Mini 424 - Game Over

[MeMe]

vote: shadowdeath

Welcome to MafiaScum!

[MeMe]

The Shadow 1) was already at three votes and 2) is the only one yet to post, which makes him, in my view, the best place for a vote when considering your apparent desire to see more posting and to put pressure on one player.

I mean, it looks like you've created a

competing

rather than pressure wagon -- certainly fine, but it's not what you said you wanted.

[MeMe]

However, most people who claim "trying to start a conversation" end up mafia.

I've never heard this before -- where'd you get it?

[MeMe]

Good points. I look forward to Barroman's reply (as well as to some participation from Nocmen, shadowdeath, and The Shadow).

[MeMe]

MeMe, what do you think of Ancalagon?

He has an interesting habit of overweighting his points (e.g. "die scum" "most scummy thing I've seen in my entire life" and the unsupported "most...end up mafia" sentiment that prompted me to question him). He's certainly worth watching.

[MeMe]

Do you seriously not know where the name "Javert" comes from?

[MeMe]

I'll stick with the lurking shadowdeath for the moment, though I'll say that I find Javert's to be the

least

annoying posts to read. He's taking the game seriously, adding real content, and is grammatically sound. This is in no way a commentary on his alignment.

[MeMe]

I honestly have been extremely busy, as I am actually an adult with a career that requires me to do something other than sit in front of the computer pushing refresh all day. I play this game for fun, not to be insulted.

This

looks like an appeal to emotion to me -- omg's tactics looks less like an appeal to emotion and more like childishness.

Although I understand the frustration of being unfairly accused of behaving in a certain way -- you

admit

to a lack of focus. So, despite the baiting way in which omg phrased his point "b," you're saying it's accurate. Right?

[MeMe]

Gotcha, kilmenator.

[MeMe]

unvote: shadowdeath
vote: ac1983fan

Happy to rid the game of dead weight.

[MeMe]

Also,

FoS: MeMe

for wanting to rid the game of dead weight, even if it meant regardless of guilt.

1) Lynching someone isn't the only way to get rid of dead weight. Pressuring someone into contributing means that someone would no longer BE dead weight. Asking this particular someone doesn't seem to be enough since he's twice said he doesn't think we're yet worth talking

to

-- so voting him seems quite appropriate.
2) I never said it was "regardless of guilt." In my opinion, choosing not to post is being deliberately unhelpful and that's more scummish than townish. Apparently, you agree.

[MeMe]

... lost data.

*sigh*

None of it

yours

, though. 8)

[MeMe]

unvote: ac1983fan
vote: Ancalagon

[MeMe]

The answers were detailed quite nicely in about a dozen posts lost in the move, which you

should

have read upon your return.

How 'bout you answer: 1) why didn't you share thoughts after the "reread" you claimed to be performing rather than dropping an out-of-nowhere post that you were going to be gone for more than a week? 2) how come you didn't contribute (or even promise to do so) once you got back?

[MeMe]

Well, I could say I'm preparing a summary for you, but for all you'd know I'm

actually

preparing for a trip that I'm not bothering to tell you about. Have I grasped the proper use of that excuse?

Understand this, Ancalagon, it's on you right now -- not me. I've posted the entire time without excuse and it was here for your perusal. It's not my job to summarize for slackers. (And I'm certainly not

against

having a summary put together, I just don't have the time to do one and don't know if it's actually "required" by anyone other than Ancalagon.)

[MeMe]

I'm not implying that you'd fake going on vacation. What I'm saying is that you made it look as though you were about to contribute with the "rereading" post and then left us hanging -- with no forewarning -- for a really long time.

Your excuses now are 1) I didn't have time before I left, 2) I didn't have time when I came back, and 3) (my interpretation) This isn't the only game or even the only

site

to which I did this, so that makes it more excusable.

The most generous interpretation of what you say happened is that once you announced your return, you

still

didn't bother to catch up or even warn us that it'd be a while. If you truly didn't read the missing content, it doesn't work in your

favor

, nor should it fall on those of us who did to recreate them for you now.

[MeMe]

yeah...I noticed that too. ac isnt looking too good right now. i'll

unvote: ancalagon

This confuses me, Elias. Coming where the post does, it seems like you should be agreeing that that

Ancalagon

doesn't look good.

[MeMe]

We have three players yet to post since the move. Are they being replaced?

MOD NOTE

i'm giving everybody until Monday to post to the thread before i prod them, just b/c i know the weekend can be slow for some people, and the site just came back up on Thursday... after i prod them, depending on whether or not they respond, i will make a decision then on what to do... honestly as i told omg_im_innocent_wtf, i am having trouble finding replacements, so i hope i don't have to replace anybody else... anybody that wants to PM me w/ names of players they think might be interested in replacing, please do so...

[MeMe]

So, spectrumvoid. You've got fresh eyes -- what do you see?

At this point, I'm just ready for the day to be over (just like I was a couple of weeks back).

I like my vote on

Ancalagon

(who only posts to whine about lost data while still not bothering to comment on the data that's

not

missing, which includes every single bit that he claimed to be "rereading" and who is either 1) scum -- yay or 2) townie -- best wrong lynch we could make), but I could also switch to

The Shadow

(not here) or

Javert

(who says he

is

here but has stopped talking in a very unJavertlike way). I could also switch to

ac1983fan

(to make a wagon)...

Listen folks. I'll go with the flow here, but I think unless we make something happen it looks like we're just gonna stagnate.

[MeMe]

I've heard that one already, Ancalagon. Now, tell me if

you've

heard

this

one: I've still not seen any analysis from you on the stuff that

isn't

missing. And I've certainly explained to you that that's reason enough for keeping my vote right where it is.

~~~~~~~~~~

Javert, as for your three paragraphs directed at me, I find them incredibly weird. In the first, you invoke the "I've got a life" defense that you agreed looked like an appeal to emotion when kilmenator used it. Since you've made your "alt" status a matter of public (though lost in the move) record -- I think it's fair for me to ask whether or not you found yourself similarly unable to contribute to any other games you might be playing in under a different name or if this was the only one that was affected.

In the second, you seem to want to attack me for an attitude I explained to your satisfaction in the lost back-and-forth -- and you admit as much by calling it "deja vu." We both came out of it saying that we understood each other's goal, though we disagreed with our respective methods of reaching the goal. Yes, I understand that the mention of your name as someone I'm willing to vote might result in a kneejerk "HEY now" from you -- but you're back and unlikely to be voted by me today as long as you

stay

back and less scummy than, say, Ancalagon (shouldn't be hard).

In the third, you accuse me of "withholding" -- and that's just ridiculous. Let me remind you that Ancalagon has said, twice (posts 134 & 140), that he read the missing information. His insistence that it be recreated for him looks like nothing more than a peevish demand to me: "Say it again! If you don't, I can't play well!" Well, why not? Everyone else seems to be managing. And, as I said,

I

don't want to recreate the missing stuff, especially when no one else seemed to require it, but someone else is

welcome

to do so. But as long as Ancalagon can't even be bothered to comment on the stuff that isn't missing, why would you assume he'd be more productive if we provide him with even more to ignore? Additionally, you, of all people, know that the missing data didn't contain anything to which he needs to "respond" as it was more an explanation of my method than an attack on my vote target. Seriously,

you

could've just tell him that...I'll stop short of calling you withholding for choosing not to do so.

[MeMe]

From what I understand of your position, you are willing to vote for noncontributors and such for the

purposes of discussion

– correct me if I am wrong – as gathered from your insistence of "see, the thread dies when Ancalagon isn't at Lynch -1!". I

can

understand that much, though as we have gone over, I don't necessarily agree with that tactic myself in comparison to others.

Just wanted to clarify that my "see the thread dies" comment was a joke -- and, if I remember correctly, had either a winking or laughing smiley to make sure it was

read

as one.

In other words, our common goal seems to be discussion. But the problem is, a lynch

halts

discussion.

However, getting someone closer to a lynch makes discussions much more urgent/interesting -- and might even move this game a notch or two higher on the players' totem poles.

Being willing to

lynch

noncontributors, especially when there are a number of them (i.e. the others are unlikely to have commented on the one lynched) strikes me as unintuitive. I tend to make sure there is sufficient discussion before I push for a lynch, even in cases where I am very positive somebody is scum.

Please reread my post #170 where I outline who I would've been willing to vote at the time. I mention "lynch" only with Ancalagon. The other three names are people I could see voting to get the day past its current stagnation and toward a close. You're making it sound like if I could end the day right now with no more discussion I

would

-- and that's simply not the case.

I, in fact, simply

could not remember

if there had been an additional case against Ancalagon besides which has already been mentioned. I did not personally recall one – but the impression of your posts (and others' posts) seemed to imply that there had been one, so I too was interested in seeing it.

Ah. Your post read much more like a request on Ancalagon's behalf alone, especially the last portion where you characterize yourself as intervening for him. I had no idea you were also making a

personal

request for information. That puts your earlier post in a different light.

As for the rest of your post, it falls into the "fair enough" category for me.

[MeMe]

I see how it makes perfect sense to read it that way -- totally my fault.

[MeMe]

Few things:
-- I find it hard to go forward in the knowledge that we don't have a full player list. We're getting no input from one role & nothing can be read into that fact because the player's simply not here
-- Despite the fact that omg_'s vote-hopping and abrasiveness doesn't seem to be an indicator of alignment, it is beginning to annoy me.
-- I still like my vote just fine.

[MeMe]

Well

that's

a pretty interesting post.

[MeMe]

^ Meme never responds to barro's reply.

I never said I would, only that I was looking forward to hearing it. Not sure why you'd imply I had some obligation to do so.

Says ancalagon is worth watching because ancalagon overweights his points. Stays with lurking shadow. Says kil is appealing to emotion.
Votes ac1983fan, clarifies it's a pressure vote to get him to contribute.

^ hesitancy to vote ancalagon/kil , choosing to vote lurkers and non-contributers.

"Worth watching" is not the same as "worth voting" -- especially when I'm unfamiliar with a certain player's style. This point was actually covered in the missing posts: I understand that someone who overweights points can be (usually inexperienced) town overly sure he's nailed scum kind of waving his arms to get people to see what he sees OR scum trying hard to get a bandwagon rolling with confidence rather than evidence. So...worth watching, not worth drawing a conclusion on without seeing more.

And, with the kilmenator point, when read in context it's clear that I'm explaining to kilmenator what an appeal to emotion

is

. I'm wasn't saying that I find her scummy because of it, but that, since she accused omg_ based on a wiki scum tell, she should know that her behavior actually fit it better.

You "hesitancy to vote" comment doesn't make much sense to me when I'd not, to that point, expressed any

desire

to vote either of them based on the comments I made -- the first of which was in response to a direct question from Javert and the second, as noted, an explanation.

Think of this way: at this point, I could call your lack of vote on either myself or Ancalagon as a "hesitancy to vote" more fairly than you can label either of the above examples as such. After all, you've actually gone so far as to say say we, respectively, have a "slightly scummy vibe" and is "slightly scummy."

[MeMe]

I've sent a PM but, as Javert pointed out, it's unlikely there are going to be eight of us doing so.

Since the deadline rules specify a full count necessary for a lynch to occur, I suggest that we find a player we're willing to lose and pile on him/her before the deadline hits.

Is anyone interested in just voting The Shadow? Even if he's a pro-town power role, it's an ability that's not going to be used if no one's filling it out (according to the rules, no choice is made if no choice is submitted). If anyone else has a deadline-lynch suggestion or thinks a no-lynch works better, please let us hear it.

[MeMe]

What the heck. Two people posting in the last 24 hours

under deadline

.

This is pretty pathetic.

[MeMe]

What's your idea?

[MeMe]

unvote: Ancalagon
vote: The Shadow

And my reason for suggesting The Shadow as a lynch was completely spelled out, Javert...

Since the deadline rules specify a full count necessary for a lynch to occur, I suggest that we find a player we're willing to lose and pile on him/her before the deadline hits.

Is anyone interested in just voting The Shadow? Even if he's a pro-town power role, it's an ability that's not going to be used if no one's filling it out (according to the rules, no choice is made if no choice is submitted). If anyone else has a deadline-lynch suggestion or thinks a no-lynch works better, please let us hear it.

...and you seem to agree it's a good idea. Not sure why you're attempting to reduce my idea to "MeMe's at it again" rather than what it is: a lynch is better than no-lynch -- here's someone upon whom we might be able to agree.

[MeMe]

unvote: The Shadow
vote: Ancalagon

~shrug~

[MeMe]

Um...no. Deadline's a little more than 32 hours away, by my calculations.

[MeMe]

Um...I'll put the current idiocy aside.

Sweenytodd -- I've seen you about several times for the last couple of days. Let's have a post.

[MeMe]

I'm not so sure calling for counter-claims is a good idea. A couple of possibilities: we might have more than one doctor. If omg is scum, he might be trying to

draw

a counter-claim to point out the real doc.

As he said, he should be a prime kill target tonight if his claim is valid. If he doesn't die, we can discuss that tomorrow.

[MeMe]

Well, I never had thought that... and seems wise to me, but I see a little problem...

Probably the mafia don't kill him to make us think that he is not the real doctor...

Note that I didn't say "and we automatically lynch him tomorrow if he's not dead." I said "we can

discuss

it tomorrow."

It's too risky what he have done... did he have real reasons to claim?

Of

course

he shouldn't have claimed, which is why I'm not going to simply "believe him."

[MeMe]

I don't believe I've ever seen a mini game with two doctors. Feel free to link me to one if there is an example of such.

There are at least three examples in the regular minis (and probably a few more in the themes): 241, 280 -- especially notable as it was run by LyingBrian, and 300.

[MeMe]

omg -- the fact that a full count is needed at deadline for a lynch to occur still makes your claim silly. You weren't in any real danger.

[MeMe]

omg_, please let me know if

you've

read and understood

my

post just a few up (not to mention the posts when we were actually under the deadline AND LB's deadline rules in the initial post) which explain that we needed a full count -- that's six votes today -- for someone to be lynched at deadline.

If you post again without commenting on that huge fact which makes your "coinflip" situation and worry about losing [your claimed] power role completely irrational -- I'm going to assume you haven't.

[MeMe]

You know what, though? We're frittering away our extended, but still very short, time before night hits on this stupid distraction.

Is anyone seriously desiring an omg_ lynch today? If so, speak up. If not, let's shift the topic to "Figuring Out Who to Lynch Before It's Too Late." Cool?

[MeMe]

how is that relevant?

do you think i knew that at the time?

Since it's been in the rules post since the beginning and since I (and Javert & kilmenator & maybe others -- I'm not sure) talked about it, you certainly

should

have.

If your role is truly doctor and you didn't bother to find out what the deadline rules were before you claimed, you should admit that you acted in negligence and quit pretending that everyone ELSE is to blame for not understanding why you did it.

Now. Can we move on?

[MeMe]

Cool.

unvote: Ancalagon
vote: ac1983fan

[MeMe]

I kind of hate you.

[MeMe]

I was talking to omg_, not you.

[MeMe]

Because you seem completely uninterested in helping us make a decision -- exactly the same as way back when I voted you originally. Only now it's worse because there's a TON of "information to work on," not the "very little" you pretend.

[MeMe]

Seeing as there are thirteen -- not three -- pages in this game, I'm not really seeing that as much of a point.

And voting "no lynch" is the

most

unhelpful thing you could possibly do. Vote someone you wouldn't mind being without tomorrow. They wouldn't be lynched unless at least FIVE other people agree with you before deadline, so what's with the hesitation to do so?

[MeMe]

First: my point of view is not "let's lynch a power role" -- it's "lynch is better than no lynch, especially on day one." And it's not just

my

point of view, it's the

right

one (which is why so many people get accused when they even suggest no-lynch on day one). If you can't make up your mind with the thread information, how do you think forgoing the undeniable content that is the lynchee's role information and who was/off on the lynching wagon is somehow sensible?

Like I said, though, you wouldn't be making a decision on your own so you don't need to worry that you're going to make a mistake. Providing a vote -- heck, even a vote on ME -- would make more pro-town sense than your total lack of interest in playing the game of mafia. If you don't think anyone's scummy enough to be lynched, I can't help but think it's because you're playing from a different

side

rather than simply a different

point of view

.

[MeMe]

Loving Javert right now.

[MeMe]

I will be avoiding you in future, but I'm stuck with you for now and am embarrassed at letting myself respond to you in a way that mirrored your own juvenility.

I will clarify for the others in the game, though. I do not enjoy playing with anyone who respects neither this fantastic game of mafia nor their fellow players -- they make this a "grit your teeth and get through it" chore rather than a fun diversion for the mind. This site used to be a place for intelligent people to play an intelligent game. If more of us agreed to stop putting up with ruiners who favor a "playstyle" over simple "play," I think we could restore it to such a place.

[MeMe]

Who'd you block last night, ac1983fan?

[MeMe]

you went after me 3 times over something...

If by "go after" you mean that I pointed out that the comprehension problem was on your end, not ours, then I'm guilty. But please note that I've never voted nor accused you of anything but rudeness and bad play -- so I'd call this an overreaction.

stfu already

But since you've gone to the trouble of wording your desire that we put this behind us so

beautifully

yet succinctly, I can't help but agree that we should, indeed, stop this silly bickering and attempt to live in harmony.

~~~~~~~

Javert, whether or not you have a night action role -- did the mod send you any notice that would confirm ac1983fan?

[MeMe]

Why don't you believe the roleblocker claim, Ancalagon? And if you truly think he's lying, why aren't you voting him?

[MeMe]

Erm. That was lynch -1.

unvote: ac1983fan

I'd like to hear if Javert can help out here since he's the one ac1983 claims to have blocked

I'd like Ancalagon to explain why he'd keep his vote on me (she of the sublime posts ) if he thinks ac1983fan is lying

I'd like to know if Nocmen seriously believes the reason he just gave for his vote.

[MeMe]

I'm fairly confident your name won't be counted as an infraction.

OK -- we've got about 41 hours to deadline so I'm going back to where I was for now. I could pretty easily switch to Nocmen or even back to ac1983fan, if that's what needs to happen to make a lynch.

vote: Ancalagon

[MeMe]

spectrumvoid -- I'm not really interested in

convincing

you to vote if you can't see a reason to do so on your own.

My

reasons for voting Ancalagon are pretty basic: I find him unhelpful and his response to my initial vote was to repeatedly say that posts were missing, while still refusing to analyze the stuff that's here. Pull up his posts and have a look.

But if you don't like Ancalagon as a votee, why not vote

your

own current top suspect and "lay out the case" for him/her?

[MeMe]

Heads-up: we've got about 17.5 hours to deadline.

[MeMe]

Ancalagon's posted 15 times around the site since the last time he posted in here -- pretty weird to ignore the game that's under deadline when he's so obviously

able

to post.

[MeMe]

Interesting death scene...

[MeMe]

Well, unless he's a total idiot (and I'm not ruling that out), he

may

have protected any one of the three you named since we all helped lynch someone who turned out to be scum. Night actions

should

take lynch results into consideration.

[MeMe]

kilmenator's the only one yet to check in today. Since LyingBrian sends those helpful PMs letting us know when day breaks (I'm assuming everyone got them? Correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think there can be a good reason for her absence...

[MeMe]

I agree that kilmenator should be the current focus.

vote: kilmenator

[MeMe]

Hmm. Kinda weird there, Noc -- but I'll hear you two out.

unvote: kilmenator

[MeMe]

kil,

I didn't consider the hammer vote on Ancalagon as working in your favor -- as noted, he would've been hammered by

someone

and you being the one to throw it down (5 hours before deadline) when you'd not indicated you were planning to do so seemed more like you were beating Javert to the punch rather than performing a needed service.

Then today you were the last one into the thread and you put us off with a "more later" post while I saw you contributing content elsewhere.

When Javert made the decent point that Ancalagon was unlikely to publicly group his buddies into the same category, I took a look at the three posts where Ancalagon considers your alignment -- 197, 244, 335 -- and found that twice he chose to voice confusion over what he thought of you and once (244) he says that he hadn't found you scummy until after Javert's post. Because Anc

had

previously voiced some suspicion about you in 197, I found it weird...almost like he'd have preferred to play the sycophant if he were to wind up voting you.

Altogether, you became a decent focal point.

[MeMe]

And MeMe, you lead the charge against Ancalagon so I would tend to trust your instincts, who do you find the most suspicious?

I'm completely undecided at the moment. Currently, there's one person (besides myself) I'd be

unlikely

to vote -- other than that, I'm wide open.

[MeMe]

I'm thinking Elias is a pretty good scum possibility -- but the Barroman case isn't bad.

[MeMe]

Just a thought. I am looking forward to your promised answer to Sweeny's question.

[MeMe]

vote: Barromán

[MeMe]

I'll stick unless Barro comes back and explains why I shouldn't. Following the "well then maybe I'll just quit if you suspect me for not being here" vibe of his last point with an extended absence is not confidence-inspiring.

[MeMe]

So...Barro's been gone from the entire site for almost two weeks.

What's the plan,

mod

?

[MeMe]

That's four votes on Barromán.

I fully expected a post in here from him -- I saw him in this forum at 4:52 p.m. my time today (almost 6 hours ago).

[MeMe]

Still with the waiting....

[MeMe]

That

is a lynchable offense...

[MeMe]

OK...I'm starting to think that Barro might

not

be lynched (though I count five votes -- spectrumvoid, MeMe, Nocmen, ac1983fan, & kilmenator).

LyingBrian

-- could you please give us a vote count?

[MeMe]

I'm with you on that, Javert.

[MeMe]

I'm having a bit of a problem with the wording in spectrumvoid's claim -- she said "the" cop, which changes to "fellow cop" a few posts later.

I understand that she could have been saying "the only cop left" -- but I think if I were actually a cop (she's not claiming back-up) in a game where that role is already dead, I'd be hyper-aware of the challenges of the claim and word it accordingly.

Nitpicky maybe -- but that's how it strikes me.

[MeMe]

*hits head*
I believe SV's claim 100% now.

This confuses me.

[MeMe]

I'd appreciate a prod on Nocmen -- we could use the perspective of a for-sure innocent.

[MeMe]

~waves~

[MeMe]

vote: spectrumvoid

[MeMe]

read the last page please?

[MeMe]

Just waving "hello." I'm not sure how much attention we're going to get from the mod in the next couple of weeks -- he told me at Thespival that he's going to be taking his time getting to California.

[MeMe]

I don't see any reason for Sweeny to need a replacement...he's still on the site.

[MeMe]

It is getting really difficult to sustain interest in this game.

I vote that we all PM Sweeny generically and tell him to get his butt in here and explain why he asked the mod to replace him when the last thing he said to

us

is that he's rereading and will comment in a few days (a few weeks ago). I hate it when people quit for no good reason -- especially this far in when getting a replacement is near impossible.

[MeMe]

We could just quit. I'm alright with that.

[MeMe]

Did he say

why

he needed to be replaced?

[MeMe]

What does "i'm just a dog" above mean?

[MeMe]

I'm a little confused by that phrasing, Nocmen. You don't like hand banana for pointing it out? Or you don't like spectrumvoid based on what hand banana said?

[MeMe]

ac, two of your scenarios -- 1) four-scum team and 2) scum chose not to kill -- sound like you're backpedaling off what seemed like a very confident vote.

#1 doesn't work -- if we had four scum, the game should be over.

#2 doesn't make much sense -- choosing not to kill chances that the rest of us might be more likely to trust the existence of your role in the game...why would scum want to risk that rather than just trying to kill? I agree with hand banana that it

could

have happened, but it's doubtful and I find it odd that you went from not considering this likely at all (or you shouldn't have voted straight off) to repeating your votee hand banana's "sooo unlikely" suggestion as a real possibility.

And sorry -- this is my first time on today. But, you know, Elias hasn't shown up yet either.

[MeMe]

How does my vote for sv yesterday make my input more important than Elias's?

[MeMe]

I've still got a pending question up there for you, ac.

[MeMe]

Not a good answer.

1) If you're innocent, you should be particularly aware that voting spectrumvoid yesterday is

not

a good reason for suspicion.

2) If you're innocent, you should desire the other innocents to be posting and voting today. That you're, instead, attempting to point a finger elsewhere looks like more evidence that you're regretting your early vote.

[MeMe]

ac1983fan is my leading suspect right now -- I can't imagine voting

anyone

else at the moment, but I'm still willing to be talked out of it and wish he would attempt to do so rather than aarghing in my general direction.

I'm not a fan of "most to least scummy" lists, though. I won't vote myself or Nocmen. How's that?

Brian

-- can we get a prod on Elias, please?

MOD NOTE

I will be here consistently for this week

(Jul 22,2007 - Jul 28, 2007)

, then I'll be gone for a week

(Jul 29,2007 - Aug 04,2007)

, then ill be back for a long time. (long enough to finish up this game)

*

italics

denote edits... dates were clarified in a PM from Elias to me...

[MeMe]

aargh.

[MeMe]

Might not be "good enough" for you, but it works beautifully for me.

And, anyway, there's five people left in the game besides me. I told you my top suspect. I told you my bottom suspect. Everyone else is in-between (kinda like

your

list).

[MeMe]

It's also possible Elias is scum and a quick-lynch has been impossible in his absence...in light of LyingBrian's recent post firming up the dates of Elias's availability, we see that he was here for the night choices.

I believe that, if Elias is scum, it's even more likely that ac is, though. It makes sense that he wouldn't ask for Elias's input if he'd been reminded, overnight, that Elias wouldn't be available during the first part of the day.

In sum, I think the most likely explanation for ac not yet being lynched is that he's a baddie -- but I'll wait to see what Elias has to say before placing a vote.

[MeMe]

I'll hammer in 8 hours if there's no decent reason given not to do so before that time.

[MeMe]

Don't fear me hammering then. I'll wait for you to do your read-through.

[MeMe]

Nope, I'm cool.

vote: ac1983fan

[MeMe]

Well, hell.

Good job, scum.

[MeMe]

Worked out well Day 1 and WOULD have worked out well if I'd have followed up on that whole "hey -- why the hell is Sweeny getting replaced in here when he's posting elsewhere" thought.

Grr. Although I'm happy that there are players willing to replace, those who don't finish what they start

suck

.

[MeMe]

hehe! I didn't actually mean for that to sound like I was screaming at you. Although I don't like a lack of posting as a strategy, it doesn't bother me too much when the player doing it answers for it him/herself. Basically, if you're not posting, you should expect to deal with any fall-out from that. Getting someone else to answer

for

you is either lazy (best case) or cowardly (worst).

Again: grr.

[MeMe]

last post