|
Post by Donald on Jun 2, 2009 0:06:29 GMT -5
Kirsten, while I agree more evidence would strengthen the integrity of this case, you're stretching it a bit far by saying this case is weaker than you calling me out on my choice of words. Having just defended you thoroughly: spies6Yvette (3:32:03 AM): I doubt I have the private chats saved somewhere, though. Why would you not have the private chats saved somewhere? I don't have all of my private chats saved. I know Rey doesn't have all of his private chats saved, how hard is it to believe another player in this game doesn't have every single chat saved?
|
|
|
Post by Kirsten on Jun 2, 2009 0:29:48 GMT -5
Kirsten, while I agree more evidence would strengthen the integrity of this case, you're stretching it a bit far by saying this case is weaker than you calling me out on my choice of words. Calling you out on your choice of words? You're really selling it short there. You've contradicted yourself in explaining when you actually did vote for Gretchen. Having just defended you thoroughly: spies6Yvette (3:32:03 AM): I doubt I have the private chats saved somewhere, though. Why would you not have the private chats saved somewhere? I don't have all of my private chats saved. I know Rey doesn't have all of his private chats saved, how hard is it to believe another player in this game doesn't have every single chat saved? Yvette strikes me as the kind of player who logs every little bit of information, inconsequential or no, and stores it up to possibly use as evidence at some point. I'm surprised that she would not have a chat logged, and would like to see her explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Georgia on Jun 2, 2009 1:55:09 GMT -5
How do you know for certain whether or not another person saves or doesn't save all of their chats? Been in their AIM lately?
|
|
|
Post by Amelia on Jun 2, 2009 2:51:23 GMT -5
Kirsten, while I agree more evidence would strengthen the integrity of this case, you're stretching it a bit far by saying this case is weaker than you calling me out on my choice of words. Calling you out on your choice of words? You're really selling it short there. You've contradicted yourself in explaining when you actually did vote for Gretchen. I don't have all of my private chats saved. I know Rey doesn't have all of his private chats saved, how hard is it to believe another player in this game doesn't have every single chat saved? Yvette strikes me as the kind of player who logs every little bit of information, inconsequential or no, and stores it up to possibly use as evidence at some point. I'm surprised that she would not have a chat logged, and would like to see her explanation. Kirsten: Didn't I just chat with you today and you were on the verge of defending Yvette? And now I see you defending her in this thread. In fact you said that it seemed like Spies were leading her Exile. In ADDITIONAL fact, in this very thread, you said you thought Spies were leading her Exile. This second quote suddenly seems like you're trying to switch your focus and try for a Yvette Exile. Don't get me wrong, I was beginning to think that Yvette was becoming a bandwagon. Anything that's too easy is, well, frankly too easy. So there I was, beginning to get less suspicious of you for questioning the whole Yvette case. But what gives? I talked with you about my feelings on Exiles that everyone's on board for: They stink. And now you're suddenly accusing Yvette for a silly "she didn't save her chats" reason? Especially since you yourself said that Yvette wasn't around to defend herself. So what this sounds like to me is that you were up in arms to defend her, then found something little with which to incriminate her. Again, you're trying to, well I call it deflection. You say deflection is casting suspicion on another person without addressing the suspicions that people have of you. I call deflection when you're feeling pressure and you do your best to cast suspicion on another person. And in this case it's the best kind of deflection for a possible Spy. You defend Yvette and then later say "oh gee but there's this one thing she just did that makes her suspicious." That "one thing" is not saving her chats. So all of your defense of her is suddenly moot because she can't put forth chats to defend herself? "I'd like to see her explanation," in Spies means "I'm friggin suspicious of her and I want to see her try to talk her way out of it." I've at least learned that much so far. Also, the above FIRST quote is to point out that Kirsten has been at odds with Donald for EV er and I think that's a perfect "I'm gonna call you suspicious, fellow Spy" thing to do. Needless to say, I agree with Kirsten's case against Donald. It looks like he's lying about whom his vote was on at the time of his chat. I ALSO think they're Spies together and trying to make us think that the other is Cit if we Exile one of them. (p.s. I'm sorry I don't quite know how to separate the above quote into two salient points, so bear with me)
|
|
|
Post by Kirsten on Jun 2, 2009 3:38:08 GMT -5
Amelia, I have no clue what you're going off on. I asked Yvette a simple question. I'm not casting suspicion on her. I want to know her explanation for why she doesn't have that chat, because it strikes me as uncharacteristic of her.
I think she is a citizen right now, but you seem to think I suddenly cannot ask her any questions whatsoever, which is preposterous. If something strikes me as out of the ordinary, I'll question it. Simply because you don't see the purpose behind my question doesn't mean that there isn't one. I thought Donald was a citizen, until I questioned him on his vote. Asking questions about things that don't add up is not suspicious at all, despite how you may want to spin this.
I must say, I find it funny that you think I'm attacking Yvette. Have you read this thread? I wrote a dissertation defending her. I asked her a simple question, and suddenly I'm pushing her exile? Really?
You're accusing me over what you think I will do or how you think I will act. You're putting words in my mouth and actions behind me that I haven't taken. Your accusation is that you think I'm going to throw away the evidence against Yvette and join her bandwagon because of a simple question I asked her about a chat. Um...really? What makes you think I'll do that? Why are you suspicious of me because of a suspicious way I could act instead of how I am acting?
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 5:42:07 GMT -5
Kirsten does bring up a strong defense of Yvette. That, however, is not suspicious at all. If a player disagrees with an argument then they should by all means speak up. I think Kirsten's points of defense are valid, and I will probably not vote Yvette without allowing her to defend herself.
|
|
|
Post by Donald on Jun 2, 2009 9:48:13 GMT -5
Having just defended you thoroughly: spies6Yvette (3:32:03 AM): I doubt I have the private chats saved somewhere, though. Why would you not have the private chats saved somewhere? So you spoke with Yvette after posting your defense of her? Has Yvette looked at this thread yet, if she's been on?
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jun 2, 2009 11:12:16 GMT -5
Kirsten, Kirsten, Kirsten . . . Let's do an analysis of Yvette's post compared to my post. Here is Yvette's post in the case against me: Because I had Levi on my suspect list at the end of Week 1 for alternative reasons combined with what I attributed to be some suspicious lack of leadership and coddling up to other people, I would say that this case does a very good job of bringing my personal thoughts and gut feelings to fruition. However, and I am certainly the most guilty person of this in the burg, I think that we have seen before with Callahan, when we accuse someone of definitely being a spy, we tend to write them off and do not really let them defend themselves. Callahan certainly did not try, which made us push even harder, but I want to see what Levi has to say about all of this before I am sold on "Spy caught." However, I will say that the contradictions are extremely damning evidence for so early in the game. There is no point to follow your top suspect's advice. People claim that Robert and I did this on the Callahan case, but we did not, as you can reference on your own our separate conversations with him. Levi, however, I do not believe really has an excuse here. And in combination with "I think Mei Yun is being framed" and then "I might vote Mei Yun", that is ridiculously far fetched to me. In addition, this makes me think that Roxy is more likely to be a citizen. And Kirsten yet again moves up on my citizen list. Paragraph 1: Yvette uses vague generalities (Lack of leadership? Coddling up to people? Personal thoughts? Gut feelings?) to seem like she is adding information to the case. Notice how she gave no examples of what she was accusing me of, leaving me no grounds go defend myself. If she would have said "I believe you coddled up to *insert name here* and you showed a lack of leadership in *insert event here,* in addition to certain personal feelings brought up by *insert event here*. This leads me to agree with the case that Kirsten has presented. But she didn't say that. She used generalized statements to appear as if she was adding new information to the case. That would be a good way for a Spy to bandwagon. Paragraph 2: This paragraph, to argue it, would be all about WIFOM. Is she a cit trying to make up for her past mislynch of Callahan? Or is she a Spy trying to seem like a cit trying to make up for her past mislynch of Callahan? No point in arguing this paragraph. Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4: Absolute restatement. She tries to make it wound better than that by adding in a reference to a similar issue, but the rest is complete and utter restatement. Notice how she goes into great detail restating, to increase the length of the post. After all, a longer post has to have more evidence and arguments, right? Wrong. Paragraph 5: Now whe is drawing conclusions from her so called "arguments." Drawing conclusions after you've made an argument is fine. But she hasn't made an argument. That is why I believe Yvette's post to be scummy. Now lets take a look at my post and compare the two: I agree with the Yvette case. I've been suspecting her ever since she made this post in the Leave Eye Spy thread. Here she says that she suspected me, but doesn't add any new information. Not only that, but she tried to sound smart by restating the arguments that Kirsten brought up against me. To me, this seems like she was trying to jump on a bandwagon without anyone noticing her. I agree with all the points you've brought up against Yvette, but there is one thing that bothers me. I keep hearing various people tell me that she was behind the Jaya lynch. If she was, that makes me not as suspicious as her. But there is a lot more evidence pointing YvetteSpy than there is YvetteCit. Paragraph 1: Alright, I said I agree with the Yvette case. Big whoop. But look at that! What could that be! It's not . . . a new argument? That couldn't be a new argument! But it is. Notice the lack of a new argument in Yvette's post. Difference #1, right there. Paragraph 2: A counterpoint! Not only is there a new argument in the post, but a potential flaw with the case has been addressed! By presenting an argument from both angles of a case, I am trying to determine the validity of the case. Paragraph 3: A conclusion! Like I said above, conclusions are fine if you're not making conclusions off of your restatement post you just made, then trying to pass it off as your own investigative post. The two posts are clearly VERY different. You keep accusing me of bandwagoning. There is a clear and distinct difference between bandwagoning and contributing. I contributed to the Yvette case. Yvette bandwagoned on the case against me. To me, Kirsten, this is coming across as you not liking the fact that someone else can present a logical, sound case against someone that you do not suspect. Just because there is another case alongside the two that you have started does not mean that we are ignoring them.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsten on Jun 2, 2009 13:41:41 GMT -5
Having just defended you thoroughly: spies6Yvette (3:32:03 AM): I doubt I have the private chats saved somewhere, though. Why would you not have the private chats saved somewhere? So you spoke with Yvette after posting your defense of her? Has Yvette looked at this thread yet, if she's been on? No. That was from a conversation we had back in episode 1.
|
|
|
Post by Kirsten on Jun 2, 2009 13:46:46 GMT -5
To me, Kirsten, this is coming across as you not liking the fact that someone else can present a logical, sound case against someone that you do not suspect. Just because there is another case alongside the two that you have started does not mean that we are ignoring them. But you are ignoring it. So your point is? I have no problem with people presenting logical, sound cases. I encourage it. I dispute the idea that this is a logical, sound case.
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jun 2, 2009 13:51:06 GMT -5
To me, Kirsten, this is coming across as you not liking the fact that someone else can present a logical, sound case against someone that you do not suspect. Just because there is another case alongside the two that you have started does not mean that we are ignoring them. But you are ignoring it. So your point is? I have no problem with people presenting logical, sound cases. I encourage it. I dispute the idea that this is a logical, sound case. I'm not ignoring the case! What am I supposed to do, post everytime I read something? When I don't post, it means that I have nothing to add, not that I'm ignoring something.
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Jun 2, 2009 14:56:35 GMT -5
Jason, Can I ask what this means please? Well, I was pointing out that most people gave the more likely citizen response by thinking that since Paris was not a citizen that we had caught two spies... and you happened to say "2 spies" in the chat which illustrated the point much better than I could have... I agree, Kirsten, there might not be a spy in that group, but the probability of there being one is very high, and logically it makes total sense that there's at least one in that group given the circumstances. And it's not like that's the only reason to vote Yvette out; there are plenty of reasons and they all add up to a better case than anybody else, at least to me anyways. I'm not saying we have to, I'm just trying to put them all under pressure to see how they react, and the more heat we place on them the better chance we have at one of them slipping while trying to defend themselves. Is that so wrong? Isn't that WIFOM? I didn't find the cases on Alma, Jaya, or Paris to be 'conclusive' either, but they were good enough, and we caught Spies because of them. A cut and dry "I investigated this person and they're a spy" case is really rare; we have to make do with what we have. Yeah I totally can't imagine Yvette not saving something, especially something like that. Anyways, Yvette hasn't been on to defend herself and I won't vote for her without giving her a chance since she had to be away fro a few days, but I have problems with the Levi and Donald cases and I just don't think either one of them is a Spy right now, so I'm not sure what I'm going to do... And I don't have long to figure it out...
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Jun 2, 2009 15:26:29 GMT -5
The last thing I'd like t point out here before tonight is this...
Yvette didn't do anything helpful in the three days after exile and before disappearing. The only thing she did was post this:
Yvette - Voted for a citizen, Callahan, and a Spy, Jaya. Saved Pete, an unknown. Lynched Jaya when Gretchen was a clear and close alternative, helping to change the vote with just minutes to go before the Exile. 95% Citizen / 5% Spy.
1) It's weird that the same person who faked cases with Robert to look less Citizen is suddenly shouting that she's 95% Cit. Isn't she supposed to be worried about Imprisonment?
2) She exiled one Cit (bad) and one spy (so-so), and begged for Almathea's life (bad). And claims that makes her 95% Cit 5% spy? This sounds like an attempt at revisionist history; everyone has been telling us that Yvette had to be dragged to the Jaya case. Ariel made the case on Jaya apparently, DIDN'T save Almathea, and Yvette lists Ariel at 95% Cit 5% spy too? Given the circumstances does it really seem like, according to Yvette's logic, they should be confirmed the same amount? I really don't think so.
And now she is disappearing while people protect her. They're saying they won't vote her out while she's not here to defend herself. It's too convenient to be set up like that. Yeah, she said she'd be gone until Monday, but it's Tuesday now, and she hasn't made an appearance yet. That's why I waited to post until Monday to begin with, I wanted to give her the chance to see it when it was fresh, not after everyone had discussed it all weekend.
I don't want to vote Yvette out without giving her a chance to speak first, but I'm not going to vote for someone I think is a citizen over her, or throw away a vote over her.
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jun 2, 2009 15:47:53 GMT -5
Kirsten, you accuse me of bandwagoning on this case. I would like for you to take a look at this.I received penalty votes for mentioning that I was suspicious of Yvette at the Imprisonment chat. This case was not posted by Jason until yesterday. The Imprisonment chat was Saturday.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 2, 2009 16:12:08 GMT -5
Not if they were attempting to establish I certain "character" or personality. Which Yvette very obviously was.
Once again, using her character as a cover. She was a forceful leader, she MUST be a citizen.
She's been doing all she can to force this character herself since before the reveal so she could use it as a cover for the whole game.
Did you read the case at all? She was disarming the most powerful citizen in the burg for a whole day by making him concentrate on a wackjob plan [that would thusly distract the rest of their team and partially distract the rest of the burg]. She then proceeded to imprison Robert, and use it to cast suspicion on Iris! And yes, I know you somehow believe she wasn't, but she said "If anyone in the group is a spy I think it was Iris". Subtle, but an obvious attempt.
This I currently have no response to. And you're right, it's a weakness in the case.
|
|
Faith
Faith
Daddy's Dead Princess
Posts: 78
|
Post by Faith on Jun 2, 2009 16:16:47 GMT -5
Regardless on what side Yvette is on she is like totally playing a bold game. She’s going to make bold moves regardless of if she is a spy or a citizen. I’ve had Yvette as leaning citizen after she voted out Jaya but I would like to know exactly how the whole thing went down. If Jaya was going down anyways Yvette would look good if she was a spy by joining in.
I don’t find points 1 and 2 very strong personally for reasons already stated in this thread but I am interested in the point about Yvette’s response to Paris not being a citizen. That I could honestly see as her being a spy because it truly does sound like she knew Paris couldn’t have been one. I know Yvette can be intimidating but we need to hear her side of the story. Along the same thought process of being intimidating Ed I think a reason people started agreeing so quickly was because many people have had an uneasy feeling about Yvette but really didn’t have the words or good reasons to say anything. Yvette seems like the person who would jump down your throat... but maybe that’s just me.
I feel like a broken record but I still don’t see how Robert being imprisoned means someone in this group of girls HAS to be a spy. There’s a chance none of us are, there’s a chance everyone but me is (cause like seriously I’m not a spy) but yeah. Still not seeing that it’s a 100% guarantee though. Aka I agree with Kirsten on this part. With that said I like what happened here that Jason found evidence/reasons outside of the whole deal. So I like seeing that.
Finally, I haven’t seen anywhere where Yvette tried to place the blame on the whole save Robert/Yvette idea on myself/Iris/Ariel. The only person who has done that from my perspective has been Iris because she felt like she was being set up from it. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 2, 2009 16:23:51 GMT -5
- It's more suspicious because it's an attempt to establish a character, which has been her MO all game. A character that is the perfect spy cover if you ask me. -Specific example were provided by Jenya ages ago
[/color]
By mere seconds, though I agree that someone did say it before her.
I AM OFFICIALLY RETRACTING MY DECISION TO NOT VOTE FOR YVETTE IF SHE DOESNT SHOW UP
IF IN
*checks clock*
4 AND A HALF HOURS I STILL BELIEVE THE YVETTE CASE IS THE STRONGEST I WILL VOTE FOR HER AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO NOT GIVE HER A CHANCE TO DEFEND HERSELF
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Jun 2, 2009 16:36:07 GMT -5
P.S. Sluticia, I'm sorry for hurting the JAY group, I hope you'll forgive me for my thoughtless behavior...
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Jun 2, 2009 16:52:32 GMT -5
Hey, Tib, I don't think those words were big enough to read.
|
|
Jenya
Jenya
Knew Something Was Off About That Emo Freak...
Posts: 7
|
Post by Jenya on Jun 2, 2009 18:10:41 GMT -5
Yvette, right before exile: spies6Yvette (3:38:33 PM): The more I talk to Jaya, the more I think she is a citizen. Yvette, right after exile: spies6Yvette (9:56:32 PM): Really, none of it was me. I had my suspicions of Jaya, but I was going to vote for Georgia.
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 19:43:31 GMT -5
I'm really torn on the Yvette case. I'm unsure of whether to vote her or not. I think that she could be hiding her scumtells using her schtick. But she has also been pro-citizen in some regards. Unfortunately, her spy behaviors far exceed her citizen-like ones in my opinion. I'm probably going to vote her since I can't be on AIM in order to talk to anyone else until the exile, IF I can even make it for that.
|
|
|
Post by Georgia on Jun 2, 2009 19:46:58 GMT -5
Just some comments/questions as I read. If they've already been answered/addressed then ignore them.
Jason. Why do you say that Yvette was the first wanting Alma to be saved? When Levi says it a few seconds before her? It is right there in the quote.
Good question on why each person outside of Yvette/Robert/Ariel was involved. I'd like to know as well.
If Ariel was the ringleader behind the Jaya lynch. Why wasn't she imprisoned? She is pretty much responsible for both Alama and Jaya spies going - so why would they keep her around?
Thor. Roxy didn't vote for Jaya.
I also would like to see this Jaya-lynch chat.
Tiberius. If I recall correctly. The impression that I got, from your word "tool" in reference to voting Jaya. Was that you were being used, solely for your vote. That you didn't feel comfortable voting for her, but you did - for some reason. Your sentence about it being sent home because of a chat with her, seems to contradict your sentiments during the Exile.
Rey. Wow. Such flipping of opinion.
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 19:48:48 GMT -5
Georgia, I am always doubtful my suspicions. I probably change my vote choice about ten times per round, either in my confessional or in thought.
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 19:49:39 GMT -5
Also Georgia, that is a point we are TRYING to put across. Ariel was not imprisoned perhaps because she trusts Yvette 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 2, 2009 19:55:28 GMT -5
When did I ever refer to myself as a tool?
Are you talking about feeling used if Jaya flips citizen? Isn't that a normal citizen feeling to have?
I have always said I voted Jaya because she was the only person with evidence against her in my uninformed state. I will admit that was the first time I mentioned publicly my last minute chat with her, because it was indeed last minute.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 2, 2009 19:56:28 GMT -5
Also Georgia, that is a point we are TRYING to put across. Ariel was not imprisoned perhaps because she trusts Yvette 100%. Rey, I saw your original post. Why did you edit it?
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 19:58:28 GMT -5
I always edit my posts after I write them to do one of two things:
1. Make it look nicer to myself. 2. Make it make sense.
How am I supposed to know that Ariel was imprisoned for that reason? I don't. That's why I added the italicized word, perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jun 2, 2009 19:59:58 GMT -5
I always edit my posts after I write them to do one of two things: 1. Make it look nicer to myself. 2. Make it make sense. How am I supposed to know that Ariel was imprisoned for that reason? I don't. That's why I added the italicized word, perhaps. There was a final line that said What was? ![:)](http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif)
|
|
Rey
Rey
Amor del Rey
Posts: 161
|
Post by Rey on Jun 2, 2009 20:00:54 GMT -5
Really? I guess I didn't like the third line, haha.
|
|
|
Post by Georgia on Jun 2, 2009 20:01:36 GMT -5
You did in the group chat during exile. I'll find it and post it. Because it stuck out to me. Also because I believe Ariel replied to you about it.
|
|