Mini Mafia Down Under 2

Here, Superbia mentions that the prphlz lynch is okay.Superbia votes for prphlz, with his main reason being that the prphlz wagon was full of town, while the Alakaslam votes were much more suspicious. It seems like Superbia is trying to distance himself from the lynch. However, at End of Day Superbia is very forceful about lynching prphlz instead of Alakaslam:
Basically, Superbia came into the thread, tried to get a vote switch to (in my opinion at the time, probably town) ritoky. And this vote switch was pretty hopeless with less than fifteen minutes to End of Day and ritoky only had one vote. So, Superbia still hasn't voted. He sees Palmar hard pushing prphlz, and sees rsoultin wavering. Superbia votes for prphlz, while distancing himself from this vote, and then hard pushes the prphlz lynch. Very mafia-motivated play.

Superbia's play relied on sheeping Palmar. He did so with the push on prphlz, with Palmar's scum list after the flip, and in this post, where he tells town to sheep Palmar:However, Superbia never directly provided a read on Palmar. In addition, he says that all of his reads are rather weak:So his sheeping of Palmar and telling everyone else to do so makes no sense. Palmar's play was not very impressive in this game, and it wasn't terribly alignment indicative, either.

Superbia is also extremely confident that Alakaslam is town.But Superbia never provided a read on Alakaslam before this. If he is confident in Alakaslam being town, wouldn't that have helped him decide his vote sooner than four minutes before End of Day? And wouldn't that have been mentioned in his post where he explained his vote? The only town explanation for this is that Superbia figured out Alakaslam's alignment using something that happened between his vote and the time of this post, right after the flip. Prphlz flipping town makes Alakaslam look worse, if anything, so that leaves rsoultin's vote switch. The argument that Superbia is using is that rsoultin's vote switch from Alakaslam to prphlz shows that both of them are scum. I will discuss this argument next, but other than this argument, Superbia's sudden town read on Alakaslam is absolutely senseless.

Superbia's reasoning for rsoultin being scum is as follows. Mafia!rsoultin led a lynch on town!Alakaslam and then switched to town!prphlz at the last second. The reason for this switch would be to avoid the blame for the mislynch, having pushed the other wagon, and then push the original wagon for a mislynch the next day. The first part of this reason is nonsense, as switching votes to hammer a town player always leaves you to blame for the mislynch, even if you were supporting the other wagon all the time. The second part of this reason is also nonsense, as scum could simply push the unlynched wagon for a mislynch the next day as well. Note that Superbia was very supportive of the vote switch that rsoultin did ("Vote for prphlz or claim scum"), but immediately scumread her for doing so.
This is a very interesting post. Superbia says that the reasoning for scumreading Alakaslam was weak. He didn't say this earlier, before the lynch. Then, he says that most of the votes on Alakaslam were incredibly town. Remember earlier when he referenced questionable votes on the Alakaslam wagon as a reason for voting for prphlz? Superbia is saying that the Alakaslam wagon was based on horrible reasons, and pushed by a mafia player, while having half of the people on it being decently scummy (and overall scummier than the prphlz wagon), but still with most of the people on the wagon being incredibly town.

If Superbia is mafia, he knew that Alakaslam getting hit by a vigilante would be extremely bad for him. Remember that he told the vigilante to shoot rsoultin. Then a few posts later, he added that the cop should be on ritoky. This almost feels like he was trying to throw off the vigilante, and then added the cop comment as a tag-along to avoid it looking suspicious.

Superbia has stated very clearly that he thinks that Alakaslam was bussed. I don't need to provide quotes of this. But he is basically defending his own vote without saying that he is defending himself.

This sentence seems fine at first, but then I remembered that I said this:Maybe there is a reason that Superbia wants to keep me from sharing reads a lot? And maybe it's because was suspicious of him?

In addition, Superbia frequently apologizes for his play. I don't think I need to provide quotes of this either, but it feels more suspicious to me.