The Syndicate

kneel4justice wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Mongoose wrote: BUT if we can do a universal comparison to see which players NEITHER of them cited? I think that would be a good list to have, my friend.

This... sounds like a lot of work.

Ugh, I know. But it might be worth it. I'll see how bored I get at work tomorrow. I'm really curious.

That said, if anyone wants to step it up or do splitsies with me, don't be shy.

Are you suggesting that the remaining 2 members both went un-cited, or that someone else instead of Elo went un-cited and she is not their teammate?

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

Mongoose wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:

Mongoose wrote: BUT if we can do a universal comparison to see which players NEITHER of them cited? I think that would be a good list to have, my friend.

This... sounds like a lot of work.

Ugh, I know. But it might be worth it. I'll see how bored I get at work tomorrow. I'm really curious.

That said, if anyone wants to step it up or do splitsies with me, don't be shy.

Are you suggesting that the remaining 2 members both went un-cited, or that someone else instead of Elo went un-cited and she is not their teammate?

I'm not really saying anything yet; I gotta see the stats. However, if there were only 2 names neither cited, I'd really wanna know about it. MP was only here for Day 1 period though, so I bet the list would not just be 2 people.

And again, I'm leery of the causation = correlation argument, so even though Eloh is on that list -- that alone isn't enough to ensure my vote for her without some intense, corroborating evidence.

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

Mongoose wrote: linki Kitty

Dude if she was that conspicuous and I was her teammate? I'd be super pissed.

And your impression is dead on. I do want to open the field more to just Eloh to a) ensure more thorough baddie hunting and b) to make sure a potentially-innocent Eloh doesn't get wrapped up in a flawed Causation = Correlation Gambit.I think she very easily could have voted me, and if she had known I was going to vote her, maybe she would have (I don't mean for petty retaliatory reasons, obv). But you know her a lot better, so you are the better judge of that.

In case there's a Lie Detector in this game (or an item) - I'm not on either baddie team. I also have pretty hair.

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

There are still a ton of quiet people too. And absent (for good reasons, i'm not trying to insinuate it's a ploy), but that would make it very easy for their teamies to fly under the radar. If they were both pretty vocal so far, I'd think maybe their teammates would hang back a bit, but that is 1000% speculation. Otherwise, that whole contingent would be drawing a lot of attention. There's gotta be a baddie in the bunch of the no- or low-posters, but it's really chancey for them to root them out that way because the numbers game would make it a bit more likely that a civ would get caught in the crosshairs.

kneel4justice wrote:Oh. Just realized you did vote FZ and did so early on so that gives me a pause too.
I just thought that asking for a universal list was a weird thing to ask and I wasn't sure if you had an agenda in doing so.

kneel4justice wrote:

Mongoose wrote: linki Kitty

Dude if she was that conspicuous and I was her teammate? I'd be super pissed.

And your impression is dead on. I do want to open the field more to just Eloh to a) ensure more thorough baddie hunting and b) to make sure a potentially-innocent Eloh doesn't get wrapped up in a flawed Causation = Correlation Gambit.I think she very easily could have voted me, and if she had known I was going to vote her, maybe she would have (I don't mean for petty retaliatory reasons, obv). But you know her a lot better, so you are the better judge of that.

In case there's a Lie Detector in this game (or an item) - I'm not on either baddie team. I also have pretty hair.

Sorry, I'm kind of confused!

First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by Causation = Correlation (I'm slow sometimes!). Could you explain that?
And if you could also explain the whole vote/conspicuous comments. Are you saying you would have wanted her to vote for you? It's not that she refused to vote you, it's that she was open to it but ended up choosing me when I thought we were both in the same position of being widely suspected, so I don't think it's necessarily obvious of her, at least not at the time. If I interpreted what you were trying to say correctly. If not, whoops, my bad! Feel free to clarify!

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

There are still a ton of quiet people too. And absent (for good reasons, i'm not trying to insinuate it's a ploy), but that would make it very easy for their teamies to fly under the radar. If they were both pretty vocal so far, I'd think maybe their teammates would hang back a bit, but that is 1000% speculation. Otherwise, that whole contingent would be drawing a lot of attention. There's gotta be a baddie in the bunch of the no- or low-posters, but it's really chancey for them to root them out that way because the numbers game would make it a bit more likely that a civ would get caught in the crosshairs.

Are there players you think that are being quieter than normal or more talkative than normal? If you put four hyperactive players on one baddie team, do you think that one or two of them would quiet down and play low-key? These are honest questions, because I don't quite know full well if that would happen on this site.

Mongoose wrote:

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

There are still a ton of quiet people too. And absent (for good reasons, i'm not trying to insinuate it's a ploy), but that would make it very easy for their teamies to fly under the radar. If they were both pretty vocal so far, I'd think maybe their teammates would hang back a bit, but that is 1000% speculation. Otherwise, that whole contingent would be drawing a lot of attention. There's gotta be a baddie in the bunch of the no- or low-posters, but it's really chancey for them to root them out that way because the numbers game would make it a bit more likely that a civ would get caught in the crosshairs.

Are there players you think that are being quieter than normal or more talkative than normal? If you put four hyperactive players on one baddie team, do you think that one or two of them would quiet down and play low-key? These are honest questions, because I don't quite know full well if that would happen on this site.

Mmmm, it's maybe a bit too early to tell because some people are still getting their sealegs. And several people like to hang back and witness but then are much more vocal later. But going on the first bit of gameplay, there are people who maybe aren't quite as vocal, but they've stated reasons for their absences (Hedge, Lizzybean, etc.) I think it remains to be seen, I guess. i'm sorry that was a bit of a non-answer.

Secondly, the odds are that with so many low posters, there's probably at least one on each team - I think that's a fair assumption (although it may end up being wrong wrong Mcwrongpants). I think the possibility that there'd be 4 chatty on one team would be unlikely. But assuming all 4 players are fairly active, I think they'd coordinate what they are saying a bit (I'm suddenly paranoid that I've been extremely bossy on baddie teams) so that you get just the right amount of each person in the right proportion.

In Super Meat Boy, I was on a very successful baddie team (myself, INH, our host, and Dev -- where is he anyway?). The way we operated and spilled dialogue/theories/accusations into the thread was pretty much balletic.

I think it depends on the chemistry within the group and individual playstyles. Some players are going to be more open to being directed than others and some people jsut don't work well in a group or with certain other individuals.

So in "short", it depends.

</sockface's wall of text>

Mongoose wrote:

kneel4justice wrote:

Mongoose wrote: linki Kitty

Dude if she was that conspicuous and I was her teammate? I'd be super pissed.

And your impression is dead on. I do want to open the field more to just Eloh to a) ensure more thorough baddie hunting and b) to make sure a potentially-innocent Eloh doesn't get wrapped up in a flawed Causation = Correlation Gambit.I think she very easily could have voted me, and if she had known I was going to vote her, maybe she would have (I don't mean for petty retaliatory reasons, obv). But you know her a lot better, so you are the better judge of that.

In case there's a Lie Detector in this game (or an item) - I'm not on either baddie team. I also have pretty hair.

Sorry, I'm kind of confused!

First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by Causation = Correlation (I'm slow sometimes!). Could you explain that?
And if you could also explain the whole vote/conspicuous comments. Are you saying you would have wanted her to vote for you? It's not that she refused to vote you, it's that she was open to it but ended up choosing me when I thought we were both in the same position of being widely suspected, so I don't think it's necessarily obvious of her, at least not at the time. If I interpreted what you were trying to say correctly. If not, whoops, my bad! Feel free to clarify!

1. Causation Not = Correlation. Basically just because two factors are in common doesn't mean that Factor A caused Factor B. Some studies have been saying that taking vitamins is associated with earlier death. So some people posit that vitamins are causing people to die early. but in actuality, it's that maybe people who take vitamins feel compelled to do so because their diets are terrible. An even more broad example might be something like "90% of cats that died in 2012 ate tuna; therefore, tuna heightens cats' chance of death." This would be a fallacy to assume because just because cats are eating tuna doesn't mean it's killing them.

2. I definitely would not have wanted her to vote for me. But if I was on a team with someone and they that blatantly came after me, I'd not be happy because it's too much attention. When I've orchestrated fake "goings after" on baddie teams, I did so very delicately. You have to hit that Goldilocks zone between "Trumped Up Nonsense Case" to "Full On Battle Royale"

Hopefully, that clarified a bit! If not, please let me know.I'm watching this Discovery Channel special on how the government would act if aliens attacked, so I might not be as cogent as i'd like.

thellama73 wrote:

Boogs wrote:Also i was under the impression that we had to have the rope from Night 1 poll to swing across? I noticed people voting rope swinging that didn't get one?

The night 1 poll was "what did you forget to bring?" so anyone who didn't vote rope should be able to swing.

Yeah, I have since realized the wording of the Night 1 poll may have been tough; kind of double-negative-y, almost. Sorry about any confusion I caused. Efforts will be made to keep questions simpler from now on.

If anyone voted that they forgot a rope in the Night 1 poll (you can check this in the Polls thread) but still voted "Swing!" tonight, you may PM me with a different choice. I will then change the poll to reflect your actual choice when I put it in the Polls thread. If you stay with "Swing!"....well, let's just say swinging with no rope is easier said than done.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

Boogs wrote:Phew I'm glad we got a second Baddie! I was going to vote for either Spacedaisy or FZ today but glad one of my suspicions turned out being bad!

Elohcin wrote:Oh, and yeeHAW! I can't believe we got two baddies in a row. Good job those who voted FZ. I never would have thought MP would call out his teammate like that. Do y'all think he would have mentioned every one of them or just FZ?

Lizzy wrote:Woah, you guys are chatty!

Okay, so I've noticed a few people like to take credit for last night's lynch despite not voting for FZ or not at all.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

Boogs wrote:Phew I'm glad we got a second Baddie! I was going to vote for either Spacedaisy or FZ today but glad one of my suspicions turned out being bad!

Elohcin wrote:Oh, and yeeHAW! I can't believe we got two baddies in a row. Good job those who voted FZ. I never would have thought MP would call out his teammate like that. Do y'all think he would have mentioned every one of them or just FZ?

With Juliets the situation is a tad delicate. Had I not had a conversation with her in the X-Men game where she confessed that she was not good at building cases and just went with what others brought to the table, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with Rey that her vote for Eloh seems either lazy or opportunistic, or both. Actually, I kinda do a bit. You haven't even mentioned Elo's name until you voted for her, and the reasoning behind it was just that 'oh Rob said his spouse was bad and he's usually right about it' without any other kind of personal input whatsoever. The way this reads to me is that you didn't even go and read Elo's posts to see if Rob does indeed have a point, but merely took his word for it. He's not always right, you know. Actually he screwed up big time in HP and he pretty much handed the game on a silver platter to the baddies because he didn't read Elo correctly. I'm not saying this is the case here, he actually made some pretty good points and well worth looking into, but the way you justify your choice is questionable, to put it nicely. I remember encouraging you to practice and develop your case building skills. I think that is more desirable than following others just because 'they're usually right'. I will be keeping an eye on you though.

Boogie - I wonder if this is because you're not really paying attention, but dude, you're all over the place and barely have any on topic content. So on Day 1 you randomise because nothing stands out to you. MP is lynched, he flips baddie. Oh he actually pinged you a bit. Then you show up saying 'we got another baddie', although you pretty much missed the vote, and who are your suspicions post factum (note, names you haven't brought up in any of your posts, except one of them off topic)? The one who flipped baddie and SD. It don look good, son.

Elo, well... she has been in the spot light and I am curious to see how this develops.

Also, I do agree the last minute bandwagon was dubious. I'm still a bit surprised that someone whom I considered cool and calculated chose to defend himself the way he did.

And, Matt, what was with the INH vote?

I brought my rope, but I haven't been going swimming in vain all this time.

Boogs wrote:
Like I answered JC, if it weren't for that darn elf drink,i would have been able to speech my opinions yesterday. Being silenced doesn't help me a lot, does it?

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

Mongoose wrote: I'm not really saying anything yet; I gotta see the stats. However, if there were only 2 names neither cited, I'd really wanna know about it. MP was only here for Day 1 period though, so I bet the list would not just be 2 people.

And again, I'm leery of the causation = correlation argument, so even though Eloh is on that list -- that alone isn't enough to ensure my vote for her without some intense, corroborating evidence.

Metalmarsh89 wrote:

Mongoose wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

There are still a ton of quiet people too. And absent (for good reasons, i'm not trying to insinuate it's a ploy), but that would make it very easy for their teamies to fly under the radar. If they were both pretty vocal so far, I'd think maybe their teammates would hang back a bit, but that is 1000% speculation. Otherwise, that whole contingent would be drawing a lot of attention. There's gotta be a baddie in the bunch of the no- or low-posters, but it's really chancey for them to root them out that way because the numbers game would make it a bit more likely that a civ would get caught in the crosshairs.

Are there players you think that are being quieter than normal or more talkative than normal? If you put four hyperactive players on one baddie team, do you think that one or two of them would quiet down and play low-key? These are honest questions, because I don't quite know full well if that would happen on this site.

Mongoose wrote: Some studies have been saying that taking vitamins is associated with earlier death. So some people posit that vitamins are causing people to die early. but in actuality, it's that maybe people who take vitamins feel compelled to do so because their diets are terrible

Lizzy wrote:Woah, you guys are chatty!

Okay, so I've noticed a few people like to take credit for last night's lynch despite not voting for FZ or not at all.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

With Juliets the situation is a tad delicate. Had I not had a conversation with her in the X-Men game where she confessed that she was not good at building cases and just went with what others brought to the table, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with Rey that her vote for Eloh seems either lazy or opportunistic, or both. Actually, I kinda do a bit. You haven't even mentioned Elo's name until you voted for her, and the reasoning behind it was just that 'oh Rob said his spouse was bad and he's usually right about it' without any other kind of personal input whatsoever. The way this reads to me is that you didn't even go and read Elo's posts to see if Rob does indeed have a point, but merely took his word for it. He's not always right, you know. Actually he screwed up big time in HP and he pretty much handed the game on a silver platter to the baddies because he didn't read Elo correctly. I'm not saying this is the case here, he actually made some pretty good points and well worth looking into, but the way you justify your choice is questionable, to put it nicely. I remember encouraging you to practice and develop your case building skills. I think that is more desirable than following others just because 'they're usually right'. I will be keeping an eye on you though.

juliets wrote:

reywaS wrote:

juliets wrote:

Elohcin wrote:

juliets wrote:

I did not vote Elo because she randomized. I voted for her because Epig says she's bad and in game after game epig has shown that when he thinks she's good, she's good and when he thinks she's bad, she's bad. I have questioned him intensely on this because it always looked contrived to me (the times he said she was good), a man protecting his wife. But he ultimately convinced me that he knows her so well after 10 years of living with her that he can tell by her mannerisms and how she posts if she's good or bad. I think he was wrong once but he's been consistently right in game after game and I chose to believe him here.

This is silly. Epig has been wrong about me several times. And, he always goes after me sometime in the beginning of a game to feel me out...see my reaction.

I brought my rope Choosing to swing.

It's not silly. Epig explained the whole thing to me and I was quite a doubter at first. I figured it was more likely there were shenanigans. It was a long conversation because I was convinced that there was no normal way he could be right. He finally convinced me though, and now I'm a believer. I don't know what "several" times means - Epig why don't you clear that up. How many times have you been wrong about Elo? Are you just testing her by voting her early? If I'm wrong about him this time Elo i owe you an apology - I just don't think I am.

I also brought a rope and choose to swing.

It seems either lazy or opportunistic to follow Epig so blindly like you are. I don't think you are a lazy player. What if Epig is bad and setting her up? What if he's just doing it to feel other people out like he did in Viral Vids recently? What if he's just plain wrong?

Well, he's only been wrong once, so I'm not too worried about that. As I explained earlier, it is my opinion that if he is bad he is not setting her up. Why would he pick his wife to set up as opposed to the many other people he could pick. It just doesn't make sense to me that he would do that. In the times I've seen him do this - many times - he doesn't bring her up to feel her out. He only brings her up when he knows she was good or bad. I've just seen this same behavior from Epig too many times to not believe it. I'm not sure what you mean by opportunistic - I never have understood what people mean when they say that - but I'm certainly not lazy. Do I know with 100% certainty that he is right or he is not bad? Of course not. Everyone is making a bet that they are interpreting evidence correctly when they make their vote, including me. Also, I didn't play Viral Videos so I'm not sure what went on there.

Lizzy wrote:Woah, you guys are chatty!

Okay, so I've noticed a few people like to take credit for last night's lynch despite not voting for FZ or not at all.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

reywaS wrote:
Opportunistic meaning that you are jumping on what Epig is saying with no effort of your own and zero accountability if Elohcin flips civvie. And I'm not trying to say anything about Epignosis here. He could very well be right about Elohcin. DisgruntledPorcupine hopped onto Epig saying Elohcin was bad in Viral Vids with zero input of his own....just blindly agreed. DP was bad. Hence the

insertnamehere wrote:Do I have to do everything around here?

OK, I went through MP and FZ's posts, and took a note every time they interacted with another player. Then I made a spreadsheet, because that's what people apparently do.

MinPos means that the baddie interacted with another player in a kind of jokey, or OT way.
RegPos means that the scummeister agreed with something this player said.
StrongPos means that the goblin said that they trust a player, or that a player is innocent.
RegNeg means that the evil sonuvagun disagreed with something this player said.
StrongNeg means that the mean Mr. Mustard said that this player is suspicious, or possibly bad.
Voted means that the commie bastard voted to lynch this player.

I'm working on the spredshet right now.

Dom wrote:

Turnip Head wrote:K4j, do you think that if MP distanced hard from his teammates, that FZ would look to do the same? Seems like her shtick was to play defense, judging by the MP lynch. I am not sure they would both use the same tactics against their own teammates.

This.

Mongoose wrote: I'm not really saying anything yet; I gotta see the stats. However, if there were only 2 names neither cited, I'd really wanna know about it. MP was only here for Day 1 period though, so I bet the list would not just be 2 people.

And again, I'm leery of the causation = correlation argument, so even though Eloh is on that list -- that alone isn't enough to ensure my vote for her without some intense, corroborating evidence.

Mongoose, you seem to imply that there is no corroborating evidence against Eloh. Have you read Epig's posts?

juliets wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Woah, you guys are chatty!

Okay, so I've noticed a few people like to take credit for last night's lynch despite not voting for FZ or not at all.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

With Juliets the situation is a tad delicate. Had I not had a conversation with her in the X-Men game where she confessed that she was not good at building cases and just went with what others brought to the table, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with Rey that her vote for Eloh seems either lazy or opportunistic, or both. Actually, I kinda do a bit. You haven't even mentioned Elo's name until you voted for her, and the reasoning behind it was just that 'oh Rob said his spouse was bad and he's usually right about it' without any other kind of personal input whatsoever. The way this reads to me is that you didn't even go and read Elo's posts to see if Rob does indeed have a point, but merely took his word for it. He's not always right, you know. Actually he screwed up big time in HP and he pretty much handed the game on a silver platter to the baddies because he didn't read Elo correctly. I'm not saying this is the case here, he actually made some pretty good points and well worth looking into, but the way you justify your choice is questionable, to put it nicely. I remember encouraging you to practice and develop your case building skills. I think that is more desirable than following others just because 'they're usually right'. I will be keeping an eye on you though.

It's true I'm not really a case builder but the reason I went with Epig was a little different. And you're right I didn't mention Eloh's name until I voted her but I don't really see what that has to do with anything since I've said forthrightly that it's the fact that Epi made the case that made the case compelling. You may have noticed but he often connects dots that others have not because in my opinion he see's relationships where others of us may not. I can see what you mean by the way it looks like I didn't go over the facts of her case but I did and as I said above, it was Epig's conclusions that sold me. And I realize he was wrong once in HP but I have seen him do this and be right in many, many games. He's the only person I can think of that I would vote based on his opinion of a certain person so I don't just vote based on just anyone being 'usually right'. I think to truly understand this whole thing you would have had to be part of the conversations Epig and I had about his reads of Eloh so I understand that you would want to keep and eye on me, even though I'm not sure why voting with Epig would mean I was bad unless he was bad. Maybe thats what you meant. Anyway, I think I've said all there is to say about my vote for Eloh.

Elohcin wrote:

juliets wrote:

Lizzy wrote:Woah, you guys are chatty!

Okay, so I've noticed a few people like to take credit for last night's lynch despite not voting for FZ or not at all.

juliets wrote:I can't believe we got a second baddie on the second day! Good voting all of you who voted FZ.! Goodbye FZ. I'm sorry I won't get to play more with you but I am so glad we've got two down in the first two days - I don't think I've ever seen this before.

With Juliets the situation is a tad delicate. Had I not had a conversation with her in the X-Men game where she confessed that she was not good at building cases and just went with what others brought to the table, I would have wholeheartedly agreed with Rey that her vote for Eloh seems either lazy or opportunistic, or both. Actually, I kinda do a bit. You haven't even mentioned Elo's name until you voted for her, and the reasoning behind it was just that 'oh Rob said his spouse was bad and he's usually right about it' without any other kind of personal input whatsoever. The way this reads to me is that you didn't even go and read Elo's posts to see if Rob does indeed have a point, but merely took his word for it. He's not always right, you know. Actually he screwed up big time in HP and he pretty much handed the game on a silver platter to the baddies because he didn't read Elo correctly. I'm not saying this is the case here, he actually made some pretty good points and well worth looking into, but the way you justify your choice is questionable, to put it nicely. I remember encouraging you to practice and develop your case building skills. I think that is more desirable than following others just because 'they're usually right'. I will be keeping an eye on you though.

It's true I'm not really a case builder but the reason I went with Epig was a little different. And you're right I didn't mention Eloh's name until I voted her but I don't really see what that has to do with anything since I've said forthrightly that it's the fact that Epi made the case that made the case compelling. You may have noticed but he often connects dots that others have not because in my opinion he see's relationships where others of us may not. I can see what you mean by the way it looks like I didn't go over the facts of her case but I did and as I said above, it was Epig's conclusions that sold me. And I realize he was wrong once in HP but I have seen him do this and be right in many, many games. He's the only person I can think of that I would vote based on his opinion of a certain person so I don't just vote based on just anyone being 'usually right'. I think to truly understand this whole thing you would have had to be part of the conversations Epig and I had about his reads of Eloh so I understand that you would want to keep and eye on me, even though I'm not sure why voting with Epig would mean I was bad unless he was bad. Maybe thats what you meant. Anyway, I think I've said all there is to say about my vote for Eloh.

And where have you had these conversations about me? BTSC perhaps? BTSC during THIS GAME perhaps? on the both of yuse.

juliets wrote:

reywaS wrote:
Opportunistic meaning that you are jumping on what Epig is saying with no effort of your own and zero accountability if Elohcin flips civvie. And I'm not trying to say anything about Epignosis here. He could very well be right about Elohcin. DisgruntledPorcupine hopped onto Epig saying Elohcin was bad in Viral Vids with zero input of his own....just blindly agreed. DP was bad. Hence the

I would have been totally accountable if Eloh had flipped civ. I voted for her - can't be much more accountable than that. I don't know what you mean by no effort of my own - he had a good case, he's usually right about her. What effort were you looking for? It was the best case as far as I was concerned. And just because DP, whose a completely different player than me, did something in another game as a baddie, doesn't mean something similar I've done makes me a baddie. I don't mind that you give me the eye.

reywaS wrote:

juliets wrote:

reywaS wrote:
Opportunistic meaning that you are jumping on what Epig is saying with no effort of your own and zero accountability if Elohcin flips civvie. And I'm not trying to say anything about Epignosis here. He could very well be right about Elohcin. DisgruntledPorcupine hopped onto Epig saying Elohcin was bad in Viral Vids with zero input of his own....just blindly agreed. DP was bad. Hence the

I would have been totally accountable if Eloh had flipped civ. I voted for her - can't be much more accountable than that. I don't know what you mean by no effort of my own - he had a good case, he's usually right about her. What effort were you looking for? It was the best case as far as I was concerned. And just because DP, whose a completely different player than me, did something in another game as a baddie, doesn't mean something similar I've done makes me a baddie. I don't mind that you give me the eye.

Yes, but you would have had a built in excuse if Elohcin flips civvie. "Oh, wow, Epig was wrong." Which is a far cry from "Oh, wow, I was wrong."

As far as the effort I was talking about...It's simple, you didn't offer anything up in your own voice about Elohcin. You just said something about conversations with Epignosis (That none of us were privy to) and that from those conversations you believe that Epignosis is always right about his wife's alignment. Your entire suspicion of Elohcin is based on someone else's line of thinking. If Epignosis weren't playing, Elohcin wouldn't even be on your mind is what I'm saying.

So, no, there is no accountability in your vote.

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:A swing sounds fun, and hobbits can't swim, so swing it is.

insertnamehere wrote:I made a horrible massive mistake, the above is supposed to be in orange.

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: hobbits can't swim

Some hobbits can swim, actually! The Brandybucks in particular are seen as a bit odd by other Shire hobbits because they go so far as to make boats! Frodo can because he lived in that area, I believe. Sorry if I'm being a know-it-all, I just couldn't resist dispelling the rumors.

On a more serious note, effective immediately, FH is resigning from the game due to pressing rl commitments. Her role is now inactive, and may not be voted for or targeted. I am searching for a replacement for her to hop in immediately. If you know of anyone, or if you die and want back in the game, please PM me.

thellama73 wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:A swing sounds fun, and hobbits can't swim, so swing it is.

Yeah, but goblins can. Nice try, CBK, but you'll have to do better than that to pull the wool over my eyes!

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: So, nice try pretending like you know something you don't.

Russtifinko wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: hobbits can't swim

Some hobbits can swim, actually! The Brandybucks in particular are seen as a bit odd by other Shire hobbits because they go so far as to make boats! Frodo can because he lived in that area, I believe. Sorry if I'm being a know-it-all, I just couldn't resist dispelling the rumors.

Yes. I have read the books. I know there are exceptions. Calm down everyone. It was just a fun theme-related comment.

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: hobbits can't swim

Some hobbits can swim, actually! The Brandybucks in particular are seen as a bit odd by other Shire hobbits because they go so far as to make boats! Frodo can because he lived in that area, I believe. Sorry if I'm being a know-it-all, I just couldn't resist dispelling the rumors.

Yes. I have read the books. I know there are exceptions. Calm down everyone. It was just a fun theme-related comment.

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: hobbits can't swim

Some hobbits can swim, actually! The Brandybucks in particular are seen as a bit odd by other Shire hobbits because they go so far as to make boats! Frodo can because he lived in that area, I believe. Sorry if I'm being a know-it-all, I just couldn't resist dispelling the rumors.

Yes. I have read the books. I know there are exceptions. Calm down everyone. It was just a fun theme-related comment.

thellama73 wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote:

Russtifinko wrote:

Captain Bunny Killer wrote: hobbits can't swim

Some hobbits can swim, actually! The Brandybucks in particular are seen as a bit odd by other Shire hobbits because they go so far as to make boats! Frodo can because he lived in that area, I believe. Sorry if I'm being a know-it-all, I just couldn't resist dispelling the rumors.

Yes. I have read the books. I know there are exceptions. Calm down everyone. It was just a fun theme-related comment.

Never!

:P

Ok, seeing the other comments, I gather I was taking things the wrong way. Sorry guys. I'm kind of behind here, and I'm behind in some rl stuff too that's stressing me out. Thanks for trying to play along.