| theprof00 said: Me dying doesnt prove anything! Let me repeat myself I am the most experienced player here. All the vets know that im very good. im nearly confirmed town after a bodyguard blocked my death. My lynch is not worth the risk. If you are wrong you lose a huge asset. |
I've taken your experience into account. If you're experienced than you're just as dangerous as a mafia as you are useful as a town. Being the most experienced doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't lynch you. You're an asset to whatever side you're on. If I'm wrong, we lose an asset, but if I'm right, mafia loses an equal sized asset. As for having no case, I already said my case, the way you play seems to suggest you're trying to sew confusion, paranoia, and doubt. I'm definitely not the only one that thinks you've been really confusing. Outlaw has noted your disruption as well, but then he says that means you're emotional and thus hard to read. I disagree. You're experienced. You know what you're doing. So to cause this much disruption, presumably on purpose since you're experienced, suggests to me that you're trying to hurt town. You know how to use provoking emotional responses as a tactic; you used it with me and others already, so I don't think for a moment you're falling into that trap. Everything you're doing, you're doing on purpose. Semantics, by the very nature of it, is a tactic that manipulates what people say. To use it means that you want to use their words to make them look guilty rather than decide who seems guilty based on what was actually said. That said, I do condone semantics sometimes, if it really does seem like the person is betraying what they really mean in the wording of their lie. Your investigation of Sparks delved into semantics at times, but might have been onto something. So that's an example of how your turning up town could prove something.
Your being targeted for the kill proves nothing. Yesterday, anyone voting for Cone was, based on what we knew at the time, either stupid or guilty. Spurge turned out to be the former. Guarding you might have been a great move, or maybe it merely protected you from the second killing party, who wanted to frame padib, me, and nickles, as you already admitted was a possiblity. We haven't ruled out the possibility of a second killing party. I'm not necessarily going back to a two mafia theory again so much as I am going to a two killing party theory.
I don't need you to die to help me decide who is mafia, but it would certainly affect who I think is mafia. I don't want to lynch you for information, I want to lynch you because you keep causing confusion, paranoia, and doubt, and I already explained how I feel the use of semantics reflects on you. Your behavior is the case for your lynch. Any information your death might reveal is just icing on the cake. And just as much as you being town would be great evidence for certain things, you turning up mafia would be evidence for the contrary. The info I might gain is less important to me at this point than the fact that your behavior tells me that you want to hurt town. I could see maybe promoting paranoia, as scum would probably already be paranoid and maybe creating a paranoid atmosphere would help them screw up, or maybe it would give them something to hide behind. But the confusion you've caused can't possibly be good. And while a certain amount of skepticism is healthy, the amount of doubt you're trying to instill in everyone is not. Seriously, why are you still going after padib at this point? If testing his claim was supposed to do anything, why are you being "paranoid" about him somehow being mafia? I think it's because you want to create an unhealthy amount of paranoia and doubt.
