I'm showing it's fraught with problems. Thanks Rob seems silly when you spell it out like that. Really have to try and avoid getting so sucked in to mafia games.

About this name business there are six names out there. Four of which we know for a fact are town. But I'm not really seeing any connection that marks them as such.

Think i'm right in saying that a no lynch would mean it's lylo tomorrow.

Am wrong it would be mylo.

I stated that I lost my job as a car salesman....

@Penut: I've repeatedly said that I voted for Itai as a Pressure vote. The goal was to shake him up and get him to say something, like finally explaining his statements that were made without any reasoning behind them. I stated that I was concerned about Itai back when Muttly was still my prime suspect (which means *GASP* he didn't claim), and my current thoughts about him have NOTHING to do with him being scum, just something about him seems off. I don't know what it is. You are putting words into my mouth in that regard.

vote Penut I have to go with what I feel, there's just something very wrong with this.

@Vitek: No I haven't got a vendetta against you, I barely mentioned you at all on day 2 and the number thing was meant to be humorous at the start of the game. It's just that I have found some of your recent posts a little odd. Notably the two occasions you asked others to state how their role pm's were without mentioning your own, and now asking for reads without supplying your own (although you did recently I suppose). You seem to be behaving scummy to me since you got a "free pass" from Muttly. There was the TwilightBard "vote staying there" and then unvoting and then there is your change of opinion on whether red lists are useful or not.

A read list can only ever be your ideas on the other players and I am just trying to say what I am thinking about the other players.

No problem.
I would request, in order to ensure that it is an intentional vote (Rather than talking about voting, or quoting, or sending a secret message, or whatever) that you write:
"Bold vote xxxxx"

Sure, thanks. :-)

Considering Vitek and Twilights claims - this puts me in mind of a classic lyncher / lynchee setup - Vitek has stolen Twilights job, making Twilight bitter and wanting to get rid of Vitek. What doesnt ring true is the names - both called John Smith??

Vote on Twilight stays - Vitek i have pinned as town, so at worst Twilight is a mafia lyncher, at best someone who wins by lynching town.

First there was this

Then this

That is what I meant.

I don't think I stole his job. He said he was car salesman and I am salesman for Everyoung drug company.

@Stuart; Oh, I already explained that. And I did that before I was cleared by muttly.

There's a problem with this though. Is that he's using these suspicions without explaining them. If I get lynched I know I'm going to flip town, so where does that lead a vote based on unexplained suspicions? This is something that I've seen quite a few times today, people basing votes on suspicion without explaining it. That is extremely poor town play because when tomorrow's LyLo if we lynch a townie, we need those explained suspicions to make an informed view.

I've already said what my job was, and I didn't work at the drug company, I was a car salesman, and I mentioned it, quote below.

And my win condition...I win when every threat to the town is removed, doesn't matter if I'm alive or dead, I just can't be replaced or modkilled. So no, I'm not a lyncher, if I was I'd be more forthcoming about it. There's no point in making all of this stuff up.

I've explained many reasons I'm voting for you already that don't involve Orryyrro's day 1 play. I have more than enough cause to vote for you. You keep demanding I provide more reasons and saying that because I have not I'm voting for no reason. Why? I don't have any. The reasons I have already provided are sufficient.

"Orryrro was shifty on day 1" is not a very good reason to vote for you, but that's not the reason I'm voting for you. It's just a minor extra detail.

@Pazzar I voted for Muttly because I read him as scum, but I wanted to see his claim too. Basically I was just saying that anyone who hammers him before he claims is basically automatically outing themselves as scum. It was an effort to prevent sneaky hammering. In hindsight I could have unvoted for the same effect, but I didn't want to seem like I was only voting for a claim. I genuinely suspected him.

And no, I don't think going back on a self imposed rule is lying or scummy, especially when new information comes to light. Keeping your vote on what likely seems to be a town player thus making your vote functionally useless and making a nolynch more likely? That's a little more alarming in my mind.

@Vitek I noticed you said I didn't do much scumhunting. Just curious as to what exactly is scumhunting? I'm honestly not sure exactly what is is you define it as—I thought it was actively pursuing suspects you believe to be scum, but now I'm thinking you more mean attempting to find possible new scum through questioning others. Just feel like I should ask for clarification.

Oh, almost forgot. Vitek's claim on the name John Smith. I'm going to do some theorizing and get back to this momentarily.

I have not cleared you. I simply relayed what my investigation turned up.

Sure, that's the same to me. ;-)

@Peanut; Mostly it's the fact you never come with something yourself. Only when some case appeared you started to get involved. You "let others find scum" and then you chimmed in with some your own thoughts.

I re-read pazzers posts and I think he is scum. When you compare his read lists (and other posts) with other games they will look similar but difference is that he: 1. states facts without making conclusion while in previous games he said what does the fact mean in his opinion.
Example:
Post 306 - "Orryyrro – Wants to lynch Zchinque based on his playstyle."
Game 9 - "Don't like the way Bazilisek randomly selected or and then went searching for evidence to back it up. But if Orryyrro does turn out to be the cop then he's in the clear."

See the difference? In this game his reads are usually list of actions people did so it shows he pays attention but does use those actions propely to identify town as he knows who is town already.

2. He accuses people. When he post about someone it's usually "mud-slinging." If you read his posts you will have hard time to find him saing anything nice about someone. Like he almost never said someone is leaning town. I see it as different than his previous games.

Please, read it for yourself. I can't quote or link it now or make longer post with better explanation because GF is sleeping and typing wakes her up and also it's almost 3 a.m. and I have to get up early. Sorry, had to do this earlier.

I fell quite confident about it so I'll even go ahead and vote pazzer.

Hello friends!
Thanks for giving me so much to read. You've been very busy! I'm going to have to quote from all over the place now which is annoying because I'm on a laptop with no mouse.
I'll try going reverse chronological order with addressing that which struck me.

Vitek's claim to John Smith raises the question - why was twilightbard given this information?
I would understand vanilla town being told the name of another mafia maybe, in a game where the danger was overpowered perhaps - and we have had a neutral survivor. So if Vitek isn't a godfather and twilightbard isn't lying then what's the point of twilightbard being told another player's name?
((hm I've just thought- maybe the two-name thing is there to muck up some name based power like what we are suspecting the bureaucrat to be, so twilightbard was told in case it got TOO mucked up I don't know))
Anyway it sort of seems like they can't BOTH be telling the truth but it's hard to say. I don't really suspect twilightbard but I have a more consuming suspicion at this moment.
((also Vitek - "something's buggering me" - it might be a nice blend of "bugging me" and "bothering me" but it actually means something quite different. some people offend easily so I won't tell you the meaning. (it means bumsex) ))

Pazzer, although ridiculously supportive of the "town don't lie" mindset, he's willing to consider twilightbard being a town lyncher despite having claimed town vanilla. seems odd sort of self contradiction but I don't know what to make of it.

I did unvote but with the intention of voting when I returned. I knew I was going to get back before the deadline. I just didn't want people to panic and get me on a lynchwagon that I might not have supported with the possibility of new information. Well that's not happened so vote Robbeasy

and your mass claim inquiry? what's that about? still talking to pazzer here.

Twilightbard says I don't post often and I think that that isn't right! take it back!

well anyway. Here's the big thing. Here's my consuming suspicion:

you say that when you said I am now 100% convinced Muttly is telling the truth. you meant "now that I've read over muttly's posts." I can't deny that this is possible, but it's odd. It's ambiguous at to what 'now' refers to, and I would have thought deliberately ambiguous.

But now you're going to have to explain what you meant when you wrote:

and

Explain fast. I've already asked twice about "ffs".

I don't really understand why it's only me who's pursuing Rob about this. Does it not make sense to anyone else?