There you go putting words in my mouth again - truly a scummy trait. I claimed that I didn’t point the finger at anyone and everyone like you said I did.
Vote Diomedes based on his dogging faithfool, especially since he’s re-voting her toDay without any new reasons. Wouldn’t she have made other slips by now if she was that bad at keeping it secret?
I agree with storyteller’s assessment of the game setup. We get one ‘free’ no-lynch.
I think brewha is scum, so my preference would be to lynch brewha, but storyteller is correct, we can no-lynch once without negative effects. However, using the no-lynch today prevents us from using it again. I also agree that we should avoid a hasty lynch, but again, we need to weigh whether or not we think brewha is scum. I think he is, so I’m pro-lynch-Today. If the rest of the town feels differently, then no-lynch is the correct alternative.
I find the late disagreement with the case against brewha… late. I posted my case against brewha on Thursday morning, and only now are we getting feedback lightly refuting it. I also find the position strange since even brewha acknowledged that my suspicion of him makes sense.
Wait a second, is this Day only 4 days long?
Day 3 Started Wednesday Morning (2 January). Today (Sunday) is the 6th. That’s four days, not five.
Essentially, my mind is wandering into the area of wondering if the late “hey what’s up with the brewha pile-on?” a matter of scum defending scum or scum defending town. I suppose I’m being hypocritical again, as I would much prefer the opinions be stated, even late, than not stated at all. However, I keep coming back to the conclusion I came to in The Conspiracy, that the optimal way to play scum is to sit back and merely comment on other peoples’ opinions* rather than put forth any of ones own. We should revisit this theme Tomorrow, but the core of my thought is that there aren’t enough votes to lynch brewha so regardless of brewha’s alignment scum won’t vote for brewha at this stage because 1) it would be a risky bandwagon to dump their votes on him in an attempt to lynch an innocent brewha (a lynch that might not even happen), and 2) they won’t vote for a scummy brewha because they see the opportunity to not have to kill a teammate. This line of thought needs more thinking, but I don’t have time right now, especially if the Day really is ending in an hour.
*To be fair, Kat was responding to direct questioning (from me) regarding brewha, so I could be barking up the wrong tree, but Kat isn’t the only one who has reacted to the brewha situation in such a fashion.
More end of day thoughts:
I thought about the faithfool situation. Hal Briston reminded us of storyteller’s argument that the game design pretty much precludes faithfool from being scum. Giving Hal Briston a scum dossier just doesn’t make sense. While I’m still baffled that faithfool would self vote, the game circumstances indicate Towniness. Therefore I withdraw my support of a faithfool lynch.
On a similar note, I’ll restate that I believe Hal Briston’s claim of dossier-knower. From the start of the game I equated 7% with a pro-town secret role. Until evidence of some other 7% mechanism or other secret role are demonstrated, I believe Hal Briston.
I believe either Pleo or Diomedes are scum (mostly a gut feeling based on them declaring dossiers before the town decided what to do), so I’m certainly up for listening to a case against one. I haven’t really seen much of a case yet. Can you recap your case against Dio at some point (not necessarily today)?
I disagree with this point, mostly because I strongly agree with Hockey Monkey. As I interpret, Hockey Monkey did not say Faithfool shouldn’t vote for Diomedes. Rather she wanted Faithfool to defend here choice. If you can’t defend your vote and convince others to join you, then that vote isn’t really any more useful then a non vote. I didn’t think these actions were antitown, rather a push to get the town somewhere. She wasn’t defended Dio, but rather wanted to hear the case. So do I.
I concur that we do get one free no lynch. So the question becomes whether this is the best time to use it. I’m not convinced we will be any more prepared in future days and another no lynch will kill us. I prefer to keep it as a fall back option.
See, this is why I am an idiot. You are right, you guys should have until tomorrow morning. No excuse this time, I just wasn’t paying close enough attention.
What time does the day end?
Kinda quite around here…
Is the Day not over yet? Excellent, that gives me a chance to opionate and vote.
I’m suspicious of faithfool and Hal Briston for reasons I previously outlined. I’m beginning to think that they are a nice little self-“confirming” scum cell. I don’t buy Hal’s claimed special knowledge. I still think the source of the traits is the secret.
I am not especially suspicious about Diomedes. He’s using one of my favorite tactics: find someone suspicious and latch on like a bulldog. The best protection we can get it is determinedly throwing suspicious at Scum. They don’t like killing someone who’s definitely pointing to Scum. The fact that he’s been on faith the whole game and still alive strengthens my belief that faith is, in fact, Scum. And Dio is either a clever Scum or a Townie with a good sense of smell.
The bandwagon piling up on brewha seems to me to be Townies attacking the most vocal player. (And probably a few Scum “helpfully” pushing.) Having been in that position, I find myself reticent to follow.
Revealing our Dossiers was to me so obviously a pro-Town move, I felt unilaterally stating mine was the best course of action. And, as it turns out, the Town ended up following me. If you think leading the Town in a pro-Town direction is scummy, then you need to re-adjust your scumdar.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, overall, I’m happy to vote for faith or Hal. I’ll go with
vote faithfool
You’ve said this quite a bit, and I don’t understand on what basis you think this. I mean, as far as I can tell, I could say, “I think that mtgman’s favorite alcoholic beverage is the secret,” and have exactly as much evidence supporting my opinion as you do for this one. Because you’re using this opinion as the basis for believing that not one, but two, players are scum, I really think it would be helpful if you’d elaborate a bit more on this.
Because here’s the thing. Suppose you are right. Suppose “the source of the traits is the secret,” which I don’t even understand as a concept. It’s not a secret if it’s publically available information. But suppose you are right.
Still, there’s no way to have known that. The possibility that “the secret” was a hidden power role was very strong as we began the game. Beginning the game, Hal would have had no way of knowing whether or not there was a secret power role. So if he is scum and making the whole thing up, then he decided at the outset to craft a lie to protect fellow scum - a lie that, if anyone else were in possession of the actual secret, would have exposed him and probably her, too. I don’t buy it. There would have been no reason for scum to concoct such an incredibly risky plan on the first Day.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t always work, because once you’ve “latched on like a bulldog,” you stop objectively trying to determine if your target is scum and start trying to get them lynched. Behaving like that - trying to force an outcome - makes it very hard to distinguish our “bulldog” from scum. People who practice the “bulldog” approach, I’ve found, often dismiss evidence not supporting their pet theory (no pun intended), and twist other evidence, because they convince themselves they are right and start reading the facts in a funny way.
In short, if Diomedes, and frankly, you, are not scum, then you’re both behaving as if you are.
This is completely faulty logic. Scum have cheerfully killed people who are pointing to scum. Further, no non-scum player should care much about getting “protection.” None of us is more valuable than any other. Why should Dio, or you, be concerned about being protected, let alone care so much that you make a show of “determinedly throwing suspicions” in an effort to get them to leave you alone? Maybe to create a nice little self-fulfilling explanation of why you aren’t dead?
Here I agree, although the fact that brewha has been the most vocal player does not by any means indicate that he is (or is not) scummy.
With all the confusion over the time the Day ends, I’m afraid I need a reminder.
Can I get a definitive time for the day to end and a vote count please?
Well I am glad to see you all used the extra day to rest up for the Night.
Let’s let you take a look at a vote count. The Day ends in one hour.
5 - brewha (sach, HockeyMonkey, Hawkeyeop, faithfool, Rysto)
2 - Diomedes (faithfool, kat)
2 - faithfool (zuma, Pleo)
2 - Kat (brewha, Hal Briston)
1 - Hawkeyeop (Dio)
It takes 7 votes on one player to make a lynch happen. 12 oout of 14 votes have been cast.
I disbelieve Hal because of the stated flavor of this game is “no power roles”. Special knowledge violates this. I don’t think anyone has any special abilities or knowledge. Thus the lack of a counter-claim. I keep harping about it, because I think we’re giving Hal, and by extension faith, a free ride.
Finding all the Dossier traits in mostly one other thread was completely non-obvious to me. I would have gone the whole game without discovering it. But Hal’s claim is a lot less risky if he already knows that fact. He wouldn’t expect a counter-claim, because a simple reading of the rules says there are no power roles. His claim strikes me as a hasty plan to save a foundering newbie Scum. And considering how completely most of us seem to be accepting his claim, his gamble was well worth it.
I agree that the bulldog approach isn’t a great one, but in my experience, it’s mostly Townies who’ve used it in the past. It doesn’t give Dio a pass; I’m only stating why I don’t find arguments against him convincing. We’re trying to avoid lynching Townies, remember.
And you’ve fallen into the trap of calling reasoning you disagree with scummy. We’re looking for scum, not people who think differently.
Yes, Scum sometimes do the exact opposite of what we expect. However, you must admit that A constantly voting for B and then A waking up dead does put a lot of suspicion on B. Yes, the suspicion may be ill-founded, but it is there. I will be amazed if Scum aren’t taking such things into account.
I agree. I don’t know the alignment of brewha, but I’m not going to vote for him under the present conditions.
I got your vote count right here. In my last post.
Again, sorry sorry sorry about forgetting how to count. Starting the work week on a Wednesday really messed with my internal clock.
Arright…I’m not fully convinced, but “not fully convinced” is better than “shooting in the dark”.
unvote Kat
vote brewha
Bonus FOS on Hockey Monkey for the repeated baseless slagging.
And I will now immediately eat those words.
unvote faithfool
vote brewha
Given that the Day is going to end very soon and there is no consensus to postpone the lynch, a lynch is better than none. And it looks like brewha is our only “viable” choice. Here’s hoping you guys are right.
Back to remedial math for you! 
A majority of 14 players means 8.
NAF, your vote count seems off. I have one vote on me, but it is Brewha not Dio. Dio voted for Faithfool.
fuck, I am bad at this, it’s like I haven’t run a game before. My last post said it takes 7 to lynch, there are 14 of you, it takes 8.
One more vote for brewha and there will be a lynch today.
Wha?
Did someone say this - this, and this explicitly? If you can find a quote from either NAF or mtgman saying “no power roles,” then I will not only reverse field on my previous opinion, I will vote for Hal right now. Because all I can find in the official rules is this:
This pretty clearly does not rule out power roles. It rules out cops, vigs, SKs, bombs, role blockers, masons, recruiters, or third factions. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that this choice of wording suggests that there is a power role. Why list them all like that, instead of just saying “no power roles?” Only if you were trying to hedge.
Oh, and:
Just strictly speaking, I am not calling your reasoning scummy, as I don’t know your alignment. I am saying that your approach is indistinguishable from that of scum. This is a relevant distinction, and one worth noting.
To be more clear: I don’t know what this is that you are FOSing me for. Will you please explain what you mean?