[END] Harry Potter Mafia

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

[Spooky Ghost]

Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

I think that Draco, at least, is recruitable, and I think the other 3 are more likely to have the potential of being anti-civvie than any of the professors (once again, with Snape being a possible exception).

To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that.

Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Because sometimes people who are likable or ultimately good need to be bad for the sake of balance. I do not personally advocate such speculation, but I find it far less suspicious than speculation that Pansy and Goyle (especially) are "worse" than a team of baddies.

[Ned Flanders]

Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Dumbledore isn't a role, so things there could play out differently.

Katharina, who do you think might have tried to kill you last night?

Krystyna, do you believe that Draco and the other Slytherin students are baddies, or do you just want us to be wary of the possibility they could be? What do you think of your vote for Bridget yesterday, now that we know her role? Do you stand by your reasoning?

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

I think that Draco, at least, is recruitable, and I think the other 3 are more likely to have the potential of being anti-civvie than any of the professors (once again, with Snape being a possible exception).

To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that.

Question about big book/movie spoiler for anyone that has read/seen them all:

Why do people keep saying Snape could be bad? I thought he was a shifty-acting guy that ended up being good and saving the day in the last book? I'm expecting him to be a very powerful good guy in this game.

Because sometimes people who are likable or ultimately good need to be bad for the sake of balance. I do not personally advocate such speculation, but I find it far less suspicious than speculation that Pansy and Goyle (especially) are "worse" than a team of baddies.

"To clarify, that wasn't he point I made. I made the point that the professors would essentially be civvies by your reasoning. In addition, Goyle and Pansy both do not have secrets. Draco and Crabbe do. Why the insistence that they are all the same? What do you "know"? I would imagine roles with secrets would have more potential to be bad than roles without, however, you say that two roles without secrets are worse than a confirmed, full out, baddie. Riddle me that. "

I do think the professors are essentially civvies, or at least 3 out of the 4.

And you are wrong, Draco has no secrets stated in his role. If he has no marked secrets, but Lucius is searching for him and therefore a role that does have secrets has some kind of interaction with at least one role that has no marked secrets. Therefore, that same role, or others, could have interaction with any other role (for example, I think it is highly likely that even though Harry has no marked secrets, that there is interaction between that role and Voldemort's because of Voldemort's secrets).

Once again, I will point you to the numbers of the game.

We know the teachers are independents, and what makes the most sense is that they are all or mostly some kind of civ-friendly indy.

Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw students are all trustworthy, imo.

That's 12 students + 3 or 4 teachers that I think are civ or civ-aligned, 15 or 16 out of 24 roles total.

It seems likely to me that Lucius either recruits Draco to the deatheaters when he checks him, or he finds Draco and then betrays his team.

If he recruits Draco to VA, that still only gives us 5 baddies. 19v5 still doesn't seem right to me. But lets say Snape is less predictable than that, and make it 18v5v1. Better, but I'm not convinced yet. So yes, of the 3 remaining, I expect at least one of them would go with Draco, or then become recruitable after Draco was. 17v6v1 maybe. Maybe the teachers can only with students from their house, but my problem there is, while yes, it is easy to look up, only some student roles specify which house they are from, so for people not familiar with the books or movies, if that's what the teachers win conditions were, I at least would have put the house each student is in in every single role to keep those things straight for those people. Since that isn't the case, I don't think that's the most likely win condition of the teachers, so I'm willing to trust more than 1 of them.

So, lets say of the 16 students, 2 of them are recruitable, Draco and one other Slytherin. Crabbe is the only one with secrets, so maybe it's him and he knows it. But if it's one of the other 2 (or Draco/Lucius/the team as a whole get to choose which of them to recruit when Draco is), they presumably wouldn't even know they can be recruited. Because of all of that, all 4 of those roles concern me, because I don't know that their intentions line up with mine, whereas I am comfortable saying that students and (most) teachers do probably have the same intentions, hunting down VA.

Because of all that, yes, I want Voldemort, Bellatrix, Dolohov, and Lucius dead the most, but if we lynch any of the Slytherin students, specifically Draco, then that will be at the very least a neutral result in my view.

[NurseWilgy]

I'm hoping we won't go after the Slytherin students until we know for sure, but I think a neutral + result is a good way to look at it, indeed.

[Operator]

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

[Ned Flanders]

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

[Snapshot]

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

This is racism of the Slytherin people! Dumbledore is always for us, he is an asshole!

6

[Rachel Green]

I thought it was already cleared up that the students were civvies?

Also, the only group that had btsc initially was the baddie team. Whether anything has changed, who can say?

I'm not sure why there is still this much debate going on?

[Rachel Green]

damn wrong quote.

anyways I feel like this is distracting from talking about who is suspicious.

[Ned Flanders]

@Hosts, with Alizon replaced, are you still looking to replace any other players?

I think we have a baddie team with at least some players lying low, so I want to look at missed votes.

Missed D1: Merga Bien; Alizon Device; Märet Jonsdotter; Kael Merrie; Karin Svensdotter
Missed D2: Merga Bien, Alizon Device, Entjen Gillis, Anna Koldings, Rebecca Nurse, Margaret Pearson, Anne Whittle

Merga has missed both votes, posted only 4 times. The first 2 posts were fluff, the third was apologizing for not being around much and a vote, the fourth was saying she would be around even less for the next few days (was made D2), but would then be back. So that's a pass until D4 for me to give her a chance to follow through with being around more.

Alizon has been replaced now, and can't be lynched today.

The rest of the missed votes are one time missers. I'm less concerned with a missed vote D1 than I am D2, so that brings me to people who missed the vote D2. Will go through the rest as the are listed.

Entjen: To start, her last post said she'll be gone for a day, so I guess I shouldn't expect a response for a while. Anyways:

This post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 664#p57664, seems very inconsistent to me.

In the first bit she wrote, she says, "Read through everything. I haven't had time to go back through the roles and everything to find the explanation that some seem to be eluding to. I don't have the roles memorized yet so it takes me a bit of back and forth to get a grasp on what is going on." So there's difficulty keeping things straight, fair enough, in a sock game.

But, in the same post she was responding to:

Jane said to Entjen, "So now you don't want to read back to find your own suspicions because... because you interpreted my post as snarky? The intention of my post was to better understand where you were coming from and which things were important to you and why they were important to you. But if all you saw was snark, and a chance to try and twist it around into suspicion of me, and an excuse to not go back and sort through your own suspicions... well that's your prerogative I guess. But I was simply trying to understand your thoughts."

The response is, "Ok here is why it seemed snarky to me. You take a couple of sentences of mine then at the bottom put something like "so to recap" you don't remember anything and the like. I fail to see why anyone needs to "recap" a couple sentences with a couple more. Everyone is fairly capable of reading them themselves.
It does scream of snark to me, and it's not that I don't want to sort through my own suspicions but when I take something as snarky I'd rather not try to sort through the posts at that time."

Now, here's my problem. What is a role description? A couple of sentences. What did Entjen say before? "I don't have the roles memorized yet so it takes me a bit of back and forth to get a grasp on what is going on."

Alright, so when another person wants to keep something straight because it's difficult to keep track of everything, that is snark. When Entjen has the same problem, it's ok? Keep in mind, you a bit further back, there's more from Entjen about how she is having trouble keeping track of things (posts/names, the same stuff Jane decided to recap in order to help herself remember as far as I can tell).

Now, go further back: Does anyone else see the snark that Entjen did? Because I don't. That seems like trying to make up some suspicion built around nothing to me. Strike 1.


Moving backwards, to Day 1, we have this:

I voted Agnes. Had to vote now :/ sorry. I'm far from confident about her, but i don't like some of her responses this past day
and better you then me

Your responses leave something to be desired as well. Plus you are not reading when I say I WILL NOT BE LYNCHED:

I guess you thought nothing of lets say Bridget for jumping on your post and voting me? I ill guess not.

I'm not sure why I should trust you when you say you won't be lynched. I don't know your role, and what am I supposed to do anyways... Just let myself get lynched instead? I know I am a civvie, I can't say the same for you.

I plan on looking at everyone who jumped on all sides of this discussion. And the ones who didn't contribute for that matter. There is more than one baddie to find.

The second part of her response bothers me. So much of what she says tends towards being direct, but this isn't. I suppose it seems to me like a way to avoid talking about Bridget or any other player specifically, and keeping things in broad strokes.

Going forward again from D1, there was the early D2 stuff where she expresses her surprise at Agnes being NKed, pushes the idea of the teachers being a proper baddie team, and in general discusses things that are not suspicions or useful to tracking down a player to vote for.

But then she says (in this post: http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com/viewto ... 539#p57539): "There is a lot of discussion going on, but it's a lot about roles and little about the players. We still got some time this day but I know I need to start figuring out who I think it most suspicious now. This is all very distracting :P".

Now, she is right the discussion had not been about players, but in that same post, her first thought was, "Really we do need to be given some win conditions. Because I'm not even sure what the purpose of the game is at this point. What do we do "

So she isn't sure who she be looking for, because she has no conditions, but she also wants us to stop trying to figure out what the conditions are find someone suspicious, but without having actual grounds for considering them suspicious apparently? I'm going to go ahead and call that Strike 2.

And then, after all that, we get:

damn everyone I am really sorry for missing the vote. I don't even know who I would have voted for in the end. I don't know why I thought I had more time then I had

I really don't like that. Not only are you shrugging off responsibility for missing the vote, you aren't even adding to the discussion (which you previously complained about) to say where your vote would have gone had you bothered to vote. That's Strike 3.

In the interest of keeping things to a readable size, I'm going to come back to the remainder of the Day 2 non-voters if looking at them I find anything more compelling than all this.

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Linki: Ah, and speak of the devil, while I putting this together she returned. And posted more things that go right along with what I find concerning about her.

[Gunther]

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

This is racism of the Slytherin people! Dumbledore is always for us, he is an asshole!

6

Is this you claiming to be Slyherin or are there supposed to be more words there that are missing?

[Ned Flanders]

Alright, next on the list: Anna Koldings. 13 posts, most are jokes or joke-y, during D2, zero discussion about voting, only 1 post, in posts after D2, no recognition of missing the vote, and still no names brought up for consideration. So, I'd like to see something of substance, and not even mentioning missing the vote concerns me. Not as much as Entjen, but still... more in line with what I was actually suspecting from baddies before I looked over Entjen, so I can see voting Anna if I decided not to vote Entjen.

Next, Rebecca Nurse. I lean towards feeling ok-ish about her. We didn't get a reason for why she didn't vote though, so if there is one, or at least some acknowledgement about it, that would be good. Some helpfulness, asking questions, discussing suspicion. Don't see myself voting here today.

Next, Margaret Pearson. A whopping six posts, three of which are about which D0/Night poll option she was voting. She numbered her one and only post so far today, so I assume that Mary (who is doing the same) was targeted by the babbling curse from Luna (since some of it makes sense and some doesn't), and that Margaret was targeted by Dolohov with Imperius. I imagine Imperius is both a posting challenge and a controlled vote (maybe more to it, some options or something), so I'll be interested to see how she votes today. Could be the other way around... some people can fight Imperius when it is used against them, so perhaps their speech being wonky is a result. Since they have to number posts, we know they were targeted (or they fake it, but why do that early, and if future targets don't have to number their posts, that would be a weird assumption to make when forced), I assume they'll be able to discuss being targeted when the effects of it end.

And lastly, Anne Whittle. She seems to have been targeted N1 by Luna for D2, only made one post that day. She didn't number it though. Only 4 posts total. Maybe not meeting the requirements of it D2 got her silenced, maybe she's just not posting. I'd place her about the same as Anna.

[Snapshot]

I think it is reckless and irresponsible to assume evil on the part of the Slytherin students. It is not the Hogwarts spirit. The sorting hat and the professors never assumed that Slytherins were automatically bad in the books. It would be unfair for us to do so now.

Actually, during the Battle for Hogwarts, Slytherin students are not brought in to fight with the rest of the school, and put with the young students, because they are not trusted. During that entire year, they also help the Death Eater's that were put in charge of the school torture other students.

This is racism of the Slytherin people! Dumbledore is always for us, he is an asshole!

6

Is this you claiming to be Slyherin or are there supposed to be more words there that are missing?

No, it's just an unfair bad rap. It's not good.

7

[2 Stupid Dogs]

Mom! Mary is pretending she's just now learning English again. You said she couldn't do that anymore.

I don't know why people want to waste time on Slytherin's status before we've even taken out one baddie. That doesn't matter, it certainly doesn't matter YET. Seems like a big ol distraction to me.

[Rachel Green]

Krystyna I def do not have btsc, and if I did, don't you think my posts would be a little more consistant
because I would have an idea what is going on from my btsc? I am all on my own here, and I really am just busy.
I can't speak for whether or not anyone saw it as snarky only how I did, but when I see things that way I would rather not get an attitude back which is why I chose to step away from it for the moment. We can argue that you did not take it the same way but everyone takes things differently.
I do think win conditions are important because people don't know what they need to be doing to win. I have played games where you are required to be alive at the end, and I have played games where you win if your team (civ, or bad) wins at the end regardless of if you are alive and or greatly changes how people play.
I'm sorry that you don't agree that there has been more discussions about roles and the like than suspicion. it seems like every time I check the thread there is talk about roles and whether or not a role can be good or bad based on the books and stuff like that. While I find it ok to talk about those things some I feel like some people may be pushing the conversation in that direction to steer the conversation away from talking about the players, so that when lynch time comes its a big clusterfuck of random suspicions coming out of the woodwork and a civvie will be lynched.
I don't think I am shrugging off responsibility for missing the vote. I hate missing votes, which although you don't know who I am, I will tell you it's not something I often do. I said it was my fault, and I don't know who I would've voted for because hindsight is everything and when you see the result its easy to say oh I would have done this or that. Point is, I didn't vote and I missed a lot of that discussion so I can't go back and change that and offer you up with a name just for the sake of naming someone

[Snapshot]

Mom! Mary is pretending she's just now learning English again. You said she couldn't do that anymore.

God, everything! You should always be your stuff! Always love more!

8

[Spooky Ghost]

Because of all that, yes, I want Voldemort, Bellatrix, Dolohov, and Lucius dead the most, but if we lynch any of the Slytherin students, specifically Draco, then that will be at the very least a neutral result in my view.

I'm going to drop this now, but this isn't what you said earlier.

[Spooky Ghost]

*votes*

[Celeste]

I did think it was strange how Entjen didn't say who they might have voted for when there were only really 2 people getting votes, it didn't seem like it would have taken much to look at the poll and decide between if they would have gone with the common thought or gone somewhere else.

[Ned Flanders]

Because of all that, yes, I want Voldemort, Bellatrix, Dolohov, and Lucius dead the most, but if we lynch any of the Slytherin students, specifically Draco, then that will be at the very least a neutral result in my view.

I'm going to drop this now, but this isn't what you said earlier.

If you're going to edit what I say, lets get everything relevant in there:

"And you are wrong, Draco has no secrets stated in his role. If he has no marked secrets, but Lucius is searching for him and therefore a role that does have secrets has some kind of interaction with at least one role that has no marked secrets. Therefore, that same role, or others, could have interaction with any other role (for example, I think it is highly likely that even though Harry has no marked secrets, that there is interaction between that role and Voldemort's because of Voldemort's secrets)."

You did not deal with the fact that you are wrong, but then you go ahead and continue to, whether it's intentional or not, misrepresent me. It is what I said, whether you simply didn't understand it, or are choosing to act like you did not, I do not know.

And voting for me without further discussion when we still had nearly a day for discussion is in no way 'dropping it', it's you ignoring the fact that I called you out on being wrong, and bullheadedly continuing with it anyways.

[Ned Flanders]

Hmm, I guess looking at your post history now, I shouldn't be surprised. You're just posting the same things over and over again in every discussion you've been a part of.

And this folks, is a what a Slytherin student looks like. Maybe you think you're a civ, but you're not acting like one by refusing to participate in discussion, and you're not helping the cause. Things to keep in mind if she gets her way this lynch, is my point.

[Celeste]

I don't quite think it's reasonable to assume that all slytherin's are capable of being recruited. Or at least not to the Voldies, spare Draco, since it wouldn't make sence for Lucious to kill him after finding him. Maybe controlling him might make sense or something? Idk, I digress. If my hypothesis on the Professors is correct then it's totes hella possible that that they could be recruited by Snape, but that is kinda just the same as how under my guessing thing the 4 gryffindors could also be recruited, (or gathered? found? whatever) somehow by MacGonagle.

Of course this is all just based on guesses that are meaningless because I could be totally wrong so therefore who the heck cares. I don't think it's worth worrying about right at this moment at least not comparatively to other things.

Yooooo hosts would we hypothetically be informed if such things as recruitments or the gaining of btscs were to take place in some manner?

[Celeste]

Lucius Malfoy, not Lucious Malfoy*

*shudders*

[Ben Linus]

I don't quite think it's reasonable to assume that all slytherin's are capable of being recruited. Or at least not to the Voldies, spare Draco, since it wouldn't make sence for Lucious to kill him after finding him. Maybe controlling him might make sense or something? Idk, I digress. If my hypothesis on the Professors is correct then it's totes hella possible that that they could be recruited by Snape, but that is kinda just the same as how under my guessing thing the 4 gryffindors could also be recruited, (or gathered? found? whatever) somehow by MacGonagle.

Of course this is all just based on guesses that are meaningless because I could be totally wrong so therefore who the heck cares. I don't think it's worth worrying about right at this moment at least not comparatively to other things.

Yooooo hosts would we hypothetically be informed if such things as recruitments or the gaining of btscs were to take place in some manner?

You know how win conditions were never stated? Maybe Lucius's win conditions are to find Draco and survive the game with him.

[Ben Linus]

I don't quite think it's reasonable to assume that all slytherin's are capable of being recruited. Or at least not to the Voldies, spare Draco, since it wouldn't make sence for Lucious to kill him after finding him. Maybe controlling him might make sense or something? Idk, I digress. If my hypothesis on the Professors is correct then it's totes hella possible that that they could be recruited by Snape, but that is kinda just the same as how under my guessing thing the 4 gryffindors could also be recruited, (or gathered? found? whatever) somehow by MacGonagle.

Of course this is all just based on guesses that are meaningless because I could be totally wrong so therefore who the heck cares. I don't think it's worth worrying about right at this moment at least not comparatively to other things.

Yooooo hosts would we hypothetically be informed if such things as recruitments or the gaining of btscs were to take place in some manner?

McGonagall! not Macdouglefritz.

*Also shudders*

[Ben Linus]

Quiet day so far. Where is everyone?

What are your thoughts today, Jennet?

On what?

[Celeste]

Has that happened before? A mafia member with a separate WC from his teammates? Like a traitor role?

[Ben Linus]

It's possible that he could have separate win conditions than his fellow death eaters, or additional ones. It is odd that he cannot cast any of the unforgivable curses while the other Death Eaters can. Then again, Voldemort did take his wand in the final book, but I don't know if that's why. I am more inclined to believe he is a recruiter.

[Spooky Ghost]

Hmm, I guess looking at your post history now, I shouldn't be surprised. You're just posting the same things over and over again in every discussion you've been a part of.

And this folks, is a what a Slytherin student looks like. Maybe you think you're a civ, but you're not acting like one by refusing to participate in discussion, and you're not helping the cause. Things to keep in mind if she gets her way this lynch, is my point.

I don't want my way in this lynch.

[Ben Linus]

Alright, next on the list: Anna Koldings. 13 posts, most are jokes or joke-y, during D2, zero discussion about voting, only 1 post, in posts after D2, no recognition of missing the vote, and still no names brought up for consideration. So, I'd like to see something of substance, and not even mentioning missing the vote concerns me. Not as much as Entjen, but still... more in line with what I was actually suspecting from baddies before I looked over Entjen, so I can see voting Anna if I decided not to vote Entjen.

Next, Rebecca Nurse. I lean towards feeling ok-ish about her. We didn't get a reason for why she didn't vote though, so if there is one, or at least some acknowledgement about it, that would be good. Some helpfulness, asking questions, discussing suspicion. Don't see myself voting here today.

Next, Margaret Pearson. A whopping six posts, three of which are about which D0/Night poll option she was voting. She numbered her one and only post so far today, so I assume that Mary (who is doing the same) was targeted by the babbling curse from Luna (since some of it makes sense and some doesn't), and that Margaret was targeted by Dolohov with Imperius. I imagine Imperius is both a posting challenge and a controlled vote (maybe more to it, some options or something), so I'll be interested to see how she votes today. Could be the other way around... some people can fight Imperius when it is used against them, so perhaps their speech being wonky is a result. Since they have to number posts, we know they were targeted (or they fake it, but why do that early, and if future targets don't have to number their posts, that would be a weird assumption to make when forced), I assume they'll be able to discuss being targeted when the effects of it end.

And lastly, Anne Whittle. She seems to have been targeted N1 by Luna for D2, only made one post that day. She didn't number it though. Only 4 posts total. Maybe not meeting the requirements of it D2 got her silenced, maybe she's just not posting. I'd place her about the same as Anna.

So Entjen is bad, but you might vote someone else? I don't see the logic there.

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Krystyna, I appreciate your high level of participation recently which is something I believe is indicative of a townie, but your ideas are all over the place and don't connect. Almost like you don't care who gets lynched, but if you come up with all sorts of evidence as to why each player is bad, someone will get the votes. That is something I'd expect from a baddie.

[Julinook]

Sorry for my absence today, busy busy.

I first thought that it seemed like Krystyna was maybe getting a bum rap by having lots of people exploiting her posts and thus making her talk a lot, which always makes someone sound worse. But, really, her posts don't sound civvie at all, if anything they sound indy. Jennet is right, it sounds like Krystyna is just whatevs about this.

And fwiw, Jennet is making a lot of sense to me.

[Celeste]

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Krystyna, I appreciate your high level of participation recently which is something I believe is indicative of a townie, but your ideas are all over the place and don't connect. Almost like you don't care who gets lynched, but if you come up with all sorts of evidence as to why each player is bad, someone will get the votes. That is something I'd expect from a baddie.

I was kinda feeling that about Krystyna too, like she has a lot of great points, but I have to wonder about the burst of activity, why is it happening now? what exactly is the stimulus

[Ned Flanders]

Alright, next on the list: Anna Koldings. 13 posts, most are jokes or joke-y, during D2, zero discussion about voting, only 1 post, in posts after D2, no recognition of missing the vote, and still no names brought up for consideration. So, I'd like to see something of substance, and not even mentioning missing the vote concerns me. Not as much as Entjen, but still... more in line with what I was actually suspecting from baddies before I looked over Entjen, so I can see voting Anna if I decided not to vote Entjen.

Next, Rebecca Nurse. I lean towards feeling ok-ish about her. We didn't get a reason for why she didn't vote though, so if there is one, or at least some acknowledgement about it, that would be good. Some helpfulness, asking questions, discussing suspicion. Don't see myself voting here today.

Next, Margaret Pearson. A whopping six posts, three of which are about which D0/Night poll option she was voting. She numbered her one and only post so far today, so I assume that Mary (who is doing the same) was targeted by the babbling curse from Luna (since some of it makes sense and some doesn't), and that Margaret was targeted by Dolohov with Imperius. I imagine Imperius is both a posting challenge and a controlled vote (maybe more to it, some options or something), so I'll be interested to see how she votes today. Could be the other way around... some people can fight Imperius when it is used against them, so perhaps their speech being wonky is a result. Since they have to number posts, we know they were targeted (or they fake it, but why do that early, and if future targets don't have to number their posts, that would be a weird assumption to make when forced), I assume they'll be able to discuss being targeted when the effects of it end.

And lastly, Anne Whittle. She seems to have been targeted N1 by Luna for D2, only made one post that day. She didn't number it though. Only 4 posts total. Maybe not meeting the requirements of it D2 got her silenced, maybe she's just not posting. I'd place her about the same as Anna.

So Entjen is bad, but you might vote someone else? I don't see the logic there.

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Krystyna, I appreciate your high level of participation recently which is something I believe is indicative of a townie, but your ideas are all over the place and don't connect. Almost like you don't care who gets lynched, but if you come up with all sorts of evidence as to why each player is bad, someone will get the votes. That is something I'd expect from a baddie.

My intention (after I went through Entjen's posts) is to vote for her. But I wanted to go through the rest of them, so I did. I wanted to check all of what I think are todays best options.

Before pinning myself down to a vote, I wanted to give Entjen a chance to respond. She has now, it hasn't changed my view of her, so that's still where I think I'll vote, but the lynch has about 16 hours left to go, and I want to see what other people have to say before setting anything into stone.

I would disagree, my ideas do connect. Going in looking at missed voters, I wanted low fliers, since that's what I'm expecting from Death Eaters right now. Despite a high post count, I still think Entjen fits that bill, whereas the others I would consider to vote have significantly fewer posts, and therefore are harder to get a real read on. They're still suspicious, there just isn't the same weight behind it.

@Barbara, no, I'm not indy.

Going back to Jennet, and the Unforgiveable curses. Voldemort also doesn't actually have one specified to his role. Creating Horcruxes, while necessitating murder, doesn't require using Avada Kevadara for the kill, and isn't itself an unforgiveable curse. Also keep in mind, there are only the three of them, so they're all accounted for without giving Lucius one (although it reads to me like Avada can be used by anyone on the team, not locked to one player. From the way night posts have read, I assume Voldemort has the technical control of it for actually roleblocking the kill and other similar abilities, but there have been games where anyone could send in a kill and be the one actually responsible for it. Makes for a more powerful team since it's harder to predict, and you can't stop it regularly if you find the killer, since another member of the team may just starting sending it in).

@Anne: Yes, there have been games with traitor roles on the baddie team.

[Ned Flanders]

But, looking at it all together, I think Entjen is bad. There is a great deal of placing responsibility on other people while taking none herself, complaining about things but participating in them almost exclusively anyways, and there's just this lack of consistency in how she is posting that, and this is admittedly is all gut, makes me think she has BTSC, and sometimes we're seeing her post while discussing outside the thread, and sometimes we're seeing just her quick thoughts that aren't going through the BTSC filter.

Krystyna, I appreciate your high level of participation recently which is something I believe is indicative of a townie, but your ideas are all over the place and don't connect. Almost like you don't care who gets lynched, but if you come up with all sorts of evidence as to why each player is bad, someone will get the votes. That is something I'd expect from a baddie.

I was kinda feeling that about Krystyna too, like she has a lot of great points, but I have to wonder about the burst of activity, why is it happening now? what exactly is the stimulus

I don't want to get lynched myself because Bridget pulled a play that I think I've made my stance on very clear (it's a shitty thing to do as a civ to other civs), and I don't want to see a different civ get lynched for the same thing. If this lynch doesn't net a decent result, I'm concerned we'd see a domino effect of blame being placed where it shouldn't be while the baddies start picking people off with a fair bit of ease.

Plus, time. I can, so I am.

[Lunatella]

I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

[Ned Flanders]

Umm... exactly how many forced votes are we supposed to believe there are? This is just getting weird. That is the second non-reason vote (at least the second anyways) that Sarah has taken, I remember one being because she had the letter 's' in her name.

[Perd Hapley]

I'll slither in if you know what I mean

I'm voting for Maret. Judgmental people are assholes (she says, judgmentally).

[Perd Hapley]

We KNOW that Lucius is searching for Draco each night. We don't know what happens if he finds him, but we do know neither he or Draco are anything that could be considered good people, and Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy are worse.

Except it's been confirmed that teachers are independents, not baddies. So unless you want to tell me you think a game with 20 non baddies vs. 4 baddies makes sense, then more have to have that potential, and Slytherin has a history of being evil (Point in case: all 4 baddies were).

That's not fear-mongering, that's the reality of the situation, if you don't want to accept it, than that's on you.

....you literally said that Crabbe, Goyle, and Pansy-- roles to which we have zero confirmed indication that are recruitable (we have that indication on Draco) are worse than Lucius.

Go read the books and tell me they aren't.

Wow I definitely misread this quote and thought Maret said that, not Krystyna.

@Hostesses: Can I change it to Krystyna? (prolly not )

[Ben Linus]

Going back to Jennet, and the Unforgiveable curses. Voldemort also doesn't actually have one specified to his role. Creating Horcruxes, while necessitating murder, doesn't require using Avada Kevadara for the kill, and isn't itself an unforgiveable curse. Also keep in mind, there are only the three of them, so they're all accounted for without giving Lucius one (although it reads to me like Avada can be used by anyone on the team, not locked to one player. From the way night posts have read, I assume Voldemort has the technical control of it for actually roleblocking the kill and other similar abilities, but there have been games where anyone could send in a kill and be the one actually responsible for it. Makes for a more powerful team since it's harder to predict, and you can't stop it regularly if you find the killer, since another member of the team may just starting sending it in).

@Anne: Yes, there have been games with traitor roles on the baddie team.

Yes, Avada Kadavra is the killing curse, one of the three unforgivable curses according to Mad-Eye Moody (Barty Crouch I should say). But that's not important to the game, aside from those three curses being usable by the Death Eaters. But you're right about Voldemort alone not being able to use it. I misread that part. The horcrux bit is something I haven't pondered yet. I really hope we don't have to find them before it's all said and done.

[Ben Linus]

I'll slither in if you know what I mean

I'm voting for Maret. Judgmental people are assholes (she says, judgmentally).

I hope you have not read the books or seen the movies, because that post has so many implications that point at evil.

[Ben Linus]

Don't be shy Alice, come talk with us.

[Celeste]

I need to vote tonight, I'm performing a "magic" show tomorrow night so I'm gonna be busy all day.

I think I've decided to trust Krystyn Chenoweth, at least for now.

My vote is going to Entgen, partially because of the stuff Krysteny said about avoiding responsibility but also because of this thing:

"Krystyna I def do not have btsc, and if I did, don't you think my posts would be a little more consistant
because I would have an idea what is going on from my btsc? I am all on my own here, and I really am just busy. "

The whole argument of "if i were a baddie I would act differently because teammates" never pans out properly, if baddies ran around acting like they were obviously baddies then there wouldn't be much of a game would there. mafia do their best to act like they're not in btsc and don't have buddies to help them catch up and like... good mafia teammates make their fellow mafias read up on their own to avoid slip ups and shared perspectives and whatever. I am sleepy, but yes that is where my vote is going.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't be shy Alice, come talk with us.

Really, 3 minutes after your previous post? Some of us witches need our beauty sleep, you know.

And to respond to the condescending post you made, I'm sorry my advanced and sophisticated phallic humor seems to have flown over your head.

[Rachel Green]

I'm voting for krystyna, it seems like its going to come down to me or her. knowing my role, I know that I am not a baddie and can see how krystyna is twisting things.
I'll probably be gone the rest of the day, not that it matters since people's minds seem to be made up

[Lizzy]

Yooooo hosts would we hypothetically be informed if such things as recruitments or the gaining of btscs were to take place in some manner?

Excellent question.

@Hostesses: Can I change it to Krystyna? (prolly not )

Nope.

[Operator]

Krystina's assumption that Slytherin students are bad does not sit right with me at all. It feels like a set up so that if we lynch one she can pretend it was a good thing and not the death of a civ.
On the other hand, Entjen's comment about "if I had BTSC I'd be more consistent" pings me a bit. "If I were bad, I would do X, not Y" is something I see baddies frequently saying to throw people off the track. I am also a little uncomfortable with the rush of votes for Krystina early on. I think I will wait a bit to vote. We still have time.

[Rachel Green]

not sure how I am supposed to combat a comment like she is inconsistant so it makes me think she has btsc in a way other than pointing out that it is more likely that I don't because I am inconsistant.

it is a wifom statement but its all that I have in retaliation to that point

[Operator]

not sure how I am supposed to combat a comment like she is inconsistant so it makes me think she has btsc in a way other than pointing out that it is more likely that I don't because I am inconsistant.

it is a wifom statement but its all that I have in retaliation to that point

I understand that, and I sympathize.

[Larry David]

I need to vote tonight, I'm performing a "magic" show tomorrow night so I'm gonna be busy all day.

I think I've decided to trust Krystyn Chenoweth, at least for now.

My vote is going to Entgen, partially because of the stuff Krysteny said about avoiding responsibility but also because of this thing:

"Krystyna I def do not have btsc, and if I did, don't you think my posts would be a little more consistant
because I would have an idea what is going on from my btsc? I am all on my own here, and I really am just busy. "

The whole argument of "if i were a baddie I would act differently because teammates" never pans out properly, if baddies ran around acting like they were obviously baddies then there wouldn't be much of a game would there. mafia do their best to act like they're not in btsc and don't have buddies to help them catch up and like... good mafia teammates make their fellow mafias read up on their own to avoid slip ups and shared perspectives and whatever. I am sleepy, but yes that is where my vote is going.

Krystyn has used some logic that I agree with. I can't get past the point that as we look at the game right now there are 20 indys/civvs and only 4 bad. Given who the indys are I'm hard pressed to see them side with Voldemort, now that I understand that they are heads of houses. So, it seems logical that at least one of the Slytherin students has a win condition that is compatible with the baddies. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the game construction would really favor the civvs. I also asked Krystyn why she assumed Crabbe/Goyle/Pansy could turn bad because I thought she had slipped when she said they were worse than Draco and Lucius. Though I didn't like her response it did make sense that she was thinking about how it played out in the books (I didnt read all the books so I'm assuming what Krystyn said is right).

Krystyna, I appreciate your high level of participation recently which is something I believe is indicative of a townie, but your ideas are all over the place and don't connect. Almost like you don't care who gets lynched, but if you come up with all sorts of evidence as to why each player is bad, someone will get the votes. That is something I'd expect from a baddie.

I know someone who fits this description (highly participative, ideas all over the place) and in their play this behavior is not indicative of alignment. I don't know if they are who I think but it does give me pause.

So at this point in time I'm not ready to vote Krystyn. I'm thinking about Entjen, but I've got more reading to do on her. There is plenty of time today and something else may come up to convince me someone completely different is bad.

[Julinook]

I want to make sure I won't miss the vote again, so I shall go ahead and vote now. Furthermore I'm not buying the whole Krystyna thing. Little owls told me that *Sarah Good* is the wicked among us.

I'm highly tempted to vote Margaret's way. She has 6 posts, 2 of which are useless filler, 2 are stating her choice in night polls, and 2 are votes. Day 1 was Entjen and today was Sarah Good. I think there is a chance that she went with Entjen because it was easy and people were talking about her, and today she wanted to avoid the lynch and lazily threw her vote away. People wanting to avoid lynchtrains are generally not civ.