called them on it. Today they're at loggerheads.

FOS: TheAlbin0Kid
FOS: superdupergill

I've got 45 mins, so something do something stupid like a roleclaim!

Oh.

So you don't think she's just a ditzy Scotch lass who's got herself into a knot then? All I've been doing is clarifying myself to her after she ignored all my stuff about Mr Chris and focussed on the bit where I said her change in strategy was a bit hasty and therefore puzzling. Ok, I may have suggested she had been drinking from the works vats over lunch, but what respecting Scot DOESN'T do that? That's hardly at loggerheads

Gotta say, if I was to go with my gut feeling (and that's all I have until someone convinces me otherwise) it'd be one of them.

I'm repeating this because nobody seems to like it, but nobody has come up with anything better (I accept some logic to Craster's last accusation, but he's failing to think about the fact that I am naturally an easy target for suspicion and it would therefore be a very bad idea for me if I was a bad guy to put myself in the same frame as reference as one of my co-conspirators, either as an ally or as a direct adversary... it wouldn't gain me a great deal of cover, and would expose them to far greater risk than if they stayed the hell away from me in public discussion. I'm clearly a fucking grenade in this game, that's probably the one thing everyone here agrees on!)

Oh, a great reason to go for someone - "noone else has been mentioned". *slow handclap*

[vote:kalmar]

Judging by his hints yesterday I think he was the reckless guest and he hasnt been getting more drunk today so I think hes a wedding crasher now.

Why would someone hints at being the reckless guest?

might be forced to, it says in the description that if they dont become a wedding crasher they will just get more drunk.

I said it ages ago you dolt, I'm simply repeating it because there's not many theories floating around and nobody has really said anything about it. If everyone has really decided not to listen to anything I say then just lynch me and get it over with already. One of these games you'll learn that I'm not full of shit, I just have really poor man-management skills.

I was just trying to get into character... You know, being a guest, at a wedding reception?

Once you called me on it and I realised nobody else was bothering with characters, I switched to the sparkling grape juice


So, soberly, at the moment I have to say I am slightly swayed by Albin0's pick.

superdupergill - Ace high
myp - Jack high (9)
Craster - Ace High
KovacsC - 3 of a kind Queens (one joker)
Grim... - Pair of Kings
kalmar - Pair of Kings
Malc - Pair of 10's
TheAlbin0Kid - Pair of 2's
Morte - Pair of Jacks
Mr Chris - Ace High
Mr Dom - Queen High
Mr Russell - Pair of 2's
zaphod79 - Pair of Aces (one joker)
Runcle - Pair of 4's

Kovacs wins. Myp is now the loser.

Hah, that is nicely deduced! Totally wrong though, sorry.

how do you know its wrong?

That doesn't make it any less retarded.



Now, why might that be? Perhaps because it's one of the most tenuous accusaitons of this wedding so far? I'm more inclined to believe what Craster was telling me in the toilets about Kalmar and Grim...

Dumb as a post != a wedding crasher, so we don't have to vote for you just because you've a lower mental capacity than the youngest guest at your little table. Hell, you could be my aunt Nora.



That too, yes.