Zepher

I'm a little nervous about how quickly these votes are accumulating. There are almost certainly scum among the voters with the numbers that have already come in, and I'm having trouble imagining they would sink one of their own. That being said there just aren't enough minutes left in the hour to turn around this ship. I'd look at those who voted for Diane middle of the pack (Riley, Dr. James - though I do think her claim makes her a little less likely to be scum than the other two, and Jason). I don't want to end up with a penalty tomorrow, and it seems unlikely we can turn this ship around at this point, so I too will Vote: Diane (fhommes) but it doesn't feel good.

Thank you, Benson. That does indeed narrow the field. The killer has to be scum, and absolutely hasn't been blocked yet, so that seems like a good place to start. I am unfortunately pretty suspicious of all three of the other people in this boat with me. Wilson hasn't done anything in particular to get my attention. The only thing I can seriously remember from him this game was the proposal of a three way lynch, which to me seemed to be earnest curiosity at the prospect. Unfortunately for him at this late stage of the game having done absolutely nothing notable begins to look like a scum floater. Wilson, have you ever actually brought forward a specific accusation of your own? Moore is a strange prospect because he was really in the frying pan at a certain point and then everyone backed off. As we've discussed he might have some good points outside of this case, but inside the case that really doesn't mean anything one way or another. Diane seems absolutely certain he's town, I'm less sure. He's had it out for Dr. James, who I agree has been fishy, but is not who we should deal with today, as she's been blocked. Finally, Diane. Yesterday she accused both Zip and Benson of being scum even after Benson made his soft claim about being the town blocker. She also accuses Riley of being scum defending Zip. I don't know, something about her has sort of rubbed me the wrong way the whole game, but it's hard to put my finger on what. In short, I don't know. All three seem like pretty good lynches to me. It feels unlikely that there are going to be more PR coming forward to tell us anything useful, so we're going to sort of have to shoot from the hip on this one. I guess if push comes to shove Moore and Diane are the two I suspect most, but it's all just "gut", which is a bad thing to be relying on by Day 5. Even looking at the split vote day (Hour 3) it's difficult to discover much. Bob and Benson were on different sides, and the people who haven't been blocked yet were spread out over three separate people. Diane hopped onto Moore, and then back off. Is that something maybe? Moore meanwhile started a totally separate vote for Dr. James.

I think yes, we can operate under the assumption that both you and Bob are town, and yes, it would help if you said who you've blocked so far. If anyone has any objections to that, I'd really like to hear them because I honestly can't imagine what they are. The only, only (just to play devil's advocate) objection I can possibly imagine would be if we had a godfather, which is possible, but maybe something we deal with later? Even if one of Bob/Benson is scum, at least one of them are town, and there are probably a lot more obvious scum we can smoke out today.

Wow. That is... not so great. What do we even have to go on at this point? Bob, Benson, do we have anything to go on in regards to investigator? Or anyone who was blocked? It doesn't mean they're not scum, but it might potentially narrow down who the killer is. For now, I'm absolutely not sure what to think. Bob and Benson were both contacted by the same investigator... which as I said yesterday pretty much clears them as far as I'm concerned, especially since Bob was gunning for Benson so much in the early game. It doesn't necessarily clear the investigator, but as I outlined yesterday, I think it's either a scum safely contacting two members of the town, or a town contacting two members of the town they safely cleared. One of them being scum makes no sense if the investigator is town, and is an outrageous and unnecessary risk if the "investigator" is scum. Whatever way you cut it, they seem town.

This feels like another day of dragging our feet. I don't doubt Benson's claims at the moment, for the many reasons I've stated above. If he's a scum, frankly hats off on getting away with this outrageous claim. If anything it seems to me more likely that the "investigator" is potentially scum. As we've said before, if the scum know they've taken out the investigator it's a super easy role to claim, and it only takes two actions (a role cop and then a kill) to successfully pull off. Regardless of the stance of the investigator, the fact that the investigator has also contacted Bob more or less vindicates Benson in my opinion. If the investigator is scum, it's easy to contact two townies to corroborate their story, but it doesn't mean either of the town is lying. If the investigator is town, then they'd have no reason to lie. Potentially the investigator and one or two of the people they're using to corroborate their story are scum, but that seems like unnecessary clumping of scum when they could just as easily use town to fill the same role. Unfortunately the development of a potential town block doesn't actually give us any new actionable information, except taking for the moment both Benson and Bob off my seriously watched list. I'm hopeful I'll be able to come change this if need be, but for now I'll stick with my vote from yesterday and Vote: Zip (mostlytechnic).

No, you did not, but you did say you were in contact with the investigator and then vote for Riley without any other evidence. Honestly I truly can't tell what you're trying to do right now. We all know we need a lynch today. Yes, I'm trying to bandwagon off the best leads we have. If you're saying that the investigator did not actually say anything about jluck... I just don't know what the strategy here is with you. What are we supposed to do with that? You're openly admitting you're confusing the scum, and also the town? You're not currently running the risk of exposing the investigator, but that's just something you're not doing (a good thing, yes) but at the same time it doesn't really help us, since pretty much everyone else is ALO not revealing the investigator. I'm truly confused. Every part of what you do in public seems so scummy - the multiple confusions, the claim to know the investigator and then asking the investigator to reveal themselves to you, and then leading a lynch after claiming to know the investigator and saying it was just to cause confusion. But I still, just looking at the number of nights we've had, can't see how you can reasonably be scum. Either this is a truly crazy and lucky scum hail mary, or you're town. I guess for now I'll Unvote: Riley Marshall (jluck) since you seem to be suggesting that was just a random vote you put forward? Clarification would be good.

I'd really like to believe that Benson is the town blocker... it's a bigger risk than I'd expect from the scum at this point, but it's also totally possible because of exactly the scenario Bob outlined. That being said, also claiming to be in contact with the investigator bolsters the claim in my opinion. For a scum to be doing that... they'd have to be really sure they killed both the blocker and the investigator, right? Otherwise it'd just be suicide. Again, it's possible, but that'd be an incredibly lucky track record for Day Four, which leads me to accept Benson's claim. But then you go and do stuff like this, and I'm left with "what??". Nothing in this post, or any previous post, explains why we should be voting for Riley. I assume it's a result of an investigation? Otherwise it's just a random vote. The only person you've leveled anything against today was Zip. Since there are absolutely no votes beyond this right now... I suppose I will Vote: Riley Marshall (jluck) as well for the time being. Zip is still on my suspects list, especially with the split vote yesterday. Benson... I just don't know. Maybe I'm being too hopeful but while his behavior in the thread in general is bonkers to me, it just seems like someone would be able to disprove something he's said if he were scum.

So... you're advocating that we should lynch you and then Zip, as Kaster said? Just reminding us that he said that? This doesn't really justify quoting the entirety of what he's said all game, and is also not good news for you. Also, this is a soft claim. Five people have spoken up since you posted it, and no one has addressed it, which seems shocking to me. What do you mean by "blocked Zip" last night? Are you claiming a role? Why??

I was about to correct Wilson and say that was Zip, not Benson, but now I see I was mistaken. I apologize, Zip, it was early in the hour I must have just gotten confused. Benson, I direct to you all the same questions I erroneously directed to Zip. What were you trying to indicate by posting all of Kaster’d previous statements?

Oh come on Zip. You must know that just quoting all of the things Kaster said so far isn’t really a contribution. It continues the trend of you demanding everyone else do the work while still making noise. What do you think about Kaster being killed?? Anything at all? What do you think of everything he said? You can’t just present it without comment.

I said I'd be willing to change my vote to get a conviction, and I stand by that, but time is running out, and I think changing my vote would do little to help since I ended up on someone with a decent number of votes. Changing my vote from Benson would drop Zip from 4 and push Benson to 5... I really still most suspect Moore and Zip. But the PMs Lewis had yesterday really do make Benson seem weird - I'm surprised the case against Benson hasn't cited those more... is it worthwhile to change my vote?

At risk of splitting the vote too much: I Vote: Zip (mostlytechnic). I think a lynch is important though, and both of the others are on my suspect list and I’ll be happy to switch my vote later if it’s needed.

I’ve been wondering the same thing. I had a long day of analyzing and will be home in an hour or two to officially cast a vote but... where is everyone? I’m currently not totally sold on Benson being our MOST LIKELY scum today, though as I’ve said in the past I do suspect him. Zip, your response to me is very strange, as you exhibit one thing I accused you of (making useless posts that put the demand of work back on others) and further admitting that I’m RIGHT about my second accusation without actually addressing why it isn’t scummy...? What gives? As it stands I’m between Benson and Zip.

Oh boy. What a kerfuffle. Finally done analyzing stuff for the day... last few minutes, and can turn my attention here, to analyze what we're all saying! There are a few potential leads, I think, but I'm very much of agreement that yesterday was not as productive as it could have been... From previous days, I'm still pretty wary of Benson. Lewis may have fizzled out in the end of the day spectacularly, but it appears that what he told us before that was earnest... meaning we should continue to consider the strange PM conversation he had with Benson. Benson also, as noted above by Jason, behaved strangely with the his vote yesterday. I'd like to put two other names into consideration. Zip has for the whole game sort of rubbed me the wrong way. He shows up to YELL that there just isn't enough evidence! Darn it! Someone find some evidence! He then sort of disappears into the woodwork, and today he is advocating loudly against a pretty obvious conclusion (that there was probably a scum who didn't jump on the bandwagon... something I believe is probably true for the reasons outlined already above by the Senator and others). Secondly, Agent Moore is, as Riley noted, doing exactly what a scum who didn't jump on a bandwagon would do. The two of them seem to really be selling the narrative that scum all voted for Lewis.

No. I agree that Wilson's logic makes absolutely no sense... but you clearly also chose to totally ignore the actual case I made. ^where exactly do I say the case boils down to him quoting PMs? Or do you just feel safer lumping the two accusations together and going with the weaker one. Lewis, as for you I didn't actually accuse you of lying about PMs, so I don't know why you're using your truthful reporting of PMs as a defense? It doesn't respond at all to my accusations. The responses have honestly made me more confused. Wilson uses a nonsense argument to begin a bandwagon, making me doubt my vote, and then both Bob and Lewis attempt to defend Lewis by responding only to Wilson's weak reasoning and not to the actual accusations I made, aka "shifting the conversation" to be about PMs, which they can easily defend but which is also not what concerned me...

That's not really the spirit behind that rule. We're just not supposed to "quote" (aka use the quote function) directly from PMs... paraphrasing or copying over a sentence more or less is very much allowed. How else would he be able to bring forward that accusation? Even though he's said he "doesn't have to show every thought in the thread" I mean... he can't just say: "oh boy, guys, Benson said something weird in PM! can't tell you it obviously but vote for him." If someone is fishy in PM we have to accurately and articulately report it.

As our friend points out, I actually did give a reasoning for my vote. Not suggesting they're both scum, not by a long shot. I don't think the scum would be goofy enough to try something ridiculous like a sting this early on... but that's just what I think. Maybe they're both scum. But I think both you and I think that's at least unlikely. There are only two votes on the table currently, and the hour is still young. If it's needed for a conviction, I am happy to switch my vote to Benson. I laid out my suspicion of him both yesterday and today. But for now there are two people (three people, really, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of consensus on Diane) who I find suspect, and one of them already had one vote. As for my suspicion of Lewis, I have seen scum play the "crusader" model before. They toss out lots of accusations to see what sticks, while simultaneously "clearing" members of the town, ingratiating themselves. Lewis has already voted for two people, insisted he was "certain" our dead friend Skinner was scum, both accused and "cleared" you, and then accused Benson. It's not totally uncommon for one of the scum to take point and seem super pro-active while the others lie in wait. Yes, it could be a flailing townie, but it could also be a scum trying to play that role.

Hey all! Got done with some analysis, ready to pop back in here and keep analyzing! I guess there's no reason to play it close to the vest any longer - Skinner reached out to me as well over the "coffee hour". I didn't reveal it immediately to see if Lewis would slip up in some way, or try to lie, but what he said basically matches up with what Skinner said in private, and also because Skinner's hunches were only hunches - since there hadn't been any night actions yet there wasn't any chance her thoughts were based on hard evidence. I can also confirm my fellow Analyst Riley's (hi Riley!) claim - besides her suspicion of Lewis in private Skinner mentioned she was particularly suspicious of the Senator ("a gut thing"), Kaster (due to silence), and couldn't get a read off of Wilson and... Riley! Though I can imagine why she wouldn't mention she suspected Riley to Riley, so I don't think Riley was being withholding. As I said, I wouldn't put much stock in that, but wanted to pass it along and confirm Riley is telling the truth. Of the Senator and Kaster, I didn't really find either of them particularly suspicious - they both stated motives (trying to churn up some votes / not adding hectic voices) that ring more or less true for me. In truth Benson seems like a good vote to me (I accused him yesterday and he has done little to respond to those fears), as does Lewis, who was erratic in private and erratic in public today too - I also didn't think the "claiming craze" was anything of note, and he has been flinging accusations and clearances left and right today. I'm still sticking to my guns, however, on Diane seeming fishy. She seems to be playing both sides of things: yes people should converge on votes, so we can find scum... but she shouldn't be the one to do it? Just rearrange these two quotes and you'll see her arguing against herself... What she seems to be saying is people should vote in a pack to force people to either vote for or against that candidate, so we can analyze it later... but that she shouldn't be the person to do that... and (I'm adding this) so that people can't analyze her votes later? Anyway, she's a back burner. For now I will vote for Officer Lewis, Security Guard (jamesn). Even his most recent post is... strange: ???

I’m still finding you suspect, Diane! It’s strange that you advocate getting people to vote and converge as a means to analyze them, but voted late in the “hour” and for someone who you led the charge on aka NOT converging as you suggested others should. What you’re saying I absolutely agree with, but you failed to act on it... I apologize if I’m the only confused by the order of events here. You reached out to her privately early in the hour privately demanding a claim? Why? And then she claimed immediately back... making you suspect her? And then she was unhappy, again privately, that you claimed in thread? And that also made you suspect her? And then you say she “responded to your claim in the night... er, coffee hour.” But you already had a line of communication open? And you expected others to respond to this claim who didn’t? I’m sorry I just don’t understand who said what when and how that caused suspicion.

Oh yes, Zip, I'm sorry I was busy earlier and wasn't able to make substantive contributions such as the following members: All of whom have said absolutely nothing since voting began! There is still time, for sure, and it's not suspect at all, but don't pretend that these responses are any less or more substantive than saying nothing for a brief interlude! If you're going for the "trying to spur conversation" gambit, at least be consistent! Especially now that I have voiced my opinion and these find team mates (and convict) have not yet. Those people above still certainly have time to make their voices heard however - I more than anyone know that sometimes we get lost in our work and forget to speak up! More interesting to me at the moment are those who have spoken up since voting opened while still voicing no opinion whatsoever: Benson, who actually placed a vote without... well, providing much in the way of support. And then our friend Diane Green, who not only failed to place a vote but didn't even comment on any of the proceedings, still laughing things off! In my analysis, a way to seem "active" without actually having to draw any attention. For the time being, in fact, I will go ahead and Vote: Diane Green (fhommes) for the time being. Would love to hear what you have to say about the actual problem at hand, Diane, since you seem to be around.

Hm... did have a chance to analyze because it turns out there isn’t an awful lot to analyze yet, other than the disturbing fact we can’t go to the bathroom. Objectively I don’t find Zip’s vote for me to be objectionable. With little to go on in this first hour attempting to draw someone out makes sense to me. That coupled with his accusation of finding a mole is, as the Senator says, a little more troubling. We can all see it was said in jest, over a jest, yes, but it stands out as the only jest that doubled as an accusation. For now I reserve my vote, but at the moment fail to see any better alternatives. Perhaps someone else can mount a case against someone else? Zip?

Apologies all! Have been stuck in the analysis lab for the last... few minutes... or a day or so... you lose track of time in there! Should be more free to seriously analyze all that’s been said out here in another few minutes... or about six hours... oh why did I say that. Will take a quick glance over the transcripts right now and hopefully be able to get back unless the lab gets busy again. It’s work. Out of my hands.

Uh my! Seems like I'm a little late to the party! Alfred Drew here, sorry, was stuck the analyzation room analyzing all sorts of important things! Ready to get started.

1. Mafia yes I've done it. 2. Yes! Haven't played in a while, so will have to remind myself of what a wild commitment it is, but I'm ready to get back in. 3. I often shout when I'm excited and I'm often excited and don't really have a quiet voice.

Alright, one final idea for how classes might work in this game. We put together a series of "dice roll packs". For this example (based on what we have) you'd have the dice roll packs: Protect, Rally, Attack (Guardian Variety), Attack (Mechanic Variety), Target Shields, Repair Shields. We could come up with maybe... let's say 9 more to begin with. Each class would be able to access five total, but you would only start with two and then be able to unlock more as you level up (access to 3 at level 10, 4 at level 20, etc.) This would give classes a lot of variety and customizability, as different combos of roll packs would favor different builds (for example, a level 10 with Rally, Target Shields, and Repair shields would look very different from a level 10 with Protect, Attack, Target Shields). It would still let you have an idea of what you're starting with, but would also let you to grow into your character. I also have a lot idea for roll dice combos without a particular class to tie it to.