Thread: My Little Pony: Mafia is Magic - ENDGAME! Town, jda95, and Sputnik win!

Originally Posted by KidBeano

Might I just reiterate this:

JOKE VOTES DO NOT CONSTITUTE REACTION TESTING.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Human

reading the title i FREAKED OUT ;_;

Why?

My Little Pony: Mafia is Magic - Night 1 Oh, the Humanity!

^^;

Originally Posted by Sputnik

Oh really, Dark Blueberry? Let's find out for sure.

Unvote: Bomika

Vote: Dark Blueberry

what exactly were you trying to 'find out for sure'? if it was whether she would have voted for you or not had you not voted, then lynching her was dumb; yes, you're going to find out meta truths by lynching someone! if it was whether she had any links to bomika or not, then lynching her was dumb. your attempt to 'find things out for sure' was not a fantastic solution in any way, shape, or form, and that's not just because she flipped town. regardless of her alignment, what happened was dumb. what exactly was your reasoning for trying to lynch dark blueboob?

Originally Posted by Insanish Danish

Vote: Dark Blueberry. I hate no lynches :/

translation: i want a lynch for no reason

u hate no-lynches?? too bad tho, u gotta put up w/ these things sometime :/

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Vote: Dark Blueberry

I'm with Danish here, and considering DB already has two votes, might as well help it further.

translation: i want a lynch for no reason

"considering DB already has two votes, might as well help it further":
a) there were three votes when you voted; maybe a mistake, maybe a PURPOSEFUL mistake
b) yes, because when somebody has three votes on them for practically no reason, it makes total sense to support the lynch

Originally Posted by Scarlet Enchantress

Vote: Dark Blueberry

If we're going to do a lynch on day 1, we might as well do it.

translation: i, too, want a lynch for no reason

i really don't understand the sentence as a whole, though, nor what thought process went into it.

if we're going to do a lynch, may as well do it??? were u high when u wrote this??? what exactly did u mean??

in other news: phoenicks is being WEIRD

Sorry I missed day 1 guys, I was out last night.

Originally Posted by Sputnik

It was mostly to test her reaction. A townie wouldn't react negatively to a single vote.

I completely disagree with this. An active player does not want to get lynched as town or mafia. All townies do not act the same when they get voted. All mafia members do not act the same when they get voted. That kind of reasoning does not work.

Originally Posted by Bomika

This is why you leave friendship at the door when it comes to mafia games. That lynch doesn't even give much info, she was lynched just because she voted for a person that voted for her friend. I didn't even bother to talk to her about it, she has done this before in another game. (And other players already did the questioning and she answered those.)

Well, it did provide us with a bandwagon. But what a waste of a good role.

Originally Posted by Buoy

translation: i want a lynch for no reason

"considering DB already has two votes, might as well help it further":
a) there were three votes when you voted; maybe a mistake, maybe a PURPOSEFUL mistake
b) yes, because when somebody has three votes on them for practically no reason, it makes total sense to support the lynch

There were? I didn't actually check, as I assumed there was only 2 votes at that point, considering Insanish's statement of hating no-lynches, which to me implied that a no lynch was the current thing prior to their vote. Not that it would've really mattered then.

Also, you should know by now that in general I'm pro-Day 1 lynch. This should not be news in any form.

Hell, I actually asked for a potential defense/reasoning on why should DB not be lynched. They did not give one.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Originally Posted by Buoy

translation: i want a lynch for no reason

"considering DB already has two votes, might as well help it further":
a) there were three votes when you voted; maybe a mistake, maybe a PURPOSEFUL mistake
b) yes, because when somebody has three votes on them for practically no reason, it makes total sense to support the lynch

There were? I didn't actually check, as I assumed there was only 2 votes at that point, considering Insanish's statement of hating no-lynches, which to me implied that a no lynch was the current thing prior to their vote. Not that it would've really mattered then.

Also, you should know by now that in general I'm pro-Day 1 lynch. This should not be news in any form.

Hell, I actually asked for a potential defense/reasoning on why should DB not be lynched. They did not give one.

who cares if you're pro-d1 lynch? are you saying that you supported a baseless lynch for no reason except to fulfill some sort of normalcy that people might expect from you? very pro-town, there.

i think that it was self-evident that DB shouldn't have been lynched, seeing as it was a completely random choice -- oh, i beg your pardon: sputnik wanted to 'find out for sure' some obscure thing. what did you actually expect DB to say? did you think she'd give you some amazing monologue on why she shouldn't be lynched, when next to nothing had been actually put against her? she even SAID that to you, but of course it was too late by then.

anyway, your whole, "ooh, let's vote because a bandwagon exists" seems to contradict this particular post of yours:

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

I LIKE FEET

also something about not voting.

anything to say about how you miraculously changed your mind?

Originally Posted by Buoy

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Originally Posted by Buoy

translation: i want a lynch for no reason

"considering DB already has two votes, might as well help it further":
a) there were three votes when you voted; maybe a mistake, maybe a PURPOSEFUL mistake
b) yes, because when somebody has three votes on them for practically no reason, it makes total sense to support the lynch

There were? I didn't actually check, as I assumed there was only 2 votes at that point, considering Insanish's statement of hating no-lynches, which to me implied that a no lynch was the current thing prior to their vote. Not that it would've really mattered then.

Also, you should know by now that in general I'm pro-Day 1 lynch. This should not be news in any form.

Hell, I actually asked for a potential defense/reasoning on why should DB not be lynched. They did not give one.

who cares if you're pro-d1 lynch? are you saying that you supported a baseless lynch for no reason except to fulfill some sort of normalcy that people might expect from you? very pro-town, there.

i think that it was self-evident that DB shouldn't have been lynched, seeing as it was a completely random choice -- oh, i beg your pardon: sputnik wanted to 'find out for sure' some obscure thing. what did you actually expect DB to say? did you think she'd give you some amazing monologue on why she shouldn't be lynched, when next to nothing had been actually put against her? she even SAID that to you, but of course it was too late by then.

anyway, your whole, "ooh, let's vote because a bandwagon exists" seems to contradict this particular post of yours:

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

I LIKE FEET

also something about not voting.

anything to say about how you miraculously changed your mind?

Mm'kay. Firstly, it wasn't about fulfilling anything. I was talking about how I have the tendency to support these "baseless lynches" on day 1, as I still don't exactly consider it exactly helpful to just sit there not doing particularly nothing. Considering there's roughly that 1/4 ratio of Mafia and Town, that's simply 25% shot at hitting someone meaningful. Also, as many could say, Day 1 voting is mostly used to scour information. I don't see why anyone would bother with breaking out info at one or two votes, considering more or less always there will be people with very different votes.
Now, obviously, there's Sputnik's wanting to check something. That alone would make the bandwagon technically not random, as people can very well support that arbitrary claim, hoping it's actually based on SOMETHING. Sputnik should most likely actually share what that was about tho now, considering the checking didn't exactly work out.

Then, y'know, as I said, I assumed there was 2 votes at the time. I made a question for DB to make some form of defense. Hell, they could've claimed via PM or something to keep themselves alive. At that point, there would've been a very decent shot at me unvoting, and possibly even TIE the votes.

Lastly, I didn't change my mind. The situation changed. You know, just because I don't change my tires right now, and then 27 minutes later they happen to go out of commission, having me change them then doesn't mean my initial decision has changed.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Mm'kay. Firstly, it wasn't about fulfilling anything. I was talking about how I have the tendency to support these "baseless lynches" on day 1, as I still don't exactly consider it exactly helpful to just sit there not doing particularly nothing. Considering there's roughly that 1/4 ratio of Mafia and Town, that's simply 25% shot at hitting someone meaningful. Also, as many could say, Day 1 voting is mostly used to scour information. I don't see why anyone would bother with breaking out info at one or two votes, considering more or less always there will be people with very different votes.

Okay, you have the tendency to support baseless lynching Day 1. Good for you. However, not lynching =/= not doing anything in particular. And are you trying to justify basing this lynch off of a chance that Dark Blueberry could have been mafia? We may as well lynch you tomorrow, because you're going to be at an even higher chance of flipping mafia in the next day phase than Dark Blueberry was in this one! As well as that, Day 1 is not for pressuring people into giving you "information": for one thing, they don't have any of it -- all they can tell you is their role. Continuing with that idea, Day 1 is not for pressuring people into telling you their role, either: "as many could say", trying to out power roles on Day 1 is scummy.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Now, obviously, there's Sputnik's wanting to check something. That alone would make the bandwagon technically not random, as people can very well support that arbitrary claim, hoping it's actually based on SOMETHING. Sputnik should most likely actually share what that was about tho now, considering the checking didn't exactly work out.

Let's attend to Sputnik's every single whim while we're at it, too. People CAN support that claim, but SHOULD they without any proof? No. That's town-detrimental play.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Then, y'know, as I said, I assumed there was 2 votes at the time. I made a question for DB to make some form of defense. Hell, they could've claimed via PM or something to keep themselves alive. At that point, there would've been a very decent shot at me unvoting, and possibly even TIE the votes.

That well-known adage "check before you wreck" comes to mind. I don't particularly see how you could have thought there were only two votes, especially when given HOURS of time to look over. Additionally, and again, what could DB have said? She made her post after all of your votes around an hour before the phase update, and, even if there had only been two votes, there were any number of things that could have happened just before the phase update, but a lot of them didn't. Trying to assure me of what you 'would have done' is meta and doesn't really assure me of your innocence, i.e. bad defence.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Lastly, I didn't change my mind. The situation changed. You know, just because I don't change my tires right now, and then 27 minutes later they happen to go out of commission, having me change them then doesn't mean my initial decision has changed.

Right... I'll answer to your analogy first. That's slightly different to the situation we're faced with now, and, besides, you're telling me that changing the tires after deciding not to change the tires originally is not a change of mind? Really? The tires went bad: you could potentially still decide not to change them. You wouldn't really have a functioning car, but deigning to change them is a change of mind.

You're ALSO saying that deciding to vote after stating that you weren't going to vote is also not a change of mind. What exactly happened? There were three votes that appeared on Dark Blueberry (or, perhaps, two, in Baron Dante land) -- radical situation change, there! I need to sit down... and catch my breath... such change...

The situation didn't require you to vote. You voted anyway, which is a change of your mind from the time when you stated you weren't voting. If you had said you weren't voting YET, maybe that would have been more understandable, but there's a small hitch: you didn't.

Originally Posted by Buoy

Okay, you have the tendency to support baseless lynching Day 1. Good for you. However, not lynching =/= not doing anything in particular. And are you trying to justify basing this lynch off of a chance that Dark Blueberry could have been mafia? We may as well lynch you tomorrow, because you're going to be at an even higher chance of flipping mafia in the next day phase than Dark Blueberry was in this one! As well as that, Day 1 is not for pressuring people into giving you "information": for one thing, they don't have any of it -- all they can tell you is their role. Continuing with that idea, Day 1 is not for pressuring people into telling you their role, either: "as many could say", trying to out power roles on Day 1 is scummy.

Yes, I am justifying it with a chance.

As far as that way too long bit about what day 1 is not for, looking for potential slips and whatnot is a completely valid way to pursue new info. However, that is simply not happening if there is no reason to speak of things you can slip in. "as many could say", trying to out Mafia on Day 1 is not scummy.

Let's attend to Sputnik's every single whim while we're at it, too. People CAN support that claim, but SHOULD they without any proof? No. That's town-detrimental play.

There was no proof, but there was also nothing else to go with. as flimsy as the reasoning may be, it's still more than "hurr let's go with random". Obviously, what is going to happen is 1. DB actually does flip as mafia or "something worth checking for" happens, or nothing of worth happens, a townie is lynched, we now have a wonderful shot at question what was this about, and possibly the first Mafia, here it being Sputnik, in bag. Again, hard to say considering Sput has sad nothing about this.

That well-known adage "check before you wreck" comes to mind. I don't particularly see how you could have thought there were only two votes, especially when given HOURS of time to look over. Additionally, and again, what could DB have said? She made her post after all of your votes around an hour before the phase update, and, even if there had only been two votes, there were any number of things that could have happened just before the phase update, but a lot of them didn't. Trying to assure me of what you 'would have done' is meta and doesn't really assure me of your innocence, i.e. bad defence.

First part about checking this is fair enough, no argument there. (Though, I'll point out this quote by Scarlet)

Dark Blueberry: I (Phoenicks, Sputnik)
Sputnik: I (Dark Blueberry)
Mr. Farenheit: I (Laterose)
kidbeano: I (Mijzelffan)

Current vote total from what I've concluded. If this is incorrect, feel free to tell me.

DB was marked as having one vote (though, there was two different voters, I admit this), and that was the easiest way to go looking at the vote tally. Things could have changed, obviously, but that's to be expected, no?

You know, I never felt I was particularly defending myself here. I'm not trying to assure you of what I would have done, but what could have been done to prevent this, on DB's side.

Right... I'll answer to your analogy first. That's slightly different to the situation we're faced with now, and, besides, you're telling me that changing the tires after deciding not to change the tires originally is not a change of mind? Really? The tires went bad: you could potentially still decide not to change them. You wouldn't really have a functioning car, but deigning to change them is a change of mind.

It's not particularly a change of mind. You not changing a blown tire is stupid. That's like saying an opinion based on false facts is a valid opinion. Which it isn't.

You're ALSO saying that deciding to vote after stating that you weren't going to vote is also not a change of mind. What exactly happened? There were three votes that appeared on Dark Blueberry (or, perhaps, two, in Baron Dante land) -- radical situation change, there! I need to sit down... and catch my breath... such change...

The situation didn't require you to vote. You voted anyway, which is a change of your mind from the time when you stated you weren't voting. If you had said you weren't voting YET, maybe that would have been more understandable, but there's a small hitch: you didn't.[/QUOTE]

When votes are laid out in the way they were at that point, as I pointed out, with 2 VOTES, having one person vote is enough to tie the votes. With 3 votes, it becomes less likely.

there's also the issue that I never said I WOULDN'T vote at a later time. I simply said "something about not voting". Something implying I was saying something related to the topic. For all you know, that could be takenn as "I'm not NOT voting", or even, oh goodness, "I'm not voting YET".

The miscount in votes was probably from this post:

Originally Posted by Scarlet Enchantress

Dark Blueberry: I (Phoenicks, Sputnik)
Sputnik: I (Dark Blueberry)
Mr. Farenheit: I (Laterose)
kidbeano: I (Mijzelffan)

Current vote total from what I've concluded. If this is incorrect, feel free to tell me.

As you can see, DB has a 'I' instead of a 'II' next to her name. Which just goes to show why people should check for themselves and not assume the person counting is right :)

Baron, why would you say random lynching Day 1 is better than no lynching Day 1?

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Yes, I am justifying it with a chance.

As far as that way too long bit about what day 1 is not for, looking for potential slips and whatnot is a completely valid way to pursue new info. However, that is simply not happening if there is no reason to speak of things you can slip in. "as many could say", trying to out Mafia on Day 1 is not scummy.

Great, because chance is such a great thing to base your actions off of.

As well as that, that's not what you said at first. Looking for slips and stuff is not the same thing as voting somebody to pressure them into giving you a claim. Oh, and I sure bet you gave Dark Blueberry plenty of reasons to "slip things in", given your magical addition to "two votes". High levels of pressure. I'm surprised she didn't turn into a fossil on the spot. Saying what you did in that post makes me think you were fully aware of the extent of your vote.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

There was no proof, but there was also nothing else to go with. as flimsy as the reasoning may be, it's still more than "hurr let's go with random". Obviously, what is going to happen is 1. DB actually does flip as mafia or "something worth checking for" happens, or nothing of worth happens, a townie is lynched, we now have a wonderful shot at question what was this about, and possibly the first Mafia, here it being Sputnik, in bag. Again, hard to say considering Sput has sad nothing about this.

The thing is that it basically was at random: she said nothing else to suggest that it wasn't, only that she wanted to "check it for sure". I don't see what exactly would possess anybody to follow a flimsy thing like that: it's not like D1 lynches are imperative. I think answering KidBeano's question would be a good idea. Additionally, it's not like you actually said anything about this when you were voting Dark Blueberry -- just that you were "with Insanish Danish". Intriguing.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

DB was marked as having one vote (though, there was two different voters, I admit this), and that was the easiest way to go looking at the vote tally. Things could have changed, obviously, but that's to be expected, no?

You know, I never felt I was particularly defending myself here. I'm not trying to assure you of what I would have done, but what could have been done to prevent this, on DB's side.

i don't suppose you could have just checked for yourself tho

okay, and so what was the point in trying to argue the point with me??? and you're saying that like it's dark blueberry's fault that u voted her

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

It's not particularly a change of mind. You not changing a blown tire is stupid. That's like saying an opinion based on false facts is a valid opinion. Which it isn't.

um.................. n o it isn't like saying that???? your analogies are getting worse by the post

When votes are laid out in the way they were at that point, as I pointed out, with 2 VOTES, having one person vote is enough to tie the votes. With 3 votes, it becomes less likely.

wotevs, this is your own fault

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

there's also the issue that I never said I WOULDN'T vote at a later time. I simply said "something about not voting". Something implying I was saying something related to the topic. For all you know, that could be takenn as "I'm not NOT voting", or even, oh goodness, "I'm not voting YET".

well, gee, i guess you should have, like -- and this will blown ur frickin mind -- sAid what u meaNT?????

@KidBeano; I believe this discussion has been done far, FAR too many times by now.

Originally Posted by Buoy

Great, because chance is such a great thing to base your actions off of.

As well as that, that's not what you said at first. Looking for slips and stuff is not the same thing as voting somebody to pressure them into giving you a claim. Oh, and I sure bet you gave Dark Blueberry plenty of reasons to "slip things in", given your magical addition to "two votes". High levels of pressure. I'm surprised she didn't turn into a fossil on the spot. Saying what you did in that post makes me think you were fully aware of the extent of your vote.

Way to twist my words there bro. I never said I was pressuring them to give a claim. That happening could've been a possibility, but not the only possible course of action. Besides, I believe getting a claim for a Mafia, which is possibly a fake claim, can come in use later on, don't you think? When they aren't given huge amounts of time to think, they will make a bad claim far easier.

The thing is that it basically was at random: she said nothing else to suggest that it wasn't, only that she wanted to "check it for sure". I don't see what exactly would possess anybody to follow a flimsy thing like that: it's not like D1 lynches are imperative. I think answering KidBeano's question would be a good idea. Additionally, it's not like you actually said anything about this when you were voting Dark Blueberry -- just that you were "with Insanish Danish". Intriguing.

I also never explictly said I was voting with the reasoning. And again, I rather see things happening than not.

i don't suppose you could have just checked for yourself tho

okay, and so what was the point in trying to argue the point with me??? and you're saying that like it's dark blueberry's fault that u voted her

I could have. However, you don't think a mistake like that, which just happened to affect a plethora of things, might be intentional? Again, yes, maybe I should have done so. I didn't. Horrifying that one'd trust another player.

No, I didn't say that. I gave DB the possibility to do things. as far as I know, no actions were made here, thus it led to this.

um.................. n o it isn't like saying that???? your analogies are getting worse by the post

shush, my analogues are flawless.

wotevs, this is your own fault

No.

well, gee, i guess you should have, like -- and this will blown ur frickin mind -- sAid what u meaNT?????

I did. I simply chose to not express it in the most obvious manner due to it's relative inconsequentality to the game at the time.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

@KidBeano I believe this discussion has been done far, FAR too many times by now.

must be such an effort for u to answer a question... such a troubled soul ;')

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Way to twist my words there bro. I never said I was pressuring them to give a claim. That happening could've been a possibility, but not the only possible course of action. Besides, I believe getting a claim for a Mafia, which is possibly a fake claim, can come in use later on, don't you think? When they aren't given huge amounts of time to think, they will make a bad claim far easier.

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

Also, as many could say, Day 1 voting is mostly used to scour information. I don't see why anyone would bother with breaking out info at one or two votes, considering more or less always there will be people with very different votes.

no that is definitely not what u said?????? u keep contradicting urself............

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

I also never explictly said I was voting with the reasoning. And again, I rather see things happening than not.

well omfg i think u need to stop being so wishy-washy about this

what exactly was your reasoning for voting dark blueberry, and if u say it was to have 'something happen' i am literally going to decapitate you

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

I could have. However, you don't think a mistake like that, which just happened to affect a plethora of things, might be intentional? Again, yes, maybe I should have done so. I didn't. Horrifying that one'd trust another player.

No, I didn't say that. I gave DB the possibility to do things. as far as I know, no actions were made here, thus it led to this.

which mistake is that? yours or octy's? i'm more inclined to believe that your own 'mistake' was intentional, because it did lead to a nice little mislynch, didn't it? octy actually did include the two people who voted, but she only typed it as one -- it's an easier mistake to make than your own mistake, if that's what you want to call it. horrifying that some people can't do simple tasks for themselves.

you gave her an hour to try and get at least two votes taken off of her, and the likelihood was that you were the only immediate one who could actually do anything. certainly looks like there was a way out for her!

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

No.

so... it's not ur fault that u weren't bothered enough to check how many votes had actually been placed???????? it's not ur fault that u decided to look at some1 else's post instead of doing things urself??????? it's nOt Ur FaUlT??

Originally Posted by Baron Dante

I did. I simply chose to not express it in the most obvious manner due to it's relative inconsequentality to the game at the time.

if u had said what u meant, then why did u bother with tryin to tell me all these various interpretations, when clearly, since u acknowledged my original point, my interpretation of what u meant was right??????????????

[QUOTE=Buoy;4466140]must be such an effort for u to answer a question... such a troubled soul ;')[QUOTE]

Again, this discussion has been killed to death. Srs. No. Not discussing this here.

no that is definitely not what u said?????? u keep contradicting urself............

Curiously the quote you provided actually doesn't even involve the word "claim" as far as I saw there. So, way to quote something that only proves my point there?

well omfg i think u need to stop being so wishy-washy about this

what exactly was your reasoning for voting dark blueberry, and if u say it was to have 'something happen' i am literally going to decapitate you

I'm rather wanting to go with "to have something happen" just to see how does this decapitation take place.

But nope. as I said, I simply agreed with Insanish Danish here. "Not having a lynch on day 1 is not what I wish". Of course, there are always exceptions, but that doesn't happen when the person being lynched does not make a defense at all.

which mistake is that? yours or octy's? i'm more inclined to believe that your own 'mistake' was intentional, because it did lead to a nice little mislynch, didn't it? octy actually did include the two people who voted, but she only typed it as one -- it's an easier mistake to make than your own mistake, if that's what you want to call it. horrifying that some people can't do simple tasks for themselves.

you gave her an hour to try and get at least two votes taken off of her, and the likelihood was that you were the only immediate one who could actually do anything. certainly looks like there was a way out for her!

That'd be Octy's then, though apparently it'd be KB's when you take it further, but nevertheless. I do think it was a genuine mistake on eithers side, I'm simply opening another possibility.

I gave her an hour to try and get ONE vote off, with tying included, which, if someone was unvoting, would happen. Considering I was present, it could've been done when I set the vote.

so... it's not ur fault that u weren't bothered enough to check how many votes had actually been placed???????? it's not ur fault that u decided to look at some1 else's post instead of doing things urself??????? it's nOt Ur FaUlT??

I'll just go with Y/N. You choose.

if u had said what u meant, then why did u bother with tryin to tell me all these various interpretations, when clearly, since u acknowledged my original point, my interpretation of what u meant was right??????????????

Because I like having lengthy discussions with a person who will reply with long replies like this for my own amusement and use.


Nevertheless. At this point, I'll be dropping off. Since right now I aknowledge the possibility of things happening, such as the cop checking me and whatnot, which would be a huge waste of time, considering that'll come out as Mafia, considering my role. I'm still Town aligned, obviously. Make of that what you will.

wow that was a bit of an anti-climax

1. @Sputnik;
2. @Sunburn;
3. @Light Bringer;
4. @Soulmaster;
5. @Parma;
6. @Insanish Danish;
7. @Paperhorse;
8. @Andrea Luminosity;
9. @Baron Dante;
10. @jda95;
11. @Neon Borealis;
12. @No Lynch;
13. @Human;
14. @KidBeano;
15. @Buoy;
16. @Bomika;
17. @Mr. Fahrenheit;
18. @Mijzelffan;
19. @Joltik;
20. @Phoenicks;
21. @Dark Blueberry;
22. @Poyo;
23. @Laterose;
24. @Scarlet Enchantress;

PLEASE COUNTERCLAIM IF YOU ARE THE MILLER.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fahrenheit

Originally Posted by Human

reading the title i FREAKED OUT ;_;

Nice way to post for just postings sake. Next time please write something that is relevant to the game. Thank you.

I agree with Buoy about Baron Dante and the sudden lynch. Insanish Danish is the type of player that goes on bandwagoning lynching sprees when he's Mafia, so I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was one as well in this game.