ah, I see... I misread, sorry. Need more coffee....

I need more sleep!

You're making me so happy with this you have no idea. Adding a touch of flavor was all I did back in that one post of mine - and I couldn't agree more as far as the whole "Joe told us something failing to sound innocuous like those two roleplaying goofs" is concerned.

...I still don't see Joe at the top of my list, though, so my vote remains unchanged.

Hmm, long lunch time and I've just had some thoughts about what Joe is doing and why but I don't want to blow it, so I'll keep it to myself for now.

Seriously guys? Not even a post while I was asleep?

Joe's right, you are all awful!

Fair enough. I keep on thinking that there was somehow a vote involved, and then never bother to check if I'm remembering correctly.

Well, my problem with your argument over this, is that you seem to think that the statements made in my post were somehow incongruous with one another. Both of them pertained to the Vitek discussion; one being a direct suggestion that we discuss something else for awhile, and the other an indirect suggestion that we discuss something else for awhile.

I think the easiest way to resolve this, would be with a direct question to the group: At the point were I asked Robbeasy and flubbucket( post 274) to list some of their other suspects, did you agree with me that the conversation about Vitek had run its course?

Moving on:

I should use my vote, and therefore must say Vote: flubbucket. I stand by my reasons given in post 333. To quote them here, "His repeated, tunneled-visioned attacks against Vitek, in which he- at least to my mind- stretched, twisted or misrepresented some of Vitek's remarks, make him suspect to me( as an example of this, I would point to post 213)."

Note: The second quote in my post above, is incorrectly attributed to Vitek. It is, in fact, supposed to be JMich's quote. I don't quite know how I managed to mess that up.

My vote stands.

I can't get behind the defence some people are giving Joe either - Mafia wouldn't do that as what does it gain them...

What does it gain them? Exactly what has happened - confusion, a further split of voting, and a larger chance of a no-lynch.

He's even admitted himself it was a stupid thing to say (in context of the game) - I don't understand how everyone can just ignore it and move on....

Quick post before fighting some code again.

@CSPVG: So if we ignore the question (again), would it mean we agree or disagree with it? And just so there's no doubt about my stance, I don't think the conversation about Vitek has run its course

@Robb: Joe has jumped up quite a bit on the suspicion list, but he does usually post weird/nonsensical stuff. That doesn't mean he gets a free pass, but I haven't paid as much attention to his posts as I should.

Right, Vitek is still my first choice for a lynch in terms of being highest on my scum list and having a possibly viable wagon. I could at a push get on board the CSPVG wagon, but Iintentionst convinced. The fact that the case against him involves him seemingly trying to protect my main suspect doesn't do him any favours. His alignment might also help solidify my read on Vitek (or JMich, who I'm not sure about at the moment, part of the reason I'm not sure about lynching CSPVG).

I would also be fine with lynching gkaiser as I'm quite sure he's anti-town. I know it's less important to get anti-town third parties than it is scum, but I'm more sure about him than anyone else. There seems a lower chance of mislynch (to me anyway).

I could also maybe get on the Flubbucket wagon, but the way he changed after he stopped tunnelvising Vitek makes me think it was an embarrassing case of misreading rather than something sinister.
I'm far from ignoring it, in fact I gave it a lot of thought yesterday. I've decided to leave it for now.

I think it is more a case of knowing that he vent out to strong to fast... and decided to reel it in before doing more damage.

That's also a valid interpretation and you might be right. He's definitely on my list, he just moved down a bit.

Well, sharing your thoughts would have probably helped keep things moving a bit. Why even post to say that you know something the rest of us don't, but you won't tell us for some reason. (I actually saw your post yesteday, but I didn't really have the time to reply)

I don't know if Joe is scum or town, but his post was definitely not helpful. Assuming he's not scum, a theory of mine is that his post could be an attempt to confuse the scum and get himself night-killed with a post about his self-proclaimed (and made-up?) importance, which I would appreciate more if it didn't end up being so confusing to just everyone. Of course there are simpler theories about what he's doing. Still, not enough for me to vote for him at this point.

Anyhoo, I still like gkaiser the most. I could switch my vote to SPF or CSPVG since they're both in my 5 favorite scum list and I don't really see the point in having no lynch on the first day.

I made my post yesterday for two reasons.

1. I have a theory as to what Joe was doing but if I explain it then it would ruin it. I still felt it useful to say I had a theory just because if I'm right then others might ruin the thing that Joe may or may not be doing by picking at it too much.

2. I was bored. Some days I've been finding myself with significant free periods at work, hence my bursts of activity at some times. I'd been thinking about Joe's claim a lot and wanted to post something regarding it.

Sure explaining my theory might have prompted more discussion, but do you think not posting at all would have resulted in more activity than this?

About gkaiser, what's your reasoning? I'm assuming it's to do with his claim. Do you find him scummy or just suspect something like an anti-town survivor?

Not really.

I covered this in previous posts, that's why I didn't justify it this time. I don't think the claim was anything important, I believe it was just a way for him to justify his general behavior. Not that I was aware of the role of "survivors", but even after I read about them, his claim post still seems rather innocent in that regard.
My approach is to consider all the ways I would play the game if I was scum. Sticking to vaguely observational or funny posts and just voting for people that have a couple of votes already would definiely be at the top of my list. You could argue that this could be the behavior of an innocent townie who's playing the game for the first time, since he wasn't being very subtle with his tactic, but even so, he's still my most likely suspect at this point.
As for the claim, if gkaiser was aware he was an anti-town "survivor", I don't see how he would post that claim. Double bluff? I can't help but see it as a way for him to justify his pattern and especially his "let's test something" post. It probably seemed innocent enough to him (assuming he really didn't know what a "survivor" is).
I hope I'm making sense.