Apologies. I'm probably the only person who hasn't posted yet after the new Day cycle began, but I haven't really haven't been thinking straight these past few days, so I haven't really been extremely optimistic or wanting to post fairly lengthy posts, which is normally the only way I do things.
Anyways, I am here, and seeing what has been already said previously, I think I should probably star by trying to defend myself, and Sploorky, to a degree.
Honestly, I always like to commend people initially for suspecting me, because honestly, as I have said many times in the past, Mafia has always been a game about intrigue and suspicion, and we should obviously never just focus on a single person or point of interest, but also what is occurring and being said by the people around us, as many times it has been proven that the ideas of those who we suspect to be evil, turn out to good; and those who we believe to be working with us, turn out to stab us in the back down the line. It's an idea that goes either way. Which is both a reason I like, as well as dislike it.
You see, ever since the end of, I believe Alpha's Mafia Season 3 but also possibly Mafia Lite v1, I've really begun to hate the "Oh, this player hasn't died yet so they must be Mafia" or "Oh, this player has been really quiet, so they must be Mafia" outlooks of the game that have REALLY become apparent in recent titles of this Mafia forum game, and honestly, I've kind of gotten sick of it. Both ideas are basically opinionated and biased toward a specific outlook, and don't really follow any tangible forms of evidence or suspicion, but are really just a shallow grab at trying to lynch someone, and there really is no real reason behind it besides that.
YES, there is always a chance that these supposedly players may in fact be the Mafia, or the Cop, or a civilian; and I must admit, such attempts have in fact been successful in a few cases,
BUT just as that is the case, there can be an even greater chance that those players are in fact, not their supposed roles, and we have also seen this to be the case in similar cases of suspected treasonous roles against the town.
I want to point out that a lot of the suspicions put on me and Sploorky really only stem from Defiant not dying in the first few days last season. You cannot deny that, as honestly, the ideas of "good players not dying on the first turn" mainly became really prominent last season with that fact. And honestly, that scenario probably is the only case where I find the idea of "Skilled players not dying makes them obviously apart of the Mafia" and even viable idea to comprehend.
...
We have had around 6 or 7 Mafia games so far created and carried out here on the Blocktopia forums, and we have known for awhile that Defiant has very much some experience in the game of Mafia, having that he has participated in fact for all of Alpha's Mafia Seasons (4 in total), as well as Mafia Japan if you count hosting a (fairly difficult to understand) version of Mafia as experience, which I certainly do. Adding on to that fact, we know that Defiant has had a wide variety of knowledge and practice with the use of the Epic Mafia website, and his pitching of ideas that generally was adopted by Alpha in his future installments of the Forum Mafia formula.
Defiant was also seen to be Mafia on two occasions; Mafia Season's 3 and 4, as well as himself being killed off relatively on the first few days both in Seasons 2 and 3 for reasons that people knew he was already a skilled player by that point in time.
Because of this, it should have been a bit more obvious after that initial first day the Defiant was more or less apart of the Mafia, and what I feel once again, just so happens to be the only case of said event, and actually should not reflect at all on the course of the game for other players.
This idea also goes for people who tend to be quiet during Mafia games. They shouldn't be suspected because of how they decide to play the game, or if they can play the game at all during that point in time. It's more prejudicial than anything, and once again, is mainly based around no evidence whatsoever.
Basically I'm saying, don't suspect me and Sploorky just based on that reason alone. Find some more evidence please that actually has reasonable value and can actually contribute to the game, thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways... Besides that I don't really have much to say in terms of the events last night, generally because I don't have a decent grasp on the situation currently. We are, as Sploorky stated, basically back at square one and we don't entirely know where to go on from here.
In my opinion, I don't actually think Dessern's killing was really to place suspicion onto 77 or Sploorky. From what I'm getting at is that this idea basically stems from that ordeal with Dessern saying "we" in a statement back on Page 1 of this thread, and 77 mis-interpreting the wording. The discussion surrounding that ordeal generally ended in Page 2 of the thread and didn't really go farther then that as we generally concluded that it was, in fact, a misunderstanding between people, and left it at that, with 77 and Sploorky both admitting they had the wrong idea initially.
Because of that, I'm probably more onto the idea, once again as Sploorky stated, is that Dessern was probably the most "cleared" out of any of us at that time, and that killing Dessern off we would once again be back at square one where we can generally expect no one to be exactly "cleared" until we get a bit more information through further discussion on the topic.
So- Basically I have no input or anything. >.<
One thing I do want answered is the question I gave Ooglie earlier which he didn't exactly respond back at, which was:
Nothing meaningful to say if there's nothing meaningful going on right now. I already said what I need to say in this post:
Well. No-lynching/abstaining still seems bad to me but welp, things are going to go how things are going to go. As the odds of something to happen if we no-lynch have already been said. Oh well, I'll probably die soon but No-Lynch. (Note - I might change this later on but at the moment I guess we're out of options)
As I stated the last time I asked, It's not really an accusation or suspicion, I just find it kind of odd that you would say that, especially when the game was just starting and kicking into gear. That along with the fact that there isn't really anything bad against you makes me scratch my head at that statement. It kind of made me depressed after I read it.
Again, its not a suspicion, and really shouldn't be acknowledge as that important that would add anything to the game in general. It's just a question I was curious about.