Think about it this way: You were a mason trying to get rid of a suspected scum (Nabakov). The cop claims, and not only that, he's got an innocent on Nabakov. Do you:
a) continue to accuse Nabakov, pushing for his lynch
b) accuse the claimed cop of being nabakov's scum partner
c) discredit the cop's investigation
Observe:
kravhen wrote:Lies. You're NOT cop, and NabNab is NOT innocent. You're scum #2. Well this is going pretty well so far, I'm satisfied. Is there a third scum around with something to say? geez
kravhen wrote:I continue standing by my claim and that NabNab is scum while desisted is probably his scummate. If we do lynch NabNab today, he'll turn up scum, then I politely ask the REAL COP to invistigate me tonight (I'm probably a prime investigation subject anyway) to clear me and then lynch desisted tomorrow, successfully lynching 2 scum in the next 2 days. I don't like power-role guiding, but this is one of the outcomes I can see happening.
kravhen wrote:I'm still here..
I'm keeping my vote on NabNab and I'm wondering how I should proceed from this point... I don't wanna lose.. I hate losing.
kravhen wrote:Well that's one person who I see will not give thought to my word. I guess I'm not that surprised.
Anyone else want to follow desisted and vote me?
Any scum wanna use the opportunity to appear super pro-town by mocking my post and discarding it completely ( conveniently ) and vote me?
Come on, people, think about this. Is this how a
mason
would act?
I might've bought their most recent explanation if there weren't so many chinks in the puzzle. Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words.
More points of interest:
kravhen wrote:What if we were all town bickering with each other while the scumz sit back, wait and throw the generic and usual comment about stuff just so that they don't get labeled lurker and get prodded. Which makes me think. What are y'all's opinions on this? And by y'all I mean whoever's name isn't albert, kravhen, desisted and nabakov. O snap?
He knows his gambit isn't going through, so he tries to throw suspicion on the lurkers, looking for a mislynch there.
kravhen wrote:I like how you say I had a guilty on someone when really all I said was that I saw him visit patrick and that IMPLIED high chances of scuminess, therefore the vote. Then someone made sure we considered GF.
What a crock of sh*t. You accuse him of having visited the deadman last night, and you vote for him. When he claims vanilla, you continue to vote for him. Then the cop comes out to back him up, and you still want him dead?
Moreover, if you're so convinced me and nabakov are the scum team, why would you stop going at us all of a sudden?
Nabakov, I see where you're coming from with the "too scummy to be scum" theories, especially on why Albert would proceed to back up the mason claim. Let me just say this: If this were anyone other than Albert, I would've gone down the same path of thought as you have. They're taking a huge gamble here, trying to bank off the implausibility of the situation at hand.
This. Is. [color=red][b]SPARTA![/b][/color]
[color=red][b][i]V/LA Dec 22 - Jan 4[/i][/b][/color]