Alacrity wrote: In post 508, nomnomnom wrote:This really reinforces my belief that Urap and Alacrity are scumpartners. Pretty sure of it now.
What is the reasoning for this?
It's pretty clear to me that you guys are paired, or at least somewhat constantly acting with the same mindset.
To me this is heightened by your very first exchange on this thread. I've re-read the thread multiple times and what I came to realize is that Urap's vote is the first one that wasn't random, on a normally-random and memey stage of the game.
In post 33, u r a person 2 wrote: In post 26, Alacrity wrote:Good morning! I look forward to playing with all of you today. =)
VOTE: insomnia
@alacrity Are you an alt? what kind of mafia experience do you have?
[/vote]Alacrity[/vote]
In post 40, u r a person 2 wrote: In post 38, Alacrity wrote: In post 37, u r a person 2 wrote:
neat
also bleh
because I have a pet theory that your opening post is scum-indicative for very new players, but not necessarily anyone else.
My first post is there to help me get the footing of how Alacrity talks. I need that, otherwise I get found out too fast.
Is this enough to explain it?
Ah, I actually didn't need explanation outside of knowing this wasn't your first game.
I only have data to signify that it is significant for very new players.
I can't be arsed to try and guess mains, but pm me later if we have a good game? ;P
On retrospective, this feels like a planned setup to justify this vote. At the time I started having suspicions on you both being scum, it was more of an uncertainty, but with daychat in mind, I feel this is not a coincidence.
In post 45, u r a person 2 wrote: In post 9, nomnomnom wrote:Hello, first game on this site! I've played IRL and on a few different sites though, so don't panic too hard, everything I do is 100% rational.
Rationally not_mafia MUST be mafia! I got this case figured out!
VOTE: not_mafia
This is probably scum-indicative, tho, for the same tell
VOTE: NomNomNom
I strongly believe that because upon looking at the game again, this vote lasted quite some time and it resulted in a lengthy wagon, so it's something that had a lot of impact in the end. This is why it matters. I feel this was done to direct a good vote on someone. This is also accentuated with this post townreading roster for wanting an early lynch on me, not to mention Urap being okay with an early lynch on me. On day 1. With an entire week left.
In post 93, u r a person 2 wrote: In post 79, rosterfoster wrote:I’ve played with town URAP before. Tone was similar.
Can we all just lynch nomnom?
okay this is the only one that's actually bold and strong on its own, but the whole iso,
-slapping down an rvs vote
-reaffirming that vote and calling for a lynch by post 80ish
-and then slapping down three reasons (whether you agree with them or not)
I consider it bold
In post 97, u r a person 2 wrote:I mean, I don't think lynching right now is necessarily the
best
play
But I'm game to see nom hammered right now, yeah.
On top of that, you and urap have been constantly town reading each other and as I already said, Urap went to great lengths to deflect this lynch on you with two rapid succession votes and trying to see which one would stick, which he doesn't even deny doing.
I feel a strong link between you. And to me that link is "scum partners".
