X-Men [ENDGAME]

[Gunther]

ah, I see now that the info shadowcat was talking about was the day 0 poll stuff.

linki lol

[Celeste]

For all practical intents and purposes to everyone else, I would view the "info" stuff about as highly as you view the rest of my case. Because you obviously have no reason to trust me other than my word on the situation. So from here on out, I would just look at it as more evidence that I'm either on the right track or that my case is a load of poo.

[Rachel Green]

ah, I see now that the info shadowcat was talking about was the day 0 poll stuff.

linki lol

yes, which makes me wonder how exodus feels not only in responding to what Shadowcat has said but also does he have the same feeling about Shadowcat since they both picked the same book and the other two are dead.

linki shadowcat

[Celeste]

I have to wait for Exodus' response obviously, but I can see how that last part could be turned on me as well. All I can say for now is that I believe Exodus is bad, and I will continue to vote for him until one of us dies.

I'm also potentially setting myself up as a good NK target from his team with this, but I feel it's well worth the risk if it means we get someone from The Brotherhood lynched.

[Jack Shephard]

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?

You're not misreading, that's what she said.

Still someone with info is better than we've had so far.

[Jack Shephard]

I have to wait for Exodus' response obviously, but I can see how that last part could be turned on me as well. All I can say for now is that I believe Exodus is bad, and I will continue to vote for him until one of us dies.

I'm also potentially setting myself up as a good NK target from his team with this, but I feel it's well worth the risk if it means we get someone from The Brotherhood lynched.

So it seems you had reason to believe that Exodus is bad before you made your case. Why so? I'm looking through the roles and I'm not finding one that fits that claim. I also don't recall you winning a night poll, so was there some 'heavy manipulation' somewhere?

[Snapshot]

Ahh, the Day 0 poll. I remember quicksilver had asked people about an option, and someone had replied that it may become useful later on... so this is likely part of that?

Shadowcat, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it reminds me a lot of what the Gryffindors tried to do in the HP game; just walk in and hammer the game with obvious "I've got info" stuff. So I'm going to read your case and judge based on that, not on the info insinuation.

[Snapshot]

For all practical intents and purposes to everyone else, I would view the "info" stuff about as highly as you view the rest of my case. Because you obviously have no reason to trust me other than my word on the situation. So from here on out, I would just look at it as more evidence that I'm either on the right track or that my case is a load of poo.

And lol at an Xmen character using the phrase "load of poo"...

[Jack Shephard]

Ahh, the Day 0 poll. I remember quicksilver had asked people about an option, and someone had replied that it may become useful later on... so this is likely part of that?

Shadowcat, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it reminds me a lot of what the Gryffindors tried to do in the HP game; just walk in and hammer the game with obvious "I've got info" stuff. So I'm going to read your case and judge based on that, not on the info insinuation.

Ah yes, that game. The Gryffindors had everything right, but no one believed them.

And the moral of that story is... well I haven't come up with one yet.

[Celeste]

Ahh, the Day 0 poll. I remember quicksilver had asked people about an option, and someone had replied that it may become useful later on... so this is likely part of that?

Shadowcat, I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it reminds me a lot of what the Gryffindors tried to do in the HP game; just walk in and hammer the game with obvious "I've got info" stuff. So I'm going to read your case and judge based on that, not on the info insinuation.

Which is fine. It's what I'd prefer you do anyway.

@Polaris: Yes, I had a suspicion that he might have been bad. It came from the night poll where we all had to select a book to read in the library (my memory keeps telling me that was Night 1, not Day 0, but oh well). It wasn't until after Dazzler was NKed that I started to think it was more likely, and went back to read up on him again.

I'll be back in a couple of hours. Hopefully we can get some discussion going on this.

[Snapshot]

It was night 1, I just checked.

[Nicol Bolas]

rip dazzler and holy hell shadowcat just dropped a bombshell!!! gotta c what exodus has 2 say about this........

[Snapshot]

yes, which makes me wonder how exodus feels not only in responding to what Shadowcat has said but also does he have the same feeling about Shadowcat since they both picked the same book and the other two are dead.

An excellent point.

[Snapshot]

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.

I decided to do my own readback thru Exodus, because anyone can put whatever slant they want on things if they're a good enough mafia player. More than anything, this post pings me. At no point prior to this post did he ever mention Sunfire. Not once. But in the heat of the last minute chaos, he not only was willing to suddenly switch his vote to Sunfire, but calls him suspicious.

This feels weird to me, and off.

@Exodus, I'm curious about one thing. I don't want you to say your real username or anything, but did you once play mafia at mafiascum? It's important to how I'm reading a certain something about your posts...

[Chuck]

Wow, Shadowcat. You have spent a lot of time and have been very helpful today. I know this will sound wishy-washy, but I am changing my vote to Exodus. There is just too much evidence not to.

[NurseWilgy]

Shadowcat, I appreciate the insight and post look ups on Exodus. Really helpful info for us to get a lynch right this time

[Golf]

I'll wait until exodus responds before I make up my mind in the case.

I will say though- I did have the thought during the night one poll that the brotherhood would make sure to get a vote on each option in order to maximize their knowledge,

[Young Lady]

Holy wowza! I'm just going to reply to Spiral for now, but will be back later or tomorrow to try to figure out what's going on. Good to have you back, SC. I haven't gone through everything you've posted, but I must say it looks very interesting. Will get to that as soon as I can, and the other stuff that's been discussed and hopefully we'll get a point of view from Exodus as well.

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.
Even so, it is not novel to think discussing civvie secrets is not intelligent. I don't think it is. Why give the baddies more power? Why give them that knowledge/idea? It's not like your discussion of it helped the civilian cause in any way-- it only gave baddies access to those ideas. I'll repeat again THIS IS NOT A NEW THING. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP FOR THIS GAME. FLYIN' HIGH HAS BEEN LYNCHED (wrongly) for this.
I do not appreciate the way you turned my shock that someone would discuss the secrets of a civvie role into a reason to suspect me.

First, thanks for finally taking the time to reply. I can see why you'd think discussing a civilian's role is not a good idea, but as I have previously stated, I do not consider that my discussing that endangered any civilians. The role says 'can alter the weather' which is pretty much self explanatory. I would assume that a team of 7 have discussed this already, and there are civilians who might not pay too much attention to the roles and just skip through the posts and might find that helpful. The main purpose of that post was to discuss the independents, because at the time, QS would have preferred to choose the potential independent over the potential baddie, and while I was at it, I decided to look at all the roles with secrets. Of course I thought about it, especially after the Havok incident where one of the most important civilians could have been exposed, but I considered that discussing it would not endanger any civilian and might help us see the bigger picture and to better understand the game mechanics. What we have here, is us disagreeing on a certain matter: you consider that discussing the civilians' secrets is bad in general. I think it depends. Now the fact that you don't have the same opinion as I do, does not necessarily make you bad. It was your tone which to me seemed aggressive, self-righteous, not sincere, and an attempt to set me up. That might not have been the case, but that is how I perceived it, and thus, have retaliated the way I did, which might not have been the best approach.

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???????

If you're looking for me to have a change of heart on this-- it's not happening. You condemned me for questioning you, and then you were extremely condescending (so I don't want to hear bullshit about me causing you to act in any way). "I like to rely on logic"
Cool!

I did not suspect you because you dared to question me. Everyone is free to question whomever they want, I am no exception. I suspected you firstly for the reasons stated above, and then for your reply which ignored my arguments and focused strictly on the fact that I dared to suspect you. I hope I'm making sense. I do not expect you to have a change of heart. As a matter of fact that would be suspicious as hell and I'd vote for you on the spot.

#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.

It's because you singled out Storm, because, now I know, you think that discussing civilian roles is bad for them. But you didn't mention that discussing Mistique doesn't do the baddies any good, or that discussing Apocalypse and his potential horsemen recruits from all the groups might stir some shit in the baddie chat if one of them is recruited and thus a traitor, and indirectly, possibly beneficial to the civilians. Ignoring more than half of my posts' content, the aggressive way in which you first questioned me, reads as a baddie who can afford to act this way because they know they have a strong team behind them.

What would you even like me to respond to, Hawkeye, because it seems to me that you just want me to say that I'm bad. I am not. You don't have points against me, you have complaints. You don't have a case against me that I can respond to because everything you're saying is just "I do not like your tone" or "Why did you ask me this" with an aire of "I am smarter than you". So, Hawkeye, please, tell me, why am I bad? Am I bad because I thought you discussing secret civvie roles was obtuse? Am I bad because I thought Quicksilver was bad? Am I bad because I didn't like how I thought the original Rasputin was trying to seem like a civvie not paying attention? Or am I bad because it is convenient for you to say so?

I just want to hear from you so I can form a proper opinion. I too thought QS was bad and pushed for his lynch, probably more than you did, and I was very wrong. I don't want that to happen again. I don't want you lynched for the sake of having you lynched regardless of your alignment. I wanted you as an alternative to QS, in case Magneto interfered there, because with all the info I had from you at the time, and not taking into consideration the fact that you could have been silenced, I considered that you were bad. The only way to set this straight is if we discuss things. Yes, I was douchey, hopefully not anymore.

[Grand Scheme]

ewww I smelled info dump from across the interwebz.

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?
TBF two said they would wait to hear a response before voting, I hope they do as we still have time.

And after the way the last lynch went down we could definitely use more discussion early not the last half hour before lynch end. That way we can avoid some of the confusion that would ensue.

[Prisoner 509378]

Exodus you're alignment seems to be clear for your Baddie team. Everyone read Professor X's hint and you automatically try to throw the wool on people's eyes to get suspicion off her and onto me. Then, you vote for me followed by your teammate Sunfire. THAT is what I find interesting. If you were Civ I feel like you wouldn't be scrambling, especially this early when votes aren't due and already try to get someone else in the light that is Civ. After all, you campaigned well against QS to make sure attention stayed on him, why not try it on me as well now to save a Teammate of yours?

I never tried to take suspicion off of Sunfire. I found your posts to be clearly contradicting and that is a major way in which I scum hunt. Where does Professor X's role says he has power to find a baddie? No where. If Professor X had an actual power to find a baddie then I could see how your case could hold some kind of value, but he doesn't. At least not from my understanding, I even mentioned needing to check to see if he had a power to alignment check or if it was just an announcement aspect where a player goes based off their interpretations, which I've seen before. I was never scrambling, and I was never dead set on lynching you either but put my vote where I felt it belonged for the time being. You can change your votes and that is what I intended to do, if I felt it to be necessary. And I did not even campaign against QS making sure attention stayed on him, I was one of those who said it felt weird that all the votes were on him and there was no division, and I said it first. So clearly, you're either not reading the thread properly or you've decided to do whatever you can to make me look bad, and I'm guessing it's the latter.

But to answer your question about Phoenix so you don't continue to throw attention back on me for not answering you and avoid you and Sunfire's attention: I felt like I was unsure when I first posted about Phoenix. Phoenix posted back after that and sounded very emotional and used the same line QS did about how "we will loose another Civ if she goes" and I didn't find that genuine. I was on the fence about her, but looking back at when she does actually post, she doesn't give much to me to now say I get Civ Vibes from her, especially the last post I just mentioned. I think the 3 I am looking at that I have a very good feeling are bad now are Sunfire, Phoenix, and Exodus. If you don't agree with me, oh well. But I'm most likely listening to the clue and voting Sunfire out first.

But you're rewriting what happened. My suspicion was not the opinion change, it was the fact that you tried to give off the impression that you were suspicious of her from the beginning by saying "I still think they are both bad". There is nothing that suggest new evidence from Phoenix's posts made you think she was bad, you wrote it as if it was there the entire time when it clearly wasn't.
And you're accusing me of trying to scramble and get votes off of Sunfire when you are the one who said it could be a reference to Phoenix. So that makes no sense.

[Prisoner 509378]

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.

And before I forget, votes Exodus.

Well the feeling is mutual as far as me being concerned about you, and I'm sure you know that. However, I'm a bit reluctant to take this as proof of you being bad because what you're assuming happened would mean the baddies made an idiotic and suicidal mistake. Why would the baddies do that? They surely wouldn't gain anything, so I am doubting that things are as easy as it seems. And as far as your case, which you're claiming to have confirmed your suspicions, I think it's quite obvious that you went into it looking for ways to make me scum. You've pointed out scummy sides to everything I've done, and even if I was scum, it wouldn't be that apparent, so you're trying too hard rather it be clouded judgement or trying to get me out before I get you out.

[Prisoner 509378]

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.

This is from Night 2:

and then from day 3:

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.

So, again, why do you lean towards Exodus and I being team mates?

Um, there was no buddy-ing up to you. How is agreeing with the comment about not understanding why people trusted Mojo buddying up to you when I expressed my own concerned of Mojo before that? It's called having an opinion. And obviously, if I am going to go to an extent of suspecting you, then it's not buddying up. Seriously, what sense does that make? As far as me "dropping" suspicion of you, what am I going to say when my suspicion was based on you voting for QS after ignoring my post? You dented seeing the post, I am not going to just argue back and force as to whether or not you saw my post. That is quite pointless, and so I filed it away and continued playing the game. I don't recall ever stopping the suspicion and going, oh I think he's town now.

[Prisoner 509378]

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.

I decided to do my own readback thru Exodus, because anyone can put whatever slant they want on things if they're a good enough mafia player. More than anything, this post pings me. At no point prior to this post did he ever mention Sunfire. Not once. But in the heat of the last minute chaos, he not only was willing to suddenly switch his vote to Sunfire, but calls him suspicious.

This feels weird to me, and off.

@Exodus, I'm curious about one thing. I don't want you to say your real username or anything, but did you once play mafia at mafiascum? It's important to how I'm reading a certain something about your posts...

In the previous post by me, before the one you quoted, I commented on Dazzler noticing how he voted for Hawkeye and I said that I think it was a throwaway vote. I called it suspicious because to me it was and is suspicious.
But no I have never played on mafiascum.

[Paul Stevens]

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.

Glad that you're not offended. I'm always scared to accuse people of not being sincere, it hurts some peoples feelings!
As for the suspicion, perhaps some people were just tagging along to make you look suspicious but I personally was not, I found you suspicious before the whole voting even happened. I'll be interested to the conclusions you make, because if I am being honest I'm concerned that you don't really have any strong thoughts coming out of this. But I am willing to wait and see because I know some players take time and I don't want to jump too fast where I stop a civvie from actually reaching their potential if that makes sense. I just feel like I have at least some leads to look at in terms of certain players. What do you think about Sunfire? The switch from him to you?

I'm inclined to think that it might be a ploy to take attention that was starting to build up around Sunfire, especially these arguments regarding semantics of Professor X's clue/warning. While the message is rather cryptic, I find it very hard to believe that it would be so cryptic that it would be a stretch to my name. If we're talking that far of semantics that Domino referred to first, Polaris is a bright star, which is a sun. I am not in ANY WAY accusing Polaris (I don't have evidence to do so, so PLEASE don't misquote me); I'm merely pointing out that a semantic argument like that looks like a way to distract people from the message.

I do like to put thought in my decisions, especially this far into the game with more evidence, but I don't think I'll say my vote just yet until I gather what I need. @Exodus (and anyone else I suppose), besides this whole "emotional" argument, I'd like to know what makes me appear suspicious so suddenly.

[Prisoner 509378]

Alright. To save you all a great deal of time. I'm doing the rest of this with links provided to each post. I figure that will save a good chunk of space from all the extra, unnecessary quotes.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62972

Here, he claims that Mojo initially agreed with Avalance about looking into defenders and defended Avalanche, but left himself with enough room to change his mind if need be. I took it simply as Mojo re-reading and gaining a fresh perspective on the situation, or discovering something he hadn't noticed before that convinced him to change his mind. I think Exodus is trying to either fabricate a case or move attention towards Mojo.

Or I was just being genuine in my thoughts, which is the case. There's nothing I can say except repeat what is in my post, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. Is it wrong for me to think that a turn around could be him taking advantage of someone who was in the spotlight, especially when I felt he was ignoring the fact that he actually agreed with a post he made? You're just reaching to make me fit this baddie profile. There is nothing wrong with this.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62974

I won't go too much into this, because I think Avalanche is good now and I've explained my feelings already, but at the time, I thought he wanted that option to win because he would gain some special ability or get a helpful item from it. But you go so far as to say I was trying to add fuel to the flames. I wasn't trying to start a riot, for crying out loud. Or be chaotic/antagonizing, to use your words.

Are you saying I accused you of being chaotic or antagonizing? Because I did not. I was referring to how I felt Avalanche was acting to explain why I disagreed with your opinion.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62978

Not really. I don't think anyone goes into a game wanting to get lynched on Day 1.

I was trying to point out the flaw I saw in Mojo's argument.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62980

"Uh oh. My case against Mojo isn't working out. I'll just say I misunderstood him and move on, and hopefully that drops it since this is still early in the game."

Actually, this isn't even dropping my case. You can see later on that I still do not feel good about him (which I think you did see, I haven't gotten to that yet). I was not going to argue over a statement that didn't make sense, my purpose of commenting on the statement was to express the flaws within it and show him how his logic wasn't correct (IMO). That is all. I continued to explain my statement, I did not back down on it, I was just saying, whatever, if you didn't mean it the way I took it, okay and moved on because what am I going to gain between going back and forth? People always accuse me of making big deals out of little things and I hate it so I try not to argue about things that could be meaningless and continue to observe their behavior for anything else that strikes me as scummy.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62983

This (and your following post 2 posts down) was the nail in the coffin for me. I think you were planning on using Mojo to take the fall if Avalanche had gotten lynched. And seeing that fail, you considered trying to direct more attention towards Mojo by fabricating/misinterpreting his thoughts. When that failed as well, you backed off rather wisely. Sounds like pretty scummy behavior to me.

All I can say is I did not see that his post was directed towards Avalanche's post and I took his clarification into mind. I didn't go to say, oh he's townie! I still stuck my my opinion that if he was using the logic I felt he was, it was flawed.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 360#p63038

This makes me wonder if his team was the one who silenced White Queen. It reads to me like a baddie who is trying to casually make a reference to something his team did, but wants to seem like a civvie who is making helpful/observational statements.

I actually got White Queen confused with another player which is why I thought it was suspicious when I saw her lurking and so when people brought to my attention that silencing did not work the way I imagined it did and so I commented on it. You can say this about anyone who has commented on the silencing, really. I fail to see how my comment is suspicious. It's kind of annoying when you're pulling apart every little thing I say just to prove your point when in the first place, you probably didn't even think it was scummy. I don't know if you're taking advantage of it or what but you're clearly forcing this stuff. Since I don't know you, I don't know how you'd work in this situation.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 400#p63050

"Oh look! Another victim...I mean person I could cast blame/doubt towards and try to get lynched!"

OR!!!! I could just be DISCUSSING opinions.
Seriously, how am I going to defend myself when even when I put forward ideas, they are criticized. I would continue defending myself but this is a waste of time and only irritating me. If anyone has any questions they can feel free to ask but I'm done responding to this post. If there's something you actually feel is scummy of me and not just could be scummy, I'll explain it but obviously you're forcing your points and anyone can see that.

[Prisoner 509378]

And, I did switch my vote to you, Shadowcat because I feel like you're just making stuff up trying to make me look bad and when I am not you get to go, oh no, something was wrong and live longer had I possibly brought you down like you most likely assumed I would.

[Operator]

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?

I've been a baddie where this has happened before, and it is THE MOST INFURIATING THING IN THE WORLD. I cannot think of another thing that makes me madder, except wet socks. Last time it happened to me, I promised my self that even as a civ I would not make votes or discuss suspicions that are clearly based on info (dumping). So I won't be taking part in the Exodus discussion today, regardless of how compelling it is or isn't. I do appreciate the considerable time you clearly put into building your case, though, 'Cat.

I'll wait until exodus responds before I make up my mind in the case.

I will say though- I did have the thought during the night one poll that the brotherhood would make sure to get a vote on each option in order to maximize their knowledge,

Duh! How did we never think of this before? Thanks, Mojo.

Off to find who was pushing QS's theory yesterday, like I promised.

[Celeste]

ewww I smelled info dump from across the interwebz.

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?
TBF two said they would wait to hear a response before voting, I hope they do as we still have time.

And after the way the last lynch went down we could definitely use more discussion early not the last half hour before lynch end. That way we can avoid some of the confusion that would ensue.

I'm curious about this as well. I think it's a good case, but I feel like several of them (especially Sunfire who went ahead and voted without providing much of his/her own thoughts to it) were just going along with the grain because they saw "OOOOOOOOOOOO GIANT POST OF INFORMATION ".

The people who actually take the time to read through the whole thing on their own merit and come to their own conclusions are the people I'll ultimately feel best about.

[NurseWilgy]

"Oh look! Another victim...I mean person I could cast blame/doubt towards and try to get lynched!"

OR!!!! I could just be DISCUSSING opinions.
Seriously, how am I going to defend myself when even when I put forward ideas, they are criticized. I would continue defending myself but this is a waste of time and only irritating me. If anyone has any questions they can feel free to ask but I'm done responding to this post. If there's something you actually feel is scummy of me and not just could be scummy, I'll explain it but obviously you're forcing your points and anyone can see that.[/quote]

Kind of like how QS threw out ideas and they were criticized the same way? Karma Baddie McBaddersons.

And yes, you were agreeing QS be lynched the first time during the T Bird incident then brought up near the end how maybe you were wrong and QS shouldn't be voted out. I personally think it was to gain credibility the next day when he would most likely be voted out, and did. The problem I also have with you is you have been playing this while game so sneaky, and to me you're a Rat. You put forth a lot of effort to blend in and let your other minions stay low so they don't end up on the the lynch block. You put forth a lot of talk to gain Civ sides and keep your minions under the radar, until you got exposed by SC investigating. Hopefully you get voted out so we have one Baddie out under our belts and go for your other 6 henchmen next. You guys have done well to get all the attention off yourselves when convienent and onto others. You even tried to on me today, a day earlier than the vote. But why would I have anything to gain? I'd be a bad player exposing 3 of my teammates and myself but throwing your names out there and that would be half of the bad team. You're team is going to scramble to get any Civ they can to get votes not on you, and onto me and other players.
If Shadowcat were bad in my opinion, why would she have done all that research? Couldn't she have easily gone for a simple target such as Havok (who's name gets brought up every lynch) or the clue (Sunfire) as a target for today to make it "an easy kill" for the Baddies? I think her behavior is to be helpful and shed light so we actually get a lynch right for once. Sunfire jumped on the train fast to vote for me to make sure Exodus or himself/herself were alive to see another mutant day. Teammates IMO.
Linki Cable

[NurseWilgy]

EBWOP *by throwing

[Celeste]

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?

I've been a baddie where this has happened before, and it is THE MOST INFURIATING THING IN THE WORLD. I cannot think of another thing that makes me madder, except wet socks. Last time it happened to me, I promised my self that even as a civ I would not make votes or discuss suspicions that are clearly based on info (dumping). So I won't be taking part in the Exodus discussion today, regardless of how compelling it is or isn't. I do appreciate the considerable time you clearly put into building your case, though, 'Cat.

Up to you. And I understand that. Which is why I wanted to go back and find other in-thread/in-game evidence to support my feelings, rather than resort to info dumping. I've had it happen to me when I was a baddie as well, and it's infuriating because there is nothing you can do to defend yourself from it. So if you do go examine my case, I would hope it's through reading up on what I re-read, and not just because of a single piece of hidden info I claim to have.

[Celeste]

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.

And before I forget, votes Exodus.

Well the feeling is mutual as far as me being concerned about you, and I'm sure you know that. However, I'm a bit reluctant to take this as proof of you being bad because what you're assuming happened would mean the baddies made an idiotic and suicidal mistake. Why would the baddies do that? They surely wouldn't gain anything, so I am doubting that things are as easy as it seems. And as far as your case, which you're claiming to have confirmed your suspicions, I think it's quite obvious that you went into it looking for ways to make me scum. You've pointed out scummy sides to everything I've done, and even if I was scum, it wouldn't be that apparent, so you're trying too hard rather it be clouded judgement or trying to get me out before I get you out.

How can you honestly be concerned about me? You've dropped my name in once, and it was a legitimate concern early on that I already addressed. This is only the second time you have voiced concerns on me, and it's after a giant wall-of-death post I made where I pull a bunch of quotes from you.

It's possible I may have had blinders on, yes. But I highly doubt I did. I wanted to see if I could find anything in your quotes that agreed with how I was feeling with you, and I found a gold mine.

[Prisoner 509378]

Kind of like how QS threw out ideas and they were criticized the same way? Karma Baddie McBaddersons.

Stop accusing me of things you are not even sure if I did. I never criticized everything that QS did. This comparison is nothing but desperately trying to look like you're hunting and if people can not at least see that, I have no idea what else I can show them. The majority of my suspicion on QS was an emotional appeal where he apologized for doing anything confusing and basically admitting people had reason to suspect him because I would never do that as a civ.

And yes, you were agreeing QS be lynched the first time during the T Bird incident then brought up near the end how maybe you were wrong and QS shouldn't be voted out. I personally think it was to gain credibility the next day when he would most likely be voted out, and did. The problem I also have with you is you have been playing this while game so sneaky, and to me you're a Rat. You put forth a lot of effort to blend in and let your other minions stay low so they don't end up on the the lynch block. You put forth a lot of talk to gain Civ sides and keep your minions under the radar, until you got exposed by SC investigating. Hopefully you get voted out so we have one Baddie out under our belts and go for your other 6 henchmen next. You guys have done well to get all the attention off yourselves when convienent and onto others. You even tried to on me today, a day earlier than the vote. But why would I have anything to gain? I'd be a bad player exposing 3 of my teammates and myself but throwing your names out there and that would be half of the bad team. You're team is going to scramble to get any Civ they can to get votes not on you, and onto me and other players.
If Shadowcat were bad in my opinion, why would she have done all that research? Couldn't she have easily gone for a simple target such as Havok (who's name gets brought up every lynch) or the clue (Sunfire) as a target for today to make it "an easy kill" for the Baddies? I think her behavior is to be helpful and shed light so we actually get a lynch right for once. Sunfire jumped on the train fast to vote for me to make sure Exodus or himself/herself were alive to see another mutant day. Teammates IMO.

Lol whatever. Your post does not even have much logical content, you just are jumping on random ideas without proof, that I am letting my minions stay under the radar. Uh, what? If I were bad, how does that have anything to do with what my baddies are doing? That makes no sense. And I was the first to vote T-Bird, not that it's something to brag about but how does that make me agreeing with the QS lynch? I agreed with elements of the suspicion more so after T-Bird was lynched, actually. You're not even using thread evidence, you're just throwing accusations that do not make sense.
I think that it is possible for Shadowcat to do what she did as a baddie because if it means she gets to survive, wouldn't she want to give it her all? Nothing I am going to say is going to convince you, because you don't want to be convinced. Like, do you realize you're going to gain attention if I am voted out?

[Prisoner 509378]

How can you honestly be concerned about me? You've dropped my name in once, and it was a legitimate concern early on that I already addressed. This is only the second time you have voiced concerns on me, and it's after a giant wall-of-death post I made where I pull a bunch of quotes from you.

It's possible I may have had blinders on, yes. But I highly doubt I did. I wanted to see if I could find anything in your quotes that agreed with how I was feeling with you, and I found a gold mine.

Um, if I have what you have, why wouldn't I be concerned?! Are you seriously asking me this question? That just proves you're trying to fault everything I say. The answer should be clear as to why I would be concerned, to you most of all.
And I highly disagree that you found a gold mine. All you did was quote a post and make it look bad. Even a simple post where I expressed a thought was bad to you. You don't see that?

[Golf]

ewww I smelled info dump from across the interwebz.

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?
TBF two said they would wait to hear a response before voting, I hope they do as we still have time.

And after the way the last lynch went down we could definitely use more discussion early not the last half hour before lynch end. That way we can avoid some of the confusion that would ensue.

Please point to where I said any of those things in my post. I said I would wait to hear exodus response before I decide....

After reading his response I could go either way. I hadn't otherwise been trusting of shadowcat... I posted a couple days ago (rl days) about how she has just been showing up to vote in the night polls. This has been the first day she has given us anything substantial.

Also the timing irks me a bit.. Today was looking like many eyes on sun fire because of prof. X post but this has certainly side tracked that. shadowcat:what do you think of sunfire?

And to whoever was saying that prof x doesn't have baddie detection or role check abilities: there are other ways to get information besides the role (sorry if that was mentioned already).

[Operator]

Quicksilver's response here doesn't sell right to me. And seeing some of the responses to it makes me quite uneasy about Havok and Sebastion. Also, why go after voters when we are unsure which of them are bad. Why not go straight for Quicksilver? *votes quicksilver*

It could be a trap? I agree that the timing of the votes point towards a baddie save as opposed to just a civvie lynch train. BUT, with a 7-player mafia-team, I find it even harder to believe that they would try to save a partner on Day 2 through such a method. There is most assuredly a mafia member or two on the T-Bird lynch (just by probability, there was 1.68 mafia members on that lynch), but I'm finding it a tough case to believe that it was a baddie save.

This caught my eye. I actually think now it's most likely there were NO mafia members in on the T-bird lynch. Why risk it, when a civ was going to die anyway?

I said that the suspicion wasn't enough to vote for him, IMO.

Today, reading Quicksilvers theory of how he iss to be second in line for the scum to get lynched sounded pretty crazy to me. Then reading that Havok and Sebastion thought that Quicksilver's theory was a suitable explanation doesn't make me feel so great about them either. That is all I meant. What do you think of Quicksilver's '2nd in line' theory?

I guess I should have read everything before responding. lol

I said that QS's theory was plausible....just like how it was possible that QS was bad and had team mates help him outof the lynch. Not sure why acknowledging possibilities is suspicious?

I think Sunfire sums up what I saw on my readback. Havok and Sebastian Shaw were the two pushing QS's theory as being plausible, when I don't think it ever was at all. And speaking of those two....

Quicksilver is good. Vote for Polaris instead. She's a monster inside.

Shaw has been saying crap like this all game, and people have been like "WTF?" but never pursued it more than that, or gotten a response. Also, he's been (to my mind) eerily accurate about who was civ so far, which would make sense if he was on a team with all the baddies.

I think Psylocke helped the good guys. Well done, Psylocke.

Goodbye Scarlet Witch.

That was kind of an odd kill. Anyone else believe that there might have been some sort of manipulation last night?

So do you think the Scarlet Witch was good? Why?

I did think she was good. There was the confusion that she was referring to me as a he, but she seemed civ aside from that. That's why I consider it odd that a civ role would kill her of their own accord.

Did you think she was bad?

Yes. I said that already.

Quicksilver looks like a good guy to me. I'm not going to vote for him.

We don't actually know yet whether Scarlett Witch was good or bad. QS killed her the day before he died in desperation to use his power. But check this out:

Rip Scarlet Witch :/ I didn't feel you were bad either, so maybe Psylocke's attack got redirected?

I said that already. You are a baddie, so the least you could do is not copy me.

Think what you want Mr Know It All

Shaw, would you please come talk for realsies? I'm gonna start suspecting you big time if you don't.

I also think a much closer look at Havok is now warranted.

Linki: Wow, the discussion!
Linki2: Mojo, interesting points. I have been feeling better about Sunfire lately. I'm ignoring Shadowcat's case anyway (sorry 'Cat, hope you understand), so your other point is interesting bbut not really relevant for me.

[Celeste]

Responses shall be in blue.

Alright. To save you all a great deal of time. I'm doing the rest of this with links provided to each post. I figure that will save a good chunk of space from all the extra, unnecessary quotes.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62972

Here, he claims that Mojo initially agreed with Avalance about looking into defenders and defended Avalanche, but left himself with enough room to change his mind if need be. I took it simply as Mojo re-reading and gaining a fresh perspective on the situation, or discovering something he hadn't noticed before that convinced him to change his mind. I think Exodus is trying to either fabricate a case or move attention towards Mojo.

Or I was just being genuine in my thoughts, which is the case. There's nothing I can say except repeat what is in my post, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. Is it wrong for me to think that a turn around could be him taking advantage of someone who was in the spotlight, especially when I felt he was ignoring the fact that he actually agreed with a post he made? You're just reaching to make me fit this baddie profile. There is nothing wrong with this.

I actually do find a great deal wrong with it. You're trying to make it sound like he just changed his mind out of the blue, when he did so after re-reading. I re-read stuff in mafia all the time and change my mind on how I feel about another player or situation based on what a new perspective gives me. Just like quote mining. Not to mention after Whit Queen clarified to you why Mojo changed his mind, you said you were going to stick with your original suspicion. So either Mojo is lying or you refuse to accept new information. I'm leaning towards the latter.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62974

I won't go too much into this, because I think Avalanche is good now and I've explained my feelings already, but at the time, I thought he wanted that option to win because he would gain some special ability or get a helpful item from it. But you go so far as to say I was trying to add fuel to the flames. I wasn't trying to start a riot, for crying out loud. Or be chaotic/antagonizing, to use your words.

Are you saying I accused you of being chaotic or antagonizing? Because I did not. I was referring to how I felt Avalanche was acting to explain why I disagreed with your opinion.

Ummmmm....you did. You literally say in that post, "since it kept continuing it came across as clearly chaotic/antagonizing behavior". Although I thought you were referring to me at the time. Was it actually referring to me, or did you mean Avalanche?

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62978

Not really. I don't think anyone goes into a game wanting to get lynched on Day 1.

I was trying to point out the flaw I saw in Mojo's argument.

By implying he'd want to get lynched on Day 1? I'm confused as to how you're pointing out a flaw here I guess.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62980

"Uh oh. My case against Mojo isn't working out. I'll just say I misunderstood him and move on, and hopefully that drops it since this is still early in the game."

Actually, this isn't even dropping my case. You can see later on that I still do not feel good about him (which I think you did see, I haven't gotten to that yet). I was not going to argue over a statement that didn't make sense, my purpose of commenting on the statement was to express the flaws within it and show him how his logic wasn't correct (IMO). That is all. I continued to explain my statement, I did not back down on it, I was just saying, whatever, if you didn't mean it the way I took it, okay and moved on because what am I going to gain between going back and forth? People always accuse me of making big deals out of little things and I hate it so I try not to argue about things that could be meaningless and continue to observe their behavior for anything else that strikes me as scummy.

And 2 pages later, you're on Quicksilve ... articular.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 320#p62983

This (and your following post 2 posts down) was the nail in the coffin for me. I think you were planning on using Mojo to take the fall if Avalanche had gotten lynched. And seeing that fail, you considered trying to direct more attention towards Mojo by fabricating/misinterpreting his thoughts. When that failed as well, you backed off rather wisely. Sounds like pretty scummy behavior to me.

All I can say is I did not see that his post was directed towards Avalanche's post and I took his clarification into mind. I didn't go to say, oh he's townie! I still stuck my my opinion that if he was using the logic I felt he was, it was flawed.

I still think you gave yourself an opening to get out if it started looking bad for you, but I guess we'll agree to disagree here.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 360#p63038

This makes me wonder if his team was the one who silenced White Queen. It reads to me like a baddie who is trying to casually make a reference to something his team did, but wants to seem like a civvie who is making helpful/observational statements.

I actually got White Queen confused with another player which is why I thought it was suspicious when I saw her lurking and so when people brought to my attention that silencing did not work the way I imagined it did and so I commented on it. You can say this about anyone who has commented on the silencing, really. I fail to see how my comment is suspicious. It's kind of annoying when you're pulling apart every little thing I say just to prove your point when in the first place, you probably didn't even think it was scummy. I don't know if you're taking advantage of it or what but you're clearly forcing this stuff. Since I don't know you, I don't know how you'd work in this situation.

I didn't find it suspicious before. But I've learned a few new things along the way that make it appear in a different light now. Of course I'm going to go through and nitpick a lot of little things you've done. I'm building a case against you! Isn't that what mafia is about? Civs trying to get baddies lynched and vice versa?

And yes, I could technically say similar things about other people. But in your context, it's another brick in the wall.

http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 400#p63050

"Oh look! Another victim...I mean person I could cast blame/doubt towards and try to get lynched!"

OR!!!! I could just be DISCUSSING opinions.
Seriously, how am I going to defend myself when even when I put forward ideas, they are criticized. I would continue defending myself but this is a waste of time and only irritating me. If anyone has any questions they can feel free to ask but I'm done responding to this post. If there's something you actually feel is scummy of me and not just could be scummy, I'll explain it but obviously you're forcing your points and anyone can see that.

...or you're just irritated that I'm on to you, and your response to to just roll over and give up. In mafia, you are supposed to fight to the very end. You have almost another 24 hours to convince the majority of people playing not to vote for you, or to make them think I'm a load of crock. But instead you just say you're done responding to the biggest post/accusation made against you?

I feel extremely good about my vote now. Sorry if I upset you, but it's not personal. Just that I think I caught a baddie.

Some linki

[Celeste]

How can you honestly be concerned about me? You've dropped my name in once, and it was a legitimate concern early on that I already addressed. This is only the second time you have voiced concerns on me, and it's after a giant wall-of-death post I made where I pull a bunch of quotes from you.

It's possible I may have had blinders on, yes. But I highly doubt I did. I wanted to see if I could find anything in your quotes that agreed with how I was feeling with you, and I found a gold mine.

Um, if I have what you have, why wouldn't I be concerned?! Are you seriously asking me this question? That just proves you're trying to fault everything I say. The answer should be clear as to why I would be concerned, to you most of all.
And I highly disagree that you found a gold mine. All you did was quote a post and make it look bad. Even a simple post where I expressed a thought was bad to you. You don't see that?

You're concerned because you're scrambling and disorganized. Seems like someone who is caught in a trap to me.

[Celeste]

After reading his response I could go either way. I hadn't otherwise been trusting of shadowcat... I posted a couple days ago (rl days) about how she has just been showing up to vote in the night polls. This has been the first day she has given us anything substantial.

Also the timing irks me a bit.. Today was looking like many eyes on sun fire because of prof. X post but this has certainly side tracked that. shadowcat:what do you think of sunfire?

Well, as long as you are willing to take your time and examine both sides of the coin, it works for me. Like I said, we still have plenty of time for people to sort this out.

As for Sunfire, I've been on the fence. I'd probably lean slightly baddie now though, given the way he went and voted along with my case without adding anything else of value. I think it's a good way to deflect attention away from himself when he's got a lot of in his direction. I'm fine with people possibly looking at him as a lynch candidate today.

Also, I think it would be best if we try to not spread the vote out too much today. Maybe leave it to a top 2-3 suspects that a majority can agree on are worthwhile, and keep as many votes as possible on just those people. That way I think we can avoid a large-scale lynch manipulation.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

That was interesting wording, Shadowcat.

[Prisoner 509378]

@Shadowcat,
First of all, when did I just roll over and give up? I am still posting, obviously. Can you not say I am giving up when clearly that isn't the case? I actually thought deadline was today. Guess I am too used to speed games here. But I am done responding to the post, yes, and I said why. Because I feel all you are doing is just taking anything I say and finding a way to classify it as baddie behavior. Am I somehow wrong to feel that's what you're doing? If I had done this to you, you would feel exactly the same, would you not? Because I see you not looking into different options like you claimed to have gone in with an open mind. I also said I will answer any questions if people have a question about something I have done or my behavior, but I feel replying to that post is a waste of time that I do not have. Is that really scummy of me? How should this make you feel better about your vote?

I do not have much experience with those who reread and what I do has taught me that rereading can be a simple way to change ones opinion rather than following the game to come to newly formed conclusions, so I did not think that the rereading was reason to drop my suspicion. Besides, had I dropped it there I am sure you would be saying I saw it was not going to work.

I am the type of player to suspect people, and also the type to change my mind as they reply. What is wrong with suspecting multiple players is beyond me. I do not think I just drop suspicion, have you really never played with people who scum hunt in this way? If it is foreign to you all, I don't know what to say to make you accept it. It's just how I play. I analyze posts and call attention to the things I find scummy and weird. Don't see why you're faulting me for that.

And I think there is a difference between nitpicking and analyzing, which I believe to be how scum hunting is done. Obviously you built a case, I just feel it is too forced at this point I don't understand why a civvie would do that. At least I could understand some interpretations, but he level in which you're doing it like I said, seemed forced.

[Prisoner 509378]

How can you honestly be concerned about me? You've dropped my name in once, and it was a legitimate concern early on that I already addressed. This is only the second time you have voiced concerns on me, and it's after a giant wall-of-death post I made where I pull a bunch of quotes from you.

It's possible I may have had blinders on, yes. But I highly doubt I did. I wanted to see if I could find anything in your quotes that agreed with how I was feeling with you, and I found a gold mine.

Um, if I have what you have, why wouldn't I be concerned?! Are you seriously asking me this question? That just proves you're trying to fault everything I say. The answer should be clear as to why I would be concerned, to you most of all.
And I highly disagree that you found a gold mine. All you did was quote a post and make it look bad. Even a simple post where I expressed a thought was bad to you. You don't see that?

You're concerned because you're scrambling and disorganized. Seems like someone who is caught in a trap to me.

How is being concerned about you scrambling and disorganized?
Should I think you are townie when I have the same information that you do?
That just does not make sense and this is my problem with you, you're trying too hard to find whatever you can to suspect me with.

[Golf]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

[Prisoner 509378]

When cases are built on info and not thread evidence they often do seem forced.

To me civvies should be capable of making a reasonable case driven by information.

[Ned Flanders]

I think Shadowcat has made some pretty good points; and isn't the point of info to try and find a case in the thread to back it up if you have it? That is what this looks like to me, not sure why people are getting grouchy about it.

I have to reread the whole case in context when I get home, but based on a skim it seems fairly solid.

And I could get on board with trying to keep the voting as tight as possible.

[Snapshot]

Questions for Exodus and Shadowcat:

Shadowcat, if your info, which I presume you think Exodus got as well, led you to believe he is bad, why would Exodus start the lynch agsinst tbird? He obv wasn't saving qs, so why go after the one guy that presumably he knew would lead you to suspect him by being the only one left but you? (If I'm guessing roughly correctly about what your info was)

Exodus, without going into details, can you say if you understand how shadowcat is coming to her conclusions? If yes, logically shouldn't you be as sure about HER baddieness as she is of you? And if not, what do you think of her actions today? How do you explain what she's doing?

[Snapshot]

White Queen, the point of info is to make a case against a baddie with the knowledge that you are right. Its not to say "I've got info but let me make a case to make this all legal". This is cheating, imo, and I've known hosts who handed the injured parties compensation for it. We can discuss it more after the game, but thats how I feel, anyway.

[Prisoner 509378]

Questions for Exodus and Shadowcat:

Shadowcat, if your info, which I presume you think Exodus got as well, led you to believe he is bad, why would Exodus start the lynch agsinst tbird? He obv wasn't saving qs, so why go after the one guy that presumably he knew would lead you to suspect him by being the only one left but you? (If I'm guessing roughly correctly about what your info was)

Exodus, without going into details, can you say if you understand how shadowcat is coming to her conclusions? If yes, logically shouldn't you be as sure about HER baddieness as she is of you? And if not, what do you think of her actions today? How do you explain what she's doing?

I understand how she is coming to these conclusions. However, I was not as sure of her baddieness because I felt that the kill last night was rather suicidal and idiotic for the scum to make so I felt like something was going on behind the scenes that isn't as clear cut. But the more she posts, the more I feel like she is trying too hard to make her case feel like it has some sort of support within the thread. People are saying her post is solid, but I don't see it. I see it as spinning everything I say as bad. What is solid about that? Which is why I have now voted her.

[Jack Shephard]

ewww I smelled info dump from across the interwebz.

I will read SC's case on it's own merits and follow the links and read things in context before judging and voting. Not sure I liked how Deadpool, Sunfire, Domino, Mojo and Polaris jumped on it without adding their own thoughts to what was posted. All claimed it was interesting /good points/ good case wonder why they couldn't at least said what was the part that made them agree with it?
TBF two said they would wait to hear a response before voting, I hope they do as we still have time.

And after the way the last lynch went down we could definitely use more discussion early not the last half hour before lynch end. That way we can avoid some of the confusion that would ensue.

Welcome back Cable.

And btw, that's a broad generalization. I have not jumped on Shadowcat's info claim. I've been waiting for Exodus to show his head.

[Jack Shephard]

Also, I think it would be best if we try to not spread the vote out too much today. Maybe leave it to a top 2-3 suspects that a majority can agree on are worthwhile, and keep as many votes as possible on just those people. That way I think we can avoid a large-scale lynch manipulation.

I kind of understand why you're saying this, but you also realize that the top 2 suspects are essentially you and Exodus. Your case looks more compelling that Exodus' but Exodus also had the misfortune of presenting second

I'm also a bit confused because I didn't gain anything from the book I picked on night 1. Maybe it was just a bad selection on my part.