[Anomandaris]

I wonder if there a presedent in maritime law for getting yourself lynched on day one.



I know some of you will get it....LOL

[Anthras]

Anomandaris, on 09 September 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

Well, that was fast.

Very fast.

if... you know what I mean...

TO THE BEEMOBILE!!

[Anthras]

Sorry about that, long week and I'm a bit tired.

Off to bed, with the week-end freeze now probably in effect I think the night will be long and/or quiet.

[Tiamatha]

Anomandaris, on 09 September 2011 - 06:36 PM, said:

I wonder if there a presedent in maritime law for getting yourself lynched on day one.



I know some of you will get it....LOL

I do, and believe Morgy is cursing you even now from SH.

[Tellan]

It looks like we have several different directions available to us now. We can analyze the lynch train:

11 Votes for Sorrit ( Shadow, Serc, Korabas, Tennes, Korlat, Tulas Shorn, Telas, Tellan, Tiamatha, Silanah, Anthras )

We also can look into those who failed to vote:

Players not voted: Atrahal, Kessobahn, Sorrit, Thyrllan

First, I would like to look at one of the many people on the lynch train, Tennes. So this was a hallmark moment for Tennes represented in the next two quotes below:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Vote Sorrit

Seems like he's drawn the arbitrary day one train.

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

remove vote

"He said town instead of us" reasoning has always been weak. Didn't really bother me much because I already thought day one would be pretty arbitrary and I figured it was people using whatever justification to join a train so they got to be on it and so it wasn't them lynched.

Looking at the votes it looks a bit more like a de-rail. If the reasoning behind the votes was what I had thought it was, it seems odd for a pile-up on sorrit when there are already 3 votes on someone else.

Ok, so this is still a good thought, but now that we have a CF and know that Sorrit was FBI, this statement suddenly looks a little bit more than a derailment itself. The thing that struck me as odd then and still odd now was how Tennes didn't switch his vote to someone else. Moreover, it was not like the lynch train was at the unstoppable stage. With his vote removal, there were only 4 votes on Sorrit and the next lynch candidate was Anomadaris at 3 votes. Thus, a vote removal was a very strong statement, and to me seemed like the self-same derailment he was endorsing for other people.


Now here is the kicker. Tennes rejoins the lynch train as the hammer. This is an interesting indirect statement in and of itself. It still allows Tennes to distance himself from the vote without explicitly standing apart from the vote. He doesn't say he's hammering either. He just provides the below explanation for his vote:

Quote

You don't really explain why you're suspicious of me beyond that I've speculated about something (most haven't, true).

I never like things like this:

"I think that anyone sticking their necks out for or against Sorrit require further investigation."

Because it pre-emptively casts suspicion on anyone with an opinion.

Vote sorrit

Seems as good as anyone else. Arbitrary trains don't give much info, but the first lynch was always going to be arbitrary.

In faction games, everyone speaks/plays as town to start. In this particular game, this means being pretty happy to lynch anyone to start with. This means everyone will either be happy to lynch anyone, or pretend to be happy to lynch anyone, which in terms of how they vote, ought to mean the same thing.

We see this with sorrit. A couple of votes start up and it quickly snowballs. Because everyone is either happy to lynch anyone or is pretending to be so. Similarly, the vote justification is weak. It really could've been "I'd rather the lynch wasn't me", it doesn't really matter(ok, some justification looks better but with so little justification it's pretty obvious anyhow), because it is in whoever else is arounds interest to vote for the person who has just been voted because that builds up the train and makes it less likely to swing in their direction, giving us the snowball.

What is interesting is that this happens with sorrit, but not the trains beforehand.

He defends himself against my accusations briefly (and even says he doesn't like the phase sticking out one's neck, despite using this same statement in a later post) and then goes on to call the vote against Sorrit "arbitrary," which means it won't "give much info." This seems like another inconsistency, considering how he was originally pointing out a potential derailment, which if it were the case as he said, a lynch would obviously give us a lot of information. Finally, here is the neck comment for your reference.

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice.

A lot of people are playing safe/lurky.

Being the first on a train is sticking your neck out more than most because you have to either contrive a reason for voting or admit you're voting in your own interests. Both have some risk of drawing heat, but traditionally the latter is worse because it's easier to abandon a case than to deny your playstyle. Which I think is why we see such a flood of votes following the first. People are relieved they don't have to move first and can just hop on in agreement - which is easier if you can say you agree with their case rather than their tactic.

Once a few votes are placed people can then hop on simply by merit of it being the leading train.

I've got to quickly take a test, but I will be back hopefully in 2 hours or so. I think the night will have to pass before full out debate, but I would exhort any players online to post their thoughts, just incase we experience four deaths tonight. I want to hear from people so we have more to work with tomorrow, even if they are killed of. Be right back hopefully >.<

This post has been edited by Tellan: 09 September 2011 - 09:27 PM

[Karosis]

Well, that was quick.

Cageyness was the one place to not hide in this game at the beginning I think. Which was why there were a ton of random votes, which got Morgy.

Sorry I was late for the party and now I have to leave once again. I'll be back in a few hours.

Also, I hate chatting at night.

Later.

[Kessobahn]

I'm back. Doesn't look like I missed much. Waitng to see what goes down at night.

[Tennes]

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

It looks like we have several different directions available to us now. We can analyze the lynch train:

11 Votes for Sorrit ( Shadow, Serc, Korabas, Tennes, Korlat, Tulas Shorn, Telas, Tellan, Tiamatha, Silanah, Anthras )

We also can look into those who failed to vote:

Players not voted: Atrahal, Kessobahn, Sorrit, Thyrllan

First, I would like to look at one of the many people on the lynch train, Tennes. So this was a hallmark moment for Tennes represented in the next two quotes below:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

Vote Sorrit

Seems like he's drawn the arbitrary day one train.

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

remove vote

"He said town instead of us" reasoning has always been weak. Didn't really bother me much because I already thought day one would be pretty arbitrary and I figured it was people using whatever justification to join a train so they got to be on it and so it wasn't them lynched.

Looking at the votes it looks a bit more like a de-rail. If the reasoning behind the votes was what I had thought it was, it seems odd for a pile-up on sorrit when there are already 3 votes on someone else.

Ok, so this is still a good thought, but now that we have a CF and know that Sorrit was FBI, this statement suddenly looks a little bit more than a derailment itself. The thing that struck me as odd then and still odd now was how Tennes didn't switch his vote to someone else. Moreover, it was not like the lynch train was at the unstoppable stage. With his vote removal, there were only 4 votes on Sorrit and the next lynch candidate was Anomadaris at 3 votes. Thus, a vote removal was a very strong statement, and to me seemed like the self-same derailment he was endorsing for other people.


Now here is the kicker. Tennes rejoins the lynch train as the hammer. This is an interesting indirect statement in and of itself. It still allows Tennes to distance himself from the vote without explicitly standing apart from the vote. He doesn't say he's hammering either. He just provides the below explanation for his vote:

Quote

You don't really explain why you're suspicious of me beyond that I've speculated about something (most haven't, true).

I never like things like this:

"I think that anyone sticking their necks out for or against Sorrit require further investigation."

Because it pre-emptively casts suspicion on anyone with an opinion.

Vote sorrit

Seems as good as anyone else. Arbitrary trains don't give much info, but the first lynch was always going to be arbitrary.

In faction games, everyone speaks/plays as town to start. In this particular game, this means being pretty happy to lynch anyone to start with. This means everyone will either be happy to lynch anyone, or pretend to be happy to lynch anyone, which in terms of how they vote, ought to mean the same thing.

We see this with sorrit. A couple of votes start up and it quickly snowballs. Because everyone is either happy to lynch anyone or is pretending to be so. Similarly, the vote justification is weak. It really could've been "I'd rather the lynch wasn't me", it doesn't really matter(ok, some justification looks better but with so little justification it's pretty obvious anyhow), because it is in whoever else is arounds interest to vote for the person who has just been voted because that builds up the train and makes it less likely to swing in their direction, giving us the snowball.

What is interesting is that this happens with sorrit, but not the trains beforehand.

He defends himself against my accusations briefly (and even says he doesn't like the phase sticking out one's neck, despite using this same statement in a later post) and then goes on to call the vote against Sorrit "arbitrary," which means it won't "give much info." This seems like another inconsistency, considering how he was originally pointing out a potential derailment, which if it were the case as he said, a lynch would obviously give us a lot of information. Finally, here is the neck comment for your reference.

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Korbas, on 09 September 2011 - 03:12 PM, said:

Even if it's weak, it seems that a vote for someone who has made "suspicious" comments is usually preferable to a random choice.

A lot of people are playing safe/lurky.

Being the first on a train is sticking your neck out more than most because you have to either contrive a reason for voting or admit you're voting in your own interests. Both have some risk of drawing heat, but traditionally the latter is worse because it's easier to abandon a case than to deny your playstyle. Which I think is why we see such a flood of votes following the first. People are relieved they don't have to move first and can just hop on in agreement - which is easier if you can say you agree with their case rather than their tactic.

Once a few votes are placed people can then hop on simply by merit of it being the leading train.

I've got to quickly take a test, but I will be back hopefully in 2 hours or so. I think the night will have to pass before full out debate, but I would exhort any players online to post their thoughts, just incase we experience four deaths tonight. I want to hear from people so we have more to work with tomorrow, even if they are killed of. Be right back hopefully >.<

On rejoining the train for the hammer - a sorrit lynch was obviously going to take place at that stage and I wanted to be on the train. I'm not going to lie and say I actually thought the "case" was any good, but we got info and I got to be on the train. My vote was self serving. That's the game this time around. Lynching for its own sake is a viable strategy for the innos so we got an arbitrary lynch. Arbitrary lynches provide less info - this should be completely obvious, and I have been consistent with it. A lynch for lynches sake with no need to give justification gives far less information about players than if justification is needed because as well as the justifications people use giving info themselves, we usually get discussion. My actions are consistent. I point out that we get more information if a lynch is not simply random. I gave reasoning, presented an idea, when removing from sorrit. That is the kind of thing that promotes discussion(for example, you just now). Of course it also draws me into the limelight if I'm the only one pressuring and trying to draw information out. I was not opposed to a sorrit lynch, but opposed to us accepting random lynches as a strategy without pressuring to get information, which is absolutely what town should be doing rather than contributing nothing except a vote for whoever has the most votes for whatever reason. I wanted to try and get more information on thread because it improves our chances of following up with lynches that actually benefit us.

You accuse me of seeming like I'm de-railing, but this makes no sense for a couple of reasons. You even mention one of them - why wouldn't put my vote elsewhere? When I voted, I put sorrit to 5 votes, ano being next closest with 3. I was opposed to a sorrit lynch, why vote sorrit at all? Vote then remove has nothing like the de-rail potential that voting ano and balancing the trains would have. Votes for dropping for such little reason it would've been easy to drop one on ano. If I was distancing then removing defeats the point of distancing.

"I think that anyone sticking their necks out for or against Sorrit require further investigation."

You also miss the point about the above by some margin. You said "says he doesn't like the phase sticking out one's neck, despite using this same statement in a later post" as if what I said was that I had something against the figure of speech. Perhaps you didn't read my post very well. The next line followed "Because it pre-emptively casts suspicion on anyone with an opinion." - Which was my explanation of why I didn't like the above. It suggests that anyone who has any thought about Sorrit (whether for or against) and voices it "require further investigation". The reason I didn't like this is because it casts aspersions on anyone doing anything other than blindly following along, which is cajoling tactic that pings the scumdar, and also discourages people from discussing the subject because apparently that is worthy of suspicion.

Edit: Identity mixup.

This post has been edited by Tennes: 09 September 2011 - 08:35 PM

[Kalse]

wow, that was quick.

also, Tellan, can you plaese stop using the invisible blue font? thanks in advance.

[Tellan]

My apologies Kalse, I have fixed the text color. You will need to ask Tennes to do the same to his quote of my text.

[Shadow]

Well, y'know what, seems I was right . I guess that means I made it onto the vendetta list of a certain norwegian army dude...

[Tennes]

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

My apologies Kalse, I have fixed the text color. You will need to ask Tennes to do the same to his quote of my text.

I can't see which bit you're talking about.

It might be a forum skin thing?

[Tellan]

So Tennes, I was reading your reply and think are a very eloquent, thoughtful player. I am not going to mince words anymore about the "sticking out one's neck" phrasing and would rather get down to what you think we should do in this game.

If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I am misconstruing what you have said up to this point, you feel that accusations founded on people's reasoning for a first vote is unproductive if not harmful to town. The accusations, you believe, distract us from looking at people hopping onto a lynch train for no good reason and instead fear monger those who are brave enough to put forth an opinion. Is this correct?

You know, it is still day 1, and there is not much content from which people will be distracted. Lynch trains, as someone mentioned earlier, are going to be accelerated because no townie wants to be left behind unaligned, with no means of winning. The pressure on the roled teams, however, seems to be the opposite, with only the Don/Prosecutor and their Capo/Cop knowing anyone else on their team. Thus, the Family and FBI players may be more hesitant to vote, for fear of knocking off one of their own.

In this case, I would expect several roled players within the first day to act in a particular manner. I do not think roled players would perpetuate votes if they could avoid it since the risk of hitting their own team is high. Consequently, I also do not think that a roled player would be within the second or third votes on a train unless they knew they would hit the opposite team. I do, however, anticipate that a roled player would:

• not vote
• vote but then remove the vote should they be worried they'll hit their own team
• provide first votes to seem like town since the likelihood of their vote carrying a train is low in the WIFOM of Day 1
• vote only when the lynch train is inevitability set in its course

You, Tennes, match two of these criteria. I wouldn't necessarily expect a removal of your vote to be rock-solid evidence that you are a roled player, but the fact you jumped in at the last minute either means you don't want to be left behind (which is what you want us to believe) or that you saw an opportunity to look like town and avoid a lynch.

Moreover, I am not sure where you think we should look if not in people's reasoning behind their first vote, especially since there were numerous single votes for various people floating around (8 first votes for different people, only 9 townies in the game, and probably not all those first votes were townie). I think trying to pinpoint lynchable players in the middle of the train is difficult, not only because (as you said) people can hop on a train at that point and not provide good reasons for their votes, but also because of the dynamics of the game.

In conclusion, the middle of lynch trains are going to be very difficult to analyze, and thus it seems more expedient to look at the early and late voters. If this means throwing suspicion and accusations around, especially on people who are brave enough (or devious enough) to give reasons behind their votes, I think that will be OK, especially early in the game when town has a high likelihood of randomly hitting roled players anyways.

[Tellan]

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

My apologies Kalse, I have fixed the text color. You will need to ask Tennes to do the same to his quote of my text.

I can't see which bit you're talking about.

It might be a forum skin thing?

Yeah, it's nearly impossible to see in the black/grey Malazan skin. All one has to do is convert it to black, and it will show up in both lighter and darker skins (sorry if you already knew this, just trying to be helpful )

[Tennes]

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:06 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 09:28 PM, said:

My apologies Kalse, I have fixed the text color. You will need to ask Tennes to do the same to his quote of my text.

I can't see which bit you're talking about.

It might be a forum skin thing?

Yeah, it's nearly impossible to see in the black/grey Malazan skin. All one has to do is convert it to black, and it will show up in both lighter and darker skins (sorry if you already knew this, just trying to be helpful )

I meant the text I'd quoted all looked normal to me, didn't know what he was talking about.

But I know that there have been issues where which forum skin people use has affected whether they see this kind of thing before.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Night 1. 5 hours and 5 minutes remaining
20 Players still alive: Kalse, Ampelas, Atrahal, Alkend, Tulas Shorn, Anomandaris, Korabas, Shadow, Tiamatha, Anthras, Korlat, Korbas, Tellan, Tennes, Thyrllan, Silanah, Karosis, Telas, Serc, Kessobahn

I'm going to let the clock run for another hour in the hope that the remaining orders come in and I can resolve. I will declare the freeze at Midnight GMT.

ST

[Atrahal]

Well that was quick, seriously, 5 people said that in their posts. 5. well 6, counting me, but seriously? I'd not build a case on that this early, but it would make a good signalling case later if those 5 don't vote to lynch each other off.

Oh and I think that not one one them shouting "HOORAY! We lynched Morgy!!" makes them all look like noobs as well.


Therefore

HOORAY! WE LYNCHED MORGY!!!!

< not a noob.

[Tennes]

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I am misconstruing what you have said up to this point, you feel that accusations founded on people's reasoning for a first vote is unproductive if not harmful to town. The accusations, you believe, distract us from looking at people hopping onto a lynch train for no good reason and instead fear monger those who are brave enough to put forth an opinion. Is this correct?

Almost the opposite. I feel that accusations founded on peoples reasoning are extremely important to town.

What I believe is harmful to town, as a whole, are people being able to hop on lynch trains without giving any reasoning.

Because of our attitude towards lynching, there was very little proper discussion yesterday. Most people didn't even have to justify their votes. Think how easy we are making it for the roled players to lay low. As town, that is terrible play. Roled players like laying low. It would've been good to be able to look at the people hopping on the train for no good reason because those people are laying low, but as it stands this is not nearly as useful as it could have been. Why? Because there are tons of them.

If we look at the category of people who could be accused of laying low, who haven't ventured many opinions or ideas, it is the vast majority of the players. Because the town voted randomly, with little justification, and so there was very little discussion. This seems like a viable strategy for town - we want to be on lynch trains and would rather not be lynched so why discuss when that is risky compared to laying low? But in the long run, this is a bad tactic because it gives the roled players somewhere to hide.

Accusations based on reasoning are great. They draw out discussion, information, and help us find the people we want to.

I do think that most, if not all, roled players will be amongst those laying low. People getting involved helps us find them. At the moment, if we lynched for laying low we'd essentially be lynching randomly since almost everyone meets that criteria. If we had more discussion yesterday, this pool would be smaller. Either the roled players could lay low, in which case if all the town are active, it looks suspicious for the few laying low. Or, the roled players could also get involved, but this is also to our benefit as when they are drawn into discussion we get a better read on them, they may slip up etc. Not lynching arbitrarily is win-win for town.

At the moment though, the number people who have been involved in giving reasoning, in discussion is small. This is also the reason we tend to lynch vocal players on day one. There are lots of people laying low, and we only have a read on the vocal players, and there are so many laying low that a lynch is nearly random.

In my case, do I think your accusations against me founded on my reasoning are unproductive? No, because they are a source of actual discussion, which hopefully others will join. Do they distract from the people laying low? To some extent yes, but going after people laying low at this stage is not a great plan, because they've been given such a good hiding place. Which is why the town need to get more involved. Discussion has to start somewhere. Is it irritating that the people who get the discussion going often end up lynched for it? Quite, and it's something that happens pretty often here.

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

You know, it is still day 1, and there is not much content from which people will be distracted. Lynch trains, as someone mentioned earlier, are going to be accelerated because no townie wants to be left behind unaligned, with no means of winning. The pressure on the roled teams, however, seems to be the opposite, with only the Don/Prosecutor and their Capo/Cop knowing anyone else on their team. Thus, the Family and FBI players may be more hesitant to vote, for fear of knocking off one of their own.

No townie wanting to be left unaligned is what leads to random lynches, because there is incentive to lynch for the sake of lynching. Individual town players can see how being on a lynch train will benefit them. In the long run though, townies thinking like this is detrimental to the town as a whole.

This attitude leads to less discussion, less information. Less information leads to less accurate lynches. The reasons accurate lynches benefit us are obvious.

I'm not saying don't try and get on the lynch train, I'm saying don't do it for no reason.

Hesitancy is possible. Certainly roled players aren't under quite the same pressure. However, the chance of them hitting their own team aren't that high, and they are under pressure to appear town (as well as following/signalling their team).

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

• not vote
• vote but then remove the vote should they be worried they'll hit their own team
• provide first votes to seem like town since the likelihood of their vote carrying a train is low in the WIFOM of Day 1
• vote only when the lynch train is inevitability set in its course

You, Tennes, match two of these criteria. I wouldn't necessarily expect a removal of your vote to be rock-solid evidence that you are a roled player, but the fact you jumped in at the last minute either means you don't want to be left behind (which is what you want us to believe) or that you saw an opportunity to look like town and avoid a lynch.

In regards to the second one. The question is, in that case, why would I vote in the first place, if I was that hesitant? And then remove, and start discussing things? As I said earlier in my reply, I'm pretty aware about how being vocal early usually turns out. Everyone around me was safely laying low, why would I do otherwise? I knew it would draw attention.

If I was roled, even if I knew sorrit was on my team, removing doesn't make sense, nor does voting in the first place. If I was worried he was on my team(but uncertain), it still doesn't make sense. How could I be sure enough he was on my team that I'd think it was worth drawing attention? And if I was that sure, why vote in the first place, again? I removed in a fairly short timeframe, do you think I suddenly became confident enough that he was my team that I'd think it worth the risk of removing?

Everyone meets at least one of the criteria because they cover every part of the train. I meet two because I voted twice, but it still doesn't explain why I would draw attention like I have if I was roled.

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Moreover, I am not sure where you think we should look if not in people's reasoning behind their first vote, especially since there were numerous single votes for various people floating around (8 first votes for different people, only 9 townies in the game, and probably not all those first votes were townie). I think trying to pinpoint lynchable players in the middle of the train is difficult, not only because (as you said) people can hop on a train at that point and not provide good reasons for their votes, but also because of the dynamics of the game.

The reasoning behind people's votes is exactly where we should be looking. Except town has played terribly and as a result next to no-one actually gave reasoning, or if they did it was token at best.

You say it's difficult to pinpoint mid train because people don't need to provide reasoning, but we've let everyone away with this. Try and make a case on someone who isn't me, try and argue that one of the uninvolved people is worse than everyone else.

People made weak cases, and people jumped on weak cases, and it's easily justified because the game mechanics encourage it. So either people made a bad case, or made a weak vote without reasoning, or jumped on the inevitable train. They're all equally justified because of the mechanics, and we're left with a lot less to go on than we otherwise would've had.

Tellan, on 09 September 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

In conclusion, the middle of lynch trains are going to be very difficult to analyze, and thus it seems more expedient to look at the early and late voters. If this means throwing suspicion and accusations around, especially on people who are brave enough (or devious enough) to give reasons behind their votes, I think that will be OK, especially early in the game when town has a high likelihood of randomly hitting roled players anyways.

All of the train is going to be very difficult to analyse (though it's interesting you single out the middle. Can't see why it'd be harder myself).

Throwing accusations and suspicions around is what the town are supposed to do.

It would've been nice if a few more people did it yesterday.

It shouldn't be brave to give reasoning behind a vote(and it certainly isn't devious. Oh that sneaky devil, actually giving us something to go on). It's usually suspect not to give reasoning, but so many people didn't bother that those hiding are well hidden by all the townfolk deciding to play it safe.

So yes, throw accusations around. And yes, it's entirely unsurprising they're aimed at the players who gave reasoning. it's the same reason vocal players get lynched so damn much - because everyone else doesn't give anything to work with, and while that should be worse if the town do it then there's so many that chasing the roled ones down is made far harder.

Bah, got more irritated as I typed.

[Atrahal]

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

Hello, my name is Tennes...I have been alt guessed due to my long ass argumentative post that is too long for anyone to actually read. ====O----

Yes. Yes you have

Vote Tennes

For being a long poster .

[Tennes]

Atrahal, on 09 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

Tennes, on 09 September 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

Hello, my name is Tennes...I have been alt guessed due to my long ass argumentative post that is too long for anyone to actually read. ====O----

Yes. Yes you have

Vote Tennes

For being a long poster .

Careful, pointing out peoples alts is against the rules. And there's loads of long winded argumentative mafia players. It's a popular tactic.

Having said that, I guessed yours quite a while back. Hard to know with so many people posting so little, but we'll see.

Edit: Actually I'm not sure I did. Think it was someone else. Damn similar names/avs.

This post has been edited by Tennes: 09 September 2011 - 11:41 PM