Ragnarök Now Redux - Day Two

[CMP]

From my earlier post, when I am talking about the 3 killers, I refer and highlight that the serial killer is 100% true and it is not mere speculation.

No, you didn't. In fact you were super vague about it.

Which mean, Kologrima and Choldochar's deaths are inflicted by Einherjar or the Servants of Loki, leaving the long axe to the probable serial/insane/neutral/3rd party or whatever killer.

[WhiteFang]

No, you didn't. In fact you were super vague about it.

Do I need to paint myself a target behind my back for others to kill me at night... Perhaps, I am being too vague, but my attempt is to be subtle...

[CMP]

Do I need to paint myself a target behind my back for others to kill me at night... Perhaps, I am being too vague, but my attempt is to be subtle...

I think you're overestimating the importance of your role (if I'm reading your claim right). And it's a poor one to claim when you're on the chopping block. And it begs the question (even moreso than before) of why you're questioning the MO and allegiance of the killer rather than drawing connections between the victims and who might be more or less likely to strike at them.

[Hinckley]

If you have some sort of secret alliance out there, let my night action prove it to you or send an investigator to check me out. I am no vanilla townie but I am an asset to our cause.

Unvote: Wilhalm Bloodaxe (WhiteFang)

I'm not convinced enough of your Scumminess to vote for you in the face of a roleclaim. I hope you can be verified.

I have a proposal. It looks like we will lose Sigrid no matter what we do. If we lynch someone in addition, we take a huge risk. I don't feel we have enough solid leads to risk losing two players who may both be Einherjar. I'm also tired of people telling us we'll learn so much about Mursi and Gofraid by lynching Sigrid. If Sigrid turns up Town I think it'll tell us more about Dufa, Snotra and Finn than Mursi and Gofraid. If she comes up Scum, then we'll see that Duftra the Carrotless was right.

I think you're overestimating the importance of your role (if I'm reading your claim right). And it's a poor one to claim when you're on the chopping block. And it begs the question (even moreso than before) of why you're questioning the MO and allegiance of the killer rather than drawing connections between the victims and who might be more or less likely to strike at them.

I'm confused. I don't see a specific claim.

From my earlier post, when I am talking about the 3 killers, I refer and highlight that the serial killer is 100% true and it is not mere speculation. I know people can 'see' for themselves but will everyone believe that 3rd killer is a speculated person. I truly want to make sure we are safe from another. If no one believe me, then see it for yourself tonight.. If you have some sort of secret alliance out there, let my night action prove it to you or send an investigator to check me out.

Oh this. I read it differently at first. Psychiatrist? That isn't subtle, Wilhalm. Even though I did miss it.

This day is getting on my nerves. I think there could be a psychiatrist. Maybe the Serial Killer can confirm for us that they're real? Problem is if there are two vigs, like last time, then they have no idea if the other killer is a serial killer or not so they can't confirm or deny either. Although, last time one killer was compulsive, one was voluntary. If there's a vig out there who is compulsive then Wilhalm is likely lying.

Since we know TPRU isn't afraid of having two vigs, it's possible he used a serial killer and a psychiatrist. If Wilhalm is successful (assuming he's telling the truth) it would then just be two vigs like last time.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I guess that will answer the question of Sigrid.

Helga has a point about lynching now that we're assured a mod kill. With the possiblity of three kills a night, we're going to drop like flies if we're not careful.

I'm still unsure of Wilhalm. But I can give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

Unvote: Wilhalm (WhiteFang)

[Bob]

I'd rather not risk the possibility that Wilhalm is telling the truth about having some sort of a role.

Unvote: Wilhalm / WhiteFang

It would also appear that we're going to be able to see Sigrid's allegiance since there are no replacements for her. We won't have had to have wasted a full day on her / the vigilante won't need to go after her. This is good.

[Hinckley]

Wilhalm, who did you target last night? Since your role is out, I see no reason for you not to reveal your target. I imagine you're a likely Serial Killer target tonight anyway, so let us know who we shouldn't suspect.

[jimmynick]

I made this comment shortly after the posts you quoted. Did you need it more clear than that?

Also, a few of the others struck me as a bit suspicious there as well.

Sorry I missed that post. BUT when I saw you said suspicious people had voted for Sigrid, I interpreted you as meaning you were suspicious of the people who voted for Sigrid after the 6-6 split. Your list was actually: Petr, Wilhalm and Mist.

Two of those people are confirmed town and the other is probably our psychiatrist. And I don't buy that you changed your vote because Petr voted for Sigrid (even though that's what you imply); Petr was the first person to vote for Sigrid. That was in plain view when you voted for her.

Basically, I don't like it that you say you changed your vote away from Sigrid because of three suspicious people on her wagon, when one of those people was the first to vote for her. You should know better than that. Petr was under plenty of scrutiny when you voted for Sigrid (he had 6 votes!)

I'll be back to the hall later.

[WhiteFang]

I really appreciate there are some of us who has taken a moment to believe in my fighting cause. Like all of you here, I am trying to help and I doing my best to do so.

I think you're overestimating the importance of your role (if I'm reading your claim right). And it's a poor one to claim when you're on the chopping block. And it begs the question (even moreso than before) of why you're questioning the MO and allegiance of the killer rather than drawing connections between the victims and who might be more or less likely to strike at them.

No, I do not overestimate myself or attempting to claim something which is untrue.

Wilhalm, who did you target last night? Since your role is out, I see no reason for you not to reveal your target. I imagine you're a likely Serial Killer target tonight anyway, so let us know who we shouldn't suspect.

When I selected my target, there is no specific reason why I choose so, but I am acting on my gut feeling that my choice will be a possible target even though the odds are very low. So I decided and went for Gofraid on Night 1 to clear him first.

[Fugazi]

If your point is that anything can be rationalized to give support to any accusation, then what's the point in analyzing anything?

What I said it that anything can be rationalised using Finn's analysis. I doesn't invalidate all that we're trying to do here.

Why would we need to know this? Were you worried that someone would suspect you if you didn't show up and change your vote if something else came up? It may very well be the case, but I think most of us assume that people will change their vote if something revealing happens.

You misunderstand me. I was merely stating that I would be nearby and ready to act if acting was required, as opposed to others who were sleeping, away or otherwise engaged.

[Fugazi]

I agree that you can group things to say whatever you want them to, but Wary's right. You have to analyze at some level. Voting analysis is a perfectly reasonable place to start from when looking for people to analyze more closely. I'm glad to hear I'm wrong because you know you're town. How likely do you think it is that none of those final 6 voters were scum? Which of the remaining 4 would be scummiest in your opinion and why?

Statistically speaking you are right, it's likely that one of the 6 would have been scum. Perhaps scum decided on a different strategy, but let's assume the former. With Chlodochar gone and myself out of the equation, remain Dagstyrr, Patrekr, Wary and Lefsi. As I already mentioned, I find Dagstyrr's voting maneuver peculiar, and I'm sure he will want to explain it himself. He would be my most suspicious candidate right now. I don't have a good reading on any of the three other, so they could be anything.

From my earlier post, when I am talking about the 3 killers, I refer and highlight that the serial killer is 100% true and it is not mere speculation. I know people can 'see' for themselves but will everyone believe that 3rd killer is a speculated person. I truly want to make sure we are safe from another.

When I selected my target, there is no specific reason why I choose so, but I am acting on my gut feeling that my choice will be a possible target even though the odds are very low. So I decided and went for Gofraid on Night 1 to clear him first.

I am not totally sure of the claim you are making, but if my understanding is correct you are saying that I'm not a Serial Killer?

[WhiteFang]

I am not totally sure of the claim you are making, but if my understanding is correct you are saying that I'm not a Serial Killer?

Yes.

[fhomess]

I have a proposal. It looks like we will lose Sigrid no matter what we do. If we lynch someone in addition, we take a huge risk. I don't feel we have enough solid leads to risk losing two players who may both be Einherjar. I'm also tired of people telling us we'll learn so much about Mursi and Gofraid by lynching Sigrid. If Sigrid turns up Town I think it'll tell us more about Dufa, Snotra and Finn than Mursi and Gofraid. If she comes up Scum, then we'll see that Duftra the Carrotless was right.

I'm not opposed to forgoing the lynch in the event of Sigrid's departure but we then need to have people be active in weighing in on what's going on. We'd have even less to go on with some folks like Dagstyrr and Baulf if they hadn't at least voted yesterday.

Wilhalm, who did you target last night? Since your role is out, I see no reason for you not to reveal your target. I imagine you're a likely Serial Killer target tonight anyway, so let us know who we shouldn't suspect.

Let's remember that all a psychiatrist clears someone of is being a serial killer.

[Fugazi]

Yes.

You thought that I might be the SK? That's funny, but also unfortunate.

I have a proposal. It looks like we will lose Sigrid no matter what we do. If we lynch someone in addition, we take a huge risk. I don't feel we have enough solid leads to risk losing two players who may both be Einherjar. I'm also tired of people telling us we'll learn so much about Mursi and Gofraid by lynching Sigrid. If Sigrid turns up Town I think it'll tell us more about Dufa, Snotra and Finn than Mursi and Gofraid. If she comes up Scum, then we'll see that Duftra the Carrotless was right.

There's still time to build a better case for a lynch, though if that doesn't materialise we could indeed settle for the information the death of Sigrid will provide.

[WhiteFang]

You thought that I might be the SK? That's funny, but also unfortunate.

I thought you might be, but just in case!

There's still time to build a better case for a lynch, though if that doesn't materialise we could indeed settle for the information the death of Sigrid will provide.

I don't have anyone in mind yet, except Sigrid who may very soon be no longer with us, as dictate by God.

[Rick]

The point in this case was actually not telling Petr that I would change my mind if he came up with a solid defense (which would still have been true), but rather tell the rest of you that I would be around to change my vote if something came up and the consensus shifted.

As Wary pointed out, it should be obvious you're paying attention. It looks like you were trying hard to blend in and change your vote to not stand out "if the consensus shifted"... on someone you knew was Einherjar?

I read it the same way actually. It looked ridiculously a lot like an excuse for nailing the final vote. I don't really see what would be the point of doing something like that if he's town. I have a hard time deciding whether the scum would have wanted to place that final vote or not.

The vote for Naemr and subsequent unvoting and dropping the hammer on Petr is starting to look like an attempt to appear to not be paying too much attention. I get the feeling he is paying attention though and is trying to appear Einherjar by not participating much (after all: "A Servant would have been pushed to participate by now.").

That doesn't make sense. I could have tried to Einherjar lynched, but why would I try for no lynch at all? It's not a reason to lynch him today. i don't think Sigrid is making the scum tremble in their boots.

Yup, if he's town, I'm scum, if he's scum, I'm scum. From your point of view, we really can't learn anything from his lynch, can we

I think it's been pointed out that the Servants would have also gained from the uncertainty created by a no lynch yesterday. It's hardly a necessity for the Servants to lynch on day 1, if it allows them to blend in with the crowd more, especially when there possibly are two Einherjar on the chopping block and the confusion carries over to day 2. Ensuring the latter is exactly what you seem to be doing.

I don't think we'll learn a lot about others from Sigrid's affiliation, that's true. You see the trouble you have in coming up in concluding anything about Mursi from Sigrid's affiliation.

Well then clearly Wilhalm is scum, since I know for a fact that I'm town. Granted, that's assuming there's a scum in that triumvirate--and I'm not even sure how I was included in that. Either way, I'm town.

Why didn't you say so earlier?

I said this because it was also in reference to the fact that I thought we should look at the old Ragnarok game--and that it would seem only logical that considering the town won the first Ragnarok, then it's likely the new scum are "new" vikings rather than old ones. Obviously this is only speculation, and there's not a way to prove it--and looking on it now, to myself it seems to hindge too much on a "story" then likelyhood of the actual game. And clearly I didn't say it well--though the lack of interest in looking at the old game ended my thoughts about it too (Though metagaming seems big in this one anyways).

That's not speculation, that's BS. You should know better than that. You trying to explain it away is only making it look more suspicious.

Do I need to paint myself a target behind my back for others to kill me at night... Perhaps, I am being too vague, but my attempt is to be subtle...

Why would you want to signal you're the Psych at all?

When I selected my target, there is no specific reason why I choose so, but I am acting on my gut feeling that my choice will be a possible target even though the odds are very low. So I decided and went for Gofraid on Night 1 to clear him first.

You wanted to "clear" Gofraid? Did you suspect him of being the SK or did you want to clear him? Because, with your claimed role, going for people you like to clear is a very bad strategy, as they might still be Servants.

[Hinckley]

I said this because it was also in reference to the fact that I thought we should look at the old Ragnarok game--and that it would seem only logical that considering the town won the first Ragnarok, then it's likely the new scum are "new" vikings rather than old ones.

I missed this until Rurik pointed it out. I can't imagine who would think this would be how to hunt Scum. And you never followed through on looking at the first game. Ping.

[def]

I think it's been pointed out that the Servants would have also gained from the uncertainty created by a no lynch yesterday. It's hardly a necessity for the Servants to lynch on day 1, if it allows them to blend in with the crowd more, especially when there possibly are two Einherjar on the chopping block and the confusion carries over to day 2. Ensuring the latter is exactly what you seem to be doing.

If I wanted no lynch, wouldn't it be way better to just leave things as they were, with people splitting the votes all over the place? I know you don't trust me, but saying I wanted a no-lynch makes no sense to me whatsoever. I don't think there would have been a lynch at all without me, or at least without someone stepping in and doing what I did. My big concern was going into day two with no information at all, as, as you say, a no lynch helps the Servants.

[MagPiesRUs]

Vote Count

Wilhalm Bloodaxe (WhiteFang): 2 votes (LegoDad, CallMePie)

Sigrid (Sisco): 2 votes (def, Scubacarrot)

9 votes are required for a conviction. 24 hours remain in the day.

[Waterbrick Down]

Well then clearly Wilhalm is scum, since I know for a fact that I'm town. Granted, that's assuming there's a scum in that triumvirate--and I'm not even sure how I was included in that. Either way, I'm town.

---

To be frank, I'm not happy with either of the "leading" lynches today. Like everyone, I cannot get a read on Sigrid, since she obviously says nothing; this makes her both a crappy town player and a crappy scum player. However I am iffy about voting for her because of a few things; first her being lazy does not mean she's scum off the bat (But really she's not doing anything, so...), but secondly I'm more so iffy about the two other vikings who are voting for her currently, since I trust Dufa and Snorta the least, while I feel like those voting for Wilhalm are more townish in my opinion. If Sigrid is scum, and a lazy scum player at that, it could be possible Rurik's theory could be true.

I'm also unsure of Wilhalm too, since he does not say much either (Though honestly neither do I or many people), yet what he says is apparently fluff/nothing. Even from that, I have to say I'm not reading him as scummy, at least not as scummy as some others (Whom I may just end up voting for besides these two top candidates thus far). I'm not ready to vote at this time. I would like to hear at least something from Sigrid though!

So this post pinged me earlier today, but I've just now had the time to look back on some of Naemr's previous statements. All he did here was summarize all the reasons the Sigrid and Wilhalm were scummy, but how in the end he's not going to vote for either of them. Essentially a "I'm not voting but I don't want to be accused of not saying anything" post. Now that both suspects are pretty much off the table it's not really of any consequence, but it did inspire me to analyze some of his earlier behavior.

While I was alive at the time of the first Ragnarok, I'm dead now (Lightning took me down, though I thought that conformation dinner yesterday came in a close second!), and ready to help rid this wonderous place of Loki servants!

While some of you know each other, don't consider all of us newly dead people evil; I may not know ye, but I'm going to do my best to help defend us Einherjar from the real evils.

The obligatory initial roleplaying, though when called out by Helga about subtly defending himself he never did answer, seems like he might have been trying to skirt the question.

Well our conversation seems to be getting way off topic; although I will say that ox urine clearly isn't perfect, since you know...we're all here. I'm not saying...I'm just saying...

But the point is, talking about what could of stopped us from getting to this paradise is not so important--we need to talk about the people who want to get us out of paradise! (Close second topic of importance is beard-lenght). Now I wasn't here for the last Ragnarok; but I know some of you vikings were--so, do those vikings know anything that could help us here? How did the Servants of Loki act during the first Ragnarok? It's very possible there will be similarities, in some regard to the first Ragnarok.

One of the first serious comments made yesterday and unless I'm mistaken, sparked the whole initial suspicion of Wilhalm for terming it sensible. Seems like a sincere question, though as Dufa, Snorta, Rurik, and myself made clear ultimately a fruitless one since nothing should be assumed about this entire situation. It is strange though that he asked about previous experience instead of looking up the records himself. An honest Einherjar would put in the time and effort I would think, a servant of Loki would inquire to sound productive and helpful without the need of actually looking up stuff. Helga brought this fact up and Naemr countered with:

While drawing negative suspicion to myself was not my intent; the main point being I was attempting to help the town; suspicion seems to have happened instead--though I can assure you I'm not scum. Part of my reason for asking about people's experience in the first Ragnarok was for the fact that they had experienced it--conversations from PM for example are not things that can be found from past day threads, but could account for important actions taken. Basically, I'd feel the information would be more useful from a first hand account then from a Day thread. So far it seems though people don't want to talk about it, or rather talk at all today.

---

I did look at the link, as well as some of the other Day threads. Not much to go off of, though I did note that Loki did mention at the conclusion that he had "two-factions" of traitors, which I took to mean scum and neutral; though he then says he forgot to get two factions--and looking back, there were no neutrals during the first Ragnarok, despite the rules indicating there could/would be; perhaps that means Loki will not forget this time?

You can take that information if you like (Anyone), but it's just a thought I had; really my thoughts today have been about conversation that's more useful than roleplaying about ox urine uses. Apparently that makes me suspicious to some, but I'm just putting my thoughts out there.

But if we look at his initial clarification he made before that about the information he was seeking:

Sure. I understand why in part some information about the first Ragarok Lokies would be not useful, on account of--as you say--it's dependant on individual actions, but there is more to go off of than that. For instance, what roles kind of roles did they have? (What can we expect them to have this time?) In what method did they kill? (Odin's rules speak of neutrals, and I know from my past life that it can be useful to determain the difference between a neutral kill and a scum Loki kill)--I always feel that the way someone is killed can show who (Which type of role) killed them.

There will no doubt be differences between this Ragnarok and the last one, but there will also be similarities, some kinds of links between the two; case and point the return of old warriors. I feel that if we explore the past, we may be able to expect some things to happen the same as the last time. And if anything, we'll update some of the new people and move the conversation off of ox piss.

If his retort to Helga was true, why hadn't he clarified that in his original request? Even so, let's assume he actually meant that he wanted "private" information, if you look at his first statement it's filled with back-pedaling attitude and attempts to assuage any suspicion "I can assure you I'm not scum" and "drawing suspicion to myself was not my intent" duh?

Well time goes on and no one really pushes him any further, the Mist accusation waxes and wanes and then look who brings up Petr Half-troll:

Well I'm not too sure about my vote today; nor should anyone really be, it is day one after all. However I am weird-ed out by Petr. Reading through the converstations, his "Why are you not looking at me--I'm not suspicious--I've got nothing to add" statement was just...weird. Strange really, and it stood out. There are, unfortunatley, a chunk of the vikings here not saying much or anything, but I don't know why he would point to himself to say he's here--so don't forget about me--but has nothing to add. Yeah it's day one, there's not really much to add in on, however outing himself seemed really well out there.

I don't have much suspiciouns yet, but Petr stood out to me, and not in a good way. So for now I'll vote for him.

Vote: Petr Half-Troll (Piratedave84)

Granted a few people though Petr's initial "am I invisible" thing was weird but none considered it strong enough to vote for him and the issue was somewhat dropped by the time Naemr's vote was placed. Seems to me like a "safe vote" and his actual placing of the vote reads very similar to the first statement I quoted at the beginning of this argument, lot's of uncertainty and hesitancy something that all Einherjar will feel on day 1 (barring any miraculous revealings) but not as often say and Naemr goes out of his way to summarize his own paragraph of uncertainty.

The day moves on Helga and Mursi vote for Petr after arguing with him about his failed strategy and the Sigrid bandwagon begins to build up steam and then we all know what happened after that with all the vote switching, vote tying, etc. Strangely Naemr was absent for the rest of the day, the guy who started the vote against the lynched victim didn't say a thing to persuade people about his vote.

On to today we have five dead Einherjar, a bunch of voting analysis, and two suspects who are off the hook for the time being. We start off with the obligatory mourning for the dead and speculating about the kills:

Well that sucks. I did not expect to wake up to find three more dead bodies, with all of them being town. Most bloody day one I've ever seen.

I'm still a bit iffy on the whole Petr/Tumi thing, though from what people have said and from looking into it myself, it does seem like a vendetta ability. Though clearly the other three were killed by scum and a SK or vig--some kind of combination since three kills is a lot. At this rate, we need to start finding scum fast.

Again more uncertainty and pointing out of the obvious, i.e. saying stuff for the sake of saying stuff.

Jarmi and Dufa point this behavior out and Jarni tries to get him to name some names:

Well I was suspicious of Kolgrima, since she did not seem like her normal self, very jumpy; and therefore seemed off--though with her death she's obviously town. On Sigrid; I don't find her too scummy, rather more like a super lazy townie; granted, that's not much better.

I will say though that I am now suspicious of Sorta Carrotface for a few reasons; first, this morning her first words were "kill Mursi, kill Mursi"--and that's it. She had no reaction to the deaths of three Einherjars--whatsoever. Rather than see or even comment at all on what happened, she immediatly starts trying to form a lynch mob against Cheif Mursi. And secondly, her reasons for wanting Mursi dead seem ot be based only on a vendetta; and nothing else. She's very intent on getting Mursi lynched, but her basis for her claims are non-existant.

Rather convenient to be suspicious of someone who's dead, isn't it? His suspicion of Snorta comes from either not considering the implications of the previous day's voting pattern or feigning suspicion with paper-thin reasons. Snorta objects and Naemr counters:

I made my own opinion yesterday to vote Petr; turns out he was town unfortunately. And I made my own opinion today that you're just being an donkey (Or equivalent word). More often then not, I've found that the person throwing the insults is also a person whose scum. Town can play a polite game, it's the scum who have to play a smear game.

If you assume I'm slow--then show me the connections yourself. You seem to just attack people with no reason (Well except this time, since I'm calling you on it)--I'm not seeing you offering any reason for your desire to lynch Mursi other then the fact of a vendetta.

Snort retorts and points out that no one brought up Naemr's voting for Petr:

If you don't want to participate and need everything spelled out for you, fine. Just don't go saying I do things for a vendetta when that is clearly not the case. Mursi is suspicious as heck to me. And also to... Dufa... Yes... The reasons for this have been exhaustively laid out. Here, and also in the night thread. I refuse to indulge in the dumb desire of a sheepy sheep to find everything for them.

And as for being polite. I don't do polite.

Something slightly odd. I noticed with your last post, Naemr.

I made my own opinion yesterday to vote Petr; turns out he was town unfortunately. And I made my own opinion today that you're just being an donkey (Or equivalent word). More often then not, I've found that the person throwing the insults is also a person whose scum. Town can play a polite game, it's the scum who have to play a smear game.

So besides the fact that no one asked and you're being defensive about your choice of vote out of nowhere, how did that decision came to be?

And you thinking I'm suspicious/scum (not sure if I warranted the upgrade yet) is pretty funny.

Again Naemr slips by without answering the question and the day continues with us moving onto debating Wilhalm vs. Sigrid.

We get nothing until the post I originally brought up that pinged me. Naemr makes one more post explaining his actions the other day to Patrekr:

Those are both true statments about what I said day one. The part of my first post that people took as (And I suppose reading it now, I can see why) defensive was something to the affect of: "while some of you know each other, don't consider all of us newly dead evil...I'll do my best to defend us Einherjar...".

I said this because it was also in reference to the fact that I thought we should look at the old Ragnarok game--and that it would seem only logical that considering the town won the first Ragnarok, then it's likely the new scum are "new" vikings rather than old ones. Obviously this is only speculation, and there's not a way to prove it--and looking on it now, to myself it seems to hindge too much on a "story" then likelyhood of the actual game. And clearly I didn't say it well--though the lack of interest in looking at the old game ended my thoughts about it too (Though metagaming seems big in this one anyways).

I for one do not buy into Naemr assuming other players would suspect all the "new" vikings of being scum. My suspicion is it's merely a cover-up explanation for trying to appear helpful and being called out on it.

For ignoring pertinent questions on multiple occasions, being wishy-washy and non-committal on a lot of his statements, and for trying to "appear" helpful on Day 1 and seemingly retroactively contradicting himself, I'm going to vote: Naemr Sledgehammer (Captain Nemo).

[WhiteFang]

Why would you want to signal you're the Psych at all?

It's because if I don't start defending myself by providing and sharing concrete facts in public, I will likely to end up getting convicted by an angry mob. It leave me with little luxurious choice.

You wanted to "clear" Gofraid? Did you suspect him of being the SK or did you want to clear him? Because, with your claimed role, going for people you like to clear is a very bad strategy, as they might still be Servants.

I only cleared him of not being a SK. I agreed that there is a risk that he is one of the Servants. Being so far in Night 1, I can only choose based on my initial gut feeling since I can't decide 100% at that point in time. I didn't want to reveal it out but since I may be targeted at night, it will be helpful that this information does not go down with me.

[def]

I for one do not buy into Naemr assuming other players would suspect all the "new" vikings of being scum. My suspicion is it's merely a cover-up explanation for trying to appear helpful and being called out on it.

Please don't take this as a defines of Naemr, but...

With my suspicion of Sigrid, there is this talk of what a scum team would and wouldn't allow. Now, in Sigrid's case, I don't think he did anything that a scum team wouldn't allow/could stop. But this? Proposing that scum could be found based on surviving players from the last time around? I imagine him writing it on the scum board, and everyone saying NO! DON'T! The only plausible thing I could see is him saying, "it'll be so out there, I can't possibly be scum." But I think that's too complicated.

A lot of players in early games miss this fundamental point, that roles are to be selected by random. Except when the host doesn't know how to host right, but I don't think this is that kind of game. So, I'd chalk this one up to Naemr needing to expand his fundamentals.

[CorneliusMurdock]

Please don't take this as a defines of Naemr, but...

With my suspicion of Sigrid, there is this talk of what a scum team would and wouldn't allow. Now, in Sigrid's case, I don't think he did anything that a scum team wouldn't allow/could stop. But this? Proposing that scum could be found based on surviving players from the last time around? I imagine him writing it on the scum board, and everyone saying NO! DON'T! The only plausible thing I could see is him saying, "it'll be so out there, I can't possibly be scum." But I think that's too complicated.

Following your logic, how would the scum team have any more power to stop Naemr from being stupid than they would of Sigrid being quiet?

[Hinckley]

I imagine him writing it on the scum board, and everyone saying NO! DON'T!

That would assume that the Scum team is practicing every one of their statements before posting. So let's just ignore every time someone slips up because if they were Scum they'd probably receive better coaching. Dufa, you said it's not a defense, but it sounds like one, and a weak one at that.

[def]

Following your logic, how would the scum team have any more power to stop Naemr from being stupid than they would of Sigrid being quiet?

Because quiet people do nothing, while it's easier to stop people from doing something. They don't have 100% control, but they have some influence.