Alicornutopia

I listed the people I found suspicious. I agree michaelblume isn't very suspicious, but it was something to ask about. People responded to me, but nobody voiced other suspicions (literally one other person was suspected out loud and they also provided a defense). I don't want to be leading the discussion—I'm not necessarily that good wwth this kind of game and as Alphabeta pointed out leading the discussion is dangerous—but I also wanted something to happen. Since I thought it was probably better to pick somebody I'd already mentioned as suspicious, even if it wasn't very much so, than to randomly decide again, I went with the only person there to not have any sort of response, even though the case against them was weak.

And now almost nonexistant.

Edit: So I can crypto fairy properly later, is that SHA-256?

Now (having come under suspicion) is not the time to be encrypting your roleclaim. Now is the time to come out publicly. A hashed claim now is zero evidence, and suspicious behavior because it masquerades as evidence. Vote: michaelblume

He wasn't saying anything before. He presumably had RL things to do instead.

Alphabeta wrote:He wasn't saying anything before. He presumably had RL things to do instead.

Fair enough. I do intend to change my vote if we get a better lead, but just in case I inexplicably disappear for a few dozen hours...

I still say that casting suspicion on someone for nothing is a suspicious activity.

Alphabeta wrote:I still say that casting suspicion on someone for nothing is a suspicious activity.

This isn't the same thing as what you said earlier. Daniel was casting suspicion on a few people for weak evidence, not no evidence. And if doing that is suspicious, then you yourself are suspicious.

I vote to lynch jalapeno_dude

pistachi0n wrote:I vote to lynch jalapeno_dude

...without responding to or even acknowledging my response to your previous accusation, posted literally right after you made it? I call hax, and vote to lynch pistachi0n. So there. :p

Thatwasademo wrote:

Alphabeta wrote:I still say that casting suspicion on someone for nothing is a suspicious activity.

This isn't the same thing as what you said earlier. Daniel was casting suspicion on a few people for weak evidence, not no evidence. And if doing that is suspicious, then you yourself are suspicious.

He was casting suspicion on michaelblume for his inaction. Also, I enjoy hyperbole.

jalapeno_dude--you're right, I didn't respond. Okay, I will now.

I would have said that the killers always know each other in mafia--and I haven't actually played a lot of mafia, it was something I played at summer camp years ago, but I remember that there were always multiple killers who made a joint decision of who to kill--but thatwasademo said that in reply to your post before I had a chance.

The fact that you ended up not lynching anyone seems to me like you're trying not to be controversial. Why not just vote no lynch if there's nobody you want to lynch? I'm suspicious of tau as well for the same reason. I'm not as suspicious as michaelblume and kuuskytecolme because they weren't very active so I'm assuming they didn't vote because they had real life stuff to do and couldn't dedicate enough time to speculating about mafia strategy.

The being in character explanation makes sense. I was going to try to be in character too.

One thing that makes me think you might not be the killer is your thing about being suspicious of modrony knowing that the killers know each other because you didn't know that the killers knowing the other killers is a part of mafia. I don't think it's likely that you were pretending ignorance based on how you phrased things. However, if you were agreeing to play mafia at all, I assume you know at least a little bit about it, including that mafia members know each other.