Cerberus Tribe - Day 9

[Sloonei]

Our "inability to lynch" so far probably stems from our lack of consensus on the polls. The other tribe has simply been out-voting us so far. It we want to lynch somebody, we need to all agree on a name.

LoRab and Boomslang are my top suspects. I remain open to other names, but we are running out of time. Splitting the vote means another day of not lynching one of our suspects, and losing another one of our town reads. Or having one of our town reads lose a life, at least.

I don't plan on lynching Spacedaisy today, I'm using my vote for other reasons.

Why do you suspect LoRab?

Process of elimination. Lots of other people feel town to me. She hasn't done anything to distinguish herself as a townie and has offered very little in the way of reads.

[Kylemii]

weird

inh do you know why or how you died?

no explanation plz just a yes or no

[Kylemii]

unless that would qualify as info dumping

[Marmot]

I found your LoRab ISO Sloonei.

Ugh. I have no idea where to vote. I don't actually suspect anyone.

Lol, I feel the complete opposite. I suspect almost everyone a very slight degree. Sloonei is my only townread.

[Kylemii]

was there any particularly notable day killing roles in circulation during the last year of games?

[Scotty]

I found your LoRab ISO Sloonei.

Ugh. I have no idea where to vote. I don't actually suspect anyone.

Lol, I feel the complete opposite. I suspect almost everyone a very slight degree. Sloonei is my only townread.

That was her D1.
Though in the coming days, you’ll find very similar exasperation or at least nothing new offered to the table.

My current list of people I want lynched in order:
LoRab
Boom
SpaceDaisy
sig


I’ll stop there and see what we get. Betting on the pass line and papa needs a new pair of shoes.

[Golden]

unless that would qualify as info dumping

It absolutely would.

[Sloonei]

Aight guys, I looked closer at LoRab. Guess what? I still think she’s a frog.

DAY 1:

Ugh. I have no idea where to vote. I don't actually suspect anyone

I have to vote somewhere.

I don't like peer pressure.

It would be a tremendously gracious showing on your part if you were to join Daisy and I in solidarity against Boomslang, friend.

Sorry, friend.

Okokokok so she proceeds to vote Sloonei because he’s grasping at straws even though she says repeatedly that she doesn’t have any ideas. Boom had at least 2 votes on him at the time. But she wouldn’t go along with someone giving her an option because of “peer pressure”?? Woah nelly. That sounds like a cop out 130%.

If Boomslang is bad, which wouldn’t surprise me at this point, then LoRab is his Mike Pence.

I still don't think Boomslang is bad. And I didn't want to vote on a bandwagon, because I didn't suspect the people with multiple votes on them. So, I gave a vote to a player that I had some suspicion of, knowing that they wouldn't likely be lynched with 1 vote. I'm not sure why you see that as suspicious. (other than the fact that you suspect Boomslang)

What was the basis of your suspicion of me, why have you not mentioned it elsewhere, and why was it preferable to cast a vote that was not going to result in anything happening?

I voted for you because I had day 1 level suspicion of you. My suspicion came from a few things: one is that you totally switcherooed on sig and accused him of being bad as soon as he mentioned suspicion of you. You also seemed to grasp at every straw that came into reach to make cases against people for, what seemed to me, to be little to no reason. That was more suspicious than anything else that anyone had done, in my view, so I voted for you.

Why does this behavior register as suspicious to you? That's certainly a fair representation of what I did on Day 1. But I don't know why you found it suspicious.

I generally vote for the player that I have the most suspicion of--in this case, a little bit of suspicion was more than I had of anyone else. And, as I've said before, I didn't want to jump on either of the bandwagons, as I didn't see those players as suspicious, so I didn't want to vote that way--especially not just because other people were doing it.

I haven't mentioned you since then because your posts since then have seemed civ and the low level, day 1, suspicion of you has faded.

But you also didn't mention me before the vote. You qualified your vote by saying you had no suspects. Your vote for me seemed to be an instantaneous decision in the heat of the moment. I didn't get the impression that you had actually suspected me. I'm mot saying that you didn't, but that's part of what i'm getting hung up on right now.

What do you think of Boomslang and niju so far?

[Marmot]

[mention]Sloonei[/mention] [mention]nijuukyugou[/mention]

You each voted sig the past two days (each resulting in him having the most votes in our thread) but are voting elsewhere today. What are your current thoughts on sig?

[Marmot]

Per LoRab, I didn't suspect her early on because none of her posts looked suspicious. As a result, she's been off my radar since then.

[Kylemii]

unless that would qualify as info dumping

It absolutely would.

lame

[Sloonei]

@Sloonei @nijuukyugou

You each voted sig the past two days (each resulting in him having the most votes in our thread) but are voting elsewhere today. What are your current thoughts on sig?

I've talked about this elsewhere. I've never had a solid read on sig in this game. Looking at his posts now, I see a handful of posts that don't really make a lot of sense for sig to make if he's bad.

[Marmot]

We could just spread the vote again and keep the other thread thinking we're high-action lynchers over here.

[Scotty]

We could just spread the vote again and keep the other thread thinking we're high-action lynchers over here.

Are you bad

[Marmot]

We could just spread the vote again and keep the other thread thinking we're high-action lynchers over here.

Are you bad

That's infodumping k

[Scotty]

We could just spread the vote again and keep the other thread thinking we're high-action lynchers over here.

Are you bad

That's infodumping k

k

[Marmot]

Ok, all caught up. I don't like Sig's explanation of the haiku confusion on a personal level, but I guess that's a playstyle disagreement. Not going to push it when we have juicy nightkill responses to make.

I wasn't involved in killing Blooper, but I strongly suspect that whoever did kill her is laughing their asses off at the WIFOM they just created. I'm betting it's one of the older players who understands the couples meta. Coupled with sig's good point about a ballsy scum team being willing to NK their own for the wifom...

Marmot needs to show up and give us something to chew on. Wilgy has also been super blendy so far. About the only thing we've gotten from him is some gentle needling of Sloonei based on a point made by Scotty. And a cryptic comment about Kyle — why is he a "hero and patriot" for voting Blooper?

I also have an eyeball on Lorab right now. "Ugh. I have no idea where to vote. I don't actually suspect anyone" at the end of Day 1 is so noncommittal, then she votes Sloonei for "peer pressure" and the active voices in the thread don't really get on her for that lack of reasoning. She then jumps in, first post of Day 2, to begin the WIFOM about me and the Blooper kill.

I just came across this post from Boomslang. Everything I've read from him up until this one I've like (and even parts of this one I like).

In regards to the "couples meta", I don't think Boomslang knows quite what that is. In my experience, Epignosis/Elohcin and Long Con/Black Rock avoid interaction and reading each other early in games, and also generally don't kill each other off early on in the case where one is scum and one is civilian.

Betting on one of the older players to is a broad suspicion, especially if no names are named.

Also, asking me to show up and give him something to chew on? You've only made one post today Boom.

[Marmot]

Boomslang, who're you voting for today?

Why do you require a read on yourself from nijuu?

Still not 100% sure, but I could get behind a Wilgy vote. Based on posting patterns, I'm guessing either that he's bluffing or that Scotty/Blooper got a silence as their second role. I already didn't like his comment about killing himself before Bloops, and his response to my analysis of JoH was weird. He said I'd thought about Jack more than he had, then never responded why he thought Jack was good himself.

Therefore, I think a WIlgy lynch would give us good information. Imo, there's a not insignficant chance that he's bad, and if he's not, then I think we get valuable intel about Scotty/Blooper's targeting thoughts.

As for wanting Blooper's read on me? All in good time, my marmot.
linki: There it is! Much obliged.

I'll still take that reason for wanting a read from Blooper that you promised.

[insertnamehere]

Insertnamehere has died. He was:

39: Tina Wesson (Survivor). Each night, you will choose one player to inject with an innoculation to a particular virus. Any player who is given the innoculation will be unable to catch the virus and will be cured if they already have it. You may not target the same player twice.

Carry on.

I hope y’all get the goddamn plague, you bunch of jerks. Will fully catch up and respond to stuff when I get home in an hour or so.

[nijuukyugou]

I just had one of those horrifying "what if everyone is a baddie except me and they are all anonymous in their BTSC trying to hunt me down" type of thoughts.

No silencer N1. Bloop dies. Silencer N2 and they target me... seems straightforward to me, but that makes me doubt myself. I also dont have much of an opinion of bloop 2 which tosses an interrobang above my head.

Errrrrr wait, you think I might be bad but then don’t have an opinion about me, literally like two posts later? That’s a bit...incongruous.

To answer Sloonei’s question, I think Wilgy is throwing poop to see where it sticks. It was a rather short time between suspecting me and then saying he doesn’t know about me, so either he’s lying or really doesn’t know what he wants to say. THIS, my friends, is the definition of floundering. I'm leaning towards the lying at this point, about suspecting me and possibly about being silenced, which goes with my speculation Day 3 that there were too many people being quiet for it to be a silencing sort of deal. *throws gauntlet*

I think Sloonbread put it well. I have no suspicion of you for what you've stated this game. Rather the fact you were received a new role and I was silenced immediately after

Same thing I asked scotty. What would I gain from a fake silencing?

But you were gung-ho to put me very quickly on that list:

In regards to LoRab, I don't know. Before yesterday I held her in a bucket of players that seemed floaty. She was supposed to receive my vote, but now I think she's one of my top civ reads.

help me to understand why

Nah, you figure it out.


In regards to the people who bugged me about JoH while I was silenced. I feel the worst about Scotty. Followed by Boomslanf and Marmot.

I've been thinking about life and the moral quandaries of the universe and I've hit a point where I'm no longer suspicious of Sloonbread. However, what makes you think that the silencer is a civilian role? Also when would a civilian opt to silence?

I'm also starting to think Bloops 2 may be bad.

Hmmm... Baddies are Scotty, Daisy, and Bloops... and Kyle... fuck you Kyle, you beautiful Frito pie.

Until you were called on it. I get that you suspected me not on my posts, but on a vague suspicion of silencing. What I'm concerned about is how quickly you come to that conclusion, put me on a list, then back off immediately with an "interrobang" when asked about it. Like you were waiting to see if it would gain traction, but it didn't. That bothers me a lot. My one qualm with that suspicion is just HOW quickly you backed off - you didn't wait terribly long to let it simmer if you were actually doing this (like less than 20 minutes), so that's something in your favor, I suppose.

As for your question about what you would gain from a fake silencing (and this may have already been said), you gain the ability to come out swinging against your "silencer" like you did. There is no way for someone to defend against being accused of being a silencer in a completely closed setup, so you give out suspicion without direct repercussion.

Sorry, that was not intended as a serious question. what I'm actually trying to get at is niju's thoughts on the silencer, or wilgy's claim of being silenced.

But you literally asked me if I was the silencer. You already asked me my thoughts in a previous post, which I responded to beforehand. Perhaps I did not get the joke, but perhaps you were also trying to ask me a question I couldn't respond to without looking like I was floundering for an answer. I don't like it. This is why I'm looking at both you and Wilgy right now, perhaps with a lovely new homemade aluminum hat.

Marmot's post don't look bad so far, but there seems to be a large amount of fluff, ironic I know. :P
When he does post content it seems to be coming from a civ mindset and he's attempting to make the thread more active.

What does everyone think of Kyle's vote? He avoided both wagons by going for Boomslang, which I could see mafia trying to do if they knew we were both civs to avoid suspicion.


Wilgy seems like his normal self, which I'm liking right now.
Jack is a bit under the radar, but that seems to be because he's busy in RL.

I agree with Scotty on Daisy, but I'd need to buckle down and ISO her for real.
Also people commenting on my posting style, I do want to point out that this is the longest I've survived in a GOC so blah.

@Sloonie does it seem like the other thread has caught mafia yet?

Well get yourself a bowl of 3 chips and almost sit down because she has less than 20 posts

Okay I have to do actual work now, at work. I'll be back, because I see a Marmot has asked me a question, according to my notifications Oh, and voting. That thing.

[sig]

About to go into my next class so let I'll be throwing down a vote for wilgy. I'll catch up and hopefully be around to change it if i see fit.

[VOTE: dr.wilgy] aubergine

I'll be more active after Thursday promise

[Sloonei]

Blooper I was just being facetious with my question about you being the silencer. It's a question you literally can't answer, so I asked it playfully. I didn't expect you to respond to it in any serious manner. It was a joke, strike it from the record.

[Scotty]

About to go into my next class so let I'll be throwing down a vote for wilgy. I'll catch up and hopefully be around to change it if i see fit.

[VOTE: dr.wilgy] aubergine

I'll be more active after Thursday promise

We’ll never lynch anyone.

I hate to be the trunchbull but you gotta do better than that, sig.

At least add it to a wagon at this point.

[Scotty]

Never mind I see you’ve established a second counter wagon to Boom.

k whatevs

Lynching is a civ’s best power in this game. If we can’t lynch anyone, we’ll just keep getting picked off.

[Sloonei]

I don't mind having multiple options. If we all pile on boomslang then the day just becomes about lynching Boomslang instead of figuring things out. But we shouldn't spread ourselves out too much. My main goal for today is to lynch somebody, and the more we consolidate our votes, the closer we'll be to achieving that.

[Spacedaisy]

Our "inability to lynch" so far probably stems from our lack of consensus on the polls. The other tribe has simply been out-voting us so far. It we want to lynch somebody, we need to all agree on a name.

LoRab and Boomslang are my top suspects. I remain open to other names, but we are running out of time. Splitting the vote means another day of not lynching one of our suspects, and losing another one of our town reads. Or having one of our town reads lose a life, at least.

I don't plan on lynching Spacedaisy today, I'm using my vote for other reasons.

Why do you suspect LoRab?

Frankly I don't quite know what you are angling for here. I had pretty much laid all my thoughts out not that long before this post. I had INH as my middle suspect of Boom, Bloop, INH and Wilgy. I have not ISOed INH, and given his recent flip I'm not inclined to focus on him at the moment since his role has changed.

[nijuukyugou]

Blooper I was just being facetious with my question about you being the silencer. It's a question you literally can't answer, so I asked it playfully. I didn't expect you to respond to it in any serious manner. It was a joke, strike it from the record.

Fair enough. Tone is hard to read, as we all know. (I'm also tired from work and I'm still friggin' here, trying to do all the things.)

[nijuukyugou]

@Sloonei @nijuukyugou

You each voted sig the past two days (each resulting in him having the most votes in our thread) but are voting elsewhere today. What are your current thoughts on sig?

Well, I haven't actually voted yet, so that's jumping the gun a bit! And his recent posts are attempting to stay on topic? Or attempting to attempt to look like they're staying on topic? I laughed at the whole "re-read Spacedaisy" thing, but I also thought it was reminiscent of when I've been bad before and strapped for time, but want to look like I'm paying attention, so I'll make a post about everything and nothing at once (minus the marmots). And that last vote for Wilgy seems out of the blue, unless I've missed something in the last two pages (seriously - I haven't finished reading them, so scratch that if I'm totally wrong). So I'd actually be okay voting there again. But I'm also wanting to go Wilgy, and that looks more viable at this point.

But let's make people mad for about half an hour. Let's (the royal we) vote sig again. And probably change to Wilgy.

No okay seriously I need to leave my classroom. Get me out of here. Make me stop making rubrics! Oh god I'm drowning in rubrics hellllllllllp

[nijuukyugou]

Nah, just kidding. I'm aubergine'ing Wilgy.

[Kylemii]

boomslang aubergine

[Scotty]

K. Two viable trains now on wilgy or Boomslang. I won’t be around for the next hour so unless something exciting happens, I’m hoping it lands on one of Boom or Wilgy.

I would petition for boom, since I know he’s been in the thread (I’ve seen him active throughout the day) and he hasn’t really defended himself to my liking nor has he really made a conscious effort to find baddies.

Godspeed. Let’s lynch someone

[Sloonei]

[mention]insertnamehere[/mention] [mention]Marmot[/mention] whatcha gonna do with them votes?

[Marmot]

Moving my vote to Boomslang. That's all I have time to do.

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

[Kylemii]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

who would you lynch today, given the opportunity?

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

who would you lynch today, given the opportunity?

The person my vote is on. Her or Sig.

[Sloonei]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Especially. Hopefully the people on the other tribe have their shit together more than we do.

[Boomslang]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

Forcing people to rush to a consensus means that they'll think less about their votes.

[Sloonei]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

I've been making this exact argument the last two days. But now I am of the opinion that whichever tribe fails to lynch becomes the victim of the nightkill. I'd rather we lynch a player around whom there is suspicion, than have the mafia pick off a player who is generally considered a townie. coughcough.

[Sloonei]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Especially. Hopefully the people on the other tribe have their shit together more than we do.

They do. They've had a much more productive thread than us. But for the sake of advancing the game, I want us to lynch somebody instead of them. It would provide them with information about the game which I think would be valuable to them.

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

I've been making this exact argument the last two days. But now I am of the opinion that whichever tribe fails to lynch becomes the victim of the nightkill. I'd rather we lynch a player around whom there is suspicion, than have the mafia pick off a player who is generally considered a townie. coughcough.

Even if you're true with your assumptions, this still just goes back to what I was saying about complicity. Seems to me that I can choose to either be an active participant in killing a civilian, or a bystander. I'm choosing the latter.

[Sloonei]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

I've been making this exact argument the last two days. But now I am of the opinion that whichever tribe fails to lynch becomes the victim of the nightkill. I'd rather we lynch a player around whom there is suspicion, than have the mafia pick off a player who is generally considered a townie. coughcough.

Even if you're true with your assumptions, this still just goes back to what I was saying about complicity. Seems to me that I can choose to either be an active participant in killing a civilian, or a bystander. I'm choosing the latter.

I disagree with this philosophy wholeheartedly, but I don't suspect you for it.

[Boomslang]

K. Two viable trains now on wilgy or Boomslang. I won’t be around for the next hour so unless something exciting happens, I’m hoping it lands on one of Boom or Wilgy.

I would petition for boom, since I know he’s been in the thread (I’ve seen him active throughout the day) and he hasn’t really defended himself to my liking nor has he really made a conscious effort to find baddies.

Godspeed. Let’s lynch someone

I've been checking in periodically so I'm not completely screwed when I actually have time to catch up. My real life deadlines have been terrible, and I have to leave in like 5 to cover a forum on school shootings, so please forgive my distraction.

Vote Wilgy aubergine because I'm not going down to Sloonei's thread bullying yet, and unlike INH, I do think he's bad.

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Especially. Hopefully the people on the other tribe have their shit together more than we do.

They do. They've had a much more productive thread than us. But for the sake of advancing the game, I want us to lynch somebody instead of them. It would provide them with information about the game which I think would be valuable to them.

The only information I feel like you're gonna get is who was willing to jump onto a half-assed bandwagon in order to mislynch a civilian. I don't want my name to be included in that.

[insertnamehere]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

I've been making this exact argument the last two days. But now I am of the opinion that whichever tribe fails to lynch becomes the victim of the nightkill. I'd rather we lynch a player around whom there is suspicion, than have the mafia pick off a player who is generally considered a townie. coughcough.

Even if you're true with your assumptions, this still just goes back to what I was saying about complicity. Seems to me that I can choose to either be an active participant in killing a civilian, or a bystander. I'm choosing the latter.

I disagree with this philosophy wholeheartedly, but I don't suspect you for it.

I'm moving my pointless vote over to Sloonei mainly out of sheer annoyance.

aubergine

[Sloonei]

@insertnamehere @Marmot whatcha gonna do with them votes?

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Especially. Hopefully the people on the other tribe have their shit together more than we do.

They do. They've had a much more productive thread than us. But for the sake of advancing the game, I want us to lynch somebody instead of them. It would provide them with information about the game which I think would be valuable to them.

The only information I feel like you're gonna get is who was willing to jump onto a half-assed bandwagon in order to mislynch a civilian. I don't want my name to be included in that.

I'm talking about the other tribe. They're having more success at reading each other than we are, but their thoughts about the game mechanics are way off base. If we manage to lynch somebody, it will give them information about how the game is structured. I'm looking out for them, they're my buddies. we really bonded last night.

[Sloonei]

Nothin', as I think both Boomslang and Wilgy are civilians. I ain't choosing to be complicit in this shit.

Even if it means our tribe fails to lynch yet again?

Why are you so fixated on this? If people haven't achieved reliable consensus, why force their hand, especially when the other tribe seems to be chugging along just fine? If we go into the merge with most of our tribe, we have that entire background of play to inform our choices in later game.

I've been making this exact argument the last two days. But now I am of the opinion that whichever tribe fails to lynch becomes the victim of the nightkill. I'd rather we lynch a player around whom there is suspicion, than have the mafia pick off a player who is generally considered a townie. coughcough.

Even if you're true with your assumptions, this still just goes back to what I was saying about complicity. Seems to me that I can choose to either be an active participant in killing a civilian, or a bystander. I'm choosing the latter.

I disagree with this philosophy wholeheartedly, but I don't suspect you for it.

I'm moving my pointless vote over to Sloonei mainly out of sheer annoyance.

aubergine

[Sloonei]

K. Two viable trains now on wilgy or Boomslang. I won’t be around for the next hour so unless something exciting happens, I’m hoping it lands on one of Boom or Wilgy.

I would petition for boom, since I know he’s been in the thread (I’ve seen him active throughout the day) and he hasn’t really defended himself to my liking nor has he really made a conscious effort to find baddies.

Godspeed. Let’s lynch someone

I've been checking in periodically so I'm not completely screwed when I actually have time to catch up. My real life deadlines have been terrible, and I have to leave in like 5 to cover a forum on school shootings, so please forgive my distraction.

Vote Wilgy aubergine because I'm not going down to Sloonei's thread bullying yet, and unlike INH, I do think he's bad.