Mafia: A World Reborn Game Thread - Game Over

**http://www.last.fm/user/nutella23** · #851

SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

#852

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Dom, AMA

Why? Your post history has the following as explanations:

Turnip Head wrote:I don't see Epi suspecting you because he disagrees with you. I don't see Epi suspecting SVS because he disagrees with her. I also don't think he's only suspecting you because he needs someone to latch onto - his case might not be the most solid one I've seen, but it feels genuine to me, and he's discussed players other than you.

I think you're trying to create a false narrative here.

Turnip Head wrote:I'm not convinced he's bad yet. I just thought his questions weren't as pointed compared to what I'm used to from him. Minor ping.

You admit that it "might not be the most solid", so does genuine Epi = right Epi? In all games I've played here I've seen people comment on Epi tunneling. His first two real posts in the case go from "Yeah you are [bad]. Voting Dom." to comments that he isn't taking a stand/too easy-going on various things on day 1. My issue with that would be firstly that not all players take hard stances and love long arguments; I do, Epi clearly does, many others do, but some players simply don't. Does this violate Dom's established meta? Secondly, if it's scummy when Dom doesn't give a counter-reply to every reply towards his questions, how about from other players? For example, if

Dom wrote:Can you explain how nutella is lurking?

is scummy, how can you get away with

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

Without pushing Dom further, especially since you are now pursuing his lynch? That all neglects that Dom's initial question about nutella lurking was misrepresented by Epi, and Epi never cared to actually respond to his counter-reply.

#853

nutella wrote:SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

Is she still on your suspect list?

#854

Matt F wrote:
LoRab wrote:and I've taken a painkiller, so I should probably quit posting for the night.
I think LoRab posting on meds would be awesome.

I'm sure it's entertaining. I can't remember which games I played while quite medicated. But I'm sure there were loopy posts in several games.

Turnip Head wrote:I voted for Dom, AMA

You voted for Ama? But he hasn't been around in years!!

On topicly, voting Sig.

#855

There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?

#856

Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?

It ends at 10 pm EST time.

Don't forget to change your clocks, those of you with day light savings time being over.

#857

He said 10PM EST today, which should be in 5 hours 20 minutes I believe.

#858

Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.

Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.

#859

Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?

I am OK with it, the host posts say when the cycles end

nutella wrote:SVS, I think I've explained why I decided not to vote for Bug. One or two people, I forget who, had concluded that he looked more like a loner civ than a baddie and I agreed. I realized that it was just another Day 1 bandwagon on a low poster who didn't actually look like a baddie for any particular reason, and besides, I found that I was more suspicious of Sorsha than anyone. Since I had no investment in the tie, I wanted to let it play out and see who *did* break it, and meanwhile preferred to vote for my own highest suspect at the time.

But you voted for Sorsha based on her vote for Dom. So it seems you DID have some investment in the tie.

#860

juliets wrote:
Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.
Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.

I was only able to get a quick glance at the thread, I didn't have time to make a post because I was going out somewhere.
How exactly can it be elaborated on? I do know BUGLABUSH in real life, but I'm still going to treat him (and the other people I know IRL) like any regular player.
My point is that a vague reason is always a suspicious reason.

#861

S~V~S wrote:
Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?
I am OK with it, the host posts say when the cycles end

I have too many things to remember. I just like it at the top of the poll as a reminder every time I come in and read. But I understand if you don't need it. Some people can remember everything and never have to write anything down. i.e. my husband. I have been with him for over 15 years and never saw him make a to do list, write down directions, or anything of the sort until this past week. I, however, write everything down. God gave me a creative mind, instead

That's one reason I play mafia...to try and keep my mind sharp in old age and motherhood.

#862

I don't think Sig is a good choice for the lynch, I think his bandwagon has come together too easily, and I would probably use my vote in his defence if needed. I am not really sure how he stands at 5 votes.

#863

Elohcin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Elohcin wrote:There is still no date/time on the poll. How is everyone okay with this? I believe the day ends this evening, am I right?
I am OK with it, the host posts say when the cycles end

I have too many things to remember. I just like it at the top of the poll as a reminder every time I come in and read. But I understand if you don't need it. Some people can remember everything and never have to write anything down. i.e. my husband. I have been with him for over 15 years and never saw him make a to do list, write down directions, or anything of the sort until this past week. I, however, write everything down. God gave me a creative mind, instead That's one reason I play mafia...to try and keep my mind sharp in old age and motherhood.

I made a to-do list Friday and didn't do half of what was on it.

#864

sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

#865

Tranq wrote:
Luke11646 wrote:I'm voting for tranq because he hasn't made any comments and isn't doing anything.
Luke11646, on Day 1 you voted for me. Now, it's ok, everybody makes mistakes But can you explain why you decided to vote for me over other players who hadn't posted yet?

I didn't knowwho to vote for so I picked a random person who wasn't voting much and it happened to be you.

#866

Golden wrote:I don't think Sig is a good choice for the lynch, I think his bandwagon has come together too easily, and I would probably use my vote in his defence if needed. I am not really sure how he stands at 5 votes.

I was thinking of joining you with nutella. SVS' comments regarding the situation are leading me in that direction after my initial suspicion. Gonna placehold on nutella for now.

Linki - Zebees, what do you think of nute?

#867

Golden wrote:I don't think Sig is a good choice for the lynch, I think his bandwagon has come together too easily, and I would probably use my vote in his defence if needed. I am not really sure how he stands at 5 votes.

Are there players on the bandwagon you are suspicious of or you just don't agree with the suspicion itself? Or both?

#868

TheFloyd73 wrote:
juliets wrote:
Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.
Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.
I was only able to get a quick glance at the thread, I didn't have time to make a post because I was going out somewhere.
How exactly can it be elaborated on? I do know BUGLABUSH in real life, but I'm still going to treat him (and the other people I know IRL) like any regular player.
My point is that a vague reason is always a suspicious reason.

Buga's vote was a no u vote. How did that make him seem bad? Tranq may have more questions out of what he said but this is the main one.

#869

I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.

#870

a2thezebra wrote:sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

Civvie sig's defenses rarely make 'sense', as such, he ties himself into knots. I don't think, however, that as a baddie he would come out and say that the baddies are 'currently' doing x, it doesn't make sense to me as being a scumslip. Plus, the bandwagon has been too easy.

Who else do you suspect? What do you think of the points that have been made on nutella? Are there other people I should be looking at? I don't really have a good idea of who people should vote for, but I think I've had a decent idea of who we shouldn't vote for. I'm not putting my vote anywhere in the dom/svs/epi triangle.

@Sorsha - there are not specific players in there that I'm suspicious of, as such, but it wouldn't surprise me if the existing votes include one or two mafia. I think Bullzeye was sincere in making his case.

#871

a2thezebra wrote:I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.

Is that because you don't trust me?

#872

juliets wrote:
TheFloyd73 wrote:
juliets wrote:
Tranq wrote:TheFloyd73's vote for BUGLABUSH stands out to me. Matt F brought up his vote here:

TheFloyd73 wrote:
Matt F wrote: However, I do have a question for you Floyd. You invited your friends to play in this game, yet you voted for Bug on Day 1. Why?
Anyone who votes for someone wth the excuse "he bad" is more than likely scum. Perhaps he's trying to (very vaguely) convince us that Zebra's scum.
At this stage, I'm not convinced that Zebra is on one specific side of the (civ-scum) spectrum (in other words, I'd call him neural). I'll need to re-read his posts.
Looks to me BUGLABUSH's post was a response to getting a vote from a2thezebra:

a2thezebra wrote:To BUGLABUSH it is.

BUGLABUSH wrote:I voted for a2thezebra because he bad
Floyd, i don't see how a no u-vote makes BUGLABUSH 'more than likely' bad. Could you elaborate on this? Looks like you two know each other irl so i'd understand a joke Day 1 vote, but given your response to Matt F, this doesn't appear to be that.
Floyd, you were online this afternoon at 3:32, an hour after Tranq made this post and after I made mine. Can you explain why you did not address this issue? Your behavior regarding these questions makes me believe you are bad. This isn't your first game, you know better.
I was only able to get a quick glance at the thread, I didn't have time to make a post because I was going out somewhere.
How exactly can it be elaborated on? I do know BUGLABUSH in real life, but I'm still going to treat him (and the other people I know IRL) like any regular player.
My point is that a vague reason is always a suspicious reason.
Buga's vote was a no u vote. How did that make him seem bad? Tranq may have more questions out of what he said but this is the main one.

I've pretty much given you full reasoning and you ask me the same questions.
Would you care to share your opinions on BUGLABUSH?

#873

I'm not attempting to justify anyone else's BUGLA vote on Day 1, but I believe mine is perfectly justified.

a2thezebra wrote:This:
Golden wrote:
BUGLABUSH wrote:Wanna be friends guys
I'll be your friend if you give opinions on other people in the thread and explain whether you think they are good or bad and why
Was followed by this:
BUGLABUSH wrote:Alright then, nice
Which was followed by anything BUT giving opinions on other people in the thread and explaining whether he thinks they are good or bad and why. If I'm given a reason to think that anyone else is a more valuable lynch than someone who is practically taking enjoyment out of refusing to contribute, (which I believe would not be the case if that BUGLABUSH is town, so this is in no way a policy lynch), then I will change my vote. Give me that reason, please.

#874

I feel like votes for bugla were justified as well. I took mine off by the end, but if I hadn't I would be sticking up for it. And if I'd been around for end of day and seen banana coming up like that, I would probably have put my vote back on bugla.

#875

Where's Mac been?

#876

Golden wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I have a neutral read on nutella right now. Gun to my head, civvie or baddie, I would go with baddie. But I don't trust that lynch.
Is that because you don't trust me?

No, I think your vote is well-reasoned enough, as well as Matt F. But as I said before, I don't trust any lynch at this point that isn't a sig lynch.

linki - Road trip bruh

#877

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

#878

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.

#879

Epignosis wrote:I changed my vote to nutella. Tertiary suspect and all.

What do you think of the sig wagon?

#880

Sorsha wrote: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.

My experience with her is limited. In my first game ever, she was my baddie teammate and was lynched Day one, I think. Other then that, I can't remember any games I played with her (I would like to emphasize that this is my second game after a two year hiatus, as well)

So, to answer your question, a poor judge I guess.

#881

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

Epignosis wrote: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?

#882

a2thezebra wrote:sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?

Could you explain how my defense makes no sense? How should I have as a civ defended myself.

#883

Epignosis wrote: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.

#884

Here it is. You even used the word "distant", but using it again when voting for nutella wouldn't look too good would it?

Epignosis wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:In that order?
Dom
S~V~S
...
nutella

nutella is a distant tertiary suspect.

#885

sig wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:sig's defenses make no sense from a civvie perspective. Who else would I vote for, Golden?
Could you explain how my defense makes no sense? How should I have as a civ defended myself.

Could you explain how it does? And there are an infinite amount of ways you could have gone about defending yourself, genuine and otherwise that would look better for your alignment. I've already addressed why your defense is unacceptable here:

a2thezebra wrote:Also, I am 100% positive sig never would have pointed out the "us" thing to try and make me look bad if Bullz hadn't already done so as a maybe-but-not-really-joke. It's debatable as to whether or not civvies say "us", it's not debatable that civvies never resort to opportunistic derails of other players based on nothing whatsoever, to distract from their own poor defenses of the case against themselves.

#886

Sorsha wrote: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.

Not the best, tbh. If you recall the Freemasons games cabin fevah put on at LP? I led a day one lynch on her, and she was Mother Theresa

Based on tone, I can't read her at all. the thing that strikes me here is her mentioning Buglabush more than once, but when it came time to put her money where her mouth was, she made a tangent vote. I would have felt that was suspicious regardless of who did it.

#887

Just under 4 hours left to go in this lynch.

#888

Perhaps she intended to bus him initially, but backed out later when the lynch looked less likely.

#889

Know I like the case against nutella enough to place my vote there, but I will hold my vote I would prefer not to waste a day phase with an attempt to lynch me.

linki: Zebra I already explained why I used that as an example it wasn't meant to try and derail or distract it wasn't an attempt to get you lynched. That wasn't even my main defense it was a point the first couple posts I made my defense many off the people voting me ignored it. My defense is based around the fact your all lynhcing me since I said probably. And this was a scum slip. I made several defenses I pointed out things about Bull's post that hints to him being scum and you've ignored it.

#890

Golden wrote:I don't think Sig is a good choice for the lynch, I think his bandwagon has come together too easily, and I would probably use my vote in his defence if needed. I am not really sure how he stands at 5 votes.

I'm with you, I think the case on sig is much ado about nothing. I'm not suspicious of nutella either though, I think she has explained herself reasonably well and feels like she has nothing to hide.

Out of the sig voters I think Luke looks the worst. Take a look at his post history and also the point I made about him earlier in this phase and tell me he isn't phoning it in.

#891

sig wrote:Know I like the case against nutella enough to place my vote there, but I will hold my vote I would prefer not to waste a day phase with an attempt to lynch me.

linki: Zebra I already explained why I used that as an example it wasn't meant to try and derail or distract it wasn't an attempt to get you lynched. That wasn't even my main defense it was a point the first couple posts I made my defense many off the people voting me ignored it. My defense is based around the fact your all lynhcing me since I said probably. And this was a scum slip. I made several defenses I pointed out things about Bull's post that hints to him being scum and you've ignored it.

You act as if I've missed or overlooked some of your actions. That is not the case, I just find the way you have chosen to defend yourself to be appallingly telling of your alignment. Even here as one of the examples of your "several defenses" (like having many defenses is a good thing when none of the defenses themselves are good) you use a previous attempt to redirect the attention to someone else as if it were a valid defense for your own actions. As I said before, this kind of thinking makes no sense from a civvie perspective. My vote stays.

#892

juliets wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

#893

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

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

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

#894

Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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?

#895

Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

#896

juliets wrote: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?

#897

Luke's sig vote is low-hanging fruit. I voted for the most popular current lynch before catching up many times as a newbie. It might be telling but it's too early to consider it a ping now. I'm especially weary of those who are bothered by Luke's vote today yet made no comment on BUGLA's clearly scum-motivated OMGUS the day before.

linki - No, I have not. Your question was sandwiched between a lot of other things I had to address from Mac and others so I kind of said fuck it and ignored the lot of it because I was tired. I will go back and address these when I can.

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.

#898

S~V~S wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
juliets wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

Epignosis wrote: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.

#899

Epignosis wrote:
Sorsha wrote:
Epignosis wrote: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.

#900

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

The latter. I don't think anyone was saved Day 1 and I try to avoid basing analyses off of speculations. I would not consider it "speculation" that Banana's mislynch was, in general, scummy as shit. So I wanted to distinguish those who voted for him to get a better idea of who the likely culprits are.

Who to lynch? 24 hour day!