I'm not even interested in making a case against him. CL just needs to be lynched for being an unwelcome, anti-town distraction, regardless of his alignment.

If this were my game, I'd have modkilled him for poor sportsmanship.

But it's not my game, so I'm just going to put all my efforts to getting him lynched as best I can and then when that's done hopefully I will still have time to catch the scum team. Maybe, if I'm lucky, CL will flip Mafia and we'll be that much further ahead when he does flip.

We are just about at the 24 hour to go mark. Here's you vote count:

Tan, Lime, and Red have voted.

Red is KoD, and KoD has not committed to a vote.

I demand accountability.

what exactly did he do?

No, I committed myself to a vote.

Unless you mean I haven't done the format "Vote: X" in which case, yes, you're right; however, I've been clear as to who I prefer today.

Something something I stole his midol he'll be fine

Kod and Tevish are voting you rag. Problem is you and tevish were my D1 scum read so that was probably wrong. Usually there at least half right, so idk. Maybe its the lurkers. Idk. I could let you hang tho to figure it out

you do you CL, i can't ever make heads of tails of what you're thinking

the game seems extremely inactive so i'm not too optimistic about the outcome but whatever happens will happens

me and KoD have probably thrown enough words at each other that the arguments have all laid themselves out. Hopefully people catch up and decide on one of us or the other.

I have mixed feelings about last minutes wagons but that might be interesting too, as long as people actually vote.

Yeah the games inactive. Lets run a wagon on naga. He just pops in to push zinger thats it

I'd rather lynch someone who i have reason to believe is scum

What do think on tevish?

he seems a little spacier and less engaged than usual but i don't find that to be AI

I suppose I should make a statement.

I've got my vote on Rag. I've already explained why.

I'm not entirely sure why CL has got me sus, but it's been weirder how vehement zinger has gotten about CL's death. Like, OK, CL's rubbed me the wrong way in, frankly, a lot of games but he's even been kinda on good behavior this one. But "If this were my game I'd modkill"? Really Zinger?

I don't even necessarily oppose a CL policy lynch, things just seem a little more heated there then I'd expect.

I just thought that your post at the start of the day voting KoD was just scum jumping the gun making sure there not 3rd vote on the wagon kind of thing. You changed your mind and agreed with rags theory but used it as reasoning to vote her, am I reading that right?
And also Amber did sus you day 1 in rsv stage, now she's dead. Just thought I would mention that since we're searching for motive as why Amber was killed

Rag's argument against KoD has thus far been fundamentally Rag-like. She has consistently asserted that her approach proceeds specifically from her interpretation of KoD's scum strategy vis-a-vis lurkers, not his prior relationship with Amber. I am not entirely convinced that she has weighted the underlying factors correctly (KoD himself would recognize the possibility that choosing Amber as opposed to another lurker would draw incidental fire, so we'd need to be confident that he would in order to pretend that he had been set up), but the argument itself is ultimately fine. It is also the strongest logical case against any player today.

That said, I am not especially impressed with KoD counter-voting Rag, but he does that with relatively frequently. He also does tend to play less antagonistically when he his scum, which is what I think we've been seeing, and which speaks against him. (But this has also been slightly less true of late.)

But I also strongly dislike that Tevish has essentially only identified players in vigorous arguments as possible candidates for lynch. Day 1, he looked at Zinger and I (settling on me); Day 2, he opted for KoD, then switched to Rag. This is the kind of low risk strategy that we might see from scum, as it allows them to "blend in" with the general consensus.

Normal, I'd consider voting one of these two. However.

From a largely meta-perspective, and in the interest of fostering a healthy play community, I almost feel compelled to vote for Zinger. These sorts of games work because the players involved agree to be good sports, to work toward the defined win conditions of their factions, and to participate in the back-and-forth between players. But Zinger is actively choosing to throw the game for town. And for what? A personal vendetta? That's asinine.

Either Zinger harming the game on purpose, which is at best childish and ultimately a play pattern that we ought to discourage; or else he is using the specter of emotional distress to try to force town to lynch an innocent player. In which case he is scum.

Regardless, we should lynch him.

I'm prettySure that Zinger's problem with CL is because CL came in saying that Zinger just got lucky last game, even though that had no bearing on this game, seemingly breaking the "be courteous and don't hold grudges" part of the rules. He then kept pushing that point for absolutely no reason, except presumably to trigger Zinger. So I think Zinger has s point, there.

I don't like the extensive lurking. Naga's only contribution today is throwing vague sus on both Zinger and KoD, but not committing at all to either case. Rubik has not really contributed at all.

Naga sus, in my opinion.

Zinger brought it up support his own claim of proficiency. That makes the merit of his 'read' fair game for discussion. Plus, Lunch was hardly rude in response. To quote: "Also I don't think I believe you zinger, in that I think you copped me first and acted all you knew all along second."

Skystone, I think you might misunderstand me: I identified players in heated arguments as probable lynches -- that usually happens, and is part of why scum often attempts to lurk to victory. I did not identify them as exclusively desirable lynches, and in fact posited that those most involved in the heat yesterday would be likely mislynches, when I was erroneously regarding Amber as nothing but a lurker shot.

I'm currently voting Rag because having watched the play between him and KoD I was fairly convinced that Rag was not acting fully in good faith, and that his actions smelled more like "Shot Amber to implicate KoD, then moved to push that narrative." Which I find more likely than the supposition "Scum shot amber knowing this would implicate KoD to Town Rag and expected Town Rag to do the follow-through work for them"

For the Sake of record, here are all living players with my sus level rated 1-5

Aaarrrgh: 2 (Town lean, I feel like he's been contributing and in good faith)
Rag: 5 (Hard scum lean, already explained)
KoD: 1 (Hard town lean, as my suspicious RE: Rag require Town KoD)
Zinger: 4 (His detonation at CL, while not totally unwarranted, is weird and out of character)
CL: 3 (This guy is basically unreadable but if Zinger is going over the top at him because scum, that means he's not scum as well)
Rubik: 3 (He's been particularly non-notable to me this game)
Skystone: 2 (Working hard at building cases, seems reasonable)
Naga: 3 (Is he even here? looked and his last contribution is a slowpoke "Is KoD scum because amber died?" which means if Rag flips scum I'll be super sus of Naga)

That's a reasonable position to hold in general, and perhaps you genuinely view Day 1 through that lens, but in practice the three players for whom you have at various times actually marked votes (me, KoD, Rag) are 3 of the 4 heated participants. You've voted exclusively for precisely those players.

Thanks for that pretty exact description of exactly why I am policy voting CL. He's not being a good sport and is being an ass to me specifically for no other motive than to aggravate me. That's behaviour I can't stand for in this game or any other. And you shouldn't either, since you so rightly explained why you have a problem with it.


Facts. Also, *on top of that*, he insists on frequently calling me a liar, despite the fact that everyone knows I have big issues with lying to the point where I actively avoid ever telling a lie as much as possible, in this game and in real life. He knows this and has been doing this purely to get under my skin as a game tactic. He's using meta-knowledge about me to undermine my integrity and emotionally bully me for what... To win a game on the internet? I can't think of more, as Skystone put it, "asinine behaviour".

I don't plan to move my vote until he is lynched, and with good reason.


Calling people a liar without evidence isn't rude, in your book? Also, I brought it up not as proof of my proficiency but as an example of how I don't believe that a gut-feeling is enough to warrant pushing a lynch on someone. I didn't bring it up as something to be debated, but as a matter of fact to illustrate how I play.

Me: "Look, I did X here, therefore you can reliably assume I might do X again."
CL: "Actually, I don't believe you did do X. I believe you're making that up, for no reason other than because I probably have a grudge, and even though I was there when it happened. Also, I probably believe the earth is flat and Donald Trump is a good president."

The guy should hang.

Also, Sky and CL are probably Mafia together because they keep defending each other this game for no discernably logical reason. How funny would that be if two people who were both scum in the last game wound up being scum together again in this one? Stranger things have happened though. YesterDay, when I poked holes in Sky's argument and proved he was both lying to undermine me and arguing in bad faith, CL was quick to show up and try to destabilize my defence. ToDay, Sky comes to say I am being a poor sport for policy voting CL because CL is being a poor sport. What?! How do you even get there? See, it's all too coordinated. And where you have two players coordinating with each other, you probably have scum.

@Tevish: I also don't especially think that the dichotomy you've framed is correct. Rag, from the outset, sidestepped the KoD-Amber relationship. The lurker argument is substantially less opportunistic, and doesn't actually pertain at all to the Amber-died argument on KoD.

Perhaps more importantly, though, the alternative to 'Rag did it' is not "scum set Rag up" it's "scum opened angle of attack on KoD." Scum doesn't care who takes the bait -- they only care that someone does. I find it odd that you're zeroing in on Rag as the only possible target for that maneuver.