Heartlake Heartbreak - Day Two: Flagpole Sitta

[Shadows]

That's clever. But there is not scum board, read the rules. You should know that, Scum. Oink Oink. Sorry about the oinking. I'm a hedgehog.

Like anybody reads the rules.

Do you need some dog beer for that oinking of yours?

[Hinckley]

Do you need some dog beer for that oinking of yours?

I missed that. Dog beer? Does it cure oinking? I'm a hedgehog, it's just something I do. I run through the hedge and oink.

[Scubacarrot]

Right. Let's not all vote and cause the day to be over... I would like to hear a defense from Walter.

[def]

They were both related to Fred's behaviour, but probably should have been split better, especially since the second part was about both Fred and Daisy. The point I was making more than anything is that aside from our traditional bad behaviour, all of the big spats and worst confusion I've noticed so far have involved Fred, making him someone I'm interested in knowing more about.

Here's my situation, keep in mind that as a cop, I'm a busy guy, and am here when I'm here.

Day one: I check in and see Trisha has claimed a lie detector cookie ability and Daisy has mentioned lunch. As I have used a lie detector before (and Gods love to pop new things in games), I wanted it to be used efficiently, and not wasted. And as a lunch holder, I didn't want to see people advertising their lunch in public, since it would make them a scum target when scum inevitably find it. I contact Daisy in a friendly way asking her not to be loud about the lunch.

Back to work.

I come back and Daisy is refusing to cooperate. It's notable for that reason, since it's no trouble. Daisy's hypothesis of why it's ridiculous? Because Trisha is a noob (true, but has no bearing on a person's actions) and that there has never been a lie detector here (even though there has never been lunch here either) and that it's a crappy role since it's not verifiable (as opposed to the documentation that comes with investigators?). I found this suspicious. I still do.

Around the point Trisha asked me when I was giving her a lie detector, and said that I would have one because I was a cop, I left that train. There was nothing I could do.

With that, I hoped to solve the thing with Daisy by lunching her.

Day two: I share my results with Daisy, hoping for a town-friendly solution. She starts in with the abuse. I teased her, to be sure, but she started in with the abuse. That's when I left the conversation. As I already shared somewhere in this day, ultimately I'm here to have fun, not get in a screaming match. So I blocked Daisy from contacting me. If that's really strange to you, well, it's the best solution from my point of view. Out of sight, out of mind.

Anyway, I got the results I did. Daisy decided to take them public. Amy has 100% corroborated my story. I can only suspect that people don't know what the lunch results on themselves would be, which is why she was happy to bring it out in public.

Which brings us to now.

I can see where some of my behavior has been annoying, but none of it scummy. There is simply no advantage to behave the way I have were I scum. I do think there's a cloud hanging over Daisy still. I don't know what Oscar has seen that makes him think she's town. I don't think belligerence is a defense.

If you have any other questions, feel free!

[Scubacarrot]

Just one. How do you fit that stick in your megablocks? Damn.

[Hinckley]

Walter promised me some engaging analysis by the end of today (real time today). I'm sad to say I haven't heard anything from him.

[Shadows]

If you have any other questions, feel free!

It seems a lot more reasonable when looked at all at once. The one thing I'm noticing in this situation is that things get very volatile quickly and a certain amount of logic goes out the window. Thanks for the post, it helped a lot.

Just one. How do you fit that stick in your megablocks? Damn.

That's just not helping...

[Hinckley]

Walter has brought me his findings in private. They start with pointing out how the conflict between me and Fred is distracting... That's not a good start.

Walter, where have Fred and I been quarreling exactly? How is that one of the main distractions muddying up the day threads?

[Waterbrick Down]

Well not much to be said really. I guess it's pretty much a 50/50 chance from most people's perspective. Putting aside the possibility of conversion and the idea that the day-killer is scum aligned, which unless they are trying to blend in and appear be working with the town I doubt (not to mention that unless we had some day actions it would be pretty unbalanced), either there was a successful block or a successful protection. Now obviously I know that it had to be a successful protection as I don't have any action for someone to block, so I'd suggest that whomever was protected last night should be considered at least slightly more trust-worthy. Aside from the town losing some of its number advantage, you don't have to worry about me, but I'd much prefer to keep on my merry way collecting observations and assembling them until we have a better picture of our situation further on down the road.

Addressing some of the potential other concerns, my 1 statement of summarizing when I first awoke here I believe I disuaged as agreement with the theories presented at the time. My lie-detector plan actually does work on paper operating under the assumption whether the individual does or doesn't know they are telling the truth, but that ship seems to have sailed. Finally I believe all hedgehogs have their rightful place in this world... deep fried and right next to the mashed potatoes and gravy.

Walter has brought me his findings in private. They start with pointing out how the conflict between me and Fred is distracting... That's not a good start.

Walter, where have Fred and I been quarreling exactly? How is that one of the main distractions muddying up the day threads?

Yesterday to be specific, mainly over the issue between Daisy and Trisha at the time. The discussion between yourself, Daisy, and Fred, went back and forth with neither party really taking the time to listen to each other and often repeating themselves, Fred and Daisy being the main perpetrators. Not saying muddying is bad, just a lot of back and forth that never really got anywhere due to the fact that the main points of the arguments never really changed, only the words they were using to lob insults at each other.

[Hinckley]

Yesterday to be specific, mainly over the issue between Daisy and Trisha at the time. The discussion between yourself, Daisy, and Fred, went back and forth with neither party really taking the time to listen to each other and often repeating themselves, Fred and Daisy being the main perpetrators. Not saying muddying is bad, just a lot of back and forth that never really got anywhere due to the fact that the main points of the arguments never really changed, only the words they were using to lob insults at each other.

Again I'm nitpicking the details here, but I don't see how you would classify that as a conflict between me and Fred. The rest of your private analysis is lacking concrete facts as well. Are you skimming or actually reading everything? You seem rather disengaged.

[def]

If there's one thing I've learned in life, is that people will assume I'm arguing simply for being taking part Hey, law and order, peace and love. That's my way.

[Scubacarrot]

You still haven't explained what you would have determined if you'd lynch me and I would be scum? And what would you have found out when I come up town?

[def]

Again I'm nitpicking the details here, but I don't see how you would classify that as a conflict between me and Fred. The rest of your private analysis is lacking concrete facts as well. Are you skimming or actually reading everything? You seem rather disengaged.

I can corroborate this. No conflict this time around.

When you choose to play mafia, the number one rule above all, in my books, is leave your baggage at the door.

[Hinckley]

When you choose to play mafia, the number one rule above all, in my books, is leave your baggage at the door.

Hedgehogs have little baggage.

[Cecilie]

I'm inclined to vote for Walter at this point. He has pinged my scumdar since day 1, and the fact he was blocked last night raises even more flags. And he claims to not have an action, so testing the theory is at least not going to lose us an important role. Of course, there's no absolute damning evidence here, we don't know if the lack of kill is due to a protection (or whatever other reasons there may be), but it's not like we have any substantial evidence against anyone else either. Walter, who do you think we should lynch today, if not you? I'm not finding that you're helping us much in that regard, and right now, you're our best lead.

[Hinckley]

It turns out Walter was blocked by a jailkeeper...so he was blocked and protected.

[Scubacarrot]

It turns out Walter was blocked by a jailkeeper...so he was blocked and protected.

I'd like to know how you got this information. From a tracker, or this jailkeeper themselves, or what?

[iamded]

Heather called me a liar because I said earlier I ate both of my lunches. We can only eat one lunch a day. I had sent my PM in asking to eat both lunches when I said that. After I posted that, God came to me and said we can only eat one lunch a day, especially us little hedgehogs who have tiny stomachs.

Well, that was less exciting than I had hoped. Oh well, at least it's sorted now.

I can't follow your logic here. It worries me that you're so convinced just because it "seems right". How? Why?

I think what he means is logic points to the person who was blocked last night being the killer, as there was no night kill. Of course this doesn't confirm him as the scum killer, he could be a serial killer. It also doesn't confirm him as a killer at all, as he could have been doing a different action, or nothing at all as he claims, with the target being protected as he suggested.

Of course, I'm likely to put my vote against Walter today nonetheless, as the whole situation just seems too right to ignore. Any other day a night passed without a kill and we knew someone who was blocked, we'd jump on them without hesitation. The only reason for doubt today is the poor odds of a blocker successfully targeting a night killer on the first night, but then again the odds are the same for a protector targeting the victim on the first night.

Of course, there's the other possibility that there was no kill attempt at all, whether because of a conversion, or a some crazy gambit to confuse us. Maybe the scum have a reason to hold back on kills, though what that would be I'm not sure.

Amy is eternally summarizing and saying useless things like "Gosh, I wonder what this person's case is. It'll be interesting." Her response will probably be " Oh you. I'm not Scum. I'm just having fun and watching out for horse apples. La di loo, lee de dee." And then she'll disappear.

Hey, that's not totally fair. I've helped when I can and I've shared what I know. And for the record, the Heather thing could have been interesting, it just turned out not to be. And excuse me for having fun. So I like repairing fences, there's nothing wrong with that. And before you discount the previous paragraph of words I spouted, it's not me summarising, it's me talking to myself, brainstorming as I go. I'm not the only one who does it.

Also, I prefer humming to lalalaing, and playfully poking my tongue out to open mouthed smiles.

[Piratedave84]

I have to step out this morning but before I go:

Vote: Walter (Waterbrick Down).

Not sure if scum or not at this point but nothing prevents me from changing this when I ger back!

[def]

Since we are working in the "majority-lynch" rule, I think it's best to help complete the current lynch. If the evidence presented so far is correct, then Walt's our best choice.

Vote: Walter (Waterbrick Down)

[PsyKater]

Sorry friends that I am not contributing more than I do. As you might see I am "slightly" overchallenged by your discussions. I am here, trying to get every statement and trying to draw conclusions, but it is very difficult for me.

I am actually so quiet that it seems that some of you even forgot about me in your lists. I can't blame you. But as nice as it is, to be on nobody's "wanted" list, I do not want to be seen as being a sheep" or "flying under the radar". Most of the time I think about what I could add to these conversations, but I have no idea. I know how bad an unhelpful townie can be from own experience. And I want to prevent us to kill an innocent townie just for being quiet, while the scum is laughing at us.

Yet, I really do not know what I could add. I can hardly understand everything that is being said. It seems that there already is some kind of town block which is nice. But I do not get how you can trust each other so soon. This must be something I can not understand without your experience.

I still don't get the playing of Fred, while I understood from Oscar that I should not get int trouble with the Police / with him. I do not know why I should trust Oscar, but I think I remember that he is verified?! Is he the only one yet?

Then there is the case against Walter, I think. As far as I can understand, he was being blocked? And from what Oscar told, protected as well? And now we accuse him for the lack of a night kill?

Please help me here, that I get the things right.

I was very sure that Zara was killed by accident, but now it seems that there is somebody killing other people during the day.

I tend to believe that this is a SK as they are kind of special all the time.

But another theorie came to my mind: if if wouls be the scum killer, then today's kill would have been a clever move, wouldn't it? Oscar claims that killing Jane would be very townie or good. Then the killer kills jane. Hooray, he must be pro-town. Hooray, the scumkill was blocked then last night. Hooray, Walter must be the scumkiller because he was blocked (?) last night.

Please get me right, I just want to know, what makes us sure about Walter?

[DarthPotato]

Well, Katie, I don't see how it doesn't make sense about Walter. He was blocked *and* there was no kill. The best conclusion we can draw from this is that the killer was blocked. Now, there's always the chance that the murder victim was protected, but I think everyone else is slanting toward the chance of Walter being blocked instead.

So for now I'll Vote: Walter (Waterbrick Down)

[Bob]

I'd really like to vote for Daisy, but I'll just keep her on watch for awhile. The whole "blocked and no kill" scenario seems plausible. Plus I'm not locked with this vote, so I'll:

Vote: Walter (Waterbrick Down)

Until I hear more.

[def]

Well, Katie, I don't see how it doesn't make sense about Walter. He was blocked *and* there was no kill. The best conclusion we can draw from this is that the killer was blocked. Now, there's always the chance that the murder victim was protected, but I think everyone else is slanting toward the chance of Walter being blocked instead.

I think it's a pretty open situation. The chance of the killer being blocked is about equal to that of the target being protected. Actually, the target being protected is statistically much better, since we can eliminate a pile of non-active players from the target list, making it more statistically accurate.

Saying this, I'm not so confident Walter is scum. I'm mostly voting on the fact that he has raised some others suspicions early on.

I'm sure he'll get convicted, so let's do this:

Unvote: Walter (WBD)

Vote: Daisy (Scumba)

I do this for two reasons:

1) I like being the odd man out at all times if possible. In fact, if you watch some of the 'movies'/'dreams' I've been in, you'll see that I love contrarian voting and

2) I want to see how lenient God is when it comes to lynches. Nobody here has any doubt as to who I'm lynching, but as my unvote was cast aside yesterday, while my first, technically improper, vote was cast, I'm curious as to whether this will fly. I think it's good for town to know. I'd hate to see a game decided because someone made a spelling error and God ignored their intended wishes

[Hinckley]

I'd like to know how you got this information. From a tracker, or this jailkeeper themselves, or what?

The jailkeeper themselves. He/she first told me they blocked Walter because he/she found him to be the most suspicious. He/she wanted Walter blocked and therefore used the jailkeeper on him. He/she was being cautious while revealing his/her info and didn't tell me until later that the actual Action was jailkeeper. At first he/she asked me to keep the jailkeeper part quiet because it gave Walter an easy out. However, we both discussed it and decided it was best to reveal it was a jailkeeper. I felt much better about this as I think the honest answer is the best answer and would've told everyone either way. This person even took quite some time to admit he/she was the jailkeeper themselves but I kind of guessed it when they said they trusted the person 100%. If they trusted another player 100%, there'd be big problems...

Sorry friends that I am not contributing more than I do. As you might see I am "slightly" overchallenged by your discussions. I am here, trying to get every statement and trying to draw conclusions, but it is very difficult for me.

Why? Matilda had a dream called Police Infiltration and you were brilliant in it. A wise fatass once told me (I think it was the fatty, if not sorry to insult the actual person who said this) anyone who proclaims confusing pings my Scumdar. Ping Katie, ping.

Most of the time I think about what I could add to these conversations, but I have no idea. I know how bad an unhelpful townie can be from own experience. And I want to prevent us to kill an innocent townie just for being quiet, while the scum is laughing at us.

How can anybody have no idea at this point? You have no thoughts about anything? Someone as smart as you has no idea what to add to the conversations. Is everyone just acting weird on purpose?

Yet, I really do not know what I could add. I can hardly understand everything that is being said. It seems that there already is some kind of town block which is nice. But I do not get how you can trust each other so soon. This must be something I can not understand without your experience.

I'm confused, I'm confused, I'm confused. We get it. I just don't believe it.

I still don't get the playing of Fred, while I understood from Oscar that I should not get int trouble with the Police / with him. I do not know why I should trust Oscar, but I think I remember that he is verified?! Is he the only one yet?

You can't have ever believed the police would come after you because of something he said. He's roleplaying. I'm the only one "verified" but is the investigator verified? Verifications only go as far as you can really trust everyone involved and you shouldn't be over-reliant on Night Actions. But, you should know this. If it didn't happen in Matilda's Mafia School Police Infiltration dream, it's all been clearly spelled out here. If you're reading it like you say you are, you should be able to follow what happened. But other people have seemed confused, although you seem like you're acting, I will spell it out in detail right now:

1. Daisy watched (with her lunch) me (Oscar)
   
2. Daisy saw that Fozzie Bear targeted me (Oscar)
   
3. Fozzie Bear claims to have a plethora of one-shots (known as a Jack-of-all-Trades) with which he investigated me with and got the result of "Town".
   
4. Separately, Fred and Amy both used their "flavor cop" lunches on Daisy and were told he had a pair of glasses with no lenses. This seems to indicate his used Watcher lunch.
   
5. A jailkeeper has claimed to me to have targeted Walter, who was therefore blocked and protected last night.
   

Thanks a lot, no I'm summarizing. I'm Scum by my own logic, gee, great.

Then there is the case against Walter, I think. As far as I can understand, he was being blocked? And from what Oscar told, protected as well? And now we accuse him for the lack of a night kill?

We're not writing these things out in puzzles. Your confusion seems like an overdramatic act. Was Walter accused? He was, I think. Am I right? What's an accusation?

Please help me here, that I get the things right.

Laying it on real thick. I'm so confused I can't even tell what's happening. I can't be Scum. I'm too confused.

But another theorie came to my mind: if if wouls be the scum killer, then today's kill would have been a clever move, wouldn't it? Oscar claims that killing Jane would be very townie or good. Then the killer kills jane. Hooray, he must be pro-town. Hooray, the scumkill was blocked then last night. Hooray, Walter must be the scumkiller because he was blocked (?) last night.

Please get me right, I just want to know, what makes us sure about Walter?

You're confused but you came up with your own interesting theory, anyhow? Are you saying the Scum are trying to appear like Townie killers so they...what? So we think the kill happens at night and it was Walter? I suppose that is possible. They're trying to appear like the vig so we continue to blame Walter. Yes, possible. But, I just doubt the Scum would go with that gambit. Is there a day Watcher? Maybe they should watch Sara tomorrow if there is. I know of one Day Action and there's a good reason for it to be a Day Action and it's a one-shot.

Why are you so confused by everything but trying to make the day killer look Scummy comes easy to you. Ping, Katey, ping ping!

Unvote: Walter (WBD)

Vote: Daisy (Scumba)

I do this for two reasons:

1) I like being the odd man out at all times if possible. In fact, if you watch some of the 'movies'/'dreams' I've been in, you'll see that I love contrarian voting and

2) I want to see how lenient God is when it comes to lynches. Nobody here has any doubt as to who I'm lynching, but as my unvote was cast aside yesterday, while my first, technically improper, vote was cast, I'm curious as to whether this will fly. I think it's good for town to know. I'd hate to see a game decided because someone made a spelling error and God ignored their intended wishes

Please clarify. Do you still suspect Daisy? Your reasons don't mention that at all so I'm just curious. I see you want it to be clear you want Walter to be lynched, but the rest is just testing God? I didn't see the circumstances but I thought it had to do with your vote formatting. Could you just kick a pigeon to God to clarify instead of testing her?