Well, there is a way to know how many charges there are, but it requires more transfers, which probably isn’t a viable option.
We need to come up with a consensus on who to lynch. Having a lynch victim at two or three votes is just asking the scum to pick the target.
I’m not sure what metric you are using to count posts, but as far as I can tell, it’s totally wrong. (What? You thought I wouldn’t check?) My count at the end of Turn One has:
And this was the most generous counting I could do for you (I sometime combines posts that are on the same topic so as not to pad counts, but I didn’t do that for you, so there would be no cries of manipulation). Of course, lurking is not just about post counts, either, it’s about content as well.
Could you possibly explain your opinion to me, then, as I’ve been repeatedly asking, instead of being slippery? What exactly was the slip? How was it egregious? Please convince me instead of rolling your eyes - maybe I’m wrong. It’s been known to happen.
(No worries on the rolleyes, please also don’t take my constant hounding of you personally either :D)
Agreed. Three hours to go.
I think this game is defunct.
That depends on the item.
For example, an attempt to read the alignment of the possessor of an Amulet of Magic Resistance burns one charge from the Amulet, whether or not he attempt is successful. I think that’s the sort of tactic Sach is suggesting. If he is, I tend to agree; each charge Zsofia burns is one less to contend with in the late game.
I haven’t yet seen a situation develop that would make using my class power beneficial, so I’m unlikely to use it this Turn. One thing that hasn’t been addressed is, who is going to pick up the Amulet of Healing? It’s another way of trying to break the curse - too late for TDPats, but I don’t believe it should go unused in future Turns.
I still don’t understand how her power would do this.
Where is it stated that if she determines alignment it burns a charge from that character’s magic item? I can’t find that anywhere. 
Protocol would check lawful/chaotic. The helm of empathy would burn a charge on it (5/6 chance of activating) regardless of whether protocol made it’s roll (3/6).
At least that’s my understanding.
My bad, I did a lot of posting on turn one and I know at one point I was 2nd behind Sach. Of course if you are only counting substative posts, then that is a little more subjective. I thought that was more toward the end of the day, that I saw that post but I guess not. I apologize.
I haven’t been trying to be slippery. I’m just very bad at quantifying that type of thing. It was more egregious to me. Maybe I should have stated it like that. He called both Boozy and storyteller townies. Only scum would know if they are townies or not. To me it was egregious. That’s all I can tell you. If you aren’t convinced by the slip itself, I can’t convince you.
It’s a join-the-dots question.
Zsofia is a paladin. A paladin has the following Turn power.
So, it’s a magical ability (abilities are physical or magical; each one will say what it is.)
The Amulet of Magic Resistance works like this :
So, if Zsofia attempts to detect the alignment of the Amulet’s wearer, the Amulet goes “Aha! Incoming magical ability! I will burn a charge to reduce the chance that it works.!”
The Helm of Empathy is a little different; it only burns a charge if it successfully distorts the incoming divination. If Zsofia gets a return that is the same as her own ethical alignment, she can’t know if it’s due to a success or the helm; if she gets no answer or the opposite alignment she knows the Helm failed.
One thing to note in favour of Zsofia’s chosen action; she’s a Dwarf, thus Physical actions have a higher chance of success, and Watching is a physical action so her Dwarvishness improves her success chance when Watching.
Since everybody else seems to understand this, I’m just going to assume it’s my ignorance of this type of gaming that has me stymied.
So as I’m about to be an ex-participant, I got to thinking about why the scum chose to Curse me. As sach pointed out, there doesn’t seem to be much benefit (especially in the long term) to doing so. So pondering the short term benefits, who wins?
Scum, obviously, win a little because I’m lawful and more inclined to teamplay than a chaotic. But the biggest winner, I think, is storyteller. He claimed he had one of the most anti-town items in the game, then, in a pro-town move, gave it to me. I will rather shortly be confirmed town, and this will make story look very good.
Another question is why the scum didn’t just kill off the investigators. Provided both of them aren’t scum, they might have guessed there would be some protections going on, given the open setup. So it makes sense that they might try to gain some early town cred for one of their own, quickly kill me off to confirm it, then after that - potentially start dropping the investigators. No one else is really linked with me, my powers would be better suited to a Chaotic Good or Evil alignment, and the Helm of Empathy now that we know about it isn’t nearly as dangerous.
With all of that in mind, I’m going to
vote storyteller
because in my mind he benefits most from my being Cursed, and that is potentially part of a scum play to get early town cred.
Meeting now. Should be back before 3PM, but you never know.
Note: I will once again not be around for the final hour of this Turn (hour and a half, actually). I’m in work meetings from 1:30 - 4pm Eastern. Unless something really compelling happens in the next 20 minutes or so, I will be leaving my vote on Hockey Monkey and hope that others come around to my way of thinking.
<sigh> It would appear that I have two votes, which in this vote-deprived environment could well be sufficient to cause me to be disintegrated. I don’t want to be disintegrated, because it would advance an Evil win, so I’m going to present as much of a defense as I can muster. It may be a bit deflated, because: (1) I’m really sick, and when I’m sick I don’t sleep, and when I don’t sleep I become incoherent; and (2) while I’m good, I am Lawful - so I can win even if you disintegrate me - and I am basically useless role-wise - my primary power is utterly valueless to a pro-Town player, such that I am certain I will never use it, and the killing thing is really only valuable if we find a sure bet.
With these things in mind:
So a few things: I am sometimes insulted at the lame-ass plans people try to attribute me as Scum. Doing what you say to earn “pro-Town credit” would have been less than worthless; no one gives “pro-Town credit” in these games for anything anymore. Second, the quality of your argument is undermined somewhat by the fact that I, specifically argued that the Curse on you be lifted. I still think it should be (see below). If I wanted you dead, why would I do this?
Well, if one of the investigators is Scum, then cursing the other would have been hufely problematic. The Uncursed (in this scenario, Scummy) Cleric would have been compelled to lift the Curse or be lynched himself, and the now Uncursed Cleric would get to live at least two more Turns, but now as Confirmed Town. If one of the Clerics is Scum and the other is not, the failure to go after one or the other is perfectly logical.
Of course, if both Clerics are Scum, Cursing either wouldn’t be an option.
And if neither is Scum, well, leaving them alive - particularly since both are limited investigators whose powers won’t always work - will eventually generate suspicion, right? Sooner or later we’re going to assume that one of them is Scum, and that’s why no one’s gone after them, and BAM, we waste a mislynch - maybe even a double mislynch! - on our investigators.
All of which adds up to: this is the problem with an argument like yours, which is based entirely on one possible interpretation of an action that you cannot possibly interpret. Trying to guess at the motivations of Scum actions, and then use that guess to guide your voting decisions, is a strategy that’s doomed to failure in the long run, because you’re (generic “you’re”) going to guess poorly far more often than not.
sach next.
Oh, I forgot to add the “see below”:
Utterly independent of my own situation, I still am not totally sure why we wouldn’t want to lift the Curse on tdpatriots. There is a nonzero possibility that we are, right now this moment, at lynch-or-lose (if tdpats dies). Letting him die, we risk losing the game at the end of this Turn, with a greater chance of going to lylo in Turn 3. All this to save a power for some unspecified future point, assuming the folks who have the power even stay alive that long?
I don’t get it.
Hockey is coming off as a stubborn townie to me. While she is wrong about me, it doesn’t necessarily mean she is scum. We have very little to go on here, so a perceived slip is a justifiable reason to maintain a vote.
I find the case against Story by TDpats to me more credible. Story is always a big believer in looking as townie as possible when playing scum. I also trust Tdpats judgment more than anyone else, since I believe he is more likely to be town than anyone else. Note: I don’t “know” he is town, but I am more confident he is than our other compadres. I can’t quite get my head around this game, so, in part, I’m defaulting to find the player you think is most likely to be town and voting with him
vote Storyteller
apparantly should have waited a few minutes before posting. Now to read the defense.
Already addressed. I’ve been falling-down sick for two Days, missed the lynch in my other current game as well, and was a very active participant during Turn One.
Of course. I have never asked for credit for my action, and recognize that I shouldn’t get it. I just want it on the record
Ah, that old “getting mad at sachertorte” feeling. How I’ve missed you! 
sach, you and I play this game differently. We look for dramatically different things. Your way works for you, and my way works for me. My case is not “crappy” because you don’t like it.
But of greater concern is the fact that my case against sinjin is not, in fact, what you claim it is. Here is what you said was my case:
Now. In my voting post (#216), I criticized Chucara - not sinjin, by the way - for voting for sach and harping on sach and so on. I also criticized Chucara for a specific passage which read to me as Scummy waffling (read my voting post if you’re interested), and sinjin for misrepresenting sachertorte’s arguments (as I saw it and still see it).
Finally, I proposed a theory, which was that whether sachertorte is Town or Scum, that those leaping quickly on a “slip” have a better-than-average chance of being Scum. My actual words were:
At which point, I voted for both people who had voted for sach on the basis of the “slip.”
So here’s the thing. I’m happy to discuss my reasoning further, and have no problem if others don’t agree with it. However, I would like to say that my argument is not as it was just represented by sachertorte, in many ways (my primary argument in the post was against Chucara, not sinjin, and I did not vote for anyone simply because they expressed suspicion of sach, as sach attempts to claim).
This misrepresentation is a cause for deep concern in my mind.
What is wrong with scrutiny? I want to scrutinize everyone.
In general, I would warn against this. I understand the temptation, but following such a policy gives Scum an easy escape to vote with someone who is most definitely Town and absolve ones-self of responsibility.
Also, I’m surprised people are following me on the storyteller line-of-thought. That’s refreshing.
I think we have a Tie.
I don’t think we should disintegrate more than one person this Turn.