OK, it no longer makes sense to keep my current vote. It was just a kickoff lurker vote.
Unvote Blaster Master
Now I agree with the plan of keeping storyteller alive till tomorrow. So I don’t have a clear vote choice at the moment, but I’ll be reviewing the candidates.
I have to say, Fretful Porpentine seems to be taking storyteller’s condemnation of her rather well. I find it odd that Fretful Porpentine did not respond to storyteller’s charges. Despite storyteller thinking Fretful Porpentine is scum, Fretful is taking storyteller’s advice and voting for OAOW. I find this a bit odd.
Personally, I thought storyteller’s roleclaim was a foregone conclusion. I didn’t think anything would happen to prevent it so OAOW’s prodding isn’t too big a deal in my book. I briefly had similar thoughts (that storyteller was delaying as a scum tactic), but I dismissed them since formulating a fake claim isn’t rocket science. I don’t think storyteller would need more than ten minutes to think through the pros and cons of each fake claim.
Did anyone really think we were going to avert storyteller’s roleclaim? Because I didn’t.
on preview: shit. seriously?
Totally made me chuckle. I’d unvote you, but I can’t. So I’ll just give you a nice pat on the back.
I suppose I should buckle down and decide on a vote eh?
I kind of want to lynch Hal Briston. But I can’t articulate why.
Good plan - there’s enough going on at the moment. 
In terms of relevance to this game, I hope you will agree I have shown that there is potential validity to my “poke the lurkers” strategy, even if you still disagree with it.
Well, I’m operating on the assumption that it’s pretty common first-day behavior for townies to accuse other townies of being scum, and there is no particular reason for the accused to take it personally.
Fretful,
But you didn’t even respond to storyteller. I find that odd.
Also, how do you know storyteller is Town? - more odd.
Maybe I was wrong about you.
I don’t know that storyteller is Town, but I think his role-claim is more likely to be true than not, so I’m operating on the assumption that he is.
What was there to respond to, exactly? I explained the only thing that I thought required an explanation, which was that I didn’t know that there were several possible ways to balance the game with a Scout, but now that people who had crunched the numbers had said so, I was willing to believe it. But by and large, first-day accusations are just random noise, and I don’t really see what purpose is served by jumping in with a defense the minute somebody says they find you suspicious; that only generates more random noise.
Why do you think storyteller’s claim is more likely to be true than not?
I don’t really like how OaoW is acting, re: storyteller. I’m not sure how I feel about the role claim myself because it does seem like whenever someone role claims, it’s never a boring vanilla role, but some pivotal role.
But I’m going to vote One and only Wanderer
Could someone please state the OAOW case explicitly? Is it the roleclaim press?
Is there anything else?
Yes, that’s clear enough. If I were put in the same situation I would have said “I have no opinion on player X” to begin with, but to each his own. Maybe it’s just the fact that I’ve been conditioned to have my eyes glaze over even when the simplest of math is presented in a Mafia game thanks to Blam. 
I agree that we should leave storyteller be for now and see what he comes up with tomorrow. I’m not entirely sure about this OAOW stuff though. He was a bit aggressive when he “baited” storyteller, and his actions after story’s claim are in a similar vein. But I don’t necessarily think that aggressiveness = scumminess. If I’m understanding right, it’s the idea that he unvoted so quickly after expressing disbelief in story’s claim that’s the suspicious part. I didn’t really see anything scummy in that. He seems like he wants to lynch storyteller for information tomorrow, which would be consistent in OAOW’s aggressiveness towards him.
It just seems like he was setting him up–the whole, “Role claim” and then when he does “Oh, you’re probably faking it anyway–but no one should counterclaim to disprove you.” It’s like, what else can the guy do to disprove it?
But OAOW isn’t wrong; storyteller’s claim isn’t confirmable.
I think there is a bit of post hoc reasoning in there.
If OAOW were town, he wouldn’t know what storyteller would claim. (Actually even if OAOW is scum he wouldn’t know what storyteller would claim). If storyteller had claimed Doc or mason, the trap wouldn’t have happened. The way I see it, OAOW was reacting to the situation as it developed, and each reaction was reasonable to me. I don’t see a nefarious plot on the part of OAOW. But that’s just me.
Day 1 Vote Count (as of Post 372)
OAOW: Fretful Porpentine, Blaster Master, storyteller, Freudian Slit
sachertorte: DiggitCamara, RoOsh
Koldanar: Darth Sensitive
Hockey Monkey: ShadowFacts
No Current Vote: WF Tomba, Nanook, OAOW, CatInASuit, sachertorte, Pollux Oil, Koldanar, Hockey Monkey, Hal Briston
I’m just not seeing story as all that scummy. Okay, maybe it’ll turn out that we got…I don’t know, Dracula, on day one, and I’ll be wrong and everyone will go after me. But right now OaOW’s hypervigilance is what’s getting to me…going after the person who casts the first stone and all that.
The pressure on storyteller is something of note, but it wasn’t enough for my vote. Please look up a few posts to where I unvoted storyteller.
I made it clear that I didn’t necessarily buy storyteller’s claim but that I thought it wasn’t worth the risk to keep my vote on him today. He FOSes me for this by saying I think his pressure is scummy but I think his claim would make a good false scum claim. This to me is what I refer to as motivational transference and it’s a very scummy tactic with very little pro-town motivation.
Basically, it looks like he’s done something that’s either a null tell or very close to it (in this case, unvoting storyteller), but then attributes the purely scummy motivation of it to someone else. A townie who does it for the townie reason (the risk, which I outlined and gave him the benefit of the doubt on at first) has no reason to assume that someone else doing the same thing he’s doing has any different motivation than he does. OTOH, a scum who knows that it may look suspicious needs to find a scape goat, so when someone goes “I’m sure that one of the people that did this is probably scum” someone other than him gets the blame for it.
IOW, it looks like he outlined HIS motivation, but attributed it to someone else (which, just so happens to be me). Considering he’s FOSing when my motivation is clear, that means to me it’s probably NOT his motivation, and I can’t imagine any other motivation for unvoting storyteller than either because someone believes it (which he clearly doesn’t, based upon his statements immediately before and after the claim) or because the risk is too great (which it isn’t, by virtue of his FOSing me for it).
So, sure, the pressure drew some attention to him and seemed odd, but he also systematically removed any conceivable pro-town motivation for his behavior between demonstrating a disbelief in storyteller’s claim and FOSing me for unvoting him for not being willing to take a risk. If anyone else can give me a reason why he may have unvoted that doesn’t include either of those as a motivation, please point it out and I’ll reconsider.
I like that better. But I’m not totally convinced yet.
I’ll wait for OAOW to state his case/reasoning and stuff.
You’re missing the subtle point here. The pressure is interesting, and does have slightly more scum motivation than town, but it’s not enough to vote for him. The unvote is reasonable, because he could still be unvoting due to risk. FOSing me over what could amount to a simple misunderstanding is also reasonable. The problem is these three behaviors together preclude any pro-town behavior, and if it were just the first two, as is shown in my post immediately after he FOSed me and I hadn’t seen it, I don’t think it surmounts to enough to vote for him.
So, point one just draws attention, no big deal, let’s focus on the other two. He made it patently clear he didn’t believe his claim when he said:
So the motivation for unvoting him is not because he believes him.
But he FOSed me after emphasizing that I didn’t see any way to discern whether his claim was true or false but that “the risk just isn’t worth it”. This means his motivation for unvoting him can’t be because of the risk of being wrong about it.
Instead, his stated reason is information. So let’s see, if you don’t believe him, and there’s not risk, don’t we still get at least as much information by lynching him? A townie who doesn’t believe him enough to not think there’s a real risk in lynching him would not be averse to lynching someone they thought was scum. The motivation just doesn’t add up. If you think he’s lying, and don’t think the risk if you’re wrong is real, you lynch… just like many of us would still be doing if storyteller had claimed vanilla instead of detective.
IOW, the only REAL motivation for the unvote that I can see is that he had to come up with something since he’d already made it clear that he didn’t believe him and didn’t see a reason to unvote him, but then realized that the rest of us would be unvoting him because he made a claim, and he couldn’t wait around because that would look suspicious in its own right.
Fair enough. I just one to point out two things. First, the Day doesn’t end until Thursday, so stalling on voting doesn’t hurt anything unless you have someone else really high on your suspicion list. Second, it’s only Day one, so it’s unreasonable to have a very high threshold for a case to require a vote. For most people, the pressure is enough Today and probably wouldn’t be in a Day or two. However, I really think that between the pressure, the motivational transference, and most of all the lack of pro-town motivation, it’s a pretty strong case that would be enough for me to vote for him even a few Days from now.
Why are you so reluctant to vote for him? Who else do you see as being nearly as suspicious, Fretful perhaps from your “not so sure” comment? If so, can you clarify that, cause I didn’t see much from what you were saying.
What? He FOSed you after you accused him of “baiting” storyteller and said it was “fairly scummy” even while agreeing that storyteller might be scum. Here is the post that he reacted to:
Why do you think his FOS had anything to do with your assessment of the risk?
Oh, and who else thinks “motivational transference” is pure gobbledygook?