The Syndicate

DrWilgy wrote:Never try harding again.

At least I got 3/4 before it ended.

I think you did a fine job, even if I suspected you for it. I think you need to sink that effort into larger games.

Epignosis wrote:Three bad lynches and missed kill even and game over.

Three bad lynches and game over.

Logan, see my latest PM please.

DrWilgy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:I don't really care. When I spend a chunk of my time during the first 24 hours and people like Sorsha come in and go "epiphany" at the last minute, what can you do?

Epi what do you think of Marmots and LC's vote. I see you draggin on with Sorsha abit, but I wpuld say that LC's is weirder.

It clearly doesn't matter what I think.

I don't really care. When I spend a chunk of my time during the first 24 hours and people like Sorsha come in and go "epiphany" at the last minute, what can you do?

Sorsha wrote:Was the vote tied Epi? Whose vote did you steal?

Loaded questions don't impress me, especially coming from someone who lynched DF.

Sorsha wrote:Llama- was the vote tied?

That was bullshit, and you all know it.

And none of it mattered.

I used the FORTY-EIGHT hours we had to do what I could. I really don't understand 48 hour days for speed games. The first 24 hours are mostly wasted.

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Did you utter this at any point yesterday or the day before?
No, it only really came to me when I was reading Wilgy's pre-death posts today. It was like an epiphany.

You didn't have a friggin epiphany.

DrWilgy wrote:I wonder if SVS will make it in time to vote. Her missing votes is uncharacteristic of her.

Epi what are your thoughts on her?

Don't have any.

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I don't think DrWilgy is bad. I'll probably vote for DF to give Wilgy a shot at survival today.
No reasoning behind this, I see. Just a "I don't think" and an "I'll probably."
No point behind this. Just putting quotes around words.
I spent a goodish amount of my afternoon yesterday ripping Wilgy a new one, and this is all you have to say.
Well I'm not going to go point by point through it and explain why I think you're wrong. I don't think wilgy is bad for the same reason I'm trusting svs this game. I don't think they bussed zebra.
I didn't ask you to go point-by-point. There is a happy medium between saying nothing and saying everything.
For me that happy medium is "I don't think Wilgy is bad."

Did you utter this at any point yesterday or the day before?

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I don't think DrWilgy is bad. I'll probably vote for DF to give Wilgy a shot at survival today.
No reasoning behind this, I see. Just a "I don't think" and an "I'll probably."
No point behind this. Just putting quotes around words.
I spent a goodish amount of my afternoon yesterday ripping Wilgy a new one, and this is all you have to say.
Well I'm not going to go point by point through it and explain why I think you're wrong. I don't think wilgy is bad for the same reason I'm trusting svs this game. I don't think they bussed zebra.

I didn't ask you to go point-by-point. There is a happy medium between saying nothing and saying everything.

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:I don't think DrWilgy is bad. I'll probably vote for DF to give Wilgy a shot at survival today.
No reasoning behind this, I see. Just a "I don't think" and an "I'll probably."
No point behind this. Just putting quotes around words.

I spent a goodish amount of my afternoon yesterday ripping Wilgy a new one, and this is all you have to say.

Sorsha wrote:I don't think DrWilgy is bad. I'll probably vote for DF to give Wilgy a shot at survival today.

No reasoning behind this, I see. Just a "I don't think" and an "I'll probably."

I think I've caught a fish. I'm voting DrWilgy.

DrWilgy wrote:Here's my new list based on recent events
Scotty or LC still stands, LC with a slightly higher chance of being mafia.
Epignosis
SVS

As of rereading through BWT, I no longer suspect him at this time. I need to relook at Sriracha, DF and Marmot. LC case coming shortly.

You no longer suspect birdwithteeth11, even though you suspect me. This is you reason why:

DrWilgy wrote:
birdwithteeth11 wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:Your meta's looking pretty bad right now Wilgy, to be honest.
What do you mean by this?
I mean that from what I know about Wilgy based on my experiences with him in other games, this feels way more like his baddie game than his civ game. I'm just being honest.
Just like you were so confident with sig?
This comment right here and the following one felt genuine. I.e. not talking to a temmie.

That was May 08, 2016 11:23 am

Never mind that bwt had a much longer exchange with zebra on that topic that you didn't comment on. That's not why I care. This is:

Epignosis wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:Goddammnit sig, why are you so scummy as town and so innocent as scum?

a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote: Sig did you just vote me for promoting discussion?
sig wrote:I'm going with Wilgy no on topic posts, and very few off topic posts, his one truly on topic post, is bad imo.

linki: I see Epi ninjad in and voted for MP.
What classifies a post as being bad? Gambler's fallacy has been brought up this game, so does that make my subject point irrelevant? I get the feeling that you are trying to strong arm me here Sig.
I think he is, he is. And it's a sorry excuse for a permanent vote.

sig

I finally know your meta sig, I've played enough games with you. You're bad and you're going down.
Fail.

That was May 05, 2016 9:55 pm.

Yet you think bwt is good because he made the same point I did three days later.

To answer DrWilgy's questions:

DrWilgy wrote:Please if you can validate Zebra's lust to get caught when I was the only person who pointed out the suspicion of this post, do let me know. Hey Epi, if this was a baddie trying to get caught. Why didn't you see it, catch it, and call Zebra out on it? (this one's important)

Civilians frequently look bad, and that doesn't mean they are. One cannot know if zebra was intentionally trying to get caught until after the lynch. Knowing the alignment now, I can comb through the thread and determine if I think zebra was trying to get lynched or was trying to avoid getting lynched. It's called a "lynch analysis," which I thought you would like better since it's not a "night kill analysis."

DrWilgy wrote: " " - Epi
I'm starting to notice a habit of you leaving vague smileys in place of thoughts, why does this make you ponder?

zebra was under a lot of pressure, but voted you and was the very first voter. There was no intention of holding the vote in case self-preservation was necessary.

DrWilgy wrote: "LC raised the possibility at the time. Note zebra's reaction: zebra doesn't contest LC's accusation implied accusation, but rather wants to know why LC thinks what he does. Then zebra states the obvious and waves it away with a dismissive, "Okay."" - Epi

So this one is interesting since you are once again allowing baddie action to rule the course of the game. Analyzing NK's, reading into baddie actions that could have been Zebra trying to bring me down, It could've been LC trying to get me to go down with a teammate of his. There are many possibilities based on these quotes that you drew your assumptions from that you don't consider... But clearly you are no fool, so it's the WIFOM.

You are insistent that mafia inaction rule the course of the game. I am not. I am considering both possibilities. Are you seriously insisting that people trying to consider why someone was killed or why there was no kill at all is a bad thing?

DrWilgy wrote: "Then there's the missing night kill that gave the impression that the kill was missed. I think the night kill was missed on purpose to drive the attention away from zebra and Wilgy's contrived exchange." - Epi

That would imply that I gave up the kill for mind games which would be dumb, really dumb. Similarly to how civs never "no lynch" a mafia should never "no kill", but you honestly believe that I did that even though I still was receiving heat both before and afterwards. Also if avoiding attention was my play style this game would I be posting as much as I am? again with the claim of aggro play, but I don't see how you can call my play this game as avoiding attention.

DrWilgy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:It doesn't imply that at all. I think you slipped.
Bs Epi. Your angle was that of Zebra and I being teammates. That would mean I at the minimum had some responsibility for the kill.

Not at all. Only one captain kills. The others cannot submit the action for the killer. You could be a non-killing captain with a deadbeat partner, but your response to me didn't allow for that possibility. You immediately said, "That would imply that I gave up the kill."

I am not even close to through with you.

During Day 3, there was talk about who might miss a kill. For example:

Spoiler: show

and

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy did not seem to have an issue with this sort of talk. In fact:

Spoiler: show

But when I stop focusing on who might have missed the kill by accident and instead focus on who might have intentionally missed the kill, I am met with this reaction:

DrWilgy wrote:It's not a matter of opposite view points existing. It's a matter of "do I believe that opposite viewpoints can healthily survive in a mafia game" and the answer is no. There is a right and a wrong and disagreements need to be absolved by majority. When two even and opposite patterns stagnate there is a reason for that, and that reason is either 1) a player doesn't care enough about said pattern or 2) a player is lying.

A good example of this would be Zeebs and Sig. A opposite and even pattern arose when they both agreed on Gambler's Fallacy, but there was opposition through Zebra. Zebra ended up being caught a liar.

Tl;dr players that have opposite views don't just shake hands and walk away in this game.

In responce to you BWT... It's spooky that both you and Epi who I have in my mind as baddies are calling the NK a set up, and this is on the 3rd of that set Scotty who I also thought was bad.

Hmmm... Epi Sorsha and BWT analyzing the NK. That bothers me as well, NK is a tool for the baddies to use, any analysis of the sort would be WIFOM and only favor the baddies at this point in the game.

According to DrWilgy, we must believe the kill was missed accidentally, because thinking outside of that paradigm "only favors the baddies at this point in the game."

Nah.

It doesn't imply that at all. I think you slipped.

"Imply that I gave up the kill for mind games..."

Juicy wording. Only one captain can kill or withhold the kill or miss the kill. Why does this automatically imply that YOU gave up the kill?

DrWilgy wrote:Good theory, can you compare the potential of me bussing Zebra to the potential of LC or SVS?

I could, but I don't feel like it.

I think zebra was thrown under the bus and was comfortable with that arrangement.

DrWilgy wrote:Thank you for unstaplung my tongue LC. Took abit to heal but I'm able to speak again.

a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:Your meta's looking pretty bad right now Wilgy, to be honest.
What do you mean by this?
I mean that from what I know about Wilgy based on my experiences with him in other games, this feels way more like his baddie game than his civ game. I'm just being honest.
Only liars claim honesty. Zebra every time you claim to have a grasp on my meta you are either wrong or nothing good comes out of it...

So here's where my opposite faction theory of Sig and Zeebs came from. They were the two who actively opposed the fallacy theories. Seeing the possibility of a baddie stating "hey let's not clear anyone immediately" to get some civvy points felt too easy. Hence why I asked the question regarding it. Sig opposed it and I didn't recall getting a clear response from Zeebs. Zebra then agreed with me on Sig's forceful demeanour and nuked him after having him "scummy meta read".

Now all of this had me thinkin one of the 2 were bad. I just don't know which.

Does the enlarged sound like a mafia member who is trying to look like a civilian or a mafia member who is trying to get caught?

DrWilgy wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:Where is this passion with your scumhunting efforts? Your only posts with relevant material are your defense posts, so your fate is already sealed.
I don't think that I have played defence at all this game.

Does this interaction sound like a mafia member conversing with a civilian or a teammate?

a2thezebra wrote:I'm not letting baddie DrWilgy slip by me again.

a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Long Con wrote:You both look bad right now to me.
Why is that?
This whole back-and-forth has reached the level of contrived.
So you're saying we're teammates? Okay.
That's the only possible meaning of "you both look bad", isn't it?
It's time to remove the tinfoil.

LC raised the possibility at the time. Note zebra's reaction: zebra doesn't contest LC's accusation implied accusation, but rather wants to know why LC thinks what he does. Then zebra states the obvious and waves it away with a dismissive, "Okay."

Then there's the missing night kill that gave the impression that the kill was missed. I think the night kill was missed on purpose to drive the attention away from zebra and Wilgy's contrived exchange.

DrWilgy wrote:It's not a matter of opposite view points existing. It's a matter of "do I believe that opposite viewpoints can healthily survive in a mafia game" and the answer is no. There is a right and a wrong and disagreements need to be absolved by majority. When two even and opposite patterns stagnate there is a reason for that, and that reason is either 1) a player doesn't care enough about said pattern or 2) a player is lying.

A good example of this would be Zeebs and Sig. A opposite and even pattern arose when they both agreed on Gambler's Fallacy, but there was opposition through Zebra. Zebra ended up being caught a liar.

Tl;dr players that have opposite views don't just shake hands and walk away in this game.

In responce to you BWT... It's spooky that both you and Epi who I have in my mind as baddies are calling the NK a set up, and this is on the 3rd of that set Scotty who I also thought was bad.

Hmmm... Epi Sorsha and BWT analyzing the NK. That bothers me as well, NK is a tool for the baddies to use, any analysis of the sort would be WIFOM and only favor the baddies at this point in the game.

I've been bad with Scotty and I've hosted him when he was bad. He has a certain, careful tone I look for that I haven't seen here. Scotty is a skilled schemer, and I think he would know a Serge kill would plant him right in the spotlight, given that Serge had just voted for him before. No, I rather think this was an attempt to frame Scotty. Framing is all the rage nowadays.

I am curious why Wilgy's breadth is so narrow out of the gate.

I don't suspect Scotty, for what it's worth.

DrWilgy wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:I tried Gleam.

Remaining baddies are Scotty, Epi and BWT.
Nope.
You gotta betta list m8?

Nope.

DrWilgy wrote:I tried Gleam.

Remaining baddies are Scotty, Epi and BWT.

Nope.

agleaminranks wrote:I would like to say a lot, actually, but I don't think there's any use in it at this point. My days are numbered. I also have to finish another final before midnight on a philosophy paper I haven't had the time to read. Oof.

I just hope that the wake of my death will empower the civilians to heed my word and do what needs to be done.

Except I'm not bad.

Maybe Scotty wasn't around to make that comment Day 1.

I voted Sorsha.

I really want to vote for Sorsha now.

Sorsha wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Gleam isn't bad... I don't think he would've voted someone with 0 votes if he were bad. I feel like he'd be playing much more for survival if he were bad.
Unless they are also his teammate?

I'm voting for Scotty, I think both he and gleam are bad but Scotty isn't the one with the kill responsibility,

tee hee

DrWilgy wrote:
Scotty wrote:5/12 missing votes and the poll ends in 10 minutes. Yeesh.

Makes me really wonder why we even bother with 48 hour periods.
Voted Scotty.

I can't shake the feeling that he's bad based on this quote. He voted someone who I think is civ day 1. Been rocking the Gleam vote for 2 days now. Acting what I feel is a general evasive way. Makes this comment before a baddie is lynched. Had other players voted, Zebra may not have been murked, so I'm reading this as a frustrated baddie.

This makes no sense. What you've quoted is exactly how I feel about 48 hour periods generally being a waste because people largely wait until the last minute to do anything.

Given my activity elsewhere, I don't think anyone can say I was "away from keyboard." And if I had a kill, I wouldn't abstain from using it or miss my PM. Simple as that.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry I've been gone. The last 2 days were crazy. Going to start catching up now.

This came a few hours after the missed kill.

DFaraday wrote:I agree that it's most likely that the kill was not sent, which would make agleaminranks look suspect.

I also think it's pretty likely that the Zebra voters are not bad. I doubt the baddies would bus a teammate this early in the game and with the ratio as it was.

DF offered this the next morning.

DFaraday wrote:
Epignosis wrote: My vote is likely to go to agleaminranks, birdwithteeth11, DFaraday, or Sorsha.
I haven't been around much, but if I had a kill, I would make sure to send it in.

I could go for Gleam or BWT today, but I'd like to hear anything they might have to say first.

I rather believe this. But still.

agleaminranks wrote:Alright, I have no good excuse this time. I'm bogged down with finals and I just forgot the deadline was earlier than I thought it would be. Spectacular failure on my part. I will do my damndest to be a better player this upcoming day period.

agleaminranks makes this mea culpa shortly after the lynch. This would indicate that he was acutely aware of his inactivity, and that if he missed sending in a kill, he would have had to have been of the mindset that he would consider whom he would kill with his team, but then he wound up missing the action due to the deadline. That's slightly harder to believe, but still comfortably within the realm of possibility. That big long post afterward stinks though.

Sorsha wrote:Sorry I missed it. Blame my mother.

S~V~S wrote:Quick question, LC & Sorsha, can I get opinions on each other? Not becasue I specifically suspect either of you, but becasue of recent history, I think it would be valuable.
I usually think LC is bad and I'm wrong as often as I'm right. I don't see anything in this game that reminds me of the last game so far though. Absolutely not defending him, I wouldn't fight a LC lynch today but I can't read him well at all and never have been able to.

Sorsha was around right before the end of the Night. She could have submitted a kill in that time. The only way Sorsha didn't submit a kill is if she was being cute and trying to frame inactives. If Sorsha is bad, I'd say she is a teammate of the first captain. She was the first to raise this:

Sorsha wrote:Yeah and with apparently no blocker or Doctor... Someone forget to send in a PM?

However, she she doesn't pursue that idea, but instead concentrates on the notion that this was a setup.

Sorsha wrote:If this is not a case of an inactive missing a PM and is instead someone setting the inactives up I'm looking at Scotty and/or LC as Captains. Wilgy has been supatowning since the zebra lynch and night two had both of them on his radar..... until this whole no nk happened and the focus has shifted. Scotty was also very quick to jump on a vote today and has been advocating for the gleam vote.

Sorsha is positioning herself to vote for Scotty (and to a lesser extent LC) based on...an if?

I am more inclined to vote for gleam than Scotty. Scotty does not strike me as one to miss a night kill, and from my reading, that's the only way there was no kill.

a2thezebra - Capatin Grogan - Lynched Day 2
agleaminranks - A potential miss
birdwithteeth11 - A potential miss
DFaraday - A potential miss
DrWilgy - I think a potential miss only if done purposefully with the intent to deceive
Long Con - Most likely would not miss a kill
Marmotpictures87- Killed his own teammate in Downton Abbey; a potential miss on purpose with the intent to deceive
Ricochet - Killed Night 1
Scotty - Most likely would not miss a kill
Serge - Was bad in Turf Wars with me, and was not terrible active; got replaced, but I do not recall missing a night action
Sig - Belle - Lynched Day 1
Sorsha - Was bad in Downton Abbey and not terribly active; a potential miss
S~V~S - Most likely would not miss a kill

Potzdorf is therefore someone who feared Ricochet enough to remove him first thing, but not so invested that he or she would submit a second kill. If the other two captains are active and anything like me, they would be frustrated with their lost opportunity.

My vote is likely to go to agleaminranks, birdwithteeth11, DFaraday, or Sorsha.

agleaminranks wrote:I will attempt to do my best to summarize the game so far in an attempt to catch up.

Day 1: chaos to say the least. People are arguing and accusing each other of badness from silly roleplaying, semantic inanity, and invoking gambler's fallacy?? Jeebus. Regarding the topics at hand, I'm glad some people didn't seriously consider Epi's copypasta role indicative.
That being said, a few things of note then. Many people rush to Sorsha's side because of her history of being bad recently, someone invokes gambler's fallacy. Which is fine, but anyone with a flipping brain should see how the statistics of randomness work for these games. It's pointless to believe it one way or another.
Wilgy mentions that someone embracing the fallacy is more likely to be civ. I think this is an entirely baseless claim. He's just saying that anyone who sided with Sorsha and wanting to believe she is good should be considered civilian. For a dumb reason. I have no more reason to believe Sorsha's innocence than I have to believe she's a baddy, so that reveals nothing, other than Wilgy maybe is wanting to protect someone who took Sorsha's side. Probably more likely them than Sorsha herself. Possible teammate somewhere?
Epignosis is acting pretty in character, but he himself seems to add little to the conversation in terms of productivity. He makes one comment pointing out a quote Serge made but the rest is entirely responsive and, well, rather passive. He disappears for a while. It's still day 1, but my experience with Epignosis being civilian has him leading the charge in discussion. We'll see how this pans out further.
The whole "dragon" talk was just stupid. Serge probably made a passing word and LC saw it in a linki and just added it on. I don't think it means anything more than that. SVS was acting defensively and I see no problem with that, but I would feel a little suspicious of the people who try to inflate the issue, like they're grasping for straws to accuse someone of anything. Could be bad. Who knows.

(I will try to do a more thorough ISO on specific characters once I'm caught up)

Night 1: Not much. Sig gets the axe and flips civilian. Scotty says he was feeling sig being good in spite of opposition. Will need to look at the sig voters to see what that info reveals. Dunno about this early in the game, but sometimes people claiming to have a good read on a lynch that flips civ has to do with them being bad. Too early to tell.
Long Con gets into it with Rico. I think LC is grasping at straws trying to make accusations.
The fact that Barry's mom got lynched is a big tell. I think it will give me some ideas as to whom Barry is.
Wilgy had a theory that if sig was good, zebra was bad. Hrmm. I don't see the zebra connection. I will need to reanalyze their interactions on Day 1.
I dislike Long Con's tone, he's playing at this point with a fair amount of conviction when being spotlighted. Maybe I don't have that strength of character, but normally confidence represents something hidden.
Zebra feels like she's slipping a bit in her interactions with Rico and Scotty. I might have jumped on this bandwagon had I not slipped up bad.

Day 2: Rico is nightkilled. He seemed to be leading the discussion at this point and I would have felt pretty good about his alignment.
Zebra and Wilgy end up NO U'ing each other.
Both Sorsha and Epignosis show up after quite some time away. Dunno what to make of Sorsha, but at this point, Epignosis is still lying pretty low. Making big claims about SVS. I'm not sure how I feel about SVS at this point, but it feels like she's been playing a good defensive game up to this point. But I don't feel great about Epignosis.

Night 2: Zebra is lynched and flips bad. Wilgy takes credit for starting the wagon. No one gets nightkilled, looking at the inactives (myself) for a probable reason.

Now we're at day 3.

I have to run to an exam I haven't studied for, but I have two claims to make based on my analysis, which I will try to provide more evidence for when I get back.

Epignosis is a captain, and DrWilgy is Barry Lyndon. I will probably be voting Wilgy today.

I'd like a minute for rebuttal.

Spoiler: show

DrWilgy wrote:Oh... Hi Epi.

My questions from earlier... Is it defence or defense?

British, Australian, Canadian for the former, American for the latter.

Present.

Well I voted.

S~V~S is my vote right now, were it cast.

S~V~S wrote:20 minutes left, and only 2votes?

S~V~S wrote:Oh doh, it ends tomorrow. Nevermind

This tells me two things: First, she has no urgency before, and second, has no urgency after.

She made this same mistake before, so how hard is it to look at the poll (and the time)? She has even said herself that hitting the "View Results" button is autopilot for her.

S~V~S is a Captain.

a2thezebra wrote:Goddammnit sig, why are you so scummy as town and so innocent as scum?

a2thezebra wrote:
DrWilgy wrote: Sig did you just vote me for promoting discussion?
sig wrote:I'm going with Wilgy no on topic posts, and very few off topic posts, his one truly on topic post, is bad imo.

linki: I see Epi ninjad in and voted for MP.
What classifies a post as being bad? Gambler's fallacy has been brought up this game, so does that make my subject point irrelevant? I get the feeling that you are trying to strong arm me here Sig.
I think he is, he is. And it's a sorry excuse for a permanent vote.

sig

I finally know your meta sig, I've played enough games with you. You're bad and you're going down.

Fail.

Long Con wrote:Good point on the low poster thing, S~V~S. I may have to put my vote on sig for not paying enough attention to get that right. That's a baddie indicator to me.

About an hour left to vote! Right now, my aim is at sig... but I'm here till the deadline, so I'll hold off on the hard vote until I see more opinions coming in.

My opinion is in.

Epignosis wrote:I predict seven missed votes.

Long Con wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I guess i just found it interesting to be referred to with a dragon metaphor by two different people within a few minutes

I thought I might have been missing a film related link to dragons.
Or, I saw his post in linki, and added a sentence to my own?

Long Con wrote:
Serge wrote: I believe Barry Lyndon should come out now and help us get rid of the captains. Come out Barry. We have fancy cakes and teas and potatoes and stuff all Victorian people like. Plus, monoliths. Here, Barry, Barry, we promise we don't have an axe somewhere.
That's not possible, there is a specific rule against role-outing and such things.

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.

Getting nervous, S~V~S? Is the dragon coming out?

That false-ending poll made some cool stuff happen, made Epi and sig reveal their hands early.

Do either of you expect to be casting your vote at your chosen targets by tomorrow's deadline?

The first part is a response to Serge.

The third part is a general comment about sig and me.

That middle part is calling S~V~S a dragon within a minute of Serge doing so. You would have us believe

You claim you saw Serge's post when you tried to post, and that you added a sentence. You weren't saying anything else to S~V~S but "Getting nervous, S~V~S?" and you felt the need to go out of your way to add the dragon comment in between two unrelated thoughts? I don't buy your explanation.

Long Con wrote:
Serge wrote:I believe Barry Lyndon should come out now and help us get rid of the captains. Come out Barry. We have fancy cakes and teas and potatoes and stuff all Victorian people like. Plus, monoliths. Here, Barry, Barry, we promise we don't have an axe somewhere.
That's not possible, there is a specific rule against role-outing and such things.

S~V~S wrote:OK, if you say so. I don't think you can, but shoot. Put it out there.
Getting nervous, S~V~S? Is the dragon coming out?

That false-ending poll made some cool stuff happen, made Epi and sig reveal their hands early.

Do either of you expect to be casting your vote at your chosen targets by tomorrow's deadline?

I didn't reveal my hand. I said I would vote MP.

sig wrote:@LC okay, I'm also less suspicious of LC/Wilgy now that I know we've got an extra day. I guess I need to replace my vote on Wilgy though.

I'm not sure about Epi his last second vote on MP seems weird.

It's not like I didn't mention it before.

Search found 66 matches