Just catching up on the last 140 posts- will post comments as I see them

Tabaha was posting defensively, but the only interesting part of that is the way he tried to deny it. Being defensive doesn't make you mafia - it isn't even a mafia-tell - it's just the way some players play; I'm always defensive in mafiagame, it doesn't mean anything. Not sure about Prof continually focussing on this point (except, of course, the fact that Tabaha was trying to reject the defensive label, instead of embracing it)

Hmm, DarkT is effectively saying that the only way he would unlynch is if I claimed. Definitely not a good idea in a power game like this one.

Are alignments posted upon death? Or no roles or alignments?

You can hardly blame me for "hermit"ing - most games I get pushed to L1 on Day 1 just for talking normally

Yes, please question me Spurge - I've been lacking focus in this round because almost every other round without exception has had me in the limelight answering questions on Day 1 because of something I said or did. I tried to post really conservatively in the early game so that other players might think something was up, leading to questioning - but it didn't happen. Until Day 2 when we actually have proper evidence that I can comment on and analyse, I've got nothing to do here but watch various players launch mindless attacks on one another, and starting small lynch trains

I'm not sure about that Mario vote at all - if we do get alignments upon death, I think Mario is definitely a person to look out for.

Obviously I'm suspicious of Linkz for maintaining a relatively sideline position while subtly trying to get me voted - I mentioned that earlier - but I don't think it's sensible to vote anyone on Day 1 for a point as minor as that in a no-reveals game. The only reason a player should ever be lynched on Day 1 is to gain information, and this is really limited in this round, hence why I've still got my no-lynch vote, despite there being a number of players who in any other type of round may well have had my vote on them by now.

I think we should lynch either stefl or pezus then. I am highly leaning towards stefl; and I am sure we are bound to get information in some way or form.

Hatmoza posted flavour that told you if your lynched target was town/scum in the last game. Something similar may happen this game.

The case on him isn't as strong but it is good enough for day 1 in my eyes.

1. Does your "slow to get in the game" comment account for the fact he was banned for the first 24 hours of the game?
2. The whole OP/PM thing, as annoying as it might be, that's just what prof does. He creates scenarios in his head (that are sometimes pretty farfetched) and he acts like it's the undeniable truth.
3. People have got to stop throwing the term "tunneling" around like candy on Halloween. Tunneling is when a player won't consider anyone else as a target except their current choice or when they spend days and days accusing the same person. Someone asking a series of question to a player they find suspicous ins't tunneling, it's scumhunting.
4. You didn't mention prof's intervention for Stefl which to me is the most scummy thing he did this round. He somehow felt he had to stop a bandwagon that wasn't there and he later amplified the situation when he replied that 4 people were strongly pushing for Stefl's lynch.

On a side note, I also find it very strange that prof said that your case against him was stronger than the one about radish.