Ok, for the last few days, I have only been able to come in and read a few pages at a time, not able to fully catch up because of all the conversation. I'm starting this post while still not caught up, but it occurred to me that I should get thoughts down.
The Normal vs L/Light vote has taken up a lot of the conversation thus far, so I should start by talking about that a little. I voted for the L/Light option, because I thought it would be cool, and I was optimistic that L could work it into Civvie advantage. There is an angle that I have not seen discussed on this front, so I'm bringing it up. I know the Normal option has already won, so this is moot now anyway.
I feel like people were focusing on whether L and Light picked Civvies or baddies with their vote-weighting choices, when in my mind, the trick was for L to pick people who are good at finding baddies, and for Light to pick people who are bad at finding baddies. It's about confidence in the players' case-making ability and detective work, because even baddies want to lynch baddies - they want their cases to give them cred. Looking at whether baddies or Civvies have more vote-influence is one thing, but it's not the only thing. Especially when L and Light mostly have no idea who the baddies and Civvies are. Anyways, Normal won and now a lot of the discussion is about that.
The original thing was DH and Epig arguing about the best option, with some satellite opinions coming in after those two started at it. I've only read it once, but I feel like a lot of the Normal voters decided on Normal after Epig made a big case for it. Staunch supporters of his infallible opinion. It occurs to me as I write this that perhaps some baddies latched on to that because they could see how one could make the case that L/Light voters are bad.
The other thing that stands out to me is Aces/Trice. It's like the other big discussion. I find it more interesting than the DH/Epig one, especially with Aces' big case on Trice. I really like the angle of thinking like a baddie, and looking for patterns of behaviour that, while not overtly suspicious, conform with what I think a baddie would do. Also, it's good to see an active Aces, because the last several games I have played with him, I recall a near-absenteeism from him. Aces, will you keep this up?
Will you bring that Aces to the next game I host? 
I don't think there's a big case against Aces, but there sure is one against Trice now.
This goes against the theory from S~V~S that baddies would be more tentative in this game because they don't want to lynch a teammate they don't know yet. Trice doesn't fall into that category at all. Could be a distanced defense of Trice by S~V~S, now that I think about it, but that's too weak to pursue at this time.
I also feel like Trice has been unfairly accused for some of the things... you make a lot of posts, and people can find something to twist in them. What I'm thinking about specifically here is when Trice said "If that's the best case you can make, then you're not going to lynch a Civ like you want to." Someone was saying that would likely be interpreted as "Trice isn't Civ", I think... but that is a long shot, I don't believe that's going to happen. Who thinks that's a slip? I don't.
On the other hand, it's a huge "no u". Maybe even a slightly preemptive one, as I seem to recall from Aces' case that he said Trice was being baddie-paranoid... and that statement of 'no-u'-ness really fits the bill. That's a very strong statement from Trice that he thinks Aces is a baddie. Has Trice voted for Aces yet? I haven't looked at votes yet.
http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 97#p115297
I'm at that post now in my catch-up. I'll talk more when I'm up-to-date, assuming that ever happens with this superverbose thread.
