CAPITALISM MAFIA

[webpaige]

I mean we would've lynched our Godfather

slip

 

[Enderfive]

TWG has posted and contributed less than him. Same with Oak. And Danni-ish.

haven't really looked at them at all so i don't have an opinion

the thing with people not posting much is that it means that i don't notice things they do as much and i don't usually start focusing on people unless something catches my eye, so that's why i haven't mentioned them at all

That wasn't the majority opinion at the time though was it? He was the first to say that. Though not many people had really said a direct opinion on a course of action at that point, if that's what you mean.

yeah no i meant more that he seemed to agree you had indeed been silenced

the course of action he proposed means very little to me since anyone could've come up with that

Which tbh makes me think that maybe you're the one trying to find reasons to lynch someone by building from the ground up rather than observing it first and then making the point, but you did say you were trying to look into more unlikely theories so I guess that'd make sense for you to do so.

i mean, the point i was trying to make is that he's looking for reasons to lynch someone, while a townie would look for reasons why someone does something they do

i feel like i belong pretty firmly in the second category here

I could absolutely see them deciding to lynch off Aqua to look proven and then Aqua gives Inf a hard time and pretends to try to get him lynched

bingo, the thing that made me think it could be like that was that they already did that once and it worked like a fucking charm so now i'm a bit paranoid they might try it again

aqua did feel like he was laying it on a bit too thick, if you get my meaning

 

[Enderfive]

and yeah i want to emphasize again that i don't think that erik is 100% scum, i just think it's an interesting theory and it holds at least some merit imo

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Oak63 speak or we lynch you next

 

[Oak Milk]

Oak63 speak or we lynch you next

I already spoke and no one actually gave me an answer.

 

[Infected_alien8_]

I already spoke and no one actually gave me an answer.

Oh, what was your question?

 

[Oak Milk]

Oh, what was your question?

I was asking why there was so much heavy suspicion on rune, the fact that it didn't get answered leads me to believe he is probably not guilty as many would try to have me believe. Which is kind of why I haven't spoken thus far...

 

[Oak Milk]

haven't spoken much thus far*

 

[Infected_alien8_]

I was asking why there was so much heavy suspicion on rune, the fact that it didn't get answered leads me to believe he is probably not guilty as many would try to have me believe. Which is kind of why I haven't spoken thus far...

It was answered. Iggish wrote like 2 posts explaining it.

Ok, I'm going to try and make people understand why I think Rune is scummy. People have pretty "meh" opinions on Rune, saying that he "a bit suspicious" and that he's "said suspicious" things. Tbh, I just don't think people understood / understand what happened and why I'm so suspicious of him. Inffy said a while back that you're not as invested in something and you find it hard to understand when you're not involved in it and I think this is particularly true in this instance.


Here we see Rune's points against me. He says that I'm apparently leading the selection process and try to get a lynch rolling. He also said my current play style was similar to the one form the previous game where I was scum. These statements simply weren't true.
This is a very important detail as when questioned later, he went into more detail and said that I was playing reactively when I wasn't at the time.


This is where I do show reactive tendencies. Note that this is after Rune's initial accusations, which he later justifies by saying that I was playing reactively and that's why he said those points. That's not true, I only showed reactive tendencies after, which Inffy pointed out above.


Inf asks Rune where he thought I was taking the lead and he says that I was being overly reactive. However, when he made the accusations, there was no evidence that I was being reactive.

Yes, I was reactive and vocal in the previous game, but there was no evidence of that this game when Rune made his accusations. He said I was very reactive in my defence and I did become like that but once again, at the time of his accusations, I wasn't.

Rune then replied to a post I made about my suspicions and about how saying how Rune's posts were weird.

I then responded to Rune.


Inffy then chipped in as well. His whole post with quotes is on page 13 and I highly recommend you all read it.
Here we also see Rune not answering the question regarding where I took the lead and was being vocal for the first time.

Rune said that Inf said I was playing like last game (being reactive) but that was after I became reactive. Rune accused me before that. He said he was arguing that my style was similar to last game's well that was total bullshit as it wasn't. Here Rune (from my point of view) is intentionally getting the timeline mixed up to defend himself. Inffy said I was reactive when I was reactive. Rune accused me when I wasn't and yet he's comparing himself to Inf on the matter.
This is also the second time where we see Rune not answer the question of where was I leading the lynch.

Then in my posts of my suspicions on everyone, I mentioned that Rune hadn't responded to the question yet. Even though he had posted two (albeit short) messages in between this post and me asking previously.


Rune is now saying that it is a hunch. He draws similarities to how I've been playing this game in general and he reasons that it can be stated that I've been reactive. However, once again, Rune is not answering the question. He hasn't provided proof of where I was taking the lead. I wasn't being reactive before he accused me.


Inf and I then try to clarify the question again.

Rune responds and once again doesn't take the timeline into consideration. He says I was reactive and was pushing for a lynch when at the time of his accusations, I wasn't. He also doesn't answer how I was leading the town. Not answering the question #4.

Inffy's post describes it perfectly.

Now this answers a few questions but not the main one, how was I leading the town? Here Rune says that I was being vocal and posting diagrams and that made him thinking I was pushing for lynches. (I only posted one diagram before his accusations, but whatever)

I mean, this is just garbage. I made one diagram before his post. "More likely to lead a lynch", when he said I was leading the town.




My activity was mainly regarding defending myself. Defending myself, not attacking anyone and yet somehow Rune interpreted this as leading a lynch when I was on the back foot.
Ok, at this stage, Rune has answered finally, but the answer is incredulous. I was on the back foot, defending myself and Rune interpreted it as leading the town and advocating a lynch.


Inffy and Rune said some stuffs.

I then made this post which Rune rated "disagree" although I'm not sure what he disagrees with here. I asked him so many times to answer the question and to clarify over a long time frame and he only just gave an answer (although a very unsatisfactory one).

I think those are the main topics of discussion on this issue, I'm stopping this at page 31 for now. I have other reasons for suspecting Rune (sensitivity over country, sheep nature etc) but I'll leave that for now.
I think Rune started putting suspicion on me with no justification to try and bandwagon on me. At this time, Notty was putting pressure on me and Rune joined in. I called his BS and in addition to that, when Notty stopped with her suspicions, Rune stopped as well and started trying to be friendly with me. He apologised and said he thought I was probably a townie or something like that.
The reason Rune took so long to answer is simple, he didn't have one. When questioned, he answered with off-topic nonsense and never answered the question properly. At one stage he got angry and said something like "I HAVE TO GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD", however he later said that looking back, his argument was garbage so why was he so protective of it? He just thought he could get an easy lynch. If you follow his line of reasoning and his answer, it makes no sense. He made the leap from me being active while on the back foot to me leading the town and advocating lynches.
He purposefully didn't answer the question over a period of like 20 pages.
I think this is extremely scummy and it is also why I kept my vote on Rune to the last on day 1 although supporting an Aqua lynch.

I don't think I've been overly bias with this post and I've tried to include all relevant quotes. I hope it make sit easier to understand why I think Rune is so scummy.

P.S. Rune: You still haven't answered the question

And the fact that literally only me and Iggish are trying to lynch rune right now makes me wonder why, if he's supposedly innocent, the mafia aren't agreeing with mine and iggish's (in my opinion) completely reasonable suspicion on him and going for a townie lynch.

Aqua's behaviour around rune is also suspicious, which I explained here:

Also, I find Aqua's interaction/disposition with Rune to be suspicious too. While Aqua was getting heat, Rune was also getting heat. But Aqua didn't use Rune as a scapegoat. He ignored the whole Rune thing until he was explicitly asked about his opinion on it. He tried to use Ender, but not Rune, who would have been a lot easier to push on I think. Why would he do that? Probably because Rune was his Mafia partner and he didn't want to accidentally get him lynched off. He did say that he found Rune suspicious and lynch-worthy, but never voted for him, and his opinion slowly changed from slightly defending Rune, to throwing empty accusations at him, probably when Aqua was fairly sure he was going to die and he wanted to make Rune look townie by accusing him so that when Aqua died and was revealed to be Godfather, people would look back and notice Aqua was willing for a Rune lynch and trust him. But on the off chance that Aqua managed to survive yesterday, he didn't want to be responsible for bussing his partner, so instead voted for Ender. Maybe he also genuinely thought Ender could pose a threat too.









All of this is obviously just the way I'm interpreting his posts and could be interpreted in other ways though. And it's possible that Aqua did what he did so that we'd come to this exact conclusion and lynch Rune or something.

There have been lots of answers to your question, so the fact your reason for being silent is apparently because no-one's explaining why rune is suspicious, makes me think you're lying and makes me think you're Mafia trying to lurk.

 

[erik5456]

Nice to see useful discussion actually rolling along. I'll talk about what I mentioned last night and the accusations at my feet right now.

That is all from me. Some thing's I will try to address sometime tomorrow either in school or once I get back are the autocrat's decision in who to kill, a contradiction in my own post here (which I'm not gonna point out till tomorrow for the sake of suspense and as to not push away discussion or thoughts from what I've already brought up), and whatever else comes to mind. If possible, people try and already discuss this so I don't have only my own thoughts to rely on pls

So starting with the autocrat's decision to kill (and for clarification YES, I do think the autocrat+SK roles are actually the same. More on this further down), it's peculiar of both the mafia and the autocrat to have killed two of arguably the quietest people all game. Except, I had personally mentioned I had found Comp suspicious in the beginning of the game and along some point (I'll pull up the quotes if needed/wanted) people were calling out Unu for his suspicious behaviour to which Unu tried to defend himself. From a mafia point of view, why kill either of them? They're simply two townies who have not made a significant impact on the game and, if anything, you had members of the town suspecting them. The kill seems random and messy from the mafia. For the autocrat however, it seems plausible to have tried to kill either Unu or Comp since minor suspicion had been brought up on both of them throughout the day. I'd be willing to guess it was Unu who the autocrat hit though because Infy was the one who brought up the suspicion of him. This would work with my idea of Infy being the autocrat

Speaking of Infy, I'm not particularly sure why you've been defending me and haven't really seemed to reply to any of the accusations I've made. It is just a theory based on a possible mistake you made (that not many seem to believe) but it would only seem natural to give some thought to denying what I've mentioned. Any reason you haven't?

As for the contradiction I've made, my entire idea relies on the fact that the autocrat would hide in plain sight. Someone who would seem townie to just about everybody which would then guarantee them to be able to blend in. Infy was on most people's suspected townie radar but so was I.
I haven't been super active and people considered me to be townie. By the same logic I used for my theory of Infy being autocrat, why wouldn't I be? If anything, I was doing a better job by not posting too much but most people still thinking I'm innocent and strongly town. Even the people who died last night were people who I and Infy had suspected so what's saying I didn't kill Comp. Why am I pointing this out? Because I want people to understand that I've thought of all this and still choose to try and cause some form of discussion. To put it simply, I'm not the autocrat because of the attention I'm pulling to myself right now that I could've easily avoided by not posting at all or by making a much shorter less informative post.

Now to defending myself, I'll start with the longest line of suspicion put on me by Ender (which he mentioned is just a theory in the end but I feel the need to justify myself). Anything that I feel like Infy has already pointed out for me, I will add as well with my response.

Of the nearly 1000 posts that have been made in this game, 14 are his and even fewer actually attempt to contribute to the discussion. I don't know about you guys, but I find that to be a concerningly low amount of posts. Either he is a townie disinterested in the game, in which case his inactivity is aiding the mafia gain a louder voice in day discussions, or he is a mafia or serial killer trying to lay low. Not receiving email notifications is not a valid defense because considering how active this game has been, one would think that he'd think to check the forums at least daily. While the first option is certainly possible, I find that the second one makes more sense, particularly if we assume he's mafia.

TWG has posted and contributed less than him. Same with Oak. And Danni-ish.

Inf gives the right idea here in saying that there are lots of other people who have not contributed much to the discussion as well. And as far as actually contributing, go back to the first few pages and look at the ideas I propose and mention. Twice now I've brought things up to try and advance the game (both of which no one really seemed to respond to much until Notty brings it up again and then Infy mentions it). I also give my opinion and thoughts and things at points in the game. Is it infrequent? Yes and that is my fault to a degree but no notifications is a pain in the ass. And as I mentioned above, if I'm an SK or mafia trying to lay low, then I wouldn't have made a post whatsoever that was long and pulled attention to myself.

This is pretty much the first post in the thread that actually wants to get something done. While objectively this is a pro-town move, it's pretty obvious that it can also benefit everyone else. What's more, this is a pretty straightforward move, and therefore something that a scum trying to pose as a townie would not have trouble coming up with. Also note how he does not start off with stating his own role name. Instead, he wants someone else to start off. This is something I would expect a scum to do, because if no one else goes along with it, the information he gives to others about himself would be wasted in terms of getting information back, and would probably damage the scum agenda by giving the town more to work with.

He doesn't want someone else to start off, he even says that he'll do it first but he wants to know if other people will do it too, which I can understand since if nobody else will then it suggests people may have a reason for not doing so (e.g. they know something about how names work in the setup so know it's a bad idea).

Literally go and reread what you quoted and I say there that I will gladly do so first as Infy points out. I was throwing this out there because I wanted to progress and see what we could get out of it. No one said anything about it so I dropped it until Notty brings up a modified version of the idea with just the countries being mentioned. Notty may be the first to claim country from there, but they don't do so until Iggish mentions that he feels like the idea is a good one.

Here we see him going along with the majority opinion of the time. Again, a safe post that moves the discussion forward a bit, but doesn't actually do any good.

That wasn't the majority opinion at the time though was it? He was the first to say that. Though not many people had really said a direct opinion on a course of action at that point, if that's what you mean.

Infy's already mentioned that I wasn't the only one thinking this but I was the first to propose an action. I mean if you want to call it a safe post then sure, but I (like many others) was genuinely unsure of whether or not Infy was silenced. Plus, if I was mafia, why even give him the 12 hours? I could just pressure him from the start much like Aqua tried to do before being shot down. It doesn't move discussion forward but it also wouldn't move my so called "agenda" forward. It was an idea so that we would have a possible better understanding of the setup
.

Same deal as the first one, but with the added bonus of drawing attention to the fact that he has (supposedly) been useful to the town.

Claiming my country and trying to take credit for something that was originally my idea is a safe post? Alright sure I'll roll with it but I don't think mentioning the want to claim names would be a very mafia thing of mentioning. As we've already seen, Aqua claimed Donald Trump and his infamy as a politician played a part in Aqua's lynch. Plus if someone claimed a politician and someone else CC'd them, what benefit would mafia get out of that?

Another safe post.

Nope straight out disagreeing here. If I'm mafia and i want to lurk in the shadows, why even try to push any of this forward? I say it myself which you mention as well that day is when town is the strongest since we can openly discuss and convey information. Proposing to save Infy because I thought he would be killed is because I didn't want him dying when people are all claiming he seems to do a lot of posting and risk losing lots of information or ideas that he could bring along. I pointed out an obvious flavour flaw in censorer being town, but why not just try and do it otherwise? If I were mafia then wouldn't it be better to try and add confusion that a censorer could be town sided?

This quote interests me because it gives me the feeling that erik is more concerned with finding reasons to lynch people than finding mafia. A subtle difference for some, perhaps, but it makes an enormous difference in mindset. Allow me to explain: when a player is scumhunting, they usually look at people and what they have done. They attempt to figure out why a player has or hasn't said or done something. They look at reasons behind behaviour, and from there try to figure out who is mafia and who is not, who to lynch and who not to lynch. When a player is trying to look like they're scumhunting, but is really scum, they usually go for the people that have done something they think could be found scummy, but they don't stop to think why they might have done so.

In this quote, I see that erik has taken a particular reason why someone might be scummy and has then looked at who fits the criteria. While sometimes this is town behaviour, I find it to be more in line with how scum thinks.

But I can see where you're coming from with the "trying to find reasons to lynch someone rather than finding mafia", though I can also see the opposite, depending on the tint/lens I have when I start to read his post. Which tbh makes me think that maybe you're the one trying to find reasons to lynch someone by building from the ground up rather than observing it first and then making the point, but you did say you were trying to look into more unlikely theories so I guess that'd make sense for you to do so. But I guess I have a tendency to favour theories that come from seeing them rather than building them up on your own, because they just seem more reliable to me if you're seen them rather than created it yourself.

Then why wouldn't I vote one of them? If I'm truly trying to find someone to lynch instead of mafia to lynch, then why not just try and push that lynch with a vote? And if that vote fails, jump onto the next nearest bandwagon? I've been out of forum mafia for about 2 years and I am very out of practice I'll admit. But that's never been my personal playstyle. If I'm scum then I lay low till i can take advantage of something while the one game where I was a town PR I claimed Day 1 because I wanted progress to be made. I look more for contradictions and faults in logic here especially when you all seem to know one another and how you play decently well while I'm sort of out of the loop and can only make assumptions on who does what how. I'm not even really calling people out on something I think could be found scummy but more something that I thought would logically make sense in the game. And yes, people standing out in countries does just that STAND OUT. Inclusion of two minorities seems very unlikely to me to not be of some significance.

Again, seems like he's looking for reasons to accuse people, instead of looking at people and trying to figure out their motives. That, and the "ya we should go after suspicious people" is the most obvious thing in mafia, and in my experience, stuff like that is more often said by people who feel like they need to compensate for their behaviour to seem more town-like (which is obviously a scum thing to do).

His 'we should go after suspicious people' wasn't just him saying it on his own though, I believe it was in response to Unusual_Dude disagreeing with him and saying we shouldn't lynch on countries but instead on suspicious people:

What Infy said. I was replying and sharing what I thought would be the best idea. And as for "ya we should go after suspicious people" refer back to 2 quotes ago. I mention that I want discussion to keep going so hell let's go back to the very basics of mafia and point out simple stuff. It was also to set up for what i thought was very suspicious of Comp. Why exactly would I feel the need to compensate if (as you believe) I made a bunch of safe posts and did things to "seem townie"?

This post is his first mention of Aqua. Considering that by that point, Aqua already had 5 (?) votes on him, the fact that he considers him a possible candidate for a lynch isn't indicative of his alignment either way, in my opinion. What I find more intriguing is the fact that he's going along with the majority opinion here, while still leaving himself enough room to back out of suspecting Aqua by saying that he's only skimmed the last few pages and he's not comfortable with lynching him yet.

Again, to me, this feels more like you building a theory from the ground up, trying to find something to look into to try to make some kind of case against him rather than coming from you instinctively thinking that, but that's probably just because, to me, it's unnatural to read his post that way because I just didn't get that sense from it. When I read his post again with the lens you provide, I can see where you're coming from, but only when I first put that lens on. So I'm a bit hesitant to buy into the theory, but I can see where you're coming from.

I don't like jumping the gun. If someone's near a lynch or death and I feel like not enough has been said, I won't vote for that lynch. I did still take action in unvoting Comp. I could see that my vote on him and possible continuous suspicion would only lead to a division in town/votes so I set it aside and watched and waited as things unfolded. And what's the problem with going with the majority opinion? I mean if I just said ya Aqua seems suspicious and voted him, then that's a bandwagon if I've ever seen one. But agreeing with the majority opinion isn't suddenly wrong because it's the majority.

Again, trying to draw attention to something that he proposed and would perhaps benefit the town. It does look to me like he's concerned with appearing townie.

Yeah I can agree on that. At the time I read it as him just wanting to kinda claim the idea, maybe like he felt it was being stolen and he wanted to take credit as a townie, but I can totally see him doing that as Mafia as well.

Call me childish if you'd like, but I was trying to take credit for an idea I originally proposed. Like I mention it and people more or less don't address it, but then Infy mentions it and all of a sudden it's a really good idea? Ya I'm gonna take credit where credit is due just the same as anyone else would.

Disregarding the fact that he basically said he wanted to lynch me just because I'd win otherwise, not because it'd end the game or anything but just because he wanted to deny me the win (fuck you too, I guess <3), his reasoning for suspecting me is flimsy at best and feels more like a reason conjured up in order to have justification voting me than anything. Note also how it supports Aqua's reasoning at the time and how Aqua is last in his lynch order.

Yeah I can see that actually.

No ya my only reasoning for lynching you was so that you might not win (gladly btw my place or yours <3?). I'm not sure why you play mafia games but personally I play them to have fun and to win. What do I benefit from some third-party winning the game? Nothing? Then why would i support it? That's like saying if I wanted to deny a jester from winning then that makes me suspicious. I understand the personal resentment because you had basically gotten that win and you wanted to guarantee it and not risk losing it because some random guy (AKA me) proposed that we lynch you and you don't win but still you can't call me suspicious for playing the game in a way that means only town wins. As for Aqua, this doesn't make sense with what you mentioned above. You say I'm taking an easy stance to either back out of or go in on Aqua and that I'm relying on the majority opinion, but what majority wanted to lynch you? Or suspected Rune over Aqua? Yes Aqua wanted to lynch you to try and get out of dying, but I've already explained my reasoning for wanting to lynch you and it wasn't Aqua's reasoning. Maybe it was a mistake for me to not have put Aqua above Rune. I wasn't as up to date with what Aqua had done and said wrong though as I was with Rune. But I don't regret trying to say you were #1 priority in any way whatsoever.

I've no idea where he takes the idea that the autocrat can kill, but if it's not a misunderstanding, it could be a way to divert attention off the serial killer, which would mean that he's the SK. However, I'm willing to chalk this one up to not paying much attention. I disagree with most of what he says regarding the autocrat, but we'll get to that later, since it's not really relevant in terms of him being scum or not. What I do think could be relevant is that in naming the autocrat, he once again goes along with other people's opinions and plays it safe by doing so.

Yeah, I can see this too. I think that the more I'm reading your post the more I'm putting on the tinted lens and seeing what you mean.

I mentioned the idea as early as page 6 and since then have had it stuck in my head and have been associating the two together. Maybe this is a big mistake on my part but I'll explain my reasoning when replying to Iggish's post about me. Going along with other's opinions? I'm sorry but what am I supposed to say if I'm town? "Oh ya the autocrat is gr8 and we should completely ignore them"? If anything I go off of others opinions in saying that we should try to use/abuse the autocrat if we can find out who they are.

His bit on Rune is, again, going along with what most people seem to think, and also displaying the mindset of looking like he's scumhunting, while really just looking for an easy lynch. His opinion on TWG looks to me like he's putting forward the sensible idea in order to seem more town, and also the token disagreement with majority, since he could be realising himself that he's been playing it safe all the time.

Last little thing I'd like to call into question is telling us there's a contradiction in his post and then not telling us what it is. While I don't think it's indicative of alignment in any way, it's just weird and not helpful for the town at all.

I won't lie in saying that I do look suspicious to a degree in my post. Hell that was the entire idea of the contradiction that it put suspicion on me too. But what are you expecting exactly? I claim Rune is innocent? Ignore the suspicion I've had on him since the near of the end of day 1? I'm voicing my opinion on TWG because it seems much too far fetched to randomly lynch someone. If i was looking for an easy lynch, why not reinforce what Infy mentioned that Unu's been right about TWG each time? And the safe thing doesn't stand in my opinion after making a long post pulling attention to myself. As for the contradiction, I wanted to acknowledge a flaw in how I was thinking without going too in-depth about it so that I could either:
a. Call someone out who claimed they knew what the contradiction was
b. Defend myself if someone did catch the contradiction and show that I knew about it and posted nonetheless
It may not be directly helpful to town, but in being directly helpful to me, it's indirectly helpful to town.

 

[erik5456]

(Post had to be cut into two parts due to size, sorry)
Now for an explanation as to why I've created this mental link between the autocrat and SK (and addressing what Iggish mentioned).

erik5456 , how did you jump to the conclusion that the autocrat can kill people? Do you know something we don't?
He mentioned it a few times so it wasn't just a one-off accident or anything. IIRC he also has never mentioned the possibility of the autocrat being able to kill people before now.



You also said:

So, we just let the autocrat drift through the game once identifying them and then lynch them towards the end of the day when anything can happen lynch wise and a lot more people are taken out of the equation. Tbh, this is exactly the way the autocrat would think. If he makes the town think that they have falsely identified the autocrat, then there won't be any pressure on him and then he can snatch the game at the end.

Just before this post of yours, the idea that Inffy could be the autocrat had picked up a bit of steam. It could just be a coincidence but I find it a bit too convenient that you made this post when you did.



Also you said this:

Which makes me think even more that you slipped. I know I said that I strongly town read you but I think this is a slip.

I don't have the quote myself but luckily Ender does in his post. 5th quote. I mention it when talking about why I suspect Comp that I think the autocrat would most like be some sort of SK third party. Since that point onwards, I've basically always made that connection and considered it as so. I'll explain why I think so before digesting more of this post.

So a third-party who steals the win from town. Pretty interesting as an idea but with a very fatal flaw. Absolutely no protection and no power outside of being a vanilla townie making a very weak third party role. Except that doesn't make sense. I think the biggest mistake we could make is in thinking that the autocrat doesn't have some sort of night ability. From there, it's just basic deduction and this past night only confirms it more to me honestly. What if the autocrat killed others in order to try and assume power as the one true leader? The way autocrats usually do on their rise to power. That's flavour wise though and I had no confirmation of it day 1. After night 2 though, the two deaths made me certain. One of them should be our autocrat. They'd be aiming to kill off a mafia who's seemed somewhat suspicious but not public enemy #1 (IE Rune at the time) since that would leave the town with less leads during the next day. Do the next best thing and kill someone else who's been considered "suspicious".
TL;DR: I made the assumption and connection that SK+autocrat were the same but I feel even more sure after last night.

Now as for why I want to use the autocrat, they're still a townie to a degree. The same way that i asked Ender what letting him win would provide the town with, the question I'm asking is what can the autocrat provide us with to make our win quicker/cleaner? Well we just threaten to lynch them and either they die to a lynch and another problem is gone or they agree since they want to get closer to their winning objective as well. That being said, if we feel uncomfortable and unsafe with the idea of the autocrat around, well that's exactly why I was mentioning we should be looking for them. I was just thinking of killing 2 bird with one stone which is a risk and dangerous. And keep in mind, even if the autocrat wanted to steal the win last second, they'd have to know who the remaining mafia member alive was when we lynch the supposed "autocrat" so they can kill them and get the win.

As for Infy, ya Vatu and Danni brought up a good possibility that I thought of, agreed with, and then decided to elaborate on. That being said, Infy is very pro town. I still think the possibility of him being autocrat is higher then most others but he's taking caution even with how people are looking at my post despite my accusations. This could always be what he's going for though and trying to gain trust so it could go either way right now. And I don't think being tired=slipping. If we're saying that, then we might as well check every timezone everyones in and pay attention to the posts where it was near night/morning for them.

Agreed, for me Inffy read as strongly town, not as Autocrat. I would have thought an autocrat would be more quiet and more out of the way than what Inf is currently acting.

If anything, it would make sense to try to have Mafia switch to have Inffy lynched as he is the most vocal and having the excuse as Inf = autocrat could have had the potential of swaying towns mind in lynching Inf in Mafias head.

Currently, the three who were vocal about this theory of Inf being Autocrat were:

Danni - Quiet in the game and doesn't input a lot into the current matter

Vatumok - Also quiet but less 'memey' than Danni.

Erik - He town read to me personally so I don't understand if he was scum to out himself like this. Maybe he thought that because town think he isn't scum; that he would have a bigger say and potentially sway people's mind?

This seems very out of the blue and VERY dodgy indeed.

Since when is it logical for mafia trying to accuse the most town read person in the game???? This seems more like an attempt to get the spotlight off of yourself and onto anyone else. You bring up Vatu and Danni despite myself being the one person who extended and posted in detail. If anyone were to dissect my post, I would look WAYYY more suspicious then those two (as I've already mentioned and discussed). What you're doing may be VERY dodgy but the theory isn't too out of the blue if we're doing what Ender's already brought up and trying to understand why people are doing what.

the amount of 'us' after saying town in this sentence is a bit off :eyes:

Sorry about that! How do you prefer your vanilla townies addressing themselves as? Mafia or Third-Party? (sarcasm)

THE AUTOCRAT

I really don't understand why people think the Autocrat would want to stay low. First of all, lynching mafia is in their best interests, so not trying to actively help do that would be counterintuitive. Secondly, laying low would sooner or later bring attention to them as people turn to inactives with the logic of "oh, look, they're trying to lay low", which is something they don't want. Thirdly, if they do as much as they can to help the town win, they'll be (in theory, at least) indistinguishable from true townies, not counting for cops or other investigatives.

Of course, you could make the argument that this is exactly what the Autocrat wants you to think and perhaps the Autocrat has, indeed thought of everything I just said and has taken the counterintuitive route in order to seem less like the Autocrat, but that would be dumb and would also carry more risk. What I really don't think they would do, however, is do what Inf did and deliberately stay quiet in the beginning, because anyone with half a brain would anticipate that this move would be controversial, something the Autocrat probably doesn't want because they do still need to survive until the end of the game, and controversy tends to increase chances of getting lynched.

I think our best bet is to focus on getting maf for now and when we've taken down two more mafia or so, then start looking for the Autocrat, if they haven't already died by then. That gives us time to get more posts out of everyone and decreases our chances of lynching a useful townie, because I do believe that the Autocrat is going to look very similar to one.

Saying that a mistake couldn't have happened because it's clearly a mistake isn't necessarily true. Plus, Infy is using what we did earlier to lead the town right now and blend right in hence why I brought it up. I still think priority #1 should be autocrat since, assuming we hit 1 mafia today and autocrat 1 mafia over the night, then we're very much at risk of lynching the wrong target the next day. At the very least, everyone should be on the lookout and having suspicions on who it is since this isn't something we should rush into or hope we get lucky enough that they die by chance.

One last thing I'd like to point out is Ender. Right now I think you're by far one of the greatest threats to both mafia and autocrat. Why? Well you said that you're going to be trying to help town and you're a confirmed role who's doing this just because. That's quite possibly the best thing town could have going for us right now. You're open to accuse and throw these theories out with little to no repercussions meaning that no one is safe. And if you have nothing to hide since you're a townie, then that just means mafia and autocrat are not safe. I hope you understand that I am sincere in saying that you're probably going to be one of the best resources for town right now.

TL;DR: It's way too dense and has a lot of info to TL;DR, just read it or whatever you want to focus in on.

Sorry if my quoting and formatting is off but I'm bad at forums xd. Tomorrow. how about we actually push for and start to claim names? I've mentioned it before but it'll be hard for a mafia to fake a name since CC's are a thing. Leaving it open to you all though as I have before. As with before, I'll gladly be the first to claim.

 

[Guest35486]

Arelic what's your opinion on rune? And why didn't you give an opinion on Aqua yesterday?

I didn't give an opinion on Aqua because I really wasn't sure about my read on him, then he was lynched before I could make a post. (I thought he was mafia at first, then town, then mafia again near the end of the day)

I skimmed over the Rune's arguments (like with Iggish), but I'm inclined to think he's mafia/3rd party at the moment? Some of his posts seem a bit suspicious and his claim kind of seemed unexpected, especially since he tagged vanilla townie after it. Mainly just vibes rn since I'd have to dig through his posts to quote stuff.

but also it's 5 am and idk if i'm thinking or remembering things right so please correct me/respond to anything I said here ty good night

 

[Infected_alien8_]

Strong posts from erik. Whilst quite a few of your defenses were wifom and "if I were Mafia, I wouldn't do what I'm doing now, so therefore I'm not Mafia!" while any Mafia can deliberately do counter-intuitive things and claim that they're town because of it, but I am town-reading you right now and I enjoyed reading your posts so you should speak more <3

About the sk-autocrat theory, it's something I remember thinking of myself a while back, but I haven't mentioned it, which means that for some reason I decided against it but I don't remember why. Or maybe I just got distracted or forgot. But I do think it's a good theory at the moment, but if I remember if/why I dismissed it earlier then I'll say why that was, but I probably just forgot or something I guess.

Plus, Infy is using what we did earlier to lead the town right now and blend right in hence why I brought it up.

What does this mean?

Saying that a mistake couldn't have happened because it's clearly a mistake isn't necessarily true.

If you're referring to me refusing to speak but it ending up making me seen as suspicous as a mistake, my defence for that would be that I'm usually pretty active in games so I'd be really dumb to not consider the possibility that, by not spamming the thread with my posts like I usually do, I'd be drawing attention to myself. And I'm assuming that's why nobody else is really agreeing with you on your idea that I accidentally took an attempt at being hidden too far. Because it's just so out of character for me to not speak that there's surely no way that I could think it could work.

I don't like jumping the gun. If someone's near a lynch or death and I feel like not enough has been said, I won't vote for that lynch.

Actually this is something I wanted to ask you about but didn't yet - why did you hammer Aqua yesterday? I thought it was pretty clear that we wanted to get everyone's opinions on Aqua before he was lynched but then you just randomly hammered him out of no-where and it felt, at the time, like a quick attempt at looking in on the lynch. Seems you did jump the gun there.

If I were mafia then wouldn't it be better to try and add confusion that a censorer could be town sided?

No, because if you were Mafia, you'd know they probably were town-sided, so it'd benefit you to make them seem Mafia-sided so that when they claimed they'd be lynched.

Claiming my country and trying to take credit for something that was originally my idea is a safe post? Alright sure I'll roll with it but I don't think mentioning the want to claim names would be a very mafia thing of mentioning. As we've already seen, Aqua claimed Donald Trump and his infamy as a politician played a part in Aqua's lynch. Plus if someone claimed a politician and someone else CC'd them, what benefit would mafia get out of that?

Claiming it was your idea to do something which would benefit town would benefit you as Mafia yeah. I don't really understand what you mean here. Unless your second sentence is about the very fact that you originally proposed the idea, rather than reminding us of the idea, in which case I do understand what you're saying. Could you clarify for me though please because this had me scratching my head for a while, but might just be me being tired.

a. Call someone out who claimed they knew what the contradiction was

I'm also really struggling to understand what you meant here, could you please explain this?

I mentioned the idea as early as page 6 and since then have had it stuck in my head and have been associating the two together. Maybe this is a big mistake on my part but I'll explain my reasoning when replying to Iggish's post about me. Going along with other's opinions? I'm sorry but what am I supposed to say if I'm town? "Oh ya the autocrat is gr8 and we should completely ignore them"? If anything I go off of others opinions in saying that we should try to use/abuse the autocrat if we can find out who they are.

Btw when I said "yeah I can see that", I was talking about you going with others' opinions about the autocrat, not about you being SK and wanting to divert attention. Just wanted to clarify that since you quoted me but I'm not sure which bit you thought I was referring to. Not that it matters but I've had about 4 hours of sleep over the last two days so I'm just gonna clarify it anyway.

Since when is it logical for mafia trying to accuse the most town read person in the game???? This seems more like an attempt to get the spotlight off of yourself and onto anyone else. You bring up Vatu and Danni despite myself being the one person who extended and posted in detail. If anyone were to dissect my post, I would look WAYYY more suspicious then those two (as I've already mentioned and discussed). What you're doing may be VERY dodgy but the theory isn't too out of the blue if we're doing what Ender's already brought up and trying to understand why people are doing what.

When you say "the theory isn't too out of the blue" are you talking about your own theory about rune or are you talking about rune's theory?

Speaking of Infy, I'm not particularly sure why you've been defending me and haven't really seemed to reply to any of the accusations I've made. It is just a theory based on a possible mistake you made (that not many seem to believe) but it would only seem natural to give some thought to denying what I've mentioned. Any reason you haven't?

Well tbh I don't really have anything to say other than "you're wrong". All you did was say you think I'm autocrat and I don't think your reason makes sense so I didn't really have much to defend against. I could've pointed out why your argument didn't make sense I guess, tbh I don't know why I didn't respond, it just didn't seem important to me at the time I guess and didn't know you were expecting a response, sorry.

It would make sense to attempt to lay low at first as the autocrat. Not pull much attention to yourself and try to seem like an ordinary townie. But if Infy is the autocrat then he accidentally took it 1 step too far. He stayed silent for a while attempting to even push discussion about why he was silenced. Honestly if it hadn't been for the day grinding to a stop discussion wise, I think he may have gone even longer without speaking. But then he instantly jumps into action and pushes town into discussion and trying to do things. An extremely unconventional tactic that then simply leads into Infy doing what he seems to regularly do in mafia games? Fine I'd believe it meant nothing IF nothing like an autocrat were present. Alongside this, what better place to hide from the town then at the front leading it? When everyone seems to believe you're 100% confirmed townie, no one would suddenly flip and call you out as the autocrat.

For now, I'm gonna stick to that as my best guess as to who the autocrat is. If Infy isn't the autocrat well then there may be a point that comes along in the game where the town is losing hard enough that the autocrat has to out themselves and either force someone like Infy to claim or cooperate as the towns "hired killer" so to speak.

You say "it would make sense to attempt to lay low at first as the autocrat", which I didn't do, because, as you even say right after that, I was "attempting to even push discussion about why he was silenced". But you then say that it's an unconventional tactic which makes you think I'm autocrat. I just don't really follow what line of thinking there but if you can explain that'd be great please.

Also, what did you mean by "autocrat has to out themselves and either force someone like Infy to claim"? Why would the autocrat out and force me to claim?

I meant to ask that yesterday but I guess I forgot.

 

[Jivvi]

i asked him on discord and he was like "dude idk i guess you can still play since you technically haven't died yet" so i guess he initially intended for me to not play any more but didn't see the point in not letting me play either or idk myself

anyway i'm still playing so

yeah that

 

[Iggish]

Ok so yesterday I posted my main reason for being very suspicious of Rune. I'll try and post the remaining suspicions now. These reasons are not as in depth as my main one, but do convince me that he is most likely scum. Inf was talking about lenses and how from a certain point of view your opinion can change. I'll try to not be biased and try not to analyse every single little post cynically.

So me stating that I'm Canadian is making me a lynch target know? I held back for a second in case there was someone else who would be in case it was a mafia trying to claim that they were Canadian. In this country thing, we made ourselves easy targets for Maf. There is also basically one notable Canadian politician which Notty pointed out so if I waited and someone claimed, it would be easy to CC.

Rune seems quite sensitive over his role and country here. However, this could just be me being cynical.

His reason for not claiming his country earlier is also very strange. Basically, he is saying that he waited so that he could possibly counter claim another Canadian even though I'm not sure how that would work seeing as he wouldn't know how many Canadian politicians there would be. Also trying to justify this by saying that there is only one notable Canadian politician is a bit weird and it doesn't make sense as although Trudeau might be the only well known Canadian politician, it doesn't automatically mean that there would be only one Canadian politician.

It also seems kind of convenient that Rune claimed Canadian just after I first mentioned the probability of a Canadian being in the game but I'm willing to put that down as a coincidence.

Inf didn't go ahead and vote for his people that he found suspicious since that's his suspicions and not something definite. I'm doing the same thing because I don't want to lynch him just because of something that he did last game.

In my opinion Rune has been a sheep this game, cosying up to people, trying to be friendly and trying to jump on bandwagons. Naturally as I suspect him, this jumps out to me a lot more. This quote isn't particularly damning, I'm just using it to mention this early on in this post.

Rune has also used comparatives to question motives and to defend himself as can be seen here. He's comparing himself to what Inffy did last game to justify his reasoning.
Here, why he did not vote for me yet is being called into question.

Just worded it better than I currently can since I'm on a phone and it's difficult to track what everyone is saying. I'll have a reply for you btw Inf when I get back.

That reply that Iggy gave really boosted my suspicion levels for Iggy by a couple of points

Probably me being cynical but it seems like he is cosying up to Inf here.
(Inffy speaking below)
"You say the reason you didn't vote him was because you could see where I was coming from when I said he was acting "a tad" different last game, but you only seem to agree with this (since you only say this) after I said it. Before that, you seemed pretty sure that Iggish was acting very similar to last game and even used that as the reason for saying he was the most suspicious."

Because that reply was before he properly switched to his reactive playstyle, which I'll put here again:

Huh, I just noticed that Rune acknowledged the time difference of before and after my reactive post. This makes him even more scummy as many of his points were taking the timeline out of context and saying that in general I was playing reactively when I was specifically talking about before he accused me. The fact that he acknowledged this makes me know that he didn't simply make a mistake and overlook the wording of my question multiple times, but rather chose not to answer it properly.
Unless there's been a misunderstanding here on my part, this pretty much cements my suspicions that Rune is scum as he was fully aware of the timeline when it suited him, but referenced me being reactive after I was reactive in response to "when was I being reactive before you accused me of leading the town?"

Other than that, that's pretty much the only reason why I look like scum; because it's difficult for me to explain it. Anyways, I'm now inclined to believe that you're probably town but others in your country are most likely not.

Also why are you inclined to believe that he's town, when you apparently stand by your read on him of acting the same?

Rune says that he thinks I'm probably town with no justification while I'm piling pressure on him. Inf then calls him out on this and unless I've missed something, Rune didn't reply to the question.

That's literally it, but you're making it look like that I'm scum because of my PERSONAL EVALUATION of the last game compared to this one. You can have a different opinion but it doesn't justify you constantly pushing for answers when its just my opinion. Are you that threatened that you keep asking for a reasoning why, possibly due to the fact that it could possibly result in you looking like Mafia?

Rune says that I'm probably town but then says that I'm trying to make him look scummy. Makes sense. I'm not even sure what his question means but now he's suggesting that I could be mafia again.

And I've already concended in the fact that you might be town due to the reactivity of your posts being explained by you and notty and the fact that the second time reading through everything; you look less scummy.

This is the same post as the quote from directly above. Now he is saying again that I'm probably town. His wording makes me think that he feels that I should be grateful / thankful for him "dropping" his suspicion on me. Reading it through again, I look less scummy, what a coincidence!
Rune is trying to cosy up to me here and he contradicts himself a bit.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe it was me thinking at a time when you were doing the diagrams and the larger posts; that this made you look more vocal and therefore made you look like you were pushing for a lynch.

Holy shit, let me say this in baby speak so you can understand

Yeah probably, looking back; my argument was pretty shit in the first place and was done both on mobile and when I was busy with other things

The second quote here should be first but I don't really think it's relevant. Rune says "let me say this in baby speak" when defending himself saying I was reactive and then goes on to say further down the page that "my argument was pretty shit". Then why the fuck was he so adamant that he was correct and that we were the ones not understanding the situation.

my argument was pretty shit in the first place and was done both on mobile and when I was busy with other things

and to be fair I was skimming through the posts because of my mobile phone and the blocks of text being far more difficult to read.

Yeah, I don't know why I took so long trying to answer it; most likely me trying to recover from some recent stuff which caused me stress which has really made my dyslexia get worse because of it.

Shitty excuses. This is the same page where he went into full caps;

What it might look like to you:

YOU LAST GAME: HEYYY GUYS, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE SHOULD REALLY REALLY REALLY LYNCH THIS GUY
THIS GAME: I GOT JUSTIFICATION FOR LYNCHING SOMEBODY BUT THEY COULD STILL BE POTENTIALLY TOWN

This is how it looked like to me:

YOU LAST GAME: HEYYYY GUYS, LETS LYNCH THIS GUY BECAUSE HE'S 100% MAFIA
THIS GAME: I AM REALLY REACTIVE AND IT MAKES ME LOOK LIKE I WANT TO PUSH A LYNCH FOR SOMEONE.

defending his suspicions of me. He backtracked and 180'ed pretty damn quickly, giving shitty excuses. Also, there is basically no chance of the penny only just now dropping as we clarified and repeated the question like 3 or 4 times before this. He has also acknowledged the timeline so he was obviously just ignoring the timeline of me being reactive on purpose so he wouldn't have to answer a question which he had no answer to (and which he still hasn't answered).

I don't mind lynching Aqua off today

Baaaaaaa! Saying a popular opinion with no justification of his own.

Yeah agreed, I'm playing Old School RuneScape right now so you summed it up better than I have. Now back to trying to telegrab wine of zammy's

He's talking about Aqua's defence here. This isn't the first time we have seen Rune say "you summed it up better than I could etc"

It's new years so I'll be really quick! I think he's susp just from the whole drama between inf and aqua. At the end of that, he just looked more scummy than inf and gave shit reasons. For Ender, I think its best to have the vig take him out as so far, he's obviously a threat to town but less so than the potential maf (aqua).

Since I haven't voted for anyone yet (i didn't vote Iggish Jivvi :/)

Vote Aqua

Baaaaaaaa! He doesn't give specific reasons as to why he thinks Aqua is suspicious. "Gave shit reasons" with no justification, not to mention the irony either, is a horrible reason to lynch someone if you back yourself up.

I'll stick with my word and claim as

Justin Treudeu - Vanilla townie

"I'll stick with my word" shouldn't even have to be mentioned if there is no possibility you're lying. Also this is a small detail, but he spelled the name of his own character wrongly which seems as if he's not too familiar with him. Feel free to disregard this name point though, just an observation.

So far, just because Me and Notty have put pressure on him; that we are automatically scum and that also just because you trust me; that you're also scum too?

No, he's just trying to belittle me here. I have repeatedly given multiple reasons as to why I think notty and rune could be scum. The reasons have been perfectly valid too.

Iggy, why do you think that HK is Mafia when nobody else has really pointed this out and that from what I can gather; that most people find him as town?

Because apparently this matters, this betrays Rune's sheep mentality.

If anything, it would make sense to try to have Mafia switch to have Inffy lynched as he is the most vocal and having the excuse as Inf = autocrat could have had the potential of swaying towns mind in lynching Inf in Mafias head.

Currently, the three who were vocal about this theory of Inf being Autocrat were:

Danni - Quiet in the game and doesn't input a lot into the current matter

Vatumok - Also quiet but less 'memey' than Danni.

Erik - He town read to me personally so I don't understand if he was scum to out himself like this. Maybe he thought that because town think he isn't scum; that he would have a bigger say and potentially sway people's mind?

This seems very out of the blue and VERY dodgy indeed.

He's trying to put suspicion on other people here methinks.

Yeah so these are my other reasons. I even have more but I'll probably include them in a conclusion post later today or tomorrow.
In points of this post I may come across as aggressive but I think that's mainly because looking at what he's said, I'm incredulous how other people don't find as scummy as I do especially considering how many times I have tried to explain it.

Rune, if you want to dispute any of these points, feel free to.

 

[Rune]

Rune seems quite sensitive over his role and country here. However, this could just be me being cynical.

His reason for not claiming his country earlier is also very strange. Basically, he is saying that he waited so that he could possibly counter claim another Canadian even though I'm not sure how that would work seeing as he wouldn't know how many Canadian politicians there would be. Also trying to justify this by saying that there is only one notable Canadian politician is a bit weird and it doesn't make sense as although Trudeau might be the only well known Canadian politician, it doesn't automatically mean that there would be only one Canadian politician.

Obviously not, but it would be better to ask who that politician is IF someone did claim as Canadian. As someone rightly pointed out, so far all of the politicians so far are pretty well-known politicians and it would be easy to point out Mafia if they used some random politician which isn't that well known to cover their tracks.

In my opinion Rune has been a sheep this game, cosying up to people, trying to be friendly and trying to jump on bandwagons. Naturally as I suspect him, this jumps out to me a lot more. This quote isn't particularly damning, I'm just using it to mention this early on in this post.

I mean sure, if you think I've been a sheep this game and yet have argued the point that I'm the one starting bandwagons; it does become a bit of a catch-22. Anyways, if someone did vote for someone immediately for some suspicion without a definite picture then it does look scummy. I would rather prefer to get the full picture and lynch someone than vote for someone who is potentially town. That's why I didn't vote for you.

Rune has also used comparatives to question motives and to defend himself as can be seen here. He's comparing himself to what Inffy did last game to justify his reasoning.
Here, why he did not vote for me yet is being called into question.

In the game of mafia, comparatives are everything. There's probably some stuff which can be taken the wrong way but the logic is there. Also, most people do this in Mafia and it's not just Inffy so I don't understand the argument of me sucking up to him.

Probably me being cynical but it seems like he is cosying up to Inf here.
(Inffy speaking below)
"You say the reason you didn't vote him was because you could see where I was coming from when I said he was acting "a tad" different last game, but you only seem to agree with this (since you only say this) after I said it. Before that, you seemed pretty sure that Iggish was acting very similar to last game and even used that as the reason for saying he was the most suspicious."

I mean, sure it can be taken that way but I'm positive that you're just being cynical here. At the end of the day, sometimes someone explains it better than you do and because of this; the explanation can change a lot. My ability at that moment of time to make points wasn't sound at that moment of time due to some personal reasons but the logic is there and if someone WAS in my shoes; they could agree on me. I just wasn't able to convey it correctly and I doubt I can do that now.

Huh, I just noticed that Rune acknowledged the time difference of before and after my reactive post. This makes him even more scummy as many of his points were taking the timeline out of context and saying that in general I was playing reactively when I was specifically talking about before he accused me. The fact that he acknowledged this makes me know that he didn't simply make a mistake and overlook the wording of my question multiple times, but rather chose not to answer it properly.

Unless there's been a misunderstanding here on my part, this pretty much cements my suspicions that Rune is scum as he was fully aware of the timeline when it suited him, but referenced me being reactive after I was reactive in response to "when was I being reactive before you accused me of leading the town?"

I mean, in my shoes I would say that there is a misunderstanding. When I was arguing that you were acting similarly, it was the case of you being vocal. This was then argued differently by Inf who said you were more reactive. I thought you being reactive was a better suit on what I felt about you so I changed my argument to adjust to this change. That's literally it, it was a mistake and not anything you were trying to imply here.

Rune says that he thinks I'm probably town with no justification while I'm piling pressure on him. Inf then calls him out on this and unless I've missed something, Rune didn't reply to the question.

Nope, at the end of the day, my theory was that someone in your country (US) is most likely scum. At the beginning, I thought it was you because of how you acted at that moment of time but when both of you worded it in a way which cleared some doubts in my head, I had some second thoughts and backed down. There were so many questions being flung about that I'm not surprised that I DIDN'T reply to these questions.

Rune says that I'm probably town but then says that I'm trying to make him look scummy. Makes sense. I'm not even sure what his question means but now he's suggesting that I could be mafia again.

At that point in time, you being town wasn't fully off the table. After all, you haven't told us anything other than you're from the US (I think); so under my theory, I still had a moment of doubt about you but not as much as Aqua as we see later on. My theory is based on statistics and how there was a HIGH chance that someone from the US is Mafia, which was backed up by Aqua saying he was from the US/Donald and resulted in him being shown as the Godfather.

This is the same post as the quote from directly above. Now he is saying again that I'm probably town. His wording makes me think that he feels that I should be grateful / thankful for him "dropping" his suspicion on me. Reading it through again, I look less scummy, what a coincidence!
Rune is trying to cosy up to me here and he contradicts himself a bit.

I don't see the point of cosying up to you because the tables could have totally been different.

The second quote here should be first but I don't really think it's relevant. Rune says "let me say this in baby speak" when defending himself saying I was reactive and then goes on to say further down the page that "my argument was pretty shit". Then why the fuck was he so adamant that he was correct and that we were the ones not understanding the situation.

defending his suspicions of me. He backtracked and 180'ed pretty damn quickly, giving shitty excuses. Also, there is basically no chance of the penny only just now dropping as we clarified and repeated the question like 3 or 4 times before this. He has also acknowledged the timeline so he was obviously just ignoring the timeline of me being reactive on purpose so he wouldn't have to answer a question which he had no answer to (and which he still hasn't answered).

Because it was annoying that I had to repeat the same questions over and over; that you kept pushing over and over; because I thought you were scum at a moment of time. I didn't think I was adamant like you were trying to say, or I would have voted for you. In fact, you've been more adamant that I'm scum than I have of you which is a total flip currently; which is why you stuck with your vote with me instead of lynching Aqua which was pretty much agreed on with the entire town; including myself.

Also, about your 'timeline'; the way that you guys tried to argue was confusing me so much that I pretty much got the whole thread chronologically in the wrong order. It was my fault and no way should be used as an argument in stating that I'm scum because it's confusing when you got similar questions/points being flung around that it's EASY to lose track of; especially when you are on mobile.

I don't feel like replying further to this though, hopefully, you understand :).

Baaaaaaa! Saying a popular opinion with no justification of his own.

He's talking about Aqua's defence here. This isn't the first time we have seen Rune say "you summed it up better than I could etc"

Baaaaaaaa! He doesn't give specific reasons as to why he thinks Aqua is suspicious. "Gave shit reasons" with no justification, not to mention the irony either, is a horrible reason to lynch someone if you back yourself up.

Thanks for now trying to argue that I'm a sheep again; and I love the use of a sheep sound BUT I'll try to clear this up right now. In that whole incident, I already thought that Inf was the townie because my gut feeling felt like he was town. Aqua was obviously acting a lot more scummy than he did, and therefore I voted for him because I wanted to get back into Runescape and grind my wine of zammys.

"I'll stick with my word" shouldn't even have to be mentioned if there is no possibility you're lying. Also this is a small detail, but he spelled the name of his own character wrongly which seems as if he's not too familiar with him. Feel free to disregard this name point though, just an observation.

I was told that I needed to claim today; so I did. Justin Trudeau's surname is a pretty difficult name to remember and get correct so give me some flack when I spell his name wrong once.

No, he's just trying to belittle me here. I have repeatedly given multiple reasons as to why I think notty and rune could be scum. The reasons have been perfectly valid too.

Yeah, you're probably right when it comes to this since I've already admitted that what I did was prettyyy scummy so I can get where you are coming from.

Because apparently, this matters, this betrays Rune's sheep mentality.

I argued in the case that maybe it would convince you that you might be tunnel-visioning; which I'm sure you are right now.

He's trying to put suspicion on other people here methinks.

You could argue for that but you can agree that in that moment; all three of them did look scummy asf.

I have here but I doubt it's going to make an ounce of difference. So far you and Inf have been tunnel-visioning on me that each time I make a reply; that in my mind that it doesn't make a difference. But yeah, I just wanted to ask what you think about other people (updated) about them being mafia or not and I'll obviously ask if you could reconsider lynching me/consider that potentially it could be the case that you guys are tunnel-visioning.

I tried to clear up as much as I could but I doubt I can further because of something which I disclosed already and that I'm not in the mood to repeat about.

 

[Iggish]

Shitty excuses.

giving shitty excuses.

I have just been informed that Rune has dyslexia. While he mentioned it earlier in the thread, I didn't truly grasp what it meant and also to what affect it would have on him. By saying shitty excuses I wasn't trying to insult him or be disrespectful. I felt that in the context and in my opinion, they were poor excuses as in my opinion, he 180ed and then used non-game relevant excuses to defend himself.

I still find Rune suspicious as there are still plenty of stuff I disagree with and find scummy about him but I will take this new information into consideration when making arguments against him.

Once again, I didn't mean offence.

 

[Iggish]

Obviously not, but it would be better to ask who that politician is IF someone did claim as Canadian. As someone rightly pointed out, so far all of the politicians so far are pretty well-known politicians and it would be easy to point out Mafia if they used some random politician which isn't that well known to cover their tracks.

No, the reasoning you gave for waiting is certainly suspicious. Remember, at that point in the game, we only knew the names of two players (beside our own of course) so we didn't know how well known they all were. So I don't buy it.

I mean sure, if you think I've been a sheep this game and yet have argued the point that I'm the one starting bandwagons; it does become a bit of a catch-22. Anyways, if someone did vote for someone immediately for some suspicion without a definite picture then it does look scummy. I would rather prefer to get the full picture and lynch someone than vote for someone who is potentially town. That's why I didn't vote for you.

I mean, the reasons I accused you of being a sheep and bandwagoning don't really have anything to do with your lack of voting for me. If anything, that would've made me even more suspicious originally.

In the game of mafia, comparatives are everything. There's probably some stuff which can be taken the wrong way but the logic is there. Also, most people do this in Mafia and it's not just Inffy so I don't understand the argument of me sucking up to him.

Yes, it can be taken the wrong way. Your post about me and HK and the lack of suspicion on HK from other people is definitely weird. It shouldn't necessarily matter what other people think. I think you only mentioned that because this game you've been tuned in to not trying to stand out from the crowd, which is why you mentioned it.

I mean, sure it can be taken that way but I'm positive that you're just being cynical here. At the end of the day, sometimes someone explains it better than you do and because of this; the explanation can change a lot. My ability at that moment of time to make points wasn't sound at that moment of time due to some personal reasons but the logic is there and if someone WAS in my shoes; they could agree on me. I just wasn't able to convey it correctly and I doubt I can do that now.

Well, yeah. I still think you were trying to cosy up to Inffy there though, although I'm influenced by the bias of my opinion that you are scum.

I mean, in my shoes I would say that there is a misunderstanding. When I was arguing that you were acting similarly, it was the case of you being vocal. This was then argued differently by Inf who said you were more reactive. I thought you being reactive was a better suit on what I felt about you so I changed my argument to adjust to this change. That's literally it, it was a mistake and not anything you were trying to imply here.

But I was being active because I was defending myself. You somehow took it to mean that I was being vocal, advocating lynches and leading the town which is certainly not what I was doing at all.
No, you specifically said that I was trying to lead the town when comparing me to the previous game. Inf argued this after you made the points and after I posted a post which actually showed reactive tendencies, none of which my posts prior to that included.
You then relied on this argument for a while, imploring me to consider how I'm playing at the moment which wasn't at all relevant and I'm pretty sure you knew that. I asked how I was being reactive before you made your accusations.
I would also like to remind everyone that you only made this "Iggish was being vocal = looking for lynches" argument after 20 pages and numerous re-clarifications and re-postings of the same question which you simply refused to answer.
So yeah, I don't think it was a mistake. You were intentionally ignoring me.

Nope, at the end of the day, my theory was that someone in your country (US) is most likely scum. At the beginning, I thought it was you because of how you acted at that moment of time but when both of you worded it in a way which cleared some doubts in my head, I had some second thoughts and backed down. There were so many questions being flung about that I'm not surprised that I DIDN'T reply to these questions.

But you didn't mention this at the time did you?
I was piling pressure on you and you started trying to be friendly with me to presumable wiggle out of suspicion. You are only mentioning this now as well which makes it even harder to believe.
Well it's up to you to reply to questions directed your way. The point also served to highlight a possible trend involving you not answering questions. The main culprit being "what made you think I was leading the town" which I think you still have not answered.

At that point in time, you being town wasn't fully off the table. After all, you haven't told us anything other than you're from the US (I think); so under my theory, I still had a moment of doubt about you but not as much as Aqua as we see later on. My theory is based on statistics and how there was a HIGH chance that someone from the US is Mafia, which was backed up by Aqua saying he was from the US/Donald and resulted in him being shown as the Godfather.

But you said I was probably town so why would I intentionally try to make you look scummy. You can't have it both ways and then just explain it in terms of probability when questioned.

I don't see the point of cosying up to you because the tables could have totally been different.

What do you mean by the tables could've been totally different?
And of course it would make sense for you to try and cosy up to me. You wanted me to stop putting on pressure so you tried to gain my trust by being nice, apologising and saying that I was probably town. In addition to this, I was / am one of the most active peeps in the game then / now so it would make sense to try and be on my side. In fact, it seems as though you've been trying to cosy up to myself, notty and Inffy, all of whom were active players who opposed Aqua which is curious. But of course, I could be being cynical here. If you want quotes, I'll give you quotes. Just ask.

Alright, that's all I'm going to answer tonight as I'm getting tired and want to remain coherent while answering. I'll answer the rest when I get home from school tomorrow.
I hope I made sense as I am quite tired.

 

[webpaige]

You know I thought this game would end over the break, and especially thought Day 1 wouldn't take up 90% of the break

 

[Danni122112]

You know I thought this game would end over the break, and especially thought Day 1 wouldn't take up 90% of the break

The last game had 50 pages on day one, so this is at least a bit better lol

 

[Danni122112]

I have tried my best to read up on the game a bit, and will type down a bit more of my thoughts now.

first of a respond to runes post

Agreed, for me Inffy read as strongly town, not as Autocrat. I would have thought an autocrat would be more quiet and more out of the way than what Inf is currently acting.

If anything, it would make sense to try to have Mafia switch to have Inffy lynched as he is the most vocal and having the excuse as Inf = autocrat could have had the potential of swaying towns mind in lynching Inf in Mafias head.

Currently, the three who were vocal about this theory of Inf being Autocrat were:

Danni - Quiet in the game and doesn't input a lot into the current matter

Vatumok - Also quiet but less 'memey' than Danni.

Erik - He town read to me personally so I don't understand if he was scum to out himself like this. Maybe he thought that because town think he isn't scum; that he would have a bigger say and potentially sway people's mind?

This seems very out of the blue and VERY dodgy indeed.

How is this dodgy? I explained why I thought he was it, and I did not come out of the blue about it, I voiced my thoughts about the autocrat role, after Vat did.

This is honestly a bit of the reason I dont type too much, every time I say anything about anyone, I always get accused of being scummy, dodgy etc, and unless I have a solid case, it seems to put me in a worse light than if I said nothing.

Regarding Rune:
I think he is the most supicous at the moment, I don't have anything new to bring to the table here, just agree on whats already been said by others. (baaaaaahh)

Inffy:
Hard Town read. If not possibly autocrat, but it would be really stupid to lynch him when we dont have any evidence at all for it. (Detective pls) Autocrat lynch isnt needed yet either . pls stop writing so long posts inffy, they take forever to read. cry

Iggy:
I dont really know, active but not really that supicous to me.

Erik:
I agree with a lot of what he says, dont want to lynch him today. I do however find his idea bout the autocrat having a kill ability to be very weird, and whoever said this might be to divert attention from the SK role, might be correct.

Vat:
seems town to me, also pretty decent at the game, more posts would be nice

Claire:
seems towny, would be nice with more posts

TWG:
Very quiet? Apparently a lot of people were supicous of him for something, cant find/recall what it was

Oak:
Very quiet, doesnt seem like he read too much of the game based on his last post

Hk:
Dunno

Web:
Dunno

Notty:
seems pretty confirmed town, a bit quiet lately maybe?

Ooglie:
very quiet?
Unless I am being completely stupid here, having ender still "alive" (Can mafia kill him Jivvi?) seems like a great thhing for us, as he is confirmed town sided.

I still find the night 1 kills the be completely preplexing, and cant seem to get a good idea of why these people were chosen.

Also could we please get the main post updated with the players currently alive, and a link to each of the day end posts too? Would make it so much easier to keep track of things.

I havent read everything, especially not from day one, just so fucking much to read. I will do my best to read every single single post and try and think more while reading them to be a bit more useful, from now on.
pls dont kill me if any of what I have said is weird or wrong. I dont mean to throw supsicions on anyone( ok maybe rune), I just thought people might wan to hera my thoughts.

 

[Iggish]

Ok, to continue on answering Rune's post now that I'm home from school.

The second quote here should be first but I don't really think it's relevant. Rune says "let me say this in baby speak" when defending himself saying I was reactive and then goes on to say further down the page that "my argument was pretty shit". Then why the fuck was he so adamant that he was correct and that we were the ones not understanding the situation.

defending his suspicions of me. He backtracked and 180'ed pretty damn quickly, giving shitty excuses. Also, there is basically no chance of the penny only just now dropping as we clarified and repeated the question like 3 or 4 times before this. He has also acknowledged the timeline so he was obviously just ignoring the timeline of me being reactive on purpose so he wouldn't have to answer a question which he had no answer to (and which he still hasn't answered).

Because it was annoying that I had to repeat the same questions over and over; that you kept pushing over and over; because I thought you were scum at a moment of time. I didn't think I was adamant like you were trying to say, or I would have voted for you.

I'm guessing you meant answering the same question over and over? Well, you didn't answer the question, you kept dodging it and answering it with non-relevant mumbo-jumbo. Also since I think you acknowledged the timeline, I think you were being adamant (will get to my use of this word in a bit) while defending yourself just tp defend yourself. You didn't have a valid reason so you just made it seem like you had one without actually having one if that makes sense.
I meant adamant in you defending what you said, not adamant in your suspicions.
Why would you strongly defend your views only to go on to say "yeah tbh my argument was pretty shit" or something like that on the same page? I think you just saw a small possibility to give a semi-relevant answer and took it, then used stuff like this which contradicted yourself, (considering how strongly you felt you were right) to defend yourself.

In fact, you've been more adamant that I'm scum than I have of you which is a total flip currently; which is why you stuck with your vote with me instead of lynching Aqua which was pretty much agreed on with the entire town; including myself.

Yes, because I have perfectly sound reasons to believe you are scum while you gave weird reasons with little to no justification. Well I mean, yes, I stuck with my vote on you instead of lynching Aqua because I found you more suspicious, although in parallel, I did support an Aqua lynch.
No, like the situation with you, people just called Aqua "suspicious" and didn't properly explain why they thought Aqua was suspicious and when questioned, couldn't properly provide an answer. Aqua was lynched because of a bandwagon of people who just wanted to end the day (I can't really blame them though tbh).
I'm not sure what you mean by the "including myself" remark. Is it meant to slightly defend yourself? If I recall correctly, you were the eighth person out of nine to join the bandwagon to vote for Aqua so idk what you mean here.

Also, about your 'timeline'; the way that you guys tried to argue was confusing me so much that I pretty much got the whole thread chronologically in the wrong order.

IIRC this is the first time that you have said this. Why are you only mentioning this now?
Also, I don't think the way we tried to argue was confusing at all.

It was my fault and no way should be used as an argument in stating that I'm scum because it's confusing when you got similar questions/points being flung around that it's EASY to lose track of; especially when you are on mobile.

Erm, no. It should definitely be used in stating that you are scum. We asked and clarified the question again and again so you could understand what we were asking and actually answer it. However, you didn't seem to understand the timeline and kept pointing to me being reactive after I was actually reactive. I asked when I was being reactive before you accused me of leading the town and you didn't answer.
The fact that you were obviously aware of the correct timeline because you acknowledged it basically confirms to me that you were intentionally not answering the question.
What do you mean by similar questions and points? Surely your answers should be consistent with your excuses if the points are basically the same. Even if it's easy to lose track, you acknowledged the timeline in one post while not answering the question related to the timeline properly on multiple occasions.

I don't feel like replying further to this though, hopefully, you understand :).

No actually, I don't understand why out of all the other points I made, the one pretty much confirming that you are scum to me is the one that you don't want to reply further to it. Why do you not want to reply further to this post specifically?

It's new years so I'll be really quick! I think he's susp just from the whole drama between inf and aqua. At the end of that, he just looked more scummy than inf and gave shit reasons. For Ender, I think its best to have the vig take him out as so far, he's obviously a threat to town but less so than the potential maf (aqua).

Since I haven't voted for anyone yet (i didn't vote Iggish Jivvi :/)

Vote Aqua

Baaaaaaaa! He doesn't give specific reasons as to why he thinks Aqua is suspicious. "Gave shit reasons" with no justification, not to mention the irony either, is a horrible reason to lynch someone if you back yourself up.

Thanks for now trying to argue that I'm a sheep again; and I love the use of a sheep sound BUT I'll try to clear this up right now. In that whole incident, I already thought that Inf was the townie because my gut feeling felt like he was town. Aqua was obviously acting a lot more scummy than he did, and therefore I voted for him because I wanted to get back into Runescape and grind my wine of zammys.

Then why didn't you mention this "gut feeling" when justifying lynching someone? In the post where you voted Aqua, your justification was that you think he's "susp" from the whole Inf v Aqua drama, "he just looked more scummy than inf" and that he "gave shit reasons". You did not explain why you thought he was suspicious, nor why he gave "shit reasons".
Rune, what were the shit reasons?
"I'll stick with my word" shouldn't even have to be mentioned if there is no possibility you're lying. Also this is a small detail, but he spelled the name of his own character wrongly which seems as if he's not too familiar with him. Feel free to disregard this name point though, just an observation.

I was told that I needed to claim today; so I did. Justin Trudeau's surname is a pretty difficult name to remember and get correct so give me some flack when I spell his name wrong once.

Why aren't you addressing what I pointed out here, regarding what you said; "I'll stick to my word"?

I also said "feel free to disregard this name point though" but you ask me to give you some slack. I don't understand this. In this statement, you ignore the main point and concentrate on one that I said could be disregarded easily.

I argued in the case that maybe it would convince you that you might be tunnel-visioning; which I'm sure you are right now.

Oh ok, I can see where you'd be coming from with this. I still think it shows your attentiveness to trying to be inconspicuous and be a sheep though.
Also could you clarify the last bit? Are you sure I'm tunnel visioning in general? Are you sure I'm tunnel visioning HK? Are you sure I'm tunnel visioning you? Please clarify.

 

[Iggish]

Fuck I clicked post reply again, I'll post the last few remaining answers below.
He's trying to put suspicion on other people here methinks.

You could argue for that but you can agree that in that moment; all three of them did look scummy asf.

Well, to some degree yes. I think it's perfectly reasonable to accuse someone of being the autocrat, but the fact that Danni and Vat seemed to make carbon copies of the same post within a few minutes of each other is peculiar. Especially because something similar happened a bit further on. However, you didn't mention this, you only mentioned that they were being quiet, while you said that you town read erik, so I'm not sure why you thought they looked "scummy as fuck" when you gave basically no justification as to why you thought they were scummy. Afaik you only said it was "out of the blue" and "scummy" or something like that.

I have here but I doubt it's going to make an ounce of difference. So far you and Inf have been tunnel-visioning on me that each time I make a reply; that in my mind that it doesn't make a difference.

Of course you defending yourself is going to make a difference. I doubt it would make a big difference in my mind as I'm nearly certain that you are scum, but you could try to convince others of your innocence.
Well naturally I'm analysing your posts because I think you're scummy. To be honest, I don't think we're tunnel visioning you. Yes, we're putting a lot of pressure on you are were / are asking you questions but that was mainly because you made non-sensical posts and points and were suspicious for all the stuff I said above. Especially considering that you haven't answered the question yet.
I haven't only been concentrating on you. I made posts about Erik and Hk as well today.

and I'll obviously ask if you could reconsider lynching me/consider that potentially it could be the case that you guys are tunnel-visioning.

Well, that would be disregarding all the scummy stuff that you have done, so no, unless something massive occurs, I think you are the most likely person at the moment (by far) to be mafia, so I'll keep my vote on you.

I tried to clear up as much as I could but I doubt I can further because of something which I disclosed already and that I'm not in the mood to repeat about.

You could respond to my main point against you. This post was mainly the secondary reasons.

 

[Iggish]

But yeah, I just wanted to ask what you think about other people (updated) about them being mafia or not

Ok, I'll update my suspicions chart again:
This was my post from page 26 (I included Arelic twice by mistake):
Most suspicious: Aqua, Rune
Quite suspicious: Notty, Ender
Neutral, slightly scum: HKCaper, webpaige, Unu
Neutral: Arelic, Danni, Jolt, Oak, Ooglie, TWG
Neutral, slightly town: Arelic
Quite townie: Computerguy
Strong townie read: Inffy, Erik

Page 35
Most suspicious: Rune
Quite suspicious: HKCaper
Neutral, slightly scum: Ender, TWG, Notty
Neutral: Danni, Vat, Oak, Ooglie, webpaige
Neutral, slightly town: Arelic
Quite townie:
Strong townie read: Inffy, Erik

Updated:
Most suspicious: Rune
Quite suspicious:
Neutral, slightly scum: TWG, Notty, Danni, HKCaper
Neutral: Oak, Ooglie, webpaige, Arelic, Ender, Vat
Neutral, slightly town:
Quite townie: Erik, Inffy
Strong townie read:

Rune: I explained my reasons countless times. He is by far the most scummy for me.

HKCaper: I was mostly suspicious of Hk because I thought he stopped at the same time as notty. However, I was mistaken and it's kind of been resolved. I'm still a bit suspicious though. I have vibes and as I said in my previous suspicions post, he's playing a bit more conservatively IMO.

TWG: Unu was pretty sure he was scum and apparently has never been wrong on it before (although there's always a first time for everything). He's been playing very differently this game and been a lot more conservative.

Notty: While Notty and I agreed to differ, it still seemed to me like Notty was trying really hard to lynch me. This was also a common theme with Aqua. While Aqua flipping mafia puts notty in a good light, she seemed quite eager to lynch someone. (I just c+p'ed this from the previous one, my stance is the same. Arguably, I could have put notty into the "quite suspicious" category after what happened earlier today, but I'll leave her where she is for now)

Danni + Vat: I'll just put them together. They both said basically the same thing twice recently and their opinions have been very similar, which could just be a coincidence but owell. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably tentatively suspect Vat to be a townie because I've liked most of his posts so far and he's made sense.

Oak: I just can't get a read on him. In addition to inactivity, one or two recent posts questioned whether or not he has even been reading the game.

Ooglie: He's been quiet and I just can't get a read on him. Idk why I few people think he's town, he hasn't stood out to me at all.

Webpaige + Arelic: I'll just put these two together because my opinion on them is pretty similar. I don't really have a read and they've both been pretty quiet. A few of paige's recent posts have seemed a bit off however but it's probably nothing.

Ender: He's a third party with a fulfilled win condition. I think he fits in nicely at neutral although he has been scummy in the past.

Erik: He's slipped slightly down the town read chart as a result of what I presumed to be a slip. Doubt still remains. However, he explained it very well. I still think he's probably a townie.

Inf: A Hk, Notty and Inf team would actually make sense but apart from the sense it would make, it doesn't really mean anything atm. I still think he's probably a townie, although it makes him slip a bit down the towny chart.

I think recent lengthy posts have resulted in a drop of activity and so it has been harder to come up with reads.

 

[Danni122112]

Danni + Vat: I'll just put them together. They both said basically the same thing twice recently and their opinions have been very similar, which could just be a coincidence but owell. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably tentatively suspect Vat to be a townie because I've liked most of his posts so far and he's made sense.

I wasnt even aware our posts were that close together, so the timing is complete chance.

Other than that the reason I replied as fast as I saw it was that I had been thinking somewhat the same, and didnt want Vat to stand alone when I was agreeing.

Rune: I explained my reasons countless times. He is by far the most scummy for me.

I can agree to most of your reasons for rune, to the point that I would be willing to lynch him, I would like to hear more peoples thoughts on rune though, especially inffys thoughts about him right now.

Notty: While Notty and I agreed to differ, it still seemed to me like Notty was trying really hard to lynch me. This was also a common theme with Aqua. While Aqua flipping mafia puts notty in a good light, she seemed quite eager to lynch someone. (I just c+p'ed this from the previous one, my stance is the same. Arguably, I could have put notty into the "quite suspicious" category after what happened earlier today, but I'll leave her where she is for now)

I disagree about Notty, that may be because I wasnt the one being lynched and I didnt really notice the whole ordeal( not saying that it didnt happen, just didnt notice it)

HKCaper: I was mostly suspicious of Hk because I thought he stopped at the same time as notty. However, I was mistaken and it's kind of been resolved. I'm still a bit suspicious though. I have vibes and as I said in my previous suspicions post, he's playing a bit more conservatively IMO.

TWG: Unu was pretty sure he was scum and apparently has never been wrong on it before (although there's always a first time for everything). He's been playing very differently this game and been a lot more conservative.

If we arent lynch rune I think we should take a look at these two.

Oak: I just can't get a read on him. In addition to inactivity, one or two recent posts questioned whether or not he has even been reading the game.

Ooglie: He's been quiet and I just can't get a read on him. Idk why I few people think he's town, he hasn't stood out to me at all.

Webpaige + Arelic: I'll just put these two together because my opinion on them is pretty similar. I don't really have a read and they've both been pretty quiet. A few of paige's recent posts have seemed a bit off however but it's probably nothing.

why is everyone so quiet, and just posting so little. I dont see us taking more of a look into these guys as we dont have any information on them, but if inactive people dont get more active by tomorrow, it might be a good idea to take a look on them.

Erik: He's slipped slightly down the town read chart as a result of what I presumed to be a slip. Doubt still remains. However, he explained it very well. I still think he's probably a townie.

mostly agree

I think recent lengthy posts have resulted in a drop of activity and so it has been harder to come up with reads.

I can agree to this.

Other than that, it would be nice trying to come to a conclusion on something soon.