Fugazi

This sounds like a great idea... but I'm not sure how you can make it work, since we can't send potatoes to the stumps.

But... I still don't see the connection between asterisks and low light. Your explanation of them makes your use of asterisks even more fishy.

Right... I'm willing to let my suspicions of Simon and Bruce (they're kind of tied together by the investigation result now) rest for a moment while they have a chance to prove that they are who they say they are. Not that I advise trees to carry on claiming to them like if they couldn't fake the whole picture. Please consider that Maples may have tools you can't predict and they may know enough already to set up elaborate gambits. That said, I don't find the evidence against Catarina very compelling. However, the use of *asterisks* could be considered a revealing slip, and makes her a tempting lynch. If she could prove that it's indeed a writing habit she uses at least occasionally, and if she could better explain how it looked better in low light (it doesn't bold characters or otherwise help readability on EB), I might let it slide and look for a scummier tree. Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1)

Um... refresh my memory?

There's a strange pattern developing here. 1) Miller (unverified) claiming to Simon (unverified). 2) Bomb (unverified) claiming to Simon (unverified). 3) Investigator (unverified) claiming to Simon (unverified) that Bruce is Oak. So... I can understand a Miller asking for advice, as he was planning to claim publicly anyway. The bomb claim is more suspicious, because they shouldn't have claimed to an unconfirmed tree. The Investigator claim takes the cake. Now, it could explain why Simon started the day by accusing me twice. I accuse Bruce on Day One, Bruce flips Oak during the night, now Simon "naturally" thinks I must be scum. So we are all Oaks, and Maples are laughing their butts off watching us bicker among ourselves. But there are other possibilities. There are too many convenient claims. Every single one of the unverified claims could easily hide a Maple. I won't believe any of this until this dream team delivers a Maple lynch. How is it plausible? You're trying too hard here, I still don't believe you. I see you're taking this very seriously.

Good, another Oak thinking they should confide in you... because you're above all suspicion I suppose. Not only that's preposterous, but a bomb role is wasted if they claim to the wrong person. So if I understand correctly you do share this belief that there could be more than one bomb, and that the bomb was justified in claiming to you because they exposed a valid concern? I meant future actions. I have already commented about past actions that I felt were suspicious or deserved commenting.

Could you elaborate on this? How did you find out? About the town miller... I think we should keep in mind the possibility that it's a Maple ruse, but there's not much we can do about it for now. We can't lynch Berty to test the possibility unless there's good reason to think he was lying. On the other hand, he's certainly not off the hook and we should scrutinize his actions the same way we would for any unconfirmed player.

That will make that Oak a target, and perhaps reveal the investigator prematurely. I don't know, it's a difficult call and one for the stumps to make.

If a stump has information that would give us a Maple or save an Oak (say, investigation result that they haven't shared before their death), I think that sharing this particular information with everyone outweighs the risks of revealing a role. On the other hand, most night results would not be useful enough to be worth giving away info to scum. What I'm saying is that the value of information should be weighted on an individual basis and the stumps decide if they share or not.

Reread my posts. I never said that I don't want anything revealed. I only emphasized that you were asking for information that would be very valuable to Maples (and not so much to Oaks. We can wait until our PRs have a very important result before they choose to reveal anything).

You're evading the question. You asked if dead Oaks still get night results they can reveal the next day. This is crucial information for Maples.

Tell me. Day One, you were subtly protective of Bruce in private after I accused him. That raised a flag. I may be wrong, but I want it to be known out here.

I will let the others decide, we're the only ones doing the talking here. I think you were pushing it, you say you weren't. Let's have second opinions. Why?

Yes, you were trying to cast doubts on my Oakiness which you never do unless you have strong evidence ot that effect. Am in the right then that Bruce is also Maple, is that what's bothering you?

For one thing, because you seem convinced that it's true. Also, because that's what usually happens according to the reference I quoted. And because as I stated yesterday that I didn't think Alasdair was Maple, but Bruce was. Not investigation results, silly. That's not what you asked. Maples would probably want to know whether killing a PR will void their action, since Oaks still can talk the next day.

Stick to what? I came in the picture after you spent many posts implying that Alasdair is scum, without really considering the alternative. Since it's not a foregone conclusion, I accused you of trying to impose your view. It would make me look bad in Simon's mind if Alasdair was Maple.

That's something a Maple would be very interested in finding out.

Nope, I'm restoring the balance. Do you also agree with Simon that Alasdair must be Maple?

No, I think you might be a Maple because you pushed very hard for one theory that is probably false in order to confuse the Oaks. Eventually you considered the other option half-hardheartedly when it was convenient to you (accusing another tree in the process) yet still toying the idea that I was scum therefore Alasdair too. That's what scum do all the time after janitoring: spreading confusion.

I tell you that Bruce is Maple, therefore unlikely to get killed by his own. Too late to back out, you spent two pages not considering all options. And loved it too!

That's quite a leap of logic there. You're assuming that Alastair is Maple, you're making me appear as trying to influence your vote, and you're linking the two inappropriately. Yes, I discussed Alastair with you after you asked for my opinion, and I told you the same thing I said in thread for everyone to hear: I wasn't convinced that he was scum. That's why I kept my vote on Bruce. Where's the subtlety in this? Why didn't the scum kill Bruce then, he's the one who started the Alasdair bandwagon? Make up your mind! You're the one heavily pushing for one theory (Alasdair is scum) then you blame others for not looking at alternatives? Yeah, that's an adventure that Simon hosted himself, so he probably remembers. By the way, this is what I read about the Janitor role: "Most of the time, Janitors are scum, so the people whose flips are obscured are usually Town." Not sure how accurate this is, but hey, let's keep our options open shall we.

It's all good, thanks for the heads-up.

Fair enough, let's see if you can sway my opinion by the end of this day by being a convincing Oak. It's been pointed out already that nobody should trust you (or anyone else) yet. But don't dismiss the importance of my trust, because if I don't trust you I will stick to your leafy megablocks until the day one of us dies! I don't read this as a "really desperate, scummy" move. It's not a move I can imagine a Maple team suggest to their endangered team member, because there's no reason why Bruce (assuming he's Oak) would have played along. It looks more like an idea a lonely Oak could come up with. Or a lonely 'other variety of tree' for that matter, if there is such a thing. That's my 2 cents, anyway.

That's all? I'm disappointed, I expected a longer rebuttal. Considering that you have two votes against you, you're not doing much to gain our trust. You've become very quiet, are you afraid of the limelight? Minimising the importance of a wasted Oak life doesn't sound very Oaky to me. What will you gain from what Alastair said today if he turns to be Oak?

Lots to catch up on today... but it's a good thing, there's more to work with. I don't know most of you treefolk all that well, but some I know slightly better, and one in particular is acting rather oddly in my humble opinion. Bruce, I have a few questions for you. So after one or who pages of idle conversation, you already had gotten a bad vibe from William, and a good one from Simon? I can understand you wanting to get in touch with trees, build a network and dig for information, but your excuse for contacting Simon doesn't hold water. You're not a sapling, why the shaky alibi? You're planning on playing a strong, aggressive game? Somehow that's something a Maple would focus on, trying to appear Oaky by being being unexpectedly active. I can't imagine an Oak spending much time thinking about how they want others to see them during this situation. Then there's this. You seem awfully satisfied with your vote and sure of yourself. You're not only being aggressive, you're also being casual and careless. You are casting votes left and right based on iffy evidence and still you appear convinced that this will lead us to a Maple lynch. No one can be so sure of a Day one vote, unless a major slip happens. I don't think anything happened today that would justify such a carefree attitude. You're not new at this Bruce, you know how Day 1 usually turns out, despite all the "conclusive evidence". I don't think you really care about us Oaks, so prove me otherwise. Vote: Bruce Spruce (Tamamono) correction: *one or two pages*