Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[inHimshallibe]

vote: Brian McQueso

Oh, yes, it's good to be back.

[inHimshallibe]

I believe Fishy was saying if he voted Brandi, then it would be 4 votes.

unvote
vote: Furry

I don't like the way you backed down from that vote, even if it was "random."

[inHimshallibe]

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

[inHimshallibe]

For the record, inHim is an easy way to shorten my name.

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Because, you act like there is something wrong with moving from a random vote to a more serious one, and implied that his vote wasn't even random when he said that it was. He didn't even give a reason for voting me originally, so there was nothing to "back down" from.

I see what you're saying. What I was saying was that Furry seemed to be extra-verbose in relating, "Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all. Scum overexplain a lot of the time, and it was an initial type of gut read.

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

[inHimshallibe]

“Too bad” for who?

You're the one being run up.

What does the “I think” refer to?

I wasn't sure if you had the standalone most votes. But I checked, and you do.

Why should anyone climb aboard?

Wagons get things done. Much more so than non-productive voting.

and with no (imo) compelling argument against me.

The compelling argument is that you had 3 votes on you when I was looking for somewhere else to place a vote, and since I didn't think you were town in particular, I voted. The compelling argument now is that you have 4 votes on you, and someone else should make it 5. I like counting.

[inHimshallibe]

What does putting a vote on someone because they have several votes on them achieve?

lol

Pretty sure I've already covered this one, but once again: putting a vote on someone when they already have several votes on them pushes them toward a lynch.

Also InHim I'm not sure but what are your reasons for pursuing a bandwagon on fishyyy?

Honestly, it was because he had the largest wagon at the time. There you go, although I think I've already said that.

he's deflecting without really defending his actions

Please tell me how I've deflected anything. I've not tried to hide anything that I've done. The post of mine you quoted was pretty blatant in my intent to wagon Fishy. Also, your wording just makes your case shakier. "... not really defending" - well, am I defending, or am I not? Don't throw both options out there and wait for the town to decide for you.

and tries to fuel bandwagons without any logic..

There's logic to the bandwagon, whether you see it or not.

ie. playing scummy while hiding behind the "it's too early in the game" excuse...

Once again, I've yet to excuse myself of anything, especially not using this "too early" argument. >.>

@inHim: Are you suggesting we kill off Fishy just because he has the largest bandwagon on him? I'm not sure if that's the best way to get useful information, especially considering the wagon got started in RVS.

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned, but I've never gotten this many questions from trying to wagon. It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

Seeing as my preferred type of Day 1 is not going to happen, I'm going to have to abandon the "reckless" bandwagonry.

unvote

Unvote

Don't like inHim counting my vote amongst the seemingly serious votes against the Fish, trying to appear to have more support than he does?

Fair enough. But why pose that as a question? I think you're asking approval of the rest of us before you lay down a vote, which happens to be scum-motivated protocol. veerus did do the same, but was not so egregious, as he is still a little more convincing of his intentions.

vote: Debonair Danny DiPietro

[inHimshallibe]

You have covered why you voted me- because I had the largest bandwagon. You have covered why you thought this was good- it pushed me towards a lynch. I'm completely lost as to

why

you thought pushing a fairly arbitrary player towards a lynch was a good thing. To get reactions? How far should this go? You advocated a 5th vote on me in a 12 player game- for me that is a dangerous thing to do if you don't find me particularly scummy.

The nature of the wagon determines how far the wagon goes. If we get 5 votes and still aren't satisfied, there will be a 6th. If the hunger still isn't gone, there's a lynch.

As far as I can see, if a bandwagon on someone is composed of votes which aren't for scumminess, it has little chance of acheiving anything other than a quicklynch or a claim, both of which are undesirable outcomes. To use a bandwagon as an "instrument of the game", it must be genuine.

There's also the stall (or not) and the fallout after a wagon disbands, for starters. Both of these are very good tools.

I don't feel like I have to explain myself any further on this, as it's not really pertinent to this game in particular. Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

[inHimshallibe]

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

Once again, throwing something out there while not putting your vote where your mouth is.

If I had to name three potential BGs and be right about two of them, I'd name: DDD, veerus, and Gorrad.

lol yeah that looks quite OMGUS, but I'd say the same if they treated their votes (or lack thereof in DDD and Gorrad's case) toward another player. But there's no way to defend that.

[inHimshallibe]

That being said, I'm not sure which I like less:

the

case

against

inHim

, or his response to it.

You should pick the one with pretty colors.

[inHimshallibe]

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

This makes no sense. You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are? Since when is the game of mafia played like that? And then you're deflecting at the end of Post 73. Mafia theory, in this game, happens to be important in the discussion.

Vote: InHim

First of all, things that do not make sense are

not

a scumtell.

Second, when I mentioned the "intent to lynch rather than an instrument..." I probably should have been clearer by saying "a bandwagon's intent to lynch rather than..." Does that make where I'm coming from any clearer? Bandwagons are started because people look scummy - I never meant to imply that bandwagons should necessarily be random.

And I did have a reason to vote Fishy when I joined the bandwagon - I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous. I also admit I was being obnoxious about continung the bandwagon, but I'm not apologizing for that part. It is what it is.

And third, I rarely think theoretical discussion is anything more than a scum ploy to participate without scumhunting. Theory might come in handy if you're deciding to not lynch with only four people alive, but besides that, it can distract town from the game.

[inHimshallibe]

Things that don't make sense = bad logic

Then say "bad logic" if that's what you mean. The above are not always equal.

[inHimshallibe]

Sometimes it’s relevant. Here, you were excusing/explaining your play by an appeal to theory. If that theory was fabricated, weak or stretched, that reflects badly on you.

Ah, I understand a little more clearly, now.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

I'm not sure whether you're being snarky town or scum here. The post is definitely noted.

[inHimshallibe]

veerus:

It's Day 1, meh.

I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Maybe I should have made this abundantly clearer, but Day 1 is really the only time I bandwagon "just because." I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

To lynch someone you have to have a CASE.

lol

A bit over dramatic don't you think?

lol

And of course I don't like the wagon on me... That's pretty much the case for anyone, right? (loljester)

No one seems to like my DDD vote.

unvote
vote: Brandi

[inHimshallibe]

You can still gather information even when the bandwagon is on yourself. Scum have votes too.

I'm aware of this.

I'm going to respond to people's reasoning.

I'm not saying that everyone has to be so gung ho about "near random" bandwagoning; rather, I'm just trying to say that it's not such an automatically scummy thing.

Trying to not rock the boat ---> scumtell

Here comes some WIFOM: would I really have

announced

my non-rocking-the-boat-ness if I were scum?

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game,

and

other players might agree with me this time."

You should vote for who you think is scummy.

We just went over this, I think.

My vote on Brandi may have been too hasty, as she now reads as simply playing emotionally instead of outright scum.

unvote

- I'll reread. The vote may come back to Brandi, it may not.

[inHimshallibe]

My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game,

and

other players might agree with me this time."

I don't buy this. It feels like you're backpedaling now. How can you think someone is scummier than someone else based on who has the most random votes?

The quote you are referencing is in regard from me switching from DDD to Brandi.

Did I really say who had the most votes was my

only

criteria? I'll have to go back and look, and then wash out my mouth if I did.

[inHimshallibe]

Voting lurkers is just like forcing them to post. You can also gather reactions.

What's this?!?! Voting for other reasons? What a novel idea.

Hmm, I may finally have a thoughtful post to make in this game, but I'm going to go do other stuff for the day. I'll be back later.

[inHimshallibe]

There's not really a lot of meat in this game, even though I feel like we've covered a lot. Must be the effect of having to work so hard early on in the game. ;p

Quick notes I made on my reread:
Looking at all of Brandi's posts, she didn't seem to want to commit to anything until she latched on to me. Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

Gorrad and veerus had a weird dialogue, that sort of just... dropped. Gorrad comes out looking a little scummy because of it, as he asked for clarification, seemed to grasp what veerus said, but ultimately did nothing about it. Also, I hold on previous convictions re: Gorrad.

My opinions have not changed on DDD. They have on veerus.

I'm looking to wagon one (or more) of the above three.

Might as well try and knock this one out of the park.

vote: Brandi

[inHimshallibe]

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

I didn't mean that latching on to me was scummy; I was just using it as a frame of reference. Also, I believe the way in which you just attacked my post is a subtle strawman.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.'

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd.

Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

Emphasis mine.

Finally, posts 127-131 seem incredibly scummy to me because of my personal belief that scum are more worried about attaining "posting perfection" than town.

[inHimshallibe]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

Also, I think it was you who mentioned I hadn't responded to all of the arguments against me. Bump or it didn't happen.

[inHimshallibe]

Trying to not rock the boat ---> scumtell

Here comes some WIFOM: would I really have

announced

my non-rocking-the-boat-ness if I were scum?

Yes, you would. And are. Responding to arguments with WIFOM is also a scumtell.

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game,

and

other players might agree with me this time."

So you think DDD is not scummy anymore?

No, I still think he is scummy. I was trying my part to actually put some pressure on scum, and I saw there was no support for the DDD wagon at that time. So I hopped on over to Brandi.

Voting lurkers is just like forcing them to post. You can also gather reactions.

What's this?!?! Voting for other reasons? What a novel idea.

Hmm, I may finally have a thoughtful post to make in this game, but I'm going to go do other stuff for the day. I'll be back later.

I don't understand this post. Can someone explain?

bump

"Voting for other reasons than necessarily to lynch?" would have been a better statement.

[inHimshallibe]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

What? You should think that there are good reasons to be on Brandi's wagon, since you are on it yourself.

unvote, vote: inHim
I don't think you believe in the wagon you are on.

Oh, come off it. He asked why there were four votes. At the very least by playing the odds one would figure that one scum is currently voting in that pool of four.

Also, this Brandi vote is splitting the town quite effectively, and a scum would be wise to bus.

That's not to say that I don't have conviction in the vote I made, or that I don't believe the other two (or one, or three) town voters are making good votes.

[inHimshallibe]

That's not the point.

You were explaining the fact that Brandi's wagon had 4 votes on it. You didn't even mention Brandi's scumminess in doing this. Of course it's very possible there is a scum on that wagon- but if you think Brandi is scum you should tend to believe the other players on her wagon are more likely town than the average. Answering hp's question/statement in that way is an irrelevance, and it doesn't feel like a post made by a townie who thinks he's voting for scum.

I had mentioned Brandi's scumminess in several posts before that one. I suppose I assume too much.

hp's comment was kind of offhanded and rhetorical; I'm not sure he was expecting much of a reply. I did reply, and in a similar fashion to the way he posed his statement; I just chose to use quite possibly one of the most reloaded responses that I could muster. I pretty well

knew

someone would raise this point, but in being completely honest with the town I expressed all of my thoughts on the matter (my suspicions of Brandi plus my thoughts on her wagon. At the moment I'm still guessing 2-1 or 3-0 town to scum. I believe Fishy to be town, so at the time I was thinking 3-1 or 4-0).

[inHimshallibe]

Oh good grief, I can't believe I'm actually going to reread and respond to that.

[inHimshallibe]

I apologize to the players and mod in this game for my absence - I'll post on Saturday.

[inHimshallibe]

Saturday has paseed and nothing from inHim.

Unvote, Vote InHim

You're absolutely right, and I deserve to be voted for it.

I

am

making that post now.

I won't go down without the fight.

[inHimshallibe]

Part 1 of my response is coming up. I'll finish the rest later - have to be out of the house for a bit.

[inHimshallibe]

My stance on Brandi is heavily determined by InHim's alignment. If he is lynched and flips scum, I'd say there's a great chance she's town and vice versa. That's why I think one of them should be lynched today, preferably InHim, and I've already said why I want him lynched. I would have no problem lynching Brandi either, however her flip would not confirm InHim's alignment in my eyes, if you understand what I mean. >_>

Before I start the response...

If he is lynched and flips scum, I'd say there's a great chance she's town and vice versa.

I would have no problem lynching Brandi either, however her flip would not confirm InHim's alignment in my eyes, if you understand what I mean. >_>

Oh my...

vote:Slicey

[inHimshallibe]

I’m going to highlight all of the pieces Brandi mentions but deems them merely noteworthy. May be a place to look if Brandi is indeed scum. I like the Slicey vote Furry is pushing; I will probably move there at the end of this post.

The following is my response to the points made against me. Oh. My. God.

First serious post by inhim:

unvote
vote: Furry

I don't like the way you backed down from that vote, even if it was "random."

This is a terrible line of reasoning. The first thing that you notice is that he put "random" in quotations. This implies that Furry's vote was not random. However, Furry noted that his vote on me was in fact, random.

I can’t defend this, because you’ve spun it into something indefensible . I never meant that Furry’s vote wasn’t random.

Second of all, inHim just did the VERY THING that he is voting Furry for. He took his

random

vote off of Brian, and put it on Furry. Just like Furry took his

random

vote off of me, and put it onto Fishy. Hypocrite much?

I did not say I didn’t like the fact Furry unvoted; I disliked the

manner

in which Furry unvoted. It’s there in my post.

I don't like the way you backed down from that vote

Third, there is nothing wrong with removing a random vote. Random votes are just to get the game going, very little to no information can be gathered from random votes, therefore it is only reasonable, for the sake of

PROGRESSING THE GAME

, that a random vote be either a) reinforced with serious evidence, or b) removed, and a serious vote be placed on another player for some actual reasoning.

Fourth of all, the fact that he wanted 3

random

votes to stay on a player implies that he was hoping for some sort of baseless QUICKLYNCH to happen. Which is INCREDIBLY SCUMMY.

I think you have read me wrong this entire game if this is how your post starts out. Either this, or you like to imagine worst case scenarios about players instead of evaluating what is really there. Nowhere did I say in this first post that I didn’t want to progress the game, or that I was looking for a quicklynch. You’ve put the cart before the horse, as these developments about how I like to bandwagon came after this post of mine. And, besides, I’ve been over and over on how the reason I like to bandwagon is

not

to quicklynch, but to gather information through the bandwagons.

Next post, from inHim:

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

This right here, proving point #4 of my beef with his previous post. He is ADMITTING that his only real reason for voting for Furry was the fact he took a

BANDWAGON

off of ME. A BANDWAGON THAT WAS BASED PURELY ON

RANDOM VOTES.

No. Do you always put words into people’s posts like this? And people like this reasoning against me? Wow.

Fishy seems more likely to be lynched because there is some actual reasoning behind the votes other players have put on him, therefore he is more supportive of it, because it means we might

MOVE INTO NIGHT QUICKER.

No, at the time, I thought you were more town than Fishy. And your use of caps so often is already starting to annoy me. It proves no point any further, and is simply sensationalist in nature.

[inHimshallibe]

My stance on Brandi is heavily determined by InHim's alignment. If he is lynched and flips scum, I'd say there's a great chance she's town and vice versa. That's why I think one of them should be lynched today, preferably InHim, and I've already said why I want him lynched. I would have no problem lynching Brandi either, however her flip would not confirm InHim's alignment in my eyes, if you understand what I mean. >_>

Before I start the response...

If he is lynched and flips scum, I'd say there's a great chance she's town and vice versa.

I would have no problem lynching Brandi either, however her flip would not confirm InHim's alignment in my eyes, if you understand what I mean. >_>

Oh my...

vote:Slicey

OH. I understand what you mean now.

unvote

- although after my response is complete, this vote could come back here.

[inHimshallibe]

Vote: inHimshallibe

This is L-1, so everyone is aware.

I am continuing to work on my full response; I just have to be in and out of the house a lot of today.

I'll continue posting bits and pieces as I finish them, and will roleclaim at the end if the 6 votes are still there.

[inHimshallibe]

I'm at a friends house right now but, I decided to check in briefly on their computer. I have noticed that Brain is still failing to read properly. I don't attack "anyone who looks at me funny." I attack whoever is scummy. I've been clearly very supportive of one wagon, for the sheer fact that no one is even HALF as scummy as inHim.

Isn't it a coincidence that everyone who has attacked you looks scummy to you?

HMMMMMMMM...

Slicey looking worse by not moving the vote.

vote: Slicey

Brandi picked quite an inopportune time to write 24 pages and have me respond to it.

[inHimshallibe]

I'm at a friends house right now but, I decided to check in briefly on their computer. I have noticed that Brain is still failing to read properly. I don't attack "anyone who looks at me funny." I attack whoever is scummy. I've been clearly very supportive of one wagon, for the sheer fact that no one is even HALF as scummy as inHim.

Isn't it a coincidence that everyone who has attacked you looks scummy to you?

HMMMMMMMM...

Slicey looking worse by not moving the vote.

vote: Slicey

Brandi picked quite an inopportune time to write 24 pages and have me respond to it.

Pay attention, I already said that in my larger post, now I'm just reiterating it. >_>

The fact you keep bringing it up and not moving over there is what I'm getting at with my vote.

I'm going to take a dip in the pool - after that I'll try and tackle the rest of the monster.

This deadline is cramping me.

[inHimshallibe]

I'm curious as to who the town will seek to run up on Day 2, in the case that I am indeed lynched and then turn up town.

I'll try and get the rest of that response before I go to sleep tonight.

[inHimshallibe]

... and I fell asleep while typing the damned thing.

Ok, I'll claim, but it won't help, and wouldn't expect it to.

Mrs. Cox, Roleblocker.

lol, that looks like the worst claim ever,

if I were a bad guy.

Right now, my thoughts on who to lynch tomorrow:

I'd look to those who blew the way I was playing in the beginning way out of proportion. I said I would cut out the recklessness,

and I did

, and still people rallied around those initial points.

Also, DDD and Gorrad for making accusations and not backing them up with votes.
-------------------------------------------
It doesn't look like I'll have the time to respond to all of that. I never really wanted to in the first place. Brandi deserves an 'A' in the convincing people to vote department, through emphasis of things that aren't really important.

I'll try right now.

I never changed my reasoning for voting people. Like my very first vote on Furry - I didn't like the

way

he unvoted, and then further explained I thought he was explaining too much in that unvote. That's not changing my reasoning.

Translation: IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T PLAY MAFIA, WE PLAYED "LYNCH RANDOM PEOPLE UNTIL THE GAME IS OVER" Seriously, not only is this a flawed 'method of play' for the town, but I don't even see how those with SCUM ROLES would be happy with playing the game if the town didn't even TRY.

Next, inhim votes DDD, for making valid points against him. ;P

Does anyone else not see how much spin she put into her post? I clearly said that I did

not

use wagons for their lynching purposes

only.

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game.

That point about my vote of DDD is more spin - notice how she takes certain pieces of my Day rather than my play as a whole to provide this case against me.

Yes, it is true, voting for players to put

PRESSURE

on them is good. But that is NOT what inhim had been doing. He wanted to bandwagon ANYONE at all whether they were SCUMMY OR NOT, just WHOEVER HAD THE MOST VOTES. He just wanted to lynch someone, anyone, with as little information as possible. That is NOT good for the game at all.

Once again, not at all close to what I have expressed as my intentions within

any

game I play here at 'scum.

BS. NOWHERE, Not ONCE at the point in which the 4 person scum group was being debated did inhim even post his THOUGHTS on the matter. Post subject: 48, all inHim did was vote for him and said he liked his bandwagon better. That doesn't look like him "AGREEING" to ANYTHING.

But it does to me; voting someone that other players vote very much means you agree with them. You have a point that I added reasoning after the fact - I have no way to prove that I was thinking this when I hopped on the wagon, except the fact that I hopped on the wagon.

Now first of all, Slicey wasn't STATING anything, he was asking a QUESTION. "Thats not what he said, its what he meant!" Also is a very odd reason to vote someone. But again, inHIM did say that, blatantly, MULTIPLE TIMES.

I don't know what to make of this blatant defense of Slicey. Ugh, let me find the context for this.

You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

Once again, Slicey has my intent on bandwagoning wrong. Tzeentch read me correctly, Slicey did not. Slicey was using this question as an attack, as Brandi completely missed/blew over/didn't want to admit.

[He has a habit of disregarding anything someone says against him that makes LOGICAL SENSE as someone having a bad attitude.]

No. I don't even have the energy to do this anymore. This is more of the same spin from Brandi.

Next, if I understood any of these fallacies I'd try and make a more reasonable response against them. As to the Relativist Fallacy, I honestly don't see it's application to Brandi's argument, as she constantly adds words to my posts.

I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

a complete opposite of:

That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

Before he said that he didn't care about gathering information, he said that it was too much trouble/effort. Now, he's saying the point is to gather information. Which, if I hadn't said it enough already: Bandwagonning, with no reason behind it, and killing off a possible townie, just because you want a QUICK LYNCH gives little to no information to be brought out.

My head is going to explode. I can't believe someone is purposefully being this dense.

No, what I said is that I didn't want to create garbage, ie. useless posts, "to wade through." Nowhere did I say I was against information. I don't want a quick lynch, for the umpteenth time.

I'd like to note the Word file I have Brandi's quote and my response is "response to brandi oh lord in heaven how long does this have to be".

Second of all, If you notice, every time I make a valid point he just says "lol."

Not only is that flippant, it shows he has nothing to argue with, or any way to back up what he has said. He thinks that if he treats my points like they are 'funny' then he wont have them brought up again. Guess he was wrong.

With the "lol" posts, I was merely relating many other experiences where people were lynched without cases, and was trying to convey how naive Brandi was if she thought all lynches have cases. As to being overdramatic, I'm still responding with "lol".

He thinks that if he treats my points like they are 'funny' then he wont have them brought up again. Guess he was wrong.

You just

don't

read me correctly, OR you just read me how you want to and not how things are.




There might be more to come, later.

[inHimshallibe]

Great write-ups.

Bah.

[inHimshallibe]

The game has apparently passed me on in the years I've left. I think I was trying to apply old rules to what may be a new game altogether.

It was my stubbornness that actually led to my lynch, imo. But, yeah, I was obvtown.