[ENDGAME] Triskaidekaphobia Mafia

#651

GTH reads:

DrWilgy - good
Elohcin - good
Epignosis - bad
G-Man - good
insertnamehere - good
Polo - good
Quin - good
rabbit8 - good
Scotty - bad
Spacedaisy - bad
S~V~S - bad

#652

G-Man is a tough call for me. After last night's hard interrogation I think he better fits the profile of "perturbed townie" than "rattled baddie".

Quin looks way town and I think lynching him would be super dumb.

DrWilgy is confusing. I said before that I want to give him a strong town read, and that stems from his reactikns to my interrogation of G-Man. He said he had no reason for what he was doing though so

I think there might be team mate potential between Epi and Scotty. Epi was suspicious of Scotty along with a number of other people on Day 1, but he voted pointlessly for INH instead. It's plausible I have this backwards and INH is the team mate depending upon your perspective.

S~V~S hasn't given much beyond fending off rabbit. Spacedaisy hasn't given much beyond fending me off. Neither is ideal.

#653

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:G-Man is a tough call for me. After last night's hard interrogation I think he better fits the profile of "perturbed townie" than "rattled baddie".

Quin looks way town and I think lynching him would be super dumb.

DrWilgy is confusing. I said before that I want to give him a strong town read, and that stems from his reactikns to my interrogation of G-Man. He said he had no reason for what he was doing though so

I think there might be team mate potential between Epi and Scotty. Epi was suspicious of Scotty along with a number of other people on Day 1, but he voted pointlessly for INH instead. It's plausible I have this backwards and INH is the team mate depending upon your perspective.

S~V~S hasn't given much beyond fending off rabbit. Spacedaisy hasn't given much beyond fending me off. Neither is ideal.

Playing both sides of the coin, I see.

"Epi could be bad with Scotty, because he pointlessly voted INH instead of pointlessly voting Scotty, but I could have this backwards."

#654

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:You are bad.
You had front row seats to me being bad. You're well aware that this isn't it.

If you are just wrong, I certainly tried my best to show you that. Good talk.

Yeah, Transistor Mafia totally had cops and green peeks and claiming. You got me there.

#655

Oh so you think I'm bad? Thanks for the crucial update. Maybe you should stop wasting my time and find my team mates.

I think the Scotty relationship is more likely, and he's more suspicious than INH individually too. I get the impression INH would make more of an effort to maintain a presence here if he was bad. My experience with him is limited though.

#656

I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.

#657

Also, regarding the Epi/Scotty/INH dynamic -- if y'all follow that thread at any point, please don't be silly. The correct move is to lynch Epi before those two, either of them. I know he's big and mean and scary, but you'll have to find the courage to make it happen.

That's if you agree with the link I've proposed.

#658

Ugh man I hate being behind. I'm getting close to asking for a replacement, and that is something I have never done. But my schedule right now is beyond busy for the next week, and I'm going to have a hard time doing analysis like I usual do. If that is grounds for you to vote for me, then there's not much I can do about that.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Scotty, your Day1phobia is no longer applicable. What are your reads on every player?

I have caught up, but am not referencing specific posts right now cause I have 45 minutes. Thoughts in general as they come:

Off the top of my head, looking at the polls, I see a bunch of people jumping on the Vomps wagon and would not be surprised if 1-2 Mafia are on that.
I can't tell from Rico's poll post, but did Polo ever vote? Y'know, he was my main suspicion all day, and for someone to basically come in to say "I see nothing suspicious" and then avoid the poll entirely? Come on, mate. I see you lurking even now, and you're still not involved. THAT is where my vote should go but let's move on for now.

SVS and Daisy are the stragglers on that train, and I don't even remember why they voted for Vomps to begin with.

JJJ/Epi feud is cute. Im sorry you're having comp troubles. Welcome to MafiaPhoneLand! Where it takes 5 minutes to highlight that particular sentence you want to underline!
Your red peek/not red peek/lol peek was some strange tactic, and I see arguments for both alignments. What I DONT like is how WIFOMY you have been this phase. Shit like, "if I were bad I wouldn't kill sig", or "if I were bad, what purpose would I have in making fake claims?" Is not a good look for you, especially, JJJ. It's a sloppy way for -you- to play, let alone a JoBloMafiaPlayer.
Question: Why am I looking bad to you?

GMan: I saw you said I looked "twitchy" or something day 1. That's the gist I got as to why you were trying to start a train on me. I don't know what defines twitchy, but I'll take that as a compliment. Id rather be twitchy than lax and lazy, tbh. What is your current stance on me, and what do you think of the other people laying low right now?

Epi: you're an enigma. I said so truthfully when we both were bad before, and I say it again. I can't read you. But I see no fault in your going after me for assuming I am putting on airs for my day 1 shenanigans. I don't blame you for that assumption, and I'm not gonna lie- I'm not gonna stop doing what I normally do on day 1 regardless of my alignment. I figure I'll get lynched far less frequently and I'll avoid NK's as well on the first day. That's my hope anyway.

Something Epi said in Mafia chat during the office (or maybe it was LoRab?) is the theory that Mafia are far more likely to start trains than pile on, so I wouldn't rule out Elo or rabbit as potential Mafia mates.

Rabbit: why DID you vote for Vomps? I don't remember seeing an answer to that.

Elo: you seem more involved in this game than previous ones. Epi said you were more inclined to be preoccupied during games which is why you avoid the big jobs. This game you seem...eager, I guess? Dunno if there's anything to read from that.

Wilgy: was the other person who "peeked" day 1. Said INH was green. Wilgy, did you get any more "peeks" today? Was yours a one-time thing? Are you just a liar liar pants on fire? Do you believe in love?

INH: where are you.

I'm voting Polo right now, mostly because I saw him on here and he hasn't posted anything of note.

Gotta run: Ill check back on Saturday. I'm sorry I don't have the time to post more, I'll give what I can. my gf comes in from out of town tonight and I haven't seen her in over 3 months. Gotta prepare, and I've got shows all weekend, plus sightseeing all next week. Again, trying not to get replacement and if I absolutely have to request one, I will so the game doesn't suffer

#659

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.

I caught DFaraday being bad doing this exact thing, so this argument is bunk.

Toodles!

#660

Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.
I caught DFaraday being bad doing this exact thing, so this argument is bunk.

Toodles!

He also does it when good. He does it always.

Polo doesn't. If this is Polo's baddie meta then that's really weak sauce. I doubt it.

#661

Question Scotty:

Is blatant WIFOM sloppier for a townie or a baddie?

#662

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.
I caught DFaraday being bad doing this exact thing, so this argument is bunk.

Toodles!
He also does it when good. He does it always.

Polo doesn't. If this is Polo's baddie meta then that's really weak sauce. I doubt it.

I'm not following the meta game.
If he does it when good and when bad, how can you confidently state that you can read him at all?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Question Scotty:

Is blatant WIFOM sloppier for a townie or a baddie?

I think that shoving WIFOM down our throats is more of a baddie play regardless.

#663

Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Scotty wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.
I caught DFaraday being bad doing this exact thing, so this argument is bunk.

Toodles!
He also does it when good. He does it always.

Polo doesn't. If this is Polo's baddie meta then that's really weak sauce. I doubt it.
I'm not following the meta game.
If he does it when good and when bad, how can you confidently state that you can read him at all?

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Question Scotty:

Is blatant WIFOM sloppier for a townie or a baddie?
I think that shoving WIFOM down our throats is more of a baddie play regardless.

I didn't say I can read DFaraday. I can't.

Regarding WIFOM, you'll learn that you have it backwards if you don't already know. Townies employ WIFOM when it's honest and when they must. Baddies only employ WIFOM to gambit -- they'd more often prefer to avoid being accused of WIFOM. Baddies have no balls.

#664

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also, regarding the Epi/Scotty/INH dynamic -- if y'all follow that thread at any point, please don't be silly. The correct move is to lynch Epi before those two, either of them. I know he's big and mean and scary, but you'll have to find the courage to make it happen.

That's if you agree with the link I've proposed.

Boy, my sides hurt from laughing so hard. Give me a minute.

2.15

#665

G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also, regarding the Epi/Scotty/INH dynamic -- if y'all follow that thread at any point, please don't be silly. The correct move is to lynch Epi before those two, either of them. I know he's big and mean and scary, but you'll have to find the courage to make it happen.

That's if you agree with the link I've proposed.
Boy, my sides hurt from laughing so hard. Give me a minute.

2.15

I don't get it, but I'm glad I could brighten your day.

#666

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also, regarding the Epi/Scotty/INH dynamic -- if y'all follow that thread at any point, please don't be silly. The correct move is to lynch Epi before those two, either of them. I know he's big and mean and scary, but you'll have to find the courage to make it happen.

That's if you agree with the link I've proposed.
Boy, my sides hurt from laughing so hard. Give me a minute.

2.15
I don't get it, but I'm glad I could brighten your day.

Better not tell you now. I'll keep you waiting until I've made my mind up about you.

2.16

#667

@Scotty this is a closed set up and I don't feel like my peeks should be 100% trusted. Based on INH's absence, I would like to kill him to see.

My second green was SVS. I was right to trust her. Where did she go anyways?

@Rabbit I don't think it's a matter of who or how many you accused. It was a tonal read thingy.

#668

Scotty wrote: Rabbit: why DID you vote for Vomps? I don't remember seeing an answer to that.

rabbit8 wrote:I'll vote vomps for now, I might not make it home in time to vote or switch my vote. If the no lynch voters move thier votes I will be moving mine to SVS, unless I don't make it home in time. Apparently there is a lot of traffic today.

Asked and answered.

@Wigs... Okay. I don't know how to not sound cutthroat when I'm accusing someone, I guess. Since I'm trying to cut their throat? I don't really know what to say about it so I'll just let it go.

#669

Scotty, I never said anything like "if I was bad, what purpose would I have for making fake claims?"

I know that baddies fake peeks sometimes.

Not the first time you've misrepresented me in this game. Bad look. Your vote for Polo is weak too.

#670

DrWilgy wrote:@Scotty this is a closed set up and I don't feel like my peeks should be 100% trusted. Based on INH's absence, I would like to kill him to see.

My second green was SVS. I was right to trust her. Where did she go anyways?

@Rabbit I don't think it's a matter of who or how many you accused. It was a tonal read thingy.

Bwa huh? Why are you trusting your second peek any more than your first?

2.17

#671

Poll thread updated to reflect whose votes were missing.

#672

I'm voting Dr Wilgy for now.

#673

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I appreciate Polo's transparency in his low content position. I wouldn't lynch him, and I'd caution people against biting that low hanging fruit later in the game if I'm gone. You can be sure the baddies will try to dangle that apple. He's DFaraday right now.

You're not exactly the person who should be cautioning anyone about "low hanging fruit."

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Moved my vote to VOMPATTI.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also, regarding the Epi/Scotty/INH dynamic -- if y'all follow that thread at any point, please don't be silly. The correct move is to lynch Epi before those two, either of them. I know he's big and mean and scary, but you'll have to find the courage to make it happen.

That's if you agree with the link I've proposed.

In The Office Mafia, I accused Matt and Scotty of being bad together. The goal was to lynch Matt so that my "theory" could be disproved, which would make Scotty look good, at least subconsciously among the others.

Lynch me, and then your link is shown to be false. Which of insertnamehere or Scotty are you trying to protect?

#674

Epignosis wrote:In The Office Mafia, I accused Matt and Scotty of being bad together. The goal was to lynch Matt so that my "theory" could be disproved, which would make Scotty look good, at least subconsciously among the others.

Lynch me, and then your link is shown to be false. Which of insertnamehere or Scotty are you trying to protect?

By my reckoning, neither. I think he's just trying to mess with our heads.

2.18

#675

I'm in legacy mode now. I don't give a crap whether people buy what I'm saying now because they will buy it when I'm dead.

#676

Polo wrote:I'm voting Dr Wilgy for now.

What's your beef?

#677

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm in legacy mode now. I don't give a crap whether people buy what I'm saying now because they will buy it when I'm dead.

Buy what? The Epi-Scotty-INH connection?

2.19

#678

G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm in legacy mode now. I don't give a crap whether people buy what I'm saying now because they will buy it when I'm dead.
Buy what? The Epi-Scotty-INH connection?

2.19

Every single word I have posted in this thread.

#679

G-Man's failure to critically analyze the discussion before literally laughing at me is a bad look.

#680

Reasons why I'm already in legacy mode:

1. Without my laptop I am fighting with both hands tied behind my back. I cannot provide the clear forensic dissections that I normally would.

2. I don't have much faith in the mob to listen to reason.

#681

DrWilgy wrote:@Scotty this is a closed set up and I don't feel like my peeks should be 100% trusted. Based on INH's absence, I would like to kill him to see.

My second green was SVS. I was right to trust her. Where did she go anyways?

@Rabbit I don't think it's a matter of who or how many you accused. It was a tonal read thingy.

Wilgy, GTH reads on Epi, Scotty, and G-Man?

#682

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:I'm in legacy mode now. I don't give a crap whether people buy what I'm saying now because they will buy it when I'm dead.
Buy what? The Epi-Scotty-INH connection?

2.19
Every single word I have posted in this thread.

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:G-Man's failure to critically analyze the discussion before literally laughing at me is a bad look.

Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.

2.20

#683

Epi just criticized the Vompatti lynch (or my role in it). He made no effort to prevent that lynch. Bad.

#684

G-Man wrote: Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.

2.20

You've taken a side without saying why you took it. I agree that I'm the easy way out right now and you're currently more guilty of taking it than anyone.

#685

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epi just criticized the Vompatti lynch (or my role in it). He made no effort to prevent that lynch. Bad.

I'm never one to object to a Vompatti lynch. I'm alerting others that it's probably best to refrain from taking advice from someone who didn't heed it himself the day before.

#686

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Epi just criticized the Vompatti lynch (or my role in it). He made no effort to prevent that lynch. Bad.
I'm never one to object to a Vompatti lynch. I'm alerting others that it's probably best to refrain from taking advice from someone who didn't heed it himself the day before.

Vompatti was the most consensus alternative to a no lynch. His post history was nothkng like Polo's. Revisionist history. Bad.

#687

Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.

#688

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote: Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.

2.20
You've taken a side without saying why you took it. I agree that I'm the easy way out right now and you're currently more guilty of taking it than anyone.

Believe me when I say I haven't made my mind up on you. I have not taken sides. I merely called your bluff.

2.21

#689

G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote: Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.

2.20
You've taken a side without saying why you took it. I agree that I'm the easy way out right now and you're currently more guilty of taking it than anyone.
Believe me when I say I haven't made my mind up on you. I have not taken sides. I merely called your bluff.

2.21

What bluff?

#690

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.

My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.

#691

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.
My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.

I can only hope everyone else isn't too big a wimp to "make you uncomfortable" when I'm dead. I've noted logical shortcomings in your content and instead of addressing them you've given me curt bullshit. You did the same thing in Turf Wars and The Office.

#692

rabbit continues to look okay to me. I like that he seems willing to explore both sides of this discussion and voice potential angles both for and against Epi/me. I think this should be a difficult choice for unbiased observers. If he's inauthentic, he has masked it well.

#693

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.
My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.
I can only hope everyone else isn't too big a wimp to "make you uncomfortable" when I'm dead. I've noted logical shortcomings in your content and instead of addressing them you've given me curt bullshit. You did the same thing in Turf Wars and The Office.

You provided no such logical shortcomings, and all of it requires the presence of a cop in the first place. It took you ages to address the meat of what I was saying, which I interpret as dancing around the issue until you could explain yourself. You also had no suspicion of me until I came at you first, and now you've scrounged up a pathetic, "He voted INH who had no votes instead of voting Scotty who had no votes, so he could be on a team with them."

#694

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.
My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.
I can only hope everyone else isn't too big a wimp to "make you uncomfortable" when I'm dead. I've noted logical shortcomings in your content and instead of addressing them you've given me curt bullshit. You did the same thing in Turf Wars and The Office.
You provided no such logical shortcomings, and all of it requires the presence of a cop in the first place. It took you ages to address the meat of what I was saying, which I interpret as dancing around the issue until you could explain yourself. You also had no suspicion of me until I came at you first, and now you've scrounged up a pathetic, "He voted INH who had no votes instead of voting Scotty who had no votes, so he could be on a team with them."

You're accusing me of a No U?

The only person on this site that I am sure knows how meaningless that is, is you. I care who was first and you know it.

My suspicion of you didn't originate with the Scotty/INH theory. It originated with your failure to remain objective in your interrogation of me. I provided valid points to discount your accusations and you either skirted them or ignored them outright. You're a better civilian than to fall into hopeless tunnel vision.

#695

Don't care who was first.*

#696

i'll try again Epi, just in case my points were unclear.

1. Whether there is a cop in this game is irrelevant. There could be, and there are almost certainly some kinds of power roles. When a vanilla civilian provides "cop cover", he or she attracts a night kill thereby protecting the cop or any other non-vanilla civilians.

2. sig's very own posts display a consciousness of cop cover. That's plenty of evidence on its own to suggest he might have had the intent to provide cover himself. Moreover, his staunch refutations of my peeks may have made it look like he had the power to make peeks instead, thus rendering my claim doubtful. That's the proposed method of cover.

3. That his understanding of a cop role differed from mine has no logical bearing on whether he meant to provide cover. You keep bringing this up and it's still irrelevant.

4. That I waited until his death to express my thought that he might be providing cover is a product of not wanting to expose him -- I thought he might actually be a cop. His cover was solid whether he intended it or not.

5. Wilgy associating us as team mates is not sufficient motive for a night kill. If my gambit is to green peek sig as a baddie, I'm smart enough to realize that some people might find that curious and associate the two of us -- especially in this culture where that is foreign. So to say I killed him because I wanted to break that theory is to say I didn't think my peek through in the first place. I'm a very calculated baddie.

6. Killing him does not earn me town credit either (nobody is rushing to hand me any as you can see). Because of our association, any kill on sig is by default going to draw scrutiny to me.

Where is my logic faulty?

#697

G-Man wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
G-Man wrote: Bullsuit and condescend all you want. I know you're wrong. In fact, I think you're now the lazy option for the quiet folk to pounce on today. I'm glad we got this all out of the way early so we still have 24+ hours to make additional progress.

2.20
You've taken a side without saying why you took it. I agree that I'm the easy way out right now and you're currently more guilty of taking it than anyone.
Believe me when I say I haven't made my mind up on you. I have not taken sides. I merely called your bluff.

2.21

If you haven't taken a side why do you think JJJ is bluffing? Calling a bluff is accusatory in nature, yes?

#698

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:i'll try again Epi, just in case my points were unclear.

1. Whether there is a cop in this game is irrelevant. There could be, and there are almost certainly some kinds of power roles. When a vanilla civilian provides "cop cover", he or she attracts a night kill thereby protecting the cop or any other non-vanilla civilians.

2. sig's very own posts display a consciousness of cop cover. That's plenty of evidence on its own to suggest he might have had the intent to provide cover himself. Moreover, his staunch refutations of my peeks may have made it look like he had the power to make peeks instead, thus rendering my claim doubtful. That's the proposed method of cover.

3. That his understanding of a cop role differed from mine has no logical bearing on whether he meant to provide cover. You keep bringing this up and it's still irrelevant.

4. That I waited until his death to express my thought that he might be providing cover is a product of not wanting to expose him -- I thought he might actually be a cop. His cover was solid whether he intended it or not.

5. Wilgy associating us as team mates is not sufficient motive for a night kill. If my gambit is to green peek sig as a baddie, I'm smart enough to realize that some people might find that curious and associate the two of us -- especially in this culture where that is foreign. So to say I killed him because I wanted to break that theory is to say I didn't think my peek through in the first place. I'm a very calculated baddie.

6. Killing him does not earn me town credit either (nobody is rushing to hand me any as you can see). Because of our association, any kill on sig is by default going to draw scrutiny to me.

Where is my logic faulty?

I don't know. Why did you even announce sig was a civvie in the first place? You could have played that better IMO. I don't know I've not played with info dumping much. You claim to have in the past so maybe you know what you're talking about.

I'm on the fence here. Becasue calling him out then killing him is one ballsy fucking move. Sometimes ballsy gambits are what it takes to win speed games though.

#699

Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Also a classic Silverwolfian discredit via the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. Epi's logic is terrible in this game. Make him answer to that later.
My logic is fine. It's making you uncomfortable and you are showing your true colors.
I can only hope everyone else isn't too big a wimp to "make you uncomfortable" when I'm dead. I've noted logical shortcomings in your content and instead of addressing them you've given me curt bullshit. You did the same thing in Turf Wars and The Office.
You provided no such logical shortcomings, and all of it requires the presence of a cop in the first place. It took you ages to address the meat of what I was saying, which I interpret as dancing around the issue until you could explain yourself. You also had no suspicion of me until I came at you first, and now you've scrounged up a pathetic, "He voted INH who had no votes instead of voting Scotty who had no votes, so he could be on a team with them."

I thought your vote was a little odd TBH.

#700

I did it because I was providing cop cover. sig correctly guessed that himself, and it's a big reason why I thought he might actually be a cop. This kind of thing is so ordinary in cultures where infodumping is legal. Unfortunately I've had to blow that cover over the course of this dialogue, but it is what it is.