Mini 1080 -- txtMafia -- Game OVER

[Fishythefish]

No. I'm voting you because your thought process on TF doesn't feel real, and I don't like your play today.

[Fishythefish]

Why is Kast scum?

[Antihero]

Don't second guess my thought process, it's futile. :appropriateemoticon:

Kast is scum mainly because of the push on AV, which doesn't have much merit.

[chamber]

@AV

If you are a cop, the scum already know, just confirm it for the rest of us. If you are scum I'm not letting you get away with that soft claim VI pointed at

[chamber]

Thanks giving already ate a lot of this days time. If you are town you should know we don't need to waste more getting you out of the way.

[Herodotus]

@Kast: The first example is a little right; that was part of my excuse. The second is completely wrong; I voted nopoint because he became "scummier" than you.

[Herodotus]

We can talk about that now? The scum probably noticed it before, but just in case, it felt unwise to point it out. I suppose Kast gave Vi an acceptable reason.

[Herodotus]

I now support chamber's request to AV -- if you're a cop, I feel you should say so and give us your N1 action/result.

[Herodotus]

In retrospect, that's a terrible reason to ever vote Claus. He's a strong player who would have been an asset to that game.

unvote

I'm undecided.

[chamber]

^Wrong thread?

[Herodotus]

No, an off-topic continuation of my on-topic response to Kast.

[Kast]

Vi-1462 shows explicit suspicion of AV. I left out link w/your thoughts on k* (btwn which the only mention was Hero asking if your read included active S/H)

[Kast]

considering I was voting him over k*?

That is a lie/technicality. Link in 1463 is a 4post chain, post 4 contains the unvote. Claiming your vote is not for

[Kast]

suspicion but rather for deadline reasons is disavowing your suspicion. You unambiguously drop AV & setup for switch to k*.

To be clear, you admit your posts

[Kast]

meant to hide your real reason: you perceived (& believed) but wanted to hide a softclaim

RE:AV Claim-
If that was a softclaim (doubt it), then agree AV should

[Kast]

answer chamber's question.

Hero-offtopic
Given your return to my-wagon & thoughts in QT, I'm more confidant that 2nd link IDs a potential tell than 1st link.

[Herodotus]

Ok, a potential tell, but I don't know what it is except that as an example it doesn't seem to support your point.

[Herodotus]

Kast, are you intentionally being unclear and using layered references to confuse and frustrate the town?
That would be good scum play if no one recognized it.

[Kast]

@Hero-
If you're referring to the offtopic discussion, it's directly in response to your request. If not, no clue what you are referring to.

[Herodotus]

Let me try to reconstruct:
Ka: He's scum meta includes voting people for being liabilities
He: No! Examples?
Ka: E1, E2
He: E1 is slightly valid, but CTD

[Herodotus]

He CTD: E2 is 100% wrong
Ka: E2 IDs a potential tell
He: But doesn't support your point
Ka: It's in response to your request
He: Let me try to reconstruct:

[Herodotus]

That didn't work as well as I expected.

I'm trying to get at the fact that 1491 wasn't a request.

[Herodotus]

But if 1493 is a response to the accusation that you're unclear, no. You've been unclear from at least ISO 7.

[Kast]

K:His scum meta includes

"resigning" to mislynch a non-suspect

H:No! Examples?
K:E1, E2
H:E1 is slightly valid, but E2 is 100% wrong
K:

Disagree, E2 is more dir-

[Kast]

ectly applicable than E1

H:

Maybe you're right but I don't understand you. Are you being intentionally confusing with references?

K:

You asked for the references!