Mafia CLXI: A Completely Normal Game of Mafia - Scum Win!

[Nanook]

Actually think about your argument here. You're saying that because I didn't know your alignment, that makes me scum. When the town don't know alignments, but the scum do. Really think about how that one makes sense logically.

[Nanook]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by how this could make any sense to you.

[Nanook]

Like, take this:

You've been reading me (correctly) as town all the way through the game. If you were town, you knew for sure after I intervened between you and Joe, and you backed off shadow as soon as I did the same. And anyway, I am saying you are mafia, so that's the obvious reason right now.

Think this through logically, and how does it make any sense?

1) How could I possibly know for sure that you were town after you intervened between me and Joe? Yes I thought it was more likely a town action than a scum one, but it's not enough to completely town clear you.

2) Show me where my backing off of shadow came at the same time as you? I backed off of shadow some towards EOD yesterday, and more today, after having time to think about how my case didn't make as much sense as I thought it did. If you're going to claim I'm mirroring your actions, show me where you backed off shadow and I followed. Because in my memory, you were on condude yesterday, not shadow.

3) "The reason you are mafia is because you are mafia." This is the same problem with your condude vote. You're working in reverse. You're working with "I think this person is mafia, so everything they do is because they're mafia, further proving my point." It's circular logic, and it's exactly the way that mafia go about building cases most of the time. Whether you're town or mafia, this is terrible case building and worse logic.

[Strategus]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by how this could make any sense to you.

Well it does. If you vote me out this day, you lose if you are town, and you win if you are scum.

[Nanook]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by how this could make any sense to you.

Well it does. If you vote me out this day, you lose if you are town, and you win if you are scum.

The same could be said for all four of us, so. Not sure how this is really relevant specifically to your case, or to how it makes a lick of sense.

[Strategus]

Like, take this:

You've been reading me (correctly) as town all the way through the game. If you were town, you knew for sure after I intervened between you and Joe, and you backed off shadow as soon as I did the same. And anyway, I am saying you are mafia, so that's the obvious reason right now.

Think this through logically, and how does it make any sense?

1) How could I possibly know for sure that you were town after you intervened between me and Joe? Yes I thought it was more likely a town action than a scum one, but it's not enough to completely town clear you.

2) Show me where my backing off of shadow came at the same time as you? I backed off of shadow some towards EOD yesterday, and more today, after having time to think about how my case didn't make as much sense as I thought it did. If you're going to claim I'm mirroring your actions, show me where you backed off shadow and I followed. Because in my memory, you were on condude yesterday, not shadow.

3) "The reason you are mafia is because you are mafia." This is the same problem with your condude vote. You're working in reverse. You're working with "I think this person is mafia, so everything they do is because they're mafia, further proving my point." It's circular logic, and it's exactly the way that mafia go about building cases most of the time. Whether you're town or mafia, this is terrible case building and worse logic.

1) You did
2) You backed off shadow after I called that you were town vs town and votred on condude
3) No, you are just trying to rubbish my argument again

[Strategus]

I am genuinely flabbergasted by how this could make any sense to you.

Well it does. If you vote me out this day, you lose if you are town, and you win if you are scum.

The same could be said for all four of us, so.

Not if you are mafia

[Nanook]

Like, take this:

You've been reading me (correctly) as town all the way through the game. If you were town, you knew for sure after I intervened between you and Joe, and you backed off shadow as soon as I did the same. And anyway, I am saying you are mafia, so that's the obvious reason right now.

Think this through logically, and how does it make any sense?

1) How could I possibly know for sure that you were town after you intervened between me and Joe? Yes I thought it was more likely a town action than a scum one, but it's not enough to completely town clear you.

2) Show me where my backing off of shadow came at the same time as you? I backed off of shadow some towards EOD yesterday, and more today, after having time to think about how my case didn't make as much sense as I thought it did. If you're going to claim I'm mirroring your actions, show me where you backed off shadow and I followed. Because in my memory, you were on condude yesterday, not shadow.

3) "The reason you are mafia is because you are mafia." This is the same problem with your condude vote. You're working in reverse. You're working with "I think this person is mafia, so everything they do is because they're mafia, further proving my point." It's circular logic, and it's exactly the way that mafia go about building cases most of the time. Whether you're town or mafia, this is terrible case building and worse logic.

Oh, and 4) I've town read all three of you for good chunks of this game, condude for even longer than I have you and shadow was my first or second highest town read for a good two days...so why does this logic only apply to me voting you, but not when I voted for shadow, or had suspicion of condude?

[Strategus]

Like, take this:

You've been reading me (correctly) as town all the way through the game. If you were town, you knew for sure after I intervened between you and Joe, and you backed off shadow as soon as I did the same. And anyway, I am saying you are mafia, so that's the obvious reason right now.

Think this through logically, and how does it make any sense?

1) How could I possibly know for sure that you were town after you intervened between me and Joe? Yes I thought it was more likely a town action than a scum one, but it's not enough to completely town clear you.

2) Show me where my backing off of shadow came at the same time as you? I backed off of shadow some towards EOD yesterday, and more today, after having time to think about how my case didn't make as much sense as I thought it did. If you're going to claim I'm mirroring your actions, show me where you backed off shadow and I followed. Because in my memory, you were on condude yesterday, not shadow.

3) "The reason you are mafia is because you are mafia." This is the same problem with your condude vote. You're working in reverse. You're working with "I think this person is mafia, so everything they do is because they're mafia, further proving my point." It's circular logic, and it's exactly the way that mafia go about building cases most of the time. Whether you're town or mafia, this is terrible case building and worse logic.

Oh, and 4) I've town read all three of you for good chunks of this game, condude for even longer than I have you and shadow was my first or second highest town read for a good two days...so why does this logic only apply to me voting you, but not when I voted for shadow, or had suspicion of condude?

I posted my logic. I don't expect you to buy into it, as I am accusing you, but I am not going to keep repeating myself.

[Nanook]

Like, take this:

You've been reading me (correctly) as town all the way through the game. If you were town, you knew for sure after I intervened between you and Joe, and you backed off shadow as soon as I did the same. And anyway, I am saying you are mafia, so that's the obvious reason right now.

Think this through logically, and how does it make any sense?

1) How could I possibly know for sure that you were town after you intervened between me and Joe? Yes I thought it was more likely a town action than a scum one, but it's not enough to completely town clear you.

2) Show me where my backing off of shadow came at the same time as you? I backed off of shadow some towards EOD yesterday, and more today, after having time to think about how my case didn't make as much sense as I thought it did. If you're going to claim I'm mirroring your actions, show me where you backed off shadow and I followed. Because in my memory, you were on condude yesterday, not shadow.

3) "The reason you are mafia is because you are mafia." This is the same problem with your condude vote. You're working in reverse. You're working with "I think this person is mafia, so everything they do is because they're mafia, further proving my point." It's circular logic, and it's exactly the way that mafia go about building cases most of the time. Whether you're town or mafia, this is terrible case building and worse logic.

1) You did
2) You backed off shadow after I called that you were town vs town and votred on condude
3) No, you are just trying to rubbish my argument again

1) I did what? Town clear you? No, I town read you. Big difference.
2) I genuinely can't tell if you're delusional, or just so far up your own ass that you can't tell what's happening in the outside world. I'm also not sure it matters.
3) Uh, well yeah, I am trying to rubbish your case. Because it's a bad case. And it's against me, so obviously I'm going to point out why it's flawed. Me being biased here doesn't make me wrong.