Adam

This correspondence with Scouty popped up very fast and very confusingly. Perhaps it's because the whole case against him is being presented in song, perhaps it's because the quoted messages from Scouty have weird formatting, and perhaps it's because it's entirely possible that Scouty was pulling some kind of act in order to lure out scum. We need more perspective on this than just Hinckley's claims (I'm looking at you, Scouty). Also, Hinckley, if you're so certain that Scouty is lying about his role claim, then how can you be so positive that the watcher exists? Couldn't it be entirely possible that Scouty made him up in order to back himself up? Speaking of which, how did the subject of the watcher even come up in your PM conversation? I was in the thread when Zepher made his posts and they don't look any different. Is it possible that you confused a post merger with an edit?

After what happened to Cornelius, I'm not sure many people would WANT to be mayor. It looks like you'll either be killed or converted before you can even break a tie. To the people (TPRU and Alopex, I believe) who seem sure that Cornelius was killed by the scum killer, why are you so certain? Killing the mayor on the night of his election doesn't seem wise at all for the scum: either they kill someone who the other team is probably trying to recruit or they kill someone who is being watched or protected. I can, however, imagine a vigilante killing the mayor because he or she thought that Cornelius was going to be converted. By the way Zepher, it sort of seems like you're trying to obliquely communicate with the other scum team. You did the same thing yesterday when you talked about your plan to draw out the scum by splitting the vote... before enacting the plan. You said: It just gives the impression of someone trying to say, "Look, I'm doing something to draw out the scum. But if you're scum, watch out for it."

I've missed playing mafia, this is a lot of fun! Flare didn't send me a PM either, which is probably a result of my translation-fueled speculation on his knowledge of romance languages. I'm not Italian either.

So people are suspecting Hinckley because he metagames, and their reasoning to support a lynch vote for him is based off of... metagaming? What? Again, I only have a couple of three-year-old mafia games to go off of, but from what I remember, Hinckley has always been a dick (I mean that in the nicest way possible). This vote feels a bit random. Just a few pages ago people were pouncing on Flare for trying to accuse Hinckley and assuming that he would be accused. Now a sudden lynch starts for him at the day's end, focusing on dickish behavior? The biggest point against Hinckley is his involvement in Flare's mayor and lynch votes, for which he has supplied several responses. I find it odd that these points would be so quickly leveled against Hinckley at the day's closing, thus possibly bringing about a sudden surprise lynch. Why did you guys wait so long?

This is quite a bit to sort through so I'm taking my time with my responses to the latest developments. Based on the evidence presented thus far, I think it is most likely that Flare guessed the puzzle correctly and sent his answer off to def. "Qu'est-ce que" is a common phrase in French and is extremely recognizable. Looking at the semi-completed picture that Hinckley put out at the end of Night Zero, the most helpful and obvious words were "1977 hit" and "-ce". It's possible that someone recognized the "-ce" and googled "1977 hit qu'est-ce", which would have brought up "Psycho Killer". However, determining the answer would have been much easier with Flare's piece, which reads "que", another indicator of French (or similar romance languages). Googling "1977 hit que" gets you nowhere, but recognizing the "-ce" and combining it with "que" could easily get you the answer if you have even basic knowledge of French or similar languages. Of course, it's difficult to make an unbiased judgement of how difficult the puzzle was with X amount of information seeing as we already know the answer. However, it is very safe to conclude that Flare had the most and most useful information by the end of the night. Personally, if I still had my vote, I would vote for Flare: he's one of the top three suspicious players today, and if he did indeed get the puzzle right, then there's a chance he's a scum with an invincible killer role. Is it so difficult to believe that he loves me because of how beautiful my hat is? Or must you insist that I am only lovable if a roleplay action makes it so?

I try to post when I can and when I have something to contribute. I can't metagame wildly like the rest of you, and I think that posting long-winded and repetitive crap is unproductive and ultimately impedes the search for scum. As for badboy's vote, your guess is as good as mine. I would definitely like to hear if he has a reason for suggesting me for mayor other than the smexiness of my hat. Finally, as for my puzzle piece, I echo Shadows: Also, I quite frankly wasn't awake when the puzzle pieces were posted in Night Zero. The bandwagon mayor vote for Flare is certainly weird, but I can't who voted for him based off of flawed reasoning or evil intent. Below is the comment from PirateDave which supposedly incited the vote for Flare: It's definitely possible that people agreed with PirateDave and decided to vote for Flare as such, following the lead of one of the more experienced and vocal mafia-players, Hinckley. What worries me is how quickly this bandwagon formed and how little discussion went into the initial vote for Flare, especially seeing as you cannot unvote for mayor. Why would anyone so readily relinquish his or her mayor vote? There's always the chance that some scum voted for Flare because he is a scum or because they planned to recruit him, but this is merely conjecture based on less than a day of behavior. The people who voted for him after Hinckley are as follows: Darkdragon, Zepher, Big Cam, CallMePie, TrumpetKing67, Flare, TinyPiesRUs. Do you seven have anything to add to the discussion? I will also repeat my inquiry into badboy: is it merely my fabulous bowler that caught your eye?

I also have a puzzle piece:

Damn it. Does this mean I can't vote for mayor either? Whatever, I was never good at blackjack. Besides, I have a sexy hat.

I will stay.

I'll hit!

Sure, I'll play. I can't really comment on your argument about the scum killing Cecille, since I have never played a mafia game with her (or most of the other people here). I'll look at Steampunk now, but if she really did have a bunch of scum-tells, then perhaps your idea has some weight. However, how could someone possibly figure out Cecille's alliance based on one Night Zero? She wouldn't have time to exhibit any "scum tells", so I don't think that the scum killers would be very confident in her alliance. I guess exaggerated the number of people doubting the possibility of a scum kill. Looking back, I'm having trouble finding it. Woops. Anyway, I completely agree with you that it would be strategic for the scum killer(s) to use their action(s). Agreed.

Well, damn, this is what you get for hibernating. While I try to wrap my head around three pages of dickishness and acronyms, I'll put out there that it seems like it's in the scum's best interest to vote a Townie (or at least, a suspected Townie) as the Mayor and then recruit them that night. If I were a scum, I wouldn't vote for myself because that would bring me under the spotlight. Then again, this is the first time I've heard of the concept of a Mayor in these games (and the first time I've encountered one with two scum teams). Voting for a random, previously inactive player like Flare is suspicious to me because it's the exact kind of tactic I expect a scum team would take when it comes to the Mayor. As for the debate between who killed Cecille and Capt. Redblade, chainsaws and skull masks do seem psycho to me, but in a game as unusual as this, I don't think def feels the need to keep weapons and figures consistent with their respective teams. Tamamono makes a good point that a serial killer should in theory avoid targeting well-known players. A lot of people seem to be saying that the scum would be "stupid" to kill on the first night. In reality, they are in the same situation as the vigilante (should he or she exist), and killing on the first night is merely a risk. Listening to def I couldn't quite tell, do the killers know who the other killers are? If so, couldn't a recruited killer identify all the other killers to the recruiting team? Is it entirely in the Town's best interests to vote a mayor? It seems like it would be really easy for the scum to convert him or her and get an easy tiebreaker.

As a fellow bald brother, I can sympathize with your pain. Would you like to engage in the secret bald handshake?

Uhhh... over nine thousand? You have very nice ears.

You guys have too many inside mafia game jokes. Whatever. I have an awesome hat.

I would love to play, if you want me. I'd brag about past experience, but I'm not really in a position to...

And what am I, chopped liver?!

Tohstre! I think there are technically only 24 (since two of the people who have signed up are playing Police Infiltration).

Thanks for letting me play! Guess I'm rustier than I thought. That's the hardest part about dying!

And if he lunches? And has acumen? What, he will be a hungry person capable of making good decisions?

I agree completely. Jean was acting weirdly at first. My argument is that Ian was as well. He then proceeded to make clear explanations, and was accepted as innocent by most. But when Jean made some clear explanations, people still voted for him. I merely think there is a discrepancy there because from where I stand, Ian's defenses and Jean's defenses are of equal strength. Furthermore, I stand by my point about the scum vs. scum quote/meat shield idea. My real question is why people are looking almost exclusively at Jean when we should be looking at both Jean and Ian.

Gary Jr., stay away from the bum, his beard looks smelly. I want to preface my thoughts with the statement that I understand the importance of the lynch. However, I cannot in good conscience vote for Jean. Is he suspicious? Definitely; I would say that everyone involved in this argument (mainly Jean, Ian, and Isaac) is suspicious. It is only the first day and we should presumably have nothing to lunch over, so any argument like this is cause for concern. Was Jean a bit brash in auto-voting Ian? Perhaps. Is he being defensive? Of course. But why shouldn't he be defensive? He is being accused by a good third of the people in this office; he has to be defensive. He has laid out a number of points in his defense and they largely seem valid. Ian had absolutely no evidence when he first voted for Jean. If someone voted for me for no rhyme or reason, I would probably suspect my accuser. So I can understand Jean's vote and his jumpiness. However, this is not to say that I think Jean is innocent or that I am condemning Ian. As the later said after the start of the feud, he was probing for reactions, which is all we can really do on the first day, right? However, what really irks me is the fact that I think some element of this argument is made up, a theory brought up by several before me. First of all, the primary basis for Jean's current lynch is his remark about a scum not pointing a finger at one of his own. This led many to believe that Jean and Ian were staging a fight as a meat shield gambit. However, if this quote from Jean is the main reason behind your vote, then doesn't it follow that if you suspect Jean then you must also suspect Ian? Another wrinkle in this theory is Isaac's vote. He popped in to vote for Ian just after the argument began and then randomly changed his vote to Jean. I can't shake the feeling that a townie wouldn't use his or her vote so purposefully. In any event, I've got my eye on you, and so does Gary Jr.! There you have it. Before I go to help Gary Jr., who's gone all limp - help him by changing his batteries - I'd like to compliment Andrea on having some very good ideas and on making some logical points.

Look, the most "suspicious" things that have happened today (since the murder this morning, that is) have apparently been a wink and some sweeping. Clearly, we don't have much to go on. As such, I don't think we should be jumping to any conclusions or making any rash votes. Perhaps we're all just a bit shaken up from what happened to the chief. Hold me, Gary Jr.! That said, why the rush to a vote, Isaac?

Well, is there much anyone can add to the conversation at this point? As far as I can tell, we have no leads. Isn't that right, Jr.?

A bear?! Does this mean you've let a bear loose in the station? Can I diffuse it somehow? Gary Jr.! Help me disarm this bear!