MASKED HEROES MAFIA - Day 2: The end of the world - SCUM WIN

[Rorschach]

Evening patrol uneventful, had time to think.

Agree with Adrian's rebuttal of Manhattan. Foolish to act so early in the day barring extreme and unusual circumstances. Lack sufficiently damning proof to condemn someone so quickly. Not understanding Manhattan's conviction here.

Hooded Justice's vote for Manhattan equally flawed. Claims the vote was motivated by Manhattan's commenting on Ms. Juspeczyk but not voting for her. But Ms. Juspeczyk was minus one to hammer at the time Hooded Justice made this criticism. She would've been dead and the day ended if Manhattan had made such a vote. And at a time when Dreiberg had not even spoken. Is this really what Hooded Justice wanted? Hard to say, spoken too little. Meager contribution looks bad in its own right however.

Vote stays on Dreiberg until he proves he's capable of more than late jokevote.

[Nathan Greaves]

Hammering: I am inclined to agree with our resident genius Ozymandias here; hammering too early throws away a chance to get at least some idea of our mostly-absent friends.  That said, the day is proceeding apace, and the fact that we have time doesn't mean we should be timid to threaten to hammer.  In the event that our target has a compelling roleclaim to make, it's best to have some time to spare so we can reorient ourselves.  The hour of "too early" is rapidly passing.

The New Nite Owl: Dan...  where are you?  The only hypothesis I can imagine is that, if our missives were to be construed as "pages," perhaps he only read the first page?  Still, he has left us with little content, and not even an excuse such as a "I have been taken captive by Moloch the Mysterious, and my transmissions will be short and spotty until I escape."  I can't condone a vote against him yet, though, as we have effectively nothing useful from him to work with, same as when he'd actually posted nothing.  Perhaps a mod-prod is in order if this continues for much longer?

Hooded Justice: Succinct, and I disagree with some of his points, but nothing outright suspicious yet?

Dan has certainly twigged some signs of alarm, but as noted above, I can't really vote on that.  Laurie, however, has been useless and made the suspicious attack on the absent Dan and actually been around to explain herself, and she hasn't.  I am worried that it feels like we're in the same position we were in 20 posts ago, but Laurie remains the main source of suspicion.  And Rorschach has changed his vote, meaning I should make mine official....

##VOTE Silk Spectre

[Asuka Langley]

I am sorry. Laurie is punishing me for not calling her after our hot sex last night. If that's not it, I will get really offended. Commies usually come out to defend themselves when accused.

I'm thinking Rorschach found me an easy target, thought, not defending myself. A coward, I might add?

I don't think the Silk Spectre herself is really sure of who to vote, but Rorschach tried to move both me and her to the guilty area. I could not be the one lynched this time, but if I look guilty, maybe next? She, well, I think she's damned... but I'm not so sure about her. Rorshach, on the other hand, is famous for his extreme actions.

Maybe too extreme...

##UNVOTE
##VOTE RORSCHACH

[Tron Bonne]

If Rorschach thought ya were an easy target, Dreiberg, it'd hafta be because you are. I know the guy's a freak, but gimme a break. Goin' after the two most worthless red-lookin' kids in this game so far makes him a commie hisself? Not by my math. Not to mention the fact that it don't look so good to be judgin' him based on past (by which I mean, you know, flavor) actions.

"Commies usually come out to defend themselves when accused," huh? I guess that means you're a true-blue American hero, right, kid? Since you ain't defendin' yourself or doin' anythin' else that might be useful? Oh, and you're defendin' the Spectre's lack of incisive arguments, too. Why, exactly, I dunno, since even if you were nailin' her last night she could still be redder'n a Hollywood actor.

Can we lynch Dreiberg and lil' Laurie at the same time? That'd be just swell, as they're about equally useless. Vote's actually staying on Silk Spectre, though, as she's been just as resistant to providin' any sorta content over the course o' even more posts than Dan.

Huh. I get what Justice was sayin' about Manhattan afore, but we've got some new shit on the table now. Speak up, Hoodsy.

Not sure I feel like gettin' all caught up in a debate over philosophics between the Doc and Veidt. Yeah, people oughtta show up and say somethin', but on Day damn 1 people're all gonna be quieter and it takes some action to get gums flappin'. And I'm not completely convinced that real action's anythin' but a body gettin' strung up. But I can see it both ways, so it doesn't make either side look redder'n the other.

[Nathan Greaves]

Damn it, Comedian, you're slime but I'm finding myself agreeing with you.  Granted, it's Day 1, but neither Dan nor Laurie are looking real useful to us at the moment.  Not entirely the same as commie, but close for Day 1 purposes.

As I pointed out in my best-selling book "Under the Hood," time must be well-used to hunt criminals properly.  We've got a day left.  I don't want to spend it at my shop doin' repairs while America is under threat.  Got anything else to say, Dan?  Laurie?  Because I'm going to agree more and more with Manhattan about bringing the hammer down as time runs out, due to the "let's not try to switch votes at the last second if someone has an interesting roleclaim" worry mentioned above.

Dan: Don't look now, but I think I know why Laurie is punishing you.  You didn't actually have hot, hot sex with her last night; you came over to my place for a chit-chat and got completely sloshed.  How you managed to recall that as sex is...  wait...  I don't want to think about this too hard.  I'll just assume you had a very vivid dream, or you stopped by her place real late, or your hypothetical Commie masters have fed you powerful hallucinogens.

[Captain Carnage]

Dan's post was not very impressive (as when he walked out on me without fighting), but not particularly damning. Delay in your response can either be honest or a commie trick. But his point is at least sound, and openly standing up for Laurie doesn't seem like a commie attitude this early.

When re-reading our previous minutia though. The Doc's attitude seemed even weirder that the first time (and he's good at being weird). He basically supported the case on Laurie all along without voting (though rightly so), and then switched to the Oz kid for doing the same thing! Actually, switched is the wrong term, because he kept exposing his dislike of her attitude in the very same post.
I have a bad feeling that this could be an attempt to push for Silk's conviction without being part of, while keeping a vote on a case that's not likely to follow, after all who'd want to lynch Veidt? The guy's practically a saint! (Or pretty American-looking so far, if you will.)

Being the good guy is harder than it looked... Right now both Manhattan and Silk are at the top of my suspicions. I can't, however, see them as acting in collusion.
I'm seeing the worst case in Doc Manhattan right now, though I would still endorse a Silk Specter conviction if necessary.

##Unvote
##Vote: Doctor Manhattan

[Doctor Manhattan]

My words appear to have had unintended impact, for which I apologize.  My vote on Mr. Veidt is not, or at least not primarily based on our philosophical differences.  It is based on the reactionary tactics he has pushed for in the game thus far.  There is an element in him that seems to be pushing for simple arguments and encouraging OMGUS debates between other parties.  Perhaps it is only to me that he appears this way... but I do not like his tone, and find it more suspicious than the human fallibilities of the other candidates.

Hooded Justice's single line attack against me was obviously flawed, but in a manner I myself am unable to respond to.  I could say "No, I think it is right and proper that Laurie must begin to speak about other people, what does it matter that Dreiberg has not checked in yet?", but that would be both obvious from what I already said to her and unproductive.

[Hooded Justice]

what makes you think theres an element in ozymandias that seems to be pushing for simple arguments and encouraging OMGUS edbates between other parties, and what about his tone dont you like manhattan.

[Doctor Manhattan]

More than anything else, it is the way he has commented on other cases while staying away from them himself. 
I am on page 2 again, and I am seeing Ozymandias fill the air with words about the case on Laurie everyone is already on, while at the same time attacking Dreiberg.  Both obvious and easy cases, and where he leaves his votes.  Yet at the same time, he sends what seem to be probing attacks at Blake for being in favor of hammering, at Hooded Justice for his vote on myself, then at myself for not rebutting Justice.  This last, in particular, leaves me with the feeling that he wanted to sow discord between the two of us.

[Helga Pataki]

To respond to a few points:
Defence first...
Dan, yes, I'm not seeing this as looking good for me either. The best I can do, if I am gonna go down, is to try to drag one of them with me.

Spectre has not improved. 'I have nothing to post, can you people post something?' is kinda hypocritical.

Adrian, I'd like to clarify that I was asking our other, less involved players to post specifically to see their input, not just a general "someone post".

Now, a little last defence and my main attack.

Hollis, you said that I'd made a "suspicious attack on the absent Dan", calling it a "serious vote" when I clearly stated at the time that I could and would remove it if he came back to us, which he has. So:
##Unvote: Dan Dreiberg
Also, you said I'd been around to explain myself and hadn't at a time when I wasn't around. Making a statement like that is fine if you can confirm it, but this just seems intended to make me look worse without evidence.
I'm not sure what to make of this seemingly intentional misrepresentation of my comments, but it definitely doesn't look good to me.
##Vote: Hollis Mason

[EvilTom]

Silk Spectre (3) - Hooded Justice, Rorschach, Captain Carnage, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Hollis Mason
The Comedian (0) - Ozymandias,
Ozymandias (1) - Rorschach,  The Comedian, Doctor Manhattan
Rorschach (1) - Doctor Manhattan, Captain Carnage, Ozymandias, Dan Dreiberg
Doctor Manhattan (2) - Silk Spectre, Hooded Justice, Captain Carnage
Dan Dreigberg (1) - Hollis Mason, Silk Spectre, Rorschach
Hollis Mason (1) - Ozymandias, Dan Dreiberg, Silk Spectre

5 votes are required for conviction.
There are 23 hours left.

[Rorschach]

Not easy target, Dan. Unproductive one. Find nothing strange in voting for you once you were clearly present but not contributing to discussion. Recent post only supports this assessment. Rationale behind your vote looks thin. Sure that your vote not just reactionary, Dan?

Have misgivings about Manhattan. Don't see a problem with Adrian waiting a while to vote for Ms. Juspeczyk; he voted for her when he could, doing so any earlier would've caused a lynch and an early end to the day. Have already been over why it wasn't a yet a good time to do that, not repeating self here. Adrian has also not attacked Dreiberg. Think Manhattan may have been confused when he wrote that line.

Have reread Adrian's posts, not seeing adversarial tone attributed to him by Doctor Manhattan. Would appreciate quotes if Manhattan is still certain of his interpretation.

[Captain Carnage]

Have reread Adrian's posts, not seeing adversarial tone attributed to him by Doctor Manhattan. Would appreciate quotes if Manhattan is still certain of his interpretation.

Yes, this. Now I'm the one agreeing with my past nemesis.

Becuz, dunno Doc, maybe it's because I can't see them gluinos or somesuch, but rereading Adrian's statements they didn't seem so bad as you made them out to be.
He made a lot of questioning prods sure, but he made clear where his votes were and why, he was even eager to place his vote on Silk to show that. And besides, questioning people so they explain their actions is a good attitude in my eyes.

[Doctor Manhattan]

Hooded Justice's rationale for voting Manhatten was flawed in my view. Although I am not sure what Manhatten thinks about it, judging by *his* reason for voting *me*. I would like to know.

This line, primarily.  What else would I think about such a vote on myself but that it was flawed?  What exactly is the purpose of asking, save to create tension between Hooded Justice and myself?

Admittedly, it is not much, and mostly intuition.  But I still prefer it to the apparently de facto lynch of Laurie.

[Asuka Langley]

Of course everyone will defend themselves. But Rorschach came to vote on me without anything I would call a clear reason. Why would a commie go to the game quiet? Is that enough reason to accuse? It sounds desperate to me. That's what I meant, Hooded Justice, and don't you try to confuse everyone. No one here's a fool.

I might be having a hard time keeping up, but that's because I'm fighting crime while you just talk and decide. I am keeping America clean.

Hollis, I went there afterwards. I know you went to sleep, and 9pm is a good naptime for an elder. But night was young, and a lot happened.

Why this hammer idea, now? Since the Doc came back from the 'Nam, he's acting weird. I thought that was less human, but maybe is just... red? And since the game is good for you, you want to keep it your way.

Well, I won't cease to look for the truth. And if I find you guilty, I will change my vote to you. I just don't know why you wouldn't destroy America with your powers... but who am I to try to understand your reasons?

[Nathan Greaves]

Laurie: Good to see you about and helping to hunt commies now.  Asking questions is good, even if your target is a paragon of impeccable virtue.

Hollis, you said that I'd made a "suspicious attack on the absent Dan", calling it a "serious vote" when I clearly stated at the time that I could and would remove it if he came back to us, which he has. So:
##Unvote: Dan Dreiberg
Also, you said I'd been around to explain myself and hadn't at a time when I wasn't around. Making a statement like that is fine if you can confirm it, but this just seems intended to make me look worse without evidence.
I'm not sure what to make of this seemingly intentional misrepresentation of my comments, but it definitely doesn't look good to me.
##Vote: Hollis Mason

Well, the Page 1 and early Page 2 votes against you were mostly "I've got a bad feeling about this" intuition votes, along with the not-helpful vote against the then-Dreiberg, though I will certainly admit you did not push the case (as I was in a similar situation that Ozymandias asked me about!).  The "serious vote" part is, in retrospect, an overstatement, but I wasn't rereading page 1 and you hadn't emphasized during the long time you maintained a vote on Dreiberg that it wasn't a serious vote.  That said, bygones are bygones, and this is not a major issue to hold against you anymore.

No, the message of yours that I was referring to as "not explaining yourself," when multiple heroes were asking for one, was this post:

Right.. I've.. I've taken some time to thinks things through... alone.

As of yet, it's hard to find a clear-cut case... I know that's not what people want to hear from me, but it's the simple truth.
We need some more information to press on before anything will come up, so I'll try getting that from people.

As it happens, Dan ain't the only one leaving us out in the cold here...  A little more from Jon might help us. More than just reason - try to be a little more human, at least for a bit...  Rorschach, too - any comments on the latest turn of events?

-new posts-
And this recent turn shows Adrian goin' pretty fiercely to have me killed... Yeah, I requested serious investigation. But 'serious' don't mean 'targeted'. We just... need a little more time to look at *every* view.

You didn't defend or comment on your Dreiberg case at all, even to reiterate as you have to me that your vote was not meant as a big deal.  Plainitive cries for contribution are common on Day 1, but this post is literally nothing but that.  Almost as if you were seeking to avoid any personal conflict, like a lurking scum might.  This is the post that set alight my suspicions.

Now.  The fact that you are now offering your own suspicions (if perhaps with a flavor of "OMGUS," as I believe kids call it nowadays?) has improved your standing to me, though I still can't say I'd be unhappy with your lynch. 

Others: Dan continues to be a puzzle.  Justice is terse, but asking Manhattan for clarification was eminently reasonable.  Manhattan...  I think his intuition on Mr. Ozymandias sounds like a good faith query, if wrong headed.  Agree that Ozymandias's question was not terribly useful, disagree that it is likely a sign of intentional sowing of dissent.  Would definitely prefer a Spectre or Dreiberg lynch to an Ozymandias or Manhattan lynch at this juncture, though - "easy target" be damned if they're also the best targets.  So vote on Spectre stays for now.

[Helga Pataki]

Well, the arguments you made against me have been cleared up quite well there. However, there's still one things you haven't cleared up for me, and my vote's staying steady until I see a better case.

Also, you said I'd been around to explain myself and hadn't at a time when I wasn't around. Making a statement like that is fine if you can confirm it, but this just seems intended to make me look worse without evidence.
I'm not sure what to make of this seemingly intentional misrepresentation of my comments, but it definitely doesn't look good to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to look into the other cases right now, I've got a mother to visit. I'll make sure to take a good look at all of them upon my return.

[Nathan Greaves]

The "not explaining yourself" post was the post I quoted, the one that set out no cases and said absolutely nothing while you were at L-1.  You were obviously around at the time you made that post, and people were certainly questioning your stance on Dreiberg and lack of other thoughts?  Not sure I entirely understand what you're getting at - I'm not criticizing your lack of posts while you were obviously busy with other tasks, and I'm not criticizing  you for a nonexistent failure to respond to my later posts, since you obviously have now.

How is Sally, anyway?

[Carthrat]

Just as he can change matter with a mere thought, so can Dr. Manhatten transform the context of his arguments from the one form to another. Although he claims that his vote for me was not based on philosophical differences, why is it that the only point of contention originally raised consisted merely of disagreeing with the Comedian on his wish to hammer swiftly?

Later justifications referenced my reply to his vote (which, naturally, I entirely disagree with- particularly given the point on 'setting us against one another'- can he not see how his original post was interpreted, as well as what ramifications that has for his actions?), causing me to infer that it originally was lacking in substance (in particular, dismissing the above rationale as his reason to vote seems to be a blatant falsehood.) This implies that it was originally made on less-than-honest terms.

Perhaps, given our companions unique existence throughout the timestream, he feels as though he does not need to speak on the same level as the rest of us?

Or, to follow the maxim of Occam, he is simply being duplicitous.

##Unvote, ##Vote: Dr. Manhattan

[EvilTom]

Silk Spectre (2) - Hooded Justice, Rorschach, Captain Carnage, The Comedian, Ozymandias, Hollis Mason
The Comedian (0) - Ozymandias,
Ozymandias (1) - Rorschach,  The Comedian, Doctor Manhattan
Rorschach (1) - Doctor Manhattan, Captain Carnage, Ozymandias, Dan Dreiberg
Doctor Manhattan (3) - Silk Spectre, Hooded Justice, Captain Carnage, Ozymandias
Dan Dreigberg (1) - Hollis Mason, Silk Spectre, Rorschach
Hollis Mason (1) - Ozymandias, Dan Dreiberg, Silk Spectre

5 votes are required for conviction.
There are 10 hours left.

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, I see what Veidt means about Manhattan dancin' around the fact that he was talkin' about playstyle and philosophy. If you're gonna play that way, Osterman, just own up to it. More'n that, the hell is this about:

Admittedly, it is not much, and mostly intuition.  But I still prefer it to the apparently de facto lynch of Laurie.

Maybe yer slippin' through time a little too much, Doc, but let me give you a refresher on how things worked out linearly, cuz a damn big part o' Laurie's death takin' on sort of a default feelin' was you pushin' it in that direction. And I mean, I was right there with ya, so let's just be honest about that, alright? People memories ain't that short.

Havin' trouble gettin' myself all the way over to lynchin' the Doc, though, maybe just because Justice's rubbin' me so much the wrong way with his goddamn laconic sniping. Also, as far as the little Doc--->Justice--->Veidt exchange goes I think I'm agreein' with the Doc's side of it. Ozy don't look all that red in general, but I don't like that little back an' forth too damn much. Could be somethin' real to Doc's observation 'bout Veidt tryin' to drive a wedge between 'em.

Captain Carnage is the other person who jumped over to the Doc, huh? Carnage. Don't really have a read on the weirdo, 'side from he... seems to be sort o' jumpin' around between flavor's o' the moment. Worth keepin' an eye on, I think.

I'm stayin' where I am. Me and Hollis alone, 'pparently. I guess I just don't see Laurie furtherin' any significant arguments, an' everythin' she's brought up either in her defense or against Hollis has been answered by the ol' Nite Owl pretty damn well, I think. Yeah, think I'm right where I need ta be.

[Tron Bonne]

Hrmph. Actually, can we get a little word from the Mod, here? If we don't hit five votes for trial on somebody by deadline-time, what happens? Cuz if "Americans must try (lynch)" means that majority's gotta be reached, then... well: deadline's comin' toward us, we're sittin' in sort of a dead zone for activity, an' I know I'm not gonna be around much (if at all) startin' a few hours from now. Which all means I might have to take a harder look at the Doc an' see if I'm alright stringin' his blue self up in order to make sure someone gets taken out.

[Rorschach]

Hooded Justice's rationale for voting Manhatten was flawed in my view. Although I am not sure what Manhatten thinks about it, judging by *his* reason for voting *me*. I would like to know.

This line, primarily.  What else would I think about such a vote on myself but that it was flawed?  What exactly is the purpose of asking, save to create tension between Hooded Justice and myself?

Hrm. Still disagree. Read Adrian's line as mere curiosity, admit that I had also wondered at that time what your reaction to Hooded Justice's vote would be. Think Adrian's motivation just as simple.

Agree with Adrian's conclusion that Manhattan's vote not well justified. Would prefer to lynch Dreiberg as he still contributes little while appearing to talk plenty [read: plenty of flavor/banter, no analysis/building cases] but will move to Manhattan to ensure productive end to day.

##Unvote: Nite Owl II (Dan Dreiberg)
##Vote: Doctor Manhattan

Minus one to hammer.

[Helga Pataki]

On the li'l' Jon/Adrian showdown, I'm gonna have to agree with Adrian more. Seems like Jon's even further out of touch with humanity than I thought, 'cause I'm not seeing a problem with what Adrian's said either.
I still have doubts about Hollis, but I really can't clarify them. Something just doesn't sit right with me. (Just gonna mention, it ain't OMGUS, seein' as he'd be a really random target if that were it, considerin' how many were on my case.) As there's no clear reason for it, though, I'm gonna:
##Unvote: Hollis Mason
HoS: Doctor Manhattan

Goin' back to Adrian and Jon, I can't see how Jon's original vote for Adrian implies in any way that it's based on reactionary tactics. This ain't lookin' good, although it also looks really clumsy if he is Commie... Still, thinking that's the best available to us at this stage. Not gonna cast the final vote until we get at least a hint o' roleclaim, and hopefully a mod comment on Eddie's question.

[Nathan Greaves]

*whistles* Sure is quiet around here.  I hope Dan is still willing to stop by sometimes, it can be a bit lonely being retiree.

Comedian's point on Doc pushing toward Laurie then backing off as perhaps a commie move to insulate self from blame should Laurie flip American is well-taken.  But I still don't entirely buy that the rationale Doc used was inherently bad - he's already said that his vote was an intuitive probe on Day 1.  Such efforts are likely to be tentative by their nature and are plausibly America-friendly.  I find saying little at all more suspicious myself (Spectre / Dreiberg), and certainly give America less useful information on future days when examining history.

That said, with Spectre's psuedo-vote, it seems like Manhattan is our suspect with 5 votes.  I think you'd best roleclaim, Doc, the Doomsday Clock is ticking - I believe we have only 4 hours left.

Also.  Earlier plans to perhaps use Bubastis to "interrogate" suspects may have to be put on hold here.  I suppose if we do formally vote for Doc, we politely ask him to go visit Mars and stop murdering us by night and hope he doesn't detonate us all?