Peanuts

I agree with Lt. Commander Gordon, this statement seems fishy to me. It basically is a just metagaming, and not even good metagaming. And what do you mean by holes? A) If there are holes in the defense, don't just say there are holes, but point them out. B) How are there supposed to be holes when there isn't a solid accusation?

Lynching based on pictures is defiantly definitely not an option. Their They're There may be this new rule, but I'd assume it's just to avoid what happened in the simulation. I still think that there are no clues in the pics.

While I don't think that learning about the scum roles from the simulation is going to improve our situation significantly, it might be a good idea if one of the former scum players reveals them. We shouldn't rely on this information, though.

Well, here we are...again. The Captain is dead, again, and I'm an Ensign. I guess I should repair that clock, too, before anyone forgets what time it is. And Ensign Pewter is judging people by their hairstyles, just as Ensign Rockford used to do. At least Pewter isn't blond.

I know, but we don't have any red shirts (propably for this very reason).

The commander is contradicting himself! Someone depose him from his office! And, by the way, aren't those with a family back home always the first ones to die? We're all going to die except for the commander! I don't want to die as a janitor.

Oh, great. I used to be a Lieutenant Commander in the virtual reality, and now I am just an Ensign. And a janitor! Life's unfair. Anyway, Ensign Peter Robbins is ready, Sir.

Sorry it had to end like that, Bob. I really appreciate the work you were putting in all this. When this game will be restarted, can we all keep our characters? I had just (mostly) learned the names Anyway, I'm excited to see what happens next.

At least I thought so. I've once seen a holovid about the Yakuza, where a Godfather Lyncher/Goon who was similar to me (he even had the same hairstyle) was blocked, and despite not having a night action, he learned about it. It happened to others, as well.

Actually, it's usually 1/4 to 1/3, which means 6-7 scum players. Not that huge. Whatever. But if that is the case, why didn't Walter talk to Wheeler when he learned he was blocked? He couldn't know the block was redirected, could he? And the Admiral explicitely told us the picture was a joke and no clue. And it's not like redirector would be the most useful role role anyway. It's not uncommon for players without action to learn about the block. In fact, it surprised me only players with actions would learn. Anyway, if Jones says Walters has been blocked, and Walters denies that, we can conclude that one of them has to be scum, and applying Ockham's Razor the simplest explanation is that Jones is the killer, so I'll stick with my vote. By the way, shouldn't a block overrule a redirection? Roleblocks usually come first, but I remember a case in a vid named Noir where a killer killed the blocker who blocked him.

What's that talk about balance? How would you know about the balance of the set-up? Point is, I myself have no idea how many scum there is, what roles they have and how many roles we have. I guess no townie would be in position to even make an educated guess, while the scum know a bit more... Just pointing that out, your statement about balance isn't really in itself scummy, but when used as defense, it can be. It's a light case of IIoA, though. Not that I'd need this to justify my vote. Well, it's obvious that you can't be both right. Wheeler said that his blocker was told he blocked someone from using his night action, you claim that you weren't blocked. Easiest explanation, one of you is lying, and it's most likely you. Vote: Lt. Jones (Flipz)

It used to be normal, but I think that changed lately. I don't remember any game before Infection having a shared kill, at any rate.

Bloodbrick and Infection come to my mind, but i think there were more holovids I watched in which that happened.

But if they can share their kill, the blocked killer might get off the hook. I must say, I'm intrigued, though. Unless they find our blocker and counterblock them, we should be save from scum kills if that works.

That's...very good! The vig seems to have taken Francis advice and killed a Purist, while the scum didn't manage to take out one of us. I wouldn't say Suzanne is cleared, but that the Purist voted for her makes her less of a suspect. I haven't gained any new insights since yesterday ended, but it seems we have a solid lead by looking into the blockee.

Well, there doesn't seem to be a really convincing case, but we have to reach a conviction, that's why I stick with the one against Lieutenant Daly. The reasons? Well, mainly because of her IIoA and how she keeps changing between suspects. She has shortly accused several players and now goes against Francis, who, while not talking much, is also not quite a major suspect of me. I'm far from sure, though, and might change my vote in order to reach a conviction. If I'm suspicious of the lynchee, that is, of course. The case against Walters is far better presented by Donna Willis, but yet not a strong one. It makes me suspicious of Walters, though. About Lt. Vanderbilt, while I can clearly see where the suspicion against her comes from, I'd rather give her time to redeem herself than vote for her just now. I'll vote: Arnold Daly (darkdragon)

But the only other major accusation was against Commander Walters, and, well, he's not really about to be lynched. In fact, Jones has apparently abandonded that.

Good. Don't reveal more than that. Cleared townies are very prone to kills and conversions. I wonder why the investigator would come to you, though. Try not to reveal their identity to anyone this time Assuming he was scum, why would he be so dead set on you? If he wanted to see you dead no matter what, he could simply wait for the night without attracting attention. And, by the way, the initial accusation was by me.

Well, I've read Lt. Daly's defense, but I don't understand why he didn't change his post before posting it, if he understood the motive behind Burbank's murder while posting. Talking fastly isn't helpful, if it doesn't make much sense. As McAndrews pointed out, my point about IIoA still stands, and I don't like how Daly seemingly tried to shift blame to Holloway. You're definitely not the stupidest scum ever. If you're scum, you're still doing fine, no need to feel offended. And Wright was a townie as well, but had the vig not killed him in the night, we wouldn't know right now, and had to lynch him too in order to find out if he was or not. I don't know, is that an accusation? If so, I don't know what I should reply, other than that I found Daly genuinely suspicious. I'm not sure about that case between Jones and Walters. Jones' arguments doesn't make any sense, and now he backed out apologetically, but Walters' defeatism seemed wrong, especially because there was no reason for him to believe he would be lynched and his defense was otherwise valid.

No offense, but if the thoughts were clear mistaken, why didn't you tell us yesterday?

I agree, the vig should use their action. It's a way for the town to eliminate two suspects per day. But there's someone I'd like to mention, who I am suspicious of: Lieutenant Daly. He seems to have talked not too often, but yet more often then the quiet ones among us, therefore walking the middle ground. Of course, that's not per se scummy. But what has he said so far? His first statement was the obligatory first "Oh no, the admiral's dead" post, but he was also wondering about the number of the scum, saying that this might be a useful thing to know. The next two times he speculated about other scum groups. All of this can be considered 'Information Instead of Analysis', which is known to be a common scumtell. Then, when the cases against Ensign Robbins and Ensign Wright came up, he decided to ignore the case against Robbins and instead go for Wright, which is not bad, but the reasoning isn't very strong: Basically he says that the only accusation against Robbins was that he was a janitor, while his behavior was definitely not pro-town. What does he say about Wright? Not much, in fact, the case against Wright, while IMO less valid than the one against Robbins, was far more than just that he didn't realize tensions were high. Once voting was open, and after the bandwagon had formed, he voted for Wright, this time with a much better reasoning than before, I'll give him that. Yet, if the vigilante hadn't killed Wright, and we didn't know he also was a loyalist, Daly would now be one of two who didn't vote for a confirmed townie. Today, the only thing Daly has said, was wondering about who killed Burbank, which was obvious, and the second part about staying rational when accused, which I actually find justified, but someone in private pointed out that it might be used later as an excuse after lynching further townies.

I can't say I miss Wright or Robbins much, they both weren't very helpful. Doctor Burbank is a loss, though. And Lietenant Jones, it seems you're always sure that whoever you accuse is scum. I wasn't expecting Ensign Robbins to be a Loyalist, either, but it would be nice if you'd refrain from expressing your certainty unless you're really certain. And you mentioned an officer who's build up a case against the commander? Are you going to tell us who said officer is, or where you just going to give us a piece of information, again, and then just wait for someone else to present the rest? That's just killing discussion.

Well, I don't need to sum up everytime I or someone else pointed out that something Robbin said was suspicious, do I? I vote: Ensign Peter Robbins (KingoftheZempk) Oh, and I meant "ad nauseam" earlier, of course.

You come up with that after you're a main suspect? It's been discussed ad mauseam in the past, so, well, no. I'll vote and hope we'll reach a conviction.

Yes, but as you can read in this very article you linked, what Robbins did was not a Chainsaw Defense, and I was wrong, it wasn't even OMGUS, it was simply trying to shift suspicion on someone else.