Adam

Pings, the both of you. I'm not saying I trust Pudding Head, but clearly there's something in play that we might not know about. At this point, not knowing what's going on behind the scenes but knowing that something is going on, it'd probably be a bad idea to policy lynch Cranebeinn right now. At least, not until we know more. Why the half-assed votes, then? Little more than hitching a ride on the bandwagon with vague statements about Cranebeinn being suspicious and unfulfilled promises to return later with more information (this is mostly directed at Jafri - Ragnvald, at least, has provided some reasoning behind his vote). Thinking about it, Jafri's post is one of the scummiest I've read all day. While I appreciate the courtesy, I can't help but find your multiple apologies a little bit curious. If I were scum under fire, I would also want to appease those suspicious of me as quickly as possible. Moving on, what you've said has more or less confirmed what I gathered from your original post. You wanted to stop people from bandwagoning Tarben... which is strange, because people weren't, and it didn't look like they were going to. Kind of contradicts your earlier claims that you weren't trying to defend Tarben, doesn't it? What intrigues me most about your post is your last few words. You're encouraging us to go after you if Cranebeinn is town? Why would Cranebeinn being town have such a deep impact on your own allegiance? By the same token, why would Cranebeinn turning scum somehow clear you? Why tell us all this in the first place? There are too many little contradictions here. Vote: Jarl Name-Loser (jluck)

So, as I understand it from this post, you're not in direct contact with the blocker? You're in contact with a middleman or middlewoman, who gave you the name and action result of the blocker? Being that you're only three votes in, I wouldn't say you're being prepped for the noose yet. It's a little early to start flailing. This whole discussion of the blocker reads like a scum trying to forestall his lynch by claiming (or at least, claiming to know) a power role. At the very least, it would be an opportunity for you to fish for information and pass that on to your scum buddies before the noose is tightened. By the way, this hyper-defensiveness isn't new for Cranebeinn. Here he is yesterday, posting after Brand had already been effectively drawn and quartered. ​Jarl, would it be terribly inconvenient for you to respond to a few of my specific questions? I'm curious about your comments on Tarben and bandwagoning.

It's definitely possible. Looking back with the knowledge that she was scum, Lambi's vote reads like scum trying to vote off-bandwagon so as to say the next day, "Look, he showed up town and I didn't vote for him! That must mean I'm town, and you people are the scum!" As I said before, the silent players always pass under the microscope, sooner or later. It wasn't unreasonable for Lambi to call Tarr out and subsequently think that he might be attacked in the coming days. So yes, it could be that Lambi was bussing Tarr. Your job may be to interpret the given data, but it's impossible to interpret the current data in a way that makes Tarben confirmed town. It's an oft-stated tenet that only the scum can say for sure that someone's town. Also, it's more than a little strange to say that you're not defending Tarben, then to say that you don't want to "sit idly by and wait for someone to start a bandwagon." So which is it? Are you not defending Tarben, or do you not want people to bandwagon him? Let's pause for a moment. People aren't suspicious of you because you were "too quiet," we're suspicious because you were quiet and, when you did speak, you did your damnedest to not say anything useful. Except Dar's post doesn't support what you're saying, outside of the fact that the role blocker targeting a vanilla is technically one possibility. Here's a funky idea, and technically it is one of the many possibilities: what if the role blocker targeted the scum killer last night, and you're trying to direct her/him elsewhere? Cranebeinn, I didn't realize you were so outdoorsy! Or do you just... love fishing? Seriously, this is suspicious as all Loki. Especially after yesterday, when you had that weird post trying to figure out if Jarl was the serial killer (in your words, "vigilante") based on one fluff post.

The guy had, what, four penalty votes under his belt? I don't think you can pretend that your vote was insignificant, even if it was the first vote placed by another person. I'm not particularly interested in speculating about the vigilante, especially when general speculation about night kills usually leads to jack squat on the second day. That said, this more or less matches up with what I imagine happened. Yesterday, you claimed to suspect Lambdi. Ok. Why would that "come close" to clearing you? It's probably unlikely that you knew she'd be killed, but Lambdi was operating with the same playstyle as a lot of the people currently under the microscope. The Brands, the Mists, and so on. Players who were saying much without saying anything at all, and waffling when confronted with questions. It was easy to predict that she would be a target, so I can imagine a situation where you were bussing her. Or, were you just referring to Pudding Head's accusation that you unvoted her without good reason? Two Loyals are dead. One Corrupted is dead. If we find the Corrupted, we will have found the Corrupted.

I'm going to Vote: Mist (Mencot). Between Mist and Brand, I find her to be the more suspicious. Brand has certainly done a lot ping my scumdar. I've pointed out much of what puts me off about him in earlier posts. I have not spoken as much about Mist, so I want to explain my reasoning a bit more clearly here. Brand has been acting scummy, but his much-discussed conversation with Pudding Head reads flailing townie to me, which has caused me to turn to some of our other suspects of the day. I'm not super pinged by Mist's Freudian slip early in the day - Mist has never been the most attentive or sensical player, and I don't entirely blame her for not reading the optional recap too carefully. However, her defense of Cranebeinn, as has been pointed out by several others, is blatantly scummy. She's posted a fair amount, but none of it has been helpful, and she's failed to voice her own suspicions to the town. As I mentioned before, I've never known Mist to be reliable, and I don't think I know her scum game, which could explain her uselessness, but I think that makes her sudden defense of Cranebeinn that much more suspicious. Why is someone who's done nothing but post gibberish, mix up the game's factions, and evade questions gone out of her way to defend another player? That's unusual, and to me it smells like a scum who's been trying to fly under the radar.

I've always wanted to learn how to speak Mencot. Alright, Mist, explain a few things to me. To what "gut feelings" are you referring? Are these your gut feelings, or someone else's? When you say, "Brand or any of the other," does this mean you think that "Brand or any of the other" are scummy? Who are "any of the other?" Are you actually saying that anybody in this game could be scum? How does saying that literally anyone could be scum help anyone or reveal what you're thinking at the moment? Pings out the megablocks here.

Clearly not what I said. I encourage you to vote because of your own reasoning and thought process, but you need to tell us what that reasoning and thought process is. Scum don't randomly defend townies on the first day. Townies don't randomly defend townies on the first day.

That's a good catch. It's like Mafia Greatest Hits in here. Why would it be acceptable to vote for someone and not give reasoning for it? You couldn't at least point to something someone else said and say that you agree with them? Hang on, I better stop picking apart your post, otherwise I might conclude wrong headed things about you! Saying, "If people try to question me, they're just wrong!" isn't an acceptable substitute for reasoning.

Help me understand something. You messaged Tarben, and he sent you what was essentially a one-sentence response saying, "I'm scum." From that one message, what made you think that he was a townie traitor looking to get recruited? In my mind, "I'm scum" and "I'm a traitor, please recruit me" are fairly unrelated. If he thought you were scum and capable of recruiting him, what could he possibly have gained by telling you that he was scum? Why not say he was a traitor? I think you make a good point here. I find it hard to believe that this is some kind of con set up by Tarben and Brand, and even harder to believe that Pudding Head wouldn't be involved in that. This four-page, repetitive argument only came about because Pudding Head revealed the messages to the meadhall at large. If this is a con, who's doing the bussing? Pudding Head or Tarben? Both of them? Brand?!? Maybe I'm being naive here, but I think this argument is too petty and convoluted to be fake.

No need to get so defensive. What I said wasn't meant as an attack on you so much as a piece of advice and a statement to the meadhall at large that things like promises to dig up info, inexperience, and it being the first day are not excuses for scumminess or inexperience.

Maybe, having been terrible at mafia for so long, I just speak the language of inexperienced players, but I'm frankly getting more or less the same thing from the conversations the two of you have posted. I can't see any blatant contradictions. At the very least, the "contradictions" that you both have pointed out don't seem very inflammatory. I'm wondering if this is less two people trying to misrepresent what the other said, and more two people working hard to claim that the other person is misrepresenting something. As Tarben himself suggested... That said, I still find Brand untrustworthy (I'm not sure how I feel about Pudding-Head yet). I'm finding it hard to interpret his comments about Cranebeinn as anything other than a defense. I've read what you said several times (I'll post it just below this for reference), and I don't really see an accusation in there. What you're saying here feels more like a defense against my post attacking Cranebeinn than anything else. Then, we have the classic mafia post: Sometimes I wonder if scum teams keep this post on the writeboard so that they can use it whenever they need it. It happens every game, at least once. A player who's done nothing but respond to attacks asks for quiet people to speak up so that he or she can seem like a good, active townie by comparison. Like I said before, I'm personally not seeing anything damning in this little slap-fight between you and Pudding-Head, but I definitely think it's suspicious that you messaged both Pudding-Head and Tarben so early. That kind of thing seems like fishing to me, and smart townies never go fishing. Since I still think Brand's post about Cranebeinn looks like a defense, I'm also still suspicious of Cranebeinn himself. At the very least, I'm going to keep an eye fixed on you. I'm finding it very hard to believe that you took Jarl for a serial killer because of a single fluff post. If I had a whore, a keg of mead, and a leg of mutton for every time I heard someone say this, I'd be one damn happy shieldmaiden. In general when it comes to mafia, don't just tell us that you have suspicions, tell us what those suspicions are. Saying that you suspect people and that you're going to "look more closely at all the posts so far" does us nothing. Many times, people will say this to compensate for the fact that they have nothing to say. I have never ever seen somebody say this and then come back later with the results of their close post reading.

One of the foundations of mafia is not letting people off the hook for this kind of thing. If we gave people a pass for every supposed "brain fart," we would have a very hard time sorting out the Corrupt from the Loyal. That's why people have been putting Mist under the microscope, and you deserve the same kind of scrutiny here. Hypothetically, let's say you did mean to say "serial killer" instead of "vigilante." What about Jarl's comments made you believe that he might be a serial killer? This is suspicious, as well. It's rare to see someone so quick to jump to someone else's defense. Why couldn't you let Cranebeinn answer for himself? Furthermore, why are you willing to give him so much benefit of the doubt? Can you elaborate on what you mean by "willing to reach pretty far on the first day," by any chance?

I find this comment extremely troubling. Perhaps I am misreading your intent, but I do not think this is the case. I have never before seen somebody attempt to out someone as a vigilante on the first day. What are you trying to achieve here? What is the meaning of this remark? I shall be watching you closely, Cranebeinn. Do not fool yourself, miserable oaf! You are plainly mistaken. If you noticed her ogling in your direction, then it must have been because I was standing next to you. Let me make myself perfectly clear: should you attempt to make an advance on myself or any of my beautiful friends, you will face the smashenining.

You'll keep your grubby eyes off her, if you know what's good for you.

Mutton is a thing to be savored, Pudding-Head. You would do well to remember that. I often spend several minutes just rotating the mutton in my hand beneath my nose, taking in the scent. I would not blame him for watching you, pretty thing that you are. Don't tell me what I can't do, Danr! If I chose to peruse the tomes, then I'll peruse the damn tomes.

No room for fun or laughter in the mead hall, I see. I approve. There is only time for serious discussions and skull-smashings, should skull-smashings need to take place. You're rather quick to antagonize, Pudding-Head. I shall watch you from behind this leg of mutton. Last time? I shall have to consult the tomes and examine the circumstances of this "last time" to which you are referring. Hopefully these tomes have pictures. I like pictures - pictures of skull-smashings, mostly, but horseys are nice too.

When I was fighting with the other shieldmaidens, I met a man who turned our mead to milk. We smashed his skull, but we still had no mead, so we were very sad.

Fook you, my computer was on full volume. If you're still having trouble bolding text, here are some to guide you.

Agnar is here, and she's damn hungry. Someone point me to the roast, or do I need to smash a few skulls first?

Dawwww.

If you've still got room, I'll throw my name in. 1) Yes. 2) Yes.

I'm sorry to go back on what I said before, but a few things have come up and it looks like I'm going to have a busy month. I'll happily put my name down as a reserve, but I think it's better if I don't join the cast for now. Sorry Walter, and good luck with your first game!

I was going to go back into retirement, but I guess I can play one more game. 1) I've played a number of games. 2) Yes. 3) Of course!

These kinds of arguments are what I was referring to in my earlier post. I think we ahould all strive to be respectful and avoid personal confrontation in mafia. I know metagaming is hard to avoid, but these are just games. We all have different play-styles. Are some of us better than others? Of course. If someone is bad or new to mafia, the best thing we can do is give them advice on how to improve, not make things heated.

Redirector is hardly a common role. After those first few nights, it was unlikely that TPRU was anything other than the vigilante or the SK. Obviously he turned out not to be, but in any other game using a watcher action on him would've been a waste of time and resources.