The Syndicate

Voting Juliets

fingersplints wrote:
Dom wrote:
fingersplints wrote:TH: Because I don't agree with your points on someone it does not mean I thought you were bad. I thought you were wrong, but that you had good intentions. I was looking forward to discussing Dom with you more before you were killed. I had reread him some from other games and I became less confident about him being a civvie. That suspicion seems to have dropped off anyways
Now I don't get the same feeling about you having good intetnions. I wouldn't say I suspect you yet. Hopefully the results of this lynch will help me decide about a few people.
This reads rather contrived to me.

What games didyou read?
What about it reads contrived to you?

I read all your posts in Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, and skimmed some other posts. (I think TSM and probably whatever other game you played recently since I didn't go far back) I spent most time rereading the first one though, since you were bad there.

You and TH have a disagreement and suddenly you are so disappointed because you have a connection on something! Why! that's such a coincidence! Too bad you've come to disagree, though.

And...? I was bad in that game, and to be honest, played the lowest key game I think I am capable of.

fingersplints wrote:TH: Because I don't agree with your points on someone it does not mean I thought you were bad. I thought you were wrong, but that you had good intentions. I was looking forward to discussing Dom with you more before you were killed. I had reread him some from other games and I became less confident about him being a civvie. That suspicion seems to have dropped off anyways
Now I don't get the same feeling about you having good intetnions. I wouldn't say I suspect you yet. Hopefully the results of this lynch will help me decide about a few people.

This reads rather contrived to me.

What games didyou read?

fingersplints wrote:I agree with SVS that canuck seems to be playing up the uninterested card to a suspicious degree. I'm going to place my vote there for now.
I don't get most of this MM vs TH thing. Why can't MM suspect canuck for low posting? canuck herself was suspecting low posters, so it seems fair game to me. TH feels completely different from his last version.

Can you name anything else MM has done on-topic in this game?

can someone explain the canuck case then?

Do you understand the Canuck case? I don't.

Why Draconus over Juliets, Epig?

Turnip Head wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote:EWBOP: Typhoony, not TH.
I think my opinion of him is reliant upon juliets, but he's acting sketchy.

What do you think of juliets?

^^I feel similarly

juliets wrote:
Dom wrote:Juliets, it's more that you voted for nutella and then Luke and I don't see really why you picked Luke. I don't see why Nutella was your choice on 4.1 versus Luke on 4.2
I voted for nutella because even after she responded to her accusations the fact still remained that she still didn't give any hint to Sorsha that she was going to vote her, thus giving her no chance to respond. She also avoided breaking the three way tie. Then I voted for Luke because when I checked to see if he had answered the questions that people had addressed to him that day (this was late on Saturday after not having been in the thread all day) I found only a weak attempt to answer those questions. That was the last straw to me and I voted Luke.

I'm not understanding why the order in which I voted people is an issue.

Why was Luke less of a priority when it was more popular to lynch nutella?

Juliets, it's more that you voted for nutella and then Luke and I don't see really why you picked Luke. I don't see why Nutella was your choice on 4.1 versus Luke on 4.2

Given Luke's alignment, I don't think it's implausible for Juliets to be his teammate.

Can I hear someone's reasoning for voting yes?

Excellent!!

Bass-- what do you think about this whole lynch thing now?

zoinks

Anyone wanna vote Mac with me?

Long Con wrote:The game begins with 15 Civvies, 8 baddies, and 7 Independent roles. There are two baddie teams, the Circle of Decay, and the Witherdeath Cabal. The Circle of Decay has the opportunity to kill on odd nights, and the Witherdeath Cabal may kill on even nights.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
Dom wrote:Not sad about that lynch! Good result-- though it makes me doubt a bit my Sorsha suspicion.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't get why people are saying that what I was saying was wierd. Not going to lie I had a few to many drinks in me last night when I post and realized it was sloppy but I stand by what I said.
What specifically do you stand by?

Sorry for not being aroudn-- fell asleep. :///
That it wasn't wise to vote for a double Lynch. It think when the vote was mad the odds were not in the civvies favor. It was good that we got an Indy last night I just hope we don't Lynch a civ tonight

Why are you so upset at the prospect of two days in a row?

Matt F wrote:
Dom wrote:Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Dom wrote: #5) You have named 9+ people to be "scum" with a high degree of certainty, however, there is a maximum of 8 baddies in the game... who are your suspects? Why are you inconsistent?

How do you know?

Linki - Is that right, Doc?

....because we were literally told.

Not sad about that lynch! Good result-- though it makes me doubt a bit my Sorsha suspicion.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:I don't get why people are saying that what I was saying was wierd. Not going to lie I had a few to many drinks in me last night when I post and realized it was sloppy but I stand by what I said.

What specifically do you stand by?

Sorry for not being aroudn-- fell asleep. :///

S~V~S wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:No time to chat today. Voting Luke for being (essentially) a no-show. Hopefully will be back to chat before lunch 2 tomorrow
I just looked, and Luke actually has more posts than you do

I can see the reason Luke is taking votes~ he is really blendy which catches my eye more than the post count, and might vote for him myself, although I still suspect Nutella for reasons unassociated with Bubbles. And this post has gotten my attention on Canuck, so i am going to reread her, should not take long. That has to be one of the most bandwaggony votes i can recall seeing in some time.

Hm....

Bullzeye wrote:
Long Con wrote:
The creature snorted, glaring at Bullzeye with pulsing red and yellow eyes. It took one more big bite of Bullzeye before launching itself once again into the night sky.
Now that's just rude. I mean biting people, really? Who does that. Mean baddies! Unfortunately for you I survived to keep hunting you all down.

Matt F wrote:What happened there Bullz?
What are you asking here Matt? I don't know what happened. I was just minding my own business when some big ugly douche dropped out of the sky and tried to eat me!

MacDougall wrote:Dom Dom where u at.

Matt in answer to your question. If you vote for me I will be thrilled.

class.

I'm going to vote for nutella and sorsha today.

HamburgerBoy wrote:Daily reminder that golden also made a day 1 vote on timmers, but had the sense to switch it to Canuck, and then make Bubbles look like she had committed an unforgivable sin, after golden already washed himself clean.

Can you explain this more?

Bullzeye wrote:
Dom wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.
This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>
Does to me If Sig flips civ, Golden looks good for defending him. I can't think of a civ reason for him to claim that he was the only person defending Sig when most of HB's day 2 posts are doing just that.

If Golden is bad how does he know that Sig isn't on the other team?

Bullzeye wrote:Golden: If Sig is civ I am going to think you're a baddie going for the civ cred of having defended such a poor innocent bandwagon victim. I think that's why you claimed you were the only person defending him and it's why you won't simply respond to my questioning whether or not you actually understand the case.

This doesn't make any sense, Bullz. >_>

My top three suspects are in Group One -_-

#1) Your suspicion of me is based on a case Epi made on meta-analysis. Not only would I say his case is wrong, but you have zero bearing for my meta-game. Why would you follow that? How does that indicate I am bad? You say you don't want to follow people, but you do here. You have since evolved this into a standalone suspicion based on???? What? I don't even know what. If it's the meta-analysis you have no grounds for it, and that is suspect to me. In fact, you called Epig's case "the best case of the game" when you should have zero ability to judge that.

#2) You consistently condemn "silly" players, but when in need of a distraction, completely derail the thread and act just as silly-- or exceedingly silly--to dismiss allegations against you. You see, what you've been doing is attacking me personally to make people less likely to want to comment.

#3) You alleged that I was disinterested until I took votes. That is simply not true and a mischaracterization.

#4) You attempted to lure me into voting you over Banana Day 1. This, I believe, was an attempt to make sure I died that day.

#5) You have named 9+ people to be "scum" with a high degree of certainty, however, there is a maximum of 8 baddies in the game... who are your suspects? Why are you inconsistent?

#6) Starting in day two, you seemed to drop the talk of SVS and I. You pulled up several new suspicions out of nowhere. I believe this was an attempt to get me off your ass.

#7) You posted a list of people you suspect, one of which was me and one of which was Bea. You claim that this was confusing because you're playing two games, but I am not playing Dune and Bea is not playing here. Who are your real suspicions?

#8) You assume that the Banana lynch was a save on me rather than a save on Bug. You have refused to entertain the thought-- it's almost like you might know.

#9) You claimed my disinterest is a reason to suspect me because I only became interested when I took votes. To be honest, that's hypocrisy on a whole new level. You literally phoned in for a day only because "you didn't have the energy" and "were on a road trip". But I'm totally disinterested by a lower than above average post count on Day 1??????? OKKK!?!??!

In short, your behavior would have gotten you lynched if you were from this site.

MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Actually, Mac, it pisses me off that I went to the effort to write that post, and give you my honest opinion, and all you took out of it was one word.

That was insulting.

That seems calculated to portray my post in a certain way.
I apologise if I offended you but people saying "oh that's interesting" and then not elaborating annoys me. Especially when it's actually spoken at me accusationally.

You know what annoys me?
People who ignore other people's suspicions because it's a "waste of their time" and think that making it personal is a valid way to get out of a suspicion.

Only makes me think you're bad.

^no it's because you're bad and its' obvious

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.
How did I do that?
I laid out my thoughts about this here.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p190399
That was Epig's case on me.
I would disagree that I did any of those things.

Would I say my post you are referring to was a bit hasty and made some generalizations? Yes.
You also are cherry-picking evidence to make me look bad. That is far from my only response to Epig.
I am not married to the idea that you're bad. As to "cherry-picking", I'm just bringing up what catches my eye and why. You are obviously a good player, so it's not like every post you make is going to raise my brow.

You're not married to the idea of me being bad, but you voted me until it became obvious I would not be lynched?

MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Dogs.

And is this what Mac does? Spends the last hour of every lynch going batshit?

Welcome Back Timmer:)
You are reducing all my awesome play down to the term batshit. That's not fair.

What's not fair is that there is a case against you and you choose to play the way you do and people just brush it aside.

Who's bad Mac?
All nine of the people listed previously? That's not even possible.

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.
How did I do that?
I laid out my thoughts about this here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 99#p190399
That was Epig's case on me.
I would disagree that I did any of those things.

Would I say my post you are referring to was a bit hasty and made some generalizations? Yes.
You also are cherry-picking evidence to make me look bad. That is far from my only response to Epig.

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I don't like either of these lynch trains. Why is Dom's vote on Mac? I thought he was suspicious of nutella and she's one of the major candidates.
I have expressed suspicion of Mac for a while now-- why are you surprised that my vote is on someone I'm suspicious of?
Because your other suspects have more votes and are more likely to be lynched.
... but I might suspect other people more? Why is that controversial?
You could have just answered my question instead of acting like it was a ridiculous question to ask.

I did.

Turnip Head wrote: I have no idea what most of these questions mean or what point you're trying to make with them, but I voted for Dom because he doesn't feel quite like his civvie self to me. I think he was trying to cause misdirection rather than ask questions that would lead to him finding baddies. I think he misrepresented Epi's case against him to paint himself in a better light.

How did I do that?

MacDougall wrote:Are you just pretending not to see all of sigs scum posts?

Are you just pretending to not see all of my posts about you?

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:I don't like either of these lynch trains. Why is Dom's vote on Mac? I thought he was suspicious of nutella and she's one of the major candidates.
I have expressed suspicion of Mac for a while now-- why are you surprised that my vote is on someone I'm suspicious of?
Because your other suspects have more votes and are more likely to be lynched.

... but I might suspect other people more? Why is that controversial?

Golden wrote:
Dom wrote:Golden, how sure are you?
Well, I mean, how long is a piece of string?

But I do really feel it, like, what is there to sig's case. He used the word 'currently' when describing the mafia's kill. No-one has really been sticking up for him until I started to. He was the run away early leader in the lynch. He is like the cliche easy town bandwagon.

What if nutella is civ?

Golden, how sure are you?

MacDougall wrote:Yeh

Earlier in the game, you condemned people who played "silly"? How can you justify this with your recent bout of behavior? Why are you acting silly to avoid scrutiny from me?

Additionally, how are all of the following people bad:
-SVS
-Epig
-Dom
-Golden
-Juliets
-Matt F
-Zebra
-DFaraday
-HamburgerBoy

So... all of these people, Mac, are definitely bad? You've expressed that.

MacDougall wrote:
sig wrote:Could you point it out?
She knows I am civ. You can tell by the way she phrased the first sentence and also the defense of me when I was absent was confident because she knows my alignment.

Let's say Juliets is bad. Why would she know your alignment?

Turnip Head wrote:I don't like either of these lynch trains. Why is Dom's vote on Mac? I thought he was suspicious of nutella and she's one of the major candidates.

I have expressed suspicion of Mac for a while now-- why are you surprised that my vote is on someone I'm suspicious of?

Matt F wrote:
Dom wrote:
Matt F wrote:I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.
tbqh that's convenient

He also literally said he wouldn't be around because he didn't like being suspected.
Lol. Did he say that? Must've missed that one. Anywho, just lettin' peeps know, do with that info what you will.

Also, Dom, are you not feeling the nutella case anymore?

I still suspect nutella. I think both sig and mac are bad as well. For the record, I just tried to find the post where he said that, but I think him calling me an asshole douchebag tainted my reading of the thread-- I can't find it. I apologize.
I'll give him a day cycle to come back.

Epignosis wrote: The normal meaning of "bullshit" means lies: "Howard says he likes your tie." "That's bullshit. Howard hates my ties."

This is why I consider the Epig/SVS conversation banal.

Matt F wrote:I know the hosts requested us not to refer to other games, but regarding Mac and his "not being here", I feel I should say that he hasn't been posting in other threads, either.

Why I'm defending Mac? Beats me.

tbqh that's convenient

He also literally said he wouldn't be around because he didn't like being suspected.

Voted Mac for now.

TheFloyd73 wrote:Where's Mac been?

Yeah, it's really weird that he had so much time on his roadtrip to post BEFORE he got suspicion on him and now he doesn't!

I could vote for Mac or sig tbqh

nutella wrote:
Golden wrote:Voting nutella, for an early placeholder. Matt, I think your case holds a lot of merit.

Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?
I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

I'm sorry, what "case"? I think Matt's "case" was more condemning of Sorsha than of me, and his post here more or less confirms that:

Matt F wrote: Don't get me wrong, it wasn't just your vote for her. It was Sorsha's complete disregard to said vote that got me pinged on this whole thing. I find it curious that some players have looked at you for my case here, but nothing to say about Sorsha. And yes that is odd.

Why were you two, Golden and Dom, so quick to jump on me for something that wasn't even explicitly a case on me, and why did neither of you mention Sorsha at all? What in particular are you suspicious of me for? If it's about my vote for Sorsha, I have already responded to Matt explaining my end of things regarding the vote process. Neither of you acknowledged my response.

Because I think your vote on Sorsha can be seen as a distancing vote. I also HAVE expressed suspicion of Sorsha, so....

MacDougall wrote:It's not a personal insult when he is playing a bad guy in a a game. I am sure he is lovely.

To quote nutella from a game long ago: "Is your bike broken because you seem to be backpedaling awfully fast"
or something to that effect.

Not sorry for going to bed after reading a couple of posts yesterday. Not sorry one bit.

Mac, if you can't take the heat of, what I would consider, mild scrutiny from me, then you're either an extremely panicked civ or a baddie who can't take any suspicion at all.
I'm leaning towards the latter.

Turnip Head wrote:What are you seeing with nutella?

I think Matt F's case against her was well thought out and doesn't look all that great for her.

Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:What are your top, say, three or four scum reads Epi? This question is open to SVS as well. And Floyd. And anyone.
Dom, S~V~S, and nutella.
So anyone who disagrees with you?

TBH, Epig, your suspicion of me boils down to the fact that you like to suspect people and you needed someone to latch onto-- and it hasn't been me for awhile. I'm not bad and you STILL haven't told me if you are or not.
I don't see Epi suspecting you because he disagrees with you. I don't see Epi suspecting SVS because he disagrees with her. I also don't think he's only suspecting you because he needs someone to latch onto - his case might not be the most solid one I've seen, but it feels genuine to me, and he's discussed players other than you.

I think you're trying to create a false narrative here.

I don't think Epig is necessarily bad. I've been saying that the whole time.
I just think he is instantly suspecting those who disagree with him.

Though, now I could get on board with a nutella suspicion.

MacDougall wrote:I would just like one of SVS or Dom lynched. If that doesn't happen then meh. I am struggling to focus on two games so imma phone this one in for a bit k?

*faces opposition*

*runs away to avoid the conflict and not be lynched because he realizes he bit off way more than he can chew*

a2thezebra wrote:I guess my accusations of people not reading my posts aren't being acknowledged because there's a crucial distinction between reading and understanding that I as the accuser have failed to make. You can easily "read" a post but miss the entire point if you're being guided more by your own biases than by the will to remain objective, and perhaps that is what I should be accusing people of rather not reading my posts altogether. It's easy to skim through something and say that you've read it while at the same time misinterpreting everything that was said. Here's an example:
Dom wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?
Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.
Dom your defense overall isn't that bad in my opinion, but for this segment that I have singled out I would like for you to take a closer look at Mac's post that you clearly went to a lot of effort to respond to. Say has anyone here seen Cool Hand Luke?

You are absolutely right. That was my bad, and I recant it now that it's been pointed out to me.

First, Mac, I would like to say the following:
1) You do not know me nor do you know my game.
2) You are relying on a case of meta-play (that you don't reference anymore) to say I am bad when you have not an inkling of a clue of what my meta-play is.

On the front of your mix-up, I brought it up because it's pretty clear to me you don't actually think I'm bad. It's pretty clear to me you are looking for easy people to lynch. Why was I on the same list as Bea? Because you don't care who is actually on that list.

MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Dom vote for me. Surely you must think I am scummier than Banana.
Do you have a vote manip on your team?
I'm not sure what roles the other townies have Dom.

Surely you know what I'm implying here. Why so concerned I was voting to make sure I didn't die? Why was that weird to you that I voting to ensure my survival?

Your team doubled down on me. There was no way for you and Sorsha to pull out. Now you have to make it a full blown case against me. You were hoping I'd die so I coudln't speak out against you later.
Wrong-o.

MacDougall wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
MacDougall wrote:What a travesty.
No, it was kind of a Policy Lynch, wasn't it? Lynching a civview who WAS participating, now THAT would have been a travesty, Mr. Hyperbole Words.

He made two posts, one of them an incredibly opportunistic vote.

And feel free to not validate me~ I am self validating
Now, if Dom was town. Do you think he would have been lynched? I do. I think if Dom was town, the scum would have hit his wagon hard. Of the three opportunities there he was clearly the more experienced player. Considering there were various votes made late day for very skewiff reasons they could have easily just thrown a vote on there and been done with it.

No, I would not have. Your theory is wrong because I was not lynched, and yet, I am town.
Again, you have no idea how I play, what my history is, etc., but you try and act like you know how I play. You don't. You have no clue how I react to suspicion. You have no idea how often I am lynched-- and when I am, under which circumstances. You know nothing, yet act like you do.
I was surprised I was almost lynched. You are surprised I wasn't? That's nice, but kind of irrelevant for you to say when:
1)Your suspicion of me is based on Epig's meta-case of which you have no ability to test yourself
and
2)It's Day 1. Things change rapidly. It was a four-way tie. I am not an inanimate object. I can speak. I think you were hoping I wouldn't.

MacDougall wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:
Dom wrote:
a2thezebra wrote:I would agree that the case against you is BS, Dom, but that might because I'm less familiar with your meta than some of the people that are on it. Could you give us some more of your reads, perhaps? Such as who you most likely will be voting for?
I'll likely be voting in self preservation.
I think Sorsha's vote on me was suspect AF.
Yeah, but like, maybe other reads that you hadn't already mentioned? Oh dear.
Zebs, mate. Why did you leave your vote on Buglabush when Dom was pinging you at the end? Surely by the end of the poll Dom looked worse to you than the low content lurky silly poster?

Mischaracterization if I've ever seen it.
ONCE again you do not have any grasp on my gameplay, but seem to think you are quite qualified to say I was a "low content lurky silly" player.
Let me prove to you how wrong you are.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p189740
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 48#p189948
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 55#p190055
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 42#p190142
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 40#p190240
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 75#p190275

These are my posts on Night 0/Day 1 I found relevant. I think that these have content. I think these show a Dom that has been wary of you from the start. I think that these posts show you are a liar.

Also, you have balls criticizing ME for being "silly" when your entire Day 0 existence was built around wanting Matt F dead for no reason.

MacDougall wrote:
DFaraday wrote:I'm so sorry I missed the vote! Thursdays are utterly horrible for me.

I'm trying to catch up on all the wacky shenanigans so far, but this game's posts feel a lot more chaotic than usual. So far all I have is that I think Dom is reading civ, but the votes for Banana were kind of pingy. Also I do think it odd that Bubbles didn't say she's a civ, since it's her trademark at this point.
Pingy as fuck.

Do you suspect anyone who agrees with you on any issues?

MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Dom wrote:
MacDougall wrote:Dom, SVS, Floyd, Bea ... no need to thank me.
You are so laughably inconsistent.
Bea isn't even playing this game
This actually intrigues me.

MacDougall-- what is this a list of?
It's a list of scum reads I have that I mixed up between the games because it was late and I'd been trying hard to follow two games, so fucking sue me.

Your post is an opportunistic attempt to discredit me.

No.
My post illuminates how hypocritical you are. My post shows how you have an excuse for everything you suspect other people for doing.

First you said I was "disinterested" because I posted less than you'd like (but you have nothing to compare it to...so....). When that didn't work you switched tactics to calling me "low content", "silly", and "lurky". That is not how I think ANYONE would describe my play.

Why is your excuse of "I'm busy" less valid than mine? I work three jobs, take 6 classes, am in a play, and try and have a social life in my senior year at college. Why is that any less valid than "I'm on a roadtrip"?
Now, I'm not trying to imply that you couldn't be given any slack. You could. But you don't want to hand out the SAME slack to me because it's not politically expedient for you to do so.

MacDougall wrote:
Dom wrote:If I voted right now, I would vote for MacDoughall or Sorsahl
And why aren't you?

Because I don't like voting early? Are you my mom?

Search found 337 matches