now for the rest of whatever is in there.

even if GoW is mafia he has no way of knowing whether it's a vig or an SK, but he assumes I know and vote accordingly. His confidence that I know, if he is mafia, could just be a translation of his confidence and therefore his desire to double lynch could be a desire to win the game directly (or at worst tie as the question day one was presented to ABC). Since his accusation is on the hypothesis that I believe there is a vig, my answer uses the hypothesis that he believes it himself. If there is an SK and not a vig, the suspicion on him is the same, but his goal is simply flawed. Moreover, you brought up a mafia role blocker, so no, the game can be over before the vig dies, if the mafia blocks the vig one night, they will know who to block all night... and just win the following nights.

(this is separate as really i'm starting to get enoyed (starting? heh))

You said this (copy paste)

"4. You know that even a regular mislynch would also mean mafia wins tomorrow, right? What happened to your thoughts that I was the SK? Now there's no SK so long as it suits your own arguments?"

I answer by this:

"moreover you're wrong, with an SK in play the worst case scenario is 2vs2vs1 so still fully winnable for town."

and you reply by this:

"And no, I'm not wrong. No matter what is in place, a double lynch is not end game because your argument was based on there being 3 mafia, not 2."

I mean really...

TOWNIES who read this... am I the only one thinking there is something off in this sequence of statements? or is it me who has trouble understanding english? cause really since the begining of day 2, I feel that my discutions with Proff, some with FF and a few with GoW have been just that... me saying one thing... and getting a reply that has noting to do with what I said.

now for the rest of whatever is in there.

1) Since his accusation is on the hypothesis that I believe there is a vig, my answer uses the hypothesis that he believes it himself. If there is an SK and not a vig, the suspicion on him is the same, but his goal is simply flawed. Moreover, you brought up a mafia role blocker, so no, the game can be over before the vig dies, if the mafia blocks the vig one night, they will know who to block all night... and just win the following nights.

2) I love your paraphrases, it's more "prof rewritting what other people said taking creative liberties with the actual meaning of their sentences". I'm not saying there are no SKs, i'm not saying either that I am infaillible. I suspect you and I suspect Gow... but I also suspect FF and believe one of the sibling has to be scum, so in essence, I have one too many suspect. Moreover, the presence of a vig would move your actions from motivated to ununderstandable, doesn't mean you can't be regular mafia. As I said, i don't have the pretention to be infaillible.

It's not hard to understand Hephy poo. Your post to gow was that there is a vig and no SK, and a double lynch would be endgame because there are three mafia. That was youre exact scenario. Given that specific scenario, ANY mislynch.. even 1, would be endgame.

THEN you say, no, SK has nothing to do with it, and that I'm wrong since worst case scenario, it's 2v2v1.

I said, yes it does because your case against GoW infers that he's trying to quick win by double lynching with no SK. Then I also propose that you're changing the specificities of the scenario to suit your argument, hence why you said 3 mafia, and then changed it to 2 in response to something else. I also put forward that your orginial statement about there being no SK is odd because you said you thought I was the SK.

Your problem, Heph, is that you are so sure about who is who, that you're creating scenarios that fit one person being mafia but not thought it through enough to make sense for the other person, hence why your theories are often contradictory. You said first that I "lead" GoW to the conclusion of the hider, THEN you said I was manipulating him because I'm the SK, not mafia, but now you think GoW is trying to quick win because there is NO SK.

To answer your question (since I am town, afterall). You've made several mistakes and been vague. Everytime I ask you for your actual flavor, or something as closely paraphrased as possible, you evade. You say, "stefl thought trucks asked too many questions". I ask how that makes sense. You then say that it was more like "asked to many questions, kill him". I still wonder why it's stefl who thinks someone is asking too many questions. Then you accuse me of trying to get you randomed. It's non-stop vaguaries with you Heph. It's impossible for you to give straight answers.

On top of that you lay out a series of evidence against me, pointing out BLATANT contradicitons in your OWN play. Like, when you said the fourth vote was just a joke; teasing, after I said your insistence on mentioning it so much was odd. You then USE that very "joke" as evidence! And not only that, but this is the FIFTH time I will mention that you've still not responded to my criticism of that evidentiary post.

1) That is an illogical hypothesis. His hypothesis is based on evidence that he has found during a specific portion of the thread (before the hider was announced), yours is founded on nothing other than unfounded potentialities. Secondly, do you really expect that you're right because someone's plan is flawed? You're just wrong, Heph. And again, like I said before, mafia are going to have to both kill and block stefl, because there is most likely a doc, and there is always the chance they could miss the block. They would need to do both.

And again, as a reminder, this is yet ANOTHER time where you accept evidence that you disputed in order to prove a point. Just recently you said I was lying about the blocker. Now, the blocker is suddenly exactly like I called it. Why? To prove YOUR point. When I bring up the blocker again though, I'm sure you'll say I'm lying again.

2) I understand that you're trying to make points. But you do it so assuredly so, that it makes a huge difference. Just day 1, you said the 4th vote was just to tease me and to get a read, even though you pressed the issue. Then on day2, you used it as evidence. You are so confident in your theories that you write meaningless posts to say things like "that's just what you want us to think". The problem is that you have 0 evidence pushing your claims. You really have 0.

This is what I'm trying to point out to you. Nothing you've accused anyone of is in any shape or form grounded in logic. For instance, I suspect FF because of a couple things like saying "this game is bizarre" (typical confusion tactic by mafia 'I don't udnerstand well enough to contribute'), for caution on possible mislynches like Linkz' train, and for a couple other things. I haven't seen you put one thing forward. On GoW, again, where is the evidence of anything? Do you have any real reason to suspect him? Or me, for that matter?

I suspect you for being cryptic, and for being contradictory. Sure I have "theories" as to your motives, but theories aren't evidence. You seem to think they are. Or at least, your behavior has made it appear that way.

2) sibling haven't mentionned any power (1-2), vette says vanilla (3), you say such vanilla and implied it when you responded to wonk (4), FF alluded to one but never gave details either way (5), Gow didn't mention a thing (6).

that's 6 townies who for all intents and purposes are currently powerless. Do you wish to claim to change the numbers? be my guest, but until then stop spamming baseless statements to devalue mine.

4) the discution is with gow, the basis of his vote is that to him i was confident that there was a vig. How is talking of an SK even part of the discution?

thanks for yet again an other baseless statement meant only to show me in a bad light...; moreover you're wrong, with an SK in play the worst case scenario is 2vs2vs1 so still fully winnable for town.