Werewolf XXXIII: Animal Farm (SEE POST #4 FOR ALL UPDATES)

[Swaggs]

I will say this: If Bek had a useful role for us, he really crapped his pants today for us. If he held onto information after the deadline, when it was clear that there was a very real chance that he was going to die, then he really screwed us.

[BrianD]

I also don't believe Bek was one of the seers. If he was, he would have given out all of his information before he died. Even with the tie being up in the air, I think you'd have to tell all you know in case you did die. It wouldn't help to die with facts not shared. Also, in the time leading up to his death, he was commenting about odd posts he thought I made. He didn't at all hint that he saw anything with his abilities. I can't prove it, but I don't think a seer went down tonight.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

good, because RealDeal made the same mistake you did. That mistake cemented him on my list of distrust.

That is nice, but I can't respond to you or to anyone else if I don't know what you mean. Are you just jumping on all of the people that don't think the changing rules are a hint?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I will say this: If Bek had a useful role for us, he really crapped his pants today for us. If he held onto information after the deadline, when it was clear that there was a very real chance that he was going to die, then he really screwed us.

The chance of his survival was worth not revealing if you ask me. He had a 50/50 shot of living, and the second he reveals, good or bad, hes dead. They would have seen to that.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

By you i mean the group you have clung to. Note, it was hoops, alan, brian, and realdeal who got bek lynched really...oh wow, that reads just like your trust list!! CRAZY!!!

You are clueless.

Point me out where I said that any single person that is participating in this game, other than Alan T, is on my trust list.

It is no wonder you always get lynched early on. You are so disruptive and show such irratic logic that, good or bad, you are counterproductive to winning. If you have ever won a game of WW, I would be surprised.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

The chance of his survival was worth not revealing if you ask me. He had a 50/50 shot of living, and the second he reveals, good or bad, hes dead. They would have seen to that.

He should have spilled his guts if he was going to die anyway. His information sure does us a ton of good at this moment, doesn't it?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

You are clueless.

Point me out where I said that any single person that is participating in this game, other than Alan T, is on my trust list.

It is no wonder you always get lynched early on. You are so disruptive and show such irratic logic that, good or bad, you are counterproductive to winning. If you have ever won a game of WW, I would be surprised.

Personal attacks are soo fun...wow, lets all play the "Im Classless" game...everyone model Swaggs!!!

Im soo dissapointed in some players this game, or maybe i should have expected it. But if i say that, im being a dick while swaggs is being all nice and cuddly

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

That is nice, but I can't respond to you or to anyone else if I don't know what you mean. Are you just jumping on all of the people that don't think the changing rules are a hint?

Idk.

Do you think I am?

Do you think that a game patterened after a book would, ummm, follow the book?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

He should have spilled his guts if he was going to die anyway. His information sure does us a ton of good at this moment, doesn't it?

If you would open your eyes, it has. His information is not dead, you are just too oblivious to notice. This is where i could attack you and your ability like you have me, but ill choose to, for the third time this game, take the high road.

[saldana]

perhaps its time for everyone to take a step away from WW for a few minutes and go have a beer?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Idk.

Do you think I am?

Do you think that a game patterened after a book would, ummm, follow the book?

I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I can't say I remember all of the details of the book. I did mention that I hadn't read it in about 13 years. Did rules change after good animals died but not after bad animals died? I remember them changing throughout the book as the animals got more power and became more human, but I don't remember the triggers.

[Blade6119]

I just want to say i think its stunning how many personal attacks have been levied against me this game. People want to berate me for being antagonizing, then comments are made like the ones swaggs just did or realdeal did on day one and dont even bat an eye. Its jawdropping to me that no one cares when people attack me, but get all upset when i attack someone. Jawdropping....

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I can't say I remember all of the details of the book. I did mention that I hadn't read it in about 13 years. Did rules change after good animals died but not after bad animals died? I remember them changing throughout the book as the animals got more power and became more human, but I don't remember the triggers.

Perhaps you should "catch up" like you said you did earlier.


blade - YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

ok, you don't suck. i just wanted to use that smilie

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Perhaps you should "catch up" like you said you did earlier.


blade - YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!

ok, you don't suck. i just wanted to use that smilie

I caught up on all of the posts I missed in the 7 hours I was away from the computer. I didn't do any catching up of the Animal Farm book. If you have useful information for people, maybe you should just spell it out for everyone.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Personal attacks are soo fun...wow, lets all play the "Im Classless" game...everyone model Swaggs!!!

Im soo dissapointed in some players this game, or maybe i should have expected it. But if i say that, im being a dick while swaggs is being all nice and cuddly

Well, I can either call you clueless or a liar. I think clueless is kinder. If me calling you clueless hurt your feelings, I apologize.

You said to me:

Originally Posted by Blade6119
By you i mean the group you have clung to. Note, it was hoops, alan, brian, and realdeal who got bek lynched really...oh wow, that reads just like your trust list!! CRAZY!!!

That is a lie.

I have not voted with, defended, or sided with any of those people, except Alan. They are not on my trust list. As I said, my trust list is Alan and myself.

If you cannot be responsible for the things you write, don't get offended when you get called on it.

[hoopsguy]

Hoopsguy - Post #788

I did a little reading on Animal Farm at Wikipedia yesterday. The list of rules changed as Napoleon's group assumed greater control of the farm. It represented the new regime of farm animals becoming more like the humans that they replaced. So I do not think seeing new rules posted is good for the Farm.

BrianD, these are the conclusions I reached on the messages. This also goes to show that Chubby is not restricting his COdT (TM) list only to people who doubt the messages.

[Blade6119]

NOTE TO ALL: I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME, AND WILL NO LONGER BE PARTICIPATING PENDING A REPLY FROM PATH. GOOD LUCK TO ALL REMAINING PLAYERS, LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING FRESH NEXT GAME.

[hoopsguy]

For those people who do not believe that the updated messages contain meaning, I would ask that if you are in fact going to lynch me at some point that it occur on an even numbered day. I expect that will disprove the "every other day" theory.

Blade, your suggesting that alternative leaves me suspicious of you. That, coupled with your Day 2 vote on an alternate candidate besides Bulletsponge (BrianD) who still had a shot of winning that race, doesn't sit well with me as I try to interpret events.

Neither do suggestions that I'm manipulating the game as a bad guy when I know that isn't the case. But you are not the only one saying that and it is pretty unlikely that each and every person thinking this way is a Revolutionary or one of their allies.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I did a little reading on Animal Farm at Wikipedia yesterday. The list of rules changed as Napoleon's group assumed greater control of the farm. It represented the new regime of farm animals becoming more like the humans that they replaced. So I do not think seeing new rules posted is good for the Farm.

BrianD - Ironically, it was one of your fellow baddies that did you in. I think this is why you guys have been very vocal in saying the rules changing doesn't mean anything since then...

With the wiki facts we're left with two options:

a) there's no role reveal upon death so there's no way for the good guys to get any info without the seers coming forward

or

b) the game follows the book and changes rules as a good guy is killed and the bad side assumes more power which doesn't reveal roles upon death but at least reveals the side (good/bad) the person was on.

I bet you can figure which one i pick.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

I just want to say i think its stunning how many personal attacks have been levied against me this game. People want to berate me for being antagonizing, then comments are made like the ones swaggs just did or realdeal did on day one and dont even bat an eye. Its jawdropping to me that no one cares when people attack me, but get all upset when i attack someone. Jawdropping....

I'm a big boy and try not to take this too seriously. It is an enjoyable game to me and it continues to be. As I said, I apologize if I offended you.

With that said, you are grossly misrepresenting my words and actions and I do not appreciate that. If you are going to misquote me, then I don't feel like you should get offended when I call you on it and correct you.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

Hoopsguy - Post #788


BrianD, these are the conclusions I reached on the messages. This also goes to show that Chubby is not restricting his COdT (TM) list only to people who doubt the messages.

Yeah, I'm still confused. Obviously the rules changing are not good for the farm. The rules changed to show that the animals became as corrupt as the humans they were originally fighting against. I'm still not sure how that pertains to this game. I could be wrong and there could have been specific triggers in the book which would make the changing rules relevant to this game, but so far nobody has pointed them out. I'm basing my comments on a long-ago memory of the book. If anyone has anything more meaningful, I'd love to hear it. I know my memory isn't great, but nobody has offered anything better yet.

[hoopsguy]

Chubby, do you honestly feel that every person you suspect is evil? If so, why not just assign each of us our roles and see if you can shoot the moon.

Seriously, this is why I am less suspicious of you - because you are swinging for the fences so recklessly that I don't associate that behavior with a wolf.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

NOTE TO ALL: I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME, AND WILL NO LONGER BE PARTICIPATING PENDING A REPLY FROM PATH. GOOD LUCK TO ALL REMAINING PLAYERS, LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING FRESH NEXT GAME.

I hope you reconsider even if you're bad.

Don't worry about it, it's WW. Sleep it off and argue some more tomorrow

[Chubby]

brian d - see post 869

hoops - i could but what's the purpose? I don't know nor does it matter what roles you have. bad is bad and must be eliminated.

[hoopsguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell/Animal_Farm

I've pulled out the pieces I think are important here.

Napoleon begins to abuse his powers even more, and life on the farm becomes harder and harder for the rest of the animals; the pigs impose more and more controls on them while reserving privileges for themselves. The pigs rewrite history in a way that villainizes Snowball and glorifies Napoleon even further. Each step of this development is justified by the pig Squealer, who on several occasions alters the Seven Commandments on the barn in the dead of night — for example, "No animal shall drink alcohol" becomes "No animal shall drink alcohol to excess."

Many years pass, and the pigs learn to walk upright, carry whips, and wear clothes. The Seven Commandments are reduced to a single phrase: "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." Napoleon holds a dinner party for the pigs and the humans of the area (in the adjacent Foxwood Farm, run by Mr. Pilkington), who congratulate Napoleon on having the hardest-working animals in the country on the least feed. Napoleon announces his alliance with the humans, against the labouring classes of both "worlds."
The animals discover this when they overhear Napoleon's conversations, and finally realize that a change has come over the ruling pigs. During a poker match, an argument breaks out between Napoleon and Mr. Pilkington when they both play an Ace of Spades, and the animals realise that they cannot tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.

[hoopsguy]

Blade, Path is already going to have to look for a replacement for AE if he elects to enforce the "two missed votes = gone" rule. I would hope that you would continue playing.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

BrianD - Ironically, it was one of your fellow baddies that did you in. I think this is why you guys have been very vocal in saying the rules changing doesn't mean anything since then...

With the wiki facts we're left with two options:

a) there's no role reveal upon death so there's no way for the good guys to get any info without the seers coming forward

or

b) the game follows the book and changes rules as a good guy is killed and the bad side assumes more power which doesn't reveal roles upon death but at least reveals the side (good/bad) the person was on.

I bet you can figure which one i pick.

I think I understand now. I didn't get that Hoops' quote indicated that a good guy dying meant the bad guys were taking greater control of the farm which caused the rules to change. Because I didn't catch that 'fact' and because I thought the rule changes were just scenery, I am bad. I get your logic now.

Your logic about changed rules and good-guy deaths may be correct. We've got nothing else to go on, so let's explore that. If I remember correctly, we've had 4 deaths and only 3 rule changes. Which death didn't include a rule change? I'm willing to look it up if you don't have that info handy, but I don't want to try to remember and be wrong.

You can lynch me if you want since I didn't think the rules meant anything. I suppose that would go along with the poor game I've played. You will find out eventually though that I'm not bad.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by saldana

perhaps its time for everyone to take a step away from WW for a few minutes and go have a beer?

I was thinking the same thing

[Abe Sargent]

Let's just all see what happens with the night actions and come back tomorrow

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

NOTE TO ALL: I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME, AND WILL NO LONGER BE PARTICIPATING PENDING A REPLY FROM PATH. GOOD LUCK TO ALL REMAINING PLAYERS, LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING FRESH NEXT GAME.

blade, i have tried to explain to you in the past my issues with you and the way you talk to people while you play WW...i have never had a personal problem with you outside the game, and i am sure you are a nice guy IRL. in this particular case, you are actually right...2x in this game, people have made it personal with you, and you didnt respond as you did in the the past with insults and indignation...i was honestly impressed with your handling of it, which i why i didnt feel the need to come to your defense. i dont think what swaggs said to you was any worse that what you have said 100 times to people, and he has apologized if he offended you, but if you feel like it was so offensive and degrading to you that you need to fuck up path's game by quitting in the middle, i would like to ask you to please never sign up for any game i run again, and i will hesitate to play in anyone elses game you have signed up for. no one enjoys the fights you have with people, whether you are the cause, or the "victim". other people on this board have quit WW entirely because they dont want to deal with it anymore...i unfortunately will likely be one of them if you continue along this present course of actions.

[BrianD]

To follow up on my earlier post, it looks like we had rule changed after St.cronin, Lathum, and Bek. We had "VIVE" written blood after Saldana was killed, and we had nothing after Bulletsponge was killed. If the rule changes do mean something, we may have killed one bad guy in Bulletsponge, but what do we think about Saldana?

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by saldana

blade, i have tried to explain to you in the past my issues with you and the way you talk to people while you play WW...i have never had a personal problem with you outside the game, and i am sure you are a nice guy IRL. in this particular case, you are actually right...2x in this game, people have made it personal with you, and you didnt respond as you did in the the past with insults and indignation...i was honestly impressed with your handling of it, which i why i didnt feel the need to come to your defense. i dont think what swaggs said to you was any worse that what you have said 100 times to people, and he has apologized if he offended you, but if you feel like it was so offensive and degrading to you that you need to fuck up path's game by quitting in the middle, i would like to ask you to please never sign up for any game i run again, and i will hesitate to play in anyone elses game you have signed up for. no one enjoys the fights you have with people, whether you are the cause, or the "victim". other people on this board have quit WW entirely because they dont want to deal with it anymore...i unfortunately will likely be one of them if you continue along this present course of actions.

Maybe this is where we have differing points of view. I feel like removing myself from the game will put it back on track, not fuck it up. I feel like the one constant in all the personal attacks directed in either direction is me. I feel/felt this game was beginning to veer of course, i and i feel my removal will allow it to resume back to being a game and not one big fight. Do you disagree saldana? I respect your opinion, and am asking for an honest answer here from yourself, now an outsider, on your perspective on the direction this game is/was heading

[RealDeal]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

NOTE TO ALL: I HAVE REQUESTED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE GAME, AND WILL NO LONGER BE PARTICIPATING PENDING A REPLY FROM PATH. GOOD LUCK TO ALL REMAINING PLAYERS, LOOK FORWARD TO STARTING FRESH NEXT GAME.

buh-bye :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

[hoopsguy]

Well, Saldana was a Night 1 kill so it obviously was executed by the Revolutionaries. They know the identity of the sympathizer, so they would not have killed him. That leaves Pilkington and the evil seer as possibilities if you want to construe that he may have had a bad guy role.

Another approach might be to suggest that Saldana held a good guy role beyond that of the normal animal.

And now I am going to bed ... have stayed up later with this than originally intended.

[Alan T]

Blade, whatever its worth, I feel what I do about what I think your role is in this game, and I might come off strong, but its only because I am trying to get you to slip up. I do enjoy playing this game with you in it even when we're on the opposite sides. Nothing i said was personal and hope you don't feel it was. I was just trying out what I perceive of your style when you are good and trying to push your buttons and see if you slip up any. Thats all.

I would hope you reconsider and keep playing.

[path12]

I have asked Blade to sleep on it and reconsider his wish to leave. If he feels the same way tomorrow, of course I will look for a replacement -- although I would like to make it clear that I would prefer that Blade stays. I agree with saldana in that I believe that Blade doesn't always get a fair shake due to past arguments and his play style. But I also believe that what I just read was no more and no less than some heated play.

And guys, that's what this is all about, right? Play?

[Alan T]

The reason I said earlier that I felt the rule changes is the sign for if someone is good or bad, I just think too many facts line up for that. I know Blade said ignore those and we're just trying to throw you off, but I honestly feel this is how we can determine if someone was good or bad.

I think earlier in the day we came to some kind of agreement that most of us felt that its likely Pilkington is out of the game.. It also seems to me to think that the only lynch different from the others was Bulletsponge's death.

Perhaps it was because I already had been suspicious of Bullet and called him out on it, but i can very easily see him being bad in this game.

I think the next question in my head is if we assume Bullet was Pilkington, then which bad guys do we think knew Bullet was Pilkington? Do we think any of the revolutionaries knew it? If we do, then perhaps we can use the vote to narrow some people out. If we don't, then does the vote help us much?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by path12

I have asked Blade to sleep on it and reconsider his wish to leave. If he feels the same way tomorrow, of course I will look for a replacement -- although I would like to make it clear that I would prefer that Blade stays. I agree with saldana in that I believe that Blade doesn't always get a fair shake due to past arguments and his play style. But I also believe that what I just read was no more and no less than some heated play.

And guys, that's what this is all about, right? Play?

For whatever its worth, my comments to blade was all just trying to press his buttons and see if he slipped up. I didn't mean anything personal and I actually enjoy him in the games since he helps increase participation and discussion (good or bad). I sat around most of the day today without anyone responding to my thoughts, and it was kind of dull. Having Blade around changed that alot.

I hope he will stay in the game, it would be more fun for me at least, but if he wants to leave then its his choice. I'm assuming it wasn't my comments that made him mad, if it was I apologize.

[path12]

To be clear, I don't blame anyone for this situation. It happens sometimes. Pressing buttons is part of WW. I just want to provide a challenging and enjoyable game -- I know that I'm enjoying it from here.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Maybe this is where we have differing points of view. I feel like removing myself from the game will put it back on track, not fuck it up. I feel like the one constant in all the personal attacks directed in either direction is me. I feel/felt this game was beginning to veer of course, i and i feel my removal will allow it to resume back to being a game and not one big fight. Do you disagree saldana? I respect your opinion, and am asking for an honest answer here from yourself, now an outsider, on your perspective on the direction this game is/was heading

the reason i said leaving will fuck up the game is because

a. it is not always easy to replace a player, and even if path could find someone...
b. the dynamics of the player that left cannot be replaced

take it from my experience, when i had to replace barkeep in the star wars game, it totally changed the way things were going and i thought it altered the entire game in a negative way, and is one of the reasons i havent run another game since then.

i did think the exchange between you and swaggs was getting a little hot, which is why i posted that i thought it was time to take 10 minutes for a beer...i was hoping, without calling anyone out, that you both would get the hint and step away before the situation got any worse, which it now has. i get just as frustrated with people in this game as anyone else...i even used it as a tool last game and faked an explosion at Fouts...pushing people buttons IS part of the game...the exchanges you were having with Alan earlier tonight were perfectly normal in game terms IMO, things like that are guaranteed to happen, but it is how we react when it does get hot is what determines if the game stays on course, or turns into a flame war...i tried to head off the flame war here, and was not successful....apparently RealDeal wants it to continue, and all i can say about that is it is unfortunate, and with his actions on day 1 toward you and again today when the situation has nothing to do with him have altered my opinion of him, just as yours have the potential to do. like i said to you before blade, i was impressed by the way you handled yourself the other day, and intended to PM you about it after the game was over...hopefully you will see that the issue with swaggs is done and over with, and realize the greater impact that switching out players in the middle of the game will have.

[RealDeal]

Poor blade, why is it that he is in the middle of stuff like this so many games and with so many different people? What could possibly be the common denominator here? Oh, yeah, it's him.

I don't mind a confrontational play style or mixing it up with people, but the kind of arguments the guy often puts together are often so daffy that it just makes me feel like he's trying to fuck up the game. And when the guy is a villager, he is the all-time PK champion. If you look at previous games in which a person is a villager, you can generally know whether or not an early round lynchee is a villager by whether or not blade was invovled in starting up the momentum against that person. If blade did, then the person was a villager. We're all wrong in this game a lot, but at a certain point it gets ridiculous.

Anyway, Blade has every right to play. But if he wants to quit, I'm sure as hell not going to beg him to stay.

[path12]

Tension flares during the night, and it certainly does not help your mood as you awake to find Anxiety dead, with another gruesome message written in his blood: NAPOLEON IS ALWAYS RIGHT!.

Despite the sorrow and frustration, you remain determined to stamp out this evil.

ANXIETY HAS BEEN KILLED. DAY 4 IS UNDERWAY. DEADLINE IS 9PM EASTERN.

[Alan T]

On night 1 and night 3 kills, they left some bloody message... on night 2 they left no message...

The first instinct I have is that the message is bad, meaning either they got someone important, or that they got a good guy?

Since Lathum had no message, does that mean there is something special about him? Maybe they accidentally killed someone on their own side? Or Lathum didn't have as important of a role? Or maybe its in reverse and Lathum was the only one of the three with an important role?

[Chubby]

Shocking that they go after Anxiety... lol

vote hoopsguy

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Alan T

On night 1 and night 3 kills, they left some bloody message... on night 2 they left no message...

The first instinct I have is that the message is bad, meaning either they got someone important, or that they got a good guy?

Since Lathum had no message, does that mean there is something special about him? Maybe they accidentally killed someone on their own side? Or Lathum didn't have as important of a role? Or maybe its in reverse and Lathum was the only one of the three with an important role?

There was no bloody message, but there was an extra rule change after the next lynching. I'm not sure what to make of that. I find it hard to believe that the bad guys killed two important good guys already, so I am leaning toward the rule changes and the blood writing to be the same thing. It is also possible that Pilkington isn't really dead yet and he killed Lathum while the bad guy kill was blocked. There are probably other explanations as well...

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Shocking that they go after Anxiety... lol

vote hoopsguy

Chubby,, I might just not be remembering it, but where do you draw the correlation between an Anxiety kill and hoops? I guess I'll need to go back through yesterday's stuff.. but I remember Anxiety getting stirred up a little at someone voting him yesterday (I remember the "Welcome to my ass" comment) but don't think that was hoops. I also remember Anxiety thinking your (chubby)'s move at the end of the vote yesterday was odd..

Is there somewhere that he singled out hoops? I don't really recall that too much.. when I saw Anxiety was dead, the first thing that came to mind for me was the "Welcome to my ass" comment he made at someone.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Anxiety's COT:

Completly Trusted: Swaggs

Sorta Trusted: hoopsguy

Everybody Else: Neutral

Looking through yesterday, this is the first reference Anxiety made of hoops that I could find... Seems here that Anxiety didn't distrust hoops... Can you explain your vote better chubby?

[Chubby]

Anxiety was the final vote switch to cause the tie.


hoops started the crusade against bek then changed when he thought he could while still ensuring bek got lynched to draw attention away from himself.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Anxiety was the final vote switch to cause the tie.


hoops started the crusade against bek then changed when he thought he could while still ensuring bek got lynched to draw attention away from himself.

hmm ok.. I'll keep reading yesterday then. Not that i don't believe you.. I guess I just don't see the correlation yet between the two.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Anxiety was the final vote switch to cause the tie.

It would be nice if Anxiety was around to tell us why he did this. He caused the tie in the same post where he said that you asking for a tie was suspicious.

hoops started the crusade against bek then changed when he thought he could while still ensuring bek got lynched to draw attention away from himself.

This switch off of Bek was a little odd since it was before you were asking for a tie...