Yeah, I messed up the miller comment, but the question about fubble was just genuinely asked because I had forgotten.
Vote Kelly - identical reasons to yesterDay.
There’s no certainty at all – but there’s no valid case against him at the moment, and I find it scummy for people to try and make up a case when none exists.
I mentioned that I thought Kelly might be the best choice for a lynch toDay. Both because I thought he had seemed somewhat suspicious in his comments and also because of the way he was saved with late votes yesterDay. I wanted to go back and review his posts, though. Here are all of Kelly’s posts, though I am only commenting on the ones I feel are significant.
The vote on Tengu(who has apparently now changed his username) here does at least have some justification. What we don’t know is if he even considered anything else. This is his only post from Day 1.
This is where he seems to be really reaching for something to vote for. Ender’s post was not all that complicated, and almost everyone uses we when referring to Town. I also don’t understand why the actions of Alka here are considered scummy.
Seems like a valid point, but do we really want to discourage players from voting for players that have not posted much?
I have no problem with self-preservation votes, so I find this a null tell. However, I find his votes weakly justified and combined with the late Day save yesterDay, I am going to
Vote KellyCriterion
you’ve already voted for me. you keep harping on the same stuff. pissed no one else is following your lead? why was my vote worthless on D1? do you also belong to the school where you should vote someone who might actually be lynched? sometimes i vote who i think is scummiest. sometimes i vote to save someone i think is town. i voted Snickers because i found her scummiest. furthermore Visorslash IIRC correctly was a runaway wagon. i couldn’t save him.
as for the deaths of Texcat and Snickers, do you think scum would be so obvious? also you should be experienced enough to know that being a dead townie doesn’t make you right. it just makes your motives honest.
[OOG] my internet is down at home so i have minimal access. hopefully the issue is resolved by the weekend. [/OOG]
I find it hard to believe a scum team would voluntarily forego a NK in order to manufacture an alibi for one of their members. I could see them making the best of a blocked NK after the fact but I can’t see scum going forward with that strategy in mind from the beginning.
The other thing to remember is that Snickers’ power had been used. It’s possible that she was not the intended target either but scum ran afoul of her redirection ability.
Yes I think you’re being obvious and you voted after 1PM. Is it really that hard to follow what that meant? That means your vote could, for all intents and purposes been worthless if Storyteller would have posted a minute before you. Make sense? I can draw pictures 
1pm-5pm can end Day at anytime.
2pm you place the last vote of the Day
Sucks about your internet, after the storms a few weeks back I had to use 3g hotspot… totally lame 
Hey guys–I’m sorry, but I’m totally overwhelmed by Real Life ™ this week. I’m not going to be able to make a productive post until the weekend.
Ok, gotta get a vote in here. I find Suburban Plankton exceptionally hinky for his false “Reeve or Scum” bit here (which, I now see I misquoted as “Ender or Scum” – whoops), and I don’t like his coming after me simply for pointing out the case against Ender was no case at all. Calling bullshit on a bullshit call doesn’t take perfect knowledge, it just means you read the post in question.
But, it’s the one who made the bullshit call in the first place that gets my vote again (and FTR, I can’t stand the idea of being able to multi-vote – what a great way to be able to hide scum-motivated voting):
Vote KellyCriterion
Also, I believe this is where we currently stand, with less than 24 hours to go:
KellyCriterion (3 votes) - Mahaloth (681), MentalGuy (683), Hal Briston (688)
Hal Briston (2 votes) - Stanislaus (667), Suburban Plankton (671)
gnarlycharly (1 vote) - RyJae (639)
RyJae (1 vote) - Mosier (652)
Mahaloth (1 vote) - Stanislaus (667)
Enderw24 (1 vote) - Stanislaus (668)
Suburban’s case on Hal highlights a pattern about his cases. They follow this rubric:
I disagree with your strategy/your case. Therefore, you are scum.
His case against Inner was based on a disagreement about strategy. His case against Kelly is based on a disagreement about whether Ender is being “too helpful” or not.
They’re bad cases. They don’t show why a person is scummy, or they just declare that not seeing eye to eye with Hal makes you scum. It’s the pattern of bad case making that arises when scum have to make cases they know are false.
unvote Mahaloth
unvote Enderw24
Vote Hal Briston.
For the same reasons as yesterday, laid out in [post=15264797]post 596[/post].
In addition to that, I found [post=15286427]post 675[/post] somewhat contradictory. Hal claimed that he didn’t say ‘Kelly was “trying to make [Ender] look bad”,’ then quoted [post=15261875]post 571[/post] where he accused Kelly of “going way out of your (Kelly’s) way to make Ender look bad, for no apparent reason that I can see.”
That quote is saying Kelly was trying very hard to make Ender look bad.
In [post=15286457]post 676[/post] Hal then corrects a mistake, but accuses Kelly of weak reasoning; voting fopr someone saying “we” when meaning Town. The thing is, that’s attributable to inexperience - it’s the sort of analysis that seems plausible and that a relatively new player might rely on. So using it as a plank of a case against a new player isn’t safe - and Hal should know that.
I need to get this down.
After I investigated the Cloak of Lies and found it not in use, I wondered whether any of the Brotherhood would try and muddy the waters by talking about the effects of the cloak on investigations. I thought that, even though the cloak wasn’t in play, if the Brotherhood could make the Town doubt the results of investigations, then they’d have an easier time of it. So I did a search for Cloak and noted the results.
I excluded those posts where the word “Cloak” was included in a quote, but the poster making the quote didn’t say anything new about it.
[post=15190904]Post 37[/post] – Stanislaus mentioned the Cloak en passant in the context of evaluating investigator reports.
[post=15191266]Post 47[/post] – fubbleskag suggests that risk is minimised by simultaeous investigation.
[post=15191564]Post 53[/post] – Stanislaus analysing the benefits of investigations. Notes effects of cloak.
[post=15192100]Post 64[/post] – Inner Stickler comments that the Cloak’s effects persist.
[post=15192625]Post 70[/post] – Alka Seltzer asks if the placement of the Cloak is publically revealed. Reiterated by Hal in [post=15192683]post 72[/post]. Alka states in [post=15192822]post 73[/post] that he’d been thinking of the Death Miller.
[post=15192630]Post 71[/post] – Texcat warns against flagging investigations ahead of time.
[post=15192903]Post 74[/post] – Sinjin notes the effect of the cloak on whether we can confirm Town easily.
[post=15192927]Post 75[/post] – Hal argues for a mass investigation N1 before the cloak is placed. Spots the flaw in 76.
[post=15193055]Post 77[/post] – Enderw24 suggests the cloak might not be in play. Alka Seltzer, conversely, believes the chance is quite high as otherwise the Brotherhood risk an investigation by the Clerk.
[post=15193166]Post 80[/post] – Enderw24 is more worried about lying Brotherhood than the Cloak.
[post=15193823]Post 82[/post] – Snickers thinks the Cloak contributes to a low chance of useful information from the investigators.
[post=15196944]Post ]112[/post] – Mosier thinks the Cloak will be in play.
[post=15202586]Post 143[/post] – Sinjin notes that the Cloak issue will always be with us.
[post=15202619]Post 144[/post] – Stanislaus votes Hal, in part because theorising, including about the Brotherhood tools, is a way to avoid hunting members of the Brotherhood.
[post=15205261]Post 157[/post] – Snickers notes the effect of the cloak on investigation claims as part of a discussion of power use.
[post=15212304]Post 225[/post] – Kelly encourages the investigators to use powers N1 as he thinks that will minimise the effect of the cloak.
[post=15213738]Post 234[/post] – Gnarlycharlie notes that the investigation evaluation problems won’t go away after N1. Repeats the concern in [post=15217777]Post 254[/post].
[post=15220950]Post 282[/post] – Alka Seltzer speculates wildly on whether the Cloak could affect the reveal of Visorslash as Town. Enderw24 rebuts this line of thought in 283. I also note that the Cloak would not have been used at that point in 284.
[post=15223984]Post 298[/post] – Alka Seltzer says that directing investigators isn’t a good idea “while the cloak could be in play.”
[post=15224371]Post 299[/post] – Gnarly suggests that we may never know a good time to use “it”. (Does this refer to the cloak? If so, it’s a slip. On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that there was a best time for the to use the Cloak, and that was N1.) Still, it’s worth a black mark. TexCat flags up the suspicious nature of Gnarly’s word choice in 300. Gnarly explains he meant the investigation.
[post=15228004]Post 309[/post] – Texcat opens D2 voting with a vote for Gnarly based on the apparent slip in 299.
[post=15229578]Post 314[/post]Alka Seltzer points out another weakness in Texcat’s vote; that the problem the Brotherhood face over the cloak is who to use it on, not when.
[post=15229768]Post 315[/post] – Snickers doesn’t think Gnarly’s post 297 is talking about the cloak, but thinks it suggestive anyway because it suggests to her that Gnarly knows the Cloak is in play – ie that he’s .
[post=15230222]Post 324[/post] – Gnarly says he should have written “them.” He also admits to a misunderstanding that the Cloak effect lasted for one Night; if he had been right, it would make sense of “we may never know a good time to use it” from a Mafiate. (On the other hand, surely if Gnarly was a Brother, he’d have been corrected by the others before the end of Night 1?)
[post=15236590]Post 368[/post] – Alka Seltzer reiterates the common belief that the best time to use the Cloak is N1 (if it’s been chosen).
[post=15238543]Post 384[/post] – fubbleskag claims and notes caveat re the use of the cloak of lies.
[post=15241758]Post 452[/post] – Mosier speculates on his power’s interaction with the cloak.
[post=15251122]Post 489[/post] – Alka wouldn’t have investigated Stanislaus.
[post=15257351]Post 541[/post] – Snickers notes gnarlycharlie’s claimed PM doesn’t includes caveats about the Cloak.
[post=15268268]Post 618[/post] – my claim.
After I claimed, the cat was out of the bag, and the Brotherhood would know that they couldn’t keep us stirred up any more (unless they discredit my testimony - but the likely result of that is I’d get lynched, and then flip Town thus showing I was trustworthy after all.)
I’m putting it out because I think we’ve got to the point where we’ll benefit from multiple viewpoints.
I’m gonna try to keep this as brief as possible, but I have a lot of stuff to talk about.
First up, my three top scum reads are:
Alka Seltzer/RyJae & Hal Briston (very strong reads)
Babale (less strong read)
That being said, I believe Hal Briston is closest to being lynched, so I’m going to Vote Hal Briston. I feel very strongly about his scumminess.
Now, let’s actually get into the meat of my cases. I’m going to be linking instead of directly quoting, because I want to cover a lot of ground while remaining readable.
First up, Alka Seltzer/RyJae. This will be the longest section. As I read through the thread as an observer, and again as a player, Alka Seltzer was consistently at the top of my scum list. His cases seemed to be consistently weak, and he does something I think tends to indicate scumminess quite often: expresses suspicion of a player, discussing them for a post, and then voting elsewhere. Post 118 is a great example of this behavior. 428 is another example, and a weak case anyway. There’s a fine line between commenting on the cases of the day, and throwing stuff out while dodging responsibility.
Alka Seltzer was also first to point out gnarly’s “scum slip,” and more often than not I believe that the person pointing out the slip is scum, not the person making the “slip.” Weighing the slip on its own merits, I believe gnarly was actually making a different breed of slip, and might have accidentally outed himself as an investigator. The “we” is ambiguous, but I don’t believe it can be referring to the shroud, which we have MHaye’s report that it isn’t in play anyway.
Ryjae is much less suspicious to me than Alka Seltzer was, but there is one thing troubling me. One of the best things about subbing late into a game is that the previous player who had my role is, for all intents and purposes, a mason I know is 100% truthful. Because I know Tengu’s role, I know he’s town, and I can then scrutinize all of the players he suspected, and all of the players who suspected him. In Tengu’s case, this was less fruitful than I’d like, as he wasn’t terribly prolific. Still, it’s better than coming in blind.
What troubles me is that RyJae hasn’t done this. He’s made a number of cases, but I haven’t seen him ever approach the game from a “you suspected the previous me, and now I know your case was either wrong or scummy.” It’s circumstantial, and it could just be a playstyle thing, but I found Alka Seltzer so suspicious, it pings me that RyJae has (so far) not held anybody accountable for what they’ve said against his previous self.
Lastly, and perhaps least convincingly, we have a number of known townies and my town leans who have suspected or voted for Alka Seltzer. Fubbleskag laid out a pretty good case in 128 and 135. Suburban Plankton, one of my town reads, makes an interesting case in 229. MHaye has a solid rebuttal of one of Alka Seltzer’s cases in 376, where Alka Seltzer has been shown to be reaching to create a case. TexCat votes for Alka in 445 (among others). Tengu, the guy I replaced, votes for him in 515. Mosier, who is most likely town (we’ll find out soon enough!) has made a number of cases. I particularly like Mosier’s reasoning about why scum would select the poison - it’s a gamble unless you know for sure that town won’t have the anti-venom.
There’s a little bit of “standing on the shoulders of giants” here. I basically agree with a lot of cases on Alka Seltzer, and find him quite scummy.
Next, Hal Briston.
For a while, I was going back and forth on Hal Briston, especially in the early days of the game. Stanislaus builds a solid case in 144, but then Hal Briston voted for the no lynch, which is something I think a scum under suspicion wouldn’t do. Then he overreacts to Snickers in 210, leaning me back to scum on him, but then he redeems himself a bit in 245.
What tipped me over, ultimately, was post 255. Hal Briston was suddenly very anti-visorslash lynch all of the sudden, and he could have raised these concerns at any point prior to just before the lynch. For instance, Hal Briston had been active in the days before, when Visorslash was leading the votes. Hal even posts two posts after a vote count, and was active after that. It feels like just too much, too late.
If we hop back to the overreaction in 210 for a second, there’s one more thing I’d like to point out. None of his rebuttals actually work. If you read through Snicker’s case, very little of it seems objectively wrong. If Hal Briston is town, Snickers was just wrong, but I don’t see any attempt by Snickers to actually distort a read, and since Snickers is dead, we know he was honest anyway. But, ignoring that we now know Snicker’s alignment, at the time it still looks like an exceptionally honest case to me. That’s what pings me about Hal’s response - not that he overreacts, but that he overreacts against an honest case, and calls it a “massively well-timed complete shitheap of mischaracterization”. Choie burned me good in the last game by overreacting when I started positing her potential scumminess, so I don’t believe this is something scum wouldn’t do.
Then there are the little things. Hal digs for an investigator in 356. He disagrees with just about everything Stanislaus says about Inner Stickler, but votes for Inner Stickler anyway in 399. Stanislaus calls him out for this in 407, saying much of what I’d have said, and Hal Briston rebuts Stanislaus in 432. The thing is, his rebuttal just doesn’t work, and it makes no sense to me. It doesn’t answer the fundamental question, which is “Was Inner Stickler the most suspicious to you?” Without that, he can dodge his responsibility by voting with Stanislaus.
Plus, as with Alka Seltzer, we have a bunch of known or suspected townies voting for Hal. This is, again, the weakest part of my case, but there’s no reason to discount it. Sadly, my notes don’t include who did what voting when, so I’m working off memory here. I’m gonna tackle a nice fat voting chart after I finish this beast of a post.
Babale’s turn!
There are a couple of things that have pinged me about Babale. He seems awfully lecturey in post 95, which doesn’t jibe with my understanding that he’s new to this game. It strongly feels like he’s speaking to an audience, not working through his thoughts. Lines like “#4 in both lists, for example, require a Townie to act in a pretty anti-Town way. But that’s happened many times, hasn’t it?” feel too theatrical to me. And that feels dishonest, which makes me lean scum.
I also don’t like that he FOSes Visorslash in 109, without actually voting for him. Yeah, he says twice in that post that he won’t be voting, so it’s not terribly surprising that he didn’t vote. But still, he seems to indicate that Visorslash is the only person he views as suspicious at this point, and he points out a lot of suspicious behavior, so it seems odd he wouldn’t vote. Stuff like “It doesn’t give any information, and though Mafia is a game of logic, emotions are involved. It strikes me as poor Town play to alienate a possible fellow Townie by voting for him for no reason whatsoever.” feels too theatrical and lecturey again.
His next post again states that Visorslash is the only person he suspects in 165, which is weird to me because at this point, 9 people have been voted for, and two of them have two or more votes. He doesn’t add anything to the case, and instead seems to be distancing himself a bit from the inevitable town flip when Visorslash is lynched by downplaying his certainty that Visor is scum.
Babale makes one of my least favorite arguments for lynching someone ever in post 200: Whether Visorslash is scum or not, he should be lynched. I really, really hate this reason for lynching folks, and I find it a very scummy rationale for voting someone. I also don’t like his waffling between “If End of Day was now, I’d vote for Visorslash / Now I’m gonna vote for Visorslash” all within the same post.
Babale votes Mosier in 379, and I actually don’t have any issue with this vote, even though it seems to be wrong (as Mosier seems to be town). What bothers me is that when people bring up concerns, Babale dismisses them with a comment that it’s “so very WIFOM that it is completely useless.” He’s missing the crux of the argument that the series of events would have been a very risky move for scum. I suspect he was actually ignoring it on purpose, as it weakens his case.
Anyway, that’s enough for now. I need a break from typing.
Well, nothing like a complete bullcrap pile-on to remind me why I quit playing for a year.
Kelly laid out baseless smudges against two unknown players. This is scummy behavior. I voted (and will continue to vote) for those who demonstrate scummy behavior.
If someone wants to say he was justified in making the smuges, that’s an entirely different arguement. But to try and say I’m calling him scum simply for disagreeing with me is a lie. You’re right – scum have to try and create false cases, and that’s exactly the type of thing Kelly looks to be doing. Trying to say I’m scum for calling him out on it is crap.
Where in the hell do you see a contridiction?? You don’t see a difference between “You’re trying to make him look bad” and “You’re going way out of your way to make him look bad for no apparent reason”?
I’m supposed to be keeping track of who’s a new player when I haven’t played a Mafia game on here since Mutiny on the SS Incorrigible - well over a year ago?
And actually, now that I’ve checked back…
Nowhere in his whopping nine game posts does he say he’s new. So, I should know not to use that as a plank against a player that I didn’t know was new who isn’t new. Yeah, that washes, MHaye.
And now as I go to post this, I see Astral Rejection has a WOW which has a vote for me as well. Don’t have time to read the meat of it now, but it really doesn’t matter. Fuck it – I’m not scum, I’m the Carpenter, but role claims are pretty useless in this game. Back in the morning to address a few last points – but cripes, this has been one seriously badly-voted game.
One minor correction, Texcat was the first to point out the possible slip. As for the rest, I wanted to hit on one objective hard. It’s not much of a playstyle but it is mine 
I will be vindicated when gnarly is dead.
On another attack the most likely scum target look at Mhayes summary on the cloak, that is another strike on the gnarly, one I didn’t even consider. Gnarly said it earlier, and it is true. I am pissed town is not going over the posts he made, this isn’t connect the dots and guess. He straight out used deceit and left trails of scum behind him.
I’m sorry you’re taking this so personally. I still think you’re scum, but if you’re telling the truth, I know it does kinda sting to get destroyed by a bandwagon run amuck. I’ve been there plenty of times, so I totally sympathize with your frustration. 
I do think KellyCriterion has been kinda sketchy, so if you turn up town, I promise to investigate her further.
RyJae, can you explain more clearly what you’re talking about with regards to gnarly and MHaye? I’m not following you.
As an aside, I realize that my case on you is pretty unfair to you, since it’s difficult if not impossible for you to answer for some of the actions of Alka Seltzer. He was just so incredibly scummy to me, even before I was a participant in this game, that I couldn’t let that go.
KellyCriterion is a him. I knew that. It’s the Kelly thing, throws me off every time.
Yes I can if you look at his announcement about the cloak announcement not being in his PM. That is the biggest thing I was speaking of that I missed.
As for the rest, yes, I felt Alka was scummy as well. I only realized he wasn’t scum when storyteller sent the PM. After that I did re-read and realized his posts really where not scummy, if you read them based on knowing he is town. His plan was to attract attention, he succeeded. Why he chose what he did, or didn’t now that has to be completely factual on his reasonings he stated.
The other thing that I can bring up in my/our defense is his post saying he was looking to sub out, wasn’t that due to lack of participation? Why would he as scum care? Alka is still posting on the boards.
I am town, I shared everything I have information wise (both my entrance PM and my poison PM).
I am going to be travelling tomorrow, so probably will not have internet access at End-of-Day. It looks like Hal is going to be the lynch. While I prefer Kelly for the lynch toDay, I don’t really have a problem with Hal being lynched.
I went back and looked at all of Gnarly’s posts after I read this. I still think he is less likely to be scum than Kelly, Hal, or Babale. Yes, he made a slip (that I originally read as indicating scum), but it does have a plausible explanation. I disagree with some of his reasoning, but I haven’t found it scummy. I also think that if he were scum, it would probably not even occurred to him to claim to investigate the same person as fubbleskag. Also, while he used a bit of deceit, he was open about it. If he were scum, it would have been simple enough to have claimed to investigate someone else.
I wanted to look more closely at this and figure out if this statement was being needlessly antagonistic and hypocritical. How did Hal vote during this game? Who voted for Hal up to this point?
So I went back through the thread and looked. Apologies if I missed anything, I searched by “vote c” for vote count.
Day 1: Stanislaus, fub and then ultimately Snickers voted for Hal
Hal’s vote: no lynch
Day 2 No one voted for Hal
Hal’s vote was for Inner, then gnarly
Day 3: Suburban and Mental Guy voted with for Hal with first voting and then Babale taking his vote away.
Hal’s vote is for Snickers first, then Kelly
OK so I started with Day 1 and it seemed pretty damning up front. Two confirmed town and one suspected town vote for him and his vote is for no lynch? Yeah.
But Day two suddenly no one pings to him and Hal’s vote is for two non-confirmed people.
Day three, at one point he had up to 3 votes by three entirely different people from Day 1 and nobody on that list is confirmed Town. Hal’s vote is for one town, switching to someone not confirmed to be Town.
So here’s the thing for me, I’m trying to look at the voting record objectively both for and against Hal, hoping to either come to a conclusion or come to a generalization. I can’t on either. It’s just all over the map this entire game. So right now I don’t have enough belief in a vote for Hal to make it at this time.
Sigh…I tried to drop the hint on Day One:
Why the hell everyone was so sure everything was out in the open is beyond me, especially when storyteller clearly stated that may not be the case:
Well, guess what? It isn’t the case. We have at least one hidden element (and probably more) – me:
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
I have bad news.
You’ve been erased.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is, you get to find out one of the hidden elements of the game. And you still get to play!
Yes, the Carpenter is no more. He’s been written out of the story, his pages scribbled away and replaced with your story. Which is interesting, because all of this is your story.
Welcome to the game; you are Geoffrey Chaucer
[indent]All of this is your creation. No one is quite sure if you had finished your story. After all, the Tales people now know are built off of 83 manuscripts and put together in order as they think you intended, but no one is quite certain. No one, except you. And you were most certainly not done with the tale. All that remains is to see if you have written yourself into the true ending of the story.
You are a third-party Survivor. Your win condition is simply to be alive at the end of the game. If town wins, you win with town. If scum wins, you win with scum. But this doesn’t mean you’re powerless. This is a world of your creation, and you may use your archaic prose to change things to your liking.
You may act any Night that you wish. You may choose as your action the power of any dead player who has not already used his or her power, though (like the player in question) you may use each power only once. So, for example, if the Man of Law dies on Day One, you may investigate a player on Night One. You may not subsequently investigate anyone, but if (for example) the Reeve dies on Night One without having used his/her power, you may use the Reeve’s investigation on Night Two (or thereafter). If a Scum player dies, you may not use his or her original Town ability.
You have one ability accessible to you from the outset:
- On any two nights, you may edit your manuscript, writing someone out of the game (i.e., killing them). However, be aware that the color of the kill will clearly distinguish your kill from all of the known methods of killing in the game. You cannot kill the Seraph. Your kill can be blocked or protected against as if it were a standard Scum kill.
You will note that investigations always deliver a Scum/not-Scum response. Thus they will not reveal your identity. However, if you happen to be investigated while under the influence of the Canon’s potion of True Sight, your true alignment will be revealed to the investigator.
[/QUOTE]
So, there it is – I was given a role I’ve always wanted to try (Survivor), and people have used some of the most nonsensical reasoning I’ve ever seen in a Mafia game to railroad me. So, yeah, I’m pissed/bummed about it.
I’m definitely going to work under the theory that this is a fair number of scum on my bandwagon, since there is absolutely zero good reason to be going after me. Every bit of it has been well-defended, and that defence has been frustratingly ignored and/or deliberately misinterpreted.
So, fuck it – I’m not town, but I’m not scum either. I was definitely playing this one to ride with town.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t use either of my kills, and never got a chance to use my power (the Miller is the only one available to me at the moment anyway).
Also note: story said that I “get to find out one of the hidden elements of the game” (bolding mine) So I’m thinking there’s a good chance someone else here isn’t who they seem to be – perhaps someone with a more malevolent goal.
Hopefully day lasts long enough for someone who has an actual case against them to take the lead…