[Forum Game] [Mafia] Stable Conundrum

[SourCherry]

I don't want to be the one to start the lynch mob, but we have to pin down a suspect and take them out. Any suggestions? No one here has acted suspicious, unless you count Sophos' flirting attempts

(Off-topic: Even though I do enjoy roleplaying as it spices up this game, we should not let it distract us from what we're supposed to do during the day shift, which is naming a suspect and lynch him/her.)

[Palm]

I recon Schorcht is to blame. Not only did he wait for a long while to even join the discussion, but all he did was trying to divert blame back on the one least likely to be guilty, only someone who want to to sow distrust would do something like that!

[sophos]

sophos shakes his head, and throws up his hooves. I'm going to have to withhold judgement.

[TyrannisUmbra]

As much as Palm's argument makes sense, there's not enough information to make any decisions just yet. So I'm going to have to abstain, for now.

[Palm]

You choose to do nothing? Inaction is going to get us killed!

[SourCherry]

I'm going to side with Palm on this one. I vote for Schorcht as well. Unless he can assure us that he is not to blame, that is.

EDIT: I was reminded that Schorcht was voted out first on the previous game, so I am going to vote for someone else. I cast my vote on Eagle-Eye, who has remained silent this whole time.

[SilverlightPony]

(BronyCon? Awesome, have fun!)

Not cool Silverlight. She was just targeted by an assassin and barely lived to tell the tale, and you are saying she might have done it? Really? She tried killing herself? If you didn't notice, she was clearly being shot at this night, not out there chasing down someone else at the meanwhile or doing suspicious things on her own.

I didn't say she tried killing herself. All I said was that it does not prove her innocence, which is a statement of fact. The only way to conclusively prove someone's innocence is with a role flip (a reveal of their role from the GM). Even a rolecop sometimes gives false resuls, although for a game full of relative newbies, I doubt the GM would put in a paranoid or crazy cop, so if there's a cop at all, I'd be inclined to trust their results.

We don't really have any leads on who's scum, so I'm gonna make a blind/bandwagon move and vote Schorcht.

[SilverlightPony]

Oh, that's another rule that I see most forum-mafia GMs enfoce: absolutely no editing posts in the game thread. I suggest you do the same, Waak.

Thank you for pointing that out, SourCherry. It's usually a good idea to vote out the inactives in the absence of good leads, as while someone who's posting may be good or bad, someone who's inactive is definitely not helping. As such, I'm going to switch my vote as well and vote Eagle-Eye.

[Waak]

Oh, that's another rule that I see most forum-mafia GMs enfoce: absolutely no editing posts in the game thread. I suggest you do the same, Waak.

Understandable - edits do not ping the topic up, and information might get lost...

1 hour left to vote, current tally:
Eagle_Eye: II
Schorcht: I

Abstain: II

[SilverlightPony]

Understandable - edits do not ping the topic up, and information might get lost...

The main reason is that players use other players' previous posts as evidence in their arguments, and if one of those posts gets edited, there's no way to prove what the original content was. A scum player, or a townie with a power role, could accidentally let something important slip in a post, catch it afterward, go back and edit it, and be all "no, I never said that", and while we'd know that the post had been edited, we'd have no proof of the original content.