Fire Emblem Mafia (Game Topic)

[Carthrat]

Firstly: Yeah questioning Tom like that was pretty dumb. Should've asked him why he voted for Cid; I wanted to ascertain whether or not he actually HAD a case he himself believed against Cid at all. Seems not, but my question was too leading to get anything from.

<->

Re: Ciato

Cidflip: I'm having trouble getting much from this, actually. Which is embarrasing, as I thought it'd lead me somewhere. I can name a fault for pretty much everyone on the line without even digging hard. My main concern was the pair of votes for Cid straight after the pair for Tom. I can't fault Tom for his vote there. I could fault you, though. However, the *reason* to drop a pair of votes that fast for scum is to quickly shunt suspicion of a particular candidate, which in this case would be Tom.

As such, if I was going to hit you for that alone, the more sensible route would be to hit Tom first. Which I've done, but read on for surprises ahoy.

I think his commentary on Cid being an easy lynch are odd. If you really thought people were taking advantage of that, then uh why'd you vote him? I don't understand why someone in the town would intentionally do that. The only person who seems to have a motivation to do that is scum.

Actually I was referring to Tom in the post you quoted in relation to this. You'll note that I unvoted him in the same one, even. As for  not being strong myself... I kinda wasn't certain.

And as for being suspicious of the leap onto Tom but not Tom's leap onto Cid- I answered that one with my earlier questions; I assumed he wanted to lynch someone who wasn't himself. I could see myself doing the same thing, and thusly didn't want to punish him for it alone.

<->

Re: Tom: Thing about Excaldeath is that I didn't believe scumAndy would kill Excal straight after being one of the few people to take a serious shot at him the preceding day. Why not kill someone unrelated? You've nothing to lose and everything to gain by making sure there isn't a connection. That and hammering gave him cred from me.

Your case on Andy seems pretty good, though. I didn't realize how little he'd actually said aside from comments about posting style as reasons entire. The irony of him asking to tone down attacks on his play when he's being doing the same thing all game resonates with me, really.

You do make me reticient to accept your logic with the added "and if andy flips scum, rat is probably scum", though, because that places me in kinda a no-win situation with my response to your argument.

Additionally, I don't like what you said about not listening to dead townies, because.. it.. depends. CPing a quote from Alex (which didn't actually *explain* anything about the game theory behind it and just showed you have the same opinion) didn't help.

<->

Finally, Meeple's last post triggered angry reactions from me, which, hilariously enough, come from a part that really shouldn't;

Much more worryingly though I don't like how Rat's saying to Tom "What you did was scummy, unless you did it for this reason, then it's OK.  Did you do it for that reason?"  Of course Tom's going to say "Oh yeah, just saving my own skin, no scummy here nosirree!"

From what I read of Rat's post, he actually said something like "All of what Tom did wasn't too bad, just a playstyle thing...except that he also did this, which can't be ignored."
Different story altogether.  What Rat is saying is Tom's incidents aren't much by themselves, but there are a few that stick out *AND* all that play style stuff, it suddenly makes him look bad.

The problem is that my question to Tom... was actually kinda dumb, because I did in fact ask it and I was in fact wondering if Tom would answer differently than he actually did.

This has lead me to wonder if he's actually piggybacking on me, here, and I'm forced to revaluate Alex's argument. Meep's been rather, I dunno, chummy with me for most of the game (since page one, even.)

His vote for Ciato... beyond day one there's absolutely zero point to prodvotes like this; doubly so if you admit they're only there to spark discussion. Ciato doesn't *have* to take your vote seriously now, for one thing. For another thing, are you serious about prodding her for content anyway? She posted twice today with some analysis, it seems really, really odd to say you're trying to not let her just sit back.

I could support a lynch on Meeple or Andy today, after some reflection. Tom's case was slapped down strongly and I don't have problems with it by itself. I generally hate his presentation and... I'm going to overlook it. I'll probably be suspicous of him for the whole game, but what else is new?

##Unvote, ##Vote Meeple This is really difficult to choose, by the way; on the one hand, it seems true that Meep is playing the game like a follower, despite his large posts. On the other hand, I hate stuff Alex (his main detractor today) has brought up about other things, mainly myself. I'm gonna go with my original thought about Andy and think it's unlikely he'd kill Excal at night.

I also think that having two clear candidates on the table is going to be more productive than andyquicklynch for the day as a whole, make no mistake.

[Meeplelard]

Would you mind telling me where I defended Cid after voting for him, please? I'm not sure exactly what post you are referring.

Went over your posts, and you do kind of defend Cid in regards to Alex attacking the 3 post thing, though, rereading it, that was more justification for your own actions regarding Cid rather than actual defending Cid himself.  Suppose that doesn't really count as defending Cid.

Eh, guess I don't really have much of a reason to keep this, so...

##Unvote: Ciato

Tom posted reasons and...made damn good on it too.  I suppose I can give him the benefit of the doubt on his original Andrew vote that he really didn't have much time, but wanted to toss a vote out.  Still, with this few players, I feel like tossing a vote out with no reason can be rather dangerous in general, as when you bring that person to an amount away from hammer equal to number of scum left (assuming neither are scum, naturally, which of course is the counter argument to this, and why the point isn't really that strong), so wondering why he so quick to jump on Andrew without giving a good reason initially.

Whatever, probably a playstyle/paranoia/etc. thing here.

Rat: Yeah, I have been a bit too nice to you, but that's mostly cause I do see you as one of the better townies.  Alex's points on you just kind of give me a bit of an eyeroll.  The fact that he held something against you that made no sense (same votes as Cid), attacking you with metagaming (I was saying it was a neat point cause, well, it is, but I am also not giving any real credit to it as a scumtell unless there's a lot of other reasons on the table.)

Alex's case on you...I'm not sure I understand it.  He basically says "You're pro-townie, therefore scum!" beyond the Meta-gaming and the Cid vote thing (which I countered.) That's like...a massive WIFOM.  Hey look, this person is acting Pro-townie, naturally he's trying to remove suspicion! Its as though there's no Pro-townie for the sake of being Pro-townie cause you are town option.  Logic just doesn't make sense.

The more I look at Alex, the worse vibes I get.  He's discounting Day 1 arguments even now.  Ok, yes, call them useless on Day 1, but seeing interactions with people who had role flips can in fact weave out a scum.  IN FACT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.  He put a vote on me for being too friendly to El-Cid.  Its as though Alex on Day 1 couldn't see past the Day he's on.  I forget who brought it up (was it Excal?), but "Day 1 Arguments being useless" is a bad point, which is what Alex said; "Day 1 Arguments being useless for Day 1" isn't as its possible past arguments become useful suddenly when flips come up.  For this reason, arguing on Day 1 is in fact useful.
Then combine that with his case on Rat, the attack on the 3 Post thing, where he finds it odd that El-Cid would be singled out DESPITE the whole Cid vs. Alex fiasco that day and how Cid was one of the people in that, claiming Cid's pushing for LAL and "You better post content!" more seriously than he actually was...argh...

If nothing else, Alex was questioning people's ability to be human.  I hate to Meta-game, but when I made a mistake in Clue Mafia, and Kilga called me out on it, I made a line like "people are allowed to be wrong."  Innocent enough and true; we're human, shit like that happens.
Rat, who was scum, countered the argument with a whole thing that essentially said "people must be perfect!" (that's overstating the line, admittedly, but when you say "you are not allowed to be wrong!" the otherside of the coin is something close to that.)  Not exactly the same, but frankly, why would you question someone who reacted to something completely normally?

Now, if he brought a case on, say, Ciato for singling out Cid, that MIGHT look a bit different.  Except it'd still be leery, as my general thought (and I wouldn't be shocked if it was others) was it was an attack on Cid but you didn't want to make it obvious. 

I'd vote him now if it weren't for the fact that Andrew seems worse (I really have not much new info to bring on him, Tom basically covered all of it...), combined with how it'd look OMGUS.  He's definitely my #2 at the moment.

Well, actually, one thing Tom didn't cover was how Andrew basically did this to the two people voting for him:

Basically called Tom out for not giving good reasons.  Ok, that's fair, but Tom has since given Andrew what he wants.

However...

On the subject of me just riding waves though, that's... kinda completely not true. I made a solid stab at Excal (for all the good that would have done) and I hammered Cid which is certainly not the best way to lay back and ride waves.

He also says this.  Ok, so his defense is basically hammering, and bringing a prod on Excal.  Doesn't sound much different than how I defended myself saying I brought an initial case up on Tom, which you said "no, not enough!"  I called you on hypocricy earlier, you responded "my misdoings don't invalidate others."  Fine, true, but consider this:

Who looks worse?
The man who does something bad.
Or the man who scolds the person for doing something bad, and then does that EXACT SAME THING.

I think the answer is pretty obvious, frankly.  This isn't a case of invalidating points, it was a case of "we have two people who did bad things...but one person is a hypocrite about it, so he's clearly in a worse situation."

Onto OK...your whole argument is...

Could you go back and fill in the blanks in your post, by chance, OK? I'd like to know what you were intending to say.

I looked at the posts and while yes, OK leaving blanks does seem odd...they didn't feel largely important either.  The general points are still there and valid.  Yes, the blanks look awkward, but the post is still understandable either way.

On the subject of Tom vs Cid, I thought I was fairly clear there. Both had been people I had had suspicions about (Cid was indeed on my earlier lists), and the movement against Tom was leaving a bad feeling in my gut. The votes against him seemed to be building up for highly exaggerated reasons. Given that things had moved away from the two candidates I'd been moving on, I was forced to decide. Cid felt like the better informational lynch, and I had more reservations about him than Tom.

I'm looking at your posts and...you don't bring up much in the way of El-Cid or Tom either way, especially the latter.  When you hammer Cid, you just say "I'm leery of you, I intend to Hammer!" and then when you do, you still don't bring up much in the way of reason still.  I suppose I'm looking too into it as "Hammering for the sake of ending a day" is a good enough reason and probably along the lines you were thinking.

However...I don't see you bringing a case against Cid.

El Cid stands out for actually having very little to say. More posts, but incredibly light content. Even his later contributions... still feel a bit lackluster.

Cid clocks in for feeling a bit light on the content, but having just enough presence to show.

First lines against El-cid.  Ok, light content, but really, what had gone on then? Just a shit fest between me and Tom for the most part, and people smacking the lurkers for not voting.   You're saying "light on content" when you were the one who was the lightest on content before the mega post, combined with how in that same post, you attack me for being myself...but that's going off on a tangent.

The next time you mention Cid? Your intent to hammer, saying you agree on oddities surrounding him.

HOWEVER, now you say you were feeling suspicious about him, when from reading it, felt mild at best, and mostly a hammer for the sake of hammering.

This is about all I can bring up regarding Andrew that Tom didn't; no, I'm simply piggy backing Tom suddenly, its just Tom kind of covered every single post Andrew had BEFORE then, so its hard to come up with new content.

The Andrew/Rat connection is possible...but meaningless unless Andrew flips scum.  Its also possible, but highly unlikely, that there's an Andrew/Tom connection, where Tom sees Andrew is going down, so builds a really strong case on him to make himself look better the next day, but I can't really see that being the case, given its horribly WIFOM.

Regarding people I haven't mentioned...
Well, back to Ciato, while I don't have an actual case on her now that I realize she didn't do what I was originally thinking she did (defending El-Cid after voting for him; it was more defending her reasons for singling out Cid in his favor), I still can't shake the feeling something is off about her.  No, I can't support this, and its far less than the way I feel about Andrew and Alex at the moment, hence why I pulled the vote off.

Rat...Tom brought up a potential link with Andrew for scum, but again, this is meaningless unless Andrew flips scum.  Either way, would like to see Rat weigh in more on the Andrew case.  He did comment on Tom's points being valid, but then said that he's afraid to do something cause of a No-Win situation...eh, not getting much of a read out of that, care to comment a bit more on the case on Andrew in general?

OK is a neutral read.  He's bringing good points up, yes, and hasn't done anything really suspicious (OK not filling in blanks that weren't largely important to the content of the post felt more like OK being himself), but I can't simply discount how he wasn't present (not his fault, admittedly) the entirety of Day 1, and is coming out of the blue.  I guess the point is that OK can't hide behind his armor forever, though, there likely won't be a very good case on him until the next Day.

Tom, if it wasn't clear, is less suspicious than before.  Again, while at first I didn't like his "Vote for Andrew!" with no reasoning, he DID come in, and make good on that by giving a full out analysis, about as in depth as you can get (and killing anyone's chance of bringing up any original cases, you bastard <.<), so his vote makes sense.  Just kind of preferred he'd have made his vote AFTER the rant instead of before, since voting with no reason leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

So...while I don't wanna do -1 to Hammer this early, we're going to have to get there inevitably, so...

##Vote: Andrew

Again, one of my main reasons before was the -1 to Hammer, COMBINED with how at least one vote on him felt unjustified, however, Tom has since given adequate reasons for voting.

[superaielman]

(0) Sir Alex -
(1) Evil Tom - Carthrat
(2) Meeplelard - Sir Alex, Carthrate
(0) OblivionKnight -
(0) Ciato - Meeple
(3) AndrewRogue - OK, Tom, Meeple
(0) Carthrat -

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

ANDREW IS at -1 TO HAMMER.

[Ranmilia]

He's discounting Day 1 arguments even now. 

This is false, your connections to Cid day 1 are one of the main reasons I'm suspicious of you.

"Day 1 Arguments being useless" is a bad point, which is what Alex said; "Day 1 Arguments being useless for Day 1" isn't as its possible past arguments become useful suddenly when flips come up.  For this reason, arguing on Day 1 is in fact useful.

Also wrong, I was saying day 1 arguments were useless for finding scum on day 1.  This is obvious enough to go without saying, or so I thought.

Then combine that with his case on Rat, the attack on the 3 Post thing, where he finds it odd that El-Cid would be singled out DESPITE the whole Cid vs. Alex fiasco that day and how Cid was one of the people in that, claiming Cid's pushing for LAL and "You better post content!" more seriously than he actually was...argh...

You'll note that I don't have a vote on Rat.  I would be remiss to not voice my thoughts about him.  I find it very strange that you are concentrating on my voteless case on him to make a voteless case on me while mostly ignoring the voted case on yourself.  Yes, I sure do find it odd that Cid would feel singled out - I apparently underestimated his ability to separate arguments from one another.  Cid's push for LAL consumed most of the day, including your own posts, despite your claims not to support it.  Given how he and you both did in fact vote me for "You better post content!", and how seriously he pushed for me after that, I find the "Oh, it was just a joke" argument to be weak at best.

If nothing else, Alex was questioning people's ability to be human.  I hate to Meta-game, but when I made a mistake in Clue Mafia, and Kilga called me out on it, I made a line like "people are allowed to be wrong."  Innocent enough and true; we're human, shit like that happens.
Rat, who was scum, countered the argument with a whole thing that essentially said "people must be perfect!" (that's overstating the line, admittedly, but when you say "you are not allowed to be wrong!" the otherside of the coin is something close to that.)  Not exactly the same, but frankly, why would you question someone who reacted to something completely normally?

I have no idea where this is coming from.  When have I said people can't be wrong?  To the contrary, I'm trying to accept that people WILL be wrong day 1 and go from there. 

I'm a bit wary of the current push on Andrew, because it's coming from OK (absent day 1, untrustworthy), Tom (is Tom) and Meeple (suspicious and the other person with votes on them).  In looking at Andrew himself, however, I must admit it's not without merit (Tom's megapost is actually quite good analysis) and he sure isn't doing himself any favors in his responses.  I'm not comfortable with lynching him when two people (including Andrew himself!) aren't even voting yet, and I'd like to see more out of him, but he's not looking too good. 

HOWEVER.  Much as I dislike Meeplearguments...

Ciato's posts today are incredibly noncommittal and raises giant red flags to me, so I went back and reread her.  THIS is what a LAL case looks like.  Read her latest post.  "Huh, Alex.  I don't get it.  Could go either way.  His case on Rat?  Eh, don't understand it.  Meeple voting on me?  Uh, explain your logic, I don't feel any pressure."  And no vote.  Then go back to her previous post analyzing Rat and agreeing he's suspicious.  Yeah, her opinion apparently changed - there's nothing wrong with that, MY opinion on Rat changed.  But in her latest posts she goes back and seems to question the validity of large opinion swings on Rat. 

All of her posts are like this.  Commentary to the tune of "hey this thing that is happening sure is happening," a few questions and responses, but no hard stances.  It just keeps going on. 

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17385#msg17385 - her main day 1 vote post.  The only lines she's really taken all game are "Andrew's lurky" and "Cid's waffly."  This is acceptable on day 1.  On day 2, with three significant posts in and multiple significant cases flying around?  No, this can't go ignored.

##Unvote: Meeple
##Vote: Ciato

[Luther Lansfeld]

About Meeple and Andrew…

I've already stated several times my opinion on him on his dubious reason for voting for me. He acts like I'm basically supposed to accept this and PRESENT MORE CONTENT BECAUSE I'VE NEVER BEEN VOTED ON! and it's completely absurd. He wants to prevent me from hanging back! With a meaningless vote based on really poor logic! WOO HOO. He has recently taken his vote off me but I still find this to be a point against him.

He has been in a weird state of feeling like a lurker with really massive posts. Half of the things in the posts are like "...why are you talking about this" and as I've said, I find it extremely difficult to plow through posts that have a paragraph addressing something! ...and then another paragraph talking about why the first paragraph is stupid. He gets an incredibly WTF for his post on Page 1. He more or less talks about people not having much substance... at the beginning of Page 1. Um, okay. I'm not sure exactly what his urgency was here, but he certainly felt the need to vote Tom right then. For the fucktarded logic that everyone mentioned; I just... find it exceptionally interesting that he was attacking Tom for voting Andrew instead of GTAU.

Next post talks about Tom's logic, most of the points being addressed by Rat already. He does make some pretty good points on Tom but he seems to have a vendetta against him. It seems like he is trying to build an argument on Tom... how to explain this. His initial case was very weak, and it feels like he keeps trying to justify his case in subsequent posts of Tom's (when there wasn't really much of a case there). Next is a general post over random shit. He makes some points about Alex, primarily about his odd stances. Meeple defends El-Cid at GREAT length, and I'm not sure how to interpret that. Is Meeple being sincere because he's been in the same situation (as he mentioned) or is he trying to gain townie cred when/if El-Cid falls? I'm not sure. But I can't shake the feeling that it might be to try to make himself look better. I still stand by the double vote thing being weird. Meeple's logic is extremely weird overall, and he’s gotten a ton of flak about it from various directions.

On the other hand, there is Andrew. Andrew has gotten a serious amount of pressure put on him for the second time in the game. The first time was just for not really being a presence and for what I considered lurking in the shadows. As Tom pointed out, there is a surprisingly large amount of sniping at Meeple’s posting style (for all that I agree in concept, it’s just… kind of inane to keep repeating and using as your argument to lynch him.). Other than that… there’s not a lot THERE. Day 2 he doesn’t exist and this sucks. Most of the points on Andrew’s posts have been made already by Tom (and him collecting them all in a post made analysis easy at least).

So essentially, I feel that the two people closest to lynching (although it looks like a vote has been changed) here is between someone who is posting massive posts but displaying weird logic versus someone who is not really a huge presence in the game. Frankly, Andrew has not been a presence in most of the games he’s played in, and when he was (Touhou Mafia) it was pretty ugly. Meeple, however, has made weird cases on people based on WIFOM and other pretty awkward cases, as well as supporting El-Cid very strongly in what could be more foresight into El-Cid’s alignment and thus clinging to him to make himself look good. This is a pretty big scumtell to me, as well as finding that most of his posts are really about people attacking him, and past the Tom case, a lot of his posting has been directed toward people who have addressed him negatively, and the trainhopping is something I find to be suspicious because I’ve always felt like it was just trying to hook the best case. Unfortunately, this was completely bogus with Cid.

Okay, looks like Alex has come and voted for me before I got to post this~

Alex: I have been working on my cases in pieces because my free time is limited due to finals. I decided throwing out my views on various people one at a time would be better than just working on a megapost (for all that this one has ended up pretty damn large). The reason I haven’t laid down a vote was because I hadn’t had time to properly investigate all the people who I wanted to investigate, especially Meeple since his posts are hard to read and I had a lot of suspicions of him.

I questioned the large opinion swing mostly because you cited metagaming, and your other point on Rat about having similar votes to Cid despite not agreeing with him much I’m not sure exactly what you mean or why this is significant in the slightest. When people offer what I consider weak cases against people, it makes me leery of a possible setup/trying to fish for a case on people. That doesn’t mean the cases that exist on Rat are worthless, but that I will take note of what you said about him.

Also, where exactly was Meeple supporting LaL? http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17030#msg17030 has a pretty extensive rant on why LaL is a bad thing.

Anyway, this is the second to last post in this series. I apologize for how long it has taken but I’ve been really busy. The remaining people I haven’t talked about (EvilTom and OK) I’m going to analyze and there will indeed be voting, but not until then~

[Meeplelard]

I have no idea where this is coming from.  When have I said people can't be wrong?  To the contrary, I'm trying to accept that people WILL be wrong day 1 and go from there.

I didn't say you were saying people couldn't be wrong.  I was saying it seemed you found it unreasonable that people were assuming you were attacking Cid, even though he was singled out, which is to say, you were saying people aren't allowed to be human.  The Rat example was a parallel. 

And don't try to claim you didn't find it odd that Cid singled himself out from your "I don't like those three posts".  To quote you exactly...

Yeah, actually, I don't see why Cid in particular is notable for this either.  Note that he's the only one out of those posters I *didn't* even mention by name, and that it's a general statement applying to several people.  Yet he immediately took it personally, to the point of firing off a snippy (his description - and he was attacking Tom for being uncivil!) response before finishing his promised lengthy post, and Ciato quickly joined in with Cid in saying I was somehow singling him out for this.  THIS, I find very interesting indeed.

You found it interesting that Cid took something personally when he was one of the three in the posts you were referring to.  You found it interesting that Ciato made a logical conclusion based on your interactions with one another from before that post.  She even explains herself later.

Basically, you're saying its "interesting" that Cid would lash out on you for something so minor.  Rat later states how Cid's reaction is normal, so apparently, I'm not alone in analyzing that Cid's behavior there was reasonable.  Yet, you still found it interesting.  Unless you are specifically referring to Ciato, but the way you word it, it sounds like its referring to the entire scenario.

I dunno, maybe its just a case of as was noted before, you not being good at writing down your words in a way that people understand your train of thought and come off with other conclusions.

Cid's push for LAL consumed most of the day

No, it didn't.  I still don't see where you get this from.  Yes, his first few posts were voting on Lurkers...but its been said that voting on someone is a good way to prod them into speaking on day 1.  And given someone like Andrew whose away for a while came in, said nothing then left before his big post, I find it reasonable that El-cid took that viewpoint. 

Next off...most of the day?

Serious Discussion Begins: April 26, 2008, 02:07:14 AM (I'm taking Excal's vote on GTAU as the beginning of the serious phase.  Even if his vote was tongue and cheek, it was the first vote that wasn't a total joke one, thereby its the earliest I can consider it the end of the joke phase, and beginning of the serious one)
El-Cid's last post before you call him out on that: April 27, 2008, 12:26:34 PM
Your First post, where you argue about LaL: April 27, 2008, 09:11:14 PM
Day Ends: May 01, 2008, 12:11:39 AM »

So...El-cid spent all of a day and a half pushing LAL.  Your first post comes 9 hours later.  The rest of the day was spent arguing over other stuff, which is MUCH LONGER than the time spent pushing LAL.  No, don't try to claim were stuck on pushing LAL (or El-Cid was for that matter) most of the day, that's flat out wrong.

You bring up two exact posts to prove your point...except its two posts.  Rat's logic makes sense; if someone isn't participating, they have no business being here.  I mean, people were using that logic to lynch Sei in Suikomafia (even AFTER he requested a replacement due to Real Life issues.)  Eitherway, you're inflating how long the LAL push actually lasted.  The next talk about LAL was mainly either arguing its worth, and when Tom tried to question why Rat and Excal were lynching GTAU at the time, when they hadn't even had a chance to remove those votes. 

Also wrong, I was saying day 1 arguments were useless for finding scum on day 1.  This is obvious enough to go without saying, or so I thought.

Really now?

What isn't meaningless?  Honestly, nothing, on day 1.  Pressing town into seizing on specious day 1 cases and keeping them going was how I won Clue Mafia as scum.  I'm not going to do it and I encourage others not to do it.  Nothing day 1 warrants Meeple-megapost level commentary, seriously.

You don't say anywhere "for finding scum."  You don't even imply that.  You just say "nothing isn't meaningless" and explain how you won Clue Mafia using it.

(Rat AND Ciato both more or less took your posts to mean this for the record.)

I'm not going to acknowledge stuff I feel is meaningless other than to say it is meaningless and promoting meaningless discussion is proscum.

More talk about meaningless, no talk about how its useless for finding scum day one.  Again, this "I thought its clear" is not there.

Your point about us getting wrapped up in things makes sense, but that was an asside; you just go ahead and call things meaningless period.  You DIDN'T bring up "for finding scum" or "Day 1 discussion is meaningless on day 1" anywhere.  You just call things unhelpful, meaningless, etc.  You don't go into detail.  Please, if you mean to say something, SAY IT.  Don't beat around the bush, and imply things. 

A.  There's a difference between saying all discussion is bad and saying this amount of discussion on this particular subject is bad.  I thought this was obvious in my posts.  Apparently I'm bad at writing my words down.  I don't know how to put it any better.

The only time I find you saying something regarding discussion being bad and its in more than a general sense.  Again, you are *NOT* saying "for finding scum", or "for this day" or whatever.  This case, its a different thing entirely; you're saying this much discussion on a particular subject is bad, which is different than what you were saying.

El-Cid responds to this with this:

The trouble is that you actually did say "Day one discussion is generally meaningless." I haven't called you anti-discussion and this isn't an expression I really care for in the first place (genuinely being against all discussion and declaring oneself to be so would be suicidal; I know you're smart enough not to do that regardless of which side you're on). The trouble is that you defended this attitude at length, and the whole notion would be much more acceptable to me with the presence of this qualifier: "But only during day one." Thereafter, we can analyze the day one arguments in light of the cardflip and get new perspectives on people. You may say that talking for the sake of talking is meaningless, but I feel this attitude does a disservice to what may eventually prove to be useful information. Really, that first post you made on your return was so short and insubstantial that I half-suspected you were just trolling to provoke a reaction (if this was the case, you clearly got one).

Bolded parts of interest.  Apparently, El-Cid caught you on the whole "Day 1 Discussion is meaningless!" thing the way I did.  The other bolded part implies you didn't word it properly; his line more or less indicates you never once said, or implied for that matter, "for finding Day 1 Scum."  Its not word for word what he said, but its along the same train of thought; Day 1 Discussion doesn't help find scum Day 1.  You never said anything like that, just that discussion on Day 1 is meaningless.

So you claim you were clear on that point...but its obvious you weren't.  You made a lot of general statements, and didn't really add qualifiers to them to make your point clear.  Even Rat states earlier you could stand to write your words down better.

...Ninja'd by Ciato, bah.

[Ranmilia]

Meeple on LAL:
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg16895#msg16895 - Page one rant.  This entire post is about LAL, he condemns several people for lurking (on page 1!  Of day 1!) and praises Rat for "not stifling discussion," aka not lurking.  Yes, he tempers this and talks about how maybe it's not reliable and votes Tom for something else - but he's still playing by LAL and calling people scummy for it. 

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg16945#msg16945 - This.  Anti-LAL rant?  I don't think so.  What Meeple is actually saying here is "LAL isn't the best thing on day 1, but still as good as anything else."  (This is not true, by the way, although everything is bad day 1 LAL is worse than day 1 suspicions because it has even less possible reflection as to someone's alignment.  Scum lurk is done over a period of time and on major issues.)  He concludes by agreeing that sure, he's down with a lurker lynch anyway.  Calls out El Cid for lurking, then Cid posts and Meeple is happy with him again. 

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17030#msg17030 - This!  Anti-LAL rant?  Yes... BUT it's still entirely about LAL anyway.  Meeple's self-defense is "I wasn't lurking!" and towards the end he goes straight from saying "LAL day 1 is bad because there's no relevant content day 1" straight into "Alex has posted saying there's no content day 1, and I disagree, there is relevant content!"  This is relevant because, despite his disclaimers of it, he's still talking about it at GREAT length, making it a major issue, and willl eventually vote me alongside Cid for being anti-LAL.  (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17204#msg17204)  His vigorous Cid defense also starts here.

----

Ciato:  I definitely understand finals and throwing out your views on people - but if you're going to do that you need to actually throw out views on people, beyond "I dunno," which is all I've seen from you on anyone so far.  Even in your latest post, your analysis of Andrew and Meeple limits itself to statements of 'fact,' rather than statements of opinion.  I don't care about how you sum up Meeple's and Andrew's (and everyone's) behavior, we can all see what they're doing for ourselves.  I care about your opinion and whether you find them scummy or not, which you've been astonishingly reluctant to give. 

Even now, after I've called you out on it, all you have to say is "Meeple's behavior is a pretty big scumtell to me... but maybe not, it was bogus on Cid"?  Again, I understand being busy very well, but being busy is NOT an excuse to not lay down a vote on someone you feel is scummy, or at the very least FoS or tell us whether or not you'd be down with lynching certain people.  Nothing stops you from changing your vote when you get around to analyzing the last couple of people - it's not like Tom and OK are on the block right now anyhow.  The day's going on without you, there's already someone -1 to hammer, and legit excuse or not you're basically sitting back and saying "I'm only going to vote today after everyone else has and I've analyzed everything that's gone on."  That is scummy, that is scumlurk in a nutshell. 

----
Meeple:  Wh...a?  There's a big difference between making human mistakes (you in Clue) and what Cid did, they are not comparable at all.  I did not and still do not feel Cid's behavior was reasonable.  Understandable, yes, reasonable, no, and you and Rat saying that it was is part of my concerns about both of you.  (WARNING - METAGAMING AGAIN) Rat especially should know better given how much we talked about people's unreasonable day 1 behavior when we were scumbuddies.

Regarding hairsplitting qualifications of my day 1 statements - what can I say.  It should be obvious that I meant day 1 discussion was meaningless at the time I stated it, not that it was always meaningless later on.  I'm not going to spell out every little commonsense detail of my views, that takes too much time and energy both for me to do and others to read. 

Regarding day 1 - when I said Cid's push took up most of the day, I wasn't talking about pure real time (this is another thing that I would say should be obvious enough that I don't have to spell it out), I was talking in terms of the major vote movements that went on. 
Major Movements of day 1:
- Cid and others jump on GTAU for LAL
- Cid and others jump over to Andrew for LAL
- Rat and Meeple move to Tom for incivility/being Tom/etc
- Cid and Meeple move to me for being against day 1 LAL, then back over to Tom.
- Buncha people jump on Cid alongside me for Cid being for day 1 LAL (my main reason) and trainjumping (main reason for others). 
So yes, I would say that Cid's push and the various fallout from it consumed the entire day except for the Tom debate. 

[Luther Lansfeld]

I was planning on a wrapup session where I gave my opinions on all the facts but the combing through topics has taken me too damn long so I'm going to skip posting the facts because I have homework to do.

Rat- His line about El-Cid about an easy lynch is disturbing. As far as I've read no one has mentioned this and I think it's baffling and scummy. His behavior regarding Tom is also scummy, since he votes for him but in Day 1 removes his vote when things start looking like Tom might be lynched, and in Day 2 immediately votes him again and then subsquently removes the vote. Also has been soft toward Tom and hard on Tom in a strange chain of events. Also argh metagaming I know that he loves to vote for his scumbuddies, and obviously he's not going to keep a vote on him when he's in danger.

Alex- At the end of the day, the metagaming points feel well-intended, and everything else seems out of character for Alex as town or scum. At first I thought his behavior was scummy, but now I think it was just a different approach to things.

Andrew- Needs to talk about things other than people voting for him today. His presence hasn't been notable one way or another, and that's not a good sign. However, he is already -1 to hammer so I think that will correct itself.

Meeple- His obsession with trying to make people look like lurkers ON PAGE 1 is weird. He lays serious votes on people on Page 1 with backwards logic. He clings to El-Cid like a blankey, to what I think is trying to earn credit once Cid got lynched. He trainhops a lot.  Both of these things are exceptionally scummy. His last post is all about um Alex not being understandable or something why are we talking about this.

EvilTom- The main points against him that I've found is that he has been quite a bit meaner than usual in his comments at the beginning  (but he mellowed out) and for his defending of OK/GTAU(known as just OK now) and getting actively riled when Rat and Excal kept their votes for him (after the hour timespan or whatever). Gets minus points for his awkward and seemingly theatrical interactions with Rat.

OK- Nothing yet. I've been going through Day 1 and just trying to see if there were any out of place reactions regarding OK, and the Tom one is the only one I found.

##VOTE: Meeple

It feels like he's posted more filler than content, which is annoying and something Rat hasn't done.

[VySaika]

Super Special Awesome Morphtastic Votecount

(0) Sir Alex -
(0) Evil Tom - Carthrat
(2) Meeplelard - Carthrat. Ciato Sir Alex
(0) OblivionKnight -
(1) Ciato - Alex Meeple
(3) AndrewRogue - OK, Tom, Meeple
(0) Carthrat -

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

ANDREW IS at -1 TO HAMMER.

[AndrewRogue]

Ho'kay.

Tom's analysis is really uncool at a lot of levels, and does a pretty fine job of misrepresenting my posts. He's acting like I stood back casually and let things go, and that I haphazardly pointed fingers. This is pretty serious mischaracterization of my posts. There is a pretty clear evolution of my posts. I start off with the lurkers, move on to being bothered by Tom's tone, settle into Meeple (for having a problematic playstyle, his vote on Tom and continued defense of that vote and his early game reluctance), express a problem with how the arguments on Tom are building, see a serious disjunct in Excal's post and go after that and finall, with the game settling between Tom and Cid, decide that the problems with Cid outweigh those on Tom (especially considering I felt that there was an unusually heavy attempt on Tom). Yes, I had a little mobility, but Tom is acting like I never actually pursued a case.

For the counter record, no, it wasn't incredibly obvious what I was lacking, considering I had provided some pretty thorough and in-depth looks at the game in general.

I'm not seeing my change on opinion about you as a massive turnaround. Yes, I did think your earlier tone was odd. You'll not I also only pointed it out. I didn't vote over it or anything. It just struck me as something to watch. As the day progressed though, people really started to lay into you, most notably for the tonal things, which struck me as incredibly heavy and felt like a scum rush. Thus, while your tone stood out, I felt the rush against you was more concerning.

I'm also kind of curious about your opinion that I couldn't "fend off" Excal. Do you disagree with me about the things I called him out on? Do you think it was odd that I did try to fish for attention against Excal, given that I felt he was scummy at the time?

Finally, I think its pretty clear that I wasn't taking Cid's word as the gospel truth. The fact is that it gave us a decent launching point for day two. *shrugs* You seem to occasionally be trying to buy into the "Alex is a good player" cred by following his opinions as a sort of universal truth.

Meeple: Seriously, calling the whole vote thing a fiasco is pretty ridiculous. I did post after it. The fact is, long, short or otherwise... I did post. No, it wasn't long or in-depth, but the fact is, as I tried to post and analyze, I got distracted and needed a question answered.

Right now, my biggest problems are with you, honestly. You really do feel like you are piggybacking onto Tom's argumentation (yes, despite having some suspicions of your own) and that Ciato vote was seriously not cool on day two. Furthermore... well.

He also says this.  Ok, so his defense is basically hammering, and bringing a prod on Excal.  Doesn't sound much different than how I defended myself saying I brought an initial case up on Tom, which you said "no, not enough!"  I called you on hypocricy earlier, you responded "my misdoings don't invalidate others."  Fine, true, but consider this:

Who looks worse?
The man who does something bad.
Or the man who scolds the person for doing something bad, and then does that EXACT SAME THING.

Don't proverb at me. The situations are completely different. You voted Tom because he... voted a lurker and claimed this was a noteworthy case. I voted Excal for having some serious issues in that he was suffering from some disjunction between what he was saying and what he was doing. Furthermore, again, those aren't the only things I did. I pretty prominently attacked you as well. Low post count or not, there is really no way to see me as trying to just lay low, because I didn't. I had two strong attacks and I hammered the day. You are ignoring fundamental content and structure differences.

Additionally, seriously. You're going to complete let is slide that OK left noteworthy gaps in his post against me? Yes, core argumentation was there, but there was also a clear lack of attention to his posting. This is a BIG deal and you are downplaying it. Why?

On the Cid vote... well. Again. I've said this. It was basically a choice of Tom vs Cid. I'd moved away from Tom, I had some lingering suspicions on Cid. The lynch choice here seems obvious.

Ciato: Well? What do you expect me to do? Come up with some new argument out of the blue? The problem is that people keep asking me to RESTATE POINTS I'VE ALREADY BROUGHT UP. I get asked to repeat points I explain a lot. (See the Tom/Cid stuff at this point. I've explained it, and I'm getting tired of doing it.)

As is... Tom's attack on me feels like an attack from townie Tom (I'm having PW Mafia flashbacks), for better or for worse.

Meeple continues to stand out for yesterday's actions, and for some relatively weak attempts on me while riding on Tom's coattails.

OK I just don't have enough to go on.

Between those three, I'm inclined to lean Meeple currently.

##Vote: Meeple

Save the below text for reading if/when I flip. It contains a lot of nasty metagame thought and potential WIFOM that really won't do much while my alignment is in doubt. I think it needs to be said though.

From a purely metagame prespective at this point, I'm inclined to believe on of Alex/Carth is scum and one of OK/Tom/Meeple is scum. The fact is I do have some noteriety for getting aggressive and one-track in my defenses. Although I have caught scum this way before, it does have a nasty habit of blinding me to folks NOT busy attacking me. An irritating conundrum. I'm inclined to believe that, as is though, two scum wouldn't try to rail me for just that reason. Alex and Carth are both highly familiar with this phenomenon (I've caught Alex before with my tenacity to my own defenses on a few occasions) and both have kind of stayed away from me.

GTAU/OK is also in a problematic metagame position. The fact that Gate worked his ass off to keep them in the game raises questions about why, which, in my mind, indicates an indirect scum tell. The simple fact is that scum losing one of their own to a mod kill is a big deal, and it seems more like a mod would be inclined to let them live longer. Again, pure metagame speculation, but it is worth noting.

[Ranmilia]

My posts are good and the people attacking me are wrong especially Tom!
I agree with the case other people put on Meeple, have nothing further to contribute to it and will vote him!
I'm not even going to comment on anyone else!

So here's the deal, I saw Andrew posted something long, quoted it, deleted it without reading it and typed in what I think he's going to say, cause I have a bad feeling.  Now, time to read it.

Man, that's a phoned-in scummy defense if I've ever seen one.  Zero comments on Ciato except to say Meeple's vote on her was not cool.  One sentence on OK.  Only looking at the people attacking you.  You disagree that you've never pursued a case and say you've given thorough and in-depth looks at the game, but you have done NOTHING today except fire a question at me first thing and then defend yourself, not even going back to me, not even a vote till now and this vote apparently only out of OMGUS/desire to save your own skin. 

If you are town you have made yourself Scum's Second Best Friend TM by digging your own grave with this reactionism.  Then again, if you are town you should know better than to play this way.  Seriously.  Beforehand I would have preferred a Meeple or Ciato lynch today but with this post in hand it feels like there isn't even any choice. 

Oh, yes, in your metagaming note at the bottom you happen mention five out of the other six people playing. 

I would like from Andrew a roleclaim and his thoughts on Ciato.  Announcing intent to hammer him unless something in his response changes my mind.

[AndrewRogue]

Unrelated to game. Read it later.

Alex: Protip. Tact is useful when posting. That post seriously raised my hackles with its holier than thou art stylings, and just isn't the sort of thing that is conducive towards good play, period. If you want to be critical, you can do it without sounding like a prat. It took a serious moment of thought not to just lynch myself out of annoyance and secure my seat as #1 Scum Aid. Checking your tone is a useful tool in making sure game stays enjoyable and such. Some of the smarm is acceptable, but you are coming off like a serious asshole when all of it is taken together in one post.

Three questions.

1. Are you going to bother to address anything I actually wrote outside of actual in-game presence? While I realize that it all tends to be oriented on my defense, given that I am talking about the behavior of other people, some of this might be relevant.
2. Do you tend to address any vote against someone voting on you as OMGUS?
3. Actually, when would I have learned better than to play this way, because this tends to happen every game and I no one has actually ever criticized me for getting wrapped up in defending myself?

[Ranmilia]

Unrelated to game. Read it later.

Alex: Protip. Tact is useful when posting. That post seriously raised my hackles with its holier than thou art stylings, and just isn't the sort of thing that is conducive towards good play, period. If you want to be critical, you can do it without sounding like a prat. It took a serious moment of thought not to just lynch myself out of annoyance and secure my seat as #1 Scum Aid. Checking your tone is a useful tool in making sure game stays enjoyable and such. Some of the smarm is acceptable, but you are coming off like a serious asshole when all of it is taken together in one post.

Three questions.

1. Are you going to bother to address anything I actually wrote outside of actual in-game presence? While I realize that it all tends to be oriented on my defense, given that I am talking about the behavior of other people, some of this might be relevant.
2. Do you tend to address any vote against someone voting on you as OMGUS?
3. Actually, when would I have learned better than to play this way, because this tends to happen every game and I no one has actually ever criticized me for getting wrapped up in defending myself?

A.  That opening comment is very much related to the game, so I have unsized it for others' convenience. 
B.  I was a bit harsh, but, I think, no less than was called for.  It is a game, do not take it personally.  Your actions in the game have been such that they needed to be criticized in the game, IMO.  I think it is very conducive to good play to call people out when they are playing badly.  Frankly I don't see anything in my post that would cause this sort of reaction.  I just don't.  I have to chalk it up to you being frustrated due to being near lynch and under attack, which is understandable, but... yeah.  Everything I said in that post I do consider important and necessary, not only to talk to you but to let others know how I feel about the situation since your post caused me to embark on a 180 from Meeple/Ciato to you and folks deserve an explanation for that.
C.  How come you don't consider my perceived tone important to the game and smallify your comments on it?  This is valid and important and something town needs to consider about me.  (It's also wrong but that's no reason not to post your thoughts.)
D.  To your point 1, I kind of did, but I'll be more clear about it.  I agree with Tom's megapost assessment of you, both the big picture and many of the specifics, and do not think he is misrepresenting you.  I find your claim that Tom is misrepresenting you to be wholly without merit.  You talked about Meeple, the things you said about him are mostly things I've already said him, I still agree.  You talked a little bit about OK, mostly to point out that his argument has some holes in it.  Which it does.  I think these are understandable from a point of view of OK replacing in and wanting to get a case out on the ground floor to start contributing, and the core of his case is still good.
E.  To your point 2, no, but many of them are.  You made a very strongly worded (albeit false) argument against Tom for misrepresenting you and then turned around and went back to Meeple, whom you feuded with day 1 and happens to be the other person with votes on them right now.  The appearance is definitely that of OMGUS considering that you had no vote out beforehand. 
F.  To your point 3, no one has?  What.  I have!  I have talked with you on AIM many a time during and after several Mafia games now.  I have told you repeatedly that this is a perpetual flaw in your play and you need to stop doing it, and you have agreed!  That is why I find it so odd that you are doing it again. 
G.  No roleclaim.  Considering how long you have been at -1 to hammer with the potential for someone like Ciato to look in and hammer you, it is clear that if you were town and had a role to claim you would have done so by now.
H.  Speaking of Ciato, no thoughts on her, eh.

Given that unhelpful response and point G I don't see a point in dragging this out any further. 
##Unvote: Ciato
##Vote: Andrew

[VySaika]

Hammer Time!

I'm gaming with the wifey one right now and don't have time for a full flavor post but I can go ahead and say that...

AndrewRogue, Generic Paladin Morph(TOWN) has been strung up by his ankles!

It is now night phase. Please send in your night actions.

Final Votecount

(0) Sir Alex -
(0) Evil Tom - Carthrat
(3) Meeplelard - Carthrat, Ciato, Andrew Sir Alex
(0) OblivionKnight -
(0) Ciato - Meeple, Alex
(4) AndrewRogue - OK, Tom, Meeple, Alex
(0) Carthrat -

[VySaika]

It would be easy for a human to pretend to be a morph under all that armor. Or at least that was the idea that someone suggested when the crowd tore apart Andrew over thier suspicions. But his corpse gave the lie to that theory, and all his death caused was to lessen the numbers of the remaning morphs by one more.

As they could afford no more losses, the group decided to sleep in shifts, with two people always on watch...against eachother more then anything that might be outside. But no sooner had this decision been made then a stroke of lightning split the sky, blinding those below for only a second...

...and when the light cleared from thier eyes, one of thier number slumped over, an axe burried in his face.

That left five. And the morphs left knew that two of them were humans. There could be no more mistakes. Any slips from here...and it would be all over.

Carthrat, Generic Sage Morph(TOWN) has been murdered in the face.

(0) Sir Alex -
(0) Evil Tom -
(0) Meeplelard -
(0) OblivionKnight -
(0) Ciato -

With 5 alive, it takes 3 to lynch.

Town is now in LYLO.

[Ranmilia]

Well.  That... sucks. 

So LYLO, massclaim time.  I am a vanilla town Bishop morph.

Everyone is suspicious to me today. 

Tom - Feuded with Andrew all game.  Did put effort into it.  Given Andrew's final behavior I have a hard time calling it a mislynch.  Probably most townie to me at the moment... but that doesn't say much.
Meeple - See yesterday.
OK - Has done nothing but come in with the case on Andrew.
Ciato - Lurking and refusing to vote until called on it.

I have honestly no idea where to go from here and would like to see claims/thoughts.

[EvilTom]

I refuse to believe that Andrew was town, even now >.>

Everyone is suspicious to me today.

Yeah that works for me too.

Vanilla here.

I really hope we have a cop.

[Ranmilia]

I refuse to believe that Andrew was town, even now >.>

This.  A thousand times this. 

Rest of that post sinks you back into suspicionland, though.  What kind of vanilla townie are you and can you at least give some sort of comments on people beyond quoting me?

[EvilTom]

Paladin Morph, but that's all I was given about my role, that and the fact that I have no special powers.

I'll do proper comments later on, just a quick check-in for now. Extremely busy with lots of assignments due etc.

I'll be doing some more detailed stuff like I did with Andrew, but that one alone took almost 2 hours, and I don't have that kind of time this morning. But there's no time limit, so there's no rush for me to do it /right now/.

I want to do it properly, not a rushed couple of words on each person.

[Meeplelard]

...well then, this sucks.  Like, really sucks.

Anyway, I'm a generic Morph Swordmaster.  Sadly, Crit rates of doom doesn't translate into Mafia in anyway, so Vanilla Town.

So yeah...

Um...suspicious of everyone does cover things well, but...

Ok, first off...

Alex seems most suspicious to me.  Starts off with questionable gameplay strategies, misinterprets my posts to claim I'm saying LAL a lot more than I am, claims to have been clear on something when he obviously wasn't, opens by voting Cid based on going all out on his LALness and "Entrapment" as he later states, thus making the case seem more serious than it is, and then finds it weird that Cid would respond so personally to Alex's attack on 3 posts, when he as one of the posts in general.  Next off, he hammered Andrew.  GRANTED, I'd probably have hammered Andrew if I hadn't already had a vote on him; I...think Tom said it best regarding Andrew = Tom.  Alex's last bit of play though?  Comes off as rather harsh and aggressive, to the point where Andrew seems to have taken it personally.
Alex made an odd case on Rat too for that matter. 
I will note that the Hammer argument has WIFOM written all over it, its more just another point to consider along the way.

Tom I wanna say seems more suspicious than he really is; his mega post on Andrew made a lot of good points.  Though, the whole "going to say something!" thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Unlike Andrew, though, sounds like he has legit reasons for holding back (and Alex did try to call him out on it, so he pretty much had to respond with something.)
Beyond that? Mostly Tom's day 1 stuff and not sure that's holding much water anymore.  Though, might be worth noting that Tom tried to link Andrew and Rat? Flipside, link only really worked *IF* Andrew flipped Scum, which he didn't.

Ciato's suspicious for hanging back, and then taking my vote against her immensely personally, similar to the way Tom did.  She later votes against me for primarily having Filler Content, from what I gather.  Either way...she's probably #2 on my list.

As for OK...he made a case on Andrew primarily...but he also made one on Tom, and the reason for going after Andrew was entirely "Andrew has less posts". Either way, one of them is still alive, the other flipped town.  And then he had lack of presence throughout all of Day 1 (not his fault, I'll grant.)
His posts? He has only 3 of them, but they seem filled with content and he's trying to make a case.  Still, though, he kind of ceases to exist for the rest of Day 2 after his response to Andrew.
Though, the fact that he left blanks out of his posts makes me think he may have not really been making an actual case, and was playing carelessly...of course, they were minor details, and given how his post was relatively lengthy, its easy to forget those (though, why he didn't go back and check when he first made those points...eh, I guess he wanted to get his important thoughts down first? Grah! Going in circles now!)

End result? Roughly on par with Ciato.  Lack of presence is understandable due to missing Day 1, but at the same time, he should have tried to do his best on Day 2 to make up for this.  Posting only 3 times, and then disappearing doesn't look good regardless of circumstances unless you have a damn good reason (ie some sort of RL reason that didn't allow you to post again before the Hammer).  I have a hard time saying how bad that is, but feels not as bad as how I feel about Alex, but definitely worse than Tom.

As it stands now?
Alex > Ciato =~ OK > Tom for suspiciousness.  Yes, after the whole Day 1 fiasco, I know it seems odd that Tom's the bottom of my list, but frankly, he hasn't done anything really that noticeably scummy since Day 1.  Best case against him is the whole Andrew feud and the case he brought on him...but considering how Andrew has played the entire game, I really can't blame Tom for finding all those problems, especially after Andrew's attempt at responding to Tom; that was some of the worst Town play I'm seen (Andrew's, I mean.)

[Luther Lansfeld]

I'm a vanilla townie and a morph Sniper.

I wish OK would show up and actually exist and stuff.

Alex!hammer was really bizarre considering that Andy is well-known for having a flair for the theatrical as town.

Meeple says I took his vote against me personally. You note the lack of me getting angry with Alex for voting for me because it was for a reason that wasn't highly irksome.

Tom seems well-intended enough, but I'd have to reread considering the new developments.

Anyway I am basically falling asleep in my chair and I have three finals in the next two days so uh not sure when I'll be around.

[Ranmilia]

Alex!hammer was really bizarre considering that Andy is well-known for having a flair for the theatrical as town.

While true I think that is a bit of an understatement here.  In review:
- Spent all his posts defending himself
- Looked only at the people voting for him, attacked them mostly only for attacking him, ignored being specifically asked to comment on another case
- Did not claim at -1, ignored being specifically asked to do so
- Talked about wanting to self-hammer
- Blatantly lied (about nobody ever telling him his reactionary/theatrical/whatever you want to call it play was bad)

In my defense I submit the argument that I was convinced he was scum (by the lie, on top of the rest) and it would be scummy for anyone rational to NOT hammer that (even though I knew I'd garner irrational heat for it today).  It had to be done.  If I'd hammered Meeple instead, or sat around waiting for someone else to switch, then people would be justified in calling for my head today along with Andy's.  The only line of argument where hammering Andy makes me scummy is if Meeple and I were scumbuddies and I was trying to save him, which makes me confused as to why Meep in particular is attacking me for this. 

Actually I don't really understand most of the points Meeple's trying to bring up against me.  I don't see how any of that even reflects on my alignment at all, save for my making a case on Cid and the accusation that I'm misrepresenting Meeple's posts.  The former I have discussed at length, and the latter... I have also discussed at length but could probably do with some more. 

My point about Meeple and LAL (day 1 LAL that is) is that his position on it is not "It's bad, don't do it" but rather "I'm calling it bad and I'm not going to do it, but you know what it's not really that bad and I'm totally fine with Cid doing it and not fine with others attacking Cid for doing it."  If he really thought it was bad he should have been on Cid's case for it rather than defending him.  Mafia is not a game of I'm Okay You're Okay, if other people are lynching on strategies you honestly believe to be bad, they're either hurting town and need to change or not town at all and they need to eat rope.  Defending someone else's right to argue in a way you don't agree with is a fine thing to do in real life, but a bad and scummy thing to do in Mafia.  Townies should care very much whether other townies are playing well or not, scum on the other hand don't care who gets lynched in the day as long as it isn't them and love to foster irrationality.

On that note, if you think my gameplay strategies are questionable I'd love to hear them be questioned. 

Right now I think I'm leaning mainly towards Ciato, mainly due to this.

The reason I haven’t laid down a vote was because I hadn’t had time to properly investigate all the people who I wanted to investigate, especially Meeple since his posts are hard to read and I had a lot of suspicions of him.
.....
The remaining people I haven’t talked about (EvilTom and OK) I’m going to analyze and there will indeed be voting, but not until then~

Especially the last line, given its place in the game.  "I haven't had time to read through everyone" is a pretty bad reason to not lay down a vote, and then specifically saying you won't vote anyone till you've analyzed the two last people, neither of whom had any other support as a lynch candidate, is just not understandable to me.  I'd really like to hear others' thoughts on this.  And I'd really like to hear something, anything, preferably a lot of things, from OK.

[OblivionKnight]

Okay, I was mulling over things in my head a bit while thinking of this LYLO situation.  I was waiting for a PM to show up (since that's higher on the page than the mafia topics) for my night action, but I didn't get anything, so I assume my night action was not much.  This is why I haven't posted yet until now - thinking things over and not realizing the day was beginning - after the short day previous where I was gone most of the time, this transition was a bit unexpected, especially since I was like now at rotation.  However, in that waiting, something interesting has come up, and now I feel like I can make use of this. 

I am Uhai (well, generic Nomad Trooper Morph, but Uhai sounds cooler), and I am a bodyguard.  Last night I protected Meeple, and apparently, that all went well (well, not really, but no one attacked him, at least!).  The night before I protected Ciato. 

Why is this important?  Because I think Ciato might be lying.

The flavour text I got that night protecting her informed me that I couldn't find her and couldn't protect her that night due to that reason.  I didn't think much about it until she claimed vanilla - because unless I was roleblocked (which is a possibility, I assume, but while I can't think I'm omniscient here, with only 2 scum, I don't think that was a roleblocking taking place), then she was out doing something, and a claim of vanilla sniper sounds a ttttaaaaaaaaadddddddd off. 

This, to me, puts Ciato at the top of my list of suspects, and I'd really, really like her to explain this. 

As for the rest...

Andrew I felt sure on as leaving my vote there.  Carth I was thinking was town, and was right on that.  So for the people still alive...

Meeple - Do note that I mentioned at the start of day 2 that I would be lacking in time due to a pre-planned committment on Saturday/Sunday (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17581#msg17581).  Carth even noted this himself (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.msg17625#msg17625).  So this was noted, and verified by at least one other person.  Other than that...I don't have a strong opinion on him.  Him not doing anything last night, apparently, isn't harmful at least, with his claim of vanilla.  I'm not getting a huge, huge pull on him at the moment either way. 

Ciato - See above.

OK - I am certain I'm town. 

Tom - I made a small case on him - I am somewhat suspicious of him.  He's been good about posting with his material day 2, and generally fairly helpful, outside of the aforementioned issues day 1.  I feel better about him than Ciato and Meeple at the moment.  Everything he he has done has been better, I feel, than usual and decently enough townie - but the half-hearted initial role-claim and comments in LYLO that required Alex prodding make me a bit suspicious.  Moreso than I would be otherwise.

Alex - I actually think he's jumped up to 2nd most confident in towniness, for me.  He has been consistently townie and defended every position I can think of offhand (will review again later when I don't have my preceptor breathing down my back).  He's made good cases.  I fully understand his views on Andrew (hell, I agree!) as well, and why he hammered.  He doesn't give me scum vibes.  Granted, as always, the only person you know is a townie is yourself, and Alex could be playing a good scum, but I haven't picked anything out specifically myself that rings alarms.

So, where I stand:

Ciato >>> Meeple >= Tom > Alex >^6.022x10^23 OK for scumminess.  I may not be a cop, but Ciato's story is bugging me.  Any other thoughts would be appreciated.  I fully intend to discuss the flips a bit later when I return from rotation.  There is surely some evidence in them that can be pulled.     

[Meeplelard]

Well...so we had two power roles eh?  That's damned nice.  OK's thing sounds like its a dead hit for Ciato, since I can't really see any other reason unless Ciato has some sort of hidden power that lets her unaffected by any roles, but...uhh...do any such roles exist? Regardless, sounds too overpowered on either side for a game of this size.

She's been indecisive the entire game in any event.  Hasn't been attacking much, holding off on votes until called on it, and as I noted, I still think she took my original attack on her a bit TOO personally.  Due to all this evidence...

##Vote: Ciato

[Ranmilia]

So wait.
Roleclaim from *OK* with FLAVOR pointing towards Ciato...
And Meeple immediately buys it, drops his suspicion of me and votes Ciato in LYLO?

OK - What do you mean by bodyguard exactly?  Just normal doctor?  Do you die instead if your target is attacked?  Most importantly, why did you choose the protection targets you did?  Ciato night 1 is okay, sure, but MEEPLE night 2?  The other person who was almost hammered?  Why on earth would the scum try to kill Meeple?  Why didn't you mention this strange flavor about Ciato earlier, like say on day 2 when I brought a case up on her?

Scum are 2/3 of OK/Meeple/Ciato, that much is obvious.  The question is whether or not I trust OK's roleclaim.  As you can infer from the above questions I don't find it very good offhand!  ..... but there are no others and I'm not sure I buy town just having an inventor. 

Discussion on OK is moot since Meeple's vote means it's Ciato or Meeple today, though.  Meeple accepting the claim and voting her so easily... I really don't like it. 

I *think* scum pretty much have to be either Meeple/Ciato or Meeple/OK, I really don't see Ciato/OK going down like this and Tom remains towny by default.  So I am actually leaning towards voting Meeple as the safer option here.  There's certainly nothing in Ciato's defense, but OK's claim is pretty sketchy and could be a "quicklynch Ciato" ploy.  Although if it was, I'd expect him to claim cop...

Scum-Ciato would not give a message like that, I don't see any reason why a bodyguard wouldn't have been able to protect her except for Excal (inventor) using some protective power on her himself.  It really does not reflect on her alignment at all.  I'm surprised neither OK nor Meeple considered this.

More I think about it more I'm leaning Ciato/Meeple.  MMmmmmm.