The Syndicate

Turnip Head wrote:Rest in peace, MR! I feel like you die so early in every game we play together

This is something that usually wouldn't happen on K-site. If someone died first or second, in a previous games, most baddies would let that person survive longer. See? We're nice like that. You should come and play. We need players for Hunger games mafia

For those of you who have tried it, and couldn't adjust, it will be different this time, because there will be substantially less players. And we usually don't kill the new people early on...which is something I can't say about you people

johns2jj wrote:I shall keep in mind next time that honest active participation is bad no matter your affiliation.

I hear you. I make that freaking mistake every game. Though honestly, I can't do it any other way

And here I thought going to a different site would make me survive longer

Somehow I have a feeling the reasons for killing me here are not the same as those in my home site

johns2jj wrote:I did not no vote because it seems some hosts may react to that. I would rather not miss out on anything because I did not vote.

What do you think about llama's suspicions? Would you agree with him if it were someone else and not you?

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Also, if it makes you feel any better, I am much more confident that I put my vote in the right place yesterday by selecting John (I know I changed it, but that was purely self-defense.) One of the things I find most suspicious is someone deliberately trying to craft their vote record to convey as little info as possible. I expect I will be voting for him again tomorrow.
Actually, it doesn't I don't see what you're seeing in John. How exactly is he crafting his vote record to do what you're suggesting he's doing?
Civvies use vote records to track down baddies. Whenever someone deliberately avoids allowing his vote record to provide useful information, as John outright stated he was doing, it smells of baddie tactics to me. Civvies vote for those they think are bad. Baddies vote in ways that cannot be used to track them down later.

I'm not much of a record tracker. I've seen civs lynch all the wrong people, and baddies lynch other baddies, both from the other group and their own. Maybe he's doing what you're saying, but I think that if I were scum, I would try to give really good reasons and appear invested in the game as I am now.

thellama73 wrote:Also, if it makes you feel any better, I am much more confident that I put my vote in the right place yesterday by selecting John (I know I changed it, but that was purely self-defense.) One of the things I find most suspicious is someone deliberately trying to craft their vote record to convey as little info as possible. I expect I will be voting for him again tomorrow.

Actually, it doesn't

I don't see what you're seeing in John. How exactly is he crafting his vote record to do what you're suggesting he's doing?

kneel4justice wrote:I honestly cannot understand what happened with the last minute voting, to me it looked like an attempt to save Llama but I am trying to keep an open mind, since quite a few people seem to be opposed to the idea that he is scum, but I really don't see it. Sometimes I am really nervous before a lynch but I was feeling really good about this. He did multiple things that I think are clear indications of being scum such as emotional appeals/switching up playing style, I forget the other thing at the moment. I just genuinely don't get it. I would appreciate it if some people who think Llama is civ would explain why, and that especially includes those of you who voted for Sorsha, which I am not sure I get either?

FZ, also can you explain your thought process, because I do not even know your opinion of Llama despite you voting him.

I actually saw the last minute votes as trying to avoid being responsible for llama's lynch. It was like people were waiting for me to cast the 4th vote and then they all came really at the last minute and voted for someone else. At the time I didn't know we could change our votes, and I wonder if others did know.

I was feeling pretty comfortable about the vote for llama through most of the day, but toward the end, I started doubting myself (you know me...) because of some things happening. I don't know. In the Shawshank game, I really liked how he played, and I felt he was doing the most to find baddies. He turned out indie, but one who chose to work with the civs, so I'm regarding it as a civ. I wasn't getting it this game, but no one knows better than me how it feels when people expect you to be something they are used to getting from you, when you can't be that thing. It doesn't make you a baddie. So I don't know. Maybe I'm actually glad he wasn't lynched.

Haha, why do we even bother voting. I really hope you are a civ, llama.

And that would be quite an interesting mafia game

I feel like people waited for llama to have enough votes to get lynched and then came on to vote.

Mister Rearranger wrote:*Sorsha it is*

Now you vote?

Since it looks no one is going to come and vote, I might as well just vote for llama like I initially planned. If he comes out civ, it will tarnish my record of barely lynching civs

@linkin. I'm hoping not

I find it very weird that Epi hasn't even come in to vote. There are 7 people, not including myself, who haven't voted.

edit: I guess

Dang, I need to decide between llama and someone else who has at least one vote and has a chance of getting another. I have 10 minutes to do it

@linki. I'm guess I don't have to decide on llama anymore. If I was wrong about you llama, I truly am sorry. I feel like I was the one pushing for you.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Day one is always a hard vote for me so I'm just going to go with my gut and vote FZ

Actually, I'm flattered, lol. I think people weren't even paying attention to me in the first two games. I don't think I ever got a vote. So I guess it means I'm not a newbie anymore

Dom wrote:I'm likely to vote for Sorsha.

K4J, I've seen him aggressive, but honestly, he is doing everything that he accuses other people of doing. He says I am twisting everything someone says into a statement that makes them seem bad. I see him doing this with almost every single one of my responses to him.

MR: I think Sorsha has been online, just not posting.

LINKI:
FZ-- I don't know their posting habits based on alignment, but I don't like how quiet, especially Sorsha is being. Also, there's a difference between giving the vocal players a chance on Day 1 and on Day 4 or 5 haha.

Bass, there's a difference between not posting a lot and not talking a lot.

Actually, I think I was the one accusing you of twisting people's posts to make them look bad or something like that.

And I agree that there's a difference between doing it on day 1 or on day 5, which is why I'm willing to not vote for llama. But he has the most votes for now. I'm willing to vote Sorsha with you, but it won't be enough

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Dom wrote:sorsha, rey....? you guys there?

I did a quick reread and noticed Sorsha hasn't posted in three days. Rey has been very non-talkative and when he does post it's fluff. Then, Sorsha asked about game mechanics, but didn't ever go past that in her posts. :hmm:
Do they post more when they are civs in comparison to when baddies?

@linki: I know, Kitty, but I'm playing for fun as well as for the win, and if we all just lay low, we wouldn't enjoy the game. So why should the vocal people pay the price? This is something that pisses me every game, lol
I understand what you guys are saying but why should someone change the way they play. I mean if someone sits back and takes in stuff and picks his/her battles why should they get lynched just because they don't talk a lot.

If someone barely talks, it makes it really hard to peg them. Not because they are amazing players, but because they are null to others. And then people end up having to choose between those who actually said something, because you can't decide on people who didn't say anything, that would be silly, right? So you vote for one of the vocals making their chance of being lynched unproportionally higher. Hence- not fair

Dom wrote:sorsha, rey....? you guys there?

I did a quick reread and noticed Sorsha hasn't posted in three days. Rey has been very non-talkative and when he does post it's fluff. Then, Sorsha asked about game mechanics, but didn't ever go past that in her posts. :hmm:

Do they post more when they are civs in comparison to when baddies?

@linki: I know, Kitty, but I'm playing for fun as well as for the win, and if we all just lay low, we wouldn't enjoy the game. So why should the vocal people pay the price? This is something that pisses me every game, lol

thellama73 wrote:
kneel4justice wrote: I don't think it has to be that way. I think if someone wants to survive they should fight harder. You are consistently doing things I find to be scummy behavior so for the time being, my vote is going on you.

How have I not fought? I have answered every suspicion leveled against me. What more can I do? I love this game, but one thing I hate about it is that the people who participate the most consistently get lynched first, while those who take the lazy approach and do nothing slide by without effort. You guys are new here, but anyone who has played with me in a few games can tell you how often I've been killed off early simply because my style is talkative, and yes, I find that frustrating. Who wouldn't?

Word to this. Just for that, I'm willing to vote for a low poster even if it gets me in trouble, because I hate that those who say nothing fly under the radar for so long. I think that even if a person is a baddie, he deserves a chance just for having the balls to be vocal.

Mister Rearranger wrote:Where the f*ck do I start with this vote, I don't even...

What do you usually do on the first lynch? And what is different this game?

BWT actually just seemed like he was distracted. I'm not sure I'm bothered by him that much

@linki. K4j, Dom's confusion seems genuine to me. He is one of the few that is in fact questioning people, even though I don't agree with everything he says (just like he doesn't with mine). I can't really explain it, but my worries dropped....for now

Dom wrote:
kneel4justice wrote:
Dom wrote:I initially found that inconsistency with BWT suspicious, but then I thought that a distracted BWT generally means a BWT without BTSC. :/
What's with all these uneasy faces? It comes across to me like you're trying hard to look like you don't know who to vote for when in reality you don't know because you don't want to come out looking bad.
Because this is the first day one in a while where absolutely nothing jumps at me and it bothers me.
Although, you and FZ have had an awful good time of picking everything I have to say apart.

I have been enjoying myself, thanks

Seriously though, I'm less suspicious of you than I was before after your last posts today.

The only game I've seen Epi play, he was so aggressive. Is the way he's acting this game common for him?

And I could have sworn MP was playing. Oops.

@linki: haha, on both of us commenting on Epi. And interesting point you raise on DH

Is it less than an hour until deadline?

thellama73 wrote:Oh well, it won't be the first time I'm lynched on Day 1 and it probably won't be the last

Appeals to emotion really work on me.

Dom wrote:i have no idea who to vote for tbh

randomize

Epi, what are your thoughts?

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: @linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you
Thank you. I don't know how I feel about you yet, but I may well decide you're bad in the future, in which case I promise I will vote for you.

Good to know

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Dom wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.
no response to hedge owl?

And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.
Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?
It seems like you've fallen prey to confirmation bias. You think I am bad, so you are bending all the evidence to fit that theory rather than taking the evidence as it comes and evaluating it objectively. I see no reason to second guess JJ. He behaved this way last game and was bad, he is behaving the same way this game, so I think he might be bad here too. Add to that the fact that I always like to vote for low posers and self-voters, and I feel very good about my vote. Your pursuit of me is starting to seem a little forced.

Maybe you're right. I have no idea. I just feel that your reasoning is the one forced, but I could be wrong. And falling prey to confirmation bias is something that has definitely happened to me. I'm still going to vote for you, because at this point, you're the one pinging me the most, but I guess people are not going to follow me, so you have nothing to worry about.

@linki: Lol Epi

@linki2: I have no idea llama. I'd like to think I would genuinely consider your reasoning, and make up my mind accordingly. If you now want to NO U me, I'm not going to hold it against you, because I think suspecting people who suspect you is legit, but it's not going to make me feel better about you

Dom wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Dom wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.
no response to hedge owl?

And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.
Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?
My understanding of how there are cultural differences between the community I came from and the community you came from is that there are a lot of them. One of those, I've seen is that you all rely on metagaming far more than we do. I'm surprised you're questioning this in this way.
You have gotten yourself into a circular argument here. The wine-in-front-of-me (WIFOM) argument. "That's what he WANTS you to think!"

Lol, Roxy used the WIFOM accusation on us when she started playing with us.
I don't think that's the case though. I didn't even remember him doing the same thing until you both said it. I think we should just wait and see how he acts in the future. I don't think it's enough to vote for him, when others have neither voted nor said anything. By the way, last game he voted for llama without explanation. This time, he voted for himself and explained why. Llama on the other hand, voted for him last game for voting him, and now, for voting himself. So he's not voting for him because he's acting like last game

Dom wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:I'm changing my vote to Elochin, because she's only posted once, and I'm willing to blame the FZ and Kneel weirdness on account of them being new.
no response to hedge owl?

And, yes, this is exactly how JJ played in Shawshank.

Maybe you're right, on the first day he voted for llama. But then he started being a lot more talkative. But wouldn't you expect him to learn not to be exactly the same if he were a baddie again?

thellama73 wrote:Okay, time to vote. I think I will go for John. He has only posted once, self-voted and didn't respond to me calling him out. I don't like that.

We've both seen John play his first game in the Shawshank game, and he was a pretty awesome baddie, so I really don't think this is how a baddie John would act. And I think you know it too. Plus, there are plenty of players, if I'm not wrong, that haven't really done anything, like Epi, or MP.
I'm going to vote you. If you're a civ, I'm really sorry. I'm going to wait before I go to bed to vote, just in case something changes my mind.

@linki: I think he did a lot better than that last game MR, so if anything, I'm thinking he's a civ for now.

And I definitely agree with those saying there was nothing aggressive about SVS so far. So either you're fabricating reasons, or you're just confused.

insertnamehere wrote:FZ, Kneel, and S~V~S are really making me suspicious for being so aggressive this early. I understand FZ and Kneel, because they are new, but I thought S~V~S should know better. So I'm voting for her. It's a Day 1 vote, it doesn't really mean a lot.

We tend to be quite aggressive from the get go where we come from. Some people say it backfires and we end up lynching civs. I disagree. Last game we played there, we were so close to lynching a baddie on the first day, only for someone to take their vote off at the last minute because they got scared it was a civ lynch. So I'm all for pushing people and questioning them from the start. I really don't see the point in talking if you do nothing but make sarcastic remarks. I'd rather just come back the next day.
If you just vote randomly, there's a higher chance of lynching a civ. I try to make my odds better. Sometimes it doesn't work, but then, I'm not doing any worse than lynching a civ randomly

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.
I voet for the person I think most likely to be bad. While I don't like people who don't participate and think it can be good cover for baddies, if I have a better suspicion I will place my vote there instead. Right now, John is my best guess, but that's not to say it couldn't change, and my vote will go to the person I think deserves it at the time of voting.

Regarding me being calm, I lost my temper during the Shawshank game and I have been chastising myself ever since. I am trying to not get so emotionally involved this time, so I suspect that is what you're picking up on.

Good to know you have an answer for everything.

Didn't expect anything less.
I don't want to lose you if you're a civ, because at least you're here and doing something. But if I have managed to slightly get a feel of you after last game, I kind of expect more from you (even though it's very early in the game), and I can't say you're delivering. There's always the possibility that I don't get you at all. We'll see.

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.
Who are you going to vote for?
I don't know yet. I'm leaning towards John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. He has only posted once and it was to announce a self-vote. Those types of players always make me nervous. I still have nine hours to decide, though.

Who are YOU going to vote ofr?
At the moment, it's between Dom and you...sorry
No apology necessary. I look forward to proving you wrong.

I look forward to you making me feel I'm wrong too.
Last game even though you felt the same way about people doing things like self voting and posting like that, yet you didn't vote accordingly, which again seems like an easy way out.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:
What is it about Dom that makes you want to give him a vote?

One time, he answered my question regarding SVS with an answer that pinged me, and the way he questioned someone defending someone else, made me think it was something too easy to accuse people of. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the most I've got on someone at the moment.
With llama, it's his nonchalant answers that are making me question his sincerity,since last game he felt less... *looks for a word*... calm.

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote: So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?
I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.
Who are you going to vote for?
I don't know yet. I'm leaning towards John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt. He has only posted once and it was to announce a self-vote. Those types of players always make me nervous. I still have nine hours to decide, though.

Who are YOU going to vote ofr?

At the moment, it's between Dom and you...sorry

thellama73 wrote:
Metalmarsh89 wrote: So you don't think anything of DH backing you up, or do you believe in the fairness too?
I already told you. DH and I are best friends. We will always back one another up.

Who are you going to vote for?

Dom wrote:
DharmaHelper wrote:
kneel4justice wrote:Shoot! I forgot this was a speed game and I thought we had until Wednesday to make a decision. I probably will not be able to participate much if at all before deadline, I have assignments due. I'm currently posting on my phone.
BWT caught my eye, saying he has been more fluffy but he wasn't imo because there is plenty of time. Plenty of time?? Where is this time and where can I get some? Especially if you haven't truly started yet. IGMEOY
Llama, did you see my suspicion? Are you the type to respond or ignore suspicion? Can anyone give some input on this?

Llama is flopping between this game and Game of Champs so take that into consideration.
Is there a reason why you just gave Llama an excuse?

Is there an easier way to throw suspicion on someone than to question them on something like that? Baddies would usually not be so stupid as to stick up for a fellow baddie so blatantly. I could see him defending him to get on his good side though, but I could also see you just using that little thing to make him look bad. This is the second time in this game where I feel you are trying to make someone look bad.

Mister Rearranger wrote:
FZ. wrote:I'm a little confused. How is it day again? Didn't we just have a day? How is there a lynch poll?
Some hosts like to follow up Day 0 with a Night 0 (for instance, The Island on RM, as a map-based game, had a movement phase after Day 0 and before Day 1) while some like to go right from Day 0 into Day 1. It's a preference thing.

Oh, OK, thanks. Silly me for thinking there's a night at the end of the day....

Which makes me even more puzzled why people weren't trying to question others.

I'm a little confused. How is it day again? Didn't we just have a day? How is there a lynch poll?

kneel4justice wrote:
FZ. wrote: I was wondering were you were. It seems you are affected by the syndicate curse too because after only one game, you're not your usual aggressive self as I'm used to even this early in the game.
I think I meant that I've given up hope people will actually do something. It doesn't mean I won't try, even if I tone it down a bit until the rest decide to actually join the game...

Did anything catch your eye so far?

@linki: I know, I was trying to remember who was the baddie that said it not so long ago. But I've said that in the past as well, and I was a civ, so I can't fault him for that

Yeah, it is hard to be aggressive here because it is not well received and it sparks no real conversation, people kind of ignore it and continue to post OT or shame it. Plus, when the majority of people are just joking around, there's nothing to be aggressive about and I won't be a broken record and nag about a lack of scum hunting every game I play here. So I am just waiting for that to pick up. As far as what has caught my eye, just the few things I have pointed out, right now the main thing would be Llama's reference to his track record. I believe it was MP who did that in WWE, probably what you're thinking of. SVS and her explanation kind of calmed my initial wonder of her excuse, but I am still wary because while she explained it more in depth my initial problem was that the explanations may be excuses/scummy reasoning rather than the best intentions.

I cannot remember but I am reading Dom and find her fluffy, and I don't remember him (?) like that but I may be thinking of later stages in the game.
Epi's absence is alarming.

I get you. It's a big difference from what we're used to, but I'm find with it. Not sure I get the point of even having a day0 "to get your footing in the game" or whatever, but that's what it is, and I accept it.
Thanks, I thought it was MP but wasn't sure. I'm getting a different feeling from llama, relative to last game, so I'll be keeping any eye.

Anyway, I hope this is going to be a game when we can go back to trusting each other (like we usually do) and for a good reason. We'll see about that. I'm going to bed.
Good night

Sorry, my last post got screwed up. There's an answer for you in there llma. Good luck finding it

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote: I mean that you're dwelling too much on something that is off topic. I'm just wondering if it's convenient playing that card.I kind of liked the way you played in the Shawshank game, so I say: Less moping more hunting
Okay, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I guess I would respond in two ways. First, I went after people in Shawshank because I saw things to go after. I haven't seen anything of note to go after here yet. That doesn't mean I am not looking.

Second, I am making somewhat of a conscious effort to improve on my generally terrible record of finding baddies. I think that too often, early in the game, I manufacture cases on people because I am desperate to find something on which to base my vote, and this biases my thinking later in the game. Just look at all the times I relentlessly pursued Hedgeowl only to have her flip civ. I am trying not to do that this game. I am playing it laid back, waiting to see if anything catches my eye. It's still early yet, and we have plenty of time before the first lynch.[/quot
Thanks for answering. The second paragraph is a little contradictory to the first one, since you didn't make that conscious decision last game, did you?
Anyway, I know there's plenty of time before the lynch, I just like to push things forward because how are we going to be anywhere better next day if all we do is joke around?

kneel4justice wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Hedgeowl wrote:So anybody here actually good at catching baddies?
After only 2 games on this site, I've given up trying on day0. People just reply with sarcastic come backs. So I say, if you can't beat then, join them.
Though I have to say, it makes it so much easier for the baddies to blend in. Right now, I'm not sure who is more suspicious: those trying to scum hunt, or those that are just talking about everything but the game.
I really like your posts so far this game, they feel like the FZ I know from KSITE. That being said, I do wonder what is up with that comment about having given up trying on Day 0, clearly that is not that case? Which I am glad it is not, but I am having trouble following why you've said that but you have went on to "try". It's just a contradiction and I wonder if there is a reason behind it such as you feel you need to make yourself look as good as possible right off the bat?

I was wondering were you were. It seems you are affected by the syndicate curse too

because after only one game, you're not your usual aggressive self as I'm used to even this early in the game.
I think I meant that I've given up hope people will actually do something. It doesn't mean I won't try, even if I tone it down a bit until the rest decide to actually join the game...

Did anything catch your eye so far?

@linki: I know, I was trying to remember who was the baddie that said it not so long ago. But I've said that in the past as well, and I was a civ, so I can't fault him for that

thellama73 wrote:
FZ. wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Dom had that Avi for quite a while, as I recall.

And Day Zero is a day to get the feel of things, and the feel of people. Since you can't vote to lynch anyhow, alot of people use the time to settle into the thread before we go into the cat/mouse phase.
And some people use the time to cast aspersions on other people's desirability as mate.
While I feel your pain, last game you were pushing people more by this point already, and even though you were an indi, you said you chose to work with the civvies. So should I take it that this is how you play when a baddie?
I don't think I understand what you mean.

I mean that you're dwelling too much on something that is off topic. I'm just wondering if it's convenient playing that card.I kind of liked the way you played in the Shawshank game, so I say: Less moping more hunting

thellama73 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Dom had that Avi for quite a while, as I recall.

And Day Zero is a day to get the feel of things, and the feel of people. Since you can't vote to lynch anyhow, alot of people use the time to settle into the thread before we go into the cat/mouse phase.
And some people use the time to cast aspersions on other people's desirability as mate.

While I feel your pain, last game you were pushing people more by this point already, and even though you were an indi, you said you chose to work with the civvies. So should I take it that this is how you play when a baddie?

edit: makes me think

Metalmarsh89 wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:
S~V~S wrote:

Do too have one, I laugh a lot and so do those who know me well~ but I have been lynched SO MANY TIMES for blowing off a question i thought was a joke, lol. For me suspicions are srs bsns, and if someone asks me a question i do them the courtesy of assuming they are serious.
The fact that you take suspicions so seriously makes me very suspicious of you.
Should I take your suspicion of him seriously? Not much else to do so far. Or I could just keep the playful banter going for pages and pages. So yes Mister Rearranger, you can haz some too.

So you're complaining about the endless banter yet doing nothing to progress the game. Make me think you just want to seem serious without really delivering.

Dom wrote:
FZ. wrote:
Dom wrote:
FZ. wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Actually it is just playful banter, we do ALOT of that around here, we have not, and never will discourage fluff.
I know. I'm just teasing you. Don't take me seriously...or do. I'm in a weird mood. Ignore me

@linki: no, Kitty. It was a joke. But it doesn't mean they can't be.

Does SVS always regard everything at face value?
No.
Is your way of trying to make me suspicious of SVS in a not so subtle way? Or did you think her reactions were genuinely too serious?
I found her to be neither civvie or baddie here. I found her being herself.
I don't think it means much to her alignment.

That's an easy way out

Edit: did you genuinely think her reactions were too serious?

Dom wrote:
FZ. wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Actually it is just playful banter, we do ALOT of that around here, we have not, and never will discourage fluff.
I know. I'm just teasing you. Don't take me seriously...or do. I'm in a weird mood. Ignore me

@linki: no, Kitty. It was a joke. But it doesn't mean they can't be.

Does SVS always regard everything at face value?
No.

Is your way of trying to make me suspicious of SVS in a not so subtle way? Or did you think her reactions were genuinely too serious?

Search found 59 matches