Rufus

This is your confession. Just for emphasis:

No. You were under suspicion. And you knew damn well it was going to happen:

No kidding. So wait... Bristol is scum because she's town because she accused you in thread. And she's chosen you to message because you're scum because Bristol is scum because she's town because she accused you. Simple. As if that weren't blindingly obvious.

Did he specifically say that? I must have missed it. Good call. What bejaysus is this? Surely you'd know. I can think of lots of reasons why scum might come up with this sort of story at this point. It distracts from the names lynch candidates. It calls into question the veracity of the Criminal Mastermind 'investigations' last night: if the 'amateur thieves' stole the diamond, then the scum may not have had it when they were 'investigated' (although the problem there is - how does Bob decide who gets it? That's a problem with the game set-up as we currently understand it). Most of all, if it were true it would mean the CMs are no longer looking for scum. If you ask me, it's a load of horseshit. Unvote: Holly (Nightshroud) Vote: Michael (Bad Boy)

Having said what I said, I have a sneaky suspicion Michael might not be the townie he claims to be: Funny how this all came up when a lot of people were looking to lynch Holly, isn't it?

I agree with this, including the questions to Michael. Yesterday, Bristol accused Michael. Today, Michael accuses Bristol. It appeared to me quite strongly that Michael wasn't following the game: he confused Mary with Susan on day one; yesterday he appeared once to vote for Mary and appeared completely to gloss over or miss the entire current topic of discussion at the time: the information from Jonathan's play. Scum or dumb? Bristol clearly thought it was scummy enough to place a vote. Now the tables are turned. As Stacy says, Michael has nothing to gain by lying about this - if Bristol is town, Michael will be lynched tomorrow. However, it's possible Michael thinks he's telling the truth and has been fed a load of baloney by his 'partner' who might well be scum. Now... if the story is true, Michael's partner has the diamond. If it's not true, and Michael's partner is scum, then Michael's partner has the diamond. Assuming the master criminals are bona fide, then they have to steal the diamond from any member of the scum; why then should they not be able to steal the diamond from Michael? There's something a little fishy about this. Having said that, it's a brave scum who approaches a townie on day one with a story like this. But if I were scum, and felt the need to do so, I'd probably choose Michael. What I do not like about this is that it is quite possible that both Michael and Bristol are town. If Michael is town, then he should have no qualms about answering these points (particularly, Stacy's questions). Until that point, I will not vote for either. I will, however, Vote: Holly (Nightshroud) for now, for reasons I stated earlier. If Michael can answer the questions to a reasonable degree of satisfaction, then I will gladly vote for Bristol. If it can be asserted that Michael is scum, then of course yes. How did you have in mind to do this?

By my count, Holly was the 13th person to vote for Pierre, with George being the hammer vote on 11 and Jonathan on 12. Holly's vote was rather rushed. There were a flurry of votes towards the end. I had noticed Holly lurking a lot, reading the thread but not posting. That sort of thing is fine if a detailed analysis comes of it, but I've yet to see that from Holly. I noticed she was very defensive of Jonathan. Other than to make both of them look a little scummy at the time, I don't know what to make of that, since Jonathan was Innocent.

This is an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. SK - possible as she said she targeted Scott; if Pierre got there first, it might explain the 'unsuccessful' result the tracker got, assuming the tracker is true. Although in previous games, Bob has shown both killers targeting the same person (one Arnold Daly, I seem to recall ) Second scum group: possible, I guess. Why don't you consider the possibility that she is scum, if she's lying?

Two scum in one night is an excellent result, but I am sorry we lost Jonathan. I had my doubts about him, but he was working really hard, and he got us a scum. It looks more likely that neck snapper is a vigilante, but he could still be an SK. Now that we know two scum, hopefully some patterns will start to emerge. Set numbers: Jonathan - 4441 - CITY Pierre - 4200 - CITY Paul - 4644 - CITY If anyone was still thinking CITY sets meant town players, sorry to disappoint you. Assuming the scum were telling the truth of course.

I'm still uneasy about this. Barbara's could be lying, but her claim is so convoluted and unnecessary that I can't believe it's entirely fabricated. So far, her story has been consistent, but it would be increasingly difficult to maintain consistency as the game progresses, and all that would need to happen for the whole house of cards to come crashing down is for her to be investigated. That being said, if she really is neutral, we don't necessarily have to believe everything she says. Barbara's tracker contact intrigues me. I wondered if it were an invention, although the manner of her revelation implies that she hadn't at that stage figured it was a different tracker, so again there's a ring of truth. If it were an invention, why? As a counter-claim, to make Jonathan's tracker look more suspicious? It's a possibility, but again supposes that Barbara is lying about the whole thing (and is actually scum), because otherwise, why bother? It could be to back up her claim (and nothing to do with Lynette/Pierre), but if so it's just another lie that could be disproved later. Assuming Barbara is telling the truth, then we have the problem of how or why her tracker got the 'unsuccessful' result of her action. Host discretion perhaps? Barbara herself has explained one possible reason, that it was to prevent her role being automatically assumed to an SK or something, so throwing her a lifeline. As for Pierre, his response has been surprisingly level-headed, and there's little evidence of hesitation in the quoted conversation (ie., no protracted consultation with team-mates; there's only an hour between initial contact and claim, with lots of conversation in between). Two things are odd: his willingness to trust Jonathan ('I don't find you suspicious') and his choice of Scott as a target. If you were going to lie about a role, then claiming tracker is a relatively safe claim, especially when you claim a target that can't disprove your result because they are dead. What makes it a risky claim is the possibility of a counter-claim. How did Pierre know that Jonathan hadn't been in touch with another tracker already? Then there's the claim itself: The tracker, not a tracker. Pierre seems confident that there won't be a counter-claim. Gah, this is difficult, but we have to clear this up, one way or another. Wacky though her story is - perhaps because of it - I'm inclined to believe Barbara, and, in for a penny, in for a pound and all that, I may as well believe the whole sodding lot. Which means Pierre must be lying. Unvote: Mary (BoyWonder) Vote: Pierre (CallMePie)

Barbara, when did your tracker contact you? At the start of the day, or later?

Jonathan could have saved us a lot of bother - and avoided revealing a night action - if he'd just paraphrased the conversation more tightly. I'm inclined to believe Pierre's repoinse. Time to get back to what Jonathan is so keen to avoid. Vote: Mary (BoyWonder)

He's around; I'll give him a couple of hours.

Pierre has been very quiet during this voyage. That's what I said: Except you put it more clearly. I think you're right; that alone is suspicious as hell. However, at the moment we only have Jonathan's version of events; we probably ought to wait for Pierre's response, just in case Jonathan is pulling a fast one. I doubt it, but it's best to be safe, particularly if there's a possibility the day will end when a majority is reached. If Bob clarifies that it won't, then go ahead and vote, and I'll join you. There's (I think) about 24 hours left in the day.

I don't think reaching a majority will end the day, will it? Hmm, it isn't clear. Bob! Will the day end as soon as a majority is reached, or can we overturn a conviction?

Of the two trackers, I find Squeaky Lynette the more suspicious. Apparently, she didn't volunteer the information, but admitted it only when challenged. It is odd that Barbara's tracker got an 'unsuccessful' result on Barbara's action, yes; however, if they were a scum tracker, why then contact Barbara? This story has more of a ring of truth about it. Of course, we only have Jonathan's and Barbara's word about these.

The cat has let itself out of the bag, as far as Sam Byck goes, it seems. I'm uneasy about this. Lynching a neutral does not help the town, unless it's a serial killer, but I don't think Sam would have invented this elaborate story to cover up being an SK. There's just no need. Likewise, if Sam is really scum, why make such a claim so early? Why make a neutral claim at all? Lynching a neutral does help the scum - it buys them a day and prevents a scum lynch or voting pattern analysis. If Sam is telling the truth, then the only harm he can do to us is to waste a lynch. Leave him alive, and there's the potential that he could help us find a scum, assuming we can trust what he says, or we could just ignore it. I'd like to hear more about Squeaky Lynette. If she was seen outside her cabin, then she must have been tracked, but yet she claimed tracker. Suspicious, no?

Why not vote then?

That's true; I only showed that for the contrast. I found when I first built 7191 that the wings sat angled slightly upwards; in time they became level. It remains to be seen what happens when 10240 is inverted with the wings in 'flight mode' or whatever it's called.

Really ? http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/2392201510.jpg Sag, yes; fall off? I doubt it. And surely it's better than this:

I think Mary remains a good lynch candidate for today; the reasons I stated yesterday still apply, to an extent (I'll explain more shortly), and she hasn't exactly been vociferous since. I recall Jonathan saying he'd spoken to both Mary and Jordan, and didn't find much to implicate them; perhaps he could elaborate? Looking at the lynch pattern from yesterday, there was a straight run of 9 votes for Mary before a rather sudden shift. The early voters were: Barbara, me (Phil), Richard, Bill, Diane, George, Thomas, Jordan, and Bristol. Then a number of people posted without voting, or voting elsewhere: Scott, Lauren, Michael, and Jonathan, who started the lynch against Jordan. Later, Diane and Bristol changed their votes to Jordan from Mary. The people who posted around the time of the change, without immediately voting, include Paul, Matthew, and Alice - although Alice later voted for Mary. If Mary is scum, then we should look at the people who voted later in the Mary bandwagon, and especially those who later changed their votes, and it would also put Jonathan on the spot a little. Those who posted, but avoided voting until later should also be under scrutiny. Of course it remains possible that Mary is town, thus rendering the whole analysis rather invalid. About Alice... It is indeed a common scum mistake to post like this. It's dithering without voting, and often seen where there is a scum bandwagon forming. In this case, however, we now know that Jordan was town, so I don't see why Alice wouldn't simply hop onto the Jordan bandwagon (3 votes already at this stage) if she were trying to save Mary. The fact that she later voted for Mary also detracts from the idea that they are scum together. Mary could be scum; Alice could be scum; but I doubt they are both scum. So is Alice a dithering scum or an indecisive townie? Initially, I thought the latter, but I was reminded of this famous quote from the fantasy saga 'Ragnarok Now': Here the Norse hero 'JimButcher' dithers between lynching either of two townies. He was, of course, scum. I'm coming round to the idea that Alice is too.

If the scum did kill Matthew then I agree they must have known he had a night action - I can't imagine why they'd kill him otherwise. On the other hand, Scott is an odd choice for a serial killer kill; he's not the usual 'lurker' type the SK might go for. He might have been a vigilante target, which would imply Matthew wasn't the vig. Of course it's possible that Scott was killed by the scum, and Matthew by an SK or vig; I don't think we should assume anything at this stage. As for Jordan, I'm not desperately surprised he was innocent, but without a Werewolf we were unlikely to catch a scum on a day one lynch.

Interesting that they chose to use the DS II on the box, when Red 5 is an Episode IV/V ship. I don't think it featured in ROTJ? Could be wrong. I'm really pleased that they've solved the major weakness of the earlier set - that the wings had a tendency to fall off! Otherwise, it's remarkably similar; which is no bad thing as 7191 was a great set - especially considering it was released in the early days of SW and when UCS was a new thing. I agree the nose looks a little odd, and I've complained before about the diminutive R2, but I'll definitely be getting this even though I have the old one.

D'oh.

The vote's neatly split. There are, by my reckoning, about 10 hours left in the day. The vote leaders are Mary on 9 and Jordan on 7. I don't have a particularly strong feeling about either, and I won't complain too much if we don't lynch today (but I do think we should lynch), howover I'm going to leave my vote on Mary. To my mind, Mary's lack of concrete response to the accusations against her - whilst not exactly reeking of scum - don't smell of helpful townie either, and if we are to lynch someone based off evidence that isn't concrete then I think she's the best bet. Having said that, the rapid early bandwagon that formed was more typical of a townie lynch than a scum, in which case the early bandwagoners might deserve some scrutiny. If Mary is scum, then the people who derailed the bandwagon should be looked at: Scott and Lauren were the first to vote elsewhere, but neither strike me as especially scummy; Michael seemed to confuse Mary with Susan, and Jonathan was the first to vote for Jordan. If Mary is scum then I'd be inclined to look at Jonathan, and possibly Diane who jumped bandwagons later. If she's scum. Learning Mary's allegiance might be useful for this reason, or Jordan's for the same. If we think there may be something in the ticket numbers, then lynching Mary might be a better way to find out, though I doubt roles will be revealed on death. Like always, I would advocate a lynch: it's our best weapon, and when a reasonable suspicion has been raised, we should follow it through, otherwise we'll always be wondering, and it's the only way we'll learn anything at all from today's voting.