PRELUDE
The case begins early on day 1. At this point in the game there was a general assumption that 4 contestants had bid on the prize, but
only 2 contestants were publicly known(/claimed): Blargonaut and Kawl_USC.
EXHIBIT A: THE FIRST "MISTAKE"
WAMD asks for "the last" contestant. There are two possibilities here:
- WAMD forgot who had claimed and made an honest mistake.
- WAMD forgot who had claimed publicly and accidentally revealed that she had more knowledge than a town player should.
As before, I acknowledge the possibility that the mistake was honest - you will see me making the same mistake a few pages later - but for Day 1 this was a fairly solid lead and so I pursued it.
This is not, however, the end of my case.
EXHIBIT B: THE FIRST DEFENSE
This is her initial off the cuff response to me questioning the post in exhibit A. There's nothing unreasonable in this post, only important fact to make note of is the three she counted as contestants: Blarg, Kawl, and myself.
EXHIBIT C: THE SECOND DEFENSE, THE SECOND "MISTAKE"
Later in the day, WAMD defends herself again:
Now this is post is fine on its own, but her three contestants have changed to Blarg, Kawl, and Stan. As with exhibit A, there are 2 possibilities here:
- WAMD forgot her own thoughts from earlier in the day and made another honest mistake.
- WAMD forgot the details of her earlier defense and made a fresh defense, accidentally contradicting herself.
Again, the first option is still possible - although I'd argue less likely than in exhibit A as she is only describing her own thoughts.
At this point WAMD has made 2 clear mistakes, honest or otherwise, and while it's still possible that she's town you'd need to extend a generous benefit of the doubt to not flip her for this, especially on day 1.
And that's
still not the end, nor the most damning part, of this case.
EXHIBIT D: THE INDEFENSIBLE DEFENSE
So I highlighted the change from exhibit B to exhibit C. Here is her response:
This is a lie. There is no way I can interpret this that even leaves room for an "honest" mistake. I originally asked who was the 3rd and she said me, now she says I was actually the 4th, but if she thought I was the 4th then she would never have asked for the "final" contestant because she already thought she knew all 4. Without a hint of hyperbole I can conclude that this can only be a lie and that exhibits B and C were therefore purely attempts to escape the mistake she made in exhibit A, where she accidentally revealed her outside info.
If we can't lynch for a lie as blatant as this then frankly we aren't playing Mafia, and the wheel will decide my votes in future.
All praise the wheel.
SUMMARY AND CLOSING COMMENTS
WAMD had more info on day 1 and accidentally revealed this in exhibit A. She attempted to explain this away as an honest mistake in exhibits B and C, but in doing so she only dug a deeper hole. Finally in an attempt to marry her inconsistent explanations she revealed that she had been lying all along, in exhibit D.
WAMD is scum, we are going to lynch Salva today and he is going to flip scum, and tomorrow we are going to find his teammates amongst those who extended the unhealthiest levels of benefit of the doubt in order to justify not voting for WAMD.
This should have happened on Day 1, frankly I think the only reason it didn't happen is because I was too aggressive and people tend to push back against that - I apologise for that, but frankly I thought this case was a no brainier from the start.