Somehow, I don't think Muttly lied about being roleblocked (due to the flavor we got in the morning), but I definitely think that something is extremely odd about this. Joe's choice of words and the fact that he didn't vote at all seem quite odd to me, actually more then a little fishy, I would not consider him to be on any almost confirmed townie list at all.

He caught Pazzer lying with no explination, refused to vote and seemed like he didn't intend to vote. Considernig there was already a wagon, this could be scum bussing other scum. I don't know, a seeming unwillingness to not make a simply vote that should be the only move available (as Lynch all Liars is a fairly elementary thing) is disturbing.

I put him in under confirmed while percieving above mentioned as truth and in that case he would be confirmed town.

Do you think the lynch of pazzer would go through without Joe's revelation? I think it is likely it wouldn't so there would be no reason to bus him so hard.

He also didn't vote on a lynch that wouldn't have gone through if there wasn't an extension. So the lynch almost didn't go through even with his revelation because he didn't vote.

There's only one move to make when you catch someone in a lie, you VOTE for them. The fact that he didn't is ringing alarm bells in my head. He called Pazzer a liar with no explanation, and didn't vote.

@TB - Actually he did provide an explanation but it was obfuscated.

Pazzer claimed to target Rob and get no results so Joe said he targeted Rob as well, meaning Pazzer should have said that he saw Joe visiting. I have a couple of theories as well but it will have to come later.

OI Where did I refuse to vote?
It clearly WASN'T the only move available because he was lynched for lying.
It was ROB who said he lied with no explaination. He voted (which I think was the wrong thing to do - Rod had said the day would end before the deadline if someone achieved majority vote and we hadn't heard from muttly yet and we expected him to die. Also he voted without answering my questions which threw me into a dreadful rage. Still I believe I understand his pragmatics now and I think that he is town.)

The deadline was extended 80 minutes before it was due to come. It says it right there. I was clearly around then as mine was the next post, so you can't say that it wouldn't have gone through without the extension.

If you'ld like a full claim I don't think it would be too harmful to town. We're in a strong position as it is, but still we might prefer to keep some information away from the mafia.

Vitek's right about this being a powerful game. I think it's safe to assume a mafia roleblocker and I think we should fully expect a powerful investigative role for the missing mafia. So it's possible they know a lot already.

Thanks Joe. That's pretty much exactly the sort of explanation I was hoping for. I personally don't really need to see a full claim from you, I was just puzzled. But thanks for clearing that up.

Concentrating on Vitek's summary now, and I think I'll try to make a case for each. I pretty much agree with the facts as presented (except obviously, I count myself in the town pool due to being town).

Between the four remaining presented, I have to say that Twilightbard's behaviour still really bugs me, with every reason I gave on D3 plus particularly his pressuring of Joe. Plus I have a slightly crazy theory too. Obviously TB should still get another chance to respond. Tread lightly, pal.

Stuart has been very background and quiet, and has done next to no scum hunting since Day 3 began (and he wasn't exactly throwing himself out there on day 2). The towniness I pinned him with on day 1 has long since worn out its welcome and I'm starting to think I confused learning the game with acting town. So yeah, I'd like to see a little more proactive behaviour, and I'm going to be keeping a close eye out.

Itai has been making weird posts, disappearing at critical moments and being generally lurky. While there are moments when he seems to actually have an excuse for not posting (end of D3), there are others where it's obvious he's around but just isn't taking part (quick one line posts unrelated to discussion (bit on Crazybear's lynch for example)). While not necessarily scum, he's got a somewhat town unfriendly style (seems to know a lot, never really shares). The desire to preserve Muttly is kind of a plus for him though.

Robb seems fairly straightforward. I personally don't notice a lot of scummy behaviour EXCEPT for his hammering habits. The hammer on day 3 was not well handled, and cutting things off without a chance to hear from others is not a good play. In addition, Post 873 struck me as kind of odd. He seemed quite reluctant to swap, saying that switching to Pazzer didn't make sense as there were more votes on Twilightbard. It was a line of thought that didn't really add up, and he acted like the thought of getting one more person to vote for Pazzer would be impossible compared to two more votes on Twilight. Attempt to protect his scum pal? It can skew that way. I don't think it's the most solid case but it keeps me from being willing to just peg him as town.

Right now, here's my list from most scummy to least
Twilightbard (contingent on his next post)
Itai/Stuart (very similar behaviour)
Robb (only minor issues, but still issues)

Alright, I have more crazy theories to follow up on so I'll keep my vote handy for now.

Joe, here's the problem I have on the lynch. I've repeated it a few times. You're the one who pointed out that Pazzer was scum. You're the one who didn't vote. It doesn't matter that you were there for the extension or not. It's a GIVEN, there's only one path to take on a call that someone is lying. Lynch All Liars.

Does this fact bother me? YES. Why? Because not voting, especially when you're willing to put forth the information is not town play. It should have been a given that you would vote for someone who is lying.

By not voting when you are around you are in effect refusing to vote. Maybe not verbally but that's where your actions lay. It's one thing to not jump on a wagon because you're concerned about the case or other reasons, but when you say someone is a liar and then don't vote, to me it speaks louder then words.

While I admit that I was mistaken by saying there was no explanation, just little, the fact still stands that your lack of being on the lynch wagon stands out to me, and not in a good way.

well it seems more like I've made a mistake of etiquette rather than tactics. To me it's pretty clear that I contributed to pazzer's lynch whether or not I voted. I can see reasons I should have voted for him and I can see reasons that the final vote could have been delayed.

So my revised town list is Vitek (John Smith unknown) Muttly(Cop) Rob(unknown) Twilightbard (John Smith Vanilla) Joe(unknown power).

my mafia pool is Stuart(Unknown) Penut(Unknown) Mt Sharim (unknown).

Here's my reasoning for believing twilight's claim - it's clear to me that this is a high-powered game. We've had one mafia with no active power, thus I'm expecting the two remaining mafia to be: Mafia A Roleblocker. Mafia B Some-Sort-Of-Potent-Investigator-Perhaps-Rolecop.
So if twilightbard was one of these then I think he would be less than likely to claim vanilla considering the possibility of a tracker or a watcher.
Bit of conjecture and it's not infallible but there we go.

Of the three scum I think first most likely is stuart and second sharim and third penut. So I'm going to go ahead and vote that way. Vote Stuart9001.

(And I know it's going to paint me with a few scummarks for even thinking about it but what's the general opinion on a mass claim? We seem to be in a good strong position here and I hear all the cool kids are doing it over in game 9 and I'm rather jealous.)

I actually think that would be a very good idea - we already have a few Town roles out in the open, so its not like we have a great deal more to reveal, plus a better chance of catching out scum with a mistake - especially as they have lost their encryptor so cannot talk together in the day.

I'm in favour of a mass-claim

Are you sure? My understanding is it allows whole mafia team to talk during day.

I don't think mass claim will help us with anything.

No - not sure at all! Not even sure there is 3 Mafia, as per standard, for a start!

Wiki says this about Encryptor - 'Note that including an Encryptor in a Mafia faction that has two members is equivalent to simply giving the faction daytalk outright' - I assumed from that that in a 3 person Mafia only 2 would be able to talk...

and can I ask why you think it won't help? Our most important power role is already out in the open...

Only mafia knows, then.
It would be strange if 2 of 3 mafia members could talk to each other and the 3rd one couldn't.

There is still some power role that is not outed. You want it in the open? Why?

Because I think with all info out in the open it would be easy to pinpoint the Mafia.

The thought has been crossing my mind that there isn't actually any vanilla roles in this game because right now nearly everyone is claiming a power role. That was even one of the reasons I suspected TB simply because I thought there were no vanilla in this game. Unfortunately I've since realized that the theory is kind of upset by Crazybear's lynch day one. Too bad.

Anyway, I'm not really in favour of a mass claim only because I have a very minor power role, and I'd rather the mafia not know. Mind you, it's nowhere near as good a target as a cop or a watcher, so I wouldn't be adamantly against it either. I should emphasize that it's very minor.

Be nice if Stuart or Itai popped in to say hello, I'm going to vote for one or the other and I'd rather my decision be informed.