The Syndicate

I'm not 100% sure that I'll be around again tonight before the vote ends, so I'm going to go ahead and put my vote on MP for now. My suspicions of him are not super strong, but they're more than I have for anyone else at this point. He just seems to be very much poking at small things using strong language (cf "witch hunt", "serious assumptions"), and then backing down immediately when called out on this strong language, or when no one seems to be on board with his directions. He also seems to be bending over backwards to make sure that he is seen to be listening and considering everyone's opinions....which is, of course, not in itself a bad thing, but the amount of couching and caveat-ing just seems very excessive in MP's case.
Not a strong suspicion (MP possibly always does this to some extent, but it seems even more over-the-top this game), but enough for Day 1 for me in the absence of other strong cases. If I do get a chance to get back to the thread later, I will consider revising, but for now I'm voting MP.

My experience of bad Vomp is that he does post more ON TOPIC when he's bad then when he is civ. He also posts alot of Off Topic when a civ if it is the game of someone in his set (which this is) and/or if it is something he likes, which by what he has said in OT, it is.

I have a D & D game at 1, so I will either vote before then or if I am not decided yet, make a short/sweet vote post close to the end.

Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.

Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.

llama - pahtaytoe/pawtaytowe - ask questions/come after - same difference. making a big deal out of something a noob does on Day 1 is becoming standard practice around here (which I am sorry but I will never understand the logic of doing it) - you are doing it for a second time that I am noticing - which is the main point of that post - to remind you that you were not right for questioning Sabie in her first game as she was civ and you are not right this time even without knowing Ricochet's alignment. It's just not a very friendly way to welcome new members to the site - as a mod I would have thought you would be far more welcoming and helpful instead of coming straight out of the gate with a question (which he politely answered I might add) - idc if you only asked one question - could it have waited for, at the very least, Day 2?

I find your list to be nose twitching. I do not think I have EVER seen you make a list like that especially not on day 1. I have to wonder why? Why now? Why start doing a list this game? Why is everyone on the list even those you have no opinion on? So strange - strange as in odd bc you never make lists like these.

I think Canuck's post about MP is quite worthy of thought. And deffo something I will be keeping in mind as we progress through the game.

Lizzy's style this game is reminding me of her WIFOM baddie game. Not quite sure yet so again something to keep an eye on.

I am working so I should be around in time to vote.

I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:

Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.

This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.

To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.

Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.

I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.

With the first part, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Even with someone being an outed civvie. I don't see why the mafia would want to bother spending the time essentially double-targeting a role for death like that. I'm not sure if it's that I think your being disingenuous, or if it's just a difference of opinion, but I just don't see why it's bad that we had a do-over for a lynch when we gain information from it.

As for the second part, yes, you have done that several times from what I've seen. I'll give you that. I guess it was more your tone that felt off to me.

I don't know if I feel any worse about you after your response, but I don't feel any better about you either, LC. And given my lack of time to look further, plus the fact I don't really feel comfortable with anyone else right now, I'm going to vote for you. It's a weak case, sure, but it's the best I feel my gut has to go on for now. So think of this as an "I'm keeping an eye on you" vote.

Votes LC

Vompatti wrote:Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.

Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.

Why do you think MM is bad? Did I miss this?

Roxy wrote:llama - pahtaytoe/pawtaytowe - ask questions/come after - same difference. making a big deal out of something a noob does on Day 1 is becoming standard practice around here (which I am sorry but I will never understand the logic of doing it) - you are doing it for a second time that I am noticing - which is the main point of that post - to remind you that you were not right for questioning Sabie in her first game as she was civ and you are not right this time even without knowing Ricochet's alignment. It's just not a very friendly way to welcome new members to the site - as a mod I would have thought you would be far more welcoming and helpful instead of coming straight out of the gate with a question (which he politely answered I might add) - idc if you only asked one question - could it have waited for, at the very least, Day 2?

I find your list to be nose twitching. I do not think I have EVER seen you make a list like that especially not on day 1. I have to wonder why? Why now? Why start doing a list this game? Why is everyone on the list even those you have no opinion on? So strange - strange as in odd bc you never make lists like these.

I think Canuck's post about MP is quite worthy of thought. And deffo something I will be keeping in mind as we progress through the game.

Lizzy's style this game is reminding me of her WIFOM baddie game. Not quite sure yet so again something to keep an eye on.

I am working so I should be around in time to vote.

Agree to disagree. I don't agree with you that it's wrong to question a civ (sabie.) I don't agree with you that it's hostile to question a new player. Ricochet doesn't seem to bear me any ill will or have any hurt feelings. If he does, I hope he will say so and we can work it out, but as I see it, this is how you play the game, and I assume Ricochet wants to play the game, since he signed up. I don't see any reason to wait until Day 2 to ask a question I wanted answered on Day 1. I believe in welcoming people by engaging them and treating them like a regular player, rather than treating them with kid gloves.

I made my list because I was bored and felt like it. I left everyone on, because if I left people off, people would ask why, and I would have to say "no read." This saves time and is more thorough. It's also a helpful reminder to myself about the players I need to pay more attention to.

S~V~S wrote:

Vompatti wrote:Mongoose do you recognize all of the quotes/references in Histoire(s) du cinéma? I used to know someone who had written (or was going to write?) a book that listed and analized all of them but I don't think it ever got published.

Also of the current lynch candidates I'm strongly leaning towards MM as MP always plays like a baddie and Llama currently seems like the epitome of a helpful civ to me.

Why do you think MM is bad? Did I miss this?

He could be either good or bad, but since he already voted for himself it seems he wouldn't mind being lynched so I think it's slightly more fair to vote for him than to randomize. I don't have any particular suspicions towards anyone yet, although I do disagree with the llama votes.

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:You really wouldn't vote for someone you thought was bad because they are new, SVS? I find that very strange.

You find it strange that SVS would have a sentimental reason for not voting new players? You find it strange that SVS would place principle over pragmatism-- especially early on in a game?
You really find THAT strange?

MovingPictures07 wrote:

Dom wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

MovingPictures07 wrote: Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions.

I am eager to hear the rationale for your Day 1 vote that involves zero assumptions.

^^^^^

LOL, seriously guys? Where did I say my D1 vote wouldn't involve zero assumptions? And way to cut out the rest of my post, Llama, to misrepresent what I was saying.

MP, what did you mean to indicate by "serious assumptions", then? Do you intend to make them in your vote?

MovingPictures07 wrote:And one last thing, I'd appreciate to hear what Dom's thinking, since I haven't really seen what he's thinking re: suspects or anything yet other than questioning people.

Now, MP, is that really strange for me at Day 1?
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm thinking.
Is questioning people bad?
Why are you concerned with my questions?
Is this an unusual way for me to play?
(Hint: it's not)

So yeah, Llama's got my eye. I thought that much was obvious.

I never once said it was strange, Dom. I just was hoping you'd clarify since I knew you questioned Llama but you seemed to feel better after his response, but I really couldn't tell what was going on in your mind, so that's why I asked.

I think you're reaching; I never said questioning is bad, that I'm concerned, or anything. I just wanted clarification, that's all.

Canucklehead wrote:I'm not 100% sure that I'll be around again tonight before the vote ends, so I'm going to go ahead and put my vote on MP for now. My suspicions of him are not super strong, but they're more than I have for anyone else at this point. He just seems to be very much poking at small things using strong language (cf "witch hunt", "serious assumptions"), and then backing down immediately when called out on this strong language, or when no one seems to be on board with his directions. He also seems to be bending over backwards to make sure that he is seen to be listening and considering everyone's opinions....which is, of course, not in itself a bad thing, but the amount of couching and caveat-ing just seems very excessive in MP's case.
Not a strong suspicion (MP possibly always does this to some extent, but it seems even more over-the-top this game), but enough for Day 1 for me in the absence of other strong cases. If I do get a chance to get back to the thread later, I will consider revising, but for now I'm voting MP.

Wait, what? I didn't back down immediately. I don't understand why you got that interpretation. I have merely been clarifying, but I tell you what, I haven't backed down. I still feel like harboring an environment based on analyzing someone's OT usage would create a witch hunt like atmosphere that I don't like, which is why I was hesitant to consider the idea -- even though I was saying that WASN'T was necessarily happening here. I just didn't want to make it a go-to in future games. I thought you agreed with me on that? Even if not, I don't understand why you interpret my actions as backing down.

In with "serious assumptions", where did I back down from that as well? I said there were serious assumptions Llama would have to make to assume someone would not just answer "No". It means Rico would have to show no understanding of the game whatsoever, and not only that, but somehow recognize that he's playing a game of deception and realize that if he is baddie that he'd have to lie, etc. etc. I just personally thought it was a ridiculous accusation, which I thought I conveyed. Where did I back down here? I NEVER said anything about anyone else not making serious assumptions in D1 votes, so I don't understand why Llama and Dom jumped to me saying I would not make any serious assumptions in MY vote. I specified the serious assumptions in my post, which Llama cut off, here:

MovingPictures07 wrote:Llama, are you insane? Sure, you could say that's one explanation for Ricochet just didn't say "No", but if you want to believe that's most likely, then it seems to me you have to make some serious assumptions. Ricochet obviously has some idea of what he was getting into, so I just can't believe that anyone over the age of 5 would actually refuse to say just "No" because they're baddie. What's the logic or motivation in that, in a game of deception? Any adult human being should be able to recognize that answering your question with "Yes" would be ridiculous and self-destructive. I frankly found Ricochet's responses incredibly reasonable. I don't know whether he's bad or not, but this incident has not influenced my view of you or him.

So where are you getting me backing down from?

birdwithteeth11 wrote:I'm going to be out with my grandparents for most of the afternoon, so I'm going to go ahead and vote now. And for the reasoning, we shall refer back to this post:

Long Con wrote:

birdwithteeth11 wrote:Okay. I can see where FZ is coming from with LC. It comes off to me as being a bit "overly helpful" for sure. But the part that really stuck out to me was:

Long Con wrote:

Stanley Kubrick Realist, perfectionist director and genre hopper. He can once reshoot a day period.

This will annoy us at some point by delaying the progress, but at least it's a Civvie that we won't lynch.

To me, I don't understand how this is "delaying the progress" of the game if we lynch a civvie and Kubrick uses his power. It lets us restart the day over again, we're not down a civ, and we have plenty of new information to make a new decision on.

I'll wait to hear what LC has to say on the matter himself. But I am now very interested in his response.

Delaying the progress of the game... meaning we wait 48 hours for a lynch post, and instead of a lynch post, we get a Civvie outed and saved, and another 48 hours before we get to see a lynch result. It's good for the Civs, and it's annoying to me as a player. In an impatient way. I hope my response has interested you further.

I often post a role analysis near the start of a game. If you want to call it 'overly helpful' then that's your opinion. I think it opens people up to thinking about the roles creatively, and to keeping some things in mind in their general gameplay.

With the first part, I fail to see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Even with someone being an outed civvie. I don't see why the mafia would want to bother spending the time essentially double-targeting a role for death like that. I'm not sure if it's that I think your being disingenuous, or if it's just a difference of opinion, but I just don't see why it's bad that we had a do-over for a lynch when we gain information from it.

As for the second part, yes, you have done that several times from what I've seen. I'll give you that. I guess it was more your tone that felt off to me.



Votes LC

Also, why does you not understanding someones reasoning make them bad? I always wonder about this, not just in the context of this game. I get lynched for this very thing all the time when i am civ. Someone does not understand what i said, or someone thinks what I said makes no sense, therefore I am bad.

Does the fact that several other people do seem to understand what he is saying, and explained it to you in the thread make any difference to your train of thought?

Since some other people have also voiced a suspicion of LC for his role analysis, this seems a nice, easy out for you if he comes back civ:

I don't know if I feel any worse about you after your response, but I don't feel any better about you either, LC. And given my lack of time to look further, plus the fact I don't really feel comfortable with anyone else right now, I'm going to vote for you. It's a weak case, sure, but it's the best I feel my gut has to go on for now. So think of this as an "I'm keeping an eye on you" vote.

If those people do vote for him, and he gets lynched, you have kinda absolved yourself in advance, haven't you?

This vote got you my vote.

Linki @ Vomp. Fair enough, although iirc, he said he was self voting as he was going to be afk for a bit. So since he signed up, yeah, he might mind being lynched while he is not around to defend. Another one of those silly "principles" I like to keep in mind. Although I do agree re the llama votes.

Linki @MP~ tl;dr gonna go play D & D

Well, I have to leave really soon, and won't be back.

I'd really rather not get any more votes because people miscomprehend what I am clarifying (and maybe that's my fault for not being clear enough with my explanations; if so, I apologize), but I don't see Llama as bad. I really don't want him to die today either because he tends to attract a lot of attention early on regardless of alignment, and I see no reason to believe he's any more bad than anyone else right now (same with S~V~S and Rico).

The point on LC was made, but I thought his response was genuine, and I don't see that being worthy either.

I thought Dom's response to me was incredibly overreacting (not totally out of character, so that alone doesn't mean much), but it struck me as odd because I never implied any of those things, and it seemed to me he wanted to make a big deal out of me asking him who his suspects were, when he NEVER actually said them outright. And I know he asks a lot of questions, but the fact that he never came out and said how he felt about anyone, including Llama, just seemed strange to me, and an easy way to seem like he was contributing but without putting any thoughts out of his own in addition to his questions. And I think he's taking advantage of a vocal Llama to place an easy vote, so I'll be voting Dom. It's relatively weak, but it's really the only thing I'm feeling right now.

votes Dom

I don't like to vote for people who are not around to defend themselves either, but it is more because I think their defense could be enlightening and alert me to a misstep rather than because I feel sorry for them.

Voted MM to assure I won't miss the vote.

Im hungover and need to get back to bed. Ill go with svs' vote on bwt, and join her on it. I don't agree with voting llama or vomps.

I also think, of all the people who have votes, BWT is the most suspicious. I didn't like the way he presumed to speak for Ricochet, and I didn't like his LC vote.

*Votes BWT*

The vote is hella spread out so far. The only thing I agree with so far was SVS's analysis of Birdy's vote for LC. Seemed like BWT was intent on voting for Con regardless of Con's response. DFaraday just did something similar as a baddie on Day 1 in the Champions game, so my vote will likely go to BWT for what feels like a drummed up vote.

I'll cast my vote now, but I'll be around til deadline to see what happens with the remaining votes, because I don't like how spread out it is.

*votes Birdo*

Wow, somehow I missed linkitis where a few other people agreed re: BWT, so the vote isn't as spread out anymore. Still casting my vote there, but I'm a bit wary of the quick support it garnered. I guess that includes me though...

Wow, first, I don't get the BWT votes, but maybe I need to read what everyone said.

I really find Vompatti suspicious. His defence of llama seems off, as well as how on topic and not joking around he seems to be. Too bad votes can't be changed, because I have a feeling a vote for him right now would just be a waste of vote. I'm going back to read people's reasoning for voting BWT

While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.

Thoughts:

I did not read llama's question of ricochet as overly aggressive and if I may say so I'm impressed with his answer, even if it was a non-answer. It read to me like, look bitch if you want to accuse me, put your money where your mouth is and make an accusation, otherwise I don't want to answer a silly question with a silly answer. It's pointless. Bravo!

LC, don't find anything suspicious here either but I have the benefit of having played with this crowd for a good long while. Strategic thinking regarding roles and questions regarding roles are normal with the old timers, it used to be fairly consistent Day 0/1 conversation. And I think it makes sense to do so. I also disagree with the idea of the read of pissed off baddie. Trust me, if a baddie is pissed off they bitch at the host, they don't vent about it in thread, even passive aggressively. LC is an experienced enough player to know that.

BWT, wth? He is finally playing more actively and y'all are voting him? I'd rather give it time to see what kind of read I get on him first.

Vomp, I disagree with llama. Vomps plays a more active game when he likes the theme. His role is pretty irrelevant to his activity in my experience.

voting for new players, short of a baddie slip up outing themselves I like to let them get a little more time under their belt before I vote them. They don't get a free pass all game, but Day 1, yeah. But that doesn't mean we should engage with them, question them like anyone else. How else will they get experience?

Who am I voting? Lizzie. Why? I don't know, shot in the dark. All my reading only turned up with things I didn't really find suspect so whatever.

EBWOP: that doesn't mean we SHOULDN'T engage with them...

FZ. wrote:While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.

I'll explain my vote happily. If you'll refer to my above list, I mentioned that BWT caught my eye for trying to make excuses for another player, which I always find suspicious. His vote on LC then followed, and felt very "safe" and opportunistic, as SVS pointed out. He left himself an easy out if he was wrong.

I probably would have voted for Vompatti were it not for the fact that I was tied for the most votes when I voted, but there is a natural self-preservation instinct, I'm sure you'll understand. Also, I didn't suspect anyone else currently with votes, and I am wary of a very spread out vote, since it allows more easy baddie manipulation.

I too think Vompatti's defense of me is out of character for him, and I will happily join you in voting him tomorrow.

Popping in for just a second before Daisy and I leave for the day, but I have the following comments since I last posted, especially since my last post was made sort of in a rush (we decided to leave later than I thought we would):

- I don't understand the suspicion of BWT. I understand S~V~S's train of thought, but I know BWT really well, and I don't see anything in BWT's posts that strikes me as anything other than just normal BWT thinking. Not only that, but while S~V~S had amazing logical points, she even admitted she gets lynched for that type of thinking all the time when she's civilian. So I'm not sure I fully understand the connection between BWT being bad because of it, only failing to logic it out like he maybe should have. Essentially, S~V~S said that she expressed others thought LC's response was genuine (including yours truly, since I found it genuine), but if BWT disagrees, should he not stick with his gut and vote LC anyway? In addition, I didn't really see BWT as "making excuses" for another player because I read Rico's responses exactly the way that BWT did, as if Rico actually did answer the question (Daisy's explanation of it is exactly what I wanted to convey, but failed to properly do so, honestly). I hope you folks are right, but that train makes me way nervous, and I'm leaning more civvie on BWT than baddie at this point.

- I do think Lizzy's "drunk" vote for Llama was weird, but it doesn't tell me anything about her, so I didn't comment on it.

- I appreciate the reasoning for not voting MM, but I still HATE self votes. If I wanted to avoid suspicion on D1, I could just say, "self-voting, really busy, see you guys later!" And I already explained the logic for why it makes no sense for a civilian to do it, ESPECIALLY at this stage (later on, as a tactical emotional move, OK, but still). Anyway, I'm not sure on MM, which is why I didn't end up voting for him, but I think I'd rather see him go at this point of MM, Llama, and BWT.

- Regarding Vompatti, I appreciate that he's actually taking the game seirously and I see nothing wrong with his MM vote. I'm sorry, guys, but I don't see anything baddie about Vompatti's behavior this game. Maybe it's because I helped Vompatti start his mafia career, but his playstyle this game reminds me more of his posting in Twin Peaks, where he was a civilian, and in his early mafia career, where he tended to be a bit more vocal, and still zany, but not quite as much as games in more recent memory. Just because the guy isn't voting himself and is defending someone doesn't mean he's baddie. Can someone explain that to me?

I honestly didn't think I'd have the time to pop back in, so I would have waited to vote, but since I did, thought I might as well at least come back.

That said, I still stand by my Dom vote, as his actions were the only really suspicious actions to me this past cycle, even if I don't feel strongly about them at all. I don't understand why anyone has not responded or commented on my observations of him. Not a word.

FZ. wrote:While I see the point in the votes for BWT, because his last post did seem like he wanted a reason to vote LC, I don't see how LC's response felt genuine. Can anyone explain it? And I don't get why people are not more suspicious of Vomps. So I guess I'm between these three. Any response would be appreciated.

FZ, I have played a game with LC where he laid out an analysis of all the roles like that, and we lynched him on Day 1, and he was a civ. I see what you're saying, about how his post could be baddie-tinged ambivalence toward civvie power, but that's not how I interpreted his post, and he's felt like normal LC to me so far.

I also don't really see why I should be suspicious of Vomps just because of his off topic chattiness. Is there something else about him that sticks out to you? What am I not "getting"?

Obviously, I don't know LC like most people here, so I'm going to lay off for now and trust you all. But just so we're clear, I think you're all missing the point. It's not about making the list, and it's not about bitching as a baddie. It's about supposedly not bitching, but when you read between the lines, he's bitching. And if I hadn't brought it up, no one would even mention it, so apparently, there was nothing too obviously baddie about it. And in any case, if he was really trying to do a helpful analysis, there were so many roles he could have talked about which would have more substance and be useful to think about. Not these.

And thank you for your explanations llama. I did see them. I wasn't asking for reasons why to vote BWT. Even though I'm suspicious of LC, BWT's reasoning did not seem genuine enough. I was asking for reasons for my other points, which you've given. Sure, you're on for next day.
Now, should I vote for BWT or Lizzie?


linki: TH, read my post here, and as for Vomp, it's not his OT chattiness, it's his on topic one, his defence of llama, and his joke about being suspicious of himself which I remember him doing last time he was a baddie (at least something of that kind)

fZ, for what it's worth, I think your observation of LC's post was extremely shrewd, and although I am not convinced of his baddieness yet, you've caused me to be more mindful of hi than I perhaps otherwise would, so I appreciate that a great deal.

FZ. wrote:Lastly, was I the only one pinged by LC's analysis of the roles post? Sounded to me like a baddie who thinks the civvies have the upper hand in terms of roles and can't come out and say that he's pissed, so he puts it out there in the form of the many ways the civvies can have BTSC and get stronger. It's something I've seen baddies do too many times. To me, that's a baddie indication...

I don't know why you would decide to interpret my analysis as being pissed off. I wasn't pissed off, and I reread it, and it doesn't read as pissed off. I'll be back in a bit to decide how to vote.

Can't say I'm upset about the votes for BWT, for obvious reasons. :P

No, I see your point, I just don't agree with it. Maybe I need to read his analysis again, but I just didn't get that vibe from it at all. You could be right. I just don't see it yet.

Re: Vomp, I remember the game you're talking about, I was baddies with him in that game (it was Are You Being Served). But I've seen Vomps say and do things like that plenty enough times as a civ and a baddie that I can't put too much weight into it, especially this early in the game.

^^ That was in reply to FZ's post. I'm missing linki all over the place

30 minutes to go and more than 10 votes still outstanding. There's everything to play for!

I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.

Turnip Head wrote:I didn't realize voters weren't changeable this game.

I did. Because I asked.

Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.

FZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.

You seemed way more suspicious of LC and Vomps though. Who cares if there's no point in voting anyone else? That's never stopped you before from voting your biggest suspicion

Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.

Ten votes to go in the next nine minutes! Everything to play for!

Ricochet wrote:Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.

Flash back to roughly 48 hours ago when I said:

thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

I remembered to vote with literally 5 minutes left, realized my vote can't change the results unless there is a crazy amount of votes for one person, and self voted.

Turnip Head wrote:

FZ. wrote:Okay, I hope this isn't a mistake, but I'm going to vote for BWT, because I see no point in voting for anyone else at this time.

You seemed way more suspicious of LC and Vomps though. Who cares if there's no point in voting anyone else? That's never stopped you before from voting your biggest suspicion

Usually I vote for someone I most suspicious of either when the votes are changeable and there's a chance people will follow me, or votes are not changeable, when none of the people that have many votes seem suspicious to me at all. Since I do see the case on BWT, and my vote on Vomp would be a complete waste, and everyone keeps saying I'm wrong about LC, that's what I had left

Annnnnnd.... TIME!
The people who failed to vote are:
Sabie
Roxy
Blooper
Dfaraday
Bass
Long Con
Made
Black Rock

Hrm out of everything posted nothing in and of itself is worthy of a vote on its own. I do not have anymore time to mull this all over bc I am going out to party very shortly after this be posted.

I do not intend to vote llama simply bc we disagree on how to treat noob players but thinking back his thing about Vomps felt forced. Not enough for a vote.

I could vote Lizzy bc of her vote and reasoning plus my gut is saying this could be her wifom baddie game.

I do not intend to vote MP just yet while Canuck made some god point I feel he is worth watching for a bit longer.

Vomps plays his own way every time however his jokey post about silencing himself if he is not lynched felt a bit forced imo. but not vote worthy as of yet.

I do not get the LC case at all. So no vote there.

Teeth - strange vote for sure and forced reasoning as you state yourself. Vote worthy imo

I think teeth will be lynched irregardless of my vote I am glad bc I want to make a statement vote for Lizzy. She has piqued my interest this game and I want her to know it.

I was stuck in linkitis hell and missed the vote. sonofaverysweetlady

thellama73 wrote:Annnnnnd.... TIME!
The people who failed to vote are:
Sabie
Roxy
Blooper
Dfaraday
Bass
Long Con
Made
Black Rock

Thanks - no one would have ever guessed from my own post

You are very welcome, Roxy.

so i really don't get all these votes for bwt. The two people who stuck out to me was MM and Ricochet which puts me in a tough spot because i don't want to vote someone who isn't here to defend himself and i also don't want to vote a new player on day one. So with that said i'm voting MM because his self vote really seemed like something a baddie would do to try and lay low when he wouldn't be around.

thellama73 wrote:

Ricochet wrote:Back from movie with less time to even go through what was posted, let alone process it. I've given an entirely aleatory vote.

Flash back to roughly 48 hours ago when I said:

thellama73 wrote: I generally think it is less productive for everyone to roll in five minutes before the lynch and say "no time to catch up, voting so and so."

That's nice, but I didn't do that. I announced my plans in advance. Had I realized I wont mansge to vote after the movie, I would have voted (the same way) before heading out.

Overslept, sorry ya'll

i really thought the poll ended at 3 and not 2. i guess i should have voted before i posted.