Shit, this is the underlined
You said you wouldn't say my team because you feared reprisal if you were right. What the fuck kind of thinking do you have where mafia kills you because you identified there already confirmed townies!!!!? Hahaha i mean, is that a joke? Lol is your character a jest

Indeed. I think it's a possibility. Regardless of who he targeted on night 3, I would be saying the same thing if it came back nothing. 0/3 for finding action is really bad luck if true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've found a roleblocker yet. What about Nickle, wasn't he supposed to be a tracker as well? He hasn't posted since the day begun. Surely he'd be able to provide some information.

As for the underlined, I just took it as you insulting me so I just ignored. 

Might want to get your facts straight. I have posted and investigated some into WE. I gave who my target was and the flavor post gave no indication I was blocked. For a refresher I followed Khan again, I figured since I followed him once and with WE's reveal if he was mafia he would think he was safe and that I would follow WE so he may do something. Perhaps I should have followed you instead?  

I completely missed this post. I'm sorry. After padib metioned lylo, it's been a slap fight for several pages.

Also for the record, I am rereading everything again and giving theprof space to conduct his investigation. So If I'm not posting much it's because I am reading. We have had fractured investigations all game and it hasn't worked well for us.So I don't want to distract from his investigations. When he is done I will have some questions of my own for others. If I see anything worth of note I see regarding theprof's investigation of you I will mention it. Most recently I thought it was strange no one else voted for you when theprof did. Granted this is my first game but seeing as where we are in the game I figured they would be pretty excited to lynch you if you were town. Yet There were no votes.

@TheProf Is now really the best time for rash and dangerous votes? I'm not criticizing you just trying to understand your reasoning for it. It could have ended horribly, I'm glad it didn't. So can we focus a little more on investigations before we vote? I'm confident if we look at the evidence for what it is we can lynch a mafia tonight, and if we do good investigations today without rash and potentially dangerous votes we can have suspects lines up for Day 5.

If you were paying attention at all, you would know that nickels DID indeed show up and said he followed khan again, who did nothing. Also 0/3. Playing stupid? Or just noticing how you're being a hypocrite for suspecting WE and not nickels?

You should take it as me finding a problem with your statement.

You said you thought you saw a team. I doubted that you saw a team and asked you to provide evidence.
You refused, saying "I don't want to post for two reasons: potential death and it would be unfair to the other people if I was correct. I know what it's like to have people against with zero actual reason, let alone hard evidence."
The padib says "We're in Lylo. I don't understand the consequences. If you somehow die by revealing the info, town loses and there is no tOmorrow, so there are no consequences on anyone else."
To which you replid to your best bud "The team I thought was prof, noname, and Smeags + one of the trackers. There's no hard evidence which is why I didn't say it, but just my gut after reading these thousands of posts."

You name 4 people, coincidentallythe same number of suspected mafia players.

Then after I question your rationale, you say:
"For the whole team comment, you fail realize I never indicated an alignment. That's why I wanted to know what you were because it would give me an idea of what the others were."
Which is ridiculous because you're now implying that we could have been a town team.
THen you say
"I only said smeags and noname seemingly banded with you. If you and them are truly all town, then I'm still correct!"

But it's not IF they and I are town. We ARE town. It's confirmed.

So this whole time, you refused to name a group of players that were confirmed townies banding together because you feared reprisal from the mafia.

It doesn't make any sense.

Padib, what were you getting at here? I don't follow your problem with what I was saying.

I have returned. Catching up with the thread now. Sorry for the absence. I was just too exhausted last night. I got screwed over by my college, and now have more gen ed requirements, and no money to pay for more semesters to fill them. Been running everywhere trying to rearrange my schedule, get into closed classes, go to classes I'm not in yet so I don't fall behind, etc. It's a nightmare. Luckily the classes have all been pretty basic first day stuff so far, going over the syllabus and crap, so I jotted down my thoughts on people. I'll get to that once I read the thread, and once I have time to find a few posts I want to find.

About the "section on mafia tells", there really isn't one, at least not exactly. Yes, I see that link you posted. I don't remember that specific page, but I did look for scum tells, and all I found were several mafiascum.net user's opinions on scum tells. I actually considered using one on you prof, back when I suspected you and sparks as being on a team. I believe the user called it the "chainsaw defense", where scum attack their partner's attacker. I decided against it, not only because the evidence wasn't terribly strong, but because I wasn't sure how reliable these tells were. There were a couple pages about scum tells, but again, no official one, just some veteran player opinions. I thought there was a chance I'd be ridiculed for stating a random mafia player's opinion. Guess those pages are respected after all.

I already explained that I missed the post and apologized. I would have asked the same questions had I be more conscientious of what happened before our slapfight. I'm definitely going to back down now and let others talk because we're dominating all conversation debating semantics that is diverting attention from information sharing.