@LittleRabbit That's also the reason why one of Rodzaju and Vitek. is mafia. Agree Xyem is fishy but don't think voting was the right move.
If you didn't think Rabbit's vote was the right move, I inferred you thought any vote would be a bad move. Apologies if I misinterpreted.
It seems an odd restriction in the first place. But the role itself is genuine. As has been shown by the vote counts. Not sure what he would gain by inventing the restriction.
So how come you brought it up?
She then posts (#837) after Muttly gets to L-1 (#834) without unvoting him
And then today?
This is what I mean by people's bias is causing them to ignore things.
NFY, is there any point asking for an explanation?
Well, just read what I said. I was about to unvote Muttly, but I logged in to do so too late - after the hammer
. Me stating I was disappointed when I saw xyem had hammered because I was about to unvote, and me posting when Muttly was still at L-1 are not incompatible.
Wobbly logic much? Interesting that Pazzer leapt right onto this with "She lied! We should lynch her!"
@Xyem: Yes, she claims Mason buddy but the fact she hasn't been counterclaimed pretty much proves it. At this stage of the game, the real mason buddy not counterclaiming would be stupid and anti-town, thus I conclude that she is the real mason buddy.
A possibility that just occurred to me now though is that they might have been a town/scum pair... this could explain the cruel win condition? /snip
...? I don't follow your logic there... As I understand it, it's like a reverse lyncher condition. How does a nasty win condition (not the only nasty thing around in this game..!) mean I could be scum?
Also, xyem hinted at his post restriction here
. Lack of experience means I'm not sure how realistic that is.
Current reads not changed so much. I'm getting more and more certain that Xyem and Pazzer are scum - in the last 20 or so posts, I've seen barely any productive pro-town play. Pazzer in particular is poking anything that moves...