GAME OVER: BLUE vs. RED

#151

Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)

LC is correct. Saying you are civ is not against the rules. Are you civ?

#152

S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul
Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.
Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?
No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?
I wasn't talking abour drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking about
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".

Oh.

No, I don't. But I do find the act of discrediting one's own opinion to be innately suspicious. There's a difference between that and just not being sure.

#153

OK we're going in circles.

#154

woozles and wizzles

#155

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul
Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.
Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?
No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?
I wasn't talking abour drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking about
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".
Oh.

No, I don't. But I do find the act of discrediting one's own opinion to be innately suspicious. There's a difference between that and just not being sure.

I like Quin's conclusion better than S~V~S' 'circles' one.

#156

Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)

Spoken like a true Democrat.

#157

Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.

#158

S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.

You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?

#159

S~V~S wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)
LC is correct. Saying you are civ is not against the rules. Are you civ?

I am civ. And as much as I hate to admit it, I fully support Hilary Clinton.

#160

Notsawyer's equivocating is the kind of posting I generally dislike.

"Well, but on the other hand, but maybe, I'm not too sure." Feels like trying to play all sides. I'll be

you, Notsawyer.

#161

S~V~S wrote:Sure. Although ALL of us would probably lie about it,lol. We're Mafia players.

I'm a civ, and I fully support Hillary Clinton.

Is Glor/TAK playing?

#162

Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted.

He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.

That said, I definitely have my eye on you now for blowing what I said out of proportion. I'm just trying to be realistic, and your attempt to convince people that I was somehow discrediting my own opinion is SUPER shady in my book.

thellama73 wrote:Notsawyer's equivocating is the kind of posting I generally dislike.

"Well, but on the other hand, but maybe, I'm not too sure." Feels like trying to play all sides. I'll be you, Notsawyer.

I'm sorry it wasn't entertaining enough for you. At least I got people talking, and that's what we need to root out the bad guys.

#163

@Wigly

I have none of those things. Now what?

Quin wrote:
G-Man wrote:Hillary Clinton appreciates those who exercise their right to vote. After all, votes got her elected president. +1 Hillary Points to everyone who voted in the Day 0 poll.

Hillary Points Standings:
+4 Points: S~V~S
+3 Points: thellama73
+1 Point: Dfaraday, DrWilgy, Elohcin, FZ., Long Con, MacDougall, Marmot, notsawyer540, Scotty, TheFloyd73
0 Points: Epignosis, Jackofhearts2005
-5 Points: Quin
I won't be satisfied until I have double digits in negative Hillary points.

How do I have the same number of Hilary points as Epi? How the heck does Llama have 3 Hillary points?

Can I...can I have your Hillary points, Llama?

It's 100 points to level up, right?

Epignosis wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.
I didn't lynch you last time because you didn't make 100 posts.

Was Mac scum or town last time?

Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:
Long Con wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I have a question for everyone.

If I don't make 100 posts today will I get lynched again? Is that something I need to contend with? I would rather not.
Just don't make any jokes like "Rule 1: Always lynch X day 1" and you're off to a good start.
I have a rule. Long Con is always bad when he starts cracking wise and not being serious.
Emphasis on the 'wisdom' factor, I'd say.
Is this where I get voted for?
I would never cast a vote until I was 100% sure that the pity party was over.

I am also throwing a pity party over a thing. Don't vote for me, LC.

#164

I'm a civilian and fuck Hillary Clinton.

And her shitty clothes.

#165

Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.

Hi, Scotty.

Do you still think that low posters are definitely bad? Specifically me? Any other leads?

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.
You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?

Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Epignosis wrote:

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

Epignosis wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)
Spoken like a true Democrat.

I don't get it.

Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Quin, I feel like you are not taking my efforts to lynch you seriously.
I'm not.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.

What's a red peek?

#166

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.
Hi, Scotty.

Do you still think that low posters are definitely bad? Specifically me? Any other leads?

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.
You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?
Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Epignosis wrote:

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

Epignosis wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)
Spoken like a true Democrat.
I don't get it.

Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Quin, I feel like you are not taking my efforts to lynch you seriously.
I'm not.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.
What's a red peek?

I hope not. It's happened in a few games lately, but it's not really my 'thing'.

#167

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.
You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?

I'm not putting up with Quin getting into bullshit arguments with S~V~S. I will lynch both of you if this happens.

Quin, learn to read.

S~V~S, learn to deal with people who can't read.

Quin:

You said this:

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
Quin wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:
S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul
Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.
Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?
No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?

What was your argument? Lay it out. Syllogisms are preferred.

#168

I didn't take her post as rhetorical question. That's it.

#169

notsawyer540 wrote:
Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted. He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.

I totally betrayed and murdered my Civ BTSC team for more power.

#170

notsawyer540 wrote:
Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted. He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.

That said, I definitely have my eye on you now for blowing what I said out of proportion. I'm just trying to be realistic, and your attempt to convince people that I was somehow discrediting my own opinion is SUPER shady in my book.

thellama73 wrote:Notsawyer's equivocating is the kind of posting I generally dislike.

"Well, but on the other hand, but maybe, I'm not too sure." Feels like trying to play all sides. I'll be you, Notsawyer.
I'm sorry it wasn't entertaining enough for you. At least I got people talking, and that's what we need to root out the bad guys.

I'm not sure how else to phrase it. When you say 'I believe this' but also say 'But I don't know anyone here', you're discrediting your own opinion. Proportion remains unblown.

#171

Long Con wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:
Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted. He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.
I totally betrayed and murdered my Civ BTSC team for more power.

So we should probably lynch you regardless of your alignment then?

#172

Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.

#173

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Long Con wrote:
notsawyer540 wrote:
Quin wrote:Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I was saying that I didn't see an argument or any evidence as to why people thought you were bad, but qualifying it with the fact that I don't know many of the people here as well as the rest of you know each other. I've known LC for nearly a decade, which is my basis for the civ read I have on him. But I've also known him long enough to know he can't be trusted. He won the Star Wars mafia I hosted on Lostpedia as an Indy role, so I know what he's capable of.
I totally betrayed and murdered my Civ BTSC team for more power.
So we should probably lynch you regardless of your alignment then?

I'm sure I have paid for my crime somehow, by now.

#174

Epignosis wrote:Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.

No, but thanks for that. And the stuff about not being able to read.

#175

I don't like the cut of this jackofhearts character's jib. Voting there.

#176

Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.
No, but thanks for that. And the stuff about not being able to read.

Jokes, mate, jokes.

I haven't said a single serious thing here and people want to keep taking offense.

#177

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.
No, but thanks for that. And the stuff about not being able to read.
Jokes, mate, jokes.

I haven't said a single serious thing here and people want to keep taking offense.

Well, you essentially accused me of being ignorant and a narcissist, so you can hopefully appreciate my distaste.

I'm probably overreacting. I just thought your assessment of the situation is insulting.

Let's move on.

#178

I suspect notsawyer. Putting a vote there.

#179

MacDougall wrote:I don't like the cut of this jackofhearts character's jib. Voting there.

What don't you like?

#180

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Scotty wrote:Everyone's checked in, so...ima thinking one of the low posters is definitely bad.

Jackofhearts, I see you.
Hi, Scotty.

Do you still think that low posters are definitely bad? Specifically me? Any other leads?

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.
You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?
Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Epignosis wrote:

I predict a mechanic that stops the person with the most votes from being lynched and the lynch is actually decided based on the location of each voter.

Epignosis wrote:
Elohcin wrote:
Long Con wrote:I don't know, Eloh. I think Quin's response is not suspicious, just quality friendly snark.
That's okay. It's normal for people to think my suspicions are off. I even get lynched for them sometimes.

So I see a lot role-claiming. I thought this was illegal. G-Man...will those who have claimed an alliance have negative consequences?

(Still have a bit of catching up.)
Spoken like a true Democrat.
I don't get it.

Quin wrote:
thellama73 wrote:Quin, I feel like you are not taking my efforts to lynch you seriously.
I'm not.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody gets a fucking "red peek" Day 0. If you do, the game is pointless and we might as well do something else.
What's a red peek?

I actually flipped a coin among a few of you that had low posts and you came up, but since you're around and talking:

Do I "still" think low posters are bad? I don't know where the "still" came from. Still from last game? Just generally?
The low posting is not what makes you bad, but what you make of your posts. I would say some baddies are bound to be pretty slinky on day 1, so I don't give passes to low posters. No.

DF is an example of someone that gets heated when I talk about low posters, so his response to my vote for you is pretty much on par for him.

"Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that."
So do you suspect Quin or not? That's all you have to say, but you really didn't say much of anything.

And you're using a lot of smilies my man. Seems pretty happy go lucky.

Ima keep my vote on you for now

#181

Epignosis wrote:Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.

Do you find Quin's antics as alignment indicative or merely argumentative?

#182

G-Man wrote:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON D.C. 20503

January 20, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION
This Presidential memorandum calls for the extension of a Secret Service protective detail to anyone of the President's choice on the night of January 21, 2017. This memorandum requires the Director of the United States Secret Service to provide a list of qualified and capable service agents not already assigned to other work to the President no later 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 2017. At that time, the President will provide the name of the person to be protect that evening.

I totally missed this.

so it sounds like 2 power roles are the President and the Director of the Secret Service. Which would mean the mafia has a powe role too to balance it out, right?

Or...is the director indie? I mean, the real life secret service protects the president only because it's their job, not because they have loyalty to any one party.

It sounds like this director can just make a list of us, the president picks one, and if the mafia targets the president to die that night, one of us will die in his place. That sounds logical right?

#183

This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat

#184

MacDougall wrote:I don't like the cut of this jackofhearts character's jib. Voting there.

Well I don't like that your avatar is what you'd get if Diablo fucked a sharptooth.

But I don't vote for stupid reason.

#185

#186

Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat

What's a townie Marmot look like?

#187

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat
What's a townie Marmot look like?

Something akin to this

#188

Scotty wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat
What's a townie Marmot look like?
Something akin to this

That's not the only thing currently naked and in the thread...

What's up?

#189

Yo Scotty.

"Still" refers to the post I quoted where you said low posters are definitely bad.

Tell me more about DF's meta. He made it like 3 posts before getting replaced in the only game we've played together.

I don't suspect Quin and I don't not-suspect Quin if you know what I mean. I expect Quin (not town Quin or scum Quin) to get into arguments over wording. So I think SVS being like "I'm not gonna get into it with you" is reasonable but it does nothing to convince me Quin is scum, either. Haven't played with SVS before. What do you think of SVS's case on Quin, specifically in your thoughts on SVS.

I'm very happy, thank you. Apparently, posting smilies is a tell for me. Means I'm at my pc. I usually phone post and can't be bothered to go through the menu and I don't know the smiley shortcuts on this board yet.

#190

Scotty wrote:
Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
Scotty wrote:This might be cliche but I'm not thrilled with any of Marmot's 7 posts so far. Granted, that was Day 0. But he could probably shave the fluff, that naked rat
What's a townie Marmot look like?
Something akin to this

So...less fluffy? More hostile?

#191

Quin wrote:
MacDougall wrote:I don't like the cut of this jackofhearts character's jib. Voting there.
What don't you like?

Basically what I said. His posts have an air of fraudulent him. Lot of words with a fart smell.

#192

Wow ...

Fraudulence to them*

#193

Epignosis wrote:I'm a civilian and fuck Hillary Clinton.

And her shitty clothes.

Don't you always steadfastly refuse to make lie detector statements as a matter of policy? This surprises me.

#194

Jackofhearts2005 wrote: How do I have the same number of Hilary points as Epi? How the heck does Llama have 3 Hillary points?

Can I...can I have your Hillary points, Llama?

No, get your own Hillary Points. Although I wouldn't be surprised if G-Man awards you some for trying to mooch off other people's earnings.

#195

Epignosis wrote:
Quin wrote:
Epignosis wrote:Quin, I feel that you just like getting into arguments to see who is right.

That's not happening here. This is American politics. Being right has no place.
No, but thanks for that. And the stuff about not being able to read.
Jokes, mate, jokes.

I haven't said a single serious thing here and people want to keep taking offense.

This is American politics.

Spoiler: show

#196

I don't think I'v played with Jack of Hearts before, but I'm finding him annoying. He apologized for not being "entertaining" enough. Entertainment is not the goal of the game, boyo. Finding baddies is. Take the snark down a notch, why don't you, and answer me this:

Who are looking at voting today and why?

#197

Oh, wait a minute. Notsawyer is the one who apologized for not being entertaining. Same question to you, Notsawyer. Who do you suspect and why?

#198

Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Hi everyone! I'm a doctor and Epignosis is bad!
What is the point of this?
He's letting us know we should lynch Epi Day 1.

Why did you answer for Wilgy here?

#199

DrWilgy wrote:
Quin wrote:
S~V~S wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Hi everyone! I'm a doctor and Epignosis is bad!
What is the point of this?
He's letting us know we should lynch Epi Day 1.
Yes

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:
DrWilgy wrote:Hi everyone! I'm a doctor and Epignosis is bad!
They said I could keep my doctor, but I now see I'm stuck with Wigly.

Sorry guys, that's the best I got, tonight.
Hiii Jaaaaaaack, do you want to conquer the world with me?

Why should we lynch Epi Day 1?

Did you mean to get barred from Air Force One by saying "hijack"?

#200

Marmot wrote:Epignosis was pushing hard for a game to start. I find his lack of activity suspicious.

How do you feel about Epi now? DFaraday, theFloyd, and notsawyer540 are now the least active. What is your read on each of them?