Good evening to you all, for I have returned from my journey, in which it seems that my horses felt the spirit of Pegasus himself in bringing me home sooner.
Oh who am I kidding, the train ride took 9 hours and a half and was godawful.
I will now attempt a summary, roughly in order of the events that have passed, and a few thoughts on the matters addressed:
Sir Epignosis seems to have created some buzz with his literary moment, although I suspect such a story would normally dissolve on its own in the next few days. I personally have not failed to pick up on him referencing a work of writing that has no real bearing to our storyline and would normally not put much into it. That being said, it would not surprise me in the slightest for this gentleman to feel no pressure in making random statements which to garner attention and heat, if he were the kind to hide his captain attire in his cupboard, during the phases of Day.
Next up, I am slightly curious how he made a
valuable post on how us common people cannot afford too many missteps in our attempts to lynch the captains, only to follow it with
a proposal to lynch an inactive among us. Does he believe in the general success of that? Are such tactics affordable in the current situation of our tight numbers?
Afterwards, of all the people that would quality thus far as inactives, he put a serious vote in
lynching Sir MP, who I remember being among the few to have excused themselves in not managing to be active during the next days. So why, if his intentions of lynching inactives are pure, did he resort to a member who actually left a note of apology?
With all this in mind, I retain a small ping regarding his person, but not enough for any satisfying verdict, thus far.
===
That being said, Sir MP himself took the easy path of self-defence and inactives voting, so hrrmpf. He seemed confused by deadline being tonight, however.
===
Madam SVS shows to me good spirit in wanting people to join and contribute, but I am less sure what to make of her slightly serious reactions in situations where non-topical or unserious statements were made.
===
All I can recall, until this moment, of Dr. Wilgy is jesting on account of lynching Sir Bird and Madam Zebra. An eyebrow in his direction, as I seriously expect more from him soon enough. Oh wait, I must redact this, as he has since turned his attention to more serious issues, like the gambler's fallacy approaches.
I don't recall much except banter from Sir Scott and Madam Zebra themselves, for that matter.
===
Writing down votes without voting seems to be a new fashion nowadays, huh.
===
Sir Con's reflections on either Sir Bird or Madam Sorsha deserving a Day 1 pass, at least until grevious evidence should point to them being bad, gives me some pause. I mean, I truly find the whole reasoning fallacious in the style of a gambler's. But I am moreover surprised that Madam Sorsha received from him benefit of the doubt, on account of having been too many times bad in the past, whilst Sir Con never posits instead that, for all the misfortunes he suffered in the past, Sir Bird could roll mafia for once. Anyway, all in all, I do not view the idea of handing free passes to players too favourably, so I do not declare myself a fan of Sir Con's contribution over here.
===
Lastly, Sir Serge surged (alliteration ftw) with various statements. That request towards Barry is definitely a no-no, game-wise. Not a fan of him expressing intentions to bandwagon, with nonchalance and double negation even ("nobody can't [sic] stop me"), but I wish to inquire the gentleman if he considers this to be part of his usual D1 MO or not. But most of all I'd inquire what he sees in Madam SVS that he so sternly distrusts? Arguments, my good man, not mere accusations!
Formulating other thoughts or following the discussion any further will have to wait until tomorrow afternoon.
Getting nervous, S~V~S? Is the dragon coming out?
"
