Clue Mafia - Game Over

[Corwin]

Semantics, my dear Colonel. Clearly, there is progress where there had been none before. As for the vote of our very own black widow? The reasoning is spurious, as it tries to cloak itself in legitimacy it clearly lacks.

[Ranmilia]

I don't see Meeple's behavior as even particularly eyebrow-raising at this point.  It's day 1, in a guaranteed roleless game.  Yayayayayay *shoots self*  it's a wonder this game's gotten as many posts as it has.  Still!  We must hunt and lynch someone, and noon deadlines make me antsy since I'll never be around close to them, so this makes as good a time as any to start with the serious. 

Sopko definitely stands out to me right now.  His post about certain characters not being here... doesn't sit well with me.  Even though I know this is a roleless game and there's no role fishing to be done, I'm reading it as "Hey where are the other three people?", the first fairly serious comment of the game.  This is followed by his making the first serious vote and now defending it, definitely getting into serious play. 

However, he stands out to me as townish - in this situation I'm thinking scum would want to avoid serious discussion for as long as possible, not instigate it.  Cor also gets some cred from me for this.  Rat's neutral - on the one hand he's calling Sopko on starting discussion, mildly bad, but I agree with his having a problem with the characterization of Meeple Sopko's giving. 

On the fourth hand, this also puts Sopko at 2, as he had a jokevote resting on him from Excal - which is where Rat's own early vote went to.  Possibly eyebrow-raising, possibly frivolous, but I know that I as scum love to subtly turn someone into a lynch case with my buddies in this way, so definitely possible.

Edit:  Rat's response makes it enough for a vote from me, for sure.  Definitely looks like he has a problem with Sopko/Cor taking things out of jokephase.

Summary:
##Unvote: Corwin as we're out of jokephase.
##Vote: Carthrat for having a problem with Sopko's starting discussion.

(and yes I am ironically aware of this putting Rat at 2 from Kilga's jokevote.)
(and yes obviously everyone else needs to join in on the serious discussion.  I hate noon deadlines, it means most of us have just tomorrow evening to debate, but hey 48 hours for day 1 is more generous than I usually am as mod anyhow.)

[Hunter Sopko]

Colonel Mustard, I do believe you're taking my statement of 'timely' to be the wrong way. I do say you military men must not be well equipped to handle sarcasm. It was a flimsy pretense, yes, but an attempt, as our dear Ms. Scarlett said, to shuffle us along into reasonable discussion.

[Carthrat]

Alex:  I'm hardly stifling serious discussion. I do have a view on the transition from 'jokevote' to 'serious' that indicates it doesn't usually just happen spontaneously because someone suggests it, but it's not like I told Cor "No! We Cannot Do That!" and did nothing to create discussion myself.

Instead, I voted for Soppy, mainly because he called Meeple out for what is apparently meant to be a lack of posting, despite less than an hour between the posts. How can he really be said to be flying under the radar? You actually seem to *agree* with me-

Rat's neutral - on the one hand he's calling Sopko on starting discussion, mildly bad, but I agree with his having a problem with the characterization of Meeple Sopko's giving.

I never called him out on starting discussion. It's his reason that raised my eyebrow. On this note, however, given how *early it is in the game*, is it not unusual to call people out for flying under the radar? Especially when they *have been posting?* The first day isn't even half over!

[Ranmilia]

Actually, in my experience, that's *exactly* how the transition from jokevote to serious goes.  But that's beside the point, as is your denial.  Fact is, regardless of why, you attacked the guy starting discussion, and brought up starting serious discussion as an issue.  Sure, you had a reason for it, even a reason I agree with!  Everyone can name reasons for things they do, I still find it suspicious.  Mildly, day 1 suspicious. 

Though somewhat moreso since you're continuing to press it after Sopko's latest post.  A flimsy, less-than-founded lurk charge is, as he says, as good as anything for starting discussion.  If he tried to turn it into a serious case, yes, but that's not happening.  It's fluff to give people *something* to talk about.

[Hunter Sopko]

Not to seem like I'm pressing, but just to point out to Rat about Meeple's post times:

« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2008, 12:50:20 PM »
 « Reply #18 on: Today at 12:28:48 AM »

Doesn't change much of my case, but thats 12 hours, not less than 1.

[Corwin]

I believe what the Colonel is referring to is:

« Reply #18 on: Today at 07:28:48 AM » by Meeplelard
« Reply #19 on: Today at 08:07:14 AM » by Hunter Sopko

And this is indeed less than an hour's difference. However, the distance is great enough that I would not presume to call our cook a ninja. His post was quite likely seen by our Mrs. White before her vote on him, which seems to create a certain discrepancy in her characterization of him flying under the radar.

[Carthrat]

Alex: I *was* and *am* talking about it, what's your point? I disagreed with his contention. I found it an illogical reason to vote for Meeple and thus voted for Sopko. I don't get at all why I shouldn't have been pressing it at that point you mentioned, either. Soppy's reason remains suspect to me, and just because it is apparently the Very First Serious Thing Said!(tm) doesn't make the actual content any *better* and I'm baffled as to why you'd think so.

Soppy: I meant one hour between *his* and *your* posts, not his own posts. I found it odd that you called him for flying under the radar when he, well, had *just posted*. If you're pointing to the distance between his posts as a legitimate reason for voting him, then I think that's a stupid call to make when it's so early in the game. I don't really know how else to quantify it, and that line of thought leaves me somewhat bemused.

[Hunter Sopko]

Ah. That. I did indeed see the cook's post. That is where the 'timely' part came from. No post for 12 hours and drops a jokevote in to go along with the crowd after claiming that nothing but silliness and nonsense has gone on.

I figured I'd point this out to get things moving and lo and behold, it has.

[Excal]

I agree with Alex, the time for jesting has come to an end.  As such...

##Unvote: Sopko

While he's made a few questionable moves, there's nothing there that I won't look the other way for actually starting things up.  That said, I'm also not going to get on Rat's case for going after him.  Despite Alex's jumping on people for daring to get on the case of those starting the serious conversation, it's just as likely to be a gambit to gain credibility as it is to be an honest attempt by town to try and get to the bottom of this.  And if there's something fishy in the methods used that leads to more conversation, then more power to us.

Which brings me to Corwin.  Only four people have made serious posts so far, and three of those votes I can understand even if I don't find them persuasive enough for a vote.  You, on the other hand, baffle me.  Yes, I can understand why you dropped your vote initially.  It was meant to spur conversation, and encourage us to talk.  Well, congratulations.  That goal has been achieved.  So why is your vote still on the cook, especially when you've not only responded to the conversation at hand, but done so in a manner that says you don't even especially agree with the other person voting for Meeple?

In fact, looking back at your four posts that are serious, your first post is dropping the vote, stating your whole intent is to spur discussion, your next one defends your reasoning and claims that you have spurred the discussion you sought.  Post #3 calls Sopko's reasoning spurious and lacking the legitimacy it claims to have, along with #4 which attempts to defend Rat at the same time as it attacks Sopko's character.

And yet...  your vote never went to him.  You didn't even use the cursory explaination of wanting to avoid putting him at -2 to Hammer, nor did you remove your vote from Meeple.  I cannot help but find this to be a very curious, and a very disturbing pattern.  Especially since all of these posts have been small asides skirting around the main conversation.  As such...

##Vote: Corwin

[Corwin]

Portraying a second vote in terms of -2 to hammer is quite the mischaracterization, I'm afraid. It also looks quite nasty, even though three people would actually be needed to the majority. The only way to avoid this... why, it is not to vote in any meaningful fashion!

Only four people have made serious posts so far, and three of those votes I can understand even if I don't find them persuasive enough for a vote.

And how duplitious it is to both name my reason for not moving my vote, and yet condemn me for it! My vote is just fine where it is, until and unless I either find someone suspicious enough to truly warrant it, or things escalate to a train I do not agree with. What other possible reasons could there be for withdrawing a vote?

While it is true that I find Mrs. White the most suspicious, so far, it is not quite at the level of wanting to vote for her. And certainly not when my vote would have been the third, thus placing her within hammer reach. Now that you have deigned to unvote her, I will reconsider my stance, a decision complicated by not being entirely convinced with your reasons for striking at this poor, defenseless maid.

[Excal]

First off, when did I ever mention that a second vote would lead to -2 to hammer.  I said that that would be a viable excuse for you not to be the third vote for Sopko before I withdrew my own vote.  And I find your misreading of my words to be most curious.

I notice that you focused on my claim that they were not persuasive enough for a vote, the other cases.  I also stated why I wasn't overly worried by them, and why I found your case more pressing.  As well, you miss the true point of that sentance.  I can understand why they have their votes where they do.  Their votes are on people that they find to be scummy, and that they believe should be lynched.  Whereas you, you voted to have a conversation piece.  You have your conversation, and yet you are still providing 20% of the weight needed to kill our poor cook without giving any reason for it that is still valid.

Please, forgive me for finding it suspicious that you are leaving your vote on someone that there is presently a serious argument towards lynching, when you have a) given no reason why you believe that person should be lynched, b) criticized the person leading that charge, and c) will likely not be around when the bulk of the argumentation will be made, influencing the vote without actually having any great interest in the person whose fortune you are influencing.

Add on to this the way you've been saying all of this is bite sized pieces on the fringe of debate, and the way it feels that you tried to skirt around my argument does leave a very bad impression upon me.

[Carthrat]

Well, the obvious reason to withdraw a vote is to place it on someone who seems more suspicious than your previous target. Rather than put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, you avoid voting for someone who seems suspicious to you because you're worried about looking bad?

Keep in mind that you- and Sopko- are leaving Meeple at 2 votes *despite acknowledging that his play has not yet contained any meaningful slips, mistakes, or errors*. I would rather see someone who has something of a case against them with three votes than someone with effectively no case at 2, or at the *least* not see 2 votes- the beginnings of a 'serious' train- on someone who has not really done anything to earn it.

The concerns about her entering 'hammer reach' are.. a bit overblown. -2 isn't really that close; the game's pretty small, after all. It isn't like anyone is going to get away with a sudden surprise hammer, either.

Beyond that- and I was mainly echoing Excal before, I realise- I find it strange that when I look at both yourself and Sopko, neither of you are actually saying anything much. In Sopko's case, he's offered a passing defence for his actions which might be forgivable for day one. You yourself have agreed with me on Soppy and clarified some things for him.

Neither of you have really brought much new to the table since; to be fair, there hasn't been much time, and a lot of people have yet to weigh in. Still, it's odd that the two who seemed most keen to get discussion started have said the least, at least until they're actually questioned. I'd like to hear what both of you think about the past page or so in general, particularly over Alex's post.

[Corwin]

Then I misunderstood the quip about the -2 to hammer, I see. Still, I cannot help but still see you trying to frame the vote in terms of intimidating numbers (such as '20%') rather than what it is, a second vote nowhere near to starting a train, as equally worrisome as you might see your own concerns about me.

While it is quite likely I would not be around when this bulk of argumentation is likely to happen, such was not the case for the time of my previous posts. I should be available for the next six hours at least, barring having to clean up someone's mess and thus unable to contribute meaningfully in that time. I certainly saw no reason to jump around with my vote, as I had plenty of time yet to decide on its final destination.

Looking good or bad really has nothing to do with it. Making certain I place my vote where I want it to be is. As long as our butler was talking, that allowed me to weigh his case vs that of our Mrs. White before deciding at last. Additionally, the Colonel's hypocritical remarks cause me to consider him as well, in turn. While, by his own admission, his recent contribution consists of echoing our dear butler, he then turns to accuse me of not bringing much to the table as of late.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more curious I get. Dear Colonel, what have you done, aside from trying to stifle that spark of serious discussion and arguing with Miss Scarlet over this. Afterwards, you have attacked both myself and Mrs. White for flimsy reasoning, which looks all the more puzzling as our stated reasons for our votes were, in fact, quite opposite to one another. Mrs. White is genuinely suspicious of our cook, for reasons I myself agree are disturbingly spurious. However, I merely used that vote as a tool to try and get us to this stage, before I can decide on a serious one. And yet, you attack both of us equally? It seems as if you are searching for a, as the military calls it, I hear, soft target.

##Unvote: Meeple
##Vote: Rat

Am I convinced of your guilt quite strongly? Not as of yet. However, I do find your actions to be the most suspicious so far.

[Sierra]

Every wish?

Oui, Professor. Are you in need of my services?

Temptress! Ask me again if we both survive this night.

Surely, Professor Plum, as the psychiatrist amongst us, it is you who must answer such questions! I do not believe in medicine via democracy, and it would baffle me that a... respected... professional such as yourself would succumb to such a concept!

Well, I could, if you wish, make all the decisions for the group as a whole. I hadn't presumed my expertise would entitle me to that level of respect. I merely wished everyone to know that my skills were available.

At any rate, Cor/Excal banter catches my eye right now. I agree that Cor looks odd for leaving his vote on Meeple while arguing against the people voting for Meeple. But at least he's retracted that now. Excal...a couple things he's said don't sit right.

First off, when did I ever mention that a second vote would lead to -2 to hammer.  I said that that would be a viable excuse for you not to be the third vote for Sopko before I withdrew my own vote.  And I find your misreading of my words to be most curious.

I notice that you focused on my claim that they were not persuasive enough for a vote, the other cases.  I also stated why I wasn't overly worried by them, and why I found your case more pressing.  As well, you miss the true point of that sentance.  I can understand why they have their votes where they do.  Their votes are on people that they find to be scummy, and that they believe should be lynched.  Whereas you, you voted to have a conversation piece.  You have your conversation, and yet you are still providing 20% of the weight needed to kill our poor cook without giving any reason for it that is still valid.

I don't like this last line. It feels like Excal's playing with numbers to make someone look worse. There's something of an alarmist tone in that bit about 20%. I agree that Cor leaving his vote there was odd, but this line and the talk about putting someone in hammer range or not...it feels like someone exploiting common mafia fears in a game where things aren't likely to work the same way due to its size. This isn't the kind of argumentation we need.

Please, forgive me for finding it suspicious that you are leaving your vote on someone that there is presently a serious argument towards lynching, when you have a) given no reason why you believe that person should be lynched, b) criticized the person leading that charge, and c) will likely not be around when the bulk of the argumentation will be made, influencing the vote without actually having any great interest in the person whose fortune you are influencing.

Mostly the first statement (before he goes into point A) grabs my attention. Do you think there is a serious case to lynch Meeple right now? I agree he hasn't said much--but the game's been going on for, what, twelve hours? I agree that LAL is a sound policy in general, but the game has practically just started. Scum setting up a townie off to a slow start for lynching later? Possibly. I really think it's too early to hit anyone for that, so:

##Vote: Excal

[Kilgamayan]

Eugh.

On one hand, Corwin's (initial) reasoning for not bouncing off Meeple on to someone else seems somewhat inconsistent with his WaDF behavior, when my refusal to immediately throw a vote on someone after unvoting Nitori on Day 2 was apparently enough to get him to choose me for an NK target. I guess the difference is that I unvoted and he didn't, but honestly, I don't see why unvoting would be any worse than keeping a vote on someone who you voted for purely to start discussion and then questioned the reasoning behind the only other vote for that person.

On the other hand, Excal's 20% line, as has been said, is unnecessarily deceptive.

On the other other hand, why is Alex attacking someone for attacking someone for either using bad logic or simply not paying attention? I'm not sure how Rat would be trying to stifle conversation by answer-prod-voting someone.

It sucks knowing that at least one (and most likely more) of these views is (are) wrong...Excal looks the least of three evils, since all I can really hold against him is one line...

##Unvote: Carthrat (almost forgot this .-.)
##Vote: Sir Alex

Accusing Person A of trying to stifle conversation by voting for Person B and then voting for Person A in the process seems somewhat hypocritical to me (in addition to being nonsensical, as questioned above), and is, at least, more concrete than what might just be me misinterpreting Corwin's internal thought process. I feel this almost got lost in the midst of Corwin/Excal, which I don't like, so this vote doubles as a friendly reminder for everyone.

[Meeplelard]

##Unvote Alex

He's playing like his usual self, which is to say, analyzing every single point he possibly can.  This is a neutral read since well, Alex plays the same when he's scum and when he's town; being experienced at this game, more so than most of us, allows him to play a fairly consistent game roles be damned (Exception: Roleplaying or Quirk playing, like in Random Mafia and speaking in Haikus for pure silliness reasons.)

Now, Soppy, I admitted (or at least, I think I did...would need to double check) that I was kind of lurking, but my reasoning was pretty much this for the first day:

"Lets see what's going on with Clue Mafia...oh, a few new people posted, role claimed, nothing new."
*checks sometime later*
"Let's see what's going on...oh, just Day 1 silliness which says absolutely nothing and people just joke voting, and they're all speaking in character, which crap, I can't do!  Meh, got nothing to say."

Day 1 sucks like this; you can't really say much until someone does SOMETHING serious.  In fairness, that does actually remove suspicion from you in an odd sense.  By trying to call me out for slipping under the radar, you are provoking discussion, and that's not something Scum want to do.  As Alex noted, Scum want the joke phase to go on as long as possible, so Town has to hurry to kill someone, and mislynch in the process before any real information on someone can slip.  If nothing else, despite being a bit aggressive, he's fine at the moment.

As I said, Alex feels neutral; he's playing like himself.

Carth is hard to read.  While yes, he did defend me (at least, I think)...he is calling Soppy out for starting serious discussion?  It'd be one thing if Soppy had started a train that got me to -1 Hammer or something, at which point, we'd have some potential read on scum, since getting someone that close to hammering without any real voting is suspicious.  But Soppy was the first vote on me, and as he noted, he was trying to create discussion...and he did.   Feels a bit odd that Carth's taking the direction he is.  If nothing else, I'd think it'd be a lot more in town's interest, and less suspicious, to go along the lines of questioning the vote based on a post with little substance, during a phase with little substance, rather than calling Soppy out on trying to push things into the serious end?  Its hard to read if Rat was hit with false implications in his posts, or if he really did slip, or I dunno, its hard to say.

Cor, now, feels the worst.  He leaves his vote on me, doesn't change it until he's called out that it might be scum play.  THEN he goes after Rat, who seems like an easy target later, after taking his vote off me?  I can't help but say SOMETHING feels off about this play.  At first, his vote on me is "well, if it'll help start discussion, sure!" But then he keeps it AFTER its fulfilled its purpose, and his only reasoning was "Spoiling the ending!" of a movie that I'm sure most people saw in this thread (if someone hasn't, I apologize for that, but I assumed given the nature of this topic, most people have seen that movie, especially since its rather popular among DL Folk...for good reason <_<.)  This goes back to Suikomafia where someone put a vote on me for an opinion of a movie, which caused a minor train, but then someone kept their vote on me after one person admitted it was a joke vote, and said they didn't have really any reason other than "Why'd you go after him?" and it was clearly me doing a bit of an OMGUS vote, which...says nothing, other than "annoyed at this person!"

Probably metagaming too early, but in any event...

##Vote Corwin

[Shale]

Update!

Carthrat (2): Kilgamayan, Sir Alex, Corwin
Corwin (2): Sir Alex, Excal, Meeplelard
Hunter Sopko (1): Excal, Carthrat
Excal (1): Carthrat, El Cideon
Sir Alex (1): Meeplelard, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (1): Hunter Sopko, Corwin

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.

Day 1 ends at noon February 25, roughly 24 and a half hours from this post.

[Corwin]

I... cannot find the words to respond to our cook. The mouth opens, but nothing comes out but blessed silence. Have I successfully debated myself into a standstill, trying to formulate a response?

"Person A defended me! Person B used me as a convenient prop earlier, and is now attacking Person A! Clearly, I must vote Person B!"

If there was more in the reasoning for that vote, I'm afraid this humble maid managed to miss it. All I saw, as it happens, were just misrepresentations of my actions and the situation, followed by some sort of OMGUS/gut feel unholy hybrid. Our dear Colonel is an easy target? Jokevotes must be instantly removed as soon as a hint of seriousness appears, even if they cause no trains and the voter has no better targets at that time? I only voted seriously after being told it was scummy to do the former? Being occupied with a jokevote reason that holds no relevance for most of the paragraph dealing with me? What, what, what, what.

And I don't even want to get into bringing old game grudges into consideration, as someone who shall remain unnamed seemed to do, just barely avoiding a vote based on them.

[Carthrat]

Can someone try to point out exactly how I'm pulling this discussion-stifling thing? It seems like Alex said one thing that's pretty damn unfair to say and everyone else is nodding along with it.

As for why I attacked both Cor and Soppy for flimsy reasoning, that's because it *was* flimsy reasoning on both counts, and merely happened to be flimsy in different ways.

What I've brought to the table? Let's see, I attacked Soppy for flimsy reasoning, responded to your attempt to start discussion with actual questions rather than simply going 'yeah, discussion would be nice!', was forced to defend my position and did so, and both elaborated on the position Excal took, which I agreed with, and pointed out that for people trying to push the whole 'let's discuss things!' angle have *not really furthered this themselves*. (Where was I stifling discussion again? Where were either you or Soppy really promoting it or getting involved?)

What had you brought to the table when I made that claim? Basically nodding your head alongside me and rambling about why you're not voting.

You pull the 'soft target' line. This usually reads to me as someone thinking "You're attacking someone who has a reasonable case against them, but I don't like you/do like them and will thus attack you over attacking them."

<->

Meeple: I *didn't* stifle serious discussion. Actually read my posts and make up your own mind. I think you're asking why I didn't vote on Corwin, who jokevoted, and not Sopko, who had a reason? It's because I felt his reason was bad and *wrong*, while Cor wasn't making an attempt to vote in such a fashion (i.e. trying to attach a nonsensical reason to his vote.) Also, I am so not an easy target.

Soppy: Say something, anything, that's more than a couple lines.

Alex: Since you think I'm trying to stifle discussion, I want you to explain, with quotes, exactly how I was supposed to be trying to accomplish this. Oh, anyone else is free to answer this, except I don't think anyone will be able to because I wasn't and there isn't really any evidence of such.

[Hunter Sopko]

First off, when did I ever mention that a second vote would lead to -2 to hammer.  I said that that would be a viable excuse for you not to be the third vote for Sopko before I withdrew my own vote.  And I find your misreading of my words to be most curious.

I notice that you focused on my claim that they were not persuasive enough for a vote, the other cases.  I also stated why I wasn't overly worried by them, and why I found your case more pressing.  As well, you miss the true point of that sentance.  I can understand why they have their votes where they do.  Their votes are on people that they find to be scummy, and that they believe should be lynched.  Whereas you, you voted to have a conversation piece.  You have your conversation, and yet you are still providing 20% of the weight needed to kill our poor cook without giving any reason for it that is still valid.

I don't like this last line. It feels like Excal's playing with numbers to make someone look worse. There's something of an alarmist tone in that bit about 20%. I agree that Cor leaving his vote there was odd, but this line and the talk about putting someone in hammer range or not...it feels like someone exploiting common mafia fears in a game where things aren't likely to work the same way due to its size. This isn't the kind of argumentation we need.

I'll agree with Cid here. Why exactly use that 20% statistic? To make it seem like there is a larger burden on the vote than there actually is?

People ask why I kept my vote on Meeple. Well, Mafia is about actions or inactions done to shape peoples' opinions for your aims. I achieved one with the vote onto Meeple, which got discussion going. Keeping the vote on him brought more people out talking, and thus, more to look at. He was never in any real danger.

##Unvote: Meeple

Rat continued to go after me, pulling nearly the same argument against me that I weakly leveled against Meeple to get the ball rolling. At the time I was online yesterday, the only things to respond to were his problems with my arguments and Alex's posts. However, I can't really tell if Rat is the type to conciously tip his hand like we think he has if he is scum.

Corwin is an interesting quandry. He's added to discussion more than adequately, but some lines stick out. Especially his last one about not bringing past games into it. You see, Corwin, that IS a personal snipe bringing up the subject. The best way NOT to is to NOT MENTION IT AT ALL. Getting personal seems to usually be townie behavior though, and given his helpfulness in discussion, I can't really vote for him at this time.

Kil, though, I'm suspicious of. His vote on Alex is incredibly flimsy and he doesn't really contribute much other than that other than bringing up behavior from past games, as Corwin said.

[Hunter Sopko]

Ack! Forgot to close a quote tag. >.>

[Ranmilia]

So, back awake now.

Sopko's initial vote on Meeple was absolutely flimsy, yes.  This is excusable to me because it's the first serious issue brought up.  The first day 1 issue is *always* going to be spurious (discounting role madness, which doesn't apply here).  Its main use lies not in being a serious lynch case, but in providing a platform for people to start making serious arguments.  Actual cases develop from checking out how people respond to and argue about the discussion sparkers.  This is just how the game flows.  Sopko threw a discussion-start vote into the water, Corwin and Rat responded, and I did not like Rat's response. 

The first case is *always* going to be flimsy, so attacking the guy who brings up the first case because it's flimsy is, well, pretty pointless, unless he's trying to push that case as more than a day 1 discussion starter.  All that does is inherently discourage people from bringing up any cases - we're not going to get serious cases without going through the motions of arguing on a couple of flimsy cases first.  And that said, my vote for Rat was also more of a discussion piece than a serious case.  How could it be otherwise, with only four players participating in serious discussion at the time?

And THAT said, it wasn't completely nonserious.  I also saw what I thought might be some sort of connection between Rat and Excal, which bothered me, and I'm seeing some more of it now, with Excal also hyping the Meeple case as dangerous.  This is a small game.  There's nothing scary about -2 to hammer.  There are no roles and no roleclaiming, so there's not even much scary about putting someone at -1 to hammer.  The undertone of "-2 to hammer is scary" is "Lynching people is scary, let's not."  I very much agree with what Cid's been saying about Excal and find this the scummiest position currently in play.

##Unvote: Rat
##Vote: Excal

I'd love to see more content from Kilga. 

I also feel that Cor leaving his (joke)vote on Meeple is being overstated.  His given reasoning (leaving it there for sake of discussion, no better place to put it) makes sense to me. 

[Excal]

First off, when did I ever mention that a second vote would lead to -2 to hammer.  I said that that would be a viable excuse for you not to be the third vote for Sopko before I withdrew my own vote.  And I find your misreading of my words to be most curious.

I notice that you focused on my claim that they were not persuasive enough for a vote, the other cases.  I also stated why I wasn't overly worried by them, and why I found your case more pressing.  As well, you miss the true point of that sentance.  I can understand why they have their votes where they do.  Their votes are on people that they find to be scummy, and that they believe should be lynched.  Whereas you, you voted to have a conversation piece.  You have your conversation, and yet you are still providing 20% of the weight needed to kill our poor cook without giving any reason for it that is still valid.

I don't like this last line. It feels like Excal's playing with numbers to make someone look worse. There's something of an alarmist tone in that bit about 20%. I agree that Cor leaving his vote there was odd, but this line and the talk about putting someone in hammer range or not...it feels like someone exploiting common mafia fears in a game where things aren't likely to work the same way due to its size. This isn't the kind of argumentation we need.

Please, forgive me for finding it suspicious that you are leaving your vote on someone that there is presently a serious argument towards lynching, when you have a) given no reason why you believe that person should be lynched, b) criticized the person leading that charge, and c) will likely not be around when the bulk of the argumentation will be made, influencing the vote without actually having any great interest in the person whose fortune you are influencing.

Mostly the first statement (before he goes into point A) grabs my attention. Do you think there is a serious case to lynch Meeple right now? I agree he hasn't said much--but the game's been going on for, what, twelve hours? I agree that LAL is a sound policy in general, but the game has practically just started. Scum setting up a townie off to a slow start for lynching later? Possibly. I really think it's too early to hit anyone for that, so:

To your first point, Cid.  Do you honestly think there's any benefit to be had in hiding the exact weight our votes hold?  If it is alarmist, then I humbly apologise for playing upon the fears of others without any intention to do so.  But, I think that in a small game such as this, it is important that we recall that our votes are more effective than they would be in a larger game.  And I wish to minimise the risk that a carelessly left vote will alter things needlessly.  Especially since it could easily either be a careless town move, or a clever scum tactic playing upon that ambiguity.  And I will say this to all of you who have commented on my use of 20%.  Hiding from the power of our votes does not help town.  Bringing it up as a reminder is there to promote a sense of responsibility, and not to encourage a dread of doing what must be done.  (As an aside to Sopko specifically, if it's five votes to hammer, then I'm not overstating, I clarifying exactly what our vote means)

To your second point, yes, I feel there is a serious case on Meeple.  It may not be very strong, and it may be close to being rescinded if he manages to adequatly defend himself.  But there is someone with a serious vote on him along with arguments as to why we should also vote for him.  And, I object to other people having their reaction to that case and their willingness to vote on it obscured by a vote that not only has nothing to do with that case, but was placed there by someone who seems to be arguing against that case.

And THAT said, it wasn't completely nonserious.  I also saw what I thought might be some sort of connection between Rat and Excal, which bothered me, and I'm seeing some more of it now, with Excal also hyping the Meeple case as dangerous.  This is a small game.  There's nothing scary about -2 to hammer.  There are no roles and no roleclaiming, so there's not even much scary about putting someone at -1 to hammer.  The undertone of "-2 to hammer is scary" is "Lynching people is scary, let's not."  I very much agree with what Cid's been saying about Excal and find this the scummiest position currently in play.

The connection between myself and Rat, I can't actually comment on as so far as I can tell, it's only based on he and I thinking the same way.  As for your comments on what I've said, some of them I can see, others...  I'm not entirely sure where they came from.

That said, about the main argument you have, it's been a very long time since I've held the position that lynching is something we wish to avoid.  In fact, I'm usually with you as one of the people sick and tired of the lynch being delayed.  That said, that attitude is remarkably common around here, and using that as an excuse not to vote is not a tell. 

As for the Meeple argument, when did I say it was bad or dangerous?  I just found that a purposeless vote left on him when there was a serious case is something to look at.  Perhaps it is overblown, but better to go over something too much and keep discussion going then let things die with a simple 'eh, guess you're right'.  Especially since he didn't need to automatically vote for someone else, he just needed to not leave his vote where it could have casually become important later.  Especially not after he dropped it after the serious conversation began.  And as for Sopko, I don't recall my exact words, but aside from a passing reference to him, I let him drop because I didn't find anything worth going after him for at the moment.

Now, as for what's going on regarding the discussion on stifling debate.  I do have to admit I'm also baffled as to where that charge came from.  Rat's early posts were part of what allowed conversation to continue, and finding fault with methods early on doesn't really stifle debate.  After all, as we've all been told so many times before, when that debate has smoked out something more promising, his retraction is only a simple unvote away.  So, I'm honestly finding the proponents of the stifling debate theory dubious at best.

[Kilgamayan]

I'd love to see more content from Kilga.

So would I! Sadly, work, etc and now dinner is calling, but I'll be back in a few to offer up something proper. There is one thing I caught on a quick skim, though.

Kil, though, I'm suspicious of. His vote on Alex is incredibly flimsy and he doesn't really contribute much other than that other than bringing up behavior from past games, as Corwin said.

I'd love an explanation as to how my vote is "incredibly flimsy".

Also I was unaware that Excal's 20% line happened in a previous game. Regardless, I don't see why referencing previous games even matters one way or the other. I saw someone that did not appear to be consistent with themselves, and I noted it (while tagging said note with a potential for misunderstanding, as the two situations are not exactly the same). Is that a problem?