Trial by Jury - Day 3

[Trekkie99]

1 minute ago, jluck said:

Keep playing your game, don't let me meta comment through you. As Tony, I still hate you

That's good to know. For a second there I thought you were trying to recruit me. 

[jluck]

Ok so on the topic of Stephanie, we need opinions. Is the info we have enough to consider her "cleared"?

I'm a bit worried she's been invited into the town block based off a few comments like these:

1 hour ago, Lady K said:

 

We understand your suspicions of me; but for the town to win we need to eliminate all the Ballagio crime family members and spit voting after Day 1 really doesn't help.  A lynch at the end of the day is what helps.  Keeping a single vote doesn't help the town and only looks anti-town.

 

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

I do have reason to vouch for Stephanie. Stephanie was the target of Day One's Night Kill. I've been in contact with the Town Doctor, and they've relayed this information to me. 

 

Stephanie kept saying "we" and @Kintobor has been a contact for trusted players, which may include Steph. 

[Tariq j]

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

I do have reason to vouch for Stephanie. Stephanie was the target of Day One's Night Kill. I've been in contact with the Town Doctor, and they've relayed this information to me. 

To be this honest this revelation does make Stephanie seem Town BUT this is assuming two things:

1.) She was targeted by the either members of the Mafia. This is night one remember, nobody knows who's who, So Stephanie could easily be scum who was targeted by the Vig Or a the rival Mafia gang.

2.) Like Tony said, (and this depends on the host's wording) did the Doctor actually protect Stephanie at all? Sometimes if the night result says "your action was a success" in the case of actions like blocking and protecting, that's doesn't mean to say that person was targeted and you saved them, it could just mean your action went through, but didn't actually have effect, if that makes sense.

[Kintobor]

2 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

To be this honest this revelation does make Stephanie seem Town BUT this is assuming two things:

1.) She was targeted by the either members of the Mafia. This is night one remember, nobody knows who's who, So Stephanie could easily be scum who was targeted by the Vig Or a the rival Mafia gang.

2.) Like Tony said, (and this depends on the host's wording) did the Doctor actually protect Stephanie at all? Sometimes if the night result says "your action was a success" in the case of actions like blocking and protecting, that's doesn't mean to say that person was targeted and you saved them, it could just mean your action went through, but didn't actually have effect, if that makes sense.

I highly doubt that the vigilante targeted Stephanie on Night One, unless you're suggesting both the Vigilante and the Scum decided to target Stephanie, or that both decided not target anyone? There's no reason for the Scum NOT to kill on night one.

From what I was told, they were given a "successful" message on Stephanie during Night One and a "successful" message on her during Night Two, even though they suspect she was not targeted Night Two. Since there was no deaths on Night One, the Doctor inferred that Stephanie had been the target of a scum Night Kill. The Doctor had no idea of the second mafia group on Night One, and has been in contact with Stephanie alone. I trust the Doctor well enough to believe their claim.

[Trekkie99]

Not to change the subject, but can we talk about the jurors who have been flying under the radar for the past couple of days? Particularly Amanda and Tina?

[Kwatchi]

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

You have continually split the vote by voting for Stephanie. You could've helped yesterday by voting for Oldman or Tony, and still you continued to split the vote by voting for Stephanie, a lead that would lead nowhere. You cannot deny this, as the voting evidence is there. As far as I am concerned, you voting for Stephanie for a third day in a row is the flat out scummiest thing I've yet to see. I have in fairly good confidence reason to believe Stephanie isn't scum, and you continually hammering on her, as well as your lack of confidence in the one power you have, your vote and the power to lynch, has not helped in the slightest. We as a town NEED a lynch today, and between Tony and Jared, Jared's the scummier of the town.

Vote: Jared Hartman (Kwatchi)

I'm shocked that people are not voting. At this point, if you haven't voted, you're withholding for a reason. The fact that the town is this quiet worries me. The scum have already seemingly grabbed some of you by the ear and are leading us to slaughter. 

((sip))

Last things first.  I agree that it is very quiet at the moment.  We need more people talking.

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

First point: Semantics, but my swinging my vote either way would not have pushed it over the 7 majority on day 1 or 2 so I was hardly splitting things.  We were deadlocked both days regardless of what I did.  In fact it seems I am being punished for NOT bandwagon' ing.  That is interesting to me.

BUT, since you are now vouching for Stephanie as town I will make you a deal.   I'll drop my Stephanie vote if someone will vouch for you (publicly or privately).

((sip))

[Trekkie99]

4 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

Da flip?! Its day three!!!

 

7 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

BUT, since you are now vouching for Stephanie as town I will make you a deal.   I'll drop my Stephanie vote if someone will vouch for you (publicly or privately).

?  ?

Oh, and again, you haven't replied to my claim against you.

[Kwatchi]

1 minute ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

?  ?

((sip))

Really?  What is there then to stop me saying:

"I was talking to the protector last night and they tell me that Clifford is town because they blocked a kill action on day 1."

Gary could be being truthful and earnest, or he could be guarding Stephanie by simply coming at me hard, or even both at the same time.  I dunno for sure. However, I'm not over-reacting to an uncorroborated statement that is possibly just trying to bully me back into line.

((sip))

[Trekkie99]

18 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

Really?  What is there then to stop me saying:

"I was talking to the protector last night and they tell me that Clifford is town because they blocked a kill action on day 1."

Gary could be being truthful and earnest, or he could be guarding Stephanie by simply coming at me hard, or even both at the same time.  I dunno for sure. 

OK that makes much more sense.

I'm not sure if I can vouch for Gary, but I feel what he says is true. Although what Gary says doesn't prove Stephanie is a townie, I'm fairly sure she is.

 

39 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

You didn't reply to my reply to this quote. So I'll ask again.

[jluck]

1 hour ago, Kintobor said:

I highly doubt that the vigilante targeted Stephanie on Night One, unless you're suggesting both the Vigilante and the Scum decided to target Stephanie, or that both decided not target anyone? There's no reason for the Scum NOT to kill on night one.

From what I was told, they were given a "successful" message on Stephanie during Night One and a "successful" message on her during Night Two, even though they suspect she was not targeted Night Two. Since there was no deaths on Night One, the Doctor inferred that Stephanie had been the target of a scum Night Kill. The Doctor had no idea of the second mafia group on Night One, and has been in contact with Stephanie alone. I trust the Doctor well enough to believe their claim.

OK so this means something totally different. If the Doc got a successful message on night 2 as well, then the Doc is just getting a "success" message any time they're not blocked. This means that Stephanie is no more cleared than anyone else, right? Please clarify if I'm misreading your post.

[Kintobor]

53 minutes ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

Last things first.  I agree that it is very quiet at the moment.  We need more people talking.

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

First point: Semantics, but my swinging my vote either way would not have pushed it over the 7 majority on day 1 or 2 so I was hardly splitting things.  We were deadlocked both days regardless of what I did.  In fact it seems I am being punished for NOT bandwagon' ing.  That is interesting to me.

BUT, since you are now vouching for Stephanie as town I will make you a deal.   I'll drop my Stephanie vote if someone will vouch for you (publicly or privately).

((sip))

It's day three. We have not had a lynch yet. Your continual push for not lynching someone is pushing the town into not using the one ability we have out maneuver scum. The fact that you still push this narrative only compounds your scummy behaviour. 

I don't really care if you drop Stephanie's vote, it won't change the fact I'm voting for you Jared. This seems like some desperate attempt to draw attention away from you, but I have to ask, what kind of vouch are you looking for?

[Tariq j]

4 minutes ago, jluck said:

OK so this means something totally different. If the Doc got a successful message on night 2 as well, then the Doc is just getting a "success" message any time they're not blocked. This means that Stephanie is no more cleared than anyone else, right? Please clarify if I'm misreading your post.

I see what you're saying but I think Gary is saying that since there were no kills on Night 1, it's safe to assume Stephanie was targeted that night.

[Kintobor]

Just now, jluck said:

OK so this means something totally different. If the Doc got a successful message on night 2 as well, then the Doc is just getting a "success" message any time they're not blocked. This means that Stephanie is no more cleared than anyone else, right? Please clarify if I'm misreading your post.

This is partially true. The Doctor only receives a "successful" message if they are not blocked. However, we had no death on Night One. Someone targeted Stephanie, and it was more than likely the scum.

[Tariq j]

6 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

This is partially true. The Doctor only receives a "successful" message if they are not blocked. However, we had no death on Night One. Someone targeted Stephanie, and it was more than likely the scum.

To play the devils advocate here, there are two scum teams. So even if Stephanie had been targeted by one scum team, she could still be part of the other, Just something to consider. 

1 hour ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Not to change the subject, but can we talk about the jurors who have been flying under the radar for the past couple of days? Particularly Amanda and Tina?

I agree, and I feel like we need to hear some more from Anthony as well. 

[jluck]

29 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

This is partially true. The Doctor only receives a "successful" message if they are not blocked. However, we had no death on Night One. Someone targeted Stephanie, and it was more than likely the scum.

This seems like the most likely explanation, but it’s not enough to clear her IMO. The lack of a kill could be attributed to many other things, or she could be from a rival scum team. 

[Lady K]

4 hours ago, Lady K said:

Remember I was the one started the vote on Clifford Day 1 and he is new. His contributions have improved,  and now we have a way analyze his actions better.

My suspicion was due to you only focusing on one target for Day 1 and then again on Day 2, a target who just did typical new behavior.  Using the vote initial to gain info is one thing; however you just kept on when by Day 2 there were other possibilities developing and you completely ignored any other option.  With your experience this looked extremely scummy.  Could the CJA members be scummy for either of the crime familys; yes, but on Day 1 it wasn't worth the risk.  Day2 you didn't focus on anyone else; so still the risk was too high and it gave the appearance of you not helping town.

I would welcome you being investigated as well. 

I wasn't defending the CJA trio; merely pointing out other possibilities that were being ignored.  The focus solely on the CJA trio can be indicative of scum knowingly getting rid of an easy town target; especially on Day 1.  Easy because of the lack of experience of the CJ jury members; so the lack of participation looked scummy and suspicious.  I brought up Amanda and Tina at the time because they were quiet and have the experience to know how to participate and be active or alternately how to hide and fly under the radar. 

Yes, you are.  The option you are missing is that I am town with nothing to hide.  I am actively trying to engage the town in conversation so the town wins.  And I was saved by the doctor from the scum kill; if the scum had been successful then just how active would the conversations be right now?  I am even welcoming the debate about me just to get this quiet town talking, would a crime family member do that?  No.  The best win for the crime family is a quiet divided town that can't stand together and make a decision.

And yes to your comment earlier, I wouldn't doubt that the crime family is all over the place in voting; in keeping the votes split there is less likely one of them will be lynched. 

I brought this forward for the end of my post.  I have been very active and questioning of many jurors; some at the same time.  I have voted based on several suspicious post from who I though was most suspicious at the time and not joined a  bandwagon just to cast a vote.  This makes me a target for night kill. As I stated before, a quiet town= a dead town.  Scum will try to take out the more active jurors first.  Look what happened to Harry night 2; he was active and questioning jurors motives and conversation and he became a target.

3 hours ago, jluck said:

Ok so on the topic of Stephanie, we need opinions. Is the info we have enough to consider her "cleared"?

I'm a bit worried she's been invited into the town block based off a few comments like these:

 

Stephanie kept saying "we" and @Kintobor has been a contact for trusted players, which may include Steph. 

You are worried that an very active juror is part of the town block??  Only the crime family members have reason to worry; this is a strange statement coming from you if you really were loyal town jury member.  Suspicious...

2 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Not to change the subject, but can we talk about the jurors who have been flying under the radar for the past couple of days? Particularly Amanda and Tina?

There are others who should be mentioned as well; it is Day 3 everyone should be talking and voting by now.

Anthony, just because I advocated against a lynch of you yesterday does not mean you are off the hook.  

Tina, you stated you would be more active: thoughts?

Amanda, care to share your thoughts with us?

While it is good to finally see others now joining the discussion; if you debate all day about me and there is no lynch then the scum win another free day and will kill again at night.  Then on Day 4 we will be no better off that Day 3.

 

2 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

Last things first.  I agree that it is very quiet at the moment.  We need more people talking.

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

First point: Semantics, but my swinging my vote either way would not have pushed it over the 7 majority on day 1 or 2 so I was hardly splitting things.  We were deadlocked both days regardless of what I did.  In fact it seems I am being punished for NOT bandwagon' ing.  That is interesting to me.

BUT, since you are now vouching for Stephanie as town I will make you a deal.   I'll drop my Stephanie vote if someone will vouch for you (publicly or privately).

((sip))

This is the way of town working together though; if at the end of the day we don't have a lynch and the scum kill that night then they will win.  By lynching we have a strong chance of taking out the Ballagio/Moletti crime family members.

Why should anyone make you a deal?  I am agreeing with Gary; your scummy behavior is on par with that of Tony.  I would have no problem today switching my vote from Tony to you.

1 hour ago, Tariq j said:

To play the devils advocate here, there are two scum teams. So even if Stephanie had been targeted by one scum team, she could still be part of the other, Just something to consider. 

I agree, and I feel like we need to hear some more from Anthony as well. 

Except for why would I be so active, out front and questioning if I were from either crime family?  I am drawing attention just by being so active.

1 hour ago, jluck said:

This seems like the most likely explanation, but it’s not enough to clear her IMO. The lack of a kill could be attributed to many other things, or she could be from a rival scum team. 

This is the second statement from you that doesn't make sense from a loyal town point of view;  you seen to not want to accept that I am loyal town.  The only reason you would keep my loyalty in question in the front of everyone else's minds is that you are from one of the crime family members.  

So with Day 3 here; I have tried to give Tony a second chance; but two more statements he has made seem anti- town to me and suspicious.

Vote:  Tony (jluck)

I still feel that you are leading the town down a bad path. 

[Actor Builder]

2 hours ago, Tariq j said:

I agree, and I feel like we need to hear some more from Anthony as well. 

I agree. Tuesdays be crazy, bro. 

Here's my think: Tony, I find you suspicious because of your initiative to lynch me based off of Cathy and Jimmy's behavior. There's nothing I can do to explain why they were acting goofy, even a lil' bit scummy, because, quite simply, I'm not them. If I had an all-access pass to their brainwaves I might be able to help you out. The type of people who drop out mid-jury are the same type that aren't really sure what they're doin' at all. They're inexperienced jurors, and it's understandable that they wouldn't be quite sure what to do. I know a lot of "Scummy" behavior from new jurors can be the result of more roleplay type behavior than logical thought. Heck, I still do that.

(Takes off shoes)

Here's another think I got goin' on up in my noggin:  Stephanie: I find you suspicious for your perpetual vote on Tony, even though I also find Tony suspicious. You've voted for him since Day 1 (I'm not fact checking that right now. Too lazy), yeah? That seems weird. Like you have some sort of premeditated vendetta against him.

It's not unlikely that feuds betwixt jurors are preplanned and meant to "confirm" one scum as town after they other is finally voted off and proven guilty. I've seen it done in large mafia families that can spare a member, and I've even done that myself in past juries. It works well and is extremely distracting for the town. This feels like a scenario we shouldn't overlook.

The claim that Stephanie has been vouched for, makes that seem less likely though, since another mafia member would need to get in on that to fake a vouching, and that would put more of their own at risk. So for now, I think I trust Stephanie, but maybe not.

I'd love to hear from that cheerleader person, wherever she's at. 

Actually, Tina hasn't added anything since a long time now.

I'ma pull one of them power plays, and vote for her until she speaks up again.

VOTE: Tina (Umbra-Manis)

if she never responds, she's already got three penalty votes, so we can lynch her easily if we can't agree on an active juror.

[Kintobor]

14 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

if she never responds, she's already got three penalty votes, so we can lynch her easily if we can't agree on an active juror.

That's suspicious behaviour if I've ever seen. Pushing for the lynch of someone with a penalty vote for being quiet has always been a scum move to easily lynch a townie anytime I've seen it advocated, especially after you claimed that the reason you voted for her was to get her to speak up. You'd need one more vote to lynch her as of right now. 

17 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

Actually, Tina hasn't added anything since a long time now.

I'ma pull one of them power plays, and vote for her until she speaks up again.

VOTE: Tina (Umbra-Manis)

With Jared just scumming up the place and now this, there's no reason we cannot get a lynch today. If you haven't voted past the first 48 hours, you're withholding your vote for a reason, and that's scummy, even if you aren't scum.

[Trekkie99]

So today people on my suspicion list are the following. 

Tony (jluck). Your now leading the investigation into Stephanie on whether or not she's a townie. I for one have believed her to be a townie since day one. And assuming it's true that there's a blocker, this would  very likely explain why there was no night one kill. She's an obvious target for the scum, and there by a obvious choice for the blocker.

Tony, I feel your intention is to turn people against Stephanie. And when paired with the possible evidence that may prove that Stephanie is a townie, the result is you looking suspicious in my eyes.

 

Amanda (Khscarymovie4) It is really starting to grind on me how Amanda and others are flying under the radar with little to no attention being payed toward them. I bet my bottom dollar Amanda is scum. So with that said.

Vote: Amanda (Khscarymovie4)

 

Oh and Jared (Kwatchi) , I don't think your scum, you just gotta work on being a better citizen.

4 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

Second last point: Why this constant push for the lynch?  I really don't see the point of it.  It simply speeds things up to end game without much value.  Still disagree on this strategy.

It's day three. We should have had a lynch yesterday.

[Actor Builder]

1 minute ago, Kintobor said:

That's suspicious behaviour if I've ever seen. Pushing for the lynch of someone with a penalty vote for being quiet has always been a scum move to easily lynch a townie anytime I've seen it advocated, especially after you claimed that the reason you voted for her was to get her to speak up. You'd need one more vote to lynch her as of right now. 

Perhaps I mispoke. I don't want to lynch her. I want her to say something, anything, even her favorite food, because right now the little thing at the bottom says she's either reading or has been reading what's going on. If she's not gonna say anything to even get a vote off her back, I think my vote might should stay.

But if she reads that, and still decides to stay in the shadows, that's suspicious bro, and time to lynch. That's my think anyway. See what I'm gettin' at?

[Lady K]

7 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

((sip))

I have tried to be open about my stance from day 1 about this, though I probably could have been more eloquent at times.  My voting has come down to two (2) things:

1) I don't believe "blind" lynching is a valid strategy.  My belief is keeping as many potential town in the game - and therefore as many power-roles active and collecting information - is a better philosophy than whittling down numbers in a blind hope of a hit.  That info will be crucial in a very short amount of time.  Frankly, the lack of day 1 kills was a gawd-send in that respect. The fact that Oldman was high in votes two days running, and then flipped town last night seems to bear out my thinking.  I realize not everyone agrees here, and I'll assume not includes a good number of town members, but that is my stance.  I'll continue to vote based on my perception of behaviour and not go with the crowd.  And that of course leads to...

2) I have have not wavered in my suspicion of Stephanie (LadyK).  I've have done my best to explain that I have identified her using PR/debate tactics that both deflect and obfuscate, which would be the definition of suspicious behaviour far beyond what I'd expect for someone under the pressure of a single vote.  My make no apologies for this and my hope is that should I unhappily not make it to the end of the trial, that the spotlight will shine immediately on her and I'll get my woman from beyond the grave.

Now, I do have a slight change in my suspicions of Stephanie.  I can longer assume she is simply Balagio but now I have to consider she may be Moletti instead.  I am still trying to figure out the risk/reward of that fact.  And thanks for the experienced jurors who have helped undertsand the nuances of the possible roles.

While can't say I am flattered or happy by this, but I'm not going to complain about it.  We obviously have very different philosphies on "blind"  lynching.  You are for and I am against.  Since I disagree with your stance, I naturally do keep an eye on you as well.  But the important thing is he has put it out their publicly, and that I applaud because this is info we will need later.

 

And since someone will ask, my vote at the moment will either be Stephanie or someone who continues to push for blind lynching.  It is not a threat so much of where my thought space is right at this moment.  And since everyone is still being cagey, I'll start things off in unsurprising fashion.  One way or another, I want my suspicions of Stephanie confirmed.

Vote for Stephanie Diaz (Lady K)

But as I have stated since day 1, if anyone can make a valid case for me to change my vote to someone else, based on facts and not "hunches", I will consider it.

((sip))

 

6 hours ago, Kintobor said:

You have continually split the vote by voting for Stephanie. You could've helped yesterday by voting for Oldman or Tony, and still you continued to split the vote by voting for Stephanie, a lead that would lead nowhere. You cannot deny this, as the voting evidence is there. As far as I am concerned, you voting for Stephanie for a third day in a row is the flat out scummiest thing I've yet to see. I have in fairly good confidence reason to believe Stephanie isn't scum, and you continually hammering on her, as well as your lack of confidence in the one power you have, your vote and the power to lynch, has not helped in the slightest. We as a town NEED a lynch today, and between Tony and Jared, Jared's the scummier of the town.

Vote: Jared Hartman (Kwatchi)

I'm shocked that people are not voting. At this point, if you haven't voted, you're withholding for a reason. The fact that the town is this quiet worries me. The scum have already seemingly grabbed some of you by the ear and are leading us to slaughter. 

 

6 hours ago, Forresto said:

@jluck Precisely my sentiment. I've reread through Day 2 and i've determined my course of action, even if it proverbially damns me.

~

Stephanie was reticent to lynch day one. Fair enough, reasonable strategy.

Tony was suspicious of Cathy. 

Stephanie however she was defensive of Cathy, on multiple occasions, and when pressed deferred to Amanda and Tina EACH time deflecting the focus away from Cathy. 

Cathy was then replaced by Jimmy

Stephanie votes for Tony and then Jimmy votes for Tony both in defense of Cathy. 

As suspicion mounts against Jimmy, Stephanie defends Jimmy and deflects again to Amanda. 

Again suspicion is focused on Jimmy and Stephanie distracts by presenting this whole essay on voting and again deflects to Amanda! This is a bizarre pattern.

Then Jimmy is replaced by Anthony. 

I vote for Anthony. Anthony votes for me. 

Stephanie then once again tries to break the vote against Cathy/Jimmy/Anthony.

Later as you Tony double down Stephanie defends Anthony putting blame also on Amanda.

Surprise, surprise Anthony votes for Tony.

Finally Stephanie makes a final case for people to switch onto the bandwagon against Tony, which is odd given her prior reticence for so called band wagons. 

~

Stephanie first defended Cathy inexplicably, then tried to separate Jimmy from Cathy, and then Anthony from Jimmy despite them all holding the same role. 

She and who I believe is her compatriot Anthony aka Jimmy aka Cathy have led the anti-tony campaign simply because of his original suspicion and day 1 vote of Cathy, Anthony's predecessor.

Is there a chance Tony is scum? Maybe, but he's been on the defensive.

Unlike Tony, Stephanie has attempted to control the narrative the last two Days and guide us all in a vote against Tony with no real evidence.

Extremely suspicious behavior. 

~

Therefore I accuse both Stephanie Diaz and Anthony Dodson of being scum and traitors to our community!

I vote Stephanie Diaz (LadyK) for the reasons stated above.

 

1 hour ago, Lady K said:

I brought this forward for the end of my post.  I have been very active and questioning of many jurors; some at the same time.  I have voted based on several suspicious post from who I though was most suspicious at the time and not joined a  bandwagon just to cast a vote.  This makes me a target for night kill. As I stated before, a quiet town= a dead town.  Scum will try to take out the more active jurors first.  Look what happened to Harry night 2; he was active and questioning jurors motives and conversation and he became a target.

You are worried that an very active juror is part of the town block??  Only the crime family members have reason to worry; this is a strange statement coming from you if you really were loyal town jury member.  Suspicious...

There are others who should be mentioned as well; it is Day 3 everyone should be talking and voting by now.

Anthony, just because I advocated against a lynch of you yesterday does not mean you are off the hook.  

Tina, you stated you would be more active: thoughts?

Amanda, care to share your thoughts with us?

While it is good to finally see others now joining the discussion; if you debate all day about me and there is no lynch then the scum win another free day and will kill again at night.  Then on Day 4 we will be no better off that Day 3.

 

This is the way of town working together though; if at the end of the day we don't have a lynch and the scum kill that night then they will win.  By lynching we have a strong chance of taking out the Ballagio/Moletti crime family members.

Why should anyone make you a deal?  I am agreeing with Gary; your scummy behavior is on par with that of Tony.  I would have no problem today switching my vote from Tony to you.

Except for why would I be so active, out front and questioning if I were from either crime family?  I am drawing attention just by being so active.

This is the second statement from you that doesn't make sense from a loyal town point of view;  you seen to not want to accept that I am loyal town.  The only reason you would keep my loyalty in question in the front of everyone else's minds is that you are from one of the crime family members.  

So with Day 3 here; I have tried to give Tony a second chance; but two more statements he has made seem anti- town to me and suspicious.

Vote:  Tony (jluck)

I still feel that you are leading the town down a bad path. 

 

28 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

I agree. Tuesdays be crazy, bro. 

Here's my think: Tony, I find you suspicious because of your initiative to lynch me based off of Cathy and Jimmy's behavior. There's nothing I can do to explain why they were acting goofy, even a lil' bit scummy, because, quite simply, I'm not them. If I had an all-access pass to their brainwaves I might be able to help you out. The type of people who drop out mid-jury are the same type that aren't really sure what they're doin' at all. They're inexperienced jurors, and it's understandable that they wouldn't be quite sure what to do. I know a lot of "Scummy" behavior from new jurors can be the result of more roleplay type behavior than logical thought. Heck, I still do that.

(Takes off shoes)

Here's another think I got goin' on up in my noggin:  Stephanie: I find you suspicious for your perpetual vote on Tony, even though I also find Tony suspicious. You've voted for him since Day 1 (I'm not fact checking that right now. Too lazy), yeah? That seems weird. Like you have some sort of premeditated vendetta against him.

It's not unlikely that feuds betwixt jurors are preplanned and meant to "confirm" one scum as town after they other is finally voted off and proven guilty. I've seen it done in large mafia families that can spare a member, and I've even done that myself in past juries. It works well and is extremely distracting for the town. This feels like a scenario we shouldn't overlook.

The claim that Stephanie has been vouched for, makes that seem less likely though, since another mafia member would need to get in on that to fake a vouching, and that would put more of their own at risk. So for now, I think I trust Stephanie, but maybe not.

I'd love to hear from that cheerleader person, wherever she's at. 

Actually, Tina hasn't added anything since a long time now.

I'ma pull one of them power plays, and vote for her until she speaks up again.

VOTE: Tina (Umbra-Manis)

if she never responds, she's already got three penalty votes, so we can lynch her easily if we can't agree on an active juror.

 

8 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

That's suspicious behaviour if I've ever seen. Pushing for the lynch of someone with a penalty vote for being quiet has always been a scum move to easily lynch a townie anytime I've seen it advocated, especially after you claimed that the reason you voted for her was to get her to speak up. You'd need one more vote to lynch her as of right now. 

With Jared just scumming up the place and now this, there's no reason we cannot get a lynch today. If you haven't voted past the first 48 hours, you're withholding your vote for a reason, and that's scummy, even if you aren't scum.

 

3 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

So today people on my suspicion list are the following. 

Tony (jluck). Your now leading the investigation into Stephanie on whether or not she's a townie. I for one have believed her to be a townie since day one. And assuming it's true that there's a blocker, this would  very likely explain why there was no night one kill. She's an obvious target for the scum, and there by a obvious choice for the blocker.

Tony, I feel your intention is to turn people against Stephanie. And when paired with the possible evidence that may prove that Stephanie is a townie, the result is you looking suspicious in my eyes.

 

Amanda (Khscarymovie4) It is really starting to grind on me how Amanda and others are flying under the radar with little to no attention being payed toward them. I bet my bottom dollar Amanda is scum. So with that said.

Vote: Amanda (Khscarymovie4)

 

Oh and Jared (Kwatchi) , I don't think your scum, you just gotta work on being a better citizen.

It's day three. We should have had a lynch yesterday.

So what I am seeing so far is:

Stephanie (me):  Jared, Dez

Jared:  Gary

Tony:  Stephanie

Tina:  Anthony

Amanda:  Clifford

No votes yet:  Tony, Brock, Tina, Amanda 

This day will be a bad day for town if this is how it ends up.

[Kintobor]

3 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

Perhaps I mispoke. I don't want to lynch her. I want her to say something, anything, even her favorite food, because right now the little thing at the bottom says she's either reading or has been reading what's going on. If she's not gonna say anything to even get a vote off her back, I think my vote might should stay.

But if she reads that, and still decides to stay in the shadows, that's suspicious bro, and time to lynch. That's my think anyway. See what I'm gettin' at?

I'd agree that it's suspicious, but I want to see what Tina's got to say before putting down the hammer on her. I'm still suspicious of you Anthony, but we'll see what Tina has to say before I pass further judgement. 

Also, I goofed. Tina would need two more votes to be today's lynch. I may not trust you Anthony, but I'm not going to make up facts against your case claiming Tina's scum.

[Actor Builder]

4 minutes ago, Kintobor said:

I'd agree that it's suspicious, but I want to see what Tina's got to say before putting down the hammer on her. I'm still suspicious of you Anthony, but we'll see what Tina has to say before I pass further judgement. 

Also, I goofed. Tina would need two more votes to be today's lynch. I may not trust you Anthony, but I'm not going to make up facts against your case claiming Tina's scum.

You do you, bro.

[Lady K]

34 minutes ago, Actor Builder said:

I agree. Tuesdays be crazy, bro. 

Here's my think: Tony, I find you suspicious because of your initiative to lynch me based off of Cathy and Jimmy's behavior. There's nothing I can do to explain why they were acting goofy, even a lil' bit scummy, because, quite simply, I'm not them. If I had an all-access pass to their brainwaves I might be able to help you out. The type of people who drop out mid-jury are the same type that aren't really sure what they're doin' at all. They're inexperienced jurors, and it's understandable that they wouldn't be quite sure what to do. I know a lot of "Scummy" behavior from new jurors can be the result of more roleplay type behavior than logical thought. Heck, I still do that.

(Takes off shoes)

Here's another think I got goin' on up in my noggin:  Stephanie: I find you suspicious for your perpetual vote on Tony, even though I also find Tony suspicious. You've voted for him since Day 1 (I'm not fact checking that right now. Too lazy), yeah? That seems weird. Like you have some sort of premeditated vendetta against him.

It's not unlikely that feuds betwixt jurors are preplanned and meant to "confirm" one scum as town after they other is finally voted off and proven guilty. I've seen it done in large mafia families that can spare a member, and I've even done that myself in past juries. It works well and is extremely distracting for the town. This feels like a scenario we shouldn't overlook.

The claim that Stephanie has been vouched for, makes that seem less likely though, since another mafia member would need to get in on that to fake a vouching, and that would put more of their own at risk. So for now, I think I trust Stephanie, but maybe not.

I'd love to hear from that cheerleader person, wherever she's at. 

Actually, Tina hasn't added anything since a long time now.

I'ma pull one of them power plays, and vote for her until she speaks up again.

VOTE: Tina (Umbra-Manis)

if she never responds, she's already got three penalty votes, so we can lynch her easily if we can't agree on an active juror.

Fact check for you; I voted for Clifford Day 1 and Tony Day 2 only after he seemed so focused on CJA lynch that he completely overlooked anyone else.

On that note Tony has moved from CJA to focusing on me; which still bothers me because he is not bringing up any other questions about anyone else; just moving from one focus to another.

I am focused on Tony because I firmly believe he is misleading the town and trying to direct voting in the wrong direction.  I do have strong suspicion of others; he is just at the top of my list.

[jluck]

1 hour ago, Lady K said:

(snip)

You are worried that an very active juror is part of the town block??  Only the crime family members have reason to worry; this is a strange statement coming from you if you really were loyal town jury member.  Suspicious...

(snip)

Except for why would I be so active, out front and questioning if I were from either crime family?  I am drawing attention just by being so active.

This is the second statement from you that doesn't make sense from a loyal town point of view;  you seen to not want to accept that I am loyal town.  The only reason you would keep my loyalty in question in the front of everyone else's minds is that you are from one of the crime family members.  

So with Day 3 here; I have tried to give Tony a second chance; but two more statements he has made seem anti- town to me and suspicious.

Vote:  Tony (jluck)

I still feel that you are leading the town down a bad path. 

First off, being the most active doesn't make you town. Scum almost always have at least one member who is very active being pro-town.

Second, I have a major problem with an active juror being in the town block. You're Not Confirmed Town! No unconfirmed person should be in the block, regardless of circumstantial evidence. If any other player was "confirmed" in the same manner that you have been, you would not allow them in the block. My read on you is that of likely town. I feel the Doc's claim is around 80% likely to be true. There are other scenarios that I outlined above which could happen where your not town and still get targeted, but the most likely scenario is you were town targeted by scum on night one. Also, your continued insistence to vote for me makes me read you as non scum. If you were scum, you'd know that the second I die and came up town you'd face increased scrutiny. All that is to say, I think you are likely town. But likely town does not belong in the town block.

49 minutes ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

So today people on my suspicion list are the following. 

Tony (jluck). Your now leading the investigation into Stephanie on whether or not she's a townie. I for one have believed her to be a townie since day one. And assuming it's true that there's a blocker, this would  very likely explain why there was no night one kill. She's an obvious target for the scum, and there by a obvious choice for the blocker.

Tony, I feel your intention is to turn people against Stephanie. And when paired with the possible evidence that may prove that Stephanie is a townie, the result is you looking suspicious in my eyes.

 

Amanda (Khscarymovie4) It is really starting to grind on me how Amanda and others are flying under the radar with little to no attention being payed toward them. I bet my bottom dollar Amanda is scum. So with that said.

Vote: Amanda (Khscarymovie4)

 

Oh and Jared (Kwatchi) , I don't think your scum, you just gotta work on being a better citizen.

It's day three. We should have had a lynch yesterday.

Actually ya, day three and I kinda forgot Amanda was even playing. She's really been low key about everything...