That's how I interpreted it.Mojo wrote:
Does prof x want us to look at sun fire?


Moderator: Community Team
That's how I interpreted it.Mojo wrote:
Does prof x want us to look at sun fire?
What exactly would you like me to answer that Rasputin didn't also ask of me?Hawkeye wrote:You are absolutely right. I was rude and condescending. On purpose too. I just felt like I had to double the dosage to make sure I do get your entire attention. Now that you know what it felt like when you first questioned me (although, it wasn't half as bad), I guess we could give this another go, slightly more civilized. I'm willing if you're willing, honey and I apologize.Spiral wrote: Gee, I wonder why I hadn't responded.![]()
I wrote a response, but honestly, it's not worth it. You are being quite rude in your post. You brought almost the same argument as Rasputin, and I responded to him. I would love to refer you to that post if you please. But please, do not tell me how to enjoy a game. I think some people [read: you] are very comfortable behind their sock puppets and need to realize that they don't need to be rude or condescending to have fun in this game.
So, fine, tell me that everything I say doesn't make sense-- you're right: I don't give a shit that you think that.I still think you're bad, but if you choose to reply to my inquiries I might reconsider it.
Is this about sun fire?Epignosis wrote:A message from Professor X:
If you stare into the Sun, it will burn out your eyes. Except Cyclops. He would probably be fine.
Domino wrote:Also, have the Sentinels been recruited now? It said Dazzler was killed by Sabretooth AND Sentinels.
I was just curious very curious about your reaction to my discussing Storm's role, among others, and if you did indeed consider I endangered her or another civilian, what would the circumstances for that be. I was also wondering about your reply (the one where I was very disappointed in you :P), because my post was pretty big and you just chose those elements that seemed to suit your cause ignoring the rest. Can you elaborate on that a bit?Spiral wrote: What exactly would you like me to answer that Rasputin didn't also ask of me?
Well, I must have missed that but either way it does not change how I feel. I still get the feeling that you're playing up the emotional aspect of your posts as far as being sorry for making mistakes and trying to assure you won't do it again. I don't think that's wrong to associate with baddie behavior either, because of course baddies are going to appear sorry. My point is your emotional responses do not feel sincere, they are overly repetitive and I do think, at times, they aren't even needed (no offense!! this is just how it comes off to me).Phoenix wrote:If you recall, I was called out on "going on my gut" by Rasputin earlier (he aptly asked what I would go on in response), so I did indeed feel a need to respond, apparently a little too strongly for several people. In the first few days, it would seem emotions are a lot of what can use to go upon when you can't know your comrades (logic is not much of an option at that point). Regardless, at least to me, isn't it usually a hallmark of goodness to actually have a bleeding heart? Baddies are rarely well known for their empathy/sympathy. Ah, well.Exodus wrote:I'm getting pretty suspicious of you, Phoenix.Phoenix wrote:Sorry, not silenced (again! just busy
Honestly, I went (wrongly) with my gut and threw my vote in the other direction of where my bleeding heart wasn't where it could actually count (towards T-bird. Yikes, that was a mouthful). At least for me, it wasn't part of any conspiracy that I was aware of. And trust me, I feel terrible about lynching one of my ownRIP again Thunderbird
![]()
I'm not sure if I should retaliate and go the other direction and see if Quicksilver WAS the right way to go, but I think I'll wait til tomorrow when my head is clearer to vote. My gut doesn't do a very good job of finding scum so far...
This is becoming too repetitive to sound genuine. You keep mentioning how your gut was wrong (you do it multiple times in this post) and I remember you doing it in previous posts. I feel you're kind of excusing yourself when it isn't even necessary. To me, it comes across like you have a guilty conscience and know it is a matter time before someone calls you out so you want to defend yourself before people actually do. You also seem to be relying on emotions an awful lot, if it be not wanting to vote someone or reacting to someones death.
None taken! I do see your point. However, I just found it to be a rather tenuous argument and very panicky from many people who may or may not have been trying to split up votes for the Magneto argument (it makes my head hurt!), and I happened to be the scapegoat. What I'm trying to decide is ifExodus wrote:Well, I must have missed that but either way it does not change how I feel. I still get the feeling that you're playing up the emotional aspect of your posts as far as being sorry for making mistakes and trying to assure you won't do it again. I don't think that's wrong to associate with baddie behavior either, because of course baddies are going to appear sorry. My point is your emotional responses do not feel sincere, they are overly repetitive and I do think, at times, they aren't even needed (no offense!! this is just how it comes off to me).Phoenix wrote:If you recall, I was called out on "going on my gut" by Rasputin earlier (he aptly asked what I would go on in response), so I did indeed feel a need to respond, apparently a little too strongly for several people. In the first few days, it would seem emotions are a lot of what can use to go upon when you can't know your comrades (logic is not much of an option at that point). Regardless, at least to me, isn't it usually a hallmark of goodness to actually have a bleeding heart? Baddies are rarely well known for their empathy/sympathy. Ah, well.Exodus wrote:I'm getting pretty suspicious of you, Phoenix.Phoenix wrote:Sorry, not silenced (again! just busy
Honestly, I went (wrongly) with my gut and threw my vote in the other direction of where my bleeding heart wasn't where it could actually count (towards T-bird. Yikes, that was a mouthful). At least for me, it wasn't part of any conspiracy that I was aware of. And trust me, I feel terrible about lynching one of my ownRIP again Thunderbird
![]()
I'm not sure if I should retaliate and go the other direction and see if Quicksilver WAS the right way to go, but I think I'll wait til tomorrow when my head is clearer to vote. My gut doesn't do a very good job of finding scum so far...
This is becoming too repetitive to sound genuine. You keep mentioning how your gut was wrong (you do it multiple times in this post) and I remember you doing it in previous posts. I feel you're kind of excusing yourself when it isn't even necessary. To me, it comes across like you have a guilty conscience and know it is a matter time before someone calls you out so you want to defend yourself before people actually do. You also seem to be relying on emotions an awful lot, if it be not wanting to vote someone or reacting to someones death.
And y'all are gonna lose another one if you vote me. I'm afraid to appeal like this at the risk of being repetitive, but look elsewhere and don't waste your time/votes on meDomino wrote:Idk if Phoenix is good or not, but I def think the sun thing could be a reference to her as well. Phoenix was formed when the X Men were in space and the spirit of the Phoenix (a fire bird) possessed Jean Grey's body. So, if Prof X was trying to reference a clue, it's either vote. Phoenix or Sunfire out. We have to be cautious though for manipulation and try to get it right this time. We've lost too many civ teammates the past 3 days already
I was wondering the same thing (wow, I'm talky today)Domino wrote:Also team, how would the Sentinels be able to kill? I looked over their original description and it mentions only voting powers. Is the Sentinels one of the people who has won a recent poll??? They had to have gained a NK some how or been recruited.
C'mon Professor X. I asked for some time to prove myself.Hawkeye wrote:That's how I interpreted it.Mojo wrote:
Does prof x want us to look at sun fire?![]()
Sentinels have a secret, and since the purpose of Sentinels in X-Men stories is getting rid of mutants I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that they can kill.Domino wrote:Also team, how would the Sentinels be able to kill? I looked over their original description and it mentions only voting powers. Is the Sentinels one of the people who has won a recent poll??? They had to have gained a NK some how or been recruited.
I think this is kinda far-fetched. Sunfire must be the reference, right? And keep in mind it's only 1 player's opinion.Domino wrote:Idk if Phoenix is good or not, but I def think the sun thing could be a reference to her as well. Phoenix was formed when the X Men were in space and the spirit of the Phoenix (a fire bird) possessed Jean Grey's body. So, if Prof X was trying to reference a clue, it's either vote. Phoenix or Sunfire out. We have to be cautious though for manipulation and try to get it right this time. We've lost too many civ teammates the past 3 days already
Just a thought. I still think they both are bad and see voting either out today to be a good option.Havok wrote:agreed. I don't see where the Phoenix idea comes from. I think that if Professor X wanted to call out Phoenix over Sunfire, he wouldn't have used the word sun.
I do not think discussing the secrets of a civvie role is beneficial to the civvies at all. This is not a new opinion. Unless the role has a possible traitor ability.Hawkeye wrote:I was just curious very curious about your reaction to my discussing Storm's role, among others, and if you did indeed consider I endangered her or another civilian, what would the circumstances for that be. I was also wondering about your reply (the one where I was very disappointed in you :P), because my post was pretty big and you just chose those elements that seemed to suit your cause ignoring the rest. Can you elaborate on that a bit?Spiral wrote: What exactly would you like me to answer that Rasputin didn't also ask of me?
I don't know what you want me to say about this? You chastised me for daring to question you. I think your reasons for "suspecting" me for this are shitty. I think you accused me of being bad simply because I dared say, "wtf" to you. I do not see anything wrong with what I said to you, but I see everything wrong with what you did: WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU OPENLY DISCUSS THE SECRETS OF A CIVILIAN ROLE? What benefit did it give anyone???????Hawkeye wrote:I believe it’s called trying to be helpful. See, I would normally agree with you if I concluded that my brief discussion would result in endangering said civilian or any other civilians for that matter, but having weighed the pros and cons of such an undertaking, I considered that openly discussing it, along with the rest of the roles with secrets would provide us a better understanding of the game mechanics. If you manage to provide a setting where the fact that I discussed Storm’s secret endangers any civilian (note that this is a game with heavy voting manipulation, so a lynch switch or whatever would go undetected), I’ll plead guilty and you can go ahead and take me out for attempting to endanger or expose one or more civilians. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that ‘altering the weather’ does indeed mean what I have described in my previous post. Do you think that a team of 7 would not reach the same conclusion, because you know, it’s pretty much common sense? Or maybe you guys haven’t discussed it this yet, in which case I do apologize.Spiral wrote: Why the hell are you discussing the secrets of a civilian role?Do you think that a person who survives a lynch would not be an automatic night target either because they are a powerful civilian or to have the baddies check if they do indeed have Apocalypse in the bag? Of course you’d think the same if you actually took a few seconds to rationalize this, instead of trying to come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner. I would buy it if you were Storm and you’d consider that my discussing your secrets could somehow expose you. However, the very fact that out of my entire post you’ve chosen to single out one role in particular to make you look good, tells me that you have nothing to do with that particular, and perhaps the reason is that I might have struck a chord and I’m exposing you or one of your teammates. I see no discussion about the independents and the baddie with secrets, for which you are very welcome. In case you haven’t bothered to read my posts, I like to rely on logic, common sense and what facts I can pick up from people’s posts in order to make what I consider rational judgments. Plus, I like to get some reactions. Thank you for that. And if it’s all right with you, I’ll have to keep an eye on you.
#1) I brought up Mystique because YOU asked why I hadn't commented on the other role(s) you discussed. The other roles you discussed were not civilian roles, so I saw no reason not to discuss them. I was not trying to insinuate anything by pointing out Mystique, only that the other roles you discussed were not civilian and I felt no need to mention them on that basis. However, you conveniently ignored this and told me I was bad for doing so.Hawkeye wrote:Spiral wrote:Very nice way of saying you suspect me because I dared question you. In addition, the other role you discussed was Mystique-- a baddie role.Hawkeye wrote:I believe it’s called trying to be helpful. See, I would normally agree with you if I concluded that my brief discussion would result in endangering said civilian or any other civilians for that matter, but having weighed the pros and cons of such an undertaking, I considered that openly discussing it, along with the rest of the roles with secrets would provide us a better understanding of the game mechanics. If you manage to provide a setting where the fact that I discussed Storm’s secret endangers any civilian (note that this is a game with heavy voting manipulation, so a lynch switch or whatever would go undetected), I’ll plead guilty and you can go ahead and take me out for attempting to endanger or expose one or more civilians. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that ‘altering the weather’ does indeed mean what I have described in my previous post. Do you think that a team of 7 would not reach the same conclusion, because you know, it’s pretty much common sense? Or maybe you guys haven’t discussed it this yet, in which case I do apologize.Spiral wrote: Why the hell are you discussing the secrets of a civilian role?Do you think that a person who survives a lynch would not be an automatic night target either because they are a powerful civilian or to have the baddies check if they do indeed have Apocalypse in the bag? Of course you’d think the same if you actually took a few seconds to rationalize this, instead of trying to come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner. I would buy it if you were Storm and you’d consider that my discussing your secrets could somehow expose you. However, the very fact that out of my entire post you’ve chosen to single out one role in particular to make you look good, tells me that you have nothing to do with that particular, and perhaps the reason is that I might have struck a chord and I’m exposing you or one of your teammates. I see no discussion about the independents and the baddie with secrets, for which you are very welcome. In case you haven’t bothered to read my posts, I like to rely on logic, common sense and what facts I can pick up from people’s posts in order to make what I consider rational judgments. Plus, I like to get some reactions. Thank you for that. And if it’s all right with you, I’ll have to keep an eye on you.
That being said, I don’t want to end this post in a bellicose manner.You have no idea how disappointed I am in this reply. If this is all you got from my post then I can only conclude that you either are not capable of properly comprehending what I've said (of course, this can also be my fault for not phrasing my thoughts more accurately), you haven't read everything I've written or you have picked whatever suited your cause.
Because I'm in a very good at the moment, I'll give you a tl;dr
- you have asked me a question and I have answered it;
- I have asked you to give me a setting in which my discussing Storm's role would endanger a civilian;
- the way in which you phrased said question was not to my liking because I quote " [you] come across as very offended and self-righteous in what I consider an aggressive manner."
Anyone is free to ask me anything and question my decisions or my reasoning. The reason I decided to keep an eye on you was the way in which you've chosen to do that. I'm still in an excellent mood, so I'll give you an example which would not have made me look at you: 'Interesting post, Hawkeye. I noticed you have decided to discuss a civilian's secrets along with those of the independents and the baddie, and I do not think that is a good idea because [...]. Would you mind telling me why you decided to do that?'
See the difference? See why your tone would make me want to look at you? See why your reply to mine would make me want to take an even closer look at you? You decide to specifically choose just the bit where I suspect you for 'daring' to ask me a question and omit to mention my discussion about ALL of the independents. Of course I would start suspecting you. Wouldn't you?
Glad that you're not offended. I'm always scared to accuse people of not being sincere, it hurts some peoples feelings!Phoenix wrote: None taken! I do see your point. However, I just found it to be a rather tenuous argument and very panicky from many people who may or may not have been trying to split up votes for the Magneto argument (it makes my head hurt!), and I happened to be the scapegoat. What I'm trying to decide is if
a) those who switched their votes in the last minute to me were genuinely trying to save the (as it is clear now good) Quicksilver by putting votes on me with the tenuous feelings argument, or
b) if they were baddies trying to fearmonger by putting suspicion on me while allowing enough votes for QS to be lynched, thereby attempting to kill two birds with one stone.
I'm leaning towards the first argument, and at this point I'm not inclined to vote to lynch those who were genuinely trying to save QS (as much I feel betrayed by my fellows. Sigh). They were (wrongly) guessing I was a baddie, so they clearly don't know who the baddies actually are. I suppose some could also be Indys, now that I think about it. Others have made an interesting argument about looking at people who voted QS early and stayed with him, but I'm not so sure about that either, as I voted for him and genuinely thought he was a baddie. I'll have to think on this more.
I'm slightly concerned at how you came into the game and now suspect the two people who were alternative lynching options to Quicksilver. While I suspect them myself, it feels like you might be going with the flow. I'll have to read your previous posts, I haven't fully caught up.Domino wrote:Just a thought. I still think they both are bad and see voting either out today to be a good option.Havok wrote:agreed. I don't see where the Phoenix idea comes from. I think that if Professor X wanted to call out Phoenix over Sunfire, he wouldn't have used the word sun.
I didn't see the Secret part, I saw the voting power for Sentinels. And I also said, maybe someone who recently won a poll may be Sentinels and won a NK possibly? I'm just throwing out ideas just like Phoneix. Just because I suggest a possibility for scenarios, doesn't mean I'm more guilty than someone else. This is a game of deducing after all, and the last time someone had an idea (Quicksilver) you all got pinged and looked at what happened to him.Havok wrote:I've been pinged by both of Domino's recent back to back posts. The first about phoenix just sounds odd. I think it's pretty obvious that Professor X was talking about Sunfire. Positing that sun actually meant Phoenix comes off as someone trying to get eyes away from Sunfire. Not saying that is what was happening as that would be pretty bold for Domino to be defending a team mate in such as obvious way, but that is how it read to me. And then the 2nd post about where the Sentinel kill came from that didn't even point out the secrets in the role also pinged me. And why would The Sentinels being recruited give them a kill?
On the phone AGAIN, smh. Thank god this isn't a speed game. I do not have enough time.Havok wrote:I've been pinged by both of Domino's recent back to back posts. The first about phoenix just sounds odd. I think it's pretty obvious that Professor X was talking about Sunfire. Positing that sun actually meant Phoenix comes off as someone trying to get eyes away from Sunfire. Not saying that is what was happening as that would be pretty bold for Domino to be defending a team mate in such as obvious way, but that is how it read to me. And then the 2nd post about where the Sentinel kill came from that didn't even point out the secrets in the role also pinged me. And why would The Sentinels being recruited give them a kill?
Domino wrote:Idk if Phoenix is good or not, but I def think the sun thing could be a reference to her as well. Phoenix was formed when the X Men were in space and the spirit of the Phoenix (a fire bird) possessed Jean Grey's body. So, if Prof X was trying to reference a clue, it's either vote. Phoenix or Sunfire out. We have to be cautious though for manipulation and try to get it right this time. We've lost too many civ teammates the past 3 days already
Think I am going to vote for Domino.Domino wrote:Just a thought. I still think they both are bad and see voting either out today to be a good option.Havok wrote:agreed. I don't see where the Phoenix idea comes from. I think that if Professor X wanted to call out Phoenix over Sunfire, he wouldn't have used the word sun.
I can't gather the posts right now but on day 2 (I think it was?) you didn't think QS was bad so you voted one of his voters, and you didn't give an explanation as to why, it was just a thrown out vote and that did not make sense to me. Then you came back to vote QS the next day, which isn't as bad but came off strange to me.Sunfire wrote:RIP Dazzler
C'mon Professor X. I asked for some time to prove myself.Hawkeye wrote:That's how I interpreted it.Mojo wrote:
Does prof x want us to look at sun fire?![]()
@ those who suspect me...what is it about me? I'd like to have a chance to persuade you otherwise. I good I tell ya....good!
Well, with Quicksilver his "idea" came well after any initial suspicion was on him. His theory about the baddies setting him up gave me pause. It didn't make me more suspicious of him.Domino wrote:I didn't see the Secret part, I saw the voting power for Sentinels. And I also said, maybe someone who recently won a poll may be Sentinels and won a NK possibly? I'm just throwing out ideas just like Phoneix. Just because I suggest a possibility for scenarios, doesn't mean I'm more guilty than someone else. This is a game of deducing after all, and the last time someone had an idea (Quicksilver) you all got pinged and looked at what happened to him.Havok wrote:I've been pinged by both of Domino's recent back to back posts. The first about phoenix just sounds odd. I think it's pretty obvious that Professor X was talking about Sunfire. Positing that sun actually meant Phoenix comes off as someone trying to get eyes away from Sunfire. Not saying that is what was happening as that would be pretty bold for Domino to be defending a team mate in such as obvious way, but that is how it read to me. And then the 2nd post about where the Sentinel kill came from that didn't even point out the secrets in the role also pinged me. And why would The Sentinels being recruited give them a kill?
That's a very interesting catch, sir.Exodus wrote: Think I am going to vote for Domino.
I was thinking this the other day when Domino 2 joined us for the first time. He came in full force like he already knew what was going on, like he'd been following the thread the whole time. Maybe he is one of the deaded players.Exodus wrote:I'm slightly concerned at how you came into the game and now suspect the two people who were alternative lynching options to Quicksilver. While I suspect them myself, it feels like you might be going with the flow. I'll have to read your previous posts, I haven't fully caught up.Domino wrote:Just a thought. I still think they both are bad and see voting either out today to be a good option.Havok wrote:agreed. I don't see where the Phoenix idea comes from. I think that if Professor X wanted to call out Phoenix over Sunfire, he wouldn't have used the word sun.
I'm going to place my vote on Domino for now as well.Exodus wrote:Domino wrote:Idk if Phoenix is good or not, but I def think the sun thing could be a reference to her as well. Phoenix was formed when the X Men were in space and the spirit of the Phoenix (a fire bird) possessed Jean Grey's body. So, if Prof X was trying to reference a clue, it's either vote. Phoenix or Sunfire out. We have to be cautious though for manipulation and try to get it right this time. We've lost too many civ teammates the past 3 days alreadyThink I am going to vote for Domino.Domino wrote:Just a thought. I still think they both are bad and see voting either out today to be a good option.Havok wrote:agreed. I don't see where the Phoenix idea comes from. I think that if Professor X wanted to call out Phoenix over Sunfire, he wouldn't have used the word sun.
I didn't think much of this before, but this could be interpreted as him trying to lead the lynch in a certain direction. Perhaps away from a direction that would make us look at other teammates or himself. And unsurprisingly, he voted for Mojo on Day 1 as basically a throwaway vote. Sounds like a safe/conformist option to me.Exodus wrote:I thought I understood what you were doing when you were causing chaos, but I thought that was through once you posted this. Unless I am misinterpreting this post and your actions, you've revealed why you were talking about the Morlocks (for reasons such as analyzing reactions, which I can't disagree with). But why is it that you've only really said that you're going to be looking at conformists but have yet to actually give thoughts on the people who have villain-ized you (unless I missed them, please let me know if I have)? Or who are acting as conformists (I don't even know what that means lol). Now you're back to talking about Morlocks, and you never really accomplished what I thought you were out to do. I just don't understand.Avalanche wrote:I am pouting because I didn't get my way.Spiral wrote:I, personally, don't have much to say. Avalanche certainly has quieted down, though.The Vision wrote:Considering how many players are in this game, things are awfully quiet…
I think it is telling how people are trying to make me out as a villain for having a different opinion about the poll than everyone else. Personally, I will be looking at conformists today.
The most interesting part of this to me is how he is buddying up to Havok (and did so earlier). So either: 1)he's setting Havok up to be a fall-guy later on, or 2)they're teammates. Leaning more towards the second one, but we'll see what else happens as I read along.Exodus wrote:Thanks for explaining. So you keep mentioning these conformists (which now I have a better understanding of what you mean) and it would not be a bad idea to look into it. But why exactly haven't you? Unless you have after this post, I haven't completely caught up. I saw you say you would be voting for someone who chose the school but again, you're not naming these players which kind of comes across like you don't want to make accusations.Avalanche wrote: Hi there! I am happy to address your post.
First, I was not pushing that option to analyze reactions or anything similar. I was pushing it because I wanted to fight Morlocks. I feel like I could not have been more clear on this point.
Second, by conformists I do not mean the people villainizing me, I mean the people trying to blend in, particularly by voting for the "obvious" choice of school. You want thoughts? I'll give you thoughts.
I feel good about Scarlet Witc, despite her suspicion of me, and I feel good about Dazzler. I feel less good about Havok with a k, because I thought the pronoun thing looked scapegoaty. I haven't formed opinions of the others yet. I am watching.
At the same time you're suspecting Havok, though. I don't really agree with this accusation for the time being. The only thing I have noticed is he was very helpful at the beginning (same as Vision, I think it was?) and that could be baddies trying to look helpful and productive but Havok came across genuine to me because it sounded like he is a fan of the flavor/theme.
I take that back. This wasn't a throwaway vote. This was a very opportunistic vote. Especially considering how many other people were suspicious on Day 1 of Avalanche with the whole Morlocks thing. I know it was a quick turn-around, but outside of that, you could use this logic to justify voting for anyone who voted for Avalanche or considered voting for him.Exodus wrote:What? I am really lost at this vote. You just did a very quick turn around. You said you agreed about looking at conformists, yet ultimately, this decision is the exact opposite. I do not follow this decision. My vote may have just found its place.Mojo wrote:I was a bit confused in my earlier post about Avalanche and going to the Morlock tunnels. I have revised my opinion a bit on the matter here.![]()
Just read the day 0 posts again and it seems that it was brought up quite a few times that Morlocks aren't necessarily bad guys, as this was pointed out numerous times to Avalanche he just ignored it, or didn't care. As he also ignored the fact that if he really wanted to fight bad guys he would go to where the brotherhoods base is actually located, not to the tunnels to fight some mutants that haven't harmed us.
So I am voting for Avalanche.
What bothered me here was "You made a number of contradictory and weak statements"White Queen wrote:I am not ignoring facts. You made a number of contradictory and weak statements.
So, will you be going with Deathlok, or with Rasputin? Or perhaps Avalanche?
I am not harping on you, I am stirring the pot, as it were. I am asking questions, and assessing answers. This is how I play Mafia. This kind of sounds like Avalanches post where he asks why, basically, I am picking on him.
On night 2, White Queen says she would answer my query.White Queen wrote:I did follow the thread and I am a bit perplexed by the T-Bird surge at the end. I am not sure I even would have voted for him for that at this stage, with so many people who did not bother to vote, or post, at all. At least he did one of the two.
I thought there were some pretty good points to the case on Quicksilver (someone called him Silverfish at some point, I LOLed) and that push to T-Bird at the end did not look great to me.
There were a few things I know I have to address, and will do so tonight (xoxo Spiral) when I have finished assuring that the mutants of the world are safe from danger
If this was the answer, why could it not be answered one of the five times I asked? It seems to me that White Queen made an accusation against me without base. She had no reason to say that my statements were "contradictory" because I do not see how I contradicted myself. I understand that she said I sounded sincere, but she held her conviction that I was being contradictory.White Queen wrote:You know, Mikhail, you are right, I did not answer Spiral the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th times he asked. I did answer the first, though. I meant to remind him of my answer, thanks for the nudge.
He said that he was suspicious of YOU, Mikhail, for quick like voting to join Avalanche in the Morlock Tunnels. Did not mention a direct suspicion of Avalanche, though, or a reason that Mikhail was vote worthy, but not Avalanche. I thought this was contradictory as he suspected Mikhail for buddying up with Avalanche, but did not seem to suspect Avalanche (although he had brought up his name a few times) enough to include him in the "People I Might Vote For" short list. His subsequent explanation made sense to me, and I subsequently dropped it.
I then was silenced, and had technology issues, so kinda forgot to reply to him again.
I have already explained this, and am not sure what else Spiral wants/wanted me to say.
I actually have not felt so great about Exodus myself, but I have to ask. Of the two options you laid out, why are you leaning towards Exodus being my team mate? Have you read through all of Exodus's posts? I would say it is much more likely that Exodus was trying to buddy up to me obviously because I know my alignment is X-Men. But even just reading Exodus's posts would lead me there if I were looking at this from a 3rd party perspective.Shadowcat wrote:Get your popcorn ready. This is going to take awhile. In light of recent events, which have informed me that Exodus has to be bad, I'm reading back to see if that allows me to pick out anything from his posts that could be telling.
I didn't think much of this before, but this could be interpreted as him trying to lead the lynch in a certain direction. Perhaps away from a direction that would make us look at other teammates or himself. And unsurprisingly, he voted for Mojo on Day 1 as basically a throwaway vote. Sounds like a safe/conformist option to me.Exodus wrote:I thought I understood what you were doing when you were causing chaos, but I thought that was through once you posted this. Unless I am misinterpreting this post and your actions, you've revealed why you were talking about the Morlocks (for reasons such as analyzing reactions, which I can't disagree with). But why is it that you've only really said that you're going to be looking at conformists but have yet to actually give thoughts on the people who have villain-ized you (unless I missed them, please let me know if I have)? Or who are acting as conformists (I don't even know what that means lol). Now you're back to talking about Morlocks, and you never really accomplished what I thought you were out to do. I just don't understand.Avalanche wrote:I am pouting because I didn't get my way.Spiral wrote:I, personally, don't have much to say. Avalanche certainly has quieted down, though.The Vision wrote:Considering how many players are in this game, things are awfully quiet…
I think it is telling how people are trying to make me out as a villain for having a different opinion about the poll than everyone else. Personally, I will be looking at conformists today.
The most interesting part of this to me is how he is buddying up to Havok (and did so earlier). So either: 1)he's setting Havok up to be a fall-guy later on, or 2)they're teammates. Leaning more towards the second one, but we'll see what else happens as I read along.Exodus wrote:Thanks for explaining. So you keep mentioning these conformists (which now I have a better understanding of what you mean) and it would not be a bad idea to look into it. But why exactly haven't you? Unless you have after this post, I haven't completely caught up. I saw you say you would be voting for someone who chose the school but again, you're not naming these players which kind of comes across like you don't want to make accusations.Avalanche wrote: Hi there! I am happy to address your post.
First, I was not pushing that option to analyze reactions or anything similar. I was pushing it because I wanted to fight Morlocks. I feel like I could not have been more clear on this point.
Second, by conformists I do not mean the people villainizing me, I mean the people trying to blend in, particularly by voting for the "obvious" choice of school. You want thoughts? I'll give you thoughts.
I feel good about Scarlet Witc, despite her suspicion of me, and I feel good about Dazzler. I feel less good about Havok with a k, because I thought the pronoun thing looked scapegoaty. I haven't formed opinions of the others yet. I am watching.
At the same time you're suspecting Havok, though. I don't really agree with this accusation for the time being. The only thing I have noticed is he was very helpful at the beginning (same as Vision, I think it was?) and that could be baddies trying to look helpful and productive but Havok came across genuine to me because it sounded like he is a fan of the flavor/theme.
I take that back. This wasn't a throwaway vote. This was a very opportunistic vote. Especially considering how many other people were suspicious on Day 1 of Avalanche with the whole Morlocks thing. I know it was a quick turn-around, but outside of that, you could use this logic to justify voting for anyone who voted for Avalanche or considered voting for him.Exodus wrote:What? I am really lost at this vote. You just did a very quick turn around. You said you agreed about looking at conformists, yet ultimately, this decision is the exact opposite. I do not follow this decision. My vote may have just found its place.Mojo wrote:I was a bit confused in my earlier post about Avalanche and going to the Morlock tunnels. I have revised my opinion a bit on the matter here.![]()
Just read the day 0 posts again and it seems that it was brought up quite a few times that Morlocks aren't necessarily bad guys, as this was pointed out numerous times to Avalanche he just ignored it, or didn't care. As he also ignored the fact that if he really wanted to fight bad guys he would go to where the brotherhoods base is actually located, not to the tunnels to fight some mutants that haven't harmed us.
So I am voting for Avalanche.
Edit: Apparently, Mojo had said he re-read and that was what made him change his mind. Maybe Exodus ignored that in favor of an opportunity to potentially toss someone under the bus?
That's it for Day 1. Day 2 is next, but I need to take a quick break. And then I'll be back to posting.
and then from day 3:Exodus wrote:I must be missing it too because he has definitely caught my eye and I am puzzled as to how people have such opposing opinions.Havok wrote:Why is it that people feel good about Mojo? I don't see it. I could understand if you said you felt neutral about him...I don't feel neutral, but I could see how others might arrive at that point..but I certainly don't know why someone would feel "good" about him.
Am I missing something?
Exodus wrote:I find it interesting that you decided to vote right after I brought up the idea that this was too convenient, and didn't even comment on it.Havok wrote:vote Quicksilver
Exodus wrote:I am suspicious of Phoenix and Sunfire the most. I also thought Havoks vote was weird because he ignored my idea that all the votes in the same place was too convenient.The Vision wrote:We have almost no time left. You guys have been more on the pulse than me dince I thought I was silenced. Who would make a credible alternate choice?
Exodus wrote:I agree. While last minute things are nerve-wracking, they lead good topics. I'll be up for discussing quite a few things tomorrow, such as Havo(ck?), Cable and VisionDazzler wrote:Well, if nothing else, I think today has been very interesting and we've got a lot of options to discuss moving forward.
And then after this, Exodus completely drops me as a point of suspicion. It reads to me like Exodus gave up because his attempt to bring suspicion on me failed. So then he goes back to agreeing with me.Exodus wrote:What are you referring to? My post about you? I thought it was weird how when I brought up the idea that it was too convenient for almost all the voters to be voting for the same candidate, you came in and joined them without even taking my post into consideration.Havok wrote:lol I leave for a few hours and come back to see mayhem happened.
Exodus: I'm not sure what you are trying to get at?
I read it exactly the same way.The Vision wrote:I'm intrigued by Shadowcats current, ongoing output towards Exodus, but I'm troubled about its origin. Shadowcat seems to be saying she got info about Exodus and is now trying to make a case to make her accusations "legit". If that's what going on, its not very cool... maybe I'm misreading?
That wasn't the intent. From some additional info I had, it made me start to think there was a good chance Exodus was bad. But I wanted to go back and re-read him because I felt that, in context, what he was saying would either confirm or eliminate my suspicions of him. In this case, however, it most certainly confirmed it for me.The Vision wrote:I'm intrigued by Shadowcats current, ongoing output towards Exodus, but I'm troubled about its origin. Shadowcat seems to be saying she got info about Exodus and is now trying to make a case to make her accusations "legit". If that's what going on, its not very cool... maybe I'm misreading?
agreed. that's how i read it also.The Vision wrote:I'm intrigued by Shadowcats current, ongoing output towards Exodus, but I'm troubled about its origin. Shadowcat seems to be saying she got info about Exodus and is now trying to make a case to make her accusations "legit". If that's what going on, its not very cool... maybe I'm misreading?
If people feel that way, I can understand. Which is why I would prefer others to read back through what I've come up with, and state their feelings on it, rather than just jump on the "let's lynch Exodus!" train. We've had too many careless lynches so far, and I want this one to be more well-thought out. I've provided a start and my mind is set, but I'm hoping others can come to a similar conclusion as me.Havok wrote:agreed. that's how i read it also.The Vision wrote:I'm intrigued by Shadowcats current, ongoing output towards Exodus, but I'm troubled about its origin. Shadowcat seems to be saying she got info about Exodus and is now trying to make a case to make her accusations "legit". If that's what going on, its not very cool... maybe I'm misreading?