But isn't the first scum already known? SPF?

Oh. D'uh.

Yeah. Hm. So there is nothing specific against Rod. It'd be really about lynching a neutral read, in order to clarify a scummy read.

Not sure it's a good idea at all, actually.

For the record, this is the second time during this day that you're twisting something so it will fit a theory of yours.

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_mafia_19_a_slalom_mafia/post1353

You really find this conclusive ? You mean that, to you, this excludes that it can be related to an "unrestricted commuter" ?

hmm.. good point. I have had Telika as one of my high candidates for scum, and I would also be happy to get behind a wagon on him if we can not get one on Red or me. But I do feel that we need to have one wagon very quickly now.

Rather than provide an alibi (Though it also does that), I saw my "thing that cannot be mentioned" as potentially inferring how the keys were aqquired.

My naming 4 suspects is very straightforward.
I suspect that there are 4 scum.
We know scum 1 (SPF).
I named my "most likely scum 2 & 3"
I then said that, if there is a 4th, it is likely either CSVPG or Flub.

I actually have no idea what you are talking about here.

I am not certain about this.
My Role pm mentions a few relatives but does not mention whether or not they are here.
Looking through the list of names, I suspect not.

But there is someone who IS here.
While not specifically stated as a relative, they are mentioned in a context that SUGGESTS they are related.
I BELIEVE the person mentioned is older than me, female & related by either blood or marriage.

It is conclusive when you're arguing mafia commuter with "a shelter-or-nightkill balance", unless I'm missing something. You're just throwing it all together even when they don't fit.

For the record, and this is based on gut feeling, I think that the remaining mafia is Red + Telika and/or Rod. They are closely followed by P1na, nmillar, JMich and RSVP, followed by the rest.

Sorry, missed the "Reluctant" part.

I have nothing to state that she was reluctant to come.
But she is certainly presented as unhappy now that she is here.

It doesn't confirm my alignment though, so not really an alibi ...

We it does say you were busy at the "ESTIMATED" time of the kill....

So, if it was, say, footsteps every morning, and someone told you they can go out every night, you'd take the "every" litterally enough to infer either an obligation to do it every night, or an unrelatedness ?

Let's put it differently : are you claiming that you're forced to commute every night ? Or are you claiming that you are not, and therefore such tracks (interpreted forced to appear every night) wouldn't be yours ?

Yeah, nevermind. This may yet be another confusion, with another player. What was your stance on "ski ability" investigation ?

As for the reluctant relative thing, no, it's not that indeed. I would expect either Vitek, JMich or Red_Baron to respond then (or at least understand what it's about). So what I'm saying is that one of them has a high flavor-based probability to be town.

I do commute every night, but I don't have any mention of skiing in my PMs, so I still don't believe I'm the one this refers to. But I do have to point out the inconsistency when you're using that particular clue to say that I could be a mafia commuter and choose to nightkill or seek shelter, when the clue specifically mentions tracks every day. Or if you do believe that "every" is a mistake, the same reasoning could be applied to "ski tracks". How does taking only specific parts of the clue as true make any sense and how is that not twisting the clue to fit it into a theory?