Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

[juliets]

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

I'd like to ask the same about your bad vibes. Is it a meta thing, and if so could you say what to expect from a town nutella vs this bad-vibing nutella?

I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.

[Golden]

I wasn't particularly suspicious of Nutella for voting me yesterday, at the time the only thing that pinged me was it kind of being a throw away vote when there was a heated race going on.

SVS- how good of a judge do you think you are of Nutella based on past games?

Same question to Matt and golden.

A mixed judge. I don't have any meta reasons for suspecting nutella.

[a2thezebra]

on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

[Epignosis]

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

What do you think of the sig wagon?

I don't know how what to do with sig. He does things that make absolutely no sense (at ENDGAME, no less), and when you call him on it, he turns out civilian. I don't know how much he is aware of that, but in The Syndicate Mafia, that's what happened. I even had him in BTSC, teasing and taunting him that I knew he was bad- everything, and I mean everything, pointed to it.

Then he was good.

Listen, he wasn't even doing a good job in BTSC convincing me he wasn't bad. He just kept digging himself into a hole.

So I don't know sig well enough to lynch him. Not Day 2.

As for the wagon, the only vote there that makes sense to me is Bullzeye's, who did the dirty work.

You had me for bad, too, in TS.

For a while (you have this thing where you resurrect bad guys). But I never drove a lynch against you, and I'm not swayed by arguments where you say, "You were wrong in X, so you're wrong here." Not the way it works. And I've seen you use that argument too many times when you were bad.

Regarding sig, I've played with you for years. sig, two or three games. Not comparable.

[S~V~S]

You have seen me use it as a civ, too.

Now what did I refuse to address?

[Epignosis]

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

[Sorsha]

Zebras assurance makes me want to vote for sig, but lukes vote for sig makes me want to vote for Luke.

[juliets]

on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

really? Can you elaborate at all?

[a2thezebra]

You have seen me use it as a civ, too.

Now what did I refuse to address?

He already said what you refused to address and here you act as if he didn't.

[Epignosis]

Was a post deleted?

[Dom]

Where's Mac been?

Yeah, it's really weird that he had so much time on his roadtrip to post BEFORE he got suspicion on him and now he doesn't!


I could vote for Mac or sig tbqh

[HamburgerBoy]

I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.

Matt's case seems largely dependent on the assumption that Sorsha is also scum, and that nutella's vote was not genuine but a way of avoiding the 4-4-4 (or at least that's how I'm reading it; correct if wrong Matt). I note that you haven't addressed the Sorsha side of things at all so far this game, except to ask for specifics on nutella's claim of inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts (which I believe nutella had already addressed; she was focused on Sorsha fairly early due to the day 1 "lynch Matt F" thing). So, what do you think of Sorsha then?

[Epignosis]

You have seen me use it as a civ, too.

Now what did I refuse to address?

And that's why it doesn't matter to me.

And really? Read seven posts above yours.

[Sorsha]

I also had some questions for Luke that he didn't answer while he was here.

I'm going to put my vote on Luke for now.

[Epignosis]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

[a2thezebra]

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Zebras assurance makes me want to vote for sig, but lukes vote for sig makes me want to vote for Luke.

Lukes vote for sig, even if it is suspicious which I don't think it really is, doesn't make sig any less scummier, it just leads to different interpretations of what the vote meant. Vote sig.

on juliets. That last post did not seem genuine.

really? Can you elaborate at all?

Not really. Pure vibes. I'm not going to pursue it, it just means I'm going to watch your posts a bit more closely.

linki - Damn it Sorsha

[TheFloyd73]

Where's Mac been?

Yeah, it's really weird that he had so much time on his roadtrip to post BEFORE he got suspicion on him and now he doesn't!


I could vote for Mac or sig tbqh

A vote for Mac might be pointless, if he still remains inactive, he'll be mod killed.

[HamburgerBoy]

I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.

[Luke11646]

I also had some questions for Luke that he didn't answer while he was here.

I'm going to put my vote on Luke for now.

What questions.

[a2thezebra]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

[Epignosis]

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Do what you gotta do with your ping, your welcome.

[a2thezebra]

I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.

There is not even a phrase in this post that I agree with.

[Epignosis]

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Do what you gotta do with your ping, your welcome.

[Sorsha]

I also had some questions for Luke that he didn't answer while he was here.

I'm going to put my vote on Luke for now.

What questions.

In this post:

I can see how sig talking about what the mafia is “currently” doing could be seen as a slip up. Looking back through his posts I noticed he spoke earlier about what the mafia might do. Sometimes players can’t help but talk about their role, in this case I can see it that perhaps sig can’t help but talk about his alignment. There are two voters for sig that make me hesitant to vote for him though:

Luke voted for sig and I’m getting strange vibes from that vote. Luke has posted very little in the way of suspicions so far, his day one vote was for Tranq and he questioned MM but never followed up with it. Did MM’s answer satisfy you Luke? Were you suspicious of MM and that’s why you asked him that or were you thinking that Epi was suspicious too and wanted to compare reasons? Or something else?

Right now I could see Luke’s vote as either A) a bandwagon from the opposite baddie team or B) distancing from a baddie teammate

Also a bit suspicious on the sig votes so far is from DF. He missed the first vote. That post is also really just echoing other players too, nothing original. His latest post seems a bit better and has some original thought in it so it lessens my suspicion of him a little bit, still a bit pinged by this vote though.

Tranq missed the vote yesterday but has managed to vote in each of the night polls. Night 0, Night 1

TinyBubbles has four posts so far. Here she wants timmer to post more (lol really?) More than what? At that point you both had two posts. I don’t know, maybe she heard talk about timmer in BTS and thought she’d prod him. Just seems a little odd seeing as he was then killed that night.

Here she seems to think that her track record of being civ in other games has anything to do with her alignment in this game

And here she votes for scissors which conveniently gets her off the poll today. I don’t know if the host handed out info about the night poll again or not but if he did it one night I imagine he did again last night.

At this point I'd be most likely to vote for one of these players, sig, luke and bubbles being higher priority.

[a2thezebra]

I say I don't trust the lynch and in the next post I am provided with further reason not to trust it.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Why vote for your tertiary suspect who as I recall required some distance between your top two, Dom and SVS?

I do what I like.

*yawn* Okay I can now safely call this a ping then, thank you.

Do what you gotta do with your ping, your welcome.

[a2thezebra]

That is a sign that Epi was nervous with that post and so he should be lynched accordingly.

[S~V~S]

Sorry I missed it in the start of a new page. I have a high ppp count.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

There's traction there. No one wants to lynch S~V~S despite the fact that she refuses to answer anything about her strong stance on my Day 1 case. I'll take my third suspect if that's all I can get.

What didn't I answer?

Everything about why my Dom case was bullshit, who had better cases that day, who had worse cases that day, and why you would use such a strong term (implying deception) when I could simply be wrong is all (on Day 1).

Here's the post.

In this post, S~V~S never stated why my (Day 1) view of Dom was "bullshit."

Her description stands in stark contrast to juliets, who called it "a pretty good case for day 1."

The disparity here makes me want to know what the expectations are for a good Day 1 case from S~V~S: What cases Day 1 were stronger than mine, and what made them stronger? Were there worse cases Day 1 than mine, and what made them weaker?

I'm not going to quit harping on this just because it goes unanswered. Had S~V~S said, "I don't agree with Epi," and said why, that would have been one thing. Can a case be wrong without it being bullshit? I think so. But to label it "bullshit," as she did, implies that I am being dishonest. A bullshitter is someone who is making something up. For her to accuse me of making something up Day 1 is tantamount to accusing me of being Mafia, someone who has a need to make things up Day 1.

My suspicion of S~V~S, in summary, emanates from these points:

1. Calling a relatively decent case on Day 1 "bullshit,"
2. Thus implying that I'm being dishonest or misleading
3. Voting a civilian new person (not merely a low poster) out of the game Day 1, and
4. Doing so for one of the weakest and vaguest reasons imaginable.
5. Her over-the-top serious reaction to a post I made in jest.

Top choice for my vote right now. Voting S~V~S.

Bullshit does not mean bad or misleading; indeed as it a=concerns you, I think it means you are more likely to be civ.

It means cobbled up from your own weird tells, which often are incorrect in my experience.

A lot of day one cases are bullshit; it does not mean the case maker is inc=sincere. i never once thought YOU were insincere or lying. I just thought the case was day one bullshit.

I felt that the things you called Dom out for were standard Dom stuff. You made a case on Dom for being Dom. I went back and reread him based on your case, and disagreed.

I had a wuestion for you; whay did you think of Mac screaming about how trusted you were and your scumdar? Didn't you find that to be mildly odd at the least?

[HamburgerBoy]

I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.

There is not even a phrase in this post that I agree with.

Cool, elaborate please. You've already said that you're neutral on nutella, so I'm curious what you do see wrong in her history then.

[sig]

Where's Mac been?

Yeah, it's really weird that he had so much time on his roadtrip to post BEFORE he got suspicion on him and now he doesn't!


I could vote for Mac or sig tbqh

He is currently on a roadtrip mentioned this in one of the games (Not sure which)
Dom why me?

You shouldn't vote for one of your groupies tis bad for your rep :P .

@Floyd don't go with the assumption we shouldn't lynch someone since they will be Mod killed. First off that might not happen, second off he won't flip so we will be inthe dark.
This could very well be a baddie's defense of another, without seeming like he is defending Mac.

[S~V~S]

Not proofreading ftl ha ha ha, wuestion

[Matt]

I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.

[Epignosis]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

[Dom]

Voted Mac for now.

[Dom]

I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.

tbqh that's convenient

He also literally said he wouldn't be around because he didn't like being suspected.

[Golden]

I don't really have a sense of Mac's affiliation in this game, but he made his upcoming absence pretty clear yesterday. I'm not going to look favourably on any mac bandwagon that happens in his absence.

linki@epi - why on earth would I start anything with 'kathy bates is hot'? Is this what you teach your kids when you are mixing film analysis with grammar lessons?

[Matt]

I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.

tbqh that's convenient

He also literally said he wouldn't be around because he didn't like being suspected.

Lol. Did he say that? Must've missed that one. Anywho, just lettin' peeps know, do with that info what you will.

Also, Dom, are you not feeling the nutella case anymore?

[juliets]

I think my baddie vibes come from Matt's case on her (baddie vibes imo usually come from something even if its small). She answered fairly well but it's still lingering with me. It's not a meta thing because i haven't played that much with nutella or enough to have a meta. I am probably not going to vote for her because I just don't have enough.

Matt's case seems largely dependent on the assumption that Sorsha is also scum, and that nutella's vote was not genuine but a way of avoiding the 4-4-4 (or at least that's how I'm reading it; correct if wrong Matt). I note that you haven't addressed the Sorsha side of things at all so far this game, except to ask for specifics on nutella's claim of inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts (which I believe nutella had already addressed; she was focused on Sorsha fairly early due to the day 1 "lynch Matt F" thing). So, what do you think of Sorsha then?

I have no suspicions of Sorsha at this time. I didnt see anything wrong with her posting an answer in both threads (this came up at the beginning) and I liked her post walking through the times of her posts and how she had been at work etc. There hasn't been anything else she has said that has given me qualms.

[HamburgerBoy]

Fair enough, Mac mentioned it a while back in a deep quote pyramid with Dom but not on his last post of yesterday.

[Epignosis]

Sorry I missed it in the start of a new page. I have a high ppp count.

I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

Is there one thing that dominated your decision to vote nutella? I've been reading her and have bad vibes but bad vibes arent really enough to vote on.

There's traction there. No one wants to lynch S~V~S despite the fact that she refuses to answer anything about her strong stance on my Day 1 case. I'll take my third suspect if that's all I can get.

What didn't I answer?

Everything about why my Dom case was bullshit, who had better cases that day, who had worse cases that day, and why you would use such a strong term (implying deception) when I could simply be wrong is all (on Day 1).

Here's the post.

In this post, S~V~S never stated why my (Day 1) view of Dom was "bullshit."

Her description stands in stark contrast to juliets, who called it "a pretty good case for day 1."

The disparity here makes me want to know what the expectations are for a good Day 1 case from S~V~S: What cases Day 1 were stronger than mine, and what made them stronger? Were there worse cases Day 1 than mine, and what made them weaker?

I'm not going to quit harping on this just because it goes unanswered. Had S~V~S said, "I don't agree with Epi," and said why, that would have been one thing. Can a case be wrong without it being bullshit? I think so. But to label it "bullshit," as she did, implies that I am being dishonest. A bullshitter is someone who is making something up. For her to accuse me of making something up Day 1 is tantamount to accusing me of being Mafia, someone who has a need to make things up Day 1.

My suspicion of S~V~S, in summary, emanates from these points:

1. Calling a relatively decent case on Day 1 "bullshit,"
2. Thus implying that I'm being dishonest or misleading
3. Voting a civilian new person (not merely a low poster) out of the game Day 1, and
4. Doing so for one of the weakest and vaguest reasons imaginable.
5. Her over-the-top serious reaction to a post I made in jest.

Top choice for my vote right now. Voting S~V~S.

Bullshit does not mean bad or misleading; indeed as it a=concerns you, I think it means you are more likely to be civ.

It means cobbled up from your own weird tells, which often are incorrect in my experience.

A lot of day one cases are bullshit; it does not mean the case maker is inc=sincere. i never once thought YOU were insincere or lying. I just thought the case was day one bullshit.

I felt that the things you called Dom out for were standard Dom stuff. You made a case on Dom for being Dom. I went back and reread him based on your case, and disagreed.

I had a wuestion for you; whay did you think of Mac screaming about how trusted you were and your scumdar? Didn't you find that to be mildly odd at the least?

The normal meaning of "bullshit" means lies: "Howard says he likes your tie." "That's bullshit. Howard hates my ties."

You may have intended something else when you said it, but when you frame it in those terms, others might see other intentions. I know I did.

However, I find your explanation here to be sensible. Wish it had come a few days ago.

To answer your question, as with sig, I have limited experience with MacDougall. I successfully got him lynched in Talking Heads and he was bad. He was behaving in a similar way there as he is here. For me, that's not enough to judge him.

[Sorsha]

I had a teacher named Kathy Bates. She put a picture of the actress Kathy Bates as her pic on her teacher profile at the school

[a2thezebra]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

1. Nobody cares.
2. I'm impressed that your (get it?) criticizing people's grammar so soon after such a disaster.
3. "Kathy Bates is hot" has much less personality than the lengthier example you provided right before it, so this post has actually had the opposite effect on me than the one you intended, so I will now consciously be using pronouns to start my sentences more often.

It's interesting that you were willing to deny that the mysterious "that" is what you said, despite claiming now that you didn't know what "that" is even referring to. Your digging you're own grave here lol. Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

[Epignosis]

linki@epi - why on earth would I start anything with 'kathy bates is hot'? Is this what you teach your kids when you are mixing film analysis with grammar lessons?

My students wouldn't know who Kathy Bates is. They wear Pink Floyd hoodies, and when I ask them about why they like Pink Floyd, they tell me that's where they want to go to college.

I swear I'm not making this up.

I wish I could go to PFU. I'd major in Animals.

[Epignosis]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

1. Nobody cares.
2. I'm impressed that your (get it?) criticizing people's grammar so soon after such a disaster.
3. "Kathy Bates is hot" has much less personality than the lengthier example you provided right before it, so this post has actually had the opposite effect on me than the one you intended, so I will now consciously be using pronouns to start my sentences more often.

It's interesting that you were willing to deny that the mysterious "that" is what you said, despite claiming now that you didn't know what "that" is even referring to. Your digging you're own grave here lol. Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

I had a typo. That's not a grammatical error.

And I care, because I don't fucking know what you're talking about. Please clarify.

Hosting now.

[Dom]

I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.

tbqh that's convenient

He also literally said he wouldn't be around because he didn't like being suspected.

Lol. Did he say that? Must've missed that one. Anywho, just lettin' peeps know, do with that info what you will.

Also, Dom, are you not feeling the nutella case anymore?

I still suspect nutella. I think both sig and mac are bad as well. For the record, I just tried to find the post where he said that, but I think him calling me an asshole douchebag tainted my reading of the thread-- I can't find it. I apologize.
I'll give him a day cycle to come back.

The normal meaning of "bullshit" means lies: "Howard says he likes your tie." "That's bullshit. Howard hates my ties."

This is why I consider the Epig/SVS conversation banal.

[TheFloyd73]

linki@epi - why on earth would I start anything with 'kathy bates is hot'? Is this what you teach your kids when you are mixing film analysis with grammar lessons?

My students wouldn't know who Kathy Bates is. They wear Pink Floyd hoodies, and when I ask them about why they like Pink Floyd, they tell me that's where they want to go to college.

I swear I'm not making this up.

I wish I could go to PFU. I'd major in Animals.

Here's my reaction to those students by using smilies:

[S~V~S]

Epi, quick tip~ in Brooklyn, "That's bullshit" means everything from "I had to stay 5 minutes late at work" to "my spouse is having an affair" to "I swear, Mom, I did not cut class" to "I think the blue carpet is better than the beige one". It's fairly inclusive as opposed to being exclusive.

Sorry for lack of clarity; I thought I answered it, it did not occur to me that you literally wanted to know what i meant by the actual word "bullshit" lol. I was talking about the content of the bullshit.

[a2thezebra]

I should add that I don't see anything wrong in nutella's history either. If absolutely forced I would vote for her over sig, only because I think the case against sig is so forced, and since nutella's interactions potentially have more to dig into (vs sig who has been on the defense), but I'd really prefer to see a Mac lynch. Especially since he has dropped off in the second half of this day, and since others have acknowledged that at the very least he isn't a clear town read.

There is not even a phrase in this post that I agree with.

Cool, elaborate please. You've already said that you're neutral on nutella, so I'm curious what you do see wrong in her history then.

Elaborate? Well initially I found nutella's history to be the most suspicious out of the lurkers, but she made a post that damaged my suspicions enough to put my vote on BUGLA and it stayed there for the rest of the day. I am of course voting for sig over her for reasons I have made perfectly clear, and being someone who doesn't trust any other lynch at this time, I would be more inclined to say that anyone not willing to vote for sig at this point is forcing themselves to do so. I don't think nutella's interactions so far have much to dig into, as opposed to sig who has more than once tried to redirect the attention of the case against him onto other players, which would provide great analysis upon his death. I am not interested in a Mac lynch at all and I find it baffling that people are using his activity as a reason to be suspicious of him when he has made clear multiple times that his activity is not going to be consistent given his current circumstances. I find it especially baffling that you are using "at the very least he isn't a clear town read" to justify a potential lynching of him, when the same accusation (minus the "he" pronoun) could be applied to literally every other player. THAT is forced.

[a2thezebra]

linki @Epi - So he should never be lynched because you were wrong once? You seem indecisive about whether to say you won't vote for him because of your own previous misread or because you're actually not convinced that there is a solid case against him.

That...isn't at all what I said or why I said it.

Someone asked for my opinion on the sig wagon. I couldn't well answer that without providing an opinion of sig. So I gave the latter first and then responded to the original question.

So it is what you said, but not why you said it. Don't exaggerate now, it reveals your deceitful intentions.

WHAT is what I said?

Please, for the love of God, all of you, stop STARTING YOUR SENTENCES WITH PRONOUNS. BEGIN WITH AN ANTECEDENT, and THEN YOU ARE FREE TO USE A PRONOUN.

Watch:

"She's hot."

"Who?"

"Kathy Bates."

A lot of time (and awkward stares) could have been spared if you had started out with "Kathy Bates is hot."

1. Nobody cares.
2. I'm impressed that your (get it?) criticizing people's grammar so soon after such a disaster.
3. "Kathy Bates is hot" has much less personality than the lengthier example you provided right before it, so this post has actually had the opposite effect on me than the one you intended, so I will now consciously be using pronouns to start my sentences more often.

It's interesting that you were willing to deny that the mysterious "that" is what you said, despite claiming now that you didn't know what "that" is even referring to. Your digging you're own grave here lol. Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

I had a typo. That's not a grammatical error.

And I care, because I don't fucking know what you're talking about. Please clarify.

Hosting now.

1. I think you missed the point. Did you read the last two sentences of my post?
2. I don't see why you would be willing to deny something before understanding it. If you didn't know what I was talking about in the first place, why not ask what I am implying initially, instead of immediately claiming I was wrong? To clarify, I was implying that your post before seemed inconsistent in your reasoning for not voting for sig, and the inconsistency came across as deceitful.
3. Yay

[Matt]

Your scum and you're alignment is not looking too good based on you're posts.

[Golden]

Epi, quick tip~ in Brooklyn, "That's bullshit" means everything from "I had to stay 5 minutes late at work" to "my spouse is having an affair" to "I swear, Mom, I did not cut class" to "I think the blue carpet is better than the beige one". It's fairly inclusive as opposed to being exclusive.

Sorry for lack of clarity; I thought I answered it, it did not occur to me that you literally wanted to know what i meant by the actual word "bullshit" lol. I was talking about the content of the bullshit.

I thought you were from Minnesota?