Calvin and Hobbes Mafia(GAME OVER! Grownups Mafia Wins!)

[Who]

Random vote for the first avatar-less person to post.
VOTE: Dante

[Who]

Vote-hopping seems far more fun than not vote-hopping.
TIP didn't random vote. Clearly only scum would do such a thing.
VOTE: TheIrishPope

[Who]

And why is that?

[Who]

Who has something to hide.

I object! I have nothing to hide.

@TIP
Outside of RVS, naked voting is scummy.

[Who]

A naked serious vote, now that's scummy. Care to explain why you are voting?

[Who]

A serious vote means you have a reason. Not sharing said reason makes the vote do nothing for the town. Furthermore, it is impossible to attack the reasoning behind a reasonless vote. Thus, it is impossible to defend against a reasonless vote and also impossible to attack the voter for scummy reasoning unless reasonless voting is scummy.
Voting without reason (Outside of RVS) is a progress-blocking monstrosity, and I see no reason why any town player would do such a thing.

[Who]

Just realized my random vote was still there.

Unvote

[Who]

eh, that works

A serious vote means you have a reason. Not sharing said reason makes the vote do nothing for the town. Furthermore, it is impossible to attack the reasoning behind a reasonless vote. Thus, it is impossible to defend against a reasonless vote and also impossible to attack the voter for scummy reasoning unless reasonless voting is scummy.
Voting without reason (Outside of RVS) is a progress-blocking monstrosity, and I see no reason why any town player would do such a thing.

You just explained why naked serious votes are antitown, not why they are scummy. And then your vote's in the wrong place.

vote who

How's my vote in the wrong place? It's gone.

And I explained why only scum would do it. Is that not the same thing as explaining why it's scummy?

[Who]

I think that the action of serious naked voting is scummy. I think that given that context (Close to RVS, there was a case being made against the target by others) it wasn't very scummy. My post was more about stuff in general than that specific action.

And anti-townness was only half of my argument. The other half was about how it makes the voter unable to be attacked unless you attack them for their lack of reason.

[Who]

You were the one questioning whether or not lack of reasoning was a substantive reason to attack someone.

[Who]

It wasn't a vote, merely a statement.

[Who]

So if it's scummy, why aren't you voting me?

Scumteam is psyche, TIP, and Who. gg

I think that the action of serious naked voting is scummy. I think that given that context (Close to RVS, there was a case being made against the target by others) it wasn't very scummy. My post was more about stuff in general than that specific action.

[Who]

Varsoon, Zoidberg happened to be talking about a vig a little before a dayvig occurred, nothing strange about that. You made it sound as if he mentioned a dayvig.
VOTE: Roflcopter
If Zoidberg is wrong, we can lynch him tomorrow (And/or if there is a RBer/vig/whatever they can hit him tonight). In the meantime, we should lynch roflcopter who already has reasons to be lynched before a daycop comes into things.

[Who]

Varsoon, if Zoidberg is lying and roflcopter is town Zoidberg will get hammered by every town PR in the game which can hinder him tonight and then we lynch him tomorrow if he doesn't die overnight. If he's telling the truth and roflcopter is scum, all well and good. If he's lying and roflcopter is scum anyway, we can argue then over whether it's multiball or bussing or whatever tomorrow, but we still hit scum today. I don't see what benefit there is to lynching him rather than roflcopter.

[Who]

Then tell us what it is.

[Who]

Then I say we lynch rofl, and if he's scum we lynch varsoon tomorrow.

[Who]

We can argue bussing tomorrow, but if you say you have info and refuse to give it then there is a much better lynch target.

[Who]

@Zoid: I guess you'll have to if I turn out to be wrong. Sorry for tunneling you so hard, but I'm pretty damn sure you're scum, and only your flip will be able to change my mind on this.

I thought that you had role-based knowledge that he was scum? What makes you admit that there is a possibility that you are wrong?

And claiming would make all the difference.

[Who]

Well I don't know about most people, but if I had unspecified information which was wrong due to bastard, I would call that the mod's fault rather than mine and still not apologize on the basis that it wasn't my fault. To me it sounded like you simply thought he was based off of his playing and were lying about your inside knowledge.
And your "belief" is hurting the town if you're telling the truth. If rofl is scum, you will receive my vote tomorrow assuming you live.

[Who]

Convenient how you have excuses for any investigative role which targets you. And really? Your secret info is that it's multiball? You implied more than that. The one thing I don't get is that the scum team would send Varsoon to do the kill. He'd probably be the most likely to be tracked/roleblocked/whatever, given how much attention he garnered n1. Zoidberg and him were the centers of attention and attack, and thus assuming that they had any other members they would send someone else to do the kill.

[Who]

@Psyche
No. Besides when he yelled at us all for being duped by Zoidberg, but his posts are not that scummy without his claims.
@Varsoon
Zoidberg's role was also convenient, though in a different way. And can you point to any of these breadcrumbs?

[Who]

@Zoisberg
You claimed JOAT, did you do anything tonight?

[Who]

EBAODP: Zoidberg, not Zoisberg, and last night, not tonight.

[Who]

VOTE: Zoidberg
For the lies. LaL.

And can someone explain to me why Rubicon is scummy? I don't understand. Someone basically claimed PGO, and then was (Or at least, hasn't said "nope, actually a gambit" like Zoidberg) PGO, where are the lies?

[Who]

Bah. Stupid slimy girls, stop killing us slimy monsters.