Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Phoebe Buffay]

Why the shift in opinion on Bathsheba?

I shortened the post because it was huge, so I only left the question. It's not a shift but more like: while nothing screams baddie to me, nothing really makes me feel good about her either. And if she continues this evasive low posting trend, I have no problem voting for her.

[Phoebe Buffay]

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

[Julinook]

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

[Phoebe Buffay]

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

Because Rachel had some good and valid thoughts herself, while you have haven't had an ounce of original thought. This may be your first

[Julinook]

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

Because Rachel had some good and valid thoughts herself, while you have haven't had an ounce of original thought. This may be your first

And that makes me bad and Rachel good?

[Prisoner 509378]

Why the shift in opinion on Bathsheba?

I shortened the post because it was huge, so I only left the question. It's not a shift but more like: while nothing screams baddie to me, nothing really makes me feel good about her either. And if she continues this evasive low posting trend, I have no problem voting for her.

Gotcha. Thanks.

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

Agreed on both parts.

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

You have to at least recognize that what little you have contributed does not read well at all.

[Julinook]

So what you're both saying is contribution determines alignment.

How well did that work in lynching Samson? And Cain?

[Phoebe Buffay]

And Mary Magdalene is continuing her bandwagoning style. No problem voting there either.

While I think there was a good point made on Rachel, I also agree that she's at least seemed to try looking for bad guys, so I think we should give her the BOTD for now.

What does that have to do with Rachel not being a baddie?

A baddie can contribute a little or a lot.

I have not had time to devote to this game, I recognize that. I am sorry. I should be able to soon. But this is very suspicious of you.

Because Rachel had some good and valid thoughts herself, while you have haven't had an ounce of original thought. This may be your first

And that makes me bad and Rachel good?

I didn't say she's good. I said she deserved the benefit of the doubt. If you want that too, start doing something helpful.

[Julinook]

I believe I just did.

[Young Lady]

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.

As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.

Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.

All clear now about your status, thanks.

Point C about Uzziah was funny, heh. Point A is wifom, I think. About point B, I don't think I've said it before, but I disagree with the "rooting out" version of his statement completely and I think he also conveniently latched onto the explanation to suddenly make himself look better.

[PonySparkPrime]

Hey everyone, I've read through the thread. I can see how my posts look blend, but it's a matter of life imitating art. It's not that I've tried to sound like I care but don't, it's that I've posted the honest intent to get active and participate but then my life has gotten in the way and I've had to make snap decisions.

I feel you on this one

Between Rachel and Mary, I haven't been able to come to a conclusion on which I feel less comfortable with. I'm still keeping tabs on Jeph too. He's been a frequent participant, but I looked at his defense of Rachel and thought "Hmm, is he defending a high poster in an effort to paint a picture that all high posters must be defended? Maybe to include himself in that group?"

Rachel was the one who voted for me on day 1, right?

And now that Paul's out, everyone else in this game kinda blends together in my head, and nobody else stands out.


Linki: Well it seems my point about Jeph has been iterated before I got a chance to iterate it.

[Prisoner 509378]

So what you're both saying is contribution determines alignment.

How well did that work in lynching Samson? And Cain?

No, contribution does not determine alignment. Don't be a smartass.

Please answer my next question: Do you think the quantity and quality of your posts so far paints you in a good light, neutral light, or bad light?

[Phoebe Buffay]

So what you're both saying is contribution determines alignment.

How well did that work in lynching Samson? And Cain?

I didn't vote neither. What about you? One vote for a civvie, and one missed vote. Did you ever explain that by the way?

linki: I believe you didn't.\

Lots of linki

[Phoebe Buffay]

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.

As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.

Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.

All clear now about your status, thanks.

Point C about Uzziah was funny, heh. Point A is wifom, I think. About point B, I don't think I've said it before, but I disagree with the "rooting out" version of his statement completely and I think he also conveniently latched onto the explanation to suddenly make himself look better.

I agree with this. Especially since like I've said before, he said rooting for the baddies and not rooting out. English 101

[Paul Stevens]

Going to respond to the hot topics of Balaam's fabulous list.

Who wants another bodacious Balaam list? My thoughts on people:

ABSALOM: I think the reason people latched onto him today is because of his 'bah' stuff and the Negative Nancy attitude. I agree with others that it sounds manufactured, leading me to believe Absalom was hit by some kind of curse. I don't feel comfortable voting for him today because of this. I'd rather we confirm it with him Day 4. Agreed

BALAAM: This cat is totally chill. No worries about him at all. Plus he's got a mighty fine ass.
DAT ASS!!His lists are cool too, but, whatever.

BATHSHEBA: There's a chance Solomon was onto something with her. There's virtually no substance to any of her posts. Day 2 she says she is wary of voting for Cain, then says his lurking makes her wary, and then gives a crap reason for voting for Cain. Maybe it was a throwaway vote because it was pretty obvious Cain was going down at that point but she has not contributed anything of value to this game, missed a vote, and made a weak vote. Worth hearing more from her, frankly.
I would need more input from her to decide here.

JOB: The Uzziah obsession is a bit annoying and it was intriguing to see Paul turn on him after they were pretty tight Day 1. I'm not ready to vote for him yet. I have a theory about him but I can't elaborate just yet because I don't want to feed him any ideas to fake.


LOT: Neutral but wary. I think he latched onto Absalom's PMS a little to much today. I'm also curious about this line:

This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can. Expect a lot of words.

Does this mean he's away or he can only post once? I'd like to find out.
I don't know if he's been genuinely busy, or if he's trying to dodge my response to his Absalom posts. But I may end up throwing a stone at his head today. See my previous posts for the why.

MARY MAGDALENE: No substance, voted hastily Day 1, missed a vote Day 2, responds almost only when she's addressed directly. Very succinct and vanilla posts. Very, very blendy.
Bandwagon votes Day 3 (if you can call a second vote a "bandwagon." I'd like to hear more from her, but I may look in her direction in the future.

PILATE: I'm curious about him. No substance all game and today he gloms onto what I view as a weak case against Rachel. Seems he goes whichever way the wind blows.
I heartily agree about the case on Rachel and her voters.

RACHEL: I see nothing wrong with her apparent flip-flop on me. Lot was suspicious of me Day 1 but has warmed up to me and my lists. She just hasn't said much about why other than that she thinks I may be a certain player, which gives her a little more confidence in my style. I appreciate that she's been trying to drive discussion. We need to start doing that.
Not exactly sure why yet, but I totally trust Rachel so far...

RUTH: I'm reserving judgement until she finally answers my question. Was she just silenced Day 2 or was she blocked from voting as well?
Same.

UZZIAH: Neutral. I still think he's just messing with us one way or the other. Good or bad, Heathens are probably hoping to use him as a smokescreen.
I realize I'm kind of defending right now. But this could definitely change depending on future circumstances

Sorry to piggy back a Balaam list in order to get my opinions out there. It was the quickest and easiest way for me to do so with today's schedule.

[Paul Stevens]

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.

As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.

Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.

All clear now about your status, thanks.

Point C about Uzziah was funny, heh. Point A is wifom, I think. About point B, I don't think I've said it before, but I disagree with the "rooting out" version of his statement completely and I think he also conveniently latched onto the explanation to suddenly make himself look better.

I agree with this. Especially since like I've said before, he said rooting for the baddies and not rooting out. English 101

That's perfectly fine that you both see it that way. I'm not going to say you're wrong. That's just how I perceived it initially. Right now I think his statement is just distracting.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I admit that Uzziah rubs me the wrong way, no matter his role. I don't like it when players try to cause chaos and be unproductive as they can, but I guess it's part of the game. Each player plays differently. I just think it's too easy to play that way every game so that others struglle to read you. I admire players who give it their all on both sides.

So, while I wouldn't push for an Uzziah vote, I have no problem with others trying to take him down, and if I don't find a solid alternative, I can see myself bandwagoning on him if it came down to it. It's the kind of player who'd do what he does when goor or bad, so I can't read him. Sorry.

[dodo]

Sorry for my sudden absence... I am very sick and yesterday, the computer screen was just too nauseating to look at. I am feeling a bit better, but not much.

One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

I can see the confusion, and tbh, I think I was just so convinced about Absalom that i posted anything that I thought of without critically analyzing things. I can see the hypocrisy. It was an oversight.


TBH I'd like to lynch Job or Absalom today.

[Joe Who?]

Hey guys sorry for the lack of posts/discussion/elaboration/etc. I had a pet emergency yesterday evening that didn't resolve itself until about 2:30 this morning. Happy Fur Mother's Day to me

I have mixed feelings about what Absalom is saying and his posts. I definitely agree that his tone and the bahs are a curse of some sort, since they're in almost every single one (there was one post recently that didn't have it) so I'm sure that would throw off my read of him. However I don't dig the player value comment. While I agree and have stated that yes, there are a lot of low posters in this game that make hunting difficult both ways (finding mafia and discussing finding mafia), it doesn't mean that high posters are not mafia, or vice versa, and even a low-playing civ is still a civ on the team. I suppose I'm just reiterating what others have said in response to this, but it's a conversation we seem to have in every game. In the end, it's the comment/idea itself that irks me, not Absalom.

I've been flip-flopping about Uzziah since the beginning, but if he's who I think he is under that sock I always feel this way about him one way or the other. There's no way to tell, so my gut about this behavior along with someone's mention of how conversation about him and his own commentary have fallen off today make me want to look his way again. (To be honest I also laughed out loud at his and Job's exchange about voting until one of them is dead. I love this game.) Also, I read Bathsheba's posts after much mentioning of her (and maybe this is completely off topic but I've seen a few references to her as a "him," which threw me off :P ), and some of her participation reminds me of Uzziah's (especially laughing at being called "the blendiest blender" with no other defense except she "noticed" who made the comment), while the rest of it just looks like blendy play, as she was criticized for. At this point I will likely be voting one of them today.

Ah! I almost forgot but I remembered - it's been said a few times but Balaam's most recent list post is the kind of list that's more easily understood that raw data, even if what one wants to understand is merely what the poster thinks about all of the players. Kudos to you for going through everyone like that and thanks for answering my question from before.

Ah and now Uzziah is back in the conversation (being talked about that is). I have some work to do but I'll be back in a bit for the vote and perhaps conversation, real time.

[Grand Scheme]

With everything being discussed, I think Uzziah is the best place to put my vote, and I don't want to be embarrassed by missing a second vote.

[Prisoner 509378]

I think putting pressure on a few of the fluff & duff players simultaneously may actually yield some fruit. There are obviously baddies lurking amidst them, just as it is obvious that a few baddies must be among those steering the discussion. Going after the talkative folks who seem the slightest bit off is only going to kill off the active civvies. Then you'll see the fluff & duffs wake up and contribute but the baddies among them will likely be the ones coming out with "okay, now that RL isn't so crazy, I can contribute- here are the bulletproof cases I've been piecing together while sitting on my ass the first half of the game!" Catching a talkative baddie now doesn't help us track the fluff & duff baddies. Catching a fluff & duff baddie may actually help expose the talkative ones.

Also, Mary- I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. You went silent just as things got hot.

[Jack Shephard]

I feel like Uzziah is too much of an easy target. He could turn out to be bad, but for now it doesn't seem all that worthwhile to go after him.

I'm not really clear on what the cases are against Absalom and Job. I felt okay about Absalom, and I think Job said he wouldn't be around so I don't really want to vote there.

I think I am most likely to vote for Mary Mag at this point. She jumped in, didn't even wait to finish catching up, saw someone's (I forget whose) point about Rachel (I don't think it was even that great a point) and immediately votes based on that. It's like she just assumed that she was going the popular route at the time and was a bit too eager to establish her willingness to go along with others' suspicions.


And I'm sorry my posts have been sparse and fluffy. I've had a really busy couple of weeks, and I'm still having a hard time keeping track of all the names and suspicions going on in this thread. I'm trying to keep up but I don't have the greatest mental picture of this game.

[Larry David]

Places my vote on Lazarus. Working some overtime today. Gotta make dat green.

[Paul Stevens]

Going with Job because of reasons discussed between myself and Rachel. Publicly, I might add

[Celeste]

Rahab I noticed ye corrected the problems I had in your last post but in the process you didn't acknowledge my direct post to you about it. makes me think youre trying to humour me without talking directly to me. too smooth much heathen

[Young Lady]

I have a bad vibe that Uzziah won't be our "third time lucky" lynch. He's only been worse than Cain, for instance, by continuing to make pro-baddie statements (most of which are just fluff and bait) and No U'ing with Job, including throwing votes at each other, after which he (as well as Job) apparently called it a day. But there's still the issue that he could be the player most have in mind, which would tell us nothing alignment-wise. I think his shenanigans can wait another day, to see if they become pure banalities or might affect the game in a different way. I really couldn't live with myself lynching a third rogue civilian in a row, especially with the bonus that another of us will die along.

I see my prophecy of Bathsheba making no move until the end of the Day, yet again, on its way to fulfillment. She hasn't actually posted at all during this Day, so I'm slightly keeping in mind that she may be silenced or imprisoned. But if she does come this late in the game and offers little to no substance, I might vote for her.

I am also considering voting for Mary Magdalene for her instant vote on Rachel. I know it was my suspicion she latched unto, but after Rachel's admission of oversight, I have no more claims about it and I believe everyone should have waited for such a reply first. Mary hasn't really addressed this or her move, instead giving a different angle to the debate (the contribution weight on a player's alignment), which is frankly sort of evasive.

[Grand Scheme]

This sly defending of Uzziah is more damning to me than his oddball behavior. He remains a constant source of discussion and yet several players refuse to pull the trigger on his lynch, thereby keeping him around.

Whose hatred is covered by deceit, his wickedness shall be shewed before the whole congregation.

[Young Lady]

Yeah, if I don't see his lynch better than Samson's and Cain's, it's defending, but if I vote him and he flips civ, I'll literally have the most blood on my hands than everyone else. It's always a two-sided affair.

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

[Grand Scheme]

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

[Prisoner 509378]

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

[Grand Scheme]

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

I found your question to be a pit-trap. Any lynch runs the risk of losing a civ.

[Young Lady]

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

I found your question to be a pit-trap. Any lynch runs the risk of losing a civ.

Of course the same situation applies to absolutely everyone, but I said that, the way I see it, Uzziah is part of a rogue "trifecta" and thus my question was weighing in on Uzziah specifically.

[Grand Scheme]

Are you really ok with this train of thought, however:
if Uzziah flips bad, yay,
if Uzziah flips civ and another civ is killed as well, eh, at least we discarded Uzziah.

I would prefer not to lynch a civ.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :P

I found your question to be a pit-trap. Any lynch runs the risk of losing a civ.

Of course the same situation applies to absolutely everyone, but I said that, the way I see it, Uzziah is part of a rogue "trifecta" and thus my question was weighing in on Uzziah specifically.

To answer your question, if Uzziah flips civ, I will be very upset.

[Celeste]

Voting Rahab and gauging reactions like a boss

[Joe Who?]

Rahab I noticed ye corrected the problems I had in your last post but in the process you didn't acknowledge my direct post to you about it. makes me think youre trying to humour me without talking directly to me. too smooth much heathen

Nah, I just make general posts in response to lots of things since I'm so often reading what's been said throughout the day in the evening. But thanks for voting for me. It makes me feel loved and noticed

This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Makes it harder for mafia to latch onto other peoples wrong thoughts too now doesnt it
Something about this post Rahab. Something about this post. makes me think you want people talking for all the wrong reasons. since you complain about no one talking but dont bring up any talking points except to ask balaam about his lists or whatever. you want us to do the dirty work so you can help us stone one of our Lord's chosen
Got my eye on ye Rahab

Ah and I see why I didn't respond to this now. You're trying to bait me (hehe get it? Baiting? Jonah?...ah forget it) with the obvious. Yes, you are right that a quieter game means mafia has less to latch onto as well as civs having less to build cases on. Was there something in particular you wanted me to address beyond that?

[Phoebe Buffay]

Voting Rahab and gauging reactions like a boss

Can you please remind me of your reasons for voting her?

[NurseWilgy]

Ugh, I need to vote. I hate voting. Everything is terrible. Argh. I will vote for Uzziah, because his silence is suspicious and his identity is a question that needs to be answered.

[PonySparkPrime]

I am also considering voting for Mary Magdalene for her instant vote on Rachel. I know it was my suspicion she latched unto, but after Rachel's admission of oversight, I have no more claims about it and I believe everyone should have waited for such a reply first. Mary hasn't really addressed this or her move, instead giving a different angle to the debate (the contribution weight on a player's alignment), which is frankly sort of evasive.

^This

*voting Mary*

And lo, the Lorb said to Rebecca, she shall have more time the next day phase! For the busy year will be over! And she shall build more cases. And it will be good.

[Prisoner 509378]

Oh joy. I see we're headed toward another stellar round of vote participation. I hope I'm wrong. Think we'll get 20 votes in the next hour?

I am also considering voting for Mary Magdalene for her instant vote on Rachel. I know it was my suspicion she latched unto, but after Rachel's admission of oversight, I have no more claims about it and I believe everyone should have waited for such a reply first. Mary hasn't really addressed this or her move, instead giving a different angle to the debate (the contribution weight on a player's alignment), which is frankly sort of evasive.

^This

*voting Mary*

And lo, the Lorb said to Rebecca, she shall have more time the next day phase! For the busy year will be over! And she shall build more cases. And it will be good.

I really want to vote for Mary but this is also the same kind of situation that led to Samson's stoning.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I don't know where to place my vote. Mary Magdalene is tempting, since I've suspected her from day 1. In addition, a few hours back, when we had our short onversation, she vanished in the middle without saying anything and she hasn't replied to me when I asked why she didn't vote last day nor to Balaam or Belshazzar who asked her if she thought her posts and actions so far should be percived as helpful to the civvies.

But I really don't want another civ to die, so this is a tricky one

[2 Stupid Dogs]

After giving more though to a Uzziah vote again today I have decided to wait and give that another day or two to develop. He has been silent today (at least I didn't see anything from him) but I don't know if he is laying low or legitimately silenced. I have chosen to go with Lazarus today for the reasons that Mordecai and Balaam brought up today. One thing that does concern me is that maybe he has been silenced but I'm going to take the risk in his case.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Jonah, in case you missed it, why did you vote Rahab? And since you voted for Mary on the first day, anything new regarding that suspicion? Are you no longer suspicious?

[Spooky Ghost]

GIDEON: No substance. Came out of nowhere to defend me for what I assume is a tone read. Was feeling bad about Lot Day 1- does he still think Lot is bad? I don't know but his last contribution was mentioning how Pilate sounds like pirate. Because that's helpful.

I don't like that you don't think I'm being helpful. I still think Lot is bad, but I'm voting for Lazarus because that sounds like lizard.

[Young Lady]

Almost half an hour to go and 18 votes "shy"

I'm gonna give Bathsheba the BOTD, in case she was silenced/imprisoned. If she comes during these last minutes, her vote will very likely make her look bad again and perhaps others will suspect her more the following Day. Mary, I think, has sinned the way she voted.

linki @ Balaam: Fundamentally, maybe. I truly hope that, if she'll be lynched, it doesn't turn out to be the same situation and that she's not a civ. But it doesn't feel quite the same, after she committed to get into the game (Day 2) and considering her rebuttals after her vote today.

[dodo]

you know what i don't like?
the "uzzaiah might not be bad, but at least we'll get rid of uzzaiah" trick going on.

[Jack Shephard]

Voting for Mary. Not feeling the most confident about this lynch though. This game is hard.

[Jack Shephard]

Let's just go for a five-way split and see what happens

[Young Lady]

you know what i don't like?
the "uzzaiah might not be bad, but at least we'll get rid of uzzaiah" trick going on.

same tbh

[Paul Stevens]

you know what i don't like?
the "uzzaiah might not be bad, but at least we'll get rid of uzzaiah" trick going on.

same tbh

Same. Makes me all the more pleased with my current vote.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Okay, I'm voting Mary too. I hope we finally get a baddie