Unrest in the Forest, Day 2: Fly By Night

[fhomess]

Busy catching up... this came quite a bit earlier on... so I apogize for bumping an old thread, but this is blatantly false:

I'm not sure what possessed me to think so but when I was told this,

That had me thinking it could be possible.

The quote you referenced came in response to your suggestion that there were 2 maple kills last night. You're rearranging the order of events to suit your purpose.

Wow, so Alastair was Neutral? I'm also not sure what to make of Lauren and Buck becoming stumps. So were both Maple attacks or was one a Vigilante attack?

So many questions to be asked...

And Berry, I believe the stumps can talk but can't do anything.

Why would you assume Neutral in the absence of other information?

Your second question is just odd. It's not common for scum to have multiple night kills. In all likelihood, one was a maple kill and one was either a vig or a SK. The way you're wording it is like you're asking for a vig to stand up and say, "heyo, that was me!". I really don't think we want our vig to do that. Maples, on the other hand... be my guest!

I'm commenting on your suggestion that both night kills were maple, and then you try to turn it around and suggest that I planted the thought in your head. I don't think so.

[Hinckley]

Could you elaborate on this? How did you find out?

The bomb thought there could be other bombs and that's why there were two deaths Townie death's last night. He was worried either Buck or Lauren were the vig and that there was no Scum kill. I don't think this is the case, however. I think if a bomb went off, we'd know. They said they trusted me and I did warn them against confiding in me when I wasn't verified to them.

Of course, there have been bomb claims from Scum in the past. However, this seemed to me like an organic way of revealing their role and a real concern for the Oaks.

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.

Great, so you're working on that for us, right? When can we expect your analysis?

[Fugazi]

The bomb thought there could be other bombs and that's why there were two deaths Townie death's last night. He was worried either Buck or Lauren were the vig and that there was no Scum kill. I don't think this is the case, however. I think if a bomb went off, we'd know. They said they trusted me and I did warn them against confiding in me when I wasn't verified to them.

Of course, there have been bomb claims from Scum in the past. However, this seemed to me like an organic way of revealing their role and a real concern for the Oaks.

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?

Great, so you're working on that for us, right? When can we expect your analysis?

I meant future actions. I have already commented about past actions that I felt were suspicious or deserved commenting.

[Hinckley]

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?

No. I don't think there's more than one bomb. If someone else has the role of bomb I would say my bomb is lying. Right now I believe the claim. Saying why might give their identity away. I will say if the Scum orchestrated the approach it's a good one.

[Zepher]

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?

It's a question of when they get all defensive. If serious heat starts to come down on a Oak, then they need to start to start to defend themselves, of course. If every time someone points out something slightly suspect you pounce on them, that starts to look like you've got something to hide.

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

I'm also surprised, but I personally had totally forgotten about the claim. It's certainly something to keep an eye on. Not easy to assess either way right now.

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

Accusing you is suspect?! Why? How?

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...

Oh we can all go to extremes. Why not have all the power roles post in the thread right now? That would be more information!! Oh, is that not what you were saying? Obviously not, just as I was obviously not suggesting that the host stop revealing allegiances. You keep ridiculing the subject because clearly you're afraid of us actually discussing what you're suggesting.

You are playing a very silly game, fellow tree!

Great, so you're working on that for us, right? When can we expect your analysis?

It must be very easy to continue to continously demand work out of others!

[mostlytechnic]

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?

My private talk with Simon had nothing to do with the miller claim - it was well before Berty claimed anything. We were talking about the game in general and started throwing out some complicated conspiracy ideas (framers, etc). I said I assume there's some non-standard roles since this isn't a school game and there's a lot of players. I mentioned masons, millers, and said I assume there's no miller since no one's claimed. This was about 15 hours before the public claim by Berty.

My questioning of the situation/claim is mostly based on the fact that it was claimed in private first. Why? Public immediate claims is the normal way to handle that role.

[Scubacarrot]

My questioning of the situation/claim is mostly based on the fact that it was claimed in private first. Why? Public immediate claims is the normal way to handle that role.

And how likely is it that everyone knows your normal way of handling things. I think you are trying to cast doubt on things that don't neccesarily need doubt on them. You, Mr pine, are super duper suspicious.

[jluck]

My private talk with Simon had nothing to do with the miller claim - it was well before Berty claimed anything. We were talking about the game in general and started throwing out some complicated conspiracy ideas (framers, etc). I said I assume there's some non-standard roles since this isn't a school game and there's a lot of players. I mentioned masons, millers, and said I assume there's no miller since no one's claimed. This was about 15 hours before the public claim by Berty.

My questioning of the situation/claim is mostly based on the fact that it was claimed in private first. Why? Public immediate claims is the normal way to handle that role.

From private conversations I've gathered that he was caught off guard with the miller role and wasn't familiar with how to best handle it. He wanted to get advice before doing something that would hurt his reputation.

[Hinckley]

It's a question of when they get all defensive. If serious heat starts to come down on a Oak, then they need to start to start to defend themselves, of course. If every time someone points out something slightly suspect you pounce on them, that starts to look like you've got something to hide.

My accusations of Adelaide and Sammy aren't defenses. I've been suspicious of them since yesterday as I stated. And my persistence about Sammy is because I felt he pounced on me when I suggested his private communication was suspicious. We don't even know the alignment of Alastair to confirm if the suspicion is warranted. When a suspicious person accuses me in a suspicious manner, I'm going to point it out. You can call it defensive, but I thought a vet like you would be able to tell the difference.

It must be very easy to continue to continously demand work out of others!

So you are OK with trees that say "We should watch out for [this]" or "We should go out and analyze [that]" to appear helpful and busy yet never actually follow through? We've seen Scum hide there before. I've been backing up all of my suspicions by checking posts and PMs. Others should too.

My private talk with Simon had nothing to do with the miller claim - it was well before Berty claimed anything. We were talking about the game in general and started throwing out some complicated conspiracy ideas (framers, etc). I said I assume there's some non-standard roles since this isn't a school game and there's a lot of players. I mentioned masons, millers, and said I assume there's no miller since no one's claimed. This was about 15 hours before the public claim by Berty.

I can verify this.

[Piratedave84]

What if we get to Day 5 and the cop dies without having told anyone his past results? It's best to let them die with him, isn't it. We don't want to help those nasty Maples by enlightening ourselves.

I would hope that the investigator, if killed on day 5 revealed whom he had investigated to said person before dying; or else he/she is a stupid investigator ...

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.

Agreed

Ditto.

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

:slowclap: are you for real ... this is what you have to say ...

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?

What's wrong with your text editor ?

[Tamamono]

Accusing you is suspect?! Why? How?

Only a Maple would want to cast suspicion on a real Oak...

Oh we can all go to extremes. Why not have all the power roles post in the thread right now?

Massclaim is a great idea. Thanks Nash! I knew something good would come of our talks.

Obviously not, just as I was obviously not suggesting that the host stop revealing allegiances.

You were suggesting that the Maples benefit from information more than we do, so you might as well be suggesting that the Elder stop revealing allegiances. It's the exact same concept.

You keep ridiculing the subject because clearly you're afraid of us actually discussing what you're suggesting.

You honestly terrify me, Nash.

You are playing a very silly game, fellow tree!

And I'm the one ridiculing the subject?

[Hinckley]

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?

Yes, it bugged me yesterday too. The post you quoted pinged me as well. I wasn't sure why until you put it so succinctly (you make me want to talk fancy too ).

[Dragonfire]

OK. I just logged in and there are 8 pages of Day Two already! Timezones...

Going to start rereading now, but first I'd like to speculate that Buck was the Vig/SK kill and Lauren was the scum's kill (this has probably already been discussed to death).

Oh, and I was totally correct about my treestump assumption in the C&D thread.

[Yzalirk]

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

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?

Actually, not that is not even close. Can you find me saying something like this "Vigilante, come out and show yourself, I command thee!"

But I will keep in mind the fact that you want to try and create a bandwagon against me when you pretty much have no reason to vote against me besides for conclusions that you cannot prove. Good job there, "Oak".

[jimmynick]

Wow, so Alastair was Neutral? I'm also not sure what to make of Lauren and Buck becoming stumps. So were both Maple attacks or was one a Vigilante attack?

So many questions to be asked...

And Berry, I believe the stumps can talk but can't do anything.

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.

You've spent the early part of today fishing for the vigilante. Just because you haven't outright said "please show yourself, vigilante" doesn't mean the implications aren't there.

[Zepher]

Only a Maple would want to cast suspicion on a real Oak...

The need you have to insist on this is so incredibly suspect.

Massclaim is a great idea. Thanks Nash! I knew something good would come of our talks.

I've never seen someone try harder to skew what is being said! Because directly afterwards you quote me saying that's NOT what I thought you were saying... so why would you separate them and respond to them as if they were separate?

You were suggesting that the Maples benefit from information more than we do, so you might as well be suggesting that the Elder stop revealing allegiances. It's the exact same concept.

I've never seen someone try harder to skew what is being said!

You honestly terrify me, Nash.

I know I do! Because I've caught you, and you don't have even a small defense against it!

[Yzalirk]

Busy catching up... this came quite a bit earlier on... so I apogize for bumping an old thread, but this is blatantly false:

The quote you referenced came in response to your suggestion that there were 2 maple kills last night. You're rearranging the order of events to suit your purpose.

I'm commenting on your suggestion that both night kills were maple, and then you try to turn it around and suggest that I planted the thought in your head. I don't think so.

Yes, that is true. That was the response I got from asking a question. Did I assume that? Only after that response I got that said it was possible. That isn't a guaranteed yes or no. Unless you can prove otherwise, I'd like to hear since I never suggested it at all.

You've spent the early part of today fishing for the vigilante. Just because you haven't outright said "please show yourself, vigilante" doesn't mean the implications aren't there.

Like I said previously, I don't care whether or not the vigilante exposes them self. I wouldn't be surprised since Berty gave her role out on Day One but had justified the reasoning behind it. Now, I'm not implying that that was an odd claim but it's not uncommon for people to tell their roles. If the vigilante exposes them self, yes, that is pretty unwise, but they can do it via PM, since they could be a great asset to us Oaks or could be our downfall, depending on who the vigilante is working with. I'm just speculating that this could be a possibility since it can happen and it'll probably end up happening.

Unless you can disprove this possibility, Waldorf, it's something that we should all be concerned at least a little bit about.

[jimmynick]

Unless you can disprove this possibility, Waldorf, it's something that we should all be concerned at least a little bit about.

What possibility? That the maples killed 2 people last night? That's preposterous! The burden of proof is on you to show that the maples did, in fact, kill twice last night. And when I say "burden of proof", I mean it's your responsibility to demonstrate that a double-maple kill is plausible.

[Piratedave84]

I want to lynch Hazel

[Tamamono]

The need you have to insist on this is so incredibly suspect.

Your refusal to accept it is the suspicious part...

I've never seen someone try harder to skew what is being said! Because directly afterwards you quote me saying that's NOT what I thought you were saying... so why would you separate them and respond to them as if they were separate?

I wasn't suggesting that you want a massclaim, I was saying a massclaim is good. I see now how my response would have been taken the wrong way!

I know I do! Because I've caught you, and you don't have even a small defense against it!

Dude, if only this warranted a real defense.

The bottom line is that you have your terrible idea of what's good for town, and I have mine. If you think I'm scummy for having a different idea than you, well, then...

That's suspect.

[Hinckley]

And when I say "burden of proof", I mean it's your responsibility to demonstrate that a double-maple kill is plausible.

I also find it hard to believe that we had 2 maple kills last night. Unless they knew something about Buck, I can't imagine him being a threat to them. No offense, Buck. However, I was once part of a Scum team that got two kills one night. It was a unique situation but it happened...

[Hinckley]

Regarding Clem's suspicion of Bobby:

Well so far all us treeple have got done is nothing, and I have nothing to add myself, I'm just speaking to show that I'm paying attention.

Several people pointed out this odd fluff. Blatant, brazenly so. Kind of a funny way to contribute. But it is ping-worthy. I know another tree who has tried it before or even endorses this type of response but he's speedy.

Correction, alternate possibilities to what has already been suggested, if you find having a point of view other than yours pointed out to you then I beg your forgiveness for being cautious about this.

It was an accident.

I was going to bawl you out for fluffing, but then you gave this defense.

I asked for clarification on this several times and he never gave it and ultimately ignored me and stopped answering. See? Ignoring accusations is Scummy. Answering to them is helpful. Got that, Nash?

The original issue here was Berty telling Nash he must've meant Garden Variety Oak and Bobby didn't understand why the assumption was bad. He answers me that there were alternate possibilities to what Berty could mean. Yet he only answered one. I pressed several times for clarification. So, why did he never clarify this and why was he defending Berty anyway? It reminds me of my ping of Larry Larch. Defending people, without much reason, just trying to buddy up and appear helpful. Here are the rest of his posts. Click the arrow next to his name, it will take you to the Day One thread so you can see his post in context. (bold below added for emphasis)

I've already stated them, are you seriously not lying any attention to what I've said?

I'm not defending anytree really, It's just that I don't see anything overtly Maple-y in what has been said so far, muddled Oakyness yes, but nothing that screams Maple. I think I've said this before.

Nope, just pointing out the possibilities.

That was an accident. And it is entirely possible that an Oak would make the same assumption.

Treesonly I can't find anything about Catarina that says "MAPLE!", but she hasn't done anything really helpful.

On a related note, am I the only tree here who noticed how aggressively Lassie Sassafras went after Catarina earlier?

Maybe because he isn't very good at this?

But quite frankly it does seem silly to me, as may people have said, why not post about your day one suspicions in public? It's actually more helpful that way then to keep them back for a later date, for the reason that, if the guy turns out to be a Maple with a special role and night actions and stuff lynching him on the first day would not only be helpful but a grievous blow to the Maples. In fact getting even a normal Maple on day one would be awesome! So if you have any suspicions on day one, Tell us! Just sending PM's about it to random folks about them makes you look like an evil Maple-y Maplebag McMapleton.

Sadly, I have no suspicions, at all, so that whole thing wasn't really very helpful, was it?

Hikory Dicork Dock Persimmon, bit of a mouthful.

But seriously, I must have missed something, why would such an assumption be bad exactly?

Woah mate, this is only day one, the spanish inquisition isn't supposed to start until day two.

Arrrghh! Why do I alway forget that there's a rule against editing your posts!?

An active player who isn't being helpful, thats why it's called 'fluff' instead of 'useful comments', at least he's trying to get something done.

Because I've seen other people doing it, that's why. And what is that about me typing the word 'lying'? That is blatantly untrue. I'm beginning to see why people want to vote for you.

In lieu of this however my position is somewhat moderated, and I don't think I'll vote for Catarina.

You know how I said that I hadn't seen anything overtly Maple? Forget it. This is at the very least unhelpful townie metagaming in a very badly thought-out attempt to cast off suspicion on people who were the bad guys in previous situations, blatantly disregarding the fact that roles can change from one game to the next.

And I also second this, therefore;

Vote: Alistair Pear.

Wow, I literally did not notice that. But that wasn't a freudian slip, and I'm highly suspicious of anything freutian anyway, his theories are out of date remember?

This didn't ping me, but it irked me. Freud's theories are not out of date.

Translation; "Hahahahha I'm much smarter that you, you have no chance of winning without me! If you kill me you'll all die and I'll rub it in your faces! Haha!"

Look, the way you phrased it, 'people I've let slip under the radar too many times' makes it seem like you're trying to cast suspicion on people who have been your opponents in previous games, not to point out that people who don't talk a lot are dangerous, which we already know.

Did you vote for him because he was metagaming or because you thought he was Scum?

[Dragonfire]

After re-reading all 8 pages, I can say that in particular, Catarina, Chester and Agnes are looking scummy. But hey, that's nothing new. Hazel is looking a bit like a confused newbie.

I personally think that the stumps should claim at their discretion;; it is their choice. Stumps, you might want to PM the host and ask if you "die" at the end of the day.

In terms of the possible janitor action, I've played with the janitor role before, but it was on a very different site (the role was always a scum one-shot role and townies were always targeted). It is possible that this applies to all lynches. Alastair could have gone either way IMO.

One thing, before I reply to the stuff mentioning me and my claim: Barry posted his case yesterday against Catarina. I've received a PM from Catarina which makes it clear that she's still only suspecting those who suspect/argue with her. Ping.

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

I'm also surprised.

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.

Yeah, nobody cares .

I claimed to Simon because I thought that he might already be in contact with the investigator (because he does seem to be a "hot spot" for PM activity doesn't he?). I wasn't sure about how to handle the miller role, and I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't really hurt me to claim it; it would benefit town to know the existence of a miller. I did think that I would be the investigation target, because out of the whole discussion yesterday, I viewed myself as one of the main targets of suspicion and therefore a possible investigator target.

Oh, and I'm a he.

The bomb thought there could be other bombs and that's why there were two deaths Townie death's last night. He was worried either Buck or Lauren were the vig and that there was no Scum kill. I don't think this is the case, however. I think if a bomb went off, we'd know. They said they trusted me and I did warn them against confiding in me when I wasn't verified to them.

Of course, there have been bomb claims from Scum in the past. However, this seemed to me like an organic way of revealing their role and a real concern for the Oaks.

There is unlikely to be more than one Bomb in the game.

My questioning of the situation/claim is mostly based on the fact that it was claimed in private first. Why? Public immediate claims is the normal way to handle that role.

As I said, I've never been, or played with, a miller before and I was unsure about how to handle the role.

From private conversations I've gathered that he was caught off guard with the miller role and wasn't familiar with how to best handle it. He wanted to get advice before doing something that would hurt his reputation.

Exactly. And it wasn't reputation, but rather I didn't want town to waste an investigation on me and therefore a lynch too.

[Hinckley]

No. I don't think there's more than one bomb.

There is unlikely to be more than one Bomb in the game.

Can't people read? The bomb thought there might be more than one. Not me. Shall I draw a diagram?

[Dragonfire]

Oh, I forgot to say that I think Bobby's lurking/unhelpfulness and Hazel's fishing both look bad to me.

Like I said previously, I don't care whether or not the vigilante exposes them self. I wouldn't be surprised since Berty gave her role out on Day One but had justified the reasoning behind it. Now, I'm not implying that that was an odd claim but it's not uncommon for people to tell their roles. If the vigilante exposes them self, yes, that is pretty unwise, but they can do it via PM, since they could be a great asset to us Oaks or could be our downfall, depending on who the vigilante is working with. I'm just speculating that this could be a possibility since it can happen and it'll probably end up happening.

Are you suggesting that the Vigilante publicly outing can be compared to my outing? They're totally different. The Miller role is the only role which is advantageous to out on Day One. Public outing is only good at the end of the game when there are only a few trees left, or when a scum can be caught by it. Stop talking abut the Vigilante. It's only making you look worse and look like you're slipping deeper into the hole you dug for yourself.

Can't people read? The bomb thought there might be more than one. Not me. Shall I draw a diagram?

I never insinuated that you thought there was more than one. I just pointed out that there was likely to be more than one.

Pedit: unlikely