The Resistance

K.

 

This is me:
-No, dont include this guy cause dont take chances

If you count me as mafia, I dont really care, because then I can work on *Shameless advertising*

Spoiler

CCII

But otherwise, yeah im just gonne be passive here.

 

Or he just read it wrong. Don't get me wrong I don't trust gigavern; but you may have read into that a bit to hard.

 

Even after I waste five minutes of my high maintenance life trying to refute your flawed reasoning, it's still "Eirika is 100% mafia." You outright ignored my last post.

If you're going to accuse someone, do it right?

 

Johnald likes this post.
Because AirSpear denies letting us use likes.

 

I was about to like your post...but then I renembered we can't do that.

 

you wanted me to respond to this? sure?

You're scum.

there I responded.

 

I'd like to further this conjecture; I'd like to put Chigo_ up for trial.

I shall analyze 2 posts in particular.

This quote comes from when I stated that I was not Mafia on the premise of the results of a mission. Prior to this, Chigo_ was relentlessly attacking, claiming us both (Josh and me) to be scum. He refutes my argument, and yet he does a complete turn around, instead focusing his efforts all on Josh. Bit of a drastic turn if you ask me, considering he had no reason to change direction. In fact, this should've pushed him beyond a doubt that I was scum.

And what would this achieve if he were scum?

He would have the support of the accused, who would then believe him to be capable ofmaking rational decisions and support him.

He would be able to direct the bandwagon towards Josh to divert a scum slot to Josh, which would thus lead us to the presumption that there were 3 other scum.

Etc.

If he uses the same argument to refute and attack here, he should have continued attacking up there in the above post. This picking and choosing of usage of evidence contrary to the rationale indicates alterior motives.



Other than those posts, he tunnel-visions often, centering attacks on people. Not only that, he also often takes on the role of "town leader" when such a role establishes biases and bandwagons, and thus ought to not exist. It's a prime role for Mafia to take advantage of should they attain leadership. Not only that, but he often does not provide explanations for his accusations.

I thought it was basically the same as uber's really, just a whole lot less thorough. Look beyond the wording.

You have never once truly opposed Chigo_. You've never declared suspicion or anything. That's why I suspect you too.

 

I'm just stating my opinion I don't care for such stuff. But what it does look like is you're trying to take the so called "town leader" from one person to try and have yourself proven :/

still trying to cover up the 3 scum thing. tik tik yuck yuck.

But whatever believe what you want after all, you can say whatever you want but it will also be corrected. too many flaws, but maybe i'm digging an imaginary grave for myself, but after all I don't really care.

 

I never really did try to take a side in the debate. Just me not actively accusing him does not mean I am scum. If I were trying to defend him, then sure call me scum. I try to stay out of things like this.

 

I don't think you're scum.

 

You've taken quite an offensive here, haven't you? You chose to do this instead of refuting my attacks directly or at least acknowledging that maybe you just screwed up as a towny.

I wouldn't have brought it up again as my first piece of evidence if I wanted it to remain covered up. In fact, feel free to convict me if you think that it is sufficient evidence or explain why it may not be sufficient evidence.

I wouldn't have expected to run into the DaveZombee line,

,
so soon.

________________________________

It's not that you haven't accused him of scum. That's fine. It's more so that you never ask him anything, even as an ally. But heck, I'm probably making a mistake based on confirmation bias or something. I'm just gonna stop attacking you.

 

Davezombee remove your lick. @add air spear doesnt like licks

 

No it's not, we know that two of them, uber and E&E were on mission that had two sabotages, let's say that we approve the mission and it gets 2 sabotages again we can then assume that both are most likely spies. However there'll be the third spy who we'll have no real clue about their identity. It'll become a minefield as we need to do 2missions without including them

 

theres still 4 it says on the main page... but yeah i'm denying it.

 

Even worse then, two mines

 

Not E&E.

 

Nuggets sorry, he was in the failed mission right?

 

But then why would both spys fail the mission after you said that?

 

I'm assuming a pretty good possible outcome, it'd be worse if only one sabotages