Scaevola

Congratulations to Hinckley and the Scum: you both played great games. Thanks to Walter for creating and permitting me to participate in such a well-made game. I also very much enjoyed collaborating with the (mostly) Town bloc.

STUMP Vote: Berty Birch (Dragonfire) Berty's refusal to consider Hazel's designation as maple is very incriminating. In doing so, he's attempting to dismantle a very sound theory that a concealed alignment= maple. Furthermore, he's merely attempting to reinvigorate the controversy over the concealed affiliations. The established thinking on the subject had really negated the insidious conflict over the alignments, wherefore Berty is trying to stoke the embers of the maple utility.

Yes they would have a coronary. I'm not at liberty to divulge anything else yet.

Yes I can confirm the first three. I'd say no for the first discussion. And yes for the second.

You didn't send me enough codes I'm afraid for all the trees who are/have participated The first two you sent me could also use clarification as there are multiple names in the posts

In regards to Simon yes I've received his role. I was unexpectedly interrupted when discussing this with the stumps and have been unable to check on the discussion since. I apologize for the delay/confusion.

Yes, I saw and comprehended that you meant Berty as opposed to Bruce. However, the core of your posts was queries about the investigator, not centrally regarding Berty. Nevertheless, you abdicated on everything in your prior statement. This is all you have to offer? You dismiss an idea with no justification, then cast your vote without any citations?

I'll always suspect someone who tenders an ill-justified vote regardless of who it's on. Just because I suspect you're a maple doesn't make everyone who hops on the vote above suspicion! May I also note you again changed your stance on an issue (in this case the investigator) when it was anathema to your reputation.

If you were an oak you'd be scrupulously defending yourself. Your lack of care and conviction only further reinforce my suspicions about you. What the heck? I'd say he's been poked enough wouldn't you? This is so superfluous and fluffy...

Beech's posts have been non-committal and evasive. He's felt the need to sycophantically concede to other opinions. Furthermore, his posts have consisted of nothing but weak little concurrences and the regurgitation of others' theories. He's using it as a utility to look active and camouflage in with the majority. Wherefore, I'll Vote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) These are the posts I really don't understand. The moment he's accused of anything he's prepared to rescind anything he's said regardless of his conviction. Albeit this situation may not be the prime embodiment of this, antecedents to this post are quoted and stated in this thread discussion.

I'm not sure why I should even indulge this comment. I gave a multitude of reasons in my vote/unvote post. Perhaps that would be a good place to look

So Catarina was an oak The fact that nobody was janitored is refreshing. Which means it's likely to be a limited shot ability. I'll agree it's possible the blocker blocked the janitor, and I agree they should claim to a mouthpiece to divulge their blocking target for last night. However, it's day 2, and therefore quite possible the janitor has limited shots. Unless the blocked tree can be dually incriminated with some other evidence/anecdotes, we shouldn't be too swift to found a lynch off it.

You took my query out of context. I wanted to reaffirm that I was still suspicious despite having cast my vote already. This comment embodies about youwhat bothers me. You really try to portray yourself as a newb (which you may be). You stress it far to much, and it certainly appears to be a utility for you to look active. It has became your go-to excuse.

. I of course meant Catarina. The tree fellers must be burning leaves nearby

Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Alright adventurer it's time you got your due. You kept fluffing on Day 1 long after the time for such talk was over. Furthermore, your suspicions were governed by who suspected you, which is highly indicative of a dogmatic tendency to secure your self-image: an exceedingly mapley tendency. And that one comment about the typewriter... Also Mr. Beech, I'm still waiting for a response