Scaevola

Well done! As for who the confirmed scum is my conjecture is that it was most likely Rep. Spalding. His bandwagoning, fluffy or useless posts, and general quietude speak for themselves. If I were to name secondary conjectures I'd say Reps. Rutherford and Hatley may be the one. I'd leave Davy to the vigilante for tonight (unless any other Octan-like reps are dredged up) and impeach the investigated scum so as to prevent application of a possible night action.

Intend to acknowledge my rebuttal? Or do you intend to bring this issue up again tomorrow and hope enough people do not read my response, so as to give yourself more time and a fresh start to constitute another erroneous accusation?

Excuse for attempting to obstruct the sheep from deciding the speaker. I can see how Nottingham could be a utility for the scum now, but she'd also have been far easier to discern than our dear Speaker Dixon is/was. Furthermore, Stanley likely saw me as a vehicle to bolster the Nottingham votes and incriminate me if he was discovered. Rutherford was dead on regarding Figurelli, but we shouldn't discard other more plausible candidates to pursue a penultimate conjecture Rutherford himself was skeptical of.

That counterclaim is incriminating. I'm contradicting myself here but in case there is some unvotes I'll Unvote: Gerald Hatey (Goliath) Vote: Stanley Figurelli (Stickfig)

The sycophantic aspect of the vote was more so your voting with the majority when you could have tendered it for another or abstained (that was poorly phrased and I apologize). The core of the argument that it was cast to better your reputation is still very applicable. As for Addie, I'm still suspicious of her, yet my conjecture was founded upon her fluffy posts. At this point, I see superior evidence for different persons. There's some merit to your argument, but my vote was merely due to feeling Nottingham would be easier to read than Dixon. Having a speaker less elusive than Dixon would've been a safe check against the then undetermined powers of the speakership. A little more effectual than voting for myself and letting the sheep decide I think The vote on Figurelli is interesting. I concur Figurelli hasn't done much but poke and summarize. He's been somewhat of a pack animal, latching onto the bandwagons and polishing his reputation with the majority. He's cited his vote for Nottingham due to a "bad feeling" and his vote for Goliath that "he's been a little too loud lately". Both after others had made pushes against/for the candidate. Care to rebut these allegations Rep. Figurelli?

I'm prepared to tender my vote and one person has stuck out to me prominently over the last few days, he is Representative Gerald Hatley. The 130th comment on Day 1 really pinged my scumdar. Hatley conceded that "I do believe there should be a lynching but there are still 3 people who haven't voted yet. I could change my vote because I do respect the fact that Addie has made better defenses than Carol has. I'm not sure what timezone she's in though so there's that to consider as well. Nonetheless, I still trust neither one," Hatley was a late voter and apparently made a gambit to stick on the minority candidate while conceding she had better reasons to be town than Nottingham? This seems like an attempt to obstruct an impeachment while sycophantically bowing to the majority's reasoning. Furthermore, Hatley bandwagoned on Palacios yesterday after a majority impeachment had been reached. Thereby Hatley again attempted to reaffirm his allegiance to the majority by casting an inconsequential vote. (His vote was tenth, while eight were required to lynch). Therefore, I Vote: Gerald Hatley (Goliath) And Speedy casting a vote clinging to a vibe? Elucidate please.

I'm certainly leaning toward Laughlin as a vig kill. He wouldn't have been my choice but he's been an infrequent poster and jumped on the bandwagon after an impeachment was achieved. Which means the scum killer may have been blocked? In any case there are a few people I'd like to address for their actions the antecedent day. Rep. Spalding bandwagoned against Palacios after a majority was reached (so did Rep. Hatley), however improperly formatted his vote. I'm incline to believe this was a mistake (why stage it after a majority has been reached?) however the vote was an attempt to endear himself to the majority? On the other hand I'm merely curious why he chose to bandwagon at all? Care to illuminate Rep. Spalding? Furthermore, Rep. Hatley is in a similar position. Hatley wanted to reaffirm his allegiance to the majority by bandwagoning on Jacob, and also to support the caucus that eliminated him as a contender for impeachment. Here is the voting tally from yesterday. Final Vote Tally Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw) - 10 (Scaevola, Adam, badboytje88, adventurer1, Bob, Speedy, TPRU, mostlytechnic, Goliath) Gerald Hatley (Goliath) - 2 (Piratedave, Stickfig) Siegfried Dixon (Speedy) - 1 (Brickelodeon) Abstaining - 1 (Lego Spy) Ten votes on Palacios leads me to believe there's obviously some scum on there- Palacios was too scummy to pass up. Doubtless there is some evidence to be derived from this. For anyone curious here is the voting from Day 1. Vote Count Carol Nottingham (Calanon) - 10 (Brickelodeon, Speedy, TPRU, jluck, Piratedave, Walter Kovacs, Stickfig, Lego Spy, mostlytechnic, Adam) Addie Tremain (adventurer1) - 4 (Bob, Goliath, badboytje88, Scaevola) Bryant Laughlin (Brickelodeon) - 1 (adventurer1) Abstaining - 2 (Calanon, Mencot)

Oh a day one lynch is not necessary. Better to repeat the unfounded speculation and conflict of Day 1 . We should have given the scum killer another freebie

The speaker was endorsing the view that nobody can be wholly trusted and confirmed to be Loyal until their allegiance is displayed upon their death, not that we should impeach representatives merely to learn their roles. The distinction was made abundantly clear, therefore Hatley's conjectures could easily be a scummy attempt to deceive the loyals. I'll be looking closely at further actions of the representative. Again Representatives Laughlin and Palacios, care to comment? And especially in the case of the latter, respond to the allegations against you?

I for one am not satisfied with Representative Jacob Palacios justifications. A refusal to tender his vote, especially as one of the crucial later votes strongly testifies that he was aiming for a no-lynch which would entirely benefit the Octan. Furthermore, he attempted to justify his action by stating it would make himself look scummy, which is very self-serving and suggests a paranoid inclination to maintain his reputation (though paradoxical considering his vote), which also incriminates him as scum. Therefore, I'll be voting for Jacob. Vote: Jacob Palacios (JackJonespaw)

I concur with Maurice that the most likely reason for the Octan not targeting Speaker Dixon is due to it being too obvious. Without many people to trust on Night 1, the protector ought to have chosen the speaker. Thereby, it would be liable to have been a wasted attempt. I'd not entirely discount the possibly he is scum, but given the odds it seems less likely. Siegfried has not yet done anything major to make himself look scummy, whereas a protector is a nearly confirmed issue the scum have to deal with.

Ugh...Day 1 was not a successful day I'm to understand you'd prefer another dizzied, paranoid, and altogether discombobulated Day 1? Any lynch gives us information and it was a necessary risk to take. Even so, seems you're very concerned about the integrity of your own reputation over the well-being of the Town, a very scummy attribute indeed. I'm still suspicious of Rep. Tremain as well due to her lack of contribution and scummy voting tendency. I fail to understand why you wouldn't attempt to make a difference and vote for one of the major candidates as opposed to contribute to and ensure a Day 1 lynch. Rep. Laughlin, I'm still waiting for you to explain your crummy justification for your speaker vote (and your abstinence from voting).

I'm going to place my vote on Rep. Addie Tremain Vote: Addie Tremain (adventurer1) I consider Tremain a more viable candidate due to the evidence against Calanon being of more early substance and mainly due to her support in her bid for the speakership. Wherefore, the opposition against Addie is more founded upon consistent data relating to few and fluffy posts. I am however also a firebrand of lynching on the first day and encourage late voters to cast their vote upon the accused more who has more votes or is more apt to gain votes at that time.

I'll explain my vote for Carol yet again though people seem to have filtered out my prior explanation following Rep. Benedict's inquiry Rep. Dixon is a more experienced legislator than Rep. Nottingham. When Rep. Dixon was acting under an ulterior motive (The Red Menace case) I found him very difficult to decipher. Furthermore, I've had more contact with Rep. Nottingham and therefore would find her easier to weed out should she seem suspicious. Therefore, it was not out of trust for Carol, but for better discernment of their allegiance as speaker. I avoided voting for the other candidates because I have less experience with them than with Rep. Nottingham. Also Rep. Laughlin, you did not respond to the question I posed to you. Your statement of Siegfried Dixon as "less moronic" than the rest of us is hardly applicable in matters of questionable allegiance. I'd like to see this vote better justified. Basely, it seemed a sycophantic attempt to endear yourself to the preferred candidate for the speakership.

Rep. Benedict, from antecedent legislative experience, I've concluded it would be easier to uncover an ulterior motive of Rep. Nottingham than Rep. Dixon. Furthermore, Carol was responsive and upfront regarding the questions posed to her. As for the other candidates, I'm more familiar with Rep. Nottingham's mannerisms then I am of theirs.

If that's the case the Dixon, Nottingham, and Matthews' voters should be the one's to investigate. That makes Dixon, Callaghan, Laughlin, Karchevsky, Nottingham, myself, Figurelli, Matthews, and Teichman suspect in this regard. Not a lot to draw from, but I'd conjecture there's some scum here.

I'd like to hear a little more from Reps, Benedict, Figurelli, and Laughlin. Benedict has yet to speak, and I'm not satisfied with the voting justifications of the latter, albeit their was a paltry amount of information to found your vote on.

Yes, the truth is we cannot. Chance and erudition from prior legislative experience with the candidate (metagaming) will be the arbiters for this decision. There's really nothing to build on in the first twenty-four hours. Now how about those drinks? This delay be makin' me querulous.

I've decided to tender my vote for Rep. Carol Nottingham. She answered the questions posed to her well enough, and therefore I trust her to be less manipulative and evasive than the other old dogs. Prior experiences also seem to testify to this as well. Speaker: Calanon (Carol Nottingham)

I'm inclined to abstain from voting at the moment. So long as we have time, I'd like to see if some solid conjectures on the allegiance of the candidates.

Aye, Rep. Sinclair Viola of Puesta del Sol reporting in. I second that motion. Some rum would be especially palatable.

I'm willing to play, though I will have to retract my participation should the game begin before Friday. (I'm afraid (I've been swamped with work unfortunately) 1. What is your Mafia experience on EB? How about other sites? I participated in the Cosplay Party Mafia School here on Eurobricks. Otherwise I am a rookie. What do you think of your performance on EB Mafia so far? What are your strengths and weaknesses? What do you want to improved I think I'm played decently regarding analysis in Mafia, though I seem susceptible to second guessing myself. Furthermore, I seem too quick to trust others' conjectures. Therefore, I'd like to develop a more self-assured composure in my next game. If you just graduated from Mafia School-have you read any other mafia games on EB? If so, what have you learned from them? Prior to and since my last mafia game, I have perused Mafia Sunset, Red Menace, Excalibur Mafia School, Collective Minifigs Mafia II, and parts of Ragnarok Now. I studied Red Menace to learn how to play a good mafioso (via observing Speedy's techniques). I also learned more about reasoning strategies for the game and how to better identify roles Will you be able to post every game day? More importantly, will you be able to truly participate in the game (as opposed to showing up to post once and clocking out)? If not, reconsider your application. Wherefore the game should commence after the date I mentioned, I should be able to post about twice a day. However, when I do post I spend ample time to try to formulate a detailed and insightful submission (more my playing style than short, frequent postulations) Finally the fun question. What is your favorite Lego theme? I'm a devout partisan of Castle, though I've always liked the Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter themes as well.

Very nice build Gideon. I like the new texturing motif as well as the door and the landscape

I vote for Slegengr's banner.