[FELT Mafia]: ENDGAME

#451

Vompatti wrote:It was quite delightful for a game of mafia.

That means the world coming from you, sugar.

#452

Every single player voted in the Night 2 poll! Good job, guys!

Thank you for your continued participation in Things Alison Likes Felt Mafia.

#453

thellama73 wrote:
Made wrote: More coming soon
I can hardly wait!

K here's what I don't get. Why has boogs been so sloppy? I mean it's not that hard to come up with a consistent lie. What does mafia gain by Boog's not voting, if they are lying.

Compounded with early civvie defining, It's a definite strong case for Boogs being bad.

Made wrote:I voted to save Llama because he scum hunting in the most outspoken way. While it could be misdirection, imo it's too early to tell and too early to lose a player willing to be so outspoken.

Roxy wrote: Your posts felt like you wanted to vote Boogs

I did, but by the time i voted, it knew he wasn't going to be lynched. So between wasting my vote(to all be it provide a record of who i was most suspicious of at time of the vote) and saving someone i didn't think was mafia, i chose the latter. If you makes you feel any better, i plan on voting after boogs has a chance to defend himself

As for now....
Boogs- see above
DF -

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle.

while a ping, it's not a damnation. I completely disagree with this philosophy, as if you're slightly pinged by one person and not pinged by another, you should probably vote to keep the one that hasn't pinged you.

And as for the Tossup

Roxy- Really could go either way for me. While I feel Llama is outspoken (and snarky) Roxy is just straight hostile. While her strategy might be more effective in confronting baddies, it's both got me on edge and has made me reconsider my reason for trusting Llama.

#454

I sound hostile? - wow I am very sorry

I deffo don't feel hostile when I am posting.

#455

Made wrote: K here's what I don't get. Why has boogs been so sloppy? I mean it's not that hard to come up with a consistent lie. What does mafia gain by Boog's not voting, if they are lying.

That way lies madness. Baddies make mistakes. If we assume that any mistakes wouldn't be made by baddies, becaue they would be more careful, we would never smoke out anyone.

Roxy wrote:I sound hostile? - wow I am very sorry I deffo don't feel hostile when I am posting.

I get that a lot too, Rox. Don't let it get you down.

#456

I find it funny that nobody wants to talk. Roxy? Llama? Anyone else who found it weird that I hadn't posted all Day but wasn't blubbering at Night?

#457

Monty Python is not as interesting as Felt. Come on.

#458

What do you think of Hedgeowl, Rob? I think she's bad for two reasons. 1) I always think she's bad. 2) I don't believe that she doesn't know me well enough to see that I am obviously good this game, and yet she is voting to lynch me.

#459

thellama73 wrote:What do you think of Hedgeowl, Rob? I think she's bad for two reasons. 1) I always think she's bad. 2) I don't believe that she doesn't know me well enough to see that I am obviously good this game, and yet she is voting to lynch me.

Give me a minute to look her up. And pee.

#460

Okay, I have mixed feelings:

Hedgeowl has been consistent in voting for thellama73. However, she voted first on Day 1 and last on Day 2.

Hedgeowl made a weak case against Eloh, which I spoke out against. I also think she answered poorly.

So I really don't know.

++++

And even though I have not been asked, I will say that I do not find my wife suspicious. She's as gauche as a 1980s Sunday-school teacher with a missing felt board.

#461

I don't suspect your wife either, but Roxy's certainty gives me pause.

#462

Alright, after a quick reread of the thread, I feel very confident in my vote for Boogs. The points i brought up and the points others brought up seems to line up quite well, and based on the fact that there's so many arguments about him, and the fact it appears he's been pocketed (based on the fact that he's voted today but hasn't said anything make it make sense.

While the possibility exist that mafia set boogs up, it's hard to think that when so much is against him.

#463

Ahhh shoot, cell phones, fat fingers, and headaches don't mix at all. Don't know how, but I imputed errored. I meant to vote boogs. Is there any way I can get this fixed??

#464

Roxy wrote:
Mister Rearranger wrote:Good news. I can focus my drunk-ass attention on this game now.
Yay! What are your thoughts of the last lynch? Who are your top 3 suspects and why?

Off to work I may or may not have time to check in from work so Happy Friday everyone!

The last lynch gives me pause with pursuing Llama, but I'm still not sure what happened.

To be honest, I still have to read bqck on several people, including DF, Bullz, and Eloh. Hopefully I can do so by my meeting at noon tomorrow.

#465

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle. I generally don't vote for high vote getters unless I feel strongly about them. I do, however, have a history of throwing a vote on someone who has pinged me but is otherwise not up for lynching, just to address them and try to get discussion surrounding them. That's what I did with Bullz; I never felt certain he was bad, but I thought his behavior raised my suspicion enough to bring up discussion about him, hence my nominal vote.

Since then, my view of Bullz has improved a bit (although I'm still not convinced he's a civ), as he does seem to have acquitted himself fairly well. Otherwise, I feel like Llama, Dom and Roxy are probably civvies, and have little read on the rest of the board. Since I believe that Hedge is a baddie, and Elo is currently my second highest suspicion by default, I suggested that they could possibly be teammates (which only makes sense, because we only have one bad team. I'm not sure why that part was an issue).

Were the lynch to come down to Elo and Bullz, I would vote Elo, since I don't have any other outlying suspicions I would want to throw into the ring. Were it Llama vs. Elo, I would vote Elo, again, because I do find her suspicious and don't have anyone to call out. Were it Hedge vs. Elo, I would go with Hedge because I feel more strongly about her.

In conclusion, I did what I set out to do with Bullz: I brought attention to him, and am somewhat satisfied with how he handled it. As of this point, I will be voting to actually contribute to the lynch, unless another obscure ping should arise.

I'm very likely voting DFaraday because this si so so so so false.
He intended to do nothing but lynch bullz. I know this because he literally hadn't mentioned anything of a Bullzeye suspicion until I did. He based his suspicion off of my observations.

In addition, we know that given a choice between Elo and Bullz that Dfaraday will pick Bullz because that's literally what he did last lynch,

So please, DFaraday, please please please, detail your experience with Bullzeye. From accusation (original) to acquittal (as you put it), please tell me why you were bringing "attention to him" and why you are "somewhat satisfied with how he handled it"-- I am having a hard time believing that.

#466

Made wrote:Ahhh shoot, cell phones, fat fingers, and headaches don't mix at all. Don't know how, but I imputed errored. I meant to vote boogs. Is there any way I can get this fixed??

After a thorough investigation, I have determined that Made's misvote was genuine error. Therefore, his vote will go for Boogs. Situations like this will be taken on a case by case basis.

#467

DFaraday wrote:Since I seem to have set everyone off, I'm going to try to explain my thought process in excruciating detail, as follows:

I didn't have any strong suspicions on Day 2. I didn't feel suspicious of Llama (and still don't), and was a bit pinged by Elo, but not enough to get involved in that kerfuffle. I generally don't vote for high vote getters unless I feel strongly about them. I do, however, have a history of throwing a vote on someone who has pinged me but is otherwise not up for lynching, just to address them and try to get discussion surrounding them. That's what I did with Bullz; I never felt certain he was bad, but I thought his behavior raised my suspicion enough to bring up discussion about him, hence my nominal vote.

Since then, my view of Bullz has improved a bit (although I'm still not convinced he's a civ), as he does seem to have acquitted himself fairly well. Otherwise, I feel like Llama, Dom and Roxy are probably civvies, and have little read on the rest of the board. Since I believe that Hedge is a baddie, and Elo is currently my second highest suspicion by default, I suggested that they could possibly be teammates (which only makes sense, because we only have one bad team. I'm not sure why that part was an issue).

Were the lynch to come down to Elo and Bullz, I would vote Elo, since I don't have any other outlying suspicions I would want to throw into the ring. Were it Llama vs. Elo, I would vote Elo, again, because I do find her suspicious and don't have anyone to call out. Were it Hedge vs. Elo, I would go with Hedge because I feel more strongly about her.

In conclusion, I did what I set out to do with Bullz: I brought attention to him, and am somewhat satisfied with how he handled it. As of this point, I will be voting to actually contribute to the lynch, unless another obscure ping should arise.

Yeah I don't really buy this, it just feels like more backtracking. I think you tried to get something started, nobody agreed, people started to turn on you, so now you're acting like you were never really suspicious of me to begin with and it's all a misunderstanding. You say you'd vote Elo or Hedge yet you're never really made any case against either and this post is the second time you imply you suspect them without actually bringing up any reason why. You will be getting my vote today.

#468

Dom wrote: I'm very likely voting DFaraday because this si so so so so false.
He intended to do nothing but lynch bullz. I know this because he literally hadn't mentioned anything of a Bullzeye suspicion until I did. He based his suspicion off of my observations.

In addition, we know that given a choice between Elo and Bullz that Dfaraday will pick Bullz because that's literally what he did last lynch,

So please, DFaraday, please please please, detail your experience with Bullzeye. From accusation (original) to acquittal (as you put it), please tell me why you were bringing "attention to him" and why you are "somewhat satisfied with how he handled it"-- I am having a hard time believing that.

Okay, here's my detailed recreation of my Bullz thought process.

*skimming thread, as I unfortunately sometimes do*

*mostly ignoring the German and insanified posts*

"Oh, Dom raised an interesting point. I'll go back and look at Bulz' posts."

"Hmm, that does seem odd. And now that it's been brought up, he's still posting the same way. I wonder if he's trying not to be clear."

"Eh, I don't know about Boogs or Elo. I'll stay out of that for now. I'll just vote Bullz to get his attention*

*Bullz replies and comes across genuine*

"Oh, Bullz has replied and came across genuine. Fair enough, I'm glad he didn't get all weirdly defensive about it."

THE END

#469

Also, I want to point out that there were already plenty of lynch suspects on Day 2, in particular Llama, Elo, Boogs, and Hedge. If I were a baddie I would either try to save one of my teammates, if any were up for lynching, or else throw them under the bus with a last minute vote if I couldn't save them. What I would not do is make a very half-hearted attempt at fueling a random third party suspicion that didn't have much traction to begin with. Why would I call attention to myself like that when I could just try to blend in with the big names until I needed to cast a decisive vote?

#470

Hmmm well after some thought I think this time I might go for boogs just because when I didn't explain my votes everyone ragged on me like crazy so I can only assume not voting at all is an even worse offense. Perhaps he missed the vote due to being too busy poisoning food...
I'm off to Rochester not sure if that's a green font thing but I think so. I will try to keep updated on the game as much as I can while I'm there. Not sure if this is the right green probably not but I will figure it out eventually

#471

I don't think it matters too much which shade of green you use, but if you go into the full editor and click OT it puts the proper tags in for you

#472

I voted elo.

Epi - I have talked in a hostile manner and did mention your silencing and your not posting at night. so don't say no one noticed - I did. Pardon me if I don't trust your read on your wife - you've been wrong before.

#473

DFaraday wrote:Also, I want to point out that there were already plenty of lynch suspects on Day 2, in particular Llama, Elo, Boogs, and Hedge. If I were a baddie I would either try to save one of my teammates, if any were up for lynching, or else throw them under the bus with a last minute vote if I couldn't save them. What I would not do is make a very half-hearted attempt at fueling a random third party suspicion that didn't have much traction to begin with. Why would I call attention to myself like that when I could just try to blend in with the big names until I needed to cast a decisive vote?

Piggy backing on something I am saying is half hearted?

#474

Bullzeye wrote:I don't think it matters too much which shade of green you use, but if you go into the full editor and click OT it puts the proper tags in for you

Thanks!

#475

I'ma be as thorough as time allows here:

Llama - Reading the last couple of days over again, I have a better idea of why yesterday's lynch probably coin-flipped to Llama and how he might have survived it. Barring any secrets that could involve a lynch stop, I think it's just as likely there's a more straightforward method of surviving that would not indicate his alignment in any way.

Bullzeye - Since your suspicion of me dropped off incredibly fast, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you'd not only been insanified, but had your vote forced as well. But now that the curse is over, you mentioned that you disagreed with my Llama vote. But your focus is now on DF. I'm confused, though have felt good about you from Day 1.

DF - Out of 14 posts, nothing really stood out to me until after Keterman's lynch. Then, an overreaction to his death and a lot of name-dropping again without much else. This all seems like an overblown defense, though panic is not indicitive of alignment. The name-dropping is something that's so fresh in my mind from a baddie you though, that it sticks out like a sore thumb. Your name has come up again in a couple cases before and (more importantly) after my post, which is the only thing that gives me pause.

Eloh - Her Day 1 posts, I get the suspicion concerning. After that, I'm more puzzled by most of her posts. Especially eyeing up Made for behavior that I'm pretty sure he exhibited in Misfits as well.

Can I also add that I forgot Made was even playing until I read Eloh's posts? Sorry, Made! :o

I don't have any thoughts on Epi or Hedge yet, so I'ma see how/if she responds to him. Like I said, I think her initial suspicion of Eloh was reasonable, but I don't remember anything else from her.

Llama or DF will get my vote.

#476

And since this ends at 3:30 today, I should have time to vote after I settle in at work.

#477

Mister Rearranger wrote:
Bullzeye - Since your suspicion of me dropped off incredibly fast, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you'd not only been insanified, but had your vote forced as well. But now that the curse is over, you mentioned that you disagreed with my Llama vote. But your focus is now on DF. I'm confused, though have felt good about you from Day 1.

Basically I believe that Llama is civ. I had no real suspects on day 2 and wasn't in the mood to be making cases due to the curse, so rather than reread I decided my best option was to vote for someone who had voted for someone I trust. Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ, Vomp mentioned that Hedge's vote was essentially random (or something like that, he was German at the time), I didn't want to bandwagon a new player by voting Sabie, so you were just the unlucky one with no reason not to vote you. I kept saying I wished there was more to go on because my vote for you was no better than random in all honesty. Nothing really came up until after I'd voted, if the Elo movement had really gotten into sway before I voted I'd probably have gone with her instead.

#478

Roxy wrote:Pardon me if I don't trust your read on your wife - you've been wrong before.

I've been wrong once. You've been wrong about Eloh more times than I have.

#479

Made- I voted before bed so i wouldnt forget today because i am working. I dont know what case you are trying to refer to in order to get votes on me, so i think you are a terribly misguided Civ.

#480

Epignosis- I honestly meant everything i said about missing the vote. We went to play games Wednesday straight after work and i was trying to vote there. I thought i hit submit, went home thinking so. Woke up, checked for a quick second the site and went to work. Looked at my phone on my break only to see the poll ended and i didnt see no vote from myself then. Take it or leave it, its the truth.

#481

Boogs wrote:Epignosis- I honestly meant everything i said about missing the vote. We went to play games Wednesday straight after work and i was trying to vote there. I thought i hit submit, went home thinking so. Woke up, checked for a quick second the site and went to work. Looked at my phone on my break only to see the poll ended and i didnt see no vote from myself then. Take it or leave it, its the truth.

Very well.

No comment about any of the other points I raised though?

#482

I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

#483

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

Don't.

#484

Elohcin wrote:I wouldn't say Made's behavior is the same as it was in Misfits. In misfits, he got into "gansta" character. Here, he pretended (I guess) to be insanified. I am not sure who I am voting for though. I have a gut ping about llama, but am confused by it because of my vote on day 2. But, his response to my vote brings about more pings. Hmm...I am going to go ahead and vote Llama.

I really don't think he was pretending to be insanified. That post you quoted saying he was was just more "gangsta".

#485

Elo - I am trying to understand your flat out refusal to respond to any of my post yet you expect others to comment on yours. You responded to everyone but me. It is quite aggravating -

No one else has this prob with you except me - I want to know why.

#486

Roxy wrote:Elo - I am trying to understand your flat out refusal to respond to any of my post yet you expect others to comment on yours. You responded to everyone but me. It is quite aggravating -

No one else has this prob with you except me - I want to know why.

First of all, I am sorry. I must have missed any questions you asked me.

Second, I never said I expected anyone to comment on my posts. In fact, I am usually an ignored player and mainly surprised when someone comments on a post I make.

#487

The killing of Vomps gives me pause since he was an active llama supporter. It just doesn't quite make sense, but I have a possible idea on this. I am going to vote dfaraday for the points Dom and Bullz have brought up and his confused response.

*votes df*

#488

Dom wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Also, I want to point out that there were already plenty of lynch suspects on Day 2, in particular Llama, Elo, Boogs, and Hedge. If I were a baddie I would either try to save one of my teammates, if any were up for lynching, or else throw them under the bus with a last minute vote if I couldn't save them. What I would not do is make a very half-hearted attempt at fueling a random third party suspicion that didn't have much traction to begin with. Why would I call attention to myself like that when I could just try to blend in with the big names until I needed to cast a decisive vote?
Piggy backing on something I am saying is half hearted?

I would say posting exactly two sentences about Bullz before voting him, with no attempt to get anyone else to do likewise, is pretty half-hearted, yes.

Anyway, I am obviously voting Elo.

#489

Epignosis wrote:
Boogs wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I hope supatown stays a thing, I like it.

Also, I'm feeling like Llama is probably a proactive civ, so I need to look over the rest to see where I stand on the board. Most players haven't made much impression so far.
A proactive Civ? All I have seen is him act unusual and try to "stir the pot" to get certain people to cause conflict. Doesn't seem Civ like behavior in the least to me. Voting for a non participant always is a bad idea if you are Civ, and considering the game started a few hours on a holiday weekend before I can check in that he says he wanted to "get us to react" etc. doesn't feel any good to me. I'm most likely giving him my vote tomorrow. I don't what proactive Civ you see in him by most of the talk here about apples and off topic being helpful. Which makes me worried about you as well to say that about Llama.
No one has ever successfully defined "civ-like behavior." That's because there is no definition. If pressed, I would argue that stirring the pot is a much more civilian tactic than a Mafia trait.

I also fail to see why voting for a non-participant if you are a civilian is always a bad idea. That's a rather naive position. I have seen my share of Mafia coast right on through and even miss votes on purpose to know that it isn't necessarily a bad idea at all.

In your estimation, then, not participating (including not voting, which is how civilians get rid of Mafia) is more civ-like behavior than gauging reactions.

Boogs wrote:
bea wrote:so boogsy - you are cranky at the llama because he didn't give enough time for low poster to check in before he started to suspect them?

Is that right? Or am I misunderstanding your point?
I'm not cranky, I'm saying it's very suspicious to me to make such a bold statement and assumption THAT early and be acting so cocky that he is sure he is awesome etc. He's really rubbing me the wrong way and Dfaraday trying to vouch for him that he's Civ isn't setting right with me either. I think he's acting very off compared to the games I have played with him recently. Either he's being weird on purpose, or he's confident you his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while for the behavior he has been showing in the thread, but in no way has he been contributing as a proactive civ as DFar stated.
I would be far more suspicious of llama if he was not arrogant. Your post here also includes an either-or fallacy: "Either he's being weird on purpose, or he's confident his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while for the behavior he has been showing the thread..." I can come up with several alternatives to this statement, such as llama being decidedly ordinary. As for the notion that llama is confident that his teammates can assure he isn't going anywhere for a while, look at the votes and tell me if that's working out for him.

As for your claim that "in no way has he been contributing as a proactive civ," would you mind sharing who here HAS been contributing as a proactive civilian?

If still looking for someone to vote for, this is why i'll be voting Boogs. Someone said that Boogs was essentially proven civvie. What do they mean? did I miss something?

Also keep in mind that my vote isn't a vote for Elo, but Boogs
making current totals:
Boogs: 2
Elo: 2
DF: 3

#490

Llama and Epi haven't voted yet

I haven't voted yet either

Refresh-clicking countdown of the century? Get hyped.

linki: I've now removed Made from the above list lol

#491

EBWOP: I glossed over AP. Damn, I kinda wanted to ask if we could make it a 4-way tie.

#492

Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,

Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

#493

Ok, so I've already mentioned my vote would be either Llama or DF. I'm going Llama again.

I'd imagine he will vote to save himself anyways.

Epi posted a possible reason to vote Boogs before. This:

Boogs wrote:Llama if you are Civ, you would want to keep all Civs alive. Not try to accuse players of Civ roles and let them die because you feel your role is more important or whatever the case may be. I don't understand how you think I'm keterman's partner, but okay. But by you trying to make it look like I am and saying it's okay for me to die isn't cool. I just think you're acting like you're caring less who dies because you're bad and know that you it won't be you, or you are Indy and want us to die for your personal agenda to win. You are NOT playing a Civ friendly game which is why I'm wanting to vote you out. It's been Day 0 and rolling now. People defending you and not seeing this or thinking you are Civ it making me MORE worried they're acting Civ themselves to make sure their Baddie Llama teammate stays out of discussion for votes. So I highly doubt you're dying tonight because your teammates wouldn't do that to a member of their group. I also want to point out Keterman's role said secrets, so I hope this doesn't have anything to do with him or his teammate being recruited and you just threw that out in the open and gained the baddies another partner. I'm just saying.

is a wild af post that I somehow missed as I read back. My gut is still on Llama, but I'm even more confident there's a baddie in the vote-getters I've mentioned. Not a crazy assumption to make, I know; but I'm comfortable with any of them being lynched.

If Epi votes Boogs after this, we'll have a 3-way tie, right? Made's vote is actually on Boogs (which I also neglected to notice). Does anyone think AP will actually make the vote?

*votes Llama*

#494

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,
Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?

I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.

#495

Yeah, I voted Boogs again.

#496

And Llama makes 4.

#497

Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,
Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?
I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.

Didn't mean to misquote, just didn't remember the exact phrasing...
Also, Boogs never defended Ketterman before he died....so there's that...

#498

Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
Made wrote:
Bullzeye wrote: Process of elimination lead me to you as follows: Boogs was pointed out as a probable civ,
Found it, this is what i was referring to. What is this referencing?
I didn't say he's proven civ as you put it earlier, but after the day one lynch Llama brought up that Boogs may have been his btsc partner based on his defense of Keterman. Llama was then accused of target painting etc. but I thought it was a valid point which is why I eliminated him from my pool of potential votes during yesterday's lynch.
Didn't mean to misquote, just didn't remember the exact phrasing...
Also, Boogs never defended Ketterman before he died....so there's that...

Well then I don't remember exactly why it was that Llama came out with this:

thellama73 wrote:Sorry Keterman. Self-preservation and all that, old sport.

I am now more inclined to think Boogs might be Keterman's partner in (lack of) crime.

But the fact he brought it up is what I was referring to when I mentioned that Boogs had been pointed out as a possible civ.

#499

#500

Well this should be a sufficient point to pick up on for night 3.
linki- ?

See you in Film Director Mafia!