The Hunger Games Mafia! *Locked*

[Triple H buried SnS]

I would like to mention for everyone to note those that are "not 100%" but are still voting (and even changing votes) at the very end of the day(at least as of now).

I feel like these are bandwagon votes, so when I flip town... you'll know who to look at.

[♥ Bunnyslinger ♥]

Yes like I said, I'm not 100 on you being mafia Sweet, my vote may change again before lynch,but you are talking now, thus putting some pressure on you will hopefully keep you talking, jagilki on the other hand is allegedly gone hunting so we get a whole lotta nothing out of him.

So if you wouldn't mind some questions?

1. If you were Mafia now, how would you play?

2.If you were town now, how would you play?

[Triple H buried SnS]

Nov 18, 2009 9:40:19 GMT -5 ♥ Bunnyslinger ♥ said:

Yes like I said, I'm not 100 on you being mafia Sweet, my vote may change again before lynch,but you are talking now, thus putting some pressure on you will hopefully keep you talking, jagilki on the other hand is allegedly gone hunting so we get a whole lotta nothing out of him.

So if you wouldn't mind some questions?

1. If you were Mafia now, how would you play?

2.If you were town now, how would you play?

Is this for me or Jag?

I'll assume me for this post.

1. If I were mafia... I will predicate this with the fact I've never been mafia...
I would think I would try to lay low. Throw out some acusations(possibly even against a fellow mafia member, who would probably always stay on my list). If a fellow mafia member was getting votes and might get lynched early, I would probably not try to defend them at all(might even try to build a strong case against them), as it would out me early in the game.

When Day 1 ends, night kill someone completely off my list so not to arouse any suspision(obviously, all the other mafia would have to be in agreement on who to kill, not sure how that part works, probably majority vote). After day 1, I would see how it was going to formulate my next move.

2. If I were town... I would do what I'm doing(didnt see that coming did ya!).
With the number suspects at the beginning of the game being so small, I would look to see what's best for the town.

I mentioned that losing a lurking townie would be better than losing an active townie. I really wanted more discussion on that than I got. If I'm wrong with that mentality I would like someone to tell me.

I CAN see reason in lynching someone active so we have more to go on when we hit Day 2(as lynching an inactive player wouldn't really yield us anything new to base new votes on). So I'm more on the fence about it now than I was before.

With the vote being my only weapon, I need to not let it go to waste, so I doubt I will be a sole vote for anyone at the end of a day.

Other than that, not sure I've been much different than anyone else here. Day 1 is the best! *sigh*

[Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan]

Hm.

On the one hand, I agree with the logic about lynching lurkers. Either we nail Mafia, which is great, or we accidentally nail one of our own; but because the person in question was a lurker, and not doing much (if anything) to help the Town in any event, it's not like we really lose much.

On the other hand, I am a full supporter of being suspicious about the people who fit the "active lurker" status; ie, those who post but do not really do much. Like I said in a previous post, the entire Mafia in the previous game (as well as one 3rd Party player) fit this bill almost perfectly, and I'm pretty sure Mafia in previous games did as well. In fact, it seems to be a common tactic.

Both potential tactics for choosing a lynchee (going after lurkers or going after active lurkers) have merit. But, the former has been known to be pretty faulty (I've seen many innocents lynched simply because they couldn't take the time to defend themselves, let alone post at all) while the latter helped net us victory in the last game. With that in mind, I'm going to Vote: Sweet, though I have my eye on a few others and may change my vote before the deadline if something else pans out.

[Triple H buried SnS]

Is there a deadline to extend the day? I'm getting close to being the one lynched and would like to know if I need to defend myself agressively today, or if I have a few more days to work with.

BTW - FOS on anyone that says if I was less active I would be safe right now.

[Triple H buried SnS]

Another FYI

Pegasus defends my style of play here

Then specifically uses it as the basis of her vote here

[♥ Bunnyslinger ♥]

Nov 18, 2009 11:26:16 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

Another FYI

Pegasus defends my style of play here

Then specifically uses it as the basis of her vote here

Indeed.

in that second post he also writes:

Latino Meat has really had some quality posts--in my opinion--in the last couple of pages and that steered me away from what was going to be a semi-wild shot in the dark in his direction.

Which may just be a comment in passing, or a very sublime attempt at vouching for a fellow mafia member. I guess your translation depends on how wildly paranoid you are

GM: will you be extending deadline or not?

[Brandon Walsh is Insane.]

Nov 18, 2009 11:42:15 GMT -5 ♥ Bunnyslinger ♥ said:

Nov 18, 2009 11:26:16 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

Another FYI

Pegasus defends my style of play here

Then specifically uses it as the basis of her vote here

Indeed.

in that second post he also writes:

Latino Meat has really had some quality posts--in my opinion--in the last couple of pages and that steered me away from what was going to be a semi-wild shot in the dark in his direction.

Which may just be a comment in passing, or a very sublime attempt at vouching for a fellow mafia member. I guess your translation depends on how wildly paranoid you are

GM: will you be extending deadline or not?

Yeah, I noticed that too, and was like... no man, why'd you have to do that?!

Not that I am mafia, but whomever he named there would seem like a bad move to do on the first day... basically putting a neon sign over his own head and calling out his brethren.

However, in that post I was giving my point of view, the same with the Sweet vote.

It looks like this first day has had everyone jumpity... as we have all been pointing fingers at everyone that posts something somewhat controversial.

You might have something on Pegasus there, but I will stick to my Sweet vote unless more information is forthcoming.

[Triple H buried SnS]

Latino - I saw your vote as a shot in the dark. You yourself even called it random from "what's left". But being random... why are so many others jumping on that train?

Because (before I was being acused) my post count was low-ish? Where would Jag's post count have been if he wasn't being accused earlier? Am I getting the attention now cause i didn't get it earlier? What about now... now that my post count is now higher than some that accused me of not posting as much?

I'd like to hear from Jagiliki again... who seems to have gotten aweful quiet now that attention is on me, even though he mentioned he got back home on the 15th.

[D2: Sweet & Sour Edition]

Vote: More Time For Discussion

There's some interesting things going on with feet being in mouths, people underplaying how well they know the game, etc. But, I hate first day votes based on little things like that. As of now, I have no vote.

And FYI, I'll be out of town for my anniversary starting tomorrow, but I'll try and pop in every now and then from my iPod if I can get away long enough.

[Oak: Certified Jade Hater]

Vote: More time for some discussion

I gotta say, it's interesting how a bit of a bandwagon has started on Sweet 'N Sour in such a short amount of time. I agree that maybe (and that's a strong maybe) that Sweet was doing what Mafia was doing last time around, but at the very least he provides theories and discussions which can really only benefit the town, no matter what side he's on.

Some examples to better explain:

- Sweet's Mafia and starts a bandwagon against another Mafia member. Enough people vote, we get one of the Mafia, less chance of Mafia winning.

- Sweet's Mafia, starts a bandwagon against a townie. Enough people jump on the bandwagon due to what Sweet says, the lynchee flips town, and suddenly Sweet looks suspicious because he started a bandwagon against a fellow town.

- Sweet's a townie, gets discussion going, and we manage to get a Mafia member.

- Sweet's a townie, accidentaly leads the charge against a townie. Sure, he still looks suspicious to some, but if he's lynched and flips town, the people who voted for him are looked at suspiciously, which may lead to the discovery of Mafia.


Of course, these are just possibilities, and I very well could be wrong when I say this. But to me, Sweet 'N Sour isn't Mafia.

Also, FOS: on the dog that laughs at my pain. MY PAIN IS NOT FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT, DOG!

[Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan]

Like I said... I'll switch my vote if a better prospect arises, but of those who already had votes I found the reasoning behind the case on him to be the one I could sink my teeth into the best.

[Triple H buried SnS]

Nov 18, 2009 15:05:08 GMT -5 Oak: Certified Jade Hater said:

Vote: More time for some discussion

I gotta say, it's interesting how a bit of a bandwagon has started on Sweet 'N Sour in such a short amount of time. I agree that maybe (and that's a strong maybe) that Sweet was doing what Mafia was doing last time around, but at the very least he provides theories and discussions which can really only benefit the town, no matter what side he's on.

Some examples to better explain:

- Sweet's Mafia and starts a bandwagon against another Mafia member. Enough people vote, we get one of the Mafia, less chance of Mafia winning.

- Sweet's Mafia, starts a bandwagon against a townie. Enough people jump on the bandwagon due to what Sweet says, the lynchee flips town, and suddenly Sweet looks suspicious because he started a bandwagon against a fellow town.

- Sweet's a townie, gets discussion going, and we manage to get a Mafia member.

- Sweet's a townie, accidentaly leads the charge against a townie. Sure, he still looks suspicious to some, but if he's lynched and flips town, the people who voted for him are looked at suspiciously, which may lead to the discovery of Mafia.


Of course, these are just possibilities, and I very well could be wrong when I say this. But to me, Sweet 'N Sour isn't Mafia.

Also, FOS: on the dog that laughs at my pain. MY PAIN IS NOT FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT, DOG!

I started a bandwaggon?

As for the rest, it is day 1. The only thing anyone has to go on me is my post count. I've added about as much to the conversation as some others that are out there... but for some reason the bandwaggon turned to me. I don't focus as much on the initial vote(latino) as ALL the ones the followed him.

People ask me to defend myself, so i did. In turn I get more votes against me. All the while saying "well, if you had only posted 2-3 times in this thread, we wouldnt even be looking at you"(see curt hawkings fan and Jonathan Michaels).

[Triple H buried SnS]

I have to leave in 2 hours, I'm under the assumption that we are still ending tonight... so seeing as I'm currently only 1 vote away from being the lynchee...

Vote: jagilki

[Oak: Certified Jade Hater]

To me, the "well, if you had only posted 2-3 times in this thread, we wouldnt even be looking at you" seems scummy to me. Sounds like Mafia trying to identify the strong players from the get-go to target for the night kill.

[pegasuswarrior]

Since I haven't been on the boards since my last post, let me handle this chronologically.

After seeing two votes in your direction, Sweet N Sour, you were attempting nonchalantly to state that everything you're contributing has been for the town. Now, before even getting to the current page of posts, my immediate thought was "Really? Do you really think town would make a vote for you if they hadn't taken time to read your posts in advance?" So, when you look back at the posts you made, I scratch my head trying to see exactly how your posts were specifically to better the town. The first posts were either throwaway enthusiasm posts and then question-centered posts about deadlines or something unrelated you didn't undestand. There's no crime in that, and that's not at all why I voted for you to begin with. But when you retaliate to a vote by saying your posts have been for the betterment of the town, at that point I had to say to myself that it's simply not true. Saying that you would like to hear from everyone before Day 1's end is not a town-exclusive type of statement (see below)

Nov 13, 2009 10:09:22 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

Maybe I missed it, but was it stated when day 1 will end? I'd like to hear from everyone before the end of day 1.

A mafia member would likely want the same thing so he/she could nail a possible power role or a person putting himself/herself out in the open so a nightkill would have greater implications for the mafia's agenda. Anyway, the point is that I don't think asking to hear from everyone is a town-only type of request to begin with, yet you said in your defense that you're only making posts that do nothing but contribute to the town's chances of winning. Now, a post that followed this was . . .

Nov 16, 2009 18:59:47 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

I've thought about that a little.

A) Lynch an active player
1 - we hit scum... great, that's one down that we were able to interact with to formulate an opinion
2- we hit townie... damn, we were wrong and now have one less active townie helping us.

B) Lynch a less active player
1- we hit scum... AWESOME! that scum was trying to not say much so not to draw attention to himself. But we weeded him/her out anyway.
2- we hit townie... damn, but wasn't really helping us anyway.

I believe we have a higher % to hit scum from the one that are active, but beginning to feel like we have less to lose with one that is less active.

I'm not trying to change anyones votes, as I'm about as clueless at this point as everyone else. Just wanted to air my thoughts and see if anyone has a reason to agree or disagree with any part of it.

For me, Jag is the only one that has said something that raised a red flag(his humble comment).

My Suspect list:
Jag

Two things stood out to me. 1)You're saying it makes sense to suspect jagilki, but that's a bandwagon type of comment anyway since jagilki had already been the target of pages of comments before you ever came to your little "revelation." Now when the heat is on, you fire back today at votes in your direction with the ominous threat that everyone better watch these votes and how it's nothing more than bandwagoning. You contributed nothing of any real value up to that point so when a justifiable vote to get you active hits the board, your response is to claim mafia conspiracy? Really? There are several people in this game, and I can think of several more threatening targets for mafia to gang up on. You very well could be town, but it's Day One and everyone that I've seen vote for you made sense in the context of how the last mafia game played out and how this one seems to be going. Now the #2 thing that stood out in the quoted post above is admittedly overanalysis, but given the way everything played out right there, I couldn't help but raise my eyebrow. It has involves how you analyzed both sides. In that quoted post, you jockey back and forth with the pros and cons of both sides. But in the context of others making posts about how mafia are likely active and not one of the few non-posters/non-contributors, you lean toward going after the non-actives/lurkers. Now again, that's not particularly scummy in itself as a stand-alone thought or post which is fine, but it's the *way* you said it that gets me. Why is the point made passively that if we hit an active poster who turns out to be mafia, then "great," but when you say we hit a non-active player and he/she turns out to be mafia, then you emphatically note that it's "AWESOME!" Again, I'm going to be the first to point out that it's an overanalytical point, but I wouldn't have really said anything about it or thought twice about it had it not been for the context with which I was already reading Sweet N Sour's responses after the votes went in his direction. Since you were coming out to finally post something that actually fit with what was happening in the game, it's just a little convenient that you would stress emphasis on those not making appearances amid your fly-by-night post that could have been your way of saying, "Hey, I'm not really a lurker after all." And quite honestly, you currently have gone back and cited a few names that at that time of that above post were two or three posts below you in post count. So, I dunno, it seems to reinforce my line of thinking that you were simply hoping to prove yourself "a better contributor" than those other non-active players and you're frustrated that it didn't work. Again, that's a little much to pull from the word "AWESOME!" alone, but in retrospect and with the timing of that above-quoted post, it seems to make sense to me, especially when I look at what route your taking in your own line of defense over the last 24 hours.

A common mafia technique that I saw in the last game was for each of the guilty/accused to push chips in and go aggressive at the accuser when there seemed to be a sensible move in their direction. That's what seems to be taking place right now. Again, this isn't helping me feel better about you, Sweet N Sour.

I said I wasn't 100%; what more do you want? There was a word used in a very recent post and that word was "jumpy." Sweet N Sour basically didn't do crap before his name was even brought up as a suspect. Now he's posting like there's no tomorrow and a bit too "wormy" about being lynched. Good grief, as a townie, the worst thing that happens to you as a result of a lynch is that you have to stop playing. It doesn't mean you lose the game though, which is far more important. I'm not saying one should jump at the chance to be a martyr, but if I--or any townie--were to be lynched and the town sees us for what we were, all it would do is *help* in the investigation, especially since a cop/investigator is likely going to target someone in the middle of the voting fray during night.

Sweet N Sour, look, there is a very unlikely chance that we'll hit Mafia on the first day. Looking at the trends of the previous game and juxtaposing that with what I've seen here on Day One, I went with the vote that made the most sense at the time. How it made sense at the time has already been stated. Your posts were the type that kept active, yet didn't really push anyone's buttons or forward any discussion. The only way I would have known to go for a vote on Sweet N Sour was to look at active, yet not so active participants that didn't really pose a threat one way or the other. If I hadn't be actively looking for just such a poster following the post count a few pages ago, Sweet N Sour would've remained under the radar all along. The reinforcement came when I logged on for the day and saw someone had already beaten me to the punch. The qualities I praised in a previous post about Simply Tea and Sweet N Sour were NOT the qualities I was seeing in Sweet N Sour this time around in this particular game.

Keep in mind, Sweet N Sour, that you're arguing against me making a Vote without 100 percent assurance or whatever and you also make note of my timing. I announced clearly that I was going to vote the night before the deadline. It's already been stated by another poster (and I agree) that the accused needs time to respond before being unjustifiably lynched. I don't really see why casting a less than 100% vote is suspicious in just a day before the original lynch date. Those voting for you have given justification and we're all giving you fair opportunity to put us at ease. That's it. The town doesn't want to vote one of its own out. And I was really hoping I would get some confirmation one way or another, but to be honest, your play-style in light of recent posts hasn't really helped you one bit in my eyes.

I definitely apologize in advance if I'm wrong. I just wish you were a little less jumpy and a little less contradictory at this point. And you're right, if you do "flip town," I do want to take a look at those that shifted votes and all of the other things you were referencing. Unless I'm mistaken, there was one person who Unvoted. The rest have patiently awaited the approaching deadline and are now weighing in with a vote for the first time. I'm not sure what you expect: for everyone to wait until just minutes before the deadline to go to the polls?

Finally, as alluded to a paragraph or two earlier in this post, the reveal on Sweet's name being mentioned in a positive light in one of my previous posts is nothing more than a statement made to back up how people with lower post counts shouldn't necessarily be de-merited. Key words: "not necessarily." I was referencing a previous game and the two names that stuck out from the previous game were the ones I mentioned. But, in essence, that's why I became suspicious of Sweet N Sour after taking on the mundane and boring task of post-counting. Once I stepped away for a bit, I went back and looked at those posting in the approximate 4-8 post range to judge who was simply not filling up the boards just to be talking and those who were doing just that very thing. And Sweet N Sour's posts had contradicted exactly what I was praising him for in the previous game. I really didn't see contribution, and I asked myself the question, "If I were mafia, how would I go about keeping active without suspicion?" Honestly, Sweet N Sour's posts fit the bill as far as that goes. My vote was an optimistic shot at getting him to give me some reassurance, but as stated and quoted and analyzed above, the responses from him didn't help me personally at all. I don't want to send a townie to a Day One lynch, but if you are town, I can't say you did the best job of responding the way I would've liked. Again, I'm not *convinced* against you, but I'm not feeling any more confident in you than I was before either.

/novel

(And I hope to goodness there are no typos up there or omissions of important words.)

[Triple H buried SnS]

Nov 18, 2009 16:43:05 GMT -5 pegasuswarrior said:

removed for length

1. I said it wasnt much to go on with Jag, but all I had... and was only a suspect list at the time... if that's badwagonning, then I guess i'm misinterpreting the term.

2. Conspiracy? Did I say conspiracy? nope. Just trying to point it out for when I eventually turn over as town. Jag had 5 votes against him, me zero... then within 24 hours i'm right there with him.

3. So many things changed from last game... but we are holding onto that "active lurker".

4. I don't feel like I'm playing Day 1 here any different than I did day 1 last time. Maybe I'm wrong(i didn't look), but i'd be suprised if I did.

5. I know its unlikely we'll hit mafia day 1. And AWESOME was to note that we still got one with literally nothing to go on. I'd personally feel alot better hitting a lurking mafia than an active one.

6. "jumpy" - I was voted for specifically so I would come on and defend myself("fair opprotunity" as you put it). I did that... damned if i do, damned if i don't.

7. "not really pushing anyone's buttons or moving the game forward" - Outside the accusations on me... there hasnt been alot of that in general.

8. So are you saying my posts were anti-town? Have you posted anything that a mafia member would 100% not post for any reason whatsoever?

Not sure why I'm even trying to explain tho, appears i'm already marked in your eyes.

oh... and btw... yes, your wrong... and I accept your appology.

[Triple H buried SnS]

I see 7 for extending the time... and 0 for keeping it the same.

Do we have to have a majority(11)? Or just more yes's than no's.

[psychotix5000]

Ok what the Hell is going on here?? Sweet went from one or two posts to prod discussion to being tied w/jagilki in 24 hrs? Now this reeks on bandwagonning. While i don't condemn the tactic of using votes to prod a lurker it seems as tho maybe a few ppl saw the wagon forming & jumped at it.

Not trying to say sweet is town but i'm not convinced enough yet to switch my vote. I still think jag is our best bet to flip scum.

Also yes for more time and can we get a vote count please?

[pegasuswarrior]

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

1. I said it wasnt much to go on with Jag, but all I had... and was only a suspect list at the time... if that's badwagonning, then I guess i'm misinterpreting the term.

I just don't see this point the same way you do. Agree to disagree here, I guess. I just don't think you can call "bandwagon" when people make a vote for you based on "not much to go on" just the same as you did with jagilki, even though you say that *wasn't" bandwagoning when you did it. You just can't have it both ways. What you did was exactly what I did, EXCEPT in your case with jagilki, you were several posts behind on joining up the suspicion wagon against jagilki. I was already leaning your direction, as I stated .

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

2. Conspiracy? Did I say conspiracy? nope. Just trying to point it out for when I eventually turn over as town. Jag had 5 votes against him, me zero... then within 24 hours i'm right there with him.

You didn't *say" conspiracy specifically, but you sounded jittery to me on that level when you did basically claim the mafia would be showing themselves when you flip town.

(number 3 omitted, because I don't know what that was meant for)

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

4. I don't feel like I'm playing Day 1 here any different than I did day 1 last time. Maybe I'm wrong(i didn't look), but i'd be suprised if I did.

See, I counted you an ally of town pretty early in the game last time, and I didn't get that vibe this time around. I didn't see what I would call "quality" in those first posts. And I understand there isn't much quality one could provide, but it just hit me odd for you; I thought it could be posting just for the sake of posting.

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

[5. I know its unlikely we'll hit mafia day 1. And AWESOME was to note that we still got one with literally nothing to go on.

OK, thanks for that. I can see more along the lines of what you were meaning to say there now.

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

6. "jumpy" - I was voted for specifically so I would come on and defend myself("fair opprotunity" as you put it). I did that... damned if i do, damned if i don't.

I had a feeling you'd feel that way if you were indeed town. But, what I was trying to say in my previous post is that it hit me the wrong way with how you went about defending yourself. At least when I made a claim about someone in a any previous game, the accused (later proven innocent) reacted PRECISELY how I would suspect a true town member to react. This really really spoiled my claim at the time of that previous game. You really seemed jumpy and more desperate though, and I didn't like how that came across. In other words, your "defense" made me more uneasy than it did to relieve my worry.

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

7. "not really pushing anyone's buttons or moving the game forward" - Outside the accusations on me... there hasnt been alot of that in general.

See, I think there was ever so slight button pushing throughout the game up to this point by others. There are several names that have been pestered in the first few pages by various players. Again, it's Day One, so it's *definitely* nit-picking by most, but at least people seem to be trying. Which one(s) are town and which are mafia is now what we're going to have to figure out after a Day One lynch and Night One.

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

8. So are you saying my posts were anti-town? Have you posted anything that a mafia member would 100% not post for any reason whatsoever?

No way, not saying your posts were anti-town. I thought I was being clear in saying they were not exclusively PRO-town as you had implied in the post you made after you first discovered two votes against you. And in response to the second part of that accusation back at me, I'm pretty confident I'm doing the right thing in trying to get to the bottom of this. I'm not trying to lead everyone with a torch to take you to the gallows. I truly want you to restore confidence in me AND the other vote-casters if you are in fact town. I really don't want to mis-cast a vote on the first day, even though I realize how low the chance of actually hitting mafia are. Again, that's why I'm hoping you come through and restore confidence in you as a town member.

I really don't understand your throwaway line that I have you already marked; how many times can I say that I want you to be town--I just have to believe it first before I unvote.

Nov 18, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5 Triple H buried SnS said:

oh... and btw... yes, your wrong... and I accept your appology.

This is actually more reassuring than you might think.

Overall, I count you latest point a positive, even though I've just replied and re-clarified myself to counteract of couple of things you said. The counteraction on my part is just to clear communication pathways between us, because I think this is helping. In other words, I want you to understand me and where I'm coming from. I feel like I prodded you for the right reasons, and I quoted and clarified to show you where I'm coming from as a voter.

Now, as Al Bundy said, that's more than I can say for a few of those who have been quick to dive in and vote Sweet N Sour. There has been very little time to sort all of that out, so don't take it as if I'm not pointing fingers right now at the other Sweet N Sour voters, but I don't mind ever counter-clarifying my votes or suspicions, and I hope that others will follow suit.

Keep on posting, Sweet N Sour. You're working at it.

And just to be clear, count me in for a More Time vote as well since one of the accused is making an effort. Also, it wouldn't hurt to let jagilki rebound from the weekend of being away so he can weigh in if he feels the need. And as been stated, that vote went QUICKLY from 2 to 5 against Sweet, so it could pay off to hear again from those who voted in light of more recent posts. (However, at the same time, I do understand from a deadline perspective how one could go from 2 to 5 votes so quickly, as I feel good points had already been made as why Sweet is suspicious. If people were making an effort to get a vote in before the deadline, then I guess it could possibly make some sense. I'm still scratching my head and thinking about that though.)