The Syndicate

thellama73 wrote:It sounds like a number of us are agreed that a return to the Apollo Doctrine is in order.

No Vote (or in this case, post)=No Live.

I'm voting Zombrella, now.

But llama, there's the rest of the day for her to show up...

I actually quite like llama's early voting.

juliets wrote:

thellama73 wrote:It sounds like a number of us are agreed that a return to the Apollo Doctrine is in order.

No Vote (or in this case, post)=No Live.

I'm voting Zombrella, now.

But llama, there's the rest of the day for her to show up...

Too late! You snooze, you lose!

fingersplints wrote:

thellama73 wrote:Ergo, lynch Rabbit.

It's so tempting, isn't it?

linki. No. I went from not voting him to still not voting him. That doesn't mean I don't want to talk about or consider him.

Gotcha. Just seemed like you went from no way he could be voted to, oh maybe.

im quickly checking from work, its a crazy busy day, so will be reading carefully last pages in about 3 hours when i finish workday.
the only impression i have now from reading quickly last page is that llama is funny :P
anyways, be back later

I'm really looking most at Elo and zombs for my vote right now.

I saw zombs around earlier and hoped she would post, but no... elo I had the ping but she also currently fits the low poster criteria as well.

I also noticed Zomba was around. I was surprised she didn't stop and say something so we would know she was around. We'll see if she comes around a little later and explains why she didn't post earlier.

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Anti-marriage, eh?

I don't have any particular suspicion of the more active people in the Day 0 Lynch, like Golden. It's not that they're any more likely to be Civvie than baddie because of it, but I want to play a game with enthusiastic case-builders, and people who are willing to put themselves out there.

I could see my vote going to someone who seems to be trying to lay low and hold off giving opinions or making cases. That's my Day 1 opinion of things... I want to start this game off right, with interested participation. Soon, I may just accuse someone of something for reactions. That's a time-honoured tradition that I enjoy, and it can even work!

I accuse this post. What the hell? Lets go for a time honored LC, rabbit showdown, baddie.

Quick to throw out the keep active players around early mantra, eh?

Oh yes, and my opinions on who to go for should I choose that path would probably have some influence from recent games... as in I'd be inclined choose a low lying player who has shown a pattern of the same, over a low-lying player who does have a good participation record.

Hmm.. actually, as I typed that, my mind changed. Instead of punishing someone who is acting like they always do, it would be better to go after a low-lying player who isn't usually like that. A change in behaviour like that seems more... significant. I don't have anyone in mind just yet because I haven't looked into everyone's participation yet.

Anyways, there is this:

I accuse this post. What the hell? Lets go for a time honored LC, rabbit showdown, baddie.

*sigh* If we must.

Rabbit has shown his true colours very early in this game. From what I recall about his playstyle, he tends to be more aggressive as a baddie. Throwing out accusations, trying to see what will stick. For example:

rabbit8 wrote:

Black Rock wrote:Not a chance in the world, not without good reason. I have been waiting years to play with the evil bastard again.

If memory serves me, which it never does, that kind of post would make me very suspicious of you, for some reason. It used to be a sign of....something. I'm sure it will all come back in due time. Maybe another beer or ten.

This kind of suspicion-splashing with no attempt or intention of backing it up. It's a way of "planting seeds" that he can come back to later if need be. I've even seen this kind of behaviour as a distancing tactic from a teammate, and I don't think any further explanation of how that works is needed.

Between that comment, and the playful and unserious non-accusations he has tossed around, and the sudden "let's make something happen" aggression spike toward me... I have a feeling that we're seeing the baddie rabbit8 game.



How was that, rabbit? I'm not sure exactly what you were looking for with a showdown, but there you go. I even quasi-accused my own wife in the process, to show that I am both hardcore and stone-cold.

Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Long Con wrote:Jibberish.................

Fuck yeah!

Not anything solid in any of it, but good for you. I also think BR might be bad.

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Oh I see. I asked only because you mentioned him with Eloh in your concern about the vote but you are folding engagement in as well. My bad for not realizing that.

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Come at me bro.

I'll be posting my thoughts on today very shortly. I just need to organize them in an intelligent way.

I self-voted because I don't see anything suspicicious

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I self-voted because I don't see anything suspicicious

I don't like it. What would compel you to do this? Are you a baddie? You're supposed to vote for baddies.

fingersplints wrote:
I disagree that voting for a low poster is not better then randomizing. I am so fed up of seeing baddies win simply because they didn't bother to post so no one had any reason to suspect them. This makes me not want to play anymore. Also, there are players who are quieter when bad. So I think it's lots better then just randomizing.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.
I lovelovelove voting for low posters. I wish more people would vote for me when I'm a low poster. It's too easy to slide by and let others do the work, especially when you're a baddie. I think disincentivizing low participation via lynching is a great idea, and always have.

So the game has not evolved much. Still the same day one arguments about low posters.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I self-voted because I don't see anything suspicicious

Metal, you are a very interesting character. I don't know what to make of you.

Canucklehead wrote:

fingersplints wrote:
I disagree that voting for a low poster is not better then randomizing. I am so fed up of seeing baddies win simply because they didn't bother to post so no one had any reason to suspect them. This makes me not want to play anymore. Also, there are players who are quieter when bad. So I think it's lots better then just randomizing.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.
I lovelovelove voting for low posters. I wish more people would vote for me when I'm a low poster. It's too easy to slide by and let others do the work, especially when you're a baddie. I think disincentivizing low participation via lynching is a great idea, and always have.

I meant to address splints post earlier too...

I agree as well. Someone who posts can actively give me the impression that they are not bad. There are 19 players, each one has an equal chance of being bad if no-one posts (can't remember how many baddies there are exactly, but lets say 5/19). But if I actually think 7 people are civilians, I feel like my chances of lynching a baddie in taking out a no-poster drop. Maybe not as far as to 5/12, since I'm likely to be wrong about some people. But maybe to 5/14.

But disincentivising is the best bit. If people don't post, I can't figure out if they are good or bad. I'd sooner keep someone who posts a lot in the game because I'm far more likely to accurately figure out their alignment later on. If someone isn't posting, I'll only have things like voting records to go on.

linki - rabbit, it's nice to know some things never change

I am not surprised by MMs self vote at all. I believe he has done it before.

Six baddies. 5 goons and a judge. So 6/14 rather than 6/19 is... a decent difference, for me.

linki - splints. I've never played with him, but he reminds me of a more mellow Dex. Is this sort of accurate?

Here are my thoughts on everyone so far.

Metalmash: Spent most of day 0 discussing the murder mystery. I couldn't see anything particularly suspicious there. During day 1 he calls out MP, but fails to provide any follow through. He also self voted, which is one of the best ways to avoid responsibility. Going to mark that down as suspicious.

Black Rock: Not much to go on from her. No read.

Juliets: She's been asking a lot of questions without putting forward any thoughts of her own.

Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

Llama: He's insane. He's always insane. No read.

rabbit: I haven't played a lot of games with rabbit. Or if I have, I've completely forgotten them. Either way, he started out very jokey but has since been making a solid effort. I appreciate this.

Long Con: Thinks rabbits aggressive nature is a red flag. Something for me to consider.

Moving Picture: Also making a solid effort.

And there's more, but those are the hightlights for now.

Yeah, insane like a fox.

AceofSpaces wrote:Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

Easy to call the poll useless after the fact.

Aces in Day 0 I most definitely put thoughts of my own in the thread. I had the biggest (only) argument for the porter even though that turned out to be wrong. Today I have not been putting forth as many thoughts because I'm having a hard time seeing the bad in people. And I ask questions all the time. In fact, Epi suspected I'm a Yotsuba because I wasn't asking enough questions in the beginning of that game. Asking questions is what I do, it's my playstyle.

Golden wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

Easy to call the poll useless after the fact.

I called it useless during the fact as well.

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Jibberish.................

Fuck yeah!

Not anything solid in any of it, but good for you. I also think BR might be bad.

Indeed... it was, like, the star piece of evidence in my case against you!

juliets wrote:Aces in Day 0 I most definitely put thoughts of my own in the thread. I had the biggest (only) argument for the porter even though that turned out to be wrong. Today I have not been putting forth as many thoughts because I'm having a hard time seeing the bad in people. And I ask questions all the time. In fact, Epi suspected I'm a Yotsuba because I wasn't asking enough questions in the beginning of that game. Asking questions is what I do, it's my playstyle.

Day 0 thoughts don't count in my mind. It's easy to put out a bunch of thoughts on a day 0 poll that doesn't involve any real suspicions or game play. It's actually pretty safe too. And an easy way to look like you're contributing to the thread without contributing. That being said, I do agree that you tend to hang back more than others. I'm just pointing out things that catch my eye.

Actually, I'll be honest, my suspicion of Aces has gone way back up.

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Come at me bro.

I'll be posting my thoughts on today very shortly. I just need to organize them in an intelligent way.

Whats that about? I should 'come at you' because I say I'm not likely to vote for you?

I like the way you painted me in that comment about me. "Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily." Like, only part of you thinks that? It's like what LC was saying about rabbit, planting seeds you can come back to later. Plus, as noted, saying 'a useless day 0 poll', as though I must have known or guessed it would be useless ahead of time. I don't know Epi's hosting style at all, but Epi's posts definitely pointed towards not useless to me. Plus there are about 5 people here who can vouch for the fact that civvie golden does take every aspect of the game seriously.

Now - I'll own up to this - I would have been just as helpful on that poll no matter whether I was good or bad. I'm not saying anyone should conclude I am good because I was making a genuine effort on the day zero poll. But I'd never give anything less than 100% on it as a civvie either.

I find it interesting you have no read on BR. And I disagree with you on juliets - I think she has been contributing her own thoughts more than most people.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:I self-voted because I don't see anything suspicicious

Maybe I'll follow you on that vote. I've made it clear how I feel about this kind of thing in other games:

Long Con wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:... you've named Marsh your biggest suspect. Can you explain your suspicion of him a bit?

Looking back over his posts, the self-vote gives me a bad feeling. Remember Jason Maher on LP? He always self-voted on Day One, and I realized it was giving him a pass, free from adding any real content whether bad or Civ, and making him not likely to be lynched Day One. I got tired of it, and pushed for his Day One lynch because of it. He was lynched, and was a baddie. And I was like "Yessss!" So, since then, the Day One self-vote always gets my eye. But that's not why I was suspecting MM, that's just something I thought of in the reread.

That's from the Film Director's game, a game I am currently still playing.

Metalmarsh was lynched as a baddie in that game.

MM is now my most likely vote.

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

Easy to call the poll useless after the fact.

I called it useless during the fact as well.

Ah yes, the expected response. But during the fact, it was your perspective. After the fact, it's a FACT... and one you used emotively to try to paint me as suspicious.

Golden wrote:Actually, I'll be honest, my suspicion of Aces has gone way back up.

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Come at me bro.

I'll be posting my thoughts on today very shortly. I just need to organize them in an intelligent way.

Whats that about? I should 'come at you' because I say I'm not likely to vote for you?

I like the way you painted me in that comment about me. "Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily." Like, only part of you thinks that? It's like what LC was saying about rabbit, planting seeds you can come back to later. Plus, as noted, saying 'a useless day 0 poll', as though I must have known or guessed it would be useless ahead of time. I don't know Epi's hosting style at all, but Epi's posts definitely pointed towards not useless to me. Plus there are about 5 people here who can vouch for the fact that civvie golden does take every aspect of the game seriously.

Now - I'll own up to this - I would have been just as helpful on that poll no matter whether I was good or bad. I'm not saying anyone should conclude I am good because I was making a genuine effort on the day zero poll. But I'd never give anything less than 100% on it as a civvie either.

I find it interesting you have no read on BR. And I disagree with you on juliets - I think she has been contributing her own thoughts more than most people.

There really should be a text colour for jokes. "Come at me bro" was a joke.

I was serious when I said I think your day 0 poll theory was bullshit. You tried to paint the porter as a bandwagon, which it wasn't, and scapegoat the people voting for him. Your suspicion of me is 90% based on the fact that I didn't explain my vote for the porter to your satisfaction. How is that *not* fishing?

BR hasn't posted enough for me to get a read on her. The most eye catching thing she's said is that we shouldn't lynch rabbit without a good reason, because he hasn't played in so long.

And I'd like you to please quote me something that show's JC's putting her own thoughts out into the thread. Again, making a case that the porter was the murder *is not helpful in catching mafia*.

Golden wrote:I'm really looking most at Elo and zombs for my vote right now.

I saw zombs around earlier and hoped she would post, but no... elo I had the ping but she also currently fits the low poster criteria as well.

I wish I could have posted more today (and yesterday for that matter). I had page 5 open for 8.5 hours before I read all the way through it. I am caught up now though. I see we are talking about the typical subjects...low poster voting and randomizing. I believe that on Day 1 it is best to vote for the person who has contributed the least if there are no real suspects yet. Maybe that is the lowest poster, maybe not. I think oftentimes baddies will come in a joke or make remarks that really don't pertain to the game. If every players has contributed well (with at least one post for the day) then randomizing would be the last resort. Just saying, "I'm voting a low poster" is silly b/c I know several players that live busy lives and may only be able to come on the syndicate once a day to catch up and post. We ought not punish them for their once-a-day post if they are still contributing within that one post.

I still have no suspects. But, after I workout I will come back and see what's up.

AceofSpaces wrote: There really should be a text colour for jokes. "Come at me bro" was a joke.

There's sarcastic orange and smileys. No more colo(u)rs!

Golden wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote:Golden: One of the people making the largest effort so far, even if I think his Day 0 theory is bullshit. Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

Easy to call the poll useless after the fact.

I called it useless during the fact as well.

Ah yes, the expected response. But during the fact, it was your perspective. After the fact, it's a FACT... and one you used emotively to try to paint me as suspicious.

Because the way you treated it was suspicious, Golden.

You had a whole list of people pegged as mafia all based on a day 0 poll. Can you not see how I'd find that odd?

I understood it was a joke

It's just odd timing to say it when I had just said I wasn't really looking to vote for you.

Now:

1) "You tried to paint the porter as a bandwagon, which it wasn't, and scapegoat the people voting for him" - more emotive stuff. I didn't try to 'scapegoat' anyone. And I do think it was a bandwagon, which is a subjective opinion. Saying it is not a bandwagon is not an objective fact. It is an easy place to hide.

2) "Your suspicion of me is 90% based on the fact that I didn't explain my vote for the porter to your satisfaction." - My small ping for you was 100% based on that. My suspicion of you now is 90% other stuff.

3) "How is that *not* fishing?" - you said 'fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful'. Don't get me wrong, I was absolutely fishing - for baddies. You don't get a read on people until you get them to post. Fishing is absolutely what I do. But I wasn't fishing 'to appear helpful'.

What is mostly coming across in what you are saying is very emotive language designed to put suspicion on my motives, and using things which became facts later to make my conduct look less helpful than it was intended to be. It's a big fat no u, designed in such a way that it can be backed out of. It doesn't look good to me at all.

linki - a whole list... of two?

thellama73 wrote:

AceofSpaces wrote: There really should be a text colour for jokes. "Come at me bro" was a joke.

There's sarcastic orange and smileys. No more colo(u)rs!

I'm all for playful pink, but the host took it.

AceofSpaces wrote:Can you not see how I'd find that odd?

What a civvie might say:

I got a ping from golden because he suspects people based on a day 0 poll. I find that odd.

What a baddie might say:

AceofSpaces wrote:Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily.

I actually find it kind of an ironic double standard... that you do not seem to think there can be any basis to suspect baddie intent in day 0 poll conduct as it applies to you (the idea of hiding in a bandwagon having, clearly, no merit), since clearly day zero polls are useless and shouldn't be read into, but there can be baddie intent in my day 0 poll conduct (trying to get civvie cred). If we all know on day zero that the poll is useless, what possible civvie cred could I get from it?

Long Con wrote:

rabbit8 wrote:

Long Con wrote:Jibberish.................

Fuck yeah!

Not anything solid in any of it, but good for you. I also think BR might be bad.

Indeed... it was, like, the star piece of evidence in my case against you!

No U!!!!

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:

thellama73 wrote:It sounds like a number of us are agreed that a return to the Apollo Doctrine is in order.

No Vote (or in this case, post)=No Live.

I'm voting Zombrella, now.

But llama, there's the rest of the day for her to show up...

Too late! You snooze, you lose!

I snooze, I lose? Oh it's a good thing that I'm not snoozing then. When did Llama get so bent on lynching people who haven't posted yet? I'm here. I'm going to vote. Plumbers replacing our water heater just left, now I've got to clean up the their mess and the leak from this morning.

Zomberella12 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:

thellama73 wrote:It sounds like a number of us are agreed that a return to the Apollo Doctrine is in order.

No Vote (or in this case, post)=No Live.

I'm voting Zombrella, now.

But llama, there's the rest of the day for her to show up...

Too late! You snooze, you lose!

I snooze, I lose? Oh it's a good thing that I'm not snoozing then. When did Llama get so bent on lynching people who haven't posted yet? I'm here. I'm going to vote. Plumbers replacing our water heater just left, now I've got to clean up the their mess and the leak from this morning.

Whom are you going to vote for?

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:Actually, I'll be honest, my suspicion of Aces has gone way back up.

AceofSpaces wrote:

Golden wrote:

juliets wrote:Golden it looks like you dropped your suspicion of Aces. Any particular reason why?

Not dropped, just less likely to vote that way than the two who aren't really engaging at this point.

Come at me bro.

I'll be posting my thoughts on today very shortly. I just need to organize them in an intelligent way.

Whats that about? I should 'come at you' because I say I'm not likely to vote for you?

I like the way you painted me in that comment about me. "Part of me thinks he's just fishing for a reason to suspect people so he can appear helpful. A useless day 0 poll would fit that need quite handily." Like, only part of you thinks that? It's like what LC was saying about rabbit, planting seeds you can come back to later. Plus, as noted, saying 'a useless day 0 poll', as though I must have known or guessed it would be useless ahead of time. I don't know Epi's hosting style at all, but Epi's posts definitely pointed towards not useless to me. Plus there are about 5 people here who can vouch for the fact that civvie golden does take every aspect of the game seriously.

Now - I'll own up to this - I would have been just as helpful on that poll no matter whether I was good or bad. I'm not saying anyone should conclude I am good because I was making a genuine effort on the day zero poll. But I'd never give anything less than 100% on it as a civvie either.

I find it interesting you have no read on BR. And I disagree with you on juliets - I think she has been contributing her own thoughts more than most people.

There really should be a text colour for jokes. "Come at me bro" was a joke.

I was serious when I said I think your day 0 poll theory was bullshit. You tried to paint the porter as a bandwagon, which it wasn't, and scapegoat the people voting for him. Your suspicion of me is 90% based on the fact that I didn't explain my vote for the porter to your satisfaction. How is that *not* fishing?

BR hasn't posted enough for me to get a read on her. The most eye catching thing she's said is that we shouldn't lynch rabbit without a good reason, because he hasn't played in so long.

And I'd like you to please quote me something that show's JC's putting her own thoughts out into the thread. Again, making a case that the porter was the murder *is not helpful in catching mafia*.

Why is that so eye catching? I am not likely to vote for Rabbit or Golden or any returns without good reason.. Although Rabbit is just pleading with me to lynch him. It's been so long since I have played with him. I mean do all of his posts have to read so baddie?

I just see why being happy to see old Mafia foes is such a big deal.

I honestly haven't seen anything all that suspicious yet. It has been a fun start and I have enjoyed seeing everyone play in the thread. I do like LC's point on MM, the most recent time he self-voted he was a baddie. It's something to consider.

I have to run to work for a couple of hours now but I will be back before the lynch is over. I'm going to make a decision then after I have more to read.

I'm tempted to vote llama for voting early for Zomba saying she hasn't posted, and then of course she shows up because it was too early to make that assessment. But then again i know llama does goofy stuff because he's just having fun. I'll have to think about it.

juliets wrote:I'm tempted to vote llama for voting early for Zomba saying she hasn't posted, and then of course she shows up because it was too early to make that assessment. But then again i know llama does goofy stuff because he's just having fun. I'll have to think about it.

Maybe she showed up because her teammates saw which way the wind was blowing and demanded that she show up. Did you ever consider that? You should.

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:I'm tempted to vote llama for voting early for Zomba saying she hasn't posted, and then of course she shows up because it was too early to make that assessment. But then again i know llama does goofy stuff because he's just having fun. I'll have to think about it.

Maybe she showed up because her teammates saw which way the wind was blowing and demanded that she show up. Did you ever consider that? You should.

Hmmm...

Elohcin wrote:I wish I could have posted more today (and yesterday for that matter).

Fair enough.

I agree with your definition of low poster. Contribution is more important than number of posts. It is a lack of contribution that leads to being able to hide behind your nothingness. I hope you do come and contribute.

linki @BR - I agree. There are players I'm not willing to lynch on day one because this game is a big comeback game. Doesn't mean I'm never willing to lynch them. I don't see you as suspicious for feeling the same way.

linki @llama - there is merit to that. Plus, I only have a very small sample size, but this game has been going for 48 hours and zombs seemed quite a lot more active in death note, and even managed to post in that thread after she died and could no longer contribute to the game yesterday, without posting here.

I am REALLY bothered by the fact that MM gets away game after game self-voting; this is like the 5th game in a row. A self-vote is literally the worst vote a civilian can cast, and MM has made no effort to even wait until the time is up to try and find a baddie. At least if he randomized he'd have a chance to catch a baddie.

I've never voted him because he has a reputation for doing this, but if people are talking about voting low posters to disincentivize behavior, why aren't more people discussing this? Even if a civilian low poster misses the vote, they still didn't cast their vote on a 100% civilian (if the self-voter is civilian) with absolutely no attempt to actually play the game.

My feelings on BF haven't changed.

I know for a fact that Zomberella has been busy, since we had an Econometrics test this morning and her water heater is broken, so I'm not surprised she hasn't been engaged just yet. I definitely look forward to hearing from her re: contributions, but at this point I'm not ready to vote for her or any other low poster. Too much else is going on, IMO, and a low poster vote is a cop-out.

Llama's behavior has been more jokey and less serious baddie hunting than I'd like from him, but I'm not ready to consider voting him for it just yet either.

Not sure I know what's going on with Golden v. Aces, but I don't really suspect either of them. Aces was really aggressive right off the bat in Death Note (won't say more, since it's ongoing) and Golden is always aggressive, so I'll keep an eye on this, but I have nothing that has told me anything about their alignments just yet.

I'm likely going to either vote BF or MM at this point, unless something drastic happens.

thellama73 wrote:

juliets wrote:I'm tempted to vote llama for voting early for Zomba saying she hasn't posted, and then of course she shows up because it was too early to make that assessment. But then again i know llama does goofy stuff because he's just having fun. I'll have to think about it.

Maybe she showed up because her teammates saw which way the wind was blowing and demanded that she show up. Did you ever consider that? You should.

Have you ever been on a baddie team or heard of a baddie team that has done this? I haven't.

Since I know there are RL reasons that she has been busy, I'm not ready to vote for her yet, especially since we haven't given her even a full cycle to get acclimated into the game and into a 24/24 schedule.

That said, given her participation in her first two games, I will hold her to a high standard sooner rather than later, since she has proven the ability to baddie hunt.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama's behavior has been more jokey and less serious baddie hunting than I'd like from him, but I'm not ready to consider voting him for it just yet either.

I'm trying something different. Can't let myself get too predictable, can I?

I would have voted for MM, but I cast my vote before he cast his.

juliets wrote:I also noticed Zomba was around. I was surprised she didn't stop and say something so we would know she was around. We'll see if she comes around a little later and explains why she didn't post earlier.

Reason: I came in and started reading, phone fell in the toilet. Not a joke. I'm having tons of plumbing problems. Also I studied for my midterm yesterday, took it today. I'm back for real.

BTW (by the way - not Birdwithteeth):
Summary of Llama posts = I want to lynch Rabbit for no reason. I want to lynch Rico. I want to lynch Rabbit. I don't want to vote for low posters cause it gets me killed. I want to vote for low posters because it's close to my heart. I'm voting for Zomba because I she kicks butt at finding baddies and I don't want to get caught.

Still two pages behind.