I was weirded out because you seemed to be very 'He has to be town, no mafia would be this bold'. It felt like you have already completely dismissed even the faintest possibility that he might be mafia. nmillar's call that the speedlynch was the danger made more sense to me and felt a bit more thought out.

Your post really didn't change my view, it sorta made me tilt my head in how strong you felt the 'He has to be town' position was.

Not really. My thoughts were always that he was scum trying on a gamble. If he is town then lying in this case is horrible play.

But my question was still, what do we do with him? We can't trust his posts, I highly doubt he has a power role that justifies us taking the risk to keep him alive. Do we push him for a fullclaim and trust that? Do we ignore his posts as stuff that we can't trust? Do we allow another day to be dominated by his claims and our reactions to them? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I understand that we have the potential to mislynch and it would hurt the town, but I'm honestly wondering about a solution. And since you seemed to believe him the most, I'm putting the pressure on you to have something.

Overall, sorry, I explained my view a few times. And I only explained it because you were trying to imply that I wanted to lynch amok anyway even though I thought there might be a chance of him being town.

I'll agree, and I'm going to give this last comment the benefit of the doubt after what seems like another falseclaim, but people gave GR shit still because of his lie, he was kept in because he had a town role that no one wanted to risk a mislynch about. Amok's latest claim, doesn't seem to make sense to me right now.

That's how I feel, like we should lynch him (and I would), just to be able to concentrate on actual suspects (and to get rid of the anxiety of being played again), even though I suspect that the mafia has won a free mislynch, offered by Amok. It is very irritating, and I am irate.

OR, of course, lynch a mafioso instead. But, well, nobody else seems to suspect Nmillar very seriously, so I imagine this will have to wait quite a bit. :-/

Can you sum up your case against him? I've been so distracted by amok that I've not really been paying much attention to anyone else.

Yeah, see, that is a reason to lynch Amok.

Anyway, I was suspecting Nmillar early for a general feeling of vague lurking, content-less posting, and later superficial scumlist, that inherited much from the random phase vote, and was rationalised -JMich had to insist in order to get a reason- as "well, your character dislikes that character that i like/am, so, it's the only reason for me to vote, but it's okay enough". I had him in a shortlist of scummier people then.

Later, I started asking around about skiing abilities. My character flavour mentions not being a skier, so I assumed that "is good at ski, is lame or doesn't know how to ski" would be a parameter of all characters, to relate to the ski tracks of the OP. I was imagining that there would be townies who don't know how to ski, townies know how to ski, and scum who would know that being a skier is suspicious. I expected this to become a "stake" (who can/cannot ski/pretends not to), and a conundrum for the mafia, not knowing what to claim about it. Especially with the lurking threat of clues (for instance) catching a liar in the act.

Turns out (I trust this because too many people answered it), most players have no mention of ski whatsoever in their flavor. So, it's not a line of investigation, nothing to classify there. Still, the question should have been uncomfortable for the ones who have left these tracks (between the chalet, the corpse, and the forest), especially if, like me, they were uncertain of how much of a thing this ability would turn out to be.

Most people answered as they could, honestly or not. But NMillar reacted very differently. He eluded the question ("well, it's said that nobody skies, so there"), then attacked me and, preventively, all those who'd investigate this (saying that it was a very scummy question, and arguing that it served as a mere "distraction"), and when Amok pointed out that we do know for a fact that some people can ski, he just backtracked, hopped on a strange tangent (suddenly accusing JMich about gender numbers, pointing a false contradiction), and then went back to low profile.

I interpreted it as a scummy overreaction in front of a line of questionning percieved as dangerous. With the irony of an actual diversion attempt right after it ("let's rather look at JMich's list, oh, nothing").

So, all red lights flashing. And my vote there. He's the one whose behaviour match a mafioso's most, in my eyes.

But you should make a proper re-read yourself...

Bolded

Quoted for drama...

Relevant withholding quotes included.

I find it "interesting" for the obvious reasons. He (P1na) knew beforehand it was a choice of one through five when I had asked amok if the choice was one through ten. He offered this information before amok said anything. He also had been asked to make a number choice!!

Why would you NOT find it interesting?? Did you know any of this information?? Did you know P1na knew any of this information??

I don't get your post 635 flub. Are you making a case against P1na or amok? If it is P1na then where in your quotes does he mention knowledge of 1-5, and the point about him offering info before amok is bad?

Or are you making a case against amok because he didn't mention the 1-5 (I haven't checked if he did, I am just going by your post alone here) before P1na? And being asked to make a number choice (which I judge it not an indication of anything yet, before we figure out what the point of it was) is bad/good? A case against who? Could you clarify a bit more so I know which of these "interesting" things I have to be attention to?

Not making a case. Answering a question from Vitek.

I'm most concerned at the moment about the fact that we had no night kill. While this is beneficial to town, I can't help but think that their must be a blocker role of some sort, and that said role guessed correctly and blocked someone. Does anyone have any other theories that could possibly explain the lack of a night kill?

As to the amok situation, I've said it before and shall say it again: I believe he is some sort of jester, simply because no townies or mafia members would want to act so openly suspicious. It wouldn't make much sense. From claiming to be a dog, to claiming that he was lying, and now maintaining that he isn't on the list of names stated in the OP.

Whether or not we should lynch him though, is still a very pertinent question. Lynching a jester usually allows the game to continue, even though they've achieved their victory condition. So, perhaps it would be best to get that out of the way, and get back to a more 'normal' game. If he ends up being a mafioso, then it's a bonus. If he was merely a very eccentric townie, we've made a bit of a mistake, but will have resolved a matter which has been most troubling.

In closing, I don't know who to vote for at this time, but I'm actually somewhat convinced by Telika's case against nmillar.

Sorry, been ill for the last few days, so have only just caught up.

Bravery or stupidity? amok has lied and cannot stay alive till the endgame. I don't think he's scum, but he's not really left us with much choice.

JMich is no longer in my scum list.

Gentleman or lady? Frances is indeed a female name, but the original post implies that the character is male. Bad Joe.

I was also asked to pick a number and chose 4.

Key thing at the moment, as posted by CSPVG as I've been typing this is the lack of a night kill, and I'm surprised that hardly anyone has even cared to mention this so far.

Yes.
Option 1, do not send a kill message by deadline. I think this has happened in a game where the remaining scum got sidetracked by real life, thus night deadline passed without a kill message.
Option 2, decide that a kill is too risky, thus skip it. It is possible that a false claim scum will not be able to kill without revealing his falseclaim, thus skipping the night kill hoping the game will reach a point where he can kill and win.
Option 3, decide that they can mess with our heads by not doing a kill. I think that was the case in the previous game, though the blocking messed with their plans.

There could probably be other reasons for not submitting a night kill, but I also guess it depends on the moderators rules if night kill is mandatory or not.

I don't think this is a thing. At these point, this claim is no different from a name claim : there's only one unnamed character slot left, so, saying "i am that one" is as open to someone else's "no, I AM that one" than claiming any name is...

Cheers.

Re. any power-roles blocking a kill. I think that the best thing is then to not make any waves, and to not press on this as it will only draw attention to the player with the role. More or less just be quiet about it and count our blessing that there is such a role in the game. Is this a correct way?

I tend to leave these things alone because the most obvious explanation is that the mafia were blocked or the victim was doc'd. If anything, I think discussion helps them more than it does us. If anything, I would think they would want to discuss it to try and fish out the power role who stopped them. I'm assuming most people thought, like I do, that the discussion doesn't really help us.

In that case, Joe had a roleblock power which killed if it was used on the same person 3 nights in a row. We skipped a kill to try and engineer a double nightkill that would end the game. Joe got blocked on the first night though, so everything went wrong. It wasn't to mess with your heads as such, but to try and secure a surprise victory. :P

I agree. I think it is best to leave any potential power roles alone until they feel it right to bring it up (or if there is a pressing need to do so). Any highlights on them will only help mafia selecting next target.