I guess no one read 143?
Mixologist wrote:@Starbuck- What are your thoughts on to this point?
I did miss this question and I apologize.
I was trying to quickly catch up during my lunch break. Also, I do live in Italy right now (stationed here with the Navy) so my board times may be off from you guys quite a bit.
I saw OP's joke votes, but then saw yours with no reason or explanation behind it, which is why you should read 143.
Now, onto my thoughts so far:
I'm suspicious of Andy and KMD.
The only thing that's holding me back on KMD is his vote on Andy, but that still could be a cover. Maybe there's a way that the votes can be redirected and/or deflected, or maybe someone is immune lynch. My reasoning behind thinking this is because I'm currently playing a game on the View Askew forums which is an all power Avengers game and we just finished an all power DC Comics game. I don't know if any of that could come into play in this game, but this is a "Fantasy" mafia game, so anything is possible.
I am wondering what his thought process is with this statement:
Kmd4390 wrote:
Goat wrote:Here's a question: Why have you kept your random vote on Andy this entire time, even though you have not bothered to question or pressure him a single time since early page 2 when you merely asked him the seriousness of his vote? I see you questioning Ortolan, myself, Starbuck, but not Andy, who your vote is conveniently on.
Because I think Andy is scum. And I think you and Starbuck are his buddies. I don't think Ort is scum.
He seems to just be taking shots at everyone and being quite insulting (cocky?). He seems to be riding Goat pretty hard, and hasn't backed off, and seems to be pretty defensive like he is hiding something.
But the same could be said about Andy.
I think Ortolan may be onto something with this:
ortolan wrote:Andycya (96) wrote:Oh I see now. Here's what I meant: I didn't know whether your post was serious or not, but I assumed not, since we were already discussing meatier events. However, You were making a very weird statement (vouching for his towniness). Since we were already discussing non-jokes I read it as stalling other discussions. However, seems like my own vote originated much more discussion topics.
How come you didn't explain this at the time? You just said "please, we've already gone through the silly discussion phase" which implies scum feigning arrogance in order to mask not bothering to do their reading before laying a vote down.
Also, I don't like you claiming credit for starting discussion as a way of defending yourself rather than, for example, trying to better justify your vote on me or attack me further. It's like you attack me, then realise you're not going to get away with it that easily, then withdraw and start defending yourself and try to justify why your vote "prompted discussion" rather than say why you think you voted for scum (me).
