fhomess

Why are you picking on Swamp Creature as opposed to one of the others who voted for Dracula. If you think it's a bandwagon, that's fine, but why Swampy in particular? I think you're pursuing this far too strongly. Yes, an inactive townie can be a distraction, but it's always better to give people time to speak for themselves. There were four extremely quick votes for Dracula. That should be enough to get him talking. It's far better for us to look at everyone, get people talking about their opinions and reasoning behind their vote. By focusing on someone who hasn't said anything you're essentially telling us all to shut it down for now. That doesn't seem very conducive towards learning more about people. Vote: Zombie Groom (Forresto) As for the Miller claim... I need to think about that one a bit. Zombie Cheerleader... why did you wait until voting had started to declare it?

My face is for chewing up tasty humans, not poking. Raaawwwrrrr!!!!!

Gorgonzola is here! Raaawwwwrrrrr!!!!!

City is repetitive, but it's also got a pretty good variety of things out there. Many of the sets people complain we don't see are just repeats of things that don't have frequent repeats, like a hospital or gas station (which we got recently). A lot of the other themes plug in seamlessly. Speed champions, for example. I find something regularly that I want in City, and I haven't bought a police or fire set in years. There's nothing wrong with City.

I'll play if needed for a slot. 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. A yes man Maybe try reaching out to some of the folks who felt intimidated by the last game? I'd prefer we keep it as Mafia.

This is the best part of Mafia for me. You get so worked up and paranoid about what's going on that you start to do crazy things in your head. It's also why I generally prefer to be night killed early in the game and then watch others struggle through it while I post on the deadboard all of the obvious things people are missing... and then find out I was wrong even with all the extra info I had.

Nice job UM and Kwatchi... well hosted game, Medium.

Thanks for having me in the game!

Personally, I bet the Ballagio are enjoying the vote split and there's at least one on each of our primary candidates right now. Tony, you seem more worried about your lynch than pointing us in the right direction based on what you're observing. It's an understandable reaction, but fear mongering doesn't endear me to your plight.

By my count, this is where we currently stand: 5 - Anthony (Actor Builder) - Khscarymovie4, Tariq j, jluck, KotZ, Forresto 3 - Tony (jluck) - Lady K, Kintober, LegoMonorailFan 1 - Stephanie (Lady K) - Kwatchi 1 - Alan (KotZ) - fhomess Nonvoting: Tina, Anthony I, too, would rather have a lynch than none. Between the two front runners, I'm going to cast my vote away from the direction that Alan voted in, as I don't have a particularly stronger feel for either. Unvote: Alan (KotZ) Vote: Tony (jluck) Sorry... meant to mention that I wasn't sure if Anthony's vote would count due to it not being bolded. Our judge may miss that.

This is better from you, although from this I didn't get the impression that Tony was the highest on your suspect list. This is par for the course with Dez. Unfortunately, he's going to have both Cathy AND Jimmy's baggage to carry around.

I'm going after you for the reasons I outlined above. Why don't you reply to my actual concerns? Yesterday, you said we learned a lot. Today the "a lot" turns out to be that I had the most votes and was therefore the scummiest? Seriously?

Stop confusing me and Gary. He's a butt ugly guy who spends too much time underground. I'm a hairy old man. It's not that hard and you'll confuse the more dim witted among us, which are many. Complete nonsense. My argument and vote for you yesterday was new and constructive. I have been actively questioning folks from the get-go and that's one of the things everyone hated about me. Hardly just responding to others. For the record, something you said today struck me as unlikely to come from a Ballagio, so I will not be voting for you today. For today, I'm going to Vote: Alan Andrews (KotZ) This from earlier today: This is all over the place non-committal. It looks helpful, but the reality is that there isn't much there. Now to some things from yesterday. Yesterday, I called Alan out for voting for Clifford after not voting for him just moments earlier. The issue isn't the vote for Clifford so much as the fact that nothing had changed in the VERY short time period between his first comment and his vote. He had two responses: and This latter one is odd because he said he was sitting on his own thoughts. Not for very long. I stand by what I said yesterday, that you thought you were too accusatory without voting so you'd better get that vote in. Today, you are not voting because you don't want to come accross to strongly again. You seem awfully scared of what the rest of us think. I would like to hear, Alan, what you learned yesterday and how that informs your thoughts for today. If you learned so much, it should be easy to formulate a vote for today, but you haven't been willing to commit to anything.

This is so like Cathy it's like you're doing everything you can to replace her. I said earlier that the scum not attempting a kill to avoid suspicion (your idea) is complete nonsense. This is close to it. I don't think that with only 12 jurors the Ballagio would be so powerful as to be able to recruit later in the game, and if they don't have a recruit at all, then there's no reason not to try to kill. I guess there's always incompetence... forgetting to submit a kill, but that's not something worth entertaining at this point. The only reason not to kill is to recruit, as Brock mentions, but that's still rare enough I think it's fair to assume that the kill didn't go through because of a block or protection. Generally, all bickering really shows you is that we're unlikely to both be Ballagio. Plus, I think we've been very civil in our accusations... well, at least I have with Dez. I think the rest of your argument is reasonably well assembled, but Jimmy is tied to Cathy's behavior whether anyone likes it or not. To be quite honest, he's behaved quite similarly so far. I feel like Stephanie has basically been challenging Clifford to vote for me again today, and Clifford has chosen to vote for the quiet Amanda instead. That's rather interesting.

Hope you feel better soon!

Complete nonsense. Actually, this makes me feel better about having no day one lynch. We haven't lost anyone at all and now have night action results that the the PR's can start reviewing. It doesn't beg that question. Unlike what Stephanie said, we don't know the town blocker was successful last night. It could be a protector of some kind that saved someone's bacon. Your last question is pointless. There were no kills last night. How on earth can we know if a 3rd party killer exists? If there was only 1 kill, the most logical assumption is that it was the Ballagio's. Still no evidence for a 3rd party killer. What does discussing 3rd parties get us? Nothing. It's pure speculation at this point. I'm still no fan of Dez and Stephanie is giving me the heebie jeebies, too. Who would you vote for right now?

Well that was a splendid night. I slept like a log. Welcome to the jury, Jimmy. I do hope Cathy feels better soon and that no one else "falls ill". Good thing I have my bottle... wards off all sorts of ailments.

I'm not terribly concerned about making sure we discuss everyone. Unless someone does something particularly scummy at this point, we should probably try to agree on one of the folks who have votes already. The argument for lynching is always that the town needs to know the alignment of players in order to figure out patterns of behavior. I'm less convinced than I used to be that it's a requirement, but it certainly helps. You can't demonstrate to us that you're paying any attention at all by asking us to tell you who's been around and who hasn't. You have to actually talk about what other people are saying. You have to show us that you're paying attention by contributing to the conversation and you haven't done that at all until I called you out. The idea that I'm contributing little to the conversation by calling out behaviors that I see as questionable is laughable from someone who hasn't said anything of note.

This is Dez's first comment after the voting began. Prior to this, he was mostly asking for wood and denying that his candy shop has any illegal booze in it. I'm happy to deny that, too. It's certainly not where I got this bottle. That said, I don't find this particularly helpful. What's the point of asking this question? You can certainly make an effort to listen to the conversation. Why should we do that for you? This is Dez's only other comment after voting began. Personally, I don't think we're yet at the point where we need to bandwagon to ensure a lynch. We have plenty fo time, and you should not vote for someone if you're unconvinced they're scum. Dez is just trying to get someone killed and he doesn't seem to particularly care who it is. Dez just wants us to pick the lynch for him so he can go along with it. He's got no interest in demonstrating any of his own initiative in finding out who might be scum. Vote: Dez Hunter (Forresto) To answer the question posed by Gary, I do find Cathy rather suspicious as well.

What's so hard about my name that people keep messing it up? I'll vote when I'm ready. Accusations get the conversation going and we need conversation. We have literally nothing else to go on at this point. Those of you who are put off by my gruff approach can go cry in a corner. I don't understand the reasoning to suspect those that voted for you are innocent. I'm sure Ballagio clan members are as eager to pounce on someone suspicious as the rest of us. I didn't make any defense of you. I never told anyone not to vote for you. I asked them to explain their votes. Cathy made no effort to explain what it was about the accusation she connected with. We need people to explain why they're voting the way they are. Without that, we have nothing to look back on in coming days. Alan called Clifford out, didn't vote for him, then came back and voted for him shortly thereafter. I think it's reasonable to ask what changed in that time to convince him to place his vote. Maybe he's scared that his first post looked too accusatory without voting. Neither of those lines of questioning suggest those people should NOT have voted for you. They're asking questions to understand why they did what they did. All you said was "I've heard enough" and then cast your vote. From what I read, you just listened to what others said and did not make your own contributions. The last line here is a perfectly valid question and a reasonable reason for your vote, but you didn't communicate that at the time. We're not mind readers around here.

This sounds like you need advice from your friends ... This trial is rigged, I tell you! You've hardly heard anything and just gone along with what someone else decided. Have you any thoughts of your own? What about the case against Clifford is convincing you to join in? This doesn't sit well, either. You called Clifford out just a few moments earlier for not voting and then come back just a short while later to vote for him. The only thing that happened in the meantime was Cathy's vote. Why not wait for the defense and then vote?

I do love some good target practice. Didn't know kids were still into that sort of thing.

Coffee? I've already got a beverage, thanks very much. Millenials... What? We can't read our mail? What kind of commie are you?

No respect, man. After all I've done for this country I get lumped in with all of you creeps as a common suspect. It ain't right I say. Well, any of you Ballagio gang members trying to hide among us better watch out. I'm gonna see to it that you're all rooted out and put in your proper place. This whole thing is megablocks. Retirement is very complex. I'm a megablockin genius. Almost as smart as this guy...

Yeah, this oughta be a fair trial...