WhiteFang Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Fair enough, I'll leave the vote out there until Ms Taylor responds appropriately. Vote: Toulouse LePlot (WhiteFang) Huh. Instead of quoting the rest, I will just quote you. Seriously, what "conclusive" grounds do you have to vote for me for this idiotic sacrifice? If there is a strong reason behind it instead of complete random approach, then it is more viable but instead I see this as an attempt to sow discord among us like as if we don't have enough of mistrust. Being quiet and not add to the ego talk doesn't mean one is not paying attention to the surroundings among us. I rather contribute and adds value to our discussion instead of commenting for the sake of commenting, just to clock the amount of posts to tell the rest of us, "Hey, look here, I am freaking active! So, don't come and doubt me that I am a cultist". On a blunt note, what the hell... Of course, throwing names out in random will shows some flaws in their defences, and not all of the time, we are so lucky to nab the cultist through conviction in the first day! Like ancient sayings, you don't convict a Werewolf in Day 1 like any other historic eras! So, come on, are we going to continue to jump on each other tails in public like what we do best. Of course, I got no qualms of seeing votes being thrown around but at the end of the day, we got to put conclusive facts and interpretation together and not baseless accusations with no supporting grounds. That totally pisses me off. Is someone voteless? Is there a vote thief? Is God retarded? Let's all flip out and speculate wildly! Lots of possibilities.. I am not even surprised to see a double-voters among us too.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Anyway, I'm going to follow that vote, I was thinking about earlier: Vote: Mehmet Attabar (Hinckley) The thinking behind it is as I've already stated. I'll add that, regardless of whether he was scum or town, he was going to be the most prolific poster here. Those posts have had troubling aspects. If he thinks he's merely bending the truth in order to provoke me, well, I don't see the 'town' quality in that. It's unhelpful, and a distraction. On the subject of Mr. Leplot, conversely, he was going to be quiet, regardless of his alignment. That's simply the way he is. For that reason, I wouldn't vote for him on day one. So, me acting typical is suspicious, but him acting suspicious is understandable. Do us a favor and shut up now that you've voted so we don't need to hear your camelshit. Will someone clean that up already? What is that camel eating? If I were counting the votes, I would have missed (skipped?) that one too - it doesn't follow the rules. Good point. For the time being, I'll follow my previously mentioned suspicions and vote for Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) Damn it, now I've done it. I will vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) Huh. Instead of quoting the rest, I will just quote you. Seriously, what "conclusive" grounds do you have to vote for me for this idiotic sacrifice? If there is a strong reason be...her tails in public like what we do best. Of course, I got no qualms of seeing votes being thrown around but at the end of the day, we got to put conclusive facts and interpretation together and not baseless accusations with no supporting grounds. That totally pisses me off. Ah, Fanglish. My favorite language. He may not speak up often, but when he does ... it's all what the hell? ... I love it! Love you!
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 So, me acting typical is suspicious, but him acting suspicious is understandable. Do us a favor and shut up now that you've voted so we don't need to hear your camelshit. Will someone clean that up already? What is that camel eating? Thanks for that little tantrum You are suspicious because of a load of nonsense coming out of your mouth. He isn't suspicious since he's always quiet. I think it's quite possible for you to be talkative without making stuff up, distracting, and all the rest. But that's not what you chose to do.
Brickdoctor Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 In my mind, the most suspicious thing I've noticed was Roger's embellished and ridiculous suggestion. Now first off, let me make it clear that I do not suspect him because of excessive roleplaying acting. Yes, it's distracting and suspicious, but something - instinct - tells me that that's not a good reason on its own to lynch someone. The suggestion of a random vote, as has been said, is odd. I don't see anyone as being prominently suspicious right now. Mehmet and Fritz Willpatrick seem to just be two dedicated, proactive people who are trying to have a bit of fun. Patrick is suspected for his declarations of innocence; Mehmet was accused of spam posts. Both are allegedly just post made for the sake of joking around. I don't support such behavior in this situation, but it's not something to lynch someone on. There are, however, those who have noticeably acted oddly. The two who's actions have been the oddest to me are Roger and Ophelia. Between those two, I suspect Roger more because his odd action had no relevance to the conversation into which it was interjected, so it to me appears to be one of those statements made to look helpful, but really aren't, and at the same time, it could have been meant to distract. Ophelia's reasoning for her odd action is partially understandable. I Vote: Captain Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick).
CorneliusMurdock Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 After considering my options, I'm going to Vote: Roger Goodenarde (Flitwick). Random voting? Seriously? How is that a plan? Most of what you have said so far has been your own personal eccentricities other than that. Get in the game, man.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I think it's quite possible for you to be talkative without making stuff up, distracting, and all the rest. But that's not what you chose to do. I think it's quite possible for you to be intuitive and helpful without talking down to all the rest of us. Now it's a pissing match.
Waterbrick Down Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Well much to think about and comment on so stay with me. Of course it will change, which is why it's important to bring things up now! I'll offer a suspect. Penelope Farago, I don't trust her. You seem to be having fun and trying to cause a ruckus, but for the purpose of stirring up sand to see where the scorpions are, as we say at my village, while she seems to be following you just to get at someone. Is it likely she's a cultist? No. But I'm giving us all more to think about. And of course your ears would be full of sand for my apology, you dolt. There was indeed sand being stirred up and I jumped in to stir it up some more. Up until that point there had been an understandable lack of meaningful conversation. Mr. Fitzwilliam had come up with some logical points and our dear cook seemed to be religating them to be of no consequence or however he wishes to term them. I had additionally noted the cook's frequent commenting and while it may be part of his personality, I felt it was a little to over the top. My intent was not to firstly defend Mr. Fitzwilliam but to keep the conversation going in hopes that either party may slip up and reveal his cultist hand so to speak. As has always been my motto, "He that speaks more and has a guilty conscience must ever gaurd his tongue lest he lay out his true intentions." In essense, the more a cultist speaks, the more chance there is of them slipping up, thus my intent to further the conversation. Scum or dumb? And you don't think you're insulting anyone's intelligence. Not everyone who finds you suspicious is stupid and not everyone who argues against you is bending the truth. Go ahead and vote for me if you're so convinced. I will say I agree that the people who have run to support either me or Fitzwilliam could be seen as suspicious. I'm still wondering who he found suspicious before the argument began. He said he had some list, which we still haven't heard anything about. I am more suspicious of Penelope Farago than Gordon Bennet. I think Mr. Bennet was simply responding to Mr. Fitzwilliam's constant proclamation of innocence-which I don't think is a good place to focus any suspicion. I think this is simply Mr. Fitzwilliam's attempt to mirror practices in the land he comes from and bring this style here to our hole in the desert. That behavior is a character flaw on his part, but benign as far as suspicion goes. Ahmed Apu may be choosing sides, but he may also just be an outspoken hot-head. He is at least discussing things and has some suspicions of his own. Penelope's defense of Mr. Fitzwilliam came very early and was very clear. It seems suspicious to me. Not concrete, but all that has really stuck out to me. Outside of my previously voiced concern over Mr. Fitzwilliam's blowhard attitude and relative dickish manner of speaking to the rest of us. That is probably more the result of an ego war, but I defiantly...I mean definitely think we should keep an eye on him. I agree that Mr. Fitzwilliam can sometimes be quite brash, but his approach is more similar to my own so I sided with him, I could have just as easily sided with you, because my aim was to observe a slip up between either of you. That being said, I do find it interesting that he has failed to adress my support of him early on, which as someone has already mentioned seems to indicate a stronger link between himself and me, thus it causes me to wonder if he may indeed be a Cultist capagalizing on my initial support of his theory. Wait a minute - we're still in the canyon???? Oh right, a rope bridge collapsed and we can't get out... Can't we build a ladder or something? I guess this makes sense, but why did you originally unvote straight away? You applied some pressure to Leplot, then immediately retracted it all. Or did you just want Jennifer to vote for him? Personally I'm leaning towards Ms. Farago too. I'm not sure why you'd rush to someone's defense so early on in the game. She could be trying to defend a fellow cultist, or trying to attach herself to someone she knows is town. Or she could just be a townie sticking up for someone who hasn't led her astray in previous expeditions. I fail to see how agreeing with someone can be considered rushing to their defense, otherwise I believe I have made my reasons underlying my actions clear. With all that being said, I would like to further inquire of my assistant Toulouse and all of the others who have been keeping a rather low profile as of late. I understand that you may believe you have nothing to contribute, but you also have nothing to hide should you be on the side of the Town and can thus be speak with the utter knowledge that you are completely truthful in what you say. The Cultists amongst us are the ones who must measure every word they speak and will thus find it far more difficult then we who are amongst the Town. Whew... Ok motivational speech over. There are more topics I want to reflect upon before I say more, specifically those who have suggestedbor supported a random vote, as well as the matter of Ms. Taylor's philosophy on voting.
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Mehmet was accused of spam posts. >snip< There was a lot more to it than that. There were a lot of spam posts in the morning of this day. That isn't a reason to vote. That being said, I do find it interesting that he has failed to adress my support of him early on, which as someone has already mentioned seems to indicate a stronger link between himself and me, thus it causes me to wonder if he may indeed be a Cultist capagalizing on my initial support of his theory. There was no time to comment then, and when I had settled in, the moment was lost. But there was not much to comment on. I actually wondered if you were a cultist supporting a townie. If both I and Mehmet were to be innocent, then it would be a good idea for scum to support/encourage one of us. It nudges things towards a non-scum lynch, and the blame is squarely on someone else's shoulders. The thing that threw me off was, again, Mehmet's distracting. You supported a single statement I made, and he made it out that you were blindly following me. Aggressive, abusive treatment of the truth, only to stir up trouble. To me, that was the scummier of the two acts. I really hope this isn't all a tempest in a teapot brought on by Mehmet's poorly thought out comments. I think it's quite possible for you to be intuitive and helpful without talking down to all the rest of us. It's unfortunate that clearly describing your behavior is deemed talking down to you.
Tamamono Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Phraw! Sounds like my kind of chap, dontcha know! Loyal, good sense of humour, sounds like a fine body of a man! Now then, on to the subject of the sacrifice! I'm going to Vote: Ophelia Balls (fhomess). I found the whole charade of voting for Mr. Leplop, just to get the little filly, Ms. Taylor to vote, to be pointless, and relatively foolish, rather like a game of charades. I'm not sure if Leplop or Taylor are innocent, nor am I positive that Ms. Balls is a cult member, but I feel trying to waste two votes is rather absurd. I know I suggest a random sacrifice earlier, but it would obviously be pointless if the majority didn't agree to it, and was spiffingly useless in Ms. Balls' application. So you're just going to ignore my accusations? While Ophelia's flip-flopping earlier on was pretty strange, it's much more explainable than your random voting idea. She wanted to test out if Jennifer would follow through with her idiotic idea. Also, the votes wouldn't be 'wasted', we do have unlimited unvotes, remember, and Jennifer did say that she would switch her vote if something came up. Honestly, why would you ever suggest random voting? It's not like anyone will ever actually listen to a bizarre suggestion like that. Vote: Roger Goodenarde (Professor Flitwick) Is someone voteless? Is there a vote thief? Is God retarded? Let's all flip out and speculate wildly! Well, God doesn't seem to be doing anything about it, so I guess that must mean that either Apu is voteless or we have a vote thief amongst us. Do you even read what's being said by everyone, or do you just latch on to what the guy before you wrote and copy it? Yes, I do read what's being said, I guess I just read that post a bit hastily. Sorry! I'll be more careful from now on. On the subject of Mr. Leplot, conversely, he was going to be quiet, regardless of his alignment. That's simply the way he is. For that reason, I wouldn't vote for him on day one. The ones who have been too quiet today also distress me, people like Hans, Melaena, Mellifluous, Father Thomson, and Ishaq. It's still early in the first day, so it's hard to make definitive statements about being absentee just yet. Indeed. Also, people do have real life other responsibilities around the camp, so we can't expect everyone to always be around.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 It's unfortunate that clearly describing your behavior is deemed talking down to you. If this is to be a war of who gets the last word, then take this: "Horse!" Is that the last word? Did I win?
CMP Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Well, I'm going to vote: Ophelia Balls (fhormess) for being...weird. That little voting rabble with Tousole and Jennifer was just plain dumb. And your explanation for it was....confusing. You said it may bring some information at a later date. Which I somehow doubt. As for the reasoning for voting Tousle himself...you do realize there have been 3 or 4 people who've essentially said the exact same thing as he did? I don't truly believe you to be a cultist. I honestly don't think anyone so far seems like a cultist. I know I'm wrong in that regard, so I'm just going to vote the dumbest player I've seen yet. You strike me as a person who will cost all of us the game later one, likely ending up in the middle of the cultists' palm. I intend to keep this place as scum AND dumb free as I can.
Zepher Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I worry that Mehmet and Apu are trying to seize on any sort of reputation I've made for myself before this situation started, and play that back to the crowd, regardless of my own behavior, and, at least in the case of Sheila Suxsumb, they've succeeded For scum, it's a fair day one strategy. For town, it's just misleading. I do not understand you, sir. You say that we are trying to take down any reputation you have, but, consider for a moment that you are scum using said reputation to your advantage, and you keep bragging about how smart you are, how helpful you are, how much you are trying to help the town. You act as if you are already cleared, which is a good move for cultists. You say it is as if we are hindering you, a true townie, for cultist motives, where it can be just as likely that we are two townies trying to hinder you, a cultist, or the most likely scenario considering the probable numbers, we are two townies trying to bring a third townie off their horse. Now I'm hungry. I love horse hide. As for my Vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down). Penelope, you make a good case. But I am afraid I must vote someone, and there are no better leads at the moment. I may unvote you and look at the other candidate, Captain Roger, but I feel I must let my vote rest for at least a while where I said it would stand.
XimenaPaulina Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 After the ego war between Ms. Ballsy Mehmet and Mr. Fitzsquarepants seem to have calmed down a bit and the smoke is slowly clearing, it may really be that both of them are just highly outspoken innocents who've been caught up with their 'ghosts of the past' (estranged lovers in a previous life perhaps? ), contrary to my earlier paranoia about the cultists hiding behind the 'super-activity cloak' in the discussions. Even if Mr. Fitztweedledum is a bit brash and aggressive in his ways sprinkled with a very popular sense of humor and Mehmet has been annoyingly counter-punching almost all of Fitz's statements, both of them have offered valid arguments in the discussions. And curiously enough, they've also both somehow supported an initial suspicion I've had earlier in the day - Ms. Farago's butting in in the middle of the bickering and suddenly taking a side and "defending" Fitzpants. Have I not done that? All I meant to say was that I'm surprised anyone was ready to defend either one of us. This early in such an ordeal, I would imagine everyone would be suspicious of everybody and have no reason to trust or defend anyone. Let me be clear since you've questioned my last couple of posts. I think you are suspicious because you swooped in and defended McPatrickFitz Williamslutballs (def). I actually wondered if you were a cultist supporting a townie. If both I and Mehmet were to be innocent, then it would be a good idea for scum to support/encourage one of us. It nudges things towards a non-scum lynch, and the blame is squarely on someone else's shoulders. Aside from the two of them, a couple of others have also seen noticed this anomaly in Ms. Farago's behavior, and this is where I'm basing my vote. Vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) And if there's anything we could take away from the bickering between Fitz and Memhet is that they have clearly shown that they could be extremely great assets to the our cause if they are proven innocent through investigations. -------------------------- So, Gordon. Did you get the oil yet? Meet me behind the rock in a couple of minutes sweetie..
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Aside from the two of them, a couple of others have also noticed this anomaly in Ms. Farago's behavior, and this is where I'm basing my vote. In addition, I noticed that Ms. Mergatroyd tried to cast off suspicion of Ms. Fargo's behavior by accusing Apu of defending me, when that wasn't necessarily the case as I read it. If Ms. Fargo turns up Scum, we should look at Ms. Mergatroyd next, whose posts have been as silly as that British-cliche-dead-fish-talking-dude. And by all means, investigate me tonight! I happily welcome it. If there are two investigators investigate Mr. Fitzdef too. Great plan.
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I do not understand you, sir. You say that we are trying to take down any reputation you have, but, consider for a moment that you are scum using said reputation to your advantage, and you keep bragging about how smart you are, how helpful you are, how much you are trying to help the town. You act as if you are already cleared, which is a good move for cultists. You say it is as if we are hindering you, a true townie, for cultist motives, where it can be just as likely that we are two townies trying to hinder you, a cultist, or the most likely scenario considering the probable numbers, we are two townies trying to bring a third townie off their horse. Now I'm hungry. I love horse hide. I don't understand you, sir. You are again continuing to try to mislead people. -I said you were trying to make use of make use of my reputation, not take it down. -I have said nothing about being smart -My helpfulness is in that I've been pretty clear in my accusations and my thinking. What else does a townie do on day one -The innocence stuff has been harped on enough, but you still bring it up I am not cleared, which I've acknowledged more than once already. But you choose to say such incorrect, misleading nonsense. It's about as weak a day one as I've ever seen from you. That you keep pushing it forward says poor things about your possible motives I've got better things to do than to deal with trolls for the rest of the day
Zepher Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 -I said you were trying to make use of make use of my reputation, not take it down. -I have said nothing about being smart -My helpfulness is in that I've been pretty clear in my accusations and my thinking. What else does a townie do on day one -The innocence stuff has been harped on enough, but you still bring it up -Perhaps your form of us trying to mislead others is simply a miscommunication in what we're saying. I may be missing the mark in what you're saying, as you seem to have missed the point in my post. -Actions speak louder than words. You act superior to us, and therefore act as if you're smarter than us. -I don't know, but it's the same thing I've done, and you continue to harp on me for it. I'm clear as to the reasons I distrust you, and you say I babble. Could I not do the same for your accusations? -Not your lamb jokes, I understand them as jokes, though they make my stomach growl. No, again, I am speaking of your actions. You throw around accusations, and rightfully so. However, when any accusation flies your way, you make it out that the people accusing you are cultists. Why is that so? No one else claims that. You accuse, and we take it. That is the way that this first day should work. Yet gods forbid that anyone accuse you of acting suspicious and clearly outlining their points. That means that they are making things up. Perhaps more than one person suspects you because you are not acting as a member of the innocents should. And I see no trolls! Though I have heard that the horns of a troll are a delicious snack that will last you months.
def Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Ms. Farago's butting-in in the middle of the bickering and suddenly taking a side and "defending" Fitzpants. The only thing is, she wasn't actually defending me. But, I think it's a fair lynch all the same, and a safer bet than Goodenarde, as nice as it would be away from all his over-acting. Unvote: Mehmet Attabar (Hinckley) Vote: Penelope Farago (Waterbrick Down) Tentatively. I still think Mehmet's and Apu's play today has been anti-town, either by accident or by design (my vote goes for the latter), but nobody seems really perturbed at they way they've been mangling the truth... I suppose when you're not the victim of it, it's easier to overlook "First they came…" @Apu, I'm not reading any more of your posts for the rest of the day. 24 hours of haranguing BS coming from you is getting on my nerves, and I'm not explaining why you're wrong again. There are better uses of my time, both in Egypt and the rest of the world
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 I just can't help myself. Tentatively. I still think Mehmet's and Apu's play today has been anti-town, either by accident or by design (my vote goes for the latter), but nobody seems really perturbed at they way they've been mangling the truth... I suppose when you're not the victim of it, it's easier to overlook "First they came…" Truth manglers = people who find you suspicious. Really, we're not "mangling" any truths. We simply don't like your attitude. It appears we both think you are innocent, just smug. It's really not worth discussing this far. It's nothing more than a difference of opinion on tact and interaction with others. It's probably best we all move on from it. There's nothing tangible in it for deciding who's a cultist and who isn't, not as far as I can tell. @Apu, I'm not reading any more of your posts for the rest of the day. 24 hours of haranguing BS coming from you is getting on my nerves, and I'm not explaining why you're wrong again. There are better uses of my time, both in Egypt and the rest of the world Oh, perfect. I was afraid we would never get to breath holding. Can you stop reading my posts too then?
WhiteFang Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Ah, Fanglish. My favorite language. He may not speak up often, but when he does ... it's all what the hell? ... I love it! Love you! Damn what is this Fanglish languague. I am a French, mind you! I will think about who to vote too and it seems there is a race between Penelope Farago and Roger Goodenardev at the meantime.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Thanks for working so hard for the team No problem! Applesauce.
Waterbrick Down Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Haven't finished reviewing yet, but I'll say a few words in my defense. I agree that I probably seem the most viable canadite at the moment, but I'm not going down without a fight first. So far I think the main argument against me has been my defense of Mr. Fitzwilliam and do correct me if I am wrong. So acessing the scenarios, we have the following: 1. I am a cultist and Mr. Fitzwilliam and Mr. Attabar are two quibbling townies. Since I would know as a Cultist that they are two arguing townies, why in the world would I step into the middle of their fight when I could easily draw unnecessary attention to myself and could have just left them to kill each other for me? 2. I am a Cultist and so is Mr. Fitzwilliam, Mr. Attabar is a Townie. I believe this has already been suggested and while on the first day it is possible again we're back to the attracting unecessary to myself and this time to a fellow cultist member, this would have worse consequences than the first prospect. 3. I am a Cultist and so is Mr. Attabar, Mr. Fitzwilliam is a Townie. Um... aside from maybe improving Mr. Attabar's reputation or "Townieness" this should be seen as a suicide strategy from the Cultist perspective. 4. I am a Townie and one of the other's is a Cultist. This is the perspective that guided my initial actions an attempt to spur conversation and look for a Cultist slip up. 5. I am a Townie and both of them are Cultists. Again, my intention was to spur conversation. 6. All three of us are Townies. Well, in this case we didn't necessarily lose anything as none of us were ever going to slip up because none of us were hiding anything. 7. All three of us are Cultists. Ah you have finally caught us in our elaborate scheme to um... kill one of our own! (Yes that was sarcasm) Now of course each of these theories can have the reverse psychology argument applied to them, but I don't think we all really want to go there. Additionally I haven't taken into account how 3rd paties could throw a wrench into all of this, but I can if someone would prefer it. Also, given that I am the one bringing this up and the one to which it all relates, I leave it up to you to take it with as many grains of salt as you wish to. I hope my earlier explanation makes clear my motives but if not please ask for clarification. Alright my thumbs voice is tired so I'll go back to reflecting on the past comments.
Hinckley Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Haven't finished reviewing yet, but I'll say a few words in my defense. I agree that I probably seem the most viable canadite at the moment, but I'm not going down without a fight first. So far I think the main argument against me has been my defense of Mr. Fitzwilliam and do correct me if I am wrong....r my motives but if not please ask for clarification. Alright my thumbs voice is tired so I'll go back to reflecting on the past comments. This is a reasonable defense. Oh, how I hate this predicament. And the first day of similar predicaments...whatever that means.
Waterbrick Down Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 Arg what I wouldn't give for a screen bigger than a playing card nice warm scone, Toulouse if you can spare the time please fetch one. Oh and thank you for being a dear and speaking up a little. Now then, we all no voting in such circumstances as these is nigh unbearable if not impossible, however we must not lose heart. As I have stated, I am glad that Toulouse has made his presence a little more felt, but I would still like to hear a little more from Herr Gubernaculum and Father Thomson. The whole affair of Ms. Taylor and Ms. Balls is ludicrous, while the denial of different behaviors and such observations seems odd, stranger yet are those who have based their vote upon it, mainly Ms. Stools and the Captain. As to the bickering between our cook and party leader, I have determined to never again step between a firearm and meat cleaver Moving on, a few things have been brought to light, that I don't think should be forgotten. First, I'd briefly like to inquire as to Ms. Suxsumb constant flip flop early on between not voting and voting. I believe we all know that the gravity of our situation afords no room for the latter and I would have expected more of this feeling coming from Ms. Suxsumb. Also unexpexted is the camal's suggestion that we suspect Mr. Ettaq not only due to his quietness but additionally his past history something we all know we should avoid like the plague. Now whether the beast felt he needed padding for his argument or was atempting to appear like an unknowing townie in order to cover up his own "cultishness", I leave to the rest of you. So where does that leave us? Not really anywhere I'm afraid. I am glad that there has been quite a bit of discussion and hope that it will prove useful in the days to come, rather than a day only remembered for useless chatter and a scrambled bandwagon vote for the conclusion of the day. If I sound like I'm rehashing a little, then yes I am but only because I'm trying to be helpful by offering other suspects since merely clearing myself will only put us right back where we started from. For now I am going to vote: Father Thomas "Tomato" Thomson (Ricecracker) for reasons of inactivity/flying under the radar behavior.
Rick Posted January 10, 2012 Posted January 10, 2012 And if there's anything we could take away from the bickering between Fitz and Memhet is that they have clearly shown that they could be extremely great assets to the our cause if they are proven innocent through investigations. How exactly are they, more than anyone else, going to help us when they're cleared? Just because they like to argue all day? And by all means, investigate me tonight! I happily welcome it. If there are two investigators investigate Mr. Fitzdef too. Great plan. I'm surprised no one has brought up the possibility that the cultists have the power to try and convert us to their cult at night, but are talking about how many there 'should be' to begin with. And they could even have ways to appear innocent when investigated. And even if we have someone who can investigate people at night, how can we be sure of their sanity? If only it were as easy as you make it seem it is. For now I am going to vote: Father Thomas "Tomato" Thomson (Ricecracker) for reasons of inactivity/flying under the radar behavior. He indeed hasn't been very helpful. I remember inquiring about his prophetic statement "I believe that we'll be able to figure out what to do later today." I don't think I've gotten an answer yet. But then again, I'm sure there have been others who have been equally quiet. Meanwhile Ms. Farago, you have been attracting quite a few votes (based on your suspicious behaviour this morning), which in itself also looks suspicious. Although it would look more suspicious if we actually needed a majority to decide on someone to sacrifice. The cultists don't really have a reason to 'bandwagon' someone, because they can be almost sure that someone will be sacrificed today. But among the ones attracting votes right now, I have to agree that you look the most suspicious.
Recommended Posts