OK, elmo.
First a quote of me answering a question about my case on him yesterday:
It isn't OMGUS, since I didn't vote him when he initially made the case. I only voted him when I reread the first couple days, and noticed how scummy he would have to be to call me out on disagreeing with kai's plan when he was on my side of the argument. I noticed that he'd been lurking like mad too.
Basically he's following a playstyle that some people adopt. You lurk, but when you do post you make them big posts, so it seems like you are contributing. I checked a game where he was scum (the bottom one on his wiki page) and he posted like this and afterwards said it wasn't his pro town meta to post that way.
I don't feel he is building his case in an honest way. He contradicts his earlier opinion, and shows more care for rhetoric and making the case sound good than in exploring the possibilities, even to the point of skipping the two big posts I made explaining exactly the part that he is saying "Just why?" about in his accusation.
Note that this was in response to a post claiming my vote was OMGUS, which is clearly false given the delay. I also note that I took a look at Elmo's meta, which VP didn't read as you can see by his day 2 suggestion that I check elmo's meta. This is the standard quality of the attacks on my case on elmo.
Now, lets lay out the sequence of events.
331 is me abandoning the doc potter and drk wagons and voting elmo, after rereading in response to VP's accusation.
VP finds me very scummy so I lay out in very great detail exactly why I posted what I did. 347 and 353 are the posts. They address at length:
The state of the game at the point of my vote on Kai, the reason I voted Kai, the reason I unvoted Kai etc. I also point out the posts where I explained it previously, as I had done previously in response to starbuck.
Now, I saw elmo in the theme park at 2:10. At 3:09 he makes his post. It's safe to assume he had time to read. He ignores 347 and 353 and ask questions that were answered in those posts, despite quoting posts from other people in that area. He uses poor reasoning. It is very obvious reading it that he is faking the case. If you can't tell that then you haven't seen mafia faking a lengthy case before, or are just blinded.
In particular, this bit:
Elmo wrote:If you don't think someone's scum, why vote them and suggest they're scum? Just
why
?
Seriously, read this and tell me that townie Elmo read 347 and 353.
To sum up Elmo's posting:
2 strategy posts, agreeing with what I said about the strategy. 2 attacks on me with poor reasoning. Disappears. Comes back, ignores relevant posts, makes a fake case. Has not looked anywhere else for scum.
Of course you have to think his case is fake to really suspect him, but isn't that what mafia is about, telling when someone is faking it?
******
I'll go through and pick out my third suspect for mafia next.
