Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[AurorusVox]

Whoops, I didn't subscribe to this topic >_< Have now though...

Lurking may seem to be a mafia tactic, but the fact that we revealed this in the thread means that now it's safer to say that active lurking is a mafia tactic. After all, no scum in his right state of mind would lurk after hearing people say "lurking is for scums."
And it's always gonna be useless for a townie, that's for sure.

Hopefully, now we've commented on the lurking, none of the Mafia will do it, and none of the town will be foolish enough to do so, promoting more discussion.

Do not make any assumptions. Saying that "no scum in his right state of mind would lurk" induces what is known as WIFOM; because scum have seen you saying that no scum will lurk, they may now be able to lurk and use your line of defence that "no scum will lurk".

I thought I'd begin by saying a hello to everyone. I live in Essex (uk) and have just completed an Enlgish Lit degree at Birmingham Uni and am now one of the many unemployed youths living in Britain struggling to find a job.

! I've just finished an English Lit degree at York Uni


----

My argument that Aurorus was trying to stifle discussion completely was not joking. It was a rather strong accusation given the information available, but it was a possible explanation for his behaviour. In fact, it's an explanation I still believe possible.

Our desires to wait for a full compliment of players is one that is down to personal preference. I can see that it's been complicated by my miscounting of players (I thought I was the sixth player to confirm), but also by my stricter adherence to wanting (almost) all players rather than a simple majority. To explain why eight instead of seven (if seven, why not six? if six, why not five? still a majority, right?); if only seven players have confirmed, then it's entirely possible that neither of the scum have confirmed yet (improbable, but not impossible). If we start discussion without them, and they don't confirm for a few days (worse case scenario, I know) then we could spend a few days chasing ghosts.

You think that I want to continue stifling discussion throughout the day because I've posted theory related discussions and questions? Okay, you may say I'm at fault for this, but most of the game thus far has been game-theory related. We're only a couple of days in, and I personally like to spend the first few days getting an idea of how players say they think about the game. That way, I can cross check that with their actual behaviour. If people say "I hate lurkers, they must be scum" but then fail to vote for a lurker, something's up. But it also helps us introduce new terms for the newer players (such as the distinction between "lurking" and "active lurking")

Aurorus, on the other hand, flat out stated that he wouldn't discuss till everyone had confirmed. He was guilty of stifling discussion, Valkyrie was not.

I flat out stated that

I

would wait. I said I didn't want to RVS and I said I didn't want to discuss things until confirmation was over. I said I thought it was rude to not wait (which is a matter of opinion). I suggested "we should probably" wait; I didn't flat out demand that.


-----

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.


But I'm in a quandry at the moment because there's also this:

[This is my first attempt at inquisition]
@ 2k3 - although your last post was meant to be helpful (of which I'm thankful) it was also, like your post before that at 2:22, full of excessive clarification- "That's what I do, but you don't have to do it" appears to me like you're too ready to cover your ground and justify what you say. Is your over garrulous behaviour because a) its simply how you are or the way you write? b) because you know that, in this game generally, people are always ready to pounce on an unjustified answer? or c) because you have some exceedingly scummy business to hide? x

Do you think that the post you are referring to (#37) is really all that scummy? I.e. do you think that what 2k3 said in that post ("That's what I do; you don't have to") shows legitimate signs of him being mafia? Afterwards it seems like you're back-peddling from any accusations you made, so I wonder if you never really thought he was scum. I'd like to get an idea of how strong your sense of him being mafia was when you made that post, because it looks as though you could be clutching at straws to appear to be scumhunting and to appear to be pro-town.


So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

Quote tag fixed ~ Hayl

Other Quote tag fixed, too ~ Hayl

[AurorusVox]

^ apologies for the screwed up quote tags

[Akira]

Heh, Akira-Kira, I hope there'll be a Death Note mafia running after this one.

@Aurorus: Don't believe I wasn't aware of that. I simply didn't point it out in my post because I wanted scums to fall for it and start lurking. But you pointed it out now, so it's become redundant. Regarding your vote, I must say that I agree that 2k3's style of play is very cautious, silent, and not particularly contributing to the scumhunt.

But I thought it was quite peculiar that you started by defending 2k3 against BAZZ's accusation and ended up voting for him. Are you voting for your fellow scum believing that no one will do the same? Are you trying to avoid the fact that you and 2k3 are on the same side? I need an explanation.

Oh, and is unvoting nothing more than canceling your previous vote?

[AurorusVox]

Ah, I'm sorry if I ruined your sneaky plan!

I wouldn't say I defended 2k3 against BAZZ's accusations; I would say that I questioned Bazz about his accusations because I think that they were pretty weak (it's a matter of focus; my focus with my questions to Bazz were aimed at getting a response out of him about his actions, not about defending 2k3). And just because I don't necessarily believe in Bazz's accusation of 2k3, that doesn't make my own reasons for voting for 2k3 any less relevant. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that I was in two minds about who to vote for (this is what I meant when I said I was in a quandry) Maybe I could have left it with a FoS aimed at them both, but I prefer voting to FoSing.

I'd also like to point out that my suspicion of Bazz is going to come from his reaction to my question, whereas my suspicion of 2k3 was already in the posts he had made. Until Bazz responds, I am happy to vote for my other suspect at the moment.

I don't see why me questioning Bazz on his reasons would make anyone else less likely to vote 2k3, when there are scummier things that he has done. While we're on the subject, what do you think about BAZZ's accusations?

Moreover, there is no reason why I can't follow two disparate threads of attack at the same time (questioning someone, and then questioning the person who is also questioning them). If I only focused on one person at a time, I would be missing out on the opportunity to question different people as they make posts that interest me. As for being on the same side, I do not know whether 2k3 is town (and thus on the same side as me ) but equally I do not

know

that he's scum - the important thing is that I can always change my vote. But he has behaved the most suspiciously in my opinion thus far, and so has received my vote.


And yes, unvoting is just that, you remove the vote you previously made.

[zauper]

Sorry about that, had a busy Sunday.

In any case -- I posted largely to get discussion going; I had no real 'purpose' in mind, as you could tell. Random voting (you'll note I didn't vote) doesn't get anywhere anyway.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

Re: Guybrush; I'll get an avatar later today, haven't had a chance to do that yet.

AurorusVox: If you are questioning Bazz about his accusation, why are you supporting his accusation by voting for 2k3?

[AurorusVox]

Zauper, please see my more detailed response to the very same question in the post just above yours.

TL;dr version:

I disagree with his reasons for suspecting 2k3. But I don't disagree with his suspicion of 2k3.


Now I have a question for you: why ask a question that has already been answered?

[ooBAZZoo]

Do you think that the post you are referring to (#37) is really all that scummy? I.e. do you think that what 2k3 said in that post ("That's what I do; you don't have to") shows legitimate signs of him being mafia?

No, I didn't think the content of the post was particulalrly scummy, rather that (as I have stated) his style

could

be an indication of something to hide. You said so yourself that he is the most suspicious.

Afterwards it seems like you're back-peddling from any accusations you made

If I appeared to be back-peddling it was for two reasons. Firstly, his response did not totally alliviate my suspicion, but I thought it was sufficient for me not to persue it further at this time. Secondly, after re-reading the thread, I realised I'd started making accusations at someone who had tried to help me. Although there's no place for pleasentries in this game, I did feel pretty bad (although this wont affect my voting him later down the line if I have any more reason to believe he is scum).

If it feels like I'm clutuching at straws its because I probably am, but because I'm new to the game, not because I'm trying to appear pro-town when I'm not. x

[zauper]

Zauper, please see my more detailed response to the very same question in the post just above yours.

TL;dr version:

I disagree with his reasons for suspecting 2k3. But I don't disagree with his suspicion of 2k3.


Now I have a question for you: why ask a question that has already been answered?

I don't believe you answered it very well. Largely, you said "I have other reasons to be suspicious of 2k3" without disclosing them. If you felt that 2k3 were scum, it doesn't make sense to me for you to be questioning folks that are questioning 2k3. Do you think that the scum would roll on each other this early?

Why do you think 2k3 is scum?

[Guybrush]

@Guybrush: I'll probably be breaking your rule about not interfering from time to time, especially when a question is worded accusingly. Especially later in the game, the defense of the accused isn't nearly as important as the opinions of other players. After all, the accused won't be the one deciding to lynch him.

Just to sum it up - I have no problem with interfering. I have a problem with interfering

before getting the initial reaction

from the defendant. As soon as we get his real reaction, you may interfere all you want.
An example would be my screw-up.
Aurorus in post #50 used "I flat out stated that

I

would wait" argument. Notice how he put an emphasis on "I". The same argument I used in my #34. So I kinda broke my own rule, which I'll try not to do again.
But again - I'm not expecting 100% sticking with the rule. As long as people keep it in mind and try their best, it'll be good. (It happened in 2\3 my games, so it's quite common.)

To explain why eight instead of seven (if seven, why not six? if six, why not five? still a majority, right?); if only seven players have confirmed, then it's entirely possible that neither of the scum have confirmed yet (improbable, but not impossible). If we start discussion without them, and they don't confirm for a few days (worse case scenario, I know) then we could spend a few days chasing ghosts.

Aurorus recursive explanation noted. I use it all the time.
Since you used both "all" and "majority" terms, I was expecting you to defend with an "Sorry. My bad. I meant all.", or "I meant majority."
I wasn't expecting a supermajority hybrid. When you included the magic number 8, I felt like you were trying to over-rationalize your previous actions, which can be scummy tactics. But I'm satisfied with this explanation.

I'm not accusing him, I was merely asking why

he

decided to post about waiting for confirmations. Then I went on to clarify my position, much like I asked him to do.
As I already explained in the quote, it seemed odd for Zauper to start a discussion with no one. I said it, because in a game I was playing on a different site, the game never got out of the confirmation stage. This is my first game on this site, so I had no idea if something similar might happen. Regarding the 'are you now saying you wanted to wait for 2 people', of course I didn't mean two people, I meant wait for a few more, maybe 4 or 5 more, to bring it up to a majority
I don't think true discussion should start in the confirmation phase, outside of questions such as, 'How many games have you played before?' type questions, to break the ice between players so people get to know each other.

When you say "Aurorus did seem like he was trying to stifle discussion", that's implying that he's scum. Which is an accusation.
But you did ask for an explanation, so let's focus on something else I have in mind.

So, to conclude (correct me if I'm wrong):
-He thinks there shouldn't be true discussion during confirmation phase
-You think there shouldn't be true discussion during confirmation phase
-His statement could be interpreted as an suggestion to others (by example: I'm not discussing. -> Look up to me.)
-You said you meant it as an suggestion to others as well ("I meant wait for a few more, maybe 4 or 5 more")

So what's your take on Michel's noting Aurorus suggestion, but not yours? (in post #12)
Does it look to you like he had double standards? (which I noted in #15)

[AurorusVox]

@Zaup; my own reasons were already stated earlier:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.

...

So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

And just because someone is questioning the same person as me doesn't mean I can't question them. Otherwise, all scum would have to do to avoid questions from a certain player would be to question the same person that they were questioning.

[zauper]

@Zaup; my own reasons were already stated earlier:

I need a good reason not to start an RVS and I need somon to persuade me not to start one.

At this stage, do you think that any vote you make will be random? Would your vote not be placed on the most scummy player that you can find at the moment? Seems to me like you want to place a vote down but don't want to look too attached to it. This is backed up by your later post (#33) where you say you want to vote with legitimate reasons for the scummiest player, but you have made no efforts to find said scummy player.

...

So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll

vote: 2k3

, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

And just because someone is questioning the same person as me doesn't mean I can't question them. Otherwise, all scum would have to do to avoid questions from a certain player would be to question the same person that they were questioning.

So, the crux of your argument is --

You're voting for 2k3 because you think he's scum since he said he'd vote, and since then hasn't appeared to you to be actively looking for scum? I suppose that's reasonable. He has been active, but hasn't been talking about substance, largely.

Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.

[Akira]

This whole thing between Aurorus and 2k3 can only be clarified by 2k3 himself, so I'll wait until then before accusing one of the two.

I have another thought: is Loaka Mossi lurking? Or is this just inactivity due to personal reasons. His only posts thus far were:

/confirm

I also think that the RVS is pointless, becuase it doesn't start good discussion, and it seems to throw suspicion on townies more often than scum. And when someone is randomly voted for, they can't properly defend themeselves, and end up looking like scum.

Opinions?

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

When you say "Aurorus did seem like he was trying to stifle discussion", that's implying that he's scum. Which is an accusation.
But you did ask for an explanation, so let's focus on something else I have in mind.

So, to conclude (correct me if I'm wrong):
-He thinks there shouldn't be true discussion during confirmation phase
-You think there shouldn't be true discussion during confirmation phase
-His statement could be interpreted as an suggestion to others (by example: I'm not discussing. -> Look up to me.)
-You said you meant it as an suggestion to others as well ("I meant wait for a few more, maybe 4 or 5 more")

So what's your take on Michel's noting Aurorus suggestion, but not yours? (in post #12)
Does it look to you like he had double standards? (which I noted in #15)

It wasn't an accusation. I used the word 'seem' and then I followed up with: 'I don't know if he meant it in that way'. This was meant to provide him with a chance to explain himself and was not an accusation.

I can only answer to the 2 points which concern me, but I believe that, yes, that looks to be correct.

And I do find Michel only commenting on Aurorus suggestion fairly suspicious. If he found enough evidence in Aurorus comment to put a vote on him, then he definitely should have at least questioned me or FoS'd me. He failed to do so and that makes me reasonably suspicious of him. Not quite enough to place a vote on him, but I think it's too early to be voting anyway.

@Akira - The game hasn't been open very long, but it does seem to be an early sign of lurking. I'd give it another day and if we don't hear much more from Loaka then we should prod them into posting.

[Guybrush]

It wasn't an accusation. I used the word 'seem' and then I followed up with: 'I don't know if he meant it in that way'. This was meant to provide him with a chance to explain himself and was not an accusation.

You did a follow up on Michel's post (who was accusing Aurorus), so that's probably why I'm under impression that you accused him as well. But OK, there's no need to discuss that anymore, so I'll drop it.

And I do find Michel only commenting on Aurorus suggestion fairly suspicious. If he found enough evidence in Aurorus comment to put a vote on him, then he definitely should have at least questioned me or FoS'd me. He failed to do so and that makes me reasonably suspicious of him. Not quite enough to place a vote on him, but I think it's too early to be voting anyway.

From my perspective there's a possibility that both you and Michel are scum, which would explain why he didn't scold you for doing the same.
What scenario comes to your mind? Why do you find him suspicious for not mentioning you? You obviously can't have the same concern as I do (which you could publicly share at least ), so let's hear yours.

And what's your comment on Michel's explanation why he mentioned Aurorus and not you? (post #30)
Judging from your previous post, I would say you were not satisfied with his explanation.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

From my perspective there's a possibility that both you and Michel are scum, which would explain why he didn't scold you for doing the same.
What scenario comes to your mind? Why do you find him suspicious for not mentioning you? You obviously can't have the same concern as I do (which you could publicly share at least ), so let's hear yours.

And what's your comment on Michel's explanation why he mentioned Aurorus and not you? (post #30)
Judging from your previous post, I would say you were not satisfied with his explanation.

It would have been an incredibly foolish mistake of a mafia member to do something like that, especially one who is meant to be the IC in this game. I don't think Michel would do something as stupid as outing the scum team, if he is indeed scum, which I believe he could be and is trying to perhaps incriminate me so his scum buddy can slip in with the town while the focus is directed against myself and him.
I believe I gave evidence as to why I found him suspicious. I found it odd how he found enough evidence to place a vote on Aurorus and yet not even ask me a question about doing the exact same thing. Both Aurorus and myself have since defended our actions to a reasonable degree I would say, so I no longer think his vote is valid.
It would help if you would tell me your concern. Is it that myself and Michel are scum? Or is it something else? I really don't get what you want me to 'publicly share', based on the sentence you put that in. Was it in reference to me voicing my concern? If so, why did you ask me to do it twice?

I had to check Michel's response because I couldn't remember it. It seemed like a weak defense. It was merely picking on the wording that Aurorus used and as I said before, I don't think that was worthy of a vote. Though on the other hand, it depends on how people choose to read the posts. Michel could have gotten a different meaning from what everyone else seemed to. I definitely think he needs to retract his vote against Aurorus now though, especially as Aurorus has clarified his position.

One thing I would like to draw attention to is this quote from Michel:

I'm slightly annoyed at players who say Random Voting is bad, but who also don't make any accussations. Can we actually start discussing who is mafia, please? Especially Valkyrie and Loaka seem to be guilty of this.

I draw attention to this because it relates back to the 'incriminating me' that I mentioned earlier. Here he is accusing me of debating over RVS when practically everyone else was as well. He makes it seem as if I'm trying to distract town from trying to find scum. He also mentions Loaka, who, as Akira pointed out, has made very few posts so far, so I don't think Loaka deserved to be put there.
After a hasty and poor defense against why he didn't mention me previously, he now tries to pu forth the idea that I am

now

trying to stifle discussion.

Any thoughts, from anyone?

[Akira]

@Valk: When he said that Valk and Loaka

seem

to be guilty of "this", was he referring to being mafia or to being one of those people who are against RVS yet don't make accusations?

[2003041]

So I see 2k3 saying he wants to vote but then not scumhunting, and I see Bazz looking like he's scumhunting but with no bite behind his play. For now, I'll vote: 2k3, because Bazz could actually be scum-hunting rather than simply trying to look like he's scumhunting.

So even though I posted this comment after Valk's and GuyBrush's...

Like I stated previously, this -is- only my 3rd game ever played and I was one to think RVS started to open discussions more freely and reveal scum later in the game, even if there is a D1 townie lynch. I wouldn't jump as far for an RVS with what GuyBrush gave as a reason for (IE I'm voting for Akira because it sounds like Kira) just because I would try to give a more legitimate rason. I think as soon as more people start talking, we can have a better idea on who to start voting for. I will not start an RVS for this game mainly because I want to lynch someone who really looks suspicious than RVS a townie right off the bat.

...you say that you wanna vote me because I didn't want to RVS? (If I misunderstood, please correct me) They persuaded me not to go ahead with the RVS and instead try and read some early scum-tells. So why is it that you just automatically start voting for me on what may be an RVS? (And sorry about quote, didn't want full wall of text.)

[AurorusVox]

Clearly you can still question multiple people, but at this stage of the game it's not like there's a lot of concrete evidence to go on, so it just seems off to me.

If you think there isn't much to go on, can you blame me for picking up on the two people which had provided things for me to talk about, regardless of their connection to each other?

...you say that you wanna vote me because I didn't want to RVS? (If I misunderstood, please correct me) They persuaded me not to go ahead with the RVS and instead try and read some early scum-tells. So why is it that you just automatically start voting for me on what may be an RVS? (And sorry about quote, didn't want full wall of text.)

Sorry, but you do misunderstand. I'm not voting you because you didn't want to take part in RVS. I'm currently voting for you because you keep saying that you want to vote for someone, but so far you haven't done much scumhunting. You haven't backed your desire to vote with an investigation. It makes it look like you're contributing, whereas in fact you just keep saying that you want to contribute. I'll be happy to retract my vote if you start backing up your talk with actual scumhunting.

[Guybrush]

It would have been an incredibly foolish mistake of a mafia member to do something like that, especially one who is meant to be the IC in this game.

I don't think Michel would do something as stupid as outing the scum team

, if he is indeed scum, which I believe he could be and is trying to perhaps incriminate me so his scum buddy can slip in with the town while the focus is directed against myself and him.

It sure would be a foolish mistake.
What confuses me is that you, of all people - KNOW whether Michel made that mistake or not.
You

know

your alignment.
If you're scum - then you

know

if he's scum and whether he made that mistake of protecting his partner (you).
If you're town - then you

know

that he's not protecting scum (since you're town).
So I'm not sure what thinking you had to do about his intelligence, since you KNOW the answer whether he made the mistake or not.

I still have 2 comments on your previous post, and I'll post them soon.

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

@Valk: When he said that Valk and Loaka

seem

to be guilty of "this", was he referring to being mafia or to being one of those people who are against RVS yet don't make accusations?

He was referring to us being against RVS but not making accusations. He basically said that we were doing the same as he though Aurorus was doing by trying to stifle discussion, yet at that stage everyone was debating over RVS, so I don't know why he singled out us two, especially as Loaka hadn't really made enough posts to justify being accused of distracting the town, unless he was trying to incriminate us, which I commented on in my previous post.

Loaka really needs to post however, so we can start some discussion with them.

It sure would be a foolish mistake.
What confuses me is that you, of all people - KNOW whether Michel made that mistake or not.
You know your alignment.
If you're scum - then you know if he's scum and whether he made that mistake of protecting his partner (you).
If you're town - then you know that he's not protecting scum (since you're town).
So I'm not sure what thinking you had to do about his intelligence, since you KNOW the answer whether he made the mistake or not.

Are you just not reading my posts? I made it abundantly clear, well at least to the best of my ability seeing as how people just have to put trust in others at this early stage of the game, that I'm town, based on the next few lines

in the exact same quote of mine that you used.

That wasn't even the point of my post. My point was that he could have been playing smart by trying to incriminate me. Hell, that was even in the same quote of mine you used. Again, I have to ask are you actually reading my posts? Do I need to word them better?

[AurorusVox]

I made it abundantly clear [...] that I'm town

I'm treading Guybrush's boundary about interfering but this comment is directed at everyone so I'd like to be the first person to say that I take issue with this.

I know I've truncated your quote but I don't think this is a misrep; you can't just clear yourself, and say "I'm obvtown because of x and y" like that. Yes, to you, you may be "clearly town"; but from everyone else's perspectives, it's not so "abundantly clear". If anything, it makes you look scummy. See, now I'm wondering if you could be scum, trying to directly see if people agree that you're townish, enabling you to make a better informed night kill.

Unless my "[...]" has misrepresented your meaning, in which case, please correct me.

[Guybrush]

I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Are you just not reading my posts? I made it abundantly clear, well at least to the best of my ability seeing as how people just have to put trust in others at this early stage of the game, that I'm town, based on the next few lines

in the exact same quote of mine that you used.

Please, don't get upset, there's no need to.
I am reading your posts. And your choice of words raised a giant alarm in my head.
So help me turn it off and we're cool.

I mention the possibility of you and Michel being scum. And that he didn't accuse you because he didn't want to attack his buddy.
You reply - "I think he's smarter than that."
And what do you have to

think

, since you

know

if he was being stupid or not?

It would help if you would tell me your concern. Is it that myself and Michel are scum? Or is it something else? I really don't get what you want me to 'publicly share', based on the sentence you put that in. Was it in reference to me voicing my concern? If so, why did you ask me to do it twice?

Well, here's the thing - there are 3 options what happened:
1. you and him are both scum - he didn't go after his buddy
2. he's scum and you're not
3. the whole thing is irrelevant (he's town, your alignment doesn't matter)

You already stated that you have your concerns about him. Which would mean that you're excluding option no 3.
And my line with a wink smile was exactly the reference to your choices - you can't discuss having the same concern as me (no 1). I can, you can't. So let's hear your option number 2. That was what I meant.

So, yes - you said that you think it's suspicious because he mentioned Aurorus and not you - but you didn't explain to me why would he do it, what would be his motive. Why would evil scum Michel spare innocent Valk? That was what I wanted to hear from you.

One thing I would like to draw attention to is this quote from Michel:

I'm slightly annoyed at players who say Random Voting is bad, but who also don't make any accussations. Can we actually start discussing who is mafia, please? Especially Valkyrie and Loaka seem to be guilty of this.

I draw attention to this because it relates back to the 'incriminating me' that I mentioned earlier. Here he is accusing me of debating over RVS when practically everyone else was as well. He makes it seem as if I'm trying to distract town from trying to find scum. He also mentions Loaka, who, as Akira pointed out, has made very few posts so far, so I don't think Loaka deserved to be put there.
After a hasty and poor defense against why he didn't mention me previously, he now tries to pu forth the idea that I am

now

trying to stifle discussion.

Any thoughts, from anyone?

Well we can rewind if you like:

Michel

-against RVS (#12) -made accusation (#12)

Aurorus

-against RVS (#14) -made mild accusation (#17)

Guybrush

-against RVS (#15) -made mild accusation (#15)

Akira

-against RVS (#16) -made mild accusation (#25)

Valkyrie

-against RVS (#24) -haven't made accusations

LoakaMossi

-against RVS (#28) -haven't made accusations

Then Michel comments this in his #30.

So at least he was consistent this time.
You and LoakaMossi were the only ones who stated disliking RVS, but haven't actually accused anyone.
It's a fact as I see it.
Whether his comment was in the right place, that's another story.
I got the impression it's artificial and a bit rushed.
I agree with

what

he's saying, but I don't agree with

when

he said it.
For starters - he said it on the first day of this game. You can't expect 6 people to make 6 accusations on the first day.
And also - he made that comment after I accused him of protecting you. And now he accused you for something else I feel was very, very rushed.
As if he just wanted to say - "I can get rough with Valk too, we're not partners - I promise.".
So I don't see the incrimination you mention. Maybe others do.

[ooBAZZoo]

Although the discussion is a bit over my head, I'd like to add what struck me about your post Valk.

... seeing as how people just have to put trust in others at this early stage of the game, that I'm town ...

I disagree. I assume that in the early stages of the game it is important to put trust in nobody and maintain a degree of suspicion about everyone. It appears to me that you are overly eager for people to 'trust you'. Whether that's an indication of you being mafia I'm not quite sure, but it makes me highly suspicious. Also (in the same post) you seemed quite defensive. x

[AurorusVox]

I see the potential for incrimination, but to explain it, I'd have to answer your question aimed at Valk regarding option 2. (Although, I think you'll find that his argument of "incrimination" is, actually, his answer to your question...)

But perhaps it would help for me to explain it from an outsider's perspective? I think he's already explained what he means.

[Haylen]

Vote Count

AVox: Michel
2003: AVox

Not Voting: LoakaMossi; Akira; zauper; Valkyrie_Hrist; ooBAZZoo; 2003041; Guybrush

Jeeze, i nearly started writing cases there >.<