I guess I missed it as well. I'm in the group wondering what the flubb comment meant.

That's the claim? /facedesk

Oh, come on, man... This again?! I'm starting to feel the need to vote myself...



@JMich, check this out.

1) yogsloth was a bit faster.
2) Is that a double voter claim? Oh, no, it's a miller claim. Wait, couldn't it be a godfather claim? How about a PGO? Or a nexus? Or any of [url=http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Category:Passive_roles]these[/url] roles?

Lack of night action does not always mean lack of night role. And this comes from an old town guard of arsonist.

Well, like we've been talking about, it's an easy-to-make rookie mistake to try and be helpful and not role-claim, but end up doing it anyway if you're vanilla. No big deal. He's probably bought himself a ticket to the mid-game at least, and that's not so bad. :)

On my comment to flub - I'm really not trying to be a pedantic butthole here. I was hoping flub would like to try and clarify himself before I just spilled it on my own - see if I'm off base on this one. I know it looks to some degree like I'm not making any sense, but I promise there really is a reason, and I put my money on the bar that certain players in the game would "get" it. To a very large degree I'm flying blind, but I think it's essentially going the way I had hoped.

The key is going to be what it usually is: In later days, Town has to sift through all the various reactions and compare them with confirmed (i.e., dead) Townies and sort out who was fibbing or expressing false concerns. Maybe I'll be around to help at that point and maybe not.

The last sentence makes it closer to vanilla than any of the stuff you have listed. Also, some of them are reaction roles, they may not have their own night actions, but do something anyway.

I thought I was the blind one?

I'm forced to agree with JMich on this... all mchack actually said was that he couldn't do anything at night. That doesn't necessarily mean he is Vanilla...
Although, in this case, I'm fairly sure it is a rookie mistake and that is exactly what he is saying, but it doesn't really have to mean that.

Feel free, and much good it would do any of us.
Until I have a target who is more worthwhile to lynch I'll vote on anyone.
I suppose I might add mchack to my list of those I wouldn't vote though, as his slip seems very genuine and town.

As for Krypsyn's argument, if a wagon grows on a player whom I'm voting that I don't agree with I'll move my vote, simple as that.

Really? What happened to this? Not good enough to place your vote? Or are you still in RVS?



Not only did you miss his claim, but apparently also the comments on, about and around it.

What can I say, I was a bit distracted :(

I wonder why...



Yes.

Then what's the point of having a vote at all? If you vote for a person you need to vote for - good. But what is the point of random voting if you are going to back off if a wagon starts to form?

My theory is that it's a Quixotic quest to prove some sort of political point about Day 1 lynching. He got hosed on it last game so he's determined to keep bashing away at that same path until we all throw our hands in the air and mea culpa and announce we all realize he was right all along.

We've hit the point in Day 1 of this game where I'm getting ready to see how many jellybeans I can stick up my nose, just to keep myself entertained.

Three for me. Then I sneezed. It was messy. Not trying it again. Good luck! :)