Preston

Thanks for responding AKC. It doesnt really add anything more... but it at least states your views. I'm on the fence still. Both AKC and CD have good reasons to vote for them. I want to hear other peoples' reactions to this discussion - we cant let anyone get a free pass by staying quiet. In particular, TC: As our only proven townie, what do you think between AKC and CD? -Preston VOTE COUNT CanucksDynasty (1): AKCPLUTO AKCPLUTO (1): CanucksDynasty Electric Mango (1): TerrorChrist Not Voting (4): Preston, ccabal86, Electric Mango, reign of terror With 7 Alive, 4 is needed to lynch.

While I appreciate that you think I've done a good analysis, when you're the focus of suspicion I'm not sure how helpful it is for you to be silent; that just lets the current status of you-being-suspected remain as-is without really trying to counter it yourself. 'Proof' rarely happens, especially once an investigative role is used up. Generally speaking, posting SOMETHING for people to respond to is better than posting nothing. If both you and CD are done trying to present defenses of yourselves... that leaves us exactly where we were, unsure and looking for anything on either side to tip the scales. If you have any reactions or thoughts or other elaborations on your previous stance against CD that you think we should consider, please get those out in the open now - anything could tip the scales at this point, at least in my mind. -Preston

I saw yesterday how he tried to claim TC was mafia, and that DID strike me as curious - last game there was that hypothetical "Remorseful Henchman" role idea floating around, so I guess he was trying to reference that. It's true that AKC rushed his vote. It's also true Narsis's day 1 accusations were made by the role AKC now has. If Narsis was scum, that might also account for how he stayed below the radar; he went inactive. And finally AKC's roleclaim seems to revolve around "ex-" versus no "ex-". I'm still not sure I buy your voting rationale as a form of proof, but the rest might have some promise. As for AKC's roleclaim, chronology seems to be: Day 1 lynch: We found d3mon was "Security Guard" - verbatim from last game Day 2 start: TC displayed the same ability as the "first-aid lifeguard" from last game, but did not name his role. Day 2 end: AKC roleclaims as "cowardly lifeguard". Day 2 end/Day 3 start: TC says his role is "ex-first-aid lifeguard" - different name from last game. The first two items set up the possibility/probability that survivors from the last game were possible and that they might have the same name. It's not until AFTER AKC claimed that the possible name difference appeared. The obvious question is that if survivors are present and AKC is taking the place of a REAL 'cowardly ex-lifeguard', why hasn't there been a counterclaim? But we don't know if a 'cowardly ex-lifeguard' even exists this game, so that absence is no proof, and the role AKC claims is not testable. So the only remaining question for me is would scum take the risk of claiming a role that is likely to already exist, knowing that the other person may counterclaim? I want to hear AKC's response to all this. As for you yourself CD: This much I can agree with - your behavior is unchanged. You said it yourself at one point that you tend to pick someone and focus on them very strongly - even when you're wrong. You were wrong on day 1 when you led THAT charge. The only question is per ccabal's statement, if that focused style is being used as scum cover to target townies and then claim honest mistakes. It's a viable possibility, but there's no proof either way; doubly so since you are claiming vanilla townie. I'm not sure I want to 100% narrow the field to AKC vs CD just yet - I know CD is a veteran and could be doing a very good job as scum - but I find myself having a LOT more to examine/critique about AKC than CD. That may be a sign in itself. -Preston

Exact role names are not always THAT useful, though it can be used in some cases to see if one person's role looks made up - i.e. a scum fake claim. AKC is claiming "Cowardly Lifeguard", and you are claiming "Ex First-Aid Lifeguard". Because yours is not simply "Ex-Lifeguard", AKC having his specify the 'cowardly' makes more sense and gives him some credibility. However, looking at it again I AM noting that yours includes 'ex-' while AKC's does not.. It reduces the amount of townie points he gets from your proving that your role included 'first aid', but doesnt eliminate it entirely. Nothing says they both had to be ex-lifeguards, though I kinda would have expected the cowardly one to be the ex-. This may be reading too much into the role names, but picking apart role claims is worth doing because the absence of that 'ex' COULD mean that AKC is fakeclaiming by lifting that role directly from the previous game. I'd say this knocks AKC and CD back to being neutral in my mind. I'll wait on CD's response to my above post before commenting further. -Preston

I want to make sure I understand you here CD. You keep saying "If X is not lynched in the next few days, then they must be mafia." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since all 3 mafia are alive, if a single townie votes for a single OTHER townie then all 3 scum can bandwagon on that vote and finish the game - and hence the ABSENCE of such a bandwagon when two people are voting for each other would be proof that one of those being voted against is scum since all 3 arent free to throw their weight on someone else. The problem I have with that kind of negative proof is that it presumes the scum would tip their hand by trying for a quick lynch - a tactic that could fail if townies are active enough. If you have a wrong target and scum simply stay quiet to let your suspicions stay where they are, that kind of reasoning is more likely to make us lynch the WRONG target instead of the RIGHT one. If you correctly pick a scum and they stay quiet even so, you still dont get any more proof to back it up and sway the rest of us; in short, scum will most likely react the exact same no matter WHO you are pointing out. I refuse to believe that they have not seen this for themselves. If I've misunderstood you, please explain your reasoning in greater detail. If you believe your negative proof has more value than I understand, please elaborate. But right now, I find basing any lynch vote on that particular house of cards to be VERY weak. This is a point towards AKC's towniness then. Not a 100% in-the-clear, but choosing between him and CD at this point I would probably choose CD. Too early to vote, though. Short version: It's a little dangerous to read TOO much into scum's motivations because you will find arguments for both sides. Long version: You are indeed our only confirmed townie at present. However KevinH had nearly the same level of towniness due to being the only real d3mon defender on day 1 - and as a veteran his analysis makes/made him even more of a danger to the scum. His 'martyr' role could also be the sort that takes a bullet for someone else - so maybe they DID try and take you out last night and his ability made him die instead? We can't know for sure, obviously - but like I said about CD above, negative proof (proof by something NOT happening) is risky at best, dangerously misleading at worst. We do not have much in terms of 'solid' info at this point - the only confirmed things we have are the two days' voting records, TC's role use, and the fact we have yet to see a confirmed vanilla townie. We can and should look at behavioral information, but bear in mind what we saw happen day 1 - even very solid-seeming suspicious behavior can be wrong. I want to hear from CD about his line of reasoning, especially now that AKC is looking less scummy. -Preston

Okay.. wow. On the one hand it's good to see people THIS active - 3 pages since the day started, and me getting on this after work on what should be the first day since the topic unlocked - but it seems accusations are flying fast and furious, and now I feel behind! Where to begin... AKCPLUTO: immediately voted CD at start of day 3. Currently roleclaiming "Cowardly lifeguard" CD: Immediately counter-voted AKCPLUTO RoT: Bandwagoned on d3mon when TC voted it, later claiming it was a joke. Currently roleclaiming "vanilla townie". Starting with AKC's claim, let's follow that one back: This really gives meaning to the phrase, "What's in a name?" In this case, possibly quite a lot. TC seems to have confirmed that his role is simply "Ex-Lifeguard", while AKCPLUTO is claiming his role is named "Cowardly Lifeguard", which is how it was written LAST game. It could be that mole labeled TC's role "ex-lifeguard" and AKCPLUTO's role "cowardly lifeguard", but that wouldn't be consistent. Remember that it is dangerous to try and secondguess mole's game mechanics TOO much... but this naming inconsistency is enough to earn AKCPLUTO a hard look today, and he started off with an immediate vote on CD. As for CD: He has the distinction of being the only one who voted both days for lynches that proved to be townies. I can't really fault any of the analysis I've seen from him thus far, but the voting record is worth bearing in mind as one of our few pieces of hard evidence - especially since this day has started so very strongly AKCPLUTO vs CD. As for RoT: Yeah... TC's d3mon vote and RoT's immediate bandwagon got a double from me. I could see it being a joke, but if you're joking, PLEASE be clear about that. Just as I told AKC earlier, posts containing nothing more than a vote or unvote with no accompanying reason draw a lot of attention. Finally, concerning KevinH's being killed: Ouch that we've lost him; he was one of the two basically-proven townies we had and his analysis was valuable. As for his role though, "one-use martyr" sounds like a bodyguard role that dies if their target is attacked? If that's the case, it could be that scum targeted someone OTHER than KevinH last night - possibly TC? - and Kevin's role activated to make him die instead. I'm not sure if that TELLS us anything, though. On another note: Kevin's having a role further enforces that we have yet to see any vanilla townies out of the 4 deaths thus far this game. Either we've been horribly unlucky with who we've been losing, or there are few-to-no vanilla townies this game. At present CD and RoT are both claiming vanilla townie. I'm not going to make any assumptions based on this information alone, but it's definitely a factor we need to keep in mind. LYLO today... this one will probably go down to the wire with us doublechecking ourselves to the last minute. We've got to make the right choice today. -Preston

Knowing an actual role name for a verified townie role allows us to check for an internal consistency in how mole named roles - i.e. does your 'lifeguard' sound like the one AKCPLUTO claimed. You say you are an ex-lifeguard, and he says he is 'cowardly lifeguard' as listed in the previous game - as opposed to an 'ex' lifeguard. It's more information for us to consider. As for paraphrasing, one of the rules is that you cannot verbatim-quote your role PM or any other PM you have gotten from mole - though listing the NAME of your role verbatim is safe. The penalty for verbatim quoting mole is being modkilled, so whenever someone is told to paraphrase their role PM as extra justification/detail, this is why. As for what we gain from paraphrased role PMs, it's both additional role detail and more internal consistency - we get to see if the role 'sounds' real, beyond simply having the name. It's not beyond a creative scum to come up with a fake role, but forcing them to say more gives them more space to possibly overreach/conflict with an existing role. Also, RoT has decided to cast his vote after this surprising roleclaim. We dont have much time left in the day, but TC has responded with his role name and AKC has responded to THAT, so I dont think there's anything else to wait for - cao cao is not likely to appear in the mere hours left at this point. I will honor my previous post and provide the hammer now that RoT has voted. Vote: CaoCao Here's hoping his inactive self is scum - he WAS suspicious on day 1, so I'd give us a little better than the raw 1/3 odds on him. And if not... we have CD/ccabal and possibly EM/AKCPLUTO to consider on day 3. -Preston

Looking back, I dont see that TC ever stated the NAME of his role; he just USED it, and we drew the conclusion that it was identical to the revival doc from the last game. This is a good question to ask however. TC: Can you please tell us the NAME of your role? Do NOT quote the entire role PM (though you could paraphrase it), but knowing the name of your role would be very helpful here in examining AKCPLUTO -Preston

Moderately amusing; my whole point is that I figured we could wait til the day ended naturally, but if RoT decided he wanted it over NOW I'd go with it. Didnt expect the loopback, but I guess it makes sense I'll wait until tomorrow; CaoCao /might/ come back in the next 12 or so hours before mole calls the day over, I guess. Ironically, mole might not even check the topic before then anyway, so voting now wouldnt exactly buy us much time! XD Speaking of things that happen in the last 12 hours of the day... interesting. I'd expected this role to crop up after we saw the first two, though perhaps not as still having 'lifeguard' in the name. I know from experience it's not a role we can TEST, which is frustrating - but you have a decent chance of actually being this role unless someone counterclaims; it would be moderately risky for scum to claim a role that already has a GOOD chance of existing... unless they just made a mistake, which is also possible. -Preston

Kevin's response here is pretty much it. Choosing to be less aggressive is entirely valid and noone would fault you for it. However whenever you DO take an action - voting, FoSing, etc - you need to provide your reasoning. Omitting this information is a choice that draws a lot of attention, and makes you MORE suspicious than nearly any justification would. Simply explaining your thought process is NOT an attack; it gives something for people to examine, agree/disagree with and ultimately use to judge you town/scum later in the game. Every time you post you are giving people material with which to see if you seem town/scum; and the act of NOT posting, or posting very little, also can be a sign of sorts. If you dont want to lead/start lynch efforts against people you find suspicious that's fine - but dont restrict your posts and become largely inactive due to fear that you MIGHT be suspected, either. The whole game is about paranoia - have fun with it CaoCao has been the topic of discussion, and Nerau... well, I guess TC's revive didnt provide much more discussion than proving TC town and confirming Nerau didnt use his ability night 1. AKCPLUTO explaining himself has helped tie up that loose end - it doesnt entirely clear him in my mind, but I dont feel like FoSing him yet either. Barring CaoCao miraculously returning from inactivity to speak in his own defense (and since noone has answered my "does he get modkilled if he goes inactive with no replacements available" question), I think I'm ready for the day to end too. While I'm still wavering between CaoCao and CD, based on the former's inactivity (and the utility of the latter's analysis if he's town), I'm going to keep my 'virtual' vote on CaoCao. Since the day ends tomorrow anyway unless people vote, I'm tempted to say just let the day time out instead of throwing down the votes again - I dont think cao cao will post, but 24 hours might make a difference - who knows? If people are desperate for this to end a night sooner, I'll vote when RoT does. -Preston

The problem I have is that if you throw down a vote with no rationale given, then you're getting away with not really giving much detail at all. Given that you JUST replaced Narsis, I do not believe your rationale could be from any sort of role information - you havent had a night yet to use it, and if narsis was inactive he could not have either. Absent that only valid excuse, I cannot see a reason to NOT explain your reasoning. We need to know what/how you are thinking, who you are siting with/against, etc - information that can be used to link potential scum together regardless of whether the lynch succeeds or fails. :facepalm: Doubleposts happen. Let's try to stay focused please - we dont have much time left. If RoT and I applied our votes right now the lynch would happen, but we NEED to hear more from akcpluto at minimum before the day ends; if needed we can ask mole for an extension (and have it actually HAPPEN this time). I don't like that AKC's posts so far have been that sparse: one to question when he was mentioned in relation to Narsis's list, one to place a vote with no reason given, and one to say that he doesn't want to give a reason. It's not enough for suspicion yet, but if he refuses to give his reason AGAIN then I'll be very curious as to why. -Preston

Since we haven't heard much from you yet AKCPLUTO, please specify which posts/analysis/etc you've read that are making you choose to vote CD. CD and Cao Cao are my top two right now, and I'm interested in anything that may give me a means to differentiate between them. Even at this late stage, new information/viewpoints/analysis could still cause the vote to go anywhere. -Preston

I remember seeing a lot of requests - some from me - to explain where he came up with that list, and it never happened. When he started to become inactive and logged in less frequently, he didn't get his justification/thoughts out before he vanished. Having a list THAT strong on day 1 was already ludicrous, so I was very curious if he'd picked up on something we didnt see - but so far he's 0 for 2 (d3mon town, kevin almost certainly town), and I dont know if I'd expect ccabal to be any different in that regard. If narsis (and hence AKCPLUTO) was/is scum, tossing out that list on day1 would seem the perfect "well, I was wrong" excuse attempt - name a grab bag of targets and see if the rest of us agree to lynch any one of them for the day1 know-nothing lynch. If narsis (and hence AKCPLUTO) was/is town, then he could have been just genuinely mistaken - but he was very strong early on for being just mistaken. While most of our lynch discussion on day 1 that lead to our mis-lynching d3mon boiled down to "d3mon's play style made him suspicious", it doesnt entirely apply to Narsis's list because he threw it down BEFORE d3mon really drew suspicion to himself, at least in terms of his rolehint. This isn't on its own enough to implicate AKCPLUTO - we have only a single post from him since he replaced Narsis - but it does merit additional attention. I'd like to see some more activity from him; we have three days left at this point and need to make sure we know what we are doing this time around. On that note, RoT - since AKCPLUTO has now posted, will you keep your FoS on him? I'd say we have at least a 1/3 chance of ANYONE of the CD/Cao Cao/Ccabal list being scum, but if inactivity wont result in cao cao being removed and hurting the town beyond just not having his vote/voice, then we will need more justification in settling on him as our lynch choice for today. EM quoted Cao Cao's past posts and there is definitely a valid possibility there, but I am seeing us pay more attention to the question of inactivity and less to the question of what looks more like scum actions on day 1... this thread has sat largely silent for longer than it should. -Preston

For some reason I'd thought it was the other way around! In that case it's AKCPLUTO who has Narsis' list in his history. -Preston

I think you're just confused by how I wrote the sentence; some mannerisms dont translate well I guess, and rereading I slightly messed up the grammar too :-p. I'll rephrase/expand that sentence for you. Rephrase: It hurts us that the suspect list we started the day with - those who voted for d3mon - was a list that everyone knew was going to happen. Because all three of them were equally suspect from the start of the day, we cannot look to see who FoSed/started a lynch movement against any one of them tomorrow, so we cannot really give any one person credit or blame if the day's lynch target proves scum or town; all we will have is another list. To explain this further, if someone starts a push to lynch someone that ultimately succeeds, the one who started the movement gets more credit/blame than those who bandwagoned/supported them depending on the outcome of the lynch - because they started it. That information is useful in making an individual appear more town/more scum for future days, instead of being just part of the crowd. Today we have less information because there is no suspicion movement to be 'started' - we already had our suspect list made for us, the list of those who voted for d3mon. As an example, KevinH was the first one to throw down the FoS on those three today - CD, Cao Cao, Ccabal - but if we end up lynching a townie as a result we cannot easily blame KevinH for it because he didnt come up with the list himself -Preston

It all comes down to a very Wine In Front Of Me situation; we can second-guess what scum is trying to do, but since they see our musings there's no tricking them out into the open. The hell of it is that since the day started with a very obvious/well-defined suspect list - those who voted for d3mon - which robs us of being able to attribute it to anyone. I'll probably look in more detail tomorrow at who has spoken against whom, but overall with cao cao inactive (and maybe modkilled per my earlier thought, though people are acting like that's not the case) the vote falling on him is again a largely logical choice... and difficult to attribute to anyone really 'starting' it that would be a scumtell for day 3. We also dont really have ANY information on RoT or AKCPLUTO, since they werent here day1 - we can comment on Narsis' list, but that was a different player and we don't know if that can be applied to RoT who replaced him. We're generally operating in a vacuum of information and being able to tie people to new ideas/positions. I'm not sure how we can turn this around unless we get lucky with our lynch today. -Preston

I don't want this day to end unfinished like the last one did, since we now have additional time to consider this important lynch. I am going to remove my vote for the moment so that we can't have someone unilaterally finish the day. You can still consider me as intending to vote for cao cao based on the analysis I've seen here, his d3mon vote and his inactivity, but consider this a safeguard against an abrupt end to the day. Unvote I asked this before, but I did not see a direct response so I'll ask again: If CaoCao goes inactive with no replacements left, does he get modkilled or is he just left inactive? If the former case (modkilled if inactive with no replacement) then the scenario I described before is still valid and lynching cao cao is necessary to avoid the game possibly ending today. If the latter case, then my reason to vote for cao cao is reduced - but I'm seeing some fairly convincing arguments for him otherwise, and both he and CD are already my top two, so I'll probably keep my vote on him. As for reign of terror : I'm liking his level of activity, but disagree about the wisdom in rushing the vote; it while it might 'catch' scum who had already voted for him, I think it's equally/more likely to push uncertain townies to vote before they're ready and cloud the field even more. -Preston

I thought if someone went inactive and there was no replacement, they'd be removed from the game entirely - i.e. modkilled. Is that not the case? It'd make things a lot safer for us if so, but obviously the best case would be if cao cao actually returns and makes all of this moot... -Preston

Kevin and EM have somewhat answered this, and I addressed it in my previous post - but I'll reiterate/expand my thoughts here. CD and Cao Cao are my top 2 suspects at present - and while I dont have a STRONG suspicion on either, they are the three left on the list that voted for d3mon - aside from TC who is now confirmed town by using his role. CD and ccabal have at least had their say defending themselves, and cao cao is either lying low or genuinely inactive. I've put my vote on him to try and pressure him out if it's the former, and to prepare a lynch on him if it's the latter. EM's list helps solidify my position to where I may keep my vote on him even if he returns, but for the moment if cao cao DOES come back to remove the inactivity factor and give us something to examine, I'll unvote pending discussion on that. Regarding lynching cao cao as an inactive: If we have no more replacements available and Cao Cao idles out so that his role is modkilled, it's like an extra lynch happens today and potentially gives us a double penalty if both he AND whomever else we lynch today turn out to be town. That double penalty could push us over the edge to lose the game TODAY : 11 started the game, -1 day1 lynch (d3mon), -1 night1 (nerau), -1 day2 lynch(if we mislynch today), -1 modkill/inactive(if cao cao idles out and is town), -1 night2 (night2) = 11 - 5 = 6 surviving players; which per the rules would mean scum win if all 3 are still alive. I'd appreciate a veteran verifying these numbers/that this WOULD constitute a game-over. If there are two scum on the list that voted for d3mon then this scenario is impossible, but if there's only one then this is a possibility. At some point we need to just make a choice out of someone on that list and cross our fingers. Cao Cao has acted suspiciously enough that he's a good candidate, and if he's going to idle out I don't want to risk the game ending right there. If we lynch him, we both test a viable scum candidate and guard against a day 2 loss due to inactive/modkill. -Preston

Objectively speaking, I dont see either of the two statements you quote as being THAT suspicious. The initial bandwagon on Kevin (who is all but proven town at this point) was abnormal and DID feel like there might have been a scum or two contributing to it to try and push for a quick lynch before people realized what was happening. I remarked on it during day 1 as a reason I initially thought KevinH town. The second quote was prior to d3mon becoming active and seems to boil down to little more than a no to the idea of no-lynch. Your FOS on ccabal is worth noting as it's coming from one of our few confirmed townies, but I don't find these two specific reasons compelling. Welcome! And I'm impressed/glad to see you've been following the game to date; that should speed things up a bit, and we're low on time this week. I know you withdrew your FOS after your first post that I'm quoting here, but would you please share your thoughts on what you thought ccabal did that was more scummy than CD or cao cao? I have a difficult time wrapping my head around the wisdom of just accepting a mis-lynch, but then I'm not one of the trio in the hot seat. We can ill afford too many more mis-lynches; one more and we're at lynch or lose, so for the town's sake we would not benefit from mis-lynching you if you truly are town. I know there's only so much you can say at this point, and people genuinely SHOULD vote for who they think is scum... but offering yourself up as a sacrifice with ready-made deniability for scum voting on you is not necessarily a good thing. On Day 1 I initially was leaning towards lynching inactives for precisely this reason, but stopped when available replacements were pointed out (those should be in the OP of the game thread...). If we do not have any more replacements waiting in the wings AND cao cao idles out as a townie (instead of scum), then would that make TODAY lynch or lose? I don't like the idea of that. EM asked for a prod on cao cao which will be beneficial, but pending cao cao returning and defending himself OR mole/someone confirming we have a third replacement available (I dont see one?) cao cao will have my vote. There's also the fact that this idea is being forwarded by a 100% confirmed (by death) townie, which means it has no chance of being scum protecting scum... and at this point we need every advantage we can get. Vote: Cao Cao -Preston

Looks like a lot has been said today. I like the summaries EM, as that saves me the trouble of going back and looking through posts - which I really dont have the energy to do right now. My suspicion list remains largely unchanged from my previous post, and per my previous post I dont feel strongly about ANY of them. I listed CD as my most suspicious thus far, and agree with KevinH in suspecting we have few if any vanilla townies this time around based on the roles we've observed thus far - I asked CD about his roleclaim earlier in the day and he said he was not fakeclaiming. However I'm not sure that lynching CD based on the excuse "it wouldnt hurt as much since he's vanilla townie" is exactly accurate. Yes, he might not have a power role - but vanilla or not his analysis is VERY helpful; might almost call that a role in itself. However, Kevin DOES make a valid point that as scum CD would also behave in the same manner. I'm also not sure how to take CD's repeated "lynch me if you want" statements; whether he literally means that or not, if he's town I dont see why he would be setting himself up like that and giving people - even scum - an excuse to lynch him and then deny it saying that he said we could. Cao cao seems to have been largely silent on day 2. I'm of two minds about this; either trying to lie low, or simply inactive? Would scum be MORE likely to be active, or less? I want to hear at least SOME opinion/defense/suspicion list from cao cao before I cast my vote. If only CD and ccabal present their sides then it's not a really fair comparison. Ccabal isn't really a frontrunner for me at present; EM's list does highlight how ccabal openly suspected d3mon, but I cant really criticize that due to how d3mon acted - same as with CD and cao cao. If I had to vote RIGHT NOW I would probably flip a coin between cao cao and CD; the former's inactivity works both for and against him, while the latter has been playing as well as one would expect if he were either scum OR town. So to break this stalemate I'll wait for cao cao to say something on day 2 - possibly hear more from Nerau and Herodez's replacement too (whenever that happens). -Preston

What, no orange? Welcome to AKCPLUTO then! Let's get you in here and posting. -Preston

Was able to get on some tonight afterall! lol CD. Maybe I'm off-base thinking that; but I dont think scum would go THAT far out of their way to tie themselves to a particular lynch that they KNEW would be a townie, for fear of facing the obvious repercussion/suspicion that CD now does. Though d3mon's claim was definitely not your usual day 1 fare. Also, since I didnt bold it before: Mole: Do we have replacements for Narsis/Herodez coming in? -Preston

Good point about CD's initiative - though when he first started pushing on d3mon he had no way of knowing d3mon would claim security guard. If he is scum, he could just keep up the 'suspicious roleclaim' direction - which is the same as he would do if he is town, due to how d3mon played. Youre probably right though that CD's boldness is something scum might avoid. Same for this. I probably wont be on again until Sunday evening. We'll have next week to make a decision so we're not TOO pressed for time yet. Also, whats the progress on the replacements? I havent seen anyone else in the thread yet... -Preston

Given the three to choose from and told to make a suspicion roster, I would put CD first on the list. I agreed with his pro-roleclaim stance at the time, but he initially pulled it out of d3mon's post and focused attention on it. ccabal and cao cao both talked against d3mon and both voted, but per my earlier post I have difficulty singling them out for that; I was fooled too after all. I have a more newbish feeling from cao cao because he IS new. I dont know whether to interpret this as him trying to play below the radar per Kevin's suspicion, or simply letting the more experienced and vocal players (of which there were many) take the lead. Ccabal joined the talk but didnt really distinguish himself, and he DID ask about finding a way to test d3mon's claim... that's worth something. Actually, looking back I'm going to put cao cao ahead of ccabal for the following reason: ccabal had 2 votes on him, tied with KevinH for next-highest count. If he unvoted to spare d3mon and other voting/unvoting swapped to him at the last minute, it could have tipped him over the edge and resulted in HIS lynch. Ccabal therefore had a little more of an reason/inhibition against unvoting as it would potentially be at the cost of his own life, whereas cao cao had no such pressure to keep his vote in place. It's not a STRONG reason, but if we're grasping for differentiating factors at this point I think this is worth noting. This is all we have to go on at present, and I dont have a strong anti-town feeling from ANY of them at this stage... but the vote record IS there and we have to start somewhere I guess. If CD is scum, then he played well/rationally on day 1 to where it never felt like an unfounded attack, Cao Cao similarly felt more new than anything else, and ccabal was just another voice. I'm hoping you're right about 2/3 of the scum being on that list kevin, because if not without our cop we'll have to start hunting from the rest of town based on votes. TL,DR: (Too Long, Didn't Read = summary:) 1. CD 2. Cao Cao 3. Ccabal -Preston