Rufus

When did you tell them? And who told you?

Yes. I do know the PR's. What does the bold mean? Do you know something? I know the state of 3 power roles. It means that if you didn't know who the town roles were, you couldn't use the argument that they are still alive to prove anything, and even if you did know, it doesn't prove anything. Besides which, it appears they aren't all still alive, which if anything proves the opposite. Achieving what, exactly? You need to go. So long, scummo.

Agreed. While I'm inclined to believe McAndrews's part in this, accepting that message from York at face value would be foolish. If York does know the town actions, how in Bob's name does she know? If it's a bluff and she doesn't know, then the argument that the town roles are still alive proves that York isn't scum is megablocks. Actually, it's megablocks anyway, even if she does know. York, if you are town, stop distracting everyone here and now, and tell us the truth, for Bob's sake.

If my informant is to be believed, he was blocked by the scum blocker. If that helps. What good is a neutral role cop? There must be more to it than that.

For someone who didn't know what he was doing, he did make some quite insightful comments:

Nice thought. Does that mean that Wright was actually scum, or at least neutral? He's been claiming neutral for so long, it's about time he actually was.

What the hell? What in space is all that vanishing business? Do we have some kind of janitor after all? And yes, it looks like I was very wrong about Burbank. I'll have a good think about this, and come up with some theories. Which will inevitably be wrong. Still, maybe our oh-so-wise night action coordinators have some news that will help. Poop indeed.

Agreed. The only people who are 100% convinced either way are the scum team. Not lynching is the worst outcome for town. We learn nothing; we waste a day; we leave someone alive where a reasonable suspicion has been raised, who can distract in the day or kill us at night all they want. We'll probably end up lynching him tomorrow and waste another day. What a result that would be for the scum. Maybe you're worried that we're wrong. That's always a possibility. What's the worst that can happen? We lose a townie who by his own admission doesn't like to talk privately, which - if he is town - makes it very unlikely that he has a power role. If he did, he'd be trying hard to connect with the others that do. But, even if we are wrong, we learn something from the day. If a reasonable suspicion is raised, we have to follow it through and move on. Frankly, by the reticence of some to vote today, I think we might be onto something. An easy lynch is often a sign that of a mislynch (where no hard evidence is available). But, either way, we have to know for sure. So: Alison Williams, Robert Holloway, Suzanne Vanderbilt, Richard Francis, Zachary Jones, Donna Willis, and Michelle Wheeler, the ball is in your court. (That's swils, Waterbrick Down, Fugazi, AwesomeStar, Masked Builder, KingOfTheZempk, Inconspicuous, if you don't know your own names). Matt Wilder, you could help, too. But maybe nobody's gonna break-a your stride.

Um... actually, if you read, you'll see it's based on the possible scenarios regarding the defence of Burbank by York. They don't both have to be scum for it to work. At this stage in the day, it's probably Burbank or no-one, and if the latter, we waste another day.

You didn't approach me; I didn't approach you. I was talking generally about people who brush me off when I approach them, and specifically about your reaction to York's approach to you, assuming it was a genuine conversation, which I doubt. Scum are often caught out in PM so are wary of private conversations - they have to maintain an increasing web of lies. For townies, it's a great way to get a feeling off others and help to form alliances. Otherwise you're left following along like the sheep you seem to resent so much. York suggesting you'd be a good investigation target rings immediate alarm bells. It links the two of you, with no good explanation unless you had been talking privately - which by your own admission didn't happen until after the event - leaving the likelihood that you're both scum.

My read on York based on that is "Sheep who wants to look like he knows what he's doing in private, and was quick to agree with me and brush off his sheepish PM as a some sort of funny and harmless mistake on his part." I 'distanced' myself from York because his argument that he wasn't defending me was obviously flawed. That he came quickly to my defense and then claimed not to be defending me is suspicious, so I pointed out the flaws. Difficult to fake a PM conversation, but, let's see.... 16 July 9.12PM your time (USA = 5 to 8 hours earlier than UK time) = 17 July 02.12AM to 05.12AM on my clock. So this conversation happened after York made this post. How very strange. Covering up for the mistake? It's a short conversation over a short period of time. Wouldn't you have kept him talking? I think the two of you hurriedly made this conversation to counter this very eventuality. Besides, in my experience, people unwilling to talk to me privately are invariably scum, so whatever York's allegiance this is pretty conclusive about you. This is enough for me. Vote: Julius Burbank 'MD' (Brickdoctor)

It seems Samantha York doesn't have the stomach for this situation. I've been thinking about that whole business of York defending Burbank. Let's think aloud for a moment. I accuse Burbank based on a theory. York doesn't want to waste a lynch, and suggests we should investigate Burbank instead (despite there being no-one tabled as a more appropriate lynch at the time). This is a classic scum ploy: keep the scum alive for another night. And it raises the possibility of Burbank being the scum godfather, possibly showing up town in investigation. On the other hand, perhaps they've been talking in private and York is somehow convinced of Burbank's innocence. But then why not just say that? Next, Wilder is accused. York reveals a conversation between them which (in my eyes) actually makes Wilder look more town. But, York uses the accusation to imply again that Burbank must be town. This stood out as being a logical fallacy given that we don't yet know Wilder's allegiance, and wasn't really necessary since Burbank wasn't under any real pressure at the time, and Burbank immediately distances himself from the defence. I then got to thinking about the different possibilities: Scenario 1: Burbank and York are both scum. York uses his accusation of Wilder to defend Burbank. In this scenario, of course Burbank will instantly distance himself from that obvious link. The scum all accuse York of being a moron. York stomps off into the airlock without a space suit. Scenario 2: Burbank and York are both town. Why then is York so sure Burbank is town? Is he aware of something? Why doesn't he say what it is, or at least just say 'I've spoken to Burbank and I think he's town?' In this scenario, Burbank would most likely ignore the defence altogether. Scenario 3: Burbank is scum, York is town. The same questions apply to York as in scenario 2, except this time Burbank would definitely distance himself straight away. Scenario 4: Burbank is town, York is scum. Now York's defence of Burbank could only be a deliberate attempt to turn the spotlight onto Burbank. But Burbank isn't really under pressure; York is at the same time accusing Wilder, and it's difficult to see what this achieves other than to make York look suspicious. Of these four possibilities, 1 and 3 seem best to fit the actual events. Given York's subsequent actions, I'd put my money on scenario 1. However, both 1 and 3 imply quite strongly that Burbank is indeed scum, and perhaps we should lynch him after all. The alternative is to lynch York. She isn't here to defend herself, which I guess is bad etiquette or something (not like walking out, which is perfectly ok ) but it would save the Admiral finding a new personality for her. Again. Personally, I think Burbank is the better lynch, but I'll put this out there and see what everyone thinks.

It makes sense if my earlier theory is correct, which as others pointed out, is a big 'if'. But, it would also explain Wheeler's tenacity in going after Mandel on day one then being happy to lynch Pewter on day two.

Wilder's conversation with Pewter at first glance looks pretty damning, but if he's scum he's putting himself out quite a bit and taking a lot of risks. If anything, the conversation with <LEGOman's character> makes him look less suspicious. I'm very curious about what makes LEGOman so sure that Burbank is town. The argument that we should investigate someone tonight rather than lynching them today is a classic way to keep scum alive for another night, and raises the possibility of a godfather who may show up town in investigations. The insinuation is so alarming that Burbank himself immediately distanced himself from it, which I guess is a point in his favour. The only firm(ish) conclusion I'd draw from the Wilder/LEGOman conversation is that it's unlikely that Wilder and Burbank are working together, given that Wilder seems in favour of a lynch. But LEGOman's insistence that Burbank isn't scum has certainly raised my eyebrows.

I can buy this - it's a stronger case than mine, but there may be something to tie the two together. It looks like Wilder might be the way to go today. What?

The point is that it was to scum's advantage to keep Campbell alive for another day so that he would be an obvious lynch choice for today. That would stifle discussion and waste a day. That's a fair point, but it would still be your first-hand information against someone else's second-hand info. Yes, I noticed that. You kept on at Mandel tenaciously, despite the tide turning against Pewter. You even brushed off his accusation, accepting the 'joke' explanation immediately: I don't know. But after making my original analysis I got a sudden flurry of PMs - some related, some not. Makes me think I might actually be on to something here. Unless someone comes forward with hard facts, then whoever we lynch today will be a risk. It's a risk we have to take. Can we vote yet?

This: I have him down in my notes for "dividing the votes further at the end of the day." Maybe that has something to do with it. Although, the vote was for Ensign Jack Campbell, who is the person I found the most suspicious. Perhaps the Scum wanted to silence Peanuts for something he was right about: Admittedly, Falcon sits on the fence a little here, but if the Campbell kill is anything to go by, it does seem like the vigilante was acting along with Falcon night two, so it's possible on night one, too. And now we know that the Campbell accusation can't have been a reason. Really? Wouldn't have been my first choice. No disrespect to Robbins, but there are greater threats to the scum. We have to lynch. That is Town's best weapon. I would rather make a lynch based on better information, but until that information is forthcoming, we have to make do with what we've got.

That's true, but at the same time the 'night reports' have to make some narrative sense. For instance, it's reasonable to assume that kills with the same MO are the same killer (or, at least, team). In this case, we have assumed that the ray-gun kill is the vigilante, which seems to have been borne out by the day-thread discussion yesterday. It would be misleading, for example, for the killer of Robbins(?)/Peanuts to have been scum while that of Campbell to have been town. The day thread introduction is all the 'hard fact' most townies have to go on. This isn't to say alternatives should be discounted entirely, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that the same killer killed Peanuts and Campbell, and is most likely a vigilante, making the kills of Mandel and Falcon most likely scum-kills (assuming no serial killer, which would be reasonable for a crew complement this size). Which brings me to this: The doctor here makes the opposite assumption, all the more interesting because ... I can't think of a good reason for the scum to kill Mandel - as he was already under suspicion, would it not have been better to leave him alive as another way to waste a day's lynch? At the risk of making the good Admiral cry, is it possible he was killed because he knew the inner workings of the scum team from the simulation? If this is so, it suggests a number of things about the scum team in this reality. This is all very WIFOM (curse you, Falcon, for making this the 'WIFOM' game! *shakes fist*) but there's a way to test the theory. We have only the doctor's word for this. The only other person from this list still alive is Wheeler (Inconspicuous). Could it be that Mandel was killed to allow these two to say whatever they like about the scum actions? The 'scum watcher' business only came up after it was suggested that the vigilante should kill Campbell. Scum watchers are unusual. If the scum really have a watcher, they'd have kept quiet and learned who the vigilante is. However, it would have been in scum's interest to allow Campbell to survive the night; that way, we'd waste today lynching him, and the vigilante would either not act, or be more likely to kill another townie. Anyhoo, in the absence of any better information, I'm all for lynching Julius Burbank 'MD' today - partly to test this theory but mainly because of that scum/vigilante assumption which looks a lot like misdirection to me. As a quick follow-up to this, it's interesting to note that both Burbank 'MD' and Wheeler where on the bandwagon for lynching Mandel on day one:

This is what happens when townies do crazy things like saying they are scum or editing quotes. Still, if the vig hadn't killed Campbell last night, it's likely we'd have wasted a day lynching him today. With Pewter showing up town, we have a lot less to go on. In the absence of other information, I guess it's back to basics - looking at those who have been less than helpful in the days.

I tend to believe this Fanon business - it explains Pewter's actions better than any other explanation. Also, it means that Campbell might be scum. He and Pewter were fighting too much to be on the same team. Looking for anyone reluctant to vote for Pewter might lead us to his team-mate if there is only one other. Perhaps someone who voted for Campbell despite the general consensus to vote out Pewter. If Campbell is successfully taken out tonight, then I'll be looking at McAndrews tomorrow.

Vote: Brian Pewter (Palathadric)

Only you have the power to achieve that. Do something useful!

Actually, I'm in favour of lynching Pewter. And I'm far from 'certaint' about anything. What I do know is that if we have a theory, we have to test it, and the only reliable way we have to do that is by lynching. Lynching Pewter will in my opinion give us more information that lynching you. You're still doing your best to change my mind, though. Quite way you have focused on me as being the 'quickest to choose' you is beyond belief, when all I said was this:

I drank both. This quote-editing is bizarre. I can believe Campbell/Dakar did it hoping it wouldn't be noticed, but that's rather naive and I don't see what it gains. Perhaps it is indeed just part of a noob-scum flail. I'm still somewhat surprised by the number of people who seem to be so sure that Pewter is town, though. We have two people who have behaved strangely. One is condemned for it; the other is let off with 'no scum would behave like that'. We must lynch one of these two today. It probably doesn't matter which provided we are decisive.

Why on earth would you joke about this? Perhaps the most telling quote of this conversation is this one: This reminds me of a situation in the distant Japanese past on Earth, where a second mafia team were without a scum kill. Could it be that Pewter was telling the truth here, and fishing with Rockford to try to join two teams together? It's a long shot, but the only way I can make any of this make sense. This may or may not mean anything, but the number of people reluctant to vote for Pewter but happy to try to start any other vote with the flimsiest of evidence is worrying indeed. Pewter's behaviour is bizarre and unhelpful, and I still think he's the best choice we have today for a lynch.