Ragian In response. I have summarised as yours is a long post, if you disagree with my summarising then let me know.
-Streaker said to beware of Wing. I agree that everyone should constantly assess whether I am mafia or town. I am not confirmed town and nobody should be assuming I am. I object to his reasoning as it suggests that I am not looking for two mafia players, when I believe there to be two mafia players.
-My vote switch. I feel I have explained my switch elsewhere, but to deal with the specific questions
Ragian wrote:1) If you think someone is scum, you vote for them. You don't switch to a townie in order to get "more information".
2) The only information from lynching streaker is "the idea" that "Sausage or Pixar" are parthners. THE IDEA! Vague shit.
3) If streaker was in fact guilty of his scumtell "all game", why the heck would you just bring it up now?
4) You can't state that Tim is playing poorly and then say that the dakky lynch was uninformative since Tim defended dakky D1 (which is poor play). So it's either or.
1) I think you may have arrived at a similar situation to I was in D2 judging by your latest posts. But I was struggling to seperate everyone out. My case on Tim was very basic and nobody really argued it. It just didnt sit right with me. My post below was a genuine feeling. I didnt vote Streaker believing him to be town, I voted him believing him to be mafia.
WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:I have a strongly held belief that you're all mafia and that End has made this game to torture me.
2) We gather more information from Streaker flipping town, than Tim flipping town. And I think this has been shown to be true in hindsight. Agreed that if Tim is mafia I made a mistake and I accept that as my fault.
3) I dont tend to tell Streaker that I have suspicions about his play as he will adapt and appear to be town again. He is very careful about how he posts. Unless I have a full case against him I am unlikely to say much about his play. Check the game, you wont find me saying he is town either.
4) Tim didnt outright defend Dakky, and we cant prove that he did. We cannot determine his reasoning for voting mitch rather than Dakky at that point of the game. If you go down that route alone you will find that multiple players have given incorrect reads in hindsight, unless you believe that we should lynch everyone who said that Streaker was mafia?
Ragian wrote:But wing was also of the conviction that it would not give us any information. So why push the case? And he unvote very few posts after I put Tim at L-1. I think he got spooked and had to act. Why push a case the entire day and then abandon it? I don't buy it.
I am very glad that you are posting properly. However, yesterday it was just Tim, TWR, Streaker and I. If you can hold onto your convictions with minimal feedback from over 50% of the players in the game, then you are a better player than I. TWR was clearly tunneled on me and Streaker for reasons I didnt agree with, so his contribution was unhelpful to me, though understandable. That left just Tim and Streaker having any real contribution. I'm sorry but I struggled with that.
Ragian wrote:I wanted Tim lynched yesterday for the simple reasons that he:
1) Defended our only known scum D1 without any real reasons (to me anyway).
2) Went for our soft claimed cop D2.
How much have you seen Tim play? Him going after a soft claimed cop in no way surprises me.
I hope that helps. Now Rage where were you D2? This sort of contribution would have been so helpful, especially for the player most believed to be town.
@Tim. I have another question for Tim. What are your reads on all the players in the game? I ask because you are jumping about sporadically, I'd be surprised if there was more than 2 mafia so you need to be reading some players as town.
@Sausage. Do you genuinely believe that a scum partnership of myself and Tim is possible? I can see the logic with Soldier4dead, as I did put in a lot of work to stop us lynching his predecessor cyaneeter, so there is mutual defence there. But Tim? Really? How did you get to that conclusion?