Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Just out of curiosity, even though I am not okay with Hazel voting for a random player, how did this become an issue of my loyalty? I had a slip of the tongue, and now everyone thinks that I want Hazel to vote for a random player. I have said multiple times that I don't. I honestly can't comprehend why everyone is thinking I'm maple for my comments on someone else's actions. Yes it is bad that she is doing something so dumb. But it's not enough to warrant me vote.
Tamamono Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Just out of curiosity, even though I am not okay with Hazel voting for a random player, how did this become an issue of my loyalty? I had a slip of the tongue, and now everyone thinks that I want Hazel to vote for a random player. I have said multiple times that I don't. I honestly can't comprehend why everyone is thinking I'm maple for my comments on someone else's actions. Yes it is bad that she is doing something so dumb. But it's not enough to warrant me vote. Why is not talking worse than voting randomly? If she deserves your vote for not talking, and then she talks, ok, fine. But if she says nothing at all useful, and is instead offering to be a detriment to the town, how does that warrant a happy unvote?
jluck Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Just out of curiosity, even though I am not okay with Hazel voting for a random player, how did this become an issue of my loyalty? I had a slip of the tongue, and now everyone thinks that I want Hazel to vote for a random player. I have said multiple times that I don't. I honestly can't comprehend why everyone is thinking I'm maple for my comments on someone else's actions. Yes it is bad that she is doing something so dumb. But it's not enough to warrant me vote. Because we're early in the game and focussing on the smallest of details. There's just not that much more to discuss and so this is where we end up. I, for one, actually find her comment and subsequent absence more fishy than your comments, but I'm standing by my earlier Catarina vote anyway because I feel it's the most compelling evidence I have on this first day. Really, you bring up that some have only one post or two posts and then vote for me for excessive fluffy posts, on Day 1? At least I'm active. Great idea trying to get rid of an active player. Why are you typing (if trees can type that is) maple in red and oak in green? And you typed the word lying? Interesting. This is seriously maple like behavior to vote on a random tree for no reason. ...and you typed the word lying?... It's not her not being active, its the voting a random player. Honestly that is maple tree behavior! We have plenty of time for voting, plenty of time for Hazel Hazelnut to fully catch up. We all post fluff day 1 Catalina, you just posted it later and more useless than the rest. Plus that wasn't my only reason as I stated in my earlier post. Now all you've added is parroting what the "leads" have been saying. It almost feels like an echo!
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I can't tell if you just forget what I post, or if you don't pay attention to anything I say. My vote was a poke to get Hazel to explain why she was so silent. I got the explanation, and in the process I also got screwed because I didn't think much of her nooby. young-ish way of saying she was going to bandwagon.
Scaevola Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Brickelodeon: This is why. To quote yourself: As you wish. If this isn't a good enough reason why she hasn't talked, I don't know what is. Gosh, maybe I should be more specific with my posts. I'm satisfied with her explanation of why she hasn't been active. I don't like the fact that she will throw a random vote out there, but how can she help it if she doesn't know what is going on? Here you grant her complete clemency to vote for a random player due to her not reading the thread. Isn't 48 hours enough to collect one's thoughts so as not to vote for a random?
Tamamono Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I can't tell if you just forget what I post, or if you don't pay attention to anything I say. My vote was a poke to get Hazel to explain why she was so silent. I got the explanation, and in the process I also got screwed because I didn't think much of her nooby. young-ish way of saying she was going to bandwagon. I listen to you. Why else would I vote for you? Ok, you're saying silence is vote-worthy. Fine - not good play, but fine. She comes in, explains her silence. Your poke, however scummy it may have been at first, has been answered now. However, what she says is lame and useless. Is that better than silence?
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 That is a good point. And I can see how it seems maple-y. I took Hazels response to mean that her intreenet has been, and still is, out. Looking back now, I think she meant that it was working again.
Hinckley Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 That is a good point. And I can see how it seems maple-y. I took Hazels response to mean that her intreenet has been, and still is, out. Looking back now, I think she meant that it was working again. Internet aside, she says she read the Day and only came up with puns and maybe she would randomly vote. Nobody cares about her internet excuse now. The answer you got pinged everybody but somehow satisfied you. That's what is suspicious about you.
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Well, seeing as all of the evidence is out. All I can say is: I do not approve of Hazel bandwagoning. If you think I am maple, so be it. I will answer any questions you have.
Tamamono Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Well, seeing as all of the evidence is out. All I can say is: I do not approve of Hazel bandwagoning. If you think I am maple, so be it. I will answer any questions you have. If you don't approve of it, why don't you vote her again?
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I might, I'm still deciding who is the best candidate. It is tempting as it would put a bit of pressure off of myself, but I would rather help find a maple than to save my own skin.
Lady K Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 vote: Catarina Dogwood For excessively useless posts... ...and for accusing people merely because they were suspicious of her first. (I guess now she'll be suspicious of me too ) Three posts is hardly excessive....and I didn't accuse anyone, I stated suspicions only once. Wow, I just realized we have 2 people with one post and 3 more with only 2 posts, come on folks! But my real reason for this post is because I realized I formatted my vote wrong vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) For all that stuff I said early... All what stuff you said earlier? You didn't say anything other than three post (on day 1) were excessive fluffy, at least I was posting, compared to the others you mentioned that didn't. Because we're early in the game and focussing on the smallest of details. There's just not that much more to discuss and so this is where we end up. I, for one, actually find her comment and subsequent absence more fishy than your comments, but I'm standing by my earlier Catarina vote anyway because I feel it's the most compelling evidence I have on this first day. ...and you typed the word lying?... We all post fluff day 1 Catalina, you just posted it later and more useless than the rest. Plus that wasn't my only reason as I stated in my earlier post. Now all you've added is parroting what the "leads" have been saying. It almost feels like an echo! So all the other stuff by others wasn't fluff? And who and where did I parrot anyone? The 'leads'? I don't really see anyone leading anyone. And yes the only reasons you stated were my fluff and my supposed accusations. As for pointing out the word 'lying'.. Bobby Beech put it in a sentence that didn't make sense, he never answered if he meant something else. So you find me more compelling to vote for than Alistair Pear or Hazel Hazelnut? I think you are trying to draw attention away from your buddies and onto me.
MagPiesRUs Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Thing have happened while I've been gone! Right now, Bobby and Bruce seem most suspicious to me. Bobby for his editing shenanigans, and Bruce for his curious behavior. I'm going to hold off and see what Bruce has to say before I vote... What's suspicious about Bobby's editing shenanigans? Are you suggesting he was covering something up? It sounds to me as if you're trying to get an easy lynch here, capitalising on the 5 penalty votes Bobby has already acquired. I'm still somewhat baffled as to why Simon Persimmons started this whole 'Alejandro' business though. Giving someone a codename attaches a certain stigma to them. Why didn't you publicly release this information from the outset?
Hinckley Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I'm still somewhat baffled as to why Simon Persimmons started this whole 'Alejandro' business though. Giving someone a codename attaches a certain stigma to them. Why didn't you publicly release this information from the outset? Maybe for the same reason you chose to contact me privately and tell me you thought Alejandro and the other people contacting me were Scummy. Sometimes it helps to see what you can get out of people in privacy and anonymity. But Alejandro revealed himself without me needing to and I got to see how William and Bruce reacted to the discussion of Bruce's suspicion. If I had just come out and said "Bruce thinks William is Scummy" I wouldn't had a chance to see how William reacted to my contacting him privately nor would I see if it made Bruce nervous that I was contacting William or that it was being discussed publicly after William revealed the communication in the day thread. So, then last ask you the same question. Why did you come to me privately and tell me you thought Alejandro and the other people contacting me on Day One were Scummy. What did you hope to gain by telling me that in private and not saying it to everyone in public. And now what are you baffled about my behavior? Can you be more specific?
Lego Spy Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 What's suspicious about Bobby's editing shenanigans? Are you suggesting he was covering something up? It sounds to me as if you're trying to get an easy lynch here, capitalising on the 5 penalty votes Bobby has already acquired. At the time, yes, I thought he may have been covering something up. But honestly, under further consideration, that wouldn't make any sense. The consequences would outweigh those of the original statement. (Pardon my semi-noobiness and lack of critical thinking. ) As for my suspicions of Bruce, I agree with what William said. Allow me to explain then. I believe that Bruce Spruce made the statements calling people out to appear as oak. That's what it seems like to me. As a real oak does not need to APPEAR helpful, I think this behaviour is suspect. Combine that with the baseless maple read situation and I feel confident in my vote. Right now, I'm still suspicious of Bruce, but Berty and Alastair are looking maple-y as well... I also agree that calling people out as maple-y because they either haven't posted much, haven't posted anything "useful", or fluffy is kind of ridiculous.
Duvors Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Really, you bring up that some have only one post or two posts and then vote for me for excessive fluffy posts, on Day 1? At least I'm active. Great idea trying to get rid of an active player. Why are you typing (if trees can type that is) maple in red and oak in green? And you typed the word lying? Interesting. An active player who isn't being helpful, thats why it's called 'fluff' instead of 'useful comments', at least he's trying to get something done.Because I've seen other people doing it, that's why. And what is that about me typing the word 'lying'? That is blatantly untrue. I'm beginning to see why people want to vote for you.
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I would like to point out that I have been burned by people who I have let slip under the radar too many times. Watch out for them, one of them is probably a maple.
Tamamono Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I would like to point out that I have been burned by people who I have let slip under the radar too many times. Watch out for them, one of them is probably a maple. You have been in two situations. How can that ever constitute "too many times"
Hinckley Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 You have been in two situations. How can that ever constitute "too many times" Maybe he meant two many times. And what is that about me typing the word 'lying'? That is blatantly untrue. are you seriously not lying any attention to what I've said? I think she was insinuating you made a Freudian type. Either way, it's clearly a typo. Freudian typo, I meant.
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I got burned both of those times, so I would call that too many.
Yzalirk Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 This is seriously maple like behavior to vote on a random tree for no reason. Can you explain this a bit further? I could always vote for you, if you wish. As far as I'm concerned, you could be a good lynch for day one for simply saying that when no progress has been made.
Brickelodeon Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Can you explain this a bit further? I could always vote for you, if you wish. As far as I'm concerned, you could be a good lynch for day one for simply saying that when no progress has been made. How can you not understand that randomly voting for someone is bad? It shows that you are being too lazy to actually try to find the maples, or just don't want to find the maples.
Duvors Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 I also agree that calling people out as maple-y because they either haven't posted much, haven't posted anything "useful", or fluffy is kind of ridiculous. In lieu of this however my position is somewhat moderated, and I don't think I'll vote for Catarina. I would like to point out that I have been burned by people who I have let slip under the radar too many times. Watch out for them, one of them is probably a maple. You know how I said that I hadn't seen anything overtly Maple? Forget it. This is at the very least unhelpful townie metagaming in a very badly thought-out attempt to cast off suspicion on people who were the bad guys in previous situations, blatantly disregarding the fact that roles can change from one game to the next. You have been in two situations. How can that ever constitute "too many times" And I also second this, therefore; Vote: Alistair Pear. I think she was insinuating you made a Freudian type. Either way, it's clearly a typo. Freudian typo, I meant. Wow, I literally did not notice that. But that wasn't a freudian slip, and I'm highly suspicious of anything freutian anyway, his theories are out of date remember?
Yzalirk Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 How can you not understand that randomly voting for someone is bad? It shows that you are being too lazy to actually try to find the maples, or just don't want to find the maples. As much as I want to, it's hard to determine a good candidate when it's day one and everyone has been posting nonsense? Besides, me being me, I seem to get the boot no matter who I vote for... But I will say the one person who has stood out to me was Larry. Simon pointed out that Larry defended two people, Bobby and Berty, for no reason. With my mindset, I find that rather odd, like Larry might be trying to defend those he may be in cahoots with? I think he's experienced enough to know to not do that but on day one, why? There are quite a few questions to be answered on that but I don't see the point in him defending people, if he's an Oak, that he doesn't know an Oak from a Maple or he is simple a Maple defending his Maple syrup producing buddies. Vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) Mmmmm, I feel quite satisfied with my vote.
jimmynick Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Whoa, quite a lot happened when I was out... Now I will say that I find Waldorf Walnut and Bruce Spruce suspicious for what seems like trying to get rid of me. As they are the instigators of the tree trash talk about me. It's not my fault I think you're like a bottle of maple syrup. Also, there's a huge difference between "expressing suspicion" and "trying to get rid of" - you're blowing two pre-voting critics way out of proportion. Is it possible you're hyper-aware of everything you do and what people say about you because you're scum? Just out of curiosity, even though I am not okay with Hazel voting for a random player, how did this become an issue of my loyalty? I had a slip of the tongue, and now everyone thinks that I want Hazel to vote for a random player. I have said multiple times that I don't. I honestly can't comprehend why everyone is thinking I'm maple for my comments on someone else's actions. Yes it is bad that she is doing something so dumb. But it's not enough to warrant me vote. It's because you back down when confronted with what is, quite clearly, BS. I mean, manure is nice and all because it keeps my roots fertilized, but not when we are at risk of getting chopped down by those loggers! I feel very torn between Catarina and Alastair... Vote: Alastair Pear (Brickelodeon)
Recommended Posts