MAD MAX: GAME OVER

#101

To elaborate, Elo, WIFOM would be like (hypothetically) if Mac was the only person going after me SUPER hard today, the only one to vote me, then he gets NKed N1. Then it would be WIFOM to try and assert that I must have killed Mac... because someone could be setting me up... but then that's exactly what I would want you all to think if I'm bad!... etc.

#102

MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.

At this point I'd agree with that assessment.

#103

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
No I don't, actually, so you're getting reachy here a bit here. Of course, any semblance of a proper hunt would be welcomed on my part, not my problem you can't stand the thought of it.

Okay Rico next time I am Mafia I will choose a different arbitrary target so as to not hurt your feelings.

#104

I'm feeling good about Mac at the moment.

#105

MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.

At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.

#106

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.
At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.

Explain this please. I'm entitled to my perspective.

#107

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.
At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.
Explain this please. I'm entitled to my perspective.

Well you should also back it up, since it's based on something the player has implied to be accurate from past games.

#108

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.
At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.
Explain this please. I'm entitled to my perspective.
Well you should also back it up, since it's based on something the player has implied to be accurate from past games.

Eh? I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. I was merely expressing agreement that it seemed like you were trying to generate content.

#109

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.
At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.
Explain this please. I'm entitled to my perspective.
Well you should also back it up, since it's based on something the player has implied to be accurate from past games.
Eh? I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. I was merely expressing agreement that it seemed like you were trying to generate content.

...

Yes, that's the hypothesis. Based on the implication that all I'd need to do to hunt Mac is just that, given a good history of "reading him well". But that implication is false.

So how can you merely express agreement at something not backed up by its logic?

#110

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Eh? I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. I was merely expressing agreement that it seemed like you were trying to generate content.
...

Yes, that's the hypothesis. Based on the implication that all I'd need to do to hunt Mac is just that, given a good history of "reading him well". But that implication is false.

So how can you merely express agreement at something not backed up by its logic?

Rico, this isn't some kind of in-depth investigation. You were correct about Mac in the most recent game you two played together. You seemed to be, to me anyway, inevitably fixating on him to an unhealthy degree. It appeared very possible to me that you were generating content for the sake of it. I now believe that explanation to be less likely given your hyperfocus on this.

This is mafia. I appreciate hard evidence, but I don't need to go back and visit other games to see whether the premise is true or not. I just made a gut assessment on what I thought was happening in the moment.

#111

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
MacDougall wrote:As an expert in the subject of Macdougall. Ricochet reads me well anyway so why he needs to lynch me before he can read me I do not know. I fancy he is just making content.
At this point I'd agree with that assessment.
At this point you are clearly just throwing out sentences. There is no solid history evidence to back up that assessment.

linki: except I wasn't an arbitrary target. You've profiled me quite specifically. And it was that very specificity, not the kill itself nor anything else, that "hurt my feelings", if anything.

It is exactly this that lead me to the current policy lynch. Not my fault you've accidentally locked yourself into it.

It was arbitrary in that it was an asinine reason to kill on a night that I didn't think much. My ultimate rationale was 'cannot deal with Rico' which is both arbitrary and profiling.

Even if I have a policy kill Rico Mafia strategy, which I don't. Trying to policy lynch me on day 1 because of it is gung ho bordering on stupid since nobody else would care. So I must ask why you think anyone else would agree to your request? Or whether you actually do think they would. In which case why are you doing it?

#112

*growl*
Im here

#113

MacDougall wrote:
It was arbitrary in that it was an asinine reason to kill on a night that I didn't think much. My ultimate rationale was 'cannot deal with Rico' which is both arbitrary and profiling.

Even if I have a policy kill Rico Mafia strategy, which I don't. Trying to policy lynch me on day 1 because of it is gung ho bordering on stupid since nobody else would care. So I must ask why you think anyone else would agree to your request? Or whether you actually do think they would. In which case why are you doing it?

It was not arbitrary. Go back and read what your statements were regarding your kills throughout that entire game. It was clear profiling based on the same factor. That is the definition of not arbitrary.

You say you don't, but nothing can stop me believing that, the next time you'd be Mafia, you'd get into the same mood to remove me or anyone else fitting the pattern. So I'm entitled to not be in the mood to risk getting killed just for that.

It's stupid because it won't end up in a lynch? Are policy lynches that successful? Anyway, it's my policy and it's well-founded, that's what mattered when I enabled it.

If anything, yes, I'd like the other players who might fit the profile to think of what I wrote in the second paragraph.

#114

motel room wrote:*growl*
Im here

Hello, motel room! What's up?

#115

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
It was arbitrary in that it was an asinine reason to kill on a night that I didn't think much. My ultimate rationale was 'cannot deal with Rico' which is both arbitrary and profiling.

Even if I have a policy kill Rico Mafia strategy, which I don't. Trying to policy lynch me on day 1 because of it is gung ho bordering on stupid since nobody else would care. So I must ask why you think anyone else would agree to your request? Or whether you actually do think they would. In which case why are you doing it?
It was not arbitrary. Go back and read what your statements were regarding your kills throughout that entire game. It was clear profiling based on the same factor. That is the definition of not arbitrary.

You say you don't, but nothing can stop me believing that, the next time you'd be Mafia, you'd get into the same mood to remove me or anyone else fitting the pattern. So I'm entitled to not be in the mood to risk getting killed just for that.

It's stupid because it won't end up in a lynch? Are policy lynches that successful? Anyway, it's my policy and it's well-founded, that's what mattered when I enabled it.

If anything, yes, I'd like the other players who might fit the profile to think of what I wrote in the second paragraph.

What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.

#116

MovingPictures07 wrote:
motel room wrote:*growl*
Im here
Hello, motel room! What's up?

Reading the rules and characters. I see this is the first mad max so i better stow away my bondage gear.

Why is neil hartley here?

#117

MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.

"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'

#118

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
It was arbitrary in that it was an asinine reason to kill on a night that I didn't think much. My ultimate rationale was 'cannot deal with Rico' which is both arbitrary and profiling.

Even if I have a policy kill Rico Mafia strategy, which I don't. Trying to policy lynch me on day 1 because of it is gung ho bordering on stupid since nobody else would care. So I must ask why you think anyone else would agree to your request? Or whether you actually do think they would. In which case why are you doing it?
It was not arbitrary. Go back and read what your statements were regarding your kills throughout that entire game. It was clear profiling based on the same factor. That is the definition of not arbitrary.

You say you don't, but nothing can stop me believing that, the next time you'd be Mafia, you'd get into the same mood to remove me or anyone else fitting the pattern. So I'm entitled to not be in the mood to risk getting killed just for that.

It's stupid because it won't end up in a lynch? Are policy lynches that successful? Anyway, it's my policy and it's well-founded, that's what mattered when I enabled it.

If anything, yes, I'd like the other players who might fit the profile to think of what I wrote in the second paragraph.

You are mistaken. The only pattern I engage as Mafia is an anti pattern. I have no default kill position. Generally I just kill the people who suspect me, though sometimes not. In the last game I was only in it for the troll hence silencing Scotty several times. So I was just killing people I knew. If I am being fully transparent with you I killed you when you subbed in because it was highly entertaining as much as I didn't want to contend with you.

Next time I am Mafia I am just as likely to kill in alphabetical order.

Everyone has reasons for choosing who they kill Rico. Why do you figure my reasons are more anti town than others? I don't get it aside from the fact that you figure I would kill you quickly. Funnily enough in this game I probably would if I was bad. But anyone who kills does so for nefarious purposes obviously and a policy lynch based on who I might hypothetically kill is quite vapid.

#119

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'

Lol one game.

#120

motel room wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
motel room wrote:*growl*
Im here
Hello, motel room! What's up?
Reading the rules and characters. I see this is the first mad max so i better stow away my bondage gear.

Why is neil hartley here?

Jay said something about wanting to roleplay as him a little while ago; I'm assuming that's why he brought him out now.

#121

MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'
Lol one game.

Could be the next ones, all the same. That's the point. Will it be different the next time you'll be mafia and "face me"? Will this mood of yours really never return? Sounds unlikely.

#122

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'

Oh, I see. Clearly I was missing some important context here. So the basis for your policy lynch vote is essentially self-preservation, am I right?

#123

Ricochet wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'
Lol one game.
Could be the next ones, all the same. That's the point. Will it be different the next time you'll be mafia and "face me"? Will this mood of yours really never return? Sounds unlikely.

Ladies

#124

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'
Oh, I see. Clearly I was missing some important context here. So the basis for your policy lynch vote is essentially self-preservation, am I right?

Yes.

#125

Got it, thanks. You can redact my earlier commentary then; I didn't have the full picture of your motivation for voting or for discussing Mac particularly.

This is starting to remind me of how Wazzipi would vote for rabbit on Day 1 in literally every game they played together, initially due to revenge.

#126

However, I feel like I've learned nothing pertinent to alignments in this game due to this back and forth. Let's fix that and shift this elsewhere. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what to discuss, and I need to try to work more on stuff now. I'll return later to see what other insights and lines of discussion have entered the thread.

#127

Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
What's the profile exactly? I must have missed something here.
"I'm killing the people who I hate playing against.'
Oh, I see. Clearly I was missing some important context here. So the basis for your policy lynch vote is essentially self-preservation, am I right?
Yes.

On Day One with no indication of alignment? On Day Zero?

Ricochet wrote:Modkill MacDougall, send reminders to the others.

You know how to Mafia, Rico. I am not liking this, you are not a fear based player. Not sure if it makes you bad, but I am still not liking this. The fact that you were trying to get rid of him before the game even really got going is giving me the heebies. The first thing that comes to mind is you are teamies and you threw him under the bus in case he did not show. And when he did, you had to keep it going. As a matter of fact the first thing that came to my mind was that all the Mac votes were his teammates.

Wrench in that theory is that Mac has not said much that makes me think he is actually bad. So I could be reading into it, I am rusty.

#128

Rico does whacky shit on day 1. This time his whacky thing is to try to policy lynch me. Moving on. Sloonei is bad.

#129

Don't get what's confusing about that, S~V~S. Self-preservation goal implies to prevent something for your own good. What better way to counter the odds of Mac being bad and getting even to Night 1 and try to make his team eliminate me, because I'm one of the players he doesn't like playing against?

And that Day Zero comment of mine was by far the jokey one, due to context of G-Man calling out to those who haven't even read their PMs. I would have started Day One the same way, regardless of any Day Zero chatter or banter.

#130

What dingbat planned a show with a 6:30p curtain? I have 5 min before we start, but I appreciate Rico': approach.

I also get a tonal read of Mp as a "non-offensive poser with a capital P.
SVS, while I appreciate her soft defending of me, comes off as too nice right now.

I'd still be down to vote someone like bwt though...

unless he posts more

and I'm sorry to hear that Glorf!!

#131

Ricochet wrote:Don't get what's confusing about that, S~V~S. Self-preservation goal implies to prevent something for your own good. What better way to counter the odds of Mac being bad and getting even to Night 1 and try to make his team eliminate me, because I'm one of the players he doesn't like playing against?

And that Day Zero comment of mine was by far the jokey one, due to context of G-Man calling out to those who haven't even read their PMs. I would have started Day One the same way, regardless of any Day Zero chatter or banter.

Do you have any reason to actually think he is bad?

Both you & Mac posted after me, yet neither of you addressed the "throwing each other under a bus" aspect of my post, which tbh is the thing I most expected a reaction to. The main thing that is making me think I could be seriously wrong is that everyone else is sitting back and letting me run with this wacky theory.

What do you think of MP?

Linki, I am a very nice lady

#132

S~V~S wrote:
Ricochet wrote:Don't get what's confusing about that, S~V~S. Self-preservation goal implies to prevent something for your own good. What better way to counter the odds of Mac being bad and getting even to Night 1 and try to make his team eliminate me, because I'm one of the players he doesn't like playing against?

And that Day Zero comment of mine was by far the jokey one, due to context of G-Man calling out to those who haven't even read their PMs. I would have started Day One the same way, regardless of any Day Zero chatter or banter.
Do you have any reason to actually think he is bad?

Both you & Mac posted after me, yet neither of you addressed the "throwing each other under a bus" aspect of my post, which tbh is the thing I most expected a reaction to. The main thing that is making me think I could be seriously wrong is that everyone else is sitting back and letting me run with this wacky theory.

What do you think of MP?

Linki, I am a very nice lady

No, I don't. That's not the point of a policy lynch. That's not the point of my policy lynch. That's not the point of self-preservation.

I don't know what to say about your bussing theory. It's certainly the third perspective that can be developed. It's the third perspective that can be developed about any hissing between players. The questions here would be: Do you think I'd do something as aggressive as this on Day One (or even Zero, if you will)? Do you think I'd gain something / expect to attain a goal by doing something as aggressive as this? Do you think I'd choose a policy lynch to craft a bus? Bussing usually require more skill, time and finesse than any of this, I'd argue.

Besides, my distress is virtually townesque. I don't know what Mac is. I don't know if he's mafia. I fear he could be. And I'd like to prevent the chance of him being mafia and getting to pull again his own declared policy of nightkilling me.

#133

Oh, and on MP, I have so far "hoping on lynches he doesn't even share the same views on" and "agreeing with my suss'd deflections without argumentation". Neither are ideal, clean moves, but they're also far from portraying MP alignment-wise.

#134

I am going to sit back for now and let other people talk. I hope they do talk. But I may be reading into things. I may not. But I want to hear from others.

#135

reading this, it amazes me you all have things to say to eachother, that are never 100% the same, from game to game. Mafia is a strange game indeed.

but uh, ill move my vote to Neil Hardy. i dont trust a man who isnt himself

#136

sprityo wrote:reading this, it amazes me you all have things to say to eachother, that are never 100% the same, from game to game. Mafia is a strange game indeed.

but uh, ill move my vote to Neil Hardy. i dont trust a man who isnt himself

(TF2 clip, blood warning)

Spoiler: show

#137

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Elohcin wrote:I know nothing of this show, so JJJ is confusing me a bit. I may vote him. It seems a little 'trying too hard' to come in here role play like that right off the bat. Like he is trying to win us over. What do y'all think? And this is not WIFOM talking...whatever that is. I never understood that term completely. but you all seem to use it for when you go after someone who has gone after you? I don't know.

I'll hold off on voting for now.
The "trying too hard" argument bothers me, but I'm not sure I find you suspicious for it. I just don't agree. Also, Neil Hartley has nothing to do with Mad Max.

Then I'm even more confused. Posting on my phone and have no clue how to so multiple quotes
..so posting this now and will most likely post again.

#138

Ricochet my man, you only need two words to explain yourself:

"I'm salty."

Let's not pretend this is strategic in any way. Just look how much time you've already spent arguing about what happened at a different lounge! Get with the program my man, we're here now, this is Neil Hartley's show. It's a new evening and it's still young!

#139

sprityo wrote:reading this, it amazes me you all have things to say to eachother, that are never 100% the same, from game to game. Mafia is a strange game indeed.

but uh, ill move my vote to Neil Hardy. i dont trust a man who isnt himself

I don't know who the hell Neil Hardy is, but you can be sure he's not on my stage! Let me tell you something, Straight from the Heart *wink*, this audience has no room for people who don't even know who they came to see.

#140

Elohcin wrote:I know nothing of this show, so JJJ is confusing me a bit. I may vote him. It seems a little 'trying too hard' to come in here role play like that right off the bat. Like he is trying to win us over. What do y'all think? And this is not WIFOM talking...whatever that is. I never understood that term completely. but you all seem to use it for when you go after someone who has gone after you? I don't know?

What a wild post, madame! How would you feel if Neil Hartley told you that you "tried too hard" to find something negative to say about his roleplay! I think you might be bad news, and I'm gonna inform security to keep an eye on your table.

Elohcin

#141

#142

I honestly don't know what to say in defence. There is nothing to defend against. Your role playing or lack thereof confuses me.

#143

Sorry folks, I forgot this game had started!

Glorf, I hope your mum feels better soon.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:Sorry to hear about your mom, Glorfindel. Wishing the best!

I'll hop on the MacDougall policy lynch. Why not?
Let's start with "why". What's the policy behind your vote to lynch Mac?
Shits and giggles.

You are bad.

MacDougall wrote:I'm glad you hold me in such high regard Ricochet but I'm not a baddie.

- 1 point.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Ricochet wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
Eh? I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. I was merely expressing agreement that it seemed like you were trying to generate content.
...

Yes, that's the hypothesis. Based on the implication that all I'd need to do to hunt Mac is just that, given a good history of "reading him well". But that implication is false.

So how can you merely express agreement at something not backed up by its logic?
Rico, this isn't some kind of in-depth investigation. You were correct about Mac in the most recent game you two played together. You seemed to be, to me anyway, inevitably fixating on him to an unhealthy degree. It appeared very possible to me that you were generating content for the sake of it. I now believe that explanation to be less likely given your hyperfocus on this.

This is mafia. I appreciate hard evidence, but I don't need to go back and visit other games to see whether the premise is true or not. I just made a gut assessment on what I thought was happening in the moment.

....who tf is this guy????

I doubt that you are sincerely formulating an opinion based around someone's ability to read someone with a data set of 1 game. This is not logical, rational MP talking.

MacDougall wrote:
You are mistaken. The only pattern I engage as Mafia is an anti pattern. I have no default kill position. Generally I just kill the people who suspect me, though sometimes not. In the last game I was only in it for the troll hence silencing Scotty several times. So I was just killing people I knew. If I am being fully transparent with you I killed you when you subbed in because it was highly entertaining as much as I didn't want to contend with you.

Next time I am Mafia I am just as likely to kill in alphabetical order.

Everyone has reasons for choosing who they kill Rico. Why do you figure my reasons are more anti town than others? I don't get it aside from the fact that you figure I would kill you quickly. Funnily enough in this game I probably would if I was bad. But anyone who kills does so for nefarious purposes obviously and a policy lynch based on who I might hypothetically kill is quite vapid.

If you were trolling, then why kill me?

#144

Elohcin wrote:I honestly don't know what to say in defence. There is nothing to defend against. Your role playing or lack thereof confuses me.

I'll take a break to state it clearly:

There is nothing inherently suspicious about roleplay. Sometimes people just want to goof around and have a little fun in Mafia games. There are always people who cast suspicion for it though, and some of those are smearers. Your suspicion of me looked fake, like you had to squeeze your brain really hard to generate something bad to say about the roleplay.

#145

Ricochet wrote:Don't get what's confusing about that, S~V~S. Self-preservation goal implies to prevent something for your own good. What better way to counter the odds of Mac being bad and getting even to Night 1 and try to make his team eliminate me, because I'm one of the players he doesn't like playing against?

And that Day Zero comment of mine was by far the jokey one, due to context of G-Man calling out to those who haven't even read their PMs. I would have started Day One the same way, regardless of any Day Zero chatter or banter.

G-Man wrote: 7. Wincons are dead or alive unless otherwise specified in your role. The host reserves the right to deny win credit to those players who fail to pull their own weight.

Why is self-preservation an issue for you?

If MacDougall can't kill you, then he can't kill you. And if he can kill you, all he has to do is...refrain from doing so. If you were good, you've opened yourself up to being killed to set up MacDougall.

Not helpful.

#146

Dom is such a townie that I'm inclined to give him backstage passes to meet the crew.

#147

going for self preservation here...

#148

Elohcin wrote:going for self preservation here...

What's ya beef with the bird with teeth?

#149

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
sprityo wrote:reading this, it amazes me you all have things to say to eachother, that are never 100% the same, from game to game. Mafia is a strange game indeed.

but uh, ill move my vote to Neil Hardy. i dont trust a man who isnt himself
I don't know who the hell Neil Hardy is, but you can be sure he's not on my stage! Let me tell you something, Straight from the Heart *wink*, this audience has no room for people who don't even know who they came to see.

I Hartley know who you are

#150

Elohcin wrote:
MovingPictures07 wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:It pains me to disparage a lady, but I do believe Elohcin's response to that random vote from her husband was a bit lifeless. Considering she is here to see Neil Hartley live and in the flesh, I know she isn't that bored. The look on her face, it's giving Neil the wrong impression.

So yeah, it was like after midnight when I posted that response to Epi. Maybe that's why it seems lifeless. Last night was my monthly ladies night out and I didn't come home until I had my fill of caramel apple sangria.

I cannot even remember what emoji I used. Wait....I do remember. Was it was "I'm wacko" one ...I think so. That emoji makes me think of someone being crazy and silly with their post/vote. I actually didn't even look to see he ACTUALLY voted for me. I thought he was kidding at the time. Maybe I ought to vote him back But probably not as I might be voting to save myself with it being so close and all.

I know nothing of this show, so JJJ is confusing me a bit. I may vote him. It seems a little 'trying too hard' to come in here role play like that right off the bat. Like he is trying to win us over. What do y'all think? And this is not WIFOM talking...whatever that is. I never understood that term completely. but you all seem to use it for when you go after someone who has gone after you? I don't know.

I'll hold off on voting for now.

Neil Hartley's presence in this game is not indicative of any alignment on his part.

Who squashed LoRab?