The Syndicate

I wish I was as good at mafia as Epi.

I can't ignore myself for shit.

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:One benefit to lynching Jack today is to remove the WIFOM factor from his posts. Since he became confirmed he's only interacted with Epi. I refuse to read into that but I can see it being argued one way or another.

I realise we shouldn't be arguing about Jack right now, but that needed to be said

He's probably interacting with Epi since Epi is in charge of saving him.

Let's make a deal; if we lynch anyone other than Jack, and they are not bad, we lynch Jack next, no arguments, no questions. I have played whole games as an outed baddie and the longer you let it go on, the harder it is to get rid of the outed one. If we lynch someone who IS a baddie, I will shut up and tow the party line re lynching Jack.

Although, again, I would much rather lynch Jack.

No deal. I don't understand how it's harder to lynch Jack later. If this were a job or side mission, I might agree with you, but this is a heist, and I don't believe the mafia will win because an outed teammate is left alone for a while.

Here's an exercise: Jack isn't outed. You are a role checker who caught him. Now you're looking for his team. Who are they?

Jesus
Heidi
All good Americans

Or, more simply, Jack has been lynched. It's Day 3. Who is getting your vote and why?

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:One benefit to lynching Jack today is to remove the WIFOM factor from his posts. Since he became confirmed he's only interacted with Epi. I refuse to read into that but I can see it being argued one way or another.

I realise we shouldn't be arguing about Jack right now, but that needed to be said

He's probably interacting with Epi since Epi is in charge of saving him.

Let's make a deal; if we lynch anyone other than Jack, and they are not bad, we lynch Jack next, no arguments, no questions. I have played whole games as an outed baddie and the longer you let it go on, the harder it is to get rid of the outed one. If we lynch someone who IS a baddie, I will shut up and tow the party line re lynching Jack.

Although, again, I would much rather lynch Jack.

No deal. I don't understand how it's harder to lynch Jack later. If this were a job or side mission, I might agree with you, but this is a heist, and I don't believe the mafia will win because an outed teammate is left alone for a while.

Here's an exercise: Jack isn't outed. You are a role checker who caught him. Now you're looking for his team. Who are they?

Too bad we had to do this on the Day 1 lynch, or there would have been more to read into. After that, it's like being a rolechecker reading into a baddie who knows his role has been checked.

In some instances, "no lynch" is an option. If you're stumped, vote the no lynch option, which in this case is Jack. But I am not convinced anyone here is stumped. Very few have even tried.

Thank you for your response, FZ! While a little passive-aggressive ("unlike you"), it makes me feel a little better about you.

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:One benefit to lynching Jack today is to remove the WIFOM factor from his posts. Since he became confirmed he's only interacted with Epi. I refuse to read into that but I can see it being argued one way or another.

I realise we shouldn't be arguing about Jack right now, but that needed to be said

He's probably interacting with Epi since Epi is in charge of saving him.

Let's make a deal; if we lynch anyone other than Jack, and they are not bad, we lynch Jack next, no arguments, no questions. I have played whole games as an outed baddie and the longer you let it go on, the harder it is to get rid of the outed one. If we lynch someone who IS a baddie, I will shut up and tow the party line re lynching Jack.

Although, again, I would much rather lynch Jack.

I agree with this deal.

To answer Epi's question, If I had to pick teammates for Jack right now, they would be Wilgy and Notsawyer. (I finally accomplished my promised reread of Notsawyer, and I feel no better about him. His day 1 posting was Waffle House.) I remain of the opinion that it's better to lynch a sure thing earlier and take risks later, due to greater volume of in-thread info.

thellama73 wrote:To answer Epi's question, If I had to pick teammates for Jack right now, they would be Wilgy and Notsawyer. (I finally accomplished my promised reread of Notsawyer, and I feel no better about him. His day 1 posting was Waffle House.) I remain of the opinion that it's better to lynch a sure thing earlier and take risks later, due to greater volume of in-thread info.

Why do people think "waffling" means you're bad? It isn't hard to be bad and take firm stances. I do it all the time.

Llama, for notsawyer to be bad, that would mean he is on Jack's team. You know, the guy you kept mixing him up with. Do their interactions look like teammate interactions?

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:To answer Epi's question, If I had to pick teammates for Jack right now, they would be Wilgy and Notsawyer. (I finally accomplished my promised reread of Notsawyer, and I feel no better about him. His day 1 posting was Waffle House.) I remain of the opinion that it's better to lynch a sure thing earlier and take risks later, due to greater volume of in-thread info.

Why do people think "waffling" means you're bad? It isn't hard to be bad and take firm stances. I do it all the time.

Llama, for notsawyer to be bad, that would mean he is on Jack's team. You know, the guy you kept mixing him up with. Do their interactions look like teammate interactions?

I regard waffling as a baddie tell, simply because I've seen it be a baddie tell so many times. There is a tendency to want to cover one's back. If you don't mind me saying so, you are a more accomplished baddie than most. Others who lack your confidence get nervous about sticking their neck out when bad, and prefer to try to have things both ways. To sound "reasonable". I understand this, as when I began my mafia career, I frequently got lynched for coming on too strong and being unreasonable (although this seems to have diminished in recent years.)

Yes, I looked at their interactions. I didn't see anything there that definitively said "teammates" to me, but neither did I see anything to rule it out (unlike Long Con's, which DEFINITIVELY PROVE that he's not a Jack teammate.) Yeah, I think it's possible.

Llama, are you a baddie in this game?

Epignosis wrote:Here's an exercise: Jack isn't outed. You are a role checker who caught him. Now you're looking for his team. Who are they?

I would check you first so that I might be able to put down my tinfoil hat.

I would check SVS to see if my intuition is correct on her.

What is your intuition?

thellama73 wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

thellama73 wrote:To answer Epi's question, If I had to pick teammates for Jack right now, they would be Wilgy and Notsawyer. (I finally accomplished my promised reread of Notsawyer, and I feel no better about him. His day 1 posting was Waffle House.) I remain of the opinion that it's better to lynch a sure thing earlier and take risks later, due to greater volume of in-thread info.

Why do people think "waffling" means you're bad? It isn't hard to be bad and take firm stances. I do it all the time.

Llama, for notsawyer to be bad, that would mean he is on Jack's team. You know, the guy you kept mixing him up with. Do their interactions look like teammate interactions?

I regard waffling as a baddie tell, simply because I've seen it be a baddie tell so many times. There is a tendency to want to cover one's back. If you don't mind me saying so, you are a more accomplished baddie than most. Others who lack your confidence get nervous about sticking their neck out when bad, and prefer to try to have things both ways. To sound "reasonable". I understand this, as when I began my mafia career, I frequently got lynched for coming on too strong and being unreasonable (although this seems to have diminished in recent years.)

Yes, I looked at their interactions. I didn't see anything there that definitively said "teammates" to me, but neither did I see anything to rule it out (unlike Long Con's, which DEFINITIVELY PROVE that he's not a Jack teammate.) Yeah, I think it's possible.

Per FZ's defense to your accusation earlier, she made a particular statement about "knowning her own role and no one else's". With this in mind, wouldn't a civilian have just as much if not more reason to waffle, based on their lack of knowledge?

Linki: That she's mafia.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Let me try that again: Stop worrying about the outed member of the mafia. Who are his teammates and why? Go after them.

At this point he's just a distraction. Here we all are arguing over whether to Lynch him or not rather than discussing alternatives.

Make the outed baddie go away.

There's this post, where SVS wants to push discussion down an avenue other than Jack. Fine, that makes sense.


But we haven't seen one from her yet. Votes aside, other players are discussing potential teammates of jack., and SVS hasn't participated.

Long Con wrote:Llama, are you a baddie in this game?

No, I am a civilian in this game.

Marmot wrote: Per FZ's defense to your accusation earlier, she made a particular statement about "knowning her own role and no one else's". With this in mind, wouldn't a civilian have just as much if not more reason to waffle, based on their lack of knowledge?

Linki: That she's mafia.

Civvies may well have more reason to waffle. But my observation is that baddies do it more often.

S~V~S left her vote on Quin Day 1 after a dispute, and now she shows no interest in finding Jack's team, making weak excuses about him being a distraction. She also acted like I was an insane person for suggesting she would kill Eloh when she has complained before about mafia killing high profile people. She wanted to mince words about being a low-poster versus being blendy.

None of this agrees with me.

MM, why do you feel the way you do?

And here's a case of WIFOM for you, but jack has only talked on topic to two players since his reveal: Epignosis, who he's spent the majority of time talking to, and SVS, who he addressed with this single post.

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:One benefit to lynching Jack today is to remove the WIFOM factor from his posts. Since he became confirmed he's only interacted with Epi. I refuse to read into that but I can see it being argued one way or another.

I realise we shouldn't be arguing about Jack right now, but that needed to be said

He's probably interacting with Epi since Epi is in charge of saving him.

Let's make a deal; if we lynch anyone other than Jack, and they are not bad, we lynch Jack next, no arguments, no questions. I have played whole games as an outed baddie and the longer you let it go on, the harder it is to get rid of the outed one. If we lynch someone who IS a baddie, I will shut up and tow the party line re lynching Jack.

Although, again, I would much rather lynch Jack.

This deal is bad for American.

America, the greatest country in the world.

We have a responsibility to protect me...I mean democracy, from deals like this that only undermine my irrational pandering. If you don't like wine in front of me, you need to accept Jesus into your heart. Jesus drank wine. He didn't smoke pot.

*cringe smile*

Were there any S~V~S-Jack interactions before the Day 1 reveal?

If S~V~S is Jack's teammate, is there a reason why she would want to stop investigation into his posts? If there is nothing connecting S~V~S to Jack in those Day 1 posts, then a baddie S~V~S would be more than happy to bless a full investigation that could easily implicate others.

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S left her vote on Quin Day 1 after a dispute, and now she shows no interest in finding Jack's team, making weak excuses about him being a distraction. She also acted like I was an insane person for suggesting she would kill Eloh when she has complained before about mafia killing high profile people. She wanted to mince words about being a low-poster versus being blendy.

None of this agrees with me.

MM, why do you feel the way you do?

I agree with the majority of these points.

Additionally, SVS's playstyle tends to clash with mine. When I've suspected her in the past, and she's civilian, she has responded to my suspicions with a vengeance. But in this game, she has yet to address my suspicion, or anyone's really.

Long Con wrote:Were there any S~V~S-Jack interactions before the Day 1 reveal?

If S~V~S is Jack's teammate, is there a reason why she would want to stop investigation into his posts? If there is nothing connecting S~V~S to Jack in those Day 1 posts, then a baddie S~V~S would be more than happy to bless a full investigation that could easily implicate others.

SVS never talked to or about jack on Day 1.

I know jack interacted with her, but I'll have to look up those posts.

Marmot wrote:

Epignosis wrote:S~V~S left her vote on Quin Day 1 after a dispute, and now she shows no interest in finding Jack's team, making weak excuses about him being a distraction. She also acted like I was an insane person for suggesting she would kill Eloh when she has complained before about mafia killing high profile people. She wanted to mince words about being a low-poster versus being blendy.

None of this agrees with me.

MM, why do you feel the way you do?

I agree with the majority of these points.

Additionally, SVS's playstyle tends to clash with mine. When I've suspected her in the past, and she's civilian, she has responded to my suspicions with a vengeance. But in this game, she has yet to address my suspicion, or anyone's really.

I take that back, she did respond to Epignosis's accusation with regards to Elohcin being nightkilled.

She also suggested Eloh was killed to frame me, which makes no sense.

thellama73 wrote:

Marmot wrote: Per FZ's defense to your accusation earlier, she made a particular statement about "knowning her own role and no one else's". With this in mind, wouldn't a civilian have just as much if not more reason to waffle, based on their lack of knowledge?

Linki: That she's mafia.

Civvies may well have more reason to waffle. But my observation is that baddies do it more often.

I suppose that could be valid.

I haven't done any studies myself. I just eat waffles for breakfast every now and again.

Marmot wrote: I haven't done any studies myself. I just eat waffles for breakfast every now and again.

That sounds like a wise way to live your life.

Epignosis wrote:She also suggested Eloh was killed to frame me, which makes no sense.

Is that really what she meant with her comment? If so, that makes the opposite of sense.

I don't know what else she could have meant.

S~V~S wrote:I think someone trying to set up you most likely.

"Set up you" is odd phrasing.

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?

That question is funny to me coming from someone who has done nothing more than talk about how Jack needs to go.

Epignosis wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

FZ. wrote:I'm reading through. I have to say I'm leaning on agreeing with Epi on Scotty. Some of his posts feel to me like how I would play when mafia, by trying to look helpful in his attempt to analyse the host's post, and by looking like he's doing some serious hunting, while it doesn't feel genuine to me.
I have two reservations:
1. the part where he randomly chooses a low poster. That's poor hunting, and I think Scotty is smarter than that. 2. I also understand where he's coming from, with his suspicion of the marmot. He tends to lay low and be more fluffy when he's bad.
So

FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...

FZ. wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...

If only one of them is bad, which is it?

Gtth, if you will.

I'd say Scotty.

Epi, couldn't flipping a coin just be a figure of speech?

All of the above read like someone who's trying to cover their bases regardless of the lynch outcome. She expresses suspicion, then gives herself outs.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If FZ. is bad and MacDougall isn't on her team, then what bases is she covering? She would know that lynching either would not eliminate someone from her team. She would have no reservations about lynching someone who isn't on her team. At best, your accusation can only be interpreted to mean that FZ. faked her restraint.

Otherwise, your accusation only makes sense if she and MacDougall are bad together with the now exposed JackofHearts, but you didn't mention MacDougall in your pool of suspects.

What I was trying to say is that it read like FZ didn't want to commit too strongly, so that if Scotty came back civ, she wouldn't look like she was pushing for his lynch too hard. Of course she would know he wasn't Mafia, but he could also (and was) a dangerous Indy, and helping to lynch an Indy would not look as bad as lynching a civ.

Anyway, I'm voting Jack right now for self-preservation.

I'm voting SVS.

S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.

Did S~V~S vote for Quin because she thought he was bad or because they had a (minor) disagreement?

I thought the disagreement was larger than it was. Looking back:
That's the entirety of the tiff. Was that worth putting a "placeholder" vote on Quin and never coming back in to reevaluate anything?

DrWilgy wrote:

DFaraday wrote:Wilgy, I didn't include further comments in my post because I was half asleep and just wanted to get the most cursory comment out there. If you don't believe that, sorry.

Would you say that your default is mafia until proven civvy?

To a lot of people, sure.

I would rather vote SVS if it gets enough traction.

I'm having second thoughts on DF. His posts today, even though falsely accusing me come off as genuine.
I'd rather vote Jack if it's between them. That said, I am starting to see the merit in lynching someone else. We learn more from lynching someone else. If we lynch another baddie, that's a great result, and if we lynch a civ, we see where each person was going with his vote. So perhaps voting Jack is now the easy way out for the baddies.

S~V~S wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:So is Ted Cruz dead or do we have to lynch him day 2? It says "he is" in the post where it says "he was" for Assange. So I'm assuming he have to lynch Jack next.

This.

And good job all!!

I will read back this evening, good news is while I had a long day today, I do NOT have jury duty, so I should have no worries re Mafia time.

S~V~S wrote:So Scotty was an Indy? But Jack is a Republican? So rereading him, I guess.

I find these reactions to be incompatible. Why act celebratory at first and then ask about the alignment of the dead?

S~V~S wrote:

G-Man wrote:Polls have been added as a separate topic. Sorry for the delay. I was fighting with my router for a while there. Now I must review Day 1 for any more Hillary Points.

Thanks!

I just figured you were kicking it old school and not doing a poll thread. That thread is great but it spoils people. I remember games where people spent hours in thread reconstructing polls. Don't want to do that again, lol.

@Epi, is that something Wilgy does, goof around with teammates in thread? I don't recall him really much interacting in thread with his team in last years GOC but otherwise I don't have much basis of comparison. Because unless he does that seems like a rather null action to me.

Also in your read back of Jack what were your thoughts on his posts regarding the discussion Quin and I had, and Jacks interpretation of it.

Same question for Quin, actually.

Here is what I could find regarding Jack's interpretation of the discussion between Quin and S~V~S:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:Quin missed my original point and misinterpreted my question. Hence we are talking in circles.

Placeholder vote on Quin. I don't think my original point was that obscure.

You had the chance to reiterate your point. Why didn't you take it, and instead choose to believe that I'm (assumedly purposefully) misinterpreting your question?

Quin, aren't you known for having several page long arguments over nuances of language aka talking in circles?

I don't fault S-V-S for this at all. That said, I don't think it's necessarily a scumtell for you so.

And that's all I have to say about that.

In other words, Jack approved of S~V~S's vote even though he didn't believe Quin is bad.

I'm moving my vote. I keep revisiting this answer, which wasn't an answer at all.

S~V~S wrote:

Epignosis wrote:Let me try that again: Stop worrying about the outed member of the mafia. Who are his teammates and why? Go after them.

At this point he's just a distraction. Here we all are arguing over whether to Lynch him or not rather than discussing alternatives.

Make the outed baddie go away.

S~V~S

Epignosis wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:So is Ted Cruz dead or do we have to lynch him day 2? It says "he is" in the post where it says "he was" for Assange. So I'm assuming he have to lynch Jack next.

This.

And good job all!!

I will read back this evening, good news is while I had a long day today, I do NOT have jury duty, so I should have no worries re Mafia time.

S~V~S wrote:So Scotty was an Indy? But Jack is a Republican? So rereading him, I guess.

I find these reactions to be incompatible. Why act celebratory at first and then ask about the alignment of the dead?

This intrigues me. I'll vote S~V~S as well.

Vote S~V~S

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

S~V~S wrote:

Quin wrote:

notsawyer540 wrote:

S~V~S wrote:I'm a redhead- I have no soul

Me too!

I don't really find Quin suspicious. But then again this is only my second game on this site and there are only a couple people I know well enough to make judgments on. Getting a civ read on LC. Not really sure if going after low posters is a good idea here, but I don't really have any better ideas yet, so it may come to that for me.

I'm a civ and I support Hillary Clinton.

Other than that, it usually takes me a few cycles to start putting things together. If Ron Swanson were in this game, I'd say he's guilty as shit for three days before realizing it was Donna right before I'm killed!

Anyway I'm gonna get back to watching TV and nursing this hangover. I'll check back in periodically.

Discrediting your own opinion on an argument while still making a point of giving it never looks good to me.

Why? Are you always so sure of your own opinion that you can't see the drawbacks in your own argument?

No. But if I find it suspicious I'm going to say so. I want a dialogue.

What are the drawbacks in my argument?

I wasn't talking about drawbacks in YOUR argument; I was talking about
You saying you found it suspicious that he was qualifying his opinion. It was essentially a rhetorical question. "Are you always so sure of your own opinions that you find someone who can see both sides of a suspicion questionable?".

Oh.

No, I don't. But I do find the act of discrediting one's own opinion to be innately suspicious. There's a difference between that and just not being sure.

Quin: "No, you don't" what?

Hmm, at the risk of playing the devil's advocate, I don't think the fact SVS celebrated first and then asked about the alignments necessarily makes her bad. You come in, you skim the results, see it's not a civ, and also that there is something going on and the others' posts look like something good happened, so you celebrate. Only then do you actually dive into the results.

The part where SVS doesn't really give any suspects or tries to hunt for them makes me much more worried than the thing mentioned above, though. She claims that it just annoys her that we're not voting Jack, but why not discuss things in the meantime anyway?

I always expect baddies to do a better job and look like they are actually hunting, so I don't like to lynch those not trying hard enough, because it seems too easy. But playing on this site has taught me that plenty of baddies don't try hard enough, so I don't know. Maybe SVS is not in the mood to play that much and didn't like getting to be a baddie.

FZ. wrote:I always expect baddies to do a better job and look like they are actually hunting, so I don't like to lynch those not trying hard enough, because it seems too easy. But playing on this site has taught me that plenty of baddies don't try hard enough, so I don't know. Maybe SVS is not in the mood to play that much and didn't like getting to be a baddie.

This is what I think is the case.

Additionally, the mafia had a teammate exposed on Day 1 in addition to having a potential ally lynched. I would expect them to be annoyed.

I used addition twice to reference the same thing. Bad marmot.

Marmot wrote:

FZ. wrote:I always expect baddies to do a better job and look like they are actually hunting, so I don't like to lynch those not trying hard enough, because it seems too easy. But playing on this site has taught me that plenty of baddies don't try hard enough, so I don't know. Maybe SVS is not in the mood to play that much and didn't like getting to be a baddie.

This is what I think is the case.

Additionally, the mafia had a teammate exposed on Day 1 in addition to having a potential ally lynched. I would expect them to be annoyed.

That is a good point.

I usually clash with SVS when we play together, mostly when we are both civvies. It hasn't happened yet this game, so I'm not sure what to make of it either.

Say it is SVS. Who would be bad with her?

I'm ok with this. It'll shed light on my DF suspicion anyways.

FZ. wrote:Say it is SVS. Who would be bad with her?

Jack.

Do I need to find another potential teammate to justify my suspicion?

DFaraday wrote:

Epignosis wrote:

DFaraday wrote:

FZ. wrote:I'm reading through. I have to say I'm leaning on agreeing with Epi on Scotty. Some of his posts feel to me like how I would play when mafia, by trying to look helpful in his attempt to analyse the host's post, and by looking like he's doing some serious hunting, while it doesn't feel genuine to me.
I have two reservations:
1. the part where he randomly chooses a low poster. That's poor hunting, and I think Scotty is smarter than that. 2. I also understand where he's coming from, with his suspicion of the marmot. He tends to lay low and be more fluffy when he's bad.
So

FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...

FZ. wrote:

Jackofhearts2005 wrote:

FZ. wrote:I really don't like MacDougal's vote, and the fact he's just following Scotty's vote just makes it worse. Though I doubt both are bad...

If only one of them is bad, which is it?

Gtth, if you will.

I'd say Scotty.

Epi, couldn't flipping a coin just be a figure of speech?

All of the above read like someone who's trying to cover their bases regardless of the lynch outcome. She expresses suspicion, then gives herself outs.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If FZ. is bad and MacDougall isn't on her team, then what bases is she covering? She would know that lynching either would not eliminate someone from her team. She would have no reservations about lynching someone who isn't on her team. At best, your accusation can only be interpreted to mean that FZ. faked her restraint.

Otherwise, your accusation only makes sense if she and MacDougall are bad together with the now exposed JackofHearts, but you didn't mention MacDougall in your pool of suspects.

What I was trying to say is that it read like FZ didn't want to commit too strongly, so that if Scotty came back civ, she wouldn't look like she was pushing for his lynch too hard. Of course she would know he wasn't Mafia, but he could also (and was) a dangerous Indy, and helping to lynch an Indy would not look as bad as lynching a civ.

Anyway, I'm voting Jack right now for self-preservation.

Unvote me, plz. We're voting SVS, now.

Marmot wrote:

FZ. wrote:Say it is SVS. Who would be bad with her?

Jack.

Do I need to find another potential teammate to justify my suspicion?

No, but it would be nice to find connections before we lynch someone.

Okay Jack, for you I'll vote SVS