The Syndicate

Lol fuck it I'm gonna do the ISO-List gimmick thing and see if I can't go get me a big ol fish.

My laptop has had an unfortunate incident so I'm phone posting atm.

I've not seen anything that interesting from the skimming I've done, but Bren is playing so imma vote there since he's probably mafia.

idk how I feel about Sloondog suspecting Luna for essentially having the same suspicion as him but with less waffling. I think a baddie would at least be cognizant of how hypocritical that looks.

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:07 pm idk how I feel about Sloondog suspecting Luna for essentially having the same suspicion as him but with less waffling. I think a baddie would at least be cognizant of how hypocritical that looks.

Hypocrisy is a staple of thr civilian playbook

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:05 pm My laptop has had an unfortunate incident so I'm phone posting atm.

I've not seen anything that interesting from the skimming I've done, but Bren is playing so imma vote there since he's probably mafia.

I kind of forgot about wolbre, but he was one of the players I was most excited about pre-game. He’s been absent for a bit. [mention]wolbre04[/mention] come in here and say some stuff. Unless you’re driving.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:09 pm

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:07 pm idk how I feel about Sloondog suspecting Luna for essentially having the same suspicion as him but with less waffling. I think a baddie would at least be cognizant of how hypocritical that looks.

Hypocrisy is a staple of thr civilian playbook

^ it's trudeau

Both Mac and Epi have been less quirky so far, I don't like this. Usually they're either bickering or doing some weird question things.

I agree with whoever said SVS jumped on Luna.

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:11 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:09 pm

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:07 pm idk how I feel about Sloondog suspecting Luna for essentially having the same suspicion as him but with less waffling. I think a baddie would at least be cognizant of how hypocritical that looks.

Hypocrisy is a staple of thr civilian playbook

^ it's trudeau

How do you feel about luna independent of me?

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:14 pm Both Mac and Epi have been less quirky so far, I don't like this. Usually they're either bickering or doing some weird question things.

Mac to me just feels like he's going through the motions of Macdougall's meta without any passion. I can't point to anything, I just don't feel like he's done anything substantial yet. It's still early.
Epi's doing Epi things. I don't think he can be read consistently from one game to the next. He changes from game to game. I like him here.

I agree with whoever said SVS jumped on Luna.

What does this mean? Is this a good thing for SVS, or for Luna?

As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

First Five:

Colin - Initially asks some mechanical questions, votes for the D0 option randomly, and +1's Epi's DDL post. No U's Bob. Says he likes Sloonei's mindset but won't go far enough to support the Tranq vote. Votes DDL and fucks off. Not liking Colin's D0/D1. Cool of him to make this ISO list thing a little easier on me tho.

Bob - Opens with fun, jokey D0 posts. Pinged by sabie. asks Jack for a trust team then takes it back. Votes Colin for "his posting" Later comes back around on Jack. Town leaning on Mac. Some general poking of other players to finish out his ISO. His Colin vote is whack and he's kinda just floating out in the ether otherwise.

Dana - She signed up for the game. NAI.

DDL - Comes in hot with the role/mechanics talk. Says nutella is fluffing. Pokes Enrique. Says he likes Tranq's TH post and he might vote TH. Poo-poo's Enrique's Truth Meta. Calls out G-Man for not actually adding anything. Backtracks on that but keeps his vote there because "he's talking about ties way too much". Thinks Tranq is now reactive. Town leaning on Mac/Sloonei. Think's Colin's vote is "Too bad to be bad". Votes for Tranq because Tranq is blending in now, lays out a decent explanation of that. DDL won't get my vote.

Doc - Lots of joke posts then he falls off the face of the Earth.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

I feel like Luna was the bloodthirsty one and I support SVS’s case against her. Luna seized on a mounting bandwagon against Colin. SVS targeted a player on her own.

How do you feel aboug Colin and DDL? Is there a player who’s not being talked about that you’d like to give more attention to?

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

Bloodthirsty?

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:14 pmHow do you feel about luna independent of me?

She looks okay so far... She has civvie tells, I think, which is what I'm looking out for.

I have no idea whether or not DrWilgy is a doctor and this is a serious concern.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:46 pm I have no idea whether or not DrWilgy is a doctor and this is a serious concern.

And I have no idea why he voted for bob. Checked his ISO, naw nothing related to his vote. [mention]DrWilgy[/mention] what did you see that makes you suspicious of bob?

EBWOP: saw* nothing

Wilgy’s most serious contribution was to throw baseless shade at SVS for the Day 0 poll chatter. I can’t do much with his posts, but I’ve seen quiet wilgy = bad wilgy in the past.

Second Five:

Enrique - Decided he's got a truth meta. Apologizes for not being active. Nothing to go on here.

Epignosis - Comes out swinging against DDL. Trust team's with INH. Locks Colin in as civilian. Jumps on Sloonei for the whole "genuine" thing. Normal bullheaded Epi here. moving on.

G-Man - Comes out swinging against people who don't want the polls to be tied up (i.e me). Not much really else to go on. Promises more activity, and wants to look into high-to-mid-participants Cool.

INH - Call's G-Man's post "shortsighted and dismissive" basically parroting G-Man's criticism of me. Trust Teams with Epi and tries to get a handle on Epi's suspicion of DDL. Like's Luna's post RE: Epi/DDL/DDL voters. Looking to vote Colin based on his DDL-wagon post. Leaning OK with INH for now.

Jack - Starts off goofy. "Town" read on Quin. Defends DDL and then says he can't read DDL for shit. Makes that odd "sheep" post w/ bob. Dunks on Enrique's truth meta thing. Poo-poos Bob's Colin vote. Thinks Epi's DDL thing was junk. Once again gets the poll close time wrong. Eye on Jack for now.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:09 pm

Turnip Head wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:07 pm idk how I feel about Sloondog suspecting Luna for essentially having the same suspicion as him but with less waffling. I think a baddie would at least be cognizant of how hypocritical that looks.

Hypocrisy is a staple of thr civilian playbook

But self-aware-ness is a staple of the mafia playbook.

So I guess if when sig said bloodthirsty, he meant aggressive, I can sort of see what he is seeing in SVS' posts, she did escalate to a vote against lunalee pretty quickly. Thing is, I remember SVS being like that, taking a stand and landing it firmly, so I'm not seeing a baddie inclination here. Also, SVS has asked several times for people to clarify whether this sounds like civ luna, and no one has responded, which echoes for me back to my last game where I had a lot of new faces to figure out and kept asking for advice on metas.

So I'm not suspecting SVS, but I at least see what sig had noticed.

Just a couple thoughts:
Dana and Nova haven't shown up at all yet as far as I saw. Are there plans for replacement if they don't?

Yeah Bob does seem a little all over the place I'll have to look more into that. Not sure if that's where drwilgys suspicion comes from? from what I can tell all drwilgy did was vote with no explanation and then go away with no explanation. I'm always wary of the random no explanation votes even if just a minimal one.

Also someone asked what valid points there were against sloonei and the genuine comment could be taken as an unnecessary statement but I'm not putting my suspicion on them right now. I see their posting as more stirring things up and getting people talking.

Trying to keep up the best I can with everything lots of people playing this game so much to read. Also I dont own a computer so phone typing is obnoxious sometimes blah.

timmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:02 pm So I guess if when sig said bloodthirsty, he meant aggressive, I can sort of see what he is seeing in SVS' posts, she did escalate to a vote against lunalee pretty quickly. Thing is, I remember SVS being like that, taking a stand and landing it firmly, so I'm not seeing a baddie inclination here. Also, SVS has asked several times for people to clarify whether this sounds like civ luna, and no one has responded, which echoes for me back to my last game where I had a lot of new faces to figure out and kept asking for advice on metas.

So I'm not suspecting SVS, but I at least see what sig had noticed.

Hmmmm yeah, I somehow remember this too. SVS being aggro is NAI. Or at least not mafia indicative.

sabie12 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:02 pm Just a couple thoughts:
Dana and Nova haven't shown up at all yet as far as I saw. Are there plans for replacement if they don't?

Yeah Bob does seem a little all over the place I'll have to look more into that. Not sure if that's where drwilgys suspicion comes from? from what I can tell all drwilgy did was vote with no explanation and then go away with no explanation. I'm always wary of the random no explanation votes even if just a minimal one.

Also someone asked what valid points there were against sloonei and the genuine comment could be taken as an unnecessary statement but I'm not putting my suspicion on them right now. I see their posting as more stirring things up and getting people talking.

Trying to keep up the best I can with everything lots of people playing this game so much to read. Also I dont own a computer so phone typing is obnoxious sometimes blah.

I can’t imagine playing without a computer. You have my sympathy.

I think nova checked in with a single post. He’s been AWOL early in games a bit recently, but I’ve seen him get involved later as well. I’ve never played with Dana before and they were the last person to sign up. I believe LC/BR have at least one replacement lined up.

I like cbob’s posts. “All over the place” is a good quality to have on Day 1 most of the time, I think. I haven’t scrutinized him heavily, but every time I’ve looked at one of his posts I’ve found his tone to be generally agreeable.

Nevermind this ISO shit is feeling lame I'm not getting any meat.

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:17 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:40 pm Anyway I've ranked the people who have currently voted from most to least suspicious as of me typing this post without being linkied into any other votes:


Cbob - "His posting" is a funny but ultimately hollow and wormy way to explain the Colin vote
Chuck - Did not give a reason for his DDL vote which IIRC came close to if not directly after Epi said he'd be voting DDL. Chuck pulling up to the train station early AF to save himself a seat.
Sloonei - Voting for anyone based on other people's reasons for suspecting people is suspicious to me. Make your own points. Stand on your own ground.
TH - Early vote for Sorsha for a hollow, funny reason. Doesn't look serious. Sorsha's not done anything overtly suspicious. Could be buddying/distancing but not worth losing my shit over instantly.
Epi - His DDL vote makes sense, he gave a good reason and was consistent.

There's something specific that led to my vote but I don't want to share yet because I'd rather see how he handles the pressure

So far: not great, bob

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:11 pm

juliets wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:50 pm

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:25 pm

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:48 am Hmm good, we've started actually playing.

Epi, you still feeling DDL?

SVS could be obliquely defending sabie or poking Sloonei. Not a big fan of sabie's response.

Jackofhearts2005 want to trust team? Coming back to a 30 player fancy game is intimidating and I need to find a handhold somewhere.

Update: I no longer want to trust team you.

Looks like a lot of people busy this weekend... including me (as I will be away most of today).

[VOTE: ColinIsCool] aubergine

So bob, you mention Epi's DDL suspicion and say you are not a fan of sable's responses but then vote Colin. Could you share why you voted him?

Yeah, saw him reading the thread and that he hadn't put a vote down yet. Wanted to see if anything had changed.

Not a fan but it's also hardly damning, and iirc sabie was traveling so not likely to get much right away.

His posting.

I think I just find Bob's posts to be confusing. Such as the "his posting" and saying theres specific reasons but not wanting to share. Maybe I'm just reading wrong or not understanding what's being said.

And yeah trying to type all this on the phone literally takes me forever haha ugh but I'm doing my best.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:15 pm Nevermind this ISO shit is feeling lame I'm not getting any meat.

Did you find anyone that stands out as a suspect, even just a little?

[VOTE: sig] aubergine

just to see how it feels

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:15 pm Nevermind this ISO shit is feeling lame I'm not getting any meat.

Did you find anyone that stands out as a suspect, even just a little?

I only did like 10 of them but of the 10 I like Cbob as a suspect the most.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:20 pm [VOTE: sig] aubergine

just to see how it feels

Gonna vote either Cbob or Sloonei tbh

I’m not a fan of DHs iso, it’s to early in the game to do proper ones imo and is a good way for mafia to be involved but say very little.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

This deepens my concern.

It gives the impression that you were simply seeking to agree with a suspicion somebody had put forward, any suspicion, without checking it out for yourself.

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:23 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

This deepens my concern.

It gives the impression that you were simply seeking to agree with a suspicion somebody had put forward, any suspicion, without checking it out for yourself.

I already said I was skimming and not going to be super focused the first few days so you going after me for a simple mistake is whatever.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:20 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:15 pm Nevermind this ISO shit is feeling lame I'm not getting any meat.

Did you find anyone that stands out as a suspect, even just a little?

I only did like 10 of them but of the 10 I like Cbob as a suspect the most.

Let's flesh that read out some more then. What are the biggest points against him?

And I actually liked ddl looking over the roles earlier in the game. It’s typical of his civ meta.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:24 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:23 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

This deepens my concern.

It gives the impression that you were simply seeking to agree with a suspicion somebody had put forward, any suspicion, without checking it out for yourself.

I already said I was skimming and not going to be super focused the first few days so you going after me for a simple mistake is whatever.

I still do not like it. It reads as bloodthirsty.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:21 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:19 pm

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 2:18 pm As in shes being bloodthirsty so a better look for Luna then svs. Buuuuut, I can't read SVS.

And yeah that's a good description of how I'm feeling about mac. I'd rather not lynch him today though.

My beef with sig's "bloodthirsty" descriptor for SVS is that SVS wasn't really in a position to be bloodthirsty. I used the same word to describe Luna for her part in this exchange. Luna was latching onto an established bandwagon (Colin), so her behavior struck me as bloodthirsty because it could be opportunistic, supplying momentum to a vulnerable player.

SVS, on the other hand, went after a player (Luna) who had no pre-existing suspicion against her. She's creating an entirely new dialogue about Luna, whereas Luna was tacking onto something that was already there. I do not see that as bloodthirsty behavior; there was no blood to be thirsty toward. I am confused by sig's application of that word and concerned that he was misrepresenting things from a dishonest perspective.

Oops yeah I switched those around, I thought you said that about SVS, though I’d still say svs seemed to have been a bit agreessive.

Can you sort of reset this ? How did you first notice thur posts of Svs and Luna, and where did your thoughts kind of start being?

Being=brewing, fuck this phone.

I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. [mention]sig[/mention] were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

[mention]DharmaHelper[/mention], I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

I'm quoting Juliets but addressing both Juliets and Sloonei

I sorta covered it in my ISO of Cbob but his Colin vote is sketchy and I don't like his sort of pokey/proding posts RE: Sabie and some others.

sig wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:22 pm I’m not a fan of DHs iso, it’s to early in the game to do proper ones imo and is a good way for mafia to be involved but say very little.

Cool.

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

So I was saying that about SVS, Luna’s action seem normal or st least not bad. While SVS seemed to have been using Luna’s suspicion of Colin to place a vote.

So is suspect SVS atm.

What is cbob generally like? I don't think I know him.

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

I think you and I are equally confused, lol. I need sig to sort of start over and explain his thoughts from the start.

DharmaHelper wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:33 pm

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

I'm quoting Juliets but addressing both Juliets and Sloonei

I sorta covered it in my ISO of Cbob but his Colin vote is sketchy and I don't like his sort of pokey/proding posts RE: Sabie and some others.

Thanks DH I'll ISO him.

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:25 pm

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:48 am Hmm good, we've started actually playing.

Epi, you still feeling DDL?

SVS could be obliquely defending sabie or poking Sloonei. Not a big fan of sabie's response.

Jackofhearts2005 want to trust team? Coming back to a 30 player fancy game is intimidating and I need to find a handhold somewhere.

Update: I no longer want to trust team you.

Looks like a lot of people busy this weekend... including me (as I will be away most of today).

[VOTE: ColinIsCool] aubergine

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:48 am Hmm good, we've started actually playing.

Epi, you still feeling DDL?

SVS could be obliquely defending sabie or poking Sloonei. Not a big fan of sabie's response.

Jackofhearts2005 want to trust team? Coming back to a 30 player fancy game is intimidating and I need to find a handhold somewhere.

colonialbob wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:06 am

sabie12 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:15 am I do see some valid points on the case against sloonei but I also can see that as a playstyle thing. It's been awhile since I've been here but I know sometimes people just go in guns blazing and start accusing people and get the conversation going. It's not my thing but some people are good at that.
Also just wondering why if someone is a top poster they shouldn't be voted for. Just in the sense that they do get people talking and a conversation happening?

What are the valid points you see?

I think these are the relevant posts to DH's cbob suspicion. Can you tell me what you see that's suspicious, [mention]DharmaHelper[/mention]? He doesn't explain the Colin vote, perhaps [mention]colonialbob[/mention] should do that. I can't say I have a problem with him questioning sabie. I notice that there are two separate instances of him being mildly critical of sabie, which could be alarming in certain circumstances. I don't know that this fits any of those though.
Why are these things suspicious?

timmer wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:35 pm

juliets wrote: ↑Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:31 pm I'm confused about the bloodthirsty comment. @sig were you saying that about S~V~S or Luna?

@DharmaHelper, I'd really like to hear about your cbob suspicion.

I think you and I are equally confused, lol. I need sig to sort of start over and explain his thoughts from the start.

Me too. @sig, walk us through your thought process step by step RE: luna and SVS, please and thanks.