Be Excellent To Each Other

See kids, drugs're bad.
(I didn't attack the cake, nor even mention it. You nutter.)

Is that one of the bridesmaids over there?

Then vanish suspiciously or claim to be someone else :-)

Anyway are we going to chuck some people out so theres more cake left for the rest of us ?

Yep - remember folks, short days this week. Which is good, because I'm hungry.

Tell us who you'd boot out so we can choose someone else.

As we have currently have no clues who is who, I'm going to [vote:TheAlbin0Kid].

As I had a dream that he once frothed something about ghosts at me, [vote:TheAlbin0Kid]

<reads .sig>

Its not day 5 yet but think of this more as a revenge vote :

[Vote:Mr Dave]

I can't really chat right now I'm really busy but I will have time after 16.30. So I will be back then to vote.

your sounding like a wedding crasher mr kalmar.

oh hello everybody.

If we bear in mind that in the last game I pointed the finger at 3 bad guys very early on (Craster, Mr Dave and Mimi) and was proven correct, then the only people who would want rid of me are bad guys afeared of my deductive powers

Is every one haveing fun?

Sorry for being late. So I have two questions: Where is the bar? When is the fighting, before or after the reception?

*glasses Morte*

That should answer both your questions.

Ok just had another read at the rules, so we have two lots of people who can do us harm? The ex and the wedding crashers? I think this is the first wedding I have been to where there are two groups of baddies to look out for! I don't know how to choose someone on the first day though because I always like to believe that everyone is a goody

I have issues with the whole "WE MUST GET FOR SOMEONE ON THE FIRST DAY" mindset. I'm still not sure why it's taken as read.
Although I note we can't vote nolynch.

Because we need to see patterns emerging. And the only way to do that is to have "events".

Malc

With a set number of courses I think a no lynch would be very silly in this one.

Granted, but that only really works if you luck out and get one of the bad guys into trouble.

I have issues with people taking issues about issues...

Oh and just to be clear, an event could just as well be 2 people close to being evicted, or a role claim, or anything where a debate can be had.

Malc

Numerically it is the right thing to do though.

The only problem is that almost unfailingly, we end up doing the bad guys' work for them - it's very easy to be swayed this early in the [wedding] because there's very little interaction or voting history to go on.


Are these miniature sausages vegetarian?

We have only 6 days and we potentially have to lynch 5 people in order to win.

Holy fuck. So if we eject two proper guests, we're fucked?

Potentially - that's a worst case of there being 4 crashers and the ex not booting any of them.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyt </clay>

Someone has read the rules a little more carefully than they would have done if they were just a mere wedding guest

I've read the rules too. If we have all four wedding crashers, then we can only afford to hit a proper guest twice.
If anyone has a good way of figuring out who that might be (in the next 3.5 hours) then they should speak up.

Nope. I read my win condition, thought 'Fuck - that'll be a challenge', then checked the potential numbers of crashers.

Find someone else to annoy this time round :0)

Its a wedding - ignore the outcome and have fun



Paging Zardoz ..... Zardoz to the reception area please ...... Joke involving minatures requested on table 3

You picked up on 'minatures' and not sausages?

Also, you know, hmm...

We won't, unless Curiosity is a berk.

Ah, we'll work on the assumption there are 4 wedding crashers then

(I think it's likely there are fewer though)

Granted, but I don't think we should assume there are fewer.

I'm not having a Zardoz in the forum and picking up sausages myself !

If Zardoz was in the forum you'd need to bend over to get the sausages.

etc.

Oh, he's got plenty to go around.

What, don't think you can manage to eat 6 courses?!? LOLZ!

Seriously though, I have a couple of slight tinglings going on here. And there's a couple of people I suspect, one more than the other, but I can't name them because they haven't voted to lynch me and I'll just be making myself a target for their misguided lynch votes. And with two votes next to my name already for no apparent reason, a couple more votes for me and the inevitable landslide towards a lynch will start on the ground that "well we have to get rid of someone and we're not likely to get enough votes for anyone else even though nobody really suspects the Albanian but there's no smoke without fire" and all that brainless crap that cost the town victory in an almost unloseable Ghostscum game. So for your own sakes, I'm not pointing the finger at anyone today, to save us guests from mindlessly booting one of our own.

I'd be willing to look at that a different way though and say how about you tell us who you suspect since you were succesful at the last wedding you were at. Then we can discuss it, choose one of them and lynch them. If you are right, excellent. If not, we have the discussion from today to analyse plus we can start suspecting you without you immediatly accusing people of only suspecting you because they think you might deduce something.

Given that it's impossible to ascertain the loyalties of the person doing the recommending, asking for people's suspicions is a waste of time unless they provide good reasoning to back it up. Just like Runcle's coins.

Also - so is people saying "I suspect people".

So, everyone having fun? Hic!

Anyone who won't get home from work before 7pm, get a vote in before you leave, please.

Well obviously, but on the first day when everyone is stabbing in the dark any theory is better than no theory and if there is a structured discussion and a couple of obvious subjects it should be much more simple to ascertain any possible patterns or tactical voting on later days than looking back on a bunch of people going 'i vote xxxxx' 'ok, then i vote xxxxx' etc. Plues if he is wrong he can't keep boasting he is good at the game

I forgot about this thingy..


VOTE UPDATE

kalmar: 1 (Mr Dave)
mr dave: 2 (kalmar, zaphod79)
thealbin0kid: 2 (Grim..., Craster)

Not voted: 12 (the rev owen, superdupergill, myp, kovacsc, malc, thealbin0kid, morte, mr chris, mr dom, mr russell, runcle, joans)

With 17 players alive, 9 votes are required for a lynch, and 13 nolynch votes are required to not lynch anybody.

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

Thanks for reminding me. [Vote:Craster]

Course 0
VOTE UPDATE

kalmar: 1 (Mr Dave)
mr dave: 2 (kalmar, zaphod79)
thealbin0kid: 2 (Grim..., Craster)
Craster: 1 (myp)

Not voted: 11 (the rev owen, superdupergill, kovacsc, malc, thealbin0kid, morte, mr chris, mr dom, mr russell, runcle, joans)

With 17 players alive, 9 votes are required for a lynch, and 13 nolynch votes are required to not lynch anybody.

Not if it's part of the bad guys' agenda it isn't.

I think we're really going to struggle to get enough votes to lynch anyone today anyway.

We do need to move this on, so I'm going to pick one from the list up there, and [vote:thealbin0kid]

Malc

Well, err, well, maybe. I mean, if it's a dumb theory it might help us catch the bad guys.