In post 79, MarioManiac4 wrote:In post 73, Necessary Evil wrote:WoodyWoodpecker wrote:In post 70, Necessary Evil wrote:This idea that we need multiple suspects is awfully strange.
Hi, have you played mafia before?
Yes. Something the timing seems strange, especially since he is still voting for Implosion.
You seem to be unable to realise someone can have more than one scumread. In this setup, there is likely three mafia. I don't see why I can't suspect more than one person.
In post 60, MarioManiac4 wrote:In post 51, dragonspawn wrote:In post 49, implosion wrote:Unvote
VOTE: GrayFoxxxx
I wanted to do this earlier but there was no one else voting him so it wasn't really worth it. Thank you, KK.
Yeah I
Dont like this. Town doesn't need cover for a vote.
VOTE: implosion
I don't paticularly like this vote from Dragonspawn. It seems rather oppurtunistic with a wagon on Implosion starting.
What makes you think dragonspawn's vote was opportunistic? He gave a fine reason for it, I think. Further, why are you voting Implosion when the first suspicion you have is towards dragonspawn?
In post 71, MarioManiac4 wrote:Is that RVS?
If not, then since when have we only had one suspect on D1?
We do not have to lynch every suspect.
I think we're better off focusing on one at a time. It creates more pressure and keeps the town from becoming splintered. However, I am not necessarily opposed to having multiple suspects at a time. What you specifically suggested seemed suspicious to me so I am investigating you.
If everyone agrees on one person, that's a bad sign, as that means mafia are content with the lynch.
We are better off with everyone grilling their scumread, like you are doing with me right now.[/quote]
And yet your vote remains on the target of the one that you are scum reading...
You are doing a bit of damage control and essentially nothing else.