MBL[3] (Crub, Vendagoat, Glork)
AutumnEvenings{AE}[2] (Stewie, CTD)
Crub[1] (mneme)
Sefer[1] (xyzzy)
Vendagoat[1] (LML)
Not Voting[0] (no one)
With 12 alive, It will take 7 to Lynch.
You really are thick. Given that we know there is *EXACTLY* one Doctor in the game, it is prudent to save me until tomorrow, even if you think I am scum anyway. If everybody checks in and does not counter, you will save yourself from what would've been a certain mislynch.LmL wrote:(surprisingly) a Glork lynch
This is your reasoning for why he's unlikely scum? That's it?Glork wrote:Because I don't think that two teammates would be that blatant in wagoning Xyzzy the way they did. However, it would seem perfectly ripe for one member of each team to jump onto Xyzzy the way they did.
Didn't you do exactly the same thing? Putting the 2nd random vote on xyzzy and then unvoting when he was at L-2. Also your 2nd vote for xyzzy was made at a time when he was safe from a lynch. But as the wagons changed you couldn't unvote xyzzy without setting up a no-lynch.AutumnEvenings wrote: CTD, on the other hand, placed the first vote on XYZ during the random phase, but unvoted once he'd gotten a handful of votes and voted me instead, to give Stewie his reaction. (Which, yeah.) He left his vote there the rest of the time. It seems like they could be partners. SoFoS:CrashTextDummy.
So let's see, you suspect me because of a "feeling" and because I am cautious. You even accuse me of not committing and carefully omit the votes I did make and the reasoning behind them.AutumnEvenings wrote: And then there's my old friend Vendagoat. I said early on that if XYZ were evil, Vendagoat felt like a likely partner, and it still feels that way to me. SoFoS:Vendagoatas well.
So whats good for the gander is no good for the goose?AutumnEvenings wrote:Well, I voted you because of your name, andunvoted when it looked serious.But now I'm just confused by you. As in, I really can't follow a lot of your posts.
I don't see why I should be divulging that information at this time.LoudmouthLee wrote:So, Glork... talk to us.
Who did you protect, Sirrah Glork?
Because neither scumgroup targted me last night.LmL wrote: Why aren't you dead?
Again... unless somebody openly counterclaims, you haveLmL wrote:Unless the mafia targeted you, of course, and you're in the opposite faction. Makes for high drama, eh?
FoS: Glorkfor.. well.. not dying.
But AE was the one who, at the end of the day, expressed a perference to lynch Xyzzy multiple times. If she were Xyzzy's scumbuddy, she could have made a "well, I'm reluctant to do this, but Unvote; Vote: MBL" type of post. MBL would have died, and Xyzzy would have lived.Crub wrote:Didn't you do exactly the same thing? Putting the 2nd random vote on xyzzy and then unvoting when he was at L-2. Also your 2nd vote for xyzzy was made at a time when he was safe from a lynch. But as the wagons changed you couldn't unvote xyzzy without setting up a no-lynch.AutumnEvenings wrote: CTD, on the other hand, placed the first vote on XYZ during the random phase, but unvoted once he'd gotten a handful of votes and voted me instead, to give Stewie his reaction. (Which, yeah.) He left his vote there the rest of the time. It seems like they could be partners. SoFoS:CrashTextDummy.
FoS: AE
I didn't call you overly cautious; I called your post non-commital. You pointed out that four people were having an argument and FoSed all four of them. That's non-commital because you didn't favor either side, instead choosing to treat all four of them equally. You said XYZ looked suspicious but that you were hesitant to vote. That's non-commital because it's just a "could be evil, could not be, not ready to vote."Vendagoat wrote:
So let's see, you suspect me because of a "feeling" and because I am cautious. You even accuse me of not committing and carefully omit the votes I did make and the reasoning behind them.
Did I? I quoted the post in which you unvoted because of the above reasons and called it non-commital. I didn't mention the unvote at all. Unvoting is fine--unvoting and not voting anyone and not weighing in definitively on any issue is non-commital and scummy.GoatsForSale wrote:Not to mention you quoted post 73 as saying I didn't commit to anything and yet in that post I unvoted my random vote, that was on you. You purposely drew attention to me for unvoting you. This strikes me as odd.
Not quite sure what this is in reference to. I removed my random vote on XYZ, yes. I didn't want a lynch on page 2 or whatever it was. I have no problem with people removing their random votes. My point about CTD was not that he removed his vote. Maybe I didn't spell it out right as I was a bit rushed last night.PleaseBuyTheGoat wrote:So whats good for the gander is no good for the goose?
Hmm. First, I'd been suspicious of you all along. Second, I was out of town and then tried to lynch you as soon as I got back. I try to get my top suspects lynched--it's just a thing I do.NoOneWantsTheGoat wrote:Also there is some partnering. post 185 with an hour to go before deadline you start to get suspicious of me without rhyme or reason. You just look for others willing to swing in. Again I have to ask why? You certainly never gave a reason there, do you just vote at random? If thats the case then you got lucky.
Do you disagree with my point that LmL unvoted MrBuddyLee, who had reached the necessary votes first and thus would be the deadline lynch unless someone placed an additional vote on XYZ, which is what really allowed us to lynch XYZ (he did gain an additional vote, from Glork who said he was doing it pretty much solely to secure a lynch, but Glork was on MrBuddyLee, so I doubt he would have removed his vote had MrBuddyLee still been the leader)? And that that didn't really feel like a move a partner would make, because there was nomneme wrote:Though...if LML is the last Fire mafia, I could see him having tried to kill Glork, failed, and now knowing Glork is Ice. But that's a thin reed upon which to hang a man, much less two.