The Stand Mafia Day Phase 2

I didn't  feel strongly enough on any reads to take the risk based on the MYLO/LYLO situation (at least I didn't then -- I'm about to make a case against Supa).

I think if Elminster promised to play to his win con but then flaked out the second a slight disagreement came up, he's prob faking, and I'd def lynch him if he refused to claim. But at the same time if we're close to losing per 1 mislynch I'd prefer to play cautious. Regardless I never committed to No Lynching so no need to nitpick for no reason. 

Back to Supa. I didn't want to look into characters too much (in fact I didn't even read the dead character flips) JUST IN CASE I ever wanna read the book which I doubt but you never know. However I couldn't help but look up Supa's character which is a fucking bad guy lol. Whitney Horgan is a villain, and apparently he only wants to desert the other bad guys because shit has already gone bad. That's literally what Reddit says and notes it's not an admirable reason to desert his fellow bad guys. So although I hate to go by theme analysis alone I really think Supa might be lone wolf scum or scum of some kind. Ya'll are more than welcome to look up his character.

Note I'm not going based on theme analysis alone here but also behavior. He's playing a bit more aggressive like he does as scum. Look at post #191 where he seems to think I was calling him inactive this day phase (I wasn't; I said I didn't buy his reason for allegedly being active today 12/8). I mean I'm not entirely sure how to read claiming vanilla with only 2 votes and could see an argument either way, but coupled with his seemingly defensive behavior and that super sus character claim I feel very wary of him.

What will clinch it for me is the quote.

Well you said it,

Yes, but you're saying that it was a year ago so that doesn't count anymore because, as YOU said, "many things can change." So can many things change or can't they?

and I recall someone saying it recently too and I'm like 85% sure it was you.

No, Lunatic's game was the last game I opined on the subject.

Either way, it's inconsistent.

Yes, in one of those ways, I'm being inconsistent with a position I stated while in a game a year ago as scum, and in the other way I'm inconsistent with some person that may or may not be me that may or may not have said something about the subject "recently."

There also wasn't enough evidence with Pie to suggest you buying him as town.

Please outline the objective criteria for buying someone as town in this game.

Even so, it's a sharp contrast from that game,

Yes it is. But either it matters, in which case you need to factor in the fact that I was scum when I said that, or it doesn't matter, in which case it doesn't matter.

you might be bringing it up so you can use that to fuel your story about it. I don't doubt that you're smart person, and you could be playing this card as scum to try to convince me otherwise

Imagine if you put this much effort into reasoning Elminster as scum.

Speedrace - bark bark bark

Either way, it's inconsistent.

Yes, in one of those ways, I'm being inconsistent with a position I stated while in a game a year ago as scum, and in the other way I'm inconsistent with some person that may or may not be me that may or may not have said something about the subject "recently."

So what has changed since your hiatus

I'm questioning about the way you play the game and determining. You say you buy the claim when he has only posted 3 or 4 posts and then believe it when Pie could've claimed it in DP1 first thing first. Yet you said you believed it. I don't know how you are putting Pie in your town pile

But you are someone that is consistent with your belief and stand by it. You took a big break from mafia and the site. What changed about your play that drastically ever since the game? You only have played 3 games since a hiatus, what has drastically changed your view. It seems like you're using this to gain leverage when you could've easily changed your position

Dude, YOU said "many things change" REFERRING TO ME. So can I change, or can I not change?! WHICH IS IT?!

Either way, it's inconsistent.

Yes, in one of those ways, I'm being inconsistent with a position I stated while in a game a year ago as scum, and in the other way I'm inconsistent with some person that may or may not be me that may or may not have said something about the subject "recently."

So what has changed since your hiatus

I'm in a game where Elminster is definitely scum. That's what is different.

I'm questioning about the way you play the game and determining. You say you buy the claim when he has only posted 3 or 4 posts and then believe it when Pie could've claimed it in DP1 first thing first. Yet you said you believed it. I don't know how you are putting Pie in your town pile

Because there are bigger fish to fry (Elminster). We can only lynch one person a day. So once you have scum, you get them lynched.

Leave other scum for the next day. I am not one of these people that thinks they need to definitely, with 100% DNA evidence conclusively find all scum within 5 minutes of the game starting. If you have scum, you go for them. I put Pie in my Town pile with a dismissive acceptance of his claim because it doesn't matter right now. Elminster matters right now because he is definitely scum.

Tell you what, convince Lunatic to allow us to have two lynches today and I'll find you two scum to lynch. Such as it is, we can only lynch one, so finding more than one person to lynch is superfluous.

Ragnar tries a bit harder when he is scum.

#1 townie is back!

I feel like scum should let town argue amongst themselves as a strategy so I'm wary of those not contributing much

I'm curious though since you think the scum strategy would likely be to lie low this DP why you think Ragnar's lack of posting = town.

To a certain extent. You changing your entire logic after a 7 month hiatus makes no sense in anyway. Plus you are someone who sticks to your beliefs and values. Correct? Why all of a sudden are you going back on that? I'm not saying things can't change. I'm saying that you, yourself, as a player, is not someone that adapts to change to a certain extent because of your beliefs.

You have no proof of that. That's simply a scum read

You can still have a scum read on someone but prefer to lynch someone over another

Yet why do you wanna dismissively accept has claim and not weigh all options and form reads on all players.

This strategy is a double barrel. If the lynch doesn't shift your way with Elm, you're gonna keep your vote on Elm and risk a VTNL, or will you vote Pie?