Not really. Vitek is talking of hunting and lynching neutrals, which is a waste of time. I'm talking about vigging an neutrals that should show up.

So, neutrals are detrimental to town, but should not be outed or lynched, but should be vigged if they happen to out themselves or if they happen to be identified by a vigilante role provided there is a vigilante role. If not, or in the meanwhile, it's just an antitown nuisance that should be politely ignored.

I got it right ? :-/

Not strictly anti-town - its neutral as the name indicates, though I have had a neutral role requiring town win - which was kinda odd. Anywho I suggest we go for a lynch for whomever would give us the most insight. Currently I am primarily considering the one who tells the story, assuming its a player or the one not mentioned (to see the results of that). I guess it could also be based upon clues/info with the most correlating information to be gained.

At any rate I am off to sleep, ate too much and I am tired.

Well, that's what I get for making assumptions based off of half-read posts. Having had a proper look at the thread and Amok's list, I can see that a consensus has not really been reached.

I still think that the clues and likes/ dislikes may be of use. This is not simply because we can, but rather because I reason that the mod would not have gone to all of the trouble of creating them and adding them to the game, if they were not important( especially since we have such a limited time to talk about them).

They would help, that is, if all townies truthfully disclosed their names(this would be helpful as the likes/ dislikes are pretty useless without a name attached to each player), likes/ dislikes and clues. The mafioso, I am assuming, would not have clues or likes/ dislikes, as they would have no use for them. Does everyone else think that this latter assumption could be correct?

Moving on: Welcome to the game, TwilightBard.

That's all I have to say for the time being, as I do not have enough knowledge about the workings of a neutral role to really comment.

I belive they will have like/dislike, but not necessary clues. On the other hand they may actually have clues which do not relate to the murder. For example JMich's (I am not saying he is scum) have a clue of 8 male and 8 female, this does not relate directly to the killing so it can be one of thse.

And you imply that they would be important only for town.

So, you are right now asking to know which players are "Inspector Lawrence Birch" and "old stage magician Damian Hoarly" ?

Likes and dislikes are nice information. Clues are really what's important.

Or as I consider them, got talking points for day 1.

However agree about clues, and in that line of thinking I find amok's notion about the clues interesting. A pointed finger without a direct accusation (actually it arrives with a disclaimer :P). I still say we need to lynch the ones who appear most different from the rest (in this case I am talking about those not present in the list or with difference in information from the rest (as far as can currently be judged)). I assume that would give us a different picture. Heck if I was to follow clues I guess lynching an identified female character would give us a 1/4 chance of getting scum.

The thing is I have a clue and should an investigator/investigation uncover corroborating evidence that clue is critical.

The murderer's accomplices are English.

Well, I have enough confidence on my character to say that I do not like them. I don't exactly wish they never existed (we wouldn't be playing if they weren't here), but I do dislike those lying sneaky scummy characters. How many more here are able to say that*?

As for neutrals....



*Say that, or something similar, but without lying. Please be honest. Lying is a very scummy thing to do and you shouldn't do it.

Why wouldn't they have a use for them, especially clues?
They could be looking for a specific character to kill because he/she knows too much or has a power role and he/she would pose a danger to them, in which case they could have clues about their identity.

I think it's more about the fact that your likes/dislikes appear to be somewhat broad rather than specific. You like pretty girls and dislike the police and the scum. It just seems rather generic and a bit conflicting (your dislike in particular).

I can see how sharing likes/dislikes can reveal who people are. The only reason I see for killing someone over clues, though, is to stop them from revealing them.

You misread my post.
CSPVG assumes Mafia doesn't have clues in their info PM, I say that mafia could just as well have clues especially if they are looking for a specific person to kill (QuadrAlien in the previous game for example). I'm not making an argument on whether random likes/dislikes/clues help the mafia or not.

ah, I see. Sorry. It makes sense then.

So you confirm that your likes and dislikes don't name any specific players?