Peanuts

I agree with that. Best thing would be to install her as TCC as often as possible from now on.

Robert is telling the truth, I handed down two scum policies to him. I was given three scum policies myself, so I had no choice. I decided to use the investigation I was given on Anne Martin/Mediumsnowman, and apparently I was wrong about her, she is town.

Sure, I can explain. I was referring to this line, which concludes your statement: As others said, Lindsey doesn't have to be 100% town even if she is not lying. There's the logic part. Also, the chance of Ed being town is not 50%. Given that we know the other two cards, the chance of the third card being a scum card is ~67%, so that's the chance of him being town. There's the mathematical part. And that's of course only if they decide that the best course of action if given two scum cards and one town card is to eliminate the town card. But I asked you how experience translates into qualification as TCC, and you didn't answer. The only thing that really matters is that the TCC is town. Okay, I have to admit, I only just now understood your reasoning for voting "No" I can get behind why you're doing it, but I have to think some more whether I agree with it or not. I definitely won't vote "No" today, because I know I'm town and I don't want to risk the mayor's position falling to the scum, but your reasoning makes sense. And I agree: Contribute something, Ralph!

I agree that a scum mayor might have done that when given 2 scum cards and a town card, but I disagree with the first part. What you say is that someone who discards a scum card is likely to be town, but if a scum mayor receives two town cards and has to pass at least one on to the TCC (assuming the TCC is town), no matter what they do, a town policy is enacted, so they can easily fake this without giving up anything. So if we learn that two town cards were received by the TCC, we don't know whether it's a town member who rightly discarded a scum card or a scum member who discarded a scum card to pretend to be the former. We get no info from this, and the hypothetical scum mayor is not cleared at all. But we know that if the TCC receives a town card and a scum card, there is a 67% chance that the third card is also a scum card, in which case the scum could have forced the TCC to pass a scum policy. If we assume a scum mayor would choose to do this, that means the chance of the mayor being scum is 33% from our point of view. Which means there is a point in passing on one of each, even for a scum mayor. Anyway, I think you contributed more than anyone else yesterday, and I don't have any strong town reads yet. I will nominate Robert Butler/Dragonfire. Does the mayor have to vote? Ed voted, so I guess I will also vote yes, obviously. Also, I am fairly suspicious of Anne Martin. She spoke up three times yesterday. The main reason I'm suspicious of her is because she voted "No" yesterday, and I think the reason that Lindsey was inexperienced was not a good one. Even Christina's reason of generating more voting patterns (if I understood it correctly) made more sense, even though I disagree with it. Then she completely disappeared until after the vote, when she wrote this: First of all, it's mathematically and logically wrong. Not that being bad at maths makes you scum, mind you. Still, it's wrong. Second, it adds pretty much nothing, but it looks like ishe is contributing Also, she suggested herself as TCC, which is not inherently suspicious. I think it makes as much sense for a scum member to nominate herself as for a town member. All of her three posts had some relevance, but none really contributed anything. It seems like a scum member trying to go the middle road. What do you think?

I don't think I agree. Say, you are a scum mayor and you are given two town cards and one scum card. If you pass on both town cards to the townie TCC, everyone will know that there were two town cards and you had no impact on the choice at all. However, if you pass on one of each and pretend that you were given two scum and one town, you are slightly more cleared. Now, based on probabilities, we can make the read that our mayor is town with probability 67%, as I said earlier. If he had passed on two town cards, we could not get any read on him, so even if he were scum, he should pass on one of each rather than two town policies in my opinion. That would be the choice that should gain him the most trust from us. Are the scum policies really discarded? That would be great!

I agree with this. Given that there is no lynch it might be viable for the scum to enact a scum policy even if they were given a town policy by a town mayor, since we have no immediate way of punishing them and no good way to verify who of the two is lying. Like everyone else I have no experience with this type of game, but my guts tell me it's wrong for them to soft-reveal one of them on day one. And actually, there are six town policies, but we only need to pass five of them. If we trust Lindsey that the two policies were town and scum, the probabilty for the third one to be town as well is one in three. If we also assume that a scum mayr would have given her two scum cards if possible, that means that the chance of Ed being a townie is about 67%. Also, I wonder if we will learn the allegiances of the killed people once the fourth and fifth scum policy are passed, like we would in a mafia game.

Okay, so we have completed 20% of our victory condition. I guess the most important question now is whether the mayor and the TCC should reveal the cards they were dealt. I say they should, I don't see how that information benefits the scum, but it can help us get a read on our mayor and our TCC.

We can get some information from the reasoning behind the votes today, in particular the "No" votes. But I doubt it's worth it to overturn Lindsey just so we can get more voting patterns. The people who voted "Yes" will probably just vote "Yes" again and fly under the radar, and the people who voted "No" because Lindsey is too inexperienced should vote "Yes" to an experienced candidate and "No" to an unexperienced one. I believe the voting patterns we observe now will just duplicate, it's too easy to fly under the radar for the scum. This is like a day one lynch, except without the bitter taste of lynching what is probably a loyal townie. There is a chance of more than 75% that the three random cards include at least one town policy, so if both our mayor and our TCC are town, that's the chance we will see a townie policy enabled, which is very good for us. If our mayor is town, but our TCC is scum, that doesn't change much, because if the TCC enables a scum policy when there was a town policy available, our mayor should tell us. If the mayor is scum, things get a little more hazy, and we might end up with a scum policy (and a wasted investigation).

So, you agree with Robert that the TCC should be more experienced, that early self-nominations are suspicious or that it's best to abstain from voting for now? Either way, can you tell us what makes you think so? Contribute! Though I have to admit, your hat is fashionable...

As much as I trust anyone. So why should I trust you over her? I would rather see myself TCC than somebody else, but if everyone voted "No" on anyone other than themselves there would never be a TCC and the scum would beat us easily. Honestly, right now there are two people I would not like to be TCC, and those are the two of you who voted "No", and you had the worse argument for doing so. Seriously, give me just one argument why you are better qualified than Lindsey, especially since you already dismissed the experience argument that Anne used.

Can you tell us how experience matters here? In my opinion, the town council chair should pass a town law if possible and a scum law if two scum laws are the only two options. Maybe there is more strategy to it later in the game, given that scum laws can give us actions, but at this point I don't think we should blow one of our few investigates on day one. And even if a scum law is passed, the mayor decides who is investigated, not the TCC. I think the TCC's choice should be simple. What matters is that the TCC is a townie, not how experienced they are. I can understand why you should not vote right now though, we have 24 hours, so no need to vote prematurely... Now this I find suspicious. Of course, voting "no" is the same as not voting from a technical point of view, but it's interesting to see that you are that opposed to a TCC who's not "experienced" enough. I wonder why? So, can you tell us how experience matters, "especially on Day 1"? Because I can see how scum would like to do that, one player points out that the designated TCC is inexperienced, and then scum tries to get a "no" bandwagon rolling with little added reason. How does voting "No" over not voting and expressing (and explaining) your concerns benefit the town?

Lindsey's as good as anyone else, and not agreeing would be bad for us. I also vote yes.

Yes it is Honestly, I can't argue why I'd be more qualified as council chair than Scott, but I trust myself and nobody else right now. So I'd also like to throw my figurative hat in the ring and say I'd want to become town council chair.

I must admit, his opposition had a hard time running a smear campaign. Gotta be difficult to dig up dirt on a nameless person, what are you going to google? "_______ sex scandal"? Also, Cromwell could never have become president if Americans hadn't voted in 1923 to execute the king and turn the United States into a republic...with one vote! Vote, kids! Well, not actual kids, since you are underage and not legally allowed to vote unless you get a fake ID, in which case, why would you vote? Get drunk, kids!

The way I understand this Bob person (is he our governor again? What is he?) the government has to get more than fifty percent of the vote, so abstaining would be the same as voting no. So remember to go voting, kids! Every vote counts! With only one vote Oliver Cromwell was voted President of the United States, making English rather than German the official world language! Also, shame our old mayor died. But now we can have a new mayor every day, so there's a silver lining and I can't say I'm surprised our old mayor died, he wasn't even a named character. That must have made for an awkward mayoral campaign, come to think of it

Joshua Sutton, I'm here.

Been a while since I played a mafia game last time, but I'd be interested in trying this out. Never heard of Secret Hitler before. I got plenty of time on my hands right now too, so sign me up

Oh, verdammt! Thanks for having me, jamesn. It was really fun while it lasted.

Why would you ask that? I will stick with my vote. Unfortunately, I might not be around when the Day ends. I'll try to, but I probably won't be. But I agree it's important that we convict somebody, be it Monty or Jerry, so we have something to follow up on tomorrow.

I'm not sold on lynching Jerry. His reasoning against Trevor is flawed, there's no reason why we would investigate him or claim to him based on his claim. I'm not saying I believe Trevor's claim, but for the scum it's a high risk, low reward gamble. Still, bad reasoning doesn't necessarily mean scum. At least I'm not more suspicious of him than of everyone else. Someone I noticed is Monty, though: I personally really don't like the "I am like this in every single game" defense here. If you're aware you're posting fluff without adding anything even beyond the 'first 24 hours of Day One fluff', why not do something about it? Just when Spencer says "Unwillingness to place votes on day one is, in my opinion, unwillingness to help the town" he throws a vote. For one of the two people Spencer called out for not participating. While stating he might change his vote to the other one. My problem is not that he's voting, other people did that too. I'm just getting the impression he's voting just to appear like he's doing something, right after Spencer states what might be read as "Good townies vote". He also goes out of his way not to commit to his vote even while posting it, making clear it's just "to poke the sleepyheads". So, "a quick check of the logs shows she hasn't been around since my prodding". Which is why you unvote? That doesn't make any sense. He's asked why he votes for someone inactive, and reacts by unvoting. He likes to call people out for being inactive, or to just keep his eyes on them. But he's not at all willing to commit to his vote, even though his stated goal, to "prod" Claire, has not been attained since she wasn't even active. If I'm correct, we still have more than 20 hours left before we have to reach a conclusion, so for now I'll vote: Monty Thornton (Mostlytechnic)

Well, that's interesting. If you really are a miller, thanks for coming out with it early on. There was no real reason not to. The scum don't profit from the information, and since the town had nothing else to talk about at the moment, it didn't distract. So far, there's nobody who's been standing out to me. But since we need a majority to lynch somebody, I suppose we can't really afford to waste much time if we want to reach a consensus today.

Actually, Surgeonfish, it's not that much of a problem. If someone were to shoot the reactor, I'd be more worried about a ricochet hurting somebody than about the damage to the reactor. Also, it's pronounced nucular.

Good point, Firefly. Looks like these commies are not the smartest. I hope they don't touch anything in the reactor room, that might end up bad. Does it matter, Buttercup? They're here, and we're gonna find and kill these commie schweinehunds.

Patrick Nash here, the reactor's going critical! Get out of here! Just kidding, you little honeybees, it's actually supposed to do that. Come back, dummkopfs.

Is this still open? If you still need people, I can play. 1. Too much to remember. Some of the games I played are mentioned on my profile. Most aren't. 2. Depends on when and if these 6-8 weeks will happen, but I'm available in the foreseeable future. 3. I must admit I never watched one. I guess Red October, because it's famous enough for me to have an idea what it's about.