Mafia Round 34 - 999

[Vetteman94]

Silver-Tiger said:

Vetteman94 said:

Wonktonodi said:

TruckOSaurus said:

Silver-Tiger said:

I find this post rather interesting.

Not only did you jump on the bandwagon pretty fast, but you also lynched him without hesitation. Your reasoning is lousy at best and just repeats point other players already did.

We still had more than 24 hours to go, so there was no reason to rush things, and prof is a very active player. Normally we let people defend themselves or at least say their last words when their're at L-1. You let him no chance, because you know that prof is a very experienced player, that he's a very dangerous player.

Vote: Vetteman94

You're missing a key fact here, prof was at 4 votes when Vetteman94 voted and nobody knew he was a hated townie (requires one less vote to lynch) so Vetteman didn't know he was hammering prof.

Or maybe you do know that and you're just trying to cast suspicion on him intentionally.

HoS: Silver-Tiger

St was off in the sence that vette wouldn't have know he was going to be lynched. Although Hepg had asked not too long before (I miss the old time stamps :(  that he might have put prof at L1 in adition to the way vette worded the post which you convieniently left out.

Vette wanted him dead.

I posted after the votals had come out and showed that prof was at L-2.  How I worded the post as how I felt about the situation.  In the very previous game the same style gambit was played by another person,  and all it did was hurt the town and was the focus of discussion for almost 2 full days.   Ending it quickly was the only way to put the town in the best situation.

Ending discussion is NEVER the best situation. How do you come to that conclusion? The proof that what you said is BS is the very death of prof00.

If we actually used the time we had left to discuss prof's situation, we might have come to the conclusion that he wasn't anti-town. I will not lie here: prof fucked up and made himself a lynch target, and I would likely voted him myself. Maybe we would habe still lynched him, who knows, but to cut off discussion is never a good thing. The discussion is made because points are being brought up that might proof a persons guilt or innocence. The more we discuss about it, the clearer the point gets until we realise it's a good lead or moot point. In any case, it's always good we do this, for 2 reasons: 1.) We understand if the point is worth looking into or not, 2.) the discussion itself reveals people's mind and/or opinions, which again leads to points. That's what this whole game is about!

The fact that you deny discussion on something undermines my suspicion.

Ending discussion that is leading to nowhere is a good idea.   

the prof was an Anti-Town 3rd Party role.  He claimed that he would come up guilty if scanned, so cop investigation was worthless.  Then he was trying to get us to waste that cop investigation on him.   For no purpose other than his own.  He was lynched, we benefited.  

Now you sit there and go on and on about how discussion is great, which I agree if the discussion has direction then it is.  But you only post 2 or 3 posts on the subject,  so where was all this great discussion to be had, no where.  That discussion was a dead end.  

The fact that you want discussion to happen but not be a large part of it make me suspicious.  Almost like you are trying to hard to look town.