You mean I brought it back into balance? I thought I was breaking the tie! My vote stands regardless.
I’m still not as positive of **sachertorte ** being scum as I am of OAOW, so I am going to hold off changing my vote for the moment pending further developments or what the top claimants have to say for themselves.
I’m not totally convinced about amrussell’s role claim but it is verifiable over a couple of days and I think can afford to wait.
Okay. I’ve managed to skim through the thread, and have time for a quick drive-by post before I go work for a few hours.
Unvote Hal Briston
Vote sachertorte
How do these two suspicions jive? If schertorte is scum, do you really think Diomedes as scum would be voting for him when the voting is this close? (I realize that scum throw in votes for their own to cover their tracks, but that’s not what you’re saying here.) Would you care to explain these contradictory suspicions?
Aside from the traditional “busing” that can go on between members of the same scum faction, in this game we have multiple scum factions. So yes it is easily possible for one scum to be voting another.
Choices. Do I continue the roleclaim train or should I just take the hit and prevent more roleclaims from happening? I’m leaning towards roleclaiming. But first I’d like to emphasize that the bandwagons on amrussel and me are very… peculiar. While we throw around words like “bad logic doesn’t equal a scum tell” the town is clearly not practicing what it speaks.
A History of bad ideas from Day One:
Mass roleclaim (originator - I don’t remember and I’m not looking it up right now)
- Effect: brief discussion and rejection
Scotsman roleclaim and lynch (originator - Hockey Monkey)
- Effect: brief discussion and rejection
MHaye said what he said because he’s scum and doesn’t want to get killed for being scum in a previous came (originator - One And Only Wanderers, sachertorte)
- Effect: sachertorte bandwagon, roleclaim below
No-Lynch (originator - Idle Thoughts) {To be fair, I don’t think the idea lacks merit. But others obviously do}
- Effect: discussion about merits of no lynch, mild Idle Thoughts bandwagon
Roleclaim issue, Vicar/Witch (originator - amrussel)
- Effect: amrussel bandwagon, amrussel roleclaim
Roleclaim issue, freemason edition (originator - One And Only Wanderers)
- Effect: mild One And Only Wanderers bandwagon
Did I miss any? So people trying to get discussion going and trying to address the issues of Today are punished with a bandwagon. So what happens when I roleclaim? Are you all going to jump on Idle Thoughts? One And Only Wanderers? Is this course of action wise?
And we wonder why people say nothing on Day One?
yesterday I decided to shut up for a while and voila, the rabid crowd shifted quite swiftly to amrussel - simply for espousing an idea that isn’t popular and one that he can’t implement alone anyway! Silence buys safety.
The net effect of Day One has been:
people talking == scum
people not talking == not scum
That’s all kinds of messed up.
Roleclaim: I’m a coroner, a self-verifing role. I will be able to tell you the alignment of Today’s lynch and tonight’s nightkills before Pleonast reveals them publicly.
unvote sachetorte
That’s a role claim which can’t be ignored
No, no, no!!!
A Freemason should only speak up if amr is NOT a Freemason!!!
I was going to propose this last night, but I didn’t get around to it. IOW, I completely agree.
With all due respect, it was, at first glance, a horrible idea. I now understand that he was trying to figure out how to deal with a false claim. Even though I still don’t agree with the method, we’re going to have to figure out something when the time comes.
Unvote amr
Role claim: I am the Fortune Teller - I can see into the future 
(For the humor impaired, that’s a joke, I am not actually claiming anything here).
More seriously, this is exactly what I thought was going to happen. We’ve got role claims and more role claims, and pretty much NOTHING to go on. By my count, we’ve got about 4.5 hours until deadline. Are we going to keep picking people who then claim until we get to the deadline and the last lynchee who runs out of time is out of luck?
I have absolutely no idea what to do. I am inclined to unvote sachertorte since his role seems fairly quickly confirmable, but I’m not sure yet. I’m going to re-read the Coroner info before I do anything.
(PS. Rysto, still think this discussion is irrelevant?)
Notes:
Remember that a tie in voting mean no lynch. The vote deadline is noon, Pacific Time, today (about 4 1/2 hours from now). Votes with a posting time after that will not be counted. Not responsible for SDMB outages, so don’t wait for the last second. 
When reading through posts, I come across misunderstandings of rules from time to time. As a general guideline, I don’t try to correct every misperception. If you think someone is getting a rule wrong, call them on it. Only if I feel a misunderstanding is general, rather than a single person, will I make a note of it the game thread.
As always, I’ll answer any rules question via PM or email.
Not to pick on fluiddruid, but this quote addresses my point quite well. No one has anything to say at the beginning. All we are doing Today is punishing those who try. And despite what Blaster Master and fluiddruid say, lurking has been an effective scum ploy. That doesn’t make lurkers equal to scum, but if town doesn’t speak up then scum don’t need to either. Either way, it’s anti-town. I’m totally not going to say anything on Day One next game; and quite frankly, at this point I can’t blame anyone else for wanting to shut up on Day One either.
At least 3 kills per cycle (I think you forgot the Day lynch). By my calculation, the min time to Undead win is 6 Days.
I believe the person who brought up the “third vote” thing was Rysto, not One And Only Wanderers. Post 265
Actually at the time of HazelNutCoffee’s post, One And Only Wanderers had not yet voted for me.
I don’t want to lynch someone for “bad logic” or “bad ideas.” I went nuts going after people in M5 for this and as far as I recall, they were all town. (NAF was the only scum I correctly identified and he didn’t espouse any ideas like these at all) I’m left very little to vote upon as all the discussion so far has been about bad ideas and some not-so-bad ideas. I’m going to invoke the “bringing up the third vote as a scum tell is a scum tell” line of thought and
vote Rysto
I don’t know the whole history of BUTTVAASTIAST, but I know that it was correct in M5, and Hal stated in M5 that it was correct in M4. I don’t know if it worked in other games or not. I’m guessing the theory is: scum knowing the infamous incident of M1 are tempted to use that information to push suspicion onto a townie. Perhaps Hal Briston can enlighten us with more history?
It’s not a very strong case, but that’s all I’ve got. Mitigating factors include: Rysto and I were not in a debate at the time. The multi-faction set-up may not be as conducive to such aggression. I fucked up and acted crazy.
unless we want to lynch amrussell, we need to be careful not to give him the majority of votes by default. We can either push someone else to lynch/claim, we can take the no lynch route, or we can keep the votes tied.
p.s. keeping the votes tied is potentially risky, as opportunistic scum could unbalance them at the last minute. This could be a fair swap however as we would then have found a bad guy.
Rules clarification
The only automatic Role-reveal is when a Scotsman is attacked and he survives. At that point, I will reveal the Scotsman’s Role. Other Roles (Magician, Witchdoctor’s beneficiary) do not have an automatic reveal.
Arright…well, until some masons can (not) confirm amrussell’s claim, I’ll move over to #2 on my suspicion list:
unvote amrussell
vote One And Only Wanderers
I’m happy with lynching One and Only Wanderers, because the “I was just throwing out a crapologic vote to see what would happen” argument just doesn’t sit right with me – it strikes me as backpedaling.
Vote One and Only Wanderers
re:sachertorte
This was what I meant by invoking the third-vote scum tell. I didn’t meant to imply that he was the first to mention this, but that rather that he was using it in his reasoning. And I didn’t say he voted for you, sacher, but that he threw suspiscion on you.
Just trying to keep the facts straight here. 
Like others, I’ll back off from my vote by
unvoting amrussell
And I’ll vote for the next player whose comments have raised my eyebrows ( :dubious: )
vote One And Only Wanderers
Ok, bit premature for a roleclaim, so what I will do instead is paraphrase my involvement and reasonings thus far.
Firstly, I tend not to out and out random vote so and so, but I will throw out a frivolous vote. Such was my vote on MHaye.
So when sachetorte followed this vote that got my spider senses tingling. MHaye was then VERY defensive, too defensive in my view, he had only 3 votes and we were still very early in the day.
I was also slightly suspicious of Diomedes, I actually agreed with his sachetorte vote, but the way he worded the reasoning just made me think he may be scum himself who was taking the chance to get on what was going to be a bandwagon early.
The next involvement I had was in the entire role claim brouhaha. Let’s see if I can explain that.
What I said was, I would quite happily continue with the lynch of someone I had found scummy, who then claimed Freemason whilst under pressure. I still stand by this by the way. Scum will always claim something when pressured. Does this mean we should always let them off and revisit them? If we keep pushing person after person to claim on day 1, then we may as well have a mass claim and be done with it - which also isn’t the right way to go. I will try and get on between 6 & 6.30 where I will roleclaim if necessary. But what then? At this point I personally think a no lynch is better. We have had some good discussion on Day 1, the investigative roles will have ideas where to look and we can pick this up tomorrow.
Unvote amrussell