PK, could it be that you took 15 mns to write this?
Well, back to business, you won't make me stop with your vote!
Let's look at Mandy's defense.
mandalorian22981 wrote:1) I didn't vote for Chad because I didn't know that he was scum
2) I was FOSing chad, but you were voting Red Bull. I think that it is abundantly obvious who was 'moving the heat from him'. Also, I NEVER protect my scum-buddies. "If you get yourself in trouble, you won't pull me in with you
", is my motto.
3. Didn't you read my whole post? I think I presented good reasons for stoping at two blind lynches (though I changed my mind when Aimless pointed out the advantages of killing one more.)
4. I'm pissed of at Spin because of his behaviour of late (He is on my black list). And since we were going to blind-lynch someone I wanted to mix buissnes with pleasure.
1&2: No, when you posted this my vote wasn't on RB but on Chad. Geez, I even posted the page number. Matter of fact, the deadline was coming close, we weren't sure if we could get a lynch, and yet you avoid voting. You might never protect your scum buddies, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't avoid voting for them if the lynch isn't clear.
3: I read it, and presented the reasons why it was weird back then. I understand you retracted this opinion, but it still striked me as scummy that you were so eager to finish with this bad day for scum.
4: Fair enough, I'm pissed off at Spin too, and this could have made a fine 3rd lynch, but pushing for lynching inactives is still a scum-tell IMO so I putted it there too.
Incandenza wrote:ga7 wrote:Ok, I looked back mostly at Chad's lynch because as RB was SK, I'm not sure it brings us as much info.
Not true. I guarantee that there were scum onboard the red bull lynch, probably more than were on the chad lynch.
Of course there were, but I thought Aimless already covered it pretty well with his list, as in RB's case there weren't so many unvotes and hesitations; as Aimless presented the final vote counts in both lynches the part on RB is accurate.
Incandenza wrote:ga7 wrote:Scum took at shot with Balsie, a not obvious NK choice as he was in the heat at the end of the day. Wouldn't that be perfect to incriminate his accusers? (And yeah, that includes me too
)
Also not true. It doesn't work like that. What's the point of the mafia drumming up suspicion against someone and then NKing them, unless the rest of the town was adamant about not killing said person (which was not the case with balsie)
Well, this NK matter is complicated, but what you said there doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't clear at all that we would go on lynching Balsie the day after, and why wouldn't the mafia try to incriminate his accusers? It's a bit of a WIFOM I guess
Aimless wrote:I'm a power role. I'm not a cop; but I do have an investigative ability. I targeted mandy with it last night, and my result suggests that he's town; however, I won't know for certain unless he claims. If he does claim, though, I will basically be able to tell if he's lying, and thus that should confirm what I know.
This, and the NKs matter, makes me think people forget something: the setup of catastrophe mafia needs to be balanced. Exile pointed out some time ago the possibility of another SK remaining if the mafia really has only one NK. That makes me think that unless we got somehow lucky RB didn't use his power. But I'm still more inclined to think the mafia has 2 NKs.
Now, about the investigate roles, it seems weird to me that there'd be 2 of them. So, if there's really a cop out there, IMO this claim is a bit fishy. It's also possible Aimless has the only investigative role... Either way, I'm not convinced we should rely too heavily on this. I'm also not sure I understand why you wanted a mass roleclaim if your only investigation came up as townie Aimless... I feel this deserves to be examined more in depth, so
FOS Aimless.
It could be either. Though I still think it's a lost cause because my idea is that RB killed BAl, and they killed RB.
