No one's gonna comment on the possible survivor claim we just had? Unvote Rob, vote gkaiser.

Please, tell me more...

(you forgot bold)

Yes, but one scum at a time :)

Thanks, unvote Rob and vote gkaiser.

And sure, we can only lynch one today but we can discuss both. I just can't believe I was the only one to even react to it. By the way, if he is a survivor then he's not scum as such but definitely anti-town.

As I said, I'd like to hear more.

I am not really sure what to make of it so I wanted to hear more first. I am not even sure if he is not just joking.
And mafia should always come first before neutrals.
Also survivor is not necessarily anti-town. He can be but he doesn't have to be. They usually can win with townies so they are not anti-town per se.

You guys are killing me with your advanced inside terminology. "Survivor" means something special in this here context? Like, moreso than just someone who wants to survive the game? I mean NOW I can infer from context that a survivor is probably someone with a special role beyond being a vanilla villager, but... first-timer and all that.

I should probably just go back to shutting up and going unnoticed while the big names duke it out, huh?

Survivor.

So what you meant by that "you got me" part if it was just innocent post?

Strangely enough, given the context of the game and it's setting, I kind of believe gkaiser here. I think that was just as much a paraphrase from his role, given to him by moderator.

I have something similar (that is in the wording of the flavor of my character, not my role). Remember we are all going to seek asylum for what-ever reason.

For now, I have not much problem with that post, and I think it was a mistake more than a role-claim.

Think about the way they vote though, they don't care for the alignment of the person they're voting for and would happily vote for anyone who isn't themselves. Now factor this into a LYLO situation, say there are two scum, three townies and one survivor. The scum will vote as a team and the survivor will happily go along with any lynch. They're anti-town because they're not pro-town. Not as dangerous as scum but still anti-town in my book. I'll put the 'claim' down to newbiness for now but let's not forget it. Survivors become dangerous to us in the end game.

Not all survivors are neutral. There are Town Survivors (and also Mafia Survivors).

But yeah, I can believe that that isn't what was actually claimed.

I do disagree with flubbucket recently, but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that Vitek's 'town' thing couldn't be a 'thing'. If you get what I mean.

hm

EBWOP: I of course described a MiLyLo situation in my previous post, but I believe my logic is sound.

That's true, I was forgetting that they're not all neutral. I'm also willing to believe that gkaiser wasn't making a claim (or at least not claiming survivor). Still, "you guys got me" does sound pretty suspicious. One to keep an eye on for sure.

Regarding Flubbucket and Vitek, yeah I'm having to make sure I don't write off the genuinely suspicious stuff Vitek has done just because Flub's case doesn't make sense.

So we can either go after neutrals for some possible end game scenario or we can just get a scum instead and not allow such scenario at all.
Neutral hunting is generally regarded scummy and for reason. Every lynch of neutral distracts attention from scum, allows them to appear proactive and provides them with safe survival of lynch.

You should tunnel less.
There are other things going on, other players in action or inaction and you are barely doing anything else then reassuring yourself of my scummines in each of your posts.

So out of 3 people campaining against me you think 2 of them are bollocks but it doesn't make you change your opinion?
You mean "the genuinely suspicious stuff Vitek has done" like that one ambigious sentence? Something else?

I did say let's leave him for now but just bear him in mind because they can be particularly dangerous near the end of a close game. Where exactly did I say we should go after him now?
It almost seems like you're replying to a different post than the one you're quoting. Flub seems to have rubbed off on you there.

...

If two people make a bad (scummy even) case against you, it doesn't automatically mean you're town. This could be some kind of poorly thought out distancing thing on the part of your buddy(ies), or it could be that you're scum and we just have two inept townies. My point is, you don't get off the hook just because someone made a bad case against you. Well ok, Rob made a bad case, Flub made a ridiculous... well case is too good a word.

The genuinely suspicious thing is the possible "town" slip thing. But Influenza B. Bucket certainly has more explaining to do than you do.

Unvote gkaiser, vote Flubbucket

So let me get this straight.

I catch Vitek referring to town in third person, an obvious slip up, and I'm scummy for asking him about it.

Vitek then makes other comments, which I quote in context, and I'm scum.

I ask Vitek to clarify those statements which I found confusing/contradictory and I'm scum.

How can this make sense?!?! What am I missing?!?

My vote stands and I'll see you all later.

Where??