The Dark Knight - Day 1

[BillMc]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

It's improbable but not impossible that we may have found 2 SCUM Day one... and he vote switch is because Bear_Nenno is the less valuable of the 2 to the SCUM team.

Dearest UllaModess.... Is there any recruitment in this game

While we have already raised the recruitment question - and Ulla has obliquely avoided giving a straight answer - your post does raise an interesting possibility that Bear is the one who needs to make a choice at dusk on what side to play for.

Since he hasnt disclosed anything that will benefit town, then I am more than comfortable with lynching someone who may end up on the scum side.

[Romanic]

To be clearer about why I don't think Bear is a good lynch, I think it's similar to the following situation:

A guy is about to be lynched on day 1 because he's been saying weird stuff, so he claims being a scanner. Should the townies lynch someone else? I think they do. The scum should attack the scanner quickly because he represents a danger to them, and fair questions would be raised about his role if he's still alive 2 days later.

Of course our current situation is different because Bear didn't claim any ability, but the scum don't know how powerful he really is. What if Batman really needs to find him? Lucius Fox could be important after all, are they ready to let him live 2 days on the possibility that he will be lynched on day 3?

I think we would be able to make an informed decision about Bear later in the game, if he's still alive. Again, I'm not ready to lynch a claimed Lucius Fox on thread behavior alone, plus from what I've read, Bear's behavior so far is not alien from what you've seen in other games.

[Total Ulla]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Dearest UllaModess.... Is there any recruitment in this game

Everyone with a wincon has that wincon all game.
Once you know your wincon it will not change.

[Romanic]

Why exactly do we think some players would have to pick a side on Dusk1/Night 1?

I don't see a big difference between picking on Night 0 or Night 1. Why bother to offer that choice after a full day? Was this a scenario in another game?

[Total Ulla]

Less than 50% of all players seem to have an oppionion regarding Day End.
It will therefore end Saturday 2010-30-10 10 PM Danish Time.

After Day ends (with the lynch) Dusk 1 will last for 24 hours and will be followed by Night 1.

Countdown is here (as well as in Post 1 of the Day):

http://timeanddate.com/counters/cust...&sec=0&p0=1408

[Romanic]

Originally Posted by Romola

I am accountable and am not convinced that I even made a slip. I hadn't played a game with a Dawn. Neither have most of the rest of you. I didn't discuss it with Romanic, I gave her a factual answer to a straight question. And I answered all this stuff already.

FYI Romola, I am a male.

[Total Ulla]

Vote count Day 1 - take 6

Bear_Nenno (5) - Special Ed #199, Rabid Renaissance #550, Red Skeezix #582, Uthrecht #636, BillMc #647


Uthrecht (5) - Moody Mitchy #370, Bear_Nenno #396, Giraffe #538, Dirx #539, Romola #575
Romola (1) - Locked In The Trunk Of A Car #594
Locked In The Trunk Of A Car (1) - Renata #28
BillMc (1) - Kat #7
Red Skeezix (1) - Sinjin #132
captain (1) - peekercpa #395
Lucifer (1) - Solfy #428

[Red Skeezix]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I thought watchers were usually on the Town side, and some of you might be jumping at shadows if they think Bear is trying to lure Batman into targeting him at night, unless they are in fact trying hard to find a reason to stick a vote on claimed Lucius Fox.

1. If Batman needs to find someone at night, then Bear's story is likely true, unless the scum have privy information about the Batman role.
2. If Batman does not need to find someone at night, then he will ignore Bear, and thus wouldn't fall into the trap.

Besides, as I've said above, watchers are usually on the town side. In fact I don't remember a watcher being scum in 30-40 games that I've played, but maybe this is different around here?

So Red Skeezix, I am curious to understand how you came up with the idea that this could be a trap to lure the Batman?

I also find it curious that Bear, Locked and others agree with this idea without questioning its legitimacy, in fact without arguing at all. Am I missing something obvious?

1. Bear didn't definitively say whether batman needed to find him or not. He speculated about it based on name. Also, If batman needed to find lucius fox, then he would have found him simply by his claim. He wouldn't need to be told by bear to target bear.

2.Maybe, but who knows what kind of role batman is or if the mod is particularly devious and has left batman out of the game.

3. I've seen scum watchers. The first game round these parts that jumps to my mind is Heroes. In that game scum was able to locate both the cop and doctor night one because of their watcher. (Although scum still lost eventually.)

4. Bear's idea that batman should target him tonight. Unconfirmed players should not be guiding the actions of power roles (assuming that bats is a power role). There are too many open possibilities for a trap to be set. I called him on it.

5. I dunno why they're agreeing with me about this except for that it IS a possibility that should be considered.

[Renata]

Originally Posted by Kat

Well, technically, he is a vigilante detective* (based on the comics, as I haven't seen The Dark Knight, although I did see Batman Begins). For a time, it was common for comics Robin to hear "We can tell you were trained by the world's greatest detective."

I figured out what's been bothering me about Bear's weird interpretation of his PM. It reminds me of Pleonast in Dr. Horrible. Both of them jumped to bizarre conclusions not stated in their PMs based on their own assumptions.

In Bear's case, if this is a fake claim, he could just as easily claimed that the PM actually did say Batman had to target him instead of admitting that it was his own idea. It would make much more sense to say it's actually in there if he's lying.

*I joke-claimed Batman, Vigilante Detective in one game. No one believed me. Probably because it was not a Batman themed game.

What was Pleonast's alignment in that game? (Not sure it matters ultimately, but it seems the obvious question.)

[Solfy]

Well crap. I won't be around for day's end now - I'll be computation-deviceless after 5:00 tonight ( Pittsburgh time) until Sunday afternoon.

[Renata]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Really there were two separate cases against Romola. The first was mine, and it was as much to start discussion as it was to finger her in particular; I saw something interesting, made a case, and watched the results. And they were spectacular.

Oh come on. All this effort was "as much to start discussion" as to vote for a suspect? Not to mention the defense of your case in several posts thereafter until you finally unvoted. You're backpedaling. Furthermore, you seem to be trying subtly to use the "spectacular" results of your bad case to legitimize your having made it in the first place, which is BS. The results don't speak to your motives/honesty in making the case, so they cannot be used to burnish the shine on you.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Rabid Renaissance

Exhibit C of things you don't usually see on Day 1. I mean...don't you think at least a cycle before asking Vigs to kill based on participation level might be prudent?

Do you think it's prudent to wait at least a cycle to start participating?

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

When did I get killed then... have I missed something??

I've posted this before I've finished reading

hmm..oops, sorry. No offense intended

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by moody mitchy

Although I am very tempted to move my vote back to Bear_Nenno. I'm going to leave it on Uthrecht for now because I'm very interested by his late "neck saving" vote switch...

It's improbable but not impossible that we may have found 2 SCUM Day one... and he vote switch is because Bear_Nenno is the less valuable of the 2 to the SCUM team.

are you implying that a Townie Uthrecht wouldn't have made a defensive vote?

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Romanic

I thought watchers were usually on the Town side, and some of you might be jumping at shadows if they think Bear is trying to lure Batman into targeting him at night, unless they are in fact trying hard to find a reason to stick a vote on claimed Lucius Fox.

1. If Batman needs to find someone at night, then Bear's story is likely true, unless the scum have privy information about the Batman role.
2. If Batman does not need to find someone at night, then he will ignore Bear, and thus wouldn't fall into the trap.

Besides, as I've said above, watchers are usually on the town side. In fact I don't remember a watcher being scum in 30-40 games that I've played, but maybe this is different around here?

So Red Skeezix, I am curious to understand how you came up with the idea that this could be a trap to lure the Batman?

I also find it curious that Bear, Locked and others agree with this idea without questioning its legitimacy, in fact without arguing at all. Am I missing something obvious?

Scum watchers aren't all that infrequqnet over here.

And why is everyone giving credence to Bear's thought that he has some 'power that isn't even hinted at in my PM"?

[Renata]

Oh, god DAMMIT. I just lost about five paragarphs on the second Romola case to a keyboard quirk. Dammitdammitdammit. I can't put it all together again, I just can't.

[Solfy]

I'm not, and have mentioned as much, and would love if Bear would/could elaborate on these gut feelings of his.

As I see it, there's a handfull of possibilites:
Town Bear does have a reason stated in his PM to want to live through Dusk, but revealing will tip his hand to scum and out him. This would go a long way toward explaining why he's not quoting his PM.

Town Bear does not have anything stated in his PM. It really is just a hunch. A hunch is, IMO, a stupid thing on which to claim. We're supposed to let him live on the odds that he thinks something good for town might happen. Right.

Scum Bear does have some reason stated in his PM that requires him to live through Dusk. Again, all the more reason not to quote a PM, but what are the odds this is anything good for town?

Scum Bear thinks something will happen if/when he lives through Dusk. Again, anything good for scum is not going to be good for town.

Winconless Bear gets to make some sort of critical decision during Dusk similar to Ed's choice from the Austen game. No way to tell if this is going to help town or hurt town.


I can't see any clear advantage to letting him live or killing him based on the information we have, but I've type this all out in case I'm missing something. Comments welcome.

[Merestil Haye]

Originally Posted by Renata

What was Pleonast's alignment in that game? (Not sure it matters ultimately, but it seems the obvious question.)

Pleo was Town.

His role name was Dead Bowie, canonically a member of the Evil League of Evil - but he wasn't a member any more.

Back to do a Second Read.

[Renata]

The second Romola case strikes me as contrived i the extreme, and Locked and Uthrecht were the two to pursue it. Particularly as the whole thing began over Uthrecht flagging a "scum tend to do/think X, not Y" sort of post from Romola as somehow worthy of notice due to coming from a player who'd described herself as relatively inexperienced. I think that's nonsense. That post should never have been flagged in the first place, yet it was the genesis for the entire case that was to follow, due to Romola's response that no, she never had made an issue of her experience level; that was other people bringing it up as a reason to unvote her. Uthrecht (and Locked) pursue that response into the ground and then some, but it's not even a contradiction except superficially -- except for when asked directly, Romola's only reference to her experience level is as rebuttal to a very specific point of Locked's, that she couldn't have done such a thing out of simple curiosity. She never addresses or tries to defend against the separate contention that she was too experienced to try to fish that way -- she claims it wasn't fishing at all, which makes the whole question irrelevant.

So she's actually right -- when she is later unvoted on the basis that she is *not* too experienced to make such a slip, that *is* the first time such an argument is ever made, and it's not by her.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Renata

Oh, god DAMMIT. I just lost about five paragarphs on the second Romola case to a keyboard quirk. Dammitdammitdammit. I can't put it all together again, I just can't.

unfortunately, keyboard quirks aren't all that infrequqnet

[Nelson Muntz]

Originally Posted by Renata

Oh, god DAMMIT. I just lost about five paragarphs on the second Romola case to a keyboard quirk. Dammitdammitdammit. I can't put it all together again, I just can't.

Haw haw!

[Uthrecht]

Okay, so Ed got me to thinking (yes Ed, write that down). He asked me earlier why Romola and Locked couldn't both be Scum. I said I didn't see it as likely given the way it played out, and even though yes, Scum bus each other on occasion, I still don't see why you'd want to lead off Day 1 with that. I could be wrong, of course.

That said, I've been mulling over Locked's vote movements and thinking it looked hinky. But I still don't buy both of them being Scum, and Romola is striking me as acting strange to be Town, overall. So, it occurred to me that possibly she's third party. It would explain why I felt that she's been a little jumpy and reactive toDay.

It might also mean that she's right about Locked, and that he's Scum. I think her original case for him (the way you created your case means you're Scum) is largely bunk, but I feel like he engaged in some odd behavior with his votes. He dropped off Romola and put a vote on Bear here. At that point, it ties Bear with me (but I think I'd have been in the lead based on who hit the count first), and notes that he'll need someone else to put Bear ahead (which seemed a little bit as a nudge to me to move my vote, to be honest, but he doesn't say that directly). He also says that he feels I'm Town. Which would be great for him, if I die and flip Town. He says he feels Bear is more suspicious - but not as suspicious as Romola. Still, looks like he's trying to save me. Then, over here, he gets a gut feeling that Bear is telling the truth about making stuff up, and moves his vote back to Romola - which leaves me out in the vote lead again.

So, Locked: why did you decide to move your vote out of the top two? Are you saying that you feel that I am now more suspicious than Bear?

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

Unconfirmed players should not be guiding the actions of power roles (assuming that bats is a power role). There are too many open possibilities for a trap to be set. I called him on it.

I don't believe I am doing this. I am not guiding a power role to do anything. If Batman's role tells him to locate Fox to get his toys, then he knows he has to do this. If his role doesn't say anything like this, then he knows not to bother.
But with the scum watcher scenario explained, it probably wouldn't be worth it to do anyway since scum could just watch me.
Any potential good I could have done is now negated by the possibility of a scum watcher--something my inexperience never considered. With that in mind, I am as good a lynch Day 1 as any other.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Uthrecht: yes.

I believe Bear's claim, regardless of the probably-incorrect Batman scenario. I still think Romola is scummy scum scum, but I can see she isn't being lynched today. I am not ready to vote for you, though I did see some weird stuff I want to analyze. Which will come later today. Until I get a chance to do that analysis my vote will stay on Romola where it does the least harm.

[Solfy]

Bear, so many of your actions toDay have stood out as attention-getting enough to make any detective itch to get a read on you. You may claim or deny that this is intentional, but even your self-voting was enough to arouse people's curiosity, and the weak claim is a huge "Look at me!" flag. Sure, you've never said, "Please investigate me," and any detective, watcher, whatever, can chose their own target, but I can't help but think it's contrived.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

I am not ready to vote for you, though I did see some weird stuff I want to analyze. Which will come later today. Until I get a chance to do that analysis my vote will stay on Romola where it does the least harm.

Okay, I'm anxiously waiting to hear what I said between this:

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Uthrecht hasn't pinged my radar at all... this is exactly how he behaved in Austen when he was lynched despite being town. (I didn't think he was scum then either.)

and now that's done it for you.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Originally Posted by Renata

Oh come on. All this effort was "as much to start discussion" as to vote for a suspect? Not to mention the defense of your case in several posts thereafter until you finally unvoted. You're backpedaling. Furthermore, you seem to be trying subtly to use the "spectacular" results of your bad case to legitimize your having made it in the first place, which is BS. The results don't speak to your motives/honesty in making the case, so they cannot be used to burnish the shine on you.

Yeah, your interpretation makes waaaaay more sense.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you misunderstood the original argument, if your conclusion is 'only scum would do this.'

Especially focus on how its only hole was believing that Romola was experienced. Then figure out why a defense of inexperience might matter to that. And then figure out why it seems disingenuous to claim you never made that defense at all.

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Sure, you've never said, "Please investigate me," and any detective, watcher, whatever, can chose their own target, but I can't help but think it's contrived.

So contrived that I have gone out of my way to tell the Detective NOT to investigate me?

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno

So contrived that I have gone out of my way to tell the Detective NOT to investigate me?

I thought you weren't guiding any power role to do anything? Sure you can point out it might be a waste of an investigation, but it doesn't change the fact that you've made yourself interstingly ambiguous suspect numero uno.

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally Posted by Solfy

I thought you weren't guiding any power role to do anything?

So now telling someone not to do something is the same as telling them to do it? You people just see what you want to see, i guess. Action and inaction are not the same thing.

[zuma]

Dear god, I have had an insane week at work. This happens to me sometimes. I apologize for my absence. I'm still here.. promise to get caught up soon. Jesus, I suck sometimes.

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally Posted by Solfy

As I see it, there's a handfull of possibilites:
Town Bear does not have anything stated in his PM. It really is just a hunch. A hunch is, IMO, a stupid thing on which to claim. We're supposed to let him live on the odds that he thinks something good for town might happen. Right.

Bolding mine. So, regarding the possibility I am town, but have nothing stated in my PM, this is not reason enough to live? You basically just said here that a Niller Townie should be killed, because there is no reason to let him live on the odds something good might happen for town????

Pretty anti-town of you.

[Solfy]

Nope. I said your hunch doesn't make you more valuable that Niller Townie X.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno

I don't believe I am doing this. I am not guiding a power role to do anything. If Batman's role tells him to locate Fox to get his toys, then he knows he has to do this. If his role doesn't say anything like this, then he knows not to bother.
But with the scum watcher scenario explained, it probably wouldn't be worth it to do anyway since scum could just watch me.
Any potential good I could have done is now negated by the possibility of a scum watcher--something my inexperience never considered. With that in mind, I am as good a lynch Day 1 as any other.

but, it begs the question, why tell everyone?

If Batman needed to find you, don't you think he'd know that? Why alert everyone else to your 'idea'?

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Uthrecht: yes.

I believe Bear's claim, regardless of the probably-incorrect Batman scenario.

why?

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno

You basically just said here that a Niller Townie should be killed, because there is no reason to let him live on the odds something good might happen for town????

Pretty anti-town of you.

On further thought:
Killing off niller town?! Perish the though! Who would want to lynch a vanilla town?!

Vote Romola

I agree with Locked's summary. Worst case scenario is that Romola is Vanilla Town. Much better mislynch than a power role. At the very least, Romola has decreased the power pool, so she wouldn't be a bad candidate for lynch provided something more sinister appears in someone else's post.

Oh, right. You would.

[Renata]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Yeah, your interpretation makes waaaaay more sense.

Maybe you should consider the possibility that you misunderstood the original argument, if your conclusion is 'only scum would do this.'

??

Especially focus on how its only hole was believing that Romola was experienced. Then figure out why a defense of inexperience might matter to that. And then figure out why it seems disingenuous to claim you never made that defense at all.

That was not its only hole, but regardless:

Romola from the post where she voted you:

At the time you posted this, there was no 'lot' of suspicion. I have played precisely 2 games, neither of which had a Dusk or a Dawn. The musing was not tactical, it was a request for information from more experienced players, which i expected them to be able to put in general terms. In this thread, some have managed to do exactly that, so I wasn't exactly asking for the moon on a stick.

and

It was expressed as a passive statement because that's exactly what it was. I was wondering, as much as I had already been wondering before sign-ups were even completed. It would have been a crap fishing attempt - you know why? Yup, because it wasn't fishing.

The mention of her experience level here is clearly in the context of excusing/explaining her curiosity about Dawn, the possibility you gloss over. She's not using it to defend against your fishing case; she says she wasn't fishing. She's not making any claim to general inexperience/cluelessness.

After that there were some questions regarding her actual experience level, which she answers simply. Bear unvotes her for not wanting to be the reason she's lynched, and Lucifer unvotes her including this statement:

My main reason for unvoting is twofold: first, inexperience is a much more likely explanation for supposed 'fishing' than her being scum - and I was unaware of her inexperience at the time of my vote. Second, her defense post rang true to me - this is a very subjective thing - it seemed a credible defense to me.

Then finally you unvote her saying this:

Seeing as this important foundation of my argument has been shown to be incorrect, I no longer feel my argument is completely valid. Sorry, Romola; I was under the impression you were a mafia veteran. (Everyone in Austen seemed like a Mafia veteran compared to me.)

Later, Romola makes her comment about what scum often do or don't do, which Uthrecht calls out (the implication being that there's something odd about Romola's comment), saying

Haven't you been making the case that you're inexperienced?

To this she responds:

No!!! Others made the case that they 'dscovered' that as an explanation for the withdrawal of their previously heartfelt votes.

And she is correct in all but the most superficial sense, as I have explained. She made no huge issue of her experience level; she brings it up only in the context of her never having seen a Dawn before. She doesn't even really use it to rebut your argument that she's too experienced to make such a comment -- it's more contextual than that -- though I suppose I can see how you could conclude that she had. Regardless, to characterize it as her "making a case" that she's inexperienced in any more general sense is a far stretch. She's also correct that you and Lucifer attached more importance to her level of experience than she ever had -- she contested the whole of your argument, but both of you only focused on that one sentence in your unvotes.

Both you and Uthrecht come across to me as trying to turn a superficial inconsistency into something much larger than it is, in order to justify your votes. Uthrecht even more so, since his initial question was unfounded and since he wasn't "inside" the initial argument, so to speak.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Originally Posted by Renata

The mention of her experience level here is clearly in the context of excusing/explaining her curiosity about Dawn, the possibility you gloss over. She's not using it to defend against your fishing case; she says she wasn't fishing. She's not making any claim to general inexperience/cluelessness.

So in other words... my original argument is still sound? Since she's not inexperienced after all, she should have known that asking broad open-ended questions about game mechanics to everybody can be seen as suspicious and may raise red flags? If she knew that... why did she do it?

I withdrew my original vote because I believed she was making the argument that she made a mistake out of inexperience. I'm not the only person who got that impression. Later, when it suited her, she claimed to have never made that argument. Maybe she's completely unaware of how her statements were going to be interpreted, but I doubt it.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Originally Posted by Renata

she contested the whole of your argument

Where?

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

So in other words... my original argument is still sound? Since she's not inexperienced after all, she should have known that asking broad open-ended questions about game mechanics to everybody can be seen as suspicious and may raise red flags? If she knew that... why did she do it?

I agree with Renata that you and Uthy appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill. You two don't seem to fathom that one could be experienced in trying to play spot-the-scum but inexperienced in games with unusual mechanisms like dusk/dawn.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Originally Posted by Solfy

I agree with Renata that you and Uthy appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill. You two don't seem to fathom that one could be experienced in trying to play spot-the-scum but inexperienced in games with unusual mechanisms like dusk/dawn.

Everything's a mole hill on day one; but Romola has been shady and disingenuous about her answers and I don't like it.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

So in other words... my original argument is still sound? Since she's not inexperienced after all, she should have known that asking broad open-ended questions about game mechanics to everybody can be seen as suspicious and may raise red flags? If she knew that... why did she do it?

I withdrew my original vote because I believed she was making the argument that she made a mistake out of inexperience. I'm not the only person who got that impression. Later, when it suited her, she claimed to have never made that argument. Maybe she's completely unaware of how her statements were going to be interpreted, but I doubt it.

Your orignal argument is still sound if your original argument is:

1. Romola mentioned that she was inexperienced as a reason for bringing up the question of how Dawn/Dusk functions.
2. Because she has claimed inexperience in regards to one particular mechanic, she is not allowed to have any opinions as to anything else in the game.

with the corollary that she did in fact state she was inexperienced at one point in time and then denied it later (because it had nothing to do with the questions being asked.)

In essence, your case is bunk because Romola did not claim inexperience in regards to having an opinion as to what Scum might or might not do, despite not understanding how Dawn/Dusk works.

I mean, hell, I'm very inexperienced in regards to riding a motorcycle, and I might ask how to work a clutch, but that doesn't mean I can't have the opinion that it's stupid to ride one without wearing a helmet.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Everything's a mole hill on day one; but Romola has been shady and disingenuous about her answers and I don't like it.

but she didn't, as you seem to be implying, ever state that she was too experienced to find Scum.

[Special Ed]

Originally Posted by Special Ed

but she didn't, as you seem to be implying, ever state that she was too experienced to find Scum.

because if she's not, why revote her when she actually made a case after unvoting her for explaining her inexperience?

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Locked In The Trunk Of A Car

Everything's a mole hill on day one; but Romola has been shady and disingenuous about her answers and I don't like it.

But why do you seem so hellbent on pressing a case against her? FOSing her is one thing, but some of your posts seem like you can't bring yourself to consider anyone else. Is this scum trying to stay out of discussion of the other scum (e.g. Uthrecht or Bear) while still actively participating?

I feel like both you and Uthrecht have been acting extremely fishy this past day (real day, not Day) or so. I'm still dubious of Bear and Romola, but you two seem to radiate ulterior motives more than anyone else.

[Solfy]

Ulla, dear, if you're around, could we get a vote count? I haz the lazy.

[Dirx]

I'm not Ulla, but this is what I've got:

5
Bear (Ed, RabidR, Red Skeezix, Uthrecht, Bill)
Uthrecht (moody, Bear, Giraffe, Dirx, Romola)

1
Locked (Renata)
Romola (Locked)
Bill (Kat)
RedSkeezix (sinjin)
Captain (peeker)
Lucifer (Solfy)

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Solfy

Ulla, dear, if you're around, could we get a vote count? I haz the lazy.

I don't think it has changed since post #657:

Originally Posted by Total Ulla

Vote count Day 1 - take 6

Bear_Nenno (5) - Special Ed #199, Rabid Renaissance #550, Red Skeezix #582, Uthrecht #636, BillMc #647


Uthrecht (5) - Moody Mitchy #370, Bear_Nenno #396, Giraffe #538, Dirx #539, Romola #575
Romola (1) - Locked In The Trunk Of A Car #594
Locked In The Trunk Of A Car (1) - Renata #28
BillMc (1) - Kat #7
Red Skeezix (1) - Sinjin #132
captain (1) - peekercpa #395
Lucifer (1) - Solfy #428

[Solfy]

Thank you both.

[Locked In The Trunk Of A Car]

Originally Posted by Special Ed

2. Because she has claimed inexperience in regards to one particular mechanic, she is not allowed to have any opinions as to anything else in the game.

You are not the first person who has brought up this straw man argument. It is not an argument I have ever made because it is obvious bunk.

My argument is very simple:

1. Romola is too experienced to make that Night Zero post.
-- countered solely by Romola (and others) saying she is, in fact, not that experienced.

2. Later, Romola said she had not used inexperience as a defense. This is a lie. (See above.)

Originally Posted by Giraffe

But why do you seem so hellbent on pressing a case against her? FOSing her is one thing, but some of your posts seem like you can't bring yourself to consider anyone else.

Romola is the only player I've caught in a lie. And I've considered (and voted for) other people; that part of your statement's not even true. I'm actually in the middle of writing my argument against Uthrecht.