Based on what I have read thus far, my vote is on CD. Vote: Canucks Dynasty.

 

VOTE COUNT

CaoCao (3): Electric Mango, CanucksDynasty, KevinH

CanucksDynasty (2): ccabal86, AKCPLUTO

 

Not Voting (5): TerrorChrist, Nerau, CaoCao, Preston, reign of terror

 

With 10 Alive, 6 is needed to lynch.

3 is needed to lynch at deadline.

Edited May 5, 201115 yr by molestargazer

I have no idea where my previous double post came from ...

 

My point was that Narsis made this absolute claim that he had no justification for making. If we would have all agreed, we would have lynched d3mon the townie and then lynched him. That's not very good play for a scum nor is it very good play for a townie.

 

I think CaoCao is our best option to lynch at this point.

Based on what I have read thus far, my vote is on CD. Vote: Canucks Dynasty.

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 would prefer not to discuss my rationale insofar as my analysis has been very limited in nature. However, I have a lot of confidence in your competence and judgment.

I would prefer not to discuss my rationale insofar as my analysis has been very limited in nature. However, I have a lot of confidence in your competence and judgment.

Hmm, it improperly double posted me...my bad...or more accurately, my internet's bad.

Death to the scum!

Kevin and AKC both double posted!! They must be scum!!!

Well, I am getting rather annoyed now... the new replacements all act as suspicious as they possibly could.

 

But I am getting off the fence.

 

Vote: CaoCao

CaoCao (4): Electric Mango, CanucksDynasty, KevinH, TerrorChrist

CanucksDynasty (2): ccabal86, AKCPLUTO

 

Not Voting (4): reign of terror, Nerau, CaoCao, Preston

 

@TC I could be much more suspicious if I wanted to.

I will vote CaoCao unless convinced any other option is better.

Kevin and AKC both double posted!! They must be scum!!!

 

The scum are attacking us!

I would prefer not to discuss my rationale insofar as my analysis has been very limited in nature. However, I have a lot of confidence in your competence and judgment.

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.

 

Death to the scum!

Kevin and AKC both double posted!! They must be scum!!!

: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

I can't imagine why a townie would not want to discuss the rationale behind a vote.

 

I can't imagine why a scum would not want to make up a false rationale behind a vote.

I can't imagine why a townie would not want to discuss the rationale behind a vote.

 

I can't imagine why a scum would not want to make up a false rationale behind a vote.

Because they'd rather not say too much that might be used against them.

Preston,

 

In the last 6 months, there was a game where I attempted to go for a "preemptive strike" in that I began accusing and voting against people on the first day. I ended up getting lynched real fast for talking too much. As such, I am trying to adjust and more under control with regard to what I say, when I say it, and how I say it. It has to do with being more conservative with how I play the game. CD is exactly right in understanding that I am reluctant to speak insofar as I am afraid of running into suspicion.

 

As an aside, It would be nice if I had access to a spreadsheet or document that tracked the history of each player to this point; that is, a log of FoS' and votes.

 

My rationale for voting against CD is because of his involvement in voting against demon on day 1. I also noted how Caocao had the hammer vote, which may be part of the case against him here on day 2. I want to admit that I am somewhat hasty in my conclusion, but I am confident enough in it to move forward.

Preston,(...)

 

As an aside, It would be nice if I had access to a spreadsheet or document that tracked the history of each player to this point; that is, a log of FoS' and votes.

 

 

Nobody is stopping you from making such a spreadsheet.

I understand that, Terror. However, I am admittedly being lazy in that I am curious to know if any such spreadsheet already exists, LOL.

And I am admittedly lazy hoping that you are going to put in all the effort

 

But then again...could anyone trust any list they didn't make themselves?

Sometimes we do that with post counts to compare activity.

 

It's appropriate to remain vague and not draw attention. I think attention is increased if someone refuses to comment.

I put together a couple posts day2 that tracked the FOSs that may be helpful.

By the way, I would rather not have the deadline extended. Those that are not as active had their chances to post and I want the game to progress with those of us that are active.

 

Those that have posted since last Friday:

• 
   
  
• AKCPLUTO
  
• CanucksDynasty
  
• ccabal86
  
• Electric Mango
  
• KevinH
  
• Preston
  
• reign of terror
  
• TerrorChrist
  

----------

Those that have not:

• 
   
  
• CaoCao
  
• Nerau
  

 

VOTE COUNT

CaoCao (4): Electric Mango, CanucksDynasty, KevinH, TerrorChrist

CanucksDynasty (2): ccabal86, AKCPLUTO

 

Not Voting (4): Nerau, CaoCao, Preston, reign of terror

 

With 10 Alive, 6 is needed to lynch.

3 is needed to lynch at deadline.

Edited May 5, 201115 yr by molestargazer

I agree. I'm ready to see what happens next, things seem to be winding down with day 2

I am ready to lynch CaoCao if no one else wants to bring up any new ideas about anything.

I have stated everything I wanted, nothing more to add with things being so quiet recently.

Preston,

 

In the last 6 months, there was a game where I attempted to go for a "preemptive strike" in that I began accusing and voting against people on the first day. I ended up getting lynched real fast for talking too much. As such, I am trying to adjust and more under control with regard to what I say, when I say it, and how I say it. It has to do with being more conservative with how I play the game. CD is exactly right in understanding that I am reluctant to speak insofar as I am afraid of running into suspicion.

...

My rationale for voting against CD is because of his involvement in voting against demon on day 1. I also noted how Caocao had the hammer vote, which may be part of the case against him here on day 2. I want to admit that I am somewhat hasty in my conclusion, but I am confident enough in it to move forward.

 

It's appropriate to remain vague and not draw attention. I think attention is increased if someone refuses to comment.

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

 

By the way, I would rather not have the deadline extended. Those that are not as active had their chances to post and I want the game to progress with those of us that are active.

 

Those that have posted since last Friday:

• 
   
  
• AKCPLUTO
  
• CanucksDynasty
  
• ccabal86
  
• Electric Mango
  
• KevinH
  
• Preston
  
• reign of terror
  
• TerrorChrist
  

----------

Those that have not:

• 
   
  
• CaoCao
  
• Nerau
  

 

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