SHIELD vs. HYDRA Mafia - Day 2

[Forresto]

Well that is unfortunate, though interesting...

We now have some data to analyze.

First, here was no reason for a night kill of our now deceased pizza guy. He was a viable lynch option as even I thought he could be scum based off the very limited data we had.

- So that asks why he was killed?

My thought is he was killed to deflect suspicion from the scum. This is because yesterday I posted that if the pizza guy turned out to be town,I would be less suspicious of Eugene Lawson (Forresto) due to the nature of yesterday's play out. I think the scum, knowing the pizza man was innocent, murdered him hoping I would lead the cause of professing the innocence of Lawson.

However, I was of course only analyzing lynch perspectives and now see new trends. When factoring in the above, and the speculation on scum roles/numbers/etc, it is possible to see other trends towards scum.

Of note, Lawson had a 4 vote penalty against him. If there was the perceived minimum scum count of three, all they would need to do is pile on and convince two other players to join them in order to remove an innocent player. A fact that would be easier if there was the possible four scum infiltrating us.

Additionally, this move would have cut down on communications (always a scum weakness) as a bandwagon would probably occurred and could have been tried to be passed off as doing the "easy lynch" on day one.

Instead, a lot more effort was put into convincing the town to vote elsewhere.

This makes me believe that the scum was trying to protect Lawson (Forresto)

For that reason I VOTE: Eugene Lawson (Forresto)

I am happy to discuss but will likely be busy in the lab quite a bit so may not be able to respond right away

I don't keep notes quite yet like many of you. As I join in more games in the future I plan to

Two people voted for me yesterday. Mr. Heinz voted for you first, unvoted, and then voted for me. I think that in itself is suspicious as if you two are in line but don't want the rest of us to consider it. Did he vote for you then un vote to make it seem like you guys are opposed to each other? As he said it was a random vote. But now that you're going at me I find it odd as theres certainly a connection here. Are you allied? I can't know. He unvoted me after we settled our tuffle over my editing my second post.

The second person, Steven Schram voted for me because they saw the argument over the editing and for some unknown reason decided to jump in and vote for me. Then they later unvoted. I voted for Schram as I couldn't trust it was simply a noob mistake.

Who was protecting me? I would like to know. You yourself voted for Kinjobby to be lynched who then later died that night. Another "coincidence"?

As to Schram I have no read on him. But I do think he was startled by yesterday's close call with death. He was targeted because of his suspicious manner and likely is not posting now because he doesn't want to dig a deeper hole. I don't think that makes him any more suspicious just cautious.

[JackJonespaw]

"Of note, Lawson had a 4 vote penalty against him. If there was the perceived minimum scum count of three, all they would need to do is pile on and convince two other players to join them in order to remove an innocent player. A fact that would be easier if there was the possible four scum infiltrating us."

I really can't see this happening, honestly. A bandwagon forming on a vote penalty by scum? That would immediately put all 3/4 (3 or 4, not .75) of them under suspicion immediately, I would think. Can't say, but I really don't think that Mr. Lawson is scum based on his activity. In fact...the only person who actually voted on Mr. Lawson...barely avoided a lynch yesterday...and has been extraordinarily useless today...

Vote: Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4)

Maybe he was trying to form a bandwagon with his scum buddies, but his buddies were smarter than that and pulled him out before anyone took note.

[mostlytechnic]

Look at what you yourself did in Main St. Mafia. You and another scum tried to start a bandwagon to save Shadows, your buddy.

Quite the impressive memory there. I myself don't even remember that - I had to check my sig to see that I'd even been IN Main St Mafia!

I really can't see this happening, honestly. A bandwagon forming on a vote penalty by scum? That would immediately put all 3/4 (3 or 4, not .75) of them under suspicion immediately, I would think. Can't say, but I really don't think that Mr. Lawson is scum based on his activity. In fact...the only person who actually voted on Mr. Lawson...barely avoided a lynch yesterday...and has been extraordinarily useless today...

To argue the other side... would it really put them under suspicion? That's actually possibly a clever scum play. All of them jump on, because later, when a scum or two have been caught, the other scum would be NOT suspects because who would ever think the 3 or 4 scum would all vote in a block like that?

[Lady K]

I have a little time now (I'll have more time later) to address a few things that have caught my attention. Earlier I noticed that Ms. Turner, Ms. Coleman, and Mr. Heinz had not posted at all. Since that time all three have posted.....exactly once. And Mr. Schram has graced us with his presence for exactly two posts. Yesterday I was willing to overlook some of Mr. Schram's behavior due to newbie status. Today however he has done nothing to redeem himself. While I am not quite ready to cast my vote, things are not looking good in his direction.

RIP Kinjobby

Wow, two words. I do believe this is the shortest post I have ever seen.

I'm afraid I don't have any thing worth posting today. I am a bit surprised someone killed Kinjobby. Behind me, he had the most votes voted on by players. I would also like to hear from Ms. Turner, she's been the most quiet with only 2 post.

Just because you think you have nothing worth posting doesn't mean you should post 'hey I got nothing useful to say'. Ask some questions, bring up suspicions, try to redeem yourself. Now granted you did ask Ms. Turner to post more but she isn't the only one who has been very quiet so why not mention the others? Why did you single out her?

I'm afraid I don't have any thing worth posting today.

In all seriousness, I'm very surprised are people are discussing the possibility of an SK. This is a very small game. I'd wager the scum are the only ones with a regular kill, and that we have a limited vig. That, or they were rightly cautious last night and chose not to kill. I think everyone discussing claiming to one another at this juncture need to calm the hell down. I'd've been surprised if we did have multiple kills last night, this is not indicative of any good night action results, so I'm hoping the PRs are playing their cards a bit closer to their chests.

As far as I am aware that's always in the rules regardless of whether or not there is in fact a third party.

I have to agree that I hope the PRs are not jumping to claim to someone who isn't cleared. That has never worked out well for town in the past.

The conversation about SK is interesting albeit useless and doesn't advance our cause one bit.

I also think it's way too early to assert that the doc "surely" saved someone last night. I hope our new players if assigned PRs will consider all aspects of the situation before reaching out to non-confirmed players.

You haven't addressed my inquiry into why you voted so quickly three times yesterday yet?

Well that is unfortunate, though interesting...

We now have some data to analyze.

First, here was no reason for a night kill of our now deceased pizza guy. He was a viable lynch option as even I thought he could be scum based off the very limited data we had.

- So that asks why he was killed?

My thought is he was killed to deflect suspicion from the scum. This is because yesterday I posted that if the pizza guy turned out to be town,I would be less suspicious of Eugene Lawson (Forresto) due to the nature of yesterday's play out. I think the scum, knowing the pizza man was innocent, murdered him hoping I would lead the cause of professing the innocence of Lawson.

However, I was of course only analyzing lynch perspectives and now see new trends. When factoring in the above, and the speculation on scum roles/numbers/etc, it is possible to see other trends towards scum.

Of note, Lawson had a 4 vote penalty against him. If there was the perceived minimum scum count of three, all they would need to do is pile on and convince two other players to join them in order to remove an innocent player. A fact that would be easier if there was the possible four scum infiltrating us.

Additionally, this move would have cut down on communications (always a scum weakness) as a bandwagon would probably occurred and could have been tried to be passed off as doing the "easy lynch" on day one.

Instead, a lot more effort was put into convincing the town to vote elsewhere.

This makes me believe that the scum was trying to protect Lawson (Forresto)

For that reason I VOTE: Eugene Lawson (Forresto)

I am happy to discuss but will likely be busy in the lab quite a bit so may not be able to respond right away

Some good thoughts here, some I agree with and some I do not. While I agree with the killing of the pizza guy seems strange for last nights kill, I don't think it should be limited to the scum without thinking it could have been the vig or Sk. I just don't see a good valid reason for the scum to kill him, he was a lynch candidate for Day 1 may have even ended up as a lynch candidate for Day 2 as well. This seems to me to be a vig or SK kill.

And why would the scum kill him based on what you personally said yesterday? Why you specifically to lead the cause to profess the innocence of Lawson? No one is innocent until cleared, any one of us could be HYDRA......including you. I just don't see this 'whole lot of effort put into trying to convince town to vote elsewhere' that you are talking about. Lawson had 4 penalty votes on him, he could have been an easy lynch but others were just more scummy than him.

I do agree that Lawson is being more scummy today than yesterday, but this could just be newbie behavior like Schram's newbie behavior....... worth watching, but not voting for just yet. I find Mr. Heinz's behavior more questionable at this time. With the quick three votes yesterday, no good reasons given for any of them and one basic post that doesn't really have any meat to it he is more likely to get my vote today.

[JackJonespaw]

To argue the other side... would it really put them under suspicion? That's actually possibly a clever scum play. All of them jump on, because later, when a scum or two have been caught, the other scum would be NOT suspects because who would ever think the 3 or 4 scum would all vote in a block like that?

Still a tad risky, in my opinion. If I remember correctly, something like that happened in Kingdom's Mafia when, I think, you and I were under suspicion for doing just that. Of course, we were not exactly town, so maybe there's a point there.

[mediumsnowman]

Vote Tally

3 votes for Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4): (Darkdragon, Dragonfire, JackJonespaw)

1 vote for Eugene Lawson (Forresto): (Comrade Commander)

Nonvoting (11): (mostlytechnic, Bob, Forresto, Tariq j, PirateDave84, jluck, Umbra-Manis, fhomess, Khscarymovie4, CallMePie, Lady K)

With 15 players remaining, a majority of 8 is required for a lynch. Approximately 24 hours remain in the day.

Edited March 14, 2016 by mediumsnowman

[fhomess]

Decent analysis and definitely worth considering. One flaw I see right away - don't put TOO much stock in the fact that scum didn't pile on Eugene to get a quick lynch. Day 1 is the time scum stay fairly quiet and don't lead. Even if Eugene was the towniest of townies they probably wouldn't risk being in a group piling the votes on him unless someone else started it.

To argue the other side... would it really put them under suspicion? That's actually possibly a clever scum play. All of them jump on, because later, when a scum or two have been caught, the other scum would be NOT suspects because who would ever think the 3 or 4 scum would all vote in a block like that?

Both of the above quotes from Daniel imply opposite perspectives on the same theory as originally stated by Hailey. Have you changed your mind, Daniel?

Some good thoughts here, some I agree with and some I do not. While I agree with the killing of the pizza guy seems strange for last nights kill, I don't think it should be limited to the scum without thinking it could have been the vig or Sk. I just don't see a good valid reason for the scum to kill him, he was a lynch candidate for Day 1 may have even ended up as a lynch candidate for Day 2 as well. This seems to me to be a vig or SK kill.

So for the record, you don't think the scum killed Kinjobby. Noted.

[jluck]

Looking at the current vote standings, I'm not ready to pursue a lynch on Steven at this time. He hasn't done much of value, but i feel like lynching him is just an easy out. He's very easy to build a case on, and that concerns me because scum often pile onto those bandwagons early.

[Dragonfire]

When I initially voted for him I didn't say much, but I did explain myself later:

Point taken.

As to Schram I have no read on him. But I do think he was startled by yesterday's close call with death. He was targeted because of his suspicious manner and likely is not posting now because he doesn't want to dig a deeper hole. I don't think that makes him any more suspicious just cautious.

Then he's not helping, is he?

To argue the other side... would it really put them under suspicion? That's actually possibly a clever scum play. All of them jump on, because later, when a scum or two have been caught, the other scum would be NOT suspects because who would ever think the 3 or 4 scum would all vote in a block like that?

I guess that's what you were aiming to do in Main St., but it backfired on you

Vote Tally

2 votes for Steven Schram (Khscarymovie4): (Darkdragon, JackJonespaw)

1 vote for Eugene Lawson (Forresto): (Comrade Commander)

Nonvoting (12): (mostlytechnic, Bob, Forresto, Tariq j, PirateDave84, Dragonfire, jluck, Umbra-Manis, fhomess, Khscarymovie4, CallMePie, Lady K)

With 15 players remaining, a majority of 8 is required for a lynch. Approximately 24 hours remain in the day.

I'm voting for Steven, Host

[Piratedave84]

You haven't addressed my inquiry into why you voted so quickly three times yesterday yet?

I'm pretty sure I explained my first vote/unvote but here it is again:

I confused Pizza boy with Mechanic guy and accused him which was an error so I unvoted him.

Then I placed a vote for Steven based on his intention to wait and see to vote.

I think my votes are pretty well justified; sorry I voted twice ... I'll refrain from voting more than once from now on ... but I'll wait until I'm 99.99% sure before voting :roll:

[mostlytechnic]

Both of the above quotes from Daniel imply opposite perspectives on the same theory as originally stated by Hailey. Have you changed your mind, Daniel?

No, I don't think the lack of a quick pile on Eugene indicates he's scum. I said in the second post that it'd be a interesting and daring play by scum to do that, and I don't think the scum around here are generally that bold. Especially on day 1 when they like to stay quiet and hide.

[mediumsnowman]

I'm voting for Steven, Host

Sorry - must have missed that one. Vote count has been amended.

[Forresto]

I'm going to throw the first vote in, it's not substantiated by anything other than low post count;

vote: Hailey Coleman (Comrade Commander)

Thanks boss. I'll get those transponders fixed by the time you're back! (begins playing tetris on terminal)

Hold on don't just go for the easy lynch because a man made a mistake That's insane!

We are shield we uphold the law! and the job of the legal system is to protect the innocent at all costs. Do not go after me simply because it's easy. Whoever is lynched if someone indeed is lynched needs to be because we have some tangible evidence against them.

So are you defending them ... or simply trying to get us not to vote for your buddy ... what if he's HYDRA ... WHAT IF YOU'RE HYDRA?

Just because he made an error doesn't mean he's not HYDRA.

Screw that

unvote: Hailey Coleman (Comrade Commander)

vote: Eugene Lawson (Forresto)

For trying to defend his buddy.

I find this fascinating. There was absolutely no point for Mr. Heinz to vote for Mrs. Coleman except to show false opposition to her. He said it was unsubstantiated but out of everyone why you? There's a connection here. Now Mrs Coleman is voting for me because people didn't go for the easy lynch. The only people who didn't vote for me are...everyone except Mr. Schram and Mr. Heinz. Mr. Schram has proven himself untrustworthy "randomly" joining Mr. Heinz's vote for no legitimate reason. Mr. Heinz not only has proven he's an erratic voter but that theres a connection between you both. There's more going on as you three are all.

First of all Kinjobby seemed pretty scummy yesterday. You would think the scum would have kept him alive to have someone the next day so there was a suspicious shield agent to take votes away from them. That was a bad move if scum killed him. However your vote for Kinjobby failed miserably. Interesting tidbit...

As for people not voting for me being scum, you better go after everyone in Shield except you three. I was going to vote for Schram again but he hasn't posted anything suspicious today...because he hasn't posted anything but you've changed my mind. I don't know if your scum, but you're acting off and for now that's all I can go on until you prove otherwise

Vote: Hailey Coleman (Comrade Commander)

[Lady K]

Both of the above quotes from Daniel imply opposite perspectives on the same theory as originally stated by Hailey. Have you changed your mind, Daniel?

So for the record, you don't think the scum killed Kinjobby. Noted.

I think it was a stupid wasted move if they did, which is possible. I think it was more likely a vig that is new, annoyed by him, or more likely since he was the second lynch option. It could have been the SK as well. Could the scum have taken him out, yes they could have. I just don't see the reasoning behind it.

Looking at the current vote standings, I'm not ready to pursue a lynch on Steven at this time. He hasn't done much of value, but i feel like lynching him is just an easy out. He's very easy to build a case on, and that concerns me because scum often pile onto those bandwagons early.

This is true, however in the past I have seen this justified due to looking at the votes to see who jumped on the easy bandwagon.

I'm pretty sure I explained my first vote/unvote but here it is again:

I confused Pizza boy with Mechanic guy and accused him which was an error so I unvoted him.

Then I placed a vote for Steven based on his intention to wait and see to vote.

I think my votes are pretty well justified; sorry I voted twice ... I'll refrain from voting more than once from now on ... but I'll wait until I'm 99.99% sure before voting :roll:

Glad to know that when you vote next you will be 99.99% sure. Your still under my suspicion though......maybe not as high up on my list but still there.

Jafar, Black Coffee please.....shade grown on the side of an active volcano. And a sweet role to go with it. Thank you.

[fhomess]

I have to say that so far, this has been an extremely disappointing day. The level of discussion is pretty minimal and while it's reasonable to not have a lot of leads this early, we can do better simply by talking more.

Here's a great example from Walter:

Looking at the current vote standings, I'm not ready to pursue a lynch on Steven at this time. He hasn't done much of value, but i feel like lynching him is just an easy out. He's very easy to build a case on, and that concerns me because scum often pile onto those bandwagons early.

Walter comments that he's not willing to pursue a lynch on the current vote leader, Steven. That's great and all, but it doesn't really add to the discussion, it just kills it. Essentially, Walter is saying we should stop looking at Steven, but he's not offering anything new to the conversation. Furthermore, he states that scum often pile onto those bandwagons. The problem is, this bandwagon is very slow to build. So either scum aren't piling on to it, or Walter is doing his darndest to point out that HE's not piling on to it. Why doesn't he look more closely into the behavior of Cecilia, Jeffrey, or Jafar?

For that, I will Vote: Walter Williams (jluck)

[Khscarymovie4]

Sorry I haven't been posting lately. Just scared after yesterday. This will be the last time I am able to post today so I will have to vote now.

Vote: Jasper Heinz (piratedave84)

Jasper has posted very little today, and I can't really find a reason why. And yes I know I'm guilty of this also, I'm just a bit freaked out after yesterday. Could be because he has not been online that much, but I don't know. Fury is going to be pissed if we don't bring him a suspect.

[mediumsnowman]

Fury is going to be pissed if we don't bring him a suspect.

I can confirm this is indeed true.

[Piratedave84]

AHOY! AHOY! AHOY!!!

I HAVE A PLAY FOR YOU!!!!!

-Lift curtain-

Act I

Person A - HEY!! I saw you visited Person C last night; why?

Person B - Oh, you know ... it seemed fun.

Person A - huh ... fun?

Person B - Did you see anyone else target my target?

Person A - No

Person B - Did you perform Action X on Person C?

Person A - No but I don't trust them, have you told about this to anyone else?

Person B - Yes, Person D.

Act II

Person A - I saw someone target you last night, do you know why?

Person C - No, why did you claim to me?

Person A - You seem on the level and I want to stir the discussion

Person C - It's risky to claim to me, bu thanks.

Person A - I'm waiting to see what Person B says about their visit

Person C - Let me know what they say, there's a good chance they are scum

Person A - Person B contacted you, the answer was weird

Person C - What do you mean, why Person B?

Person A - Oh shit, I messed up and revealed Person B's identity; I'm getting bad vibes here, goodbye

Person C - Well I'l be here if you want to talk

Person A - megabluck what do I do now ... what are the options?

Person C - Well the options are really Town role A, Scum role X, scum role Y or Town role Y.

Act III

Person A - You seem legit, I think I ducked up so here it is: I Action X Person C and told them and Person B. Now I fear they are both scum. If I die look at them.

Person D - I will, I was suspicious of Person C anyways however, Person B's answer is interesting.

Person D - Maybe Person C is the killer and was blocked.

Person D - We should lynch person C

soooooooo .... who's the scummiest; Person B or Person C

[mostlytechnic]

Are you sure you've got all your persons right there? It's an interesting story, but parts are confusing. For example, in Act 1 you say that Person A saw Person B visit Person C. That means person A is the watcher or tracker. But then you have person B ask person A about their role, when I'd expect that question going the opposite direction.

Then you have in act 2 person A tell C that person B contacted C - person B didn't contact C that I can see, just did something during the night. By "contact" I'd assume you all mean talk in PM.

And in Act 3, what "answer" from Person B is interesting? They've hardly said anything that you've stated here.

Overall, I think jumping to the conclusion that C is the scum killer and was blocked is premature - maybe go with that if you know that B is the blocker, but I don't see any indication here that B ever revealed their role. Otherwise, there's WAY too many options to lynch C just on that one thing.

[Dragonfire]

No, I don't think the lack of a quick pile on Eugene indicates he's scum. I said in the second post that it'd be a interesting and daring play by scum to do that, and I don't think the scum around here are generally that bold. Especially on day 1 when they like to stay quiet and hide.

I agree. As Steven found out, voting for the person with penalties tends to draw too much attention to yourself...

I find this fascinating. There was absolutely no point for Mr. Heinz to vote for Mrs. Coleman except to show false opposition to her. He said it was unsubstantiated but out of everyone why you? There's a connection here. Now Mrs Coleman is voting for me because people didn't go for the easy lynch. The only people who didn't vote for me are...everyone except Mr. Schram and Mr. Heinz. Mr. Schram has proven himself untrustworthy "randomly" joining Mr. Heinz's vote for no legitimate reason. Mr. Heinz not only has proven he's an erratic voter but that theres a connection between you both. There's more going on as you three are all.

Wait a minute - where are you getting this connection from? Are you saying that they're scum together because Jasper voted for Hailey, quickly unvoted and then voted for you by accident, and now Hailey is accusing you?

To be honest, I disagree with Hailey's analysis but think she's town for it. Your vote on her looks suspiciously like OMGUS...

I have to say that so far, this has been an extremely disappointing day. The level of discussion is pretty minimal and while it's reasonable to not have a lot of leads this early, we can do better simply by talking more.

Here's a great example from Walter:

Walter comments that he's not willing to pursue a lynch on the current vote leader, Steven. That's great and all, but it doesn't really add to the discussion, it just kills it. Essentially, Walter is saying we should stop looking at Steven, but he's not offering anything new to the conversation. Furthermore, he states that scum often pile onto those bandwagons. The problem is, this bandwagon is very slow to build. So either scum aren't piling on to it, or Walter is doing his darndest to point out that HE's not piling on to it. Why doesn't he look more closely into the behavior of Cecilia, Jeffrey, or Jafar?

For that, I will Vote: Walter Williams (jluck)

That's a good point there. Walter, I'll be watching you.

soooooooo .... who's the scummiest; Person B or Person C

To be honest, unless Person B is the blocker and blocked C, I don't think person C looks particularly scummy. If anything, Persons B and D are the scum. B definitely appears scummy though.

[fhomess]

I don't particularly think any of the people in the play look particularly scummy based on what's written. At this point, it doesn't appear that anyone has lied about what they have or haven't done in a verifiable way.

[jluck]

AHOY! AHOY! AHOY!!!

I HAVE A PLAY FOR YOU!!!!!

-Lift curtain-

Act I

Person A - HEY!! I saw you visited Person C last night; why?

Person B - Oh, you know ... it seemed fun.

Person A - huh ... fun?

Person B - Did you see anyone else target my target?

Person A - No

Person B - Did you perform Action X on Person C?

Person A - No but I don't trust them, have you told about this to anyone else?

Person B - Yes, Person D.

Act II

Person A - I saw someone target you last night, do you know why?

Person C - No, why did you claim to me?

Person A - You seem on the level and I want to stir the discussion

Person C - It's risky to claim to me, bu thanks.

Person A - I'm waiting to see what Person B says about their visit

Person C - Let me know what they say, there's a good chance they are scum

Person A - Person B contacted you, the answer was weird

Person C - What do you mean, why Person B?

Person A - Oh shit, I messed up and revealed Person B's identity; I'm getting bad vibes here, goodbye

Person C - Well I'l be here if you want to talk

Person A - megabluck what do I do now ... what are the options?

Person C - Well the options are really Town role A, Scum role X, scum role Y or Town role Y.

Act III

Person A - You seem legit, I think I ducked up so here it is: I Action X Person C and told them and Person B. Now I fear they are both scum. If I die look at them.

Person D - I will, I was suspicious of Person C anyways however, Person B's answer is interesting.

Person D - Maybe Person C is the killer and was blocked.

Person D - We should lynch person C

soooooooo .... who's the scummiest; Person B or Person C

I don't trust person C. This line:

- It's risky to claim to me, bu thanks.-

is one I've used when I'm scum, acting like I've got the towns best interest at heart but stringing the conversation along. I don't like the way the the situation appears to have been handled either, it's too loose. In the end, this is the first solid thing we've had to build on so we need to follow this string a bit.

[Dragonfire]

I don't trust person C. This line:

- It's risky to claim to me, bu thanks.-

is one I've used when I'm scum, acting like I've got the towns best interest at heart but stringing the conversation along. I don't like the way the the situation appears to have been handled either, it's too loose. In the end, this is the first solid thing we've had to build on so we need to follow this string a bit.

That's also a good point, didn't notice that line before. I find Person B's interrogatory questions quite suspicious, along with their apparent claim of their role and result to Person D.

[jluck]

Maybe someone in the know can check if person C ended up with a pinapple or whatever that was in the opening pictures. That'd likely clear person B as having a prank role of so.

[mostlytechnic]

The whole thing reeks to me, since there's way too much claiming to people without reason. I just don't get that. Unless one of these night actions was an investigator, why is anyone trusting anyone with role claims?