The Syndicate

I thought he was being willfully ignorant of the way recruits happen. That's why I voted for him.

reywaS wrote:I've realized that my approach to the game was ill conceived. Bass? He isn't someone that I wouldn't vote for. MP reminds me of something. I need to research it a bit.

I think my behavior isn't being talked about enough. I feel so lonely.

I don't know about this DrWilgy flip. Perhaps I need to read something.

edit

or you could provide me with some more context. I am lazy.

I've realized that my approach to the game was ill conceived. Bass? He isn't someone that I wouldn't vote for. MP reminds me of something. I need to research it a bit.

I think my behavior isn't being talked about enough. I feel so lonely.

I don't know about this DrWilgy flip. Perhaps, I need to read something.

damnit. That was supposed to start at :26

I see you lurking birdswithteeth! Show yourself!

quadruple post

what is this participation score about?

Ain't is most definitely a word.

Well, ain't that dandy.

Golden wrote:I can't really do much if anyone thinks the move was distasteful. Honestly, if you have a problem with me because I did it, and you want to vote for me for that reason, I'll understand.

I'm trying to play this game in the spirit of the game, which is to say, it is not a game that is civ vs baddies and I'm trying to play it for what it is.

I do not think epi being alive was in my best interests.

There is only so many times I can say this. If people are upset with me for it then I will take my punishment on the chin, be it a lynch or whatever. I've tried something out, obviously there are some people who are upset. It's like I said to JJ yesterday. From my end, there is no spite or malice intended. Epi has his methods and they are what they are, but in the past when I've been on the end of them I've come out worse off (admittedly in Death and Taxes it allowed me to sub back in and win, but golden 1.0 was worse off). I do think epi being alive was bad for my game, and I specifically wanted to show that in the absence of having a kill there are ways of fighting back. Epi said the feud needed to end and I agreed, so I set out to achieve that. There was no guarantee I would, but it is what I set out to do.

I also do think epi understands a game is a game and knows it isn't personal, but if epi needs an apology I'll freely give it. Epi is the kind of person I feel like, if we played Survivor together, when one of us made the move that beat the other we would turn around and say well played, and hold no grudges. I wouldn't do it to anyone that I didn't think would understand.

I don't think it was distasteful at all. I think it was pretty slick from a game play perspective whether you are Azura or you got Azura to kill him with your "death to Epignosis" talk. Much respect for making the move.

Scotty wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:Awwwww fuck. How come I never remember to turn off my caps lock after writing goofy emails to the bf?
Sorry, folks. Was not trying to shriek at you.
Lol aww so Canadian. Does nothing to warrant an apology and follows up with one anyway.

I dunno...some people get really offended by all caps. lol

I love the word kerfuffle

Can you get in front of or in the middle of it, though?

And I agree with what you said about BWT's "good luck civs" post, Roxy. I left that part of your quote in and I meant to add that to my last post

Roxy wrote:Kadaj aka Cabbage posted in our thread!!!! He is suspicious of the nub aapje - we should all vote aapje

jk

Teeth's non lynch - I totally get the reasons for the votes he got - but tbh he often plays slightly wacky and different than other players - Idk if I would have voted him but prob not. So The Judge ended the day early. But have we determined why no one was not lynched? I may have not gone back far enough in my catch up

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Sorry I went quiet. I'm at a baseball game right now Go Reds!

But yeah, fairly disappointed about going out on Day 1 in my first game back. Not much I can do about it though. Good luck civs!
Here before lynch end Teeth says "Good Luck Civ's" - is it meant to be a mindfuck or he is hinting at being recruited? If he is implying he was recruited I would venture to say he was prob recruited as a baddie - him saying "Go Civs" just feels unnatural at this stage of this game.

Golden/Rey - I do not get Rey's points about Golden and tbf they read as forced. You say you did not call him bad but then what is this:

Reywas wrote:might could be
Reads that you think he "might could be" bad. Ergo he is bad - is the point I got when catching up. You also said he did not seem sincere - does that in and of itself make him bad Rey? Please elaborate more than you have - use little words so I can be sure to understand

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be

forced? How? You are implying that I forced myself to share my opinion on Golden? So, I saw Golden's ideas, and rather than the opinion being genuine I forced myself on day one to go after him? To what end? Why in the world would I, after nearly a year long hiatus from playing mafia, force myself to go after Golden?

If you quote me with more specific posts that feel forced to you, I will respond to them in kind. You went the really broad and vague route, so that's how I responded.

As for the "might could be" post. I heard that phrase on The Wire, and I like using it whenever I can. lol. I was NOT (obviously) saying that Golden is bad. If I was saying, in that post, that Golden WAS bad, I would have said something more along the lines of "Golden is bad". "Might could be" meaning that I'm not ruling it out.

wowza :O

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
reywaS wrote:I took Orcish at the community college.
Do you have an Orcish keyboard?

No, my keyboard is pig latin.

I took Orcish at the community college.

deuces

but anyway, this has been an exciting end to the day. Now I must go smoke.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.
Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.
I didn't perceive the events through Epig's point of view. I read it differently than he did. I drew the parallel to his argument because they are similar. Just because I read the two situations differently, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

EBWOP

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.
I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.
Fine. I think you are not being sincere. You seemed to recognise my argument with epi as civvie golden just fine.

I didn't perceive the events through Epig's point of view. I read it differently that he did. I drew the parallel to his argument because they are similar. Just because I read the two situations differently, it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Blue is for non players, Kadaj

Golden wrote:Oh, then I'm sorry I didn't understand that a response to my question 'what is the baddie motive' was not you answering my question.

But I'd still like you to answer it.

I don't know what the baddie motive is for it. If you read my post more clearly you would see that I said that it doesn't make sense for you to think that way even as a recruiter. That is not why I think you could be bad. You do not sound sincere to me. It's that simple. Epig basically made the same argument about a different post from you and you kept trying to argue semantics with him over the content of the posts like you are with me right now.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

This is not me calling you bad, Golden. This is me asking you questions.

reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?
You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?
It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Then I said this.

THEN I said I thought you were bad because you don't seem genuine and voted for you.

Golden wrote:OK, well why does it make me bad, then?

Because that was your answer last time I asked. I don't hold tightly on to things because I feel like it. I hold tightly on to the reasons people give me themselves. That's the reason you gave me.

Just like with epi, when he originally said his view was one thing but then he changed his mind to something else.

I didn't need to no u you on this. I asked you why it made you ponder. It was an opportunity for you to think about it and realise that what I said doesn't actually make any more sense coming from a baddie recruiter than it does coming from anyone else. If not your original answer, please tell me why you think it makes more sense coming from a baddie than it does to be coming from someone who is neutral.

wrong again. When I was pondering the possibility of you being a recruiter, I was not saying that you were necessarily bad. That came later after you kept playing dumb.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
reywaS wrote:I think he's full of shit. Civvie minded people don't usually become that full of shit. And now he's turning this into a giant No U. He's even using the same argument for me being bad that I'm using against him. How much more full of shit can someone possibly get?
Would you agree that civvie-minded people sometimes commit "no u"? Moreover, I think his point against you was understandable. I already stated my understanding of your point against him. Should I lynch you both?

Or should I take a step back and consider the full implications of each nuanced component of this scenario?

Of course I would agree with that. He's playing dumb with the details. In my experience he doesn't do that when he's a civvie. That's why I voted for him.

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.
Are you serious? It's one specific recruitment, yes..but it sets a precedent. It tells us that the recruiters will not have 100% control over who they recruit every time. Therefore, you cannot be so sure that you will never end up on a team with Epig. FFS man. Are you really going to play this dumb on this?
If I never enter a contest, I can never be recruited by way of one. So it sets a precedent I have entire control over.

I cannot be sure I will never end up on a team with Epi, because who knows what the hosts have in mind, which I already admitted ages ago. I can only be certain that anyone who chooses to recruit me to that team is making a mistake.

The problem here is how you stepped to the next thing - the fact that I said that makes me bad, based on your own assessment that it is 'well established' I won't be able to prevent it.

You still haven't been able to give a good reason for why it makes me bad.

You said it's because maybe I'm a recruiter who has control over it, but that negates your entire premise.

linki @SVS - I'm sure it is. But I haven't played any of them, something that is 'well established' in the thread. So why does rey think it is so 'well established' that my comment is full of shit?

Wrong. I see why you are holding on so tightly to that argument, but it doesn't make it correct.

I think he's full of shit. Civvie minded people don't usually become that full of shit. And now he's turning this into a giant No U. He's even using the same argument for me being bad that I'm using against him. How much more full of shit can someone possibly get?

Golden wrote:Oh, it's been established because there is one contest that I didn't enter?

That doesn't make sense, because if epi wins the contest I'm still not on his team. and I'm not going to be winning it.

Also, the recruiter still has control...

@JJ - I think he perceives a logical inconsistency in my posts where there is none, whereas I actually found a logical inconsistency in his posts which actually exists. I think any indicator that someone can't keep their thoughts straight is an indicator that their thoughts may not be genuine, and I see it as inherently negative.

@rey - having a dialogue with JJ regularly helps me interpret my own thoughts.

Are you serious? It's one specific recruitment, yes..but it sets a precedent. It tells us that the recruiters will not have 100% control over who they recruit every time. Therefore, you cannot be so sure that you will never end up on a team with Epig. FFS man. Are you really going to play this dumb on this?

Golden, out of curiosity, why did you pick JJJ to ask to give his thoughts on my recent posts?

Black Rock wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
Black Rock wrote:
Public Recruitment

The roles on the front page are lacking in pictures. Please send the hosts a picture of your role. Ubzargan will choose the best picture to join his team.

You have until tomorrow at 11am EST
Is this compulsory?
No, you can choose to enter a contest or you can choose to be alone.

RIGHT HERE

Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.

hahaahahhahahhah

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?
You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?
It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.
Rey - read this conversation back. You are contradicting yourself all over. Why does my original statement make me bad?

You say it's because it makes sense if I'm a recruiter.

Look at this:

golden wrote:If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

reywaS wrote:the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event
So which is it - that it's well established recruiters don't have control over the event....

Or that the comment makes me look like I'm bad because it makes me look like I have control over the event...

it has been established, but you keep talking like you know for certain that you and epig will not end up being on a team. You do not seem genuine in the things you are saying. That is why I voted for you. The mechanics of the idea of not having full control over a recruit plays no part in my vote for you.

Golden doesn't seem genuine to me. I'm voting for him.

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?
I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?
You are telling me that is is 'well established' that recruiters don't have control over the recruits. If that is true, what sense does it make that me being a recruiter would make any odds to my certainty?

It HAS been established that recruiters don't get to pick a name to recruit every time because of the host post saying as much. That alone should tell you that you can't 100% guarantee that the two of you won't end up on a team. Are you really going to ignore this? You are smarter than that. You know very well that you can't make that guarantee but you continue to pretend like it is a legit perspective.

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?
might could be
Why? Whats the baddie motive?

I don't know. But the only way your idea about never being on Epig's team in this game makes any sense is if you are a recruiter. It still doesn't make sense for you to say this, but it's the only way it makes sense for you to think it...that you had some sort of control over the event. I dunno. Why do you keep saying you are so sure you will not be on his team?

Golden is being willfully ignorant of that possibility it seems, Typhoony.

Golden wrote:
reywaS wrote: you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me
You and I clearly have a different view of well established. If it was well established, as you say, why would that comment make you ponder anyway? Would it make me bad to have said it?

might could be

Golden wrote:
Typhoony wrote:Linki: Golden, am I reading through the lines of your post correctly when I say that you'd like to lynch Epi because it would make the game more fun for you? Seriously dude, think about that for a second and then realize that it's not a good strategy to follow.
In a game where 30 of us are still neutral, why is taking out another person who I do not believe is civ and do not believe I will ever be on the same team as a bad strategy?

How could you possibly be so sure of this?

or appear to lol

I always hunt baddies as indy/neutral

Canucklehead wrote:
reywaS wrote:
Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.
The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.
Those 2 Golden sentences stuck out to me as well.

Also, I have found myself agreeing with Timmer. I think he has made some very cogent points. The only thing I would disagree with is playing this as a LMS game for now. I believe that is overthinking things way too much. We have all played games with typical civvie to mafia ratios that also had neutral roles. I have played such a neutral role before. This game is no different. There are 2 civvie teams and 2 baddie teams. The only difference between this game and the typical game featuring neutrals is that there are a lot more neutrals and a lot fewer civvies and baddies which will of course change over time.
What your analysis in your last paragraph misses is that, unlike in "typical" games that have neutral roles, in THIS game, one's neutrality is almost guaranteed to change over the course of the game. There is no real room here for playing the same sort of strategy one would play as a neutral in a typical game because, unlike in those games where I understand that I'm on my own 'till the end and therefore don't have to worry about the fates and fortunes of other factions, in THIS game all I can really be certain of is that I won't always be neutral. Eventually, I'm going to have a win con specific to one side or the other, and because I do not know what that side will be, I need to work hard at this time to screw over neither side. That variability is what is guiding my strategy right now, in that I do not want to lose players that may later end up being members of the team I'll inevitably be recruited to. My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral. That is nothing at all like how I would play a neutral role in a typical game.
Obviously, YMMV

I agree with all you say here, but the underlined part is exactly how I play a typical neutral role.

Boomslang wrote:Argh, I can't even comprehend the amount of posting that's going on here. Two big things stick out to me, and I want to confirm that I share the suspicions previously raised.

Golden wrote: But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point.
The "certainly" is certainly a key word. Because the only way you'd know that for certain would be to be a recruiter yourself. At this point, the low-level animosity you've already established would be perfect for shedding suspicion of teamwork over time. I think you're being far too rash to discount that possibility.

The second is the continued insistence of some players, most recently Roxy, that this is not a good vs. evil game. It's written right there in the rules: civvie groups 1 and 2, baddie groups 1 and 2. There are lynches by civs and NKs by baddies that happen regardless of position. This is very clear, and I don't see why anyone would deny it except to sow confusion.

Those 2 Golden sentences stuck out to me as well.

Also, I have found myself agreeing with Timmer. I think he has made some very cogent points. The only thing I would disagree with is playing this as a LMS game for now. I believe that is overthinking things way too much. We have all played games with typical civvie to mafia ratios that also had neutral roles. I have played such a neutral role before. This game is no different. There are 2 civvie teams and 2 baddie teams. The only difference between this game and the typical game featuring neutrals is that there are a lot more neutrals and a lot fewer civvies and baddies which will of course change over time.

Roxy wrote:
Scotty wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Golden wrote:.He doesn't want to end it to his own lynch, is the point.... he knows that BOTH outcomes of that lynch outcome are bad for him.
How does Epi know anything?
Oh, I think he knows I am not bad just fine. He's just having fun.
But you don't seem to be having any fun.
I am not currently having fun.
You know what's fun? Playing lawn darts midday with a bright sun overhead.

Golden, I'm not sure why you're getting so worked up, with all this Arthur/Knights of the Round table stuff. You have 1 vote on you.

I can see why he is worked up - been there so many times myself. Being suspected for bs reasons sucks especially if they are using twisted logic - "like it has nothing to do with the question - it is how you answered the question" silly Day 1 stuff as per normal. Honestly would be better off just randomizing a vote.

suspecting someone because of how they answered a question is using twisted logic? I disagree.

Golden wrote:@dom - Not uncomfortable, but yeah I prefer to vote people I think could be bad. I do think epi could be bad.

But I certainly think epi and I are not going to be on the same side at any point in this game. Recruiters would be daft to recruit us both on to the same side at this point. So there is no value to me in epi living past today. I do not think he is civ. I think he has done some things which could mean he is bad. I think there are also neutral explanations for his behaviour. I don't mind seeing him lynched be he bad or neutral.

And, I see why you are confused because my response to JJ looks weird, it's because I read his question wrong. I thought he asked for motives that were not anti-town, hence my response to him about 'if epi was neutral'.

As for mafia motives, can think of two possibilities. One, he was thinking of recruiting me given we worked well together in Guess Who and creating distance first was a tactic to achieve it. Two, he was not thinking of recruiting me and so why not cast suspicion on me.

I'll be honest, I suspect the real reason epi won't back off his suspicion is much simpler. He has been busy with work starting up, lord of the realms, helping Simon with Angry Birds. I think he misread SVS question in the first place. But he is not the kind of person to back off because he misreads (or to admit he read something wrong), and so he just finds other ways to justify his suspicion.

Others can decide for themselves, I just don't have fun when people make up bs to accuse me of being bad. Lynching epi would restore balance to the force, and make the game more fun for me right now. That's my primary motive.

But my secondary motive is that, yes, I think he has given some cause to think he is bad. Particularly the post where he responded to me suggesting that everyone vote for either him or me, just after he voted for me and said we needed to 'end it'. He backtracked something chronic with that post. Called my tactics mafia 101, said I was setting some kind of trap, but wanted everyone to 'vote with their conscience' and not feel they had to vote for me, the person he thinks is bad?

Whatever comes, my original hope for today was that a lynch stop is used so no-one dies. But if epi gets the most votes, I think the lynch should be allowed to go through. Same for BWT. Those two have both given me reasons to think they could be bad.

linki @ SVS - you are completely right that I have made no entry into the contest to be recruited as a baddie and will not do so. SVS has had experience in the past of my warning baddie teams outright that if they recruit me I'll bus them all, which is a pretty effective tool to prevent baddie recruitment I can assure you. In a game called recruitment mafia I think doing something like that is not in the spirit of the game, so I will be the best I can of whatever I will be, but I will be far more excited to be recruited civ than bad.

I'm ok with DH talking about his poop, provided it is in nauseating brown. I understand unfurl's frustration with the lack of OT green.

you certainly don't think you two will end up on the same side? How can you possibly be certain of this when it has been well established that recruiters do not get to pick that way. The recruiters are not picking names directly and will not know exactly who they are recruiting until it is done. This is the first thing you've said in this game so far that makes me

Search found 239 matches