MagPiesRUs Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Ok, I was still teeny bit worried about Simon and the town block, but I think scummy scum scum Peter stumbling into the bomb pretty much confirms that Simon and anyone else who knew about the bomb are oaks (well, unless Peter was the SK...) In regards to questions about a Serial Killer who didn't kill on Days One and Two, he did. I lied again. Sorry. The vig was blocked by the Town on Night One. We didn't know why the kill didn't go through. He/she had actually targeted Larry. We didn't know if the vig was blocked or Larry protected. If the Scum blocked the vig, announcing he/she had been blocked would clue the Scum into the vig's identity. We said he targeted Buck to try and see if anyone reacted to the lie. Not like anyone would say "No he didn't, I did!" But, we thought we'd try and see if anybody slipped up when talking about who targeted who. That being said, we have no way of knowing which target was Scum and which was SK. They're both weird Scum targets. But, the Scum may have known that their targets would be stumped and may not be choosing typical targets since stumping someone also verifies them. The Scum killer is a trusted-Townie-making-machine. On Night Two, the vig killed Agnes. On Night Three, the vig killed Bobby. On Night Four, the vig stayed home. (I hope that the Scum blocked Chester and when I said "the vig didn't kill" they assumed he was the vig and that's why they targeted him. I hope!! ) On Night Five, the vig killed Nash. All of that is true. I was about to believe Barry's weird one-shot neutral kill claim was the explanation for the three deaths on Night 3, but this makes things a little more complicated. Still, it is weird that the SK or scum have failed to kill on three out of five nights. I wouldn't be opposed to lynching someone who was blocked on one of those nights today. You thought the self-vote post was not scummy? That was one of the scummiest actions possible. It's the "I'm willing to be sacrificed to save the town!" defense, only it backfired on her and you were the only one to see her as Town. Sue, why did it take almost 24 hours for you to switch your vote to Hazel after his self-vote when it is one of the scummiest actions possible in your mind? Were you hoping to split the vote and get a no-lynch that day?
jimmynick Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (and the odds of them getting connected SO SOON is so remote, so if I were hosting I wouldn't expect their time to be spent proving they are both legit) What if I told you that I investigated Simon because interesting things happen around him? And that's because people blab to Simon? And that Bruce blabbed to Simon? Whom Clem investigated on Night One? The possibility of us getting connected was not so remote, and we were very diligent about making sure we were legit because it would be easy for a scum to claim cop to Simon because people blab to him. Sue, why did it take almost 24 hours for you to switch your vote to Hazel after his self-vote when it is one of the scummiest actions possible in your mind? Were you hoping to split the vote and get a no-lynch that day? Good point, Adelaide. So, Waldorf, n4861? Looks like it! Again, do you want me to say the name of n9254's role and see if it prompts anyone else to claim to you?
Tamamono Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I'm trying to work the timeline out in my head as best as I can Night 1: Vig blocked, Scum/SK kill Buck, Scum/SK kill Lauren Night 2: Vig kills Agnes, Scum/SK kill StickFig, Scum/SK don't kill/get blocked/target is protected Night 3: Vig kills Bobby, SK kills Barry, Scum kills Clem Night 4: Vig kills no one, Scum/SK kills Waldorf, Scum/SK kills Maggie Night 5: Vig kills Nash, Scum kills Chester, who in turn kills scum... So it looks like there was only one nontown killer out and about on both Nights 2 and 5. What if Peter was the SK and the scum actually converted or something on Night 2?
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Again, do you want me to say the name of n9254's role and see if it prompts anyone else to claim to you? Not yet. Let me send you back a list of claims first. I need to look everything over. Let's be extra careful. XESA n7019 SUXT claudio & Conrade n4774 & 6196 n4913. I hope you take longer with that than I did with what you posted earlier. Sorry, I think I would've gotten it if I had taken more time. I've become swamped with school out of nowhere. I had a project that kicked my megablocks. Night 4: Vig kills no one, Scum/SK kills Waldorf, Scum/SK kills Maggie Since there was some suspicion around Maggie, I doubt the Scum would kill her.
jimmynick Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 XESA n7019 SUXT claudio & Conrade n4774 & 6196 n4913. I like that we can make sentences without using words!
fhomess Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I was about to believe Barry's weird one-shot neutral kill claim was the explanation for the three deaths on Night 3, but this makes things a little more complicated. Still, it is weird that the SK or scum have failed to kill on three out of five nights. I wouldn't be opposed to lynching someone who was blocked on one of those nights today. You seem to be misunderstanding what's being said. We now know the SK/scum have not failed to kill on 3 nights. On night 1, the vig was blocked. Night 2, Jack was blocked and one of the scum/SK kills did not happen. On night 3, we have all 3 killers out. On night 4, the vig stayed home. Last night, the bomb went off and the vig succeeded. There are 4 explanations possible for last night: 1. Hazel was the SK, Bobby was the scum killer, so there was only the chance for 2 kills total 2. Bobby was the SK, the scum were blocked 3. Hazel and Bobby were both scum, the SK was blocked 4. One of the scum/sk targets were protected Jack seems like a prime candidate having been blocked on a night with just 2 kills barring an alternate explanation. So it looks like there was only one nontown killer out and about on both Nights 2 and 5. What if Peter was the SK and the scum actually converted or something on Night 2? If there was a conversion on night 2 that could explain the lack of a kill. From a risk standpoint of trusting someone the investigators cleared, the only people investigated at that point were you and Simon. Even if we consider the possibility that the conversion happens after investigation, then we add our investigators to that group, but they're both dead and confirmed stumps now. Do you have any reason to think that Simon was converted and poses a risk to the rest of us?
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Waldorf, n3610 RPMS n4244 n5327? Do you have any reason to think that Simon was converted and poses a risk to the rest of us? I can answer this. If I was converted to Scum on Night 2, I highly doubt I would allow Peter to target the bomb. Waldorf, n139 Hero n4244 Beatrice n136 Banquo n4861 Benedict n3610 RPMS Margaret n4913 Claudio n3800 SC2576 Berty, n6144 2472 n1083 9437 n2262 6542 n9689 FUQS 9905 n6155 6074 n7535? n1704 6760 n8358 815 n3198 CBDI
MagPiesRUs Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 You seem to be misunderstanding what's being said. We now know the SK/scum have not failed to kill on 3 nights. On night 1, the vig was blocked. Night 2, Jack was blocked and one of the scum/SK kills did not happen. On night 3, we have all 3 killers out. On night 4, the vig stayed home. Last night, the bomb went off and the vig succeeded. There are 4 explanations possible for last night: 1. Hazel was the SK, Bobby was the scum killer, so there was only the chance for 2 kills total 2. Bobby was the SK, the scum were blocked 3. Hazel and Bobby were both scum, the SK was blocked 4. One of the scum/sk targets were protected Jack seems like a prime candidate having been blocked on a night with just 2 kills barring an alternate explanation. If there was a conversion on night 2 that could explain the lack of a kill. From a risk standpoint of trusting someone the investigators cleared, the only people investigated at that point were you and Simon. Even if we consider the possibility that the conversion happens after investigation, then we add our investigators to that group, but they're both dead and confirmed stumps now. Do you have any reason to think that Simon was converted and poses a risk to the rest of us? You're right, I forgot the vig didn't target anyone on Night 4. So that means there were 2 nights where the scum or SK failed to kill. Now that I think about it more, I guess Peter was the maple killer, so unless the maples can switch roles amongst themselves (which isn't especially common), seeing who was blocked won't help us find the maples. It could help us find the SK, but not a maple.
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I've seen Jack reading this twice. I hate to be that stalky-pushy guy but how long does it take to answer this question: Why do you assume the Agnes was killed by the Scum? So you blocked me, and I note that you listed the vig failed night 1 so there was an SK kill, but the vig succeeded night 2 so you're thinking I'm the SK? Why would the vig succeeding only give us the ability to believe you are the SK? Sounds like you know who the Scum killed on Night Two.
mostlytechnic Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Sorry, been interrupted by reality... Where did I say that agnes was scum-killed? YOU said she was vig killed. Or are you getting names mixed up somewhere? And as for the other half, I have no idea between Agnes and Vicky which was killed by scum and which by SK. I guess I was assuming that last night Peter's death was because he was the scum killer, meaning IF I was a killer (I'm not!) I'd have had to be the SK to have killed night 2. But do we have any proof that peter is scum and not SK, other than the missing stump? (sorry, meant I'd have to have been the SK to have failed to kill night 2) (crap, too much going on and now I am getting names mixed up. We know Agnes was vig killed night 2. I don't know who killed Vicky) And don't forget, when thinking I'm a killer (again, I'm not...) that there's another reason for a missing night 2 kill other than me being blocked. The SK and scum could have BOTH targeted Vicky.
Bob Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Sue, why did it take almost 24 hours for you to switch your vote to Hazel after his self-vote when it is one of the scummiest actions possible in your mind? Were you hoping to split the vote and get a no-lynch that day? If you'd look, I answered your claim that I hadn't given any codes by proving that I did, and then I didn't return to the thread until the end of the day when a Hazel lynch was definitely going to happen. To be honest, even though I view it as one of the scummiest acts and an extreme scum flail, I thought that she was just giving up at first. It was only after reading the rest of her posts that it all came together and I saw it as scummy and not just giving up because she just wanted to be voted out.
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Where did I say that agnes was scum-killed? YOU said she was vig killed. Or are you getting names mixed up somewhere? Damn it all. Pay attention to the first time I asked when I got the names right. I even quoted when you said it. Freaking Vickory Dickory. Come on now. You say the vig was successful so we must think you're the Serial Killer. Why wouldn't we think you were Scum?? This could mean you know that the Scum killed Vicky. Sorry, been interrupted by reality... Where did I say that agnes was scum-killed? YOU said she was vig killed. Or are you getting names mixed up somewhere? And as for the other half, I have no idea between Agnes and Vicky which was killed by scum and which by SK. I guess I was assuming that last night Peter's death was because he was the scum killer, meaning IF I was a killer (I'm not!) I'd have had to be the SK to have killed night 2. But do we have any proof that peter is scum and not SK, other than the missing stump? (sorry, meant I'd have to have been the SK to have failed to kill night 2) (crap, too much going on and now I am getting names mixed up. We know Agnes was vig killed night 2. I don't know who killed Vicky) And don't forget, when thinking I'm a killer (again, I'm not...) that there's another reason for a missing night 2 kill other than me being blocked. The SK and scum could have BOTH targeted Vicky. Oh, now I see you went through all possibilities on your own. Sorry. Gotcha.
mostlytechnic Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Oh, now I see you went through all possibilities on your own. Sorry. Gotcha. No problem - just next time, lash out on someone else before you get an oak lynched for no reason. And in return, I'll slow down and try to make my posts make sense too.
Dragonfire Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Simon, I'll get round to your codes later. Who was supposedly an Oak, Berty? Hazel. Why not? Is that just your feeling or what? Because it seems kind of like information that is important. I'm sorry, but I can only say that it is my feeling. Rules are rules. I have the feeling this may be why we were scolded by our elder tree. Berty, if a living player PMed you that a dead player was Oak, I think it's safe to say that person would be a Maple. If so, I wonder if the rules permit you to tell us who would try to manipulate a stump. I think it would be a nice example of karma... Yes, I have a similar strong feeling. It was not a living player who PM'd me. Right. So a non-stump dead someone said something to Berty implying or stating they are town. Deductive reasoning, yo. I could see a scum trying to contact a living player or a scum to say just that, perhaps if they're salty about the stump-advantage. Even if there's a town unstumped person, I don't think it should necessarily affect our actions today. There MIGHT be one more scum than we figured. If there were 6 scum or five scum and a serial killer, that could actually be quite dangerous... Hm. Yes, I can see a scum doing that, but why would the Maples want us to believe that there are lots more living Maples than we originally thought? Surely the Maples would want us to think that all the janitored people were scum, so that we would underestimate their numbers. Berty, if some blown up stump came to you from beyond the dead to claim Oak, why are you believing them? They're alignment unknown, after all. They can pull whatever kind of wacky shit they want. I think "all scum are removed" is a fair assumption. I don't want to go into detail, but it is my belief that they were town. In regards to questions about a Serial Killer who didn't kill on Days One and Two, he did. I lied again. Sorry. The vig was blocked by the Town on Night One. We didn't know why the kill didn't go through. He/she had actually targeted Larry. We didn't know if the vig was blocked or Larry protected. If the Scum blocked the vig, announcing he/she had been blocked would clue the Scum into the vig's identity. We said he targeted Buck to try and see if anyone reacted to the lie. Not like anyone would say "No he didn't, I did!" But, we thought we'd try and see if anybody slipped up when talking about who targeted who. That being said, we have no way of knowing which target was Scum and which was SK. They're both weird Scum targets. But, the Scum may have known that their targets would be stumped and may not be choosing typical targets since stumping someone also verifies them. The Scum killer is a trusted-Townie-making-machine. On Night Two, the vig killed Agnes. On Night Three, the vig killed Bobby. On Night Four, the vig stayed home. (I hope that the Scum blocked Chester and when I said "the vig didn't kill" they assumed he was the vig and that's why they targeted him. I hope!! ) On Night Five, the vig killed Nash. All of that is true. I can vouch for this -- Clem and Waldorf confirmed that this was true in the stump PM. Barry, Maggie, Buck and Vicky do seem like good SK targets. I wonder if the scum were blocked on Night 2... Ok, I was still teeny bit worried about Simon and the town block, but I think scummy scum scum Peter stumbling into the bomb pretty much confirms that Simon and anyone else who knew about the bomb are oaks (well, unless Peter was the SK...) I agree with this. Peter was almost certainly scum. I'm trying to work the timeline out in my head as best as I can Night 1: Vig blocked, Scum/SK kill Buck, Scum/SK kill Lauren Night 2: Vig kills Agnes, Scum/SK kill StickFig, Scum/SK don't kill/get blocked/target is protected Night 3: Vig kills Bobby, SK kills Barry, Scum kills Clem Night 4: Vig kills no one, Scum/SK kills Waldorf, Scum/SK kills Maggie Night 5: Vig kills Nash, Scum kills Chester, who in turn kills scum... So it looks like there was only one nontown killer out and about on both Nights 2 and 5. What if Peter was the SK and the scum actually converted or something on Night 2? Maybe the SK/scum were blocked? Since there was some suspicion around Maggie, I doubt the Scum would kill her. Maggie does seem like an ideal SK target though. You seem to be misunderstanding what's being said. We now know the SK/scum have not failed to kill on 3 nights. On night 1, the vig was blocked. Night 2, Jack was blocked and one of the scum/SK kills did not happen. On night 3, we have all 3 killers out. On night 4, the vig stayed home. Last night, the bomb went off and the vig succeeded. That does look bad for Jack. If there was a conversion on night 2 that could explain the lack of a kill. From a risk standpoint of trusting someone the investigators cleared, the only people investigated at that point were you and Simon. Even if we consider the possibility that the conversion happens after investigation, then we add our investigators to that group, but they're both dead and confirmed stumps now. Do you have any reason to think that Simon was converted and poses a risk to the rest of us? If Simon was converted, he would have told the scum about Chester's bomb claim. Unless Peter was the SK... Based on the assumption that Peter was scum and Hazel was town, we should look at the Day 4 voting patterns - especially the people who defended/didn't want to lynch Peter, the people who jumped on Hazel's wagon or the people who jumped from Peter's wagon to Hazel's.
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Based on the assumption that Peter was scum and Hazel was town, I do want to look at the voting patterns but I have trouble making this assumption. Hazel was warned about participating after the game was over in her last game and the behavior could be attributed to her as a player, regardless of her alignment. Boo this behavior. I really think it's despicable, even if-by some miracle-she is Town. Would an Elder Tree really give us a game concept where none of the non-Town alignment is revealed to us in the morning...and the Scum can janitor someone? It's possible, but I think an Elder Tree would know that the lynch is the only true power the Town has. It's the only game mechanic that gives us a definite answer. Why devise two ways to confuse the Town about it? I'm not sure a janitor and not revealing any non-Town alignments balances Stumps...though I could be wrong. Either way, Hazel was pretty Scummy and if she was Scum, she manipulated you during the game and is trying to continue to do so. Playing once the rules dictate you should no longer be playing is an indication that you should get in-home care.
Duvors Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Yes, I have a similar strong feeling. It was not a living player who PM'd me. What?
jimmynick Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Probably related to this: It has come to my attention that some of the players have been flirting with Rule 8B. If you have been felled and your stump removed, do NOT PM any of the other players, stumps or otherwise. You could pass along unwarranted information that could throw the game one way or the other. This will be my final warning on the subject. I will pass any further infractions like this on to Dragonator. As for Dragonfire's comments, he had no idea whether he would become a stump or not. Only I know for certain what will happen at the start of a game Day. I do agree it comes close, and would suggest players in the future from making similar comments. So we can cheat or we can assume the dead player is actually scum or we can ignore what Berty's saying. I'm with Simon that it would be horrible not to reveal scum's flips and also to have a janitor.
mostlytechnic Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 And that's why most of the people ignored what Berty said, since it was info we're not supposed to have.
Tamamono Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Hazel is the last person you want to believe about anything, ever. I cannot believe we're actually having this conversation. Also, if we want to cheat and metagame, let's think about what she said after she was lynched in the C&D thread. I'd say that more than balances out anything Berty received. I'd also like to reiterate what's been said before - if all scum disappear upon death and then they can janitor someone, that's the equivalent of a death miller (it's actually worse - they can turn anyone they want into a death miller), which would be horribly abusive to town. I trust our friendly overlord to not be a bastard god, so I'm going to err on the side of "Hazel was a scummo."
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 "Hazel was a scummo." There was a farmer had a dog and Hazel was a Scummo. S-C-U-M-O...
Fugazi Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 In looking at the votes for Hazel on Day 4, now that we know both Hazel and Peter were maples, I have to wonder about Sammy's role in the voting. Sammy called out Berty earlier in the day for defending Peter, but was also instrumental in ensuring that the lynch went to Hazel rather than Peter. The goal seems to have been to bus Hazel to put Peter in the clear and set up Berty for a lynch yesterday. Had Peter not been killed by the bomb, then perhaps that connection doesn't get made. I don't agree with you on Peter's alignment. We don't know how neutral players are treated after death, and Peter has a 50/50 chance to be the SK. Unless you want to argue that he can't be the SK because he hasn't been stumped? So I find it difficult to analyse the Day 4 votes because there's still some doubt regarding Peter's allegiance. After some discussion with the other stumps, I am fairly sure that a SK does exist. Do the stumps think that a neutral player would also be stumped? Now that I think about it more, I guess Peter was the maple killer, so unless the maples can switch roles amongst themselves (which isn't especially common), seeing who was blocked won't help us find the maples. It could help us find the SK, but not a maple. I'm not sure I'm following your thought process. What actually makes you think that Peter was a Maple? Based on the assumption that Peter was scum and Hazel was town, we should look at the Day 4 voting patterns - especially the people who defended/didn't want to lynch Peter, the people who jumped on Hazel's wagon or the people who jumped from Peter's wagon to Hazel's. That would be like... everybody? Now why can't you be a useful stump and actually do some work, instead of suggesting that other people should look at patterns?
Walter Kovacs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 Voting is now open. There are 48 Hours left in Day 6. With 8 players, it takes 5 votes to lynch.
MagPiesRUs Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 If you'd look, I answered your claim that I hadn't given any codes by proving that I did, and then I didn't return to the thread until the end of the day when a Hazel lynch was definitely going to happen. To be honest, even though I view it as one of the scummiest acts and an extreme scum flail, I thought that she was just giving up at first. It was only after reading the rest of her posts that it all came together and I saw it as scummy and not just giving up because she just wanted to be voted out. Yes, you made a post after Hazel's self-vote in defense of yourself, and didn't mention her situation at all. Then you switched your vote to her when you knew her lynch was definitely going to happen. Ok. I'm not sure I'm following your thought process. What actually makes you think that Peter was a Maple? I've personally been thinking of Peter as a maple for a while. It's hard to ignore what he said in the C&D either. I've actually thinking about this before I knew about this Hazel-Berty debacle today, but does anyone find it odd how eager Peter was to follow along with my theory that Hazel was scum for removing her avatar/sig so quickly? Personally, I find myself agreeing more with the theory today. Does anyone find it odd that Hazel removed her avatar and signature soon after she was lynched? Seems like she wasn't expecting to return to us today... Oh my god that ia just Brilliant. Affiliation comfirmed: Maple! Vote: Berty Birch (Dragonfire) Hazel is SCUM. Her actions after leaving this game made it quite clear she knew she was getting janitored. You claiming otherwise is hujust shady. Well thanks a lot but Hazels affiliation is crystal clear. Saying otherwise is just stupid.
Lady K Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 I may be confused here, but why would we consider Hazel town and Peter scum? I think Hazel is scum and Peter is scum or the sk. I don't understand why Berty would trust this info he isn't supposed to have. I have looked over the voting patterns; I have been tracking it since the beginning and I don't see anything indicative of Hazel being town. Hazel removing the avatar/sig right away just isn't very supportive of the game. Till the game ends, all are still playing even if it's just reading the thread.
Hinckley Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Yes, you made a post after Hazel's self-vote in defense of yourself, and didn't mention her situation at all. Then you switched your vote to her when you knew her lynch was definitely going to happen. Ok. I've personally been thinking of Peter as a maple for a while. It's hard to ignore what he said in the C&D either. I've actually thinking about this before I knew about this Hazel-Berty debacle today, but does anyone find it odd how eager Peter was to follow along with my theory that Hazel was scum for removing her avatar/sig so quickly? This, yes. SKs don't play with a group and Peter usually talks my ear off in PM but I couldn't get a peep out of him this time. So this group could only mean that he thinks he's subtle but is, in fact, blatant.
Recommended Posts