I said 'if anyone's attacked enough'. The word enough is there for a reason. Different people have different limits, too, and I said if anyone gets attacked ENOUGH (i.e. attacked to a certain level) for their vote, they're going to withdraw it, unless they have a really good reason not to withdraw it. My point is still valid. Oswin was attacked far less for his vote than Neon and Noivern, and that's why he kept his as opposed to them withdrawing theirs.Not true at all. Different people=different behaviors.
I was pointing out the difference between their situations -- trying to strengthen my point that people who are attacked a lot for their votes are likely to withdraw them.Oswin kept his vote because he wasn't really attacked that much; Neon and Noivern were both leapt upon for their votes, which is why they didn't keep theirs.
It doesn't matter what you said before -- you were probably more aware of what you were saying then than you are now. In the particular sentence where I picked up the 'slip up' ("It shows they were trying to avoid mislynching him with attention already on them") there is no 'if' or 'maybe' or 'would' or 'could' -- there's no suggestion of a POSSIBILITY in that sentence. You're saying it as though you already know that it's going to be a mislynch. What's more is that you USE this sentence as a basis for a possibility in your next one: you say that, because the lynch on Phoenicks would have been a mislynch if it was executed, that it 'COULD' mean that Neon and Noivern are mafia. The fact that you based a conditional sentence off of that sentence suggests that you do indeed think that Phoenicks' death would be a mislynch as it being a fact, rather than a possibility -- and you can't know that it would be a mislynch unless you're mafia.I said that as a possible theory. If you read my first post then you would have seen that I also presented a theory of Phoenicks being mafia.
This is your first mention of slip-ups yet in this game. It's strange that it comes in the exact same post where you're defending yourself because of your own slip-up. It's -- weirdly enough -- almost as if you're trying to look for someone else to 'slip-up' so you can shift attention to them. And discuss what exactly? Do you want to bring up any points for discussion? You can't just say 'let's discuss!' without anything suggested to discuss.How are we to trust Mijz's word on that, plus what does that have to do with anything? We should keep discussing and looking for mafia slip ups.
This is another recap that doesn't add anything meaningful to your post -- at all. You basically just regurgitated exactly what Spectrum Achromatic said, except with your own little anecdote tied in. :lI've played two games with Phoenicks. In one I died early and he was town but I didn't keep up with the game to see his behavior. In the other he was mafia and I again died early but kept up with the game. He was mafia and looked really pro-town meaning he's a tricky player and one I will never trust without a cop check and dead godfather. Pro-town=/= town.
Sorry, can you read? I was almost sure I said 'most' situations.Yeah you can. Cop checks when there is no worries of something like godfather and other things like that.
here's the thing! there's no such concept as being 'too pro-town'! it's impossible to be 'TOO pro-town'! what a shockerActually some would take it seriously because playing behavior can easily decide someone's alignment.
Not irrelevant. I'm showing her that her logic would not be widely accepted -- BMG sure as hell isn't the be-all and end-all of mafia. It's not like her logic can't be presented on another forum -- anyone on the internet can come and read what she just wrote. Okay, let's have it your way: if someone from another forum came here and read that, she'd get seriously laughed at. Is that any better for you, princess?This is BMG not another forum so your comments are irrelevant.
Scumhunting is never based off meta. It's surprising to find that you don't think meta should be brushed off when you're ready to brush off more valid comments, such as my one about the other forums. Apparently more logical things than meta are 'irrelevant' to you.Mafias are based off of meta to find scum so it should never be brushed off.
As I recall, he didn't suggest that he wasn't included in that. You shouldn't try and make it about him when it's clearly about someone else, and when he didn't even say the logic didn't apply to himself.As is any player in this game including you.
Just something here. I'm not trying to speak for Phoenicks, but generally when a person doesn't specify what they agree with in an argument, that means they agree with all of it. Additionally, not pointing out something in-thread is not ignoring it -- a person can still acknowledge something without having to recap the thread to everyone just to make sure that someone didn't miss something blindingly obvious. You didn't add anything because you literally didn't point out anything that wasn't already obvious to people.1) I'm a girl
2) What about their responses do you agree with?
3) How is pointing out what others ignored not adding anything. I didn't repeat anything said and instead brought up what was ignored so please tell me how I didn't add anything? Or is it because one of them is your scumbuddy and you don't like that I brought attention on them?