California Trilogy - Dantès in Fresno (Game Over!)

[Mgm]

/confirm

[Mgm]

Ehm, I don't mean to be rude, but how long are we gonna stand around here? Those drinks don't look all that apetizing anymore and the way everyone lost their fashion sense is quite disturbing.

[Mgm]

Under the current circumstances, I have fairly little to go on. Since CES got me in a lot of trouble in another recent (finished) game (Mafia 60), let's pre-empt a repeat of that by doing the following:

Vote:Cogito Ergo Sum

[Mgm]

I don't like Skruffs' use of the system so early.

So what makes it okay for you to use it then?

[Mgm]

I don't like Skruffs' use of the system so early.

So what makes it okay for you to use it then?

A desire to get to 25 words. Same reason I called you passionate

Gee, if you want to get your word limit, why not call me extremely passionate, that'd give you an extra word to use that counts towards the total. If you read the rules you'll know votes don't count.

[Mgm]

Erm, I'm more interested in finding out why I'm even on so many lists to start with even if it's at the end. I don't remember doing anything suspicious that's worth voting me.

[Mgm]

Nitpick: We're on page 4, Squirrels.

[Mgm]

I'll see your bolding and raise you an underline, or two.

I call.

Is Jeep exhibiting a scumtell?

I'd be surprised. He literally wrote the book on the subject.

[Mgm]

Elementary, my dear DP. It's a figment of Oman's imagination.

[Mgm]

To make it clear: I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy, so I'll do things the old fashioned way.
FOS: VitR, I don't like it when people use defensiveness to attack someone. When you're the top bandwagon that alone is more than enough reason to allow for a defense.

@Skruffs, I want you to answer Zindy's second question. in post 98.

Tags removed. Please use bold tags only for voting and unvoting. - Mod

[Mgm]

The only reason I can see for NOT using a list in your vote is if you are scum and haven't yet figured out how you plan to make your list so that it reduces your risk while not tipping your hand.

vote: MGM

, PlaysWithSquirrels, LoudMouthLee, Skruff

Or the reason is that lists offer the scum too much outs. I'm already seeing people being a lot less strict about justifying their votes for people the further on in the list you get.

[Mgm]

Where I'm standing 'random' and 'arbitrary' mean pretty much the same. Though using dice tags (which we can't do here) carry more prove a vote isn't malicious.

[Mgm]

Neither really. If you just say something is random or arbitrary, you have no proof to back it up. Being truly random with actual dice tags begs the question why someone couldn't come up with a reason. I'd categorrize pseudo dice tags under the list of non-tells like the average claimed arbitrary vote.

[Mgm]

I guess that is the short version of it, yeah.

[Mgm]

Er, who is Scrubbs? Has Skruffs had a name change I haven't been told about?

Skruffs: I hopped on the bandwagon the moment I saw it (as you do on day one), but going back through the game I am actually quite happy that he is the front runner. Likely scum.

I can just about buy blatant bandwagoning as a reason for a first vote on day one, but what did you see that makes you think he is likely scum afterwards?

[Mgm]

Okay, I've been asked why pro-town folks would want to use lists instead of a single vote. Well, because there is no reason not to, if you are pro-town. It's not that there is a compelling reason TO use the list. There is just no reason not to unless you are scum.

DP, you are correct that using a list before the deadline has no purpose. It didn't sink in that the lists would ONLY be used at the deadline. For some reason I thought that lists would be used more often. It's still not good policy to discourage people from using lists.

-JEEP

Go ahead, ignore post 116 - (sarcasm).

If you use a list, you should do the legwork and explain why every single individual is on it and why each of them is in the position they're in. Otherwise, we're still clueless on voting reasons if it comes to a deadline lynch.

[Mgm]

Jeep, we seem to disagree on a fundamental game principle. Apart from arbitrary votes, I believe every vote should be justified with a reason. With list-votes being applied in a deadline situation, they will lead without a doubt to the death of the person in question - you can't call a vote that decides someone's life arbitrary, so anything beyond the first vote -if it's arbitrary- HAS to have a reason.

Together with the backpeddeling:

Vote: Jeep

[Mgm]

Oops! Forgot to unvote.

Unvote; Vote: jeep

[Mgm]

And what if you are following someone else instead of the other way around?

[Mgm]

So you're saying he wasn't backpeddeling?

[Mgm]

All quotes from xyzzy responding to my posts

Under the current circumstances, I have fairly little to go on. Since CES got me in a lot of trouble in another recent (finished) game (Mafia 60), let's pre-empt a repeat of that by doing the following:
Vote:Cogito Ergo Sum

I can't really tell if this is supposed to be random or not; I often feel as scum that I have to justify my random voting, though, but that's just me.

I already said I believe most, if not all, votes should be justified regardless of whether the voter is scum or town. I voted CES because if he is scum it would be hard for me to catch him - based on that previous game, so I voted him first to gather intel to avoid having the same situation as in that earlier game.

So what makes it okay for you to use it then?

This is a bit of a misrepresentation; random listing isn't the same as using a list because you actually find several people scummy.

Take a look at post 47 right before the post you took that quote from. Oman said he doesn't like Skruffs' use of the voting system that early in the game and goes on to use it himself. That's double standards and he should be questioned about that.

List-votes are all potentially lynch-deciding votes, so each has to be well documented. Think about jeep who admitted to not posting reasoning with his votes. It's pretty clear why he voted number one in his list, but what if person three on his list ends up lynched - we'd have no idea why he voted them. I don't want scum to slide by, simply by not being called on their actions. I plan to call them on it before any deaths occur.

To make it clear: I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy, so I'll do things the old fashioned way.

Translation: I on't want to take advantage of the tools I've been given. I don't want other people taking advantage of them, either.

That's a bad translation. Nowhere do I mention anything about other people. As long as the votes on the list are explained/justified so the voting patterns can be picked apart I have no objections to other people using them. I am against people like jeep not providing reasoning as you can see in my next quote.

Where I'm standing 'random' and 'arbitrary' mean pretty much the same. Though using dice tags (which we can't do here) carry more prove a vote isn't malicious.

This sounds like you're suggesting we can't use votes just bcause they're random first votes. I don't like this....

You totally missed the point. I said arbitrary and random are the same. I said the mod didn't allow dice tags and I said that when votes are made with actual dice tags you know they are not malicious. I have no idea where your intepretation comes from. (You can't use random first votes in Concordet lists, though. I for one don't want random votes to be the deciding thing in a lynch.)

If you use a list, you should do the legwork and explain why every single individual is on it and why each of them is in the position they're in. Otherwise, we're still clueless on voting reasons if it comes to a deadline lynch.

I don't like this suggestion that every psuedovote should have a reason; votes are useful NO MATTER WHAT, especially votes that CAN NOT BRING A LYNCH before deadline.

Let's look at it a different way. Any Concordet vote has the potential of being the hammah. Do you want hammahs to be placed without a provided reason?

[Mgm]

A lot of activity doesn't mean we will reach a majority decision. We are already divided on the use of the Concordet votes, and I wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't agree on a lynch either.

I'll pose to you the same question I mention in my previous post. Suppose for a moment we come to a deadline and the third person on jeep's list gets the chop and turns up town. How would that provide info? Would it make a difference if it was the sixth person on a list that died?

[Mgm]

I am not saying that giving reasons never helps, I am saying don't stifle people from voting by pretending that it's a rule that votes must be accompanied by a reason.

Of course it’s not a rule. Anyone who reads the rules will see that. But it is a Good Thing (TM) for the town. Sure, scum can make up reasons, but it is those fake reasons we can pick apart and use to identify them which brings me to a quote by Adele which pretty much sums up my view.

Look, the difference between the action and the motivation behind the action is a major pillar of mafia play.

When someone voted a townie, they could be a misinformed/misguided townie or a evil scumbag trying to get rid of good guys. When someone voted a scumbag, they could be a townie on the right trail or a scum distancing himself from a buddy to look good. My point: votes alone don’t help enough. The best way to find scum is to compare someone’s actions with someone’s possible intentions by going over their votes, reasons, claims, etc and use those to catch them in lies and inconsistencies.

Anyone who DISCOURAGES the use of a list is scummy. That is clear from my post that you quoted, right? People NOT using a list, doesn't make them scummy. It's only if they discourage the use of a list.

By leaving out the rest of the sentence in the following post (185), you changed the meaning of what I said. I said that I found using list early on in the game (when things were basically still random) wasn’t helpful – so I wouldn’t do that. Now that the fog has lifted and we’ve moved away from random voting, I see a point to starting to setup Concordet votes, but they still need to be reasoned as I explained in the previous paragraph. I don't discourage the use of Concordet votes, I discourage the use of un-reasoned votes.

Jeep, we seem to disagree on a fundamental game principle. Apart from arbitrary votes, I believe every vote should be justified with a reason. With list-votes being applied in a deadline situation, they will lead without a doubt to the death of the person in question - you can't call a vote that decides someone's life arbitrary, so anything beyond the first vote -if it's arbitrary- HAS to have a reason.

Together with the backpeddeling:
Vote: Jeep

This looks terrible IMO. This looks like MGM trying to justify a vote on a bandwagon thats just getting started. I just dont think this disagreement garners a vote. And then throwing in the backpeddeling just for kicks. Nice.

How is justifying a vote a bad thing? How is voting jeep a bad thing? He said: “As for listing a reason for every person on it, I don't do that when I vote a single person, why would I do it for a list?” which means there’s no way to discern a difference between his actions and his intentions (see paragraph two of this post). The backpeddeling wasn’t just for kicks. It was scummy as hell and contrary to jeep’s accusations, they can actually be backed up with quotes – quotes that aren’t cut into pieces and leave out crucial parts of the sentence.

Tags removed. Please use bold tags only for voting and unvoting. - Mod

[Mgm]

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep, [VitaminR, xyzzy, Logicticus], [Oman, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Mastermind of Sin, LoudmouthLee, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever,
Skruffs, Thestatusquo], [Adele, Dragon Phoenix, Cogito Ergo Sum, Zindaras, PlaysWithSquirrels], No lynch, Mgm

I sorted the players in three groups: suspcious, other and townish and listed them in that order (no particular order within each group). I'm happy to answer questions, especially about people in the suspicious group. I will move any player I find sufficiently innocent looking behind no lynch before the deadline hits to avoid their lynch.

I will expand on why the people in the suspicious group ended up there in later posts.

Votes/Unvotes not appearing at the bottom of the post are not counted. Tags removed. - Mod

[Mgm]

Sure. I'll do that over the weekend.
I can understand why Vitamin and Cessy are of interest, but I'm surprised you are asking about Adele. I think it's pretty clear why she ended up in the townish list.

[Mgm]

PWS?

[Mgm]

You're probably right. Thanks.

[Mgm]

And why would I agree and jump on an early wagon when I could do the same and agree with the people who are voting LML and PWS? Those votes are much more likely to lead to a lynch. I don't see any of that is scummy.

[Mgm]

I am still uncomfortable with the way he backpeddled (I'm still maintaining he did) about eh Condorcet issues

Why do you make it sound like an opinion you need to defend when you have evidence to back the whole thing up with quotes?

[Mgm]

Scruffs decides that, since Thesp is a good player, we should "Yay Thesp!" because he "has a lot to bring?"

What would happen if Thesp was scum, Scruffs?

Is there any immediate reason to assume Thesp is scum, because if there isn't I don't see the problem here.

[Mgm]

I don't see much of a problem in praising someone. If they are really scummy, that praise really isn't gonna make a whole lot of a difference.

[Mgm]

The only reason MOS's random vote is 'contrived' is because the mod wouldn't let him use dice tags. He could be faking, but so could every other random vote that can't be verified to be random.

[Mgm]

It's to no one in particular, although I'd like to see the people who are voting MOS for it listening more than anyone else. The comment was sparked by your post though.

[Mgm]

The elaboration Zindaras asked for in post 213; I'm afraid it's not really spectacular:

VitaminR - Seems bloodthirsty in general, has already voted(and unvoted) 4 different people. Seems to be making a lot of accusations to see if they stick. Then there's this quote:

I agree. On top of that, we don't have any real evidence that Skruffs has actively overlooked Thesp. If Thesp had posted something suspicious or ambiguously suspicious, it would be more important. I've greeted plenty of people with that kind of enthusiasm.

Not something I'd worry about, but since it came two posts after he first voted Skruffs, and this posts doesn't appear to make him change that vote. He also says: "it just didn't seem that significant to me whether jeep was inconsistent." I believe inconsistencies are very significant, especially with experienced people.

Adele - Adele seems to be on par with most of my thinking. I can't see anything scummy about that, especially since I'm following much of the same lines. If I called her scummy, I couldn't justify my own actions.

CES - While I have a grudge on CES from the previous game, I've seen nothing but solid play from him this time round. Nothing at all to suggest he's scum, contrary to that last game. I'm confident enough in his innocence to leave him alone for today - at least until more information surfaces.

PWS - PWS is in the 'other' group because I'm not getting much of a read on him. He asked questions in the few posts he made and seems to be generally digging for evidence. He also seems to notice that the whole dice thing with regard to MOS is a null tell, so I'm very slightly leaning towards town on him. All in all-townish behavior, but not enough to put him in the townish group.

[Mgm]

Scruffs decides that, since Thesp is a good player, we should "Yay Thesp!" because he "has a lot to bring?"

What would happen if Thesp was scum, Scruffs?

Is there any immediate reason to assume Thesp is scum, because if there isn't I don't see the problem here.

I just dont understand if skruffs had no read on Thesp why he didnt say so. Why throw out the "Yay Thesp!." Its perplexing, but I dont think its scummy.

MGM, why is there only a problem with the statement if Thesp is scum? Regardless of his alignment, its a useless statement. And what would the problem be if Thesp comes up scum? Would you assume that Thesp is scum if skruffs come up or not?

You said it: regardless of Thesp's alignment, it's a useless statement. Besides, the statement Skruffs made didn't say 'we' should do anything. So the fact that the idea is even being pushed is what's really the problem.

[Mgm]

Okay...my big look at everyone in order of player list:
[snip]
Adele
[snip]
Cogito Ergo Sum
[snip]
Cubsfan4ever
[snip]
I'll do the rest later.

Seriously? 3 of 19? Thats terrible. Why play this up as your big post and then just putter out after three?

Are you trying to look like you are doing analysis or what? You were already on my short list, but you are moving on up nicely.

What part of "I'll do the rest later" don't you understand? All this post proves, is that Oman actually has a private life that occasionally needs his attention. You're moving up nicely on my list too.

[Mgm]

EBWOP: Especially with his analysis for each player being longer than the one I provided. How could he possibly fit 19 players in a single post in a reasonable time space?

[Mgm]

Trying again, this time posting the votes, at the very bottom.
I've also put the people from the suspect group in order of suspiciousness.
Logicticus is grasping at straws and making illogical assumptions at every turn; VitR is starting to sound more reasonable.

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep

, Logicticus, xyzzy, VitaminR, [Oman/IH, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Mastermind of Sin, LoudmouthLee, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever,
Skruffs, Thestatusquo], [Adele, Dragon Phoenix, Cogito Ergo Sum, Zindaras, PlaysWithSquirrels], No lynch, Mgm

[Mgm]

Just looked at Omans posts.

he had 43 posts between posts in this game. Hardly somebody who is too busy to post here. Looks more and more like lurking scum who couldnt think of things to say about 16 other players.

Are you trying to attract votes or something?

[Mgm]

I'm gonna move LML up in my list in light of recent posts.

Mod: Will votes on replaced players count when you use their old names?

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep

, Logicticus, xyzzy, LoudmouthLee, VitaminR, [Oman/IH, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Mastermind of Sin, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever,
Skruffs, Thestatusquo], [Adele, Dragon Phoenix, Cogito Ergo Sum, Zindaras, PlaysWithSquirrels], No lynch, Mgm

[Mgm]

Until someone decides to do a PBPA or post count, then he's screwed.
Based on the chances of that happening, I call BS.

Lurking in any form is a non-viable strategy for this game.

[Mgm]

And I would like a lot of people's opinions on this. How likely is it to know the number of mafia groups on day one, before anyone has died, if you aer not in one of them and thus have no idea how big one or both of them are?

To Skruffs: yes, there might be a second mafia family. That is not unheard of in a 20 player game. I would even bet either two families or one family and a SK.

He's made a guess regarding the setup based on the number of players in the game. The word "might" shows he's guessing and unless you know something I don't there's no evidence yet, that that guess is actually right.

MGM, Cubsfan has made six posts in this game so far.
Just use the filter at the bottom.

I know and I also know he's not doing a very good job at hiding.

[Mgm]

While I disagree on his opinion of Oman, I am still leaning toward town with logicticus.

The way you said it makes it pretty clear that disagreeing with someone is not the sort of thing you use to see if someone is town, so what exactly is it about logicticus that makes you think he's town?

[Mgm]

DP says that there are two families.

Show me the post, because I'm quite sure he didn't.

And I point you to Mafia 61, which had one scum group of 5 people in a 23 player game.

And I can dig around and find 5 games with multiple families. The question you should be asking is which setup is more common and what kind of setup is the mod more likely to use? If, after that, you have a reason to assume the mod wouldn't include two families and they're less than common you might have a case against DP.

Skruffs, are you really advocating a name claim this early or am I misreading that?

It's posts like this that make me want to vote logicticus, but I don't want to cause a no lynch by taking my vote from jeep/BM.

Mgm wrote:
Until someone decides to do a PBPA or post count, then he's screwed.
Based on the chances of that happening, I call BS.

Lurking in any form is a non-viable strategy for this game.

Does that mean scum are unlikely to attempt it anyway?

In this game, I think it does.

[Mgm]

Skruffs rises on the list for his straight out lie about DP.
I will now start the selection of the people who I will place behind no lynch as discussed earlier.

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep,

Logicticus, xyzzy, LoudmouthLee, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Oman/IH, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Mastermind of Sin, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever, Thestatusquo], [Adele, Dragon Phoenix, Cogito Ergo Sum, Zindaras, PlaysWithSquirrels], No lynch, Mgm

[Mgm]

It proves I have other things to do than going to the front post every time someone is replaced so I can fix my vote list, but have it your way.

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep/BM

, Logicticus, xyzzy, LoudmouthLee, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz/Thestatusquo, Oman/IH, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani/Mastermind of Sin, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever], [Adele, Dragon Phoenix, Cogito Ergo Sum, Zindaras, Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels], No lynch, Mgm

[Mgm]

Oh god. Post 148 is a corker. I’ve seen this stuff from Oman before. The only time you are likely to see Oman so cautious about joining a BW is when he is scum.

Can you link to one or more games to back that up?

[Mgm]

I don't like MGM's attitude about the two families thing, which is basically saying that DP was in the right in stating that there are two families in a game like that.

I still stand by what I said earlier today. Show me the proof and quote the post in which he said it.

[Mgm]

Some pre-deadline alterations.

Unvote;
Vote: Jeep/BM

, [Logicticus, xyzzy], LoudmouthLee, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz/Thestatusquo, Oman/IH, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani/Mastermind of Sin, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever], Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels, No lynch, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], Mgm

[Mgm]

Cubs: Defending someone isn't scummy in itself, but defending someone THAT early, when I don't see how you could have a definite feeling about their innocence does ring alarm bells. Plus it was only 4 votes, with many more needed to lynch. What were you worried about?

Perhaps he was worried about someone pushing a faulty case too far? I don't think the attacks on DP have merit, so I defend him. There is a chance I change my opinion later, but someone who is getting attacked with what you perceive to be craplogic (or one of its cousins) is enough reason to save them from a day one lynch.

[Mgm]

MGM - Could you explain why you want BM to die so much? And can you explain why you do not want DP to be lynched, considering he tried to get me lynched earlier in the day for doing the same thing with you?
You kind of haven't talked much about DP at all - so it's kind of weird (to me, which usually means nothing) that you would not only ignore possible scum tells found against him, but then actually defend the person who made them, and question the people who noticed them. I got bumped up in your condorcet for pointing out that DP seems to think there are two mafia families, and you seem to be putting the burden of proof on us

to prove there's not

, whereas I would expect someone with an *ambivalent* viewpoint to be more curious as to why DP went so far as to say that not only

were

there two, but that he even knew two people from each one. You do not seem to have an ambivalent viewpoint, though. Cool.

Considering the speculation/suggestion there might be two families scummy, is something I wouldn't agree with, but I would understand. Saying he DP claims there ARE two families is twisting his words.

As for Jeep/BM (all numbers apply to his filtered posts). I want him lynched for what Jeep said early in the game:

(6): "The only reason I can see for NOT using a list in your vote is if you are scum and haven't yet figured out how you plan to make your list so that it reduces your risk while not tipping your hand."

(7): "The only reason for not using a list is because you are scum and haven't had time to work out with your scum buddies what is the right way to use it to your advantage."

(8): "There is just no reason not to unless you are scum."

(9): In response to my comment: "I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy" Jeep says: "But anyone discouraging the use of a list is scummy, IMO."

(11): "I think they only need to be justified if you want people to follow you. Even then, you don't always need to justify them."

In short:
a. He starts out by saying that there's no reason not to use the list unless you're scum who hasn't discussed it with his buddies, or not figured a way to use it to your advantage, but later changes it to saying that by saying that "I don't like using Condorcet voting" discourages other people from doing so - which isn't true and is change to what he first said. (aka backpeddeling)
b. Jeep claimed that votes only need to be justified if people want to follow you. Complete and utter bullocks. Votes need to be justified so you can use someone's vote to deduce their intentions.

Inadvertent smilie disabled. - Mod

[Mgm]

Thanks for fixing that smiley situation, mod.

[Mgm]

If we aren't going to get 11 votes to lynch someone we need a Condorcet winner.
Someone pulled their vote off BM... Grrrrr

[Mgm]

If we aren't going to get 11 votes to lynch someone we need a Condorcet winner.
Someone pulled their vote off BM... Grrrrr

your case on me is non-existant. I've read up on the Condorcet system, and i actually dont see what the problem is.

The problem is pretty clear. At the time of the last vote count, we did not have anyone winning a Condorcet situation (aka a tie), which would result in a no lynch. That is a pretty big problem in my book.

[Mgm]

(Glork here again)

The accented post came from Primate. I had not begun reading the game at that point.

Mgm, could you please comment on the parts of my post that pertained to you. In particular, I would like you to explain exactly what your stance on early Concordet voting is, and I would like you to respond to this paragraph:

Basically, the philosophy is that anything is better than nothing. A protown player should have little problem expressing his weighted suspicions. He should also have relatively little trouble expanding upon those suspicions when asked to. Mgm, DP:

NOTHING

is stopping you from asking Jeep to explain his lists. Yet instead of doing that, you have both chosen to simply attack him for his chosen play. Major

FoS: DP, Mgm

I explained myself in post 412. And I already shared my opinion on early Condorcet voting. I even argued with jeep because he quoted me on it and mangled the quote - leaving out a particularly important part of the sentence.

[Mgm]

How do you guys feel about the potential predictive abilities of dream?
I dreamt about this game last night (you know you're playing too much mafia-thread material?) and in the dream LML was a scumbucket.

I'm considering switching to LML if keeping my vote on BM doesn't ensure a lynch just to see if my subconcious is any good at catching scum.

[Mgm]

@MgM
The question is, now that your subconscious has bought it to your attention, does your conscious agree?

My concious is unsure. I believe I should vote BM, but what I've seen from LML means he's now a close second with Logicticus.

[Mgm]

Now is the time. If we don't get a Condorcet winner, all the day's effort will result in a no lynch. We're no longer in the random voting stages.

[Mgm]

I will explain again: People who ask for clarification in thread, IMHO are trying to appear more townie when they are really not.

You're forgetting Occam's Razor. They may just be looking for a clarification, which if everyone plays well, will be the case in the majority of the times it happens. If you want to claim that someone is trying to appear townish by asking for clarification you have to have something else to back it up with that such a player doesn't share with the pro-town people in the game.

I like MGM's post 369, though his quote about DP never saying there were two families are misleading. Pretty much both Skruff and DP are being scummy about that one = \

I already quoted the guy. I have evidence (the quote that states what he actually said), you have speculation (the idea he might've slipped up).

Skruffs seems to be posting prolifically, and evidently seems keen to contribute. On the other hand, the speed of the BW on him, seems more like bussing than an attempted mislynch…

Please enlighten us all and tell us how you can see the difference between the two.

[Mgm]

(Glork here again)

<snip>

Mgm, could you please comment on the parts of my post that pertained to you. In particular, I would like you to explain exactly what your stance on early Concordet voting is,

In the early stages of the game votes are basically random. Random votes say little about a person's suspicions, they can be changed without being considered suspicious and they do not help when it comes to choosing a Condorcet winner for a deadline lynch situation. That's why I think it's better to wait until you have suspicions that are based on

something

.

and I would like you to respond to this paragraph:

Basically, the philosophy is that anything is better than nothing. A protown player should have little problem expressing his weighted suspicions. He should also have relatively little trouble expanding upon those suspicions when asked to. Mgm, DP:

NOTHING

is stopping you from asking Jeep to explain his lists. Yet instead of doing that, you have both chosen to simply attack him for his chosen play. Major

FoS: DP, Mgm

What is wrong about attacking someone for their chosen play, if said play is scummy? Currently, the fact jeep has been replaced is stopping me from asking him to explain himself. Regardless, when I said that votes on Condorcet lists should be explained, jeep said that was only necessary if you wanted to follow the voter on a wagon (which is wrong). Instead of explaining himself as I said any pro-town player should do, he chose to attack me for saying so -- I'm pretty convinced asking him directly, wouldn't have much of a positive effect.

Right now, I can see from the current vote count that both you and DP are still (or once again) voting for Jeep, and I think that your behavior towards him early in the game was inexcusable. I want you to explain posthaste.

He acted scummy, I voted him. If you want me to explain myself about the behavior you find inexcusable, you'd have to be more specific on what you're talking about.

[Mgm]

And I already shared my opinion on early Condorcet voting.

I'm asking you to further elaborate on your opinion of early-day Concordet voting. I would like you to address these two points specifically, without simply saying "I already talked about this." Keep in mind that I have not read much of the game, so I'm not caught up on all of your explanations. I don't care if you have to re-state your opinion, I just want you to do it clearly and concisely:

It doesn't seem like you read the thread at all, because the post in which I explained my view was my ninth, somewhere on the 4-5th page of the game:

To make it clear: I don't particularly like using Concordet voting this early in the game when everything is still too hazy, so I'll do things the old fashioned way.

[Mgm]

If he feels the other option is still realistic, then he should take it into account.

Naturally. The problem I had with it, is that he chose an option without even mentioning the simpler and more common explanation. In his post he totally ignores the possibility of a townie asking for an explanation.

[Mgm]

Then why bring up Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor basically states that you should prefer simpler theories and explanations, which is true, but not particularly applicable to scum tells. The townie option can be superior without the scum tell losing its value.

I don't consider asking for clarification on a vote a scum tell. Do you?

[Mgm]

Zindaras? I'm talking about LML.

[Mgm]

^ ^ anyone who hasn't done so already should fix their lists, preferably within 24 hours.

[Mgm]

That's the first time I've been confused with LML.

I just noticed how my comment was ambiguous. I used the word "fix". I meant that people who changed their top vote without copying the entire list should do so before the deadline. I did not mean it to say fix as in "lock in". Everyone is free to change their votes until the final moment, assuming they're using solid reasoning.

[Mgm]

It's clearly not a good idea to lynch a claimed investigator. I guess my dream was trying to make me change my opinion on BM.

Unvote;
Vote: LoudmouthLee,

[Logicticus, xyzzy], Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz/Thestatusquo, Oman/IH, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani/Mastermind of Sin, foolinc, Cubsfan4ever], Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels, No lynch, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], Jeep/BM, Mgm.

[Mgm]

Pierre Picaud was a shoemaker who was living in Paris in 1807. Picaud was engaged to marry a rich woman, but four jealous friends falsely accused him of being a spy for England. He was imprisoned for seven years. During his imprisonment a dying fellow prisoner bequeathed him a treasure hidden in Milan. When Picaud was released in 1814, he took possession of the treasure, returned under another name to Paris and spent ten years plotting his successful revenge against his former friends. His life was used as the basis of The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas, père.

Was his life the basis for the story or the Count of Monte Christo himself? I'm kind of weary he's an inspiration rather than an actual character from the book.

[Mgm]

If you are protown, you're bleeding information that you probably don't want to reveal.

It might've revealed I'm a character from the book, but I don't think that's a disaster. It still doesn't tell the mafia a bloody thing.

[Mgm]

About that Iocane powder used at the start of the day. It seems that it comes from the "Princess Bride" film. That film is not set in California -- it's filmed in the UK.
The only character from that film I can reasonably tie to the theme is Count Tyrone Rugen (Christopher Guest), meaning I suspect we might have a group of scum Counts on our hands.

[Mgm]

Well, the part from wikipedia that said: "During his imprisonment a dying fellow prisoner bequeathed him a treasure hidden in Milan. When Picaud was released in 1814, he took possession of the treasure" fits with the burglar role, but it doesn't explain why he didn't claim some spy type role instead of a burglar as spy seems a more telling part of his character.

[Mgm]

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but I haven't been able to google it very well.
What are Dantès?

[Mgm]

Funny how all that didn't turn up on Google...

[Mgm]

Unvote; Vote: cubsfan

, move LML on level with BM, keep rest of the Condorcet the same.

[Mgm]

Mgm:

Have you read the links in the first post? Have you read them carefully? Why on earth did you ask "what are Dantes"?

I can be short about that. No I didn't read those links carefully. I only skimmed the Wikipedia one to check for characters regarding my thoughts on Iocane and to learn about my own character. I hang my head in shame.

[Mgm]

Posting a new list as the mod asked in his latest post.

Unvote;
Vote: Cubsfan4ever,

Logicticus, xyzzy, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz/Thestatusquo, Oman/IH, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani/Mastermind of Sin, foolinc], Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels, No lynch, Jeep/BM, LoudmouthLee, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], Mgm.

[Mgm]

My family has nothing to do with it and if you dare shame my country, you can bet I will call upon Zindaras and CES to make you pay for it.

OMGUS FOS: Pooky

[Mgm]

Why did you pick LML for the duel?

[Mgm]

If anyone has an explanation for why Cubsfan lied (which could've resulted in a really bad counterclaim), I'm all ears. Also, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to lynch LML today.

[Mgm]

Vote: Logicticus,

xyzzy, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz, IH, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani, foolinc], Gaspar, No lynch, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

[Mgm]

Kirk was born in Fresno...

Anyway, I would expect a player to read their role PM carefully and make sure they understand it every time. If he read the Wikipedia page, he wouldn't have made that mistake. Also, BM was Pierre; Cubs was Kirk. I doubt that he'd think he was the Count because of who BM was.

[Mgm]

Why wouldn't that power be attributed to scum? Scum who have one or two daykills at their disposal - which a duel basically is - are rare, but it's not unheard of. The only thing that duel proved is that he had the power to initiate one, not that the results would be as he said they would be (kill a scum, guess: not kill an innocent).

Also, if he was so obviously town, there were plenty of people who could've unvoted after the

claim

. If someone claims the main character you either believe them or you don't.

[Mgm]

That is particularly damning for MGM. He is the only voter on Cubsfan who had a chance AFTER Mith posted duel results to change their vote FROM cubsfan to someone else.

I wasn't the only one. Foolinc changed his vote after the duel results and between my question about the duel and the end of the day was about 30 minutes. Obviously not enough time to get an alternative lynch going - at least not one that wasn't LML.

If Cubs were scum and had daykilled LmL as town, he'd be outed for sure (for claiming he only kills if his opponent is scum).

I'm the count of Monte Cristo. Twice during the game I have the power to challenge another player to a duel (which they must accept). If that player turns out to be scum I kill them but if they're town I guess I allow them to kill me. Pro-town.

Cubsfan made a guess about what would happen if the target was town, he didn't say what would actually happen. For all we know he'd kill a townie too. He never actually claimed he only killed scum.

[Mgm]

The reason I didn't unvote was easy: bad timing. With all the things I was doing during that period, the time between cubs answering my question and the actual lynch was too short to confidently unvote.

LML's claim I was the only voter with a chance to unvote after the duel is faulty regardless, each one of those voters had the chance to do it. I just happened to be the one posting. Who said the others weren't watching the thread?

[Mgm]

I don't see why that wouldn't work. Poison is generally linked to scum, but that doesn't mean all poisoners are scum.

[Mgm]

I find MGM still to be most suspicious (especially since he believes that Cubs's power could be faked.)

Disagreeing with me is fine, but if you choose to do that, don't go ignoring post 635.

[Mgm]

Altered list:

Unvote;
Vote: Logicticus

, Skruffs, [Tamuz, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani, foolinc], Gaspar, [IH, VitaminR], No lynch, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

[Mgm]

I'm going to metagame Zindy right now and find him likely innocent at the fevor he went after a mislynch of Xyzzy.

Please explain that metagame because it makes no sense. Someone who actively seeks a mislynch should be considered scummy, not likely innocent.

[Mgm]

VitminR, is there a significant difference between a 'soft claim' and a 'role claim'?

Tamuz, i still don't understand why you would immediately assume that i would be scum because i said i was roleblocked. I believe you have a reason, but i don't think it's'a public reason.

vote : tamuz

,[ces, ngn, vitr]

Who's ngn?

[Mgm]

This is a quick note to let you all know that I will be away from my computer for the majority of the day. I don't expect to be back within the next fourteen real life hours.

[Mgm]

I don't associate Mgm with good play. (I'm sorry to say that, Mgm.)

Already forgot about Mafia 60, did you?

[Mgm]

Why did you pick LML for the duel?

As said before by others, I find this post somewhat odd. I thought Cubs's claim was an indication of Cubstown, so I don't see why Mgm didn't acknowledge the claim in this post, instead simply asking a fairly irrelevant question.

Irrelevant? The guy was going after a claimed townie saying "I see no reason why Searching Townie is that believable a claim." He didn't comment on the other claim or the multitude of suspicious people who didn't claim at all - nor did he explain why he didn't find the claim believable, it's easy to confirm. His choice was odd to say the least, and questions that clear up this kind of thing are not at all irrelevant.

Why wouldn't that power be attributed to scum? Scum who have one or two daykills at their disposal - which a duel basically is - are rare, but it's not unheard of. The only thing that duel proved is that he had the power to initiate one, not that the results would be as he said they would be (kill a scum, guess: not kill an innocent).

How many times have you seen scum with a

public

daykill?

That's the best answer I've seen all day and I'm ashamed of not noticing that particular bit of info sooner. You're right. "Public" was the key word here. The only time I've seen scum with public daykills was when the killer was suicidal.

[Mgm]

Okay, the question wasn't irrelevant per sé, it's just that it would most definitely not be the question that would jump to my mind immediately.

I guess we're different then.

logicticus:
I wanted to test my Iocane theory and with cubs claiming the Count, he was my top suspect. The question (Why LML?) would've shed some light on his motives.

And then you try to throw some suspicion on other people who were watching the thread but allowed time to expire rather than move xyzzy over cubs.

As I said - time.

In the interest of moving this game along instead of people focussing on a faulty lynch for too long, I'll claim or rather point to my claim.

Apart from the opening confirmation and a stray letter 'S' my first few posts in the game encode my name and role; take a look at the first letters of those posts.

[Mgm]

The response to CES's "woo, daykill!" post has been interesting. A select handful of people have pointed out that they're not particularly fond of it, but nobody's actually made a move on CES. I almost get the feeling that scums are waiting to see if anything will actually come of it.

It could be one of jeep's common tells, but without some additional evidence I'm not going that route.

[Mgm]

I don't.

[Mgm]

As for the breadcrumbing his role. I dont see why a townie would feel a need to breadcrumb it that clearly.

I believe breadcrumbing a vanilla townie role early on in a power-heavy game indicates early knowledge vanillas actually exist. If more such claims come, or if vanilla townies are killed, it makes my claim stronger since I had the knowledge at the start of the game.

People who claim vanilla townie have next to nothing to back their role up and I think breadcrumbing has a significant advantage over a cold claim. Would you believe me if I hadn't put out the breadcrumbs?

[Mgm]

What's holding you back from clarifying your theory (and the recent change) so we can all discuss it?

[Mgm]

oh that.

because its terribly time consuming to sort by his posts, write down the first letter of the posts until it makes sense and then wikipedia it.

that must take at least 15 minutes.

Didn't you forget a sarcasm tag there? Maybe it's my Wikipedia experience, but I can do all that in less than 5 minutes assuming I have a solid internet connection.

[Mgm]

Unvote;
Vote: Logicticus,

[Thesp, Talitha, Zindaras], Skruffs, [Tamuz, Adele, PookyTheMagicalBear, VitaminR, Dani Banani, foolinc], Gaspar, Dragon Phoenix, No lynch, [IH, Cogito Ergo Sum], LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

[Mgm]

Addition: Logicticus has become less of a suspect to me. The reason he's still at the top is mainly because I don't have a solid replacement yet. As soon as I find one of those, I'll move him down to the second tier.

[Mgm]

Why don't you start by sharing your thoughts on my claim?

[Mgm]

Yep, that was aimed at you, Tally.

[Mgm]

I'm amused that I went from town to scum in Mgm's book simply because I voted him.

You should ask for your money back. That mindreading class was a total scam.

[Mgm]

@Mgm,

please clarify something for me... your role name is 'Eugenie Townie'?.. where does 'Eugenie' come from?... Eugene, OR, or is that your name?...

either way, what is your secret word?..

As logicticus correctly determined my role name is Eugenie Danglèrs (hopefully I put that accent correctly). My role is vanilla townie.

I'd rather keep my secret word under my hat until I've heard from Tall yand until I've heard some opinions from others on whether it's a good idea to share it.

[Mgm]

EBWOP: That should've read "Eugénie Danglars".

[Mgm]

No explanation?

[Mgm]

Hi. I will have very much limited access for the coming two days. I'm unsure if I'll be able to post at all in the meantime. So here are more than 25 words for survival purposes.

That should give me some time to retrieve my notes and respond to post 745.

[Mgm]

Sorry, it seems as though we're now officially trusting mgm on the understanding that he's claimed Eugenie (note to self: read the book) and he at least knows that Dante's in the game?

I didn't know Dantes was in the game when I started, but I am pretty sure he's in there now. As for trust, no matter how much I'd like to see it happen, I don't think the town as a whole is trusting me: officially or not.

[Mgm]

Still a very dangerous gambit, because the moment a mafia role blocker dies, Skruffs hangs.

How would you know he played a gambit? A mafia roleblocker dying is not enough information to ascertain his alignment.

[Mgm]

I´ve seen mafia do stranger things. If they believed the investigator was totally wrong in his suspicions for example, it would be a shame to waste a block on him that could be used against someone else.

I´m more concerned about how scum was able to kill BM without running into a doctor protection.

[Mgm]

I´ve seen mafia do stranger things. If they believed the investigator was totally wrong in his suspicions for example, it would be a shame to waste a block on him that could be used against someone else.

I´m more concerned about how scum was able to kill BM without running into a doctor protection.

God.

Since everyone knows I'm not a doctor, I will say this:

PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER MGM.

This seems like blatant doctor rolefishing, and I REALLY dislike it.

His claim seemed fine, but he's acting so scummy, I know not what to do. I feel like moving him up... way way up... on my list again.

I didn't ask a question, so I'm not asking anyone to answer me. Surely we can discuss how BM managed to die without outing the doctor.

[Mgm]

Both No Doc and Superkills make fine explanations. I don't feel the need to pursue this any further. However, I don't like how you immediately jumped to the conclusion I was fishing.

Dani Banani, do you still want my secret word, or has the discussion of the last few pages changed your mind?

[Mgm]

Nothing is stopping the doctor from mixing with the crowd and posing alternate possibilities himself. Unless their posts outright say what they did, I don't think they tell much about the poster's role.

Your mileage may vary.

Interesting how a lot of those comments came after I said I wasn't interested in more discussion on the topic.

[Mgm]

I'm also beginning to suspect that Dani Banani was asking about the secret word like he was to test the waters and see if everyone had a secret word. I think he was more worried about his own than Mgm's. I sure wouldn't mind seeing him swing, either. Heck, can we lynch four people today? We might be able to win today, and not worry about silly nightactions.

He obviously had a secret word. It's quite hard to be the first to ask about them if you don't know they exist...

[Mgm]

@Mgm,
you've said you've already included it in your posts, so i don't think it's necessary at this point... for right now, i'm going to assume the secret word means absolutely nothing...

I think you're mixing me up with LML.

[Mgm]

Absolutely not. I just said that I had a secret word and I used it. I didn't notice anything at all in regards to it.

I might've used my secret word; I might not have. Either way, I'm positive I didn't specify which of the two it is yet.

That's the thing - I think you're lying about your reasoning for bringing up the secret word. I agree I think you have a secret word. Was I unclear on that point? Asking

in the way you did

makes a heck of a lot of sense if you're scum with a secret word, and afraid that other people might not have one - testing the waters to see what comes up.

If that's true, why test the waters? Keeping his mouth shut would be by far the safer option if he didn't know it was safe to talk about it. What if scum was the only one with secret words? Asking about it would make it suicide.

[Mgm]

If anyone has an explanation for why Cubsfan lied (which could've resulted in a really bad counterclaim), I'm all ears. Also, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to lynch LML today.

Curious.

MGM isn't lynching LML today, presumably because of Cubsfans action, yet he also brings up about Cubsfan lying.

It does bring something interesting to mind though. There was no cubsfan counterclaim! I would personally be wary of a count of monte cristo claim after this.

I'm not lynching LML today because I believe his claim. If he doesn't find the townie he's looking for within a reasonable amount of time I'm going to reconsider, but right now the outcome of the duel suggests he's town.

Vote: Logicticus, xyzzy, Skruffs, VitaminR, [Tamuz, IH, Adele, Thesp, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear, Dani Banani, foolinc], Gaspar, No lynch, [Zindaras, Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix], LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

Would you mind explaining this list at the beginning of the day MGM?

I carried it over from yesterday and scrapped the dead players off the list to make voting today easier.

Whats funny is that MGM was more likely to believe LML before Cubs, and LML's claim was much less convincing than LML.

I already said I had a theory Counts were scum. It's not that much different from you believing all book characters are scum. Why should my suggestion be any less likely?

Not only that, MGM didn't even reply to the claim until after the duel had happened. So the claim and power, which was proven, was a package deal.

Do I really have to repeat this? You can prove someone is a roleblocker, but that won't say anything about their alignment. The same goes for killing. The only good reason, which I already conceded to: he ensured scum would die if targetted. I just happened to miss that bit in the bigger picture and no one bothered to point it out until recently.

MGM wasn't concerned at all with what that meant though, he wasted time and posts by asking Cubs why he targetted LML.

Asking why someone targetted someone is not wasting time. It's a basic part of mafia.

I wouldn't fault MGM if there had actually been results from the duel, but there was none, and neither player died, which indicated that

the player

was probably town, since if

it

was scum, it would have mostlikely been an SK, and that would have been

it's

only kill more than likely.

It would really help if you use names here instead of unclear pronouns. The fact that the duel didn't result in any deaths was what I found suspicious.

Xyzzy's role-Barbara Morgan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Morgan

Wikipedia says that she was an astronaut from Fresno. Just born in fresno. Nothing from the book at all about her I believe.

I continue to like my theory about characters from the book being scum.

You're going to be so disappointed.

[Mgm]

Mgm's play has been HIGHLY scummy this past day. I'm really confused why he'd give up his breadcrumb to his role, but not his password. It's like getting your meal supersized and getting a diet pop because you're watching your weight. The two moves don't match up. I'm also not a fan of the whole Doctor discussion. If we have a doctor, we want to protect him/her as much as possible and this type of discussion won't help do that.

I wanted to make sure sharing my secret word was a good idea before doing so. I've had conflicting responses, so I'm still not sure. If it helps. I happen to have used my word.

[Mgm]

I don't see what's so weird about it. If you can't convince people you're innocent by talking and reasoning, you claim. As logicticus said, my secret word doesn't help my claim at all, so I'd rather make an informed decision about revealing it than just throw it out there.

Dani, what do you say?

[Mgm]

I don't see what's so weird about it. If you can't convince people you're innocent by talking and reasoning, you claim. As logicticus said, my secret word doesn't help my claim at all, so I'd rather make an informed decision about revealing it than just throw it out there.

Dani, what do you say?

Actually, I'm more confused on why you claimed at all. You weren't in a situation that you needed to.

I was at the top of the vote count. By claiming I ensured the town gets in some discussion on something else than just me.

[Mgm]

And I will answer those, I just happen to be busy in real life.

To whoever doubted my skillz, check Mini 487 (Open Countdown).
I had pretty much every scum pinned down before I died.

[Mgm]

Question about IH's theory that "People from the book are scum"...
Everyone who has claimed, has claimed roles from inside the book or about the book. Presumable, IH has no connection to the book. He is therefore NOT Dantesian in nature. THIS DESERVES TO BE CONSIDERED.

Take a moment and think about why Cubs would claim to be the count of monte cristo, if he wasn't.

So do you consider me protown or scummy by this action. Instead of letting the town consider it and make your mind up for you?

There will be more. And they will not be scummy.

Major FoS:Skruffs

Skruffs might've made an unfortunate word choice in that last quote, but nothing word a FOS. He was clearly trying to get across that there will be more claims of book characters and that not all of them will be scum. Your ridiculous theory is going to get you bumped up on my list. You're just trying to get claimed innocents lynched.

[Mgm]

To Zindy: I took down posts 694 and 720 in my notes, but your behavior in general seems off to me. The main reason for bumping you would be post 720.
"Mgm's claim is rather weak" sounded like "he's just a vanilla townie, we can afford to mislynch him."
-------
Skruffs and VitaminR go down, IH goes up.
Pooky goes up slightly per the post at the top of the page, it's not okay to go posting padding when you complained about people not having/sharing reads.
I'm not used to DP not posting, so I'll bump him to get his attention.

Unvote;
Vote: Logicticus

, [Thesp, Talitha, Zindaras], IH, [Dragon Phoenix, PookyTheMagicalBear], [Tamuz, Adele, Dani Banani, foolinc], Skruffs, Gaspar, VitaminR, Cogito Ergo Sum, No lynch, LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

[Mgm]

Pooky did similar things day one, regarding the fossing of me and not of you. I do not understand how he consider me bringing up something you said fishy, when the point I brought up was that you were being fishy.

The entire point is you're accusing someone (me) of fishing, while you're doing the SAME EXACT THING if not worse. You don't think thats scummier than the original fishing?

That is his point. The original fisher should be considered at least as scummy as any second fisher, but in this particular case the first was ignored, while the second got the full blast. The original fisher, whether more or less scummy, should at least get some heat for those actions.

[Mgm]

Your theory is already proven false.

So what is Skruffs' theory then? Sounds to me like you're writing off a theory before even hearing it to its full extent.

[Mgm]

Unvote;
Vote: IH

, [Thesp, Talitha, Zindaras], Logicticus, [Dragon Phoenix, PookyTheMagicalBear], [Tamuz, Adele, Dani Banani, foolinc], Skruffs, Gaspar, VitaminR, Cogito Ergo Sum, No lynch, LoudmouthLee, Mgm.

[Mgm]

FYI, I orginially protected Battle Mage, but switched to LML thinking that the mafia would try to get a Battle Mage lynch day 2.

I would just about buy it if you said it was the toss of a coin, but I don't get this.

Exactly how do you think they would get a bandwagon like that going? If he was really the investigative role he said he was, the night would give him information that would help clear him. Not exactly the best of targets for a lynch.

[Mgm]

I believe foolinc is either the doctor or was given the safeclaim of Doctor d'Avrigny. The offhand way in which he speculates about the doctor in his intro post is weak confirmation that this is his identity.

He speculated about so many rules in his opening post, that it really doesn't tell us anything. By your logic, he could also get weak confirmation for being a lover, a roleblocker, an SK, etc.

[Mgm]

Mgm,

IH, Zindy, Talitha and Thesp have rocketed to the top of your condo. I understand the evolution of your opinion of Zindy. Can you please explain your growing suspicions of IH, Thesp and Tally?

Also, why do you trust Dani Banani?

IH has moved towards the top for propagating his characters from the book are scummy theory, together with the fishing thing. (If I remember correctly Skruffs claimed that he was accused of fishing when IH was really the one starting it. He's just rubbing me the wrong way in general. The reason he is at the top of my list is a combination of self-preservation and foolinc's claim making it a bad move to lynch him today - provided he has a satisfactory answer to my question.

To comment on the progression Thesp and Tall made, I'd have to go back and see how they moved across my Condorcet today, but I think a lot of it was based on gut feelings piling on top of each other as the day went on. Of course, moving likely innocents or bad lynch choices down the list, means others move up automatically. I think neither made that much of a jump; they were already in the mid-class to begin with.

[Mgm]

Pooky, why aren't you using a Condorcet list anymore?

Seeing myself on the chopping block with a mere 4 votes is depressing, especially if IH is there with me.

If Mgm is scum, Eugenie is most likely a fake claim.

Can you explain why I would pick Eugenie and claim vanilla townie, when I could pick anything my heart desires if I was actually fake-claiming? The first thing you hear in wagons on such players is, "well at least we're not killing a power role". If I was really fake claiming, I'd pick something that gives the town an incentive to keep me around.

[Mgm]

Based on the Condorcet, I can safely assume I'm screwed unless some miraculous changes happen in the next 5 minutes. Please take a very close look at IH and CES tomorrow.

Also, start by reaching an actual lynch majority tomorrow, so you don't have to rely on those crappy Condorcet decisions.

Bah.