Two of them got tossed by general acclamation, nobody suggested any new ones or wording changes, we're over the two week mark, and we have a weekend coming so I think we should proceed ahead with the list.

Criteria
1. Post Count

2. Non-NM Post Count

3. Has not suggested any questions, expanding to 'has not suggested any questions that were used'

4. Has said something, or suggested something, which was a really bad idea if pursued (Extreme example: "Hey, the doc should role claim" ) or done something usually regarded as somewhat anti-town like claiming vanilla.

5. Answered questions later than most

I would phrase these all as measures basically of:
1) Overall activity
2) Tendency to participate
3) Tendency to question
4) Good attempts to advantage the town
5) Tendency to respond to questioning clearly and quickly

So if people need to defend or accuse around these those are sort of the spirit of the criteria, as an example on #5 a pretty good defense would be time zone or RBIRL status, whereas time zone wouldn't be for 1 or 2 but RBIRL might be a good case for some sort of proportional adjustment.

As nobody suggested striking those last three or changing their wording, everyone agrees with them, or is a candidate for Option E, we can go ahead and lose one of those criteria now and replace it with Option E, since there's been plenty of time, or just cite you for #4 on that list. Not trying to be harass people into acting but we've passed the 2 week mark for day 1, we're at 16 days right now and I'd anticipate at least 3-4 days to go forward to a lynch using Option B and and 4-7 for option C, A's a wildcard since we might get a clean lynch off it but more likely we'd just burn time, and the tea leaves seem to be coming up for C.

Ranagrande has already taken care of 1 and 2 for us, I can churn out 3 and 5, for 5 I'll pick anyone who took more than 24 hours to respond to one of our main questions, there's also room in there for evasive answers but nobody really stuck out to me as doing this, feel free to cite someone for doing so though, on one of our questions. Those our, IIRC, Gender, Era, Random Question, and "What to we do now? A-F" Likely 5 will need adjustment, I haven't examined it beyond a quick scan of dates to make sure some but not most replies were within 24 hours, so you'll want to look that over.

4's going to be the rough one and I suggest we require everyone to, within 48 hours, produce at least one 'arguably anti-town action' another player has done. This game is about accusing people so I'd say if you can't come up with someone either you're anti-town by not looking hard enough or anti-town my being too timid to accuse. I'm exempting myself off this list because A) I topped out the first 3 of the 5 criteria anyway so I'm obviously not on the final Attrition List and because I'm basically doing this on a much larger scale already.

With that in mind, while obviously it is strongly to the town's benefit to have a huge list of anti-town actions, I would ask people to limit themselves to no more than 2 anti-town citations until the 48 hour period expires, then list any remaining ones if nobody else has raised them, these are ideally unique cases, first come first serve. Remember, you're not accusing someone of being scum (though of course you're certainly welcome to) just pointing out something someone did that wasn't really in the town's best interest, this could be anything from revealing too much or too little info to suggesting a bad question to not posting a lot... I'd also suggest people not defend themselves from those accusations unless someone has specifically got something factually wrong, like 'He said 9 posts, I was actually 19', so just don't reply to anyone's anti-town citation unless they specifically got the data wrong.

So I'll throw out tables for 3 and 5, unless someone wants to do either for me, some time this evening or tomorrow. I'll open up a sub-thread to this post for those citations, please only place them there and nothing else, reply to this post not that one to make suggestions or complaints about the system. That will be titled "Anti-Town Citations (Table)" and I'll have it up shortly after I post this so I'd appreciate if nobody replied to this message till you see that.

Its currently my intention to just take the 'bottom 5' from each list and note who is on there more than once and how many times, I'll leave it up to individuals to say "Hey I was 5th on both lists I was on, Bob was #1 and # on his, he deserves to die more than I do" and so on. We can also do a pro-town citation table later if people want, and if anyone includes one with an anti-town citation I'll put them down on a table, good to note that sort of thing, but I suggest it more as an option for those who feel a big need to say X did something good while accusing X of something anti-town. Last, I'd ask people not to dogpile a single player with minor variations of someone's anti-town citation, it doesn't help us too much, if there's something fair to dogpile over we can skip this whole process and just lynch them.