2010-10-13, 07:11 PM
ElectricSix Wrote:I know, just had to run out as I was posting so I forgot to do so.
As for why Meta, I took a look at all the people who had voted on Day 1 and Day 2 and made a list to see who had voted both days. Given the odds of the matter, chances are good that at least one of the people that voted both days was a mafian, probably more than one, but at least one. ChaoticCJ, xBTAx, and MetaSeraphim were the last voters before I posted. I could vote for any of them, but I picked Meta because he had voted relatively early on Day 1, and relatively late on Day 2. I'll repeat that I don't necessarily think all three are mafians, but anyone that voted for no lynch on the first day, and then followed up on the voting of ThatHurts today is a reasonable candidate for suspicion of being a mafian.
Edit: They're not the only ones on my list either, I just decided to pick someone from the last few people that had voted, figuring a mafia bandwagoning later on was more likely than earlier.
You do realize that you're trying to establish a pattern with only 2 data points right? That's...flawed to all hell. I voted No Lynch day 1 because there was no evidence, nothing linking anyone to anything, and I don't like RNG. I'm sure there are others that feel the same way at least.