I have to admit, I've only been skimming the thread.MovingPictures07 wrote: You suspected them, then started doubting it, then came off it completely.
I understand; it could be genuine. Just thought otherwise.
Well, do you have any thoughts as to anything else going on? Your insight is always very intriguing, regardless of alignment.
I think the failed kill on llama is very telling though -
First, I don't see any roles that would be kill-immune or defender roles visible, so it must be a secret role.
(My guess is the DA, and that he gets to protect someone and picked llama).
I've generally noticed a tendency to try to off somebody that is in the middle -
not pointing straight at you, but saying things that you would prefer not be said,
or prompting significant discussion when you'd rather things stayed quiet.
I think that in this case the latter is more likely; llama has always been a wonderful conversation starter.
I also think I recognize his flailing-around as civ-llama (though I wont trust it next game, sir!)
He's trying to scrape information out of thin air, and doing it in the least safe but most effective way :-)
Beyond that, and my observations about MR, all I've got is people that are acting confusingly. But a lot of
people appear to do that on purpose any more, probably because it makes their baddie and civvie natures
difficult to tell apart? I'm a little specifically suspicious of j^j^j, but I think that whole stack of people that voted for MR
needs attention. People can say anything, and can lie marvelously well, but there are only a few ways to deceive with your voting and still have an impact on the results.
If anyone else wanted to spend the time tracking down the degree of expectedness for each of those MR votes, I'd be interested in that analysis.
I think some of those votes were intended to be blendy (not necessarily a baddie trait though), and some were opportunistic.
