Could you explain the logic of this to me in a little more depth? I'm not really sure what killing a person with infrequent posting habits would achieve.

Okay I went through QuadrAlien's posts.

The first three posts were kinda fluffy (no offense) and then in post #333 he is troubled by CSPVG. This results is quoting out of context and putting himself (QuadrAlien) in the position of being excluded from the list of bad guys on the poll. Poor thing. The post he quotes has nothing to do with that and borders on LAMIST.

Also included in post #333 was vote number three on CSPVG. How convenient, the perfect place for mafia to hide.

QuadrAlien later has a post of some substance (#370) but is still going after CSPVG. Not that CSPVG is some kind of saint. But the agenda and the general lack of true scum hunting. The case against CSPVG was low hanging fruit, so to speak. There was not a scum agenda but an error in judgement.

Then the big vote switch at #412 which Robbeasy has already noted.

I feel good about this. Mafia hiding in plain site.

Vote: QuadrAlien

On what? Sorry, I just don't understand some of the terms used here.

Certainly - just was running short on time there.

The thing about killing the person who isn't speaking that much is that there then isn't really a lot the Town can do to go back through said posts and see why that person might have been killed. Thus, unless someone's managed to get some information overnight and is willing to share it at the time, the Town pretty much end up in the same position as Day 1, only with slightly fewer players on their side. P1na as a target also makes some sense, given as Lifthrasil noted he was speaking more frequently, but not as much of substance to do with who might be Mafia.

Now, then, Flubbucket. A few points:

1) There is a time included when Pazzer was not around to post and I was not yet eligible, meaning I'll be a bit behind in post count naturally,

2) I've been at L-2, which would make myself a more suitable Day 2 lynch choice, and

3) (and this is quite an important one) We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which I were on the Mafia side. I don't think topping myself would have been a particularly good choice. :P

Look
At
Me
I'm
So
Town

Sorry for using acronyms, I know all too well what that's like. Never be afraid to ask. I will never make fun of you for that.

I will make fun of you for other things.

I made no reference to pazzer whatsoever. I noted your posts only. You making pazzer your scapegoat is lame lame lame.

My vote stands.

Fair enough.

You could for example make fun of me for having no clue who to vote for next. I'll just watch for the moment and hope that someone will slip up so badly that even I will notice. :-)

Care to explain why? I know that you have nominated repeatedly as your prime suspect. But I don't think that you have satisfactorily motivated that suspicion.

It's the way you are talking about the experienced players. They seem to be your new target. And you keep switching those for no reason.

That's just how I experience it.

(sigh) This post was linked to your earlier one, Post #465. I'd have thought the third of the points would have made that quite clear (alas, when writing the post your later one had not appeared, and I admit I should have dealt with this at the time), but it would appear that quote-mining is among the weaponry you will use.

Your use of the "3rd person on a wagon is scum" argument is without a doubt the most badly thought through use of this logic I've ever seen. I'm fairly certain for it to be properly confirmed the person has to turn out to be a Town (or at the very least neutral, but let's not go into that) player, and that has yet to be decided in CSPVG's case. On the other hand, third onto the N0x0ss stack was CSPVG himself, with Robbeasy finishing a close fourth (and jumping off it again after the next votecount). If you truly wish to go for third on any wagon whatsoever... I believe you were referring to a phrase involving pots and kettles?

Also... Post #453. I'm curious more than anything else. What are you on about Kodos for? P1na has no known character or role, and N0x0ss was Kodos.

In any case - Vote Flubbucket

Yeah, I was confused about that earlier but didn't find time to post...

Neither P1na's role nor alignment was given. N0x was the 'lone mason' but his alignment was given. I don't think there's much we can deduce about P1na from N0x's role.

OMG I guess I suck.....

Yes I see the thought colliding in my head now. So much room in there for activities.

The sadness over P1na's murder and the rage over N0x0ss's lynch and since I do not possess JoeSapphire super power of being ditherproof....well you see the result.

Vote stands though and I'm looking at SirPrimalform..... >.>

Fixed that for you. I'm not over there, I'm down here!

Ok.

At first glance it looked like my boobs were hanging down past my navel.

So again, like in the last cases, you target me because I switch targets whenever new pieces of data appear? That's a very thin reason. Adapting your suspicion according to the behaviour of all the others is part of the game. You however seem to be intent on sticking to your once formulated opinion, no matter what happens. That is definitely not town-play. Because as a townie you would be lacking the information to justify a fixed target. And on day one even a cop would have no information but still you were quite fixed on me (and P1na). Much like SPF was fixed on N0x0ss. Yes, this makes SPF look suspicious too, but N0x0ss actually took quite some effort to make himself suspicious. While you only find it suspicious that I switch targets (and that I target experienced players, as if they couldn't be mafia!)
This fixation only makes sense if you have for some reason the feeling that you can't be wrong. Which is either self-overestimation or you are scum and know who your targets are.

So, I know it is considered bad style to vote for someone voting for you (for whatever reason), but to me you come over very strongly as mafia trying to eliminate townies one by one.

vote TwisterBE