You went into this game pretty excited, since Mafia is an exciting game to be playing. You saw the nonsense that was happening at the start and you decided to join the jokes and fun with your own joke votes on friendy and road. Honestly I saw nothing wrong with this since it's day 0 and votes fly around like mosquitos on day 0. I also voted three times but it practically means nothing on day 0 unless you have intentions behind it that aren't joking.
Then on page 3 after road got 3 votes, Vat asked why you/Friendy were so keen on lynching someone possibly innocent. Pretty nasty question by vat to ask the new players because it was this question where everything went downhill, but I think it was a pretty good from Vat nontheless because it showed how the new players would react when being confronted. Here is where you said the following:
Well their post seemed a bit suspicious how they asked if you could kill people at night. It's a perfectly alright reason to lynch someone even if they are innocent.
I think this was a big mistake, you felt like Vat was seriously accusing you so you came up with the first reasoning you could think of to try and explain your voting while I don't think you actually had reasoning besides joke voting. Phrasing here matters, because saying
"even if they are innocent" implies that you'd lynch even a proven innocent player for saying this. I doubt this is what you meant but I read it like that for sure.
The next big mistake here what I think is the
"It's a perfectly alright reason to lynch someone 'for'". I mean really? You're trying to tell us, the more experienced players, what a good reason for lynching someone is?Sure, everyone has their own ideas of what those good reasons are, and I encourage new players to express themselves and share their opinion, but this read very wrong in my opinion. You went into super defending mode, took this accusation waay to seriously and I read this as an agressive tone saying "My vote is justified because I know perfectly well how Mafia works". That's just how I read it maybe others didn't see anything behind this.
Then you unvoted to vote on the GIVE RATINGS BACK vote which I honestly very much appreciated thanks <3. Just be carefull not to abuse the ratings too much. I say this since you've rated three posts 'Dislike' of people who were just trying to get some answers out of you. The 'Dislike' rating really has no place in Mafia as it serves no real purpose to see who shares what opinion, unlike the agree rating. I only ever think it's justified if someone is personally attacking you and making you feel really bad and upset because of it. This might have been how you felt, but keep in mind there is a difference between 'Personally attacking' and 'Targeting'. In the former someone is insulting you personally for whatever reason, and in the latter people in the game are choosing you to "pick on" and vote/lead an argument against for whatever reasons they have. This could be because theyre Mafia and new players are easy food, or because they're town and convinced you're Mafia.
The next thing that happened is that you make a few posts on page 5 about how we don't have evidence on anyone and we should wait with lynching for now. Friendy voted you for "being a noob" which is a joke obviously because you're new, and for being too keen to not lynch someone. Then Ltin voted for road because Road had voted No Lynch and Ltin says that Road should of known better. Because
"It is still advantageous to lynch". Since this topic is mostly debatable I take this vote with a grain of salt. After that you made the following post:
Gonna place my vote on Road To Ruin
Unvote
vote Road To Ruin
Question:
If somebody dies do their ranks get revealed to us after they die or is it secretive until the game is over?
Your first mistake here was giving no reasoning as to why you were voting Road. I've made plenty of votes in my life without reasoning, but if you do you can 100% expect people are going to find it suspicious you didn't give a reason and are going to ask you for that reasoning. And it's just better in general to give a reasoning so people can understand what you're doing.
The second mistake here in my eyes was making this vote in the first place. You felt attacked by Friendy with the reasoning of being too keen to not lynch someone. You went into super defense mode again, and tried to do everything to make it seem like you're not Mafia so you decided to vote someone to do the opposite of what Friendy accused you of. This is very very suspicious because it seems you're only doing it to seem innocent. This is probabily when people(including me) started thinking you're suspicious and believing you're Mafia. Ltin in his latest post says it how we view it:
So you basically said it to try and save your skin?
This is a very Mafia thing to do, especially when it was litterally one bad accusation. The Mafia's goal is to try and not get lynched. Most of the time Mafia doesn't want to stand out and be in the crossfire, and thus try to blend in with the town. You're trying waay too hard to try and fit in with everyone else and not be accused of
anything. If someone says they think you're too keen on not lynching someone, either explain to them why you think he's viewing it wrong and why you're not too keen, explain why you don't want to lynch someone or simply don't respond at all if the accusation is bad and not really anything serious.
Right after this vote people are indeed accusing you of voting without reason like expected. You then claim you had reasoning for it, and after two people vote No Lynch, you join the wagon again by joining the No-Lynch vote after reconsidering and claiming you find your reasoning less suspicious on a second look. However the page after(page 7), you proclaim that the entire vote was a joke and people are taking it seriously. It didn't look like a joke when you claimed to have reasoning for it. You are contradicting yourself here, and contradicting is usually considered a Mafia thing to do because why would a Town member lie or change the reasoning behind their votes.
This contradiction is what then started the entire argument on you when Inf brought it up immediately after. The argument didn't go on that day though as you hadn't responded before the day ended with a No Lynch.