Open 121: Two of Four (b9) - Over! before 752

[ZazieR]

Vote KMD

Seriously KMD, stop those OMGUS votes for once

[ZazieR]

Is this the part where I post your WIFOM theory of our votes, or can we ignore that part and move on ?

[ZazieR]

Ten little Soldier boys went out to dine;
One choked his little self and then there were nine.
Nine little Soldier boys sat up very late;
One overslept himself and then there were eight.
Eight little Soldier boys traveling in Devon;
One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.
Seven little Soldier boys chopping up sticks;
One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.
Six little Soldier boys playing with a hive;
A bumblebee stung one and then there were five.
Five little Soldier boys going in for law;
One got into Chancery and then there were four.
Four little Soldier boys going out to sea;
A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.
Three little Soldier boys walking in the zoo;
A big bear hugged one and then there were two.
Two Little Soldier boys sitting in the sun;
One got frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Soldier boy left all alone;
He went out and hanged himself and then there were none.

Agatha Christy's 'And then there were none'. I just love Agatha Christy, but this one of her books I haven't read yet

[ZazieR]

I don't think so, but this is what was written. And you might want to look again at the OP. Veerus has used a part of it.
I thought it would be interesting to see what the next scene will be . For example, I don't want to chop myself with an axe I hope you will sacrifice yourself for me if I get chopped, as we're friends. Right, KMD ?

[ZazieR]

^^ You replaced into a game I was in.
Although I was already dead when you entered. But that's something you know.

[ZazieR]

Yes, 5 are indeed needed.
But can you explain the first part of your last post, DCJ? I want to know what the reason was why you posted this:

Wow, three people with 2 votes each.

[ZazieR]

Sens is right. I was asking you why you felt the need to point it out that there are three players with two votes each. I also was wondering which emotion you had with it. If you were happy, surprised or sad about this. But I didn't think of funny. It's also not the impression I get when I read your post that you saw it as funny.


I haven't played with Zwet before, so I don't know what you guys are talking about. But I have seen Sens behaving like this before. So Zwet, you can better not keep this in your mind as it won't work:

I would be if you would stop trying to find fault in everything I'm saying and actually play the game instead of randomly insulting me.

[ZazieR]

I'm not always serious... I can name three (four if one hadn't left this site) players who can support this statement. It just depends on the situation.

I don't see how it was odd as it happens all the time. And that's why it's strange that you pointed it out. As I have never seen anyone do that. This is my reason for questioning your intention of it.

But anyway, what's the meaning behind this:

Also, I'm finding I agree that Zwet's posts aren't actually contributing at all, but I don't think he's voteworthy.

We'll get nowhere the way the votes are, so I suppose I'll Unvote, Vote: Zwet.

Why the switch?

We'll get nowhere the way the votes are, so I suppose I'll Unvote, Vote: Zwet.

After all, we have to lynch someone.

And the best part of your last post, voting for a lynch just to get things moving.

Unvote Vote Darkcoffeejazz

[ZazieR]

I knew you would figure it out that you are one of those 4

[ZazieR]

Yes, I agree. Zwet's posts haven't been useful. However, I don't think he has gotten the chance so far. Almost at the start of the game, players were already calling him useless. And since then, every time he responded to one post where he was accused as useless, the next post already came in which he was called useless (a bit overreacted from my part). This only results in an endless circle. So, Zwet, I'm a huge supporter of more votes against DCJ. As he's the most discussed player after you, what's your opinion of him?

And DCJ, my vote wasn't due to the contradiction (and there was definitly one, and if there wasn't one, it's only worse), but for your reason for your vote against Zwet. Voting just for a lynch (with the only exception at deadline) is very scummy.

[ZazieR]

Sens, you've played one game with me before, although I wasn't very active back then.

Anyway, I don't agree with you on post 142. Normally it would be the case, but not this time. He has already seen in a different game, that we have much time to discuss things. His excuse in this game is just weak.
Also, have you seen his reason to unvote? In case you haven't:

But seeing as he's claimed, for now I'll Unvote.

He's unvoted, because Zwet has claimed, not because of what Zwet claimed!


@DCJ
What's your reason for suspecting me?

[ZazieR]

Oh sorry, I thought you were saying that DCJ's defence is legit.

[ZazieR]

I actually disagree with the case against hewitt. I don't see why scum would post upset after their partner is lynched. And I've been also a few times sure that someone was town, while everyone else saw that player as scum (see NG 684).

I'm actually more interested in Sens as that hammer is questionable, and BSW as her disappearance was rather 'convenient'.
So I'm waiting to hear from Sens if he actually thought that DCJ was scummy with reasons, and to hear some content from BSW.

[ZazieR]

I'm actually more interested in Sens as that hammer is questionable, and BSW as her disappearance was rather 'convenient'.
So I'm waiting to hear from Sens if he actually thought that DCJ was scummy

with reasons

, and to hear some content from BSW.

[ZazieR]

I don't think that Sens has to show any examples of players who agree with policy lynches. There are players who are not appreciated due to their playstyle. And apparently Zwets is one of them (Don't shoot the messenger as I don't agree with policy lynches. I'm just bringing the message across).
And no, I don't find that ridiculous. I can remember the way Sens posted during our first game, so I'm not surprised. Just get used to this if you're gonna play with him again.

Anyway, I'm in favor of hearing something from BSW.

[ZazieR]

Militant, what's your opinion of what you discussed in post 263?

Anyway, I'm hoping to hear something soon from the replacement. BSW hasn't said much. I don't even know which action from BSW Empking is talking about in post 262.

[ZazieR]

Nat replaced out of that game. Probably due to the responses. But Kmd can actually say more about this.
Anyway, in my opinion, this is a legal comparisation.

[ZazieR]

@Empking
For me, they are: BSW, Militant and Sens.
Sens due to his hammer and not providing the reasons why he saw DCJ as scummy.
Militant for his last two posts. First he points Sens action regarding Zwet out as peculiar, but when I ask his opinion about it, he's chosing both sides. Also, his post number 4 doesn't sit right with me.
I'm waiting with my vote, till I hear something from BSW's replacement.

[ZazieR]

Sekinj! You're back. Haven't seen you in a while. Please say that you actually remembered me as Sens didn't

Anyway, I'd like to hear your and Primate's opinion of DCJ although he's dead.

[ZazieR]

Yes you did Although I was heavily lurking in that game...

[ZazieR]

ITT Sens proved that Babelfish sucks...
Do you want to read the real translation in Dutch ?

Sekinj, that wasn't the only reason why DCJ was seen as scummy. So what did you think of his other actions?
Primate, can you give some reasons why you saw DCJ as scummy?

[ZazieR]

@Sekinj
I just want to hear your opinion of DCJ in general. However, so far you've only talked about one part of his posts. There were other things DCJ has said or done as well. You don't have to respond to a specific post of his as long as you give a general opinion that isn't based upon only one part.

@Primate
Because I'd like to know everyone's opinion of DCJ. Especially as BSW (the one you replaced) never gave her opinion, I'd like to see what you have to say about him.

[ZazieR]

You've got nothing to say about his contradiction? Or his reason for the unvote? And you might want to look again at his defence, to see why his defence was bad.
You can also look at the reasons Sens had given. What do you think of those?

Also, if you wouldn't have voted DCJ, who would you have voted day 1?

[ZazieR]

I actually disagree with the case against hewitt. I don't see why scum would post upset after their partner is lynched. And I've been also a few times sure that someone was town, while everyone else saw that player as scum (see NG 684).

Still thinking this.

[ZazieR]

Because what he has done today doesn't strike me as scummy. Nothing that Hewitt has said so far screamed scum to me.
As for Zwet's play, I have given my comments about it. Zwet wasn't scummy, he wasn't helping due to all those attacks at the start of the game. So in my opinion, he wasn't scummy. But if you want to know why Hewitt saw Zwet as town, you should ask him, not me. And if I'm correct, he already said why.
Anyway, the day that there won't be any townie that uses AtE, I'll say how awesome you are. But right now, there are still townies who use AtE, and I think that hewitt is one of them.

Vote Sekinj

The willingness to hammer, but still not doing it.
The impression I get that she hasn't read the game so far.
Using an attack against Hewitt he can't give a defence against as she's not giving the games she's gotten the meta from.
DCJ ignoring Militant's questions.
Militant's last two posts.
And meta reasons.

Oh, and as for your question:

@Empking
For me, they are: BSW, Militant and Sens.
Sens due to his hammer and not providing the reasons why he saw DCJ as scummy.
Militant for his last two posts. First he points Sens action regarding Zwet out as peculiar, but when I ask his opinion about it, he's chosing both sides. Also, his post number 4 doesn't sit right with me.
I'm waiting with my vote, till I hear something from BSW's replacement.

[ZazieR]

It was to show Sekinj that I posted my suspicions AGES ago. I'm sorry that I forgot to erase the part about you.

[ZazieR]

I said that you gave me the impression of not having read this game. And nothing you've done so far convinces me of otherwise. And you might have noticed now that I was asking my top 2 suspicions their opinion of DCJ. However, one is refusing to answer and the other chooses to pick both sides of DCJ being scummy or not. Besides, like I have said in this game, his defence of coming from a different place was NOT valid. But you never gave a response to that.

Anyway, you saying that I should make a case why I disagree with the hammer, I've given that at the start of this day. After Sens 'asked' my opinion about hewitt's play day 2, I've also given my opinion of his play day 2.
Besides, I rather attack the players who I see as scummy, like you.
Also, you still haven't responded to two of my points at post 406 which you can respond to:

Using an attack against Hewitt he can't give a defence against as she's not giving the games she's gotten the meta from.
And meta reasons.

I so agree with post 417.
And post 424 is BS. I have taken a stand regarding hewitt.

How is it that you are the day's lynch and she hasn't mentioned you for a week?

Should I? IF (girl, you're way to confident in this) hewitt is indeed the lynch, then we'll have more days to look at if he isn't scum. I'm not convinced that hewitt is scum, so I'm already questioning those players of whom I believe could be scum for later days. If I'm not convinced in a case, I look at cases that can convince me and if they aren't there, I'll start them.

I like post 437.
But hewitt, never answer/respond to a question before the player who has to answer/respond to it, has done so. You have seen now what could happen if you don't do this.

@sens - while I believe a quick hammer is absolutely scummy, it doesn't absolutely make you scum. Plus, of course outcome of getting scum kind of clears up that situation. it's unlikely you would quickhammer your own buddy. and hewitt is correct, I'm not 100% on him, he is just my top suspect. that is another reason I'm not going to be talked into a hammer by you or emp, no one has done anything yet to outway my doubts on hewitt enough to hammer this long before deadline. while your quickhammer yesterday turned out okay, I'm not going to run the same risk.

i am very ready to hammer

I think you are scum because you are being overdramatic in your reactions regarding dcj, and zwet. I cannot find meta to support your play in this game, and in fact the meta I do see is in direct contradiction. (no link because of ongoing games).

Both of the above quotes were made 18 March (my time). What a quick change in opinion...

More votes on her please.

As on a sidenote, just in case Sekinj missed it:
Sekinj, I demand that you give the titles of the games you've gotten hewitt's meta from.

[ZazieR]

No Sens, want to know why she (Sekinj is female) doesn't want to give the numbers of those games? Because Hewitt isn't dead in his ongoing games. Just check Open 104, Open 122 and Open 125. Those are his other games besides this one. And she's using that as argument why Hewitt is scum in this game, while she doesn't know his allignments in the other games.

And Sekinj, I have given my reason why DCJ's defence was not valid. I have said this many times already, yet you haven't given any comments about it, while believing DCJ's defence. So what did you think of my argument against his defence?
But I'm also wondering why you are ignoring my last two reasons why I'm voting you. Any reason for that?

Also, post 453 is just BS.
First a huge misrep. I'm questioning you about your intentions why you want to hammer hewitt. I don't want you to hammer hewitt, and I see no reason how you'd have gotten this impression as I have given reasons why his case is bad.
And you're doing nothing to change the lynch. You're only stalling it. If you were doing something to change, you'd have given a case against someone else. But you've only answered questions, talked about hewitt and defend yourself. You're using the last days to hear other players their opinion on hewitt. That's not trying to change it.
Besides, it doesn't surprise me that your stance hasn't changed about hewitt as he's the only player, besides yourself, you're focusing on.