Eh? We're not in the 40s anymore, none of us have said 'eh' in years...

Why is saying "Eh" bad? I've said it all the time. No idea where you've been.

Eh? We're not in the 40s anymore, none of us have said 'eh' in years...

At least I look like I'm from the 40's! At a side view.

Eh? We're not in the 40s anymore, none of us have said 'eh' in years...

Why don't you focus on the present matter at hand rather than critiquing speech? This is not the right time to be doing that, you should focus on the here and now.

At least I look like I'm from the 40's! At a side view.

What, the 1740s? Takes a long time to rot to a face like that.

Eh? I think it's a villain speech pattern. That or we are all Canadian really?

And Two-Face, that suit went out of fashion in the 1840s!

Ah, I see Bat's kitty plaything has beaten me to that one.

Eh? We're not in the 40s anymore, none of us have said 'eh' in years...

Eh it's a Canadian thing.

Why is it that no matter how much we discuss it, we always end up debating whether or not to lynch someone on Day 1?

In this situation, there shouldn't even be a debate. If someone's going to get lynched no matter what, we should at least make some sort of attempt to control who that is, rather than let someone get picked at random.

"Simon says... There is no point debating whether to lynch, we must to convict someone, so we have to try to get an agent. Any leads?

Why is it that no matter how much we discuss it, we always end up debating whether or not to lynch someone on Day 1?

In this situation, there shouldn't even be a debate. If someone's going to get lynched no matter what, we should at least make some sort of attempt to control who that is, rather than let someone get picked at random.

It's because it's the essential question we have to ask ourselves on day one.

I don't know yet if "majority vote" means more then 50% of the votes is required for a lynch. If so, I say we tie the vote under the 50% mark. If not, you're right, there is nothing to debate about. We'd have to convict someone today.

In this situation, there shouldn't even be a debate. If someone's going to get lynched no matter what, we should at least make some sort of attempt to control who that is, rather than let someone get picked at random.

I, however much I dislike saying this, agree with you. We should try to control who.

I, however much I dislike saying this, agree with you. We should try to control who.

I agree with the Canadian. The only real problem is, who?

I agree with the Canadian. The only real problem is, who?

Who are you calling Canadian? I'm from Santa Prisca.

Who are you calling Canadian? I'm from Santa Prisca.

Eh?

Eh?

Fine. Let's end this silly argument and concentrate on the real problem.

It's because it's the essential question we have to ask ourselves on day one.

I don't know yet if "majority vote" means more then 50% of the votes is required for a lynch. If so, I say we tie the vote under the 50% mark. If not, you're right, there is nothing to debate about. We'd have to convict someone today.

Generally, a majority vote means above the 50% mark. It's obvious that the random conviction in the case of a tie is to make sure that someone is lynched every single day.

I don't do heist's Bird-boy, I live for the mark! Stealing is a waste of time, why was I invited!?!?

Think about it, Zsasz. If we help steal this missile, we will be aiding the Kaznians in the potential killings of hundreds of thousands of their foes! That's a lot of marks!

Think about it, Zsasz. If we help steal this missile, we will be aiding the Kaznians in the potential killings of hundreds of thousands of their foes! That's a lot of marks!

I don't think I have enough space on my body for that many

And how exactly do we control who we vote for? The only organized block (that we know of) is organized against us, and at this point in time, they will have an easy time "controlling" the vote. I'm not saying we don't follow the obvious and logical procedure, and vote for someone who seems more traitorish then others, but at this time, an element of randomness might increase the chance of successfully rooting out the traitors among us, and could provide voting patterns that would prove informative in the future.

Well Well well! Looks like we have some petty criminals in our midst who want to "do the right thing", how pathetic. What they don't know is that I the Riddler am watching their every move! It seems that all you people have managed to accomplish is concluding that we need to make a conviction today even though it says that clearly in the rules! It doesn't take genius intellect such as mine to put two and two together my fellow partners in crime. So the balls in our court, and we gotta make a move. An educated guess is something we need, and thats something I'm willing to provide. I'd like to draw everyones attention to a detail that may have been overlooked.

I quite agree. It's better to go into a night against these undercover agents 5:19, then risk it being 5:18-

Yeah! We gotta tink about da odds, jus' like at da track!

Yes, sir, quite, sir, if only you ever won, sir.

I wonder how are pal Wesker over here already knows the number of Undercover agents we have to deal with? How else would he be able to make those conclusions. Please, do explain yourself.

I wonder how are pal Wesker over here already knows the number of Undercover agents we have to deal with? How else would he be able to make those conclusions. Please, do explain yourself.

Good eye. This is a rather interesting turn of events. Have we already found our first Agent? Pengy, break out the champagne!

I wonder how are pal Wesker over here already knows the number of Undercover agents we have to deal with? How else would he be able to make those conclusions. Please, do explain yourself.

My master and I have been in situations like this before-

Some of our guys thought dey could rat us out to da cops!

We had 24 suspects, and five of them were infiltrators.

Being the smart guy dat you are, I woulda thought dat ya woulda learn a thing or two about pattern recognition!

That's true, sir. Riddler, didn't you once partake in a similar event recently, with similarly stacked numbers?

My master and I have been in situations like this before-

Some of our guys thought dey could rat us out to da cops!

We had 24 suspects, and five of them were infiltrators.

Being the smart guy dat you are, I woulda thought dat ya woulda learn a thing or two about pattern recognition!

That's true, sir. Riddler, didn't you once partake in a similar event recently, with similarly stacked numbers?

How can you believe we can deduce any sort of pattern from two separate hesists? What happens in one hesit doesn't set a precedeant for all the rest. We can't think that everything is a carbon copy of the last. That's some bad reasoning for a supposed underworld mastermind.

I have a riddle for you, when is five actually six? If you can answer that then you can see even further evidence as to why you can't make ratios of survival like that without actually knowing the number of undercover agents from the beginning.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe the great mind that is the Riddler has answered your first question. Now it's chilly and I think we need some firewood

I myself once heard a tale of an island resort plagued by a mere four traitors. There may have been a pattern of five in times past, but how can we be sure Batman and the GCPD are following that pattern?

I myself once heard a tale of an island resort plagued by a mere four traitors. There may have been a pattern of five in times past, but how can we be sure Batman and the GCPD are following that pattern?

Exactly my point my Harmonious half-wit! We cannot be sure of anything, however the puppet appears to have inside knowledge on the affairs of the undercover agents.

How can you believe we can deduce any sort of pattern from two separate hesists? What happens in one hesit doesn't set a precedeant for all the rest. We can't think that everything is a carbon copy of the last. That's some bad reasoning for a supposed underworld mastermind.

I have a riddle for you, when is five actually six? If you can answer that then you can see even further evidence as to why you can't make ratios of survival like that without actually knowing the number of undercover agents from the beginning.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe the great mind that is the Riddler has answered your first question. Now it's chilly and I think we need some firewood

You're right, it doesn't. Nowhere did we say it was definitive, and we were using the best information we had on hand to help us justify a random lynch.

Bad reasoning? Dats rich, considerin' your pokin' da finga at us 'cause we used past experience!

I- uh- what? Is the only reason your Riddles are unsolvable due to bad wording?