The Syndicate

Yeah, voting for Fuzz

agleaminranks wrote:I think S~V~S has a false read on me but I don't have reason to suspect her as bad.

How does that even work? You mean she was lying just for the shits and giggles?

I'm a little confused that I'm being seen already as an inactive player because I feel like I've posted several times, and not just fluff. This isn't being defensive by the way, I'm just trying to talk out loud in case it helps a bit. I just don't have the time anymore to check in multiple times a day, especially when I absolutely cannot check in on the site during work hours (vaguely between 8am and 8pm -- I'm an attorney and I've got a pretty big caseload, which honestly is the only reason I don't play anymore).

THat said, I certainly don't take offense or it to heart that someone votes me on day 1 for not making dozens of posts. Just letting y'all know that I'm doing the best I can, and warning you it's not likely going to get much better (in terms of quantity -- I'll always aim for quality).

I read through the arguments to and for finding the traitors, which I found pretty intriguing at first. But then I was glad that discussion more or less ceased. Basically the way I feel about Jurassic World. I'm going to continue to catch up in the limited time I can (I've got company coming tonight and staying most of the week), so there's a bit of a time pressure situation.


linki x 15 (seriously)

Nerolunar wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:Who is Gleam? I dont see anyone with that name.

agleaminranks

Thanks. I read it completely different.

@ Sig To me its not "highly pingy" to call out lurking.

I am going to change my vote. Losing Ika now will eradicate all meta reads that he can give us on Silverwolf. I don´t like that uncertainty.

Im going to check up un Gleam and see if thats whgere my vote will be.

I guess we're trading places on the poll. I'm voting for Ika and going to work. I'll check in if I can but I definitely won't be able to make any big contributions or read everything while I'm there.

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

doc you pretended to be me and faked a red peak on diiny first thing in the last game we properly played together... lmao, you're looking way into this. read my iso and tell me how seriously into the game i was and how seriously i tried to be taken.

Sloonei wrote:

sig wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:
@ Sig I find it suspicious that you reacted so violently and defensive towards Sloonei pointing out you were lurking.

I didn't react violently, I did react defensively yes since usually accusing someone of being present and lurking is followed by someone saying it is pingy, then BAM Sig gets lynched and there is no more Sig.

but why did you say i was scummy for pointing it out?

Since it doesn't seem like something a civ would do this early, espacilly since both of us have posted. Also as I already said, this seemed like a starter attempt to get sig lynched and sig doesn't like to get lynched.

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

Asking before posting your own reads is a good way to test the water and alter your read in favour of popular opinion, or refrain form posting something that wouldn't be met well. It smells of someone cautious about how they appear. The same question in the same post as what you just said wouldn't have been an issue, you could even have said you feel ambiguous about him. Although it's taken you surprisingly little time to 'get your thoughts together' on the guy and now you're voting for him. After just voting golden.

Wilgy

Sloonei wrote:I will not be apologizing or moving my vote off her until/unless she responds. Or else it would have been an entirely pointless exercise. But I certainly don't intend on that being my final vote.

Dude, I'm just busy. When I have meat, I'll make sure you are firstly named on the meat doorside delivery service route. Meat for every mouth, and a Mazda in every garage -- isn't that how it goes?

sig wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

sig wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:
@ Sig I find it suspicious that you reacted so violently and defensive towards Sloonei pointing out you were lurking.

I didn't react violently, I did react defensively yes since usually accusing someone of being present and lurking is followed by someone saying it is pingy, then BAM Sig gets lynched and there is no more Sig.

but why did you say i was scummy for pointing it out?

Since it doesn't seem like something a civ would do this early, espacilly since both of us have posted. Also as I already said, this seemed like a starter attempt to get sig lynched and sig doesn't like to get lynched.

Nope. I just wanted to generate as much content as I could before I leave for work. Which I'm doing now. Adios, amigos. Lynch a bad guy.

Mongoose wrote:

Sloonei wrote:I will not be apologizing or moving my vote off her until/unless she responds. Or else it would have been an entirely pointless exercise. But I certainly don't intend on that being my final vote.

Dude, I'm just busy. When I have meat, I'll make sure you are firstly named on the meat doorside delivery service route. Meat for every mouth, and a Mazda in every garage -- isn't that how it goes?

Thank you, yes. My vote is no longer on you, though.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:I think S~V~S has a false read on me but I don't have reason to suspect her as bad.

How does that even work? You mean she was lying just for the shits and giggles?

Did I say she was lying? I just said her read on me is wrong.

DrWilgy wrote:Yeah, voting for Fuzz

I wish I didn't have to leave now because this is something I'd like to follow. I hope Fuzz shows up and addresses things soon.

Sloonei wrote:

sig wrote:

Sloonei wrote:

sig wrote:

Nerolunar wrote:
@ Sig I find it suspicious that you reacted so violently and defensive towards Sloonei pointing out you were lurking.

I didn't react violently, I did react defensively yes since usually accusing someone of being present and lurking is followed by someone saying it is pingy, then BAM Sig gets lynched and there is no more Sig.

but why did you say i was scummy for pointing it out?

Since it doesn't seem like something a civ would do this early, espacilly since both of us have posted. Also as I already said, this seemed like a starter attempt to get sig lynched and sig doesn't like to get lynched.

Nope. I just wanted to generate as much content as I could before I leave for work. Which I'm doing now. Adios, amigos. Lynch a bad guy.

Why do you want to lynch a mafia member?

Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Sloonei - no worries, I saw -- I always try to respond directly to anyone who's made a comment or query my way. Thanks to the ole handy Ctrl+F

Enrique wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

doc you pretended to be me and faked a red peak on diiny first thing in the last game we properly played together... lmao, you're looking way into this. read my iso and tell me how seriously into the game i was and how seriously i tried to be taken.

1. What does this quote have to do with that.

2. I don't like thinking about that game. I thought the alcohol would make it go away. Why are you scolding me for looking into things? anti discussion? squelching scum hunting? I gave you some chances to prove yourself civvy to me. I asked you to reason your "distraction" and you threw it away. You posted without reason, and why would a civ do that?. At least pressure voting is a reason, but you declined all reason and responsibility.

Eh, Enrique or Fuzz. I don't care which of the two.

Linki @ Sloon, me too comrade. Me too.

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

Real vote? You didn't like the response your golden vote got so it was never a real vote? huh.

And you know damn well why scum would suggest a plan that wouldn't, after discussion and feigned realisation, work, to distract from the scum hunting effort and appearing town.

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Sloonei - no worries, I saw -- I always try to respond directly to anyone who's made a comment or query my way. Thanks to the ole handy Ctrl+F

It's become a trend, particularly with changeable vote games picking up.

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

Real vote? You didn't like the response your golden vote got so it was never a real vote? huh.

And you know damn well why scum would suggest a plan that wouldn't, after discussion and feigned realisation, work, to distract from the scum hunting effort and appearing town.

Not really, it's not 5 yet meaning my vote wasn't finalized. Sorry if my definition of real vote threw you for a loop. I'm still gut reading both you and Golden as bad. Why would I finalize a vote based on gut though.

As far as I'm concerned me suggesting a plan that may or may not have worked triggered a huge bit of conversation that has led us to forming actual thoughts about the game state. Did it distract us from scum hunting if point A (game mechanic talk) made it to point B (scum hunting)? No, because we are at point B currently. Isn't mafia a great game?

I've just seen Dinny sheep on three different suspects in less than an hour.

First gleam, then Golden, and now Wilgy.

After he had already sheeped on Ika and Enrique.

Could be just a coincidence. It's not like there is a copyright on baddie reads that we are supposed not to breach. But it's uncanny. Every time player A suspects B, Dinny suddenly starts focusing on player B too.

linki: 10 posts. Fuck this. Gonna post mine then read those.

Diiny wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

Yes he would and has done it in every recent game he's played against me. It's not really a good alignment tell for him.

I really wish you guys would not lynch ika for voting for me.

agleaminranks wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:I think S~V~S has a false read on me but I don't have reason to suspect her as bad.

How does that even work? You mean she was lying just for the shits and giggles?

Did I say she was lying? I just said her read on me is wrong.

Sorry, the post seemed out of place. There were three people voting for you. You are obviously claiming civ by default. Why pinpointing at one of them and saying they are wrong? Coming from your POV we should all be wrong.

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

It works better than you think.

As long as you commit yourself to listen to what the person has to say, though.

I've got a negative gut read if Diiny, his playstyle is reminding me of West Wing on RYM when we where baddies. I don't like how much he is switching his opinion as DDL pointed out.

Could someone explain to me the reasons for voting for Ike? Is this because of his early pressure vote on Silverwolf? Since that seems to be a main point agaisnt him and as I said I firmly believe that is a cultural thing.

DrWilgy wrote:

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

Real vote? You didn't like the response your golden vote got so it was never a real vote? huh.

And you know damn well why scum would suggest a plan that wouldn't, after discussion and feigned realisation, work, to distract from the scum hunting effort and appearing town.

Not really, it's not 5 yet meaning my vote wasn't finalized. Sorry if my definition of real vote threw you for a loop. I'm still gut reading both you and Golden as bad. Why would I finalize a vote based on gut though.

As far as I'm concerned me suggesting a plan that may or may not have worked triggered a huge bit of conversation that has led us to forming actual thoughts about the game state. Did it distract us from scum hunting if point A (game mechanic talk) made it to point B (scum hunting)? No, because we are at point B currently. Isn't mafia a great game?

If it was never a real vote, why bother making it? Are you telling me you're not distancing yourself from that vote?

We concluded after much deliberation that we should just scumhunt. Would've been faster to just scumhunt. So yes, it distracted from scumhunting. It also gave cops the chance to get involved in a pointless conversation to boost their participation without having to formulate reads.

But you know this.

Diiny wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

I was literally compiling a post about not wanting to pile on ika when I noticed that there were three votes when I saw this in linki.

Golden - Thanks for the comment. I am not a fan of changeable votes historically, but I get why people like them. Just commit -- and don't be like my college boyfriend.

I did notice that Diiny seemed to call me out on something, and then never really followed up to my response. I will go back and see if he has indeed been flippant like everyone else is saying.

Mongoose wrote:

Diiny wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

I was literally compiling a post about not wanting to pile on ika when I noticed that there were three votes when I saw this in linki.

Golden - Thanks for the comment. I am not a fan of changeable votes historically, but I get why people like them. Just commit -- and don't be like my college boyfriend.

I'm with you on that. I feel like unchangeable votes are like chain of custody on evidence.

I'm caught up now but I don't really think I've seen anything worth putting a vote on someone for so I'm going to vote for the lowest poster: Tranq. Also based on how fast today has been I'm gonna be asking to be replaced - I started a new job last week and have very little time at all for mafia, I'm struggling to keep up with just Arkham but thought that (a) this game would take much longer to fill up, and (b) would be pretty slow going at first.

Mongoose wrote:

Diiny wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

I was literally compiling a post about not wanting to pile on ika when I noticed that there were three votes when I saw this in linki.

Golden - Thanks for the comment. I am not a fan of changeable votes historically, but I get why people like them. Just commit -- and don't be like my college boyfriend.

Echoed for sentiment.

Also, GOT EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM

Don't like the Ika lynch either. It feels the guy is just weird and people are lynching him because nobody gets how his mind works. I wanna give him the benefit of doubt.

Silverwolf wrote:

Diiny wrote:

Mongoose wrote:Before I vote ika for the odd post on Silverwolf, is that something we do around here now? Vote for people to get their attention?

Ask yourself not whether people do it but whether ika would do it for the reasons they specified. Silently and without an accompanying post, mind you.

Yes he would and has done it in every recent game he's played against me. It's not really a good alignment tell for him.

That's really helpful - thanks! I'm going a bit blind with so many people that are new and/or new to me. And it cuts both ways because they don't know me from Adam's Housecat.

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:I've just seen Dinny sheep on three different suspects in less than an hour.

First gleam, then Golden, and now Wilgy.

After he had already sheeped on Ika and Enrique.

Could be just a coincidence. It's not like there is a copyright on baddie reads that we are supposed not to breach. But it's uncanny. Every time player A suspects B, Dinny suddenly starts focusing on player B too.

linki: 10 posts. Fuck this. Gonna post mine then read those.

I brought golden up ages ago bruv. Which is why I said it was cool that wilgy voted him at first; I had brought him up as potentially bad myself.

I can't help it if people share my opinions. Doesn't make is sheeping unless you find a particularly noncomittal aspect to my accusations/reads. I've changed my mind on golden since he's defended himself. That's it.

linki: gleam the game's going fast. What didn't I follow up on?

agleaminranks wrote:

Diiny wrote:

agleaminranks wrote:

Dragon D. Luffy wrote:Agreeing with what you are saying doesn't equal reading you as a civ.

SVS and Sloonei pointed out something I hadn't yet noticed. I then read your posts and concluded that indeed, you were saying a lot without actually getting yourself involved in the actual game (hunting baddies).

When we're this early in the game and far more likely (statistically) to lynch a good guy, I'm more focused on minimizing civilian deaths than actively trying to suss out the police. That's just my strategy. You can agree with it or not, but that's what makes the most sense to me. Granted, once a day or two goes by and we have some patterns to examine, then the baddie hunt needs to become the main focus. If I'm still being noncommittal at that point, you can criticize me of not getting involved all you want. But I've certainly been participating in the discussion. Going all gung-ho and throwing accusations left and right isn't the only way to get involved.

The best way to minimize noble mafioso deaths is to hunt the cops. I'm glad you're admitting you're being noncomittal even now. who, out of the people with decent content, is most likely to be scum, even if you don't want to hunt them to instead focus on protecting mafia ( )

I'm still trying to decide that. I should have been working on homework for the last hour instead of trawling through mafia posts. I'll be back with a vote in a bit.

I hope I addressed every question aimed at me. If I missed something I apologize.

What response did you expect to this pile of nothing?

I say we take silverwolf's word for now. I have my reservations but they can wait.

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

Real vote? You didn't like the response your golden vote got so it was never a real vote? huh.

And you know damn well why scum would suggest a plan that wouldn't, after discussion and feigned realisation, work, to distract from the scum hunting effort and appearing town.

Not really, it's not 5 yet meaning my vote wasn't finalized. Sorry if my definition of real vote threw you for a loop. I'm still gut reading both you and Golden as bad. Why would I finalize a vote based on gut though.

As far as I'm concerned me suggesting a plan that may or may not have worked triggered a huge bit of conversation that has led us to forming actual thoughts about the game state. Did it distract us from scum hunting if point A (game mechanic talk) made it to point B (scum hunting)? No, because we are at point B currently. Isn't mafia a great game?

If it was never a real vote, why bother making it? Are you telling me you're not distancing yourself from that vote?

We concluded after much deliberation that we should just scumhunt. Would've been faster to just scumhunt. So yes, it distracted from scumhunting. It also gave cops the chance to get involved in a pointless conversation to boost their participation without having to formulate reads.

But you know this.

To voice an opinion and see what would happen, recall "I'm not feeling too good about my vote anymore" that I stated? I was making judgement based upon reaction to my vote. Also I was looking for what wagon would form faster. Golden took off mere minutes after I put vote number 2 on him, which is interesting and a better look for him.

Or we could've entered a sleeping gamestate without topic to discuss. Are you unhappy with the gamestate that we are currently in?

linki linki linki

Diiny, so what are your thoughts on Fuzz now that I've shared?

MovingPictures07 wrote:Effective immediately, indiglo is replacing Bullzeye.

Bye Bullzeye... I'll miss you...

DrWilgy wrote:

Enrique wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

doc you pretended to be me and faked a red peak on diiny first thing in the last game we properly played together... lmao, you're looking way into this. read my iso and tell me how seriously into the game i was and how seriously i tried to be taken.

1. What does this quote have to do with that.

2. I don't like thinking about that game. I thought the alcohol would make it go away. Why are you scolding me for looking into things? anti discussion? squelching scum hunting? I gave you some chances to prove yourself civvy to me. I asked you to reason your "distraction" and you threw it away. You posted without reason, and why would a civ do that?. At least pressure voting is a reason, but you declined all reason and responsibility.

Eh, Enrique or Fuzz. I don't care which of the two.

Linki @ Sloon, me too comrade. Me too.

As far as "doing things without a reason" goes, I think it's relevant.

Enrique wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Enrique wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

doc you pretended to be me and faked a red peak on diiny first thing in the last game we properly played together... lmao, you're looking way into this. read my iso and tell me how seriously into the game i was and how seriously i tried to be taken.

1. What does this quote have to do with that.

2. I don't like thinking about that game. I thought the alcohol would make it go away. Why are you scolding me for looking into things? anti discussion? squelching scum hunting? I gave you some chances to prove yourself civvy to me. I asked you to reason your "distraction" and you threw it away. You posted without reason, and why would a civ do that?. At least pressure voting is a reason, but you declined all reason and responsibility.

Eh, Enrique or Fuzz. I don't care which of the two.

Linki @ Sloon, me too comrade. Me too.

As far as "doing things without a reason" goes, I think it's relevant.

How so?

Your actions made no sense whatsoever?

OKay, so here's the deal. I don't feel comfortable randomly voting. Thank you for your comments, and I agree that an ika vote today is not the way to go -- I appreciate your candor. I'll be around a lot next weekend, and you'll get to see how talky I can be -- anyone remember the first year of TS when Sock and I would fill pages?

ANYWAY sorry I'm constant digressions.

Since I don't feel comfortable making a case on anyone or buying into the current ones (so I'm going to offer TurnipHead this since Vompatti or Llama or etc isn't around) -- TH - would you fancy a vote trade? I'm going to vote you for admittedly no discernible reason -- please feel free to return the favor!

Sorry crew, I've got to jet and I just Do NOT like to miss votes.

* votes TurnipHead *

Enrique wrote:Your actions made no sense whatsoever?

Where? explain plz.

DrWilgy wrote:

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:

Diiny wrote:

DrWilgy wrote:Been trying to get my thoughts together, what is the harm in that Diiny?

He pinged me with this

RadicalFuzz wrote:Wilgy you knew perfectly well that your voting plan wasn't going to work before you posted it.

and I asked about it to no response. If I knew that my plan wasn't going to work, why did I suggest it? He didn't formulate any thoughts based upon this action of mine to share... so this quote seems rather malicious.

I think my real vote would be between Enrique and Fuzz. Doing things without reason pings me enough.

Real vote? You didn't like the response your golden vote got so it was never a real vote? huh.

And you know damn well why scum would suggest a plan that wouldn't, after discussion and feigned realisation, work, to distract from the scum hunting effort and appearing town.

Not really, it's not 5 yet meaning my vote wasn't finalized. Sorry if my definition of real vote threw you for a loop. I'm still gut reading both you and Golden as bad. Why would I finalize a vote based on gut though.

As far as I'm concerned me suggesting a plan that may or may not have worked triggered a huge bit of conversation that has led us to forming actual thoughts about the game state. Did it distract us from scum hunting if point A (game mechanic talk) made it to point B (scum hunting)? No, because we are at point B currently. Isn't mafia a great game?

If it was never a real vote, why bother making it? Are you telling me you're not distancing yourself from that vote?

We concluded after much deliberation that we should just scumhunt. Would've been faster to just scumhunt. So yes, it distracted from scumhunting. It also gave cops the chance to get involved in a pointless conversation to boost their participation without having to formulate reads.

But you know this.

To voice an opinion and see what would happen, recall "I'm not feeling too good about my vote anymore" that I stated? I was making judgement based upon reaction to my vote. Also I was looking for what wagon would form faster. Golden took off mere minutes after I put vote number 2 on him, which is interesting and a better look for him.

Or we could've entered a sleeping gamestate without topic to discuss. Are you unhappy with the gamestate that we are currently in?

linki linki linki

Diiny, so what are your thoughts on Fuzz now that I've shared?

No, I had to look for it. I probably don't recall it because it was instantly obfuscated by OH HEY ENRIQUE HEHEH LET'S IGNORE THAT VOTE. It seems like you were trying to squirm away with as little fanfare from that vote as possible. You could've said something about the reaction to your vote when you moved away from it, but no, you chose to just pick someone else, calling it your REAL vote. If I voted for someone and a slurry of people followed, I'd probably voice my concern at that and evaluate those who just voted and the vote itself. You just scurried away.

I'm happy with the gamestate but that's irrelevant to whether or not it could have been better if the needless rogue discussion was avoided.

Mongoose wrote:OKay, so here's the deal. I don't feel comfortable randomly voting. Thank you for your comments, and I agree that an ika vote today is not the way to go -- I appreciate your candor. I'll be around a lot next weekend, and you'll get to see how talky I can be -- anyone remember the first year of TS when Sock and I would fill pages?

ANYWAY sorry I'm constant digressions.

Since I don't feel comfortable making a case on anyone or buying into the current ones (so I'm going to offer TurnipHead this since Vompatti or Llama or etc isn't around) -- TH - would you fancy a vote trade? I'm going to vote you for admittedly no discernible reason -- please feel free to return the favor!

Sorry crew, I've got to jet and I just Do NOT like to miss votes.

* votes TurnipHead *

You know, for a moment I completely forgot TH was even in the game.

Mongoose wrote:OKay, so here's the deal. I don't feel comfortable randomly voting. Thank you for your comments, and I agree that an ika vote today is not the way to go -- I appreciate your candor. I'll be around a lot next weekend, and you'll get to see how talky I can be -- anyone remember the first year of TS when Sock and I would fill pages?

ANYWAY sorry I'm constant digressions.

Since I don't feel comfortable making a case on anyone or buying into the current ones (so I'm going to offer TurnipHead this since Vompatti or Llama or etc isn't around) -- TH - would you fancy a vote trade? I'm going to vote you for admittedly no discernible reason -- please feel free to return the favor!

Sorry crew, I've got to jet and I just Do NOT like to miss votes.

* votes TurnipHead *

Also Moongose, I don't think anyone is attacking you for inactivity. Relax. You have been active enough.

I still think there's a misinterpretation of my goals here, but I understand. I should've stated final instead of the word real. Also, I did voice a concern, but why would I go back to something I had stated just two posts previous regarding the difficulty to lynch someone?

oh my god wiggles you claimed to be a civ role and then lynched the guy who called you out on lying because you were. I'm sorry dude you fucked up and, it's not really relevant to this game, but as far as I can tell there was no reason beyond trying to be wacky.

My first (and only for a while) post on this game was an unexplained vote for you. I never pretended to have a reason, votes are changeable and even now I haven't properly read the thread, sometimes people act without an agenda.