X-Men [ENDGAME]

[Golf]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

To me civvies should be capable of making a reasonable case driven by information.

Define reasonable

[Jack Shephard]

Oops, I accidentally submitted that post early.

Anyway. It seems that your stories match up, I just want to get the lynch right on the first try, because if we don't, I'm sure we'll be lynching the other one tomorrow.

[Chuck]

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?

As for Sunfire, I've been on the fence. I'd probably lean slightly baddie now though, given the way he went and voted along with my case without adding anything else of value. I think it's a good way to deflect attention away from himself when he's got a lot of in his direction. I'm fine with people possibly looking at him as a lynch candidate today.

It was A LOT to read. I am busy IRL most of the time. I didn't have time to speak on it, but I will get my thoughts all written this evening and share. The reason I came into the thread in the first place was to switch my vote. I wanted to remove my vote because after reading back I felt it was most likely a silly reason to vote Domino. I actually thought about voting myself for the time being just to remove my vote from Domino, then I read SC's posts and decided to go with Exodus instead. I had already spent too much time on Mafia, neglecting things I needed to get done IRL, so I just voted. But, like I said, I will get my thoughts together now and let you all know what I'm thinking. I do realize I have been a bit presumptuous this game. I apologize.

[Prisoner 509378]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

To me civvies should be capable of making a reasonable case driven by information.

Define reasonable

Well I am not sure a definition would make the point I am trying to make. My point is I feel that Shadowcat's case against me was taking nearly everything I did since the game began and giving a reason as to why it could be bad. It would have been much more reasonable if she summarized why she was suspicion and gave evidence. Or even analyzed both sides of things and came to a conclusion of it being scummy rather than saying she went into it open minded (paraphrased). Her post to me seemed to try too hard and came off forced which is why I don't find it reasonably civvie.

LINKI @Sunfire, how was a contradicting statement a silly reason to vote? I disagree and don't know why you're labeling that as silly. Quick, perhaps.

[Jack Shephard]

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?

As for Sunfire, I've been on the fence. I'd probably lean slightly baddie now though, given the way he went and voted along with my case without adding anything else of value. I think it's a good way to deflect attention away from himself when he's got a lot of in his direction. I'm fine with people possibly looking at him as a lynch candidate today.

It was A LOT to read. I am busy IRL most of the time. I didn't have time to speak on it, but I will get my thoughts all written this evening and share. The reason I came into the thread in the first place was to switch my vote. I wanted to remove my vote because after reading back I felt it was most likely a silly reason to vote Domino. I actually thought about voting myself for the time being just to remove my vote from Domino, then I read SC's posts and decided to go with Exodus instead. I had already spent too much time on Mafia, neglecting things I needed to get done IRL, so I just voted. But, like I said, I will get my thoughts together now and let you all know what I'm thinking. I do realize I have been a bit presumptuous this game. I apologize.

Cable actually said that first statement you quoted. Just want to make that clear.

[Jack Shephard]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

To me civvies should be capable of making a reasonable case driven by information.

Define reasonable

Well I am not sure a definition would make the point I am trying to make. My point is I feel that Shadowcat's case against me was taking nearly everything I did since the game began and giving a reason as to why it could be bad. It would have been much more reasonable if she summarized why she was suspicion and gave evidence. Or even analyzed both sides of things and came to a conclusion of it being scummy rather than saying she went into it open minded (paraphrased). Her post to me seemed to try too hard and came off forced which is why I don't find it reasonably civvie.

LINKI @Sunfire, how was a contradicting statement a silly reason to vote? I disagree and don't know why you're labeling that as silly. Quick, perhaps.

If Shadowcat did have information that you were bad, why was she working so hard to prove it? She's already info-dumped, so I'm going to agree with whoever said it earlier (Vision I think). The case she's making is overkill, to the point of being forced or even suspicious.

I'm inclined to think that it might be a ploy to take attention that was starting to build up around Sunfire, especially these arguments regarding semantics of Professor X's clue/warning. While the message is rather cryptic, I find it very hard to believe that it would be so cryptic that it would be a stretch to my name. If we're talking that far of semantics that Domino referred to first, Polaris is a bright star, which is a sun. I am not in ANY WAY accusing Polaris (I don't have evidence to do so, so PLEASE don't misquote me); I'm merely pointing out that a semantic argument like that looks like a way to distract people from the message.

Yeah, you're stretching it for sure, but I understand the intention.

[Ned Flanders]

Making a case to back info is not overkill, and saying so is wildly suspicious, IMO.

Very wildly.

All of this feels very sour grapey to me. I do not love people dumping info, but if it is done, then we have to make the best of it.

[Snapshot]

Making a case to back info is not overkill, and saying so is wildly suspicious, IMO.

Very wildly.

All of this feels very sour grapey to me. I do not love people dumping info, but if it is done, then we have to make the best of it.

It is when you blatantly state it out loud, lol. Its called infodumping. But whatever, that's just me.

[Prisoner 509378]

Making a case to back info is not overkill, and saying so is wildly suspicious, IMO.

Very wildly.

All of this feels very sour grapey to me. I do not love people dumping info, but if it is done, then we have to make the best of it.

I do not mind a case. A case itself is not overkill. To me critiquing every action in a negative way is overkill.

[Golf]

If only we could make people post the way we wanted them too

[Chuck]

This sums up my thoughts mostly.

You know, Exodus, you've been really good so far about jumping around and casting blame, but never fully committing to or sticking to one person for any extended period of time. I'm surprised you went this long before I noticed it.

And I think there is a good chance that Exodus and Havok are teammates.

And to tell everyone who I feel good about...I am most certain that Avalanche, Hawkeye, and Banshee are good and in that order.

[Ned Flanders]

I agree, infodumping sucks. But it is what it is.

Do we believe what she is saying?

[Prisoner 509378]

This sums up my thoughts mostly.

You know, Exodus, you've been really good so far about jumping around and casting blame, but never fully committing to or sticking to one person for any extended period of time. I'm surprised you went this long before I noticed it.

And I think there is a good chance that Exodus and Havok are teammates.

And to tell everyone who I feel good about...I am most certain that Avalanche, Hawkeye, and Banshee are good and in that order.

How I play is go by what I find most suspicious. If I find something suspicious, then what? I am not supposed to follow that? I stand by whatever I feel is my strongest lead at that moment in time. If people don't understand the way I play, there is not much else I can do. I don't understand why I would stick to a suspicion, such as Mojo, when there are scummier people doing scummier things. I will focus that because I feel lynching the scummier players is going to get the best result.

[Prisoner 509378]

And I also believe in having multiple suspicions and exploring each of them.

[Celeste]

@Shadowcat,
First of all, when did I just roll over and give up? I am still posting, obviously. Can you not say I am giving up when clearly that isn't the case? I actually thought deadline was today. Guess I am too used to speed games here. But I am done responding to the post, yes, and I said why. Because I feel all you are doing is just taking anything I say and finding a way to classify it as baddie behavior. Am I somehow wrong to feel that's what you're doing? If I had done this to you, you would feel exactly the same, would you not? Because I see you not looking into different options like you claimed to have gone in with an open mind. I also said I will answer any questions if people have a question about something I have done or my behavior, but I feel replying to that post is a waste of time that I do not have. Is that really scummy of me? How should this make you feel better about your vote?

I do not have much experience with those who reread and what I do has taught me that rereading can be a simple way to change ones opinion rather than following the game to come to newly formed conclusions, so I did not think that the rereading was reason to drop my suspicion. Besides, had I dropped it there I am sure you would be saying I saw it was not going to work.

I am the type of player to suspect people, and also the type to change my mind as they reply. What is wrong with suspecting multiple players is beyond me. I do not think I just drop suspicion, have you really never played with people who scum hunt in this way? If it is foreign to you all, I don't know what to say to make you accept it. It's just how I play. I analyze posts and call attention to the things I find scummy and weird. Don't see why you're faulting me for that.

And I think there is a difference between nitpicking and analyzing, which I believe to be how scum hunting is done. Obviously you built a case, I just feel it is too forced at this point I don't understand why a civvie would do that. At least I could understand some interpretations, but he level in which you're doing it like I said, seemed forced.

Well I'm sorry, but I'm at the point with you where I feel like most of what you are doing is because you are bad.

I tend to re-read often in games I play. I tend to take it in the context of events that end up happening later on when I go back to look at things that people said in the past. I guess it's just a different playstyle for you then. Because it's helped me catch baddies in the past.

I can understand you suspecting multiple people. But like I said before, I feel like you've jumped around when it isn't convenient/wise for you to stick to the same people. I feel like you're intentionally trying to cast wide net over other civvies to get them lynched.

If it seems like overkill, that's because it's how I normally build cases against people. I tend to overload with enormous amounts of information if I'm really convinced they're bad. Which is where I am with you. But my case isn't being forced in the slightest. If it was, I would be putting in the minimum effort I could get away with.

[Snapshot]

I agree, infodumping sucks. But it is what it is.

Do we believe what she is saying?

I think so, yes. I do. If I'm reading into this properly, the only way its wrong is if Dazzler were bad and the baddies somehow killed her, and I don't believe that, so I think sc is right. Exodus needed to get out on this first...

[Celeste]

[
How is being concerned about you scrambling and disorganized?
Should I think you are townie when I have the same information that you do?
That just does not make sense and this is my problem with you, you're trying too hard to find whatever you can to suspect me with.

You have the exact same information as me. Which is why I figured you would turn the tables on me and accuse me hard-core of being bad the moment you read my case against you. But you didn't seem to push that option as hard as I figured you would from the get-go. But it makes me feel better about you still.

[Gunther]

I'm catching up, but I had to respond to this before finishing reading.

Quicksilver's response here doesn't sell right to me. And seeing some of the responses to it makes me quite uneasy about Havok and Sebastion. Also, why go after voters when we are unsure which of them are bad. Why not go straight for Quicksilver? *votes quicksilver*

It could be a trap? I agree that the timing of the votes point towards a baddie save as opposed to just a civvie lynch train. BUT, with a 7-player mafia-team, I find it even harder to believe that they would try to save a partner on Day 2 through such a method. There is most assuredly a mafia member or two on the T-Bird lynch (just by probability, there was 1.68 mafia members on that lynch), but I'm finding it a tough case to believe that it was a baddie save.

This caught my eye. I actually think now it's most likely there were NO mafia members in on the T-bird lynch. Why risk it, when a civ was going to die anyway?

I said that the suspicion wasn't enough to vote for him, IMO.

Today, reading Quicksilvers theory of how he iss to be second in line for the scum to get lynched sounded pretty crazy to me. Then reading that Havok and Sebastion thought that Quicksilver's theory was a suitable explanation doesn't make me feel so great about them either. That is all I meant. What do you think of Quicksilver's '2nd in line' theory?

I guess I should have read everything before responding. lol

I said that QS's theory was plausible....just like how it was possible that QS was bad and had team mates help him outof the lynch. Not sure why acknowledging possibilities is suspicious?

I think Sunfire sums up what I saw on my readback. Havok and Sebastian Shaw were the two pushing QS's theory as being plausible, when I don't think it ever was at all. And speaking of those two....

Quicksilver is good. Vote for Polaris instead. She's a monster inside.

Shaw has been saying crap like this all game, and people have been like "WTF?" but never pursued it more than that, or gotten a response. Also, he's been (to my mind) eerily accurate about who was civ so far, which would make sense if he was on a team with all the baddies.

I think Psylocke helped the good guys. Well done, Psylocke.

Goodbye Scarlet Witch.

That was kind of an odd kill. Anyone else believe that there might have been some sort of manipulation last night?

So do you think the Scarlet Witch was good? Why?

I did think she was good. There was the confusion that she was referring to me as a he, but she seemed civ aside from that. That's why I consider it odd that a civ role would kill her of their own accord.

Did you think she was bad?

Yes. I said that already.

Quicksilver looks like a good guy to me. I'm not going to vote for him.

We don't actually know yet whether Scarlett Witch was good or bad. QS killed her the day before he died in desperation to use his power. But check this out:

Rip Scarlet Witch :/ I didn't feel you were bad either, so maybe Psylocke's attack got redirected?

I said that already. You are a baddie, so the least you could do is not copy me.

Think what you want Mr Know It All

Shaw, would you please come talk for realsies? I'm gonna start suspecting you big time if you don't.

I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted.

Linki: Wow, the discussion!
Linki2: Mojo, interesting points. I have been feeling better about Sunfire lately. I'm ignoring Shadowcat's case anyway (sorry 'Cat, hope you understand), so your other point is interesting bbut not really relevant for me.

What the hell, MR? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You say, "And speaking of those two..." and then you quote a bunch of stuff from Sebastian Shaw (and none from me) where my name is not even mentioned....at all. The only time my name is mentioned after you said "and speaking of those two" is where you say that "I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted."

So, what gives??? This has got to be the most ridiculous suspicion of me so far in this game.

I said that it was plausible that the baddies could have set Quicksilver up so that the day after T-Bird's lynch would be wasted lynching another civvie. Guess what? It IS a plausible scenario....that Quicksilver (A civvie) brought up. AND it's also still very much a possibility.

[Celeste]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

To me civvies should be capable of making a reasonable case driven by information.

The majority of my case IS driven by information. Like I said before, my claim to info should be given the same gravity that I would give to both of my longer posts about you and any of the quotes I pulled. It should all be objectively examined by everyone else.

Do I regret mentioning the info part? Not really. I probably would go back and re-word that part of my argument though. But from my perspective, it's what got me to go back and find other information on you that others could examine and judge for themselves.

[Celeste]

Shadowcat, if your info, which I presume you think Exodus got as well, led you to believe he is bad, why would Exodus start the lynch agsinst tbird? He obv wasn't saving qs, so why go after the one guy that presumably he knew would lead you to suspect him by being the only one left but you? (If I'm guessing roughly correctly about what your info was)

The only reason I can find for him starting that lynch is because he figured it would be an easy case to make against someone who randomized their vote with no explanation. But I don't know if his intention was to lead a lynch against Tbird or not. I think he just went there because it was a convenient option.

Him going after Tbird in and of itself doesn't really affect my case though. It's more just one part out of many. And the fact that we got the same info and Tbird flipped civ. If Tbird had flipped Brotherhood, then I wouldn't be going after Exodus at all.

That's about as much as I can say. It's more about Tbird's alignment than whether Exodus led a case against him or not.

[Celeste]

I understand how she is coming to these conclusions. However, I was not as sure of her baddieness because I felt that the kill last night was rather suicidal and idiotic for the scum to make so I felt like something was going on behind the scenes that isn't as clear cut. But the more she posts, the more I feel like she is trying too hard to make her case feel like it has some sort of support within the thread. People are saying her post is solid, but I don't see it. I see it as spinning everything I say as bad. What is solid about that? Which is why I have now voted her.

Dazzler being NKed instead of being lynched is the only part of my case that would make me wonder. But the fact that The Brotherhood attempted to kill her makes my concerns null and void. The only way I could be totally wrong here is if Sabertooth had his NK redirected. And if that happened, than my entire case on you is potentially incorrect. Although even then, I could still be right. So idk.

I think I'm just confusing myself now. So I'll stop with that one.

[Celeste]

If only we could make people post the way we wanted them too

And then we would live in a perfect world.

[Prisoner 509378]

I understand how she is coming to these conclusions. However, I was not as sure of her baddieness because I felt that the kill last night was rather suicidal and idiotic for the scum to make so I felt like something was going on behind the scenes that isn't as clear cut. But the more she posts, the more I feel like she is trying too hard to make her case feel like it has some sort of support within the thread. People are saying her post is solid, but I don't see it. I see it as spinning everything I say as bad. What is solid about that? Which is why I have now voted her.

Dazzler being NKed instead of being lynched is the only part of my case that would make me wonder. But the fact that The Brotherhood attempted to kill her makes my concerns null and void. The only way I could be totally wrong here is if Sabertooth had his NK redirected. And if that happened, than my entire case on you is potentially incorrect. Although even then, I could still be right. So idk.

I think I'm just confusing myself now. So I'll stop with that one.

And again, part of the reason I did not do this hardcore flipping that you expected was because I was considering everything, which I do not believe you are. Do you seriously not realize how suicidal this would be of me if I were scum? It would doom me. There is nothing positive coming out of that.

[Operator]

What the hell, MR? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You say, "And speaking of those two..." and then you quote a bunch of stuff from Sebastian Shaw (and none from me) where my name is not even mentioned....at all. The only time my name is mentioned after you said "and speaking of those two" is where you say that "I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted."

So, what gives??? This has got to be the most ridiculous suspicion of me so far in this game.

I said that it was plausible that the baddies could have set Quicksilver up so that the day after T-Bird's lynch would be wasted lynching another civvie. Guess what? It IS a plausible scenario....that Quicksilver (A civvie) brought up. AND it's also still very much a possibility.

First off, I feel like this is a bit of an overreaction. Ok, I planned to pull quotes from both of you, but I forgot to get any from you. My class started, so sue me.

It is plausible that baddies would set a civ up AFTER another civ is lynched. It IS NOT AND NEVER WAS plausible that they set QS up BY ALL VOTING FOR TBIRD. That would be a huge, stupid risk, as I've said multiple times now (and in more detail and with more logic). I can't believe you're still sticking to that baloney line when it's so patently and obviously false.

If you'd like, I can build my case on you like I was planning. I already feel I have plenty to go on, personally, but I'm happy to convince others as well.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I feel like a giant shit bomb has hit the fan.

[Operator]

I think Shadowcat has made some pretty good points; and isn't the point of info to try and find a case in the thread to back it up if you have it? That is what this looks like to me, not sure why people are getting grouchy about it.

I have to reread the whole case in context when I get home, but based on a skim it seems fairly solid.

And I could get on board with trying to keep the voting as tight as possible.

White Queen, the point of info is to make a case against a baddie with the knowledge that you are right. Its not to say "I've got info but let me make a case to make this all legal". This is cheating, imo, and I've known hosts who handed the injured parties compensation for it. We can discuss it more after the game, but thats how I feel, anyway.

I agree with The Vision, here.

Linki: Haha, indeed it has, Spiral.

[Prisoner 509378]

I can understand you suspecting multiple people. But like I said before, I feel like you've jumped around when it isn't convenient/wise for you to stick to the same people. I feel like you're intentionally trying to cast wide net over other civvies to get them lynched.

If it seems like overkill, that's because it's how I normally build cases against people. I tend to overload with enormous amounts of information if I'm really convinced they're bad. Which is where I am with you. But my case isn't being forced in the slightest. If it was, I would be putting in the minimum effort I could get away with.

I disagree that my suspicion has been convenient and I with your use of the term convenient. I think you're using it far too loosely, apparently if I am having a discussion with someone and I say something along the lines of I will wait and see or say that I didn't realize they were talking in the context of a certain situation, I am being convenient. How is that just not taking all things into consideration or not just stopping a pointless argument and waiting to see if my suspicion disappears or strengthens over time? How is seeing a post that I find suspicious, let it be about emotions or about contradictions, convenient? It's playing the game and not focusing one one solid subject and I see nothing wrong with that and don't understand how someone opposes that view. If you think it's convenient, fine, but you cannot expect me to explore suspicions at certain times because it would be too convenient. I don't get that logic.

I also am not sure if you're understanding the way I used forced. If you were forcing a case, wouldn't you want to make sure there was enough to convince people rather than doing the minimal? I don't buy that you would be doing the minimal if you were scum in this situation, because it would be a very dangerous and panicking situation. The fact that you say this adds to my worries. I truly do not see your perspective. And just to clarify, I was saying forced as in, does not feel genuine, trying too hard, which is how it feels and how I feel a scum would approach this.

[Ned Flanders]

I agree, infodumping sucks. But it is what it is.

Do we believe what she is saying?

I think so, yes. I do. If I'm reading into this properly, the only way its wrong is if Dazzler were bad and the baddies somehow killed her, and I don't believe that, so I think sc is right. Exodus needed to get out on this first...

All right then, this IS distasteful. But giant shit bomb or not, we must lynch someone. I believe her as well, so I am going to vote for Exodus.

This is a crappy way for him to go, but what has been said cannot be unsaid.

[Gunther]

What the hell, MR? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You say, "And speaking of those two..." and then you quote a bunch of stuff from Sebastian Shaw (and none from me) where my name is not even mentioned....at all. The only time my name is mentioned after you said "and speaking of those two" is where you say that "I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted."

So, what gives??? This has got to be the most ridiculous suspicion of me so far in this game.

I said that it was plausible that the baddies could have set Quicksilver up so that the day after T-Bird's lynch would be wasted lynching another civvie. Guess what? It IS a plausible scenario....that Quicksilver (A civvie) brought up. AND it's also still very much a possibility.

First off, I feel like this is a bit of an overreaction. Ok, I planned to pull quotes from both of you, but I forgot to get any from you. My class started, so sue me.

It is plausible that baddies would set a civ up AFTER another civ is lynched. It IS NOT AND NEVER WAS plausible that they set QS up BY ALL VOTING FOR TBIRD. That would be a huge, stupid risk, as I've said multiple times now (and in more detail and with more logic). I can't believe you're still sticking to that baloney line when it's so patently and obviously false.

If you'd like, I can build my case on you like I was planning. I already feel I have plenty to go on, personally, but I'm happy to convince others as well.

I didn't realize I said every T-Bird voter was a baddie. Maybe you could point that out for me? I must have been black out drunk or something. I'm not "still sticking" to anything. If there is any overreaction, it is you saying "I can't believe you are still sticking to that baloney". You make it sound like I've been or was campaigning to convince everyone in the game that that is what happened. I mentioned it as a possibility after Quicksilver brought it up. I also brought up the possibility that QS was a baddie being saved by his team mates. If you go back and read my posts during that lynch, I was very much on the fence about QS throughout the whole day. And if I was pushing so hard for this and trying to convince everyone that QS was set up, wouldn't it be likely that I would have not voted for Quicksilver and instead tried to push the lynch towards one of those T-Bird voters based on that pretext? Did I do that?

And please, I encourage you to follow through with your threat there and make whatever case you want on me. It seems to me like if you had such a solid theory about me, you wouldn't be making a threat and instead would just go ahead and build a case if there was one such to be made.

I think everyone should look at what Mikhail Rasputin just said, so I will quote it again by itself:

If you'd like, I can build my case on you like I was planning. I already feel I have plenty to go on, personally, but I'm happy to convince others as well.

That, good sir, absolutely screams baddie bully to me. You have such a solid case to build on me, but you changed your mind and decided not to make it. Then, I call you out on your post, and you proceed to threaten me with said case and even make a threat that you can "convince others as well". Why in the world would any civvie make this type of threat? If you have such a solid case, wouldn't a civvie make the case without resorting to threats like this?

I had you very near the bottom of my list of suspicions, but after this post you have made me seriously reconsider.

Oh, and I think you should make whatever case you feel like you can make. If you do follow through with your threat and convince others to lynch me, you are going to get lynched the very next day I assure you because I have nothing to hide or fear in everyone finding out my role.

So, bring it on, bro.

[Prisoner 509378]

I agree, infodumping sucks. But it is what it is.

Do we believe what she is saying?

I think so, yes. I do. If I'm reading into this properly, the only way its wrong is if Dazzler were bad and the baddies somehow killed her, and I don't believe that, so I think sc is right. Exodus needed to get out on this first...

All right then, this IS distasteful. But giant shit bomb or not, we must lynch someone. I believe her as well, so I am going to vote for Exodus.

This is a crappy way for him to go, but what has been said cannot be unsaid.

But why do I have to be the scum? Because she presented information first? Just because she presented something first does not mean she is good, so why are people treating it like it does?

[Snapshot]

But why do I have to be the scum? Because she presented information first? Just because she presented something first does not mean she is good, so why are people treating it like it does?

You DO jump from suspect to suspect quite frequently thtu your posts. A handy way to find a baddie is often to find the person who has named the most people as suspect in the game.

Could this be a crazy gambit on scs part? Sure, but I think its worth trying. I want to think on what she said about number of optimal votes etc though...

[Prisoner 509378]

But why do I have to be the scum? Because she presented information first? Just because she presented something first does not mean she is good, so why are people treating it like it does?

You DO jump from suspect to suspect quite frequently thtu your posts. A handy way to find a baddie is often to find the person who has named the most people as suspect in the game.

Could this be a crazy gambit on scs part? Sure, but I think its worth trying. I want to think on what she said about number of optimal votes etc though...

There's no way for you to know this, but that is how I play. Have you never seen civvies with multiple suspicions? And what does jump mean? Because if you are saying I suspect someone and then drop them, that is not the case. How many suspects do you have?!? Are you jumping around with them? I'm sure your answer would be no.

[Prisoner 509378]

I started the game suspecting Mojo. He grew quiet, and so naturally, I didn't talk about it as much and saw Thunderbirds vote as suspicious, and if Shadowcat were to actually analyze his vote and that he voted for White Queen, she might see some logic in that and why I found him suspicious, although I did not come out and say it. I obviously was wrong, and I have no excuse for that. Last minute I saw that QS had tried to do what I considered an emotional appeal and talked about him a bit. When he had too many votes, I remembered the only time I'd seen all the votes in one place and noted how that ended badly and I looked elsewhere. I was suspicious of people for littler things such as Vision and Havok but I do not consider that jumping around or convenient. I consider it scumhunting. I thought there were more solid things on Phoenix and Sunfire and I went with those. I never dropped those, either but I do think Domino made a flatout contradiction that I do not see civvies making and so I suspected her.

There, that's what I did. I do not see how this means I am scum. So I have had numerous suspicions, but it's called playing the game. I would play a mafia game and keep my suspect list narrow, that means I am missing something.

[Operator]

What the hell, MR? What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? You say, "And speaking of those two..." and then you quote a bunch of stuff from Sebastian Shaw (and none from me) where my name is not even mentioned....at all. The only time my name is mentioned after you said "and speaking of those two" is where you say that "I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted."

So, what gives??? This has got to be the most ridiculous suspicion of me so far in this game.

I said that it was plausible that the baddies could have set Quicksilver up so that the day after T-Bird's lynch would be wasted lynching another civvie. Guess what? It IS a plausible scenario....that Quicksilver (A civvie) brought up. AND it's also still very much a possibility.

First off, I feel like this is a bit of an overreaction. Ok, I planned to pull quotes from both of you, but I forgot to get any from you. My class started, so sue me.

It is plausible that baddies would set a civ up AFTER another civ is lynched. It IS NOT AND NEVER WAS plausible that they set QS up BY ALL VOTING FOR TBIRD. That would be a huge, stupid risk, as I've said multiple times now (and in more detail and with more logic). I can't believe you're still sticking to that baloney line when it's so patently and obviously false.

If you'd like, I can build my case on you like I was planning. I already feel I have plenty to go on, personally, but I'm happy to convince others as well.

I didn't realize I said every T-Bird voter was a baddie. Maybe you could point that out for me? I must have been black out drunk or something. I'm not "still sticking" to anything. If there is any overreaction, it is you saying "I can't believe you are still sticking to that baloney". You make it sound like I've been or was campaigning to convince everyone in the game that that is what happened. I mentioned it as a possibility after Quicksilver brought it up. I also brought up the possibility that QS was a baddie being saved by his team mates. If you go back and read my posts during that lynch, I was very much on the fence about QS throughout the whole day. And if I was pushing so hard for this and trying to convince everyone that QS was set up, wouldn't it be likely that I would have not voted for Quicksilver and instead tried to push the lynch towards one of those T-Bird voters based on that pretext? Did I do that?

And please, I encourage you to follow through with your threat there and make whatever case you want on me. It seems to me like if you had such a solid theory about me, you wouldn't be making a threat and instead would just go ahead and build a case if there was one such to be made.

I think everyone should look at what Mikhail Rasputin just said, so I will quote it again by itself:

If you'd like, I can build my case on you like I was planning. I already feel I have plenty to go on, personally, but I'm happy to convince others as well.

That, good sir, absolutely screams baddie bully to me. You have such a solid case to build on me, but you changed your mind and decided not to make it. Then, I call you out on your post, and you proceed to threaten me with said case and even make a threat that you can "convince others as well". Why in the world would any civvie make this type of threat? If you have such a solid case, wouldn't a civvie make the case without resorting to threats like this?

I had you very near the bottom of my list of suspicions, but after this post you have made me seriously reconsider.

Oh, and I think you should make whatever case you feel like you can make. If you do follow through with your threat and convince others to lynch me, you are going to get lynched the very next day I assure you because I have nothing to hide or fear in everyone finding out my role.

So, bring it on, bro.

NO U

Seriously, though, maybe we should start over. Hi, I'm Mikhail Rasputin. Do you still suspect Tbird's voters of being bad? Any of them in particular? If so, why not push harder for the rest of us to look into them?

It seems you and I disagree strongly about the plausibility of QS's theory. That's fine; however, I stated yesterday that the theory seemed so implausible to me (and, more importantly, so likely to get innocent Tbird voters lynched) that I thought it was suspicious to even bring up.

You say repeatedly that my offer of building a case (since you were not satisfied with my original points) is a threat, and that I am a baddie bully. If you feel bullied outside of game context, I am sincerely sorry. Please let me know if that is the case, and I will be conscious to make my future posts less belligerent. It's probable that I am playing a bit cocky at the moment, which is unusual for me, because I seem to have some civ cred.

If your uncomfortability is purely within the game, I should say that I feel a bit vindicated by your lashing back at me in this post. And I have never changed my mind about making a case about you. It's the middle of finals week and I am very busy, and making a case right now seems to not be worth it. Given other things happening in the thread, I don't think it would get any attention today. I am, however, happy to take the time to make one if others would like to see it. That is all that I meant, and it certainly wasn't intended to scare you into anything, which is what threats are supposed to do.

If you'd rather have a civil discussion regarding the questions I posed at the beginning of this post, I'm game for that as well. I should warn you that my opinion of your alignment is likely to color my thoughts. However, I promise to be nice.

[Operator]

Well, now I'm trying to procrastinate and everyone's gone....

[Epignosis]

Well, now I'm trying to procrastinate and everyone's gone....

So you didn't finish your taxes either.

[Operator]

Hahaha! I actually haven't, no. Taxes are the worst.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I did mine months ago

I feel shitty for suspecting Exodus because it isn't exactly a fair way to go. :/

[Operator]

I did mine months ago

I feel shitty for suspecting Exodus because it isn't exactly a fair way to go. :/

That's why I'm not doing it.

I can't do mine yet, need paperwork. It would be nice if they were done.

[Joe Who?]

so much to catch up on i'm 2 whole pages behind D:

[Operator]

You missed a lot, then!

[Joe Who?]

damn you guys post a lot holy shit

[2 Stupid Dogs]

And it's very very dense. I have a hard time understanding it all.

[Joe Who?]

i love my avatar hahahaha it makes everything i post look so much more extreme b/c he's all flying through the air saying all this stuff i'm typing while screaming his face off

anyways yeah, info dumping sucks, it's lazy and boring, it's a terrible way to go, but it happened

between shadowcat and exodus i get the feeling that between the two, shadowcat is the one more likely to be civ, it seems like usually in these things the first person to speak is the one who's telling the truth

linkitis: yeah.... there were honestly a ton of daunting walls of text in a row and i may-or-may-not have skimmed a few of them >_>

[Joe Who?]

and now when i actually am here everyone else is asleep

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I'm here. For a little bit, anyway.

What would you like to talk about?

[Operator]

I'm not asleep either.

Down to chat. Spiral and Swoopy Man (I forgot your name for a sec, sorry), are there other people you suspect besides Exodus? What do you think about what I said about Shaw and Havok, and their responses?

[Operator]

Banshee! Dammit, I remembered as it was posting.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I'm not asleep either.

Down to chat. Spiral and Swoopy Man (I forgot your name for a sec, sorry), are there other people you suspect besides Exodus? What do you think about what I said about Shaw and Havok, and their responses?

I need to double check about Havok because I keep confusing some of the stuff I'm thinking about him with the stuff Ithink about Hawkeye. I also had a hard time following. I should probably just reread the past few pages. Hold on.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Reading now, Rasputin. I actually had forgotten most of what you said just because so much has been said today and I'm trying to keep it all straight. :/ So far, I think your analysis of Shaw is spot on-- he reads to me as someone who normally plays in depth, but in an attempt to cover his style is playing a tad more avant grade, if you will.