At the time you voted, there was discussion going on about whether or not Baalz was lying. I would say that even waiting for an hour or two (while still voting before the deadline) would not have been a bad idea, as it would have allowed the discussion to continue. Even if Baalz was still "lynched" at the end of the day, there would have at least been more discussion about what had just happened.

The reason why I have picked you and Spurge out of everyone who voted for Baalz is because both votes came after he finally explained why he claimed, and while his explanation was being discussed.

So, you did not see any reason to wait before voting. And it is true that you did not cast the final vote. Were you not worried that someone else might cast the final vote after you? Did you not think that the discussion would be useful later on?

Votals:
Mario[L-6] - happy, hat, mantle
happy[L-8] - Mario
hat - Baalz, Mario
insom - spurge
Baalz - happy

With 16 players alive, 9 votes are needed for a majority lynch.

71 hours, 20 minutes remain. Day ends Monday 5PM EDT(9PM UTC)
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/customcounter.html?msg=Night+2&month=06&day=18&year=2012&hour=17&min=&sec=&p0=179

@Rol: Yes, it is a very sound theory you've got there. It all seems very plausible - the only thing I would like to add is what if the vig didn't do anything last night? That would in fact give us 3 scum factions... I know I'm echoing Stefl - but I think he's got a valid point. Unfortunately we won'r find out until tomorrow...

If I were Linkz I'd have AT LEAST 3 scum factions - but that's just me; this theme begs to be filled with villians!! But considering that both Baratheon AND Greyjoy was town, I don't think you should go by what I would have done ^^

If someone quickhammered, that is also useful information. As for whether baalz was lying, clearly he HAD lied, the only question being which claim is the lie.

At the time, I was really suspicious of him after his retraction, and I just thought it was worth lynching him. (If he had already claimed unlynchability by that time, I'd missed it.)

Although the discussion hadn't exactly died, I didn't think we were going to get a lot resolved -- most people had already taken sides, et cetera. If there were several people voting baalz who hadn't had the opportunity to react to his revelation, then perhaps I did act prematurely. Was that the case?

The 4 kills theory revolved around prof being able to kill; counting him we would have had 4 roles that could kill - a fact clearly shown by the 3 deaths already, and hadn't Prof been killed himself he might have been able to kill as well.

Now, when I posted this "theory" I was quite tired and in bed, so I didn't even consider that if prof would have in fact been able to make a kill he most likely have done so, got his kill, and THEN die himself. So this theory actually don't work since a person can in fact kill someone before being killed himself. It was a tired mistake. NOW I understand why you didn't understand me ^^

That is true. What I meant was, whether or not his explanation was a lie.

I believe the closest he came to claiming to be unlynchable before your vote was this post here. "And the getting votes off of me has nothing to do with being unlynchable..." I think it was also mentioned by a few other players (prof for sure, but I haven't looked for anyone else), but I don't know that anyone outright said he was unlynchable.

At least one player, Rol, was undecided after hearing Baalz' defense (Post), though not enough to change his vote. This post was right before your vote, and I have no way of knowing how far apart the posts were, so... it is possible you could have missed it. Prof did not say he was changing his mind, but did say that the town should discuss what happened, here.

Quick stats:

- 7 people (you might want to check my counting for this information) posted from the time Baalz offered his explanation to the time of your vote, including both you and Baalz, and Rol who posted right before your vote.

-There were 9 people who posted from the explanation to Spurge's hammer. I don't know how much time passed from when Baalz explained himself to when you voted or when the hammer vote was cast.

-By my count, 6 of the players who had voted for Baalz from his explanation to your vote had not yet voted. By the time of Spurge's hammer, that number was 4. Those players would be Pezus, Supermario, Kantor, and myself. That is out of 8 original votes, as both you and Spurge did not vote until after his explanation.

I don't know who all was online during this time that didn't post, and I don't know that all of these people would have changed their minds. But with about half of all players posting between the explanation and the hammer vote, I would say that it was premature, yes.

Although, I feel I should point out that, unless I misremember, at least one person did question whether smeags was killed by prof's faction as opposed to vig (and prof's buds got wonk).

Please disregard the first comma in my last post; it is bad grammar.

For the same reason you suspect me: they haven't really participated in scumhunting. Barring people whose alignment I already know* they're currently the least active people in the game, along with spurge. (well, spurge is active, he just doesn't seem very efficient) I've also looked at two older Mafia threads, and they both seemed active enough as town then. Of course, that might just mean that they're changing up their playing style (for the worse, which doesn't make sense) or that they're busy irl. (which we'll never actually know)

* That is to say, me. And Smeags, Trucks, Wonk and Prof.

It looks like most people are gone either for the evening or weekend (a quick browse shows myself, Rol, Baalz, and Spurge online). I myself will be gone for all of tomorrow and most of Sunday, and I don't think I'll have a chance to get online before later Sunday evening.

Baalz (or anyone who's online); what are your thoughts on Danne and Kantor?