Monopoly Mafia [GAME OVER]

[fingersplints]

Thanks SVS. I figured someone had but couldn't remember the answer.

[S~V~S]

Here was boos answer~

I am finding it really hard to post on this site. Every time I finish writing something I need to login again and it erases what I typed out on my pad.

When you log in, do you have "Log me on automatically each visit" checked? The last person this happened to resolved the issue by clicking that. If you do have that checked, then not sure what about this site would be causing that.

And not sure about bidding on any of these yet, initially I want to be more conservative with my money.

And I am still trying to figure out which option, search for partners or NOT search for partners, would benefit the rail/utilities more. Standard civvies, no BTS with purchased powers, but civvie win conditions OR indies building monopolies and potential hotels that will require the baddies to shell out real $$? I think FZ asked this question originally, and I don't think anyone really addressed the issue.

I definitely think that discussing what would most benefit the baddies should be the big topic.

Standard civvies would make it easier for the non-rails/utils to win, but going the other route might make it HARDER for the baddies to win, might present more competition. I could see going wither way, although, I find it unlikely that every civ will agree to do the non search thing, pretty much rendering it moot. Because you can pledge not to search all you want, if someone else finds you, it still affects your status & win conditions.

@boo~ if someone who is the member of a completed monopoly is lynched, will their Monopoly status as well as their card be revealed? Since being in a monopoly has effected their win conditions, and they are no longer really a "civ"? And if the member of a monopoly is deaded, does the remainder of the team revert to civ, or are they still a LMS team?

I need to reread the rail/util sections of the host posts.

Just the card. The remainder stays LMS (and will want to try and keep the lynched teammates property). They would still be allowed to build houses and hotels on their properties, but the equal building rule would require that if someone who wasn't them picked up the lynched players property, they build on it as well (so 1 house, 1 house, 0 house, would prevent from building a second until the 0 had 1 built). The person who got the property without knowing they were getting one that had had all of them together (meaning no houses had been built) wouldn't find out until someone landed on that space (since the amount of rent they would receive is doubled) or a house was built (although with the rent doubled, if you pay attention to the linked board movements, you could see that it was already that way if anyone landed on any of the properties in the monopoly).

There are however also powers that relate to this sort of thing that may come into play, so that won't all be true 100% of the time.

[Tangrowth]

MP, what do you think about the fact that llama has bid for the double search (where you can send in two guesses for your partner instead of just one)? Why would he do that if he's got all his partners?

That's a good question, but you could ask the same question about why would anyone who has no or limited use for an item buy it? To keep it from other players.

I'm not sure that's why he's buying it, but it's at least an explanation if my assumptions are correct.

I think Occam's Razor applies here. I'm still totally convinced that LC and Llama are bad news, and I will continue to try to get them lynched.

So, if one came back as good, that wouldn't change make you more hesitant about the other?
Also, if someone who once was a civvie but is now part of a LMS group is lynched, would we be told that or will it just appear the same? That's not really to you just in general idk if boo has already answered that

This is a good point, Splints, which allows me to elaborate on my train of thought in a way I haven't yet.

I really want to get at least ONE of them lynched.

If at that point that one came back a property, then I don't know... if they are LMS but lose one member, they can't build houses or hotels unless they somehow win that property of their dead teammate, right? But they'd still be LMS and technically thus a threat... though obviously not as big of a threat as railroads or utilities. So I still think the other would need to be lynched, but I suppose they wouldn't NEED to be right away.

Also, that's a good question. I wonder if boo will answer.

Linki: No problem, S~V~S. I see your POV, but I haven't been getting any vibes like that from him at all. I know he's still relatively new, so I consider that in my analysis of him.

Linki: Oh, nevermind to a bit of that then. Thanks S~V~S.

[thellama73]

SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

[Tangrowth]

How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

[thellama73]

MP, what do you think about the fact that llama has bid for the double search (where you can send in two guesses for your partner instead of just one)? Why would he do that if he's got all his partners?

That's a good question, but you could ask the same question about why would anyone who has no or limited use for an item buy it? To keep it from other players.

I'm not sure that's why he's buying it, but it's at least an explanation if my assumptions are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[thellama73]

How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

You're acting weird by insisting I am bad in the face of all logic, and continuing to rationalize your suspicion when presented with contradictory evidence. It doesn't seem like you.

[S~V~S]

SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

I think he's acting pretty much just like he acted at the beginning of Dr Who. This is how he acts now

linki~ ooooh now llama is pulling out the technical jargon, lol. Brings back fond memories of being raked over in Harry Potter.

[thellama73]

SVS, what do you make of Alex this game? I think he is acting weird, but I don't know that weird = bad.

I think he's acting pretty much just like he acted at the beginning of Dr Who. This is how he acts now

I guess this is what happens to formerly logical accountants when they get engaged.

[juliets]

I asked him that Day One, and he said you just come back as your card.

And thanks for the input on Zeek, MP. It is just a *feel* for me, as soon as I saw his post, I was like, "That's who killed me". I could be wrong, but that was how it felt, and how it still does feel to me.

Juliets, didn't you play Dr Who before zeek was recruited? So you have experienced him as a civ. He transitioned pretty flawlessly.

I was trying to remember him as a civ prior to recruiting and my vague impression is that he was also active as a civ. Honestly almost everything i remember from the early parts of the game are chris's posts. I can say I don't remember there being a big difference in zeeks behavior so I'm sure you are right.

[Tangrowth]

How am I acting weird, Llama? You said that before, and so has LC, but at least LC has given reasons, even if they are inaccurate.

You're acting weird by insisting I am bad in the face of all logic, and continuing to rationalize your suspicion when presented with contradictory evidence. It doesn't seem like you.

What contradicting evidence? At least I'm trying and standing up for something I really think happened. My interpretation is what it is: an interpretation. Just like everyone else's.

And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

I'll be so vindicated if it turns out I've been right this whole time.

Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

[Tangrowth]

I also don't understand how my behavior in this game or DW is any different than my civvie behavior of the past, so I'm intrigued why people seem to think that's the case.

[thellama73]

And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

Nonsense. I'm not saying you're bad because you suspect me. I'm saying you're weird for suspecting me for such an obviously incorrect reason.

What contradictory evidence, you ask? Well you know me, I am all about incentives.

1. What incentive does baddie llama have to tie himself, needlessly and inextricably, to a teammate, knowing full well that if one of us goes down, the other will as well? Why not just stay quiet? It makes no sense, especially this early in the game.
2. What incentive does teammate llama have to spend valuable, precious money on a skill that would be f no use to me according to your theory? Why not bid on something else or not at all?
3. What incentive does baddie llama have to draw attention to himself by refusing to make real cases and just accusing people without backing it up? How does that help me or my alleged team?

None of this behavior makes sense as a baddie and you know it, but since you are wedded to your theory, you'll ignore the evidence and just shout WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

I told you, I am not making cases this game. I am just saying things to see what happens.

[S~V~S]

I also don't understand how my behavior in this game or DW is any different than my civvie behavior of the past, so I'm intrigued why people seem to think that's the case.

It has no bearing on THIS game, so remind me post game and I will tell you what I am talking about. I also need time to think about it; it's hard to explain.

[Tangrowth]

And so it seems you're basically NO U'ing me then, just like LC.

Nonsense. I'm not saying you're bad because you suspect me. I'm saying you're weird for suspecting me for such an obviously incorrect reason.

What contradictory evidence, you ask? Well you know me, I am all about incentives.

1. What incentive does baddie llama have to tie himself, needlessly and inextricably, to a teammate, knowing full well that if one of us goes down, the other will as well? Why not just stay quiet? It makes no sense, especially this early in the game.
2. What incentive does teammate llama have to spend valuable, precious money on a skill that would be f no use to me according to your theory? Why not bid on something else or not at all?
3. What incentive does baddie llama have to draw attention to himself by refusing to make real cases and just accusing people without backing it up? How does that help me or my alleged team?

None of this behavior makes sense as a baddie and you know it, but since you are wedded to your theory, you'll ignore the evidence and just shout WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

Why am I not allowed to strongly believe a certain set of beliefs but you are? You say "juliets is bad" but you didn't even give a reason, and you keep suspicion hopping. How is that any better than my suspicion?

I told you, I am not making cases this game. I am just saying things to see what happens.

Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

I'll give you another example. What incentive did Snow Dog have defending Bass casually the entire time in Doctor Who even though they were teammates? In fact, that entire team casually defended or refused to comment on their teammates all game, but they did it anyway. Epig even said he was trying to play the game as the "most obvious" baddie ever because people always say, "Oh, so and so wouldn't do that, that's too obvious!" But he avoided lynch cycle after cycle.

[Tangrowth]

I also don't understand how my behavior in this game or DW is any different than my civvie behavior of the past, so I'm intrigued why people seem to think that's the case.

It has no bearing on THIS game, so remind me post game and I will tell you what I am talking about. I also need time to think about it; it's hard to explain.

Thanks, will do.

[thellama73]

Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

Thank you. All I ask is that you think things through instead of acting rashly. In answer to your question, there are two reasons.
1) It amuses me.
2) This is a big, complex game taking place during a month where free time is scarce for me. It was originally my intention to ride out the first few days without doing much in order to think the herd and have a more manageable group size. I have inadvertently gotten sucked in more than I intended to though. The case making will pick up after there is more of a vote record and when there are fewer people to make consider.

Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

Deception doesn't matter more than incentives. Deception is an incentive. That's like saying money matters more than incentives.

With regard to American Gods, I had multiple reasons for playing that the way I did. Mainly, I wanted to appear consistent (it kept me from getting lynched, didn't it?) I was confident that he was in no real danger of dying, I was confident that if he did die it would not be a game ending blow to my team, and it was really, really funny.

Also, it convinced SVS that I always throw teammates under the bus, even though that is literally the only time I have done it, so that is worth something. I can't speak for the others you mentioned, as I do not know the particulars, but I guarantee they had good reasons.

[Epignosis]

WIFOM! even though that term is basically meaningless.

+1

[Epignosis]

I'll give you another example. What incentive did Snow Dog have defending Bass casually the entire time in Doctor Who even though they were teammates? In fact, that entire team casually defended or refused to comment on their teammates all game, but they did it anyway. Epig even said he was trying to play the game as the "most obvious" baddie ever because people always say, "Oh, so and so wouldn't do that, that's too obvious!" But he avoided lynch cycle after cycle.

[S~V~S]

Fair enough, I'll consider this. Thanks for responding. Can I ask why you are just saying things though?

Thank you. All I ask is that you think things through instead of acting rashly. In answer to your question, there are two reasons.
1) It amuses me.
2) This is a big, complex game taking place during a month where free time is scarce for me. It was originally my intention to ride out the first few days without doing much in order to think the herd and have a more manageable group size. I have inadvertently gotten sucked in more than I intended to though. The case making will pick up after there is more of a vote record and when there are fewer people to make consider.

Also, while I understand your point, the game of mafia is sometimes much more about deception than incentives. What incentive would you have had for gunning after your only civvie-appearing teammate ALL of American Gods? I could ask plenty of incentive questions not only to you but also myself and other players who have been baddies before and have defied the most straightforward cases of action.

Deception doesn't matter more than incentives. Deception is an incentive. That's like saying money matters more than incentives.

With regard to American Gods, I had multiple reasons for playing that the way I did. Mainly, I wanted to appear consistent (it kept me from getting lynched, didn't it?) I was confident that he was in no real danger of dying, I was confident that if he did die it would not be a game ending blow to my team, and it was really, really funny.

Also, it convinced SVS that I always throw teammates under the bus, even though that is literally the only time I have done it, so that is worth something. I can't speak for the others you mentioned, as I do not know the particulars, but I guarantee they had good reasons.

You ALWAYS say this and you are wrong. What convinced me you throw people under the bus was Grimms. You were the harshest teammate ever in that game, throwing people under the bus just in case. I thought you were the most horrible person ever, lol (I changed my mind ). My opinions on you & Greyhound have nothing to do with AG.

[Long Con]

I'm interested in hearing from keys, as he's been very quiet after the searching debate and not said much about suspicions.

People didn't like what I had to say. The one person who did was lynched for it. A few people have accused me of disrespecting Boo and his game. It continues to be said. So, yeah. Now I'm just trying to be polite and run out the clock so the game keep moving. And what is there to say, anyway? The consensus seems to be that we're all intending to ditch the civs, if we live long enough. So why communicate anything to my competitors?

Keys, you clearly forgot to get your sensitivity inoculation after hanging out with Chris last game. I wish to clarify myself on a point. When I say I want to play the game "the way boo intended", I don't mean that playing another way is a sign of disrespect for boo. We could play where we all agree to never bid for properties, and never search for allies, and it would be a much less multi-dimensional game that way. It's a valid way to play, and a legit use of this "playground" as I believe S~V~S called it.

When I say this is the way boo intended for us to play, I mean that he gave us these tools and these unique opportunities that only exist in Monopoly Mafia, and I think it would be a waste of boo's creativity for us to avoid exploring these things. We can play a lot of other games as Civvies who stay Civvie and just baddies to find, and no concept of trade, money, ownership, and lots of other stuff that comes with Monopoly Mafia. THIS is the game where we can do more, play differently, and I want to embrace that concept.

You can 'go dark' and get grumpy about it, or you can fight against it, or you too can embrace it. It's up to you. I hope that I've cleared that up for you, and can now wash my hands of any responsibility for your emotions forthwith.

[boo]

In need of another replacement, if anyone is interested please let me know. Thanks.

[thellama73]

In need of another replacement, if anyone is interested please let me know. Thanks.

I'll play a second role, if you like.

[thellama73]

In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

[LoRab]

Sorry Ihaven't had time to post! Been keeping up with reading. Voting BWT. Points against him make sense to me. And his defense post didn't convince me that he's civ--and seemed to have a guilty-trippy tone to it if people vote for him. So, that's where my vote shall go.

[Long Con]

In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

If you played all the roles, would the Civvies or Baddies win?

[Marmot]

Long Con, I went back and did a reread of your 'case' on me. I just realized that half of it I don't understand, and half of it is pretty much a No U. Do you mind reexplaining yourself?

[thellama73]

In fact, why don't I just play all the roles.

If you played all the roles, would the Civvies or Baddies win?

The baddies, obviously.

[S~V~S]

It certainly would not be the low posters.

[Marmot]

It certainly would not be the low posters.

How many times do you think he'd throw himself under the bus before he realized he was doing it?

[fingersplints]

I wonder who quit

[thellama73]

It certainly would not be the low posters.

Aren't they just the worst?

[Long Con]

Long Con, I went back and did a reread of your 'case' on me. I just realized that half of it I don't understand, and half of it is pretty much a No U. Do you mind reexplaining yourself?

Ok, well, I originally laid out the "Baddies Who Profess Trust in Civvies to Gain Trust and Foster Feelings of Synergy With Them" concept here:

In a recent game, I correctly called out Lorab and Canucklehead as baddies, because they trusted me and openly said they thought I was Civvie in the thread, multiple times. I found it suspicious, because I was a baddie, and I started to try to figure out why they thought I was Civvie. I came to the conclusion that they probably hoped I was Civvie, but that they were simply saying those things in order to placate me, or to make me feel more in sync with them in the thread. It was a way of acting that was, at its core, intended to make themselves seem more Civvie.

I'm not saying that Metalmarsh and Turnip Head are baddies. I am saying that their trust in Epignosis on Day One fits the basic points of what Lorab and Canucklehead were doing in that game, in that they don't have anything much to go on to say they trust him. It could be viewed as a way for baddies to set up a trust-warmed in-thread relationship with a player that they believe would be a better ally than enemy.

And, well, Epig is that sort of player.

I thought that what you and TH were doing with your early trust in Epignosis fit that theory. I presented the possibility, and the way you reacted (in contrast with TH's reaction) made me suspect that I had hit a nerve with you.

Your first post after mine above:

Of course, I'd just like to say right now (for any murderous, property-hungry baddies that are reading) that if I ever win the bid for a property, it will IMMEDIATELY be put up for private trade, and be gone from my possession before the next night kill lands.

What if I don't believe you?

What is this, just lashing out at me for... what reason? It really strikes me as weird.

Your next post to me, you say you're not suspicious of me:

Also, LC, what exactly is your case against Epig? Do you think he's bad, or is it that you don't agree with TH's early read of Epig? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I might have missed your reasoning somewhere.

I got nothing much against Epig. He got my vote Day One, but he's not my biggest suspicion right now. I don't really want him to be lynched, I'd rather see how his game goes after the start he chose.

And that's exactly how I felt on Day 1. I didn't want Epi to be lynched, so I voted the closest person to him in vote totals. You happened to be one of a couple people tied at 1, so you got my vote.

No I'm not suspicious of you, I just don't agree with your strategies. I also don't agree with FZ.

Then in your next post to me, you imply that I'm bad again:

Good point, I was wrong there. They couldn't kill one of their own. So I guess now I'm a railroad who's intentionally getting some things wrong about my own role...?

Well, Made didn't misunderstand his role on purpose.

I hope this clarifies my suspicion of you, Metalmarsh. From these quotes, I observe that you went straight to acting like I am untrustworthy, then say you don't suspect me, then you go back to suggesting I'm a baddie. That behaviour just looks bad to me.

[Hedgeowl]

I'm also wary of Hedgeowl being quiet, especially after the last game.

Ha! I was just thinking "Boogs wants to come after me for being a sneaky baddie in Monty Python?? What about Hedgeowl and her extended gang of superthugs who were laughing at all of us while they ran the whole game?"

By all means let us lynch each other based on past games. That will definitely make this game more fun.

Not sure who I will vote yet, but I don't like this punishing people for powers either. I think it's important to note for the future, but I think thread evidence is also more important. I don't find MPs case against LC and Llama compelling, because I really can't see llama playing that way. He is definitely more devious than that.

[thellama73]

Not sure who I will vote yet

You've only got 95 minutes to decide, you know.

[Long Con]

Switching my vote now to birdwithteeth, to gain access to the $200 bidding bonus on his property, and to widen the gap between him and myself.

[thellama73]

Switching my vote now to birdwithteeth, to gain access to the $200 bidding bonus on his property, and to widen the gap between him and myself.

Do you think he's a railroad?

[Hedgeowl]

Not sure who I will vote yet

You've only got 95 minutes to decide, you know.

Only 2 more pages to go and I thought I was getting a handle on the cases. Now I see everyone is voting BWT, so clearly something important happened in the next two pages. More reading....

[Marmot]

Long Con, I went back and did a reread of your 'case' on me. I just realized that half of it I don't understand, and half of it is pretty much a No U. Do you mind reexplaining yourself?

Ok, well, I originally laid out the "Baddies Who Profess Trust in Civvies to Gain Trust and Foster Feelings of Synergy With Them" concept here:

In a recent game, I correctly called out Lorab and Canucklehead as baddies, because they trusted me and openly said they thought I was Civvie in the thread, multiple times. I found it suspicious, because I was a baddie, and I started to try to figure out why they thought I was Civvie. I came to the conclusion that they probably hoped I was Civvie, but that they were simply saying those things in order to placate me, or to make me feel more in sync with them in the thread. It was a way of acting that was, at its core, intended to make themselves seem more Civvie.

I'm not saying that Metalmarsh and Turnip Head are baddies. I am saying that their trust in Epignosis on Day One fits the basic points of what Lorab and Canucklehead were doing in that game, in that they don't have anything much to go on to say they trust him. It could be viewed as a way for baddies to set up a trust-warmed in-thread relationship with a player that they believe would be a better ally than enemy.

And, well, Epig is that sort of player.

I thought that what you and TH were doing with your early trust in Epignosis fit that theory. I presented the possibility, and the way you reacted (in contrast with TH's reaction) made me suspect that I had hit a nerve with you.

I don't really agree with that theory, especially not in this scenario, so your use of it is wrong. That circumstance you described from the other game, you were bad as well as the players you mentioned. Let's assume for the sake of your argument that you are good. You have every reason to believe that you should be thought of as civ. So whether or not my trust in you is genuine, it should not be wrong.

Also, I never said I trusted Epi. I did not want to lynch him on Day 1 because he's a useful player to keep around. I also find his case on BWT compelling. I do think he's civ, but I have not said any such thing before now.

Your first post after mine above:

Of course, I'd just like to say right now (for any murderous, property-hungry baddies that are reading) that if I ever win the bid for a property, it will IMMEDIATELY be put up for private trade, and be gone from my possession before the next night kill lands.

What if I don't believe you?

What is this, just lashing out at me for... what reason? It really strikes me as weird.

That wasn't lashing out it all. That was a counterargument, though it was abbreviated. Why did it upset you?

Your next post to me, you say you're not suspicious of me:

Also, LC, what exactly is your case against Epig? Do you think he's bad, or is it that you don't agree with TH's early read of Epig? Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself, but I might have missed your reasoning somewhere.

I got nothing much against Epig. He got my vote Day One, but he's not my biggest suspicion right now. I don't really want him to be lynched, I'd rather see how his game goes after the start he chose.

And that's exactly how I felt on Day 1. I didn't want Epi to be lynched, so I voted the closest person to him in vote totals. You happened to be one of a couple people tied at 1, so you got my vote.

No I'm not suspicious of you, I just don't agree with your strategies. I also don't agree with FZ.

That's right, I didn't.

Then in your next post to me, you imply that I'm bad again:

Good point, I was wrong there. They couldn't kill one of their own. So I guess now I'm a railroad who's intentionally getting some things wrong about my own role...?

Well, Made didn't misunderstand his role on purpose.

I hope this clarifies my suspicion of you, Metalmarsh. From these quotes, I observe that you went straight to acting like I am untrustworthy, then say you don't suspect me, then you go back to suggesting I'm a baddie. That behaviour just looks bad to me.

*Sigh* No, I think it's just that what I'm saying and how you're understanding it are completely different. I'm not blaming you; it's just a communication breakdown. I was trying to play devil's advocate, and you saw it as something else. I don't like the conclusion you've come to as a result of this. You thought I was painting you as bad, so therefore I must be bad. By the way, this also goes against the theory you mentioned above.

But hey, I'm not the only one, you've got 4 votes for a reason. Do you suspect every single one of them for thinking you're a baddie?

[fingersplints]

I'm going to vote for bwt. I don't want to split the votes any more, and I don't really see the case on the others. I am a sucker for the guilt trips, but baddies are as likely to give them as civvies are.

[Hedgeowl]

Alright, I caught up on the BWT case from Epi and I do find it more interesting than the llama/LC thing, which I don't buy atm. I don't know how to read Boogs this game, but his determination to get LC does not make me feel good about him necessarily. Currently I think the opinions put forth on BWT are the most interesting, but it seems like there are to arguments. One that he is utility and one that he is railroad. I am leaning utility as of now, but we will see.

Votes BwT

[Turnip Head]

I wonder who quit

It's gotta be Daisy, right? I mean, look at this post:

I give up. I don't have time to catch up. I honestly don't even know the mechanics of this game. I'm going to roll with a BWT vote.

It looks like she hasn't read the thread at all but still voted BWT. :-/

[Turnip Head]

I'll give you another example. What incentive did Snow Dog have defending Bass casually the entire time in Doctor Who even though they were teammates? In fact, that entire team casually defended or refused to comment on their teammates all game, but they did it anyway. Epig even said he was trying to play the game as the "most obvious" baddie ever because people always say, "Oh, so and so wouldn't do that, that's too obvious!" But he avoided lynch cycle after cycle.

Oh please! The only reason we didn't lynch Epi in that game was because we were too busy lynching his equally obvious teammates. And then we lost because, well yeah.

You bring up a good point obviously. That baddies will do what they're not supposed to do.

[Epignosis]

[Epignosis]

[Boogs]

Apparently there is this lol

[Marmot]

I'm lost.

[Turnip Head]

Cats and trains and Breaking Bad and monopoly it's all connected man

[Turnip Head]

Voting BWT but feeling kinda bummed about it since I thought his response was a decent one. I wish we could have had a chance to discuss the case a little more.

[Marmot]

We can still discuss it. Well I guess BWT can't, but the rest of us can.

Oh nevermind, the poll's ending.