Mini 1080 -- txtMafia -- Game OVER

[Vi]

(ctd) A better question is whether chamber would up-front try to get you to claim as scum. (leaning no, but no precedent)

[Vi]

RF 1432 - Open up. Who DO you suspect? Why focus on H when he was Town Yesterday?

[Vi]

Kast is a ? for me until he returns.

@H: RF Defense isn't sole reason I'm vs. Antihero.

[Tasky]

AV: explain how [this, this, etc. vs. this] is anything other than hypocritical.

[Tasky]

herod: Actually the fact that I say so should be enough.
If you need more reasons than that, look here, here, here, here, here.

[Kast]

Vi-Your posts & context make your motives obv. Excuse me if I doubt BS claims from suspected scum
Implying that accusatory tone = calling someone scum is BS
1/6

[Kast]

Telling TF to wake up and stop letting emotional bias cripple his judgment is an accusation
Hero-Scum joining a mislynch to prevent a no-lynch aren't taking
2/6

[Kast]

risks. It's EXTREMELY safe because it's obv-pro-town. Chamber was honest w/his hammer. Vi's overjustification is suspect
Chamber makes sense
Hero meta-

[Kast]

Mislynched Claus instead of suspect Slicey
Mislynch attempt on nopoint instead of "suspected" buddy-Kast
This doesn't help the game. If you gave up, then
4/6

[Kast]

replace out. 1381+ are much better
chamber's attack on AV looks genuine. If AV is town, he's made some mistakes
Feels like nitpicking irrelevant nits
True,
5/6

[Kast]

Responding to multi-pages in txt is a pain
False. I announced here
Agree with AH and AV on RF
Vi-I'm not letting you slide, so might as well OMGUS me now
6/6

[Vi]

Let's try this.

"Overjustification

[of k* vote]

" - Outline this. Nao.

[Kast]

Unambiguous on AV-RFing-scum/K* inno up until Equi unvoted. Nothing was posted about K* except Equi saying he's null then switching. Despite no changes, you
1/4

[Kast]

completely disavow any reads on AV. In same chain, with no cases or points against K* (except that Equi called him null), you declare intent to vote K*
2/4

[Kast]

Unvote was obv a response to Equi switching. Claiming it was about never suspecting AV is a load of BS.Claiming it was a response to new arguments against
3/4

[Kast]

K* aimed at clearing up your misunderstanding is a flat out lie since there were

no cases

between your "lack of understanding" and your switch to K*.
4/4

[Vi]

1462-what in that suggests I thought k* = innocent?

1463-what in that suggests I had no read on AV considering I was voting him over k*? grey vs. greyer

[Vi]

Aside from being kind of obviously wrong there, you continue to say that my unvote AV was there because of Equinox when I've hinted otherwise p.much ALL OF D2.

[Vi]

Claiming that I said I never suspected AV is, again, retarded and at odds with the truth.

[Vi]

"Response to args vs. k*" is a reference to Herodotus pointing out why k* was getting votes; my response was shown in your first link.

[Vi]

And let's go ahead and drive this home.

THIS IS A DRUNKEN SOFTCLAIM

[Vi]

THAT IS WHY I UNVOTED AV
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNTOWN TO SAY SO AT THE TIME
THIS IS WHY I HAVEN'T OPPOSED CHAMBER TODAY
I HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN REALLY OBVIOUS RE: THIS

[Vi]

And now you're leaving me to decide whether you deluded yourself into that interpretation or intentionally framed it that way...

[Vi]

...considering you literally FORCED your incorrect interpretation on me without regard for my insistence that you were wrong.

[Antihero]

Fishy: WTF? You're voting me because my TF read changed?

Kast is still scum. Lynch please.