The Syndicate

That's too bad, Bullz as I was expecting you of all people to see what I was saying.

And my "defenses" arent defenses. I am saying what you guys need to do after I die.

And JC I get upset good or bad if people get too aggressive or start pushing indefensible points. Recall Rabbits last game on RM the Batman one that never finished. I was civ in that and Rey and DH intentionally pushed my buttons and had me in hysterics. Its a Sherry thing, not an alignment thing.

S~V~S wrote:That's too bad, Bullz as I was expecting you of all people to see what I was saying.

And my "defenses" arent defenses. I am saying what you guys need to do after I die.

And JC I get upset good or bad if people get too aggressive or start pushing indefensible points. Recall Rabbits last game on RM the Batman one that never finished. I was civ in that and Rey and DH intentionally pushed my buttons and had me in hysterics. Its a Sherry thing, not an alignment thing.

SVS, do you think LC jumping all over me for adding ONE observation to Keterman's post qualifies as "discussion squashing?"

Discuss.

thellama73 wrote:SO bear with me here for a moment, folks. I have had a thought.

In typing my last post in which I noticed that LC is doing the very thing that SVS ALWAYS jumps on me for doing, and noting her lack of response, I began to wonder. And wonder pretty hard.

Long Con has done a good job of portraying himself as SVS's greatest adversary, but is he really? Let's look at the votes.

Day 1: Long Con cast the third vote for SVS after MP had seven. No danger to SVS there.
Day 2: Long Con voted for juliets. SVS took 0 votes. No danger to her there.
Day 3: Long Con cast the only vote for SVS after Made had three. No danger to SVS there.
Day 4: Long Con cast the 13th vote for Made. SVS took three votes. No danger to her there.
Day 5: Long Con, after talking about no one but SVS for ever, suddenly abandons his suspicion of her to come after me HARD for what seems to me to be no reason at all.

Now, it is possible SVS is keeping quiet just because she is thankful that attention has shifted away from her, but I submit to you that Long Con and SVS have been on a team this whole time, and engaging in some very clever distancing.

This is based on a) Long Con being vocally against SVS, but not actually voting for her when it could have made a difference. and
b) SVS staying silent about behavior that she consistently goes bananas over when others do it.

I would love to hear others' opinions about this, but as for me, I am going ahead and trusting my gut. Voting for SVS now.

llama, this logic is pointless. Okay, so maybe LC has suddenly waffled on SVS, but SVS has never been in danger of being lynched. You are absolutely manufacturing this idea from nothing. If SVS and LC are teammates, what good would it be for LC to place the 13th vote on Made if SVS is a safe vote?

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

thellama73 wrote:SO bear with me here for a moment, folks. I have had a thought.

In typing my last post in which I noticed that LC is doing the very thing that SVS ALWAYS jumps on me for doing, and noting her lack of response, I began to wonder. And wonder pretty hard.

Long Con has done a good job of portraying himself as SVS's greatest adversary, but is he really? Let's look at the votes.

Day 1: Long Con cast the third vote for SVS after MP had seven. No danger to SVS there.
Day 2: Long Con voted for juliets. SVS took 0 votes. No danger to her there.
Day 3: Long Con cast the only vote for SVS after Made had three. No danger to SVS there.
Day 4: Long Con cast the 13th vote for Made. SVS took three votes. No danger to her there.
Day 5: Long Con, after talking about no one but SVS for ever, suddenly abandons his suspicion of her to come after me HARD for what seems to me to be no reason at all.

Now, it is possible SVS is keeping quiet just because she is thankful that attention has shifted away from her, but I submit to you that Long Con and SVS have been on a team this whole time, and engaging in some very clever distancing.

This is based on a) Long Con being vocally against SVS, but not actually voting for her when it could have made a difference. and
b) SVS staying silent about behavior that she consistently goes bananas over when others do it.

I would love to hear others' opinions about this, but as for me, I am going ahead and trusting my gut. Voting for SVS now.

llama, this logic is pointless. Okay, so maybe LC has suddenly waffled on SVS, but SVS has never been in danger of being lynched. You are absolutely manufacturing this idea from nothing. If SVS and LC are teammates, what good would it be for LC to place the 13th vote on Made if SVS is a safe vote?

I respectfully disagree that it's pointless. I think examining voting records is always pointful.

S~V~S wrote:If I am trying to save myself I am doing a pisspoor job.

What?

Linki: llama, I completely agree about analyzing vote record. But about the conclusion you've come to, I will completely disagree. What do you think about my last point on LC's Day 4 vote?

MM, that vote could have been for any number of reasons, but ultimately I think any day where there is such an overwhelming majority, it doesn't matter who you vote for, even for optics. In some ways, it would have looked worse for him to vote elswhere than to simply pile onto the bandwagon, since he could later be accused of deliberately separating his vote from the pack for optics. On the other hand, if he was as sincere in his suspicion of SVS as he claimed to be, why not vote for her anyway?

To reiterate, I don't think votes on days like that mean anything.

I'm going to parrot my strongest town read, bwt. Usually when I second guess myself I end up wrong and mad that I second guessed myself. A vote for SVS it is. Her defenses aren't bad but nothing can really save what she did.

While we're at it, let's look at yours and SVS's vote records.

SVS

Day 1 - Place the 10th vote on MP - He flipped was an indy. Good deal.
Day 2 - Placed the first vote on Made - He would have been lynched, but AP took the hit.
Day 3 - Placed the third vote on MR - Lynched and flipped a civ.
Day 4 - Placed the first vote on Made - He was lynched, flipped civ.
Day 5 - Voting llama, I think for self-preservation.

Looking at these votes, she votes early, and votes popular targets. It seems as though she goes after the easy lynches, the key word being 'seems'. Made's been a popular subject since the very beginning. MP was a nice bandwagon. MR and llama became popular targets on Days 3 and 5.


llama

Day 1 - First vote on Made.
Day 2 - no vote, due to silencing I believe
Day 3 - First vote on Made.
Day 4 - Third vote on Made.
Day 5 - First vote on SVS.

Consistancy, any llama's primary virtue. llama dogged the hell out of Made (as did I a bit), and I think that is what's coming back to bite him more than anything else.

Excellent post, MM. My voting record is consistent with a sincere suspicion that turned out to be wrong (although I still refuse to admit Made was really good. Maybe he misunderstood his role or deliberately decided to defect. )

I do not believe LC's voting record is consistent with his words. I can't really draw any conclusions from SVS's.

Woo hoo, "free" moment at work when I'm definitely supposed to be grading! And yay, I get to respond to things!

1) SVS, when you say "waffly," do you mean I haven't directly stated my suspicion? Or that I could go back on what I say? I'll kill two birds with one stone: I suspect you because it appears you have been conveniently turning the thread away from you when it gets even close to talking about suspecting you (except, of course, now, when the thread seems to be moving that way and you're probably at work like me but being good/busy). I think I also mentioned something several days ago about how I found your behavior different because of more emotion (which you did address, but...). Honestly, the reason why I see your pleas as disingenuous (AKA Crocodile Tears. If that's not a nice term let me know and I won't use it :P) is the bias that I just see you as bad.

And you're right - Boogs did clear up his suspicion of you, but didn't explain very well why, unless I missed it. That's what I wanted to know from him, if he can explain more.

2) Canuck - I see what you're saying. I still think it's unsound logic, but I think I'm just gonna agree to disagree here for now, as we're talking ourselves in circles Mafia accusation is so unnatural for me and takes getting used to knowing I'm not actually hurting people's feelings!

3) LC - thanks for the explanation!

I think I got them all, but if I didn't, feel free to angrily tell me so in the thread And while I'm at it, since SVS is my top suspect, and I don't know if I'll be back on in time to vote before the deadline (gotta love after school meetings that last til God/the LORB knows when), I'll go ahead and place my vote there.

I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

In defense of thellama73, a hairy, hirsute beast.

By the cuddly creature Mongoose, a story in 2 chapters.

Chapter 1:

Llama has been extremely vocal. This is not rare for him (see: Bioshock, Homestar, Thomas the Tank, Super Mario etc.). When he is bad, he is much more clean in how he posts (see: Rolling Stones, American Gods, Harry Potter).

As a baddie, he will often vette what he says to other players before posting his comments

Does this currently sound like a player who is vetting his posts?

It in no way does. He's basically Mayor of Recklesstown, which draws enough attention to keep him from being NK'd, but hopefully (hopefully!) not be lynched.

No self-respecting baddie would pay this fast and loose.


Chapter 2:

Hunch-hunch-hunch-a-roo. If my feelings on this were a classic book, it would be The HUNCHback of Notre Dame.



Cherries & Fairies,

Mongoose
C.E.O., Animal Sanctuary Squad

Weird, Mongoose.
Just to touch on the concept of "baddie behaviour" , there certainly is such a thing. Baddies have to do things that Civvies do not, things related to deception. It's just the natureof the game. Some are better at covering it than others.

When I see someone accuse another player, and that accusation doesn't hold up when the light of logic is shone upon it, then there must be another intention. Maybe Llama is a rolechecker who checked Canuck and found her bad last night, but I don't get that vibe from him. I strongly believe that he's a baddie.

I'm not getting a baddie vibe from SVS, and I don't want to vote for her. But I have no idea what to make of Llama, so I'm not so sure I want to vote for him, either. Meh.

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I feel like I'm in pretty much the same boat as you, juliets.

At the risk of putting myself at risk for the same sorts of suspicion I got re: my vote for Made, I really believe that I should vote for either SVS or llama today. Anything else feels slimy and avoid-y. I've spent most of the game assuming both were civs, but I have had some doubts here and there regarding SVS. Nothing major ever, and nothing that would put her at the top of my suspicion list. I was in the camp that if Made flipped bad, I would've wanted to vote SVS next...but that didn't happen, so that's moot. I also was a little unsure about SVS during her early back-and-forth with LC re: Signature-gate, but I came away from that ultimately assuming it was civ-on-civ. Now, with SVS's pleas that everyone read between the lines, I *think* (and that is a very qualified *think*, because I'm really bad at deciphering crypticness and hints) I understand what she's alluding to, and I *think* I believe her, and I therefore don't want to see her lynched.
Unfortuntaely, I don't think that llama is bad, either. I've not played with him often, but it seems to me that his brash, upfront accusatory/pot-stirring style is pretty much just his typical M.O., regardless of alignment. He has appeared to be legitimately trying to find baddies the entire game, and even if he uses methods and clues that are not identical to the type that I usually am drawn to, I actually haven't really read it as being particularly opportunistic or mudslingy or whatever. So I don't really want to vote for llama.
But.
SVS suggests that ninjajumbo is where we should look after llama, and I have been preparing to do a re-read and see if there is a case to be built against Nijub because she has been pinging me something fierce recently. So that inclines me more towards team SVS, since we share a common suspect...
And, Mongoose (who I cannot seem to let go of my suspicion of) is rooting pretty hard for llama, which tends to also push me more into the save SVS camp, since I do think Mongoose might have teammates she wants do defend.
BUT.
I honestly have trouble imagining that a baddie Mongoose would be virtually non-existent all game, being super blendy and getting by just fine, and then jeopardize her cover by doing such a blatant defense of a teammate.....but I guess its not out of the realm of possibility?


Gah. I dunno what to do.
I'm currently leaning more towards voting llama, but I'm really swaying in the breeze here....

On preview, what LoRab said.....only much more wordy and convoluted.

LoRab wrote:But I have no idea what to make of Llama, so I'm not so sure I want to vote for him, either. Meh.

That's where I love to be.

Also, sorry to play the "Hosting Another Game" card, but wow, that sucks my time. I'd definitely not play a game and host another game concurrently ever again. Many apologies to the players who are used to my verbosity and super-acting posting style.

But hey, at least you are getting a tidbit of the weirdness.

Also, llama isn't bad, so don't vote for him or I think you will be very sad. He is one of our very best baddie hunters, and it would be a shuckin' shame to throw that out with yesterday's fish refuse.

Mongoose wrote: Also, llama isn't bad, so don't vote for him or I think you will be very sad. He is one of our very best baddie hunters, and it would be a shuckin' shame to throw that out with yesterday's fish refuse.

I am the best baddie hunter who never actually finds baddies ever!

Anyone else wondering if mongoose has been cursed to defend llama?

LoRab wrote:Anyone else wondering if mongoose has been cursed to defend llama?

I was just thinking about that. Her posts seem...odd. Like contrived.

LoRab wrote:Anyone else wondering if mongoose has been cursed to defend llama?

I literally did not even know that was a thing. I've not been cursed, and you can LD me on that if there is an LD in this game. I can read him pretty good (about as bad as he reads me and Hedge, to be honest).

juliets wrote:

LoRab wrote:Anyone else wondering if mongoose has been cursed to defend llama?

I was just thinking about that. Her posts seem...odd. Like contrived.

You may or may not be right. I just don't feel like voting either way on this wagon, partially because I'm torn, and partially because of this possibility of a curse. If it's true, I'd rather stay away from this fight. Also, since I've seen curses force the cursed to have a minimum post count for the day, I think that explains Mongoose's sudden explosion of activity.

I'm voting LC, and trusting llama on this one. I wish I had more time to deliberate other prospects.

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

I would have expected you to see things differently too, perhaps, MM. Well I am out ta here won't be back till its over. Good luck civvies, I only told one lie all game, and I shouldn't have done so.

When you see my role, think about how I might have used it.

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

No thats not true at all. I'm trying to explain the way I feel but if it makes you uncomfortable there's not really a lot I can do about it. As I said in my post, voting for someone just because someone I trust voted for them doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Ergo, I probably won't do it. I probably will vote for someone I suspect even if it's not the two vote getters this game, unless something happens that suddenly convinces me SVS or llama is bad.

S~V~S wrote:I would have expected you to see things differently too, perhaps, MM. Well I am out ta here won't be back till its over. Good luck civvies, I only told one lie all game, and I shouldn't have done so.

When you see my role, think about how I might have used it.

I had a specific role in mind for you based on something I read in thread, but when you say things like "how I might have used it" it makes me curious if I am wrong

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

Hi there. It's me that you're thinking of re: using similar logic.
Here is what is mind boggling to me: have you never had your opinion of something changed by another person? Or never decided to listen to someone else's opinion even if your gut said something different? There's a fine line between noble conviction and unreasonable stubborness, young padawan.

OK. I'm voting llama. Really I'm voting in support of SVS more than against him. I'm really feeling she's civ. And I'm hoping I'm not wrong. But in a vote this close, I'm doing this to do what I can to save her. I'm feel more confident about her than I do about him. So, yeah.

Canucklehead wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

Hi there. It's me that you're thinking of re: using similar logic.
Here is what is mind boggling to me: have you never had your opinion of something changed by another person? Or never decided to listen to someone else's opinion even if your gut said something different? There's a fine line between noble conviction and unreasonable stubborness, young padawan.

Have I ever decided to vote for someone even though my gut said they were a civvie because someone said they were a baddie?
Sure, plenty of times.... as a baddie.

fingersplints wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

Hi there. It's me that you're thinking of re: using similar logic.
Here is what is mind boggling to me: have you never had your opinion of something changed by another person? Or never decided to listen to someone else's opinion even if your gut said something different? There's a fine line between noble conviction and unreasonable stubborness, young padawan.

Have I ever decided to vote for someone even though my gut said they were a civvie because someone said they were a baddie?
Sure, plenty of times.... as a baddie.

OK. I was just trying to help you understand something that "boggles" you, but if you want to continue to be reductive with your reading of my explanation, that's fine. We don't have to agree.

Ugh. I'm feeling so flip-floppy. I actually agree quite a lot with this:

fingersplints wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I would have expected you to see things differently too, perhaps, MM. Well I am out ta here won't be back till its over. Good luck civvies, I only told one lie all game, and I shouldn't have done so.

When you see my role, think about how I might have used it.

I had a specific role in mind for you based on something I read in thread, but when you say things like "how I might have used it" it makes me curious if I am wrong

Maybe the role I was thinking of for SVS has more powers than the obvious, but this statement also makes me question what my "reading between the lines" had pegged her as...

Gahhahhahha. I'm totallhy panicking/flailing/floundering on this one.

Another thing I'm confused about: part of SVS's case was that people like Keterman had "read between the lines" and come to a conlusion about her and backed off.....but Keterman voted SVS.......sooooo.....

Well, in case I die, I had fun this game, Roxy and DP, as well as all the rest of you in thread. Sorry if I came off too aggressive or rude. I just get worked up about this game. I hope whoever dies will provide some illumination. SVS has truly been a worthy adversary this game.

There's still a bunch of people who haven't voted, and like half an hour for them to show up. You might be fine.

I really don't know who to vote for. :/

Bullzeye wrote:There's still a bunch of people who haven't voted, and like half an hour for them to show up. You might be fine.

Yeah, but I have to leave soon and wanted to post in case I didn't get another chance.

voting to protect my pet llama

Canucklehead wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

Canucklehead wrote:

fingersplints wrote:

juliets wrote:I have spent most of the game with the feeling that both SVS and llama are civ so this is going to be a difficult vote today. I may go ahead and vote who I think is bad but that doesn't have anything to do with SVS or Long Con so I'll be accused of avoiding the vote. Otherwise though I will just be flipping a coin or perhaps voting one of the two based on someone else's vote that I think is civ. That doesn't feel too good either. I've got some time to think about it so I think I'll wait and see what happens the rest of the afternoon.

I don't understand why you would vote one of the two of them if you think they are civvie just because someone else who you think might be a civvie voted for them. Is avoiding being POSSIBLY accused of avoiding the vote really that significant.
Isn't this the second time something like this has been said? This is just mind boggling to me.
Idk this doesn't make me feel good about you, and unfortunately for you I am looking for someone to vote who is not SVS or llama as well. IMO civvies vote what they feel, and baddies tend to avoid votes so when the result is not good they don't get blamed. it just feels like to me you are trying to avoid ownership of your vote.

Hi there. It's me that you're thinking of re: using similar logic.
Here is what is mind boggling to me: have you never had your opinion of something changed by another person? Or never decided to listen to someone else's opinion even if your gut said something different? There's a fine line between noble conviction and unreasonable stubborness, young padawan.

Have I ever decided to vote for someone even though my gut said they were a civvie because someone said they were a baddie?
Sure, plenty of times.... as a baddie.

OK. I was just trying to help you understand something that "boggles" you, but if you want to continue to be reductive with your reading of my explanation, that's fine. We don't have to agree.

I can understand and appreciate what you are saying. It's just a matter of what is most likely at this point. If you have your opinion changed is a different thing. People are allowed to change their mind. I do all the time. But then one should take ownership that although that person changes their mind in the end they are responsible for their vote. Not that either of you have done that, but something about juliets post felt to me like she was setting it up so she could easily vote their if need be in the end. That may not be the case, but it might be too.

splints: I get what you're saying. We're cool.

I have no fucking clue how to vote, here. I was prepared to do a llama vote based on what role I think SVS was claiming....but the Keterman thing seems super odd, like she maybe used his (unrelated) absence to her advantage and fabricated the whole "look close! Read between the lines!" thing....Ketman had no comment on the part of her defense that was predicated on his alleged "read" of her, so that's pretty odd.....and llama's last post sounds pretty genuine civ to me....


....but of course, that's an easy thing to fabricate. Gah Gah gah.

Vote where in the end? Anyway, as I have said, I don't think either SVS or llama is bad and will not vote for either. I am voting Boogs and explained earlier what makes me suspect him.

Mongoose wrote:In defense of thellama73, a hairy, hirsute beast.

By the cuddly creature Mongoose, a story in 2 chapters.

Chapter 1:

Llama has been extremely vocal. This is not rare for him (see: Bioshock, Homestar, Thomas the Tank, Super Mario etc.). When he is bad, he is much more clean in how he posts (see: Rolling Stones, American Gods, Harry Potter).

As a baddie, he will often vette what he says to other players before posting his comments

Does this currently sound like a player who is vetting his posts?

It in no way does. He's basically Mayor of Recklesstown, which draws enough attention to keep him from being NK'd, but hopefully (hopefully!) not be lynched.

No self-respecting baddie would pay this fast and loose.


Chapter 2:

Hunch-hunch-hunch-a-roo. If my feelings on this were a classic book, it would be The HUNCHback of Notre Dame.



Cherries & Fairies,

Mongoose
C.E.O., Animal Sanctuary Squad

This has so many layers of awesome, like an onion or tootsie pop... I love it.

I am srsly sick today sadly, so not sticking around much, but I still feel Llama is civ this game. Also, I am terrible at reading thru lines and have no idea what SVS is talking about.

Votes SVS

Canuckie-baby poop or get off the potty. It's voting time.

OK. I will poop in the SVS pot.

The room for obfuscation in her "I am an important role don't lynch me!" defense does not sit comfortably, especially since the person on whom she predicated that defense (Keterman) ended up voting for her, anyway....
Sorry if you're good, SVS.

Tuesday, at 5:45 after arguing with me and calling me bad all the night before:

Keterman wrote:Hmmmm....re-evaluating my reads at the moment. I'm biased against a scum read on Llama because to me he acts scummy all of the time, almost literally every post he makes. SVS's defenses have sounded genuine to me so far. Canucklehead I'm unsure about. I'll see where the day goes before I make any conclusions.

No posts in between.

Today about 4:30:

Keterman wrote:I'm going to parrot my strongest town read, bwt. Usually when I second guess myself I end up wrong and mad that I second guessed myself. A vote for SVS it is. Her defenses aren't bad but nothing can really save what she did.

So yeah, if I thought he had changed his mind in the time before I said that, that was why.

I fully believe Mongoose was forced. Please lynch Llama next, k guys

You should have actually read his posts.

Is this directed at me?
I did read his posts...

Missed by a minute ;(
Internet is a bit spotty at my dads house. I had to literally rush to a different spot
sorry hosts and players. I promise I won't miss another poll <3

Guys, even God told us not to vote for SVS. Does no one else remember that?