def

I often wonder what it would look like before a few drinks...

But today is New Years Eve! Look at the time stamp...

Yup, that's a bandwagoning.

You're bandwagoning.

Really? You think there's some chance that my argument with Hatley was staged, and that I'm rescuing him now? Wow. That's a lot of paranoia you have. But point taken, Hatley's rants at me could be an elaborate ruse to throw you off my trail.

I would urge you to follow your best judgment. I think it will look incredibly bad for the three who voted for Hatley if Jacob is scum. It's a chance, but we can only work with the facts we have.

I was the first vote, for reasons stated. As much as I like to pretend I'm intelligent and influential, my reason to be suss on Hatley is in no way air tight. I don't need to defend anything since I couldn't know a bunch of others would follow me. At the same time, three other votes isn't overwhelming proof either. It could just be evidence of sheep behavior. But, between the two, if someone were being saved, it would be Jacob. I think his lynch will tell us more and is a safer gamble. Or at least teach us a lesson about the dangers of bandwagoning. Unvote: Goliath (Hatley) Vote: JackJonespaw (Jacob Palacios)

Split votes... Very interesting. Five for Jacob, five for Hatley. Is there a chance that scum are trying to save Jacob?

You are voting against me with literally no reason. You want me to show I'm verified? I already explained to you that everybody knows that can't be done. But, if somebody in the town block wants to track me, wants to investigate me, whatever, they will see I'm telling the truth. That literally is the best we can do in this situation. The only better thing is for me to lead a lynch on scum, and that's not exactly easy. But, your flailing and overstatement, contradicting yourself make you a solid candidate. As for Pierce voting me for speaker, and following my votes, that's not great. I've seen it before, and it was scummy. Here is one of my personal mafia rules: #2 is the scummy one. #1 is just doing their thing. #2 is trying to ingratiate, look subtle, encourage... That's something I don't trust. Of course, Hatley was #2 on the vote against me, which is why I voted for him. Yup, Hatley has polluted thinking. If he demands proof from every one of us, looks like we'll get a lot of us in bodybags in order to prove we're loyal. I'll send my vote in and see with the next tally. There is no reason to share information like that, and I simply wouldn't have told at all, except that someone was accusing Molly of being absent... which was because of me, and I felt it better to share at that point to keep things on track. But in general, I think it's better to keep that stuff private.

I have to submit a vote in secret by PM. It's not a double vote.

What are you going on about? If you have proof you're a Loyalist, show it. Ranting and name-calling doesn't impress me.

It's not woe-is-me to point out bad strategy. I can't wrap my head around the stupidity of thinking there is any safety to lynching me. I am the speaker for now. I can be verified. If you lynch me, you'll be down a townie, and then the next person who is speaker (because there will be one) will also need to be verified. Of course, should I be lynched, those who pushed for it will be at the top of the list day three. I understand that some townies will make dumb votes for no reason, but it's the ones that try to pick up steam that are really dangerous. Gerald wants me to sell the idea that I'm a Loyalist? Would you like me to do a screen grab of my role PM? No, that's not going to happen. There will be no proof of my Loyalist status unless I was investigated, or I'm dead. Which every single one of us should know. His vote is lazy, without reason, and it's an attempt to get a bandwagon going on somebody the scum want out. Vote: Goliath (Gerald Hatley) This is not a revenge vote, otherwise Laughlin or Molly would have got it. No, Hatley is playing a dangerous game, and even if he is town, the sooner we get this polluted thinking out of the legislature, the better. I can change my vote if others have a more pressing argument.

Next time somebody starts pointing the finger at you, I won't go out of my way to dig you out. My fault for being nice to you. Help Molly. Molly would then vote for you. It's a stupid lesson to learn, but I've learned it.

Hiding things in mafia? Oh my! Maybe the whole town should blab their roles. That sounds like a plan Yup. Day one lynch was my fault. Sorry, but this sort of logic is not going to help us out. Pushing this sort of logic is just going to make you a lynch candidate. 1) you can't vote for me because you have no vote. I already told you that. The host will confirm it next vote tally. and 2) if I were scum.... that is dumb logic. I am not scum, and if you lynch me, the town will need a new speaker, and they very well might be scum. Far better to track/watch/confirm me than to lynch me. But, as is always the case, dealing with people in this game is not a matter of explaining logic. The gut rules.

In the interest of not causing confusion and dissent, I will admit now: There is a second ability of the speaker, and it is stealing the vote of one player who didn't vote, and muting them for 24 hours. So, today, I have two votes, and Molly none, and she couldn't vote for the first chunk of the day. I haven't thought about how to use this vote yet, but Molly isn't on my suss-list yet, so I think it's prudent to reveal this now, rather than start us on a witch hunt. Officially, those are all my secrets revealed to the public. Only Molly and Carol were listed at the end of day one, so that is why Molly was chosen.

Okay, so surviving means I'm scum. Push it if you like. Either I'll be lynched, then you'll be lynched when I come up town, or you'll be lynched for pushing a weak lynch. As always, punishing experienced players for being experienced is a quick road to a scum win. Investigate, deduce, do whatever, but just saying that the veteran is scum because they're alive is simply weak play. On day five, if I am still alive, sure, that's fair (call it Rick's Law) Day two? That's weak. *if I'm alive and haven't proven any use to town

Scum won't target someone putting themselves out there on day one, mainly because they are worried about a protector targeting me (wasting their kill) or a watcher (seeing who kills me). So, yeah, part of the reason I use so much bluster on day one is to see me live to day two, I dare scum to kill me, and they've never killed me once. It won't work night two, due to WIFOM politics, it's much less likely that I'll be protected or watched night two. One thing that will keep me from getting killed (by the scum at least) is accusing me in thread. The more that town claim I'm scum, even only because they're meta-gaming, the less reason for scum to kill me: they'll just support you in lynching me. Sadly, I have only had two PMs, one with Winifred, and one with another. I sent out two last night, but they were about Winifred, and were my mistake. I might hazard a thought that the two I sent warnings about Winifred are likely town, since scum would be disinclined to kill the person I thought was scum, but there's no way to tell which faction killed Winifred. In my own meta-game, I'm inclined to consider Leroy as killed by someone from this. He was slippery here, and I can imagine some lingering distrust. Again, I'm just a vanilla, so I can only go on the given info, and the few PMs I've had.

Mmmmm. I was leaning scum on Winnifred. And Carol. No read on Leroy. Bad scumdar. Must be on the fritz.

Stop playing the game out of thread you bastard!

That's great! It's very rare to see a MOC that goes beyond LEGO. It's definitely LEGO, but it works on a very pure aesthetic level, not just a clever use of pieces.

Boo! There is no Christmas without mafia!

Because a bunch of notes add up to scum. Scum don't strongly push, they nudge. So, I must consciously note what comes up.

Three people is not a bandwagon. Your mislabeling is noted though. Three people is not everyone. Your mislabeling is noted though. What? In what world is Carol as good an option as we'll get? Vote for who you want! Go for it, lead the vote for the person you feel strongest to be scum. Go for it! I'm really torn. I want to support people to voice their doubts, but their critiques so far are utter milquetoast. I'm voting for Carol since her 'support' of me is as weak as it gets, and as others have noted, people are considering me a person of weight, as misguided as that might be. Regardless, I have to say, public support of me should be a cause of suspicion more than of trust. These are the scummy belly feeders off of a whale shark, more than the smooth allies they might position themselves as. All the same, Carol is still the scummiest on my own list. Scummy. Seconding accusations early. I watched you do so as scum last big game (if I remember correctly), so parroting established suspicions might work against you more than for you. Sorry.

What? You trust me both more and less than others? You're trusting me as Loyal? On what grounds? This is what I always (try to) do. What? Surely you know that if there was some secret ability of value, I wouldn't share it publicly. Let's be sensible. Day one, trust me as far as you can throw me. With that, all three I've quoted here aren't hard supporting me, but scum know I'm town, and there is a failing strategy recently of scum trying to ingratiate themselves to me, since I have a tendency to turn into a bulldozer by day three. Carol has a vote on her, and second votes tend to draw heat. Compound that with her first vote being by Bryant, who voted for me, it's an inconvenient choice on my end. But she is the one that strikes me scummiest, since she is the strongest supporter of me out of the three, with no reason, and that directly goes against her running for Speaker since she definitely didn't trust me 24 hours ago. That's the one for me so far on day one. Vote: Calanon (Carol Nottingham) It's not a super strong vote, so I'm happy to change if anyone has any better logic worth voting on. Let's be realistic: the only person who you could say for sure is in your best interest is yourself if you're town, and your scummates if you're scum. It's not saying much of anything. If anything, you might be accused of pussyfooting in your post. Any interest in voting?

No, scum would not vote their own in, I don't think, unless they were all very stupid. It's all a big game of WIFOM at this point though. As suspected, it is simply a deciding vote. If there's a tie, I will be the deciding vote. The difference between scum and town in the role is small: scum will always vote to save the scum/take out the person they like less. Town will make a call, but is stuck with a hunch. It isn't really a power role until the numbers get really low, and a scum in the position can push the vote over the edge for them.