Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Phoebe Buffay]

For some reason I was under the impression that we had until tomorrow, but I see the poll ends tonight. I'm going to try to catch up properly

[Young Lady]

Belshazzar are there any of those people you listed who have been quiet people you are thinking about voting for? I had thought about taking a leap and voting for Malchus because of the quotes Deborah found but since he hasn't spoken all day I don't know whether he has been silenced or not. I don't remember him participating very much so I may be ok with it.

I've also thought about Jepth and uzziah for votes. I don't know what to make of uzziah really but his intent seems to be to sow seeds of confusion and that doesn't strike me as a very civ behavior. Then there is your post about Jepth which brought to light some things I hadn't thought of regarding him.

I also second the request - or 3rd it maybe - for an explanation as to the connection between Lazarus and Job that would make a vote for Lazarus a bad thing.

Anyway, I haven't decided anything yet and it could be someone else comes up suspicious more so than any of these. Just looking for your input on those you found silent.

Sadly, I think the issue with suspecting and possibly casting a lynch vote for low posters has become so error-prone, it rather makes you more doubtful than certain. Or at least that's how I feel. Lazarus stands out for all the suspicions he garnered for his Absalom votes, but I'm not decided on him. I called out Bathsheba days ago for the way she voted or participated, but she missed since, so there's nothing further to project and I don't think anyone else said anything about her, except Balaam and Deborah upon recapping. I don't like Samuel's vote the other Day and reasoning behind it, even after clarifications. I have no idea what is up with Malchus, he seemed relatively engaged in the game, then vanished. I've got nothing on Esther, Judah, Rahab, Rebecca (not even retroactively, I think).

Not sure what post of mine about Jeph you reference and in what way did it influence you (good, bad about him?). If bad, perhaps you mean Lot's posts.

[PonySparkPrime]

Going back to square 1. I'll take a chance and believe I'm right about Jeph being bad. Everyone's playing pretty soft going into these lynches and I feel that contributes to the disappointing results.

I urge others to follow through logically on their reads of him too.

[Phoebe Buffay]

This is the post where I show Lot is either a hypocrite or a manipulative baddie.

The first post is him telling Nicodemus, that his analysis of Balaam is not logical, and that sometimes people don't think logic through.

Argue it, then.

You've called my suspicion of Balaam "ridiculous" and "bollocks". You've also fundamentally misconstrued my whole point.

1) It wasn't a suspicion of me, so it's not a defence. Completely different thing.
2) The idea that civilians scramble is bollocks and ridiculous - that doesn't mean you are lying about it (no, he definitely didn't scramble, you were truthful) or the fact you take that view is laughable (no, sometimes people don't think logic through). It just means the statement was utterly factually incorrect.
3) How exactly did I fundamentally misconstrue your point?

In this post, especially the underlined, Absalom shows him the flaw in his logic, as will I in a later post. But you know, people don't always think logic through

I'm sorry - what part of your post in any way goes against what I said?

You claim that I pushed civilian lynches HARD. That is simply false. Pull those quotes. I said who I suspected, gave my reasons, and voted. Only one of the people I have voted for is a confirmed civ. The other three lynches I had nothing to do with. I don't understand how you can say I'm constantly leading lynches against civs based on the facts.

The other interesting thing you said is "people are still following you." Yeah, so what if they are? Can I control who follows my vote? What exactly are you accusing me of, having teammates who follow my vote? Do you honestly think I'm saying "hey fellas, let's all vote the same way"? Do you think I would do that if I were bad?

These accusations make no sense to me, especially since they seem to have come out of nowhere. Are you cursed?

So he faults others for using flawed logic, yet has no problem using it himself.

The next post is him addressing me claiming that I turned his case into a single obviously false statement to try and make his case look like it holds less weight (his words)

You know as well as I do that I was not arguing that 'changing your mind is a baddie tell', and I have to say I really don't like it when someone turns my case into a single, obviously false, statement to try to make the case look like it holds less weight. Just like Absalom, you call me a hypocrite in fewer words.

Yet here, he does exactly the same. He makes Absalom's answers look like they hold no weight and should be dismissed. He mocks Absalom's defense, ignoring the real answers Absalom has given, like the one I quoted above.

So the list against me from Absalom today currently stands at:

I'm laughable
I'm embarrassing myself
I'm a hypocrite
I'm a liar

This is way better than aiming at the substantive aspects of what I've said about him. Let's see what's next, shall we!

There are more examples, but I'm not going to give them all. My thoughts, in the next post, because people don't read long posts...

[Phoebe Buffay]

And here's the part where I go NO U on Lot:

While reading everything Lot was saying, and trying to think why he was pushing for those voting for Balaam, I figured he must either have information on Balaam, or has BTSC with him. Or....it is what he wants us to believe.

Balaam had the second most votes last day, and some, like me, thought the votes for Job were an attempt to save Balaam, and when Job flliped civ, that notion gained more credit.
Suddenly, Lot comes in, and scolds us for almost lynching Balaam. Conveniently, he was silenced, so he couldn't vote, which makes him look more trust worthy. If Lot and Balaam are bad together, how are they going to make Balaam look better for next day? Have the silenced player come in and vouch stronly for him. That way, we end up looking bad, and Balaam's save is twisted to make the civvies believe that I knew both Job and Balaam were civvies and had no problem votind for either, so I made it look like I'm struggling.
Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

So, as crazy as this may sound, I think there's a way Lot is bad after all, and Balaam is also bad.

Looking at the record of the votes here, I'm betting money that I'll be lynched today. If this ends up being a bandwagon on me, please go after these people after I'm lynched. Hopefully, it won't be too late

[Snapshot]

Jephthah, Absalom had no ideas - he just went after ME. As those posts prove.

The underlined statement that apparently 'proves I use flawed logic' doesn't do that at all. It had nothing to do with my actual case. No, I never said his teammates would pile on his votes after him.

He kept claiming he had answered by substantive case, but actually for all of the period of time you just quoted, he had almost entirely ignored it (other than responding to one single word of it, 'hard'). Instead, he posted all sorts of things which didn't address it at all, and conveniently avoided every point made and question I asked.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Going back to square 1. I'll take a chance and believe I'm right about Jeph being bad. Everyone's playing pretty soft going into these lynches and I feel that contributes to the disappointing results.

I urge others to follow through logically on their reads of him too.

Give me one logically reason why I'm bad. One!!

[Snapshot]

By the way, I'm off the poll, so you can't actually vote for me today.

And ffs, really? "Conventiently, I was silenced"??????????????????????

That was literally the least convenient thing that has happened to me all game.

I just don't even... I can't respond to that last post.

[Snapshot]

Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

Do what?

[Phoebe Buffay]

Jephthah, Absalom had no ideas - he just went after ME. As those posts prove.

The underlined statement that apparently 'proves I use flawed logic' doesn't do that at all. It had nothing to do with my actual case. No, I never said his teammates would pile on his votes after him.

He kept claiming he had answered by substantive case, but actually for all of the period of time you just quoted, he had almost entirely ignored it (other than responding to one single word of it, 'hard'). Instead, he posted all sorts of things which didn't address it at all, and conveniently avoided every point made and question I asked.

Your reasons are flawed because you make accusations based on things that make no sense. I've given two examples. The point in Absalom's post was that you bring up the fact that people follow him as a case against him. How does that make any sense?


Linki: I'm not impressed with people being silenced. I've seen baddies do that plenty. And if you do it, you don't do it on the first or second day, but a little later, after you establish that there's a silencer, and when at least some people who were silenced, were proven civvie. I can't take your word for it not being convenient, just as I can't take your word when it comes to Balaam.

As for the "do what" question, I meant vote for Balaam instead of Samuel when I know both are civvies. Why should I care who gets lynched? I could just vote Samuel, and appear like I voted for my top suspect and stay out of the flashlights.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Fine, if you're off the poll, I can look for someone else to vote for. Doesn't mean I trust you. How about Samuel? :P

[Phoebe Buffay]

Going back to square 1. I'll take a chance and believe I'm right about Jeph being bad. Everyone's playing pretty soft going into these lynches and I feel that contributes to the disappointing results.

I urge others to follow through logically on their reads of him too.

I can't believe people don't find this kind of vote & post scummy.
How easy is it to just come in, say some stupid one line and then vote. You can't take back your vote, so no one can blame you later. Too many people are acting this way, yet I, the one who sits here and discusses things, and tries to get people to talk and explain things, am being voted for baddie behaviour.
How's that for logical thinking?

[Snapshot]

And here's the part where I go NO U on Lot:

While reading everything Lot was saying, and trying to think why he was pushing for those voting for Balaam, I figured he must either have information on Balaam, or has BTSC with him. Or....it is what he wants us to believe.

Balaam had the second most votes last day, and some, like me, thought the votes for Job were an attempt to save Balaam, and when Job flliped civ, that notion gained more credit.
Suddenly, Lot comes in, and scolds us for almost lynching Balaam. Conveniently, he was silenced, so he couldn't vote, which makes him look more trust worthy. If Lot and Balaam are bad together, how are they going to make Balaam look better for next day? Have the silenced player come in and vouch stronly for him. That way, we end up looking bad, and Balaam's save is twisted to make the civvies believe that I knew both Job and Balaam were civvies and had no problem votind for either, so I made it look like I'm struggling.
Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

So, as crazy as this may sound, I think there's a way Lot is bad after all, and Balaam is also bad.

Looking at the record of the votes here, I'm betting money that I'll be lynched today. If this ends up being a bandwagon on me, please go after these people after I'm lynched. Hopefully, it won't be too late

I'm just going to quote this post and underline everything I think looks designed to get people on side and not to actually build a case.

"Some, like me" - everyone is just like Jeph, his behaviour is no different.
"Conveniently silenced, so trustworthy" - in a world where we don't even know who is silencing or why (but it's clear to me it's coming from multiple sources) and where mafia silence themselves regularly, why would being silenced give me any credit.
"Balaam's save is twisted" - trying to turn Balaam's 'save' into 1) a fact and 2) a baddie move (hence the use of the word twisted).

~~~~~~~~~

linki - So, you think in a game of mafia, people just all vote the way the really deeply believe, and no-one follows established bandwagons? How does it NOT make sense... Absalom keeps being an early vote in a large group. It is, in fact, a FACT that people have followed him into the vote. It says nothing about their affiliation that they did so, my point was about the fact that I thought people (civilians, anyone really) was listening to him because he made his case HARD. More than that though, Absalom had picked up on one small aspect of my case and was pushing it, when my case was a whole lot of things. I've backed off Absalom because I actually read back and don't think he truly pushed the case hard, and think I was wrong about that. But there was nothing logically fallacious about it.

As for "Why should you care who gets lynched" or perhaps more importantly "Why should you look like you care who gets lynched"... because civilians care who gets lynched, and no baddie wants to look like they are not civilian.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Linki - I'm perfectly willing to consider Samuel. He could very well be bad. I do think your logic for suspecting him yesterday was flawed since I agreed with Samuel's perspective entirely.

[Phoebe Buffay]

And here's the part where I go NO U on Lot:

While reading everything Lot was saying, and trying to think why he was pushing for those voting for Balaam, I figured he must either have information on Balaam, or has BTSC with him. Or....it is what he wants us to believe.

Balaam had the second most votes last day, and some, like me, thought the votes for Job were an attempt to save Balaam, and when Job flliped civ, that notion gained more credit.
Suddenly, Lot comes in, and scolds us for almost lynching Balaam. Conveniently, he was silenced, so he couldn't vote, which makes him look more trust worthy. If Lot and Balaam are bad together, how are they going to make Balaam look better for next day? Have the silenced player come in and vouch stronly for him. That way, we end up looking bad, and Balaam's save is twisted to make the civvies believe that I knew both Job and Balaam were civvies and had no problem votind for either, so I made it look like I'm struggling.
Again, Lot who accuses others of not thinking logic through, does not give a reason for why I would do that instead of voting Samuel who was the trigger to my vote, if I didn't need to save anyone, and made myself look so flip floppy and all over the place.

So, as crazy as this may sound, I think there's a way Lot is bad after all, and Balaam is also bad.

Looking at the record of the votes here, I'm betting money that I'll be lynched today. If this ends up being a bandwagon on me, please go after these people after I'm lynched. Hopefully, it won't be too late

I'm just going to quote this post and underline everything I think looks designed to get people on side and not to actually build a case.

"Some, like me" - everyone is just like Jeph, his behaviour is no different.
"Conveniently silenced, so trustworthy" - in a world where we don't even know who is silencing or why (but it's clear to me it's coming from multiple sources) and where mafia silence themselves regularly, why would being silenced give me any credit.
"Balaam's save is twisted" - trying to turn Balaam's 'save' into 1) a fact and 2) a baddie move (hence the use of the word twisted).

~~~~~~~~~

linki - So, you think in a game of mafia, people just all vote the way the really deeply believe, and no-one follows established bandwagons? How does it NOT make sense... Absalom keeps being an early vote in a large group. It is, in fact, a FACT that people have followed him into the vote. It says nothing about their affiliation that they did so, my point was about the fact that I thought people (civilians, anyone really) was listening to him because he made his case HARD. More than that though, Absalom had picked up on one small aspect of my case and was pushing it, when my case was a whole lot of things. I've backed off Absalom because I actually read back and don't think he truly pushed the case hard, and think I was wrong about that. But there was nothing logically fallacious about it.

As for "Why should you care who gets lynched" or perhaps more importantly "Why should you look like you care who gets lynched"... because civilians care who gets lynched, and no baddie wants to look like they are not civilian.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Linki - I'm perfectly willing to consider Samuel. He could very well be bad. I do think your logic for suspecting him yesterday was flawed since I agreed with Samuel's perspective entirely.

I don't even know what you're saying here. Sorry. I don't care, just vote me.
Next time I'll just sit on the sidelines, come in, vote with a single line, not bother to try and discuss things with people and basically do all the things that are civvie like.
I've voted for only one civ that I know of. If Balaam is a civvie, that would make two. I've tried to look at all angles and not just jump on waggons, and tried to discuss things with people. I don't know what more a civvie is supposed to do. But recent events in RL leave me with no will to fight this.
If you wish for the civvies to win, voting me is the worst thing you could do. I'm done defending myself

[MartinWP69]

Stephen is here!

I'm going to trust my gut and declare that Balaam and Absalom are likely town because they are reading genuine to me. I also think the wolves have avoided attention for the most part, instead piling on a couple of major candidates each day (as Balaam pointed out).

What do players think of Ruth? Apparently I missed her when I left the thread the other day, and she asked me what I wanted to discuss like as if I hadn't said it. Paul had mentioned that MANY people declared an intention to vote for Ruth early on due to her trying to figure out everyone's identities, but then no one did, and NO ONE is talking about her. At all.

What's the deal? I don't even have reason to find her particularly suspicious, but her game is the epitome of flying just low enough to avoid major attention but not flying TOO low to seem as if she's not contributing.

What do you want to discuss with me? I recall a few people saying I was suspicious because I was curious about how obvious Paul was being, but I don't recall MANY saying they WERE going to vote for me. I think you're exagerrating just a wee bit there, hrm?

A lot of people are not being talked about, and quite a few are flying lower than I. Does it upset you that *I* am not being talked about because Paul wanted to talk about me? You keep wanting to talk about me, but all you have to say about me is that Paul thought I was suspicious, and that people should be talking about me more.

Start the conversation. Let's talk about me; I'm a fun topic

And Lot, do I need to quote your flip floppiness where you start by thinking I'm bad and choose me as your top suspect, continue with saying you completely changed your mind, only to come back and accuse me again?
I thought changing your mind is not allowed. It's a baddie tell.


And now I'm really out.

Since when is changing your mind always bad? As things change, new evidence comes to light, perhaps colored by night results as well. Or if someone puts up a good defense. Lots of valid reasons for mind changing. I get your point, flopping like a fish is not the same as just mind changing. Do you really think he's bad, or is this a No U sort of thing?

And wow, the WIFOM in Uzziahs post.

I want to discuss with you because you seem to be executing a PERFECT game in between flying low but not TOO low, and I'm not sure whether it's genuine or on purpose, so I'm trying to figure it out.

I didn't think I was exaggerating, so I took a look back and noticed there was some buzz around you, but not as much as I remember, I suppose. Nonetheless:

So what do you call them?

I do not like how you are trying to figure out who everyone is. Defeats the whole purpose of a sock game. Pray stop it or you will earn my vote day 1.

So what do you call them?

I do not like how you are trying to figure out who everyone is. Defeats the whole purpose of a sock game. Pray stop it or you will earn my vote day 1.

I completely agree, in a game where it has been commanded that identities are not to be shared, even in btsc. At least, I don't mind people trying to figure out who others are... I dare say there will be a lot of that going on. But it bothers me that someone would try to get others to outwardly incriminate themselves in the thread.

So what do you call them?

I do not like how you are trying to figure out who everyone is. Defeats the whole purpose of a sock game. Pray stop it or you will earn my vote day 1.

This

I am starting the conversation over and over; it's called "Does anyone find Ruth suspicious or not?" and the fact that NO ONE is answering me makes me increasingly wondering what is going on.

I know there are others flying lower than you and going largely undiscussed, but you have been discussed less than most other players in the game right now.

[MartinWP69]

I no longer think a Jeph vote is a good idea. He is reading genuine to me.

[MartinWP69]

Fuck it, I'm voting Uzziah.

[Echo]

Fuck it, I'm voting Uzziah.

Why?

[Joe Who?]

I'm also going to look sideways at anyone who thinks Lazarus is shady, tbqh. That means you, right now, Deborah.

Not that Lazarus must be good. But he certainly looks better after Job's death.

Like others, I'd also like clarification on this. Lazarus refuses to give explanation on his votes. Outright refuses. This is not helpful behavior. Why would a suspicion of him be so damning after Job's lynch?

Deborah, your read of Malchus is interesting, and he gives me the same sort of feeling Lazarus does. However, he hasn't spoken or voted since Day 3 so I dunno if I should take that as inactive or hiding, but it seems too long of a hide to me. I'd like to hear more from him.

Pilate's posts and behavior remind me of Uzziah's, until maybe the last couple of posts when he decides to get serious with some strange reasoning. I second the thought that defending yourself as civ by calling yourself out on un-civ behavior and voting for someone calling you a civ is...a very strange way to make yourself look good. I am seriously not understanding this tactic. Both look bad in this light.

I think I understand Jephthah's vote in the last lynch, although it was a very strange way to go about attempting to get at Samuel. There has definitely been pressure in this game (and really every game) to vote "where it counts" rather than where you believe it will. Jeph tried to garner Samuel votes without success several times. He voted for what he saw as the lesser of the two evils for voting, but by doing so apparently made his earlier comment regarding Balaam look like a flub. Could be a flub. I could be getting hookwinked. I often am in mafia. But I see why he did what he did and I don't see myself voting him today.

[Saito]

Continuing with my catchup from yesterday, I just reread Rachel. She's very active, a bit antagonistic, and a bit defensive. That said, I'm not sure that makes her bad? There have been lots of people picking at her posts, and I've been defensive as a civ where it reads a lot like that,so I'll put her down to neutral.

@Stephen, why bring up your suspicion of Ruth and then say "fuck it, I'm voting uzziah"?

[Saito]

Rahab has little output, but what is there is roughly neutral, nothing really pinged me but nothing soot dout as civvie, either. At least she's around.

Ruth is a bit wishy-washy for me. Lots of posts at the start with lots of jokey day 0 banter, but since then, Ruth has participated but often only on the bigger cases of the moment. It doesn't necessarily point to baddieness, I know that when life is in the way sometimes it is hard to comment past the bigger stuff, but it's still worth pointing out.

I haven't yet found anything better than Malchus/Lazarus for my vote today.

[Saito]

Oops, forgot to add Rebecca in there, same basic read as Rahab.

[Saito]

Samuel seems to be posting once or twice per day period... it could be a baddie trying to appear like they are staying current. Neutral is the best I could say, here.

And lastly, Stephen and Uzziah. Both of these two are really playing up the meta-sock aspect of the game. Stephen is psoting like some kind of superhero with "Stephen out!" and "Stephen is here!" all the damn time. Meanwhile, Uzziah has the notorious "rooting for the scum" comment and recently had some more flippant posts. I have a very hard time analyzing people who are this deep into a persona. It makes their actions impossible to judge. For instance, why did Stephen talk about suspicion of Ruth and then vote for Uzziah because "fuck it"? Is this a baddie trying to force the lynch away from someone we've been talking about? Perhaps Lazarus? Or is Uzziah bad and his whole schtick is a wifom lover's dream?

I don't like voting for people in meta-mode, so I'll be voting for either Malchus or Lazarus. I'd like to give them both a chance to reply to my thoguhts on them, though, so I won't be voting yet.

[Snapshot]

If you wish for the civvies to win, voting me is the worst thing you could do. I'm done defending myself

Yeah. I've read that plenty before.

You know what? If I wish for civvies to win, voting civilians out is a bad idea. But no one civilian is 'the worst thing I could do'.

I have no will to fight it either. I've failed to get anyone I actually find suspicious over the line in this game. The only person lynched that I was suspicious of was Job. I'm hoping that finally one of the people I actually suspect is lynched. And is bad. I believe you are. I have to go with my gut.

[Jack Shephard]

Definitely getting unfavorable vibes from Jeph throughout that exchange. I more or less trust Lot now, and Jeph's attitude is not looking civ to me. Sorry about your RL stuff though <3

[NurseWilgy]

Sorry for my absence, friends. No time for me to catch up now, but I am voting for Uzziah because I still suspect him and he has dodged a few punches. Apologies again for being a bad absent Absalom.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I like Deborah's posts a lot. I think they are to the point, and sum things up nicely. I'm still not sure on Malchus and Lazarus. It sucks that they don't give enough to help us read them, because if they are civvies and get lynched, it will ruin the game for us. If not, they're just playing an awful game.

I'd rather vote for one of those who drive by, post one post just to look active, vote and then disappear into oblivion once again. These include Samuel and Rebecca for starters.

If you wish for the civvies to win, voting me is the worst thing you could do. I'm done defending myself

Yeah. I've read that plenty before.

You know what? If I wish for civvies to win, voting civilians out is a bad idea. But no one civilian is 'the worst thing I could do'.

I have no will to fight it either. I've failed to get anyone I actually find suspicious over the line in this game. The only person lynched that I was suspicious of was Job. I'm hoping that finally one of the people I actually suspect is lynched. And is bad. I believe you are. I have to go with my gut.

Great, if you succeed with this one, and you are a civvie, do me a favour, practic what you preach and stop using illogical reasoning to explain pushing for a civvie's lynch.

I'm voting Samuel, because Uzziah just annoys me and I have no idea how to read him. I'm choosing to act like he's not playing the game

[Phoebe Buffay]

And I'm leaving. I'll be back after the day ends

[Young Lady]

Lot, can you please tell us why those suspecting Lazarus deserve to be eyeballed and why Job's lynch makes him look better?

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Uzziah has been on my brain for a long time in this game. As I stated before I've come to the conclusion he wouldn't act the way he's acting, confusing us in the process, if he was civ. So, I am voting Uzziah today.

[Echo]

I find it curious that both Pilate and Absalom vote for me right after I defend them. However Stephen is acting even more sketchy so that's where my vote goes.

[Snapshot]

I was hoping I had more time to catch up on everything but it looks like I won't. So I haven't read the last page or so yet. I'm voting Jephthah. I see the vote is going the way of Uzziah. . I tend to think Uzz might be horseman and Jeph might be heathen.

@rahab and whoever else asked - I have no intention of clarifying my stance on Lazarus. I'm suspicious of people who don't understand because I think it means they are not actually working to figure out who might be civilian and why. Evidence is better than gut reads.

[Rachel Green]

1. We have yet to catch a baddie.
2. Job really thought that Uzz was a baddie.
3. We have YET to catch a baddie.
4. Job was NOT a baddie.
5. WE HAVE YET TO CATCH A BADDIE!!
6. I am trusting Job (even though I voted him twice :/) and voting for Uzz.

[Nicol Bolas]

I find it curious that both Pilate and Absalom vote for me right after I defend them. However Stephen is acting even more sketchy so that's where my vote goes.

Curious indeed.

[Echo]

I find it curious that both Pilate and Absalom vote for me right after I defend them. However Stephen is acting even more sketchy so that's where my vote goes.

Curious indeed.

I see . . . I'm being framed! When I flip civ everyone will think Pilate is bad and not vote for Absalom!

[Quokka]

It should come as no surprise that I am voting for Jeph.

[Larry David]

I've been wondering if Job was actually right about Uzziah ever since he flipped civ. I've been giving Uzziah benefit of the doubt, because the last time I helped lynch somebody that was acting like that, they turned out to be the medic and were trying to make sure mafia didnt kill them.

Part of me is just wondering "What if?".

Also I seen that we suspect Rachel of being silenced, but hasnt she been silenced already on a previous day? If so, why would they silence Rachel twice?

[Young Lady]

I'm voting Samuel. He chose to bandwagon the other Day, with no particular investment in either of the two wagon players, only to express an "anti-vote" for Absalom, but stating that voting for him would have been pointless, which is statistically and timeline-wise not true. He claims he didn't want to waste his vote, but has since made no effort whatsoever to further pursue and expand a case on Absalom being bad, with a full new Day at his disposal. In other words, wasting a vote on someone you actually think is bad is a no-no, but wasting a new Day not doing anything about it is fine. "Bah"

[Ned Flanders]

They might silence Rachel twice becasue she is a problem for them.

I don't think Jeph is bad (regardless of him kinda hissying on me earlier) I am going to go with Uzziah.

[Kent Brockman]

Welll I going to stick by my guns and vote Absalom. I really hope everyone is right about Uzziah because we can't afford to keep lynching civs.

[Jack Shephard]

I'd be happy to see either Uzziah or Jephthah gone today. Honestly I'm surprised Uzziah wasn't lynched within the first couple days, since he was acting weird and has been a consistent back-burner suspect ever since -- somehow other stuff always came up that pushed discussion of him away. I think both Uzz and Jeph are bad and I'm honestly having a hard time deciding which one to vote for (though it looks like Uzz is more likely to be lynched at this point)

[Joe Who?]

I'm down with this. Voting Uzziah.

[Prisoner 509378]

Oh hi there. Still re-reading. Up to page 25 of what is now 39 pages. We'll see how much ground I cover in the next hour before voting. I see a lot of people have fallen back on Uzziah. Interesting. I'll have to go through my notes on him here and see what my inklings are, for what little they've been worth so far this game. Then I might respond to some comments. I really wanted to finish this re-read yesterday but I'm always in and out on weekends.

[Paul Stevens]

This is not at all going the way I thought it would. I still don't feel great about a Uzziah lynch. I haven't from the (my) beginning. I'm going to go with the one person I am remotely comfortable with voting (who already has votes. Jep

[dodo]

I am not silenced... I only have time for this one post though.


TBH this day has been a whirlwind. However, I want to reiterate a position that I have held for awhile now:

People keep saying we need to stop lynching active players. People keep saying this with no basis to it.
Day 1 - Samson
Day 2 - Cain
Day 3- Mary
Day 4 - Job
Job is the first "active" player we lynched. This push to lynch only low posters is strange and continuous.



Additionally, the talk about the Pharaoh conducting the kills-- could it be because other members of the baddie team are inactive? That contradicts what I said above, but it's a possibility we might have to consider.


I'm voting Uzziah now. Pilate has been sketchy AF all game, but his point against him was good.

[Saito]

The lynch looks like it is going to Uuziah, so I have placed my vote on Malchus as a little bit of a nudge. Malchus, your posts sink and I'm going to keep pushing you until you come back and play.

[Snapshot]

I am not silenced... I only have time for this one post though.

I've been there!

[Prisoner 509378]

It's vote time and I am only on page 30 of 39. Thus, I have read very little of Day 5's developments. The uninformed should not vote, so much like New York, Balaam abstains, courteously.

[Celeste]

Jep

[Epignosis]

Who slew Nicodemus?

Poll ended at Sun May 17, 2015 10:37 pm

Absalom
1
Lazarus (17)
4%

Bathsheba
0
No votes

Deborah
0
No votes

Esther
0
No votes

Isaac
0
No votes

Jephthah
5
Rebecca (6), Lot (12), Samuel (14), Isaac (20), Jonah (24)
21%

Jonah
0
No votes

Lazarus
0
No votes

Malchus
1
Deborah (23)
4%

Pilate
0
No votes

Rachel
0
No votes

Rahab
0
No votes

Rebecca
0
No votes

Ruth
0
No votes

Samuel
2
Jephthah (9), Belshazzar (15)
8%

Stephen
1
Uzziah (11)
4%

Uzziah
9
Pilate (4), Stephen (7), Absalom (8), Jonathan (10), Esther (13), Ruth (16), Rahab (19), Rachel (21), Mordecai (22)
38%

Reentering his Mother's Womb (The Host, the Non, the Dead)
5
Epignosis (1), Nicodemus (2), MovingPictures07 (3), Roxy (5), Bass_the_Clever (18)
21%


Total votes : 24