Adam

I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just curious where you got the idea that a number of people suspected Leroy (jluck). I agree with Pete (TinyPiesRUs) here: you're contradicting yourself. The language of your original statement made it seem like you were more focused on covering your megablocks than trying to prevent the impeachment of a townie. If you felt that Carol (Calanon) was town, you should've said so and tried to suggest someone more appropriate. Also, you just said that the "assembly had to lynch someone," but followed it up with the idea that "abstaining is better than reducing our loyal numbers." You can't have your cake and eat it too. One final point: if you're ever worried that you might overcomplicate things by contributing, don't be. More people talking means more information and intelligence that the town can analyze.

Seconded. Molly (Mencot), I reiterate my poking from yesterday. Are you sure about that? Maybe I'm ignorant of some back-room-chatter (I am a freshman, after all), but I've been going through the transcripts from yesterday, and I haven't found many people claiming to be suspicious of either Leroy (jluck) or Winnifred (Walter Kovacs). The most notable "motive," if you could call it such, that I've found for the bad press is Winnifred's (Walter Kovacs) antagonization of Gerald (Goliath). Her vote on him was merely a poke, but it got him quite riled up, and I can imagine that a less-experienced politician like Gerald (Goliath) might force her resignation in retaliation. I don't strongly believe that this is the case, but it is something to consider. Winnifred (Walter Kovacs) was the more experienced of the two, and her poking of Gerald (Goliath) made her one of the leaders of the day. To me, that suggests that she was more likely a victim of the scum than the vigilante. I'd be interested to hear other people's theories on the bad press from last night. I'd also like to hear more from Jacob (JackJonespaw), who at the end of the day delivered one of the shadiest statements I have ever heard in assembly. From the transcripts: He ended up not voting because he didn't want to look scummy by possibly lynching a Loyal. Jacob (JackJonespaw), care to explain this remark and your refusal to work with the town during the impeachment processes? Not to mention your general lack of contribution yesterday?

The day is almost over and nothing has come of my vote. Molly (Mencot), you're still pinging me, and I'll be on your case again when the sun rises over New Brickland once again. In the meantime, it's important that we impeach someone by the end of the day, and holding on to a vote isn't very useful to the town. With that in mind, I'll unvote: Molly Callaghan (Mencot). Nobody likes being the deciding vote, but someone has to be the nail in the coffin, so I guess it's going to be me. Between Addie (adventurer1) and Carol (Calonon), the latter is the one more likely to yield a lynch, and she's also the one who bothered me more between the two. Addie (adventurer1) may not have been very helpful today, and that may mean she's trying to fly under the radar, but I was seriously pinged when Carol (Calanon) claimed that we should "go with Siegfried (Speedy) being a Loyal Representative." Vote: Carol Nottingham (Calanon) That's a very good point. He blatantly admitted to the fact that he wasn't ensuring a lynch because he didn't want to look suspicious in the event that Carol (Calanon) turns up town. That's either frustratingly unhelpful, scummy, or both.

Fair point here. I was also a little bothered when Siegfried (Speedy), and later Carol (Calanon) got support for Speaker (in a perfect vacuum, everyone would vote for themselves), but I'm attributing that to metagaming right now. I can understand why some of the representatives in this body, especially the newer ones, would want a more experienced politician in that position. Any particular reason for fingering those people? I tend to be suspicious when people casually claim that they suspect someone without supporting their claim. It's what people do to fly under the radar without appearing inactive. Also, there's quite a bit to go on. This is one of the more interesting first days of assembly that I've witnessed. We had people trying to decide who should be made Speaker, we had the poke vote on Gerald (Goliath), and now we have a few people voting for Carol (Calanon). Surely you can offer some comment? I'm not sure if I should attribute this to scumminess or inexperience. On the one hand, you make a bandwagon out of three votes. On the other, you set up a motive for you to jump on that "bandwagon" should the need arise by making a very weak accusation. It seems like you're grasping at straws: none of the candidates for Speaker, myself included, offered very strong reasons for voting for them. Because there weren't any. We had literally nothing to go on when voting for Speaker, save for a bit of metagaming. Thad said, there's a solid reason to be wary of Carol (Calonon), and it's this: Outside of this being very confusing (you trust him but you don't trust him?), there is no reason to assume another player is a Loyal Representative at this point. Only the scum know who is and isn't town right now. I'm going to return to Molly (Mencot) for the moment. As I said before, you've been trying to fly under the radar. Your contributions today have included summarization, vague fingerings, and unfulfilled promises to "go through the comments" in order to find something to discuss, all hallmarks of a politician who is either lazy or scummy. Furthermore, you immediately voted for Siegfried (Speedy) as Speaker without any providing any reasoning or justification, and you have yet to explain that vote. Vote: Molly Callaghan (Mencot)

It seems we have our Speaker! That's groovy. Siegfried (Speedy), has Justice Montgomery given you any information as to what your new responsibilities are?

I wouldn't call it a statement of trust, more like a statement of faith. We're simply entrusting one person with a few extra powers (for whatever reason, be it random chance or prior experience), whatever those powers may be. Voting for someone else as Speaker doesn't mean you believe they're more likely to be a Loyal Representative than anyone else. I think we've all made it clear that the only person we truly trust is ourselves. But as others have pointed out, if we all nominated ourselves as Speaker, nobody would get the job, and somebody has to. At least, I assume so - Justice Montgomery, can this body operate without a Speaker? Why don't you have a good feeling about Siegfried (Speedy)? You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, but I think a statement like that deserves justification.

Well, shucks! I guess the real heroes are the kids who have greatness thrust upon them. I may only be 18, but shoot, maybe it makes sense for a freshman like me to step up to the plate. Mr. London had been around the block a few times and he turned out to be a mean-ole Octan Lobbyist: I think age and experience don't guarantee loyalty. If you fine folks want a pitch, here it is. I may be young, but I have hope and I have energy! I have nothing but my word to show that I am a Loyal Representative, but I can also tell you that I'm a fresh alternative to these Old Dogs. Speaker: Adam (Archie Matthews)

Present! The name's Archie Matthews, and I'm super psyched to be here representing Galactic City! That sounds rad, Mr. Rutherford - can I call you Peter? Pete? - but unfortunately, I won't be able to partake. I'm pretty sure 18 is still below the drinking age - unless we decide to change that today!

1. What is your mafia experience here on EB? How about other sites? I've played in at least ten games here. I haven't played on any other sites. 2. What do you think of your performance in EB Mafia so far? What are your strengths and weakness? What do you want to improve? While I'm far from the best or most experienced mafia player, I've been around the block a couple times, and I think I'm a solid player. I would like to improve across the board, but if I were to isolate one area, it would be behind-the-scenes networking and conversations. 3. If you just graduated from Mafia School - have you read any other mafia games on EB? If so, what have you learned from them? Not applicable. 4. Will you be able to post every game day? More importantly, will you be able to truly participate in the game (as opposed to showing up to post once and clocking out)? If not, reconsider your application. I will be able to post and participate every day. 5. Finally, the fun question. What is your favorite LEGO theme? You can't go wrong with Star Wars, though I've always had a soft spot for Life on Mars and Exo-Force.

Thanks for a great game, Tammo! If you're hosting, I always know it's going to be a crapton of fun, and this game was no different. Thanks for giving me such an interesting role! Trumpet, I am so so sorry for killing you. I was actually going to kill either Speedy or adventurer1, but I decided on you because I knew you were the investigator and I thought that might give me some leverage. Sorry again, I felt quite bad about that!

Speculating about third parties is always a slippery slope: we don't know if they're there in the first place, and even then, what kind of third party is it? A serial killer? A jester? A cult? Whatever this third party's goals, we still have the scum to worry about. Did anybody else find that their vote was changed? If the scum did somehow steal your vote, why do you think they singled you out? How do you define "no result?" Was your claimed attempt to switch your vote to Paco (Piratedave) outright denied, or just ignored entirely? Your argument that your vote was “stolen” is a little hard to believe. I’ve been thinking about what Paco (Piratedave) said yesterday when he realized that he was doomed and began lying to save his skin and screw with us. There was nothing really illuminating, except maybe when he suggested that Benito (Bob) was actually the town vigilante. That was before he claimed to be a Ferrari serial killer, so it was probably an attempt to vouch for one of his scum buddies.

I’ve been reading all these threads and working up a post - no, I have not given up! From what I can tell, you guys are suspicious of me because I’m quiet and I didn’t vote last night. I’m sorry about that - some IRL business got in the way, but that's over and I'm back. Bernard and Tam pulled me aside to warn me about the dangers of not voting, so you can rest assured that won't happen again (I'm town, by the way). I think that Tiffany (TrumpetKing) was probably killed by a third party. There's absolutely no reason for the scum not to kill on Night 1. Benito (Bob) was blocked then, and he was apparently blocked last night, so I personally believe that he's the scum killer. Thus, we should lynch him tonight. As I'm sure many of you also believe, I feel like we pretty much have our scum team based on who voted for Da Shan (Speedy) yesterday - Paco (Piratedave), Benito (Bob), and Katalina (Peanuts). Paco (Piratedave) is already confirmed scum, which shows that everything he said yesterday about being a third party - and all the crap that came afterward - was simple bluffing which he was trying to use to throw off the town. That said, I think his posts deserve reexamination to see if he was trying to point the finger away from anyone, so I'm looking through what he said now.

The fact that tonight will confirm Da-Shen's (Speedy) information and reliability is one of the reasons that I am currently trusting that he is town and that his suspicions are correct. In any of these games... of life, I always end up being ridiculously paranoid, so I also suspect everyone. It does, as Tiffany (TrumpetKing) just mentioned, feel "a little too good to be true." However, if we maximize the number of scum we expect in this game and say that there are four, then we're currently at 9 vs. 4. Let's look at a hypothetical situation where Da-Shen (Speedy) is scum, and trying to maneuver us to kill fellow townies: We lynch a townie (likely Paco (Piratedave)) The vigilante (if one exists) is persuaded to kill another townie (perhaps Benito (Bob)) The scum killer targets a townie (pick your poison) That only takes care of three townies, and we're still strong at 6 vs. 4. The scum wouldn't try a gambit like this (publicly telling townies to kill other townies) unless they knew that pulling off that gambit would give them a winning majority. ... That all probably sounded very convoluted. My point is that it's too early in the game for a scum to be doing what Da-Shen (Speedy) is doing, so on top of all the other reasoning that's been discussed today, that's why I think we need to follow Da-Shen's (Speedy) lead.

Good morning everyone! It sucks that a townie ended up getting lynched last night, but the silver lining appears to be that we have people we can trust and a cop result to vote on. I agree with this. There are any number of reasons why there was no kill last night, most of which have already been mentioned. It's usually a bad idea to speculate on possible town roles and night actions, so I think we should focus on the cop result today. Furthermore, townies with roles really need to communicate with somebody that they trust: if Da-Shen (Speedy) was the only one with a vote-revealing ability, which is more than likely, then we will have no sudden help during the day to illuminate voting. The scum can now take full advantage of the hidden voting, and unless we townies work together, this game will be a slaughter.

I don't think we should take it as gospel, but you have made some very good points, and I think it's enough to make Alan (adventurer1) a dangerous lynch candidate for tonight. His comment that I brought up before still puts me off, but I think my vote can be far more useful elsewhere. Da-Shen (Speedy), you've raised a solid argument against Katalina (Kristel), and at the least in the interest of not letting Alan (adventurer1) be lynched, I will be voting for her.

You've been under quite a bit of fire today, Alan (adventurer1), but out of all the accusations and defenses that have been tossed back and forth, this is the remark that stands out to me the most. I have a hard time believing that you were roleplaying, or that you were just being sarcastic. I'm not sure how suggesting: ... can be thought of as either sarcastic or roleplay, especially since roleplay usually means saying things like, "Back in New York, we're not nearly as talkative!" and not positing scummy suggestions. I think it's possible that you saw Da-Shen's (Speedy) prompt for ideas and tried to take advantage of our unfamiliarity with this situation, putting forward an idea that would clearly hinder the loyal Malones. Furthermore, your response to me (quoted above) when I asked you to elaborate seems like some heavy backtracking. At this point, you will probably be getting my vote tonight. I hope everything's going fine now with the smuggling! Just a heads up, according to Rule 3, voting is mandatory.

I'm not quite sure I understand your logic here. Are you saying that we shouldn't try to cooperate? Can you please elaborate?

This might be tip-toeing around Rule 3, so I've sought some clarification just in case. However, I think it's a very solid idea - you're right, we won't be able to know exactly who deviated and it won't be perfect, but at the very least we will have a rough idea of the different possible votes and some information to work with. We can come up with many reasons why having a hidden vote makes our job of catching scum difficult: it will be tough to analyze voter behavior and bandwagoning, harder to see when someone flip flops, etc. Back in New York, I never heard about any "situations" like this one, so I unfortunately can't toss up a strategy that I know for sure is effective. However, it's pretty likely that there will be more behind-the-scenes discussions than usual, which can lead to an especially quiet day. Lurking is always discouraged, but I think that activity and conversation is especially important for this "situation" because we need all the information we can get and behavior we can analyze. Beyond keeping a prospective vote tally like Benito suggested (if allowed), it would probably be useful to keep a chart of who accuses who. Do you have any ideas?

God damn... Rest in peace, Sinclair. Havana will never be the same without you. We're gonna find who did this, and find 'em fast.

Abbot, checking in!

I played a bunch of mafia games here a few years ago, took a break, then came back and did a mafia school. Since then I have done a couple games here, including the original Mafia: After Dark. I don't play on other sites. To be honest, I'm not very good at all, but I have a lot of fun. I get way too paranoid, especially when it comes to posting. This often leads to me being a bit quiet, which is something I want to work on. That said, I think I'm OK at not sounding too suspicious. I like private voting, because I think it makes people more suspicious of each other and raises tensions - and that's why these things are fun! I'll abide. I have read it. I also played in it - I think my avatar picture is still the one you gave me for the game.

Good game, everyone, and great job to the scum! Tammo, Mafia After Dark was even better than Silver City. I hope I get the chance to play in another of your games!

Thanks for a great game, Tammo! As I said in my message, I know that any game you host is bound to be a good one. To everybody still playing, good luck and have fun!

This would definitely be my guess. The wording of the message Tam sent to me, which I unfortunately cannot quote here, implies that the people too tired to talk are also too tired to perform actions during the daytime. Also, Kristina (Kristel) mentioned that she was "blocked" yesterday, so I'm leaning towards the idea that my sleepiness was caused by a blocker. Of course, it's very possible that the no-talking rule is also the side effect of some other type of role, like you mentioned. And I guess it's also possible that there is a role which solely blocks day discussion. Furthermore, Dogukan (Dragonator) or Kristina (Kristel) might have gotten a different message than I did, so I can't speak for them. Kristina (Kristel) and Dogukan (Dragonator), did your sleepy messages imply that you couldn't perform actions?

Hello guys! I'm sorry about being so silent during the daytime; I was unusually sleepy, so Tam suggested that I should rest up during the day and save myself for the night's discussion. Or maybe he just wanted me to save myself for a little nighttime fun. If what Dogukan (Dragonator) said about being sleepy is true (and, as others have pointed out, I'm not sure why he would lie), then it appears that there are at least two ways for people to become sleepy during the day (we can call them talk-blockers for the time being). In fact, I'm positive he's telling the truth about that, because the only other person to have talked about being talk-blocked is Kristiana (Kristel), who never mentioned a warning in her posts. What I, and from what I'm hearing tonight, others as well, don't understand is why Dogukan (Dragonator) would get out of bed during the daytime when Tam expressly told him not to. I'm not sure what happened with Dogukan (Dragonator), but Tam informed me of my lethargy in private, explaining that violating his wishes would result in my first warning. This is also my understanding now that Shane (Shadows) has flipped town. One of the driving suspicions behind both Shane (Shadows) and Dogukan (Dragonator) during the day was that the two of them had to be scum buddies, because how else could Dogukan (Dragonator) have known about the pressure Kristina (Kristel) was placing on Shane (Shadows)? As I understand it, those two men have been friends for a long time, and are known to do things like play video games together, so I guess it's possible that Shane (Shadows) slipped up and talked to Dogukan (Dragonator) behind the scenes. Dad, I'd be very happy to put together a list of suspects. I wouldn't say this is in any particular order of most scummy to least scummy, but they're my top three at the moment. 1. Dogukan (Dragonator): There is no way to deny that there is something going on with him. I don't know how he learned about the pressure that Kristina (Kristel) was putting on Shane (Shadows), but however it happened, there was almost certainly something scummy involved. Then of course there's the question of why he violated my husband's wishes earlier today. From where I stand there are three primary possibilities: either Dogukan (Dragonator) and Person A are scum buddies, Shane (Shadows) slipped up and told him by accident, or Dogukan (Dragonator) has some kind of ability which could let him eavesdrop or something. 2. Terrance (TrumpetKing): I would agree with the others who have raised suspicions about him tonight - his posts have been waffly and full of hot air. Leave it to a lawyer to talk and talk without saying anything. Goddamn lawyers... I also admit that there's a bit of metagaming involved in my suspicions. His ancestor acted much the same in an old western town. 3. Cap'n Rolfe (Capt. Redblade): He took my vote last night, and I'm still suspicious of him now. First I was put off by his irrationality and aggression on the first night, when he pounced on dear Jamie (jamesn), God rest her soul, for opposing the policy lynch idea. He also kicked off the vote against Byron (Bob), which to me feels like an easy scum bandwagon. I've known Byron (Bob) and his ancestors long enough to know that his MO is to post very little and vote for someone without much explanation, often referencing a gut feeling. Hell, I would have been much more suspicious of him had he provided detailed and thorough explanations for his votes. In my opinion, voting for him and "expecting" a scum outcome is either lazy or scummy - Byron (Bob) is always confused townie, or misunderstood town.