I've given enough details you can try to continue to explain your way out of the contradictions and twist them in ways that aren't contradictory but as you stated them, they were contradictions.
You can't magically say, "No it's meant to sound like this, the contradictions aren't there"
Please. I'm not twisting anything, I'm clarifying my statements, and showing how your evidence is faulty.
You say this isn't a newbie mafia, but your "gambit" banked on the survivor being new and stupid to claim. This gambit of course didn't make light until I called you out on the scum tell of trying to convince the ONLY newer players that its good to keep a survivor around til endgame because of mylo/lylo. So tell me this, if somehow all the vets were killed and the survivor then claimed had I not revealed that, your "gambit" would have won scum the game. You can't tell me that never crossed your mind.
..................................................
I gotta say, you amaze me. I didn't think anyone could come up with that ridiculous of an argument. Let me detail why its so ridiculous.
Nobody that's even semi-experienced would have fallen for the argument I made. That leaves 3 people: Blue Yoshi, Crimson King, and Meta-Kirby who MIGHT fall for it. So, suppose all non-scum vets (read: people who definitely wouldn't have fallen for it) were killed. Since I doubt there's more than 4 scum in this game, that leaves AT LEAST 6 town vets (12 vets - 4 scum - survivor - SK). Still, suppose by some miracle of probability we reach the point before mylo with the only town players as the three newbies. Even then, since the SK wants to win the game, he'd reveal the argument and kill off the survivor. So he'd have to be gone as well. So, the only possible way that your scenario could happen is:
3 newbie townies left
1 mafia
1 survivor
Sorry man, but the odds of that are so incredibly astronomical that they blow my mind. Not to mention all three newbies would have had to fall for it, and it would have needed for no vet to reveal it previously (as you did.)
So, let's detail the four possible results of the gambit.
1) Survivor claims immediately - Good for town.
2) Your incredibly farfetched scenario somehow manages to happen - Good for scum.
3) Survivor doesn't claim - Neutral
4) It blows up in my face and I take some real heat for it - Good for whichever side I'm not on.
So, if I were scum, that would leave 2 good for town results, 1 neutral result and 1 incredibly farfetched good for scum result. Only an idiot scum would make such a gambit, and I am no idiot.
On the other hand, as I am town, that leaves a good for town result, a netural result, and two pro-scum results, one of which is almost certainly not to happen. You realized this, and immediately blew it up to prevent the survivor from claiming and making a townie suspicious. However, I wasn't (and still aren't) afraid of that happening, as I know people will eventually recognize it for the pro-town (or at least neutral) move it is. Once they do, you're going down.
Btw on the subject of gambits, they're usually dumb stop them.
But it's ok cause yours wasn't a gambit, it was a scum move.
Your other contradiction had to do with the RVS, and the fact of the matter is, it was a blatant contradiction. It should be noted you've had to defend yourself from MULTIPLE people because of it so you can't just saw, you're influential therefore if you say they exist they're automatically there. You said the RVS is semi-serious at best and that 90 percent of the time it doesn't matter. Irrefutable evidence was that brought up in how THREE games, the RVS was used post-RVS to nail scum, you then try and downplay that as well.
Please. First off, that getting schooled hydra comment of yours wasn't going anywhere. The only thing that nailed you that game was me tracking you to the kill. Anyone that was in the game can verify that. I can't really comment on the Monster one as I wasn't following that game. However, I'll give you that one and the Wonderland one. Still, I can give you plenty of examples the other way too. Spidey-mafia, RTS mafia (although that one sorta phased in and out of the RVS), Bad Idea mafia are some that come off of the top of my head, and there are plenty of examples in the older games on this site. (I'm pretty sure mini-mario mafia and Tommafia 1,3 are examples, although it's been a while since I read them, so I might be wrong.) So okay, 90% may be a little high. But how about 75%?
Do you want to know why you are?
Because you're BLATANTLY throwing out contradictions as you try and play the townie that pleases everyone, you keep trying to downplay all of these when they're blatantly right there. Then you try and weaken them by saying they don't exist, or that the reason they exist is because the stronger player said so.
I've given my opinion on this six ways til sunday, you're scum.
Contradictions? I've shown again and again, there's no contradictions. You're pushing false accusations on me, and I'll get you lynched for it. Everyone knows that you're one of the better players on this site (or at least regarded as one), and people do follow you. However, while your arguments do look imposing at first glance, there's no real evidence behind them, and once people see that, you'll find yourself in your rightful place...
on the chopping block!
