Shadowrun Mafia - Kill all Humans? - Mafia wins

[t1mm01994]

Gosh, it almost seems like Adam has played with me before.. Hence probably why he didn't respond to it.
So uhm, yeah, my vote was cus I didn't like Kr's interest in Snark's immunity. But I didn't want to state that, as I wanted to gauge reactions. I'm so very evil, and all that. How very sad that if I do it often enough, it just stops working. Let's run the reaction down (spoilered for repeating posts)

Spoiler:

lynx seemed honestly confused.
eculc seemed even more honestly confused, pointing out that DBC looks towny where I voted KrO2
Snark is FoSing me for being out of meta (which it quite honestly not), and thinks I'm a jester. Later on, says useful stuff.
New User claims he's seen enough of me to say that this is out of meta (I'm honoured, really. But no).
KrO2 jumped around like achilles getting seeing a bee near his heel, calling that people should investigate either him or me, for a non-based vote. Yay

Conclusions: Snark is being Snark, and I have yet again no clue what he's up to. Adam is done with responding to me KrO2 has a reason to jump around wildly while startled. I'll keep my vote where it is.

Also, @fshfood: This did what it had to do: Provoke reactions and analyse them. I do it all the time, as Adam commented.

[eculc]

@tim: loltypo. Don't see KrO2 as scummy either though. I'll admit, he jumped around a bit, but that's not entirely unreasonable from a townie trying to avoid the lynch.

[t1mm01994]

Avoiding a lynch from 1 utterly and completely unfounded vote and 1 FoS? That's a bit early to jump and do summersaults. Typo, where is it?

[UniqueScreenname]

Somersault.

[Snark]

Snark is FoSing me for being out of meta (which it quite honestly not), and thinks I'm a jester. Later on, says useful stuff.

I FoSed you for voting with no reasoning and no content. I also noted that you are out of meta, but it wasn't the sole reason for the vote.

Vote: KrO2

For curiosity concerning my action immunity and (more so) for a poor defense.

Oh, and wouldn't the godfather thing be limited by which investigative roles are being used? It would really suck (for me) if I were mafia and overconfident that I could fool cops, only to be caught by a tracker or something.

This makes little to no sense. What tracker would be able to find you scummy based on day actions? And what tracker would bother tracking someone who turned up town to a cop result?

[eculc]

by "typo" I was referring to my mistake in typing DBC instead of KrO2. and snark, your Vote seems a little thin too. since it seems you want to get a reaction out of it as well, I'll leave it be, but I don't see any reason to lynch him yet.

[Cameroni101]

Snark brings up a very good point. I'm concerned that he is just trying to hide his guilt.
vote: kr02

[eculc]

FoS Cameroni101 for opening up their first post in the game with a bandwagon vote.

Don't have much else to say for now; I think I'll wait until cyber actions to resolve before making a vote.

[lynx]

eculc is right, that was very suspicious from cameron. He lurks until a bandwagon begins to form and jumps on with no explanation!
I do agree that KrO2 has been a bit squirmy but won't vote now as I don't want to give cameron ammunition.
If he is scum, he presumably knows who town are so we'll have to be careful about any lynch.

FoS: Cameroni101

[lynx]

In fact, eff it. We're not going to find anything decent out by threatening.

Vote: Cameroni101

Unofficial votals:
3 - KrO2 (t1mm01994, Snark, Cameroni101)
1 - Cameroni101 (lynx)

[KrO2]

Oh, and wouldn't the godfather thing be limited by which investigative roles are being used? It would really suck (for me) if I were mafia and overconfident that I could fool cops, only to be caught by a tracker or something.

This makes little to no sense. What tracker would be able to find you scummy based on day actions? And what tracker would bother tracking someone who turned up town to a cop result?

I was going to defend what I wrote, but I think you're right. I had been thinking about day actions, assuming that it'd be about the same level of evidence as a tracker could normally get. I was picturing something like godfather-me being caught carrying out a kill, but after reading your post and remembering that day actions are limited to cyber actions and those most likely don't include kills, I think I have to agree. Adding the caveat that I've never played with godfathers and if there are investigative roles that might be able to find one scummy, then this comes back.
I realize backing down from something I said earlier is almost certainly not going to make me look good and presumably isn't the reaction you were looking for, but it's true.

Tim, I don't think asking people to investigate one of us constitutes somersaulting. Thanks for the Achilles image, though; that was entertaining. (The above retraction of something I had said previously, I could see calling that, but of course I hadn't done that at the time.) I'm sure you agree that your initial vote looked scummy, and I'm even more sure that you wouldn't object to me being investigated. If anything, the problem with saying that one of us should be investigated is that it's too obvious.

About Cameroni101: her post looks like Tims original vote but with the addition of a bandwagon to jump on. Hopefully she'll come back with justification later like he did.

lynx, what do you mean by saying we'll have to be careful about any lynch? Are you just saying this could be an attempt at bussing? I wasn't following you at all.

[lynx]

About Cameroni101: her post looks like Tims original vote but with the addition of a bandwagon to jump on. Hopefully she'll come back with justification later like he did.

I didn't think Tim's vote looked nearly as scummy as Cameroni's. My gut feeling for t1mm (although this may have been affected by what he has said since) is he was trying to cause trouble and start a debate, whereas Cameroni101 just looks like a lurker trying to jump on the gravy train.

lynx, what do you mean by saying we'll have to be careful about any lynch? Are you just saying this could be an attempt at bussing? I wasn't following you at all.

Sorry, not quite sure what bussing is. What I meant is that while we don't know the mechanics of the game we need to be careful as we don't know how destructive to our overall strategy a town lynch would be. That said, Cameroni better have some good excuse ready next time he logs on!

[New User]

I'm voting for Cameroni101. That could change if she comes back and gives a satisfactory explanation, but only if it's a good one. I expect more votes tomorrow, since the cyber action deadline will be up.
Vote: Cameroni101

[BoomFrog]

Last edited by lynx on Sun May 06, 2012 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Never ever edit a post in a game thread. (unless you're the mod) That is a rule for all games on this forum. Don't do it even if you think you are the last poster and so your action won't be recorded. Just don't do it.
If you feel the need to correct something you said, then say EBWOP: (Edit By Way Of Post):

Vtotals:
Cameroni101 - 3 - (lynx, New User)
kr02 - 3 - (t1mm01994, Snark, Cameroni101)

Cyber Deadline in 21 hours.
Lynch deadline (and nightfall) in 2 days and 21 hours.

[lynx]

Sorry BoomFrog! Corrected a small typo and thought nobody would notice, I used EBWOP before to correct the content of what I was saying and I'll just leave my typo's from now on.

[t1mm01994]

I'll be honest, I currently have a problem with votals. After research in the thread, there have been 2 people voting for cameroni for a total of 3 vote; a.k.a. Vote Rigger. I'm thinking it's a passive ratherr than an active, seeing how cybers are not processed yet. Not sure if town or scum, so won't go on a further hunt.

lynx: bussing is the act of a non-town aligned player killing someone from his own faction. Judging from the past 2 weeks it's an often abused word.

Like the lot of you, not so happy with Cameroni but I'm going to blame that on newness rather than scumminess. So, Cameroni, why did you vote KrO2? Who else do you think is scum?

Apart from that, I'm sad as KrO has solved his inner panic. Still, based on initial reaction I call godfather.

[BoomFrog]

Sorry, typo in the vtotals.

Vtotals:
Cameroni101 - 2 - (lynx, New User)
kr02 - 3 - (t1mm01994, Snark, Cameroni101)

[lynx]

I'm glad you cleared that up BoomFrog, I was going to mention something but was waiting for further posts from New User as it seemed from there that he had sent in a vote rigger message as he voted. It seemed too good to be true and apparently is!

[UniqueScreenname]

I hope Cameroni posts something soon. At the moment neither of the options presented to me seem really scummy. I don't get a mafia feel from KrO2 and I can't figure out whether Cameroni is being a jester or he's actually lurking.

[DaBigCheez]

Sorry for not posting more earlier, busy weekend.

I'm kind of frustrated because I don't like either of the lynches that are currently forming; I really haven't seen much scummy in KrO2's actions (the 'probing' nature of some of his questions is eyebrow-raising, but not voteworthy for me as yet), and the Cameroni101 lynch is just ironically useless as far as giving us information is concerned. (Cameroni jumps on a bandwagon vote without giving much or any reasoning, we jump on Cameroni...as bandwagon votes without much or any reasoning, because the reason is obvious, so we don't really learn much of anything about what people are thinking or tease out any relationships). If I had to place a vote at the moment it'd probably be on Cameroni at the moment despite that, as I think it's the strongest-pinging thing I've seen as yet (i.e. most likely to hit scum IMO), I'm just frustrated that it'll probably end there without a chance to pull the thread further.

I'm somewhat concerned by lynx at the moment; it might just be new-player syndrome acting up, but nearly every post has me fidgeting uncomfortably in my chair and setting off alarm bells. Annoyingly, I can't pin it down very precisely - it's not really the earlier-in-the-day massclaim stuff that bothers me, it's more the later things (late page 2/early page 3), with a weird vacillation between being highly aggressive and advocating extreme caution, plus the near-tautology that town lynches are bad. Well, yeah, of course they are, but if we don't lynch at all scum is guaranteed the win - a No-Lynch is actually *worse* than a town lynch D1 most of the time, since a town lynch gives you voting records to analyze, it lets you see how people were acting towards the lynchee and in relation to each other, etc. whereas a No-Lynch just lets us start D2 with the same amount of info and one less townie. (Barring results of investigative roles, of course, but that's not a big enough benefit to be worth it, especially given that scum's going to have their own fun trickses up their sleeves even discounting the kill.) And no, I'm not trying to claim lynx was advocating a No-Lynch, I'm just trying to explain why "but we might hit a townie!" isn't really a good counterargument to anything, with the exception of when the game is at MYLO.

(Some definitions for lynx in case you're unfamiliar: 'bussing' is short for 'throwing (your scummate) under the bus', basically when one scum attacks another and helps with their lynch in order to gain townie cred. It's the main reason why "but they were on the lynch of a scum!" isn't proof someone's town.
LYLO is Lynch-or-Lose, when town *must* successfully lynch scum or they will immediately lose (as scum will have a majority of the vote the next day, and thus it'll be impossible to get them lynched). MYLO is Mislynch-and-Lose, where if a townie is lynched town will immediately lose (for the same reason), but a No-Lynch will not immediately lose. This is the one time when a No-Lynch can be potentially helpful, as it lets you get those couple extra scraps of information in exchange for another townie's life, as having one more person alive doesn't actually help you much in this situation and the extra chance for investigative roles (or just getting into the psychology of who various scum would have targetted) can be a big factor.)

[Snark]

Fos: lynx and New User for voting for Cameroni.

I'm pretty sure this is her first ever post in a mafia game. She probably doesn't understand why placing a vote with only one line of reasoning makes her look suspicious.

@Cameroni
Try and look at content that others have posted in this game and maybe read through some past games. Useful content and at least a few more lines of reasoning would be really nice before putting a vote down.

This is all I have time for now. More to come later.

[lynx]

Christ, can't do anything right.

Unvote

for now. Got an exam in a few hours, I'll be back this afternoon.

[New User]

It's as valid a reason as I expect to have on D1. We vote for lurkers because they sit back and read the thread, analyzing other players, without contributing anything to be analyzed. Scum or not, that's not a great way to play the game. Of course lynching scum is the best option, but voting to lynch someone who contributes nothing but is willing to lynch other players? That's fair.

[KrO2]

I just checked her past posts, and this is indeed cameroni101's first mafia post. I hadn't noticed that before Snark pointed it out.

On the one hand, I get a bad feeling about people going after lurkers in general, just because it seems like going for the easy target. Newbie lurkers especially. On the other hand, this particular post was legitimately scummy, a vote with precisely zero lines of relevant reasoning. BUT on the third hand, saying scum are more likely to make a post like that is weak evidence if we might expect that post either way.

So: my estimation of the probability of cameroni being town is up to "almost neutral," this being heavily dependent on future posts. But I missed the fact that this is her first game as much as lynx and New User did, so I can't consistently blame them for finding that post vote-worthy.
I am moderately suspicious of New User saying that we should lynch based on anything other than probability of the lynchee being scum, but some checking around the site says lynching lurkers is a valid tactic, so I'm not going to press this. lynx's removal of the vote at Snark's word looks weird, but I'd be tempted to do that myself had I voted cameroni.
I think my problem here is that I can picture any of these people being town, which is not conducive to finding someone to yell at. Hanlon's Razor is stabbing me in the back here.

[UniqueScreenname]

It's as valid a reason as I expect to have on D1. We vote for lurkers because they sit back and read the thread, analyzing other players, without contributing anything to be analyzed. Scum or not, that's not a great way to play the game. Of course lynching scum is the best option, but voting to lynch someone who contributes nothing but is willing to lynch other players? That's fair.

Why is being a bad player all of a sudden reason to vote for somebody? It bears absolutely no weight on whether they are mafia or not. You have no reason to believe he's doing it on purpose rather than not knowing the way the game is played.

Vote: New User for apparently not caring who gets lynched.

[New User]

We have to lynch somebody. Well, we don't have to, but we should. If we lynch scum, that's great. I already said that is the best thing that could happen. But if we're going to lynch a townie, let's lynch a townie who isn't doing anything useful. I also said I'll change my vote if Cameroni101 shows up and gives a reason for her behavior. That hasn't happened yet.

[BoomFrog]

Cyber actions have been processed. If you sent me an action I at minimum acknowledged that I received it. If you didn't get a reply let me know that I missed your action.

Deadline in 49 hours.

Vtotals:
Cameroni101 - 1 - (New User)
kr02 - 3 - (t1mm01994, Snark, Cameroni101)
New User - 1 - (UniqueScreenName)

7 to lynch

[UniqueScreenname]

Nobody deserves to be lynched for being quiet. Only time it's worth voting for lurkers is when they seem like they don't want to draw attention to themselves, looking for a good person to target, jumping on a bandwagon, etc. What's the point of playing if you aren't gonna bother looking for bad guys, just bad players?. Unless, like I said, you don't care.

[Cameroni101]

the only reason I'm quiet is that I'm trying to figure out who to lynch most effectively. I voted Kr02 because Snark had good logic. Until someone else gives a good reason for another, I have no reason to alter my vote.

[KrO2]

Nobody deserves to be lynched for being quiet. Only time it's worth voting for lurkers is when they seem like they don't want to draw attention to themselves, looking for a good person to target, jumping on a bandwagon, etc. What's the point of playing if you aren't gonna bother looking for bad guys, just bad players?. Unless, like I said, you don't care.

Personally I would agree with this. Partly for UniqueScreennames reasons, partly because like I said earlier, it comes across as looking for an easy target. But I think this might actually be a mere personal opinion, so I usually try to refrain from acting on it. The "Rules and Noob Guide" thread links to this post giving reasons in favor of it, and the wiki says the "Lynch All Lurkers" strategy exists for good reason. So since there can be legitimate difference of opinion, I'm not going to vote New User based solely on strategy difference.

That said, this looks pretty questionable.

If we lynch scum, that's great. I already said that is the best thing that could happen. But if we're going to lynch a townie, let's lynch a townie who isn't doing anything useful. I also said I'll change my vote if Cameroni101 shows up and gives a reason for her behavior. That hasn't happened yet.

We all agree lynching scum is great and presumably we all agree that useful townies are better than nonuseful ones. But you're talking as if this might be a useful reason to decide between them, when it should be overwhelmed by the importance of increasing the probability of hitting scum. (My favorite example that I'm posting even though it's irrelevant because it's cool: "If we are marked to die, we are enough to do our country loss, and if to live, the fewer men the greater share of honor." If we win or lose, we want to have done it with fewer soldiers, we will win or lose, therefore we want to have fewer soldiers.) What matters is the likelihood of lynching scum. If someone lurking makes them more likely to be scum, then lynching them for lurking is fine, but if it's just for not posting content then it's not fine.

Also, cameroni101 continues to not post content, unless categorically agreeing with Snark counts as content? Wait, but earlier her response to Snark was "that's a good point; he might be hiding his guilt."
Actual, content-based FoS: cameroni101. I'll take that finger off when she explains.

[DaBigCheez]

KrO2 - If I remember right, the definition of "lurker" has shifted somewhat since that guide was originally written; it's more talking about "active lurkers", who go through the game posting a few words from time to time but very little of any actual use, while nowadays the word usually refers to "passive lurkers", people who basically don't post at all or whose posts are obviously contentless when they do (as opposed to the "camouflage" effect of an active lurker, who'll often post a fair number of words but when analyzed they don't actually say anything).

Cameroni - Look, what you're doing does not help town. If you've noticed some strong tells while keeping quiet, then tell people about them so we can also notice, talk about them, and possibly lynch based on them - you're not going to lynch anyone by yourself. Scum wins by hiding, town wins by exposing their lies. If there's no conversation, the lies can't get exposed, and if everyone just leans back and is quiet until they see something they can pounce on, there's never going to *be* any signs and we'll all just die one by one. SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS. We are NOT going to win this if people just say "sounds good to me" and go along with someone else, especially when the person you're going along with could easily be scum! State your thought processes, give more justification and reasoning for your vote, and don't be afraid of talking for fear of contributing too much and drawing the NK or something like that; the objective is for town to take out all the doublecrossers with at least one of us left alive (in practice, two), and any individual townie surviving is largely irrelevant to that. Being afraid to contribute for fear of dying only hurts town.

Currently, due to the justification she just provided, I find Cameroni the scummiest player on the board, followed by lynx; UniqueScreenname is starting to show up on my radar as well, as is New User, as I'm not liking how either of them are reacting over the Cameroni debacle. Most of the paragraph above is dedicated to explaining (to Cameroni and to others) just *why* I think of Cameroni as the scummiest at the moment.

Hopefully the cyber actions will shed more light on things now that they're in.

[Adam H]

If there is a possibility of hackers on both sides, then we also have to consider the possibility that there are hack immune MIs on both sides as well

This is pinging me, but I'm not sure if it's a valid ping. Saying "both sides" like that seems unnatural to me, and I think that's because I'm town. It seems like flarpfreak is trying to put himself into town's shoes rather than actually being town. For example, I imagine I would have said "If hackers aren't limited to just scum, then scum might have hack immune MIs as well."

This is also flarpfreak's only content, so I'm strongly FoSing flarpfreak, and it will probably turn into a vote unless people tell me I'm being crazy. Which is possible. I really don't have much of a scumdar, and this game seems especially opaque to me.

Here's my gut's stance on some others: I don't understand the attack against KrO2. Cameroni's active lurking is certainly suspicious. Uniquescreenname's attack of New User for lurker-voting rubs me the wrong way, as does Snark's FoS (I'm in the "lynch all lurkers" club - with the obvious caveat that if someone is being scummy then lynch them instead). DaBigCheez has given loads of content and nothing sticks out at me. I'm a fan of lynx's playstyle. Anything else that needs addressing?

[t1mm01994]

I feel ignored. But yeah, flarp does deserve a bit of a FoS.. The attack on Kr is based on him being quite scared of my unfundamented vote, where there really was nothing to be scared of.

[fshfood]

Sorry I haven't posted in the last couple days, it was a crazy weekend.

First @tim .. fair enough on your reaction-feeler vote. I understand now what you were trying to accomplish with it. I'll take off my FOS.

I guess the big thing that has pinged for me is the quick vote on NewUser by UniqueScreenname. I didn't see NewUser as someone who didn't care who got lynched, but was trying to find possible scum hiding behind the lurking. The vote by NewUser seemed to be a little fast. I'm trying to figure out what is bugging me about the whole interaction. I'm not sure if the whole thing felt a bit off to me on both sides, or just by UniqueScreenname.

That combined with

All I know if my role is pretty dependent on figuring out who people are.

just has my spidey-sense tingling a bit.

[fshfood]

EBWOP

I meant the vote by UniqueScreenName

The vote by NewUser seemed to be a little fast.

[Snark]

Have little time now. Got an interview for an actuarial position in 45 minutes! Just wanted to pop in and say that I no longer am against a Cameroni lynch. I'm not going to defend newbs if they're not going to make an effort. Besides, her actions make more sense if she's newb scum than newb town. Still prefer a KrO2 lynch though. If KrO2 comes back scum, that will clear Cameroni in my mind.

[New User]

Nobody deserves to be lynched for being quiet. Only time it's worth voting for lurkers is when they seem like they don't want to draw attention to themselves, looking for a good person to target, jumping on a bandwagon, etc. What's the point of playing if you aren't gonna bother looking for bad guys, just bad players?. Unless, like I said, you don't care.

I did vote for her for lurking and jumping onto a bandwagon, so I don't see what your problem is. Her first post was to jump onto the KrO2 bandwagon started by Tim and Snark. Tim even claimed that his vote was based on nothing, and he did it just to see everyone's reactions, so Cameroni101 should have even less of a reason to want to vote for him. To her credit, she said she agreed with Snark, not Tim, but that looks like a convenient vote for a lurker to me.

[KrO2]

Nobody deserves to be lynched for being quiet. Only time it's worth voting for lurkers is when they seem like they don't want to draw attention to themselves, looking for a good person to target, jumping on a bandwagon, etc. What's the point of playing if you aren't gonna bother looking for bad guys, just bad players?. Unless, like I said, you don't care.

I did vote for her for lurking and jumping onto a bandwagon, so I don't see what your problem is. Her first post was to jump onto the KrO2 bandwagon started by Tim and Snark. Tim even claimed that his vote was based on nothing, and he did it just to see everyone's reactions, so Cameroni101 should have even less of a reason to want to vote for him. To her credit, she said she agreed with Snark, not Tim, but that looks like a convenient vote for a lurker to me.

I kind of assumed this was talking about lynching lurkers in general, which is a subject UniqueScreenname and I (and DBC?) agree on. Nobody has said that cameroni's actions in particular didn't look scummy.

Some people I think are scummy to various degrees:
I've gotten kind of mixed feelings from lynx. This post

eculc is right, that was very suspicious from cameron. He lurks until a bandwagon begins to form and jumps on with no explanation!
I do agree that KrO2 has been a bit squirmy but won't vote now as I don't want to give cameron ammunition.
If she is scum, she presumably knows who town are so we'll have to be careful about any lynch.

struck me as off. Mere agreement (not as bad as cameroni, but still just agreement), an excuse for not voting for me, and a kind of confusing last line. The explanation he gave later made sense but didn't seem immediately connected to the "if she is scum" bit. The reason I'd feel better about lynx if he had voted for me there is that if cameroni were scum looking through past votes to find a reason to agree with, she already had things from Snark and Tim. Taking stuff from lynx as well wouldn't make it less obvious. This is kind of what I might expect from a scumbuddy trying to not vote for KrO2 without it looking suspicious, so that's what I'd suspect if it weren't for the fact that KrO2 is me. There's also the mass claim idea earlier. It took some mental gymnastics for me to come up with a case where suggesting it might *not* be scummy.

I was going to try to defend flarpfreak by saying that he's new and maybe he's only used to two factions (that was true of me before I started playing on this board) but this isn't his first game, so I'm not going to say that. And that FoS is legitimately looking strong. He has also been lurking worse than cameroni.

fshfood hasn't posted much, but her point against UniqueScreenname looks pretty good. I'd like to point out, though, that she agreed with it in the original context, when it was used as an argument *against* Snark revealing his MI. fshfood responded to that by agreeing that it was a strong reason to keep those secret because there could be unfriendly people with powers like that. I'm not responding to the argument "that sounds like a power scum would have, so FoS US" (if that's an argument anyone's making?), but I do think it's strange of fshfood to agree with it and then bring it up later as being scummy.

I haven't seen eculc mentioned much, and I think he deserves to be, at least a little. What little information he's posted has mainly been unsupportedly saying that he hasn't found me scummy, which makes me feel good but still doesn't give reasons. Also, what's up with explicitly saying "your vote looks like a pressure vote"? I'm not pushing for an eculc lynch by any means, but he shouldn't get away with teh lurking.

I don't really want to pick one of New User/UniqueScreenname to Suspect, because this could be two townies escalating from "I disagree" to "You SUCK" to "Vote: Him." If that happens it could mean they're both wrong, but not necessarily that one of them is scum. I wanted to get this out there before people start picking sides.

If we were at deadline now, I'd probably vote for cameroni, but I'd like to see more content from these people before I vote because voting for a lurker still seems wrong to me.

[fshfood]

fshfood hasn't posted much, but her point against UniqueScreenname looks pretty good. I'd like to point out, though, that she agreed with it in the original context, when it was used as an argument *against* Snark revealing his MI. fshfood responded to that by agreeing that it was a strong reason to keep those secret because there could be unfriendly people with powers like that. I'm not responding to the argument "that sounds like a power scum would have, so FoS US" (if that's an argument anyone's making?), but I do think it's strange of fshfood to agree with it and then bring it up later as being scummy.

Ok, maybe I can explain my reasoning better. I'm just trying to put puzzle pieces together here.

I used that quote to state my position that I feel mass MI claiming could be a bad idea because there is at least one, and possibly multiple people that might be trying to do this for their role. I'm thinking that having people trying to match users with their MIs for their role then implies some kind of action to go with it. I can think of several scummy scenarios around these kind of matchups. I didn't necessarily see the comment as scummy in and of itself, but it did give me some pause.

Now, I am going back through the conversations to help me get my thoughts together, and this stands out to me ..

There's something that's been bothering me, though. The idea of mass claiming is so horrible. I literally cannot think of a positive. It would only open people up to being hurt. Perhaps there's a doctor that can heal one of us through MIs, but the thing about the doctor is that he can't really know who the mafia is gonna NK anyway, so knowing who the MIs belong to won't help all that much. So since I can only associate bad things with the idea, I have become suspicious of the person who suggested it, feeling safe if it came to happen and looking forward to the intel.

So, we have someone that admits to having role that is dependent on matching people up with their MIs, but then says she can't think of a positive thing to come out of having that match up. I missed that connection before.

Then I was uncomfortable with the quick vote on New User by UniqueScreenname.

So, as I am putting these all together, it is feeling more and more on the scummy side to me.

Until I hear more from UniqueScreenname explaining why she said she could only come up with bad things from the matchup, FOS UniqueScreenname.

[eculc]

sorry, Haven't had much time to post recently. First thing: Anyone have cyber action results they'd like to share? I'm not trying to out anyone as a cop, but any information that could be helpful to town might be worth talking about.

Tim: if your vote was to provoke reactions, why haven't you unvoted yet? I think you're going to get all the panic you're going to get.

FoS Uniquescreenname for the hasty vote on new user. I think Fshfood's post about sums up what I have to say.

FoS cameroni101 for the bandwagon vote and general lurkiness. Saying something is better than saying nothing; if you're not posting because you have nothing to say, then come up with something to say. Unless the situation changes, this is where my vote is going for N1.