The Syndicate

Tranq wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Tranq wrote:Rock.

Paper.

Lizard.

Spock.

And Country of course

So when is the game actually starting?

Golden wrote:

Typhoony wrote:So when is the game actually starting?

Now. Games don't start until you arrive to get the party started.

Too bad I was not around for all the pre-game entertainment though.

sig wrote:

Typhoony wrote:So when is the game actually starting?

What do you mean by this Typhoony?

I read the Day 1 posts after I woke up: Mac's bullshit didn't really have anything to do with this game and Dune was leaking over into this thread.

Hence my question when this game would be starting.

MacDougall wrote:

Bullzeye wrote:Didn't mean to press submit just yet. I have several favourite genres of music and felt that rather than pick one I'd just pick something different. I don't see why it should have to mean something.

This is unusual. Can anybody else claim that they did anything other than select their fave?

I did

Golden wrote:
Tranq, Typhoony?

What is your perspective on the game so far? Do you see anything that you think is noteworthy? Is there a reason that you are not saying much, and if so what is that reason?

Lots of things happened where I've been like "wat", but where I don't think it makes the people involved bad. See Macs policy thingy against Matt, Matts selfvote, Sorsha following Mac, our new players (Buglabush, Banana, Luke) posting and voting at random and I'm probably forgetting a few.
These things have already been discussed by the time I get here and I don't talk about things I find redundant. In short, it's Day 1.

Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting for tranq because he hasn't made any comments and isn't doing anything.

I like you. Voting Tranq is always a good idea in my book

I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

Dom wasn't interested either until he got votes on him. If buglabush was scum I would imagine his team would be screaming at him to contribute, probably even post coaching.

Bug looks like an island to me.

Did you actually read what I said?

I found none of the people with votes suspicious = they were all on an equal level of suspicion to me.
So I looked at other criteria. Buglabush acts like the kind of guy who goes to school, sits in the back while listening to music and randomly says words from time to time without actually saying anything just to annoy other people. Dom atleast seems willing to contribute.

Scissors.

Tranq wrote:I fell asleep and missed the vote. This won't happen again.

Rock.

You didn't post at all during Day 1. How tired were you?

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:The last time I went against the lynching of low posters, I was mafia.

To be fair I think there's an exception to make for day 1 lynches. Pursuing low posters (low-hanging fruit) for an entire game, yes, scummy as heck. Day 1 lynches, maybe, maybe not, when there are often no clear scum candidates it can be viable to remove them before they are used as fodder during more important days.

This is basically my stance on low-posters. No viable D1 candidate = > Low poster.
If someone continues not contributing and seems unwilling at all to contribute during the whole game, I will consider voting them later in the game as well.

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I'm not suspicious of anyone with votes, but Buglabush seems not interested at all in playing the game, even less than people who haven't posted at all.
*votes*

Dom wasn't interested either until he got votes on him. If buglabush was scum I would imagine his team would be screaming at him to contribute, probably even post coaching.

Bug looks like an island to me.

Did you actually read what I said?

I found none of the people with votes suspicious = they were all on an equal level of suspicion to me.
So I looked at other criteria. Buglabush acts like the kind of guy who goes to school, sits in the back while listening to music and randomly says words from time to time without actually saying anything just to annoy other people. Dom atleast seems willing to contribute.

Scissors.

What, of course I did? You said you voted for him because he wasn't interested in playing the game. You didn't say any of what you then said in this post I am quoting. Fuck, ping! How am I supposed to deduce all of what you said there from the post I quoted initially?

I color coded it to make it clear for you. Yes, you were supposed to deduce "any of what I then said".

Zebra, did you make your voting analysis on the basis that someone was likely saved D1? Or did you just want a point to start to look at a bunch of people?

Asking this again:
Zebra, did you make your voting analysis on the basis that someone was likely saved D1? Or did you just want a point to start to look at some people?

I think it's also worth pointing out that baddie team kills have a range of 2, so the kill depends on who is in their range.

Has Mister Zebra responded to my question that I asked yesterday?

Sorry I really don't have time to catch up atm, I'll do that during the Night.
I've quickly skimmed the last page. I see nutella and sig are the ones with more than 1 vote, I'm not very suspicious of either at this point and I don't have the time like yesterday to think about it.

I liked Tranqs point on Floyd, so that's where I'm putting my vote for today.

Time to catch up

Dogs.

Hooray, I finally caught up.
Stray thoughts:

- Sig: From what I understand, sig is prone to accidentally making himself look as bad as possible. His "currently" post warranted discussion, but the amount of people who decided to jump on it, as well as the amount of discussion surrounding it, is odd.
I think HamburgerBoy reacts logically to Bullz' case on sig, and I tend to agree with him on it. "Baddie slips" like these happen from time to time, but mostly they're poorly worded statements from civvies. It's pressing the people who make them that can reveal their intent. With sig, his defenses aren't helping him. I am a bit surprised that Golden went "How do all these people still have their votes on sig?", since he really made himself an easy target for a vote. On that note, I also found it interesting that Golden claimed to be the only one defending sig, while HamburgerBoy really did all the legwork in the beginning. Then again, Hboy has defended a load of people from what I've seen, sometimes unneccesary. Let people do their own defending at times, you are doing their work for them .
I don't think sig is bad, but from just reading his posts, I cannot fault anyone for voting him. I hope we don't have the same endless discussion surrounding him Day 3, since all that could be said surrounding it has been said imo. Let's move on.

- nutella: I tend to think I can read nutella's tone fairly well. I am not seeing baddie nutella here. Some interesting points against her were her D1 vote where she, knowingly, avoided the tie and her initially not saying anything about her alignment when asked by Golden. She did do this later, though.

I'd like to hear more from both of them about who they suspect instead of seeing them in defense mode for another Day.

- Juliets: She always asks a lot of questions like this, but I found it interesting that she popped up immediately when attention was brought onto her. I know she can be a lurker, but I hope she too can get a bit more involved instead of staying on the sidelines.

- Zebra vs Epi: Wow. Two people who are very confident in their own style of play with just the right amount of tunnelvision clash about the English language. Please don't do that to me again.
Epi sort of backpedalling on SVS is interesting. I don't know how often he actually does that.

- Luke's vote for sig came out of nowhere. I made a note saying that I hoped he explained it better further on, but I don't think he did. He never explained what good points Bull and Zebra made on sig, and I'd still like him to do that. He is also someone I'd like to hear more from.

- Floyd. I voted him yesterday. Saying "a vague reason is always a suspicious reason" is quite hypocritical when you don't give an initial reason for your D1 vote and don't vote at all D2. And Mac is not going to be modkilled for inactivity, I don't know what that comment was about.

I'm also going to keep a closer eye on Golden and TH. Not really for any particular reason I can ask you guys about, just mini pings here and there.

Epignosis wrote:My number #1 choice to lynch right now is Typhoony.

Explain.

Epignosis wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Zebra vs Epi: Wow. Two people who are very confident in their own style of play with just the right amount of tunnelvision clash about the English language. Please don't do that to me again.
Epi sort of backpedalling on SVS is interesting. I don't know how often he actually does that.

This right here.

People mock me for this (when they themselves don't understand the principle behind it), but I have caught Mafia a few times by looking out for and pressing people on the way they word their posts.

First, you raise the back and forth Zebra and I had without commenting on the content. If by "please don't do that to me again," you mean that you read it all, then what does it say about Zebra, if anything? Or me? Did it give you no impression whatsoever?

I was referring to your pointless back and forth about the English language. It was just a waste of my time to read all of it, hence "please don't do that to me again". It did not give me any idea about your alignment or zebras, it just gave me a headache.

Second, you called my interaction with S~V~S "interesting," without commenting on why it's interesting. You didn't ask questions about it. You didn't put any pressure on me. You didn't even ask people how often I do that, and, if you knew, state how that would factor into whether or not you believed I was good or bad. You just...mention it and move on.

I didn't call your interaction with SVS interesting, I called you backpedalling interesting, because in my head you have tunnel vision to the max and aren't prone to doing that all. Hence, you backpedaling is something I am not used to which is why it is interesting.

I only plucked this piece of your post out to give an example of the empty rhetoric that pervades your entire post. It is loaded with fence-riding that goes nowhere. You make a few soft defenses of a few people (like nutella, whom I also suspect) and restate your Day 2 reason for voting Floyd (piggybacking on what Tranq said). Then you throw TH and Golden in there for no specific reason.

This is why I suspect you.

And hey, you and nutella are in two different groups.

You're summing up my post as you see it. Thanks.

I'm here until the lynch ends or until I fall asleep, whichever one comes first. Who wants to talk?

Ok then.

I'm looking through the Bubbles stuff. Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

The theory:
Part 1:
On Day 1, Bubbles' baddie team gets a list of people they can kill. They choose Timmer.
On Day 1, but later, Bubbles voted Timmer because she "wanted him to post more."
Night 1, Timmer gets killed.

Golden's theory is that Bubbles is a baddie on the team that killed Timmer and that they had already decided they were going to kill Timmer BEFORE Bubbles voted Timmer.
Bubbles is aware of a time that a baddie distanced him/herself from a kill by mentioning that person in a post RIGHT after the night post was posted. . Because of this, she decides to vote Timmer in an attempt to distance herself.

Part 2:
Turnip Head asked Bubbles if she is bad. Bubbles replied with "Am I bad? Go by my track record".
The theory here is that this is an odd thing to say for bubbles, as she usually replies with a statement saying she was civ. The possibility is there that Bubbles made a different statement now because she knows there is a Lie Detector, or just because she is bad.

Is this all correct? Please someone correct me if it is wrong, because to me, this case doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Why is that, you ask? Why, thank you for asking:
Golden's theory part 1 would make a lot more sense if Bubbles had made a post about Timmer right before the nightpost, or right after. Now, the post was made during the Day, not during the Night as was the case in the game Golden is referring to.
On top of that, Golden is assuming that the baddie team had:
- Already received their targets AND
- Had already decided on their kill during the day

The first one I could see in a game like this... ( Hosts can you elaborate on this? ), the second one... It is not my experience that baddie teams decide who to kill during the Day, but it's not impossible. I don't think it's very likely though.

Part 2 is metabased. I've only played with Bubbles in RMIV and I died N1 there, so .I'll take your guys word for it.
Why have so many people voted Bubbles?

Linki: Thanks for, indeed, chucking your votes on there Floyd.

Up next: nutelLA
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well now, Typhoony, you just spend some time looking through the Bubbles case, aren't you tired yet?
Nah man sleep is for the weak.

Ok then.
Ugh, this seems like it'll take more time than Bubbles. Anyway:
----------------------------------------------------
Stuff that people have on nutelLA:
- First up: Matt Fs post about nutelLA (and Sorsha)
nutelLA spends most of her Day 1 contributing and in a span of 8 minutes she "throws her vote on Sorsha" (the original reason for looking at Sorsha is because Dom suspects her), avoiding the tie between Bugla/Dom/Banana. A minute later, she posts saying that the Bubbles catch is interesting, but that she would like to see a response from Bubbles first. Matt F finds this strange, saying that nutelLA never gave Sorsha this opportunity.
(Matt F sees a link between Sorsha and nutelLA because Sorsha does not respond to nutelLAs posts and subsequent vote)

nutelLA responds by saying she had to get going and in those eight minutes, she saw some inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts, which she does not elaborate on at this point. She does do this later after juliets asked for it.

My opinion:
I don't have any issues with nutella "throwing her vote on Sorsha" in an 8 minute timespan. It's Day 1, people sometimes don't have enough time to make a well informed vote, shit happens. The fact that she gave Bubbles the opportunity to explain but not Sorsha is suspicious, but I can see why she said it and it doesn't make her bad. I don't like how she evaded the tie between Bugla/Dom/Banana, but again, time constraints.

---------------------------------------------
In the same post that she responds to juliets, she also responds to Sorsha who made a post on her:
- Sorsha thinks that nutella had already decided to vote for her before the 8 minutes.
- nutelLA's reason to look at Sorsha is because Dom suspected Sorsha. However, right before nutelLa made the post saying she was going to look at Sorsha, she made a post saying she was unsure of Dom's allegiance.

nutelLA claims she had not already decided to vote for Sorsha and only looked at Sorsha because she remembered seeing Sorshas name mentioned a couple of times, and Dom made her remember that.

My opinion:
I do think it is very likely nutelLA had already decided to vote for Sorsha when she made the post that she was going to look at Sorsha, no matter what she says. Does that make her bad? No. Does it make me more suspicious of her? Yes, because her other choice was Buglabush, who was in the Day 1 tie and Sorsha was a "safe" vote, as in not likely to be lynched.
The fact that she looked at Sorsha because Dom mentioned her and she had no opinion on Dom is not weird to me. If she had simply said "Dom suspects Sorsha, I vote Sorsha", that would have been weird.
--------------------------------------
After this, Golden comes in with a post:
- He had asked nutelLA earlier if she was civ aligned (and some others) which she did not respond to. She did, however, say that the Bubbles catch (which is similar but much more meta-related) was "interesting". Golden says this could be a distancing post, it is also the post which made him realize nutelLA did not answer the question.

Nutella responds by saying that she is indeed civilian-aligned.

My opinion:
I don't think forgetting to say she was civ aligned was a deliberate mistake by nutella. I do think her post on Bubbles is weird and could definitely be seen as a classical distancing post. It can also be seen as a "Well hello, looks like we have a potential easy lynch target for the next day if everything works out" post. It could also be seen as what she actually said it was.
I don't think it's the first. The second is more likely than the third imo.

This seems to be the gist of the case. If I forgot anything or if you would like to revise something, let me know.

Overall nutella looks more suspicious than Bubbles than me, and after looking at this indepth I think I will give her one of my votes.

Linki: Hello. Do I smell this bad that nobody wants to talk?

Turnip Head wrote: Why are you looking into a player with 11+ votes less than three hours before deadline? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Because nobody showed interest in talking to me and I didn't have time to do an indepth look before this.

I'm hoping to figure out who I should vote for. nutelLA is probably one, the other one I don't know yet.

But you want to talk to me, so let's talk. Is there anyone you would like to discuss? What do you think of nutella?

Tranq is almost always quiet, but I agree his double TinyBubbles vote is lazy even for his standards. He even points out that in RMIV, Bubbles did not say she was civ either (she jokingly said she was bad), but still double votes her. The rest of the game he has been focused on other low posters.
From my experience he becomes more active as the game goes on but is earlier and eager to do so as a civ, especially if he deems it necessary.

Juliets reads like she been in panic mode for most of today, but I do not know if that means a baddie juliets or a civvie juliets.
You say you think she may be trying to make herself look better by hopping off the sigwagon. Do you think she suspects sig is not bad and voted him in the beginning despite that, or do you think as the day passed on she realized this?

Linki: Yes HB, my discussion on nutella is mild/neutral. But it is a better case than the one on Bubbles.

And the first part is to TH.

Who are you likely to vote for and why HB?

Oh hey, it's Luke with another non-explained vote. Would you be willing to explain this one to us once you get back?

Golden wrote:I find it odd that people find nutella the better option than bubbles. I'm definitely the opposite. I would be surprised if bubbles comes back civilian but I am much more on the fence about nutella. But I'm still feeling very hopeful that both are a team together.

How awesome would it be if a baddie team went down two people in one day.

Would you agree with my representation of the case against Bubbles or is there anything you would like to add/change?

Turnip Head wrote: I don't know what juliets thinks about sig tbh. I think she had her heart set on voting sig coming into the lynch, maybe to appear consistent with her vote yesterday. She caught flak for it and moved off of it. I think what's interesting is that she didn't stick to her guns by owning up to her vote, but she also didn't noticeably change her stance on sig either. She just sort of moved to other targets.

You said you thought she was possibly trying to make herself look better. I don't think her switching her vote (especially in the way you described) makes her look better, it makes her look flaky and unsure of what she's doing, ie panic mode. Is panic mode indicative of baddie juliets?

I voted nutella and luke for now, in case I fall asleep.

Luke11646 wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I voted nutella and luke for now, in case I fall asleep.

Why me?

Typhoony wrote:Oh hey, it's Luke with another non-explained vote. Would you be willing to explain this one to us once you get back?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Oops, wrong Dutch. I apologize.

Typhoony

No u.

I'm much more likely to vote Luke over sig if it comes down to it.

Did the nutella suspicion die down because people saw a connection between her and Bubbles?

Here you go, Draconus. My summary of the case(s) on nutelLA. Part of the suspicion on her was potential distancing from Bubbles, hence why it was mentioned.

Matt F wrote:

Typhoony wrote:Here you go, Draconus. My summary of the case(s) on nutelLA. Part of the suspicion on her was potential distancing from Bubbles, hence why it was mentioned.

Completely off topic, but I'm just curious...how do you find the url to a single post?

I click on that white thingy there if I want to get a direct link to your post. I think the title (ie "Re: Mafia: etc") works as well.

Tranq do you have an opinion about nutella?
You've never commented on her and the only thing you said about her is that you didn't have time to look at her case.

Did you ever find the time?

Typhoony wrote:Tranq do you have an opinion about nutella?
You've never commented on her and the only thing you said about her is that you didn't have time to look at her case.

Did you ever find the time?

Slight addition:
He also mentioned nutelLA here, saying that he liked Golden's theory on nutelLA and Bubbles re: the lie detector.

Sorsha wrote:Typhoony- What do you think of MM? Why do you think he voted for you?

I think he's a nub. Been making weird posts all game, one of the people who I would actually like to hear coherent thoughts from.

He voted me because I am Dutch and he likes to discriminate.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Is Luke getting votes because he hasn't been posting?

Pretty much. I'd be fine with Canucklehead or others going too though, but it's a better lynch than nutella. I don't think the switch regarding the lack of nutella votes a couple hours ago is a great point; golden tried very hard to establish a scumteam between the two (and myself) on tenuous evidence and that clearly didn't hold true. People seem to be switching back to her now purely on pressure from Epi; I don't suspect Epi but I do suspect those being pressured, especially Juliets.

Like who?

Voting nutella and going to sleep.
If Luke's answers suck I'll likely vote for him tomorrw

Voted Luke.

No ofcourse.
No good reason to vote yes imo.

DrWilgy wrote:

Typhoony wrote:No ofcourse.
No good reason to vote yes imo.

You're missing an eye bro.

Here, have another one

Also where the fuck is MetalMarsh?

Dude hasn't posted in days, still manages to be in the top half of posters yet I can't remember anything he has posted except for checking if polls has changeable votes like almost every day.

I'm gonna try and see if I can understand the case against juliets, cause I don't right now. (With some linki's now, for your pleasure. )
As always ,let me know if I missed something or if you disagree with how I said something.

It started with Epi's post where he said that comparing sigs sincerity to LCs was disingenuous. When Juliets asks why, Epi responds that " judging sig based on facts you didn't name because you got burned by Long Con stinks."
Juliets responds by saying she doesn't know anything about Sig and that sincerity does not equal civvieness. To which Epi responds that sig cannot sound sincere.
To conlude this saga:
Later Epi lists juliets as his suspect, when Juliets asks why, Epig responds.
He thinks that juliets' vote for sig is disingenuous. He expects a civ juliets to engage sig directly with questions instead of talk about him.

My opinion:
- I do not see a problem here. Juliets does not know sig => How would she know if he is able to sound genuine?
- Her posts read a bit like she is in panic mode to me. Last game I remember juliets being bad was Recruitment ... 2? When she was Erlatz. I don't remember her posting like she was in panic mode then, but truth be told, I don't remember how she was posting then at all. Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

-------------------------------------------------------

TH has a post where he points out that juliets got lynched (or almost) for similar reasons as sig did here.
She responds by saying that she acknowledges the case is not that good, but that it is the best one out there for peeps in group 1.

My opinion:
She voted for a shitcase... As you have probably many times TH. We already talked about this a bit but I don't see what would make her bad here? What would be her baddie reason to vote for a shitcase?

-------------------------------------------------------

Canuck made a post where she says juliets makes a concerted effort to misunderstand/ignore othe people's posts. Juliets says she has no idea what Canuck is talking about basically.

My opinion:
I have no idea what Canuck means either. I think Juliets has responded to everything people have thrown at her (hell, too eager and flimsy at times, ie panic mode). Combine that with the fact that Canuck ignores juliets post where juliets ask which posts she ignored, a point made by Canuck, is lolworthy and makes Canuck look worse than juliets imo.

----------------------------------------------------
Back to Epignosis:
His post this time is about juliets D1 vote for Banana. He does not believe a civ juliets would leave a pressure vote on low hanging fruit like Banana.
Juliets responds by saying she made more posts about Banana and that she left her vote there because Banana did not respond and she continued to be suspicious

My opinion:
Seems meta based, and I don't think this is uncivvie like for juliets. A link to a baddie game for juliets would help though

----------------------------------------------------

And last but not least, HamburgerBoys post about juliets. He says that:
- Juliets was the last one on the Luke train and this is a really bad look.
- She was pressured by Epi to change her vote from Luke to nutella.

My opinion:
Ok?
- How does this make her look bad Hboy? Juliets was indeed the last one on the Luke train, she had also said multiple times that she was away and wouldn't know for sure when she would be back.
- She already said her vote for Luke was provisional.

------------------------------

Overall:
What exactly in this is baddie behavior for juliets?
Her behavior overal has been iffy, asking lots of questions, changing opinions a lot, but is that baddie behavior? More specifically, is it baddie behavior for juliets?

Linki:

Here you go, MarshMellow. Enjoy.
Provisional vote on your spiky ass as well.

Epignosis wrote:

Typhoony wrote: Does anyone have a link to a game where Juliets was bad? Thank you

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... f=42&t=280

Thanks Epi.

No "thanks" for you Canuck.

nub juliets

Epi, I see you were juliets' teammate in the Champions game in which she was bad. I don't have the time to go through all her posts in that game atm, I'll do that tomorrow.

Is she acting the same in this game as she was in this game? And if so, how does that differentiate from her civvie game?

Sorsha wrote: I have ideas, yes. A couple people who I'll be keeping an eye on in regards to the Typh kill but nothing I can say solidly.
...
What do you think of the cases on Canuck by SVS and Typhoony by TH?

Nub.

There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets

When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.

Turnip Head wrote:

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets

When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.

Sorry, I was talking about your posts toDay, specifically looking for a post where you mentioned voting for her. It's why I asked.

Why would you rather not vote someone who doesn't have a vote?

If you had said "Why did Typh vote Canuck? I can only find a post where he said he voted MetalMarsh." or something that would have been more fair.
Your post makes it seem like I never even mentioned Canuck and that I never mentioned voting at all. Neither are true and for someone who claims to have looked through my post history, you should've known.

Tarnished Golem.

Turnip Head wrote:Speaking of completely ignoring the points raised against you...

Typhoony wrote:There is a case on me? All I see is a bunch of my posts quoted with a "You're weirding me out".

Your "case" was serious?

For reference, here is his case.
You quote 5 posts where I talk about juliets (2 of which were spurred on because you asked me to talk about her, 2 of which were because I wanted to look indepth at juliets, as I've done with Bubbles and nutella before).

You then say this:

nub wrote:There's something fishy about how you're approaching juliets in this game Typh. You clearly want to talk about her, albeit through the lens of her being talked about by others, but in all of these posts, with all of these questions directed at other players' cases, I have no idea where you really stand on the subject of juliets. Your posts seem designed to either dispute the points made by others, or push them to reinforce their cases. While I appreciate you being so considerate, it feels like you're being a mediator rather than a participant in the discussion. It's weirding me out.

These are observations. There is no accusation. There is no question. Hell, later on you even say that your opinion of me is reliant upon juliets.

Which points (plural, please. You said points, give me multiple things) in your case against me would you like me to respond to TH? Come on, let's have some fun here.

For the record, I will not vote juliets. I do not think she is bad. I looked at her posts in the Champions game epi linked. When she was put under pressure, never did she go into panic mode like she did in this game. She made multiple long winded catch-uppy like posts talking about everything that had been going on, and she didn't seem to go to that much trouble in this game.
I see a lazy juliets who asks a shitload of questions to blend in, I see a juliets who mixes things up, who is iffy and uncertain, a juliets who seems disinterested at times. If she had teammates I don't think she would be playing like this.