Unrest in the Forest, Day 2: Fly By Night

[Hinckley]

There's absolutely no way the scum would kill Lauren for "rallying" the town. The vote against Alistair would have gone through regardless of what Lauren had said, and it wouldn't have won her any kudos today, even if we did know Alistair's allegiance and if Alistair's allegiance was scum. It sounds like a very convoluted explanation invented to push your theory that Alistair is scum.

Myself, I don't know who the scum killed. The most plausible theory is that they killed Lauren because she was unlikely to be targeted by town though. I'm not sure why you think a serial killer would be the only one who'd want to do this.

Oh, is that what I'm doing? So, you and Sammy are Scum buddies? I called that yesterday. So, this is no surprise at all. So, I'm pushing the theory that Alastair is Scum, huh? So you think he's not? Why are you reaching that conclusion? And are you suggesting what then? The Scum killed Buck? The Scum didn't kill? You say the Scum killed Lauren because he wasn't likely to be protected or watched. I made the same speculation about it being a neutral kill, which also applies to the Scum kill. Sorry I didn't apply every possibility to every situation and every possible hypothetical. I certainly tried. I tried to get all of that crap out of the way since so much of the day is usually wasted and so many people post fluff in random and somewhat useless speculation. But it is interesting that you're trying to suss me with false info. Again, anyone can read and see that you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm also fascinated how you know what the Scum were thinking and what there's no way they were possibly thinking. But then you announce you don't know who the Scum killed. Thankfully you've assure us of that, we can stop suspecting you now.

After looking at their posts from yesterday, neither one did very much of anything. Lauren rallied a lynch of Alastair. I think that is literally his only contribution outside of telling Buck to vote. And Buck made like 4 posts. If the vig did kill, I would assume they killed Buck and the Scum killed Lauren...for rallying people to lynch Alastair...who was Scum...then they janitored him. I see no other reason to kill Lauren. Unless the vig or a serial killer killed Lauren and the Scum were blocked or their target protected. I'm doing that speculate about every possibility of kill thing. Lauren would even make more sense as a neutral kill because he wasn't likely to be watched or protected. And maybe Buck was killed by a vigilante who prefers to weed out the low posters. Or there's a serial killer taking out low posters. Or Buck or Lauren said something to Scum in private that made them the kill target. Or something to the vig in private that made them think they were Scum I always yell at people for doing this...

My point is, Chester, you seem to be more concerned about the vig. Do you know something we don't? Perhaps you are Scum and you know the Scum killed one of those two and you're trying to figure out if there's a neutral. That's what you sound like to me. Plus, after Day One, you're on my Scum list.

So this is the post you're referring to. And my point in this post is trying to convince people that Brickeolodeon is Scum? Are you annoyed because you janitored him for another reason and I'm getting it wrong. I speculate about everything I say in that post. And in case you didn't know...using series of ellipsises...which are the three dots...indicate...I might be...overthinking it...or that I'm still...thinking...the...possibilities...through. Sorry I didn't explain my whole thought process for you. At least I gave you the Scummy little hope that you could try to turn suspicion on me. But like your buddy Scummy SycaMapleFace, you're misrepresenting what I said.

[MagPiesRUs]

Oh, is that what I'm doing? So, you and Sammy are Scum buddies? I called that yesterday. So, this is no surprise at all. So, I'm pushing the theory that Alastair is Scum, huh? So you think he's not? Why are you reaching that conclusion?

I don't know whether or not he's scum, and I think it is a mistake to assume his allegiance one way or the other.

You say the Scum killed Lauren because he wasn't likely to be protected or watched. I made the same speculation about it being a neutral kill, which also applies to the Scum kill.

Why is killing Lauren for "rallying" the town the most likely explanation though? Or was that post all just a joke about night-kill speculation? And it doesn't represent your feelings about the night kills at all?

Sorry I didn't apply every possibility to every situation and every possible hypothetical. I certainly tried. I tried to get all of that crap out of the way since so much of the day is usually wasted and so many people post fluff in random and somewhat useless speculation.

You didn't say it applies to a scum though. You specifically said it made sense for a neutral to target Lauren for that reason. I'm not sure why you wouldn't include scum in that sentence.

[Hinckley]

I even thought about that as I typed it as a neutral kill. "I should type Scum too" but I didn't but they are all possibilities along with all the many other explanations I postulated. Again, sorry I didn't type every single possibility. It's telling that you're so focused on it. I said that "rallying" was the only reason I could think of for Lauren being killed based on his posts. The fact that you're picking apart the speculation when I was clearly making the point about Chester having a narrow focus is also pinging me.

Here's another theory: (yes, theory, not an insistence Scummy Adelaide and Sammy) Was Brickelodeon janitors because I was right that there were no Scum on the bandwagon and the wording of his request to Bruce was, as I suggested, very telling?

[jimmynick]

Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth.

That is entirely up to the vigilante to come out and say who he/she attacked.

"But the longer the vig waits, the more maple syrup I'll ooze!" Is that right? Who else wants to lynch Hazel today?

Let's see... I agree with Simon that Chester probably has inside information on the scum that he doesn't want to reveal. Catarina is somehow trying to contribute without making the pretense of actually contributing.

I don't see why it took so long to realize that a blanket approval/ban on stumps revealing night actions is a silly idea, because all night actions are not the same - I agree with Sammy Sycamore that investigation results are OK to reveal here:

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.

But not here:

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.

What if we need someone safe for people to claim to? A confirmed Oak who hasn't been under suspicion seems like the right choice to me.

Ditto.

Well aside from that poignant remark I nothing even vaguely useful to add at the moment. Sorry.

Thanks for contributing.

Are you talking about The Forest ||? I do remember a lumberjack from there...

Yes, I did mean The Forest II. But why didn't you go and look that up yourself rather than asking everyone in the thread? Pretending to contribute, are we?

I love that there are parallel Catarina-Hazel and Sammy-Simon arguments going on . Can we play as a united group rather than splitting into little factions in-thread?

[Hinckley]

Can we play as a united group rather than splitting into little factions in-thread?

Well, there is a little faction. That's the point of the game. Have you noticed? I think Sammy could be part of that little faction, so what do you propose I do?

Good news, we have a bomb. Or at least that's the claim...

[Zepher]

What an absolutely lovely and sunny day! Hello there little stumps! I'm sorry that not as much sun reaches down there, but it's certainly better than no sun at all!

1. The vigilante, if we have one, did not submit a kill last night.

2. There is no vigilante. (Somewhat unlikely)

3. Or, in my mind the least likely, the vig did kill last night, and just made a strange decision.

This is a weird weird weird set of options! In both 1 and 2 there's no explanation of the second kill (I assume a neutral is what you're hinting at) and then 3 totally and with equally little evidence dismisses the possibility of a neutral totally!

Stumps: did either of you have night actions?

Maple! You only back tracked on this once it was pointed out that it was already decided that it was a very maple-y thing to say, and then once it became clear that maybe it wasn't a Maple thing to say, you pushed for it again!

Yeah, I missed it, sorry. Mobile is not kind to me.

Well, if they had informative roles, it's actually very pertinent. If their results die with them, that's bad. Town needs to know everything it can.

Not necessarily; I'm open to possibilities. Gun to my trunk, though, I'd say he was Maple, yeah. If the action is one shot, he probably was. People were starting to have doubts by the end; why would they janitor someone who would look like a fairly normal Day One lynch? Plus, it would make me look bad if he flipped Oak, so there's the added bonus of that.

This whole thing pinged me. It would make you look bad if he flipped oak, so he must be maple, therefore making you look good? That's weak reasoning. And "people were starting to have doubts at the end" would be a very good reason to janitor him if he WAS an oak. In my opinion, you are not reasoning anything out, simply picking one answer and then insisting that it makes you less suspect.

Look, being conservative with information has its place, but by and large, the more town knows, the less places Maples can hide. If you don't want things to be revealed, then that probably says a lot about you. What are you hiding, Sammy?

The more the town knows in open, the more the maples know in open. If they reveal there is no protector, then the maples can kill with ease. No watcher? Then the maples can target anyone. Even your ludicrous suggestion that revealing that our investigator has died does little to help. The maples will then KNOW that we can't know with any certainty who is maple or oak.

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.

Trust our fellow trees, who have turned up oak already?! Ludicrous!! No, I'm just kidding, thank you for being intelligent! I hope you like the sun and we can share it together, you seem like a smart dude!

Even clearing an Oak who isn't under suspicion is worth it.

:laugh: No.

Simon is playing a very maple-y game as well. He is spending a lot of time defending himself. Oaks don't have to do that.

Either way, I agree that there are likely already "factions" within the oaks, and that certain trees and their prickly ways are not helping that.

I also think that we may want to consider a relatively powerful scum team. Simon pointed out that the stumps (even in their current form) are very helpful to the oaks. So I think we should assume that the maples have got some good ol' fashion heavy fire power as well. For example, the janitor may be able to act a lot, or often, than a normal janitor. Or maybe they can kill twice a night (not one I personally believe...). I'm just surprised no one has thrown this out there so far. If there are stumps in this game, then our assumptions of what the maples are capable of should be at least a little modified, in this tree's opinion. Thoughts?

[Mencot]

Oh no I am almost dead, stumped. damn humans.

Considering Buck's contributions yesterday, I don't expect us to hear much from his stump anyway. It doesn't look like the stumps are forbidden from sending Potato Messages. OK, if the Maples have limited janitor-shots, I would imagine Alastair was Scum. Maybe they just want to keep us confused for as long as possible. That's a possibility. But I can't imagine why they would use a janitor shot, if it was limited, this early unless it was a big strategic advantage.

Is this something you are hopeing or? I was actually looking forwards to this day, was really busy on day 1 IRL so that is why the low post and I usually act like that in every forest, low day 1 post.

I did tell you that when you contacted me asking about how hard it is to read me.

Stumps: did either of you have night actions?

You did get an answer to that already.

So Oaks don't want to know if we've lost any power roles?? Let's say Loren or Buck were the investigator. Then the Scum came to one of us pretending to be the investigator and we had no way of knowing they were Scum and they infiltrated a Town block and killed off all of our power roles. Doesn't the information about what roles they might've had benefit us more than the Maples? I remember a super smart Scum who did just that in a forest called Valhalla. He was devilishly handsome and he killed everybody. Really really really smart guy. And devilishly handsome. And really really really smart.

I remember that guy or wasn´t it she, it looked like a he

Gut instinct.

You have alot of that, hopefuly you won´t make any bg mistakes

Except you're making one BIG assumption - that the stumps will always be here and able to talk. Just like we were surprised to have them around today, how do you know they won't get removed or silenced or otherwise unable to share later.

From the elders post and the humans, we stumps and our fallen tree.. "body" will be removed after the day.

Look who knows so much about what the Scum would do! Tell us, Adelaide, then who did they target and why, Miss Maple? I did answer it, regardless of its nonsensical nature, Scummy McBristlePants. You are really Scummy. Three of who?

SO is everyone who talks against you scum, not that I don´t think some of the comments these trees makes could make them maple but who has cleared you?

I still believe that Alistair would come out oak, don´t know why... should I say gut feeling.

But why the use of janitor, I don´t know. One option is to mess with the oaks to lynch another town.

I remember a silver city forest, where maple scum used it on day 5 or was it day 6, oaks/town was unsure about one tree(me) and the scum got a lynch, then the roots were taken over night and nobody then knew what he was on the next day and the scum pushed for another town lynch or was it neutral lynch but anyway the scum won that game.'

But it was day 5 or 6 so it was an smart cjoice to do it, right now I don´t know why to do this other than to mess and try to get the same result as in sliver city, lynch a oak.

What an absolutely lovely and sunny day! Hello there little stumps! I'm sorry that not as much sun reaches down there, but it's certainly better than no sun at all!

This is a weird weird weird set of options! In both 1 and 2 there's no explanation of the second kill (I assume a neutral is what you're hinting at) and then 3 totally and with equally little evidence dismisses the possibility of a neutral totally!

Maple! You only back tracked on this once it was pointed out that it was already decided that it was a very maple-y thing to say, and then once it became clear that maybe it wasn't a Maple thing to say, you pushed for it again!

This whole thing pinged me. It would make you look bad if he flipped oak, so he must be maple, therefore making you look good? That's weak reasoning. And "people were starting to have doubts at the end" would be a very good reason to janitor him if he WAS an oak. In my opinion, you are not reasoning anything out, simply picking one answer and then insisting that it makes you less suspect.

The more the town knows in open, the more the maples know in open. If they reveal there is no protector, then the maples can kill with ease. No watcher? Then the maples can target anyone. Even your ludicrous suggestion that revealing that our investigator has died does little to help. The maples will then KNOW that we can't know with any certainty who is maple or oak.

Trust our fellow trees, who have turned up oak already?! Ludicrous!! No, I'm just kidding, thank you for being intelligent! I hope you like the sun and we can share it together, you seem like a smart dude!

:laugh: No.

Simon is playing a very maple-y game as well. He is spending a lot of time defending himself. Oaks don't have to do that.

Either way, I agree that there are likely already "factions" within the oaks, and that certain trees and their prickly ways are not helping that.

I also think that we may want to consider a relatively powerful scum team. Simon pointed out that the stumps (even in their current form) are very helpful to the oaks. So I think we should assume that the maples have got some good ol' fashion heavy fire power as well. For example, the janitor may be able to act a lot, or often, than a normal janitor. Or maybe they can kill twice a night (not one I personally believe...). I'm just surprised no one has thrown this out there so far. If there are stumps in this game, then our assumptions of what the maples are capable of should be at least a little modified, in this tree's opinion. Thoughts?

I have nothing to lose, I am an dead oak stump, so I will say it. I could not agree with you more.

[JackJonespaw]

I also think that we may want to consider a relatively powerful scum team. Simon pointed out that the stumps (even in their current form) are very helpful to the oaks. So I think we should assume that the maples have got some good ol' fashion heavy fire power as well. For example, the janitor may be able to act a lot, or often, than a normal janitor. Or maybe they can kill twice a night (not one I personally believe...). I'm just surprised no one has thrown this out there so far. If there are stumps in this game, then our assumptions of what the maples are capable of should be at least a little modified, in this tree's opinion. Thoughts?

That's an unfortunate that, but albeit an all too possible one. If we have multiple janitor uses (say more than the normal, which, based on Lauren's guess), then the we are going to have to be extraordinarily careful of who we lynch. I can't help but also agree that, as we have the advantage of the Oak stumps, there has to be some advantage that the Maples have, but that's anyone's guess. In any game, the Maples are already pretty powerful with knowledge, that any boost to that could be bad news for us. Does anyone think that it's possible that every lynch is janitored? That that is the Scum's extra boost?

And I, myself, am still wondering as to what will happen when a night kill turns out Maple? Will they stay on as stumps?

[Zepher]

I doubt EVERY lynch would be janitored (or at the very least hope not). Then we'd have nearly nothing to go on, excluding power roles, which doesn't allow for simple vanilla oaks to do much of anything. I was just suggesting they might have the ability to janitor more people than they normally get the chance to. And even that is just a guess as to how they might be balanced if they have been balanced.

[mostlytechnic]

I'd agree that it's not an automatic "no stump for the lynched" since there's nothing in the rules, even now, suggesting such a thing. In fact, just the opposite! Rule 4 STILL says that the alignment of lynched will be revealed the next day. So there's gotta be a power role doing this. So yes, we still need to think carefully and logically about votes so we can learn from the vote history in future days like any other foresty game.

[Scaevola]

I'll concur that if the investigator or another vital informative role dies they should divulge their results. Anonymity that the investigator is dead is not worth lynching an oak or wasting a vig

kill on an oak.

That's an unfortunate that, but albeit an all too possible one. If we have multiple janitor uses (say more than the normal, which, based on Lauren's guess), then the we are going to have to be extraordinarily careful of who we lynch. I can't help but also agree that, as we have the advantage of the Oak stumps, there has to be some advantage that the Maples have, but that's anyone's guess. In any game, the Maples are already pretty powerful with knowledge, that any boost to that could be bad news for us. Does anyone think that it's possible that every lynch is janitored? That that is the Scum's extra boost?

And I, myself, am still wondering as to what will happen when a night kill turns out Maple? Will they stay on as stumps?

I heavily doubt every lynch is janitored. However, I will endorse the fact that the scum very well could have multiple janitor shots to offset the advantage of having stumps (In fact I'd consider it likely)

[StickFig]

Of course the night lasted through my entire 3-day weekend, and of course there's seven pages of nonsense waiting for me when I get home after work. Oh well.

Based on a quick scan of the approximately one zillion posts, I'm initially surprised by the lack of discussion about the miller claim.

The next thing I'd like to ask is what caused Bruce Spruce and Clem Elm to abandon their initial positions Day One (against Berty Birch) and add to votes almost immediately to mine against Alastair Pear?

add their* votes

[Scaevola]

Of course the night lasted through my entire 3-day weekend, and of course there's seven pages of nonsense waiting for me when I get home after work. Oh well.

Based on a quick scan of the approximately one zillion posts, I'm initially surprised by the lack of discussion about the miller claim.

The next thing I'd like to ask is what caused Bruce Spruce and Clem Elm to abandon their initial positions Day One (against Berty Birch) and add to votes almost immediately to mine against Alastair Pear?

add their* votes

Perhaps due to Alastair having been satisfied with Hazel's declaration she may random vote? And her persistent fluff throughout the day? Berty had more margin for error whereas Alastair was quite specific on his stances. I'm not going to explain anything more that was already said the prior day Go back and read more thoroughly.

Ditto.

Well aside from that poignant remark I nothing even vaguely useful to add at the moment. Sorry.

Is anyone else irritated with these comments? Beech maintains the illusion of being active by posting a feeble little concurrence or a regurgitated theory then adds his little "But don't take me seriously," and the sycophantic little "Your ideas have hegemony over mine," This looks like a maple trying to kiss up to the majority consensus and look active. Whilst ensuring nobody pays his comments any heed. His previous comments are structured in an identical fashion (refer to Day 1). May I inquire as to why Beech?

[Hinckley]

Simon is playing a very maple-y game as well. He is spending a lot of time defending himself. Oaks don't have to do that.

Oh, really? I've played a lot of games and I must have completely missed that Oaks don't have to defend themselves. I'll let the Scum falsely put suspicion on me and misconstrue what I'm saying. Adelaide and Sammy both were highly suspicious to me yesterday and their misrepresentation of what I've said is even more concerning. Townies don't need to defend themselves? What game have you been playing? One where Townies get falsely sussed and they lay down for Oaks to manipulate?

And I, myself, am still wondering as to what will happen when a night kill turns out Maple? Will they stay on as stumps?

I highly doubt that.

[Scubacarrot]

I highly doubt that.

Why?

[Hinckley]

Why?

Because it wouldn't serve a purpose that I can think of. Do you think otherwise? I can't imagine a Scum stump sitting around so we can sit around and call it Scummy. Am I missing something?

[badboytje88]

Wow I sure have a lot of catching up to do. 2 Oaks down and 1 tree who remains a mystery. I have to agree with those who think this was the work of a janitor. And that would make it more likely for Alastair Pear to have been a Maple. It seems highly unlikely that every lynch victim will have his or her identity hidden. That would be unfair for us and would cause a lot of confusion!

The tree stump ting can sure come in handy! Let me get this straight, they disappear after a day? Or are they here to stay till the end of the game?

[MagPiesRUs]

As far as the stump information goes, I've been pondering a strange idea that could pay off.

Perhaps in the event that someone dies later on, they could PM someone they trust with a list of their own specific codewords. For example, investigator=lemon, protector=banana, blocker=soldering iron, vigilante=donkey, vanilla=egg/shoelace/Kermit/Hammurabi, whatever. Once dead, the stump will then be able to reveal in thread their fellow stump roles without the maples being any the wiser (assuming they've talked to the right confidant, of course). That way, a stump could come out and say for example that Lauren was a desk lamp and Buck was a pony, which would make complete sense to whoever had been told the codewords. Obviously it may not work yet, since no one is confirmed at the moment, but it should be an effective way of communicating once we get an oak block established.

[Hinckley]

I think it's a good idea, but if the person is trusted, why can't they be told before the player is dead?

[MagPiesRUs]

I suppose they could, but it would give other stumps the opportunity to pass on knowledge if they hadn't done so already. I don't know how long each stump will last, but it could possibly allow us to ascertain the roles of those already dead.

[Tamamono]

Maple! You only back tracked on this once it was pointed out that it was already decided that it was a very maple-y thing to say, and then once it became clear that maybe it wasn't a Maple thing to say, you pushed for it again!

Yes, I backtracked because I am absolutely terrified of being lynched. I can't stand the thought of it! I need to conform to other peoples opinions in order to feel safe. I definitely didn't think through the possibilities and decide it was worth it. Thinking things through is totally Maple.

This whole thing pinged me. It would make you look bad if he flipped oak, so he must be maple, therefore making you look good? That's weak reasoning. And "people were starting to have doubts at the end" would be a very good reason to janitor him if he WAS an oak. In my opinion, you are not reasoning anything out, simply picking one answer and then insisting that it makes you less suspect.

Are you saying I'm not an Oak?? That's pretty suspect...

The more the town knows in open, the more the maples know in open. If they reveal there is no protector, then the maples can kill with ease. No watcher? Then the maples can target anyone. Even your ludicrous suggestion that revealing that our investigator has died does little to help. The maples will then KNOW that we can't know with any certainty who is maple or oak.

That's a really really good point Nash. You've convinced me. Knowledge is bad. Let's stop revealing things in public. In fact, let's tell the Host to stop revealing the allegiances of players too while we're at it - if the scum know townies died in the night, they know how many more they need to kill to win... In fact, let's all just stop posting. The more we know, the Maples know...

:laugh: No.

:snicker: Yes.

[mostlytechnic]

Based on a quick scan of the approximately one zillion posts, I'm initially surprised by the lack of discussion about the miller claim.

Dang, forgot all about that!

So.... looking back, there wasn't much time to discuss it day 1 since Berty Birch claimed publicly just over an hour before the end of the day. The odd thing to me was that she claimed she roleclaimed in PM to someone and then brought it out publicly after they suggested it. I agree that claiming miller in public was right - but why claim in private? I can't think of anyone that I would have trusted enough to claim even miller to on day 1!

And Berty also said the reason for claiming publicly was she assumed she'd be investigated that night. Really, out of 25 trees, you think you're at the top of the heap?

And apparently no one cares about the miller claim, since after you (Vicky) reminded us, there were 9 posts about other things while I reread the appropriate parts of yesterday.

[Fugazi]

Good news, we have a bomb. Or at least that's the claim...

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.

[jimmynick]

If we have multiple janitor uses (say more than the normal, which, based on Lauren's guess)

Emphasis added. I don't like it when you say "we" about the maples.

Well, there is a little faction. That's the point of the game. Have you noticed? I think Sammy could be part of that little faction, so what do you propose I do?

Of course I know there are maples. I really meant "parallel" as opposed to "arguments" because it's like some people have made little bubbles that they won't venture out of (especially Catarina and Hazel).

Good news, we have a bomb. Or at least that's the claim...

Ooh! Interesting!

So.... looking back, there wasn't much time to discuss it day 1 since Berty Birch claimed publicly just over an hour before the end of the day. The odd thing to me was that she claimed she roleclaimed in PM to someone and then brought it out publicly after they suggested it. I agree that claiming miller in public was right - but why claim in private? I can't think of anyone that I would have trusted enough to claim even miller to on day 1!

If I recall correctly, Simon said Berty claimed to him first. I don't see anything wrong with that - being a miller isn't really sensitive information that's at risk when you claim, say, vig or cop to a rando. But, Jack, I found Simon's quotation and he actually says he talked with you about the possibility of a miller. Do you have a selective memory or something?

He claimed to me and I advised him to claim to everyone. In a side conversation with Jack Pine, Jack brought up he didn't think there was a Miller because nobody had claimed. Millers had gone out of style in my time so we had a discussion about them. When Berty claimed to me I advised him based on that conversation. Bruce's point above is a good one. Also, if he hadn't claimed this (assuming it's true) and the investigator did investigate him and he claimed after, we would almost certainly lynch him and waste a day lynching a Townie. That being said...what a great Scum gambit. Ow, my brain.

I doubt there would be more than one Miller, so if anyone can refute Berty's claim, I think it would behoove us to hear it.

Behoove? Since when is that word in my vocabulary?

Emphasis added.

[Hinckley]

I suppose they could, but it would give other stumps the opportunity to pass on knowledge if they hadn't done so already. I don't know how long each stump will last, but it could possibly allow us to ascertain the roles of those already dead.

Wouldn't every Oak need to know the code before they died? I can't imagine this working unless every Oak knew the code and we kept it from the Maples. If we could do that, we would've already won. This looks like you are trying to be helpful but can't really think like an Oak.