The Syndicate

Mordecai wrote: Secondly I have great disdain for the fact that you are placing some kind of "value" rating on players. Get off your high horse. It makes it seem like you think some people are expendable and I do not agree with that in the slightest.

People who don't post or vote are more expendable than people who do. Fact. Horsemen are more expendable than civilians. Fact. I have a headache and my knee is acting up. Storm's a comin'. Bah.

I've been asked this before and I see people talking about it now. Yes, I'd rather a silent player is NK, because when they're not participating, it makes it very hard to decide whether they're good or bad.
If someone is bad and is barely posting and laying low, I'd consider their win pathetic. Anyone can play it safe, do nothing in the game and let everyone wait on them to come, while seeing all the high posters get lynched or NK.

So to answer Rachel's question: No, not every low poster deserves to get lynched. If their posts have enough substance and quality in them, I think it's okay. People have lives, and we all get it. But while one can talk more than the other and that would be fine, if you just come in at the end of the day, post a noncomittal post and then vote, or worse, be absent for a few days every game, in my opinion you're hurting the civvie cause, and I don't mind lynching you.

That's not to say that if I have a better case, I won't follow it. But sometimes, when you don't, lynching a low poster is fine by me.


And now, back to my thoughts ...in a new post

Lot, while I feel good about you too after the first initial suspicion, I don't agree on Absalom. I do think he is somehow told to do the Bah thing, and I agree with Isac who said that killing those 3 people was just going to get him unwanted attention. Why not just kill randomly, or people who are suspicious of him? If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't risk it. I'm not him, so I don't know what he would do, but it just seems silly to do that.

Mordecai wrote:

Absalom wrote:

Mordecai wrote:

Isaac wrote:
Also, Mordecai, can we have your sober opinion now that we have an extension?

I barely remember making that post, but they say a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts so I'll stick by it.

Basically the condensed version is that I feel like him making that post was unnecessary fluff. If you're a civ, you shouldnt like a night kill period, no matter who dies. Saying "RIP" and what not is one thing, but specifically stating to the thread that you didnt like the nightkill and that you disagree with it seems weird to me. I'm unsure on whether or not that makes him bad, but I don't like it. It seems like over compensation. Like in a movie where somebody kills another character and they really oversell their reaction to the cops. It just seems off.

There's no one in the game you would mourn more than anyone else? Bah, I don't have time for this. My feet hurt, and the beer is getting warm.

Quoting this from you previous post for context on the matter

Yeah, a Horseman would have been nice. Or maybe someone who is not contributing. It's disingenuous to pretend that all living players are equally valuable. Paul was contributing. Others aren't, so yeah, I would have preferred a different kill. Bah.

Well I mean somewhat. It sucks that he's dead because he was at least making conversation for when he was able to talk, and the thread is less active without him. But surely you see why I think it's wrong that you would go "I would have much preferred that you guys kill Player A instead"? We don't want town deaths because it hurts our numbers, no matter who it is that died. Anybody can become valuable at any point in time. Just because they arent doing it now, doesnt mean they wont later.

Secondly I have great disdain for the fact that you are placing some kind of "value" rating on players. Get off your high horse. It makes it seem like you think some people are expendable and I do not agree with that in the slightest.

What worries me about your posts is that you talk about Absalom and how him saying he would have liked the baddies to kill someone else is wrong and how it irritates you, that it's fluff and overcompensation....yet you say you're not sure it makes him bad and end up just being annoyed. If that's the case, why are you wasting time talking about him? I thought the game was about finding baddies.

Jephthah wrote: What worries me about your posts is that you talk about Absalom and how him saying he would have liked the baddies to kill someone else is wrong and how it irritates you, that it's fluff and overcompensation....yet you say you're not sure it makes him bad and end up just being annoyed. If that's the case, why are you wasting time talking about him? I thought the game was about finding baddies.

I was asked what I thought of him. That was my answer. Had I not been asked about Absalom I probably wouldnt even be talking about him.
The kills do feel more like a potential frame, but why would the heathens try to frame him specifically? If they wanted him dead why wouldnt they just kill him?

This game isn't making any sense.

Also why did Lazarus lock onto Absalom because of the Cain lynch? 7 other people voted for him, yet you pop up after 2 days and call him out specifically? Why just him? I feel like you asked me my opinion just to see if I would help you build your case.

Mordecai wrote:

Jephthah wrote: What worries me about your posts is that you talk about Absalom and how him saying he would have liked the baddies to kill someone else is wrong and how it irritates you, that it's fluff and overcompensation....yet you say you're not sure it makes him bad and end up just being annoyed. If that's the case, why are you wasting time talking about him? I thought the game was about finding baddies.

I was asked what I thought of him. That was my answer. Had I not been asked about Absalom I probably wouldnt even be talking about him.
The kills do feel more like a potential frame, but why would the heathens try to frame him specifically? If they wanted him dead why wouldnt they just kill him?

This game isn't making any sense.

Also why did Lazarus lock onto Absalom because of the Cain lynch? 7 other people voted for him, yet you pop up after 2 days and call him out specifically? Why just him? I feel like you asked me my opinion just to see if I would help you build your case.

This is actually something I've been thinking about too, not just Lazarus, but others as well. Why did everyone suddenly focus on Absalom?

And this is exactly what we need to be looking at. Thank you both for this.

We have a lot of anal players this game j/k. But really, all the lists on how many posts payers have made etc.- t is helpful to a point. I know I am not a big poster, but I do want my friends to know that I am here. It is my understanding that we may have a lot of new-to-syndicate players this game. The player wearing the Esther sock is more actively involved than you think. I am actively observant. I will post when I see it necessary. I don't think it is always helpful to share everything that comes to my mind. I sit back a maul, if you will. But....when I see something that catches my eye and think I have found a baddie, I am usually right. So you just wait for it. I will be helpful to you guys. Just be patient with me. I am a bad ass civ underneath this quiet exterior.

Now I will go catch up in the thread

Absalom wrote:
It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.

Absalom I hope you don't mind that i cut your post down to this one line. The original had quotes and all but all I want to ask about is this one line. What do you mean about the monkey business going on that's not being called out? I didn't see any further explanation.

Also, i just read all of your posts and it seems obvious to me that all of your Bahs and complaints and general bad mood has been caused by some kind of curse. The change from your normal style to this new style was abrupt. I also did not see anything I personally am suspicious of at the moment so I am not looking to you for a vote unless something big comes up to change my mind.

Jonathan wrote:

Absalom wrote:
It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.

Absalom I hope you don't mind that i cut your post down to this one line. The original had quotes and all but all I want to ask about is this one line. What do you mean about the monkey business going on that's not being called out? I didn't see any further explanation.

Also, i just read all of your posts and it seems obvious to me that all of your Bahs and complaints and general bad mood has been caused by some kind of curse. The change from your normal style to this new style was abrupt. I also did not see anything I personally am suspicious of at the moment so I am not looking to you for a vote unless something big comes up to change my mind.

Oh I'm just mad in general, but particularly at the things that are getting people suspected. People aren't connecting the "I noticed this" to the "this makes him likely to be bad" dots. They are just jumping from one to the other. Also, I have to work this weekend and how is that fair? There's a rock in my shoe. Bah.

Yeeeaaaah. I'm sticking to my guns on the Absalom issue. I got your back, man!

Isaac wrote:Thank you for these, Rachel. I found myself in the same mind set as you when reading through Jobs reactions to Pauls absence from the thread. I found that quite odd. I'm glad you pulled Paul's case against Job, although I would have said that it wasn't necessary to sway me. I did not realize how flippant Job was with his accusations. He throws out quite a few names and then pursues none of them, as Paul states, but then is relentless in trying to take down Uzziah. Who, imo, is least likely to turn up heathen at this point.

I've seen this playstyle before. A player throws out a bunch of names in the beginning to guage reactions and then goes hard after the one that seems most defensive. It sometimes works for the player, keeping the attention off of himself, but Uzziah doesn't seem to be taking the bait as much as Job thought he would.

Mordecai wrote:Actually nevermind. I see that the poll ends on monday, not today. Tin Foil hat deactivated.

That would have been a good eye though Mordecai. I think Epi always gives an extra day if there is a holiday (like Mothers Day).

Absalom wrote:

Mordecai wrote: Secondly I have great disdain for the fact that you are placing some kind of "value" rating on players. Get off your high horse. It makes it seem like you think some people are expendable and I do not agree with that in the slightest.

People who don't post or vote are more expendable than people who do. Fact. Horsemen are more expendable than civilians. Fact. I have a headache and my knee is acting up. Storm's a comin'. Bah.

I do understand that those who are more verbal seem could be more valuable, but I have to chime in here and say that its best to keep civs alive, quiet or not.

I am also pleased that we have an extra day for this phase, because I've had a pretty busy weekend myself.

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Welcome back, Esther, and nice to see you focused on the game, but could you perhaps give us any leads you may have so far? I think we need more reads from different people, right now, even if you personally don't feel ready to rule a verdict on anyone or such.


I really need to read back on everything posted by Absalom or Balaam, to see if I didn't miss anything dubious, but as far as Absalom's posts today go, I find it clear that he has received some kind of curse with his bad-tempered comments and the "bah"s, which makes his post about Paul's death totally influenced by the curse, meaning Mordecai's accusation that no civ would speak of a night kill this way is misguided, at least.

Re: Balaam's lists, I have seen this kind of criticism towards such list making and analysis before and it has never led to any serious charge or an indication of that person being bad. I personally don't disapprove of his lists - I'm not getting any significant lead out of them either, but it doesn't feel like he is faking helpfulness with them.

To honor Solomon's message is to look into what he has pointed out: Cain's voters from Day 1 and 2, plus Bathsheba in particular. The former are Absalom, Balaam and Deborah. Absalom didn't like Cain Day 1 and felt even worse about him on Day 2, making a case on him and voting accordingly; Cain flipped civ, Absalom expressed sorrow over it. Looks like a hunting gone bad to me. Balaam pushed for Cain to be "second wagon" on Day 1, treated him as "leftover" Day 2, Cain's lurking felt suspicious to him, he voted. To be honest, Deborah looks least good of all thre: she didn't maintain her focus on Cain during Day 2, she talked about other suspects instead, yet she resorted to vote for him again in the end, saying she did not find any better suspect.

Re: Bathsheba, I would only reiterate for the third time how his reasoning for voting Cain reads like. I'm more interested right now why Jeph and Mordecai have, instead, found nothing dubious about it Sure, it may not mean for certain that she is the blendy, wagony Heathen that we're looking for, nevertheless her reasoning was very blendy and wagon-like.

One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

Belshazzar wrote:One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

Oh snap! My back hurts.

Forgive me my brethren for I have sinned. I straight up forgot about this game. time to read up on what Ive missed and Ill share my comments soon

Absalom wrote:

Jonathan wrote:

Absalom wrote:
It's a complaint to everyone, because it's too hot and there's a lot of monkey business going on here that's not being called out, and I hate it. Bah.

Absalom I hope you don't mind that i cut your post down to this one line. The original had quotes and all but all I want to ask about is this one line. What do you mean about the monkey business going on that's not being called out? I didn't see any further explanation.

Also, i just read all of your posts and it seems obvious to me that all of your Bahs and complaints and general bad mood has been caused by some kind of curse. The change from your normal style to this new style was abrupt. I also did not see anything I personally am suspicious of at the moment so I am not looking to you for a vote unless something big comes up to change my mind.

Oh I'm just mad in general, but particularly at the things that are getting people suspected. People aren't connecting the "I noticed this" to the "this makes him likely to be bad" dots. They are just jumping from one to the other. Also, I have to work this weekend and how is that fair? There's a rock in my shoe. Bah.

I think we really need to make a good decision this day, so I think we should bring up as many names as possible. In the last 2 days, there were 2 leading candidates for the lynch without real talk about all the rest. It ended up in people coming in and just voting poorly.
At this stage, I think it's better if we jump from one person to another, and hopefully end up landing on the right person

Belshazzar wrote:I am also pleased that we have an extra day for this phase, because I've had a pretty busy weekend myself.

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Welcome back, Esther, and nice to see you focused on the game, but could you perhaps give us any leads you may have so far? I think we need more reads from different people, right now, even if you personally don't feel ready to rule a verdict on anyone or such.


I really need to read back on everything posted by Absalom or Balaam, to see if I didn't miss anything dubious, but as far as Absalom's posts today go, I find it clear that he has received some kind of curse with his bad-tempered comments and the "bah"s, which makes his post about Paul's death totally influenced by the curse, meaning Mordecai's accusation that no civ would speak of a night kill this way is misguided, at least.

Re: Balaam's lists, I have seen this kind of criticism towards such list making and analysis before and it has never led to any serious charge or an indication of that person being bad. I personally don't disapprove of his lists - I'm not getting any significant lead out of them either, but it doesn't feel like he is faking helpfulness with them.

To honor Solomon's message is to look into what he has pointed out: Cain's voters from Day 1 and 2, plus Bathsheba in particular. The former are Absalom, Balaam and Deborah. Absalom didn't like Cain Day 1 and felt even worse about him on Day 2, making a case on him and voting accordingly; Cain flipped civ, Absalom expressed sorrow over it. Looks like a hunting gone bad to me. Balaam pushed for Cain to be "second wagon" on Day 1, treated him as "leftover" Day 2, Cain's lurking felt suspicious to him, he voted. To be honest, Deborah looks least good of all thre: she didn't maintain her focus on Cain during Day 2, she talked about other suspects instead, yet she resorted to vote for him again in the end, saying she did not find any better suspect.

Re: Bathsheba, I would only reiterate for the third time how his reasoning for voting Cain reads like. I'm more interested right now why Jeph and Mordecai have, instead, found nothing dubious about it Sure, it may not mean for certain that she is the blendy, wagony Heathen that we're looking for, nevertheless her reasoning was very blendy and wagon-like.

Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.
In any case, I didn't say she isn't bad, just that I don't see anything that looks more evil then any other of the voters. I thought the reasons for voting Cain were bad, so none of them felt good to me.

I'm more leary of the early voters for Cain, and the later voters for people with only a few or no votes. For example, Lazarus, who also latched on the Absalom suspicion, and Rebeca who voted for me, even though this may look as a NoU. They were the 17th and 18th voters. What good would their votes have done. So easy to come in late and vote. You can always say you didn't have time to convince others not to vote for the person who was lynched. My vote might be going to one of them

And that's a good point about Rachel.

That said, I think that Balaam's lists are bothering me less. It's like he doesn't care what we think. He's been called out on the unproductive lists, yet he keeps doing them anyway. Makes me feel much better about him.

Belshazzar: I assumed Isaac meant he had just replaced into the game, but I'm not entirely sure. It seemed like he was implying he had yet to catch up on the thread.

I've been trying to keep up however, there hasn't been anything to stick out to me. I recall reading there being two lynch candidates but I haven't found anything that sheds light on why. Is it possible for someone to give a breakdown on what has occured? I want to make a better informed decision.

Sorry all, life getting in the way. I will be catching up tomorrow morning.

Isaac wrote:

Lot wrote:Now Absalom feels soooo closely linked with three out of four deaths. For me there are really only two possibilities - either Absalom is bad, or the heathen really have it in for him and are trying to set him up to look bad.

So, Lot, this is the only thing I find myself agreeing with in your expansive post against Absalom. And I'm surprised you're not more willing to consider this a possibility. As I've stated in a previous post, I believe that someone may be trying to control him in some way that causes him to be very angsty today. I'm also surprised that noone else seems to be talking about the possibility of Absalom being framed. Imo, Absalom is such an obvious link between 3 of the 4 deaths so far that I think there actually is a pattern between the NKs. And it's not that they were annoying.

Yeah I gotta agree if anything it points to a setup. From my experience a team of five isnt gonna follow the whims of one member. if Absalom is a heathen he doesnt have total control over the kills. But the heathens as a group might decide to make the kills that will incriminate him. Odd that Lot isnt considering this possibility more and the fact that hes pushing this angle causes me to trust him a little less. Would not be surprised to find myself voting for Lot as I feel theres been a few posts of his that have stood out to me in a bad way like this

Rahab wrote:This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Makes it harder for mafia to latch onto other peoples wrong thoughts too now doesnt it
Something about this post Rahab. Something about this post. makes me think you want people talking for all the wrong reasons. since you complain about no one talking but dont bring up any talking points except to ask balaam about his lists or whatever. you want us to do the dirty work so you can help us stone one of our Lord's chosen
Got my eye on ye Rahab

Jephthah wrote:Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.

Well yeah she didnt have to but she did. And as a heathen she may have felt that it would appear to be the most genuine looking vote she could muster. Look at Sheba's other posts in the game theres not many of them but they all talk about Cain. It would have stood out if she voted for anybody else. And I'm thinking she doesnt want to stand out.

But guys I think Deborah is a whale check this out

CHAPTER I

Deborah wrote:

Pilate wrote: What does it tell you specifically?

You do not think that there is a chance Cain is bad? And that him picking up some votes may have made it a lot easier for people to vote for Samson?

And to Rachel, here is how I work. I read the thread in general, but I prefer to click the "in topic" button and read a player's post in order. It is easier to see apathy, suspicious tendencies, over-posting about useless crap to hide a lack of real content, etc. So I read through the people who hd acted on the poll and those getting votes, and Cain pinged me. I am sorry that you do not like that. I can write a gigantic wall post breaking down my thoughts on every single player if you want, but it feels like ever since I voted for Cain that you and a few friends have been actively TRYING to make this into a thing, and you are not even bothering to consider that my ping may be right and that those votes against him were proper. I am sorry, but I am not going to apologize for that vote.

CHAPTER II

Deborah wrote:

Absalom wrote:I think it's weird that Cain disappeared today. Did he hope I would forget about him? I forget nothing!

I think it is weird that a lot of people are not posting. No Paul, no Cain, no a bunch of less chatty people. There is only one silencer. Paul I could see silencing, tbh.

Deborah wrote:

Malchus wrote:I think things point more to Cain being bad than Uzz.

Only in for a moment. I didn't like Cain yesterday and I haven't found a better case to replace it, so he gets my vote again.

I dont like the way Deborah quotes other players posts to prop up her own suspicions without actually saying things like I agree. Feels like theres some subtle manipulation going on here. Solomon asked us to look at the late voters but I think the middle voters are more suspicious. They don't wanna start something but they don't wanna end it either. Deborah falls squarely in that range in my book.

My stone is probably getting thrown in Deb's direction because her posts feel slimy to me. Check it out all ye faithful and tell me if you agree or disagree. On page 1 you can find a filter of only Deb's posts I suggest ye all take a look and tell me what you see because Im seeing a whale
I know Ive been quiet lately but we gotta start talking or we'll never figure out whos trying to swallow us up and whos really trying to help
Right now we're all just blending together and that doesnt speak well of our chances to beat the evildoers

Belshazzar wrote:One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

Belshazzar, I really think you could be on to something here. I am now most likely to vote for Rachel.

I need to start sticking to my own opinions. If he doesnt show up today, I may vote Lazarus. Absent for two days, calls out specifically 1 of 7 Cain voters with very little reasoning, then asks me my opinion and never comes back again. That and knowing who he is, he is probably blowing off this game for a different one if the other game threads are any indication. He's been here, but he hasnt been here

Oh Holy Landers, so sorry. The non Biblical world kind of kicked my butt this weekend. I will read back and catch up today, but if I do not get caught all the way back up, I will be at work when the poll ends, but hopefully will be caught up. If not I suppose I will vote for Uzziah who was the person I would have voted for were I not silenced the other day. But work should be fairly slow today.

I look forward to reading back and seeing if we ever figured out (or had any good theories) about what happened that day.

In for a bit: That's awfully convenient, Pilate. "Thank you active player for helping me decide who I might vote for."

I hope Deborah will be true to her word and try to catch up. Also, if Bathsheba will join us once again only at the end of the Day without much reasoning behind her vote, I would consider trusting Solomon's advice and voting for her.

And I see Ruth has again implied she wasn't able to vote on Day 2, whilst being silenced, although if she claims she was silenced the same way Paul, (presumably) Cain and myself were, then she would have been able to vote.

'll be catching up today, very busy weekend, and a very busy week coming up. If I can make it through I will be able to contribute much more.

Jonah wrote:

Isaac wrote:

Lot wrote:Now Absalom feels soooo closely linked with three out of four deaths. For me there are really only two possibilities - either Absalom is bad, or the heathen really have it in for him and are trying to set him up to look bad.

So, Lot, this is the only thing I find myself agreeing with in your expansive post against Absalom. And I'm surprised you're not more willing to consider this a possibility. As I've stated in a previous post, I believe that someone may be trying to control him in some way that causes him to be very angsty today. I'm also surprised that noone else seems to be talking about the possibility of Absalom being framed. Imo, Absalom is such an obvious link between 3 of the 4 deaths so far that I think there actually is a pattern between the NKs. And it's not that they were annoying.

Yeah I gotta agree if anything it points to a setup. From my experience a team of five isnt gonna follow the whims of one member. if Absalom is a heathen he doesnt have total control over the kills. But the heathens as a group might decide to make the kills that will incriminate him. Odd that Lot isnt considering this possibility more and the fact that hes pushing this angle causes me to trust him a little less. Would not be surprised to find myself voting for Lot as I feel theres been a few posts of his that have stood out to me in a bad way like this

Rahab wrote:This is probably the quietest full game I've ever played. It's great for catching up on RL busy days, but terrible for finding things to catch mafia on. Or for much conversation, really.

Makes it harder for mafia to latch onto other peoples wrong thoughts too now doesnt it
Something about this post Rahab. Something about this post. makes me think you want people talking for all the wrong reasons. since you complain about no one talking but dont bring up any talking points except to ask balaam about his lists or whatever. you want us to do the dirty work so you can help us stone one of our Lord's chosen
Got my eye on ye Rahab

Jephthah wrote:Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.

Well yeah she didnt have to but she did. And as a heathen she may have felt that it would appear to be the most genuine looking vote she could muster. Look at Sheba's other posts in the game theres not many of them but they all talk about Cain. It would have stood out if she voted for anybody else. And I'm thinking she doesnt want to stand out.

But guys I think Deborah is a whale check this out

CHAPTER I

Deborah wrote:

Pilate wrote: What does it tell you specifically?

You do not think that there is a chance Cain is bad? And that him picking up some votes may have made it a lot easier for people to vote for Samson?

And to Rachel, here is how I work. I read the thread in general, but I prefer to click the "in topic" button and read a player's post in order. It is easier to see apathy, suspicious tendencies, over-posting about useless crap to hide a lack of real content, etc. So I read through the people who hd acted on the poll and those getting votes, and Cain pinged me. I am sorry that you do not like that. I can write a gigantic wall post breaking down my thoughts on every single player if you want, but it feels like ever since I voted for Cain that you and a few friends have been actively TRYING to make this into a thing, and you are not even bothering to consider that my ping may be right and that those votes against him were proper. I am sorry, but I am not going to apologize for that vote.

CHAPTER II

Deborah wrote:

Absalom wrote:I think it's weird that Cain disappeared today. Did he hope I would forget about him? I forget nothing!

I think it is weird that a lot of people are not posting. No Paul, no Cain, no a bunch of less chatty people. There is only one silencer. Paul I could see silencing, tbh.

Deborah wrote:

Malchus wrote:I think things point more to Cain being bad than Uzz.

Only in for a moment. I didn't like Cain yesterday and I haven't found a better case to replace it, so he gets my vote again.

I dont like the way Deborah quotes other players posts to prop up her own suspicions without actually saying things like I agree. Feels like theres some subtle manipulation going on here. Solomon asked us to look at the late voters but I think the middle voters are more suspicious. They don't wanna start something but they don't wanna end it either. Deborah falls squarely in that range in my book.

My stone is probably getting thrown in Deb's direction because her posts feel slimy to me. Check it out all ye faithful and tell me if you agree or disagree. On page 1 you can find a filter of only Deb's posts I suggest ye all take a look and tell me what you see because Im seeing a whale
I know Ive been quiet lately but we gotta start talking or we'll never figure out whos trying to swallow us up and whos really trying to help
Right now we're all just blending together and that doesnt speak well of our chances to beat the evildoers

Good that you're back. I can see the blendy factor in Deborah's posts, and I think it was Belshazzar who brought her up earlier as well. I find the underlined sentence interesting because it feels like she's trying to sound aggressive and focused on finding baddies, when in fact, she hasn't done much. It's a possible vote for me, as are Rebecca and Lazarus at this point, as I've stated earlier

And I too can see myself going with Batsheba if she only comes in and throws a vote like that.
Rachel needs to explain why she accuses Absalom for something she did herself.

But the two underlined sentences are Lot's and Absalom's, respectively.

Belshazzar wrote:But the two underlined sentences are Lot's and Absalom's, respectively.

Haha, my mistake
It doesn't rule out the belndy factor, but at least she's not pretending to be something she's not.

I am trying to make up my mind who to vote for and noticing two things.
1. Uzziah, who was on the verge of being lynched the last two days, has gone eerily quiet.
2. The suspicion of him seems to have evaporated as well.

Do people no longer think he is bad? Is he being opportunistic and taking advantage of other suspects by laying low so we forget about him? (that's something anyone would do, bad or not, so I don't blame him for that.)

And I meant the second underlined. I didn't notice there was already an underlined one when I quoted it.


Uzziah and Job went quiet this day. While Job said he was going to be MIA untill today, Uzziah didn't. They both just said they'll vote each other and that's it. I hope Job will have time to stop by before the day ends. As for Uzziah, I've given up on him actually trying to help. Question is, does it make him a baddie? I'd vote for him just for being annoying, but I'm not sure it will help the civvie cause. If whoever said they are going for the annoying is right, Uzziah, assuming he isn't a baddie, should be next on their list

Linki: great minds.

Who wants another bodacious Balaam list? My thoughts on people:

ABSALOM: I think the reason people latched onto him today is because of his 'bah' stuff and the Negative Nancy attitude. I agree with others that it sounds manufactured, leading me to believe Absalom was hit by some kind of curse. I don't feel comfortable voting for him today because of this. I'd rather we confirm it with him Day 4.

BALAAM: This cat is totally chill. No worries about him at all. Plus he's got a mighty fine ass.

BARNABAS: Frustratedly neutral. He hasn't said anything since Day 1, where all he really talked about was Paul and Ruth. They're both dead, so He's also missed both votes.

BATHSHEBA: There's a chance Solomon was onto something with her. There's virtually no substance to any of her posts. Day 2 she says she is wary of voting for Cain, then says his lurking makes her wary, and then gives a crap reason for voting for Cain. Maybe it was a throwaway vote because it was pretty obvious Cain was going down at that point but she has not contributed anything of value to this game, missed a vote, and made a weak vote. Worth hearing more from her, frankly.

BELSHAZZAR: Neutral, probably because he's making an effort to play the game. He got suckered into both stonings. I disagree slightly with his assessment of Rachel. More on that when we get to her.

DEBORAH: Here's some irony for you:

Deborah wrote:And to Rachel, here is how I work. I read the thread in general, but I prefer to click the "in topic" button and read a player's post in order. It is easier to see apathy, suspicious tendencies, over-posting about useless crap to hide a lack of real content, etc. So I read through the people who hd acted on the poll and those getting votes, and Cain pinged me.

Her posts lack substance as well. She spends most of Day 1 going "wah, I'm catching up," admits she's not caught up but voted for Cain because she only bothered to look at the people who had "acted on the poll" (I'm guessing those who voted or got votes), which is a very weird way to go about things to me. She then clings to her weak reasoning the next day because she didn't see anything else noteworthy during Day 2. Funny, yet she found time to discuss Paul's absence and the Uzziah "root" post.

Deborah wrote:I'll tell you what. Prove to me Cain is civvie and I'll admit to being misguided.

You can confess to being misguided now. :P

ESTHER: No substance whatsoever Day 1 and 2, plus she missed both votes. Then she comes back with don't worry- I'm the strong silent type. When I single someone out, I'm usually right. She says she will post when she sees it is necessary. Well, frankly, posting in general is necessary. She's so far under the radar right now and she seems to suggest that it's by design.

GIDEON: No substance. Came out of nowhere to defend me for what I assume is a tone read. Was feeling bad about Lot Day 1- does he still think Lot is bad? I don't know but his last contribution was mentioning how Pilate sounds like pirate. Because that's helpful.

HAGAR: Neutral because there's almost no record of her playing. Voted random Day 1 and hasn't been back sense.

ISAAC: Neutral. Hard to tell now that he's apparently been replaced. We'll see how the new and improved Isaac does for a day or two.

JACOB: Part of the Samson train, hasn't commented on any of the Day 2 or Day 3 conversation. His posts are mostly fluff.

JEPHTHAH: Neutral, probably because he's been contributing.

JOB: The Uzziah obsession is a bit annoying and it was intriguing to see Paul turn on him after they were pretty tight Day 1. I'm not ready to vote for him yet. I have a theory about him but I can't elaborate just yet because I don't want to feed him any ideas to fake.

JONAH: Feeling slightly positive about him. He disappeared for a while, apologized, and then actually gave us a post with some substance. It helped open my eyes to Deborah.

JONATHAN: Very blendy and fence-sitting. His Day 2 vote for Uzziah feels a little soft but he claims it is logical. He posts enough to avoid low-poster suspicion but I'll have to re-read to see if his posts have enough meat on them.

JUDAH: Oh wait, he's still playing? His one post since the Preface stage:

Judah wrote:I've been trying to keep up however, there hasn't been anything to stick out to me. I recall reading there being two lynch candidates but I haven't found anything that sheds light on why. Is it possible for someone to give a breakdown on what has occured? I want to make a better informed decision.

He says he's been trying to keep up but nothing sticks out to him. Then asks for someone else to give him a breakdown of events so he can make an informed decision. Does he realize that a truly informed decision comes from doing your own work? For a while I though he had just forgot about the game, but this post is noticeably contradictory.

LAZARUS: Very little substance to find here. Also, this post is curious:

Lazarus wrote:The reason I assumed Cain was silenced is because Cain's name was in the thread lurking and not saying anything while taking votes.

It's defending his assumption that Cain was silenced. Unless lurking is a commone "hey, I'm silenced" tactic, why would someone say they assume anyone to be silenced? Maybe Cain was catching up? It's possible that this was a slip. Maybe Lazarus knew Cain was silenced, slipped, and tried to cover for cred.

LOT: Neutral but wary. I think he latched onto Absalom's PMS a little to much today. I'm also curious about this line:

Lot wrote:This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can. Expect a lot of words.

Does this mean he's away or he can only post once? I'd like to find out.

MALCHUS: He seems to think a lot like me, as far as thinking people might have been faking being silenced. A little light on posts but I feel his wavelength.

MARY MAGDALENE: No substance, voted hastily Day 1, missed a vote Day 2, responds almost only when she's addressed directly. Very succinct and vanilla posts. Very, very blendy.

MORDECAI: No read on him but I feel his concern re: Lazarus.

NICODEMUS: Not sure why, but I feel good about this guy. He actually tried to use my lists and seems to be pretty logical. I'd appreciate a little more Day 3 contributing though.

PILATE: I'm curious about him. No substance all game and today he gloms onto what I view as a weak case against Rachel. Seems he goes whichever way the wind blows.

RACHEL: I see nothing wrong with her apparent flip-flop on me. Lot was suspicious of me Day 1 but has warmed up to me and my lists. She just hasn't said much about why other than that she thinks I may be a certain player, which gives her a little more confidence in my style. I appreciate that she's been trying to drive discussion. We need to start doing that.

RAHAB: Not sure. She got hung up on Samson Day 1, was curious about the "Where's Paul?" peeps Day 2, and hasn't contributed much today. Seems to be hanging just under the radar. Can't tell if that's by design yet.

REBECCA: Contributed to Day 1 and has been more or less AWOL since. Voted for Jeph twice. Would be nice to hear whether she is still suspicious of him and why.

RUTH: I'm reserving judgement until she finally answers my question. Was she just silenced Day 2 or was she blocked from voting as well?

SAMUEL: Voted for Samson because Samson followed Paul's vote too easily. Total slacker the rest of the game. Hard to form an opinion when there's nothing to go on.

STEPHEN: Two posts all game. Day 1: announces a random vote. Day 2: self-votes for lack of participation. This is fishy to me only because it makes it very difficult to trace anything back to him if we catch a Heathen or Horseman. If he pulls this crap again Day 3, he may jump to the top of my list.

UZZIAH: Neutral. I still think he's just messing with us one way or the other. Good or bad, Heathens are probably hoping to use him as a smokescreen.


Five people I'm most wary of today (in no particular order):
-Bathsheba
-Deborah
-Esther
-Lazarus
-Mary Magdalene

Belshazzar wrote:And I see Ruth has again implied she wasn't able to vote on Day 2, whilst being silenced, although if she claims she was silenced the same way Paul, (presumably) Cain and myself were, then she would have been able to vote.

This concerns me as well. I mean, from my experience, when you are silenced, you can still vote. It just makes me wonder a bit. If you are civ, why lie about being silenced?

And, I think I will probably vote Job today. I know he said he would be MIA for a bit so that's not the reason. Its for what I said in an earlier post. He put a whole bunch of names out there in the beginning of the game seeing who would bite. Seems like a baddie play to me.

Oh, and I was going to say, even though he finds me a bit suspect, I like Balaam's lists. I have done them in the past (when there were less players) and I like it. It helps keep things organized in my mind. Kudos to him for doing it with so many players.

I'm sorry! I have been a fail this game. I will properly contribute as soon as I can.

Belshazzar wrote:One more thing that stuck out to me was how Rachel criticised Absalom this Day for criticising Balaam's list-making, with an intention of voting him for that

Absalom wrote:

Pilate wrote:I am not a pirate. Absalom seems especially negative today. I wonder what boils his blood?

No, it's not boils. I wish it were. Anything else would be preferable to this. I hate it. Bah.

Also, I want to lodge a complaint about Balaam's long, irrelevant lists. They make me want to vote for him, frankly.

Rachel wrote:Absalom, wanna elaborate on how that might make him bad? Or are you going to continue to act irrationally and condemn others for doing the same.

although she herself criticised Balaam's list-making on Day 2, with an intention of voting him for that

Rachel wrote:

Balaam wrote:Now then, on to other matters and curiosities. Here are some points to ponder as we close in on the next stoning:

A whopping 13 players have not posted during Day 2. That's 13 out of 32 living players, or 40.625%. Here's who has been playing hooky, how they've voted, and who they've commented +/- on:

<sorry, snipping the actual list>

Anyone see anything to infer from this data?

I might vote for you just because you are trying so so hard to be helpful without doing anything helpful.

I think this is a super good catch, so I am voting Rachel.

Balaam, I don't know if I can find the quote you pulled on Lazarus that dubious, because he wasn't the only player to have assumed Cain's lurking was a possibly signal of being silenced. So he simply doesn't stand out to me from the rest for this. I think Mordecai disapproved of another post Lazarus made (one in which he lashed at Absalom for the case he built on Cain)... although that also basically boils down to Lazarus' assumption that Cain was silenced, anyway.

Regarding Rachel, my only issue is that she has so far been very active and consistent in her inquiring, which is why her apparent "flip-flop" is simply too sudden, without visible continuity. It rather inspires me to believe she forgot from one Day to another about having made a similar accusation towards two different players; or, perhaps given her focus on Absalom, she instantly criticised him. Anyway, I'm missing the part in her posts where she felt better about your list-making, per se. I agree, however, it probably isn't enough for a vote, right now. Of course, Rachel's say in this is most welcome.

Totally off-topic, but I chuckle every time someone does a mass read and includes themselves saying they're totally cool cats and such. :P

linki @ Mary:
"I will contribute as soon as I can... but in the meantime, thank you active player for helping me skip all that and vote right away"

Balaam that was an excellent list of players so far in the game. I find myself confusing some people with others and this really helped me straighten them out in my mind. I agree with you on some of the important ones. I don't understand why Ruth is not answering your question and it's making me queasy. I agree with your assessment of Lazarus and both these people could end up with a vote from me. Mary Magdalene is also on my radar for both the hasty vote, the missing vote, and not posting much of anything else. It's hard to differentiate some of these low posters from one another but Mary at least has some stuff, not too much, to look at. I voted for Uzziah yesterday and haven't changed my mind but I'll consider what you said about Uzziah just messing with us. I'm also curious about Rebecca now and why she voted Jepth twice. He seems pretty reasonable to me so I will look back through her posts and see what I find as the vote reasons.

As far as your read on me I am having a harder time trying to find baddies in this game than usual. I'm a question asker and thats how I normally find my suspicions. It's hard when so many people are posting so little to find anything to dive deeper into to suss out areas that seem suspect. I'm hopeful that as the game goes on more players will post with their beliefs and opinions and I will have an easier time.

Also I agree that your posts of lists are not time or space fillers. I find it very helpful even though I haven't been able to infer anything yet except we have a lot of players not playing the game.

Did Lot explain his vote or did I miss it? I was wondering about it yesterday but I didn't see the explanation, unless he voted out of nowhere.

Also, this just popped in my head, but did anyone notice how, especially since Paul was killed, the game has rather normalized in terms of "scum-slang", quick "scum-reads" and others outlier language signs? I think there were a few players who hinted at being new at the start of the game, certainly sparking a bit of discussion about it, but now it seems they only played that card whilst Paul was being completely obvious about it. Maybe food for thought for Day 4, anyway.

linki: No, I don't think he did. This is the only reference to Rachel on Day 3 and it's a bit far from being inclined to vote for her:

Lot wrote:I find myself getting confused between the R ladies - Rachel, Rebecca and Ruth (not Rahab). On the whole, I find these ladies to be adding value, but I really need to go back and read them to see which ones I'm agreeing with the most. Jephthah I'm now very much over my day one suspicion, he seems to be hunting hard.

Hey everyone, I've read through the thread. I can see how my posts look blend, but it's a matter of life imitating art. It's not that I've tried to sound like I care but don't, it's that I've posted the honest intent to get active and participate but then my life has gotten in the way and I've had to make snap decisions.

For the moment, the easy thing to mention is Mary Magdalene. That vote post reeks, as do her posts. I'll be saying more soon, I just need to reread a few people.

And yes, I was clearly wrong about Cain, lol. I declare myself to have been misguided.

Lot wrote:
Absalom, who calls the killing of Paul a 'pattern'. I find this incredibly interesting. I don't think baddies tend to go for patterns... unless they can hide their real intention behind one.

I quite like this post from Lot. I find often baddies like to bring up their actions in the thread, if they feel that those actions should have warranted discussion. Like, a silencer will be more likely to be the person in the thread wondering of so-n-so was silenced. Here we've got Absalom pointing out a kill pattern directly. Could be his team is proud of their "kill annoying people" plan and he couldn't help get it out there?

I don't think it's enough to lynch him over, but it's worth noting.

I'm not liking the case against Rachel. Yes, her opinion of List Man seems a bit wishy washy, as she criticized someone else for the same opinion earlier, but it doesn't mean she's necessarily bad. Reading all of her other posts, I see a fairly active player who is making sense.

Pilate, however, in jumping on the Rachel thing, feels off.

I'm running out of time for my catchup but I feel like I'm getting back a handle on the game.

Belshazzar wrote:And I see Ruth has again implied she wasn't able to vote on Day 2, whilst being silenced, although if she claims she was silenced the same way Paul, (presumably) Cain and myself were, then she would have been able to vote.

Esther wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:And I see Ruth has again implied she wasn't able to vote on Day 2, whilst being silenced, although if she claims she was silenced the same way Paul, (presumably) Cain and myself were, then she would have been able to vote.

This concerns me as well. I mean, from my experience, when you are silenced, you can still vote. It just makes me wonder a bit. If you are civ, why lie about being silenced?

Jonathan wrote:I don't understand why Ruth is not answering your question and it's making me queasy.

Let's just ease up on the "gosh that is awfully fishy" rhetoric and wait for her to respond. We don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill or start an unnecessary bandwagon. She may have been skimming and glossed over my question. Now it's been mentioned enough times in the thread to be unavoidable (I think), so let's give her one more shot to give us a straight answer before breaking out the Jump-to-Conclusions mat.

Mordecai wrote:Did Lot explain his vote or did I miss it? I was wondering about it yesterday but I didn't see the explanation, unless he voted out of nowhere.

No, but his lone post of the day starts off with this:

Lot wrote:This is the only time I will be talking in the thread today, so I'm going to make it count as much as I can.

The fact that he voted for a completely different person makes me wonder if that line means "Hey guys, I can only make one post today and here's what I'm thinking right now." It could also mean "Hey guys, I'm going to be so busy today that this is the only post I'll be able to make, so here's what I'm thinking right now." I checked in on the game yesterday morning before breakfast and Lot had posted his comment but not voted. That means his vote came at least 5+ hours after he posted (his post was made at 3:15 and I ate breakfast at 8:30). I don't know when the vote came in but Lot's been one of the chattier of the bunch, so I can't see him changing up his mind and voting without sharing with us.


Hey Jeph, I'm curious about these three posts (generally curious, not "Ha!-I got you good f**ker" curious):

Jephthah wrote:Went to read Batsheba. Didn't find anything unsual there. She posted 5 posts, which desrves a lynch by itself, but other than that, I don't see much there.

Jephthah wrote:

Belshazzar wrote:I am also pleased that we have an extra day for this phase, because I've had a pretty busy weekend myself.

First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Welcome back, Esther, and nice to see you focused on the game, but could you perhaps give us any leads you may have so far? I think we need more reads from different people, right now, even if you personally don't feel ready to rule a verdict on anyone or such.


I really need to read back on everything posted by Absalom or Balaam, to see if I didn't miss anything dubious, but as far as Absalom's posts today go, I find it clear that he has received some kind of curse with his bad-tempered comments and the "bah"s, which makes his post about Paul's death totally influenced by the curse, meaning Mordecai's accusation that no civ would speak of a night kill this way is misguided, at least.

Re: Balaam's lists, I have seen this kind of criticism towards such list making and analysis before and it has never led to any serious charge or an indication of that person being bad. I personally don't disapprove of his lists - I'm not getting any significant lead out of them either, but it doesn't feel like he is faking helpfulness with them.

To honor Solomon's message is to look into what he has pointed out: Cain's voters from Day 1 and 2, plus Bathsheba in particular. The former are Absalom, Balaam and Deborah. Absalom didn't like Cain Day 1 and felt even worse about him on Day 2, making a case on him and voting accordingly; Cain flipped civ, Absalom expressed sorrow over it. Looks like a hunting gone bad to me. Balaam pushed for Cain to be "second wagon" on Day 1, treated him as "leftover" Day 2, Cain's lurking felt suspicious to him, he voted. To be honest, Deborah looks least good of all thre: she didn't maintain her focus on Cain during Day 2, she talked about other suspects instead, yet she resorted to vote for him again in the end, saying she did not find any better suspect.

Re: Bathsheba, I would only reiterate for the third time how his reasoning for voting Cain reads like. I'm more interested right now why Jeph and Mordecai have, instead, found nothing dubious about it Sure, it may not mean for certain that she is the blendy, wagony Heathen that we're looking for, nevertheless her reasoning was very blendy and wagon-like.

Batsheba was the last to vote for Cain. She didn't really have to do it, because it was the end of the day and he was getting lynched anyway. So to me, it's more likely that she's either a civvie who believed Cain was bad, or a baddie who thought he was another type of baddie, out of her group, if the horsemen are bad for example. Either way, it seems as though that's what she believed. Otherwise she just ends up looking like the worst bandwagoner.
In any case, I didn't say she isn't bad, just that I don't see anything that looks more evil then any other of the voters. I thought the reasons for voting Cain were bad, so none of them felt good to me.

I'm more leary of the early voters for Cain, and the later voters for people with only a few or no votes. For example, Lazarus, who also latched on the Absalom suspicion, and Rebeca who voted for me, even though this may look as a NoU. They were the 17th and 18th voters. What good would their votes have done. So easy to come in late and vote. You can always say you didn't have time to convince others not to vote for the person who was lynched. My vote might be going to one of them

Jephthah wrote:And I too can see myself going with Batsheba if she only comes in and throws a vote like that.
Rachel needs to explain why she accuses Absalom for something she did herself.

Why the shift in opinion on Bathsheba?

Belshazzar wrote:Balaam, I don't know if I can find the quote you pulled on Lazarus that dubious, because he wasn't the only player to have assumed Cain's lurking was a possibly signal of being silenced. So he simply doesn't stand out to me from the rest for this. I think Mordecai disapproved of another post Lazarus made (one in which he lashed at Absalom for the case he built on Cain)... although that also basically boils down to Lazarus' assumption that Cain was silenced, anyway.

.....

linki @ Mary:
"I will contribute as soon as I can... but in the meantime, thank you active player for helping me skip all that and vote right away"

Maybe I read Cain that way because I jumped through his filtered posts instead of the thread. It's possible I read it out of context that way or it seemed isolated.
Also, I agree with you about Mary's in-the-moment vote.

I'm also struggling with my own analysis now because it's hard to find that fine line between being a slack-ass and flying under the radar/blending on purpose in a sock game. Here's where having meta is actually a positive thing. In a sock game, we could have a bunch of players easing up on their effort because no one can put expectations on their game because we're all behind socks. It's too easy to read too far into something when you get on a roll and my brain is running overtime right now. I'm trying to take a step back and look for holes in my own reasoning on the quiet players I've singled out. To quote Absalom- Bah!

Belshazzar wrote:First off, I'd like Isaac (or perhaps The Host) to clarify what he meant by him being "technically Isaac 2.0"? I don't think we got any Host post about a replacement or a switch of any sorts.

Also, Isaac, I think you said you see nothing wrong with Uzziah's posts. It's certainly contrary to how Uzziah has been perceived throughout the game, thus far, so could you elaborate on that?

Seeing as I haven't been smited for saying that, I guess I can clarify. Yes, I am a replacement for Isaac 1.0.

As for Uzziah's comment: Why would a Heathen say they were cheering for the baddies in a game this big? I don't think anyone is that ballzy. Secondly: I don't know if it's been clarified yet but I personally read it as searching for the baddies. C: If he really was saying cheering for the scum, maybe he just has a thing for Jezebel.

Hope this helps. Now to catch up the rest of the way.
Holy Linki Plague, Balaam.