Day Two

[NAF1138]

sinjin said:

3) I did not look up the last time you logged in because I didn't know we could do that. BTW how do we do that?

Open the user's profile and it is at the bottom of the profile page, right above the links to their last several posts.

[sinjin]

The second idea in the paragraph is that you were questioned about your last minute votes. Again, just because you were in a tough situation doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.

There were lots of good reasons to place the vote you placed, (and for what it's worth I think you did the right thing under the circumstances) but it was important to hear from you why you placed the vote, and to see how you reacted when called on it.

NAF I understand being called out about my vote. I fully expected it. I'm just trying to explain why I think a lot of people aren't being very active in probably an egocentric way. I posted to get the discusion going again. I could have just tried to stay under the radar but I want to play this game.

[zuma]

Regarding Diomedes, while I do have sympathy for real life intruding in these games (it intrudes on mine regularly) I've noticed he has been posting prolifically at the SDMB... A couple dozen posts in the last few days. I'm not sure what to make of that.

[NAF1138]

sinjin said:

The second idea in the paragraph is that you were questioned about your last minute votes. Again, just because you were in a tough situation doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions.

There were lots of good reasons to place the vote you placed, (and for what it's worth I think you did the right thing under the circumstances) but it was important to hear from you why you placed the vote, and to see how you reacted when called on it.

NAF I understand being called out about my vote. I fully expected it. I'm just trying to explain why I think a lot of people aren't being very active in probably an egocentric way. I posted to get the discusion going again. I could have just tried to stay under the radar but I want to play this game.

Well it got you and me talking at least. Like I said in the first part of my post, I understand where you are comming from, but if people are afraid to say anything because they are afraid of being lynched we don't really have a game.

Come on townies in this game it is true:
"Dolce et decorum est pro patria mori!*"
Play like you will be killed toNight, then if you get lynched you are just going out a little bit sooner then expected. If you don't talk we have already lost.



*look ma, LATIN!

[kassia]

Since I decided to give Pleo a break for now, I had to go back and look for other suspicious behavior. There have been some people voicing suspicion of mhaye, so I did a brief summary of his posts. I'll share my observations with everyone, since talk seems to be slow - it may generate discussion in some way.

So there seem to be a few themes to mhaye's posts. Themes that I don't necessarily see as helpful to the Colony in regards to gaining knowledge or making decisions.

In posts D1.7, D1.130, D1.285, D1.316, D1.321, D1.341 he references previous games, pointing out "scum patterns" and previous scummy behavior. This is suspcious to me. Why the constant insistence that certain behavior is scummy? He is very aggressive in pointing fingers based on no evidence from what has actually been said during this game, but on observed "patterns" from old, dead games. And it should be pointed out that the player he was mostly targeting with these posts (CiaS) is dead and a confirmed vanilla colonist.

In posts D1.9, D1.26, D1. 285 mhaye argues against Pleo's ideas not because of faulty logic or suspicous behavior, but because it would be bad for the game - the game would no longer be fun. While I agree that the auto-lynch system would have made the game less fun for those players automatically condemned, it does not make for a very substantive argument against the plan.

Those are the two things that most peaked my interest in mhaye. I can't say as of yet that I feel as if they warrant a vote, but I'm definitely putting him near the top of my list.

And back I go to look at some other player's previous posts to see what I can see.

[sinjin]

[totally out of game]My son wrote the motto for Ned's boarding school on Pushing Daisies, which played just now.[toog] wOOt

[Drain Bead]

zuma said:

Regarding Diomedes, while I do have sympathy for real life intruding in these games (it intrudes on mine regularly) I've noticed he has been posting prolifically at the SDMB... A couple dozen posts in the last few days. I'm not sure what to make of that.

I think that if Story prods people, he should do it over there too.

[kassia]

I just had a thought, but I haven't had dinner yet, so it may just be low blood sugar.

Now I have to figure out how to word this without making myself sound suspicious.

It seems to me that the players with low post counts/lurkers are most likely to be vanilla colonists. Pro-town power roles have exciting, fun roles to play which may keep them more interested in the game and how things are going. Scum obviously have extreme advantages in filling up the boards with talk, circular/faulty logic, finger pointing, etc. Vanilla townies have the least incentive to be really active in the game. Especially with 3 nighkills last Night. The odds of staying alive without having any powers are slim.

So I don't think voting to lynch extreme lurkers is a very pro-town plan. And those advocating strongly for it strike me as scummy - essentially trying to get us to do their job for them.

[NAF1138]

kassia said:

I just had a thought, but I haven't had dinner yet, so it may just be low blood sugar.

Now I have to figure out how to word this without making myself sound suspicious.

It seems to me that the players with low post counts/lurkers are most likely to be vanilla colonists. Pro-town power roles have exciting, fun roles to play which may keep them more interested in the game and how things are going. Scum obviously have extreme advantages in filling up the boards with talk, circular/faulty logic, finger pointing, etc. Vanilla townies have the least incentive to be really active in the game. Especially with 3 nighkills last Night. The odds of staying alive without having any powers are slim.

So I don't think voting to lynch extreme lurkers is a very pro-town plan. And those advocating strongly for it strike me as scummy - essentially trying to get us to do their job for them.

While this isn't a bad idea, it has a bad track record for accuracy. In every game at least one of the extreame lurkers has been scum.

[Pollux Oil]

drainbead said:

I'm concerned with atarus prompting the Vig to take action on lurkers. The Vig should be killing someone who they think is scummy, not someone who they know nothing about. What if that group contains a cop, or another important power role? If they think a lurker is scummy for some reason, then go ahead and nail them, but don't kill a lurker at this point just because they're lurking. We DID just have a busy holiday weekend, after all...and while I would hope that people were back from that by now, they may be catching up with missed work and other RL obligations that were put on the back burner.

I was hoping somebody would say this. Okay here we go.

Pleonast got votes after he had role-claimed because people felt that his bomb ability was anti-town. If a one-shot vig-type ability is anti-town, from that point we can consider that the same people who think Pleo's ability is anti-town would consider a full on vig ability anti-town. With me so far?

Now, let's look at lurkers and/or fluffers (i.e. people who have posted significantly without adding any new information) who haven't contributed much to discussion. Most people consider more discussion (actual discussion, not fluff discussion) a pro-town thing, because there's more data to analyze and more posts for scum to slip up during. So townie lurkers who aren't contributing much are, in fact, helping scum. It could thus be considered that these townie lurkers are behaving in a somewhat anti-town manner. Now in addition, any scum lurkers who aren't contributing are also helping scum. Thus, any lurker who isn't contributing is basically performing in an anti-town manner.

So if the Vig at least directs his "anti-town" power role at a population of people who are behaving in an "anti-town" manner, we minimize the overall anti-towniness occurring. Yes, the Vig runs the risk of taking out a power role in the midst of the lurkers, but remember the Vig is running the risk of taking out a power role no matter who they choose to target. Killing a power role that contributes a lot to discussion is definitely worse than killing a power role that contributes only a little.

So that's my reasoning behind my Vig suggestion. Clearly, though, the Vig can do whatever the ballyhoo they want to at night, if there even is a Vig.

kassia said:

It seems to me that the players with low post counts/lurkers are most likely to be vanilla colonists. Pro-town power roles have exciting, fun roles to play which may keep them more interested in the game and how things are going. Scum obviously have extreme advantages in filling up the boards with talk, circular/faulty logic, finger pointing, etc. Vanilla townies have the least incentive to be really active in the game. Especially with 3 nighkills last Night. The odds of staying alive without having any powers are slim.

So I don't think voting to lynch extreme lurkers is a very pro-town plan. And those advocating strongly for it strike me as scummy - essentially trying to get us to do their job for them.

Easy case in point against this: whatthefrak from Firefly. Lurked extremely well, contributed only a little overall to discussion, and was the last scum standing. (And on preview I see NAF's beat me to this, sort of.)

And I'd also like to clarify (before somebody tries to put words in my mouth) that I haven't been advocating lynching lurkers. I've been advocating for the Vig to target lurkers, for reason stated above. Trying to create as little anti-towniness as possible.

[Santo Rugger]

O

[Zeriel]

I'm leaning heavily towards a Diomedes or Hal Briston vote, given the general bad vibe one gets from unexplained lurking. Especially Dio, given the magic bag and the fact we KNOW he's active on the internets.

Beyond that, I'm mostly concerned with seeing how the night kills will shape up tonight--I think it might be very beneficial to town, even though we're doing well to not analyze the kills too hard, to have some better idea if three kills a Night is typical--seems to me that part of the reason for the slowdown is the raw shock at the sheer volume of death being dealt out.

[Santo Rugger]

Ok, I'm going to go ad hoc here (is that what it's called when you do things from memory, instead of using reference material?) because I've got to get to bed soon, but here goes:

sinjin: This is the second or third time you've said I smudged you for your last minute lynch-a-colonist vote. If you'll go back to my original quote, you'll notice I didn't mention your name in it. Heck, I didn't even remember who it was at the time. I was more upset with cookies at the time, for saying that I shouldn't be able to vote for the rest of the game. She argues that that's not what she meant, but that's sure how it sounded to me. If you didn't want to be in the situation where you're allegedly smudged by three players, you should get your vote in earlier...

Which brings us to...

Mhaye: If you don't want for me to inadvertently snip things out of your posts saying who you plan on voting for in the last 24 hours of the Day, then place your flippin' vote instead of thallywhopping around. Instead of saying who you might intend on voting for, being the same person who you thought was possibly suspicious Yesterday without even mentioning a name, forcing me to go look up Yesterday's posts to remember the person you voted for, thereby making your posts much more difficult to analyze later.

To other players reading this now: Do you remember who mhaye voted for yesterday?

[Zeriel]

I have a discussion question for the town while we're at it--while it's somewhat scummy to try to figure out why specific people were killed, is it equally scummy to make guesses based on what one considers the most likely faction(s) behind the killings?

[Santo Rugger]

zeriel said:

I have a discussion question for the town while we're at it--while it's somewhat scummy to try to figure out why specific people were killed, is it equally scummy to make guesses based on what one considers the most likely faction(s) behind the killings?

It depends. Contrary to what dotchan has mentioned several times in this Game, when I was scum in Firefly contemplating why the night deaths happened, it was not because I was trying to show how cleaver the scum were. It was because I was truly trying to figure out the game setup, just as everybody else was. In time, there is the possibility I may have slipped by knowing the killer of a certain player, and forgetting the rest of the town didn't. Wondering and speculating about who died and why, IMHO, is not scummy. Although, I must admit, I was a lot more concerned about it when I was scum.

In the conspiracy game, sometimes it was pretty obvious who the killing group was based on the known or assumed faction of the deceased. In those cases, it was nice to get it written down, if for nothing else than to jog the memory on a cursory read through. As per usual, YMMV.

[Santo Rugger]

kassia said:

<snip>
It seems to me that the players with low post counts/lurkers are most likely to be vanilla colonists. Pro-town power roles have exciting, fun roles to play which may keep them more interested in the game and how things are going. Scum obviously have extreme advantages in filling up the boards with talk, circular/faulty logic, finger pointing, etc. Vanilla townies have the least incentive to be really active in the game. Especially with 3 nighkills last Night. The odds of staying alive without having any powers are slim.
<snip>

OTOH, pro-town power roles also have a reason to lay low, so as to avoid giving off tells scum can pick off at night. In the five games I played as scum, at least five scum threats (town power roles, SK, etc) were picked off at night based on some speculation, feigning of ignorance of a role, or otherwise pinging our "supertowndar", if you will.

[NAF1138]

pygmyrugger said:

To other players reading this now: Do you remember who mhaye voted for yesterday?

No, I had to look it up when he posted that. FWIW it was Zeriel.

zeriel said:

I have a discussion question for the town while we're at it--while it's somewhat scummy to try to figure out why specific people were killed, is it equally scummy to make guesses based on what one considers the most likely faction(s) behind the killings?

No, I don't. And I don't think it is necessarily anti town to try and figure out why people were killed at night, it is just somewhat fruitless at this stage of the game. And distracting town with fruitless discussion is somewhat scummy. But what is fruitless changes as the game goes on.

[not necessarily important theorizing about scum tells]What I think is scummy are posts that seem to be gloating posts if read from the perspective of the poster being scum.

Posts like:

"Why would they kill (player name here)?"

or

"OMG THAT IS TERRIBLE!" (note over the top emphasis on how bad the situation is)

Basically posts that boil down to, "gee aren't those scum ineffable and/or brilliant" or "golly the town sure is screwed now" are generally accepted (on other mafia game sites) as scum tells. I don't know how great the track record of those tells is with us, as we tend to get a little more emotionally invested then other places. But at least a few of the posts that asked the question "why" have come from scum players.[/nnitast]

[kassia]

I guess I should get a vote in before it gets too late.

Even though mhaye is feeling a little scummy to me, I think I'm going to jump on the Diomedes wagon. I read Pleo's summary of his posts, and then did my own just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Along with his recent absence from the game, and his abrupt withdrawal after his comments at the opening of toDay, his posts from yesterDay (especially his voting/unvoting/voting) seemed very willy-nilly to me.

I'm going to continue looking, and am willing to listen to arguments for other votes, but for now I'll

vote for Diomedes

[zuma]

I'm going to vote: Pleonast.

While my previous incarnation didn't like the early pile-on at all based on his pushing a bad idea, I can't get past his day 2 suspicions:

The players I'll focus on toDay are kassia, diggitcamara, Captain Klutz, mhaye, Hal Briston, and atarus. I'll go back and reread their posts, looking carefully with how they interacted with confirmed Colonists.

I can appreciate "trying to be transparent",

My first cut was those not voting for confirmed Colonists. I'm not a confirmed Colonist, so those voting for me pass the first cut. I'm trying to be transparent.

but I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Pleonast will personally be going back and re-reading their posts and interactions, all based on the theory that they didn't vote for a confirmed colonist. I just can't make sense of that. It seems unlikely scum would make such a slip, but it seems unfathonable that a colonist who knew he was a colonist would do so.

[RoOsh]

sinjin said:

And for the record I would really like to hear from Roosh what he thinks I should have done at the end of Day one.

Ask and ye shall receive. Personally, I didn't see myself as really attacking you toDay. Smudging... perhaps. But I tend to be a very smudgy person when I'm frustrated, and yours is a frustrating scenario for me, and an easy example.

Let me start out with the Bad:
Things you should have done: I personally just hate people who don't do anything and then BAM! In the last 24 hours show up and drop a vote. That to me seems VERY scummy (Pygmy did this VERY well in FF, by simply hammering people at the end of the day always. It's an easy way to avoid having to "discuss" a vote, or debate it. You're basically asking for forgiveness of lynching a townie rather than permission/discussion to lynch a person.
So what I Didn't like about your vote: This is your entirity of Posts On Day 1 after the Governor Debates (to which you contributed).
You posted in Reply #267 calling out Capt. Klutz Nov 18
Reply #310 (voted for NAF there and smudged Zuma.) Nov. 19
Reply #487 (unvoted NAF) Nov 21
Reply #523(Voted Zuma Why? Because you believe Pleo.). Nov. 21
And then your comment #2 on Night 2: I'll quote the whole thing "Rats. "

It REALLY REALLY Pissed me off.

Because... well, So you talked. You contributed. That's good. You voiced suspicion on Klutz. Okay. Good. Then you took a stand and voted for NAF while smudging Zuma. The next day, he claimed, and you quickly unvoted NAF. And you've NOW stated that your policy is simply believe all role claims. Okay fine.
But then the next day, you basically throw a vote out on Zuma, why? Because you figure that pleonast is more useful than whatever Zuma turns out to be (That may not have been your intention, but to me, its basically the same thing. You voted for an unclaimed person basically because the other guy looked less suspicious and "You disliked the 3rd vote strategy").
And then once you killed him. "Rats".

Now- my issues. Okay, you smudged Zuma, but you gave a TERRIBLE reason for voting for the guy. One, I really wish you had put more thought into "Why Zuma" because to ME -your vote came off as "I want to save pleonast. Zuma is a "safer" kill than Pleonast. Why you made such a decision, I have no idea. It was a risky play, and since Zuma turned out Vanilla town, I'm not as pissed, but if Zuma was a doctor or a Cop, and YOU basically chose his fate over Pleo because "you believed pleo" (Without stating ANYWHERE Else any other discussion of him), that to me would have been VERY Scummy, and I'd be voting your butt outta here right now.

Right now in my mind, I have you as Pro-Pleo (someone who I find currently suspicious), and willing to risk it all to save Pleo. That may not be your intention, but it's how you came off. And you did it all within 24 hours, which I had stated was a pet peeve of mine. I dislike votes being switched around and just being placed at the last min. because it's really easy for people to then avoid guilt, and to avoid blood on their hands, they can go "well... oops" and shrug and move on. (Which is EXACTLY what I felt you did when you went "Rats" and that was it. I believe NAF made an excellent point when he stated that Scum are more likely to praise the scum/ bemoan the loss of the Townies at the start of the day. I tend to look at this very heavy for tells, and it's something that just struck me when I saw your first comment. There was no guilt over just basically killing a random person from you. I disliked it. I myself play aggressively, and I've killed my share of townies, but I don't like doing it. And it's something I'd rather avoid, their blood is then on my hands the rest of the Game. You seemed very nonchalant.)

Two: The other thing i disliked: Your reason for voting Zuma- You disliked the 3rd vote tell. Now... I do like the 3rd vote tell against newbies, but I don't like using it as a primary reason to do ANYTHING. Let alone lynching.
But the 3rd lyncher "rule" has an corollary- that anyone who brings up the 3rd lyncher rule is Scummy. this reason is why I dislike the 3rd lynch talk in general.
It's WIFOM at it's BEST.
"Doing it is scummy, and bringing it up is scummy"
That's why the 3rd lynch rule, I never like seeing it as a reason to vote someone, especially if its the ONLY reason. But I hate BOTH versions of it. You basically used the 2nd version. "Zuma is scummy because Zuma used the 3rd lynch rule" and so you not only VOTED for him, you were the DECIDING LYNCHER who basically sentenced him to death.... Using the 3rd lynch corollary rule.

In my eyes, you basically lynched Zuma with the same reasoning you accused him of using. It's hypocritical and it's just a very weak reason for voting someone.

That's WHY i was so angry with your vote. (and apparently still am irked by it, i didn't mean to go on this long, and I just wanted to point out the pros and cons of your action rather than discussing it. But it really irked me. I said "please don't do this." And you then you went and did it).
~~~~~~~
But the Pro's:
You did do some GOOD things too:
2. You're contributing. That's good too.
1. You DID during the night then address WHY you lynched zuma. You gave your reasoning promptly. Which i liked.

So basically when the Day started, I wasn't sure what to do with you. I didn't like your reasons for voting, and I didn't like your actions. But you did try to explain them.
So to address your question finally: If i was in your shoes, I would have tried to explain your votes towards Zuma better. But you kinda put yourself into a shitty situation. Hell, you KNEW you put yourself into a shitty situation, during your posts at the time (Damned if you do, damned if you don't. So I guess I should have lost myself in the one off's.-Tu)

You basically put yourself into the line of fire, took a HUGE risk, and now afterwards, you are coming back and asking "hey, why is everyone shooting at me?"

You ARE going to be suspicious. No matter how you look at it. (You're actually on my private FOS list, the one I don't like to reveal all the time). Because I'm left WIFOMing your actions- Why did you want to save Pleo so bad, that you were willing to risk a chance of killing a cop or a doctor? Is it a newbie blunder and not realizing the risk you were taking, or something more sinister? It's one reason I've been paying attention to you (noticing you have voted for Pleo this time toDay, when yesterDay you allowed yourself to lynch someone else to save Pleo.). I really don't know what to do with you, Sinjin, yet, but since you asked me, those are my opinions. I disliked your vote, i disliked how you did it, but there was nothing you could have done in that situation, and I approved how you were willing to respond quickly and explain your vote.

But as for what you could have done better and why am I smudging you? Well... it's because I find your actions very suspicious, and I'm currently WIFOMing on you. You did alot of very suspicious things, and you're claiming ignorance of those "tells" (The 3rd vote rule, the "rats" and then the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" and then toDay starting off with "This sucks, three killing factions. WTF over.") All of those things... not cool. Not cool at all.

In the future, I'd like maybe more discussion on your thoughts, not just 1-2 posts a Day, and then your vote placement on the last 24 hours of a Day, with the reasoning that "you want to kill X, because you really think Y is Good". If you're stuck in that case, I'd rather you plead for WHY Y should be saved, and NOT just throw someone up there to be killed for weak reasons. Then at least, I'd note that you defended Y, and you took a stance on it, but you didn't try to just sacrifice Someone in order to Save said person. That to me makes me think you're playing Reckless.
Having a player that's willing to accept that Vanillas will Die along the way is one thing, but having players that are willing just to kill a random PERSON is another.

So yeah. That's what I would have done:
Expressed your thoughts on why Pleo should be saved.
Take a stance, and then stick with it, talking more than 1x each Day.
Or if you really wanted to Save Pleo, and you do what you did, then Accept the fact that you did something VERY Risky, and potentially foolish (However it's Day 1, a random lynch can be expected on MafiaScum, here... i don't see it as much, thats' why it surprised me).
And then once you have the Guy's blood on your hands, you do EXACTLY what you did: You man up and face the rest of us and defend why you felt your actions were the right thing to do. You then explain yourself, and you realize what could have happened.
And then you learn from it.

That's what you should Do in that situation, and I hope you do learn from it.
But I will still find you very suspicious, and You will be on my Official FOS list now, while I'm stuck WIFOMing over your "intentions" for Day 1. FOS Sinjin. But I hope you understand now why you're being FOSed.


But yeah.
I really hate votes within the last 24 hours that are "me too votes" or weak votes, or votes that just seem to come out of nowhere. Yours struck me as that, because you smudged Zuma once. And then you basically hammered him Two days later.
*I also believed the others, NAF and Zuma made some valid points, and I may have reiterated them. But still, these are my opinions.

Sorry if this post comes off as harsh. I know its a lot being said all at once.... I didn't/don't intend for it to be. I like you as a person, I just didn't like what you did on Day 1, perhaps this will better explain why.

[RoOsh]

atarus said:

-Snipped-
Basically it's him defending his idea. It's right up there. Go read it!
-Snip-

And I'd also like to clarify (before somebody tries to put words in my mouth) that I haven't been advocating lynching lurkers. I've been advocating for the Vig to target lurkers, for reason stated above. Trying to create as little anti-towniness as possible.

I read over this whole post/idea.... And yeah, I'm one of those that believes a Vig can hurt the Town if they're uncoordinated (one reason last game I tried to get the Vig on my side when I was the Cop during FF, but then he saw my posts and decided to try and kill Me during that night. If he was successful, that game would have ended in a DISASTER. So uh... yeah, I dislike the potential for disaster with a Vig....(Or the incidence of our One shot Vig ending up going out and killing her Brother the doctor that night in FF... Man, we were SO lucky in FF at times looking back on it (-_-) )

But yeah, I like your idea here Atarus. I disliked you at first just going out and tossing my name out there as a "safe person" and mentioning that all the high posters should be saved instantly. But your reasoning here... I like it. Lurkers are not helping the Town, and a good way to force them to contribute is simply to use another Townie mechanism against them. And if there is a power role in the mix, all the have to do is start posting a bit more, and they're no longer in the Lurker pool. :nod: I don't think it should be strictly enforced, but I think its something for a Vig to consider.

:thumbs up from me on this idea, Atarus:

zeriel said:

I have a discussion question for the town while we're at it--while it's somewhat scummy to try to figure out why specific people were killed, is it equally scummy to make guesses based on what one considers the most likely faction(s) behind the killings?

My opinion: I actually like to think about which factions did the killing. But I've mostly done that because of reading the MafiaScum boards, where the Flavor is often linked to the faction. Here it hasn't been the case, and so I've decreased doing that, but I still like to keep a record of who's died how. I'm not a fan of increasing WIFOM by asking open ended questions ("So, who do you think killed so and so?"), but I do like the idea of someone just speaking up and stating "well, I think X was killed by ____", just because I like Data, and view that as a Data point to go back and look at if more information is present. Such as if we find out that Y is scum, and Y has been talking about each of the kills, then we can use that to see, would Y be lying about it, or would he be telling the truth? It's WIFOM down the road, but it's WIFOM with more Data. That's the sort of thing I like.

Which is why I'll give you my opinion:
Currently, my thoughts are that CatinaSuit or HockeyMonkey was probably killed by Scum. My reasonings: 1. HockeyMonkey's death was the first one "we as a town discovered", in my mind, I tend to associate the first kill with a major killer/group. Also, I wonder because Hockey's has the extra commentary on suicide. I am currently dismissive of that as just "flavor/witticism", but if it keeps up in latter days (People dying by means of looking like unlikely suicides) i will tend to link those kills together.

Also, I keep Kat separate because Hockey and Cat were both killed in an extremely gory manner. YMMV, but when I think of Pro-Town people, I don't think they go around flaying their fellow citizens or ripping off their limbs and beating them with it either....
Kat however, was killed by gunshots. no mess, and no sign of violence was the quote. To me, I'm not sure what to make of it, it could be an SK or evil person with a gun going around doing the dirty deeds, or it could be the work of a Pro-Town person, using a Gun for a quick clean execution. That's why I'm putting down a definite "negative" view on Cat, and Hockey methods of being killed.
But Kat could go either way, and we'd need to see more flavor on subsequent Days.

-That's my opinion on the kills. Now, what Data would that really provide? None really in my opinion currently. It's just my thoughts, and I like having them out there, but it can be viewed as "fluffy" data currently, or WIFOM at worst.

So i think you can only take it, and note that's what My opinion is. But to try to use it to construct something more, that's where you start to push line on scummy vs. townie actions. It's Townie (IMHO), to GIVE an opinion and share your thoughts. It's Scummy to try to persuade others to your way of thinking though, or to try to use your opinions on the Flavor solely to try to lynch/kill someone.

However, an addendum: One case where I would consider this untrue is if someone has revealed a role. If someone (i'll use pleonast here as an easy example) states that they kill people by blowing them up. And then the next day, I discover someone Blown Up.... I'm going to look VERY VERY Strongly at said person. Because it makes sense to look at that case.
But I will not do the opposite (Where if someone says, Hey, I only kill by bow and arrow, and then we see someone killed the next day with a Gun, I'm STILL going to look at said person with the bow and arrow. Now I may be biased when I look at them (oh, they use arrows not a gun), but I'm still going to consider the notion of would so and so try to kill said person? Could so and so be lying about their role/ abilities? It's that sort of case of WIFOM).

I think Hal did quite well last game, when he stepped up as a one shot vig and killed the Doctor. The next day, he stepped right up and admitted that he was the one who Vigged the Doctor, that it was a one shot deal and showed remorse for his actions. He was still certainly under alot of suspicious, but at least he had taken steps to try to Improve his standing rather than something like a Watcher type role speaking up and going "hey, I saw Y go and kill person X during the night!" In that case, I'm gonna be looking REALLY hard at Y because they didn't come forth with the mistake, and even if they claim Vig, it's still gonna be a weak defense in my eyes. They're going to have to defend themselves and show their actions and such. A damned if you do, damned if you don't case there I suppose....

Anyways, it's late and I have an exam to study for, so I'll catch you all later!

[Captain Klutz]

Wow, I can't believe how quiet this game is toDay. I gather that most people have just had a long weekend, but still...

I have done a reread but I don't feel that I've gained any new insights, as too many players are not currently participating. I'm a bit in this category too, only posting once per (real life) day. So, while I can't really complain about low posting levels, every one needsmore activity, since this will help out exposing lurking scum especially.

[Tragic]

My No. 1 suspect is still alive and kicking, so if nothing changes my mind in the next few hours I'll be voting as I did Yesterday.

(mhaye, D2.133)
What I don't get is why someone wouldn't come forward at the beginning of the day with their reasons and vote! What purpose does it serve to sit on those theories and reasons and not share them with the potential of getting others to see your point of view? Unless you're acting scummy. Or simply don't have proper arguements for the votes you plan to cast.

That being said I'm starting to become suspicious of Diomedes for the lurking habits he's showing here in our game. If he's posting elsewhere it doesn't take a lot of effort to slip in and give us an update on what's going on. I don't expect him to sit and analyze 6 pages of posts but at least a courtesy call wouldn't be asking too much? (Says the girl from FireFly who barely could manage that. But I wasn't actively posting elsehwere at the time! So not too hypocritical, I hope, lol) I guess I'm just sharing the concern, with others, that he's lurkin for a reason and not because (a) he's a newcomer and overwhelmed or (b) because real life has completely eaten him alive. Clearly (b) is false since he's posting elsewhere and if it was the truth then he could at least post a status update for us!

As such... with that kind of scummy behavior it's hard to ignore...

Vote Diomedes
For the lurker status, for posting elsewhere, for being one of the voices and suddenly fading into the background. We need an active town to try and find the scum. Sitting around and waiting for someone else to do the dirty work isn't goin to benefit anyone!

[Zeriel]

Okay, I'm just going to throw out a few of my observations on the kills and what I perceive to be discussion of the kills.
Many seem to think that this game has the typical "scum, SK, vig" killing factions to explain three night kills. However, we have one claimed vigilante-light who has a one-shot vig-type power. We also have a known townie power role who had many one-shot powers. Therefore, I think it's highly dangerous to assume that anything about the game setup is "standard".

We should be damn careful about that. My horrifying thought of the day: What if there are only three scum, but they each get their own night kill? I mean, replicants are bad-ass motherfuckers. (actually, that'd be one hell of an interesting game of Mafia to balance) I'm not saying there's any evidence for that, nor am I saying there's any reason to believe it, I'm just saying it's possible and color-plausible, and that it's safest to assume there's no vig and the night kills aren't serving the town at all until there is evidence otherwise.

Still suspicious of the lurkers previously mentioned. Also suspicious of Sinjin and Mhaye, but not enough to not vote for Diomedes when day end approaches--I'm leaving my vote off now because I don't want to leave the scum with the option of quick-lynching someone close to majority. I WILL place my vote on one of the four I mentioned if anyone not on that list gets pushed up close to them in votecount.

[storyteller0910]

PAGE SIX VOTE COUNT (DAY TWO)

Diomedes (6) - drainbead, atarus, Parzival, CometotheDarkSideWeHaveCookies, kassia, Tragic
Pleonast (5) - Santo Rugger, diggitcamara, sinjin, Roosh, zuma 2.0
Death by Irony (1) - Captain Klutz
kassia (1) - NAF1138
mhaye (1) - Pleonast

Fourteen votes have been cast. The Day will end at 5:00PM EST today, or in approximately 8 hours.

Regarding the inactive players - I will send them all a prod PM here and (if they are active there) on the Dope. Anyone who doesn't respond by the close of Night Two will be replaced by one of the willing subs. After that, I will have to start considering modkills in lieu of subs - I don't want things to become too confusing.

[episodeofblonde]

Well, I said I would probably vote for Dio if nothing changed and well, nothing has changed. The total lack of discussion is really hurting us. I really don't think Pleo is a good choice for lynch right now, and Dio's deliberate non-posting of his magic bag continues to grate. With less that 8 hours to go, I don't see it likely that any other candidates will emerge, but I reserve the right to change my mind as ever.

vote Diomedes

[Santo Rugger]

I'm disheartened by all the Diomedes votes, for the same reason I was disheartened when it was suggested that we should put lurkers in the Guv spot. Let's assume for a second that Dio is some type of pro town power role. He hasn't been coming in to post. So, just like a Guv that wouldn't be here, Dio might not pop in to declare. If he has been popping in to the thread lately, he'd surely have said something by now, one would think.

zeriel said:

<snip>
Still suspicious of the lurkers previously mentioned. Also suspicious of Sinjin and Mhaye, but not enough to not vote for Diomedes when day end approaches--I'm leaving my vote off now because I don't want to leave the scum with the option of quick-lynching someone close to majority. I WILL place my vote on one of the four I mentioned if anyone not on that list gets pushed up close to them in votecount.

Now, this is a good idea! Maybe you should place your vote at about 4:55 EST today. That'd make for plenty of time for us to sort things out!

[RoOsh]

pygmyrugger said:

Now, this is a good idea! Maybe you should place your vote at about 4:55 EST today. That'd make for plenty of time for us to sort things out!

NO!

[Santo Rugger]

roosh said:

pygmyrugger said:

Now, this is a good idea! Maybe you should place your vote at about 4:55 EST today. That'd make for plenty of time for us to sort things out!

NO!

I'm glad to see you understood my point.

[Tragic]

There may not have been a lot of discussion but what we have to work with is what we have to work with. I doubt there's goin to be a sudden burst of activity and a flurry of thoughts and theories in the next few hours. Let's not blindside, let's no twait until the last minute, those are both waaaay too scummy for the beginning of the game. Log the votes, participate in the dicussions, make your points! But don't sit on something until the last minute.