Zaithemaster honestly seems to be bussing Inaluct at the last second, mixed in with his obscenely odd hypothesis of there being certain people that are lying.
That "obscenely odd hypothesis" of mine was merely based on (2?) false assumption(s), which was that, since Web had said that being Mafia was included in the role description, being Mafia would be included in the role description of the "extra" role that we all got, but for that to work, Mafia members would have had to get another Mafia role as their extra role. That last part hasn't been proven false, thus the "2?". Basically, just disregard those posts of mine, as they were built on false assumptions.
You act as if my reasons for not voting on the first day are suddenly invalid because of your scheme.
Actually, it's that you mentioned nothing of being blocked when you posted. You gave other reasons, but you didn't give the
whole truth. Only scum have a reason for not giving the whole truth. Thus, you are scum.
If I were lying and saying that I was the negative voter to provide an excuse for not voting on the first day, would I have just voted for myself?
I never said that part was a lie, silly, though I can see how you could think I had, considering I had poorly worded that second sentence of mine in my accusation post. The gist of it is: you didn't give the whole truth. This, combined with Meph's theory of your role being made to somewhat counter Josh's, is why I'm voting for you. If you're proven not scum after the lynch, then I'll vote for Josh tomorrow (if I'm still alive, as I have the only role that can completely annihilate the use of Josh's role...).
Wait. Oh crap. Sudden thought: my role, possibly alongside inaluct's, is what's meant to counter Josh's role. Only thing is, I would have to block him before he votes, or lock him on someone I think is scum. Thoughts, particularly from Josh and inaluct?
I am confused. Reevaluation time.
Author
Topic: Vote Mafia (Game Over!) (Read 55036 times)