The Syndicate

Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:I didn't say you never spoke to sig, and I didn't say you never asked any questions.

I said you have not asked sig a single question.

So you see I did ask sig a question. "Tell me why " is asking for information just like a statement with a ? at the end.

If you say so...it's not at all a question though. That looks more like an accusation than a request for information that I associate with a civilian juliets who wants to be as informed as possible before casting a vote.

juliets wrote:Epignosis, did you ever make a case on nutella? I don't remember reading it but there has been so much I may have forgotten.

No, not really.

juliets wrote:Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.

"Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not the kind of question you ask of someone you are genuinely interested in having your mind changed about. "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not a request for information, it's a demand that someone prove themselves. Very, very different. Also, it doesn't look to me like Epi missed that post, it looks like he disagrees that it was a "question" asked in good faith (but I'll let Epi answer that himself)

And, as I already mentioned in the post to which you are responding, what is "off" about your posts is what Epi pinpointed....which is why I said exactly that in my previous post. Now, however, I'll add to that a very concerted effort on your part to misunderstand/ignore other people's posts. The tactic of (unconvincingly) dismissing the reason someone suspects you, then asking why they "otherwise" suspect you is not a winning one. There is no "otherwise", lol. I supspect you for exactly the reasons I stated (via a quote from another player), and for no others. I don't need an "otherwise".

I have gone back and looked at Matt's case on nutella. Basically, though nutella contributed during the day it took her only 8 minutes to decide to throw her vote on Sorsha. This is ironic because at the same time she said she wanted to give Bubbles a chance to respond to the allegations against her. Why not, then, let Sorsha have an opportunity to respond? In addition, there was a 4 - 4 - 4 tie on Dom, Bugla and Banana. She avoided getting involved in that tie vote.

I would like to hear what Epi and Golden say about their thoughts on nutella. I might consider her as an alternative to sig since i have Epi, HamBoy, Golden, TH all saying I am not reading sig correctly in the genuineness of his sincerity and I don't know him at all.

Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

Canucklehead wrote:

juliets wrote:Did you read my response Canuck? I did indeed ask sig a question, "I'm about to vote for you, tell me why I shouldnt". Epig just missed it in his review. Otherwise, what do you think is so off about my posting? Half of my posts have been questions which is normal for me.

"Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not the kind of question you ask of someone you are genuinely interested in having your mind changed about. "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you" is not a request for information, it's a demand that someone prove themselves. Very, very different. Also, it doesn't look to me like Epi missed that post, it looks like he disagrees that it was a "question" asked in good faith (but I'll let Epi answer that himself)

And, as I already mentioned in the post to which you are responding, what is "off" about your posts is what Epi pinpointed....which is why I said exactly that in my previous post. Now, however, I'll add to that a very concerted effort on your part to misunderstand/ignore other people's posts. The tactic of (unconvincingly) dismissing the reason someone suspects you, then asking why they "otherwise" suspect you is not a winning one. There is no "otherwise", lol. I supspect you for exactly the reasons I stated (via a quote from another player), and for no others. I don't need an "otherwise".

I don't know what posts I have misconstrued or misunderstood or ignored so if you would like to point them out I can respond to them individually. Just making a sweeping statement does not help me with what you are talking about. I'm already willing to admit I might have misunderstood the sig sincerity issue and am asking questions to determine if i can find someone more suspicious. So if thats what you're talking about I am aware that issue exists.

sig, I presume you are holding your vote for the end but it you could vote anywhere you wanted on the first half of the poll who would it be?

juliets wrote:sig, I presume you are holding your vote for the end but it you could vote anywhere you wanted on the first half of the poll who would it be?

A question for sig!

Bullzeye wrote:You claim you 'know' but you don't have any reason to know. Even if he roleclaimed in map btsc with you he could've lied and roles aren't explicitly attached to alignments in this game anyway. Can you see why I don't think you're qualified to comment on the Sig case at all when you blatantly haven't even read it?

No, I can't see that. At this point, I've said all that I can say about it.

I'm not implying there are things I can't say. Just that I don't want to repeat the same points over and over.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone. So there is no way I can catch up on 30 pages, but I did read everything from where I was ask to replace in. All I'm seeing is a bunch of stuff about sig and bubbles with hints of stuff about golden . So I'm going to be focusing on the cases on those 3.
Also if anyone can give me a recap oh people who had meaning full interaction with the people who were kill it would really help.

Know I'm not sure about the bubbles case much, people have mentioned golden for seeming disingenuous for defending me I believe.

Know people voting for me is focusing around that I said after Timmers death the mafia is most likely killing low posters. This got a few players suspicious and began accusing me and when I defended myself they said my defense was suspicious. Know zebra one of the two main people pursuing me was killed leading me to believe the mafia are attempting to set me up, and the other pushing my lynch is bulls who I believe is mafia. I can't recall the other reasons for those who voted for me though.

so today you vote for one player in each Option and votes are changable.

@juliets I'd most likely vote for Bullzeye right know, though if I'm not in fear of getting lynched I'd review the cases of the other leading wagons. I won't be voting Golden today though.

DFaraday wrote:I'd also point out that we still have a full day left in this phase, so saying I voted you and never came back sounds a bit alarmist.

I meant the previous day phase.
Know DFaraday my first game here Bullets over Broadway we were on the same mafia team correct? In said games I made no scum slips but was instead caught mainly by sloonie for flipflopping and being wishy washy on voting and reads. Do you agree with this?

juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

sig wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:Hey everyone. So there is no way I can catch up on 30 pages, but I did read everything from where I was ask to replace in. All I'm seeing is a bunch of stuff about sig and bubbles with hints of stuff about golden . So I'm going to be focusing on the cases on those 3.
Also if anyone can give me a recap oh people who had meaning full interaction with the people who were kill it would really help.

Know I'm not sure about the bubbles case much, people have mentioned golden for seeming disingenuous for defending me I believe.

Know people voting for me is focusing around that I said after Timmers death the mafia is most likely killing low posters. This got a few players suspicious and began accusing me and when I defended myself they said my defense was suspicious. Know zebra one of the two main people pursuing me was killed leading me to believe the mafia are attempting to set me up, and the other pushing my lynch is bulls who I believe is mafia. I can't recall the other reasons for those who voted for me though.

so today you vote for one player in each Option and votes are changable.

@juliets I'd most likely vote for Bullzeye right know, though if I'm not in fear of getting lynched I'd review the cases of the other leading wagons. I won't be voting Golden today though.

DFaraday wrote:I'd also point out that we still have a full day left in this phase, so saying I voted you and never came back sounds a bit alarmist.

I meant the previous day phase.
Know DFaraday my first game here Bullets over Broadway we were on the same mafia team correct? In said games I made no scum slips but was instead caught mainly by sloonie for flipflopping and being wishy washy on voting and reads. Do you agree with this?

Thanks

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:[snip]

This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.

Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for

Turnip Head wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

Epignosis wrote:[snip]

This is a fantastic post, and articulates exactly what it is about Juliets posting that has been off.

Did you already think that juliets' posting had been off before Epi's post? This makes it seem like you've been playing closer attention than you've given yourself credit for

Juliets is one of two people I've actually interacted with this game, so yes I've previously thought her posts odd. No, I haven't been paying particularly close attention, to her or anyone.

nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

Matt F wrote:nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

No

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

There is no reason my reason has to come from anyone else. You have been trying to convince me not to vote sig and I thought you might be helpful in finding an alternative.

@nutella - I have read through your posts several times and I don't see a response as to why you gave Bubbles a chance to respond but you didn't give Sorsha a chance. I see the part where you voted Sorsha first and then saw the Bubbles comment but that still doesn't answer the question as to why not give Sorsha the same chance you were giving Bubbles.

juliets wrote:@nutella - I have read through your posts several times and I don't see a response as to why you gave Bubbles a chance to respond but you didn't give Sorsha a chance. I see the part where you voted Sorsha first and then saw the Bubbles comment but that still doesn't answer the question as to why not give Sorsha the same chance you were giving Bubbles.

This is pretty much my nutella case in a nutshell. It amounts to - her one post on bubbles looked like intentional distancing from bubbles.

Matt F wrote:nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

Has it been explicitly explained that a leader from both group 1 and group 2 will be lynched? I thought it was more a way of forcing discussion of multiple candidates, as well as punishment for those that missed the night poll. "A fun lynch", singular, implies that as well.

Clarification mods?

I'm going to go ahead and change my vote to nutella from sig. If nutella comes in and convinces me other wise I will move my vote.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

There is no reason my reason has to come from anyone else. You have been trying to convince me not to vote sig and I thought you might be helpful in finding an alternative.

I'm not trying to convince you not to vote sig. I'm calling your vote on sig disingenuous and accusing you of being Mafia.

I also realized you were the first vote on Bananas. I took a peek back at that:

juliets wrote:

juliets wrote:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

Banana you were just here but didnt answer my questions so here is a reminder in case you're still around. I persevere when people don't answer my questions so might as well do it now.

juliets wrote:Banana, speaking of asking questions you still have not answered my question from yesterday even though you were here to make fun of Mac's post and could have answered it then. Are you just going to ignore me and try to make the question about your vote go away? I think I'll throw a vote your way until you answer me and then I'll see if the answer explains things for me.

After Banana got lynched:

juliets wrote:Sorry Banana, RIP. My reasons for voting you just weren't right as it turns out. Please come back and play with us again.

What was your reason for voting Banana that just wasn't right? The only reason you voted Banana was to put pressure on him and get him to respond to your question. I struggle to see how you could describe a pressure vote as one that "just wasn't right, as it turns out." I also notice that between 11:14 AM to the lynch's end, you had one post- asking clarification from Floyd. In the ten hours leading up to the lynch, you didn't participate in any of the discussion, and you left your pressure vote in play.

Then Banana got lynched, and it's "My reasons for voting you just weren't right as it turns out."

I am having difficulty believing a civilian juliets would leave a pressure vote on the really low hanging fruit.

I was wondering the same HB. It makes sense to me that one will get lynched from each, given clearly those who voted cat or dog got removed from the relevant poll. We got to sort ourselves into groups. Frankly, I'd lynch two people from group dog if I could

Good question, Ham, I figured it would be two since there are two groups, but you could be correct.

Matt F wrote:nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

If I figure out someone who I think deserves it more I will move it. Also depends on if/what clarification we get on it

I'm going to vote for nutella and sorsha today.

Epi these are not my only posts for Banana but my main reason for voting for him was I found his vote suspicious and I wanted to pressure him to tell me the reason he had voted such. I left my vote there because I continued to be suspicious and he continued to not respond. After he flipped civ I knew my finding his vote suspicious was wrong and thus my vote for him was wrong. I don't comment on everything going on in the game just like many other people and I am not at the keyboard all day every day.

juliets wrote:

juliets wrote:

NANANANANANA_BANANA wrote:I vote for Matt F because he has caused a lot of arguments for no good reason.

Banana, I dont understand. What has he done exactly to cause an argument? What arguments are you talking about?

Banana you were just here but didnt answer my questions so here is a reminder in case you're still around. I persevere when people don't answer my questions so might as well do it now.

Switched my group one vote to Nutella.

I don't think the latest interactions around Juliets are making her look good either though. If I change it will be to her but I'm pretty sure I'll keep it on Nutella.

For right now I'm going to put my votes. On golden and tiny bubbles.
Tiny bubbles definitely looks the worst when under the gun she said that golden should should know her game more then anyone instead of giving thread evidence as to why she is cub. To me that looks bad.
Golden interaction with bullz is why he is getting my vote I don't know why he was defending sig so hard , granted I haven't read the whole thread so I might be missing something, but I really do think bulls could be right when he says golden is bad and that's how he knows dig isnt.

How odd, that you should put your vote on the person I've pushed the case for, and on me.

Did you realise that the reason I'm pushing bubbles is because I think she is on the team who killed timmer, and the reason I'm defending sig is because I think he is not.

I'm guessing only 1 player out of the 2 groups will get lynched, with the votes being added up if someone appears in both groups.

Speaking of which, double vote on TinyBubbles

juliets wrote:I have gone back and looked at Matt's case on nutella. Basically, though nutella contributed during the day it took her only 8 minutes to decide to throw her vote on Sorsha. This is ironic because at the same time she said she wanted to give Bubbles a chance to respond to the allegations against her. Why not, then, let Sorsha have an opportunity to respond? In addition, there was a 4 - 4 - 4 tie on Dom, Bugla and Banana. She avoided getting involved in that tie vote.

I would like to hear what Epi and Golden say about their thoughts on nutella. I might consider her as an alternative to sig since i have Epi, HamBoy, Golden, TH all saying I am not reading sig correctly in the genuineness of his sincerity and I don't know him at all.

juliets wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

juliets wrote:Epi I missed your post while I was posting. Since there is no case would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you voted nutella? I am looking for a good reason to pull my vote off of sig since so many of you think I am misreading him.

I think it would be better if you read nutella and decided for yourself. Why must your reason for voting sig, or nutella, or anybody else come from another person?

There is no reason my reason has to come from anyone else. You have been trying to convince me not to vote sig and I thought you might be helpful in finding an alternative.

@nutella - I have read through your posts several times and I don't see a response as to why you gave Bubbles a chance to respond but you didn't give Sorsha a chance. I see the part where you voted Sorsha first and then saw the Bubbles comment but that still doesn't answer the question as to why not give Sorsha the same chance you were giving Bubbles.

Once again you are misinterpreting my comment on Bubbles, and ignoring my explanation of the timing of my Day 1 posts. At the time that I quickly read Sorsha's posts and decided to vote for her, there was about half an hour left on the poll and I had to leave before then, so I could not stick around for her response. The Bubbles comment pinged me, but not nearly as strongly as Sorsha's posts had, so by saying I would wait for Bubbles' response I meant I would wait UNTIL THE NEXT DAY to pursue her further, since there wasn't enough time left and I had to run. My ping on Sorsha was strong enough at the time to go ahead and vote for her, and I knew it wouldn't actually have an effect on the lynch but I often use my Day 1 vote as a symbolic indication of my strongest suspicion.

You're comparing two things which in my mind are not comparable. I couldn't give Sorsha time to respond because I had to vote right then. I was not even considering voting for Bubbles that day, I was merely recording that it was an interesting point and I looked forward to her response for the next day.

Matt F wrote:nutella, splints, Sorsha - Do you plan on keeping your votes on Bubbles in Group 1 even though it looks like she'll already be lynched in Group 2?

I mean, it looks like I have the most votes in group 1 so if someone else gets a couple more I would change it Also I'm not sure if what Tranq said is right or if two players will get lynched. I hope he's right because otherwise it looks like I'll be lynched (for very weak, if any, reasoning ) but I had assumed both groups would have a lynch.



Dom, Sorsha, care to give reasoning for your votes? I'd like to be given a chance to defend and perhaps change your minds. Lots of incorrect assumptions have been made about my posts and I just want to know what your reasoning is.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

sig wrote: I would also like to hear DFaraday reasons for voting for me since I can't remember any. She/He voted for me very early yesterday and never came back and has done the same today.

Your initial comments that read like you knew something about the baddies' motives pinged me, and your defense since hasn't really convinced me otherwise. The fact that HB kept defending you also made me more suspicious. Golden too, but he feels more genuine to me.

That's odd, becasue I feel quite the opposite re Hammy & Golden. I think Hammy sounds very genuine, Golden not as much to me, but I am a piss poor judge of Golden. Also let's not forget Epignosis! He defended sig too.

Epignosis wrote:Top suspects, revised edition:

Typhoony
nutella
juliets
S~V~S

What your famed Scumdar was wrong about Dom? You dropped him from your list? I don't mind being there; I know you are wrong about me, and it keeps the baddies away

I don't have a "scumdar." That's a ridiculous word. I have Day 1 suspicions. Day 1 suspicions are inferior to Day 3 suspicions.

Oh I HATE that word too, it was just that Mac kept carrying on about your "scumdar" the night you were after Dom, I was just wondering if he had fallen off completely or what.

Golden wrote:How odd, that you should put your vote on the person I've pushed the case for, and on me.

Did you realise that the reason I'm pushing bubbles is because I think she is on the team who killed timmer, and the reason I'm defending sig is because I think he is not.

I going off how everything read to me. I don't know about interactions between timer it who else was killed. I asked about that stuff and didn't get anything, the only person who addressed what I said was sig.

Dom Dom where u at.

Matt in answer to your question. If you vote for me I will be thrilled.

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:How odd, that you should put your vote on the person I've pushed the case for, and on me.

Did you realise that the reason I'm pushing bubbles is because I think she is on the team who killed timmer, and the reason I'm defending sig is because I think he is not.

I going off how everything read to me. I don't know about interactions between timer it who else was killed. I asked about that stuff and didn't get anything, the only person who addressed what I said was sig.

I'm happy to address any questions you have. I realise its impossible for you to get everything when its 30 pages of stuff to catch up on.

Golden wrote:

Bass_the_Clever wrote:

Golden wrote:How odd, that you should put your vote on the person I've pushed the case for, and on me.

Did you realise that the reason I'm pushing bubbles is because I think she is on the team who killed timmer, and the reason I'm defending sig is because I think he is not.

I going off how everything read to me. I don't know about interactions between timer it who else was killed. I asked about that stuff and didn't get anything, the only person who addressed what I said was sig.

I'm happy to address any questions you have. I realise its impossible for you to get everything when its 30 pages of stuff to catch up on.

Thanks but I doubt I will be changing my votes.

Why did Bubbles vote for Splints?

This is her last post, from a bit less than 24 hours ago.

TinyBubbles wrote:rip zebra, and surprised you're still alive sig
im behind on the thread, but in response to golden's belief about me being bad, wrong~! he of ALL PEOPLE would be able to tell if i was mafia and the fact that he's accusing me as well as nutella makes me believe he's shady and nutella is at least not his teammate and probably not mafia

I was not sure if, until I wrote this post, I was going to vote for Golden or follow him. While I don't know that I think Bubbles putative teammates would merrily go along with the plan he outlines, I don;t know what Golden would gain from going after her so hard if he was wrong, and Golden is a careful baddie. In short, i think his case is crap, but I also don't know Golden to be a spitballer, throwing names out to gauge reactions.

I also agree with him about sig.

So going Nutella since I have not really changed my thoughts there (and Bubbles defending her makes me go *meh*), and Bubbles.

I think Bubbles just copied my vote. Her initial vote was only on golden after that OMGUS-y post yesterday, and suddenly she just dropped that fingersplints one.

I'm here until the lynch ends or until I fall asleep, whichever one comes first. Who wants to talk?

Apologies for the lack of recent contribution. Been extremely tired with school work and other RL stuff.
I'm chucking my votes on Nutella and Bubbles. I might change my votes later on, but I don't have a lot of time to read what I've missed.

Ok then.

I'm looking through the Bubbles stuff. Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

The theory:
Part 1:
On Day 1, Bubbles' baddie team gets a list of people they can kill. They choose Timmer.
On Day 1, but later, Bubbles voted Timmer because she "wanted him to post more."
Night 1, Timmer gets killed.

Golden's theory is that Bubbles is a baddie on the team that killed Timmer and that they had already decided they were going to kill Timmer BEFORE Bubbles voted Timmer.
Bubbles is aware of a time that a baddie distanced him/herself from a kill by mentioning that person in a post RIGHT after the night post was posted. . Because of this, she decides to vote Timmer in an attempt to distance herself.

Part 2:
Turnip Head asked Bubbles if she is bad. Bubbles replied with "Am I bad? Go by my track record".
The theory here is that this is an odd thing to say for bubbles, as she usually replies with a statement saying she was civ. The possibility is there that Bubbles made a different statement now because she knows there is a Lie Detector, or just because she is bad.

Is this all correct? Please someone correct me if it is wrong, because to me, this case doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Why is that, you ask? Why, thank you for asking:
Golden's theory part 1 would make a lot more sense if Bubbles had made a post about Timmer right before the nightpost, or right after. Now, the post was made during the Day, not during the Night as was the case in the game Golden is referring to.
On top of that, Golden is assuming that the baddie team had:
- Already received their targets AND
- Had already decided on their kill during the day

The first one I could see in a game like this... ( Hosts can you elaborate on this? ), the second one... It is not my experience that baddie teams decide who to kill during the Day, but it's not impossible. I don't think it's very likely though.

Part 2 is metabased. I've only played with Bubbles in RMIV and I died N1 there, so .I'll take your guys word for it.
Why have so many people voted Bubbles?

Linki: Thanks for, indeed, chucking your votes on there Floyd.

Who should I vote for?

I am scum.

MacDougall wrote:I am scum.

I'll entertain you since this day was another bandwagon established before it hardly began.

Mac

Any vote for a self confessed scum is a smart vote.

Up next: nutelLA
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well now, Typhoony, you just spend some time looking through the Bubbles case, aren't you tired yet?
Nah man sleep is for the weak.

Ok then.
Ugh, this seems like it'll take more time than Bubbles. Anyway:
----------------------------------------------------
Stuff that people have on nutelLA:
- First up: Matt Fs post about nutelLA (and Sorsha)
nutelLA spends most of her Day 1 contributing and in a span of 8 minutes she "throws her vote on Sorsha" (the original reason for looking at Sorsha is because Dom suspects her), avoiding the tie between Bugla/Dom/Banana. A minute later, she posts saying that the Bubbles catch is interesting, but that she would like to see a response from Bubbles first. Matt F finds this strange, saying that nutelLA never gave Sorsha this opportunity.
(Matt F sees a link between Sorsha and nutelLA because Sorsha does not respond to nutelLAs posts and subsequent vote)

nutelLA responds by saying she had to get going and in those eight minutes, she saw some inconsistencies in Sorsha's posts, which she does not elaborate on at this point. She does do this later after juliets asked for it.

My opinion:
I don't have any issues with nutella "throwing her vote on Sorsha" in an 8 minute timespan. It's Day 1, people sometimes don't have enough time to make a well informed vote, shit happens. The fact that she gave Bubbles the opportunity to explain but not Sorsha is suspicious, but I can see why she said it and it doesn't make her bad. I don't like how she evaded the tie between Bugla/Dom/Banana, but again, time constraints.

---------------------------------------------
In the same post that she responds to juliets, she also responds to Sorsha who made a post on her:
- Sorsha thinks that nutella had already decided to vote for her before the 8 minutes.
- nutelLA's reason to look at Sorsha is because Dom suspected Sorsha. However, right before nutelLa made the post saying she was going to look at Sorsha, she made a post saying she was unsure of Dom's allegiance.

nutelLA claims she had not already decided to vote for Sorsha and only looked at Sorsha because she remembered seeing Sorshas name mentioned a couple of times, and Dom made her remember that.

My opinion:
I do think it is very likely nutelLA had already decided to vote for Sorsha when she made the post that she was going to look at Sorsha, no matter what she says. Does that make her bad? No. Does it make me more suspicious of her? Yes, because her other choice was Buglabush, who was in the Day 1 tie and Sorsha was a "safe" vote, as in not likely to be lynched.
The fact that she looked at Sorsha because Dom mentioned her and she had no opinion on Dom is not weird to me. If she had simply said "Dom suspects Sorsha, I vote Sorsha", that would have been weird.
--------------------------------------
After this, Golden comes in with a post:
- He had asked nutelLA earlier if she was civ aligned (and some others) which she did not respond to. She did, however, say that the Bubbles catch (which is similar but much more meta-related) was "interesting". Golden says this could be a distancing post, it is also the post which made him realize nutelLA did not answer the question.

Nutella responds by saying that she is indeed civilian-aligned.

My opinion:
I don't think forgetting to say she was civ aligned was a deliberate mistake by nutella. I do think her post on Bubbles is weird and could definitely be seen as a classical distancing post. It can also be seen as a "Well hello, looks like we have a potential easy lynch target for the next day if everything works out" post. It could also be seen as what she actually said it was.
I don't think it's the first. The second is more likely than the third imo.

This seems to be the gist of the case. If I forgot anything or if you would like to revise something, let me know.

Overall nutella looks more suspicious than Bubbles than me, and after looking at this indepth I think I will give her one of my votes.

Linki: Hello. Do I smell this bad that nobody wants to talk?

Typhoony wrote:Ok then.

I'm looking through the Bubbles stuff. Please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone.

The theory:
Part 1:
On Day 1, Bubbles' baddie team gets a list of people they can kill. They choose Timmer.
On Day 1, but later, Bubbles voted Timmer because she "wanted him to post more."
Night 1, Timmer gets killed.

Golden's theory is that Bubbles is a baddie on the team that killed Timmer and that they had already decided they were going to kill Timmer BEFORE Bubbles voted Timmer.
Bubbles is aware of a time that a baddie distanced him/herself from a kill by mentioning that person in a post RIGHT after the night post was posted. . Because of this, she decides to vote Timmer in an attempt to distance herself.

Part 2:
Turnip Head asked Bubbles if she is bad. Bubbles replied with "Am I bad? Go by my track record".
The theory here is that this is an odd thing to say for bubbles, as she usually replies with a statement saying she was civ. The possibility is there that Bubbles made a different statement now because she knows there is a Lie Detector, or just because she is bad.

Is this all correct? Please someone correct me if it is wrong, because to me, this case doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Why is that, you ask? Why, thank you for asking:
Golden's theory part 1 would make a lot more sense if Bubbles had made a post about Timmer right before the nightpost, or right after. Now, the post was made during the Day, not during the Night as was the case in the game Golden is referring to.
On top of that, Golden is assuming that the baddie team had:
- Already received their targets AND
- Had already decided on their kill during the day

The first one I could see in a game like this... ( Hosts can you elaborate on this? ), the second one... It is not my experience that baddie teams decide who to kill during the Day, but it's not impossible. I don't think it's very likely though.

Part 2 is metabased. I've only played with Bubbles in RMIV and I died N1 there, so .I'll take your guys word for it.
Why have so many people voted Bubbles?

Linki: Thanks for, indeed, chucking your votes on there Floyd.

Why are you looking into a player with 11+ votes less than three hours before deadline? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Turnip Head wrote: Why are you looking into a player with 11+ votes less than three hours before deadline? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Because nobody showed interest in talking to me and I didn't have time to do an indepth look before this.

I'm hoping to figure out who I should vote for. nutelLA is probably one, the other one I don't know yet.

But you want to talk to me, so let's talk. Is there anyone you would like to discuss? What do you think of nutella?

Typhoony wrote:

Turnip Head wrote: Why are you looking into a player with 11+ votes less than three hours before deadline? What are you hoping to accomplish?

Who are you thinking of voting for?

Because nobody showed interest in talking to me and I didn't have time to do an indepth look before this.

I'm hoping to figure out who I should vote for. nutelLA is probably one, the other one I don't know yet.

But you want to talk to me, so let's talk. Is there anyone you would like to discuss? What do you think of nutella?

I feel okay about nutella. She was incredibly bandwagonny and blendy in Recruitment IV where she was bad, I haven't felt that way about her here. If Bubbles is bad I'll take a closer look at her because I can see the point being made about her Day 1 vote.

I want to talk about Tranq and juliets. Tranq voted double Bubbles but his Group 1 vote for her is especially useless. I feel like he's trying to take a stance on as few players as possible.

juliets hopped on the sigwagon early today but when she was called out she backed off. I'm wondering if that had more to do with making herself look better than it does her feelings about sig.