The Pearl - Day Two

[def]

Could Sam Byck be used as a sort of investigator, assuming he's cooperative?

Of course.

[Hinckley]

The fact is, though, that we still don't know who Sam and Lynette are, and so we can't act on it.

So it puts them on the spot and makes you aware of the situation. Would you rather just not know what was happening. If the Jewel Thief story is true, now you're aware of it. If everyone wants the identity of one particular person to get a lynch going, then I'll reveal it. Did you think I was just going to tell the story and leave it there?

Her affiliation. I thought I made that clear yesterday.

Well, that was... interesting. You're certainly right that someone will ask why this info had to be made public, and why now of all times? So far you've been throwing out a lot of rather random-seeming theories and accusations, you started a bandwagon against young Jordan, you're duking it out rather publicly with Babs (which will get you both confined to quarters if it escalates much more), and now... this. This is all difficult to verify at the moment and, though it is possible that there may be more than two factions, all we have is your word to go on, and you have not as yet shown yourself to be more trustworthy than anyone else, in my opinion.

Perhaps, then, it would make sense to share their names? Even if what you say is true, we don't know who's behind those noms de plume, so we can't act.

It is impossible for someone to knowingly start a bandwagon. How would I know so many people would follow and Jordan would end up being lynched? My theories are random? Please elaborate. How are they random. What of what I've said can be categorized as theory, besides the set number thing? Everything else I'm saying is behavior analysis or fact.

Yes, I'm duking it out with Babs. How exactly does that cause suspicion? She's pointed her finger of suspicion at me and I've answered to it. In doing so, I've noticed that her behavior is off and worthy of suspicion itself. All completely logical and you, yourself, can follow the progression of it since it happened in public, in this thread.

I'm a neutral jewel thief! I win if I get the diamond just once, even if lynched day two (though I don't have the diamond, so I would lose). The role is such that I would have zero incentive to play if I succeed in my goal. I was planning to announce this after I got the diamond, so other thieves (who I was notified exist) could get it off me and win. My winning has zero connection to the winning of either town or scum.

Jonathan thinks the host is capable of lying about the distribution of the set numbers, but this is particularly unlikely.... Um, okay.

Vote me out if you want to test this theory. It will save me the trouble of being told I'm a dick for the next two weeks.

Yes, Barbara is Sam Byck.

Could Sam Byck be used as a sort of investigator, assuming he's cooperative?

Unless he kills the person he's targeting in order to find the diamond. Only another Jewel Thief can verify this, if there are other jewel thieves. If their win condition is just to steal the diamond once then working together can't hurt them. I wouldn't imagine a competing jewel thief wouldn't want to corroborate this. And would we have more than one role that could inadvertently give us an investigation result?

Barbara targeted Scott, claims neutral jewel thief. Scott is dead. What other neutral role targets someone and they die? I believe Barbara killed Scott. It's also possible Lynette killed Scott.

Tracker is a Scummy role, and claiming to have targeted Scott is suspicious, since she is likely to think that I know who she targeted due to the way I approached her.

Sorry, though. A person who claims neutral and targeted the person who died is enough for me to cast a vote. If the host put several neutrals out there that could inadvertently investigate people, then I'm truly sorry for your lot in life. Yes, my faith in Bob is rather off. I would suspect he gave us set number clues, clearly, and maybe he put several neutrals out there to try and steal the jewel. However, I think he's just put a clever spin on a serial killer role.

Barbara, what are you told when you target a person and they're not Scum? And what about Cornenlius seemed so Scummy to you? Zangara tells me you said he was riding the fence. Can you point out the posts that made you feel this way? I plan to vote for you but the act of doing so may cause a bandwagon. I have noticed that my vote oftentimes seemed bolder than others for some reason. So, I'll wait until we have a clearer story.

[Scubacarrot]

You must enjoy having a pathetic attitude towards things. Oh well, to each their own. Where did I say the investigator is lying? I'm saying what he said worries me, but I never said I thought he was lying.

Yeah, go and pretend you are overworked more. I am done explaining things to you that you said so yourself.

[Captain Genaro]

*snip*

I'm normally a trusting guy but I really don't like the timing of your story. Yesterday you prevented a lynch on Mary by focusing on Jordan and today you seem to be doing a similar thing.

I don't think that it's likely for 3 people to have targeted Scott last night (Lynette, Sam, and the killer). It seems more likely that either A) Sam or Lynette is lying about targeting Scott or B) either Sam or Lynette is the killer. I would lean towards Lynette since her role seems more suspicious and, based off Barbara's statement, Sam's story seems to hold up. If this story is true, we could easily use Scott (and other neutrals) as investigators by having them tell us who they targeted and if they won. I would be willing to leave Sam alone for now but I want to know who Lynette is.

I don't know what to think about Raymond. If he's running around telling lies to avoid getting killed, he doesn't seem very useful. I also think that, if there is an odd day investigator, there should be an even day investigator to complement him. Also, would this mean that we don't have a night investigator?

*snip*

Are you willing to tell us who you targeted last night? It could help to prove their innocents.

[ADHO15]

So, you think I should have sat on this info? And continued to let the Town vote between two people who have no actual evidence against them when I have two people admitting they've targeted Scott? One who claims to be a neutral jewel thief. You want to continue voting for either Mary or Alice knowing that? What am I distracting everyone from, exactly? Bringing solid info to the table is distracting?

The info about Sam and Lynette came after I posted my recap of suspicions against Alice.

Of course not. I meant you should have brought up these revelations as they developed, assuming most of your conversations regarding these three roles happened during last night and earlier today, and not since recapping your views on Alice. I thought it unlikely that all three came to such a convenient level of certainty at the same time and this late into the day.

You were distracting in your arguments with Babs when it seemed unlikely that you were considering her for voting so long as Alice was around (I'm not saying Babs wasn't to blame for this, perhaps even more so than you). And then what I assumed were further distractions by stating your suspicions of Alice, knowing that a neutral and two potential murderers of Scott were soon about to be revealed to the group.

Well, that was... interesting. You're certainly right that someone will ask why this info had to be made public, and why now of all times? So far you've been throwing out a lot of rather random-seeming theories and accusations, you started a bandwagon against young Jordan, you're duking it out rather publicly with Babs (which will get you both confined to quarters if it escalates much more), and now... this. This is all difficult to verify at the moment and, though it is possible that there may be more than two factions, all we have is your word to go on, and you have not as yet shown yourself to be more trustworthy than anyone else, in my opinion.

Thank you for pretty much repeating and re-wording everything I just said.

I'm normally a trusting guy but I really don't like the timing of your story. Yesterday you prevented a lynch on Mary by focusing on Jordan and today you seem to be doing a similar thing.

Hear, hear!

[Scubacarrot]

Jonathan, why are you so hell bend on preventing the lynch of Mary?

[Hinckley]

Yeah, go and pretend you are overworked more. I am done explaining things to you that you said so yourself.

OK. Cool.

[Rufus]

The cat has let itself out of the bag, as far as Sam Byck goes, it seems.

I'm uneasy about this. Lynching a neutral does not help the town, unless it's a serial killer, but I don't think Sam would have invented this elaborate story to cover up being an SK. There's just no need. Likewise, if Sam is really scum, why make such a claim so early? Why make a neutral claim at all? Lynching a neutral does help the scum - it buys them a day and prevents a scum lynch or voting pattern analysis.

If Sam is telling the truth, then the only harm he can do to us is to waste a lynch. Leave him alive, and there's the potential that he could help us find a scum, assuming we can trust what he says, or we could just ignore it.

I'd like to hear more about Squeaky Lynette. If she was seen outside her cabin, then she must have been tracked, but yet she claimed tracker. Suspicious, no?

[def]

I targeted Murdock. I thought he was waffling in thread, in a Zepher/JimB scummy way, but didn't say so in thread, since I didn't want scum attention if I were right.

As for the tracker, I may be wrong, but they targeted me, not Murdock, and claimed to get a read of 'unsuccessful'. That would be bad hosting, but I'm sure the host didn't want his special thief role getting lynched as killer on day two, so I can fully believe he said that.

[The Legonater]

I targeted Murdock. I thought he was waffling in thread, in a Zepher/JimB scummy way, but didn't say so in thread, since I didn't want scum attention if I were right.

Who... I assume you mean Scott?

Jonathan, why are you so hell bend on preventing the lynch of Mary?

I'm normally a trusting guy but I really don't like the timing of your story. Yesterday you prevented a lynch on Mary by focusing on Jordan and today you seem to be doing a similar thing.

Hear, hear!

OK. Cool.

No response? These points are not made lightly - you have indeed seemed very defensive of Mary.

[Hinckley]

I'm normally a trusting guy but I really don't like the timing of your story. Yesterday you prevented a lynch on Mary by focusing on Jordan and today you seem to be doing a similar thing.

Then lynch Mary to find out. I don't care. I've brought you the info that could better inform a decision, but fine, let's vote off Mary because she didn't see her set number. That's a much stronger case than someone who claims neutral and admits to targeting Scott. Or someone that claims tracker and admits to targeting Scott.

I don't think that it's likely for 3 people to have targeted Scott last night (Lynette, Sam, and the killer).

Three people targeting one person isn't likely why??

It seems more likely that either A) Sam or Lynette is lying about targeting Scott or B) either Sam or Lynette is the killer. I would lean towards Lynette since her role seems more suspicious and, based off Barbara's statement, Sam's story seems to hold up. If this story is true, we could easily use Scott (and other neutrals) as investigators by having them tell us who they targeted and if they won. I would be willing to leave Sam alone for now but I want to know who Lynette is.

We can't use Scott. Scott is dead. Lynette's claim of tracker seems more suspicious than neutral Jewel Thief that only has to target one Scum in order to win? I think he kills his targets in order to get the diamond. If he can admit that and proves he's working with us, fine. I have said several times that tracker is a Scummy claim and Lynette's reasoning for targeting Scott isn't great. I'd still like to hear why Barbara thought Scott was Scum...

I don't know what to think about Raymond. If he's running around telling lies to avoid getting killed, he doesn't seem very useful. I also think that, if there is an odd day investigator, there should be an even day investigator to complement him. Also, would this mean that we don't have a night investigator?

I can see why he would say he was just odd days. If I'm the Godfather of the Thieves, then he would want to avoid me killing him Night One, thinking he couldn't investigate again until Night Two. That's insurance, I get it. I'm not too worried about him right now. I'd love for him to investigate someone and get a Scum result, though. If there's another investigator out there, perhaps they investigated someone as Town and can work with that person to somehow get us the message that there are two claimed investigators out there. I doubt we have a day and night investigator. If there is a Town night investigator, I would venture to guess that the Scum have a day investigator to find this jewel thief.

Are you willing to tell us who you targeted last night? It could help to prove their innocents.

Are you asking Barbara? Barbara told Zangara he targeted Scott. Hello? That's the whole basis of my suspicion. Try to follow along.

Of course not. I meant you should have brought up these revelations as they developed,

Why? Why would everyone need to know I was investigated as Town on Day One? So the Scum could kill me right away? There was no reason yesterday to tell you all about that.

assuming most of your conversations regarding these three roles happened during last night and earlier today, and not since recapping your views on Alice. I thought it unlikely that all three came to such a convenient level of certainty at the same time and this late into the day.

Well, believe it. That's how it happened. Convenient? Hardly. It's only convenient if I'm trying to prevent Mary from being lynched, which I'm not.

You were distracting in your arguments with Babs when it seemed unlikely that you were considering her for voting so long as Alice was around (I'm not saying Babs wasn't to blame for this, perhaps even more so than you). And then what I assumed were further distractions by stating your suspicions of Alice, knowing that a neutral and two potential murderers of Scott were soon about to be revealed to the group.

But, Babs is the neutral Jewel Thief! How was pressing her for info distracting if she's actually a neutral and not working for the Town? That's not distracting, that's getting somewhere. I didn't know about the two claims when I restated my case against Alice (and brought further evidence against Mary, who I am supposedly repeatedly trying to save).

Jonathan, why are you so hell bend on preventing the lynch of Mary?

Oh, is that what I'm doing? Bringing solid information against two other players vs. the flimsy accusations against a noob kid who repeatedly makes weird mistakes in these games. Yes, fine. Let's just lynch Mary to distract from the evidence we have about the others. Great idea. Fine. megabluck it. Let's let two potential killers off into the night while we lynch a numbnutz who didn't realize he had a set number.

vote: Mary (The Boy Wonder) Why don't we just crash the ship into an iceberg while we're at it? Let's distract ourselves from people admitting to be neutral or the scummy claim of tracker and admitting to targeting the dead Scott. Great. Good idea. Wahoo. Let's just huff kerosene and shove matches up our nose since we have such little use for our brains.

The cat has let itself out of the bag, as far as Sam Byck goes, it seems.

I'm uneasy about this. Lynching a neutral does not help the town, unless it's a serial killer, but I don't think Sam would have invented this elaborate story to cover up being an SK. There's just no need. Likewise, if Sam is really scum, why make such a claim so early? Why make a neutral claim at all? Lynching a neutral does help the scum - it buys them a day and prevents a scum lynch or voting pattern analysis.

If Sam is telling the truth, then the only harm he can do to us is to waste a lynch. Leave him alive, and there's the potential that he could help us find a scum, assuming we can trust what he says, or we could just ignore it.

I'd like to hear more about Squeaky Lynette. If she was seen outside her cabin, then she must have been tracked, but yet she claimed tracker. Suspicious, no?

Yes, the problem there is that I just found her behavior off so I said to her "What were you doing outside of your cabin?" and she incriminated herself. I have no information from anyone about her being out of her cabin. I just tricked her into claiming.

I targeted Murdock. I thought he was waffling in thread, in a Zepher/JimB scummy way, but didn't say so in thread, since I didn't want scum attention if I were right.

As for the tracker, I may be wrong, but they targeted me, not Murdock, and claimed to get a read of 'unsuccessful'. That would be bad hosting, but I'm sure the host didn't want his special thief role getting lynched as killer on day two, so I can fully believe he said that.

OK, so a tracker claimed to you as well?

These points are not made lightly - you have indeed seemed very defensive of Mary.

:hmpf: Where exactly did I defend Mary? Let's see these quotes where I am "very defensive ... indeed" of Mary? I'm looking forward to this. Can't wait to see them all.

[ADHO15]

Overdramatic much? People might find it easier to trust you and follow your words if you weren't so aggressive and sarcastic towards them.

Why? Why would everyone need to know I was investigated as Town on Day One? So the Scum could kill me right away? There was no reason yesterday to tell you all about that.

Of course not that. I do not care about that. I could say the exact same, it does not make it true.

What I meant was that you should have said was 'hang on, Alice no longer appears to be my top priority. I've just had word that X is claiming tracker/targetted Scott last night/whatever'. Of course, like I admitted, my point is still invalid if you truly did only get all of your information in the last few hours.

Well, believe it. That's how it happened. Convenient? Hardly. It's only convenient if I'm trying to prevent Mary from being lynched, which I'm not.

I don't.

Well you're hardly going to admit to it, are you?

But, Babs is the neutral Jewel Thief! How was pressing her for info distracting if she's actually a neutral and not working for the Town? That's not distracting, that's getting somewhere. I didn't know about the two claims when I restated my case against Alice (and brought further evidence against Mary, who I am supposedly repeatedly trying to save).

But we didn't know that at the time, and apparently neither did you, since you only learned all of your information in the past few hours, so you can hardly use that as an excuse. Testing gut feelings or defending against her suspicions I'll accept, but you can't have been pressing her knowing she was a neutral.

Let's let two potential killers off into the night while we lynch a numbnutz who didn't realize he had a set number.

Mary is female, and the 'evidence' against her is that she apparently misread her passenger number and then later changed it when the timing was convenient.

PS. About my third quote: remind me, what 'further evidence' against Mary was that?

[Palathadric]

If the theory that Alice is scum is true, then it makes perfect sense that she would vote for Mary over Jordan, because at the time the heat was on Jordan and I think Alice, if she is scum, would’ve known that Jordan was the one who would be lynched at the end of the day, so she made a vote for Mary instead of someone who would be confirmed as a townie (Jordan). Just saying, it’s possible.

As far as Mary is concerned, it is not at all implausible that she is scum with her mistake with the numbers and then the way the votes seemed to conveniently switch to Jordan and she disappeared at that time as well. I’m honestly somewhat torn between the two of the above at this time.

I do have to admit that Jonathon and Lauren’s insistence in the possibility of the passenger numbers correlating with whether the passenger/crew member is town or scum seems a bit like scummy behaviour to me. Perhaps not unlike the behaviour that led up to the abandoning of the spaceship that was Excalibur 1.0 when despite the admiral’s insistence that the pictures should not be relied for clues, the scummy scumster insisted they were.

I wonder why Diane seems to see the need to defend Jonathon. Trying to play a townie or something there? Your behaviour, I have to say, has been pretty weird throughout this whole trip. I had reduced it to over-playing up until now, but I’m happy to point an FoS in your direction.

As far as the new information is concerned, I am uncertain how to act. At the end of the day, neutrals help the town by being more non-scum players at the end of the day, if they're not converted to the scum cause.

However, Barbara's claiming neutral could easily be a front to cover for her killing people. Still, to a certain measure, Barbara has not struck me as being particularly scummy.

It is interesting though, if it's true, what you said about the person who claimed tracker and that they panicked when you just mentioned that they may have a night action. That does seem suspicious to me. However, since we don't really have any person to point at directly, I will go for either Mary or Alice I think.

The problem is, who to decide.

Vote: Alice (Rumble Strike)

[Hinckley]

Overdramatic much? People might find it easier to trust you and follow your words if you weren't so aggressive and sarcastic towards them.

OK, but I find it easier to be less aggressive if people are reading everything that's said. Or at least making sense. If lynching Mary yesterday was such a priority, why didn't all the people who voted for Jordan vote for Mary instead? Again, I just placed a vote for Jordan so as not to jump on the bandwagon. Mary certainly hasn't done much since yesterday's voting started to inspire much confidence in her and there wasn't much substance in what I got out of her by PM, so I am fine with lynching Mary. But, look at what I've learned. Why would I vote for Mary considering the evidence I've found on two other people? It's on her now, because the Town wants to see her dead body to see if I'm trying to avoid a Scum lynch. Fine, let's lynch her then. Good idea. See, it's hard to not be sarcastic about that. But man up. A little sarcasm never hurt anybody.

What I meant was that you should have said was 'hang on, Alice no longer appears to be my top priority. I've just had word that X is claiming tracker/targetted Scott last night/whatever'. Of course, like I admitted, my point is still invalid if you truly did only get all of your information in the last few hours.

Isn't that exactly what I just did?

But we didn't know that at the time, and apparently neither did you, since you only learned all of your information in the past few hours, so you can hardly use that as an excuse. Testing gut feelings or defending against her suspicions I'll accept, but you can't have been pressing her knowing she was a neutral.

But I was right about her behavior being odd. She's been hiding something. She was off. When I looked back over her behavior it struck me as suspicious and now we can all see that my suspicions were at least partially correct, she has claimed a neutral Jewel Thief that targeted Scott. How can that be distracting when now you can all look at what I said and what she said and consider if she's worthy of a lynch or not? What exactly was I potentially distracting from? That's another thing that gets me aggressive: false accusations. I wasn't distracting, I was pushing for discovery. And my suspicions were right. She's got a crazy-megablocks roleclaim there. Even if every word of it is true, it's crazy.

Mary is female, and the 'evidence' against her is that she apparently misread her passenger number and then later changed it when the timing was convenient.

The Boy Wonder is a man.

PS. About my third quote: remind me, what 'further evidence' against Mary was that?

You want me to quote myself to you? The day is only 6 pages long. Why don't you go back and read it? See why I get aggressive? I'm not a fan of lazy people. That gets my aggression going.

However, Barbara's claiming neutral could easily be a front to cover for her killing people. Still, to a certain measure, Barbara has not struck me as being particularly scummy.

It is interesting though, if it's true, what you said about the person who claimed tracker and that they panicked when you just mentioned that they may have a night action. That does seem suspicious to me. However, since we don't really have any person to point at directly, I will go for either Mary or Alice I think.

How often do we see neutral players in these games who aren't serial killers?

[Palathadric]

How often do we see neutral players in these games who aren't serial killers?

Call me daft, but what's your point? I was trying to say that maybe he as scum, was trying to claim a "less bad" role (SK) in order to make us not vote for him.

As far as keeping SKs alive, it's risky business if they turn over to the scum, but if they can be used by the townies then they can make up an extra person to fight the scum, especially since, from what we've seen of last night's results, it seems our vigilante may have already died or may have been blocked.

[Hinckley]

Call me daft, but what's your point? I was trying to say that maybe he as scum, was trying to claim a "less bad" role (SK) in order to make us not vote for him.

As far as keeping SKs alive, it's risky business if they turn over to the scum, but if they can be used by the townies then they can make up an extra person to fight the scum, especially since, from what we've seen of last night's results, it seems our vigilante may have already died or may have been blocked.

I copied the wrong part of your post. You said neutrals help the Town. I disagree. As to the part of your post I did quote: yes, Barbara is smart and could be trying to pull a cover for being a killer. I agree to that, yes.

[Nightshroud99]

Her affiliation. I thought I made that clear yesterday.

Well, that was... interesting. You're certainly right that someone will ask why this info had to be made public, and why now of all times? So far you've been throwing out a lot of rather random-seeming theories and accusations, you started a bandwagon against young Jordan, you're duking it out rather publicly with Babs (which will get you both confined to quarters if it escalates much more), and now... this. This is all difficult to verify at the moment and, though it is possible that there may be more than two factions, all we have is your word to go on, and you have not as yet shown yourself to be more trustworthy than anyone else, in my opinion.

Perhaps, then, it would make sense to share their names? Even if what you say is true, we don't know who's behind those noms de plume, so we can't act.

Anyone forgetting about the bandwagon that very quickly formed against Mary? Who started that one? Babs (def) and Phil (Rufus)

And, damn, folks this is the kind of thing Jonathon always seems to do. Why is his acting so strange this game? Can someone please explain this to me, in the simplest way possible please.

>inb4 being called a idiot.

[Hinckley]

Anyone forgetting about the bandwagon that very quickly formed against Mary? Who started that one? Babs (def) and Phil (Rufus)

And, damn, folks this is the kind of thing Jonathon always seems to do. Why is his acting so strange this game? Can someone please explain this to me, in the simplest way possible please.

>inb4 being called a idiot.

How am I acting strange, exactly? And what does ">inb4" mean? Is that 4337 speak?

[The Legonater]

How am I acting strange, exactly?

Insulting people and being downright arrogant comes to mind.

[Nightshroud99]

How am I acting strange, exactly? And what does ">inb4" mean? Is that 4337 speak?

I typed it up oddly. I don't think you're strange at all. You seem yourself.

>inb4 is 4chan internet lingo. You wouldn't like it.

Insulting people and being downright arrogant comes to mind.

You must new to these games of life, it's a common tactic and doesn't signify much.

[Hinckley]

Insulting people and being downright arrogant comes to mind.

What exactly is arrogant about my behavior and where have I insulted anyone?

[Captain Genaro]

Three people targeting one person isn't likely why??

A townie, a neutral, and a killer walk into the engine room. This sounds more like the opening to a bad joke as opposed to what happened. Considering how early we are in the game with so many targets, it seems odd that three people would randomly target one person who aroused little suspicion. How often do three people all target the same guy on the first night? Maybe I'm wrong and it happens more often that I suspect.

We can't use Scott. Scott is dead

Sorry, I meant Sam .

Are you asking Barbara? Barbara told Zangara he targeted Scott. Hello? That's the whole basis of my suspicion. Try to follow along.

Let's see. I was quoting Barbara and asking question that only she could answer so yes, I would guess that I was asking her. I'm following along just fine. I was typing my reply when you stated that Barbara was Sam so I missed that statement.

Let's distract ourselves from people admitting to be neutral or the scummy claim of tracker and admitting to targeting the dead Scott. Great. Good idea. Wahoo. Let's just huff kerosene and shove matches up our nose since we have such little use for our brains.

What is it going to take for us to learn Lynette's name? I said that I would like to hear from her and we can't call her out or vote for her if we don't know who she is.

[The Legonater]

You must new to these games of life, it's a common tactic and doesn't signify much.

I have been through many of these games of life without people being insulting and arrogant.

What exactly is arrogant about my behavior and where have I insulted anyone?

Well you've been tearing into Babs almost from the start, for one.

[Hinckley]

Well you've been tearing into Babs almost from the start, for one.

Where did I "tear into" Babs exactly? Quote it, please. And make sure it's "towards the start" and not the "shit don't stink" I accused her of after she went after her silly suspicion of me again. I'd really like to see where I "tore into" Babs from the beginning.

Speaking of Babs, she claims a tracker contacted her. I've been in contact with a tracker. I'm sure they are not the same person. The one I've been talking to claims to have targeted Scott. But let's lynch Mary.

[ADHO15]

Isn't that exactly what I just did?

Like I said: "Of course, like I admitted, my point is still invalid if you truly did only get all of your information in the last few hours."

But I was right about her behavior being odd. She's been hiding something. She was off. When I looked back over her behavior it struck me as suspicious and now we can all see that my suspicions were at least partially correct, she has claimed a neutral Jewel Thief that targeted Scott. How can that be distracting when now you can all look at what I said and what she said and consider if she's worthy of a lynch or not? What exactly was I potentially distracting from? That's another thing that gets me aggressive: false accusations. I wasn't distracting, I was pushing for discovery. And my suspicions were right. She's got a crazy-megablocks roleclaim there. Even if every word of it is true, it's crazy.

At the time, most people, including yourself, were deciding on whether to vote for Alice or Mary. You and Barbara trying to wind each other up was distracting from that. Of course it pays off now because of Barbara's claim as neutral. So fine, your suspicions were right, well done; but at the time it just seemed like a clash of egos.

The Boy Wonder is a man.

I don't know why anyone bothers trying to theme these games.

You want me to quote myself to you? The day is only 6 pages long. Why don't you go back and read it? See why I get aggressive? I'm not a fan of lazy people. That gets my aggression going.

I'm not lazy, I just can't find non-existant BS. You mean the fact that Mary voted when you prompted her to? I'd hardly call that 'further evidence'.

And you cannot talk. You're constantly asking for people to quote things to you, such as whilst I'm trying to get this post out.

Man down. No need to get aggressive over such trivial things. Try some patience.

How often do we see neutral players in these games who aren't serial killers?

I can think of several times, and all the more reason for this to be one of those times. If neutrals are always serial killers, I wouldn't be surprised if Bob was trying to be original by making neutrals with other objectives.