Vouched for RWarehall for what exactly?
I said I had no issue with him and didn't consider him to be Facist, but I voted yes to ZFR and dedo's governments and would have voted yes to RWarehall's if dedo's had failed.
I had literally no preference for any of the the three (before dedo passed an F policy, with your assistance I may add), I just didn't happen to see what you and your buddies saw as such obvious signs of ZFR (and then RWarehall) being fascists.

If you don't start backing up your claims with at least some kind of evidence I'm not even going to bother responding any more.

We appreciate ashwald's participation and we respect her effort but that's it. Her posts are similar to RW's posts. Some valid points, some twisting stuff, putting words in others' mouths, isolating phrases and presenting them out of context, interpreting things the way that suits her etc. I don't have time or energy to quote and reply, do your research yourselves.

@Lift I understand that you are trying to have a cool head but I don't see how being so neutral helps liberals. You are the most confirmed liberal right now, btw not because I am not trusted enough but because there is a chance I am Hitler. The party is ending, when will you start dancing? Call out someone, make some fuss, create some conflicts! Millions of spectators are watching us, I don't want them to say it was the most boring Secret Hitler ever.

Mods, I think you shouldn't indicate when a person changes his vote, this is supposed to be secret, right?

Now of course I have to ask kusu. What was your first vote and why/when did you change it?

I originally wasn't indicating changed votes, but then thought better of it. In real life, everybody has a couple vote cards (one "JA", one "NEIN") which they place on the table in front of them to indicate their vote. Theoretically, you would be indeed be able to see them change their vote by watching them pick up their card, put it back in their hand, and put the other card down. Of course, they could also pull some form of trickery whereby they put the same card back down or swap the cards in secret, so in order to keep things as true-to-life as possible, I'm indicating when a change occurred, but not saying how many changes happened (if there were indeed more than one).
I figure this is probably the fairest way to do things, and besides, there aren't likely to be many situations where this becomes all too important of an issue.

Why would you want our most confirmed and most likely liberal to get involved in conflict?

You stated RWarehall was too good a player to be playing this way as a fascist so must be Liberal. That's a poor defensive analysis

Nope. I said that about ZFR. And I didn't say that he must be liberal, I just said that he was too clever to have really made a mess of voting no to his own government when it served no purpose to him if he was fascist. Therefore (unlike you) I read it as NAI rather than as a fascist tell.

Allright. As you wish. Scum, scum! You're Hitler! I totally know it, because you already admitted to it!

Something like that? Better?

Well, joking aside. You are aware of that possibility and you can't defuse the suspicions thrown in that direction, because they are based on valid scenarios. So fighting over it would be pointless and creating conflict just for the conflict's sake would only muddle things more.

In the past, when I was new to Mafia, I tended to get into heated fights. Especially with HijacK, as some may remember. But when I'm agitated, I tend to focus too much on that one irritating target. So I try to avoid that, when I can.

At the moment I'm really only waiting for ashwald to cast her vote, so that we can continue. After the next policy the game will either be over - or the fighting will then start in earnest!

Incidentally, I'd also like a single example of when I did this:

It seems everyone in this game when making accusations backs them with a quote, except scene who is exempt and can just fart accusations left, right and center. You were already caught lying with accusations once, and there you go doing it again.

Because he is in a position to lead the game and because that would give liberals info. If he said for example that he would vote yes to this government because he trusts Scene and Scene was fascist, maybe we could expose some fascists. Now I bet there are at least 8 No votes and that's useless info.

Being the most trusted liberal doesn't make you an oracle on who's fascists and who's not. Only the most trusted fascist knows that.

What does this have to do with my post? Either my reading comprehension is bad or your post is irrelevant.

No, it's my mistake. I misunderstood what you had to say.

No. As I explained, I like that the votes are currently mostly hidden. There are some players who trust Scene who will probably vote yes. But not enough to accept this government. So if Scene is fascist and the fascists want him in office, they will have to vote yes. And if Scene is liberal and the fascists want to avoid a liberal-liberal government, they will have to vote no. I like it that they can't know the outcome of the vote beforehand and therefore can't avoid commiting to their goals.

If I were to say: "I'm going to vote yes." and everyone else just follows, what would that tell us? Nothing. But by saying nothing myself, I prevent the 'I'll just follow the most trusted liberal' argument and force everyone to make the decision by themselves. The reasons for which can then be questioned and discussed later.

I know what Lift is doing this weekend ;)

Me too! :-D And I'm not going to be here on Sunday! :-)