Were you going to vote for a person without building a case against them? Why vote by yourself, now or later?[DOUBLEPOST=1408586133][/DOUBLEPOST]Better question: How will voting by itself help town?
Truth. Truth or dare to the below?[DOUBLEPOST=1408581413][/DOUBLEPOST] If you died right now, what would be your greatest regret?
I do not have an abundance of relationship experience. Even so, I have done this without a huge hassle. Everyone involved seems comfortable with it and the relationships are all healthy. I may be lucky. It takes maturity and adaptability to manage something that clean. A lot of emotional rearranging which not everyone may be capable of. I'm glad it worked out that way. Friends have a lot of value. At the end of the day, the possibility exists and I have no problem with it.
He was easily the next most suspicious person (as far as I can tell) and everyone thought they had no time to build a case on anyone else.
Who is this person?
Reminds me of this story.
Haha, very funny.
-_-
Suspiciously specific denial of the sex slave thing...
Like hyuge said, it's important to have a mind of your own. What if mafia came on and told you to vote now?
Sounds like a BDSM dungeon situation.
... Ouch. I can't believe I didn't check the date.
Oh, you did? My bad, sorry.
If we don't lynch them, we'll have an no lynch...[DOUBLEPOST=1408574503][/DOUBLEPOST]##Unvote: Beau ##Vote: Krowley I agree with Lux's reasons. Mafia don't usually get upset about being found out; it's the town who feel the most alone when they're targeted. That said, twenty minutes to dead line... Better hurry...[DOUBLEPOST=1408574741][/DOUBLEPOST]@h y u g e @Vivi's Dark Side @Calxiyn @TwilightBlader @What? @Princess ♥
Yeah, yeah... Sorry, Marushi. Lost sight of the game part of the game.
Red flags are exactly what you base cases on. Get better at two things. Getting the correct impression the first time it's explicitly stated, and explicitly stating your meaning in one to three sentences. The particular reasoning in question only makes sense when someone refusing to vote is doing so without solid reasons, especially against a stronger argument or a majority. If you happened to be dead set against a lynch on someone who was looking very suspicious, that would cast suspicion on you because the only reason to be dead set against a lynch is if you know the suspicions on them are baseless. Refusing to vote with a weak case does not mean much. I already said that it did not apply to you because there wasn't a wagon big enough for it to be an issue. I explained when I would suspect you specifically to contrast the difference with our current circumstances. If I think you are mafia, I'll outright say it. Your assumptions are wild. Your interpretations of my positions have been wrong at every turn. Think before you post. Slim your posts down. Maybe then you won't have these double posting problems. Sucks about Beau. There's not much you can do with this situation.[DOUBLEPOST=1408512369][/DOUBLEPOST]Learning from my earlier experiences, clarifying before you misunderstand again. "If you happened to be dead set against a lynch on someone who was looking very suspicious, that would cast suspicion on you because the only reason to be dead set against a lynch is if you know the suspicions on them are baseless." As town, you can't know that they are baseless. There are no town aligned cop roles. You must be mafia or reporter if you know. If you don't know, then you're acting strangely. See my first couple of posts about Wagons and the context they should be used in.[DOUBLEPOST=1408512540][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, I vote to lynch and call it a day. It was hectic enough getting to that point.[DOUBLEPOST=1408513403][/DOUBLEPOST]@Marushi: If you couldn't tell, you touched a pet peeve of mine. I figure I've got time. Logic is logic, but the context it is applied in is what makes it valuable. Take the following logical process: P1: Everything I say is true. P2: I say you are mafia. Conclusion: You are mafia. This is logical. You could say it's Objective Truth, if we assume P1 and P2. However, both proposition 1 and 2 are false. The context is hypothetical. The context of my logic for people who refuse to vote on a wagon is context-dependent, like most logic. It doesn't apply to every situation. The premises have to be true. If you don't understand the context, say you don't understand. It goes a lot faster than typing out your long winded speculation.
I don't think it was just the one time, nor a grammar mistake. You've spoken of town as something different from you elsewhere as well: 'The town'. Not once have you said 'us'. Can't shake the feeling. That said, I think we need another option for this vote since it already has five and counting. My secondary suspicion is Krowley; I am willing to switch to that vote if enough people prefer it. We have almost two days left.
There is a lot of horrible reactions after the initial blunder, but I'm baffled as to why the thing itself isn't sinking in: He said 'you all townies'. As in, 'you group I am not a part of'. Wouldn't be such an issue if it made sense as typo, but it doesn't. People don't say 'you all group that I am a part of'. It has only one interpretation. He didn't consider himself part of 'townies' when he said it. It's really, really hard to get a better tell than that. He has four votes as of now, I believe. My other choice would be Krowley. No. I only count that logic when a real wagon forms. If you were actively against it past 6 votes on a gut read, then I'd raise a brow. About your default vote, I'm seeing it as a waste of time, like a lot of the votes so far. default saw your vote and reacted. Votes aren't flocking to your target. You aren't pressing it further. Your case on him is dead for now. Letting your case sit on him, sitting on your vote, is not helping us get anywhere.
You can't expect to be right 100% of the time. If you hold out to vote until you are sure, you will end up becoming a liability. Mafia know who mafia are. We don't. They can group together. If we refuse to because it's too risky, we will lose.
