How can you tell? I didn't like the sound of this line.
Joe's reasoning on flub's listing goes like this:
Flub can't be mafia because he was seemed convinced about GameRager and was confidently utterly wrong. (hmmm... questionable)
But his reasoning on me goes like this:
Pooka can't be mafia because we've all been assuming he's town all game?.. Why do I think pooka's town I forget?
So I was wondering how flub is higher in towniness than me, considering he has something on flub but nearly nothing on me at the time (as in literally nothing
being used against me). So more or less it's "how is literally nothing worse something potentially questionable?"
By the way dedo, I see you think I could be possible scum along with Joe and Micro. But is there anything to support me being not possible scum along these two? Like, I'd love a list on what of my play is town and what of my play is scummy. The main reason why I wasn't on blotunga's wagon is that I believed scene to be the scummiest and at the same time I thought blotunga's play looked more town-like than scummy (at least in the context of how blotunga usually plays). I stuck with GameRager because his play felt like scum playing the safest role on the table, one that is shared among town and scum, but he didn't play it well enough to prevent a mislynch.
Right now, I'm still torn between voting for scene or Micro. Scene still has his strange as heck play, while Micro still worries me. Not sure what to think of Joe, I still find his ordering of players a bit weird to be honest.