California Trilogy - Dantès in Fresno (Game Over!)

[Gaspar]

Is anyone worried that tiering innocence rather than to guilt will help scum line up a few targets that they would like to take out if a large amount of people find them innocentish rather than less guilty.

I say this to perhaps suggest we should take off our no-read/inconclusive/innocents from our Condorcet lists (ie lump all 3 of those in 1 category). I say this because from experience if people stress that they feel one player is innocent, and that player is, then scum are often more likely to hit them. Barring other circumstances.

I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Most of the time, players have well-defined opinions of at least a couple of players near the end of days. And in general, I would speculate that not talking about a player means no-read or near-neutral (anywhere from slightly scummy to slightly protown). Scums may not have detailed, person-by-person lists, but they know the top suspicions, usually the biggest protown suspicions, and they can tell who is flying under the gun. When you stop and think about it, I don't think we're giving out hardly any more information than in a game with a normal voting system.

[xyzzy]

but I don't think it's a huge issue

Nothing is EVER "Not a huge issue". I don't think you're scum from this, but please don't ever suggest that some possible analysis isn't important. Doing that hands that particular component of the game to the mafia, and we need to keep them from getting ANYWHERE.

[Mr. Grey]

Deadline:

Approximately 38 hours from this post.

Vote Count:

11 to lynch.

Battle Mage/jeep: 4 (Cogito Ergo Sum, Dragon Phoenix, LoudmouthLee, Mgm)
LoudmouthLee: 4 (Cubsfan4ever, IH/Oman, Skruffs, Thesp)
Cubsfan4ever: 3 (foolinc, PookyTheMagicalBear, Talitha)
Dragon Phoenix: 3 (Adele, Battle Mage/jeep, Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels)
foolinc: 1 (Tamuz/Thestatusquo)
IH/Oman: 1 (logicticus)
Gaspar/PlaysWithSquirrels: 1 (xyzzy)
Skruffs: 1 (VitaminR)
xyzzy: 1 (Zindaras)

Current Condorcet Winner:

None. Current Smith Set: Battle Mage/jeep, LoudmouthLee

To view the complete table of pairwise results, put this information in this form.

Important Note:

When compiling Condorcet lists, I am treating unvotes as a complete reset of the list. If you wish to retain the same (or similar) list when unvoting or changing your vote, please post another copy of the list.

[Mgm]

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

[Dragon Phoenix]

Alright, this will have to do for me until the deadline strikes. I have seen nothing in the last few days that moved me away from my main choices as scum candidates. I will therefore not change my vote, nor my condorcet ranking.

Two posts that begged reaction.

What?!?!? Scum will only do pro-scum stuff that they don't realize is pro-scum. If they do stuff that they think is pro-scum, they are stupid. This has got to be the most backwards thing I've read in a LONG time.

If this were true, there'd be no way to differentiate between townies and scum when it comes to scummy actions as both would have to be unaware of the (pro-scum) consequences of their scummy actions.

ROFL.
When I read Jeep's bit, I agreed: scum don't do stuff that makes them look scummy on purpose, duuuh.
When I read CES's bit, I agreed: scum do do stuff that'll help them achieve their WC, duuuh.
Have I adequately summarised your positions? I think that might be a disagreement caused by confusion over the meaning of "pro-scum".


-and now for something completely different-

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.

I've been looking over the DP's posts. Does he state explicitly that he knows there are definately two families? No. If he were, we wouldn't be here. He'd be claiming or under near-lynch bandwagon or in a very tentative spot indeed.

What has he said, then?

The following are from DP's 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th posts.

DP, no offense meant, but you are still stuck on page five.

Cubsfan4ever: Few posts and short - consisting of nothing more than some defence of Skruffs. I maintain that he gives off a scum smell if Skruffs turns out to be innocent. Even worse, with his lack of contribution he is already giving off a scum smell now. IGMEOY, likely scum

Skruffs: his defences so far have not really convinced me. Still noted down as likely scum.

You are voting me, and if I come up innocent, Cubs is very likely scum. But you didn't address, what if I come up scum, as you seem to be so sure I am (based on your votes)? Does that make cubs likely innocent? It's not hard for me to theorize that you only did one half of the equation because you already know I'm not scum. Error of omission.

If something is black it is not white. If it is not black it is not automatically white. If you are innocent after all, I think Cubs is probably scum (by now I think he is probably scum anyway). Should you be guilty, there is no reason why Cubs should be innocent. He could even be of a second family.

Here he appears to be saying that he thinks that Cubs is "probably" scum and Skruffs is "likely" scum, but he doesn't think they are scum together - then he raises the possibility of a second family (

that

is what originally caught Skruff's attention). Although he says "even" (which to me looks scummy in itself), the scenario he presents offers a very likely chance of multiple families; I would say probable, even.

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'd

bet

that there's not just one family, and I agree that the SK seems like an afterthought, where it usually would be the first suggestion in post 16 above, not second after a seperate family.

3. Congratulations on the astute observation that if I mention a second family, that this implies that there is a first. Excellent. If you think my next comment you refer to (about there also being a possibility of one family and a SK) is backpedalling, then you don't understand the meaning of that word.

Please pay close attention to the wording here - this is a subtle point, a freudian slip. "If I mention a second family, this implies that there

is

a first" - as if he's talking

not

about how things

might be

, but

how they are

.

2. Do not mis represent what I said ("DP says that there are two families.") - I never said that. Another scum tell.

the portion that DP quotes here is way out of context. Skruffs acknowledges that he's not been so overt before and after that sentence, which I think was just a minor slip. It's as if he's looking for anything he can contradict - why's he going after the weakest part of the argument, instead of rebutting the point? All of his defenses centre around the fact that multiple families

do

exist and that he didn't say that there definately was one - he completely fails to deal with the issue of the

plausibility

of him bringing multiple families up without knowledge that the uninformed majority doesn't have.

I've convinced myself. It was the "if I mention a second family, this implies that there is a first" that did it. I'm with Skruffs.

vote: Dragon Phoenix

I don't even know where to start to go against this reasoning. Since the whole second family thing keeps coming up again an again, once more where it came from:

Skruffs stated "You are voting me, and if I come up innocent, Cubs is very likely scum. But you didn't address, what if I come up scum, as you seem to be so sure I am (based on your votes)? Does that make cubs likely innocent?". My answer was no, because he might be scum as well, but from a different family. I never stated there actually are two families, even though Skruffs later claimed I did. I gave a general answer to a general question about mafia tactics. That's all. Feel free to continue to see it as evidence of my "guilt", but you are barking up the wrong tree.

DP: Could you

PLEASE

explain Post 122? Do you think there is an advantage to

NOT

using Concordet voting? Do you think that scum are more likely to use (and/or advocate the use of) Concordet voting (and if so, why)?
I am simply not seing your stanc here at all. I agree completely with Jeep's take, and I'd really like you to explain why protown players should find not-using-Concordet preferrable to using-Concordet.

Not for the first time in this game, I am being misquoted or misinterpreted. I never stated or hinted that protown players should find not-using-Concordet preferable to using-Concordet. I never stated that using it would be scummy. I argued against the opposite stance: that not-using-Concordet is a scum tell (see jeep's posts: his opinion is that the only reason not to use it is if you are scum). I am perfectly happy with someone using this method straight from post 1 but I don't think there is any meaning behind a Condorcet list unless you have a reasonable opinion on a number of players, hence my preference to wait until the mid of day one.

No change in vote or list.

[Zindaras]

What Lee has said regarding his suspects:

Jeep/BM:

Why wouldn't we use it? It's a lot like a vote with a handful of FOS... I think it should be employed as soon as you want to start ranking people you think might be acting scummy...

So having said that:

vote: Skruff

, PlaysWithSquirrels, LoudMouthLee

I would love to know why I am now on your list, especially we're voting for the same person.

Is Jeep exhibiting a scumtell?

Tags corrected in quoted material. - Mod

It has already been pointed out how bad this logic is. It is perfectly possible to suspect people who agree with you. In fact, it is only normal.

Cubsfan:

*chirp chirp*

Zindaras:

Okay. Time for some typical vintage LML stuff. You may call them null tells, you may call them typical LML bluster, but the following things caught my attention. Prepare yourself. LML has turned on the charms.

Oman, iocaine powder doesn't have a smell.

Mod

, I assume that the wording for Rule 5 means that no "Bah" posts are allowed?

Please see the Post Content section of the rules regarding asking questions of the Mod.

The wording of rule 5 means that no "Bah" posts are allowed, correct. This is now explicitly stated. - Mod

I find it

very

interesting that Zindie felt a need for clarification on this point. That question makes me very uneasy. Quite like Zindy is looking for a way to seem more townlike. It's completely a hunch, but it's definately good enough for a D1 initial vote.

As said before, this is horrible logic and at worst a null tell.

Let's look at the 4 people who have their votes on me:

Adele - Rationale: Disagrees with my stance on random voting.
Scruffs - Rationale: OMGUS coupled with "misrepresentations that are not misrepresentations".
Zinadras - Radionale: Modified OMGUS (as I found his Bah opening post to be slightly scummy, and it was good as an opening post)

Now, I'm not even sure he finds me suspicious because of it, but I wanted to list it for completeness' sake. I do not see how this makes me scummy either.

More later, have to go now.

[Battle Mage]

well i guess its time for our final lists. We best be on the safe-side, and try and get a good lynch here, so:

Unvote, Vote: LML

, DragonPhoenix, IH, Cubsfan, MgM, CES, Tamuz, Zindaras, VitaminR, Xyzzy, Adele, Pooky, DaniBanani, Logicticus, Gaspar, Foolinc, Talitha, No lynch, Skruffs, Thesp.

[Battle Mage]

It would be frankly, rude, not to respond to the questions posed by IH, so here goes:
1. I hate to keep going over this meta-issue, but if you will continue to misuse the term, i guess it is necessary. Meta-gaming is a practice which uses prior experience in other games, to make opinions on the consistency of players (or in some cases, setups). I have used this technique, in order to reinforce my belief that OMan is scum. Now, the weakness of meta-gaming is, you can meta-game using ongoing games, which ofc, you cannot quote to other players. Its unfortunate, but its a fact. Even so, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot use your own personal meta-game knowledge to finance your own votes, which is what i have strived to do. Of course, i dont expect you to take what i am saying, and validate your vote with it, because you may not think i am town. Fair enough-i'm not asking you to. But you seem to be getting VERY defensive about the whole thing, when there is little cause to be. You cant defend yourself against a case concerning your predecessor. Your best hope is that the other players havent had as much experience of Oman's play as i have, in which case, you might be able to fob me off. Unless i die of course, at which point the town will know i was not lying, and hopefully, they will lynch you.

2. I dont really understand the inherent significance of quoting the time difference between every post. Odd as it may sound, i've never seen anyone make such a fuss about it in any other games either.
this is what i mean by 'manufactured arguments'. What you are saying doesnt actually make any sense, but you are presenting it in such a way, that people consider it to be of relevance, which is obviously, very scummy.

Hmm, i was sure there was more than that, but i think most of the post was just fluff. Anyway, will get to responding to other comments now.

Hey-didnt you just accuse me of trying to cast bogus suspicion onto people without committing to a vote? strange how comments like that come back and bite you in the butt, eh?
Metagame evidence is often only valid for the individual who has that experience. I cannot refer to ongoing games, as even if nobody here is playing in those games, information here will probably leak, and it will ruin those games for everyone. If you don't believe me, why dont you go and find some COMPLETED games of Oman's in order to refute my claims. I mean, you love metagaming proof right?

Since you're the one who brought it up, you should already have a completed game where it is valid.

You think me naming post numbers in order to make it clearer for the rest of you, is a scumtell? ROFLMAO! I'm not quite sure how i have 'OMGUSed my way onto a vote list', as i've only voted for 2 people since joining, and as i'm pretty sure that 1 of them wasnt even voting for me. I might be wrong, but then, just because someone is voting for me, does that make them confirmed town?
Oh and me ignoring the case on Jeep is BS, as i have shown recognition of it multiple times. If i didnt KNOW he was protown, he would probably have been fairly high on my suspect list. As i do KNOW he was protown, i am naturally very wary of the arguments that are being manufactured against him.

No, you're looking at post numbers, but ignoring the amount of time in between posts.

Other than that, almost everyone who was on your condorcent list was on the jeep wagon or expressed suspicion against him.

"manufactured?"

8. Rofl. You've never used information from ongoing games before? I mean, what the hell would you do in my position? Quote from an ongoing game, thus ruining it for everyone, and probably getting myself banned?
Yeah, that would suit you just great wouldnt it.

No, I was pretty sure that you didn't have any proof of it.

actually, i sometimes get visions like that. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes they arent. In my experience its probably better to use logic first, and perhaps use the dream to back up that logic. I do find it a little coincidental that you NOW want to switch to LML, just as IH has done the same thing.

I was already on Lee.

But you are on the top of my condorcent list now, which should make you the condorcet leader.

I'd like to note that although IH says he wants BM to die in 438, he puts BM behind Lee on his Condorcet list, which actually means he's keeping BM alive that way.

Please correct me if the above is lwrong.

[Battle Mage]

ah the only other thing directed at me, was MgM's comment about my analysis, which is no longer my opinion anyway.

As we are drawing near deadline, and its looking like there is an increasing chance of us going to a concordet decision, i'd like to draw everyone's attention to the following comments:

IH(quoted by BM in above post): "I was already on Lee, but you are top of my concordet list now, which should make you the concordet leader."

MgM (post 478): "anyone who hasn't done so, should fix their lists"

DragonPhoenix (post 479): "I have seen nothing in the last few days that moves me away from my top scum candidates (primarily me). I will therefore no change my vote or concordet ranking."

Now, from where i'm sitting, this feels like a setup. The votes between me and MgM are tied, but i'm seeing spontaneous efforts to move me up the concordet ranking list. This alone is making me feel more confident of LML-scum. Dying like this Day 1, with so many experienced players would suck, so if nothing has changed by tonight, i will claim. Hopefully, the smarter among you won't make me do that if i dont have to.

If you are town, and you havent made a decision yet, please READ the recent posts objectively. I've yet to see any detailed case given against me since i joined the game, yet there must surely be a reason why i am accumulating votes right? The amount of people who are sliding me up the concordet rankings, with little/no reasoning, is ridiculous. If i die today, not only does the town make a stupid mislynch, but you will also learn absolutely jack-all from it, because you have been so tolerant of limpers. Who knows, some of them may be town! The problem is, because there has been no differentiation between people who honestly suspect me, and people who just want an easy mislynch, tomorrow could end up to be a real downer of a day for everyone...

Anyway, i'll be back later to claim.

BM

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

[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.

[Battle Mage]

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.

actually, the meaning i had taken was 'fix' as in 'correct erroneous votes', which basically acts as a suggestion that you are telling your scumbuddies to change their votes. I do however agree that there is some ambiguity with the definition.

[Talitha]

I stayed up late tonight to make sure I was caught up on all the posts in this thread before I made my final vote.

I still see Cubs as the most likely scum of anyone. I am tending towards town for BattleMage. I am tending towards scum for Lee, but unsure of myself on that one. IH seems less scummy to me that Oman did, but the suspicion is still there.

Gaspar is proving to be a worthy replacement for PWS. I feel comfortable with GASPAR because of the amount of text being posted in a short time makes me feel that they are comfortable in the role and therefore less likely to be scum.

xyzzy moves onto my list because I realised he was flying so low he wasn't even on my radar. He voted once, very early and has not updated his vote or list at all since.

Dani/Mos is the other who is far too below radar for me to leave them off the list.

I am curious about Adele too.

vote: cubsfan [Oman, Dani, xyzzy], [Lee, Adele, Zindaras]

I have no idea what this does to the condorcet lynch, but hopefully people posting after me will have more clue and will ensure a lynch.

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

[foolinc]

Is anyone worried that tiering innocence rather than to guilt will help scum line up a few targets that they would like to take out if a large amount of people find them innocentish rather than less guilty.

I say this to perhaps suggest we should take off our no-read/inconclusive/innocents from our Condorcet lists (ie lump all 3 of those in 1 category). I say this because from experience if people stress that they feel one player is innocent, and that player is, then scum are often more likely to hit them. Barring other circumstances.

I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Most of the time, players have well-defined opinions of at least a couple of players near the end of days. And in general, I would speculate that not talking about a player means no-read or near-neutral (anywhere from slightly scummy to slightly protown). Scums may not have detailed, person-by-person lists, but they know the top suspicions, usually the biggest protown suspicions, and they can tell who is flying under the gun. When you stop and think about it, I don't think we're giving out hardly any more information than in a game with a normal voting system.

It might be inexperience talking but wouldn't this limit information given to the town? It seems to me the best way to find scum is to be as honest as possible and as just as willing to share information. That gives us the best possible chance of the uniformed majority becoming informed before the mafia become the majority (ok, so the mafia will only get to 50% before winning, but screw it, I'm on a roll). So, when using this thought process it seems to me that tiering votes is a good thing for the town as well as the mafia.

[foolinc]

Oh and Talitha, you need to make sure your vote is at the very bottom of your post or else it doesn't count.

[xyzzy]

Hmm... I guess this is my final list.

Vote: LML

, PWS, Mgm, Skruffs, [everyone else], no lynch, xyzzy

[Battle Mage]

right, time for a claim. I am Pierre Picaud. My role is basically that of a Cop, except that instead of a guilty/innocent investigation, i get a piece of information corresponding to the character of my target. As such, i become confirmable after night 1. My role itself doesnt actually catch scum, but it can be used to trap liars (assuming the scum characters of this theme are distinguishable from the town characters). But the fact that post-Night 1, i become a confirmed innocent, means its worth keeping me around. lol

@Talitha-i dont think a Cubs lynch is happening today. If you think LML is scummier than me, i think it is probably wise to vote for him. lol

BM

[Gaspar]

Glork here.

DP: Somewhere along the line I got the impression that you were attacking use of the Concordet system early on. I'd have to re-read that part of the game to figure out why I thought that, but I've yet to finish my first readthrough of the game. (I'm on approximately Page 15 -- I actually forgot to mark what post I had stopped on in my notes, but I could probably find where I left off without much trouble.)

Is anyone worried that tiering innocence rather than to guilt will help scum line up a few targets that they would like to take out if a large amount of people find them innocentish rather than less guilty.

I say this to perhaps suggest we should take off our no-read/inconclusive/innocents from our Condorcet lists (ie lump all 3 of those in 1 category). I say this because from experience if people stress that they feel one player is innocent, and that player is, then scum are often more likely to hit them. Barring other circumstances.

I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a huge issue. Most of the time, players have well-defined opinions of at least a couple of players near the end of days. And in general, I would speculate that not talking about a player means no-read or near-neutral (anywhere from slightly scummy to slightly protown). Scums may not have detailed, person-by-person lists, but they know the top suspicions, usually the biggest protown suspicions, and they can tell who is flying under the gun. When you stop and think about it, I don't think we're giving out hardly any more information than in a game with a normal voting system.

It might be inexperience talking but wouldn't this limit information given to the town? It seems to me the best way to find scum is to be as honest as possible and as just as willing to share information. That gives us the best possible chance of the uniformed majority becoming informed before the mafia become the majority (ok, so the mafia will only get to 50% before winning, but screw it, I'm on a roll). So, when using this thought process it seems to me that tiering votes is a good thing for the town as well as the mafia.

That's exactly my point.

The scums already have a pretty good idea of who each player suspects the most. They have a decent idea of which players each of us find likely to be protown.

The town obviously has a pretty good idea of who people suspect (or "suspect," such as the case may be), but the more detailed information gives us a lot more to constructively work with.

I agree with you, foolinc, that it helps both of us. Tamuz guessed that laying out all suspicions in order would help the Mafia choose their kill. I responded by saying that it likely won't give them

that much

more info. The pros to using Concordet definitely outweigh the cons, IMHO.


I also feel obliged to point out at this point that Primate and I talked over AIM a bit last night, and he disagrees with most of what I've said. We're currently trying to figure out some system of balancing our own suspicions (aside from discussing with each other to try to come to a consensus on what to do). So far, the two things we've come up with were a ranking system (where we each do our own ranked suspicion lists and then weigh/average them against each other to come up with a single Concordet list) or to just focus on the points where we

do

agree.

In the meantime.... here is a new list based mainly on my opinion but with some of Primate's thoughts taken into consideration. Obviously, we'll expand more upon this later, but Primate is still churning through the thread just as I am.

Unvote
Vote: Mgm

, Adele, CES, LoudmouthLee, foolinc, Dragon Phoenix

[Gaspar]

EBWOP: Okay, so BM is definitely not the play for today. I am naturally wary of his claim that he will be a "confirmed innocent" based on his ability to gather information. Scum Cops certainly exist (and I've even had an SK with an investigative ability in a game I modded). Still, I've liked Jeep/BM so far, and definitely do

NOT

think that he is the play.

Unvote
Vote: Mgm

, Adele, CES, LoudmouthLee, foolinc, Dragon Phoenix, [logicticus, Pooky, Talitha, Tamuz, Thesp, Xyzzy, Zindaras], [Cubsfan, Skruffs, IH, Dani Banani], Battle Mage, No Lynch, Gaspar

[Battle Mage]

EBWOP: Okay, so BM is definitely not the play for today. I am naturally wary of his claim that he will be a "confirmed innocent" based on his ability to gather information. Scum Cops certainly exist (and I've even had an SK with an investigative ability in a game I modded). Still, I've liked Jeep/BM so far, and definitely do

NOT

think that he is the play.

Unvote
Vote: Mgm

, Adele, CES, LoudmouthLee, foolinc, Dragon Phoenix, [logicticus, Pooky, Talitha, Tamuz, Thesp, Xyzzy, Zindaras], [Cubsfan, Skruffs, IH, Dani Banani], Battle Mage, No Lynch, Gaspar

well, ok, maybe not confirmed innocent, but certainly i will be able to confirm my investigative ability.

BM

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

It's an ability worth keeping around and I tend to believe the claim, so that's settled as far as I'm concerned.

Guess that means LmL'll be today's lynch lest we be forced to rush through a decision during the little time we have left.

Unvote: BM

, keep the rest of my list intact

[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.

[VitaminR]

I guess that means I should amend my list. I'm also moving DP down a few notches (I liked his last post).

Also, Gaspar, I think you left me off your list.

Vote: Skruffs

, IH, Adele, [xyzzy, Tamuz, foolinc] [Zindaras, LML, Gaspar, Talitha], Thesp, logicticus, Pooky, [Dragon Phoenix, PlaysWithSquirrels, Cubsfan4ever, MGM, CES, Battle Mage]

[Dragon Phoenix]

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.

OK, sounds plausible, although I don't like the vibes I got from either jeep or BM. But lynching a claimed coppish role can't be the right play day one. Back to Skruffs, and upgrading Cubs a notch towards more scummy.

Unvote Batlle Mage

Vote Skruffs

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

[Dragon Phoenix]

In the last line there should be a comma between BM and myself obviously.

[Adele]

I am curious about Adele too.

I'm finding it bloody hard to keep up with reading the game, let alone sorting out my feelings for twenty different people. I'm very bright in some ways and less bright in others; keeping all this clear is tough for me and I don't often play large games for that reason. I'm giving my all, and will improve over the next few game days, but this is not a game-specific problem but a game-size-specific problem.

We've come up on the deadline awfully fast. I can't imagine at this stage that I'll convince anyone of anything, nor that anyone (except, perhaps, the mafia) wants a no-lynch, so I'll sheep. I commit to return within 24 hours and place a vote on whoever's leading, unless there are two people credibly close to lynch, in which case I will judge the case against each and vote for the scummier-looking, with a justification included.