New York Jets Mafia Game Thread

[Sharrow]

If I'm a roleless townie, the options are thus:

1--You lynch me now, and a vigilante will look else where (probably one of you, slats, CTM, and Pac).

2--You lynch me now, no vigilante, but theres a serial killer. Has no impact if you lynch me now or not, you get no info.

3--You lynch someone else, theres a vigilante, he'll most likely kill me tonight.

4--You lynch someone else, theres a SK, he'll kill someone else and let you come after me, since I'd appear as the SK or vigilante, having killed most likely another innocent.

Why do you think he'd most likely target you tonight?

[Doggin94it]

I'm not linking, I think one of the other is more likely then both..

All I'm saying is that I didn't like the way you three voted and pushed for Jets babe.

To clarify, here's my current suspicions and why (in alpha order)

1) AVM - Chang in play style, jvor voting him and pushing him dat 1.

2) Dan X - continued redirection of day 1 vote to Jets babe, as pointed out by EY as well.

3) Slats - Change of play style as Jif and I both pointed out, subtle reinforcement of need to vote Jets babe day 1. Also defended by JVOR at expense of AVM

4) SMC - hesitancy to hammer jets babe is different MO from him

Dan X is the only guy whose case I'm on solely due to the Jets Babe train...

How is vicious not on your list?

[Norway'sWaddlingMarmaloof]

I was out of town most of the weekend, was slammed at work, and will be oss-site today until late afternoon. I'll try an get caught up and contribute at that time. Just from a skimmimng quickly, it looks like there is some serious case-building going on.

[Doggin94it]

I'd say that I'm obviously more of a passive player than most of you guys. I'm still finding it tough to post a lot, and I apologize for not making 5 or 6 posts about those glorious moobs earlier in the game. I did get a couple in for Robocop though.

Speaking of ROBOCOP, I don't think there is much at all to the whole thing, tbh. It did seem like a strange idea, but I don't see what good/harm it would do to put an idea like that into our heads. Unless somebody can come up with a plausible reason for why he would do that, then I'd rather we lynch someone else. I'm satisfied with the lineup right now (AVM, SMC, Dan X, Pac, Slats, Vicious) as far as discussion is concerned.

AVM - At this point, I don't get the feeling that he's scum, but he's also high on my list as a potential serial killer/vigilante and has acted strangely. That said, I'm not too sure of him being the vig/sk yet so I'm not high on lynching him today.

SMC - I'm not seeing the robocop angle, so I'm not ready to lynch him either. But like I said, it was still a strange idea so I'm keeping an open mind on him.

Dan X - A lot of late pushing of the JB train, some in response to other posters mentioning her. Setting up a defense of voting for an innocent before she's even dead, trying to convince others to complete the train, or just innocent prodding? Neither his "scum wouldn't want to lynch JB on the first day" nor his "why would scum push her at 7 votes" ideas sit well with me. Based on JVOR's actions, scum did both. I remember Doggin trying to play that hand last game (I wouldn't do it if I were scum). He's putting himself out there a lot though, even before he got heat on himself unlike slats, who seemed to only show up promptly after he was first pressured. But I really like the work he's put in so far; even if he's scum and we let him live, it could tell us a lot down the road. If he's not then he's obviously shown himself to be a quality asset.

Pac - has seemed really strange to me and hasn't really added a whole lot to the game. He's on my list mostly for that and for trying to get Vicious to reveal any role he might have with relatively few votes on him though.

Vicious - acted strangely throughout that whole over-the-top blowup ordeal. The train on JB might even have been pushed along to help draw heat away from him considering he was the 2nd option at the time. I'd like to hear more from Doggin about what he thinks we might learn if we lynch him.

Slats - the rest weren't in any particular order, but Slats is at the top of my list. He just seems more and more scummy to me. Maybe it's just his increasing defensiveness or only bad coincidences or something. Anyway, he showed the same pushing that Dan and JVOR were doing on JB. Again, setting up a defense of voting for an innocent before she's even dead, trying to convince others to complete the train, or just innocent prodding? Also, his "you're in trouble if you lynch me" threats don't sit well with me either; he said that at least 3 times to CTM. His reasoning in this post about what EY knows was another tactic Doggin used last game when he was scum, I don't know if that's anything but it's worth mentioning. He's tried a couple times to buddy up and align himself with Dan, (1 and 2) while Dan hasn't returned the sentiment. I tried to do that with JiF at the end of last game, but he didn't take the bait. It also seems like he has scrambled a little bit to cast doubt on as many players as he possibly can. He pointed suspiciously to at least 9 of the other 12 players (Vic, Dan, EY, CTM, Doggin, Sharrow, Woody, Pac, AVM) in the last day (Norway, Jets Things, and SMC being the 3 he didn't mention), which is another thing I tried to do at the end of the last game. The only thing holding me back from voting for him is the idea that it's a scum setup and I don't think holding off on lynching him hurts us.

I'm going to vote:Pac and wait to hear from Doggin elaborating on what he thinks we will learn if Vic shows up innocent vs what we will learn if he shows up guilty.

Nice post, lots of good points here, IMO.

Here's the deal with vicious.

1) He's acting scummy (was doing a quick read through on blackerry this morning and noticed another post from him last night that screams scum - will be quoting it shortly (if I get to it before the LIRR hits the tunnel to Penn Station)

2) He's tied into a whole mess of other players. Slats/Norway - reasons I mentioned before. And CTM because that whole tantrum of Vic's had the feeling of a paint-by-numbers job. Almost as if someone told him "hey, when you're innocent you throw a tantrum when voted, I'll vote for you and you throw a tantrum, it'll prove you're innocent." That's a play I can see CTM setting up, then needing to back off of when he realized Vic's tantrum went way over the top (and defending it with "this is what he does when innocent" wouldn't work any more. The fact that Vicious has suddenly disappeared from CTM's suspect list scares me too.

If Vicious is guilty, those are the three players I'd be primarily focused on. If he's innocent, I'd still be somewhat suspicious of slats, less so of Norway, and not really at all (beyond baseline, anyone-of-us-could-be-scum suspicion) of CTM, since my main queasiness with him right now (paint-by-numbers and deflection) both rely on the assumption that Vic is scum (because they are both team-driven plays that don't have much value if Vic is innocent and Chan is scum).

Make sense?

[Dan.]

Dan X - A lot of late pushing of the JB train, some in response to other posters mentioning her. Setting up a defense of voting for an innocent before she's even dead, trying to convince others to complete the train, or just innocent prodding? Neither his "scum wouldn't want to lynch JB on the first day" nor his "why would scum push her at 7 votes" ideas sit well with me. Based on JVOR's actions, scum did both. I remember Doggin trying to play that hand last game (I wouldn't do it if I were scum). He's putting himself out there a lot though, even before he got heat on himself unlike slats, who seemed to only show up promptly after he was first pressured. But I really like the work he's put in so far; even if he's scum and we let him live, it could tell us a lot down the road. If he's not then he's obviously shown himself to be a quality asset.

Slats - the rest weren't in any particular order, but Slats is at the top of my list. He just seems more and more scummy to me. Maybe it's just his increasing defensiveness or only bad coincidences or something. Anyway, he showed the same pushing that Dan and JVOR were doing on JB. Again, setting up a defense of voting for an innocent before she's even dead, trying to convince others to complete the train, or just innocent prodding? Also, his "you're in trouble if you lynch me" threats don't sit well with me either; he said that at least 3 times to CTM. His reasoning in this post about what EY knows was another tactic Doggin used last game when he was scum, I don't know if that's anything but it's worth mentioning. He's tried a couple times to buddy up and align himself with Dan, (1 and 2) while Dan hasn't returned the sentiment. I tried to do that with JiF at the end of last game, but he didn't take the bait. It also seems like he has scrambled a little bit to cast doubt on as many players as he possibly can. He pointed suspiciously to at least 9 of the other 12 players (Vic, Dan, EY, CTM, Doggin, Sharrow, Woody, Pac, AVM) in the last day (Norway, Jets Things, and SMC being the 3 he didn't mention), which is another thing I tried to do at the end of the last game. The only thing holding me back from voting for him is the idea that it's a scum setup and I don't think holding off on lynching him hurts us.

I now realize that was true, so that's a good point. It honestly made sense to me, but that sneaky JVoR was at it again ...

As for Slats, I'm having such a hard time figuring out what's happening with him since we keep getting mentioned together and he keeps saying a lot of the things I've been saying.

I also think he should be a bit more suspicious of me. At one point he said I should get pressured for the simple reason that I didn't get any last game, but since then he's been going really, really easy on me.

And I still think it's weird JVoR defended him early on, using the same rationale I did.

I'm going to vote: Slats.

[Doggin94it]

Fag.

Now THAT is what I'm talking about!

Are you even playing this game?

[Pac]

Pac - has seemed really strange to me and hasn't really added a whole lot to the game. He's on my list mostly for that and for trying to get Vicious to reveal any role he might have with relatively few votes on him though.

I'm going to vote:Pac and wait to hear from Doggin elaborating on what he thinks we will learn if Vic shows up innocent vs what we will learn if he shows up guilty.

No offense but this is like your 7th post... How can you say I haven't added anything to the game when I've been active throughout? Your definition of "adding to the game" may be different than mine. At this point all I can do is voice my concerns, ask questions, and vote... all which I've done.

In response to your concern about Vic I was following the model laid out by CTM of applying gentle pressure and seeing how he responds. Apparently because of whatever happened last game I'm now shady for asking these types of questions. I wasn't necessarily asking him to reveal... In reality I just wanted to see if he was going to tell me to go F myself.

[Doggin94it]

Here's the comment that screams scum to me:

Slats, like EY and other, could be very valuable to the town. I'm telling I really think we're wasting our time with slats. I'm open to being voted on if that's the way the town feels but all I can say is you're wasting your time there as well. IMO we gain just as much from lynching SMC as we do myself. He's experienced, intelligent and the robocop role comment seems suspicious. Also cast the hammer on JB after staying away from it the entire time.

It makes me look bad, it makes me look terrible, but

Vote: SMC

Why, given Slats' play thus far, would anyone be extremely confident that Slats was innocent? And the jump to a possible alternative bandwagon scares me.

[Sharrow]

I now realize that was true, so that's a good point. It honestly made sense to me, but that sneaky JVoR was at it again ...

As for Slats, I'm having such a hard time figuring out what's happening with him since we keep getting mentioned together and he keeps saying a lot of the things I've been saying.

I also think he should be a bit more suspicious of me. At one point he said I should get pressured for the simple reason that I didn't get any last game, but since then he's been going really, really easy on me.

And I still think it's weird JVoR defended him early on, using the same rationale I did.

I'm going to vote: Slats.

Actually, that post was sandwiched in between the two posts he made saying he had a feeling you were innocent. Granted all he said was that he'll want to "look into your behavior a little more closely".

[Jets Things]

Apologies for my absence yesterday (after I said I'd be around), but I'm a walking calamity. Not long after I got home from the doctor to get the cortisone shot for my sunburn, I was outside in the rain and slipped on a wooded step in my backyard. A slip and fall later and I now have three stitches across the top of my foot to close a nice slice. My big toenail cracked horizontally and bled profusely, but the doctor said it wasn't bad enough to cut off so now it's wrapped and hanging there. Pretty sexy. Sooo... I'm home from work today and will definitely be more active. And for safety's sake, if you're wearing socks and need to take the garbage out in the rain, take the extra few seconds to put sneakers on rather than jamming your sock-covered feet into your tractionless flip-flops.

A few things I thought were weird...

The only way the SMC robocop comment could be suspicious in my eyes is if he's the SK/vig. Otherwise, what's he selling? So either he has that role, or he has an overactive imagination. I don't know how many games he's played, but this is only my second and the role he described seemed far-fetched to me right off the bat.

Agree with this. Robocop idea doesn't make any sense. Too much power for one role. Wouldn't exist.

Thanks, I guess.

The "Robocop" thing is EY's satirical invention. I was merely suggesting that there may be other roles beside vigilante which would fit into the scene that Bleedin described. Was that now supposed to be "flavor" as CTM said? Mind you, even the player names last game had meaning. It was merely a suggestion to look outside the box and not put blinders on as to by-the-book roles.

FOS: EY - likes to put words in mouths

You shouldn't want me to go first, I'll tell you that much. I'm gonna go down kicking and screaming that you're the one who's scum, and I'll turn up innocent as soon as I'm lynched. It will not look good for you. And I'm really thinking that it shouldn't, anyway.

Dude, why didn't you just say "Trust me?"

Not completely sold on AVM being scum. Yeah, JVoR made the push to vote for him, but scum is supposed to get us to vote for fellow innocents.

[Dan.]

Here's the comment that screams scum to me:

Why, given Slats' play thus far, would anyone be extremely confident that Slats was innocent? And the jump to a possible alternative bandwagon scares me.

This is a good point. But then again, I also remember Vicious making similar comments during your debate with SMC last game. He kept saying he really thought you were innocent, and was 100% sure that SMC was scum. He was wrong, but he wasn't scum.

I'd like to hear more from him about why he thinks we'll gain more information from lynching SMC than from lynching him. Since you've made the argument that links Vicious to other players, and I'm not seeing the same thing with SMC.

[Sharrow]

No offense but this is like your 7th post... How can you say I haven't added anything to the game when I've been active throughout? Your definition of "adding to the game" may be different than mine. At this point all I can do is voice my concerns, ask questions, and vote... all which I've done.

In response to your concern about Vic I was following the model laid out by CTM of applying gentle pressure and seeing how he responds. Apparently because of whatever happened last game I'm now shady for asking these types of questions. I wasn't necessarily asking him to reveal... In reality I just wanted to see if he was going to tell me to go F myself.

Being active and adding to the game are two different things.

[Sharrow]

Being active and adding to the game are two different things.

And the fact that you've been active and not adding as much to the game rather than being inactive and not adding as much to the game is more telling, imo.

[Jets Things]

Vote: Vicious

The early meltdown plus the scummy suicide vote when he still needed a few more to get lynched (not to mention the fact that I completely disagree with voting for yourself in any situation). He's on borrowed time.

[Sharrow]

I should have split that big post up into 7 little ones.

[Pac]

And the fact that you've been active and not adding as much to the game rather than being inactive and not adding as much to the game is more telling, imo.

Did you get this in a fortune cookie?

In the 3 games I've played (1 doesn't count as I was knocked out quickly) I've found the thing that gets me into trouble is following the group instead of sticking with my instincts. I've allowed myself to be talked out of a vote by the likes of Doggin, CTM etc only to find I was right to begin with. For that reason I've decided to play this game more decisively and going with who I think is the most suspicious. That doesn't mean that I won't switch my vote if a good case is made but so far I don't see it.

I think SMC's Robocob fiasco is much ado about nothing.. he was simply hypothesizing about possible roles IMO.

I'm still weary of Vic but didn't like that doggin and SMC jumped on within minutes of each other.

Without a strong vibe on anyone else I have to stick with AVM for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

[Dan.]

Actually, that post was sandwiched in between the two posts he made saying he had a feeling you were innocent. Granted all he said was that he'll want to "look into your behavior a little more closely".

Thanks for the link. I think it is a little odd he wanted to look more closely at me because I didn't get any pressure last game, but in his next post he said he felt like I was innocent and seemed to be trying to commiserate about how we were both wrong about JB and how CTM is coming after the both of us.

Dan went thru the entire last game without any pressure on him at all. He has it easy. I appreciate his list making abilities, but I'll want to look into his behavior a little more closely.

I'm innocent Dan. I get the feeling you are, too. We agreed on JB. Too bad she turned up innocent, too - but that's the vote that CTM's using to cast doubt on the two of us. I'm avoiding any fires he wants to start right now.

The other person who just happened to agree perfectly with me about things was JVoR.

[Sharrow]

I think the current vote count is, unofficially:

Vicious89x (3) - Doggin94it, SMC, Jets Things

AVM (2) - Pac2566, CTM

SMC (2) - EY, Vicious89x

Pac2566 (2) - AVM, Sharrow

Slats (1) - Dan X

[Dan.]

And again, here Slats repeats that he doesn't see a case on me and won't vote for me.

You thought she was innocent, but you voted her off. You're trying to use the vote on her to point to a group of players possibly being scum by falling into the 2-4 slots on that vote - but you're not trying to use that or anything.

You should back off because you've got nothing. Or not back off because you're scum. You were pretty laid back in the first day phase, but seem to be gangbusters for a vote this time around. I'm a little suspicious of SMC, too, but I don't see the case on Dan. Not much on AVM, either. I won't vote in either of those directions, but it'll sure be interesting to me to see how it'll turn out if you get a lynch you're looking for. I know how it'll turn out if you lynch me.

And then agrees with my reasoning once again, this time about AVM.

Okay. I have to admit, there's something compelling about that. Just when I got done saying I wouldn't vote AVM, too...

What say you, AVM?

I realize it's possible we just happen to think similarly, but it strikes me as odd that JVoR, Slats, and I would share so many of the same sentiments. After the last game, JVoR told me it was a problem for his team that I wouldn't let myself be manipulated easily by EY, and I have to wonder if this was his and Slats' attempt to get me to trust them.

[Bleedin Green]

Vote Count:

Vicious89x (3) - Doggin94it, SMC, Jets Things

AVM (2) - Pac2566, CTM

SMC (2) - EY, Vicious89x

Pac2566 (2) - AVM, Sharrow

slats(1) - Dan X

With 13 players remaining, it takes 7 votes to cut.

[CTM]

How is vicious not on your list?

1) He'd be 5, and I am ok with pressuring him for information purposes (although I can tell you without a doubt that I am in no way linked to him) When Vic and I were scum together last time I was going to buss him, he freaked out over PM, hoped that me and BG lost and I basically had to talk him down. Once we was calm I asked him to dissappear as he was taking the game way too seriously and could screw it up. There is no way I'd run a day 2 gambit with someone that combustible (sorry vic)

2) He's hinting at being roled now. So either he's innocent and the scum will kill him tonight, or he's guilty and won't have an explanation for why he's around a few days from now. Even if we pressure him and he role claims, it makes too much sense as a scum play so I personally wouldn't want a counter claim...

[CTM]

And again, here Slats repeats that he doesn't see a case on me and won't vote for me.

And then agrees with my reasoning once again, this time about AVM.

I realize it's possible we just happen to think similarly, but it strikes me as odd that JVoR, Slats, and I would share so many of the same sentiments. After the last game, JVoR told me it was a problem for his team that I wouldn't let myself be manipulated easily by EY, and I have to wonder if this was his and Slats' attempt to get me to trust them.

imo, this is typical scum behavior. When I'm scum and I have a known adversary on the another side, I buddy up with them. It's the last bit of information that makes me suspicious of SMC, after last game, you'd think he'd have an itchy trigger finger with me, and I started off the day accusing him, but he didnt really bat an eyelash. Doesn't make him guilty, but makes him suspicious to me..

[Doggin94it]

1) He'd be 5, and I am ok with pressuring him for information purposes (although I can tell you without a doubt that I am in no way linked to him) When Vic and I were scum together last time I was going to buss him, he freaked out over PM, hoped that me and BG lost and I basically had to talk him down. Once we was calm I asked him to dissappear as he was taking the game way too seriously and could screw it up. There is no way I'd run a day 2 gambit with someone that combustible (sorry vic)

2) He's hinting at being roled now. So either he's innocent and the scum will kill him tonight, or he's guilty and won't have an explanation for why he's around a few days from now. Even if we pressure him and he role claims, it makes too much sense as a scum play so I personally wouldn't want a counter claim...

That's another reason to pressure, and unless he claims Doc I absolutely do want a counterclaim.

Right now, if Vicious is innocent, he's dead tonight (no way mafia passes up the chance to kill an innocent who's almost role-claimed - gives them a good chance of taking out a power role), and if he doesn't full claim then he won't get doc protection, either (he looks too scummy). Worst of both worlds.

If he gets pressured and fake claims, I want that counterclaim. It's too useful to be able to run twin finder-claimants, and if there are competing finder-claimants, we'll (at minimum) have 2 mafia down - plus the mafia will be looking at a 50% chance that their kill gets blocked if they aim at the true claimant (since in that circumstance, the doc will coin-flip to pick the player to protect).

The "don't counterclaim" call is the wrong one, IMO.

[Dan.]

imo, this is typical scum behavior. When I'm scum and I have a known adversary on the another side, I buddy up with them. It's the last bit of information that makes me suspicious of SMC, after last game, you'd think he'd have an itchy trigger finger with me, and I started off the day accusing him, but he didnt really bat an eyelash. Doesn't make him guilty, but makes him suspicious to me..

Hm, that's true. It's hard for me to believe that the reason he's being so much more reserved this time around is simply because he really got into character the last game and isn't doing that this time.

Also, in rereading the following post by Slats, it does seem a bit overly sinister towards you. (As I think Sharrow pointed out before - not sure if it was the same post, though.)

You thought she was innocent, but you voted her off. You're trying to use the vote on her to point to a group of players possibly being scum by falling into the 2-4 slots on that vote - but you're not trying to use that or anything.

You should back off because you've got nothing. Or not back off because you're scum. You were pretty laid back in the first day phase, but seem to be gangbusters for a vote this time around. I'm a little suspicious of SMC, too, but I don't see the case on Dan. Not much on AVM, either. I won't vote in either of those directions, but it'll sure be interesting to me to see how it'll turn out if you get a lynch you're looking for. I know how it'll turn out if you lynch me.

Right now I personally don't feel that you are scum. I think you've been using faulty logic, but I also recognize it might seem so obviously faulty to me because I know you're wrong about me. Whereas the fact that you devoted so much time to debating with me last night makes me feel that you don't actually know I'm innocent.

For now, I think you're legitimately trying to sort things out. Slats' reaction is a bit more threatening ... I think unnecessarily so ...

And in case it's unclear, this is me committing to Slats as my favorite for scum.

[Dan.]

That's another reason to pressure, and unless he claims Doc I absolutely do want a counterclaim.

Right now, if Vicious is innocent, he's dead tonight (no way mafia passes up the chance to kill an innocent who's almost role-claimed - gives them a good chance of taking out a power role), and if he doesn't full claim then he won't get doc protection, either (he looks too scummy). Worst of both worlds.

If he gets pressured and fake claims, I want that counterclaim. It's too useful to be able to run twin finder-claimants, and if there are competing finder-claimants, we'll (at minimum) have 2 mafia down - plus the mafia will be looking at a 50% chance that their kill gets blocked if they aim at the true claimant (since in that circumstance, the doc will coin-flip to pick the player to protect).

The "don't counterclaim" call is the wrong one, IMO.

This is assuming he's going to claim as finder? If we don't push him into claiming a role, and he's the doctor, he can protect himself tonight. If he does claim as doctor, what happens?

[CTM]

That's another reason to pressure, and unless he claims Doc I absolutely do want a counterclaim.

Right now, if Vicious is innocent, he's dead tonight (no way mafia passes up the chance to kill an innocent who's almost role-claimed - gives them a good chance of taking out a power role), and if he doesn't full claim then he won't get doc protection, either (he looks too scummy). Worst of both worlds.

If he gets pressured and fake claims, I want that counterclaim. It's too useful to be able to run twin finder-claimants, and if there are competing finder-claimants, we'll (at minimum) have 2 mafia down - plus the mafia will be looking at a 50% chance that their kill gets blocked if they aim at the true claimant (since in that circumstance, the doc will coin-flip to pick the player to protect).

The "don't counterclaim" call is the wrong one, IMO.

The reason I don't recommend it is because VIc already did the whole self vote/I hope the town loses routine, which makes any claim he makes less believable.. In fact if I was the doc, if he claimed and wasn't countered, I still wouldn't protect him

[CTM]

Right now I personally don't feel that you are scum. I think you've been using faulty logic, but I also recognize it might seem so obviously faulty to me because I know you're wrong about me. Whereas the fact that you devoted so much time to debating with me last night makes me feel that you don't actually know I'm innocent.

For now, I think you're legitimately trying to sort things out. Slats' reaction is a bit more threatening ... I think unnecessarily so ...

And in case it's unclear, this is me committing to Slats as my favorite for scum.

As I said to JVOR in his first game, and it actually made me believe he was innocent, is that the inexperianced innocent player's reaction to someone thinking you are scum is to think they are scum in return. As you stated, since the accused knows he's innocent, his natural reaction to any logic which points to his guilt is to believe it's either faulty or scummy. I think as you get more experianced you realize this isn't precision work, townies need to die as part of the process and innocents, even yourself, sometimes do scummy things.

For instance, I can see the angle doggin is going after me with, I disagree with it, cause i know it's not true, but the angle is plausible..

[Vicious89x]

So do you want me to role claim or not.

[Dan.]

As I said to JVOR in his first game, and it actually made me believe he was innocent, is that the inexperianced innocent player's reaction to someone thinking you are scum is to think they are scum in return. As you stated, since the accused knows he's innocent, his natural reaction to any logic which points to his guilt is to believe it's either faulty or scummy. I think as you get more experianced you realize this isn't precision work, townies need to die as part of the process and innocents, even yourself, sometimes do scummy things.

For instance, I can see the angle doggin is going after me with, I disagree with it, cause i know it's not true, but the angle is plausible..

So how do you feel about Slats' reaction to you? As an experienced player who has seen the way inexperienced players tend to react, do you think he's just acting this way because he's innocent and is assuming you must be scum for going after him, or do you think there's more to it? (I don't remember him necessarily phrasing it the same way last game, but I do remember early on he seemed suspicious of anyone who questioned him.)

[CTM]

So how do you feel about Slats' reaction to you? As an experienced player who has seen the way inexperienced players tend to react, do you think he's just acting this way because he's innocent and is assuming you must be scum for going after him, or do you think there's more to it? (I don't remember him necessarily phrasing it the same way last game, but I do remember early on he seemed suspicious of anyone who questioned him.)

Dunno... JVOR was a textbook player and easier to read. Slats for me it's neutral, his posture was threatening which is suspicious, but if he's innocent, the logic he used to get there is tried and true..

[CTM]

So do you want me to role claim or not.

sigh... i really wish this would've been left alone..

[Jets Things]

So do you want me to role claim or not.

Heavens no.

sigh... i really wish this would've been left alone..

[Vicious89x]

sigh... i really wish this would've been left alone..

I'm just sick of having to run moves by a handful of players who run the game. It's fun for you guys but not so much for others.

You guys develop your theories throw random stuff out there and claim genius. I'm not saying you here CTM, but others with "experience" could not be more off on me.

[CTM]

I'm just sick of having to run moves by a handful of players who run the game. It's fun for you guys but not so much for others.

You guys develop your theories throw random stuff out there and claim genius. I'm not saying you here CTM, but others with "experience" could not be more off on me.

I don't know why you'd think that.

I was voting slats day 1 and AVM today, neither train has picked up any momentum. Doggin's been absent most of the game and EY was voting Pac and Dan, also no momentum. The Jets babe train was basically lead/pushed by you, slats, dan x and JVOR..

[CTM]

Heavens no.

Damn I hate that smiley..

WHy don't you go trip over something

btw.. hope all is well..