Clue Mafia - Game Over

[Hunter Sopko]

Rat: I don't really see a problem with him anymore. Exactly why that is was in my previous post.

Corwin: Another person I don't have a problem with. I never understood the reasoning behind people suspecting his Meeple vote and have repeatedly stated this to Excal.

Meeple: Gratuitous Meeple logic, but the cases against him aren't very convincing either. He's also more than satisfied whatever qualms I had against him so I find it hard to vote him at this time.

Alex: Taken a strong lead on the conversation so far, which can mean a few things. I don't trust people who propose pairings so early, but thats been addressed and answered about, but he's been extremely pro-town otherwise.

El-Cid: I'm tempted to go here, as I'm not too hot on any of the cases on anyone right now. Defaulting to lynch all lurkers doesn't sit well with me though.

Excal: Fun with numbers and faulty logic concerning Corwin. I suppose this can be explained away by being first day, but there's nothing better to go on at the moment and he's the one I'm most suspicious of.

##Vote: Excal

I'm not forgetting QR or Kilga, but I'm completely neutral to them at this point.

[Corwin]

Right! I'll start with this (by Excal): http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9714#msg9714

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)

Okay. Anyone here who hasn't played in a small mafia game before, raise their hands, please!

Do I need to ask people to look around to get the point I'm making, here? Telling us how serious voting is here is good and all... but for whom isn't it redundant? Therefore, what is the point of bringing it up, aside from cautioning people to not vote, think twice about a lynch, etc etc etc. Except we should do this anyway, so this is how you come off as alarmist and strange.

On a more specific point, a 'carelessly left' vote? At the risk of repeating myself, I was going to be around for hours to come and said as much. Discussion was happening, which could (and in fact did) shed further light on where I should vote. This was not a situation where I voted and went to bed, leaving the possibility of a train.

Another note. While the talk of percentages and such may come down to a single line or two, the tone of your arguments adds to it. All those who noticed said line but dismissed it as a single thing to build a case on... it's not, actually. It's a line that is part of a larger argument; in fact, the most prominent one Excal had provided thus far in the game.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9717#msg9717

Of note, Kilga misunderstanding Sopko. It feels a bit like inattention, especially when coupled with posting-lite. Work, food, sleep, what have you. All valid excuses, but still all excuses. I second the call to see more content from Kilga.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9727#msg9727

Meeple here talks of how joke votes don't seem to factor, for people voting seriously and for objective observation. If that's not what he means, please correct me, but this is the impression I have. And yet, in a similar situation with a serious vote on him by Sopko and a joke vote by me, he finds reason to vote me. The only difference, far as I can see, is the order of the serious vote/joke vote. Does that really make all the difference for him? On one occasion, I get voted. On the other, he clears Rat, dismissing his behavior. This is just puzzling.

I see Alex call him out on it in the following post, along with the following:

I should clarify, then, and say that I'm not seeing a link that explicitly points towards them being scum together.  I am seeing a link of interaction that doesn't look like town+town. 

This seems dangerously close to the 'either x or y must be scum' train of thought. If Excal and Rat don't seem like they both could be town, and have a shady interaction going between them... even if one dies and ends up town, the other could still be scum building on a townie's case and cred. Given he's voting Excal, if this lynch does happen I would be vary if Alex decided to go the next day after Rat based on this. Still. This is only dangerous if Excal flips town, after all, and he has certainly acted suspicious enough up to this point for people to pursue him. Even I suspect him, just not to the degree I suspect Rat.

And yes, I am fully aware of the irony in thinking both are scummy while commenting on Alex going about it. He just seems to take it much farther than I see supported by any facts.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9731#msg9731
QR is saying that I'm parroting Alex, and more over, that Alex had no case to begin with. Therefore, I'm extra bad and get her vote. Since I did put up a post supporting my accusations on Rat and quoting him as Rat requested, does that change your opinion any, QR? As for the rhetorical questions, as you call them, in response to Meeple's post... after reading my response, did you honestly think Meeple had the shred of a case on me? Did you even think that before I responded?

Anyway, if you fail to see it as answers to Meeple or anyone convinced by his attack on me, I don't know what else to say there. If you want questions from me... why are you looking for them in a post that defends myself from an attack?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9732#msg9732

And QR posts just as I was about to call her out. Oh well. :V

Now, I don't want to put words into Sopko's mouth, and given that I don't trust him as a shining example of townhood to begin with, I had to consider whether I even wanted to comment on this. But Kilga's words here seem pretty confusing, when taken in proper context. Reread the entire post I linked, and recall the case Sopko had on Meeple. Namely, that Meeple hadn't been around for... what was it, almost 12 hours? And then, just as he decided to call him out on that, Meeple posted again.

For Sopko, that still warranted a vote, and I didn't like it. But Kilga still mentions QR's absence, even though he acknowledges that she is not, in fact, absent. There is no other reason for including the line I quoted but to say 'here is someone (semi-)lurking' which we all know to take as suspicious. So I would like to hear from Kilga why he considers Sopko's actions all that different from his (and scummy, unless 'flat-out incorrect' reasons for voting someone is a sign of town). I would also like to ask Kilga why he excuses making mistakes by saying he was irritated. No, that doesn't make them understandable and give you a pass for them.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9737#msg9737

Meeple, apparently not seeing the contradictions in his words even when pointed out to him. Or so he says, I guess. I'm having trouble arguing seriously against his vote for me, when he even mischaracterizes my reason for voting. Either he's fundamentally misunderstanding the issue, or he's willingly ignoring that which he can't explain away.

Also, a related note on 'lurkers'. While yes, people have lives and sometimes Just Aren't Here, there is a perfectly valid reason to go after people who don't post frequently. They fail to give us accurate reads, and just because their reasons and excuses for absenses are valid doesn't make them any less likely to have drawn scum from Hat. Thus, given a chance between someone looking somewhat dubious who could hang himself all the better, given more rope, and someone who can only say a couple paragraphs once per game day, I know whom I'll pick.

And yet another note:

(no, wasn't suspicious of her, just weighing in on what she said.)

Meeple, re: QR. After admitting he didn't notice she hadn't been posting in a while. Umm, why? What kind of cred did she have with you prior to her post where she votes for me? If you notice someone has been silent for quite some time, isn't it natural to be suspicious of them? Especially given a total lack of content thus far?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9742#msg9742

Excal, just a couple simple questions, here. Do you honestly believe that, while Sopko's vote was different from the jokevotes, it was on the same level of seriousness as any of the votes being cast right now? That it had the intent of, and could in fact lead to a train on Meeple?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9744#msg9744

This post just makes me shudder. Meeple is being Meeple, says he's being Meeple, effectively says doubting this leads to WIFOM. Therefore, he's beyond question. Huh.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9745#msg9745 « Reply #62 on: Today at 05:43:05 AM »
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9748#msg9748 « Reply #64 on: Today at 05:55:08 AM »

Excal, with only ten minutes between posts, and Sopko's being the only post in between them. In the first post, he declares Kilga is talking, and decides to focus on Cid. The next post... he votes Cid.

How do you go from:

This silence is unbecoming of someone who would help town, so please speak and share your thoughts.  There's so much being said, and almost certainly a few interesting tidbits that aren't being said, but should be.  And I'd hate to see you slip into that second category.

to:

That said, given that we're at about 13 hours remaining, I am beginning to get more suspicious of El Cid, who has only made one post with any real content, and even then the content was slim.

in the span of ten minutes, Excal?

And most hilarious of all is this:

So...  For the time being, and since I will be around when the deadline hits...

So, basically, I'm not allowed to hold a vote on someone for pressure or discussion purposes when I'll be around to later switch it... but it's just fine for you? This seemed to be a large part of your earlier vote on me. It and your curiously-shifting stance on Cid, the alarmism covered earlier and several other small things are what make me change my mind about my own vote.

##Unvote: Rat
##Vote: Excal

Shale's votecount post reminds me an interesting factoid, that Cid happens to be voting for Excal. That just makes me more suspicious of Excal's aforementioned behavior than it is for Alex to call Cid out in a post above the votecount.

Okay. Glancing at the thread, remaining posts and my available time, I'm deciding to pause here. By my count, this brings Excal to 4 votes, and thus to -1 to hammer.

Unless my math fails, Excal is now -1 to HAMMER.

To summarize for those intimidated by longer posts, Excal gets my vote and Kilga&Meeple don't look so hot to me for reasons stated (mainly committing mistakes, brushing off the committing of mistakes and the like). Rat still takes the #2 spot for me, but to be fair I had to stop before I read his response to my previous largish post to him. It is not outside the realm of possible that whatever content he had there (I only skimmed the posts past my stopping point for votes to make sure I wouldn't hammer) would relieve some of my suspicions towards him. Alex... would look bad in the specific situation I described, but there's nothing to go on with him so far, I feel. Cid needs to be around more, QR needs to be around more (I'm talking content quality and not quantity, to avoid getting into the 'lurker!' slapfest over QR's legitimate absenses). It troubles me that I forgot Sopko in the summary before I glanced over the thread again. Definitely someone to look over when I get the chance, as we probably agree more than I'm comfortable with when dealing with unknowns in mafia games.

[Carthrat]

On Excal, seeing as he's on the block.

-I don't have a problem with him going after Corwin for not dropping his vote on Meeple... or at least I didn't at the time, and basically agreed with him about Corwin skirting discussion. I consider that point to be relatively minor at this stage, so

-I do think think he overstated it somewhat with the -2 to hammer/20% thing. It didn't really look good, but it didn't feel like a strong case.

-The stuff on him and me looking like a pair. We've been thinking along some similar lines, but I disliked part of his early posts against Cor from the start (see my above point for what I'm talking about.) Otherwise, though, I don't see his convergence with my opinion as anything but logical.

-He's voting for Cid in an effort to make him speak. I don't really get where Cor was coming from in his latest post with regards to the space of ten minutes thing; he'd made it fairly clear that he wanted Cid to talk, and actually I would probably have been more leery of him leaving a vote on Cor at that stage of the day.

-However, Cor did catch him holding a double-standard with regard to when that kind of pressure vote is allowed.

He said he'd be around for deadline, and I'm not going to be. Since it's day 1, according to Shale's rules, the person with the most votes will hang today- so I'm not going to vote to close this here, as I might have otherwise done. I can see two relatively minor problems with Excal; his weird talk on percentages and stuff which I'd generally be willing to let go. However, he's twisted a bit on his stance on pressure votes and been a tad hypocritical. I'm not strongly opposed to his lynch.

All told, I'd rather Meeple was lynched today for reasons I've outlined in previous posts (and I find it bizzare that Alex, in particular, is willing to call the whole mistake argument irrelevant; this just isn't the attitude I've seen from him in past games at all; I generally associate him with stomping on the attitude Meeple took quite heavily.)

[Kilgamayan]

Meeple:

- Rat already made a piece on the whole "being wrong" thing. Don't have much more to contribute there. I'm fully aware people make mistakes, but if you're town then your job is to minimize making said mistakes by being attentive. Admitting to a mistake doesn't make it better, either - look at Otter in WaDF.
- The discussion starting thing was WIFOM because your saying "provoking discussion is not something scum want to do" is exactly why they WOULD want to do it, and then we have our loop. You may say that scum might be afraid the discussion would turn back around on them, but I imagine that it's a risk worth taking if they're going to get town cred right off the bat for it (which you, for example, were willing to do with "In fairness, that does actually remove suspicion from you in an odd sense").
- I tend to "me too" a lot as well. The difference is that I try to put forth some of my own unique thoughts whenever I do. Sometimes I fail to do so (like my mention of Excal's 20% line, or even the above line about the being wrong sitch) but usually I can find something of my own to contribute to an already established case. On the other hand, you pretty much parroted Excal. If this was your only offense then I probably wouldn't look into it as much, but, well, it's not.

Corwin:

- I didn't misunderstand Sopko in that post. My first line was referencing something I said that wasn't a reference to a past game but was simply swept under the rug anyway. You can tell I knew what he meant later in the paragraph, where I reference my initial paragraph on you. (This should cover your later accusation of making a mistake and attempting to cover it by saying I was irritated, as I didn't make the mistake you're accusing me of in the first place.)
- What's the difference between Sopko/Meeple and QR/myself? Meeple hasn't posted in 12 hours and the game was in joke vote phase. QR hadn't posted in 30 hours and the game was well into serious discussion phase. (I admit I forgot that QR said she'd be away.) One is very much more "flying under the radar" than the other, especially since I don't recall anyone saying anything about QR's absence, though maybe that was because everyone else remembered she said she'd be gone. (I also never said I found Sopko suspicious - my argument revolving around that issue was against Alex for defending the legitimacy of an incorrect accusation.)

[Shale]

Update!

Carthrat (0): Kilgamayan, Sir Alex, Corwin
Corwin (2): Sir Alex, Excal, Meeplelard, QuietRain
Hunter Sopko (0): Excal, Carthrat
Excal (4): Carthrat, El Cideon, Sir Alex, Hunter Sopko, Corwin
Sir Alex (0): Meeplelard, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (2): Hunter Sopko, Corwin, Kilgamayan, Carthrat
Kilgamayan (0): Hunter Sopko
El Cideon (1): Excal

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.

Day 1 ends at noon February 25, roughly 2.5 hours from this post.

[Excal]

Right, I'm back, and it seems I'm the one going down.  Ah well, c'est la vie.  Props to the scum for getting their first mislynch too.

Anyways, I've been awake for the last eighteen hours and just finished a long shift at work, so coherency is going to be low, but I'll be damned if I pass on this opportunity to get some final thoughts out before I flip.

First off, there's three people I find somewhat suspicious.

El Cid, for lurking.  And I don't just mean in terms of low post count.  I mean in terms of low post content.  He levelled two points against me, and...  that's it.  No thoughts on anyone or anything else.  And after a whole day of serious discussion, that's very troubling.

Alex, because so far as I can tell, he's the one who first portrayed my position as what I was arguing against.  That said, it seems that everyone is agreeing with him, so some of this must be in poor word choice on my part.  That said, my words were twisted, and he's as close to the core of it as I can recall.

Thirdly would be Corwin.  I honestly wish I could say why, beyond that one point which I raised earlier.  However, there's something that feels off about him, and I can't find the words to put in it just now.  Normally, I'd back off for good and wait until at least something that seems like a reason came along, but I don't have that time, and I want to make sure this is out there when my flip comes up.

Also, Corwin.  To answer your question about my ten minute flip on El Cid, have you never had an idea occur to you while you were writing something, and then after giving it a bit more scrutiny it suddenly seemed like a much better idea than it originally had?  That's roughly what happened.  The first post on El Cid was my recognising that he was slipping under the radar and bringing that to everyone's attention.  The second post was my feeling that not only was that more worrysome than I had originally thought, but also that my case on you was not as strong as pressuring a lurker.  Also, if you wish for me to defend any hypocrasy concerning my advance on you and my vote on El Cid, well, a) I had a reason to vote El Cid specifically, and b) no one else had voted for him.

Finally, I'd just like to ask a simple question.  No need to answer it, but thinking on it would be good.  Apparently Corwin of all people feels that I keep on going on about percentages.  That was, originally, a throwaway line that people took exception to.  Now, my attempts to explain said line and delve deeper into said discussion, as opposed to simply shrugging it off, are apparently scummy looking.  So, I'm curious as to whether it is, in fact, better to simply ignore those things which people seem to feel are questionable, and therefore stifle debate in order to avoid being accused of brining such things up over and over again.  Or is it better to engage in, apparently scummy, conversation?

[Excal]

And, as a final note, since I am beyond saving, I will leave my vote on the one I find scummiest so far, El Cid.

[Shale]

One hour (and ten minutes) to deadline.

[QuietRain]

OK.  Have coffee and donut, can function now.

In regards to people so far:

Alex: I did indeed not take the comment about your 'cred' being only for who was the least scummy.  What I was referring to was actually where you say that you're leaning towards Soppy and gave Cor 'cred' for the same thing in the next sentence.  That seemed to me you saying that you thought he was townish as well.  As he hadn't made any comments of note to that point, I thought it odd.  But if you JUST meant that you didn't consider him as scummy as the others, then I guess that makes better sense.

Excal: I can see the points where people have voted, but frankly, I don't see him as scummier than others so no change of vote for me.

Carth: I get a townie vibe, but he's always hard for me to read.  I think tomorrow I'll know a bit more when the flips give us more information.

Soppy: I'm not really sure about Soppy.  For the arguments about his comments, I lean more towards the scummier side of neutral.  He jumps on Cid's track of nailing Excal for talking about where the vote lies (which personally I don't feel there's anything wrong with that).  That really doesn't sit well the most for me.

Meeple: Neutral read.  I'm having a hard time reading much into his posts today.  I'll give it a shot tonight when I have flips to factor into the equation.

Kilga: The same abhorant neutral read.  He's been pretty good on content and thoughts, though.  And nothing that I disagree with when he ays out his thoughts.

Cid: I'd like to jump on the train of asking you to post.  I find the low content more worrisome to me than your low quanity (considering my own schedule, remarking on someone's quantity would be the height of pot/kettle).  Looking forward to seeing your thoughts.

And Corwin: I still think that you're the scummiest so far.  I haven't seen anything to change my mind since my last post.

I'm going to go ahead and make this post now so it makes it under the deadline with a bit of time for comments if any.  My first conference event doesn't start for another 2 1/2 hours, so I'll be around.
------------------------
And yes, I agree that my posting schedule should never excuse a lack of content.  But as promised, I will make posts when I can.  Tomorrow will likely be no morning post but I'll have plenty of time that evening to make as many posts as necessary.  And tonight I'll have all the time I need as well.
------------------------

Finally, I'd just like to ask a simple question.  No need to answer it, but thinking on it would be good.  Apparently Corwin of all people feels that I keep on going on about percentages.  That was, originally, a throwaway line that people took exception to.  Now, my attempts to explain said line and delve deeper into said discussion, as opposed to simply shrugging it off, are apparently scummy looking.  So, I'm curious as to whether it is, in fact, better to simply ignore those things which people seem to feel are questionable, and therefore stifle debate in order to avoid being accused of brining such things up over and over again.  Or is it better to engage in, apparently scummy, conversation?

I agree that you were pretty much doomed if you did or didn't there.  If people find something scummy to do and then the person explains WHY they did it, they're quite often seen as furthering their scummy reasoning while if they ignore it they're hounded for trying to deflect.  That's part of my problem with everyone's jump to lynch on Excal's case this time.  Personally, I think you chose the better road.  It's always better to say too much than too little.  Saying more will generally give the scum more rope to lynch YOU with rather than the other way around, but dying a quiet death serves NO purpose and leaves town with nothing to read back on and re-consider in light of your flip.  So trying to explain will always give people more cred with me than trying to back off of statements that people tag as 'off'.

Since the lynch is pretty set, I hope you'll forgive me if you flip scum because we all hate mislynches, but if you flip town, your reasonings and who argued them the hardest give us places to look, so personally I'm glad you did.

[QuietRain]

That should say: that you're leaning towards Soppy as being town

[Excal]

Nah, QR.  I don't hold it against you in the least that you're hoping I'm scum.  Heck, probably even if you're scum lying through your teeth, though I can't imagine why you'd want me on your side at the moment if that is the case.

[Excal]

Huh, actually taking the time to properly look over the vote count, it seems I can vote for someone I find questionable and keep the vote close.  Doubt this'll make any difference, but I'd feel bad if I didn't make the effort.

##Unvote: El Cid,  ##Vote: Corwin

[Shale]

Thirty minutes to deadline!

[Sierra]

Apparently I need to stop sleeping and working (I wish I could pull that off, I really do). Yes, I say this every game, but it doesn't stop it from being true.

Anyway, I've skimmed the last couple pages, but haven't been able to break everything down in detail. Since there's not time to do much else, I'm comfortable leaving my vote where it is for the reasons initially given. Anything more substantial will have to wait until I get home, sorry.

[Shale]

”Why should I trust any of you?”

 “The cook’s not saying anything! What does she have to hide?”

“Listen to me!” Professor Plum said. “The butler did it! They always did! Besides, who would know this mansion better than him?”

“You’re right! He’d be able to shut out the lights, and he could still find his way around! It was Wadsworth, with the revolver, in the study! I’m sure of it!” Miss Scarlet cried out.

“Sacre bleu!”

“No! I assure you, I never…”

“He’s the killer! Get him!” yelled Ms. White.

But that wasn’t enough to convince the rest of the group.

“I…no,” said the cook, shaking her head expressively.

“Why can’t any of you see it? He’s guilty!”

“I don’t know…he doesn’t really seem the type…”

“No evidence! Can’t convict a man just because he talks funny…”

Finally, Professor Plum lost his patience. While Wadsworth stammered at his accusers, he grabbed the candlestick, snuck up behind him and…

“I could never have killed Mr. Boddy. I was…AGH!”

“Wait!” said Mrs. Peacock. “I just remembered, I saw him in the Conservatory right before we heard the gun! He couldn’t...”

She trailed off as she saw Plum standing over the butler, looking sheepish.

“….oh, fiddlesticks.”

It was too late. The still, bleeding, and above all innocent body of the butler lay on the floor. And before anyone could say anything else, the lights went out again.

It only lasted a few minutes this time, but that was long enough – the first thing the guests saw when the lights went up was Yvette, lying unmoving on the floor with a length of rope around her neck.


Day 1 final vote tally:
Carthrat (0): Kilgamayan, Sir Alex, Corwin
Corwin (3): Sir Alex, Excal, Meeplelard, QuietRain, Excal
Hunter Sopko (0): Excal, Carthrat
Excal (4): Carthrat, El Cideon, Sir Alex, Hunter Sopko, Corwin
Sir Alex (0): Meeplelard, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (2): Hunter Sopko, Corwin, Kilgamayan, Carthrat
Kilgamayan (0): Hunter Sopko
El Cideon (0): Excal



Wadsworth (AKA Excal, INNOCENT) was accused and killed by an impatient mob!
Yvette (AKA Corwin, INNOCENT) was murdered in the dark!

It is now Day 2. With seven alive, it takes four to lynch. As of now, deadline will be 48 hours from this post, but there may be a 24-hour extension if my schedule requires it. If deadline is reached with no majority, the result of the day will be No Lynch.

[QuietRain]

Well...*sigh*.  That sets me back to zero now.  Heading back to do a re-read of the thread with the flip in mind.  I think I've got time for a single post after this before I have to head downstairs.  If not, I'll type up what I can and then finalize it and post when I get back after the events.

[QuietRain]

~Comment for amusement's sake: Well, if I were going off the movie, I'd be voting Meeple.  All of the staff being innocent?  Not probable.  But since we're not using the movie...

--------------
Well, on the re-read, the thing that stands out the most are Alex' posts. 

Firstly, saying that -2 to hammer is nothing scary is true.  In a larger game.  In a game this small, -2 is something to note.  I don't think it's any MORE scary than a -1, but frankly when you've got 2 scum out there, a notice that if they're not on the train already they could walk by and hammer it is certainly not trying to dredge up hysteria.  I think all of us have been in enough mafia games at this point that we're not the type to panic at the mere mention of how close someone is to a lynch.  It's not the sort of thing that would make any of us suddenly pull off the person's case just to be 'safe'.  It's just likely to make some of us take a quick look at whether we really wanted our vote there considering the nearness of hammer.

I think the comment of someone's nearness to lynch is nothing more than someone going 'It's X hours until deadline'.  It's a simple statement of fact.  And facts that we all need to be aware of, really. So, I guess no it's not 'scary', but it's also nothing to come down on someone's case for mentioning.

This hold true today as well since a day ending with no majority means no lynch.

And trying to come up with an Excal/Carth pairing as well sits poorly with me.  It was Day 1 and trying to get anything other than people agreeing with each other is definately hard.  In looking over your responses to why you said this, it seems an easy way to step into a Day 2 line of logic of Carth being scum based on Excal flipping town. I find it an odd statement and not really much has changed my mind.

Now, it's the very start of Day 2, so no vote yet.  I would like to hear Alex' thoughts on the flip, though.

[Meeplelard]

Ok, so we're off to a bad start.  This...really sucks.  And unfortunately, I don't have anyone to really work off of either.

That is except for Cid.  Yes, he's come in with an excuse as to why he hasn't posted, but he still needs to post SOMETHING, so we can actually get a read on him.  I'm not going to vote him, cause that goes against my whole policy of "Don't aim at Lurkers who have an actual excuse."  This doesn't change the fact, however, that Cid still needs to post at least some more content.

The only thing left to consider otherwise is the whole fact that Kilga and Rat think my mistake was a big deal, where as Alex thinks its not much of a scum tell.

This...looking at it, feels a bit of a scumtell in Kilga/Rat's case.  They're the only two people who are making a big deal at it, near as I can tell.  No, its...really not much to go on at all, and frankly, this could be seen as me just doing an OMGUS thing, but...well, I dunno.  Something feels off here.  You guys have explained but, well, no one else has really picked up on it as being as relevant as you two.

And I'd like to hear why Alex thinks its irrelevant too, for that matter, just to hear an alternate, unbiased, side of the coin.

[Meeplelard]

Stupid lack of edit button!

By "unbiased" I meant "someone who thinks that and isn't me"; unbiased is not exactly the best word there.

[Ranmilia]

Mmkay.

QR wants my reaction to the flip, presumably Excal's.  I still think Excal was the best day 1 case.  He made a mistake, said something that I (and others) interpreted as antitown, and got lynched for it.  My reaction to the question is mainly to be curious of QR.  Firstly, it feels like a loaded question - what do you expect the answer to be?  Secondly, vote alarmism is still wrong.  Drive-by casual scumhammers on people at -1, -2, or anything else are frankly never a threat in my mind, they're unlikely because they draw unnecessary attention to scum and usually easily identified when they do happen.  I wish the scum WOULD be so kind as to do such and give themselves away.  I think Excal's attitude conveyed more than a simple statement of fact.

I have never at any time proposed a Rat/Excal scum pair.  I can see how my remarks might be interpreted as such (and applaud Sopko and QR for being willing to not take my words at face value!), but twasn't what I was thinking.  I do however fully admit that my suspicions of Rat are raised now.

Regarding Meeple and his mistake... I will here confess some confusion as to what the mistake in question *is*.  If I'm correct that it's about Meeple's misinterpretation of Rat, he retracted it promptly and it is a mistake of reading rather than of WTF like the glaring scum mistakes usually are.  (Addressing dead people, etc, see Super and Rat in prior games)  I see it as neutral and not a large issue.  In my mind, the main case brought against Meeple to date is him having a me-too playstyle, which WOULD be cause for concern, but I'm not seeing its existence as clearly as Kilga seems to.   Rat continuing to harp on the mistake is another factor in my raising the terror level on him. 

My chief concern today, however, remains obvious.

##Vote: El Cid

Where you at, brudda?  Yeah, sleep and work, I know.  We all have commitments - QR's in a worse time crunch, has still managed to contribute 3 or 4 times as much as you and I'm a bit uneasy with *her* level of presence!  Quoth Shale, "Activity will be enforced this game!"  That's your second short post, I never like those, and you look a bit worse today since we now know the only case you bothered to make was against a townie (it'd be hypocritical of me to say much worse but...).   

(And as long as I'm abusing parentheses and including QR in the above "Post more," let's throw in Kilga too.  Post more!)

[Sierra]

I am now Here. Topic reread commencing, will toss stuff out as it occurs to me.

[QuietRain]

Conference over for the day.  Quick post then dinner, then I'll be back most of the evening.  I've got a post half done with my thoughts on the breakdown of the flip.  Will finish when I get back from food.

Alex, sorry.  I think some of your confusion was my poor wording.  I didn't really expect much of a response along the lines of 'So, what do you think of our lynching Excal and he turns out town?'.  What I was wanting to see were your thoughts on whether Excal and Corwin flipping as town changed your opinions on anyone or raised any red flags to you about them.  So far, you're the highest on my might be scum chart, so I am curious to see how you're reading the situation as it stands now.

[Hunter Sopko]

At this point, I'm not really liking Alex's sentiments regarding the votes. What this is basically saying is we shouldn't pay attention to something important, namely the votes, because there isn't anything to see there? I understand where you're coming from due to it being a small game, but to champion throwing away what is always vital information isn't very town-like. I also don't really like the attitude being conveyed in the "I wish the scum WOULD be so kind as to do such and give themselves away". I can't put my finger on why though.

More once I get to work.

[Ranmilia]

Now THAT isn't what I'm saying at all.  Paying attention to votes is good!  I'm saying don't shrink from putting people at -1 or -2, or think that doing that is somehow risky and bad. 

Corwin's flip doesn't set anything off with me.  He read town to me, very different from how he played in WoW, and I guess the scum thought so too?  Kill analysis is always total WIFOM-bait. 

Excal's, like I've said, increases my suspicion of El Cid and Rat.  El Cid because it's the only case he made, and Rat because of what I see as odd interactions between the two of them.  With Excal = town in place, it feels like Rat could have been scum tagging on a vote to start a Sopko case, then just sitting back, defending himself, and preying on a minor Meeple error.  It is only a small part of what I find off with Rat, though.

[Sierra]

Now...Carthrat stuff is kind of interesting, mostly because of the reactions to him in the first couple pages. Page one, Carthrat votes for Soppy because he felt the Meeple vote lacked justification. Okay, fine. Not long after, Alex comes in with 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.

And this, in the same post:

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.

Rereading the Carthrat posts in question, I really have no idea how Alex got from point A to point B here. I do not at all get the impression that Rat was attacking someone specifically for "trying to start serious discussion." He made a comment about how the transition from jokevotes to serious arguments often happens here, which I really can't view as a suggestion to prolong the former stage. As for him "attacking someone trying to start serious discussion," I don't actually believe Sopko had said much of substance prior to Rat questioning him. He tossed a LAL vote at Meeple, but he hadn't actually said much before Rat voted for him. Alex comes back with this, also on page two:

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.

The last point is blatantly false. Rat never even suggested he was voting Soppy for "trying to start serious discussion," and doing so would be idiotic regardless of one's alignment. Also...is there something wrong with attacking the guy starting discussion if you genuinely disagree with the point he's making? Is there an unwritten rule that says the first guy to make a serious argument is beyond suspicion? It's also rather baffling that he seems to find Rat's self-defense irrelevant.

This looks like a fabricated case to me, which makes Alex someone to watch. As is often the case with nonsense arguments like this, it subsequently got picked up by a couple other people and parroted as a factual reason to find Rat suspicious. Meeple in this post: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=9682;topic=437.25;num_replies=97;sesc=6734f848d1e11afff2b68cef8cd63afe and Corwin in this one: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=9676;topic=437.25;num_replies=97;sesc=6734f848d1e11afff2b68cef8cd63afe

Of course, we know now that Cor was town, which demonstrates once again that innocent people can easily be led astray by a forceful argument even if the point itself is fictitious.

So, I'm looking at Meeple right now. Took some prodding to get moving, and even made a couple posts saying that he was lurking because there was no serious content to respond to. I don't think that's ever a sound argument. If you believe there's not sufficient serious discussion going on, you owe it to yourself as a townie to start it.

More in a moment; there's a bunch of stuff on page three I need to read more closely, but I wanted to get something out there.