Unrest in the Forest - Day 6: Hemispheres

[fhomess]

Seriously, Simon?

Bruce thought that you were a bad lynch. Then he thought if anyone voted for Jack, they were Scum.

If Jack was blocked on a night when there was a missing kill, which we know wasn't the vig kill, then it makes perfect sense to cast a vote for him. If you're lying or holding back information to hopefully catch scum then you're only going to catch people who don't have much information. By now, there seems to be a conspicuous lack of interest in lynching Jack. Whatever you're holding back the scum probably already know.

You average less than 10 posts a day and yet you say so much more in private. Our PM conversation is 124 messages long. I have trouble trusting someone who feels they need to play in private.

There's nothing out of the ordinary for me in this. The posts I make in public contribute more than what most trees do. I have shared my suspicions with you and been fair and balanced in my reviews of everyone.

You spent two days talking to me about Dragonfire's miller claim. Now that we know he's an Oak, that's suspect. Two days undermining a Townie. I thought he was Scum the way he was behaving and your suspicion wouldn't be suspicious if it wasn't coupled with other things.

Berty's behavior and handling of that role was scummy. Here you even acknowledge that. I don't think focusing so much on something that I know is not true for so long would be a very smart scum play.

Like yesterday when you said Chester was your greatest suspicion and would we lynch him or would I be targeting him in the night? Fishing for night actions and suspecting another Townie, which made little sense to me since if you thought Hazel and Berty were both Scum I would imagine Chester would be somewhere in the middle range of your suspicion. Why would Hazel and Berty trying to lynch him be enough for the vig to target him?

I didn't ask if the vig would target Chester at all! I made a case for why I thought he was the most likely scum among my suspicions. Any interpretation of fishing or of me suggesting a vig target is done on your part. If you didn't agree with my assessment, that's one thing, but it's not scummy for me to have different interpretations of the same events.

After telling me Chester was your top suspicion you went on to talk about how great the points that Sammy made were about Sue, Nash and Adelaide. However, you dismiss his suspicion of Sue and talk about Nash and Adelaide. The vig thought Nash was suspicious enough to kill him, granted, but there's another Townie you try to build a case against, in private.

I found Nash and Berty both to be very Scummy too, but once a person shows up as Oak that would generally mean we can stop suspecting them. But not you. Today, you tried to base a theory off of who Berty said he'd be willing to vote for. Did you forget Berty's alignment had been revealed and you couldn't base things on him being Scum? Then, when I called you out on that, you bring up some theory about any group of four players contains two Scum or at least one. You even wrote it out algebraically. Something like b=u/ll*sh-it².

I am an engineer and computer programmer in my day job. This is just the way I think about this stuff. Your interpretation of it as considering Berty still scummy is way off. A large portion of the fun for me in these ordeals is the logic problem that underlies things.

Your newest fun theory is that Bruce has been converted.

Having been the victim of certain mind tricks in the past, any comment that Bruce ever makes about conversion pings me pretty hard.

Also, you started the day suspecting Sammy whose theories you liked yesterday.

I liked Sammy's theories yesterday under the assumption that Berty was scum. That has proven false and it's time to update my theories. This is not wishy-washiness. This is incorporating new information into my thinking. Should I not do that and create new theories as information that can be relied upon is revealed?

Lastly, for now, you keep fishing fishing fishing about the blocker in private and public. Why would an Oak need to know about the timing of me revealing that?

I guess I don't understand what it hurts to reveal the target of a blocker in such a situation and why waiting was prudent.

And, in private, he was promoting your dumb idea that Hazel was an Oak.

Where the hell did I do that?

[Tamamono]

Having been the victim of certain mind tricks in the past, any comment that Bruce ever makes about conversion pings me pretty hard.

I love this.

[fhomess]

Once the game is over, I look forward to hearing the explanation of Barry's actions that night.

I do look forward to that. Barry basically lost it in private with people, making crazy claims. There was no rational reason for him to do that that I can think of beyond what I said at the time.

I love this.

I have nightmares about that event in every game I play.

[Hinckley]

Besides, just for your information, n4888 326.

I know someone who's going to be suspended from games for a while. That's a lie, Berty. That's not what he claimed when he was alive. Why would the claim be different now that he's dead. Think about it. He's a dirty manipulator and he's lying to you. I'm going to have a talk with the host about Hazel's behavior. You should delete your PM thread. The rule goes both ways.

Hazel, it's a game. Stop breaking rules if you ever want to play again.

[Dragonfire]

I know someone who's going to be suspended from games for a while. That's a lie, Berty. That's not what he claimed when he was alive. Why would the claim be different now that he's dead. Think about it. He's a dirty manipulator and he's lying to you. I'm going to have a talk with the host about Hazel's behavior. You should delete your PM thread. The rule goes both ways.

Hazel, it's a game. Stop breaking rules if you ever want to play again.

Umm..... the player whose name I just coded is not Hazel. Hazel did not claim that role.

I deleted my PM thread with Hazel already.

And Walter has decided not to suspend Hazel from future games (or at least, that's what I inferred from his post in the C&D thread).

[Fugazi]

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.

Ok, I had missed that.

Have you revisited your theories yet?

Yes. Here's the corrected vote progression on Day 4:

1.Berty votes Peter (1)

2.Simon votes Nash (1)

3.William votes Simon (1)

4.Sue votes Peter (2)

5.Waldorf votes Hazel (1)

6.Simon votes Jack (1)

7.Hazel votes Jack (2)

8.Simon votes Nash (1)

9.Berty votes Chester (1)

10.Hazel votes Hazel (2)

11.Jack votes Hazel (3)

12.Lassie votes Maggie (1)

13.Adelaide votes Peter (2)

14.Nash votes Peter (3)

15.Hazel votes Chester (2)

16.Simon votes Hazel (3)

17.Berty votes Peter (4)

18.Sammy votes Hazel (4)

19.Hazel votes Hazel (5)

20.Lassie votes Hazel (6)

21.Peter votes Hazel (7)

22.Maggie votes Hazel (8 = lynch)

23.Nash votes Hazel (9)

24.Sue votes Hazel (10)

Assuming for now that Hazel is scum. I'm not privy to information that would make me think otherwise, but let's just say that Berty's insistance is troubling.

So, who of the living players "fought" against Peter's lynch? Simon and William (when there was 1 vote against Peter), Simon again (2 votes against Peter), Jack and Lassie later on, Simon (3 votes against Peter), myself (4 votes against Peter), Lassie and Sue. BUT, it doesn't make that much sense for Maples to split votes between one of their own, because either way the vote goes they're losing a member. So only Simon, William and Lassie suggested potentially non-Maple targets. Simon is largely cleared by now, that leaves William and Lassie with relatively early votes in a non-Maple direction.

What about if Hazel is Oak?

1.Berty votes Peter (1)

2.Simon votes Nash (1)

3.William votes Simon (1)

4.Sue votes Peter (2)

5.Waldorf votes Hazel (1)

6.Simon votes Jack (1)

7.Hazel votes Jack (2)

8.Simon votes Nash (1)

9.Berty votes Chester (1)

10.Hazel votes Hazel (2)

11.Jack votes Hazel (3)

12.Lassie votes Maggie (1)

13.Adelaide votes Peter (2)

14.Nash votes Peter (3)

15.Hazel votes Chester (2)

16.Simon votes Hazel (3)

17.Berty votes Peter (4)

18.Sammy votes Hazel (4)

19.Hazel votes Hazel (5)

20.Lassie votes Hazel (6)

21.Peter votes Hazel (7)

22.Maggie votes Hazel (8 = lynch)

23.Nash votes Hazel (9)

24.Sue votes Hazel (10)

Now we have Simon, William, Jack, Lassie and me voting away from Peter, so basically the same suspects as above plus Jack and myself. Even if by some weird circumstances Hazel happens to be town, we're pretty much looking at the same trees.

If you had read the rest of the discussion you'd see that I am open to the idea of Peter being the SK, however then we have a question of why the scum didn't kill yesterday. If we assume Peter was scum, then we can also consider the possibility that Hazel was the SK and that's why there was no 3rd kill last night. If Hazel wasn't the SK, we've still got an SK problem on our hands that someone ought to have some insight into. I can't imagine either the scum or the SK would've opted not to kill at this stage.

I guess that Hazel could be the SK... Would that agree with your analysis of Hazel, Berty?

Anyway, why am I suspicious of you, Lassie? Oh, let me count the ways.

You can add the Day 4 vote to that list.

It's because I didn't seal the lynch on Hazel. Nash Ash did.

You voted for Peter early on on Day 4, which would be rather risky for scum. Unless you were pretty sure that the writing was on the wall for Hazel so it wouldn't matter.

The rest of my analysis from yesterday about Sue token voting Adelaide still stands, in a pattern reminiscent of Alastain and Hazel. Unless Hazel is town.

[Dragonfire]

1.Berty votes Peter (1)

2.Simon votes Nash (1)

3.William votes Simon (1)

4.Sue votes Peter (2)

5.Waldorf votes Hazel (1)

6.Simon votes Jack (1)

7.Hazel votes Jack (2)

8.Simon votes Nash (1)

9.Berty votes Chester (1)

10.Hazel votes Hazel (2)

11.Jack votes Hazel (3)

12.Lassie votes Maggie (1)

13.Adelaide votes Peter (2)

14.Nash votes Peter (3)

15.Hazel votes Chester (2)

16.Simon votes Hazel (3)

17.Berty votes Peter (4)

18.Sammy votes Hazel (4)

19.Hazel votes Hazel (5)

20.Lassie votes Hazel (6)

21.Peter votes Hazel (7)

22.Maggie votes Hazel (8 = lynch)

23.Nash votes Hazel (9)

24.Sue votes Hazel (10)

Chester's name should be in green.

BUT, it doesn't make that much sense for Maples to split votes between one of their own, because either way the vote goes they're losing a member. So only Simon, William and Lassie suggested potentially non-Maple targets. Simon is largely cleared by now, that leaves William and Lassie with relatively early votes in a non-Maple direction.

I think that if Hazel and Peter were both scum, then the scum would have tried to keep the ratio of Hazel : Peter votes fairly even, but then most of them would have piled on Hazel. If Hazel was scum, then I think you should add Adelaide to the list.

Now we have Simon, William, Jack, Lassie and me voting away from Peter, so basically the same suspects as above plus Jack and myself. Even if by some weird circumstances Hazel happens to be town, we're pretty much looking at the same trees.

Out of those suspects, I think Lassie is looking the most scummy right now.

I guess that Hazel could be the SK... Would that agree with your analysis of Hazel, Berty?

Sorry, no. If Hazel is telling the truth, she was town.

But if she isn't, she could well be the SK. Before she sent me the PM I received yesterday, she was probably more likely to be the SK than a Maple.

[Hinckley]

And Walter has decided not to suspend Hazel from future games (or at least, that's what I inferred from his post in the C&D thread).

Combined with behavior from past games, that might not be up to just Walter.

Oh, sorry. n4888 yes, like Dauber on Oz. I know, I know.

[Tamamono]

There were two non-town kills on Night 4 though. How could Hazel be the SK? I really think she was scum.

[Dragonfire]

Combined with behavior from past games, that might not be up to just Walter.

Oh, sorry. n4888 yes, like Dauber on Oz. I know, I know.

Oh, did Hazel do things like this before ??

Simon (these are what the stumps have told me. Can you confirm this) :

n1083 JIUQ 159 ??

n1704, n3198 did not JIUQ 3.14 ??

n6144, n2262, n9689, n6155, n8358 JIUQ 3.14 ??

n9689 FUQS 326 ??

n6144 FUQS n9689 ??

[Hinckley]

Seriously, Simon?

If I ever get my own sitcom, it will be called this.

If Jack was blocked on a night when there was a missing kill, which we know wasn't the vig kill, then it makes perfect sense to cast a vote for him. If you're lying or holding back information to hopefully catch scum then you're only going to catch people who don't have much information. By now, there seems to be a conspicuous lack of interest in lynching Jack. Whatever you're holding back the scum probably already know.

It's suspicious that you can only think of one reason for withholding information; to catch Scum. Can't think of the other reason? Perhaps because you're stuck in Scum Perspective^TM.

There's nothing out of the ordinary for me in this. The posts I make in public contribute more than what most trees do. I have shared my suspicions with you and been fair and balanced in my reviews of everyone.

I shall call you "Fox News".

I didn't ask if the vig would target Chester at all! I made a case for why I thought he was the most likely scum among my suspicions. Any interpretation of fishing or of me suggesting a vig target is done on your part. If you didn't agree with my assessment, that's one thing, but it's not scummy for me to have different interpretations of the same events.

Of course you didn't ask "Will you have the vig target Chester?". That's not how it would be played. But saying you thought Chester was the last Scum and asking if we should lynch him or have the vig take him out is the same as asking. It's a subtle way to try to get me to talk about the subject of what Chester claimed and who the vig might be targeting. If the Scum came up and asked me who was targeting who, it'd be a pretty easy win.

I am an engineer and computer programmer in my day job. This is just the way I think about this stuff. Your interpretation of it as considering Berty still scummy is way off. A large portion of the fun for me in these ordeals is the logic problem that underlies things.

I also love Math, but that has nothing to do with this. I asked for clarification and you said that Berty's statement about being willing to vote for four people was proof of your theory about every group of four players contains two Scum or at least one. Containing two or at least one is not quantifiable with your equation. And his list of who he would vote for having two Scum in it doesn't prove anything and I don't every remember hearing this theory before that. And why would anyone base a vote off of it? Let's grab four random players and kill them all because two must be Scum. WACKO!

I liked Sammy's theories yesterday under the assumption that Berty was scum. That has proven false and it's time to update my theories. This is not wishy-washiness. This is incorporating new information into my thinking. Should I not do that and create new theories as information that can be relied upon is revealed?

Thinking that Chester was the last remaining Scum and then making a case against three others, but dismissing Sue is wishy-washy.

I guess I don't understand what it hurts to reveal the target of a blocker in such a situation and why waiting was prudent.

Think hard. You may come up with it.

Where the hell did I do that?

You didn't. Somebody else did. I can't remember who. I'll find it. Don't you worry. Sorry I mixed your PM up with someone else's.

I do look forward to that. Barry basically lost it in private with people, making crazy claims. There was no rational reason for him to do that that I can think of beyond what I said at the time.

How did he "lose it"?

[Fugazi]

Chester's name should be in green.

Indeed:

1.Berty votes Peter (1)

2.Simon votes Nash (1)

3.William votes Simon (1)

4.Sue votes Peter (2)

5.Waldorf votes Hazel (1)

6.Simon votes Jack (1)

7.Hazel votes Jack (2)

8.Simon votes Nash (1)

9.Berty votes Chester (1)

10.Hazel votes Hazel (2)

11.Jack votes Hazel (3)

12.Lassie votes Maggie (1)

13.Adelaide votes Peter (2)

14.Nash votes Peter (3)

15.Hazel votes Chester (2)

16.Simon votes Hazel (3)

17.Berty votes Peter (4)

18.Sammy votes Hazel (4)

19.Hazel votes Hazel (5)

20.Lassie votes Hazel (6)

21.Peter votes Hazel (7)

22.Maggie votes Hazel (8 = lynch)

23.Nash votes Hazel (9)

24.Sue votes Hazel (10)

I think that if Hazel and Peter were both scum, then the scum would have tried to keep the ratio of Hazel : Peter votes fairly even, but then most of them would have piled on Hazel. If Hazel was scum, then I think you should add Adelaide to the list.

But why bring up Peter at all, when there were other non-Maple targets to choose from? Same question about Sue?

Sorry, no. If Hazel is telling the truth, she was town.

But if she isn't, she could well be the SK. Before she sent me the PM I received yesterday, she was probably more likely to be the SK than a Maple.

Ah but Hazel can't be the SK. Never mind.

[Walter Kovacs]

Voting Update:

Adelaide Apple (TinyPiesRUs) - 1 (mostlytechnic)

Jack Pine (mostlytechnic) - 1 (fhomess)

Lassie Sassafrass (fhomess) - 1 (Hinckley)

There are 25 Hours remaining in Day 6. It takes 5 votes for a lynch.

[Dragonfire]

But why bring up Peter at all, when there were other non-Maple targets to choose from? Same question about Sue?

I'm not sure -- I'm not a Maple

Maybe because Peter was the least valuable Maple, and maybe because they would look towny later.

I looked at Day One again to see who didn't end up on the main bandwagon. The only living trees who ended the day with their votes on someone other than Alastair were Lassie, William and Sammy (who all voted for Bruce) and Jack (who voted for Hazel)

[Hinckley]

I'm not sure -- I'm not a Maple

It was Adelaide who was talking about being worried that Hazel is Town.

[Dragonfire]

It was Adelaide who was talking about being worried that Hazel is Town.

Oh, OK.

[MagPiesRUs]

Voting for alastair after he was hammered (by a scum) was relevant because it was essentially at the same time. Miscommunication in the scumboard as to who would do it? Or like I said, was it that you all realized alastair was doomed so you both threw down what was essentially a double hammer so that you can use it as defense later? Like I said, I am assuming the scum were surprised by the stump thing too, so you assumed you'd be able to point later in the game that "I hammered a scum on day 1, so how could I possibly be a scum?" And since you both posted votes at the same time, you and Barry would BOTH get the same defense at the price of one scum who was getting lynched anyway.

That would never be a great defense anyway.

The vote on Nash? You placed it when the Catarina bandwagon was well under way and it was pretty clear she'd get lynched that day - but there was still lots of room for you on that wagon. But again, by placing the other vote, you left yourself a defense later (see, I didn't vote for the oaky catarina!) but enough time to switch votes if you needed to.

I'm not sure why you think this is scummy. A lot of this is speculation on your part that I can't really defend against. Why would I vote for Catarina when I wasn't entirely satisfied with the case against her? Why wouldn't I bring up someone who I believed was more likely to be a maple?

And yes, you were happy with your vote on Peter because it was helping split the vote and you were hoping for a non-lynch!

As I said, I wasn't around for the final hours of the day. If I were, I would have still preferred to have seen Peter lynched, but I would have switched my vote if it was required.

What appears to be a complete and full support of Hazel now being scum and not mentioning Peter again as somebody that she thinks we should watch out for. In fact, she doesn't appear suspicious of Peter for the rest of the day and never mentions him as a possible suspect again. Why? She appeared to be so certain that Peter was scum that she kept her vote on him even when Hazel the writing on the wall appeared with the Hazel vote. Even in the first part of her post she's seemingly accusing Jack Pine for questioning the possibility of Hazel being scum.

It was Hazel's behaviour after being voted off that convinced me most. It also made me question whether or not I was right about Peter after all. The case against Berty was strong (sorry Berty), so that's where my focus was.

Why would Adelaide have to justify her vote for Peter in private before the day even started, as though she already knew that Hazel was going to flip scum and that she needed to defend her vote to Simon, who has been practically appointed as the leader of the town at this point. For me right now it's between Lassie and Adelaide. I'd like to think about this for just a little bit longer and hear replies from both before I rush into it.

Simon asked me in thread why I found Peter scummy. As I've said, I wasn't around for the end of the day, so I explained to Simon why I found Peter scummy afterwards. I was hoping the town block would kill Peter too that night.

So, who of the living players "fought" against Peter's lynch? Simon and William (when there was 1 vote against Peter), Simon again (2 votes against Peter), Jack and Lassie later on, Simon (3 votes against Peter), myself (4 votes against Peter), Lassie and Sue. BUT, it doesn't make that much sense for Maples to split votes between one of their own, because either way the vote goes they're losing a member. So only Simon, William and Lassie suggested potentially non-Maple targets. Simon is largely cleared by now, that leaves William and Lassie with relatively early votes in a non-Maple direction.

I'd love to hear more from William today. He seems to have fallen almost completely off the radar after his scuffle with Simon. A vengeful claim bluff doesn't sound like something a maple would want to try, but his argument with Simon still doesn't sit quite right with me. It felt as if he was angry that Simon was going after him for the wrong reasons. Do you mind if we take you up on your offer to be lynched, William?

It was Adelaide who was talking about being worried that Hazel is Town.

Yes. Basically what I said I've already posted in thread now (regarding Peter's overexcitement that Hazel must be a maple for deleting his avatar and sig). I can tell you that if I was a maple, I would never endorse or attempt to capitalise on a teammate cheating and manipulating the living after having been killed.

[fhomess]

Assuming for now that Hazel is scum. I'm not privy to information that would make me think otherwise, but let's just say that Berty's insistance is troubling.

So, who of the living players "fought" against Peter's lynch? Simon and William (when there was 1 vote against Peter), Simon again (2 votes against Peter), Jack and Lassie later on, Simon (3 votes against Peter), myself (4 votes against Peter), Lassie and Sue. BUT, it doesn't make that much sense for Maples to split votes between one of their own, because either way the vote goes they're losing a member. So only Simon, William and Lassie suggested potentially non-Maple targets. Simon is largely cleared by now, that leaves William and Lassie with relatively early votes in a non-Maple direction.

...

Now we have Simon, William, Jack, Lassie and me voting away from Peter, so basically the same suspects as above plus Jack and myself. Even if by some weird circumstances Hazel happens to be town, we're pretty much looking at the same trees.

So your analysis has us looking at the same group of trees in both cases and you neglect to express an opinion on them. So what do you conclude about them out of your analysis? I originally voted for Maggie because of the connection to Barry. You were instrumental in steering the bandwagon to Hazel, so if there's a reason to believe that Hazel is actually not scum and Peter was, then doesn't that mean that you are on the hook?

If I ever get my own sitcom, it will be called this.

I want to be the guy that comes in every episode and says the catchphrase! Hilarity will ensue!

Of course you didn't ask "Will you have the vig target Chester?". That's not how it would be played. But saying you thought Chester was the last Scum and asking if we should lynch him or have the vig take him out is the same as asking. It's a subtle way to try to get me to talk about the subject of what Chester claimed and who the vig might be targeting. If the Scum came up and asked me who was targeting who, it'd be a pretty easy win.

I didn't ask for either. I commented that they were the options to remove him from the game and moved on. You've shown me the quote in private. I'm really surprised you took it that way. I understand what you're saying, I'm just surprised to hear you say it as it was merely a way to get from one thought to the next.

I also love Math, but that has nothing to do with this. I asked for clarification and you said that Berty's statement about being willing to vote for four people was proof of your theory about every group of four players contains two Scum or at least one. Containing two or at least one is not quantifiable with your equation. And his list of who he would vote for having two Scum in it doesn't prove anything and I don't every remember hearing this theory before that. And why would anyone base a vote off of it? Let's grab four random players and kill them all because two must be Scum. WACKO!

That's not at all what I said. We all make lists all the time in these games. They are anything BUT random. Those lists come from both town and scum with varying amounts of knowledge and speculation put into them. They're also drawn from voting patterns like what Sammy has done. They are a starting point for reviewing behavior and if you look back in this and other forests you'll see that I'm usually right.

Thinking that Chester was the last remaining Scum and then making a case against three others, but dismissing Sue is wishy-washy.

No, I said I thought there was probably one more beyond Chester. I brought Sue's name up again today. Sue has pinged me somewhat less than the others, that much is true, but having varying levels of suspicion is normal.

How did he "lose it"?

He went and claimed a nonsense role to two players in private. Unsolicited. What would encourage such behavior?

[Scubacarrot]

I'd love to hear more from William today. He seems to have fallen almost completely off the radar after his scuffle with Simon. A vengeful claim bluff doesn't sound like something a maple would want to try, but his argument with Simon still doesn't sit quite right with me. It felt as if he was angry that Simon was going after him for the wrong reasons. Do you mind if we take you up on your offer to be lynched, William?

I'm not sure what to think of you even suggesting that, but: Nope. Not really. As I've said multiple times before, there are only eight of us alive. If you lynch me and my hammer is town as well, we're basically screwed. I also wouldn't offer myself up if I did not know 99% sure I was killing a scum. My argument with Simon was because I was convinced Simon was scum and I felt as if he purposefully made a (poorly constructed) suspicion of me. Obviously this has changed to me. I doubt Bruce and Simon can be scum, but I also now think they now as little as the other townies at this point. Seeing as before Simon was cheering on Lassie's PM behaviour, but now feels he's most likely to be scum. I've been around. There's not a whole lot to add really. I have no idea what to think. I still think we could lynch either Jack or Sue and be happy with that. I feel like if the scum resort to cheating they are probably frustrated and we are on the right track. Between codes and unhelpful stumps about a possibly cheating dead scum, there has been a lot of serial killer talk, which I'm still confused by to be perfectly honest. Are we 100% sure there is a serial killer? If so, how? Can any extra kills possibly not be explained another way?

Night 1: 2 kills

Night 2: 2 kills

Night 3: 3 kills, 1 of them probably being some kind of bomb

Night 4: 2 kills

Night 5: 3 kills, 1 of them probably some kind of action (the chainsaw and the spikes)

Am I missing something obvious?

I can tell you that if I was a maple, I would never endorse or attempt to capitalise on a teammate cheating and manipulating the living after having been killed.

That's interestingly worded, isn't it.. And by interesting I mean suspicious.

Lassie, what have you actually gathered from your information you've been collecting from people in private?

Now we have Simon, William, Jack, Lassie and me voting away from Peter, so basically the same suspects as above plus Jack and myself. Even if by some weird circumstances Hazel happens to be town, we're pretty much looking at the same trees.

Right. Because scum never hop on a bandwagon. Good job on looking helpful with that analysis. I especially think you executed the looking part very well. Suspicious.

[Hinckley]

Right. Because scum never hop on a bandwagon. Good job on looking helpful with that analysis. I especially think you executed the looking part very well. Suspicious.

Sammy is acting weird for Sammy.

[Scubacarrot]

I have been suspicious of Jack since day one, but he makes some excellent points about Adelaide, and I'm not entirely satisfied with her: I-don't-get-it-and-you're-manipulating-how-it-is defense Top that with how suspicious she has been recently.

FOR NOW I will Vote:Adelaide Apple (TinyPiesRUs)

Sammy is acting weird for Sammy.

What does that mean?

[Hinckley]

What does that mean?

How can you need that explained? His behavior is not what I expect from Town Sammy.

[Scubacarrot]

How can you need that explained? His behavior is not what I expect from Town Sammy.

You could just have said that. I mean, you're weird as balls but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything relevant.

Also Simon. You do realize your case against Lassie is build mostly on her being sneaky and in private, having weird theories and going on about them? I don't believe you find one of those at least such a bad thing. When I brought up she had been peppering me with questions, you said that that was the town thing to do. Do you not really think Lassie is most likely to be scum?

[Fugazi]

So your analysis has us looking at the same group of trees in both cases and you neglect to express an opinion on them. So what do you conclude about them out of your analysis? I originally voted for Maggie because of the connection to Barry. You were instrumental in steering the bandwagon to Hazel, so if there's a reason to believe that Hazel is actually not scum and Peter was, then doesn't that mean that you are on the hook?

I like to think that I was instrumental in steering Hazel's bandwagon as well the previous day, and in case anyone didn't notice the two cases were tightly linked. We lynched Hazel because we were very suspicious of Berty. The only logical action after Hazel flipping "unknown" was to lynch Berty. So if I also was instrumental in lynching Berty, it was because the suspicions I among others brought up against Hazel proved to be valid. If you want to think I was trying to steer the votes away from Peter, there's not much I can tell you to refute the idea. You did the same, first voting for Maggie then Hazel.

I thought my conclusions were obvious. I said that I didn't believe Simon was scum. I'm not scum either. That leaves William, Jack and Lassie who in my mind have cast suspicious votes on Day 4. Actually Jack was added when considering that Hazel could have been town, but I don't really believe that theory. So that leaves William and Lassie. The Vengeful business left me with the feeling that William was town. In the light of the suspicions voiced by Simon, out of this list it's you I suspect the most.

Right. Because scum never hop on a bandwagon. Good job on looking helpful with that analysis. I especially think you executed the looking part very well. Suspicious.

What bandwagon are you talking about? The one lynching Hazel? Eventually Simon and Lassie switched their vote to the bandwagon, is that what you're saying?

How can you need that explained? His behavior is not what I expect from Town Sammy.

It's true, I don't normally start off a game accusing you!

[Hinckley]

Also Simon. You do realize your case against Lassie is build mostly on her being sneaky and in private, having weird theories and going on about them? I don't believe you find one of those at least such a bad thing. When I brought up she had been peppering me with questions, you said that that was the town thing to do. Do you not really think Lassie is most likely to be scum?

It wasn't about weird theories, it was about conflicting and potentially purposely misleading ideas. It started to ping me when she suspected Chester. Sorry I'm the only one who finds that weird, but her thinking that he needed to be lynched or vig-killed struck me as odd since we knew Hazel tried to draw suspicion away from herself onto him and Super-Scummy Berty actually seemed desperate to have him lynched as opposed to Hazel. Then she seemed to conflict herself by going after Sammy in-thread while suggesting Dragonfire's list of who he was willing to vote for possibly contained two Scum, being Sue or Adelaide. All of those pings culminated with the talk of Bruce being converted, which I highly doubt is possible. It was if when I told you to let her ask you as many questions as she wanted she got the nerve to start trying to manipulate the town block. Berty flipping Oak certainly didn't help since he spent two days building a case against him in private. Haven't I said all of this already? I feel like I'm repeating myself.

I doubt Bruce and Simon can be scum, but I also now think they now as little as the other townies at this point.

I have to agree with this 100%. Just because we were cleared by dead investigators doesn't mean we are clairvoyant. I realize I'm a bit manic, suspecting everyone. I do feel a bit overwhelmed but I'm trying. I feel continuous poking helped us on Day Four when we caught Hazel. If we're going to work on people, we should all pitch in. We're down to the wire, let's put some pressure on the people who are suspicious.

Speaking of being manic, I know that other people who have mentioned the idea of a janitor have pinged me. But let's consider for a second that there is one. Jack was blocked on the only night we didn't lose a stump. Is there something to that or am I crazy? Please tell me I'm crazy.

I know that Peter and Barry make bad janitor targets but being Scum doesn't make you a good strategist. Wasn't it Jack himself that explained why Waldord would've made a better janitor target than Barry?