The Syndicate

Golden wrote:Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

He's definitely made arguments, even if not all of them were committed. I don't really see the difference between Rico's scattershot approach and Mac's (which, as I believe you already admitted, he can do as town or scum). Plus, it has been hinted that Rico would have a role-specific reason for doing as such.

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

See, now this is interesting. "More relevant opinion." If you believe I'm bad, why aren't you trying to convince more people? You seem like you could have the support of Mac and Zebra, at the very least. Some of these llama votes, particularly yours, feel rather opportunistic.

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote: Oh, you mean like you said "Boomslang is bad. Discuss." earlier on a gut ping?

I didn't do it to me. I don't like it when people do it to me.

As for Mac, follow the Golden Rule there, bub. You're playing with a sense of superiority and aggression that frankly I don't read as civ.

Linki: HamburgerBoy, a voice in the wilderness!

Actually, it's funny that llama seemed to be one of the first to compare Mac and Rico. I don't like how he's contributing to the usual day 1 sig thing though, e.g. taking issue with use of the word "interesting". He didn't address Jay's suspicions back when Jay could still talk, which is what I'd imagine is a factor in Jay's choice today. I'm not upset that Rico is leading, but of the three I'm happy leaving my vote where it's at right now.

Also, I know it's obvious but I want to say it because nobody else yet has: let it be noted that Bass_the_Clever has 2 posts and Spacedaisy has 1. Where dey at?

Epignosis hasn't posted here in a day and a half.

HamburgerBoy wrote:He didn't address Jay's suspicions back when Jay could still talk, which is what I'd imagine is a factor in Jay's choice today.

LoRab wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Matt wrote:
Btw, everyone going after Lorab for her twirl is awkward. Lorab's twirl is fun, IMO, whether she's good or bad. I've never once thought she was good or bad because of it, but it's fun, you meanies!

Good luck making a case on her, then. I'd literally pay money to watch.

She is building the case herself. As far as I'm concerned she is making excuses and avoiding answering anyone's questions or concerns. That sounds like baddie LoRab to me.

Although I enjoyed your twirlaholic funs, LoRab. I'm not impressed that you didn't address anything last night. It's been a long time since I have had such strong baddie vibes from you.

I fell asleep last night. Did I miss questions in my post a little while ago? What haven't I addressed? Seriously, please let me know so I can answer. I answered the posts I saw that had specific things to say about me. I didn't see any other posts that raised anything else. What else can I address?

Your vibes about me are wrong.

linkitis: Fair enough. I was a bit confused that you said I didn't answer anything.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a post while I go kind of girl. Going to read it now.

^^^ Did that confuse anyone else?

No.

Tranq wrote:No.

6th post in this game.

Sorsha wrote:I read your response LoRab (not quoting because it is so huge) you always have a way of making things seem so rational and I usually can be swayed to see things how you see them. I'm going to stick with my gut for today though and vote for you.

I've not had enough time (and won't before poll closes) to catch up over the past few pages but I'll be able to over the weekend and hopefully have some stronger suspicions then.

votes LoRab

That's how I feel. Her responses are so clear and convincing. I have myself questioning my gut. I have been fooled by this LoRab before. I am leaving my vote where it is for right now while I finish my catch up.

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

You can't understand where everyone is coming from? Maybe my opinion is shaded by knowing what alignment my role is, but it seems like you're just randomly accusing people and sometimes making statements that seem jokey and based on nothing. I don't see where you are catching baddies to the best of your ability, I see most (not all) of your posts more of a distraction. If you aren't a baddie you just made yourself an easy vote target that baddies can hide behind. In that case you just wasted a whole day of baddie hunting.

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

In all seriousness, I'm beginning to be sorrowed by your willignness to put me down for the same reason you were lynched in Recruitement so badly - playing the game your way, to the best of your powers, with full confidence in being on the right path of exposing baddies. That's, frankly, what's unfathomable.

You can't understand where everyone is coming from? Maybe my opinion is shaded by knowing what alignment my role is, but it seems like you're just randomly accusing people and sometimes making statements that seem jokey and based on nothing. I don't see where you are catching baddies to the best of your ability, I see most (not all) of your posts more of a distraction. If you aren't a baddie you just made yourself an easy vote target that baddies can hide behind. In that case you just wasted a whole day of baddie hunting.

Au contraire, I have won town six days of continuous baddie lynching, if you will all see the truth behind my actions starting tomorrow.

I still don't get why you're voting LoRab over me, if I have wasted your precious day of baddie hunting. Has she?

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

For example.

Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why you're voting LoRab over me, if I have wasted your precious day of baddie hunting. Has she?

Did you not understand my point?

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

For example.

No understande.

I could still kill Long Con and "save" this wasted day, btw.

Tranq wrote:No.

Tranq, what are you thinking? I hardly noticed you were playing.

Black Rock wrote:

Tranq wrote:No.

Tranq, what are you thinking? I hardly noticed you were playing.

Seconded.

Ricochet wrote:I still don't get why you're voting LoRab over me, if I have wasted your precious day of baddie hunting. Has she?

I should explain why I am voting LoRab over you. I think she is bad. I do not think you are. Zebra might be right about you but I still think you are more likely neutral and having fun with it. I find you a distraction but I still like you and if you are good you should be in the game.

I like Ricochet as well, but I think you're underestimating the negative power of distractions.

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

For example.

No understande.

I could still kill Long Con and "save" this wasted day, btw.

Is that supposed to be a helpful civvie statement that is finding baddies the best way you know how?

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

He's definitely made arguments, even if not all of them were committed. I don't really see the difference between Rico's scattershot approach and Mac's (which, as I believe you already admitted, he can do as town or scum). Plus, it has been hinted that Rico would have a role-specific reason for doing as such.

Mac's is normal Mac

Rico's has no precedent.

That's a pretty big difference. It means Rico's seems to me most likely directly role related.

a2thezebra wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Tranq wrote:No.

Tranq, what are you thinking? I hardly noticed you were playing.

Seconded.

Yeah ignore me saying it first.

a2thezebra wrote:I like Ricochet as well, but I think you're underestimating the negative power of distractions.

I'm not, I just am giving him a chance to turn his game around.

I might be underestimating him though.

To be clear, at this point I won't be sad if he gets lynched. I do want to move on myself.

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Black Rock wrote:

Ricochet wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

If I vote Llama, will the triple voter in your team do the same and save me?

For example.

No understande.

I could still kill Long Con and "save" this wasted day, btw.

Is that supposed to be a helpful civvie statement that is finding baddies the best way you know how?

Of course not. It's a civvie statement of last resort.

Black Rock wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I like Ricochet as well, but I think you're underestimating the negative power of distractions.

I'm not, I just am giving him a chance to turn his game around.

I might be underestimating him though.

To be clear, at this point I won't be sad if he gets lynched. I do want to move on myself.

I see.

I just caught up and am glad to see Lorab's responses in the thread. Rico, Lorab did indeed address me because she addressed Epi and Sorsha's concerns and my concerns were based on issues that they had brought up. I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand that.

Anyway, unlike Sorsha and BR I found Lorabs points to be clear and concise and she has persuaded me not to vote for her tonight. I'll keep an eye open for any future behavior but I am currently satisfied she is not bad. This does not mean however that I am suspicious of Sorsha or BR.

So now I have to decide who to vote. Metalmarsh comes to mind because I have twice asked him a question about why he used the word "which" in his question to JJJ re: "which team do you thin he is on". I have been ignored both times. MM has not even acknowledged I posted a question to him. This makes me think he doesn't want to answer because the only reason you would phrase the question as "which team" is if you had team names in mind. What kind of answer did he expect out of JJJ? What's an example? Those were the questions I asked. Without any response from him after asking twice I think it was a total slip. Now maybe MM can convince me differently and I wish he would try because maybe there is some explanation that I'm not thinking of. Also, if anyone has a strong point they want to bring out in MM's favor for me to consider please do so.

I'm also going to take the time now to re-read Rico. Mac's observations kept me from suspecting him earlier but so much has happened since Mac made those comments that I'm feeling like I'm possibly not weighing the evidence appropriately. Maybe Rico is the place to vote, zebra's points about him have been strong. Since i don't have a lot of time (I would have started the re-read this morning had I been able) i would say I lean more toward MM

Ok I'm going to go ahead and start re-reading. I plan on keeping up with the thread while I so so.

juliets wrote:I just caught up and am glad to see Lorab's responses in the thread. Rico, Lorab did indeed address me because she addressed Epi and Sorsha's concerns and my concerns were based on issues that they had brought up. I'm not quite sure why you didn't understand that.

<snip>

Oh yeah, I forgot. My case is someone else's case.

Carry on.

Tranq is the seventh baddie. zebra and BR are clearly distancing themselves from him and making efforts to question him together, ignoring that I have already done that.

It is accomplished.

Alright, I have to go record some music and must vote. I don't think Rico is mafia, I think Llama is civ, and haven't really considered the Lorab arguments. Therefore, I'm going to leave a protest vote on Mac: as has been noted previously, his playing is not that different from Rico's, but he's being very defensive of it and was blatantly hypocritical when he compared his own baseless accusation to the one MM made about him. *votes Mac*

Linki w/Rico: Tranq should speak up, true facts.

HamburgerBoy wrote:

Golden wrote:Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

He's definitely made arguments, even if not all of them were committed. I don't really see the difference between Rico's scattershot approach and Mac's (which, as I believe you already admitted, he can do as town or scum). Plus, it has been hinted that Rico would have a role-specific reason for doing as such.

Have you actually read my posts in this game? I've already been criticised by Zebra for being NOT like what you are saying I am being like. You very much sound like a scum who has only given a cursory skim of the thread.

Boomslang wrote:

Long Con wrote:I am going to work now, changing my vote from Boomslang to Llama, for a more relevant opinion. I'm totally cool with Blue Eye being lynched though. He just scares me so I'm staying away.

See, now this is interesting. "More relevant opinion." If you believe I'm bad, why aren't you trying to convince more people? You seem like you could have the support of Mac and Zebra, at the very least. Some of these llama votes, particularly yours, feel rather opportunistic.

MacDougall wrote:

Boomslang wrote: Oh, you mean like you said "Boomslang is bad. Discuss." earlier on a gut ping?

I didn't do it to me. I don't like it when people do it to me.

As for Mac, follow the Golden Rule there, bub. You're playing with a sense of superiority and aggression that frankly I don't read as civ.

Linki: HamburgerBoy, a voice in the wilderness!

Lol I think you'll find that superiority and aggression are my trademarks in any form. But again if you think I am being aggressive in this game I'd hate to see how many tears you'd cry in games where I'm not actually trying to be measured.

Golden wrote:

HamburgerBoy wrote:What I was looking for was more the specific instances of his behavior. I did see your early day 0 poll post concerning his dismissal-yet-concern over the results, so I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point, especially since I'm not in a position to discuss previous roles on the Syndicate (except Xander I guess). That one aside, and that he's now apparently given up, what is so unfathomable? So he cherry-picked some stuff involving Zebra's day 0 meta, not great, but arguments with Zebra always end up long and impassioned. I don't see it as unfathomable that he might get caught up in some silly argument as a town player.

Rico is not making poor arguments.

He isn't making arguments at all.

He is merely spouting nonsense and being a distraction. He says he is trying to catch baddies, but he has put literally zero effort into it. Not one of his cases demonstrates any attempt at any critical thought. The only thing he is putting effort into is being a distraction.

I see no civ motivation for that, and despite all of your defences of rico, and saying you think my question is manipluative or whatever, you (and anyone else) still haven't actually been able to present any sensible objective civ theoretical motivation for that behaviour.

It bugs me immensely that HB and Boomslang seem to have not actually read Ricochet's posts in context at all. Contextually they have all been laughable but they flatly don't seem to realise it. Comparing my play here with Ricochet's is insulting.

Ricochet wrote:

DFaraday wrote:Going ahead and *voting Rico*. I will also say that Fuzz reads pretty civvie to me now, so I'm not so pinged by his strange alignment comments now.

The three steps of bandwagoning, illustrated by our assistent here, DFaraday

1) What is player X doing? He looks suspicious.
2) I agree with Y about player X.
3) K, I'm voting player X.
???
PROFIT

Is bandwagoning inherently bad? I swear more civilians posted like this in Star Wars than scum. Scum are more careful to avoid such obvious stuff.

I do hate this sort of posting though.

thellama73 wrote:Okay, finished a reread of Golden. Didn't see much there, although he is notoriously hard to read (at least for me.) I'm happy to stick with Sig for now. I do want to point out this post, though, which is amazing and brings Mac back up my suspicion ladder a bit.

Golden wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

MacDougall wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:Mac and Fuzz are teammates (in a bad kind of way).

Please don't make matter of fact statements like this without making a case or I will make your experience in this game very unpleasant.

Ok.

I would encourage you in this situation to not bother trying to force a case out of this ping because you will find absolutely nothing to support it beyond your own faulty intuition.

And also because it is not the truth???

So this literally would have been a less suspicious post if I added "because I am civ" to it? Because that seems like a redundant thing to say. I have actually been going out of my way to make my thoughts and posts as idiot proof as possible in this game so far but it seems I will have to go a step further and add "I am civ" to every post I make huh?

Saying that his intuition is faulty is the part where I inferred that I am a civilian.

Long Con wrote:Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me! Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.

Please ask anyone who has played with me as a bad guy if they think I am incapable of lying when I am bad and I believe you will hear back a raucous cacophony of laughter.

Dom wrote:

Long Con wrote:Llama, I noticed that when Golden brought it up earlier. Mac never specifically denied being bad, he just said MM would find any evidence of it. Depends on how unwaveringly honest you think Mac is intent on being. The implication here is that he didn't want to lie about his baddieness, he preferred to flaunt it instead? "Mwa ha ha, you will NEVER find the evidence you need to defeat Me! Foolish Civ!"

Is this like A Few Good Men, where Col. Jessup wanted to claim proud responsibility for the Code Red?

Like when you attacked sig for his use of the word "interesting", among other things, this feels to me like you are opportunistically jumping on things to cast suspicion on people... as opposed to stating a genuine suspicion. Like a predator that senses weakness.

This is exactly why I did not read MAc's post in a positive light.

I don't believe that you could actually form a scum read based on something so weak? A fake scum read sure, but a genuine one no. I have no problem saying I am a civilian when I am not one. Lying is something I do well when I am bad. By this logic anytime someone defends themself by addressing the logic without adding an "I am x alignment" post-script you would scum read them, which I don't believe to be true.

I was just going to say that if anyone should be suspicious of Mac it's because he's not being Rico-y enough, but I see he beat me to it.

Boomslang wrote:Alright, I have to go record some music and must vote. I don't think Rico is mafia, I think Llama is civ, and haven't really considered the Lorab arguments. Therefore, I'm going to leave a protest vote on Mac: as has been noted previously, his playing is not that different from Rico's, but he's being very defensive of it and was blatantly hypocritical when he compared his own baseless accusation to the one MM made about him. *votes Mac*

Linki w/Rico: Tranq should speak up, true facts.

My play has been extremely different than Ricochet's outside of the first few posts of the game when you could make that argument about any number of players. So stick that bullshit.

Overcompensating for your previous lack of aggression until I pointed it out eh Mac?

I'm one of six players who hasn't voted yet.

I'm not caught up at all. I have no idea what's going on atm.

I could vote the player with the most votes, Ricochet.
I could vote the runner-up, thellama73.
I could waste my vote by voting someone else.

Who should i vote for?

Actually Zebra I have a thought.

Boomslang and HamburgerBoy have both inferred that I am playing like Ricochet, which is actually a suggestion that I am playing like what many perceive my general meta to be. HamburgerBoy has experience with my general meta but Boomslang does not. As you have observed I am not actually playing like what they are insinuating I am playing like, they are resting on a perception of what I usually do play like without having noticed that I am not playing like that at all (which both Golden and you have noticed). This sounds to me like HamburgerBoy has been talking about me in their chat and Boomslang has picked things up that he wouldn't otherwise know about my meta.

Speaking of which there are some falsities being spoken of as fact here about my "meta". Like it's normal for me to play chaos. It's actually not normal at all. The only time I've actually played chaos on TS was as a caught scum in TH and as an independent role that absolutely justified it in Reborn. In Star Wars, Dune and Tree I played like I am here for the most part. There were times in Star Wars that I got melodramatic but that was in context I've yet to find here (an argument with someone who is scum reading me, who I am scum reading), though we are approaching this point with Boomslang.

In fact if you analyse my RYM history, the majority of my "chaos" performances were as scum and they are renowned because I won while doing so. The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.

Tranq wrote:I'm one of six players who hasn't voted yet.

I'm not caught up at all. I have no idea what's going on atm.

I could vote the player with the most votes, Ricochet.
I could vote the runner-up, thellama73.
I could waste my vote by voting someone else.

Who should i vote for?

Ricochet.

CFD JaggedCrypticJay

Metalmarsh89 wrote:CFD JaggedCrypticJay

lol

Tranq wrote:I'm one of six players who hasn't voted yet.

I'm not caught up at all. I have no idea what's going on atm.

I could vote the player with the most votes, Ricochet.
I could vote the runner-up, thellama73.
I could waste my vote by voting someone else.

Who should i vote for?

You could vote the Host option. I mean, it's the only thing in the equation you haven't mentioned.



linki: OH that reminds me? GTHs anyone?

Do you know 3 people you would like to lynch, Mac?

Ricochet wrote:

Tranq wrote:linki: OH that reminds me? GTHs anyone?

a2thezebra wrote:Overcompensating for your previous lack of aggression until I pointed it out eh Mac?

Uh no I am sick of people pretending they know how I play and making cases about it. I have you and Boomslang scum reading me for completely opposite viewpoints and it is pissing me off. He has absolutely no valid reason. His is OMGUS as blatant as fuck.

MacDougall wrote:The only chaos you see out of me as a civilian is early game to provoke discourse and when I am engaging in a firefight.

I wasn't exclusively talking about your behavior in this game. Golden and zebra asked me what possible pro-town motive exists for Rico playing the way he is this game. You've just given the motive (not that I hadn't already said it but no one was buying it just from me), so danke.

a2thezebra wrote:

Tranq wrote:I'm one of six players who hasn't voted yet.

I'm not caught up at all. I have no idea what's going on atm.

I could vote the player with the most votes, Ricochet.
I could vote the runner-up, thellama73.
I could waste my vote by voting someone else.

Who should i vote for?

Ricochet.

Ok.

Ricochet, you have half an hour to defend yourself against this!

That idea's worth noting, Mac. HamburgerBoy has replaced juliets on my list of the six to potentially be killed by me. Killed. KILLED.

linki - I'm not claiming to know how you play in general, only how you have played recently. Which is not this. Or at least, it wasn't.

linki - stop stop stop lemme post ugh

Tranq wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:

Tranq wrote:I'm one of six players who hasn't voted yet.

I'm not caught up at all. I have no idea what's going on atm.

I could vote the player with the most votes, Ricochet.
I could vote the runner-up, thellama73.
I could waste my vote by voting someone else.

Who should i vote for?

Ricochet.

Ok.

Ricochet, you have half an hour to defend yourself against this!

Ok, here's my best defense, just for you, mate.

a2thezebra wrote:That idea's worth noting, Mac. HamburgerBoy has replaced juliets on my list of the six to potentially be killed by me. Killed. KILLED.

Why juliets?