Belville Mafia: Day 1

[Tamamono]

I don't know why you are so adamant in thinking she's not scum? It's certainly possible and it's more than what she said at the family reunion, it was her week defense and editing her post changing her words that makes her more suspicious.

It is possible that PP's Not Loyal. But by saying that, you're also saying that it's possible that she's not scum. Your accusation makes a bit more sense now that you've revealed that she edited her post changed her words (I can't believe I didn't spot that! ), but it still isn't based on good evidence (although it's not like any of the other accusations flying around are ). I can understand you wanting to jump on the first piece of suspicious activity you see, as we are a bit short on 'good' evidence at this point, but acknowledging the fact that there is a threat in the family in a mafia game house full of rich snotty people just doesn't make sense. Do you know something we don't about pudgy little Petra? Are you an Independant 'Lyncher' who's win condition is to get her lynched? Probably not. Chances are, you're probably both Loyal. In situations like these that I've read about or seen on television there is usually a certain amount of 'town' bickering at the beginning of the game...of life.

[Peanuts]

It is possible that PP's Not Loyal. But by saying that, you're also saying that it's possible that she's not scum. Your accusation makes a bit more sense now that you've revealed that she edited her post changed her words (I can't believe I didn't spot that! ), but it still isn't based on good evidence (although it's not like any of the other accusations flying around are ). I can understand you wanting to jump on the first piece of suspicious activity you see, as we are a bit short on 'good' evidence at this point, but acknowledging the fact that there is a threat in the family in a mafia game house full of rich snotty people just doesn't make sense. Do you know something we don't about pudgy little Petra? Are you an Independant 'Lyncher' who's win condition is to get her lynched? Probably not. Chances are, you're probably both Loyal. In situations like these that I've read about or seen on television there is usually a certain amount of 'town' bickering at the beginning of the game...of life.

Once again the editing Word change. As I said before, it were two spelling errors, which I noticed shortly after I had written spoken. Honestly, what exactly do you think I could have written said? "Oh, btw, it's great to be scum for the first time?"

Not to mention this is playing the game outside the playing thread/metagaming/whatever else.

And why do you think I was a lynchee (not lyncher )?

Come to think, you're talking about the jester. Lyncher and lynchee are something completely different.

[Tamamono]

Once again the editing Word change. As I said before, it were two spelling errors, which I noticed shortly after I had written spoken. Honestly, what exactly do you think I could have written said? "Oh, btw, it's great to be scum for the first time?"

Not to mention this is playing the game outside the playing thread/metagaming/whatever else.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Henry is trying to get you lynched because you recognized the threat to the family before Dad did, not because you said that you wanted to stamp out the scum. He might be right in doing so, but his reasons are faulty.

And why do you think I was a lynchee (not lyncher )?

Are you a Lyncher...?

[Peanuts]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Henry is trying to get you lynched because you recognized the threat to the family before Dad did, not because you said that you wanted to stamp out the scum. He might be right in doing so, but his reasons are faulty.

Actually, I never said I want to stamp out the scum. Dad said this. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I didn't say so. I said, that I couldn't believe there was traitorous scum and so on...

And as I already said (about a thousand times) Uncle Quentoin had mentioned it long before First post of the sign up thread, to be exactly.

Are you a Lyncher...?

No.

[Tamamono]

Actually, I never said I want to stamp out the scum. Dad said this. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I didn't say so. I said, that I couldn't believe there was traitorous scum and so on...

And as I already said (about a thousand times) Uncle Quentoin had mentioned it long before First post of the sign up thread, to be exactly.

I see, sorry for the confusion! This whole situation has me quite stressed out.

[Peanuts]

I see, sorry for the confusion! This whole situation has me quite stressed out.

Nevermind. Sorry if I sounded harsh or something.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I've been trying to remember what everyone's said thus far and I'm still conflicted about who to vote for.

There's this confusing sequence of events:

1 First we have Fuchsia letting us all know what our ridiculous options are and putting forth the idea that we could all reveal what roles we play in this family. Later she is kind enough to tell us all who's been quiet so we can vote them off. This list includes Richelle.

2 Sammy is quick to disagree with Fuchsia on the revelation issue but makes use of her list to start a vote on Richelle.

3 Then Richelle, trying to appear less quiet and defend herself, goes one further on revelations and says that the investigator should not only reveal themselves but we should all vote on whom they should target.

4 Sammy, who has not withdrawn his vote for Richelle, seems to change his mind on the revelation issue a little and takes Richelle's idea and runs with it.

Then we select two or three people up for investigation each day, and let the investigator make the selection based on their own judgment (which he or she will no doubt use anyway). That way there's at least a change for us loyals to get results.

I'd say we should investigate any of the three remaining people on Fuschia's list tonight, if one of the four is voted out.

There's something strange going on here but I just can't place my finger on it. There's a power struggle happening and there are those that want those with roles exposed or hamstrung by group thinking. They may have had good intentions but it doesn't take much to see the flaws in revealing roles or voting on investigations.

Still Fuchsia, Sammy, and Richelle all seem suspicious to me right now. This is as far as my thinking out loud can go right now. I'll speak up again in a little while.

[Ricecracker]

3 Then Richelle, trying to appear less quiet and defend herself, goes one further on revelations and says that the investigator should not only reveal themselves but we should all vote on whom they should target.

I didn't say that; I said that if we were to go the route of revealing the roles, we should be more cautious about it, at least keeping the protector secret. I said we should discuss who to investigate, not necessarily vote on it - it is after all the investigator's own prerogative to choose who to investigate.

[Hinckley]

Sammy seems all over the board. He keeps contradicting himself. Accusing people of things he's doing, accusing people who are doing things that he claimed scum wouldn't do, and now condemning Richelle for the same idea he latched onto himself a couple of minutes later. :wacko: Perhaps we should vote for Sammy?

[Shadows]

That's true, Irena and Dragana have been rather quiet today, and everything they've said has been about either pie or thrusting. Maybe the both of them are trying to distract us from their Not Loyal activities?

It's hard to say much when you have a mouth full of pie.

Seriously though, no one has said anything constructive so far, because no one knows anything. The only people who do would be our enemies, and I don't expect them to be overly helpful.

*dives back into the pie*

[Hinckley]

Seriously though, no one has said anything constructive so far, because no one knows anything. The only people who do would be our enemies, and I don't expect them to be overly helpful.

There's plenty to respond to, actually. And people are suspicious of you for doing what you just did: seldom contributions and low substance.

[CorneliusMurdock]

Sammy seems all over the board. He keeps contradicting himself. Accusing people of things he's doing, accusing people who are doing things that he claimed scum wouldn't do, and now condemning Richelle for the same idea he latched onto himself a couple of minutes later. :wacko: Perhaps we should vote for Sammy?

I've been thinking the same thing but I think I need to clear my head for a while. That should give him time to respond to any of this. And me time to come to a decision.

[Shadows]

There's plenty to respond to, actually. And people are suspicious of you for doing what you just did: seldom contributions and low substance.

So far no one has contributed anything of substance, so you can wipe that chocolate grin off your disfigured little face, brother. If anything has been suspicious all day, it's been random finger pointing, but since that's traditional day 1 stupidity, even that is fairly benign. You've done it, Sammy has done it, others are doing it. What's next, the rule of 3's?

If we make a decision today without any evidence to back it up, we're most likely going to kill one of our own. Whoever leads a vote of that nature is a fool or scum. If not acting that way makes me suspicious, so be it, because I'm not either a fool or scum and won't play into their hands.

Did I mention it's day 1 and we don't know anything yet? Except I love pie.

I didn't say that; I said that if we were to go the route of revealing the roles, we should be more cautious about it, at least keeping the protector secret. I said we should discuss who to investigate, not necessarily vote on it - it is after all the investigator's own prerogative to choose who to investigate.

Since we can't communicate privately, how exactly will we even know the results of such investigations, or assign the protector to the right person?

[Dragonator]

Goodness, we are such a delightful family, aren't we? All this bickering, and nobody but Irena seems to want any of my pie.

In my humble blonde opinion, I don't see us making much progress today. As much as I love you my dear husband, we don't have much reason to suspect Pudgy Petra, no more than anyone else here. Although I agree that her defense wasn't particularly reassuring. She's only a child though, and children are only good for scrubbing floors and pots anyway. Not her fault I guess.

As for Sammy, I find it extremely interesting he never responded to my friendly teasing about his receptionist. I think Sammy might have a dirty secret he's not telling us here. Poor Irena... luckily we girls stick together.

Oh, Sammy was saying other crap too? Why does that not surprise me, he's such a silly man. Comes of being an accountant I guess. Or whatever it is he does. Boring man, unlike my handsome gorgeous handsome husband. Anyway, this suggestion that we decide who to investigate collectively is just ridiculous. As my amazing husband pointed out, the scum would then have some measure of control over the decision. No, I think that a much better idea would be to leave the investigator to do his/her own thing, like they are supposed to. As long as the investigator isn't a dumb blonde, they should be able to make their own decisions I should say.

And yes, I edited my post changed my words, but it was no second after I wrote it and it was only because there were two spelling misktakes in it, which I use to correct, if it's not forbidden.

It is forbidden. Note rule 9 please.

[Hinckley]

Since we can't communicate privately, how exactly will we even know the results of such investigations, or assign the protector to the right person?

One of our family members, I believe her name is Foooooooog, suggested that we reveal our roles, so that everything is on the table since we can't communicate in private.

And since you're so content to believe that nothing can be gained from discussing the accusations, are you offering to sacrifice yourself as the first day mess-up lynch?

[Rufus]

If we make a decision today without any evidence to back it up, we're most likely going to kill one of our own. Whoever leads a vote of that nature is a fool or scum. If not acting that way makes me suspicious, so be it, because I'm not either a fool or scum and won't play into their hands.

But there isn't any evidence today, and unless someone slips up there isn't going to be. A random-ish vote is therefore the only way to lynch someone, and yes it's more likely to be a fellow loyal. That is, unless we all vote for someone different - Grandad said he would kill a random non-voter if no conviction is reached.

We still haven't heard back from Amy. My vote will be going for my dear sister if she doesn't show up soon

[JimBee]

There's something strange going on here but I just can't place my finger on it. There's a power struggle happening and there are those that want those with roles exposed or hamstrung by group thinking. They may have had good intentions but it doesn't take much to see the flaws in revealing roles or voting on investigations.

Still Fuchsia, Sammy, and Richelle all seem suspicious to me right now. This is as far as my thinking out loud can go right now. I'll speak up again in a little while.

I don't think that neither Richelle or Sammy specifically stated that we should put our roles out in the open. I believe Sammy was simply saying that the investigator, whoever that may be, take the list we've made and choose someone to investigate. Not to reveal themselves.

Though I agree, Sammy has been contradicting himself quite a bit. And while we're on the subject of something strange with Richelle, Sammy, and Fuchsia, there's another thing to notice: while Fuchsia picked out all of the quiet people (besides Amy), Sammy suggests that we investigate people of that list. This might be a long shot, but if the two of them were both scum, wouldn't it be easy to manipulate the investigator into investigating all townies? That's if Fuchsia picked out quiet ones whom she knew were townies. Also notice how Amy was never added to the list by Fuchsia.

Like I said, it might be a bit of a stretch, but it is something to think about.

If we make a decision today without any evidence to back it up, we're most likely going to kill one of our own. Whoever leads a vote of that nature is a fool or scum. If not acting that way makes me suspicious, so be it, because I'm not either a fool or scum and won't play into their hands.

So would you rather have one of us killed at random tonight?

[Dragonator]

So would you rather have one of us killed at random tonight?

Indeed! Terrible thought! Won't somebody please think of the snotty-nosed children!!? Kill them first, we can always make more if necessary.

[Shadows]

One of our family members, I believe her name is Foooooooog, suggested that we reveal our roles, so that everything is on the table since we can't communicate in private.

That sounds idiotic. Really?

And since you're so content to believe that nothing can be gained from discussing the accusations, are you offering to sacrifice yourself as the first day mess-up lynch?

I didn't say that nothing could be gained, just that we don't really know anything. If we're going to base our first lynch on the discussions of the day, we might as well just go for whoever hasn't said anything at all, since anyone with half a brain would avoid incriminating themselves today.

But there isn't any evidence today, and unless someone slips up there isn't going to be. A random-ish vote is therefore the only way to lynch someone, and yes it's more likely to be a fellow loyal. That is, unless we all vote for someone different - Grandad said he would kill a random non-voter if no conviction is reached.

Now see, there's some thinking. I knew I had bright kids. At this point, a split vote where we all participate is safer than just randomly killing someone.

We still haven't heard back from Amy. My vote will be going for my dear sister if she doesn't show up soon

Oh dear. Brother against sister already. See people, this is what we've become! If, however, we agree to vote based on silence, oh, it's too much to even consider. Amy, dear, please speak up!

Though I agree, Sammy has been contradicting himself quite a bit. And while we're on the subject of something strange with Richelle, Sammy, and Fuchsia, there's another thing to notice: while Fuchsia picked out all of the quiet people (besides Amy), Sammy suggests that we investigate people of that list. This might be a long shot, but if the two of them were both scum, wouldn't it be easy to manipulate the investigator into investigating all townies? That's if Fuchsia picked out quiet ones whom she knew were townies. Also notice how Amy was never added to the list by Fuchsia.

Like I said, it might be a bit of a stretch, but it is something to think about.

Ok, that's vaguely something to consider, especially the omission that seems almost intentional.

So would you rather have one of us killed at random tonight?

We already know that can be avoided, so don't try to force us to kill someone who is likely innocent purely out of fear. That would be a tactic better left to the scum. Great, now you're on my list of suspects. Still not voting for you, it's friggin' day 1 people, everyone looks innocent and guilty. Don't take it personally, the only person I trust right now is ... well ... me.

Indeed! Terrible thought! Won't somebody please think of the snotty-nosed children!!? Kill them first, we can always make more if necessary.

Ever since those little brats pushed your mother into an oven, you haven't quite had the same view of children, have you?

[JimBee]

Now see, there's some thinking. I knew I had bright kids. At this point, a split vote where we all participate is safer than just randomly killing someone.

While this would normally raise a red flag for me (where scum try to split the vote to avoid a lynch), that just might be a good idea as a last resort. Quentin does not forbid voting for one's self, so we could do that if we absolutely cannot come up with someone to lynch.

Ok, that's vaguely something to consider, especially the omission that seems almost intentional.

Right. Anyone else agree?

We already know that can be avoided, so don't try to force us to kill someone who is likely innocent purely out of fear.

I actually didn't realize that until Rupert pointed it out. However, solid evidence is not likely to just fall into our hands even after Day 1, so I hope you don't expect that a lynch won't occur with just suspicions.

[Sandy]

As for Sammy, I find it extremely interesting he never responded to my friendly teasing about his receptionist. I think Sammy might have a dirty secret he's not telling us here. Poor Irena... luckily we girls stick together.

Oh, Sammy was saying other crap too? Why does that not surprise me, he's such a silly man. Comes of being an accountant I guess. Or whatever it is he does. Boring man, unlike my handsome gorgeous handsome husband.

What the heck are you rambling on about, Drag-Queena? I didn't respond to your inane receptionist joke because it felt like a set-up. I'm fiercely loyal to my wife! Do you even know what I do for a living? I'm a manager at one of Quentin's chocolate factories, and a damn good one too!

Anyway, this suggestion that we decide who to investigate collectively is just ridiculous. As my amazing husband pointed out, the scum would then have some measure of control over the decision. No, I think that a much better idea would be to leave the investigator to do his/her own thing, like they are supposed to. As long as the investigator isn't a dumb blonde, they should be able to make their own decisions I should say.

I didn't say we decide or publicly vote about who to investigate, I was merely answering to the suggestion that we choose someone to investigate. It would be stupid to pick just one, because of course I'm aware that the Not Loyals could easily manipulate that decision. Hence I suggested we give a short list of names so that the investigator has at least something to choose from if they cannot make up their own mind. But if that still sounds too risky to you, then we might just as well sit here doing nothing while the scum picks us up one by one.

Sammy seems all over the board. He keeps contradicting himself. Accusing people of things he's doing, accusing people who are doing things that he claimed scum wouldn't do, and now condemning Richelle for the same idea he latched onto himself a couple of minutes later. :wacko: Perhaps we should vote for Sammy?

What is this blackmailing? How have I contradicted myself? I'm accusing Richelle for not saying hardly anything until she was voted, and then immediately jumping to defend herself, which proves she was around anyway.

But there isn't any evidence today, and unless someone slips up there isn't going to be. A random-ish vote is therefore the only way to lynch someone, and yes it's more likely to be a fellow loyal. That is, unless we all vote for someone different - Grandad said he would kill a random non-voter if no conviction is reached.

My boy, I know you're young and perhaps not as well versed in the game of family politics, but we Loyals need a lynch. We do not know yet what roles we have in play in this twisted game of life, so our only weapon is to vote, and hope that we nailed a bad guy. If we do not lynch at all, then the Not Loyals will already have gained a free kill (unless we can somehow block them).

Of course the Not Loyals have other means in use, so they will aim to distract our votes and steer them away from themselves. And if they cannot vote out a Loyal person, then a split vote is the second best option. So by suggesting that, you've now raised my suspicions towards you.

You disappoint me, boy.

While this would normally raise a red flag for me (where scum try to split the vote to avoid a lynch), that just might be a good idea as a last resort. Quentin does not forbid voting for one's self, so we could do that if we absolutely cannot come up with someone to lynch.

It did raise a red flag for me, but Rupert was the first one to suggest it. Besides, I would never vote myself, because I know I am loyal. The Not Loyals would probably just use such a move against you and turn all the votes for you before you knew it.

[Hinckley]

Though I agree, Sammy has been contradicting himself quite a bit. And while we're on the subject of something strange with Richelle, Sammy, and Fuchsia, there's another thing to notice: while Fuchsia picked out all of the quiet people (besides Amy), Sammy suggests that we investigate people of that list. This might be a long shot, but if the two of them were both scum, wouldn't it be easy to manipulate the investigator into investigating all townies? That's if Fuchsia picked out quiet ones whom she knew were townies. Also notice how Amy was never added to the list by Fuchsia.

Yes, this was a point I was trying to elude to earlier.

Well, since it is a good point that non-voters will be randomly chosen for death if we don't reach a conviction, I'd like to cast a vote for the person exhibiting the most suspicious behavior so far. I can always unvote if a stronger argument is presented. Although I'd love to lynch that Pudgy Petra brat, I'll admit my fixation on her is somewhat creepy. I'll see a psychologist if I survive this ordeal.

Vote: Sammy Palkatowa or whatever (Sandy)

In case anyone is wondering why I find him most suspicious, here you go:

1. Keeps contradicting himself. For one, he claims that people accusing others are not likely to be scum, then goes on to accuse me, even though I had been the loudest accuser at that point.
   
2. Also contradicted himself when offering up Richelle as the first vote, yet not unvoting her after going along with her similar idea to vote for who to investigate.
   
3. And the idea of voting for who to investigate can be seen as a somewhat bold scum tactic.
   

In other news, Draganna, dear wife, perhaps we should be more suspicious of each other. Your constant stroking of my ego makes me think you could be scum. I have something else for you to stroke anyway. And while you're at it, I can stroke your pussy. Where has that darling frisky Felix gone off to?

So, nobody else wants to vote for Pudgy Petra?

[Dragonator]

In other news, Draganna, dear wife, perhaps we should be more suspicious of each other. Your constant stroking of my ego makes me think you could be scum. I have something else for you to stroke anyway. And while you're at it, I can stroke your pussy. Where has that darling frisky Felix gone off to?

How could you say such a thing dear husband!? I love you with all my heart, and will stroke whatever needs to be stroked. I haven't seen dear pussy in a while, but he has a foxy personality, I'm sure he's just off hunting little furry critters.

Irena dear, your husband seems to have been cheating on you, I think we should follow my husband and vote for that receptionist-pie-eating cheat. Those late nights at the office were spent managing more than just some cheap chocolates I bet. I've never liked how he always tries to stop us from tasting each other's pies before serving them anyway.

[Fugazi]

It would seem that some of you didn't like my mentioning the possibility of revealing our roles, or coming up with a list of silent people. Sorry for trying to make people speak up, trying to generate a debate when everybody was going 'OMG this is terrible what should we do' Actually this has worked just fine, you've all spoken up and now I think we're in a much better position to vote based on something rather than completely at random.

Though I agree, Sammy has been contradicting himself quite a bit. And while we're on the subject of something strange with Richelle, Sammy, and Fuchsia, there's another thing to notice: while Fuchsia picked out all of the quiet people (besides Amy), Sammy suggests that we investigate people of that list. This might be a long shot, but if the two of them were both scum, wouldn't it be easy to manipulate the investigator into investigating all townies? That's if Fuchsia picked out quiet ones whom she knew were townies. Also notice how Amy was never added to the list by Fuchsia.

Should I have added Amy? She didn't strike me as silent, but feel free to add her to the list. Anyway, I do find anyone clinging too much to that list suspicious. It's not scientific, just another means to make people talk.

[Rufus]

Though I agree, Sammy has been contradicting himself quite a bit. And while we're on the subject of something strange with Richelle, Sammy, and Fuchsia, there's another thing to notice: while Fuchsia picked out all of the quiet people (besides Amy), Sammy suggests that we investigate people of that list. This might be a long shot, but if the two of them were both scum, wouldn't it be easy to manipulate the investigator into investigating all townies? That's if Fuchsia picked out quiet ones whom she knew were townies. Also notice how Amy was never added to the list by Fuchsia.

Normally, that would be no bad thing - someone confirmed loyal would be a powerful asset, and be able to take the lead. The problem comes with us not being able to communicate privately - how is the investigator going to tell us of the result without revealing their own role? We have to hope the protector will act intelligently, and that the scum don't have any blocking abilities.

Indeed! Terrible thought! Won't somebody please think of the snotty-nosed children!!? Kill them first, we can always make more if necessary.

You haven't made any yet! Only lots and lots of chocolate.

While this would normally raise a red flag for me (where scum try to split the vote to avoid a lynch), that just might be a good idea as a last resort. Quentin does not forbid voting for one's self, so we could do that if we absolutely cannot come up with someone to lynch.

You first!

My boy, I know you're young and perhaps not as well versed in the game of family politics, but we Loyals need a lynch. We do not know yet what roles we have in play in this twisted game of life, so our only weapon is to vote, and hope that we nailed a bad guy. If we do not lynch at all, then the Not Loyals will already have gained a free kill (unless we can somehow block them).

Of course the Not Loyals have other means in use, so they will aim to distract our votes and steer them away from themselves. And if they cannot vote out a Loyal person, then a split vote is the second best option. So by suggesting that, you've now raised my suspicions towards you.

You disappoint me, boy.

If you listen to what I said carefully, you will notice I was merely pointing out what would happen if we don't lynch; I was hardly advocating that action strongly . This question has come up in day one of every play I've seen about family politics; I'm surprised Dragana hasn't brought up the statistics yet . For you to turn a rational comment into suspicion smacks of desperation to me, father.

My own opinion is that we should lynch today; the trouble is getting a bandwagon going when there is so little to go on.

It would seem that some of you didn't like my mentioning the possibility of revealing our roles, or coming up with a list of silent people. Sorry for trying to make people speak up, trying to generate a debate when everybody was going 'OMG this is terrible what should we do' Actually this has worked just fine, you've all spoken up and now I think we're in a much better position to vote based on something rather than completely at random.

Should I have added Amy? She didn't strike me as silent, but feel free to add her to the list. Anyway, I do find anyone clinging too much to that list suspicious. It's not scientific, just another means to make people talk.

I agree it was useful in getting people talking. But you should have added Amy - she still hasn't spoken.