Snake's WWE Invasion 'Royal Mafia Rumble'

[Lawz]

I don't really have a top three suspects at this point, but my main suspect would be swiftstrike. The cases he has tried to build are so paper thin its laughable, including the case on me. I'm wary of everyone in equal degrees and swiftstrike sets off the most alarm bells, also Ron and Mike are not too far behind and Dans early play worried me too. But my prime suspect is swift since he's adamant about so much and his cases have fallen apart on the basis of them being built on fuck all really.

[swiftstrike]

Mike I'm not going to do a top 3 as that is the way of a stitch up lynch, no need for any questions or prove, just see who is giving off the worse "vibes" and then lynch on that basis.

Fair enough.

 

vote: swiftstrike

 

For the record, the top 3's also give a good bit of evidence as to who is just riding by on other people's lists, and who has their own opinions. The fact you're basically deriding people's issues on you as a "stitch up" despite people taking issue with your slot even before you entered it tells me that you would rather others believe it's a stitch up, and get rid of those voting you.

 

By the same token, I'm unhappy with Family Guy's response. This late in the game and you don't even have 3 top suspects? Seriously?

Mike no one seemed to raise any issue with my slot until I replaced into it, going back into the game you raised and issue with something lion said after I placed into the slot and said that you felt unhappy with it all along, can I then ask why you only chose to raise it once I came in as a replacement?

 

Also trying to defend actions that where taken before I personally took over is difficult but if Lion was playing in a scummy way, why was his vote on Nexus through the Dan/Nexus lynch discussion when a vote shift would have seen Nexus saved?

[Mike Castle]

Mike no one seemed to raise any issue with my slot until I replaced into it, going back into the game you raised and issue with something lion said after I placed into the slot and said that you felt unhappy with it all along, can I then ask why you only chose to raise it once I came in as a replacement?

 

Also trying to defend actions that where taken before I personally took over is difficult but if Lion was playing in a scummy way, why was his vote on Nexus through the Dan/Nexus lynch discussion when a vote shift would have seen Nexus saved?

You'll also note I only went through looking people over in more scrutiny around the time you replaced in. Which would explain why my issues with Lion came up then. I note you don't argue that the points I made on Lion were wrong though, just that you are trying to make out that me voicing them once you replaced in is somehow wrong.

 

And scum will often just bung their vote on a scum member if they believe the lynch will be a sure thing to try and buy townie points. Like I say, there's a huge difference between "Scum bussing" and "Town making a strong push". I don't believe Lion did any strong pushing of Nexus at any point.

[Jaffa]

I don't really have a top three suspects at this point

Really?

 

Someone must have said something that grabbed your attention at some point. There has been plenty of interaction between myself and Mike, Ron and Family Guy, Chris and Swiftstrike.

 

There must be something.

[The Icon]

Mike I'm not going to do a top 3 as that is the way of a stitch up lynch, no need for any questions or prove, just see who is giving off the worse "vibes" and then lynch on that basis.

Fair enough.

 

vote: swiftstrike

 

For the record, the top 3's also give a good bit of evidence as to who is just riding by on other people's lists, and who has their own opinions. The fact you're basically deriding people's issues on you as a "stitch up" despite people taking issue with your slot even before you entered it tells me that you would rather others believe it's a stitch up, and get rid of those voting you.

 

By the same token, I'm unhappy with Family Guy's response. This late in the game and you don't even have 3 top suspects? Seriously?

 

I do have a top 3 suspects, but I don't think the reasoning behind naming 3 when I'm suspicious of the majority of people left in the game based on various hunches but without anything concrete is a particularly logical way of doing things.

[Lawz]

I don't really have a top three suspects at this point

Really?

 

Someone must have said something that grabbed your attention at some point. There has been plenty of interaction between myself and Mike, Ron and Family Guy, Chris and Swiftstrike.

 

There must be something.

 

I'm not the head of the FBI, I dont have a 10 most wanted list right infront of me. I have my high suspicions about swift, he's my number 1 worry at the moment. But as for spots 2 and 3 theres a few people on equal pegging which would be slightly unfair to give them definitive numbers. I worried about Ron very early on and he's still a worry, Dan's spasm early on was concerning but he's basically layed low and not done much since then. The whole Ron/Mike roleclaim dynamic is also factoring into that which doesn't get Mike off the hook either. But you've been in the limelight as well yourself Brownie, so whats to say you're not scum?

 

If I had to absoloutly vote now, it would be swiftstrike no doubt. I couldn't pick between Ron, Mike or Dan fairly enough to decide which one was scum, with swift it seems much more clearer.

[The Icon]

It appears Lawz, swift and I all have the same line of thinking with the Top 3 thing, there's too much suspicion with enough evidence floating around. Plus, the second you name a Top 3, it instantly means you can name anyone else outside of those 3 without being accused of 'flip/flopping' with your vote.

 

No, I won't be naming a Top 3 I'm afraid, just calling scum as I see them. Like swift said, it's an easy way for scum to manipulate a mislynch

[swiftstrike]

Mike no one seemed to raise any issue with my slot until I replaced into it, going back into the game you raised and issue with something lion said after I placed into the slot and said that you felt unhappy with it all along, can I then ask why you only chose to raise it once I came in as a replacement?

 

Also trying to defend actions that where taken before I personally took over is difficult but if Lion was playing in a scummy way, why was his vote on Nexus through the Dan/Nexus lynch discussion when a vote shift would have seen Nexus saved?

You'll also note I only went through looking people over in more scrutiny around the time you replaced in. Which would explain why my issues with Lion came up then. I note you don't argue that the points I made on Lion were wrong though, just that you are trying to make out that me voicing them once you replaced in is somehow wrong.

 

And scum will often just bung their vote on a scum member if they believe the lynch will be a sure thing to try and buy townie points. Like I say, there's a huge difference between "Scum bussing" and "Town making a strong push". I don't believe Lion did any strong pushing of Nexus at any point.

Yes but there is a difference between bussing a fellow scum and at worst bussing a less powerful scum to keep a power role alive there would have been ample opportunity for Lion to have switch his vote to put the hammer if as you said Lion had a "weak" vote on Nexus. Actual his vote is no weaker than most votes that are put in against other players with no knowledge of alignment, especially if you consider the number of people who have me near the top of there suspect list based on what essentially is a lack of posting by myself and cannot be shown as any sort of scum tell given the way I was able to play busy town the whole of the last two games.

[swiftstrike]

It appears Lawz, swift and I all have the same line of thinking with the Top 3 thing, there's too much suspicion with enough evidence floating around. Plus, the second you name a Top 3, it instantly means you can name anyone else outside of those 3 without being accused of 'flip/flopping' with your vote.

 

No, I won't be naming a Top 3 I'm afraid, just calling scum as I see them. Like swift said, it's an easy way for scum to manipulate a mislynch

My problem with the top 3 is that it is looking like a play to lynch me given that a case cannot be built on me being scum as I am not so this seems to be the best way to do it, and it also allow the rest of the players who are not mentioned in the top 3 to know that they are playing well, (well at least they are if they are scum) how is this really any different to naming a list of likely town players which has been said many times before (mainly by Mike)that is a bad idea, so rather than going down a top 3 route surely people should be questioning the players that they find suspicious and those that they just might want to get a little more from.

 

FG why have you got a vote on Ron when he basically can not be scum given the info we currently have to hand? At worst he can be 3rd party at best he is a PGO but he certainly can't be nexus based on the likely night events.

[The Icon]

It appears Lawz, swift and I all have the same line of thinking with the Top 3 thing, there's too much suspicion with enough evidence floating around. Plus, the second you name a Top 3, it instantly means you can name anyone else outside of those 3 without being accused of 'flip/flopping' with your vote.

 

No, I won't be naming a Top 3 I'm afraid, just calling scum as I see them. Like swift said, it's an easy way for scum to manipulate a mislynch

My problem with the top 3 is that it is looking like a play to lynch me given that a case cannot be built on me being scum as I am not so this seems to be the best way to do it, and it also allow the rest of the players who are not mentioned in the top 3 to know that they are playing well, (well at least they are if they are scum) how is this really any different to naming a list of likely town players which has been said many times before (mainly by Mike)that is a bad idea, so rather than going down a top 3 route surely people should be questioning the players that they find suspicious and those that they just might want to get a little more from.

 

FG why have you got a vote on Ron when he basically can not be scum given the info we currently have to hand? At worst he can be 3rd party at best he is a PGO but he certainly can't be nexus based on the likely night events.

 

Without wanting to get back into a FG vs Ron argument again, I just don't think he 's been truthful in his claims or his motives, and most recently was very quick to go 'look, no kill last night means I'm innocent' when it quite obviously does not.

 

Swift, what do you say to the accusation that your arguments have been paper thin from Chris, especially considering how hard you pushed on bristep, with minimal evidence, and that he turned up town when you were so certain he was scum?

[Jaffa]

Without wanting to get back into a FG vs Ron argument again, I just don't think he 's been truthful in his claims or his motives, and most recently was very quick to go 'look, no kill last night means I'm innocent' when it quite obviously does not.

Would you not agree though that the pattern of night kills means we can rule out a serial killer?

[The Icon]

Without wanting to get back into a FG vs Ron argument again, I just don't think he 's been truthful in his claims or his motives, and most recently was very quick to go 'look, no kill last night means I'm innocent' when it quite obviously does not.

Would you not agree though that the pattern of night kills means we can rule out a serial killer?

 

I can accept at this stage that particular role is an improbability.

[Jaffa]

Without wanting to get back into a FG vs Ron argument again, I just don't think he 's been truthful in his claims or his motives, and most recently was very quick to go 'look, no kill last night means I'm innocent' when it quite obviously does not.

Would you not agree though that the pattern of night kills means we can rule out a serial killer?

 

I can accept at this stage that particular role is an improbability.

Then is it not fair to say that when Ron said this

And incidentally, one death last night surely debunks that ridiculous 'Ron is a serial killer' theory that's been pushed.

he was correct?

[Mike Castle]

Without wanting to get back into a FG vs Ron argument again, I just don't think he 's been truthful in his claims or his motives, and most recently was very quick to go 'look, no kill last night means I'm innocent' when it quite obviously does not.

Would you not agree though that the pattern of night kills means we can rule out a serial killer?

 

I can accept at this stage that particular role is an improbability.

Then is it not fair to say that when Ron said this

And incidentally, one death last night surely debunks that ridiculous 'Ron is a serial killer' theory that's been pushed.

he was correct?

Surely the next line of questioning should have been:

 

"Based on the fact there's unlikely to be a Serial Killer, we evidently don't have a Vig, and thus there's only one scum night kill per night, what reason do you attribute to there being 3 deaths on night 2 if we don't have a PGO?"

 

At least that's where I thought you were headed. In either sense... Family Guy can you answer that?

[The Icon]

It's an improbability, the fact that one kill last night automatically rules that out however is a falacy, and Ron was very quick to try and get us all to say that was the case. I can't say 100% what Ron has said that is truth and what he has said is lies, but my personal feeling is that there has been enough doubt throughout to say he has lied at some point, and town have no reason to lie.