CMP Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Harriet, you say you have an investigation result. If you could ask this person to investigate either the Hunter or Person 1, wouldn't that solve this problem?
Admiral Ron Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Are they claiming to have been a werewolf? Sounds more like they're claiming to have been forced to protect a werewolf. Either way, it's an odd role since they could have simply gotten Zed killed and been free and there is clearly no implied restriction against doing so. That's making the story a little hard to believe. For all we know, that could have been what they did on Day 1. Not very likely perhaps, but something to think about. Harriet, you say you have an investigation result. If you could ask this person to investigate either the Hunter or Person 1, wouldn't that solve this problem? If i recall correctly, the one claiming to be a former werewolf said they would be investigated as a Werewolf. Am I correct in this Harriet?
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Well, I guess we could vote out this Person 1, and if they're a werewolf, our Hunter is lying. If not, then we have proof that our Hunter is who we says he is. Alternately we could vote out the Hunter and do the same thing, clearing or damning Person 1. It really depends on what we need more, a hunter or a protector... Of course that is just a suggestion, something that came to mind after watching that fine play. Wow Baron, you are very eager to vote out someone just to test a theory! Lets wait a little bit longer To bad Sokern turned out to be a Townie, I thought he was a werewolf for real. I think the gun owner told us the truth. And I believe we can honestly assume the gun owner is a Townie. I'm not sure about the swordsman though. Sure he killed Daniel the Rogue. But I don't think he knew Daniel was a Rogue. At least I didn't. Charles is still high on my suspect list for his behavior on day 1. But I'm a little bit skeptic towards voting for him. Since Adam turned out to be a Townie. Phillip struck me as suspicious too. He dismissed the entire existents of other factions beside Werewolves and Townies. I don't think the Rogue is part of the third faction. I think he is an independent. I strongly believe the third faction are vampires. If anyone of you townies have heard something about vampires, please speak to me in private. ps Harriet, I approve of all the nudity and applesauce in your last play. I loved it, your best one yet! pps I'll be very careful with the vampire-y things you tell me and won't reveal your true identity.
Rick Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Oh my, that's a lot of action on one night. The sword killer certainly did this village a huge favor by taking out 'self-interested' Daniel. Not such a good call by the shotgun killer. Harriet seems to assume he's the vigilante? If that's true, what does that make the sword killer? Another enemy faction? So the good guy kills a good guy and the bad guy kills another bad guy? But then again, if both the Rogue and the Werewolf were both working independently, we haven't really 'seen' an enemy faction yet, so it's possible. The wording when Zed was lynched didn't make reference to him acting in his own self-interest like Daniel, which either means there's more werewolves out there or he was able to recruit to build a faction. I thing these Rogues might be some kind of faction, and that the shotgun killer and Daniel were both part of it. That, or it's just a coincidence they both went after people of the law, like one son-of-a-slut in a book called Eurodina. Two killers in one faction? Be careful not to loose your mind again today like you did on day 1. Great. Maybe we can track down this musket murderer. The one who Harriet seems to think is a villager? I have my doubts as well, but she seems convinced the musket killer is a villager... Harriet, you say you have an investigation result. If you could ask this person to investigate either the Hunter or Person 1, wouldn't that solve this problem? Person 1 him/herself considers the possibility that he/she'd come up a 'werewolf' when investigated, so that would hardly prove anything. Person 1: I used to be a bodyguard for the werewolves but once Zed was killed I was released. Now I'm a villager and I'm a bodyguard for the village, but I think I might end up coming up as a werewolf if investigated. Drastic measures, convicting, like Baron Poopshispants suggest give the only conclusive evidence. But whether we should go that far when Harriet trusts these people to some extent. I'm waiting for the complete story when Harriet has pieced together everything her network learned during the night. I wonder how she managed to build up an entire network of people so quickly. Could the applesauce have something to do with it?
iamded Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Baron, you are very eager to vote out someone just to test a theory! Lets wait a little bit longer Madam, it was merely a suggestion. I wasn't saying we should definitely vote one of those men out, I was proposing an idea with the information we were given. Another thing, where is all this vampire stuff coming from? I know dearly departed Dacius accused me of being a vampire on the first day here, but I hardly took him serious. I thought he was poking fun at my dress sense... But now people seriously think vampires are a threat here? I'm more concerned about the swordsmen among us, as we haven't seen any exsanguinated corpses with puncture wounds on their neck. Slit throats, however...
Eskallon Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Its good to have seen that rogue gone but a great loss to have lost our villager. I think that person 1 is lying about there was only 1 werewolf left but I also think person 4 is against us. Really because if you think, I was protected on Night 1 and this person 4 then targeted me, that night miraculously there was no other kills, which leads me to believe three conclusions about person 4: 1. They are the killer and were out to kill me that night but failed. 2. They were using some other wacky role on me. 3. They really are a protector. What do you think?
Rick Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 What do you think? That you're not telling any news there. But perhaps Harriet can shed some light on the possibilities.
Fugazi Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I don't think we need to fear the killer with the shotgun though. I believe that person acted with the interest of the village at heart. :wink: I hope I'm not wrong. I think the gun owner told us the truth. And I believe we can honestly assume the gun owner is a Townie. Not such a good call by the shotgun killer. Harriet seems to assume he's the vigilante? If that's true, what does that make the sword killer? Another enemy faction? So the good guy kills a good guy and the bad guy kills another bad guy? Ok right, so as Mr Greyson put it, we have a shotgun killer that kills own of our own, Mr Clifton, who never acted suspiciously in any way, and we're supposed to believe that this murderer is a townie? A seriously misled one if I may say! Harriet and Beatrice, stop eating each other's cock for a minute and give us some explanation of why you believe the gunner should be innocent. Is he the guy who you gave silver bullets to, or someone else? What was the twisted rationale behind targeting Mr Clifton?
Quarryman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I have some info about who did target who, but I'll wait to discuss that until some more information comes in. I have some investigation results too, but it is only good news. I will reveal that when the time is right. Yay, good news We need some of that after the losing two of our own, though I'm inclined to say mr Sokern got what he deserved for being an idiot, and we're better off without him. I don't think the Rogue is part of the third faction. I think he is an independent. I strongly believe the third faction are vampires. If anyone of you townies have heard something about vampires, please speak to me in private. This does fit the dictionary definition of a rogue at least, they do tend to work alone. ps Harriet, I approve of all the nudity and applesauce in your last play. I loved it, your best one yet! I loved it too I wonder how she managed to build up an entire network of people so quickly. Could the applesauce have something to do with it? She does seem like a trustworthy person, and she did a lot for our conviction of Zed on Day 1. That's my primary reason for trusting her at least.
Bob Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Assuming that the musket killer isn't another Rouge, then we should face the reality that there's another faction out there. I don't think the Rogue is part of the third faction. I think he is an independent. I strongly believe the third faction are vampires. If anyone of you townies have heard something about vampires, please speak to me in private. While I do agree that there's only one Rouge out there, and the knife-killer killed him, then we could treat him as some form of neutral. I also don't think the third faction is "vampires", but who knows. I didn't believe in werewolves before this fiasco, but now I do.
Sandy Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Excuse me for skipping all the "bohoo, [insert name]'s dead!", but I feel like it's time to cut to the chase. Upon reminiscing the events of the couple of first days, I've come to believe that the option of a single, lonely werewolf is actually possible. Maybe Zed had the ability to turn others into his like, but he never got the chance. That would also explain the Hunter's claim for not needing the silver bullets anymore. Maybe the "factions" we were told about only consist of solitary people aiming to grow their ranks or get rid of us Villagers. Anything's possible. Even though we made a mistake with Adam Sokern yesterday, with a heavy heart I support Harriet's suggestion of lynching my brother Charles in order to find out if there really are more Werewolves. If he turns out to be one, then we would know we could not trust the people Harriet has been in contact with. If he is innocent, then we can look into other options. Unless, of course, other options rise today. Another option would be to lynch "The Hunter" from Harriet's play, since in my opinion we don't really need a vigilante thinning our ranks with the other killer. But I don't know if Harriet is willing to give up his/her name. Which option do you want to choose, good people of Blackwood?
Quarryman Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Which option do you want to choose, good people of Blackwood? Father, I think you're right. Though it pains me greatly I have to agree that lynching uncle Charles is probably the best plan for the day.
Fugazi Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 If i recall correctly, the one claiming to be a former werewolf said they would be investigated as a Werewolf. Am I correct in this Harriet? But if protector 1 is still showing up as a Werewolf despite being on our side, do we still need to kill him in order to eliminate all the villains, or is he considered as a Villager by god? Tricky! I say he should be investigated anyway -- if he turns up as Villager, then all is well. If he appears to be Werewolf, then we'll advise. If his only action is to protect, he's not an immediate threat anyway.
Walter Kovacs Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Morning, good people of Blackwood. That was quite a ahem revealing play this morning, Harriet. Let me see if I have all of this straight. Person 1 used to work for the Werewolves, but as there was only one (Zed), he has now switched allegiences and works for the Village now. The musket killer is a Village vigilante, and needed the silver bullets when there was a Werewolf running around, but now that Zed is gone good ol' lead will do just fine. Person 4 did what you told him (her?) to, but the person he allegedly helped out wasn't targetted at all, so you still aren't sure if he (she?) is telling the truth. Since Person 4's target is still alive (I assume, Harriet surely would have told us otherwise), can we at least assume Person 4 doesn't have a killing action? Did you at least get some confirmation that Person 4 did target who you asked him (her?) too? Daniel O'Donnell was a Rogue, a name that implies he was working alone. That isn't necessarily true, but I can go with it for now. That leaves the cutlass killer. This person is likely part of another sinister faction, and finding that faction seems to be our primary goal. Oh, and Harriet is still waiting for some more information to roll in, so perhaps another play is in the offing? If Zed truly was the only Werewolf, then voting for Charles Sinclair or Person 1 seems like a good way to weaken the Village. I think we need to look elsewhere for a suspect.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Are they claiming to have been a werewolf? ... As for testing the killer, if we could agree on a target for the night they could be tested, though it wouldn't really prove anything unless we chose a correct target. No, they claim only to have worked for Zed but wasn't an actual werewolf. Specifically "I don't transform into anything." We asked him to protect someone on Night 1 and we had confirmation that he targeted the person we asked him to. We asked him again to protect someone last night and that person is still alive...though it doesn't look like anybody went after the person we protected, if this person had sinister intent I would assume the person we told them we thought was important enough to protect would've been attacked. Harriet, you say you have an investigation result. If you could ask this person to investigate either the Hunter or Person 1, wouldn't that solve this problem? Charles, if you could read, you would see that this person fears they would come up as a werewolf. However, since this was not an edict from God, just an assumption on Person 1's part, I do believe we should investigate... If i recall correctly, the one claiming to be a former werewolf said they would be investigated as a Werewolf. Am I correct in this Harriet? True. See my above reply to Charles as well. I don't think the Rogue is part of the third faction. I think he is an independent. I strongly believe the third faction are vampires. If anyone of you townies have heard something about vampires, please speak to me in private. It is odd you mentioned this because somebody did contact me in private about vampires playing a part in their history as told to them by God. Very fascinating indeed. Let's have a private apple-sauce rubbing/licking session conversation about this... Harriet seems to assume he's the vigilante? The musket-killer is The Hunter from my play. ... I was the one who asked him to kill Raleigh. I take full responsibility for that. I spoke with Mary Poppins and Godzilla about it and we agreed he was a good target. How we killed Raleigh by Harriet Clive Harriet: So, this Hunter has a hell of a story. We should test him or her to see if he/she is telling the truth and if he/she is loyal to us. Mary Poppins: Well who should we kill? Harriet: If there are no werewolves, it's like the game is starting over again. Mary Poppins: Well, let's look at the people who were pushing for Charles's conviction. Perhaps the more vocal opponents were another faction trying to sway votes towards a villager. Harriet: Time Zones. We don't have much time until the Hunter goes to sleep. Mary Poppins: Well, there are three players who are playing like they normally (metagame, metagame, metagame) but Raleigh is playing exactly like he did in Blood (metagame, metagame, metagame). Harriet: I didn't notice that, but come to think of it, in Bloodbrick he was (metagame, metagame, metagame) so I guess he's as good a target as any. I hate to do this when the Insane lost days to investigate our theories in Bloodbrick because we killed so many (metagame, metagame, metagame). But we do need to test The Hunter. And flying that far under the radar is dangerous. We can never tell where he's at. Mary Poppins: So have him kill Raleigh? Harriet: I guess so. Godzilla: RAWR! (Curtain) So, sorry about Raleigh, folks. It was my fault. Although Godzilla's RAWR was very convincing. What do you think? I think Persons 1 and 4 both protected you on Night 1. Harriet and Beatrice, stop eating each other's cock for a minute and give us some explanation of why you believe the gunner should be innocent. Is he the guy who you gave silver bullets to, or someone else? What was the twisted rationale behind targeting Mr Clifton? Who else's cock should we eat? Do you want us to eat your cock? See my play above for the rationale. But if protector 1 is still showing up as a Werewolf despite being on our side, do we still need to kill him in order to eliminate all the villains, or is he considered as a Villager by god? Tricky! I say he should be investigated anyway -- if he turns up as Villager, then all is well. If he appears to be Werewolf, then we'll advise. If his only action is to protect, he's not an immediate threat anyway. No, it would be a miller type role, I guess. So he appears as a werewolf to an investigator but is actually pro-town/village. I think investigating him or her is the best bet. (I keep using him because it's just easier, not because anybody is male or female...or Gojira.) et me see if I have all of this straight. Person 1 used to work for the Werewolves, but as there was only one (Zed), he has now switched allegiences and works for the Village now. Correct. The musket killer is a Village vigilante, and needed the silver bullets when there was a Werewolf running around, but now that Zed is gone good ol' lead will do just fine. Also correct. Person 4 did what you told him (her?) to, but the person he allegedly helped out wasn't targetted at all, so you still aren't sure if he (she?) is telling the truth. Since Person 4's target is still alive (I assume, Harriet surely would have told us otherwise), can we at least assume Person 4 doesn't have a killing action? Did you at least get some confirmation that Person 4 did target who you asked him (her?) too? Person 4 targeted who he or she said he or she did on the first night. I assume the same goes for last night, but it doesn't appear the person we had protected was even attacked.
Fugazi Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 The musket-killer is The Hunter from my play. ... I was the one who asked him to kill Raleigh. I take full responsibility for that. I spoke with Mary Poppins and Godzilla about it and we agreed he was a good target. (metagame, metagame, metagame) So, sorry about Raleigh, folks. It was my fault. Although Godzilla's RAWR was very convincing. Not your best piece of investigation I'm afraid! At least you're admitting your role in this. But it goes to show how little you believe in Charles Synclair's guilt, or you would have chosen him as a target instead of taking a long at Mr Clifton. Who else's cock should we eat? Do you want us to eat your cock? Wait a minute... Person 4 targeted who he or she said he or she did on the first night. I assume the same goes for last night, but it doesn't appear the person we had protected was even attacked. Didn't Person 4 say that he/she couldn't protect every night? taking a long at Mr Clifton. (a long shot)
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Not your best piece of investigation I'm afraid! At least you're admitting your role in this. But it goes to show how little you believe in Charles Synclair's guilt, or you would have chosen him as a target instead of taking a long at Mr Clifton. Charles Synclair's guilt makes the most sense if there are still werewolves out there. My suspicions were based on his reactions to Zed's death. If Zed was the only werewolf, then Charles has no other reason to defend him other than he was misguided. Or he's another faction that wanted the werewolf to survive. Mr. Sinclair's actions on the first day were highly suspect and I still don't understand why he was so determined to defend Zed, but willing to rational discuss the guilt of others. I stand by my play and the way Charles's own actions implicate himself. But, in light of another faction, my group of trusted advisors took the best shot in the dark we could. It was wrong. I'm sorry. Now that we have confirmed The Hunter, we won't be making any irrational decisions like we did last night. Didn't Person 4 say that he/she couldn't protect every night? That was person 2. One more thing about Charles Synclair: Our blocker claims to have blocked him last night. So we know he is not the sword killer, unless the vampires have more than one killer. Why would vampires stab someone and leave them though? Vampires drink people's blood. Is there a vampire converting people out there? Did this game...of life start with one werewolf and one vampire and they were just supposed to try to gain as many numbers as they could? There have been no supernatural deaths at night.
Sandy Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 That was person 2. Just out of interest, what happened to Person 3? You haven't mentioned him/her since the play he/she originally appeared in... So we know he is not the sword killer, unless the vampires have more than one killer. Why would vampires stab someone and leave them though? Vampires drink people's blood. Is there a vampire converting people out there? Did this game...of life start with one werewolf and one vampire and they were just supposed to try to gain as many numbers as they could? There have been no supernatural deaths at night. Wait a minute. Is this rumor of vampires now confirmed to be true? Did you and my wife reach a conclusion about this, then?
Fugazi Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 That was person 2. My mistake, I was thinking of Person 5, who is the fourth protector. Person 5 is the one who mentioned that he/she couldn't protect every night.
Eskallon Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Sorry but I must say that I can smell heavy megablocks around those going on about a vampire faction. I made that bit up when seeing our barons hairstyle so we can end that I think.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Just out of interest, what happened to Person 3? You haven't mentioned him/her since the play he/she originally appeared in... Wait a minute. Is this rumor of vampires now confirmed to be true? Did you and my wife reach a conclusion about this, then? Person 3 has more than been confirmed as honest. I'm waiting to pass on the results from that night activity. My mistake, I was thinking of Person 5, who is the fourth protector. Person 5 is the one who mentioned that he/she couldn't protect every night. Person 5 is also more than been confirmed. His night activity was helpful. I can't tell you why. Sorry. Someone has contacted me about my "flip-flop" on Charles Synclair. Don't assume that he is one with a night action or one of the persons in my play. I would be happy convicting him today. The suspicion that arose on the first day still remains. He is not likely a werewolf but could have evil intentions towards the village. Some of his behavior today makes me still grow suspicious of him...
Rufus Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Sorry but I must say that I can smell heavy megablocks around those going on about a vampire faction. I made that bit up when seeing our barons hairstyle so we can end that I think. Maybe you did, but it might be as farfetched as you think. Werewolves and vampires appear alongside each other throughout popular mythology. I didn't believe in werewolves myself until I saw with my own Mr Zeb convert in the moonlight; now, I don't know what to believe, but I wouldn't be nearly so surprised if we did have some bloodsuckers among us. However, if the good Baron is indeed a vampire, I doubt he would be so foolish as to disguise himself as a person who looks like a vampire. Eyes. I saw him with my own eyes.
Hinckley Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Maybe you did, but it might be as farfetched as you think. Werewolves and vampires appear alongside each other throughout popular mythology. I didn't believe in werewolves myself until I saw with my own Mr Zeb convert in the moonlight; now, I don't know what to believe, but I wouldn't be nearly so surprised if we did have some bloodsuckers among us. However, if the good Baron is indeed a vampire, I doubt he would be so foolish as to disguise himself as a person who looks like a vampire. Eyes. I saw him with my own eyes. You didn't believe in werewolves, but you believe in vampires? You've left marks on my neck before... kinky perv! So, what did you see with your own eyes? Am I missing something? Where did that come from?
badboytje88 Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Sorry but I must say that I can smell heavy megablocks around those going on about a vampire faction. I made that bit up when seeing our barons hairstyle so we can end that I think. I didn't say there IS a vampire faction. I said that if there is a third faction, and I strongly believe there is, it might be vampires. And btw what difference does it make if your hunting mummies or vampires. I didn't include the Baron in any way in my theory. However, if the good Baron is indeed a vampire, I doubt he would be so foolish as to disguise himself as a person who looks like a vampire. Eyes. I saw him with my own eyes. Never said the vampire was a vampire. You didn't believe in werewolves, but you believe in vampires? You've left marks on my neck before... kinky perv! So, what did you see with your own eyes? Am I missing something? Where did that come from? He's just being overly dramatic.
Rufus Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 You didn't believe in werewolves, but you believe in vampires? You've left marks on my neck before... kinky perv! So, what did you see with your own eyes? Am I missing something? Where did that come from? I just meant that I didn't believe in either until I saw with my own eyes Zeb convert into a werewolf. Now, I don't know what to believe, but it makes vampires possible. I don't know anything. One thing has occurred to me, thinking through what's been said today. Person 1 claims to be a bodyguard, as opposed to a standard protector. If I understand things correctly, that means he would be killed instead of the intended victim. I'll have to think back some more over what's been said to see if this leads anywhere.
Recommended Posts