The Syndicate

Quin wrote:

Long Con wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:DDL, I've noticed a trend of you being obscure and do think you need to be lynched soon.

Snow Dog same thing, but it's only been a single post that directly rubbed me the wrong way. Overall I don't think this is the same civvy Snow Dog I saw in monkey Island. @LC I'd like your opinion on this.

Definitely not the same Snow Dog that we saw in Monkey Island. I have already given an opinion on his play:

Long Con wrote:I am suspicious of Snow Dog because of his drastically different playstyle. He wants to go fast and loose this game, carefree and a bit chaotic. It's a fine choice, and one that a Civ might make to survive longer (because who wants to nightkill the court jester? He's no threat...), but my other feeling is a bit stronger, that he is a baddie that wants to avoid a lynch by acting that way. It's really hard to separate truly suspicious behaviour from fun chaos behaviour. Which would be the point. It's not nearly enough for me to advocate Snow Dog's lynch though... and anyway, I owe him for our last game together, and I want to follow through on that.

A question to everyone: do you think Dom lie-detected Quin as bad, or was he just upset about his lynch and lashing out at the stand-out vote? I can understand the idea that a baddie Quin would vote off the main wagon under normal circumstances (as in: a lynch that had some voting variety), but I'm not sure that Quin's DDL vote warranted that accusation from Dom.

If you have the time, I'd recommend you go through my posts and see if you can pick out anything that Dom could have checked that would incriminate me. I don't think you'd be able to. As for my voting off the main wagons - that's just me. As a civ, I did it in Red vs Blue, and as a baddie, I did it in Mad Max. It's as 3J calls it 'a convenient meta'.

I did go through your posts looking for a detectable statement. There was at least once where you said "I'm a civ" but it was in a longer sentence which could have possibly made it a non-detectable. One thing I did notice was you pointing out a statement Epi made for Josephine to detect... if you were concerned about her getting a detectable statement I wonder why you didn't make a clear one for her.

Epignosis wrote:FYI: I have not read since the point where our Internet was disconnected, and I don't intend to until my office is set up. My desk is awful and my chair is oozing the black blood of naughty orphans' souls, so no way is that going on carpet.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that for a while still, DLL,

Spoiler: show

I will be doing nothing.

Noting this here to see if ddl wants to vig epi...

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I'm still reading Day 1 and I already want to punch Golden in the face. That's a good sign, he's probably a civ.

You seemed to have a read on me fine back then. Why does me being away a day make me hard to read?

You mean, away a week.

And the answer is: because I don't want to freeze my reads? What if you pulled a perfect civ look on day 1 and after you saw it worked you decided to coast for the rest of the game? And if you did that, how can we be sure other than making you post again? And what better way to make you post again than pressuring you with the thread of in-game death?

It's not complicated. I'm not trying to implement some personal policy for killing people. It's just pressure, at the most basic level. It's what I do every game. Threaten to remove players from the game if they not provide a reason for why I should think they are civ.

If vote changing were allowed, I'd be throwing votes like candy. I change votes all the time, because that's a great way of pressuring people. Since that doesn't work here, I have to rely on verbal threats.

You think I did something similar that warrants voting? Then go ahead, vote for me. Point out the scummy stuff I said. Pressure me. If we all do that to each, we'll get to the baddies eventually.

What won't work is waiting until we get a perfect case on someone, while giving people the benefit of doubt. This isn't real life, this is mafia. The best way to produce evidence here is with blood.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And feel free to call me an hypocrite if you want. I won't deny.

I feel like saying what I think people are doing wrong is more productive than sataying silent for the sake of not being an hypocrite.

Half a peanut on its deathbed could call out people for being inactive.

Either you're right, in which case they never read your post and you make no difference, or you're wrong, but you claim some moral victory like you just did with me.

I don't trust your motives.

I don't care about a moral victory with you.

I'm not here to look like a civ.

I'm here to lynch people.

Sorsha wrote:

Quin wrote:

Long Con wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:DDL, I've noticed a trend of you being obscure and do think you need to be lynched soon.

Snow Dog same thing, but it's only been a single post that directly rubbed me the wrong way. Overall I don't think this is the same civvy Snow Dog I saw in monkey Island. @LC I'd like your opinion on this.

Definitely not the same Snow Dog that we saw in Monkey Island. I have already given an opinion on his play:

Long Con wrote:I am suspicious of Snow Dog because of his drastically different playstyle. He wants to go fast and loose this game, carefree and a bit chaotic. It's a fine choice, and one that a Civ might make to survive longer (because who wants to nightkill the court jester? He's no threat...), but my other feeling is a bit stronger, that he is a baddie that wants to avoid a lynch by acting that way. It's really hard to separate truly suspicious behaviour from fun chaos behaviour. Which would be the point. It's not nearly enough for me to advocate Snow Dog's lynch though... and anyway, I owe him for our last game together, and I want to follow through on that.

A question to everyone: do you think Dom lie-detected Quin as bad, or was he just upset about his lynch and lashing out at the stand-out vote? I can understand the idea that a baddie Quin would vote off the main wagon under normal circumstances (as in: a lynch that had some voting variety), but I'm not sure that Quin's DDL vote warranted that accusation from Dom.

If you have the time, I'd recommend you go through my posts and see if you can pick out anything that Dom could have checked that would incriminate me. I don't think you'd be able to. As for my voting off the main wagons - that's just me. As a civ, I did it in Red vs Blue, and as a baddie, I did it in Mad Max. It's as 3J calls it 'a convenient meta'.

I did go through your posts looking for a detectable statement. There was at least once where you said "I'm a civ" but it was in a longer sentence which could have possibly made it a non-detectable. One thing I did notice was you pointing out a statement Epi made for Josephine to detect... if you were concerned about her getting a detectable statement I wonder why you didn't make a clear one for her.

Just going off my experience with the role, 'I'm a civ' wouldn't have been detectable.

I assume that this is the post that you're referring to about Epi:
Which was referencing the part I coloured blue - it was a joke. Making a lie detectable statement wasn't a concern for me.

I recall DF saing he wouldn't be allowed stuff like "I'm a civ" to be detected.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And feel free to call me an hypocrite if you want. I won't deny.

I feel like saying what I think people are doing wrong is more productive than sataying silent for the sake of not being an hypocrite.

Half a peanut on its deathbed could call out people for being inactive.

Either you're right, in which case they never read your post and you make no difference, or you're wrong, but you claim some moral victory like you just did with me.

I don't trust your motives.

I don't care about a moral victory with you.

I'm not here to look like a civ.

I'm here to lynch people.

Ok, I like those last two posts. I just don't think half of what you have been saying beforehand meshes with it.

Like, take the post where you analyse the Dom votes and reach no conclusions at all. What's the point except to make yourself look civ?

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And feel free to call me an hypocrite if you want. I won't deny.

I feel like saying what I think people are doing wrong is more productive than sataying silent for the sake of not being an hypocrite.

Half a peanut on its deathbed could call out people for being inactive.

Either you're right, in which case they never read your post and you make no difference, or you're wrong, but you claim some moral victory like you just did with me.

I don't trust your motives.

I don't care about a moral victory with you.

I'm not here to look like a civ.

I'm here to lynch people.

Ok, I like those last two posts. I just don't think half of what you have been saying beforehand meshes with it.

Like, take the post where you analyse the Dom votes and reach no conclusions at all. What's the point except to make yourself look civ?

Because I'm lazy.

And even if I reach no conclusions myself, I want to provide material for other people to do.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I recall DF saing he wouldn't be allowed stuff like "I'm a civ" to be detected.

I reckon there would be meaty stuff in our convo for a lie detector. LDs should always start by clarifying how a particular statement would be answered by the host if the player is good, and if they are bad, however. To make sure you know what you are getting.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:And feel free to call me an hypocrite if you want. I won't deny.

I feel like saying what I think people are doing wrong is more productive than sataying silent for the sake of not being an hypocrite.

Half a peanut on its deathbed could call out people for being inactive.

Either you're right, in which case they never read your post and you make no difference, or you're wrong, but you claim some moral victory like you just did with me.

I don't trust your motives.

I don't care about a moral victory with you.

I'm not here to look like a civ.

I'm here to lynch people.

Ok, I like those last two posts. I just don't think half of what you have been saying beforehand meshes with it.

Like, take the post where you analyse the Dom votes and reach no conclusions at all. What's the point except to make yourself look civ?

Because I'm lazy.

And even if I reach no conclusions myself, I want to provide material for other people to do.

I've seen you say that before when town.

As for the thing about calling you arrogant, it isn't really about a moral victory.

It's just that I've been keeping that inside me since that accursed MP/Daisy game. That game, and the argument I had with you in it, affected me so hard it made me retire from this site for months. I almost considered never coming back. And I still have trouble reading your posts without feeling a sudden outburst of rage. I needed to let that all out.

@Quin- fwiw looking through your posts and Doms posts it doesn't look like you were on his radar before his dying words last night. I don't think he checked you.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I recall DF saing he wouldn't be allowed stuff like "I'm a civ" to be detected.

I reckon there would be meaty stuff in our convo for a lie detector. LDs should always start by clarifying how a particular statement would be answered by the host if the player is good, and if they are bad, however. To make sure you know what you are getting.

Golden knows the consequences of choosing a poorly worded statement to check

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:As for the thing about calling you arrogant, it isn't really about a moral victory.

It's just that I've been keeping that inside me since that accursed MP/Daisy game. That game, and the argument I had with you in it, affected me so hard it made me retire from this site for months. I almost considered never coming back. And I still have trouble reading your posts without feeling a sudden outburst of rage. I needed to let that all out.

Well that's encouraging.

Sorsha wrote:@Quin- fwiw looking through your posts and Doms posts it doesn't look like you were on his radar before his dying words last night. I don't think he checked you.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I recall DF saing he wouldn't be allowed stuff like "I'm a civ" to be detected.

I reckon there would be meaty stuff in our convo for a lie detector. LDs should always start by clarifying how a particular statement would be answered by the host if the player is good, and if they are bad, however. To make sure you know what you are getting.

Golden knows the consequences of choosing a poorly worded statement to check

You win?

Hey gang,

Mafia can be a volatile game and emotions run high. I ask though that we all make our best effort to keep the dialogue relevant to the game, and to maintain a consciousness of gamesmanship and good competition.

It's been fun to follow along.

One thing that surprises me in the catch up - sig is pretty clear that he was reading glorf as bad well before he subbed out.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Wilgy, Golden, Marco, MP, Zebra, Sorsha

Imo, the vig should target those people first. In whatever order they prefer.

Nothing personal guys, but I doubt more than two of you will manage to catch up before the game is over.

No offence, but piss off with all the policy stuff. How long have you known me ddl? What could possibly lead you to believe I won't catch up? I'm being entirely contributory and there is plenty of content to read me on at face value.

On the other hand, there are some players you didn't list (epi for instance) who has acknowledged there is a large chunk of the game he didn't read. Why don't you include him? Because he meets your arbitrary definition of contribution? Guess what - I haven't missed a vote. You can't say the same of many people you didn't list.

Your policy reasons for having people die will cost the civs the game. No vig should follow your arbitrary list.

What?

That was ages ago.

Epignosis wrote:My work station is fully operational.

Alas I have nine pages to read. I'll read in gentle sips throughout the day.

Epignosis wrote:I changed my mind. I'm not reading all that. I am going to pretend I just replaced in.

Hi.

Epignosis wrote:Okay, I have to read. I can't make sense of anything people are posting. Off I go...

Epignosis wrote:Everything's read.

I won't be voting for sig. sig is exuding confidence. He voted early without concern for the consequences, and oh hey look, two quick votes for sig. Neither MM nor Dom have expressed strong suspicion of anyone, so they voted for the one guy who did.

Snow Dog wrote:My only problem with, well one of the problems with lynching spirtyo is that the poor chap has already been lynched once and lynching him again appears unduly harsh.

This is common thinking for people who replaced in, but sig is still set on lynching Glorfindel's role, which did not change when the latter got replaced.

So no, sig won't be getting my vote. Yes, I'm aware he could be bad and believes he caught somebody from the other team, but that doesn't concern me at this stage.

Thanks for the catch up epi. Any other things you want to catch me up on?

Cool, I just got called out by a MoD.

I guess that's enough mafia for me for today.

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:As for the thing about calling you arrogant, it isn't really about a moral victory.

It's just that I've been keeping that inside me since that accursed MP/Daisy game. That game, and the argument I had with you in it, affected me so hard it made me retire from this site for months. I almost considered never coming back. And I still have trouble reading your posts without feeling a sudden outburst of rage. I needed to let that all out.

Well that's encouraging.

Isn't the lie detector (dom) dead.
Also why does that surprise you golden?

I quoted the wrong posts, but you should still be able to understand the question.

sig wrote:

Golden wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:As for the thing about calling you arrogant, it isn't really about a moral victory.

It's just that I've been keeping that inside me since that accursed MP/Daisy game. That game, and the argument I had with you in it, affected me so hard it made me retire from this site for months. I almost considered never coming back. And I still have trouble reading your posts without feeling a sudden outburst of rage. I needed to let that all out.

Well that's encouraging.

Isn't the lie detector (dom) dead.
Also why does that surprise you golden?

Because when I asked others if the only case was him subbing, they said yes.

I didn't notice Dom was lie detector. Bugger.

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter. My quietness is all the evidence he should need that I am not bad.

That's silly.

I'm not going to accept a behavior you describe yourself with as a reason that you are not bad. I hope Epignosis doesn't either.

Quin wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Quin wrote:

sig wrote:

Quin wrote:This game is giving me flash backs to Turf Wars.

We're still doing better then that game.

I mean technically we're only two civs down, one mafia member, then another three unknowns. So I'd say we're doing pretty good. Also who knows maybe I'll have another god like meta/gut read I can talk about next phase.

If not? Then I've got no idea who we should lynch.

I was more-so referring to the atomic bomb of suspicion I'm anticipating coming into the next day phase

I don't think you're all that suspicious. Why do you think you're suspicious? Guilty conscience?

When the lie detector goes down screaming that I'm bad, one has to wonder about the implication that that's going to have one people's read of me.

I didn't put those two things together until after I asked you this question.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Cool, I just got called out by a MoD.

I guess that's enough mafia for me for today.

Take care there chap. I'll give you a hug since Glorfindel is dead.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter. My quietness is all the evidence he should need that I am not bad.

That's silly.

I'm not going to accept a behavior you describe yourself with as a reason that you are not bad. I hope Epignosis doesn't either.

Is it? Search your feelings marmot, you know it to be true.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter. My quietness is all the evidence he should need that I am not bad.

That's silly.

I'm not going to accept a behavior you describe yourself with as a reason that you are not bad. I hope Epignosis doesn't either.

Is it? Search your feelings marmot, you know it to be true.

VOTE GOLDEN

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter. My quietness is all the evidence he should need that I am not bad.

That's silly.

I'm not going to accept a behavior you describe yourself with as a reason that you are not bad. I hope Epignosis doesn't either.

Is it? Search your feelings marmot, you know it to be true.

VOTE GOLDEN

Whatevs.

There is becoming a very high number of people I need to knock on the head with a shell.

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Golden wrote:It doesn't matter. My quietness is all the evidence he should need that I am not bad.

That's silly.

I'm not going to accept a behavior you describe yourself with as a reason that you are not bad. I hope Epignosis doesn't either.

Is it? Search your feelings marmot, you know it to be true.

VOTE GOLDEN

Whatevs.

Did you miss the joke? It's night time, thus a vote for can't possibly do anything.

Golden wrote:Thanks for the catch up epi. Any other things you want to catch me up on?

Not really.

If you genuinely hadn't caught up, why do you have to blast people who suspect you?

Why not say, "Hey, I haven't read anything. I intend to, and will when I am able."

Instead you lose your shit. Why?

Nobody is lynching you Day 4. Everybody is lynching Quin.

However, I would offer this:

Count Olaf – He is obsessed with the Baudelaire fortune, and will stop at nothing to get it. Olaf is a master of digsuise, so if role checked he will come back as a random civvie. SECRET

The secret that makes the most sense in this context of "master of disguise" is a seemer. Olaf looks good when he's checked- why not look good when you get lynched?

Although is does say "master of digsuise," so maybe the spelling is disguised too.

I'm going to comb through Dom's posts and and see how he treated Quin or anyone else at each juncture.

Digsuise me. I'm going in.

Well that was brief and unhelpful.

Epignosis wrote:Nobody is lynching you Day 4. Everybody is lynching Quin.

oh

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Nobody is lynching you Day 4. Everybody is lynching Quin.

oh

Your turn.

Long Con wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:...yhw nosaer eht no regnif ym tup t'nac I dna mih ot semoc ti nehw eiddab gnimaercs si tug ym tub ,ko sdnuos syas CL gnihtyreve taht tcaf eht htiw gnilggurts m'I ,yldnoceS

.uoy gnitlusni ton ,niuQ eveileb I uoy gnitnemilpmoc saw eH .suoivbo taht si eno on ,noitacidni etammaet laer a eb ot suoivbo ot s'tI .noitasucca fo dnik suoivbo na hcus ot ecnederc evig ot doog oot si niuQ vic gniyas saw eh em ot raelc demees tI .gnitlusni ylbidercni os kool dias ipE tahw gnikam rof lla uoy no emahs ,ffo tsriF

First off, shame on you all for making what Epi said look so incredibly insulting. It seemed clear to me he was saying civ Quin is too good to give credence to such an obvious kind of accusation. It's to obvious to be a real teammate indication, no one is that obvious. He was complimenting you I believe Quin, not insulting you.
I don't think we deserve to be shamed. That's how I interpreted his post, it's not my fault that it was so cryptic. When Epi explains it, and it's not an insult, then there will be no insult to be shamed for. And this is Epi we're talking about here, is it really that far-fetched that he'd throw an insult out there?

Secondly, I'm struggling with the fact that everything LC says sounds ok, but my gut is screaming baddie when it comes to him and I can't put my finger on the reason why...
Daisy, don't worry about it, it's very much everyone's first instinct to suspect me. It's hilarious. I think I chose the wrong username for playing Mafia.

Quin wrote:

Spacedaisy wrote:...yhw nosaer eht no regnif ym tup t'nac I dna mih ot semoc ti nehw eiddab gnimaercs si tug ym tub ,ko sdnuos syas CL gnihtyreve taht tcaf eht htiw gnilggurts m'I ,yldnoceS

.uoy gnitlusni ton ,niuQ eveileb I uoy gnitnemilpmoc saw eH .suoivbo taht si eno on ,noitacidni etammaet laer a eb ot suoivbo ot s'tI .noitasucca fo dnik suoivbo na hcus ot ecnederc evig ot doog oot si niuQ vic gniyas saw eh em ot raelc demees tI .gnitlusni ylbidercni os kool dias ipE tahw gnikam rof lla uoy no emahs ,ffo tsriF

I definitely didn't take offence to it I figured it was some meta analysis of some kind. Although, I thought meta was bullshit, Epi?

That aside, I disagree with him. I don't think I should be described as some sophisticated person who ignores the obvious in favour of the subtleties. I just call them as I see them. I just so happen to think those posts are potential teammate interactions.

I quoted the green text for context, but the huge text could have been checked.

That post was phrased from my own perspective, so unless Dom has the ability peer into my mind and read my thoughts, he couldn't check that. And even if he could, it'd come back as the truth considering there's nobody who doesn't have a reason to scum-hunt in this game.

Quin wrote:That post was phrased from my own perspective, so unless Dom has the ability peer into my mind and read my thoughts, he couldn't check that. And even if he could, it'd come back as the truth considering there's nobody who doesn't have a reason to scum-hunt in this game.

Not true. That statement had antecedents. If one of the authors of those posts had no teammates, and the other was yours, then boom. You're caught, because that couldn't have been a thing you "just so happen" to think.

I don't know what half of that means, but my latter point stands, unless you're inferring that either DDL or Snow Dog is my teammate.

Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?

Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?

In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?

In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.

Explain how that logic applies here.

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?

In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.

Explain how that logic applies here.

I think xxx and yyy are teammates.

If xxx is YOUR teammate, then the lie detector can know you are lying, because you don't really think that.

DFaraday wrote:After the former beachgoers dumped Dom's body in a watery grave, they decided a change of scenery was in order. Having heard of a town called Paltryville from some locals, they decided that such a place sounded like the perfect retreat from gloom and misery. Upon taking the first bus into Paltryville, the party noticed that two buildings stood out as being most alarming: A decrepit (a word here meaning "rundown") factory titled "Lucky Smells Lumbermill" and a sinister eye-shaped (a word here meaning "shaped like an eye") optometrist's office.

The eerie eye establishment held some appeal for the company, as perhaps some answers could finally be found within. But some passing lumber workers offered their own advice.

"I wouldn't go in there if I were you, Dr. Orwell is a hypnotist."
"Yeah, everyone around here tries to stay clear of her. Who knows what she'd do to a bunch of strangers?"
"But looking on the bright side, she did prescribe pretty good glasses for my pet turtle."


Anyone who wishes to risk searching Dr. Orwell's office must post that they are doing so in the thread by the end of Night 3. Anyone who does not post on it will not visit the office.

I will be visiting Dr Orwell's office

What if I said I wanted to lynch Eloh instead?

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:Frankly, I think the whole thing stands. If I took anything from the kerfuffle in The Office its that lie detectors can only check things phrased as a statement, rather than a thought or assumption. I'm assuming it follows the same thing here.

Want to chime in, DF?

In a one mafia game:

"I think (not-my-teammate) is bad."

That's a lie.

Because you don't really think that.

Explain how that logic applies here.

I think xxx and yyy are teammates.

If xxx is YOUR teammate, then the lie detector can know you are lying, because you don't really think that.

Is DDL or Snow Dog my teammate, Epi? Show your working.

And, I do really think that. Not that the lie detector would actually be able to confirm it.

linki: I'd support it. Both her previous votes have lacked any actual reasoning or suspicion.

Quin wrote:
linki: I'd support it. Both her previous votes have lacked any actual reasoning or suspicion.

Well of course you would. The lie detector just called you bad. I wasn't really asking you, slick.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:Thanks for the catch up epi. Any other things you want to catch me up on?

Not really.

If you genuinely hadn't caught up, why do you have to blast people who suspect you?

Why not say, "Hey, I haven't read anything. I intend to, and will when I am able."

Instead you lose your shit. Why?

Nobody is lynching you Day 4. Everybody is lynching Quin.

Why shouldn't I blast people? It might wake them up.

I don't think I'm being lynched. I do think putting people on blast soon sorts out those who are thinking from those that aren't.

Epignosis wrote:

Quin wrote:
linki: I'd support it. Both her previous votes have lacked any actual reasoning or suspicion.

Well of course you would. The lie detector just called you bad. I wasn't really asking you, slick.

I don't care. Elohcin is a good lynch. And if you want to act like Dom detected one of my posts and caught me out, show me which one he checked, because that last one doesn't do anything for anyone.