The Syndicate

I know you never tried to start one but your questioning of me seems to be what my votes are based around, it is just ironic that Matt F is part of it. Which would actually make him look like he is potentially trying to set you up.

Why is my vote bad? I see nothing wrong with voting for players using faulty logic.

I'll reference in a bit will tkae some linkage.

<-- Listening to Pet Sounds right now, love this album, good stuff.

Vote explanation:

I voted for Luke11646 because of this:

Boomslang wrote:

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later

So after we've discussed no lynch being a not particularly civ-friendly option, as well as established that changeable votes make throwing one out early not a big deal, you still go for the no lynch? Why so?

In fact, I'll throw my hat—er, vote—in the ring to draw some discussion.

Luke didn't respond until after I had already left for the night.

This is his response to Boomslang's statement

Luke11646 wrote:

Boomslang wrote:

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later

So after we've discussed no lynch being a not particularly civ-friendly option, as well as established that changeable votes make throwing one out early not a big deal, you still go for the no lynch? Why so?

In fact, I'll throw my hat—er, vote—in the ring to draw some discussion.

I've been busy lately and I haven't had time to read the thread until now so I just voted to say that I was here so that people wouldn't vote for me just because I wasn't here.

Then he votes for me with no explanation. I understand being busy, but based on his statement he just voted to feign activity which makes this even more suspicious.

@ Luke11646 I assume this is omgus? I would love an explanation.



This seems to have escalated quickly during my time at work, I stepped in while I was at work briefly and read a few posts and am now able to respond. Not quite sure why there is a scumwagon on me...

@ FZ. - How is opportunistic to vote for somebody who votes for no vote after a discussion of how no vote creates a bad situation for town? Your logic here seems a little backwards. After this he states he was faking activity because he was busy, why not say, hey I'm busy and will try and read shortly, it makes no sense to me. So then you place a vote on me with this backwards logic and then state you wont be around today, gotta love it.

FZ. wrote:I won't be on much today.

I found bcornett's post about Luke to be opportunistic, and don't get a good vibe from him. My vote goes there for now. Another possibility is Bullzeye for the same reasons.
Wilgy sounds fine to me.

FZ. wrote:I won't be back until the end of the day, so I'm leaving my vote on bcornett. It's the best I have for day 1. I hope more people come and talk.

This makes me feel a bit better about your vote for me.



@a2thezebra,
You don't have to buy my reasoning. But I will say your vote contains as much bullshit as mine if you used the same logic. I believe you a wagon is not a wagon! Opportunistic wagon much?



@ DrWilgy

DrWilgy wrote:When did I say I was trying to get a wagon going? It was just unfortunate that you already had a vote when you described no lynch as awesome, that's all. Plus we did get something good out of it, luke's questionable vote, that I would like to hear about in detail from him.

DrWilgy wrote:Ah! New game! Ok.

MM and Matt, since we don't have btsc yet, I'll ask something here. Which civ are we going to try to get a lynch wagon on today?

You started one on me by just asking me a question which I wasn't around to answer from work, though I do not think this was intentional. Ironically though, Matt F is actually on it... If somebody were to look back and take this with any seriousness, Matt has made you look really bad here.

DrWilgy wrote:Hmm... I also don't like Luke's vote... Meh, staying on Choutas for now.

Do you agree with what I said above about Luke's vote?

DrWilgy wrote:Ok, I'm a dummy, so...

Bcornett, what answer did/do you expect out of Enrique?

A response of any sort, but was apparently I was ignored. If there is one thing that I consistently do through all games, I like to reaction hunt.

TheFloyd73 wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Come on Choutas, let's get 9,000 posts in this game. You and me.

If you manage to do that I will be immensely impressed.

Does anyone find Zebra changing her vote a number of times somewhat suspicious?

Linki - I second bcornett's statement about keeping posts to a minimum.

@ Floyd - I never said anything about keeping posts to a minimum. I said I do not want to deal with the same post amount as last game. If post count is low it becomes very difficult to make reads on players.



Of everything that happened while I was gone I find Matt F, Bea, and Luke's votes for me to be the most suspicious as Matt F and Bea are basically saying they are voting for me because it is convient and Luke didn't even give a reason.

I'm working on a response.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting no lynch for the moment, might change later

I think this needs to change, no day one votes is a horrible idea Luke11646

Enrique wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I don't either, but Enrique hasn't had any experience with it. Why suspect him?

^

I kinda figured I'd end up getting votes if it turned to be a historically bad idea, but it caught my eye and it's not like there's been a lot more to discuss, even now.

So basically we play it hardcore these games. It's pretty essential to be getting our lynches right from the start or we're toast. That makes sense. Hope to see more discussion before the poll's up.

Why did you suspect that you would be getting votes? Why is it a bad idea to vote for you?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Come on Choutas, let's get 9,000 posts in this game. You and me.

I'm not sure I could deal with that after last game. I thought this game might be much more small and I would actually be able to keep up with the reading, which makes me excited to play.