The Syndicate

Nobody gave a shit when I thought this voting order was right, coming up with a different theory for nobody to give a shit about is not going to change anything.

Thought about it, Don't see the point in going back and getting the right voting order.

I might recheck the voting order when I have a chance. Probably not though, nobody seems to care.

@SVS I'm voting for LT this lynch unless someone confesses to being a baddie. Do I think INH might be bad, maybe. Do I think I can wait on that until something else comes up, yes. Do I think LT is bad, yes, Do I think I can wait on that until something else comes up, no.

So if you want my opinion, LT's "OMGWTFNOWAI" response to my posts pinged me. There, you have my opinion.

Also FH is a noob.

Fuck it. I try to come up with a legitimate case against INH and Rabbit because they ping me and because I don't want to vote the way everyone else is voting and it changes jack. I try to help out and give insightful analysis as to the bandwagons and it does jack. I really do not have the energy to keep swimming against the current here, people.

Wait no you're not an outlier, Truth is.

Well in that case the Kate/Boats/Aces connection is the most interesting assuming that it's still accurate.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Yeah except all your "groups" are still based upon the "fact" that I voted for droopy, when I voted vompatti on day 3 and 4

Take it up with FH, it's her voting order. Given that you voted Vomp for 3 and 4, It really does not change much as you are one of the outliers.

Jesus Tap Dancing Christ on a Cracker.

You're right dom, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. If only someone had put a title with an explanation on the part of the analysis I took that from and OH WAIT HOLD THE PHONE STOP THE PRESS I FUCKING DID THAT.

Groupings (within 1 Vote of each other each vote)

That is from the original analysis post. It quite clearly states that the "groups" are people that have voted within 1 vote of each other each vote (vomp or Droopy)

The rest of that is observations and analysis based on those groups. Of course, you'd have to know that I took all that from my first post for it to make sense.... If only I had clearly stated in the post that I was compounding on my analysis, maybe you'd be less conf- SLAP ME WITH A CATFISH I DID THAT TOO!!!!!

It implies what it says, those people in the groups voted within one vote of each other both for the Droopy and for the Vomp votes.

I dunno what was confusing about that but there you go.

While I'm talking about it, here is some further analysis.

Because I can, and because I recognize some people are visual learners, I've converted my "vote groups" portion of my analysis into image form.

What conclusions can be drawn from the above image?

Littletiger, The Truth and FH are outliers among the groupsters, each belonging to only one group in terms of voting order

Aces/Boats and Trice/Rabbit each belong two two groups. If you subscribe to the whole "baddies must have phoned it in" theory these four players are therefore statistically more likely to have phoned it in, unless coincidence struck and they just happened to vote within 1 vote of each other for two days in a row.

Kate is in a group with Aces, who is also in a group with Boats, who is also in a group with Kate. this is an interesting result in that it is a nice little loop, that is once again statistically unlikely to be a coincidence if you subscribe to the whole "phone it in" theory.

Linki @ SVS you'd have to ask FH.

Anything else? Let's discuss.

LittleTiger wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
LittleTiger wrote:DH - my response was not the only one that was wondering why you did what you did.....

But never mind. I am sure you are going to make much more out of it than was there anyway.

Oh, and welcome Timmer, bye CBK!

And the Defenseive No U Snarkfest begins

Your response WAS however, the only one that really went over the top in how unbelievable you thought it was.

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
juliets wrote:It's also interesting that a civv wants to shut DP up, and the Residents want to kill him. I guess in addition to re-reading FH's posts I'll be re-reading DP's posts to see what that could be about. DP, do you know how you survived?

Don't hold your breath for a response.

Linki:

Dom, did I pee in your cereal or something? I'm not quite sure what you're on about or why you seem so pent up at me.
I think I'm in need of a breather.
But I still think you are throwing things at the wall and hoping somethng sticks. Your post truck me as odd.
I disagree entirely with everything you've said regarding me, the analysis, and just about everything. I don't see how you can logically call two days of voting, and checking for patterns in those votes an "invalid" form of discussion. Nor do I see how it's "hardly anything." Nor do I see how it's "lead nowhere" (as at least LT's LOLOMGNOWAI response is certainly noteworthy.) Nor do I see how I am throwing anything at the wall (as I've only just presented data for interpretation).

So again, I think you're incredibly wrong. on a massive, if not monumental scale.
Maybe I read your post incorrectly
Your analysis to me was a string of unconnected thoughts that others guessed what it meant and then you briefly and vaguely explained. I don't see what you're really trying to say. It seems to me you're saying a lot of nothing in hopes someone will make something of it and run with it.

I don't see how they were unconnected. I labeled them, explained it after I posted, etc etc. I don't see again how two days of vote analysis is nothing. I don't see how I was vague in my explanation, seeing as I took a full big ass post to explain it after my smaller post explaining it. I don't see how presenting information in the hopes that someone will see something strange and create a case with it is odd.

I'm just not seeing how anything you're saying translates to odd.

LittleTiger wrote:DH - my response was not the only one that was wondering why you did what you did.....

But never mind. I am sure you are going to make much more out of it than was there anyway.

Oh, and welcome Timmer, bye CBK!

And the Defenseive No U Snarkfest begins

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
juliets wrote:It's also interesting that a civv wants to shut DP up, and the Residents want to kill him. I guess in addition to re-reading FH's posts I'll be re-reading DP's posts to see what that could be about. DP, do you know how you survived?

Don't hold your breath for a response.

Linki:

Dom, did I pee in your cereal or something? I'm not quite sure what you're on about or why you seem so pent up at me.
I think I'm in need of a breather.
But I still think you are throwing things at the wall and hoping somethng sticks. Your post truck me as odd.

I disagree entirely with everything you've said regarding me, the analysis, and just about everything. I don't see how you can logically call two days of voting, and checking for patterns in those votes an "invalid" form of discussion. Nor do I see how it's "hardly anything." Nor do I see how it's "lead nowhere" (as at least LT's LOLOMGNOWAI response is certainly noteworthy.) Nor do I see how I am throwing anything at the wall (as I've only just presented data for interpretation).

So again, I think you're incredibly wrong. on a massive, if not monumental scale.

juliets wrote:It's also interesting that a civv wants to shut DP up, and the Residents want to kill him. I guess in addition to re-reading FH's posts I'll be re-reading DP's posts to see what that could be about. DP, do you know how you survived?

Don't hold your breath for a response.

Linki:

Dom, did I pee in your cereal or something? I'm not quite sure what you're on about or why you seem so pent up at me.

Dom wrote:I felt that DH was trying to link people where very little evidence lay
When there's valid disucssion tobe had.
I dunno.

Would love to hear an explanation as to why voting order/voting analysis for two days of votes is considered invalid to discuss, or "little evidence" btw. Perhaps if you offered an alternative. A valid discussion, or more evidence, I'd get what you mean.

DharmaHelper thinks the Night post should have been written in chaindeath's fashion. As tribute.

Uh may want to Un-yay SVS.

Dom wrote:I felt that DH was trying to link people where very little evidence lay
When there's valid disucssion tobe had.
I dunno.

So vote analysis is not valid discussion.

Check.

LittleTiger wrote:
reywaS wrote:Thanks for that, DH. And I agree that he wasn't drawing any conclusions as LT said he was with the stretch comment. I took it as DH looking for similarities in the two lynches. Based on the sheer number of baddies in this game, there had to be baddies in there, and it stands to reason that the last two lynches were pretty easy days for all the baddies. I can see them in their chats saying, "Well, looks like we don't have much to do today. The vote will be easy." That's why I said that I'd like to look a little deeper and see which people made the easy votes and didn't put a lot of content into their lynch votes.

linki x 4
Yes, now that he has explained it further, I can see that he was just "putting stuff out there", not that he was drawing any actual conclusions/suspicions from it.

linki: DharmaHelper, if you're going to "present facts" can you at least adjust your charts so they show who I actually voted for on day 2?
Image

If they're incorrect it's because it was FH's voting order. And if it's showing an incorrect day 2 vote it's because they are the voting orders for day 3 and day 4.

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:

I was presenting facts, I made no attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts. Though yes, it is possible that people consistently voting together might be working together. Again, in this case I was only presenting factual information and some added observations and analysis, because I figured Rey, having asked for that information in the thread basically, might benefit from it in some way. In fact, I hope everybody benefits from it.
...
That is not what you were doing.
Analysis, by definition is not a fact. It is an application of facts. It is interpretation. You are trying to say something here. Don't pretend like you're not.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote: No, from the post immediately above mine. It was an attempt at a joke. Nobody else commented on it because it was pretty obviously a joke.

I don't understand why a couple people think anybody would be stupid enough to copy-paste quotes from a btsc chatroom

This one doesn't sound like a slip. The last one did.
Who would be stupid enough? Why do I think it's possible?
Because it's happened before. I've played a LOT of games, and I've seen it more than once.
So that's why I thought it was possible. Calm down.

And I said it was strange. I didn't say I wanted ot lynch you. I thought it was a POSSIBLE slip.

DharmaHelper wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I did read it. It explains a lot.

And no, it isn't the same. You have been beating us over the head with following your suspicion because everyone elses is just bandwagons, ets, etc. I don't recall trying to make anyone feel dumb or like a lemming if they did not follow my suspicions. Sadly, my suspicions have sucked, lol.

But I see your point.

I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I see something others are missing.

Hell, at this point whatever suspicion you want to follow, follow it. I'm just considerably tired of the results we've been getting with the current strategy.
...
Bandwagons?
You're still on about bandwagons?
Really?
DH. Lynch one, yes that was a relative bandwagon.
Day two, we lynched a baddie. there was a bandwagon on rabbit, not Bea.
Day three, we followed up on the results of day two. Wasn't Droopy one of the Rabbit voters?
Yeah that's a follow up on a result. Not really a bandwagon
He also looked strange. Or am I getting my days mixed up? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I read it all in a few hours, really.
Then day four, was a realtive bandwagon. Yes. Vomp was acting incredibly strange for days on end, though.
Please, explain to me where people aren't bringing up suspicions and following up on results and facts.
I think you're overdoing the bandwagon stuff. I don't think you're completely wrong (relative bandwagons, bandwagons on people who didn't get lynched when the person lynched was a baddie)

so yeah.

Everyone (or almost everyone) voting for the same person without any significant push to change their mind or present an alternative is a bandwagon IMO. If you see it differently, then you see it differently.

As for your other comment, Yes, I agree that I was also interpreting the facts that I presented in an analysis. I probably should have seperated the facts portion of my post with the analysis por- Oh wait I did do that. But I should have also made it clear that I was not just presenting cold facts, but additional analysis and conclusions that I drew based on tho- Oh wait I did that too.

Quote:

Again, in this case I was only presenting factual information and some added observations and analysis,

Everything I posted is not me saying "I think X is baddie and on this team and etc etc" I took the voting orders posted by FH, Interpreted them, Organized my interpretation, and posted it. I never said anything in terms of whom I believe is working together, or anything of that nature. I took data, and I collected patterns from the data.

reywaS wrote:Thanks for that, DH. And I agree that he wasn't drawing any conclusions as LT said he was with the stretch comment. I took it as DH looking for similarities in the two lynches. Based on the sheer number of baddies in this game, there had to be baddies in there, and it stands to reason that the last two lynches were pretty easy days for all the baddies. I can see them in their chats saying, "Well, looks like we don't have much to do today. The vote will be easy." That's why I said that I'd like to look a little deeper and see which people made the easy votes and didn't put a lot of content into their lynch votes.

linki x 4

You're welcome.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:Well, if you read back my initial response was "a bit of a leap is an understatement." Basically all it says is that trying to avoid host punishment - I think INH said he wasn't sure if he'd be around later - is worth writing 3 paragraphs about. Anecdotal evidence will help me appeal to my constituents, right??

But moreso then that, it was really the last post you made presenting "new" "material" in an attempt to justify voting for INH so much

I'm confused. Me sharing my thoughts on Day 1 (AKA the Suspicion Desert) is strange in what way? As for it being the last post in which I present any new material, I did mention that his vote for bea (which hadn't happened at the time I made my post on Day 1) was odd. So that's new.

So in summary:

I always try to string something together to help me vote Day 1. Also, I was trying to appease MP with the whole "contribute on topic stuff" thing, hence the length of the post. And I have added to my suspicion of INH since, though not a whole three more paragraphs, I understand.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:I'll wait to ask Trice what s/he is on about RE: Me :P
this one (hopes links to posts work properly on this site)

What about it?

S~V~S wrote:I did read it. It explains a lot.

And no, it isn't the same. You have been beating us over the head with following your suspicion because everyone elses is just bandwagons, ets, etc. I don't recall trying to make anyone feel dumb or like a lemming if they did not follow my suspicions. Sadly, my suspicions have sucked, lol.

But I see your point.

I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe I see something others are missing.

Hell, at this point whatever suspicion you want to follow, follow it. I'm just considerably tired of the results we've been getting with the current strategy.

I'll wait to ask Trice what s/he is on about RE: Me :P

reywaS wrote:Having said that, I would like to cross reference everyone that voted for both Droopy and Vomp and look at the timing of their votes. Specifically those that didn't put much thought into their votes. I think that would be a good place to look.

Here, Rey says he'd like to cross reference the Droopy/Vomp votes, and I agreed with him so I thought to myself "Best get cracking on cross referencing the Vomp/Droopy votes, DH!"

Having sworn off spreadsheets a long time ago, I didn't actually *have* the voting orders to cross reference. Fortunately, FH did, and she posted them in the thread. So good, I think "Alright now take a look at who voted Droopy AND Vomp, and maybe something will click." So I did.

The first number is when that person voted overall, followed by that persons name, followed by that person's position in the vote for Droopy or Vomp. (I assume, as FH was the one that posted the voting orders, I just interpreted the data) The top set of data is for the Droopy lynch, the Bottom is for Vomp. (You can tell, because It says Droopy/Vomp) Having collected that data, I organized it into Droopy votes Vs. Vomp votes. and placed all the votes in order for each lynch. You can tell I did this because I labeled each list "Droopy Votes in Order" and "Vomp Votes in Order". Following THAT, I tried to determine a pattern or make an observation about the data. My observations are that certain people met a specific pattern and were grouped (within one vote of each other) both times. You can tell this because I labeled my observation "Groupings (within one vote of each other each vote)" The people in those observations can be grouped together, having cast their vote within one vote of each other BOTH lynches. Also, I make a note that chaindeath was the last vote in each case. You can tell, because I say "Chaindeath is last on each list".

DharmaHelper wrote:Big ass post incoming.

5. The Truth (Mr. Droopy) 2
12. The Truth (Vompatti) 10

6. birdwithteeth (Mr. Droopy) 3
17. birdwithteeth (Vompatti) 14

7. triceratops (Mr. Droopy) 4
15. triceratops (Vompatti) 12

8. rabbit (Mr. Droopy) 5
13. rabbit (Vompatti) 11

10. Flyin' High (Mr. Droopy) 6
16. Flyin' High (Vompatti) 13

11. Littletiger (Mr. Droopy) 7
2. LittleTiger (Vompatti) 2

12. AceofSpaces (Mr. Droopy) 8
4. AceofSpaces (Vompatti) 4

13. BoatsBoatsBoats (Mr. Droopy) 9
3. BoatsBoatsBoats (Vompatti) 3

16. Kate (Mr. Droopy) 11
6. Kate (Vompatti) 6

18. chaindeath (Mr. Droopy) 12
18. chaindeath (Vompatti) 15

Droopy Votes In Order:

5. The Truth (2nd Vote for Droopy)
6. BWT (3rd Vote for Droopy)
7. Trice (4th Vote For Droopy)
8. Rabbit (5th Vote For Droopy)
10. FH (6th Vote For Droopy)
11. LT (7th Vote For Droopy)
12. Aces (8th Vote For Droopy)
13. Boats (9th Vote for Droopy)
16. Kate (11th Vote For Droopy)
18. Chaindeath (12th Vote for Droopy)

Vomp Votes In Order:

2. LittleTiger (2nd Vote for Vomp)
3. Boats (3rd Vote for Vomp)
4. Aces (4th Vote for Vomp)
6. Kate (6th Vote for Vomp)
12. The Truth (10th Vote for Vomp)
13. Rabbit (11th Vote for Vomp)
15. Trice (12th Vote for Vomp)
16. FH (13th Vote for Vomp)
17. BWT (14th Vote for Vomp)
18. Chaindeath (15th Vote for Vomp

Analysis:

Groupings (within 1 Vote of each other each vote)
LT, Aces Boats.
The Truth, Trice, Rabbit
Trice, FH, Rabbit
Aces, Kate
Kate, Boats

Order:
Chaindeath is last on each list.

Here, I clarify what my analysis is doing, and I make further analysis based on the vote groupings for both lynches. I expand on each of the groups in an effort to try and continue figuring things out. First, I recap who belongs in the "voting group" category of the analysis, you can tell I do this because I copied and pasted the list of names from the other post. Then I explain each group based on each person, and give the number of voting groups that person belongs to. You can tell, because below the recap is a list of each person, with whom they are grouped, and how many groups total they belong to based on the information. Below THAT, I make observations based on the data above. You can tell, because they are observations below the data on which they are based.

DharmaHelper wrote:
LittleTiger wrote:I 2nd Kate's question, DH, what is your analysis supposed to imply?

Umm...

It implies what it says, those people in the groups voted within one vote of each other both for the Droopy and for the Vomp votes.

I dunno what was confusing about that but there you go.

While I'm talking about it, here is some further analysis.

LT, Aces Boats.
The Truth, Trice, Rabbit
Trice, FH, Rabbit
Aces, Kate
Kate, Boats

LT is in a Group with Aces, and Boats (1 Group Total)
Aces is in a group with Boats, LT, and Kate (2 Groups Total)
Boats is in a Group with Aces, LT, and Kate (2 Groups Total)
The Truth is in a Group with Rabbit and FH (1 Group Total)
Trice is in a group with Rabbit, Truth and FH (2 Groups Total)
FH is in a group with Trice and Rabbit (1 Group Total)
Rabbit is in a group with FH, the Truth, and Trice (2 Groups Total)

Aces and Boats both appear in a group with Kate
Trice and Rabbit appear in 2 groups together (one with FH, one with The Truth)

Kate wrote:No, it says what it says. It implies something completely different.

Are you suggesting that the people who vote within a few votes of each other are working together?

You know it may help if you actually say what you are trying to get at. People may stop "ignoring" your posts.

I was presenting facts, I made no attempt to draw a conclusion from those facts. Though yes, it is possible that people consistently voting together might be working together. Again, in this case I was only presenting factual information and some added observations and analysis, because I figured Rey, having asked for that information in the thread basically, might benefit from it in some way. In fact, I hope everybody benefits from it.

LittleTiger wrote:DH - that is the most "reaching" vote analysis I have ever seen... and I still don't know what you are implying by doing it. It is far too early in such a large game to determine that when people vote after someone else implies some kind of logical grouping. I am really scratching my head at this. You've played far too many games to post ... ummm.... not sure what to call it LOL!

I dunno if I'd call facts "reaching". And again, I was not trying to imply anything. Your reaction is a bit defensive if I must say, unless you're somehow trying to refute the fact that on two separate occasions you voted within one vote of both Ace and Boats. Which is silly, because there is no way to disprove something that happened. And there is no reason to be up in arms about it happening either. Awful pinged by your reaction, and I will add you to my list because of it. Actually, probably either tied with or ahead of INH at this point. (See, people? Logical, independent thought has its benefits.)

S~V~S wrote:I dunno, when I have info, or think I do, and can't find areal case, I flood the thread with data hoping a pattern emeges to someone. This is the kind of bizarre post I make in that situation. DH has been sounding frustratted and reasonably sincere, if snarkish, to me.

He has been screaming "INH!!!!!" For days, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt

Thanks. Though again, this isn't anything anybody else couldn't find if they sat down with it like I did. I don't have anything pointing me in INH's direction so much as I just want people to start focusing less on the Kool Aid voting. For the record, it's not all that bizarre, though.

LittleTiger wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I dunno, when I have info, or think I do, and can't find areal case, I flood the thread with data hoping a pattern emeges to someone. This is the kind of bizarre post I make in that situation. DH has been sounding frustratted and reasonably sincere, if snarkish, to me.

He has been screaming "INH!!!!!" For days, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt
I don't think I have ever seen you post something like what DH just posted though.

I am one of a kind.

S~V~S wrote:I did in 70s and in Enchanted Forest. I made up statistics, a,ll kkindsa crazy crap, lol. I also did something similar to Tranq & Typh on the first ACTA, making up ratios of post to content, lol.

Maybe not to this extent, but that is what it looks like nevertheless~

I am inclined to trust, and if he's wrong we'll kill him. Civ or bad, I can't see him going to this length unless he's pretty sure.

Wait, pump the breaks what? I was just presenting a set of data. And if I'm wrong (about INH I assume you mean) you're going to lynch me?

By that logic, everybody who was wrong about Droopy and Vomp should stop playing right now :P

INH wasn't in the data anyway, as he did not fit the criteria of voting for both Droopy and Vomp.

S~V~S wrote:He doesn't have INH in his voting charts? Hard to rread them on phone.

Well, now I am curious too lol. He has been wanting to lynch INH for days, I just assumed that was the point of all this~

Linki@ Rabbit, I said WE as in lynch, lol~ nice try

The point was to give Rey what he asked for.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Yeah, I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of DH's vast amount of.....data (for lack of a better word). I mean, I get that you're trying to establish voting patters based on timing and groups of people, but maybe I'm not quite catching it. Is there any way you could elaborate on it a bit more? I'm still a bit confuzzled.

Or better yet, are there any specific groups/people in there that appear to be worth focusing on? That's where my main confusion lies.

quote="Dom"]DH's data is certainly a new kind of analysis.

Hoenstly, what is he even on about? I fidn it strange. Like why be so vague? Just say what you mean and then move on. This seems like he wants to just be the misunderstood teenage like, "omg mom u just don't understand me".[/quote]

I hope this post clears things up. (assuming you read it, BWT.)

Alot to catch up on and reply to. I'm going to have to pick how I reply very carefully as I don't want to come off as rude or anything, and I might :P

LittleTiger wrote:I 2nd Kate's question, DH, what is your analysis supposed to imply?

Umm...

It implies what it says, those people in the groups voted within one vote of each other both for the Droopy and for the Vomp votes.

I dunno what was confusing about that but there you go.

While I'm talking about it, here is some further analysis.

LT, Aces Boats.
The Truth, Trice, Rabbit
Trice, FH, Rabbit
Aces, Kate
Kate, Boats

LT is in a Group with Aces, and Boats (1 Group Total)
Aces is in a group with Boats, LT, and Kate (2 Groups Total)
Boats is in a Group with Aces, LT, and Kate (2 Groups Total)
The Truth is in a Group with Rabbit and FH (1 Group Total)
Trice is in a group with Rabbit, Truth and FH (2 Groups Total)
FH is in a group with Trice and Rabbit (1 Group Total)
Rabbit is in a group with FH, the Truth, and Trice (2 Groups Total)

Aces and Boats both appear in a group with Kate
Trice and Rabbit appear in 2 groups together (one with FH, one with The Truth)

Big ass post incoming.

5. The Truth (Mr. Droopy) 2
12. The Truth (Vompatti) 10

6. birdwithteeth (Mr. Droopy) 3
17. birdwithteeth (Vompatti) 14

7. triceratops (Mr. Droopy) 4
15. triceratops (Vompatti) 12

8. rabbit (Mr. Droopy) 5
13. rabbit (Vompatti) 11

10. Flyin' High (Mr. Droopy) 6
16. Flyin' High (Vompatti) 13

11. Littletiger (Mr. Droopy) 7
2. LittleTiger (Vompatti) 2

12. AceofSpaces (Mr. Droopy) 8
4. AceofSpaces (Vompatti) 4

13. BoatsBoatsBoats (Mr. Droopy) 9
3. BoatsBoatsBoats (Vompatti) 3

16. Kate (Mr. Droopy) 11
6. Kate (Vompatti) 6

18. chaindeath (Mr. Droopy) 12
18. chaindeath (Vompatti) 15

Droopy Votes In Order:

5. The Truth (2nd Vote for Droopy)
6. BWT (3rd Vote for Droopy)
7. Trice (4th Vote For Droopy)
8. Rabbit (5th Vote For Droopy)
10. FH (6th Vote For Droopy)
11. LT (7th Vote For Droopy)
12. Aces (8th Vote For Droopy)
13. Boats (9th Vote for Droopy)
16. Kate (11th Vote For Droopy)
18. Chaindeath (12th Vote for Droopy)

Vomp Votes In Order:

2. LittleTiger (2nd Vote for Vomp)
3. Boats (3rd Vote for Vomp)
4. Aces (4th Vote for Vomp)
6. Kate (6th Vote for Vomp)
12. The Truth (10th Vote for Vomp)
13. Rabbit (11th Vote for Vomp)
15. Trice (12th Vote for Vomp)
16. FH (13th Vote for Vomp)
17. BWT (14th Vote for Vomp)
18. Chaindeath (15th Vote for Vomp

Analysis:

Groupings (within 1 Vote of each other each vote)
LT, Aces Boats.
The Truth, Trice, Rabbit
Trice, FH, Rabbit
Aces, Kate
Kate, Boats

Order:
Chaindeath is last on each list.

I'm sure someone has a spreadsheet with the voting order. I don't.

DharmaHelper wrote:
Kate wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:INH.

Pursuing legitimate thought and sheep voting are two different things, not sure how that's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure you'll elaborate though.
I'm sure you didn't mean for this to be as condescending as it came out. Just because someone is wrong does not mean they did not think nor does it make them a sheep. I have seen you be wrong on more than one occasion and did not see anyone make fun of you for it.

I tend to use terminology like "sheep voting" "Kool aid voting" "Droopwagon" etc. very surgically. I'm not making fun of anybody.

Kate wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:INH.

Pursuing legitimate thought and sheep voting are two different things, not sure how that's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure you'll elaborate though.
I'm sure you didn't mean for this to be as condescending as it came out. Just because someone is wrong does not mean they did not think nor does it make them a sheep. I have seen you be wrong on more than one occasion and did not see anyone make fun of you for it.

I tend to use terminology like "sheep voting" "Kool aid voting" "Droopwagon" etc. very surgically. I'm not making fun of anybody. :bass:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I mean, what else have you accused him of besides just being overly aggressive? I'm referring to this bit specifically:

insertnamehere wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Maybe I'm just put off by how incredibly agressive you've been all game, but I am hesitant to trust anything you say as genuine in nature. You seem to be very strong arm-ish, which I usually associate with baddies.

Dunno, as I said I'm not quite willing to buy into the impending Droopwagon, probably exclusively because you seem so determined to get people on board.
DH, Maybe I'm just put off by how incredibly agressive you've been all game, but I am hesitant to trust anything you say as genuine in nature. You seem to be very strong arm-ish, which I usually associate with baddies.
And then you make light of the situation here:

insertnamehere wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Lol INH :P
Wow, what a jokey aloof post.

I wasn't even talking to INH in that "aggressive" post, I was talking to Kate!

I need a "start reading my posts" smiley. Get on it, LT.

DharmaHelper wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Any reason other than the fact that he wanted to avoid a penalty?

Don;t make other people do all the work, man~

You know, sometimes I wonder if people read my posts at all :P

As I said

1. Rabbit defended his contest behavior while bringing up Epig as suspect for posting and not voting. (Even if it was just a joke, Rabbit's on my list and him helping out INH only deepens my suspicions.)
2. His vote for bea seems to me to be more of a "go with the flow, don't ruffle any feathers" vote than anything else.

Adding
3. His defense thusfar has been a very snarky "No U" marathon
As for the posts you quoted, I found it funny that INH's defense to my case was essentially "no u lol"

Adding

4) Apart from his responses to my case, when I read back to his earlier posts alot of them are surface-only posts as I said a while back, not really adding one thing or another.

DharmaHelper wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Any reason other than the fact that he wanted to avoid a penalty?

Don;t make other people do all the work, man~

You know, sometimes I wonder if people read my posts at all :P

As I said

1. Rabbit defended his contest behavior while bringing up Epig as suspect for posting and not voting. (Even if it was just a joke, Rabbit's on my list and him helping out INH only deepens my suspicions.)
2. His vote for bea seems to me to be more of a "go with the flow, don't ruffle any feathers" vote than anything else.

Adding
3. His defense thusfar has been a very snarky "No U" marathon

As for the posts you quoted, I found it funny that INH's defense to my case was essentially "no u lol"

I'm really getting tired of the "Start reading my posts" schtick everybody, I promise. I'm not doing it on purpose. It's just as frustrating for me to type as it is for you to read.

INH.

Pursuing legitimate thought and sheep voting are two different things, not sure how that's the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure you'll elaborate though.

reywaS wrote:After this last lynch and the comments immediately afterward, I'm getting a little suspicious of a few people....

I'm getting more and more suspicious of DH because of what Dom pointed out and the fact that he's been acting so sure of himself about these "bandwagons".

DharmaHelper wrote:Another shitty bandwagon ended in a civvie lynch?

Boomslang wrote:Just wanted to say: nailed it. Maybe a bit more independent thought next lynch?
These two posts do not seem like they are coming from a civvie tbh. The "I told you so" seems more like something a baddie would say to gain some civvie credit. The comments also seem more like that are intended to divide us even further....not constructive IMO.

You do realize I can't be two different people right?

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Hey rabbit, I heard your "bank" might need a bailout.
Just wanted to say this as I catch up:

Excuse me, DH? For someone so suspicious of all aggressive people, you are pretty freaking aggressive. This post just struck me as od. Not only is it pretty aggressive, but it's kind of the type of thing a baddie might do to try and get everyone to trust them; say I told you so!

I was ribbing rabbit, I wasn't being aggressive towards anyone else. I always rib rabbit. I love rabbit rib.. What were we talking about?

I wouldn't say I told you so if I didn't tell you so, and I did tell you so, so I'll remind you that I told you so. Not "you" specifically, but "everyone that has been voting like sheepy sheeps".

Of course I'm not going to make any friends by not drinking the Kool Aid, and of course eventually when we all run out of Civvie Bandwagons to jump on the one guy that has been consistently pursuing his own thought pattern is going to look like the next in line for the boot, but I'm not going to apologize for not lynching civvies, and I'm definitely not going to stop trying to remind people that all this Kool Aid voting is doing more harm than good, if that's what you're after

Another shitty bandwagon ended in a civvie lynch?

Well... I *am* really quite good.

I've *been* statement voting and nobody seems to be caring about the statement.

Whatever. Once again I don't care if I'm the only one who doesn't flock to the group vote. Hope that Kool Aid tastes great guys :P

Vote=INH

I'm torn. On the one hand I don't want to drink the Kool-Aid and join the "coming up with my own suspicions is too much hard work so let's all vote for the same exact person every time" band.

On the other hand, my vote consistently does not matter and my cases are consistently being passed over. I may abstain from voting, I may vote Vomp, I may vote INH.

Apparently I have good reason to believe you're not reading my posts BWT, because I have been hitting INH pretty hard, and providing some evidence to support my suspicion of him, so it's not just rabbit I'm looking at.

What I was referring to, INH :

insertnamehere wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Maybe I'm just put off by how incredibly agressive you've been all game, but I am hesitant to trust anything you say as genuine in nature. You seem to be very strong arm-ish, which I usually associate with baddies.

Dunno, as I said I'm not quite willing to buy into the impending Droopwagon, probably exclusively because you seem so determined to get people on board.
DH, Maybe I'm just put off by how incredibly agressive you've been all game, but I am hesitant to trust anything you say as genuine in nature. You seem to be very strong arm-ish, which I usually associate with baddies.

insertnamehere wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:Lol INH :P
Wow, what a jokey aloof post.

SVS is making me feel icky.

You don't think his snarkfest was pingy?

I'm getting the feeling mob mentality has pretty well decided this lynch already, which considering the track record of the mob votes is pretty unnerving.

But whatever, I'm sure eventually someone somewhere will read one of my posts and be all "You know what, maybe all this pitchforks and torches crap isn't so cool after all"

Maybe it means every vote against you is counted as three votes

Just call me Ol' One Chip.

S~V~S wrote:Any reason other than the fact that he wanted to avoid a penalty?

Don;t make other people do all the work, man~

You know, sometimes I wonder if people read my posts at all :P

As I said

1. Rabbit defended his contest behavior while bringing up Epig as suspect for posting and not voting. (Even if it was just a joke, Rabbit's on my list and him helping out INH only deepens my suspicions.)
2. His vote for bea seems to me to be more of a "go with the flow, don't ruffle any feathers" vote than anything else.

Adding
3. His defense thusfar has been a very snarky "No U" marathon

Search found 265 matches