I don't have any info about skiing in my PM, Telika.

JoeSapphire in the previous game, day 1.

"I've only been skimming over the recent stuff. And I've been thinking- I've been dithering over whether to tell or not
because it mentions in my role that I could probably pilot the ship that we're on, in the situation that something should happen to whoever is in charge at the moment.
And I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, and it maybe sounds like the setup for a lyncher or something like that. Only it doesn't really make sense that someone would want to kill me for that.
And I thought maybe the mafia have to kill me to win, but they have to kill everyone anyway so that doesn't really make sense either.
So it's probably nothing, but I thought maybe it is like the Communication Devices in Vitek's game, and they were pretty harmless. So I thought I'ld let everybody know Just In Case there's some good that can come from it. And if bad comes from it then whoops! sorry guys. "

That didn't turn out too well for the town.

Telika: No mention of being able to ski, but no mention of not being able to ski.

Hmm... It all depends on whether the question being asked was "Would you reveal your info?" or "Should we (as a group) reveal our info?". Zchinque's answer to the first was a conditional yes but his answer to the second was obviously a no. The problem is that Amok's "votecount" was a mixture of the two.

For example, what he recorded for Zchinque was an answer to the question "Would you?" but what he recorded for me was an answer to the question "Should we?". This is where the problem arises... when you mix answers like that it causes problems because you can interpret them as answers to either question. Putting Zchinque down as a conditional yes in a list containing answers as to whether we should is definitely wrong and does misrepresent him (even if by mistake).

Thanks for your thoughts, in replying to them I've analysed this in more depth and I can sort of see how it could be a mistake. I still can't get over the way he claimed though and that's part of what casts the votecount thing in such a bad light.

Amok: Probably not relevant, but is English your first language?

I do it all the time, it's fun. Except for the whole being killed by mafia on night 1 thing.

He is Norwegian IIRC.
But I think he is very skilled in english.

Of course I don't mind, and seeing your response I believe I've gotten the misunderstanding out of the way. In fact that it appears as though our mindset is somewhat similar, even if we disagree in regards to my lynch reasons :P That said I also agree that amok's sudden claim is suspect and way more than to be expected, still I personally find it likely that the votes on him helped. If he had zero votes and still claimed I would say we would be fools not to lynch him. Now I am more inclined to believe the role, but suspect ulterior motives that still leads me to find him an option for lynch. Same with Zchinque, whom it surprises me to see change his stand on clues. While i agree with his now changed perspective, I can't help but wonder how an experienced player like him could not listen to similar arguments when they were first presented to him and only now seem to realize their value. But whatever he and amok is still on the likely neutral list, thus possibly keeping secrets list. Still I have been a town aligned neutral myself in a game, and thus know the frustration being lynched for that reason alone is. Therefore I would like to make clear that I am not lynching them solely on the likely neutral part - I am lynching them because its a way to get the information, without sacrificing a possible town and due to the likelihood of at least one of the neutrals being scum aligned (given amount of players aka balance). The different part is in regards to the fact that what they have revealed puts them to be different from a vanilla town, thus perhaps scum - likely neutral (given the claim to not be on the list).

Also I do find myself somewhat scummy :P It is always interesting when one refuses to scum hunt, in order to go for a safer lynch, I still disagree about the "vote jumping" as I have really only changed target once; from RvS to an actual case (with two targets).

And finally yes, thanks for fixing (an explaining the error) JMich.

Oh he definitely is, I was just trying to account for his mistake (mixing answers to different questions). It's a pretty weird mistake for anyone to make really, that in conjunction with the strange claim made in a strange way just seems really scummy to me.

It seemed like panic claim, and claiming neutral is as I understand it a common scum tactic. When suspicious behaviour is called out it's safer to claim neutral than town. Fuck, now I'm doubting my judgement. It seemed obvious to me earlier!

No offence to Joe, but this was a much better role flavour than what I was given.

Your memory serves you right

For the record, no mention of skiing whatsoever in my PM.

Also Girls Just Want Boyfriends With Great Skills

I admit I may be concerned over nothing, but like the likes/dislikes, they can be just as harmful to the town when the bigger picture is in front of us. Actually, I'm not sure how dangerous the likes and dislikes could be all things considering, but interesting how one thing can be rendered meaningless while the other must be important because we have one day to talk about both.

At least one clue that's put out on the table is meaningless. That one involves Caroline Bianchi and her aniseed balls, for the core idea that she's used in Joe's post as an NPC, which to me means that she isn't even involved. Another clue has 8 males and 8 females...except there are 15 players, and 17 characters. Some of these clues make little sense when held up to a light, we can't really afford to simply put weight on them so easily.

Now for this

1: Potentially, it cements their claim early, like a Miller claiming Day 1...which would have been you in Game 5. It also puts a town air to them saying they have no clue, they brought it to the town's attention and the Mafia surely wouldn't try to do something to make themselves look townlike right?

2: What role? He never claimed a role straight up. He HINTED about having a role. In fact the only thing he straight up claimed is being the ski instructor's dog. Maybe I'm missing the part where he said straight out that his role was a clue-cop, that was a term I thought I coined. It's why I'm so nervous because it's very easy to fall back to 'I never claimed a role, you all simply assumed I had one.' And besides, why would a potential power role claim like that? In general? If the Mafia and the dog don't have clues, then why claim until you've actually found Mafia? And even then we have no verification that one or the other is right.

3: So, The Mafia probably don't have clues, and he claimed he doesn't have a clue...but his claim is believable right? You kinda undermined your whole argument here. It's possible that the people pushing for the clues to be put out on the table might be Mafia trying to see if they can piece together the clues for their own sake. We still don't know what use these clues actually have.

1. You conveniently forgot to mention I was TOWN - as Miller, it is pretty much the only option open to you. Thge two claims are not comparable.

2. Thats true , on a re-read. Easily cleared up though - Amok, please confirm or otherwise?

3. That will be why i said 'The only thing that worries me is....'

But as I have said, I can't believe that Amok would make such a claim so early, and then compound it by saying he doesn't have a clue....the role and claim makes too much sense to me.

Bah - I can see your point though. I was 100% sure Amok wasn't dodgy, now I'm not so sure...

Did i mention i fecking hate day1?....

Yeah, I can assess the validity of a clue. So if that is a clue cop, then I am one. Bottom line? no need to fear my ability unless you lie about your clue.

Got my post draft on other computer, but just in the meantime :

How does this work, in a "don't mention your clue after day one" game ? Every night you sniff one of the few clues given on day 1, and tell us whether the NPC indeed likes aniseeed balls ?

I know. I am wondering about the same thing. I can "sniff" a clue each night to tell whether it is a lie or not, but in the subsequent days I do not think I am allowed to actually discuss the clues directly. To be honest it is a bit of a drawback, and I am not quite sure how it will work (and how sensitive it is to paraphrasing....), but I will just try to figure out things as we go along and see where it leads. At least I will know whom to generally trust or not.

I also wonder what the penalty will be for talking about clues....

@SPF - re the looming deadlines. It is now only 3 days left until the deadline, and we still have not got any further whether we should reveal clues or not, much less actually got to the point of discussing them. See what I meant? Forum time is much shorter than real time, and 10 days is actually not that much time at all.

I was going to post something similar. Exactly why I don't believe the claim.

Isn't deciding on a lynch a far more pressing matter?
The "should we reveal our clues" discussion has become too distracting at this point and your claim has caused such a fuss that even people that were open to the idea of sharing their clues have become negative towards it because they don't trust you.
I feel like we are making the same mistakes as in the previous game.