Remember when I said I'd post Sunday night? It turns out it was Valentine's Day on Sunday night, so I was unable to reread that day.
Kmd4390 wrote:
---------Haschel, can you explain why you voted NS?
Sure. There was the scummy play in general that most people commented on, but I explained the switch in post 141. I was absolutely convinced that dana was scum, and NS' post gave me the theory that the two were partners. The more I thought about it, the better the theory seemed. I announced that I was fine lynching either, and as soon as NS had more votes than dana I switched. If the town hadn't voted NS past dana, I would have stayed on dana.
kmd, in regards to kyle wrote:-Votes NS next post with "No worries"
--------Sounds like he had a feeling the vote would implicate him.
-"No one should hammer without a claim"
--------Stating the obvious. Filler.
I don't see these two things being suspicious on their own, but put together they seem a bit incongruous with each other. If you don't want him being hammered before he claims, the logical thing to do would be to unvote until he claims; there's little reason to make it easier for other players to do something you don't want them to do. I suppose it could be some sort of "trap" to see if people vote him before he claims, but I don't see that being particularly useful and at any rate I don't get the feeling that that's what kyle was doing.
LS wrote:Lovely. Two killing roles.
This reaction doesn't sit well with me. Part of this is the fact that it ignores the hider, although he comments on this in his next post. Another part is that I get the feeling that LS believes that the fact that there are two killing roles is detrimental to his side, which if he is town discounts the possibility of a vig that kyle pointed out.
jbernier wrote:
So I know My Milked Eek is very busy and such, but does anyone else get major scumvibes from him? Or is that just me?
I don't see anything particularly damning, so it's just you. What specifically do you have in mind?
