quote:

---

Originally posted by koodkkslis:
I really knew you were a wolf this game, (in the later rounds), but I didn't have the time to just pour through the posts to find a convicting argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by koodkkslis:
PD, idk how you find the time to post so much, I just have too much going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
The Current Standing after Game 2

Plastered Dragon (3.5) (MVP game 2)
Caitiri (1.75) (MVP game 2)
Bugger (1.5)
BernieB (1.0)
GottaLoveElves (1.0)
ryan2754 (1.0)
fwybwed (1.0)
TheMidnightBomber (1.0)
PureGoblinBoy (1.0)
Our_Benefactors (1.0)
liq (1.0)
Montague (1.0)
Thanos (.75)
ectomanic (.75)
Thanos (.75)
Bernek77 (.75)
koodkkslis (0.75)
Jazaray (0.50)
hilikus(0.00)
AlmasterGM (0.00)
Masterwolf (0.00)
Our_Benefactors (0.00)
revenger (-0.25)

---

(1) It appears Cait is at 1.75 instead of 2 (I assume because he missed the R1 vote from WW6). But TMB also missed the R1 vote from WW6 and he doesn't appear to have lost a quarter point. Is this on purpose?

(2) Bernek was on the winning (cit) team in WW6, and hasn't missed any votes WW6 and WW7. So shouldn't he be at 1.0 instead of 0.75?

(3) Kood missed two votes in WW6 (R2 and R5), but appears to be at 0.75 instead of 0.5. Did you intend to give him a pass on one of those missed votes?

(4) Our_Benefactors appears twice on your list, once with a score of 1.0 and once with a score of 0.0. (1.0 is the correct score by my count.)

(5) Thanos appears in the list twice. But his score looks correct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
But thinking back to WW6, Jaz didn't want Thanos killed when he was. He was taken out by consensus. I can't say for certain--but given that he was so suspicious to most players, Jaz wanted to keep him in the game and offer him up in the last round similar to how we did this time around--stacking the deck. With consensus she was less able to do that and was instead stuck with me, kood, and BernieB in her final round. BernieB wasn't as suspicious so it was a less optimal set up for her. Consensus can help the wolf hide, but it can screw up their plans.

---

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Thanos was going to be lynched regardless of if you did the concensus or not. He was on the top of 3 peoples' lists, there were 2 at the top of two lists, anyone else was at the top of 1 list at most. It doesn't matter what Jaz wanted to do, Thanos was gone. This isn't a trial by jury. You don't need a unanimous decision, just a plurality of votes.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Everyone can probably imagine how frantic things were for us in the early rounds- after all, we had one quiet player, one newb (who happened to be the leader), and one guy who gets lynched each round regardless of his role (and considering his play this round he's cemented his place as the R1 seer target IMO). We thought things were going to go to hell in a hand basket- the two strongest players on our tail, me making a Randonlike mistake in throwing confetti, and... well, Cait didn't slip up once the entire game. I'm pretty sure he made a suspicion list only once or twice the whole time.

Revenger- man, we were ****ed off when we found out you didn't declare in R4. We spent a good 3 hours working out each possible scenario for votes (and Ross into the wee hours of the morning) to try and get a kood lynch. Fortunately I managed to guess that you had voted kood. Chuck had been banking on Thanos voting Bernek, and I wish I'd been a little stronger in playing devil's advocate there seeing as I was right. Ah well, live and learn. Or, get lynched and learn. Whatever.

A lot of my suspicions of PD (especially in rounds 2 and 3) were choices I would have made as a cit, but I would have to agree with him that silent players are a problem for the cits. Now, that's not to say anything bad nessecarily about ecto or thanos or cait (just to name this game's quiet players), but Ross was right- it was suprisingly easy for them to skate by each round. Take Ross himself as an example- he was a wolf, and he played quiet and never got a vote.

Also, Bernek- while you have tremendous difficulty getting your points across to others, you do have strong ones. Most of my defense to you (with the exception of what I suppose has become known as "the woolly defense", which actually held quite a bit of water) were largely semantics- you were right on every point, and everything I did fit the playing style of a newb wolf who knew just enough from reading the old threads to stop throwing confetti, speak only when spoken to, etc. Had we not been trying to keep you as the last lynch target (by stacking the field so only typical bernek voters were left) I would have come out much more strongly against you. Nevertheless, your arguments were sound, even if some was lost in translation. Good game, and I think we'll all be taking whatever you have to say with more weight next round.

On R0 angel saves: Function should trump Form here IMO- the angel should be allowed a save. Nder raises a good point of how over time it's a negligible thing- wolves leave Liq in, everyone lynches him because he's left- but that doesn't address the intervening time where Liq (or GLE) gets knocked out every single round before he can even play.

Overall however I really liked playing this game, and it's certainly a much different thing when you're playing it as opposed to observing it. I suspect I'd have more fun as a cit- having to edit each post so it fits in line with the wolf game plan is a pain. Although, the planning of said game plan was quite fun.

Oh, and PGB: republicans is sooooo stupid!

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Your argument was a lot stronger than I gave you credit for, but it did drift from place to place, and, well, I tend to smell blood when I sense a weakspot in an argument and I'm pretty good at constructing counter arguments.

Sorry I gave you such a hard time.

---

Hey, it was in the context of the game, no worries, did what you had to do.
Like I said, I knew I was weak on points, which is why I even outright admitted it in one case, but that was more of a time constraint thing. Looking back, I should've tried to trap a little, and waited a round until I had more time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Thanos was going to be lynched regardless of if you did the concensus or not. He was on the top of 3 peoples' lists, there were 2 at the top of two lists, anyone else was at the top of 1 list at most. It doesn't matter what Jaz wanted to do, Thanos was gone. This isn't a trial by jury. You don't need a unanimous decision, just a plurality of votes.

---

PD: TMB, THA, JAZ
JAZ: BB, TMB, MON
KOO: THA, BB, JAZ
BB: JAZ, THA, TMB
TMB: KOO, THA, BB, MON
RYA: BB, THA, KOO, TMB
MON: TMB, THA, JAZ
THA: ???, ???, ???

If everyone had just voted their #1 suspects it would have been 2 for TMB, 2 for BB, 1 for THA, 1 for KOO, and 1 for JAZ--and then whoever Thanos was going to vote for. Had he chosen TMB or BB, he would have been in the game in the next round. Or Jaz could have chosen to switch her vote to TMB to change the outcome.

Because of consensus Thanos was voted off by a huge majority in R5. I can't speak for Jaz, but I suspect she would have preferred to keep Thanos in the game precisely because he was suspicious, so that in a later key round she could make a case for him that would be easy to sell to the cits.

EDIT: no of course you don't need unanimity, but the point is that with a large majority, you restrict the wolves ability to affect the outcome. Suppose there had been 2 votes for Thanos? Jaz switches her vote to TMB, and TMB goes down in R5 with 3 votes. You need plurality by a margin larger than the total population of wolves if you want to reduce their ability to influence the game via their votes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Some people switched their suspect lists around upon seeing the consensus results. The original suspect lists from that round were:

PD: TMB, THA, JAZ
JAZ: BB, TMB, MON
KOO: THA, BB, JAZ
BB: JAZ, THA, TMB
TMB: KOO, THA, BB, MON
RYA: BB, THA, KOO, TMB
MON: TMB, THA, JAZ
THA: ???, ???, ???

If everyone had just voted their #1 suspects it would have been 2 for TMB, 2 for BB, 1 for THA, 1 for KOO, and 1 for JAZ--and then whoever Thanos was going to vote for. Had he chosen TMB or BB, he would have been in the game in the next round. Or Jaz could have chosen to switch her vote to TMB to change the outcome.

Because of consensus Thanos was voted off by a huge majority in R5. I can't speak for Jaz, but I suspect she would have preferred to keep Thanos in the game precisely because he was suspicious, so that in a later key round she could make a case for him that would be easy to sell to the cits.

EDIT: no of course you don't need unanimity, but the point is that with a large majority, you restrict the wolves ability to affect the outcome. Suppose there had been 2 votes for Thanos? Jaz switches her vote to TMB, and TMB goes down in R5 with 3 votes. You need plurality by a margin larger than the total population of wolves if you want to reduce their ability to influence the game via their votes.

---

Meh. The same kind of vote swings have happened given normal discussion anyway, so where people would have voted early in the round isn't too relevant. It's the whole point of the game, discuss who is suspicious and try to get others to agree with your point. No matter how you do it, the most suspicious are going to get voted off. Do you really think it would have made a big difference if Thanos got voted off that round or the next round anyway? I just don't see any way that the good outweighs the bad in a consensus vote. Reducing the ability of the Wolves to influence the game reduces the ability to detect the Wolves attempting to influence the game and just makes things harder for the Villagers. In a game that's all about reading people and interpreting their actions, the more people are herded into all moving in one direction (regardless of if one person chooses that direction or everyone together does) rather than acting of their own volition, the better the Wolves' chances are of hiding in the crowd since they're told exactly how to act.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Meh. The same kind of vote swings have happened given normal discussion anyway, so where people would have voted early in the round isn't too relevant. It's the whole point of the game, discuss who is suspicious and try to get others to agree with your point. No matter how you do it, the most suspicious are going to get voted off. Do you really think it would have made a big difference if Thanos got voted off that round or the next round anyway?

---

With all due respect nder, while I agree with you that consensus can have negative points, I think you are not being very charitable in recognizing its very real positive points. Sure, the wolves job is to spread suspicion to other players and influence the field--and if they've done a good enough job of it, consensus isn't going to make much difference.

And this is why I wouldn't recommend consensus in every round--I'd only recommend it when there is 1 wolf (or possibly 2) and when there is a wide spread in voting targets backed by strong opinions. Nobody *has* to buy into the consensus, and that itself can be a useful piece of information.

WW7-R4 was *not* an ideal consensus round--which is why I ran it, suspecting I would like the results. The results were wolf-favorable so I presented them.

NOTE: The downside of only having ONE player run the tracker is that if that player is a wolf he has access to a wealth of game data that the cits don't have. It's one reason why I have offered to share the tracker with other players--in recognition of the fact that the tracker gives me certain advantages. I was (it seemed) the only player who noticed in WW7, for example, that EVERYBODY who had ever voted for me in R2 and R3 was dead by the start of R5--and no other player could make that claim. I kept my fingers crossed that Kood wouldn't notice that. If he had been running a tracker, he surely would have. Now Cait has a tracker too... which means if we are opposite teams either of us might be able to spot the other manipulating the data, as opposed to such manipulations going unnoticed. Liq can mischaracterize that as plug-and-play-mafia if he so desires, but that is a mischaracterization.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
I just don't see any way that the good outweighs the bad in a consensus vote. Reducing the ability of the Wolves to influence the game reduces the ability to detect the Wolves attempting to influence the game and just makes things harder for the Villagers.

---

In WW6, despite Jaz's #1 suspect being in a tie for first place, nobody on her list got hanged in R5--that couldn't have been great for her. Uniformly when suspicion of Thanos came up in the game, she attempted to downplay his suspicions. Clearly she wanted him around for *some* reason. Also, her reaction to the consensus was unique among all the players who responded, and this later was one of the reasons I suspected her--so the fact that she was able to hide in a big R5 pile really didn't matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
In a game that's all about reading people and interpreting their actions, the more people are herded into all moving in one direction (regardless of if one person chooses that direction or everyone together does) rather than acting of their own volition, the better the Wolves' chances are of hiding in the crowd since they're told exactly how to act.

---

Consensus can *force* the wolves to go with the crowd *even when it is not in their interest to do so*. And that's the point. You are strictly looking at this from a loss-of-data perspective (and apparently overlooking some new data that can be gained) and ignoring (or downplaying) the loss-of-mobility perspective--a round lost is still a round lost, even if you were able to hide. And hiding is not all the wolves are trying to do.

I think this may be one of those situations where it is hard to appreciate a strategy because you haven't seen it from the other side. As a cit, I was convinced that not-declaring hurt the cits more than the wolves. I had to play as a wolf and try to deal with it to appreciate just how crippling it can be. I can tell you that by R4 we were planning out who the next 3 lynches had to be and working to make that happen--if consensus had not favored out plans and somebody else had put it forth, that could have seriously messed us up.

Perhaps someday when you are a wolf and are working out your late game plans, consensus will come along and screw you over and you will appreciate it from a new perspective.

There's no such thing as a lost round for Wolves if a Wolf isn't tagged. Their entire goal is to survive. Only Citizens care about lost rounds.

For the record, I've been a Mafia, I know how things work. I was the leader in a game in which the person running the game actually intentionally blew my cover to let the Cits avoid a clean sweep without finding a single one of us. When he posted the lynch that set up the miss-and-the-game-is-over round, he stated very clearly that had they chosen the second-most-voted player that round (which given those who had noted their votes was clearly myself) they'd have caught a Mafia. Add that with the number of games that I've run and seen played out with all kinds of various strategies and thinking how I would have done things, I'd say it's safe to think that I know a little something about how both sides of the coin work and what does and doesn't help which group.

You seem to be trying so hard to make the game into a game of numbers and math and scientific analysis that you're missing the idea of what this game is really all about. It's not about spreadsheets and running numbers and figuring statistics. It's about battles of wits and out-thinking the other team and hunches and gut feelings.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

I respect your experience with the game, but there is no right way to play it, and it wouldn't be the first time experience was an impediment to looking at things in new ways.

You clearly think I don't know how to play because I don't play the way you do--funny argument coming from you. Fresh ideas are not necessarily bad ones--and to characterize my approach as reducing everything to numbers, statistics, and science is to take an alarmingly superficial view and completely misunderstand what I am doing.

Did it never occur to you I make those sorts of arguments precisely because people respond to them? You point out that it's all about outwitting people and manipulating people while completely overlooking that is EXACTLY what I am doing--I use numbers and analysis, you use your vaunted experience and intuition. Maybe I put forth so much analysis because I *don't* have the strength of experience. You take a rather insulting face-value view of my game because you clearly don't think there's anything else going on there. Your lack of perception does not my deficiency make.

Yes I'm a math geek and the math is fun--I enjoy the tracking and looking for patterns. That's not all I'm doing.

Man I swear... there's always an armchair quarterback ready to pee on you when you are feeling a little proud of yourself. Jesus. I killed myself to win the last two games. Please stop peeing on my game.

Yes - you might choose to declare precisely because you are trying to manipulate the wolves.

Yes - you might choose to be silent precisely because you want the wolves to think you are the seer.

They are all tools that have their place, and I'm not going to ignore any of them.

The math thing is just the reason I'll never play a game that you're in. Mafia because a horrible game when people started running the numbers and playing math. It may be valid, but that doesn't make it fit within the spirit of the game.

No, just because you don't understand the reasons why they're bad, everyone declaring votes and anyone being silent are always always always the wrong decisions. They have no place in the toolbox of any non-Wolf. The questionable benefits you seem to attribute to them (everyone declaring their votes isn't manipulating the Wolves, it's playing into their hands, being silent is being useless to the Cits...only the worst seers are going to be silent and deprive the Cits of any information they may have if they get unexpectedly knocked off early in the game, so only the worst Wolves are going to kill someone silent hoping they're the Seer) don't begin to outweigh the advantages given to the Wolves.

Anyway, I have better things to do with my weekend. If you don't want to take constructive criticism and explanations about how to help the Citizens more effectively, that's your business. If you choose to view it as me peeing on your game, I can't help it, but I want to make sure people have the best opportunities to learn how to be effective players and make sure that strategies are discussed and flaws pointed out where needed.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liq:
I knew PD was wolf the entire game.

---

Same.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
...Just don't expect me to keep my mouth shut and not point out that I think certain "strategies" of yours are bad for the Citizens...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
...The math thing is just the reason I'll never play a game that you're in...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
...Mafia because a horrible game when people started running the numbers and playing math. It may be valid, but that doesn't make it fit within the spirit of the game...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
...No, just because you don't understand the reasons why they're bad, everyone declaring votes and anyone being silent are always always always the wrong decisions. They have no place in the toolbox of any non-Wolf. The questionable benefits you seem to attribute to them (everyone declaring their votes isn't manipulating the Wolves, it's playing into their hands, being silent is being useless to the Cits...only the worst seers are going to be silent and deprive the Cits of any information they may have if they get unexpectedly knocked off early in the game, so only the worst Wolves are going to kill someone silent hoping they're the Seer) don't begin to outweigh the advantages given to the Wolves.

---

Of course no awesome seer or angel would be silent, and because ALL seers and angels are ALWAYS awesome players, any silent player must automatically not be a seer or angel. That's why the wolves never kill silent players, because the wolves are always awesome players too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
...Anyway, I have better things to do with my weekend. If you don't want to take constructive criticism and explanations about how to help the Citizens more effectively, that's your business. If you choose to view it as me peeing on your game, I can't help it, but I want to make sure people have the best opportunities to learn how to be effective players and make sure that strategies are discussed and flaws pointed out where needed...

---

Your mischaracterization of me "trying so hard to make the game into a game of numbers and math and scientific analysis" was not constructive. You basically characterize me as someone who thinks he can find the wolves with a hand calculator and who totally doesn't get what the game is really about. You actually feel you need to tell me it's about "battles of wits" and "gut feelings" as if I don't know that. And yes, that is peeing on my game--and insulting.

That's not me, and if you think it is, your powers of perception are dreadful, at least where I'm concerned.

But nder has already said he won't play in a game I am in for this reason, and that concerns me. I personally feel what I am doing is *nothing* like the scenario Liq described that led to the death of the previous iteration of mafia.

However, if he and others feel the same way, it's a danger to the future of the game. If people are going to choose to sit the game out specifically because I am playing, then my presence is probably not healthy for the game.

Perhaps it's best if I just sit out the rest of the season. I don't want to ruin things for everyone else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Well it seems nder feels I am ruining WW by turning it into a "game of math". That's not my intention at all, and I don't think that is what I am doing.

But nder has already said he won't play in a game I am in for this reason, and that concerns me. I personally feel what I am doing is *nothing* like the scenario Liq described that led to the death of the previous iteration of mafia.

However, if he and others feel the same way, it's a danger to the future of the game. If people are going to choose to sit the game out specifically because I am playing, then my presence is probably not healthy for the game.

Perhaps it's best if I just sit out the rest of the season. I don't want to ruin things for everyone else.

---

Oh, don't be so melodramatic, Chuck. Nder's already playing mafia instead. This is the second time in a row you two have gotten into a heated disagreement over WW, you both are playing different games. There's no need for you to quit playing WW simply because Nder thinks your playstyle is detrimental- just like Thanos doesn't have to stop playing because you disagree with his.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PlasteredDragon:
Well it seems nder feels I am ruining WW by turning it into a "game of math". That's not my intention at all, and I don't think that is what I am doing.

But nder has already said he won't play in a game I am in for this reason, and that concerns me. I personally feel what I am doing is *nothing* like the scenario Liq described that led to the death of the previous iteration of mafia.

---

It may not feel like the scenario I outlined in Mafia but that is how it originally started. A bunch of numbers and a theory. It took 10 games before I figured out the secret to the theory and put into practice hoping to give myself an honorable death in the game. That Theory became a hot topic once it was realized it would work if there was complete voter participation. It fell out of favor since 5v1 situation did not come up for another 5 games. Then mathing and pile grouping became the norm after R2. After about 5 games of this, I tired of it and worked out the theory all the way to R1 voting, then put it into action when I tried to "have fun" in a game thereby destroying what we knew of Mafia.

If you're wondering, yes I am working on a way to use your strategy to its fullest. While I'm not just there yet, I have figured out a few things that will work.

My main problem with your strategy is that it is an overload of Math that most will not comprehend thus resulting in just a tl;dr post.

__________________
Your Captain N of 2008

Plastered Dragon (3.5) (MVP game 2)
Caitiri (1.75) (MVP game 2)
Bugger (1.5)
BernieB (1.0)
GottaLoveElves (1.0)
ryan2754 (1.0)
fwybwed (1.0)
PureGoblinBoy (1.0)
Our_Benefactors (1.0)
liq (1.0)
Montague (1.0)
TheMidnightBomber (.75)
Thanos (.75)
ectomanic (.75)
Bernek77 (.75)
koodkkslis (0.75)
Jazaray (0.50)
hilikus(0.00)
AlmasterGM (0.00)
Masterwolf (0.00)
revenger (-0.25)

I did not get a pm from Bernek rd 3 this game.
I deducted for that.

I have a new way to keep track of all the points and missed votes and MVPs and such.
read as wire notebook and a pencil, with and eraser

~MM

__________________
[Help me PIMP my Slide!] [Join Us,or DIE!][Refs][Me] [Werewolf 3!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeddlingMage:
The Current Standing after Game 2

Plastered Dragon (3.5) (MVP game 2)
Caitiri (1.75) (MVP game 2)
Bugger (1.5)
BernieB (1.0)
GottaLoveElves (1.0)
ryan2754 (1.0)
fwybwed (1.0)
PureGoblinBoy (1.0)
Our_Benefactors (1.0)
liq (1.0)
Montague (1.0)
TheMidnightBomber (.75)
Thanos (.75)
ectomanic (.75)
Bernek77 (.75)
koodkkslis (0.75)
Jazaray (0.50)
hilikus(0.00)
AlmasterGM (0.00)
Masterwolf (0.00)
revenger (-0.25)

I did not get a pm from Bernek rd 3 this game.
I deducted for that.

I have a new way to keep track of all the points and missed votes and MVPs and such.
read as wire notebook and a pencil, with and eraser

~MM

---

-.25 for a vote I purposefully missed as part of wolf strategy. Not that it really matters...I'll be sitting a few games out anyway.

-Caitiri

I don't think the math is a bad thing (I wouldn't), but the stuff I cautioned about in this game rang true, especially since PD was a wolf--it can be used my both sides, and after being used effectively once, a meta strategy from wolves and usually exploit it, which is why I don't like consensus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
-.25 for a vote I purposefully missed as part of wolf strategy. Not that it really matters...I'll be sitting a few games out anyway.

-Caitiri

---

I had you for missing 2 votes, and didn't penalize you b/c you announced to me no vote for 1 round.

~MM

__________________
[Help me PIMP my Slide!] [Join Us,or DIE!][Refs][Me] [Werewolf 3!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caitiri:
The lucky seer kill was instrumental in keeping him alive. I'm curious who the seer target and angel targets were...Bernie/Alamaster/MM?

-Caitiri

---

Jazaray was my first (and only) seer check, but unfortunately the wolves got me that round so I never even got an answer. I had PD lined up as my second check (I had him as second rather than first because I figured the wolves might try and waste the seer's move by killing PD round 2, given his popularity as an early seer target).

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Jazaray was my first (and only) seer check, but unfortunately the wolves got me that round so I never even got an answer. I had PD lined up as my second check (I had him as second rather than first because I figured the wolves might try and waste the seer's move by killing PD round 2, given his popularity as an early seer target).

@Wolves - why on earth was I selected as the round two kill? Did you actually pick me out as being the seer?

---

IIRC, I decided to kill you because we were looking for someone relatively quiet, someone mostly under the radar- someone who had no clear stake in any of the suspicions of me or PD that round. Well, that and a shot-in-the-dark for seer hunting. We cut out Liq, hilikuS, Kood, me, Cait, and PD (hilikuS and kood kept dropping hints about who the seer should check, and they're smart enough to realize that can trip a wolf desperate for seers. Real seers wouldn't do that we figured, so it seemed reasonable to eliminate them). That left a pile of everyone else, and so we picked you because we were looking to maintain the course the thread was taking at that point- try to make sure the kill didn't rock the boat and distract from whatever the cits (and the angel) were focused on at that point. It could just as easily have been O_B or BernieB, really. Actually, we strongly suspected O_B was the angel after his behaviour R3N- immediately throwing PD under the bus when kood called attention to both of them.