The blow-by-blow defense was expected, and didn't really counter much of my claims, if you look closely.

He basically argues that I'd need to analyze all his 5000 posts in order to recognize patterns of behavior. I don't... because none of you have done this, and neither has he, and we still recognize those patterns.

He then goes into a long explanation for his declining activity and renewed interest in mafia. That's fine, but the Chicago Soiree hasn't even started yet and the total activity in the Golden Rule mafia is negligible at this stage of the game. You just show up, vote, and you're done. Same as last round, or slightly less work, not more.

He never once explains how this thread is a significant burden to him or why he cannot handle it in conjunction with the limited, if any, activity in other games. Which is fine, that alone doesn't make him mafia, nor does anything else I've said.

What I've said is that it LIKELY makes him mafia.

Then he suggests his behavior has evolved. Good! Mine has as well. However, he's arguing against himself here, because he's the one who suggested examining past behavior in this very thread.

Which is it? Is it reliable or not? If it's not reliable, could it contain some key information?

It basically comes down to a judgment call. In my judgment, you made a mistake and revealed that you are hiding a secret.

The part with the clown is a joke. But it shows you declaring how guilty someone is for their behavior, with the finality that perhaps wasn't deserved. I intended to highlight that by turning your argument on you.

I was thinking that you weren't acting scummy, but not after this statement

You have been final in your judgments and quick to make them. Different style of play? Sloppy? Or mafia behavior?


_______________

I've relaxed and done other things, I feel I have a clearer head. From where I sit, your defense has not convinced me.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but there was not enough there to overturn or satisfy my suspicions.