The Syndicate

that was @Hammy

Why not? she's incredibly shady, then she role claims to get out of it.

What?

We have the puffiest marshmallows at the Canuck Bonfire

Wow.

LoRab wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?

You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.

I'm not bad, folks. Move along.

So, you're indy? Hmmmm...K-nuk Indy....not sure I'd want to trust that...

Why would I feel better about someone being an Indy if they are behaving in a way I thought to be opportunistic? Or misrepresenting their motivations? Some indies are civ centric, and some are not. Regardless of how huge the gray area is, and how many roles are in it, has no bearing on behavior. If you are acting like a baddie, as far as I am concerned, you are one. I see no reason for a civ friendly Indy to act like a baddie.

First you were a disinterested civ, now you are in a "gray area". I think you are scrambling.

Turnip Head wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:It's a lose-lose situation when you get a late start in a mafia game.

Only when you criticize others for the same thing you've been doing

It also felt like you went out of your way to paint each of Canuck's posts in a bad light.

Actually I think he did not have to go out of his way. I think those posts speak for themselves. I read them several times.

When I was reading Canucks posts, I counted you as one of the people who had expressed suspicion of her, based mainly on this post:

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:[snip]

This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.

Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for

In this post you are actually saying something fairly close to what MM was saying in his read on Canuck. Has your opinion changed? Has returning from the dead given you a different take on other things, or just on Canuck?

Have you read back on sig? I am looking forward to your opinion on him.

And I just am not buying that you are so uninvolved. For now i am going to put my vote on you.

I did not think you vote was genuine, having read back I don't think you were honest about your past interactions, and I think you were more involved than you are letting on.

Wow, I have to digest that. I don't have a gluten issue, so normally don't have problems with waffles, but ... I dunno.

I think you are playing the "lame uninvolved" card WAAAAY too hard. That Luke vote feels, like I said, like a vote in need of a rationale.

Canucklehead wrote:

Golden wrote:SVS and I agree about something!

I like the case on canuck. That's where I'm putting a vote for now. I think there have been other good options floated too. Juliets definitely seems different to me, but because she is so consistent I'm not sure if 'different' = 'bad' or not. The biggest reason I'm not voting for her right now and canuck instead, though, is I think we could use having some viable competition to see where people land.

The Draconus connections to luke thing also has merit. I think there are several viable options today.

linki - I thought bullz's post makes sense. I understand that when I tunnel it can sometimes damage my ability to hurt the town. Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at all the options again.

Hey, G.
Can you also respond to the question I asked SVS (i.e. why, in your view, my actions go beyond simply "not-civ" and land in "probably-baddie", bypassing other options?)
I honestlytruly do not understand why disengaged-random Canuck is looking like a baddie to folks.

Becasue the things I think point to you looking bad are not honest mistake kind of things, imo.

At the time you voted, sig had 2 votes, Luke had one. No one else had votes. You popped in, never had mentioned Luke before (you still have not mentioned sig, although you have alluded to him when discussing what constitutes a question with Juliets) yet you decided that Luke was a "no show" even though you had even less posts than he did? Did you look at or consider sig at all? Or your prior suspicions, Juliets (to whom you reverted as soon as you started to take heat) or Buglabush?

That vote seems to me like a vote looking for a reason to be made. It isn't like you came in, and said "hrm, not sure whether to vote sig or Luke; sig seems genuine, Luke is a waffleberry".

Then, and i said this earlier 2x as well, you keep buddying up to people. You have buddied up to Epignosis more than once as well as Golden. You seemed to latch onto Epis case on Juliets more so than you came to the conclusion on your own.

Then you said Juliets was one of only two people with whom you had interacted, but you actually interacted with her, TH & Zebra. Two of the three suspected you.

Linki, no it isn't tone. It's timing, it's what you did not say.

Do you have an opinion on sig?

Canucklehead wrote:SVS: why do my actions make you think I'm bad? I can totes understand why you think they're not good civilian play, but I struggle to see how you're reading them as baddie...

I already gave the bare bones synopsis, based on a read of your (at the time 14, now 17) posts.

S~V~S wrote:Looking back, Canuck has not mentione Luke before her casual vote for him today. Yesterday she voted for Juliets & Buglabush (who actually is blendier than she is), but no mention of those two today, one post, straight to Luke. She was only the second vote for Luke, too, which makes it even odder that she comes out of left field with a vote for someone she never mentioned or interacted with previously. This looks like the classic example of an easy bandwagon, tbh.

This was her last post before she voted for Luke; this post was made Wednesday afternoon:

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:[snip]

This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.

Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for

Juliets is one of two people I've actually interacted with this game, so yes I've previously thought her posts odd. No, I haven't been paying particularly close attention, to her or anyone.

This caught my eye when i was skimming her 14 post history~ since I had just read her history, I know this to not be true. She interacted with Bullz, Juliets, and Zebra, who suspected her. Three people. And of course she was questioned here by TH, who is also dead.

Probably a coincidence, but

The fact that Luke flipped bad does not change this impression, tbh. This vote felt like an easy way out, pick off the low hanging fruit kind of vote. Plus the fact that you seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time agreeing with & buddying up to thread leaders (without even looking at your posts, I can think of two occasions where you prefaced posts with "I totally agree with...", or words to that effect, about two different people) puts me in mind of bad Canuck, who tends to be a bit more agreeable to my mind.

After work I will go through your posts & post in more depth, I had planned to do so this weekend, but there was too much going on irl.

I am sorry I was a total no show yesterday, I have a family situation going on right now and that took precedence. I will get back up to speed today.

Bye Luke, BIH Awful sounding role.

And Death to Low posters!

Looking back, Canuck has not mentione Luke before her casual vote for him today. Yesterday she voted for Juliets & Buglabush (who actually is blendier than she is), but no mention of those two today, one post, straight to Luke. She was only the second vote for Luke, too, which makes it even odder that she comes out of left field with a vote for someone she never mentioned or interacted with previously. This looks like the classic example of an easy bandwagon, tbh.

This was her last post before she voted for Luke; this post was made Wednesday afternoon:

Canucklehead wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:[snip]

This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.

Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for

Juliets is one of two people I've actually interacted with this game, so yes I've previously thought her posts odd. No, I haven't been paying particularly close attention, to her or anyone.

This caught my eye when i was skimming her 14 post history~ since I had just read her history, I know this to not be true. She interacted with Bullz, Juliets, and Zebra, who suspected her. Three people. And of course she was questioned here by TH, who is also dead.

Probably a coincidence, but

I think I have talked myself into a vote for Canuck. It is quite possible Luke is bad. He certainly does not sound coached, but coaching nubs is a bad idea, in any case. But based totally on a read of their posts, I am going to vote for Canuck.

Linki @ Draco~

When there was a three way tie, Dom, Buglabush & Bananana (who got lynched) Nutella came in & made a tangent vote for someone else, i don't recall who without checking, although she had mentioned Buglabush as being suspish a few times. Yet she chose not to break the tie with a vote for him. It felt like early distancing gone wrong to me. Not sure about other peoples reasons, but that is mine.

Canucklehead wrote:No time to chat today. Voting Luke for being (essentially) a no-show. Hopefully will be back to chat before lunch 2 tomorrow

I just looked, and Luke actually has more posts than you do

I can see the reason Luke is taking votes~ he is really blendy which catches my eye more than the post count, and might vote for him myself, although I still suspect Nutella for reasons unassociated with Bubbles. And this post has gotten my attention on Canuck, so i am going to reread her, should not take long. That has to be one of the most bandwaggony votes i can recall seeing in some time.

Bye, TH. That was rather gory. I know LC writes more for flavor, but the way that is written re Bullz death, is (I don't want to say "interesting", but it IS interesting, lol~ oh what the hell, INTERESTING.

I think I need to reread the roles. And beef up my vocabulary.

And if we are going to have two lynches having it set up this way is better. I did not vote for two lynches as having all the simultaneous discussion of two votes made it harder to follow the thread for me. I am OK with 2 lynches if it is more linear.

Unchangeable votes might be refreshing Personally I would like to see a poll of only low posters

And since they had some of the same people on both sides, I assumed it would be one lynch and votes would be added together. That was what made the most sense since people could not be lynched twice.

Bye Bubbles, and BIH mysteriously benign SK.

timmer wrote:I've voted Golden in section 1. My gut tells me he is bad. As foe the second section I have no suspects and it appears that bubbles is going to be lynched so I tossed the vote away on eloh.

I'm having a gallbladder attack so don't expect any more from me for this evening.

Ouch

Feel Better

Why did Bubbles vote for Splints?

This is her last post, from a bit less than 24 hours ago.

TinyBubbles wrote:rip zebra, and surprised you're still alive sig
im behind on the thread, but in response to golden's belief about me being bad, wrong~! he of ALL PEOPLE would be able to tell if i was mafia and the fact that he's accusing me as well as nutella makes me believe he's shady and nutella is at least not his teammate and probably not mafia

I was not sure if, until I wrote this post, I was going to vote for Golden or follow him. While I don't know that I think Bubbles putative teammates would merrily go along with the plan he outlines, I don;t know what Golden would gain from going after her so hard if he was wrong, and Golden is a careful baddie. In short, i think his case is crap, but I also don't know Golden to be a spitballer, throwing names out to gauge reactions.

I also agree with him about sig.

So going Nutella since I have not really changed my thoughts there (and Bubbles defending her makes me go *meh*), and Bubbles.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.

Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.

That's odd, becasue I feel quite the opposite re Hammy & Golden. I think Hammy sounds very genuine, Golden not as much to me, but I am a piss poor judge of Golden. Also let's not forget Epignosis! He defended sig too.

Epignosis wrote:Top suspects, revised edition:

Typhoony
nutella
juliets
S~V~S

What your famed Scumdar was wrong about Dom? You dropped him from your list? I don't mind being there; I know you are wrong about me, and it keeps the baddies away

I don't have a "scumdar." That's a ridiculous word. I have Day 1 suspicions. Day 1 suspicions are inferior to Day 3 suspicions.

Oh I HATE that word too, it was just that Mac kept carrying on about your "scumdar" the night you were after Dom, I was just wondering if he had fallen off completely or what.

DFaraday wrote:

sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.

Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.

That's odd, becasue I feel quite the opposite re Hammy & Golden. I think Hammy sounds very genuine, Golden not as much to me, but I am a piss poor judge of Golden. Also let's not forget Epignosis! He defended sig too.

Epignosis wrote:Top suspects, revised edition:

Typhoony
nutella
juliets
S~V~S

What your famed Scumdar was wrong about Dom? You dropped him from your list? I don't mind being there; I know you are wrong about me, and it keeps the baddies away

Golden wrote:Here you go SVS...

Golden wrote:Most importantly... Timmer died. And I know that bubbles has seen me pull that exact move on her just before I killed her, to make me seem less responsible for the kill, in a game I went on to win.

I think bubbles used the post and vote about timmer as a distancing tactic, because I know she is very aware of a time when it worked.

Lets not forget, the baddies have a range on their kill. I'm guessing they already knew what options were available to them.

If not this - why did bubbles call out specifically and only timmer out of all low posters? Not rey, not canuck... etc.

So Bubbles, who you say has never been a baddie before, convinces her team to kill the person she voted for? Based on a move you JUST did to her. Do you figure she did not think you would recall that?

That sounds like a stretch.

If it was a serial killer, I could see it, but not on a team. I know if I were bad and a teammate said to me, "Hey, Golden just did this to me. Let's do it to someone else!" and Golden was playing, I would say, um, no, let's not.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:@Golden~ Bubbles & Timmer; what's the connection? I am missing why you think she killed Timmer.

So is everyone else.

....so why don't you explain it for me?

@Golden~ Bubbles & Timmer; what's the connection? I am missing why you think she killed Timmer.

Golden wrote:

Tranq wrote:@ Golden: I'm looking into your TinyBubbles suspicion. Am i correct in understanding it boils down to the following?

- Her randomly mentioning Timmer on Day 1 (but not because of Timmer's death)
- Her answering the are-you-civ question with a statement that cannot be lie detected (but not because she didn't simply say she was civ)

Note in RM4 she didn't say she was civ either. She made a joke, but it was a joke that could've been lie detected:

This game:

TinyBubbles wrote:@turniphead am i bad? go by my track record!

vs
Quote from RM4:

TinyBubbles wrote:yes, i'm evil. badder than you could ever suspect! better lynch me now, doo eet.

Not quite. Timmer dying afterwards is also part of it.

She mentioned him, and then he died?

Golden wrote:Also lucky he wasn't one of the 7 independents, which he is also not.

This is an extremely definitive statement.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace Zebra

Metalmarsh89 wrote:More officially, Turnip Head, Turnip Head.

It's a placeholder. It's a placeholder.

Why do you need a placeholder vote? So if you conveniently forget to vote, you have a built in excuse if TH gets lynched?

Time to reread Zebra.

Actually, Mac, it pisses me off that I went to the effort to write that post, and give you my honest opinion, and all you took out of it was one word.

That was insulting.

That seems calculated to portray my post in a certain way.

not pseudonym lol. But you know what I mean.

I mean interests me that you read it as you did. Sorry I have no better pseudonyms. I thought that was clear.

MacDougall wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Personally, I think he has been playing a fairly neutral game. He seems to be looking at both sides of a story equally. HE disagrees with you quite a bit, yes.

So you think HB is town? What about Golden?

I did not say that; I said he is playing a neutral game. This game has 7 or 8 indies/third parties. So a neutral read does not necessarily mean civ. Interesting extrapolation on your part, though.

In the last big game we played, Recruitment, I went after Golden hard. I was SURE he was bad. Since I was myself bad, that part has gotten lost. I think Golden & I are unable to even understand each other. I respect him I think it is mutual. But we never trust each other. I am not sure if this was the answer you were seeking, but it IS the answer you got

Personally, I think he has been playing a fairly neutral game. He seems to be looking at both sides of a story equally. HE disagrees with you quite a bit, yes.

Defending people you think could be town is not a bad thing. I am always surprised when people think that defending someone else is always a baddie tell.

BUGLABUSH wrote:Hi

Hi

Any thoughts on being in a tie for the lynch?

I am not reducing the entireity of your game play to the term batshit, just the last hour. Both days you spent the last hour screaming about someone you had not really mentioned before.

Perhaps this is more normal at RYM but to me it feels like you were trying to derail the thread. Is this what you always do? Do people pay attention to you when you do it?

Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)

Um @ Hammy, I made a stand. My point re Nutella was that she did not. She took the least resistance route when she had actually said she suspected one of the tied parties.

Not at ALL the same thing. Quite opposite things, actually.

Now really, bye lol.

Golden wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Linki @ Golden, WTF? I used to live in Montana, for almost 20 years, but I grew up in Brooklyn, and have been back in New York for almost 4 years.

I must be getting you confused with Henry Gale.

(Also known as - slight geography fail. Minnesota... Montana... that's not so far off...

I knew you were in New York for the last few years, but I didn't know you were born there!)

Actually I was born in North Carolina, on Fort Bragg. My father was in the Army. But my parents were from Brooklyn, and when he got out we went back there. I was in Kindergarten when we moved back to NY.

Later guys

OK, I am going to the pre game Party (this may be the Mets last gasp, so the faithful are especially intense tonight ha ha).

I am going to vote for Nutella. I think she was more invested in that tie than she would have us think.

Linki @ Golden, WTF? I used to live in Montana, for almost 20 years, but I grew up in Brooklyn, and have been back in New York for almost 4 years.

Epi, quick tip~ in Brooklyn, "That's bullshit" means everything from "I had to stay 5 minutes late at work" to "my spouse is having an affair" to "I swear, Mom, I did not cut class" to "I think the blue carpet is better than the beige one". It's fairly inclusive as opposed to being exclusive.

Sorry for lack of clarity; I thought I answered it, it did not occur to me that you literally wanted to know what i meant by the actual word "bullshit" lol. I was talking about the content of the bullshit.

Not proofreading ftl ha ha ha, wuestion

Sorry I missed it in the start of a new page. I have a high ppp count.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

There's traction there. No one wants to lynch S~V~S despite the fact that she refuses to answer anything about her strong stance on my Day 1 case. I'll take my third suspect if that's all I can get.

What didn't I answer?

Everything about why my Dom case was bullshit, who had better cases that day, who had worse cases that day, and why you would use such a strong term (implying deception) when I could simply be wrong is all (on Day 1).

Here's the post.

Epignosis wrote:In this post, S~V~S never stated why my (Day 1) view of Dom was "bullshit."

Her description stands in stark contrast to juliets, who called it "a pretty good case for day 1."

The disparity here makes me want to know what the expectations are for a good Day 1 case from S~V~S: What cases Day 1 were stronger than mine, and what made them stronger? Were there worse cases Day 1 than mine, and what made them weaker?

I'm not going to quit harping on this just because it goes unanswered. Had S~V~S said, "I don't agree with Epi," and said why, that would have been one thing. Can a case be wrong without it being bullshit? I think so. But to label it "bullshit," as she did, implies that I am being dishonest. A bullshitter is someone who is making something up. For her to accuse me of making something up Day 1 is tantamount to accusing me of being Mafia, someone who has a need to make things up Day 1.

My suspicion of S~V~S, in summary, emanates from these points:

1. Calling a relatively decent case on Day 1 "bullshit,"
2. Thus implying that I'm being dishonest or misleading
3. Voting a civilian new person (not merely a low poster) out of the game Day 1, and
4. Doing so for one of the weakest and vaguest reasons imaginable.
5. Her over-the-top serious reaction to a post I made in jest.

Top choice for my vote right now. Voting S~V~S.

Bullshit does not mean bad or misleading; indeed as it a=concerns you, I think it means you are more likely to be civ.

It means cobbled up from your own weird tells, which often are incorrect in my experience.

A lot of day one cases are bullshit; it does not mean the case maker is inc=sincere. i never once thought YOU were insincere or lying. I just thought the case was day one bullshit.

I felt that the things you called Dom out for were standard Dom stuff. You made a case on Dom for being Dom. I went back and reread him based on your case, and disagreed.

I had a wuestion for you; whay did you think of Mac screaming about how trusted you were and your scumdar? Didn't you find that to be mildly odd at the least?

You have seen me use it as a civ, too.

Now what did I refuse to address?

Epignosis wrote:

Sorsha wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

What do you think of the sig wagon?

I don't know how what to do with sig. He does things that make absolutely no sense (at ENDGAME, no less), and when you call him on it, he turns out civilian. I don't know how much he is aware of that, but in The Syndicate Mafia, that's what happened. I even had him in BTSC, teasing and taunting him that I knew he was bad- everything, and I mean everything, pointed to it.

Then he was good.

Listen, he wasn't even doing a good job in BTSC convincing me he wasn't bad. He just kept digging himself into a hole.

So I don't know sig well enough to lynch him. Not Day 2.

As for the wagon, the only vote there that makes sense to me is Bullzeye's, who did the dirty work.

You had me for bad, too, in TS.

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

There's traction there. No one wants to lynch S~V~S despite the fact that she refuses to answer anything about her strong stance on my Day 1 case. I'll take my third suspect if that's all I can get.

What didn't I answer?

Sorsha wrote:I wasn't particularly suspicious of Nutella for voting me yesterday, at the time the only thing that pinged me was it kind of being a throw away vote when there was a heated race going on.

SVS- how good of a judge do you think you are of Nutella based on past games?

Same question to Matt and golden.

Not the best, tbh. If you recall the Freemasons games cabin fevah put on at LP? I led a day one lynch on her, and she was Mother Theresa Based on tone, I can't read her at all. the thing that strikes me here is her mentioning Buglabush more than once, but when it came time to put her money where her mouth was, she made a tangent vote. I would have felt that was suspicious regardless of who did it.

Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?

I am OK with it, the host posts say when the cycles end

nutella wrote:SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

But you voted for Sorsha based on her vote for Dom. So it seems you DID have some investment in the tie.

Matt F wrote:

S~V~S wrote:If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

Knowing that nutella made a tangent vote at a time when the leading candidates were at 4-4-4...what are your thoughts? (or have you already shared?)

No I did not weigh in on Nutella at all, I was pretty much afk most of the last day, I just got caught up this AM.

Actually, I don't think much of her vote in light of the fact hat she mentioned considering Buglabush for a vote more than once.

nutella wrote:

Golden wrote: Nutella, BWT, Eloh?

You have been a little involved, but haven't said much to give me an idea of your perspective on things. Are you civilian aligned? If I claimed you were just trying to look involved, and not really being involved, would you call that a fair assessment? Who would be your biggest suspect right now?

I am catching up when I can, a couple times a day, and posting once per catch-up. So I am not putting a huge amount of effort into getting involved, but I'm also not deliberately holding back. I always find it hard to have many thoughts on Day 1. I suppoooose my biggest suspect is Bullz, sorta, kinda, just for lack of thoughts on other people at this point. But I can't vote for him. I'm a little curious about the Epi/Dom discussion (but Epi is also off the poll and idk if I'd be convinced to vote Dom). I am very confused by Buglabush and might consider a vote there.

nutella wrote:

Epignosis wrote:"Pushing the Dom thing."

I have to pick someone to vote for. I have to have a reason for voting that person. I have to try to get that person lynched. Otherwise I'm just coming in and voting and not giving a toss.

nutella, what WOULD give you a clue as to my alignment? I'm curious.

I don't really have an answer to that. Different behaviors can make me suspect or trust players and it depends on the context of the game. I just usually don't have such reads/much material to base them on when it's still day 1.


Hmm, Dom suspects Sorsha, apparently because of her easy vote for him? I have to vote quite soon so I will look over that exchange and perhaps vote for either Sorsha or Buglabush. Feels like a really weak day 1 vote all around, I hope we get lucky.

That second quote was her first mention of Sorsha, and her next post was her vote post.

nutella wrote:Okay, I'm voting for Sorsha. Her early comments on Matt/Mac are confusing, and it looks like she tagged onto the Dom ping as an easy excuse not to vote for Matt or Mac (because she said she would if "nothing else came up"). She hedged around any actual reasoning for following Epi's lead. Now That's What I Call Opportunistic™!

But considering that she said she suspected Sorsha, in part, for voting Dom (who was one of the tied people) and that she had previously mentioned Buglabush as a possible place to put her vote (another person tied) does seem a bit off. Like the first Bug mention was just distancing since she voted for someone for their stance on Dom, but did not think enough of Dom HERSELF to counter Sorshas vote, or for Bug although she had brought him up already.

Well, I did, and I said so right after he made his vote post, Epi. Next post after he voted, i questioned it. It isn't like that vote came out of left field. Had I voted for BUG, that would have been different. But I voted for someone I had previously mentioned to save someone I thought was being mischaracterized. For the 89th time.

Of the two, I felt it more likely that Nanana was bad, so I put my money where my mouth was instead of pussing off and making a vote that would not matter.

And yeah, I think the case on Dom was bullshit.

Sorry so absent yesterday, I had family stuff, real estate stuff, Halloween stuff, drama stuff. Aside from D & D, I should be around most of today. I will get caught up to the thread this AM.

Epignosis wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:That she acknowledged a change in style/strategy (especially here) is the thing that perked my ears the most so far, but in asking me you've made me realize that she hasn't said much this day so far. I can see her defense of him and change in tune (against lynching new players) from a town POV, both in that your read on Dom didn't sell me, and in that she might want to keep certain experienced players from a day 1 lynch just because it's player X. I haven't seen Dom before this game; is it the case that he doesn't play as often here anymore? Most of the things involving her seem to concern you and Dom.

Or, to give a gth read, I'd say town.

"I have never liked lynching nubs day one. Back in the day, we used to lynch low posters & the baddies NKed them, so they were not a problem. But various discussions here led t=me to think that more often than not low posters were civs, and that modkilling them hurt the civs." Full post here.

Look carefully. The first sentence talks about new people. After that, she only talks about low posters.

Not the same class of people.

S~V~S does not like lynching new people Day 1. Yet she lynched a new person Day 1.

That warrants discussion.

No, I really don't like to.

But if someone I don't think is bad based on the case being made against him, is tied with someone I do think could be bad, I will vote for the one I think is bad to save the one I think isn't, even if he is a nub. If it was not a forced scenario like that, I probably would not vote for the nub. But it was a tie vote,and making a tangent vote at that point is lame.

I have explained this 88 times, Lol. And you are skipping the "I thought he was bad" part to focus on my wording. You're wrong here, but knock yourself out.

Rude.