TL Mafia XXXVII - Page 80

This post is prime example of day 1 defending of a dead mafia. It soft claim defends annul. He compares the behaviour of 3 games of annul, 1 red, 2 town. In each of the three games he played very similarly except in game 1 as mafia he used bad logic to get someone killed.

The link here is between this current game and that game, he was playing much differently from his town norm, revealing him as red. This would easily be seen from the looking from game as town and game as red of annul, but instead he tries to link all 3 games under the same style, when 1 was definitely different. Misrepresenting the facts is something one would do to defend ones teammate.



Again he slightly defends annul here by trying to use a wifom defense for annul, while then redirecting to another player. He also mentions how people pointed out how bad the idea of the circles was, when the major objectors were gryff, annul. Seraph posted against it briefly (flipped red), lunar did, and ohn did. Almost no one else was opposed. Reservations possibly had in that the groups created could have been fixed if gm is red. However, when we know two of the main group flipped up red, and one of which is the person lunar is defending you see a pattern.

Now keep in mind he was fairly active in day 1.

Lets move on to day 2.



Post doesn’t say much other than recap generally what everyone was talking about, fairly useless.



Soft defends barunder here making it seem like a mafia wouldn’t do this tactic as it would “defeat” the purpose of it. However since he’s willing to die first would potentially save him from the towns lynch and get lsb killed anyway. Its wifom stuff, but again soft defending a player for no real reason. Post says nothing knew aside from “I believe x is town” and is a summary.



Defense of himself after being accused, in which he said he refused to finalize his vote for a player he didn’t think was scum, then foolishness called him out with



Where he admits to agreeing with foolishness on what he promised, and what he delivered was the exact opposite. Clear lie.

He has a few more posts trying to justify his actions day 1, but does not contribute clearly to day 2 discussion or lynches past this.

He starts the day inactive, then proceeds to post about things that give no solid or productive discussion to the game aside from appearing active. He quickly follows that by getting called out for directly lying in the game and admitting he lied.

Interesting.

Day 3


Big ass long post saying how one shouldn’t lie in pms if one is town. However, he was found to be lying from his intereaction with foolishness. This makes him subject of
If I am mafia and he town. If I denied the pm and same 1 mafia out of the two.
If both are town, I shouldn't lie.

If he was town he would have helped foolishness in the way he promised instead of doing the exact opposite (in fact lunar was annuls staunchest defender day 1). He knew if he denied the pm completely it would give himself up as red, then stated as town he shouldn’t lie, in which he did. Why did he lie? To defend his scum buddy annul.





Says he won’t defend himself until jackal answers first? Why would he be so hesitant to defend himself when he has been so happy to defend others all game?



Entire defense of WIFOM. If ones defense is purely that, there is the face of their guilt. It just depends if people will eat the block of text and move on.




More WIFOM. Not solid defense.




Summarizes posts made from Gryffindor.
Responds to ser aspi with WIFOM of why he was waiting on jackals response, but doesn’t actually do the analysis in which he was asked to do. Why would he not do analysis if he is town? What better way to clear yourself.




Summarizing the game day to this point. Anyone reading the thread would actually know how it reached this point. Instead of offering anything insightful he instead just recaps the day. So far pretty useless.



Jumps on a bandwagon that flipped a red, still no providing any insightful posting or analysis of his own.



Mentions he would prefer to have jbright killed over seraph (seraph flipped red) this is a subtle defense but believe since a player gave up the other should be killed. Defends the person he votes for, odd behaviour. If you think someone is red you should be pushing them, or at least analyzing them (he fails to provide his reason for why he finds jbright more likely to be red than seraph).

Day 1








This is all from day 1. He posts suspicion on Gryff based on the sketchiness of gryff’s play over day 1, as well as votes for him. However, in the full day 1 period he posted 4 times. Of these posts they seem pro townish, as he shows that when he appears he can post really good detail. He however disagrees with gm’s plan in execution not so much theory. But as it was something he didn’t attempt to fix he lands here.

Day 2



That is all he posts for day 2. Literally 1 post. He posts he would rather see gryff die but rather than make another case for him as a target he hops onto a bandwagon. Then proceedes to vanish for the day. He reappears

Day 3



Since that post he has once again vanished and has yet to post. He has shown since day 1 that rather than actually playing the game he has instead opted to lurk his way through the game. One does not have to post frequently if their posts are decently made however he has shown a general lack of effort past day 1 to even make a post rather than feigning activity. As he had yet to do any solid analysis, or even keep attention of detail of the game it leads me to believe he is red. Why? Because he displayed what he is capable of day 1, but has since vanished and yet to carry on with the ability he has already shown. Why would he stop analyzing? Why would he stop contributing? Possibly because the more active a mafia has been so far the faster they have been caught?