Lady K Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 And how exactly do we know that this is true? We don't. But the real problem here is town is being distracted again! Why all the focus on codes, and Simon and Bruce investigated, who has claimed and who hasn't? Scum want this info, town should be trying to find the scum. I don't see many suspicions being put forth. I already stated Barry strikes me as scummy. What about the rest of you? Any suspicions at this point?
Duvors Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I see you're attacking Simon's character rather than the content of his accusations. Hmmm. Why should I? His statements are perfectly in the right, I really have been behaving in a unhelpful and contradictory manner.
Walter Kovacs Posted February 8, 2015 Author Posted February 8, 2015 Voting is now open. With 19 players, it takes 10 Votes to lynch.
Dragonfire Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 And how exactly do we know that this is true? If they are lying, the real investigator would come forward and tell us as much, or claim to the stumps. Oh, and besides, I'd reckon that slightly more than a quarter of us are scum. So vote wisely if you're town; don't just hop on the largest wagon.
jimmynick Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Why should I? His statements are perfectly in the right, I really have been behaving in a unhelpful and contradictory manner. And there I was thinking you'd bother to defend yourself.
Duvors Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 And there I was thinking you'd bother to defend yourself. Any defense against his accusations would involve evading the facts or barefaced lying, and I'm not really going to that now.
Zepher Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I'm loving the sun today! What a lovely sun! If only there weren't maples enjoying it along with me! I'd like to pose a question to the group. What do we think is the balance for the stumps? Do we think there is one? Does anyone have any guesses? We sort of threw around the idea yesterday, but we never came up with anything! For now, I will Vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) for all the reasons I've already stated! Sorry Larry, hope you're a maple! Chester's defense of himself (or lack there of) pings me as well... and Hazel is indeed playing a bizarre game as well.
Scubacarrot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Bruce and I have both been investigated and found to be Oaks. Not "not Maple", "Oak". Hold up. Bruce told me that your verification was "complicated". Investigation is not complicated, it's quite a simple concept. I'm sure you have a simple, non-complicated explanation, right?
Yzalirk Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 How long are you going to let Agnes follow up on all the ideas you have? What ideas did I even have..? Apart from a little suggestion a made earlier.
Scubacarrot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Also, I did not claim to Simon. I said something role-related. But didn't claim. I did claim to Bruce. Who then told Simon. Even before he could have been investigated.
Duvors Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Also, I did not claim to Simon. I said something role-related. But didn't claim. I did claim to Bruce. Who then told Simon. Even before he could have been investigated. That sounds very irresponsible of him.
Zepher Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 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. Yeah, wait, didn't yesterday you claim that you had found Bruce to be Oak? So were you already a mouth-piece? And then today he cleared you? But you're the mouthpiece, so you have to tell us about it. This just sounds like you guys have somehow confirmed each other. Even if there's a third party I'm very confused by what you're talking about. 3rd party contacts... you, yesterday, and tells you that they've cleared Bruce, which you then announce but then today Bruce is told by the 3rd party that you have been cleared, so now you're allowed to be the mouthpiece? Or, 3rd party contacts Bruce yesterday who then tells you that Bruce has been cleared, and then you later clear Bruce? Very confused.
Scubacarrot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 That sounds very irresponsible of him. No shit.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Thank you for the apology. I'd be more than happy to talk to you about Mafia theory when the game is over. Any defense against his accusations would involve evading the facts or barefaced lying, and I'm not really going to that now. Why would you have to lie to defend yourself?? Hold up. Bruce told me that your verification was "complicated". Investigation is not complicated, it's quite a simple concept. I'm sure you have a simple, non-complicated explanation, right? I agree with that statement, but clarifying that for you will give away too much. I think it should be obvious that we don't want to reveal certain things so as not to reveal things to the Scum. But, I understand how this stuff can seem strange, so keep poking people. If you are so suspicious of Bruce and me, why did you so quickly believe when I verified him and ran to him to claim your role? For now, I will Vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) for all the reasons I've already stated! Sorry Larry, hope you're a maple! Chester's defense of himself (or lack there of) pings me as well... and Hazel is indeed playing a bizarre game as well. I've wanted this since Day One. vote: Larry Larch (TheLazyChicken) I will have more time later to clarify why. Also, I did not claim to Simon. I said something role-related. But didn't claim. I did claim to Bruce. Who then told Simon. Even before he could have been investigated. This is accurate. I was given a basic category. It was rather abrupt. What provoked you to bring me that information at that time?
Scubacarrot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 This is accurate. I was given a basic category. It was rather abrupt. What provoked you to bring me that information at that time? You were not the only one, I figured it could probably do no harm, and I thought that in the case of me dying, there'd be that piece of info flying around.
Hinckley Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Yeah, wait, didn't yesterday you claim that you had found Bruce to be Oak? No. And then today he cleared you? Who, Bruce? This just sounds like you guys have somehow confirmed each other. Even if there's a third party I'm very confused by what you're talking about. There's a third player involved, to be clear. I know it's confusing. But I'm bringing you the results we have in the most responsible way for not revealing too much about the Town's capabilities to the Scum. You were not the only one, I figured it could probably do no harm, and I thought that in the case of me dying, there'd be that piece of info flying around. And why was I one of the people you told?
Scubacarrot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I agree with that statement, but clarifying that for you will give away too much. I think it should be obvious that we don't want to reveal certain things so as not to reveal things to the Scum. But, I understand how this stuff can seem strange, so keep poking people. If you are so suspicious of Bruce and me, why did you so quickly believe when I verified him and ran to him to claim your role? I'm suspicious, yes, thanks for making that conclusion so I don't have to, NOW, of you and Bruce. I wasn't THEN. It's not difficult. Also, low risk. And why was I one of the people you told? Because you seem to wiggle your butt in every block that's ever been around and I was talking to you anyway. I also think you're cool. You're welcome. Stop trying to get me to give more information away, that's really weird, not to mention, scummy.
TheLazyChicken Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Well I was looking at some people's post from yesterday and found out that Peter has hardly talked. Okay… I have a lot of reading to do! And I am afraid I might not be able to catch this up before the end of the day. All I know is that I am more than willing to hop on the Catarina bandwagon. As Sue Sumac explained so well Caterina is talking fluf, rehashing what others said and is playing the noobish victim. So I will Vote: Caterina Dogwood (adventurer1) By doing this I acknowledge that I am a bandwagon hopper and I know I haven’t been contributing as much as I could but it is hard for me to catch up with the amount of posts that have been emitted in this game. He didn't give any reasons of his own apart from the ones that Sue gave. This struck me as odd and pinged me. No idea... typed it in word first to avoid a lot of spelling mistakes. Must have messed up the format or something. 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? These were two fluff posts from Day 2, no real suspicions or anything either. I don't feel too suspicious of you but it seems like you are trying to hide away from everyone else and not be noticed. Vote: Peter Cedar (badboytje88) I would like to hear from you more.
jimmynick Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 What ideas did I even have..? Apart from a little suggestion a made earlier. I'm thinking about these: I agree with this. It's certainly not going to give us an answer but it's a good lead for now. Should we see who voted against Vicky and/or Agnes or see who they may have clashed against? 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. Which you let Agnes pick up the slack on. Simon, why did you write a post full of pings you have against Bobby Beech and then turn around to vote for Larry Larch? If you wanted to vote for Larry on previous days, why didn't you?
Lady K Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 If they are lying, the real investigator would come forward and tell us as much, or claim to the stumps. Oh, and besides, I'd reckon that slightly more than a quarter of us are scum. So vote wisely if you're town; don't just hop on the largest wagon. Interesting the way you worded this. It sounds like you are grouping yourself in with the scum. And you are asking the real investigator to come forward. So do we have a fake investigator as well?
StickFig Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 It seems to me that there's an easy answer to all this "I can assert that so-and-so is cleared" nonsense: claim to the Oak stumps. You want verified? I'm verified. Doesn't get more verified than me. The other stumps are verified. There's no way to be more verified than them. If there's a town block out there, it sure doesn't seem like they're doing much to communicate with verified oaks.
Yzalirk Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Which you let Agnes pick up the slack on. Well that was up to him. what, do you think I magically dictate things for him to say?
Lady K Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Well that was up to him. what, do you think I magically dictate things for him to say? I think the implication here is why don't you just do the work you suggest yourself. So why don't you?
Yzalirk Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I think the implication here is why don't you just do the work you suggest yourself. So why don't you? I'm actually not sure why, to be honest. I'll take a look in a few minutes and see what I find that can help out.
Scaevola Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 Beech's posts have been non-committal and evasive. He's felt the need to sycophantically concede to other opinions. Furthermore, his posts have consisted of nothing but weak little concurrences and the regurgitation of others' theories. He's using it as a utility to look active and camouflage in with the majority. Wherefore, I'll Vote: Bobby Beech (Lord Duvors) Why should I? His statements are perfectly in the right, I really have been behaving in a unhelpful and contradictory manner. These are the posts I really don't understand. The moment he's accused of anything he's prepared to rescind anything he's said regardless of his conviction. Albeit this situation may not be the prime embodiment of this, antecedents to this post are quoted and stated in this thread discussion.
Recommended Posts