|
On May 10 2012 16:06 Jailbreaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 15:14 dahdum wrote:On May 10 2012 15:01 Jailbreaker wrote:
Hello everyone!
I agree to pressure the lurkers, but its only the first few hours of the game.
What are everyone's thoughts on the aggressiveness so far?
Note: BroodKingEXE, dahdum , Darkfirex5 , Unforgiven_ve, ShiaoPi already having "suspicions" Now I'm suspicious of you, what's the point of that post? A list of people who've posted so far and vague agreement with the general consensus. No, no, no, no! You misunderstand! I believe that some players have confused being "active" with "aggressive." Give players time to post their defense, the game just started after five days of signups. How would it feel to wake up to some shit storm with your name on it? I'm going to withhold my vote until later when everyone has a chance to post
You can withhold your vote but you still need to scum hunt.
|
The_Zen_Man is still listed as a player on the filter list.
|
EBWOP: The_Zen_Man is still list as a player on the filter list. My bad on the colour.
|
On May 11 2012 03:56 FirmTofu wrote:What... I said that purely in jest, teasing him about the newbie game that just completed. I didn't think you guys would go batshit insane over it. Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 00:23 Crossfire99 wrote:
He posted less than an hour into the day and he makes a reference to a previous game. I don't know what happened in the previous game, but it seems like dahdum was mafia and Firmtofu wasn't and that the town lost (I infer this from his little >< face). It seems like he is complimenting dahdum's play and hopes they are on the same side. What's bad about that?
As for his lynching lurkers stance, he was like one of the first posts, so no one really posted and it seems he was stating that we should wait to judge people until they posted. If people still lurked after a while then he seems to support lynching the lurkers. This isn't a terrible stance if I am interpreting him correctly, so I want clarification from him on this, though.
Crossfire put it best. dahdum was in a game before this and I just commented on how I hope he isn't scum again because he played well last game. I didn't think I was acting suspicious at all, but apparently it was? Regardless, we should switch up our votes onto some more scummy targets. There are certain people that are playing very pro-town right now, but may be doing so just to gain the town's trust. It's extremely hard to tell from just Day 1 behavior, so I think our best for a lynch would be to hunt those people who are genuinely acting scummy or playing poorly. Anacletus seems like the perfect target to start. Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 23:26 Anacletus wrote:
I am only voting because I don't have much to add. I would also like to point out that *if* we hang tofu for his suspicious behavior and he is mafia then we can rule out those voting as being mafia, no?
But if he's town, shit. This quote is suspicious, for reasons mentioned previously my numerous people. However, there is an interesting phrasing of words I find rather intriguing. See bold. What motive would anyone have to say that sentence. Is it not already a statement of fact? Why did he feel the need to reiterate something that is quite obvious to everyone that is playing: If we lynch Tofu and he's town, then we are in trouble. Well, no shit Sherlock. Generally when town people die, the mafia gets farther ahead. Here's my theory. Anacletus knows I am town, because I'm not on his mafia team. Therefore, he knows if and when I get lynched, I will flip town. That statement is guilt insurance and a scum tell because of it. He is trying to insure himself now so that later, he can say "Aw crap, well I was wrong, but look at my previous post where I admitted I might be wrong!" When town members vote people, they don't know whether they are right or wrong. When mafia vote people they know the exact alignment of the person they are voting. I believe this knowledge just leaked from Anacletus the mafia. ##vote:Anacletus
This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though.
|
|
|
@Hyaach Why did you put your vote on Ancletus? You had just as much reasoning as him. That is none.
|
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! ShiaoPi are you defending Hyaach? A null read? He has provided zero evidence for his vote. Your whole list is terrible, it provides nothing more than a bunch "I'm leaning town, but you can never be sure reads". I smell a scumwagon.
|
On May 11 2012 04:46 ShiaoPi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 04:43 Anacletus wrote:
Well, shit, I guess opting to lynch someone because several others were voting for them was silly.
I'm not mafia TT Is that your defense? Seriously? BroodkingEXE if you believe me scum and starting a scumwagon, I would like to know the reasons how you came to that assumption.
Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing.
|
On May 11 2012 06:32 ShiaoPi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 05:38 BroodKingEXE wrote:
---snipped---
Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing. I do get what you mean by "misleading due to size", there are indeed many uncertainties inside, which you could consider as "null reads". Given the fact that we have day 1 and the low amount of posts we have from some people, not being able to give out a 100% read strikes me as being absolutely normal. Reiteration is also featured because I tried to be transparent in my thoughtprocess, you may say that these things devalue the usefullness of the post, but I believe they were needed. Do I have to repeat it again? My suspicions on hyaach are not dropped. Reread it again, I clearly state that he is still on my watchlist and also point out his lack of evidence/reason for the vote. Here it is: + Show Spoiler +
His later posts are better than his first as they are actually related to the current discussion. His vote on Anacletus seems reasonable as well given my argumentation above. Although it seems obvious why he is pressuring Anacletus a little bit of explanation of your reasoning would in my eyes go a long way to gain more credibility as a townie. His posts still lack analysis, length and depth, which makes him still kind of fishy.
Now in rereading it myself I probably could have worded it a bit better. -His posts are now related to the discussion, which is sth. beneficial to us. -I did not say I vote with him, as in "he has convinced me", I state that I believe his vote to be understandable, since I am suspecting Anacletus myself for the reasons I posted. The next sentence is poorly phrased, I admit it. I should not have said that he could "gain more credibility as a townie" but instead said that it could move him away from the scumcamp, since he still appears fishy to me due to lacking analysis, length, depth. I did not want to make him into a "townie". My reasons to vote on Anacletus, could be worded in the way you did, but they can also be put as I did: mismatch in behaviour, posting a vote without reasons and contradiction of himself. Anacletus' last post is finally one which makes sense, after the ones before. Finally some explanation going on, I still believe that something is fishy about Anacletus and I am not the only one, you do so as well + Show Spoiler +This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. .
Just needed explanation for your vote/post. This canidate seems really rushed though, people haven't looked at his latest posts for signs of scumminess. I agree that his past posts are suspicious, but we need to look at his current posts. Too much like a wagon for me to vote for him yet.
|
@Anacletus, What have you been doing? Has the pressure vote brought any information? Scum hunting means analyzing responses to stuff like this, I'm willing to give you the benifit of the doubt if you provide useful information.
|
Whatever Anacletus is trying to do it isn't town. His response to me is that he doesn't have any information, then he throws a vote at BioSC. Pretty cut and dry.
##Vote Anacletus
@dahdum I'm not going to post a whole list of people like you, but I'll post my reads tommorow morning. I feel your list is a little skewed though, the people on the bottom have scummy aspects as well (according to you) so it makes it feel like you suspect everyone in town.
|
Okay I've looked at the filters and have come up with two other people I view as posting scummy.
Jailbreaker. So far he has offered nothing to the conversation at all. He pointed out lurkers, defended himself, and gave a bunch of half-ass responses along with another unsupported scum list. He's trying to point fingers with no real direction, scum behavior to me.
BioSC. His posts have for the most part been defensive. Even his big post against Darkfire was like that. He starts off saying that Dark is trying to push attention toward him, but then goes on to try and justify his past actions. The conviction seems more like a diversion to save his own hide than to lynch scum.
+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2012 13:19 BioSC wrote:Alright, here goes. First, though, the guy's name is Anacletus. I'm going to assume the misspelling was simply a Freudian slip of the tounge >.< I'm suspicious of Darkfirex5. He seems to be trying to shift focus away from Anacletus, and this is why I think that. + Show Spoiler +On May 11 2012 10:58 Darkfirex5 wrote:
Well though i still think Anecletus seems the scummiest, but he does make a... point i guess about BioSC id need more proof though than to change my vote to him, ill keep it in mind when reading his posts. I still find this a weak bandwagon forming as i stated before, does anyone want to respond to my post before? (feeling ignored D: ) He's already done this twice in this day, pointing out small flaws and meaningless details in my posts to try and get an argument started against me. My strategy to deal with it was to stamp it out. Just because I'm putting pressure on someone, though, doesn't mean I'm not looking for more reads. There are at least 4 mafia in this game, and town needs to find them all to win. By me saying I'm watching his posts, I mean exactly that. I'm trying to stay pretty crystal in my intentions in this game. Another I'm iffy about is Mufaa. He hasn't posted much, and has given a reason about jobs and shifts taking up a lot of time. His other posts are a question on when the end time for voting is (useless fluff, a mod post covered that), and a weak pressure on Ana. What I can't tell is if that is just shoddy town play, or mafia bussing. Either way, I need more posts from him to either change or strengthen my read on him.
|
On May 12 2012 01:32 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 00:22 ShiaoPi wrote:
@austinmcc: Considering your thoughts on Anacletus: There is always the possibility of bad town play instead of scummy play. But doesn't the defense of Anacletus (or more the lack of) seem weird to you? Also his lack of good contributions? I guess bad townie play is always a possibility, but for now I stand by my vote.
On the accusations on BroodKingEXE: You bring up some good analysis. I guess I overlooked those aspects of his posts because I was more busy defending my posts against him than analyzing. I'll have to reread his filter thoroughly though, before doing anything.
I think that Anacletus has contributed very little. And that's generous. If I were breaking down everything he's posted, a statement that he reads BioSC as mafia is the ONLY remotely pro-town thing he's posted, and he doesn't back that read up or post a case, so it has absolutely no value. His lack of a defense does seem weird to me. Weird, but not entirely scummy, for a few reasons. - His defense is...nonexistant. He says one thing, then another. Doesn't want to draw attention to himself and attract more votes. Wants a headcount. Play this scenario out in your head. You're scum. Your scumbuddy gets called out in thread. What do you do? Don't you go to QT, put your heads together, figure out SOME kind of defense. Maybe the other members defend him, hard, soft, whatever. Maybe you feed him good points to throw out in the thread. But you can't just throw him to the wolves or bus him on D1, can you? Don't you have to try SOMETHING, when it's that early in the day and town is so focused on him?
Yet there's none of that.
- A good portion of this thread yesterday was everyone checking in and chiming in. Hey, here's my post, I see everyone thinks Anac is scum. Yeah, he seems scummy. Anac Y U SO SCUMMY? His flailing, to some extent, seems like a bad reaction to that, i.e. bad town play. His posts to me say, "I got no breathing room, felt like I had to defend myself, but I just couldn't because the accusations kept coming in."
- I don't think there's ANY way for Anac to defend himself. His play has been so nonsensical that he's dug a hole he can't climb out of. Think about it, is there anything he could say to defend his actions, make them seem logical? Not for me.
So that's my reasoning. He got no help, even though a mafia lynch this early would be crushing to the scumteam. He kept giving poor responses to everything, which makes it seem like he didn't sit down and think. I'm not saying we remove the FOS. I'm just rather see what happens if we let him be for a little bit. Make it known that he has no town cred, and needs to stop, really dig into the thread, and give us some good reads and analysis (Make a real case against BioSC if you think he's scummy), which we might not even care about because he lost his cred. If he doesn't give us anything useful, he's a great candidate for tomorrow. I just want to see what he does, how he plays, when he's not getting voted or questioned every 15 minutes in thread. But in my gut, his play screams "bad" more than it screams "scum." Whereas with Broodking, his posts, his logic, and to the extent that we newbies have meta, his meta, DO scream scum to me.
You can't keep a FoS on someone and be on the fence about them being scum. You obviously think he is town, but are setting yourself up so that it looks like you had suspicions on him. Hedging would allow you to say "I didn't think he was scum" if he flipped town. This strikes me as scummy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2012 22:38 austinmcc wrote:My thoughts on Anacletus: His play does not feel like good townie play. I brought that up earlier, we've all discussed it by now, and I think we all seem to come to the same conclusion. While I would support a lynch of Anacletus, I think we have better targets. I'll look through his responses more today, but for now I would prefer to look elsewhere, and see how Anacletus continues to play. Right now, "not good townie play" is my read, but I'm not convinced that his play is scummy and not just bad townie play. However, we've got a quarter of D1 left, and I want to throw this case out and push it a little, see what comes of it. My top scum read: BroodKingEXE. BroodKingEXE filter - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=334707&user=233869Skip 2/3 of the first page. It's pregame. He's active, vocal, chatting a lot with everyone in the pregame. Doesn't really mean anything. First posts: + Show Spoiler +On May 10 2012 12:53 BroodKingEXE wrote:
/confirm
Lynching lurkers in the early game not a good idea. My reasoning is that people need to be able to post before we persecute them. Something to think about lurkers, Mafia will try to lurk, but their posts will have more intent behind each one. Why? Every post they make is going to push its own idea of an agenda, but the more they post the more the idea could be misinterpreted. Before we lynch a lurker let's look at the intent of the post: a Mafia agenda push or a helpful Townie post. On May 10 2012 13:18 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Not true, lynching an inactive is a waste. Scum wants us to not lynch them. We can call lurkers out, and they have to respond. They don't respond, we start looking at them. Lynching, because they are lurkers is stupid. On May 10 2012 13:48 BroodKingEXE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2012 08:36 FirmTofu wrote:
Hi again dahdum! I hope you aren't mafia again ><
I'm all for lynching a lurker, but we should definitely wait a bit for everyone to have a chance to post. What are you implying here? We should wait for everyone to post before coming to conclusions? That seems scummy to me, we should be analyzing peoples posts right now. You just created a reason for you not to post. Convince your not scum. ##Vote: Firm Tofu These aren't entirely incompatible. Lynching lurkers bad, pressuring them good, let people post before we jump to conclusions. That seems townie, fine and dandy, but then he fires off the very first vote of the game on FirmTofu. Why? Because FirmTofu posted + Show Spoiler + On May 10 2012 08:36 FirmTofu wrote:
Hi again dahdum! I hope you aren't mafia again ><
I'm all for lynching a lurker, but we should definitely wait a bit for everyone to have a chance to post. Look at the bolded part of Broodking's first post. Now back to me. Now back to the bolded part of FirmTofu's post. Now back to me. Anything? That's the same exact thought process. And yet when FirmTofu vocalizes that, Broodking fires off the first vote of the game. I still don't agree with that vote at all, even if it was just to "pressure" someone, because there's absolutely no grounds for voting someone because they express a thought you just expressed slightly earlier. From then on out, it's a series of one-liner and response posts, but never really DOING anything. Last night (eastern time), BroodKing had one of the longest filters, and yet the only substantive post was him voting FirmTofu off the bat. For example: + Show Spoiler +On May 11 2012 03:30 BroodKingEXE wrote:
You can withhold your vote but you still need to scum hunt. On May 11 2012 04:01 BroodKingEXE wrote:
This post makes sense, Anacletus' play has been pretty wierd. I need to hear a response from him before I vote though. This line stood out to me. BroodKing threw out of FIRST vote of the game on Tofu, before there was play to analyze and before Tofu responded to anything. Why does he need a response now to vote? After that, he starts giving responses to other people, specifically ShiaoPi's reads, but doesn't really add anything of substance. scummy+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2012 04:05 BroodKingEXE wrote:
@Hyaach Why did you put your vote on Ancletus? You had just as much reasoning as him. That is none. On May 11 2012 04:33 BroodKingEXE wrote:
WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!! ShiaoPi are you defending Hyaach? A null read? He has provided zero evidence for his vote. Your whole list is terrible, it provides nothing more than a bunch "I'm leaning town, but you can never be sure reads". I smell a scumwagon. On May 11 2012 05:38 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Your big post brings up a list of null reads. Its misleading due to its size when its content is a bunch of reiteration of events. Scum will make posts like this to make themselves seem useful. If you actually read your reasoning for voting for anacletus it is: he was not eager, a post lacking logic, and a bandwagon. The first two could be townie mistakes and bandwagons aren't very effective when people have strong objections to the canidate. On the other hand, you have voted with the person you first thought was scum and had dropped your suspicions based on...nothing. On May 11 2012 09:09 BroodKingEXE wrote:
Just needed explanation for your vote/post. This canidate seems really rushed though, people haven't looked at his latest posts for signs of scumminess. I agree that his past posts are suspicious, but we need to look at his current posts. Too much like a wagon for me to vote for him yet. Note that at this point, ShiaoPi has just thrown out the first real list of reads we had from anyone. BroodKing posts a couple times concerning the list, but doesn't really add anything. While he gets information out of ShiaoPi, he doesn't really provide any himself. At no point in those posts does he agree with a read or disagree with a read, rather, he simply acknowledges that reads were made and ShiaoPi voted. This is also the first point we begin to move AWAY from the Anacletus discussion (which has run its course at this point), and BroodKing continues to ask for information based on ShiaoPi's vote for Anacletus. Finally, compare his filter from this game with his filter from Newbie VIII, where he was town. + Show Spoiler + There are some posts in a similar style to his posts here, but a LOT of @x and @y, what do you guys think about z. Lots of longer discussions, paragraphs, lists. SOME of that is because he was the lynch target D1 and so had to be active and defend himself. But his townie posts from VIII feel more robust and they contribute, whereas his posts so far in XIII do not. ------------------------------- + Show Spoiler [analectus] +
Anacletus's play still feels more bad than scummy. I would like to let him live for now, and see if he starts to really contribute. Right now he has 0 town cred, so if he's mafia he can't actively muck up town discussion. If we back off the pressure, MAYBE he mounts a decent defense and provides some good reads, because...he's got to do that to get any cred back. If not? We lynch him later, or we see if we can get any information N1 from blue roles that push us forward.
Compared to Anacletus though, BroodKingEXE looks actively scummy. So far he hasn't contributed anything of note except the first vote of the game, which made little sense. He's supports getting responses before voting, but then votes without a response from FirmTofu. He wants scumhunting and reasoning, but has provided none. Again, I'm not opposed to an Anacletus lynch, but I would prefer to lynch the player that seems scummiest, which is BroodKing.
##Vote BroodKingEXE
##FOS: Anacletus
Dahdum, I'm especially interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as you read BroodKing to be scummy as well. I didn't really notice him until I looked through all the filters last night and realized he was my best scumread. Do you agree with my reasoning? Did you have different reasoning?
The reason I have not addressed it is because it doesn't make me look scummy. I voted for Firm Tofu, because he implied that we should wait for everyone to get a post up before discussing. At least this is how I read into it. By lynching lurkers early, I mean we shouldn't lynch for being lurkers early. I'm not for lynching lurkers early because at least one person is going to point out a scum, and that scum will have to defend himself or other Mafia. If we can find that guy we can draw out the rest of the scum. Also, lynching scum lurkers don't provide any information as to the other scum members. Too many times I have seen lurker bandwagons based only on their lurker. I have been drawing information according to you, and that is my plan to call out others and form opinions on them so we can lynch scum.
|
@Anac. The first one does make sense. I could be town and the Mafia could be letting you push me, because they know I am town. They don't even need to take ownership for their vote and could keep their vote on Analect. People who vote for me can be on either side. Bussing or wagoning are options for mafia. What about my response doesn't convince you?
|
EBWOP: My bad posted this and didn't see his reponse to my response.
|
On May 12 2012 05:26 austinmcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 05:07 BroodKingEXE wrote:
The reason I have not addressed it is because it doesn't make me look scummy. I voted for Firm Tofu, because he implied that we should wait for everyone to get a post up before discussing. At least this is how I read into it. By lynching lurkers early, I mean we shouldn't lynch for being lurkers early. I'm not for lynching lurkers early because at least one person is going to point out a scum, and that scum will have to defend himself or other Mafia. If we can find that guy we can draw out the rest of the scum. Also, lynching scum lurkers don't provide any information as to the other scum members. Too many times I have seen lurker bandwagons based only on their lurker. I have been drawing information according to you, and that is my plan to call out others and form opinions on them so we can lynch scum. In the first bolded passage, you say it doesn't make you look scummy. Yet - I think it does
- ShiaoPi seems to think it does
- Hyaach seems to think it does
- Bio has his suspicions raised by it
- Crossfire will keep his eye on you
That's 5 people. Not quite half of the players in the game. Most of the players who have been active today. And your response to all those people questioning you is to say the case "doesn't make you look scummy"? Clearly there's something there. If you really think that the case doesn't make you look scummy, then why does everyone else seem to think otherwise? As to the second post, you're going to "call out others." Great. When are you going to do that? I see that you tried, you posted two weak reads in hopes of shifting the discussion. What was the response to those reads? + Show Spoiler +On May 12 2012 04:42 ShiaoPi wrote:BroodkingExe on the other hand just disappeared, ignoring the case completely and if you examine the last two posts of his you will see the recurring things austinmcc mentioned in his case. He again shifts a bit of focus on other people who have not really been called out until now, but does not start his own case (see this: + Show Spoiler +Okay I've looked at the filters and have come up with two other people I view as posting scummy.
Jailbreaker. So far he has offered nothing to the conversation at all. He pointed out lurkers, defended himself, and gave a bunch of half-ass responses along with another unsupported scum list. He's trying to point fingers with no real direction, scum behavior to me.
BioSC. His posts have for the most part been defensive. Even his big post against Darkfire was like that. He starts off saying that Dark is trying to push attention toward him, but then goes on to try and justify his past actions. The conviction seems more like a diversion to save his own hide than to lynch scum. ) You throw out a few names. Write a sentence or two. Really calling them out there. It didn't convince ShiaoPi; it doesn't convince me. You claim my case doesn't make you look scummy, but we all seem to disagree. You claim your plan is to call out others, but you never really do so. And most damning? You wait 5 or 6 hours to post that defense. Moreover, you posted during that time, so it's not like you were entirely away from the thread. You came back to post those comments about Jailbreaker and Bio, to respond to my FoS of all things, but you didn't take a moment to write out your defense? Why not? Waiting to form a decent response in scum QT?
Am I not entitled to my own opinion? The things you have posted in your original case don't make me look that scummy. The thing that Tofu said and I said are different. He wants to lynch lurkers and I don't (at least not till a couple more days). I have called out others, do you see all those "useless one-liners"? They are calling out things I saw as potentially scummy. Do I have to wait and post a culmination of these posts all at once? For the most part you haven't actually looked at the majority of my posts for their content. Your final sentence doesn't make sense in terms of scum. Why would I not defend myself (as scum), when the town was obviously against me? Look at where waiting has got me, second-highest lynch canidate for day 1. It could just be I didn't see your post like I didn't see this response.
|
@Shiao Pi: Firm and your responses have convinced me you aren't scum. Did I single-handedly make you guys talk? No, but it has helped me figure out that you guys aren't scum in my mind. I realize I probaly should be looking around more and creating better cases, but as of now I don't see anything mind blowingly scummy (except Ana). Until I do, I won't be making the biggest cases and will keep looking for minor blips post by post.
|
On May 12 2012 05:57 BroodKingEXE wrote:
@Anac. The first one does make sense. I could be town and the Mafia could be letting you push me, because they know I am town. They don't even need to take ownership for their vote and could keep their vote on Analect. People who vote for me can be on either side. Bussing or wagoning are options for mafia. What about my response doesn't convince you?
I meant austin.
|
On May 12 2012 06:43 Anacletus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 05:57 BroodKingEXE wrote:
@Anac. The first one does make sense. I could be town and the Mafia could be letting you push me, because they know I am town. They don't even need to take ownership for their vote and could keep their vote on Analect. People who vote for me can be on either side. Bussing or wagoning are options for mafia. What about my response doesn't convince you? I'll be real with you man, I don't actually have *that* much of an inclination to believing that you are mafia. It's just that it feels like it's either you or me, so I'm trying to save my own neck. I am not without doubt of you - I just don't think that there's enough information for me to think it's worthy to hang you, but again, if it comes down to me or you, it's you... :/ I do think that others feel like you're mafia though, so that's why my vote is where it is.
So you would push me even if you believe I am not mafia? Look at others if you dont think I am scum. The town can benefit you pushing a strong case, that would prove or disprove your innocence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
