A Mafia of Unfortunate Events [END GAME]

[Quin]

There is no way you can legitimately interpret that as anything more significant than conversation.

Also, this sentence is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a baddie.

In one breath you argue for an incredibly unlikely possibility for why sig is Troupe.

In the next you claim there is 'no way I can legitimately interpret' your post except the way you want me to.

The word 'legitimately' in particular would fail all of llama's adjective tests. Basically you're saying that if I interpret it in any other way, it's illegitimate and I'm trying to misrepresent you.

Tell me why my theory is unlikely. Don't just say it is.

I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

[Golden]

Here's the thing Quin - if you can't keep your brain straight, it's usually because you are bad.

Civvies don't go around throwing out end cases they don't believe in. It doesn't read like you were 'open to other possibilities' to me. If you were, your answer to 'do you think he's bad' would have been something more like 'Probably not, but I do really think it's possible, I'm keeping an open mind', instead of 'no, I think he's Ishmael, and I have a damning case to prove it'.

[Golden]

I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

I'm not claiming you were accusing him of anything. I'm claiming you were muddying the waters by raising a possibility you didn't believe in.

And I already explained why your possibility is thoroughly unlikely. Remember this conversation, in which you said there was 'no good reason' not to think it could be true?

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

I mean, in all seriousness Quin, do you really believe that a teammate would choose to start bussing another teammate on day one, by himself, without provocation, without need, when the numbers are so precarious to begin with, and then continue to push it after the sub comes in, to the point that he gets said teammate lynched on a day when it would have been unnecessary? Why do you think that is any way a logical proposition that there is 'no good reason' to consider unlikely?

[Quin]

Here's the thing Quin - if you can't keep your brain straight, it's usually because you are bad.

Civvies don't go around throwing out end cases they don't believe in. It doesn't read like you were 'open to other possibilities' to me. If you were, your answer to 'do you think he's bad' would have been something more like 'Probably not, but I do really think it's possible, I'm keeping an open mind', instead of 'no, I think he's Ishmael, and I have a damning case to prove it'.

I don't know what you're basing the idea that my brain isn't straight on. I know what I'm talking about.

I didn't throw out an end case I didn't believe in. I want to discuss varying opinions so that I can either bring other people to my way of thinking, or else have my own opinion changed. That is the fundamental point of a dialogue like this. 'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

[Golden]

What am I expecting from a civilian, Quin?

[Golden]

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

[Quin]

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

[Golden]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

[Golden]

(and watch out when epi sees how you used the word literally).

[Quin]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

[Quin]

I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

I'm not claiming you were accusing him of anything. I'm claiming you were muddying the waters by raising a possibility you didn't believe in.

No. You said numerous time that I was flinging poo at both you and sig. People talk about opinions they don't have all the time. Again, it's a core element of all dialogue. If I had the time, I'd go through the thread and point out every single time it's happened. The fact that you're narrowing down on this weak-ass thing is not reading well to me.

And I already explained why your possibility is thoroughly unlikely. Remember this conversation, in which you said there was 'no good reason' not to think it could be true?

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

Why would not team say yes? Is it a moral issue? What? There are a load of factors you aren't considering. His reason for subbing out, the teams state in the thread, whether they need civ cred, the list goes on.

I mean, in all seriousness Quin, do you really believe that a teammate would choose to start bussing another teammate on day one, by himself, without provocation, without need, when the numbers are so precarious to begin with, and then continue to push it after the sub comes in, to the point that he gets said teammate lynched on a day when it would have been unnecessary? Why do you think that is any way a logical proposition that there is 'no good reason' to consider unlikely?

They could. It's dependent on the state of the baddie team, and as I said, there's a whole lot of factors that would go into that kind of decision. You don't know if there was no provocation, because if you're civ, then you're not in the baddie chat. If the circumstances were appropriate, I'd do it. Therefore it is logical.

[Quin]

I do claim that. Because there is actually no way you could legitimately interpret any accusation from that post. Show me a single word, structure, syntax, whatever the hell terms literary geniuses use that points towards me accusing you. You cannot. Because I didn't.

I'm not claiming you were accusing him of anything. I'm claiming you were muddying the waters by raising a possibility you didn't believe in.

No. You said numerous time that I was flinging poo at both you and sig. People talk about opinions they don't have all the time. Again, it's a core element of all dialogue. If I had the time, I'd go through the thread and point out every single time it's happened. The fact that you're narrowing down on this weak-ass thing is not reading well to me.

And I already explained why your possibility is thoroughly unlikely. Remember this conversation, in which you said there was 'no good reason' not to think it could be true?

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

No team in their right mind would ever say 'yes' to this.

If Glorf comes in to my team and asks to be bussed day one, I tell him 'ask for a replacement, we are not bussing you'. What a waste of a limited resource that would be. Especially in a game where you only get a kill once every second day.

It got sig a pretty strong town read from you, so if that's the case then it's not such a bad strategy after all. I did almost the same thing when I subbed into Mad Max in the early game.

And sig nearly got murdered by the Guardians...

We only ever lynched one member of the Guardians. The rest were nightkilled. This is the math you are playing with here. There's no room for bussing needlessly.

You say there is 'no good reason' to think it didn't happen. There are plenty of good reasons to think it didn't happen. As I say, sig's behaviour has nothing in common with a normal bus. You are suggesting there's no reason to suggest you wouldn't bus a teammate because they asked for it.

Do you actually think this is what happened?

Why would not team say yes? Is it a moral issue? What? There are a load of factors you aren't considering. His reason for subbing out, the teams state in the thread, whether they need civ cred, the list goes on.

I mean, in all seriousness Quin, do you really believe that a teammate would choose to start bussing another teammate on day one, by himself, without provocation, without need, when the numbers are so precarious to begin with, and then continue to push it after the sub comes in, to the point that he gets said teammate lynched on a day when it would have been unnecessary? Why do you think that is any way a logical proposition that there is 'no good reason' to consider unlikely?

They could. It's dependent on the state of the baddie team, and as I said, there's a whole lot of factors that would go into that kind of decision. You don't know if there was no provocation, because if you're civ, then you're not in the baddie chat. If the circumstances were appropriate, I'd do it. Therefore it is logical.

ebwop

[Quin]

'Why would a team not say yes*

[Golden]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

[Quin]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

I reduced it to what it was. I'm cutting the bias out of it.

I gave you a direct answer. I can do both. I can have an opinion and I can simultaneously talk about other people's opinions. There is not a hint of a contradiction there.

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

[Golden]

Why would a team not say yes?

Because it would be outright stupidity in a team of four, with a night kill only every alternate night, and three other killers out there. I don't believe a single soul left in this game would go for it. I'm certain sig wouldn't, he plays a smart tactical game.

I've been in a game of this size with seven players on my team but only alternate kills and the numbers were terrifying. When you can lose one (or more) players on any given night to nightkills, you need all the numbers you can get.

[Golden]

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

[Quin]

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

You're going to have to elaborate.

[Quin]

Why would a team not say yes?

Because it would be outright stupidity in a team of four, with a night kill only every alternate night, and three other killers out there. I don't believe a single soul left in this game would go for it. I'm certain sig wouldn't, he plays a smart tactical game.

I've been in a game of this size with seven players on my team but only alternate kills and the numbers were terrifying. When you can lose one (or more) players on any given night to nightkills, you need all the numbers you can get.

I can appreciate that thinking, though I still disagree. If you're not Golden then you might underestimate the impact a bus might have on your later game.

[Golden]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

I reduced it to what it was. I'm cutting the bias out of it.

You aren't cutting the bias out of it. I have no bias against you at all. You are cutting the facts out of it. So let me say what my point actually is in detail, rather than in summary.

My point is that you are not being intellectually honest, because there is a contradiction not only in the words but in the way you talk about them between the way in which you expressed how sig could be on the troupe through several posts, and then the way you went on to explain how strongly you believe sig is ishmael.

It's not a generic situation. I don't see any inherent contradiction between believing in a conclusion and discussing alternatives. I just don't believe that's what you were doing.

I don't believe you were 'discussing alternatives'. It reads to me like you thought you could throw a bit of mud at sig. You drilled down through several layers of that conversation, until I called you out and asked you if you actually thought he was bad, to which you replied that you did not. The whole conversation was pointless - it had no civilian aim from you. It wasn't 'discussing an alternative', it was 'dismissing golden's view that there is no chance sig is bad'. You didn't engage with my responses, you dismissed them. You only changed tack when I asked you a direct question, and then you used it to launch into something completely different, another way to smear sig, my using words such as 'case' and 'damning'.

It looked like you wanted to have your cake and eat it too.

Then you went on to attack me (misrepresentative, illegitimate, and telling civilians to say the same thing three times) - things which made me feel like you were more interested in discrediting me than simply defending yourself.

It's about your language, Quin. The words you actually used. The way you expressed yourself. It's not about a generic principle.

[Golden]

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

You're going to have to elaborate.

You're the one who is claiming that the directness of your answer (and the fact the answer I was looking for from a civilian is 'the same thing three times') is relevant. I didn't bring it up. Why you think it was relevant enough to throw at me then and irrelevant now?

[Quin]

OK then, what is the point I'm trying to make?

You're saying that there's a contradiction between my believing in one conclusion and discussing alternatives.

I'll take it. You try to reduce it to generic rather than specific, but I can give that a pass...

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

I reduced it to what it was. I'm cutting the bias out of it.

You aren't cutting the bias out of it. I have no bias against you at all. You are cutting the facts out of it. So let me say what my point actually is in detail, rather than in summary.

This whole post is riddled with bias. You're making statements behind your own interpretations. That is what bias is. But whatever, let's go.

My point is that you are not being intellectually honest, because there is a contradiction not only in the words but in the way you talk about them between the way in which you expressed how sig could be on the troupe through several posts, and then the way you went on to explain how strongly you believe sig is ishmael.

There is no contradiction in the words. I asked you for them, you showed me nothing. I gave you a direct answer to a direct question. You expected indirect, blendy, assuring statements from a civilian? That doesn't make sense. I can say 'No, I think x' and still be open to alternatives. Don't say otherwise. A civilian doesn't have to make sure to blatantly say 'I'm open to alternatives' to actually be open to alternatives.

It's not a generic situation. I don't see any inherent contradiction between believing in a conclusion and discussing alternatives. I just don't believe that's what you were doing.

I don't believe you were 'discussing alternatives'. It reads to me like you thought you could throw a bit of mud at sig. You drilled down through several layers of that conversation, until I called you out and asked you if you actually thought he was bad, to which you replied that you did not. The whole conversation was pointless - it had no civilian aim from you. It wasn't 'discussing an alternative', it was 'dismissing golden's view that there is no chance sig is bad'. You didn't engage with my responses, you dismissed them. You only changed tack when I asked you a direct question, and then you used it to launch into something completely different, another way to smear sig, my using words such as 'case' and 'damning'.

No. If you're going to accuse me of flinging mud at sig, analyse the whole post. I even discredited my own theory by saying that Glorfindel being replaced counters is. If I'm going to attack sig, I don't do that. I did not 'dismiss' your responses. I disagreed. I told you why. Stop painting my use of the word damning as though I'm rearing to go and lynch sig. I'm not. I have made a very clear point that I don't want to lynch sig.

It looked like you wanted to have your cake and eat it too.

Then you went on to attack me (misrepresentative, illegitimate, and telling civilians to say the same thing three times) - things which made me feel like you were more interested in discrediting me than simply defending yourself.

This is exactly what I did. You misrepresented my post. (We've barely scratched the surface on that one) you have an illegitimate interpretation of my post, and the thing you expect a civilian to say in response to a direct question is exactly what I would expect from a baddie.

So yes, I'm discrediting you, because your argument deserves to be discredited. It has no truth to it.

It's about your language, Quin. The words you actually used. The way you expressed yourself. It's not about a generic principle.

[Quin]

Given that point as you've expressed it, how is you telling me that you gave me a direct answer and that I asked a civilian to say the same thing three times 'taking my point by the throat and yelling a response at it'?

The underlined bit does not relate to this conversation. No, Golden, it does not.

Really? Then explain this:

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

You're going to have to elaborate.

You're the one who is claiming that the directness of your answer (and the fact the answer I was looking for from a civilian is 'the same thing three times') is relevant. I didn't bring it up. Why you think it was relevant enough to throw at me then and irrelevant now?

My direct answer was relevant to the contradiction. What you expect from a civilian is not.

[Golden]

I agree. That's why I called it ad hominem and pointless. I don't think you are thinking through what you are saying before you say it. I think you are saying things just to make others (sig and me, specifically) look worse.

I stepped you through that process to show a clear example of exactly what I'm talking about.

[Quin]

No. You're just backpedaling. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Quin]

You were the one who tried to twist my response (that what you expect from a civilian is what I would expect from a baddie) into fitting into the larger argument.

[Golden]

You were the one who tried to twist my response (that what you expect from a civilian is what I would expect from a baddie) into fitting into the larger argument.

What?

[Golden]

No. You're just backpedaling. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

There's another one of those words. Backpedalling. What have I backpedalled on?

[Quin]

No. You're just backpedaling. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

There's another one of those words. Backpedalling. What have I backpedalled on?

Indeed. You backpedaled just now when you decided that this argument was just an elaborate scheme to show everyone that I'm not thinking through what I'm saying. In reality, I think you just made a weak argument and once you realised how weak it actually was, you tried to save face.

[Quin]

You were the one who tried to twist my response (that what you expect from a civilian is what I would expect from a baddie) into fitting into the larger argument.

What?

Refer to every time you tried to force my mentioning of what you would expect from a civilian to the forefront of our argument.

[Quin]

Gotta cut this short. I'm leaving early in the morning and I need to sleep early. I'll check back in in the early morning and I might vote then too.

I'm likely to vote MP. Woah.

[Golden]

You were the one who tried to twist my response (that what you expect from a civilian is what I would expect from a baddie) into fitting into the larger argument.

What?

Refer to every time you tried to force my mentioning of what you would expect from a civilian to the forefront of our argument.

Yeah, because when my immediate response was 'thats ad hominem and pointless' what I meant was 'it fits into the larger argument'...

Or maybe, no. Maybe what I meant was exactly what I said - that it doesn't fit into the larger argument, and that it was a pointless ad hominem attack.

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

That's what I said quin. Then you said this:

'Probably not, 'I do think it's possible' and 'I'm keeping an open mind' all mean the same thing. If you're expecting a civilian to constantly reiterate the same thing three times then I guess it's you who doesn't have his head on straight. I gave you a direct answer, while the thing you're expecting from a civilian was not.

This is just ad hominem and pointless. All three things might mean the same thing, but none of them are anything like what you said, and that's the point. It's like you just keep avoiding the point I'm actually making.

I am literally grabbing the point you're making by the throat and screaming my response into it's face.

I was the one saying it was pointless. You were the one saying it was directly on point. I'm not the one pedaling backwards.

[Golden]

Voted Quin. Hopefully it's a better bet than MP.

[Dom]

Sig was entirely responsible for the glorfindel/sprit suspicion from the start, and was the only one out of anyone who gave reasons beyond glorf subbing out (and was on it before glorf subbed out). There is no good reason to have him at orange in your rainbow, it's just bizarre.

Yes there is. We still don't know why Glorfindel subbed out or the conversations he may have had with his team about it. He could have told his team to bus him for the civ cred towards the beginning of the game.
The fact that he was replaced anyway does counter that theory to a degree, but there's no good reason to think that both couldn't have happened.

@Dom - I'm packing. Going away for a few days, so I've got to get stuff done. Not that I was actually lying low in the first place.

who bad then

Not Jack, DDL, sig or LC.

this is pretty useless and not an answer to the question

If you HAD to vote for Dom or Sorsha, who would it be?

Me? Doesn't matter to me. I'm fine either way.

MP is bad.

Spoiler: show

Mark my words.

so are you

Spoiler: show

Mark my words.

Quin: MP is bad

Proceeds to accuse Golden for 3 pages.

[Long Con]

Voted Quin. Hopefully it's a better bet than MP.

Goddammit Golden!

Why, Quin? Why couldn't you just drop it? Fucking pointless argument... about sig?! Sig is not on the plate today!

[Dom]

why not quin

[Long Con]

why not quin

Why ask me? I gave my rainbow list already.

[Epignosis]

I agree with LC on a few points. I would be viewing the Powdered Women role a liability rather than an asset. It sounds good when you look at it, but it isn't in practice.

I think LC's post is good stuff. If LC was a teammate of sprityo2, and his team knew LC couldn't be lynched, then sprityo's sudden vote against LC wouldn't make any sense.

I am less likely to vote LC now.

Why doesn't sprit's vote against LC make sense in that context? It could be seen as distancing. It would be odd for sprit not to make the vote. Wouldn't he be entirely unafraid to make the vote knowing LC could get lynched and then they both end up not lynched? Especially if LC is honest about his save being for day two only...

"Sudden" is the key word here.

Distancing would look differently, I would think. sprityo2 would be more aggressive toward a teammate he knew couldn't be lynched. He would have done so earlier in the day instead of waiting until the last minute.

Look at his last few posts:

Finding INH to be more convincing than LC. Confused by the accusations of "no conviction" in INH. Seems to have some conviction from where I'm standing. I'm more worried about accuracy than conviction. Completely agree that LC's focus has been on discrediting DDL in general than addressing accusations of noncommitalness/blending, which I think was the most important point brought up. (I do agree with LC on the specifics of the Glor statement. But that goes back to attacking the accuser, not the accusation.)

I just don't understand how a person could, three separate times, twist the truth to make me look worse... and it's completely innocent. Maybe once, it could be a mistake. A misread. But THREE TIMES? That indicates that his primary intention is to make people believe I'm bad, and that he's looking for ways to use thread stuff to push that, accuracy be damned.

He took the fact that I had a weak and noncommittal Day 1, and decided I was a weak member of the pack, and moved to capitalize on that.

to be fair you voted me day 1 for basically the same reason

Yes, but I never attempted to convince anyone of anything about you that was false or misleading - that is the MAJOR difference here.

You are correct in that aspect LC

Im too paranoid to not vote until i get something decisive because unlike epi and wilgy, i am at chance to be lynched

i really hate you epi, youre making me do this

ive been monitoring this game like a hawk for the past 5 hours epi, i did not want a repeat of day 1

That just doesn't look like distancing to me. Does it look like that to you?

[Epignosis]

The word 'legitimately' in particular would fail all of llama's adjective tests.

[Epignosis]

(and watch out when epi sees how you used the word literally).

[Epignosis]

That was painful reading. I got nothing out of it. It's also hard to put any stock in Golden's perspective and early vote because he did the same thing to me last phase.

[Epignosis]

I have a new project. One moment.

[Tangrowth]

If you HAD to vote for Dom or Sorsha, who would it be?

Me? Doesn't matter to me. I'm fine either way.

MP is bad.

Spoiler: show

Mark my words.

Lol, the fact that any of you all think I would make this post as a baddie is amusing.

[Tangrowth]

"I think MP is bad because he's obviously Indy"

[Tangrowth]

I think you're doing the exact opposite. Trying to avoid having much impact on who is chosen for a lynch, or on having any strong opinions on who troupe members might be.

You're too busy arguing why sig could be Troupe even though you think he isn't, for example. Why should this be seen as townie? What's the function of it from a civilian mindset? All it does is cast doubt on someone who we have every reason to trust...

Bingo. I would like to lynch Quin.

[Tangrowth]

I realize this is going to be ironic given the conversation I had earlier with Epi, but let me just say one thing about this and then drop it:

Do you all really think, especially those who know me, as a baddie I would have behaved as cavalier about this game as I have for most of this game if I i here bad? My job as a baddie is always to try to convince you all I'm the towniest town that ever towned, and I take that as a personal challenge even when I'm low on time. I get off on successfully doing that. Why would I pass up another opportunity to do that?

My actions are not indicative of a baddie. I'm low hanging fruit. But it's OK because frankly I'm shocked it took you all this long to want to lynch me.

[Tangrowth]

That was painful reading. I got nothing out of it. It's also hard to put any stock in Golden's perspective and early vote because he did the same thing to me last phase.

I see a similar Quin that I saw in Mad Max. I think dom's observation of Quin declaring me bad and then proceeding to argue Golden is disingenuous and bad is a good one as well. He seems like a desperate baddie willing to discredit and try to make an argument seem town vs town but personally I don't think it is.

[Tangrowth]

Voted Quin. Hopefully it's a better bet than MP.

Goddammit Golden!

Why, Quin? Why couldn't you just drop it? Fucking pointless argument... about sig?! Sig is not on the plate today!

You're going to have egg on your face.

[Long Con]

I realize this is going to be ironic given the conversation I had earlier with Epi, but let me just say one thing about this and then drop it:

Do you all really think, especially those who know me, as a baddie I would have behaved as cavalier about this game as I have for most of this game if I i here bad?

Absolutely.

Voted Quin. Hopefully it's a better bet than MP.

Goddammit Golden!

Why, Quin? Why couldn't you just drop it? Fucking pointless argument... about sig?! Sig is not on the plate today!

You're going to have egg on your face.

I already do. But you don't know why.

[Long Con]

I think you're doing the exact opposite. Trying to avoid having much impact on who is chosen for a lynch, or on having any strong opinions on who troupe members might be.

You're too busy arguing why sig could be Troupe even though you think he isn't, for example. Why should this be seen as townie? What's the function of it from a civilian mindset? All it does is cast doubt on someone who we have every reason to trust...

Bingo. I would like to lynch Quin.

So where's your vote?