Bob Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 It's quite fun watching the name calling and the nasty words being thrown about. That being said, I am not comfortable voting out Mr. Vaughn. I've changed my mind, so I'll wait until more evidence surfaces.
Shadows Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I appreciate that some of you are taking the time to carefully consider this before jumping on the bandwagon. I honestly can't say if Harriet is doing this out of personal motive, mistake, or is being deceived by someone. If there is an investigator of some sort claiming I'm not a villager, she's being misled, but I would wonder why she didn't choose to expose them instead of me, given that I've answered everything she asked and cooperated fully thinking she was loyal to the village. All I really can say is that I know that I am completely loyal to this village and will play an important role in it's survival if I survive. Should I not be voted out, I sincerely hope that someone can protect me since Harriet has exposed my role to the scum, who will certainly come after me or make use of this ridiculous exposure to attempt to make my results valueless. That's it, I have nothing more to say here. I've told everything I can and should. If anyone wants to write privately, you may, but there just isn't anything else to tell.
Walter Kovacs Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Not to interrupt this fascinating bickering, but has anyone considered that Harriet's investigator, the one who fingered Sebastien, could be Paranoid? It seems like an awfully big risk for a scum to out and out lie about someone's alignment while claiming to be an investigator. It's far more likely that said investigator is either misinformed (paranoid) or his target is set up (framer). In the Paranoid case, whoever was investigated Night 1 should be scummy as all hell. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to test that theory without getting a result from Mr. Vaughn's conviction. If someone smarter than myself can see a way, I'm all ears.
Peanuts Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 You are dense. I wrote a play about a person with a night action revealing their night action to Sebastien. In the same play, Sebastien investigated that person. I called him Goldilocks. Sebastien has now told everybody the name of the person he investigated. Anyone who can put 2 and 2 together, so I guess you're not included in this, Charles, could see that Sebastien revealed the identity of the Inventor. Do you need a diagram for that? And you have made it even more clear to make sure even the most stupid neutral, scum or vampire knows the inventor. And you called the inventor goldilocks when there's only two blondies in our village. And whould the scum kill the inventor? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the inventor provides the silver bullets, to make the hunter be able to kill werewolves, right? Now there are no more werewolves, the hunter is a normal vigilante and the silver bullets, which the inventor provides, are useless, so the scum has no advantage in killing the inventor. And furthermore why should any left party kill considered townies? If there's really some neutrals and vampires or whatever else left, wouldn't they try to kill themselves instead of useless townies? And the investigator might be paranoid or insane, or Vaughn could be framed (), which would mean we are screwed if we kill him now. And as I said before, killing a werewolf doesn't clear you of any suspects, Harriet, if there's no other werewolf left. You can be a villager, but you can be a neutral rogue or a vampire as well. We shouldn't forget that.
Lord Arjay Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Vote: Sebastien Vaughn / Shadows "Gary Coleman" has claimed that Sebastien is not a villager, therefore I think this is the best way of finding out what's going on. I have not been told any roles Is this correct? Harriet's play indicates that someone had already claimed to be the inventor to you. Vaughn could be framed (), I would assume that if there is a scum framer, there would be villagers with a much higher priority for framing. Sebastien hasn't really had any attention on him so far. It's possible of course but there is no need to completely disregard all investigations based upon a possibility. Harriet, what kind of result did "Gary Coleman" get on night one. I'm not intrested in hearing who he targeted just what result he got. I don't think you mentioned this anywhere. This could rule out the possibility of someone claiming to be paraniod. My vote is in no way set in stone and may change depending on what happens. However I currently think this is the best move and so shall leave my vote where it is for now.
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Of course people should still be suspicious of me. We shouldn't be trusting anybody fully. Asking questions like Pete just has is the type of behavior that will keep the village safe. After Mr. Vaughn has thrown a colossal fit, targeted two villagers for death and blatantly lied, I'm more convinced than ever that he is up to no good. I do wish there were another way to prove it, as if I'm misreading his rantings, I'd hate to be wrong in this case, in particular. But nothing he has done has helped us and he was lying pretty well dormant until now. I've done more than bring down the werewolf. I've brought forward information about possible vampires. I've brought information that there was only on werewolf in order to ensure the town is focusing on the right menace. Wouldn't someone with sinister intent try to keep all this information hidden and keep the villagers confused? Honestly, without this information, how unsure of what we're up against would everyone be? Testing an investigator could take up to three days to prove insane/random/framer interference. Mr. Vaughn's actions are more than suspicious and we have an investigator's result that he is up to evil. If we need to test all of the theories, unfortunately, Mr. Vaughn seems the most likely place to focus. I don't believe Mr. Vaughn's defense of "No, you're scum" is a very good one. And he has put two other members of the village in grave danger. And Peter, the villager in question with the night action is not blonde. Anybody can see that. She is not even a woman. And if someone couldn't infer from the play and Mr. Vaughn's declaration of his supposed results, it is still not my doing that the role was revealed in the first place. Good point about the bullets, though. They aren't needed anymore. So, it seems you have moved on to fully believing that the werewolves are gone. You believe me about that but question my intentions about other things? That is fine, we should remain ever vigilant.
Fugazi Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 An insane investigator is more likely than a paranoid one, or we would have heard about a scum result yesterday. And I agree with Arianna that someone framing Sebastien last night is unlikely. But how many people knew that Sebastien was going to be investigated, and are they all trustworthy? Anyway, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because I'm afraid the best way out of this mess is to vote: Sebastien Vaughn (Shadows). When the day is over we will know whether the other investigator can be trusted, and by extent whether we should look more closely to the result of the first night investigation.
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Harriet, what kind of result did "Gary Coleman" get on night one. I'm not intrested in hearing who he targeted just what result he got. I don't think you mentioned this anywhere. This could rule out the possibility of someone claiming to be paraniod. Gary Coleman's investigation on Night One of Strawberry Shortcake revealed that she was "innocent" and "village." These are the two words he used to describe the results in our discussions. I have asked for clarification on what the exact results were and will report back when I hear from him. An insane investigator is more likely than a paranoid one, or we would have heard about a scum result yesterday. And I agree with Arianna that someone framing Sebastien last night is unlikely. But how many people knew that Sebastien was going to be investigated, and are they all trustworthy? Gary Coleman can't be paranoid or naive because he's gotten two different results on the first two night. Only two people knew Sebastien was going to be investigated besides Gary Coleman: Mary Poppins and Gojira.
Peanuts Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Of course people should still be suspicious of me. We shouldn't be trusting anybody fully. Asking questions like Pete just has is the type of behavior that will keep the village safe. After Mr. Vaughn has thrown a colossal fit, targeted two villagers for death and blatantly lied, I'm more convinced than ever that he is up to no good. I do wish there were another way to prove it, as if I'm misreading his rantings, I'd hate to be wrong in this case, in particular. But nothing he has done has helped us and he was lying pretty well dormant until now. I've done more than bring down the werewolf. I've brought forward information about possible vampires. I've brought information that there was only on werewolf in order to ensure the town is focusing on the right menace. Wouldn't someone with sinister intent try to keep all this information hidden and keep the villagers confused? Honestly, without this information, how unsure of what we're up against would everyone be? Testing an investigator could take up to three days to prove insane/random/framer interference. Mr. Vaughn's actions are more than suspicious and we have an investigator's result that he is up to evil. If we need to test all of the theories, unfortunately, Mr. Vaughn seems the most likely place to focus. I don't believe Mr. Vaughn's defense of "No, you're scum" is a very good one. And he has put two other members of the village in grave danger. And Peter, the villager in question with the night action is not blonde. Anybody can see that. She is not even a woman. And if someone couldn't infer from the play and Mr. Vaughn's declaration of his supposed results, it is still not my doing that the role was revealed in the first place. Good point about the bullets, though. They aren't needed anymore. So, it seems you have moved on to fully believing that the werewolves are gone. You believe me about that but question my intentions about other things? That is fine, we should remain ever vigilant. Fair points you have. But please stop calling me Peter, my name's Phillip. Peter sounds like I was a misled arsonist for some reason. And I'm wondering: Are "goldilocks" and "bambi" the same person? You mentioned in your play he investigated bambi, and that goldilocks was the inventor, but you say he had outed the inventor. Or did I miss something?
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Fair points you have. But please stop calling me Peter, my name's Phillip. Peter sounds like I was a misled arsonist for some reason. And I'm wondering: Are "goldilocks" and "bambi" the same person? You mentioned in your play he investigated bambi, and that goldilocks was the inventor, but you say he had outed the inventor. Or did I miss something? Sorry, Philip. No. He claims to have investigated Goldilocks on night one. He claims to have investigated Bambi on Night two. As Goldilocks says in my play, she is The Inventor.
Rufus Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 While it is certainly possible that we have more than one investigator, I find it hard to believe that they would serve the same purpose. It would be more likely that one will search out villagers, giving the result 'village' or 'not village' (or innocent/not innocent etc.), and the other would search out factions, eg. 'werewolf' or 'not werewolf', or the scum faction of your choice. The only reason I can see for having two with the same action would be if one were scum; for example, it would be useful for the wampires to have an investigator to find out if another person was a villager as opposed to, say, a werewolf. Assuming this is the case, it doesn't really help us ascertain which of Vaughn or Coleman is scum. If this isn't the case, then one is lying altogether about the night action, in which case Coleman's acknowledgement of his own uncertainty, coupled with the detail in his responses (as reported by Harriet), lead me to believe he is telling the truth. I would like to wait for further confirmation from either party before voting, but if none is forthcoming (nor is other information), I will vote for Mr Vaughn in order to test the theory. All this assumes Harriet herself is trustworthy, but I have so far seen nothing to lead me to believe to the contrary.
Sandy Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 No. He claims to have investigated Goldilocks on night one. He claims to have investigated Bambi on Night two. As Goldilocks says in my play, she is The Inventor. What I'm wondering is that if Mr. Vaugh is the investigator as he claims to be, why didn't he contact the baron and Arianna when he found out they were innocent? Neither of them has said anything about communications between Vaugh and themselves, at least. I know that if I were an investigator, it would be the first thing I'd do to contact the target I found innocent and form an alliance with them. Of course there's a slight chance of being mislead because of insanity etc., but that's a risk I for one would be willing to take, because an insane investigator is worthless to the town anyway. Furthermore, I have a few remarks to make on Harriet's latest play: Wolf[/s] Evil]Scene 1Join us back in time before this horrible ordeal began at our village's most famous hangout: the Irreverent Raucous Cafe. Goldilocks: I'm the Inventor! There's a horrible ordeal about to befall us where we'll be attacked by werewolves and I'll be the one who makes the silver bullets. Can you believe I have the best duty ever? I'm a badass! Woot! Did everybody hear me? I'm the Inventor! If this part is true (and I believe it is' date=' since it was apparently conveyed to Harriet by the late Dacius Nathans), it reveals that [indent']1) Sebastien Vaugh knew that Baron Edgar was the Inventor (ie. an innocent villager) before this ordeal even started 2) Baron Edgar might know the answer if there are multiple werewolves by the wording of his job description 3) Since the baron is an Inventor, his inventions might not be restricted to just silver bullets, so I strongly suggest we protect him tonight unless he states otherwise[/indent] I hope we can still shed more light to this shadowy mess, but for now I believe the only way we can know the truth is to vote: Sebastien Vaugh/Shadows.
Peanuts Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Sorry, Philip. No. He claims to have investigated Goldilocks on night one. He claims to have investigated Bambi on Night two. As Goldilocks says in my play, she is The Inventor. Oh, right, I should have payed more attention to the play. Well, since that I vote: Shadows.
Rufus Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 1) Sebastien Vaugh knew that Baron Edgar was the Inventor (ie. an innocent villager) before this ordeal even started 2) Baron Edgar might know the answer if there are multiple werewolves by the wording of his job description 3) Since the baron is an Inventor, his inventions might not be restricted to just silver bullets, so I strongly suggest we protect him tonight unless he states otherwise All are good points. Why investigate Goldilocks if you know she's innocent? Answer: you do something else, but say you've investigated Goldi. But what then did he do? Perhaps the Baron could answer the other two?
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 1) Sebastien Vaugh knew that Baron Edgar was the Inventor (ie. an innocent villager) before this ordeal even started Correct. This is why I added it to the play. So it would show that Mr. Vaughn had knowledge of Goldilocks's innocence. 2) Baron Edgar might know the answer if there are multiple werewolves by the wording of his job description Incorrect. At the time, we all assumed we would be fighting multiple werewolves. This scene is set in the past before we realized (actually, theorized-it's not proven at this point) we were only up against one. 3) Since the baron is an Inventor, his inventions might not be restricted to just silver bullets, so I strongly suggest we protect him tonight unless he states otherwise If that were true, we shouldn't even mention it in public. But now that it has been mentioned, that is a good idea to keep him protected. All are good points. Why investigate Goldilocks if you know she's innocent? Answer: you do something else, but say you've investigated Goldi. But what then did he do? Not to mention, Dacius was testing her by asking her to give him bullets on night one. Since the plan to test her that way came up in the IRC (Irreverent Raucous Cafe) I assume Mr. Vaughn could've overheard that as well. Not to mention, Goldilocks was somewhat of a blabberpuss before this ordeal started. And yes, all of this information was gained before the death of Dacius Nathans.
Lord Arjay Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 What I'm wondering is that if Mr. Vaugh is the investigator as he claims to be, why didn't he contact the baron and Arianna when he found out they were innocent? Neither of them has said anything about communications between Vaugh and themselves, at least. This is a good point. In case you wanted me to comment on it to clarify, I can say that Sebastien has not contacted me at any point in this ordeal.
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 What I'm wondering is that if Mr. Vaugh is the investigator as he claims to be, why didn't he contact the baron and Arianna when he found out they were innocent? Neither of them has said anything about communications between Vaugh and themselves, at least. That is a great point. I see Arianna has already answered to it. In conversations I've had with the Baron, Mr. Vaughn has not been in content with him either. But, hopefully, we will hear from the Baron soon.
Shadows Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Gary Coleman's investigation on Night One of Strawberry Shortcake revealed that she was "innocent" and "village." And when it turns out that this whole conviction today is based on a lie, or insane results, you'll also be killing Strawberry Shortcake, since that will prove that those results aren't true? It would be more likely that one will search out villagers, giving the result 'village' or 'not village' (or innocent/not innocent etc.) That's the kind I am, and exactly the results I've given Harriet. Apparently that isn't important to her, so she's leading the call for my death. Ask yourself why once the truth comes out. I will vote for Mr Vaughn in order to test the theory. Right, good plan. Who needs an investigator anyway? What I'm wondering is that if Mr. Vaugh is the investigator as he claims to be, why didn't he contact the baron and Arianna when he found out they were innocent? Neither of them has said anything about communications between Vaugh and themselves, at least. I did contact the Baron immediately. I didn't contact Arianna because Harriet led me to believe that she was in contact with her and it made no sense to reveal my role to someone who could later be turned and get me killed. And before you ask why I would contact one and not the other, it's simple, I had already been told the role of the first one and I believe that's the kind of role that can't be converted, where I have no idea what Arianna does or if she can be converted. I was trying to be careful and not reveal myself and never expected Harriet would megabluck the village over. Well, outside of her applesauce action, of course. I hope we can still shed more light to this shadowy mess, but for now I believe the only way we can know the truth is to vote: Sebastien Vaugh/Shadows. What a surprise... another vote for killing the investigator to "test" a potentially made up theory presented by someone that no one has investigated. Nice work. Gee, while we're testing theories, I'd like to ask the shotgun killer to take Harriet out when it's proven that I'm loyal. That's the only way to really test the whole thing, and given that she'll have doomed the town to working without an investigator despite knowing for a fact that's exactly what I am, it seems reasonable to assume her intent. Now please, present another play, make a bunch of innuendo, and continue to destroy the village Harriet. Just don't think that someone won't eventually notice. Sadly, I can't be sure anyone will, to be honest, but I can hope.
Sandy Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 If that were true, we shouldn't even mention it in public. But now that it has been mentioned, that is a good idea to keep him protected. I hope you understand that it's best to keep all options out in the open. I did not mean to make the baron an even bigger target that he previously was, but we townies need to make sure everybody knows what the options are, so that we don't miss anything. It would be detrimental to us if there was for example a frame among us and none of us would even think of that. Likewise it would be detrimental if we didn't protect the baron thinking silver bullets was the only thing he could make, and then the scum would kill him while he still would've been useful to our cause. As much as I trust you, Harriet, I still want to keep a hold of the unlikely option that you're not a villager after all. That's why I brought this up in the public instead of discussing it privately with you.Hope you don't mind.
Hinckley Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Gee, while we're testing theories, I'd like to ask the shotgun killer to take Harriet out when it's proven that I'm loyal. Why is your focus on me? I just presented the findings. The evidence itself is pointing towards you. The villagers are reaching their own conclusion. We're working together to piece together what we have. As much as I trust you, Harriet, I still want to keep a hold of the unlikely option that you're not a villager after all. That's why I brought this up in the public instead of discussing it privately with you.Hope you don't mind. Please do. I'd be happy to have any opportunity to prove that I am trustworthy. Mr. Vaughn, please stop contacting me in private. I don't put out for people who can't control their anger.
Sandy Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I did contact the Baron immediately. I didn't contact Arianna because Harriet led me to believe that she was in contact with her and it made no sense to reveal my role to someone who could later be turned and get me killed. And before you ask why I would contact one and not the other, it's simple, I had already been told the role of the first one and I believe that's the kind of role that can't be converted, where I have no idea what Arianna does or if she can be converted. I was trying to be careful and not reveal myself and never expected Harriet would megabluck the village over. Well, outside of her applesauce action, of course. Fair enough. Now let's wait to hear from the baron.
Eskallon Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 I have sat here nearly all day listening to you bunch of idiot's squabble and attempt to make a decision but I have decided to make my vote based on what "evidence" we have been given through Harriet and others. I really don't have much to say apart from what others have said so I will just let you have my vote: Vote: Sebastian Vaughn/Shadows Like Harriet says, this is my vote and therefore I feel that whatever conclusion this may bring she only is the middle man (or middle slut if you so please) and we are making our own votes so if we are wrong then we must all be blamed on what vote we made and not what someone helped make our decision. Besides we all have our own voice. Now would anyone like to share some of my cock, Harriet
Sandy Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 (or middle slut if you so please) Now there's a mental image for the day.
Recommended Posts