Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

[Kilgamayan]

Otter: I'm more or less satisfied with Dhyer's explanations. If you want my reasoning, it's on the previous page.

[Kilgamayan]

Figures that that'd be the first post of a new page.

Whatever, at least I linked to it.

[Dhyerwolf]

Yakumo, I guess at first it was more a question of confusion over Ciato’s suspicions, which was then aggrevated by attempts to try to get her to fully unwind/explain her logic. The amount of times I’ve had to repeat the question is what’s driving most of my suspicion towards her, because I just can’t seem to get the full question answered.

Kilga, Otter being against being uncivil in the past is really tied up in what he sees as being civil or not. As far as I know, he hasn’t admitted to seeing his actions as being uncivil in this game, and by his internal logic, he hasn’t strayed from his “town has no reason to be uncivil” view.

And we’re starting to look somewhat split across 3 people at the moment, so vote examination.

Kilga: Voted on by Nitori. Nitori agrees with Kilga going after Yakumo’s attacks on Otter, but disagrees with Kilga’s saying that Otter/Ciato was about gaming strategy. But I kind of disagree with them both (I do think it was about gaming style, but unlike Kilga, I certainly don’t think that renders it less relevant in any way). Vote for Kilga for being laidback and voting Otter instead of Smodge at the end. Well, I did find the Otter vote a little odd, but again, I disagreed with a lot of the logic behind it. Kilga had earlier said that he thought Otter vs. Ciato was town vs town (post 51), and I can’t quite see the logic he gave in reply 85 as something that would really change his mind. Kilga did say that he found Smodge suspicious, but he never made a move to change his vote, for all that at the time it seemed pretty clear that Smodge was going to be the day’s lynch. I guess reading over that does make me slightly more suspicious of Kilga overall.

Corwin is the second vote. Reason given seems to be that Kilga removed his vote on someone that he had a null to scum read on and didn’t place it anywhere else. Corwin does use that s word that I’ve made my opinions on clear. Kilga did explain that he was waiting to see what I would say to vote me or Yakumo, but Corwin rightly calls out that Kilga asked me why I didn’t change my vote to put pressure on someone when Kilga didn’t even put another vote down. That’s a little inconsistent, but the overall reasoning feels weaker than Nitori’s reasoning.

Otter: Voted on by Lady Door. Reasoning is a combo of Otter chided people for being inattentive and his day 1 activities. His error was really weird, but he did say that his catching it shouldn’t clear off excuse him, just be a mitigating factor. He’s pretty clear about that, so I find the wording of “your entire post justifying why the way you handled your mistake should clear you from snap suspicion” strange. Given that part of her argument is based on smokescreens, I generally find it not strong. I think his error itself is pretty weird, but not something I’d hold in high regard because of lot of people, myself including, have made some notably big errors.

Yakumo votes Otter, partially for incivility and partially for inconsistency compared to earlier games. I’ve gone over both of these before, and neither of them are things I really agree with. Again, the strongest argument I feel he has is that Otter made a mistake.

Andrew: Otter votes on him for lurking pretty much. Ciato basically follows that up. And overall, I completely agree. He’s basically given us nothing on day 2 other than cursory reviews of day 1, and consistently running off. I’m mildly suspicious of Ciato, Yakumo (for his reasoning on his attacks on Otter, which I didn't really think held up for reasons I've stated before), and Kilga, but Andrew is just giving us nothing and none of the other are ones I feel really strongly on except maybe Ciato. He gave us less than 5 posts, and the closest he came to casting a vote was solely based on lurking and nothing with content.

##Unvote: Ciato
##Vote: Andrew

[Corwin]

My reasoning behind the Kilga vote, in case it wasn't clear despite my admittedly brief explanations, is that you would only do a large, two-post spanning analysis on too many people for it to have any kind of focus and NOT land a vote, even a pressure vote or a 'I think you're scummier than the others, let's get discussion started' vote is a smokescreen. Despite the time that's already passed into day 2, sluggish conversation and no real leads, why would you want to go 'here, I have a lot of useful content!' but not actually contribute to focusing the discussion somewhere?

In many games where I've been town, scum have tried this tactic. The most memorable is Tai as the last remaining scum in the Discworld endgame. Once he did his long 'player x talks to player y, somehow this means one would be scum based on a flip' analysis post he became my lead target for the last scum. Of course, I was DEAD by that time, so I don't intend to wait too long to put things out there now. Add that to a general lack of substance and content I get from him, despite actually having a strong presence in the thread... it just doesn't look good to me, so it's hardly this one reason to look at Kilga in depth.

Still. The only other vote is Nitori's. I also exist at a timeslot which none of the other players overlap on weekends, it seems. I do see other people as suspicious, namely Andrew. I considered it day 1 as it was derailed due to other things, and even recently when I believe I said the same thing Otter did about him, if only using less words, myself. So, let's make it official and get a claim out of him, since by my count this is the fourth vote out of six necessary for lynch.

##Unvote: Kilga
##Vote: Andrew

What else of note? http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8741#msg8741 by Yakumo. That feels like a weird defense approaching OMGUS. I'd find it more convincing had he pushed his case along to convert other people rather than, you know, said 'we have plenty of people to focus on, please don't include me'. Then again, given it's Kilga voting, here, I'd vote Kilga over Yakumo in a flash. I guess I would've been happier had someone else said the things Yakumo did.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I definitely think Kilga is my second suspect after Andrew, but... well. The level of doing nothing is pretty ridiculous at this point. I would vote for either in a heartbeat (in fact, I did vote for Kilga in Day 1). But my view on the matter is that Kilga at least posted -something-, whereas Andrew... uh yeah.

[Yakumo]

Otter, you don't ever seem to think that you're being incivil, even when you get to the point where everyone is tuning you out because they don't want to listen to you anymore.  It's not even so much a measure of specific phrases that you use that are by themselves inflammatory, it's your attitude that you must absolutely be right and if anyone disagrees with you they must automatically be wrong, stupid, or both.  I'd like to point out the fact that the scum have been in general afraid of Ciato because she actually finds the scum instead of witchhunting out bad townie play, she just doesn't do it the first day as there's nothing there to work on.  You may not agree with her style, but it has been PROVEN TO WORK.  Yet you attack her for it, saying things like "You couldn't possibly have such a "difference in philosophy" anyway unless there were a concomitant difference in OBJECTIVES." (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8392#msg8392), and "Mafia isn't some mythical, incomprehensible religious dance, for which everyone has a different "style" that works equally well in totally different ways." (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=375.msg8403#msg8403)  which to me is essentially saying "Do things my way or you must be wrong and therefore scum!"  I don't play the same way you do.  Nobody really plays the same way as anyone else, as we all see the same thing slightly differently.  EVERYONE has their own "style" of play, and it can't be possible for only one of them to actually be useful.  Ciato's may be farther apart from yours than most, but throwing her under the bus for it is overkill, especially since it in and of itself can't be a provable scumtell as she uses it all the time as town.  I really wouldn't find it a scumtell if someone did it in their first game: it suggests they believe that their vote is too valuable a weapon to throw around without thinking about it, not that they don't see a reason to use it at all, as far as I'm concerned.  Suggesting otherwise, and that you are the mythical perfection that everyone must aspire to if they play this game, is somewhat offensive to me given that my own way has worked pretty well for me in the past, as have other players' styles for them.  Those are just two examples that stick out to me off the top of my head, I'm sure I could dig up others if you want.

I understand what you're getting at about that post, Corwin, but that's not intended to be a "don't vote for me" post so much as a "make a case if you're going to split the vote up EVEN MORE with Alex hinting at a deadline" post.  I don't care if you vote for me if you actually think that I'm the best choice.  I'm going to do my best to convince you otherwise, of course, but it's the way you play the game.  But he's splitting up an already scattered set of votes even more, without really making any sort of push to get anyone else to do the same.  In my opinion, that sounds like he's just trying to avoid the questioning of why he was putting out all that analysis and not voting, as opposed to actually trying to find and lynch scum.  That's the reasoning for that post.  If you're going to vote for someone, put your reasoning out there for people to see and comment on so you can either get them to join you and lynch the guy, or have it explained why people don't agree so you can move your vote to a more useful target.  If you've put out reasoning in like your last half dozen posts, nobody else has agreed with you yet enough to vote, and you just say "hell with it" and toss a vote out there anyway, how are you helping?

[AndrewRogue]

*yawns*

I realize that my content yesterday was lacking and I had no votes down, but shock and amaze, I pretty explicitly I was going to be gone all day tomorrow. So please, quit acting shocked or whatever. It is fine and dandy to vote me for lurking, but you all are acting like I didn't give warning about this either.

Otter... learn to read, perhaps? Obviously I was having some trouble with analysis (I was fairly obviously returning to the post constantly to try and get something), which seems kind of silly to keep drawing attention to if I was scum. I was making an effort, it just wasn't panning out. Then, obviously, I haven't had a chance to look at things since Fnorder bit the bullet.

Ciato...

Andrew has had crazily little presence in the game. He switches votes a lot, latches onto Corwin and then smodge and then it stays there, basically not existing. Day 2 he's all like "I'm going to attack the lurkers. Maybe!"... um... wow. One thing he does say is making a complete 180 on his view on the argument between Otter and me, despite nothing actually happening in that time! He says we feel like townies arguing, and then he tries to vaguely waggle fingers at both of us. It kinda feels like he's trying to add content artificially?

Impressive number of misrepresentations and contradictions in a single analysis. I switch votes a lot (which, to be strictly clear, was three times after the mistake on Excal: onto another (which I formatted wrong), onto Corwin for the hypocrisy and Smodge for his faulty logic)! ...but I only latch onto two people? I make a complete 180 on her and Otter when nothing new has happening! ...by looking closer at the arguments and bringing up things I stated I've seen earlier in the topic to keep them fresh in mind? Furthermore, you make it sound like a bad thing that I saw something scummy and stick with it. Admittedly, I did lack a bit of content after that, but that is because most of the conversation was Smodge, myself or lurker related. I simply didn't have a lot to say there.

I don't say I'm going to attack the lurkers, maybe. I say that I'm going to be gone all day and don't want to put a vote down when I won't have the opportunity to manipulate it for a while, so I toss out a strong warning in place of that to make it clear what I was intending without having a vote stuck out there that I can't change.

Corwin... tosses out a vote for me that I'm not seeing an explanation for besides "admit your role, go on, do it!" so if you could clarify your accusations before I do, I'd appreciate it.

Kilga's posting habits are a bit lackluster, but he has thrown down some decent looking material today.

Nitori is still generally slim on the content, which is bothersome.

At this point, where stuff has happened, I'm starting to actually quite uneasy about Otter and Ciato. On top of essentially ignoring my post and misrepresenting what I have actually posted, they really do seem to be limiting their hunt/s fairly exxclusively to lurkers and posting large chunks of fairly... neutral analysis. Looking back through, it partly occurs to me why I was having so much trouble with day two posting. They were saying lots of things, but not really saying anything that felt particularly meaningful. They both jump on me for lurker attention, when they've basically been doing the same thing, just supplementing it with a lot more words that may or may not be useful to, as Ciato put it, "add content artificially."

This also makes their initial skirmish look a lot darker obviously as, yeah, they both were getting written off for acting like themselves and even I fell into the trap of, for that reason, generally feeling like it was a townie vs townie argument. It did the exact opposite of really obfuscate the arguments, and instead placed the two of them in direct opposition (which totally mellowed out) and got people to generally wave it off.

Out of the two at the moment, Ciato's reasoning for voting me is relying on contradictory claims and outright misrepresentation outside of anything related directly towards low posting though. As such...

##Vote: Ciato

[Nitori]

Well, looking back on my position on Kilga, I still think he was really iffy as to how he played out day 1 (even if my diatribe about Otter being his usual self was a bit of a weak attack, I still found it questionable enough.), and I do agree with the inconsistency that Cor pointed out. That being said, while I do believe that he is scum, it is also apparent that he is unlikely to be lynched at this point, so I'm going to take a look at the other people.

Andy's charges are lurking, and given the high vote spread of today it seems likely that it will end up being LaL in the end. I'm not going to put him to -1, since he did say he would be gone (although he didn't necessarily note a time when he would be back), and I want to give him time to roleclaim.

EDIT: Well, there he is...and with a decent explanatory post which covers the events pretty well and makes some decent points on both Otter and Ciato. It's definitely worth a look, I suppose, and I'll try and find time to go over Ciato today since that is the main person Andy is looking at.

[Lady Door]

I regret the mistake, and appreciate that there's a measure of irony since I've been tough on errors of all kinds in this game and in others, but I hope other players will consider my quick retraction before they tear me to pieces.

And then you defend yourself against Corwin and spend almost your entire post justifying why the way you handled your mistake should clear you from snap suspicion. I've considered your quick retraction. I do appreciate that you noticed your mistake rather than waiting for someone else to do so and forcing you to defend it. You still made a huge error for someone who advocates close reading every post and castigates others for failing to notice nuance. There's also the smaller but not insignificant error of praising Andrew for something he hadn't actually done.

I never did say I should be cleared of suspicion because of the fact that I corrected myself first.  I did express hope that other players would be more lenient considering that fact, just as I would be in your place, but what do you want me to do?  Be a hypocrite, agree with Corwin, and say "Inattentiveness shouldn't be a tell now that I'm guilty of it too!" or what?

Read the bolded parts in my quote. I never said you said that either. You asked that other players consider your quick retraction before they tear you to pieces. I said you used your post as if to justify people from drawing snap suspicion -- as in, immediate suspicion based solely on that error -- and that I have indeed avoided doing so: I considered your quick correction and appreciate it, and still see fit to "tear into you" for having done it in the first place.

I basically agree with Ciato as far as NK goes: it's an important piece of information for a live townie to have. It colors re-reading posts by said person. It helps piece together some of what they said and compare it against what others have said about them. Forgetting that a townie was NK'd ... *shrug* Fairly egregious. I don't expect you to be a hypocrite, no, because that would certainly be a bad thing as well. The simple fact is that you made a big error and you addressed it as best you could but I still think it's too big to simply push aside because you said sorry.

Re: Yakumo's long paragraph about Otter... yeah. I agree. Not a reason to vote for him, as that really DOES seem to be a gameplay thing, but I still think it's worth noting that it's a style which could easily be a tool for scum (a la something like the argument from Day 1). I'll reiterate here that I never said this is what Otter actually did, just that it's how it could work and I could see him doing so.

LD, if you wouldn't mind explaining which way exactly that you lean, that'd be great.

I would be inclined to call Otter's behavior day 1 "uncivil," largely for reasons Yakumo has posted. The only reason I stop short of it is because I've been told "that's just how he is" and I shouldn't get distracted by it. Other players are aware of it, and I'm sure he is too. Instead of judging him based on it, I'm more interested in seeing how he uses it, and that's partially where my suspicion comes from.

Otter: Voted on by Lady Door. Reasoning is a combo of Otter chided people for being inattentive and his day 1 activities. His error was really weird, but he did say that his catching it shouldn’t clear off excuse him, just be a mitigating factor. He’s pretty clear about that, so I find the wording of “your entire post justifying why the way you handled your mistake should clear you from snap suspicion” strange. Given that part of her argument is based on smokescreens, I generally find it not strong. I think his error itself is pretty weird, but not something I’d hold in high regard because of lot of people, myself including, have made some notably big errors.

No, my reasoning is day 1 activity including a very impassioned argument against inattentiveness and the error on day 2 analyzing someone who he should not have analyzed were he as attentive as he tells others they should be. I've already explained that sentence. Did you miss "snap" and the explanation in the sentence following? I pretty directly mirrored Otter's phrasing -- "I hope other players will consider my quick retraction before they tear me to pieces." My response is in bold in the quote above.

Re: Andrew being up for the lynch.

Well. He was obviously my #2 from Day 1 with the information we had available, and he started out being my #1 for today until reading over Otter's interactions pushed him to #2 again. I'd be much more comfortable lynching Otter than Andrew since a lot of the argument against Andy seems to be based in him simply not being around enough to contribute more, but I still think Andy should go and believe we'll get plenty of info from a flip on him.

I will wait to hear from him before I move my vote, however.

EDIT: He posts while I'm typing, of course.

I think the justification for votes got a little out of hand and I do think Ciato did a bit of misrepresentation. However, I'm not going to buy the "I just didn't have much to say on that stuff" thing because I consider the whole point of this game to find a way to do exactly that. Still considering my vote on him. Just waiting for the roleclaim. I'm really uneasy with stalling so long since you're calling for information from someone who's not going to be back for a rather long time, but I can't blame you for wanting to wait to hear people with suspicions respond to your explanation. However, why do you have to wait for him? There are 4 other people, including myself and Yakumo, who all think you're scummy and Corwin already has his vote on you. What you should be worrying about is the people who don't, and can hammer you for everything else that's on the table.

[AndrewRogue]

Then put me at -1 to lynch, and I'll claim. As is, I feel kind of silly doing it right this moment when I'm at -2 because the last vote on me seems entirely oriented on fishing for my claim. If the pressure really comes down, I'll claim, but in this position, I'm distinctly uncomfortable with it.

[Luther Lansfeld]

You did indeed make a 180. Day 1 you say "Wow, this doesn't seem bad at all, I'm going to focus on other people!" and then Day 2 you come out with this smokescreen stuff "Hmm, well, there's a possibilty this is a smokescreen." except I feel like this is just, uh, filling space so you don't seem like you are not actually saying anything when you -AREN'T-. This isn't a misrepresentation, it's what I saw as essentially what you were doing. If you disagree with that, fine. But that is not saying something that is fallacious, because you did indeed say that.

As I've mentioned before, everything I say in a topic scan is not proof of scumminess. Everything I say in a topic scan IS A TOPIC SCAN. I don't think sticking by the smodge vote is scummy or unscummy. It's just an event that happened. Other than that, I don't see the contradictions you are talking about. You may feel like the things I said are misrepresentations (but I don't actually see any evidence in your analysis that points to this, you regard most of the points I made as true and then attack them for my interpretation of them). That isn't misrepresenting you. That is seeing the things that you have done (which is what the post essentially said, with a couple of off comments on my opinions on the matter) as something I don't like.

Honestly I think you're just flailing. Quite similar to past scum Andy, if I must say. I'm even happier with my vote now.

[OblivionKnight]

Yeesh. 

Stuff came up yesterday that kept me from doing anything here, and I'll be gone the majority of today.  I'll try to be back to make a final look at around 9pm or so if I can (I'll be missing noms anyhow, but I'll try to check this topic).

With what's happened...yeesh, Fnorder.  There was a good suspect gone that was just a townie not wanting to play.  And we get closer to LYLO now (2 days, if I read this correctly).  Ouch.

##Unvote: Dhyer

Dhyer responded thoroughly to everything I asked, and seems to be pushing a good deal of explanation forth.  Fine by me.

Now, as to where else to go? 

Kilga...I had no real issues, but that vote and run thing...is rubbing me the wrong way.  Granted, he did say it was explained in a previous post, which...eh.  It doesn't feel strong, but it's explained.  I'm still a bit worried about it at the moment.

Andy...posts, and with a good deal of information.  Mmm...I see some points, but...something still bugs me a bit.  Unfortunately, I'm strapped for time.  I don't feel comfortable putting him at -1 at the moment when I won't be around later, though I do have a sneaking suspicion of him right now. 

Ciato/Otter...I think they're town, but they're doing a good job of hiding if they're actually scum.  Again, I wish I had more time right now to read this over.  My suspicions still strongly suggest they're town, and both going after someone who looks like a scum at the moment. 

Nitori...is still low on posting.  The hard part is that this seems very, very normal for him from all the games I've played.  Where he was town.  A bit of meta-gaming, but...I'm not sure where I stand on that.  He does bring out a valid point on post #159:

"Also, when Otter was doing his smodge train analysis, I found it weird that he didn't say anything about Dhyer; he wasn't on the train, but he certainly attempted to join it and did vote for him, but forgot to unvote. I think that makes him as worthy of analysis as the actual train members and I would ask Otter to share his thoughts on it."

Which Otter commented on well.  Basically, I think he's had some insight and brought up good points (even if they're few in quantity), so overall neutral feeling at the moment, leaning on the side of good.

Corwin...fairly neutral.  He's given good arguments, thoughts and generally been good at explaining things, outside of the initial day 1 weirdness.  However, as Andrew said, the vote on Andrew is a bit...weak.  Granted, he does state he mentioned things about it earlier, and considered it earlier...but I don't remember them myself.  I need to read them when I return.

That's the majority of the people right now.  My current vote is going to...

##Vote: Kilga

As I said, I don't want to put Andy at -1 while I'll be gone for a while, and that vote-and-run seemed weak and random.  Others have said they have a good case against him - I'd like to hear more if possible.

I'll try to be back later. 

[Kilgamayan]

Jesus, this is the last time I assume people read my posts, starting right now.

I lay down a vote with "no explanation" because I assumed people had read my previous posts and knew why I suspected Yakumo. The fact that Otter asked for an explanation makes his "are you even reading my posts?" directed at whoever is was from earlier look rather hypocritical, and the rest of you...well, I dunno.

In the future, do people want me to redirect them to posts I made a page ago when using said posts as reasoning? I don't do it to other people because I don't appreciate it happening to me (I feel like it's insulting my intelligence by saying "hey just in case you were too stupid to notice this post here it is again") but I will if it is asked of me.

Kilga did explain that he was waiting to see what I would say to vote me or Yakumo, but Corwin rightly calls out that Kilga asked me why I didn’t change my vote to put pressure on someone when Kilga didn’t even put another vote down.

o_O When did I do this? I don't recall every questioning your reason for voting or not voting someone.

[Kilgamayan]

Whoops, missed this.

Kilga did say that he found Smodge suspicious, but he never made a move to change his vote, for all that at the time it seemed pretty clear that Smodge was going to be the day’s lynch.

I never said I found smodge suspicious, I only said I understood the case against him.

And no, I don't think those are the same thing.

[Ranmilia]

Votecount!  With 10 alive, it still takes 6 to lynch.

Fnorder (0): Otter, Yakumo

Nitori (0): , Kilgamayan
Kilga (2): Nitori, OK, Corwin
Dhyer (0): OK
Ciato (1): Andrew, Dhyer
Otter (2): LadyDoor, Yakumo
Andrew (4): Otter, Ciato, Dhyer, Corwin
Yakumo (1): Kilga

65.5 hours have elapsed in day 2.

[AndrewRogue]

You did indeed make a 180. Day 1 you say "Wow, this doesn't seem bad at all, I'm going to focus on other people!" and then Day 2 you come out with this smokescreen stuff "Hmm, well, there's a possibilty this is a smokescreen." except I feel like this is just, uh, filling space so you don't seem like you are not actually saying anything when you -AREN'T-. This isn't a misrepresentation, it's what I saw as essentially what you were doing. If you disagree with that, fine. But that is not saying something that is fallacious, because you did indeed say that.

To quote myself.

The Ciato/Otter thing... bleh. It basically feels like fairly regularly spats out of both of them. Ciato's early comments are a bit harsher than normal, but it really doesn't seem to be a tell one way or the other.

Which, in turn, becomes...

The Ciato/Otter thing... eh. I still need to do some more rereading, but the major stand out moment to me is Ciato's uncharacteristic aggressiveness. Otter's rabid assaults stand out as well because, well, as people point out, their aggressiveness tends to obfuscate his actual point, especially when things start need. I will say that, while the argument did get pretty loud and large, it wasn't really a great smokescreen, as it didn't shut down other argumentation. Still, need to check some reactions on it.

Since I was recapping the events of the day, I merely picked out the things that stood out to me. So, again, this isn't a 180. A 180 would me be proclaiming it meant one of you were scum or something. This was a slight reangling brought posted to recap the things that stood out to me from day one on day two. I mentioned the things that stood out to me and the possibilities so they were there and convenient to see.

As I've mentioned before, everything I say in a topic scan is not proof of scumminess. Everything I say in a topic scan IS A TOPIC SCAN. I don't think sticking by the smodge vote is scummy or unscummy. It's just an event that happened. Other than that, I don't see the contradictions you are talking about. You may feel like the things I said are misrepresentations (but I don't actually see any evidence in your analysis that points to this, you regard most of the points I made as true and then attack them for my interpretation of them). That isn't misrepresenting you. That is seeing the things that you have done (which is what the post essentially said, with a couple of off comments on my opinions on the matter) as something I don't like.

The problem with that assertion is that you post the topic scan, and then immediately put out a vote for me without clarification for what I actually did that was scummy. The closest you come is to mention me quote-unquote making up content, but you never explicitly state what in there is actually causing you to vote for me, leaving me to assume that, given the accusatory tone of your post, it is everything.

And yes, I did point out the flaws with your "scan." I wasn't jumping between votes. I was actually leading charges on day one. Two of them, specifically. You see the flaw in your statement? You say I jump votes a lot, then accuse me of only going after two people. These ideas are not reconciable. I can't be jumpy AND stick to two people.

You say I 180'd, when right up there are two posts that are definitely not complete 180s.

You put out my unwillingness to vote Fnorder when I wouldn't be around (something I outrighted stated) as an unwillingness to go after anything.

These are pretty outright misrepresentations that put me in the worst possible light.

You, on the other hand, have played rather passively. For all the long walls of text, there is very little real analysis going on. People are just... talking, then, people like you and Otter come along and have been pretty exclusively on whatever lurker or suddenly bad case crops up and riding it.  Given that your statement was just a "scan," you really haven't said why you're voting for me beyond lurking, while acting like you have some big important cases.

Hell, you guys had no problem with me... right until I couldn't post because I was gone. Then SUDDENLY all this evidence pours in on why I'm scummy.

See the problem here?

[Otter]

Hey, so he's returned!

You say I 180'd, when right up there are two posts that are definitely not complete 180s.

You put out my unwillingness to vote Fnorder when I wouldn't be around (something I outrighted stated) as an unwillingness to go after anything.

These are pretty outright misrepresentations that put me in the worst possible light.

You could say that Ciato's interpretation is casting you in the worst possible light, but you're casting yourself in a negative light by, you know, not being around and not casting votes a whole lot today.  When we look at behavior, we often think, "Does this make sense if the person's scum?"  And then we see you delaying your vote again and again and making excuses about why it hasn't shown up yet, until eventually dropping it on Ciato very late in the day.  It doesn't take that much of a stretch to see your activities over the course of day 2 as looking bad.

However, I'm not completely unconvinced by what you're saying about Ciato.

You, on the other hand, have played rather passively. For all the long walls of text, there is very little real analysis going on. People are just... talking, then, people like you and Otter come along and have been pretty exclusively on whatever lurker or suddenly bad case crops up and riding it.  Given that your statement was just a "scan," you really haven't said why you're voting for me beyond lurking, while acting like you have some big important cases.

I've already ranted about how town must witchhunt to win and I am confounded by Ciato's insistence that passive play can be beneficial (I don't see why town can't be aggressive AND perceptive), but putting game theory aside, has Ciato been passively lurking in the shadows this game?  Well, on the first day, she did take action on her own by voting for Kilga, who didn't have anyone voting for him (smodge had jokevoted him early but had already removed that).  She didn't really press the issue and the Kilga vote went nowhere, but it's something.  Today she took a cue from me by voting for Andrew, but that certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me; I'm not going to say "Anyone who votes the same way another person already has is a copycat and a passive scum player!" because that's absurd.  Trains have to start and there's no reason not to follow along with a vote made for a good reason.  I've had my doubts about her, particularly regarding some positions she took on day 1, but she doesn't look all that bad to me so far in day 2.

Andy, on the other hand, -did- press hard on his smodge vote yesterday (making the vote on an issue Fnorder has raised but for some reason didn't actually drop a vote on) and that started a lynch train.  A lynch train on a townie, unfortunately, but one that looked sound enough to me, although I didn't join it because Ciato looked worse than smodge to me at the time.  Day 2 has been terrible for him, with a whole lot of non-content and putting matters off, but he's back now, apparently, and coming down hard on Ciato now that he's at -2 to hammer.  Some of his accusations seem to have at least some weight to them (Ciato yelled at him for letting his smodge vote just stick there, when he'd determined that smodge looked like scum? even though Ciato's vote was just sticking on Kilga? and this was right AFTER Ciato yelled at him for jumping around too much?).  It's true that there wasn't a big problem with him until he was, you know, gone and content-less for a lot of the day, but that's not something to ignore; he knew he needed to be gone, he could have done something ahead of time other than promise more later and not vote.

Do I sound undecided?  Well, here's my decision for now.  I'm leaving my vote where it stands on Andy; the absence of content for the majority of day 2 is still too much.  Nevertheless, I'd like to hear his roleclaim, although he's said he won't claim until he's at -1 to hammer, so, hopefully that will happen soonish or he'll just go ahead and claim earlier.

[Lady Door]

Not really, Andrew. I, for one, posted my suspicions on you about the same time you made your morning check-and-run post. I know you're not referring to me so much, though, so I thought I'd check back to see when things really picked up against you.

Funny enough, it's Otter who started it, having to find a new place for his vote to go since Fnorder was modkilled. He goes for Andy over... weird things. I agree with Andy that it's kind of unfair to expect him to come up with a response to events that happened while he was gone. Otter characterizes it as a "pressure vote" at just about 48 hours into Day 2, further fragmenting the vote spread. I'm least sure about this vote because it seems to be solely based on the fact that Andrew was gone even though he said he would be. ((EDIT: ... wait. So you're saying he came back and added content when pressed, which is what you wanted from him, but now that he's done so that's not enough? Even though it's given you more against your favorite target? ))

Ciato's behavior in the post where she votes Andy is just plain weird compared to how she writes in her other posts, and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it on re-read other than that she must've been fresh from some mind-altering experience (video games? acid? alcohol? puppies?). Despite the tone of her evidence, I generally feel the final sentence of her argument against him -- "It kinda feels like he's trying to add content artifically" -- is stronger than the points Andrew picks on to argue with (which would rather ironically pad content artifically, wouldn't it?). It basically agrees with my read on Andrew, too.

Dhyer keeps showing up in time to "me too" whatever's happening, which is weird. I kinda get the feeling he's padding his posts by summarizing everything people have done around whatever person he's speaking about. I'm not comfortable with Dhyer summarizing what people have done in his own words and then boiling that into a verdict. This is mainly because it has so, so much potential for misrepresentation, which is exactly what happened with his reaction to what I had to say about Otter. He also apparently avoids saying anything about Otter directly, instead focusing on what other people have said about Otter and chiding them for being wrong. That, uh... seems weird. But his Andy vote is basically "what they said, which is more than I have on these other people (who no one's talked about as much)".

Corwin... well... I'd like to hear more from Corwin on why he thinks Andrew is worth his vote, but I also don't really feel like waiting an extra 5 or 6 hours after the 72 hour mark to hear from someone who's already voted for a target I agree with about why he agrees with me. There's time enough to deal with that Day 3.

I'm convinced that I would like to lynch Andrew, but I'm less comfortable with other people's reasons. This vote train has actually made me suspicious of a few people on it, and you can bet that it will be the topic of discussion for me on Day 3.

EDIT: ... damn. Then Otter posts! *edits-to-add to above post*

Whatever. I'm confident enough I want Andrew lynched today.

##VOTE AndrewRogue

The information that comes from his role claim and, if he does indeed get lynched, his flip are going to clear up a looooot of issues.

[AndrewRogue]

Blech. Right then. Role claim, ahoy!

I am the Knytt. I live peacefully in my village in the Haraha Mountains, watching the little balls bounce by with their animal friends.

This also means I spend pretty much all of my time standing around, watching things, which gives me rather special insight into things. In other words, I'm a Town Cop. My first night's investigation was of LadyDoor (who turned up innocent), hence me not giving much mention of her at all.

[Kilgamayan]

Well then.

Why'd you pick LD to investigate, though? I don't think anyone suspected her of anything. o_O

[Dhyerwolf]

Kilga, I guess with the case against Smodge, you said you found it plausible. I took that to mean that you had plausible suspicions about him, rather than meaning that you understood the argument of the case. I’d still find it odd that you didn’t give me of an opinion on it at the time since it was the major vote grouping at that period. But I guess that could be chalked up to people analyzing word choice differently.

Lady Door, you still said that Otter justified himself in a way that tried to make it seem like he was clearing himself from snap suspicion, when he admitted that he made a mistake and that it should be considered. He said to be more lenient and not to rip him apart, not to disconsider the mistake. You now say I’m re-summarizing things and misinterpreting, but you said that Otter justified himself in a way that tried to clear himself from suspicion but he said he’s not totally excused.

I might not have said as much directly about Otter, because for the most part, what I get from Otter is that he was aggressive against Ciato for wording something badly. He was so aggressive that he starting to turn people off. In this, several arguments were born that I didn’t think had much merit, and yes, as a result, I went after those with more alacrity. And then he made a mistake. As I’ve said, many others have this game. It makes me more suspicious of him, but I was not generally suspicious of him otherwise since I perceived most of his day 1 activity as being very aggressive against something he found scummy. On not adding more to Otter and Ciato’s votes…at the time the votes were primarily for lurking, with doesn’t leave me much to add on as I agreed. He had posted for very little, especially in day 2. I can’t analyze what isn’t really there.

As for not talking about others, this has been a very long day, so I picked to focus on the top 3 vote getters. I have made my views on others known before, and I didn’t focus on them because with so much time gone by, throwing in additional other weak cases into the mix might have served to fracture the voters even more. It certainly did help that the strongest argument that I say was on Andrew.  If I there was someone else that stood out more, I would have voted on them.

I will that say just because someone says they are going to be gone isn’t an excuse if the day was gone on a decent amount of time, and they haven’t posted anything substantial. That said, cop claim. Blar. So late in the day makes this frustrating, but adding that onto the fact that he’s been around and defended himself (Pretty well, against the 180 actually. His links show that he didn’t really change much, as opposed to say Kilga, who called Otter vs Ciato townie vs townie and called switch over to Otter being scum). He really mostly focused on Otter and Ciato for his analysis on who to vote for now though, so giant amounts of outside content aren’t there. I'm still unsure on Andrew, but the claim is enough to get me to hold off for now.

##Unvote: Andrew
##Vote: Ciato. I haven’t gotten an answer on why she noted that Corwin had starting a train with just a second vote. I’ve been trying to get answer, but just haven’t had any luck, so my suspicion of her was somewhat high. Based on the quotes Andrew provided, the 180 charge seems really off to me. Based on these two together, she’s the player I’m most suspicious of.

[AndrewRogue]

Kilga: It was basically a random shot. No one really, truly stood out to me at the end of day one, so I just went with someone I knew I had a tendency to overlook. Did it really bad in VtM mafia thanks to her wall of text style posts.

(Posted from the Apple Store, on the hideously uncomfortable MacBook Air. Seriously).

[Ranmilia]

Votecount!  With 10 alive, it still takes 6 to lynch.

Fnorder (0): Otter, Yakumo

Nitori (0): , Kilgamayan
Kilga (2): Nitori, OK, Corwin
Dhyer (0): OK
Ciato (2): Andrew, Dhyer, Dhyer
Otter (2): LadyDoor, Yakumo
Andrew (3): Otter, Ciato, Corwin, Dhyer
Yakumo (1): Kilga

Note that someone forgot to unvote and hasn't been counted.

72 hours have elapsed in day 2.  Discussion seems to be dragging quite a lot, and there HAS already been a modkill today.  The day will end in no lynch if there's no decision before I go to bed tonight (probably in ~7 hours).  If you object to this, speak up and give (good) reasons why.  If you have night actions, think about them.

[Otter]

Well okay then.  Cop claim!  Without any counterclaim, so far!  There's no guarantee of there being any cop at all, of course, but it's also not unlikely at all.  Pending a (believable) counterclaim materializing...

##UNVOTE: Andrew

Yeah, I'd really like -not- to lynch the cop, and I'm fairly satisfied by his explanation; he certainly hasn't gone after LadyDoor all day.  That said, my next-highest choice was Ciato, partially for what I thought was infectious and disguised anti-town advice on the first day and partially for the way she contradicted herself in pursuit of Andy.  Especially bad was calling him out for just letting his smodge vote "stick there," as if there's something else you're supposed to do if you still consider the player to look scummiest, and as if her Kilga vote hadn't sat there all through the first day.  Then, of course, she changes her mind and says he's jumping around too much!  This kind of rushed, fractured accusation tells me she's not reading carefully over the game for actual tells, which is purportedly how she tries to catch scum (by her own description), but that she just really wants him to hurry up and get lynched already.  This from a player who's consistently stood against attempts to "hurry the day along too much," citing the fact that more conversation always helps town.

Between the errors and the general out-of-character feel slipping through the cracks, Ciato once again looks the worst from where I'm standing.

##VOTE: Ciato[/b

EDIT: And there it is, no lynch unless we get it done before Alex gets to bed.  Frankly, no lynch would be awful for town at this juncture; we just suffered a modkill today anyway, so we'd basically be handing scum a free day that we really can't afford.  Please, do not allow this to happen.

[Kilgamayan]

##Unvote: Yakumo since that's clearly going nowhere tonight.

Obviously I'm not going to vote for myself, and I'm not going to vote for a cop claim on the same day, so that leaves Otter vs. Ciato.

Otter forgetting who was NKed...I can't tell anything either way from this simply because I don't understand how he could do it at all. On the one hand, scum Otter would not be so unattached from the scum brainstorming session as to be completely uninformed as to who was getting killed. On the other, town Otter would be doing his damndest to be consistent in his "don't make mistakes" mantra so as to avoid drawing ire. Ultimately I place this in the "uh" category rather than the town category or the scum category.

Aside from that, Otter hasn't done much to change my opinion of him from back on Page 6 in a negative fashion. Asking me to explain a vote I had a pre-explanation on the table for is irritating, but that's a personal problem more than anything else. The rest of the time he's been active and informative.

Ciato's Page 7 behavior here and here (two link notes for Yakumo)...eh. The first post seems to be a bunch of non-commitality, with the furthest offensive reach being nervous about how tricky Yakumo is. The second, well, she put her own name in place of what I presume to be Nitori's, and then put up some less-than-stellar offense against Andrew (whcih Andrew has already done his part to debunk). I think her accusation of Andy vote-flailing is in reference to his Page 1 mistake; I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable basing a vote-flailing accusation on a gaffe in the joke vote stage. With someone who is trying to hop from train to train, sure, but not with someone who is voting purely for "let's invite everyone to the one-vote party hehe" purposes.

This hasn't done anything to improve my pre-existing null reading on her, and Andy and Otter have presented a decent amount of their own material.

##Vote: Ciato