Werewolf - Game Over: The Dark Lord Rises

[Adam H]

@Adam: Haven't you tried to make a case before for a NL on day 1 before? Or was that someone else? If you don't actually believe there to be only one scum faction then I have no need to vote.

I definitely am against a NL in this game. In a couple previous games I have advocated NLs, but those were in very specific circumstances. In the post you are thinking of, I kind of thought DBC was using scare tactics to get us all to vote for the same person, which would be worse than a NL, I think.

Since this apparently needs clarification: I do think it's likely there's one werewolf faction, with a few anti-town indies on top of that. But I'd be surprised if there's a mafia faction in addition to a werewolf faction, because of 1) Misnomer's comments outside this thread, 2) flavor, and 3) the previous werewolf game titled "werewolves vs. mafia".

(SK and scum both want to hit one of the towniest players)

Are you kidding me?!?!?! Everyone with a nightkill wants to hit the people with other NKs! Anti-town factions are definitely most scared of the other anti-town factions - getting rid of town should be the easy part.

It's such a blatent lie, and the only reason to say it is to keep the other scum factions from killing you. And Big FoS: fearless for seeming to agree.

Unvote

Vote: t1mm01994

[ForAllOfThis]

@Matt: And look how many times Lataro gets lynched D1 and is town. I think someone bandwagony voting is a better indication of scum than having a bad image.

@Tim: Why did you focus on fearless' bandwagon vote and competely ignore matt's? I would put them on equal bandwagonyness so am interested why you chose to focus on one over the other?

Hey FOAT, you don't have to agree with me, but try to at least acknowledge that I had 4 points/reasons for voting TLC, not just the one that you chose to address.

@Snark: Sure, your vote wasn't bandwagonny (actually gave reasons) but you've already hit the nail on the head with me thinking you're wrong. Let me point out why.

Point 1:

Spoiler:

Tastelikecoke has 1. Denied that an SK is possible

... I didn't see that SK is more anti-town than 3rd party. My bad.

But still, SK vs. everyone? That would be almost nigh impossible to win... but anyway if that's the case then there's nothing barring the possibility of an SK.

On my first read through after replacing I found TLCs no SK possible with rules pingy as well, until I saw this, which is why I didn't bring it up in people I found suspicous. Page 2: TLC said there's nothing barring the possibility of a SK.

Point 2:

Spoiler:

2. FoS'd people who agreed with him on point 1, 3.

I can't find these FoS's so could you point out where these FoS's took place? I'm guessing you don't mean votes as you address this in a later point.

Point 3:

Spoiler:

Failed to defend himself at all in this post and instead shifted focus to the person (me) who voted for him.

I'm pretty sure TLC said your argument was based on wine which sounds like a defense to me. Other than that the main problem with this point is that your accusing TLC of being a role that no-one can be 100% sure exists yet (apart from a SK themselves). Not sure how you can mount a proper defense against that.

Point 4:

Spoiler:

and 4. Voted Angua while still saying he'd by open to lynching one of the many lurkers in game.

Just to clarify, was it the voting of Angua you found scummy or the proposed lurker lynch? If it's the vote on Angua why don't you find JesseScottOwen suspicous? Voted for the same person with worse reasoning IMO, as I agree with TLC that players who tend not to hold their ground on points are more typically Scum/SK/Indies trying to avoid votes for rubbing people the wrong way. If it's the latter, then this point stands as I despise lurker lynches (something that is well known by now). Still a vote for saying a lurker lynch wouldn't be disastrous seems abit harsh, even by my D1 standards (where it's hard for me to find reasons to lynch a person and my hating of lurker lynches).

I just think there are much more scummy actions going on right now. Matt, Fearless's and JesseOwenScott's votes are so typical of bandwagon voting that I feel very urged to changed my vote to one of them. My main concern is that all three of them are new players and it's hard to tell if they just don't know where to look for reasons to vote on D1 due to lack of experience, so have opted for an easy vote, or if they are scum. If any of them was a more experienced player on these forums I would have already changed my vote.

[t1mm01994]

Yay under suspicion again!
Adam: So, you think that an SK would rather make stuff 17-2 than 16-3? I think SK wants to keep stuff as even as possible as far as win chances are concerned. If mafia gets weeded out too soon, town gets too strong, and has all the time in the world to kill the SK. Same goes for if SK goes out first. Let's stick to 4 mafia, 1 SK 13 town 2 indies. If mafia hit SK night one, and SK hit mafia day 1, that's 13-3-2. Those are not nice odds for mafia to face. Mafia would like to kill the SK... but not as first priority, as town wants to hunt the SK too, and every lynch aimed at the SK is very likely not hitting a mafioso.
Scum also don't want to lynch scummy townies, as they are easy targets to divert lynches.
So, scum does not want to hit SK as they need zir help to weed out town (which will happen in a large amount of the cases), SK does not want to hit scum as it makes town too strong, and they both want to keep the scummy townies alive to throw votes and lynches at. What's left? Yay, it's the townie townies!
And yay, now I had to explain a whole bunch of scum strategy! Which makes it so that now the scum factions actually won't weed eachother out!

@FAOT: matt's vote was a "I got a gut feeling about this but not enough time to write up why", which is to me an acceptable reason for the moment. I expect some clarification later, but alas. fearless's vote was one aimed at a very, very small point of all that was said, something quite insignificant, pointed it out as a lie, while I think it is true, and voted for that. I found that to be worse reasoning than a gut feeling.

[Outnuendo]

Tim, a SK's primary goal is staying alive. If he plays well enough, he can avoid being lynched. Even then, he can still be Night Killed. If he eliminates the mafia faction, then he's almost safe.

Also, A SK would know that mafia exists, while the Mafia wouldn't know if a SK exists.

[webby]

Sorry I've been gone, I will definitely be able to post properly in less than 24 hours from now (that's still some time before deadline).

A quick read-through reveals that it's a fairly typical day 1, mostly role-spec and the important thing is the reactions etc. I'm not as confident of Adam H's towniness as I sometimes am if that counts for anything. Not sure how I feel about a fearless lynch, it seems like the easy option and I'm not yet convinced of her scumminess.

Also the spec about nightkills seems pointless, I reckon SKs usually kill at random at least early in the game.

Sorry for the vague comments, I'll be home tomorrow and do a proper analysis then.

[t1mm01994]

Outnuendo, it's very, very difficult if you've only got a kill. It's playing vanilla town, but you actually have to live through the end of the game. in a 20 player game, that sounds like a bit too harsh on my ears, so there's probably some extra to it; usually a NK immunity, which makes SK and mafia a non-issue for eachother.

[Angua]

unofficial vote count so we can keep an eye out to make sure we don't tie

JesseScottOwen (1): mostlynormal
tastelikecoke (3): snark, matt, fearless
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (1):, JesseScottOwen
Webby (1): ForAllOfThis
fearless (2): tlc, tim
tim (1): adam h

Not Voting (9): , greenlover,, wam, Krong, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, , BoomFrog, Lataro, DaBigCheez

I'm going to leave my vote where it is - I think Adam's justification for voting tim is definitely off (of course mafia and nk want to get rid of the towniest players - that way you can lynch the non-townie towns without seeming scummy).

[Mostlynormal]

Don't have much time to post, but fearless's vote is very bandwagonny and has worse justification than Jesse's.

Unvote

Vote: fearless

[Mostlynormal]

EBWOP: Also, this isn't just a vote just to vote anymore. I'd be quite satisfied with a fearless lynch.

[Misnomer]

Votals:

tastelikecoke (3): fearless, snark, matt96
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (1): JesseScottOwen
Webby (1): ForAllOfThis
fearless (3): t1mm01994, tastelikecoke, mostlynormal
t1mm01944 (1): Adam H

Not Voting (10): greenlover, wam, Krong, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, webby, BoomFrog, Lataro, DaBigCheez

11 to lynch. Deadline in just over 25 hours.


NB: for future reference, when a replacement swaps in, they inherit their own vote and any votes that may have been cast against them. For example, if player A votes for player B, is voted for by player C and is then subsequently replaced by player R, then R will enter the game voting for B and having C's vote against them.

[ForAllOfThis]

@FAOT: matt's vote was a "I got a gut feeling about this but not enough time to write up why", which is to me an acceptable reason for the moment. I expect some clarification later, but alas. fearless's vote was one aimed at a very, very small point of all that was said, something quite insignificant, pointed it out as a lie, while I think it is true, and voted for that. I found that to be worse reasoning than a gut feeling.

Matt has had chance to reply (in which he said he didn't like TLCs image). I actually find fearless's post-reasoning a lot better than matts as well. I smell a Timm and Matt scum team, and with Webby vowing to post something in the next 24 hours (and little chance of him being lynched potentially making my vote worthless) I'm going to switch to t1m now..

Unvote
Vote: T1mm01994

[DaBigCheez]

I don't like some of Outnuendo's and JesseScottOwen's reasoning, but I'm willing to give them a pass D1 on account of new-player-dom. I personally don't see TLC as scummy in their posts, even the early ones before the confusion was cleared up and yet the discussion dragged on; confusion, perhaps, but not scumminess.

Right now, I'm waffling between fearless and t1mm; it seems unlikely that they'd *both* be scum, so I'm hoping I decide properly between the two of them, assuming I'm right in the first place <_<

fearless's justification for her vote wasn't the strongest, but it does seem like an actual justification to me - I don't 100% agree with her reasoning (especially the "well what if the SK's bad at the game, what then?" bit), but it feels to me like genuine reasoning that happens to not go along the same path mine would, as opposed to a scummy cover. (It's possible to be wrong without being scummy, after all.)

I dislike t1mm's response to fearless more; ironically, it somehow managed to feel more bandwagony and having a weaker justification despite being the first vote on her. It just seemed to me like "here's something easy to jump on!", and that bothers me. It's not strong, but it's good enough for D1, and it pings me stronger than fearless did.

Vote: t1mm01994

[t1mm01994]

So, when I call someone out on a poorly justified vote, I'm scummy? Great! Let the poorly justified votes rain down on us!

Especially the part where I get voted for jumping on something small is quite intriguing. I jump on a poor justification of a vote. The justification was, again, no more than a quite random fact that fearless appeared to disagree with. I don't see how that is a better vote... Or for that matter, how your votes for me are any better than my vote on fearless! DBC, you /do/ see that your vote for me has the EXACT same reasoning as my vote for fearless, right?

Either way, there's a random bandwagon forming on me and I don't like those. If someone could C-C-Combo Break the votes on me, that'd be awesome.

Also
Unvote
as her last post gave some actual justification I can live with.
Now for the pot who calls kettles black:
Vote: DBC
for now having the worst justified vote.

[Misnomer]

Votals:

tastelikecoke (3): fearless, snark, matt96
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (1): JesseScottOwen
fearless (2): tastelikecoke, mostlynormal
t1mm01944 (3): Adam H, ForAllOfThis, DaBigCheez
DaBigCheez (1): t1mm01994

Not Voting (9): greenlover, wam, Krong, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, webby, BoomFrog, Lataro

11 to lynch. Deadline in just under 23 hours.

[Snark]

Point 2:

Spoiler:

2. FoS'd people who agreed with him on point 1, 3.

I can't find these FoS's so could you point out where these FoS's took place? I'm guessing you don't mean votes as you address this in a later point.

Point 4:

Spoiler:

and 4. Voted Angua while still saying he'd by open to lynching one of the many lurkers in game.

Just to clarify, was it the voting of Angua you found scummy or the proposed lurker lynch? If it's the vote on Angua why don't you find JesseScottOwen suspicous? Voted for the same person with worse reasoning IMO, as I agree with TLC that players who tend not to hold their ground on points are more typically Scum/SK/Indies trying to avoid votes for rubbing people the wrong way. If it's the latter, then this point stands as I despise lurker lynches (something that is well known by now). Still a vote for saying a lurker lynch wouldn't be disastrous seems abit harsh, even by my D1 standards (where it's hard for me to find reasons to lynch a person and my hating of lurker lynches).

@Point 2
Here's the post: See the second line.

@Point 4
It was the being ok with lynching Angua or any of the lurkers. I've already said this once, but he seems ok with lynching anyone besides himself, and shifting the focus to anyone besides himself.

In other news, I'd like to see Lataro post. The suspense is killing me. Bet you a dollar he claims miller since no one else has yet.

[DaBigCheez]

t1mm: I think fearless's reasoning is poor, but not scummy in the way it is so.

I think your reasoning is poor, and possibly scummy in the way it is so.

As such, there is no hypocrisy. If you think the way fearless attempted to justify her vote is scummy, great, go ahead and vote for her. I don't, and I think the way you justified yours is, so I'm voting you. Your arguments thus far have failed to convince me that fearless's reasoning is scummy reasoning, and you seem to be kind of thrashing around for being in what was a 3-way tie, at 3 votes, in a game of 20 players, with a day left till deadline.

My vote stays.

[t1mm01994]

I haven't convinced you that fearless is scummy because I believe that her newest post is genuine; hence my unvote.
However, as you may have seen, I'm a vote-happy person. I vote quickly, for a plethora of reasons. I'm always vote-hopping, because I'm very high on activity, and as such I can allow myself to give out pressure votes; my last vote of the day is on the person I want to get lynched. I'm quite surprised how a mini-wagon formed on fearless, as my vote was merely a "I disagree, explain!"-vote.

[Mostlynormal]

My vote stays on fearless. Her later justification was more a reiterated version of her old justification. I think when you vote someone, especially on a bandwagon, you should state clear and coherent reasons right off the bat. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be voting.

[Adam H]

Hmmmm, I don't have time tonight to look over the last days worth of posts, but I should be on a couple hours before the deadline. If nothing else, to break the tie.

[Krong]

Sorry all, I've not been paying nearly enough attention to this, and now I don't have much time to.

I really don't like the bandwagon on tim. It feels like a typical "most talkative person said something questionable a few times" kind of thing, and I've rarely seen those lynches actually net scum. He's been coming up with a lot of spec/strategy in an environment where it would be easy to get by without saying much, which counts for a lot in my mind.

Unfortunately, I started looking at this at a point where I don't have many options in terms of redirecting where this ship is headed. Not a huge fan of fearless's posting, but apparently she's new, and it does look like what a new player (townie or scum) would have. Plus I don't want to tie this up as close as it is to the deadline.

I think I have to vote for tastelikecoke, more because I think Tim is townie than because I think tlc is scummy. I think the SK debate isn't a strong indicator in whether he's scummy or not, but there's a bit of votehopping in there too. But then again tlc kind of always acts this way...

Urggg. I don't like this vote because I haven't taken time to justify it to myself, but I don't want to see Tim lynched.

Vote: tastelikecoke

[Misnomer]

Votals:

tastelikecoke (4): fearless, snark, matt96, Krong
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (1): JesseScottOwen
fearless (2): tastelikecoke, mostlynormal
t1mm01944 (3): Adam H, ForAllOfThis, DaBigCheez
DaBigCheez (1): t1mm01994

Not Voting (8): greenlover, wam, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, webby, BoomFrog, Lataro

11 to lynch. Deadline in just over 4.5 hours.

[BoomFrog]

Still haven't read the whole thread, and a vote at this point would be useless or counter productive. (Tie is NL right? I didn't check for sure) However if someone wants to present a case for voting t1mm over TLC I'll check back in an hour and add my vote as long as it won't be a tie.

[webby]

Unfortunately I only have time to analyse the three players under most suspicion - I wouldn't have gotten through all 19 players anyway though.

Tastelikecoke:
- Joke vote
- Spec on the meaning of the rules in the set-up - suggests no SK. (I don't agree)
- More spec, is inclined to two factions.
- Reinforces his 'no SK' point. I don't understand why he would push this so hard/think it's so important.
- Then goes back on the SK idea. I usually like the idea that the person who speculates most about SKs on day 1 ends up being either scum looking to divert attention or the SK themselves, but I'm not sure that that applies to someone claiming 'no SK'. It is a good way for scum to talk about something other than scum vs town though.
- Votes Angua for doing what Angua always does, although I'm not sure if they've played with each other before, so I'm not overly opposed to this vote.
- Votes for fearless for flimsy vote and what I would characterise as new player stuff (and possibly also for self-preservation). Not too bad though.

Overall, I would put TLC slightly on the scummy side of neutral for the SK stuff, but his activity and willingness to vote means I don't think he's the best lynch. I prefer him to the other two options however.


Tim:
- A few joke posts. Votes TLC semi-jokingly.
- Believes serial killer is possible - I agree, don't know whether it says anything about tim's towniness though.
- More set-up spec, keeps arguing the SK point. Goes a bit over the top with it (again, people who talk a lot about SKs can often be scum wanting something to talk about that doesn't involve hunting them)
- Opposes NL with good reason.
- Says it's a common fact that Adam H looks scummy day 1, then votes fearless. Have you not been following the recent games? Fearless often looks scummy to people as well.
- More SK stuff, but I guess at least he has the excuse that that's what he was last game.
- Unvotes fearless, then votes DBC, which is slightly out of left field and OMGUSy. I definitely don't agree that it was the worst justified vote at the time.
- Justifies the fearless vote by saying that it was a 'please explain' vote.

I believe that the weirdness with DBC aside, tim is acting reasonably typically for him, I'd put him at neutral and I don't like lynching the most active player day 1.


fearless:

- Only two posts, one is an odd vote on TLC, the next post actually looks very reasonable. I don't understand the bandwagon on her.


Vote: TLC

So that he can't tie up the votes and make it a NL. Basically I agree with Krong on the fact that active players can be made to look suspicious even if they're town simply because they post so much that you can find something that's a little bit off.

[BoomFrog]

Alright, that's pretty definitive then, I doubt that two more people are going to disagree with the TLC lynch and convince me, so with that I'm going to bed.

[Adam H]

Adam: So, you think that an SK would rather make stuff 17-2 than 16-3? I think SK wants to keep stuff as even as possible as far as win chances are concerned.

The right way to look at it is that SK wants to make it, say, 6-1-1 rather than 4-3-1. SK can't bank on hitting mafia every time, especially on the first night, but if they don't try, it makes mafia much more likely to win.

[t1mm01994]

Oh, but 4-3-1 isn't all bad either.. I think this is more of a matter of preference, rather than a fundamental lie. I like 4-3-1, while you probably like 6-1-1.

[Misnomer]

Votals:

tastelikecoke (5): fearless, snark, matt96, Krong, webby
Adam H (1): Angua
Angua (1): JesseScottOwen
fearless (2): tastelikecoke, mostlynormal
t1mm01944 (3): Adam H, ForAllOfThis, DaBigCheez
DaBigCheez (1): t1mm01994

Not Voting (7): greenlover, wam, CaptainFinglass, Outnuendo, ahammel, BoomFrog, Lataro

11 to lynch. Deadline in 50 minutes!

[t1mm01994]

Nothing lynchbreaking here, but I just want my day-end lynch to be
Unvote
Vote: Adam H
for JUMPING on top of me on something that really is only a matter of preference.

[Misnomer]

The final tally was taken in silence. The result was soon clear: while nobody had recieved a majority of votes, tastelikecoke stood accused by far more townsfolk than any other. Before tastelikecoke could speak out in own his defence, the one they called Webby yelled out "Burn him!" and the mob sprung into action.

Tastelikecoke was grabbed by the mob and tied to the stake. The townsfolk rushed around gathering straw, wood... anything that would burn. They knew that if they were to drive out this evil they would need fire - and lots of it. As the setting sun turned the horizon red, the mound beneath tastelikecoke's feet was set ablaze.

Tastelikecoke screamed out in agony as the flames leapt up in front of him and the smoke choked him. He had so much he needed to do... how it could it all end like this?

Suddenly, time appeared to slow down. The pain faded, and silence seemed to fall. Looking up, tastelikecoke could see a trio of cloaked figures standing some way behind the lynch mob, by the edge of the forest. The townsfolk appeared not to have noticed them, but they were looking straight at tastelikecoke. He saw the trio nod silently, as if pleased by the fate that had befallen him. Then, slowly, they turned and appeared to fade away into the evening mist.

Then, the noise and the pain returned, and any thought of the trio was banished from tastelikecoke's mind. The heat grew more intense, the pain became unbearable and, with a final, harrowing cry, tastelikecoke's life was extinguished.


As the flames died down, the townsfolk slowly drifted back to their homes. After the drama of the day's events, all now appeared quiet and calm in Xkcdia.

But the night was to be far from peaceful...

tastelikecoke is now dead. His role will be revealed at the start of Day 2.

It is now Night 1. Those of you who have chat powers may now communicate, and anybody with a night action should PM me. The provisional deadline for this phase is 6pm BST, Thursday 12 April.

[Misnomer]

Deadline extended slightly 9pm BST, Thursday 12 April.

If you haven't submitted your night actions yet, please do so now. Also, when submitting an action, please put it in bold text - if you've already submitted it during this phase, you don't need to resubmit, but please bear this in mind for subsequent phases.

Also, a number of people have PM'd me questions - I think I've anwered them all, but if I haven't replied to yours please send it to me again.

[Misnomer]

The night was long, and cold. Under the cover of darkness, many snuck out of their homes in secret. Some wished to help the town. Some wished to destroy it.

As the people of Xkcdia went about their business, the sound of their efforts echoed into the night: footsteps in the street, the sound of glass breaking, a cry of horror, a howl...

But, as they would realise when they examined tastelikecoke's charred remains the next morning, there was one sound that nobody heard: the town Chapel that night had been silent.

tastelikecoke was the Minister, Town. He had the ability to recruit players to the Church mason group, and also had a (secretly ineffective) protection ability.

With horror, the townsfolk realised that, far from killing a werewolf, they had murdered a man of God. But the morning's shocks were by no means over: the townsfolk soon realised that two of their number were missing. The people of xkcdia split up into two groups, and the search began.

Searching over by the forest edge, the party led by ForAllOfThis heard the faint, yet somewhat menacing, sound of laughter coming from the trees. Venturing into the woods, they discovered DaBigCheez slumped against a tree trunk, laughing weakly. The townsolk were confused at first - then, to their horror, they noticed he was sitting in a pool of his own blood. He was bleeding to death!

"Ha! What are you looking so worried about?" said DaBigCheez, grinnning. "After all... death is only the beginning..."

And with one final laugh, DaBigCheez disintegrated into a cloud of amber sparks, floating away in the wind. Only a druidic talisman was left behind...

DaBigCheez has been killed. He was the Dusk Druid, Third Party. He had the ability to influence mod-flavour. He will obtain a win if all other members of his faction are now night-killed.


Meanwhile, on the other sound of town, the search party led by Outnuendo also found the man they were looking for: but unlike DaBigCheez, mostlynormal was long dead. The wounds on his body, the clawmarks to his face... there was no mistaking it. Their beloved tavern-owner had been killed by the werewolves.

MostlyNormal has been killed. He was the Innkeeper, Town. He had a 50% effective roleblocking power and a limited listener ability.

There seemed something odd about the death however. There was something else, something that wasn't right. Examining the body closely, T1mm01994 was the one to spot it: there were two sets of bite marks on MostlyNormal. The first were vicious, and all over the place - clearly they were the work of a werewolf. But the second set... they were sharp, clean and only on the neck. What kind of man or beast could have made them?


Gathering back in the town square the two groups exchanged information. It was clear that with so many deaths, there was only course of action open to them: it was kill or be killed...

It is now Day 2. 17 players remaining, so 9 votes are required for a majority lynch. Deadline provisionally set for 9pm BST, Thursday 19th April.

[t1mm01994]

Dear god, it sounds like vampires. Do not want! Do not want!

[Adam H]

Very weak vampiric FoS: Snark, t1mm, and matt, for mentioning twilight, a vampire moviebook, when we didn't know there were vampires in the game.

Hmmmm, well now we know a lot more about the setup... Looks like we have a total of 3 possible NKs. Mostlynormal was targetted by both werewolf and vampire, which means BigCheez was targetted by vig/SK/mafia? We have no clue as to how he died, which is unfortunate... perhaps his ineffectual protector power was like a bodyguard that doesn't do anything except get him killed. As in, he targetted mostlynormal, and the werewolves (or vamps) just killed him along with mostlynormal. Seems pretty unlikely. I'm going with mafia/SK/vig killed DBC.

I'm also guessing there's just one vampire who has a limited recruiting ability (maybe mentor/mentee style?). That's based on the 3-4 non-town factions that we know of - so there can't be that many players in each faction, right? My gut also says that the vampire is... t1mm. Explanation is... coming...

Now! T1mm tried to convince scum to target townie players. (I want to point out that townie players probably do not include t1mm, since he had the second most number of votes on him AND t1mm is never seen as townie). He then said it's a matter of preference whether scum should kill scummy or townie players. OK, fine: you PREFER for scum to kill town instead of scum to kill scum. I mean... come on. As for why I'm guessing he's vampire and not some other nefarious faction, the flavor says that t1mm was the one who found the vampire bite marks, and his first post of D2 is... just... well... it's too easy to picture a bad actor* saying that line.

More wild spec: The three cloaked figures who happily watched poor tastelikecoke die must be the dusk druids. Druids and ministers would be natural enemies, but not enough to make the druids and anti-town faction I suppose. This leads me to believe that we're getting other clues through the flavor. Maybe DaBigCheez has some sort of ghost ability? If so, it's probably just that he can still influence mod flavor, I guess. And I've already said that the mention of t1mm would make sense if he were a vampire.

Well that turned into an epic post. Should probably edit... but... /hits submit instead

*say, edward cullen? yeah I mentioned twilight, what now!?

[Angua]

I wonder if the rest of DBC's faction also win if they're NKed, or if they have some other win as well.

Anyway, I''m going to put us down as having at least 3 killing factions. DBC was killed by one (though to be honest, with the flavour he may have killed himself and it was an unfortunate sideeffect, but I highly doubt it), while mostlynormal was killed by the werewolves and the vampires (I feel fairly confident we have vampires given the flavour and day title).

DBC's kill probably means either serial killer or vig. I'll leave it up to people more experienced in how to make a balanced game to weigh in on how likely we are to have an SK with 2 scum factions. Also, maybe we only have a few vampires, and they have the recruit? Recruiting can fit both werewolf and vampire, mythologically speaking, but from what I understand of the mafia version of werewolves, they generally don't have a cult.

ninja'd by Adam, but I'll leave it how I left it.

[Snark]

So we know now we had werewolves and vampires attacking mostlynormal and some other person who killed DBC.

So here's the factions we know of: 1) Town with mason subset and possible vig 2) DBC's third party of druids 3) Werewolves 4) Vampires and 5) Possible SK.

Dead People Analysis
-I wonder what TLC was told his protection ability was. He may have thought he was lynch-immune, and therefore didn't work hard to try looking townie or attempt to get out of the lynch. In any case, it stinks that the mason recruiter is dead. TLC voted for Angua and fearless yesterday.
-DBC's mysterious third-party is intriguing me. Do you think their win condition was for them to all die the same way? Quite odd. DBC talked about vote-rigging a bit yesterday, perhaps the third-party has extra votes? DBC voted for Tim yesterday, but said he considered voting for fearless.
-MostlyNormal hardly did anything yesterday in terms of content and voted for Jesse and then fearless.

Fearless is the common denominator to all 3 of the people who died.

Vote: fearless

for having at least some motive for each of last night/yesterday's victims.

This is the best I have to go on for now. I'll post again after more action in thread: possible cop/watcher results and such.

[t1mm01994]

I'm a vampire for mentioning Twilight when I'm the 3rd to mention it (Gee Willikers 3rd on a lynch) and I mentioned my own SK strategy, which I deem the best, which is to ignore scum for a while and play out the end game; as has happened in Zombie Apocalypse, and Pokémans. Just so you know.

So, I'm still on Adam's back for FLYING ON ME LIEK Gee Willikers for something well.. Quite minor, to say the least.

[Adam H]

OK. Let's leave aside the fact that you're telling scum to kill town when it's debatable whether they even should for their own win condition. In zombies the SK killed mafia N1, and in pokemon the SK never killed a townie.

[t1mm01994]

Yes, let's just yell passive-agressive stuff at eachother.
So uhm. Scum, totally attack the SK and stuff! SK, get scum! Go get 'em big boy (or girl, of course)!
But yeah, it's something I took for granted. It appears people disagree. Big deal and all that.

[ForAllOfThis]

@AdamH: I think your grasping at straws with those fingers of suspicion. It's pretty common knowledge werewolves and vampires have gone hand in hand for a long time.

@Snark: What if mafia thought that you would think that? Bacially, it's not uncommon for scum to to purposely kill people just to make other town players look suspicous. This is supported by two opposing factions going for the same kill (MN). I think it's much more likely that they wanted to set up a fall for fearless today, as she was almost lynched yesterday, so would look like an easy target. As a result, I'm back to thinking your suspicous for that vote.

FoS: Snark

Kill Rolespec - Werewolf Kill: Scum | Vampire kill: SK/Scum | and I expect the third kill to either be a vigilante, or druid controlled kill.

Mod: Did DBC have a different win condition before he died? What was that win condition?

If he had the same condition, it's entirely possible that the druids found out and killed him. However it read to me that his win condition had changed upon death with the "now".

I've seen nothing from tim to convince me of his towniness and he was pushing hard for a fearless lynch yesterday, and now it looks like she's being setup. I highly doubt that is a coincidence. I sill think matt's vote was bandwagony without good reasoning as well, and I still think tims explanation for picking up on fearless' vote over matts was extremely poor.


Scum List (in order)
Tim
Snark
Matt

[t1mm01994]

Wait wait wait. When did I "push hard"? As soon as I read the explanation post, I unvoted. Yes, this was a while after it was posted, I'm sorry.
I'm very much wondering what's the cause of the suspicion against me. I've voted pressure votes, and ended up on Adam, cus I legitly think he's scum; I explained this quite some times. All other votes were not lynchvotes, as I explained yesterday.

Really though. Can someone file the complaints against me, cus I ain't seeing thme.