The Syndicate

Wait... We won this?

rezz plz

Hey look. I'm dead now.

Hey look. I'm dead now.

G-Man am I immortal?

...or should I say... Dank...

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I won't, however, feel bad for lynching people who post Linkin Park videos. I effing hate Linkin Park.
Your the one responsible for this being posted.
I too don't feel bad about this. Go to Hell.

Box me m8! I'll not go down without a good meme!

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I won't, however, feel bad for lynching people who post Linkin Park videos. I effing hate Linkin Park.

Your the one responsible for this being posted.

me_irl_atm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I expect a town flip given his posts after the deadline.

You mean no lynch right?

Shoulda voted for posting delays.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Sorry if I made the wrong move, Wilgy. I dunno. One frustration is that every wagon I started today resulted in me wanting to lynch those people less. Either I've been duped by someone's emotions, or all three baddies are non-obvious people.

Based on this and your reaction to what I just stated, I'm willing to bet either you or INH is bad. Idk about both, but I'll bet one of you two is bad.

Look into this when I'm gone Sloonei and Dom, I trust you two together.

Someone look at INH's vote records after I'm gone. If his votes have been irrelevant many times in a row he may be Cundilini hiding his lack of vote power.

I was really hoping to survive this game too. Better luck next time me.

Eh, this will prove if JJJ isn't Cundalini so not all is lost. If JJJ is Cundalini this will result in a no lynch.

M'kay

Have a good round everyone. Remember who lied and what I've stated. I tried my best.

Scotty wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Scotty wrote:Changed to Wilgy.
What is your strategy right now?
Trying to make an informed vote in 10 minutes.

You are doing it wrong.

Scotty wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
Scotty wrote:Changed to Wilgy.
What is your strategy right now?
Trying to make an informed vote in 10 minutes.
So Wilgy is your most confident scum read?

just asking for clarification, not trying to grill you.
It was before the night ended. But I feel like Dom could be bamboozling us.

I also don't like that he wanted to CFD me

Give me reason to not want to CFD you.

Glorfindel wrote:I come back to this thread and what do I find? Isn't this just charming... Seriously, if I'm the best you guys can come up with, we're in more trouble than I could've imagined...

I've literally read next to nothing that's been posted this Day phase so on the basis of my inability to make an informed decision right now, self preservation will determine my vote.

so self preserve elsewhere

I declare CFD on Scotty.

#SloonGate

Yo Dom, move your vote ya dingus.

I don't know if baddie Dom would use all caps. I'm having my doubts now, but at for self preservation I'm unable to move.

Dom wrote:Note: Quinn never did the promised ISO on me.

Quin and Sloonei are bad. This is so clearly a coordinated attack on me right now.

Part of me can believe this -__-

Quin wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Elo analyzed
Elohcin wrote:
LoRab wrote:Epi expressed suspicion of Elo earlier, which interests me because they read each other well. Would love for him to elaborate on his thoughts.
I seriously thought his actions were a joke or trying to get a rise out of me or something. I think my reaction was what would determine his thoughts of me. Too bad I had to react after midnight after several drinks (when I don't drink often at all). It probably is what started me off on the wrong track for this game.
No longer super suspicious of the LoRab.
Is that interaction really enough for you to discard four days worth of posts against her?

linki: On my quick read through before I started reading into Wilgy he just appeared frustrated. Which is a word that hasn't had a very predictable meaning in this game.
Hard evidence of alignment is worth changing views. If I begin to doubt my read on LoRab again, I can reference my old suspicion, but until then, Eloh is the hardest evidence we have.

Linki - I don't remember the game, but Dom was bad and I caught him through him repeating something I had already asked. I think LoRab was the question receiver. I'll need to find the game.
Where is this hard evidence? All I see is an accusation based on Epi's ability to read Elo well and a joke post.

It was LoRab encouraging Epi to express or elaborate his suspicions on Elo.

What makes me feel that this is not a team action is that instead of saying "Epi thought Eloh was bad so she is bad" she said "Epi, elaborate on your Eloh suspicions". I feel that if this was for team distancing it would have been presented in the former rather than the latter and thus was not a team interaction.

Quin wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Elo analyzed
Elohcin wrote:
LoRab wrote:Epi expressed suspicion of Elo earlier, which interests me because they read each other well. Would love for him to elaborate on his thoughts.
I seriously thought his actions were a joke or trying to get a rise out of me or something. I think my reaction was what would determine his thoughts of me. Too bad I had to react after midnight after several drinks (when I don't drink often at all). It probably is what started me off on the wrong track for this game.
No longer super suspicious of the LoRab.
Is that interaction really enough for you to discard four days worth of posts against her?

linki: On my quick read through before I started reading into Wilgy he just appeared frustrated. Which is a word that hasn't had a very predictable meaning in this game.

Hard evidence of alignment is worth changing views. If I begin to doubt my read on LoRab again, I can reference my old suspicion, but until then, Eloh is the hardest evidence we have.

Linki - I don't remember the game, but Dom was bad and I caught him through him repeating something I had already asked. I think LoRab was the question receiver. I'll need to find the game.

@Sloonei I want him to be bad more so than I feel that he is bad. It is causing my ability to read his reaction to his recent wagon clearly.

Part of me wants to think it's similar to when I caught him last time, but again I want him to be bad and it's skewing my read.

DrWilgy wrote:Elo analyzed
Elohcin wrote:
LoRab wrote:Epi expressed suspicion of Elo earlier, which interests me because they read each other well. Would love for him to elaborate on his thoughts.
I seriously thought his actions were a joke or trying to get a rise out of me or something. I think my reaction was what would determine his thoughts of me. Too bad I had to react after midnight after several drinks (when I don't drink often at all). It probably is what started me off on the wrong track for this game.
No longer super suspicious of the LoRab.

I took a look at Eloh's iso and found that LoRab is most likely not a teammate. Let me find the quote were I pointed this out Quin.

Quin now that you are no longer defending your dear Sloon, why are you still voting for me?

motel room wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Motel room, you realize the alternate vote form me during that flip flop was a no lynch right?

Linki - that gives me leeway to vote Dom. I'm in.
Yeah but you put it there. You tied it.

?

I'm not sure what you mean by me tieing it. I did the opposite.

Motel room, you realize the alternate vote form me during that flip flop was a no lynch right?

Linki - that gives me leeway to vote Dom. I'm in.

To explain my Epi view Sloonei - it reminds me alot of Lost... I think it was lost at least. Towards the end of the game it came down to Epi, I and afew others. That game, like this one, I read Epi as bad, but in that game he ended up being civ.

The tldr is I tone read bad Epi, but last time I tone read bad Epi I was wrong.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Wilgy, you had your vote on Dom and then moved it to Sloonei. Why?

Because Dom is voting Sloonei. If Dom becomes a leading wagon, I'll die in his self preservation, unless others move.

We are caught in a situation where we have 2 stagnant wagons due to people not being here. One of those happens to be a person I want lynched the other happens to be me. It's quite the kerfuffle.

DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Who out there objects to a Dom lynch?
At this point, I'm good as long as it isn't me -__-

It's like I said. I have no thoughts about Dom. He's mostly bad on my list by default.

While I'd like to murk someone I find suspect or at least vive bad, survival is priority.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Who out there objects to a Dom lynch?

At this point, I'm good as long as it isn't me -__-

Gth explanation and reasoning.

Dom - bad - I have no memory of any posts or opinions from Dom and this doesn't sit right with me. Be it my inability to notice or him sitting back and to playing much, I wouldn't know.
Epi - bad - this one was hard fpr me. I had read town Zebra all game, but I feel baddie Epi vibes. I think the scenario where this isn't baddie Epi, this is jus a reoccurring version of lost mafia Epi.
Glorf - good - based on the exchange we had regarding vote numbers, I think glorf is civ. I think that baddie glorf wpuld have had less confusion regarding the polls.
Inh - good - based soley on lynch survival.
JJJ - good - based soley on nk survival.
LoRab - good - interactions with Eloh make Lorab not her teammate.
Motel - good - comparing Motel this game to when he was on my team in the gane of champs is why I think he's good. In the game of champs he was busy and didn't wcen try to hide the fact he wasn't contributing, but In this game he seems busy but still tries to state his mind.
Quin - bad - voting to save the Sloonster when I'm suspecting the sloonster.
Scotty - bad - I have no memory of Scotty, but I read sprityo as bad before they left.
Sloonei - bad - click on my "in thread" posts.

That's all of my gth thoughts.

Yolo voting Scotty. What are the general thoughts on him?

I remember suspecting sprityo, but have no mememory of readin anything Scotty has said since joinin the game.

Yeah gimme a moment Sloon.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:The way I said it was supposed to translate to "wilgy never said I was gth good" and "wilgy says gth bad isn't the same as vote worthy"
So when Quin asked you how you felt about Sloonei, and you responded with "he's not on my baddiedar", you meant "I still suspect him but wouldn't vote for him"?

98% correct. The suspicion was light, and quite honestly more of a "I don't trust this person" but mostly "I have no impulse to vote for him" is what I was wanting to express.

Linki
Dom - bad
Epi - bad
Glorf - good
Inh - good
JJJ - good
LoRab - good
Motel - good
Quin - bad
Scotty - bad
Sloonei - bad

Linki linki - I agree, but unfortunately I'm not at the leisure to change my vote for long, nor are my reads on any other player strong enought to vote for.

The issue is we are chasing our tails. The more you respond to me the more I have to go back to the main issue.

I can see why you see inconsistency in my posts. I was not clear between defining "I would vote for you" and "gth you are bad" since day 2 I've gth'd you bad and that never changed. I was considering voting for you that day, but voting Rico or LoRab was more pressing.

Backtracking, however, or claiming things didn't happen I will refute. Not being out of my good graces was true as I still had you gth bad. You weren't someone I'd vote for, but not someone I'd vote with (as explained earlier). Pointing out that baddiedar and not being in good graces was not backtracking, rather explaining my perspective.

The main issue you have with me Sloonei is that you don't know how to define "blank 1 and blank 2". I can tell you all day how these are defined, but if you don't want to believe them it's upto you.

You read the exchange as "wilgy says him claiming I wasn't bad never happened" and "wilgy says being bad isn't being bad"

The way I said it was supposed to translate to "wilgy never said I was gth good" and "wilgy says gth bad isn't the same as vote worthy"

This is too much of a mess to do from phone. Rip me.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Snipped for brevity
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.

Honestly at this point with how little time ive had to read/contribute all my thoughts are just a gth random mess.
You think this computes over here? "Off the baddiedar" seems to strongly suggest "not a suspect".
And followed up here.
DrWilgy wrote:Nah. Baddies I'd vote for. GTH baddies I still need to think about.

Glorf why is it 5-3 then?
And that was the full conversation on the subject, unless you adressed me without a quote and I missed it.
My suspicion comes down to whether or not I believe you here, and at the moment I do not. But there's still plenty we can pull out from here to work on this some more. Let's look at these words you said:
DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.
Why would you have no impulse to vote for me if you GTH me as bad? Am I a suspect or am I not? You claim that your Day 4 vote was based on the strategy of avoiding having your vote align with mine. Ouch, that's pretty damning. Yet I'm not a player you'd vote for? This, once again, does not compute.

But this also still leaves the biggest question I have up in the air, and that is the original point I brought up. You took me off your baddiedar on Night 2 and then later, on Day/Night 4, you tried to say that I'd never been removed as a suspect. "baddiedar" to me just looks like a playful way of saying "suspect". Kinda like how I ask people who they're voting for rather than who they suspect. It's fine to change your mind every once in a while, so I'd make no objection if you removed me on Day 2 and then put me back on on Day 4. But the way you tried to, apparently, backtrack out of this, first by saying it never happened, and then by saying there's a difference between "baddiedar" and your GTH reads. I feel like you were caught in a slip up and then tried to lie about it. If I am wrong I'll make a note of it for future games. I don't think I am wrong.
I'm unsure how this doesn't make sense if you understand the difference between I'd vote for ______ and I suspect _____. Day 2 I would've voted for you. Happily actually. I still need to quote for JJJ what made me think that and will do asap. Day 4, I wouldn't have voted for you, but vote along you? No way.

Tell me when I backtracked? When I stated this never happened. No wait I just checked to make sure I'm not just wrong in the head, I never claimed that you coming off my baddiedar never happened. I did however say you weren't in my good graces. As far as I'm concerned you've always been a suspect for me, but I've only wanted to vote for you day 2 and then after the "If INH flips town, then Wilgy looks bad" claim.
The backtracking is in my interpretation of your actions. I still stand by it. I take "off my baddiedar" to mean that I am not a suspect. You later said I had "never left your bad graces". The language is different, but the sentiment in the former comes back to me as "Sloonei is not a suspect", and in the latter it comes back as "Sloonei is a suspect and always has been." This is a contradiction as I see it. Your response has been to deny that this contradiction exists by explaining that there are categorically different kinds of suspicions in the game, and that I met the parameters for Suspicion Type A, but not for Suspicion Type B. I simply am not buying it. You'll need to sell it to me if you want me to read you as town.

Pointing out another lie in green, and responding to this.

You see this is fine, I can unsterstand this perspective as my manner pf speech wasn't specific. I didn't however state that it never happened and I'm unsure how I backtracked. I didn't go back and say "I didn't mean blank" or "blank didn't happen" I did however express my opinions of you.

I'm not going to sell my suspicion of you to you, it's a waste of time and effort. While I don't believe your suspicion of me is genuine (based on misinformation and over exaggerations which are by nature lies) and you cant believe my genuine suspicion of you (based on my non-clarity of speech), that's just how it's going to be unless one of us is willing to force shift our perspective.

Linki - @Sloonei The post you linked in the above spoiler "You made this post to address what I think you thought was my biggest reason for suspecting you." was the incorrect post. I know why you suspect me and adressed it before the linked post.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:Wilgy seems hellbent on combatting everything I say regardless, and Dom has just wildly misunderstood a post I made. From most suspicious to least:
Wilgy
Epi
Dom

I'd still like to take a look at LoRab, I'll do that after breakfast.

Linki: it's self-preservation now, but his behavior has been resolutely opposed to me for a while now.
Of course I'm hellbent on countering everything you say. You are actively lying about me and thigs I've done to incriminate me.
What am I currently lying about? I think you scumslipped and are therefore bad. You are rejecting everything I say about you. You said it's ridiculous that I waited to learn the alignment of a player you cast the deciding vote against before I judged your actions. That's just blind contradiction, honestly.

Here's one. I haven't regected everything you have said Sloon. I understand your suspicion, and explained my perspective on it. We don't need to agree on that, it's perspective and I can't reject that, but why over exaggerate?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Of course I'm hellbent on countering everything you say. You are actively lying about me and thigs I've done to incriminate me.
I'm listening, Wilgy. I'm just having a little trouble following. Would you be able to make a point-by-point list of the lies you feel Sloonei has told and also provide the specific posts you're referencing both from yourself and from Sloonei which show that he is stating falsehoods?

I'm not going to help lynch you (or trust Sloonei) by default. I'm open to hearing you out, I just need some help here. If you feel you've already done this clearly, please point the way.

You see this is hard but I can highlight afew. My 1, 2, 3 is a good starting point.

This is a good example of having alot to voivlce and say but not enough time to say it.

Sloonei wrote:Wilgy seems hellbent on combatting everything I say regardless, and Dom has just wildly misunderstood a post I made. From most suspicious to least:
Wilgy
Epi
Dom

I'd still like to take a look at LoRab, I'll do that after breakfast.

Linki: it's self-preservation now, but his behavior has been resolutely opposed to me for a while now.

Of course I'm hellbent on countering everything you say. You are actively lying about me and thigs I've done to incriminate me.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:if INH is town, Wilgy looks bad right now.
Actually, you are bad. Explain this Sloonei.
While a single sentence may be hard, the strongest cause of suspicion is in the above quote.

I feel that Sloonei was fully expecting a INH civ flip and over eagerly tried to throw fault at me for thus flip.
I was not.

Sloonei wrote:Mostly your treatment of after the deadline. I only qualified the statement because if INH flipped bad it'd be hard to argue that the guy who just hammered on a baddie is also a baddie. But, from my perspective, it looks like you genuinely just forgot that you'd dropped your suspicion of me and then had to cover your tracks.
Plus you never told us why you went from INH to indi and back to INH in the final minutes. What inspired you to move your vote to indiglo? How do you feel about Glorfindel?
This is irrelevant to the question I asked. "from my perspective" is also a fodder statement. Of course this is from your perspective, this is your thought. I get baddie vibes from fodder statements like this, as it's symptoms of a skittling player. Baddies skittle more than civs.
This is just false as I explained my vote changes in the following quotes.
[a bunch of quotes where Wilgy explains what he was doing at the end of Day 5]

Linki - Stop saying things that aren't happening Sloonei.
RE: The orange: How is that irrelevant to what you asked? You asked my explain why you looked bad. I think you look bad because you appear to have forgotten what your read on me was. That's the #1 reason I suspect you, how can you say it's irrelevant to the question of why I think you are bad. And I added the "from my perspective" thing because I don't think anyone else would be as hyper-aware of what your read on me is/was as I am. Yeah, it's a bit of a redundancy but whatever.

I admit the blue part is false. It was a chaotic end of day. I suppose I was hoping you'd give a more substantive reason to suspect either indiglo or INH, rather than just eyeballing the bandwagon participants.

But since we're on the subject, you looked a little skittish at that end of day yourself, the way you danced around with your vote. Regardless of what your reasoning was, you appeared very indecisive.
Re re orange: because it is irrelevant to what I asked, you also snipped too much of the conversation. The context you presented was "If INH flips good, Wilgy looks bad" how did INH and I have anything to do with one another that would have caused this blanket statement? I'm aware of the previous suspicion that you restated that I outlined in orange, but how does that have anything to do with the relationship between inh and I if INH was town and me being bad?
I already explained this as well. I qualified that statement the way I did because if INH had flipped bad, you'd look good for having provided the deciding vote in his lynch. If he flipped good, you are just a guy who hammered on a townie. That is your association. You voted to lynch him.

This is silly. One could've stated "If Indiglo flips good, Wilgy looks good" or "if INH flips bad, Wilgy looks good". Assuming you are civilian, you had no means of telling indi's or INH's alignment. Looking back on it, now that we know Indiglo's alignment, your claim was even sillier.

Sloonei, what do you think of the value of a gth as a game progresses?

Sloonei wrote:Snipped for brevity
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.

Honestly at this point with how little time ive had to read/contribute all my thoughts are just a gth random mess.
You think this computes over here? "Off the baddiedar" seems to strongly suggest "not a suspect".
And followed up here.
DrWilgy wrote:Nah. Baddies I'd vote for. GTH baddies I still need to think about.

Glorf why is it 5-3 then?
And that was the full conversation on the subject, unless you adressed me without a quote and I missed it.
My suspicion comes down to whether or not I believe you here, and at the moment I do not. But there's still plenty we can pull out from here to work on this some more. Let's look at these words you said:
DrWilgy wrote: No baddiedar is different. I have no impulse to vote for you but in a gth scenario I do think you are still bad.
Why would you have no impulse to vote for me if you GTH me as bad? Am I a suspect or am I not? You claim that your Day 4 vote was based on the strategy of avoiding having your vote align with mine. Ouch, that's pretty damning. Yet I'm not a player you'd vote for? This, once again, does not compute.

But this also still leaves the biggest question I have up in the air, and that is the original point I brought up. You took me off your baddiedar on Night 2 and then later, on Day/Night 4, you tried to say that I'd never been removed as a suspect. "baddiedar" to me just looks like a playful way of saying "suspect". Kinda like how I ask people who they're voting for rather than who they suspect. It's fine to change your mind every once in a while, so I'd make no objection if you removed me on Day 2 and then put me back on on Day 4. But the way you tried to, apparently, backtrack out of this, first by saying it never happened, and then by saying there's a difference between "baddiedar" and your GTH reads. I feel like you were caught in a slip up and then tried to lie about it. If I am wrong I'll make a note of it for future games. I don't think I am wrong.

I'm unsure how this doesn't make sense if you understand the difference between I'd vote for ______ and I suspect _____. Day 2 I would've voted for you. Happily actually. I still need to quote for JJJ what made me think that and will do asap. Day 4, I wouldn't have voted for you, but vote along you? No way.

Tell me when I backtracked? When I stated this never happened. No wait I just checked to make sure I'm not just wrong in the head, I never claimed that you coming off my baddiedar never happened. I did however say you weren't in my good graces. As far as I'm concerned you've always been a suspect for me, but I've only wanted to vote for you day 2 and then after the "If INH flips town, then Wilgy looks bad" claim.

Sloonei wrote: But since we're on the subject, you looked a little skittish at that end of day yourself, the way you danced around with your vote. Regardless of what your reasoning was, you appeared very indecisive.

Of course I was indecisive. I joined in the discussion with less than 10 minutes to vote and a tie to break.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
Sloonei wrote:if INH is town, Wilgy looks bad right now.
Actually, you are bad. Explain this Sloonei.
While a single sentence may be hard, the strongest cause of suspicion is in the above quote.

I feel that Sloonei was fully expecting a INH civ flip and over eagerly tried to throw fault at me for thus flip.
I was not.

Sloonei wrote:Mostly your treatment of after the deadline. I only qualified the statement because if INH flipped bad it'd be hard to argue that the guy who just hammered on a baddie is also a baddie. But, from my perspective, it looks like you genuinely just forgot that you'd dropped your suspicion of me and then had to cover your tracks.
Plus you never told us why you went from INH to indi and back to INH in the final minutes. What inspired you to move your vote to indiglo? How do you feel about Glorfindel?
This is irrelevant to the question I asked. "from my perspective" is also a fodder statement. Of course this is from your perspective, this is your thought. I get baddie vibes from fodder statements like this, as it's symptoms of a skittling player. Baddies skittle more than civs.
This is just false as I explained my vote changes in the following quotes.
[a bunch of quotes where Wilgy explains what he was doing at the end of Day 5]

Linki - Stop saying things that aren't happening Sloonei.
RE: The orange: How is that irrelevant to what you asked? You asked my explain why you looked bad. I think you look bad because you appear to have forgotten what your read on me was. That's the #1 reason I suspect you, how can you say it's irrelevant to the question of why I think you are bad. And I added the "from my perspective" thing because I don't think anyone else would be as hyper-aware of what your read on me is/was as I am. Yeah, it's a bit of a redundancy but whatever.

I admit the blue part is false. It was a chaotic end of day. I suppose I was hoping you'd give a more substantive reason to suspect either indiglo or INH, rather than just eyeballing the bandwagon participants.

But since we're on the subject, you looked a little skittish at that end of day yourself, the way you danced around with your vote. Regardless of what your reasoning was, you appeared very indecisive.

Re re orange: because it is irrelevant to what I asked, you also snipped too much of the conversation. The context you presented was "If INH flips good, Wilgy looks bad" how did INH and I have anything to do with one another that would have caused this blanket statement? I'm aware of the previous suspicion that you restated that I outlined in orange, but how does that have anything to do with the relationship between inh and I if INH was town and me being bad?

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:@Sloon the 3 false infos you haev provided as follows:
1. Claiming I hadn't explained my voting the day I had to swap between INH and indiglo.
2. Claiming I hadn't responded to your primary suspicion of me.
3. Claiming that I'm inconsistent for quoting and responding to something directed at JJJ.

I'll need to tackle your last posts 1 at a time Sloon.
1. Fair, acknowledged.
2. You hadn't. You responded to my initial gripes but hadn't addressed the full blown case. But that wasn't really something I suspected you for. I was just pointing out that you'd not responded to it yet because you seemed to be making an effort to (appreciated) but hadn't gotten around to it yet.
3. That was a misunderstanding and, again, not something I found you suspicious for.

Point 2 - where in my pointing out to adressing your suspicion did I not provide? And dont say your recent posts because thats coming.
Point 3 - false information spread is still false information.

I can imagine someone making a mistake, but it's hard for me not to have suspicion of this when you hit strike 3 Sloon.

Linki - have fun talk to you tomorrow Sloonei.

@Sloon the 3 false infos you haev provided as follows:
1. Claiming I hadn't explained my voting the day I had to swap between INH and indiglo.
2. Claiming I hadn't responded to your primary suspicion of me.
3. Claiming that I'm inconsistent for quoting and responding to something directed at JJJ.

I'll need to tackle your last posts 1 at a time Sloon.

Sloonei wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:
LoRab wrote:Putting vote on Wilgy for now. Mainly because I don't want to forget to vote tomorrow.

I may change. Likely will. But Wilgy feels like the right choice for the moment.
-__-

Hmm... I don't think this is the case, but how would the votes have looked if both Elo and Lorab were bad? Those few days ago
If you don't think it's the case, what interest is it to you?
Simply because we can't ignore plausible options. If enough evidence appears for me to believe that Lorab may be bad it will be a good thought.
I am not sure I understand your original question here.

*Fixed

Search found 125 matches