Murder, Mayhem, and Mafia
https://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/
Wtf?thellama73 wrote:So AnnaDanielle, who didn't vote on the lynching, now mysteriously votes for Snow Dog as shield bearer without posting... O.o
Here's my thought process: The Snake Mountain folks have nothing to fear tonight, so they have no incentive to vote either for themselves or anyone else (unless they just want to play mind games, but that makes my head hurt so I try not to think about it.) This leads me to conclude that Anna is NOT from Snake Mountain.MovingPictures07 wrote:Wtf?thellama73 wrote:So AnnaDanielle, who didn't vote on the lynching, now mysteriously votes for Snow Dog as shield bearer without posting... O.o
Anything to comment on, Anna?
Are you going to reciprocate, or become the first person with two votes?Snow Dog wrote:i don't know what to make of that
i dunno.......yetthellama73 wrote:Are you going to reciprocate, or become the first person with two votes?Snow Dog wrote:i don't know what to make of that
She posted once about choosing the Battle Ram instead of a logical choice. Either she is very cunning or not playing with a full deck, methinks.reywaS wrote:AnnaD's vote is very odd. I can't remember reading any posts from her so far? Did I miss them or has she not be participating?
I'm wondering if she just isn't paying too much attention. Also, she is a new player like me. Maybe she didn't know that it's polite to post and say who she voted for and why?thellama73 wrote:She posted once about choosing the Battle Ram instead of a logical choice. Either she is very cunning or not playing with a full deck, methinks.reywaS wrote:AnnaD's vote is very odd. I can't remember reading any posts from her so far? Did I miss them or has she not be participating?
Elohcin wrote:I'm wondering if she just isn't paying too much attention. Also, she is a new player like me. Maybe she didn't know that it's polite to post and say who she voted for and why?thellama73 wrote:She posted once about choosing the Battle Ram instead of a logical choice. Either she is very cunning or not playing with a full deck, methinks.reywaS wrote:AnnaD's vote is very odd. I can't remember reading any posts from her so far? Did I miss them or has she not be participating?
and, while I do use a spreadsheet every once in a while (mostly smaller games with fewer complicated roles), I also play with my gut. I havent played with him in forever, but I don't see anything out of the ordinary here. I think there may have been some decent points against him, but TBH as I type I'm realizing I'll have to go back and re-read what was said, because it's all a blur. I was at work while the vote was going on, and I was very focused on trying to convince others to trust me. But as I've already mentioned, I liked how he went out on a limb and voted to tie the lynch, I thought it was very objective (theres that word again) and selfless. That being said, basically, I want to lean civvie on him, I'm just not quite there yet.
I will give you another chance to prove yourself later on.Thought the same thing... Just wanted to echo the sentiment.Roxy wrote:Also:
Hell-o pingalicious! I will be looking at Timmer next fo suretimmer wrote:not a lot of tine but a reread makes heman look like a good shot at a baddie to me.
voting heman
Is your bike broken because you seem to be backpeddlin' pretty fastMovingPictures07 wrote:I don't think He-Man may be as baddie anymore, honestly. The way Boomslang and timmer latched onto that felt very baddie bandwagony to me and I'm beginning to think I'm on the wrong track with that one, just for those reasons.
We'll see how BF flips, but I also found FH's last-minute vote to put BF over Boomslang a bit pingy as well. While I thought the same exact thing about reptaronice's vote when I saw he voted without posting, it could be that she is pointing that out to avoid seeming Boomslang's teammate. But this is all assuming BF is good and Boomslang is bad.
This!reywaS wrote:Great post, Epignosis! You are certainly doing those of us that grew up on He-Man proud.
Interesting lynch result. I'll have to look at the roles and read the post again.
Well I was going to vote Anna to pay her back but this might change things. May now have to vote myself to equal LT.Vompatti wrote:I'm not voting for myself, so I'm voting for LittleTiger, just because.
You would have voted for her before finding out why she voted for you?Snow Dog wrote:Well I was going to vote Anna to pay her back but this might change things. May now have to vote myself to equal LT.Vompatti wrote:I'm not voting for myself, so I'm voting for LittleTiger, just because.
I have seen this in posts but don't understand how it works if we cannot edit posts.Flyin' High wrote:
linki = from "linkitis" which is a term derived a long time ago on another forum but basically means a post (or posts) were made while you typed up a reply and you added new comments based on what had been said while you were replying to the thread
Yes. Definitely. To keep everyone on one vote.Vompatti wrote:You would have voted for her before finding out why she voted for you?Snow Dog wrote:Well I was going to vote Anna to pay her back but this might change things. May now have to vote myself to equal LT.Vompatti wrote:I'm not voting for myself, so I'm voting for LittleTiger, just because.
Maybe she logged in and thought the lynching was still going on for some reason, didn't read the new question at the top of the poll, and voted snow dog because that is who she was going to vote for for the lynching. I don't know. Is there a way to know how long she was logged in before she voted? If so, was it long enough for her to realize that the lynching was a tie and long enough for her to read the new posts from Epignosis? Maybe she thought, "Ugh, I am busy but I need to get on Mafia and participate real quick so people aren't suspicious of me." And, turns out that is what is making us all suspicious of her. Who knows. On day one I thought you were all pretty crazy for reading so much into what people were saying when we had just begun the game. Well, this is me doing my part and reading into thingsAllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:Elohcin wrote:I'm wondering if she just isn't paying too much attention. Also, she is a new player like me. Maybe she didn't know that it's polite to post and say who she voted for and why?thellama73 wrote:She posted once about choosing the Battle Ram instead of a logical choice. Either she is very cunning or not playing with a full deck, methinks.reywaS wrote:AnnaD's vote is very odd. I can't remember reading any posts from her so far? Did I miss them or has she not be participating?
I think it's odd as well. Why would you vote so early in this poll if you weren't paying attention? without saying anything...after completely missing the lynching? It's just off. All we can ask is for a reasonable explanation from her, if one is to be had.
I wouldn't have known it was polite to post who I voted for and why if I wasn't told. We have a lot of new players. Maybe someone should make a list of Mafia etiquette.blindfaeth wrote:
Furthermore, I am increasingly nervous about all of the quiet players. There are even people who have voted without saying a word, which I don't think I've ever encountered before.
I hate to echo BF after voting for him, and am not prepared to say he's a civvie yet, but I am I am suspicious of Anna's votes without posts as well (btw, reptar did this too right?). I think she is worth keeping in mind for the voting tomorrow unless we get a satisfactory explanation. I agree with Snow Dog's sentiment that, even being new to Mafia, some of us have picked up the etiquette by playing. By tomorrow we'll be 5 days into the game, and at that point I think it's fair to give people who haven't posted a closer look.blindfaeth wrote: Furthermore, I am increasingly nervous about all of the quiet players. There are even people who have voted without saying a word, which I don't think I've ever encountered before.
You don't know me very well as a mafia player if you think I would use an excuse like that to avoid what's going on in the thread. After I caught up and before Epig posted the lynch, I did read everything that went down. I STILL would have very much voted for you regardless of everything else. Why would I go to the trouble of lying about my RL situation yesterday? I ain't never scared!!blindfaeth wrote:So my thoughts exiting the lynch.
Obviously, I don't trust anyone in this game. Especially because I've had baddies buddy up to me before to gain my trust and then backstab me. But here are some people I sort-of trust right here right now.
MP - I'd like to think its not just because what he did in the thread changed the momentum of the pile of votes against me specifically, I just think what he did was noble & genuine and just rang as good intentioned.
Timmer - call me crazy, but he and I just seem to keep butting heads, we are on the same wavelength. I'd like to think my wavelength isn't broadcasting on a baddie signal, lol.
Kate - I think civvies, unless frustrated and stressed out, tend to be objective rather than tunnel visioned and I admire her willingness to re-examine the situation.
Some people worth mentioning, but not sure what I think-
He-Man: I've always liked Dex's style. He is loud and proud like me
FH: I agreed with MP that her vote for me to put me over the top was a little pingy/odd, but the way she went about it didn't particularly bother me. Undecided.
Suspects -
reywaS: Obviously. I don't know if I even needed to list this. I don't know if what he said when he was voting was true, obviously I've been in similar situations before, I have to try and catch up on my phone a lot. And trust me, it is a pain to do especially when you're with friends or something, they are all vying for your attention and don't realize the quicker you can catch up the quicker you can get back to real life.
Anyway, with that said, I think it was also a convenient excuse to ignore the change of momentum of votes in the thread at the time and vote for me. Not that I expected him to place a vote elsewhere, but I would hope a civvie would at least consider all information presented in the thread, comment on why they do or dont like said alternative options while casting their vote. But IDK, I've realized I have had tunnel vision with reywaS and I would like to step back and try to take on a different perspective, but something is really just bothering me.
Roxy - Nothing totally major, but I thought where she threw her vote was really odd based on the timing of everything. It was towards the end, when the lynch hadn't yet been decided and it was up in the air between HeMan, Boomslang and myself. She explained herself well enough, why she didn't want to cast a vote to any of the leaders in the lynch, but idk, I just found it very non-committal. Why throw your vote to someone you know won't get lynched? In my opinion, if I were in her shoes, the main reason I wouldn't want to throw a vote at that point is because my vote could be the deciding factor. And if they turn up civvie, that makes me look bad. But when I'm a civvie, I don't care about that - yes, I'm genuinely remorseful after the fact when their role is revealed, and I try my best to avenge them and adjust my suspect list accordingly. But I don't have anything to fear, because I have nothing to hide. I hope this makes some morsel of sense. Basically I would like to keep an eye on her, because she could have made a statement due to the timing of her arrival but chose not to.
Furthermore, I am increasingly nervous about all of the quiet players. There are even people who have voted without saying a word, which I don't think I've ever encountered before.
Linki w/ AATBW
But seriously, I would not have changed a thing after catching up. Having said that, I'm going into the next lynch period with an open mind because I do get tunnel visioned sometimes and I've found that I usually end up being wrong when this happens. Not always, of course, but more often than not. And I'm not saying that I'm wrong about you because I still don't like the big NO U you pulled on me and I really don't like the fact that the reason you gave for voting for me was that I "irritated" you. Perhaps you should go back and read some of my other games....I've irritated tons of people before. LOLI think all of these are wrong, and that BF is a civvie and Boomslang is a baddie. BF's actions make no sense to me if he were a baddie. Why would he react so harshly and draw attention to himself? Boomslang, on the other hand, has drawn my suspicions from the start. The 6 vote-6-vote thing is likely a coincidence, because I don't think an entire team of baddies would vote together on the first day. It would look too obvious. Also, there's the fact that I was one of the six Boomslang votes, and I am not a baddieRusstifinko wrote: By the way, the fact that no player got more than 6 lynch votes was interesting. Since we have 2 teams of 6 baddies each, that means it's pretty unlikely either baddie team voted unanimously for the same person (although not entirely impossible). If we assume one of the 2 leading vote-getters was bad and one was good, then the baddie team that person belonged to would have to be fairly uncoordinated to almost let a member get lynched when they could have avoided it, right? There were good reasons to vote for either, and I doubt voting to tip the scales one way or another would have looked too suspicious. It seems too clumsy to me, which leaves 3 possibilities:
1) BoomSlang and BF are both civvies, in which case one or both baddie teams took advantage of our misplaced suspicions to divide their votes, avoid scrutiny, and let a civvie get lynched all in one go. In this case, the no-votes could very well be baddies who are lying very low at the beginning. They were foiled somehow, which still seems to clumsy to me, although it's plausible that He-Man screwed them over.
2) Both of them are baddies on the same team, which means the baddies were in a tough spot to start with. In this scenario, they either tied the vote hoping this would happen (which was very thoughtful and lucky of them) or figured they would have to take the loss and voted for the player less valuable to themselves. This implies that civvie and baddie votes could both have been fairly concentrated, and means the few single votes and no-votes aren't any more or less suspicious, as there was one baddie team that wasn't necessarily involved at all.
3) They're baddies on different teams, which would mean both baddie teams tried to make the other team's member lose. This would mean the civvie votes were more spread out, and baddie votes would be concentrated among the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. It seems somewhat likely given that baddies can coordinate and civvies can't. This theory would mean He-Man is on BF's baddie team and was trying to save him, while Roxy was on the other baddie team. The singletons and non-voters are most likely civvies in this case (bad news, if so many civvies are failing to vote and post).
Any input on this theory, or which of the 3 is most likely? I'm completely spitballing. Being a first-timer, I have no knowledge of how baddie voting strategies tend to play out. Can speak from past experience on whether baddie teams will vote together early to save one of their own even though it likely means increased suspicion later, or the likelihood of a baddie voting war?
Sorry this got so long. Hope it generates useful theories!
Fair Enough. I'm willing to wait and see...and that was a crazy amount of reading so if she came in late it probably would've been hard to catch up in time.Elohcin wrote:Maybe she logged in and thought the lynching was still going on for some reason, didn't read the new question at the top of the poll, and voted snow dog because that is who she was going to vote for for the lynching. I don't know. Is there a way to know how long she was logged in before she voted? If so, was it long enough for her to realize that the lynching was a tie and long enough for her to read the new posts from Epignosis? Maybe she thought, "Ugh, I am busy but I need to get on Mafia and participate real quick so people aren't suspicious of me." And, turns out that is what is making us all suspicious of her. Who knows. On day one I thought you were all pretty crazy for reading so much into what people were saying when we had just begun the game. Well, this is me doing my part and reading into thingsAllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:Elohcin wrote:I'm wondering if she just isn't paying too much attention. Also, she is a new player like me. Maybe she didn't know that it's polite to post and say who she voted for and why?thellama73 wrote:She posted once about choosing the Battle Ram instead of a logical choice. Either she is very cunning or not playing with a full deck, methinks.reywaS wrote:AnnaD's vote is very odd. I can't remember reading any posts from her so far? Did I miss them or has she not be participating?
I think it's odd as well. Why would you vote so early in this poll if you weren't paying attention? without saying anything...after completely missing the lynching? It's just off. All we can ask is for a reasonable explanation from her, if one is to be had.
That was me. I stand by my vote at the time--I was most suspicious of blindfaeth--I would have had to break a tie either way since the person I was second-most suspcious of was Boomslang. Since then, I'm not so sure about BF being bad.Russtifinko wrote:By the way, in my previous post I didn't mean Roxy. I meant whoever it was that voted toward the end of the poll to put BF in the lead for lynch votes. Apparently I remembered wrong. I still haven't found who it actually was, so someone please post that to correct me at some point.
Oh, the function is used while you are still in the process of typing up a post. So when you type a post and hit submit, sometimes instead of it submitting, it'll show new posts that were made while you were typing up a post of your own and you'll still be on the "reply to thread" page. During that time, before your post is submitted, you can add more to your post, or change something you said based on the new posts that were made. I hope that makes sense--it's hard to show without taking screencaps.Snow Dog wrote:I have seen this in posts but don't understand how it works if we cannot edit posts.Flyin' High wrote:
linki = from "linkitis" which is a term derived a long time ago on another forum but basically means a post (or posts) were made while you typed up a reply and you added new comments based on what had been said while you were replying to the thread
Oh yes. I've seen that happen when I press submit. So that's what that is. Many thanks.Flyin' High wrote:That was me. I stand by my vote at the time--I was most suspicious of blindfaeth--I would have had to break a tie either way since the person I was second-most suspcious of was Boomslang. Since then, I'm not so sure about BF being bad.Russtifinko wrote:By the way, in my previous post I didn't mean Roxy. I meant whoever it was that voted toward the end of the poll to put BF in the lead for lynch votes. Apparently I remembered wrong. I still haven't found who it actually was, so someone please post that to correct me at some point.
Oh, the function is used while you are still in the process of typing up a post. So when you type a post and hit submit, sometimes instead of it submitting, it'll show new posts that were made while you were typing up a post of your own and you'll still be on the "reply to thread" page. During that time, before your post is submitted, you can add more to your post, or change something you said based on the new posts that were made. I hope that makes sense--it's hard to show without taking screencaps.Snow Dog wrote:I have seen this in posts but don't understand how it works if we cannot edit posts.Flyin' High wrote:
linki = from "linkitis" which is a term derived a long time ago on another forum but basically means a post (or posts) were made while you typed up a reply and you added new comments based on what had been said while you were replying to the thread
Also, I've seen some people asking for a quick mafia etiquette lesson. Honestly, the main one that comes to mind and has already been discussed is make a post when you vote and bold your vote in the post. This is especially helpful for being able to go back through the thread and look at the timing of when someone voted in relation to other people. I'll give this some thought and if any more come to mind I'll post them.
Russ, I'm glad to see you get into the game and I think you have made some interesting points. However, I think I agree with llama here, given how the whole lynch went down. In addition to his point here, I led the case against He-Man, and I am not a baddie. Whether He-Man is, I don't know. The second most likely scenario I think with BF and Boomslang is your #1 listed above that they both could be civvies. But honestly I don't know. I'm disappointed we didn't get any concrete evidence via something flipping good or bad, but I'm glad we didn't have someone die, assuming BF and/or Boomslang are civvies. Assuming someone is lynched tomorrow for good reasons, then we'll have something more concrete. But the speculation is good, it's always better to think aloud than to hide and not contribute.thellama73 wrote:I think all of these are wrong, and that BF is a civvie and Boomslang is a baddie. BF's actions make no sense to me if he were a baddie. Why would he react so harshly and draw attention to himself? Boomslang, on the other hand, has drawn my suspicions from the start. The 6 vote-6-vote thing is likely a coincidence, because I don't think an entire team of baddies would vote together on the first day. It would look too obvious. Also, there's the fact that I was one of the six Boomslang votes, and I am not a baddieRusstifinko wrote: By the way, the fact that no player got more than 6 lynch votes was interesting. Since we have 2 teams of 6 baddies each, that means it's pretty unlikely either baddie team voted unanimously for the same person (although not entirely impossible). If we assume one of the 2 leading vote-getters was bad and one was good, then the baddie team that person belonged to would have to be fairly uncoordinated to almost let a member get lynched when they could have avoided it, right? There were good reasons to vote for either, and I doubt voting to tip the scales one way or another would have looked too suspicious. It seems too clumsy to me, which leaves 3 possibilities:
1) BoomSlang and BF are both civvies, in which case one or both baddie teams took advantage of our misplaced suspicions to divide their votes, avoid scrutiny, and let a civvie get lynched all in one go. In this case, the no-votes could very well be baddies who are lying very low at the beginning. They were foiled somehow, which still seems to clumsy to me, although it's plausible that He-Man screwed them over.
2) Both of them are baddies on the same team, which means the baddies were in a tough spot to start with. In this scenario, they either tied the vote hoping this would happen (which was very thoughtful and lucky of them) or figured they would have to take the loss and voted for the player less valuable to themselves. This implies that civvie and baddie votes could both have been fairly concentrated, and means the few single votes and no-votes aren't any more or less suspicious, as there was one baddie team that wasn't necessarily involved at all.
3) They're baddies on different teams, which would mean both baddie teams tried to make the other team's member lose. This would mean the civvie votes were more spread out, and baddie votes would be concentrated among the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. It seems somewhat likely given that baddies can coordinate and civvies can't. This theory would mean He-Man is on BF's baddie team and was trying to save him, while Roxy was on the other baddie team. The singletons and non-voters are most likely civvies in this case (bad news, if so many civvies are failing to vote and post).
Any input on this theory, or which of the 3 is most likely? I'm completely spitballing. Being a first-timer, I have no knowledge of how baddie voting strategies tend to play out. Can speak from past experience on whether baddie teams will vote together early to save one of their own even though it likely means increased suspicion later, or the likelihood of a baddie voting war?
Sorry this got so long. Hope it generates useful theories!
I understand your point of view here, but what information we could gain by voting others is hard to interpret the actual intentions (whether they are good or not). That being said, I'm all for seeing if people vote for anyone other than themselves and why they would.AllAlongTheBoardwalk wrote:...and this voting for yourself thing seems like the cheap way out to me. I'm not singling anyone out here, just saying I think it's the easy way out and I don't know if it's a good idea. If everyone votes for themselves what new information do we gain?
Really Dom? And did you not see my question earlier where you've been trying to paint mine and He-Man's behavior as really 'weird' I think was the word you used? Can you please clarify on that?Dom wrote:Thought the same thing... Just wanted to echo the sentiment.Roxy wrote:Also:
Hell-o pingalicious! I will be looking at Timmer next fo suretimmer wrote:not a lot of tine but a reread makes heman look like a good shot at a baddie to me.
voting heman
Is your bike broken because you seem to be backpeddlin' pretty fastMovingPictures07 wrote:I don't think He-Man may be as baddie anymore, honestly. The way Boomslang and timmer latched onto that felt very baddie bandwagony to me and I'm beginning to think I'm on the wrong track with that one, just for those reasons.
We'll see how BF flips, but I also found FH's last-minute vote to put BF over Boomslang a bit pingy as well. While I thought the same exact thing about reptaronice's vote when I saw he voted without posting, it could be that she is pointing that out to avoid seeming Boomslang's teammate. But this is all assuming BF is good and Boomslang is bad.
as everyone else.I don't think it's implausible at all that one of the two is baddie and one is civvie. If one person starts picking up votes rapidly, it can definitely look suspicious (and blatantly teammate-saving) if there's suddenly a rush for the next most likely lynch candidate. So, I can see why if either BF or Boomslang was baddie their teammates didn't rush to their defense. Also, you'd be surprised how often teams can be uncoordinated in Mafia.Russtifinko wrote:I trust MP at this point. I know this game is about deception, but I have trouble believing he would lie outright about his civvie-ness (and fairly forcefully, if I recall). If he is lying, he's a lot more devious than I realized and thus would probably kill me no matter what I did, so I'm gonna believe him.
I hate to echo BF after voting for him, and am not prepared to say he's a civvie yet, but I am I am suspicious of Anna's votes without posts as well (btw, reptar did this too right?). I think she is worth keeping in mind for the voting tomorrow unless we get a satisfactory explanation. I agree with Snow Dog's sentiment that, even being new to Mafia, some of us have picked up the etiquette by playing. By tomorrow we'll be 5 days into the game, and at that point I think it's fair to give people who haven't posted a closer look.blindfaeth wrote: Furthermore, I am increasingly nervous about all of the quiet players. There are even people who have voted without saying a word, which I don't think I've ever encountered before.
However, tonight's vote seems to be more about who we should be trusting. A vote for myself seems like a throwaway at this point, and throwaway votes seem suspicious to me as a way to avoid scrutiny. I'm not sure who I do trust besides MP yet, so my vote goes to him.
By the way, the fact that no player got more than 6 lynch votes was interesting. Since we have 2 teams of 6 baddies each, that means it's pretty unlikely either baddie team voted unanimously for the same person (although not entirely impossible). If we assume one of the 2 leading vote-getters was bad and one was good, then the baddie team that person belonged to would have to be fairly uncoordinated to almost let a member get lynched when they could have avoided it, right? There were good reasons to vote for either, and I doubt voting to tip the scales one way or another would have looked too suspicious. It seems too clumsy to me, which leaves 3 possibilities:
1) BoomSlang and BF are both civvies, in which case one or both baddie teams took advantage of our misplaced suspicions to divide their votes, avoid scrutiny, and let a civvie get lynched all in one go. In this case, the no-votes could very well be baddies who are lying very low at the beginning. They were foiled somehow, which still seems to clumsy to me, although it's plausible that He-Man screwed them over.
2) Both of them are baddies on the same team, which means the baddies were in a tough spot to start with. In this scenario, they either tied the vote hoping this would happen (which was very thoughtful and lucky of them) or figured they would have to take the loss and voted for the player less valuable to themselves. This implies that civvie and baddie votes could both have been fairly concentrated, and means the few single votes and no-votes aren't any more or less suspicious, as there was one baddie team that wasn't necessarily involved at all.
3) They're baddies on different teams, which would mean both baddie teams tried to make the other team's member lose. This would mean the civvie votes were more spread out, and baddie votes would be concentrated among the top 2 or 3 vote-getters. It seems somewhat likely given that baddies can coordinate and civvies can't. This theory would mean He-Man is on BF's baddie team and was trying to save him, while Roxy was on the other baddie team. The singletons and non-voters are most likely civvies in this case (bad news, if so many civvies are failing to vote and post).
Any input on this theory, or which of the 3 is most likely? I'm completely spitballing. Being a first-timer, I have no knowledge of how baddie voting strategies tend to play out. Can speak from past experience on whether baddie teams will vote together early to save one of their own even though it likely means increased suspicion later, or the likelihood of a baddie voting war?
Sorry this got so long. Hope it generates useful theories!
Of the two, I still feel a bit more pinged by BF's aggressiveness, but now the AnnaD and Vomps twists are opening up another couple of places to look.I was wondering the same thing (and yes, I'm not studying, but I swear I'll be back to being busy doing so after this post).thellama73 wrote:What's up with all the votes for LT? Could there be some BTSC going on there?
That sounds like typical Vompatti behaviour to me. Could be that's what he wants us to think though.Boomslang wrote:Looks like whoever they are, they decided to break the Mexican standoff. Vomps voted for LT "just because," and DH voted for "tie breaking." Does the lack of explanations here seem pingy to anyone else?