Mafia 70: Traditional - Game over!

[Simenon]

Thinking about it, no, I don't think you should have lied if you are town.

I do think, however, that you should have taken steps earlier to ensure the masons would be off your case before you claimed.

I'm going to unvote bookitty because I'm not sure she's the lynch anymore, especially with niv acting the way he is, I can't be certain she's a scum mason. Also, it seems other options are developing right now.

Unvote
Vote MoS

[quote[8) Mastermind of Sin -- Voted Zeppo, Did not vote Toaster Strudel (voted battle mage), Voted Yamahako[/quote]

[Simenon]

Unvote
Vote MoS[/quote]

8) Mastermind of Sin -- Voted Zeppo, Did not vote Toaster Strudel (voted battle mage), Voted Yamahako

[Bookitty]

Thinking about it, no, I don't think you should have lied if you are town.

I do think, however, that you should have taken steps earlier to ensure the masons would be off your case before you claimed.

What steps would those have been?

[Simenon]

I did not out Ether by claiming.

You did, although indirectly. You gave a damn good reason for me to check my "logic" with ether.

She didn't out herself with her response to it

I acknowledge Bookitty's claim but will not move my vote.

I still fail to see the logic of voting for me simply because I'm a mason, which is the reasoning you've stated so far. Could you explain that to me, please?

Certain in-group conversations had led me to believe you were a/the scum mason, which is also I'm sure the reason why ether voted you. That was one of the reasons why I voted you.

[Simenon]

Unvote
Vote Mastermind of Sin

What steps would those have been?

Addressing the masons indirectly might have been nice.

[Bookitty]

There was simply no way to address the masons indirectly without outing myself as one. I made the assumption, clearly erroneous, that you were using your votes on me to lure out scum who would jump on Setael's logic-bereft wagon. So I remained silent as long as I could on that front, to give no hint of the gambit I thought you were attempting.

If there is a scum mason, then the scum already know who all the masons are. In that case, there'd be no disadvantage to town knowing as well. I was working on the unproven assumption that there was a miller mason or that one of the masons was an SK, because the other case means there's really no advantage to being a hidden mason at all.

So your argument isn't logically consistent. If you really believed I was a scum mason, then there's no disadvantage to town knowing what scum already knows. So my claiming was not disadvantageous to town. Your argument boils down to "How dare you roleclaim when I'm trying to lynch you!" Additionally, I hadn't roleclaimed when you decided you needed to discuss with Ether in thread, so even then, YOU outed Ether. If I had addressed the masons indirectly (and I would argue that I posted to the entire town, not leaving the masons out) then you might have a case that I had outed Ether, but as it is, you made all the decisions that led to that, and in fact outed her yourself.

[Setael]

Ok so I'm confused by a few things. Simenon, you seem to have good reasons to think Boo is scum. Mason conversations as well as in game play. These are ALL outweighed by the fact that Niv didn't object to the lynch before Boo claimed?

Also, I don't know about everyone else but nothing gave me the impression Ether was a mason until you (Sim) stated it outright. I am bothered by you trying to pin that on Bookitty and/or Ether.

Thats dumb logic. Or is it scum logic? I sincerely hope my vote is on you.

Amazing as this may sound, assuming Boo and Sim are both masons, they might just be genuinely suspicious of each other!
It does not mean 1 of them has to be untrustworthy, but it does indicate that they have some reason to think it is worthwhile to off the other one.
Either way, the fact that you are potentially trying to set up multiple lynches based on an obvious inaccuracy, is intensely scummy.

Unvote, Vote: Setael

So obviously scum its not even funny anymore.

BM

Interesting. Sure looks like you're distracting, BM. I unvoted because I wanted some discussion from the claimed masons before Boo was hammered. If Boo is NOT the scum mason, then one of the others is, so it's obviously helpful to get their take on it.

I'm not following your logic on this. If you think I'm scum, and scum with Korejora no less, then why would you think I'd ask her questions that are "solid points" or worth responding to?

Really, Boo? We're supposed to believe you would never distance in this way?

I am now torn. If I was wrong about Bookitty and she is a town mason, it makes sense for Simenon now to change his vote to MoS, since if Boo comes up town, the odds become higher that Simenon is the scum mason. Plus, he's not making sense to me. The Niv suspicion being his first reason to move off Bookitty, and then instead of going for Niv he votes MoS. Again could be because any mason who comes up town narrows it down. Plus he outed Ether regardless of what he says.

Simenon, please explain your MoS vote. Listing his voting record is not good enough for me, especially considering recent events.

[Skruffs]

Would a townie mason be more likely to 'persecute' a perceived scum mason than a scum mason?

If someone just outed their entire mason group, can't that be considered a much scummier thing, esp if they are already voting one of their mason partners? I'm looking at you, here, Simenon...

[Simenon]

.

I made the assumption, clearly erroneous, that you were using your votes on me to lure out scum who would jump on Setael's logic-bereft wagon.

Clearly, seeing as this makes very little sense.

In that case, there'd be no disadvantage to town knowing as well.

Well then, why make it any secret in the first place?
I'd like an answer before responding to this.

Also, when did I suggest that the mason necessarily had to be a

mafia

mason? Why would you assume that?

Additionally, I hadn't roleclaimed when you decided you needed to discuss with Ether in thread, so even then, YOU outed Ether

Nobody would have understood if you hadn't claimed.

In fact, they didn't at all.

If I had addressed the masons indirectly (and I would argue that I posted to the entire town, not leaving the masons out) then you might have a case that I had outed Ether, but as it is, you made all the decisions that led to that, and in fact outed her yourself.

So if you have lived in fear of this the whole game, why haven't you voted me?
And if you have not, this point is useless, since you couldn't have forseen me "outing ether" in the first place.
I'm leaning towards the latter.

These are ALL outweighed by the fact that Niv didn't object to the lynch before Boo claimed?

I haven't talked to Niv since he went on about ignoring his pms.

Would a townie mason be more likely to 'persecute' a perceived scum mason than a scum mason?

If someone just outed their entire mason group, can't that be considered a much scummier thing, esp if they are already voting one of their mason partners? I'm looking at you, here, Simenon...

What are you babbling about? None of this makes any sense. I'm arguing that bookitty outed the mason group first, and she is arguing that I just outed ether first, both of which makes your post mean about nothing, skruffs.

[Skruffs]

Bookitty, that was a horrible, horrible claim. Regardless, I was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons, that's why I assumed Ether was voting Bookitty, and that was the reason why I asked ether if she was voting bookitty because of my reasoning.

Haven't we been over how being a mason doesn't confirm you?

I will rephrase it later, but it instigated a different point: You seem to be implying that Bookitty shouldn't have claimed because doing so would have outed you and ether. Then, after she claimed, you confirm-outed Ether.

Were you hoping to out ether? Was bookitty supposed to not claim? How would that have looked on any of the masons who were voting their buddy later on in hte game if they then decided to claim??

[Simenon]

Were you hoping to out ether? Was bookitty supposed to not claim? How would that have looked on any of the masons who were voting their buddy later on in hte game if they then decided to claim??

I've been over this- Ether (or so I thought; it would be great if she confirmed this) already confirm-outed Ether.

[Ether]

Confirming masonhood.

I hadn't really intended my statement as a claim (just an indication that I was aware of Bookitty's claim) and I wasn't planning to out myself today, but, meh, whatever. I do think Colin was the person who outed me. That's about as far as I understand this line of discussion. Someone needs to spell this out for me.

I did

not

vote Bookitty for her masonhood--on the contrary, that had been holding me back. (I actually

did

drop a hint about this in 1779. TS was blatantly masonfishing at the end of Day 1, and I've wavered on the implications of this throughout the game.) I think her claim timing was obviously the smart thing to do regardless of her alignment. I didn't realize what Colin was asking; I thought he just wanted me to commit to a position.

Actually, I voted as a combination of Setael's original point and a later Bookitty/Setael exchange, started on 1789, regarding Bookitty's confidence. "I could be wrong" indeed.

Regarding Bookitty/Kore--I do not look for deeper meaning in the posts of someone who is at -2. The points were valid. That is as far as I'll read.

Soooooooo...let's see. Bookitty bounced her miller hypothesis off of me last night and I nodded absently. I misinterpreted it as a paranoia thing--for the record, I do

not

believe that Patrick would put millers into his game, especially on top of a roleblocker, and I think the nightkills point to a vig, not a serial killer. I did start worrying at some point that if Bookitty was arguing for literal millers, there might be a

reason

for this. (Because of the roleblocker, though, I suppose this isn't a practical point.)

Also, this is another point against JDodge, which I couldn't make earlier without hypocrisy--a -1 vote with no real curiosity or interest in a claim. (To be fair, I've

hammered

in the past without a claim as town, but, yeah.)

My recent MoStown statements have been completely serious. They're based off of Lemming's hatred toward MoS at the end of Day 1--the optimal play for him would have been to check MoS, not TS. (Sanity questions if there were indeed two cops, TS was frankly already on borrowed time, et cetera.) If Lemming had gotten a scum result on MoS Night 1, that would have been a catastrophe for the scum. They could have prevented this with a roleblock if they were worried, but they didn't.

[Skruffs]

Why do you think they point towards a vig, ether?

[Ether]

Flameaxe dead Night 1, no one dead Night 3. (Setael1's death could go either way, I think.)

[Skruffs]

12) White (replacing Carrotcake) - Vanilla Townie - killed night 1
22) Flameaxe - Protown Mason - killed night 1

4) The Fonz - Protown Tracker - killed night 2
14) Setael (replacing hmrox) - Vanilla Townie - killed night 2

19) Erg0 - Protown Doctor - killed night 3

Maybe I missed something, but do we know that Flameaxe was a vig-kill and not a mafia-kill? Why wouldn't mafia want to out the mason team right off the bat by knocking off one of it's members?

Again: Haven't completely read through, but, did Fonz claim before he died? If not, why is he the likely mafia kill over Setael?

[Bookitty]

Confirming masonhood.

I hadn't really intended my statement as a claim (just an indication that I was aware of Bookitty's claim) and I wasn't planning to out myself today, but, meh, whatever. I do think Colin was the person who outed me. That's about as far as I understand this line of discussion. Someone needs to spell this out for me.

Your statement wasn't a claim. I wasn't intending to out you, nor do I think either you or I outed you. I thought it more useful to keep you hidden. That belief is only valid, however, if there isn't a scum mason, which you already knew was my view.

If there is a scum mason, then obviously the scum already know who the masons are, and ... what's the advantage of keeping that information only secret from town? So clearly I meant what I said about thinking that there might be a miller mason or two (the wording in the role PM led me to think that) or that the SK might be in our ranks. It's possible that I'm wrong. But I have been acting on that assumption.

I did think you and Simenon understood each other and that you were trying to set up a gambit to lure scum. Clearly that wasn't your understanding. I thought that at L-1, it was time to quit using myself for bait for what I supposed was Simenon's scumhunting tactic, so I claimed. As I read his reaction, however, I was supposed to allow myself to be lynched rather than claim. I don't understand what he thinks would be gained by that.

If he truly thought I was scum, why did he post a "lynch wagon starter" without unvoting when I was at L-1, and then after my claim unvote and vote Mastermind of Sin? Simenon KNEW I was a mason, so it couldn't have been that revelation that changed his mind.

If he was engaging in a gambit to see who would join the wagon, and didn't want me to claim, why did he wait to unvote until after I'd done so?

His actions don't make sense to me if he truly thought I was scum. Additionally, Setael did make a point that I had thought of myself when I was considering the different scenarios for town if I were lynched: my death would confirm me as town, thus narrowing down the suspects if it did turn out that I was wrong and one of the masons was in fact scum. So I didn't really see a downside either way, since I felt my wagon gained a lot of useful information for town that would be helpful when my alignment was revealed.

All in all, I can understand Ether's position, but Simenon's makes no sense to me whatsoever. And his responses to my questions have only worsened that confusion.

@Skruffs: The Fonz was the tracker, and pretty well confirmed when he was killed. I didn't see anything scummy out of Setael 1 to provoke a vig.

[Bookitty]

So if you have lived in fear of this the whole game, why haven't you voted me?
And if you have not, this point is useless, since you couldn't have forseen me "outing ether" in the first place.
I'm leaning towards the latter.

What is this referring to? I've clearly stated in nighttalk (to Ether, and I assumed she passed it along to you) that I believed that there was most likely a miller mason, and that it would be unlikely that one of the masons was scum. I also thought one of us might be the SK, but as I stated, I was leaning toward Niv, because he was quiet and because he provoked an argument with you to start with, outing the both of you, which seemed to me to be a way to avoid suspicion for most of the game.

So no, I wasn't living in fear of being outed, nor of having Ether outed, but I didn't think it was a good idea. That said, it's done now, but I'm not sure why you're so bent on blaming everyone but yourself for it.

[Simenon]

Your statement wasn't a claim.

And you don't think it could be construed as such?

(to Ether, and I assumed she passed it along to you)

Nope

I wasn't intending to out you, nor do I think either you or I outed you.

I have been suggesting you indirectly outed ether, which you did if anybody was observant enough to go back and look at a couple pages.

The rest of your post tries to prove what has already been admitted- I did think you were scum.

but I'm not sure why you're so bent on blaming everyone but yourself for it.

Certainly, I handled this in an awkward way. But I would never mention that in any game unless someone asked me about my responsibility, unless I am solely to blame.

----

If you read my posts from the beginning of the game, I have always suspected MoS. Now I see that there already is a vote on MoS, which makes me think there is renewed interest in his lynch. I don't want to vote anybody that I think would be a waste.

@Ether- Did we not have a conversation considering booky being a scum-mason? I'm sure I mentioned it a couple times.

[Setael]

I've been thinking about the setup re: the masons, and I think it's highly unlikely that there's one scum group, a member of which is one of the masons and knows all their identities. Makes the game much too one-sided and breaks the whole reason to have a mason group. I do think there are other possibilities that still make the other mason "untrustworthy".

One possibility is there are 2 scum groups, one of which contains a mason and therefore knows the identity of the other masons. The other group does not have this insight. The scum group that knows about the masons would likely be weaker in other respects to balance. For example, the godfather and RB might both be in the group that doesn't know the masons' identities. The group containing the mason might also be smaller, maybe just 2 people. Could also be solo (SK basically).

Another possibility is the "untrustworthy" mason is neutral - working on his own with a separate agenda. This agenda could be to out all the masons, and if he is able to accomplish this he wins. I only thought of this possibility after Simenon outed Ether, which doesn't make sense unless he has ulterior motives of some kind. This would make him a kind of rat or informer, but not scum. Something like this would make sense. His win condition could also be simpler - something like he has to be the last surviving mason. This would motivate him to get the other masons lynched and/or outed and therefore vulnerable to NKs. Both of these agendas would fit Simenon's recent play. I'm sure there are other possibilities, but I'm starting to think the untrustworthy mason is most likely neutral, or in some way anti-town, but not part of a scum group.

I have been suggesting you indirectly outed ether, which you did if anybody was observant enough to go back and look at a couple pages.

I am under the impression you are a more careful player than this. Did you ever at any time think it wouldn't be noticed, and therefore shouldn't be made obvious by YOU? Did you ever consider letting ether be the one to make it obvious? It makes no sense, and I need you to expound your thought process behind calling attention to ether's claim (from your POV) or outing ether (from my POV).

The rest of your post tries to prove what has already been admitted- I did think you were scum.

What changed your mind? I asked you the question about Niv because the only reason I've seen for you to move your vote off Bookitty was your suspicion at Niv's play on her wagon. Do you still think Boo is scum, or at least the "untrustworthy mason" or no? Your suspicions of Niv and then your weak reasoning for voting MoS does not seem strong enough for you to move your vote off Bookitty considering all the reasons you've now given for suspecting her.

[Simenon]

This is getting tedious.

I am under the impression you are a more careful player than this.

I have never been a careful player. See: communique mafia, Newbie 291 (I think)

Did you ever at any time think it wouldn't be noticed, and therefore shouldn't be made obvious by YOU? Did you ever consider letting ether be the one to make it obvious? It makes no sense, and I need you to expound your thought process behind calling attention to ether's claim (from your POV) or outing ether (from my POV).

No, I don't think it would have been obvious immediately, not until a couple game days later. By then, it would be towards the end of the game, and it didn't matter as much.

Do you still think Boo is scum, or at least the "untrustworthy mason" or no?

Less so, but still, yes. Part of the reason I unvoted her is that I don't think the town would lynch a claimed mason. The town needs someone to die.

[Setael]

Your half-answers are getting tedious. Why do you suspect Bookitty "less so" now? Not because she claimed, surely. So what are your reasons?

2 questions re: this statement:

Part of the reason I unvoted her is that I don't think the town would lynch a claimed mason. The town needs someone to die.

1) Why did you wagon Boo in the first place, then? If you think the town won't lynch a mason, why did you let her wagon get to -1 without ever trying to stop it or start a wagon on someone else? Did you really think she'd never claim?

2) Why aren't you giving a better reason for voting MoS, especially if you think the town needs a lynch so urgently?

[Patrick]

Votecount

Setael (2) -- Battle Mage, Bookitty
Bookitty (5) -- KaleiÐoscøpe, Niv, Mastermind of Sin, Ether, JDodge
Battle Mage (1) -- Elmo
Mastermind of Sin (2) -- Skruffs, Simenon

Not voting: Korejora, Sir Tornado, ZONEACE, Setael
14 alive, 8 to lynch.

[Sir Tornado]

Ok... just got up to date with all the claims.

I don't think Ether's post could be viewed, by any angle as a mason claim. I think it is in sync with the language she usually uses, and saw it as a acknowledgment that she did indeed take in the claim and was still not unvoting, so, yeah, I think Simenon outed Ether for no reason at all.

Also, I am curious to know why Simenon thinks BooKie shouldn't have claimed. Why on earth would you not want to claim when you are on -1 and likely to be lynched?

On the untrustworthy mason, I think it is possible that the untrustworthy mason is a mafia traitor, who can't communicate with mafia at night, but still knows who the mafia are, and who wins with the mafia. That would be much more balanced compared to the mason being a full member of the mason group (which makes no sense as the entire group could be outed during the night talks and could be killed off one by one)

About the vig/Sk issue, the lack of second night kill on N3 is certainly curious. I think it points to presence of a vig. Had there been a SK, then either the SK and mafia both targeted the doctor Ergo (which is kind of stretch), or one of them targeted the person doctor protected (which, I am sure would have been to cop).

The problem is, that neither scum nor the SK would have any incentive to get the cop on N3. The scum were clearly role blocking the cop, hence could use their NK to some other use, and the SK would not have gained anything from killing the cop (cops generally track only the scum), especially when you consider that there was a good chance that the cop would be protected in the first case.

This leaves mostly the possibility that there are 2 scum group, one with the RBer, and other with GF, or something to that effect. But, in such cases, generally when the scum dies, his scum group is mentioned. There was no such mention of any particular scum group when Toaster Strudel died, which makes me think it is more likely that there is only one scum group.

[Bookitty]

Simenon argues that he thought I was scum. His own statements are that he "was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons", that he doesn't understand why Niv didn't object to the lynch before I claimed, and that I outed Ether by claiming. Now, I didn't speak to Simenon or Niv during nighttalk, so I don't know on what he is basing his viewpoint. Ether clearly didn't pass along the comments I'd asked her to, so whatever information Simenon and Ether shared was just between them.

I do understand that if Simenon believed I was scum, it would be to his advantage if I didn't claim and just allowed myself to be lynched. But it makes no sense at all that he would think I would do that, if he really believed I were scum. His first comment (and he had not unvoted at this time) was "Bookitty, that was a horrible, horrible claim." Look at the tone, there. Does that seem like someone who thought they were addressing scum? It sounds more like someone scolding town for what they saw as a bad play, to me.

He stated this, in saying I was responsible for outing Ether: "You did, although indirectly. You gave a damn good reason for me to check my "logic" with ether." How? By defending myself? By trying my best not to out the masons while going along with what I believed to be a gambit on Simenon's part to out scum? What precisely was a "damn good reason" to talk to Ether in thread?

Simenon wrote: "What I don't understand, Niv, is why you didn't object to the lynch before bookitty claimed." Why would he expect this of Niv, when he stated this as well: "I haven't talked to Niv since he went on about ignoring his pms." Additionally, why would he want Niv to object to the lynch, if Simenon thought I was scum? How would Niv outing me be better than my claiming?

None of his statements make any sense if he believed I was scum. His entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim... not a premise that makes any sense, but even less sense if he really thought I was scum.

All of Simenon's arguments make a sort of broken sense, if you assume that Simenon is scum, trying to push the lynch of one of his mason partners, knowing I was town and hoping I'd be lynched before I claimed. It's not reasonable, nor does he give any good arguments for it. Why, if he thought I was scum, would he scold me for claiming? Why would he move his vote off me, when neither of his other mason partners had done so?

None of these arguments make any sense to me unless Simenon knew I was town and expected me to sacrifice myself rather than claim. I think the only way he could know I was town, and make the assumptions he has, is if he is himself the untrustworthy mason.

unvote; vote Simenon

[Simenon]

It would have been fine if you had made that argument on page 73, Bookitty. But I've gone over all of those arguments; your post is merely reorganizing them then making further unsubstantiated assumptions.

Simenon argues that he thought I was scum. His own statements are that he "was voting Bookitty because she is one of the masons", that he doesn't understand why Niv didn't object to the lynch before I claimed, and that I outed Ether by claiming. Now, I didn't speak to Simenon or Niv during nighttalk, so I don't know on what he is basing his viewpoint. Ether clearly didn't pass along the comments I'd asked her to, so whatever information Simenon and Ether shared was just between them.

Problem: Simenon thought I was scum.
Argument: Niv didn't think I was scum.
Response: I checked with Ether, I posted something to Ether, and I communicated with ether for a reason: I thought you were scum. We have at least four masons in this group. Why couldn't I have simply talked to Ether? Besides, this is confirmable. Ether, did I talk to you about my suspicions of booboo? Niv, Did i talk to you about my suspicions of booboo? See, look, if they answer their questions, your argument falls to pieces.
Already responded? Check

His first comment (and he had not unvoted at this time) was "Bookitty, that was a horrible, horrible claim." Look at the tone, there. Does that seem like someone who thought they were addressing scum? It sounds more like someone scolding town for what they saw as a bad play, to me.

Problem: Simenon scolded me about claiming
Argument: The tone of his post suggests someone talking to someone town.
Response: In my post, it is obviously assumed that "if you are town" precedes that comment. It makes no sense to me to have to say "if you are town if you are town if you are town" before every comment that I make.

He stated this, in saying I was responsible for outing Ether: "You did, although indirectly. You gave a damn good reason for me to check my "logic" with ether." How? By defending myself? By trying my best not to out the masons while going along with what I believed to be a gambit on Simenon's part to out scum? What precisely was a "damn good reason" to talk to Ether in thread?

Problem: Simenon says I outed Ether.
Argument: I did not out ether, in fact I tried not to out ether.
Response: You can't answer this one with a question, bookitty. You don't necessarily need to claim mason to defend yourself. You don't out masons while trying your best not to out masons. And I think catching scum is a good enough reason.
Already responded: check.

Simenon wrote: "What I don't understand, Niv, is why you didn't object to the lynch before bookitty claimed." Why would he expect this of Niv, when he stated this as well: "I haven't talked to Niv since he went on about ignoring his pms." Additionally, why would he want Niv to object to the lynch, if Simenon thought I was scum? How would Niv outing me be better than my claiming?

Problem: Simenon does not understand why Niv did not object to the lynching of a mason until after the mason claimed.
Argument: Simenon also says he has not talked to Niv.
Response: You are taking both quotations out of context. My quotation addressing Niv had to do with Niv's reaction after the mason claim. My second comment was addressing why Niv did not also join in with ether and me in wagonning you.
Already responded? Check.

None of his statements make any sense if he believed I was scum. His entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim... not a premise that makes any sense, but even less sense if he really thought I was scum.

Argument: Simenon's entire premise rests on the belief that I would sacrifice myself rather than claim.
Response: My entire premise does not rest on the belief that you would sacrifice yourself rather than claim. If that was the case, I wouldn't be voting you BEFORE you claimed.
Already responded: kind of.

Why, if he thought I was scum, would he scold me for claiming? ?

Problem: Simenon scolded me for claiming.
Argument: Simenon wouldn't have scolded me for claiming if he thought I was scum.
Response: But I ended up taking it back! This would have been a perfect argument before page 74, but this is no longer relevant.
Already responded? Check

Why would he move his vote off me, when neither of his other mason partners had done so?

Problem: Simenon moved his vote off me when neither of his mason partners had done so.
Argument: Simenon shouldn't have moved his vote off me when neither of his other mason partners had done so.
Response: Doesn't mean anything. The fact that my partners haven't moved off of you just means we had a reason to vote you in the first place.

All of Simenon's arguments make a sort of broken sense, if you assume that Simenon is scum, trying to push the lynch of one of his mason partners, knowing I was town and hoping I'd be lynched before I claimed

Argument: Simenon's arguments make sense if he was scum.
Response: If I was scum, I wouldn't make arguments that make sense if I was scum.