Darknut_Hunter said:
Interesting thought there Wyatt, I like it, but it's completely false. If I was mafia, I'd take you out first and win the game that way.
Of course you'd state something like that given my thoughts. But it's obvious you're struggling to hang on here. If you had killed me, my suspicions against you would have been completely rooted and you would have been lynched instantly, something you saw through. You're bluffing.
Darknut_Hunter said:
It's incredibly easy to fake sanity, and any smart mafia wouldn't fake paranoid or naive. To this point I investigated you last night and came up with guilty. After my guilty verdict on musicfan and ALIT, both who were innocent, the fact that you're targeting me, combined with the fact that I got a guilty verdict on you, proves that I am paranoid, something that I am certain of.
Au contraire, it would be far easier for someone to fake paranoid or naive. Less opportunity for conflict and screwing up.
Just as it is easy for you to fake paranoid right now. You don't have any investigation results on me, and you know it would be detrimental for you to claim sane or insane and provide results that incriminate me because of the conflicts. Still bluffing.
Darknut_Hunter said:
Also, I've observed the way you've played in this game compared to others where you were town. There have been little things in this game that aren't usually your meta. Shorter comments and comments like this
yfw my meta is that my meta is never constant
You won't observe any patterns from me no matter where you look. Unless you count aggressiveness and any other time a nonchalant attitude with short blips here and there.
Darknut_Hunter said:
Seems like a shot at trying to push the idea that we need to lynch so that you can win.
No, it seems like a shot at the people who
really don't bother to read the OP even though they were told multiple times to do so. That's really pathetic, but what's more pathetic is you're trying to pass this off as a scumtell.
Darknut_Hunter said:
So you investigated me and got guilty and you had previously investigated Thar and got innocent. Seems reasonable, but then just now you said you must be insane and that I'm scum. That makes no sense. If you were insane and I'm scum, then you'd get innocent on me and guilty on Thar. Thar, as we saw from his death, was town. You got innocent on him earlier, so why did you vote to lynch him, and then proceed to try and force it. Add that to the fact that you must have "investigated" Gumball (we both know you didn't cause you were busy gutting Monolith) and no matter what you say your verdict on her was, you can't escape your own flip flop.
Well excuuuuuuse me princess, used the wrong words. Thareous's lynch proves I'm not
insane. Happy now? Really, it's ridiculous you would try to pass this off as a scumtell rather than just asking for clarification because of confusing and mistaken wording. Saying this is a "flip-flop" is completely arrogant and unreasonable. No one knows their sanities, I didn't flip on it. I said Thareous was innocent and I received an innocent result on him and that his lynch proved I wasn't sane, it was a mix of wording. People getting lynched for making typos and using something like this as a scum slip is a terrible tactic, when you look at it directly you realize there's no actual scum association with it.
Really, your pathetic approach here only proves all the more that you're scum. You've been low this entire game (inb4 "I haven't been here" bologna), and your tactics are only highlighting that of mafia. You aren't winning this one.
My investigations are very much real and you're just pulling fluff out of the air by now.
ebwodp
By the way, Europe sucks.