You forgot to answer the two questions you quoted. Probably not the best thing to do when trying to show us how eager you are to be involved in discussion.
Here are those questions again: Were you overwhelmed in GOTASOIAF? What crazy theories are flying about this game?
Yes really. D1 is usually the second most important day for discussion (the first day a mafioso is lynched without a guilty verdict is the most important - IMO).
I think you are very wrong on this. I'm even accounting that this quote happened during D1. Again, you are pointing out lack of discussion while not adding any discussion yourself.
I'll also point out the contradiction between the last two quotes. You try to placate me by saying there isn't much to discuss then you complain there hasn't been discussion. Which is it?
I'll try and clear up some confusion here, and actually get to your questions.
I was overwhelmed in ASoIaF because it was my very first game, I had trouble keeping up with all the new lingo and people's trains of thoughts about the game. There was a lot of information to process.
As for the crazy theories part of my post, I meant it in a general sort of sense. Not that there were really any crazy theories flying around but some of them are hard for me to get which makes them seem like stretches for me, this can only be fixed with more game experience and me actually taking the time to check the wiki.
I talked about why I find it hard to add to the discussion early on in one of my earlier posts directed at SI I think, go read that for an explanation because I don't want to turn this into too big a wall of text.
Never did I complain about there not being much discussion, I just said that there wasn't that much discussion so far. A valid statement I guess, although the talk on possible role distribution (layouts) was the main topic of D1, and which caught Moar in a pickle.
I guess the point is: I should try and read up some more on roles and such and respond actively to D1 talk and discussion so I don't get caught in a situation like this.
These are all the Moar votes. Something looks hinky to me. What I notice first is lack of discussion. I've seen cops announce a guilty verdict with more discussion than that. The second thing I notice is that if someone agrees with me, they quote post 96 instead of post 78. Perhaps post 78 isn't as clear as I think it is, but I don't see how post 96 is so utterly convincing while post 78 isn't.
Perhaps I should ask the non-Moar voters.
@ Ankeli, kestegs, Phillinnicus -
Is post 78 clearly not as understandable as post 96? Did it not convince you? Did it not make you curious enough to look back at Moar's posts in order to decide for yourself? Do you think a mafioso Moar voter just skipped over post 78 and instead latched onto post 96 because it's easier to justify? Which player do you think might have done so?
In all honesty, when you guys starting talking about roles and situations in which roles do this and that and so on; I just completely glazed over it. I kept getting lost, so I just didn't even think about it anymore.
Also, I was just kinda ragey at kestegs for putting me on an innocent little scumlist.
So I didn't really bother changing my vote because it looked like Moar was going to be locked anyway.
I wasn't around enough to read properly and post after casting my vote, ergo, I didn't answer. If I was around, my vote would've stood.
And this is the question? All the reasoning I gave at the time was valid, and I didn't feel the same towards Moar or Gwaihir as they were at least trying to run the conversation forwards. The same lack of that applied to Phil for the duration of the day it seems.
Taking notice of such things would be pulling at strings too thin to justify anything imo. I don't know, can't tell and hence, can't really say anything about it.
My vote however will still find it's way to the same place as it did yesterday. Oh so eager to latch onto a possible train on me for not answering one, rather insignificant question.
Vote: Phillinnicus
I wasn't reaching or latching onto a train for votes against you, it was just a suspicion that I noticed after SI pointed it out. Notice I didn't vote for you, I just put it out there that I agreed with SI on that because it was a little suspicious. Now you've provided solid reasoning so I'm not really that suspicious of you anymore.
I think your vote is a little unfounded.
