Mini 735 - Bad Times In Kuribonia- Game over!

[12]

/coinfirm

[12]

Vote: Polymorph

for his avatar's silly use of displacement maps.

[12]

oh, my...

Unvote: polymorph

for his extrusion skillz.

[12]

Well, in my opinion, suspiciously speaking such suspicious statements surely sanctions suspicion, so I shall save my suspicions in stasis, suspecting the sum until my suspicions are silenced.

[12]

I suspect Kierean (reason in bold)

I totaly agree, prof gumpy.

I think Random votes are a waste of time. We should investigate and put pressure on people,

lets say three votes, enough to make them sweat,

He may just be saying this to cover up the fact that he's Mafia.

I fail to see how this is relevant. Any among us may be saying anything to cover up our mafia connection. This seems to me to be an attempt to add undue suspicion.

[12]

Vote Kieraen

saying to watch out for people bandwagoning seems a little scummy

This, also is irrelevant. Bandwagoning leads to speedy lynches, which are good for scum. A reminder to avoid a lynch until we have a decent idea that the victim is scum only benefits the town. Your suspicion sounds like scum taking an easy target to me.

[12]

I've noticed when people "rock the boat"(like by self voting or saying they don't like random voting), they have a tendancy to get voted on and attacked. There are ways to go about scum hunting besides being overtly confrontational.

I await your demonstration of such technique.

Mafia can always find a reason to lynch, and already people are asking questions of myself, REECER, MONKEYMAN, and HOUSE OF CARDS.

I would argue that as a starting point for discussion it has worked.

I would agree with this viewpoint, keeping in mind especially the fact that there is not much to go on at this point, so straw-grasping is quite a bit more forgivable than later in the game.

failed logic is scummy-

Now, now. Let's not be hasty. Poor logic is not necessarily scummy. It's entirely possible that a poor argument is merely a result of the arguer's inarticulation or of the lack of evidence, given the small amount of elapsed gameplay time.

That’s all I’ve got for quotes right now, but I’d like to add that we’ve seen nothing of qwints since the initial confirmation. Would you care to comment, qwints?

[12]

Poor logic is scummy. Mafia is a game of logic, and the best way for the town to win is to use good logic and to point out poor logic. Does it mean someone using poor logic is scum? No. But poor logic is scummy compared to good logic.

That being said, there are ways the mafia can use logic to their advantage, but, by and large, logic is the towns friend and the mafia's enemy.

This may be true, but there is a tendency to evaluate the validity of arguments without thinking on the soundness. That is, an argument that is logically correct may be based on false premises, but still received as good logic.

Furthermore, what the mafia feed upon are not poor arguments, but rather slight miscalculations in speech on the part of the townies.

But this is become irrelevant. I'll happily drop the point if you will.

[12]

For the record, Reeser's evasiveness is extremely scummy and I support a lynch. I'm not going to vote at this time to avoid a quick lynch, so

FOS: Reeser

Four days and that's all you have to say? I find that a bit odd. Would you care to take a look at the rest of the game?


Other than this, I agree with the general sentiment that we don’t have much information on anyone, making a lynch decision unwise at this point. While I wouldn’t condone Kiearan’s affinity for capitals and spitfire, neither of these things point to scumminess. It can certainly be said, however, that he is quick to accuse, but that may be nothing more than fanaticism.

Oh, and I have a Y chromosome, for future pronoun reference.

[12]

Oh come on. There's only one town role that could know he was innocent. The fact that you're not claiming mason right now has drawn my vote. (Note that this only puts him at L-2)

vote: Reecer6

You've ignored most of the game thus far, and now you've added this flimsy argument on top of that? He said he

thinks

and added '(role revealing)' for (likely false) credibility. I'm flagging you here because you seem to have gone unnoticed by most of the players. I don't have anything close to a basis for an accusation, but I'm a bit suspicious.