I hardly think Tristan was suggesting there wouldn't be scum found in Esther's bandwagon. You do seem a bit uncomfortable with us trying to narrow down the search to the handful of folks that includes you, though.

Ofcourse he didn´t because there where there where just 3 votes on others than Esther and all where on diffrent persons.

For the bolded, Uncomfortable, not really sheriff! give it your best shot, I got nothing to hide.

.We are two nights in, and we have seen two kills, both of which are town. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a vigilante or SK, but there is a possibility they are either dead or were blocked. I also still don't like how the most suspicious person up to now was Esther, who has come up town. We haven't seen anything else. Nothing. Unless a PR knows something and we don't yet, I am quite worried about today's lynch.

At this moment in time my main suspect is Zachary, someone who seems to be getting away with acting really odd, then gave up when suspicion was put on him, saying he expects to be killed. The others I am still considering and would like to keep under wraps for now.

Thank you. Keep talking.

Caleb Norman (Captain Nemo) - 10 (Scubacarrot, Mencot, jamesn, Peanuts, Adam, LegoDad, Purpearljellyblob, Esurient, TinyPiesRUs, mostlytechnic)

Esther Thompson (Esurient) - 8 (Kadabra, CallMePie, Trumpetking, Darkdragon, TheBoyWonder, Captain Nemo, Clanure)

Michael Thompson (Mencot) - 4 (Capt. Redblade, Bob, Dannylonglegs, Kristel)

Sheridan Thompson (Scubacarrot) - 1 (Zakura)

Beatrice Kingsley (Bob) - 1 (PirateDave84)

Day 1 Vote Analysis: It's rather hard to analyze as we've only seen town, but it seems that the biggest gap is between Caleb's lynch, naturally. I've highlighted Sheridan as town because I'm 95% sure she isn't lying. With that said, aside from Beatrice, who I'm noticing has actually started to provide some substance to help with, I think we should focus on those in between Esurient and Sheridan's votes, as that's likely where the scum are to be. I find that Michael is the scummiest of them.

Esther Thompson (Esurient) - 17 (LegoDad, Trumpetking, TheBoyWonder, Kadabra, Bob, Kristel, CallMePie, Capt. Redblade, mostlytechnic, PirateDave84, Purpearljellyblob, Dannylonglegs, Adam, Scubacarrot, Peanuts, Zakura, Clanure)

Kenneth Emanuel (KielDaMan) - 4 (penalty, penalty, penalty, penalty)

Patrick Devon (PirateDave84) - 1 (TinyPiesRUs)

Beatrice Kingsley (Bob) - 1 (Mencot

Jessica Nelson (jamesn) - 1 (Esurient)

Kane DeBois (Kadabra) - 1 (jamesn)

Here's where it gets tricky. I'm thinking that we might also want to look at those who didn't vote for Esther, a if they knew she was town. They've explained their votes, but they could just as easily be lying. I do think we should look at the scummier members of the Esther vote too, such as Zachary, Connie, and maybe Patrick.

This makes sense. I think that scum probably split between being on the Esther bandwagon and not on it, because there's always the "I-told-you-so" route but there's also the fact that the Esther bandwagon was so dang big it was easy to hide there. In my opinion those who jumped on after supporting Esther once she claimed should be scrutinized, a sort of 'easy way out' of analyzing other players presented it and they took it. That could be lazy town or nervous scum.

It depends how many scum we have. I would guess at least one member isn't in the Esther bandwagon, that way they can distance themselves and do the "Im a townie because I didn't vote for a townie" stuff. On the first day however, I wouldn't be surprised if they split about 50/50.

Zachary is borderline incompetent, barely posting, and when he does its fluff. I highly doubt a scum team would let him do that, but if he is just an average goon, it is a possibility. Connie also is going down the fluff route, with that post on day 1. You could potentially paraphrase it too: 'Im posting for the sake of posting and this way I've posted and deferred some suspicion.' That is honestly how I read that post, whether Im right or not is another story.

And it's 11 hours till voting starts I think, so hopefully one of the accused can answer some questions and give a defence.

First off, I'm actually very surprised that Esther has come up town. Her flailing around and story telling about her role were way too far out there to have been a townie. Really no idea what was going on there, maybe she had been hitting the laudanum a little hard.

My guess is that Esther was desperately flailing trying to save her life. Did a lot of damage with it though... definitey wanna talk to her in the afterlife.

As for the single night kills... first, seems unlikely that the vig would get thwarted two nights in a row. Possible that he/she didn't kill night one and got blocked / victim was protected night 2. Or maybe the scum are playing well and already figured the vig out and perhaps killed her last night? (I have no knowledge of the vig identity, that's just an idea).

Second, could we have a non-serial-killer third party? What independent could be a non-killer? could have something odd like a "survivor" or group of mimes, but that seems far out. But I'm starting to seriously think there's no SK since the odds of vig and SK both being stopped 2 nights in a row is insanely low.

It is very weird how we have only had a single night kill each of the first 2 nights. Either some amazing blocking going on, or we don't have as many killers as these towns normally have.

Once more, only one night kill. That's not terribly bad, at least it means we lose only one of us per night. I still wonder wheter we have/had a vigilante, but I don't think speculating about this will lead us to anything.

I have thought back about the last two days, and I have grown suspicious of Connie. She hasn't been very active, never accused anyone and just hopped on the Esther bandwagon two times in a row (which I find especially weird considering we all thought Esther had soft-claimed to be a power role, and we now know she was town). She stated she wanted to wait before she casts her vote, which can be what a cautious townie would do, but she hardly voiced suspicions.

Then there is this gem from Day One; "Hey, I'm here, please don't think I'm scum, bye"

On Day Two, she started off asking for information based on night actions, showing no initiative whatsoever.

She told Esther to reveal her night action and jumped on the bandwagon again, which is fair enough, but she also said this:

I still don't know who her "next suspicion" is. Would you mind telling us, Connie?

I met Connie in another little mining town, and she was similarly quiet, and she was on the right side of the law. I'm not saying that is the case here, don't know her well enough. While I completely agree that she's staying in the shadows and it is disconcerting, I wouldn't look too much into it at this point.

.We are two nights in, and we have seen two kills, both of which are town. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a vigilante or SK, but there is a possibility they are either dead or were blocked. I also still don't like how the most suspicious person up to now was Esther, who has come up town. We haven't seen anything else. Nothing. Unless a PR knows something and we don't yet, I am quite worried about today's lynch.

At this moment in time my main suspect is Zachary, someone who seems to be getting away with acting really odd, then gave up when suspicion was put on him, saying he expects to be killed. The others I am still considering and would like to keep under wraps for now.

Caleb Norman (Captain Nemo) - 10 (Scubacarrot, Mencot, jamesn, Peanuts, Adam, LegoDad, Purpearljellyblob, Esurient, TinyPiesRUs, mostlytechnic)

Esther Thompson (Esurient) - 8 (Kadabra, CallMePie, Trumpetking, Darkdragon, TheBoyWonder, Captain Nemo, Clanure)

Michael Thompson (Mencot) - 4 (Capt. Redblade, Bob, Dannylonglegs, Kristel)

Sheridan Thompson (Scubacarrot) - 1 (Zakura)

Beatrice Kingsley (Bob) - 1 (PirateDave84)

Day 1 Vote Analysis: It's rather hard to analyze as we've only seen town, but it seems that the biggest gap is between Caleb's lynch, naturally. I've highlighted Sheridan as town because I'm 95% sure she isn't lying. With that said, aside from Beatrice, who I'm noticing has actually started to provide some substance to help with, I think we should focus on those in between Esurient and Sheridan's votes, as that's likely where the scum are to be. I find that Michael is the scummiest of them.

Esther Thompson (Esurient) - 17 (LegoDad, Trumpetking, TheBoyWonder, Kadabra, Bob, Kristel, CallMePie, Capt. Redblade, mostlytechnic, PirateDave84, Purpearljellyblob, Dannylonglegs, Adam, Scubacarrot, Peanuts, Zakura, Clanure)

Kenneth Emanuel (KielDaMan) - 4 (penalty, penalty, penalty, penalty)

Patrick Devon (PirateDave84) - 1 (TinyPiesRUs)

Beatrice Kingsley (Bob) - 1 (Mencot

Jessica Nelson (jamesn) - 1 (Esurient)

Kane DeBois (Kadabra) - 1 (jamesn)

Here's where it gets tricky. I'm thinking that we might also want to look at those who didn't vote for Esther, a if they knew she was town. They've explained their votes, but they could just as easily be lying. I do think we should look at the scummier members of the Esther vote too, such as Zachary, Connie, and maybe Patrick.

Zachary is also on my list, for the same odd talk and really not bringing anything to the table. Other quiet folk like Connie and Bob don't say much, but they also don't say they think they are dying tomorrow after they get a couple votes and get defensive. Zachary was probably #2 behind Esther for scummy on my list, but I'm apparently not the best scum finder, though I think we about all thought Esther was off in her behavior. As for voting patterns, going to be hard to decifer much after 2 days, especially with Day 2 being relatively unanimous. I could see some issue with those on Day 1 trying to stay off the beaten path and hide a bit by voting for anyone other than Caleb or Esther, but as previously stated, since they have both come up town, there is really little to gain from the votes.

I also tracked the voting order and patterns but the vote on day 1 was split 3 ways and day 2 was so decisive that there is litterally nothing we (or at least I) can read into.

This isn't the type of defeatest approach that helps town. Maybe there's nothing we can say for certain, but there are patterns and behaviors to look at that can inform us of who to ask questions of. In fact, you yourself did this early yesterday:

Sorry for scrutinizing your vote but this is flawed reasoning for 2 reasons:

1) Esther was not at risk seeing that Kenneth had already made clear that he would not vote

2) Caleb was already a guaranteed (99,9%)lynch seeing that he a) had achieved the most votes ahead of Esther so would have been convicted even if a tie had occurred and b) it was too late in the day for anyone to rally and save Caleb should something had poped up in his favor. You did seal his fate; we just have to figure out why. My initial comment that this was a relatively non-town move still stands. This being said, your behaviour as a whole does not really transpire as scummy so I'm willing to overlook this weird vote for now.

This was obviously before we knew the situation with Esther. Here, you seem to imply that Molly's vote for Caleb sealed Caleb's fate over Esther, something I won't deny certainly helped. Every added vote was one an unvote would not reverse. However, what's the point of challenging someone's behavior and then immediately dismissing that challenge as something you have no intention of caring about the response to? If you're going to challenge someone's behavior, even if you don't think it's a strong suspicion, you should at least make them answer to you before blowing it off.

I did not want to make a serious case against Molly, I was pointing out how out of place and odd her vote had been considering the circumstances at the time it was cast. I also never claimed to distrust Molly and I sure as hell don't want to lead; in a previous life I was thrust in that position and it was not pretty. So you are right in saying that I was not trying to lead because I was not.

Being decisive in your accusations is one way to lead that doesn't necessarily result in what you are afraid to repeat. Decisive accusations, or at least, pursuing a poke until its logical conclusion is a way to get discussion flowing that allows for mistakes.

I did not base my vote on her claiming or not but rather on my belief that Esther was lying all along. Her later claim reinforced my point.

What did you think she was lying about all along? That she had a PR?

I think there may be merit in going after the people that were pushing for Esther over Caleb on day One. Keep in mind that Esther had softclaimed, and everyone pretty much suspected she had a role, while Caleb had claimed vanilla (later in the day). Still, a likely power role would be much better to have lynched than a normal vanilla townie. That said: Connie made such avote, and without any reasoning behind it, claiming to be short on time. And as others have said, she hasn't contributed much at all. Perhaps some input, Connie?

Esther made her soft claim after Kane, Carletta, and Tristan had voted for her. Molly, Boris, and Connie are the only three non-confirmed townies who voted for Esther after that point. After the bandwagon on Caleb got rolling, there wasn't really a strong push to vote for Esther anymore. Only Connie's late vote came in after that.

The only other comment about Esther that struck me as odd late in the day was post 231, where you initially said that "voting off a potential power role seems really counterproductive to me", but then later suggested that no one ought to consider anyone but Esther and Caleb since they were the only ones likely to be lynched at that point. Seems to me you should've just been pushing for Caleb's lynch based on what you said.

Ofcourse he didn´t because there where there where just 3 votes on others than Esther and all where on diffrent persons.

For the bolded, Uncomfortable, not really sheriff! give it your best shot, I got nothing to hide.

Look, I merely made an observation about your reaction to Tristan's comments. You reacted in such a way as to deflect attention away from the group that included you.

The only other comment about Esther that struck me as odd late in the day was post 231, where you initially said that "voting off a potential power role seems really counterproductive to me", but then later suggested that no one ought to consider anyone but Esther and Caleb since they were the only ones likely to be lynched at that point. Seems to me you should've just been pushing for Caleb's lynch based on what you said.

The second doesn't invalidate the first. It seemed counterproductive to me, I said that, but literally no one other than Ester and Caleb could realistically be lynched. Both are/were true, right?

This isn't the type of defeatest approach that helps town. Maybe there's nothing we can say for certain, but there are patterns and behaviors to look at that can inform us of who to ask questions of. In fact, you yourself did this early yesterday:

What I meant was that interpreting yesterday's bandwagon is difficult if not impossible; people have been throwing wild guesses as to whom voted when in a situation when everyone but 4 voted for the same person. The main suspect being discussed today does not appear in anyone's 'analysis'. I personally think that analyzing the bandwagon is futile.

This was obviously before we knew the situation with Esther. Here, you seem to imply that Molly's vote for Caleb sealed Caleb's fate over Esther, something I won't deny certainly helped. Every added vote was one an unvote would not reverse. However, what's the point of challenging someone's behavior and then immediately dismissing that challenge as something you have no intention of caring about the response to? If you're going to challenge someone's behavior, even if you don't think it's a strong suspicion, you should at least make them answer to you before blowing it off.

I'm not implying it did, I am sating that it definitely did; Tony voted for Caleb which broke the second tie followed by Molly who not only sealed the faith of Caleb but furthered the gap in his favor knowing full well that Kenneth had no intention to vote; her vote was the last one to be cast and as such was a decisive one

I don't think I dismissed it; Molly answered, I was satisfied. Where did I blow it off before she answered?

Being decisive in your accusations is one way to lead that doesn't necessarily result in what you are afraid to repeat. Decisive accusations, or at least, pursuing a poke until its logical conclusion is a way to get discussion flowing that allows for mistakes.

Again, see above. I'm pretty sure I followed it through at least to a point where I felt satisifed with the answer. If you feel like this needs to be looked into further, then be my guest.

What did you think she was lying about all along? That she had a PR?

Yes, was it not clear?

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

What I meant was that interpreting yesterday's bandwagon is difficult if not impossible; people have been throwing wild guesses as to whom voted when in a situation when everyone but 4 voted for the same person. The main suspect being discussed today does not appear in anyone's 'analysis'. I personally think that analyzing the bandwagon is futile.

Sorry, I thought you lumped both day's voting into your comment. Anyway, it's not futile because one scummy player doesn't appear in the analysis. We should be looking at multiple suspects so that we can find the best one. Furthermore, there is a clear dividing point in the bandwagon which came when Esther made her actual claim.

Maybe no one's including Connie (who I assume is the suspect you're referring to) because they already have reasons for finding her scummy. She cast very late votes for Esther both days. That doesn't help her case, particularly her Day 1 vote after everyone else had decided her claim was worth not lynching her over.

Vote analysis is useful as a starting point for discussions if nothing else.

I don't think I dismissed it; Molly answered, I was satisfied. Where did I blow it off before she answered?

In the post I quoted. You told Molly her reasoning was flawed, then told her that you thought she wasn't worth pursuing anyway. All in that one post.

Yes, was it not clear?

No, it wasn't. You gave no indication prior to your vote for Esther on day 2 that you thought "all along" that she was lying.

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

I.... I don't understand.... You're giving up? Before e voting even starts? There's no need for the vig to kill a miller if they know they're town. Part of me wants to say you're town because you're fine with being lynched, but another part if me wants to say you're doing that because you think we'll keep you thinking you're town.

My pooor mommy! Now I ain't got no body but my pigs to keep me company. *sobs* *kisses pig*

While I'm not overly pleased that Esther turned up a Townie, I think it's safe to say she was not pro-town, regardless of her actual affiliation. I was hoping her bizarre behavior was that of a doomed scum teasing the Town, but I'm not upset that she's gone.

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

I.... I don't understand.... You're giving up? Before e voting even starts? There's no need for the vig to kill a miller if they know they're town. Part of me wants to say you're town because you're fine with being lynched, but another part if me wants to say you're doing that because you think we'll keep you thinking you're town.

I have to agree with Tristan here. This is just... what? Voting hasn't even started and even then it doesn't seem like everyone's fully committed to pursuing you as a lead, so why would you want to give in so suddenly? I'm just... wow, I'm not even sure what to make of this. There's a little voice in the back of my head saying "He must be a townie who doesn't handle scrutiny well," but I don't know whether to listen to it.

I have to agree with Tristan here. This is just... what? Voting hasn't even started and even then it doesn't seem like everyone's fully committed to pursuing you as a lead, so why would you want to give in so suddenly? I'm just... wow, I'm not even sure what to make of this. There's a little voice in the back of my head saying "He must be a townie who doesn't handle scrutiny well," but I don't know whether to listen to it.

I'm thinking out loud right here, so I could be very wrong. What if the third party is a cult and they've recruited one or two people by now? Surely it isn't very costly if one cultist gets lynched, because they can simply recruit another one tonight.

Sorry, I thought you lumped both day's voting into your comment. Anyway, it's not futile because one scummy player doesn't appear in the analysis. We should be looking at multiple suspects so that we can find the best one. Furthermore, there is a clear dividing point in the bandwagon which came when Esther made her actual claim.

I have to agree with you here, there was in fact a dividing line in the votes; we should still consider that it is possible that scum voted outside the bandwagon although it would have been very easy for them to hide in the group.

In the post I quoted. You told Molly her reasoning was flawed, then told her that you thought she wasn't worth pursuing anyway. All in that one post.

Re-reading the post, I can see how my wording was not the best; the intention was not to let Molly go but rather to express two opinions in one post. 1) Her vote and it's justification were very odd and struck me as innapropriate and 2) her past behaviour and behaviour since the weird vote had been pretty townie; these two points IMO balanced each other out.

No, it wasn't. You gave no indication prior to your vote for Esther on day 2 that you thought "all along" that she was lying.

I never thought she was lying "all along", this was my first post about her lying. Her 'soft claim', then the 'claim to claim' and the conclusion that she was Vanilla made me believe she was not vanilla and she therefore earned my vote.

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

I ... what!?

I'm going to echo Tristan, Kenneth and Clay and say that this is a bad idea. Yesterday you assumed you would be killed or lynched soon and today you post this; why?

I don't think a scummo would be so bold as to flat out ask/volunteer to be killed ... but then again maybe this is the idea behind your behaviour.

I'm thinking out loud right here, so I could be very wrong. What if the third party is a cult and they've recruited one or two people by now? Surely it isn't very costly if one cultist gets lynched, because they can simply recruit another one tonight.

You're not the first to mention the posibility of a cult; I personally find it difficult to believe that such a party exist but you never know. What makes you think there is a cult and why would one of it's member volunteer to die which would then reveal (or allude to) the party's existence.

Capt. Whathisface included information about a third party in the Silver City rules Instruction Manual. Since there has only been one kill a night, my guess is that there's a scum team killing people, a vig choosing not to kill people (or being blocked) and a third party that cannot kill people.

That makes me think of a cult. The fact that Zachary offers himself up for a lynch is probably a gambit betting that we won't lynch him, but if he does get lynched it's not a big deal because his cult team can replace him.

That's all fine and good, but there's no indication that there is a cult, and no reason that Zachary is a cultist other than what I mentioned.

Cult sure seem to fit what we've got goin on here. Between shifts at the saloon I did some readin (yes, we dancin ladies can read. Well, some of us at least) on cults Scary stuff! If we do have one around here we gotta wipe it out fast before they get too strong.

At this point though it's a possibility and nothing more. There's other reasons we could only have 1 dying a night.

Zach, I'll echo the rest - why're you suicidal? That makes no sense!

And as for the new sheriff, hope you're up to speed and ready to help. Unless you're a scummo of course, and then I want you dead.

Day 1

Post no. #103

Well, guess this gal knows better than to make a morning of jumping off of barns with umbrellas. It was a hootin' good time y'all but it looks like this was where the action was.

Adam, on 24 June 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

The moral of the story is that valley girls and lynch mobs aren't a good combination.

This was honestly my first reaction to this claim. As I think to the validity of the claim though, I just end up taking a stroll down 'WIFOM' lane. It could absolutely play out both ways and the gutsiness of being claimed in the first post certainly has given us a lot to talk about. I'm going to give the dead horse a rest though and look elsewhere for a while.

Connie comes in after Sheridan's claim and did a very nice summary of what is going on, with no input coming from herself.

I think it's important to keep up communication on the first day without focusing and accusing on every piece of fluff. Question it sure, but don't be afraid to leave it. Some roleplaying is part of the fun. Esther(Esurient), surely you can't try to read something into every comment made?

Following up on his advice to everyone, Connie questioned Esther, and literally left it hanging.

Post no. #203

Well, I've been trying catch up on what's going on, but I haven't managed to read through everything. I didn't want anyone thinking that my popping in and out without saying something was scummy, so I am taking a proactive approach. I'm leaving for a meeting about another awesome adventure (I'm thinking pigs and cornfields), so I can't finish reading and respond to everything. However, I will be back in just a few hours and I will post my thoughts.

That bolded sentence, saying she is totally not scummy by doing nothing, made me think it is a total WIFOM. And I don't see any proactive approach coming from you in Day 1.

Post no. #228

Ok, I need to get my vote in now because I don't know that I'll be able to be back before the end of the day, so...

Vote: Esther Thompson (Esurient)

Connie promised to be proactive, but came back and said, 'I am totally late in my vote, and I am totally busy with something else so there you go, I am voting Esther'.

Of my three biggest suspicions, she's the one that sits worst with me.

Technically, Connie voted for Esther without stating her reasons. What does it mean by "worst"? Some comparison please. Who is bad, who is worse and why Esther is worst?

What happened to Connie's proactive-ness that she promised?

Day 2

Post no. #18

I think Drake's being killed was metagaming. There's a little bit there (as mentioned above), but not a whole lot. To be honest, I expected possibly 2 more deaths last night. As described, Drake's death looks coyote. There could have been a SK or town Vig kill as well, so I'm curious what NA's revealed?

I'm curious as to why Esther managed to get away untouched. Blocker, Protector, something?

Fishing for roles, Connie?

Moving on, anybody have any suggestions as to where we start today?

That is not proactive behaviour. Passive behaviour I would say.

Post no. #79

I say go ahead and claim. As others have stated, you've already claimed a PR. Doesn't matter which, the damage is done.

I'll hold off voting for you until this whole supposed PR thing comes to an end, but barring any other developments my next closest suspicions are quite a bit behind you.

Be mindful though. If you are town you will quickly (and I mean quickly) wrap this up. You are doing us no favors by pulling this crap. The longer you play it out the worse you look!

Now Esther forced everyone to take a vote, Connie came in and provided a very nice piece of noble advice. But Connie didn't pursued her suspicions, or even name her suspicions.

Post no. #147

Well,

I waited to see what else might come up, and there's really not much. A few bits here and there, but nothing that feels like a solid lead for me.

My vote for Esther from Day 1 still stands. I was going to vote for my next suspicion (considering we already have an overwhelming majority), but that doesn't feel right.

Vote: Esther (Esurient)

Even if her claim is true (hard to believe at this point), we don't need that type of circus taking us away from the task at hand. A true townie wouldn't have pulled those shenanigans.

I don't know what is Connie's game plan, she had suspicions but she sit back and did nothing. What is "a few bits here and there"? What is "nothing that feels like a solid lead"?

Connie, please come out and play.

Mod Note: Something was just brought to my attention. Please note that Proxy votes can be cast any time (even if voting is not yet open).

I guess Zachary could be a cultist. I'm just not sure as to why a said cult would let a teammate give up, even if a member was expendable. Wouldn't they want to keep as many members as possible? The fact that he's so willing to give up really finds me intrigued. I want to hear an explanation. I don't want to get too technical, but he said lynching him means we'll be closer to a conclusion. Won't we always be closer to a conclusion no matter who is lynched?

I think Zachary deserves some pressure, and others should be put under the spotlight as well. I'm personally going to use the proxy to hopefully put the spotlight and pressure on suspects.

Proxy: Zachary Radford (Zakura)

Sorry, misunderstood the proxy.

Unproxy: Zachary Radford (Zakura)

How about Finger of Suspicion onstead?

FoS: Zachary Radford (Zakura

I guess Zachary could be a cultist. I'm just not sure as to why a said cult would let a teammate give up, even if a member was expendable. Wouldn't they want to keep as many members as possible? The fact that he's so willing to give up really finds me intrigued. I want to hear an explanation. I don't want to get too technical, but he said lynching him means we'll be closer to a conclusion. Won't we always be closer to a conclusion no matter who is lynched?

I think Zachary deserves some pressure, and others should be put under the spotlight as well. I'm personally going to use the proxy to hopefully put the spotlight and pressure on suspects.

Proxy: Zachary Radford (Zakura)

Sorry, misunderstood the proxy.

Unproxy: Zachary Radford (Zakura)

How about Finger of Suspicion onstead?

FoS: Zachary Radford (Zakura

With unlimited unvotes, FoS's really aren't needed...

Anyway, I'm reluctant to believe in the idea of a cult just because Captain Minnow is pretty new to this sort of situation, and cults tend to only appear in towns run by incompetent or experienced sheriffs, and I don't think Minnow is incompetent. With how Zachary is acting, though, I wouldn't put Jester beyond him, though!

I guess you're right, but I feel like it's a good way to apply pressure to somebody and to get their attention.

So, Zachary, why give up so early?

I'm thinking out loud right here, so I could be very wrong. What if the third party is a cult and they've recruited one or two people by now? Surely it isn't very costly if one cultist gets lynched, because they can simply recruit another one tonight.

As a one-time member of a cult (not now, it was in another mining city called Heartlake... I think it was in Utah), I can tell you I highly doubt we've got one now. Not only would a cult be less willing to sacrifice a cultist than a scum team would a member (because to do so would also sacrifice the element of surprise a cult benefits from.), but furthermore, that doesn't explain at all why we aren't seeing a vig/SK kill. Are you suggesting that there's a Cult instead of a vig? I personally believe that we're unlucky enough to have either an inactive vig, an unlucky vig, or a dead vig, or a combination of the three. It's also possible that we don't have an SK, or that the SK has a mechanic in place that limits the amount of kills it can make (like what I had in that Town that practiced prohibition so long ago.) A vig, or lack of one, has nothing to do with a cult, and in-fact, the lack of a vig may be evidence that there isn't a cult, since such a game would be scewed in the scum/cult's favor. I am worried that we haven't seen a second kill and it's already day 3. I just think it means the scum have found our vig, or that the vig is already dead (or that the vig was inactive yesterday and got blocked/protected against tonight.) hopefully there'll be a vig kill tonight that'll end our fears.

Also, to metagame a bit, does anyone seriously think this God would have a cult in his first game of life just like that horsey-dragony God did in hers?

How about Finger of Suspicion onstead?

FoS: Zachary Radford (Zakura

Great, we're FoSing again? A simple, "I'm suspicious of Zachary" wouldn't suffice?

I'll admit, I'm confused by Zachary's sudden "I quit." post, but to me it seems like a townie move (but not a pro-town move). I don't think a scum team would provide zachary with such low confidence.

Like I said, it's an effective way to gather the attention of the suspect, but I guess the chances are he'll respond eventually. I'm still going to keep the use of it for now unless others deem it unnecessary.

Actually, we're close enough to voting it doesn't really matter as much.

Un-FoS: Zachary Radford (Zakura)

I'm actually fine with you guys lynching me, except that you guys will be one step closer to conclusion. Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that. Just reminding you that lurkers do not necessarily equal scum and more often the scum are the ones who are leading the town.

What, another giving up! I have to give the credit you say it out loud but like others said this sounds really odd. WHY

Just woke up, and learn all these new things: proxy, Finger of Suspicion, Cult? what is this, need to read the manual again!

Read about about the cult, don´t think thats what Zachary is doing (of course this was the first time I heard about it, so don´t understand it full)

But when we do have third-party (neutral) so ofcourse some sort of role fitting in, hmm

What do guys think about that he is so obsessed with this

Still wondering why the Vig hasn't killed the "miller" though but you guys probably won't do that.

Not the first time he mentioned it?

He seems to think that a miller claim=scum, so he's either dumb or trying to get Sheridan offed because he's scum.