The Syndicate

Epignosis wrote:Only wish I had a cold beer.

Coming in season three! Well, I can't promise that they will be cold...

Also, Epi, my point was that he kept pounding it. I was ready to drop it, but he would not drop it. So yeah, that is not my fault.

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Only wish I had a cold beer.

Coming in season three! Well, I can't promise that they will be cold...

Man! That's my cousin on my mother's side.

S~V~S wrote:Someone I want to trust is consistently deflecting any suspicion of Matt, and Matt is accusing me of being personal and saying I am bad becasue i suspect him. Awesome. I need to think about this. Becasue a consistent low level bolstering of Matt is coming from the same direction, and it concerns me.

Epi,I trust you. What do you think of Matt.

Linki, lol. I am buying what you are putting out. We haven't always gotten along on the beach, but we are on the same side.

I'm not sure whether or not that is referring to me or Typh or what. I agree that he has been very unprovokingly defensive this game, but at the end of the day, how does that mean he is bad? It could just be how he handles flak. The one thing that seems out of place in my eyes is his commitment to voting for Bullz after joking about it early, but that seems to just be Day 1 shenanigans.

Epignosis wrote:

Golden wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Only wish I had a cold beer.

Coming in season three! Well, I can't promise that they will be cold...

Man! That's my cousin on my mother's side.

Was your cousin an employee for the ...

S~V~S wrote:Someone I want to trust is consistently deflecting any suspicion of Matt, and Matt is accusing me of being personal and saying I am bad becasue i suspect him. Awesome. I need to think about this. Becasue a consistent low level bolstering of Matt is coming from the same direction, and it concerns me.

Epi,I trust you. What do you think of Matt.

Linki, lol. I am buying what you are putting out. We haven't always gotten along on the beach, but we are on the same side.

I think Tuft-Head got a bum deal our first day here, and having seen Star Wars with him, I hate that he got ejected from the theater soon as the previews went off. The manager let him back in, but he wasn't ever the same.

Maybe I'm getting a little soft, but I kind of take a liking to old Tuft-Head, and I don't think he did a damn thing wrong to warrant people wanting to drown him in the ocean.

Your vote was a starter vote...

S~V~S wrote:I don't have enough of an opinion about Wilgy to vote for him, or to want to save him at this point, at least, by voting for faraday, although Typh made a good point about faradays seriously preemptive save move.

So gonna drop a starter vote on Matt for picking on Bullz.

...that ended up being a finishing vote.

S~V~S wrote:Also, Epi, my point was that he kept pounding it. I was ready to drop it, but he would not drop it. So yeah, that is not my fault.

"Dropping it," to me, would mean moving your vote somewhere else, but you did not sound open to that possibility, and I don't see any reason he would have to believe that you would have done that.

If anything, this leads me to think that you don't think Matt is bad, but you left a vote on him because he kept talking to you. And if that's not enough to convince me:

S~V~S wrote:

Typhoony wrote:I am tempted to vote Floyd for breaking this glorious tie, or Epi for not making it an even bigger tie.

But I'll change my vote to SVS for now, because she seemed to be setting up a vote on DF if Matt wasn't going to post something suspicious here, which he seemingly has done now. I don't see it, but okay.

It was a good point, though. Do you think your point was not good? And of Wilgy/faraday, the thing that most seemed off to me was his silly-early self save vote. So yeah, I was setting myself up for a potential switch to faraday should Matt convince me of his earnestness. Which he has not. You think only baddies do this? But it's still nice to know that you don't read me as well as I would expect you too.

The large part of this post is an invitation for Tuft-Head to get on the ball and start trying to get your vote off of him. And I think he did just that.

S~V~S wrote:And Matt, I am not a fan of joke votes or voting for people for silly reasons, even if votes are changeable. Especially on Day One. If that person gets lynched, you have ruined their game over a joke. Now if theyare bad, well, thats the risk one take when bad. And I am sure you would bask in the glory of catching a baddie. But if they are not bad, then the person who led the lynch (and dude, I am not lecturing, I have been the one leading the charge myself that killed a civ Day One more than once, or thrice) is all like, "Aw, it was just a joke, all those people did not need to follow me".

So I don't necessarily true believe you are bad here or not~ although for all I know that extreme distancing comment I made applies to you & Bullz as well as, or instead of, Wilgy & faraday. But I really don't like your pushing of a joke (or is it a joke?) as a suspicion, and not liking someone vote is as good a reason for voting them on Day One as anyother. So for now I am leaving the vote where it is, I should be home before the day is over and will pop in during the day.

This here tells me that you voted for him because he might ruin somebody's game over a joke. I don't buy this for a minute. Tuft-Head can't lynch somebody by himself. He has to have others follow, and nobody did. And if Tuft-Head got lynched, then you ruined his game over a "ping." It works both ways.

Basically, I don't find your Day 1 suspicion of Matt to be genuine. As I understand, you voted him and left it there for these reasons:

That he voted Bully Boy and could ruin his game...isn't that true of anybody who gets lynched Day 1? How does that make Matt bad?
That his joke suspicion was a (false) real effort to get Bullzeye lynched...but when does anybody follow Matt Day 1? Is there one example of that ever happening?
That he made an effort to prove his earnestness (your words) and you ended up dismissing what he had to say as him "tunneling" and telling him to get over it. It's hard for me to believe that the same person worried over someone getting his game ruined over a joke post would tell someone to get over a "ping" vote Day 1.

So I think old Tuft-Head did all right when he was under pressure. I found myself agreeing with his posts and his thought processes most of the time (which is weird, but true). He was on the verge of being lynched for reasons I don't understand (and having his game ruined, if that's a thing we should even be considering, which it isn't), and now he's up for it again.

I won't be voting for him today. Maybe I will tomorrow, but not today.

So lynch me to cut old tuft head some slack becasue you felt sorry for him in another game. When I got accused of going personal, I lost a lot of interest to be honest. And I caught what you were putting out right away; sorry you did not do the same.

And there is a differnece between ruining someones game over a joke and ruining it over a suspicion, regardless how mild.

S~V~S wrote:So lynch me to cut old tuft head some slack becasue you felt sorry for him in another game. When I got accused of going personal, I lost a lot of interest to be honest. And I caught what you were putting out right away; sorry you did not do the same.

I didn't feel sorry for him. He was lynched as a killer. No sympathy for that. What I'm saying is that the man gets lynched early so often that it's like a tired joke, and that the reasons people were voting for him were pretty damn bad. Again, this is ironic coming from someone defending Bullz because Matt might (somehow singlehandedly) ruin his game. I'll even admit that I was going to jump in and save Matt by voting Danny Boy if I had to, just so he wouldn't get lynched Day 1 again.

S~V~S wrote:And there is a differnece between ruining someones game over a joke and ruining it over a suspicion, regardless how mild.

I don't agree, but that's not a debate I want to get into.

S~V~S wrote:

Long Con wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I think it is known throughout the land that Bullz has the same chance mathematically of being bad or good each game as anyone else.

Real suspicion or jokey suspicion?

Is this a question or a suspicion?

It's a question, but also a bit of a "hrm".

Two different people had jokey suspicions of Bullz. And Bullz can be an easy lynch cause he gets defensive. So an early thrust towards Bullz, especially a jokey one like Matts, gets my eye.

I just don't understand why you wouldn't extend the same thought process to Matt. Matt is an easy lynch who gets defensive. He got defensive and you doubled-down on him instead of taking a walk on the beach to clear your head.

So it comes down to who feels sorrier for whom? OK. Vote for me.

I am exceedingly susceptible to guilt, and Matt does a good enough job of making me feel guilty for suspecting him without this.

Becasue there is a difference between a joke and an actual c=game related reason, no matter how weak.

I feel like a bully right now.

Huh, nobody died. I can dig it.

Sorsha wrote:

nutella wrote:Whoops, sorry, I kinda forgot about this game today.
RIP DF. I've caught up but I don't really get all the hullabaloo between him and Matt and as usual I'm really not taking anything away from Day 1 nonsense. There's really no way to glean much of anything from that, and if anything I'd lean towards thinking the people getting more involved in the discussion are not the baddies.

Epignosis wrote:I'm votin for my spottieottiedopaliscious nutella. Damn damn damn damn.

????? What even

Yeah, sorry I've been under the radar so far, but I didn't really have any thoughts yesterday since it was just getting started and I didn't remember to catch up until after the lynch. (I'll be gone all day tomorrow too but it'll be night so hopefully I won't miss as much discussion) otherwise I'll try to pay more attention and start to form some thoughts on day 2. Honestly even though my vote for Floyd was pretty pseudo-random I wouldn't mind pursuing him a bit since he also seems to have remained pretty under-the-radar.

Ok... So the people participating in the discussion are not the baddies but you are not participating in the discussion.

And you vote for Floyd for being under the radar but he's really been more present than you have been...

Yeah I do recognize I was somewhat hypocritical in saying that, but then again I wasn't because it doesn't contradict at all. I know that I'm sort of in the background, I just think that the baddies are also in the background. I just don't feel that the players who were most vocal on day 1 are likely to be bad. On that note, can someone explain what the whole deal with Matt is and why Bullz is so sure he's bad?

Btw, Floyd only has 2 more posts than I do. Maybe he's contributed a little more content than I have, but I sure haven't noticed.

S~V~S wrote:So it comes down to who feels sorrier for whom? OK. Vote for me.

I am exceedingly susceptible to guilt, and Matt does a good enough job of making me feel guilty for suspecting him without this.

I sure as hell wish you'd quit funneling everything I say into a damn lousy and inaccurate summary. No, it doesn't come down to that. It doesn't come down to anything.

Look at the votes he has right now.

The Striped Crusader called him good before Danny Boy died, and now wants his head on a stake. No substance there.

Stink Floyd over there thinks he's doing to Bullz what I did to him somewhere else (have we even met?)- but if I ever did anything to him, it was with good intentions. So I don't get what his thinking is there.

From where I sit, Bully Boy's reasoning is the only one with any meat on it, but even you said he can get defensive, and voting his accuser is something he's done plenty before.

If you're good, and Tuft-Head is good, and Tuft-Head's accusers are all good, then that plane crash should've just killed us all and quit wasting our time.

nutella wrote: Yeah I do recognize I was somewhat hypocritical in saying that, but then again I wasn't because it doesn't contradict at all. I know that I'm sort of in the background, I just think that the baddies are also in the background.

That's like wearing a purple unitard while giving your testimony as a witness to a detective about your murdered mother-in-law, and exclaiming that you saw a person in a purple unitard running away from the scene of the crime. I do actually think that's a little contradictory. But to each her own

Scotty wrote:LC then changes his vote to DFaraday, with the explanation:

I switched my vote to DFaraday. I'm not sure between him (5) and Matt (4), but I have no interest in tying it up or in letting a baddie decide which of them goes, so I'm crossing my fingers. Sorry, DF!

*votes DFaraday*

(DFaraday 6, Matt 4, Floyd 1)

This is a very odd vote because his entire Day 1 has been predicated on tieing the vote. To then not wish to tie the vote as a reason to vote for someone when it's becoming 2 candidates to be thrown into the jungle? A little hypocritical, honestly.
Even more interesting is his vote 1.5 hours later for nutella, only to realize that he tied the vote again, which wasn't his "original plan", and he puts it back on Faraday. Once again, that sure doesn't sound like his original plan...I don't even know if he knows his original plan, or the purpose of this change.

Ok, that's not hypocritical, because I was never one of the people that was jazzed about a tie. First, there was a big, wide tie of one vote among eight players. When I looked at that, it read to me as "a Civvie will almost definitely die here" because that's just about the simplest lynch situation for a baddie to control. Just place a second vote on someone not on your team and the baddies are safe from Day 1 lynch.

So then Wilgy put a vote on someone, and I put a vote on him, because I thought that would make a more information-conducive lynch situation than just leaving my vote on S~V~S.

I know I was putting myself out there by being the one to break the 5-5 tie. I just preferred that I know who did it after the results were in, instead of someone else doing it. Because someone else would have done it! We're not the only people on this island and we all know it!

Oh, and the "original plan" thing, what is this opinion you're giving about my original plan?

"That sure doesn't sound like his original plan" - ok, what did my original plan sound like?

"I don't even know if he knows his original plan" - so, if I don't know my own original plan, then it's pretty likely that there wasn't one. So how can what I said *not* sound like my original plan if it didn't exist?

Is this... do you think that I'm an easy target because I put myself out there like that?

Not really much more for me to say here. I don't see Matt doing what he's doing as scum, too flashy, not worth the risk... Especially when he can win by y'know doing nothing (see pet sounds).

Zebra is completely opposite of when I called her out last time... (see pet sounds) where she practically gave up upon stupid accusation. This time she challenges me in response...

Why the exception for my buddying Scotty?

Scotty wrote:

nutella wrote: Yeah I do recognize I was somewhat hypocritical in saying that, but then again I wasn't because it doesn't contradict at all. I know that I'm sort of in the background, I just think that the baddies are also in the background.

That's like wearing a purple unitard while giving your testimony as a witness to a detective about your murdered mother-in-law, and exclaiming that you saw a person in a purple unitard running away from the scene of the crime. I do actually think that's a little contradictory. But to each her own

Maybe I should draw a venn diagram or something. I'm really just saying that the baddies are a subset of people who are under the radar and I'm one of the non-baddies who happens to also be under the radar. I think it's a fairly simple thought process.

Hey Sonic, don't you have some Chaos Emeralds to chase?

Epignosis wrote:Hey Sonic, don't you have some Chaos Emeralds to chase?

I'm a big fan of games, myself.

First, just wanna say, I didn't mean to infer you were getting personal SVS. My bad! I'm not even really sure where you're getting that from, maybe when I said you go after me in every game(?), but even if I'm right on that, I'm not tryin' to make you feel bad haha. Just sayin' "Yo, you go after me every game! Stop it!" Really, though, you're awesome! Even if you vote me the rest of this game and every game, awesomesauce. 'Specially cuz you got dat Bernie bug.

Sorsha - I never once thought Bullz was bad (even with my og vote) until...

a) Three different people immediately jumped on me for it. Which was weird because I accuse Bullz in every game and nobody ever bats an eye over it.

b) Bullz himself voted for me. Wtf? He above all others knows this routine of ours, and so he votes for me and now he's saying I'm 99.9% bad?

Lynch that guy!

As for SVS, her saying she's "losing interest" in the game because of our back and forth ( ) makes me think she's a civvie. I hope, or I'm a sucker. Which could also be true.

Bullz - Are you and your team upset that your kill failed last night? Also, 99.9% lol. How so?

Zebra - Um well right now it looks like we're the front runners so when I get lynched and flip civvie, obvi you are next Zebra because there's always a baddie in two lynch wagons

Floyd - So you think I'm bad for going after Bullz because he's bad in other games (which BTW is not why I voted him or subsequently actually thought he was bad? like i don't get it?), and then you vote for me day 2 because of what some other player did to you in a different game?

Lastly, I'm scared of everyone who is defending me. Thanks btw, you all rock, but it's entirely possible one or more are bad and know I'm good, so are doing the "help a civ" thing. Gaaaah!

Cept Wilgy. For some reason, I think he's civ.

Long Con wrote:Oh, and the "original plan" thing, what is this opinion you're giving about my original plan?

"That sure doesn't sound like his original plan" - ok, what did my original plan sound like?

"I don't even know if he knows his original plan" - so, if I don't know my own original plan, then it's pretty likely that there wasn't one. So how can what I said *not* sound like my original plan if it didn't exist?

Is this... do you think that I'm an easy target because I put myself out there like that?

I was confused as to what your original plan was, because you changed your vote 342 times before arriving at the conclusion that you didn't want the vote tied. Now your vote for DFaraday makes sense if you think of you in the context of being civilian. It does. It's just that your choice of words I was not following.

I can't even wrap my big ass small brained head around your existential question there. Which came first- the chicken, the egg, or the philosopher? I dunno. Ask the philosopher.

And I don't know whether or not you were forming some sort of master scheme or not and misfired protons or photons or Klingons in your brain to give you a relapse to tie the vote there at 5-5. It's just something that caught my eye is all.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:LC then changes his vote to DFaraday, with the explanation:

I switched my vote to DFaraday. I'm not sure between him (5) and Matt (4), but I have no interest in tying it up or in letting a baddie decide which of them goes, so I'm crossing my fingers. Sorry, DF!

*votes DFaraday*

(DFaraday 6, Matt 4, Floyd 1)

This is a very odd vote because his entire Day 1 has been predicated on tieing the vote. To then not wish to tie the vote as a reason to vote for someone when it's becoming 2 candidates to be thrown into the jungle? A little hypocritical, honestly.
Even more interesting is his vote 1.5 hours later for nutella, only to realize that he tied the vote again, which wasn't his "original plan", and he puts it back on Faraday. Once again, that sure doesn't sound like his original plan...I don't even know if he knows his original plan, or the purpose of this change.

Ok, that's not hypocritical, because I was never one of the people that was jazzed about a tie. First, there was a big, wide tie of one vote among eight players. When I looked at that, it read to me as "a Civvie will almost definitely die here" because that's just about the simplest lynch situation for a baddie to control. Just place a second vote on someone not on your team and the baddies are safe from Day 1 lynch.

So then Wilgy put a vote on someone, and I put a vote on him, because I thought that would make a more information-conducive lynch situation than just leaving my vote on S~V~S.

I know I was putting myself out there by being the one to break the 5-5 tie. I just preferred that I know who did it after the results were in, instead of someone else doing it. Because someone else would have done it! We're not the only people on this island and we all know it!

Ah, yes. That rationale makes more sense explained out. I just wasn't reading your complete thoughts as you did it in the moment.

From a cursory glance, you tied the vote up twice earlier on, before declaring on a 5-4 count that you had "no interest in tying it up or letting a baddie decide." So to me, it seemed messy, like you were forgetting what your strategy was. You definitely made a statement by putting the nail in the coffin for DFaraday. Would a baddie be so bold as to do that to protect a baddie in broad daylight? Maybe. Mayne not.

You realize that you knowing that you made the final vote doesn't help us out, right? It's almost as useful as looking at the winning lottery numbers from 2 weeks ago. (Hint: the second number is 8)

Scotty wrote:From a cursory glance, you tied the vote up twice earlier on, before declaring on a 5-4 count that you had "no interest in tying it up or letting a baddie decide." So to me, it seemed messy, like you were forgetting what your strategy was. You definitely made a statement by putting the nail in the coffin for DFaraday. Would a baddie be so bold as to do that to protect a baddie in broad daylight? Maybe. Mayne not.

Maybe it was messy, I am perfectly willing to change directions midstream when a new idea of how baddies might think/react occurs to me. Sometimes, my stated intent is not my real intent, but merely what I need the baddies to think it is in order to gauge reactions that they don't know I'm looking for. Shit gets messy sometimes, I can't help that. I'm far from a perfect player. Maybe a little messy is what we need to get a baddie off-balance.

You realize that you knowing that you made the final vote doesn't help us out, right? It's almost as useful as looking at the winning lottery numbers from 2 weeks ago. (Hint: the second number is 8)

Oh yes, I realize it entirely. I chose to do what helps ME know certain truths. The Civvies can choose to trust me or not to. And that just means to trust that I'm Civ, not to trust that I know what's best or who is bad. Mostly I'm a pretty bad player, and sometimes I do something worthwhile. I don't know when that is going to happen, I just have to try stuff.

DrWilgy wrote: Why the exception for my buddying Scotty?

Call it a leap of faith.

As for my extremely brief nutella vote... well, sometimes I think a Day 1 lynch should just make a hard right turn and slam down on an unprepared target. It's probably a result of seeing WAY too many Civs lynched on Day 1 - like, the way we do things is generally proven to not work, so doing ANYTHING else is the smartest move.

I went for it with the nutella thing, but then quickly realized that my "original plan" to control the tied vote myself was what I wanted to do. "Original plan" doesn't mean what I started the game doing, it just means what my stated plan in the late lynch was.

Long Con wrote:

Scotty wrote:From a cursory glance, you tied the vote up twice earlier on, before declaring on a 5-4 count that you had "no interest in tying it up or letting a baddie decide." So to me, it seemed messy, like you were forgetting what your strategy was. You definitely made a statement by putting the nail in the coffin for DFaraday. Would a baddie be so bold as to do that to protect a baddie in broad daylight? Maybe. Mayne not.

Maybe it was messy, I am perfectly willing to change directions midstream when a new idea of how baddies might think/react occurs to me. Sometimes, my stated intent is not my real intent, but merely what I need the baddies to think it is in order to gauge reactions that they don't know I'm looking for. Shit gets messy sometimes, I can't help that. I'm far from a perfect player. Maybe a little messy is what we need to get a baddie off-balance.

You realize that you knowing that you made the final vote doesn't help us out, right? It's almost as useful as looking at the winning lottery numbers from 2 weeks ago. (Hint: the second number is 8)

Oh yes, I realize it entirely. I chose to do what helps ME know certain truths. The Civvies can choose to trust me or not to. And that just means to trust that I'm Civ, not to trust that I know what's best or who is bad. Mostly I'm a pretty bad player, and sometimes I do something worthwhile. I don't know when that is going to happen, I just have to try stuff.

I respect trying stuff. I mean hell, I'm rather messy myself. I overlook stuff. And if we really want to have a heart to heart, sometimes I feel like I might have undiagnosed ADHD. Or consistently polarizing bouts of laziness. I can never tell.

But messiness can also be a detractor and a canned excuse, y'know.
"my stated intent is not my real intent" You realize then how shady this sounds out of context? Hell, even in context. I'm not gonna criticize how you play, but I will point out that that isn't how to get people to trust you.

I used to go around in my middle school years explaining my motivation to girls: "My goal is to get you to trust me". By blurting that out, no girl would trust me. So I learned to just keep that to myself. Needless to say, I didn't have a lot of girlfriends in school.

LOL

Well, it's late, I've had my last drink, and everything I said was just the truth. It's always best to have some suspicion in order to keep the baddies from wanting to nightkill you. Assuming they want to kill the Civviest-looking players that they'll never be able to lynch.

Assuming they can kill. Suckas. It reminds me of my last game, the Home Alone Christmas game - the Doctor protected me on Night 1 and the kill failed, so he knew I was a Civ. We still lost in classic tragic form, but that was a good start at least.

I will laugh if that happened again. I mean, I think it happened, and that the Doctor (shall we say Jack?) now knows for sure the identity of a Civ... but if it was me again, that would just tickle me.

Long Con wrote:LOL

Well, it's late, I've had my last drink, and everything I said was just the truth. It's always best to have some suspicion in order to keep the baddies from wanting to nightkill you. Assuming they want to kill the Civviest-looking players that they'll never be able to lynch.

Assuming they can kill. Suckas. It reminds me of my last game, the Home Alone Christmas game - the Doctor protected me on Night 1 and the kill failed, so he knew I was a Civ. We still lost in classic tragic form, but that was a good start at least.

I will laugh if that happened again. I mean, I think it happened, and that the Doctor (shall we say Jack?) now knows for sure the identity of a Civ... but if it was me again, that would just tickle me.

Yes, I was a baddie that game. I remember fondly trying to kill you, and it was very frustrating. But it all worked out in the end

I'm out for a majority of tomorrow but will be back hopefully a bit before deadline to catch up.

Scotty wrote:Also I am voting Zebra.

Voting for me based purely on my voting record (and not voting Matt based purely on his voting record) in addition to making a big vote analysis post to make it appear as if you're actually scumhunting. Civ-reading Wilgy too.

Matt, Wilgy, Scotty. Bam.

I have decided to return to the beach, thus changing my story arc; even though Epi & I differ, I still believe we were both on the plane.

And Scotty, I was referring to Typh. He seems to be seeing something different than I am seeing. This both makes me nervous, and makes me want to second guess mysefl. Although on short eracquaintance, I also trust your judgment when you are civ. So there is that too. I have to think on all of this.

wow I should have my coffee before posting, lol.

"shorter acquaintance"

And I also wanted to add that I will not be voting for Zeebs. Based on a few things she said, and a general demeanor, I don't really think she is bad.

S~V~S wrote:Someone I want to trust is consistently deflecting any suspicion of Matt, and Matt is accusing me of being personal and saying I am bad becasue i suspect him. Awesome. I need to think about this. Becasue a consistent low level bolstering of Matt is coming from the same direction, and it concerns me.

Why did you not just name me immediately?

S~V~S wrote:wow I should have my coffee before posting, lol.

"shorter acquaintance"

And I also wanted to add that I will not be voting for Zeebs. Based on a few things she said, and a general demeanor, I don't really think she is bad.

Point out these things please SVS.

Hey Scotty, what do you think of SVS?

Day 1 Voting graph:

https://i.gyazo.com/e10aad2f542e67c6842 ... 90e84.pngg

Thanks to Scotty for providing the info

https://i.gyazo.com/e10aad2f542e67c6842 ... 390e84.png

Direct link. Nub me.

Hey Typh, vote Zebra for now.

Done.

DrWilgy wrote:

S~V~S wrote:wow I should have my coffee before posting, lol.

"shorter acquaintance"

And I also wanted to add that I will not be voting for Zeebs. Based on a few things she said, and a general demeanor, I don't really think she is bad.

Point out these things please SVS.

I don't like to do that, point out reasons why I think someone is a civ. It is one of the many, many reasons I HATE rainbow lists or any list that involves drawing targets on civvies. Although in a game like this with one set of baddies, they already know who the civvies are so meh. Force of habit, I guess. I prefer to not play games with only one set of baddies if possible, and don't plan on playing many heists, but I could not resist LOST.

But I think she has been hinting at something. I could be wrong, but that is what I think. Plus her demeanor is a bit more subdued than I expect from her, which would work with what I think she has been putting out.

And Typh, becasue I was not sure what I think about your general line on Matt. And I wanted to think about it before I came right out with it; and I still need to think about it, maybe until we get the results of this lynch. Since Scotty came straight out and asked, I clarified, but I like to know what I think of certain people, if that makes sense. In this game, Epi is one, you are another. I know what I think of Epi. I am not sure what I think of you.

Hey Typh, vote Matt or DrWilgy or Scotty for now.

a2thezebra wrote:Hey Typh, vote Matt or DrWilgy or Scotty for now.

Um please don't Typh?

Zebra, I'm not bad so Wilgster and Scotty being my teamies makes no sense. However, if you'd like to make a case on either of them, I'd be willing to listen!

I already have for both.

a2thezebra wrote:I already have for both.

Oh, is this that thing where I ask you stuff and you say "read my posts!" in all caps and then we get nowere?

Sweet.

Bullz

That may change to Zeebs if I'm still tied with her or close to tied tomorrow morning.

Nowhere*

Derp

Matt wrote:

a2thezebra wrote:I already have for both.

Oh, is this that thing where I ask you stuff and you say "read my posts!" in all caps and then we get nowere?

Yes.

Bullz - Whenever you come back in, please explain your vote on me. Like I said, you above all others know I have fun accusing you every game, so why in THIS game do you automatically assume I'm 99.9% bad?

Looking forward to your answer.

a2thezebra wrote:Hey Typh, vote Matt or DrWilgy or Scotty for now.

You said Matt first, so Matt it is.

S~V~S wrote: And Typh, becasue I was not sure what I think about your general line on Matt. And I wanted to think about it before I came right out with it; and I still need to think about it, maybe until we get the results of this lynch. Since Scotty came straight out and asked, I clarified, but I like to know what I think of certain people, if that makes sense. In this game, Epi is one, you are another. I know what I think of Epi. I am not sure what I think of you.

I'm sure that you will see my awesomeness for what it is

On that note, off to work!

Are you sure enough to put your name on the line that Matt is Mafia, Z? As in, if he's Civ, you're next?