Point out the inconsistent arguments.

I can see where you are with flaws in knowledge.

Also show me where I throw around accusations based on little to try and shake off suspicion. Do you know that this is exactly what conj said last round as scum? I am not going to say only scum say this, but this point needs proper proof.

What do you feel about Nen?

Ah, I might as well clear that up.

I felt that the term "Shadowling" was a good neutral term for calling others. Essentially calling people "townies" if you will (In previous games, even if they weren't actual townies, they wouldn't object to me calling them that term.) I did not want to directly call anyone specifically a "SpadowSpawn" (the actual role that Stefl has given some players), as there are at least three different types of players, and any of them could be pro-town (including God-like and Corrupted Human). So I coined the term "shadowling", as it fits the wordage of "townie" as well as the flavor we're playing in. Role playing is fun, but I did need to clarify that. ^_~

...

However, I do think you're pressing too hard for me to reveal my true form (whether it be ShadowSpawn, Human, or GodLike) right now. I'm not going to reveal it at this time. Be gone!

Smeags, can I ask you to confirm the correctness of my post below (underlined) and the incorrectness of the one quoted (bolded)? I ask because I'm having trouble ridding myself of the bs from prof:

It would help if you put it in the form of "HappyD was right, and Prof was wrong". lol

As facetious as this may sound, this will help me, personally, and town achieve their goals imho. Thanks in advance!

I asked you to question me but you never did.

If you're still convinced I'm wrong, feel free to ask me questions in a numbered format, and I will answer them. I am not the type who thinks "playing close to my chest" is a good strategy, nor is answering questions with questions, so as long as you ask me a coherent series of questions without writing things like "that proves you are mafia" or "that is hypocritical" of which will simply make the discussion more convoluted as I retort, I will answer each and every one and prove to you that I've made no mistake.

He cannot answer that it is or it isn't a contradiction because he has no way of knowing about shadowlings with or without names. He just said that he used the word erringly as just a blanket term for 'shadow people'. However, someone like myself, who IS called a shadowling, picked up on it, and looked to see if anyone else used the word. There were three instances. Smeags, you, and trucks, though in Trucks' case, he never uses the word shadowling, but "underling", which I felt was similar enough. I also left him out of the examples, but now seeing him come in and specifically ask about shadowlings is, to me, confirming that I read him correctly.

It's bs.

You called yourself a shadowling, smeags used the word before you. Smeags claimed a name. Then you did too. I am a shadowling and I don't have a name. Therefore, you cannot be a shadowling and have a name. That is called logic.

That was your logic, nothing about some secluded information we didn't know about, only what you wrote was your logic. Otherwise, hidden information is not considered logic, it's considered hidden information.

THAT is called logic.

Vote: No Lynch

Just throwing this out there because I was alright with lynching Mantle, but I think that his story adds up now (I can understand why he would address himself as "human" rather than "corrupted human" if he thought that the "corrupted" part only applied to him). Although I've got a few suspects, I've not got enough evidence (read: any evidence) to make it worth placing a vote at the moment.

It's not. If Smeags is to be believed (and I currently do), he just happened to use a term that's part of the game setup by accident while roleplaying.

1 What doesn't add up, which I thought I wrote clearly enough, is this:
You say you think I'm scum - You voted with Hatmoza, someone I also voted with - you say Hat seems like town - You then say that if Mantle is town, Hat has explaining to do. The problem is, townies make mistakes, and mafia capitalize on them. I'm on the lynch, you think I'm scum, you should be thinking that I'm taking advantage of a mislynch. So why would Hat have explaining to do, the person who you think is town, and not prof who has explaining to do, someone who is mafia and put a vote down immediately after Hat did?

2I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinions, I'm interested in the mindset that made you say that. Any scum can say, oh, I was wrong I think differently now. The point is to find out 'why' they thought differently.

3 I'm not playing any game. Shadowspawn is in the OP. It's an easy fakeclaim. You can't just use the op and say 'oh, I am confirmed then', because me, as a town shadow'ling' who has looked at the terminology in the OP and found it to be lacking, doesn't trust someone who claims the OP flavor default.

4So you don't know who was right and who was wrong? Are you admitting to not reading it?

5 It's not a slip. It was carefully calculated. As proof of which, I am a shadowling with no name. I called happy on a claim which I perceived as 'shadowling Selyan'. He refers to himself as a shadowling, and calls himself shadowling. On my left hand, I have me, shadowling no name, and on my right hand I have shadowling with a name. The two don't make sense together. I challenge happy, and guess what? He's not a shadowling. Thereby proving my logic that a shadowling cannot have a name. It's simple really. Please explain to me how that was a slip.

6 You said I brought up an argument with mantle to take the heat off of him. This has nothing to do with voting for scummates. You said that my purpose was to remove pressure from mantle, but you can plainly see that I was still putting pressure on him as well by discussing him with Hatmoza while CONCURRENTLY arguing with Dolphin.

Wasn't there a previous round where we had some members of a faction that had a name and others that didn't? I can't remember