mostlytechnic

By my count, we have 8 votes and that's enough.

Well, at this point, my assumption on Delius is that he's stuck in a long meeting or something. TOTAL silence like this is usually innocent. But as always in these events, guilty until proven innocent :)

So now we still have 3 candidates - Ozzel with 5 votes, Piett with 4, and Jellico with 4. Plus a single vote sitting on Daala still. And one person (Delius) who hasn't voted, and hasn't even been around all day. For what it's worth... those members voting against Jellico have been far less talkative (by post count) than those voting for Ozzel or Piett.

I agree, we need a lynch. My personal preference on the four current vote-havers is Ozzel, then Daala, Piett, and Jellico, in that order. I wold strongly prefer to lynch one of the first three - I haven't seen much in the case against Jellico to convince me. I will be around to change my vote if needed, but for now, I'm keeping it on my top suspect.

I agree about voting for the strongest suspect. However, you need to document your suspicions. When I voted, I gave reasons. Your vote was this (quoted below) - one statement by Jellico quoted by you, and you saying Jellico was non-committal. That's not a lot of basis for a vote.

What I find suspicious is how I made an actual case with some evidence, everyone ignored it (including the other two who voted with me!) and there's this sudden swing over to Jellico. I still find Ozzel the most suspicious among us. And what REALLY looks bad to me is how both Yularen and Shelby have kept their votes on Ozzel. Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but it makes me feel like Ozzel and one of them (at least) are scummos. They now feel safe that Ozzel isn't getting lynched today, so they're keeping votes here so they can point to them later if he is lynched/killed later and turns up traitor. And they can jump over to another bandwagon last minute "to get a lynch" And this reeks to me - at the time, there was what, one vote on Jellico and 3 on at least 2 other people? So to "get a lynch" you threw your hat at someone - at the time - not a serious candidate without much basis for your vote?

I'm saying that two more people jumping on top of my initial vote without giving any new evidence feels bandwagony. Well, if that's the definition of a bandwagon... Yularen gave a little defense of Ozzel and then said "I think the rest of your points for him are valid though. As Dellus so kindly put above me (the vote posts), there certainly were joke posts, my own included. But Ozzel did not seem to give a reason for his vote, unless I'm missing something." So that sounds like no other reason to me. And Shelby gave this reason for the vote: "I suspect Colonel Dellus, General Veers, and having reviewed day one, now our mustachioed Admiral Ozzel. Of the three Ozzel has shown himself the least committal to anything and the least productive to the conversation." Again, little reason for joining in. I know, this sounds like I'm defending Ozzel or opposed to others voting the same way as me. That would be weird and that's not what I'm saying. My point is that I want other people also looking at what's been said, analyzing what's happening, and helping us make good decisions. Just saying "me too!" doesn't do that.

Ah, the joys of WIFOM :) I'm not that concerned about the timing - I'm more concerned about the joining in when no one else is on the table bandwagoning.

I agree - I made that first vote to get things going, but I had no idea the bandwagon would happen quickly. I'm glad it stopped at 3 votes so far - I'm still comfortable with my vote and completely willing to lynch Ozzel. But I'm glad there's more discussion happening. I just want to make sure a consensus DOES form today. As for yesterday - yep, I split up the vote a bit. When it was already so fragmented that there was no way a lynch was happening unless a massive bandwagon formed. I decided solidifying my suspicions with a vote was more valuable than joining anyone else, when my vote wasn't going to cause or stop a lynch. Care to give any more reason here? Just "Piett may be more lynchable" is not reason for voting. What's your suspicions? Agree. If I had to change votes right now, I'd join you in voting against Yularen. Care to address any of the accusations against you? Or just try to distract people with another candidate?

I think this is a hugely overlooked reason to have a lynch even on day 1. Yep, we'll probably eliminate a loyal member of the Empire. But in doing so, we reduce the numbers of suspects to debate and split votes over. So let's get this started. I will Vote: Adm. Ozzel (Actor Builder) Why? First, just to get things moving. Throwing tons of random votes around again won't help, so I'll start with a heavy poke and see where it goes. If we have several votes on someone, maybe that pressure will lead us somewhere. At the very least, I'm trying to get a piece of sand in this oyster so we can start a pearl forming, or whatever analogy works better in space. I don't even know for sure what an oyster is. Just read about them as a kid I think. Second, the Admiral has contributed nothing today. One throwaway post of sadness over the loss of a loyal member. On day 1, his post count was in the middle of the road, and he voted on one of the two candidates with the most votes. Sounds like a nice place for a scummo to hang out - in early enough to look like you're trying to lynch someone, but among a group so you don't take the fall alone if/when they flip loyal. Third, what did he do yesterday? A hello post, a second "I'm here" post in which he also said he's against a lynch. I think that's an anti-Empire position to take, personally. Third post, wanting to wait for night roles to solve this for us and looking forward to day 2 voting. Then a post just restating things he's already said. Then he votes for someone, even though he said he was anti-lynch! Yes, we are required to vote, but if you're truly anti-lynch, stand your ground and state that your vote is that. Instead, the Admiral actually gave a reason for his vote and seemed to be serious about it. And that was the last we heard from him yesterday.

I concur that there's not much to be learned from the dead Director's comments from yesterday. None of us could have had any knowledge (other than the traitors). Always sad to lose someone like that. I can come up with one possibility - Isard was the least talkative yesterday (in post quantity at least) other than the partially-absent Komec. And Isard has a strong history in these hunts. So if I was a traitor looking to pick someone, I'd think that perhaps Isard was trying to stay a little under the radar, possibly having a night ability, and is a player to be feared, so that's two targets on his back. Also completely possible, that he was just a random choice. Happened to be walking down the wrong hall at the wrong time.

A dead townie is not automatically correct in whatever they'd said. They're as clueless as the rest of us at this point. However, we can evaluate what they said in the light of them being honest about it. My very first one of these hunts I believe we killed off the vig on the first day. Oops. It happens. The highest probability for the lynchee on day 1 though is a vanilla townie, by simple math (in a normal game). But that's because our numbers are our biggest counter to the advantages the traitors have - they know who's loyal and who's not, but we have far more numbers, so we can sacrifice some to further the hunt. It's how it works. By my math, the current vote count is: Tarkin 1 (KotZ) Thrawn 0 Isard 0 Piett 2 (Kintober, Rider Raider) Motti 1 (LegoRacer1) Daala 1 (LadyK) Ozzel 0 Yularen 1 (fhomess) Veers 0 Shelby 3 (mediumsnowman, sandy, Peanuts) Greer 0 Delius 3 (Actor, Forresto, Tariq) Needs 0 Komec 1 (mostlytechnic) Fenton 2 (Legomonorailfan, khscarymovie4) Jellico 0 Komec is the only member of the council who has not placed a vote.

Yes, we most likely will have no lynch today. I suspect that will not surprise Vader, since he gave us the higher bar of a majority vote to lynch (sometimes tribunals lynch whoever has the most votes, without needing a true majority) Yes, lynching the active loyalists is a terrible idea. However, you're incorrect about the theory part. When someone is proven traitorous, everything they said should be re-evaluated in that light. Likewise, when someone is proven loyal, that doesn't mean they knew things, but it does mean their motivation for anything said was pure. No, we must not rely on any special abilities - ASSUMING THERE EVEN ARE ANY! I mean, Lord Vader probably did give some people night actions, but we must not depend on that. Our lynch is our most second most powerful weapon, after the daily debate. PRs are only 3rd. Yep, PRs often get lynched day 1, although if a PR is on the verge of being lynched, they may want to role-claim publicly. May not, to keep the loss of that role secret, but may so that they might survive AND be useful as a target for the traitors (and claiming can draw protection to save them as well). A day 1 lynch is almost always a loyalist, just by the odds, but the debate and voting patterns are important for future days. Without it, we'll just be having this same discussion tomorrow. This, this, 1000x this. I am tempted to keep my vote placed on Komec, since he is the only one still not voting, and I still think he's uncharacteristically quiet. I am openly saying I know that is suspiciously splitting up the vote (especially after all I said above about the importance of the lynch), but I doubt we'll get a majority anyway unless a serious bandwagon forms. For now, I will keep my vote where it is to further document my suspicion. I have some duties to attend to, but I should be able to return before the day ends to move the vote if needed.

So far we have 10 votes, spread among 9 people. Not uncommon at the start of these quests. I'm going to further that, with a Vote: Komec (jluck) because he hasn't voted yet either, and while not the quietest among the group, he's been quieter than I remember him in the past. So this vote is partially a prod and partially legitimately suspicious.

A bit of a ping here - I understand the second part, not wanting to be too accusatory of Daala for voting you to start things off, but the first sentence is way too soft. I suspect EVERYONE at this point except myself. Man, all this accusation of the quiet ones. I've already said my piece on this, but to reiterate a little... my experience has been that the most quiet are usually just quiet loyalists. The traitors like to hide in the middle where they're not noticed for being talkative OR quiet. Why on earth would you think we'd know of anything interesting yet? Unless someone has a role that is a twist, we have nothing to base normal/twisty/crazy mechanics off of. I do note that the rules do NOT specify that only "normal" roles will be found in this quest, but that's typical. School games have that restriction generally, but main scum hunts usually do not, so I don't read anything into it.

Personally, in the beginning I primarily suspect the middle of the road people. The quietest ones are either PRs trying to avoid attention, or just quiet townies. The loudest voices are almost always loyal - the scum don't want that much attention. The traitors, in my experience, talk just enough to not be noticed at either end of the spectrum. Bah, now I've given way my plan, and the traitors may try to avoid my trap. But I doubt it.

Isn't that the definition of a mafia game? I concur. Yes, odds are we lynch a loyalist, which is bad. However, if we use the logic that "we don't have any good information to go on" then we won't lynch anyone till like day 4. And that's bad, since the traitors get to keep picking us off each night. The lynch is a source of information. Especially on day 1, I see value in virtually any discussion we have. Talking is how we root the traitors out, for the most part. I don't wait to hear from investigations.

The driving wheels around the top bend is an interesting method - keeps the layout smaller instead of needing an immediate drop to get momentum. I'd rather have had sloping curves instead. Now just to decide where to spend my Lego budget.... this, or more modulars....

I believe his issue with me began yesterday, when I jokingly voted to lynch someone even before today's hunt began.

True, I was expecting to be looking amongst the lower ranks. But I suppose anything is possible, and with traitors among us, we must root them out for the good of the Empire! Yes, I would have expected you to prevent this. Unless perhaps you're among the scum.... but I suppose I should ignore that thought, since our roles and allegiances were randomly generated. I mean, I'm Chief of Naval Operations, and why do we even have one of those? We have no boats in space! Oh wait, I guess we do have spaceSHIPS.

Is this the fake shock we were warned about? Hmmmm? After all, we've had an ongoing rebellion we face. Is it really surprising that some among us could possibly be traitorous scum?

It would appear there's only one proper course of action Vote: Admiral Shelby (Forresto) Right? Obvious scum move, already too scared to appear. Although, surely his scum mates would have prompted him to not be so suspicious. Perhaps then this delay proves his loyalty. But then, how could a loyal follower be late? Ah, the WIFOM begins already...

Admiral Motti is here, ready to hunt the scum. Interesting change finding traitors internally instead of looking for those rebels.

Good to see some new faces around here too... think I need to go read the last couple games to get up to speed on people!

Ooooh, I wanna play! Been ages since I've been around for a mafia game and I've been missing it. Sign me up!