1.) I'm really pissed off and trying to prove a point

or

2.) I'm scum taking an early opportunity to set myself up as loyal town.

@Madaghmire vote check?

9 alive, 5 to hammer.

To answer the questions directed at me, I'm not yet too suspicious about anyone yet. I considered Biggs, JJ and Oni but there is no evidence enough against either of them, I didn't wanna vote anyone, but seeing Oni giving me a vote...

## vote Onidsen

*** for tat.

My reasoning is slightly out of the box: Biggs was host in the last game, JJ and Oni had no power roles whatsoever. So they were left out of the power game. My guess is that our dear GM gave power roles to at least some of them to "compensate" them for not having any extra skills last time. For the same reason I think there is a higher than average chance that Visovics is not a bad guy this time. It's GM psychology, GMs try to keep up the morale of the group therefore they give some role to every player eventually. Although if I were GM I would definitely mix this rule of thumb up by either a) not giving power roles to some that didn't have last time either, or b) giving roles to players that had similar roles last time.

5 minutes ago, Norell said:

My reasoning is slightly out of the box: Biggs was host in the last game, JJ and Oni had no power roles whatsoever. So they were left out of the power game. My guess is that our dear GM gave power roles to at least some of them to "compensate" them for not having any extra skills last time. For the same reason I think there is a higher than average chance that Visovics is not a bad guy this time. It's GM psychology, GMs try to keep up the morale of the group therefore they give some role to every player eventually. Although if I were GM I would definitely mix this rule of thumb up by either a) not giving power roles to some that didn't have last time either, or b) giving roles to players that had similar roles last time.

I'm pretty sure they are randomly generated

23 minutes ago, Visovics said:

I'm pretty sure they are randomly generated

Hmm let's see

## vote Madaghmire

What do you have to claim dear GM?

Roles were randomly assigned. Normally I'd let you spin in circles but there is a non zero number of players who already knew for certainty that roles were assigned via RNG.

4 hours ago, Truthiness said:

And then you've exposed a power role to a night kill. Yay.

Unless there's a doc. It's worth the risk though. What if we target a scum?

On an unrelated note, I still am unsure about whom to vote for, but Biggs and Truthiness seems to be suspicious, at least according to my rather paranoid mind, because they seem to collaborate too well (having the same idea, acting the same way, etc.) and Onidsen and Biggs (see how I mention you twice? That's cause I'm going by group targets!) seem to also be suspicious because they perfectly match in 22% scum (they gave good reasons for the assumption, but still), their other numbers arguments, and their subtle attempt to redirect suspicion on those suspicious of their assumed knowledge of the number of enemy.

Norell is suspicious by himself for his unexplained - rather, unjustified/supported - opposition to the day 1 lynch, his rather arbitrary vote (in contradiction to his stance) on ovinomanc3r purely because he voted Norell, and his assumption that somehow roles are not randomly assigned, as was the case in the past two games.

Other than that, I don't quite have much insight. . .

Whoops. Sorry. I meant Norell voted Onidsen, not ovinomanc3r.

2 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Whoops. Sorry. I meant Norell voted Onidsen, not ovinomanc3r.

It is fine. I mean, as long as the mistake didn't came from a confussion with something you talked in the traitors chat

29 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

It is fine. I mean, as long as the mistake didn't came from a confussion with something you talked in the traitors chat

Nope. Just a simple matter really. I commonly write your name as 'ovi', and Onidsen's as 'oni', so I miss wrote 'oni' as 'ovi', then decided to go back and extend the name.

4 hours ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

1.) I'm really pissed off and trying to prove a point

or

2.) I'm scum taking an early opportunity to set myself up as loyal town.

Some of #1, but also to just have some fun. Work is a little stressful...

@Norell not really sure what to make of that "F-Me? F-U!" vote there. Got anything better for it than "he voted me!"?

1 hour ago, BiggsIRL said:

@Norell not really sure what to make of that "F-Me? F-U!" vote there. Got anything better for it than "he voted me!"?

Could be mad cause I voted him without much cause last game. Would explain it.

Nothing against you personally, @Norell , honest. Voting on someone to motivate an answer is established, common practice in my other community.

To everyone, sorry if the habits I bring from there seem weird. Let me know if they bother you and I'll work on adapting better to the new community.

Also, if I ever put someone's name in red text, it's because I've mixed up voting conventions.

6 hours ago, Madaghmire said:

Roles were randomly assigned. Normally I'd let you spin in circles but there is a non zero number of players who already knew for certainty that roles were assigned via RNG.

This is interesting. That could also mean thst somebody REALLY has an idea what's going on, right? Then we may should lynch someone who is suspected by more than one player.

And no I have nothing more Onidsen than the fact that he voted me. But that time I had noone else either. And just to clarify I'm not mad, just trying to play the game in my own way

14 hours

We haven't got much more time considering the time zone and so the login time difference. We need at all costs avoid a no-lynch. Onidsen showed that the statistics work in our favour, so we need a solid decision. Right now we are scattered accross votes and decisions.

I suspect Norell is a traitor. His position to the no-lynch remained the same despite the statistics and he only voted because he was voted on, which he says is what he normally does, but I have no recollection of him doing this last game, specially when he almost hanged D1. So I think he is lying, which is unnecessary unless you don't want reveal who you are, and so

##vote Norell

10 minutes ago, Visovics said:

We haven't got much more time considering the time zone and so the login time difference. We need at all costs avoid a no-lynch. Onidsen showed that the statistics work in our favour, so we need a solid decision. Right now we are scattered accross votes and decisions.

I suspect Norell is a traitor. His position to the no-lynch remained the same despite the statistics and he only voted because he was voted on, which he says is what he normally does, but I have no recollection of him doing this last game, specially when he almost hanged D1. So I think he is lying, which is unnecessary unless you don't want reveal who you are, and so

##vote Norell

The problem I see is that Truthiness did the same. For me the only difference is that Truthiness played Biggs game voting himself. Not completely sold but better argued than what Norell did.

10 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

The problem I see is that Truthiness did the same. For me the only difference is that Truthiness played Biggs game voting himself. Not completely sold but better argued than what Norell did.

Yeah, but also Truth is willing to vote for himself to prove a point, while Norell is simply voting back on someone and seems to be lying about why he voted back

We're really running out of time, so I'll join the group and

##vote Norell

as the most likely option for the lynch, as it's kinda pointless voting someone whose not gonna die, that's just a wasted vote.

Nothin' personal Norell.

That puts you at L-2 I believe.

42 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

We're really running out of time, so I'll join the group and

##vote Norell

as the most likely option for the lynch, as it's kinda pointless voting someone whose not gonna die, that's just a wasted vote.

Nothin' personal Norell.

That puts you at L-2 I believe.

It is L-1 I think.

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

It is L-1 I think.

Onidsen, Visovics, and myself have voted. It's 5 to hammer, so we have 2 votes left.

1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

It is L-1 I think.

My fault. I thought I vote him when I agreed with Visovics.

It is L-2.

I am not going to vote. I don't want a time zone mistake and get him lynched before he could defend himself.

Just now, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

Onidsen, Visovics, and myself have voted. It's 5 to hammer, so we have 2 votes left.

Ninjad

My reason behind my actions was to provoke a reaction. I do not like lyncng on day 1 because I always try to play safe and rather not kill a supportive role. This, combined with the rather pointless vote on Onidsen was to see who would react.

My guess was that the traitor will certainly suppor day 1 lynching and therefor be eager to jump on anyone suspicious enough. Well I did try to make myself rather suspicious to see who jumps at me first. That happened to be Biggs so he is my main suspect now.

He was very fast to jump on the day 1 lync train, relatively silent then when nobody joined him and jumped first at my bait.

## vote Biggas

I was killed in the last game because I made myself too suspicious early. Wouldn't it be kind of idiotic to do it again if I would be the traitor?

And finally in character: 'You don't want to kill someone with THESE, do you?' she said slowly caressing through her barely covered body and stellar bazonkas.