The Syndicate

Golden wrote:Apparently everything else is sarcasm too. Your entire response to my ping has done absolutely nothing to make me feel better about you. You drew on posts that were made later, you made sarcastic remarks at me, but it takes you about ten posts just to address the original ping?

I understand that after the post that pinged me you said other things but:

1) I was reading the thread in order and so it pinged me before I read the things you said later
2) I don't see 'looking into juliets' because of gordon's message in any way as being less suspicious.

As pointed out to you, gordon had no info... but you charge ahead on the basis that you have no better idea of where to look? The whole thing reads so false to me.

And, in my opinion, I can't say I've ever seen juliets look more civ than she has in this game, and I don't need to look at her posts again to come to that opinion.

So to recap you made a silly post blowing what I said entirely out of proportion then you read further and realized I said pretty much the exact opposite of what you think I said but then it doesn't matter because something silly.

What feels "false" specifically? That, having focused my attentions on MP and his suspiciousness for the better part of 2 in-game days I'd feel a little bit adrift now that he's been sorted, and seeing what I took to be the advice of the civ gossiper I decided to look into someone to see if I found them suspicious? How is that "false", that's literally what the game is about.

"Looking into JC as a suspect is not any less suspicious than blindly voting for her and lynching her" Golden 2016

Wow are you defensive or what!

To recap, your entire approach to juliet is bullsuit, imo, and I'm now putting you very high on my list of people I could vote for, not least because of thee way you are trying to pass it off as nothing when it has been anything but. You flooded the thread with your 'examples' of her baddie meta based on us taking your word for it that it is her baddie meta, even though I could probably point to what you are claiming for every player in the game if I tried to.

The choice of person, and your rationale for doing it, is what is false. You didn't take the 'advice' of the civ gossiper. You made up your interpretation of the civ gossiper, ignored all points that the civ gossiper's perspective is no more relevant than anyone elses, and proceeded to narrow your own focus to your analysis of your OWN interpretation of juliets meta, looking to hand pick the quotes that fit with your own interpretation of her meta, rather than trying to look at them from any kind of objective perspective or consider her iso as a whole.

There is no part of that which is not suspicious to me.

DharmaHelper wrote:"Looking into JC as a suspect is not any less suspicious than blindly voting for her and lynching her" Golden 2016

OK, DH, you keep on misrepresenting. See if that makes me feel any better about you.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:"Looking into JC as a suspect is not any less suspicious than blindly voting for her and lynching her" Golden 2016

OK, DH, you keep on misrepresenting. See if that makes me feel any better about you.

How am I misrepresenting you? What specifically about what I said feels false?

"I understand you said the exact opposite of why I suspected you in the first place but I find that suspicious" - Golden 2016

Golden wrote:Wow are you defensive or what!

To recap, your entire approach to juliet is bullsuit, imo, and I'm now putting you very high on my list of people I could vote for, not least because of thee way you are trying to pass it off as nothing when it has been anything but. You flooded the thread with your 'examples' of her baddie meta based on us taking your word for it that it is her baddie meta, even though I could probably point to what you are claiming for every player in the game if I tried to.

The choice of person, and your rationale for doing it, is what is false. You didn't take the 'advice' of the civ gossiper. You made up your interpretation of the civ gossiper, ignored all points that the civ gossiper's perspective is no more relevant than anyone elses, and proceeded to narrow your own focus to your analysis of your OWN interpretation of juliets meta, looking to hand pick the quotes that fit with your own interpretation of her meta, rather than trying to look at them from any kind of objective perspective or consider her iso as a whole.

There is no part of that which is not suspicious to me.

Gordon said MAC and COFFEE in two of his gossip posts. It's not a terrible leap to assume those are references to players. How is that false? How is *my interpretation* made up? How can you say I *made up* an interpretation? That makes zero sense.

Did you note that, once Juliets responded to my points about her and did her spirtyo post, I said that she was looking more civ IMO?

What seems more false to you, "Hey, guys, I think Gordon might be making references to players since his one post has a Mac reference, and this one has a Juliets Coffee reference right next to him talking about possible scum leads, so what I'm gonna do is look into Juliets and see if she comes out looking like mafia" or

"Hey DH How dare you suggest we blindly lynch juliets without looking at the evidence thats a major ping. What? You were suggesting the exact opposite of that? Still I find that suspicious."

DharmaHelper wrote:What specifically about what I said feels false?

How about, instead, I answer the question about what, in your entire approach to juliets, has not felt false.

Nothing. The WHOLE thing feels false. From start to finish. Including your defense to me, now, which you choose to lace with sarcasm rather than just taking it and responding to it at face value.

DharmaHelper wrote:Did you note that, once Juliets responded to my points about her and did her spirtyo post, I said that she was looking more civ IMO?

I did note that. I think it looks false too. If your suspicion was genuine, I think you would have found that from juliets even more suspicious, believing she was doing it only because you called her out. I know thats what I would have thought. It looked like a convenient chance for you to back out.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:What specifically about what I said feels false?

How about, instead, I answer the question about what, in your entire approach to juliets, has not felt false.

Nothing. The WHOLE thing feels false. From start to finish. Including your defense to me, now, which you choose to lace with sarcasm rather than just taking it and responding to it at face value.

I'm responding to you at face value. I'm showing you I did the exact opposite of what you suggested I did, and I'm also telling you that after juliets response, I clearly found her to be civ-leaning.

EBWOP: You have got to be fucking kidding me lmao

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Did you note that, once Juliets responded to my points about her and did her spirtyo post, I said that she was looking more civ IMO?

I did note that. I think it looks false too. If your suspicion was genuine, I think you would have found that from juliets even more suspicious, believing she was doing it only because you called her out. I know thats what I would have thought. It looked like a convenient chance for you to back out.

I think your suspicion of me is false as fuck bro everything I say you respond with "I understand how that completely contradicts why I find you suspicious but I find that suspicious" fucking 10/10

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Did you note that, once Juliets responded to my points about her and did her spirtyo post, I said that she was looking more civ IMO?

I did note that. I think it looks false too. If your suspicion was genuine, I think you would have found that from juliets even more suspicious, believing she was doing it only because you called her out. I know thats what I would have thought. It looked like a convenient chance for you to back out.

I think your suspicion of me is false as fuck bro everything I say you respond with "I understand how that completely contradicts why I find you suspicious but I find that suspicious" fucking 10/10

I do not think anyone in their right mind could find that to be what I just said. Perhaps you should submit why 'looking at juliets and making a strong case on why I find her suspicious' COMPLETELY contradicts 'We should lynch juliets'. Because those two things don't seem at all contradictory to me.

I will simply repeat why I found your approach suspicious.

Golden wrote:Wow are you defensive or what!

To recap, your entire approach to juliet is bullsuit, imo, and I'm now putting you very high on my list of people I could vote for, not least because of thee way you are trying to pass it off as nothing when it has been anything but. You flooded the thread with your 'examples' of her baddie meta based on us taking your word for it that it is her baddie meta, even though I could probably point to what you are claiming for every player in the game if I tried to.

The choice of person, and your rationale for doing it, is what is false. You didn't take the 'advice' of the civ gossiper. You made up your interpretation of the civ gossiper, ignored all points that the civ gossiper's perspective is no more relevant than anyone elses, and proceeded to narrow your own focus to your analysis of your OWN interpretation of juliets meta, looking to hand pick the quotes that fit with your own interpretation of her meta, rather than trying to look at them from any kind of objective perspective or consider her iso as a whole.

There is no part of that which is not suspicious to me.

I am not getting pulled into semantic points like whether or not lynching juliets and looking at juliets are the 'exact opposite'. Needless to say your over the top approach to defending yourself in ways that misrepresent me and your own actions don't make me feel good.

If it feels like this post added nothing new, it is because it doesn't. I just repeated the exact same reasons for why I find your conduct suspicious in a different way.

And the no u feels like the falsest part of it all.

I understand you find me suspicious Golden but I think your suspicion is false.

"I'm not going to explain to you why I find you suspicious for something, then you showed me you were doing the exact opposite of that, but I maintained that you were suspicious regardless." Golden 2016

DharmaHelper wrote:I understand you find me suspicious Golden but I think your suspicion is false.

Chrysanthemums waterman dig raid.

Golden wrote:And the no u feels like the falsest part of it all.

Did I say I suspect you?

Once again you falsify the thread with your falseness, Oh False One.

OK, you go with that. Like I said, I'm sure your sarcastic misrepresentations will do loads to convince me I'm wrong. Nor will you describing actions as opposite that are clearly not only not opposite but also fundamentally linked and aimed towards the same end.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:And the no u feels like the falsest part of it all.

Did I say I suspect you?

Once again you falsify the thread with your falseness, Oh False One.

Oh, so you think I have town-aligned reasons for my 'false' suspicion, do you?

Or is it that you just see your own sarcasm as the highest form of defensive wit?

Golden wrote:OK, you go with that. Like I said, I'm sure your sarcastic misrepresentations will do loads to convince me I'm wrong. Nor will you describing actions as opposite that are clearly not only not opposite but also fundamentally linked and aimed towards the same end.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:

Golden wrote:And the no u feels like the falsest part of it all.

Did I say I suspect you?

Once again you falsify the thread with your falseness, Oh False One.

Oh, so you think I have town-aligned reasons for my 'false' suspicion, do you?

Or is it that you just see your own sarcasm as the highest form of defensive wit?

False.

I don't understand why DH would go so far out of his way to manufacture a false suspicion against Juliets of all people. I hink he really believes it, and don't suspect him for it, although I think it is pretty tenuous. So I am going to reserve judgment on this until we hear back from the Commish.

TBH, I am not sure bad DH would go to this extreme.

So while I am not going to vote for Juliets,I am not going to vote for DH either.

S~V~S wrote:I don't understand why DH would go so far out of his way to manufacture a false suspicion against Juliets of all people. I hink he really believes it, and don't suspect him for it, although I think it is pretty tenuous. So I am going to reserve judgment on this until we hear back from the Commish.

TBH, I am not sure bad DH would go to this extreme.

So while I am not going to vote for Juliets,I am not going to vote for DH either.

Thank you. The idea of "false" suspicions is so foreign to me.

Really DH? So you've never been in a game where you are a member of the only baddie faction, having to manufacture tells? (false )

If its so foreign to you, you wouldn't have spent all your time claiming the same of me.

Golden wrote:Really DH? So you've never been in a game where you are a member of the only baddie faction, having to manufacture tells? (false )

If its so foreign to you, you wouldn't have spent all your time claiming the same of me.

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalse

Yeah, ok. Pretty sure you will take my vote today. Acting ridiculous and refusing to engage in a serious conversation, instead spending the entire time hiding behind your 'sarcasm wall', is something I don't trust in the slightest.

Golden wrote:Dom, I can't say I have a clear understanding of your views right now. What are your overall thoughts about today?

I'm looking at Mac and Glorfindel. I'm wary of Scotty. I don't trust MP (because I think he has been shady), but do not want to lynch him. I think he is incredibly unlikely to be Mafia (near impossible, but I don't put anything past htese hosts), but I have suspected him for so long-- it's hard to let that go just because there's a clear civ option along side some Inmates. Thus, he is not a priority for me. I am also a tad wary of TH, but he is cursed right now, so that's a fruitless endeavor. Plus, lately, I've been liking his contributions. Perhaps my Day 1/2 feelings were wrong.


I'm starting to try and find new people to suspect. My suspect list has dwindled. I thought it would be good to put pressure on new players. I questioned some of juliets stances and I liked her responses.




Mac, who are you looking to lynch today?

Golden wrote:Yeah, ok. Pretty sure you will take my vote today. Acting ridiculous and refusing to engage in a serious conversation, instead spending the entire time hiding behind your 'sarcasm wall', is something I don't trust in the slightest.

Would you say you find it....false?


Everything I've tried to engage with you seriously has been met with "Yeah ok good point, and I understand how that completely negates my previous point but I think you're being false and i still suspect you but this time it is for doing the opposite thing as to why I suspected you previously" What motivation do I have to engage with you seriously if that is the case?

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:Dom, I can't say I have a clear understanding of your views right now. What are your overall thoughts about today?

I'm looking at Mac and Glorfindel. I'm wary of Scotty. I don't trust MP (because I think he has been shady), but do not want to lynch him. I think he is incredibly unlikely to be Mafia (near impossible, but I don't put anything past htese hosts), but I have suspected him for so long-- it's hard to let that go just because there's a clear civ option along side some Inmates. Thus, he is not a priority for me. I am also a tad wary of TH, but he is cursed right now, so that's a fruitless endeavor. Plus, lately, I've been liking his contributions. Perhaps my Day 1/2 feelings were wrong.


I'm starting to try and find new people to suspect. My suspect list has dwindled. I thought it would be good to put pressure on new players. I questioned some of juliets stances and I liked her responses.




Mac, who are you looking to lynch today?

Dom how dare you don't you know that if you suspect juliets, even if you think her response to that suspicion is logical and makes sense and it assuages your initial suspicion you have to lynch her otherwise you're suspicious but if you do lynch her that's also suspicious.

Nothing you have said have I countered with either 'good point' or 'I understand how that negates my previous point', despite the fact you keep putting these in quotes as though I did say them. I don't think you have really made great points in your defence, because you've been over the top which negates any point you were trying to make because of the massive hyperbole. I've had to respond to the hyperbole instead of whatever point you felt you were trying to make. The way in which your defence came across to me was so over the top that it only made me feel worse.

SVS was the first person to make a good point in your favour, because you were much more occupied with saying the fact that I even had a ping on you was something that pinged you, and on spending your whole time attacking me for possibly having a suspicion, rather than making rational defences.

I also don't see how you can legitimately call you behaviour 'the opposite' simply because you moved from 'lets lynch her' to 'I want to look at her'. It shows a progression, sure, but certainly not you saying anything that is the opposite. The closest you've come is saying something like 'that one last post is more like civ juliets'. I'll give you thats the opposite, but it also just feels like a backtrack - like, you find all of these posts where juliet follows others, you accuse her of doing so, and suddenly she changes tactics and you see it as 'civ juliets' rather than 'now look, she is changing what she is doing because I called her out'... if you really thought she was bad, wouldn't you find it suspicious that she suddenly changed approach?

I never saw the 'lets lynch juliets' as anything more than sarcasm, in fact I think it is obvious that it was, but your choice to use sarcasm in that way pinged me. Your choice to follow that up with case building not only did NOT feel like 'the exact opposite', it felt like you were setting up a genuine suspicion with a sarcastic statement. Your trying to make out that these things are opposites really bothers me.

DharmaHelper wrote:

Dom wrote:

Golden wrote:Dom, I can't say I have a clear understanding of your views right now. What are your overall thoughts about today?

I'm looking at Mac and Glorfindel. I'm wary of Scotty. I don't trust MP (because I think he has been shady), but do not want to lynch him. I think he is incredibly unlikely to be Mafia (near impossible, but I don't put anything past htese hosts), but I have suspected him for so long-- it's hard to let that go just because there's a clear civ option along side some Inmates. Thus, he is not a priority for me. I am also a tad wary of TH, but he is cursed right now, so that's a fruitless endeavor. Plus, lately, I've been liking his contributions. Perhaps my Day 1/2 feelings were wrong.


I'm starting to try and find new people to suspect. My suspect list has dwindled. I thought it would be good to put pressure on new players. I questioned some of juliets stances and I liked her responses.




Mac, who are you looking to lynch today?

Dom how dare you don't you know that if you suspect juliets, even if you think her response to that suspicion is logical and makes sense and it assuages your initial suspicion you have to lynch her otherwise you're suspicious but if you do lynch her that's also suspicious.

DH, in all seriousness. Mocking my suspicion will guarantee just one thing... that I will continue to vocally oppose you all the time. I know how much people love that. If that's what you want, then continue to mock.

You claimed you suspected me because I advocated for Juliets' lynch solely based on Gordon telling us to lynch Juliets, which I countered by saying that I stated that my interpretation of Gordon's message is that we should look into juliets, which you countered by saying that my wanting to look into juliets was what was suspicious, which I countered by saying that after I looked into juliets, I conceded that I think she's civ especially given her recent posts (which contradict my initial ping anyway) to which YOU replied that THAT was suspicious.

Everything I point out is in direct contradiction to what you previously find suspect, and yet you claim you subsequently suspect that thing. If I'm not going to convince you of anything using logic and facts and what actually happened, why would I take you seriously.

Sorry to butt in to this domestic despute, but TheFloyd logged in today. Still hasn't posted in over a week.

We may never get a response from sprityo. How long do we wait?

Golden wrote:Nothing you have said have I countered with either 'good point' or 'I understand how that negates my previous point', despite the fact you keep putting these in quotes as though I did say them. I don't think you have really made great points in your defence, because you've been over the top which negates any point you were trying to make because of the massive hyperbole. I've had to respond to the hyperbole instead of whatever point you felt you were trying to make. The way in which your defence came across to me was so over the top that it only made me feel worse.

SVS was the first person to make a good point in your favour, because you were much more occupied with saying the fact that I even had a ping on you was something that pinged you, and on spending your whole time attacking me for possibly having a suspicion, rather than making rational defences.

I also don't see how you can legitimately call you behaviour 'the opposite' simply because you moved from 'lets lynch her' to 'I want to look at her'. It shows a progression, sure, but certainly not you saying anything that is the opposite. The closest you've come is saying something like 'that one last post is more like civ juliets'. I'll give you thats the opposite, but it also just feels like a backtrack - like, you find all of these posts where juliet follows others, you accuse her of doing so, and suddenly she changes tactics and you see it as 'civ juliets' rather than 'now look, she is changing what she is doing because I called her out'... if you really thought she was bad, wouldn't you find it suspicious that she suddenly changed approach?

I never saw the 'lets lynch juliets' as anything more than sarcasm, in fact I think it is obvious that it was, but your choice to use sarcasm in that way pinged me. Your choice to follow that up with case building not only did NOT feel like 'the exact opposite', it felt like you were setting up a genuine suspicion with a sarcastic statement. Your trying to make out that these things are opposites really bothers me.

Case and fucking point right here m8 your whole schtick has been that I was pushing for a JC lynch but you ADMIT RIGHT HERE THAT YOU KNEW I WAS FUCKING WITH JULIETS BUT THEN YOU ALSO SAY ME FUCKING WITH JULIETS WAS SUSPICIOUS WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

DharmaHelper wrote:You claimed you suspected me because I advocated for Juliets' lynch solely based on Gordon telling us to lynch Juliets, which I countered by saying that I stated that my interpretation of Gordon's message is that we should look into juliets, which you countered by saying that my wanting to look into juliets was what was suspicious, which I countered by saying that after I looked into juliets, I conceded that I think she's civ especially given her recent posts (which contradict my initial ping anyway) to which YOU replied that THAT was suspicious.

Everything I point out is in direct contradiction to what you previously find suspect, and yet you claim you subsequently suspect that thing. If I'm not going to convince you of anything using logic and facts and what actually happened, why would I take you seriously.

No. The only reason I've suspected you, all along, is that your posts on the matter do not feel genuine to me. The reason I said ping to the first post is that it didn't feel genuine. It had nothing to do with you 'advocating for juliets lynch' and it had nothing to do with it being 'solely based on Gordon telling you to lynch juliets'. Neither of those things were in any way relevant.

Your reason for bringing up juliets at all felt forced to me.
Your subsequent following it up with a hand-picked case to fit your own description of her meta felt incredibly forced to me.
And your sudden backtrack, when everyone else disagrees with your case, also feels forced to me.
Your defence, and its 'over the top' approach, also felt forced and not genuine, but also just over-reactive generally.

None of it felt real.

That is why I suspected you. Not one of the reasons you have given for me suspecting you is at all accurate.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:You claimed you suspected me because I advocated for Juliets' lynch solely based on Gordon telling us to lynch Juliets, which I countered by saying that I stated that my interpretation of Gordon's message is that we should look into juliets, which you countered by saying that my wanting to look into juliets was what was suspicious, which I countered by saying that after I looked into juliets, I conceded that I think she's civ especially given her recent posts (which contradict my initial ping anyway) to which YOU replied that THAT was suspicious.

Everything I point out is in direct contradiction to what you previously find suspect, and yet you claim you subsequently suspect that thing. If I'm not going to convince you of anything using logic and facts and what actually happened, why would I take you seriously.

No. The only reason I've suspected you, all along, is that your posts on the matter do not feel genuine to me. The reason I said ping to the first post is that it didn't feel genuine. It had nothing to do with you 'advocating for juliets lynch' and it had nothing to do with it being 'solely based on Gordon telling you to lynch juliets'. Neither of those things were in any way relevant.

Your reason for bringing up juliets at all felt forced to me.
Your subsequent following it up with a hand-picked case to fit your own description of her meta felt incredibly forced to me.
And your sudden backtrack, when everyone else disagrees with your case, also feels forced to me.
Your defence, and its 'over the top' approach, also felt forced and not genuine, but also just over-reactive generally.

None of it felt real.

That is why I suspected you. Not one of the reasons you have given for me suspecting you is at all accurate.

Completely false.

Voted DH.

We were having a real conversation for a bit there... and then you go and do that.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:You claimed you suspected me because I advocated for Juliets' lynch solely based on Gordon telling us to lynch Juliets, which I countered by saying that I stated that my interpretation of Gordon's message is that we should look into juliets, which you countered by saying that my wanting to look into juliets was what was suspicious, which I countered by saying that after I looked into juliets, I conceded that I think she's civ especially given her recent posts (which contradict my initial ping anyway) to which YOU replied that THAT was suspicious.

Everything I point out is in direct contradiction to what you previously find suspect, and yet you claim you subsequently suspect that thing. If I'm not going to convince you of anything using logic and facts and what actually happened, why would I take you seriously.

No. The only reason I've suspected you, all along, is that your posts on the matter do not feel genuine to me. The reason I said ping to the first post is that it didn't feel genuine. It had nothing to do with you 'advocating for juliets lynch' and it had nothing to do with it being 'solely based on Gordon telling you to lynch juliets'. Neither of those things were in any way relevant.

Your reason for bringing up juliets at all felt forced to me.
Your subsequent following it up with a hand-picked case to fit your own description of her meta felt incredibly forced to me.
And your sudden backtrack, when everyone else disagrees with your case, also feels forced to me.
Your defence, and its 'over the top' approach, also felt forced and not genuine, but also just over-reactive generally.

None of it felt real.

That is why I suspected you. Not one of the reasons you have given for me suspecting you is at all accurate.

Why would we take Gordon's opinions as face value and just follow them to juliet's lynch?

Major ping on DH.

Well at least now I'll know if Golden is the Penguin lol

Your point is?

DharmaHelper wrote:Well at least now I'll know if Golden is the Penguin lol

No you won't. I mean, I'm not. But as you already have two votes...

I mean, I gave you an opening there to actually respond to the question in a rational way, but you chose not to.

I asked the question because the obvious answer was 'we wouldn't', and no-one who thought we would could possibly be demonstrating a town-aligned mind set. And I would have been ok with that answer.

Oh I didn't realize TH had voted for me already. My point is (re: that yellow monstrosity) That you said exactly the thing you said you didn't say.

Golden wrote:

DharmaHelper wrote:Well at least now I'll know if Golden is the Penguin lol

No you won't. I mean, I'm not. But as you already have two votes...

....woah woah woah.
Why is that a sign he's sure to die?

Scotty wrote:Sorry to butt in to this domestic despute, but TheFloyd logged in today. Still hasn't posted in over a week.

We may never get a response from sprityo. How long do we wait?

What do you mean, Scotty?
Why wouldn't we get a response?

Golden wrote:Just read TH's responses to MP's rainbow list. At some point soon I should try and build a rainbow list of my own, but here are some thoughts after reading that TH post:

1) Glorfindel has done a good job of defending himself against being two-face (although I still agree more with Matt than, say, Bullz, about the likelihood of 5 of the first 10 posts having references to two in them.) I'm not sure why Glorf would hint at Two-Face, but the possible reason is that someone might feel the town-aligned aspects of Two-Face might make that role seem ok. But the bit Glorfindel hasn't defended effectively against, and for me it is the much more damning bit, is his case on sig just before sig died. It's a tactic I've used when bad, and I've seen many others use it - distance yourself from the kill by saying something that you 'wouldn't say' if you knew that sig was dying. For me, the idea that glorfindel is mafia and was responsible for killing sig holds more weight than the idea he is two-face.

I'm happy to address your concerns my friend, I just didn't realise that my 'Sig-post' was a thing I think I mentioned in my post my opinion that Sig had (to that point) been setting me up for lynching since the game started. I'd just come off a day phase where I'd been silenced and felt that it was all part of some elaborate plan of his to remove me. I didn't know what the dawn of the following day would bring (in terms of some other restriction or impediment to my posting) so in my judgement, I thought it most prudent to put my case to you at the last minute so if I wasn't around or was unable to post you could at least refer to my views on someone that I was convinced (at that point) to have been Mafia or some malicious escapee. Whether he was or not, time will tell. I'll admit that my views on poor old Sig are probably coloured by a previous game on another site where he demonstrated to me (what I considered) to be treachery of a scope that what breath-taking. Please don't misunderstand me here - I count Sig as a dear friend and I hope he would say the same of me. It's just that I'm perhaps a little over-sensitive to him in these games. I can say quite honestly that no one was more surprised than I at his demise that night.

Dom wrote:

Scotty wrote:Sorry to butt in to this domestic despute, but TheFloyd logged in today. Still hasn't posted in over a week.

We may never get a response from sprityo. How long do we wait?

What do you mean, Scotty?
Why wouldn't we get a response?

We've waited this long. Who knows who is comin back in this game.

Also why are you suspicious of me still???