[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
Very interesting that amrussell was attacked… I suppose we can probably conclude from that he was telling the truth. Not that it matters, I suppose.
[/QUOTE]
I’d just like to thank Blaster Master for this kind epitaph, which I feel very much sums up my contribution to the game.
Good luck town!
[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
His first vote was to lynch a lurker early on Day One, which to me seems somewhat scummy.
[/QUOTE]
As everyone knows by now, I don’t think voting for lurkers on Day One is scummy. (Note: voting for, not necessarily lynching). I think it is an effective tool to force people to participate. Why do you think it is scummy?
[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
I think, when all is said and done, he had one post of any substance during the Day, which was to tell amrussell that his idea stunk.
[/QUOTE]
Would you agree that having “one post of substance during the Day” is lurking? If so, are you not now voting for DiggitCamera in part because of lurking? So, do you now think you are “somewhat scummy”?
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
So he could still be a Witch, Detective, Vicar, Seer, Coroner? That’s up to one of 7 roles, and you’re voting for him because it’s highly unlikely that he’s one of the minor pro-town roles?
I’m keeping a FOS on you, Zoggie. You too, drain.
[/QUOTE]
It was that PLUS the voting record that jumped out at me. Each one alone wouldn’t be enough. I’d also expect a townie to be more aware of what the various town roles are, but that’s a minor point.
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
As everyone knows by now, I don’t think voting for lurkers on Day One is scummy. (Note: voting for, not necessarily lynching). I think it is an effective tool to force people to participate. Why do you think it is scummy?
Would you agree that having “one post of substance during the Day” is lurking? If so, are you not now voting for DiggitCamera in part because of lurking? So, do you now think you are “somewhat scummy”?
[/QUOTE]
Having one post of substance is not the same as lurking. He had several posts, they just didn’t say much. What he was doing was advocating a vote for someone who had yet to post, on an experienced player who we all know will most likely be dominating the conversation at some point. I think voting for lurkers on Day One is scummy because it could invite a bandwagon, and potentially lynch a major town power role just because a person is AFK. You can’t count your one vote for a lurker in a vacuum, especially in a game in which you only need a plurality to lynch.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
So he could still be a Witch, Detective, Vicar, Seer, Coroner? That’s up to one of 7 roles, and you’re voting for him because it’s highly unlikely that he’s one of the minor pro-town roles?
I’m keeping a FOS on you, Zoggie. You too, drain.
[/QUOTE]
There is logic to it, though. I’m feeling a bit nervous now, now realizing fully how fast the body count is going to pile up, and we need to key in on what we can for scum quick. There are an awful lot of critical Town roles that we need to sniff out the three scum sides, and we can’t afford to be sacrificing too many Town for info… and this does seem a reliable tell that makes Diggit unlikely to be any of the aforementioned town roles.
Also, it could make sense that someone would be most familiar with information about their own side, to a point - we all want to see where we personally fit in with our team.
Does that condemn Diggit? No, but it does put the odds much further in favor that he is scum, because he’s effectively established that he can’t be a significant number of Town roles, plus I believe Coroner has been reliably taken (unless the existing Coroner is a complete fool) so that further narrows it down.
I’ll be looking back on his posting history but I think it’s one of the best leads we’ve gotten today. The immediate FOS on people who keyed in on it, too, concerns me.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
So he could still be a Witch, Detective, Vicar, Seer, Coroner? That’s up to one of 7 roles, and you’re voting for him because it’s highly unlikely that he’s one of the minor pro-town roles?
I’m keeping a FOS on you, Zoggie. You too, drain.
[/QUOTE]
FOS?
Well, it’s all we have so far. I just feel like wouldn’t someone who was majorly Town (Detective, Vicar, Witch, etc.) know more about the specific Town roles? Almost certainly Detective or Coroner would because they have to investigate specific roles. I guess he could be Seer or Witch if we have them. (And yes, the Coroner role has sort of been taken.)
[QUOTE=Drain Bead]
Having one post of substance is not the same as lurking. He had several posts, they just didn’t say much. What he was doing was advocating a vote for someone who had yet to post, on an experienced player who we all know will most likely be dominating the conversation at some point. I think voting for lurkers on Day One is scummy because it could invite a bandwagon, and potentially lynch a major town power role just because a person is AFK. You can’t count your one vote for a lurker in a vacuum, especially in a game in which you only need a plurality to lynch.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree about lurker voting strategy. I personally voted for several lurkers yesterDay, some others joined in, and once the absentees appeared and posted something of substance, the votes disappeared. None were ever in any real danger of being lynched, because they showed up. So I don’t share your concern about bandwagoning. Nevertheless, it’s not much use arguing about it - you go your way, I’ll go mine.
Now, I will say that I agree with you and fluiddruid that **Diggit’s **slip up indicates that he is probably not a Freemason, Scotsman, Vigilante, or Magician. I hesitate to draw any other conclusions than that, though.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
There is one thing: If the person was enchanted by the Witch Doctor, they’ll come back to life, without having revealed their identity. If amrussel was a Witch, or Seer, or even the WD, and claimed freemason in order to give himself some more time to be able to give the town some information (thinking that the scum woulnd’t bother trying to kill a Mason), it would make sense for the coroner to want to hide that information pending the results of ressurection.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with this idea (which I considered for a short time) is that when another Freemason checked him out and found out that amrussell wasn’t a Freemason, he’d have been outed and lynched Day One. And we wouldn’t be very likely to believe a subsequent roleclaim of Witch, Seer, or whatever, even if it were true.
Just a quick note:
I use the term ‘Alignment’ where Pleonast uses the term ‘Side.’
I have given the town sufficient information to confirm my role.
[QUOTE=sachertorte]
Just a quick note:
I use the term ‘Alignment’ where Pleonast uses the term ‘Side.’
I have given the town sufficient information to confirm my role.
[/QUOTE]
Your Role description says you can confirm the Role of each dead Player. Is there a particular reason why you only have amrussell’s Side/Alignment?
(Whenever I read Alignment I keep thinking Chaotic Evil or Lawful Good, etc. :smack: )
[QUOTE=Zoggie]
FOS?
Well, it’s all we have so far. I just feel like wouldn’t someone who was majorly Town (Detective, Vicar, Witch, etc.) know more about the specific Town roles? Almost certainly Detective or Coroner would because they have to investigate specific roles. I guess he could be Seer or Witch if we have them. (And yes, the Coroner role has sort of been taken.)
[/QUOTE]
Finger of Suspicion. It means he’s actively suspicious of you.
Remember that there’s no guarantee that there is only one of a specific role; there could easily be two Coroners, or two Magicians and (say) no Seer. The only ones guaraanteed to exist in multiples are Freemasons (minimum of 2) and Witches "Three exactly) if they are in the game.
FoS to everybody demanding sach to reveal more info.
If sach is telling the truth, revealing more than simply “town” is not necessary.
If he’s lying, we’ll find out soon enough.
Demanding him to reveal more is fishing for information that is much more useful to scum than it is to town.
[QUOTE=Diomedes]
There is one thing: If the person was enchanted by the Witch Doctor, they’ll come back to life, without having revealed their identity. If amrussel was a Witch, or Seer, or even the WD, and claimed freemason in order to give himself some more time to be able to give the town some information (thinking that the scum woulnd’t bother trying to kill a Mason), it would make sense for the coroner to want to hide that information pending the results of ressurection.
[/QUOTE]
I would really hope that no one would consider trying to pull a Winston in this game. Townies should not claim roles that they don’t have; when it comes out that you’re lying nothing will save you. We have enough problems with the scum lying to us.
FWIW, here is a list of **Fretful Porpentine’s ** posts over Day 1 for record.
Post 180 Comment on the game rules and mass role claims.
Post 234 Comment on the Vicar role
Post 245 Comment that we have to have a lynch
Post 283 Is unsure about **OAOW ** and sachertorte, then votes fluiddruid for lack of a better idea
Post 286 Comment on HOS
Post 293 Unvotes fluiddruid now she is posting again
Post 346 Comment on verifying town roles, is willing to consider no-lynch with reservations.
Post 383 Comment on amrussell’s ideas
Post 456 Votes OAOW and provides reason
Here is a list of **OAOW’s ** posts over Day 1 for record.
Post 181 Votes Mhaye over soapbox speech
Post 226 Comment on blessing corpses.
Post 242 Comment role claim and no-lynch
Post 247 Asks for votecount
Post 251 Request for people to vote
Post 267 Comment on his vote for MHaye
Post 269 Comment on sachertorte following his vote.
Post 275 Comments his vote was random, and 3rd vote (sachertorte’s) is start of a bandwagon
Post 284 Comments on his vote and now finds **sachertorte ** and MHaye suspicious
Post 325 Comment on lynching Freemasons as in yes he would cheerfully do it.
Post 328 Comment on claims & counter claiming
Post 331 Comment on voting/unvoting on certain town power roles
Post 335 Comment on claiming
Post 337 Comment on lynch strategy
Post 341 Comment on verifying town roles
Post 359 Comment on multiples of roles
Post 439 Gives of list of possible scum, MHaye, sachertorte, Diomedes, unvotes MHaye, votes sachertorte
Post 441 Comment on tying votes
Post 445 Comment on scum (and factions) voting for each other
Post 447 Unvotes sachertorte (after roleclaim)
Post 453 Comment on lynching strategy
Post 459 Gives reasoning for current actions
Post 481 Roleclaims vigilante
Post 483 Votes **Pygmy Rugger **
I think I have got the lot.
My main reason for collecting all those posts together was sparked off by something **Rysto ** said below.
[QUOTE=Rysto]
I expect this goes without saying but until sachertorte’s claim is validated by Pleonast we can’t use his information. We have no idea whether this information is correct and it’s possible that sachertorte is scum and is trying to lead us wrong for a Day before getting lynched himself. I know that it’s tempting to follow up what could be our first piece of solid information, but we can’t afford to take the chance that sachertorte is scum.
[/QUOTE]
So until sachertorte has had his case proven one way or another, we cannot believe his claim. Fair enough. But you then say that we should not follow up on his information because he could be scum.
This would indicate that you do not think it is worth looking at Fretful’s or OAOW’s posts until we know what side they were on as given by Pleonast. Why would that be the case?
Is it not worth following up on not just their posts, but also on who interacted with them over the course of the day.
Finally, can you explain your thinking in these posts
[QUOTE=Rysto]
Vig is verifiable. Don’t lynch OAOW. Vig, kill OAOW if he’s lying.
At this point don’t have time to lynch anybody else. I hate myself for this, but:
Unvote Idle
Vote no lynch
Explanation for this is pending in my next post, but I wanted to get this out right away.
[/QUOTE]
As far as I can tell your vote for no-lynch was based on the fact you could verify him. How would you be able to verify the Vigilante without getting an investigative town role to claim and prove OAOW’s innocence? What am I missing that would make it possible to verify the Vigilante without harming the town in any way?
[QUOTE=Rysto]
Ok, I know that I’ve very against no lynch all day long, but the only thing worse than a no lynch is lynching a known Townie.
[/QUOTE]
And how did you know he was a known townie??
Some answers please, Rysto.
[QUOTE=One And Only Wanderers]
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.
[/QUOTE]
So then, based on this post, how likely is it that one of the people the OAOW FOSed or voted for is another Cabalist?
[QUOTE=ShadowFacts]
I’m not sure that the more time we have, the more roleclaims we’re going to get.
[/quote]
Seems more likely. I mean say we all get votes in early. Well, someone’s gonna have the most votes, probably..and that being the case, they’ll probably role-claim. What then? Well, everyone then unvotes said player and gives a majority of votes to another. Then THAT one roleclaims and so everyone unvotes and goes onto someone else. Etc, etc…until we have about six or seven roleclaims in the last twenty four hours.
I don’t see why it has to be either vote way in advance or vote at the last minute. Whatever happened to just voting when you feel like it? I don’t agree with always being at either ends of the extreme, both have disadvantages for true Townies, I feel.
I hear and get what you’re saying but I just fear it will lead to the above scenerio much more likely.
I dunno. I’m dubious. I’ve been playing this game Dope style for awhile and I don’t usually see that. Not the one with the most votes, at least. The one with the most votes usually seems to stay a suspect on a lot of people’s lists. I have no cites, though, because I don’t feel like searching through millions of pages of past Mafia games 
but it’s just been what I’ve seem to observe in my history of playing this game
You’re right. I guess I just read your post being a bit more forceful than that. If it wasn’t intended, well, okay.
Anyway, just caught up and, right now, the person I think is the most suspicious is Diomedes although there is some on Diggit. Good catch, Drain Bead.
In this post he seems to make a mistake akin what people are getting on DiggitCamara about. Not knowing much about Town roles are we? And yes, I did read your explaination afterwards but it seems like backpedeling a bit.
Then, here he seems to defend sach some. Well, nothing there too much but in reply number 578, he does so a bit stronger, even giving sach an out/reason.
Then he defends DiggitCamara in this post.
Why are you defending so many people so much?
[QUOTE=Pygmy Rugger]
FoS to everybody demanding sach to reveal more info.
If sach is telling the truth, revealing more than simply “town” is not necessary.
[/quote]
NOT true. Dunno where you get that logic from but sach COULD be lying and be a Cabalist.
Suppose this: Sach is a Cabalist and therefore knows that OAOW is a fellow one. He then marks him as that, amrussell as Town (believing him to really be a Freemason, but NOT SURE), and taking a wild stab at Fretful. Now suppose he (sach) is lucky and Fretful IS a wolf? Then everyone is going to believe him when, in fact, he is really lying.
I think it’s best for the/a coroner to be as specific as they can be regarding what people were when they died. After all, they’re dead. If they stay dead, WHO CARES what their specifc role is? And even if they’re ones who died at Night and are enchanted by the/a Witchdoctor, it doesn’t matter because when they come back to life, they’ll know their killer.
So color me purple (confused 
get it? 
) why you’re thinking this.
Note: I don’t believe or disbelieve sach at this point. I don’t know what to think.
For now, I’m tentatively assuming that either:
sach is legitimate. If he’s lying, then he’s definitely not Town, and there’s too much chance of guessing incorrectly on the alignment/role. For example, if OAOW is a Wolf, then sach has just revealed to both the Wolves and the Cabalists that he’s Undead (with one possible exception - see option 2).
The only other likely and safe explanation is that both sach and OAOW were both Cabalists, which is why sach could accurately nail OAOW’s role. Of course, there’s still the chance that he’s wrong about amrussell and Fretful, which throws us back to option 1 when you add those IDs to the consideration. Especially since Fretful didn’t have any strong scum tells that I saw, and even if sach saw something, how could he be positive it was Wolf scum and not Undead scum?
[QUOTE=CatInASuit]
So until sachertorte has had his case proven one way or another, we cannot believe his claim. Fair enough. But you then say that we should not follow up on his information because he could be scum.
This would indicate that you do not think it is worth looking at Fretful’s or OAOW’s posts until we know what side they were on as given by Pleonast. Why would that be the case?
Is it not worth following up on not just their posts, but also on who interacted with them over the course of the day.
[/quote]
What can we conclude from who they interacted with? We don’t even know their alignment for sure at this point; for all we know, they could be Town. Until we have confirmation of their alignment, we can’t learn a heck of a lot from their posts.
Huh, I thought that I had posted this. It must have come up earlier in the Day. Anyway, Vig is verifiable in that the real Vigilante can kill any false claimants with impunity. It would only fail if there was no Vig(definitely possible, and I didn’t give that enough thought because we didn’t have enough time in between the role-claim and the end of the day, so get your votes in ahead of time, people) or if there were two Vigs(possible but very unlikely IMO).
A verifiable Town claim is as good as a known townie. Now, in retrospect a Vig claim wasn’t quite that good. To be honest, I’m still not sure if I made the right play pushing for a no lynch at the end of yesterday, but I thought that a Vigilante claim was a rather dangerous false claim to be making so I figured OAOW was telling the truth.