24: Mafia - Hour 2: 11am to 12pm

[KotZ]

Yes. Voting is open. With 14 players, a majority of 8 is needed to lynch.

[jimmynick]

As I said before, going on the offensive can be effective.

18 hours ago, Tariq j said:

My biggest concern here is why you would have a PM this early in the game, I wouldn’t trust anyone enough to start a PM with them at this point.

6 hours ago, Asphalt said:

I’m saying getting a pm during day one is a bit suspect. 

2 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

I just find it a little odd that a town member is that willing to start pm with potential dangers so early on in the game. 

I just want to respond to all my h8rs who think that PMing early is scummy. In fact, it's helped me catch a liar. His name is Benson. Sound familiar? Let me give y'all a rundown of what went down. You remember that Benson had a strange vote for Bob:

On 1/6/2019 at 10:30 AM, LegoMonorailFan said:

Hmm...I'm watching you janitor. 

Vote:Bob(Bob)

This piqued my interest because, truthfully, Bob's claim piqued my interest. So I PMed Benson to ask why he voted for Bob. He responded (I'm paraphrasing) "He's pretending to look useful; it's pointless and he wants to slide under the radar". At this point I said that mass claiming is a legitimate strategy. You'll note that afterwards, Benson's public rationale was all about mass claims:

On 1/6/2019 at 5:35 PM, LegoMonorailFan said:

I was hoping to maybe hear from some others first what they thought about what would seem as a request from our janitor to have a mass claim. 

I pointed out the incongruity between his explanations and he said (again, paraphrasing) "That's because you asked me earlier, but now I'm asking everyone else". I don't buy it. This little lie intrigued me, but I didn't think it was a 100% indicator of scum.

This brings us to today and Benson's strange response to the night kill. Bob has already expounded on what Benson has said in thread, so I'll point out that he immediately assumed Officer Skinner's death was at the hands of scum:

23 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

Scum probably viewed mediumsnowman as a potential PR based on activity.

while also busking with the idea that "third parties" use melee weapons, such as hammers:

23 hours ago, LegoMonorailFan said:

BTW, Don't scum usually use guns and third party use melee? 

This gets even freakier in PM, where I accused Benson of subtly congratulating scum in this thread and I asked him why he was so sure it was a scum kill. He responded (essentially) "I guess it could have a been a third party", at which point I said "third party as opposed to vig?" This is where Benson goes loopy and says "I mentally categorize vigilantes as third parties".

Either Benson is some weird third party who forgot that vigs tend to exist, or he's scum, and very bad at fishing at that (see his first post of the day). I am confident to Vote: Benson (LegoMonorailFan).

[Kintobor]

1 hour ago, Kristel said:

I called you out yesterday for not reading posts properly.  I suggest you reread the first hour and you will see I did reveal who was on my list. Or did you not want to quote that post because you were on the list?

@Kintobor, it was @Tariq jI called out for not reading posts.  Sorry for the confusion.  My bad for using stupid new fang-dangled comms devices while on my potty break.  

Still holds though that I did reveal my list, and you were also on it.

Not at all. I'm fine with being on that list, even if you initially mistook for what reason. In fact, I'll reiterate it here: I'm on a Day One suspicion list from Barry, with the reasoning being a "gut feeling".

I didn't want to know who was on your suspicion list, though: that was Lewis. What I asked you about was who you would vote for if forced to, and you dodged that question at every opportunity, both from me and Dr. James. My point against you still holds that you didn't answer my question, and when you answered Lewis's you disappeared from the conversation until the end of the day when you voted for Dr. James and justified your vote.

I get incredibly weird vibes off of you, Barry, and your claim that you were taking a "look and see" approach and your inability to say who you would vote for came off as being non-comital, waiting for a bandwagon to happen. 

Also, Lewis, your meta-analysis is the reason why you believe he isn't scum? That seems like a convenient excuse to dodge my question, especially since Barry had only responded twice before you asked him.

[jimmynick]

Just now, Kintobor said:

That seems like a convenient excuse to dodge my question

How is showing the results of a meta-analysis dodging your question? During Hour 1 I asked myself "Barry is being quiet and doesn't want to lynch on Day One - is this a tell for him?" so I did lots of reading and established that no, it isn't. I don't have to share every single thought I think in the day thread.

[jluck]

19 hours ago, Tariq j said:

Sad to hear about Office Skinner, 

My biggest concern here is why you would have a PM this early in the game, I wouldn’t trust anyone enough to start a PM with them at this point. 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Asphalt said:

We lost one of our own.  These moles went straight for security, this CANNOT BE TOLERATED.  WHAT is our NEXT MOVE?

There is a whole lot of discussion about claiming and PMing.  This was a serious issue in my last game as well.  I think a lot more than is strickly needed is being taken into the terms being used.  For sake of clarity, if you are claiming town, just claim town.  It seems as if you are trying to trip people up and cause a lot more misdirected conversation by yelling IM LOYAL CTU.  

As far as the PMs go, I know I am ignoring anything I received before the first night was up.  No one could know anything for sure outside of their own allegiance. 

I’ve already begun to engage in PMs. I personally see no harm it from a personal standpoint. It gives me another angle to analyze players from and (if I feel so inclined) I can plant false info to see if scum act on it. Communication is really all we have to go on. 

Speaking of PMs, I was in discussion with the now deceased as I’m sure others of you can collaborate as if he messaged me he likely messaged others. He did share his thoughts, for what they’re worth. To paraphrase as we can’t quote PMs:

He was suspicious of Bobs claim, it almost seems like bobs trying to draw night actions by posting that at the deadline. 

He couldn’t read Asphalt or LMF,  Lady K seems too laidback, when she's town she takes the lead.

[Zepher]

Hey all! Got done with some analysis, ready to pop back in here and keep analyzing!

I guess there's no reason to play it close to the vest any longer - Skinner reached out to me as well over the "coffee hour". I didn't reveal it immediately to see if Lewis would slip up in some way, or try to lie, but what he said basically matches up with what Skinner said in private, and also because Skinner's hunches were only hunches - since there hadn't been any night actions yet there wasn't any chance her thoughts were based on hard evidence. I can also confirm my fellow Analyst Riley's (hi Riley!) claim - besides her suspicion of Lewis in private Skinner mentioned she was particularly suspicious of the Senator ("a gut thing"), Kaster (due to silence), and couldn't get a read off of Wilson and... Riley! Though I can imagine why she wouldn't mention she suspected Riley to Riley, so I don't think Riley was being withholding. As I said, I wouldn't put much stock in that, but wanted to pass it along and confirm Riley is telling the truth.

Of the Senator and Kaster, I didn't really find either of them particularly suspicious - they both stated motives (trying to churn up some votes / not adding hectic voices) that ring more or less true for me.

In truth Benson seems like a good vote to me (I accused him yesterday and he has done little to respond to those fears), as does Lewis, who was erratic in private and erratic in public today too - I also didn't think the "claiming craze" was anything of note, and he has been flinging accusations and clearances left and right today. I'm still sticking to my guns, however, on Diane seeming fishy. She seems to be playing both sides of things: yes people should converge on votes, so we can find scum... but she shouldn't be the one to do it? Just rearrange these two quotes and you'll see her arguing against herself...

11 hours ago, fhomess said:

What you see on votes where a lynch is pushed, barring an early consensus such as the result of an investigation, is that you force people to take sides and then have the ability later on to look at the reasons they chose for taking those sides.

(and earlier that same post...)

I could have perhaps led by example and jumped on one of the other candidates with multiple votes.  Had I done that, I would've switched to my husband Larry, but it really would've just been between him and Riley as I was the only other person with multiple votes.  Riley got his votes for too quickly voting for me, and I didn't find that a compelling reason.  Larry has been talking a lot, but I'm not sure he isn't just trying to stir trouble.

What she seems to be saying is people should vote in a pack to force people to either vote for or against that candidate, so we can analyze it later... but that she shouldn't be the person to do that... and (I'm adding this) so that people can't analyze her votes later?

Anyway, she's a back burner. For now I will vote for Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn). Even his most recent post is... strange:

1 hour ago, jamesn said:

I don't have to share every single thought I think in the day thread.

???

[Lady K]

2 hours ago, jluck said:

 

I’ve already begun to engage in PMs. I personally see no harm it from a personal standpoint. It gives me another angle to analyze players from and (if I feel so inclined) I can plant false info to see if scum act on it. Communication is really all we have to go on. 

Speaking of PMs, I was in discussion with the now deceased as I’m sure others of you can collaborate as if he messaged me he likely messaged others. He did share his thoughts, for what they’re worth. To paraphrase as we can’t quote PMs:

He was suspicious of Bobs claim, it almost seems like bobs trying to draw night actions by posting that at the deadline. 

He couldn’t read Asphalt or LMF,  Lady K seems too laidback, when she's town she takes the lead.

I can say I agree with the PMs earlier in the game.  When I have the time to be more active (RL) then I too will PM early to get a feel for initial thoughts.  I was also included in the PM with our departed security; same thoughts were shared with me regarding the mass claim and of Bob appearing to try to draw attention to himself from possible PRs (her thoughts, not mine).  I am recovering from the flu; the reason for my lack of participation. 

1 hour ago, Zepher said:

Hey all! Got done with some analysis, ready to pop back in here and keep analyzing!

I guess there's no reason to play it close to the vest any longer - Skinner reached out to me as well over the "coffee hour". I didn't reveal it immediately to see if Lewis would slip up in some way, or try to lie, but what he said basically matches up with what Skinner said in private, and also because Skinner's hunches were only hunches - since there hadn't been any night actions yet there wasn't any chance her thoughts were based on hard evidence. I can also confirm my fellow Analyst Riley's (hi Riley!) claim - besides her suspicion of Lewis in private Skinner mentioned she was particularly suspicious of the Senator ("a gut thing"), Kaster (due to silence), and couldn't get a read off of Wilson and... Riley! Though I can imagine why she wouldn't mention she suspected Riley to Riley, so I don't think Riley was being withholding. As I said, I wouldn't put much stock in that, but wanted to pass it along and confirm Riley is telling the truth.

Of the Senator and Kaster, I didn't really find either of them particularly suspicious - they both stated motives (trying to churn up some votes / not adding hectic voices) that ring more or less true for me.

In truth Benson seems like a good vote to me (I accused him yesterday and he has done little to respond to those fears), as does Lewis, who was erratic in private and erratic in public today too - I also didn't think the "claiming craze" was anything of note, and he has been flinging accusations and clearances left and right today. I'm still sticking to my guns, however, on Diane seeming fishy. She seems to be playing both sides of things: yes people should converge on votes, so we can find scum... but she shouldn't be the one to do it? Just rearrange these two quotes and you'll see her arguing against herself...

What she seems to be saying is people should vote in a pack to force people to either vote for or against that candidate, so we can analyze it later... but that she shouldn't be the person to do that... and (I'm adding this) so that people can't analyze her votes later?

Anyway, she's a back burner. For now I will vote for Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn). Even his most recent post is... strange:

???

I am a bit confused here.  It seems to me that you are stating that Benson is a good vote due to reasons you give and then you state that Diane seems to be fishy and you are sticking to your guns about her (and give good reasons to vote for her); and then you go and vote for someone completely different than what you seem to state are your top choices.  And you give the only reason as Offficer Lewis' most recent post.  

 

[Kristel]

3 hours ago, Kintobor said:

Not at all. I'm fine with being on that list, even if you initially mistook for what reason. In fact, I'll reiterate it here: I'm on a Day One suspicion list from Barry, with the reasoning being a "gut feeling".

I didn't want to know who was on your suspicion list, though: that was Lewis. What I asked you about was who you would vote for if forced to, and you dodged that question at every opportunity, both from me and Dr. James. My point against you still holds that you didn't answer my question, and when you answered Lewis's you disappeared from the conversation until the end of the day when you voted for Dr. James and justified your vote.

I get incredibly weird vibes off of you, Barry, and your claim that you were taking a "look and see" approach and your inability to say who you would vote for came off as being non-comital, waiting for a bandwagon to happen. 

I don't like voting on day hour 1 because of the high risk of getting it wrong and I was not waiting for a bandwagon to happen.  I feel like I should just put that statement on repeat at this point.

I was quite capable of stating who I intended to vote for, but I chose not to until I was comfortable making my vote.  If I had strong convictions about a person being scum, there would have been no hesitation in declaring and making a vote earlier on.  

 

5 minutes ago, Lady K said:

I was also included in the PM with our departed security ...

I'm feeling left out ... 

 

5 minutes ago, Lady K said:

I am a bit confused here.  It seems to me that you are stating that Benson is a good vote due to reasons you give and then you state that Diane seems to be fishy and you are sticking to your guns about her (and give good reasons to vote for her); and then you go and vote for someone completely different than what you seem to state are your top choices.  And you give the only reason as Offficer Lewis' most recent post.  

At the risk of being accused of parroting, these were my thoughts exactly when I read Alfred's / @Zepher's post.  Although I did notice he also stated that Officer Lewis was being erratic in private and public.  Alfred's vote yesterday was for Diane, and he spends a chunk of the post saying why she is still suspicious, but then votes for someone else??

Alfred / @Zepher, you say that Benson is good candidate, but vote for the person who voted for them?  Are you suggesting Officer Lewis and Benson are both scum?

I have found myself going backwards and forwards on Officer Wilson / @jamesn.  He had a question mark next to his name early in Day 1 (in hindsight, I think this was impacted by the role playing), but then had pencilled in Town by the end of the day because I felt he was being sensible and helpful (if you ignored the role playing).  Then that got rubbed out at the start of today with that post saying he was convinced about Skinner being scum, but it's back to Town at the moment because I think he explained himself and is again being helpful.

[Asphalt]

7 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

This is a bit harsh for a game don't you think?  The term for "town" changes with the setting of each game, and we are all able to adapt to such a little thing.  Heck, I even had some fun with it.  No one is trying to trip you up with word games.

Frankly, this strikes me as a distraction argument.

 

 

Didn’t mean to be. I just don’t want to loose any loyal town players because they end up looking suspicious for using different terms. It’s Happened before. 

[Asphalt]

7 hours ago, jamesn said:

As I said before, going on the offensive can be effective.

I just want to respond to all my h8rs who think that PMing early is scummy. In fact, it's helped me catch a liar. His name is Benson. Sound familiar? Let me give y'all a rundown of what went down. You remember that Benson had a strange vote for Bob:

This piqued my interest because, truthfully, Bob's claim piqued my interest. So I PMed Benson to ask why he voted for Bob. He responded (I'm paraphrasing) "He's pretending to look useful; it's pointless and he wants to slide under the radar". At this point I said that mass claiming is a legitimate strategy. You'll note that afterwards, Benson's public rationale was all about mass claims:

I pointed out the incongruity between his explanations and he said (again, paraphrasing) "That's because you asked me earlier, but now I'm asking everyone else". I don't buy it. This little lie intrigued me, but I didn't think it was a 100% indicator of scum.

This brings us to today and Benson's strange response to the night kill. Bob has already expounded on what Benson has said in thread, so I'll point out that he immediately assumed Officer Skinner's death was at the hands of scum:

while also busking with the idea that "third parties" use melee weapons, such as hammers:

This gets even freakier in PM, where I accused Benson of subtly congratulating scum in this thread and I asked him why he was so sure it was a scum kill. He responded (essentially) "I guess it could have a been a third party", at which point I said "third party as opposed to vig?" This is where Benson goes loopy and says "I mentally categorize vigilantes as third parties".

Either Benson is some weird third party who forgot that vigs tend to exist, or he's scum, and very bad at fishing at that (see his first post of the day). I am confident to Vote: Benson (LegoMonorailFan).

Back to the PM side of things.  How close are we allowed to come to breaking rule 5 with PM information?  

Asking since this is only my second game.  

 

[Trekkie99]

8 hours ago, jamesn said:

As I said before, going on the offensive can be effective.

I just want to respond to all my h8rs who think that PMing early is scummy. In fact, it's helped me catch a liar. His name is Benson. Sound familiar? Let me give y'all a rundown of what went down. You remember that Benson had a strange vote for Bob:

This piqued my interest because, truthfully, Bob's claim piqued my interest. So I PMed Benson to ask why he voted for Bob. He responded (I'm paraphrasing) "He's pretending to look useful; it's pointless and he wants to slide under the radar". At this point I said that mass claiming is a legitimate strategy. You'll note that afterwards, Benson's public rationale was all about mass claims:

I pointed out the incongruity between his explanations and he said (again, paraphrasing) "That's because you asked me earlier, but now I'm asking everyone else". I don't buy it. This little lie intrigued me, but I didn't think it was a 100% indicator of scum.

This brings us to today and Benson's strange response to the night kill. Bob has already expounded on what Benson has said in thread, so I'll point out that he immediately assumed Officer Skinner's death was at the hands of scum:

while also busking with the idea that "third parties" use melee weapons, such as hammers:

This gets even freakier in PM, where I accused Benson of subtly congratulating scum in this thread and I asked him why he was so sure it was a scum kill. He responded (essentially) "I guess it could have a been a third party", at which point I said "third party as opposed to vig?" This is where Benson goes loopy and says "I mentally categorize vigilantes as third parties".

Either Benson is some weird third party who forgot that vigs tend to exist, or he's scum, and very bad at fishing at that (see his first post of the day). I am confident to Vote: Benson (LegoMonorailFan).

I can confirm to everyone this is all truthful (excluding jamesn's added in opinion of course). It's funny, some might say I've been reaching on my reads and suspicions, and yet it seems as if jamesn is reaching a little bit himself.

Quote

I pointed out the incongruity between his explanations

I stated the same explanation I stated to you in PM in the the day topic, but not before I asked to hear from others what they thought of Bob's request.

Quote

I was hoping to maybe hear from some others first what they thought about what would seem as a request from our janitor to have a mass claim.

Afterwards, I stated my reasoning for why I voted for Bob.

Quote

Why's that? A request for a mass claim is pointless in my opinion, and is only there to give the appearance of starting a non RVS discussion. One that he knows will be mostly ignored.

 

9 hours ago, Bob said:

I voted for him yesterday, partially because he voted for me with absolutely no reasoning and then disappeared.

My explanation from day one.

Quote

Why's that? A request for a mass claim is pointless in my opinion, and is only there to give the appearance of starting a non RVS discussion. One that he knows will be mostly ignored.

 

[Kwatchi]

I'm off to the office in a minute (just enjoying my morning tea) so I can't be too verbose, but I will say I am glad we're starting to get more people talking in earnest.  We need discussions to help us make proper decisions at this stage

A few quick hits from me:.

9 hours ago, jamesn said:

At this point I said that mass claiming is a legitimate strategy. You'll note that afterwards, Benson's public rationale was all about mass claims:

Huh?!  I allow me to say the we agree to disagree on this.  It is more akin to a running joke than anything.

Incidentally Officer Lewis, going through past lives (aka games) is a great resource to help you make decisions on trends, but this community is rather concerned with meta-gaming.   I'm not saying you shouldn't (it is your gameplay after-all and a tactic I have used myself privately), but posting that info is going to be frowned upon by some. 

4 hours ago, Kristel said:

I'm feeling left out ...

You and me both.

5 hours ago, Lady K said:

 I am recovering from the flu; the reason for my lack of participation.

There is a bad bug going around.  Feel better!

 

So a this self-declared fluff post from me.  I realize and admit that, but it is all I have time for this morning.  I vow to be more useful and put down my actual thoughts tonight/this weekend when I have more free time.

edit: So this is a ...

Edited January 11, 2019 by Kwatchi

[Khscarymovie4]

A similar situation as to Agent Moore I can't be long. I will try to share more thoughts latter but for.now I will say I'm not too thrilled about our last standing officers vote. I honestly have no idea why the mass.claim from yesterday is still being talked about.  We'll be back latter after I make more flyers. 

[Zepher]

7 hours ago, Lady K said:

I am a bit confused here.  It seems to me that you are stating that Benson is a good vote due to reasons you give and then you state that Diane seems to be fishy and you are sticking to your guns about her (and give good reasons to vote for her); and then you go and vote for someone completely different than what you seem to state are your top choices.  And you give the only reason as Offficer Lewis' most recent post.  

As our friend points out, I actually did give a reasoning for my vote.

9 hours ago, Zepher said:

as does Lewis, who was erratic in private and erratic in public today too - I also didn't think the "claiming craze" was anything of note, and he has been flinging accusations and clearances left and right today.

 

6 hours ago, Kristel said:

At the risk of being accused of parroting, these were my thoughts exactly when I read Alfred's / @Zepher's post.  Although I did notice he also stated that Officer Lewis was being erratic in private and public.  Alfred's vote yesterday was for Diane, and he spends a chunk of the post saying why she is still suspicious, but then votes for someone else??

Alfred / @Zepher, you say that Benson is good candidate, but vote for the person who voted for them?  Are you suggesting Officer Lewis and Benson are both scum?

Not suggesting they're both scum, not by a long shot. I don't think the scum would be goofy enough to try something ridiculous like a sting this early on... but that's just what I think. Maybe they're both scum. But I think both you and I think that's at least unlikely.

There are only two votes on the table currently, and the hour is still young. If it's needed for a conviction, I am happy to switch my vote to Benson. I laid out my suspicion of him both yesterday and today. But for now there are two people (three people, really, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus on Diane) who I find suspect, and one of them already had one vote.

As for my suspicion of Lewis, I have seen scum play the "crusader" model before. They toss out lots of accusations to see what sticks, while simultaneously "clearing" members of the town, ingratiating themselves. Lewis has already voted for two people, insisted he was "certain" our dead friend Skinner was scum, both accused and "cleared" you, and then accused Benson. It's not totally uncommon for one of the scum to take point and seem super pro-active while the others lie in wait. Yes, it could be a flailing townie, but it could also be a scum trying to play that role.

[Asphalt]

Section 5, sub paragraph 3, lines 14-18 of the Go-Team code of ethics specifically prohibit the publication of personal correspondence.  Openly sharing that much PM information straight out doesn't sit well with me.  Seems a scum move to use someones behind doors strategizing against them so openly.  For that reason I am VOTING Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn).  If an argument can be made to sway my decision I am open to hearing it.  

[Zepher]

Just now, Asphalt said:

Section 5, sub paragraph 3, lines 14-18 of the Go-Team code of ethics specifically prohibit the publication of personal correspondence.  Openly sharing that much PM information straight out doesn't sit well with me.  Seems a scum move to use someones behind doors strategizing against them so openly.  For that reason I am VOTING Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn).  If an argument can be made to sway my decision I am open to hearing it.  

That's not really the spirit behind that rule. We're just not supposed to "quote" (aka use the quote function) directly from PMs... paraphrasing or copying over a sentence more or less is very much allowed. How else would he be able to bring forward that accusation? Even though he's said he "doesn't have to show every thought in the thread" I mean... he can't just say: "oh boy, guys, Benson said something weird in PM! can't tell you it obviously but vote for him."  If someone is fishy in PM we have to accurately and articulately report it.

[jluck]

2 hours ago, Kwatchi said:

I'm off to the office in a minute (just enjoying my morning tea) so I can't be too verbose, but I will say I am glad we're starting to get more people talking in earnest.  We need discussions to help us make proper decisions at this stage

A few quick hits from me:.

Huh?!  I allow me to say the we agree to disagree on this.  It is more akin to a running joke than anything.

Incidentally Officer Lewis, going through past lives (aka games) is a great resource to help you make decisions on trends, but this community is rather concerned with meta-gaming.   I'm not saying you shouldn't (it is your gameplay after-all and a tactic I have used myself privately), but posting that info is going to be frowned upon by some. 

You and me both.

There is a bad bug going around.  Feel better!

 

So a this self-declared fluff post from me.  I realize and admit that, but it is all I have time for this morning.  I vow to be more useful and put down my actual thoughts tonight/this weekend when I have more free time.

edit: So this is a ...

Watch out for those edits...

3 hours ago, Asphalt said:

Back to the PM side of things.  How close are we allowed to come to breaking rule 5 with PM information?  

Asking since this is only my second game.  

 

To the best of my knowledge, you can paraphrase what is said but not directly quote. 

 

Thinking of the pms, it’s got me thinking, the deceased was very vocal over PM. In fact, he was messaging at least 3 of us if not more. Seems like he might have ruffled some feathers with his line of thinking, maybe said something to the wrong person. That alone makes me take his list a bit more seriously.  

[KotZ]

Current vote tally
Benson (Legomonorailfan) - 1 vote (jamesn)
Officer Lewis (jamesn) - 2 votes (Zepher, Asphalt)
Agent Moore (Kwatchi) - 5 votes (penalty, penalty, penalty, penalty, penalty)

With 14 players, a majority of 8 is needed to lynch. There are 35 hours left in the day.

[Bob]

Vote: Benson / LMF 

I’m satisfied with this vote. The vote against Lewis is confusing to me. He’s being voted for just because he copied a PM? Seems like a potential way to derail a lynch against Benson if you ask me. 

[jimmynick]

10 hours ago, Zepher said:

???

You know this is inane. You and I and everyone are well within our rights to mildly suspect someone and to keep that thought on the backburner, instead of popping up in the thread to announce "Hey I think X is weird, what do you think?"

Honestly, Alfred, I think you're clutching at straws. You say your own PMs corroborate my version of events (and even Benson says I am reporting our interactions faithfully), and you say both Benson and Diane are fishy, and turn around to vote for me.

12 minutes ago, Bob said:

He’s being voted for just because he copied a PM?

Point of order: I did not copy a PM - I reported its contents.

[Zepher]

25 minutes ago, Bob said:

I’m satisfied with this vote. The vote against Lewis is confusing to me. He’s being voted for just because he copied a PM? Seems like a potential way to derail a lynch against Benson if you ask me. 

No. I agree that Wilson's logic makes absolutely no sense... but you clearly also chose to totally ignore the actual case I made.

1 hour ago, Zepher said:

As for my suspicion of Lewis, I have seen scum play the "crusader" model before. They toss out lots of accusations to see what sticks, while simultaneously "clearing" members of the town, ingratiating themselves. Lewis has already voted for two people, insisted he was "certain" our dead friend Skinner was scum, both accused and "cleared" you, and then accused Benson. It's not totally uncommon for one of the scum to take point and seem super pro-active while the others lie in wait. Yes, it could be a flailing townie, but it could also be a scum trying to play that role.

^where exactly do I say the case boils down to him quoting PMs? Or do you just feel safer lumping the two accusations together and going with the weaker one.

Lewis, as for you I didn't actually accuse you of lying about PMs, so I don't know why you're using your truthful reporting of PMs as a defense? It doesn't respond at all to my accusations.

The responses have honestly made me more confused. Wilson uses a nonsense argument to begin a bandwagon, making me doubt my vote, and then both Bob and Lewis attempt to defend Lewis by responding only to Wilson's weak reasoning and not to the actual accusations I made, aka "shifting the conversation" to be about PMs, which they can easily defend but which is also not what concerned me...

[Kwatchi]

50 minutes ago, jluck said:

Watch out for those edits...

Yep.  That was a wonderful brain fart moment by me.  Just checking in over lunch and Kotz has let me know that I have a penalty incoming.  

From now on I am leaving my typos to stand as is.  I apologize in advance for the occasional unintelligible gibberish.

[Tariq j]

1 hour ago, Zepher said:

As for my suspicion of Lewis, I have seen scum play the "crusader" model before. They toss out lots of accusations to see what sticks, while simultaneously "clearing" members of the town, ingratiating themselves. Lewis has already voted for two people, insisted he was "certain" our dead friend Skinner was scum, both accused and "cleared" you, and then accused Benson. It's not totally uncommon for one of the scum to take point and seem super pro-active while the others lie in wait. Yes, it could be a flailing townie, but it could also be a scum trying to play that role.

Not saying Lewis cannot be scum, but bear in mind he claimed Vanilla Townie yesterday, no one has contradicted him on that claim. So we can assume the investigator targeted him and got a town result. Obviously it's possible he wasn't targeted by the investigator but just something to bear in mind.

[jimmynick]

17 minutes ago, Zepher said:

It doesn't respond at all to my accusations.

OK then....

1 hour ago, Zepher said:

They toss out lots of accusations to see what sticks, while simultaneously "clearing" members of the town, ingratiating themselves. Lewis has already voted for two people, insisted he was "certain" our dead friend Skinner was scum, both accused and "cleared" you, and then accused Benson.

When Officer Skinner flipped, it destroyed my theory about the claims. Sharing after the fact that my now-discredited idea made me suspect several people doesn't mean that I'm immediately accusing and then clearing them, or "seeing what sticks" - it means that it was wrong to use my theory to suspect then, and it would be stupid to continue to suspect them under that framework. I also hardly think I'm ingratiating myself, and it's not "seeing what sticks" to put together a case against Benson.

13 minutes ago, Zepher said:

I don't know why you're using your truthful reporting of PMs as a defense?

I'm telling the truth because I have nothing to lie about. That's because I'm town.

 

 

Just now, Tariq j said:

bear in mind he claimed Vanilla Townie yesterday, no one has contradicted him on that claim.

claiming vanilla is not the same as claiming vig or cop or whatever - multiple people are allowed to be vanilla. This reasoning is just silly.

Just now, Tariq j said:

So we can assume the investigator targeted him

Why can we assume that?

[Asphalt]

ok Like I said I was open to argument and discussion.  If the experience players as a whole concede that the way the PMs were reported is allowable within the game I am good with that.  I guess I was reading too much into nothing.  This game does hype my paranoia level.  

UN-Vote Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn)