The Syndicate

My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

Roxy wrote:Lol hostile. At least I am not on the poll - for good reasoning tbs!

I deffo am not hostile I just love a good debate random vs non-random we have had this debate for as long as I have played. Thats like saying you were hostile b/c you disagreed with me hahaha

LOL, as hard as I try I get sucked into the debate every time!

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.

Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"

At the time that I voted, I saw nothing. As I said, I wish I hadn't voted early... but I thought the poll was ending soon at the time I did vote and at that time, I wasn't pinged by anyone... so I randomed!

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.

Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"

At the time that I voted, I saw nothing. As I said, I wish I hadn't voted early... but I thought the poll was ending soon at the time I did vote and at that time, I wasn't pinged by anyone... so I randomed!

If at some point, you are pinged or you see something, let me know!

Kate wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.

Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"

At the time that I voted, I saw nothing. As I said, I wish I hadn't voted early... but I thought the poll was ending soon at the time I did vote and at that time, I wasn't pinged by anyone... so I randomed!

If at some point, you are pinged or you see something, let me know!

MP is pinging me... big time! trying to manufacture a reason to vote someone, hates people who random and then randoms himself!

I have to leave in a bit, so I am going to go ahead and vote. I hate to lynch anyone, because I am not confident about anyone being a baddie yet, but decisions have to be made!

I believe LT about mixing up the post times, but the randomization doesn't sit well with me. I agree with Kate that it seems like something a baddie would be more likely to do than a civvie. I don't trust boo, and I would probably be voting Roxy if she were in the poll based on general attitude.

It is therefore with a heavy heart that I vote LT.

LittleTiger wrote:

Kate wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

LittleTiger wrote: And this whole random discussion pisses me off everytime. If there is nothing to go on, randomizing is perfectly legitimate.

Thee are 145 posts in this thread. How is that "nothing to go on?"

At the time that I voted, I saw nothing. As I said, I wish I hadn't voted early... but I thought the poll was ending soon at the time I did vote and at that time, I wasn't pinged by anyone... so I randomed!

If at some point, you are pinged or you see something, let me know!

MP is pinging me... big time! trying to manufacture a reason to vote someone, hates people who random and then randoms himself!

MP isn't pinging me at all. You are starting to though.

*votes Little Tiger*

IT IS MY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I am a civvie... as you will soon see. Bloody hell!

Noooo we can't lynch LT on her birthday!!

I'm bot down with that AT ALL!!!

LittleTiger wrote:IT IS MY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I am a civvie... as you will soon see. Bloody hell!

It is so hard on the first day and if I got it wrong I am truly sorry.

But Happy Birthday anyway.

It's the birthday curse

I think I'll randomize among weak reasons.

I'm voting Snow Dog.

Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.

reywaS wrote:I'm voting Snow Dog.

Extremely opportunistic vote there for LT.

Same goes for you. I'll have to remember this next vote

I have to leave in a few, so gotta vote now.

I'm going to vote for Boo. I think that his suggesting to vote BWT early in the day for not having checked in is suspect. I also think he is too good of a player to think that way.

*votes Boo*

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, well, here's where I'm at. Unfortunately, I have to vote now; class starts in just over a half hour.

Boo's behavior was a bit weird in that he seemed incredibly fixated on voting BWT who had not shown and there was still plenty of discussion to be had. LT's early vote seems a bit weird, and I'm not sure I buy that it was because she mixed up the poll times, although it could be a genuine mistake. Additionally, Rox's behavior to try to get some sort of response out of me with my reasoning behind my Day 0 vote, as well as her reasoning for her planned vote today (randomized based off of fisherman and auger voters only) and her recent posts about randomizing just don't make sense to me and make me wonder if she did have info regarding the Day 0 poll.

That being said, I don't feel confident at all any of those players are even baddie at this point, but that's what I've noticed. I think it's too early to be going after low posters or no shows, personally, since I do have those three observations.

I also don't feel any of these people are pinging me particularly strongly, so I'm randomizing among the three names (well, two, since Rox is not on the poll), and I got LT.

votes LittleTiger

MP I am using your post as a springboard for my vote because you touch on the significant debates for the day today.

Regarding boos behavior, I went back and read the post he is getting all the heat on and in my opinion he clearly says he is probably going to vote BWT if nothing else interesting comes up:

boo wrote:BWT is the only one who hasn't posted yet I believe. So if that doesn't change before I need to vote and nothing interesting comes up I'll probably vote for him.

It seemed to me that after this statement people were assuming he had or was absolutely going to vote BWT but that is not what I read here. Also, MP had not announced at this point that BWT was in Virginia. This statement plus his later one just did not read to me as "incredibly fixated" on BWT so I don't see a boo vote today. Maybe later in retrospect.

I do believe LT was genuine in her mistake about the poll times. And I've seen this argument about randomizing vs. finding a reason even if its just a slight ping in more than one game. I think it's all about people's opinions because I have never seen any stats showing what is true. My gut is that one is just like the other, both are attempts to deal with a very difficult vote. So, i don't condemn her for randomizing and believe she did it early by mistake.

As for Roxy, so far she just looks like normal Roxy to me and nothing about her tripped any wires for me.

So I'm looking at the people who haven't been around and I think Kate (I think it was Kate) brings up a good point about someone new being more likely to be quiet and bad as the game begins. Using that reasoning, I'm going to vote for AATB today for his lack of presence discussing the issues.

oh gosh, lots of linki and other people voting others for other reasons. I'm going ahead with my vote though.

thellama73 wrote:I have to leave in a bit, so I am going to go ahead and vote. I hate to lynch anyone, because I am not confident about anyone being a baddie yet, but decisions have to be made!

I believe LT about mixing up the post times, but the randomization doesn't sit well with me. I agree with Kate that it seems like something a baddie would be more likely to do than a civvie. I don't trust boo, and I would probably be voting Roxy if she were in the poll based on general attitude.

It is therefore with a heavy heart that I vote LT.

What do you mean "general attitude"?

Whelp gotta vote and I random'ed betwixt those I said I would and got Dex. Sorry Pickle but it is what it is. I do however <3 pickles in general

I'm voting boo too, it's low voting someone on their birthday!

Boo

Dex wrote:I think I'll randomize among weak reasons.

I know I just voted you but I have to say this made me lmao!

He-Man wrote:I'm voting boo too, it's low voting someone on their birthday!

Boo

You do realize Boo has not even voted yet

Roxy wrote:

He-Man wrote:I'm voting boo too, it's low voting someone on their birthday!

Boo

You do realize Boo has not even voted yet

No I didn't, I'm drunk and protective of LT on her birthday!

LOL! <3 He-Man

LittleTiger wrote:LOL! <3 He-Man

Even if I have to take the fall for birthday girl.

Vote me guys NOT LT

Well, I have 2 votes because apparently people feel like being ridiculous, so I'm safety voting. Sorry LT, but I know I'm civvie, I don't know about you.

I'll be looking at my voters in the future because those votes are nonsense. I hadn't voted when I said that, I was stating intentions if nothing else came up.

Anyways, heading to class so I need to vote now, sorry LT. *votes LT*

Well Boo's 'intention' turned to reality.

There are things called, erm 'playing the field' your 'intention' was really laying the ground work for your 'intentional' vote. Call your bluff. Glad I voted Boo now.

Well, at least you all will have a LOT to talk about for the next lynch

MP and thellama73 in particular.

Boo - shame you didn't vote someone else... but oh well.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!

I am voting He-Man for public drunkeness. Indeed, a weak, random reason.

I'm not getting why people are voting for boo, voting for a person who hasn't checked in, feels safer then just randomizing, or voting based on a weak suspicion.

Kate wrote: I'm going to vote for Boo. I think that his suggesting to vote BWT early in the day for not having checked in is suspect. I also think he is too good of a player to think that way.

*votes Boo*

What exactly is wrong with this strategy?

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

Also, Happy Birthday LT!

Dex wrote:Also, Happy Birthday LT!

awwww that is so cute! Thank you <3

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

LT randomizing was odd, and the fact that she's around, and therefore doesn't have the excuse of not being around to vote early. That, and her crazy posts, make me suspect her. Also, what's up with He-Man apparently defending her only because "It's her birthday."

I am an avid Survivor watcher, and a strategy that I have seen being used is that of claiming it to be his/her birthday in order to gain sympathy.

Because of this, I'm voting for her.

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

See above for a multitude of reasons why a Day 1 randomization is not perfectly okay.

juliets wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, well, here's where I'm at. Unfortunately, I have to vote now; class starts in just over a half hour.

Boo's behavior was a bit weird in that he seemed incredibly fixated on voting BWT who had not shown and there was still plenty of discussion to be had. LT's early vote seems a bit weird, and I'm not sure I buy that it was because she mixed up the poll times, although it could be a genuine mistake. Additionally, Rox's behavior to try to get some sort of response out of me with my reasoning behind my Day 0 vote, as well as her reasoning for her planned vote today (randomized based off of fisherman and auger voters only) and her recent posts about randomizing just don't make sense to me and make me wonder if she did have info regarding the Day 0 poll.

That being said, I don't feel confident at all any of those players are even baddie at this point, but that's what I've noticed. I think it's too early to be going after low posters or no shows, personally, since I do have those three observations.

I also don't feel any of these people are pinging me particularly strongly, so I'm randomizing among the three names (well, two, since Rox is not on the poll), and I got LT.

votes LittleTiger

MP I am using your post as a springboard for my vote because you touch on the significant debates for the day today.

Regarding boos behavior, I went back and read the post he is getting all the heat on and in my opinion he clearly says he is probably going to vote BWT if nothing else interesting comes up:

boo wrote:BWT is the only one who hasn't posted yet I believe. So if that doesn't change before I need to vote and nothing interesting comes up I'll probably vote for him.

It seemed to me that after this statement people were assuming he had or was absolutely going to vote BWT but that is not what I read here. Also, MP had not announced at this point that BWT was in Virginia. This statement plus his later one just did not read to me as "incredibly fixated" on BWT so I don't see a boo vote today. Maybe later in retrospect.

I do believe LT was genuine in her mistake about the poll times. And I've seen this argument about randomizing vs. finding a reason even if its just a slight ping in more than one game. I think it's all about people's opinions because I have never seen any stats showing what is true. My gut is that one is just like the other, both are attempts to deal with a very difficult vote. So, i don't condemn her for randomizing and believe she did it early by mistake.

As for Roxy, so far she just looks like normal Roxy to me and nothing about her tripped any wires for me.

So I'm looking at the people who haven't been around and I think Kate (I think it was Kate) brings up a good point about someone new being more likely to be quiet and bad as the game begins. Using that reasoning, I'm going to vote for AATB today for his lack of presence discussing the issues.

oh gosh, lots of linki and other people voting others for other reasons. I'm going ahead with my vote though.

Exactly my thoughts also (the underlined/bolded) - it seemed to be an extreme exaggeration of what Boo said, and thus why I think MP is worth looking at later since he also mischaracterized my reason for voting early AND is getting me lynched!

insertnamehere wrote:LT randomizing was odd, and the fact that she's around, and therefore doesn't have the excuse of not being around to vote early. That, and her crazy posts, make me suspect her. Also, what's up with He-Man apparently defending her only because "It's her birthday."

I am an avid Survivor watcher, and a strategy that I have seen being used is that of claiming it to be his/her birthday in order to gain sympathy.

Because of this, I'm voting for her.

Of course its her birthday. Why didn't you just ask us?

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

Sorry, forgot to finish my thought. It seems to me like if it's such a bad strategy for every lynch, it's probably bad to do once.

So much linki....

Sorry boo, but I have to go on something today, even if it does ping you. I feel no better about you than LT, and it just seems too mean to lynch her on her birthday.

votes boo

insertnamehere wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

See above for a multitude of reasons why a Day 1 randomization is not perfectly okay.

I SAY IT IS! I am so sick of this discussion time after time after time. If someone wants to randomize on D1, so what? Ugh! Everyone has different ways of approaching D1 and I wish we could just stop having this debate. I have played hundreds of games by now, and really.... it gets old seeing the same shit over and over.

Consider that baddies might SAY they are randomizing and actually do not. You can then go back later and add it to other information you might have gathered and add it to the pile of "evidence". So, there you go... an opposing view. I say, let people play the way they want to play...

linki: IF YOU ARE READING THE THREAD you will see that I voted early BY ACCIDENT, INH!

insertnamehere wrote:LT randomizing was odd, and the fact that she's around, and therefore doesn't have the excuse of not being around to vote early. That, and her crazy posts, make me suspect her. Also, what's up with He-Man apparently defending her only because "It's her birthday."

I am an avid Survivor watcher, and a strategy that I have seen being used is that of claiming it to be his/her birthday in order to gain sympathy.

Because of this, I'm voting for her.

You are so baddie this game. All you have to do is look at the bottom of the forum to see that it is, indeed, my birthday. Why the hell would I lie about that anyway?

LittleTiger wrote:

insertnamehere wrote:

LittleTiger wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Kate wrote:My whole point about the randomizing is that if you randomize, there is nothing to go back to later. If you vote a weak ping, or a bad fakes a weak ping, those are in the thread as evidence later in the game. Randomizing tells everyone nothing, and if you are bad, that is a good thing. So the argument about "its just as likely to lynch a civ as is voting on weak pings" may be true but it leaves something to be analyzed later, which randomizing doesn't.

This.

As a thought experiment, if we all randomized every lynch the baddies would be nearly guaranteed to win, right? Because even though they're outnumbered they get kills every night and start with a 75% chance of lynching civvies daily. I strongly dislike Roxy's argument, and agree with llama, that her aggression is pinging me.

But she's not on the poll, so as it is I'm trying to decide whether boo's willingness to lynch no-shows (which is at best no better than randomizing) of LT's early randomization was worse. Leaning boo because he hasn't defended his reasoning since he pinged people, and I do feel a little bad lynching LT on her bday

But we wouldn't randomize every lynch! The randomizer is perfectly okay for a day 1 if there is nothing else to go on. I really, really wish I had not mistaken the poll end time, tbqh!

See above for a multitude of reasons why a Day 1 randomization is not perfectly okay.

I SAY IT IS! I am so sick of this discussion time after time after time. If someone wants to randomize on D1, so what? Ugh! Everyone has different ways of approaching D1 and I wish we could just stop having this debate. I have played hundreds of games by now, and really.... it gets old seeing the same shit over and over.

Consider that baddies might SAY they are randomizing and actually do not. You can then go back later and add it to other information you might have gathered and add it to the pile of "evidence". So, there you go... an opposing view. I say, let people play the way they want to play...

linki: IF YOU ARE READING THE THREAD you will see that I voted early BY ACCIDENT, INH!

You aren't actually giving any reasons why you randomized, just that you wish people to shut up about it.

insertnamehere wrote: You aren't actually giving any reasons why you randomized, just that you wish people to shut up about it.

What? Are you being serious?

LittleTiger wrote:

insertnamehere wrote: You aren't actually giving any reasons why you randomized, just that you wish people to shut up about it.

What? Are you being serious?

No, it's just a game.

juliets wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Okay, well, here's where I'm at. Unfortunately, I have to vote now; class starts in just over a half hour.

Boo's behavior was a bit weird in that he seemed incredibly fixated on voting BWT who had not shown and there was still plenty of discussion to be had. LT's early vote seems a bit weird, and I'm not sure I buy that it was because she mixed up the poll times, although it could be a genuine mistake. Additionally, Rox's behavior to try to get some sort of response out of me with my reasoning behind my Day 0 vote, as well as her reasoning for her planned vote today (randomized based off of fisherman and auger voters only) and her recent posts about randomizing just don't make sense to me and make me wonder if she did have info regarding the Day 0 poll.

That being said, I don't feel confident at all any of those players are even baddie at this point, but that's what I've noticed. I think it's too early to be going after low posters or no shows, personally, since I do have those three observations.

I also don't feel any of these people are pinging me particularly strongly, so I'm randomizing among the three names (well, two, since Rox is not on the poll), and I got LT.

votes LittleTiger

MP I am using your post as a springboard for my vote because you touch on the significant debates for the day today.

Regarding boos behavior, I went back and read the post he is getting all the heat on and in my opinion he clearly says he is probably going to vote BWT if nothing else interesting comes up:

boo wrote:BWT is the only one who hasn't posted yet I believe. So if that doesn't change before I need to vote and nothing interesting comes up I'll probably vote for him.

It seemed to me that after this statement people were assuming he had or was absolutely going to vote BWT but that is not what I read here. Also, MP had not announced at this point that BWT was in Virginia. This statement plus his later one just did not read to me as "incredibly fixated" on BWT so I don't see a boo vote today. Maybe later in retrospect.

I do believe LT was genuine in her mistake about the poll times. And I've seen this argument about randomizing vs. finding a reason even if its just a slight ping in more than one game. I think it's all about people's opinions because I have never seen any stats showing what is true. My gut is that one is just like the other, both are attempts to deal with a very difficult vote. So, i don't condemn her for randomizing and believe she did it early by mistake.

As for Roxy, so far she just looks like normal Roxy to me and nothing about her tripped any wires for me.

So I'm looking at the people who haven't been around and I think Kate (I think it was Kate) brings up a good point about someone new being more likely to be quiet and bad as the game begins. Using that reasoning, I'm going to vote for AATB today for his lack of presence discussing the issues.

oh gosh, lots of linki and other people voting others for other reasons. I'm going ahead with my vote though.

This is such a cop-out. Why exactly is being a low poster at this point such a problem? You're basically trying to justify just throwing a lynch vote away. Votes Juliets

Whoops, almost missed it. Voted for MP for randomizing.

AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:
This is such a cop-out. Why exactly is being a low poster at this point such a problem? You're basically trying to justify just throwing a lynch vote away. Votes Juliets

A low poster could be someone who is avoiding conversation in order not to be noticed and thus not voted for. You will also hear people use the term 'flying low' for someone who posts the minimal amount and doesn't add anything to the discussions.

And what you did right here is called a "switcheroo" which means voting for someone just because they voted for you. Also a baddie tactic.

So normally I would think this makes you more suspicious but I do see how new you are so maybe you didn't know.

Also, RIP LT it's very sad to see you go. And welcome to the "I got lynched on my birthday" club.

Well, fuck.

S~V~S wrote:She was Chewing Gum

Well, OK, but what was her role?

Rip LT

Probably gel since he will have to use it to replace the gum as his emergency sticky substance.