Mini 904 - Narnia: LWW Mafia (Game Over)

[MadCrawdad]

/confirm

[MadCrawdad]

vote: kikuchiyo

that avatar's obviously meant to be a distraction...

[MadCrawdad]

Dammit .... Oh well what ever

'Dammit' is a bit of a strong reaction, isn't it? Particularly seeing that the ultimate implication is that you don't really care.

[MadCrawdad]

unvote,

vote: Heilograph

for ignoring my earlier question

[MadCrawdad]

I'm really not playing the White Knight card, and I find it to be hypocritical of both of you to be voting for me because I was trying to halt a quicklynch. I don't understand how that is scummy.

The issue is your use of the word

halt

. Claiming that you

halted

a quick-lynch implies that one would have happened had you not acted. That's quite likely not the case.

While unvoting may have

prevented

any quick-lynch from occurring, it didn't necessarily

halt

one. Claiming that unvoting halted a quick-lynch IS a misrepresentation.

@bv310

What are your thoughts on the discussion between Starbuck and Dybeck (and others) regarding whether Starbuck halted a quick-lynch?

[MadCrawdad]

MadCrawdad, post 65: I don't care for your arguing of semantics. Like everything else against Starbuck, this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Then think of it as a clarification, because I'm not arguing semantics.

Honestly, the people posting frequently so far have been relatively good with their styles, and although I did find Starbuck suspicious before, I find the quick L-3 move less odd now.

When did you find Starbuck suspicious? Initially you agreed with her.

Regarding the quick L-3 move, what would you say changed your mind?

---------

As a side note, I'll be V/LA through the weekend.

[MadCrawdad]

I didn't like that she called it scummy to have an L-3, but I didn't like having anyone at L-3 this early, especially in RVS. It just seemed that there was too much opportunity for it to go bad, but Starbuck whiteknight-ing the cause seemed like an attempt to build town cred without having to do anything all that pro-town.

Yeah, but the thing is, it appears that you hopped on her cause

immediately

. And when popular opinion went against her, you reversed course and did a complete 180. That not only seems opportunistic, but wishy-washy as well.

FoS: bv310

----------

Also, would anyone who disagrees with this argue with the proposition that it's actually worked rather well here? I feel like we're getting some decent reads for such a young game.

Agreed. Having something game-related to discuss early definitely beats a long, drawn-out RVS.

[MadCrawdad]

@bv310

As you didn't say anything about it, I'm assuming that you agree with my assessment of your play thus far?

----------

Not voting means you don't think anyone is scummy. At least one person must be scummier than the rest to everyone. Not sharing that information with the town is, well, scummy.

I disagree with saying that it's scummy not to have an actual vote by this point. Not voting may mean that you don't find anyone scummy

enough

to receive a vote, yet. It certainly doesn't mean that one doesn't have any suspects or persons of interest.

unvote

[MadCrawdad]

@bv310

As you didn't say anything about it, I'm assuming that you agree with my assessment of your play thus far?

I went back and tried to reread myself unbiased, and it does seem pretty wishy-washy, even to me. I still think my vote there was right, but putting it back now seems even MORE wishy washy. I'd like to see Star's answers to some questions that have been posed to her before I make up my mind.

Which vote of yours are you referring to as being 'right'?

[MadCrawdad]

vote: bv310

I don't have anything new to bring because I haven't seen anything new to bring. The last couple pages have been rehashing the same basic points. The only new thing in the last two pages has been Dybeck's point on PZ's following, which is good, but not really a whole lot to go on, until PZ responds.

Since you've nothing new to add, how about answering my question from post 139. You said that your "vote there was right," but the thing is, you're currently not voting, and the only other vote you cast was your random vote for manho. As you've not mentioned manho since, you can't be referring to the random manho vote, right?

It definitely looks like you don't really know where your vote is (or has been). Coupled with the seeming opportunism and wishy-washiness pointed out earlier, it makes you a pretty decent candidate for scum.

[MadCrawdad]

Regarding the lurking accusation against Starbuck, in looking through her posts on the site, it appears that she did have things going on IRL. She posted in several game threads that she was busy, and that she'd be catching up soon, etc. She didn't do that here, though, which is of interest because at the time she was specifically being called for lurking.

Given the fact that she was posting in other threads, it would seem likely that she would have at least seen kikuchiyo's lurking accusation, and answered to it...even if to just say 'Busy. Catching up soon'. She did in other threads, so why not here? It does give the appearance of avoidance.

I think that bv310 is a better choice for scum, though. The fact that he immediately jumped on the 'L-3 is bad'

with

Starbuck, but then did a complete reversal when Starbuck caught heat is scummy. He's also avoided direct questions, and looks like he lost track of his vote at some point.

Starbuck has garnered much of the attention so far, but what do others think of bv310?

----------

@Everyone - How does everyone feel about dybeck calling for a claim so early?

I disagree with it. As previously noted L-3 is far from a lynch....L-4 is even further.

[MadCrawdad]

Starbuck has garnered much of the attention so far, but what do others think of bv310?

Like I said, if I had a second vote it would go there.

The thing is, I don't see Starbuck and bv310 as scum together. bv310 jumped on the 'L-3 bad' wagon immediately after Starbuck. That's a pretty risky move for bv310 if they're both scum.

But I'd like anyone AGAINST a massclaim to say so, with a full argument why they think it would be a bad idea.

As mentioned, any safe-claims provided could gum up the works, and leave town power roles out in the open.

[MadCrawdad]

@ Heilograph

I guess somtimes you have to hop on a wagon to get the game moving..

Participation always helps, too.

Well to start off the game is moving here at snail pace. I decided that one way to get somwhere is to put at l-1 and than let the others argue back and forth , while I go back a few pages and try to get better reads on people.

So to move the game along, you put another player in danger (one you hadn’t previously suspected) of being lynched while you went back to catch up?

FoS: Heilograph

----------

@bv310

Rumblebuffin

Are you really trying to claim the most obscure Giant in Narnia as your role? (Yes, I looked it up)

<snip>As for the voting, I haven't voted because I was waiting for a real case to be made. As it is, the case against Starbuck is pretty good, but I think there's a good chance that she's actually just a very lazy townie.

I think I trust Dybeck here. Star's play has just been going down over the course of this day.

VOTE: Starbuck

Note that this is L-1, according to the vote count. You may want to try again on the claim.

You recently said that you didn’t vote Starbuck because you think that there’s a “good chance that she’s actually just a very lazy townie.” But soon after, you trusted dybeck enough to throw your vote on.

Two questions:

1. Why do you trust dybeck as much as you claim?
2. What has recently changed in Starbuck’s play to make you more willing to cast a vote?

@ kikuchiyo

Wolf: A vanilla claim should not stop a lynch. There is no reason for you to have been on the wagon in the first place if you were going to back off a vanilla claim. The reason for claiming before lynch(especially on day 1) is to help town avoid hitting a power role. Your unvote due to claim is noted. Saying "her role makes sense to me," is a giant cop out. So basically, anyone getting lynched can search the wiki for a name and you will believe them? Does not compute. I agree, however, in further discussion so converse away.

You were calling for Starbuck’s claim at L-4. Had Starbuck issued her VT claim then would it have made a difference?

----------

@ dybeck

BTW Bv310 is not the scum you're looking for.

Why do you believe that dybeck?

Ditto.

[MadCrawdad]

BTW Bv310 is not the scum you're looking for.

I really can't say I'm seeing it so well myself right now either. Manho's defense of Star is noted as well, mostly for being a chainsaw.

Just because dybeck doesn't see it, or have you got your own reasons?

----------

Madcrawdad: Somewhat of an unfair question but I'll answer. <snip>

Unfair, how?

----------

Manho, if you want Starbuck lynched why haven't you switched your vote yet? You defended her, then abruptly switch to "we need to lynch her", so why hasn't your vote changed? Trying to bus from your scumbuddy without putting her back at L-1?

Your refusal to answer several questions I've asked of you has been noted.

[MadCrawdad]

@wolf, i don't see the reason behind starbuck's wagon strong enought, and think that was a scum-pushed wagon, so my initial suspicious go to dybeck. but then find that the starbuck lynch is very informative, and starbuck is still neutral in my scum list, so decide to lynch her. i didn't say we need starbuck lynch quickly, and i'm still waiting for a case from her before her lynch.

The problem with your plan is that you look to be setting yourself up to smell like a rose no matter how Starbuck flips...

If you hammer and she's scum, you've nailed scum...

If you hammer and she's town, it apparently gives you ammunition to go after another player, even though you're the one who hammered someone you didn't find scummy.

Please clarify if I've gotten something wrong.

[MadCrawdad]

I see that lots went on yesterday. I won't be able to read up and post, however, until late tomorrow night, at the earliest.

[MadCrawdad]

I'd be quite suspicious of a vanilla Susan myself.

I guess my other post didnt submit

Vote: Starbuck

We should wait for sufficient time for a counterclaim before the hammer vote though.

As far as waiting for a counterclaim, I suspect that we won't be seeing any Rumblebuffin VT counterclaims.

While I'm willing to hammer Starbuck by deadline, to ensure a lynch, I encourage folks to take another look at bv310. The guy has:

1. Jumped on the 'L-3 is bad' immediately after Starbuck ->

opportunistic

2. Immediately backed off 'L-3 is bad' when Starbuck caught heat for it ->

wishy-washy

3. Avoids answering direct questions from multiple players
4. Admittedly votes Starbuck because he 'trusts dybeck' ->

following

[MadCrawdad]

It would likely have ended that way anyway, but he appeared simply to finish of starbuck, and didn't participate prior to that.

Par for the course with RBT. He should participate today, though. Day 1 is always wifomic and uncertain.

If the Beaver's were a vig kill, I would ask the vig to come forward. Dybaeck had a few detractors yesterday, so I don't see scum hitting him, unless they picked up the mason crumb.

If anyone doesn't think vig should come forward, speak now or hold your piece.

This is an odd conclusion to jump to, kiku. IMO for the town to try to figure motives for NKs opens a

huge

can of wifom, that frequently leads to confusion.

You say that "Day 1 is always wifomic and uncertain." Why would you feel differently when it comes to trying to figure motives for N1 kills?

For now,

VOTE:Kiku

, because I think Star was probably going down the right track at the point of who was scum.

Starbuck also went after dybeck and bv, so to just say she was going down the right track, now that she's flipped town, is probably not wise. Any other reasons that you like kiku?

[MadCrawdad]

@Mac: "Unless they picked up the mason crumb" makes it sound like it was rather unapparent that dybeck had pretty clearly said "Mason partner here". Why did kiku shed doubt on the rather easy read of that?

I don't know that she did shed doubt on it, but if that's what was triggering your scumdar, why did you not ask it of

her

? Seems odd that you'd just claim to be blindly following Starbuck, if this recent issue was weighing on your mind.

You say that "Day 1 is always wifomic and uncertain." Why would you feel differently when it comes to trying to figure motives for N1 kills?

Not sure what this is asking. I suggested that a vig come forward if they killed Beaver. Either noone claims the kill, or someone claims the kill. If someone claims the kill it may help us piece together what is going on under the cover of night. What's the issue with my question? I need clarification here.

The issue is that it looks like you're cautioning Narninian against going into a pool of wifom, but then dive in yourself. Why?

Trying to figure out any motives for the NK likely opens more doors leading into wifom than it closes. Meaning a greater possibility for confusion, not less.

[MadCrawdad]

I'm not going to push the issue.

manho: Were you roleblocked?

I'm not nuts about this line of questioning, Kiku. In post 420 below, you were all for manho keeping his role hush-hush for the benefit of the town, but it's starting to look like you're into some serious role-fishing.

FoS: kikuchiyo

I guess I must be really dense. How does WIFOM help the town and why wouldn't the scum kill him regardless of what he can do?

Hypothetically, lets say manho is Susan. Let's say Susan is a power role. Let's say manho says "I'm doc". Now scum can be fairly confident that manho can be killed. Thus they most likely submit "NK: Manho."

Let's say manho says: "I'm cop." Now scum can look elsewhere to find a possible doc, knowing that manho will most likely draw protection from the doc. Or, mafia might have a watcher and submit, "Watch: Manho."

By not revealing his power, manho forces scum to make their night action decisions off of speculation rather than facts. Which would you rather have: the chance of a muffed nk/mafia action, or a map to victory for scum?

[MadCrawdad]

I was asking for clarification. Thats not role fishing. He said "no," to results. If he was roleblocked then that could prove to be valuable information to town. Lame accusations are not going to help find scum. How does my question help scum? If manho is telling the truth then scum knows it. They also know whether or not they roleblocked him. Therefore asking for an answer does not give scum any more information than they would otherwise already have imo.

More later.

Lame accusations? You started D2 by proposing that dybeck likely wasn't killed by scum, and suggesting that the vig come out for confimation. Now you're asking into manho's night actions. These are places that a town-aligned player shouldn't be digging.

To illustrate, let's just say that dybeck was vig killed (although I don't believe he was). This could mean, that for some reason, scum didn't get a kill last night...right? There could be several reasons as to why that occurred, one of them being that other town-aligned players' night actions came into play. Start picking it apart in the thread, and who knows what info could be gleaned by scum.

If you truly thought that dybeck wasn't killed by scum, this would have had to cross your mind. Why are you so intent on digging there?

[MadCrawdad]

Why are you so intent on digging there?

I'm not going to push the issue.

Noone has to reveal anything they don't want to. "Intent" is a mischaractyerization of my stance.

Okay. Then why do you seem so eager to go there?

I'd like some PZ.

Rowr.

Not impressed by snail's post.

You seem to have issues with his predecessor also, as evilsnail drew your early vote on D2 (before he even posted). What initially drew your vote to Sibelius/evilsnail?

[MadCrawdad]

Okay. Then why do you seem so eager to go there?

Again, saying I am "eager" is a mischaracterization. Does Narninian's recent post indicate that he is "eager" to know what ISO means? No. He is asking a question. I asked a question. When HH said he didn't think it was a good idea, I acquiesced and explained that I would not push the issue. I have not pushed the issue. Where does this interpretation of my behavior as "eager" or "intent" come from? Again, what other lines of questioning would you like to pursue? If mine are not beneficial, then where would you like to start?

Eager, because you didn't drop it entirely. You may have changed direction slightly, but you were still heading down the same path in any follow-up.

Here's a question:

Did scum try and stay off the radar yesterday while town tore itself apart?

With three townies(two confirmed) to choose from, do you think scum would have been more or less active yesterday? Was there any behavior around the wagons which you found suspect and which you feel clearly demonstrates scum behavior? If so, what was it and why is it scummy?

I'll be putting some thoughts together, here. It may take a day or two.

Opportunistic hammer? Hammering with hours before the deadline is anything BUT opportunistic. Also, I'm liking what I see from Kiku a bit more now than yesterday.

Unvote; FoS:Kiku

Would it be possible for you to provide specifics....on anything?

FoS: Riceballtail

[MadCrawdad]

You three: Votes or scumlists. TIA.

I've currently got an FoS on kikuchiyo and riceballtail.

I'll have more to say later today or tonight.

[MadCrawdad]

In starting to look through the Day 1 wagon on Starbuck, I think that there are some activities that make kiku a pretty good candidate for scum.

Early on D1, Starbuck begins catching flack for her “L-3 is bad” statement. Kiku comes out defending Starbuck, not only saying that Starbuck’s actions weren’t a scumtell, but saying that she found them to be more of a town tell.

Post 67

Last time I played with Starbuck I thought her AtE's were scummy, but unless she is putting it on to build meta(in which case its null), I find it to be more of a town tell. Either way, its not a scumtell.

Unvote

Bye bye RVS.

Here still defending, saying that she doesn’t see any scum motivation behind Starbuck’s actions.

Post 73

Sorry, Starbuck, rereading and I realize you're not using AtE. What I am referring to is the emotional tone I am reading in your posts. The "Why are you suspicious of me?" attitude. Your posts sound alot like our game where we went at it over role pms. Null tell for me at best. Though I don't think L-3 is dangerous in RVS, I agree that you overreacted a bit. To me, that's an emotional move. The only other explanation is scum motivation. But I don't see it.

bv310 post 69 is good. We shouldn't let inactives slide by. If I remember correctly, RBT is going to lurk regardless of alignment. I'll start by asking for some more content from that slot before I vote.

Now here after dybeck requests a vote and commitment from kiku, she’s responds that she’s still not seeing Starbuck actions as worthy of a vote.

Post 117

How about some input from you? And how about that vote I suggested you make? Any reason you're not committing?

I am participating as I see fit. Which vote are you suggesting I make? I am not sold on Starbuck as scum. I see no reason to "commit" to anything at this point.

I am a bit confused at where RBT is going with his questioning of manho. I don't disagree with the reasons players are voting for Starbuck(PZ's makes sense), but meta tells me to overlook her for now. Let's here Grandi's take.

Ten posts later, after seemingly defending Starbuck for most of the day, kiku now casts a vote for her, not because she finds Starbuck’s previous actions scummy, but because Starbuck has been absent.

Okay. So maybe she wanted to apply a little pressure to Starbuck, but why? She didn’t find Starbuck’s actions scummy to this point.

Post 127

PZ: I never implied or said I was giving anyone "carte blanche". The previous exchange was reminiscent to me of a similar argument involving Starbuck in another game where I convinced myself she was scum. That is why I have been ignoring it.

However, she now seems to be avoiding this thread.

Vote: Starbuck

This next post is interesting, because by the time kiku posts this, Starbuck still hasn’t reappeared. Yet kiku mentions that she’s got plans to move her vote when Starbuck reappears.

If she was just looking to pressure Starbuck in post 127, it doesn’t make sense that she’d even be considering moving without having heard from Starbuck. And when applying pressure to another player, saying that you’re looking to move before hearing from them kind of helps take the pressure off.

If post 143 reflects how kiku apparently felt about her Starbuck vote, her initial vote doesn’t even make sense, unless she was just looking for a place to step onto the wagon. I think this is a really telling post.

Post 143

I think bv310 will draw my next vote. I'm not moving until we get a little Starbuck in here...

Here in post 146 (3 posts later) Starbuck reappears. Claims that she hadn’t been avoiding the thread, answers questions, and delivers some pointed observations about kiku (and some other players).

Post 146

It's been a crazy couple of days with work. My apologies all. It's eval time for my rank in the Navy.

On Papa Zito

However, you drummed up fear by announcing you were worried about a quicklynch.

Further, you simultaneously announced you were saving us from said danger by unvoting and calling attention to the problem.

It's like when Clorox runs TV ads showing telephones (literally) crawling with germs, then shows how wonderful their product is at killing said germs. Drum up the hype, drum up sales.

I can see a scum player doing this to earn townie cred.

Hopefully that's crystal clear now.

Wow. Reaching much. Can you provide specific examples for each of those accusations?

On dybeck

I'm not sure I'd be entirely unhappy about a kikuchiyo wagon, either.

I'd sincerely like to see her vote, and to give a sincere justification for her choice, for starters.

You say that in Post 106, and she voted in here.

Do you feel it was sincere?

Starbuck. I'm calling you on your lurking. Get back in here and talk to the town, please.

You've obviously never played with me and know that the only reason that I'll won't be around is because work picked up in some way or another.

For the record, for all of you, I am active duty in the United States Navy. I can't spend my entire work day on the computer and some days, I'm just too plain exhausted to stay awake at night and catch up. But for the most part, I think I'm one of the most active players when it comes to my games.

Do me a favor and check out some of my previous games for my normal amount of activity before you decide to call me out on anything. I do everything in my power to not be a lurker because I despise lurkers. I definitely take great offense to being called one, and I'm willing to bet that someone is going to use this in their "case" on me, but I honestly don't care because most people who have prior experience with me know my opinion about lurkers and know my normal activity level.

Unfortunately though, sometimes my job and life gets in the way of my activity here and I can't control that. So why don't you do a little background checking before you start slinging a word like lurker at me.

On kikuchiyo

So you say the following in Post 117:

I am participating as I see fit. Which vote are you suggesting I make? I am not sold on Starbuck as scum. I see no reason to "commit" to anything at this point.

I don't disagree with the reasons players are voting for Starbuck(PZ's makes sense), but meta tells me to overlook her for now.

Then you go ahead and vote in Post 127, while saying the following:

However, she now seems to be avoiding this thread.

Quite a fast turn around with a bit of opportunism, don't cha think?

My apologies for my job taking priority over my mafia game on the internet.

If you do a profile search of my posts, you'll see that the only thing I've done mafia wise in the past few days was set up the game I'm modding. I've had to leave my games by the wayside.

On Grandi

I can understand if you would rather have other ways out of RVS, but i would really like to hear from everyone against a random wagon why they think that's scummy.
Also, Starbuck, a lot of games on this site start with random wagons. You must have come across a couple if you really played 30ish games here. Do you always respond this way, or is there something especially scummy here? Links/examples of you reaction to random wagons this way please. Also, people who played with her before, have you seen her react like this before?

A lot of games start with random wagons? They may start with random wagons, but normally don't get up to L-3 barely off the 1st page.

You've never played with me before I'm guessing. No, I don't always respond this way. I saw something, and I didn't like it and I said something about it. Apparently though, others are taking it as a scumtell.

And no offense, but I'm really not going through my 30+ games to appease you. If you want to read my meta, feel free, but I'm not gonna do your homework for you. If that leads to my lynch, so be it.

I can see absolutely no reason for a townie to react the way SB did, trying to "stop the quicklynch". The only thing i can come up with is if she thought the wagon would go straight to lynch, and i simply can't believe that someone who played 30ish games here believes there is a chance a random wagon without a case or anything is in danger of being lynched when it is at L-3

There's no reason for me to believe that it couldn't happen. You are so absolute in this. It bothers me.

Any semi-decent player could see there was no danger of lynching there, and if there was it would only be good as it exposes scum.

Not a fan of your ad hom.

On bv310

So far, Starbuck and PZ are the most scummy to me. I think my opinion of Starbuck right now is more just based on eveybody else's reactions to her.

So you aren't going to bring anything new to the table? That's awesome!

Now here, a few posts later, kiku confirms her vote on Starbuck, and that’s that. Why? Because Starbuck claimed that she wasn’t avoiding the thread?

In this post, kiku claims that she did all sorts of checking on Starbuck’s activity before voting her. Okay, fine. So if that’s the case, why again was she already getting ready to move her vote in 143, before hearing from Starbuck? If she really felt that strongly about Starbuck’s activity, post 143 seems illogical to me.

Post 151

Starbuck: How is giving you three days to respond to pressure before voting you a "quick" turnaround? You posted an accusation at bv310 on Sat. Jan 12 at 12 PM(my time). You came back today.

In between you posted to this site 19 times in at least six different threads. Of those 19 posts onlny 5 were in the game you are modding. You also posted every single day. I checked that before I voted you. Its why I voted you: because from my pov you have been "ignoring" this thread.

Thank you for serving our country. My vote stays.

vote: kikuchiyo

IMO post 143 shows that kiku was just looking for a place to get on the Starbuck wagon, even after defending her early in the day. Coupled with her role-fishing early D2, I feel there’s a pretty good chance that kiku is scum.

[MadCrawdad]

Madcraw: Nice summary of my posts. You even pointed out where I made my "pressure" vote, and then where it turned into a real vote. 143 was posted before I checked up on Starbuck's actions. I voted her to pressure her to get back into the game. Then she said:

If you do a profile search of my posts, you'll see that the only thing I've done mafia wise in the past few days was set up the game I'm modding. I've had to leave my games by the wayside.

So, I did a profile search and turned up the FACT that she had posted only five times in her modded game and made fourteen other posts in several other games. She was never able to reconcile this LIE. Her play spiraled downward from there imo.

Read post 151 again. You said that you checked her activity

before

you voted.

Starbuck: How is giving you three days to respond to pressure before voting you a "quick" turnaround? You posted an accusation at bv310 on Sat. Jan 12 at 12 PM(my time). You came back today.

In between you posted to this site 19 times in at least six different threads. Of those 19 posts onlny 5 were in the game you are modding. You also posted every single day.

I checked that before I voted you.

Its why I voted you: because from my pov you have been "ignoring" this thread.

Thank you for serving our country. My vote stays.

[MadCrawdad]

Sorry. Yes. I checked to see that she was posting and not gone from the site. That's why I voted her. She seemed to be ignoring the thread. It wasn't a lynchable issue until she LIED about her whereabouts. I didn't actually count and divide her posts until she made her claim of

only

posting in her modded game.

I voted her for "ignoring" the thread. She said she wasn't. That was a lie. Therefore the "pressure" vote turned into a "serious" vote.

Had she come back with a believable excuse I would have unvoted her. Had she said, "Sorry for ignoring the thread, I just wanted to see some reactions to my wagon, here is my analysis." Then That would have made sense to me. She claimed to not have time for mafia and yet she was consistently posting in several threads.

But if you're truly looking to apply pressure, doesn't announcing a future target before hearing from her remove that pressure?

----------

I read back through and I'm not seeing much to change my mind here.

Crawdad, is RBT still your #2?

Yes. I'm not liking the way he's continually popping in with one-liners, parroting others, and not explaining any of the thoughts behind his conclusions.

----------

unvote, vote Narnian

I was trying to see who would put Evil at L-1 thinking that one of Evil's partners wouldn't hammer as much as just get on teh wagon at L-1. When Narnian voted after me I thought I had a partner, now I am just thinking I have a scum and Evil himself has dropped to a neutral zone for me. I believe Narnian's latest post to be what has changed my mind:

I have to admit my play has been a bit lazy today. I ended up with a lurker vote and then an OMGUS vote because there was a wagon there. Day 2 should have more evidence out there than that.

Alot of RL stuff going on, but Ill certainly look more closely to see if I can find better conculusions.

He excuses himself for being lazy, then admits his vote against me was purely lurker, and then his Evil vote was just OMGUS

because there was a wagon there

. He put a person at L-1, and Evil could have very well claimed a PR because Narnian placed what he called an OMGUS vote on him, what townie would place a OMGUS vote on someone bringing them to L-1, and especially just because there is a wagon there? None that I know of.

Definitely odd. IMO someone being lazy would be more likely to do nothing, as opposed to doing something rash, such as putting another player at L-1 for no real reason. Looking forward to Narninian's response.