i was referring to the investigation. we’ll likely won’t know when it will be a good time to use it.
why don’t you just come out and say that i might have posted in the wrong place? nice smudge there.
Due to unusual circumstances, Dawn is postponed until tomorrow morning. Management apologizes for the delay.
Dawn, Day Two
“Well, that was unexpected,” the Poet said.
No one died during Night One.
Day Two begins here, and will end between 1 and 5 PM Eastern on Thursday, July 5. Night results will be forthcoming in the next few minutes for anyone who has Night results due them.
And we’re off to a flyer!
Can I suggest that if anybody does have any results from last Night that they want to share toDay, that they hold their fire until discussion is well underway? If Scum know from the beginning that that a given player has a “investigated as Town”, “investigated as Scum”, “was seen last Night” label attached, they’ll behave accordingly. If that label gets attached once they’ve already interacted with said player, the response will be much more telling.
We might need to revisit the idea someone posted earlier that scum are likely to be experienced players. I don’t see any benefit at all for scum to skip night one.
I am guessing that there was a successful protection or role-block last night.
i can’t argue with that.
Now that’s a nice way to start a game. As much as I like the intricate color storyteller provides, I’ll happily take a boring morning post in trade for no kills.
vote: gnarlycharlie
Is it still a smudge if I vote? **The IT that could be used in Alka’s statement was the cloak. ** If you were refering to whether the investigations should be USED or not, I think you would have said “when it will be a good time to use THEM.” But Alka Seltzer wasn’t even talking about when or whether to investigate, he was talking about DIRECTING the investigators. Yeah, I gotta say it looks like you posted on the wrong board, and I have to say that looks bad for Alka Seltzer as well.
well this isn’t the first time you’re wrong about me. :rolleyes:
makes sense to me.
maybe they’ve convinced themselves that they can no-night-kill their way to a stalemate. 
this is way too hasty. gnarly’s comment could very easily have been an honest mistake as townie and without any prior suspicions, this is a very weak vote - especially considering how Day 1 played out. upon review, not only have you not voiced any suspicions of him, neither has anyone else so far. if we’re going to make up scenarios on behalf other players to suit our needs, what’s to stop me for suggesting that your vote is simply an attempt to cover up the smudge you were correctly called out on?
let’s assume for the moment that this was, in fact, a scum slip-up; can you explain how this implicates Alka?
The alternative is that Scum used poison on visorslash. If so, **visor **will automatically be informed, as the Physician is still alive. If he is, the next questions will be: “Is the Physician Town?” and “Did they pack the antivenom?”
Failing that, the most likely explanation is that Scum went for the high value target of confirmed town visor at the same time as one or more protective role(s) followed the same logic. Less likely is that Scum decided that **visor **would be too obvious a target, that protector(s) anticipated this - and both landed on the same non-visor target.
There are other less likely possibilities, but I doubt it’s worth going into them now.
Assuming that visor was protected, I would strongly suggest that the person or people responsible don’t claim at this point. Three reasons: 1) A Scum protective role could false-claim to win town cred; 2) Scum already know better than us how many pro-Town protective roles we started with - no need to let them know how many have been used. 3) Removing people from the “potentially still Power role” pool makes life easier for the Scum.
I don’t think gnarly’s “slip” is actually a slip.
I really doubt TexCat would have initiated the no-lynch discussion as Scum. (I know “Scum wouldn’t do that, unless they would” but drawing attention with a radical plan on Day One is so unnecessarily risky.)
Two quotes from Suburban Plankton** that disturb me:
- Backing away from his **visorslash **vote even before we get the result:
- Very defensive when called on it by sinjin.
**
vote Suburban Plankton
**
I don’t see anything in the rules that states the scum are limited to the use of one tool per night. It just says they can be used by any member of the brotherhood. If that’s correct, they’d have no reason to use poison and forego use of a knife.
This argument doesn’t hold up. The only sensible time for scum to use the cloak would be on night one, before the investigators act. gnarlycharlie’s post is odd and doesn’t address my point, but “we may never know a good time to use it” makes no sense if he is referring to the cloak.The dilemma for scum is choosing a good target for the cloak.
Apologies for not being around more N1 - weekend, you know. Damn that real life stuff!
I’m not altogether behind the idea that scum would’ve targeted Visor last night. No, it’s not 100%, but I think that most signs point to Visor being the Pardoner. If so, he’s a vanilla townie at this point, and I think scum would rather knock off a power with their night kill. However, the chance that both a protector and the scum landed on the same target is pretty low, as Stanislaus mentions, so that’s a bit troubling. And I agree with Mosier; I doubt they’d skip a chance to make a kill.
I do rather like Stanislaus’s idea of holding off on any investigator reveals until later toDay.
Mosier’s “Note that I never voted for you” in post 272 pings me, but it’s really minor. MHaye’s late vote also pings me a little. He states that he didn’t find anything on a read-through, and then votes for the leading lynch candidate. But he also admits it’s weak. And it’s also D1, the hardest day to get a read anyway. I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
SP’s reasoning in post 288 seems weird. Maybe he’s just thinking out loud, but he clearly states how Visor’s play went down and shows why it’s a good thing for town, then immediately says that it seems wrong to him. But I have to admit my own personal bias here: I think Visor’s play was brillant, myself. I doubt I’da played it that way either, but that’s because I suck out loud and never would’ve thought to do that.
gnarlycharlie’s post 297 kind of pings me. I tend to agree that his cloak comment isn’t a slip, but I do find it interesting that someone who voted very late in the day D1 but not for the lynch leader (full disclosure: he voted for me) suggests investigating that wagon. However, I totally agree that there’s probably scum on that wagon myself. And too, in his case against me, he brings up points that I’d thought I’d explained my reasoning behind or had stipulated to previously (but probably not very well). I don’t know that I agree with his last sentence there, that earlier investigations are more likely to reveal true results, and it also seems in it that he knows the cloak is in play. Put this all together, and it just seems like scum trying to hide, IMO.
Right now, my biggest suspicions are on MentalGuy and gnarlycharlie.
- I didn’t back away from anything. I pointed out that my initial vote on **Visorslash **was based on a relatively thin lead, that I expected at the time that I would probably reconsider later in the Day, but that his continued absence had changed my mind and left me more convinced of his guilt. Sure, I was wrong, but I backed away from nothing. If anything, I reinforced my initial feelings.
- Defensive? Not really. My problem with **sinjin’s **post was not *that *he pointed out the flaws in several of the arguments against Visorslash, it was the way he did it. “Sorry I wasn’t around, but here’s where you guys all screwed up” just rubbed me the wrong way. In retrospect I can see where my tone was a bit harsh, but I don’t get defensive. I’ve made way too many bad votes to start worrying about them now.
In other news…
I can’t imagine the Scum forgoing their Kill. I know it’s often talked about as a possible strategy move, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it. So it would seem that one of our Protectors or one of our Roleblockers got lucky. I agree with **Stanislaus **that there’s no reason for anyone to claim responsibility at this point. The less the Scum know about the abilities still in play, the better.
I’m back from vacation. Huzzah.
Interesting non-turn of events. There are three possibilities on what happened that immediately occur to me, though they’ve already been brought up by previous posters.
What I find really interesting is how on D1, everyone was telling all three investigators “for God’s sake, investigate on N1!”
Now D2 dawns and the build up seems to be “For God’s sakes investigators, don’t tell anyone about your investigations on N1!”
Minor correction: If **Visorslash **(or anyone else) was poisoned, it will be The Physician who will be notified.
I don’t think much of **Texcat’s **vote on gnarly. Yes, gnarly’s use of the word “it” was inappropriate, but a ‘grammar slip’ is I think more likely here than a ‘Scum slip’. And I think the idea that he posted on the wrong board is extremely unlikely, since he quoted Alka Seltzer in his post. That feature doesn’t work across message boards.
I think there may be no scum amongst the Visor voters. Zero scum on that wagon. Visor seemed to go out of his way to look suspicious, not defend himself, and disappear. Of course, the scum know that he’s town, and it looks like he’s the overwhelming favorite for lynching. They don’t need to be on that wagon; they can take the opportunity to vote for each other safely or throw some suspicions elsewhere.
By my count, 8 (out of 19) people voted for Visorslash, so yes; it’s probable that some of them were Scum. But there’s nothing unusual about that; there’s almost always at least one or two Scum on a Day 1 lynch it seems. In any case, it’s not a rare occurrence. The question that **gnarly’s **comment inspires is: Is it better to hunt for Scum on the Visorslash bandwagon, or off of it?
Excluding Visorslash himself, there are 18 players in this game. Seven of them voted to lynch him (since he also voted for himself), so that’s 39% of the Town that were on the wagon. So it seems that if there were two or more Scum on the Visorslash bandwagon, then we’d have better luck hunting for Scum there; if there was only one, then our odds are better hunting in the rest of the Town.
I would agree that “There were probably Scum on the wagon, so we should try to find them there” is an ‘obvious’ strategy, whether right or wrong in this instance, so it’s not unlikely that a townie would suggest it. On the other hand, scum would know exactly what the chances were of an Investigator finding Scum on that bandwagon, so I could certainly see them attempting to steer the Town in that direction if it were to their advantage.
I’m not calling out gnarly as Scum at this point, but it is something to think about. I will freely admit that I am always suspicious of anyone who attempts to direct Town powers, so I can’t claim to be entirely objective in the matter.