Doubt how active I'll be during the weekend (XCOM:EW), so let's answer CSPVG's question now.

Main suspects at this point are SPF, Vitek and CSPVG.

As I said before about SPF, he seems to find a target, try to get a wagon rolling on him, and if it fails move to the next target. It could also be a townie who doesn't focus on just one person, but I'm still keeping an eye on him.
Vitek is also a weird case. He has made some posts that may constitute slips, or they may have been mistakes. I don't revall Vitek making mistakes though. An example of quotes is:
though he did defend it by saying that by town he meant the whole group and not the uninformed majority, though referring to it later he posted
I really don't like those two quotes together. Is Vitek claiming that the uninformed majority went rampant, and he is not part of that group? Is he saying that those who went rampart are not uninformed majority, and he is definately not part of that group?
Shall we also add another quote of his?
I think I have too much wine in front of me, I'll have to go grab a few beers.

Now, as for CSPVG.
We have as a start these quotes of his
Let's combine them with the following quotes
So, it seems to silly old me that CSPVG wishes to have discussions going on, as long as we don't dally too long on certain subjects. One of those subjects seems to be Vitek...

So, let's add a vote to this discussion.
Vote CSPVG
If my read is correct (which may not be) that would mean that Vitek is also scum, and I would be happy to switch my vote,

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some aliens to kill.

Wait, what? :P

Hmm... I'm still keeping my vote on SPF for now - quite frankly because this time that list of top suspects is one of the most "ooh, let's sit on the fence here" post I have seen for a while, and I have written a number of "ooh, let's sit on the fence here" posts in previous games. :P

I'm not terribly sure about CSPVG's asking after the "family" quote. Mind you, this is probably due to thinking that the Mafia generally would not have the hiring conditions of "Must have the intellectual capacity of a potato", especially after Amok was the last Mafia standing last game, so it might just be my wounded pride talking. :P In any case, I am somehow inclined to believe Amok's bits of flavour he leaves lying about, though I am not yet sure about the music business.

On a related note, I wish to deny previous rumours that I am a voice inside Darko's head. I tried being one once last game, and it ended terribly. :P

Joe? Still can't tell how much salt I should take Post #283 with - the selection of one particular argument being one between townsmembers comes across as being a bit weird. Alas, I can never get a proper read on Joe. I'll post again about him, Robbeasy, a bit more on Darko and JMich and anyone else I've not mentioned at all as and when I think I have something coherent to say.

Which most of the time I don't. :(

P.S. I'm probably not going to be available for much of next weekend - going to be taking part in a 24-hour gaming event for charity. I might put a link in the Administration section once I've worked out if we'll be streaming it or not.

Ugh, the game got bit surreal since I last posted. :-)
I need to read posts properly later to undrestand their meaning. It took me 3 re-reads before I even understood SPF is talking about me in his post. o_O

Off the top of my had I have no problem with amok (so far much better than in previous, scum game) and CSPVG (seems like in previous game, active and inquisitive), little with Darko and gkaiser (if only you participated more), some but not many with Robbeasy and Quadr (I had some with kkreo and he is too much lurky) several with Joe (claiming overeaction mostly and one thing I need to read better before I mention it) and a lot with SirPrimalform (almost split apart by fence-sitting), JMich (lurking unless mentioned as someone else noted, where have I seen this already) and flubbucket.

In all of my games during day 1?

And thank you for your opinion on CSPVG.

Fence sitting or no, I am voting for one of them. :P

On the first day it can be pretty hard to have conviction in your list of suspects due to lack of info. I umm and ahh because there's no one I'm really reasonably convinced about, those are just three people I suspect more than others at the moment.

@Vitek: Sorry! It's a homophone for the way I (probably wrongly) pronounce Vitek as well as being a brand of toy 'educational computer' that I had as a child.

Well as I said earlier, mention JMIch and he appears and he makes a rather convincing argument to boot.

Instead of restating I'm going to barnacle onto what JMich has said regarding CSPVG. I do not like what Vitek said early on in the day, but CSPVG's attempt to squelch conversation and his clear attempt to defend is telling. I'm willing to write off Vitek's wordplay as a possible misunderstanding. However, if CSPVG flips scum I'd be wiling to bet Vitek is also.

Vote:CSPVG

Well, I certainly expected this to happen, sooner rather than later. Your argument does, however, take my quotes and misuse them.

The first two quotes that you have used, were taken from times when I was specifically addressing lurkers, those being DarkoD13 and gkaiser. I don't feel that you've misused these, mind, but I'd just like everyone to keep in mind their context.

The next five, however, you have misused.

Quote 1: This quote was obviously meant to be a joke, and its inclusion here is certainly odd to me.

Quote 2: This quote is taken from, I believe, a post in which I directly addressed you. At the time, we were discussing what constituted RVS, and how we felt it should end. I stated that I felt the way you had gone about ending RVS had been artificial. This was because you had made an accusatory, serious vote out of something that seemed quite minor. You seemed to want to end RVS just for the sake of it.

Furthermore, I do not see how this quote proves your over-all point of me not wanting to discuss certain subjects. I acknowledged that I felt our exit from RVS to be artificial, but welcomed it by admitting that I was glad we were discussing things in a more serious manner.

Quotes 3-5: These quotes are the most misused I feel, and are where your argument falls apart for me. Your entire case is built upon the fact that there is something inherently suspect about my attitude towards Vitek, and furthermore, that Vitek is scum.

When Vitek initially made his 'make-up' joke, I suspected that he was making a softclaim. Yet, in retrospect, it does seem to be a silly joke. After this joke came a semantics based discussion, about a possible slip relating to Vitek's use of 'the town'. I will fully admit to not knowing what to make of this second incident, as I still have to think it over.

I do, however, stick with my statement made in quote four: I feel that the biggest problem with the Vitek discussion, was that all of its participants were talking past one another. To add to that, each of the discussion's main participants( to me these would be Vitek, Robbeasy and flubbucket) were really over-zealous, in either their arguments or defenses( flubb, in particular, was guilty of this). So that, everything considered, the discussion ended up sound like this to me:

Robbeasy or flubbucket: I think you're pretty suspect, Vitek. You said the thing, the thing that I find suspect. You know.

Vitek: Nope. You're suspect, that thing I said was innocuous because I say so.

Robbeasy or flubbucket: No, I am not. You said those things, and are therefore suspect because I say so.

Vitek: You're still suspect.

Robbeasy or flubbucket: You're more suspecter.

Vitek: Oh, yeah? Well, you're the suspectest!

*continure ad nauseum*

Lastly, I feel that you've forgotten what I see as the crucial part of quote 5: " Could we agree, for the time being..." by this I meant to say that while I feel conversation about this topic had stalled, and that we were getting nothing new from it, there was no reason why we could not pick it up later. Furthermore, it was merely a suggestion, and all of you could have told me to take a running dive, head first, into an empty swimming pool, if you felt that the conversation still merited discussing. I took it as a sort of agreement with my view that the Vitek conversation had run its course, that almost everyone answered my question.

I shall make a list of my suspects later, as I feel this post is long enough. I hope everyone is having a relaxing/ fun weekend.

Vote? What Vote? Where did I vote for Robb?

Yes, ending RVS is a goal in itself, because ending it means the posts after RVS should have a reasoning. Vitek's vote was because I was being "too serious", which then started a discussion with reasons other than "Off tune", "mixing rythm and pitch", "looking funny". You (and Vitek) claim that RVS should end naturally, and making a serious post on a joke one isn't natural.

So, even though my post moving us out of RVS did start discussions, that any "good townie" would find welcome, you do not like that we are out of RVS. Ok...

Why? "Make-up" or "Don't worry" part? So roleblocker or doctor/nurse?

So because two (or more) people can't effectively communicate with each other, it's best to stop the discussion instead of trying to communicate. Ok (again).

Oh, and one more thing. You do recall that the 3-page argument me and Vitek had during the last game did help expose me as scum, right? So why wouldn't you want a discussion that may expose scum?

Ah, so then you agree with my view that the "best" play during RVS is to say "I vote for X because the die I indicated thus", since you didn't told me how delusional I was, yet you the question I had in the same post. Or could it be that answering/referring to part of a post doesn't mean automatical agreement with the rest of it? Hm, I wonder ([url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Ka8KxDuVM]I wo wo wo wo wonder)

Off to XCOM:EW again, had my first tentacle encounter yesterday, not pretty :(

That seems like kind of a stretch...

Imma put you both on my list but I figure you're probably not both scum.

Yes. On the other hand, it is day 1, and I would like to see how they respond to these allegations, if they do respond.

Oh, and what is the stretch? The Vitek connection or the dallying on subjects? Or the "wishes for discussions" part?

The Vitek connection seems a little tenuous but it's true he did seem eager to move the discussion onto another subject at some points. We did spend a long time on Vitek discussion, so it could be that Vitek's name crops up simply because there was a lot of discussion concerning him. Having said that, if one of them flips scum at some point then I'll definitely be more interested in the other.

How does their claims make them more likely to be town?
Don't get me wrong, I have them on townie pile as well right now but I don't see how their claim make them more towny. They could be completely fake or they could just be missing the part where it mentions they are killing people to be safe or to helping their family by murdering people and stealing their money.
If I mention that I tend to sick rats (I wanted to say puppies but we are on ship) on the ship in my spare time, will it make me more towny? ;-)

So who exactly are your suspects? You mentioned gkaiser, then SirPrimalform, flubbucket and me as top contenders, CSPVG as suspicious too and you named rest of players wildcards which I guess can be considered as possible scum too.

That's too much for my liking.

What does this means to you? That he suddenly dropped me. Does it make him more suspicious? Less suspicious? The same?


"Could be slip or mistake but Vítek doesn't makes mistakes."
Ah, your indirect accusations again, how I missed them. It's like playing last game again.
Isn't slip mistake as well?

I may be wrong, I am not entirely sure, but I feel like we talked about this before and I explained it.
I am probably hallucinating but could someone check it for me please?
Who knows, maybe someone will even find that the second quote is followed by "I also used town as whole player base as I often do, so I would exclude myself from the game if it was outside observation. :-p" which explains exactly what I meant and this could be considered as great example of selective quoting.

Considering I said it as clear WIFOM, what's the point of mentioning it here?

What are the other subjects? I looked at those CSPVG's post and it seems to be the only thing he wanted to leave alone in those quotes 5 and 7 and you claim he doesn't want to dwell on certain subjects but I don't see any other. Once again this reminds me last game and yours "there is many scummy things about Vítek but I can actually show you just one thing."

Yeah and you also said he is your top suspect so why the sudden change of heart?


@Quadr's 302; what CSPVG's asking after the family quote?


Nope. You were different in mafia meeting game than in last Asylum one.
Glad to help. Could you show me how his play differs from his previous town ones? What else than "he doesn't want to talk about Vítek anymore" makes him worthy of vote?


Hm, it's actually quite close. :-) Unfortunately I first read it with czech pronounciation, which made no sense and then my mind translated it to V-Chip instead which made even less sense. :-)

@CSPVG's 307; I never said Robbeasy is scummy and it wasn't how I was responding to him.
Flub was twisting things I said or even haven't said that's why he got my vote.


Oh, our valiant hero, you led us out of RVS by accusing someone seriously for making joke post. How brave of you.
We are forever grateful.

If I don't like leaving RVS quickly in any game does it mean I am never good townie? :'-(

Not if the other side refuses to listen.

I agree that dropping argument so artificaly as CSPVG suggested is not exactly desired thing but it is also understandable that uninvolved people grew more and more bored of long discussion and wanted it to end. Once again I can direct you to mafia meeting game, where many people were telling you to drop those naming attacks against me because they felt it has nothing to add and they were right and townies.

Our last game argument wasn't so long and it was benefical from my side, I admit this, but I in no way want to repeat mafia convention arguments because those were not useful in the least and I would better not live through it again, which I mostly already did in this game with others. :-/

Depends on how you interpret it. It seems like he dropped it because he realised he was wrong? For me it seems less suspicious.

Exactly. Without any explanation it's hard to say and anyone can think whatever he wants about it. I personally am not happy when someone changes his read without explaining himself.

Well yeah, he's still on my list pending a bit of explaining but he's not as high as he was before.