Dai Onstage is wondering whether this was entirely well advised. There were so many nobodies and has-beens here. He did so hope none of the viewers would confuse him for one of them. He'd better go and talk to Karen White. She seemed like someone who would understand the value of a well-told joke with impeccable timing, especially if her husband was paying.
Then he saw the canoes burning. He had a sinking feeling that somehow he had expected something like this to happen.
Thoughts on roles and strategy:
The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
The problem of not lynching people is that you don't learn anything.
Are we going to be told how many mafia there are, or is that something for us to find out?
We rather want to keep the chances of the mafia targeting the veteran as high as possible. If there is a veteran. That tends to tell against trying to lynch people. On the other hand, if we haven't actually lynched anyone we won't learn anything from the identity of the dead mafia person.
In theory the vigilante, if there is a vigilante, has a higher chance of hitting a mafia person by random than the wisdom of the crowds since the crowd includes mafia. But the vigilante will have nothing to go on. Also, the masons have an input into the voting process as well, which means that the masons have a slightly higher chance of getting the guilty.
Not knowing which roles are in play complicates things.
One of the great problems for the innocents is that the detective gets killed off before they reveal their hand. I propose therefore that every turn, starting from tomorrow, everybody posts one name that they think is guilty or innocent. That way, if the detective gets killed off we'll all have access to the history of their investigations.
Mario hears Dai and wonders about what he said having developed a paranoid 6th sense while in jail. Is Dai trying to set something up? Protect us? What's up with Karen White?
Eyes up distance to the next island and decides that the current makes it unwise to attempt cross-channel swim training here.
I think that this is a fabulous chance to show what wonderful people we all are by working together to find out who did this.
Although one does have to consider the possibility that the villan is in fact someone from the production company stacking the odds in favour of dramatic but deeply unfair TV. (Hunted 2018 I'm looking at you!)
"Bollocks" mutters Ethan, archly. "Great stinking yarblockos to thee and thine. Trapped on this island. No coke. No weed. Not even any bloody booze once this is gone..."
He takes a long gulp from his hip flask, and his mood improves slightly.
"So it's a mystery game, is it? As well as a beauty contest. Fine. Play it like that. I can be 'the smart one', too".
He ponders for a moment.
"Bollocks. Why Reality Island? I really should have picked Naked Attraction".
"We're playing guessing games" declares Ethan. "No one's going to own up to burning the canoes, are they?"
He pauses. No one does.
"Right, so we pick someone to blame based on what? Who we'd least like to spend time on the island with? And then what? We build them a raft? The TV station sends a chopper to pick them up? What?"
He pauses again.
"So let's think about it. Use some reverse psychology. Everyone's going to pick the person they'll think will be most annoying, right? The one they really can't stand to be sharing an island with. But we're not all going to pick the same annoying person, because, well, look around you. So that's going to start off all sorts of sulks and feuds and 'what did you just say' rows, and it's great TV and we all look like chumps. So I reckon they set up the most bland bloke here as the one who's arson about. The one bloke you looks dull as a plank at the start but might actually start to grow on you as you get to know him. 'Cos he's the one we don't suspect".
Ethan looks round again.
"Basically, there's Andy Kipper and Patrick Royce here who fit the bill. Everyone else here is an ego who'll be clashing with some other ego by breakfast tomorrow, and you can't tell me I'm wrong about that. Andy and Patrick are the types that could escape suspicion. And since Paddy, no offence, is a Lib, and they still play my songs at Labour conferences, I guess he and I are supposed to be winding each other up. So my guess is Andy Kipper as 'the quiet one' who we don't suspect. And therefore should".
Naomi looks over Patrick and frowns. Politicians are of the devil; how often do they call for investigating good evangelists just because they have a nice little 10 bedroom listed house in the Chalfonts.
"Given the canoes have burnt and my helicopter had to return to Antillia, we have no way off this island. Also we've lost cell phone contact. I think the devil must be present among us, tempting one of us to wish harm. "
She raises her arms
"Lord, Lord give us a sign. Send your holy angels to deal with the sinner who has burnt the canoes. Protect your true followers now and forever"
Turning to face the others.
"Have you all accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and been baptized?"
Waves towards the ocean. "We have plenty of water"
"Water we may have," Patrick uttered, "but not fresh water." He looks over to Penny Drago and spies what he thinks may be divining rods. "Ah, very useful for finding fresh water on the island. I must say, though, I never realised they were quite so sharp. One could do oneself an injury if one were no careful."
Andy hears his name gets mentioned and starts to be glad that someone has noticed him, thought him worthy of mention, and then realises he's not been mentioned in a good way.
He also realises, in fear, that the "elimination" that these sorts of programmes have may be a bit more severe in this instance. Not sure there'll be a happy catch up program at the end with everyone coming back to crown a winner.
He tries to look at the situation from an analytical point of view. Shame his laptop battery has to wait another 43 hours on that dratted teeny tiny solar powered charger.
Why would anyone come to the island with the purpose of burning the boats and making life difficult for everyone else ? How could anyone tell, from the way we introduced ourselves or handled the initial awkward hours of interpersonal interactions?
And it can't be just one person to blame. Someone must have been causing a distraction while the other one burned the boats.
It must have been something the TV people said or did between the introductions and the most recent broadcast . Some sort of offer to convince them to make the program more interesting drove them over the edge. Money ? Exposure ? A TV Series of their own?
So you're no more likely to deduce anything at the moment than if you pick people at random, surely ? Or does the way they have immediately reacted (or not) even give us a clue now?
He thinks back to Dai Onstage's words: The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
So Dai then proposed we all suggest a name every day, but stopped short of actually doing so for himself - waiting to join a flow without looking suspicious?
And then there was Ethan's accusation that Andy had something to do with it.
- Why do people always suspect "the quiet ones" ? Why is being quiet a more suspicious way of "hiding something" that those who are brash and over the top, as if their whole way of being is an extravagant distraction to what's really underneath ?
If you're a bad one - and in cahoots with others - you get a perfect view of who you can target to pick them off one by one, without landing on your comrades by accident.
But you don't want to jump in accusing people, that's far too suspicious. Much better to do a few others do some talking first, maybe mention their suspicions, (the innocent may be too scared of a random full accusation being correct and therefore angering the Mafia immediately.) but perhaps get the ball rolling by still being first to nominate. Which is exactly what Ethan has done.
I'm not going to fulfill the TV companies desire for good TV by making a tit-for-tat nomination. Not straight away anyway.
Well, Naomi, I’m certainly not going to claim to be “bigger than Jesus”. That’s been done, already. But I'm hoping you could all do a lot worse than accept me as your saviour, ‘cos I think I’ve got a blinder of a plan.
First of all, though, I’d like to hear who people suspect and why. Guessing’s fine if you can’t think of a ‘why’. It’s all info, all data, and it’ll all help. A bit.
Then, when I’ve thought through all the details, I’ll tell you all how I think we might be able to win.
"What does Karen think? Oh I am more than happy to tell you what Karen thinks!"
Though what I really think is that my husband better send his private boat soon because I forgot to pack my second favorite make-up brush, and that is every so frustrating!
"Well, I think we should go look at the remains of the burnt canoes to see whether we can see any evidence. I mean I have never investigated arson before. My husband of course has security to handle if something does happen, but I think that's what they'd do on TV. Oh and I guess we are on TV! *giggles* This is going to be so much fun!"
Dame Fifi is thinking she ought to have gone for Mrs Malaprop at the Oldham Rep after all.
Apart from Mr Royce, who seems a gentleman, any of this lot could be a criminal! One of them actually is an ex-jailbird!
What would Lady Arbuthnot do? Rely on her faithful dog to track the murderer and bark at him until he confessed usually. We don't seem to have a dog, so I shall watch the cat closely. Animals know.
I don't need to find divining rods, as I can use anything I like for the purpose. These coathangers are about to get turned into a frame for something far more useful: a water filtration device with my spare lycra running top, so I can make some of my special health-promoting tea for you all. (totally not banned by multiple food and drug agencies for being useless and containing some very interesting ingredients.)
As cats do I have been having a wee nap, finding a shelter and prepping myself for a few staring contests which should be rather easy to win given the looks of distain I could give to some suggestions. Although fresh water is no bad thing. I suspect that a rain shower could help us out there if some storage is to hand. A few well-shaped leaves would suit me.
He thinks back to Dai Onstage's words: The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
So Dai then proposed we all suggest a name every day, but stopped short of actually doing so for himself - waiting to join a flow without looking suspicious?
The point is to provide a way that the detective can let us know posthumously what her researches found out, without alerting the mafia to her (or his) identity. That is, the detective posts what he or she found out in the night; the rest of us post as if we're the detective. If the detective dies before they're ready to reveal themselves they will at least have left a record of what they did.
Note that more people should post the names of people they think are innocent than for people to post names of people they think are guilty, as the detective is likely to find more innocent people than guilty unless they're really lucky. Also, they're more likely to be right and so keep the mafia guessing. (Although if the mafia have enough information from people's guesses to work out who the detective is, it may be possible to reverse engineer that to find out who the mafia are.)
Anyhow I have not proposed any names either innocent or guilty because night has not fallen and so the detective hasn't had a chance to investigate anyone.
Mario asks himself and wonders aloud:
"it was easy when in jail to know who was bad and who was good, because they did direct things that everyone could see, but none of what I've learned there lets me figure out anything here. People don't act like they did in jail. But then again, the friendly talkative ones in jail were sometimes scary people, and the quiet ones sometimes got scary fast too."
Mario goes down the beach, looking for someone to take his arm, do a little comforting Jesus talk, and then maybe some yoga. He doesn't want to do Yoga for Jesus all on his own.
OK, here's my first thought. If we have EVERY possible secret role in this game, we win. Because they can all declare themselves - doctor, detective, veteran, vigilante and a minimum of two masons, and that makes six. Because the doc can guard the detective at least once, we can then ask for a volunteer non-special innocent who isn't unreadable, and doesn't mind being checked out. After the detective has a butcher's, that makes seven known innocents, two more than the five unknowns, and a win.
What are the bad guys going to do in response? Claim to be detective? Great! They then can't tag the real detective without blowing cover, and he keeps snooping and they lose. Claim to be the doctor? Same thing. The doctor stays in, so the detective is safe. Claim to be the vigilante? Instant loss of a bad guy to the real one. And one bad guy claiming to be a mason doesn't work, because no one from the real lodge will vouch from him. So one of them could claim to be the veteran, and one investigation gives a 50/50 shot at exposing him. Or two or three of them (the whole crew, probably) can claim to be masons and one night's spying nets the lot.
So if we have every role, we're OK.
But Scarlett Katz is very far from being a bimbo - she's 'the clever one' - she's about the smartest brain in television. So she'd know that she can't put in every role if she wants a real game. So we DON'T have every role. But she's also got to sell all her ideas to the station, and no way are they are smart as her. "Put in some masons!" they'll demand. "And a veteran!" "And a doctor!" "And sharks!" "And frickin' laser beams!". And she'll say yes to almost all of that.
So we're close. We must be, because they didn't come up with all those roles for nothing, we'll have most of them. We can't (probably) scoop a win on day 1, as we could with six specials, but I don't think we have to wait too long before we can.
So my plan: one innocent, not special, not unreadable, contestant every day - and ONLY one of those - says "Hey, check ME out!". The detective doesn't have to - but unless he's working on something better, he probably should. And a new person volunteers each day.
Now the bad guys can eliminate our volunteers, for sure, but then they aren't taking shots at the specials, who we keep to the end-game. Or they can ignore the innocents and guess at who might be special, but then we're building up a cohort of known innocents all the time. Or they can volunteer to be checked themselves and get caught.
And when we've run out of volunteers, because everyone left is cleared, special or guilty, we've probably won. Everyone declares. Bad guys lie and are doomed, or say nothing and are doomed, we don't care. Then we can all go home and tell our agents to get us on Strictly next year, or nothing.
So one of them could claim to be the veteran, and one investigation gives a 50/50 shot at exposing him.
Err, ignore that bit. One investigation will expose a false claim. No 50/50 about it. What I meant was, we could investigate OR take a 50/50 shot on a vote, if we've got the numbers to do it.
My plan doesn't work with Dai's idea. Dai's idea is solid, but it has the detective risking doubling up on clearing innocents that we could clear by other means. It makes sure the detective's knowledge isn't lost, at the cost of some increased risk. My idea goes for clearing innocents as fast as we can to get to a winning position whatever the bad guys do.
Ethan my dear. You sound awfully highly strung. Here, try this. I've been rummaging around the flora on the island and come up with this calming tea, made from various herbs and flowers. I think you need it more than I do.
By the way, do you mind helping me put up my hammock? Patrick
Anyhow I have not proposed any names either innocent or guilty because night has not fallen and so the detective hasn't had a chance to investigate anyone.
Sorry - I missed the "starting from tomorrow" part the first time round. Discussion is always helpful. The trouble is, we're already having a "day" to nominate people (as I am finding, to my cost) without there being a "night" for the detective (be that you, as your post would infer, or anyone else who is choosing not to out themselves) to discover anything.
So my plan: one innocent, not special, not unreadable, contestant every day - and ONLY one of those - says "Hey, check ME out!". The detective doesn't have to - but unless he's working on something better, he probably should. And a new person volunteers each day.
And again, the problem with agreeing to this is that on this first day, nobody is going to be valiant enough to draw a big "look at me, I'm innocent" target on themselves for the mafia to latch on to and slowly persuade everyone to lynch before the first nightfall, after which they get a potential free hit on someone else too (barring a coincidental choice from the doctor) and those of us left wake up the next day, already 2 down
In similar situations people would be tempted to band together, act "honorably" and not nominate people, or at least decide that nobody is worth an immediate lynching - but you know what these TV types are like. They'll find a way to engineer in a plot twist and some drama in time for the next broadcast.
[ @Sipech you keep putting your own name - and those you seem to be attracting the attention of in bold, which is how we've been told to highlight those we're nominating. Are you actually nominating ?]
And again, the problem with agreeing to this is that on this first day, nobody is going to be valiant enough to draw a big "look at me, I'm innocent" target on themselves for the mafia to latch on to and slowly persuade everyone to lynch before the first nightfall, after which they get a potential free hit on someone else too (barring a coincidental choice from the doctor) and those of us left wake up the next day, already 2 down
Andy, mate, there's two ways to win this. Work out exactly who's guilty, or get a majority of known innocents. That's the test, that's the game. Do either of those, and we win, otherwise we lose.
And I think the second way is easier, especially if I'm right that Ms Katz got pressured into putting in all those specials that the bad guys can't successfully claim to be. But to clear the innocent we need the detective - who's 'the useful one' - to check people out until known-innocents plus known-specials are a majority. So we need to identify who the detective can usefully check.
And again, there's two ways to do that. Either we ask everyone who IS a special to say so, now, before we know how close we are to having enough provably innocent people, OR - because that first option has the disadvantage of telling the bad guys who they most need to take out - we do the opposite and identify, one-by-one, everyone who ISN'T a special, and clear them.
We could let the detective guess at people to clear, but then there's a good chance that he (or she) will waste investigations on people like the masons, or the vigilante, who are the ones who can prove their innocence anyway. Which is why I suggest one volunteer at a time - it doesn't greatly help the assassins if they go detective-hunting - but it gives the detective someone who's definitely worth investigating.
And I don't think it's much of a risk for the volunteer. With the possibility of doctor's protection and the certainty of not getting a prime target, I'd expect the bad guys to look elsewhere. If they don't, then we're a step closer to an endgame with a declared detective and a hidden doctor, and that's gold for the innocents.
AT THE SAME TIME, we need to be reducing the number of unknowns - voting out the people we don't know about. It's even more important that we avoid voting off specials than it is that we avoid investigating them (at least until there's a disputed claim), so what we most need right now is for people to say what they are planning to do. That way, if someone is a special, and they look to be in danger, they can TELL US, certainly before losing the vote, but also before we waste the day. But we don't want them to tell us just because they got nominated, because then we tell the bad guys more than we need to.
And, so I'm not breaking my own rules, what I'm planning to do is vote for the person who, when I'm voting, is ahead on votes, isn't a declared special, isn't me, and isn't Dai (because at the moment Dai looks as if he's trying to be useful). My nomination of you was a guess, basically, because I think that if we don't know, we've got to guess. If I'm given better reasons, or a more popular guess that doesn't look obviously wrong, I'll vote that way instead.
I fear I may have been insufficiently clear. Please only bold the names of characters you wish to formally nominate. I'm assuming Patrick wasn't intending to nominate himself.*
Given that we've hit the weekend I'll keep nominations open until Sunday night. So far we have just the one, for Andy Kipper (by Ethan Eliab).
*Obviously the reason I specified the rule for self-nomination is that it's happened in the past. To do so at such an early stage in the game would be a very bold move, however
Do we have any concrete data about anyone at all? Don't think we do. We do have some quiet people though. Who've said almost nothing. Makes Mario nervous.
The only thing we absolutely know is what our own roles are. And both specials and mafia have their own good reasons for keeping quiet about their abilities at this stage.
I'm not too worried about how much some people have said so far: between multiple time zones and real life, at this stage players may not have had a chance to contribute. If people haven't started saying anything by Saturday night/Sunday morning then we need to start asking questions.
(And actually I have 2 senior catizens at home, though I'm better with dogs than I used to be.)
Naomi sits down on a log in the shade of a palm tree to read and to observe the others especially Karen White, the wife of her husband either has an escape plan or he is planning an unfortunate accident. She wonders why most everyone speaking seems to be assuming there is a detective on the island. Unfortunately good detectives are very hard to convert. At least one killer is almost certain.
Lambie is most concerned! How could such a dreadful thing have happened? I flatter myself that I understand villains--well, at least in books--but here? how can we ever be sure? [She eyes Mario dubiously, then shakes her head. Such a good, religious man--if a wee bit odd.]
Turning to the group, she says:
"I don't quite understand. Suppose we DO identify people for the detective to investigate. How in the world would we ever know that we are receiving the detective's report in the morning--given that he isn't going to be willing to identify himself? Or if he did, might be Mafia in disguise?????"
She plumps down on a fallen log and fans herself with a palm frond.
"I don't quite understand. Suppose we DO identify people for the detective to investigate. How in the world would we ever know that we are receiving the detective's report in the morning--given that he isn't going to be willing to identify himself? Or if he did, might be Mafia in disguise?????"
I can't plan everything, Lambie, but at some point the detective will need to say who he or she is. When exactly is the right time to do that, depends on who we've got. If we had six (or more) special roles, the right time would be now.
Because of that, I don't expect we've got six, but Scarlett didn't write all those roles for nothing, and she's clearly put some thought into the detail - who the doctor can guard, who the vigilante can target, can the masons have private talks - which suggest that she's really planned out how they might work, so I think she'll have wanted to put most of them in.
My guess, and, 'cept when I'm stoned, my guesses are usually pretty good, is that we are pretty close to the point where we win if everyone declares - which is why my plan is, I think, one that could work. The detective (and all the others) have to judge when to declare, and when we think the time is right we should ask them to do it in stages - masons, vigilante, veteran, detective, doctor, in that order - and quite possibly the doctor not at all, since a hidden doctor extends the detective's tour for longer, if we need it. That's going to depend on what the detective finds out, and who we lose, and anything else that happen.
I'm not all that bothered about the bad guys lying, because that's a desperation move for them. A bad guy claiming to be the detective means they can't kill our detective AND they have to be feeding us not-provably-untrue information to keep the pretence going, so it all helps us in the end.
Claiming to be the doctor, even when it's done by an accomplished bullshit artist, is also a losing play, masonic and vigilante claims fail, for obvious reasons, and a veteran claim really isn't much of a threat.
We have two plans, and though not exactly incompatible, one of them makes the other pointless.
One. Each night someone - who is not a specialist or unreadable - volunteers to be investigated by the detective. The detective investigates them.
Two. Each morning the detective reports on who they investigated, and says whether they're innocent or guilty. To camouflage them everyone else reports on somebody.
Three. No plan.
I think we should vote. I vote Two.
(I think there are two considerations here. One is what will help us the innocents win. The other is what is more fun and more in the spirit of the game. I think that the innocent specialists (not the Doctor) revealing themselves early is not really in the spirit of the game, and also the detective will have less fun if they can't use their own judgement.)
"Gosh you guys! Why are you even assuming there is a detective? We may need to look for clues ourselves." Karen looks around for a camera and then hisses "This is TV. Let's look functional here and do things!"
"Speaking of people who don't do things, no one has set up any of my stuff. Where is the staff around here anyway? This is an insult!"
We have two plans, and though not exactly incompatible, one of them makes the other pointless.
One. Each night someone - who is not a specialist or unreadable - volunteers to be investigated by the detective. The detective investigates them.
Two. Each morning the detective reports on who they investigated, and says whether they're innocent or guilty. To camouflage them everyone else reports on somebody.
Three. No plan.
I think we should vote. I vote Two.
(I think there are two considerations here. One is what will help us the innocents win. The other is what is more fun and more in the spirit of the game. I think that the innocent specialists (not the Doctor) revealing themselves early is not really in the spirit of the game, and also the detective will have less fun if they can't use their own judgement.)
Two would at least allow us to look at track records--the first time someone claims to have investigated a person and found them innocent (or whatever) and THEN they turn out to be otherwise--well, we'd know that the false reporter was not the detective, and quite possibly Mafia, if their track record becomes sufficiently malicious.
Are you saying you're the detective because you think we're calling for everyone to say they're the detective, or are you saying that you're actually the detective?
But yes, I *am* the detective, in truth and all verity. Now we'll see how well this plays out, this business of declaring oneself... If I'm "offed" in the middle of the night, all the other hidden good guys should take note of my fate and act accordingly.
I am going to nominate Karen White. Something about her attitude to her stay on this island makes me suspicious she has networks (most of) the rest of us don't.
OOC disclaimer: It is our church-obsessed No.1 child's birthday this weekend. Between Mass tomorrow and visiting grandparents it's exceedingly unlikely I will be online before nightfall.
Of course I have networks the rest of you don't, darling. I'm rich as croesus and my husband could buy most people on this island. However, I don't need to burn anyone's boats. I am spending all my connections on better pillows than the rest of you. I wouldn't be on this island if I didn't want to be. This amuses me.
Naomi considers matters. Is Ms LaCosta telling the truth in which case there better be a doctor to protect her. If she is lying, the real detective if there is one knows she is lying. She could be mafia and therefore knows she is safe from mafia. Or she is a veteran hoping the mafia will attack and end up dead.
"Are you expanding into detective novels? Ms. LaCosta?"
Dame Fifi considers Miss LaCosta is way too fond of attention. One has acted with people like that: bit players who try and hog the limelight. Well, I am not going to play that game!
As cats do I have been having a wee nap, finding a shelter and prepping myself for a few staring contests which should be rather easy to win given the looks of distain I could give to some suggestions. Although fresh water is no bad thing. I suspect that a rain shower could help us out there if some storage is to hand. A few well-shaped leaves would suit me.
What is at stake for everybody here?
Miffy switches on catch-up, watches for all of two minutes before falling into a pit of existential angst and switches off again
FWIW, I’ve not the faintest idea what this is all about, but I’m rooting for Dame Fifi and the cat.
Right, although we've had one claim to be the detective, it's still important that we don't vote out any specials.
It's particularly important that, if Lambie LaCosta's claim is true, that we:
a) don't vote out the doctor, and
b) don't force the doctor to declare themselves unless absolutely, definitely necessary.
So I think it would help to assess whether Andy or Karen are in real danger BEFORE we start voting. So that if we guessed wrong and nominated someone we can't afford to lose, they get to keep quiet about that if no one is actually seriously thinking about voting for them.
At the moment I'm thinking vaguely of voting for Karen. I nominated Andy, but it was a guess. Someone had to start something, and try to get us talking. I've no particular reason to think he's guilty.
Karen, well, she tried to steer Dai and me off discussing strategies for the detective without contributing any of her own. Apart from me, she was the only person to say anything between Dai asking us to vote on the best strategy, and Lambie kicking over that particular bin, and she could have voted, or said something helpful, but didn't. She tried to shut down the discussion on the grounds that there might not even be a detective. Which is true, there might not have been, but that possibility isn't a sensible reason for not bothering to discuss what to do if there is one.
That's not the strongest reason in the world for thinking her guilty, but it's more than I had on Andy.
So that's how I'd vote, at the moment. This is not a vote. I want Karen and Andy to see what risks they are taking and to give us their arguments before we commit ourselves.
Karen looks confused and annoyed. "You foolish little man! I told you there might be no detective because I figured it affected your plans and Dai's plans. It seemed obviously important and extremely helpful. Perhaps you mostly want to get us fighting amongst ourselves? I am not impressed. In fact, I am currently rather suspicious of you. I think I will tell my husband fire you when I get off this island! That said, I did not expect this squabbling, so you if you want to vote me off this island, well I bet I'd eat better at home than here! I do not have any special job here--you can't imagine me working like a wage slave, now can you!--so it won't make a big difference to me whether you vote for me or not except that it is a vaguely bad idea for you."
Karen, given the canoes are gone I suspect their method of voting people off the island is to toss you into the water and force you to swim. Admittedly you might manage to get baptized during that, I suspect it is the last thing you would do.
Karen, given the canoes are gone I suspect their method of voting people off the island is to toss you into the water and force you to swim.
Shit, they've probably got a boat, or a helicopter, or something, on standby. I mean, they're not going to let someone actually drown, are they? That would be insane.
Look, Karen, you seem lovely, but I do think you probably tried to steer us wrong back there. Dai and I had both made our plans on the basis that we didn't know for sure what specials we have, but thinking we ought to make best us of the detective if there was one. Or at least I did that, and he at least claimed to be doing that. The chance that there isn't a detective might have been worth reminding people about, and if you'd thought that either plan was positively harmful if there was no detective at all, that might have been worth saying, but if you were really keen to find out how is guilty, you could have said which plan looked safest to you, rather than dismiss them both.
Particularly if you're prepared to claim to be innocent and have no special role (like what you just did), because then I don't see why you won't be prepared to give my plan a go, since basically the one thing that might be wrong with it is if no one is prepared to claim to be innocent and have no special role, which you were.
And obviously, whether there's a detective or not, we still have to think about other people's actions and motives and see who's being suspicious. Like what I am doing now.
I don't think we should miss the chance to take action without good reason. On the numbers we can afford to, once, without reducing the number of mistakes we can make, IF we don't ever get a triple loss of vigilante-takes-veteran-plus-murder. But there may be days when there's a better reason to do nothing than today.
So as someone has to take the lead on voting for someone rather than no one, and as no one seems to have anything much against Andy, my vote is for Karen White.
(I'm not ignoring Lambie's role claim, by the way. I'm still struggling to make sense of it. But whether it's true or false, it doesn't help me decide how to vote now.)
They definitely wouldn't be murdering people! Think of all the furious people if fancy people like us were killed. It would never be accepted!
Don't worry, Ethan, I didn't dismiss you and Dai more than I dismiss everyone . That said much as I hate to encourage you at all, I do think your plan is less awful than Dai's because his seems likely to encourage in fighting. And you all squabble far too much as it is! No, I think we should pull together, so No lynching is my vote.
Mario comments: Is there reasoning to apply to this? If there is a group of Good People and a group of Bad People, are there more good than bad? If so, lynching means there's a greater chance of lynching a good person.
Thoughts on roles and strategy:
The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
The problem of not lynching people is that you don't learn anything
This troubles Mario. How does lynching people teach anything except about the lynched person. Mario is also troubled with Lambie La Costa telling everyone who she is.
But yes, I *am* the detective, in truth and all verity. Now we'll see how well this plays out, this business of declaring oneself... If I'm "offed" in the middle of the night, all the other hidden good guys should take note of my fate and act accordingly.
How does this confession make her safe or us safe? How does this help us win?
Mario wants to win. He's been in jail before. He found Jesus. He found yoga. He can't imagine that new found freedom will end in disaster. Off he goes down the beach, doing peripatetic mumbling, neither prayer nor yoga.
Mario comments: Is there reasoning to apply to this? If there is a group of Good People and a group of Bad People, are there more good than bad? If so, lynching means there's a greater chance of lynching a good person.
There are more good people than bad to begin with: once there are more bad people than good the bad people have won.
The problem of not lynching people is that you don't learn anything
This troubles Mario. How does lynching people teach anything except about the lynched person.
In the lucky event of finding someone who is one of the mafia you know that anyone who made a significant contribution to voting them out is almost certainly innocent.
Also, there are voting patterns that are best strategy for the mafia to adopt, or which would be best strategy if people didn't look out for them.
Mario is also troubled with Lambie La Costa telling everyone who she is.
How does this confession make her safe or us safe? How does this help us win?
If she is the detective and she tells the rest of us what she finds out every night then that is solid information we can rely on. Nobody else has contradicted her claim, so I'm inclined to believe it.
Of course, on the assumption that she's telling the truth she is now top of the Mafia's visiting list. But if the Doctor believes she's on top of the mafia's visiting list then the doctor will protect her so she's safe.
All said, at this stage, I think hoping the doctor protects the detective (or that the mafia expect the doctor to protect the detective and go after someone else) and waiting for the detective to tell us what they find out is our best strategy. That being the case, I don't think we gain anything immediately by lynching anybody. So No Lynching.
Comments
Then he saw the canoes burning. He had a sinking feeling that somehow he had expected something like this to happen.
Thoughts on roles and strategy:
The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
The problem of not lynching people is that you don't learn anything.
Are we going to be told how many mafia there are, or is that something for us to find out?
We rather want to keep the chances of the mafia targeting the veteran as high as possible. If there is a veteran. That tends to tell against trying to lynch people. On the other hand, if we haven't actually lynched anyone we won't learn anything from the identity of the dead mafia person.
In theory the vigilante, if there is a vigilante, has a higher chance of hitting a mafia person by random than the wisdom of the crowds since the crowd includes mafia. But the vigilante will have nothing to go on. Also, the masons have an input into the voting process as well, which means that the masons have a slightly higher chance of getting the guilty.
Not knowing which roles are in play complicates things.
One of the great problems for the innocents is that the detective gets killed off before they reveal their hand. I propose therefore that every turn, starting from tomorrow, everybody posts one name that they think is guilty or innocent. That way, if the detective gets killed off we'll all have access to the history of their investigations.
I think that this is a fabulous chance to show what wonderful people we all are by working together to find out who did this.
Although one does have to consider the possibility that the villan is in fact someone from the production company stacking the odds in favour of dramatic but deeply unfair TV. (Hunted 2018 I'm looking at you!)
He takes a long gulp from his hip flask, and his mood improves slightly.
"So it's a mystery game, is it? As well as a beauty contest. Fine. Play it like that. I can be 'the smart one', too".
He ponders for a moment.
"Bollocks. Why Reality Island? I really should have picked Naked Attraction".
Ethan looks around at his fellow contestants.
"Maybe not".
He pauses. No one does.
"Right, so we pick someone to blame based on what? Who we'd least like to spend time on the island with? And then what? We build them a raft? The TV station sends a chopper to pick them up? What?"
He pauses again.
"So let's think about it. Use some reverse psychology. Everyone's going to pick the person they'll think will be most annoying, right? The one they really can't stand to be sharing an island with. But we're not all going to pick the same annoying person, because, well, look around you. So that's going to start off all sorts of sulks and feuds and 'what did you just say' rows, and it's great TV and we all look like chumps. So I reckon they set up the most bland bloke here as the one who's arson about. The one bloke you looks dull as a plank at the start but might actually start to grow on you as you get to know him. 'Cos he's the one we don't suspect".
Ethan looks round again.
"Basically, there's Andy Kipper and Patrick Royce here who fit the bill. Everyone else here is an ego who'll be clashing with some other ego by breakfast tomorrow, and you can't tell me I'm wrong about that. Andy and Patrick are the types that could escape suspicion. And since Paddy, no offence, is a Lib, and they still play my songs at Labour conferences, I guess he and I are supposed to be winding each other up. So my guess is Andy Kipper as 'the quiet one' who we don't suspect. And therefore should".
"Given the canoes have burnt and my helicopter had to return to Antillia, we have no way off this island. Also we've lost cell phone contact. I think the devil must be present among us, tempting one of us to wish harm. "
She raises her arms
"Lord, Lord give us a sign. Send your holy angels to deal with the sinner who has burnt the canoes. Protect your true followers now and forever"
Turning to face the others.
"Have you all accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior and been baptized?"
Waves towards the ocean. "We have plenty of water"
He also realises, in fear, that the "elimination" that these sorts of programmes have may be a bit more severe in this instance. Not sure there'll be a happy catch up program at the end with everyone coming back to crown a winner.
He tries to look at the situation from an analytical point of view. Shame his laptop battery has to wait another 43 hours on that dratted teeny tiny solar powered charger.
Why would anyone come to the island with the purpose of burning the boats and making life difficult for everyone else ? How could anyone tell, from the way we introduced ourselves or handled the initial awkward hours of interpersonal interactions?
And it can't be just one person to blame. Someone must have been causing a distraction while the other one burned the boats.
It must have been something the TV people said or did between the introductions and the most recent broadcast . Some sort of offer to convince them to make the program more interesting drove them over the edge. Money ? Exposure ? A TV Series of their own?
So you're no more likely to deduce anything at the moment than if you pick people at random, surely ? Or does the way they have immediately reacted (or not) even give us a clue now?
He thinks back to Dai Onstage's words:
The problem of lynching people is you do the mafia's work for them, especially as the mafia themselves have an input into the process.
So Dai then proposed we all suggest a name every day, but stopped short of actually doing so for himself - waiting to join a flow without looking suspicious?
And then there was Ethan's accusation that Andy had something to do with it.
- Why do people always suspect "the quiet ones" ? Why is being quiet a more suspicious way of "hiding something" that those who are brash and over the top, as if their whole way of being is an extravagant distraction to what's really underneath ?
If you're a bad one - and in cahoots with others - you get a perfect view of who you can target to pick them off one by one, without landing on your comrades by accident.
But you don't want to jump in accusing people, that's far too suspicious. Much better to do a few others do some talking first, maybe mention their suspicions, (the innocent may be too scared of a random full accusation being correct and therefore angering the Mafia immediately.) but perhaps get the ball rolling by still being first to nominate. Which is exactly what Ethan has done.
I'm not going to fulfill the TV companies desire for good TV by making a tit-for-tat nomination. Not straight away anyway.
By the way - where has the cat gone ?
First of all, though, I’d like to hear who people suspect and why. Guessing’s fine if you can’t think of a ‘why’. It’s all info, all data, and it’ll all help. A bit.
Then, when I’ve thought through all the details, I’ll tell you all how I think we might be able to win.
Though what I really think is that my husband better send his private boat soon because I forgot to pack my second favorite make-up brush, and that is every so frustrating!
"Well, I think we should go look at the remains of the burnt canoes to see whether we can see any evidence. I mean I have never investigated arson before. My husband of course has security to handle if something does happen, but I think that's what they'd do on TV. Oh and I guess we are on TV! *giggles* This is going to be so much fun!"
Apart from Mr Royce, who seems a gentleman, any of this lot could be a criminal! One of them actually is an ex-jailbird!
What would Lady Arbuthnot do? Rely on her faithful dog to track the murderer and bark at him until he confessed usually. We don't seem to have a dog, so I shall watch the cat closely. Animals know.
What is at stake for everybody here?
Note that more people should post the names of people they think are innocent than for people to post names of people they think are guilty, as the detective is likely to find more innocent people than guilty unless they're really lucky. Also, they're more likely to be right and so keep the mafia guessing. (Although if the mafia have enough information from people's guesses to work out who the detective is, it may be possible to reverse engineer that to find out who the mafia are.)
Anyhow I have not proposed any names either innocent or guilty because night has not fallen and so the detective hasn't had a chance to investigate anyone.
"it was easy when in jail to know who was bad and who was good, because they did direct things that everyone could see, but none of what I've learned there lets me figure out anything here. People don't act like they did in jail. But then again, the friendly talkative ones in jail were sometimes scary people, and the quiet ones sometimes got scary fast too."
Mario goes down the beach, looking for someone to take his arm, do a little comforting Jesus talk, and then maybe some yoga. He doesn't want to do Yoga for Jesus all on his own.
What are the bad guys going to do in response? Claim to be detective? Great! They then can't tag the real detective without blowing cover, and he keeps snooping and they lose. Claim to be the doctor? Same thing. The doctor stays in, so the detective is safe. Claim to be the vigilante? Instant loss of a bad guy to the real one. And one bad guy claiming to be a mason doesn't work, because no one from the real lodge will vouch from him. So one of them could claim to be the veteran, and one investigation gives a 50/50 shot at exposing him. Or two or three of them (the whole crew, probably) can claim to be masons and one night's spying nets the lot.
So if we have every role, we're OK.
But Scarlett Katz is very far from being a bimbo - she's 'the clever one' - she's about the smartest brain in television. So she'd know that she can't put in every role if she wants a real game. So we DON'T have every role. But she's also got to sell all her ideas to the station, and no way are they are smart as her. "Put in some masons!" they'll demand. "And a veteran!" "And a doctor!" "And sharks!" "And frickin' laser beams!". And she'll say yes to almost all of that.
So we're close. We must be, because they didn't come up with all those roles for nothing, we'll have most of them. We can't (probably) scoop a win on day 1, as we could with six specials, but I don't think we have to wait too long before we can.
So my plan: one innocent, not special, not unreadable, contestant every day - and ONLY one of those - says "Hey, check ME out!". The detective doesn't have to - but unless he's working on something better, he probably should. And a new person volunteers each day.
Now the bad guys can eliminate our volunteers, for sure, but then they aren't taking shots at the specials, who we keep to the end-game. Or they can ignore the innocents and guess at who might be special, but then we're building up a cohort of known innocents all the time. Or they can volunteer to be checked themselves and get caught.
And when we've run out of volunteers, because everyone left is cleared, special or guilty, we've probably won. Everyone declares. Bad guys lie and are doomed, or say nothing and are doomed, we don't care. Then we can all go home and tell our agents to get us on Strictly next year, or nothing.
Err, ignore that bit. One investigation will expose a false claim. No 50/50 about it. What I meant was, we could investigate OR take a 50/50 shot on a vote, if we've got the numbers to do it.
My plan doesn't work with Dai's idea. Dai's idea is solid, but it has the detective risking doubling up on clearing innocents that we could clear by other means. It makes sure the detective's knowledge isn't lost, at the cost of some increased risk. My idea goes for clearing innocents as fast as we can to get to a winning position whatever the bad guys do.
By the way, do you mind helping me put up my hammock? Patrick
Sorry - I missed the "starting from tomorrow" part the first time round. Discussion is always helpful. The trouble is, we're already having a "day" to nominate people (as I am finding, to my cost) without there being a "night" for the detective (be that you, as your post would infer, or anyone else who is choosing not to out themselves) to discover anything.
And again, the problem with agreeing to this is that on this first day, nobody is going to be valiant enough to draw a big "look at me, I'm innocent" target on themselves for the mafia to latch on to and slowly persuade everyone to lynch before the first nightfall, after which they get a potential free hit on someone else too (barring a coincidental choice from the doctor) and those of us left wake up the next day, already 2 down
In similar situations people would be tempted to band together, act "honorably" and not nominate people, or at least decide that nobody is worth an immediate lynching - but you know what these TV types are like. They'll find a way to engineer in a plot twist and some drama in time for the next broadcast.
[ @Sipech you keep putting your own name - and those you seem to be attracting the attention of in bold, which is how we've been told to highlight those we're nominating. Are you actually nominating ?]
Andy, mate, there's two ways to win this. Work out exactly who's guilty, or get a majority of known innocents. That's the test, that's the game. Do either of those, and we win, otherwise we lose.
And I think the second way is easier, especially if I'm right that Ms Katz got pressured into putting in all those specials that the bad guys can't successfully claim to be. But to clear the innocent we need the detective - who's 'the useful one' - to check people out until known-innocents plus known-specials are a majority. So we need to identify who the detective can usefully check.
And again, there's two ways to do that. Either we ask everyone who IS a special to say so, now, before we know how close we are to having enough provably innocent people, OR - because that first option has the disadvantage of telling the bad guys who they most need to take out - we do the opposite and identify, one-by-one, everyone who ISN'T a special, and clear them.
We could let the detective guess at people to clear, but then there's a good chance that he (or she) will waste investigations on people like the masons, or the vigilante, who are the ones who can prove their innocence anyway. Which is why I suggest one volunteer at a time - it doesn't greatly help the assassins if they go detective-hunting - but it gives the detective someone who's definitely worth investigating.
And I don't think it's much of a risk for the volunteer. With the possibility of doctor's protection and the certainty of not getting a prime target, I'd expect the bad guys to look elsewhere. If they don't, then we're a step closer to an endgame with a declared detective and a hidden doctor, and that's gold for the innocents.
AT THE SAME TIME, we need to be reducing the number of unknowns - voting out the people we don't know about. It's even more important that we avoid voting off specials than it is that we avoid investigating them (at least until there's a disputed claim), so what we most need right now is for people to say what they are planning to do. That way, if someone is a special, and they look to be in danger, they can TELL US, certainly before losing the vote, but also before we waste the day. But we don't want them to tell us just because they got nominated, because then we tell the bad guys more than we need to.
And, so I'm not breaking my own rules, what I'm planning to do is vote for the person who, when I'm voting, is ahead on votes, isn't a declared special, isn't me, and isn't Dai (because at the moment Dai looks as if he's trying to be useful). My nomination of you was a guess, basically, because I think that if we don't know, we've got to guess. If I'm given better reasons, or a more popular guess that doesn't look obviously wrong, I'll vote that way instead.
Given that we've hit the weekend I'll keep nominations open until Sunday night. So far we have just the one, for Andy Kipper (by Ethan Eliab).
*Obviously the reason I specified the rule for self-nomination is that it's happened in the past. To do so at such an early stage in the game would be a very bold move, however
Not going to nominate anyone now though.
Do we have any concrete data about anyone at all? Don't think we do. We do have some quiet people though. Who've said almost nothing. Makes Mario nervous.
I'm not too worried about how much some people have said so far: between multiple time zones and real life, at this stage players may not have had a chance to contribute. If people haven't started saying anything by Saturday night/Sunday morning then we need to start asking questions.
(And actually I have 2 senior catizens at home, though I'm better with dogs than I used to be.)
Turning to the group, she says:
"I don't quite understand. Suppose we DO identify people for the detective to investigate. How in the world would we ever know that we are receiving the detective's report in the morning--given that he isn't going to be willing to identify himself? Or if he did, might be Mafia in disguise?????"
She plumps down on a fallen log and fans herself with a palm frond.
I can't plan everything, Lambie, but at some point the detective will need to say who he or she is. When exactly is the right time to do that, depends on who we've got. If we had six (or more) special roles, the right time would be now.
Because of that, I don't expect we've got six, but Scarlett didn't write all those roles for nothing, and she's clearly put some thought into the detail - who the doctor can guard, who the vigilante can target, can the masons have private talks - which suggest that she's really planned out how they might work, so I think she'll have wanted to put most of them in.
My guess, and, 'cept when I'm stoned, my guesses are usually pretty good, is that we are pretty close to the point where we win if everyone declares - which is why my plan is, I think, one that could work. The detective (and all the others) have to judge when to declare, and when we think the time is right we should ask them to do it in stages - masons, vigilante, veteran, detective, doctor, in that order - and quite possibly the doctor not at all, since a hidden doctor extends the detective's tour for longer, if we need it. That's going to depend on what the detective finds out, and who we lose, and anything else that happen.
I'm not all that bothered about the bad guys lying, because that's a desperation move for them. A bad guy claiming to be the detective means they can't kill our detective AND they have to be feeding us not-provably-untrue information to keep the pretence going, so it all helps us in the end.
Claiming to be the doctor, even when it's done by an accomplished bullshit artist, is also a losing play, masonic and vigilante claims fail, for obvious reasons, and a veteran claim really isn't much of a threat.
One. Each night someone - who is not a specialist or unreadable - volunteers to be investigated by the detective. The detective investigates them.
Two. Each morning the detective reports on who they investigated, and says whether they're innocent or guilty. To camouflage them everyone else reports on somebody.
Three. No plan.
I think we should vote. I vote Two.
(I think there are two considerations here. One is what will help us the innocents win. The other is what is more fun and more in the spirit of the game. I think that the innocent specialists (not the Doctor) revealing themselves early is not really in the spirit of the game, and also the detective will have less fun if they can't use their own judgement.)
One.
"Speaking of people who don't do things, no one has set up any of my stuff. Where is the staff around here anyway? This is an insult!"
Two would at least allow us to look at track records--the first time someone claims to have investigated a person and found them innocent (or whatever) and THEN they turn out to be otherwise--well, we'd know that the false reporter was not the detective, and quite possibly Mafia, if their track record becomes sufficiently malicious.
By the way, I'm the detective.
Aye, that's the rub...
But yes, I *am* the detective, in truth and all verity. Now we'll see how well this plays out, this business of declaring oneself... If I'm "offed" in the middle of the night, all the other hidden good guys should take note of my fate and act accordingly.
OOC disclaimer: It is our church-obsessed No.1 child's birthday this weekend. Between Mass tomorrow and visiting grandparents it's exceedingly unlikely I will be online before nightfall.
"Are you expanding into detective novels? Ms. LaCosta?"
Miffy switches on catch-up, watches for all of two minutes before falling into a pit of existential angst and switches off again
FWIW, I’ve not the faintest idea what this is all about, but I’m rooting for Dame Fifi and the cat.
Hello contestants, Scarlett here.
Well I hope you're excited for your first vote. We've set up the baskets on the beach. Remember you can drop your seashells in them for
Andy Kipper (nominated by Ethan Eliab)
Karen White (nominated by Penny Drago)
No lynching
With twelve contestants on the island, seven votes are required to secure a lynching. Don't forget that voting is compulsory.
It's particularly important that, if Lambie LaCosta's claim is true, that we:
a) don't vote out the doctor, and
b) don't force the doctor to declare themselves unless absolutely, definitely necessary.
So I think it would help to assess whether Andy or Karen are in real danger BEFORE we start voting. So that if we guessed wrong and nominated someone we can't afford to lose, they get to keep quiet about that if no one is actually seriously thinking about voting for them.
At the moment I'm thinking vaguely of voting for Karen. I nominated Andy, but it was a guess. Someone had to start something, and try to get us talking. I've no particular reason to think he's guilty.
Karen, well, she tried to steer Dai and me off discussing strategies for the detective without contributing any of her own. Apart from me, she was the only person to say anything between Dai asking us to vote on the best strategy, and Lambie kicking over that particular bin, and she could have voted, or said something helpful, but didn't. She tried to shut down the discussion on the grounds that there might not even be a detective. Which is true, there might not have been, but that possibility isn't a sensible reason for not bothering to discuss what to do if there is one.
That's not the strongest reason in the world for thinking her guilty, but it's more than I had on Andy.
So that's how I'd vote, at the moment. This is not a vote. I want Karen and Andy to see what risks they are taking and to give us their arguments before we commit ourselves.
My vote is no lynching
I vote no lynching.
Shit, they've probably got a boat, or a helicopter, or something, on standby. I mean, they're not going to let someone actually drown, are they? That would be insane.
Look, Karen, you seem lovely, but I do think you probably tried to steer us wrong back there. Dai and I had both made our plans on the basis that we didn't know for sure what specials we have, but thinking we ought to make best us of the detective if there was one. Or at least I did that, and he at least claimed to be doing that. The chance that there isn't a detective might have been worth reminding people about, and if you'd thought that either plan was positively harmful if there was no detective at all, that might have been worth saying, but if you were really keen to find out how is guilty, you could have said which plan looked safest to you, rather than dismiss them both.
Particularly if you're prepared to claim to be innocent and have no special role (like what you just did), because then I don't see why you won't be prepared to give my plan a go, since basically the one thing that might be wrong with it is if no one is prepared to claim to be innocent and have no special role, which you were.
And obviously, whether there's a detective or not, we still have to think about other people's actions and motives and see who's being suspicious. Like what I am doing now.
I don't think we should miss the chance to take action without good reason. On the numbers we can afford to, once, without reducing the number of mistakes we can make, IF we don't ever get a triple loss of vigilante-takes-veteran-plus-murder. But there may be days when there's a better reason to do nothing than today.
So as someone has to take the lead on voting for someone rather than no one, and as no one seems to have anything much against Andy, my vote is for Karen White.
(I'm not ignoring Lambie's role claim, by the way. I'm still struggling to make sense of it. But whether it's true or false, it doesn't help me decide how to vote now.)
Don't worry, Ethan, I didn't dismiss you and Dai more than I dismiss everyone . That said much as I hate to encourage you at all, I do think your plan is less awful than Dai's because his seems likely to encourage in fighting. And you all squabble far too much as it is! No, I think we should pull together, so No lynching is my vote.
This troubles Mario. How does lynching people teach anything except about the lynched person. Mario is also troubled with Lambie La Costa telling everyone who she is.
How does this confession make her safe or us safe? How does this help us win?
Mario wants to win. He's been in jail before. He found Jesus. He found yoga. He can't imagine that new found freedom will end in disaster. Off he goes down the beach, doing peripatetic mumbling, neither prayer nor yoga.
Mario votes no lynching.
In the lucky event of finding someone who is one of the mafia you know that anyone who made a significant contribution to voting them out is almost certainly innocent.
Also, there are voting patterns that are best strategy for the mafia to adopt, or which would be best strategy if people didn't look out for them.
If she is the detective and she tells the rest of us what she finds out every night then that is solid information we can rely on. Nobody else has contradicted her claim, so I'm inclined to believe it.
Of course, on the assumption that she's telling the truth she is now top of the Mafia's visiting list. But if the Doctor believes she's on top of the mafia's visiting list then the doctor will protect her so she's safe.
All said, at this stage, I think hoping the doctor protects the detective (or that the mafia expect the doctor to protect the detective and go after someone else) and waiting for the detective to tell us what they find out is our best strategy. That being the case, I don't think we gain anything immediately by lynching anybody. So No Lynching.