My-Hime Mafia

[Excal]

If you want specifics, Affinity, I think there's something off with Bard due to his odd focus on lovers (wait, lovers in a Mai-Hime game?!).  I'm not sure why he's doing this, and that is a little disconcerting.  It's just a question of whether or not I think it's because there's an actual cause for concern, or if it's just because Bard's like that.

Now, it seems joke votes are at an end, but my target hasn't actually said anything, so I'll sit back and let that vote sit for now.

Finally, on the issue of metagaming, I'm somehow not surprised this is coming up as a topic, as it seems we actually have two seperate schools on it now, and we haven't had a good clash on this issue since the old boards.  Personally, I'm with Xanth on this one.  Any tool we have is a tool we should be using.  And, I know my best playing is done with the metagame as opposed to the minor tells in the game which I try to use to justify my findings to everyone else.

Yeah, I know a good player tries to change how they play (Alex), or just simply tries to be the same however the dice land.  But, there's small clues anyways.  And, there is the great example of that one game where Alex used the metagame to play town perfectly and get a flawless mob win.

[Strago]

Goddammit of course I lose the post I was writing just before finishing the stupid thing. Of course. So back to the drawing board. If it seems curt it's because I'm annoyed at myself.

As it stands his contribution have been 100% OMGUS and meta-game, so the vote stays until he convinces me otherwise or I see something more worthwhile. So far, nothing strikes me as compelling enough to let Tom off the hook.

Whoa, harsh. My OMGUS meta-game jokevote = Guilty until proven innocent. What crime am I being 'let off the hook' for? I made a (slightly irritated) jokevote (I can't see how anyone could mistake it for a serious case) and you jump all over me, despite Corwin placing a second vote on Kilga without any justification that you completely ignore.
Strago, you admit you're grasping at straws to vote for me. This is not a good thing. It looks like you've done your best to reason out Xanth, whilst ignoring everyone else (Corwin).
Making something out of nothing etc. and I ask why.

Alright, I guess I'm just a big dope for seeing a potential sliver of seriousness in that Kilga-vote of yours. Because that's exactly the kind of thing that I'm wary of on Day 1: the seeds of arguments that can be written of as jokevotes or pursued as legitimate cases (and "legitimate" by Day 1 standards really gives a person a lot of wiggle room) with similar ease. That sort of multi-exit strategy is the work of scum. In response to the segment I've bolded: you make it seem like I'm some sort of crooked cop by emphasizing the "hook" image when all it referred to was the fact that I had no reason to unvote you until you were around to offer some sort of response.

Yes, I said I was grasping at straws? What precisely is wrong with this as early on in Day 1 as it was when I made that post? I was attempting to engender discussion without presenting my post as some sort of ironclad argument. Would you be happier if I had pursued you relentlessly based on the evidence I proposed that you clearly find unsatisfactory? Can't have it both ways.

Bardiche also seems to use the "grasping at straws" as some sort of damning point against me here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42081#msg42081. I don't see what's wrong with some candor and off-the-cuff thinking.

Finally, I've done my best to reason out Xanth? Can't say I agree with you. Related comment by Xanth:

I don't particularly like Strago bringing up an old game only to immediately toss the argument out of the window, but that's not for the metagaming, just for bringing up an argument that's completely tossed away in the same breath that it's posited.

Early Day 1 discussion, something occurred to me which hadn't been brought up elsewhere, I made note of it while also noting a weakness that it had as a hypothesis. Given the dearth of topics to be had at that point, it's not the sort of thing I'm going to apologize for.

Would you single out people like Xanth for his endorsement of meta, Strago?

Interesting question. Yes and no. No because I don't want to get bogged down in debates over game theory. I've seen that really gum up earlygame stuff before (argh using one kind of meta-gaming to justify not using another life is confusing my head asplode), and for the most part I only see it being useful in one way: as a smokescreen for scum. If I speak either for or against meta-game playing it's going to be on a case-by-case basis. This is where the "yes" part of my answer comes in, because I don't have much use for the broad strokes Xanth seems to be using in the post Affinity refers to. It's just another way for him to talk without saying much of anything.

Speaking of talking without saying anything:

Answering the question for now, I'd say I want more of a spotlight on Alex, Bardiche for his typical shallow commentary style, maybe more on Tom if he doesn't jump out of his first vote as a joke, and El Cid for opting to frame the discussion quite so early.

His case against Tom seems to be pre-empted by his own allowance that an un wivote by Tom will make everything peachy with him, he's got some very vague concerns with Bard, and frankly the major case against either Alex or Cid right now is one characterized entirely by WIFOM as is the nature of Cid's discussion-making gambit and Alex's involvement in it. Joy.

So, hrmm. Definitely see myself having some issues with Xanth right now. Tom's recent post rubs me the wrong way a bit, given how I feel he's twisting my intentions and wording a bit, but I suppose that's to be expected somewhat when playing this game. Hrm. Then there are Sopko, Andrew and Kiro, who I feel have been making themselves quite scarce. Sopko in particular has been making semi-frequent tiny posts including that one brief and oddly-reasoned defense of Alex I noted earlier.

I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.

[EvilTom]

I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.

Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
I'm calling out your reason for leaving your vote on me. I don't really care about the vote itself (I'm in no danger), but it would be negligent to allow this behavour to slide.

"I'm leaving my vote on Tom until he posts/proves he's not scum" based on a jokevote becomes "I'm leaving my vote on Tom based on gut". Yes it's day 1, but really do you have nothing else?

[Kiro]

Ah, some action.

I don't have an issue with Alex voting Kilga to the 4th. You really can't pin anything on him with that alone so it's useless trying. Which makes Corwin's vote of Alex the typical response that would draw up a similarly typical suspicion. I'd have to leave both as null tells atm.

Strago: Read your explanation about the Xanth and Tom case. It makes better sense although I'm not sure why you decided to mention the Xanth case though. It could be as if it's to pad discussion slightly for the Tom vote. Otherwise, now that Tom's posted, we'll see what you say.

Xanth has a weird vibe about him. I try to avoid talking about metagaming ideas in a game itself so I find it a distraction that he mentioned it. The continued push on Alex for various meta reasons is also unconvincing for pushing a case because some people just won't buy into it. I'll also wait for your response since 2 votes have appeared on you since the last time you posted.

And singling Bardiche out for the love flavor is dumb. The Kazuya/Akane pairing just happens to be the most zealous. There are other pairs in My-Hime and everyone's playing with a little flavor here and there.
[flavor] <3 Kazuya [/flavor]
As for his posting, I don't have a read on him. Day 1 comments are there to get more comments going so I wouldn't just label it as explicitly shallow. More content as the Day ends will help of course.

Cut by Strago: You acknowledge you probably took the case on Tom too far, then state that you feel Tom is trying to misinterpret your words against you. I guess it created a mini-WIFOM on the intentions of either Strago being stubborn or Tom being manipulative. My initial impression is of the former though so I'll end up leaving my vote on Strago for the time being.

[Bardiche]

Don't have much time, just getting a quick post in.

You guys seriously hold it against me that I like to recap what's happened, then state my opinion on it just because I've been "called on it before"? That almost reads to me like, "You can't play that way or we'll lynch you", but I might be overreading it a little.

Also, I was just playing with the lovers thing twice: first time because El Cid jokevoted on me for not acknowledging my lover and to set that straight at the least, the second one because all you said was that you were interested in me and I wanted to make a joking jab at you.

If obvious joking's now an act that sows disconcert I'll immediately stop it.

Posting more when I get back from uni in eight hours.

[Bardiche]

Also thanks Cid for calling me a not-decent/not-adaptable player. Appreciate the cordial way we're starting this game off. I can tell you're my favorite player for the game.

[Excal]

Eh, it's Mafia, the oddest things will get you strung up.  'Sides, I double checked and saw that there's no Lover role in the game, which honestly gets rid of a lot of the hangups I was having with you.

[Ranmilia]

Yeah, it's a semi-open setup, there are no lovers in the game mechanic sense.  Not sure why anyone got up in arms about that.

Regarding Bard - "You can't play that way or we'll lynch you" is in fact exactly the message I'd like to convey, glad you understand (and not just in Bard's case, mind you, Xanth's as well, that'd be a large part of why I'm voting him).  It is similar to "if you lie as town we will lynch you" and "if you lurk we will lynch you."  No animosity involved, just business, scum hunting, best for town, been over it before, concentrate on the part where you state your opinions, etc.  I don't think Cid's comment was made with any animosity in mind and I'm not sure why it'd be taken that way. 

Not much else seems to be happening.

[Kilgamayan]

Strago's posts are way too long for Day 1. (Xanth's are too but others already pointed it out to him)

Cid: I didn't move my vote because I didn't see anyone I felt comfortable moving it to in a serious fashion. Honestly, at this point I still don't. I already miss MotK games, which consistently have Day 1s full of various screw-ups that are ripe for conversation-starting.

IN-POST EDIT: Changed my mind.

##Unvote
##Vote: Xanth

He retains his metagame vote for Alex not because his meta gives him a ScumAlex result, but a NotAlex result. What. Picking at people for stuff they don't do regardless of their alignment is not good unless the action is inherently scummy.

I don't see the bad reporter style in Bard's posts because he's actually giving one-directional opinions on each thing he makes note of instead of waffling on everything.

Andrew needs to say...anything.

[Carthrat]

Day 1, Votecount!

EvilTom: Kilgamayan, Strago
AndrewRogue: Excal
Corwin: HunterSopko
Affinity: Bardiche
Excal: Xanth, SirAlex
El-Cideon: Affinity, Kiro
Bardiche: El-Cideon
Kilgamayan: EvilTom, Corwin, El-Cideon, SirAlex
SirAlex: Xanth. Corwin
Xanth: HunterSopko, SirAlex, EvilTom, Kilgamayan
Strago: Kiro, Affinity

7 to lynch, 15.5 hours remaining or so.

[Sierra]

##Unvote: Kilgamayan

Yeah, that's over and done with, and I see no real reason to keep a vote on him at this point in time.

Also thanks Cid for calling me a not-decent/not-adaptable player. Appreciate the cordial way we're starting this game off. I can tell you're my favorite player for the game.

Dude, that wasn't my intent at all. I was responding to two different things. One was the simple observation (for Affinity's sake, since he asked) that you have been criticized in previous games for a commentary-heavy playstyle. The paragraph after that did not relate to you specifically and in fact is far more of a concern with Xanth. I'd assumed the "As for metagaming in general" would make it obvious that I was switching topics. I think you're just being a little too touchy here, Bard. Relax, man.

And yes, any mention of "lovers" was strictly related to flavor. Opening post silliness. Taking it seriously is just what. (Though I guess someone could've not noticed that the role isn't in the list). Think that's been hashed over enough, so, moving on.

[Sierra]

Sopko is overly terse (three or four one-sentence posts) and lurkish. CoS (Chainsaw of Suspicion) in his direction.

Xanth's been away for a while (nighttime in Englandland) and has a lot to respond to already, but I'm happy adding to this train for now. Reasons:

-Sticking with the pairs thing after all this time. Can you give us any kind of rationale for this, or is it just a "hunch?" Because, and I've said this before, I can't really conceive of it meaning anything.
-Metagame talk. Which isn't damning in and of itself--game mechanics talk is not innately bad, but it doesn't really help us catch scum--however, the discussion of metagaming has taken up enough space to be a noteworthy distraction from more productive avenues of thought. Yes, I'm aware that I've responded and contributed to this discussion, but reading back, it pretty much did start with Xanth.
-Point three has been stated better elsewhere:

If you're going to metagame, at least use it well and be able to explain it.  "I don't see any Alex in there" is the worst possible form.

Thus:

##Vote: Xanth

That should be -2 to hammer.

[AndrewRogue]

Unfortunately, this game apparently decided to start while I was still at home, and get into full swing the day I was flying back home. A flight which was then delayed. And then the issues of getting home from the airport after midnight. And such.

So. There's the reasoning I've been quiet. Make of it what you will. I perfer to blame Carth, really.

In brief review of the topic, since I want to sleep.

-Somebody has to make the second vote eventually. Generally speaking, I find scum want to avoid doing it, since it tends to draw attention.
-Tom's statement is off-handed enough for me to take it as just that. (To be slightly fair for a second, his statement does have some merit. While I can't remember the record, Tom IS an easy target and is up there in Day 1 lynchees generally)
-Bardiche missing the point of the Kilga train is odd, since it was basically said in the votes. Votes to see what happens. For day 1 to really start, something needs to happen.
-Corwin's logic flies with me.
-Soppy's statement is interesting about Alex.
-Xanth's post... I'm inclined to agree with Alex, and add a spice of missing the measure of the Kilga vote.
-Oh sure, NOW there are some big posts.
-Argh. It is now just flowing over me. Can't get anymore out of this.

Non-Stream of Consciousness: Xanth is, currently, the only poster who stands out to me, primarily for the reasons Alex stated. His additional statements about the train on Kilga (how it was purposeless) also sit slightly at odds on me, as they tend to say something about people. For example, who're the ones who jump on, who're the ones that draw the line, how do they draw the line, etc. There is a lot of information to be had from those sorts of trains.

##Vote: Xanth

Primarily looking for a response to Alex, but I wouldn't mind some chatter on why you feel that a general lynchtrain doesn't work/isn't useful.

[Xanth]

Okay, let's see how concisely I can do this. I know this will be long in total, but by necessity.

- Maintaining his wall of text style, even this early on day 1.

One post that's little more than half a screen (which has since been trumped). If you want to say that I'm not being concise that's another matter, in which case I'll try and cut it down. Note that this is metagaming, just before you're about to wave that against me (I know, the accused style is bad regardless of context, but so is Bardiche's, as were your own early actions).

- Pro-metagaming [...] "I don't see any Alex in there" is the worst possible form.

I'm not retracting the stance on metagaming. The particular case will be covered later, but yes, if that had been my argument then that would be bad metagaming.

- Very quick to go on the two votes issue, not scummy in itself but questionable given how he's sticking to it.

I'm not sticking to it. It pulled my vote to begin with, but it stuck there for your later bizarre actions.

You do get ##Unvote: Alex for that, though, seeing as you've started to actually play.


El Cid's post here: at that point sure, there was little to choose between. My problem is that I think it was too early for precisely that reason. Don't ask anything of correct timing when in the very same game we now have an actually interesting train to cause discussion.

Ah Xanth, with his walls-o-text that say nothing.

Wow, that's pretty shameless misrepresentation, given that the quote in question was from a short post that clarified what people were waiting from me (and then commented on the main issue at hand).

[On Tom versus Kilga

Please explain. Are you on Kilga's side? What is Kilga's side? From what perspective are you against me, or are you simply against me for the sake of having a stance against me? You've provided no justification other than.. more walls of text and referencing Strago (which doesn't say anything either).

You're asking for the obvious, but, in order:
-Only in so far as not shoving someone randomly in front.
-In Tom versus Kilga, there was no Kilga's side to be on.
-My only issue in that was that your joke issue was incorrect. I did in fact say later that I'd only care if you didn't jump off of it, which you did.
-Two lines does not constitute 'walls of text'. This is misrepresentation of the most blatant kind.

(My stuff on metagaming)

That.. is a contradiction to what you said earlier! Unless I'm mistaken.

What? I do believe you are mistaken, but please point out what it's supposed to be conflicting with so I can comment.

He retains his metagame vote for Alex not because his meta gives him a ScumAlex result, but a NotAlex result. What. Picking at people for stuff they don't do regardless of their alignment is not good unless the action is inherently scummy.

I honestly don't understand why people think that my vote on Alex was weird. His actions were distinctly unhelpful. I can't/couldn't see why scum would act that way, but town sure as hell shouldn't have been.

And yes, only sleep has kept me from unvoting since his 'sobering' till now.

-Sticking with the pairs thing after all this time.

Again, I haven't. First step only, haven't cared since. In fact, I'm not sure I see anything new there, so forgive me for passing the rest of that.

Oh, but I'd rather you didn't blame me for a perceived derailment via metagame discussion.


Ninja: oh what. Thanks for -1 to hammer, Andrew.

His additional statements about the train on Kilga (how it was purposeless) also sit slightly at odds on me

I understand the theory, and agree with it in theory but not in execution.


I'm not going to claim now or anything, as I hope at least some will be satisfied.

I need to look at the recent posts for everything other than defence, but my mum is visiting at the moment and I'll mostly be gone till 4pm-ish. No doubt shoving my foot further in my mouth, but based on what I've had to answer in this post:

##Vote: EvilTom

For hideous misrepresentation to justify his vote. It's like using the phrase 'wall of text' gives you a free pass to vote for me.

[Ranmilia]

Going to sleep now.  No particular read on Xanth's reply.  Obviously I disagree about my actions being bizarre or unhelpful.  It is the unexpected nature of the random early lynch train that makes it useful at producing responses, and as I think should now be apparent it provided a very good springboard for discussion.

Andrew... you DO realize that's -1, right?

I do somewhat agree on Tom, but Xanth continues to adhere to a number of stances I find... questionable.  They can be questioned.  With questioning.  Yes.  Or to put it more bluntly metagaming is not helpful or useful to town and I have no idea what is going on.  Don't see any particular reason to unvote Xanth, would be fine with voting Tom as well right now.

My shot in the dark right now is definitely Sopko though.  Really not sure what to make of that statement he made about me.  Sure, it's true, but it's been true for several games now.

[Corwin]

Too swamped today to formulate something just yet, and I see no end to my being busy. Shouldn't it be Suzushiro's job to make sure my schedule is clear to drink my tea in peace?

Alex's response is enough for me to unvote. That's something I was able to read and I don't have a problem there anymore.

##Unvote: Sir Alex

Couldn't read about the case on Xanth, such as it might be on day 1, with the attention it deserves. I'll need a few more hours to comment on it, and to decide which way my vote should go.

[Hunter Sopko]

We've got about 12 hours left, and the votes on Xanth have stacked on a little faster than I would have expected. Most of the discussion we've had isn't what I'd call meaty for Day 1. Mostly going through the motions type stuff on meta-gaming = bad and Trains 101. Not that they're not necessary and important, but we'd be a bit worse off Day 2 than we would be some other days if the day ended now.

Some notes:
1. Other than his most recent post, I wouldn't say Xanth is more guilty than say, Strago or some others of wall of texting.

2. I'm glad that the whole Cid/Bard thing was dropped. That coulda been a huge distraction had that blown up.

3.

I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.

Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
I'm calling out your reason for leaving your vote on me. I don't really care about the vote itself (I'm in no danger), but it would be negligent to allow this behavour to slide.

"I'm leaving my vote on Tom until he posts/proves he's not scum" based on a jokevote becomes "I'm leaving my vote on Tom based on gut". Yes it's day 1, but really do you have nothing else?

I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.

4. Judging by Andy's post, he's staying cognizant of the topic and is pretty on the ball.

So for now, to keep things going, I'm going to put things back in the safe realm of discussion. Still leaning to Xanth, depending on how discussion goes.

##Unvote:Xanth

[Xanth]

Okay, turns out I have a bit more time now, so let's get a few thoughts out.

-I can see Strago's concern for Tom's initial vote and support it for what it is up to the point where Tom posted again (by which point he'd drawn a vote for this). I would have no problem with him pursuing that vote following Tom's post, but I don't like just leaving it there without directly really pushing it further.

-I still don't see any opinions in Bardiche's posts, bar self-defence. Every last comment is fence-sitting. It's not the commentary itself that's frustrating, it's the lack of taking a position on anything. I was never interested in the lovers angle at all, though, for obvious reasons.

-I really don't like Tom's attitude so far. So many pointed questions at both myself and Strago of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety on top of the misrepresentation.

It's far more interesting to look at Corwin's reaction.

Is ironic given that he never looks at it when combined with:

and you [Strago] jump all over me, despite Corwin placing a second vote on Kilga without any justification that you completely ignore.

No one else seemed to care about Corwin's second joke vote on Kilga, other than me, and people argued against me for that then. I can't begin to imagine why you think that that second vote is significant when there were two others before that and a bigger pile generated later (albeit it was the one on Kilga).

In fact, that entire section on Strago has nothing genuine in it at all.

-I'm not sure there's anyone I'd hit for being a lurker at this point, assuming more activity between now and the end of the day.


My vote is still on Tom. Actively manipulative over passively poor for sure here.

[Sierra]

Xanth stuff:

I honestly don't understand why people think that my vote on Alex was weird.

Then you may wish to reexamine how you presented this point, because "I don't see any Alex here" is hard for some of us to take as anything but really awkward metagaming.

-Sticking with the pairs thing after all this time.

Again, I haven't. First step only, haven't cared since. In fact, I'm not sure I see anything new there, so forgive me for passing the rest of that.

Oh, but I'd rather you didn't blame me for a perceived derailment via metagame discussion.

Fair enough on the latter point, but it is effective for scum to wallow in discussion that is detached from the actual events of the game but which seems helpful because it's at least discussing game theory. I suppose I can't prove that this was your intent, but I think it's a valid suspicion. For the first point: it was reiterated near the end of the first page, but there's also this:

I still find the voting patterns at the start of this game to be rather odd, but I've moulded this unease on a fallacious principle, which I should have been hit harder for.

Which, in my zeal to build a case, I apparently overlooked for the retraction that it is. However, later in the same post, you do come back to the same point:

This is still the sorest thumb out there, so my vote yet stays (even with the incorrect rationale on top, I stand by the double-voting weirdness as something to start from).

Which seems to counter the retraction.

~

To avoid monomania: I have to say that I agree with Xanth regarding the flaws he's highlighted in Tom's arguments and would support Tom as a lynch candidate. I initially read the Strago/Tom stuff as day one reaching getting overblown, but Tom's arguments against Xanth have been pretty haphazard. Trumping up Corwin's initial jokevote as though it meant something at this point is just one example. I particularly find this troubling:

That combined with other issues such as Alex, (which I don't have time to look at right now) lead me to ##Vote: Xanth, he seems most concerning so far.

At this point, I'm not sure if you can build a truly inclusive case against Xanth without factoring in his interactions with Alex. That's what a lot of people are hitting Xanth for, after all. Tom's almost entirely preoocupied with attacking the people he perceives to be against him, focusing on this to the exclusion of everything else that the person he's currently voting for has done. At best, this is overzealous and unhelpful. I have to acknowledge that he does make one point I agree with in his most recent post (I don't have much faith in "gut feelings"--speaking personally, mine are always, always wrong) but beyond that he's been very uneven.

[EvilTom]

Xanth~Sorry, when I said Corwin I meant Strago.
Xanth

-I really don't like Tom's attitude so far. So many pointed questions at both myself and Strago of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety on top of the misrepresentation.

So you apparently get out of questions by calling them stupid?

I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.

-In Tom versus Kilga, there was no Kilga's side to be on.

Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.

-Only in so far as not shoving someone randomly in front.

I don't buy that.
1. If you were on his side, why would you consider voting for him?
2. Not wanting to put him at -4L should have nothing to do with whether or not you support his side/argument/case.
3. He didn't have a side, nor was there a 'fray', and you didn't vote anyway.

That was all very odd, but the part that set my alarms off when he called it a 'fray'.

Xanth cries about misrepresentation, but he was guilty of it first when he tried to portray two one-line jokevotes as some kind of heated war.
His comments were designed to stir up trouble from the sidelines, by labeling jokevotes as a 'fray' when they were obviously anything but.
He came, said he supported Kilga over EvilTom, didn't provide reasons other than 'See: Strago', and then ran.

Xanth - I'm not the only one who's mentioned your WOT non-concise posting style, so lashing out at me and crying misrepresentation isn't going to cut it. Why is it you gave Alex a civil response but I got OMGUS

My vote is still on Tom. Actively manipulative over passively poor for sure here.

Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things?  I don't understand what 'passively poor' is supposed to mean to be honest.

Other Stuff
In other news, Bardiche & El Cid, hopefully Bard will be cool when he gets back, looks like a small misunderstanding to me.
I'm also glad Andy is on top of things. Go team!
I'm waiting on more from Strago, will see how that goes.
Soppy, I appreciate the need for dicussion, but personally I don't think backing off is the answer. Though I greatly appreciate actually being recognised (well) for once!

Summary
In summary I'm fairly set on a Xanth lynch for today. He's been at the centre of almost all discussion, and that will give us a lot to work with (Re: Alex, Kilga, Strago, me included). Most of all though, I've played with him in a few games now and this looks like DodgyXanth rather than HelpfulXanth.

Ninja El Cid - Cid, hopefully this post will clear things up a bit. You may not agree with my views, but hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from.
Oh and as to the claim that I only look at what attacks me.. that's a bit bogus. I've responded to Strago yes, but I went after Xanth. Remember that Xanth said he would be 'totally cool with me if I unvoted Kilga' or something to that effect. So if I was trying to buy votes, I'm doing a poor job?

[EvilTom]

Also, apparently I'm a total babe. I need to watch this series.

Off to sleep, and I get to sleep in. Don't expect me to post for another 12 hours.

[Corwin]

After glancing at Xanth's posts, something bothers me.

First, Xanth says that metagaming is just another thing town can and that town should use all the weapons at its disposal. He even uses it to place a vote on Alex, from what I understood.

Then, later on, Xanth decides on Tom for the lynch. Here, however, I see Xanth suddenly ignore anything metagaming-related with regards to Tom. After all, is Tom actually acting differently from usual? 'hideous misrepresentation' or not, I'm not sure I like how you both take in the players's history and discard it whenever it seems to suit the case.

If I had misundestood something, please explain this apparent discrepancy to me. There is still time to the deadline, and I haven't actually placed a vote along with this post, after all.

P.S.
I wholeheartedly support the statement that Natsuki is 'a total babe'.

[Strago]

Strago's posts are way too long for Day 1. (Xanth's are too but others already pointed it out to him)

What. Man, point to an instance in a post where you feel I've gone on at unnecessary length or wasted time with doubletalk/empty statements. I'm a little long-winded in general, I know, but give me a break. Show me where I'm holding up the game. Straw maaaaaaan.

I need some sleep. The vote stays where it is for now, as I need more time to mull over it, my gut still points somewhat at Tom, and know I'll have plenty of time tomorrow and won't get caught in a rush to decide right before the deadline.

Relying on 'gut' is the easiest way for scum to validate a vote. I'd rather we were all accountable for our votes by providing specific reasons.
I'm calling out your reason for leaving your vote on me. I don't really care about the vote itself (I'm in no danger), but it would be negligent to allow this behavour to slide.

"I'm leaving my vote on Tom until he posts/proves he's not scum" based on a jokevote becomes "I'm leaving my vote on Tom based on gut". Yes it's day 1, but really do you have nothing else?

This post is... pretty indicative of why I didn't immediately remove my vote from you, Tom. I go to sleep with a few words about how I want to think about things before changing my vote -- and, as always, a person can't have it both ways; I'm sure someone would have snitted at me had I removed my vote and not immediately replaced it with a new one against someone else -- and I wake up to find a response from Tom attacking me for some fictional behavior in which I seem to be portrayed as using gut and only gut to justify a vote from which I shall never be moved. I seem to be completely unable to win with Tom. Hrrrmph.

Alright, let's look at what else has caught my eye: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42192#msg42192. Soppy! Let's take a gander at what you've written here, shall we?

Some notes:
1. Other than his most recent post, I wouldn't say Xanth is more guilty than say, Strago or some others of wall of texting.

2. I'm glad that the whole Cid/Bard thing was dropped. That coulda been a huge distraction had that blown up.

Talking without much saying anything. And this comprises half of his numbered points. Point one is especially odd as it offers an anemic defense of someone Soppy's apparently fine with lynching... although he hasn't said why since the first page of the topic, where he justified a vote in one sentence based on... one other sentence written by Xanth.

I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.

Obviously I'm a little biased towards, you know, myself, but where is the "subtle distinction" in Tom's post (the one I quoted above)? Soppy's an outsider looking in, here, offering next-to-none of his own input, certainly not taking a firm stance he couldn't maneuver out of.

4. Judging by Andy's post, he's staying cognizant of the topic and is pretty on the ball.

So for now, to keep things going, I'm going to put things back in the safe realm of discussion. Still leaning to Xanth, depending on how discussion goes.

##Unvote:Xanth

Okay, so Andy's one post demonstrates his cognizance so much so that it ends with him placing a vote on someone who you think shouldn't have so many votes on him? Andy's on-the-ball-ness is manifest in you needing to remove your own vote on Xanth so the day doesn't end prematurely? Someone else please tell me they see the inherent wrongness of this.

Not to mention how Soppy seems to be putting himself in a position where he can either hammer Xanth or... not, as he feels politically expedient. Because his own opinions have been so scarce and non-committal, he's in a lovely position to jump on any new train as it develops.

Sigh. Where or where doth my vote go? Maybe it stays. Need to think a while.

Ninja'd by Corwin: That... hmm. Yes, that's a somewhat interesting inconsistency in Xanth. I don't know that I'd make much of it, myself. Especially since Xanth seems to be one of the few who's on the same page as me in recognizing Tom's non-meta weirdness and word-twisting.

P.S
Dammit guys anyone with eyes that giant is not a babe you weirdos.

[Kilgamayan]

Xanth: I don't see Alex as having been distinctly unhelpful when you voted for him, and the fact that you retain this vote after he makes what is arguably the most helpful action all day (the fourth vote on me) makes your case seem even weaker.

Given that all I can see for your reasons for making - and, more importantly, sticking to (up until just recently) - the Alex vote are that he was being unhelpful (which I disagree with entirely) and because you didn't see any of Alex in his actions (which I frown upon on a fundamental level), I'd love a better explanation, since you say you're unsure why people don't get why you voted for him.

Strago: That wasn't an attack on you at all, it was an offhanded comment fueled largely by "Day 1 lolz". No need to be so jumpy and defensive.

In regards to Strago vs. Tom, I'm more with Strago on this one, given Tom takes umbrage with the "grasping at straws" line (ignoring the fact that Strago's post was the first one of the day to actively try to do anything remotely useful - when was the last time the first Day 1 case was a reasonable one, let alone a solid one?) and seemingly misunderstanding the entire Xanth section of Strago's post.

I'm still not seeing how Bardiche is doing his journalistic waffling thing (I believe Xanth brought this up since my last post but I know Alex has commented on it in the past as well and I think other people that I can't remember have also made mention of it). I am seeing several instances of "I like this" or "I don't like this", though. Can someone point out the predominantly waffling nature of his posts?

[Corwin]

Mmm. I should talk about something else besides Xanth as I wait on our executive committee leader.

Alright, then. Armed with my cup of tea, I will attempt to cover the other issues I see today.

Tom. A day 1 Tom lynch reveals nothing, and Tom has not been so undeniably scummy that one must lynch him with all due haste. I can expand upon why I think this, if there is someone who does not understand the above statements.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42192#msg42192
Sopko. Strago pointed out something interesting about his post, and as I went back and checked, I found myself in agreement. Sopko both praises Andrew in no uncertain terms and removes his non-jokevote vote from Xanth as a direct result of Andrew's actions and posts. Without even going into whether Andrew really is on the ball, the contradiction inherent in Sopko's post troubles me greatly. I also agree that Sopko's new stance allows him to cast his vote as he pleases while softening the impact either way. Attempts to have the cake and eat it, too, are something I find bothersome in mafia.

Furthermore. How exactly does removing a person from -1 to -2 allow for further discussion on its own? Sopko himself, in that very post, asserts that only 12 hours remain in the day. It is also day 1, and arguments are scarce. He does not particularly propose a new lynch target or have questions for Xanth to be answered that I can see. His actions seem to contradict the spirit of his words, here.

Since I found so much disagreeable with the aforementioned post of Sopko's, I went back to see what else he had said so far. And our little ninja had been true to his character. Could two one-liners, a post with a vote on Xanth with the only justification of claiming to find Xanth's own serious day 1 post too unfounded even for day 1, and a jokevote in the first post truly be all that you've contributed? I'm bothered by this not because I expect you to write novels upon novels for us, Sopko, but because the discussion you wished so much to take place doesn't happen in a vacuum. I don't see you making an effort to keep it going, which makes your unvote post look bad to me. And when it's the only actual post of you with something I'd consider content, I don't have a problem with having you as a lynch target.