Peanuts

Once more, only one night kill. That's not terribly bad, at least it means we lose only one of us per night. I still wonder wheter we have/had a vigilante, but I don't think speculating about this will lead us to anything. I have thought back about the last two days, and I have grown suspicious of Connie. She hasn't been very active, never accused anyone and just hopped on the Esther bandwagon two times in a row (which I find especially weird considering we all thought Esther had soft-claimed to be a power role, and we now know she was town). She stated she wanted to wait before she casts her vote, which can be what a cautious townie would do, but she hardly voiced suspicions. Then there is this gem from Day One; "Hey, I'm here, please don't think I'm scum, bye" On Day Two, she started off asking for information based on night actions, showing no initiative whatsoever. She told Esther to reveal her night action and jumped on the bandwagon again, which is fair enough, but she also said this: I still don't know who her "next suspicion" is. Would you mind telling us, Connie?

Wow, that pretty much comes out of nowhere. I have had my suspicions of you, as have other people I guess, but why so defeatist all of a sudden? And you have given no reason to kill Sheridan other than her Scapegoat claim. How can you expect the vigilante to follow up on this? Seriously, this just reads incredibly scmmy to me. With that said, it seems Esther has given up. I'm not sure if she is scum or town, but she has disturbed the town long enough. I vote: Esther (Esurient)

Well, I'm really not a fan of making vital information publicly known, but since you already started claiming, I'd say go for it. So I'd give an AYE unless you think the scum would benefit way more than the town from making your role public.

Well, that was not the best start one could have imagined. I really hoped Caleb was scum, but I was wrong. About the kill last night, it very well could be a scum kill, but our mayor also would have been the perfect victim for a serial killer, being well-known on the one side, but quiet and thus unlikely to be, well, protected. I doubt it was a vig-kill, though. Drake wasn't a main suspect, so why vig-kill him? It's interesting that you feel the need to point out it wasn't you who condemned Caleb. I'm not saying it's scummy per se, but, er, interesting. I know you said you didn't think your father was killed by the vig, but please don't try to figure the vigilante out in public. I agree that her not getting precise might be intended to avoid interfering claims, which is the only thing I found suspicious about her. And, yes, she definitely voted Caleb to save herself. It was not clear if she would survive even just before the end. Still, I'm reluctant to risk a power role and I'm not getting a scum read on her either. If I was scum, I wouldn't want to take the risk. Esther was the only town role they knew (assuming she is town), but she also was the only town role we knew. This bears the risk of wasting a night kill (if she was protected) or losing a killer (if she was watched). Both would be really bad for the scum.

We were pretty much over the whole Sheridan thing, and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I have been thinking and if this was a scum plan, there is one major flaw: They don't know if there is a real Miller, which would screw over their whole plan and give us a large advantage early on. I doubt they would take such a risk with so little to gain.

I'll just go ahead and vote: Caleb Norman (Captain Nemo). I've already told y'all why I'm suspicious of him and why I don't think it's a good idea to lynch Esther at this point. We've got less than 24 hours left, and if nothing else comes up, I wouldn't mind lynching Caleb.

Well, it was not meant to be a reply. I just took so long saying that that you spoke up before me. Also, by "nullifies everything" I mean "nullifies the whole focusing on Sheridan thing". You stopped doing that. Which makes you my current top suspect. But you have a point about Ethel, I can't disagree with that. The logical thing for a townie would be not to talk openly about having a role unless a lynch would otherwise be inevitable. But the question we have to ask ourselves is: What would scum gain from claiming to claim? So, you got me thinking, and that's my train of thought: Claiming a role makes her less likely to be lynched, but, as you correctly said, bears the risk that someone else counterclaims (I almost forgot about that). So, from that perspective, scum might want to not claim a certain role, but just claim to have a role in general. So, from that point of view, what she said was scummy. I still wonder why she started to claim so early, though. If I was scum and her buddy, I never would have allowed her to. Of course, there's the possibility of miscommunication among the scum. It could go both ways, really. Town trying (and failing) to be smug or scum trying (and failing) to get votes off of her. Either way, her claim is what stands out as scummy among her otherwise not very scummy behavior. I'm still too afraid of lynching an actual power role townie. Wait a second, her name is Esther, not Ethel.

Could you please elaborate why you think it's so likely that the claim is a ruse that you are willing to risk a power role? Just asking. Oh, and I thought you were suspicious of Sheridan's claim? This completely nullifies what I said before...

Whoa there, Lady! You have five people you think are scum? Gotta say, that's unusual. Coupled with your wild flailing, your overzealous aggressiveness, and the fact you accused people early on over nothing at all, we have the typical sign...of a very confused townie. Honestly, nothing of this reads as scum behavior. Scum hardly ever accuse early on day one, scum hardly ever pursue a certain suspect even after they meet nothing but resistance, and scum never, ever give us a list of five 'certain' scum and one 'fifty-fifty' on Day One. Really, if she was scum, her buddies never would let her post the above. However, she doesn't 100% read 'town' to me. She might be third party. Very, very confused third party. The only thing I read as scumtell is the claim of a claim, which I can't imagine a rational townie to make. Oh, wait, she didn't behave rational so far, no matter if she was scum or town. Sorry, but I can't vote for someone who claims to have a night action. That never is a good idea. My two main suspects right now are Caleb and Jessica. Right now I'm inclined to vote for the first. Sheridan has a point when she says that he continuously twists her words, and in addition many of his statements have been about matters of no relevance, such as a post restriction, or a framer. For example, he just speaks about a framer not screwing with a role cop, something that had been talked about long enough, prolonging a discussion that helped the town in no way. So, the multiple reasons of his suspicions are, if I'm not mistaking: At least, that's what I get when I try to reduce his post to the core message. None of this really justifies any suspicions. Anything else he said either in some way reinterprets Sheridan's words or concerns some matter that isn't really important for the town. Still, the reason I'm not voting for him right away is the fact he is so focused on Sheridan. He is less ardent about his suspicion than Ethel about her five main suspects, but it's a weird thing to do for the scum in general. Anyone want a loaf of bread? I've got another batch ready. If you wnat some, just visit me in my bakery, okay?

Oh, you're right. Sorry

I completely agree that his posts were fluffy and heavy with roleplaying, but I think this very roleplaying is what you are basing your vote on. That can be a sign of scum trying to stay in the middle, but if he is, he isn't doing a particularly good job of looking helpful. But again, I disagree about the information-based gameplay. And with the assumptions about a role cop. Micheal has raised some flags when he brought up the "post restriction", or when his defense was basically "incompetence".

This is not about you in particular, but I think too many members of the town rely too much on power roles early on. 1. We don't know if we have a role cop. 2. We don't know if Scapegoat shows up as a role. 3. We don't know if vanilla townie shows up different from vanilla goon. 4. Even if we have a role cop and scapegoat shows up, we don't want them to reveal themselves by telling us the results. How about the good ol' lookin' at peoples' contributions to determine their allegiance? This is the only reason why claiming scapegoat is a risk for the scum (apart from the fact there might be a real scapegoat who can counterclaim): It draws attention and makes people scrutinize them more thoroughly. Also, we don't really want to discuss role strategies too openly. Suggestions are generally okay, but if the scum have a watcher and we are to definite, we make things a lot easier for them. I'm still somewhat suspicious of Jessica, the way she tried to turn Patrick's question into a lynch suggestion (after I called her out that nobody wanted to lynch Sheridan) and is one of those who were endorsing the night action-relying playing style. Restrictions are pretty rare, and if used together with a miller, I think Sheridan wouldn't be able to speak about being, er, a miller. That's the only restriction that makes sense.

Not really helping. If you provide some possibilities, you need some analysis. The first two possibilities make sense, the third one not, and the last one is really unlikely. Also, why are people who claim early scum? Huh? Sorry, I don't see where you're coming from. It just requires the detected person to make an objective statement.

Well, Patrick clearly didn't push for a lynch, he just asked a question about the mechanics. Tristan didn't take a distince position, he just pondered the (very obvious) pros and cons of lynching. So, uh, I'll give you that one might interprete Tristan's statement as "talking about a lynch", but he was one person who commented on it once. But I agree that condemning Sheridan now just to check up on her allegiance doesn't make much sense.

Er, pardon, but nobody has been talking about lynching her yet. In fact, the person who has been, well, most accusing yet were you: And this is not even a real accusation, it's more, say, an invitation for another townie to accuse her. Tristan just said he was, er, unsettled, but he had changed his opinion at the point you spoke about people trying to lynch her. Most other people were either neutral or stating that they believed her. You go from half-assedly accusing her of "excusing future scummy behavior" to acting like you had to convince the town that lynching her on this is not a good idea. I must say, I find this, well, odd. Slightly scummy, too. Okay, let's talk about reactions! Oh, wait, that's all the talking you're doing? You're a bit overinterpreting. Tristan's statement wasn't particularly helpful, because I see no indication that they are both scum, but he makes a vaild point that Micheal has gone out of his way to not answer the question about his opinion, but instead has been roleplaying a lot. Just saying. If anyone cares.

Huh, well, that there certainly is a conversation starter. So, I guess scum wouldn't risk catching attention that early, you know, considering that it's not exactly a claim that, well, makes people claim to you. I'm afraid I don't get how being a scapegoat helps anyone convincing scum they are a traitor. And if I'm honest, I don't think that would be a good idea anyway. Scum never fall for such a ruse. It just distracts the town and derails our efforts. Either he is speaking the truth, which makes perfect sense, or he is lying to avoid investigation, which would be highly unconservative, but not entirely impossible. Anyway, that's my opinion on that matter. I have to go bake some bread now.

Perry's here. Just saying, you know, because, well, someone might care. So, er, if anyone needs me, I'll be in my bakery, baking stuff.

You still need people? I already worried I was too late 1. Too many to remember, but luckily you can find them all on my profile. Well, except for those that are missing. I should really update my profile... 2. I'm fully available. 3. I played as scum role investigator in Harriet Slutter. That was pretty fun... Good luck with your first game, Tammo

Wow, what a nice complicated game...best of luck to everyone participating! Unfortunately I won't have the time to play, my university's exams will fall in the game's time frame, and I figure I will be too distracted to genuinely take part in the game. I'll do my best to follow it, though, I'm curious to see how it will turn out

Yeah, we did. You were obviously Def. You and Scuba were the only people we actually guessed right, oh, and I was convinced Krup was Piratedave

I was def? Wow, I was pretty sure everyone knew I was Peanuts... Thanks to Hinckley for hosting, you did a great job! I really loved everything about this game, and I'm glad you asked me if I wanted to play. I'd have hated to miss out on that. Also, thanks to the awesome scum team! It was a huge pleasure working with you, even though I feel I didn't conribute as much to the victory as others. But still I had a great time, and I'm glad nobody had to die. On another note, I think the anonymity harmed the town a bit. Especially since the scum knew each other, but I'm glad about that. I liked the idea, and I wouldn't mind playing in another game with this concept.

Have you considered taking the role out once it was drawn? As in, generate a random number to draw a player, then to draw a role, then repeat with new numbers assigned to the roles and players that are left? I don't know, maybe I'm just approaching things too complicatedly

You actually wrote PMs for days just so you could produce them in case you were caught? I thought you just were on other teams...I'm impressed

I think that would be a good idea, seeing how Walter posting his PMs in EB II helped the town a lot at lynching the right player; if posting PMs is allowed, I'd even go as far as to say that the scum should fake PMs among them, and that's not the kind of play I'd like to see. 1. All the ones on my profile, plus Excalibur, plus the Pearl, plus EB II (I guess I should update my profile ). 2. I'm free. 3. Sure. 4. Too many to mention...these moments are why I'm playing these games. 5. Because they can vote, and accuse, and talk behind the scenes, and be helpful...and because we don't have to worry about lynching them. 6. Oh, I've got honor. And can cooperate. And I like crazy concoctions. I'm curious.

Yay, we won! Good job to KDM and Pandora, I think you two are the main reason we won this game. Well, most other townies were doing very well, too. Oh, and I feel like I failed completely. I was very uncooperative until late, and I guess I could have worked harder with the town in the late game as well. I was rather jumpy, and considering that my first real accusations were against the mason and the blocker while I trusted the scum killer, I really wasn't a great asset to the town, and I guess that's why I survived until the end. That said, I enjoyed playing the game a lot. The set-up was interesting and highly stressful, in a good way. Thanks for hosting, def