Would be willing to lynch the following people today: ZDS, Proph, or Cayvie. (Sorry Cayvie, I know you just switched in, but your predecessor, Jackrito, did nothing but bandwagon all day.)
Someone needs to explain to me exactly why CropCircles is a better lynch candidate than the above, because the CropCircles wagon has been awful.
For the rest of you, Help im a bug was in the very first mafia game I ever hosted, which was Lord of the Rings Mafia, 15+ years ago. And promptly got killed N1, in a game where there was *no* Day 1 before the first N1. So yes, died without ever actually playing. Because that was a thing we did back then.
Still, nowhere near as terrible a decision as letting Vecna_Reborn be in charge.
@Highroller what's the endgame of your insistence about stanning?
To point out that you are being wrong on the internet.
Also, I disagree with downplaying suspicions on Prophylaxis.
That Proph must be scum trying to appease people? Or not even must just is scum indicative? Because yes trying to appease people can be a scum tactic but it's not strong on it's own.
"His being disingenuous is not a reason to be suspicious of him! He could still be town!" is not as strong of an argument as you think it is, Grape.
It's a valid reason for suspicion, especially when it is causing him to make erroneous and inaccurate judgments about people.
His salient contributions to the game were - and indeed still continue to be -
Starting the CC wagon. Does that not matter? Granted, most players voting him came to their own conclusions about him, typically as a result of catching-up/re-reading. So you could argue I merely happened to be first and the wagon would have happened regardless of my input.
At best it is a myopia to what is actually going on in-game,
when you haven't been relevant since page 2~3.
Who wants to be the one to tell ZDS that he's tied for CropCircles in terms of votes, and has had a wagon on him since page 1?
Like, I'll happily concede you are more relevant - though, for the reasons mentioned in the previous sentence, I question whether or not being the more topical player is the positive you make it out to be. Having said that, I would suggest using your energies less on arguing whether or not you're more relevant, and more on arguing why you're not mafia. Yes? Sound good?
I just want to say again that Proph "sucking up to vets" is a reason to scum read him is ludicrous. He is the most collabrative player I've ever had the pleasure to play with. Him trying to coordinate with people acknowledged as good players is exactly his MO regardless of alignment. And he's generally a nice guy so a bit of puffery isn't surprising because he values healthy game states.
There's being polite and encouraging teamwork, and then there's "Stan"-ing.
Can you elaborate exactly what you find "off" about him? Granted I haven't read his posts in extraordinary detail but he seems what I expect from ZDS - proactive, well-thought out, logical.
One of several examples of the self-confessed ZDS Stan-ing.
What, of any posts at this time, did you find ZDS was proactive, well-thought out, and logical? His salient contributions to the game were - and indeed still continue to be - claiming that Rodemy was gutsy on the basis of the flavor of a role ZDS thought was implied, despite the fact that the mod told us that the mafia have fake claims; and voting me on the grounds that he agreed with an argument made by Vaimes that Vaimes not only never made, but said the exact opposite of.
It comes off as excessive and phony. At best it is a myopia to what is actually going on in-game, and at worst a manipulation from a mafia intent on trying to come off as unassuming.
As I said before, I'm convinced that between ZDS and Proph, I'm being pranked by at least one.
The read of Proph sucking up to vets is funny because he is a vet, but also because that's his natural playstyle, reaching out and coordinating with people whose opinion he values and then trying to sort out who among them is trustworthy here.
Why are you saying "The read of Proph sucking up to vets" as though it's a misinterpretation of what happened? The dude called himself a Stan. (I'm not making a word of that up.)
You can't dispute it if he himself is readily acknowledging it.
When people won't vote for ZDS despite the every single post he's made being either:
1. Completely wrong
2. Repeating something someone else has said
3. Refusing to address criticism against a post or posts that are either wrong or something someone else has said
As far as I'm aware of the thread's been mostly Highroller laying it into ZDS, ZDS defending himself,
Except no. ZDS hasn't been defending himself. Grapefruit21 defended ZDS, and ZDS has been hiding behind Grapefruit21's post defending him, even though that defense is totally inadequate.
In the meantime you should find a better (more constructive) way to spend your energy than addressing me these walls of text that I'm going to keep dismissing or ignoring.
I love how you're casually saying that you're refusing to address arguments against you like that isn't something suspicious.
Because if you were actually town, it would make no sense for you to repeatedly hide behind "Well Vaimes said it!" because again, it's not like your role mandates that you agree with Vaimes. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to go along with what you thought Vaimes had said. You agreed with it, and if you were a town, you would actually be able to explain your rationale for why you agreed.
Repeatedly trying to hide behind Vaimes - especially when Vaimes never said any such thing - makes no sense if you're a town. If you were town, and actually voted for me out for reasons instead of blatant bandwagoning, you would be able to post your rationale for saying I had multiple inconsistencies. You wouldn't have to hide behind Vaimes.
So why are you so incapable of explaining the mindset that lead you to cast your vote? If you were authentically a town, you would have nothing to hide. More importantly, you wouldn't have to make anything up after the fact. You could point out things that you thought were inconsistencies that lead you to say, "Highroller has inconsistencies."
You'd easily be able to say, "You're right, Highroller, I did misinterpret what Vaimes said. I thought he was saying you had multiple inconsistencies. My mindset was I read your post and saw in them multiple inconsistencies, which I shall detail [details inconsistencies], and then when Vaimes made his post, I thought he was thinking along the same lines, so I stated I agreed with him." Simple!
But you haven't. You just keep posting, "I agreed with what Vaimes is saying" when it's impossible that Vaimes could have persuaded you because he was arguing the exact opposite of what you said.
Again, makes no sense if you were town. It makes perfect sense if you're mafia, because forming bandwagons against towns is how the mafia win the game. You wouldn't need any more reason to jump on a bandwagon against a town other than the existence of such a bandwagon, because that's what mafia do.
The question then becomes whether there's any way you could be more obviously mafia.
I suppose one way would be if we could actually find something in your posts while rereading the thread that would actually constitute either an inconsistency in my mindset, or at least something that a townie might perceive to be such, and have it be something that you could have pointed out at any time when pressed for inconsistencies, but instead have it be something you completely forgot about and never mentioned again.
That would be a pretty damning piece of evidence, because you've said repeatedly that the basis behind your statement was solely because you were convinced by Vaimes - who post only pointed out one inconsistency, but which you misunderstood to be pointing out more. For you to have at least one other inconsistency would make it pretty conclusive that you didn't actually care about inconsistencies at all, and were just voting me purely out of opportunism, seeing a chance to vote a town and then deflect blame by saying you were just following the persuasive arguments of another.
See above. Why did you flavourclaim first thing if you are that aware of scum having fakeclaims?
I found that when I reread the thread. I had forgotten about it. So did you, clearly.
I would go on to explain it later, but, yeah. I could actually see a town seeing that as an inconsistency. In fact, it works better than my changing my mind and voting Prophylaxis instead of just FOSing him.
This is why I've asked you so many times to explain your mindset for saying I had so many inconsistencies. I wanted to see if you'd bring this post up. This is even in the same post where you cast your vote against me, and yet you never mentioned it when I asked you to explain your rationale for saying I had inconsistencies. Why not? How did YOU forget about this?
Is it because your reason for voting me was never actually about my having inconsistencies, you just wrote that as some post-hoc explanation for your vote? HMMMMMM!
I already explained multiple times I was barning Vaimes and that using the plural was a mistake on my part from not paying close enough attention.
I have no reason for that vote aside from finding Vaimes' case convincing.
So the argument that you didn't actually pay attention to is what convinced you to vote me?
No, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
You can't argue that the argument you clearly didn't understand or pay attention to was so persuasive as to move you to vote when you claimed Vaimes' argument to be the exact opposite of what he actually argued.
This is very important to stress. You didn't just get Vaimes argument wrong, you were arguing the exact opposite of what he was saying. Vaimes wasn't voting for me because I was changing my mind. We know this BECAUSE HE SAID SO.
Yeah, nevermind, I'm going to vote Prophylaxis . I told myself before the game started that I would vote for the first blatantly tryhard post trying to get a town lynched based on logic that made no sense whatsoever, and Prophylaxis' post was one of the biggest examples of this I've ever seen. Gonna stick with my guns.
None of this was needed. It's just scum tossing out word confetti.
Here's the post in its entirety, so we know I'm not taking it out of context.
Yeah, nevermind, I'm going to vote Prophylaxis . I told myself before the game started that I would vote for the first blatantly tryhard post trying to get a town lynched based on logic that made no sense whatsoever, and Prophylaxis' post was one of the biggest examples of this I've ever seen. Gonna stick with my guns.
None of this was needed. It's just scum tossing out word confetti.
Side note: Highroller's formatting works for me but no thim because I'm a villager. QED.
You're trying to sweep this under the rug, saying, "Yeah, I only got the gist of what Vaimes was saying, I missed on some of the finer details."
Except, no, you didn't. You said the exact opposite of what he was saying.
This is why I keep asking you what your basis for saying I have too many inconsistences was. Because it wasn't Vaimes' argument, because it can't have been. You can't get the argument totally wrong and say your reasons for acting on your wrongful interpretation was how persuasive the argument was.
Once again, unless you had a PM saying, "You must do whatever Vaimes does," you would need a reason to agree with him. Right? Just because someone argues something doesn't mean you have to vote based on that argument. You chose to do so, so there must have been something you agreed with.
You agreed with what you thought Vaimes said, that I had too many inconsistencies. What was your basis for believing that? What was your basis for agreeing with that idea? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Because you're saying, "Well it was Vaimes bringing up really good points," but Vaimes didn't bring up any such points. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion!
So your basis for your stance had to come from something else. What was it?
Because it seems like you didn't actually have one. That makes no sense from a town. Towns go look for mafia, form reasons why they think people are mafia, and then vote for those people.
Mafia, on the other hand, don't need reasons for jumping on bandwagons, because that's how they win. Mafia seek out towns they can lynch, and then make up justifications for voting them that will try to avoid suspicion.
And the part about voting first and finding reasons later is something I never do as either alignment and something that hasn't happened this game except in your dreams.
He said, still having not posted his reasons behind casting his vote.
And no, don't say, "But Vaimes said something!" Unless your role PM specifically says, "You have to do whatever Vaimes does," then there's no reason for you to have voted unless you actually agreed with what he was saying.
Yes, you erroneously thought Vaimes was saying I had multiple inconsistencies, but if you were actually telling the truth, you would still have had reasons for agreeing with the idea that I had multiple inconsistencies. So demonstrate this. What did you think my inconsistencies were?
This would not be difficult to do if you actually were a town. Towns gather information to try to figure out who the mafia are, and then vote for people based on thinking they're mafia because of reasons.
Mafia, on the other hand, actively look for excuses to vote towns. It's pretty obvious this is what you did, seeing as how you STILL are incapable of citing any sort of reason for agreeing with the statement that I have multiple inconsistencies of mindset.
Stop looking to Vaimes or Grapefruit21 to explain what YOU thought, and explain it. This is not a trick question.
If I agree with someone reasons for scum reading someone of course I'm going to join that wagon if their thoughts also match my own to a small degree and make sense to me.
Yeah, there's a difference between "if their thoughts also match my own to a small degree and make sense to me," and "I trust Vaimes, I completely agree with Vaimes, what Vaimes said."
@Highroller Vaimes *did* call you inconsistent, though. At least that's how I and Grapefruit interpreted him. That you apparently disagree has nothing to do with me. The part I did get wrong was implying you had several inconsistencies,
No, you didn't imply that I had several inconsistencies. To imply means to not explicitly state something.
You said, and I quote, "Too many inconsistencies in his mindset, like Vaimes pointed out." That's not an implication of several inconsistencies, that is you explicitly stating that there are multiple inconsistencies. That is the unambiguous meaning of that sentence.
I should have double-checked Vaimes' post rather than barn its gist.
... Why would you need to double-check Vaimes' post to understand what you thought?
See, nothing you're saying makes any sense from a town perspective. If you're a town, and you don't know who the mafia are, and you're gathering information trying to find out who the mafia are, and you read Vaimes' post, and you think, "Wow, Vaimes put together a good argument, I am persuaded," and so you vote for me - if you did all that, then you must have had REASONS for agreeing with him, right?
You must have had reasons for agreeing with the statement, "Highroller has too many inconsistencies," because that was your stated rationale for voting for me. Whether or not Vaimes actually said it, you clearly agreed with it, and so you must have had reasons for agreeing with it.
And yet, whenever you're pressed on this, you keep pointing to other people. "That's what I thought Vaimes said." "Oh, look at Grapefruit21's post." I don't want Grapefruit21's explanation! I want your explanation! What were your reasons for agreeing with what, in your mind, was Vaimes' statement?
Another thing that bothers me, how did you even make that mistake in the first place? How do you even get, "Highroller: Too many inconsistencies in his mindset" from Vaimes' post? You're saying, "Oh, yeah, that's a mistake, I said there were multiple inconsistencies in your mindset when Vaimes was only pointing out one," but how do you even make that mistake in the first place?
You seem to be trying to excuse this by saying that you just got the gist of what Vaimes said without really reading it. Yet... Your justification for following Vaimes' vote for me was that he made really good arguments. And now you're saying you just skimmed them without really reading them? So you were so persuaded by arguments that you glossed over without really reading that you decided to vote for me?
Do you see how none of this makes any sense from the perspective of you being town?
Meanwhile, it makes perfect sense if you're mafia. Then, yeah, you would look to bandwagon vote someone first and then try to come up with an explanation to justify that vote later, because that's what mafia do.
@Highroller: I didn't cite because I wanted to be done quick (plus I'll need to check but iirc I posted between 5 and 6am). If I had cited I would have probably worded things differently as a result of re-reading Vaimes' post.
Yeah, no. You jumped on a bandwagon claiming that you were persuaded by an argument of Vaimes' that he never made. So obviously your rationale for voting me had nothing to do with what Vaimes said. When I've asked you to justify it, you've just said, "Look at what Grapefruit21 wrote." You STILL haven't justified it.
If you need Grapefruit21 to explain your argument for you, then you obviously don't know what it is, because you don't actually have one. You voted me to jump on a bandwagon, then tried to come up with an explanation to justify it after the fact, and it backfired. Vote stands.
ZDS: I'm jumping on the Highroller bandwagon based on that thing Vaimes said!
Highroller: Except Vaimes never actually said that thing, therefore you're clearly jumping on the bandwagon without any basis whatsoever, while trying to hide behind someone else. Care to comment?
ZDS: "See Grape's response" (actual wording by ZDS, I'm not making this up)
Prophylaxis: Highroller, I don't understand what problem you could possibly have with ZDS. All of his posts have been so well-reasoned and logical!
- I know I'm being pranked. Which of you is pranking me, I'm not sure, but I know I'm being pranked. This is a prank.
One thing is for certain, if ZDS were to flip town, I'd absolutely vote you first, because it would explain just so many things.
What do you think about CropCircles's posts thus far?
I haven't looked into him yet. Been rather preoccupied with you two lately.
With regards to CropCircles, I don't know who CropCircles is. You say, "back in the day," so I assume this is an alternate account of someone, but I have no clue who it is.
My alt is CropCircles. I couldn't log back into it, so I created this one instead. I'm pretty sure we were in Sin City mafia together.[/quote]I was definitely in Sin City mafia!
And I think you ran the first game I played in. Granted that was like...before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
ZDS, obviously.
Someone needs to explain to me exactly why CropCircles is a better lynch candidate than the above, because the CropCircles wagon has been awful.
Also, I disagree with downplaying suspicions on Prophylaxis.
"His being disingenuous is not a reason to be suspicious of him! He could still be town!" is not as strong of an argument as you think it is, Grape.
It's a valid reason for suspicion, especially when it is causing him to make erroneous and inaccurate judgments about people.
Who wants to be the one to tell ZDS that he's tied for CropCircles in terms of votes, and has had a wagon on him since page 1?
Like, I'll happily concede you are more relevant - though, for the reasons mentioned in the previous sentence, I question whether or not being the more topical player is the positive you make it out to be. Having said that, I would suggest using your energies less on arguing whether or not you're more relevant, and more on arguing why you're not mafia. Yes? Sound good?
A prime example is this:
One of several examples of the self-confessed ZDS Stan-ing.
What, of any posts at this time, did you find ZDS was proactive, well-thought out, and logical? His salient contributions to the game were - and indeed still continue to be - claiming that Rodemy was gutsy on the basis of the flavor of a role ZDS thought was implied, despite the fact that the mod told us that the mafia have fake claims; and voting me on the grounds that he agreed with an argument made by Vaimes that Vaimes not only never made, but said the exact opposite of.
It comes off as excessive and phony. At best it is a myopia to what is actually going on in-game, and at worst a manipulation from a mafia intent on trying to come off as unassuming.
As I said before, I'm convinced that between ZDS and Proph, I'm being pranked by at least one.
You can't dispute it if he himself is readily acknowledging it.
1. Completely wrong
2. Repeating something someone else has said
3. Refusing to address criticism against a post or posts that are either wrong or something someone else has said
[Axelrod goes to the beach]
Axelrod: The beach has so much ocean.
Wait, are you serious? You've spent a good chunk of the game sucking up to vets, dude. You've even acknowledged it.
Because if you were actually town, it would make no sense for you to repeatedly hide behind "Well Vaimes said it!" because again, it's not like your role mandates that you agree with Vaimes. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to go along with what you thought Vaimes had said. You agreed with it, and if you were a town, you would actually be able to explain your rationale for why you agreed.
Repeatedly trying to hide behind Vaimes - especially when Vaimes never said any such thing - makes no sense if you're a town. If you were town, and actually voted for me out for reasons instead of blatant bandwagoning, you would be able to post your rationale for saying I had multiple inconsistencies. You wouldn't have to hide behind Vaimes.
So why are you so incapable of explaining the mindset that lead you to cast your vote? If you were authentically a town, you would have nothing to hide. More importantly, you wouldn't have to make anything up after the fact. You could point out things that you thought were inconsistencies that lead you to say, "Highroller has inconsistencies."
You'd easily be able to say, "You're right, Highroller, I did misinterpret what Vaimes said. I thought he was saying you had multiple inconsistencies. My mindset was I read your post and saw in them multiple inconsistencies, which I shall detail [details inconsistencies], and then when Vaimes made his post, I thought he was thinking along the same lines, so I stated I agreed with him." Simple!
But you haven't. You just keep posting, "I agreed with what Vaimes is saying" when it's impossible that Vaimes could have persuaded you because he was arguing the exact opposite of what you said.
Again, makes no sense if you were town. It makes perfect sense if you're mafia, because forming bandwagons against towns is how the mafia win the game. You wouldn't need any more reason to jump on a bandwagon against a town other than the existence of such a bandwagon, because that's what mafia do.
The question then becomes whether there's any way you could be more obviously mafia.
I suppose one way would be if we could actually find something in your posts while rereading the thread that would actually constitute either an inconsistency in my mindset, or at least something that a townie might perceive to be such, and have it be something that you could have pointed out at any time when pressed for inconsistencies, but instead have it be something you completely forgot about and never mentioned again.
That would be a pretty damning piece of evidence, because you've said repeatedly that the basis behind your statement was solely because you were convinced by Vaimes - who post only pointed out one inconsistency, but which you misunderstood to be pointing out more. For you to have at least one other inconsistency would make it pretty conclusive that you didn't actually care about inconsistencies at all, and were just voting me purely out of opportunism, seeing a chance to vote a town and then deflect blame by saying you were just following the persuasive arguments of another.
Guess what? There is.
I found that when I reread the thread. I had forgotten about it. So did you, clearly.
I would go on to explain it later, but, yeah. I could actually see a town seeing that as an inconsistency. In fact, it works better than my changing my mind and voting Prophylaxis instead of just FOSing him.
This is why I've asked you so many times to explain your mindset for saying I had so many inconsistencies. I wanted to see if you'd bring this post up. This is even in the same post where you cast your vote against me, and yet you never mentioned it when I asked you to explain your rationale for saying I had inconsistencies. Why not? How did YOU forget about this?
Is it because your reason for voting me was never actually about my having inconsistencies, you just wrote that as some post-hoc explanation for your vote? HMMMMMM!
No, that doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
You can't argue that the argument you clearly didn't understand or pay attention to was so persuasive as to move you to vote when you claimed Vaimes' argument to be the exact opposite of what he actually argued.
This is very important to stress. You didn't just get Vaimes argument wrong, you were arguing the exact opposite of what he was saying. Vaimes wasn't voting for me because I was changing my mind. We know this BECAUSE HE SAID SO.
He was voting for me because he didn't buy the explanation of my changing my mind.
Here's the post in its entirety, so we know I'm not taking it out of context.
You're trying to sweep this under the rug, saying, "Yeah, I only got the gist of what Vaimes was saying, I missed on some of the finer details."
Except, no, you didn't. You said the exact opposite of what he was saying.
This is why I keep asking you what your basis for saying I have too many inconsistences was. Because it wasn't Vaimes' argument, because it can't have been. You can't get the argument totally wrong and say your reasons for acting on your wrongful interpretation was how persuasive the argument was.
Once again, unless you had a PM saying, "You must do whatever Vaimes does," you would need a reason to agree with him. Right? Just because someone argues something doesn't mean you have to vote based on that argument. You chose to do so, so there must have been something you agreed with.
You agreed with what you thought Vaimes said, that I had too many inconsistencies. What was your basis for believing that? What was your basis for agreeing with that idea? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Because you're saying, "Well it was Vaimes bringing up really good points," but Vaimes didn't bring up any such points. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion!
So your basis for your stance had to come from something else. What was it?
Because it seems like you didn't actually have one. That makes no sense from a town. Towns go look for mafia, form reasons why they think people are mafia, and then vote for those people.
Mafia, on the other hand, don't need reasons for jumping on bandwagons, because that's how they win. Mafia seek out towns they can lynch, and then make up justifications for voting them that will try to avoid suspicion.
It's very clear you're in the second category.
And no, don't say, "But Vaimes said something!" Unless your role PM specifically says, "You have to do whatever Vaimes does," then there's no reason for you to have voted unless you actually agreed with what he was saying.
Yes, you erroneously thought Vaimes was saying I had multiple inconsistencies, but if you were actually telling the truth, you would still have had reasons for agreeing with the idea that I had multiple inconsistencies. So demonstrate this. What did you think my inconsistencies were?
This would not be difficult to do if you actually were a town. Towns gather information to try to figure out who the mafia are, and then vote for people based on thinking they're mafia because of reasons.
Mafia, on the other hand, actively look for excuses to vote towns. It's pretty obvious this is what you did, seeing as how you STILL are incapable of citing any sort of reason for agreeing with the statement that I have multiple inconsistencies of mindset.
Stop looking to Vaimes or Grapefruit21 to explain what YOU thought, and explain it. This is not a trick question.
Since me.
Bird is the greatest role ever. Don't throw shade at my role.
Yeah, there's a difference between "if their thoughts also match my own to a small degree and make sense to me," and "I trust Vaimes, I completely agree with Vaimes, what Vaimes said."
You said, and I quote, "Too many inconsistencies in his mindset, like Vaimes pointed out." That's not an implication of several inconsistencies, that is you explicitly stating that there are multiple inconsistencies. That is the unambiguous meaning of that sentence.
... Why would you need to double-check Vaimes' post to understand what you thought?
See, nothing you're saying makes any sense from a town perspective. If you're a town, and you don't know who the mafia are, and you're gathering information trying to find out who the mafia are, and you read Vaimes' post, and you think, "Wow, Vaimes put together a good argument, I am persuaded," and so you vote for me - if you did all that, then you must have had REASONS for agreeing with him, right?
You must have had reasons for agreeing with the statement, "Highroller has too many inconsistencies," because that was your stated rationale for voting for me. Whether or not Vaimes actually said it, you clearly agreed with it, and so you must have had reasons for agreeing with it.
And yet, whenever you're pressed on this, you keep pointing to other people. "That's what I thought Vaimes said." "Oh, look at Grapefruit21's post." I don't want Grapefruit21's explanation! I want your explanation! What were your reasons for agreeing with what, in your mind, was Vaimes' statement?
Another thing that bothers me, how did you even make that mistake in the first place? How do you even get, "Highroller: Too many inconsistencies in his mindset" from Vaimes' post? You're saying, "Oh, yeah, that's a mistake, I said there were multiple inconsistencies in your mindset when Vaimes was only pointing out one," but how do you even make that mistake in the first place?
You seem to be trying to excuse this by saying that you just got the gist of what Vaimes said without really reading it. Yet... Your justification for following Vaimes' vote for me was that he made really good arguments. And now you're saying you just skimmed them without really reading them? So you were so persuaded by arguments that you glossed over without really reading that you decided to vote for me?
Do you see how none of this makes any sense from the perspective of you being town?
Meanwhile, it makes perfect sense if you're mafia. Then, yeah, you would look to bandwagon vote someone first and then try to come up with an explanation to justify that vote later, because that's what mafia do.
Also, am I the only one who suspects that Rodemy's role isn't The Huntsman, nor Thor, nor any other Chris Hemsworth role?
Yeah, no. You jumped on a bandwagon claiming that you were persuaded by an argument of Vaimes' that he never made. So obviously your rationale for voting me had nothing to do with what Vaimes said. When I've asked you to justify it, you've just said, "Look at what Grapefruit21 wrote." You STILL haven't justified it.
If you need Grapefruit21 to explain your argument for you, then you obviously don't know what it is, because you don't actually have one. You voted me to jump on a bandwagon, then tried to come up with an explanation to justify it after the fact, and it backfired. Vote stands.
I don't know, but when I look at this exchange -
ZDS: I'm jumping on the Highroller bandwagon based on that thing Vaimes said!
Highroller: Except Vaimes never actually said that thing, therefore you're clearly jumping on the bandwagon without any basis whatsoever, while trying to hide behind someone else. Care to comment?
ZDS: "See Grape's response" (actual wording by ZDS, I'm not making this up)
Prophylaxis: Highroller, I don't understand what problem you could possibly have with ZDS. All of his posts have been so well-reasoned and logical!
- I know I'm being pranked. Which of you is pranking me, I'm not sure, but I know I'm being pranked. This is a prank.
One thing is for certain, if ZDS were to flip town, I'd absolutely vote you first, because it would explain just so many things.
I haven't looked into him yet. Been rather preoccupied with you two lately.
My alt is CropCircles. I couldn't log back into it, so I created this one instead. I'm pretty sure we were in Sin City mafia together.[/quote]I was definitely in Sin City mafia!
You were in Mafia: Dominaria Style?!
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/mafia/446581-mafia-dominaria-style-seventh-edition-the-war-of
Oh damn! Wow! That brings me back...
Good to see you again, CropCircles! Sorry, I didn't really know you back then. Hopefully will get to now!
Holy crap, everything in me is screaming "lynch this guy" right now.
I'll need to sleep on this.