Tamamono Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 And then he says that Bruce is confirmed but he can't let us know how. And then he tries to make it seem like any other confirmed person can't possibly be confirmed, even though it would just be their word, same as his. And then he tries to get William to tell him his role as if he himself is confirmed. Fishing for how I'm confirmed??? That's pretty scummy... On the subject of Berty, however, I would like to know about those who voted for her Day 1 and then unvoted so they could vote for Alastair. So, Bruce and Clem, any reasons? I'd suggest maybe reading the thread.
jimmynick Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Way to answer the question, Bruce. I'd like to know too. How long are you going to let Agnes follow up on all the ideas you have?
mostlytechnic Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 No, no one else knows the codes besides the ones they were sent to and no codes were revealed; 9 out of 25 is not jeopardizing town. it does prove a point and like I said, probabilities have I that at least one of those is scum. The way I see things, the more pressure is put to send codes in, the scummier it looks. But that's just me. Look at how we stand today, we're down 5 townies and codes have yet to give us any info besides sidetracking the discussion. Look at yesterday, we discussed the megablocking codes for half the day and then you lynched an Oak based on asterisks and low light; BRA.VO! sorry, you completely missed the point being made. All those who claimed via codes DID SO PUBLICLY IN THREAD. So when you say that all the claims you have are vanilla, it's REAL OBVIOUS WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE! With being outed like that, I'm not surprised others haven't claimed in thread yet!
Piratedave84 Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 sorry, you completely missed the point being made. All those who claimed via codes DID SO PUBLICLY IN THREAD. So when you say that all the claims you have are vanilla, it's REAL OBVIOUS WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE! With being outed like that, I'm not surprised others haven't claimed in thread yet! People claimed lists of codes, here are more than 9 codes and more than 9 claimants; it's not possible to assert who's what here. We also cross referenced their lists to come up with some of those which were not claimed in thread. Do not think that what I said was intended to out anybody but it's nice to know that you feel strongly against our divulging information and eliminating Oaks to hone in on Maple. Scum
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Jeezy petes, stand for something, would you?! What a bizarro statement. Does this not ping anyone else? What in the world was this? It did ping me as well, as I stated. And then he tries to get William to tell him his role as if he himself is confirmed. That is not at all what happened. William can confirm for me that he claimed to me first. I asked for clarification, he said he didn't want to clarify and I didn't ask anything further. When I announced Bruce was verified, William claimed his role to him and Bruce was the one who told me. That is true, I think all of us stumps received codes from Simon (I'll have to double check), and yet three pages into Day 3, and no claim. Simon? I also note that trees like Simon who were strong proponents of the codes didn't send in their claim. How are we supposed to make this work then? I didn't post these this morning because I was posting from an iPad before going to sleep. Impatient Mafia players are so annoying. Here are my codes: Jack: 3613 Stickfig: 1797 With the last night's results, I have been verified. I really hope you're deliberately misleading us living trees with that statement, because otherwise you just outed a whole lot of people as vanillas. This, yes. Don't Dave the game, Lauren. The whole point is for the stumps to sort out claims and counterclaims and for the living trees to not know who is claiming what. Think about the implications...just think about what this knowledge means. People claimed lists of codes, here are more than 9 codes and more than 9 claimants; it's not possible to assert who's what here. It is when you say they are all one thing.
Lego Spy Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 "Oh crap, Larry, they're on to us! Better get a little distance!" "Ok, Chester, that should be far enough." Whatever this is supposed to mean, I'm staying right where I am. Actually, thinking about it, I don't think scum would be so dumb to do that. This still doesn't make you an oak but this does make you look less maple-y. It had made sense at first that you could do that if you were a maple, but now you cleared it up a little. Jeezy petes, stand for something, would you?! What a bizarro statement. Does this not ping anyone else? What in the world was this? "I agree that you're maple-y, oh, you said you're not maple-y, so you're right never mind thanks for clearing that up." Agreed. This was the sort of reaction I was hoping to get when I asked him. What he said suggests timidness. (Something that many newer scum players have)
mostlytechnic Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 People claimed lists of codes, here are more than 9 codes and more than 9 claimants; it's not possible to assert who's what here. We also cross referenced their lists to come up with some of those which were not claimed in thread. I'd assume that someone sending 3 codes to 3 stumps in one post would all be saying the same thing, just saving the stumps from some PM work. What else would they be saying? So your argument here makes no sense. If you weren't a stump I'd be voting for you being scum!
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Jeezy petes, stand for something, would you?! What a bizarro statement. Does this not ping anyone else? What in the world was this? It did ping me as well, as I stated. Oops, I didn't state. I stated his other post was very pingy. I've not liked Larry from the beginning. His contributions so far today ping me as well: Looking at the votes from the last two days, I noticed that these people have joined the previous two bandwagons that resulted in the lynch for that day. Waldorf, Simon, Barry, William, Chester, Sue, Bobby, and Bruce were those people. I am sure that there is at least one scum in that group of people. Actually, thinking about it, I don't think scum would be so dumb to do that. This still doesn't make you an oak but this does make you look less maple-y. It had made sense at first that you could do that if you were a maple, but now you cleared it up a little. I am sure that many groupings of eight people would have one Scum in them. So, what do you think joining Alasdair's bandwagon means since we still don't know his affiliation? Is there any other insight you have into my or the seven other listed player's behavior that makes you think one of us is Scum? This is one of the fluffiest statements I've seen.
Mencot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Fishing for how I'm confirmed??? That's pretty scummy... I'd suggest maybe reading the thread. Scum Way to answer the question, Bruce. How long are you going to let Agnes follow up on all the ideas you have? Scum It did ping me as well, as I stated. That is not at all what happened. William can confirm for me that he claimed to me first. I asked for clarification, he said he didn't want to clarify and I didn't ask anything further. When I announced Bruce was verified, William claimed his role to him and Bruce was the one who told me. I didn't post these this morning because I was posting from an iPad before going to sleep. Impatient Mafia players are so annoying. Here are my codes: Jack: 3613 Stickfig: 1797 With the last night's results, I have been verified. This, yes. Don't Dave the game, Lauren. The whole point is for the stumps to sort out claims and counterclaims and for the living trees to not know who is claiming what. Think about the implications...just think about what this knowledge means. It is when you say they are all one thing. What does that mean, a maple as verified you or something?
Dragonfire Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 First off: JackJonesPaw and Goliath, I am a male tree. Dude. Guy. Please stop calling me "she". I would assume that after I claimed to Berty Birch the miller, that fact was passed to others in PM, who then thought my claiming was scummy, and vig-killed me. But I suppose that Berty could be scum trying to mislead us all, I'm just not inclined to believe that based on the fact that no one has counterclaimed miller yet. I told two people. I was under the impression that you had claimed to other trees as well, but I see that I was wrong. And don't write trees off as Oaks when there are no counterclaims- remember Simon in Ragnarok 2, or Adelaide in Party Lines ?? Interesting. Looking back, I just realised Berty Birch was the one who claimed miller. Why are you speaking in code to the stumps if everyone already knows your role? Because codes are helpful to town and some trees might not have believed my claim. Also to remind the stumps. Full disclosure, Berty told me you claimed on January 31st (locally) and then further told me on February 1st that you claimed as vanilla townie. I had no way of verifying this claim, so I figured I'd just tell you here. He was very suspicious of you because, according to Berty, you PMed someone asking them to vote for Alastair (brickilodeon) and that you sent him a suspicious message as well. F2 I can verify that this is the truth. But why would you out Vicky's role in-thread ?? With no one verified as town at this point, I find it odd that these trusting PMs would even take place. I also found it odd in my PM with Berty, that he trusted Barry fully without question. No one should trust anyone at that point in the game. I never said I trusted him fully without question. I said that he is a strong townread of mine, in response to you saying that you suspected him. Catarina is right. Sure, Berty might have some confidence he's confirmed because of the miller claim, but WHY did he blab about Vicky's role to Barry? Why would you do that? Barry isn't confirmed! You DON'T blab people's roles to other people. Even on deadboards! When it doesn't matter anymore! I wanted some people to know that I suspected Vicky in case I died on Night 1. I ended up telling Barry that I suspected Vicky (but not Vicky's claim) and telling Simon that someone I suspected had claimed vanilla to me. Simon found out that it was Vicky, so I felt like it was only fair to let Barry in on the information as well. Vicky, I'm sorry if that got you killed. That's something. Maybe she wanted you to be dealt with so she attacked you lat night? Maybe that's the simple to find out. Who has Berty been "friendly" with? Maybe a friend of Berty has done the deed for her. Hazel, you're fishing for the vigilante AGAIN. It's completely illogical for a Maple to kill someone because of "suspicions" they had in thread. Maples don't have suspicions- they make them up! Therefore you must be referring to the vigilante again. So, as I understand it, there is now a functioning town block consisting of at least three people (Simon, Bruce and the investigator) and possibly the bomb as well. Pleased to hear that a block has formed.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 What does that mean, a maple as verified you or something? Translation, please?
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 No, no one else knows the codes besides the ones they were sent to and no codes were revealed; 9 out of 25 is not jeopardizing town. But it's not 9 out of 25. Five or six of those people are Scum and they already know who they are and what their roles are. The whole point of the codes is to keep the info out of the hands of the Scum. Please don't give them any more. Communicate back to a trusted player through the codes. That's the whole point of the codes...
Duvors Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Translation, please? He wants to know how you were verified.
Fugazi Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 In other news, through some behind-the-scenes claims, I can confidently say that Bruce is verified to be an Oak. That's good, huh? I'm sure this will get mixed reviews... William? As far as the verification, unfortunately, you just have to trust me for now. I can't say anything about how Bruce was verified. Sorry. I know that's not what anyone wants to hear, but it's best to keep the info safe for now. With the last night's results, I have been verified. Please entertain me... If the investigator trusted you enough to share their result on Day 2, why were you investigated on Night 2? For a moment yesterday I thought that you might be the investigator, therefore couldn't explain how Bruce had been verified. But the latest result shows that you're not it, unless you can verify yourself. How does any of this makes sense? That is not at all what happened. William can confirm for me that he claimed to me first. I asked for clarification, he said he didn't want to clarify and I didn't ask anything further. When I announced Bruce was verified, William claimed his role to him and Bruce was the one who told me. The miller, the bomb, the investigator... now William? Now what ever William thought to claim to unverified trees like that? Scum Scum What does that mean, a maple as verified you or something? Why do you think Bruce is scum? So, as I understand it, there is now a functioning town block consisting of at least three people (Simon, Bruce and the investigator) and possibly the bomb as well. Pleased to hear that a block has formed. Yup, go ahead and claim all you like to them, they're self-verified now. The miller, the bomb, the investigator... now William? Now what ever William thought to claim to unverified trees like that? Oh, read too fast. So it's Bruce telling you... because he trusts you.
Scaevola Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 That is true, I think all of us stumps received codes from Simon (I'll have to double check), and yet three pages into Day 3, and no claim. Simon? Also, I agree that the codes do give us a lot of info, but there's really no true way to confirm whether or not the info is sound, at least not until one of those trees get stump-ifyed. That's possible, although during Day 2 there was no feud between us, so I'm not sure how true that might be. On the subject of Berty, however, I would like to know about those who voted for her Day 1 and then unvoted so they could vote for Alastair. So, Bruce and Clem, any reasons? I'm not sure why I should even indulge this comment. I gave a multitude of reasons in my vote/unvote post. Perhaps that would be a good place to look
Mencot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 With the last night's results, I have been verified. I was just wondering what do you mean by this? Have you been verified/investigated or have you verified some information or something? Why do you think Bruce is scum? I don´t know, I don´t trust the fact how he was verified has an oak. Ofcourse it can be a maple scam and Bruce really is an oak but right now I think he is somehow also part of the oak BS-committee.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 He wants to know how you were verified. Bruce and I have both been investigated and found to be Oaks. Not "not Maple", "Oak". Please entertain me... If the investigator trusted you enough to share their result on Day 2, why were you investigated on Night 2? For a moment yesterday I thought that you might be the investigator, therefore couldn't explain how Bruce had been verified. But the latest result shows that you're not it, unless you can verify yourself. How does any of this makes sense? Bruce contacted me, as we all know, early on Day One. On Day Two, he asked me to be the mouthpiece for what we were finding behind the scenes. So, naturally, I needed to be verified and that happened last night. In addition to Larry, I haven't much liked Bobby's contributions either. As Clem pointed out yesterday, we've gotten a lot of filler, oddly-wishy-washy posts like this: 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. Sadly, I have no suspicions, at all, so that whole thing wasn't really very helpful, was it? Well aside from that poignant remark I nothing even vaguely useful to add at the moment. Sorry. This was on the discussion of the "garden variety" post. But seriously, I must have missed something, why would such an assumption be bad exactly? I feel like he avoided answering me on this point: That was an accident. And it is entirely possible that an Oak would make the same assumption. Nope, just pointing out the possibilities. And yet you seem somewhat dismissive of the Maple possibilities. 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. Berty even found it odd that he was being defended: 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. 4th to vote for Alastair and 8th to vote for Catarina. 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? 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. This is a very light ping, but it seems like his justification for voting is more that Alastair was metagaming not that he thinks he is Scum. 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? Sorry, I was forced to take a break due to circumstances beyond my control. You are highly accusative of everyone, something I dislike a lot. It smacks of a tree that is desperately trying to appear helpful while simultaneously sowing the seeds of suspicion everywhere. My attitude towards Catarina is rapidly becoming negative, this tree has only been unhelpful, uncooperative, far too ready to jump to conclusions, seems determined to direct attention away from herself, and just plain annoying. After rereading much of what this tree has said I feel there are sufficient grounds for me to; Vote: Catarina Dogwood (adventurer1) Well, Catarina is useless so I am voting for her. Aside from that I'm wary about Simon due to his accusatory nature. These are statements I have hashed and rehashed over and over again today. Aside from that I have no concrete suspicions, and even what I have isn't very solid I'll admit. Well she is, but the precise way in which she is useless i.e. annoying comments that show a startling lack of attention and repeated use of the Flail on everyone who tries to accuse her (I hope I'm using the word flail correctly) is rather suspicious. Some bug in my nature really, I just dislike highly aggressive play styles. Not really, I'm just saying that I've said these things already today. Yes, yes you are. Could everyone please stop voting for Catarina already? We already have more than enough votes to convict, at this point it just looks like you're jumping on a bandwagon where a lynch is already certain just to look good, or you aren't paying proper attention to the number of votes. Also a light ping. It feels like he over-explains his change of heart on Catarina. This could very well be exactly his thought process, but his voting order and over-justification could add to the suspicious natur of his posts. I'll re-iterate what I feel about Larry in a bit but I'm running out of time.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Running out of time for what? Searching the day threads and posting my suspicions. I can't sit around being a tree all day. I have other things that need to be attended to. By the way, I officially apologize for calling you a fruitcake. The whole asterisks debacle is because on the writeboards, which Scum use to communicate, phrases are bolded by being placed between asterisks. This has been a false Scum-tell in other games but I did think your defense of it was actually a lie. The PMs you sent to Bruce requesting info about the investigator made it seem like you were using your last hours to fish info for the Scum. And I did think you were really defensive with everyone that accused you. It was all highly suspicious in my view.
Fugazi Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I'd suggest maybe reading the thread. I'm not sure why I should even indulge this comment. I gave a multitude of reasons in my vote/unvote post. Perhaps that would be a good place to look Why is everyone acting so haughtily? Bruce contacted me, as we all know, early on Day One. On Day Two, he asked me to be the mouthpiece for what we were finding behind the scenes. So, naturally, I needed to be verified and that happened last night. That's what I'm trying to understand: you acted as Bruce/someone else's mouthpiece on Day 2, yet you weren't verified. Bruce was. Then Bruce asks you to become a mouthpiece, and you had to be verified. It doesn't add up. If Bruce is verified, he can speak for the dream team. Please help me understand how you're not stroking each other's back.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 That's what I'm trying to understand: you acted as Bruce/someone else's mouthpiece on Day 2, yet you weren't verified. Bruce was. Then Bruce asks you to become a mouthpiece, and you had to be verified. It doesn't add up. If Bruce is verified, he can speak for the dream team. Please help me understand how you're not stroking each other's back. I suppose it didn't matter which one of announced that Bruce was verified since he can speak for himself, but there is a reason we chose me as the mouthpiece and I don't want it revealed publicly.
Tamamono Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Simon was verified as an Oak by the investigator, same as me. I don´t know, I don´t trust the fact how he was verified has an oak. Ofcourse it can be a maple scam and Bruce really is an oak but right now I think he is somehow also part of the oak BS-committee. "He was verified as town, so he must be scum" I'd like to propose that all stumps just stay dead.
Lady K Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Searching the day threads and posting my suspicions. I can't sit around being a tree all day. I have other things that need to be attended to. By the way, I officially apologize for calling you a fruitcake. The whole asterisks debacle is because on the writeboards, which Scum use to communicate, phrases are bolded by being placed between asterisks. This has been a false Scum-tell in other games but I did think your defense of it was actually a lie. The PMs you sent to Bruce requesting info about the investigator made it seem like you were using your last hours to fish info for the Scum. And I did think you were really defensive with everyone that accused you. It was all highly suspicious in my view. Thank you for the apology.
Duvors Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Bruce and I have both been investigated and found to be Oaks. Not "not Maple", "Oak". And how exactly do we know that this is true?
jimmynick Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I don´t know, I don´t trust the fact how he was verified has an oak. Ofcourse it can be a maple scam and Bruce really is an oak but right now I think he is somehow also part of the oak BS-committee. Yeah. I think Bruce and Simon would vouch for each other because they're both nasty scummos who faked being investigated two nights in a row. And how exactly do we know that this is true? I see you're attacking Simon's character rather than the content of his accusations. Hmmm.
Recommended Posts