In post 498, Nosferatu wrote:Because it's highly improbable it was an sk. The sk even has incentive to not kill because of the risk of there possibly being a tracker. Mafia has people to burn. There's an extremely small chance it was an sk.
GuiltyLion wrote:In post 498, Nosferatu wrote:Because it's highly improbable it was an sk. The sk even has incentive to not kill because of the risk of there possibly being a tracker. Mafia has people to burn. There's an extremely small chance it was an sk.
I agree with this.
What I want to know is why weren't you saying this in 480?
In post 1, Marquis wrote:
SETUP.
This is a Normal Game containing 10Town, 2Mafia, and1 Serial Killer.
This game has been approved for normalcy and balance by AngryPidgeon, Ether, and fferyllt.
In post 483, Nosferatu wrote:In post 482, Some Random Mafia Player wrote:In post 474, Nosferatu wrote:In post 472, davesaz wrote:
I skimmed the stuff that happened while I was gone. An interpretation of what you mean by this might help, as I didn't catch whatever it was you're referring to. It was a very quick skim though...
50 had a really stupid case that was a bunch of hasty associations and tunnels thrown together. Karnage was the supposed sk in this, and someone in the scum team was stupid enough to actually go off of that and think killing Karnage might meankilling the sk.
Interesting how you asked for clarification on a comment denouncing scum though...
This implies you thought the mafia made the kill intending to kill the sk, unless your implying the sk could have killed himself .
davesaz wrote:Iwasinterested in why you're certain Karnage was the scum kill.
And this implied he meant that when he asked the first question.
Because there's actually interest in lynching you today.Some Random Mafia Player wrote:why not place your vote and then take it off if you decide otherwise?
This is one of the main things I want to check.Ankamius wrote:Nosferatu is a shiny object. Stop.
In post 516, The Bulge wrote:In post 483, Nosferatu wrote:In post 482, Some Random Mafia Player wrote:In post 474, Nosferatu wrote:In post 472, davesaz wrote:
I skimmed the stuff that happened while I was gone. An interpretation of what you mean by this might help, as I didn't catch whatever it was you're referring to. It was a very quick skim though...
50 had a really stupid case that was a bunch of hasty associations and tunnels thrown together. Karnage was the supposed sk in this, and someone in the scum team was stupid enough to actually go off of that and think killing Karnage might meankilling the sk.
Interesting how you asked for clarification on a comment denouncing scum though...
This implies you thought the mafia made the kill intending to kill the sk, unless your implying the sk could have killed himself .
davesaz wrote:Iwasinterested in why you're certain Karnage was the scum kill.
And this implied he meant that when he asked the first question.
fucking lol
flailing way too hard and trying to justify a slip. dave is 100% right here, and I think nos is caught scum. his last *however many* posts all about semantics and wording bullshit reeks of over-cautious scum trying to cover up a tiny slip.
VOTE: nosferatu
In post 515, GuiltyLion wrote:The more I read it the more I don't see how you can reconcile the contradictions between 474 and 480 as coming from a town mindset.
Nosferatu implied that the kill was a mafia kill, then argued that he didn't literally say this and it could have been either scum faction, then doubled down again that it was a mafia kill.