The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:

fingersplints wrote:One of the last games I played I was teammates with him. I'm not seeing the same game here.

What are the differences between DF's game here and the one where you were teammates?

It's more of a problem with I can't connect him to anyone else in the same way. I'm no dfaraday expert but he mentioned his teammates a lot in that game. Lots of early distancing. I feel like most of the people he is talking about this game are people who have been civs. It's little, but to me it just feels different

Wait! This is perfect! Thanks Dom for setting me up.

Scotty - knock knock...

Linki - I am not suspicious of dfaraday. I was responding with to TH's case where he didn't mention that. I'm not sold on the dfaraday case yet. One of the last games I played I was teammates with him. I'm not seeing the same game here.

Scotty wrote:I've been traveling all day, or at least for 5 hours now I think?

Turnip Head wrote:bea, DrumBeats, espers, insertnamehere, Serge, and Spacedaisy have all not posted yet this phase. Almost half the player list.

Do you think that the fact that these people have been basically inactive this phase is a bad look for them? Do you think there's at least a couple baddies hiding in the thickets there like I do?

fingersplints wrote:Is it day 5? For some reason I thought it was 6

I think it is day 6, it just hasn't been updated maybe?

fingersplints wrote:Has anyone kept track of the silencing?
I'm not sure if everyone is quiet or some are silenced. I'm also thinking Scotty might be cursed with what I got Day 4.

What were you cursed with Day 4?

Same one as you now. Only posting in questions.

DrumBeats wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

When Person A says they are voting Person B or C and D, and then person B comes back as a civvie... It looks like Person A could be saving B or C.
/quote]

How do you think it looks when Person A never really opens themself up to take responsibility for a mislynch until day 5, such as the following voting record? Keep in mind this person never missed a night vote.

D1: None
D2: leetic (Meredithed)
D3: None
D4: Matt (Maybe Meredithed)
D5: Serge

Sorry I've been out, I've had a busy last few days. I'm going to have to get off again soon, but I'll be back by EoD and my time is going to be back to normal after that.

d3 missed vote was not my fault. So yea I missed one vote. how am I not taking responsibility? I was wrong about Matt which I acknowledged here:

fingersplints wrote:Damn. That sucks. RIP Matt. At least now I know and can move on.

Has anyone kept track of the silencing?
I'm not sure if everyone is quiet or some are silenced. I'm also thinking Scotty might be cursed with what I got Day 4.

Is it day 5? For some reason I thought it was 6

timmer wrote:Read through splints' posts. There is a certain something to them that feels a bit off... a nonchalance. Like, she is commenting on suspicions just fine but no sense of urgency or need.

My mason question for splints is. .. what do you think of INH? Every suspicion of someone else's that you have commented on, you have said some variation of "there are good points there" but I feel like you haven't said much about INH unless I missed it. What do you think of his game so far?

I usually read him almost instantly as bad. But I've felt alright about him this game. Perhaps that in itself should be troubling? I'll read him again later. Not sure when. Hopefully today but I've been having a really awful day.

DFaraday wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

DFaraday wrote:TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

You only mentioned any suspicion of me after someone else made a case on me. As Epi pointed out, you've done this several times throughout the game, but reviewing your vote history, you haven't actually voted any of the people you said that about. I'll need to review your posts to see whether that's a good thing.

Wouldn't you say this is a bit hypocritical though given that you are now mentioning suspicion of me after Epi pointed it out?
One big difference is though that TH asked what everyone thought on his case, and I responded... Whereas Epi mentioned me and you "latched onto it."

DFaraday wrote:TH, I don't know where you got the idea that I don't follow my principles as a baddie, but it's way off base. And not only has Splints latched on to the new suspicion of me, she's acting as if she's not been doing that the whole game.

I haven't latched on to shit. I wasn't even voting you. Try again.

Epignosis wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

fingersplints wrote:I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

fingersplints wrote:Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!

Regarding your second comment, Not true at all. I'm literally never concerned with "how I look" when posting. The last one you posted is actually me trying to say "I'd rather vote this way but I'm clearly forced to vote a certain way."

I don't see how anyone gets "I'm literally never concerned with 'how I look' when posting" from "I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit 'no u"ish.'"

Well I don't see how you got "I'm more concerned with how I look" from that either, so I guess we are even with not understanding each other. to be fair though, I never said that you were supposed to get that from it. What I said I was trying to get across there was that my vote was forced. I thought the giving no reason, early in the day, and fact that I missed the vote the day before would make it obvious.

Scotty wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

This is oftly opportunistic to point out after that case against DF, ain't it?

After TH asked us to go back and read his posts? Not really

I messed up my letters to DF. You get what I'm trying to say there. You could be protecting someone. I have to look back to find out who the other two are though. And I also still need to read your responses to TH

DFaraday wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

DFaraday wrote:I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

Can you elaborate?

When Person A says they are voting Person B or C and D, and then person B comes back as a civvie... It looks like Person A could be saving B or C.

Epignosis wrote:

fingersplints wrote:I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

fingersplints wrote:I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

fingersplints wrote:Epi, I think you have a point about Matt. I didn't like Matt's day 0 interactions, but I have a hard time articulating my thoughts without it seeming a bit "no u"ish.

I'm sad rabbit died without me getting a chance to vote him. I'd consider voting for Matt, but for the time being I'm going to vote leetic for now. I haven't played any Mafia this year, and I'm scared of getting modkilled for missing votes.

I'm noticing a trend here.

Regarding that last post, you were more concerned with how you would look rather than articulating your thoughts. Why?

What trend? Discussing other people's suspicions? Oh shit you caught me!

Regarding your second comment, Not true at all. I'm literally never concerned with "how I look" when posting. The last one you posted is actually me trying to say "I'd rather vote this way but I'm clearly forced to vote a certain way."

DFaraday wrote:I'm *voting BWT*. He's the worst-looking of the 3 I was looking at (although DB is also giving me pause), and I see no reason for leetic to be lynched.

I don't think this vote looks great for him either.

I think they are pretty good points, and would be interested in hearing DF's response.

juliets

Timmer - I agree with Scotty. The Scranton strangler is almost definitely Indy. When Scotty mentions possibly needing to activate - could be the Strangler needed to find Toby or something. In the show, Toby was on the jury for the Strangler case. He voted guilty, but later regretted this. He went to the jail to tell the Strangler he thought he was innocent... And was then almost immediately strangled.

I was cursed the other day and no one noticed either, Lorab. I'm not surprised you are so mad.

Scotty wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:To y'all that have votes in the non-changeable poll already:
You realize that by voting yourself you could be setting yourself up for the opposite of a benefit?

I'm just saying, in Office Space, that stapler dude got his own office. In the basement. In isolation.

Dom told us to pick a civilian. It'd be pretty evil for him to set us up for failure like that.

Ah! I totally glosses over that.

Never mind then! Self-voting makes perfect sense now.

Im still gonna hold off for now. But I expect a couple votes thrown my way.

Do we think this is a promotion or something?
@Anyone that watches the show: is there a precedent for someone getting their own office that isn't Michael?

There are many situations of people getting promoted that aren't Michael. Jim gets promoted to co-manager. Ryan to VP. Dwight, and Andy to manager. Pam to "office administrator." Daryl gets promoted by Jo, and given an office. At the end of the series Oscar seems to have this office, but it's unclear what his promotion is since it's just filled with stuff that he is running for state senate.

That's how I roll. seriously, though if you ask people who know me playing you pretty much just characterised how I play. I usually only have a couple suspects at a time, and I post less in the beginning until we get a few days into the game.

I'm liking the points against Timmer. I'm not feeling like this is his civvie game, but I'm hoping it isn't that he is just busy. I find he searches for baddies more actively then this as a civvie. Something feels off.

BTW I only post from my phone too. (It's why I post less when I do) my Mac charger is dangerously frayed, and the settings on my husband's computer hate this site. I can't read it there.

I'm still working on reevaluating everyone else. I'm looking into the old HV crew at the moment - particularly SD and Sorsha but I will also look at Enrique more - for the reason I was discussing with Bea. The choice of nightkills is weird and I'm trying to decide if it means anything.

To Bea - since you want to go WIFOMy - you know I'd never kill rabbit N1. He's much more fun to get lynched. I actually planned on voting him day 1 for old times sake, missed the vote, planned to do it day 2 regardless, and was super pissed when I saw he'd been killed.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm also starting to grow worried about our under the radar players. DF, Enrique, INH, Daisy, timmer... these are all people I don't lean one way or the other on, and haven't looked closely at. Everyone is on the table as a suspect right now.

Most of them are usually under the radar players though. Not saying that makes them good, just not out of character. I think out of this list the most concerning to me are inh and timmer, who I remember being slightly more vocal usually.

Serge wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Serge wrote:Weak sauce.

Says the guy who thinks he can nail mafia by night polls.

I'm voting either you or Sorsha today.

I'm more offended to be called acting. I have never feigned ignorance.

Vote me. You know you want to.

Why is this offensive? Someone is acting. That's the game.

Serge wrote:I'm definitely not acting new. Weak sauce.

I don't think it's weak. I think it's possible. I've seen players win games by acting more confused than they actuall are. I personally have won games by acting more confused than I actually am. It allows players to lay low. I don't know for sure that is what you are doing... which is why I also answered your questions to help... But it does make me concerned. I'm not giving anyone a pass, and I need the revisit everyone.

There have been several weird kills that I'm still trying to make sense of. I know if I were bad, indiglo and SVS wouldn't have been top choices of mine given they had attention on them. It makes me wonder if it's they were on to something, a setup of someone, someone who knows them well (I'm looking at you sweet Bea ), or something else like target changing.

Serge wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

Serge wrote:I think the "no" voters consist of the scum team.

Why? Revealing roles would benefit baddies too. They want to see what the civvies are working with. Plus it seems pretty stupid for an entire team to vote the same way on a extremely vague night poll in my opinion. I don't see it, and this honestly makes me feel worse about you.

If you look at the role list a ton of civ roles have been revealed. I'd rather we know what's happening than not. Why even vote folders and people in the previous night polls, then? I suspect Epignosis and I suspect Timmer to a lesser extent(lone post about Angela seems to be distancing from the civ lynch). Also, since we didn't know what the poll was for, they could vote with impunity.

@Dom did the night poll end with nothing happening because it's a draw or did you randomize the winning choice?

If you look at the role list a ton of baddie roles have been revealed... The point still stands the baddies would want to know the civvie roles too. I think you are pushing this way too much considering you claim to not have had info. Why are you assuming others did then?

This combined with you it seems like not realising until night 4 that a nightkill doesn't reveal a role. (The reason this bothers me is that it feels like "playing up" being new, so it looks like you don't have btsc)

I'm voting you for now while I look at a few others.

Serge wrote:Michael has been killed? What? Also Dom, the poll says it should run for at least 50 minutes more, so I'm confuzzled.

I'm not sure what it's like where you normally play (if elsewhere) so usually here roles are revealed with lynches, not nightkills. So stuff in the night post is just for storytelling purposes only. She might be Michael, but it's probably Dom just liked the clip. I also thought I remembered seeing something about the night ending at 23 hours. That's honestly how I usually host games. I give the players 23 hours, and I get that last hour to prepare the post and everything. I don't know what happened here but could be something like that. It could also be Dom just had in all the night actions early, and wanted to post. hope that helps

indiglo ;( to answer your question anyways, I am not sure on Scotty. He moves down from number 2 on my suspicion list, because most of the suspicion was based off being Matts teammate, but it doesn't mean he is definitely good now. I'm still not getting the best vibes from him, but I need to look at some other people first.

Serge wrote:I think the "no" voters consist of the scum team.

Why? Revealing roles would benefit baddies too. They want to see what the civvies are working with. Plus it seems pretty stupid for an entire team to vote the same way on a extremely vague night poll in my opinion. I don't see it, and this honestly makes me feel worse about you.

juliets wrote:

Serge wrote:The question is probably "should we open more folders?"

So I'm not sure why people are voting no. Vote yes.

"No" people what do you think the question is. I'm tempted to vote no just because more votes are going there.

This:

Ricochet wrote:Is Hilary Swank hot or not?

...is actually something they poll the whole office on. I think it's split 50/50, until Angela, who previously refused to vote on moral reasons, says Hilary's "hot as heck."

I think Rico meant it as an off topic joke, but it actually is fitting since Matt/Angela was just lynched.

Damn. That sucks. RIP Matt. At least now I know and can move on.

I posted this online elsewhere, and will here too since it's fitting. Happy 4th to everyone back home.

Does anyone else get the feeling Scotty is trying to set up indi to save his teammate because she made it clear she won't be around?

Scotty wrote:You're telling me we've had 4 days and 4 nights worth of discussion and you are still "uninformed" or have any "solid thoughts"?

We've had 4 full days and 4 nights of discussion???

I think I'm going to vote Matt now unless anyone sees a reason I should wait?

Scotty wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hey @Matt! What do you make of SVS dying? Would you join Drumbeats, myself and others in lynching you today?

I was just about to ask where your Matt suspicion went. You just paying lip service to it?

Convenient, isn't it?

Isn't what convenient?

Your "suspicion"? Do you not see how it could be perceived as distancing?

Turnip Head wrote:

Scotty wrote:Hey @Matt! What do you make of SVS dying? Would you join Drumbeats, myself and others in lynching you today?

I was just about to ask where your Matt suspicion went. You just paying lip service to it?

Convenient, isn't it?

Turnip Head wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Do you understand where Bea is going? Why am I required to see SVS exactly as she does?

I was thinking bea was concerned that you didn't give your take on SVS one way or the other, but looking back you did talk about it a little bit, and it seems you leaned toward believing SVS. Would you say that's accurate?

Maybe? Do you think she is trying to stir up suspicion of me or genuine?

Sorsha wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Sorsha wrote:Also TurnipHead. His constant defense of SVS reminds me of AWR when we had quite a few circumstantial pieces of evidence that SVS was bad and he still refused to believe it. (She was bad, so were TH and I, on the opposite team, ftr). I'll be keeping an eye on him for now, if SVS were lynched and came back civ he would jump up to #1 for me.

I forgot to respond to this. I don't really understand the connection you're drawing. I'm sure I've defended SVS just as often as I've accused her, I'm probably batting .500. I feel okay about your motives though so feel free to keep an eye on me

It means I question your ability to read SVS and I feel like you lean civ on her a bit more than is warranted.

ripiywg SVS... it's not unheard of for the mafia to kill one of their own. Especially if they thought she would be getting lynched today, plus it saves her team from having to defend her. And it makes everyone go WTF.

Since it seems weird with all the attention, maybe she wasn't the intended target?

Dom wrote:Oscar – Oscar is definitely not into the (state) senator. Oscar is pretty attentive to detail as an accountant and can change who someone targets each night.

Do you understand where Bea is going? Why am I required to see SVS exactly as she does?

Turnip Head wrote:

bea wrote:kk I'm srrsly honest on thisl.

TH- follow up because I'm sure I can't -

Lorab, indi, Spinltsy were all non voices in the eternal night of svs dying.

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Lorab did chime in, but like DrumBeats said it felt slightly forced; like she wanted to come down on the side of defending SVS so she came up with a reason to do so. I don't know indi well enough to guess how she would react. Splintsy seems a nonvoice altogether, not just in the SVS matter, so not sure what to make of that either. I'd certainly like to hear more from all 3 of them about what they want to do for today's lynch.

Perhaps splintsy would be more of a voice if there was some resolution to her Day 0 suspicion?

Yup!

That's why I voted Gabe and other. Gabe is basically Jo Bennet's (Mafia) assistant, and an enemy of Andy Bernard (civ), so likely bad.
I think the other baddies will be Jan, Robert California, maybe Charles.

I think SD had a good idea when she brought up the Scranton Strangler being a possible Indy. Not sure if it's right, but it would be a fun choice.

Serge wrote:We need to learn Michael's role. He's pretty important, Andy will replace him so it's either a powerful role and will be alignment-indicative.

Hey Epignosis, you still have another vote you can cast. Why only choose Dwight who is almost sure to be civ?

When we don't have all the baddie roles revealed you think we should reveal the number 1 civvie? I don't think Michaels a wildcard at all. why would you even think this?

Did SVS vote Day 2?

Sorry, almost forgot to say. JJJ I will miss your analysis and discussion

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:ALSO,re framing, I am mega mega mega MEGA surprised that no one has tried to imply I was the one to kill Rabbit (or if they did I missed it). I know that when I kill someone when I am bad in order to frame another person, I NEVER bring it up myself. I wait for the civvies to bring it up under those circumstances. And there are a few people I would have expected to bring that point up. When Rabbit died I was waiting for it, and it did not come.

I'm satisfied with your vote explanation. But who are you referring to here? Now's not the time to pull your punches.

linki: And bea replies, the plot thickens...

I mean people who know me well enough to know Rabbit and I have a dynamic, but not what it is. Epi for one.

@bea, damn Skippy I wouldn't kill him. And you know it; fwiw I didn't mean you.

I don't think you are likely to kill rabbit N1, but I don't think that exonerates you either. If you were Mafia, you would have a whole team to answer for. It wouldn't be just your decision.
I've excused people for this before, and been burned. Actually, I'm pretty sure even the last game I played I gave you a pass for how I thought you'd act towards people and you were definitely bad.

S~V~S wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

S~V~S wrote:ALSO,re framing, I am mega mega mega MEGA surprised that no one has tried to imply I was the one to kill Rabbit (or if they did I missed it). I know that when I kill someone when I am bad in order to frame another person, I NEVER bring it up myself. I wait for the civvies to bring it up under those circumstances. And there are a few people I would have expected to bring that point up. When Rabbit died I was waiting for it, and it did not come.

I'm satisfied with your vote explanation. But who are you referring to here? Now's not the time to pull your punches.

linki: And bea replies, the plot thickens...

I mean people who know me well enough to know Rabbit and I have a dynamic, but not what it is. Epi for one.

@bea, damn Skippy I wouldn't kill him. And you know it; fwiw I didn't mean you.

I don't think you are likely to kill rabbit N1, but I don't think that exonerates you either. If you were Mafia, you would have a whole team to answer for. It wouldn't be just your decision.
I've excused people for this before, and been burned. Actually, I'm pretty sure even the last game I played I gave you a pass for how I thought you'd act towards people and you were definitely bad.

Judgment is nigh, for the belsnickel ist I!



German.

Serge wrote:Though Holly was one of the sweetest person in The Office, I have to say

Her personality is like a 3. Her sense of humor is a 2. Her ears are like a 7 and a 4. Add it all up and what do you get? 16. And he treats her like she's a perfect 40. It's nuts.

RIP Quin

RIPIYWG Elo and leetic
Welcome new players! Bye nonplaying ones

I'm starting to wonder if it's maybe something else, because I can't place who would be under payroll.

Serge wrote:Receiving is Daryl, if he hasn't moved above yet. Maybe Pam's old boyfriend too?

Warehouse workers. I don't think they are ever referred to as "receiving" though. Dunder Mifflin mainly ships product out.

Quin wrote:

fingersplints wrote:Corporate. Possibility of more characters there. Accounting is always a maximum of 3 people. Plus, those characters are more likely to be bad story wise.

I forgot to say... Why all the Gabe hate? He isn't my favorite by any means, but I don't think he is that bad. I've really gainedan appreciation for some of the side characters on repeat viewings.
I saw an episode of that Silicon Valley show and I think the actor was funny there too.

I completely forgot his name Whenever I think of him all I can think of this that episode where he, Toby and Kelly all wore skeleton costumes.

Corporate. Possibility of more characters there. Accounting is always a maximum of 3 people. Plus, those characters are more likely to be bad story wise.

I forgot to say... Why all the Gabe hate? He isn't my favorite by any means, but I don't think he is that bad. I've really gainedan appreciation for some of the side characters on repeat viewings.
I saw an episode of that Silicon Valley show and I think the actor was funny there too.

Sorry forgot to say RIP bwt. I'm sorry I've been not as involved. I'll try to look at the people who voted him tomorrow and see if there are any red flags.

I still think Matt is bad, and I think him and Scotty are distancing. It does really seem like Matt chose me over Scotty to focus on, and Scotty's suspicion of him only really started after Epi called this out. (If I remember the timing correctly.) It also always makes me a little wary when someone says something like "but I suspected him" if that somehow clears them in a game with frequently multiple factions. Don't know. I need to form opinions on more people. As of right now Epi sounds most civvie to me, but I don't want to let agreeing with him cloud my judgement. I also think 3J, indi, and someone else I don't know (maybe DrumBeats? sarge? Maybe both) sound civvie. I agree with I think it was 3J that some of SVS seem off (about GTH reads) but I don't think it makes her bad. I don't think she would follow that line of questioning if bad. I can't see anything gained by it.

I am voting for accounting and corporate. There are no departments in the office called Payroll or Receiving.

Scotty wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Scotty wrote:hi JJJ and espers! Your predecessors were more silent than the 30th president of the USA. Thanks for being vocal!

My favorite one, since someone asked for more politics.

Scotty wrote:You never answered my post about why you would vote me over splints when Matt asked you. Can you pls?

Epignosis wrote:Matt is my number one suspect. He named two suspects but clung to fingersplints. I say he and Scotty are teammates.

That doesn't really answer my question. why do you think we're teammates?
I will say that when we were Mafia together on Lost-again, Matt went bananas trying to get our own teammate, Bullz, lynched day 1. But that is not the case with me and him, I can assure you. I think Matt is just bad and that's it.

fingersplints wrote:If Matt is bad I think this also looks bad for Scotty:

Scotty wrote:
@Matt Are you silenced? Where have you been?

It's really early in the day to be calling someone out for being silenced? It could be he knows he is silenced and trying to draw attention to it.

eyyyyy I'm glad we both are contemplating that Matt is bad.
Why is it too early to be calling someone out for not posting? How are we to know the terms of silencing? He hasn't posted since before the day 1 lynch, where he threw a vote on me and slid down hi escape slide.. That's a long time. So as a courtesy I want to know if he's silenced before I place a vote down on him without a proper defense.

Would you currently vote for Matt, since you seem to be contemplating it and aren't so concerned with his silencing?

@Dom is it possible to get that lovely Post History chart JJJ made stickied in the first page por favor?

I think most often silencing is a night action, and the person is silenced the following day only. Most frequently, imo, but not always. So that's why it seems weird to me for you to be saying someone is silenced hours into the start of a day. That combined with Matt pushing me over you look bad for you. I'm not one to say someone is definitely bad based on someone else until I am sure of that person. I don't regularly like to vote a silenced person unless I feel strong about it. I like to give people a chance to defend when possible. I have seen others say this too. And I have also seen baddies manipulate this by silencing one of their own in trouble. (Either real or pretend silenced)

So yes I am considering Matt. I am considering you. But I'll keep my vote where it is right now.

If Matt is bad I think this also looks bad for Scotty:

Scotty wrote:
@Matt Are you silenced? Where have you been?

It's really early in the day to be calling someone out for being silenced? It could be he knows he is silenced and trying to draw attention to it.