Tamamono

Hilarious day ending, Pandufus!

Actually, Tomato has enough votes to be lynched anyway, so Big Butthole is safe.

Unvote: Ishaq Ettaq (Wuntin) Vote: Father Thomas “Tomato” Thomson (Ricecracker) Let's hope this works.

I'm willing to vote for Father Tomato, but aren't we cutting things a little close? There's less than an hour left to try an overturn the current bandwagon. I'm not sure if it can be done. If you think we can make it, then I'll vote for Tomato.

Well, it seems quite a bit happened while I was sleeping. There's been talk of virgins, buttholes, and attacks on shacks! Although I'm still suspicious of Roger, I'm not about to ignore a role claim, so Unvote: Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick). If he's telling the truth about his role, then it could be used as almost an investigator action, testing if people are actually being honest about their virginity. I don't think Mr. Anus is a cultist, he's simply, as his name suggests, acting like a big butthole. Vote: Ishaq Ettaq (Wuntin) I have nothing against poor Shaq, but he's been very quiet and unhelpful so far, and we're running out of time and options.

In my experience, gut feelings rarely turn out well. A ~75% chance of killing an innocent (there could very well be a SK or something) is not very good at all. How is it a 'certain' way to nab a cultist? Even if we did end up pulling the name of a cultist and sacrificing him/her, it wouldn't tell us anything because there wouldn't be any voting patterns! There are plenty of people who aren't saying much, and they're getting much less suspicion cast on them than you are. While early inactivity does not help the town, it's more excusable than someone coming up with stupid ideas that will very probably get an innocent killed off for no good reason. If you don't like any of the suspects on the chopping block, you go through the thread discussion, analyze what people have said, and suggest for someone else to be sacrificed. It's that simple.

Once again, the possibility of not voting is not something you'd expect to see in a situation like ours, so I wanted to explore that possibility a bit. I personally think that not voting would have been a better option than voting for someone we aren't confident is scum, or, like Mr. Goodenarde suggested, random voting. Luckily, there's been plenty of healthy discussion today, and now with votes for eight different people, there's defiantly definitely no shortage of suspects. No it wouldn't be. If we can't find a good option for voting, then we shouldn't vote at all. It's that simple. A random vote is just asking for trouble. That way you have just as good a chance of pulling the name of a hardworking and proactive townie (or even worse, a Nocturnal Skiller) as you do a chance of pulling the name of someone inactive and useless. You know, captain, that was pretty early on in the day, and there was no need for you to actually accuse someone at that point. You make it sound like the only options were A. responding to the ego war between Mehmet and Patrick, B. Suggesting a vote on someone for a trivial reason, or C. suggesting a random vote. This is not true. There were plenty of other things you could have added to the discussion. Take, for instance, the discussion of the cultists' goal by William and Ophelia. You could tried to add something to that discussion. Or, if need be, you could have just said nothing, like many others were doing at the time. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all.

So you're just going to ignore my accusations? While Ophelia's flip-flopping earlier on was pretty strange, it's much more explainable than your random voting idea. She wanted to test out if Jennifer would follow through with her idiotic idea. Also, the votes wouldn't be 'wasted', we do have unlimited unvotes, remember, and Jennifer did say that she would switch her vote if something came up. Honestly, why would you ever suggest random voting? It's not like anyone will ever actually listen to a bizarre suggestion like that. Vote: Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick) Well, God doesn't seem to be doing anything about it, so I guess that must mean that either Apu is voteless or we have a vote thief amongst us. Yes, I do read what's being said, I guess I just read that post a bit hastily. Sorry! I'll be more careful from now on. Indeed. Also, people do have real life other responsibilities around the camp, so we can't expect everyone to always be around.

Well, it doesn't do much good if you don't even keep the vote on him long enough for her to vote for him too. You've got a lot to learn, Ophelia.

Wait, what!? Now you're following Jennifer's lead?

Well, it appears that voting has finally started. Since almost everyone else is planning on voting today, I suppose there's no point of me abstaining, but I'm not ready to cast a vote quite yet. Wait, what? What kind of logic is that? So even if someone casts a vote against who isn't suspicious at all, you'll still vote for them? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Of course there's no way of actually knowing someone's alignment at this stage in the situation, but we can at least try to analyze behavioral patterns and make an educated guess after that. Like Mustafa said, the promise of being open to different vote possibilities doesn't change much. If you want to vote, then you should vote for who you think is suspicious, not just follow the crowd (or, as the case may be, one person). The only reason to vote randomly is to avoid actually having to think. If we want to escape thinking for ourselves, then we just shouldn't vote at all.

Congratulations!

I only brought it up so that I could explain to Gordon that you are not likely to be scum because of your attitude. Anyways, I accept your apology. Now let's please move on and start trying to find those cultists. Someone not having anything to a conversation add isn't suspicious, especially when the 'conversation' is, like William said, a pissing match between our cook and our party leader. However, I do find the rest of what he's said to be pretty suspicious. While it is fine to not have anything to add to a conversation, you shouldn't just spout some useless crap about your brother and the Spanish flu and then suggest that we randomly vote. If we randomly voted, we would almost certainly end up killing one of our own. If we actually analyze behavioral patterns and then base a vote off of those, then we stand a much better chance of nabbing a cultist. Honestly, you and Maelana need to look up random in the dictionary. First you go off spouting nonsense about women with sharp mangos and the Spanish flu, then you suggest that we vote randomly even though most other people were already deep in discussion about who to lynch. And when Hugh confronts you about your behavior, you just spout more of it and then try to shift suspicion off onto him for something that seems relatively harmless to me. One fourth of twenty-four is six, and in a situation like this one would expect for about one fourth of the players members of the group to be scum. Now, I'm not saying that Hugh is innocent, but I am saying that your behavior does not look good at the moment. I've got my eye on you, Mr. Goodenarde. I agree with William. If the cultists have some other way of winning than just outnumbering us, then it's important for us to know about it so that we can try to prevent it.

There is a very fine line between 'funny' and 'annoying'. Sure, it's fine to make a few jokes to lighten the situation a bit, but when people get sick of it, you stop. It's easy as that. What I was saying to Gordon before was that you are probably not a cultist because you seem more than happy to draw a lot of attention, and that's something a cultist would want to avoid at all costs. Even active cultists would want to seem active without really engaging in the conversation that much.

I suppose you're right about that, Percy. While not voting could potentially save an innocent Nocturnal Skiller, it would also waste a day in which we could have gotten voting patterns to help us catch the cultists. In any case, it defiantly definitely looks like we will be voting today, and this has been a pretty active Day 1, so there's definitely hope for us to find a cultist today. While that's true, Mr. Fitzwilliam is drawing a lot of negative attention, and that's something a cultist would not want. I don't think any cultists would just come out of the blue talking about how 'useful' and 'innocent' they are before anyone's even spoken to them. It looks to me like both Attabar and Fitzwilliam are townies, and they're having a silly little quarrel while the scum sit on the sidelines and laugh their a$$es off watching two of the most outspoken townies try to tear each other down. We need to work together, people, not against each other.

Looking back now, you're right, you have not flat out 'insulted' anyone. I'm sorry, it seems I misspoke.

While Mr. Fitzwilliam is showing the kind of initiative that we need to sniff out these cultists, I too agree that he's acting rather obnoxious. Insulting everyone's intelligence does not help us in any way, in fact, it makes things worse. Now can we please get back to the task at hand? And quite similarly the innocent protector will be focused on that one person. I suppose it's really a lose-lose situation. Let's just hope we can avoid that by not voting for any Nocturnal Skillers. It isn't random if we're actually choosing someone! Random is when a name is drawn from a hat, not when we rationally decide on someone to sacrifice. That's true, good point Ophelia. I suppose there could be some sort of hidden penalty for not voting, although I hardly think it would be very fair of our hosts to do that to us. Like I said before, I only plan on voting today if there is someone worth voting for.

If there was some sort of penalty for not voting, then that would obviously be the main drawback to not voting. However, it seems like there is no penalty for not voting, so ending the day without a lynch isn't quite as bad of an idea (although lynching a cultist would obviously be better). Like Hugh said, we are statistically more likely to kill an innocent than a cultist. Convicting an innocent today will give us a bad start, one that can potentially be avoided. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to catch a cultist today. I'm saying that if we can't find a lynch that we're happy with, then not voting is still an option.

I suppose I am being a bit conservative. Still, you have to admit, the option of not voting opens up some interesting possibilities. Umm... certainly... Obviously, we're going to be taking a risk if we vote for someone to be fed to the rock. However, I'm confident that if someone has a 'Nocturnal Skill' as you called it, and that person has quite a few votes on him or her, then he or she will definitely reveal it to the public in hopes that we can all overturn the bandwagon in time (which is something I'm pretty confident we can do). No responsible townie with a 'Nocturnal Skill' would take it to the grave without telling anyone. Like I said before, Mehmet, I'm pretty confident that we can overturn a bandwagon if need be. We're all a bunch of responsible and active players people, and I don't think any of us would just stand around while someone important was being lynched. I agree, Ophelia. Regardless of whether or not we're going to be lynching someone today, healthy discussion is very important.

That too. Well, it actually looks like we might be able to get out of having to lynch today after all by just not voting at all. I'm personally not a fan of just sitting around and waiting for something to happen, but it might actually be the best course of action today. What does everyone else think?

You're probably right about that. Things do sound more dramatic when they're decisive, after all.

Quiet, you, or I'll put on my pink dress. I know how much you'll hate that. As clever as my gut is I am, there's no evidence today, so I can't think of where to start at the moment. It's early in the day, though, and like Nicholas said, some people haven't even spoken up yet. I don't believe so. Ossie and Is said that we must make a sacrifice before sundown, but the rules don't say that we absolutely have to make a decision today, and they don't give any penalties for not voting. Although it does say that in the event of a tie, the first person to reach that number of votes will be sacrificed. I don't know if that applies to 0 votes or not, and if it does, I don't know how they're going to choose who got 0 votes first. Maybe they'll randomly choose someone? In any case, running away from the decision we must make won't do us any good.

I enjoyed it quite a bit actually, it was nice to get some more Apple family. Although I have to agree with you that the ending was definitely the best part. Yes, welcome to the herd, Batbrick!

Excuse me? He? I am a woman, and proud to be one.

I'm not sure if gold is the healthiest thing to be eating. Still, I do love cocoa, though. And by lynch of course meant feed to the rock. Like I said, I can't think on an empty stomach.