[END] Harry Potter Mafia

[Operator]

I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

I'm highly tempted to vote Margaret's way. She has 6 posts, 2 of which are useless filler, 2 are stating her choice in night polls, and 2 are votes. Day 1 was Entjen and today was Sarah Good. I think there is a chance that she went with Entjen because it was easy and people were talking about her, and today she wanted to avoid the lynch and lazily threw her vote away. People wanting to avoid lynchtrains are generally not civ.

I think this is a very astute observation.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Re-read today's events as I feel like I've just been skimming lately. No good. No no. Colours break up different thoughts. Valentines Day colours even. Got them on sale.

"So, if they are a baddie team, why don't they have an NK? And what about the fact that they are each head of houses, and all of the students are evenly divided between the houses? That has to mean something, right?"

This is speculation, but I think each of the teachers can recruit someone from their house to their team. They have to search for them every night. So yes, they may not have an NK, but I think that they could probably lower the amount of civvies drastically.

Those numbers don't make any sense. If every teacher recruited someone, and they are baddies, that would result in 12 baddies total. You're pushing things that aren't likely. Mafia teams have kills. You use not knowing the teachers alignment as a reason they are bad, but we don't have the alignment for any role, and there are no grounds to believe the teachers are bad (once again, I'd say Snape is a possible exception, perhaps some kind of solo baddie).

We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse. You're trying to force role alignments that are consistent with a standard layout, not alignments that make real sense, and not alignments that are supported by what little we do have to go on.

She literally says that somehow, civvies are worse. If this isn't fear mongering, I don't know what is.

Big time.

This is suspicious to me. Kryssy seemed to be quite clearly talking about the characters and not the roles but Maret made this comment anyway. It wasn't exactly a one-off comment either. It's been highly discussed today. Why? Feels like Maret is revving her bandwagon engine and hoping everyone jumps on. (This is where Mary says "Bandwagons have engines?" and I say "Haven't they always? ")

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

Not going to rub my eyeball all up and down Jenn-e over this but it is a little weird that she says this but doesn't feel the need to add anything of substance herself. Not a huge deal but if it bugged her, why do the same thing that supposedly bugs you?

I'm checking in occasionally, waiting for Krystyna's response regarding why s/he said Crabbe, Goyle and Pansy were worse than Lucius or Draco. I was hoping s/he would have responded by now.

Krys-ice-baby answered 12 hours before this. Where were you? Right. Beating a dead horse. Got it. I've always been bugged by the "logic" of "I didn't like your answer, so you didn't give one".

JANIE-POO GETS HER OWN SEGMENT! HUZZAH!

I noticed something about Jane. 20 posts. Let's take a look, shall we?
(Quotes not verbatim to save space and avoid redundancy, feel free to look them up yourself if you want)

1 - OT
2 - Asks Agnes a question about what Agnes thinks. "Votes will be random"
3 - OT
4 - "I don't suspect you Agnes, thanks for getting the ball rolling" "I don't suspect Entjen for suspecting you, you could get lynched" "Votes will be random"
5 - *Randomizes and votes for the goodiest goody that ever did good * Whatta witch!
6 - OT
7 - "Glad the professors aren't baddies but they're not civvies either" (i.e. defining what it is to be an independent - k?) *quotes Bridget "Crazy Bones" Bishop* "Not sure what to make of that"
8 - "Agnes wasn't a DE" "We shouldn't assume DEs can't survive lynches" (not bad for your first shared opinion)
9 - Asks Bridget "Bad Witch" Bishop about what Bridgo thinks
10 - She doesn't like that Barbara and Jennet seem noncommittal - then proceeds to be noncommittal herself about them being noncommittal - Then asks them about what they think
11 - Asks Krys why she suspects Bridget "Bad to the Bone" Bishop, asks Entjen what she thinks (Entjen was pretty ridiculous in this quote, to be fair, but this is Jane's section), and asks Barbara to explain her suspicion of Bridget "Back dat up" Bishop
12 - Discusses weird Entjen (again, it will be covered in a different section) but barely gives any input of her own - if any, just responding to an overly defensive Enty
13 - Retracts her entire previous post and apologizes for it *lifts rug* *sweeps* (POOF! Dirt = Gone. Now THAT'S magic!)
14 - Somewhat OT post saying she doesn't agree with trying to figure out who is behind the sockpuppet
15 - Votes for Krys for voting for Bridget based on who she thinks is playing Bridget "Lynch me" Bishop but decides to state that, obviously, her opinion might change based on the lynch result
16 - *lists who missed the vote*
17 - Apologizes to Bridget "suicidal homicidal genocidal death defying maniac" Bishop for getting votes the way she did
18 - OT
19 - OT
20 - Asks Kath what she thinks, asks Krys what she thinks, and asks Jennet what she thinks

I feel like all she does is post OT, ask others questions, or talk in circles about current topics but never picks a side. She wants nothing to be held against her. I will hold that against her. Like my body - I don't really understand how that joke is supposed to work. I honestly don't see anything she has ever said as adding to the discussion, at least not intentionally. With slight exception going to the post in which she voted for Krys, she has never outright said she suspected anyone or anything. I hope I'm wrong about Jane. I so don't want her to be evil 'cause dat avatar.

While I'll keep my pom poms on the bench if a Slytherin gets lynched, I understand Kryscey's argument. She made a fantastic point at one point while defending herself against Maret's & Jane's endless questioning. Draco's role lists no secrets but we know Lucius searches for him every night. It is fair to assume characters don't outright have to say they have secrets to have secrets. On that topic, we know very little about what the baddies can do. Does anyone know what the curses listed in their roles might mean? Much appreciated.

"Next, Rebecca Nurse. I lean towards feeling ok-ish about her. We didn't get a reason for why she didn't vote though, so if there is one, or at least some acknowledgement about it, that would be good. Some helpfulness, asking questions, discussing suspicion. Don't see myself voting here today." A question for me? Aw shucks, you shouldn't have I was traveling and didn't realize I wouldn't have service where I was. I would have reluctantly voted Bridget. Hard not to when she was basically begging for it

Krystyna I def do not have btsc, and if I did, don't you think my posts would be a little more consistant
because I would have an idea what is going on from my btsc? I am all on my own here, and I really am just busy.
I can't speak for whether or not anyone saw it as snarky only how I did, but when I see things that way I would rather not get an attitude back which is why I chose to step away from it for the moment. We can argue that you did not take it the same way but everyone takes things differently.
I do think win conditions are important because people don't know what they need to be doing to win. I have played games where you are required to be alive at the end, and I have played games where you win if your team (civ, or bad) wins at the end regardless of if you are alive and or greatly changes how people play.
I'm sorry that you don't agree that there has been more discussions about roles and the like than suspicion. it seems like every time I check the thread there is talk about roles and whether or not a role can be good or bad based on the books and stuff like that. While I find it ok to talk about those things some I feel like some people may be pushing the conversation in that direction to steer the conversation away from talking about the players, so that when lynch time comes its a big clusterfuck of random suspicions coming out of the woodwork and a civvie will be lynched.
I don't think I am shrugging off responsibility for missing the vote. I hate missing votes, which although you don't know who I am, I will tell you it's not something I often do. I said it was my fault, and I don't know who I would've voted for because hindsight is everything and when you see the result its easy to say oh I would have done this or that. Point is, I didn't vote and I missed a lot of that discussion so I can't go back and change that and offer you up with a name just for the sake of naming someone

Starts with wifom, what can you really say about that?
I don't buy this "busy" stuff. To me, it feels like a cop-out when you always have time to say you're too busy to catch up but continue to find time to post anyway. You did that earlier in your argument with Jane. You made a lot of half-comments, said you needed to go back and double check things, and then said you weren't going to basically because Jane asked you to do just that. You can't give your opinion on Day 2 because you missed the vote? I hope me saying I suspect you doesn't make you refuse to post anymore

Mom! Mary is pretending she's just now learning English again. You said she couldn't do that anymore.

God, everything! You should always be your stuff! Always love more!

8

That's just rude. Lynch this woman!

Jennet questioning Krysty researching her suspects is odd because A) it makes sense for one to do that B) Krysty said she was going to earlier and C) I'm doing that right now PS. Is it weird to anyone else that Jennet and Barbara always seem to be on the exact same page as one another? Even going so far as to defending each other for no reason?

I don't understand Margaret's vote for Sarah. If you feel strongly about this, please clarify Margie.

I'll end my re-read with a little recap on Entjen. I think it's nearly undeniable that she is at least a little suspicious. However, for someone who never has time to catch up, she has the fourth highest number of posts so let's recap some highlights, shall we?

I think it's weird for her to have posted that she was pinged when there was nothing much on topic posted, but I am also not sure I want to lynch the first person trying to get the discussion on topic. On one hand, she could be legitimately trying to get discussion going, but the other option is she was trying to post on topic without committing to any actual suspicions. I'm looking forward to hearing these pings first

Left side of the fence. Right side of the fence. Left side. Right side.

Sorry not going to be around much today but I'm trying to keep up when I can. I don't really understand the Bridget thing. She seems like she is voting/playing weird and I see there has been some talk about that. I personally haven't had the time to read through everything to find the explanation yet.

I can't remember atm but there was someone Agnes asked me to look at before she died. I feel like it was Bridget as well, which doesn't do her any favors in my book (if it wasn't Bridget I want to look at whoever it was because something about that is sticking out to me)

First off I have read, i am just out so it's not so thoroughly as I would have liked.

Where did I say I don't remember anything about it? Or that I felt so strongly about it? I want to make sure it was Bridget's name before I condemn her, and since I didn't have time to go back when I posted it.
So to recap: snarky attitude has made me not want to read back. Not sure why you are being so defensive when I wasn't even talking about you. Is your teammate getting lynched?

Read through everything. I haven't had time to go back through the roles and everything to find the explanation that some seem to be eluding to. I don't have the roles memorized yet so it takes me a bit of back and forth to get a grasp on what is going on.

Ok here is why it seemed snarky to me. You take a couple of sentences of mine then at the bottom put something like "so to recap" you don't remember anything and the like. I fail to see why anyone needs to "recap" a couple sentences with a couple more. Everyone is fairly capable of reading them themselves.
It does scream of snark to me, and it's not that I don't want to sort through my own suspicions but when I take something as snarky I'd rather not try to sort through the posts at that time.

She'd by no means my top suspect but she does say some awfully strange things.

As much as I'd like to pull the players with low post-counts out of their hiding, there are 9 players with under 10 posts - I don't feel we're qualified to separate one from the rest of the pack. I just hope all civvies with low post counts know that they're only hurting the team.

Here's a ranking of my top suspects:
1. Jane
2. Maret
3. Jennet
4. Entjen

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Oh yeah, and Mary can be fifth because - and I quote - "SUCK IT, MARY!"

[Jack Shephard]

I'm all caught up now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like Barb never got around to explaining this. It doesn't make any sense.

Instead, Barb keeps on agreeing to what Jenn is saying:

Sorry for my absence today, busy busy.

I first thought that it seemed like Krystyna was maybe getting a bum rap by having lots of people exploiting her posts and thus making her talk a lot, which always makes someone sound worse. But, really, her posts don't sound civvie at all, if anything they sound indy. Jennet is right, it sounds like Krystyna is just whatevs about this.

And fwiw, Jennet is making a lot of sense to me.

Next regarding Krys~

Hmm, I guess looking at your post history now, I shouldn't be surprised. You're just posting the same things over and over again in every discussion you've been a part of.

And this folks, is a what a Slytherin student looks like. Maybe you think you're a civ, but you're not acting like one by refusing to participate in discussion, and you're not helping the cause. Things to keep in mind if she gets her way this lynch, is my point.

Civvie behavior is agreeing with Krystyna. Anyone who disagrees with her must be bad.

You voted for her as well, but yes, generally speaking people who aren't acting in what is subjectively considered civvie behavior are the people we vote for. That doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with me is bad, but this kind of behavior has 0 civvie credibility, which I imagine is why it picked up 9 votes so far.

I'm sorry, but civvie behavior is whatever a civ does. Period. Baddie behavior is trying to act like a civ. Your reason for voting people (not acting like a civ) only rewards baddies for a good performance.

I think we have a baddie team with at least some players lying low, so I want to look at missed votes.

Missed D1: Merga Bien; Alizon Device; Märet Jonsdotter; Kael Merrie; Karin Svensdotter
Missed D2: Merga Bien, Alizon Device, Entjen Gillis, Anna Koldings, Rebecca Nurse, Margaret Pearson, Anne Whittle

This strikes me as all kindsa insincere. Laying low =/= missed votes. Plus, there's a penalty for missing votes:

A message to all players: As far as participation is concerned you can post as often as you see fit (feel free to judge each others posting habits), but not voting/sending in required pms (even if it is to defer use of a power) will be penalized.
[/b][/color]

You've been so on and on about how civvies ought to act, doesn't it make sense that baddies wouldn't want to miss votes and hurt THEIR team?

I won't have much time left, but I will probably vote one of these two.

linki~ Not all caught up now.

[Ben Linus]

Jennet questioning Krysty researching her suspects is odd because A) it makes sense for one to do that B) Krysty said she was going to earlier and C) I'm doing that right now PS. Is it weird to anyone else that Jennet and Barbara always seem to be on the exact same page as one another? Even going so far as to defending each other for no reason?

It's one of my ways of gauging reactions. and to your comment on myself and Barbara and myself being on the same page, you're kinda of right. I looked back through my own posts, and only once did I ever speak to or respond to anything Barbara has said, and it was actually to point out a big inconsistency in her post. On the other hand, she has agreed with whatever I said. I do thank you for pointing this out Rebecca, because I think I'll do a bit more research on Barbara at this point. Several people have stated that I seem generally pro-town and making sense, which would make for a good reason for a baddie to agree with everything I say, even if it is just BS. That will be in a little bit though. For now, I have an exam to take.

[Ned Flanders]

To answer Rebecca on the curses: *Lots of spoilers, so don't read it if you for some reason you haven't read the books or seen the movies and still plan to*

We did discuss the Unforgiveable Curses (well, really only in the context of story, so lets do some more on it). Background: There are three of them, 1) Avada Kevadra - The killing curse. It isn't the only spell that can kill things, but it is the most effective. There is no counter-spell to protect yourself, if you get hit you die. 2) Cruciatus Curse - It's essentially torture in a can. Getting hit with it once can range from being not that bad (Harry using it on Bellatrix in the Ministry after she killed Sirius), to being really terrible pain. Repeated use by a strong user can result in madness (Neville's parents), that doesn't seem to be fixable by any magic (the results are somewhat like dementia, at least with Neville's parents). 3) Imperius Curse - Mind control. It was well-used by the Death Eaters during the first wizarding war (the first time Voldemort took over), they used it to control high ranking wizards in the ministry, and high-ranking muggles as well. Harry does use it (successfully) in the 7th book when they break into Gringotts.

They're 'unforgiveable' because using any of the three results in a lifetime sentence in Azkaban (wizard prison. The dementors, which are the soul-sucking death-looking creeps, are the guards. It's a shitty place). While there is some use of them by non-bad guys in the books and movies (not Avada Kevadra, and Cruciatus I can't recall being used successfully), Imperius is used, without punishment later, by Harry and McGonagall. They're also sort of the anti-thesis of a spell like Expecto Patronus (the anti-Dementor spell. It summons an animal built around the wizard or witch who casts it, and you have to think of your happiest memory to use it. Most can't do it well, because when you actually need to be using it, the Dementors make it nearly impossible), because they require hate to use (think Dark Side of the Force, if you want to Force Choke a dude, you can't be thinking about sunshine and rainbows, you have to really hate them and use it against them) properly.

As for what they probably do in this game.
Avada just kills.
Cruciatus probably works as a roleblock (can't do much when you're writhing on the ground in pain), maybe makes the following days vote worth 0. I can see it doing more, since Bellatrix and Dolohov use them on alternating nights. My best guess is, is that the more Bellatrix uses it against someone, the worse the effects get. So perhaps it also puts an extra vote on the person?
Imperius probably lets Dolohov redirect the target of his target, and choose who they vote for the following day. Unlike Crucio, using Imperio on the same person multiple times makes it weaker (most people are able to learn to fight against in, and repeated use makes that easier). There's a small chance it could work as a recruit on weaker minded people I suppose (it can last a very long time, and some people even with repeated use just aren't good enough to break out of it). I don't believe that to be the case though, since it looks like Lucius can recruit.

Then there's Voldemort. As I have said before, creating a Horcurx isn't actually an unforgiveable curse... but someone willing to do it has almost certainly used an unforgiveable curse anyways (Voldemort was only known to be the second to ever create a Horcrux, there was him, and the guy who discovered how to do it, he was also a nasty piece of work). Think of it like phylactery that a Lich would have in other fantasy, they break off a piece of their soul, put it in whatever object is their phylactery, and then even if the physical body is destroyed, they are able to rise back up unless the phylactery is also destroyed.

Unlike phylactery's (at least that I'm familiar with) Voldemort didn't just use objects. Nagini, his snake (Voldemort is a parseltongue, he can speak to snakes. He was an heir of Salazar Slytherin, one of the 4 founders of Hogwarts. Lots of inbreeding in his direct line. He himself is a half-blood, his mother was a full-blood witch with years of inbreeding, and she used a love potion on a muggle, the result of which was Voldemort), he intentionally made a Horcrux, and when he failed to kill Harry, Harry unintentionally became a Horcrux (Voldemort had his soul splintered into so many pieces, the integrity of it had been destroyed, so the curse bouncing back to him destroyed his body and some more of his soul, which went into the nearest thing it could, Harry). Much of the 7th book (and the end of the 6th), deals with hunting down the Horcruxes and destroying them so that Voldemort could be killed. In the second book, Voldemort's diary was destroyed, which was one (it wasn't known at the time, although that was when Dumbledore started suspecting Voldemort had created Horcruxes, and that that was how he had survived). The rest are important objects from each of the founders of Hogwarts (with the exception of Gryffindor, his sword was actually able to destroy Horcruxes, which is probably why it wasn't used as one), Slytherin's locket, Helga Hufflepuff's Cup, and Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem. In addition to those, there's the ring (the resurrection stone that is for the 4th night Deathly Hollow challenge is the ring, although Voldemort didn't know it was a Deathly Hollow), it belonged to his grandfather. Then there's Harry himself, and the main remainder of Voldemort's soul, which is considered a Horcrux (although it has to be the last one destroyed), since it stops being stored in his body after he failed to kill Harry (for example, in the first book when he possesses Quirrell, Quirrell is technically a Horcrux, just a temporary one since it doesn't matter if he's destroyed).

I'm thinking most of the objects, we don't have to worry about. Since the resurrection stone is going out on N4, I don't see it still being a Horcrux. Harry and Voldemort are, imo, probably linked. Maybe Nagini will show up at some point and have to be killed as well. It's also a possibility, that since creating a Horcrux requires killing someone, that each time Voldemort has a kill go through, there's a chance (or choice, or w/e) to create a Horcrux, perhaps tying himself to a player of his choice (he can't die while that player is alive, they can't maybe be NKed while he is). I assume if that's the case, it isn't every time he kills, but maybe he gets one or two of those.

[Ned Flanders]

I'm all caught up now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like Barb never got around to explaining this. It doesn't make any sense.

Instead, Barb keeps on agreeing to what Jenn is saying:

Sorry for my absence today, busy busy.

I first thought that it seemed like Krystyna was maybe getting a bum rap by having lots of people exploiting her posts and thus making her talk a lot, which always makes someone sound worse. But, really, her posts don't sound civvie at all, if anything they sound indy. Jennet is right, it sounds like Krystyna is just whatevs about this.

And fwiw, Jennet is making a lot of sense to me.

Next regarding Krys~

Hmm, I guess looking at your post history now, I shouldn't be surprised. You're just posting the same things over and over again in every discussion you've been a part of.

And this folks, is a what a Slytherin student looks like. Maybe you think you're a civ, but you're not acting like one by refusing to participate in discussion, and you're not helping the cause. Things to keep in mind if she gets her way this lynch, is my point.

Civvie behavior is agreeing with Krystyna. Anyone who disagrees with her must be bad.

You voted for her as well, but yes, generally speaking people who aren't acting in what is subjectively considered civvie behavior are the people we vote for. That doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with me is bad, but this kind of behavior has 0 civvie credibility, which I imagine is why it picked up 9 votes so far.

I'm sorry, but civvie behavior is whatever a civ does. Period. Baddie behavior is trying to act like a civ. Your reason for voting people (not acting like a civ) only rewards baddies for a good performance.

I think we have a baddie team with at least some players lying low, so I want to look at missed votes.

Missed D1: Merga Bien; Alizon Device; Märet Jonsdotter; Kael Merrie; Karin Svensdotter
Missed D2: Merga Bien, Alizon Device, Entjen Gillis, Anna Koldings, Rebecca Nurse, Margaret Pearson, Anne Whittle

This strikes me as all kindsa insincere. Laying low =/= missed votes. Plus, there's a penalty for missing votes:

A message to all players: As far as participation is concerned you can post as often as you see fit (feel free to judge each others posting habits), but not voting/sending in required pms (even if it is to defer use of a power) will be penalized.
[/b][/color]

You've been so on and on about how civvies ought to act, doesn't it make sense that baddies wouldn't want to miss votes and hurt THEIR team?

I won't have much time left, but I will probably vote one of these two.

linki~ Not all caught up now.

I don't agree with you. Civ behavior can be defined. It's about hunting baddies. A civ who doesn't do that, isn't displaying civ behavior. A baddie in this game cannot do that, unless they're throwing a teammate under the bus, so they have to adopt a different strategy to avoid being lynched.

As for a punishment for not voting, I assume it's being replaced for missing multiple votes/PMs. I don't think the baddies would let a teammate get replaced if they're playing a game of just lying low, but they would still strategically miss votes where they are able to so that nothing can be pinned to them.

[Jack Shephard]

I don't agree with you. Civ behavior can be defined. It's about hunting baddies. A civ who doesn't do that, isn't displaying civ behavior. A baddie in this game cannot do that, unless they're throwing a teammate under the bus, so they have to adopt a different strategy to avoid being lynched.

As for a punishment for not voting, I assume it's being replaced for missing multiple votes/PMs. I don't think the baddies would let a teammate get replaced if they're playing a game of just lying low, but they would still strategically miss votes where they are able to so that nothing can be pinned to them.

That just begs the question, doesnt it? Civ behavior is baddie hunting, fine. But how one goes about the hunting varies from player to player. Some people are quiet analytics, some dominate the thread with theories. Some ppl like to make charts, others go by gut feels. Some look for "tics" in people's posts, some build cases based on the voting record. And many combinations of these.

Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes.

So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior!

[Julinook]

Voted Margaret. Heading to work. Will answer a few posts tonight!

[Operator]

I am really torn on this vote. I do susptec Krystyna, but I am wary of bandwagoning and I feel like there was a hard push for her early, which makes me nervous.

I also suspect Entjen, just as I suspected her yesterday. I have found her response to suspicion a little defensive, and now she sems to have backed off as if realizing she sounded defensive. I'm also starting to get a weird vibe from Jennet, but it's nothing I can pin down.

I think I will vote for Entjen today.

[Ned Flanders]

I don't agree with you. Civ behavior can be defined. It's about hunting baddies. A civ who doesn't do that, isn't displaying civ behavior. A baddie in this game cannot do that, unless they're throwing a teammate under the bus, so they have to adopt a different strategy to avoid being lynched.

As for a punishment for not voting, I assume it's being replaced for missing multiple votes/PMs. I don't think the baddies would let a teammate get replaced if they're playing a game of just lying low, but they would still strategically miss votes where they are able to so that nothing can be pinned to them.

That just begs the question, doesnt it? Civ behavior is baddie hunting, fine. But how one goes about the hunting varies from player to player. Some people are quiet analytics, some dominate the thread with theories. Some ppl like to make charts, others go by gut feels. Some look for "tics" in people's posts, some build cases based on the voting record. And many combinations of these.

Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes.

So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior!

Yes... and I'm not sure why you find that amusing? Civvies don't get lynched by other civvies because those other civvies feel like lynching a civvie, they get lynched because they look like they are baddies. More than the actual number of baddies are going to come across as baddie...

You literally said this:

"Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes."

but then really want to follow it up with:

"So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior! "?

You're agreeing with me but then acting like what we agreed on is laughable.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

I think this civvie behavior discussion between Tyna & Alizon comes down to semantics.

I'm sure you'd both agree that baddies want to act like civvies, civvies want to sniff out who the baddies are (sometimes it's harder than other times), and not every player plays the same way as everyone else. You're both just saying these things in different ways.

[Ned Flanders]

I think this civvie behavior discussion between Tyna & Alizon comes down to semantics.

I'm sure you'd both agree that baddies want to act like civvies, civvies want to sniff out who the baddies are (sometimes it's harder than other times), and not every player plays the same way as everyone else. You're both just saying these things in different ways.

That was the point of my last post, yes. I just can't reconcile how she came up with the first line I pulled and then the second and somehow reached the conclusion that saying both of them in the same game - let alone the same post - made any kind of sense.

[Jack Shephard]

Yes... and I'm not sure why you find that amusing? Civvies don't get lynched by other civvies because those other civvies feel like lynching a civvie, they get lynched because they look like they are baddies. More than the actual number of baddies are going to come across as baddie...

You literally said this:

"Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes."

but then really want to follow it up with:

"So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior! "?

You're agreeing with me but then acting like what we agreed on is laughable.

I'm not agreeing with you.

You said "they get lynched because they look like they are baddies." But what do baddies look like? They try to look like civvies. Baddies don't try to "look like baddies."

I don't have much more time. I'm going to vote for Krystyna.

[Jack Shephard]

ebwop~ I plan to read back through Bridgetgate when I get a chance. I personally don't agree with what BB did (or claimed to do), but whats done is done, and I want to see what can be gathered from it.

[Spooky Ghost]

I'll slither in if you know what I mean

I'm voting for Maret. Judgmental people are assholes (she says, judgmentally).

Krystina's assumption that Slytherin students are bad does not sit right with me at all. It feels like a set up so that if we lynch one she can pretend it was a good thing and not the death of a civ.
On the other hand, Entjen's comment about "if I had BTSC I'd be more consistent" pings me a bit. "If I were bad, I would do X, not Y" is something I see baddies frequently saying to throw people off the track. I am also a little uncomfortable with the rush of votes for Krystina early on. I think I will wait a bit to vote. We still have time.

"Rush"?
She has two votes.

This is suspicious to me. Kryssy seemed to be quite clearly talking about the characters and not the roles but Maret made this comment anyway. It wasn't exactly a one-off comment either. It's been highly discussed today. Why? Feels like Maret is revving her bandwagon engine and hoping everyone jumps on. (This is where Mary says "Bandwagons have engines?" and I say "Haven't they always? ")

I think you need to reread today's events carefully.

[Operator]

"Rush"?
She has two votes.

She got two votes quite early in the day, and Alice Nutter tried to vote for her as well, but mistakenly voted for Maret instead. Smells fishy to me.

[Ned Flanders]

4 now, Sarah voted without bothering to post.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Yes... and I'm not sure why you find that amusing? Civvies don't get lynched by other civvies because those other civvies feel like lynching a civvie, they get lynched because they look like they are baddies. More than the actual number of baddies are going to come across as baddie...

You literally said this:

"Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes."

but then really want to follow it up with:

"So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior! "?

You're agreeing with me but then acting like what we agreed on is laughable.

I'm not agreeing with you.

You said "they get lynched because they look like they are baddies." But what do baddies look like? They try to look like civvies. Baddies don't try to "look like baddies."

I don't have much more time. I'm going to vote for Krystyna.

You are though.

[Ben Linus]

I do not believe that Krystyna is the right vote for today, nor do I wish to vote Entjen, though between the two, I think I'd pick Entjen. My pick right now is Barbara, but I'm going to wait, because I don't believe we should lynch Krystyna.

[Snapshot]

... Joy ... * Plabr * popcorn

Oh yeah, and Mary can be fifth because - and I quote - "SUCK IT, MARY!"

No thanks.

9

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Anyone want to comment on my segment on Jane? Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

It's so gross when you plabr your popcorn, Mary. Why can't you just eat like a normal person? You're embarrassing me!

[Ned Flanders]

Yes... and I'm not sure why you find that amusing? Civvies don't get lynched by other civvies because those other civvies feel like lynching a civvie, they get lynched because they look like they are baddies. More than the actual number of baddies are going to come across as baddie...

You literally said this:

"Do civs miss votes? They do. Do civs lay low? Yep. Do civs do crazy things? Sometimes.
Do baddies miss votes? They do. Do baddies lay low? Yep. Do baddies do crazy things? Sometimes."

but then really want to follow it up with:

"So according to you, there are like a dozen people displaying baddie behavior! "?

You're agreeing with me but then acting like what we agreed on is laughable.

I'm not agreeing with you.

You said "they get lynched because they look like they are baddies." But what do baddies look like? They try to look like civvies. Baddies don't try to "look like baddies."

I don't have much more time. I'm going to vote for Krystyna.

You are though.

Well, by her ever-changing logic, in this post she stopped.

Now her stance now reads to me: we might as well not post at all and just vote randomly, because actions don't matter. If everyone looks the same (even though... I'm pretty sure we established that different people act differently, so how can everyone be trying to look exactly the same?), because that's what they're trying to do, and civvies apparently cannot look like baddies, and baddies can't trip up and get caught by civvies, then lynches are entirely luck.

[Ben Linus]

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

Not going to rub my eyeball all up and down Jenn-e over this but it is a little weird that she says this but doesn't feel the need to add anything of substance herself. Not a huge deal but if it bugged her, why do the same thing that supposedly bugs you?

I just noticed this. Here's my reason, plain and simple, so take it how you will. I'm hunting for baddies, just like most of us. It's not easy to search if nobody's posting, so decided to say something instead of just lurking.

[Snapshot]

Anyone want to comment on my segment on Jane? Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

It's so gross when you plabr your popcorn, Mary. Why can't you just eat like a normal person? You're embarrassing me!

In your country?

10

[Ben Linus]

Anyone want to comment on my segment on Jane? Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

It's so gross when you plabr your popcorn, Mary. Why can't you just eat like a normal person? You're embarrassing me!

I'm not hip on all these abbreviations. What's OT mean?

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Anyone want to comment on my segment on Jane? Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

It's so gross when you plabr your popcorn, Mary. Why can't you just eat like a normal person? You're embarrassing me!

In your country?

10

Yes in my country. I'm glad you recognize that it belongs to me, peasant.

Jennet: Off topic

[Phoebe Buffay]

I'm trying to gather my thoughts about what I've read today, but Rebecca's segment on me in her post is looming large in my head and I can't seem to think clearly on other suspicions until I respond to it.

Rebecca, I don't know why you only paraphrased my participation in the game instead of asking me direct questions or making direct points about things I've done, but now I feel like I have to find your suspicions of me buried within your horribly summarized view of my gameplay so far. Meaning not only do I have to set the record straight for everyone else, but I have to do so while responding to you directly. I fear this will take me a long time and a lot more words than if you had simply asked me stuff about my gameplay. I don't like when people make these paraphrased analyses, especially when you didn't provide links to my posts or any context for them. Not only that but you brought up every single post I made and not just the ones that you wanted to make points about, but you didn't give the full meaning behind most of my posts. You dismiss some of my posts as OT when in fact those posts have content regarding the night polls, which is not OT and is still me participating in the game. I have made one or maybe two OT posts this entire game, but according to your summary of me, you would have people believe I've been mostly OT simply by counting posts and grossly misinterpreting their meaning and context.

I also don't know why, in your every reference to Bridget while discussing me, you come up with some snarky nickname for Bridget, casually implying that Bridget wanted to be lynched when I don't think that was the case at all. Bridget never implied that she wanted to get lynched. People just made that assumption because they thought she was a specific player. And I don't know AT ALL what it has to do with me. But you seem to be trying to use my thoughts on Bridget against me while simultaneously discrediting Bridget for some reason.

While your neatly compressed version of events is in your chosen red color, my responses to your statements shall be in JANIE-POO BLUE.

___________________________________________________________________________
JANIE-POO GETS HER OWN SEGMENT! HUZZAH!

I noticed something about Jane. 20 posts. Let's take a look, shall we?
(Quotes not verbatim to save space and avoid redundancy, feel free to look them up yourself if you want)

1 - OTthis is simply my vote for the poll option, same as anyone else's. Doesn't make it OT.
2 - Asks Agnes a question about what Agnes thinks. "Votes will be random"You will recall that Agnes, being the first person to say something off-topic, mentioned some pings but wouldn't say who, and I asked her what her suspicions were. It was not long before a bunch of others soon took that and ran with it until Agnes got "not lynched". All I wanted to know was who she was suspicious of (it later turned out to be Anne Redferne, and a total dead end of a suspicion, so I did not look into it further).
3 - OTThis was indeed offtopic, but it is hilarious.
4 - "I don't suspect you Agnes, thanks for getting the ball rolling"This is true, I didn't suspect Agnes for having suspicions. Would be weird if I did. "I don't suspect Entjen for suspecting you, you could get lynched" "Votes will be random" You're paraphrasing a more complex thought that I gave. I said it wasn't suspicious of Entjen to think Agnes would be lynched that day. She ended up being right! And she was also right that people have been lynched for less, which was the reason I didn't find her comment suspicious. People were talking about Entjen a lot at the time, and I gave my full and complete take on the situation in that post.
5 - *Randomizes and votes for the goodiest goody that ever did good * Whatta witch! Sorry hun
6 - OT Even if Robot Unicorn Attack was OT which IT NEVER IS, this was in regards to my vote in the night poll. It looks like you just did a "Search" of my post and didn't look at the context of any of them.
7 - "Glad the professors aren't baddies but they're not civvies either" (i.e. defining what it is to be an independent - k?) That's cool that you're being snarky and all, but independents CAN still be civvie-aligned. I wanted to keep in mind that while they weren't baddies, they could still be working against us somehow. So you have no reason to be snarky. And if you're not sure why I'm saying this, it means you didn't read my post or the surrounding discussion. *quotes Bridget "Crazy Bones" Bishop* "Not sure what to make of that"yeah okay you definitely didn't read my posts in any sort of context. I was the first person who brought up that Bridget voted the same way on Day 1 as she did on Day 2. Before my post, people were thinking Bridget's vote was forced. After my post, people started getting much different ideas about Bridget's behavior, most of which I didn't agree with, so I did not vote for Bridget.
8 - "Agnes wasn't a DE" "We shouldn't assume DEs can't survive lynches" (not bad for your first shared opinion)Thanks! It was a pretty good thought that I had. It was not, however, my "first shared opinion", but I guess you just didn't want to give me a pure unadulterated compliment #ihavemommyissues
9 - Asks Bridget "Bad Witch" Bishop about what Bridgo thinksEveryone else was talking ABOUT Bridget. In her final hours, I was trying to talk WITH her. Seriously, most players did not try to do that. They made judgments about her and moved on.
10 - She doesn't like that Barbara and Jennet seem noncommittal - then proceeds to be noncommittal herself about them being noncommittal - Then asks them about what they thinkWow. oh my goodness oh my goodness. Please read the context around my posts next time. I should not have to explain why this is a horrible point that you're making. You are simplifying so that my posts don't have meaning when THEY DO. Barbara and Jennet both seemed to have had revelations about Bridget (revelations, I now somewhat understand, that were simply about the player behind the sockpuppet) and I was trying to get to the bottom of it. They were playing coy with their thoughts at the time. I asked them directly what they were thinking. We started getting some answers.
11 - Asks Krys why she suspects Bridget "Bad to the Bone" Bishop, asks Entjen what she thinks (Entjen was pretty ridiculous in this quote, to be fair, but this is Jane's section), and asks Barbara to explain her suspicion of Bridget "Back dat up" BishopYou're just summarizing my actions, but how are my actions bad? I'm trying to get to the bottom of player's suspicions, I'm trying to find out how everyone feels and why they feel that way. This is my way of chasing suspicions.
12 - Discusses weird Entjen (again, it will be covered in a different section) but barely gives any input of her own - if any, just responding to an overly defensive EntyUmm. Okay. You didn't even read the conversation that I had with Entjen that this post is referring to. I asked Entjen a specific question. Instead of answering, Entjen just saw snark in my post, and this forced the discussion to be about that supposed snark instead of talking about Entjen's suspicion.
13 - Retracts her entire previous post and apologizes for it *lifts rug* *sweeps* (POOF! Dirt = Gone. Now THAT'S magic!)I got Entjen to stop talking about snark and tried to redirect the conversation back to what she was originally trying to say. But then she never answered my question about what Entjen thought she saw in Agnes' post that may or may not have been about Bridget. ENTJEN swept it under the rug, not me! I was still trying to get to the answer to my original question, but Entjen only wanted to scold me for sounding a little snarky, and then disappeared once I said I was sorry, still never answering my original question.
14 - Somewhat OT post saying she doesn't agree with trying to figure out who is behind the sockpuppetThis is not off topic. At all. It directly relates to my suspicion of Krystyna. I think she voted simply because she had found a specific player, in some sort of personal witch hunt. I don't think that's civvie behavior.
15 - Votes for Krys for voting for Bridget based on who she thinks is playing Bridget "Lynch me" Bishop but decides to state that, obviously, her opinion might change based on the lynch resultYup, this was my vote. Do you have any thoughts about my vote?
16 - *lists who missed the vote*Yup. Just another example of me participating, unlike a lot of others.
17 - Apologizes to Bridget "suicidal homicidal genocidal death defying maniac" Bishop for getting votes the way she didYou'll have to agree that it was a pretty shitty thing to do; and it has upset me IRL, the way that some people handled that situation.
18 - OTThis is simply not OT.
19 - OTYou're just wrong again.
20 - Asks Kath what she thinks, asks Krys what she thinks, and asks Jennet what she thinksI asked Kath (and she responded, cuz she's cool like that) what she thought directly about a very specific indicent, with the thought that it could lead to more discussion and hopefully some valid suspicions. But you don't get any of that when you just say I "asked what she thinks". Furthermore, I asked Krystyna some very direct and specific questions about things that had taken place in relation to her. This isn't just me asking for any old opinion, willy-nilly- I'm asking the hard questions! I'm trying to find baddies!

I feel like all she does is post OT, ask others questions, or talk in circles about current topics but never picks a side. She wants nothing to be held against her. I will hold that against her. Like my body - I don't really understand how that joke is supposed to work. I honestly don't see anything she has ever said as adding to the discussion, at least not intentionally. With slight exception going to the post in which she voted for Krys, she has never outright said she suspected anyone or anything. I hope I'm wrong about Jane. I so don't want her to be evil 'cause dat avatar.

Witch, please. I have not been talking in circles; if you want to look at circle talkers, see everyone who was talking about Slytherin for half a day instead of trying to find suspicions. I would have tried harder to cut that discussion off yesterday but I've been mostly busy ever since the weekend, I'm having to move soon with almost no notice given. When you say I just ask questions, that is not like how people usually use that accusation. I'm not asking open-ended questions. I'm asking people directly about things that they can give direct answers to. The exception being that one question I asked Jennet. But I asked that in response to her post where she only said people weren't talking and didn't add any discussion of her own.

I wish I could be participating more. But I'm participating more than a lot of folks are. And your simplified paraphrased version of my actions in this game do me no justice.

And I know you said you didn't quote me verbatim to avoid redundancy and save time, but geez... If you had just quoted my posts and specifically mentioned things instead of just trying to give everyone a huge, big-picture WRONG view of my gameplay, you would have saved me a lot of time.
___________________________________________________________________

The more that I've read today the more I start to see where certain players are coming from. I'm glad that a lot of real discussion has been going on recently as opposed to the largely unfruitful discussion about Slytherin secrets that started the day off. In this way, I respect Krystyna's gameplay today. She is certainly doing 100% the opposite of what she voted Bridget for doing, so at least she isn't hypocritical in that way.

But I do see it as hypocritical of Krystyna to lynch Bridget, solely on the grounds that she's using a playstyle that doesn't help the civvies, when Kkrystyna herself admits there was a chance that Bridget was civvie and that her playstyle wasn't indicative of alignment. How does YOUR behavior, Krystyna, hurt the civvies any less than Bridget's?

[Ned Flanders]

Anyone want to comment on my segment on Jane? Does anyone else see what I'm seeing?

It's so gross when you plabr your popcorn, Mary. Why can't you just eat like a normal person? You're embarrassing me!

I see what you're seeing, but it still doesn't put Jane at the top of my list. I'd rather vote Entjen. I'm going to vote wherever I have the best chance of not getting lynched myself, but I'd like to group up votes that don't want me lynched rather than see them spread out, so if people who can see my case on Entjen and your case on Jane would rather go with Jane, I would be comfortable with that vote. I'd still want to see Entjen considered D4 (or Jane considered D4 if it goes the other way, I think they're both good suspicions, but one is what I came up with and she already has 2 votes instead of the 0 we'd be starting at with Jane).

[Ben Linus]

Jennet: Off topic

No... Your comments on Jane are full of the abbreviation OT.

[Gunther]

I noticed something about Jane. 20 posts. Let's take a look, shall we?
(Quotes not verbatim to save space and avoid redundancy, feel free to look them up yourself if you want)

1 - OT
2 - Asks Agnes a question about what Agnes thinks. "Votes will be random"
3 - OT
4 - "I don't suspect you Agnes, thanks for getting the ball rolling" "I don't suspect Entjen for suspecting you, you could get lynched" "Votes will be random"
5 - *Randomizes and votes for the goodiest goody that ever did good * Whatta witch!
6 - OT
7 - "Glad the professors aren't baddies but they're not civvies either" (i.e. defining what it is to be an independent - k?) *quotes Bridget "Crazy Bones" Bishop* "Not sure what to make of that"
8 - "Agnes wasn't a DE" "We shouldn't assume DEs can't survive lynches" (not bad for your first shared opinion)
9 - Asks Bridget "Bad Witch" Bishop about what Bridgo thinks
10 - She doesn't like that Barbara and Jennet seem noncommittal - then proceeds to be noncommittal herself about them being noncommittal - Then asks them about what they think
11 - Asks Krys why she suspects Bridget "Bad to the Bone" Bishop, asks Entjen what she thinks (Entjen was pretty ridiculous in this quote, to be fair, but this is Jane's section), and asks Barbara to explain her suspicion of Bridget "Back dat up" Bishop
12 - Discusses weird Entjen (again, it will be covered in a different section) but barely gives any input of her own - if any, just responding to an overly defensive Enty
13 - Retracts her entire previous post and apologizes for it *lifts rug* *sweeps* (POOF! Dirt = Gone. Now THAT'S magic!)
14 - Somewhat OT post saying she doesn't agree with trying to figure out who is behind the sockpuppet
15 - Votes for Krys for voting for Bridget based on who she thinks is playing Bridget "Lynch me" Bishop but decides to state that, obviously, her opinion might change based on the lynch result
16 - *lists who missed the vote*
17 - Apologizes to Bridget "suicidal homicidal genocidal death defying maniac" Bishop for getting votes the way she did
18 - OT
19 - OT
20 - Asks Kath what she thinks, asks Krys what she thinks, and asks Jennet what she thinks

I feel like all she does is post OT, ask others questions, or talk in circles about current topics but never picks a side. She wants nothing to be held against her. I will hold that against her. Like my body - I don't really understand how that joke is supposed to work. I honestly don't see anything she has ever said as adding to the discussion, at least not intentionally. With slight exception going to the post in which she voted for Krys, she has never outright said she suspected anyone or anything. I hope I'm wrong about Jane. I so don't want her to be evil 'cause dat avatar. [/color]

While I'll keep my pom poms on the bench if a Slytherin gets lynched, I understand Kryscey's argument. She made a fantastic point at one point while defending herself against Maret's & Jane's endless questioning. Draco's role lists no secrets but we know Lucius searches for him every night. It is fair to assume characters don't outright have to say they have secrets to have secrets. On that topic, we know very little about what the baddies can do. Does anyone know what the curses listed in their roles might mean? Much appreciated.

A) I liked how you used the colors to separate your thoughts. It made a long post very easy to piece together.
B) Re: Jane. It sounds to me - (I'm sorry I accidentally snipped too much) that you feel pretty much the same way about Jane as you do about Entjen. That is - they're all around the place and not committing to a side in things. Am I summing that up correctly? If I am, what is it about Jane that makes you more suspicious of Entjen if they are essentially doing the same thing?
C) I liked how you put that bit about keeping your pompoms on the bench. I'm in no hurry to demonize a person for being in a particular house, but I can see where Krys is coming from.

linkie.

[Ned Flanders]

Haven't finished your post Jane, but you said Bridget didn't actually want to get lynched. That is wrong:

Oh... By puppet did you mean "sockpuppet"? I thought you were speaking all dramatically to refer to the theory that Bridget's vote was being controlled, hence her being a "puppet". I didn't expect you to be breaking the 4th wall this soon in the game.

I was never one of the people pretending to be my witch. It's useless behavior in other sock games, and when it continues on for days it leads to lynch after lynch that has no use. I don't even buy the idea her vote was ever forced (Imperius is used on even nights, and there was no night to for a vote before D1 to explain that).

And it isn't about being bitter Bridget, it's about (if I'm right), my seeing you playing like this as a baddie thinking it would result in people not voting for you because you've done the same thing before to ill effect. Or you're pulling a move from that player hoping for the same result. Either way, it wasn't civvie behavior then, and it still isn't.

Can you show me what "civvie behavior" is? I wasn't aware there was a standard. Until you can educate me on that, I'm going to play every game as I wish.

And I'm surprised that you think I was trying to avoid taking votes. Does it look like that was my intention? Hell's bells, I could have accomplished that by merely not logging in.

See the bolded. It was her intention to take votes. Why intentionally take votes if you don't want to be lynched?

[Larry David]

I do not believe that Krystyna is the right vote for today, nor do I wish to vote Entjen, though between the two, I think I'd pick Entjen. My pick right now is Barbara, but I'm going to wait, because I don't believe we should lynch Krystyna.

I hate to post someone else's thought and say "me too" but if I posted it in my own words it would sound exactly like this so oh well. Krystyna, I would like to know where you will vote. Actually, I can see how you might decide to save your vote and vote defensively so maybe the question is who would you vote if you didnt have to do that. Answer whichever question applies to you.

I'm having some trouble keeping up with this, I think it's just the strange names and my lack of time today. I will try to do a better job of contributing to discussion tomorrow.

Oh also, someone- Rebecca maybe - quoted something i wrote asking Krystyna for an explanation and said that explanation had been given hours before. If so, I missed it. Also, I think its obvious that I'm not trying to back Krystyna into some corner or make her look bad in anyway. It was in my view a legitimate question.

[Ben Linus]

Jennet: Off topic

No... Your comments on Jane are full of the abbreviation OT.

Oh, I'm an idiot. I thought you were telling me I was off-topic.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Krystyna, I didn't get the same meaning from that post of Bridget's as you did. I took that to mean that she wasn't just avoiding votes. If she wanted to avoid votes, she would not have played the way that she does, because she knows she is controversial. "Trying to avoid votes" and "wanting to be lynched" are not the same thing.

[Ben Linus]

Haven't finished your post Jane, but you said Bridget didn't actually want to get lynched. That is wrong:

Oh... By puppet did you mean "sockpuppet"? I thought you were speaking all dramatically to refer to the theory that Bridget's vote was being controlled, hence her being a "puppet". I didn't expect you to be breaking the 4th wall this soon in the game.

I was never one of the people pretending to be my witch. It's useless behavior in other sock games, and when it continues on for days it leads to lynch after lynch that has no use. I don't even buy the idea her vote was ever forced (Imperius is used on even nights, and there was no night to for a vote before D1 to explain that).

And it isn't about being bitter Bridget, it's about (if I'm right), my seeing you playing like this as a baddie thinking it would result in people not voting for you because you've done the same thing before to ill effect. Or you're pulling a move from that player hoping for the same result. Either way, it wasn't civvie behavior then, and it still isn't.

Can you show me what "civvie behavior" is? I wasn't aware there was a standard. Until you can educate me on that, I'm going to play every game as I wish.

And I'm surprised that you think I was trying to avoid taking votes. Does it look like that was my intention? Hell's bells, I could have accomplished that by merely not logging in.

See the bolded. It was her intention to take votes. Why intentionally take votes if you don't want to be lynched?

I'm still a bit confused by that too. I could understand a vanilla role sacrificing herself, but she had a good role.

[Operator]

Jennet: Off topic

No... Your comments on Jane are full of the abbreviation OT.

[Ned Flanders]

Ok, Jane, finished your post, will go back to the things that came after it after I deal with this:

"But I do see it as hypocritical of Krystyna to lynch Bridget, solely on the grounds that she's using a playstyle that doesn't help the civvies, when Kkrystyna herself admits there was a chance that Bridget was civvie and that her playstyle wasn't indicative of alignment. How does YOUR behavior, Krystyna, hurt the civvies any less than Bridget's?"

Bridget was just trying to get herself lynched. supposedly to help find baddies within her votes after she was lynched, and while I think given the result that was the real reason, I think it's a terrible reason, I think intentionally getting lynched as the civ RBer was a terrible idea, so all-in-all, she was not baddie-hunting or helping the civvies with what she did. I am trying to find baddies, I am not trying to get lynched. That's how our behavior is different.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Even if you thought she did want to get lynched, why would wanting to get lynched make her a baddie? You even agree that it's more likely a civvie would say something like that than a baddie.

I will probably never agree with you on this and I need to figure out whether that's just based on our differing mafia principles or if has something to do with your alignment in this game. I'm trying not to read too much into it, but that Bridget lynch just felt so personal, and there was almost no remorse afterwards from the people responsible.

[Phoebe Buffay]

And Bridget could have been useful at night with her role, regardless of how she was playing in the thread. You could have just left her alone.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Jane, I want to reply to your post but it will have to wait. Just know that I hate your response because I already liked you and it just made me like you even more - but it did nothing to dismiss my feelings that you are bad. I have to leave guys but I'll be back in an hour and a half or so to vote. I'll be voting for one of my four top suspects. I would prefer to vote Jane but I may be willing to slide down the list if it's between one of them and someone I don't suspect.

[Ned Flanders]

I do not believe that Krystyna is the right vote for today, nor do I wish to vote Entjen, though between the two, I think I'd pick Entjen. My pick right now is Barbara, but I'm going to wait, because I don't believe we should lynch Krystyna.

I hate to post someone else's thought and say "me too" but if I posted it in my own words it would sound exactly like this so oh well. Krystyna, I would like to know where you will vote. Actually, I can see how you might decide to save your vote and vote defensively so maybe the question is who would you vote if you didnt have to do that. Answer whichever question applies to you.

I'm having some trouble keeping up with this, I think it's just the strange names and my lack of time today. I will try to do a better job of contributing to discussion tomorrow.

Oh also, someone- Rebecca maybe - quoted something i wrote asking Krystyna for an explanation and said that explanation had been given hours before. If so, I missed it. Also, I think its obvious that I'm not trying to back Krystyna into some corner or make her look bad in anyway. It was in my view a legitimate question.

Right, I'm planning on having to vote defensively, preferably after people who don't want to lynch me have come together and picked a single person to vote so it isn't spread out. I would vote Entjen today (would have already if I wasn't in the position I am). While I don't agree with all of Jane's defense of herself, I have far more respect for her responses to that suspicion than I do for Entjen boiling everything I said about her down to being WIFOM, so that really reinforces (for me) wanting to vote Entjen over Jane. Jane's post didn't do enough that if people would rather vote her than Entjen that I would fight against that if it could save me (meaning, I still suspect Jane after her response. But I'd like her to have more time to either alleviate that suspicion, or making it firmer in my mind so a vote for her seems as solid to me then as a vote for Entjen would now).

And no, you aren't the only one having trouble keeping track of names of these accounts which makes keeping some posts in mind difficult, so I'd agree you aren't painting me in any kind of way.

[Ned Flanders]

Krystyna, I didn't get the same meaning from that post of Bridget's as you did. I took that to mean that she wasn't just avoiding votes. If she wanted to avoid votes, she would not have played the way that she does, because she knows she is controversial. "Trying to avoid votes" and "wanting to be lynched" are not the same thing.

See, I consider how I play to be fine with taking votes if it happens, but never intentionally taking them, and continuing to work to not get lynched until the end.

Bridget invited votes through her behavior (everything she did was designed to get votes), so that very much reads like wanting to be lynched to me.

[Phoebe Buffay]

Like I said Krystyna, we will likely never agree about this. But what do you suspect me for, that you think a vote for me is just as solid as a vote for Entjen? You had not mentioned suspicion of me until Rebecca's post, and now suddenly I'm a frontrunner for how you can save yourself from the lynch.

Baddie motives for suddenly trying to push the vote towards me, much?

[Ned Flanders]

Even if you thought she did want to get lynched, why would wanting to get lynched make her a baddie? You even agree that it's more likely a civvie would say something like that than a baddie.

I will probably never agree with you on this and I need to figure out whether that's just based on our differing mafia principles or if has something to do with your alignment in this game. I'm trying not to read too much into it, but that Bridget lynch just felt so personal, and there was almost no remorse afterwards from the people responsible.

Well, to clarify, no, I feel no remorse for lynching Bridget. I think she wanted it, and she certainly got it. I don't like how she played leading up to getting lynched, and I do think it was all intentional. I don't think it's more likely a civ would do it than a baddie, I merely recognized (and still do) the fact that some civs are willing to pull such moves - for reasons I do not understand, obviously - and will always be willing to vote people who act the way Bridget did because I do not think, even as a civvie, they help the civvies by being kept around, and I do think if we don't lynch people who act in that way, it will become a baddie strategy in the future, and lynching them every time, in case it is in fact a baddie strategy, is a more compelling reason to lynch someone than almost anything else we see in an early game lynch.

[Phoebe Buffay]

I agree with you in theory, the metagame will have to evolve, but this is a sockpuppet game so I feel much differently about it I guess.

[Snapshot]

Even if you thought she did want to get lynched, why would wanting to get lynched make her a baddie? You even agree that it's more likely a civvie would say something like that than a baddie.

I will probably never agree with you on this and I need to figure out whether that's just based on our differing mafia principles or if has something to do with your alignment in this game. I'm trying not to read too much into it, but that Bridget lynch just felt so personal, and there was almost no remorse afterwards from the people responsible.

Well, to clarify, no, I feel no remorse for lynching Bridget. I think she wanted it, and she certainly got it.

For without the policy. convainc

11

[Ned Flanders]

Like I said Krystyna, we will likely never agree about this. But what do you suspect me for, that you think a vote for me is just as solid as a vote for Entjen? You had not mentioned suspicion of me until Rebecca's post, and now suddenly I'm a frontrunner for how you can save yourself from the lynch.

Baddie motives for suddenly trying to push the vote towards me, much?

You missed an 'if'. There is not, in my mind, as solid a reason to vote you as there is Entjen (which is why I'd rather vote Entjen today). I would like to keep you around so that you have the chance to change my mind, or get to where Entjen is and be at a point I'd vote for you as soon as I could do it (I would have already voted Entjen if I didn't need to hold my vote).

I suspect you for the reasons that Rebecca closed her thoughts on you with:

"I feel like all she does is post OT, ask others questions, or talk in circles about current topics but never picks a side. She wants nothing to be held against her. I will hold that against her. Like my body - I don't really understand how that joke is supposed to work. I honestly don't see anything she has ever said as adding to the discussion, at least not intentionally. With slight exception going to the post in which she voted for Krys, she has never outright said she suspected anyone or anything. I hope I'm wrong about Jane. I so don't want her to be evil 'cause dat avatar. "

You actually answered what she had to say, which is a plus, but I don't agree with you on everything you countered her with (there was less OT that she claimed, but that never concerns me as much as using asking others questions as a replacement for giving the thread your own opinions, and I do think you stayed away from picking a side as much as you could), and I think that final thought holds up reasonably well even after your response. Not to the same extent that I think what I had to say on Entjen holds up after her response (although I never would have had you on top of my list like Rebecca did, so there, she and I disagree).

[Ned Flanders]

Even if you thought she did want to get lynched, why would wanting to get lynched make her a baddie? You even agree that it's more likely a civvie would say something like that than a baddie.

I will probably never agree with you on this and I need to figure out whether that's just based on our differing mafia principles or if has something to do with your alignment in this game. I'm trying not to read too much into it, but that Bridget lynch just felt so personal, and there was almost no remorse afterwards from the people responsible.

Well, to clarify, no, I feel no remorse for lynching Bridget. I think she wanted it, and she certainly got it.

For without the policy. convainc

11

Was this supposed to be a dick joke? I think this was supposed to be a dick joke.

[Snapshot]

With Christina Aguilera and don't know how bad. The population is six months, and total loss of logic was gold Hotel Christina. The river burn and give them opportunities for young people. This is décharg new.

12