Draconus wrote:Putting my vote on Canuck. Really right now my only suspicion of her is because of her Luke vote. It reeked of indifferent baddie bandwagon voting...ness. But seriously, though, her vote post did strike me as that of a mafia member throwing her vote on the tail end of a bandwagon to attempt to blend in with the rest.
Linki: I think it's worth noting that my vote here has nothing to do with Typhoony's defense post of Juliets. I still am unsure of how to feel about her myself.
I was like the second or third vote on him? Lol.
Really? I have a poor memory on top of everything else that's been swimming through my head lately. I apologize if that's the case.
Epignosis wrote:I don't get why Canucklehead is more suspicious to some people than juliets.
I read your posts below this and kind of understand your vote for me. To respond to this post: I voted for Canucklehead over Juliets because I still haven't had time to read through Juliets' posts. All I've been able to do so far is to just stay current. However, I will do my best to give that a shot tonight. I can't guarantee it will happen, though.
Question for you, though: Did you happen to read my self-defense post among my triple posts? No one ever responded to it that I could see.
"Modular forms and elliptic curves! Infinite fire revolving around infinite parallels fractals of infinite reality, each cascading, gliding in an infinite wheel. Tell me the true nature of my reality!"
Turnip Head wrote:Why is Typh voting for Canuck? His post history reveals nothing. lol all his posts are about juliets
When I went to vote MarshMellow, I realized that I would rather not vote for someone that I don't remember receiving a vote yet. So I voted for Canuck, who did receive a vote yesterday and who did ping me as I said when I went over the case on Juliets. You even quoted the damn post.
Next time, please actually read my post history before claiming something is or is not in it.
Sorry, I was talking about your posts toDay, specifically looking for a post where you mentioned voting for her. It's why I asked.
Why would you rather not vote someone who doesn't have a vote?
If you had said "Why did Typh vote Canuck? I can only find a post where he said he voted MetalMarsh." or something that would have been more fair.
Your post makes it seem like I never even mentioned Canuck and that I never mentioned voting at all. Neither are true and for someone who claims to have looked through my post history, you should've known.
DrWilgy wrote:Voted LoRab. His last post tipped the decision. He continues to not accurately describe his initial slip post or characterize what pinged several people. And his defenses in general continue to make him more suspish.
LoRab's a chica. Unless she's already had the operation.
Ummmmm Zebra, I just realized you might not think that was funny. Just so ya know, I support the LGBT community very much, and I was just being immature right there.
Linki - Okey dokey Luke was bad. Don't lynch me, town.
ROFL I've made way more offensive jokes than that, don't sweat it.
Well, since the reason for my Canuck vote is null, I'm moving my vote to myself, temporarily.
"Modular forms and elliptic curves! Infinite fire revolving around infinite parallels fractals of infinite reality, each cascading, gliding in an infinite wheel. Tell me the true nature of my reality!"
Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?
You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.
I'm not bad, folks. Move along.
I asked you a couple questions in the process, which you have avoided.
Here's a couple more: Who are your current top 3 suspects? If you could lynch a player by yourself who would it be, and why? What is your opinion of Typhoony?
Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?
You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.
I'm not bad, folks. Move along.
I asked you a couple questions in the process, which you have avoided.
Here's a couple more: Who are your current top 3 suspects? If you could lynch a player by yourself who would it be, and why? What is your opinion of Typhoony?
Read my conversation with Golden yesterday. I list my suspect (Juliets, maybe Floyd, but still haven't read back on him) there.
If I could lynch someone by myself it would be Juliets (because she's suspicious) or Mac (because I don't think his contributions are helping the civ cause, or making the game more navigable)
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.
DFaraday wrote:I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.
Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.
@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?
I'll need to look over juliets, but I do think someone who mildly defended Luke or didn't vote for him and picked a solo vote is a teammate.
I think Floyd is a strong possibility for being Luke's teammate, given not only Tranq's comments, but Floyd's RIP to Luke and vote for Nutella when it was still very close between Luke and Nutella.
Matt F's defense of Luke and attempt to sway votes off of him catches my eye too.
I'm not really convinced by the Canuck case. She voted Luke early in the day, which seems like an odd strategy for a baddie teammate. Juliets is reading civ to me, but she always does.
fingersplints wrote:TH: Because I don't agree with your points on someone it does not mean I thought you were bad. I thought you were wrong, but that you had good intentions. I was looking forward to discussing Dom with you more before you were killed. I had reread him some from other games and I became less confident about him being a civvie. That suspicion seems to have dropped off anyways
Now I don't get the same feeling about you having good intetnions. I wouldn't say I suspect you yet. Hopefully the results of this lynch will help me decide about a few people.
DFaraday wrote:I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.
Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.
@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?
I'll need to look over juliets, but I do think someone who mildly defended Luke or didn't vote for him and picked a solo vote is a teammate.
I think Floyd is a strong possibility for being Luke's teammate, given not only Tranq's comments, but Floyd's RIP to Luke and vote for Nutella when it was still very close between Luke and Nutella.
Matt F's defense of Luke and attempt to sway votes off of him catches my eye too.
I'm not really convinced by the Canuck case. She voted Luke early in the day, which seems like an odd strategy for a baddie teammate. Juliets is reading civ to me, but she always does.
For right now I'll vote Floyd.
I have had this in the back of my mind for some time now and have been very flippant about it, tbh. However, I think it's enough to make me vote with you, DF. Floyd
"Modular forms and elliptic curves! Infinite fire revolving around infinite parallels fractals of infinite reality, each cascading, gliding in an infinite wheel. Tell me the true nature of my reality!"
Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?
You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.
I'm not bad, folks. Move along.
So, you're indy? Hmmmm...K-nuk Indy....not sure I'd want to trust that...
fingersplints wrote:TH: Because I don't agree with your points on someone it does not mean I thought you were bad. I thought you were wrong, but that you had good intentions. I was looking forward to discussing Dom with you more before you were killed. I had reread him some from other games and I became less confident about him being a civvie. That suspicion seems to have dropped off anyways
Now I don't get the same feeling about you having good intetnions. I wouldn't say I suspect you yet. Hopefully the results of this lynch will help me decide about a few people.
This reads rather contrived to me.
What games didyou read?
What about it reads contrived to you?
I read all your posts in Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, and skimmed some other posts. (I think TSM and probably whatever other game you played recently since I didn't go far back) I spent most time rereading the first one though, since you were bad there.
Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?
You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.
I'm not bad, folks. Move along.
So, you're indy? Hmmmm...K-nuk Indy....not sure I'd want to trust that...
Why would I feel better about someone being an Indy if they are behaving in a way I thought to be opportunistic? Or misrepresenting their motivations? Some indies are civ centric, and some are not. Regardless of how huge the gray area is, and how many roles are in it, has no bearing on behavior. If you are acting like a baddie, as far as I am concerned, you are one. I see no reason for a civ friendly Indy to act like a baddie.
First you were a disinterested civ, now you are in a "gray area". I think you are scrambling.
Skip softly, my moonbeams, for I have heard tell
That the stairs up to heaven lead straight down to hell
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.
Now that I've pointed them out to you as questions directed at you, will you answer them?
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.
Now that I've pointed them out to you as questions directed at you, will you answer them?
So, with the time I had for the game today, I just read back through Canuckle and Juliets. I'm going to give Canuck a pass as I think she is probably hinting at the truth with the indy thing, and frankly I only like lynching indies when there is no clear case on a baddie. Juliets, however, I can see as bad. Reading through her posts, there is a lot of the usual juliets polite questions etc. but VERY little content of her own. The only thing she has consistently hung onto from what I can see is the sig case, which, whir I've supported it for tangential reasons, is based on very little meat. Juliets' posts feel like she's just saying what needs to be said to appear to be engaging. Thus, a vote for juliets from me.
DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.
I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.
Matt F wrote:DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.
I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.
Day 0, he makes a jokey post about voting for Matt on principle. It struck me as pseudo-on-topic-joke-post baddies sometimes make, but not as suspicious in and of itself. However, when called out on it, he waffled between it having been just a joke and he really meant it and votes for Matt until he's out of the game as a policy vote. Because Matt isn't helpful as a player in finding baddies and he, on principle, will always vote for Matt until Matt is dead in every game (which he seems to have dropped at some point).
Also, retorting that finding valid reasons to vote for someone is pingy to him. Which actually fits in with his ongoing seemingly random naming of people.
Also, he put forth the question of there not being any bad roles, which perhaps was trying to get the focus away from there actually being baddies in this game. And trying to blow off suspicion from himself because we don't know the alignment of roles and if one suspects him of being a certain role, we can't konw if that role is good or bad. This section of conversation struck me as doubletalk, trying to evade suspicion.
He repeatedly mentions players and a sure sense of them being bad--or posts absolute statements of his opinion of players without qualifying why he feels that way or explaining anything. He often does this late in lynches, which strikes me as suspicious in and of itself.
Also, he claims that anyone who votes for him has bad consequences happen, and yet, I have not had any and voted for him day 1.
He calls anyone who suspects him opportunistic for pointing things that they find suspicious. And yet calls pingy anything that anyone posts that he doesn't agree with.
Also, he makes lots of posts, many of which are just 1 or 2 lines, wihch is a great way to keep one's post count up, without needing to add a great deal of content.
He ignores questions to him and about him that he doesn't feel like answering. And outright states that he's ignoring them, so it's not like he's missing them.
Also, he posted that he was scum--which could have been just joking around, but also why say that if you're civ?
He posted RIH to TH, which seemed like an odd response to a death caused by an apparent baddie.
He has waffled back and forth on Sig so many times that it makes my head spin.
He also impllied thathe can't be lynched at some point, but htat could have just been to get ttention of of him. It didn't seem like an honest plea at the time, as I pointed out at the time. It felt like a bluff.
He has been so wrapped up in his own opinions, that he has barely commented on anyone who has been lynched. Even though he has actively posted in lynches.
All in all, all that adds up to me suspecting him.
Matt F wrote:DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.
I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.
I might end up moving it.
What do you mean by Progressive votes?
The Day 0 poll, I believe, asked us to pick our fave music. Afterwards, Long Con told us that one civ, one baddie, and one indy were told that a possible outcome of the poll would be to have your name removed from the Day 1 poll if you vote progressive.
I can see MM being indy. Why do you think you'll move your vote from him?
Playing Fallout 4 all day has been my main priority today. Mafia has had to take a back seat!
Matt F wrote:DF - No I wasn't comfortable lynching two new players within the first four days, but we caught a baddie so it's all good.
I continue to look at Bullz and Metalmarsh for their Progressive votes, and other things (Bullz' response to my questioning of him surviving is iffy, and map stuff concerning MM). Turnip looks like he placed a vote on MM, but now seems to be looking at other candidates. Turnip do you think your vote will remain on MM, I might put a vote there.
What's iffy about my response? You quoted the night post and asked what happened, I still don't know what exactly you expected me to say. The baddies tried to kill me and they failed. There's nothing more to it.
Matt F wrote:The Day 0 poll, I believe, asked us to pick our fave music. Afterwards, Long Con told us that one civ, one baddie, and one indy were told that a possible outcome of the poll would be to have your name removed from the Day 1 poll if you vote progressive.
I can see MM being indy. Why do you think you'll move your vote from him?
Prog is my favorite and most-listened to music, so I voted accordingly.
Matt F wrote:The Day 0 poll, I believe, asked us to pick our fave music. Afterwards, Long Con told us that one civ, one baddie, and one indy were told that a possible outcome of the poll would be to have your name removed from the Day 1 poll if you vote progressive.
Oh. Duh.
Matt F wrote:I can see MM being indy. Why do you think you'll move your vote from him?
I'd rather see juliets or Typh lynched at this point. I'm probing MM because he hasn't participated until now.
Just read through Juliets. Her post where she votes Luke does read like a teammate begrudingly voting. Not quite defending, but pointing out weaknesses in the argument against him even as the vote goes that way. Because jumping on a running bandwagon is generally a good way to try to distance yourself--but you don't want to accuse the person that hard, in case there's a chance to turn it around.
Dang Bullz came outta nowhere to defend. What's up Bullz, besides sig, who you lookin' at
Linki - MM, gotcha. What are your feelings on Turnip Head?
Am I still looking at Sig?
Avoiding my question? Between Juliets and Floyd, G2H, who would you lynch? I'd lynch Floyd, personally.
Not avoiding your question, checking if you're actually paying attention to things I've said. Not to mention, you avoided my question first. Do I have to lynch one of them? I'll say Floyd because I don't remember seeing anything in particular from him and I'm not sure if I understand the JC case properly. I probably won't be voting for either of them anyway.
Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.
I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...
LoRab wrote:Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.
I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...
Matt F wrote:What do you think of Canuckle, Bullz?
Well I already had a fairly solid suspicion of her based on her blendiness and dodgy voting. A lot of her posts since coming under serious fire have only made me feel worse about her. I particularly find the sudden claim of being indy a little convenient. Especially worded in such a way that I think would be difficult to lie detect and verify in any way. I don't believe it and think it comes off as a weak attempt at getting people to simply drop all suspicion because hey, she outright admitted to her alignment right? No way a baddie would ever lie about that. I will probably vote Canuck today.
Canucklehead wrote:Sigh. I love how every single person with a case against me has fastidiously avoided the central question I keep repeating: why do my actions make me bad instead of simply un-civ?
You're all wrong, and you're wasting a lynch, and I hope those who are pursuing a civ victory look carefully at how purposefully the people pushing my lunch avoided acknowledging the very large grey area that is a part of this game's set up, and that certain folks refuse to take into account.
I'm not bad, folks. Move along.
So, you're indy? Hmmmm...K-nuk Indy....not sure I'd want to trust that...
Why would I feel better about someone being an Indy if they are behaving in a way I thought to be opportunistic? Or misrepresenting their motivations? Some indies are civ centric, and some are not. Regardless of how huge the gray area is, and how many roles are in it, has no bearing on behavior. If you are acting like a baddie, as far as I am concerned, you are one. I see no reason for a civ friendly Indy to act like a baddie.
First you were a disinterested civ, now you are in a "gray area". I think you are scrambling.
Ok. If you're not to be persuaded, that's fine. I can't argue against your impression because my play has been very poor. In a situation where another player was acting as I have, I would probably be in the thread posting "I agree with SVS!", so I have not done enough to prove through my actions in the thread and my votes that my intentions are in no way harmful to the civs, and that's totally on me. Lazy play. I haven't given you adequate reason to believe that I am no threat to the civs. Fair enough.
But I will bookmark this game for the future as an example of a time when "bad play" does not equate to "baddie role".
Seriously, though. I do honestly understand your position, SVS. I'm not mad at you and don't hold it against you, I'm just fighting for my life based on a bad situation that I've put myself in.
LoRab wrote:Voted mac--my post reminded me of how suspicious I find him. I realize he likely won't be lynched this round, but putting a vote there as a statement of suspicion.
I'm comfortable with a juliets lynch, which seems to be where the thread is heading right now. K-nuk, also--I don't really trust indies, so...
Canucklehead wrote:I'd be willing to switch my vote to Juliets for sure. Forgot that she had been the top (and only) name on my suspect list.:.
Day 4: Says she would switch to juliets for being her only suspect. Bad look. Why would she not vote her originally, how could she forget her one and only suspect, and what made her suddenly not interested in lynching Luke anymore?
It's a bit disingenuous to say that I avoided those questions, MM. The grammar of your post (addressing the questions in the third person rather than the second) casts them as rhetorical questions for you audience to consider, not actual questions for me to answer. Had you wanted answers from me, specifically, why did you not address the questions to me, specifically?
This looks like some opportunistic ret-conning on your part, MM. Trying to make me look badder than I already look by suggesting I am avoiding questioning. I am not avoiding questions, I just don't consider rhetorical questions to be ones that are looking in good faith for answers. Those questions, as posed, don't care about answers; they are concerned only with planting seeds of doubt in the readers mind, because the answer already implied in the question is "because Canuck is a baddie".
That's not a question, that's sophistry.
Now that I've pointed them out to you as questions directed at you, will you answer them?
Only if you first admit that you never really intended them as direct questions requiring a response.
While I'm not going to rule out a canuck vote in the future, I am persuaded not to vote for her today by her posts.
Yes, I think she has hinted at indy. With seven indy roles, I would expect some to tend bad for the health of civs, some to tend good for the health of civs, some to tend neutral.
With bubbles and nutellas roles gone, which both pretty clearly were hazardous to the health of the town, I think most indys left in the game are more likely to tend good or neutral than bad. This is flawed logic, but it's how I'm feeling right now. I'd sooner lynch someone I think is bad than someone I think is indy.
Having said that, Dr Drez feels like an indy role and its definitely a role that concerns me. It's not out of the question this could be canuck. Also, I don't know that I buy TH was put back 'exactly as before' but even if he is telling the truth, I'd imagine that this won't be true of all of his experiments.
@Epignosis- I had no issues with the Bubbles lynch being a runaway because I had much more confidence in her being a player that needed to be gone.
@LoRab- thanks for your post on Mac. I agree he has been doing some suspish things but I don't think voting for him is the great st idea at this point.
Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:
Matt F wrote:Lol
Dang Bullz came outta nowhere to defend. What's up Bullz, besides sig, who you lookin' at
Linki - MM, gotcha. What are your feelings on Turnip Head?
He was a dead man, but he's no longer a dead man.
I feel neutral about him. He's a proactive Turnip, but I'm wary because he was killed by Dr Von Dreszenstein and rezzed pretty suddenly.
I was never really dead. Drezenstein ripped out my heart and experimented on me, then put me back together just the way I was.
TH do you... Or anyone else think that Tranq was Drezenstein and the reason TH is back is because Tranq died? Or was I the only one getting that vibe from the night post?
I'm going to put my vote on Juliets for now until I decide if I want to vote for Canuck. I don't trust Indy's...... If that is in fact what she really is. MM isn't looking good to me either.
DFaraday wrote:I think better of Sig after that Luke lynch. Since Nutella turned out not to be part of a baddie team, I think the best place to look would be people potentially trying to save Luke in the previous lynch.
Okay that is good to know, what do you think about Floyd, Tranq did mention him a few times and voted for him, but I'm not sure if that plays into his death.
@Sorsha Any idea who might have killed Tranq?
I'll need to look over juliets, but I do think someone who mildly defended Luke or didn't vote for him and picked a solo vote is a teammate.
I think Floyd is a strong possibility for being Luke's teammate, given not only Tranq's comments, but Floyd's RIP to Luke and vote for Nutella when it was still very close between Luke and Nutella.
Matt F's defense of Luke and attempt to sway votes off of him catches my eye too.
I'm not really convinced by the Canuck case. She voted Luke early in the day, which seems like an odd strategy for a baddie teammate. Juliets is reading civ to me, but she always does.
For right now I'll vote Floyd.
Mate in real life, yes. Teammate in this game, no.
Winner:
Tree Mafia (MVP)
Lost Again Mafia (Season One)
Haiku Mafia
Game Of Champions 2016
fingersplints wrote:TH: Because I don't agree with your points on someone it does not mean I thought you were bad. I thought you were wrong, but that you had good intentions. I was looking forward to discussing Dom with you more before you were killed. I had reread him some from other games and I became less confident about him being a civvie. That suspicion seems to have dropped off anyways
Now I don't get the same feeling about you having good intetnions. I wouldn't say I suspect you yet. Hopefully the results of this lynch will help me decide about a few people.
This reads rather contrived to me.
What games didyou read?
What about it reads contrived to you?
I read all your posts in Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, and skimmed some other posts. (I think TSM and probably whatever other game you played recently since I didn't go far back) I spent most time rereading the first one though, since you were bad there.
You and TH have a disagreement and suddenly you are so disappointed because you have a connection on something! Why! that's such a coincidence! Too bad you've come to disagree, though.
And...? I was bad in that game, and to be honest, played the lowest key game I think I am capable of.
Fiddler on the Roof
