|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 12, 2011 22:13:11 GMT -5
And...my quotes appear to be borked. I give up for the night.
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 12, 2011 23:12:30 GMT -5
Basically, I didn't feel informed enough to vote when I had time, and I didn't have enough time to get informed before the end of the day. While some may think that any vote is better than no vote at all, I'd rather not be led around by the nose by scum, than simply not participate (did that make sense?). If I had to just go with my gut, I'd have probably voted for timmy. But that is literally nothing but gut. This is awesome. We have people saying that if they had voted, they would have voted for so-and-so, and we also have people saying that if they had unvoted, they would not have voted for so-and-so. Way to spread the WIFOM. @ Cookies/Coconuts: I've re-read Day 1 and I have to agree with texcat regarding your stated intention to unvote KidV but then not doing that. I've read your rebuttal, and I was almost convinced of your sincerity, but then you voted for texcat. Your vote seems to be so much OMGUS, rather than an honest effort to find Scum, and that seems pretty scummy to me. Vote Cookies/Coconuts
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 13, 2011 0:16:04 GMT -5
Where did I EVER state an intention to unvote KidV? This is getting ridiculous.
Is this the post you're talking about, where it is clearly not intention to unvote KidV, and was prior to KidV's claim?
If you don't see a problem with texcat's logic in her case, then no amount of logical reasoning on my part is likely to have any impact on you.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 13, 2011 0:46:30 GMT -5
I too went looking for the post where Cookies said she would unvote KidV, and I failed to find it either. But I did find something else that bothers me. First she votes for Mahaloth. Later she unvotes him, and after that she votes for KidV. And then a bit later she mentions that she's still suspicious of Mahaloth, and might switch her vote back to him. So far this is all well and good...then comes the part that bothers me. Post 396 - Cookies tells KidV "I'm not convinced beyond any and all doubt that you're scum, but you are suspicious enough to get my vote at this point." Post 399 - KidV answers her back, saying "And yet I'm the scummiest thing you've seen all day. You're reaching, Cookies. Really reaching. And it smells." Post 401 - Cookies says " No, Mahaloth is the most suspect person I've seen all day, but you're a close second, and it is not that far of a reach." (emphasis mine) If Mahaloth was the most suspect person she'd seen all Day, then why was she voting for KidV? She goes on in that post to say "You may have missed the last few posts of mine where I express an interest in potentially still voting to lynch Mahaloth if it looked like there was more of a consensus on the matter." Of course, she never actually said anything about getting a consensus on Mahaloth, she only said "I'd still be potentially willing to switch back to Mahaloth". Perhaps she meant to say "I'd be willing to switch back if there's a consensus", but she certainly didn't actually say. So, Cookies, if you thought Mahaloth was the most suspect person you'd seen all day, why weren't you voting for him? Remember, First of all, you should be voting for who you think is the scummiest. Yet you're not, apparently. Which tells me that you either don't really know what you think is scummy, or maybe you're just trying to hedge your bets until you get some reactions from others and see what sticks.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 13, 2011 1:06:21 GMT -5
Read the quote in post 152.
Though I did not use the word 'consensus', I think "I'd still be potentially willing to switch back to Mahaloth, despite that not apparently being a popular idea." is pretty transparently a call/probe for consensus.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 13, 2011 1:10:44 GMT -5
And for the umpteenth time. Prior to KidV's claim and subsequent posts, Mahaloth was the most suspicious person I'd seen all Day. Then KidV claimed and new information entered the game. Then he made some posts after claiming, and new information entered the game. Then I reviewed that information, incorporated it into my analysis of KidV. As a result of that refreshed analysis, I decided to leave my vote where it was and said as much.
Hopefully that is clearly communicative of my thinking and instigates no heartburn of paranoia like apparently everything else I've said.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 13, 2011 1:20:34 GMT -5
And for the umpteenth time. Prior to KidV's claim and subsequent posts, Mahaloth was the most suspicious person I'd seen all Day. Then KidV claimed and new information entered the game. Then he made some posts after claiming, and new information entered the game. Then I reviewed that information, incorporated it into my analysis of KidV. As a result of that refreshed analysis, I decided to leave my vote where it was and said as much. Hopefully that is clearly communicative of my thinking and instigates no heartburn of paranoia like apparently everything else I've said. My problem is that in Post 401 you say "Mahaloth is the most suspect person I've seen all day", but at that point you are voting for KidV. So why had you unvoted Mahaloth and then voted KidV at that point, if you still thought Mahaloth was most suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 13, 2011 1:22:13 GMT -5
I'm missing a step in my eye-rolling, I see.
When Mahaloth claimed, I kept my vote on him in place at first, and voiced my continued suspicion of him and the eas at which scum could portray the role he described. But eventually so many votes switched off of him and apparently my concerns were not shared. Somewhere in that same timeframe, KidV caught my eye because he came to inverse conclusions about Mahaloth and Bunny based on their claims and other information at hand, and it felt like he was using a double standard. This caused me to begin suspecting KidV and finding a new place to place the pressure of my vote that felt was superior to staying on Mahaloth as a one-off. KidV's arguable lack of suspicion of Mahaloth reinforced my co-suspicion of Mahaloth, as I also stated. Then KidV had a small overreaction to pressure that was hitting him at that time, including my pressure. This continued my interest in him. Then he claimed, and my interest in him surprassed not only remaining suspicion of Mahaloth, but also overcame any resistance to keeping a vote on a claimed Town power role.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Feb 13, 2011 1:24:07 GMT -5
NETA: I know my concerns about scum being able to pose as Mahaloth's role were/are shared, just not sufficiently to keep enough votes on Mahaloth at that time.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 13, 2011 6:38:31 GMT -5
This is awesome. We have people saying that if they had voted, they would have voted for so-and-so, and we also have people saying that if they had unvoted, they would not have voted for so-and-so. Way to spread the WIFOM. What's your opinion on Harmless toDay?
|
|
|
Post by BobArrgh on Feb 13, 2011 9:22:24 GMT -5
Here are the posts from Harmless toDay:
#3: Votes Mahaloth #26: Defends vote #120: Says he was busy, will be back with analysis. *Cue crickets chirping*
He makes a few good points about Mahaloth, but they seem to be based on feeling and suppositions, rather than hard fact.
|
|
|
Post by guiri on Feb 13, 2011 9:56:12 GMT -5
YesterDay you were sufficiently suspicious of Harmless as to keep your vote on her despite her claim of watcher. She's claimed to have been blocked and, apart from a few posts and a vote, has done little since the claim.
How has Cookies' supposed omgus vote on TexCat pushed her to the top of your suspicion list? Or were you not suspicious of Harmless at all?
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 13, 2011 12:25:46 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 0 days, 14 hours and 34 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (3)(3 151) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151] Mahaloth (1)(1 3) harmless little bunny [3] Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] texcat (1)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111]Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72]Not Voting (13) Merestil Haye, peekercpa, Captain Pinkies, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, Mahaloth, Suburban Plankton, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, Natlaw, Red Skeezix, romola With these votes, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by peekercpa on Feb 13, 2011 12:35:33 GMT -5
YesterDay you were sufficiently suspicious of Harmless as to keep your vote on her despite her claim of watcher. She's claimed to have been blocked and, apart from a few posts and a vote, has done little since the claim. <snipped> and while i don't believe that this post was directed at me it's at least a good jumping off point. well i was and still am suspicous of bunny but after re-evaluating claims and results i really get a tad confused. i really think that one of maha or bunny is scum and one is town. and to some extent it's wifom on why scum would choose to block a watcher as opposed to whatever term we use to describe maha's role, but still funky. his results plus the little fast one that he tried to pull by using a post by a player and trying to establish some credibility as if it was coming from the mods is all sorts of messed up. vote mahaand i'll bet a nickel that he pops right up to refute this.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 13, 2011 13:04:30 GMT -5
I'm rereading Day 1 and Day 2 and building this post as I go. Here are my thoughts: Sister Coyote, timmy, Romanic, Cookies, Red Skeezix, Natlaw, guiri, Paranoia, texcat, Suburban Plankton and anybody else who I may have missed: All of you unvoted or stated that you would unvote a person who claimed a town power role. I believe that this is a dangerous trend. In this game everybody can have a fake PM made at any time. Instead of voting the player you find most scummy you will vote the one who hasn't claimed or the one who claimed vanilla. If the person who leads in votes claims and gets unvoted until the next person leads in votes then eventually all of the town power roles will be revealed and we will still not know which ones are truthful. We have to vote for who we believe is scummy. There is such a thing as playing too safe. A role claim can't be a "get out of jail free" card. Now onto the players I have questions for: Cookies:You posted this: I'd still be potentially willing to switch back to Mahaloth, despite that not apparently being a popular idea. I find the Bunny's claim somewhat easier to swallow than Mahaloth's, which is contributing to my suspicion of KidV, who seems to be reading the same scenario with inverted conclusions. My final vote will end up on one of the two, Mahaloth or KidV. I can't find where KidV had "inverted conclusions." He never said anything about finding my claim suspicious. He found my voting habits (voting to save myself) suspicious. This seems like a reach for a reason to keep a vote on him. Not only that, but when you voted him you didn't even have that reason: KidV's double standard is suspect, and it isn't helping my lingering doubts about Mahaloth's claim either. Vote: KidV Again, he wasn't voting me because of a double standard. He was voting me because I wasn't making a case to help town. I was voting in self defense. (I was working on my cases to help town, but there was no way he could have known that at the time he voted me.) Lastly, Which is it? You don't think that people should automatically unvote until you think they should automatically unvote. You support the idea of looking at things on a case-by-case basis, but players only get one chance to decide what side of some n00b-training-wheels policy they come down on, and are then expected to hold to that unwaveringly. Again, which is it? It is enough contradictory reasoning to get my vote at this point. Vote texcat This doesn't seem like a vote for somebody you think is scum. Is this your only case against texcat? Suburban Plankton:I don't have a really good read on anyone (big surprise at this point), but my two top suspects are: sinjin - Her vote on bobarrgh seems like a vote of opportunity. It comes. She says she doesn't believe his explanation, but there was something about her reasoning that just felt 'off' to me. KidVermicious - for voting for a the claimed Watcher...basically the exact argument made by Renata in Post 350. I'll be back with another vote after I recheck a few things. So you were suspicious of KidV for voting the person who claimed watcher and then you voted him because but wait, weren't you the last person on the KidV bandwagon? Also, you had voted me for bandwagon jumping earlier. hmm... Captain Pinkies: You are going to have to contribute something more than drink recipes and excuses for not helping at some point. guiri: Doing my best to catch up! What are your thoughts on Bob toDay? This is awesome. We have people saying that if they had voted, they would have voted for so-and-so, and we also have people saying that if they had unvoted, they would not have voted for so-and-so. Way to spread the WIFOM. What's your opinion on Harmless toDay? What are you trying to do here? Mahaloth (sorry about the extra "l" earlier): First off, your role is extremely powerful if you are truthful. I can't grasp a reason why scum wouldn't have done anything to you. You should be their top priority if you aren't a scum yourself. If they didn't kill for fear of a failed kill then they should have at least blocked you, but they didn't. They blocked me. 1. It was a Day One vote and I like the policy of "vote early, vote often". I was actually surprised how much crap I caught for it. Still am, actually. 2. I initially thought it could be a scum tactic, like "only Town would ask to be removed," but I really think it's a null tell now. Hence, my unvote. Attracting votes the way I did practically makes me want to just shut up and fly under the radar, but I won't shut up because that it anti-Town. Still, I hope we don't just lynch the loud. 1. I still don't see you following your policy of vote early, vote often. 2. You said you wouldn't shut up and fly under the radar because it's anti-town. What happened? Merestil Haye, Captain Pinkies, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, Mahaloth, Suburban Plankton, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, Natlaw, Red Skeezix, romola:Where are you? We need your votes
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 13, 2011 13:05:49 GMT -5
my vote is still on Mahaloth because I believe him most likely to be scum. I also am suspicious of Bob for the reasons I posted yesterday, but I have nothing new to add to the case.
|
|
|
Post by harmless little bunny on Feb 13, 2011 13:07:45 GMT -5
YesterDay you were sufficiently suspicious of Harmless as to keep your vote on her despite her claim of watcher. She's claimed to have been blocked and, apart from a few posts and a vote, has done little since the claim. How has Cookies' supposed omgus vote on TexCat pushed her to the top of your suspicion list? Or were you not suspicious of Harmless at all? I was working on that huge post when you posted this. it took forever because I was making notes as I was rereading everything.
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 13, 2011 13:09:21 GMT -5
vote Mahaloth
I wasn't completely sold on his claim yesterday, and something about his 'investigation' doesn't ring true to me today. Add to that the fact that he's made no effort today to add anything to the analysis, and he seems Scummy to me.
I'm still not totally comfortable about Cookies vote on KidV (not her end-of-Day non-change, but earlier on, as I talked about in Post 153), but not enough to put her at the top of my list.
And it's disturbing that we have only 14 hours until Disk and we have so many people with only 1 or 2 posts Today, and far more who haven't cast a vote (of course, I was in that latter group until this post). Specifically, Merestil Haye, naturallylazy, and pedescribe have yet to cast a vote in this game, and have a total of 6 posts between them Today. It would be nice to get some contribution from these folks.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 13, 2011 13:17:35 GMT -5
Ouch 13 11 not voting and including me. I've neglecting this game, sorry . At this point it might be better for the game to lynch a low poster.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 13, 2011 13:25:30 GMT -5
Looking at those, this pings me a bit (the both could be scum part) from Hockey Monkey: After some deliberation, my initial suspicion of Timmy because of his vote seems founded. The exchange between him and Pinkies seems contrived to me. Kind of fake, if you will. It's entirely possible they are boht scum, as Pinkies isn't looking very squeaky to me either. They seem to me to be setting each other up for Townie Cred when one of them gets dead. vote Timmy pedescribe so far has one game comment (little bit of trust in Cookies) MHaye has a comment about that he probably would have voted timmy over pedescribe if had posted in time. Until I reviewed the current cases I'll Vote: pedescribe Mainly for not participating and I didn't like his half-assed summary at the end of Day One.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 13, 2011 13:34:02 GMT -5
Oops, forgot that Mhaye did have some more content Day One (aside some strategy talk, he defends Pinkies as a low poster (also mentioned as a reason to vote timmy in his D2 post), won't vote BillMc or a non-participant D1).
|
|
|
Post by Suburban Plankton on Feb 13, 2011 13:48:29 GMT -5
I'm rereading Day 1 and Day 2 and building this post as I go. Here are my thoughts: Sister Coyote, timmy, Romanic, Cookies, Red Skeezix, Natlaw, guiri, Paranoia, texcat, Suburban Plankton and anybody else who I may have missed: All of you unvoted or stated that you would unvote a person who claimed a town power role. I believe that this is a dangerous trend. In this game everybody can have a fake PM made at any time. Instead of voting the player you find most scummy you will vote the one who hasn't claimed or the one who claimed vanilla. If the person who leads in votes claims and gets unvoted until the next person leads in votes then eventually all of the town power roles will be revealed and we will still not know which ones are truthful. We have to vote for who we believe is scummy. There is such a thing as playing too safe. A role claim can't be a "get out of jail free" card. I'm going to both agree and disagree with you here. You are correct that we need to vote for the person we believe is most Scummy, period. Whether they have claimed or not. This is true in any game, but especially in this one, where we have been more or less guaranteed that all Scum will have access to a 'plausible' claim. As far as starting a 'dangerous trend' by unvoting a claimed Power role, I disagree. If the idea is to vote for the 'Scummiest person', then we need to take claims into account. I unvoted you because I didn't feel I had a terribly strong case, so your claim factored in heavily. I didn't unvote KidV because I felt the case against him was stronger, mostly due to his own behavior (see my Posts 421 and 428 from Yesterday). So I don't think any trends have been started, other than the trend to evaluate each claim on its own merits and to weigh it against the strength of the case. I was the last person to vote for KidV, yes. Before I voted, KidV had 4 votes, and timmy and bobarrgh were tied with 3, with only 8 hours left in the Day. So I don't see it so much as 'jumping on a bandwagon' as 'casting what might well be the deciding vote'. Also, I gave what I feel were good reasons for my votes. I don't think KidV did (as I mentioned when I voted for him).
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 13, 2011 13:51:01 GMT -5
We have to vote for who we believe is scummy. There is such a thing as playing too safe. A role claim can't be a "get out of jail free" card. I don't think it's too safe on Day One. Investigators are very powerful and scum have to deal with them as soon as possible or they get cornered. In our case with Mahaloth: He wasn't blocked but a watcher was. He wasn't killed but a town protector was dead. Timmy's dead doesn't make same to me as a scum kill as he was a town tied for the lynch. Why was paranoia killed? I'll need to reread on him but from memory I don't see why he would be killed by scum either. So that leaves trying scum to kill Mahaloth and failing (block/protect/redirect), scum letting him live as town in hope we lynch him or Mahaloth as scum. I'm not ready to lynch Mahaloth yet - someone brought up his current play but that exact how I remember him play in Halloween as outed investigator.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 13, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Don't see anything that scum directly would make them want to kill paranoia. He voted sinjin for her BillMc vote, fos-ed Mahaloth (for similar scum play in a previous game that IIRC crazybunny picked up on later). Maybe this sentence (from his sinjin vote post) tipped some scum off as a power role tell (he pinged texcat/lyla to participate more) but this is really a stretch. So I don't see why he was killed by scum (unless a redirect) or the more important target (Mahaloth) wasn't important (because scum).
|
|
|
Post by Romanic on Feb 13, 2011 14:42:12 GMT -5
I'm rereading Day 1 and Day 2 and building this post as I go. Here are my thoughts: Sister Coyote, timmy, Romanic, Cookies, Red Skeezix, Natlaw, guiri, Paranoia, texcat, Suburban Plankton and anybody else who I may have missed: All of you unvoted or stated that you would unvote a person who claimed a town power role. I believe that this is a dangerous trend. In this game everybody can have a fake PM made at any time. Instead of voting the player you find most scummy you will vote the one who hasn't claimed or the one who claimed vanilla. If the person who leads in votes claims and gets unvoted until the next person leads in votes then eventually all of the town power roles will be revealed and we will still not know which ones are truthful. We have to vote for who we believe is scummy. There is such a thing as playing too safe. A role claim can't be a "get out of jail free" card. I didn't say that I would unvote a claimed power role in any situation, just that in this particular case, day 1, lots of time, the risk vs reward wasn't worth it when we can let it ride and force the Scums to attack these power roles (if they're not lying) or take a risk by not doing so. That's not to say that I will unvote a claimed power role later in the game, it's all situational.
|
|
|
Post by special on Feb 13, 2011 14:53:49 GMT -5
Vote Countwith approximately 0 days, 12 hours and 6 minutes until DayEndPlayer (# of votes) (peak number of votes) voters [post in which vote was cast, post in which vote was removed] ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts (3)(3 151) CatInASuit [41], texcat [128], bobargh [151] Mahaloth (3)(3 167) harmless little bunny [3], peeker [163], Suburban Plankton [167] Sister Coyote (1)(1 20) romanic [20] Bobarrgh (1)(1 97) Sister Coyote [97] Suburban Plankton (1)(1 121) Renata [121] texcat (1)(1 131) ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts [131] pedescribe (1)(1 169) Natlaw [169] sinjin (0)(1 36) romola [36 111]Romanic (0)(1 47) Renata [47 72]Not Voting (10) Merestil Haye, Captain Pinkies, sinjin, Hockey Monkey, Mahaloth, naturallylazy, guiri, pedescribe, Red Skeezix, romola With these votes, ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCoconuts would be lynched.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 13, 2011 15:05:23 GMT -5
vote MahalothI wasn't completely sold on his claim yesterday, and something about his 'investigation' doesn't ring true to me today. Add to that the fact that he's made no effort today to add anything to the analysis, and he seems Scummy to me. Weren't completely sold? "Ring true" That's a bit vague to earn a vote.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 13, 2011 15:08:36 GMT -5
YesterDay you were sufficiently suspicious of Harmless as to keep your vote on her despite her claim of watcher. She's claimed to have been blocked and, apart from a few posts and a vote, has done little since the claim. <snipped> and while i don't believe that this post was directed at me it's at least a good jumping off point. well i was and still am suspicous of bunny but after re-evaluating claims and results i really get a tad confused. i really think that one of maha or bunny is scum and one is town. and to some extent it's wifom on why scum would choose to block a watcher as opposed to whatever term we use to describe maha's role, but still funky. his results plus the little fast one that he tried to pull by using a post by a player and trying to establish some credibility as if it was coming from the mods is all sorts of messed up. vote mahaand i'll bet a nickel that he pops right up to refute this. 1. Give that man a nickel! 2. No idea why I was not killed or blocked. I may have been protected in some way. Perhaps a one-off protection? No idea. 3. Yeah, mistake to quote a non-mod. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by Mahaloth on Feb 13, 2011 15:15:09 GMT -5
K, so my bad in not being here a ton today. Just really busy with teacher conferences and grading essays and so forth.
My theory is that the scum figured you'd all kill me today, so they let me live for one Day. Or they tried and failed. I don't know.
K, so I agree that Cookies is being inconsistent in what she says and what she votes. Also, I'm on the line here and it's looking like you are all going to lynch me toMorrow if I survive the Night.
Seems like I should do my best to survive this Day so I have at least a shot to do one more investigation and share it here. I probably won't be back much by the end of the Day, but I might get a chance toNight.
Vote Cookies
Vote Cookies
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 13, 2011 15:40:58 GMT -5
While I still need to read the posts made in the last 24 hours or so a second time, I think I want to make sure I don't repeat the mistake I made Yesterday. Part of the problem is that Nightfall Today is too early for me to be properly functional. My problem with Pedescribe Yesterday was that he point-blank refused to vote. It's not that, like me, he made plans that failed, it's that he announced in advance that he did not intend to vote. Not voting on Day 1 is antiTown, because you are denying the players information later in the game. The more I think about it, the less I like it. Looking at his posts Today, he defended his nonvote in D02.035. I got slightly confused parsing this :As I interpret it, he said that he felt it better not to contribute than to be led around by the nose by the Mafia. His other three posts Today are mostly inconsequential; a comment on Timmy's alignment, a note that anyone in this game could claim a power role, and an expression of trust in DarkCoconut. 1This feels like someone who's trying to skate by. Vote: Pedescribe . I'd like to add that I am not happy that, at this late stage, there has been not a peep out of Captain Pinkies. I had been encouraged by his greater activity in Day 1 this game, and I am ... disapppointed ... in his reversion to silence Today. 1When I was young, I used to occasionally buy a sweet called Plain Chocolate Bounty, a dark chocolate bar filled with coconut flakes. DarkCookies' current name reminds me of that lost pleasure.
|
|