Mini 931: Supreme Court Mafia (Game Over post 682)

[Bub Bidderskins]

1) How much experience do you have playing Mafia?

Not much. This is only my fourth game over all.

2) How would you describe your playstyle?

I'll let you decide. I haven't really played enough games yet to develope a style.

3) What do you value the most in making decisions in Mafia?

That's a tough question. I try to take a lot of things into consideration, so there isn't really one thing I value above the rest.

4) Do you expect the Spanish Inquisition?

Eh?

5) Do you prefer playing as mafia or as town?

Mafia. Knowledge is power, and the more you know, the more fun the game is.

6) How many games are you playing in at the moment?

One, including this one.

7) What do you consider to be your greatest strength as town? As mafia?

I don't really know yet. I haven't played enough games to determine my strengths and weaknesses. Right now I can tell you that my main weakness is a lack of overall knowledge and experence in the game of Mafia.

[Bub Bidderskins]

vote: Bub B - his answers try to both please and give nothing away.

What makes you think that admitting to being a new player makes me a pleaser and gives nothing away? The reason why I didn't give good answers to some of the questions was because I haven't played enough games yet to really know the answers, not because I deliberatly wanted to please or withold information.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Can you please explain this in further detail? It's seems like an overly broad claim that could, on its face, apply to just about any set of answers to the questions; which, in and of themselves, do not seem to really promote "giving [something] away" in answering them.

Sure. BB's answers to a few of the questions are "haven't played enough to say". Which is fine. But it reads to me like he felt this wasn't enough, so he went with much more long-winded answers which said the same thing. Feels like he was worrying about people finding his answers scummy.

I understand what your saying, but most of those answers came when I was trying to answer questions that I didn't really know the answers to. If it turned out to be a little long-winded, then I'm sorry.

Now, I'm interested to see what Net has to say...

[Bub Bidderskins]

Hmm. I guess Net didn't notice that I didn't answer any of the questions myself--I copied and pasted the answers of other people.

Care to explain why you copy and pasted instead of actually answering the questions?

[Bub Bidderskins]

I forgot to

vote: Jack

.

[Bub Bidderskins]

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

However, until you are willing to explain more as to why you copy and pasted votes and what makes you think there's a CIA-serial killer, then my vote will remain on you.

As far as the effectiveness of questions, while I agree that it may not that great at out-right scum hunting, that's not really the point. The point is that it gets people actually talking. And when the town starts talking, good things happen.

Oh, and happy honeymoon Green Crayons .

[Bub Bidderskins]

I have no idea what to think of Jack.

Also, I really don't like the way Pwnman and jason jumped on the Jack wagon. Pwnman moreso.

vote: pwnman

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

What makes you so sure? And if this is the case, why are you still voting for him?

Mainly because of viewtopic.php?t=12789&start=0 that game. I was Emile Buchard, and one player voted for me for absolutely no reason and then refused to explain his vote. When asked why he wouldn't explain his vote, he would explain that either.

Naturally, we ended up lynching him and he turned out to be bullet-proof. The ironic thing was that I was actually scum and ended up losing the game mainly because of my inactivity.

The point is that usually when somebody is so blatantly anti-town, then they're probably not scum, because scum isn't that stupid. I'm voting for Jack to try and get answers.

However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch him, mainly because I don't want it in the end-game if he goes on to ruin it regardless of whether he's scum or not. Also, if you noticed in the game above, all of the scum (including me) were on Stuart's wagon. That was because he was such an easy lynch that day. That leads me to believe that pwn and Jason are scummy. Neto had decent reasons for his vote, but the others come off as opurtunistic scum, especially pwn.

FOS: Pwn

[Bub Bidderskins]

Jack, whether or not Net made up the reason on the fly is irrelavent to the fact that you are still not answering the question. While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and the lawyers are the mafia, but how do you

know

that to be the case.

In other words:

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[Bub Bidderskins]

PS. Net, I hope that copying and pasting your comment doesn't make me like Jack .

[Bub Bidderskins]

Fishy: Sure, I can produce a scummy reason for Jack's actions. First, he is deliberately being confusing. Even if he is town, he would have had no other reason to bring up the matter in the first place. He is attempting to derail the game by his cryptic responses as well. Also, he is, I think, trying to benefit from early suspicion being cleared, which often means that the player will be looked at with less suspicion later in the game. If he establishes an extremely scummy style of play now, in the late game, if he plays in a more pro-town fashion, he will look much less like scum, regardless of his actual alignment. Thus, in a sense, it can be something of a protectionist move.

You see, I really don't think that's how scum think. They don't try and derail the game by posting nonsense - that just makes them look scummy. They don't try to look scummy to look townie by contrast later - that just makes them look scummy.

These motivations both demand that scum do something which obviously makes them look scummier. I just don't believe it.

Rival explanations for Jack's behaviour -
1. He's scum, doing one of the above.
2. He's either alignment, trying to stir things up a bit (as he claims).
Really, I find the second one much more credible. Put yourself in scum/SK shoes. Would you ever say that a flavour role (CIA agent) that doesn't exist is a SK? It seems a totally unbelievable scum gambit. To believe 2, you just have to believe Jack is prepared to do weird things in the RVS.

Weird is not the same as scummy. Jack's play is weird. There's no scum motivation for it, and it's not scummy.

If Jack is scum, then Fishey should be the next one who goes to the gallows. While I understand what he's trying to say, Jack's play has gone far and beyond what is "normal" anti-town play.

He is refusing to answer questions, and (as has been just mentioned) the whole CIA agent thing looks like a scum slip. He then tried to ride out the wave by just playing poorly. Right now, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't lynch Jack

[Bub Bidderskins]

He's right about that, at least. The Secret Service is under the Treasury Department.

Actually it's under the Dept. of Homeland Security, but before 2003 it was under the treasury. I'll post more later...

[Bub Bidderskins]

He's right about that, at least. The Secret Service is under the Treasury Department.

Actually it's under the Dept. of Homeland Security, but before 2003 it was under the treasury. I'll post more later...

People keep doing this...I don't understand. Did you get to his post and then just stop and write a reply? You skipped or skimmed the rest of the posts?

Um, yes. And I meant to go on and make a good post but I had to go to dinner.

Dark on Jack:
Dark thought that CIA was a SKslip. Ok, that was possible. But there's no SK in the game. What is your vote now based on, Dark?

How do you know that there isn't an SK. You seem to be just as sure of it as Jack was when he said that there was an SK in the CIA. For some reason I find this fishy, fishy (pun completely intended).

BB on Jack (and me):
Initially jumped on based off the bad "copy/paste" logic. This quote is fascinating:

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

because this is the correct dismissal of Jack's early odd play as pretty much alignment-neutral odd play.
This makes his attempt to scare me away from Jack's defense all the more awful. I'm defending the guy because I think the case is crap. If I'm wrong and he's scum, I'll answer for that tomorrow. Saying I'm likely scum with him now is only a way of undermining defenses which BB himself has already agreed with the most important point of - viz. that Jack has no scum motivation for his actions so far. It's this last this I find particularly damning - why does he find scummy something he has agreed with the fundamental point of?
Later, BB reverses his position on Jack's openly denying information to the town being an unlikely scum strategy - why was that, BB?
He also agrees with me that the wagon sucks (specifically jason and pwn). This guy wants to have it every way - he's wagoning scum, the people he's wagoning with are scum, and the person defending is scum.

As you might imagine, I have a lot to say. Firstly I didn't say that you should be lynched now, or that you are even scum now. I was saying that

if

, and only if, Jack turns out to be scum, then you should be the next one lynched, due to your defense of him.

Further-more, as far as me reversing positions, I'd like to remind you that at the time I voted, the sole reason for my vote was to get answers as to why Jack copy and pasted his answers.

Also, keep in mind that it was early in day one (and it still is I might add), and that he didn't have any votes on him at that point. I simply wanted answers. However, his outright refusal to give any, and several good points that Net and others have brought up (such as the CIA thing) have all but confirmed my original ickling of suspision.

Also, if Jack turns out to be town, then that means there's got to be scum on his wagon. Most likely it will be pwn, but it could be any one who wagon-jumped when they saw that they could get an easy lynch.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Given the Researcher role, 5 votes could be L-1 for Jack or any other player. Noone should put people on 6 votes unless they are prepared to hammer a wagon.

Yes, that's a very good point, given the nature of the set-up. It would probably be a lawyer (because lawyers have to do a ton of research), but then that means that either one of the justices has to be scum (possible godfather), or that the CIA agent is teamed up with the other lawyer, or both.

[Bub Bidderskins]

EBWOP: *facepalm* I meant Secret Service agent .

[Bub Bidderskins]

EBWOP: *facepalm* I meant Secret Service agent .

Interesting, let's go through it.

Bub votes me for copying and pasting the answers (44)
I explain in (45) and ask him why he thinks it's suspicious in (46)
In (48) I post the explanation for the 2nd time, in response to a direct question
In (69)

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

However, until you are willing to explain more as to why you copy and pasted votes and what makes you think there's a CIA-serial killer, then my vote will remain on you.

I'm not likely to be scum, he just wants answers (one of these was answered already, twice in fact. He even says "votes" instead of "answers)

In (91)

The point is that usually when somebody is so blatantly anti-town, then they're probably not scum, because scum isn't that stupid.

I'm voting for Jack to try and get answers.

However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch him, mainly because I don't want it in the end-game if he goes on to ruin it regardless of whether he's scum or not. Also, if you noticed in the game above, all of the scum (including me) were on Stuart's wagon. That was because he was such an easy lynch that day. That leads me to believe that pwn and Jason are scummy. Neto had decent reasons for his vote, but the others come off as opurtunistic scum, especially pwn. FOS: Pwn

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is a doozy. "Jack probably isn't scum, but I'll lynch him because I don't want him in endgame regardless of whether he's scum or not"???

He thinks pwn and jason are scummy, especially pwn.

(108) has some strangeness.

While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and the lawyers are the mafia, but how do you know that to be the case.

He still just wants me to answer. But note that this assumes no CIA agent. He's assuming that I know the secret service agent is the serial killer. He also thinks the lawyers are mafia for some reason.

(125)

Jack's play has gone far and beyond what is "normal" anti-town play.

He is refusing to answer questions, and (as has been just mentioned) the whole CIA agent thing looks like a scum slip. He then tried to ride out the wave by just playing poorly. Right now, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't lynch Jack

This looks like he is deciding to join the bandwagon. Everything he is listing as suspicious is things he just wanted answers to earlier, and things that he thought made me "probably not scum".

He is claiming that the CIA agent thing is a scumslip, but he has already shown that he doesn't believe there is a CIA agent.

(148)

I simply wanted answers. However, his outright refusal to give any, and several good points that Net and others have brought up

(such as the CIA thing)

have all but confirmed my

original ickling of suspision.

This is where Bub looks the most scummy.

He was obviously just pushing for answers early on, and he thought I was probably not scum. But he decided to join the wagon. He claims to have suspected me originally (contradicts what he's said many times). And he thinks the "CIA thing" is a good point, despite the fact that he has shown several times (including in the latest post) that he

doesn't believe there is a CIA agent in the setup

.

Summary:

His accusations are sloppy, often ignoring that they have already been answered, and he mixes up words.
Does a rapid about face when it looks like I'm in danger of being lynched (his posts imply that he thinks I

will

be lynched

Conclusion: bandwagoning scum

unvote:pwnman, vote:Buba Budderskins

Okay, where do I start...

1.

Bub votes me for copying and pasting the answers (44)
I explain in (45) and ask him why he thinks it's suspicious in (46)
In (48) I post the explanation for the 2nd time, in response to a direct question

You never explained why you did it. From what I can gather in 45, you did because you could, am I right? Well, the result was that you ended up dodging all the questions, which is very scummy indeed.

2.

In (69)

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

However, until you are willing to explain more as to why you copy and pasted votes and what makes you think there's a CIA-serial killer, then my vote will remain on you.

I'm not likely to be scum, he just wants answers (one of these was answered already, twice in fact. He even says "votes" instead of "answers)

As stated above, you still haven't really answered the question which you "answered already". As far as the votes and answers thing, that was a simple mistake and means nothing.

3.

In (91)

The point is that usually when somebody is so blatantly anti-town, then they're probably not scum, because scum isn't that stupid.

I'm voting for Jack to try and get answers.

However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch him, mainly because I don't want it in the end-game if he goes on to ruin it regardless of whether he's scum or not. Also, if you noticed in the game above, all of the scum (including me) were on Stuart's wagon. That was because he was such an easy lynch that day. That leads me to believe that pwn and Jason are scummy. Neto had decent reasons for his vote, but the others come off as opurtunistic scum, especially pwn. FOS: Pwn

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is a doozy. "Jack probably isn't scum, but I'll lynch him because I don't want him in endgame regardless of whether he's scum or not"???

He thinks pwn and jason are scummy, especially pwn.

Will I remind you that it was post 91. It was very early in the game, and there were no votes on you. I just wanted answers, and I didn't intend on carrying that forward to a lynch at that time. Now, however, with your "answers", I do want to see you lynched.

4.

(108) has some strangeness.

While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and the lawyers are the mafia, but how do you know that to be the case.

He still just wants me to answer. But note that this assumes no CIA agent. He's assuming that I know the secret service agent is the serial killer. He also thinks the lawyers are mafia for some reason.

This post was mainly hypothetical, and based on the assumption that the jurors are the town (which may or may not be true, though the "vanilla juror" does lead one to think that the jurors are town).

If that holds true, then it just makes common-sense that the lawyers are mafians and the Secret Service agent is an SK (i.e. attorney goon/attorney roleblocker), because the Secret Service agent is by himself while the lawyers are in league. I could be wrong of course, but that's just my take on the set-up.

5.

(125)

Jack's play has gone far and beyond what is "normal" anti-town play.

He is refusing to answer questions, and (as has been just mentioned) the whole CIA agent thing looks like a scum slip. He then tried to ride out the wave by just playing poorly. Right now, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't lynch Jack

This looks like he is deciding to join the bandwagon. Everything he is listing as suspicious is things he just wanted answers to earlier, and things that he thought made me "probably not scum".

He is claiming that the CIA agent thing is a scumslip, but he has already shown that he doesn't believe there is a CIA agent.

Do I really have to walk you through the difference between "the CIA thing" and "me believing that there is a CIA agent". The CIA agent is the whole thing where you said that there was a CIA agent. Saying that it is a scum slip doesn't mean that I have to "believe in a CIA agent". It's not like the CIA have a church or anything .

As far as my suspision is concerned, I find you suspisious now because of the "answers" that you

gave

failed to give just made you look like genuine scum.

6.

(148)

I simply wanted answers. However, his outright refusal to give any, and several good points that Net and others have brought up

(such as the CIA thing)

have all but confirmed my

original ickling of suspision.

This is where Bub looks the most scummy.

He was obviously just pushing for answers early on, and he thought I was probably not scum. But he decided to join the wagon. He claims to have suspected me originally (contradicts what he's said many times). And he thinks the "CIA thing" is a good point, despite the fact that he has shown several times (including in the latest post) that he

doesn't believe there is a CIA agent in the setup

.

For the whole CIA deal, see number 5. As far as me joining the wagon,

how can I join a wagon that I started?

If you recall, I was the first vote on the wagon.

As far as having no suspision, while for some reason I am unable to find "ickling" in the dictionary (lol at that), I'm reasonably sure that it means very little. I never said that you were completely devoid of suspision at the beginning, I just said that I had very little suspision on you. Note the difference.

In the end, this whole, super-sized mega post that he made makes many logical and deductive errors as I have pointed out. However, all it really is is an elaborate attept to conceal a pure OMGUS vote in order to try and throw suspision off of him and on to me.

[Bub Bidderskins]

That first post was my version of the conversation starter. The fact that there was no CIA agent in the setup gave me an "out" once the starter had run it's course. Proof that it wasn't a scumslip, basically. That it was just made up.

You may or may not like the answer he gave, but I don't get why you keep acting like he never answered your question.

As Neto just said his general behavior is obstructionist, and that seems to be a real flimsy excuse. Of course, now that you mention it, the case itself is quite flimsy.

At the start of the wagon he was the obvious target, and in my mind that made starting the wagon a good way to catch opurtunistic scum who wanted a quick an easy lynch. At one point I was convinced that Jack was scum, but now I see that there are others who warrent a lynch even more. For those reasons, I'm going to

unvote

.

The ones who are most likey scum who are on the wagon are pwn and DLA. Neither of them have given any good reason for voting for him. If they were voting for him because they wanted answers, then how come they didn't ask for answers? Every one else on the wagon (neto, jason, and myself) were constantly trying to weedle answers out of him.

I think the one person off the wagon who is most likey scum is Darox. He isn't active much at all, and I didn't quite catch why he's voting for yos.

@ DLA and pwn: Why didn't you try and get jack to answer if you were voting for answers?

@ Darox: Why are you voting for Yossarian?

[Bub Bidderskins]

I'm just going to go through the quote and put my responses in bold.

See, this is why you don't procrastinate. You write up some stuff, and then you waste time and people steal your thunder by saying it first. Oh well, I'm still going to post it because damnit I wasted a lot of time putting this off. I should just stick to snarky one liners.

---

People on the Jackwagon, in order of appearance

Bub Bidderskins, pwnman, Netopalis, jasonT1981, DarkLightA

Bub Bidderskins:

#43+44 First votes Jack because he copypasted his quiz answers from other people.

Nothing wrong here.

#69 Next post from Bubs he calls Jack 'so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum' but keeps his vote on Jack until he responds to SK questions. [Ehhh...]

I just wanted answers

#91 Gives previous experience showing why he thinks Jack is town, keeps vote on to get answers. Says he will support a Jack lynch if it comes down to it, despite twice calling him town. [Don't like this] Attacks pwn & jason for being on the wagon without good reasons, despite pwn giving the same reasons as him. Only FoS's pwn, not jason. [?]

"If it comes down to it" represents if he wasn't willing to answer the questions. Pwn was on the wagon "because you can't just copy and paste answers like that". I was on it for answers. If pwn comes back and says he wants answers, then how come he didn't ask for any?

#108 Demands answers some more (After Jack has already given his answer) and provides this: "While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and the

lawyers are the mafia

" Never before is the possibility of lawyers being mafia mentioned by anyone. [Where did this come from?]

The lawyers as mafia is pure speculation on my part. Just think about it. It was given to us that there are "vanilla jurors". Since jurors replace townie, it's a decent guess that the jurors are town, but, like I said, nothing but speculation on my part. As far as answering the question, I thought that it was a cheap excuse at the time, but looking back, I can see it being a decent answer. Still, why no one told me that until now (net actually said, in response to me copying his boldified thingot "Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer."
#125 Links fishy as Jacks scumbuddy for defending Jacks actions. Changes his opinion on Jack, saying he has 'gone far and beyond what is "normal" anti-town play.' Gives reasons as Jack refusing to answer questions (Again, after he already has) and him playing poorly. Is 100% behind Jack lynch.

The scumbuddy thing was if Jack was scum. How come people always forget about this?

#148 Defending self against fishy. Gives reasons for suspecting Jack as not giving answers and "good points that Net and others have brought up" [Pretty weak] Finally mentions if Jack is town, there must be scum on the wagon. (After both GC and myself have pointed this out) Points at pwn again, but fingers everyone who may have wagon jumped.
#149 Suggests Researcher may be a lawyer. Again suggests lawyers are scum. Implies Researcher cannot be a scum role and thus the one of the Justices or the agent may be partners with the remaining lawyer. [Seriously, where did you get this idea?]

once again, speculation

#155 Defending self against Jack. Claims Jack never explained copypaste, despite Jack citing post numbers where he explained it fully, and calls Jack very scummy for 'dodging all the questions'. [What?] Again claims Jack hasn't really answered questions about the copypaste issue. [No really, what?] Contradicts his post in #91 by saying he wouldn't have supported a lynch on Jack at that time, does want to lynch Jack now. Explains his reasoning for calling the lawyers scum, assuming all the jurors are town [Bad assumption] and thus the lawyers are mafia and the SSA is the SK.

When I said he dodged all the questions, I meant neto's questions on that quiz he produced. When did I say that I wouldn't have support a lynch? Again, all the juror/lawyer stuff is speculation.

You're really sketchy and jumping all over the place. Can you explain why you think Jack never answered either question?

Because when I asked him to answer after he answered, nobody said anything until much later, thus making me think I was on the right track.

Read the role info. It can only be used at night, and there was no night 0, so there is no threat here. It'll only matter for days 2 and 3.

Um, there was a night 0, although no killing roles could be used.

PS: I really hope all those tags work out, because it's a mess.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Oh, you're right, there was a night 0. My bad.

---

As far as answering the question, I thought that it was a cheap excuse at the time, but looking back, I can see it being a decent answer. Still, why no one told me that until now (net actually said, in response to me copying his boldified thingot "Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer."

Why would you need someone else to tell you that Jacks answers were acceptable?

I shouldn't and that was my mistake. However, when others said nothing, I assumed I was on the right track.

Weren't you looking at everything he posted? He was after all, your prime focus. What made you finally decide his answers were decent?

When I looked back at him in iso.

The scumbuddy thing was if Jack was scum. How come people always forget about this?

Nobody has forgotten it. When someone says scumbuddy, it's automatically implied it's if the person they are linked to is scum. Otherwise, they couldn't be a scumbuddy, could they?

Don't you understand what I'm trying to say? I was not implying that fishy was currently scum, or would be scum. I was saying that

IF

Jack was lynched and turned out to be scum, then fishy would be a likey scum-bud because of his defense of Jack.

When I said he dodged all the questions, I meant neto's questions on that quiz he produced.

Why is not properly answering the quiz a scummy act? Is this the reason you have been willing to lynch Jack?

It's part of the reason I had been willing to lynch him, and deliberatly not answering questions is scummy.

When did I say that I wouldn't have support a lynch?

Here.

I just wanted answers, and I didn't intend on carrying that forward to a lynch at that time. [Referring to post #91]

Which contradicted what you said in post 91

However, if it comes down to it I'll lynch him

In 91 I was saying that if Jack continued to fail to answer questions, then I'd be willing to lynch him, not that I was willing to lynch him at that time. Of course, this isn't new to you, seeing as I said the exact same thing in my previous post.

Because when I asked him to answer after he answered, nobody said anything until much later, thus making me think I was on the right track.

Why were you more concerned with looking out for people dissenting with your argument rather than reading the posts of the person you are wagoning?

I was reading his post, but a big, underlined "answer the question" is pretty hard to miss.

---

You responded to every post summary, even the ones with no questions/comments, except for #148. Why?

Because it's America and I can do whatever I want

Because there was nothing really for me to say. You basically outlined what I said in the post.

[Bub Bidderskins]

There is no third party serial killer in this set up.

I am 100% sure of this fact.

How do you know that?

[Bub Bidderskins]

So, I finally got around to looking at Bub in iso. I have a few interesting points.

1) Note how he says that Jack is town before I start hammering on Jack; he changes his position rather quickly then. Why? I can't find a good reason in the thread. Looks to me like an attempt to appear to be more town.


2) Read the following quote carefully.

Given the Researcher role, 5 votes could be L-1 for Jack or any other player. Noone should put people on 6 votes unless they are prepared to hammer a wagon.

Yes, that's a very good point, given the nature of the set-up. It would probably be a lawyer (because lawyers have to do a ton of research), but then that means that either one of the justices has to be scum (possible godfather), or that the CIA agent is teamed up with the other lawyer, or both.

This seems to imply that he knows that the researcher is town. How does he know this? Is it because

he's scum and knows all of the roles that scum have?

See, when I read it, I thought first that it was probably more of a scum-aligned role.

I'm going to do a quick votecount and make sure that my vote won't hammer, because I'm not ready for that quite yet...

So you are voting for me purely on the fact that I thought that the researcher was town?

[Bub Bidderskins]

Bub: If you had to decide who to lynch today, who would it be?

Unvote

Pwn. Now he's jumping on my wagon for basically no reason.

vote: pwn

[Bub Bidderskins]

Sorry that I haven't been able to post much, guys, but the last few days have been crazy. In hindsight I should have probably posted V/LA because of the big debate I just had. I'll read over everything that's been said and post a bit later, because right now I'm wiped out.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Heeeeeeeey Bubs.

Don't think you can get away with not saying anything while that lot bicker.

I still want to see some answers.

I'll reread some more about said bicker shortly.

To what do you want me to answer?

[Bub Bidderskins]

Fine, I claim: vanilla justice. I don't think anything I can say at this point would avert a lynch, but let me ask this: who would be your main suspect after I'm lynched?