Quote Originally Posted by Myrddraal
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'd like to answer them, even if I can't answer them very well.



Well it's true I sort of agreed with him. FYI, here is my post on the matter:

I hardly agree at all. It was all we had to go by at the time, so it's all I could do. I decided at the beginning of this game to try to publicly analyse everything that's said. Keeping suspicions or oppinions on others suspicions private can only help the mafia (which is why I find the sudden appearance of your list of suspicions, just as you're attacked, quite suspicious itself).



What can I say. In the last and only game I played I did this kind of stuff too. I'm afraid I don't really consider what people will think of what I say, I try to be as open as possible.

Of course, if I was mafia, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I can't defend that point with anything more than saying I was more confused by the contradicting posts following silvers post than by SR's post itself.


Well that's simply a lie. I voted for Kommodus after the evidence against him had been publicly posted. I then stated that I was suspicious of those who had voted for him without evidence.


Now that is weak Sasaki. You know exactly what went on with that sequence of posts, and it wasn't what you just wrote there. This is what happened (anyone feel free to go and check).

I posted a lengthy post which contained all the suspicions I had in my mind at the time. This included amongst other things an analysis of the previous accusations of Don C as I saw them. I said in that post that the latest evidence individually was very weak, but since there had several other suspicious things (especially his early behavior) he was highest on my suspicious list, and as such I would vote for him.

Sasaki immediately insulted me with a one liner and voted for me. Offended, I retaliated. I first abstained. This was to make a point - at least I was trying, rather than abstaining. I then got a bit pissed off with Sasaki. After all, I really thought about that post and then Sasaki just strolled along and said "it's crap" so I voted for him in retaliation. I then unvoted Sasaki and abstained. I actually thought the best piece of evidence Sasaki gave at this point was that nobody had defended Don C early in the game.

NOW Sasaki, you've changed history. The post I quote above is so twisted and far from the original I'm almost convinced we really have got a mafia.


No. You vote for me, you're only evidence is derision of my attempts to discuss.

No. I vote abstain, I post asking for an explanation of wtf you're up to. I then vote for you, in pure retaliation.

How can I vote for two people at once? Like I said, I voted abstain because I wanted to make the point that you had posted no better evidence than mine, but were still attacking mine. I voted you for the same reason, only I was more annoyed. You know that Sasaki, why are you trying to twist the truth in your post?

<-Annoyed smiley...

I do want to apologize if I came off as insulting. I wanted to say that I found your posting remeniscent of a clever mafioso. You are also an excellent choice for mafioso which is why you remain near the top of my list. You can say you meant such and such by your post or that you had a good reason for voting Kommodus, but the fact is a mafioso could come up with such a reason and use it to eliminate a good player. If I were mafia I would probably use the "Kommodus is a good choice for mafioso" argument just the same so I won't argue this point too much.

You refer to my twisting of the truth, I'm just trying to read between the lines. If you're innocent it comes of as twisting the truth, if you're guilty then I'm uncovering the truth.