888: X-COM TFTD Mafia: Over!

[Leon Dreyfus]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

Oh, and I meant to do so earlier...

unvote; IGMEOY: Gerhard

[Tracey Morris]

Stuart - obviously you want us to believe that your vote has a reason, but you don't want to tell us what that reason is (since that is "anti-town"). So does this mean that you believe Emilie is lynch worthy and you would be satisfied if she were lynched today? If so, how do you suspect for us to do that since you were the first person to vote for Emilie and you have provided no information to us to support your divinely inspired vote and nobody has since voted for her?

[Tracey Morris]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

[Gerhard Krause]

@Leon Dreyfus- Can I assume your IGMEOY is because of my meta fishing?

[Igor Schultz]

What... The ... hell?

:sighgs at Stuart:

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Because the reason you are voting them is because they "Smell like scum". You give no reason why they smell like scum or anything. Seriously, if you vote someone give a goddamned reason! Why do they smell like scum?

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

I cannot prove your vote is random but since you give no reason other then "smells like scum" I am going to have to say it is.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

Since your so into this let's do it. Please prove that your reason isn't crap logic.

Seriously though, insted of telling the town to prove they are right. Why don't you prove that we are wrong. Try defending yourself. I think my mind is made up. I am going to

vote: Stuart Whyte

So a couple key points to touch on. You have no way of knowing that my vote is baseless or random/arbitrary. You cant think it all you want, you can even be quite sure of it, and you can vote me because of it, but please dont assert it as a fact </3. Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

I realized I didn't unvote, yet. So...

Unvote: Edward Smilie

vote Emile Buchard

He smells like scum.

I would think that the time for unexplained and

baseless

voting has passed.

Vote: Stuart Whyte

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Well, in your post you only voted, and gave no justifications. Then, when asked about your vote, you said, "he smells like scum," again, without any justification. So does he literally smell like scum? Or has he been behaving in a scummy way? I have no clue because

you have provided no basis

for your vote.

I comepletely agree with Tracy. I will probably be voting for Stuart pretty soon because of

his random vote

out of the RVS and his horrible horrible reasoning. Stuart- How does he "Smell like scum"? However, before I put a (serious) vote on anyone I want to hear more about Edwards plan.

Please prove that my vote is random/arbitrary.

Bolded emphasis mine.

You once again provided no justification, even when specifically asked. It appears pretty arbitrary to me, and I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't arbitrary.

If I was asserting that it wasn't arbitrary the burden of proof would be with me, but all I'm asserting is that you have no way of knowing whether it was arbitrary, baseless, or random. If you said you thought I had no base for my vote and voted me for it I would have taken little issue, mind you I still dislike being voted for bad reasons but, at least you wouldn't have been asserting something as truth that you had no way of knowing one way or another.

Please prove that my vote is baseless.

Burden of proof fallacy. This is crap logic. The burden of proof falls onto you, anyway, since it's your vote. Proof to us that it's not baseless.

I stand by everything I've said, if you think something I've said was crap logic then you are wrong.

This isn't even logic. This is just childish argument. I even have proof with me:

A scummy random stage vote you say? And when all the votes are done randomly, with dice, in thread, which vote would that be? I think you just prove my point for me.

You said this, in response to this:

[...] eventually someone would gain the courage to put a serious vote up and end the RVS on someone that put down a scummy RVS.

You bolded the entire quoted part. He said, that eventually someone will either put down a serious or a scummy random vote, and you shot it down by saying if everyone "random" votes, there is technically no Scummy random vote. Not only did that only undermine half of what he said, but it's really just another childish "No it isn't" argument in disguise.

your play so far this game is basically just eveyrone arguing with you chiming in and saying "No it isn't. Nu-uhh!" Every once in a while.

people who choose not to, or in your case

refuse

to provide reasoning are scum AND anti-town. Please die.

Unvote, CONFIRM vote: Stuart Whyte

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch. And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument. As I see it undermining part of that argument "that there is a scummy random stage vote" undermines the whole argument as there is no vote for a person to take as scummy and vote seriously. More importantly if he admits its possible to have a scummy random stage vote otherwise, don't you see an issue with him skipping the whole thing? At this point I'll note that I also didn't random vote but thats because there was actual meat to the thread by the time I posted. As for the "no it isn't" point, I honestly don't no how to argue against it because I don't even understand it. I mean, I did provide a reason behind that argument and the entire basis behind his "no it isn't" point is that I'm not providing any reasons so yeah, colour me confused.


Sorry for any typos/spelling mistakes folks, too lazy to reread this.

After reading the above I nearly had to throw up.

unvote

.

#1 unless some person comes out and yells, "I am scum plz lynch" this early in the game it is hard for me to think that your vote was not (or is not) ether random or baseless. Making a case as to if we think it was or not has to be the most stupid thing you can think up of!

#2 you did after all say that you can't prove it was an RV! hah you can't prove it you can't! Sounds like trying a shift there to me... and also tell us why you voted him if you make it such a big issue.

and #3 Your lvl of crap logic blows my mind! and give us a case on the guy you are voting on. You can't make a real vote for some person this early (except on you...).

vote Stuart

reasons!

#1 bad logic which means that he will be a prob latter on
#2 says his vote is on a player he thinks is scum and does not tell us why
#3 does not respond to just one to two votes very well. He seems slightly on edge. taking one vote this early should not make him so hyper.
#4 blew up a small issue into a big one. Never good to have a very small grain of dust become a nice hefty plank. Just admit it was an RVS vote or post a case.

that's all.

[Leon Dreyfus]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

Yeah, I had plans to come back and post more after taking my shower. I'll do so in a bit.

Your post is dismissed.

[Tracey Morris]

I don't oppose lynching Stuart, but from the look of it I'd say that he is the "easy" target. Meaning that scum are trying to push his lynch.

So what does that say about your half commit, non binding attitude to his lynch? You couldn't be more of a fence sitter. Your not getting in the way of his lynch is duly noted; as is your contradictory suspicion of anyone that is attacking him as an easy target.

IGMEOY: Leon Dreyfus

Yeah, I had plans to come back and post more after taking my shower. I'll do so in a bit.

Well that's convenient. I guess I should take your word on that since you neglected to mention that you would expand more later on such a contradictory post? But if my post is "dismissed" I guess I won't worry about it.

[Stuart Whyte]

reasons!

#1 bad logic which means that he will be a prob latter on

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

#2 says his vote is on a player he thinks is scum and does not tell us why

This is pro-town.

#3 does not respond to just one to two votes very well. He seems slightly on edge. taking one vote this early should not make him so hyper.

How would you have prefered I responded?

#4 blew up a small issue into a big one. Never good to have a very small grain of dust become a nice hefty plank. Just admit it was an RVS vote or post a case.

that's all.

What issue?

I thought that did a decent job of answering everyones questions but to be clear: My vote is serious, I'd be happy to see him die atm. I have no intention of revealing why.

[Jaime Marcelle]

So a couple key points to touch on. You have no way of knowing that my vote is baseless or random/arbitrary. You cant think it all you want, you can even be quite sure of it, and you can vote me because of it, but please dont assert it as a fact </3. Also while we are on it, I directed each of these questions at a different person, in the future please don't answer questions asked of other people before they can.

If you vote isn't baseless or arbitary then tell us what the reason is. Also, I like how you were able to just post without answering ANY questions people asked you. You have been going the whole game without explaining yourself at all. I'm assuming you want us to follow you on your vote don't you? The whole point of a vote is to get others to joing you and lynch the person. If you can't get the town to agree with you emile isn't going to get lynched.

Also, I think my reasons for voting Stuart are pretty obvious and for all you people out there who don't know it's pretty much the same as everybody elses: Bad reasoning, lack of explanations etc.

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

It would really help the town if you would just TELL US THE REASON! You are hurting town by not telling us so spill it.

I thought that did a decent job of answering everyones questions but to be clear: My vote is serious, I'd be happy to see him die atm. I have no intention of revealing why.

Stuart is getting increasingly scummy by the moment. The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile. I doubt this. Why can't you tell us.

So... yeah. I'm happy with my vote on Stuart.

[Stuart Whyte]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

[Tracey Morris]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

I've already explained how this idea is insane; but let me reiterate: not explaining votes is at best anti-town and at worst, and more probable, scummy. You've already said that the reason you don't want to explain your vote is because you don't want it to be refuted.

So, if you are town, you don't care about getting other people on board with your vote, and you don't want the other person to refute your claim and possibly prove his/her innocence (anti-town) and have no concern about a mislynch (anti-town and scummy).

If you are mafia, you don't want him/her to refute you because you already know he/she is town (obvscummy).

If you are some crazy day cop then you played it terribly. I'm still fine with lynching you, and if you do turn out to be a day cop (not likely) then we'll go after Emilie and I'll write your death off as the price of business.

If you would care to enlighten me on why not explaining votes is anti-town (outside of the ridiculous refuting argument) I would be more than happy to listen, or is explaining (in detail) anti-town behavior also anti-town?

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

[Stuart Whyte]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

I've already explained how this idea is insane; but let me reiterate: not explaining votes is at best anti-town and at worst, and more probable, scummy. You've already said that the reason you don't want to explain your vote is because you don't want it to be refuted.

So, if you are town, you don't care about getting other people on board with your vote, and you don't want the other person to refute your claim and possibly prove his/her innocence (anti-town) and have no concern about a mislynch (anti-town and scummy).

If you are mafia, you don't want him/her to refute you because you already know he/she is town (obvscummy).

If you are some crazy day cop then you played it terribly. I'm still fine with lynching you, and if you do turn out to be a day cop (not likely) then we'll go after Emilie and I'll write your death off as the price of business.

If you would care to enlighten me on why not explaining votes is anti-town (outside of the ridiculous refuting argument) I would be more than happy to listen, or is explaining (in detail) anti-town behavior also anti-town?

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town :teach: Wait, you actually want to refute his point? oh fine:

What? The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch? Or, if you are mafia, you don't want them to refute you because you know they are town. Either way, you are totally scummy now.

There was some confusion here that I missed till now caused by a typo. That should read "Wait, you actually want

me

to refute his point? oh fine:"

Me not wanting to have my points refuted has very little to do with not stating reasons. I've never made any intentional claims about them being the reason.

[Gerhard Krause]

@Stuart White - The only possible explanation for your vote is that you are some sort of town power role who knows the alignment of Emile, or you are scum trying to get away with a ridiculous gambit.

This is a theme game, so odd roles are far from impossible. If you are such a role then claim, list your reasons, or drop your vote. I think it has become clear that no one else is going to vote based on your word, so you are clearly not going to get the lynch you want the way you're going.

If you were really interested in lynching scum, you would give us some reason to vote with you, but you have not. So if you want Emile lynched, how do you plan to do it?

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart White - The only possible explanation for your vote is that you are some sort of town power role who knows the alignment of Emile, or you are scum trying to get away with a ridiculous gambit.

This is a theme game, so odd roles are far from impossible. If you are such a role then claim, list your reasons, or drop your vote. I think it has become clear that no one else is going to vote based on your word, so you are clearly not going to get the lynch you want the way you're going.

If you were really interested in lynching scum, you would give us some reason to vote with you, but you have not. So if you want Emile lynched, how do you plan to do it?

I trust the town.

[Spencer Remmington]

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch.

Ad hominid only counts if I directly insult you. Like, for example, if I were to say you are mind blowingly incompetent.

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town

You mean allowing my opinion on others to be judged by other people to be fair or not? So that later, people are able to see how I felt about the townie that was bandwagoned? And then judge if I had ulterior motives to whatever I said about them or was honest or not?

It's Anti-Town to Provide reasoning, so then the most pro-town action is to of course vote for whoever we feel like and then not discuss anything until we're force to deadline lynch someone? Or just wait until Deadline passes over us and we have no lynch? Or should we just wait for scum to all bandwagon on someone and then have everyone follow, netting more and more mislynches as everyone stays equally scummy due to the inability to analyze the wagons?

Or should we just have a power role or whoever is the closest confirmed townie we could get on day one claim and just have him roll the dice repeatedly to decide the agreed lynch order? Forget arguments, and all that bullcrap, just leave everything to random chance. I mean, it's not like town's chances of hitting scum are explicitly defined as

Less than 50%

due to game rules.

I'd like to see your justification for why it is anti-town. I'd like to, but I'd certain you'd be content enough just being as vague as humanly possible in a game where the details matter.

Moving on...

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument.

His argument is that a people will either put out a serious vote on someone, or put out a scummy vote on someone during the random stage. Your argument is that if it's completely random, there is no such thing as a scummy vote. This fails to take into account that not everyone uses a dice roll, that scum are able to have game related reason for who they vote (whether to start a bandwagon, to not draw attention, etc.), AND that fact that even if there is no scummy random vote, no one in the game will ever go "Okay, this is going nowhere, I'm voting player X because I think his vote might have scummy intent behind it." It fails to undermine it simply because you present a theory that does not match you to reality at all.

Also, i don't really see where in that post there is a reason, or at least anything with backing evidence.

The only reason you would be worried about someone refuting your points is if the person you are voting for is town. And even then, if you are town, wouldn't you want them to enlighten you and refute your accusations so you don't mislynch?

This.
Really, there's no pro-town logic behind hiding your reason to vote.

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

Which is good enough reason to not want you in the case of lylo.

I have no intention of revealing why.

Can you at the very least tell us why you have no intention of telling us?

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

Oh, okay then. Can you tell us why explaining votes is anti-town?

Me not wanting to have my points refuted has very little to do with not stating reasons. I've never made any intentional claims about them being the reason.

Of course not. If you admitted it, you'd be admitting that you were scum. This leads be back to the above question of why it's anti-town.

I trust the town.

The town doesn't trust you. If this is going to work out, we need to be able to work together and not keep secret from each other.

[Stuart Whyte]

Your level of incompetence blows my mind. I like all the ad homms btw, nice touch.

Ad hominid only counts if I directly insult you. Like, for example, if I were to say you are mind blowingly incompetent.

And for the record its providing reasoning with votes that is anti-town

You mean allowing my opinion on others to be judged by other people to be fair or not? So that later, people are able to see how I felt about the townie that was bandwagoned? And then judge if I had ulterior motives to whatever I said about them or was honest or not?

It's Anti-Town to Provide reasoning, so then the most pro-town action is to of course vote for whoever we feel like and then not discuss anything until we're force to deadline lynch someone? Or just wait until Deadline passes over us and we have no lynch? Or should we just wait for scum to all bandwagon on someone and then have everyone follow, netting more and more mislynches as everyone stays equally scummy due to the inability to analyze the wagons?

Or should we just have a power role or whoever is the closest confirmed townie we could get on day one claim and just have him roll the dice repeatedly to decide the agreed lynch order? Forget arguments, and all that bullcrap, just leave everything to random chance. I mean, it's not like town's chances of hitting scum are explicitly defined as

Less than 50%

due to game rules.

I'd like to see your justification for why it is anti-town. I'd like to, but I'd certain you'd be content enough just being as vague as humanly possible in a game where the details matter.

Moving on...

Is english your first language? I don't say this with any intent of figuring out who you are but its very relevant. At any rate please don't put words in my mouth.

Please explain how it doesn't undermine the entire part I bolded, also please explain how its a "no you" argument.

His argument is that a people will either put out a serious vote on someone, or put out a scummy vote on someone during the random stage.

let me stop you right here. That wasn't his argument.

Your argument is that if it's completely random, there is no such thing as a scummy vote. This fails to take into account that not everyone uses a dice roll, that scum are able to have game related reason for who they vote (whether to start a bandwagon, to not draw attention, etc.), AND that fact that even if there is no scummy random vote, no one in the game will ever go "Okay, this is going nowhere, I'm voting player X because I think his vote might have scummy intent behind it." It fails to undermine it simply because you present a theory that does not match you to reality at all.

In the following when I say random I mean diceroll random:

I wasn't saying everyone would actually use a random vote, I was using it as a thought experiment to show why random votes are anti town. The very fact that he suggested that the first wagon of the game should be against someone who makes a scummy arbitrary vote shows that he knew what he was avoiding.

Also, i don't really see where in that post there is a reason, or at least anything with backing evidence.

Will address when I know if english is your first language or not.

Not going to admit my logic is bad, but even if it were bad logic isn't a scum tell, its an idoit tell.

Which is good enough reason to not want you in the case of lylo.

This is fail logic. If you lynch me now then that is 1 more mislynch = it wouldn't be lylo but simply already lost.

I have no intention of revealing why.

Can you at the very least tell us why you have no intention of telling us?

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

Oh, okay then. Can you tell us why explaining votes is anti-town?

Might get around to it, might not. See how the game goes.

I trust the town.

The town doesn't trust you. If this is going to work out, we need to be able to work together and not keep secret from each other.

So you admit I'm town then?

[Claude Lefevre]

@Stuart: how is keeping your reason for voting hidden to the rest of us pro-town? Please explain.

@Stuart&Spencer: since there is no way to discover my identity from this info - cuz it is never stated in my real profile - I will make it clear right now that english is NOT my first language. So please explain me how is this relevant in Spencer's case, cuz I might see it, but I need to be sure.

Mod: I am not counting days, but Edward has disappeared ever since we started questioning his "plan". Would you please make sure to prod him as soon as allowed by the rules?

[Stuart Whyte]

@Stuart: how is keeping your reason for voting hidden to the rest of us pro-town? Please explain.

@Stuart&Spencer: since there is no way to discover my identity from this info - cuz it is never stated in my real profile - I will make it clear right now that english is NOT my first language. So please explain me how is this relevant in Spencer's case, cuz I might see it, but I need to be sure.

Mod: I am not counting days, but Edward has disappeared ever since we started questioning his "plan". Would you please make sure to prod him as soon as allowed by the rules?

He misunderstood some things I can't see a native English speaker misunderstanding. Based on his typing I can imagine that he's not a native speaker in which case oh well. If he is a native speaker though then he really really needs to work on his reading comprehension or is scum.

[Edward Smilie]

note to all ppl:

what i said before not actually a plan.

just something I want to know to start a discussion since 3 days ago I see low activities in the game

I just ask mod to replace me

my comp can't get fixed for some times and I can't login like usual again

I am really sorry...

good luck to all player/...

[Igor Schultz]

The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile.

Or explaining votes is anti-town.

Or it can be a scum tell... your tredding a fine line on my part. I want this guy lynched. He does not help the town and until he ether drops his vote or tells us why I want to keep my vote on him. This last post was the most fucking stupid yet. OMG I am not going to tell why I vote peeps I'm pro-town! this is not true, it is the exact opp of being pro-town.

Also stop attacking peoples english it makes you look like more of an asshole.

[Claude Lefevre]

@Igor: do you deliberately ignore post 118, in which Stuart explains the reason why he is arguing about English? If so, why? Do you think his reason is not good enough?

@Stuart: I ask you 2 questions in the same post, and you answer just one of them??? I repeat: why do you think that hiding the reasons of a vote is pro-town?

@Jamie: looks like you are fishing for Stuart's role in post 109:

Stuart is getting increasingly scummy by the moment. The only reason I could think of that you not telling us the reason for your vote is that you are a secret day cop that got a guilty on emile. I doubt this. Why can't you tell us.
So... yeah. I'm happy with my vote on Stuart.

@Edward: I never like it when FoS'ed people leave a game, but whatever.

@Leon: it is true that you posted much and said almost nothing, as someone else already pointed out. How come? After spamming us with theories on randomness you ran out of topics?

FoS: (Edward + Jamie) OR (Stuart)

for the moment

Unvote; Vote: Jamie

, since Edward is leaving.

and naturally

IGMEOY: Stuart

[Stuart Whyte]

I've been avoiding answering that question for two reasons; 1 It would be a lot of work to formulate an articulate post explaining why and 2 I don't see it achieving anything except derailing the game in to heavy heavy theory talk. For now I don't really care if you believe its pro or anti-town. What's important when determining my alignment is what I believe. You are basically left with two options: I believe what I'm saying and am any alignment, or I don't believe what Im saying and am scum. If everyone promises to only use the reasons I post to judge my sincerity instead of arguing about it for pages then I will try and over come point 1, but atm I'm pretty sure its just going to degenerate in to the latter.

[Spencer Remmington]

Yes, English is my first language. Go ahead and tell me in detail where exactly I'm wrong. I've really been wanting to hear what you think anyway, so please, say something useful.

let me stop you right here. That wasn't his argument.

Then what was his argument? You didn't even provide an alternative interpretation of his argument, you just said "No it isn't."

I wasn't saying everyone would actually use a random vote, I was using it as a thought experiment to show why random votes are anti town.

This still makes it a hypothetical that's removed from reality. I went back and read the quote in full.

-He said that unless everyone decide before the game to make it completely random, there would be a scummy vote, or a serious vote.
-You said that if everyone decided before the game that they would only use a random vote, then there would be no scummy or serious vote.

It fails to undermine it because it's premised on a very unlikely hypothetical.

If you lynch me now then that is 1 more mislynch = it wouldn't be lylo but simply already lost.

Except this assumes both that you're town and that lynching you doesn't allow us to find scum any sooner than lynching anybody else. And that's not even considering that apparent presupposition that you'd even make it to lylo in the first place.

So you admit I'm town then?

I never said you were town. I just said no one trusts you because you try to avoid saying things that would let us judge you.

I'd like to hear more from Leon about what he thinks on the people on the bandwagon if he thinks there's scum gunning after Stuart. It's a fairly easy wagon to jump on, I'll admit, but I don't like how he completely waffled in 100.

[malthusis]

As the expertly prepared lunch was wheeled in by by some engineers who had nothing to do, everyone dug in to the delicious food. But as amazingly good as it was, it did nothing to ease the tension in the room.

In fact, the tension was rising.....

The Third Vote Count of Day 1:

Jaime Marcelle:2 (Otto, Claude)
Gerhard Krause:1 (Leon)
Orski Pavlov:1 (Andrew)

Stuart Whyte:5 (Spencer, Igor, Gerhard, Tracey, Jaime)

Emile Buchard:1 (Stuart)

Not Voting:2 (Emile, Orski)

7 to lynch, just as a reminder.....

[Tracey Morris]

Just a side note: can we please make sure that quotes are properly attributed to the person who said them. It makes it much easier to follow the conversation, especially when there are multiple discussions going on.

Code: Select all

[quote="NAME"]quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text quote text[/quote]

The ="NAME" being the most important part. Thank you.