My thoughts so far.
On the no-kill.
I was surprised by the no-kill Night. There could be many explanations, but one that needs to be kept in mind (at least until disproved) is that the Mafia might have failed to submit a kill. I’ve seen it nearly happen in the past, and once or twice solo operators have failed to act at Night. So don’t rule it out. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
I’m not surprised that Visorslash survived last Night, as I’d expect the Mafia to kill someone who hasn’t yet had a chance to use their power, and Visorslash (probably) has.
Visorslash is now a confirmed Town. That’s a good thing, because he becomes a thorn in the Mafia’s side. Sooner or later the Mafia will have to try and eliminate him. Until they do, perhaps he could make use of the fact that we can trust him by analysing the cases other players present. Visorslash? What do you think of the cases so far?
Gnarlycharlie’s slip.
Gnarlycharlie gets some heat (and a vote from Texcat) because of [post=15224371]post 299[/post]. Gnarly claims that he was referring to the investigation powers as a whole, and should have written “them” instead of “it.” Texcat, on the other hand, claims that when using “it,” Gnarly is referring back to what Alka Seltzer was referring to; that is, the Cloak of Lies. That is slightly more plausible than confusing “it” and “them” to me, but I don’t think that’s right either. The comment arose from Alka’s response to Gnarly’s suggestion that the investigators look into the voters for Visorslash. I don’t see how Gnarly can leap from there to the Cloak very easily. There is a third possibility, namely that Gnarlycharlie was pondering the timing of the use of his own power. That makes sense of Gnarly’s sudden use of the singular.
Also, as Alka Seltzer points out in 314, the Mafia’s problem re the cloak would be who to use it on, not when to use it. (Among other things, if you defer putting the cloak on the subject, you risk multiple investigations of that subject getting different results, betraying the placing of the Cloak.)
Currently I am inclined to think that Gnarly slipped into thinking about his own power, not the investigations. You might want to take into account that I have a poor track record analysing such “slips” as this – see my vote for Visorslash Yesterday.
Mosier’s claim.
Mosier, in [post=15230661]post 331[/post], claimed to be the Summoner, and to have watched Suburban Plankton, who did nothing. Unfortunately, this seems to me, if true, to be a waste of a Power. The actual result tells us nothing, and the choice of subject would have to be lucky to tell us anything. It might have been better to save the Watcher power for a later Night. Failing that, Visorslash might have been a better choice.
Mosier explains his rationale behind the choice of SP in [post=15233711]post 352[/post]. I have to say I’m a little sceptical of it. I’ve been a Mafia aligned watcher (in a Storyteller game, even), and the biggest problem I had was justifying my choice of subjects in a pro-town way. It smells a little of evasion. Stanislaus makes some good counterpoints in [post=15234846]post 361[/post], particularly the risk involved if Mosier is Mafia and guessed what SP did last Night.
In [post=15231390]post 334[/post], Alka asks when, roughly, Mosier submitted his action. Mosier replies “in between,” which Alka acknowledges but declines to comment until others weigh in. Alka finally explains in [post=15236590]post 368[/post] that he was wondering whether Mosier had seen a suggested Night action potentially targeting Visorslash.
I lean slightly towards Mosier being Mafia, simply because faking that claim is difficult, but a Mafiate Mosier would have to avoid Watching Visorslash.
I want to review one more case before bed.