The Syndicate

Rachel wrote:I feel like the biggest fool, Job.

Yeah, sucks to see Job vindicated this way. But at least we can start trying to spot Uzziah's friends when votes started steering away from Uzziah.

Sweet! So perhaps the Samson and Cain trains on Day 1 were efforts to save Uzziah?

Probably also worth looking at people who voted Cain or Samson D1 that voted Cain on D2.

Also worth looking at those who votes for Job or Mary Mag on D3.

Also worth looking at those who voted for Job or Balaam on D4.

I'll try to finish my re-read tomorrow and see if my recap notes help shed light on anyone. Fair warning: expect some seriously long posts.

It's vote time and I am only on page 30 of 39. Thus, I have read very little of Day 5's developments. The uninformed should not vote, so much like New York, Balaam abstains, courteously.

Oh hi there. Still re-reading. Up to page 25 of what is now 39 pages. We'll see how much ground I cover in the next hour before voting. I see a lot of people have fallen back on Uzziah. Interesting. I'll have to go through my notes on him here and see what my inklings are, for what little they've been worth so far this game. Then I might respond to some comments. I really wanted to finish this re-read yesterday but I'm always in and out on weekends.

Jonah wrote:

Balaam wrote:Halfway through my re-read. Been in and out all day.

Belshazzar wrote:Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

Do you believe in miracles?

Balaam I can tell you're just the chillest sock here. let's talk. who do you think is bad brother?

Hard to say. I'm taking notes during my re-read and I plan to review my notes on each person. That probably means a big grand list of mine is coming your way sometime in the near future.

At the halfway point (somewhere in the midst of Day 2) I am surprised to see how wishy washy Jeph has been the whole game. For some reason he seemed so genuine to me before but he's been firmly on the fence on a lot of what's happened. That doesn't mean anything though until I finish my re-read. I don't want to contribute to another ADHD idea that takes off and stones another civvie. Not sure when I'll finish my re-read though, so you may be on your own this vote. Sorry.

Halfway through my re-read. Been in and out all day.

Belshazzar wrote:Why is Balaam off the hook in the poll? Maybe Balaam himself can give us his opinion.

Do you believe in miracles?

Found this during my re-read:

Uzziah wrote:

[color=#FF00FF]Job[/color] wrote:

Uzziah wrote:I admit I may have been somewjat ambiguous on purpous. I'm just zany and fun like that! The above is the root meaning though, is it not?

So are you going to share any thoughts on anyone besides myself, Paul and Cain or are you going to continue to be unhelpful and further verify that you're bad? I don't believe you used that definition of the word for even a second.

I'd rather have one of you lynched first and go from there.

You got your wish and then some. They're all dead now, so where do you propose we go now? :P

Belshazzar wrote:Night 2 - Paul, the vocal. Active Day 1, silenced Day 2 (oy vey, the amount of re-read required here...)

Suspected: Balaam, Job, Lot, Samuel, Uzziah (sort of?), Cain, Martha, Nicodemus, Samson
Suspected by/etc.: me, Balaam, Jephthah*, Lot**, Mordecai, Rachel, Ruth, Uzziah (whilst also worshipped him for being bad ), Martha, Nicodemus. Malchus just irked one time by how much he posted.
Defended by: Absalom, Jacob, Jephthah*, Jonah, Jonathan, Job, Lot**, Rahab, Barnabas, Gideon, Samson
*notorious flip-flop, Jeph called it intentional
**suspected him early on, found his responses genuine

My only minor quibble with your post is in the above section where you list me as being suspicious of Paul. Methinks you missed this post of mine from Day 1 after Paul explained himself a little:

Balaam wrote:A little time off, some thinking, and this post:

Paul wrote:basically im being misunderstood b/c its d1 and there is almost nothing to go on so i created stuff to go on

i waited long enough for d1 i can't believe people deal with that

i also can't believe people are taking me so srs i am trying to hunt scum by fishing for reactions to the stuff i say how else do you hunt this early

...gives me a new perspective on Paul. I have not seen such an aggressive, relentless, button-pushing fisher in a long time but now Paul makes a lot of sense to me. Were you really suspicious of Samuel initially or did your lasting suspicion come from the reactions he gave you? After coming out the other side of this issue, it's going to be difficult for me to take you seriously when you go after someone. I will always have to wonder whether you really suspect someone or if you are just fishing for a reaction from them or anyone else.

While I respect your cowboy style of play, I can tell we're not kindred spirits and that may lead us to be at odds as this game progresses (assuming we're both alive come Day 2). For better or worse, I am an empirical observer. I don't care about pings and feelings. Nor do engage in "forcing it" as Paul has done. I simply wait for people to expose themselves to me. This occurs through patterns in voting, process of elimination, and patterns of defensive and supportive behavior in the thread. If I survive past Night 3, I'll let you know what I've come up with.

Ruth wrote:My thought was that in this community, we give new players the BOTD their first game, and pretending to be one of those new players would be a smart strategy for a Mafia. We tend not to lynch noobs day one of their first game. It would be a way for a veteran to get to play the noob card. A Get Out Of Jail Free card, if you will.

This goes hand in hand with the other reason people are suspectng me: the thought that I was trying to determine peoples identities. No, I was only trying to see if Paul was what he appears to be. I don't think he is, personally. In other words, I doubt new players would ACT like new players.

Having caught up after a busy Saturday, though, it is also possible there are just "woo hoo fun" reasons for pretending to be new to this forum, especially if Paul has an especially highly recognizable game. But it is something I think needs to be kept in mind if he ever does play the noob card.

Having skimmed the day so far, I need to read more in depth today. I will probably post as I catch up.

An interesting theory. I can think of 2 or 3 regulars from TS that might go this route. I say no slack to new folks though. It's pointless to engage in some kind of affirmative action policy. The only way to truly learn is by doing. You signed up for the game, so sink or swim. There are no water wings in mafia.

Ruth wrote:Also, whoever said that all the avatars look the same, oh my God, yes!

Yeah, it's definitely tricky. I'm used to determining posters by their avatar not their name. This aspect of the sock game has been challenging because they're all so similar.

Paul wrote:maybe people should stop focusing on me being new and actual focus on what I am saying and on catching scum

do you see how many people have been forced to show their hands already by issuing opinions on me let alone others? if so why aren't more of you talking? I don't mean this as condescending or
Anything but it's a genuine question

No I don't see it but, then again, it's not my style. Who has been forced to show their hands and what makes you say so about them? I'm trying to keep tabs on who you suspect so I can determine whether or not you're actually as good as you're intimating.

I bear no grudge against Paul at the moment, but the ruthless, unfeeling player in me thinks the best way to deal with an aggressive fisher like Paul is to put him to the test. Let's take him up on his three suspects and lynch one of them. He seems fairly confident that they are bad (though he threw up a smoke screen about not being 100% on anything). We can always call his bluff. If we lynch one of his top three and they're not bad, either Paul will cool it with the gunslinger rhetoric or the rest of us will know to take his words with a grain of salt.

What else do we really have to go on? Aside from Paul steering much of the conversation, it's been a typical Day 1 where not much else happens and a few low posters sneak in to say something nondescript. At least Paul gave us something to talk about and potentially a voting theory to test out. If not for that, wouldn't most of us have made random-ish votes with little to no direction?

As an aside, I have been curious about the Day 0 poll. I can't help but wonder if one of the Horsemen voted for Apocalypse because that is their purpose in the Bible. Normally, one would suggest that the Horsemen would steer clear of voting Apocalypse because it would be to obvious- aka WIFOM. But over time, WIFOM gets so played out that players do the very thing they shouldn't do because it would otherwise seem to obvious. I'm not sure how sock logic plays into the circular logic of WIFOM but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the Horsemen is among the eight who voted Apocalypse. If we come to understand them to be a threat, we can look there.

Absalom wrote:

Paul wrote:

Paul wrote: I am curious what everyone thinks of everyone else no joke try to force yourself to make an opinion of those who have posted and share it b/c that's now town wins this game

actually how about everyone instead name their top 3 scum atm

1 Samson
2 Lot
3 Nicodemus

i await your thoughts, wonderful people

Okay, the Paul show is getting a little old. I don't think he's bad, but he's drowning out everything else in the thread, make it hard for me to get a read on others.

I wish Cain would come back. He is my biggest suspect at this point. I am not reading Nicodemus as bad, but it seems like Lot said something to make me nervous a while ago. I will have to reread. I have no reason to suspect Samson.

Re: Paul, CFA Absalom. CFA. Cain's vote threat was intriguing but it was probably just fluff. Or it was circular logic/wifom.

Rahab wrote:And more biblical jokes based on socks.

Does this avatar make my ass look big?

Seriously though, does this avatar make my ass look big?

Voting for the Hittites. Not only did they come to live amicably among the Hebrews, they are also a very well-documented culture. As a history nerd, I appreciate that aspect of that option.

FYI- I got caught making my earlier post at work today and got written up. With my supervisor watching over my shoulder the rest of the day, I never started my re-read. Busy weekend but I will do my best to make it happen and update my opinions on all remaining players.

My apologies in advance for this long, long post (hey, at least it's not another list, right?).

Mordecai wrote:I just spent the better part of an hour tearing apart the voting results, and I have no noteworthy patterns to use in determining who could be a heathen. Normally there is something noticeable, like 2 or more people ALWAYS voting together, but I have nothing. The only things that stand out are players making consecutive votes on the same player day after day such as Lazarus voting for Absalom 3 straight days, the results of Job vs Uzziah voting for one another without fail, and that Belshazzar still hasnt broken the trend I initially thought of him being on the popular vote choice every single poll since preface.

It's frustrating me as well. All these civvie votes tell us is that Samson's stoning wasn't an effort to save Cain, Cain's stoning wasn't a save of Job, and Mary's stoning wasn't a save of Job. The only thing I can see is that on Day 1 and 3 Uzziah picked up some votes early but not many from the second half of voters, which determined who actually got stoned.

Jacob wrote:I'm really liking Nico's and Absalom's points about Balaam. Especially the first one -- Balaam has done a good job of making plenty of posts that look helpful but are really just fluff. Could be a baddie trying to hide in plain sight.

As I've said before, I'm terrible at reading people, so that's not how I play. I like data and I'm just trying to put stuff out there in the hopes that someone sees something I'm overlooking. It's also handy to watch how people react to the information and how they try to use it. In that sense, I'm fishing for reactions. So far you all have largely ignored my lists, save for the one where I tried to lay out my suspicions. And that worked out oh so well for Mary.

Rachel wrote:You say you don't think we should continue looking at people who are talking, but here's the thing: we haven't lynched ANYONE who's talking.

This is actually a great point, though Job was a talker early on. We've been stoning people based on their attitudes in the few posts they actually made. The baddies took out two talkers in Martha and Paul.

Nicodemus wrote:Point #2 I'll concede could have been lost in translation. #3 I stand by. A civvie so concerned with a near-Heathen win would fight tooth and nail if they were being suspected.

Sorry I don't conform to your Mafia conventions. As Rachel pointed out in one of her recaps, Absalom stated early on that he would probably vote for me. I tried to generate discussion to sway his opinion but nothing else came up. How can I fault him for sticking to his guns and doing what he said he would do all day? Also, as was mentioned, that was just one vote and no one else was really leaning toward me. I'm cool under pressure in general and one vote on a day when no one else is looking your way can hardly be considered pressure. You came in and made me the flavor of the day. I also had to step away to get work done and a commute home, so even had I wanted to launch a crusade, I didn't have time for it.

Samuel wrote:Well I am going with my gut here... Frankly, I don't trust Absalom. I would like to vote there but I think that would be throwing my vote away, so instead I am voting for the other option getting votes that Absalom did not vote for. I don't wish to vote the same way as him.

Voting Job.

So voted for Job not because you think I'm good but because you think Absalom is bad and because Absalom voted for me? Yeah, that doesn't look weird at all or make me look bad by extension. Thanks a lot.

Jephthah wrote:I'm almost tempted to think Samuel voted with that awful reasoning in an attempt to save Balaam. If he was so suspicious of Absalom, why not vote for him? Job only had 4 votes and Balaam 3 when Samuel voted. And notice how Balaam never talks about Samuel

It's kind of funny that you ask why Samuel wouldn't just vote for who he thinks is suspicious but then chastised Ruth for doing exactly that. It's okay. You still feel like a civvie to me.

Ruth wrote:My opinion of Balaam is colored at this minute by that question. I missed it, shoot me. Jeez. If Job flips civ, I can see that being possible.

He did get my attention earlier with this:

Ruth wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Ruth wrote:Sorry Mary. I did not want to force a tie and have a no lynch, and I guess even if I had voted my gut and went with Uzziah, he still would not have been lynched with the last few votes.

I have been pretty much afk most of this game, so I doubt Noah will take me. I just hope Noah is an active person who will actually send in his PM

Who said anything about tie votes resulting in no lynch?

Ties resulting in no lynch is something this host has done fairly regularly in the past if he does not have a tie breaker role.

If there is one, I missed it.

He jumped on me for something that I don;t even understand what the issue was. It just feels like an attempt to make a nothing into a something.

Sorry. I am used to hosts randomizing a lynch victim when there is a tie. I read too much into your comment.

Deborah wrote:I self-voted, I have no idea of the state of things. I swear, i will find the time to actually participate in this game or I will ask to be replaced.

Deborah has done this most of the game and it irks me still. The self-vote this time especially irks me.

Absalom wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:Balaam is so bad.

Yes, he is.

But I have to give the baddies credit. It seems like everyday our top two vote-getters have been civvie. On my re-read, I'll try to analyze the votes to see which ones may have been setting up leftovers for easy targets the next day. That is far harder to spot but it's got to be going on. We keep wondering if votes were saves. We know a lot of them weren't based on who gets stoned but perhaps some of those votes are specifically cast to appear as a save. Why just pile onto a civvie bandwagon when you can set up the #2 person on the poll (who you know is also not on your team) for suspicion the next day?

Lot wrote:As for the attacks on Balaam, a man who is certainly civilian, may God come down on those who pushed this lynch with a fury like what has not been seen since the days of Sodom.

If ever I had doubt Absalom was bad, him trying to lead Balaam's lynch has erased all doubt in my mind.

As for Jephthah - the man who kept flipping to make sure he was in the minority - saying you thought Balaam was civ, but then flipping because of the vote of Samuel - woe to you. That seems like the conduct of a man who knew both men were civs, and wanted to set up the 'save' idea for the day after to me.

Finally Nicodemus - a man who says Balaam would have scrambled. How does no-one question the ridiculousness of that statement. Baddies scramble. Civvies scrabmle. Baddies stay calm. Civvies stay calm. And scrambling takes time, the likes of which RL has to allow for.

First, I hope you've simmered down a little. Angry, curse-you-guys posts are sort of my bag.
Second, I'm not sold on Absalom being a baddie. He just had convictions. They were incorrect and misguided convictions but he's allowed to have convictions. He wasn't the major force in trying to railroad me.
Third, I still like Jeph. He was just caught up in the whirl that was the last few hours of the day.
Fourth and lastly, Nicodemus is the most suspicious to me on your list before I start my re-read. He turned me into the flavor of the day and worked the hardest to convince people that I am bad. Up to now I had a good feeling on him, so I am reserving judgement until I re-read.

Nicodemus wrote:What I said was that a civvie would be more invested in the possibility of their lynch. That Balaam shrugged his suspicion off tells me that he is comfortable enough to do so, likely because he has help. And this directly contradicts his doom-saying earlier about how the Heathens are so close to a win. If he really thought that as a civ, he would have put more effort into dealing with the suspicion against him.

Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.

I still feel like we're in a bad place to win the game. I'm not saying the civvies will lose in the next day or two, but the lack of unity and the lack of participation sets us back. I don't think I have ever played a game where the civvies lynch civvies the first four days and then come back to win the game. Even if we get on a roll by finding talkative or fluff and duff baddies, probability does not favor us. The baddies are way too smart and have had far too much time to spread their votes around to catch them all in one fell swoop. Hell, they probably won't even try to save the first one or two we catch.

PS- Nic, I love your scripture quotes. Is it because you voted for Proverbs in the Preface stage?

Lot wrote:How hard you fight is not, nor has ever been, a good indicator of who is bad.

Nicodemus wrote:Fact: Balaam was apt to point out that the continued lynching of civilians would likely wrap the game up in the Heathen's favor very soon.

False, for reasons I stated ^. It's becoming increasingly difficult for us civvies to mount a comeback.

Nicodemus wrote:Fact: Balaam was cavalier about the possibility of his own lynch.

If he was a civilian, he would have stood up for himself. That is not the same as scrambling, panicking, etc. He seemed completely content with his lynch from my point of view, and that does not jive if he is a civvie.

False. I was simply unconcerned about one vote from the only person who expressed any inclination toward voting for me. I'm cool under pressure like that. I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.


Then it looks like Lot and Nic argue over the semantics of scrambling. I chock it up to a difference in personal or forum terminology.

Nicodemus wrote:

And what else is standing up for yourself if not voting for Job? And given your own assessment of what a civvie would do, how does that mesh with Job's own vote for Rachel?

Self preservation, the obvious vote given how things shook out, and the support he'd gathered vs. Job.

I don't agree with Job's vote. it wouldn't have saved him, though. Perhaps he was taking his last breath to point us in what he thought was the right direction.

Um, I don't recall gathering support for a Job stoning. If anything, I was glomming onto Rachel's case because it was logical, though I had a few reservations.

I've pondered Job's vote for Rachel myself. There was a time I thought she could be bad but I think she's just trying very hard to find baddies. She wouldn't be the first case-builder to have egg on his or her face.

Now for that re-read....

Even though Job was in the lead, I did not think I was going to survive. RIP Job. Sad to see another disciple martyred. I had theorized you to possibly be Simon the Zealot or Ezekiel.

First, my thoughts on the night poll:

-Can't support the Amorites because they sacked Balaam's homeland, Ammon.
-Not sure I want to support the Hivites or Perizzites because they both basically became servants/slaves to the Hebrews.
-God specifically told the Hebrews to wipe out the Canaanites, but they're one of the most historically documented culture on the list. I'm torn.
-Both the Hittites and Jebusites were conquered but their people could not be kicked out of Israel completely. They ended up living among the Hebrews, which sounds much more appetizing than a culture that got whooped and enslaved.


Now then, I'm going to read back over everything that went down after I had to leave for my dinner meeting. I'll try to respond where I can. Then I'm going to try to do a full re-read of the game to date.

Voting Job because:

1) I agree with Rachel on most of her case. Job is apathetic to doing anything but voting Uzziah. It doesn't move us forward and at least this drama will be settled.

2) Self preservation, obviously.


Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. Hopefully I'll see you guys on the other side of the stoning and not on the Other Side.

Balaam out.

Not sure how to cast my vote but I need to do it soon. If you stone me today don't be surprised when a LOT of people are mad at Absalom and Nicodemus tomorrow.

To my quieter and lurking peers, I implore you- don't do what we've done every day and run with the latest theory to come up that same day. I ask all of ye, how successful has that been for us thus far? Nay, get thine asses in here discuss things before you vote. Feel-think-do. That is the righteous path.

Jephthah wrote:linki: No, I want you to say what you think of Job when considering this. I thought that's what you thought of Job

Job and Lazarus both fit that profile but I have Job down as another possibility as well.

Jephthah wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Jephthah wrote:Balaam, thanks for answering regarding Lazarus. Do you not see a possibility of explaining what he's doing?

From his posting pattern- no. From other things, perhaps. That's why I'm conflicted on him still.

He didn't vote on the first day, and ever since, has been voting for Absalom

Do you want me to just say it? I mean, wouldn't that make him a target if it's true?

Jephthah wrote:Balaam, thanks for answering regarding Lazarus. Do you not see a possibility of explaining what he's doing?

From his posting pattern- no. From other things, perhaps. That's why I'm conflicted on him still.

Nicodemus wrote:Hollow, drop-of-a-dime suspicion on Laz, checkarino. - I don't believe for a second he "forgot" about his Lazarus suspicion. If it were genuine, he wouldn't "forget" it. If he were concerned about finding mafia, he would not "forget" to address a suspect, especially if he genuinely felt that the game was in as much jeopardy as he was saying.

It was honest-to-goodness forgetting. Allergies had me in a bad place yesterday.

Nicodemus wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Job wrote:Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

Belshazzar wrote:Not just vote. That would be the Pharaoh's doing. Jonah said "feud" and I think that's the better word. It can encompass voting, of course.

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Scummy post.

Nicodemus wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Nicodemus wrote:
Scummy post.

I don't understand what you see scummy about it.

Pointless, elaborate, massive speculatory distraction, check.

Hollow, drop-of-a-dime suspicion on Laz, checkarino.

Cavalier attitude in the face of suspicion, waiter, check please.

Point 1- If you guys weren't so chickenshit, we could talk about those sidebar things at night. Seriously, let's all grow a pair and talk more at night.
Point 2- Huh? Elaborate please.
Point 3- Would you rather I feign outrage that Absalom actually did what he said he would most likely do? He's been saying it throughout Day 4. It's not like he let loose on a drive-by vote.

I can take one vote with a shrug. It happens. Two votes pisses me off a little because we've got some lazy readers who add a vote onto whoever already has votes. I may not be the most powerful civvie but I've got a trick or two up my sleeve.

Judah wrote:I apologize my friends for not being available the past few days. I'm going to read some posts by those that have votes and come back with some thoughts, if I have any. If someone wants to give me a quick recap, that would suffice too. lol

I hope you're not just going to vote for whichever of us with votes already seems worst. A few others have done that already this game and it doesn't sit well with me when it happens. Please read up on us and determine if any of us deserve a vote. Hopefully you'll see that I don't deserve to die.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Lazarus is a tricky one to place. His post count suggests just another slackass but he's voted three out of four days now.

The really curious aspect to Lazarus is the timing of his posts. Both Day 2 and Day 3, he made one post partway through the first 24 hours or so of the day. Then he disappears both times until anywhere between two and four hours before the deadline. Today, he eschewed the early one-off post but has shown up mere hours before the deadline. It's a pattern but it's not one that says a whole lot to me yet.

He has voted for Absalom Days 2, 3, and now 4 but has never really said anything about why he is suspicious of him since Day 2. Here are the only times he mentions Absalom:

DAY 2:

Lazarus wrote:Sorry for low participation but it hard for me to get into sock games. Anyways I will be voting Absalom because its uncivvie to vote and push a case on a silenced player.

DAY 4:

Lazarus wrote:I will be putting my vote on Absalom. Just the way he has been playing seems kinda shady since day one.

I'll have to go back and see who started the Cain train but it would be nice if Lazarus could cite a few more examples of the shady play he thinks Absalom is guilty of. I don't like Lazarus's pattern of showing up late to the party every day nor do I like his like of citations against Absalom. He's in that murky grey area between slackass and suspicious for me right now.

Job wrote:Linki w/ Balaam - dude, you're reading too far into it. Cupid didn't shoot an anti-arrow at me. Uzziah is scummy and I want to lynch him. Ever heard of occams razor? Cute theory but not what is happening.

That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.

Belshazzar wrote:Not just vote. That would be the Pharaoh's doing. Jonah said "feud" and I think that's the better word. It can encompass voting, of course.

Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.

Jephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.

Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :P

Absalom wrote:So no one else is with me on Balaam, huh? Well I don't care. He's my top suspect and I'm voting him, despite his heroic efforts to talk me out of it.

Okay. To each his own.

Belshazzar wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Balaam speaks of several theories on what could influence both Job's and Uzziah's obstinate gameplay and I can think what some of them might be myself. Jonah also brought up a theory of their feud "not being of their own making" and, while this may not be clear to all the players, suffice to say I'm also aware of this possibility. The problem, however, is that neither of these cases, if they're true, would force Job and Uzziah to focus solely on each other, instead of performing more than that. And yet, they both aren't doing anything besides that and are not helping in any other way, which is still a very questionable thing.

You're right- I never thought of their feud as being something laid upon them. Could be some Horseplay going on there?

Think so too. If I were to guess...War?

That would seem like the most logical answer.

The Seven Seals
6 Then I saw the Lamb open one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures call out, as with a voice of thunder, “Come!”[a] 2 I looked, and there was a white horse! Its rider had a bow; a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering and to conquer.

3 When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature call out, “Come!”{b} 4 And out came[c] another horse, bright red; its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people would slaughter one another; and he was given a great sword.

5 When he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature call out, “Come!”[d] I looked, and there was a black horse! Its rider held a pair of scales in his hand, 6 and I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s pay,[e] and three quarts of barley for a day’s pay,[f] but do not damage the olive oil and the wine!”

7 When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature call out, “Come!”[g] 8 I looked and there was a pale green horse! Its rider’s name was Death, and Hades followed with him; they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, famine, and pestilence, and by the wild animals of the earth.

I know it's Wikipedia, but check this out (no rickrolls, I swear!) for more information on the Horsemen. The purpose of the white horse is disputed in scholarly circles but the red horse sounds exactly like your theory on Job and Uzziah. The Red Rider causes people to slaughter each other. The wikipedia article mention 'civil war' which would make sense for Job v. Uzz. If that is what's going on, then perhaps Red puts two people together like lovers but only opposite. But with lovers, when one dies, the other kills him/herself. I wonder what happens if either Job or Uzziah die? Would Red be able to pit two other players against each other? That's a lot of if's but it's certainly intriguing.

And yes, I'm aware that 'civilian' only has one L in it. Sue me for trying to be cute.

I am a civvie.

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

I notice you didn't say "no".

Oh now you done did it, Absalom. Just for you, buddy, here's Balaam's list of responses to your question:

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

No.
I am not bad.
I am not a baddie.
I am not a Heathen.
I am not a Horseman.
I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.
I am not a civvie role that can turn against other civvies.
The Heathens need to kill or outnumber me and the rest of the civvies to win.
I personally believe the same is true about the Horsemen.
I am trying to help my fellow civvies win the game.
I want to stone Heathens and Horsemen.
I am good.
I am a C.
I am a C-I.
I am a C-I-V-I-L-L-I-A-N.
And I have C-I-V-V-I-E in my H-E-A-R-T
And I will L-I-V-E E-T-E-R-N-A-L-L-Y.*

* actually I will only continue to live so long as I am not stoned or NK'ed

Belshazzar wrote:Oh Lord I clicked on both links (in Balaam's post), like a total idiot.

Belshazzar wrote:Balaam speaks of several theories on what could influence both Job's and Uzziah's obstinate gameplay and I can think what some of them might be myself. Jonah also brought up a theory of their feud "not being of their own making" and, while this may not be clear to all the players, suffice to say I'm also aware of this possibility. The problem, however, is that neither of these cases, if they're true, would force Job and Uzziah to focus solely on each other, instead of performing more than that. And yet, they both aren't doing anything besides that and are not helping in any other way, which is still a very questionable thing.

You're right- I never thought of their feud as being something laid upon them. Could be some Horseplay going on there, perhaps?

Belshazzar wrote:Regarding the latter, in particular Pilate's posts, I can't fully understand the nature of his posts, but it's either a purely defiant attitude from him or, and I've brought this up (but I notice nobody reflecting on it), something that he's forced to pursue. However, if it's the second, it should mostly reflect only his odd vote, not his odd attitude in general. On the other hand, I saw Esther and Isaac pick him right away as their potential lynch candidate, to which I have to ask what certainty do they have that Pilate is bad for arguably doing the same thing Mary did, given that lynching Mary was a screw up?

A number of players have been a little ADHD with their suspicions. Reminds me of the dog from Up. Squirrel!

Belshazzar wrote:From Absalom's case on Balaam, I can't comment on his gut feeling, but I would only lightly subscribe to his point #2, in that it's a bit early and odd to state that we're doomed to lose this game to the Heathens in around two more phases or so. Not sure, though, if it's enough to say Balaam is intentionally discouraging us. It could easily be the kind of disillusionment about how things are going that I myself have expressed above. Besides, in his last post he addressed more issues, brought up more angles, questioned more players, which sounds good to me.

I'm not intentionally trying discourage people. I'm just trying to emphasize how important and dire our situation may be at this time. Like I said before, I assume the worst possible odds and go from there. Right now the worst case scenario is still 9 baddies and 18 civvies. If it were 18 v. 9 (aka 1 big baddie team), I'd probably be even worse than I already am. The reality is that it's 18 v. 5 v. 4 and we can hope for some Horsemen to get whacked by the Heathens. But in a game where only about half of the players are really playing with any level of consistency are 2:1 civvie-to-baddie odds really all that comforting?

Isaac wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:Oh Lord I clicked on both links (in Balaam's post), like a total idiot.

I did too. I also didn't have headphones plugged in, so others heard my shame

My apologies for publicly shaming you in RL. I shall henceforth stop the rickrolling.

Absalom wrote:Are you bad?

I am neither Heathen nor Horseman.

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

I'm sure you see the problem. If I said "Balaam, old buddy, if you say X I'll believe you're good" and then you say X, it proves nothing, because anyone can say what they are told to say regardless of alignment. It's an impossible request that seems to make you look reasonable, and make me look unreasonable by failing to comply with it. Very cleverly crafted, but in fact that question makes me feel worse about you.

Fine, I'll simplify the question so you don't end up over-analyzing it: Hey Absalom, got any questions for me? Fire away- I'll answer anything. I've got nothing to hide.

Rachel wrote:Here's my problem. The is the THIRD time I've resummarized the case. Third time. People either don't care or don't remember. Job is probably laying low enough that people just forget. I'm getting annoyed because I am trying to garner discussion on someone I think is bad and everyone else seems more concerned with voting out "weird" players like Mary Magdeline and Pilate.

If you want my original words, go through the posts yourself. There's a handy page for that at the front of the thread.

Rachel wrote:

Isaac wrote:Can you quote it for me? Idk if I'm allowed to say this but I'm technically Isaac2.0

I can resummarize it.


Job perseverated on the fact that Paul was not posting on Day 2. This read to me as a baddie who really wanted to draw attention to their work. However, in retrospect, I think Job may have been trying to seem civvie by being completely irrelevant in this post. He also has not let go of the extremely weak Uzzaiah suspicion based on zany Day 1 Antics. He repeats he does not have tunnel vision, but has done literally nothing but discuss Uzzaiah. I can pull Paul's case too, if you'd like.

Personally, this is the weakest part of your argument against Job. Job was only the second person to comment on Paul's absence. Job's post came a few hours after Jeph's comment (the first one regarding Paul). I understand that you were suspicious of Job Day 1, but you never satisfactorily explained to me why Job's "Where's Paul?" post is any more suspicious than Jonathan's "Where's Paul?" post that came just 15 or so minutes after Job's post. If it's just because you already suspected Job, then I think you've got blinders on regarding the "Where's Paul" post issue. Look at them again and isolate those posts against any prior suspicions. Does that series of "Where's Paul?" posts look intrinsically suspicious at all? Which ones and why?

Otherwise, your argument against Job's tunnel vision and unwillingness to help is totally legit. My problem is that I have a theory on how Job might be civvie. Granted, I also have a theory that Job and Uzziah could be baddie teammates and they successfully manufactured chasm-like distance between each other. Seriously- if we plan to stone one of the two and the first one comes up baddie, how likely are we to follow up with stoning the second one?

Esther wrote:My thoughts are that Pilate is playing very oddly. It seems like he could be a new player almost, but then he said this:

Pilate wrote:I'm shocked that I don't have more suspicion by now. So this is the life of an unforgivably low poster.

That statement makes me think he is a seasoned player who usually posts much more than he has this game. Pilate is probably my #1 suspicion right now.

My next two suspicions are Uzziah and Job. I hate to see the back and forth continue on between then just because we are all confused on which of the two to lynch. I think one of them is most likely bad, I just can't put my finger on which. I have voted for Job previously, but reading back I am thinking Uzziah might be the one that needs to go.

linki: Well, apparently Rachel is NOT confused and thinks its Job that is bad between the two. And, fwiw, I think Rachel is good So maybe I should trust her.

I've been analyzing post volume and vote patterns and the data on Pilate honestly makes him look like just a slackass instead of a nefarious sneaky sneak. He's only barely a half step above Barnabas, Judah, Samuel, and Stephen (until recently), who appear to be total slackasses.

And yet, one could argue that Job is Rachel's Uzziah, could they not? For all the complaining some have made about one or two topics dominating the day, no one but Job seems to call Rachel out on her fixation. Granted, her suspicion is based on much more concrete evidence but she's almost got tunnel vision on the matter just like Job does.

Samuel wrote:Hey everyone. I'm so sorry, life has been kicking my tail. However, I have a very important question regarding the last lynch. Did anyone change anything up at vote wise at the last minute of the day period?

I'm not going to try to do a read through of everything I missed, basically if I try to consider it, I will become too discouraged and never play again. Instead I want to use what little I do know to suss out information. So again, can anyone tell me if someone changed things up at the end of the day period kind of out of left field?

Yes, something totally unexpected happened in the last 15 minutes of the day period. It's just too traumatizing to relive- you'll have to read it for yourself.

Deborah wrote:Same here (about being busy, I'm not sure what the rest means) ^. I will only have the time to catch up tomorrow, I'm afraid. My life is busy, there's no way around it.

You know, Debbie, it seems like every day you say you're going to catch up. But you never do.

Uzziah wrote:I too have been crazy busy! Things are pretty hectic at work, pretty much everyone has to do overtime in five shifts to finish this big project for the new client or we'll all get fired. Oh well. As if that wasn't enough, yesterday at lunch the bicycle had a puncture so I ended up driving the kids to basketball (the younger one doesn't currently have shoes) and didn't get back until morning because of the snow. Finally when I was about to get some sleep and catch up after the dog ate the hard drive! I'm trying to remain positive but things are just piling up and up and honestly I don't know how I'll make it. Hopefully I can be more active next week, but this time I ended up randomizing and got Job.

HEY BABY RUTH! Answer my f**king question finally, would you?

Ruth wrote:Had I been able to vote, I probably would have voted Uzziah.

Can you explain what this means? Were you silenced and simply did not vote because you weren't caught up, or were you not allowed to vote Day 2? You've ducked my question twice now. Ignoring it this time is a bad idea.

Rachel wrote:Also, the Mary Magedeline case was very sudden and took shape without much warning.

My ass it was sudden! Maybe if he'd go back and read what actually happened instead of asking for others to do the work for him he'd have a clearer picture of things.

Absalom wrote:Well, I see that everyone has been as busy as I am, which makes for an easy catch-up, but may not be ideal for baddie hunting.

Rachel, I see your case on Job. I understand it. I don't agree with it. I am not getting baddie vibes from Job.
I also see the case on Rachel having contradicted herself. I don't think she's bad either.
I am a little suspicious of Uzziah for narrowly avoiding lynches day after day. Smells a little fishy to me, but...
I'm going to have to give my vote to Balaam today. Here's why:

1. His lists, while they have become more helpful, initially read to me as a way of saying "look at me! I'm helping! I must be good because I am helping!"
2. His comment about the Heathens having the game all sewed up, besides being untrue, felt a little like wishful thinking on his part.
3. My gut is just screaming at me to vote for him, and I like to listen to me gut.

I'll hold off on actually voting to see if anything else comes up today, but thta is probably what I will do.

I'll ask the question again, Absalom- is there anything you want to hear from me that might help ease your mind about me? Fire away- I'll answer any question you like. I'd much rather be voted for due to concrete evidence than for tone reads and gut intuitions, neither of which have proven to be very successful thus far.

Rachel wrote:Given Job's early action in the game, would you say that you would think Job is laying low to avoid trouble?

Hard to say. He certainly pulled back on posting but he also voted super-early again Day 3. He certainly didn't tone down his convictions against Uzziah but he wasn't as vocal about it. Perhaps he felt there wasn't much left for him to say on the matter. That certainly doesn't excuse him from ignoring other issues. Washing your hands of 95% of the game is silly in my opinion. Uzziah is sort of the same. They've certainly put plenty of distance between each other but the rest of us don't seem as interested in taking sides. And by rest of us, I mean the half of the players who are actually participating like we give a crap.

Jeph, I'll have to get back to you on Lazy Lazarus. Time for more allergy meds.

Rachel wrote:Belaam, a few days ago you said the following about Job:

"JOB: The Uzziah obsession is a bit annoying and it was intriguing to see Paul turn on him after they were pretty tight Day 1. I'm not ready to vote for him yet. I have a theory about him but I can't elaborate just yet because I don't want to feed him any ideas to fake."

Do you have any further thoughts on him? I think the cases that both Paul and I lined up are quite good and I'm not sure why they haven't garnered the discussion they ought to. Day 3 was ripe with discussion of anything but Job.

I still have a theory on Job. I have a theory on Uzziah as well. Catching a baddie could prove my theory wrong about either one of them and make me willing to stone that person. I think discussion of Job died off yesterday because Job kept his trap shut considerably more than any other point in the game. He hasn't shown up yet today but neither have a bunch of other people. At this point I am still agonizing over the bottom half of the post count for everyone left in the game. It's proving difficult to determine who is simply noncommittal to the game and who are lying low enough to be forgotten about for a while.

Sorry for coming in late today. Allergies are kicking my ass today. Poor thing. RIPIYWG Gideon and RIP Hagar.

Jonathan wrote:My read of it was that he heard all those words from the emissary, not that the emissary said them. The emissary was evidently saying something else. But both parts read as a whole to me, all of it things he would want to hear were he a civ. I don't know if you can understand what I'm saying, I don't feel like I am explaining it too well.

I think I get what you mean and I think that helps me understand it better.

Pilate wrote:Voting Rachel now because I left it too long and forgot last time.

Oh boy. So missing the last two votes (and the Preface vote ftm) means you should just jump in and act on the last thing you saw 15 hours before the last stoning poll ended?


This is the kind of thing that gets us off on a tangent for half a day, like "Where's Paul?" and Uzziah's "root" post. I don't like it but I also don't know what to make of it.

Absalom wrote:You guys, I can't help it, I am all pinged out over Balaam. I just don't trust the guy. I know I'm alone on this, but it's how I feel.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What can I do to ease your mind?

I'm confused by the Night Post. At first I assumed it was Gideon overhearing baddies plotting how to win...

Epignosis wrote:10 In those days, there was a simple man named Gideon. 11 On his way home, Gideon met the Egyptian emissary who had beset Paul with serpents. 12 “Pharaoh sounds like failure,” Gideon said. 13 This incensed the emissary, who shouted at Gideon in the Egyptian tongue.
14 But Gideon could not understand the emissary’s words, and his ears heard, “Aiight we gotta cut this out. I'm part of the problem too. We all gotta step up because lets be honest the good guys never win these sock games and it's because we all slack off. 15 Sloth's a sin and an ugly one at that so lets put our game faces on. 16

...but by the end of it, it almost sounds like civvies talking to each other.

Epignosis wrote:16 We only need to lynch 5 of these beancounters and we'll all happily walk hand in hand to noah's ark with smiles on our faces and God's love in our hearts. 17 and maybe we have to deal with these horsemen I mean who knows. but if we pull ourselves together and start really paying attention and participate and have faith in EACH OTHER we can beat these guys. Amen.”

What did everyone else get out of that?

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

I think your assumption that the Horsemen aren't a threat is foolish.

That's ridiculous. I make no such assumption. I've explicitly said I think the Horseman should be considered a threat from the beginning. But I don't have any reason to think the Horsemen are working with the Heathens, or share a win condition. Some Horsemen may have already been killed, and we have not seen a kill from them yet, so I'm assuming they don't have one. That means they shouldn't be counted as part of the Heathen team, and they are just as capable of voting to lynch Heathens as we are.

Sorry for assuming. Guess I've made an ass out of u and me. Well, mostly me. As a card-carrying pessimist, I always assume the worst possible odds at all times. I don't believe the Horsemen can win with the civvies. Makes it too hard on the Heathens. Hopefully there is not a win-with-the-Heathens condition in their secrets. Even with two baddie teams working against us, the lack of participation by so many players has me feeling bleak about our odds at conquering evil and winning the game.

Rachel wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

Yeah! 20% gets you the game apparently.

If there were one large baddie team, then yes, we'd absolutely be up Shit Creek without a paddle. Unless the Horsemen provide a little collateral damage to the Heathens or at the very least obstruct them in some way, the Heathens are in pretty good position at the moment.

Absalom wrote:

Balaam wrote: You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

This kind of fatalism pings me, especially since it isn't true. Assuming a night kill tonight, a civvie lynch tomorrow, and then another night kill, there would still be 26 players left, only five of which would be Heathens. That's a guaranteed heathen victory? Like fun it is!

I think your assumption that the Horsemen aren't a threat is foolish.

Job wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Rachel wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

What about all your other suspects?

Indeed. My note-taking fell apart Day 2, but on Day 1, you expressed the following:

Suspicious of:
Belshazzar
Ruth
Lot
Nicodemus
Martha
Uzziah

Trusting of:
Paul
Jonah

Where do you stand on them now?

Who cares? Uzziah is bad.

You know, you've almost convinced me to test my theory on you. Stoning another civvie would all but guarantee the Heathens or Horsemen win though.

Epignosis wrote:

Balaam wrote:FYI host above all hosts, your link for Mary's stoning post at the beginning of the thread goes to her post filter page and not the stoning post.

At least it doesn't lead to Saint Astley.

Nobody seemed to notice the first time I did it, so I had to try again.

Stephen wrote:I'm utterly appalled that no one inquired about my house problem.

My house exploded, people. Fucking exploded. And here I am, ready to play mafia with all of you. Is that not miraculous?

FYI host above all hosts, your link for Mary's stoning post at the beginning of the thread goes to her post filter page and not the stoning post.

Absalom wrote:I completely forgot Hagar was playing, to be honest.

THis is actually one of your more helpful lists, Balaam.

Glad to hear it. I wasn't sure it was going to be useful but what else am I here for? :P

By the way, Absalom, are you able to confirm that you were under some kind of curse/order to do the crabby pants 'BAH!' stuff for Day 3?

Rachel wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

What about all your other suspects?

Indeed. My note-taking fell apart Day 2, but on Day 1, you expressed the following:

Suspicious of:
Belshazzar
Ruth
Lot
Nicodemus
Martha
Uzziah

Trusting of:
Paul
Jonah

Where do you stand on them now?

And now for a series potentially unhelpful lists from your dear friend, Balaam:

REMAINING PLAYERS WHO HAVE GOTTEN VOTES SO FAR THIS GAME:

PLAYER NAME: (# of votes Day 1, # of votes Day 2, # of votes Day 3)

ABSALOM: 2, 1, 1
BARNABAS: 1, 0, 0
GIDEON: 1, 0, 0
JEPHTHAH: 2, 1, 0
JOB: 0, 2, 4
LAZARUS: 0, 0, 3
LOT: 1, 0, 0
RACHEL: 0, 0, 2
RAHAB: 0, 0, 1
REBECCA: 1, 0, 0
SAMUEL: 2, 0, 0
STEPHEN: 0, 1, 0
UZZIAH: 3, 3, 4

Check the Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3 links to see who voted for whom. Only a few of the remaining players picked up votes on more than one day. Anyone have any thoughts on that?


REMAINING PLAYERS WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED A SINGLE VOTE ALL GAME:
BALAAM
BATHSHEBA
BELSHAZZAR
DEBORAH
ESTHER
HAGAR
ISAAC
JACOB
JONAH
JONATHAN
JUDAH
MALCHUS
MORDECAI
NICODEMUS
PILATE
RUTH

Any names in here strike you as surprising or perhaps worth considering moving forward? Many of these folks are among the quiet ones who have contributed little to the game. Do you think any of them warrant additional scrutiny?

Uzziah wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

Can we lynch you if he's neither Heathen nor Horseman?

I'm fine with that.

What if I propose it the other way around? If we lynch Job Day 4 and he is neither Heathen nor Horseman, can we lynch you next?

Job wrote:Catch up is tl,dr.

Great job everyone, can we lynch Uzziah now?

Can we lynch you if he's neither Heathen nor Horseman?

Ruth wrote:Sorry Mary. I did not want to force a tie and have a no lynch, and I guess even if I had voted my gut and went with Uzziah, he still would not have been lynched with the last few votes.

I have been pretty much afk most of this game, so I doubt Noah will take me. I just hope Noah is an active person who will actually send in his PM

Who said anything about tie votes resulting in no lynch?

Lot wrote:Also, anyone who dies in divine judgement, I think... could be a candidate for being born again (should we have a rez up our sleeves). Because while a lot of civilians die, there is always the outside possibility of a seemer, whereas divine judgement must hit a civilian. If I read things correctly.

It's not clear that the randomly selected civvie will have their role revealed. I assume we're going to be left knowing that they were good but not knowing exactly who we are. Maybe the host can clarify that one.

Rachel wrote:....it's random, you have no control over this. Neither does Noah.

He can choose seven people to take aboard the ark, sparing them from the random smiting. If none of the six I listed are taken aboard the ark, any one of them could be smited, which will be fine by me. I'm out for blood.

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:

Jonathan wrote:RIP Mary -

No. No no no no no! Frankly, Mary can BIH because she did jack $#!^ all game and didn't even bother defending herself. This should serve as a wake up call to all the quiet civvies out there. Get your asses in here and play! Tomorrow I am going to go after the chuckleheads who have posted the least and missed votes. Shame on you guys! Shame! Shame! Shame! A curse on both your houses and all that. Six players who are still alive have missed at least two votes. Noah, please don't let Barnabas, Bathsheba, Hagar, Judah, Pilate, or Samuel in the ark. I want to see one of them die for their sins of being noncommittal to this game. I demand expiation!

Why might these six players be bad?

I'm not worried about them being bad at this point. We've got this coming up:

Epignosis wrote:Noah
For every three righteous that are stoned, there will be divine judgment, and a randomly chosen civilian will die. Whenever divine judgment draws nigh, Noah will select seven others to join him in his ark, avoiding the punishment. Only Noah can protect against this calamity.

If we have to lose a civilian, I'd like it to be one of those six.

Jonathan wrote:Um...RIP is just our convention here...did not mean to upset you so. But I get your point.

Sorry. Not lashing out at you. Mary just doesn't deserve any pity or well-wishes from anybody. She played poorly; she died poorly. In fact, this lynch will probably cost us the game. It's going to be almost impossible to make up for three squandered days.

Jonathan wrote:RIP Mary -

No. No no no no no! Frankly, Mary can BIH because she did jack $#!^ all game and didn't even bother defending herself. This should serve as a wake up call to all the quiet civvies out there. Get your asses in here and play! Tomorrow I am going to go after the chuckleheads who have posted the least and missed votes. Shame on you guys! Shame! Shame! Shame! A curse on both your houses and all that. Six players who are still alive have missed at least two votes. Noah, please don't let Barnabas, Bathsheba, Hagar, Judah, Pilate, or Samuel in the ark. I want to see one of them die for their sins of being noncommittal to this game. I demand expiation!

Bah!

C'mon host! I'm wearing out my F5 button! :P