Mini 60--GAME OVER

[MeMe]

Hmmm? What was scummy? Kerplunk's post? I agree.

[Gaspode]

Vote Count

Kerplunk: 2 (MeMe, Saigon)
Prizm: 1 (CoolBot)
Massive: 1 (Demeech)
MeMe: 1 (Dragon Slayer)
Saigon: 1 (Kerplunk)
Shelper: 1 (Mathcam)

Not voting: massive, Prizm, shelper

Has not yet posted: Prizm

[Prizm]

Yay! My first game has started!

Seeing as there's no information, I guess I will OMGUS vote:

Vote: CoolBot

[Kerplunk]

I'm just being consistent. I voted for shelper because he voted secondly for someone. But in fact he didn't know mathcam was already voted. So I changed my vote to Saigon, who did knowingly secondly voted for someone. Thus my vote

should

have gone to Saigon. I made a correction to my earlier vote.

[Demeech]

Info Bandwagon-

Unvote: massive Vote: Kerplunk

Anyway, I don't like the 3rd or 2nd vote reasoning. It all sounds kinda crappy.

[mathcam]

Hmmm? What was scummy? Kerplunk's post? I agree.

I don't see where you guys are reading scummy in Kerplunk's posts. I find this all a little suspcious.

Unvote: Shelper, Vote: MeMe

Cam

[MeMe]

Kerplunk + mathcam sittin' in a tree...

[MeMe]

Well, it seemed funny

before

it was on the screen...

[mathcam]

That

was funny.

Cam

[MeMe]

Why Kerplunk's posts look scummy...an explanation.

vote: shelper

. My new policy on day one. Vote for the guy who places the second vote on someone.

Makes up a "new policy" for his vote. As early day one votes don't require any explanation, it raised my eyebrows as a possible instance of covering his butt for later. Suspicious when taken alone? Not really...but it

isn't

alone!

I accept shelper's explanation. He was not

really

the second to vote for someone. He didn't even saw the vote for mathcam.

unvote: shelper

.

vote: Saigon

. For placing the second vote on MeMe. And for being third on the shelper-bandwagon, although I don't really believe in that theory.

Once again, makes sure we hear reasons...1)for unvoting ("I believe him! It wasn't a second vote at all!") and 2)for his new vote...the funny thing is that the new vote reasons are that Saigon placed a second vote (and by placing his new vote on Saigon,

Kerplunk

places a second vote) and earlier placing a third vote (which he claims not to truly consider as a factor -- so to give it as a reason is weird, like "vote MeMe because she's so ugly, except I think she's pretty").

I'm just being consistent. I voted for shelper because he voted secondly for someone. But in fact he didn't know mathcam was already voted. So I changed my vote to Saigon, who did knowingly secondly voted for someone. Thus my vote

should

have gone to Saigon. I made a correction to my earlier vote.

And, again, makes sure we're clear on the "reasons."

Retrospectively, Kerplunk's first vote (against shelper) could have been to attack a person voting for you...and now you look like you may be coming to Kerplunk's defense, 'cam. Hmmm.

[massive]

So, I can vote fourth on Kerplunk, right, and avoid his suspicion? Or did we not get that far in the ruleset?

vote Kerplunk

[Kerplunk]

The more I post the more I get suspicious... anyway here goes:

According to my new policy: I don't want to random vote on day 1. So what do I do? I just vote for the one who puts a second vote. So I voted for shelper. But after his explanation that he didn't see the vote on cam, I believe him and my vote was not justified (i.e. not according to my new policy). So I search for another one, Saigon (who voted twice for MeMe). Actually that vote was not needed, because we already skipped the phase of random voting. So, I was a bit wrong in voting for Saigon because my policy was mainly for me not having to vote randomly.

Why Kerplunk's posts look scummy...an explanation.

vote: shelper

. My new policy on day one. Vote for the guy who places the second vote on someone.

Makes up a "new policy" for his vote. As early day one votes don't require any explanation, it raised my eyebrows as a possible instance of covering his butt for later. Suspicious when taken alone? Not really...but it

isn't

alone!

That last thing I don't understand. But my policy beats random, ask Cam. So, not scummy.

I accept shelper's explanation. (...) shelper-bandwagon, although I don't really believe in that theory.

Once again, makes sure we hear reasons...1)for unvoting ("I believe him! It wasn't a second vote at all!") and 2)for his new vote...the funny thing is that the new vote reasons are that Saigon placed a second vote (and by placing his new vote on Saigon,

Kerplunk

places a second vote) and earlier placing a third vote (which he claims not to truly consider as a factor -- so to give it as a reason is weird, like "vote MeMe because she's so ugly, except I think she's pretty").

Like I said, my policy is only instead of random voting. I'm not going to vote all day for people who places second votes on someone. An dthat last argument is crap. My vote on Saigon was because she second voted and that she was the third on a bwagon is a seconday reason, although I don't think the theory of being 3rd on a bwagon really is true.

I'm just being consistent. (...) Thus my vote

should

have gone to Saigon. I made a correction to my earlier vote.

And, again, makes sure we're clear on the "reasons."

My reason I explained. I admit, it was not correct for me to vote for Saigon because the random-voting phase was over. And that was what my policy was for, for me not to vote random.

So, now this bandwagon against is only based on Saigon's fear of getting lynched the first day, MeMe's 'logic' on me being scummy and a lacking of other suspicious candidates to bandwagon.

unvote: Saigon

, it has no meaning anymore.

FoS: MeMe

.

[Saigon]

My vote on Saigon was because she second voted and that she was the third on a bwagon is a seconday reason

He! I'm a he I don't have a thing dangling between my legs just because it looks good you know. Isn't a guy allowed to think Saigon is a nice name? Good thing I didn't go with Lutetia (pronounced Lutetsia) like I was planning to

But seriously, I honestly don't think Kerplunk is more suspicious than anyone else, but although I know it's unfair to lynch him without any good reasoning, a day 1 lynch is bound to be a random one unless a mafia member makes a fool of him/herself. So I'll keep my vote on him for now.

Better him than the rest of us, right?

[CoolBot]

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't understand how voting for the person who puts a 2nd vote on someone is any better than random. In my experience, the 2nd vote is also usually a random vote, so I don't see it as any more likely to point to mafia. Besides, what's so wrong with random voting during early day 1?

The more I look at this, the more I agree that Kerplunck is trying to manufacture an alibi on why he voted the way he did. And since no such alibi is really needed for early day 1 votes, I see that as somewhat scummy.

unvote: Prizm
vote: Kerplunck

[Werebear]

The title says to come vote. Can I vote, even if I'm not in this game?

*runs away before people start thowing stones*

[MeMe]

unvote: Kerplunk

Just a little breathing room. That leaves four votes on him -- I'll rejoin if I don't hear a good reason not to.

[massive]

Yeah, that CoolBot vote was a little unnecessary at this point (although I agree with the notion that "voting for a person because they were the second random vote on someone" is no better and no less random than "voting for someone at random").

FOS CoolBOT

(Just a notion, man, but you need some cool caps like that, maybe a "v2.1" or something ...)

[mlaker]

I'll vote if I hear an unbelievable role claim. For now

FOS Kerplunk

mlaker

[mathcam]

But my policy beats random, ask Cam.

Hmm...I'm not so sure. It does seem fairly clear that it's no

worse

than random, so I certainly have no suspicion on that front. Anything not worse than random is certainly not a strategy worth punishing by lynching.

But the attack on Kerplunk is ludicrous. He's being attacked because he keeps explaining himself, which is happening because he keeps being attacked. All his attackers feel like they're building up more incriminating evidence, while all Kerplunk does is re-explain himself over and over.

Retrospectively, Kerplunk's first vote (against shelper) could have been to attack a person voting for you...and now you look like you may be coming to Kerplunk's defense, 'cam. Hmmm.

Now do I seem like the kind of mafia player who sticks up for the inconsistencies of his fellow mafia? I basically ran the crusade against my co-mafia in No Frills. It sounds to me like you're strecthing, MeMe. Would Kerplunk really vote for shelper as retribution for him randomly voting me? And then turn around and undo it?

Cam

[MeMe]

But the attack on Kerplunk is ludicrous. He's being attacked because he keeps explaining himself, which is happening because he keeps being attacked.

Take a look, mathcam. The first two explanations he posted came before any "attack."

It sounds to me like you're strecthing, MeMe. Would Kerplunk really vote for shelper as retribution for him randomly voting me? And then turn around and undo it?

Well, I don't know if he would or not -- but I find his actions more suspicious than anyone else's thus far. What do you want besides a "stretch" on day one? Hard evidence is difficult to come by this early in the game.

[Gaspode]

Vote Count:

Kerplunk: 4 (CoolBot, Demeech, massive, Saigon)
MeMe: 2 (DS, mathcam)
CoolBot: 1 (Prizm)

Not Voting: Kerplunk, MeMe, mlaker

[Prizm]

Well, I guess my sole vote for CoolBot is sorta pointless, and CoolBot unvoted me. So I will:

Unvote: CoolBot
FoS: Kerplunk

I don't get why you say you are against random votes, then use a method for voting that is effectively random. Care to explain?

[Kerplunk]

The more I look at this, the more I agree that Kerplunck is trying to manufacture an alibi on why he voted the way he did. And since no such alibi is really needed for early day 1 votes, I see that as somewhat scummy.

unvote: Prizm
vote: Kerplunck

Why should I need a reason for voting on someone who has not gotten any vote? I need no justification for that. I just don't want to random vote anymore and I made up a policy. It's nothing more than that.

FoS: Coolbot

, for putting on the fifth vote before I even roleclaimed. Which I will do now: I'm the back-up doc.

[massive]

I'll temporarily

unvote Kerplunk

but isn't that the oldest Mafia faked roleclaim in the book? *chuckle*

I will agree that the fifth vote was unnecessary. Trying to speed things up, Coolbot?

vote Coolbot

[mathcam]

What do you want besides a "stretch" on day one?

I think the original "Look, he explained himself twice before anyone even said something" wasn't a stretch. I just personally didn't find it suspicious. And subsequent posts by Kerplunk

were

just explaining what he had already said in those first two posts, yet they were quoted against him as "repeatedly explaining himself."

I agree...back-up doc is rather easy to claim, though. It's a very easy claim to make, as the only way we'll find out about the lie right away is if there

is

a backup doc in the game who contradicts the role claim, which more often than not, there isn't (I think).

I guess we have to decide the odds he's telling the truth. If it's medium or small, then we should lynch, because even if he's not lying then we haven't lost an extremely powerful role. If he's probably telling the truth, we should move on.

Thoughts?

Cam