I'm hosting a game!

[seireikhaan]

Right. So here are my options, apparently.

a) Keep my vote on Lubber. I won't do this because while I disagree with a lot of what Lubber has posted, his tone and arguments don't strike me as a mafioso; rather, an exasperated townie. Regardless, if I did, this would be super suspicious because(kudos!) other people have noticed this as well.

b) If we assume the above to be true, that basically means I think it's Ishmael and JHT. If I'm just picking one, I personally think it's Ishmael. You spent the entire game lurking and being non-committal. Even after the monty lynch, you wouldn't stake any real claim to the idea of me and GH being scum buddies, by virtue of phrasing it as a question. Much earlier in the game, you talk about keeping an eye on me and GH(parroting Monty), and then go on about how we made a good case against Bsmith, which you then apparently disavowed any knowledge of by saying I've never made a case. Oh, and how about that "highly persuasive argument"(your own words!) Even now, in this round, it took being voted to actually get you to explain anything. And yet *I* am the one who has explained nothing this whole game. Truly, that is a masterpiece you've created. Yet, if I vote you, it's now just an omgus vote to save my own skin, regardless of you actually lurking this whole game doing nothing.

c) I can vote for JHT, which might be okay, except that he's more of a 50/50 shot in my book- he's being classic john, an unreadable tree. The problem is that I'm fairly certain he has a 100% reproduction rate on this tactic, regardless of alignment.

d) Or I can wildcard it and vote GH. I won't do this because I think it's very unlikely he's mafia based on what I've already said.

Wunderbar. But you know what, screw it. I'm going with GH, because I think he's right. Lubber, seriously, look at what Ishmael has posted this entire game. He has done nothing but waffle and give vague points about agreeing or disagreeing with people. He even POINTS OUT two different times I've made an argument he thought was legitimate at the time. And yet, now, when pressed, the best he can come up with is that I've not been scumhunting? That's ludicrous. What's to trust about someone who's done or said nothing the entire game and yet only now contrives an argument he himself contradicted just a few days ago?

Unvote: Landlubber
Vote: Ishmael