EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXVII - Page 28
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JacobStrangelove
Australia1572 Posts
| ||
|
Sharrant
Canada543 Posts
M-8:14PM 17th S-10:56AM 18th S-11:17 PM S-11:22 AM 19th S-11:50 AM M-12:14 PM S-1:01 PM S-5:09 PM S-5:20 PM S-5:28 PM S-5:46 PM S-6:42 PM M-7:37 PM S-7:50 PM S-8:05 PM M-8:07 AM Yeah, I probably should've posted my plan into my mason box earlier, but I was waiting for him to say literally anything first. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
Long post about Sharrant's mason claim: First something I'd like to point out. These posts were made simultaneously in the sense that I hadn't read his post before posting mine. We make the exact same argument independently, which at the time made me feel more comfortable in believe what he said was true. His reasoning matched mine and thus in my mind it made sense. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:51 Sharrant wrote: I honestly wish I was trolling. I know, I know. Atreides defended me earlier, would've been great to have as a mason buddy. SDM? Would've been great as a mason buddy, he seems to know his shit and I think he's town. Thrawn? That'd be baller too. You'll notice how the only time I ever acknowledged Cubu about lurking is once when I said "We should go after the scummy lurker instead of the afk lurker" That's because Cubu is my partner. And has not said a single thing to me yet. Hopefully he shows up in this thread to confirm me. More like he will show up in this thread at 7:55 and I'll die because no one will be there to notice. On September 20 2012 06:54 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Well, that would explain why you didn't have anyone to explain the rules for you. And why you've for some weird reason left Cubu out of the "lynch lurkers" discussion. My take on this right now: This is either some super sofisticated level or he's being honest. I think one interesting thing to note is how he brought this up rather early. At a point where it seems like he could've gotten away by other means. Him setting up a super advanced level in and of itself seems unlikely. Him setting up a super advanced level way ahead of time just seems even more unlikely. I still need time to process this. A rough read through of Sharrant's filter seems to make it clear that his plan must've been set up from the point he was first accused. His first hint on wanting Debears to "claim" came immediately after thrawn questioning his motives for voting debear. At that point no one had suspected him previously, he had no votes and more that 24h to deadline. I pointed this out during the shit storm, but it seems weird to set up such an elaborate plan at that point since he had no real reason to feel threatened. Besides, he replies to thrawn's accusation with a long post within 30min. Is he supposed to have come up with this plan and typed out this post within 30min? Or is it a plan he's been working on for a long time? Maybe since Debears started cock riding thrawn? It just seems way too far fetched. The other option is that it wasn't his original plan, but that he used this "forcing debear to claim" reasoning later to form his mason plan. This would require an insane ability to make up complicated plans on the fly. Basically all the puzzle pieces fell into place, it's highly unlikely this would happen unless he actually had a plan when first trying to "forcing debear to claim". Timeline of events: 1) 9 hours to deadline: This is Sharrant's first mention of the most suspected lurkers: + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 23:53 Sharrant wrote: Here is how it stands for me. In order of most to least scummiest: debears, Thrawn, KillingTime/Stutters, Kush, everyone else, SDM. Scummiest lurkers to me are: KillingTime, and Stutters. For some reason he didn't include Cubu at all in this post. This is weird because imo Cubu has been the #1 lurker of the game. But it's also worth noting he didn't mention Atreides or drazak. While not being as hardcore lurkers as Cubu, they were solid non-contributors. 2) 8 hours to deadline: Sharrant acknowledges that he had completely forgot Atreides, but still prefers Stutters: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 00:38 Sharrant wrote: Hm. I had missed a post of yours before. That's why. Your Filter thing on the front page isn't working properly, so I had to scan through everything, and I missed at least one post. My apologies. I still think you came off a little scummy when you first entered the game, but I hadn't thought about Atreides posts before that. I'm now less suspicious of you, and a little more of Atreides, but not enough that you two are my preffered lurker lynch. That spot now goes solely to Stutters. 3) 3 hours to deadline: Sharrant's next interesting mention is this: + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 05:47 Sharrant wrote: @SDM, @debears I'm going to have to agree with you two at this point. At this point my vote is going to be going to killer, Stutters' recent posts have put him on good footing, and Cubu is still just an unkown quantity. ... @Drazak ... You honestly had time to got hrough every single post and then voted me with a single sentence completely lacking any justification AND you did it in such a way that you look like you're only suggesting that you might be voting for me. AND you commited the cardinal sin of putting someone at L-1 without giving them warning. You just reached my number one spot. ##unvote KillingTime ##vote Drazak You're scum, and you just had the most obvious bandwagonning in the world. For some reason his main focus was Killing and Stutters when it comes to scummy lurkers. He also just labeled Cubu an "unknown quantity". This is also the first time he finds drazak scummy, due to his weird voting post. 4) 2h and 15m to deadline: Sharrant officially outs Cubu as his mason buddy. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:44 Sharrant wrote: Welp, I guess I may as well. It'll save him in the long run, if enough of you had believed me about being Mason without confirming him, you probably would have killed him for lurking anyways. Actually, I've changed my mind about this. If I out him most likely only one of us dies tonight, a confirmed townie will survive, and best of all, it will possibly save a blue's life. So here's the part where you guys either instantly decide I'm guilty by assosciation, or whether I just am the mason with the shittiest luck ever. My mason buddy... is (drum roll please)... CUBU The current post count in our QT is 10, 8 posts by me, 2 by Marvel! Hooray! So why did he never suspect Cubu despite his lurking? I can see three reasons: a) Sharrant is telling the truth, Cubu is his mason buddy (if Sharrant gets lynched, this will also help Cubu to claim mason later) b) Sharrant is scum and is making an elaborate mason plan (Cubu could possibly be either scum or townie, this scenario is unlikely imo for reasons explained above) c) Sharrant is scum and is protecting his scum buddy with no other motives in mind (ime at least including Cubu as a suspect is something a scum would do, not calling him an "unknown entity" when it's obvious Cubu is a hardcore lurker) I will also ahead of time type out what I find to be the only fully satisfying answer Sharrant can give to thrawn's new accusations: about Sharrant dropping the scum reads on thrawn and debears because he misunderstood the game mechanics: Sharrant never particularly suspected thrawn or debears. He was using his vote as a tool, because IF they happened to both be scum, they might fall for the trap. It's a long shot, but if it succeeds, he's trapped two scum. It also would make sense with all his actions imo (I've still only made a rough read through, but that's how it appears to me). When he realized his trap wouldn't work because of game mechanics, he didn't have to keep his mostly artificial scum reads of thrawn and debear anymore because his plan couldn't any longer succeed. He dropped his accusations. I kind of like this approach to the game in general. I don't think you need to have strong suspicions to throw out accusations and force reactions. However, I don't really like doing it by voting, at least not in TL newbie games. People will demand a reasoning for his vote and since Sharrant didn't have solid reasoning, he'll easily end up in the situation he did. However, it's possible that in the games he's used to play in, voting is used as such a tool. Others have mentioned this before, some players tend to use ##Vote instead of ##FOS. I honestly had a hard time to even understand the 50/50 sentence. Is he saying it had a 50/50 chance of working before he realized he had misunderstood the mechanics? If so, how does that make sense? This is something I still need him to clarify. (Of course, for you to believe this, you have to trust there's no sonic/sharrant scum team. That is entirely up to you to decide) | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
I'm still reading all of your posts about reads on me, and all the times when you tried to rationalize your role claim idea after people jumped on you for it. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 20 2012 23:03 Sharrant wrote: Certainly! M-8:14PM 17th S-10:56AM 18th S-11:17 PM S-11:22 AM 19th S-11:50 AM M-12:14 PM S-1:01 PM S-5:09 PM S-5:20 PM S-5:28 PM S-5:46 PM S-6:42 PM M-7:37 PM S-7:50 PM S-8:05 PM M-8:07 AM Yeah, I probably should've posted my plan into my mason box earlier, but I was waiting for him to say literally anything first. what time zone are those in | ||
|
Sharrant
Canada543 Posts
Time stamps are all in EDT @SDM After I learned the mason mechanics, I think it's covered in my other post. It became apparent they could both actually be Masons, thus if they claimed Mason, it was not possible to immediately act on it because there's a distinct possibility of it being true. @Thrawn Yes, at that point you weren't for sure scum in my eyes, I just had you as suspicious, and debears as scum. But since both of you seemed to be buddied it seemed to be worth the risk. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On September 20 2012 22:46 Sharrant wrote: @Thrawn The part where the 50/50 comes in is because of the altered Mason mechanics. You could have claimed Mason, and I would've been liked "Fuck yeah, mafia" in the standard I'm used to (All Masons know each other). However, that post came out after I found out about the different Mason mechanics. So if you had claimed Mason all I could've done is gone "Fuck yeah, those guys actually could be Masons because they haven't really had a 3rd buddy, or they might be mafia together with a lurker" suddenly you claiming Mason was not the be all end all of catching you. So suddenly you guys seemed a lot less scummy because it was actually possible you were both masons. I said before, I still wasn't sure about both of you. The fact that neither of you took the easy claim could have left you both as mafia that didn't want to take an easy out, or that only one of you is mafia so the claim is stupid and unsafe, or that neither of you are and the claim is unneeded. This isn't the exact reasoning I was looking for in order for it to fully make sense. The first paragraph is, but the second paragraph isn't. In the second paragraph you state that you were actually suspicious of thrawn and debears because of what I think is a silly association read. The reason you dropped those accusations is because he actually thought there was a decent possibility there were two pairs of masons in the game. I simply think this is bad reasoning. The association read is really weak and having 4 masons in a set-up with 13 players is highly unlikely. On the other hand, the association read goes hand in hand with his overly specific SK read on Kush. Maybe making overly specific reads is just something he does. I find that way more likely than his mason claim being a super sofisticated scum plot. The QT text certainly helps as well. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
sharky246
1197 Posts
| ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
In the qt marv says "new player incoming" at the same time he announces sharky's arrival in the thread. When sharrant says in the qt that his plan is bad is 4 minutes before he says it in the thread. I'm gonna go ahead and stop here because those timestamps don't look like they could have been faked. It's already taken me a long time to convert timezones and find correlations between the qt post and the events in thread for just those 2 posts. Sharrant posted the timestamps 5 minutes after I asked him for them so I doubt he would have been able to fake all those timestamps in 5 minutes.... because I personally was unable to verify their accuracy within 5 minutes. I believe your mason claim now. Also sharky just confirmed it. So even if you're lying and we find out later then we will have 2 confirmed scum. | ||
|
Sharrant
Canada543 Posts
Yes, it's not that it's 50/50, it's just that it makes his claim possible, which means even if they had claimed Mason after that, it was no longer guaranteed they were mafia, so we would potentially go "You're not a mason!" -> debears dies and is revealed Mason "No, you're not a mason!" Sharrant dies and is revealed mason -> we just wasted two lynches due to a misunderstanding I caused. @Thrawn Okay, so, the times for stuff you wanted, Thrawn. At the beginning of the game you lobbed out the real softball question "Do we lynch the last lurker into the thread"? Then debears comes and hits a home run, and answers it perfectly, but then also says that it's his first game, but Thrawn is "my man crush". He comes in and defends you later about the softball question, saying he has a town read on you at this point based solely on the fact that you lobbed a softball question out there, and a mafia would never do that. He then makes a case on you being town, and then says he agrees with all of your points on everyone up to that point. He continues defending you, and then goes after SDM based on a joke about Kush's post. You then also go after SDM, over the same post, but also keep up with several other players (Kush's lack of scum hunting, Killing's vote on debears which links back to you and debears again). Now, the KillingTime/debears thing, is that KT seemed scummy as all hell for that vote, but I did agree with his target AND he won town points with me for actually voting. It was way too early, way too uncoordinated, and had no logic behind bussing debears. So it's scummy player versus scummy player fairly early on with a vote already placed. But with debears defense of you, and the links you two had shared up until that point, I decided that you were the bigger target. More risk, but more reward. If I went after KillingTime, and we had gotten a lynch on him based on that evidence, then we would've possibly gotten one unconnected mafia that gave us no leads on who his buddies might be. Going after you was a bigger risk/reward. Possibility of two mafia, but it would also take a pretty aggressive approach on my part, but you guys have already been very buddy buddy, and at that time I was sure there could only be one group of masons. So I put started putting the pressure on, and you started getting visibly frustrated in your posts. At least that's how it seemed to me, I'm not sure what your posting style is, but you had cooler responses, and you seemed more emotional in the ones related to me, or people going after debears. Eventually we get to the point where debears is actually ahead in the vote count, exactly where I wanted him earlier, when I realized, hm, I'm not sure about that mechanic exactly, I should PM Marvel. So I PM'ed him, got the answer, and tried to immediately call off the bandwagon that had started on debears because I had made a critical error earlier in not asking. At this point I figured it was pretty obvious I was a mason but didn't want to reveal my plan entirely because that involves going "hey, I'm a mason". So because of that I ended up being the one with all of the votes. At this point I still had a big tool, revealing I'm a mason and having Cubu back me up. That's why I was so calm through everyone's accusations (well, I'm generally pretty clam, but having a trump card made it easier). Eventually I am forced to reveal, but I don't want to give up my mason buddy because I consider that bad play. My plan at that point was to try and convince you guys to not lynch me, or if I was sure of being lynched I would leave a message hidden in a post that Cubu could refer back to and prove he actually was my partner. People still wanted to lynch either me or Cubu though, so I thought it through, imagined every scenario that could come of this, and decided revealing us both was better. We potentially take up a night kill that could kill a jailkeeper or a cop, if one of us ever dies the other is automatically confirmed, and I stop two 100% sure mislynches in trade for one possible good lynch. Then Thrawn brought up the point about killing Cubu to confirm me, I didn't like that plan, but it has merit. Unfortunately it would leave town down 2 members with no mafia killed guaranteed. So that's still an option if you guys don't find all my answers satisfactory, or if Sharky also ends up lurking this game. | ||
|
Sharrant
Canada543 Posts
I guess I didn't need to post the wall of text after that, but I felt it would help to explain my motives on you and debears to the fullest. I think that will be the last I have to say about being a mason, still, if there are questions I'll happily answer. For now I'd like to move back onto scum hunting rather than having to prove my role. Up on my radar right now is (in no particular order) debears, Atreides, and kush. I need to read through JAcob's most recent posts again before I have a more solid idea on him. Kush right now is up there mainly for his points immediately after Drazak's death. He says he was just bandwaggoning, got caught up writing a post so he missed the deadline, but he also never thought Drazak was lurking and the biggest slip up in my eyes. He thought Drazak was doing great things scumhunting. I can't find a post by Drazak where he's scumhunting. Also his latest posts were one lined little bits saying almost nothing. Atreides pops up because he sort of appears every now and again, says a few things and pops off. Doesn't really seem to hunt for people, but had something to say after Drazak died nonetheless. debears is up there for everything that happened earlier, but I'm still trying to process how the last half of day 1 changed my opinion of him. He's had good and bad posts since then which I'll need to take a closer look at. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 21 2012 00:15 Sharrant wrote: @Thrawn I guess I didn't need to post the wall of text after that, but I felt it would help to explain my motives on you and debears to the fullest. I think that will be the last I have to say about being a mason, still, if there are questions I'll happily answer. For now I'd like to move back onto scum hunting rather than having to prove my role. Up on my radar right now is (in no particular order) debears, Atreides, and kush. I need to read through JAcob's most recent posts again before I have a more solid idea on him. Kush right now is up there mainly for his points immediately after Drazak's death. He says he was just bandwaggoning, got caught up writing a post so he missed the deadline, but he also never thought Drazak was lurking and the biggest slip up in my eyes. He thought Drazak was doing great things scumhunting. I can't find a post by Drazak where he's scumhunting. Also his latest posts were one lined little bits saying almost nothing. Atreides pops up because he sort of appears every now and again, says a few things and pops off. Doesn't really seem to hunt for people, but had something to say after Drazak died nonetheless. debears is up there for everything that happened earlier, but I'm still trying to process how the last half of day 1 changed my opinion of him. He's had good and bad posts since then which I'll need to take a closer look at. jacob, kush, and atreides all came into the thread after the deadline and said some strange things. I think atreides' posts are the scummiest looking and most contradictory, refer to my case against him. unfortunately like he said he's gonna be afk for a long time but he's someone I'm currently pretty suspicious of: On September 20 2012 22:31 thrawn2112 wrote: Atreides, I'm not satisfied about the context of your 1-minute-after-deadline post. In that post you said a no-lynch would have been the best choice, and later when asked about the no-lynch thing you said you didn't know about it until a mod confirmed it as real in the thread. Which means that before you made that after-deadline post, you had been following the thread closely enough to see when marv confirmed no-lynch. Marv's post happened at this time. However 14 minutes after marv's post Keirathi posted a vote count and specified the exact lynch time in big bold blue text. People had also been talking about lynch time because there was some confusion about it. So to me it looks like you really weren't reading the thread. You have also said that "weren't around after my last post" which reads as you saying you weren't reading the thread. Clarify the context of all that please. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 20 2012 06:41 Atreides- wrote:2) Sharrant outs a mason, he confirms, and we lynch cubu or killing. At this point it's very unlikely for both Sharrant and his ally to be mafia, and more likely for both to be masons. Relatively strong outcome. 4) Sharrant doesn't reveal the mason and we lynch cubu or killing. This seems like rolling the dice, as we wouldn't have any idea if Sharrant is lying or not, and it's very possible for us to lynch a townie on top of that. I'm leaning towards 2) as an option right now unless something changes. I feel that both Killing and Stutters are slightly scummy/lurky but cubu sounds like a strong vote as well. I was hoping for him to post by now. In that post he lists a bunch of scenarios and in 2 of them he advises lynching killing or cubu. He says the best option is option 2 which is if sharrant outs a mason and the mason confirms then we lynch cubu or killing. Sharrant ended up outing cubu as a mason so obviously cubu would no longer be his lynch choice which leaves killing as his preferred option. Of course cubu didn't confirm... but it still looks liek a contradiction because of how much he had talked about lynching killing in that post But then he comes into the thread and said he would have preferred a no lynch and that "There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak." His lynch reads before the cubu reveal were killing, stutters, and cubu but then later he says he wants a no-lynch because there weren't any good lynch candidates? | ||
|
Sharrant
Canada543 Posts
Atreides, I'd like your reads on all of the people involved with my bandwagon, the Drazak bandwagon, and on Killing. What made you decide that Cubu, Killing, Drazak, and Stutters were not good lynch candidates? @Kush Can you please show where Drazak's scum hunting was, I would like an explanation on this point specifically On September 20 2012 09:09 kushm4sta wrote: I didn't even think drazak is scummy. I just voted for him now because of the last minute omg we need to vote for someone confusion. 1 he is not that scummy. a lot of scumhunting and nothing that strikes me as a huge scumslip 2 he's not even a lurker. I thought he was more of a lurker but I just went through his filter and I would not consider him a lurker. He had a few posts on day 1 that made him seem active, but they said very little. Then he promises more posts after he sleeps. His next post is a vote with a single line of text. And then he only really shows up when he's being put up on the vote, and they don't offer any scumhunting. The only time it gets close is when he called out SDM because he posted his reasoning in the post before he voted. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
debears
United States2516 Posts
The evidence backing the mason claim is good, as pointed out by thrawn and sonic, and with sharky's confirm. Debears is still a slightly scummy read from me, last nights incident didn't really help my read on him. He wasn't particularly involved aside from in a swing in, swing out post. SDM, and Thrawn I have very strong reads on from that, you both easily could have pushed a bandwagon on me very hard, and it likely would have stuck. So neither of you strike me as red because you had the perfect opportunity to lynch a fairly active person claiming mason, and both dumped it. I stated early in the morning that I would not be there for the lynch due to practice (and I play for a D1 baseball team, I don't really have a choice for scheduling. I also stated that I had classes until 5 (the last one was a physics lab in which I have to be active). I had to do a quick in and out because I was in a rush and there was a lot to read. @Atreides Unfortunately, there were a lot of us absent at the time of the lynch. One person does stand out from the crowd of us absentees, Atreides + Show Spoiler + On September 19 2012 11:55 Atreides- wrote: In defense of Sharrant - He's in a similar position to debears - bad decisions do not necessarily mean scum. Think about it - what could a mafia hope to gain by this? Getting a lynch is far too ambitious, and a role claim isn't worth getting so much attention to yourself. Mafia wouldn't want to aggressively pursue targets, they want to passively follow the crowd. Sharrant rode hard on debears, and has shown that he's willing to use his vote freely. I think that trying to get a role claim is a bad idea (debears will claim vanilla town no matter what role he is, this tells us nothing) but I don't see what's scummy about that. He's actively scumhunting, and both of his ideas (kush being SK, pressuring on debears) are original. Someone mentioned the possibility of debears+thrawn being masons, which is something I didn't think of. The bromance between the two is pretty apparent since the beginning. Both have said that they believe the other is town, and they've used FOS (against sonic) and vote (against Sharrant) in unison. Thoughts? I don't see a strong case for both debears and Sharrant right now. I'd be more inclined to vote for KillingTime if anything. At that point, there wasn't anything concrete, so your judgement passed. Now, for his next post related to sharrant + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 06:41 Atreides- wrote: Oh man, what an interesting situation. Some possible outcomes: 1) We decide to lynch Sharrant, he then outs the other mason. Pretty bad outcome as the mason will simply die. 2) Sharrant outs a mason, he confirms, and we lynch cubu or killing. At this point it's very unlikely for both Sharrant and his ally to be mafia, and more likely for both to be masons. Relatively strong outcome. 3) We lynch Sharrant without him revealing the mason. If he was bluffing and flips red, this is a huge win, but it's a stretch. If he flips mason, we're in trouble. 4) Sharrant doesn't reveal the mason and we lynch cubu or killing. This seems like rolling the dice, as we wouldn't have any idea if Sharrant is lying or not, and it's very possible for us to lynch a townie on top of that. I'm leaning towards 2) as an option right now unless something changes. From the description it sounds like masons come in pairs, and it'd be extremely unlikely for there to be more than 2 masons in any case. If I'm wrong on any of the game mechanics here please correct me. I feel that both Killing and Stutters are slightly scummy/lurky but cubu sounds like a strong vote as well. I was hoping for him to post by now. ##unvote ##vote cubu You fail to mention any of the stuff between that and the mason claim. Sharrant had 6 votes, and had said things that didn't make any sense until the claim. Next, you don't post anything until 1 minute after the deadline, citing the preference for a no lynch. + Show Spoiler + Atreides- United States. September 20 2012 09:16. Posts 72 PM Profile Quote # filter On September 20 2012 09:09 Sonic Death Monkey wrote: Show nested quote + What is this? You don't post ANYTHINBG productive for 48 hours and then you conveniently drop by 1 minutes after deadline to chime in you think drazak is a mislynch. Is this hunting for cheap townie points before drazak is flipping green? I wasn't around after my last post, and I mixed up the voting deadline by an hour (thought it would be an hour from now, my bad). Your last sentence is a pretty moot point since it'd look equally bad for me if he flipped red. I find it odd that you happen to just "mix up the deadline" and yet check and post at 9:01 about the no lynch even though the thread was "blowing up". That means you must have been looking at the thread. And that means you must have known about the deadline's correct time. + Show Spoiler + On September 20 2012 15:10 Atreides- wrote: I didn't actually know about the no-lynch until the mod posted about it. If I had, I would've suggested it quite a while ago. I'm assuming that voting for a no-lynch works the same way as voting for a lynch, in that we just need a majority of votes (and not every vote like you said). Maybe I'm wrong on this. There weren't any exceptionally strong arguments against killer / drazak. The consensus was "eh, he's kinda scummy, and kinda lurking, and he's kinda the best option, let's kill him and see what happens". The problem with choosing between killer and drazak is that, like I meant earlier, mafia has a lot of power here. If killer turns out to be mafia, his team can go for a drazak vote and the bandwagon easily follows because nobody has strong feelings one way or the other. The time constraint and confusion was really perfect for something like this. So yeah, as a principle I'd support no-lynching (on day one only) versus doing a half-assed lynch on someone else. I'm mostly waiting for Cubu / his replacement to comment about the mason thing, as that's the key factor to Sharrant's innocence. When he made the claim he had no idea whether or not Cubu would end up posting and voting, which makes lying an amazingly ballsy play. Will be around again tomorrow afternoon. Yet again, you cite that there weren't any strong cases again. You are indecisive. You were purposely lurking at lynch deadline. The time constraint and confusion was really perfect for something like this. Do you really expect every lynch to be easy, with laid out proof and someone screaming out "I'm mafia"?...c'mon man | ||
| ||
I won't be here for the 2 hours up to and for a while after the lynch , unless my coach changes his mind. I will post what I can in the morning and lunch.
