Dune [ENDGAME]

[S~V~S]

Also @Mac - it's going to be very interesting to see how this vote ends up playing out. There has been so much content and so much indecision about the best person to vote, that no matter who is lynched, and no matter whether they are civ or bad, I think the vote itself is going to contain plenty of information.

I don't have any info on zebra - just a screaming gut. I really hope that if zebra ends up being the lynch, she is bad.

linki @SVS - quite a number. I've found it to be one of the most reliable scum tells.

I disagree; it is too much of a generalization. You have to take character into account, and i thought Zebra was using hyperbole as a dramatic device to make a point. I have seen you do it as a civ, as have I. I think "overreaction" was reading her too literally. I think Eloh misrepresented Zebras post.

Thanks for answering for her, though

[S~V~S]

As a matter of fact, I am voting for her now.

[Golden]

Zebra, I do feel you've been a little floppy, but so that you know when I said those were the two options, I do think it is relatively normal for a civilian to be a little flippy floppy. It's the baddies who know what is happening after all, and a civilian who isn't completely sure how they feel about something is going to have their feelings evolve.

linki @SVS - you are welcome. Anyone else you'd like me to answer for?

As it happens, though, I could only answer for me, since your question was 'how many have you caught'. She may have caught a different number.

I do think zebra was using hyperbole as a dramatic device, and the purpose of it was to make me look shady. If someone is throwing muck at you, try to make their muck look outrageous. I don't think the overreaction was emotional, I think it was tactical. What do you think the purpose would be of that hyperbole from a civ perspective, in this situation?

[Turnip Head]

I'd like to be able to respond to all other inquiries before the poll is over. Host, could I get an exact time on that?

It's at the top of the poll. We have about an hour and twenty minutes left.

[Marmot]

Voted Turnip Head because I owe him one.

[a2thezebra]

So you are basing your aggressive rebuttal on the idea that Golden's initial posts around the policy lynch were not genuine.

The fact that after so much time and so many back-and-forth posts between me and Golden you just now realized that was the issue I had, is really, really disheartening.

Of course that's possible but his posts on the matter and all subsequent read logical and sensible. Your posts are hard to follow. Your thought lines are more difficult to comprehend to me.

I admit my initial response to Golden wasn't as well-composed as the standard I try to hold myself to, but that's because I really was blown away by how poor the logic of it was. That initial response went through a couple of drafts before being published, and I still don't think I got across what I was trying to say regarding how Golden's ping of me was hypocritical.

What is the allusion you are drawing between Elohcin echoing and this situtation? You have lost me here.

There was no allusion/comparison. I was just saying that I didn't understand it. I still don't. To me, anyone who took the time to read (not skim) both sides of the debate between Golden and I, I am the clear victor. And no, not because I am me. I lose arguments all the time, this is not my ego talking. Golden's arguments may be easier to follow for you but, and you can see this for yourself if you would please actually take the time to go back and read my posts, just about every point he had to make was either only possible because it was a misrepresentation of what I had to say or, as with the original ping of his, pure hypocrisy. And if you don't see how it's hypocritical then please read my damn posts in the debate. My initial response covers that.

I thoughy I framed my read of the play quite simply and you can't understand it? Can't or won't?

Because I feel like your read along with Eloh's and everyone that has taken Golden's side simply has not read any of my responses, and has read his. Again, as I pointed out before, your mind changed by taking a closer look at Golden's case but you didn't take a closer look at mine. I don't want to think that's the case for everyone who is voting for me, but I really don't see any other possibility.

The fact is your initial post did not ping me. What has pinged me is your maintaining that it is a case against Golden when I feel a civ would not be pinged by him in this situation.

How?

I have read the interractions. Your case is based on the idea that Golden was trying to set me up with a couple of soft posts and backed down when he couldn't put enough content into it. I think the very thing you are saying makes him look scum makes him look ok.

Then feel free to remain unconvinced. If you think disingenuous opportunism is "ok" then you take away my will to persuade you otherwise.

Did you really mentiom Golden in your initial post on the subject?

This question seems to conflict with this statement right before it:

I have read the interractions.

And then, surprise:

Okay Zebs I can see that you did.

This hurts, Mac.

Look I am struggling to comprehend your reaction because it reads like a rage out wall of text. Could you please try explaining your case for us plebs in simpler terms?

I don't like re-stating a big case with a lot of points when it's already in my post history for everyone to read. I'm willing to do it, but could you clarify if you just want me to put in simpler terms my initial problems with Golden or would you also like me to demonstrate how every one of his arguments against me can only exist by misrepresenting what I had to say? Because I can do both, but I would rather not if it's not going to change anything.

linki - Could you elaborate on that Turnip Head vote?

[a2thezebra]

I'd like to be able to respond to all other inquiries before the poll is over. Host, could I get an exact time on that?

It's at the top of the poll. We have about an hour and twenty minutes left.

Thanks! I need to go ahead and vote because I think I'm going to have spend the majority of the rest of that time re-explaining to everyone what I've already said fairly clearly. Fun fun fun. I can't seem to separate sig from his meta so my vote isn't going there, ping or no ping it's just too easy. Eloh, on the other hand, blatantly hopped on a potential my bandwagon with nothing new to add as others have pointed out. Mac, Golden, and Metalmarsh are also not looking fantastic, but in my opinion the behavior that we've seen so far that is the least likely to have town motivation backing it up, is Eloh. So Elohcin it is.

[a2thezebra]

Zebra, I do feel you've been a little floppy, but so that you know when I said those were the two options, I do think it is relatively normal for a civilian to be a little flippy floppy. It's the baddies who know what is happening after all, and a civilian who isn't completely sure how they feel about something is going to have their feelings evolve.

I was aware that you acknowledged that my supposed floppiness could have a civ interpretation. I actually read your posts, see. That doesn't change the fact that I disagree, and even explained how my seemingly inconsistent opinion was actually two consistent opinions on different elements of your posts. But you had no good response to that, so you focused on using my denial of being flip-floppy to support the narrative you're pushing. And in this particular instance, I see manipulation as a more likely cause than mere tunneling. If you were just tunneling me than you would have at least had something to say about my actual response rather than continuing to paint everything I say as pure baddie evulz.

I do think zebra was using hyperbole as a dramatic device, and the purpose of it was to make me look shady. If someone is throwing muck at you, try to make their muck look outrageous. I don't think the overreaction was emotional, I think it was tactical. What do you think the purpose would be of that hyperbole from a civ perspective, in this situation?

It was a dramatic device because I saw it unlikely that anyone but yours truly would be able to see the hypocrisy in your initial ping of me for what it was, so I made sure to draw attention to it by referring to it as the jackpot that it was. Sadly, weaksauce town only saw an overreaction and didn't even bother to check that what I was supposedly overreacting to just might have been justified. Seriously, has anyone made a comment for or against the hypocrisy of your initial ping that I pointed out? Nope. No one's even seen it or given me the benefit of the doubt to look at my actual observations rather than just my attitude. It is a sad day for scumhunting.

[MacDougall]

I really can't make any more posts. This is it.

Zebra I have read all your posts. I do not get it.

1. It's not that I just now get it. I like to reaffirm facts when making reads for the benefit of those reading them.

2. That does appear to be the case.

3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.

4. What exactly are you asking?

5. I don't feel like Golden was being disingenous. He was commenting on the major topic of the thread at the time. What would have had him do instead? I feel like it is more opportunistic for someone to question a logical townie behaviour, which is what you did.

6. I started the read of the interractions the page after your initial post on a post which snipped your post and didn't have the mention of Golden in it. Apologies.

7. I don't mind what you do or how you do it. I just want you to resummarise your defense and your case against Golden.

[MacDougall]

I would encourage a Zebra lynch. Golden is right.

[Marmot]

linki - Could you elaborate on that Turnip Head vote?

Yes. He voted me first in the last speed game.

[Golden]

Zebra, I do feel you've been a little floppy, but so that you know when I said those were the two options, I do think it is relatively normal for a civilian to be a little flippy floppy. It's the baddies who know what is happening after all, and a civilian who isn't completely sure how they feel about something is going to have their feelings evolve.

I was aware that you acknowledged that my supposed floppiness could have a civ interpretation. I actually read your posts, see. That doesn't change the fact that I disagree, and even explained how my seemingly inconsistent opinion was actually two consistent opinions on different elements of your posts. But you had no good response to that, so you focused on using my denial of being flip-floppy to support the narrative you're pushing. And in this particular instance, I see manipulation as a more likely cause than mere tunneling. If you were just tunneling me than you would have at least had something to say about my actual response rather than continuing to paint everything I say as pure baddie evulz.

No. I don't play the game of having to respond line by line to everything someone writes about me. That is a hell hole of despair. I'm not going to play the game of wifom of 'what I would ahve done if I wasn't just tunnelling'. I play the game I play, a game you wouldn't know because this is only the second time you are playing with me. I am not making assertions about what you 'would do if you are civilian', because I don't know, and I'm not sure why you think you know what I would do as civilian.

I did not use that post to 'support the narrative I'm pushing' (what, did I say something about 'the fact you deny it makes you bad'??? No.) I said it to clarify to you my meaning. It's you who reads into everything I say, and adds things to it that aren't there.

[a2thezebra]

3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.

You not already having at least an inkling of an answer to these questions proves to me that you simply have not read any of what I had to say. If you are civ Mac, then I am hurt. So hurt. I am in the process of restating my case against Golden but I see you would rather vote for me before I have time to publish it. Excellent scumhunting, folks.

[Golden]

Sadly, weaksauce town only saw an overreaction and didn't even bother to check that what I was supposedly overreacting to just might have been justified. Seriously, has anyone made a comment for or against the hypocrisy of your initial ping that I pointed out? Nope. No one's even seen it or given me the benefit of the doubt to look at my actual observations rather than just my attitude. It is a sad day for scumhunting.

The reason no-one has agreed with your points about hypocrisy is because the hypocrisy does not exist.

You said you thought I was setting Mac up as suspicious
I said I thought you were setting me up for a later vote.

These two things can be read as the same reasons for suspicion. The fact that we have the same reasons for suspicion does not make me a hypocrite.

Here is an example of what WOULD be hypocrisy.

Golden 'I am setting up Mac to vote for him in the future, because that is a civilian thing to do.'
Golden 'Zebra is bad because she is setting me up for a vote'.

THAT would be hypocrisy. That is not what happened.

[MacDougall]

3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.

You not already having at least an inkling of an answer to these questions proves to me that you simply have not read any of what I had to say. If you are civ Mac, then I am hurt. So hurt. I am in the process of restating my case against Golden but I see you would rather vote for me before I have time to publish it. Excellent scumhunting, folks.

No it proves that you have failed to convey what you claim you intended to.

[Black Rock]

I voted for sig. I'll likely being seeing over that other game for most of the night. If those players are easy on me I will be in here often enough.

Golden/Zebra = civ/civ if you ask me. A lot of things would have to change for me to vote one of them.

Besides seeing if your item from the Day 0 poll did anything as any of you given it anymore thought? I have, it's part of the reason I voted for sig.

[bea]

Can anyone give a poor over worked girl the down and dirty cases against Elon and sig? I have skimmed the thread but I admit I haven't read too deeply yet it's been a cluster eff of a couple days for me.

[Golden]

BR, there was no more thought that could be given. I gained no info from the poll, other than the fact that the result was the same for all four of us, and others (like Floyd) have been deliberately obtuse. No-one has offered, until now, any hint of the poll actually being useful.

That is really interesting, and I see that you and sig were the only two to vote for your item, so... interesting. I don't know if you can say any more?

[bea]

Also my opinion of golden and zebra was that I quit reading as soon as I saw the word semantics. I plan on rereading the thread tonight with beer.

[a2thezebra]

Since there is little time left in the day and there's a decent chance I will be lynched, I'm going to post the entirety of Golden vs. Zebra in sections so I can get as much information out as possible. I'd prefer people actually read my original posts, because I don't actually have anything to say here that I haven't said before, but maybe saying it again will magically get people to read it this time. Here we go.

Section A - The Suspicion, The Counter-Suspicion, and The Counter-Counter Suspicion

1. I mention how I am more suspicious of Golden and Black Rock for interrogating Mac's behavior towards Matt F, than Mac himself.

I'm more suspicious right now of the people that are trying to make it look like his behavior here is actually suspicious (Golden, and to a lesser extent Black Rock) as opposed to silly.

2. Golden responds with this.

Zebra - I have never suggested Mac is bad for his behaviour or 'tried to make him look bad', so I'm not sure where you get that from. I didn't really get any suspicion from BR either, although I'd have to read that back.

I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction/irony in Mac's sentiment vs his posts, and talked his thinking through with him, and was satisfied with his answers. If I had voted for Mac on day one, it would not have been because I thought it was bad - it would have been to solely to fulfil his own reasoning for what makes a good policy vote on day one. Having backed down somewhat from the 'I will vote him forever in any game we both play' aspect, though, means I see nothing in Mac's position that is specifically unhelpful to the town - at least beyond day one. I don't specifically oppose policy lynches on day one, I just am unlikely to ever agree to the policy reason.

Putting this post in other words, ping! I now have my first real candidate for a vote. I found zebra to be a relatively fair and astute analyst of what was going on in the thread in Talking Heads. That post, though, was not a fair analysis. It felt to my like an artifical 'taking of sides' in a conflict that didn't exist, a setting up for a future vote for me or BR, and it caught my eye.

Taking it point-by-point and line-by-line because I have subjected myself to the hell hole of despair that is trying to get people to see the truth and not a work of fiction that will result in an easy mislynch, I shall begin. Golden insinuates that because he hasn't openly suggested that Mac is bad, that that couldn't have been the plan later on had Mac made it easier for Golden to do so. He is responding to the suggestion of a hypothetical plan by stating that said plan is not yet on display. Bad defense, and misrepresentation. Pointing out Mac's contradictions as if they were a serious topic of discussion in themselves rather than a means to initiate other discussions, which is what Mac even said they were as he was in the process of doing it, comes off as opportunistic and disingenuous because it's a perfect example of easy targeting. Regarding voting for Mac on Day 1 because of policy lynch reasons rather than Mac actually being bad, this re-affirms that Golden would take seriously what Mac took as a means to an end. The question for the civilians (for Section A, at least) is: Do we accept that Golden was legitimately concerned or baffled by Mac's reasoning, or was he faking it to set up an opportunity for a mis(?)lynch? If you think it's the latter, then you would have said what I said, and if you think it's the former, you might be on Golden's side. But the problem is, that's not all. His response here indicates another agenda which looks even worse; this is the jackpot I was referring to in the post directly below.

3. So I responded with this.

This is gold. This is really gold. This is the fucking jackpot, baby. Okay. Oh boy. Alright. Here goes. Deep breath. Let me get this straight. Wow. Here we go.

I pinged you because I made a post that could be interpreted as an opportunity to set up a future vote for you or BR. The reason you claim that it could be interpreted this way is because I seem to have taken a definite stance in an imaginary conflict. What was that stance again? Oh yeah, that you and BR may have been a little opportunistic with your interactions with Mac. Keep in mind, I didn't say that I was intending to vote for you or that what you two did was a serious "ping" for me, I only said that I was suspicious, and I said that with good reason. It seemed to me that you were the ones who could have been setting up a potential vote. Why else would you go after someone with genuine, serious arguments, when they are clearly trolling, as if Mac's absurd actions could potentially put his alignment on trial? But lo, that is in fact what I am doing! My bad. So just to recap, my suspicion of either you guys maybe setting up a potential mislynch is opportunistic, but when you suspect that I am doing the exact same thing with way less reason to believe so, it's not opportunistic, because...you really think I wouldn't notice the over-the-top hypocrisy of such an accusation? What makes this even better is that I merely suspected you, whereas for the exact same reason (but to a less rational extent!) you not only suspect me, but have made me a "real candidate for a vote"! Good luck.

Golden said that my post was not a fair analysis when it was in fact a perfectly reasonable observation of a hypothetical result based on tangible content to support that. The problem is that in order to agree with it you would have to agree that Golden's behavior towards Mac was not genuine, which of course Golden does not agree with. That's fine, but saying it's not a fair analysis is simply inaccurate. It's an artificial taking of sides in a conflict that doesn't exist. And because there's better reason to suggest this to Golden's ping itself over my initial suspicion of Golden, there lies the hypocrisy. Additionally, Golden's ping is also a hypothetical; he thinks what I was doing was to set up a potential vote for later with no reason, when there was a reason. My suspicion of Golden was also a hypothetical, but in his response he treated it as something that could be easily refuted in past and present tense as if the hypothetical would be voided because he wasn't given the opportunity to implement it, which is the first significant misrepresentation of my argument. The same reason, only one is justified, and one isn't. It doesn't help of course that the one that isn't came directly after the one that is, and that is what set me off to inspire my "overreaction".

And from here the misrepresentation begins, continued in Section B if I have time to write and publish it. (unlikely, unless of course I am not lynched) And for the record I'm not asking to not be lynched so I can finish this response, I'm asking to not be lynched because I'm civilian.

[a2thezebra]

3. I don't see any of this. What do you mean by misrepresented you? What did he do that was hypocritical? I want to help the civ in you survive but you aren't making sense.

You not already having at least an inkling of an answer to these questions proves to me that you simply have not read any of what I had to say. If you are civ Mac, then I am hurt. So hurt. I am in the process of restating my case against Golden but I see you would rather vote for me before I have time to publish it. Excellent scumhunting, folks.

No it proves that you have failed to convey what you claim you intended to.

It proves that you refuse to read my arguments. Claiming that you don't understand my lines of thought is a complete cop-out, and I don't buy it.

[Golden]

What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?

[bea]

I selfied because I have no fracking idea. I will read as soon as I get home. Sorry I was fail.

[TheFloyd73]

I self voted as well.

[MacDougall]

Okay.

I understand. Zebra you need to use less words to convey your point and particularly adjectives and adverbs.

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I strongly disagree with your read of Golden's motivation.

You accuse him of attempting to set up a future mislynch and I can see that as a possibility based on his first posts on the subject but that is quite an assumption to make when his points could quite easily also be at face value.

You are both capable of cancelling one anothers points out by claiming misrepresentation. You are both interpreting the hidden meaning behind the other's posts. You both may be right or wrong. Here are the facts.

He has maintained composure. You have not. You have had difficulty framing your opinion into readable text, he has not. You have resorted to accusing people of not reading yur posts when the actual fact is that your point is difficult to understand. Thus discrediting my read by virtue of allegedly having not even read your posts, which is untrue.

The fact that your response to his accusation was to fire up a case that you couldn't communicate effectively, when you are genuinely a good communicator as evidenced by your great work in the TH game, is an indication that you do not have conviction in what you are saying. This would make your case on him a lie. And lying in this case would be a strong anti town tell.

[a2thezebra]

What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?

The conflict that didn't exist was me setting up a potential mislynch for you and BR, as if I was trying to hide the fact that I was suspicious of you and be coy about it the same way you were with Mac. The side you took was that I had no decent argument.

linki - WOW, Floyd.

linki@Mac - I'll cover this in my next post.

[MacDougall]

So we have a coin flip lynch on day 1?

Interesting.

[Epignosis]

Who should die first?

Poll ended at Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:45 pm

a2thezebra
3
Golden (4), sig (6), nijuukyugou (9)
19%

bea
1
bea (15)
6%

birdwithteeth11
0
No votes

Black Rock
1
Turnip Head (10)
6%

Draconus
0
No votes

Elohcin
3
FZ. (7), S~V~S (11), a2thezebra (13)
19%

FZ.
0
No votes

Golden
0
No votes

Luke11646
0
No votes

MacDougall
0
No votes

Matt F
2
MacDougall (2), Matt F (3)
13%

Metalmarsh89
0
No votes

NANANANANANA_BANANA
0
No votes

nijuukyugou
0
No votes

sig
2
Draconus (8), Black Rock (14)
13%

Sorsha
0
No votes

S~V~S
0
No votes

TheFloyd73
1
TheFloyd73 (16)
6%

Turnip Head
1
Metalmarsh89 (12)
6%

David Lynch (The Host, the Non, the Dead)
2
Epignosis (1), MovingPictures07 (5)
13%


Total votes : 16

Missing Votes: birdwithteeth11, Elohcin, Luke11646, NANANANANANA_BANANA, Sorsha

[S~V~S]

Wow, just wow. Two self votes at the wire with a tie??

[Golden]

What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?

The conflict that didn't exist was me setting up a potential mislynch for you and BR, as if I was trying to hide the fact that I was suspicious of you and be coy about it the same way you were with Mac. The side you took was that I had no decent argument.

linki - WOW, Floyd.

linki@Mac - I'll cover this in my next post.

@Mac - you eloquently said in one post what I've been trying to express for the entire phase.

@SVS - indeed. Could well indicate that the vote leaders are actually both civ and there is no-one in need of a save.

As I've said, I could be wrong about zebra. I think the case is compelling, but it's still a day one case. But I think the outcome this poll is potentially very valuable going forward, whatever the outcome.

[Golden]

Also, if the coin flip comes back on either of these two as bad, I'd say the other is town. I don't think Eloh's thread behaviour towards zebra, or zebras vote for Eloh, are likely if they are teamies.

[Epignosis]

Day 1

In the Arteides palace, you are welcomed to fellowship.

You observe Fremen servants gratefully receive the towels with which you have dried your hands.

You receive the spice-laced meal. You discuss ecology and politics.

"As you well know, Dune is the source of the spice that runs the universe."

Three of you have slipped poisons into a2thezebra’s meal and tampered with the house-provided poison snooper.

a2thezebra is now dead and was Gurney Halleck.

It is now Night 1. You have 23 hours to submit your PMs.

[MacDougall]

What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?

The conflict that didn't exist was me setting up a potential mislynch for you and BR, as if I was trying to hide the fact that I was suspicious of you and be coy about it the same way you were with Mac. The side you took was that I had no decent argument.

linki - WOW, Floyd.

linki@Mac - I'll cover this in my next post.

@Mac - you eloquently said in one post what I've been trying to express for the entire phase.

@SVS - indeed. Could well indicate that the vote leaders are actually both civ and there is no-one in need of a save.

As I've said, I could be wrong about zebra. I think the case is compelling, but it's still a day one case. But I think the outcome this poll is potentially very valuable going forward, whatever the outcome.

Floyd self voting intrigues me. That's a very unusual move for a second gamer. Bea has been pinging me a bit too and then they both so that. I could easily see Bea having decided that as the best course of action and then telling him to do it too in btsc.

[MacDougall]

Ugh apologies Zebra.

[Elohcin]

I am so mad at myself for not voting. I am sick and my brain is muddled. Gah! And you know Epi doesn't play favorites b/c he didn't even hint that I was forgetting or anything.

[Golden]

My apologies too zebra, and RIP. Especially as Gurney is my favourite.

[Elohcin]

Woah, I didn't see the host post until after I just posted my regrets. Woooo! I am so glad I am still here.....now to go and see who Zebra was cause I didn't even look at that. Goodness, I cannot waut to feel better. I am going on 5 days with this cold.

linki...I am guessing she was good. :/

[Epignosis]

Has Patrick Stewart ever played a villain?

[S~V~S]

What side did I take in what conflict that didn't exist?

The conflict that didn't exist was me setting up a potential mislynch for you and BR, as if I was trying to hide the fact that I was suspicious of you and be coy about it the same way you were with Mac. The side you took was that I had no decent argument.

linki - WOW, Floyd.

linki@Mac - I'll cover this in my next post.

@Mac - you eloquently said in one post what I've been trying to express for the entire phase.

@SVS - indeed. Could well indicate that the vote leaders are actually both civ and there is no-one in need of a save.

As I've said, I could be wrong about zebra. I think the case is compelling, but it's still a day one case. But I think the outcome this poll is potentially very valuable going forward, whatever the outcome.

You and I never think alike. My point was exactly the opposite; no one was willing to make a vote that would say anything about themself

And bye Zebra

[Golden]

If there is one thing we can count on, its taking the opposite view from the same thing.

[Sorsha]

Ugh.... Sorry for missing it. I guess I slept too much today.

RIP zebra.

[Golden]

Ugh.... Sorry for missing it. I guess I slept too much today.

RIP zebra.

Do you know who you would have voted for?

[Golden]

I should have asked that of eloh, too, but I just assumed she would have voted defensively.

[Epignosis]

This wasn't rhetorical. I really cannot think of one example.

Has Patrick Stewart ever played a villain?

[Black Rock]

This wasn't rhetorical. I really cannot think of one example.

Has Patrick Stewart ever played a villain?

He was Borg for a couple of episodes.

[S~V~S]

Even then he was a fairly noble Borg, and he redeemed himself for his temporary Borginess. But yeah, he was.

[Elohcin]

I want to discuss Eloh. What do people think of her bandwagon on the "overreaction" of zebra?
I think my vote might go there, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts.

Wait....so agreeing with someone is automatically bandwagoning now?

So do you really find zebra suspicious for her overreaction? Is that the only reason?

All I did was agree that overreactions are a baddie tell and say that Zebra seems to overreact imo. After I said that Zebra overreacted, she said she was joking when changing the "you"'s to "I"'s. And then I said, "you should have used sarcastic orange." If she weren't joking, then it would have been a ping.

After my sarcastic orange comment, I never brought up Zebra again. So I don't know why you would keep on the idea that I thought Zebra still overreacted and was bad. Essentially you voted for me for reasons that are false.

[Sorsha]

Ugh.... Sorry for missing it. I guess I slept too much today.

RIP zebra.

Do you know who you would have voted for?

I might have gone with eloh for the simple fact that I was leaning civ on zebra and I had no strong opinion on eloh. I'm not a fan of throwing my vote away so if imagine that's where I'd go.

Right now my main focus is on the player who self voted or had late throw away votes.

[Matt]

RIP Zebra. We'll be sure to gobsmack Golden for ya.

[Turnip Head]

Rest in peace Zeebs