What about that any other time you've been mafia?

Votecount:

4 - Muttly13 (Robbeasy, Red_Baron, Nmillar, Twilightbard)
4 - Red_Baron (Muttly, Pazzer, Stuart, Joesapphire)
1 - Stuart9001 (Itai.sharim)

Not voting: , Vitek, Peanutbrittle

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

Deadline is 8am GMT 26 January.

Sorry - to clarify, not at any time I've been Mafia! I've only ever been Mafia twice, and first time I got poo'd on from a great height by Damnation....;o)

To be clear I tried to link this.

So counting my vote for muttly and Peanut's for Red_Baron we are tied at L-1 with only itai not voting for any of them. Nice situation. I think we need claim from both.

Two claims at one day?! That's outrageous!

I'd like to ask everyone a question - Would you believe your target's claim?

@PenutBrittle - Claiming is telling everyone what your role is (and hope they believe you).

Only my second ever game that - I was far too green then to have even conceived of such a plan back then..;o)

That depends on the claim really.

Answering 3 people means that this post gotten long again.. damn - Tough to keep your idea about writing less when I am forced by wrongly assumed comments to respond in an attempt to reason.
Yes, lets get this straight: Muttly13's case is only from that one comment... its the only thing is based on.

Your not understanding what I am saying: Saying that I hope we gain something from an otherwise out of time lynch is NOT the same thing as saying I want to wait around doing NOTHING on the day after. Also as Pazzer has already pointed out I considered the results from the day and then I went on to pressure you for INFORMATION. That is a very logical and reasonable thing to do.

Muttly didn't post a case were he tried to get my comment. He posted a case trying to get me to be a target. He didn't write his post as a question, he wrote it as an accusation. He also defended it, called it a solid scum tell and accused Robbeasy of being scum as well, BEFORE I had even REPLIED to it.

At this point of the game, you might have noticed my playstyle tends to be an answer to every question someone asks me, sometimes even questions they don't ask me. I gave a reaction to what I found a very very scummy post, while giving reasons against each of muttly13's accusations. Apparently the fact that I explain myself and consider others input makes me more scummy, than muttly13 who doesn't - its a bit a weird.

Actually I have reposted an extended version of that reply in my huge ass document. But fair enough if you didn't read it. I'll just post it here:

And yes this is just a theory to understand why he can even be talking about a contradiction. More on that now:

My point exactly, though for me this applies to muttly13's case. HOW CAN IT BE A CONTRADICTION? Meaning, how can it be a contradiction that I hope to learn something from a forced by deadline lynch, and then upon day 2 with results that doesn't change much, act by pressuring you for more info, by doing whats always done in a mafia game: VOTE.

So in order to understand why the heck he even calls it a contradiction, I am trying to imagine a situation where it might be considered one. This is an ironic theory about his contradiction statement.

How can it ever be that? Either I don't understand what your writing or it sounds to me like your saying that I am talking about muttly having posted his accusation before the nightkill. How you came up with that idea is beyond me, but I clearly have confused you with that theory. Hope my explanation above will make things more clear for you.

Also its not about picking sides, that was a term used wrongly in RVS. Its about considering angles and see who is what. Apply pressure and judge reactions. You have a ton of reactions from me and you have next to nothing except repetition and statements that only targets me as scum from muttly13. I am still expecting some form of reply from muttly13, but as joe says we are so far out by now that we have to lynch one of us.

------------------
Also I agree with you joe, I was also kinda puzzled by nmillars statement of Rob being muttly13's buddy, I have others in mind, but maybe its a theory of nmillars? Though I can't come up with one to match yet.

Also joe, are you seriously basing your vote on the fact that I am happy someone read what I spent +15 hours writing?? And because you pointed out an error I made so I could correct it and my view slightly? I never said you were leaning town, I just expressed my happiness, if you want to vote for me. Vote for a reason that doesn't steam from something that had nothing to do with the game, other then it being part of the effort I put into it.. :(

Penut, read the begining of my posts and you'll notice that I've mostly giving arguments against muttly13's case of me being scum. The very thing you just said you wanted to see I've been doing most of the time. Of course it has also lead me to believe muttly13 is scum and I've argued for that as well. Most of it though being with response to his accusations and with my reasons behind it.

muttly13 has yet to answer any of my arguments, so basically I've been the one to hammer his..

Itai, to answer your question. I would most likely not. I would like to consider it. But for it to make sense to me, it would have to give me a very good reason as to why muttly13 would explode his weak case at me like that. I feel that others share that feeling of mine. Clearly muttyl13 won't change target anyway. I will be willing to unvote depending on the claim, as I would then have to see people's reactions to it and compare it to my own. But it would only be to prevent a hammering before all sides have been considered. However it should be mentioned again that claiming on L1 is a bad habit on GOG mafia, as some has already stated. And instead reactions should be pressured forth. Problem is with that, I've given plenty of reactions to judge me from, muttly13 given posts to judge him by, but not really any response to my questions nor direct questions from others.

More precisely in such situations full claim should occur. It should consist of name, role, abilities and possibly flavour.

Again, yet more translations of my thoughts rather than commenting on what I actually said. I refuse to get into a line by line argument regarding this as it goes nowhere. My case is based on what Baron actually did and said, not my translations of such. I did nothing more than quote him exactly and ponder what possible reason there could have been for such action. I have not asked you to believe what I say, I have asked you to review it yourself and determine. I have not asked you to come to my interpretation of events, I have asked you to compare it to your own judgment of town play.

Finally, this horse puckey regarding not answering questions... Yet another favorite tactic of Barons. I have answered everyones questions as stated to me. Because he does not like the answers does not make them invalid. Barons questions I have either been unable to find through sheer volume, or more commonly simply ignored as ridiculous. And consistently people have been able to see them for what they are and point them out to him. So much so he has backed off of three theories against me. Multiple people have done this. Debating a line from a post is pointless when it is all there for people to read. Barons questions were based on his own extrapolations of my statements, never what I actually said.

Another example, can someone find for me on D2 when I said Robb was Barons scum buddy? Anyone? The closest I can do is find where I answered a question (you know, that thing I never do) regarding Robb and commenting I thought his behavior was odd. Another fantasy of Barons I have refused to address up to this point as I am relying on people to read the posts for themselves, not accept Barons thesis paper on the subject as simply correct because he wrote it.

So, I will ask it again... Look at Barons actions. How he has actaully behaved. His actions and reactions to things placed before him. Then place your vote as you see fit.

How will it help? What are going to take from statement "I am vanilla town"?

Random thought: I'm not really impressed by the fact that Baron seems to think that writing a lot and putting a lot of effort into posts means he is being transparent and marks him as town. Surely if Baron was willing to put this effort into catching a potential scum if he is town, he would be willing to put the same effort into lynching an innocent if he is scum, yes? Too many words without enough variation between reasoning. My two cents.

I laughed at this. Again, as I keep saying, the exact same statement can apply to you. You haven't really done anything except post the same reasoning again and again, and refuted anyone who questioned or doubted you.

This is the main reason I'm posting.

You misunderstand me, I'm asking you to leave Muttly out of it. I want to know why we should believe you aren't scum. Instead of refuting what Muttly and others say, explain why you are an upstanding player and explain away the scummy moves people have brought up.

For starters, how about the fact that your first vote for Zchinque made you sound scared of him, you don't post a lot at all even after the holiday break ends and suddenly after he gets whacked the first night you're writing post novels. That would be a solid start for me at least.

Basically, right now I don't believe anything about either you or Muttly beyond one is scum and one is not. So you can't really use "I disproved Muttly's theory" as a reason for innocence because I don't believe Muttly's theory either. I'd like you to tell me why you're not scum based on your own actions.

YES!! You replied something and I can instantly argument against you :D

Lets just answer this with, easy:
Thats very close to saying exactly: Your his buddy trying to protect him.


Except it would prove you wrong in my opinion...

So me quoting you and pondering why you would make that accusation while also explaining why your ponder is wrong, is vastly different? And your is by no means a translation of my post, when you have directly lied about what I said? (Or course, unlike me you don't really quote me that often, you prefer using your own words about what I said).

So if they don't believe what you say, then you have no case, unless they also see it as a scum action to say one hopes to learn something from a forced by deadline lynch and then pressure ones subject on the next day in hope to learn something. But of course i can only agree with the sentence you wrote, since I been saying that for a good deal of time now.

So you've answered every question stated to you.. except the ones from me. But since you accuse me of rehashing your words: Lets me just quote a part of you answering to Vitek, before I even replied:
Now Vitek says that he believes your post to be a big overreaction, your reply is that its because its a solid scumtell? But your post is only based on that. If you got excited and if you agree then its not a solid scumtell in my opinion. But since I might be reading too much into this, what do others think?

Lets have another one while we're at it, from muttly13s original case against me:

And this part as well:
Now Vitek asks him about Stuart later and all of a sudden he doesn't consider him town at all:
Which is odd since in his case against me he use it as an argument towards me being scum that I vote for stuart, who seems mostly to be town.

Now is it a wonder that me posts gets long when I have to do this in order for you not to say that I am just rehearsing your words? And still you claim that I do, when you have done so repeatedly without even providing a quote to support it, other than your true and used one from day 1.

Two people have done this, I have backed off none of my arguments, I've just been corrected in something I thought further hinted at a theory of mine. And gained a clearer understanding of a confusing situation. You however, have yet to do anything in regards of the several flaws I've pointed out.

Debating line by line, which is what I do serves a good purpose. Other players will always have a direct quote of what I am quoting from and what I get from it. I know that does make it easier to spot if I am on the wrong track, but it also makes it easier to see truth (and longer posts). Your tactic however seems to work better.. just quote one thing, add up some scummy sounding words and keep repeating that. With the added denials when people point out that I did indeed do what you said I didn't and so forth.

Please do, and look at both of us. Look closely: Who quotes and answers (with an occasional theory) & who makes accusations based on interpretations of one post?

More coming :P Can't help it.

Exactly. Instead of posing real reasons and thoughts its argue against me as loudly as possible. Keep it coming, let everyone see.