The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:Preliminary reports indicate that Golden is GCPD or independent. Civ Golden loves to argue like it's his day job or something.

If this is anything like X-men (I didn't play Star Wars so I forget how it worked) this poll is simply deciding the order of the locations we visit. There's no grid so I doubt it's a full fledged map like World Reborn.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Preliminary reports indicate that Golden is GCPD or independent. Civ Golden loves to argue like it's his day job or something.

If this is anything like X-men (I didn't play Star Wars so I forget how it worked) this poll is simply deciding the order of the locations we visit. There's no grid so I doubt it's a full fledged map like World Reborn.

I don't disagree, but if he's arguing so much, why would he be independent-- according to this line of logic?

Well, Indy Golden loves to argue too, even when he doesn't have to if Star Wars is any indication. But I think his mafia-hunting perspective is genuine and that could line up with some of the inmates' goals. He could also be setting up a supatown persona in the event that he's a cop and gets bought off, but that hasn't happened yet.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:Preliminary reports indicate that Golden is GCPD or independent. Civ Golden loves to argue like it's his day job or something.

If this is anything like X-men (I didn't play Star Wars so I forget how it worked) this poll is simply deciding the order of the locations we visit. There's no grid so I doubt it's a full fledged map like World Reborn.

I don't disagree, but if he's arguing so much, why would he be independent-- according to this line of logic?

Well, Indy Golden loves to argue too, even when he doesn't have to if Star Wars is any indication. But I think his mafia-hunting perspective is genuine and that could line up with some of the inmates' goals. He could also be setting up a supatown persona in the event that he's a cop and gets bought off, but that hasn't happened yet.

Do you think Golden wants/hopes to be bought off?

No, I think he likes playing as a civ, but he wouldn't really have a choice in the matter.

Enrique wrote:

Dom wrote:I don't buy for one second you didn't recognize 8.

I find this post completely ridiculous, seriously. Why should I associate every instance of a single digit number with Lost? I know what the numbers are, but where do they come in here? What is there for you to buy?

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:@Hosts - what happens if both crime families try to buy off the same cop?

Bass's idea sounds sensible enough, but I'd also point out that everyone from the Asylum appears to be independent. So, it might not help us find the crime families (who seem more analagous to mafia).

But a lot of those independents don't seem exactly friendly.

Independents whom most civvies need dead to win

They do? It doesn't look to me like ANY civilians need the independents dead, to me. Whereas the town definitely needs the crime families dead.

This is literally the first think I noticed when I got my role card, so right back at you.

This post, juliets. It can be interpreted as "we don't need ALL independents [correction: baddies] dead," but look at that last bit. This is literally the first thing I noticed when I got my role card. That's not how it works. All but three civvie roles NEED to kill indies to even win the game. No matter if they can win with the other nine, the fact is that civvies can't win without indie hunting, and he even proposes just hunting the baddies and leaving the rest to luck. What kind of role card even suggests that? Well, there are three civvie options. And fifteen baddie ones.

Enrique wrote:Okay, look. Killing the mafias isn't enough for nearly all the civvies. It is ABSOLUTELY something that we need to pursue, but there's a lot more to the game, and nobody should dismiss the inmates that easily. S~V~S, we can't lynch the mafia and then the inmates, because when the mafia dies the game ENDS. There are three civvies and ten inmates who can possibly win this way. Just think about that.

That is what I've been trying to say and honestly I don't think it's that complicated.

Enrique wrote:Could we discuss Dom's ridiculous spin for a bit? Regardless of whatever Golden meant in that post, and I'm serious, completely disregarding it. Did anybody read that post and think "oh haha they're talking about the Lost numbers!"? S~V~S confirmed that was the case, and if you did think of that then power to you, but that's not how my brain works. Why then would Dom use that against me? It makes zero sense and it just comes off as an opportunistic attempt to get the ball rolling against me.

Dom, you're free to disagree with any of my views, but seriously, dude? Should I look into every usage of a Lost number in this forum and call out people who don't recognize them? I don't understand. I guess my original point was more along the lines of "cops might use numbers to hint at their roles to recruiters," and there's a very small chance that's gonna happen anymore, but don't tell me it wasn't relevant to the conversation then.

TH, that sig then looks pretty normal to me. "Don't lynch me now, at least let me play a bit." I dunno why he didn't respond but it doesn't say anything to me either.

@linki: but what useful info can we get on the scum? This contradicts your whole attitude re: indies before.
@linki2: again, I'm not focusing specifically on the inmates, but exclusive mafia hunting is a terrible idea for anyone who isn't bad.

Enrique wrote:Dom I'm sorry, I will never take that post seriously. It came out of nowhere and it's one of the dumbest things I've ever been accused of. I'll ask again, how many here read that post and thought oooh Lost?

Enrique wrote:

Dom wrote:I don't buy for one second you didn't recognize 8.

I don't know, what was I accused of? I don't understand it either.

@linki: not by sitting back and ending the game prematurely!!!

Enrique wrote:You're not buying, but the deal is I wasn't selling anything. That phrase has all sorts of negative implications, over what? What ARE you saying?

Enrique wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Enrique wrote:Dom I'm sorry, I will never take that post seriously. It came out of nowhere and it's one of the dumbest things I've ever been accused of. I'll ask again, how many here read that post and thought oooh Lost?

I did, but only because I know SVS and Golden.

I think you need to chill out a bit Enri, you're whipping yourself into a panic :P

I'm not in a panic. I don't see myself as playing defense right now, but rather, refusing to give credibility to nonsensical posts.

linki: but why wouldn't I be genuine? and why would you expect me to understand that in the first place?

Scotty wrote:For those of you that voted to go to the Police Station: any reason? Are you guys just wanting to sit around eating donuts in the break room, or PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN THE INFASTRUCTURE?

'Fraid those are the only reasons I can see.

Enrique wrote:

Dom wrote:

Enrique wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Enrique wrote:Dom I'm sorry, I will never take that post seriously. It came out of nowhere and it's one of the dumbest things I've ever been accused of. I'll ask again, how many here read that post and thought oooh Lost?

I did, but only because I know SVS and Golden.

I think you need to chill out a bit Enri, you're whipping yourself into a panic :P

I'm not in a panic. I don't see myself as playing defense right now, but rather, refusing to give credibility to nonsensical posts.

linki: but why wouldn't I be genuine? and why would you expect me to understand that in the first place?

Am I misunderstanding your post? You were saying you doubt that Golden is police because of what he has said about the inmates, thus you think he is bad. Okay, then you point out a number in the post he makes, thinking it could be a hint.

This did not read as genuine to me given that there was a response between the two of them saying they have a "bond".

That conversation was happening without me. "Is Golden a cop hoping to be recruited?" I said, NO, I don't believe he is. Plus, you can't posture yourself to be recruited. But then I thought, how can you do that? By giving away your number. I went back and I found that. I didn't think it was the case myself, but I was trying to add to the conversation. Not everything I do has to follow an agenda, I care about working with the thread.

You saying "I didn't recognize the number" was super weak, Dom. It makes sense that you didn't but the Golden as a crooked cop thing but that number thing is just silly.

im in the mid of a great linguistics lecture so its taking me a bit to answer but hold on im still here

MovingPictures07 wrote:Pretty sure that Enrique is acting full-on paranoid; I've been there many times myself in many games, and it's what historically gets me suspicion early on in games. He's already got himself flustered in a fight with Golden, he feels the spotlight is on him as a result, it's still super early in the game so hardly anyone else is being questioned, so Dom questioning his motives over something that he feels he couldn't possibly have discerned originally (the number 8 being a LOST reference) makes him feel like the votes will just start flooding in against him after Dom continues to push his lynch. It's classic overparanoia.

Alignment indicative? Not for me. I've felt this as everyone alignment, personally, and Day 1 is historically the most tension-filled aspect of the game for me -- very exciting until I start to receive negative attention, and then it can spiral into what feels like an uphill battle for survival. I'm consciously trying to avoid this condition going forward, but felt I should comment on this because Enrique is exhibiting this to a T.

That's just my interpretation, anyway, feel free to disagree with it or point out to me why you think I might be wrong, anyone.

a2thezebra wrote:I agree that Enrique's paranoia isn't alignment-indicative, but it's not his paranoia that bothers me.

Enrique wrote:

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:@linki: not by sitting back and ending the game prematurely!!!

I was beginning to feel better about you, but this doesnt help. If you are being transparent about your perspective, I really want to understand this.

For instance, what if you are a cop, and your independent is NKed night one, and you don't know about it? How do you earn it from there?

For me, earning this win is about catching the baddies. Catching the baddies isn't 'ending the game prematurely'.

But I will say... as alluded to at the start of this post. I am feeling a bit better about you. But I don't like these offhanded responses. Transparency needs detail about your thought processes. Why do you think pursuing 'independents' will help you find yours, if you were a cop?

I think I've laid it out before. You call them indies, I call them baddies. They're a little more than non-friends, they're enemies. I don't want the game to end when I can't win, and I'm sure most of the town will agree. I have never opposed scum hunt, that's just silly, but so is opposing the so-called indie hunt. They're all bad.

It's ending prematurely if I'm not winning. It's not just me, it's the majority of the town. We play to win, not to get two teams.

@linki: okay you know what i dont get it either. you're not buying it, you don't think i'm genuine. why? what do you think i was doing and what for?

linki2: no i dont even feel that way, thats the thing. im trying to make a point, it has nothing to do with me

Turnip Head wrote:I think it's fair of Enrique to say you accused him, Dom. You essentially accused him of lying by not being genuine about the number thing. Maybe your intention was to simply question him on it rather than accuse him or build a case, but I can see how he perceived it as an accusation. I don't think it speaks badly of either of you, though.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Pretty sure that Enrique is acting full-on paranoid; I've been there many times myself in many games, and it's what historically gets me suspicion early on in games. He's already got himself flustered in a fight with Golden, he feels the spotlight is on him as a result, it's still super early in the game so hardly anyone else is being questioned, so Dom questioning his motives over something that he feels he couldn't possibly have discerned originally (the number 8 being a LOST reference) makes him feel like the votes will just start flooding in against him after Dom continues to push his lynch. It's classic overparanoia.

Alignment indicative? Not for me. I've felt this as everyone alignment, personally, and Day 1 is historically the most tension-filled aspect of the game for me -- very exciting until I start to receive negative attention, and then it can spiral into what feels like an uphill battle for survival. I'm consciously trying to avoid this condition going forward, but felt I should comment on this because Enrique is exhibiting this to a T.

That's just my interpretation, anyway, feel free to disagree with it or point out to me why you think I might be wrong, anyone.

MP, do you think if I pushed for Enrique's lynch votes would flood in for him?

I don't personally feel that way, but I know I've jumped to that irrational feeling many times before when someone suspects me early in the game, particularly if I'm posting as much as or more than almost everyone else and there's not any other major events occurring.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I agree with Enrique. I don't think any of the cops are going to want the game to end if there win condition isn't met.

Enrique wrote:you can just answer dommmm

I swear I'm just trying to play. I've been very irritable lately, but that's not what's happening here, I am legitimately trying to get a point across and that's not gonna happen if nobody lays anything down.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:I can potentially get that, but I don't like that you are framing it this way and he isn't. He has yet to make this point himself despite me asking multiple times.

Sorry Dom, I just got the feeling he was having trouble expressing himself and I feel pretty good about him, so I understand that it would mean more coming from him, I'll try to let him speak for himself.

Enrique wrote:Okay, I guess I get it. Dom's idea basically was that I wasn't being genuine about Golden role-hinting. Well, it's not something I even believed. I thought my post was clear in presenting it as an alternative to what I actually do believe. If Golden was a cop I wouldn't be going after him, no. Does that make sense?

He did present it as an accusation, though. "I'm not buying it" isn't much of a question especially when you frame it around an inside joke thing that I had no way of interpreting correctly. He can say he doesn't buy Golden hinting at a number, but that I'm lying and obviously understood the reference? Yeah no. That's silly and not really an argument.

Enrique wrote:Okay, so what was the purpose of that post?

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

is that total gut?

Partially. It's also some things I've pointed out in the thread, and other things that I haven't pointed out yet but will when I get a chance to elaborate.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

is that total gut?

Partially. It's also some things I've pointed out in the thread, and other things that I haven't pointed out yet but will when I get a chance to elaborate.

I look forward to it

Cool. Was that "yikes" directed at me? :P

Golden wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:MP, who do you think, gut instinct, is looking the worst on this Day 0?


Same question to you TH.

For me it's sig.

Thats interesting. Sig looks good to me.

For me its MP.

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Null = Nothing.

You were alarmed literally by *nothing*

I'm alarmed at the poll option being so popular. I am not alarmed at anyone in particular who voted for it. Why is this impossible to understand?

Kinda.

It just seemed liek you said that for something to say, a throwaway comment. Then when asked about it, you tried to lulz it off with the *null* post.

Linki, OMG what?

I only lulz'd it off with Matt because I felt he wasn't asking me about it genuinely, for reasons I have extensively elaborated on (much to Dom's disliking) in a fairly recent post. When I feel someone is asking me about what I said genuinely - such as in the case of Nerolunar, yourself, and MP - I answer it as best I can. I can see how you think it was a throwaway comment but I assure you it is not.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

I'm more than happy to own up to my suspicions and thoughts and take responsibility for my votes, so if you're concerned about that, your concern is misplaced. I was willing to throw a civilian read of Dom out there, however slight, and I'm still standing by it now. If I turn out to be wrong, then that's mafia, so be it, and I was willing to joke about my propensity to read Dom incorrectly due to thinking with absolute confidence he was bad when spectating GoC 2015 only to be proven incorrect again.

I am consciously trying to invest less. Finding it a bit difficult to at the moment, but I'm trying, because I always overinvest myself, especially in these large games for some reason. I really can't afford the emotional energy to do that even remotely right now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Wow.

Can you elaborate?

This coming from you, the master of one word posts? :P

It just seems so ... I can't really explain oit... Just Wow. It seems like a somewhat antagonistic/mean thing for Golden to say. The implication about not understanding something as quickly as Golden did is somehow suspicious or not a genuine feeling, or not to undeerstand it the same way that he did.

I totally misunderstoof Zebra (I think, I am not 100% sure I totally understand her point even now) yet she (and Golden) seem to be implying that it was such a simple thing that it is somehow odd to NOT have gotten it right away (just sayin'). My least favorite mafia (or rl tbh) thing is beingmade to feel stupid. And posts like this^^^^ seem to have that as their mainpoint.

So yeah, Wow.

Golden wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Lol, that's like super duper explosive, but alright. I personally understand what you were trying to convey originally, now, but it only took extended conversation.

Right, and for Nerolunar it took a single quick response and for Golden it took no response at all. Just saying.

You realize this kind of attitude can come across as antagonistic, and further fans the flames of fire of people who suspect you due to a misunderstanding, yeah?

How do you separate those who misunderstand, and those who deliberately don't see zebra's point because it is convenient not to? I think zebra's point is pertinent. I didn't find it ambiguous in the slightest, I understood it from the very start. I have trouble accepting its all a big misunderstanding.

Well, I didn't understand it.

You know how you separate them? By sitting down and trying to have an honest conversation. Otherwise you're giving everyone a license to misunderstand you. It's a two-way street; if you're consistently misunderstood it's as much your fault as it is those who either misunderstand you genuinely or are deliberately twisting it against you.

Again, rather than see it as my fault or anyone else's, I don't see why it has to be anyone's fault. As long as both parties are putting in an effort to communicate, I fail to see how blaming anyone in particular is warranted. What I'm doing is to try to get people who don't understand to understand, as well as to see if anyone is in fact deliberately misunderstanding to be opportunistic. So far I can only confidently say that Matt has done that, and the rest of you seem genuine to me.

This is so it... actually you've really put your finger on something. I feel like MP is trying to attribute blame to you and act like you're deliberately acting in a way that will create misunderstanding.

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote: MP seems eager to spread blame to anyone he thinks he can. See the name drop he made of me when talking about his zebra suspicion. Seems to want to place his zebra suspicion's origin with me.

This is infuriating. Stop avoiding my questions right now. You're avoiding every single question I ask you and it's irritating.

Explain to me right now how dropping your name in there is blaming you for anything, or implying that my suspicion's origin began with you. I take full responsibility for all of my suspicions, including those I've said of zebra.

MovingPictures07 wrote:I apologize for the strong language, but yes, I have asked you direct questions and they've gone unaddressed. I'll pull them up right now.

MovingPictures07 wrote:Dom, here are the two posts where I tried to engage you in conversation, and, as far as I'm aware, didn't receive a direct response:

Spoiler: show

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dom wrote:Because he joked about finding me suspicious in case he's wrong? So he can easily lynch me if the pendulum swings that way?

That's part of it. I've been finding his tone disingenuous. Hard to say if its MP trying to invest less.

I'm more than happy to own up to my suspicions and thoughts and take responsibility for my votes, so if you're concerned about that, your concern is misplaced. I was willing to throw a civilian read of Dom out there, however slight, and I'm still standing by it now. If I turn out to be wrong, then that's mafia, so be it, and I was willing to joke about my propensity to read Dom incorrectly due to thinking with absolute confidence he was bad when spectating GoC 2015 only to be proven incorrect again.

I am consciously trying to invest less. Finding it a bit difficult to at the moment, but I'm trying, because I always overinvest myself, especially in these large games for some reason. I really can't afford the emotional energy to do that even remotely right now.

If I'm a slight civ read, why set me up for an easy vote later like that?

I'm not setting anything up. If anything, it should be absolutely transparent what my thoughts of you have been. If I decide to find you suspicious later, then you and others should rightfully grill me for why I've changed my mind.

Why would you think I would (1) set you up and (2) could even get away with a future vote like that?

I should be willing and able to reassess anyone at any moment, including you, and I don't want to feel locked into my opinion of you; I don't need a joke in order for me to feel that way. It was clearly a joke, and the object of nothing nefarious. I was trying to start out playing this game light-hearted, but it seems my tone is shifting, and I'm getting too far sucked in.

Spoiler: show

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:The last thing this thread needs right now is a pissing match between two high posters. It was starting to develop between Enrique and Golden, and I legitimately saw nothing there, so I made that vocally aware. Now with zebra, Dom honestly asked me to name someone I thought looked most suspicious gut-wise out of Day 0, I answered him honestly, and what has ensued in the surrounding time is a zebra misunderstandingfest, but now that I've seen more from her on it I understand her viewpoint. Consequently, I was able to erase my very vague gut-based suspicion in mine and others' attempts to engage her in conversation about it. I understand that civilians feel alone because literally anyone could be deceiving them, but people need to be equally skeptical and yet actively trying to understand everyone else as much as possible, rather than laser-focusing on one player. Especially this early in the game.

any reason for the name drop?



also golden, do you think enrique is bad at the end of the day?

I was explaining the events exactly as they occurred.

Why are you questioning me over this?

I really don't understand where you're coming from with the name drop argument, and I don't want either of us to suspect each other because we're merely miscommunicating somehow, so I wanted to engage you in this. Let me know if I can do anything else to assist your elaboration.

MovingPictures07 wrote:How about a new discussion point: What do you all think of this post by MacDougall?

MacDougall wrote:Checking in to say that Turnip Head is bad.

I haven't said anything about it yet myself.

Matt wrote:

Matt wrote:What "shady" means...

Google says "of doubtful honesty or legality"

Urban dictionary says "shifty, sly, suspicious"

How is the popularity of Arkham "shady" if you don't suspect any one who's voted for it?

I'm sorry, I simply do not understand. It's not intentional. I simply don't.

Can someone else speak up on this before Zebra and I make 100 posts each going at each other?

Does anyone else understand? Am I legit just being stupid right now?

a2thezebra wrote:Matt, you went to the trouble to bump all of your old posts for me to elaborate on the issues I have with them (as if I haven't already) but you didn't go to the trouble to find my analysis of them that you're still pretending doesn't exist. You're digging your own damn grave.

a2thezebra wrote:

Dom wrote:I think TH slipped tbh.

I don't.

Golden wrote:

Enrique wrote:I'm not compelled to defend any particular players, Mac. People disagree in Mafia, but what, I shouldn't give you my take?

Two thumbs up for Enrique.

Turnip Head wrote:

Dom wrote:TH, why did you frame Enrique's argument for him?

You've already asked me this and I've already answered it.

DharmaHelper wrote:It's also incredibly difficult to catch up when so many posts are devoted to something you're saying you no longer wish to discuss.

Turnip Head wrote:I think the most suspicious thing to come out of this was Neru throwing shade at me and then backing down when I called him out on it.

DharmaHelper wrote:Nice what?

MacDougall wrote:Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

MacDougall wrote:

Dom wrote:

MacDougall wrote:Zebra you seem like you'd be happier without Mafia. Would you like us to lynch you out of pity?

Oh jog on. Everything is or to you. I was joking.

Scotty wrote:Well last time I received info about something in an Epi game, it uselessly turned out to just be Rico futzing with my head...so I'm going to patently ignore it for the time being.

Now all I have are the voices in my head. And they're telling me that

a) zebra's comment about text walls spoke to me. I used to always post in walls, and seeing said walls in action during this 20-something-page day 0-1, Im now transitioning to a more liquid finish.
b) There's still some people that haven't checked in. That's unsettling to me more than the inane barking throughout the thread.

Scotty wrote:snipped for relevance

I think MP is not looking not civvie. And before you ask why, I don't know. gut? Sorry.

I am still looking to vote for no/low-posters for day 1, like usual. Because it's still too early for me to accuse.

S~V~S wrote:

Dom wrote:SVS, do you know if Glorfindel is from the US?

I have no idea where he is from, why?

S~V~S wrote:Help?