Return to “Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]”
Not at all. I wouldn't hesitate to say that if you lynched all 3 of us, you're bound to get at least 1 or 2 heathens. This is not a gambit!!!Balaam wrote:Yeah, still not feeling great about Jonathan either. My gut tells me that Jacob and Jonathan are two of the remaining three Heathens. Is that so far fetched?
Soooo, reasons? No? Just because I've eyeballed you every time you've voted? Like now?Pilate wrote:Reading today's flurry of activity, I'm most suspicious of Jonathan, followed by Isaac. I'm going to vote Jonathan now just in case I disappear.
Belshazzar wrote: even more buddy buddy with Rachel since This is the only part of your post I disagree with. I'm still suspicious of her. Just apologetic for the way I reacted. I would still vote for her in a heartbeat if anyone else thought that we would find a Heathen there. But for now it seems we have better places to look. Like me(agreeing with her that her Day 6 voters - other than him, of course - are worth watching). On the plus side, I agree with him that the late Ruth wagoners shouldn't really receive street cred after Ruth flipped civ Uuuuuuhhh, Ruth didn't flip civ, pal. Check again.(but nor should they receive too much flak; they are without doubt the easiest suspicion one could focus on or try to build on this Day) and I can also partially read his interest in Ruth on Day 6 as genuine, because it was a bit early to seem like Ruth was a goner and that there's need to start throwing rocks at her real quick.
I also fear that if we agree to lynch Isaac, God might stop us on the last minute:P
I'm surprised I haven't been smited yet for my awful game play.Careful? Not really. I've messed up a lot this game. I agree that my voting record is horrible. And as I've said multiple times before, if I hadn't missed the Day 4 vote, I would have voted Job (again, I might add). So yeah not trying to avoid anything there.Absalom wrote:I think Isaac's voting record is quite horrible. Apart from his Day 1 vote (the timing of which is pretty incriminating) the rest of his votes have been careful to keep blood off his hands.
I LOLd at this tooEsther wrote:HAHA....I didn't even see Pilate's most recent post until now. "good job guys, maybe Absalom is okay afterall."
Sorry, that may have been meRachel wrote:Careful, he might start suspecting you and almost get you lynched!Belshazzar wrote:Let's lynch Jacob.
4 posts containing anything about Ruth. 4 posts in six chapters. All of them the previous Day.
"Case on Ruth is intriguing."
"Ruth is unlikely to be Uzziah's teammate because she hunted him consistently."
"Feeling ambivalent about Ruth, don't feel like voting her."
"Hope you're right about Ruth"
I agree with this. I think at least 2 of the people who voted for you behind me saw a convenient opportunity to get rid of you (assuming you are civ). I feel really good about Absalom after this lynch. So we should definitely scrutinize his voters, as well. It may also be helpful to look at the bandwagoning Ruth voters. I think Balaam pointed this out, too. A response to his thoughts coming up.Rachel wrote:I think the Absalom and Me voters are potential suspects.
I think I know who you are buddyJacob wrote:I encourage people to read my posts WITHOUT presupposing that I am bad. I think you are all putting a spin on everything I say, and sure I don't have the cleanest voting record or consistency of opinions, but I have been nothing but honest in each of my posts. Try going in without that bias and see me for the unfortunately very frustrated civvie that I am. Also look for my very subtle hints
But I'm still keeping my 
on you. It's easy for you and Jeph to say that you find me to be a sincere civ, especially if I get lynched. But right now Jeph seems more sincere than you do. No offense 
I do agree, however, that there could be potential heathens in that final list of yours. I'm very uncertain of where to look first in that list, though.I'm glad you asked this Jeph, I can answer both of you in one post. I'm keeping Rachel near the top of my suspect list. Even though I could still see her potentially flipping bad, I feel terrible for the way I reacted to her post yesterday, and I apologize for that. So I would definitely move my vote to Ruth today if I could. The case on her seems pretty strong, and I would feel most comfortable putting my vote there.Jephthah wrote:I'll add another question to this. Isaac, do you now think Rachel is a civvie or is it just that you're not as sure, but still feel she's more bad?Balaam wrote:Hey Isaac, since you were interested in talking earlier, riddle me this:
You say now that you wish you could pull back your vote on Rachel. If you were still able to vote, who are your top 2 or 3 suspects as of right now?
linki: Jeph- Yeah, I think we are too. I'm just THAT big of a data person that 16th v. 12th bugs me. it drives what few friends I have left bonkers.
Me tooLot wrote:I don't know - I still prefer a vote on Jacob or Isaac whose votes I think are the worst, but I feel fairly happy if it goes Ruth's way as well, all things considered.
You can talk to me directly if you would like to... Let me know if you have any questions for me.Balaam wrote:Re:Rachel- Looks like Isaac beat me to it with his mea culpa post. I'll still try to read over him at lunch.
Lot wrote:Isaac
Day one - third vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day three - second vote on Job, 2 on Uzz
Why I do see this as more suspicious? Isaac removes Isaac from the lead on day one, ties his main opponent with him on day three. (Missing votes are not a great indicator, especially in a game with so much silencing. In the case of Isaac, however, the absent day two vote is probably explained by a transition from Isaac 1.0 to Isaac 2.0). "Isaac removes Isaac? I think you meant Uzziah. Unfortunately I can't speak for Isaac1.0. You are correct about missing the Day 2 vote.
Rachel wrote:WOAH WOAH WOAHIsaac wrote:I've never tried to lynch you, Rachel. I've even defended you.Rachel wrote:Now for my re-read of Isaac.
This read strangely to me because Isaac has been buddying up to me for a while now. This shows it. The publicly line could be trying to set me up to be lynched if he is as well.Isaac wrote:Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add
Now, the rationalization of Uzziah's actions never made sense to me. I just assumed we had a non-rational player on our hands that would have to be caught another way if they were truly bad. Saying that Uzziah's posts and actions had a certain logic to them is strange and overly defensive of the Heathen, if you ask me.Isaac wrote:The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.
But this is what stood out.That's it? Jesz....
I also never said Uzziah's actions were logical, either. Far from it actually. I simply stated that his focus on Job began as soon as Job focused in on him. That's all
You are either misinterpreting my post or are manipulating it. Reading it again today I definitely misinterpreted it.
I didn't say you tried to lynch me. I said you might have laid the trap that if you were lynched, it would look like we were connected. That's what I said. Not that you tried to lynch me. So kindly stop spewing that garbage. My bad
Second, you rationalized Uzziah's actions. You said it was "revenge". There's a logic to that. I simply assumed that Uzziah was a player like Vompatti who does not care what others think and simply posts things to cause chaos, regardless of alignment. You took a rational approach. I think that might have been a bit defensive of him. You're right.
Oh wow.Isaac wrote:Thanks, Balaam, for making realize just how useless I've been this game :P I know I've been super flip-floppy (I'm about to do it again, for crying out loud!) and unsure of my votes and reads on people. I haven't been as invested in this game as I'd like to be.
After reading Jeph's post (I think it was Jeph), I realize I may have been played. I trusted Rachel fully from the beginning, and now she turns around and says I tried to get her lynched because of my wording and based on my vote patterns? You slyyy devil, you. I don't care if I'm lynched today. If I am, it will certainly help the cause. But when I am lynched I really hope that people analyze yours and Lot's voting patterns until you're on the chopping block. It took no time at all for you 2 to put me there.
Whichever way this goes, there are no hard feelings, Rachel. You've played a mighty fine game. votes
WTF
You didn't even wait for a response. I declared you as a potential suspect and you flew off the handle. You instantly NO U'd me. LOL WTF
I overreacted to a post I misread/misinterpreted in the heat of the moment. In hindsight, Lot was definitely the one who came at me more aggressively than you did. Sorry.
This is how I think of Day 3 Mordecai as well.Lot wrote:No. Day 4 is when Job was lynched. Day three was Mary Mag. But who was lynched is not important. The fact was that at the time there were two votes on each of Uzz, Job and Rachel. Voting Lazarus would be an odd thing to do right at that point in time if bad. I could understand him voting Job or Rachel right then, or holding his vote till later and voting Lazarus a little later. But right then, voting Lazarus seems like an unlikely move when Uzz might need saving.
Not an impossible move, just that it would definitely have been to the detriment of the heathen team in that moment.
SO DRAMATICIsaac wrote:Believe it or not, I think you're a legit civ, Lot. I'm pretty confident that Rachel is a baddie, though.
I'm also inclined to trust Jep at this point. But I'm not going full on "here, hold my knife while I lace my sandals up" level of trust. I did that with Rachel, and got shanked.
I haven't even declared an intention to vote you! This is so laughable. I intended for it to be laughable. To kind of lighten things up slightly. But hey, misinterpretation runs rampant in this game.
Wow, it's almost like you should have asked me questions before deciding what things mean and making shit up.Isaac wrote: I have no idea what Rachel means by that last line, though.
Almost. Yeah almostI wasn't trying to make shit up, though. I thought I was onto something. I may be wrong, but unfortunately I can't change my vote now.
Anyway, it means that I was frustrated that I thought I might have been onto something in the voting records, but didn't find much in the posts.
But hey-- you couldn't wait to vote me, eh? Thank you for explaining. I would probably change my vote if I could. But I can't. In any case, I would change it to myself because of my shit game yesterday. I'm not being helpful at all, it would seem.
Balaam wrote:ISAAC:
Isaac's posts sound worse than his votes look, I think. Ture :/ He was only the third one in on Samson, Can't speak for this one, unfortunately. missed D2's vote, wasn't even involved with Mary's train,So? and missed D4's vote. I forgot when the deadline was. I even came in and said multiple times that I would have voted for Job. Didn't you reread the thread?The worst he looks is D5 when Uzz is on the line. He jumps on Uzz's comment about Pilate being bad That wasn't the first or second time I said I suspected Pilate. So much for that reread
and says latish about not feeling good about Uzz's pending lynch. I don't see much in the votes unless he strategically skipped votes but that's impossible to prove. No strategy there. The missed Day 2 vote was before my transition in as Isaac 2.0. The missed Day 4 vote was simply a fuck up, as stated before. You may need to convince me more about this one.
Looks like we need to get a ruler for Lot, Jeph, and Isaac. :P
I get yaLot wrote:I'm talking as a matter of ego, or 'wanting to prove a point'. As a matter of winning the game, naturally I care. I just mean it doesn't prove any point to me, I acknowledge I'm not always right.Isaac wrote: I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.
But you are wrong. And it will push the civies closer to losing, contradicting the second half of your sentence.
I wasn't concerned. I mainly want you to know that I still take this game seriously despite my tone in trying to prove you wrong. I may have slightly overreacted, however, she is right. I was buddying up to her because I thought I found a definite civ that I could trust and whose opinions I could rely on. My "publicly" statement was half a jest. I didn't want someone saying that they went back through the thread and didn't find our discussion of why we thought Job was suspicious, and then claiming that we had btsc or some bs. Colour me paranoid.Rachel wrote:Now for my re-read of Isaac.
This read strangely to me because Isaac has been buddying up to me for a while now. This shows it. The publicly line could be trying to set me up to be lynched if he is as well.Isaac wrote:Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add
Now, the rationalization of Uzziah's actions never made sense to me. I just assumed we had a non-rational player on our hands that would have to be caught another way if they were truly bad. Saying that Uzziah's posts and actions had a certain logic to them is strange and overly defensive of the Heathen, if you ask me.Isaac wrote:The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.
But this is what stood out.
Lot wrote:I have no time for ego. I don't care if I'm better or Isaac is better. If you and Isaac want to kamikaze because you'll get satisfaction out of proving me wrong, go ahead. It's your choice to read whatever in you want. But what both of you should know is, I have no pegs to be knocked down. Is there some RL situation bringing on this attitude?
I don't actually care if I'm right or wrong, all I care about is that the civs win and I try hard to help.
But you are wrong. And it will push the civies closer to losing, contradicting the second half of your sentence.
All civvies are wrong in the game of mafia. So what? Apologies if to you it's about who knows better. To me it's about who's bad. End of story.
Well, I'm not bad. I've made major mistakes, as have a lot of the other civs. We only just lynched our first baddie this past Day period. Not trying to include myself here. I know I didn't vote Uzziah and so do you. The rest is WIFOM, I realize that. But hear me out. We've lynched plenty of other civs, Job included, because of their play style and because of their voting pattern. So do I need to die next because I made mistakes?
I don't have time to play the game by saying 'I think you might be bad', or 'this is just my perspective, you can have your own'. That should be taken as read. What is even the value of those kind of sentences? None. It's obviously my opinion.
Jephthah wrote:Because wanting to prove you wrong doesn't equate being baddie. As someone who's experiencing the same feeling as Isaac, though I don't know if he's genuine, I can totally relate. You're going about things like you know everything. Since I know for a fact you are wrong, it makes one want to shut you up for a little and dial down your egoLot wrote:If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?Isaac wrote:What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on
And this is what has pushed me over the edge Well, I did vote for someone I firmly believe is a baddie. And I sincerely hope that others vote for her, too.Lot wrote:If someone is more interested in proving me wrong than seeing a baddie lynched, why wouldn't I vote for them?Isaac wrote:What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it on
What gambit? I would love to play. I would love even more to prove you wrong, my friend. That would give me more satisfaction than winning. So bring it onLot wrote:Don't tell Nicodemus that you don't want to put any skin in the game.Isaac wrote:Well now I wish I could switch my vote to help you out. I'm perfectly fine with dying today
But honestly, I don't like this gambit from anyone - civ, baddie, whoever. If you don't want to play, go ask the host for a replacement. If you do want to play, leave the martyr card at the door. Baddies use that line all the time to give people second thoughts. If you are a civilian using it, then honestly proving a point is not more important than trying to get us the win. If you were to be lynched and come back civilian - sorry that you voted poorly, on to Jacob. I honestly am not the kind of person to give sympathy to the martyr. Sometimes you just get voted out in this game because your record looks bad.
Also, not sure where Balaam got the idea I'm not from TS?
Sure. You're absolutely right, Lot. Go ahead and vote for me. You've got nothing to lose, right? You're 110% correctLot wrote:But honestly, voting records do not lie. You've just added an awful lot of content, but no amount of post analysis will ever surpass a vote analysis. It only adds to it.
Good baddies can hide absolutely everything... except their voting records.
As for your 'plant, push, pivot' - civvies plant and push. I think the only real indicator is a pivot away from Uzziah.
Precisely.Jephthah wrote:Good job!! I'm glad people chose him over me. I'm sorry I didn't vote for him, but honestly, I hate those kind of players, no offense, and I've lynched them before only to find out they were civvies. So knowing that my emotions influence my judgement, I tend to stay away from voting them unless I don't have a choice.
I've never tried to lynch you, Rachel. I've even defended you.Rachel wrote:Now for my re-read of Isaac.
This read strangely to me because Isaac has been buddying up to me for a while now. This shows it. The publicly line could be trying to set me up to be lynched if he is as well.Isaac wrote:Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add
Now, the rationalization of Uzziah's actions never made sense to me. I just assumed we had a non-rational player on our hands that would have to be caught another way if they were truly bad. Saying that Uzziah's posts and actions had a certain logic to them is strange and overly defensive of the Heathen, if you ask me.Isaac wrote:The difference is that Uzziah's focus on Job is revenge, for lack of a better term.
But this is what stood out.
That's a bit extremeLot wrote:Jacob and Isaac look really very very very bad, to me. Both of their day one and day three votes both feel like they came at critical junctures. Day two and four, days when Uzz was less under pressure, neither of them voted at all. I'd gladly see us take out these two the next two days, and feel like we could comfortably say there is a high chance that each of them is heathen.
Do you think we could eliminate Isaac from that?Rachel wrote:Do you think we could eliminate Absalom from that?Lot wrote:People who I think look particularly bad based on that vote...
Mordecai, Isaac, Jacob, Deborah, Absalom. Possibly Jonathan and Ruth.
In those seven, I guarantee there are heathen. Probably more than one.
I want to be completely fair on this one. I can't personally vouch Isaac1.0's actions on Day 1 and Day 2. However, I did state that I would have voted for Job on Day 4 if I had not missed the vote. As I said before, he was my first suspicion. I was clearly wrong about the entirety of the Job and Uzzi back-and-forth.Lot wrote:Day 4 Uzz didn't need saving, so I've analysed only if they voted for Job or not (an Uzz opponent)
Isaac
Day one - third vote on Samson, 2 votes on Uzz
Day two - no vote
Day three - second vote on Job, 2 on Uzz
Day four - no vote
Day five - fourth vote for Jephthah, 7 on Uzz (possibly only 6 when he looked).
SameRachel wrote:I feel like the biggest fool, Job.
I never saw that coming...
Deborah wrote:Isaac (both 1.0 and 2.0) read as civ, to me. I won't be looking in that direction today.
Yeah I picked up on this post too. It definitely stuck out to me as fishy. Nico is definitely the most suspic to me after doing my catch up.Lot wrote:You are the second person to even MENTION Balaam as possibly bad.Nicodemus wrote:Scummy post.Balaam wrote:That's why I said it's a lot of if's but intriguing nonetheless.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.
Yeah, that's a much more sensible interpretation of it. I was letting my imagination run a little too wild I think.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.
Oh crap! I forgot about that since yesterday. Gimme an hour or so- need to get some work done at work today. :PJephthah wrote:I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on Lazarus like you promised Balaam.
Okay. To each his own.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.
And, having gone back through that, it only makes me think about you again because now I think you might be bad again - because what part of that is not Balaam putting skin in the game? He tried to change Absalom's mind and failed. Again, I want to know - what was he supposed to do differently in your eyes?
You reeeeally want my vote don't youPilate wrote:So maybe we can try lynching Rachel tomorrow? She's a baddie, she's worse than lice in your kid's hair.
Unfortunately, I would have kept my vote on Job. He was my original suspicion this game, and I'm sad to see that he turned out to be a disciple. Sorry Job 
I did too. I also didn't have headphones plugged in, so others heard my shameBelshazzar wrote:Oh Lord I clicked on both links (in Balaam's post), like a total idiot.
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?
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 read it this way, as well.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 concurBalaam wrote:Bah!
Same. Makes me all the more pleased with my current vote.Belshazzar wrote:same tbhRachel wrote:you know what i don't like?
the "uzzaiah might not be bad, but at least we'll get rid of uzzaiah" trick going on.
That's perfectly fine that you both see it that way. I'm not going to say you're wrong. That's just how I perceived it initially. Right now I think his statement is just distracting.Jephthah wrote:I agree with this. Especially since like I've said before, he said rooting for the baddies and not rooting out. English 101Belshazzar wrote:All clear now about your status, thanks.Isaac wrote:Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.Belshazzar wrote:First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.
Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?
As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.
Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.
Point C about Uzziah was funny, heh. Point A is wifom, I think. About point B, I don't think I've said it before, but I disagree with the "rooting out" version of his statement completely and I think he also conveniently latched onto the explanation to suddenly make himself look better.
Sorry to piggy back a Balaam list in order to get my opinions out there. It was the quickest and easiest way for me to do so with today's schedule.Balaam wrote:Who wants another bodacious Balaam list? My thoughts on people:
ABSALOM: I think the reason people latched onto him today is because of his 'bah' stuff and the Negative Nancy attitude. I agree with others that it sounds manufactured, leading me to believe Absalom was hit by some kind of curse. I don't feel comfortable voting for him today because of this. I'd rather we confirm it with him Day 4. Agreed
BALAAM: This cat is totally chill. No worries about him at all. Plus he's got a mighty fine ass.
DAT ASS!!His lists are cool too, but, whatever.
BATHSHEBA: There's a chance Solomon was onto something with her. There's virtually no substance to any of her posts. Day 2 she says she is wary of voting for Cain, then says his lurking makes her wary, and then gives a crap reason for voting for Cain. Maybe it was a throwaway vote because it was pretty obvious Cain was going down at that point but she has not contributed anything of value to this game, missed a vote, and made a weak vote. Worth hearing more from her, frankly.
I would need more input from her to decide here.
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.
LOT: Neutral but wary. I think he latched onto Absalom's PMS a little to much today. I'm also curious about this line:Does this mean he's away or he can only post once? I'd like to find out.Lot wrote:This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can. Expect a lot of words.
I don't know if he's been genuinely busy, or if he's trying to dodge my response to his Absalom posts. But I may end up throwing a stone at his head today. See my previous posts for the why.
MARY MAGDALENE: No substance, voted hastily Day 1, missed a vote Day 2, responds almost only when she's addressed directly. Very succinct and vanilla posts. Very, very blendy.
Bandwagon votes Day 3 (if you can call a second vote a "bandwagon." I'd like to hear more from her, but I may look in her direction in the future.
PILATE: I'm curious about him. No substance all game and today he gloms onto what I view as a weak case against Rachel. Seems he goes whichever way the wind blows.
I heartily agree about the case on Rachel and her voters.
RACHEL: I see nothing wrong with her apparent flip-flop on me. Lot was suspicious of me Day 1 but has warmed up to me and my lists. She just hasn't said much about why other than that she thinks I may be a certain player, which gives her a little more confidence in my style. I appreciate that she's been trying to drive discussion. We need to start doing that.
Not exactly sure why yet, but I totally trust Rachel so far...
RUTH: I'm reserving judgement until she finally answers my question. Was she just silenced Day 2 or was she blocked from voting as well?
Same.
UZZIAH: Neutral. I still think he's just messing with us one way or the other. Good or bad, Heathens are probably hoping to use him as a smokescreen.
I realize I'm kind of defending right now. But this could definitely change depending on future circumstances
Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.Belshazzar wrote:First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.
Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?
