Oh boy... no wonder people lurk in this thread.

Well theres the obvious we already pointed out right. Better odds and such. But it also forces a descision on them. If nothing else it would impact the current prevailing theories to some degree or spark new ones. It gives you more info on formulating a motive. Not great of course, but better than zero, and again, better odds at least.

Pardon..? Since when?

That's the second time you've expressed the expectation of being lynched... You're not a court jester in disguise as an apothacary by any chance, are you?

Re 'slow' - that's a fair point, my observation was skewed for obvious reasons. I guess I confused 'slow' with 'active'.

Sorry, Skyward Sword happened...

Woah, what? Was that a scumslip perhaps? If you were mafia then he would be confirmed town as far as you are concerned. Besides, if he was confirmed to us why would he be in danger of being lynched?

People have asked why I haven't voted. It's simply because the mafia are very close to controlling the lynch and Muttly already has 2 votes.
Having said that, Pazzer just shot up in my scumlist and he doesn't have any votes. So... vote Pazzer.

Right. I'm putting my money where my mouth is.

In all of the above, Muttly, I see fuzzy logic, panic, and the refusal to acknowledge relatively coherant arguments. In your previous days' play, I see obsessive voting which switches to bandwagoning, u-turning, and outright contradictions. This is based on my own re-reading and others' cases (i.e. Rod and Vitek.)

Xyem, when you set it out like that, the switch to no-lynch does look suspicious...
Oh look. I just found this in #505
Now, admittedly it's 300 posts ago, which is ample time for someone to change their mind. That's fair enough; I'm not calling this a contradiction.

On the contrary, it's the reason for the change which I find interesting. As xyem implies, it's suspicious because the timing just cannot be ignored - there have just been three or four entire pages of continuous pressure on him.

Okay. Let's test this theory with the vote of an as-far-as-possible-confirmed Townie. If this goes wrong (again), I am so terribly sorry to everyone except the bloody mafia. RIP Old Woman.

*Deep breath*
Vote Muttly

Why is it wrong? I'm afraid I don't understand. :(
I didn't expect to survive to D4, no, may be I'm pessimistic, but I honestly didn't!

I disagree.
Nolynch today & then Nolynch tomorrow & scum win!

*post*
Bare with me whilst I do a major re-read (on page 25 now)!

You must have a low number of posts per page! I have it on whatever the maximum is and the this is only page 17, what page is it for you?

I believe I accounted for only 11 people to investigate thing. But yes, sorry I got you and Mutly confused- my excuses are you both had purply avatars; and I was r.e.a.l.l.y. tired when I wrote that.

I believe Mutly's flavour, i.e. why would he shout about being a baker if he just wasn't? I'm not certain about him being vanilla though.
I didn't use it N3 because, as I mentioned before, though I essentially thought of it as one shot, I opted to use it 'early' on the chance of me living to use it again.


Okay, So I've tried to use a bit of maths and stats. (my poor brain!)
I drew up a chart and then went back again through most (not all, I am after all, human and I get bored) of the posts from major players, and scored them for scumminess.
Omissions:
Me (I know who I am dammit)
NFY (I'm pretty certain she's town, and couldn't be bothered to do it for ALL of you)

Vitek:
Score: 2
Basis: voting with no back up (?)- #652
3rd wagon member- #286

SPF:
Score: 1
Basis: 'omggg they killed the doccc' (gloat? sorry for offensive paraphrase)- #463

Pazzer:
Score: 2
Basis: Voting with no back up- #467, #556

Mutley:
Score: 3
Basis: Voting with no back up- #281
3rd wagon member -#281
avoiding questions?- #481

Rod:
Score: 3
Basis: Voting with no back up- #520
4th wagon member- #288, #418
Misquoting- #731

Xyem:
Score: 2/3
Basis: low 'real' content posts- i.e. metagame related. #s I think we know which ones, and there were many!


A couple of other things stood out for me from the reread:
@NFY- You said that your role had an unusual addition, care to elaborate now that we 'know' you are mason?

@SPF- you mentioned that since there are 3 mafia,two of them must have claimed.
I don't think mafia would make up a role like fortune teller or apothecary, but that's just me. that leaves 'sheep' (wtf?), mason (still think she's town) and two vanillas including yourself, or me.

I understand mafia are most likely to claim cop or vanilla, which puts me under suspicion I know, and there's not much I can really do about that. Have you - or anyone else- any opinions about lying mafia roles?

@rod- Do you still think that at least two of the mafia are newbies? Would you mind re-iterating the logic behind this, because I realised I didn't follow it the first time.

@Vitek- you seem to have escaped being role prodded! I hereby prod you to elucidate your role claim from nightwatch man who is not a watcher. ;)

@SPF again, I'm on page 41 now =___+ (oh my bleeding eyes..!)

think that's everything. please tear it to shreds if you spot a poor logic leap or anything!

*I really hope this doesn't edit*

Of course I meant Rod's score was 4 not 3 - maths fail.

First of all, If you agree that I have misquoted, I would like you to show me where.
As I really can't see it, please type out the original text (with post number) & my misquote so that I can see the discrepancy.
Or are you just taking Muttly's word for it?

The logic behind 2 newbie mafia is based around the order of the kills (& investigations, if they happened).
It was suggested that the more experienced players were being picked off.
If the mafia were themselves experienced players, it would raise questions as to why they were not killed.
However, the organised manner of the mafia actions (investigations &/or kills) suggests a definite plan.
It is entirely possible that the scum discussed things & came to agreement, but I think it more likely that there is someone able to direct events.
This authority would stem from a higher level of experience.
So there is 1 experienced scum, but any more of that would raise the questions I have just mentioned.
Assuming 3 mafia, this leaves 2 inexperienced scum.

Also, regarding me voting without explanation (520):
Direct quote from that post:
"Anyway, going back to the 'picking off the experienced players' theory, I suspect that the scum are probably 2 inexperienced players, with an older hand guiding them, which having read back through the thread led me to the names I posted in 518."
In 518 I named you as suspected scum & this is the reason I voted.
So not as clear as it might have been, but there was explanation there.

I believe it was that if the other mason died, she couldn't win.