Grim... wrote:
I was suspicious of you and albino because of what you were saying, not because you were saying stuff. I had no reason to vote for anybody because (a) I was going to be around for quite a while, so there was no hurry, and (b) because I wasn't hugely convinced by anything I was saying.
Also, you've got some facts mixed up there.
1) "Grim...s reaction was to ask why I was voting for the quiet people" - I actually said "Not going for the quiet people any more, SDG?"
Sorry that was a typo on my part, I had meant to say Grim...s reaction was to ask why I
wasn't voting for the quiet people My point there being that this was the beginning of him trying to encourage a vote for someone he knew wasn't a baddy. I think he expected me to back down from a vote so early on in the day when challeneged so I didn't look dodgy, and the easiest thing for me to do in that case would be to revert back to my day one vote which everyone can understand since bloody Morte never bloody spoke.
Grim... wrote:
2) "I thought this odd since I had given reasons for my vote quite clearly in my earlier posts." - You said "Ok, so Dave didn't have any hard facts yesterday since there is no way he could have known anything" and then went on to vote for Kalmar because MrDave did. Hardly 'clear'.
Well you summed that up nicely to make me sound more confused than what I actually was. What i actually said was-
"Dave didn't have any hard facts yesterday since there is no way he could have known anything however he did suggest some things that he thought could be useful.
He suggested that the bad guys would be voting if the person voted out was innocent since they would know this would be the case and he suggested that the early voters should be looked at."
(Please note that I then went and looked at the early voters)
and then I said-
"Ok, Dave voted for kalmar. kalmar then voted for Dave but not immediatly as if to avoid being accused of it being a retaliatory vote. kalmar left his vote for Dave in throughout the game and was also the first person to vote for Dave. For these reasons, I am going to vote kalmar"
So my reasons for voting for kalmar was trusting mr dave had better day one judgement than I did, and then I explained how I reached the kalmar conclusion by using Mr Daves judgement.
The reason I started my post by saying Mr Dave had no hard facts was to acknowledge the fact I was just going with a theory. I think you know that fine well Grim... but are just selectivally detailing things I have said to make me seem scattier and more confused than I am. I am dissapointed no one else checked this.
Grim... wrote:
And while we're using meta-data: 3) "He was drawing attention to the fact that the three of us were all acting as we normally act during these types of thing" - I've never played with either you or AB1n0kid before, and besides, that makes no difference.
Hands up who thinks that Grim... not playing a game with us = Grim... not knowing how we played?
Grim... wrote:
If I was so desperate for Morte to be gone, why wouldn't I vote for him (or at least agree with you) during the first course? And if you assume that I'm a crasher, how is it to my advantage to vote off a guy that never says anything?
You didn't initally vote for him because you would have preffered someone else starting a vote so you could be a step removed from it.
Grim... wrote:
superdupergill wrote:
Look, I'm willing to say, if I'm wrong, take me as a free target tomorrow.
We don't have enough courses left to get it wrong. There's a (small) chance that if you lynch a guest today we'll lose the game.
As I said earlier-if I'm right, we get info on other people as well. If I'm wrong, we still get info. So even if I'm wrong and we lynch you and you are a vanilla guest, the info we gain from the experience is worth the sacrifice.