Recruitment Mafia IV: Dawn of the Clans (End Game)

#1251

aapje wrote:
Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.
I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

I like her new nickname

You can thank autocorrect for that one :P

#1252

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.
I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?

He said he thinks it shows the mindset of a recruiter who has control over recruiting (ie someone who is certain they can make sure they won't be on a team with epi), while simultaneously saying the original statement is wrong because recruiters don't have control over recruiting (ie I can't be certain I won't be on a team with epi).

#1253

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

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

Look at this:

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

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

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

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

#1254

@Typh, would there be vote manipulations in this lynch, though? Don't the roles with vote tweaks have to submit actions etc. at night, thus that will all be in play tomorrow? Unless I'm minunderstanding things, I think only two team leaders could be revealed in this lynch, one with a lynch pardon, one with a lynch save?

#1255

Bullzeye wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.
A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.

Oh okay. Roles like that are taboo where I come from; I'm definitely not accustomed to them.

#1256

Rey, where has it been established?

#1257

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

hahaahahhahahhah

#1258

Golden wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:My best case scenario for today (and luckily, the statistically most likely one) is that we lynch a neutral.
Exactly. That's why I am saying that voting epi is a perfectly good strategy for me. Because I think he is probably neutral, and even if not he will be bad, not civ.

WTF?

Bullzeye wrote:Gonna be a sheep and join the bleating herds voting for *DFaraday* due to his non-commitment to the game. Shame, I always like playing with him!

Why?

thellama73 wrote:13 pages for me to catch up on? You guys are killing me. I do not think golden is bad
D. I do not think epi is bad. I do not think marmot is bad.

You know who didn't post at all during those 13 pages, who disappeared as soon as I wasn't around to attack her? TinyBubbles. She gets my vote.

You know who is typically absent?
TinyBubbles.

I'm voting Scotty.

#1259

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

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

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

RIGHT HERE

#1260

Voted DF, but Golden is bugging me, I may switch to him.

#1261

Golden wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Golden wrote:JJ, what do you think of rey's recent posts. They read like he can't keep his thought process straight, to me.
I interpret him as seeing what he thinks is a logical discrepancy in your content and perceiving it to be a sign of insincerity. I don't necessarily agree with him on that front, but I can understand why he'd take that position. What has he said that has suggested to you that he might be jumbling his thought process?
He said he thinks it shows the mindset of a recruiter who has control over recruiting (ie someone who is certain they can make sure they won't be on a team with epi), while simultaneously saying the original statement is wrong because recruiters don't have control over recruiting (ie I can't be certain I won't be on a team with epi).

Okay. This might provide an opportunity for you to make a judgment call: I asserted he was interpreting a perceived logical discrepancy as a negative indicator for you. You seem to perceive a logical discrepancy in his treatment of you just the same -- is it a negative indicator?

#1262

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.

they show up in the post as a different role, usually a civ role. In one recruitment game, DH famously was revealed to be a non existent civ role. The civs made a lot of bad assumptions on that reveal.

linki x many

#1263

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Bullzeye wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:What exactly is a "seemer"? I'm unfamiliar with this role/ability.
A role that "seems" to be another role when lynched. Like say you're a baddie with seemer power and we lynch you, you appear as the bestest but most believable civ when your role is revealed and we all cry a lot thinking we killed someone good.
Oh okay. Roles like that are taboo where I come from; I'm definitely not accustomed to them.

I'm not a huge fan of them personally because not only do they tend to wind up with the person whose role was faked outing themselves and being lynched to prove it, but they also create an excuse of "oh they showed up civ but they were totes the seemer guys, I haven't just bandwagoned a civ". I remember a game where that showed up like 3 lynches in a row.

Linki Dom - Because I said I'd probably vote a low poster if nothing else. DF is a low poster. I'm not married to my vote staying there though, if something fun happens in the next however long we've got left maybe I'll swap.

#1264

timmer wrote:@Typh, would there be vote manipulations in this lynch, though? Don't the roles with vote tweaks have to submit actions etc. at night, thus that will all be in play tomorrow? Unless I'm minunderstanding things, I think only two team leaders could be revealed in this lynch, one with a lynch pardon, one with a lynch save?

That definitely wasn't the case in Recruitment III when the Musketeers could submit their vote manip at any time they wanted, during the Day as well.

#1265

I switched my vote to BWT. I think he's better competition for the DF lynch that I don't like much.

#1266

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

#1267

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

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

Also, the recruiter still has control...

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

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

#1268

Turnip Head wrote:
Typhoony wrote:I'm not really comfortable voting anyone honestly.
And if the vote stays this close, vote manips will have a field day in fucking up the lynch result... so Caelia's lynch pardon might not be a bad idea.
I disagree entirely. Carlos should not use her pardon today; that way if someone survives a lynch we'll know it's the baddie recruiter who is immune in Position 1.

And that role will now, in my brain, look like a night vale character who is a scientist with perfect hair.

@JJJ, I described the role in my last post.

And I don't think we have roles around our mafia culture that are taboo. LC/BR are both hosts that like to come up with creative role ideas. And in LC's game where he created the seemer, there were a lot of really interesting roles. I'm actually trying to figure out how to use Yin and Yang, who switched allignment with each other each day, as a role concept again.

LoRab wrote: Unless the person is bad, we actually will theoretically learn nothing regardless because of the seemer being a position 1 action--at least the first time, the seemer role (which I had, so I remember it well), was able to show up as they wanted in a check and as they wanted if lynched. It was really quite fun to have--and is a pain to have if you are not on that team, lol. LC could have tweaked the ability for this game, and probably has, but we can't know ot what degree.

I mean, we learn that the person lynched is either X role or a baddie alligned/playing as a baddie even though neutral Seemer--so the chances are a person really is as they appear. But we won't actually know that as fact.

I'll also throw in that BWT was here for a while and did not respond to the votes on him or my point about his not posting an accurate list. That increases my suspicion.

#1269

Are we going to talk about how Scotty's post clearly indicated he has BTSC?

#1270

I voted BWT.

@dom - I'm listening. I haven't really noticed scotty this game.

#1271

Dom wrote:Are we going to talk about how Scotty's post clearly indicated he has BTSC?

Which one?

#1272

Golden wrote:@dom - I'm listening. I haven't really noticed scotty this game.

#1273

Switched to BWT. I agree with what has been discussed and also had some suspicions from earlier.

Yay!!! Unfurl is my friend! Let's do this!!!

#1274

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

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

Also, the recruiter still has control...

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

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

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

#1275

Voting BWT right now, simply to give someone a sizeable lead in votes.

#1276

reywaS, do you find Golden's content and methods in this game so far to be indicative of a recruiter role outside the perceived discrepancy you've been focusing on recently? Consider all elements of Golden so far, including his involvement with other players, post count, his own meta as you perceive it, and anything else of relevance.

#1277

DrWilgy wrote:Switched to BWT. I agree with what has been discussed and also had some suspicions from earlier.

Yay!!! Unfurl is my friend! Let's do this!!!

Did you mean you had suspicions on BWT before?

Cause if so, where?

#1278

This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.

Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

#1279

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

#1280

Typhoony wrote:
timmer wrote:@Typh, would there be vote manipulations in this lynch, though? Don't the roles with vote tweaks have to submit actions etc. at night, thus that will all be in play tomorrow? Unless I'm minunderstanding things, I think only two team leaders could be revealed in this lynch, one with a lynch pardon, one with a lynch save?
That definitely wasn't the case in Recruitment III when the Musketeers could submit their vote manip at any time they wanted, during the Day as well.

Hmm, I didn't last long enough to notice that, ok I see your point, them!

#1281

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

#1282

Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???

With you on the contradiction. Can't remember if he ever addressed it but it's something I picked up on. As for the rest... I dunno. He obviously should've known everyone has a power by now and there were only ever a handful of vanillas. But then even if someone in a BTSC chat said to him "hey did you know in the past we were all vanilla for this game??" I don't see why he'd turn around and say having a power is unusual. He was presumably given a role himself at the beginning of the game, as we all were... So in sum, I dunno. I'd like to see him address this.

#1283

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

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

Also, the recruiter still has control...

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

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

Golden I have played all of them & Rey is 100% correct. We had control the first one or two recruits, but most of them were "submit a poem" or "submit a picture". Or " Write a paragraph telling us why you would be an amazing member of our team". And we picked blindly based on that kind of thing. When I was a civ recruiter, after the first 2 ( a group of 3) we did not know who we recruited, although we figured it out in some cases. When it was Rey & I recruiting in the third game, we had no idea who we were getting until we got the PM.

#1284

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

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

Also, the recruiter still has control...

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

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

If I never enter a contest, I can never be recruited by way of one. So it sets a precedent I have entire control over.

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

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

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

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

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

#1285

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

Would you agree that civvie-minded people sometimes commit "no u"? Moreover, I think his point against you was understandable. I already stated my understanding of your point against him. Should I lynch you both?

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

#1286

Do all recruitment contests state which leader it is for? Could someone truly only apply to civ teams?

#1287

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

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

Also, the recruiter still has control...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#1288

timmer wrote:Do all recruitment contests state which leader it is for? Could someone truly only apply to civ teams?

The first one, so far, did state (it was for a baddie leader).

#1289

Rico, it was when he had asked about me, even though my existence was already explained.

#1290

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

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

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

#1291

DrWilgy wrote:Rico, it was when he had asked about me, even though my existence was already explained.

OK, see it now.

#1292

OK, well why does it make me bad, then?

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

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

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

#1293

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???
How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?

A person who had played RMs before would know.

#1294

@rey - I'm not playing dumb with the details. If anything, I think you are playing dumb with the details, insisting they support your statements when they don't.

You've even played dumb with the details of my own posting this morning, ignoring the bits that don't suit you, like the times I've admitted that my original statement might not be correct.

Doesn't mean I didn't think it was correct when I made it, and you are pointing at a contest for a baddie recruit as the single bit of evidence that I should have known it couldn't be certain.

I've also made it pretty clear multiple times that my point is people would be wise not to try to recruit me on to epi's team.

#1295

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

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

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

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

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

#1296

Dom wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Dom wrote:This post.

Scotty wrote:Spinning the old randomizer wheel before I leave for one my infamous 14 hour shifts today (help me).

I have a slight gut read that SVS has some power in this game, and I don't like it. So nothing against you, SVS, but you got my vote day 1.
Scotty has never played a RM before. Scotty assumed everyone is vanilla like in previous games. Scotty would not know about this. Scotty must have been told about this.
Unless I am misinterpreting the highlighted line...

Additionally, this is a huge contradiction. "Random vote"-->I think SVS is bad???
How do you suppose a Scotty with BTSC would have come upon this information? If his BTSC partner told him, how did that player know?
A person who had played RMs before would know.

I don't even understand the point that is being made? What would he have been told in btsc?

#1297

Rey, read your own post.

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

#1298

Eight minutes left, thank sweet baby jesus

#1299

The question I asked you is 'what is the baddie motive'.

Your response is really clear - that the only way it makes sense for me to say it is if I am a recruiter who has some control over recruitment.

BUT - the whole premise of the conversation was me saying 'why does it make me bad IF it has been well established that recruiters don't have control'.

Essentially, you are admitting yourself that - my post doesn't make any sense from ANYONE. Recruiters or otherwise.

So why does it make you ponder, and why does it make me bad? It's not that hard.

#1300

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

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

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

Then I said this.

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

Game End!