Sorsha wrote:The talking heads game.
I was civ, he's still alive in the game so his role isn't known. He tunneled me from my day 0 vote for days. Adding pretty much everything I did to his list of "things that make Sorsha bad." he did the same thing to others. His thing is just coming up with completely outlandish theories that really only make sense to him and not letting go.
And I'm saying that if nothing else comes up as suspicious I could see myself possibly voting for Matt to spare us that in this game. It's entirely unpleasant and really ruins the game. I'm not sure how many other civvies were tunneled by Matt during that game (or others that he's done it in) can attest to that.
If he says he's not going to tunnel players and act like he did in the TH game then fine. I really have no problem with him. We'll see how this day goes.
I'm having trouble understanding the theory here. And having been a player that others vote for because I tend to focus on one player and become convinced they are bad for reasons that others don't get, I guess I'm having trouble with the concept of finding that suspicious. Also, if his allegience in that game is unknown, then it's certainly not necessarily suspicious to me.
I get that if he ruined your game earlier, then you don't want to play with him. But I'm having trouble with the suspicion, if that makes sense. If anything, it seems like those that suspect him are using his earlier play as an excuse to lynch a player.
Metalmarsh89 wrote:Matt F
Why?
Sorsha wrote:Would a "policy vote" be along the lines of how some players would just have their fall back day one vote? I know rabbit and I used to just vote for one another on day one, mostly on RM. that seems to have kind of gone out of fashion, but that's what policy vote sounds like to me.
Mac's term, so perhaps he'll answer. From what I understood, he meant it as every game he plays, he will vote for Matt no matter what. Which does not seem like a civ-friendly concept to me.
I think you and Rabbi was more a friendly rivalry kind of thing (although I never really thought it was useful to strategy, personally, but didn't object to it, per se) as opposed to I will always vote this person until one of us is dead because I don't like how they play.
Also, the policy vote concept is really easy to hide behind.