Emmett Ware

I'd rather tell you what I think of them. Robin: Seemed to be voting for you for similar reasons as my own at the time. That didn't seem suspicious and still doesn't. I was more bothered that he seemed to push for a roleclaim and then backed off, like he had accomplished a goal. Not following up and helping with the lynch of Joshua struck me as off as well. I'm glad we're reviewing this, it is helping me connect things I hadn't put together before. Fred: It may be foolish, but I've leaned towards trusting him ever since he and I were mistakenly identified as promoting no lynch when neither of us did that. Trenton: Until today, I didn't know this person existed. They fall in my category of people I haven't formed an impression of because they're quiet. Maybe I missed them in the early walls of text and if so, I apologize.

I'm starting to wonder why so many people were curious about Alex, yet now he's posted, it brings up more problems than answers. So why am I the only one who has even commented on it? I haven't locked my vote with unwavering certainty yet, it's still early and things may change, but I haven't seen anything that Justin has said to make me less suspicious, so the vote stays for now. Did you get something out of his post that I missed? I'll add this: There are people who have been so quiet that I haven't gotten a decent read on them. Too many of them, at this point. That means that most of my focus has to go to the people who either say a lot, or who have specific points that have caught my attention, like the vanilla thing with Alex. I honestly don't know any other way to proceed.

I am inclined to believe that effectively quoting the host by saying it explicitly uses the word vanilla would be a violation if it wasn't true, per rule 7. I guess this isn't role madness? Is there some other way to use the word vanilla without it meaning what it seems to? Technically, it isn't even misquoting that would be the problem, it would be any quoting, so that's a problem. I don't know what to make of any of it. Now I remember why I retired.

Yes, I know I didn't officially vote yet, I couldn't remember his damn last name and didn't have the sense to just check another post. Vote: Justin Reynauld God dammit, now I look and the person who voted didn't spell his name right. And how did I know? Someone else posted it, also spelled wrong! Sonofa... Unvote: Justin Reynauld Vote: Justin Reynaud

And now I'm going to go mad trying to recognise them...

Justin has been on my short list for a while and I'll be damned if you didn't make the case well enough to convince me to take a position. It's a soft position at this point, and could change later, but it makes more sense than any other right now. It even slightly outweighs my continued distrust of Daniel, which I suppose I should clarify further. Daniel, you acted like an asshole for no obvious reason and produced no gainful results, just noise. I really tried to believe that you wouldn't do that without some purpose and have struggled to find one. I'm still struggling with you, but I'm not ready to give up hope. It's still an avenue I'd very much like to explore. You really don't know me. This isn't even vaguely me being personal, this is EB Mafia.

A completely egotistical concern for self and need for attention while ignoring valid points and questions and not actually accomplishing anything. Oh, and claiming to be an expert on everything. Is that you, Donald? It's a shame, really. If someone hadn't influenced the game into not allowing PMs, there is a lot I would say privately that would be foolish to say in public. We're actually going to be done in by two different incarnations of Jesus, a reference that many of you will probably not get, sadly. If it all comes down to it, I will announce my role and how I used it/results for each night as the day nears an end. I will not feed the scum before that, no matter how hard they push for it.

I didn't jump on, I just knew that based on the time left in the day, if we were going to get a lynch, I needed to change my vote from you. I still suspected you more than Joshua and wasn't thrilled with the situation, but I was starting to feel like Jean was convinced enough to be trusted and took the chance. For someone who has said so many things so poorly, you really like to pick on single points while not considering their larger meaning. Jester was an example of a potential third party with it's own win condition. I'm still not convinced that isn't the case and yes, I suspected you right to the end of the day. Something that happened in the night and that was confirmed today had reduced that suspicion a little, but I am not going to clarify that to someone who has seemed to fish so hard for information that shouldn't be stated in public. I don't know or care who Paul is. The phrase "no need for debate" (despite your odd misquote) means I was convinced. Nothing more, nothing less. Your example does not, in any way, mean the same thing. I'm trying to write that off as a poor understanding of the subtleties of the English language, but that might just be an easy crutch for you to throw suspicion at something perfectly innocent. Your vote is silly. If you think we're going to have day 3 of the "I want to be the center of attention" Daniel show, you'll have to find another partner for that. Just as I said before, you haven't been helpful and you continue to not be helpful, but now I have just enough information to not be as certain of a vote for you, so I will wait.

Take this as you will, but I feel the need to clarify a point that keeps coming up. There was a time in EB mafia history when not having an action and vanilla were basically interchangeable. If I am reading who Alex probably is, he would think the same way. I used the term while talking to Vincent last night because of all the role madness talk and stated that I found the no action claim suspicious. He didn't explain his interaction with the host which may have lead to a change in that situation, so I continued to hold that suspicion until that time. I'll add that I still find it suspicious, role madness or not. Oh, and role madness is a new concept to me as well, and probably to Alex, again assuming I am right about his identity, so that's actually a bit more damning in that he would have potentially made the claim without knowing of the previous games.

Losing Jean is incredibly unfortunate, but at least we were right about Joshua. I credit Jean with that, as I will explain below. Amidst the walls of babble, he kept prodding to vote for Joshua. It initially made me a little suspicious, but it seemed unlikely that scum would take such a solid position so early. It felt like someone trying to use the results of a role without revealing they had the role. It did worry me that it could be a trick to sacrifice one of their own to get into a trusted position, but that concern was unfounded, since he is now confirmed as town. I just tried to glance at day 2 to see if it would help reveal some patterns but quickly got lost in the walls of babble. I will try again later. As for "role madness", this is a concept that clearly came after my time, as I was unfamiliar with it, but I know there were comments about everyone having a role and such, so at least I understand the reasoning for that now. That makes Alex's claim of not having one a lot more suspicious, which is also something I expressed to Vincent last night. I'm even more curious about that now than before. I have a role, it isn't particularly major, but it has given me little bits of information to work with. Not having any recent mafia experience, could anyone take a moment and explain some likely passive roles in a situation like this? Could Alex have a role, perform it, but still appear not to have one if they were investigated, observed, or in some other way checked out?

Nobody had the classic Tuba in Your Sleep, sadly.

It's still Daniel, but it isn't happening today. If I was absolute on anyone, I'd stick with it, but this has all been a little more mess than my mind can make sense of, so far.

Look at that, a drastic improvement in communication skills when it matters most. I want to be impressed, but I'm also a little suspicious of it. That's mafia for you. Joshua was on my list and clearly offers the best chance of at least getting a result and having something to analyse tomorrow. Still not my first choice, but I don't see any other alternative short of another failed day. Unvote: Daniel Lucas Vote: Joshua Levitt You earned most of them.

If you're curious, Joshua, Justin, Alex and Andrew have all pinged me the wrong way at times. I've gone back and forth more on you, trying to imagine if this whole day derailment is intentional, but I'm leaning against it. That would take a level of planning and coordination that is impossible in a no-PM game. Unless, as Daniel suggests, your tuba is sending out messages in Morse code. I really otter join the band. Maybe I could use one of the many empty jugs around here. Yep, Emmett otter jug band. *woop woop womp*

I admit, you may have a point, though not the exact one you intended. If he's town, the scum have to be loving the disruption he's causing to the town, so maybe they would let him live to keep that going. It's still a fairly bad strategy though, since killing him would throw suspicion on the people he has wildly argued with. Let's face it, whatever happens here, it's going to be bad for the town in some way, assuming he isn't scum or neutral.

If he's town, revealing a role basically renders it useless in the future. It would certainly tell the scum that they need to deal with him in the night. If he's scum, he'll say anything to survive and continue to create confusion, like suggesting other people be lynched before him and then offering himself as the final sacrifice if it all goes wrong. Which is exactly what he's now done.

No. Still no.

You are a bastard. Perhaps a Jester, a completely different kind of bastard than the kind you appear to be, but at least one with a purpose. That possibility is the only complication to this whole situation. Once again, you have not helped the town with your sudden roleclaim and your continued attacks and rambling nonsense. You're either sowing confusion as scum, trying to cause enough grief and aggravation to get lynched as a jester, or you're the worst townie I've ever seen and have now wasted a useful role. Good job. It's a risk I'm willing to take. My vote stands.

Facts are facts. I've tried to read through everything you've said and none of it is helpful. Therefore, I don't see anything to debate. You are obviously free to have a huge debate on the subject, but you'll be doing it without baiting me into participating in more derailing of this day. If you write a lot and say nothing, yes, that is unhelpful. I used to get in discussions like that, they only helped the scum. I eventually did it on purpose when I was scum. It was hard to learn not to do it as town, I could always convince myself that I was helping somehow, but I wasn't. I don't see where you're going to come to that understanding, so I have to assume it's intentional. Two days of trying to make any sense of your floods of often pointless and contradictory rambling. I am absolutely not saying that you are town, if I sincerely believed that, I would try to steer you into behaving in a less harmful way. This isn't about a 'policy lynch', it's about removing someone who is actively hurting the town.

It's hard to argue with their claim that you're not helping. At this point, I am less bothered by lurkers than people intentionally dominating the chat by spewing constant walls of quotes and text, especially when they aren't always relevant or accurate. That isn't helpful, pure and simple, no debate required. If we continue to allow you to flood the days with babble, we're going to end up killed by the scum during the nights. That's enough reason for me to vote. Vote: Daniel Lucas

If you were scum trying to cozy up to him, this is exactly what you would have done, not killed him but tried to earn his trust. His telling you that he would take the whole thing to the daily discussion means he thought that what you were doing looked suspicious and wanted to share it. The reason for that could be innocent or scummy. For a townie, it is potential evidence, for scum, it is a nice way to confuse the town into taking the wrong action. Either way, it is perfectly reasonable. Ever heard of a vigilante? He also could have thought that he was safe for the night, but dead tomorrow when your attempt to cozy up had failed and wanted to make sure to get the word out before that happened. As interesting as this all is, it comes down to the motivation for each event, and that is still unclear.

Was it after a day of arguing with them? Did you tell them you trusted them because other people suggested you could when that eventually was revealed to be a lie? I'll also add, if you or anyone else would have PM'd me last night, I simply wouldn't have replied unless I thought I could learn something to help prove your were scum. It doesn't sound like that was where their conversation was going, but without reading it directly, I can't be sure of that.

I didn't vote because I never felt strongly enough about anyone to do so. There were a few people I considered strongly, but the vote was too spread for there to be any chance of a lynch. A vote that can't result in a lynch is just posturing, in my opinion. I followed as much of the conversation as I could before you and Vincent took over the day. So you were lying to justify contacting him. Or worse, to convince him that other people trusted you enough to hold conversations with you. Either way, this isn't particularly reassuring.

Did you contact these 'others' or did they contact you? Either way, why would you trust them at all?

I didn't receive anything from him and it isn't just concerning, it's flat out suspicious. There is no way he should trust anyone enough to be in private contact with them, and if he was, why would he ask them if he could trust you? That's multiple levels of trust that can't be earned this quickly. If this had been yesterday, I wouldn't have ended the day without a vote. If this can't be explained today, the same situation will not be repeated.