BeeBs

Yeah, the night one connection between me and CCabal, I think, really turned the game.

Alright, sorry I am late. I guess I have some explaining to do. I'm not scum. In fact, I'm the doctor. My name is Dr. Feelsgud. I win with the town, but the flavor of my character requires that I have sanity. Basically, I'm a doctors without borders type and although I am sane and an out of towner, it is my duty to protect the insanity of the people in the town because although I can provide needed medical attention I can not interfere with their lifestyle. I need to insure the town lives on, not because I am a member of the town, but because it is my doctoral oath requires it. I hope that makes sense, I'll explain more if need be. Obviously, I was wrong about Cam and so was KevinH. Although I was wrong, notice my failure in suspicion never lead to the death of a town unlike others who actually have a voting record indicating that they have lynched townies. So, yes, I'm sane but my victory condition is with the town. I believe my voting record will strongly reflect my benevolence and non-interference. If I'm left alive my night action will continue to protect Cam, because he is now a known townie. I protected him last night after Alternate_Tree's reveal. It is my understanding then that this is why there was no lynch, not because there was no attempt, but because I prevented it.

Alright, here we go. Vote: Alternate_Tree Obvious reasons are obvious.

You're right, that will help immensely if you do turn up townie. Still, all is not lost for you. I think there is certainly some sentiment still floating around for Cam as well.

A majority would probably be most prudent. However, at this point I'm torn. Assuming alternate_tree has not found a majority I'll vote for either Cam177 or Chaplain of Death. Cam based on Kevin's suspicions or Chaplain based on my own. I think I've hit on both of these rationales in previous posts, if not I'll clear them up if asked but I'd rather not just reiterate. If we hear back in the negative from Alternate, I'll vote for one of these two. However, I'll wait for that cue.

Flawless. :suicidebastard:

Sorry, I hope you didn't take anything I said personally. I wasn't trying to insult you. You seem upset and I didn't intend to make it personal. On another note, I'd reiterate I wasn't defending anyone with my post that pointed out Chaplain of death's choice of criteria. I was pointing out his statement specifically, not rebutting his overall opinion of Ivan. I hope re reading my post makes that clear. I wasn't saying his underlying reasoning against Ivan was weak or that he should remove his vote, if he felt that strongly. I was saying that I believed his criteria set an impossibly high bar. Further, my assertion didn't make any claims about the validity of the remaining votes placed by other players on Ivan or the reasons for those votes. I never onced even mentioned Ivan's character, reasons other people voted for him or the the reasons that Chaplain of death used to hold his vote.

Except in your last post you stated: This seems to be inconsistent. How do you reconcile these points?

It's not about grammar. I didn't cite you for a misplaced comma or a spelling error. I'm sure all of us have been guilty of that, myself included. What I did notice is that you chose the word "prove". It has a much more charged meaning and is significantly more demanding than any of the other examples I pointed out. It's not a synonym. It's not about grammar. It's about the word you chose to characterize the level of evidence you required in placing your vote. I find it to be a distortion of the standard we ought to employ and I certainly don't find it to be evidence of a townie motive. I hope you're prepared to eat your words if you're wrong. However, I'd also point out, I have not defended anyone. Instead, I pointed out that your criteria is too strong to be, in my view, a constructive, fair and just standard for a lynch. I don't see how that is a defense of anyone; instead, I would call it more of an indictment of you.

This is curious, what do you mean? As far as I am concerned this is not a requirement. No of us can prove by posting that we are townies. It can not be confirmed except in specific circumstances and should not be a requirement to ward off someones vote. The very notion that you are requiring it makes you seem scummy to me. Demonstrate? Sure. Explain how? Sure. Having a certain "townie" behavior? Fine. Prove it? Impossible.

To your first point, you're partially right. I couldn't say that you are drastically any more scummy than the next citizen, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in this game that could. To your second, I have consistently disagreed with the contention that lynching inactives is a stronger strategy. While they may be scum laying in wait, our more sinister enemy is the one who walks among us and influences us. If we're going to lynch someone let it be a voice. In the case that it is scum, wonderful. In the case that it isn't, we have a much stronger basis for our next lynch than a mere bandwagon vote against an inactive. Later in the game, if inactives still lurk, it might make more sense. However for now, with larger numbers, we can soak up a couple bad lynches if its going to give us such drastically better information that a mere dead inactive townie. To your third, I fully agree. Just because you're lowest doesn't make you scum. Just because someone is highest doesn't make them townie either. However, this wasn't really my contention. To your forth, I'm going off KevinH's suspicions because he has been confirmed to be townie and is a player with considerably more experience. I believe, those are two solid reasons. Following his suspicions I can be sure I am voting with at least one townie behind me. I don't have a strong conviction, but if another player I know to be townie does, I may as well trust that. Lastly, other players can see from my voting that I am indeed a townie as well. If I were scum I probably wouldn't so blatantly follow a townie. Have I proven you scum? No. However, I feel that following a known veteran townie is our best course of action. You're more or less right. I didn't ever mean to suggest that Cam177 was the lowest. It seemed to me that both Angel and ABigDeer had made it so low due to inactivity. i have consistently protested against this voting on this basis, and I had done so in the post in which I voted. Therefore, I targeted the lowest ranking member I considered to be active. Certainly, their replacements being different players had something to do with it as well.

Sorry I've been absent. I got married and did some other stuff, blah blah blah. So, with KevinH down, but confirmed townie, I suppose I've seen what I felt was inevitable anyway. I'm still staunchly against lynching inactives just because they are inactive. I would rather lynch someone I know something about, even if I don't whole heartedly believe their proported role. I'd rather have the information of who followed me and why, and allow others to have that same information about me. I believe we have two meaningfully confirmed townies, Alternate_Tree and KevinH. KevinH had a list of who he thought was scum. Alternate_Tree hasn't given any indication of where we should go. I agree he shouldn't been too forthcoming with that strategically, but we lose all strategic advantage if we lynch your investigations. So, maybe keep those private except where we are about to lynch someone you have investigated. I'll work from KevinH's list for now. VOTE: Cam177 For being the lowest ranked player on a confirmed townies scum list.

Except that he is our only "confirmed" townie, or at least the closest we have. I'd be more keen to follow someone in his position whether he knows what he is doing or not.

Thanks for clarifying Karl and Alternate_Tree. I thought you knew now and we would all know when you died. I agree lynching the cop is a bad idea. It wouldn't give us enough information. Although I disagree that we should wait until their are four people. Although that might be optimal numbers wise, I think we can make inferences and see how things go earlier rather than taking the risk of going down to four. Especially when voting would be so lopsided at that point anyway. We'd be better off trying to wait until we are closer at least to a majority of the players investigated, but getting down to four seems risky and difficult if we haven't already lynched a scum. Further, I don't want to lynch solely based on inactivity. Yesterday I voted based on skepticism over Alternate_Tree's amnesia, but considering his rolclaim and explanation I retract that suspicion. Therefore VOTE: No Lynch. With a cop claim we're sure to at least put the scum on their heels a bit, lets see how this plays out. What will be interesting going forward is how our votes are affected by who Alternate_Tree votes for, FOSs and targets...

Well, assuming we get alternate tree's info and we believe it, I think we'd have a lot of info to work with already. Is it a good idea to get alternate tree's info now before he dies and go from that? Even if it just confirms townies?

I'll go on the record for believing Alternate_Tree. I don't think he's been vocal or assertive enough thus far to be scum. If he is a scum and just lurking (and I wouldn't say he has been), then I don't think he's not doing much harm either. We've really only been shooting ourselves in the foot so far by my estimates. I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that the scum can't make night kills, but something could be off there.

Good point. If this is happening, it would explain our situation enough for me to drop that theory. Makes everyone a vigilante. Yikes. On an unrelated note, do we think we got a scum in blue text or not?

Can these three posts be explained without us breaking the rules? If you're unsure: Is that possible MOD? ...especially one with all that voting baggage. About Electric Mango could he still be a scum that doesn't carry out the killing? Could you not detect the other probes that probed him?

But his text isn't red. Does this not bother anyone else? I don't think so. I'm thinking we have multiple types of killers. I also take note of Karl's post: The cure part is interesting. Maybe the guns are scum? That would be the most sane sounding kill ability so far. That would be an unfortunate loss if he killed himself and failed. In fact that would be extremely unfortunate for our numbers, enough to doubt that was what happened. However I agree with you. With three different death types on the table, more the just scum are prowling at night. But we know nothing about them! If you're banking on probability still at least match it with something you've taken from how they play, unless you really are convinced all our actives are townies. I see your system, but it still really doesn't say much at all about Angel. It's very soon to have two votes on candidates with the half majority now in place. I'll reserve my vote for a while.

VOTE: Alternate_Tree I think the amnesia thing is the closest match we've had to catching someone's flavor not jive quite right. Plus, it gives the claimer of the disorder a very easy out for having to explain any more. Honestly, if the stakes were higher I might not vote for you. However, I'd like to do the town the service of having my name on the voting record.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dissociative-disorders/ds00574/dsection=symptoms The case could maybe be made it is a symptom more than a disorder itself. However, it seems as though there are forms of amnesia that would classify as it disorder in and of itself. However, picking this out, I think, is a much stronger incentive to vote for someone than merely because of inactivity. FOS: Alternate Tree Fact is, amnesia is a really easy card to play. You can role claim it and invest absolutely nothing into the role. This is not very helpful. Maybe more insight into why you voted the way you did yesterday. Maybe you don't have any strong rationale for it. I think it is a shame that you are being accused based on what someone didn't do to you (i.e. voted for someone else), it puts you in a very difficult position at this stage in the game. That is partially why I haven't voted for you. Why? What is the benefit if we all just vote for inactive players? I really don't see us getting much benefit from that. Can you shed some light for me?

One more, okay? Continuing from my last post on ElectricMango's theory - clearly, we'll be more likely as we lynch more of the same color that we'll get a kill on the other if our votes continue to stay this random. We're 2 to 1 if this is the case, so things are still relatively even, let's see where this next days colors leave us. I think the few other posts that have followed suit on this idea are on track. I would agree that it wouldn't be all that infeasible. Just another thought as well, I have been assuming that our first nights kills were the townies in the typical sense. That could be a poor assumption. With two non-red colors, we could be one townie down and two of some other faction. Or, as already pointed out by someone else color could be an indication of something else completely. My point is that I think it might be a little early to draw too many assumptions from the colors of our dead amigos. Not to mention three different ways to die...it's getting harder to tell what we can really glean from these deaths the more and more I think about it.

Time will tell. Certainly, if we get a dead player with red script we'll know. Also, with this many players in the game our odds should be pretty high to stay relatively even. Again, time will tell, but if we're not seeing somewhat of a balance between dead player colors we'll have more to stake this theory on. Doesn't sound improbable though.

I don't yet know if I can bring myself to vote for someone not even active enough to post a single word in their defense, especially when we have launched very few alternative theories. At this point I am unwilling to stake my name on it. Has anyone heard from Reign of Terror? I mean, he's got some government roles doesn't he? He should be active somewhere on the forum... Obvious probabilities are obvious and I agree with the sentiment that a no-lynch is not completely harmful; it likely saves us from a mis-lynch. With so many remaining players I'd like to allow for more days for something from the cop or doc. Maybe we'll get a good kill with a vigilante or even something else from a power role we weren't expecting. Clearly, we're even at a loss for what sorts of power roles we've lost at this point, not to mention their faction! At this point today I am unable to get us so close to a lynch on an easy target candidate without any more immediate need to get a pattern. With everyone who is active voting for Reign of Terror the "voting pattern" is going to be damn near worthless anyway. I think things would be different if the other half of the players were here as well. Interestingly enough KevinH, I see you seeming to play both sides of the fence. Voting to lynch while recognizing the serious likelihood of a townie lynch, even furthermore advocating for a aggressive use of the vigilante. While I'm not entirely sure I disagree with your prod of our vigilante, it seems more aggressive than what I have noticed as a more calculated play style. Just something that raised a flag for me a bit.

I'm behind pushing for a vote as well, but tossing a forth on Reign of Terror would be a little quick I think? Before that happens can we decide as a team, that if a cop/doc does have information regrading last night or any other that they come forward? If there is something out there, I think it might be best to get into a offensive position before the last day. Certainly there is considerations of how pertinent the information is etc., but disregarding that: do we as a team collectively think a power role with solid information should step forward at this point? I think with new players (at least in this forum) answering this question might help encourage them to step forward, assuming those power roles are active in the thread. I am generally for it, concerns about the weight of the information aside, I would hate to drop another townie on so little information - especially when our highest voted candidate at this point hasn't posted all day. If I'm the only one feeling this way, so be it. All you eager voters, notice I am asking for consensus, not pushing for a reveal that the town does not find appropriate. In the alternative, if we mis-lynch today, what about tomorrow?