Mafia 85 - Murder at the Bus Stop (game over)

[Sir Tornado]

Slash Confirm

[Sir Tornado]

vote Farside22

I'd like to know why you voted Xtomx in your first in game post here. The mod has clearly stated that he is V/LA. What were you going to achieve by voting for a player who isn't here?

[Sir Tornado]

I didn't know that the random voting stage is still going on.

Why does it matter?

Vote: Wall-E as I don't like YOUR playing style.

Is that a general statement, or specifically for this game?

[Sir Tornado]

Also, Shanba, if I understand you correctly, you are giving lurkers a free pass in this game? Why? I don't think I have ever seen you do this before.

[Sir Tornado]

Nope, I'm just not going to lynch lurkers unless their lurking is scummy (because don't get me wrong, lurking can be a scumtell. But it's not always a scumtell.)

So, suppose I disappear today, and don't post in this game till deadline (this is how I usually lurk), how do you determine whether my lurking is scummy or not?

[Sir Tornado]

It's just a random vote.

And, what does it achieve?

If a few people put a vote on you, you feel under pressure, regardless of whether they intend to lynch you or not. Trust me, you don't have to have intent to lynch to pressurise people.

Is this a general statement, or related to this particular game?

Are you saying you'd feel pressure if three people voted you, while making it completely clear that they didn't want you lynched?

I wouldn't.

Duly noted.

[Sir Tornado]

Unvote, Vote SirT

Attacking random votes = no.

And, you want me to do what instead of doing that? Keep on discussing whether lurkers should be lynched till the deadline comes?

Why do you feel the need to criticize a random vote? Your question here, like my rhetorical one, does nothing but muddy the water for town. We really need to move away from playing "Jokevote/Randomvote Gotcha!", especially in a game this large.

Explain how I am "muddying" the water for town. Also, the question to armlx applies to you to, and the fact, that I did exactly what you are saying we need to be doing.

Well, fine. To be honest, all I'm seeing from Sir Tornado at this juncture is a shotgun-style approach to questioning, questioning random votes, asking multiple people benign questions that don't seem to be meant to actually learn anything, but just scream "I'm helping!".

I use this kind of play style for games modded by Lawrencelot. I refer you to Open 35: Big Love Mafia, in which I played exactly in the same way I am planning to play in this game.

I had voted for Megatheory originally for starting that whole lurker metagaming theory block quote circlejerk, and I'll keep a FoS: Megatheory in his general direction. I still get the feeling that it was all just meant as a "Hey, I'll put out a theory, possibly mega, about paying attention to lurkers, and then all my scumbuddies can respond, increase post counts, and scum will heretofore be known as the Anti-Lurker Justice League" or whatever.

I tend to agree with this.

But what I'd like to know from you at this point, Sir Tornado, is what kind of information you were intending to gather from your line of questioning, particularly that of questioning a random vote.

What kind of information do you want to hide from the town?

Not neccessarily. If they are going like, "omgz0rz that guy is lurking let's kill him" and crap like that, then they're sure gonna start getting nervous. Then we throw a few more votes on him (essentially, we start the wagon) and he's going whack yellin "I was on vacation!" Then we pressure him some more until we can determine scum or innocent, then we either kill him or let him go. That's what I say. Of course, that will require quite a bit of teamwork from everyone else.

"kill" and "teamwork"

Coming back to the main point about me voting farside22; the only information I had, at that point was that farside22 had voted for xtoxm, in what she called a random vote, during the time xtoxm was away.

Now, if you see the first few pages of most games, you'll notice that there is some sort of interaction directly between person and the person who he has voted on the first page or so. Voting a person who is V/LA avoids that interaction. This is the single most scummy incident on page 3 (heh).

[Sir Tornado]

Umm, not necessarily. I don't expect you to try to call someone scummy for a completely null action.

Armlx, when the game starts, each and every person other than myself has an equal chance of being scum from my POV. As the game progresses, their chances either increase or decrease depending on their actions in the game. On page 3, farside22 ranked higher than anyone else (not saying we should lynch farside22 because of that vote by any means though), precisely because no one else had done anything alarming.

This tell is more or less like the last-to-confirm tell. Not entirely reliable, nor lynch-able, but definitely something to look at in the beginning of the game.

Mod edit
Votecount:
fouxdufafa (1): Slicey
Wall-E (2): Mana_Ku, farside22
Cream147 (1): Empking
Empking (1): RestFermata
Slicey (1): Wall-E
Alabaska J (1): fouxdufafa
farside22 (1): martin413
RestFermata (1): Riceballtail
Surye (1): Demon Pineapple
farside22 (1): Sir Tornado
Sir Tornado (2): armlx, Moratorium

Not voting (12): Xtoxm, al4xz, Azuma, Surye, Alabaska J, Shanba, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI, BlakAdder, Megatheory

[Sir Tornado]

Bus random voting someone is not alarming, hence the reason you voting someone for it being an issue.

I think you know my view on this pretty well by now. I am not going to repeat myself a million times.

Last to confirm isn't even remotely a tell. That's just dumb.

I agree that this tell isn't universal, and certainly not enough for a lynch, but it is enough to get the game started.

[Sir Tornado]

Again, its not a tell.

I think you know my view on this pretty well by now. I am not going to repeat myself a million times.

[Sir Tornado]

I don't get your view. Explain more why what farside did was even remotely indicative of her being scum.

Coming back to the main point about me voting farside22; the only information I had, at that point was that farside22 had voted for xtoxm, in what she called a random vote, during the time xtoxm was away.

Now, if you see the first few pages of most games, you'll notice that there is some sort of interaction directly between person and the person who he has voted on the first page or so. Voting a person who is V/LA avoids that interaction. This is the single most scummy incident on page 3 (heh).

[Sir Tornado]

Sir T, why did you say you agreed with Moratorium on that?

Because, well, I feel strange that the only thing people were doing is discussing what to do with lurkers. Discussing lurkers is a very safe way of playing mafia. Especially when you are an established player. You just establish a meta and harp that line in every game. It really doesn't add anything to the game in particular, and the differences between players on lurker issue are based more on their views on playing mafia rather than their alignment in the game, especially when discussed this early in the game. This makes it a very safe discussion for scum to participate in. They can be seen to contribute without being in danger of revealing their alignment. And, if they are good, they can always produce a few games from their past where they subscribed to the same view when they were town.

You're ignoring my question by responding with a question (more shotgun pellets, I see). Also, and I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you are accusing me of wanting to hide information, by hiding the information you apparently gathered. Irony

That's the way I play, Ok?

[Sir Tornado]

unvote

vote Empking

There! I am voting now. Want to add something?

[Sir Tornado]

@Tornado: Was there any reason behind your vote beside responding to Empking's question?

I actually saw the following post after I voted EmpKing, but it seems strange you are asking...

vote: Sir Tornado
He's had a decent number of posts so far, but he's said relatively nothing. Half of your posts are pointless questions that are meant soly to make people look scummy, and the other half are just dodging questions that people have asked you.

[Sir Tornado]

I'm starting to side with the SirT votes. And this really did it for me. Pretending to play is unacceptable. Vote: Sir Tornado

This is ironic, considering only I and Armlx seem to be actually playing this game. The rest of you seem to think (before this page) discussing lurkers belongs to mafia games. Try the "mafia discussion" forum.

[Sir Tornado]

Got a bit of discussion whirling didn't it? We're out of the random stage nice and quick.

Sure you got a bit of discussion. But, do you think it said anything about the alignments of the players?

Dodging the issue yet again. You start to go under fire and you try to change the subject to something that totally doesn't matter.
@armlx: Explain, please.

I did not dodge the question. Look at the post and the two quoted posts carefully, then

think

what I may be hinting there.

Translation: Hey, thanks for unvoting me, Armlx, here's a token compliment.

A career tip: Don't go into translation business.

1. Why should we not consider your shotgun approach to questioning and refusal to answer questions as a scummy, obfuscating tactic?

There's something called meta. If I play like that all the time, it can't be scummy, can it? And, I have actually answered most of the questions asked to me if you read my posts more carefully and grasp what they say completely.

2. The pressure we are starting to put on you is, I would say, rather mild. But we're starting to see wierd replies from you now like "Ha! I voted, take that!" on voting EmpKing, or "That's the way I play, OK?". I would interpret these non-responses as a defense mechanism while you try to figure out how to explain your scummy, scummy ways. I'd like to get a reasoned response from you that simply puts all of our arguments to rest.

Wouldn't it serve you better if you check whether I really play like that instead of speculating whether it is a defense mechanism or something? If I really play like that, then do you expect me to change my play style just because a few players are voting me? It's not going to happen.

[Sir Tornado]

Pretending to play early is MUCH worse then making theory discussion in early game.

Perhaps, but:

1) Making theories which do not help us catch scum is pretending to play.

2) I am not pretending to play.

[Sir Tornado]

Sir T, don't do that. I don't like it when players should look at your posts and conclude from that what you're hinting. We don't know what you actually mean with it. I want to hear a direct answer from you. At this moment I see this as avoiding the question.

I believe this is one post where BlakAdder is saying I am dodging the question:

@Tornado: Was there any reason behind your vote beside responding to Empking's question?

I actually saw the following post after I voted EmpKing, but it seems strange you are asking...

vote: Sir Tornado
He's had a decent number of posts so far, but he's said relatively nothing. Half of your posts are pointless questions that are meant soly to make people look scummy, and the other half are just dodging questions that people have asked you.

Does it really take a genius to work out why I am voting for EmpKing after reading this post?

[Sir Tornado]

And, in case it does, read EmpKing's posts before he asks people to vote for someone.

[Sir Tornado]

Dude, is it physically impossible for you to just directly answer a question? There's no reason to quote a post and tell us to figure it out (even though this one is pretty obvious). Quit beating around the bush and answer us.

And again, you're using another question. Just say it yourself.

What the hell? Isn't 174 clear enough for you?

[Sir Tornado]

Not sold on the Sir T wagon, which is a shame, because I still have questions I want to ask him.

Fire away then.

[Sir Tornado]

What the hell? Isn't 174 clear enough for you?

And, I mean

Post

174, obviously.

[Sir Tornado]

And, here's for those who think my approach to game is strange and scummy:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5704
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6236
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7702 (I replaced out out this, but this is how I played in the first few pages)

Check my alignment in all three of those games.

[Sir Tornado]

indicates that you feel everyone that it was discussing the lurkers that was scummy, not just the one bringing up the discussion. But that's kind of strange, since it's a well established strategy for starting games here. Furthermore, you yourself contributed to the discussion. What am I missing here?

1) I did not know that discussing lurkers en masse before anyone really started lurking was a well established strategy for starting games on MS. This must be extremely recent development.

2) Discussing lurkers isn't scummy. Discussing lurkers WITHOUT doing anything else is scummy. Look at the amount of posts which seemed to do nothing BUT comment on lurkers before, and for a bit after I attacked farside for voting a V/LA player. That is scummy.

3) I did comment on it, but the main focus of my posts was farside22's vote on xtoxm, not the lurker theory.

[Sir Tornado]

@Tornado: Yes, I get it, which I quite clearly stated, but you're missing the point. Just answer instead of trying to disguise your answer in quotes.

I am not only "disguising" my answers in posts. I am pointing subtly pointing out your hypocrisy by answering your own questions with your own quotes. But, it seems most of people in this game just don't get subtlety.

[Sir Tornado]

I am not only "disguising" my answers in posts. I am

pointing

subtly pointing out your hypocrisy by answering your own questions with your own quotes. But, it seems most of people in this game just don't get subtlety.

Fixed.

[Sir Tornado]

about 2) Ok, but many more players than just megatheory were doing this. Why did you single megatheory out (or were you jsut agreeing with moratorium's general principle?)

I was agreeing the general point about discussing lurking.

[Sir Tornado]

Moratorium, it is interesting you put a link to Designer Mafia. I did NOT use this play style for that game. I was a serial killer in that game, and you don't reach final 5 in a large game as a SK by using a shotgun approach.

Re Triumvirate: I was not using this approach Triumvirate mafia either. You are confusing voting V/LA with voting using dice. In Triumvirate, I attacked MoS because he voted using dice, which is decidedly much, much worse than what farside did in this game. Besides, I did nothing but attack MoS while I played that game; we were doing massive D1 distancing.

Mini 466: Yes, that was the game where I was developing this play style.

[Sir Tornado]

Explaining your vote is common practice, unless you're scum looking to get a quick mislynch. Simply saying "just go back and look" isn't good enough. What do you find scummy about me?

Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.

[Sir Tornado]

The way you've phrased it, Shanba, it seems like you're trying to get people to look back and find scummy things about my posts. That's the only thing I don't like about it.

Why don't you want people to go and take a closer look at your posts, and find scummy things in it?

[Sir Tornado]

Also, Tornado, why did you feel the need to jump in and answer my question for Shanba?

I did not answer any question. I just pointed out that Shanba had already answered that question. Besides, did you not want to hear Shanba's answer? Why are you complaining now that I pointed it out to you?

And now, we're on to our next logical fallacy, leading questions. A better way to have put it would have been that you want people to go back and misinterpret things in my posts as scummy. By now it's pretty obvious that you were just voting to get a reaction from me.

Why are you worried whether people will misinterpret what you said?

[Sir Tornado]

I don't know if Tornado's dodging questions can be considered a logical fallacy

Logical Fallacy is a part of argument which is flawed in logic which makes the whole argument invalid. How the hell is my "dodging" questions as you call it, can be called any kind of fallacy?

Also, you're just compounding the problem by answering a question directed at Tornado.

What "problem"? And, I don't see Shanba answering any questions directed at me. (TBH, none of us has answered any questions directed at the other... you are just making the whole thing up)

[Sir Tornado]

Really? Really, Tornado?
You answer a question from me directed towards Shanba in post 201, and she does the same thing, even if it only was a sarcastic joke, in post 203.

vote BlakAdder

mod: not counted, you should unvote first

Explaining your vote is common practice, unless you're scum looking to get a quick mislynch. Simply saying "just go back and look" isn't good enough. What do you find scummy about me?

Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.

Also, Tornado, why did you feel the need to jump in and answer my question for Shanba?

I did not answer any question. I just pointed out that Shanba had already answered that question. Besides, did you not want to hear Shanba's answer? Why are you complaining now that I pointed it out to you?

[Sir Tornado]

(and, while you are at it, tell me how I have answered ANY question at all in 201. By my understanding of English, a question has to end with a question mark, yes?

[Sir Tornado]

Okay, I misphrased that, but you also ignored what I said. Look at post 201. You don't per se answer a question I asked there, but you do respond for Shanba.

No, I didn't respond for Shanba. I asked you a question. (and, who's dodging questions now?)

[Sir Tornado]

Also, how is that not responding for Shanba?

Because:
a) It wasn't a question directed at Shanba
b) Shanba had already commented on that in the post before mine

[Sir Tornado]

Fauxdafafa, Mafia 66 was one of my first games. I played differently back then.

I have posted 3 games which are fairly old (at least a year or so), but newer than Mafia 66 which more or less confirm the meta a couple of pages ago. (and, my meta is not necessarily town specific)

And, by the way, I feel you are blowing things out of proportion a bit. I HAVE explained most of my play in this game too, and unlike what a few people might say, I have answered most questions too as long as they were not stupid ones.

BlakAdder, do you think I should ignore discussions between you and Shanba completely? If I see you make a scummy or strange point to players other than me, I will still point it out. Deal with it.

(and, you still haven't answered my question, btw)

[Sir Tornado]

Deadline: 4 O

k

tober-ish

Perhaps you've had a pint or two more than you should this year? :p

[Sir Tornado]

You should know hard it is, Sir T. I also make these mistakes some time

I was trying to make a pun related to Oktoberfest, but, well... forget it. (I am sure Lawrencelot got it though)

In this setup LaL? What's the use of that? With every lurker that we lynch, we could lose a good poster due to the NK. I don't like this idea from al4xz. Weird, that I hadn't seen this yet.

Hi. Would you want to comment on something

other

than lurking?

[Sir Tornado]

What question of yours have I not answered?

I did not answer any question. I just pointed out that Shanba had already answered that question. Besides, did you not want to hear Shanba's answer?

Why are you complaining now that I pointed it out to you?

And, btw,

unvote

vote BlakAdder

to make it count.

[Sir Tornado]

Explaining your vote is common practice, unless you're scum looking to get a quick mislynch. Simply saying "just go back and look" isn't good enough. What do you find scummy about me?

Besides, I'm voting you on a pattern of behaviour, and jumping the gun too soon may stop you from reinforcing that pattern if indeed you are scum.

And now, we're on to our next logical fallacy, leading questions. A better way to have put it would have been that you want people to go back and misinterpret things in my posts as scummy. By now it's pretty obvious that you were just voting to get a reaction from me. Also, Tornado, why did you feel the need to jump in and answer my question for Shanba?

I am assuming you referred to the post I quoted above in your post 202?

[Sir Tornado]

I don't see how I'm "blowing things out of proportion." All I said was that it would be helpful if you explained yourself instead of telling us that your actions should be obvious. Other people have voted you for it; I didn't think it was THAT big of a deal.

But, I have already explained everything (reasonable). That is precisely the point everyone was missing.

[Sir Tornado]

Moratorium: What exactly was the point of that post? Are you keeping track of votes, commenting on people in the game? What did it tell you about each player and who in that did you find the scummies?

The point of that post was to appear as if he were actually contributing something to the game.

[Sir Tornado]

I should have not said "PBPA" as it includes the word "analysis," which he didn't do. I should have said "evidence that he's read the thread."

When people post in a mafia game, I take it for granted that they have read the thread unless they specifically mention otherwise. There is no need for a post like that unless you are trying to make some point about a certain player's posts.

Mod edit
Votecount:
BlakAdder (3): Shanba, Alabaska J, Sir Tornado
Sir Tornado (2): Moratorium, BlakAdder
Surye (2): Demon Pineapple, farside22
Empking (1): RestFermata
Wall-E (1): Mana_Ku
Cream147 (1): Empking
Slicey (1): Wall-E
farside22 (1): martin413
RestFermata (1): Riceballtail
armlx (1): Xtoxm
Xtoxm (1): fouxdufafa
Megatheory (1): armlx

Not voting (9): al4xz, Azuma, Cream147, Jebus, Slepz, DynamoXI, Megatheory, Surye, Slicey

[Sir Tornado]

Posting that was contributing more than some other players have. And it helps with Post Counts and voting patterns which means he took the time to read the thread.

I'm sorry, but that isn't "contribution". And, a mafia player shouldn't depend on other player's post to look for voting patterns. Post Counts really doesn't count for anything at all.

(Hint: There is a option at the bottom of the thread for viewing each player's posts separately. Use it for analysing voting patterns and post counts if you want rather than other player's posts)

[Sir Tornado]

I did it more just to get an idea of the various associations so far, vote timing, etc. There's been a lot of junk posting in this thread IMO, and I'm trying to get a better handle on the possible cliques. And those of you who are all up in the lurker's grills get that info as well.

More information is good. I havn't played in a game this large before so i imagine one aspect that will get in the way of town is getting through the clutter, having 16 different conversations going on at once, etc.

Fair enough. What are your conclusions then?

[Sir Tornado]

As I stated in the part of my post you omitted, I haven't had the time for conclusive analysis.

Alright. Looking forward for it when you get time.

[Sir Tornado]

unvote

vote Surye

I hope atleast a few people see what I see.

[Sir Tornado]

Since you all are harping on the pretending to play, I assure you that you're all getting tunnel vision no this fact. Look at the post I quoted in the vote. It's pretending to play, 100%. It's participating because he's told to. Now, how much did I invest in this? Did I lead the charge to have him lynched? No. Did I then proceed to follow the discussion on why he would do that, then weigh in, and unvote? Yes.

You're being so ridiculous.

I can pretend to play in one post all I want, but it is irrelevant as far as I am actually playing in other posts. Now, the thing is, I think you know your vote on me for the reasons you are giving in that post was very weak, and yet instead of agreeing that it was weak and just leaving it there and moving on, you continue to try to defend it. I see this as a scum-tell. The scum are, in general reluctant to back down and agree that they were wrong most of the trivial incidents, like that vote, something which you are doing at the moment.

[Sir Tornado]

Slicy wagon is sort of silly... I am willing to wager that he will come up town. But, that post where he posts "Oh, well, I am doomed" doesn't look too good for him, but his other posts don't give scum vibes.

Still, the lynch appears inevitable so we'll see.

Mod edit
Votecount:
Slicey (12): Wall-E, Shanba, Jebus, armlx, Surye, farside22, Riceballtail, Moratorium, Empking, BlakAdder, Alabaska J, al4xz
Surye (2): Demon Pineapple, Sir Tornado
Empking (2): RestFermata, Slicey
Wall-E (1): Mana_Ku
farside22 (1): martin413
armlx (1): Xtoxm
Xtoxm (1): killa seven

Not voting (5): Azuma, Cream147, Slepz, ace1217, Megatheory

With 25 alive it's 13 to lynch.

[Sir Tornado]

happy birthday, and if slicey flips town,

fos: sir T

WIFOM

[Sir Tornado]

I have no opinion on Slicey at this point. If i've read anything of his, it has not stood out to me in either direction. Given the nature of this wagon, and the fact he has apparantly claimed to be a townie, I would say he is most likely to be town, at this point.

When a quick wagon springs up like this on Day One, and they claim townie, the suspect is more often than not telling the truth.

I agree with this.

[Sir Tornado]

Armlx, it doesn't have to do anything with the ratios as far as I am concerned... more to do with hunches (based on the way the player is behaving, his general play pattern, people on his wagon, etc. It's fairly complex, and I am not sure I can explain the whole thing) about such wagons which I get right more than half the time.

Basically, I post them just to see if they were right or wrong (see Mafia 70: Traditional mafia, Yamahako's and BM's lynch), and it has more to do with my ego than anything else, so I don't expect this lynch to not take place by any chance.

[Sir Tornado]

9 people who claimed townie D1 have been lynched. 1 was scum.

4 scum have been lynched D1. 1 of those claimed townie, 1 claimed Doc, the rest did not claim.

This does play a part, yes, because I find mafia, especially fairly newbie (and quite a few experienced) mafia do not generally claim vanilla townie when pressurized. It doesn't help mafia in any way. (for example, claiming cop can lead to counter claim, which exposes the cop, etc).

I did not mention this, because I didn't want this to be brought into open in this game and give scum any ideas, but those statistics are damning.

[Sir Tornado]

If you would like to argue his play has been pro-town, that's a different story.

er, no his play hasn't been pro-town. But, that may be his fault more than his alignments... but we'll see.

[Sir Tornado]

My data doesn't have enough mafia claiming townie information to prove that either way.

And what statistics are damning?

Oh, I misread your post... (the point still stands though)

If you have a lot of time on your hands, you might want to see how many claimed power roles (due to pressure) were scum. I think it might be a rather large number.

[Sir Tornado]

... and I meant claimed power roles on

D1

due to pressure of course.

[Sir Tornado]

That's a lot more extra time then I have, as I would have to go back through and read full D1's of each game as power roles aren't likely to be lynched D1. Though of power roles lynched D1, the percentage being scum is higher then par, most likely due to the fact the bar for lynching claimed power roles D1 is much higher.

And, what about the games you have been in?

Of all the new york games I was ever in, we never lynched a mafia D1 -- almost all the people I ever lynched claimed vanilla. The only time we got someone to claim cop -- DrippingGoofBall in Mafia 70, she was mafia.

This isn't exactly a big sample size, but I admit to being biased by this experience.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, the fact that this wagon is derailing at such a speed makes me reconsider my views about the wagon.

[Sir Tornado]

This thought requires the assumption that farside and I are scum derailing the wagon. Do you think I am scummy, Sir T? I haven't had that impression from you thus far.

No, I don't think so. I just checked the timings of those 2 posts, and I have to conclude that farside22 wasn't blindly following you... it would be highly impossible to grab those quotes from Jebus and type all that in all of 6 minutes after your post (provided she saw your post right after you posted it) which makes me conclude she did do independently at least up to some level.

Don't be vague like that, sir T. What were your views, and how have they changed?

I was just reconsidering. Nothings' actually changed in the end. And, I think I have expressed the original views already.

[Sir Tornado]

Definitely not. Its pretty easy to do that.

Not when you have to search the thread for the posts of the said person... It wasn't exactly on this page.

[Sir Tornado]

Under the quick reply box, there's a "Display posts from previous" ____ "by" ______ search function. Draws up all of Jebus's posts in 5 seconds.

So, you search Jebus and Alabaska (both of them were quoted) and quickly find a link between them and then put it all together and post it? (how on earth would she know she has to search Alabaska too though?)

[Sir Tornado]

The potential for there to be one out of nowhere without real time to properly consider the wagons shouldn't have even existed in the first place.

What?

[Sir Tornado]

Ok, I see your point Armlx. Agree that Slicy lynch is the only possible way to go due to deadline.

[Sir Tornado]

Bah!

I hate whosoever killed me with pure passion.

(

Mod: I am ready to replace back in if you are in dire need of replacements at any point in the game

)